If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? Every episode of Pints With Aquinas revolves around a question, a question that St. Thomas addresses in his most famous work, The Summa Theologica. So get your geek on, pull up a bar stool, and grab a cold one. Here we go!
Today I sit down with Fr. Dominic Legge to discuss what Aquinas said about the transfiguration of Christ. Please consider supporting us (and getting cool gifts in return!): https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd/posts Here's what we were reading from today: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4045.htm
Today I discuss what prayer is, three obstacles I experience when praying, how to develop a prayer rule of life, and 3 reasons Aquinas says we should pray out loud. Please support our work here. It is not essential to such a prayer as this that it be vocal. And yet the voice is employed in such like prayers for three reasons. First, in order to excite interior devotion, whereby the mind of the person praying is raised to God, because by means of external signs, whether of words or of deeds, the human mind is moved as regards apprehension, and consequently also as regards the affections. Hence Augustine says (ad Probam. Ep. cxxx, 9) that "by means of words and other signs we arouse ourselves more effectively to an increase of holy desires." Hence then alone should we use words and such like signs when they help to excite the mind internally. But if they distract or in any way impede the mind we should abstain from them; and this happens chiefly to those whose mind is sufficiently prepared for devotion without having recourse to those signs. Wherefore the Psalmist (Psalm 26:8) said: "My heart hath said to Thee: 'My face hath sought Thee,'" and we read of Anna (1 Samuel 1:13) that "she spoke in her heart." Secondly, the voice is used in praying as though to pay a debt, so that man may serve God with all that he has from God, that is to say, not only with his mind, but also with his body: and this applies to prayer considered especially as satisfactory. Hence it is written (Hosea 14:3): "Take away all iniquity, and receive the good: and we will render the calves of our lips." Thirdly, we have recourse to vocal prayer, through a certain overflow from the soul into the body, through excess of feeling, according to Psalm 15:9, "My heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced." - Read the rest here. Suggestions for a daily prayer routine Stage 1: Morning offering before your feet hit the floor + Rosary or Jesus Prayer during the day + Examination of conscience at night. Stage 2: Morning offering before your feet hit the floor + 10 min scripture reading in the morning + Rosary or Jesus Prayer during the day + Examination of conscience at night. Stage 3: Morning offering before your feet hit the floor + 10 min Scripture reading in the morning + Rosary or Jesus Prayer during the day + 3 Our Fathers, 3 Hail Mary’s, 3 Glory Be’s in front of the Blessed Sacrament + Examination of conscience at night. Matt
Hey! Today I chat with Emily Sullivan about the marital debt! And no, we're not talking about money. ... Do not listen if you have kids around. Please consider supporting all the word we do here by supporting us on Patreon --> Patreon.com/mattfradd Here's a little of what Aquinas had to say about the marital debt. Click the link below to get the full context: On the contrary, As the slave is in the power of his master, so is one spouse in the power of the other (1 Corinthians 7:4). But a slave is bound by an obligation of precept to pay his master the debt of his service according to Romans 13:7, "Render . . . to all men their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due," etc. Therefore husband and wife are mutually bound to the payment of the marriage debt. Further, marriage is directed to the avoiding of fornication (1 Corinthians 7:2). But this could not be the effect of marriage, if the one were not bound to pay the debt to the other when the latter is troubled with concupiscence. Therefore the payment of the debt is an obligation of precept. I answer that, Marriage was instituted especially as fulfilling an office of nature. Wherefore in its act the movement of nature must be observed according to which the nutritive power administers to the generative power that alone which is in excess of what is required for the preservation of the individual: for the natural order requires that a thing should be first perfected in itself, and that afterwards it should communicate of its perfection to others: and this is also the order of charity which perfects nature. And therefore, since the wife has power over her husband only in relation to the generative power and not in relation to things directed to the preservation of the individual, the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife, in matters pertaining to the begetting of children, with due regard however to his own welfare. Summa, Suppl. Q. 64, A. 1. (see full question here).
Today I sit down with Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss the passions once more. This is really a two part series so we encourage you, if you haven't already, to go and listen to last week's episode before listening to this one. That said, you'll get a lot out of this one regardless. Please consider becoming a patron so our team can keep crushing it at The Matt Fradd Show and Pints With Aquinas. We'll also send you cool gifts as a thank you. Go here: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd/posts
Today Fr. Pine and I begin a two part series on Aquinas' understanding of the passions. I've posted a document which will help you better understand what we go into today at https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd/posts So be sure to check that out. Also, if you're not yet a patron of PWA, please consider becoming out at https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd There you'll also be able to see al the cool gifts you'll get in return! Thanks!
Today we're going to talk with Aquinas about backbiting, slander, and calumny. --- Become a patron to support our work and get access to our upcoming Flannery O'Connor book study! --- We're reading from the Secunda Secundae, Q. 73. A. 1;4. On the contrary, It is written (Ecclesiastes 10:11): "If a serpent bite in silence, he is nothing better that backbiteth." I answer that, Just as one man injures another by deed in two ways—openly, as by robbery or by doing him any kind of violence—and secretly, as by theft, or by a crafty blow, so again one man injures another by words in two ways—in one way, openly, and this is done by reviling him, as stated above (II-II:72:1)—and in another way secretly, and this is done by backbiting. Now from the fact that one man openly utters words against another man, he would appear to think little of him, so that for this reason he dishonors him, so that reviling is detrimental to the honor of the person reviled. On the other hand, he that speaks against another secretly, seems to respect rather than slight him, so that he injures directly, not his honor but his good name, in so far as by uttering such words secretly, he, for his own part, causes his hearers to have a bad opinion of the person against whom he speaks. For the backbiter apparently intends and aims at being believed. It is therefore evident that backbiting differs from reviling in two points: first, in the way in which the words are uttered, the reviler speaking openly against someone, and the backbiter secretly; secondly, as to the end in view, i.e. as regards the injury inflicted, the reviler injuring a man's honor, the backbiter injuring his good name. --- On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. ad Nepot. lii): "Take care not to have an itching tongue, nor tingling ears, that is, neither detract others nor listen to backbiters." I answer that, According to the Apostle (Romans 1:32), they "are worthy of death . . . not only they that" commit sins, "but they also that consent to them that do them." Now this happens in two ways. First, directly, when, to wit, one man induces another to sin, or when the sin is pleasing to him: secondly, indirectly, that is, if he does not withstand him when he might do so, and this happens sometimes, not because the sin is pleasing to him, but on account of some human fear. Accordingly we must say that if a man list ens to backbiting without resisting it, he seems to consent to the backbiter, so that he becomes a participator in his sin. And if he induces him to backbite, or at least if the detraction be pleasing to him on account of his hatred of the person detracted, he sins no less than the detractor, and sometimes more. Wherefore Bernard says (De Consid. ii, 13): "It is difficult to say which is the more to be condemned the backbiter or he that listens to backbiting." If however the sin is not pleasing to him, and he fails to withstand the backbiter, through fear negligence, or even shame, he sins indeed, but much less than the backbiter, and, as a rule venially. Sometimes too this may be a mortal sin, either because it is his official duty to cor. rect the backbiter, or by reason of some consequent danger; or on account of the radical reason for which human fear may sometimes be a mortal sin, as stated above (II-II:19:3).
This is the first part in a three part series on happiness. Buckle up! We take you into the writings of Aquinas and show how his advice can help you today. Please consider supporting me on Patreon, here. Read what Aquinas has to say on happiness here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm
Click here to listen to Munificentissimus Deus, by Pope Pius XII (PATRONS ONLY) --- Happy feast of the assumption of Mary, y’all! Today I talk a little about the assumption of Mary. I respond to what Protestant apologist Norm Geisler has to say regarding Aquinas and the dogma of the assumption. And then (….drum roll….), I share a portion of a brand new audio book, Pope Pius XII’s apostolic constitution in which he defines as dogma Mary’s assumption into Heaven
This is the first part in a three part series on happiness. Buckle up! We take you into the writings of Aquinas and show how his advice can help you today. Please consider supporting me on Patreon, here. Read what Aquinas has to say on happiness here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm
This is the first part in a three part series on happiness. Buckle up! We take you into the writings of Aquinas and show how his advice can help you today. Please consider supporting me on Patreon, here. Some of Aquinas' text: Article 1. Whether happiness is something uncreated? Objection 1. It would seem that happiness is something uncreated. For Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "We must needs confess that God is happiness itself." Objection 2. Further, happiness is the supreme good. But it belongs to God to be the supreme good. Since, then, there are not several supreme goods, it seems that happiness is the same as God. Objection 3. Further, happiness is the last end, to which man's will tends naturally. But man's will should tend to nothing else as an end, but to God, Who alone is to be enjoyed, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5,22). Therefore happiness is the same as God. On the contrary, Nothing made is uncreated. But man's happiness is something made; because according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 3): "Those things are to be enjoyed which make us happy." Therefore happiness is not something uncreated. I answer that, As stated above (I-II:1:8; I-II:2:7), our end is twofold. First, there is the thing itself which we desire to attain: thus for the miser, the end is money. Secondly there is the attainment or possession, the use or enjoyment of the thing desired; thus we may say that the end of the miser is the possession of money; and the end of the intemperate man is to enjoy something pleasurable. In the first sense, then, man's last end is the uncreated good, namely, God, Who alone by His infinite goodness can perfectly satisfy man's will. But in the second way, man's last end is something created, existing in him, and this is nothing else than the attainment or enjoyment of the last end. Now the last end is called happiness. If, therefore, we consider man's happiness in its cause or object, then it is something uncreated; but if we consider it as to the very essence of happiness, then it is something created. Reply to Objection 1. God is happiness by His Essence: for He is happy not by acquisition or participation of something else, but by His Essence. On the other hand, men are happy, as Boethius says (De Consol. iii), by participation; just as they are called "gods," by participation. And this participation of happiness, in respect of which man is said to be happy, is something created. Reply to Objection 2. Happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is the attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good. Reply to Objection 3. Happiness is said to be the last end, in the same way as the attainment of the end is called the end.
Sup gang, please consider becoming a patron here to support all of this work I'm doing at PWA at The Matt Fradd Show. Wow! What a fascinating discussion. I sat down with Dr. Francis Beckwith, professor of philosophy at Baylor University, about something he has spent a lot of time thinking and writing about lately, whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. He has, I think, a very nuanced and convincing argument. * Check out Dr. Beckwith's new book, Never Doubt Thomas
In this episode of TMFS I talk to Dr. Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, about his conversion to the Catholic faith, why he loves Thomas Aquinas, his thoughts about Pope Francis, Dostoevsky (obviously) and the best arguments for God and atheism ... and much else besides. --- Thanks to our sponsors: Hallowed: https://hallow.app/ Covenant Eyes: https://www.covenanteyes.com/ Exodus90.com: https://exodus90.com/ --- 👆Subscribe to my channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4... (make sure to hit the BELL icon to be notified of new videos!) 🎧Listen to The Matt Fradd Show podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... 📖Get my book "Does God Exist?" here: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist... 🍺Support me on Patreon (Thank you!): https://patreon.com/mattfradd Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: http://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/
Today is the second in a two part series on the incarnation I recorded with Fr. Gregory Pine. If you haven't heard the first episode, maybe go and do that first. Not telling you what to do. Just a suggestion. But if you don't do it you're a bad person. ALSO, I'd like to bring Fr. Gregory Pine on to PWA every other week. To make that happen we need more patrons. Please help this happen by going to https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd --- Here's what we read today: So also was this useful for our "withdrawal from evil." First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Since human nature is so united to God as to become one person, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies." Secondly, because we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): "God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man." And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): "Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness." Thirdly, because, "in order to do away with man's presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no merits of ours went before," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17). Fourthly, because "man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great," as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order to free man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), "ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ," and this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: "Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other—for this was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an example." And there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man's apprehension.
