Pints With Aquinas - Aquinas on Why Philosophy Isn't Enough (We Need Scripture)

Episode Date: February 23, 2021

In today's episode, we'll take a look at what Aquinas has to say about the limits of philosophy and the necessity of revelation for our salvation.   SPONSORS Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/ Catholic Chemistry: https://www.catholicchemistry.com/   GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.   LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/   SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd   MY BOOKS Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx   CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Oh, okay. All right, all right, all right. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. This is Matt Fradd. And Matt Fradd is a little hectic today because I've been trying to get things worked out for tomorrow's debate. We've got an Orthodox versus Catholic debate tomorrow, which I'm very excited about. But I've been having some streaming issues. So I apologize sincerely for that today. If you're in the live stream right now, let me know that you can see me and that everything is looking fantastic, and then we'll move on to today's discussion, which I think will be very exciting, because it is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, and it's the first question, and it's the first article, so that will be super interesting, I think.

Good. Can you hear me? And I'm glad that you... Okay, good. You're talking about the debate, which leads me to think that everything's going well here. Lovely to see you here. All right. Today we want to talk about why we need more than philosophy, why philosophy isn't enough, why we need sacred scripture. Oh man, I love you guys. Thank you so much for being here. All right, so that's what we're going to be doing. And we'll go from there. I hope everybody's having a lovely Lent, by the way. I've been having a very difficult two weeks, if I'm to be honest with you. A lot of, I think, spiritual attack that's been coming from many different angles. Stuff that I probably can't even speak about.

It's been actually very quite difficult. But I think we're on the up and up. Things have been difficult but beneficial. Good. Short story before we get into today's topic. Just the other night, I'm not sure if you're a parent or if you've had these sort of situations at your house, but everybody was at everybody's throat. It was just a very difficult day, very ugly day. And, um, I said, look, we just got to

get to confession. And one of the nice things about living in Steubenville is confession is always available somewhere. And so on Monday night, I just threw my family in the car and drove up the road to Franciscan university. And, uh, yeah, it was really cool. We went to the church and there's always a line of university students waiting for the confessional. There was about, I'd say, 30 people in line, you know, and there I am with my wife and our four little kids. And of course, being from a Byzantine background, my young child Peter, even though he's six, has had his first confession. I think he went to confession when he was like four. Basically, you can go whenever you're ready in the Byzantine church.

So we were there lining up, and the bloke came up to us, and he said, listen, just heads up, we're going to be wrapping up confession here rather shortly. And so, you know, sorry about that, but that's, you know, somebody else needs the church, and, yeah, we've got to get going. And I just thought, man, I have driven. It was difficult at that moment to be okay with that. I'm like, I have driven my family through freezing rain, literally, and we've walked in here covered with scarves and boots and things like that.

Welcome to Ohio. And so now this father has done his job. So I'm going to need a father in there to do his job and absolve my children because you don't understand things have been pretty rough, you know. And I just want to say a huge shout out to these amazing Franciscan priests, honestly, and I'm so sorry about this. I've forgotten both of their names. I don't have a relationship with any of them outside of the confessional. And so forgive me, but my wife's like, any chance you could hear our confessions. And these two amazing priests could not have been more beautiful. They were like, quick, yeah, come down here. And

that was so kind. I'm sure they had other things to do, but they wanted to hear our confessions. And so each of my children went to confession. I went to confession. My wife went to confession. And it was just a fantastic thing. I don't know if you're a Protestant or not, but honestly, as a Catholic, and this isn't an argument necessarily for the validity of confession. If you're a Protestant,

you have many objections to it, I'm sure. But there is something so powerful and refreshing and delightful and liberating about just going before another human being and saying what you're most ashamed about, what you're most sorry about, and hearing them say, you know, in the name of Jesus Christ, I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I've heard Protestants say to me that Protestants have converted to Catholicism. You know, they've said like when I was a Protestant,

