Prima Pars
43. Summa I q.12 a.6–7: Why Some See God More Perfectly, and Why No Creature Comprehends God
Class of 2006-10-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/043-summa-i-q-12-a-6-7-why-some-see-god-more-perfectly-and-why/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit. Amen. God our enlightenment. Guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, pray for us. and help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:26] It was very interesting what the Pope is saying about the Greeks and the Church, right? In terms of reason. Okay, Article Six: Whether of those seeing the essence of God, one sees him what more perfectly than the other? Of course, he says, "To the six, one proceeds thus on the opposite side, right? It seems that of those seeing the essence of God, one does not see him more perfectly than the other.

[0:56] For it's said in the first epistle of John, the third chapter, second verse: 'We shall see him as he is. ' Opposed to theology, where we see him as he is not. He is incorporeal, immaterial, and so on, not composed. But he is in one way, right? Therefore, in one way, he is seen by all. Therefore, he is not seen what more perfectly or what less perfectly?

[1:30] Huh? Moreover, Augustine says in the book of the eighty-three questions, a lot of questions in there, that one is not able to what understand one thing more than a what another, right? But all seeing the God through his essence understand the divine what essence? Huh?

[2:02] For God is seen by the what understanding? Huh? Not by the eyes. That passage that was in the this morning mass. I don't know if you had in mass the one from Book of Job. In my flesh. Yeah, yeah. But translation seems kind of different. The other translation, "I will see him from my flesh," which I think was a good translation. You know the one we have in Latin is in my flesh, right?

[2:30] But from my flesh was almost you know saying that he's going to see it with the eye, right? You can understand it in a way that would still be orthodox, you know. But I've got you know I had kind of on my mind when I heard him say the word from today. The guy was reading the thing from pulper there.

[2:47] Okay. Therefore, of those seeing the divine essence, one does not see more clearly than the other, huh? It's kind of interesting now, you know, when we understand something. In this life, the things we understand in a way are what absent,

[3:13] and that's why they they compare understanding to what imagining. Because when I imagine something, I form an image of it, right? And when I think about something, I form a thought of it. And the reason why you have to form an image or form a thought is because you're knowing something in its what absence, right? But when we see God as He is, we would not be knowing Him as something absent, right?

[3:41] But it'd be more like sensation insofar as it's what immediate thing. So when I see you, I don't form an image of you. That's when I remember you. But I see you. You're there. I don't need to. You're enough to terminate my act of seeing, right?

[3:59] But when you're not there, my seeing you has to what end in an image of you that I have to form or bring to mind again. So in some sense, the word to see is more appropriate than the word to understand, although it is seeing in the sense of understanding, not seeing with the eye, but something about that word see.

[4:31] Moreover, that one thing is seen more perfectly than another can happen from two things: either from the side of the what object seen, or from the side of the knowing power, right? On the side of the object, through this, that the object is more perfectly received in the one seeing.

[5:01] That is by a more perfect likeness, which in the thing proposed here does not take place, for God is not through some likeness, right? But through his very essence or substance present to the understanding, seeing his substance or essence or nature. It remains, therefore, that if one sees him more perfectly than another, that this be by a difference of the knowing power. And thus it would follow that whose intellectual power is naturally more sublime would see him more clearly.

[5:41] But this is doesn't fit, since to men is promised in beatitude a quality of angels, right? Okay. Or actually, some of us would be higher than some of the angels, and some of us lower than some of the angels, and so on. So, okay.

[6:02] But against this is that eternal life consists in the vision of God, according to that of John seventeen verse three. This is eternal life. Christ says to see Him, right in Him whom we have sent.

[6:19] Therefore, if all equally see the essence of God in eternal life, all be equal. But the contrary of this is said by the apostle, meaning Saint Paul, who the apostle, meaning Saint Paul, who said by the apostle the apostle, in the one Corinthians fifteen. Star differs from star in clarity.

[6:46] Now this is going to be connected, I think, in the body of the article with the previous article, right? Because you have to be raised up by the light of glory, right, to see God as He is, in order to receive Him. So, who has more the light of glory will see God more fully. I answer: It should be said that of those seeing God through His essence or by His essence, one will see Him more perfectly than another.

[7:20] Which would not be through some likeness of God more perfect being in one of them than in the other, right? Like if you have a confused notion of what a square is, and I have what a definition of square, I would know more clearly because I have better likeness of square than you guys have, right? Okay. But it's a definition of something, right?