Today is the first in a two part series on the incarnation I recorded with Fr. Gregory Pine. I'd like to bring Fr. Gregory Pine on to PWA every other week. To make that happen we need 40 more patrons. Please help this happen by going to https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd --- Here's what we read today: On the contrary, What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate. I answer that, A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): "We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery." Now this may be viewed with respect to our "furtherance in good." First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): "In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith." Secondly, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?" Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): "What greater cause is there of the Lord's coming than to show God's love for us?" And he afterwards adds: "If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return." Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): "Man who might be seen was not to be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man." Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God."
Today I interview Sr. Mary Madeline Todd about how to have hope in the midst of scandal. If you want to support all the work we do here at Pints With Aquinas would you please go to --> https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd Or you can support me directly (if you hate Patreon) --> https://www.pintswithaquinas.com/donate
Today I discuss 10 bad arguments for atheism! Enjoy! Also, please consider supporting me on Patreon so I can keep doing all this amazing work --> https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd Three cool things we want to do are: 1. Bring Fr. Gregory Pine on PWA twice a month. 2. Create a PWA app. 3. Record 2 episodes of the MFS every month! Here are the objections I address: 1. Who created God? 2. You’re only a Christian because you were raised one. 3. Flying spaghetti monster / God of the gaps. 4. I don’t have an onus of proof. 5. Science can’t demonstrate God’s existence. 6. Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it. 7. Christians are hypocrites. 8. Maybe there’s a first cause but that doesn’t prove christianity. 9. The Bible is filled with contradictions. 10. I believe in one less God than you. It’s arrogant for you to think you’re rig
Today I sit down with Kevin Vost to discuss Aquinas' advice on how to study better. We also listen to a brand new awesome song by the one and only Emma Fradd. Get Kevin's new book How To Think Like Aquinas Become a patron here. Thank you, thank you, thank you! --- LETTER OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS TO BROTHER JOHN ON HOW TO STUDY Because you have asked me, my brother John, most dear to me in Christ, how to set about acquiring the treasure of knowledge, this is the advice I pass on to you: That you should choose to enter by the small rivers, and not go right away into the sea, because you should move from easy things to difficult things. Such is therefore my advice on your way of life: I suggest you be slow to speak, and slow to go to the room where people chat. Embrace purity of conscience; do not stop making time for prayer. Love to be in your room frequently, if you wish to be led to the wine cellar. Show yourself to be likable to all, or at least try; but do not show yourself as too familiar with anyone; because too much familiarity breeds contempt, and will slow you in your studies; and don’t get involved in any way in the deeds and words of worldly people. Above all, avoid idle conversation; do not forget to follow the steps of holy and approved men. Never mind who says what, but commit to memory what is said that is true. Work to understand what you read, and make yourself sure of doubtful points. Put whatever you can into the cupboard of your mind as if you were trying to fill a cup. “Seek not the things that are higher than you.” Follow the steps of blessed Dominic, who produced useful and marvelous shoots, flowers and fruits in the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts for as long as life was his companion. If you follow these things, you will attain whatever you desire.
I sit down with pro-life logic ninja Stephanie Gray to discuss abortion. I think this will be the best interview you've ever heard about how to refute pro-abortion arguments and how to make the pro-life case. Thanks to our sponsors! ---------- 😃 Covenant Eyes (use promocode "mattfradd" to get a month free): https://www.covenanteyes.com/ 😃 Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/ ---------- 👆Subscribe to my channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4... (make sure to hit the BELL icon to be notified of new videos!) 🎧Listen to The Matt Fradd Show podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... 📖Get my book "Does God Exist?" here: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist... 🍺Support me on Patreon (Thank you!): https://patreon.com/mattfradd Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: http://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/
In today's episode I chat with my mate Steven Rummelsburg about: - How Aquinas was educated. - The problem of public (and many Catholic) schools today. - The beauty of Homeschooling. --- Please consider becoming a patron, it really helps a great deal. https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd --- Check out my latest interview with Stephanie Gray here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4JeqYB1QN6f1h_bzmEng/videos
Today I chat with Dominican priest Fr. Jacob Bertrand Janczyk about what Aquinas had to say about sexual desire and how our lower desires can help us become a saint. Please support my work on Patreon and get free stuff! https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd
Today I want to share with you a power and beautiful talk given by Sr. Mary Madeline Todd, OP, about the current crisis in the Church and what we can learn from St. Catherine of Sienna about how to deal with it. Please consider supporting my work today at https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd
In this short solo podcast I discuss your feedback on previous episodes of The Matt Fradd Show, tell you what I'm learning, and share some (hopefully) exciting news! Please consider supporting this work: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd
Thanks for listening! Today we'll take a look at that bit at the end of John's gospel where our Lord asks Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" Enjoy! Please support me (Thank you!) on Patreon here or directly here.
Thanks for listening! Please support me (Thank you!) on Patreon here or directly here. Here's a slightly different translation of Aquinas' prayer before Mass: Almighty and everlasting God, behold I come to the Sacrament of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: I come as one infirm to the physician of life, as one unclean to the fountain of mercy, as one blind to the light of everlasting brightness, as one poor and needy to the Lord of heaven and earth. Therefore I implore the abundance of Thy measureless bounty that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to heal my infirmity, wash my uncleanness, enlighten my blindness, enrich my poverty and clothe my nakedness, that I may receive the Bread of Angels, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, with such reverence and humility, with such sorrow and devotion, with such purity and faith, with such purpose and intention as may be profitable to my soul's salvation. Grant unto me, I pray, the grace of receiving not only the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood, but also the grace and power of the Sacrament. O most gracious God, grant me so to receive the Body of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, which He took from the Virgin Mary, as to merit to be incorporated into His mystical Body, and to be numbered amongst His members. O most loving Father, give me grace to behold forever Thy beloved Son with His face at last unveiled, whom I now purpose to receive under the sacramental veil here below. Amen.
Thanks for listening! Please support me on Patreon (Thank you!) here. Check out that photo of me and Br. Joseph here. Here's the text I read from the Summa II-II, Q.2 (articles 1,2, and 3). I answer that, "To think" can be taken in three ways. First, in a general way for any kind of actual consideration of the intellect, as Augustine observes (De Trin. xiv, 7): "By understanding I mean now the faculty whereby we understand when thinking." Secondly, "to think" is more strictly taken for that consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight. On this sense Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16) that "the Son of God is not called the Thought, but the Word of God. When our thought realizes what we know and takes form therefrom, it becomes our word. Hence the Word of God must be understood without any thinking on the part of God, for there is nothing there that can take form, or be unformed." In this way thought is, properly speaking, the movement of the mind while yet deliberating, and not yet perfected by the clear sight of truth. Since, however, such a movement of the mind may be one of deliberation either about universal notions, which belongs to the intellectual faculty, or about particular matters, which belongs to the sensitive part, hence it is that "to think" is taken secondly for an act of the deliberating intellect, and thirdly for an act of the cogitative power. Accordingly, if "to think" be understood broadly according to the first sense, then "to think with assent," does not express completely what is meant by "to believe": since, in this way, a man thinks with assent even when he considers what he knows by science [Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration.], or understands. If, on the other hand, "to think" be understood in the second way, then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts"; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects"; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines." But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false. (Article 1) I answer that, The act of any power or habit depends on the relation of that power or habit to its object. Now the object of faith can be considered in three ways. For, since "to believe" is an act of the intellect, in so far as the will moves it to assent, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3), the object of faith can be considered either on the part of the intellect, or on the part of the will that moves the intellect. If it be considered on the part of the intellect, then two things can be observed in the object of faith, as stated above (II-II:1:1). One of these is the material object of faith, and in this way an act of faith is "to believe in a God"; because, as stated above (II-II:1:1) nothing is proposed to our belief, except in as much as it is referred to God. The other is the formal aspect of the object, for it is the medium on account of which we assent to such and such a point of faith; and thus an act of faith is "to believe God," since, as stated above (II-II:1:1) the formal object of faith is the First Truth, to Which man gives his adhesion, so as to assent to Its sake to whatever he believes. Thirdly, if the object of faith be considered in so far as the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is "to believe in God." For the First Truth is referred to the will, through having the aspect of an end. (Article 2) I answer that, Wherever one nature is subordinate to another, we find that two things concur towards the perfection of the lower nature, one of which is in respect of that nature's proper movement, while the other is in respect of the movement of the higher nature. Thus water by its proper movement moves towards the centre (of the earth), while according to the movement of the moon, it moves round the centre by ebb and flow. On like manner the planets have their proper movements from west to east, while in accordance with the movement of the first heaven, they have a movement from east to west. Now the created rational nature alone is immediately subordinate to God, since other creatures do not attain to the universal, but only to something particular, while they partake of the Divine goodness either in "being" only, as inanimate things, or also in "living," and in "knowing singulars," as plants and animals; whereas the rational nature, in as much as it apprehends the universal notion of good and being, is immediately related to the universal principle of being. Consequently the perfection of the rational creature consists not only in what belongs to it in respect of its nature, but also in that which it acquires through a supernatural participation of Divine goodness. Hence it was said above (I-II:3:8) that man's ultimate happiness consists in a supernatural vision of God: to which vision man cannot attain unless he be taught by God, according to John 6:45: "Every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh to Me." Now man acquires a share of this learning, not indeed all at once, but by little and little, according to the mode of his nature: and every one who learns thus must needs believe, in order that he may acquire science in a perfect degree; thus also the Philosopher remarks (De Soph. Elench. i, 2) that "it behooves a learner to believe." Hence in order that a man arrive at the perfect vision of heavenly happiness, he must first of all believe God, as a disciple believes the master who is teaching him. (Article 3)
GET YOUR “NON NISI TE DOMINE” MERCH HERE: https://teespring.com/get-non-nisi-te-domine#pid=369&cid=6513&sid=front Checkout the photos from the event here. Please support me here. Subscribe to my Youtube channel here.
Today we discuss the doctrine of supersessionism with Fr. William Goldin. Please support all the work I'm doing here and get a bunch of free stuff in return! Subscribe to my Youtube channel here. Cheers!
Support me on Patreon here or directly here. Get Counterfeit Christs by Trent Horn here. Get Hidden in Plain View by Lydia McGrew here. Listen to that debate on Unbelievable? Between Tim McGrew and Peter Boghossian here. Here's the text we read from Aquinas: I answer that, It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons. First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God's sake, according to Luke 1:52: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself even to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence it is said in His Person (Psalm 138:2): "Thou hast known," i.e. approved, "my sitting down," i.e. My humiliation and Passion, "and my rising up," i.e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds. Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in Christ's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according to 2 Corinthians 13:4, "although He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." And therefore it is written (1 Corinthians 15:14): "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our [Vulgate: 'your'] faith is also vain": and (Psalm 29:10): "What profit is there in my blood?" that is, in the shedding of My blood, "while I go down," as by various degrees of evils, "into corruption?" As though He were to answer: "None. 'For if I do not at once rise again but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,'" as the gloss expounds. Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:12): "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?" And (Job 19:25-27): "I know," that is with certainty of faith, "that my Redeemer," i.e. Christ, "liveth," having risen from the dead; "and" therefore "in the last day I shall rise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom." Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Romans 6:4: "As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life": and further on; "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive to God."
Hey all, This is an episode of The Matt Fradd Show that just came out last week. If you'd like to subscribe to my Youtube channel, do that here. You can also subscribe to The Matt Fradd Show on iTunes if you want to listen to the shows instead of watch them. Become a patron here (or, if you hate Patreon, here). Thanks!
In today's episode we'll take a look at the following questions: Is it possible to hate God? Is hatred of God the greatest of sins? Is hatred of one's neighbor always a sin? Is hated a deadly sin? If not, from what deadly sin does hatred arise? We'll also be reading a lot from Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground. Here's the edition I have and recommend. --- Please support my work --> https://pintswithaquinas.com/donate/ --- Here's the main article we look at from Aquinas in today's episode: Whether it is possible for anyone to hate God? Objection 1. It would seem that no man can hate God. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the first good and beautiful is an object of love and dilection to all." But God is goodness and beauty itself. Therefore He is hated by none. Objection 2. Further, in the Apocryphal books of 3 Esdras 4:36, it is written that "all things call upon truth . . . and (all men) do well like of her works." Now God is the very truth according to John 14:6. Therefore all love God, and none can hate Him. Objection 3. Further, hatred is a kind of aversion. But according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) God draws all things to Himself. Therefore none can hate Him. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 73:23): "The pride of them that hate Thee ascendeth continually," and (John 15:24): "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." I answer that, As shown above (I-II:29:1), hatred is a movement of the appetitive power, which power is not set in motion save by something apprehended. Now God can be apprehended by man in two ways; first, in Himself, as when He is seen in His Essence; secondly, in His effects, when, to wit, "the invisible things" of God . . . "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). Now God in His Essence is goodness itself, which no man can hate—for it is natural to good to be loved. Hence it is impossible for one who sees God in His Essence, to hate Him. Moreover some of His effects are such that they can nowise be contrary to the human will, since "to be, to live, to understand," which are effects of God, are desirable and lovable to all. Wherefore again God cannot be an object of hatred if we consider Him as the Author of such like effects. Some of God's effects, however, are contrary to an inordinate will, such as the infliction of punishment, and the prohibition of sin by the Divine Law. Such like effects are repugnant to a will debased by sin, and as regards the consideration of them, God may be an object of hatred to some, in so far as they look upon Him as forbidding sin, and inflicting punishment. Reply to Objection 1. This argument is true of those who see God's Essence, which is the very essence of goodness. Reply to Objection 2. This argument is true in so far as God is apprehended as the cause of such effects as are naturally beloved of all, among which are the works of Truth who reveals herself to men. Reply to Objection 3. God draws all things to Himself, in so far as He is the source of being, since all things, in as much as they are, tend to be like God, Who is Being itself. - ST II-II, Q. 34, A. 1
Today I'm joined around the bar table by Dr. Brant Pitre to discuss the Marian dogmas! Enjoy! Please support the show here: https://pintswithaquinas.com/donate/ And get Dr. Pitre's new book here: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Mary-Unveiling/dp/0525572732/ref=sr_1_3?hvadid=3486364278&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&keywords=brant+pitre&qid=1551133243&s=gateway&sr=8-3&tag=mh0b-20
Today we're joined around the bar table by Dr. Gerry Crete to discuss mindfulness, self-care, and dealing with stress. Please support Pints With Aquinas (Thank you!): https://pintswithaquinas.com/donate/
Today we're joined around bar table by my good mate, Michael Gormley (Gomer) of Catching Foxes to discuss a wide range of topics through a Thomistic lens. We discuss: - Virtue ethics - Heresy, schism, and apostasy - The difference between material and formal heresy - Bishop Robert Barron's interview with Ben Shapiro - Why the institutional church is often more tolerant of Fr. James Martin types than Michael Voris types. Please consider becoming a patron: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd
Sup, Thomists! Please support me on Patreon here (Thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd If you HATE Patreon, support me directly here (seriously, thank you!): https://pintswithaquinas.com/donate/ --- VOTE on a new Matt Fradd Show set here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/new-matt-fradd-25131402 --- Learn about the Thomistic Institute here: https://thomisticinstitute.org/ --- Today Fr. Dominic and I take a look primarily at ST. III, Q. 9, A. 1.: Whether Christ had any knowledge besides the Divine? Objection 1. It would seem that in Christ there was no knowledge except the Divine. For knowledge is necessary that things may be known thereby. But by His Divine knowledge Christ knew all things. Therefore any other knowledge would have been superfluous in Him. Objection 2. Further, the lesser light is dimmed by the greater. But all created knowledge in comparison with the uncreated knowledge of God is as the lesser to the greater light. Therefore there shone in Christ no other knowledge except the Divine. Objection 3. Further, the union of the human nature with the Divine took place in the Person, as is clear from III:2:2. Now, according to some there is in Christ a certain "knowledge of the union," whereby Christ knew what belongs to the mystery of Incarnation more fully than anyone else. Hence, since the personal union contains two natures, it would seem that there are not two knowledges in Christ, but one only, pertaining to both natures. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Incarnat. vii): "God assumed the perfection of human nature in the flesh; He took upon Himself the sense of man, but not the swollen sense of the flesh." But created knowledge pertains to the sense of man. Therefore in Christ there was created knowledge. I answer that, As said above (Article 5), the Son of God assumed an entire human nature, i.e. not only a body, but also a soul, and not only a sensitive, but also a rational soul. And therefore it behooved Him to have created knowledge, for three reasons. First, on account of the soul's perfection. For the soul, considered in itself, is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things. since it is like "a tablet on which nothing is written," and yet it may be written upon through the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as is said De Anima iii, 18. Now what is in potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act. But it was fitting that the Son of God should assume, not an imperfect, but a perfect human nature, since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine knowledge, otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more imperfect than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because, since everything is on account of its operation, as stated De Coel. ii, 17, Christ would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if He had not understood by it; and this pertains to created knowledge. Thirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul, viz. that whereby we naturally know first principles; since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect. Now nothing natural was wanting to Christ, since He took the whole human nature, as stated above (Article 5). And hence the Sixth Council [Third Council of Constantinople, Act. 4] condemned the opinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges or wisdoms. Reply to Objection 1. Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very Essence of God; since God's understanding is His substance, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. xii, text. 39). Hence this act could not belong to the human soul of Christ, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there had been no other knowledge in the soul of Christ, it would have known nothing; and thus it would have been assumed to no purpose, since everything is on account of its operation. Reply to Objection 2. If the two lights are supposed to be in the same order, the lesser is dimmed by the greater, as the light of the sun dims the light of a candle, both being in the class of illuminants. But if we suppose two lights, one of which is in the class of illuminants and the other in the class of illuminated, the lesser light is not dimmed by the greater, but rather is strengthened, as the light of the air by the light of the sun. And in this manner the light of knowledge is not dimmed, but rather is heightened in the soul of Christ by the light of the Divine knowledge, which is "the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world," as is written John 1:9. Reply to Objection 3. On the part of what are united we hold there is a knowledge in Christ, both as to His Divine and as to His human nature; so that, by reason of the union whereby there is one hypostasis of God and man, the things of God are attributed to man, and the things of man are attributed to God, as was said above (III:3:1 and III:3:6). But on the part of the union itself we cannot admit any knowledge in Christ. For this union is in personal being, and knowledge belongs to person only by reason of a nature.
Sup! Today we chat with Aquinas about the 3 reasons we should fast. If you'd like to support me and get a bunch of FREE stuff in return, go here. When you give me $10 or more a month you'll get access to Aquinas' meditations for Lent! Thanks for your support, y'all. Here's what Aquinas had to say on the matter: I answer that, An act is virtuous through being directed by reason to some virtuous [honestum] [Cf. II-II:145:1] good. Now this is consistent with fasting, because fasting is practiced for a threefold purpose. First, in order to bridle the lusts of the flesh, wherefore the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 6:5-6): "In fasting, in chastity," since fasting is the guardian of chastity. For, according to Jerome [Contra Jov. ii.] "Venus is cold when Ceres and Bacchus are not there," that is to say, lust is cooled by abstinence in meat and drink. Secondly, we have recourse to fasting in order that the mind may arise more freely to the contemplation of heavenly things: hence it is related (Daniel 10) of Daniel that he received a revelation from God after fasting for three weeks. Thirdly, in order to satisfy for sins: wherefore it is written (Joel 2:12): "Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping and in mourning." The same is declared by Augustine in a sermon (De orat. et Jejun. [Serm. lxxii (ccxxx, de Tempore)]): "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity."
Today I'm joined by Fr. Damian Ference to discuss Aquinas & Augustine. How they complement each other, how Aquinas builds upon Augustine, and why you still should be reading Augustine even if you're an Aquinas geek. ... Like me. Get Fr. Ference's new book, The Strangeness of Truth here. Check out Exodus 90 here. --- Become a patron (THANKS!) here. --- Here's what we read from Aquinas in today's episode: On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. vi, 12): "Man's excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field." Therefore things without intellect are not made to God's image. I answer that, Not every likeness, not even what is copied from something else, is sufficient to make an image; for if the likeness be only generic, or existing by virtue of some common accident, this does not suffice for one thing to be the image of another. For instance, a worm, though from man it may originate, cannot be called man's image, merely because of the generic likeness. Nor, if anything is made white like something else, can we say that it is the image of that thing; for whiteness is an accident belonging to many species. But the nature of an image requires likeness in species; thus the image of the king exists in his son: or, at least, in some specific accident, and chiefly in the shape; thus, we speak of a man's image in copper. Whence Hilary says pointedly that "an image is of the same species." ST I, Q. 93 A. 2.
Today I chat with Fr. Chris Pietraszko about the sin of sloth. Please support me and all my work at PintsWithAquinas.com/Donate Here's the texts we read: I answer that, Sloth, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) is an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man's mind, that he wants to do nothing; thus acid things are also cold. Hence sloth implies a certain weariness of work, as appears from a gloss on Psalm 106:18, "Their soul abhorred all manner of meat," and from the definition of some who say that sloth is a "sluggishness of the mind which neglects to begin good." Now this sorrow is always evil, sometimes in itself, sometimes in its effect. For sorrow is evil in itself when it is about that which is apparently evil but good in reality, even as, on the other hand, pleasure is evil if it is about that which seems to be good but is, in truth, evil. Since, then, spiritual good is a good in very truth, sorrow about spiritual good is evil in itself. And yet that sorrow also which is about a real evil, is evil in its effect, if it so oppresses man as to draw him away entirely from good deeds. Hence the Apostle (2 Corinthians 2:7) did not wish those who repented to be "swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." --- Objection 2. Further, a capital sin is one to which daughters are assigned. Now Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) assigns six daughters to sloth, viz. "malice, spite, faint-heartedness, despair, sluggishness in regard to the commandments, wandering of the mind after unlawful things." Now these do not seem in reality to arise from sloth. For "spite" is, seemingly the same as hatred, which arises from envy, as stated above (II-II:34:6); "malice" is a genus which contains all vices, and, in like manner, a "wandering" of the mind after unlawful things is to be found in every vice; "sluggishness" about the commandments seems to be the same as sloth, while "faint-heartedness" and "despair" may arise from any sin. Therefore sloth is not rightly accounted a capital sin. Reply to Objection 2. Gregory fittingly assigns the daughters of sloth. For since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5,6) "no man can be a long time in company with what is painful and unpleasant," it follows that something arises from sorrow in two ways: first, that man shuns whatever causes sorrow; secondly, that he passes to other things that give him pleasure: thus those who find no joy in spiritual pleasures, have recourse to pleasures of the body, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 6). Now in the avoidance of sorrow the order observed is that man at first flies from unpleasant objects, and secondly he even struggles against such things as cause sorrow. Now spiritual goods which are the object of the sorrow of sloth, are both end and means. Avoidance of the end is the result of "despair," while avoidance of those goods which are the means to the end, in matters of difficulty which come under the counsels, is the effect of "faint-heartedness," and in matters of common righteousness, is the effect of "sluggishness about the commandments." The struggle against spiritual goods that cause sorrow is sometimes with men who lead others to spiritual goods, and this is called "spite"; and sometimes it extends to the spiritual goods themselves, when a man goes so far as to detest them, and this is properly called "malice." On so far as a man has recourse to eternal objects of pleasure, the daughter of sloth is called "wandering after unlawful things." From this it is clear how to reply to the objections against each of the daughters: for "malice" does not denote here that which is generic to all vices, but must be understood as explained. Nor is "spite" taken as synonymous with hatred, but for a kind of indignation, as stated above: and the same applies to the others.
