.png)
Day 4 - A week in the life of a seminarian
Wow, the week is just flying by - I guess that is what happens when your days are absolutely full of thing to do. Today began with morning prayer at 7:15. I was somewhat lazy, so I didn't do the Office of Readings beforehand, and said it after Morning Prayer. Nevertheless, after a quick breakfast of yogurt, a toasted english muffin, and chocolate/caramel milk (we now have caramel syrup, and Adam said it was delicious, so I tried it - pretty good!) , I spent the next hour or so tidying up my room and reading up for different classes. My room had gotten a bit messy over the past few weeks, and seeing some other guys who have kept their room spotless, I decided some organizing was in order.
In Augustine and Aquinas we talked about Anselm's defense and explanation of free will. Your synopsis: Free will isn't the ability to choose between two options (alternative possibilities) such as good or bad, or cheerios or corn-flakes, though we do often have that kind of freedom, it is our ability to maintain rectitude of will. What is rectitude of will? This is the state our will is in when it is ordered correctly, that is towards the good, which, as Christians, we believe to be God. Basically, Anselm says that when we choose something that isn't good (or we inordinately desire some temporal/temporary good) we are essentially giving up our humanity. As humans, we have the option to choose the good, but Anselm explains that when we choose something that is not good we in fact become trapped in sin, and lose freedom. Obviously, this is a super-summary of the stuff we talked about, but thankfully Anselm ends by explaining that we can get out of this cycle of/slavery to sin through grace that God freely bestows on us.
After class I got an early lunch at the cafeteria. Today I got salad, meat-on-a-stick (the consensus was that it was chicken, but who knows), and some pumpkin bread. Everything was actually delicious! After lunch I headed over to library where I worked on reading for metaphysics, chatted with other people (mostly seminarians, but other folks will join our little zone as well) about all sorts of topics, read a bit for other classes, and then prayed midday prayer. I was glad that I didn't had too much going on because it allowed me to do some "hanging out" rather than forcing myself to get stuff done. It's nice every once in a while!
Alright, I'm already beyond half-way through the day! Metaphysics was pretty cool today. We dove straight into proving the existence of God. Today we were going through the argument from motion. This argument appears as early as Aristotle, but we were going through the version found in Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae. The basic propositions: (1) - Some things are in motion. We can see things around us are changing and moving - in metaphysical speak, they are going from potency to act. (2) - A potency can be reduced to a potency only by an agent in act. If that didn't confuse you, congrats! Basically what this second proposition says is that the only way that things (people, animals, rocks, stars...) can be changed, moved, or caused to do something (this is going from potency to act) is through the action of something else that actually exists. (3) - Whatever is [in] motion must be put in motion by another. Basically, this says that something that potentially is one way cannot move/change itself to be actually that thing. Example: a rock that is potentially at the bottom of a hill can't move itself there unless something else pushes it (or gravity pulls it). This gets more complicated with living things, but it still applies. Example: your leg doesn't move unless your muscles "fire". (4) - There cannot be an infinite series of motions put in motion by another. OK, this is where it gets really complicated, and where I don't understand it fully (yet), but basically, the world wouldn't work if you kept going back one step (to the previous agent) infinitely. So, taking the earlier example, your leg moves because of muscles, which move because of nerves, which move because of signals going around in your brain, which move because your will decided to move your leg, which moved because?? See how eventually you have to get to some agent that isn't explained or moved by a previous agent. Eventually, Thomas Aquinas says, you have to get to an unmoved-mover. A being that isn't caused or moved or changed by something previously. Actually, I've left out a large part of this 4th part, T.A. says that temporal sequences of causality can regress infinitely, but simultaneous sequences of causality don't. Either way, he argues that God causing the universe/creation is an example of the second type of causality, so the point stands...
