Prima Secundae
14. What Beatitude Is: Created, and an Operation (Summa I-II q.3 aa.1–2)
Class of 2011-03-17
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/014-what-beatitude-is-created-and-an-operation-summa-i-ii-q-3/

[0:00] Okay, question three here. A Little proemium here. Then one ought to consider what is beatitude, right? And the things that are what required for it, right? Now about the question, what is beatitude? Eight things are asked, right?

[0:26] First, whether beatitude is something uncreated. Now remember that distinction now between the object, right, of beatitude, which is something uncreated, right? But is the beatitude itself something uncreated? No. No. So whether beatitude is something uncreated, well, we'll see. Second, if it is something created, which is probably we saw in the first article, whether it be a what operation, an act, doing.

[1:00] Apparently the answer that's going to be yes. Third, whether it's an operation of the sensitive part or of the intellectual part. Only. Only, yeah.

[1:14] Now the fourth one. This is going to be the more controversial one here. If it is an operation of the intellectual part, the understanding part, whether it be an operation of the understanding or of the what will.

[1:31] And apparently the answer is an operation of the intellect, right? And then whether it's an operation of the understanding, whether it's an operation of the speculative or the looking understanding, right? Incidentally, there, if I speak English, the word would be looking, right? Like Shakespeare has, right? But you have the words theoretical, which comes from the Greek for looking, and then speculative, which comes from Latin for looking, and then looking, which is the English word, right?

[2:00] So. But usually people, you know, don't call it the looking understanding, but the speculative or the theoretical understanding, right? Or the practical, right? The doing. Okay, the active. Apparently the answer is going to be it's a the speculative one, right? Kind of guess what? What's going to do with these articles from the order of them, right? Whether if it is an operation of the looking understanding, whether it consists in the looking of the what speculative sciences, right, like my Euclid and so on, right?

[2:41] And maybe in metaphysics, right. Third of seven, whether it consists in a looking at the separated substances with the angels, right? I was wondering this morning whether I was starting to reread the treatise on the angels there in the prima pars, right? It's delightful work there. And so when guardian angel thinks of this, right? You haven't seen. You haven't got the slightest idea what an angel is But kind of, you know, watching my mind.

[3:13] you know You know, my old teacher Kasurik used to say, you know, the the angel watching you make decisions, like you watching a, you know, an angleworm you know trying to decide where to go or something. You know, but he starts saying, you know, I've got no idea, you know, what the angel, really is. Why do you see me? That's what face, to face. The fella I knew on pilgrimage he asked Father Wagner about.

[3:37] What do you suppose the angels think about us going to the moon? Oh. And he said, "They're probably not impressed." That's just going here to there. Big deal. I remember one of these TV hosts there, you know, was interviewing William F. Buckley, you know, and they were up in New York. There are all these skyscrapers there, you know, and this guy was—I forgot how it came out, exactly the conversation, but you know, it's impressive, you know.

[4:03] He was saying to Buckley this this the interviewer Buckley says toys, he says. Okay, apparently the angel's going to be no about being angels, right? No, my my teacher, I told you that story. My teacher Kasurik said, "When you first see your guardian angel, this is God, you know." And he said, "no, no, God, he's up much higher than me. I'm not even the highest of the angels, and He's still higher than us."

[4:40] And eighth, I guess we're going to find the final what truth about this, whether it be in the Sola speculatione Dei. In the looking at God, not that you have in philosophy or even by seeing your own soul, but the one in which you see God, through his, what very essence.

[5:03] But Saint John, you know, speaks of seeing God as He is, right? That's another way of putting it, huh? Or seeing Him face to face, as Saint Paul says, right? It's a little more metaphorical, maybe, but seeing Him as He is, I usually stick both in to be sure

[5:20] Okay, we see God as He is, face to face. That's what God said about Moses, "I speak to him Yeah. Now you got eight articles. you know, what's this business about the rule of two or three? you know? Well. Well.

[6:21] It's created or not, Maybe it's the first one. Yeah. And whether or not it it consists in what part it consists. A whole group of articles there about it being an operation, right? But it's an operation, and then and then. uh, uh. The last two. Yeah, I mean, you might divide that's an operation, then which operation in particular is it, right? You know, and you divide the one against the other, right?

