Pints With Aquinas - 100: How do we know Christ rose from the dead?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today, we'll ask Thomas Aquinas why it was necessary that Christ should rise from the dead. Hey, welcome back to Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. Happy Easter to you. I hope that you had a very good Lent and that Easter Sunday was beautiful for you. And here we are now in the Easter season rejoicing in the risen Christ. What I want to do today is look at an article, the first article from question 53 in the third part of the Summa Theologiae, where Aquinas

Starting point is 00:00:59 responds to the question, was it necessary that Christ should rise again? And Aquinas is going to give five reasons why it behooved Christ to rise again from the dead. And then what I'd like to do is share why we've got good reason for thinking that Christ rose from the dead. Around this time of the year, there's different articles written in newspapers and magazines. Maybe you'll see different blogs online about whether or not we should trust the accounts of the gospels that tell us that Christ rose from the dead. And so, hopefully, I'll be able to give you some food for thought there. Now, you'll know a couple of months ago, I was advertising some really awesome Pints with

Starting point is 00:01:46 Aquinas gear online. I do this only every few months. So, if you've noticed, I know a lot of you have wrote to me and said, how do I get those Pints with Aquinas t-shirts and sweaters and things that you had and they're not always available? Well, for this week only, they are available, okay? This week only, seven days, you can get a Pints with Aquinas sweater, a Pints with Aquinas hoodie, a Pints with Aquinas t-shirt, and a Pints with Aquinas women's tee. These are all really top quality stuff. As is always the case, one is always tempted to purchase the cheaper material so that one can get a greater profit, but that's not what we do here at Pints with Aquinas. So you're actually getting really good quality t-shirts. They're printed very well.

Starting point is 00:02:29 You'll also have access here to a Pints with Aquinas coffee cup. So it's not like the beer stein that costs about $35 because it's supremely good quality. This is just a regular Pints with Aquinas coffee mug, which is super great. And it'll also put an end to those debates as to where I should place my coffee. Now you'll also have a Pints with Aquinas coffee mug and you'll be able to put your coffee there. So look, Pints with Aquinas is a fully fan-funded show. You'll notice we don't have adverts, although we could. And that's because a lot of people believe in the work that we're doing here at Pints with Aquinas I know that there's many people listening

Starting point is 00:03:08 right now and you're a patron and so I just want to say a big thanks to you because you're what makes Pints with Aquinas happen if you're out there and you'd like to begin supporting the show you can do two things right now one you could go to patreon.com and start supporting the show monthly. You go to pintswithaquinas.com, click support. But the other way right now is by getting some Pints with Aquinas merchandise. It's kind of cool. You wear a big... I always get into really great conversations with people when I'm wearing my Pints with Aquinas sweatshirt. People always want to know who that bald guy is on my sweater drinking a beer. And then I get to get into a discussion with them about Thomas Aquinas. I've had so many people mistakenly think that it's St. Francis. I guess he's more popular than Thomas Aquinas in popular culture. But anyway,

Starting point is 00:03:52 how do you get all that stuff? I'll put a link in the show notes. Just click it. It'll take you over to Teespring. That's where you'll buy the shirt or the mug or both or whatever. And as I say, it's only available for seven days. And so a big thanks to everybody who's going to go ahead and go get a sweater. By the way, I always share your pictures that you send me of you looking handsome or beautiful in your Pints with Aquinas gear. So don't be afraid. Once you get the gear, take a photo of it, upload it to social media with the hashtag Pints with Aquinas, and I will be sure to retweet it to all my followers, which is you and thousands of others. Okay, Christ has risen from the dead. And well, why? Why did he do that? Was it necessary? And as I say, Aquinas is going to

Starting point is 00:04:41 give us five reasons. So here's what we're going to do for the rest of the show, just so you can situate yourself. We're going to go through these five reasons that Aquinas gives. We'll then talk a little bit about Christian apologetics having to do with the resurrection of Christ. And then we'll close with some of your questions. So some Q&A time at the end as well. Okay. So here's what Aquinas said. Let me just get my glasses on because I'm going bland. He said, 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,