Skip the next two paragraphs if you don't want any more metaphysics, but if you're adventurous keep reading... :-) During the second half of class, we went through properties which must be true of this prime-mover, unmoved-mover - you know - God. First He must be immaterial (not made of physical, material, stuff). Why? If God is made of matter, he would have to cause the universe to exist through material contact/movement. Why is this a problem? Well, the only way that a material can move another material (think pool balls or something), is if itself is in motion. Yet, if we say God "was" (thinking in our temporal mindset) moving when He created the world, that means He was changing, which isn't right. We call God the prime-mover because He causes motion/change in the world, not because He was actually moving. This is tough to think about, but physical movement means that God would have been moved by something else (which means that He isn't the original source of movement). The second point that we made was that God, the unmoved-mover, is that He is not in potency at all. This is connected with the previous point. Remember, movement and change, in metaphysics is talked about in terms of going from potency to act. (Before moving, a being has the potential to move, or change, or whatever, and after if moves it is actually in the new state, or place). So saying that God doesn't have any potency, is saying that He can't change. If by causing the original motion (creation) of the universe, God moved, or changed, or is any way went from potency to act, that movement wouldn't have been unmoved. (Something must have moved God from the potential state to the actual one). I guess I won't get more technical, hopefully the argument above isn't full of fallacies and you can follow the train of thought a bit...
Another point made during this talk of the unmoved-mover (God), the topic came up of how God, if He is in fact immaterial, could move/cause a material universe to move/exist? I mean, how can something that is spiritual cause something that is material? We just kind of assume that this is "easy" because God is God. But in metaphysics we are looking at the issue without having the "back-up" of theology (Revelation and Tradition). It's not like it is anti-religious discipline, but we are trying to figure out how things could work, or how we can explain what we see, without just saying that God did it. Obviously, sometimes, God did just do it, and we can't figure out why or how, but sometimes we can answer those questions and that is much of what metaphysics seems to be about. Alright, back to how God, as immaterial, could cause the world, which is material. Basically, what the professor said was that this was a tough question, that we really don't understand, how God could do such a thing (using metaphysics). This argument for God is a demonstration quia, which means it tells us that an unmoved-mover must exist for the universe to exist, but it doesn't tell us how this unmoved-mover works. Interestingly, and once again we see how philosophy connects with theology, (even though for class today we were trying to prove God without theology as explained above) the professor noted that this paradox of immaterial moving material is very similar to how our (immaterial) will moves our (material) body. How does it work? We really don't know. But it gives insight into just how much we are created in the "image and likeness of God". It's not like God (pre-Jesus) had a body that looks like ours, but isn't it interesting that somehow God has connected our will to our body - making a hybrid of spiritual and material. It isn't easily explainable, how this works. Previously the professor had noted that the human "hybrid" is possibly the hardest thing to explain metaphysically - I am starting to see why. Man people are cool!
OK, enough metaphysics (want more? check this out at catholic.com)! After class, I immediately went over to the Marian chapel where, as usual for Thursdays, we had a Holy Hour with the Marian community. I went to confession, said the rosary, prayed for different people (including all you folks), and prayed evening prayer with everybody. Mass immediately followed. Today I was cantor, so that required me to pick and start the opening hymn and lead the alleluia verse. Usually, I am a bit nervous cantoring at Marian (more-so than at Bruté) I guess because there are more people and you have to use the microphone and stuff, but today it really wasn't that difficult. After Mass most guys (including myself) went over to the cafeteria for dinner, for which I had a toasted pb&j (really tasty) and a few other things (that I now forget).
After dinner I hung out in the library because I was supposed to attend this talk about an hour later. It was a talk about ecology/environmentalism from a Catholic perspective, so I was barely interested, but not really. Senior seminar class was canceled tomorrow, so the professor asked us to attend this lecture... Anyway, nobody was at the theater in the library, so I had to look up the event on the computer about a minute before it was supposed to start and found out that it was across campus. I speed-walked over there, arriving late, but before they started (thankfully). I don't want to spend too much time on the talk, but basically the guys said that the Catholic church teaches that we need to take care of the environment, you know don't destroy the place, because the Bible says so, and that was pretty much it. He managed to stretch that into about an hour of talking, and there were a few other bits which I think he could/should have left out, but I won't get into it. Whatever - I'm not one to complain...
