Prima Pars
46. Summa I, Q.12, a.13 and Introduction to Q.13: Knowing God by Grace and the Names of God
Class of 2006-11-02
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/046-summa-i-q-12-a-13-and-introduction-to-q-13-knowing-god-by/

[0:00] You know, when someone told me that when he was young, he'd go a couple days without sleep, you know, and just thinking, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you know, me on the second day, I'd probably be if I went the first day without sleep, I'd probably be no good the second day. You know, but there's kind of you know, it's funny these anecdotal stories, you know, you don't believe them necessarily, but you know, there's a stupid story about Aristotle sitting there with a metal basin and and a metal ball, you know, like this, you know, thinking, you know, and he falls, starts to fall asleep, you know.

[0:34] okay, now back to sleep, he's thinking again, you know. Well, he wouldn't do something as stupid as that, you know. But such a story should begin, you know, is because you know these people are known for for thinking a long time, right?

[0:52] So ready begin again? Yeah, it didn't work too well Article 13 here, Article 13, one proceeds thus. It seems that through grace there has not had a higher knowledge of God than that which has had through natural reason, huh?

[1:17] For Dionysius says in the book on mystical theology that the one who is better united to God in this life is united to Him as to something entirely what unknown, huh?

[1:37] Which was also said about Moses, huh? Who nevertheless had a most excellent what knowledge? Who obtained a an excellence in the knowledge of grace, but to be joined to God, beginning of what He is, also happens through what natural reason, right? Therefore, through grace, one God is not more fully known by us than by natural reason, huh? So Dionysius says, you know, that the highest thing in our knowledge of God in this life, and this is, you know, through grace it seems, and faith, is to know that He's above anything, you know, maybe so that He is really unknown to us, huh?

[2:26] But doesn't the philosopher know this too? You see, that's an interesting objection, right? Okay. Aristotle says that as the eyes of the bat are to light of day, so is our reason to knowing what God, right? Okay, because Aristotle thought the bat flew at night time because the brightness of the day was too much for his eyes, huh? Okay.

[2:57] Moreover, through natural reason. We are not able to arrive at the knowledge of divine things except through what images, right? Okay, we we don't think without imagining, huh?

[3:13] But Dionysius says the same thing in the first chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy. The very famous thing, as he is quoted all over the place, it is impossible for us any other way for the ray, the divine ray, to shine unless it be what veiled around with the what variety of sacred veils, huh? That he's referring to all these what sensible things, right? Between you and the divine, huh?

[3:45] Just like in the Eucharist, right? Qui sub figuris variis latitat right? He's hidden under these sensible things, huh? Okay. Therefore, through grace, we do not know God more fully than by what natural reason, huh? Okay.

[4:10] It's interesting that Thomas has put this article last, huh? Because he's referring here to a what knowledge that is between the natural knowledge of God, right, and the knowledge of God as He is face to face, right? Okay, and so kind of you know, often in our thinking, we take the what extremes, right, and then we come to what is in the what middle, right? I was laying in bed the other day thinking about the plays of Shakespeare, right?

[4:46] And I say, well, at one end you got the tragedies, right? At The other end you got the what comedies, right? You talk about those two groups first, right? There's ten tragedies and five comedies, and then you have in between something, right? Okay, and I talk about the in between type of plays. Well, it's since time to do the same thing here, right? On the one hand, you have the natural knowledge of God through his effects and so on, and then you have the knowledge of God in the beatific vision, eternal life, seeing God as He is face to face.

[5:22] And now he's talking about something what in between, right? And in these first two objections, he doesn't objection, right? He's saying, well, you know, how does this differ really from what the natural knowledge, right?

[5:40] Because in the natural knowledge of God, we know more what God is not than what He is, right? Okay, it has to be perfected by the by negations. And Dionysius, you know, who's a great authority in these things, says that that's the highest thing in knowledge of God. We know that we don't know, right? Okay.

[6:06] And then the second objection is saying that well, in our natural knowledge we know God only through sensible things, right? And now Dionysius is saying, well, the divine light can only be what? Come to us when it's veiled around these sensible things, huh? Okay.

