Info

Pints With Aquinas

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!
RSS Feed
Pints With Aquinas
2017
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March


All Episodes
Archives
Now displaying: Page 1
Oct 17, 2017

Show notes at PintsWithAquinas.com 

Oct 9, 2017

Today I chat with Scott Hahn about how he was first introduced to Thomas Aquinas.

To get my new free book on Aquinas, click here: http://pintswithaquinas.com/

Oct 3, 2017

Shownotes at PintsWithAquinas.com

 

 

Sep 29, 2017

See show notes here: http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/what-would-thomas-aquinas-say-about-hugh-hefner/

Sep 26, 2017

This is the second part in a two part series we've done on homosexuality. Be sure to listen to last week's episode before this one.

Today we talk about terminology—why Daniel doesn't call himself 'gay'. We also respond to Fr. James Martin's new book, Building A Bridge.

---

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Jack Buss! ... You're the man, Jack.

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, David Young, Andrew Kener, Desirae Sifuentes, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, Tom Clark, Ben Blythe, Trevor Sorensen, Russell Potee III, James Governale, Benjamin Morris, and John Droesch.

You can support Pints With Aquinas here: Patreon.com/pwa

---

Here's what Aquinas had to say about homosexuality (among other things):

Wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice."

This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy."

Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality."

Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy."

Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

ST II-II, Q. 154, A. 11.

 

 

Sep 19, 2017

Today I'm joined by author Daniel Mattson to discuss homosexuality.

This is part 1. of our discussion so be sure to tune in next week to hear part 2.

---

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Jack Buss! ... You're the man, Jack.

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, David Young, Andrew Kener, Desirae Sifuentes, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, Tom Clark, Ben Blythe, Trevor Sorensen, Russell Potee III, James Governale, Benjamin Morris, and John Droesch.

You can support Pints With Aquinas here: Patreon.com/pwa

---

Here's what Aquinas had to say about homosexuality (among other things):

Wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice."

This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy."

Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality."

Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy."

Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

ST II-II, Q. 154, A. 11.

 

Sep 12, 2017

Today I chat with Aquinas about the third commandment, Keep holy the sabbath day.

 

Before I share Aquinas's text, a big thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Jack Buss! ... You're the man, Jack.

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, David Young, Andrew Kener, Desirae Sifuentes, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, Tom Clark, Ben Blythe, Trevor Sorensen, Russell Potee III, James Governale, Benjamin Morris, and John Droesch.

You can support Pints With Aquinas here: Patreon.com/pwa

---

Okay, here's what Aquinas wrote:


THE THIRD COMMANDMENT = “Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath Day.”

This is the Third Commandment of the law, and very suitably is it so. For we are first commanded to adore God in our hearts, and the Commandment is to worship one God: “You shall not have strange gods before Me.” In the Second Commandment we are told to reverence God by word: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” The Third commands us to reverence God by act. It is: “Remember that you keep holy the Sabbath day”. God wished that a certain day be set aside on which men direct their minds to the service of the Lord.

Reasons for this commandment

There are five reasons for this Commandment. The first reason was to put aside error, for the Holy Spirit saw that in the future some men would say that the world had always existed. “In the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying: Where is His promise or His coming? For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they are willfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, created by the word of God” [2 Pet 3:3-5]. God, therefore, wished that one day should be set aside in memory of the fact that He created all things in six days, and that on the seventh day He rested from the creation of new creatures. This is why the Lord placed this Commandment in the law, saying: “Remember that you keep holy the Sabbath day.” The Jews kept holy the Sabbath in memory of the first creation; but Christ at His coming brought about a new creation. For by the first creation an earthly man was created, and by the second a heavenly man was formed: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is worth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” [Gal 6:15]. This new creation is through grace, which came by the Resurrection: “That as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, so shall we also be in the likeness of His resurrection” [Rm 6:4-5]. And thus, because the Resurrection took place on Sunday, we celebrate that day, even as the Jews observed the Sabbath on account of the first creation.