[7:47] A few guys have kind of a vague notion of what reason is, but I know that reason is the ability for large discourse, looking before and after. I have more perfect likeness of what reason is than you guys have, and therefore I see more more clearly, right? But we don't see God as He is through some likeness, so this is not the reason for this, huh?

[8:13] Okay. Which is not through some more perfect likeness of God in one than the other, since that future that vision that is future the future is not through some likeness as has been shown, right? The likeness would be something created and not be adequate to representing God as He is. But it will be through this that the understanding of one has a greater what virtue or power for seeing God than another.

[8:44] Now the ability or the faculty of seeing God does not belong to the created understanding by its what very nature, but through the light of glory. Which constitutes the understanding in a certain what godlikeness as is clear from above. Whence the understanding more partaking of the light of glory will see God more what perfectly, right? Okay, so this Article Six is obviously presupposes Article Five, right? Which talks about the looming glory.

[9:22] Now, who's going to have more light of glory? Well, he will more partake of the light of glory who has what more charity, who loves God more,

[9:36] because where there is more charity, there is more desire, and the desire in some way makes the one desiring apt and prepared for the reception of the one desired. Whence, who more has the charity, will see God more perfectly, and will be more what blessed. Right, okay. Now, sometimes I explain that I go back to

[10:09] scripture, speaking of a kind of marriage between God and us, okay. And even Shakespeare, you know, the sonnet, you know, speaks of marriage. Let me not to the marriage of two minds admit impediments, huh? Okay. So there is some likeness there of the beatific vision to marriage, right? Okay, but a spiritual marriage, you might say. So this runs through scripture, and it's in the Song of Songs, especially, which is the book most devoted to this.

[10:42] And you realize that this marriage is more intimate than the first sense of marriage, right? And to be concrete, you know, in in the bodily marriage, the bodies come together, but the bodies are what outside each other. Then they meet at their surfaces, right? And so, but in the case of this marriage, right, God is within the mind itself; is within the understanding itself as the form which understands.

[11:14] But just as marriage in the first sense, you wouldn't want to unite yourself with someone you didn't love who didn't love you, right? So the more the creature loves God, right, the more God would want to what unite that creature with Himself, right? And therefore, the more charity you have, the more what light and glory you'd receive, and the more perfectly God would be united to you, and therefore, the more perfectly you would what see God, right?

[11:43] Okay. Okay, now let's look at the reply to the objections. The first objection is taken from the text of Saint John, which is along with the text of Saint Paul about seeing God face to face. It's probably the two main texts that I see in Scripture talking about this. In some ways, it's even more perfect than than Saint Paul's text, you know, which is perhaps a bit metaphorical when you speak of face to face, although it's a very good way of speaking too.

[12:19] To the first, therefore, it should be said that when it is said we shall see him as he is, this adverb sicuti, as he is, right, determines the way of the vision on the side of the thing what seen.

[12:38] So, if the sense is that we shall see him to be just as he is, right? Because his very to be his very being, huh? We will see, which is his very what essence, yeah. It does not determine the way of vision on the side of the one seeing. So the sense will be what that there will be so is perfectly a way of seeing as in God there is a perfect way of what being right okay

[13:18] and to this he says is clear the solution to the second objection for when it is said that one does not understand the same one thing better than another this has truth if it be taken to the mode of the thing understood because whoever understands a thing to be other than it is does not truly understand it right but not if it refers to the way of what understanding right because the understanding of one is more perfect than the understanding of a what another right and so when I hear the music of Mozart do I hear it other than it is no but someone else might have better ears and hear it better than me right okay

[14:17] now the third objection yeah that's based upon the what division there right to the third it should be said that the diversity of seeing will not be on the side of the object because the same object is presented to all namely the divine essence nor by diverse partaking of the object through different what likenesses right but through a diverse what ability the understanding not its natural one but its what glorious one meaning the light of glory right and therefore we might in some saints might see what more than some angels right even though the angel's natural ability to understand is better okay now I

[15:20] just stop to mention something here before we go into the seventh article let's kind of get into this there's a little problem here about something

[15:38] no creature can understand God as much as God understands himself okay and you can see the same thing about love no creature can love God as much as God loves himself.

[16:04] And kind of corollaries of those two statements, huh? No creature can understand God as much as He's understandable, and no creature can love God as much as He's lovable. Okay. I often think about that in Thomas's prayer there, in the Adoro te devote, right? Where he says, contemplating God, his whole mind would be both the mind and the will, right? By contemplating God, he fails to know Him as much as He's knowable, and he fails to love Him as much as He's lovable.

[16:54] Okay. And in this life, huh? We can always understand God more than we do, or better than we do, right? And we can always love Him more than we do, or better than we do, right? Okay.

[17:19] Now, you know as a fact, is that going to be true though in the next world, huh? When I see God face to face, huh?

[17:36] And I understand God as He is. Will I ever understand Him better than I do? No. And I will love Him more than I ever loved Him in this life. Even the saints, I love God more when they see Him than they did in this life.

[17:59] But will they in heaven ever love Him more than they love Him? Okay. That's a paradox paradox, right? Because if something is worth understanding, just like it's worth seeing or hearing, right? You always seem to want to understand that thing better. You always want to see it better, right? Now, sometimes you see a famous painting and you see something in it, you know, and then you keep on looking at it, you see more in the painting, right?

[18:49] So if you really enjoy that painting, it's worth seeing and so on. You always want to see it better, don't you? And sometimes you know, I'm driving in the car and I turn on 102. 5 and it's the Mozart playing and so on. And I got nothing to do much in the car. And doesn't take much of my mental ability to drive a car. And sometimes I listen to a piece more thoroughly than I do at home because at home sometimes I'm reading a book or something and and has this conflict in me, right?

[19:20] And then I realize what a wonderful piece this is. And gee, I have to listen to this piece more often, right? Okay. I get kind of a paradox here, right? Huh?

[19:33] Because if in heaven we are always understanding God more and more, right? Then it'd be something unlimited here or endless. And the same way for always loving God more and more, right? Then this would be something endless. That's opposed to the idea of being the end. So if this is the end of all, the end all, the be all. Then we're not always understanding God more, right? But rather, we're never understanding Him more than we do when we first see Him, and we're never loving Him more, right?

[20:12] Okay. That's kind of paradoxical because you say, isn't that kind of contrary to our experience of understanding and loving in this world, right? That if you understand something or love something, you always try to understand it and love it more, right? You see, there's a little paradox there.

[20:38] Now, someone could say, "Well, God has eternally destined you for this place in heaven, right? With this clarity, this particular clarity of vision, and this particular degree of love, right? Okay, little slot there for you.

[21:10] And since the saints are completely conformed to the will of God, right, they will for themselves, right, that degree of understanding, that degree of love that God has chosen for them. Okay.

[21:31] So God chose for Mary, you know, a higher place than the apostles, but He chose for the apostles a higher place than us, right? Okay, and and and so on down to the saints, right? So you could say, well, the reason why you don't want to understand God more than you do in heaven, or love Him more, is because God has chosen for you to understand Him this much, right, and to love Him this much, right, which may be more than somebody else in heaven, but undoubtedly less than many others in heaven, right?

[22:10] Okay, and because you will completely conform to God's will, you have no desire to what understand Him more than He's chosen for you to understand Him. You know? Okay.

[22:23] Because a little hell with it, right? Okay, okay. But there's a second thing here that it seems to me that is irrelevant to this too, and that is that we forget and have actually hard time understanding that in the beatific vision you will partake of what eternity.

[22:50] That the beatific vision is more measured by eternity, which has no before and after. And not measured by time, right? You see, and that you are kind of what falsely imagining yourself to be in time in the beatific vision. And so long, of course, as you are in time, then you have the idea of what getting better in the course of time, right? Huh? But there is no time in the vision of God as He is, right?

[23:22] And in the love of God during the beatific vision, huh? During eternity. Now, I think if you understand that, you may even see part of that, right? Okay. Now, there is also you know the thing you know that the saints point out in Saint Teresa de Silva because of her place here next week, you know, but Saint you know the one about the the cup, right? Huh?

[23:48] And everybody's filled, but my cup is smaller than yours, right? You see, and just like you know, I find I don't have as much appetite as I did when I was younger man, right? And if I go to a restaurant, you know, I guess it's it's basically rule of restaurant that don't let anybody go away unsatisfied, huh? And therefore, give them more food than some of them will want.

[24:17] But I find I get more food than I really want to eat. And but when I see some young man, you know, really eating, you know, potting is played up because my son's playing the pot. It's not, and so I, I wouldn't want to eat that. I don't have the capacity for that anymore, right? Well, that's the third thing we would say, right? Huh? You see, that in a sense I am as satisfied as a young man, but it's not the same amount of food that is satisfying him and satisfying me, right?

[24:49] Okay. If I loved God more than I do, I would not be satisfied with the the vision that I have, right? But the vision I have corresponds to my capacity, right? You see, so I'm in one sense is satisfied with a lesser amount that the Thomas Aquinas is not satisfied the amount that I've that I would be satisfied with, right? Do you see what I mean? So those three things I would point to, right?

[25:22] One is the conformity of your your will with God, right? That you want neither more nor less than what God has chosen for you, right? Your will is completely informative of God's will, so you you're not moving against God's will, right? But but I think the really most interesting to me is the idea that you will be partaking of eternity here. You will not be in time, and that's part of our difficulty in understanding is we're falsely imagining ourselves to be in a temporal situation, and we're not in time anymore.

[25:54] It's all once, right? Yeah. And then this this thing that Saint Teresa mentions goes back to the saints before, you know, about the, you know, you know, one of the places she talks about God has helped you to understand this, right? How everybody is is satisfied, but some are satisfied less, right? So, yeah. I'd say maybe that corresponds to part of the definition of eternity as the perfect possession.

[26:26] It's the perfect possession for one may be less than the perfect possession for. another Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, but he's wholly satisfied, right? Okay. So let's go on now to Article Seven here.

[26:48] Whether those seeing God through His essence comprehend it, right? Of course, God comprehends Himself, right? So I was kind of touching that's why I took up those questions between these articles here, because here he's going to talk about the knowledge which God, in a way, has of Himself that we don't have, right? Yeah, yeah. That our knowledge of God would be like God, and we would see God as He is, but we won't see God as much as He's knowable, right?

[27:20] Okay. And as I said, we won't love Him as much as He's loveable. We can never do that. To the seventh, one proceeds thus: It seems that those seeing God comprehend Him through His essence, right? For the Apostle says, "I follow if, in some way, I might what comprehend." Yeah, this is the equivocation there. Comprehend, but he did not follow in vain, right? frustra. For he says in one Corinthians nine, "Thus I run, not as if I was uncertain as to where I was going."

[28:02] Therefore, he comprehends, and the same reason others whom he invites to this, right? Saying thus, run that you might what comprehend. I suppose what is the English word for comprehend? Upper down. Yeah. Yeah.

[28:27] Yeah. Well, I suppose you know, for the word "apprehend," you know, which is partly to comprehend, the word is "grasp," right? But I suppose comprehend as I did grasping all around, right? And you know, as I can comprehend this thing here, but a marble I could comprehend entirely, right? It'd be entirely enclosed in my what fist, huh? Because it's small, right?

[28:56] To grasp entirely, so to speak, okay. But maybe comprehend can have just a sense of grasping, right? We shall grasp God, right? Okay. What I'm going is, it's in the Song of Songs.

[29:10] However, as Augustine says in the book about seeking God, to Paulina Paulina What would that be in English? That's feminine, right? Polyno, or is it? It is a woman. No, would that be Polyno? It's probably Polynus. We have to look it up. I think it's a woman. Oh. Okay. We've been reading the sentences, you know. It's just either questions, you know. We just what resolves with authorities, you know.

[29:49] It's quoting about six or seven different things of Augustine, right? See, he must have really known Augustine. That's what he did. He digested and read all Augustine, I guess, and it all comes out there. the. Thing, yeah. Um

[30:04] one article I was reading this morning, he ends up and saying, "Now, someone can say this better. I would not envy him." So, he did a great service to theology, even though it's not exactly the suma, but it's it's it's very good. Okay, so Augustine says in the book about seeing God to Paulina, that is comprehended, which is seen as a whole, so that nothing of it is what hidden, right?

[30:35] But if God is seen through His essence, the whole is seen, and nothing of it is what hidden from the one seeing it, since God is simple. So you can't see one part of God and not another part of God, right? Okay,

[30:53] Like you can see part of Euclid, not another part, right? Therefore, for by whomever is seen, by by His essence, he is comprehended. Now, if it is said that the whole is seen, but not seen wholly, okay, wholly either says the way of the seer or the way of the thing seen.

[31:23] But the one who sees God by His essence sees Him wholly. If it signifies the way of the thing seen, because He is seen as He is, right? Likewise, He is seen wholly if it signifies the way of the seer, because the whole power of the understanding what sees God, right? But one one guy's cup is bigger than others. Okay, whoever, therefore, seeing God through His essence sees Him totally.

