Pints With Aquinas has been around for 1 year!!!!
To celebrate, Peter Kreeft will share with us 12 quick stories about St. Thomas Aquinas.
—
Please support the show here: Patreon.com/PWA
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
Pints With Aquinas has been around for 1 year!!!!
To celebrate, Peter Kreeft will share with us 12 quick stories about St. Thomas Aquinas.
—
Please support the show here: Patreon.com/PWA
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
In today’s episode we chat with Thomas about Mary, and whether or not it’s appropriate to call her the Mother of God (instead of the Mother of Jesus or something).
In this episode I read from Aquinas’s Shorter Summa published by Sophia Institute Press.
—
Support Pints With Aquinas here: http://www.patreon.com/pwa
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
$20
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Russell T Potee
$10
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce
Ebitimi Alaibe
Michael Nugent, chair of Atheist Ireland, debates William Lane Craig, of Reasonable Faith, in University College Cork, Ireland, on March 21, 2017.
—
Learn more about William Lane Craig here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
Learn more about Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland here: http://atheist.ie/
See the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlcmVye4hM
—
Support Pints With Aquinas here:https://www.patreon.com/pwa
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
Today I chat with Dr. Kevin Vost about the 4 cardinal and 3 theological virtues.
—
Get Pints With Aquinas the book, here: https://www.amazon.com/Pints-Aquinas-Thoughts-Angelic-Doctor/dp/0692752404
Support Pints With Aquinas here: http://www.patreon.com/pwa
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
$20
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Russell T Potee
$10
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce
Ebitimi Alaibe
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
Today we discuss with Thomas the sin of sloth. What is it? When does it become a mortal sin?
—
Please consider supporting the show: www.patreon.com/pwa
Get the book: https://www.amazon.com/Pints-Aquinas-Thoughts-Angelic-Doctor/dp/0692752404
—
Sloth, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) is an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man’s mind, that he wants to do nothing; thus acid things are also cold. Hence sloth implies a certain weariness of work, as appears from a gloss on Psalm 106:18, “Their soul abhorred all manner of meat,” and from the definition of some who say that sloth is a “sluggishness of the mind which neglects to begin good.”
Now this sorrow is always evil, sometimes in itself, sometimes in its effect. For sorrow is evil in itself when it is about that which is apparently evil but good in reality, even as, on the other hand, pleasure is evil if it is about that which seems to be good but is, in truth, evil. Since, then, spiritual good is a good in very truth, sorrow about spiritual good is evil in itself. And yet that sorrow also which is about a real evil, is evil in its effect, if it so oppresses man as to draw him away entirely from good deeds. Hence the Apostle (2 Corinthians 2:7) did not wish those who repented to be “swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.”
Accordingly, since sloth, as we understand it here, denotes sorrow for spiritual good, it is evil on two counts, both in itself and in point of its effect. Consequently it is a sin, for by sin we mean an evil movement of the appetite, as appears from what has been said above (II-II:10:2; I-II:74:4).
…
mortal sin is so called because it destroys the spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us. Wherefore any sin which by its very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin by reason of its genus. And such is sloth, because the proper effect of charity is joy in God, as stated above (II-II:28:1), while sloth is sorrow about spiritual good in as much as it is a Divine good. Therefore sloth is a mortal sin in respect of its genus. But it must be observed with regard to all sins that are mortal in respect of their genus, that they are not mortal, save when they attain to their perfection. Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason: for we are speaking now of human sins consisting in human acts, the principle of which is the reason.
Wherefore if the sin be a mere beginning of sin in the sensuality alone, without attaining to the consent of reason, it is a venial sin on account of the imperfection of the act. Thus in the genus of adultery, the concupiscence that goes no further than the sensuality is a venial sin, whereas if it reach to the consent of reason, it is a mortal sin. So too, the movement of sloth is sometimes in the sensuality alone, by reason of the opposition of the flesh to the spirit, and then it is a venial sin; whereas sometimes it reaches to the reason, which consents in the dislike, horror and detestation of the Divine good, on account of the flesh utterly prevailing over the spirit. On this case it is evident that sloth is a mortal sin.
ST II-II, Q. 35, A. 1;3.
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce
Today we’ll take a look at one of Aquinas’ lesser known works, On Evil. In it, among other things, he addresses the question, can the demons read our thoughts. That’s what we’ll be discussing.
—
Support Pints With Aquinas here: patreon.com/pwa
—
Here is the Anima Christi prayer I shared:
Soul of Christ, sanctify me
Body of Christ, save me
Blood of Christ, inebriate me
Water from Christ’s side, wash me
Passion of Christ, strengthen me
O good Jesus, hear me
Within Thy wounds hide me
Suffer me not to be separated from Thee
From the malicious enemy defend me
In the hour of my death call me
And bid me come unto Thee
That I may praise Thee with Thy saints
and with Thy angels
Forever and ever
Amen
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
Be awesome and support PWA here: www.patreon.com/pwa Give $5 or more and you’ll get access to the entire audio book of Aquinas’ meditations for Lent.
