Intro to Primary and Secondary Causality (Aquinas 101)

Unlike every creature, God simply is.
God is Being itself, and therefore absolutely uncaused. He is not simply in our world, he is the cause of our world. All things fundamentally depend on God for their very being. Therefore, God is a different type of cause than every other thing because he gives to other causes their very being.

Primary and Secondary Causality (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P.

❓ Questions you want answered? Make sure to put #AskAFriar in your comment!

— WHAT'S NEW —

— WHAT'S NEXT —

— SOCIAL MEDIA —

— SUPPORT —

— THE THOMISTIC INSTITUTE —

— AQUINAS 101 —

#ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #Thomism

[leew]

Mind blowing material. As a Pentecostal Pastor I want to thank you for introducing me to the works of Thomas Aquinas. What a brilliant mind.

[Jaunyus]

These videos are great and so well done. How are there only 8 thousand views?

[kristindreko]

Thank you for this video!
May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[whoami]

I think, one day, these will have millions of views. You guys are just too early in human history.

[marcelalhind]

Thankyou soo much, Peace of Christ to you. Thank you soo much

[esta]

From a book I’m reading right now. It’s a reference to Colossians 1:24. Paul does not mean the sufferings of Christ were not sufficient; he means that Christ willed that the merits of his passion be applied to the ministry of the Saints so they might participate, as secondary causes, in his redemption and becomeTrue causes in their own right of the sanctification of the church. The book is secrets from heaven, page 84.

I’m really trying to understand that. And I just don’t get it. Could you shed some light on that please? Thank you, Esther

[jacobstrange]

Can you provide a source that defends the argument of a necessary primary cause? As I understand the 2nd way, which is often confused with the 3rd way of everything being dependent on something else for its existence, whereas the 2nd way is dealing with essence and existence. The 2nd seeks to explain the necessity of a being who’s essence is it’s existence because everything else’s essence depends on an uncaused cause for its existence. I’ve heard it, that it’s not just explaining the impossibility of cause and effect ad infinitum (closer to the 3rd way), but everything in the here and now depends on another for its existence. I would think this would relate to primary and secondary causality. Could you provide a source or explain something I may be missing in my understanding of the 2nd way?

[prometheusjones]

Does the Problem of Evil arise from a confusion of secondary and primary causality? I am thinking of people who say "I can't believe in a God who allows [insert disaster] to happen."

[mattnd]

Im loving the series! On the contrary though, can a Catholic not hold to special creation directly by God in the beginning as opposed to macro-biological evolution?

[OzienTalks]

If I shoot a gun up into the air where a crowd of people are gathered in a park and someone died. Was it me pulling the trigger, the gunpowder, the barrel, the wind, gravity, or the person standing under the bullet that is the proximate cause of death?

Did god foresee the consequences of his actions or does god not think and foresee?

[iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:21 🌌 God's causality is fundamentally different from creatures. God is uncaused, the source of all things, and the source of their capacity to cause.
01:44 🔄 Creatures possess secondary causality, meaning they are caused by God and have the capacity to be real causes in the world.
02:09 🙌 God's primary causality is a result of His infinite power and goodness, allowing creatures to have the power to cause and be causes of goodness.
03:07 🌿 These distinctions prevent two common errors: denying creaturely causality by making God directly responsible for everything, and denying God's real causal role by attributing everything to worldly causation.
04:02 📚 Understanding primary and secondary causality is essential for the relationship between God and creatures.

Made with HARPA AI

[ktMysticalRose]

Would transubstantiation be a primary cause?..or secondary?

[omnius]

So, in other words: God is the first cause. He ALLOWS the other causes in the world to happen, but it was HIM to designed it that way in the First place. He created the laws of physics that we can understand right now, rationally because he NEEDED to do to cause the creation of the Universe so beings (planets, creatures humans) can exist within it. He is the First cause and his Will designed and created all other secondary causes. Does that make sense?

[iwilldi]

It sounds very logical. But given we are still waiting for the 2nd coming, is Jesus stuck in a trafic jam in 1st or 2nd causality?
Btw i think in ancient times they had a better word for 1st causality. They called it chaos.

[vitoranjos]

Evolution Theory wouldn't have the problem of saying that the creation of the First Man was partly caused directly by God and partly by a natural process of evolution? How can a thing be caused at the same time directly and secondarily by

[albert]

Very nice video, thank you. A question if I may; since we are secondary causes does that mean God has no control over our actions? God is the first cause, he creates and fashions the word then leaves everything to second causes. So does it follow that God isn't in control of everything and is simply passively observing his secondary causes play out like a bunch of dominos?

[rufinoty]

I had been seeking answer this question in relation to these two verses. ." Ezekiel 36:26 God said he will give us a "new" heart to replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh. He did not say he will change the heart of stone into a heart of flesh. Also in Luke 5: 37 new wine skin for a new wine. He did not say he will keep he old wine skin for a new wine. How do these verses line up with St Thomas Aquinas principle, "grace perfects nature?

[byron]

Primary and Secondary causality Dr. Albert Einstein has simplified it he said and I qoute Whoever invented or created the Atoms owns the Universe! K

[demianz]

Natural selection is a theory, just like quantum mechanics or modern chemistry; they are not facts in themselves. Also, they work with mathematical models inside of a 'paradigm', which is, in turn, inside of a preference por phenomena without concerning any speculative inquiry about the immaterial reality. So their body of knowledge is deeply relativistic and limited in its scope. Aquinas and the Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, are not theories, nor they have a relativistic framework. Therefore, their scope is greater, as they account for immaterial reality, and engage even the speculative faculties in man, not just the senses. One could argue that all of cientific theories presuppose some sort of doctrine of higher order, and therefore that the sacred doctrine contains all of these lesser modern theories, as some sort of deviated and distorted form of the model or the archetype. So, it would not be correct to say that these theories can be 'reducted' to the doctrine (just like we say in philosophy of science, as it were an intertheoretical relation) in the sense that Chemistry can be reduced to Physics, because Aquinas and the Catholic Doctrine are not deviations, but the model of true knowledge. It would be similar to posing that the man who lives outside the law can be reduced to the completely formed city: the man outside the law is a deviated particular, and the city is the autosuficient entity, closer to perfection. Greetings from Buenos Aires

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the video on primary and secondary causality by Aquinas 101:

The video provides a good basic introduction to Aquinas' concept of causality and makes a distinction between primary and secondary causes. However, more depth could be provided on the philosophical implications and debates surrounding this view.

One critique is that the analogy of the father and son is rather simplistic. Causality in the natural world is much more complex than human agents. The video would benefit from addressing how natural causes like evolution or physics fit into this causal framework.

Additionally, the concept of a "first cause" or primary cause like God raises philosophical questions. What explains or causes this primary cause? Argumentation for God's existence is not provided here. The assertion of a single originating supernatural cause could be challenged philosophically.

The implication that secondary or natural causes are dependent on the primary cause also deserves more nuance. Do secondary causes have any agency or power in themselves? This relationship between primary and secondary causality requires more exploration.

Overall, the video nicely introduces Aquinas' perspective on causality. However, the brevity of the video oversimplifies complex philosophical debates surrounding divine primary causality, the origins of the universe, determinism vs agency in natural causes, and more. More depth on these issues would strengthen the video's value philosophically. As an very short introduction though, it succeeds in laying out Aquinas' position.