[31:55] Therefore, he what comprehends Him. But against this is what is said in the prophet Jeremiah. Now he's one of the major prophets, I guess. I'm going to go to a shark there in France, and there's so much to see inside of him, you know. I've seen some kind of a guide to all the different pictures and so on. But I was struck by seeing, you know, the the representation of the four gospel writers, and underneath each one of them, kind of the same statue was the four major prophets, kind of.

[32:32] So they're kind of sitting on top of the, or resting on top of the others. It's all in one one statue, so to speak. So I'd never seen it before in the church. I don't know if you were seen in the church before, but I mean Thomas. I know makes that correlation in the commendation partition of the second scripture between the four major prophets and the four gospel writers, huh?

[32:59] So Isaiah goes with Matthew, yeah, and that's why only in those two do you have the what? Emmanuel. John was Ezekiel. I think John is Daniel. Daniel, yeah. And Jeremiah, anymore, the what? Was.

[33:21] Yeah, I see more though dealing with passion or what, Jeremiah. But anyway, let's go back here. Begins this is what Jeremiah says thirty two, for fortissime, most strong, right, great, potent, the God of armies, right, is his name, huh? Great in counsel and what incomprehensible in thought, huh? Okay, therefore he's not able to be comprehended, right?

[33:54] I answer it should be said that to comprehend God is impossible for any created understanding, right? I was kind of touching upon that, and I say we could never know God as much as he is knowable, right? Because that would be to comprehend God, to know him as much as he's knowable, which is the way God knows himself. but to attain him, ah, to but to attain God by the mind in any way, right, is great beatitude, as Augustine says, huh?

[34:28] Okay. Now, to the evidence of this, it should be known that that is comprehended, which is perfectly what known, huh? Now that is perfectly known, huh?

[34:47] That is known as much as it is what knowable, right? This is the likeness that Thomas Aquinas uses to try to help us understand this. Whence is that which is knowable by demonstrative science is held by opinion from some probable reason, concede it is not what comprehended, huh? Okay. Now. I see doing class. I

[35:23] say, when straight lines intersect, are these angles equal? Now usually my students would say yes, you know, and I say now is that obvious or how do you know that?

[35:40] It looks like they're equal. That's not a very good reason. It looks equal, right? Maybe somebody might say, "Well, let's go out and measure these two, right? " You find they're equal, but that tells you that this pair of straight lines is true, right? Is to tell you about the other ones. Well, let's try to draw some more, right? Okay. But even if I drew, you know, an infinity of them, they're telling me that it's always so.

[36:12] No. I mean, I can say, you know, that every number is odd. This is an example. This is an example. This example. I can give an infinity of examples to prove. It's pretty good induction, right? A large induction, huh? So, but you can say there is some reason by induction here to think that these will be what always equal. It isn't really fully known. Just, see. And the way Euclid shows this is by saying, let's give these a letter here.

[36:55] That if this is a straight line, a plus x must be equal to two right angles, and if this is a straight line, b plus x must be equal to right angles. And the rest is just the accidents, right? So if a plus x is equal to two right angles and b plus x is equal to right angles, then they're equal to each other, and then Euclid subtracted because Euclid is also equal.

[37:23] Now I know the same thing that they knew by kind of probable reason. By know it more what? Yeah, more fully. Yeah. Okay. So we're knowing the same thing, but I'm knowing it more fully than they're knowing it, right? Okay. Once he

[37:51] says, if that which is knowable by demonstrative science is held as an opinion from some probable reason, it is not yet what comprehended. It's not knowable as much as it's knowable. If, for example, that a triangle has its three interior angles right equal to two right angles. This is the famous what 32 in Book One of Euclid. Ah, if someone knows this by demonstration, he comprehends that, right?

[38:23] If someone has an opinion and accepts as probability to the fact that it's said by the wise, by geometers, or by the many, he's not comprehended, right? Because he does not arrive at that perfect way of knowledge in which it is knowable. He doesn't know it as much as it's what knowable.

[38:49] Now he says, no created understanding is able to arrive at that perfect way of knowledge of the divine essence in which it is knowable. Or to say it maybe in more colloquial English, right? No created understanding can arrive at knowing the divine essence as much as it's what knowable, right? And that is clear in this way: for each thing is knowable as it is a being an act.

