To get access to all the meditations for Lent from St. Thomas Aquinas (as well as loads of other stuff) Become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd

Today I sit down with Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss how YOU can prepare for Lent! Buckle up!

---

Aquinas' 3 Reasons We Fast

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."

I sit down with the one and only Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss Thomism, indulgences, the Mother of God, the priesthood, and a whole lot more.

Today I talk about the Trinity ... and ... you know ... How not to be a heretic and stuff.

Aquinas on the Trinity

We must needs admit equality among the divine persons. For, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x, text 15,16, 17), equality signifies the negation of greater or less. Now we cannot admit anything greater or less in the divine persons; for as Boethius says (De Trin. i): "They must needs admit a difference [namely, of Godhead] who speak of either increase or decrease, as the Arians do, who sunder the Trinity by distinguishing degrees as of numbers, thus involving a plurality." Now the reason of this is that unequal things cannot have the same quantity. But quantity, in God, is nothing else than His essence. Wherefore it follows, that if there were any inequality in the divine persons, they would not have the same essence; and thus the three persons would not be one God; which is impossible. We must therefore admit equality among the divine persons.

The Athanasian Creed

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

Happy Feast Day of Thomas Aquinas. ... Two things we're doing to celebrate. 

1: 10 book giveaway going on at https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/

2. Post your best PWA pic on Twitter using #PintsWithAquinas

---

I recently got the chance to sit down with a world-famous Christian debater, Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig is a man to look up to in many ways; his debates with prominent atheists are are all over YouTube. It was a truly pleasure and a privilege to talk with him about proofs for God's Existence, the story of how he met Dawkins, Thomism, the best Christian and atheist philosophers today, and Pascal.

Looking for the Matt Fradd Show? Watch the Announcement Video!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOpTh...
---

Today I sit down with Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss and explain about 19 metaphysical terms Aquinas uses that will help you understand him more.

Learn more about our upcoming retreat here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/pwa-beer-bible-33174899

See my interview with Dr. William Lane Craig here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YURCo2Hdapo&t=1108s

I talk with Catholic speaker and regular guest of "Catholic Answers Live," Trent Horn, about evangelization, apologetics, and loads of other interesting topics.

Trent brings the thunder for this first episode under the new show title! We talk for almost four hours on a wide range of topics (including an interruption from my dog).

Trent is a heavyweight when it comes to his Catholic faith and few other apologists could preach the gospel as clearly and Gracefully as Trent.

For more information on the change watch, the Announcement Video below. Confused?

Watch the Announcement Video!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOpTh...

---

Thanks y'all!

Please consider supporting at: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd

Today I sit down with St. Francis De Sales to chat about how to be gentle with ourselves. I think you need to listen to this episode.

Today I'm joined around the bar table by my wife, Cameron Fradd. . . . You're welcome.

Today we talk about ... You ready:

• New Year's resolutions!
• Teresa of Avila
• Plans for The Matt Fradd Show
• Why Catholics should marry Catholics
• How to have a good sex life
• Advice from Jordan Peterson
• And much, much, much more

- Here's the book I said you should read: The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains

- Check out Cam's podcast Among The Lilies 

Today I sit down W/ Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss ... well ... him. Fr. Gregory Pine. The Man, The Myth, The Legend!

So...

Today I chat with Fr. Chris Pietraszko about the art of accompaniment. 

Enjoy!

Here is the text from Aquinas we read today:

“And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.”

It is not only necessary for Christians to believe in one God who is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things; but also they must believe that God is the Father and that Christ is the true Son of God. This, as St. Peter says, is not mere fable, but is certain and proved by the word of God on the Mount of Transfiguration. “For we have not by following artificial fables made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of His greatness. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, this voice coming down to Him from the excellent glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.’ And this voice, we heard brought from heaven, when we were with Him in the holy mount” [2 Pet 1:16]. Christ Jesus Himself in many places called God His Father, and Himself the Son of God. Both the Apostles and the Fathers placed in the articles of faith that Christ is the Son of God by saying: “And (I believe) in Jesus Christ, His (i.e., God’s) only Son”.

Errors

There were, however, certain heretics who erred in this belief. Photinus, for instance, believed that Christ is not the Son of God but a good man who, by a good life and by doing the will of God, merited to be called the son of God by adoption; and so Christ who lived a good life and did the will of God merited to be called the son of God. Moreover, this error would not have Christ living before the Blessed Virgin, but would have Him begin to exist only at His conception. Accordingly, there are here two errors: the first, that Christ is not the true Son of God according to His nature; and the second, that Christ in His entire being began to exist in time. Our faith, however, holds that He is the Son of God in His nature, and that he is from all eternity. Now, we have definite authority against these errors in the Holy Scriptures, Against the first error it is said that Christ is not only the Son, but also the only-begotten Son of the Father: “The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him:” [Jn 1:18]. And again the second error it is said: “Before Abraham was made, I AM” [Jn 8:58]. It is evident that Abraham lived before the Blessed Virgin. And what the Fathers added to the other [Nicene] Creed, namely, “the only-begotten Son of God,” is against the first error; and “born of the Father before all ages” is against the second error.

Sabellius said that Christ indeed was before the Blessed Virgin, but he held that the Father Himself became incarnate and, therefore, the Father and the Son is the same Person. This is an error because it takes away the Trinity of Persons in God, and against it is this authority: “I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me” [Jn 8:16]. It is clear that one cannot be sent from himself. Sabellius errs therefore, and in the [Nicene] Creed of the Fathers it is said: “God of God; Light of Light,” that is, we are to believe in God the Son from God the Father, and the Son who is Light from the Father who is Light.

Arius, although he would say that Christ was before the Blessed Virgin and that the Person of the Father is other than the Person of the Son, nevertheless made a three-fold attribution to Christ: (1) that the Son of God was a creature; (2) that He is not from eternity, but was formed the noblest of all creatures in time by God; (3) that God the Son is not of one nature with God the Father, and therefore that He was not true God. But this too is erroneous and contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. It is written: “I and the Father are one” [Jn 10:30]. That is, in nature; and therefore, just as the Father always existed, so also the Son; and just as the Father is true God, so also is the Son. That Christ is a creature, as said by Arius, is contradicted in the “Symbol” by the Fathers: “True God of true God;” and the assertion that Christ is not from eternity but in time is also contrary to the [Nicene] Creed: “Begotten not made;” and finally, that Christ is not of the same substance as the Father is denied by the [Nicene] Creed: “Consubstantial with the Father.”

The truth

It is, therefore, clear we must believe that Christ is the Only-begotten of God, and the true Son of God, who always was with the Father, and that there is one Person of the Son and another of the Father who have the same divine nature. All this we believe now through faith, but we shall know it with a perfect vision in the life eternal. Hence, we shall now speak somewhat of this for our own edification.

It must be known that different things have different modes of generation. The generation of God is different from that of other things. Hence, we cannot arrive at a notion of divine generation except through the generation of that created thing which more closely approaches to a likeness to God. We have seen that nothing approaches in likeness to God more than the human soul. The manner of generation in the soul is effected in the thinking process in the soul of man, which is called a conceiving of the intellect. This conception takes its rise in the soul as from a father, and its effect is called the word of the intellect or of man. In brief, the soul by its act of thinking begets the word. So also the Son of God is the Word of God, not like a word that is uttered exteriorly (for this is transitory), but as a word is interiorly conceived; and this Word of God is of the one nature as God and equal to God.

The testimony of St. John concerning the Word of God destroys these three heresies, viz., that of Photinus in the words: “In the beginning was the Word;” that of Sabellius in saying: “And the Word was with God;” and that of Arius when it says: “And the Word was God” [Jn 1:1].

But a word in us is not the same as the Word in God. In us the word is an accident; whereas in God the Word is the same as God, since there is nothing in God that is not of the essence of God. No one would say God has not a Word, because such would make God wholly without knowledge; and therefore, as God always existed, so also did His Word ever exist. Just as a sculptor works from a form which he has previously thought out, which is his word; so also God makes all things by His Word, as it were through His art: “All things were made by Him” [Jn 1:3].

Now, if the Word of God is the Son of God and all the words of God bear a certain likeness of this Word, then we ought to hear the Word of God gladly; for such is a sign that we love God. We ought also believe the word of God whereby the Word of God dwells in us, who is Christ: “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts” [Eph 3:17]. “And you have not His word abiding in you” [Jn 5:38]. But we ought not only to believe that the Word of God dwells in us, but also we should meditate often upon this; for otherwise we will not be benefitted to the extent that such meditation is a great help against sin: your words have I hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against You” [Ps 108:11]. Again it is said of the just man: “On His law he shall meditate day and night” [Ps 1:2]. And it is said of the Blessed Virgin that she “kept all these words, pondering them in her heart” [Lk 2:19]. Then also, one should communicate the word of God to others by advising, preaching and inflaming their hearts: “Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith” [Eph 4:29]. Likewise, “let the word of Christ dwell in you abundantly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another” [Col 3:16]. So also: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” [2 Tim 4:2]. Finally, we ought to put the word of God into practice: “Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” [James 1:22].

The Blessed Virgin observed these five points when she gave birth to the Word of God. First, she heard what was said to her: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you” [Lk 1:35]. Then she gave her consent through faith: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord” [Lk 1:38]. And she also received and carried the Word in her womb. Then she brought forth the Word of God and, finally, she nourished and cared for Him. And so the Church sings: “Only a Virgin nourished Him who is King of the Angels” [Fourth Responsory, Office of the Circumcision, Dominican Breviary.].

Today I sit down with Fr. Gregory Pine to discuss Balthasar's theological opinion that we may hope that all will be saved.

Please enjoy!

You can find Cameron's podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/among-the-lilies/id1149976656

Today I chat with Fr. Chris Pietraszko about the morality of eating meat. 

Would you please help us do what we're doing by becoming a patron (you get lots of cool gifts in return): https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd

Here's what Aquinas has to say:

Whether it is unlawful to kill any living thing?