The second reason for this Commandment is to instruct us in our faith in the Redeemer. For the flesh of Christ was not corrupted in the sepulchre, and thus it is said: “Moreover My flesh also shall rest in hope” [Ps 15:9]. “Nor will You let your holy one see corruption” [Ps 15:10]. Wherefore, God wished that the Sabbath should be observed, and that just as the sacrifices of the Old Law signified the death of Christ, so should the quiet of the Sabbath signify the rest of His body in the sepulchre. But we do not now observe these sacrifices, because with the advent of the reality and the truth, figures of it must cease, just as the darkness is dispelled with the rising of the sun. Nevertheless, we keep the Saturdays in veneration of the Blessed Virgin, in whom remained a firm faith on that Saturday while Christ was dead.

The third reason is that this Commandment was given to strengthen and foreshadow the fulfillment of the promise of rest. For rest indeed was promised to us: “And on that day God shall give you rest from your labor, from your vexation, and from the hard bondage, to which you had been subjugated” [Is 14:3]. “My people shall dwell in a peaceful land, in secure accommodation, and in quiet places of rest” [Is 32:18].

We hope for rest from three things: from the labors of the present life, from the struggles of temptations, and from the servitude of the devil. Christ promised this rest to all those who will come to Him: “Come to Me, all ye that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart; and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is sweet and My burden light” [Mt 11:28-30]

However, the Lord, as we know, worked for six days and on the seventh He rested, because it is necessary to do a perfect work: “Behold with your eyes how I have labored a little, and have found much rest to Myself” [Sir 51:35]. For the period of eternity exceeds the present time incomparably more than a thousand years exceeds one day.

Fourthly, this Commandment was given for the increase of our love: “For the corruptible body is a load upon the soul” [Wis 9:15]. And man always tends downwards towards earthly things unless he takes means to raise himself above them. It is indeed necessary to have a certain time for this; in fact, some do this continually: “I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall ever be in my mouth” [Ps 33:2]. And again: “Pray without ceasing” [1 Thes 5:17]. These shall enjoy the everlasting Sabbath. There are others who do this (i.e., excite love for God) during a certain portion of the day: “Seven times a day I have given praise to You” [Ps 118:164]. And some, in order to avoid being entirely apart from God, find it necessary to have a fixed day, lest they become too lukewarm in their love of God: “If you call the Sabbath delightful... then shall you delight in the Lord” [Is 58:13-14]. Again: “Then shall you abound in delights of the Almighty, and shall lift up your face to God” [Job 22:26]. And accordingly this day is not set aside for the sole exercise of games, but to praise and pray to the Lord God. Wherefore, St. Augustine says that it is a lesser evil to plough than to play on this day.

Lastly, we are given this Commandment in order to exercise works of kindliness to those who are subject to us. For some are so cruel to themselves and to others that they labor ceaselessly all on account of money. This is true especially of the Jews, who are most avaricious. “Observe the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it... that your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest, even as thyself” [19]. This Commandment, therefore, was given for all these reasons.

From what we should abstain on the Sabbath

“Remember that you keep holy (sanctify) the Sabbath day.” We have already said that, as the Jews celebrated the Sabbath, so do we Christians observe the Sunday and all principal feasts. Let us now see in what way we should keep these days. We ought to know that God did not say to “keep” the Sabbath, but to remember to keep it holy. The word “holy” may be taken in two ways. Sometimes “holy” (sanctified) is the same as pure: “But you are washed, but you are sanctified” [1 Cor 6:11]. (that is, made holy). Then again at times “holy” is said of a thing consecrated to the worship of God, as, for instance, a place, a season, vestments, and the holy vessels. Therefore, in these two ways we ought to celebrate the feasts, that is, both purely and by giving ourselves over to divine service.

We shall consider two things regarding this Commandment. First, what should be avoided on a feast day, and secondly, what we should do. We ought to avoid three things. The first is servile work.

Avoidance of Servile Work.—“Neither do any work; sanctify the Sabbath day” [Jer 17:22]. And so also it is said in the Law: “You shall do no servile work therein” [Lev 23:25]. Now, servile work is bodily work; whereas “free work” (i.e., non-servile work) is done by the mind, for instance, the exercise of the intellect and such like. And one cannot be servilely bound to do this kind of work.

When Servile Work Is Lawful.—We ought to know, however, that servile work can be done on the Sabbath for four reasons. The first reason is necessity. Wherefore, the Lord excused the disciples plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath, as we read in St. Matthew (xii. 3-5). The second reason is when the work is done for the service of the Church; as we see in the same Gospel how the priests did all things necessary in the Temple on the Sabbath day. The third reason is for the good of our neighbor; for on the Sabbath the Saviour cured one having a withered hand, and He refuted the Jews who reprimanded Him, by citing the example of the sheep in a pit (“ibid.”). And the fourth reason is the authority of our superiors. Thus, God commanded the Jews to circumcise on the Sabbath [Jn 7:22-23].

Avoidance of Sin and Negligence on the Sabbath.—Another thing to be avoided on the Sabbath is sin: “Take heed to your souls, and carry no burdens on the Sabbath day” [Jer 18:21]. This weight and burden on the soul is sin: “My iniquities as a heavy burden are become heavy upon me” [Ps 37:5]. Now, sin is a servile work because “whoever commits sin is the servant of sin” [Jn 8:34]. Therefore, when it is said, “You shall do no servile work therein,”[Lev 3:25]. it can be understood of sin. Thus, one violates this commandment as often as one commits sin on the Sabbath; and so both by working and by sin God is offended. “The Sabbaths and other festivals I will not abide.” And why? “Because your assemblies are wicked. My soul hates your new moon and your solemnities; they are become troublesome to me” [Is 1:13]

Another thing to avoid on the Sabbath is idleness: “For idleness has taught much evil” [Sir 33:29]. St. Jerome says: “Always do some good work, and the devil will always find you occupied” [Ep. ad Rusticum]. Hence, it is not good for one to keep only the principal feasts, if on the others one would remain idle. “The King’s honor loves judgment” [Ps 98:4 Vulgate], that is to say, discretion. Wherefore, we read that certain of the Jews were in hiding, and their enemies fell upon them; but they, believing that they were not able to defend themselves on the Sabbath, were overcome and killed [1 Mac 2:31-38]. The same thing happens to many who are idle on the feast days: “The enemies have seen her, and have mocked at her Sabbaths” [Lam 1:7]. But all such should do as those Jews did, of whom it is said: “Whoever shall come up against us to fight on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him” [1 Mac 2:41]

Do what on the Sabbath?

“Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.” We have already said that man must keep the feast days holy; and that “holy” is considered in two ways, namely, “pure” and “consecrated to God.” Moreover, we have indicated what things we should abstain from on these days. Now it must be shown with what we should occupy ourselves, and they are three in number.

The Offering of Sacrifice.—The first is the offering of sacrifices. In the Book of Numbers (18) it is written how God ordered that on each day there be offered one lamb in the morning and another in the evening, but on the Sabbath day the number should be doubled. And this showed that on the Sabbath we should offer sacrifice to God from all that we possess: “All things are Yours; and we have given You what we received from your hand” [1 Chron 29:14]. We should offer, first of all, our soul to God, being sorry for our sins: “A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit” [Ps 50:19]; and also pray for His blessings: “Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight” [Ps 140:2]. Feast days were instituted for that spiritual joy which is the effect of prayer. Therefore, on such days our prayers should be multiplied.

Secondly, we should offer our body, by mortifying it with fasting: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice”[Rm 12:1], and also by praising God: “The sacrifice of praise shall honor Me” [Ps 49:23]. And thus on these days our hymns should be more numerous. Thirdly, we should sacrifice our possessions by giving alms: “And do not forget to do good, and to impart; for by such sacrifice God’s favor is obtained” [Hb 13:16]. And this alms ought to be more than on other days because the Sabbath is a day of common joys: “Send portions to those who have not prepared for themselves, because it is the holy day of the Lord” [Neh 8:10].