—
Back when I worked as an apologist with Catholic Answers we received a lot of questions around this time of year. Perhaps the most common was, “are Sunday’s excluded from Lent?”
The answer is . . . are you ready for this?
No. Sunday’s are not excluded from Lent. According to the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, “Lent runs from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord’s Supper exclusive” (28).
No exceptions are given for Sunday’s during Lent. In fact, a couple of paragraphs later the GN says: “The Sundays of this season are called the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Sundays of Lent. The Sixth Sunday, which marks the beginning of Holy Week, is called Passion Sunday (Palm Sunday)” (30).
So there you have it. Now, does that mean that we cannot choose to allow ourselves the things we voluntarily gave up for lent? No, it doesn’t. These voluntary fasts are personal devotions. Because they have been voluntarily taken up, we can choose to set them aside.
That said, be awesome and sacrifice this Lent. What my P.E coach told me in middle-school applies to Lent also, “mate, if it’s not hurting, you’re not doing it right.”
Link to GN here: https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWLITYR.HTM
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
Today I chat with Dr. Robert Delfino about Thomas’ 5th argument for God’s existence.
—
PintsWithAquinas.com
Patreon.com/PWA
—
Here is the translation from the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (ST 1, Q. 2, A. 3.):
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
Here’s Delfino’s translation:
The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. For we see some things that lack knowledge, namely natural bodies, act for the sake of some end. This is apparent from the fact that they always or most often act in the same way and achieve what is best [i.e., what fulfils their natural needs]. From this it is obvious that they achieve their end not by chance but by natural inclination (ex intentione). But those things that lack knowledge do not tend toward an end except under the direction of something with knowledge and intelligence, as in the case of an arrow from an archer. Therefore there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things (omnes res naturales) are ordered to an end, and this we call God.
—
Defino’s 10 step argument:
1. We see in nature that non-intelligent things act for a goal that is good with regularity. For example, it is in the nature of an electron to be attracted to protons, which helps to form atoms.
2. If electrons did not have this natural inclination then none of the elements on the periodic table you studied in Chemistry would form, which would mean that none of the physical life forms we know (including yourself!) would exist anywhere in the physical universe. But that would be bad, because life is good.
3. In the case of electrons being attracted to protons, we cannot ascribe such behavior to chance or to biological evolution. In the case of chance, chance would not explain why the electrons act with such regularity because chance refers to what happens rarely.
4. In the case of biological evolution, this is because the regularity of action in the case of electrons exists prior to biological evolution and is necessary in order to make biological evolution possible.
5. An intelligent cause can direct something for a goal that is good with regularity. For example, consider an archer who, with routine success, directs his arrows towards the animals he is hunting for food. However, these regular actions of the arrows, which are made of wood, do not represent the natural actions of wood. Instead, they represent something imposed on the wood of the arrows by the archer. This is similar to how a puppeteer imposes movement on a puppet, and how a watchmaker orders the part of a watch to tell time.
6. An intelligent cause is able to do this because having intelligence allows one to envision something mentally that does not yet exist physically (for example, envisioning a watch before it was invented). Non-intelligent matter cannot order itself to an end that is good precisely because it is incapable of thought.
7. However, human intelligence cannot explain why an electron has, within its own nature, an inclination to be attracted to protons because electrons exist prior to humans and humans could not exist without electrons already having these natural inclinations.
8. In our attempt to explain why electrons, as non-intelligent beings, have a natural inclination to be attracted to protons, which makes life possible, we have ruled out the material aspect of the electron, chance, biological evolution, and human intelligence.
9. Therefore, there must be some non-human intelligence that is responsible for the natural inclinations of electrons.
10. This non-human intelligence cannot achieve this by imposing activity on the electron in a manner similar to a puppeteer or a watchmaker. Instead, this non-human intelligence must be capable of endowing an electron with its being and nature.
Conclusion: We call this non-human intelligence God.
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce
By pintswaquinas Leave a Comment
PintsWithAquinas.com
—
As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): “If a father’s coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one’s parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man’s very nature.” It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence.
ST III, Q. 25, A. 6.
—
Thanks to the following patrons of Pints With Aquinas
Jed Florstat
Daniel Szafran
Phillip Hadden
Katie Kuchar
Phillipe Ortiz
Malcolm Paul MacDonald
Nick Sungenis
Kevin Donaoe
Dennis Mahoney
Katherine Szojka
Shawn Pierce