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.
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!
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:
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
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?"
Thanks for listening!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!
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/
Go support my new book on Kickstarter here!
Please support PWA on Patreon (Thank you!!!) here.
Subscribe to my Youtube channel here.
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.
- 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
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.
To Listen to the rest of St. Thomas' meditations click here and support me for $10 or more a month on Patreon.
Once a patron, this link will give you the list of meditations.
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."
See the 3 options and vote here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/new-matt-fradd-25131402
Support me directly (instead of on Patreon): https://pintswithaquinas.com/donate/