I got to the second half of schola practice after the talk. We were going though Ave Verum, which we will be singing in 4-part harmony on Sunday. It is a beautiful song, but I am on the soprano line this time (last song I was on the base line), and there is two places where the song gets really, really high. I managed to hit the first such "spike" normally, but I have yet to get through the second one without going falsetto. It actually doesn't sound bad, but I am always just waiting for my voice to crack at just the wrong time. I guess I'm stretching my vocal range...
The last major thing today was night prayer (compline) which I was cantoring today. We chant night prayer three times a week in common, and we use a cantor-congregation style setup. Basically, the cantor chants one verse, and then the body of guys, and then the cantor and so on... I was again, not really nervous about it today (which is awesome), and I think that myself and Aaron (the organist) did a really good job. The speed seemed good, I didn't stumble on any words, the guys jumped into their parts quickly, it was wonderful (and beautiful). It's amazing what happens when you do things for the glory of God rather than yourself!
And with that, I basically made the rounds, finished typing this post up, talked with a few guys in my room, and now I'm off to bed. It was another great day!
Alright, I'm already beyond half-way through the day! Metaphysics was pretty cool today. We dove straight into proving the existence of God. Today we were going through the argument from motion. This argument appears as early as Aristotle, but we were going through the version found in Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae. The basic propositions: (1) - Some things are in motion. We can see things around us are changing and moving - in metaphysical speak, they are going from potency to act. (2) - A potency can be reduced to a potency only by an agent in act. If that didn't confuse you, congrats! Basically what this second proposition says is that the only way that things (people, animals, rocks, stars...) can be changed, moved, or caused to do something (this is going from potency to act) is through the action of something else that actually exists. (3) - Whatever is [in] motion must be put in motion by another. Basically, this says that something that potentially is one way cannot move/change itself to be actually that thing. Example: a rock that is potentially at the bottom of a hill can't move itself there unless something else pushes it (or gravity pulls it). This gets more complicated with living things, but it still applies. Example: your leg doesn't move unless your muscles "fire". (4) - There cannot be an infinite series of motions put in motion by another. OK, this is where it gets really complicated, and where I don't understand it fully (yet), but basically, the world wouldn't work if you kept going back one step (to the previous agent) infinitely. So, taking the earlier example, your leg moves because of muscles, which move because of nerves, which move because of signals going around in your brain, which move because your will decided to move your leg, which moved because?? See how eventually you have to get to some agent that isn't explained or moved by a previous agent. Eventually, Thomas Aquinas says, you have to get to an unmoved-mover. A being that isn't caused or moved or changed by something previously. Actually, I've left out a large part of this 4th part, T.A. says that temporal sequences of causality can regress infinitely, but simultaneous sequences of causality don't. Either way, he argues that God causing the universe/creation is an example of the second type of causality, so the point stands...
Skip the next two paragraphs if you don't want any more metaphysics, but if you're adventurous keep reading... :-) During the second half of class, we went through properties which must be true of this prime-mover, unmoved-mover - you know - God. First He must be immaterial (not made of physical, material, stuff). Why? If God is made of matter, he would have to cause the universe to exist through material contact/movement. Why is this a problem? Well, the only way that a material can move another material (think pool balls or something), is if itself is in motion. Yet, if we say God "was" (thinking in our temporal mindset) moving when He created the world, that means He was changing, which isn't right. We call God the prime-mover because He causes motion/change in the world, not because He was actually moving. This is tough to think about, but physical movement means that God would have been moved by something else (which means that He isn't the original source of movement). The second point that we made was that God, the unmoved-mover, is that He is not in potency at all. This is connected with the previous point. Remember, movement and change, in metaphysics is talked about in terms of going from potency to act. (Before moving, a being has the potential to move, or change, or whatever, and after if moves it is actually in the new state, or place). So saying that God doesn't have any potency, is saying that He can't change. If by causing the original motion (creation) of the universe, God moved, or changed, or is any way went from potency to act, that movement wouldn't have been unmoved. (Something must have moved God from the potential state to the actual one). I guess I won't get more technical, hopefully the argument above isn't full of fallacies and you can follow the train of thought a bit...