Hearing of God’s Word.—Our second duty on the Sabbath is to be eager to hear the word of God. This the Jews did daily: “The voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath” [Acts 13:27]. Therefore Christians, whose justice should be more perfect, ought to come together on the Sabbath to hear sermons and participate in the services of the Church! “He who is of God, hears the words of God” [Jn 8:47]. We likewise ought to speak with profit to others: “Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but what is good for sanctification” [Eph 4:29]. These two practices are good for the soul of the sinner, because they change his heart for the better: “Are not My words as a fire, says the Lord, and as a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” [Jer 23:29]. The opposite effect is had on those, even the perfect, who neither speak nor hear profitable things: “Evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake, you just, and do no sin” [1 Cor 15:33]. “Your words have I hidden in my heart” [Ps 118:11]. God’s word enlightens the ignorant: “Your word is a lamp to my feet” [Ps 118:105]. It inflames the lukewarm: “The word of the Lord inflamed him” [Ps 114:19]

The contemplation of divine things may be exercised on the Sabbath. However, this is for the more perfect. “O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet” [Ps 33:9], and this is because of the quiet of the soul. For just as the tired body desires rest, so also does the soul. But the soul’s proper rest is in God: “Be for me a God, a protector, and a house of refuge” [Ps 30:3]. “There remains therefore a day of rest for the people of God. For he who has entered into his rest has also rested from his works, as God did from His” [Hb 4:9-10]. When I go into my house, I shall repose myself with her” (i.e., Wisdom) [Wis 8:16].

However, before the soul arrives at this rest, three other rests must precede. The first is the rest from the turmoil of sin: “But the wicked are like the raging sea which cannot rest” [Is 57:20]. The second rest is from the passions of the flesh, because “the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” [Gal 5:17]. The third is rest from the occupations of the world: “Martha, Martha, you art careful and art troubled about many things” [Lk 10:41].

And then after all these things the soul rests peacefully in God: “If you call the Sabbath delightful... then shall you delight in the Lord” [Is 58:13-14]. The Saints gave up everything to possess this rest, “for it is a pearl of great price which a man having found, hid it, and for joy went off and sold all that he had and bought that field” [Mt 13:44-46]. This rest in truth is eternal life and heavenly joy: “This is my rest for ever and ever; here will I dwell, for I have chosen it” [Ps 131:14]. And to this rest may the Lord bring us all!

Sep 5, 2017

Today we'll be discussing the 7 deadly sins. In particular I'll be drawing from a famous work of Pope St. Gregory the Great entitled The Books of the Morals: An Exposition on the Book of Blessed Job.

The work is often cited in St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae when he talks about vice and virtue

 

---

 

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Jack Buss! ... You're the man, Jack.

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, David Young, Andrew Kener, Desirae Sifuentes, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, Tom Clark, Ben Blythe, Trevor Sorensen, Russell Potee III, James Governale, Benjamin Morris, and John Droesch.

You can support Pints With Aquinas here: Patreon.com/pwa

Aug 29, 2017

Today we'll be discussing the 7 deadly sins. In particular I'll be drawing from a famous work of Pope St. Gregory the Great entitled The Books of the Morals: An Exposition on the Book of Blessed Job.

The work is often cited in St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae when he talks about vice and virtue.

 

---

 

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Jack Buss! ... You're the man, Jack.

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, David Young, Andrew Kener, Desirae Sifuentes, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, Tom Clark, Ben Blythe, Trevor Sorensen, Russell Potee III, James Governale, Benjamin Morris, and John Droesch.

You can support Pints With Aquinas here: Patreon.com/pwa

Aug 22, 2017

Today we'll ask Aquinas about whether or not Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Jack Buss! ... You're the man, Jack.