[6:28] Moreover, now the third objection is a little different. Ah, our understanding by the grace of faith adheres to God, but faith does not seem to be what? Our faith or belief does not seem to be knowledge, huh? For Gregory the Great says in the homily that those things which are seen do not have belief

[6:58] are those things which are not seen have belief and not what knowledge, huh? Therefore, through grace is not added to us some more excellent knowledge of God, huh?

[7:17] Okay. But against all of this is what the Apostle says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians that God revealed to us through the Holy Spirit those things which none of the princes of this age knew. And notice the philosophers, as the gloss explains there, that's referring to the philosophers, but the princes of this world of this age, right, huh?

[7:46] Okay. Now Thomas says, I answer. It should be said that through grace a more perfect knowledge of God is had by us than by natural reason,

[8:15] which can be made clear in this way: the knowledge which we have by natural reason requires two things, namely the images taken from sensible things and the what natural understandable light, the natural light of reason, by the power of which understandable conceptions or thoughts are taken from these images. So I what imagine a square, right? And through the light of my mind, I separate out what a square is, huh?

[8:59] Okay. And in regard to both of these things, human knowledge is aided. By the revelation of grace, for the natural light of the understanding is strengthened by the what? Pouring in of a gratuitous light, huh? Okay, not a natural light. Well, just like in our little prayer before we begin our studies, we say we ask for the angels, right, to strengthen the light of our mind. Well, by the light of faith, the what?

[9:38] Light of our mind is what strengthened, right? So there's more understandable light there. What's interesting, what he says there, right? That the natural light of the understanding is confortato, it's strengthened, right? By the pouring in of a gratuitous light. Light, huh? You're adding light to that, huh? It's a little bit like you got a candle there and you can't see too clearly, and I bring in a big torch or something, you know?

[10:10] And you have more light now, huh? More light upon the matter. And that's what's most essential. But sometimes interdum, I guess, huh? Sometimes images are formed in div in divine way, or divinely, in the imagination of man, right, huh? Sometimes God will what form images in us, right? Images more expressing divine things than are those images which are naturally taken from sensible things. Okay, that's very that's very interesting, huh?

[10:54] And this appears most of all in the what prophetic visions, huh? Okay. So we have images that are more suitable to knowing God from sensible things than the images taken from our senses sometimes. But this is kind of more an exception, huh? That's what he speaks of in in visionibus prophetalibus, right?

[11:23] And also sometimes some sensible things are formed divinely, or also some voices to what expressing something divine, huh? Just as in the baptism of Christ, to see the Holy Spirit in the form of a what dove, right, huh? And the voice of the Father is heard. This is my beloved what son, right, huh? Okay. So he says, in both things, our natural knowledge arises from, right? It arises partly from our senses and from the images we get through our senses, right?

[12:05] And more perfectly from the what natural light of reason, right? That separates out what's common. Aristotle speaks of this more fully there in the Proemium to Wisdom*, where he says that what comes first is sensing, touching, and smelling and tasting and seeing and hearing, right? And then from this comes to be what memory, memory of these things, right? And then from many memories of the thing, there comes to be what an experience of this, right?

[12:38] And then when you have many memories of the same sort of thing, then the natural light of reason is able to what separate out what's common to them. And that's the beginning of our thoughts, right? See. And so, when you're a little boy, one day there's a dog in the yard, and your mommy says. There's a dog, you know. And maybe another day there's a dog on the street.

[13:08] You see the dog, you know. And then finally one day the little child sees a dog and he says, "What dog, right? " Well, he's now separated out what's common to the dogs he sensed and remembers to some extent, right? And has some experience of dog. And then he separates out what a what dog is, right? You know. You got the baby in the high chair, and you say, "You want a cookie?

[13:34] " and give a cookie, and eats it. Another day you want a cookie, you know, after after the main meal. And finally one day the kid says, "Cookie, cookie! " And so he sees something common to these things you've been giving him that are both very you know sweet and delicious, huh? And now he separates out to some extent what a cookie is, right? He knows to some extent that's the beginning of what the knowledge of reason, right?

[14:03] As Boethius says, the thing is singular when you sense it, right? But universal when it's understood. Another way of saying that is that reason understands what it is, but what a cookie is and what a dog is is something what universal. So that's the beginning, of it, huh? But then he says

[14:31] there are images, right? Sometimes formed divinely rather than coming through our senses, right? And sometimes even sensible things like the the the dove descending on Christ in his baptism, right? Or the voice of the father, right? Okay. Which some of the people there thought was thunder or something, right? So God sometimes improves upon sensible or imaginable, right? And gives us something sensible or imaginable that's a better starting point for thinking about him, right?

[15:07] But more important is that he gives, and he does especially to prophets, right? But then more important, he gives them what another light or a light that strengthens the natural light of reason, okay? It's kind of interesting. I don't think Thomas speaks here. He doesn't speak of it as as were another light alongside of the natural light of reason, right? But as if a light that strengthens the light natural light of reason and therefore enables you to see something that you wouldn't what otherwise, right?

[15:40] What you see in a sense is that this is to be what believed, right? And so you're raised up to seeing that someone else can't see it. This is something to be believed.

[15:55] Okay, now the first objection is saying, "Well. " Isn't this knowledge of faith the same thing as the knowledge of reason? Because you're joined to God as what, something unknown.

[16:14] But the first, he says, therefore it ought to be said, that through the revelation of grace in this life, we do not know about God what He is, and thus we are joined to Him as to something unknown. Nevertheless, we know Him more fully, in so far as many and more excellent effects of His are what demonstrated to us, are shown to us, and in so far as we attribute to Him some things from divine revelation, to which natural reason does not attain, as that God is what both three and one, right?

[16:57] So he's talking about the mystery of the Trinity. And in a sense, it seems to me that the mystery of the Trinity is really where faith begins, huh? In the sense that it enters into the definition of all the rest, huh? Because you can't really understand the incarnation unless you understand the second person of that Trinity became man, or the Word was made flesh, right? And the incarnation gets its name from that text of Saint John: "The Word was made flesh."

[17:33] But before he talks about the Word was made flesh, he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards God, and the Word was God." Right? So you're explaining something in the mystery of the Trinity before you talk about the incarnation. So you can say, in a sense, the mystery of the Trinity enters into the the mystery of the what incarnation, right? Yeah. And then you say, what about the Church?

[17:57] That's a mystery too, yeah. Second Vatican Council and the First Vatican Council too, is about the mystery of the Church very much defining that mystery. But what is the Church? Well, as Pope Pius XII said, the best definition of the Church is that it's the mystical body of Christ, right? So Christ is in the definition of the Church, really, huh? And so there's an order among these things, right?

[18:20] But the fundamental one is the what, Trinity, yeah. And the philosophers, as Thomas will say, the philosophers don't know the Trinity, huh? This thing. There's something about God that is known to us through revelation. That God is three and one, right? That the philosopher has no knowledge of, huh? Of course, the Mohammedans think that we're what polytheists, you know, with the Trinity. They don't understand the Trinity.

[18:58] Okay. So actually, Thomas is is pointing out two things there, right? We know him more fully, says, insofar as many and more excellent effects of his are shown to us, right? And then, insofar as we attribute to him some things from divine revelation to which natural reason does not attain, and it's kind of significant that he signals out the unity, is in a sense that that's a fundamental thing, right?

[19:34] Okay. Now, the second objection was taken from the fact that sensible things play a role in both natural knowledge and in the supernatural knowledge.

[19:59] To The second, therefore. It should be said that from images, either taken from the sense by natural an natural order of things, or divinely formed imagination,

[20:15] to that extent, a more excellent knowledge, understandable knowledge, is had, in so far as the understandable light in man was what stronger, right? Okay. So what is the the dreams that the pharaoh had, right? And what do the dreams mean, right? But the prophet, the the Hebrew prophet, there, right, having this superior light, can understand what the images mean, right? The the the slim cows and so on, and and the fat cows.

[20:47] There's going to be seven years of fatness in that land, and seven years of what famine, right? You've got to store up things for that time, right? Okay.

[21:02] So whether the images are something divinely formed or even the natural images, right? There's another light there that draws more out of the image, huh? And that's the light of faith.

[21:18] And thus, by revelation from images, a fuller knowledge is taken from the pouring in of this divine light, which strengthens the natural light of of reason. In fact, I love that phrase there, you know, in the epistle. of James? You know about the Father of Lights. But every perfect gift is coming down from the Father of Lights. But why is he called the Father of Lights in the plural?

[21:49] One gift is the natural light of reason. Another gift is the light of faith, right? And the last gift is the light of glory, right? Whereby we talked about that before. Whereby you see God as He is, right?

[22:06] But He's the Father of Lights. Most perfect gifts come down from Him. Okay. Now the third objection is a little bit different from the first two, huh? First two were saying we had the same knowledge by natural reason as you have by faith, so they're not any different. And so the first, the reply to the first two objections is showing, well, no. There's some things you know, right?

[22:38] From images, whether natural images or divinely formed images, there's some things you know by the natural light of reason by the light of faith that you didn't know by the natural light of reason, huh? Okay. But this third objection is saying, well, yeah, but this is knowledge, this is belief.

[23:00] The third should be said that belief is a certain knowledge, right? In so far as the understanding is determined by belief to something knowable, but this determination to one does not proceed from the what vision of the one believing, but from the vision of the one who is believed. And thus, in so far as vision is lacking, it falls short of the notion of what knowledge, which is in science.

[23:37] For science determines the understanding to one to the vision understanding of what first beginnings, huh? Thomas sees this in truth in that objection, right? Huh? But there's something of knowledge there, in so far as the understanding is determined by belief to something what knowable, right? Huh? So even the mystery of the Trinity is in some way what noble by us, right? But to revelation and to belief.

[24:16] Remember before Aristotle, or not Aristotle? Thomas was talking before about the theologies of science, you know. And then the objection was, well, science is based upon something obvious and known, right? And Thomas compared theology in a way to those sciences that borrow their beginnings from other science. Okay, like like astronomy borrows things from geometry, right? And accepts them on the word of the geometer. Yeah. And music borrows things from arithmetic, the science of numbers, and accepts them, right?

[24:57] So, in that sense, theology is a science more like astronomy or music than like arithmetic or what geometry, right? Because based upon the beginnings that it takes from the science of God and the blessed, huh? Okay. So Thomas up there now is among the the blessed, right? And and we can take from him, learn from God himself, the beginnings of this science called what theology, right?

[25:30] And but that's already going all the way back to what to Pythagoras, right? That distinction. The Pythagoras distinguished the quadrivium, you know, part of the liberal arts as it became known as the trivium and the quadrivium. The quadrivium was arithmetic and geometry and astronomy and what music, right? But arithmetic and geometry were kind of more fundamental, and music borrowed from arithmetic and geometry or astronomy, rather, borrowed from what.

[26:02] Geometry, huh? So, Aristotle argues that the Earth is round and a sphere. He argues from the shadow it casts upon the Moon, which is circular, huh? So it's kind of like geometrical argument, okay?

[26:27] So, you know, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas will, in the third book, there is showing that God is the end of all things first, right? And then, in a special way, he's the end of those creatures that can understand, and their end is to see Him as He is, right? But he kind of proceeds a little different order, right? He says, "Is the knowledge that everybody has that there is a God is that sufficient to satisfy us?

[27:08] " Right? And he argues that that is not enough, right? Well, then, how about the knowledge that the philosophers get of God? Is that enough to satisfy our mind, right? And he gives using the way that's not enough to satisfy our mind. And then, how about the knowledge we have of God by belief, you know, by faith? Is that enough to satisfy our mind, right? Is there something imperfect about that, right?

[27:29] And so, finally, argues that we can only be satisfied by seeing God as He is face to face, right? And so, he argues with, you know, great probability that that that's our end, right? And therefore, in this life, we don't reach our last end, huh? Of course, there's all kinds of reasons to say we're not completely happy in this life, but everybody to some extent knows it, right?

[27:55] It's very reasonable, right? You know, but I mean, even Thackeray and Vanity Fair, you know, the Red Vanity Fair, kind of most famous novel, Thackeray. You know, there's there's the the rivalry between Thackeray and Dickens, right? These guys trying to outdo the other guy. And so, around the same time, these come out the the Vanity Fair and David Copperfield, the two best novels. And I guess they were kind of, you know, sort of friction because they were in competition, huh?

[28:25] And then, then there's a funny thing, you know, like the Thackeray's daughter supposed to have said, you know, she had reading Dickens and Daddy why don't you write more like Dickens, and Daddy, why don't you write more like Mister Dickens?

[28:37] And I guess just just towards the end of their life, there they they happen to pass each other on this big building or something. They pass each other, and it's usually they're going to walk by each other, don't say anything. One of them turned around and shook his hand, and that was kind of a reconciliation there at the end. But even at the end of Vanity Fair, which is kind of a portrait of the vanity of Victorian England in a sense, but the end, you know, says, "For whom this life ever gets what he wants.

[29:06] " Or having gotten it, dissatisfied, you know. You know, either you're dissatisfied because you didn't get what you wanted to get, right? Or else you get what you want, and you realize it's not as great as you thought it would be.

[29:22] And but that's true, you know. Now in high school, I thought, gee, it'd be wonderful to be in college, not in high school. You know, high schoolish, you know. Then get to college, all kinds of problems and things. You know, they're incredible. Why get to graduate? That'd be good, yeah. In fact, I guess teaching now is just fine, you know. There's always something, you know, that disturbs these things.

[29:45] How about retirement? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Then you get all kinds of problems, you know. You know, I didn't know there was so much repair to do. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Y y You gotta, you know, work at Social Security. and. You gotta you know get new ratings for your your your uh health insurance and so on you know all kinds of things you know and then then then old age and all the problems set in and so on.

[30:12] so you realize but but Thomas you know we'll we'll talk about how even in terms of knowing you can't be satisfied right you know he says the more you know the more you want to know and so there's a dissatisfaction just because of that right

[30:32] of course the more you know about God without knowing what He is the more you want to know what He is so but here the order is a little bit different right because here you begin with what the knowledge of God as He is right kind of appropriate order in in theology but not so much in philosophy right

[30:58] okay now what's the connection between the twelfth question which has thirteen articles and the next question the thirteenth question the names of God we talked about this before Name things as we know them yeah yeah and so learned

[31:20] a little bit about God here in the previous articles questions rather two through eleven and then in question twelve we talked about how we know God and now in question thirteen he's going to talk about the names of God right

[31:39] and interesting you know I find when the way Scripture speaks I mean just take the Our Father for example what's the first thing we ask for the Our Father

[31:54] Yeah We use the word name there right um and Scriptures say you know in the Psalms our help is in the name of the Lord okay was our help really in the name of the Lord or in the Lord Himself yeah and and do you want to the God's name be made holy in us or the God Himself be made holy in us huh which

[32:25] shows how closely connected these things are the reason that Scripture will speak that way right reminds me you know of Aristotle I mean of Thomas's text there in the Proemium to the Nicomachean Ethics he talks about logic there and he says

[32:52] logic is about reason ordering its what. Thinking right, when it orders its thoughts and the vocal sounds that signify these thoughts, right? Okay. Well, I've tried to in some of my writings here, kind of unfold a bit what Thomas says there, right? And you say, well, how do you order your thinking?

[33:22] Because if your thinking is disordered, you are what Couldn't be mistaken, right? The Greeks and the Latins. The Greeks had the word plane, and the Latins had the word error, right? But both the word error and the word plane come from the respective words for wandering, right? Okay. So when your mind wanders, it wanders into error, right? Okay. When our Lord says, you know, to the Sadducees that you err, The Greek word is planasthe, right?

[34:04] Get the word planet, because the planets seem to wander around the sky a bit. But now, how can order your thinking? Can you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch your thinking? How do you order your thinking?

[34:23] It's kind of hard to, eh? And Thomas seems to suggest in that text that you order your thinking by ordering your thoughts. Okay. But again, how can you order your thoughts because you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or imagine your thoughts, right? How do you order your thoughts?

[34:49] Order your senses. Yeah, can you order your thoughts without the same time ordering your what the words that signify your what thoughts, right? And it's kind of interesting when Aristotle, who's known as the father of logic, right? Well, he talks about the statement he defines a statement, say in the Peri Hermeneias. He defines a statement that is a vocal sound, the words, right? Is if we can't really order our thoughts without ordering the words that what signify those thoughts, right?