Another point made during this talk of the unmoved-mover (God), the topic came up of how God, if He is in fact immaterial, could move/cause a material universe to move/exist? I mean, how can something that is spiritual cause something that is material? We just kind of assume that this is "easy" because God is God. But in metaphysics we are looking at the issue without having the "back-up" of theology (Revelation and Tradition). It's not like it is anti-religious discipline, but we are trying to figure out how things could work, or how we can explain what we see, without just saying that God did it. Obviously, sometimes, God did just do it, and we can't figure out why or how, but sometimes we can answer those questions and that is much of what metaphysics seems to be about. Alright, back to how God, as immaterial, could cause the world, which is material. Basically, what the professor said was that this was a tough question, that we really don't understand, how God could do such a thing (using metaphysics). This argument for God is a demonstration quia, which means it tells us that an unmoved-mover must exist for the universe to exist, but it doesn't tell us how this unmoved-mover works. Interestingly, and once again we see how philosophy connects with theology, (even though for class today we were trying to prove God without theology as explained above) the professor noted that this paradox of immaterial moving material is very similar to how our (immaterial) will moves our (material) body. How does it work? We really don't know. But it gives insight into just how much we are created in the "image and likeness of God". It's not like God (pre-Jesus) had a body that looks like ours, but isn't it interesting that somehow God has connected our will to our body - making a hybrid of spiritual and material. It isn't easily explainable, how this works. Previously the professor had noted that the human "hybrid" is possibly the hardest thing to explain metaphysically - I am starting to see why. Man people are cool!
OK, enough metaphysics (want more? check this out at catholic.com)! After class, I immediately went over to the Marian chapel where, as usual for Thursdays, we had a Holy Hour with the Marian community. I went to confession, said the rosary, prayed for different people (including all you folks), and prayed evening prayer with everybody. Mass immediately followed. Today I was cantor, so that required me to pick and start the opening hymn and lead the alleluia verse. Usually, I am a bit nervous cantoring at Marian (more-so than at Bruté) I guess because there are more people and you have to use the microphone and stuff, but today it really wasn't that difficult. After Mass most guys (including myself) went over to the cafeteria for dinner, for which I had a toasted pb&j (really tasty) and a few other things (that I now forget).
After dinner I hung out in the library because I was supposed to attend this talk about an hour later. It was a talk about ecology/environmentalism from a Catholic perspective, so I was barely interested, but not really. Senior seminar class was canceled tomorrow, so the professor asked us to attend this lecture... Anyway, nobody was at the theater in the library, so I had to look up the event on the computer about a minute before it was supposed to start and found out that it was across campus. I speed-walked over there, arriving late, but before they started (thankfully). I don't want to spend too much time on the talk, but basically the guys said that the Catholic church teaches that we need to take care of the environment, you know don't destroy the place, because the Bible says so, and that was pretty much it. He managed to stretch that into about an hour of talking, and there were a few other bits which I think he could/should have left out, but I won't get into it. Whatever - I'm not one to complain...
I got to the second half of schola practice after the talk. We were going though Ave Verum, which we will be singing in 4-part harmony on Sunday. It is a beautiful song, but I am on the soprano line this time (last song I was on the base line), and there is two places where the song gets really, really high. I managed to hit the first such "spike" normally, but I have yet to get through the second one without going falsetto. It actually doesn't sound bad, but I am always just waiting for my voice to crack at just the wrong time. I guess I'm stretching my vocal range...
The last major thing today was night prayer (compline) which I was cantoring today. We chant night prayer three times a week in common, and we use a cantor-congregation style setup. Basically, the cantor chants one verse, and then the body of guys, and then the cantor and so on... I was again, not really nervous about it today (which is awesome), and I think that myself and Aaron (the organist) did a really good job. The speed seemed good, I didn't stumble on any words, the guys jumped into their parts quickly, it was wonderful (and beautiful). It's amazing what happens when you do things for the glory of God rather than yourself!
And with that, I basically made the rounds, finished typing this post up, talked with a few guys in my room, and now I'm off to bed. It was another great day!
0 comments: