Prima Pars
48. Aquinas on the Names of God, Part 2: Proper and Metaphorical Names, Figures of Speech in Scripture, and the Dangers of Imagination (Q.13, Aa.2–3)
Class of 2006-11-09
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/048-aquinas-on-the-names-of-god-part-2-proper-and-metaphorical/

[0:00] Names is expressed what God is perfectly right, but each one imperfectly signifies it right, just as creatures imperfectly represent it, huh? Follow that? Okay. To the second, it should be said, huh? That in the signification of names, now this is another distinction that's very important. Other sometimes is that from which

[0:44] the name is imposed to signifying something, and that to which the name is imposed to signify. And it says we call these the what? The etymology of the word and the what? Meaning of the word, right? Okay. So he calls the etymology of the word that from which the name is taken, right? To be applied to something, and the meaning that to which it is applied, right?

[1:17] Okay. These are often connected, but they don't necessarily what? Yeah, yeah. I notice how the scientists all the time, you know, they have a new element called berkelium or something, you know. Was discovered in Berkeley, California or something. The scientists there is something, you know. So what are you going to call it, you know? But there, there is very little connection between the etymology there. Just as this name lapis in Latin, right?

[1:47] Thomas thought it was the etymology was what laedit pedem, you know. I don't know if that's really the correct one or not, but let's say it is, huh? So you might name the stone for the fact that it hurts the foot, right?

[2:04] But it is not imposed to signify hitting the foot, right? But to signify any certain kind of body, right? Okay. Otherwise, everything injuring the foot would be a what stone?

[2:26] That's therefore should be said that names of this sort, divine names, are imposed from the what? Processions of the deity, right? From God to what creatures, right? Um.

[2:50] Just as according to the diverse proceedings of perfections, the creatures represent God although imperfectly. So thus our understanding, according to each procession, knows and what names God, right?

[3:07] Thomas has a very interesting explanation of a passage in scripture there in the beginning of the fourth book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, ecce haec sunt partes viarum eius said in the part of his ways, where he's talking about the knowledge we have of God, to creatures, right? And these things descend from God to us, right? And we start down here and go back up, right? Okay, and that's my little analogy there to the circle, right?

[3:34] Huh? Okay. In other words, the point there, which is the center of the circle, represents the simplicity of God at that point. There proceeds from the simple, universally, perfect God many different perfections in creatures, right? And then we starting from these, work our way back to God, right? Huh? And this is the beginning of all these things that are found in creatures, but he's beginning of it in a simple way, right?

[4:05] In a more perfect way, huh? Okay. So our understanding, according to each proceeding, which in that text in the Summa Contra Gentiles is called each way or row, right? Huh? It knows God and names Him, right? But nevertheless, these names are not placed upon God to signifying the processions, right? As when it's said that God is living, the sense is that from Him proceeds life, right? But to signifying the very what beginning of things, right?

[4:48] Insofar as their pre-exists in it life, right? Although in a more excellent or eminent way, then is understood and signified by what? By us, yeah. Now. To third, therefore, it should be said that the essence or nature of God in this life, we are not able to know according as it is in itself, but we know it according as is represented in the perfections of creatures, and thus the names imposed by us signify it, huh?

[5:28] Okay. So I don't, you know, that third argument you gave in the Bible text, that's my experience myself of studying these things, right? When I think that God is alive or something like that, I'm not thinking about His just being the cause of our life, right? But He's He's alive in a way that makes us seem almost dead.

[5:56] Yeah, remember De Koninck talking about our minds, and it seems to be practically so sluggish, slow to understand. Okay, so a little break here before we go on to the. take the third article. Whether

[6:17] some name is said property of God, huh? To the third, thus one proceeds. It seems that no name is said of God properly, right? I think properly here is taken as the opposite of what figurative, huh? Okay. You may recall there was an article on the first question, right, on whether Scripture should use metaphors. Okay.

[6:44] All names which we say about God are taken from creatures, as has been said, right? But the names of creatures are metaphorically said of God, as when we say that God is a stone, or the Lord is my rock, or a lion, right, or something of the sort. Therefore, all these names, therefore all names said of God are said what metaphorically, huh? Okay.

[7:19] Moreover, no name is properly said of something from which is more truly removed than said of it. But all of these names, "bonus sapiens good, wise, and so on, are more truly removed from God than said of Him, as is clear through Dionysius in the second chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy. Therefore, none of these names is properly said of God. I don't know if he's going to bring it up here, but that reminds me of the you know the fourth Lateran Council, you know, which Paul the sixth first called my attention to one time one of his sermons.

[7:56] But it's talking there about you can never note a likeness of the creature in God without the same time a greater what? Yeah, yeah. So you have these things, you know, in Scripture, like who is like God, you know, and well, in some way we're like God, but it's more like you know we're unlike God than like Him, huh? And that's part of the reason why you know you have behind this.

[8:27] Moreover, the names of bodies are not said of God except what metaphorically, since He is bodyless, corporeal. But all names of this sort imply some bodily conditions, for they signify with time and with composition, as we said before, right? And with other things of this sort, which are the conditions of bodies. Therefore, all these names are said of God metaphorically. Well, this is obviously overlooking some kind of distinction between a name like saying the Lord is my rock, right, and God is good, right, then.

[9:07] Because God is going to be said properly, and God is a rock, is going to be said not properly but figuratively and metaphorically. Um. But against this is what Ambrose says. In the second book on faith,

[9:29] there are some names which evidently show the property of the divinity, and which express the clear truth of the divine majesty. Others, which are what, translativa, right?

[9:53] Said by likeness of God. Now let me stop there for a moment. The Latin there, the Latin word translatio, where we get our English word translation, and the Greek word metaphor are etymologically the same, and they both mean what? carry over, right? Okay. But now, for no good reason, but nevertheless has happened,

[10:25] translation in English has come to mean carrying over the meaning of somebody's words, but not his words. Right. Why metaphor has come to mean carrying over the word, but not the same meaning. So when the husband says his wife is honey, he doesn't mean that she's that sticky yellow substance, so on. But he's carried the name honey over, right? Okay.

[10:55] Now, that's not true of Latin, you see. Okay. And Thomas will talk. I've seen the phrase in Thomas translatio nominis, the carrying over of the name. So he's not limited like the English word is, right? Okay. But when he uses the word translatio here in the text from Ambrose, right? He's thinking of what? Carrying over the name, right? Not the meaning. But nevertheless, there's a connection between the meaning of the metaphor or the word itself and what you mean when you say it of God.

[11:33] there's some kind of likeness there, right? Okay. So translatio here is similar to the kind of translation or carrying over that you have in the word metaphor.

[11:51] Therefore, not all names are said of God metaphorically, but some are said properly, right? So this is the distinction that Ambrose is making. He's a pretty good mind, the Ambrosian. I'm impressed with a lot of things that. Peter Lombard uses, you know, some texts from Ambrose It's mainly from Augustine, you know, but. Occasionally, he'll bring in some text from Ambrose. It's very to the point and very exact, and and not as often as Augustine, but sometimes even you know, he's got a better text from Ambrose than Augustine occasionally.

[12:22] And this is a particularly clear text, it seems to me, from the great Ambrose. He's considered one of the four great doctors of the Western Church. Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory, and Jerome.

[12:38] Yeah. So he's clearly making the distinction that Thomas wants to make in the body of the article. I answer: It should be said, as has been said, that we know God from perfections, right? Proceeding in creatures from Him, right?

[13:03] Which perfections are in God in a more eminent way than they are in what creatures? Our understanding, however, right, in that way apprehends them, according as they are in creatures, and according as we grasp something, so we signify it through names. In the names, therefore, which we attribute to God, there's two things to consider: to wit, the perfections themselves signified as goodness, life, and of this sort, and the modus significandi, the way of signifying.

[13:45] Now, as regards what these names signify, they belong properly to God, and more properly to creatures. So that Christ could say, you know, God alone is good, right? They belong more properly to Him. See, he wouldn't say God alone is a stone, would he? No, but God alone is good, right? And per prius, huh? They are said of Him before they're said of creatures, right? But as regards the way of signifying, right?

[14:21] They are not properly said of God, right? Because they have the way of signifying this composed and this concrete and abstract we spoke about before, right? Because they have the way of signifying which is fitting to creatures. That clear? Okay.

[14:42] Now, in the reply to objections, he's going to make something like the distinction that he makes in the Summa Contra Gentiles that I spoke about earlier. To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh,

[14:57] that the names signifying and Perfections of this sort proceeding from God into created things, in this way that that imperfect mode in which the creature partakes of divine perfection, if that's included in the name, right? As stone signifies something that is a being in a material way, and these names cannot be said of God except metaphorically. Okay, that's the same distinction he made in the first chapter, Summa Contra Gentiles, right?

[15:36] That if the name signifies a perfection in the way that's private to the creature, like stone does, right? Huh? Then it can't be said of God except metaphorically, huh? Okay.

[15:54] But whatever names signify these perfections absolutely, without this, right? That some way of partaking of them in the creature is included in their signification, as being good and living, right? These can be said what property of God, right? Okay. And then in this Summa Contra Gentiles he distinguishes a third thing, right? Okay. If you say God is the primum ens or the summum bonum, right? Then you're naming that perfection with what's private to the way that God has it, and therefore it can be said only of God, right?

[16:35] Okay. But names like being, good, living can be said of God properly, right? And not metaphorically. Now, incidentally, go back to that distinction. Thomas, I think, gives the best explanation of what figurative names are in the commentaries on the epistles of Saint Paul and so on. There's one text example when Saint Paul uses figure of speech called irony, and Thomas has to explain that Paul is not lying or saying something false.

[17:14] Okay. And so he says, when you speak figuratively, Thomas says, and Saint Paul is speaking figuratively here, not properly. When you speak figuratively, he says, the meaning of your words is not the meaning of the speaker. That's a remarkable thing, right? It's not because he made a mistake. Didn't say he wanted to say it in a sense, right? Not that sort of thing.

[17:50] But there is some connection between what his words mean and what he means. And in that particular text, Thomas contrasts irony, which is being used by Saint Paul, with metaphor, right? I think he contrasts them because the connection in metaphor between what your words mean and what you mean is one of likeness. But in the case of irony, there's an opposition between what your words mean and what you say, right?

[18:21] Okay. So if the man, if the husband calls his wife honey, or more generally sweet, right? He doesn't mean what the words honey and sweet mean. But since the honey or the sweet is pleasant, there's a certain likeness of honey or sweet to his wife or his girl,

[18:53] so. instead of saying, "Oh, thou pleasant one, oh, thou agreeable one." What you mean? Speaking properly, right? Huh? You know. He speaks. What? I rolled off your tongue, fire demon.

[19:17] I have to consult. Yeah. So when I say "oh, the agreeable one," my words mean what I mean. See, but when I say "honey" or "sweet," I don't mean what my words mean. But I mean something like what my words mean, right? Okay. I take the example in class there, you know. I said if Romeo calls Juliet Juliet, he's calling her by her own name properly. If he calls her Rosalind, which was the girl I was in love with before he met Juliet, he's making a mistake.

[20:02] But if he calls her honey or sweet, he's not making a mistake, right? But now he's speaking a different way. He's not calling her properly, but he's speaking metaphorically. Now in the case of irony, the connection is one of what?

[20:18] Of opposites, right? Okay. So when somebody's mean to us and we say to them, "Gee, you're nice," you hear that here it's said a lot, huh? Our example story just in class was if I come in here on the weekend, I find you you drunk under the table, then I say, "What a fine example of an Assumption College student." And you know I don't mean what I say.

[20:39] And you find your Mark Antony in the famous speech in Julius Caesar. So are they all honorable men, right? He's giving all kinds of reasons why the assassins are not honorable, but he keeps on calling them honorable men, right? And so.

[20:56] But when I say that God is or God is good, right? My words mean what I mean. See, but when I say the Lord is my rock, then my word doesn't mean what I mean. But in this case, it means something like, you know, he's my support in the way the rock supports something, right? Okay.

[21:27] Now the second objection is about these names can be more denied of God, right? To the second, it says that these names are said by Dionysius to neg be negated of God, because that which is signified by the name does not belong to Him in that way in which the name signifies, but in a more excellent way. Once Dionysius says there that God is above all substance and all life.

[21:59] Now the third objection says that you've got what bodily aspect in these names, huh? Okay, Thomas says, "Well, those names which are properly said of God as opposed to the metaphorical." Naming of God. They imply bodily conditions, not in the meaning of the name, right? Not in the signification of the name, but in the way it signifies.

[22:28] While on the other hand, those things which are metaphorically said of God imply a bodily condition in the very thing signified. Okay. So you know, if someone if the

[22:54] if the metaphor took on a new meaning, right, would no longer be a metaphor. If the word itself took on a new meaning, right?

[23:08] As if the word "stone" came to mean "firm," you know. And sometimes a metaphor is so commonly used that we we almost think that's the meaning of the word, right? But if that becomes the meaning of the word, it's no longer a metaphor. See, if "sweet" comes to mean "pleasant," because such a common metaphor for pleasant, right? Then "sweet" would no longer be metaphor, and "sweet" would be that from which the name was taken, right?

[23:37] But that to which the name, as Thomas says, would be in this case, pleasant, right? What is that when when a product becomes to say that I don't want to make a copy of this; I want a Xerox's. Yeah. Yeah. You know,

[24:00] it's not a figure of speech, really, huh? That's what they call it. It's more like more like antonomasia, really, huh? See, where you you give the name of a particular one to the whole, right? See, I mean, I still call these things, you know. My wife wants to call these things tissues, and I call it cleanings.

[24:32] Um if we see somebody, you know, he's a Romeo, or he's a Casanova, right? Well, what figure of speech is that? No, no, that's antonomasia See, antonomasia is where you give the the general name to the particular, or vice versa, right? Okay.

[25:01] So when Thomas calls Aristotle the philosopher, right, or we call the Bible the book, right, you know, they're giving the common name to the particular, right? But you also call it antonomasia the reverse when you give the what? Yeah, yeah. So he's a hamlet, right? You know, I mean, he's hesitant or he's you know slow. But more commonly, he's a Romeo or he's a Casanova or something like that, right?

[25:30] Then you mean he's what? A lover, right? So that's called antonomasia Now synecdoche is like that, but it's with the integral whole as a part, right? So we say the word was made flesh. that's synecdoche. They're giving the name what of the part to the whole?

[25:57] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. You know, or a guy who's you know kicks the field goal all the time and makes it. You know, called the toe. You know, or something like that. You know. You know, you know, or a guy had a long nose. You know, the nose. You know, it comes to nose. But you know, the common thing. You know, the guy was kind of smart in grade school.

[26:22] Call him brain, right? Was anybody a brain? That's only a part of the even the brainy guy. It's only a part of it, right? But calling him a brain is what giving the name of the part to the whole. The synecdoche also works the other way. Yeah, yeah. That's what I know in scripture when it says our Lord was in the tomb three days. Yeah, wasn't three periods of twenty-four hours, but those parts of those days are called.

[26:49] Yeah, yeah. Thomas explained that a lot. You know, because you could have an objection. Let's see. Yeah, it wasn't there in three days, right? I mean, when scripture says he was in there three days, the scripture false. See, or scripture using synecdoche, right? You know how how

[27:08] heretics like Arius, you know, the word was made flesh, you know, like the word was in place of the soul, you know, so Christ didn't have a soul, right? That's a big heresy. But it's taking what is a what Synecdoche as if it's being said what properly, right? Okay. A lot of people, you know, you know, it says in scripture, you know, that God was angry or something like that.

[27:33] A lot of people take what is said figuratively to be said what properly, you know, as if it's really are these emotions in God or something like that, or God would be sad that you're not, you know, behaving yourself and so on. And but God is is properly speaking never sad in His divine nature. His human nature can be, but not His divine nature. What's that about the antonomasia of the Hamlet of the Hamlet?

[28:04] That's what Pope John the Twenty-Third once referred to Paul the Sixth when he was Archbishop of Milan. He referred to him as the Archbishop Hamlet came for him because he was very moody and indecisive. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, Paul the Sixth spoke a little bit of his hesitation. You know, you know, to become kind of a Hamlet, I think. You know, but that's that's that's the antonomasia I think.

[28:24] So it goes either way, right? You can give the the common name to the particular, or the particular to the common, right? Instead of saying he's a lover, you say he's a Romeo. Instead of saying Aristotle, you say he's the philosopher. Either way, Plato talks about that in the in the dialogue called the Symposium, right? He wants to talk about it's a dialogue about love, right? And of course, sometimes the word love means what romantic love, right?

[29:01] And Thomas and Plato or Socrates wants to explain that we're speaking because he's the word whole apart there, right? But he compares it to the Greek word for poet. As I mentioned earlier, right? Because the Greek word, the common word to make is poiein, like in the categories, right? Poiein, poiskein. So the word poet in Greek is, I say, you call Homer is the maker. He is a maker, and we don't realize it because he took over the word poet from Greek, and we don't realize that what you are saying in Greek is that he's the maker.

[29:37] Homer is the maker. But he's explaining that when you call the romantic lover a lover, right? Or you call romantic love love, you know? And then is that calling the poet a maker? So it doesn't doesn't name it. I think the names came. Those names are kind of crazy in a sense. They come from the rhetoricians, right? Because the rhetoricians are a lot of times using figures of speech, right?

[30:18] And so they use in the poets too. So I think the rhetoricians the names came from them. So the etymology of the names don't exactly clue you into what they are, but we've taken the names over from them. But you see, you see Thomas more in the commentaries in Scripture. You know, he'll use the term see antonomasia and metaphor and so on because they show up more in Scripture than they do in this kind of work, right?

[30:48] Talk about them sometimes. You ever wrote an article? Did you get point one or point two? Well, no. I mean, the nearest thing I suppose would be Quintilian, right? You know, we find some of these things talked about, but I don't think as well as it should be, you know. So what I do is try to piece together the thing from what from a place where Thomas talks about it, you know.

[31:15] And I mean, the basic forms are are metaphor and irony, right? Metaphor is much more important than irony, and then antonomasia and synecdoche, and then metonymy or metonymy to name the figures of speech, and

[31:39] perhaps I privileged another one, but be careful with me about that a little bit. Don't use antonomasia. Yeah, but in the case of metaphor and and irony, it's

[31:54] based upon the likeness or the opposition of the things, right? In the case of synecdoche and antonomasia, it's based on whole and part. But synecdoche is the integral whole, and it's part. And antonomasia is the universal, whole and it's part, but going either way, right? And then metonymy is when you take the name of the container and the contained. I think it's also applied to cause and effect sometimes, right?

[32:26] So if I say this is a a wicked place, right? Well, let's consider metonymy because the place is not wicked, but the people in it are wicked, right? Or we speak of bad times. Was the time bad? No, but the but the events in that time were bad, right? But now you're carrying over what would be said of the events in that time to the time itself, right?

[32:55] Okay, or because of the bad people or the bad things done in this place, see, that's a bad place, huh? A wicked place, right? Okay. Sometimes Thomas says you know when when says let the earth bless the Lord, right? Well, sometimes this is taken as metonymy, right? Meaning those who are on the earth let them bless the earth. So those who are contained by the earth, meaning us, bless the Lord, right?

[33:24] Instead of saying let those who are on the earth bless the Lord, you said the earth bless the Lord, right? Okay. But the most common thing is you know if I say I'm drinking a cup of water, a cup of wine, or you know, or glass of beer. Well, do you really drink a glass of beer, or a glass of wine, or a cup of water, cup of tea?

[33:48] Do you drink a cup of tea? He said. What you mean? You're drinking what's in the contained? So so you're calling what's you're giving the name of the container the contained? I drank a whole cup of tea. See, you mean actually I drank what was contained in the cup of in that cup. See, so these figures of speech are used daily without a recognizing that we're using them.

[34:17] But in scripture they're used a lot, and they're used in they're used a lot in in poetry and fiction, poetry especially, and to some extent in what. Well,

[34:35] the politician, right? Nick Nixon called the Democratic program's retreads of the of the New Deal. That's a good metaphor, right? See, but the gate for the city, the part for the whole

[34:57] that's synecdoche. Yeah, I say I kind of classify them together. I put synecdoche and antonomasia together. Because in both you have whole and part, right? And you give me the name of the whole to the part, or vice versa, part to the whole. But the difference between the two is that in synecdoche it's a composed whole and one of its parts. So the word was made flesh would be synecdoche, right?

[35:27] But in the case of Antonomasia, it's a universal whole and its part, right? So when I say he's Christ, the Anointed One, right? That's Antonomasia. But when I say the word was made flesh, that's synecdoche, right? And I put metaphor and irony together because likeness and opposition, I kind of contrast with each other, right? And that's why Thomas contrasts them when he's explaining the irony of Saint Paul.

[36:00] He contrasts metaphor. Now the metonym is something a little different, and I know that the term metonymy is used for the container and the contained. So you transfer the name from one to the other, but maybe also for cause and and effect. Sometimes you give the name one to the other.

[36:23] Um. You know, if if you c you speak of somebody's words, it's his wisdom, right? Well strictly speaking, they're an effect of his wisdom, right? I mean, it's something of metonymy huh? But there, it's a different connection between cause and effect, or container contained than whole and part, right? So those are, you know, I'm not saying I succeeded in enumerating all the ones, but those are the more common certainly figures of speech.

[36:53] And I don't know if any place in Thomas where he lays them all together, right? I asked Monsignor Dionne one time, you know, about looking like you same question you asked me, and of course he referred to me to Quintilian, right? So when I came back after studying Quintilian, it's a defect that he agreed, you know, Quintilian's not that. It could, you know, so I try to piece together from Thomas at least for the main figures of of of speech.

[37:20] Huh? They're horrible names, you know. In an English dictionary, you probably won't find the word antonomasia. If you get the big Oxford dictionary, you'll find antonomasia in there and so on, right? But you see it in Thomas a lot. These words, these you know, in scripture when it comes up.

[37:39] But you see, the Bible will speak both what properly and metaphorically the same thing. And what is said metaphorically in one place is said properly in another place.

[37:55] But Thomas would give various reasons why scriptures speak metaphorically. Part is because it's natural for us to be led by the sensible things, huh?

[38:12] Might not be any other way to express some spiritual realities. Yeah, but I mean, if you see an example that God is fire, right? That's a common metaphor. And people say, "Well, fire, by reason of its heat, signifies the divine love. By reason of its light, the divine knowledge, right? By reason of its transforming power, the divine power, right? Okay. But when I say that God is all powerful, or God is all knowing, or God is all loving, or something of this sort, then I'm speaking properly, right?

[38:47] See, when I say he's fire, I'm speaking what metaphorically, right? Or you know, you find in in Thomas, you know, the the fire is also metaphor for the Trinity sometimes, huh? Because from fire proceeds light, and that's the sun proceeding from the father. And from fire proceeds what heat the Holy Spirit right? But sometimes, sometimes they'll take it as a metaphor for God's acting upon us right?

[39:21] And they'll say the sun enlightens the world before it warms it, and so God enlightens us by faith before He warms us by charity. Huh?

[39:35] So you have to, you know, believe before you can love in the strict sense of charity. That's a beautiful metaphor, right? Huh? There's some likeness there to fire which enlightens before it what warms the earth, right? Okay, so that's a beautiful metaphor, fire, huh? And when Moses goes to see the burning bush, right? You know, the the bush represents the human nature of Christ, and the fire, the divine nature of Christ, for the reason I gave before, terms of his knowledge and his his love and his power, and the fire not consuming the bush represents the fact that the human nature is not swallowed up by the divine nature as you expect.

[40:27] You might expect the heretics, would say that, right? huh? But, You know, some of them. Um. So, the in the Summa Theologiae you're getting more what is said of God properly, right? Yeah. In the same way, in the divine names of Dionysius, right? But then Dionysius is another book on you know symbolic theology, which means metaphorical theology, where you're expounding the name said of God metaphorically, right?

[40:55] But Thomas will talk about that more when he's when he's in the in the commentary in Scripture, you know, because Scripture will from time to time speak metaphorically, huh? Um, I've come to cast fire upon the earth, and what do I want but that it be kindled? Our Lord says there in the Gospel of Saint Luke, huh? And but that's speaking metaphorically. He's talking about love, right?

[41:21] Yes, sir. What about we talked about this before? You said you put a question on the well in the Creed light from light. How does that fit in light? You said it's more than metaphorical. Yeah, yeah. Well, Thomas is is kind nuanced about that, you know, because some people might not understand anything more than the metaphorical aspect, right? Okay. You know, now sometimes you see in the cartoons, you know, they have a little light bulb in the head.

[41:49] That's kind of metaphorical, right? But if you have the idea that light manifests something, right? Okay. Then light is said more properly in understanding than in sensing, right? Yeah. Because something is made more manifest there, but some of the you know. The higher church fathers will see that, I guess you know, this aspectum.

[42:18] So when I say, you know, or the teachers say, enlightens you, right? I think you are speaking properly there, but for some people it might not get beyond the point of the metaphor, right?

[42:41] So you know, I find it neglected there. You know, the teaching about the figures of speech, right? And it's important for understanding sacred scripture, right? And the point of understanding what poetry and for speeches too, but more for poetry, you know. And but Thomas will raise that question, you know. You know, why does scripture use the same thing that poetry uses, right? And he explained, you know, it's for different reasons why they both use metaphors.