[6:48] So you'd probably have to divide these into what twos and threes, right? I was looking at the twos and the angels this morning, and Thomas begins by saying, "Okay, four parts, right? " Oh my gosh! What's wrong with the man?

[7:10] He needed a good answer. Yeah. So so so he divides into four: the substance of God, right? Huh. Then the understanding excuse me substance of the angels rather. The understanding of the angels right The understanding faculty right and then the what the will and then their what creation creation yeah but you can easily divide that into two or three right huh

[7:43] because he I I'd probably divide into two the first three are about the angel itself and then its creation right and that makes sense right

[7:57] you could divide the first into three immediately or into the substance and the operation of God right I mean the angels and but I mean I think Thomas actually you would tend to divide it into two or what three you know

[8:20] interesting when he divides the consideration of creatures there he divides it into the angels and then matter and then the soul right kind of what you have in the in the

[8:33] Psalms and so on and and when in Daniel there where you're praising God right you kind of start with the angels then you go to the lower matter and then you end up with man right it's kind of interesting that order right it's not the philosophical order but it's kind of makes some sense because

[8:51] man is kind of you know a microcosm, as you said right He follows the material world and. the spiritual world, combined in a sense, huh? So he's kind of considered last. That's why it's probably appropriate for Christ to become a man, right? I mean, among other reasons, because you bring up the whole creation back to God, huh? Material world as well as the spiritual world.

[9:20] To the first then one proceeds thus: it seems that beatitude is something uncreated. Now get back to us talking about Boethius, for Boethius says in the third book of the Consolation of Philosophy, it is necessary to confess that God is what beatitude itself, right? I was mentioning a bit how he argues that beatitude is the summum bonum, right? And the summum bonum is what God, right? So beatitude must be God.

[9:53] And Thomas ends up the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles by talking about the beatitude of God, right? God is beatitude itself. We have we kind of partake of God's what beatitude, right? Okay.

[10:10] Sometimes they call beatitude what eternal life, right? Of course, God has eternal life essentially, right? But we have a certain partaking of that in the beatific vision.

[10:29] And here's the very syllogism that was giving Remember that, right? Beatitude is the highest good. But to be the summum bonum belongs to God. That was the last article on the goodness of God in both summas, right? Therefore, since there are not many summa bona, it seems that beatitude is the same thing as God.

[10:54] Moreover, beatitude is the last end in which naturally the human will tends. But in nothing other does the will as an end tend except towards God, who alone should be what enjoyed. huh? So I shouldn't enjoy my candy or my steak.

[11:14] This is a hard. This is a hard teaching. Who can follow this? Especially with chocolate chip cookies around. Therefore, beatitude is the same as what God.

[11:36] Against all this is that nothing made is what uncreated. But the attitude of man is something made, because according to Augustine, those things should be enjoyed which make us blessed, right? Therefore, beatitude is not something uncreated.

[12:02] See, God is going to be both the object of beatitude, right? And our beatitude will be a partaking or a likeness of God's beatitude, right?

[12:18] So God just thinks about himself. That's all we do, now. Just thinking about him, looking at him. I answer. It should be said that as has been said above, end is said in two ways. In one way, that thing which we wish to what obtain. Obtain, I guess. Just as to the avaricious man, the end is what money.

[12:49] I was thinking about the magnificat, you know, and how what does she take there? You know, the proud. In the second part of the magnificat, God is not going to be too good to the proud and to the what rich.

[13:04] Powerful, right? Some of the, some of the, most of the goods there, right? Huh? The riches, the, the power, the, glory, the beyond glory, the pride.

[13:18] Okay. Another way, the obtaining or the possession, right? Or the use or the what? Enjoyment of the thing which is desired, right? Huh? Just as it be said that the possession of money is the end of the avaricious man, right? Huh? And to enjoy a pleasurable thing, right, is the end of the intemperate man.

[13:49] Now, in the first way, the last end of man is the uncreated good, to wit, God, who alone, huh, by his infinite goodness, huh, and notice the way those two are put together, right? Su infinita bonitate, right? In that sense, I kind of understand the order a little bit better in the Summa Theologiae, right? Where he takes up the perfection and goodness of God, and then the next questions after that, the infinity of God, right?