I had to kind of almost talk myself into feeling forgiven. I knew God would forgive me if I just went into my room and said my little prayers. And that's not me disparaging the prayers when I say that they're little, but you know what I mean. People say a few prayers. And, yeah, they say, my goodness gracious. Like, it was just difficult because you'd never really felt forgiven. What's lovely as a Catholic is if you've sinned in a serious way and you get to the sacrament of confession, just being able to go in and confess it and you know that your sins

have been forgiven. It was beautiful. So big shout out to those amazing priests whose name I have forgotten. Whoops. All right. Here's what we're going to do today. We are going to look at the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas' most famous work. And we're going to look at the very first thing he addresses, like the very first thing. I'm talking, this is the prima pars, this is the first part of the Summa Theologiae. We're going to look at question one, and we're going to look at the first article. And the question is whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required. Now, by doctrine, what is doctrine? Well, doctrine comes from a Latin word which means teaching.

And if you're a doctor, you are a teacher. So a doctor teaches doctrine. And we ought to be docile to true doctors as they teach us doctrine. See, it all goes together there. And Aquinas is going to say, yeah, we need more than just philosophy. But let's look at that, right? Because Aquinas sets himself two objections. One being that we shouldn't be considering things that are too lofty for us, but things that need to be revealed by God to us would constitute things that are too lofty for us. but things that need to be revealed by God to us would constitute things that are too lofty for us. Therefore, we don't need revelation. In fact,

revelation has told us not to search things that are too lofty for us. Therefore, we only need philosophy. And the second objection he's going to offer is, look, philosophy covers literally everything. Like we have this thing called metaphysics that literally studies being and is concerned with questions about God. So we don't need anything else. And I think that this can be a very big temptation for people like me, who is very interested in philosophical things. I love thinking about God. I love thinking about arguments. I love responding to arguments. I like seeing the flaw in my own arguments and the arguments of others. I actually much more prefer to find the flaws in other people's arguments, truth be told. So it can be tempting to just neglect scripture. Really, it can be. And I have to say, I give thanks to God that I've been reading scripture daily now. Every day this year, I've been

following this St. Augustine Institute puts out this Bible where you read the readings every day, and throughout 365 days, you'll get through the Bible. And I've actually been really enjoying it. But, you know, so this question is all the more pressing because of this, you know, because I've been thinking about these things more. So let's go through this article. It's not terribly long, and see what we can learn. So here's the first objection, right? Aquinas says, it seems that besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason. And then he quotes the Bible, which is ironic, right? Seek not the things that are too high for thee. In other words, like even this thing you claim is doctrine, is revelation, is saying that you ought not to the things that are too high for thee. In other words, like even this thing you claim is doctrine, is revelation,

is saying that you ought not to seek things that are too high for you. And the argument continues, but whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore, any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous. Here's the second objection to needing the Bible, needing revelation, needing doctrine. I guess we could say the Bible is revelation which teaches doctrine, right? So we're kind of all talking about the same thing from different angles. Here's the second objection. Knowledge can be concerned only with being, knowledge can be concerned only with being.

For nothing can be known save what is true. That's a really interesting line there. Nothing can be known save for what is true. Think about that. In other words, if you know something that is false, you don't actually have knowledge. You have a false belief. All right, so nothing can be known except for what is true, and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science,

even God himself. So there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved in the metaphysics. Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge. All right, so when this objector is talking about a sort of subsection of philosophy called theology, he's referring to natural theology, and we'll talk about that a little later. But here's Aquinas' said contra and main response. Here's what he responds with Scripture, which is appropriate since Scripture, of course, is the Word of God, whether you think we ought to need it or not. It is written in 2 Timothy chapter.16 that all Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore, it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be another knowledge that is inspired of God. Before we get to the main

response, let me tell you what we'll do for the duration of this live stream. We'll go through the response. We'll go through the two responses Aquinas has to the objections that he has heard and set himself. Then I want to suggest some reasons that you and I don't read the Bible as much as we should. Some stumbling blocks that I think ought not to be stumbling blocks. And then we'll take some questions. Okay, here's the main response. I answer that. It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God as to an end that

surpasses the grasp of reason. The eye hath not seen, O God, besides thee, what things thou hast prepared for them that wait for thee. All right, let's pause a moment here and speak of that, okay? This end for which we were created and are directed, Aquinas says, surpasses the grasp of reason. Now notice what Aquinas does not say. He does not say that this end for which we have been created and are directed is contrary to our reason. He says it surpasses the grasp of it. So you could think of this. Faith, which is our ascent to revelation. Faith is to reason what a telescope is to the unaided intellect or unaided reason.

Faith is to reason. Oh, sorry, I messed up my analogy because I prayed for humility earlier. Faith is to reason what a telescope is to the eye. You see? So when you use a telescope to see out into space, what the telescope isn't doing is thwarting the eye, usurping the eye, contradicting what the eye would see if it were in a position to see that thing without the use of the telescope. with the telescope but the telescope doesn't uh well just to say it again usurp the eye nor does faith usurp or do away with or contradict reason hmm i'm happy with that analogy what do you think but the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end hence it was necessary for the salvation of

man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation. Right, do you understand what he's saying here? Aquinas is going to say there are things that are beyond us, that we can't know through philosophical reflection and discourse. Things like the Trinity, things like the Incarnation, things like a transubstantiation, things like the existence of angels and what happens to us after death, at least as far as heaven and hell, you see.

There are things that have to be revealed to us that we just can't know on our own. But Aquinas is saying even those things that we can know on our own, here's why we need revelation anyway. why we need revelation anyway. So as I said in a previous video, Aquinas says that man can come to a knowledge of God's existence apart from divine revelation. So yeah, that's called natural theology. I can look around at the world and come to the conclusion that there must have been a first cause, an ultimate explanation, a necessary being, which explains the contingent being that makes up our lives, right? And which is the universe. So why is it then that we needed revelation? Like if we've got natural theology to tell us the basics about God, why do we need natural, why do we need revelation to tell us not just the things that exceed what we can grasp through philosophy,

but to tell us those things that we can know through philosophy. Aquinas gives us three reasons. Here they are. Number one, because, right, here's why we need revelation. Because the truth about God, such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, right? So Aristotle has an argument for there being a God, yeah? Like, brilliant people can come up with arguments. Even Descartes has a sort of ontological sort of argument for God's existence, right? People have come up with philosophical arguments for God's existence, Anselm, Al-Ghazali, and others. But most of us aren't that bright, you know, for a number of reasons. Like we've got things to do, you know, we've got places to be. And while we might have a hunch

that something exists that got the whole thing started or sustains everything in being, most people wouldn't come to that knowledge. And this is why, even though we can know that God exists through philosophy, God revealed it to us anyway. His existence, I mean. Here's the second reason that it was necessary for the salvation of man, that these certain truths which exceed human reason should and have been made known to us. And that is that even those who could come to a knowledge of God's existence, and even come to know certain things about him, they wouldn't

be able to come to knowledge of those things except for after a great deal of time. I mean, if you've studied philosophy, the first thing you don't study is metaphysics, right? The first thing you might study is logic or epistemology, and then you might move into things like metaphysics. Thirdly, the third reason it was important that God should reveal himself to us is, through scripture and through revelation, is that most of us, suppose we came to a knowledge of God, suppose, even though it took a great deal of time, that knowledge would be filled with many errors. In fact, in the second question, Aquinas is going to deal with God's existence. And one of the first things he deals with, is it even necessary that we have arguments for God's existence?

Like, surely God's existence is self-evident. And Aquinas is going to disagree with that. And I think one of his objections could be, well, if it were self-evident. And Aquinas is going to disagree with that. And I think one of his objections could be, well, if it were self-evident, why is it that we see so many people holding to false views about God? Not just false views about God, but the idea that there are many gods. I mean, people didn't just have false ideas about God, but they also believed that there were, say, many gods. All right, so this is why God revealed himself to us, even those things that we could come to a knowledge of through philosophy.

So, Aquinas says, Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth, therefore in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. Now here are Aquinas' arguments to, sorry, his responses to the arguments presented. The first being that we shouldn't seek those things that are too high for us.