Thanks to everyone of you who'd like to support me: PintsWithAquinas.com/donate Here's the text from Aquinas we read this week: From all this then is seen the effect of the passion of Christ as a remedy for sin. But no less does it profit us as an example. St. Augustine says that the passion of Christ can bring about a complete reformation of our lives. Whoever wishes to live perfectly need do nothing other than despise what Christ despised on the cross, and desire what Christ desired. There is no virtue that did not have its example on the Cross. So if you seek an example of charity, then, “greater love than this no one has, than to lay down his life for his friends” [Jn 15:13]. And this Christ did upon the Cross. If, therefore, He gave His life or us, we ought to endure any and all evils for Him: “What shall I render to the Lord for all the things that He has done for me?” [Ps 15:12]. If you seek an example of patience, you will find it in its highest degree upon the Cross. Great patience is exemplified in two ways: either when one suffers intensely in all patience, or when one suffers that which he could avoid if he so wished. Christ suffered greatly upon the Cross: “All you who pass by the way, look and see if there is any sorrow like My sorrow” [Lam 1:12]. And with all patience, because, “when He suffered, He did not threaten” [1 Pet 2:23]. And again: “He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter and shall be dumb before His shearer, and shall not open His mouth” [Is 53:7]. He could have avoided this suffering, but He did not: “Do you think that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of Angels?” [Mt 26:23]. The patience of Christ upon the cross, therefore, was of the highest degree: “Let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us; looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who, having joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame” [Heb 12:1-2]. If you seek an example of humility, look upon Him who is crucified; although He was God, He chose to be judged by Pontius Pilate and to be put to death: “Your cause has been judged as that of the wicked” [Job 36:17]. Truly “that of the wicked,” because: “Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death” [Wis 2:20]. The Lord chose to die for His servant; the Life of the Angels suffered death for man: “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross” [Phil 2:8]. If you seek an example of obedience, imitate Him who was obedient to the Father unto death: “For by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just” [Rom 5:19]. If you seek an example of contempt for earthly things, imitate Him who is the King of kings, the Lord of rulers, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom; but on the Cross He was stripped naked, ridiculed, spat upon, bruised, crowned with thorns, given to drink of vinegar and gall, and finally put to death. How falsely, therefore, is one attached to riches and raiment, for: “They divided My garments amongst them; and upon My robe they cast lots” [Ps 21:19]. How falsely to honors, since “I was covered with lashes and insults;” how falsely to positions of power, because “taking a crown of thorns, they placed it upon My brow;” how falsely to delicacies of the table, for “in My thirst they gave Me to drink of vinegar” [Ps 68:22]. Thus, St. Augustine, in commenting on these words, “Who, having joy set before Him, endured the Cross despising the shame” [Heb 12:2]. says: “The man Christ despised all earthly things in order to teach us to despise them.
Today I sit down with philosopher Dr. Michael Gorman to discuss faith and reason. What a great episode. Great a beer, here we go! Check out (and buy) our new Aquinas merch: https://teespring.com/shop/aquinas-tee?tsmac=recently_viewed&tsmic=recently_viewed#pid=369&cid=6513&sid=front Please support me (thank you!) at patreon.com/mattfradd
Today I sit down with philosopher, Dr. Frey to discuss life. A much more difficult issue than you might think. Here's two of the main texts' from Aquinas that Dr. Frey and I reference ... I bet if you read these excerpts after listening to the show they'll make a lot more sense. Please support my work (Thank you!) at patreon.com/mattfrad --- Whether life is properly attributed to God? I answer that, Life is in the highest degree properly in God. In proof of which it must be considered that since a thing is said to live in so far as it operates of itself and not as moved by another, the more perfectly this power is found in anything, the more perfect is the life of that thing. In things that move and are moved, a threefold order is found. In the first place, the end moves the agent: and the principal agent is that which acts through its form, and sometimes it does so through some instrument that acts by virtue not of its own form, but of the principal agent, and does no more than execute the action. Accordingly there are things that move themselves, not in respect of any form or end naturally inherent in them, but only in respect of the executing of the movement; the form by which they act, and the end of the action being alike determined for them by their nature. Of this kind are plants, which move themselves according to their inherent nature, with regard only to executing the movements of growth and decay. Other things have self-movement in a higher degree, that is, not only with regard to executing the movement, but even as regards to the form, the principle of movement, which form they acquire of themselves. Of this kind are animals, in which the principle of movement is not a naturally implanted form; but one received through sense. Hence the more perfect is their sense, the more perfect is their power of self-movement. Such as have only the sense of touch, as shellfish, move only with the motion of expansion and contraction; and thus their movement hardly exceeds that of plants. Whereas such as have the sensitive power in perfection, so as to recognize not only connection and touch, but also objects apart from themselves, can move themselves to a distance by progressive movement. Yet although animals of the latter kind receive through sense the form that is the principle of their movement, nevertheless they cannot of themselves propose to themselves the end of their operation, or movement; for this has been implanted in them by nature; and by natural instinct they are moved to any action through the form apprehended by sense. Hence such animals as move themselves in respect to an end they themselves propose are superior to these. This can only be done by reason and intellect; whose province it is to know the proportion between the end and the means to that end, and duly coordinate them. Hence a more perfect degree of life is that of intelligible beings; for their power of self-movement is more perfect. This is shown by the fact that in one and the same man the intellectual faculty moves the sensitive powers; and these by their command move the organs of movement. Thus in the arts we see that the art of using a ship, i.e. the art of navigation, rules the art of ship-designing; and this in its turn rules the art that is only concerned with preparing the material for the ship. But although our intellect moves itself to some things, yet others are supplied by nature, as are first principles, which it cannot doubt; and the last end, which it cannot but will. Hence, although with respect to some things it moves itself, yet with regard to other things it must be moved by another. Wherefore that being whose act of understanding is its very nature, and which, in what it naturally possesses, is not determined by another, must have life in the most perfect degree. Such is God; and hence in Him principally is life. From this the Philosopher concludes (Metaph. xii, 51), after showing God to be intelligent, that God has life most perfect and eternal, since His intellect is most perfect and always in act. ST I, Q. 18, A. 3 --- Whether death and other bodily defects are the result of sin? I answer that, One thing causes another in two ways: first, by reason of itself; secondly, accidentally. By reason of itself, one thing is the cause of another, if it produces its effect by reason of the power of its nature or form, the result being that the effect is directly intended by the cause. Consequently, as death and such like defects are beside the intention of the sinner, it is evident that sin is not, of itself, the cause of these defects. Accidentally, one thing is the cause of another if it causes it by removing an obstacle: thus it is stated in Phys. viii, text. 32, that "by displacing a pillar a man moves accidentally the stone resting thereon." In this way the sin of our first parent is the cause of death and all such like defects in human nature, in so far as by the sin of our first parent original justice was taken away, whereby not only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason, without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in subjection to the soul, without any defect, as stated in the I:97:1. Wherefore, original justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent; just as human nature was stricken in the soul by the disorder among the powers, as stated above (Article 3; I-II:82:3), so also it became subject to corruption, by reason of disorder in the body. Now the withdrawal of original justice has the character of punishment, even as the withdrawal of grace has. Consequently, death and all consequent bodily defects are punishments of original sin. And although the defects are not intended by the sinner, nevertheless they are ordered according to the justice of God Who inflicts them as punishments. Reply to Objection 1. Causes that produce their effects of themselves, if equal, produce equal effects: for if such causes be increased or diminished, the effect is increased or diminished. But equal causes of an obstacle being removed, do not point to equal effects. For supposing a man employs equal force in displacing two columns, it does not follow that the movements of the stones resting on them will be equal; but that one will move with greater velocity, which has the greater weight according to the property of its nature, to which it is left when the obstacle to its falling is removed. Accordingly, when original justice is removed, the nature of the human body is left to itself, so that according to diverse natural temperaments, some men's bodies are subject to more defects, some to fewer, although original sin is equal in all. Reply to Objection 2. Both original and actual sin are removed by the same cause that removes these defects, according to the Apostle (Romans 8:11): "He . . . shall quicken . . . your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you": but each is done according to the order of Divine wisdom, at a fitting time. Because it is right that we should first of all be conformed to Christ's sufferings, before attaining to the immortality and impassibility of glory, which was begun in Him, and by Him acquired for us. Hence it behooves that our bodies should remain, for a time, subject to suffering, in order that we may merit the impassibility of glory, in conformity with Christ. Reply to Objection 3. Two things may be considered in actual sin, the substance of the act, and the aspect of fault. As regards the substance of the act, actual sin can cause a bodily defect: thus some sicken and die through eating too much. But as regards the fault, it deprives us of grace which is given to us that we may regulate the acts of the soul, but not that we may ward off defects of the body, as original justice did. Wherefore actual sin does not cause those defects, as original sin does. Article 6. Whether death and other defects are natural to man? Objection 1. It would seem that death and such like defects are natural to man. For "the corruptible and the incorruptible differ generically" (Metaph. x, text. 26). But man is of the same genus as other animals which are naturally corruptible. Therefore man is naturally corruptible. Objection 2. Further, whatever is composed of contraries is naturally corruptible, as having within itself the cause of corruption. But such is the human body. Therefore it is naturally corruptible. Objection 3. Further, a hot thing naturally consumes moisture. Now human life is preserved by hot and moist elements. Since therefore the vital functions are fulfilled by the action of natural heat, as stated in De Anima ii, text. 50, it seems that death and such like defects are natural to man. On the contrary, (1) God made in man whatever is natural to him. Now "God made not death" (Wisdom 1:13). Therefore death is not natural to man. (2) Further, that which is natural cannot be called either a punishment or an evil: since what is natural to a thing is suitable to it. But death and such like defects are the punishment of original sin, as stated above (Article 5). Therefore they are not natural to man. (3) Further, matter is proportionate to form, and everything to its end. Now man's end is everlasting happiness, as stated above (I-II:2:7; I-II:5:3-4): and the form of the human body is the rational soul, as was proved in the I:75:6. Therefore the human body is naturally incorruptible. I answer that, We may speak of any corruptible thing in two ways; first, in respect of its universal nature, secondly, as regards its particular nature. A thing's particular nature is its own power of action and self-preservation. And in respect of this nature, every corruption and defect is contrary to nature, as stated in De Coelo ii, text. 37, since this power tends to the being and preservation of the thing to which it belongs. On the other hand, the universal nature is an active force in some universal principle of nature, for instance in some heavenly body; or again belonging to some superior substance, in which sense God is said by some to be "the Nature Who makes nature." This force intends the good and the preservation of the universe, for which alternate generation and corruption in things are requisite: and in this respect corruption and defect in things are natural, not indeed as regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being and perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which is allotted proportionately to its particular form according to the discretion of the universal agent. And although every form intends perpetual being as far as it can, yet no form of a corruptible being can achieve its own perpetuity, except the rational soul; for the reason that the latter is not entirely subject to matter, as other forms are; indeed it has an immaterial operation of its own, as stated in the I:75:2. Consequently as regards his form, incorruption is more natural to man than to other corruptible things. But since that very form has a matter composed of contraries, from the inclination of that matter there results corruptibility in the whole. In this respect man is naturally corruptible as regards the nature of his matter left to itself, but not as regards the nature of his form. The first three objections argue on the side of the matter; while the other three argue on the side of the form. Wherefore in order to solve them, we must observe that the form of man which is the rational soul, in respect of its incorruptibility is adapted to its end, which is everlasting happiness: whereas the human body, which is corruptible, considered in respect of its nature, is, in a way, adapted to its form, and, in another way, it is not. For we may note a twofold condition in any matter, one which the agent chooses, and another which is not chosen by the agent, and is a natural condition of matter. Thus, a smith in order to make a knife, chooses a matter both hard and flexible, which can be sharpened so as to be useful for cutting, and in respect of this condition iron is a matter adapted for a knife: but that iron be breakable and inclined to rust, results from the natural disposition of iron, nor does the workman choose this in the iron, indeed he would do without it if he could: wherefore this disposition of matter is not adapted to the workman's intention, nor to the purpose of his art. In like manner the human body is the matter chosen by nature in respect of its being of a mixed temperament, in order that it may be most suitable as an organ of touch and of the other sensitive and motive powers. Whereas the fact that it is corruptible is due to a condition of matter, and is not chosen by nature: indeed nature would choose an incorruptible matter if it could. But God, to Whom every nature is subject, in forming man supplied the defect of nature, and by the gift of original justice, gave the body a certain incorruptibility, as was stated in the I:97:1. It is in this sense that it is said that "God made not death," and that death is the punishment of sin. - ST I-II, Q. 85, A. 6
To celebrate the feast of Thomas Aquinas we’re doing two really cool things. First, we’re giving away this FREE audio book, Aeterni Patris: On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. The aim of the encyclical was to advance the revival of Scholastic philosophy (i.e. Thomas Aquinas). Click here to get it! (It’ll only be available to non-patrons for today only). Secondly, we’re selling really really cool Aquinas merch that is bound to get you into many awesome conversations about the angelic doctor. Every sale goes to support the word of Pints With Aquinas. Get your hoodie, tee, mug, baby onesie, here! see the rest here
Below is the entire text from Aquinas I wrote, but before that... Thank God for good bishops like Bishop Rick Stika (@BishopStika) and Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler). Go follow them and thank them for being faithful sons of the Church. Whether the Church should excommunicate anyone? Objection 1. It would seem that the Church ought not to excommunicate anyone, because excommunication is a kind of curse, and we are forbidden to curse (Romans 12:14). Therefore the Church should not excommunicate. Objection 2. Further, the Church Militant should imitate the Church Triumphant. Now we read in the epistle of Jude (verse 9) that "when Michael the Archangel disputing with the devil contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee." Therefore the Church Militant ought not to judge any man by cursing or excommunicating him. Objection 3. Further, no man should be given into the hands of his enemies, unless there be no hope for him. Now by excommunication a man is given into the hands of Satan, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 5:5. Since then we should never give up hope about anyone in this life, the Church should not excommunicate anyone. On the contrary, The Apostle (1 Corinthians 5:5) ordered a man to be excommunicated. Further, it is written (Matthew 18:17) about the man who refuses to hear the Church: "Let him be to thee as the heathen or publican." But heathens are outside the Church. Therefore they also who refuse to hear the Church, should be banished from the Church by excommunication. I answer that, The judgment of the Church should be conformed to the judgment of God. Now God punishes the sinner in many ways, in order to draw him to good, either by chastising him with stripes, or by leaving him to himself so that being deprived of those helps whereby he was kept out of evil, he may acknowledge his weakness, and humbly return to God Whom he had abandoned in his pride. In both these respects the Church by passing sentence of excommunication imitates the judgment of God. For by severing a man from the communion of the faithful that he may blush with shame, she imitates the judgment whereby God chastises man with stripes; and by depriving him of prayers and other spiritual things, she imitates the judgment of God in leaving man to himself, in order that by humility he may learn to know himself and return to God. Reply to Objection 1. A curse may be pronounced in two ways: first, so that the intention of the one who curses is fixed on the evil which he invokes or pronounces, and cursing in this sense is altogether forbidden. Secondly, so that the evil which a man invokes in cursing is intended for the good of the one who is cursed, and thus cursing is sometimes lawful and salutary: thus a physician makes a sick man undergo pain, by cutting him, for instance, in order to deliver him from his sickness. Reply to Objection 2. The devil cannot be brought to repentance, wherefore the pain of excommunication cannot do him any good. Reply to Objection 3. From the very fact that a man is deprived of the prayers of the Church, he incurs a triple loss, corresponding to the three things which a man acquires through the Church's prayers. For they bring an increase of grace to those who have it, or merit grace for those who have it not; and in this respect the Master of the Sentences says (Sent. iv, D, 18): "The grace of God is taken away by excommunication." They also prove a safeguard of virtue; and in this respect he says that "protection is taken away," not that the excommunicated person is withdrawn altogether from God's providence, but that he is excluded from that protection with which He watches over the children of the Church in a more special way. Moreover, they are useful as a defense against the enemy, and in this respect he says that "the devil receives greater power of assaulting the excommunicated person, both spiritually and corporally." Hence in the early Church, when men had to be enticed to the faith by means of outward signs (thus the gift of the Holy Ghost was shown openly by a visible sign), so too excommunication was evidenced by a person being troubled in his body by the devil. Nor is it unreasonable that one, for whom there is still hope, be given over to the enemy, for he is surrendered, not unto damnation, but unto correction, since the Church has the power to rescue him from the hands of the enemy, whenever he is willing.
Check out our brand NEW PWA merch here: https://teespring.com/aquinas-tee#pid=369&cid=6513&sid=front --- This episode of PWA was recorded LIVE at FOCUS' SEEK conference in Indianapolis, IN earlier this month. In this episode I sit down with the priests from Catholic Stuff You Should Know to discuss scrupulosity, and how to overcome it. --- Please become a patron of PWA and get a bunch of free stuff in return: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd
Yo! Go subscribe to The Matt Fradd Show podcast:https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-matt-fradd-show/id1443398185 I sit down with Abigail Rine Favale for nearly 3 hours to discuss her unlikely conversion, why she no longer identifies as a feminist, and postmodernism. So much postmodernism. Enjoy! To support me on Patreon (Thank you!): https://patreon.com/mattfradd To follow Abigail on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AbigailFavale/ Get Abigail's book (use promo code "deep" for %40 off): https://wipfandstock.com/into-the-dee... To follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd To follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/ To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd/
Watch the next Matt Fradd Show here (click "set a reminder") this Friday at 8pm EST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=932&v=6MfsHlJ1I6E If you've never listened to Pints With Aquinas, today's episode is a GREAT place to begin. In today's episode I'll share with you 5 contributions Aquinas made to metaphysics. Please consider supporting me on Patreon (Thank you!) here: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd
Today we talk all about Mary, the Mother of God. Enjoy! Please support me (thanks!) at Patreon.com/mattfradd THE MOTHER OF CHRIST The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body. Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.
Many of you have asked me to interview Lizzie Reezay—who has well over 200,000 subscribers on Youtube! Well, I heard you, and did just that. We talk about what it was like converting from Protestantism to Catholicism in such a public way. Learn more about Lizzie here. See her Youtube channel here.
Today I'm joined around the bar table by Dr. Jennifer Frey to discuss happiness. What is it? How can we get it? Is it possible to have it perfectly in this life? We take a look at how happiness and virtue are connected and see what Aristotle, Boethius, and Aquinas have to say on the matter. Here's the part in the Summa where Aquinas lists and explains what ultimately won't make us happy. Check out Dr. Frey's podcast, Sacred and Profane Love here. Enjoy the work I'm doing? Please consider supporting me on Patreon!
Today I chat with Fr. James Brent O.P. about that very interesting line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church from St. Athanasius, "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (CCC 460). Enjoy! Pints With Aquinas is fully fan funded. Please consider becoming a patron here.
Today I sit down with theoretical particle physicist, Stephen Barr to discuss God, the Big Bang, and the Multiverse. Enjoy the show? Please consider supporting Pints With Aquinas here. Check out the Society of Catholic Scientists here. Get Dr. Barr's book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith here. Learn more at Pints With Aquinas here.
Matt Fradd sits down with Dr. Paul Thigpen to discuss a whole host of interesting things: how he became an atheist at the age of 12; why he gave his life to Christ; his encounters with the Devil, and the current crisis in the Catholic Church. To support me on Patreon (Thank you!): https://patreon.com/mattfradd To follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd To follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/ To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd/
Today we're joined around the bar table by Dr. John Cuddeback, philosopher at Christendom College, to discuss the importance and beauty of friendship. Please support Pints With Aquinas on Patreon here. Follow me on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. See more at our website, Pints With Aquinas --- Check out Dr. Cuddeback's book, True Friendship: Where Virtue Becomes Happiness Also, see Dr. Cuddeback's website here.
Today I share with you 7 reasons I love Thomas Aquinas and you should to. To support me on Patreon (Thank you!): https://patreon.com/mattfradd To follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd To follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/ To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd/ To watch me on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4JeqYB1QN6f1h_bzmEng/featured See previous episodes: http://pintswithaquinas.com
Thanks y'all. Get Advent With Aquinas: Reflections on the Incarnation and Birth of Christ by becoming a patron here. Vote Pints With Aquinas as the best Catholic podcast here! --- Be sure to checkout https://lovegoodculture.com/pints/ and their amazing podcast, https://lovegoodculture.com/podcast/ Cool? Have a good one y'all.
Please become a Patron of Pints With Aquinas here. In today's episode of Pints With Aquinas we're joined around the bar table by Dr. David Bertaina to discuss how to evanelize Muslims. We take a look at a lesser known work of Thomas' called, in English, Reasons for the Faith Against Muslim Objections to the Cantor of Antioch Which, btw, I just paid to have turned into an audiobook. Patrons, have at it. It's free for y'all.
Hey all, For the next 2 weeks we're doing a promotion. If you become a $10 or more patron of Pints With Aquinas here, I'll send you all that other free stuff AND I'll send you a limited edition Thomas Aquinas magnet for your car ... AND I'll send you a super awkward private video message. --- Today I interview Dr. Brant Pitre. Here's a bit about him: Dr. Brant Pitre is Distinguished Research Professor of Scripture at the Augustine Institute in Denver, CO. He earned his Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Notre Dame, where he specialized in the study of the New Testament and ancient Judaism. He is the author of several articles and books, including: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile (Baker Academic, 2005), Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist (Image Books, 2011), Jesus the Bridegroom (Image Books, 2014), Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), and The Case for Jesus (Image, 2016). Dr. Pitre is an extremely enthusiastic and engaging speaker who lectures regularly across the United States. He has produced dozens of Bible studies on CD, DVD, and MP3, in which he explores the biblical foundations of Catholic faith and theology. He currently lives in Gray, Louisiana, with his wife Elizabeth, and their five children. --- Here's the entire article I read from today from Aquinas: Article 4. Whether Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing? Objection 1. It would seem that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine to posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever, according to Luke 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Therefore it seems that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing. Objection 2. Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according to Hebrews 10:1: "The Law has [Vulgate: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by God, according to Exodus 24:12: "I will give thee" two "tables of stone and the law, and the commandments which I have written." Therefore it seems that Christ also should have put His doctrine into writing. Objection 3. Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in darkness (Luke 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and to open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting His teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i) that "some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, so that we have to believe what others have written about Him. Especially do those pagans ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe to Him most excellent, but merely human, wisdom. These say that the disciples made out the Master to be more than He really was when they said that He was the Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all things were made." And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were prepared to believe whatever He might have written of Himself, but not what others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems that Christ should have Himself committed His doctrine to writing. On the contrary, No books written by Him were to be found in the canon of Scripture. I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should not commit His doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it is written (Matthew 7:29) that "He was teaching them as one having power." And so it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to write anything. For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers. Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which cannot be expressed in writing; according to John 21:25: "There are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Which Augustine explains by saying: "We are not to believe that in respect of space the world could not contain them . . . but that by the capacity of the readers they could not be comprehended." And if Christ had committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had no deeper thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface of the writing. Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner: Himself teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently teaching others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had written, His doctrine would have reached all immediately. Hence it is said of Wisdom (Proverbs 9:3) that "she hath sent her maids to invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however, that, as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought that Christ wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He worked miracles: which art is condemned by the Christian learning. "And yet they who claim to have read those books of Christ do none of those things which they marvel at His doing according to those same books. Moreover, it is by a Divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were, as it were, entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found them in several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder that the inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul was no disciple of His." Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says in the same book: "Christ is the head of all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when they put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no means must we say that He wrote nothing: since His members put forth that which they knew under His dictation. For at His command they, being His hands, as it were, wrote whatever He wished us to read concerning His deeds and words." Reply to Objection 2. Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs. But Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the spirit of life" (Romans 8:2), had to be "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 3:3). Reply to Objection 3. Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ, whom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art.