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, David Young, Andrew Kener, Desirae Sifuentes, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, Tom Clark, Ben Blythe, Trevor Sorensen, Russell Potee III, James Governale, Benjamin Morris, and John Droesch.

You can support Pints With Aquinas here: Patreon.com/pwa

---

Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.

 

ST III Q. 28, A. 3.

Aug 17, 2017

So lots of y'all have asked me to respond to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=10

This podcast does that.

---

PintsWithAquinas.com

Aug 15, 2017

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 ... huh? ... Huuuh?

---

Please support PWA here - Patreon.com/PWA

Also check out PintsWithAquinas.com

Aug 1, 2017

Today's text is taken from The Aquinas Catechism which is essentially homilies giving by Aquinas on the Nicene Creed. We'll take a look at 2 analogies Aquinas gives to explain the incarnation and 8 heresies regarding it.

Learn more at PintsWithAquinas.com

Please support the show here: https://www.patreon.com/pwa

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson.

Jul 25, 2017

In this episode of Pints With Aquinas I allow Trent to respond to some comments Ricky Gervais made recently in an interview he had with Stephen Colbert about God, atheism, and religion.

We also talk about Trent's new book which you can (and should!) get here: http://shop.catholic.com/why-we-re-catholic-our-reasons-for-faith-hope-and-love.html

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson (twitter.com/Matt317A).

Support Pints With Aquinas! https://www.patreon.com/pwa

Jul 18, 2017

Today I chat with my mate Sam Guzman of The Catholic Gentleman about 5 tips to drinking beer like a connoisseur. 

Here's an article Sam wrote on the matter.

https://www.catholicgentleman.net/2014/07/5-steps-to-tasting-beer-like-a-connoisseur/

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson (twitter.com/Matt317A).

Support Pints With Aquinas! https://www.patreon.com/pwa

Jul 11, 2017

Today we chat to Thomas about Limbo. What is it? Are Catholics bound to believe in it? If it does exist what do the souls there experience?

---

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson (twitter.com/Matt317A).

If you want to do that, you can do it here!

---

Whether those souls which depart with original sin alone, suffer from a bodily fire, and are punished by fire?

Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth sermon, which is entitled On Holy Baptism, distinguishes three classes of unbaptized persons: those namely who refuse to be baptized, those who through neglect have put off being baptized until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death, and those who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs. Of the first he says that they will be punished not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism; of the second, that they will be punished, though less severely than the first, for having neglected it; and of the last he says that "a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice, and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism." He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: "Because there is a mean between the two, since he who deserves not honor and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment, and on the other hand he who is not deserving of punishment is not for that reason worthy of glory and honor" [...] Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain. On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature

ST. Appendix I, I, I.

Whether these same souls suffer spiritual affliction on account of the state in which they are?

 

right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that "a wise man is not disturbed." Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid. [...] Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed [...] [T]he pain of punishment corresponds to the pleasure of sin; wherefore, since original sin is void of pleasure, its punishment is free of all pain. [...] [I]f one is guided by right reason one does not grieve through being deprived of what is beyond one's power to obtain, but only through lack of that which, in some way, one is capable of obtaining. Thus no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird, or for that he is not a king or an emperor, since these things are not due to him; whereas he would grieve if he lacked that to which he had some kind of claim [...] Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision; nay, rather will they rejoice for that they will have a large share of God's goodness and their own natural perfections.

 

ST. Appendix I, 2.

Jul 3, 2017

Today I chat with my pal, Emily Barry, about what Thomas has to say about friendship.

---

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson (twitter.com/Matt317A).

Support Pints With Aquinas! https://www.patreon.com/pwa

 

 

 

Jun 27, 2017

In today's episode of Pints With Aquinas we ask Thomas about knowledge and stuff (that sounded smart right? "and stuff").

---

Thanks to the following awesome people who are supporting Pints With Aquinas on Patreon:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, and Sean McNicholl.

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson (twitter.com/Matt317A).

If you want to do that, you can do it here!