Now, this is interesting because Aquinas is going to quote the very same chapter of Sirach that the protester threw at him, which says that we shouldn't seek those things that are too high for thee, which is always fun when you can say, well, if you keep reading that verse, you'll see that it actually goes against what you're trying to show. So here's his first objection, right? Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may be sought for by man through his reason. Did I get that? Did I get that right? by man through his reason did i get there did i get that right although those things which are beyond man knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason there you are nevertheless once they are revealed by god they must be accepted by faith right so sure there are things that exceed

man's capacity but now that they've been revealed they are in a sense not too high for us because they've been revealed. Hence, the sacred text continues. If you read two or three verses down, you would read in Sirach, For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man. Sirach 3.25 And in this the sacred science consists. All right. Here's his reply to the second objection,

namely that philosophy covers everything anyway, so why do we need another science? Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist, both may prove the same conclusion, that the Earth, for instance, is round. By the way, we just need to pause here. And I know that this is a trope that gets thrown around a lot,

that people in the Middle Ages thought that the earth was flat. This is false, as we see here. In fact, it was Aristotle in his work De Caelo that came up with, I think it was three, arguments for why the Earth is spherical. So around 500 years prior to Christ, people were aware that the Earth was spherical. Certainly not all people, certainly not the majority of people. But this idea that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is obviously not true. Aquinas is using this as an example. So these different sciences can come to this conclusion that the earth is round. The astronomer by means of mathematics, that is abstracting from matter, but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason

why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science, so far as they fall within revelation. Hence, theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. All right, let me read that again. Theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology, which is part of philosophy. So when we talk about theology, we're talking about the study of God. And in a sense, the study of God or theology wouldn't exist unless God revealed himself to us. But there is a sense in which we can talk about natural theology, which is, as we say, a sort of philosophical ruminations about God based on whatever, you know, based on the world around us

or based on the idea of God or these sorts of things. So that is what Aquinas has to say about why it is we need scripture. Now, let me suggest a couple of things that prevent us from reading scripture as much as we should. Because these are true of me, and I suspect they're true of you. And then if you have some questions, maybe we'll dig into them here in the comments before wrapping up. I think one of the primary things that prevents you and I from reading Scripture as much as we should is that we think that Scripture reading ought to feel a certain way. We think our experience of Scripture reading ought to be a certain way. You know, you sometimes see on Instagram people who are posting images on Instagram

of their Bible and their highlighter and their cup of coffee and you think gosh reading the bible ought to be very inspirational i ought to feel just very centered by it you see these sorts of things but this isn't at all the case at least all the time i mean sometimes we read scripture and we don't feel very inspired at all. And I think that that's okay. I don't think that we should let how we feel about reading scripture prevent us from continuing to read it. But I think that the point stands that if you think you ought to feel a certain way when you engage with scripture and then you don't feel that way, I think a natural conclusion is, okay, well, I'm failing. And if you're failing and you don't like failing, then the obvious outcome is to stop doing that thing that you're failing at, namely reading Scripture.

But I think rather if we said to ourselves, look, this is the Word of God, and it's necessary for my salvation, I ought to read it, regardless of how I feel. I think that's one thing, a stumbling block that would sort of help us. I think another stumbling block is we just don't have the large picture of Scripture. Like, I'm going through the Scripture right now. Here's my Bible, right? I'm going through it one day at a time, and I'm reading from Genesis all the way through. I'm halfway through Leviticus right now. one day at a time and I'm reading from Genesis all the way through. I'm halfway through Leviticus right now. And yeah, like when you read it, when you read a book, you kind of just expect it to be

chronological. It would be weird if you picked up a book and there was no guiding you in all this bit's supposed to go over here. And if you want to read the story, then you should maybe not read this book and this book because this gets bogged down in this and this is different types of literature. And so I think for that reason, people just think this doesn't make sense to me. And I don't like, I don't enjoy watching things that don't make sense. I don't enjoy reading things that don't make sense. And, you know, like if you watched Tenant, the movie, you may have had that experience where you're like, this seems like, I get that there are some connections and that those connections are probably really profound, but some of it's really

frustrating. Like, why are their voices so low? Is he doing this on purpose? Why is he deliberately trying to confuse us? Why is it so frustrating, you know? And maybe you didn't have that experience. Maybe you watched 10 and just saw it as an absolute masterpiece. And well, you'd probably be inclined to go back and watch it. Or if you thought, well, I can see some connections,