[35:38] And when you're trying to to define something, you have to find the words to define it, right? And even you know you can see that in in in in. Counting and calculating, you got to have some kind of sensible things, you know, like a seven and a five, you know. You need something sensible, right? Um,

[36:09] you know when the when the apostles spoke to our Lord one time, and they said, "Well, you know, John he taught his his disciples how to pray, right? " So they asked our Lord to teach us how to pray, right? And Christ, you know, in Luke there he says, "Well, he kind of teaches them to be our Father, right? " Now, well, how how do you you teach somebody to pray, right?

[36:37] Huh? You got to teach him to pray by some words, right? Huh? And first, maybe he merely memorizes these words like a child, you know. And

[36:54] with my son Paul there, and they see the rosary in the evening. There, you know, each and child gets a chance to say the Hail Mary, and it's kind of funny to hear the ones saying the words, right? But I noticed myself in one of the Psalms there where it says, "You know, let the words of my mouth and the thought of my heart do you know, you know, find favor before you, right?

[37:15] " But kind of the order is interesting, right? You got to first of all, you know, find the words or learn the words, and then you know, words without thoughts don't go to heaven, as Shakespeare says. But you got to have the words, right? And then eventually the the thoughts come along. It's kind of interesting, you know. You know that great mind there, Saint Augustine. There, they say he went to the cathedral there, wherever it was, in Milan there, to listen to the words, the wonderful style of Ambrose, the Ciceronian style of Ambrose, and so on.

[37:54] But then, with the words, be what the thoughts came, yeah, yeah. So you can't downplay the importance of talking about the names of God, huh? And if you don't know how to talk about God, you don't know how to what think about God, huh? You don't know how to speak about God, you don't know how to think about God, huh? So Thomas is going to talk about the names of God, right?

[38:25] Huh? So he says in the premium here to this question thirteen, having considered those things which belong or pertain to divine knowledge, meaning the knowledge of God, but not to proceed to a consideration of divine names, meaning the names of God, for each thing is. Named by us according as we what know it right? Okay. It's interesting going back to Dionysius, right? He writes this book about the divine names.

[39:07] Okay. It's kind of interesting that that he doesn't say the book is about God; it's about the names of God, right? Well, isn't it about God? You know, but not the names of the book, right? See, I think I mentioned that that interesting thing in the commentary in the Psalms. If you had Thomas's commentary in the Psalms, but in one place there, you know, he says, "Whoever teaches teaches either words or things."

[39:45] And when we teach Scripture, we teach words, right? Of course, kind of a simple way of speaking, but aren't you teaching us about God? It's not teaching us just about words, are you? Yeah, but kind of the words is up front there. You got these words. and what do they mean, right? Okay. So he's going to have twelve articles about the names of God, right? And about this, therefore, twelve things are asked.

[40:17] First, whether God is namable by us, right? Can we name God, right? In some way. Secondly, whether some names said about God are said of Him what? Substantially, right? Now, what does that mean?

[40:48] Now we'll see when we get there. That seems to be kind of strange, huh? Because you don't know God as He is, and what God is is a substance, right? But are some names said of God substantially, right? That stumps me me, huh? If you look at the beginning of that second article, Thomas, you know, usually takes the opposite side of the one he's going to take, right?

[41:20] And that first says it seems that no name is said of God substantially, and he's going to argue against it, you know. But then later on, he's going to say, take to the side, right, himself, huh?

[41:36] That's kind of strange, isn't it? What's that mean? Third, whether some names said of God are said properly of Him, or whether all are attributed to Him what? Metaphorically, right?

[42:00] The Lord is my rock, huh? That's being said of God metaphorically. But are all things said of God metaphorically? You say God is good, or God is perfect. Is that being said of Him metaphorically? That's really what He is. He's very good. You'll find out. Now we did find out before, right?

[42:33] We say what's his name? Dionysius has one book about the things that are said of God properly. That's the book on divine names. Another book, which is about names said of God, what? Metaphorically, right? It's kind of interesting the way he divides that,

[42:54] huh? I remember one time I said, I think I'll try to, you know, parallel saying. Things of God properly, and then say the same things of God metaphorically, huh?

[43:11] Taste and see how sweet is the Lord, right? Okay. So you say that God is sweet. You are saying of God metaphorically some things you could say of God what? Properly, right? Okay.

[43:41] So in in in trying to explain what it means to say that God is sweet, you might bring in the fact that God is what?