Starting point is 00:05:21 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, thou hast known that is approved my sitting down that is my humiliation and passion and my rising up that is my glorification in the resurrection as the gloss expounds all right here's the second reason that it was fitting that christ should rise from the dead for our instruction in the faith since our belief in christ's Godhead is confirmed by his rising again, because according to 2 Corinthians, I think that, isn't that Donald Trump? Didn't he

Starting point is 00:06:12 say 2 Corinthians? No, I've just made the same error. According to 2 Corinthians 13, 4, quote, although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God, end quote. And therefore it is written, if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. And we read in the Psalms, what profit is there in my blood, end quote, that is in the shedding of my blood, while I go down as by various various degrees of evil, 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, the third reason Christ rose from the dead was for the raising of our hope. Since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again.

Starting point is 00:07:15 Hence, it is written, Now, if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how does some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? And, be reading Job, I know that is with certainty of faith that my Redeemer, that is Christ, liveth, having risen from the dead, and therefore in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. This is my hope, and it 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,

Starting point is 00:08:00 dieth now no more. So do youinas says that Christ rose from the dead, and that is in order to complete the work of our salvation. Because just as for this reason did he endure evil things, in dying that he might deliver us from evil, so was he glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things. There you go. Now, it's interesting to note that nowhere in the Summa Theologiae, and I'm looking also in the Summa Contra Gentiles, I can't see it here either, Aquinas doesn't directly argue for the resurrection of Christ,

Starting point is 00:08:56 as far as I can tell. And what's interesting, another one of my favorite philosophers, Blaise Pascal, he says that, well, he isn't a big fan of the metaphysical arguments, no doubt he's including Aquinas there. And I'm not sure what you think about that. well, he isn't a big fan of the metaphysical arguments, no doubt he's including Aquinas there. And I'm not sure what you think about that. Pascal essentially says that these metaphysical arguments for the existence of God aren't much help. And he says, because first of all, most people can't understand them. And then he says, and even if they do understand them, it satisfies them while they're thinking about it. But then later on they wonder if they'd made an error or not, which I think is an interesting point and maybe true to many of our experiences. It's also interesting to note that Pascal lived in 17th century France, which was a very skeptical age like our own. So, maybe Pascal has a lot to say to us today. But one thing he did say, Pascal,

Starting point is 00:09:43 is that we should prefer the argument from miracles and the argument from prophecies. And he says, because by doing that, we can more easily understand not just that God exists, but that Christ is his son who we ought to follow. follow. Elsewhere, he says, if we know that God exists, okay, but not our wretchedness, this leads us to pride. If we know that we are wretched, but not that God exists, this leads to despair. But he says, when we look to Christ, we realize the truth of both of these things, right? That God exists and that this God is love. And so we perceive our wretchedness, which he came to exchange with his righteousness. So the reason I share that is because I think that the argument for Christ's resurrection can be a compelling argument, not only for, of course, Christ's resurrection,

Starting point is 00:10:43 but the existence of God. We quoted this a moment ago, and it's worth repeating. St. Paul, right, makes it very clear. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, your faith is worthless. But of course, the opposite is true, isn't it? If Jesus did rise from the dead, then it would follow that we can trust his promises to give us eternal life and so forth. So, this is a very obviously the most important historical fact of the Christian faith, that is the resurrection. Well, how do you go about defending it? Well, one of the ways people have gone about defending it is by pointing to around four facts that are generally agreed upon by New Testament scholars, and then showing that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for these four facts. And here, I'm drawing upon the work of two evangelical scholars, William Len Craig and Gary Habermas. You know, when you read New Testament scholars like John Dominic Crossan or Gerard Ludeman, right, these are people who don't believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, but they agree, let's say, that Christ was obviously crucified. Yes, we obviously know that. Like, that's as sure as anything historical can be. Okay, we know it.

Starting point is 00:12:10 And then it was Gerard Ludeman who said, yes, obviously, the disciples experienced the risen or experienced visions of Christ after his death. Now, Luderman has a different way of explaining why that's the case. He thinks they're hallucinating. But my point is just that there are four central facts, at least, which shouldn't give us pause. We should be willing to accept these unless we've got very good reason not to. So what are those four facts? Well, here they are. So listen up because we're going to repeat these throughout the rest of this episode. Number one, here's a fact you should accept. Jesus' death by crucifixion. All right? This is basically uncontested unless you're some Muslim scholar or something, but then you've got very different reasons for thinking he wasn't crucified or at least didn't die when he

Starting point is 00:12:58 was crucified and that has to do with your scriptures. The second fact is the empty tomb of Christ. The third fact is the post-mortem appearances of Christ to the disciples. And the fourth fact is the disciples' willingness to die for their faith, all right? Whether or not they did die for their faith. We've got good reason to think, for example, that's both St. Peter and St. Paul did. Tradition tells us that everybody else did except for the Apostle John. But even if that's not true, it's certainly, I think, true to say that these disciples were willing to be persecuted and to die for their faith. So anyway, those are the four facts. What best explains them? What are you going to offer? And different theories have been offered to explain those

Starting point is 00:13:45 four facts or to try and avoid the resurrection of Christ. Now, one of the most ridiculous is that Jesus somehow survived Roman crucifixion. So, Christ was tortured, crown of thorns, beaten on the head, whipped repeatedly, chunks of flesh coming out of him. He had to carry his cross to Golgotha. He was then crucified, you know, somehow he survived that. And then they stuffed a spear into his side, blood and water came gushing out. Somehow we have to believe that he survived that. And maybe he just fainted. Maybe Jesus just fainted on the cross. You know, he was really tired and he just fainted and they thought he was dead. You know, they're Roman crucifix, sorry, Roman sort of executioners.

Starting point is 00:14:38 I mean, maybe they don't know much about killing people and they just got this mistaken. And so then the idea is that, okay, well, sure, they put Jesus in the tomb, but then he wakes up a couple of hours later or maybe a couple of days later and thinks, gosh, look at this, I survived. And he somehow hobbles out the cave, shows himself to his disciples, and they think it's a miracle. I mean, this is bloody ridiculous. If Jesus' disciples had found Christ in that condition, he would have been in need of severe medical treatment, okay? Not bowing down and worshipping him and then being willing to risk your life for him. That just doesn't make sense. In 1986, actually, the American Medical Association published a paper that analyzed ancient records of the crucifixion.

Starting point is 00:15:31 And it came to the conclusion that it would have been essentially impossible for Jesus to survive the intense flogging that ripped his skin apart. You remember that from the Passion of the Christ, as well as the asphyxiation that was brought on by being crucified. All right. So, another theory is that Jesus received a dishonorable burial. Okay. So, yeah, okay. He was crucified, but then his body was abandoned in a common grave for criminals. Okay. Well, this doesn't, well, first of all, this doesn't explain two of those four facts. It doesn't explain the post-crucifixion appearances of the disciples, does it? Very well, at least. And then finally, it doesn't explain, therefore, why the disciples became willing all of a sudden to die for their faith. I mean, yeah, you've explained the empty tomb, if that, but that's about it. But have they?

Starting point is 00:16:32 It's interesting that the only skeleton archaeologists have from a first century crucifixion victim was found in a tomb and not a random plot in a criminal's graveyard. So, therefore, you've got no precedent for saying that those who were crucified were thrown into an anonymous grave, okay? The second reason you should just deny this is that it's actually in all four gospels that we read that Christ was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. And think about that for a second, okay? Joseph of Arimathea, he was a member of the council that condemned Jesus to death. So, if you're going to make up a story about somebody who, you know, took Jesus and put him into their tomb, it's not going to be one of the enemies. You'd come up with a better idea than that. So, that doesn't seem to work. So, another theory, and this may have been the one that I think I would have maybe put forth when I was an agnostic, is the idea that

Starting point is 00:17:37 the disciples just hallucinated visions of Jesus after he died. So, as I mentioned earlier, most historians agree that the disciples thought, whether they did or not, they thought that they saw the risen Jesus. How are you going to make sense of that? Now, maybe you've had an experience like this, where a loved one dies and you were in a store the next day, and you could have swore that you've seen him or her. Maybe it was even more vivid than that. Who knows? Maybe because of the trauma you experienced due to your loss, you believed yourself to have a conversation with this person or that they walked up and touched your arm or something. And okay, well, maybe we can experience, maybe we can explain that away by saying, well, look, that was just a

Starting point is 00:18:20 hallucination. But it's really, there's a significant difference between that and what we read about in the New Testament. And so, first of all, it's actually individuals and not groups who experience hallucinations, okay? It's individuals, not groups. But when we read the New Testament documents, what we read is it's groups of Jesus' disciples who claim to see him, right? I'm thinking Luke 24, 36 through 49, 1 Corinthians 15, 5 through 6. Gary Collins, who's a psychologist, writes, quote, by their very nature, only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people. Okay. Here's another reason to show why

Starting point is 00:19:07 this is a very implausible theory. Even if you could say, well, all of these groups were hallucinating the exact same thing at the exact same time, multiple different instances. How do you explain St. Paul? It's not like St. Paul was dealing with grief after the loss of Christ, right? But he had this sudden conversion where he hears this voice, he hears the risen Christ speak to him. It seems like the best explanation is that Christ actually rose from the dead and that it isn't the case that these disciples were just hallucinating. Now, let's say a word about the empty tomb, shall we? Because this is obviously very important. There are actually three reasons

Starting point is 00:19:51 we can give to show that the tomb was empty, and it's an acronym, JET, okay? J-E-T, okay? J. First, we can say the apostles were preaching in Jerusalem. That's where the J is, Jerusalem, where an empty tomb could be disproved. All right. That's fair enough. So, suppose I started following a particular prophet here in Georgia, and he's killed, and he's put in some sort of room in Atlanta near where I live. And I'm preaching all about Atlanta saying that this particular person rose from the dead, don't you know? Well, what would the authorities have to do? They would just have to go to the tomb and or the room or wherever this so-called prophet was and say, no, he didn't, there it is. So, that's a good reason

Starting point is 00:20:45 to think that the tomb was empty, the fact that the disciples were preaching in Jerusalem where Christ rose from the dead. The second reason we know that the tomb was empty is E, in that acronym JET, it's the enemies of the faith who agreed that the tomb was empty, right? I mean, that was actually their explanation. They had to somehow explain the fact that the tomb was empty, right? I mean, that was actually their explanation. They had to somehow explain the fact that the tomb was empty and they said, well, just go and say that his followers stole him from the tomb. And then finally, the third reason we should agree that the tomb was empty is because of the testimony of women, all right? This is a very interesting point, right? In Jesus' time, a woman's testimony was considered to be

Starting point is 00:21:25 as reliable as that of a child or criminal. There's a collection of ancient Jewish wisdom called the Talmud, and it says this, quote, the words of the Torah should be burned rather than entrusted to women, end quote. All right, so you might find that offensive, especially if you're a woman. But the point is, since that was the view of the testimony of women, the last thing you'd want is for a woman to discover the empty tomb. It was actually the Jewish historian Josephus who said that a woman's levity and boldness made her testimony unreliable, like in a court of law. So, if you were making up this story, you would say perhaps that Peter found the tomb empty. You wouldn't say that Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty.

Starting point is 00:22:17 So, again, that acronym JET is a good way to remember why we should think the tomb was empty. The apostles preached in Jerusalem. It was the enemies of the faith who think the tomb was empty. The apostles preached in Jerusalem, it was the enemies of the faith who agreed the tomb was empty, and due to the testimony of women, it's unlikely to have been made up. Rather, this was an embarrassing story, you know, to the disciples, and they relayed it faithfully. All right, so there's another idea. This is the final theory we're going to look at, and that is the fraud theory. I think I remember a debate between Dr. William and Craig and Peter Atkins. And Craig was pressing the point, right, that only Christ's resurrection could make sense of these facts that are generally agreed upon by New Testament scholars.

Starting point is 00:23:02 And Atkins said, well, I don't agree. And Craig says, well, what's the alternative? He's like, I don't know, maybe they just made up the story. He said, Craig said, well, why? Why would they do that? He said, well, I don't know, maybe they were bored. There wasn't a lot to do in first century Palestine. All right. So, that is not a great explanation. First of all, fraud is normally committed for personal gain, right? Like, if I'm going to come up with a story that people are going to believe, I'm going to come up with a story that people are going to believe so that I can be rewarded somehow. But when you look at the lives of the apostles, it just wasn't that way.

Starting point is 00:23:43 I mean, there's so many reasons to think that the apostles recorded faithfully the events that happened. Like, here's just one example. What about the time where Christ called the head disciple Satan? Get behind me, Satan. That's not something you want Jesus saying, right, to the leaders of the church. You don't want people accusing Jesus of being a glutton and a drunkard, right? You don't have Jesus make very demanding sayings, you know, like, he who is last will be first and sell everything. And, you know, the idea of becoming a eunuch for the kingdom, right? If you can, and all those sorts of things. Like, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all, because what did the disciples get out of this whole deal? Well, they got not much except persecution and death. I think what's

Starting point is 00:24:37 more likely is that Jesus' resurrection really happened, and that gave the disciples courage to share the good news in the face of persecution. Okay? So, let's just, again, revisit those four facts. The best thing that explains these four facts, where it says Habermas, says Craig, and others, is the resurrection of Christ. How do you explain Jesus' death by crucifixion? How do you explain his empty tomb? How do you explain the post-mortem appearances to the disciples? And how do you explain the disciples' willingness to die for their faith? Well, the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. And so, we've got good reason for thinking that Christ rose from the dead. And of course, if Christ rose from the dead, he's alive today. And he knows you, given everything else we know to be true about

Starting point is 00:25:31 Christianity, and he loves you, and you can have a personal relationship with him. Sometimes it's difficult to believe things we've heard a million times before. Sometimes it's difficult to believe something that can be surrounded by so much falsity. One example, just to get to my point here, is I was driving in, I think it was Louisiana the other day. There was a big billboard for a healing preacher. And there was all these photographs of people in wheelchairs. Now, I don't doubt that Christ can still heal people. But I suspect it's more likely that this

Starting point is 00:26:06 guy is a charlatan than the real deal. And even if I'm wrong in that case, it's certainly been shown in other cases, right? That a lot of this stuff's been fake. I mean, you hear about Jesus from television preachers and things like that. It can be hard to take it all seriously. But you step back a moment and say, well, if I just forget about all of those sort of trappings and all those things that are naturally going to, you know, surround a particular figure of prominence and just say, well, let's look at the bare bones story. What's the best explanation? Well, I think it's the one the disciples gave, and it's the one that the church has taught for over 2,000 years now. And that's that this Jesus Christ was crucified and that he

Starting point is 00:26:52 died. He was put into a tomb, and then three days later, he rose from the dead and he appeared to the disciples. And that's why the disciples were so bold in giving testimony to the risen Christ. You see, sometimes unbelievers will say, I don't doubt that the disciples were sincere, but so are, say, those who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up so they get a certain amount of virgins in heaven. And this really misunderstands the point, because as Christians, we would agree that just because someone's willing to die for something, that doesn't mean that they're right. People can die for things that are false. But if someone's willing to die for something, what it shows is that they sincerely believe that thing. Okay. So, I think what we would say to the suicide

Starting point is 00:27:39 bomber isn't that, oh, you're willing to die for your faith, therefore what you believe is true. isn't that, oh, you're willing to die for your faith, therefore what you believe is true. But what we can't deny is that they sincerely believe that false thing. And so, that's why the disciples' willingness to die for their faith is a good argument for their sincerity, right? That they genuinely believed that they saw appearances of Christ after his death. I might close with a quotation from the 4th century historian Eusebius, who made a similar observation with what I'm making now. And here's the quote. He says, What a wonder it is that such a number were able to keep to their agreement about their fabrication even in the face of death and that no coward among them ever retired from the association and made a premature repudiation of

Starting point is 00:28:32 the things agreed upon nor did they ever announce anything in contradiction to the others bringing to light what had been put together among themselves so I think these and many other reasons make it clear why Christ rose from the dead. So, if we take his resurrection into account, we take his life into account, where he claimed to be God, which we could argue in another podcast, then we can, I think, then we're ready to hear the words of C.S. Lewis. He says, you must make your choice. Either this man, Christ, was and is the son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up as a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher.