therefore I'm inclined to watch it again so I can see others. But for some of us, it was just like, this is super confusing. You know, therefore we don't want to go back and watch it. Likewise, if you read scripture and you don't make any of those connections, you might be put off from going back. But, you know, Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins and others have talked about reading the Bible through a sort of covenantal lens. If you read Scripture through the main covenants that God made with his people, you can see the sort of overarching narrative, right? And there are six main covenants that God makes with humanity throughout Scripture. He makes one with Adam, and he makes one with Abraham, and oh sorry, sorry, Adam and Noah and Abraham and Moses and David and finally Jesus Christ. And when you look at these you can see how God is sort of growing, if you want, or expanding the people of God. He begins with Adam and

the covenant is within the context of a marriage. And then he expands that covenantal family to a family, you know, a household. And after that, with Abraham, he expands it to a tribe. And so you've gone now from a couple to a family to a tribe. And then with Moses, we're going to see God's people expanding into a nation. And with David now, a royal kingdom. And you think, well, how much bigger can it get? Well, Jesus Christ, the covenant that God made with humanity, the sign of which is being the Eucharist, and you have the universal church. And so now not only Jews can participate in the family of God, but pagans can become incorporated into it as well. So I think that this is another thing that kind of can prevent us from

reading sacred scripture that doesn't have to prevent us. So I don't know if this did anything. I hope it helped you to maybe want to read scripture a little more because as Aquinas says, scripture is absolutely necessary for our salvation. All right, let's take a look here in the comment section and see if we have any questions or comments. This person says, hello, Pints with Aquinas and everyone from a sunny Friday morning here in New Zealand. You're just bragging now. I'm here in a frozen overcast Ohio, but it's lovely to have you. I love your country. It's absolutely stunning. In fact, when people say to me in Australia, and should I go to Australia or New Zealand? I think to myself, gee, it's so different, but New Zealand is so beautiful.

It looks like Scotland and Hawaii had a baby. It's both rugged and tropical. It's a lovely place. I was thrilled to be down there. Was it two years ago now? 2019, I believe it was, speaking in Auckland. 2019, I believe it was, speaking in Auckland. Connor Taylor says,

The Bible Project is a great channel that helps make connections more accessible. Awesome. Thank you so much for that. Based Byzantine, what's up, says, Favorite Bible translation. I use the good old Douay-Rheims on my phone, like the RSV and KJV as well. I think as far as sort of like poetry, I think that the KJV is the most beautiful, but I don't think it's necessarily the most accurate, nor do I think the Douay-Rheims is. And so I, myself, I would read the RSV or the ESV. But I think a good answer to what's the best Bible translation out there, I would say at first the one you will read.

Don't let, if you're not really into reading Scripture, and then somebody hands you a Douay-Rheims or a King James Version, you know, you might be thinking, gosh, I'm getting hung up on all this language. It's very difficult to read. Okay, well, read something else. Read the thing that you'll read, even if it's a sort of dynamic equivalence translation, like the New Jerusalem Bible or something like that. To begin there could be a good thing. Chazza, thanks for the super chat, says, best way to start reading the

Bible. Thanks, Matt. I think that you could pick up the Gospels. Mark is the shortest, of course, and so you might just decide to read through that. It would take you an hour or two. You could read through the whole thing. And I would go through it with a pen or a pencil or a highlighter and just mark those things that struck you. I think a good way of overcoming our fear of reading the Scripture, because we find it too daunting or something, might be to read some of maybe Peter's two epistles. Maybe reading John's epistles, because these are very short.

You have three epistles of John, of course. The third one you can read in five minutes. And so you might kind of get some encouragement. There you go. I've just read three books of the Bible. That's fantastic. Over a cup of coffee or something, you know, you might start there and you might just kind of begin to put away other things that are distracting you like Netflix or some other book and just say, yeah, you know, for Lent, I'm just going to really dig into the scriptures and I'm going to carry my Bible around with me wherever I go. And that'll kind of remind me, gee, I should be reading the

scriptures today. Just a suggestion. Hayden Dalton says, best place to start reading Aquinas. I did a whole video the other day called Seven Reasons You Should Love Thomas Aquinas. And in that video, I suggested certain things. You might want to check that out. But I mean, the Summa Contra Gentiles, I find, is the most interesting, at least in the beginning, because he's dealing with immediate objections to arguments that you're concerned about, right? He's responding to the arguments that Mohammedans, Islam, has towards Christianity. And so it gets philosophical, and, you know, you might find that interesting.