[39:18] And so Aristotle brings out in the ninth book of wisdom, which is the book on act and ability, right? Where he says that ability is knowable only through act, right? And

[39:33] when you see a building going up, you know what's it going to be. Sometimes before you know, you hear people speculate what it's going to be. But the more it comes to be an act, the more you know what it's going to be, right?

[39:46] Therefore, God, whose being is what infinite, and we had a article on that earlier in the course, right? Um, He is what infinitely knowable. But no created intellect is able to know God what infinitely, huh?

[40:13] For to that extent, a created intellect knows the divine essence more perfectly or less perfectly, as it has what it's flowed over with a greater or lesser what light of glory, right? Since, therefore, the light of glory, the created light of glory, in any created understanding received, cannot be infinite, right? It's impossible that some created intellect knows God infinitely, right? Whence it is impossible that God that it comprehends God, right?

[40:55] So he's saying God is infinitely knowable, right? So to know God as much as he's knowable, that whereby you know him would have to be what infinite, right? But the light of glory, being a creature, can't be infinite, right? Okay, so he can never know God as much as he's knowable. Only God can know Himself as much as He's knowable, and only God can love Himself as much as He's lovable.

[41:22] Have you ever read the Doctor of Divine Love? Who's the Doctor of Divine Love? Oh it's uh Gregory. and Green No, Well they go Saint Francis de Sales, right? Francis de Sales. Oh, God. Yeah, yeah,

[41:44] yeah. Oh, because of his treatise. Yeah, because of his treatise on love. if they call him that. But in a sense, one is you know he's talking about glorifying God, right? Rejoicing these things, you rejoice that someone loves God more than you do, right? In other words, you should be glad that Mary loves God more adequately that someone loves Him more adequately than you do, right? Okay, or that someone even understands Him, you know, right?

[42:13] If you do, right? Okay, but in the end, you say, "Well, but no creature, not even Mary, right, can love God as much as He's lovable, right? And know as much as he'll see. Now, it would be a terrible thing for no one to know God as much as He's knowable, and for no one to love God as much as He's lovable. Wouldn't that be a pity, huh?

[42:36] And you know, sometimes you feel sorry for somebody. You know, the girl thought they asked to dance like that, but people don't love her as much as she's lovable, right? She's not infinitely lovable, but but you want somebody to to to appreciate this person that you see something, you know, and you realize that she's not appreciated, right? Okay. Or you might you know a professor or an author you think is not appreciated as much as.

[43:03] He should be right, you know, and want to, you know, but if it's sorry about God, right, it would be a pity, miserable, unfortunate, if no one would love God as much as is lovable, and no one understands God as much as is understandable. But that would be true if there wasn't God to understand and love Himself, right? So we should rejoice that He what? Because he's one who understands him as much as he's understandable, and what?

[43:37] Loved him as he's lovable. Yeah, yeah. I was working last night. There had the students at the house, and I went to students. You know, by Mozart, I'm missing Mozart. He liked these pieces, like doesn't isn't so much, you know. And I was a little upset by that, of course. Because I wanted him to, you know, to love Mozart as much as I love Mozart, right? You know, you know, and you want people to appreciate these beautiful things.

[44:05] But I mean, I think that's true of anybody. if anybody. If I was teaching paintings, and I, you know, really saw these beautiful, you know, Renaissance paintings where they were, I want my students to what? Begin to appreciate those paintings and to enjoy them and love them as much as I do, right? That's what St. Thomas says on his commentary in the Psalms about the, somewhere about King David.

[44:29] He's upset. He's angry. He's distressed because God's laws aren't being kept. He's affected by them. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I know myself as a teacher. You know, you want the students to understand more and more what you're saying or what you're talking about. We want them to understand Thomas, I mean, that's not me, but he'd understand Thomas, And it's so frustrating. You see that they don't understand him as much as understandable.

[45:01] Okay. But this would be too much greater than of knowing God, huh? So should be thankful. Okay. Now the first objection, right? Just taking it from Saint Paul there about Saint Paul seems to be saying he's going to comprehend him, right? He'll invite you to comprehend him too, okay? And that's equivocation in the word there. To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh? That comprehensio is said two ways, huh?