---

On this point the philosophers held three opinions. For Democritus held that "all knowledge is caused by images issuing from the bodies we think of and entering into our souls," as Augustine says in his letter to Dioscorus (cxviii, 4). And Aristotle says (De Somn. et Vigil.) that Democritus held that knowledge is cause by a "discharge of images." And the reason for this opinion was that both Democritus and the other early philosophers did not distinguish between intellect and sense, as Aristotle relates (De Anima iii, 3). Consequently, since the sense is affected by the sensible, they thought that all our knowledge is affected by this mere impression brought about by sensible things. Which impression Democritus held to be caused by a discharge of images.

Plato, on the other hand, held that the intellect is distinct from the senses: and that it is an immaterial power not making use of a corporeal organ for its action. And since the incorporeal cannot be affected by the corporeal, he held that intellectual knowledge is not brought about by sensible things affecting the intellect, but by separate intelligible forms being participated by the intellect, as we have said above (Articles 4 and 5). Moreover he held that sense is a power operating of itself. Consequently neither is sense, since it is a spiritual power, affected by the sensible: but the sensible organs are affected by the sensible, the result being that the soul is in a way roused to form within itself the species of the sensible. Augustine seems to touch on this opinion (Gen. ad lit. xii, 24) where he says that the "body feels not, but the soul through the body, which it makes use of as a kind of messenger, for reproducing within itself what is announced from without." Thus according to Plato, neither does intellectual knowledge proceed from sensible knowledge, nor sensible knowledge exclusively from sensible things; but these rouse the sensible soul to the sentient act, while the senses rouse the intellect to the act of understanding.

Aristotle chose a middle course. For with Plato he agreed that intellect and sense are different. But he held that the sense has not its proper operation without the cooperation of the body; so that to feel is not an act of the soul alone, but of the "composite." And he held the same in regard to all the operations of the sensitive part. Since, therefore, it is not unreasonable that the sensible objects which are outside the soul should produce some effect in the "composite," Aristotle agreed with Democritus in this, that the operations of the sensitive part are caused by the impression of the sensible on the sense: not by a discharge, as Democritus said, but by some kind of operation. For Democritus maintained that every operation is by way of a discharge of atoms, as we gather from De Gener. i, 8. But Aristotle held that the intellect has an operation which is independent of the body's cooperation. Now nothing corporeal can make an impression on the incorporeal. And therefore in order to cause the intellectual operation according to Aristotle, the impression caused by the sensible does not suffice, but something more noble is required, for "the agent is more noble than the patient," as he says (De Gener. i, 5). Not, indeed, in the sense that the intellectual operation is effected in us by the mere impression of some superior beings, as Plato held; but that the higher and more noble agent which he calls the active intellect, of which we have spoken above (I:79:4) causes the phantasms received from the senses to be actually intelligible, by a process of abstraction.

According to this opinion, then, on the part of the phantasms, intellectual knowledge is caused by the senses. But since the phantasms cannot of themselves affect the passive intellect, and require to be made actually intelligible by the active intellect, it cannot be said that sensible knowledge is the total and perfect cause of intellectual knowledge, but rather that it is in a way the material cause.

ST I, Q. 84, A. 6.

---

Here's what Thomas said in response to what we now call idealism:

This is, however, manifestly false for two reasons.

First, because the things we understand are the objects of science; therefore if what we understand is merely the intelligible species in the soul, it would follow that every science would not be concerned with objects outside the soul, but only with the intelligible species within the soul; thus, according to the teaching of the Platonists all science is about ideas, which they held to be actually understood [I:84:1].

Secondly, it is untrue, because it would lead to the opinion of the ancients who maintained that "whatever seems, is true" [Aristotle, Metaph. iii. 5], and that consequently contradictories are true simultaneously. For if the faculty knows its own impression only, it can judge of that only. Now a thing seems according to the impression made on the cognitive faculty. Consequently the cognitive faculty will always judge of its own impression as such; and so every judgment will be true: for instance, if taste perceived only its own impression, when anyone with a healthy taste perceives that honey is sweet, he would judge truly; and if anyone with a corrupt taste perceives that honey is bitter, this would be equally true; for each would judge according to the impression on his taste. Thus every opinion would be equally true; in fact, every sort of apprehension.