Pints With Aquinas is funded by listeners like you, support on Patreon here. Here's my previous episode on the problem of evil. Here's how Aquinas formulated the problem of evil: "It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist." A bit about my guest Eleonore Stump: Eleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University, where she has taught since 1992. She is also Honorary Professor at Wuhan University and at the Logos Institute, St. Andrews, and she is a Professorial Fellow at Australian Catholic University. She has published extensively in philosophy of religion, contemporary metaphysics, and medieval philosophy. Her books include her major study Aquinas (Routledge, 2003), her extensive treatment of the problem of evil, Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering (Oxford, 2010), and her far-reaching examination of human redemption, Atonement (Oxford, 2018). She has given the Gifford Lectures (Aberdeen, 2003), the Wilde lectures (Oxford, 2006), the Stewart lectures (Princeton, 2009) and the Stanton lectures (Cambridge, 2018). She is past president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the American Catholic Philosophical Association, and the American Philosophical Association, Central Division; and she is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
If you'd like to support me and all the work I'm doing on patreon please do that here. Learn more about Pints With Aquinas here. ... Today we discuss the virtue of studiousness and the vice of curiosity. Aquinas discusses in this in the Secunda secundae of the Summa (see below). Here are some articles discussing the sin of curiosity: A Monastic Vice For The Internet Age Curiosity As the Enemy of Wonder Here's what Aquinas wrote: The knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Corinthians 8:1, "Knowledge puffeth up," or because one uses the knowledge of truth in order to sin. On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of truth may be right or wrong. First, when one tends by his study to the knowledge of truth as having evil accidentally annexed to it, for instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "Some there are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about which they argue." On like manner, those who study to learn something in order to sin are engaged in a sinful study, according to the saying of Jeremiah 9:5, "They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they have labored to commit iniquity." Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways. First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says [Epist. xxi ad Damas]: "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls." Secondly, when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught, as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons. This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons." Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever mount towards immortal and abiding things." Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore it is written (Sirach 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of His works be not curious," and further on (Sirach 3:26), "For . . . the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity." - ST II-II Q. 167, A. 1.
Sup, please become a Patron of Pints With Aquinas here. Oh, and subscribe to my Youtube channel here. Today I interview Fr. Chris Pietraszko about what Aquinas had to say about anger (or wrath). Fr. Christopher is a priest in the diocese of London, Ontario, Canada. He devotes himself to on-going studies and an apologetic ministry. Check out Fr. Pietraszko's podcast, Fides et Ratio, here.
Here is the very first episode of The Matt Fradd Show (you should watch it here) in which I interview (for nearly 3 hours!) Dan Mattson, author of the book, Why I Don't Call Myself Gay. In it we discuss The Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality, why "gay" is an unhelpful thing to call people and how to respond to transgenderism. ... oh, and we also discuss Fr. James Martin and his approach to this whole issue. A BIG thanks to our two sponsors: Exodus 90. Check them out and use the promo code "matt" at checkout which will give you 10% off and let them know that I sent you. Covenant Eyes. The BEST accountability and filtering on the web. Seriously, if porn is an issue for you or if you have kids and don't want it to be a issue for them, you NEED Covenant Eyes. Use the promo code "mattfradd" to get a month free and so they know I sent you. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANEL HERE.
Become a patron of Pints With Aquinas here. Today on Pints With Aquinas I interview Fr. Gregory Pine about papal infallibility! Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. serves as the Assistant Director for Campus Outreach for the Thomistic Institute. Born and raised near Philadelphia, PA, he later attended the Franciscan University of Steubenville, studying mathematics and humanities. Upon graduating, he entered the Dominican Province of St. Joseph in 2010 and was ordained in 2016. “It was St. Thomas Aquinas who first introduced me to the Order, and by his prayers that I grew in knowledge and love of its saving mission and ultimately came to find my happiness in Order of Friars Preachers.” Learn more on Papal Infallibility here. --- Here's the section we read from the ST: I answer that, Wherever there are several authorities directed to one purpose, there must needs be one universal authority over the particular authorities, because in all virtues and acts the order is according to the order of their ends (Ethic. i, 1,2). Now the common good is more Godlike than the particular good. Wherefore above the governing power which aims at a particular good there must be a universal governing power in respect of the common good, otherwise there would be no cohesion towards the one object. Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church. Again, between a simple bishop and the Pope there are other degrees of rank corresponding to the degrees of union, in respect of which one congregation or community includes another; thus the community of a province includes the community of a city, and the community of a kingdom includes the community of one province, and the community of the whole world includes the community of one kingdom. ST Supp. Q. 40, A. 6. See more at PintsWithAquinas.com
Please support Pints With Aquinas here: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd See full transcript of today's who at: http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/aquinas-advice-on-how-to-order-your-life/ The prayer we read from today: Prayer for the Wise Ordering of One's Life (Written by Thomas Aquinas, tranlated by Paul Murray OP, from his excellent book Aquinas at Prayer: The Bible, Mysticism, and Poetry.) O merciful God, whatever is pleasing to you, may I ardently desire, wisely pursue, truly recognize, and bring to perfect completion. For the praise and glory of your name put order into my life, and grant that I may know what it is you require me to do, and help me to achieve whatever is fitting and necessary for the good of my soul. May my way, Lord, be yours entirely, upright and perfect, failing in neither prosperity nor adversity so that, in prosperity, I give you thanks, and in adversity serve patients, neither exalted in the former not dejected in the latter. May I not rejoice in anything unless it leads me to you, nor be saddened by anything unless it turns me from you. May I not desire to please or fear to displease anyone but you. May all passing things become worthless to me on your account, and all things that are yours be dear to me, and you, God, above all things. May all joy without you leave me tired and weary, And may I not desire anything apart from you. May all work that is done for you delight me, Lord, and all repose not centered on your presence be wearisome. Let me, my God, direct my heart to you often and let me grieve over my failure with determination to change. Make me, my God, humble without pretense, cheerful without frivolity, sad without dejection, mature without heaviness, quick-witted without levity, truthful without duplicity. Let me fear you without despair, and hope in you without presumption. Let me correct my neighbor without hypocrisy, and without pride edify him by word and example: obedient without contradiction, patient without murmuring. Give me, dearest God, a vigilant heart which no distracting thought can lure away from you. Give me a noble heart which no unworthy desire can ever debase. Give me an unconquered heart which no tribulation can fatigue. Give me a free heart which no violent temptation can enslave. Give me an upright heart which no perverse intention can hold fast. Grant me, Lord my God, intelligence in knowing you, diligence in seeking you, wisdom in finding you, conversation pleasing to you, perseverance in confidently waiting for you, and confidence in finally embracing you. Grant that as penance I may be afflicted with your hardships, As grace, make use along the way, of your favors, as glory, delight in your joys in the fatherland. amen
Hey all, thanks for listening to this bonus episode. Be sure to check out Kiernan's website to help you with your social media stuff at www.creatushouse.com Here's that amazing video Matt Walsh recorded on the Internet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wGMyL02_Fg
Please become a supporter of Pints With Aquinas at patreon.com/mattfradd Learn more at PintsWithAquinas.com Here's the transcript: 00:00 Welcome to Pints With Aquinas. My name's Matt Fradd. How you going? Yeah. Just so you know, in Australia you don't say how you doing, you how you going? How you going? Hey, how you going? If you could sit down over a pint of beer with Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we're gonna ask Aquinas about the angels, and in particular about guardian angels. Whether or not we have them. And if we do have them, when are they assigned? Before baptism, at baptism? Can we name our guardian angels? What does the church have to say about that, and if everyone has a guardian angel, did Jesus have a guardian angel? And lots else besides. Enjoy the show. 00:53 Welcome back to Pints With Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a bar stool, next to the angelic doctor to discuss the oddity and philosophy. Now, how many episodes have we done now, 120 something. Every episode, or almost every episode, I say angelic doctor, don't I? And maybe you've wondered why Thomas Aquinas was called the angelic doctor. Now there's two reasons that are usually given for this. The first is that, he lived a life of angelic purity in regards to chastity, but that also he wrote so beautifully and at great length on the holy angels. And we've done no episode on them yet. We shared, I shared an episode with you from Peter Kreeft, the talk he gave on the angels, which was excellent. If you wanna go hear that, go to pintswithaquinas.com. Just type in angels in the search bar and you can check that out. 01:47 But this is really fascinating stuff. So, just so you know, here's what I wanna get done today. I wanna talk about whether or not we actually have guardian angels, or whether or not that's just a nice thing people tell themselves. You know, but it's not really true. See what Thomas Aquinas has to say about that. And I wanna share with you 10 quick facts about the angels. Maybe we'll start there. And when I say facts, I'm mining all of these facts out of The Summa Theologica, where Aquinas speaks about the angels. We could do 20 episodes on the angels, and still not cover all that Aquinas had to say, but I thought it would be kind of cool to just kind of give you a brief overview. Here's what Aquinas has to say about the angels. And I think you're gonna find some of it really fascinating. 02:33 Okay, before I forget, too, next, well not next week. This week, I'm going to release an episode I recently did with Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire. I told you this was coming. I released it for my Patrons a couple of weeks ago, and all of them told me to release it to the public, so this week you are going to get an episode of me and Matt Walsh discussing everything from being hyperbolic on social media to Pope Francis and the current scandal, and even Russian Literature, and his new job at The Daily Wire. We talk about a lot of things, so, it's not really Aquinas related, but we do talk about kind of faith, and culture, and these sorts of things. Matt Fradd: 03:14 So, if you wanna make sure you hear that episode, which of course is for free by the way, you don't have to go anywhere else. It'll come out on your feed this week. You have to subscribe. So if you listen to the show on iTunes, if you listen to it wherever you listen to it, because sure to subscribe. That way you'll be sure you don't miss it. All right? So look out for that one as well. What else do I wanna say to you? I don't know. How you going? You doing all right? Oh, Patrons. I wanna say a big thanks to all you Patrons. You know, I'm releasing these Vodka with Dostoyevsky videos just for you, right? So, it's been cool to get all your feedback, but just in case you're a Patron and you've missed it, we're releasing one a week. We're doing seven episodes and I discuss with you awesome things that I've learned from the Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, and it's kind of fun. So, be sure to check that out at patreon.com/mattfradd if you haven't already. Matt Fradd: 04:07 All right, let's jump into today's topic. As I say before, we will look exactly at what Aquinas had to say on the guardian angels. I wanna read these 10 facts to you. We'll just go through them one by one and quite briefly. As I say, some of them I think will shock you. All right, so number one, it's probably important to know what angels are, don't you think? What are they? Because I think one of the reasons we find it difficult to take angels seriously, it's not because as faithful Christians we don't believe in angels. I mean, we know they're in sacred scripture, all right. It's just that our kind of modern society or different corners of our society have kind of laid claim to them haven't they? Matt Fradd: 04:50 So you walk by these New Age stores and they talk about angels, and there's books on angels, and encounters with angels and they don't have much to do with Christianity at all, and so, for that reason, we can tend to associate them with say, the New Age movement. But then on the other side, sometimes there's like all of these like really syrupy sweet imagery that we think of, when you think of angels. That classic image of that big angel leading those two chubby kids across a rickety bridge, and she's wearing like a nightgown of something. It looks like a she you know, and you're like, "Come on, man. You're supposed to be a guardian angel. No one's afraid