[43:51] Okay. the the famous thing there? Huh? When Moses saw the burning bush, right? Okay. Well, the church fathers say the burning bush represents the incarnate Word, huh? And the and the fire represents his divine nature, and the bush is what? Human nature, huh? And the fact that the bush is not consumed by the fire signifies that his divine nature doesn't what swallow up and destroy or eliminate.

[44:31] Burn up, so to speak, his human nature, right? The the divine nature and the human nature remain intact, you might say, right? And and so the wonder that Moses has that the bush is not consumed in a way is a wonder about the what incarnation, huh? Then you say, well, the church fathers say, well, a metaphor involved is based upon some kind of likeness, huh? So how is fire a metaphor for the divine nature?

[45:08] Well, the light of fire is a metaphor for the divine what? Understanding, right? And the heat of the fire is a metaphor for the divine love, huh? And the power of fire to transform things, huh? To change them is a metaphor for the divine what? Power, right? Okay.

[45:36] But now sometimes fire is used as a metaphor for what? The Trinity, huh? And in that case, then the substance of the fire is a metaphor for God the Father. And from the fire proceeds what? Light and heat. And from the Father proceeds the Father, I mean the Son, who is like light, and the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, right? Okay. So some things are going to be said of God metaphorically, and some things are said of God what properly, right?

[46:17] Okay. Now of course Thomas is going to maintain that some things are said of God properly, and not all things are said of Him, are said of Him metaphorically, right? Although some people hold that opinion, right?

[46:42] And then the fourth article: where there are many names said of God are what synonyms, right? Well, synonym means what? Same meaning. Yeah, yeah. Well, there are many names said of God, but are they synonyms?

[47:06] Well, God altogether simple, right? You see. But do they have the same meaning? So when I say God is is perfect, and I say God is simple, is the perfection of God and the simplicity of God two different things in God? No. But are the the word simple and the word perfect? Are they

[47:38] synonyms instead of God? Do they have the same meaning? Okay. Well, there's no problem there, right? See. How can you truly say many things of God when He's altogether what? Simple. Yeah. And so sometimes you know we take that example there. I like to take the.

[48:07] The circle, right? You see. And from the one simple God, there proceed what many things and creatures which are divided amongst them, right? Okay, so you can probably put a circle there. And so this point here is not this point here, and the other points which are the ends of the radii of the circle, but our knowledge starts from creatures, right? Okay, so we have many thoughts corresponding to the many distinct perfections of things that are found in creatures.

[48:50] But when we come back to God from creatures, right? We're knowing Him in a sense as beginning of this line, right? Beginning of that line, right? And so I could. Say that this center of the circle is truly the beginning of this line, the beginning of that line, the beginning of that line. Yet it's only one point. But the end point of these lines is all but different right?

[49:23] So the fact that we have many names truly said of God, but they're not synonyms, is the fact of knowing God from what creatures and we're naming God from creatures, right?

[49:39] So, although, there's no comparison here to the point of the center of the circle, he's the beginning of many lines, but he's one point. But the end of these lines are really many, right? So, not to be thought about there, right? And then the fifth article, whether

[50:09] some names are said of God and creatures univocally, or what, equivocally, right? Well, a name is said of many things univocally when it's said with the same meaning in mind, right? It's said equivocally when it's said of many with different meanings in mind, right? Well, as you might guess, there's no name said of God in His divine nature in a creature univocally, right? There's always a different meaning, right?

[50:40] But if there's a different meaning, is it just by chance then, or is it that there's a what reason why the same name is being said of God and us, right? So if I say that God is good, and I can say that this human being is good, let's say, or dinner is good, or something, does the word "good" mean the same thing? Not exactly, no. But is it by chance that we say the word "good" of the man and say the word "good" of God?

[51:12] Then there's some reason for using the word "good" of both, and that's what he's going to bring out in that article. Now the seventh article, whether some names are said of God from time. Well, God, as you know, is eternal, right? Huh? Well, when we say though that God is said the creator or the ruler of the universe, right? Is that said of God eternally or after He's created?

[51:43] Hmm. Yeah, but then how can something be said of God extemporaneously? It's like you know something's been added to God, right? There's been some change, right? Okay.