[43:14] For example, I noticed Thomas in that famous little prayer there that the church has singled out for special attention. The Adoro te devote You know, in the Enchiridion of indulgences, the new one was made up after Vatican II. That was one of the prayers singled out as being of special importance. I know it's one of the last Lenten. I kind of repeat it. They have the Vatican there, you know, where the Pope has somebody give, he points somebody to be the so you are lecturing now for the Pope.

[43:48] I mean, I lecturing, but you are giving, yeah. And the last one, there, the guy took the Adorote Devote, and some Bishop or Cardinal, you know, there was a sign there, you know, give that kind of pieces for his thing. But you know, in there you have what you have rhythm and you have rhyming, and you have what alliteration, right? You know, hoc verbo veritatis varius. Very have alliteration, right?

[44:18] Just like Shakespeare, full fathom five, thy father lies. But it's for a different reason that Thomas is doing it than Shakespeare, right? Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's beautiful.

[44:38] So we got to the objections here, yeah. Oh, yeah. Four. We're down to Article 4 now, yeah. Okay. Oh, we kind of running out of time have time here. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So going back to metaphor, which is kind of the most important of the figures of speech, there, Thomas, you know, will sometimes give as a reason why scripture uses metaphors simply the fact that man wants to be led by what is what sensible, right?

[45:09] And some people can't get beyond that either, right? And but also, you know, Thomas says that it's to what stimulate the mind, right? To understand the metaphor, what's hidden under it, huh? But an interesting reason he gives, another reason he gives in the sentences, is that the whole of man should be subject to God. Okay, that means especially our mind and our will, right? But even our legs.

[45:43] So why do we genuflect in in church there, right? So all the way down to the legs, right? They partake of this, huh? And Thomas says, well, between the legs, which are a more material part of our body, and our mind and the will, you've got something called imagination. Okay, the imagination is a very important ability we have, but it's also a very dangerous. One, okay, and people are led astray, you know, and what Shakespeare calls sinful fantasy.

[46:21] People are always imagining things they shouldn't be imagining, right? You know, and temptations that have with that, right? So it's very important that the imagination be what subject to God too, right? And in its metaphors, you are what Bringing the imagination now into the service of God. So if it's important that even your legs be in service of God when you genuflect, how much more important that this more noble faculty, the imagination, should be brought into this subjection to God?

[46:51] huh? And uh, of course, you know, how these, you have these authors who talk about the Christian imagination, right? I mean, there is a very direct subordination of imagination to divine worship by what the metaphors in scripture.

[47:16] It's also kind of you know refreshing to the to the imagination to have the metaphor. I Know myself, I mean, you know, you're studying philosophy. kind of an abstract thing. There, you're getting kind of tired. Your imagination, you're too proud. So you pick up a little Shakespeare, somebody you know, and it kind of refreshes your imagination, right? But Scripture does that, right? Kind of, in some ways, Scripture is more refreshing than the summa, right?

[47:52] You know, but the summa is but the summa is always kind of proceeding properly, right? But you kind of go down many of the things we say properly and say this, I can say it metaphorically. It's kind of pleasing to see that. So there's a lot of reasons why Scripture uses metaphors.

[48:22] But then the main cause of error is what is called what bold imagination. Beautiful text of Dionysius there, where Thomas develops that, but it kind of involves the main cause of deception, the side of the knowing powers, which is false imagination, which means what imagining things other than they are, and imagining things or trying to imagine things that can't be imagined. You know, and and boldness, of course, comes from pride, so you got the two causes there: bold imagination.

[49:08] Okay, we seem to think that this bold imagination is something new, but it's really been around. a long time. Yeah, yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. That'd be good. Yeah. The word was made flesh, you know. The word was in place of the what? Soul in Christ, huh? That's bold imagination, right? You know. You go through these eras. I know. I taught in my first long time teaching was at St.

[49:33] Mary's College in California. There and taught for three years before I had my doctorate. And that college had been around for about a hundred years. In fact, when I was out there, they had the hundredth anniversary of that college, so they had a big, you know, academic procession, and LBJ came out and spoke there. Right? He was vice president at the time, huh? And he was one of the speakers there.

[49:58] But anyway, it's kind of interesting. Around the library, they had some old books there, right? And so, one of my favorite authors there, St Alphonsus de Liguori right, for more for spiritual reading. But he had a book up there. he had a book on heresies.

[50:17] What a thick book, and its description of all these heresies, something like Augustine's great book on heresies, right, and then refutation of the heresies, right. He really this guy's something, you know. You think of more in terms of moral theology and that sort of thing, but but he has this thing on heresies and but you know, bold imagination, right? We think of all these where all these you know mistakes and errors come from, you know, but it comes from bold imagination, right?

[50:46] You know, parallel universes, you know. With my my brother, you know the those who who I didn't realize it, you know, but my brother Mark had you know reading the great books out there at Thomas Aquinas and so on. And they all teach Euclid, right? You know, it's kind of a common thing, and so on. And of course, it used to be very common that everybody would study Euclid, and then they would tend to to take off on these things.

[51:19] So my brother Mark had the Liberalism, more geometrico Demonstrata, right, huh? And the various theorems, huh? And like one of the theorems was at any point in an argument to construct a tangent. Or a liberal's mind and reality extend into infinity will never meet. Like parallel lines.