of you. At least make you look epic." Can we make the angels look epic? I think the angels, I mean obviously there's some beautiful images of the angels. I'm gonna put some up at the show notes at pintswithaquinas.com so you can see them. I love the sort of the Eastern iconography of the angels. They tend to be a lot more, I don't know, I think awesome. Matt Fradd: 05:49 Anyway, okay, so I think that's why we don't think a lot of the angels. But, let's look at some of the facts about angels. Some of the things Aquinas teaches us about angels, and of course this isn't original to him, but he thinks these things through. So, the first thing you should know about angels is, you should know what they are. They are intellectual substances, not united to bodies. All right, so you could think of like the brute beasts are bodies, but are not intellectual substances. You and me are intellectual substances united to bodies, and the angels are one step higher, right. They are intellectual substances, not united to bodies. The second thing to note is that since an angel is just a form, so you know you and I are a combination of form and matter, huh? Angels are just form. Well, what's form? Well form, this is a metaphysical concept. By the way at pintswithaquinas.com there's a free ebook you might wanna check out, if you wanna understand Aquinas' Aristotelian metaphysical lingo, okay? But form, just basically means the essential nature of a thing. The essential nature of ... a form is that which specifies a thing to be this rather than that. Okay? So because of that, Aquinas says that, "Every angel is a unique species." So, when we say angels, when we refer to the angels, we're not using it as a name of a species, like when we say dogs, a little dog or lion. Because again, each angel is a unique species. Instead, we're using it the way we refer to genus. So when you say, not dog or lioness, you say animal. And then under animal you have these unique species or tree, and then you have different species of tree. So that's cool. Matt Fradd: 07:50 Here's the third fact. Well, let me phrase it as a question. When were the angels created? Were they created before the world, or at the same time as the world? What do you think? Before the world, or at the same time, as well this is really a matter of theological speculation, because the fathers of the church were divided on this. Certain fathers like St. Gregory Nazianzen thought that they were created before the world. Thomas sides with St. Jerome, who says that the angels were created at the same time as the corporeal world. And the reason for this I think is, he argues that the angels, they're part of the same universe that we are, right? Though they are invisible creations. So, since they're part of the same creation, it's reasonable to suppose that they were created together with the rest of creation. That's how Aquinas argues. Matt Fradd: 08:48 The fourth thing, now this might get a little complicated. So, I'll got through it but then I'll throw up a little table of something or other at pintswithaquinas.com in the show notes so you can see this for yourself. And this has to do with the hierarchy of angels. This is something that Aquinas I think, draws from pseudo Dionisius. The idea and I'm sure you've heard it, is that there are nine choirs of angels which are divided into three in each order. So you've got like the highest order, the middle order, and the lowest order of angels. And you might be tempted to think, well why on earth is that necessary? Like why not just say that they're all angels? And we did talk about this in a previous episode, having to do with whether or not we can talk about God, and what we can say about God, hey. And I was saying, and since Thomas says that, "Since we can't know God directly, we have to know him through creatures." Matt Fradd: 09:47 And that's why there's just so many types of creatures. Because different creatures tell us something different about God in a way, hey. It would be like if you were trying to study a particular artist, and I said would you like one painting of this artist to study, so you can learn about him, or would you like an entire gallery? You would say, "I want the gallery." Why? Because it would tell you more about the artist. And in a similar way, if all you knew was say, human beings, you would know something about God, right? But if you had everything from slugs to bald eagles, to kangaroos for some weird reason, and whatever else besides. Like dinosaurs. These things speak about God in different ways and so we can know more about God. This is what Aquinas was sort of the hierarchy of being. Is that some beings have more being than other beings. Matt Fradd: 10:43 And so, this is why we should think that it's just like a moment ago, you've got brute beasts who were just body. You've got us who are kind of intelligence and body, and then you've got angels who are just intelligence. This also kind of goes, theirs a hierarchy in the angels as well. So, let me go through this real quickly, okay, so let me just say what the nine are. Seraphim. You've probably heard these words, right? Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. So, the highest order Aquinas says are, "Those who contemplate the idea of things in God himself." And this order is most closely related to God. Has the most closest relations with him. Matt Fradd: 11:31 So, the Seraphim are most closely united to God. They sing perpetual praises around his throne. Then you have the Cherubim who know the divine secrets through God himself. Then you have the Thrones, who receive judgements from God and pass them onto the second hierarchy. All right, so that's the first hierarchy. Second hierarchy or the middle order are those angels which contemplate the idea of things in universal causes, and are involved in governing. So, these three in the middle order are Dominations, Virtues, and Powers. Dominations appoint things that are to be done. The Virtues, not moral virtues, right, these type of angels, carry out what is to be done. And then the Powers decide how what has been commanded will be carried out by others, those beneath them. Matt Fradd: 12:28 And that brings us to the lowest order. The third hierarchy. And this, the lowest order of angels are, what they do is they do is they contemplate the idea of things in their application to particular effects, and they execute God's work in the world. If this is going by way too fast, way too soon, good. It should be, because this gets pretty complicated, but you know you could ... Anyway, let's keep going. So the Principalities act as rulers, presiding over the government. Matt Fradd: 13:00 The principalities act as rulers presiding over the government of peoples and kingdoms of the Earth. The archangels, pretty crazy, hey, to think that archangels are second to lowest on the totem pole of these different choirs of angels? The archangels, and you know what they do, what do they do? What do archangels do? That's right. Sorry. It's like those kids shows where: Hey, what's two plus two? That's right! I've been watching way too many kids movies. Okay, anyway, archangels, they announce to men and women great things above the power of reason, like when the archangel Gabriel came to Mary. Matt Fradd: 13:45 Then finally, we have angels. These are those who announce to men small things within the limits of reason. Again, very complicated. Aquinas gets into this a great deal. I just wanted to give you a brief run over of this stuff in case you were curious what was meant by the nine choirs of angels. Well, that's what's meant by it. Matt Fradd: 14:06 All right, let's crank through the rest of these here. Number five … No, is it number five or number six? Oh, my goodness. Yeah, number five. How do angels communicate with each other, you might be thinking? Do they communicate with each other? What does Aquinas have to say on that? Well, you and I communicate with symbols, right, such as words and gestures? Words and gestures, what do they do? They communicate thoughts and conceptions. Matt Fradd: 14:33 Well, angels can't do this, since they're incorporeal, and they don't know things by sensible science like we do. Thomas says that they can communicate to each other, and the way they do that is by manifesting their thoughts. They direct their thoughts to another by their will, and in so doing, communicate. Here's a quote from Aquinas, "The concept of one angels is made known to another, and this way, one angel speaks to another, for to speak to another only means to make known the mental concept to another." So if that's the definition to speak, right? This is how he's defining it here. If speaking to another means making known the mental concept to another, and that's what we do as incorporeal beings, but we do it differently, well then yeah, angels can do that too. So they do speak to each other, even though they don't have bodies. All right, so that was five. This is six: Where are the angels? Where are they? Now that might sound like a silly question, because you're saying, "You just said they're incorporeal, so they're nowhere, right?" Well no, they're not nowhere. Aquinas says they are where they are active. They are where they are active. Matt Fradd: 15:53 Seventh thing that Aquinas makes a big deal about, which might seem kind of humdrum to you, since you're the beneficiary of all of this previous wisdom and thinking through of these things, but all the angels were created originally good. All the angels were created originally good, so God doesn't make junk. God doesn't make things evil, all right? Matt Fradd: 16:15 The eighth thing is, you might say, "Well, do angels move?" Well, Aquinas says that they can and do move. So although they aren't in space, as we just talked about, they are present wherever they are active. Thomas says that they can move, and in two ways. They can move continuously or discontinuously. Continuously is how we would move, through all the points of intervening space, but they can also move discontinuously, here and then there, without moving like we think of moving. Matt Fradd: 16:56 That leads us to point number nine. You might say, "How fast do they move?" Well, asking how fast an angel moves, or how long it takes them to move, is like asking how long it takes to form a thought. Aquinas says, "Angels can move as quick as thought." If you think of three different locations you've been in, so for me, I think of my home in south Australia, excuse me, home in south Australia. I think of Rome, Italy, I think of San Diego. Boom, boom, boom. Done. That's how quickly they can move. Matt Fradd: 17:26 All right. The 10th and final point which I found interesting has to do with the devil's sin. We know God didn't create any angel's evil, and so that lucifer was originally created just like the rest of the angels. What was his sin? Well, I've heard people say things like, "Well, it's that he wanted to be God," or, "He didn't want to be subject to God," right? He didn't want to be subject to God. Matt Fradd: 17:56 Well, that's not strictly true, since if that happened, if lucifer wasn't subject to God, he would cease to exist, since all things depend upon God for their existence, right? All other beings, apart from God, are contingent upon Him for their existence. Only He exists in and through Himself. That's something Aquinas says. What was his sin? Thomas says that he wanted to be like God by seeking something that's proper to God alone. All right, well what's that? Mainly to possess beatitude by virtue of his nature, and not from the grace of a higher being. Matt Fradd: 18:47 In other words, he wanted beatitude by his own power. He didn't want to receive it as a gift. Those are just 10 quick facts on the angels. By the way, that last point, I think, is really interesting, you know? I sometimes think about this around Christmas time, where people give a lot to charity, and not just to charity, but hopefully to individual people. We really like to be the ones who are giving gifts to others, and sometimes we really don't like receiving gifts from other people. We all know what this is like. Matt Fradd: 19:23 When you've gotten a gift for your friend on Christmas or something like that, or an anniversary, and they've gotten you a gift, and theirs is superior to yours. Even if the other person doesn't care in the slightest that what you got them was some sort of homemade something, and they got you like an iPad, I don't know, it bothers you sometimes. It bothers you because of your pride, right? We don't like feeling indebted to people. We don't like receiving charity. We like being the ones to give it. Matt Fradd: 19:56 I'm gonna give to the homeless, you know? But if a homeless tries to give to me, or if somebody would look to me and my family, and say, "Hey, it's clear that you guys are in need, so I want you to know that I've rallied a few of us friends around, and we're gonna do this for you," you can see how sometimes you might be embarrassed by that, right, humiliated by that. But that's pride. That's like the devil's sin, who didn't want to want to receive beatitude from a higher being, but wanted to attain it himself. Pride was the sin, certainly, that brought down satan. Matt Fradd: 20:27 All right, let's look at what Aquinas has to say about guardian angels. As I said earlier, sometimes you hear these things, you see pictures of angels, and you think this is probably just like folklore, right? Like this is something, it's a nice thought that maybe developed within catholic spirituality, but it's not actually true. Well, the answer is that Aquinas says it absolutely is true. It absolutely is true that each person is assigned a single guardian angel. Matt Fradd: 20:55 Aquinas talks about this in the [inaudible 00:20:59] question 113, article two. It's quite a short article, so let's read through it. Let's read the objections, okay? Aquinas is gonna say eventually that these three objections are wrong. Here's the first objection: Matt Fradd: 21:14 It would seem that each man is not guarded by an angel, for an angel is stronger than a man. But one suffices to guard many men, therefore much more can one angel guard many men. That's a really good point, hey? It's like why does each person need an individual guardian angel? No, that's not true. You could just have one who could be in 5000 or something, or 1000, or 100 even, because angels are a lot stronger than men. Matt Fradd: 21:45 The second objection: Further, the lower things are brought to God through the medium of the higher. But as all the angels are unequal, there is only one angel between whom, and men there is no medium. Therefore, there is only one angel who immediately guards men. Fair enough. Matt Fradd: 22:12 The third objection: Further, the greater angels are deputed to the greater offices. Deputed means assigned. Excuse me. But it is not a greater office to keep one man more than