Starting point is 00:29:26 He has not left that open to us. He didn't intend to. All right. Hope that was a help. Thank you very much for listening. Now it's time for your questions. All right, all right, all right. Time for your questions. Big thanks to everybody who supports Pints with Aquinas on Patreon. Pints with Aquinas is a fan-funded show. So if you're a fan and you want to fund it, you want to help it go and be the best it can be, if you're getting a lot out of it, it would mean a lot to me if you would go and support me. Go to pintswithaquinas.com, click support, and there you can give 10 bucks a month and you get all sorts of stuff in return right i'm going to send you a free signed copy of my book does god exist a socratic dialogue in the

Starting point is 00:30:09 five ways of thomas aquinas i'll also give you the ebook immediately so as soon as you give the 10 bucks you don't have to wait a month until i actually ship you the book you'll get access to an ever-growing audio library you'll get access to our audio books that we have uh you'll get early access to punch the goddess comic strip strips access to bi- our audio books that we have you'll get early access to pints with the corners comic strip strips access to bi-monthly live streams we have a private patreon community all sorts of stuff but the way to access it all is by going to pints with the qantas.com click support and support an independent kind of show like this that you believe in that would mean a lot to me and thanks to all of you who have done it and will do it so let's take some of your

Starting point is 00:30:43 questions because the questions that we take here at Pints with the Gwyneths are always from our patrons. So the first question comes from Matthew Hunt. Thanks, Matthew. You say, as a follow-up question to Father Mike Schmidt's episode, if a man experiences same-sex attraction, can he become a priest if he lives chastely? I've heard no from several sources, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer as to the reason why. Okay, so concerning existing priests, right? So let's say there's a priest listening to this and you struggle with same-sex attraction, you know, provided that person lives a lifestyle of chastity, okay?

Starting point is 00:31:24 They can obviously remain in their priestly ministry, so that's not necessarily what you're asking. You're talking more about candidates for the priesthood. Okay, so here's something interesting. In December 2016, the Congregation for the Clergy, with Pope Francis's approval, reaffirmed that men who live a homosexual lifestyle or have, quote, deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture cannot be admitted to the ministerial priesthood. Okay, so those, so here's, let me read you the exact quote, okay? Here it is. In relation to persons with homosexual tendencies who seek admission to seminary Here it is. holy orders, those who practice homosexuality present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture. Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that

Starting point is 00:32:33 gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordinations of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. All right, so that's the basic answer. So, those three things, right? So, suppose you're a man and you realize you have same-sex attraction that doesn't disqualify you from becoming a priest, okay? So, don't hear that. But it seems like what would or should disqualify a man from becoming a priest is if he has one of those three things, deep seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture, all right, or if you're practicing homosexual, those things would prevent you from becoming a priest. Now, if there's a man listening today and you struggle with same-sex

Starting point is 00:33:24 attraction and you want to be a priest, then I would say speak to your vocations director about this directly. All right, let's see here. Nate asks, what does St. Thomas mean when he says respect of persons is a sin? In question 63 of the second part of the second part of the Summa, How does this apply to some current events today? Quite a provocative question, Nate, I'll tell you that much. So when Aquinas talks about respective persons and why it's a sin, he's saying that, like one of the analogies I believe he used is, suppose somebody's going for a particular job and the person is given the job not because of their talents and education and their ability to perform the job well, but are given that job

Starting point is 00:34:14 because they're rich, let's say, then that would be respect of persons. And in that sense, that would be a sin. So, how would that relate today? That's a good question. much better education, references, abilities to teach than the second candidate. Let's say she's a woman, but the woman is given the job because we need more women on staff, even though she's, you know, not as good as this other person, nor is she really suitable, except that we need more women on staff. I don't know. That's just the top of my head. That would be a sin, according to Aquinas, because that would be to respect persons rather than to respect causes, you know. So, I hope that helps. I'm willing to be corrected on that. It's very difficult to kind of answer these questions on the fly,

