Prima Pars
49. Hallowed Be Thy Name: Why Dionysius Writes About Names, and Why the Divine Names Are Not Synonyms (ST I q.13 a.4)
Class of 2006-11-16
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/049-hallowed-be-thy-name-why-dionysius-writes-about-names-and/

[0:01] Name of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand all that you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:33] Last but not least, huh? Let's just stand back for a little second here, a little think a little bit about this. Both Augustine of Hippo and Thomas of Aquino

[0:56] say that in giving us the Our Father, right, Christ not only taught us how to pray, what to pray for, but he also taught us what to desire, to want,

[1:14] and also the order in which we should want these things, huh? And so the first of the seven petitions in the Our Father in Matthew, right, is Hallowed be Thy name. So name comes into the thing we're supposed to desire the most, at least to the statement of that, the way it's stated in the Our Father. However, you understand those words, right? And you have the same exact words in Matthew and in Luke.

[1:48] Luke is the other gospel, but it doesn't have all seven petitions, right? But it's Hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, right? And then give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our. Actually, I was looking at my Greek dictionary. They had in the one Ophilimata forgive our Ophilimata which is kind of our trespasses or things. That one said hamartia sins, but anyway, there's some you know other texts too, of course, but that's the one they adopted.

[2:21] So it's a great deal of importance, then, right, to the names, huh? And it's very striking with Dionysius, who Thomas has a great deal of respect for, whether he is or is not the. I don't think he is the one converted by Paul, but but he has a great deal of authority and a great deal of excellence. But when Thomas, at the beginning of his commentary on the divine names, he says that Dionysius has artfully divided, right?

[2:54] Without going into all four works that Thomas speaks of, there, just two of the works, right? You have the De Divinis Nominibus Dominibus. And then you have the symbolic theology, where symbol has the meaning of metaphor, right? So he's written one book about the names said properly of God, like good and so on, and then another book about the names said of God

[3:22] metaphorically, yeah, yeah. So it's divided according to the names, huh? So that prominence, huh? Now contrast that with the Summa Theologiae. The Summa Theologiae is not about names; it's about things, and the main thing it's about is is God.

[3:49] But if you're going to talk about God and other things in relation to God, you have to name them to talk about them. So ex consequenti, you might say, as a consequence of wanting to to talk about God, right? You have to at some time, like we're doing here in this 13th question, talk about the names you're using, right? And this is kind of a general view of it, and then occasionally it'll come up again in some particular question or article where a name there's some problem about a name that's being used, huh?

[4:32] But nevertheless, if you say what is this book about, you say it's about things, or it's about one thing in particular, and one thing mainly God, right, huh? And a few other and some other things, but in comparison to God is their beginning or their end. Now, if you look at the works of Dionysius, what are they about? Say.

[4:53] Divine names. Yeah, about the names of God, right? Either the names you know that are said property of God, or the names that are said metaphorically of God, and there's some other books he has, right? We shouldn't go into those, but Thomas says, you know, sometimes you have something that is found primarily in God and in kind of diminished way in the creature, and that's what the divine names is about.

[5:21] Those names, other names are said more properly creatures, like stone, and then they're carried over to God metaphorically. Then there's some things he says we can't find anything, like this in creatures, like for the Trinity. So that's a separate book by Dionysius on the Trinity. And then when you get through all these names, you still don't know what he is. So then there's this book on mystical theology, which is, you know, being joined to God is is not being really known to you as he is.

[5:50] But anyway, it's closer to what we're talking about here: the distinction between the divine names and the symbolic theology here. Okay. Now, if you talk about names, you write a book about names. The names of God, whether they be as proper names or as metaphorical, or as metaphorically called, you are going to have to talk about to understand those names. You are going to have to talk about the things they signify, right?

[6:20] So the man who writes the book about names, as Dionysius says, he says so in the very beginning, and in fact the word he uses is Onoma, the same word that you have in Hallowed be Thy Name, Onoma, the same word Aristotle has in the what Peri Hermeneias, he talks about the name.