another, since all men are naturally equal. Since therefore of all the angels one is greater than another, it seems that different men are not guarded by different angels. Those are the three objections. Matt Fradd: 22:45 Aquinas says, "On the contrary." He quotes Jerome here. "Great is the dignity of souls, for each one to have an angel deputed to guard it from its birth." That's the authority he relies on before the [respondio 00:23:03], in which he says, "Each man has an angel guardian appointed to him. This rests upon the fact that the guardianship of angels belongs to the execution of divine providence concerning men. But God's providence acts differently as regards men, and as regards other corruptible creatures, for they are related differently to … sorry, incorruptibility. For men are not only incorruptible in the common species, but also in the proper forms of each individual, which are the rational souls, which cannot be said of other incorruptible things. Matt Fradd: 23:47 Now, it is manifest that the providence of God is chiefly exercised towards what remains forever, whereas as regards things which pass away the providence of God acts so as to order their existence to the things which are perpetual. Thus, the providence of God is related to each man, as it is to every genus or species of things corruptible. Matt Fradd: 24:12 But according to Gregory, the different orders are deputed to the different genera of things. For instance, the powers to coerce the demons, the virtues," remember these are the angels we talked about in the nine choirs, "to work miracles in things corporeal, while it is probable that the different species are presided over by different angels of the same order. Hence, it is also reasonable to suppose that different angels are appointed to the guardianship of different men." Matt Fradd: 24:48 Let's look at Aquinas' three objections. You remember the first one had to do with angels being much stronger than men, and therefore you wouldn't need one angel to every man. Aquinas says, "A guardian may be assigned to a man for two reasons. First, inasmuch as a man is an individual, and thus to one man, one guardian is due, and sometimes several are appointed to guard one. Secondly, inasmuch as a man is part of a community, and thus one man is appointed as guardian of a whole community, to whom it belongs to provide what concerns one man in his relation to the whole community, such as external works, which are sources of strength or weaknesses to others. Matt Fradd: 25:33 But angel guardians are given to men also as regards invisible, and occult things, conferring the salvation of each one in his own regard. Hence, individual angels are appointed to guard individual men." Matt Fradd: 25:50 The second objection, this having to do with there needing to be only one angel that mediates between men and God, he says, "All the angels of the first hierarchy are as to some …" Matt Fradd: 26:00 Of the first hierarchy are, as to some things, in ... This is, remember, the top, the highest order, the Seraphim, sharer of thrones. Enlightened. These guys, these chaps, sorry, are enlightened by God directly, says Aquinas. But as to other things, only the superior are directly enlightened by God, and these reveal them to the inferior. And, the same also applies to the inferior orders. For a lower angel is enlightened, in some respect, by one of the highest. And in other respects, by the one immediately above him. Thus, it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately. And yet, has other angels beneath him who he enlightens. Matt Fradd: 26:48 Let me just pause here and say something I perhaps should've mentioned earlier. So in the Summa, when Aquinas talks about how angels communicate, he says that they can speak, and they can enlighten, but only the higher angels can enlighten the lower angels. The lower angels cannot enlighten the higher angels. And so, when an angel enlightens a lower angel, he says, "It's like they strengthen their capacity to receive something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to receive." And so Aquinas is saying here, "Just like the lower angels are enlightened by the higher angels, so man, who is beneath angles in the hierarchy of being, can be enlightened by even the lower angels." Matt Fradd: 27:34 The third objection, what was this one, let me just go over this again. The whole point of the third objection was, it seemed that different men are not guarded by different angels. Aquinas says, "Although men are equal in nature, still inequality exists among them. According as divine providence orders some to the greater, and others to lesser things." According to Sirach 33:11 through 12, "Which with much knowledge the Lord hath divided them and diversified their ways. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he cursed and brought low." And then Aquinas says, "Thus it is a greater office to guard one man than another." Matt Fradd: 28:20 Now here's an interesting question. You'll say, "Well, if every man and woman is given a guardian angel and Jesus was a man, wouldn't it follow that Jesus had a guardian angel?" And actually this is something that has been held by Christians. In fact, a pious Christian opinion is that it was Michael the Archangel who fulfilled this role. Which is pretty humbling for him. We obviously see in scripture, that angels minister to Jesus, right? Again, isn't it amazing when you read the Holy Scriptures, you see how important the angels are in the life of Christ and in the life of Christians, you know in the book of Acts. And yet very often, we neglect our guardian angel. Matt Fradd: 29:05 In the Navarre Bible Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, it answers the question, did Jesus have need of the help of the angels. And it says, "The Creator of all who is never in need of the help of his creatures, is ready to accept as man, consolation and help from those who can give it." Isn't that beautiful? How humbling is that? Matt Fradd: 29:32 I think another question people have is, can they give their guardian angel a name? You know, you hear people say this. The answer, you might be, maybe you'll think ... well, the answer's no. Well, one of the reasons is your guardian angel already has a name. So, he doesn't need you calling him Maximus, or Gregory, or whatever. He has a name. The church does actually though direct us not to do this. In the Directory of Popular Piety and the Liturgy, that's the name of it. Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, here's what the church says, "Popular devotion to the holy angels which is legitimate and good, can however also give rise to possible deviations. The practice of assigning names to the holy angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael, and Michael, whose names are contained in Holy Scripture." Matt Fradd: 30:29 I think another question people have is, do we get our guardian angels at baptism? This is of course a theological speculation, but the common opinion among Catholic theologians is no, and that even non-baptized people have guardian angels. You can read more about that at Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he talks about it there. Matt Fradd: 30:55 You know, something I haven't pointed out until now, which I probably should have, is that again, this isn't just sort of theological speculation run amok when we talk about guardian angels. This is something that Christ himself speaks about. Not only do we see him being ministered to by the angels, but he talks about this in Matthew 18:10. He says, "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that in Heaven, their angels always behold the face of my Father, who is in Heaven." So, it seems that when Christ says this, he's not just pointing out that these angels are perpetually in the presence of God, but that he's saying that our guardian angels have access to the Father, and can intercede for us. Also should need to be noted, the idea that people have guardian angels is the church fathers talk about this. Basil, and Jerome, and of course Thomas Aquinas, who is not a church father incidentally, but yes, there you go. Matt Fradd: 31:58 Now, one final thing to point out, you might be wondering, well could it be the case that my guardian angel is a Seraphim? One who contemplates the ideas of God. The one highest to God, and the answer is no, it's not. The guardian angels, Aquinas says are on the lowest rank of the totem pole. So the lowest order is Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. So the Angels, this is below the Archangels, those who announce to men small things within the limits of reason, are from where we get the guardian angels. Matt Fradd: 32:31 Okay, as we wrap up here today, I wanna share a short little prayer with you that you might wanna memorize. I think many of us probably grew up learning that old prayer, "Angel of God, my guardian dear prayer." Which is a fine prayer, beautiful prayer. Here's a prayer I learnt since sort of going to an Eastern Catholic Church. I really like this prayer and I wanna share it with you. Just a reminder, in the show notes, I'm gonna be putting pictures of the angels for you to look at. I'll be putting prayers. I'll put that list of the hierarchy of angels, as well as Aquinas' text. So, go check it out so that you can get the kind of full experience of the show. Matt Fradd: 33:10 But here's the prayer, maybe we can pray it together and then we'll wrap up. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Oh, guardian angel, protector of my soul and body. To your care I have been entrusted by Christ. Obtain for me the forgiveness of the sins committed by me this day. Protect me from the snares of my enemy, that I may never more offend God by my sin. Pray for me, your sinful and unworthy servant, that through your help I may become worthy of the grace and mercy of the most Holy Trinity, and of the Mother of our Lord God, Jesus Christ, and of all the saints, Amen. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Matt Fradd: 33:53 Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Pints With Aquinas. Always great to have you listen. Do us a favor if you haven't already. Review the show on iTunes, and if you're not yet a Patron and you wanna see the cool gifts I give you in return for supporting the show for as little as a dollar a month, go to patrean.com/mattfradd, or go to pintswithaquinas.com and you can click donate there if you want. Also, by going to pintswithaquinas.com, you can follow us on Twitter, and Instagram. We've always got beautiful images that are being posted several times a week, giving you little bite size morsels of Thomas Aquinas. So if you're on Instagram you really wanna follow us at Pints With Aquinas. We've got a big Facebook group and all that. Matt Fradd: 34:31 So, if you're new to the show, and you're like, "How do I get plugged in with the community?" That's how you would do it. And of course, we have chapters around the country. Pints With Aquinas chapters. So you can go to pintswithaquinas.com, click chapters, see if there's a group in your area. If you wanna start one, you have to be a Patron of Pints With Aquinas, and just contact me over at Patreon, and we'll get you set up there. All right, God Bless, chat with you next week. Matt Fradd: 34:53 Oh, golly, before I forget. Look, hey every, feels like every week I get questions from people. "What's that song that you play at the beginning and the end of the shows. That's song?" Not that anybody has ever spoken like that in the history of mankind. But anyway, that song is my sister, Emma Fradd. That's who you're hearing right now. You Patrons, Patrons should know about her. I've done some exclusive shows with her on Patreon. She's in a new band, she's been in this band for a while, now. Heaps Good Friends, look them up. They were 14th most downloaded on Spotify for a while. Heaps Good Friends, check her out. It's not Christian music although she is a solid Catholic. Hey, how about I do this for you? How about I let you rock out to Emma Fradd as we wrap up today's episode? All right, here you go.
Today I sit down with the one and only Karlo Broussard to discuss Aquinas' argument for God's existence from degrees of being. You're gonna love it. Remember! We're doing a contest this week. Three of you will win Karlo's new book Prepare The Way. To enter just link to this episode on Twitter and tell folks to take a listen. Be sure to use the hashtag, #PintsWithAquinas so we can see it. Get Karlo's new book here: https://shop.catholic.com/prepare-the-way-overcoming-obstacles-to-god-the-gospel-and-the-church/ Support Pints With Aquinas on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd Learn more at http://pintswithaquinas.com/
Show notes (as always) at PintsWithAquinas.com Please consider becoming a patron of PWA at Patreon.com/mattfradd Remember that Bible History podcast I was talking about? Subscribe here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bible-history/id1375094641?mt=2
Please support the show at Patreon.com/mattfradd Today I sit down with Dominican priest Fr. Nicancor Austriaco to discuss evolution, genesis and Adam and Eve. Fr. Nicanor Austriaco is a Catholic priest in the Order of Friars Preachers. Born in the Philippines, he earned his Ph.D. degree in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After completing his doctoral studies, he was a fellow of the International Human Frontier Science Program at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University College London. ... Seriously if I kept going you'd be reading longer than it took to listen to this podcast. He's a smart dude, okay? Show notes (as always) at PintsWithAquinas.com
Hey thomists, today I'm going to be reading a portion of Aquinas' commentary on Philippians. Get your PWA tee, sticker, coffee mug and more at https://teespring.com/shop/pints-with-aquinas-swag Please consider becoming a patron here: Patreon.com/mattfradd Show notes as aways at PintsWithAquinas.com
Today I'm joined by Fr Damian Ference to discuss epistemology (how we know stuff). Show notes: http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/how-do-we-know-stuff-thomas-epistemology-with-fr-damian-ference/ Please support PWA on Patreon: Patreon.com/mattfradd
Today's episode will help you navigate the Summa. At least, that's the plan. Please support PWA at Pateron.com/mattfradd Show notes - http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/how-to-understand-and-read-the-summa-theologiae/
Pints With Aquinas is a fully fan funded show. Please consider supporting here: https://www.patreon.com/pwa Get our new book on Aquinas' 5 ways here: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B079SQNPTX/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525116594&sr=8-1&keywords=fradd Here's what Aquinas said in the ST on the third way: The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.