[45:41] In one way, strictly and properly, right? According as something is included, right? Huh? In the one comprehending, huh? And in this way, in no way is God comprehended, right? Neither by intellect nor by anything else, because since he is infinite, he in no way can be what surrounded, you might say, included. That's the idea. Closed in. Don't fence me in. Yeah, he can't be fenced in.

[46:26] Because since he is infinite, he can in no way be what fenced in or contained by something limited, right? That something limited could what grasp him infinitely, just to see infinitely, yes, huh? And thus, about comprehension, now one is asking the question, right? In another way, comprehension is taken what, or largely, right? Largely opposed to strictly, right? Or loosely, huh? According as comprehension is opposed to what pursuing, right?

[47:07] So the one who attains to something when he holds on to it, right, is said to what comprehend, right, grasp it, huh? And thus, God is comprehended by the blessed, according to that of Canticles, chapter three, verse four. I will hold on to him, right? Nor I let him what go, right, huh? And thus, it should be understood the authorities of the Apostle, meaning of course Saint Paul, about what comprehension, right?

[47:39] And then Thomas, the next little footnote to this. And in this way, comprehension is one of the three what gifts of the soul, which corresponds to hope as vision to faith, and enjoyment to what charity, right?

[48:03] For with us, not everything that is seen is what held or had, right, huh? Okay, because you are seen sometimes what at a distance, right? Or because you are not in our power, right? So you see the movie actors, right? But you don't at distance, right? You don't own her, right?

[48:32] Nor again, all things that we have, do we what enjoy? Because we're not delighted in them, huh? Or because they are not the last end of our desire, so that our desire, so that they fill and put to rest our desire, huh? But these three things the blessed have in God, because they will see Him, right? And in seeing him, they will hold on to him as present, right?

[49:07] That's why I say the word "see" in some ways is more appropriate than the word "to understand," right? Because of this idea of being present. That's why the metaphor "face to face" is very appropriate, right? Because when I see you face to face, you're present to me, right? But when I go back home at night and I have an image of you, we're not face to face.

[49:28] There's a distance between us, huh? And so you're being present to me. You're in my mind. I mean, God will be in our mind.

[49:44] Yeah, they hold on to him present, having in their power always to what see him, right? And holding on to him, they will enjoy him as the last end, fulfilling or filling their de desire. So as Thomas says one place, when he gets through talking about our end, you know. And therefore, they will blush who place the end of man in bodily things, you know, these lowly things.

[50:18] Out, and they see how how far away from that, how above us is the the last end of man, right? Okay, now the second objection, huh?

[50:35] That is comprehended, Augustine says in his what thing to Paulina, that the whole is seen, that nothing is hidden of it from the one seeing. To the second, it should be said

[50:53] that not on account of this is God said to be incomprehensible, as if something of Him there is that is not seen, right? Because, as we said before, God is altogether simple, right? So you either see the whole of God, or you don't see Him at all. Okay, but because He is not as perfectly seen as He is seeable, and then he goes. This is a common comparison Thomas makes, just as when some statement able to be demonstrated, right,

[51:30] is known through some probable reason, right? There is not something of it that is not known, because you see, what the subject or the predicate or the composition. You see all these things, right? So you see the whole statement, but the whole statement is not thus perfectly known as it is knowable.

[51:55] When Augustine, in defining comprehension, says that the whole is comprehended in seeing that is thus seen, that nothing of it is hidden from the one seeing it, or whose what limits can what be seen around.

[52:19] And then, that's a more strict sense, I guess. Then the ends of something are are seen around or check them gone around. When one comes to the end in the way of knowing that thing, right?

[52:43] Okay. Now the last thing. Now we say we we see the whole of God, but we don't see Him wholly. Perfectly, huh? To third, it should be said that totalitas, which I guess you translate as holy, right? Says the way of the object, huh? That's kind of strange that he says that, not that the whole way of the object does not come under knowledge, but because the way of the object is not the way of the what, knower.

[53:21] Who therefore sees God by His essence sees this in Him that He exists infinitely. One sees it exists infinitely, and that is infinitely knowable, right?

[53:35] But this infinite mode does not belong to Him that He knows Him infinitely. Just as someone with probability is able to know some statement to be demonstrable, even though he himself does not what know it demonstrably, right? Okay. So if I look at the later books, of Euclid, I say, hey, that's probably demonstrable, right? Because Euclid, you know, doesn't seem to have a deception, you know. But I don't know the demonstration, right?

[54:06] Someday we will understand the demonstration, okay? So we take a little break now. Appropriate time to.