Starting point is 00:35:22 as you can imagine. So, I'm sure there's more to add to that. So feel free to ask or to add more on social media or somewhere else if you'd like to. Okay, this third question comes from Mike Maztal. He says, if you sin while dreaming, are you culpable? No, because you can't sin while you're dreaming. So in order to sin, you need agency. You need to know something's wrong and choose to do it. But if you're dreaming, you're unconscious and you can't, well, essentially unconscious. You can't sin while you're unconscious. So that applies

Starting point is 00:35:58 to wet dreams and all sorts of stuff like that. So in fact, I did a whole episode on this. If you go to pintsoftheaquinas.com and in the search bar type wet dreams, there's Aquinas actually deals with this issue at length. Let me just see where it is real quick so you can go and look it up. It's so funny when people think of Thomas Aquinas, they do not think that he would talk about wet dreams, but there you go. Okay. Are wet dreams or sexual dreams sinful? That was the question I responded to. And that was episode five, episode five. And of course the answer is no, they're not sinful. So you need your will to be engaged in order for there to be sin or merit, sin or virtue. And that isn't happening when you're asleep. So thank you very much. Okay, let's see,

Starting point is 00:36:45 what else do we have? Okay, the next question comes from Diego Barber. G'day, Diego. You said, Hi, Matt. I live with a bunch of roommates of all different religions. For example, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Muslim, and also a Protestant Christian. Wow, that is quite the collection of people in one apartment. Good for you. You said, I've had really good conversations with each of them. I've learned a lot about their religions, and I've also had the opportunity to tell them about Christianity and the Catholic Church. My question is, do you think Catholics should actively learn about other religions? What about praying with them or going to their temples if they invite? So, the church honors whatever is true, good, or beautiful

Starting point is 00:37:27 in other religions. So, it's too simplistic a claim to say that the Catholic Church holds the truth and everybody else is wrong. That's not what the church says. The church says that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth that God wants for humanity, and in as much as different religions agree with it, they have truth to varying degrees. So, if Islam teaches that God exists, but He is not the universe, but is rather distinct from the universe, we can say, well, you're right there. You know, there's something good there. If the Buddhist says that you ought not to be violent for no reason, let's say,

Starting point is 00:38:15 I know they say more than that, but at least that aspect of it, we could say, well, you're right there. We should affirm that. And in that sense, we can even learn from other people, right? So if a Buddhist might have something to say about why one should not be violent or why one should resist his desires to, you know, indulge in particular foods or something, he might be able to articulate that better than most Christians you've heard. And so, in that sense, you could learn from him and thank

Starting point is 00:38:41 him for his advice. So, it's not that we shouldn't learn from other religions, but you say, should we actively learn about other religions? And I don't think, no, I don't think you should. Should, you know, involves sort of, that's the language of morality. I don't think it's right to say that anyone should actively learn about other religions, but there can be reasons to. For example, if you want to proclaim the gospel in a country that is predominantly Muslim, then it would be a good idea for you to understand the faith so that when you engage with individual Muslims, you'll know what to say to them and how to respond to them and how to best lead them to Christ. And I think likewise with other things.

Starting point is 00:39:26 Likewise, if you're an apologist and you're responding to particular questions, then in that sense, you should study up on some religions in order to respond to people since that's your job. And then you say, what about praying with them or going to their temples? I would not pray with a non-Christian. are going to their temples. I would not pray with a non-Christian. I would not pray with a non-Christian. I might pray with a Jew, but I wouldn't pray with a Mormon, and I wouldn't pray with a Muslim, and I wouldn't pray with a Hindu. And of course, the reason for this is we're not praying to the same entity. You know, even if the one next to us says, well, no, yes, we are. Hang about. We are.