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill any living thing. For the Apostle says (Romans 13:2): "They that resist the ordinance of God purchase to themselves damnation [Vulgate: 'He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, purchase themselves damnation.']." Now Divine providence has ordained that all living things should be preserved, according to Psalm 146:8-9, "Who maketh grass to grow on the mountains . . . Who giveth to beasts their food." Therefore it seems unlawful to take the life of any living thing.

Objection 2. Further, murder is a sin because it deprives a man of life. Now life is common to all animals and plants. Hence for the same reason it is apparently a sin to slay dumb animals and plants.

Objection 3. Further, in the Divine law a special punishment is not appointed save for a sin. Now a special punishment had to be inflicted, according to the Divine law, on one who killed another man's ox or sheep (Exodus 22:1). Therefore the slaying of dumb animals is a sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): "When we hear it said, 'Thou shalt not kill,' we do not take it as referring to trees, for they have no sense, nor to irrational animals, because they have no fellowship with us. Hence it follows that the words, 'Thou shalt not kill' refer to the killing of a man."

I answer that, There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal, and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3).

Now the most necessary use would seem to consist in the fact that animals use plants, and men use animals, for food, and this cannot be done unless these be deprived of life: wherefore it is lawful both to take life from plants for the use of animals, and from animals for the use of men. On fact this is in keeping with the commandment of God Himself: for it is written (Genesis 1:29-30): "Behold I have given you every herb . . . and all trees . . . to be your meat, and to all beasts of the earth": and again (Genesis 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you."

Reply to Objection 1. According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use."

Reply to Objection 2. Dumb animals and plants are devoid of the life of reason whereby to set themselves in motion; they are moved, as it were by another, by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others.

Reply to Objection 3. He that kills another's ox, sins, not through killing the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. Wherefore this is not a species of the sin of murder but of the sin of theft or robbery.

Today I talk all about the Jesus Prayer.

First, please consider becoming a patron and get free awesome stuff: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd

Here's the links I said I'd give you:

Way of a Pilgrim: https://www.amazon.com/Way-Pilgrim-Continues-His-ebook/dp/B076RY64G6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=way+of+a+pilgrim&qid=1574093867&sr=8-1

To get a nice prayer rope, write to my mate, Phillip Rolfes: phillipthemasterbeadsman@gmail.com to see photos of the kind of prayer ropes he makes see here: http://themasterbeadsman.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

To get my book on the Rosary: https://ascensionpress.com/products/pocket-guide-to-the-rosary

And here's that Byzantine prayer book I use: https://melkite.org/products-page/prayer-books/publicans-prayer-book

I recently had the opportunity to catch up with my long time friend, Jason Evert. We talk Chastity, Dating, Pornography, Birth Control, the AIDs Epidemic, Modesty, and how we can better love ourselves and others.
__
Check out Jason's new Book: https://chastity.com/products/the-dat...
The Chastity Project Website: https://chastity.com/
---

Today we look at what Aquinas had to say on the line from the creed, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth."

We also take a look at a section of the Summa in which Thomas gives three arguments against the belief in many gods.

Today I chat with Fr. Gregory Pine about the morality (or immorality) of pot.

Wow! Today me and Cammie (the Mrs.) answer your questions. Hope you enjoy ... even though it has exactly nothing to do with Thomas Aquinas.

Over the course of the next few months we are going to go through Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the apostles creed. 

Today we take a look Thomas' prologue in which Thomas discusses 4 goods that faith brings about. You can read text of that here.

Today I take a look at what Aquinas had to say about correcting our Christian friends (and leaders ... like the Pope and stuff ... {crickets} ...)

Please support our work here and get COOL rewards as a thank you!

Here's what I read from the ST II-II, Q. 33.

Article 1. Whether fraternal correction is an act of charity?

On the contrary, To correct the wrongdoer is a spiritual almsdeed. But almsdeeds are works of charity, as stated above (II-II:32:1). Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity.

I answer that, The correction of the wrongdoer is a remedy which should be employed against a man's sin. Now a man's sin may be considered in two ways, first as being harmful to the sinner, secondly as conducing to the harm of others, by hurting or scandalizing them, or by being detrimental to the common good, the justice of which is disturbed by that man's sin.

Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. Now to do away with anyone's evil is the same as to procure his good: and to procure a person's good is an act of charity, whereby we wish and do our friend well. Consequently fraternal correction also is an act of charity, because thereby we drive out our brother's evil, viz. sin, the removal of which pertains to charity rather than the removal of an external loss, or of a bodily injury, in so much as the contrary good of virtue is more akin to charity than the good of the body or of external things. Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity rather than the healing of a bodily infirmity, or the relieving of an external bodily need. There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another.

Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?

Objection 1. It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exodus 19:12): "The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned," [Vulgate: 'Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying he shall die.'] and (2 Samuel 6:7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.

Objection 2. Further, a gloss on Galatians 2:11, "I withstood him to the face," adds: "as an equal." Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.

Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 8) that "one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself." But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one's prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one's prelate.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: "Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger." But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.

Reply to Objection 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

Reply to Objection 3. To presume oneself to be simply better than one's prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, "being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger," as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above.