[52:00] So that's you can see a lot of problems going to arise about these things, huh? Eighth article, whether this name God, and that's interesting. Now he's descending down to the name God itself, right? This is getting starting article eight. They're getting a little more particular, right? Whether this name God is a name of nature or a name of what operation, right? Whether this name God is a name that can be communicated.

[52:38] The tenth article, whether it's taken univocally or equivocally as it is said of God by nature and by God by participation. You're all gods, it says in Scripture, right? Hmm. And when we speak of the gods of the Greeks or something, you know, there's Zeus and so on. Secundum opinionem, right, huh? Okay. Okay. So they say Zeus is a god, and when we say the saints are gods, right?

[53:09] When we say God is God, what does this mean? Then the eleventh article: Whether this name, who is, I am who am, is most of all the proper name of God? Okay. We know when Moses said, "You know, who's sending me? Right? What I told sent me?

[53:40] What's your name?" And then he said, "I am who am." Right? Huh? So this raises the question. Then now, this is what God says: is His name, right? Is that most of all His name? I am who am. Who is? who is?

[54:06] What does our Lord say to the doctor of the church or doctors of the church, Saint Catherine of Siena? Right? Huh? Oh yeah. Just remember two things: I am who am, and you are she who is not.

[54:25] But you can say it to all of us, right? Huh? They're there. You find that name. Used even in the intimate conversations between our Lord and Saint Catherine of Siena.

[54:49] So it seems that he's taking up the name Deus, which in in in English we translate by God, right? Huh? And the name who is, or I am who is, who am? Those two names he's taking up in particular articles here, right? Okay.

[55:13] Well, obviously, this we're talking about the names of God, whether God is nameable. And obviously, the God comes up there, right? Huh? So it's not surprising that he should have two articles, or an article in particular, but actually there is what the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth. Three of the twelve articles are about the name God in particular, right? Okay. And then there is one article on the name who is, right?

[55:42] Okay. Okay. Now the twelfth article, which you could distinguish against the previous articles, because they're really about names, and this is now whether. Actually, in

[56:08] he's talking about proposizioni. There has come to mean statement, right? So, whether you can make affirmative statements about God, okay? You see any problem making affirmative statements about God? No,

[56:32] what he is not. If only what he is not. But now he's asking whether affirmative propositions can be said of God, right? Huh? Well, you can say it as affirmative, and you can say it as an opposite too. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But he's asking about whether affirmative statements can be made about God. So you say God is is is this, and there is some distinction between the subject and predicate, and there is some multiplicity there, right?

[56:59] You know, you know. So that got stuck in there among the questions about the names. But then you go back to scripture, and you read through the Psalms. You know how sometimes it seems like

[57:23] name is almost substituted for God, like by kind of I don't know, is it by metonymy? You know, you see our help is in the name of the Lord, huh?

[57:35] Oh. Or praise the name of the Lord, right? Are you supposed to praise the name of the Lord, really, or praise the Lord? You know.

[57:49] Is that a metonym or what is it? I think a metonym is a figure of speech, right? When you when you give the the container for the contained, or vice versa, or the name for the named, and so on, right?

[58:09] When you say, for example, that a bad age or a bad time, right? Bad time was the time bad, or something that took place during that time was bad. Or you speak of, you know, an evil place. Is the place really evil, or the things that are done in that place evil? See.

[58:43] So here you're giving the name of the container to the contained, right? Huh. Um. I think they call that you know, metonym, huh? Hmm. Metonym, huh? And.

[59:01] It's a common, pretty common figure of speech. Metonymy gets named a speech and find it. Okay, so now. And sometimes, for example, you know, when they explain these things, let the earth praise the Lord, right? And they mean, you know, men on the earth praise you, not the earth itself. It's a common figure of speech, but it seems like like

[59:50] it seems like you're you've got a metonymy in these parts of scripture. Yeah. Well I suppose we should stop there then. And we can begin with uh question Article one here now, right? Yeah.

[1:00:15] Can Aristotle really argue that the earth is round from the shadow cast Yeah, one of his arguments, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So he was way ahead of when everyone thought the world was flat. Well a lot of people did, yeah, yeah, but uh you know, some of the more intelligent people maybe didn't.