Therefore it must be said that the intelligible species is related to the intellect as that by which it understands: which is proved thus. There is a twofold action (Metaph. ix, Did. viii, 8), one which remains in the agent; for instance, to see and to understand; and another which passes into an external object; for instance, to heat and to cut; and each of these actions proceeds in virtue of some form. And as the form from which proceeds an act tending to something external is the likeness of the object of the action, as heat in the heater is a likeness of the thing heated; so the form from which proceeds an action remaining in the agent is the likeness of the object. Hence that by which the sight sees is the likeness of the visible thing; and the likeness of the thing understood, that is, the intelligible species, is the form by which the intellect understands. But since the intellect reflects upon itself, by such reflection it understands both its own act of intelligence, and the species by which it understands. Thus the intelligible species is that which is understood secondarily; but that which is primarily understood is the object, of which the species is the likeness. This also appears from the opinion of the ancient philosophers, who said that "like is known by like." For they said that the soul knows the earth outside itself, by the earth within itself; and so of the rest. If, therefore, we take the species of the earth instead of the earth, according to Aristotle (De Anima iii, 8), who says "that a stone is not in the soul, but only the likeness of the stone"; it follows that the soul knows external things by means of its intelligible species.

ST I, Q. 86, A. 2.

Jun 20, 2017

Today I chat with Fr Ryan Mann about 15 (or so) stories about St Thomas Aquinas that we really hope are true. It's a fun episode. :)

---

Please support PWA here: www.patreon.com/pwa 

Learn more at www.pintswithaquinas.com 

---

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tim Davolt, Chris Reintjes, Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl,

James Boehmler, Laura Suttenfield, John Hipp, Kathleen Cory, Sarah Jacobs, Fernando Enrile, Travis Headly, Matthew Lafitte, Russell T Potee III, Jed Florstat, Phillip Hadden, and Katie Kuchar, and Matthew Anderson (twitter.com/Matt317A).

---

www.BenSound.com 

Jun 13, 2017

Please support Pints With Aquinas here: https://www.patreon.com/pwa

***

Today I'll be drawing from what Aquinas has to say about sex in the Summa Theologiae. Since I'll be drawing from multiple questions, I won't put up the text this week. But if you'd like to read through those questions yourself you can go here:

Supplemental section Questions 41,42,49.

 

***

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden

Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile

Jun 6, 2017

Today we discuss a letter Aquinas supposedly wrote to someone who asked how he could better acquire knowledge.

You'll love it.

---

Please support Pints With Aquinas here: https://www.patreon.com/pwa

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden

Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile

May 30, 2017

The feast of the ascension of Christ is in two days! For that reason I decided to ask St. Thomas about why Christ ascended into heaven and why it was profitable.

---

Please support Pints With Aquinas: www.Patreon.com/PWA

---

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile and Christopher Beckett.

 

May 23, 2017

I chat with Fr. Damian Ference about essence, existence, and why Thomas taught that God's essence is existence!

Buckle up.

---

Please support Pints With Aquinas here: https://www.patreon.com/pwa

---

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden

Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile

May 15, 2017

In this podcast I share a recent radio debate I participated in on the topic, is pornography harmful? After the podcast I share my reflections on the debate.

---

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden

Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile

 

Support Pints With Aquinas: https://www.patreon.com/pwa

 

---

If you haven't subscribed to Unbelieveable?, you can learn more about it here: https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable

May 9, 2017

Today we look at Aristotle's 4 causes and see how they apply to Aquinas' 5 proofs for the existence of God.

---

Support Pints With Aquinas: https://www.patreon.com/pwa

---

HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons:

Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden

Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile

1 2 3 4 Next »