[6:37] If you are going to talk about names and try to understand them, you've got to talk about the things that they what. Yeah, yeah. So,

[6:49] but notice the the difference in the way these things are constructed, right? The one is a book about things, right? And because you want to talk about those things, at some time you are going to say about the names, right? As Thomas does here, right? But nevertheless, it's basically about things. In the other case, the book is about names, and in order to understand the names, you have to talk about the things that the names signify, right?

[7:18] And therefore, you must talk about things, right? So both, what's up front is the one case things, the other case the name. Okay. Now, it's quite an interesting distinction, isn't it? Okay. If you are going to let's compare the Summa Theologiae, which is a great work, got a lot of authority in the church and so on, with the Divine Names of Dionysius, right? What's the first difference between these two great books?

[7:47] Well, one is about things, namely about God, really, and the other is about names. Okay. And that's not contradicted by the fact that Thomas would sometimes talk about names, and vice versa, right? Okay.

[8:07] Just like you know Aristotle's fourteen books of wisdom, what are they about? Names are about things. It's more about things, but he has a few chapters there on the definitions. He has a whole fifth book about names, right? But but but chiefly, you'd say the fourteen books of wisdom are about things, about the first causes and about substance, and so on, right? Okay. But he does devote a whole book to talking about the names because these names are all equivocal by reason, and men are most, you know, deceived by equivocal by reason words, and and they they have a hard time grasping these words, and so it's very important to have a book about them.

[9:00] But now let's raise just a little problem here. Okay. You say, which is more important? Words or things. Now, do you want to know about things for the sake of knowing about words or names, or do you want to know about names for the sake of knowing about things? Names for things. Yeah, yeah. So it seems that things are the more important thing to talk about. So why should the great Dionysius, right,

[9:36] put words or names up front, right? Why should write a book about the divine names rather than a book about the divine attributes or something like that? You see, it's just a little problem, right? It's kind of a strange thing, right? Thomas often said in philosophy that philosophy is not about names, right? It's about things, and uh it's simply you. know So they even have to talk about names at some point.

[10:03] That's not what it's chiefly about. It's about things. So why should Dionysius make the the book about names? You know, but that's a little bit of a problem, isn't it?

[10:16] Except he's looking at how we know God, so then therefore you can focus on names. Well, that's going to come out. I see. You talk about names. You understand the names. You have to know in some way the things that the names signify, right? And they and they signify things through thoughts. So thoughts come up a bit too. How we know this thing, right?

[10:40] But but the order seems to be just the reverse here, right? We talked about the thing God here, right? Yeah. Yeah. And then we talked about how we know God. Yeah. And then last of all about names, you see. Well, in other case, names are up front, right? Okay.

[11:01] And I mentioned that interesting distinction that Thomas makes in the commentary on the Psalms, where he says, "Who teaches teaches either things or words."

[11:13] Okay. It's like the distinction I was making here between the Summa and and Dionysius. And Thomas says when he teaches faith and morals, we're teaching things. When he teaches sacred scripture, we're teaching words. Now is that put down scripture? No, by no means. But why does he speak that way, right? So that's a little bit like the problem raised about Dionysius, huh? Okay. Is is

[11:47] Dionysius more interested in the names than in than the thing? That wouldn't make any sense. He wouldn't be the great man that he is if he was. Yes. Because the name signifies the thing by means of our understanding, the concept in the mind. So there's maybe in terms of the

[12:14] I want to say in terms of the order of knowing the thing or something. He's. Okay. Well, maybe as a low way of diminishing that the deficiency here. One thing I've noticed, huh?

[12:44] When Augustine talks about theology, he uses the term Christian doctrine, right? Okay. And Thomas, in the beginning, if you go back to the first question, he talks about sacra doctrina, right?

[13:03] And sometimes I contrast sacra doctrina or Christian doctrina with mathematics, right? Because mathematics is named from the student, the learner, and mathematics, in a sense, means the things that can be learned or learned most easily, right? Kind of by antonomasia. Not the only things that can be learned, I hope, but the things that can be learned most easily by us and most thoroughly by us, right? Not the greatest things to know, by any means, but the most, you know, so you are most able to learn by yourselves.

[13:45] And on the part of the student, you could say not only it's easier to learn, but he needs the least of any of the sciences belief in the words of his teacher, because he can see fairly quickly that what the teacher is saying must be true, right? He doesn't have to hold on to the words of the teacher as if you know it's going to take him a long time to come to know this, huh?

[14:11] Why Sacra Doctrina or Doctrina Christiana, I would, say, is named for the doctor, the teacher, and I think that's maybe a sign, right, that there the student is most dependent upon the teacher, right? Especially the teacher that is the teacher, Christ, huh? Okay.

[14:40] Like Thomas says, you know, in the beginning here, the argument from faith or human belief or from belief rather is the weakest in philosophy, huh? But the strongest in what? Yeah, yeah. So that's again a reason to say that you depend most of all upon the teacher here, right? Okay.

[15:02] Now, Monsignor Dionne used to give a little text there. I asked him one time, "Well, where is that text?" He couldn't remember where it was. I have run across it since some of the disputed questions, anyway. But he's contrasting the teacher with the what student, right? And he says the teacher's

[15:30] gets from things some knowledge, right, of those things, and once he gets this knowledge and understands these things, then he looks for the suitable words with which to express what he understands. So what comes first is the things, and then second, the teacher's thoughts about those things or his understanding of those things, and then putting into the suitable words, right? In which to express what he has understood, right?

[16:02] But the student hears first the words of the teacher, and from the words of the teacher's teacher, if he's good and and so on, he comes to the knowledge of the teacher, unto the thoughts of the teacher behind those words, and ultimately to the what things behind the yeah yeah.

[16:32] So there is a kind of priority, you might say, a beforeness of words on the side of what yeah yeah, and since theology is most of all doctrina, most of all dependent upon the teacher, beginning with the words is most what appropriate, right? And so when we pick up, you know, going back to what Thomas said, that when we teach scripture, we're teaching words, huh? Well, you begin with the words of Saint John or Saint Matthew or words of our Lord in the Gospels, and that's what comes first, the words, and then you try to understand what the words mean, right?

[17:17] And you finally come to some understanding of the things, right, that our Lord or the Gospel writer is is touching upon, but words come first, right? Not that they're the most important, right? But comes first, right? You see something like that in in in our Lord teaching him how to pray, because you teach somebody how to pray, you first teach him the words to use, huh? Like it says in the Psalm, let the words of my mouth and the thought of my heart find fear before you.

[17:45] But it says words first, right? And so if you think back, you probably learned the Our Father maybe from your mother. I think I probably I can't remember what I learned it, but I've known it for some time, and um, ah, but did I understand those words? So not that we understood them after I read Thomas or Saint Augustine or you know Saint John Damascene or somebody, um, ah, but in a sense that's where you have to begin, right?

[18:19] And you know little children, you know they say the Our Father, the Hail Mary, we say the Rosary with them, you know. I used to have a way of saying the Rosary. You know, we said one Hail Mary for a whole decade. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. One will be for each one, right? And see what the whole decade with the Hail Mary, right?

[18:40] So they get the words down, but they don't what? Yeah, yeah. They see, and then gradually come to understand them more and more, right? Okay,

[18:53] and um. That's true. I mean, of learning, huh? Who was it? Was it who was the famous philosopher? Was it? I think it was one of the one of the Arab philosophers, right? And he he read the words first. How could he make any sense of them at all? And finally, someone came along and helped him to kind of penetrate those words, right? That's kind of what it is to be starting off with a difficult thing, huh?

[19:27] So, I have to explain a bit why you say that, right? Okay. Now, to come back to the comparison I was making at the beginning of class, there that the Our Father teaches us both what what to pray for, right? But also, as Augustine says, it teaches us what to want and desire, and more than that, it teaches us the order in which to desire these things, right?

[19:53] So he said the first petition is "Hallowed be Thy name," right? That the word "name" is in there, onoma, the very word that. Dionysius uses that Aristotle uses for name Unima But notice a contrast there Hallowed be Thy name." Okay, Dionysius's book is called about the divine names. It's in the plural, right? So why, and it says, "Hallowed be Thy name." Do you have just one name? But Dionysius, you know, says there are many names, right?

[20:28] When Thomas says the same thing in this treatise, right? Why do you say "Hallowed be Thy name"? Why do we say "hellowed be thy names"?

[20:39] Because all the names are reduced to one? Okay. Okay, so, go back to the Our Father now. See, the first petition is "Hallowed be Thy name," right? The second petition is "That kingdom come." Now, as Augustine and Thomas both point out, what is that kingdom you're asking to come? Well, the kingdom of heaven, but what is it? It's the ordered society of those who see God. It's

[21:08] exactly what it is. So Thomas, you know, you could say more precisely that's the ordered society of those who see God as He is. Okay.

[21:20] Now, once you see God as He is, you're going to break out into praise. Okay. But we name things as we know them, and now when you know God as He is, do you have many names or one name? Yeah, yeah. And Thomas, I don't think just assumed here. I've seen him elsewhere. He would make this reference to the end of Zacharias, one of the prophets there,

[21:47] and to this text here. Verses eight, actually most of all in verse nine, but just read verse eight first. And it shall come to pass in that day that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them to the East Sea and half of them to the Last Sea. They shall be in summer and winter, and the Lord shall be King over all the earth. And in that day there shall be one Lord, and His name shall be one.

[22:28] Okay, and Thomas, you know, takes that as referring to what? Yeah, because we name things as we know them. Once you know God as He is, you don't have many thoughts in knowing Him as He is. He's one and simple because you see Him as He is. Therefore, you have really one name. And since you're asking, you know, for this "Hallowed be Thy name" that comes after that "Kingdom come" in the order of execution, not in the order of intention, and that "Kingdom come" means what?

[22:57] The society, the ordered society of those who see God as He is, right? Therefore, you're going to have only one name, okay. So let's go back to talking about names, shall we? All right, go four here, huh?

[23:20] To the fourth, one proceeds thus. It seems that these names said of God are synonymous names. They're synonyms. Now, what is a synonym? Quite synonyms. Another

[23:39] word for the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. For synonyms, names are said those which signify altogether the same thing. But these names said of God altogether signify the same thing in God, because the goodness of God is his very what essence or nature, and likewise the wisdom of God is his nature or substance. Therefore, these names are altogether synonyms. Convinced.

[24:19] Of course, do they signify the same thing? The same one. Yeah. Yeah. It's the same thought. Well, the second objection replies to that. If it be said that these names signify the same thing secundum rem, right?

[24:40] In reality, the wisdom of God and the goodness of God and the love of God are one and the same thing. Okay. But according to different what thoughts? Against this, we can say that a thought to which nothing corresponds, to which does not correspond something in the thing, right, is vain and empty, right? If therefore these thoughts are many and the thing is one, it seems that these thoughts are vain, empty.

[25:10] Yeah. Third objection. So notice the second objection is kind of replying to a kind of attempt to solve the first objection, right? Okay. Moreover, that is more one which is one in reality or in things and in thought, than that which is one in the thing but multiple in thought. But God is what most one, maxime unum. Therefore, it seems that he is not one in thing in reality and many in what thought.

[25:59] And thus the names said of God do not signify diverse reasons, and thus they are synonyms, right? Again, this is again in a sense replying to that attempt to answer the first objection, but counting, trying to take out the premise that is being used to deny that the synonyms, right, that they're different thoughts, right? There aren't there aren't different thoughts, okay? But the second objection is saying if there are different thoughts and they don't correspond to anything, well then they're in vain, huh?

[26:32] But against this, huh? All synonyms added to each other, right, bring about a what? Negation, I guess. nugatorie yeah. as if one should say vestis indumentum.

[26:53] If therefore all names said of God are synonyms, one cannot suitably say about God deus bonus, right, the good God, or the wise God, the merciful God, or something of this sort. Well, nevertheless in Jeremiah's, huh? Most, strong, great, powerful, the Lord of Armies is His name.

[27:19] Okay. Okay. Now, Thomas is going to reply in the body of the article. He's going to uphold the solution that was hinted at in the second objection, right?

[27:33] I answer: It should be said that these names said of God are not synonyms. Which is easy to see if we were to say, right, that these names are brought in to remove something, right? Okay. So if you say God is what immaterial and He's unchangeable, right? Well, matter and change are not the same thing, although they're connected, huh? So if you're just negating things of God, right?

[28:08] You can negate different things in creatures. You can say God is not a stone, God is not a tree, right? Okay, they wouldn't be synonyms, right? Okay. It would be easy if all these names were that sort. Now, that's the opinion he he denied when he said that some names are said of God what substantially. Remember that? Okay. Or and then the other thing was in the position of Rabbi Moses there, or designating the what relation of cause with respect to creatures, right?

[28:38] Okay. So if you say God is the mover and God is the first maker, well, mover is a cause of motion, maker is a cause of form. Well, okay.

[28:52] Thus there would be diverse thoughts of these names, diverse meanings of these names, according to the diverse things that are being negated. Okay, or according to the diverse effects that are connoted in these, huh? Okay,

[29:14] but according to what has been said, names of this sort signify the divine what substance, huh? Although what imperfectly. Also, it clearly appears, according to the foresaid, that they have diverse what thoughts or meanings. For the ratio, or the thought, or meaning, which the name signifies, is the conception or thought of the understanding about the thing signified through the what name, huh? Okay, you can say really, you know that. In a way that our names or words signify our thoughts before they signify things.

[30:06] I mean, sometimes they'll say words signify things through thoughts, right? But then the thought is closer to the word than is the what thing, right? Huh? That's what I was saying before. You know, the teacher uses his words, and from his words you come to the thoughts of the teacher, right? And if the teacher's thinking correctly, then through his thoughts you may come to the things, right?

[30:29] But the thoughts are closer to the what words, right? Huh? In that sense, the words the teacher are closer to thoughts than things, right? So you can get good thoughts maybe easier from the teacher than from things, because you're getting, you know, these thoughts through the teacher's words, which are closer to your thoughts than the things. But anyway,

[31:01] but our understanding, since it knows God from creatures, it forms for understanding God, right? Thoughts that are proportioned to the perfections proceeding from God in what creatures, which perfections pre-exist in God in a united way and simply, huh? But in creatures they are received in a divided way and in a multiple way, right?

[31:37] Thus, therefore, to the diverse perfections of creature there corresponds one simple what beginning, huh? Represented by the diverse perfections of creatures in various ways in a multiple multiplied way, right?

[32:00] So that by various and mult and many thoughts, so that to the various and many thoughts of our understanding there corresponds one altogether simple thing, according as these what according to these thoughts imperfectly understood, huh? Okay, so I can't really grasp God very well, right? And each of these thoughts is an imperfect understanding of God, right? Starting from the multiple perfections of the creatures, huh?

[32:39] And therefore the names attributed to God, although they signify one thing, nevertheless because they signify this one thing under many and diverse thoughts or reasons, they are not what. Yeah, Convinced now.

[33:02] Okay, And thus is clear the solution to the first objection, right? Because synonyms are names which signify one thing by one what Thought. thought, yeah. So it's not enough to say they signify one thing, but they signify one thing through one thought. Okay.

[33:27] But those that signify diverse thoughts about one thing, right, do not first and through themselves signify one. And he gives the famous reason which Aristotle points out: because a name does not signify a thing except through or mediante, mediante, is a medium, the thought of the understanding. As has been said, right? As Aristotle points out in the Peri Hermeneias, right, when he talks about vocal sounds and thoughts and things, okay.

[33:59] So the vocal sounds signify things only through what thoughts. That's why I can have you know a word like man. Well, outside of me, there's only these individual men, right? But because I understand what man is in general, right, then I can have a word like man, right?

[34:25] If man was signifying primarily what's out there, I couldn't have it because you're an individual, right? Yeah, yeah. You're Michael or something, right? You see, but I have thoughts like man, right? How'd I have that, right? A word like man, I should say, not not just Michael, but I have man. Do you see? And

[34:51] it's universal to mind, not outside the mind, right? What can be said of what's outside the mind? Now, the second objection is saying, "Well, if you got many thoughts, but this one thing isn't this in vain, right? " To the second, it should be said that the many thoughts of these names, the many meanings of these names, are not in vain, right? Because to all of them, there corresponds one simple what thing.

[35:26] Through all of these, in many ways, it imperfectly what represented, huh? Okay. Well, sometimes I go out and find the limb a little bit and say, "Yeah. "

[35:44] I think the greatest minds in church have been what men, right? Augustine and Thomas and so on, right? Huh? And Paul the sixth when he made Saint Teresa, of Avila, Dr. Church, she's not a Dr. Church the way Augustine is. He made the distinction, right? But you also point out, you know, that there's a certain kind of. Contemplative love, and he quoted Saint Francis de Sales that women are more capable of, right?

[36:14] Okay. But you know, leaving aside the spiritual there for a moment, I think you can say this. You know, if you look over any history, just a human thing. The great philosophers have been men, right? Great scientists have been men, right? You see, but women are by nature more of what? Loving, right? Okay. So the man is by nature more understanding, but the woman more loving. That's kind of a good example of what he's saying here, right?

[36:48] Because the understanding of God and the love of God are reflected in the man, the woman, but perhaps the understanding more in the man, and the loving more in the woman, right? And so even if you read, you know, Saint Francis de Sales talking about God, that's understanding love, right? But I mean, his examples will be taken more from what Saint Gertrude and Saint Teresa of Avila and the woman saints, right, where it's more clear, right?

[37:18] Um, as I say, I was reading this morning there in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gertrude again, and you know, talking about her in the devotion to the Sacred Heart, right? I mean, it didn't start with Margaret Mary Alacoque, but that's over in France with the bishop recently. We went to Margaret Mary's place, you know, and but but why is it that these women are are the propagators, so to speak, right?

[37:45] The ones to whom the mystery of the love of God, right? There's a famous thing in Gertrude's life there, you know, where Christ says, "If you want to find me, you know, you know where I am. I'm in the heart of Gertrude." Well, you can see it about about a man saint, although you know I think he was loved by by the men saints too, huh? So so you can see kind of how these two perfections of God, understanding and loving, they're in man and woman unequally, right?

[38:18] And and both of course are equal to God, right? But it's divided, right? It's kind of interesting the way God has divided those things, huh?

[38:33] They notice how, like in the family, you know, that the father is more apt to disown his son, huh? To end up to certain standards than the mother would be, right? And you see kind of the the strength of the mother's love, right?

[38:49] And you know, Aristotle is determining the truth about the great question of does friendship consist more in loving or being loved, right? Of course, he takes a sign from the woman, who sometimes would give up her child because she couldn't feed the child or something, knowing that the one who took care of the child would be loved by that child more than her. But she seeks more to love the child, to do the child, than to be loved by him, right?

[39:22] You know, but it kind of takes the example of the woman there as having perfection of what? love, you know. So we get an idea of understanding from maybe the man more than the woman, and of loving more from the woman than the man. And but both of these reflect in an imperfect way the understanding and the love of God, which are one thing, right? God's understanding and His loving are not two things.

[39:49] That the man and woman are not one thing, but two things, right? But for that matter, even if you go inside the man and the woman, my reason and my heart, or my reason and my will. are the same thing Not the same thing, and so whatever knowledge or understanding I have of God, and whatever love I have of God, are not the what same thing. You know,

[40:16] as a little footnote here, but I noticed, you know, in the treatise on the Eucharist there, you know, that Thomas said I'm given some credence to the idea that the the bread in the Eucharist is for the body, and the the the wine and the blood for the what soul, right? Yeah. You heard that said before. Yeah. And that's kind of kind of I've heard that before, but you may notice it again in here.

[40:46] And you know this famous psalm there about the Eucharist. O God, you are my God, whom I seek for you, my flesh pines and my soul thirsts. like the earth you know, you do not bring the one, But notice it mentions the flesh first, right, before the soul. It's kind of strange because the soul more, you see, but it's the same order of the you always give the bread before you get the wine, right, in church, right?