[51:43] And I was reading one of the English novelists, right? You know, and where the the the pedagogue, so to speak, goes to on the grand tour with his his pupil, right? Huh? And he's trying to you know keep him from getting into trouble, you know, and a young man and discretion, you know, extend to never meet, you know, and that never ends, right? These sort of things, huh?

[52:03] And now you know everybody knows the first theorem Euclid, which is on a straight line to construct a equilateral triangle, right? And my brother mark had the theorem in there on a flattened Federal Republic to construct a pyramid of total power.

[52:24] So, He has a good imagination, there. Yeah, yeah, but I realize a lot of people had done the same thing before him. I saw the English novels you know, where the people knew the Euclid, you know, and they would they would have these these theorems, you know. But you know, this idea that a line touches a circle at only one point, right? So that's practically nothing to do with it, right?

[52:50] So any point of argument to construct a tangent, you know, a beautiful, beautiful theorem, huh? So, so you realize that what a what a fruitful thing this thing, the imagination is, but how it quickly you know leads people astray, you know. And I remember, you know, I think it Toynbee's, you know, world history there, you know.

[53:16] He has a picture one time of the hosts in the you know the monstrance, you know, you know, and kind of you know, and comparing it to to these Ceres and you know these things you had in the you know the kind of the worship of fruits and so on, right? You know, anything like that. You know, making all these connections in the imagination, you know, they have nothing to do with what the thing's really about, you know.

[53:45] It's just somewhere where we're we're we're back in the worship of the grain deities and so on, you know. You know, we just kind of a holdover for that, you know. And it's all these things, you know." On the website, there's people that are trying to make a connection. to Catholic devotion to the Eucharist is sun worship. Yeah, yeah, it's, something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Monstrances, monstrances are often green.

[54:06] Yeah, yeah, yeah. I see. You see, in *The Midsummer Night's Dream*, which is its very title, right, shows the connection between fiction and imagination, right, And calling it a dream, right. And that's where Shakespeare has his greatest thing about the danger of imagination. Really profound, what he says in there,

[54:35] and he kind of understands this, you know. And even the good writers like Jane Austen, there, you know, *Northanger Abbey*, you know, where the girl, you know, is invited out there. *Northanger Abbey* is, you know, how the Abbeys are taken over and made into houses, you know, for the during the time. And and her imagination is carried away, right? And thinks all kinds of things are going on in this this house like that.

[55:06] But but she she sees. um, imagination is a cause of deception, huh? Mm-hmm. And uh, with the modern world, it's especially tied up with this because the the the customs in the modern world give great prominence to imagination.

[55:26] That can be a big problem in the spiritual life to be imagining, you know this is happening. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. But you see, you realize this in the saints. they're like, like Saint Teresa of Avila. you know, They want a good confessor because they don't know whether they're, you know, this, they're getting these images and so on. whether they're the devil's behind this or not, you know.

[55:47] Yeah. And you know, there are people who want to have these kind of experiences, and they're the ones that are going to be deceived. And. uh... Which work is it? I just read not till, a brief excerpt. It's interesting because uh... Oh, it was in St. Thomas' commentary on Matthew on the Passion narrative, and he refers to Herod's wife who had, or not Herod, but Pilate's wife who had the dream.

[56:11] Yeah, yeah, And his little. excerpt, a little excursus on dreams. Mm-hmm. He talks about sometimes they're true, sometimes they're false, blah, blah, blah. And then he quotes from the scripture. He says why we shouldn't trust in them, and even though God can use them. Yeah, yeah. But the reason why, because he quotes from one of the wisdom books, he says, because many have been led, many have been led astray by dreams.

[56:32] Yeah. That's the reason why our first reaction should be one of great caution. Yeah. Just dismiss it. Yeah, yeah. Okay. And sure, it was providential. The very next day, we had a retreat, and here was asking about dreams. And I said, many have been led astray by dreams. And he thought I was so wise because I knew that scripture.

[56:51] He just read that day. This is where it probably... It has to be old in order for it to be wise. You can wake up with the reality and be wise. I mean, and apply it properly. And St. John of the Cross says, even if they are from God, just ignore them, ignore them, the devil can make use of them. Well, Thomas's understanding of the figures of speech, you know, is really greater than anybody else I've ever seen.

[57:18] And, um, you know, in the company of Psalms, you know, um, he has the best explanation of the metaphor of sweet. He happened to be explaining, you know, sweet is the Lord and taste, you know, the Lord's, you know, see how sweet he is. And, um, even for understanding sweet, it's used used in in more commonly in daily life, huh? Because Thomas says sweet there is a metaphor, a metaphor is based on likeness, and what is the likeness there underlying this, huh?

[57:49] And he says that there are three things in the metaphor of sweet, huh? And the sweet is what? Pleasant, right? And it's what? Refreshing? And what else? It's restful. Restful, see? Now, it strikes me, you know, how profound that is, huh? You know, it was always a common thing when I was growing up, you know, a kid gets lost, and the police pick him up, right? And now the kid's crying, and they're trying to find the parents and contact the parents so get the kid off their head.