So I'm not sure what you think about that. Kyle Marks, pints of the kindness. If you were forced to, okay, let's see here. Which form of the Roman rite would you go to? Oh, I don't know. It would depend. I very often attend the ordinary form daily. It's a beautifully celebrated ordinary form here in Steubenville it's ad orientum and altar rails and latin and chant it's it's lovely I think I'd prefer that

over a low mass if that was my only option but let's be honest I mean if there's a high latin mass I'd prefer that and if was forced, I'd probably be going there. This person says, Knox Bible is excellent. Yeah, I've heard that. My previous boss, Carl Keating, was a big fan of the Knox translation. I was Simon says, Matt, what would you recommend for someone who is starting to read the Bible start from Genesis or with the Gospels yeah I'd say if you've never read the Bible before you might want to start with the New Testament and read through that otherwise there's excellent Bible in a year apps like Father Mike Schmitz that you could begin to listen to and that might

help you they also have an excellent Bible over at ascension presents glory to jesus christ dj ny says hi matt just wanted to thank you on your lent episode it really helped me on how to prepare for lent i'm so glad and that's wonderful thanks so much for saying that um let's see here logan t says do you have any quick simple scientific reasons for why life starts at conception yeah because it's it starts at conception i mean that's why i mean uh if it's if it's growing isn't it alive and if it has human parents isn't it alive? And if it has human parents, isn't it human? Okay, well, we have a human being with the chromosomes, 46 chromosomes and so on. Another thing to think about is, all right, well, if this isn't alive and I don't want it, why is it that I'm tempted to kill it? If it weren't alive, you wouldn't want to go to an abortion

doctor or take an abortion pill to kill it, would you? So anybody who's telling you that life doesn't begin at conception, I think is being both unscientific and just silly. Cole Muso says, you should bring Sam shamoon back on to talk about the trinity and deity of christ yeah i really enjoyed chatting with sam he's a really cool guy and uh i'd be happy to have him back on the show points of the quietness do you read or use the latin vulgate i have a copy but i don't read it um pseudo something or other says, I recommend the Eastern Orthodox Bible translated into English from patriarchal text. All right.

Jenerd81 says, Aquinas wrote a lot. Is there a good introductory book to his work or should I just start with the Summa Theologiae? There's a couple of good books you might want to read. One is, it's a book by Joseph Pieper. It's an introduction to Aquinas. I would recommend that. And then there's a book, I think it's called, let me just double check.

I don't want to get this wrong for you. I think it's called Aquinas 101. It is an excellent introduction to Thomas Aquinas. Let's see here. Oh no, I'm thinking of what the Thomistic Institute is putting out. So you can go check out the Thomistic Institute. They're doing excellent work on YouTube, Aquinas 101 videos. Also, I have a little book on how to understand Aquinas over at pintswithaquinas.com. It's a free book that you can download just by putting in your email. So go check that out. That will help you understand Aquinas' metaphysical jargon.

You know, so there you are. What else do we have here? Mark says, have you ever considered doing a Pints with Aquinas with Father Donald Calloway? Yeah, I'd know, but I'd certainly be open to it, of course. All right, my friends, this has been a pleasure. Thank you for joining me. I hope that this was a blessing to it, of course. All right, my friends, this has been a pleasure. Thank you for joining me. I hope that this was a blessing to you.

And I hope that you're having a lovely Lent. And I hope that you will be here tomorrow. Because tomorrow we are going to be, of course, having a debate between an Orthodox priest and theologian and a Catholic on whether the Church's, the Catholic Church's understanding of the papacy is biblical and not just biblical, but patristic. So if you haven't yet subscribed, you might want to do that. Thanks so much. I'm going to make a Add the flour and mix well. I will make a Thank you. you