[41:13] One always receives the bread before the wine if you receive under both ones, you know. The soul is thirsty. Yeah, yeah, and I don't think it means you know you know if you just receive the the the body the bread and not the wine and you know that you're not getting the whole, but I mean there's a sin of appropriation there. I'm thinking today if there wasn't also a way in which you could say that the the bread is ordered to faith and the wine to charity.

[41:43] You know how it says in the anima Christi, you know, the inebria me there, the wine, right, is always understood as referring to love, right? Okay. But I noticed, like in Thomas's prayer, I don't know if you know his prayer after communion, you know, but he says, "Sit mihi armatura fidei et scutum bonae voluntatis." May it be to me the armor of what faith and the shield of goodwill.

[42:11] Notice the order there because the faith first and then the what the the will and the charity therefore second, right? The same order of the what bread before the wine, and you know if you go to Vatican II, it makes a kind of beautiful comparison in the the one in Divine Revelation where it says that the Church wants people to have from the morsels of the table, right?

[42:39] The bread of the word and the bread of the Eucharist, right? Makes that comparison, right? Yeah. Of course, you talk about the bread of the word, you're thinking of faith first of all, right? And so I say, if it's if it if there's truth to what I was seeing in the Eucharist that in a certain way the bread is for the body. And the the wine for the soul.

[43:03] Why couldn't you also say that in a certain way? The bread is to what strengthen our faith. We do call this the mystery of faith, the sacrament, right? And the the blood, your Eucharist. I mean, your your charity, the love of God, huh? Okay. Because that inebriation, that intoxication, right? What I say in the spiritual, right, this refers to the intoxication of love, right? You know, it's kind of a metaphor, right?

[43:31] But but the man who loves is is mad, you know, in a good way, right? Um. So. We have in the prayer before communion that we have now that you sanctify our bodies with your holy body and purify our souls with your forgiving blood. Okay, that's in the right liturgy, yeah. yeah, yeah, yeah.

[43:56] Which doesn't mean if you just receive it under the form of the body, the you know, I don't know how to explain, but I mean, this is this is this is an liturgy, yeah, this is this is a thing. But I remember this thing, other thing being said about the the faith and and love and charity, you know. But thinking about Thomas's prayer again, sit mihi armatura fidei scutum.

[44:17] The same order, right? Okay. Now, to the third, it should be said that this also, right, pertains to the perfect unity of God. That those things which are what multiplied and divided, and other things are in Him in a simple way, in a united way. And from this it happens that what is one in a thing, and many according to what thought. Because our understanding, in many ways, grasps Him just as things, in many ways, represent Him, right?

[45:18] Okay. And this just goes back to the great truth that what every agent, every maker, makes something like itself, right? So God's effects have to be like Him, right? But since they're not one and simple like He is, they have to be like Him in in many different ways, right? And since we know God through His effects, right, then corresponding to these many ways in which creatures are like Him, we have many thoughts about God, and they all, in some sense, correspond to God because this multiplied perfections and creatures, each of them in some way, is like God, right?

[46:01] And so the thought we have from them. To be used to come back to God does correspond to something in God, right? So I mean that last comparison is the reason in sense, right? Why we have many thoughts, right? Because the perfection of God is is altogether simple and one, and creatures can only be like him in in many different ways that are imperfect, and so when we know God through his effects, kind of have to know him through many thoughts, right?

[46:38] And these thoughts will represent him each one of them in some imperfect way, right? In the same way that each of these perfections in the creatures represent in some imperfect way the divine perfection. It's kind of beautiful to see that. It

[46:59] reminds me a little bit of what Thomas says when he's talking about why, you know, universe requires intellectual creatures, huh? So that you might have likeness of God not only in the natural order but in the order of what Yeah, right yeah. spiritual But not only are they like there but since one is derived from the other, in so far as we know God, starting from knowing things, right?

[47:26] So is that clear? that they're not synonyms then? Why they're not synonyms? Why they're not synonyms? Why they're not synonyms? Okay.