[58:26] Well, what do you do with a kid in the police station who's crying? Yeah, or you buy him an ice cream cone. That's a common thing, you know? And the kid quiets down, huh? Okay? And my wife and I, we'd be driving, say, out to Minnesota, you know, here with the 3 kids, and they're little, and sometimes they get a little bit restless, to say the least, especially if you're putting a lot of hours driving.

[58:47] Well, what I did, I remember one time was I, I put, uh, 3 kinds of candy, like an M& M and a, you know, nips or something like that, 3 of them in a little bag, and I stapled it, and then I put 3 more little packages and stapled it, and then I put one in a big bag, you know, that was daddy's bag, you know. And when my wife and I cannot stand the noise anymore in the back seat, say it's time for a daddy treat.

[59:09] So out comes a little bag, you know, open up, there's 3 things in there, there's M& M's, maybe, you know, dots and something else. And each one gets, the three children, each one gets a little one, and they share, you know, and so on, they talk, and, you know, it's very pleasant for a while, you know. So, so you realize that candy really does, you know, um, um, quiet you down, you see?

[59:33] And then it it's also what? Refreshes you, right? So people, you know, got these machines in all the buildings and all that get you refreshment, you know, you see? And, um, and then, uh, uh, it's obviously pleasant, right? See? So, I find it's all kinds of applications, these three things, uh. We often des- describe the beautiful as sweet, right? Okay. Shakespeare says your sweet form, your beautiful form, right?

[1:00:05] Well, obviously, the beautiful is that which pleases in the seeing, that- that part is most thing. But I know some people will spontaneously speak of something beautiful as restful. You know, if you have a beautiful view from your house or it looks Mhm. then you say, oh, how restful, you know, huh? The beautiful hills or whatever it is, you know? It's really restful, right? Mhm. And it was because, you know, it was always, I grew up, you say about a beautiful girl, you know, she's a sight for sore eyes.

[1:00:31] Refreshing, right? But I mean, anything beautiful is refreshing, right? Mm-hmm. And, uh, you know, I used to go, you know, I used to go in the little reading room there at the College of St. Thomas when I went to college, you know, and there was a beautiful painting there on the wall there, you know, and you're reading, you know, logic here, you know, the first figure, the second figure, the third figure, and you're getting kind of tired of your eyes, and you kind of sit back and look at that beautiful painting, huh?

[1:00:55] Mm-hmm. And, uh, so, um, you don't stop and think about that, but Thomas analyzes in the likeness there, right? That the- that the sweet is pleasant, it's refreshing, and it's what? Restful. Restful, yeah. Yeah. And that this is true about, you know, in various other uses of the word sweet, when you're talking about, uh, you know, if you say that it- it's sweet, you know, to be loved by somebody, right, huh?

[1:01:23] Okay. What does that mean? Well, it means that it's pleasing, right? But also means it's refreshing, right? When you find somebody likes you, you know? And- and it's- it's also restful, right? Or the opposite, if you find someone, you know, is your enemy, right? I- it's, you know, what William F. Buckley said, you know, about some of his enemies, you know, he says the tenacious ill will, you know, not just being opposed to him, you know, or, you know, or his thing, but tenacious ill will, you know.

[1:01:52] You know, you know how it makes you kind of uneasy, you know, when you see somebody doesn't really like you, you know, they can't stand you. So it makes you kind of restless, right? See, why you find someone loves you, you kind of, you kind of rest in their heart and so on, right? And so, you know, it makes a lot of, it makes a lot of sense.

[1:02:10] But, I mean, Thomas has explained the metaphor sweet in, in talking about the use of it in, in the psalm there, in a way that helps you to understand the use of the word sweet as metaphor in talking about love or talking about the beautiful or, you know, it's, you need to understand these things. It's funny, I'm noticing that, you know, I was reading him just today about the, the, the, the seven orders he used to have in this sacrament, you know, of orders and so on.

[1:02:40] And why these, you know? And of course, Thomas gives two or three opinions, you know, he says, he gives opinions, but this is nothing, and he says, well, it's nothing. But this is nothing, that's the phrase he uses, this is nothing. But that's nothing, he says.

[1:02:55] Then finally comes down to, I think, it's the correct explanation of it, right? It's all reference to the Eucharist. Mm. And by the different, you know, proximities of the Eucharist in some way, either in the preparation of it or the actual of it, or else in the preparing the audience for it, you know, the congregation for it. But I mean, I mean, uh, but this is nothing.

[1:03:21] Yeah, it's so clear right away, you know, huh, you see, but people kind of, you know, getting caught up, you know, they're trying to, to say, well, the, the, this is tied up with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, so they're trying to give a connection between the seven orders there down to the acolytes and the exorcists and the seven, you know, and or another one's trying to compare it to gratiae gratis datae, you know, and the seven things that Saint Paul, you know, but this is nothing, but he gives reason why it is, you know, nothing, you know, but but he see- he sees so clearly, you know.

[1:03:56] The Maronites have five, there are nine. Mm. And they connect it to the nine orders of angels. Yeah, that- that- that comes up too, because one objection says there shouldn't be seven, there should be nine, because the nine of the angels. Yeah. But Thomas explains why they shouldn't, you know, be in the strict sense. Mm-hmm. 9, but anyway.

[1:04:16] Yeah.