Starting point is 00:40:07 I believe in the same thing you do. Well, you might think you do, but you might not. So I would be very, I wouldn't pray with them. I might be open to going to the temple, but not for worship services. But I'd be interested in having a look around. So that those would be my two cents, Diego. Okay, let's take one more question. Okay, this question comes one more question. Okay,

Starting point is 00:40:29 this question comes from Louis Pablo Deval. Thank you, Louis, for being a supporter of Pints of Aquinas. You say, hello, Matt. My question is in regard to mixing it up a bit. Okay, what does that mean? You say, I've heard about the Oriental Byzantine way you pray and loved it. I go to Opus Dei chapels and masses. So you could say I'm a bit traditional. Do not like that term very much, but okay. I would like to know if I can do some of the things you've spoken of, as in three fingers together and two folded on my palms when making the sign of the cross. In my spiritual life, I ask because I wouldn't like to be a cause of scandal among my fellow Christians. Thanks for all you do. My prayers with you, Cameron and the kids.

Starting point is 00:41:07 Thank you so much, Lewis. Your prayers mean a lot to me. Yeah, so it's wonderful you go to an Opus Dei chapel. I love Opus Dei. I think they're wonderful, and they celebrate the Mass beautifully. Yeah, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to choose to pray the sign of the cross in that way. For those who are listening, I go to a Byzantine church, what we do is in the East and Orthodoxy does this too. You put your thumb,

Starting point is 00:41:29 your index finger and your ring finger and your middle finger together, sorry. So your thumb, index and ring together and that kind of makes three. And then the other two fingers, your ring finger and your pinky, you push down against your palm. And so those three represent the Trinity, three in one. And then the two fingers pressed against your palm represent Christ's divinity and his humanity. I don't see how this would cause any scandal. I'm not sure if anyone would see why you're doing it. You know, it's quite a subtle thing. So there's absolutely no reason. I mean, look, just as an Eastern Christian, someone who goes to a Byzantine church, the entirety of Christian tradition is open to me, you know? Like, there's no reason a Byzantine

Starting point is 00:42:16 Catholic shouldn't wear a scapula if they want. There's no reason a Byzantine Catholic shouldn't pray the rosary, though that's not the part of their tradition. And likewise, there's no reason a Western Christian can't benefit from spiritual practices from the Christian East, so long as they don't contradict the Catholic faith. Now, it's interesting, you talk about scandalizing people, and I have to say, I'm afraid I may have done that here and there in the past, in that if I go to a Roman mass, I almost always, I'm almost never without my chotki, my prayer rope, which I pray the Jesus prayer. I also pray the rosary, of course. But so sometimes I wonder if people see that and they think, what's that Muslim thing you're holding on

Starting point is 00:42:54 to? You know, because they're not familiar with it. But that's not a problem. I don't think that's a cause of scandal either. So yes, I'd say, you know, you can benefit from the East and these Christians can benefit from the East and these Christians can benefit from the West. We need the church breathing with both of its lungs, both East and West. Okay. Well, thank you very much for tuning into this week's episode of Pints with Aquinas. I hope you had a beautiful Easter and that you'll have a beautiful Easter season. I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of the show, and that is we are selling Pints with Aquinas merchandise, awesome hoodie sweaters, great quality t-shirts for both men and women, as well as Pints with Aquinas coffee mugs. If you want to continue to support this show,

Starting point is 00:43:35 click the link in the show notes right now. I'll also put a link to the top of all of our social media feeds so you can go get it. Once they go, they go. So this happens to us every time. So I announced that we're selling these shirts. We sell them for a week only. And then on the eighth day, people wonder where they can get the shirts and I sell them there too late and they get a little bit upset. And I have to say, you have to wait a couple of months, but that's just how we do it. Okay. So don't miss out and go to pinesofthequinas.com. Check out our website, follow us on Twitter, follow us on Instagram. You've been noticing, no doubt, that we post beautiful images with quotations from Thomas Aquinas on our Twitter account. It's at Matt Fradd, if you want to follow me, and that's

Starting point is 00:44:13 where you'll start getting those lovely images. Follow us on Facebook. And if you want to become a patron, go to pineswithaquinas.com and click support. All right. Have a great one. God bless you. See you later. Who's gonna survive

Pints With Aquinas - 100: How do we know Christ rose from the dead?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.