[14:18] Huh? Because infinita here is modifying what? Bonitate, right? Huh? That's why I try to force the five into three, right? Huh? That infinitate could be put with the goodness of God, right? Huh? As being kind of what modification of it, right? Huh? Grammatically speaking. But here you see it, huh? Quis solus su infinita bonitate, right? huh? Thomas More have to say that than say his simple goodness, though he could say that too, right?

[14:49] Because they're all, in a sense, the same thing. Who alone, by his infinite goodness, huh, is able to perfectly fulfill the will of man? Huh? I think implere would be translated by fulfill, wouldn't it? I mean, if you want to be etymologically like it, huh? I was talking about how the word full is taken from the continuous, right? Huh? You know, my glass is not full anymore, right?

[15:16] Okay. But you know, it's carried over there, and you talk about your your desire being fulfilled, right? Huh? Okay. Sometimes people speak of their cup is overflowing, right?

[15:37] In the second way, huh? Where you speak of the possession now, right? Or the obtaining of the good, right? The last end of man is something created, existing what? In him, right? Which is nothing other than the obtaining or the enjoyment of the last what? End, huh?

[16:04] Now the last end is called what? Beatitude. Okay. It's got other names too, huh? Behold how good it is and how pleasant for brethren to be all one. It is when the precious oil upon the head runs down with the beard, the beard of Aaron, upon his collar, right now. Just do like that, Herrmann, which comes down upon the mountains of Zion. For there the Lord has pronounced his what?

[16:28] His blessing. So we get the beatitude, right? And then says what? Yeah, which is like eternal life, right? So sometimes the last end is called eternal life, huh? Right. Okay. That's Psalm one thirty two, which is in the third part of the Psalms, right? Huh? Which is dealing with resting in the end, now.

[16:52] If therefore the beatitude of man is considered as regards its cause or object, right? None of us here, cause and object are the same thing, right? Not that the words mean the same thing, right? But they can be the same thing, huh? Just like Thomas says, is good the what? Cause of love. Yeah, but the middle term is that the object of love is the cause of love.

[17:18] Good is the object of love, therefore. Which you could say for all, you know, even for all the emotions, right? You could say that the object of fear is the cause of fear, right? Thing I fear is what it causes me to be afraid. You know, afraid of that over in Japan, there, those things blowing up, melting down, whatever. Yeah.

[17:46] If already be considered as regards, oh, if therefore the beatitude of man is considered as regards the cause or object, thus it is something what? Uncreated. If therefore, it be considered as regards the very essence of beatitude, thus it is something what? Created.

[18:13] So now we're interested in the essentia the what it is of beatitude, right? Huh? And that's something created, huh? Thus it is something created, huh?

[18:26] To the first, therefore, should be said the great text of the great Boethius there. To the first, therefore, should be said, and of course even Aristotle sometimes holds God up as a model of what happiness is, huh? To the first, therefore, should be said that God is beatitude to his very what? Substance is very essence. For not through the obtaining or partaking of some other good is he blessed, right?

[18:57] But is blessed through his very what nature, his very substance. But men, however, are blessed, as Boethius says there, right, by partaking, huh? Just as they are called what gods, huh? By partaking, even Scripture.

[19:20] But that partaking of beatitude, by which a man is said to be blessed, is something what created. So my seeing God as He is, my seeing God as He is, is something created, right? Doesn't exist now. But okay. And even my what loving God, right, is something what created, right? Right.

[19:51] Okay. To the second, it should be said that beatitude is said to be the highest good of man. Not because it is the highest good, but because it is the obtaining or enjoyment of the what highest good.

[20:17] To the third, it should be said that beatitude is said to be the last end, in the way in which the obtaining of the end is said to be the what the end. Okay.

[20:35] Now, whether beatitude is a what operation, a doing, huh? Oh my gosh! You read the question. These reading the QD there on the psalm usually about twenty objections, you know.

[21:02] Well, yeah, but we're just beginning, Zach. We're just beginning this stuff. The second one proceeds thus. I suspect in the in the original text at times you don't have the the ut in beatitudis sit operatio, right? You have to wait to get to the to the. I also recall what I said before. To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that beatitude is not a operation, an action, an act, or a doing, right?

[21:40] For the apostle says in the six Romans chapter six, you have your fruit in what sanctification, your end eternal life. That's I was doing the psalm there, right?

[21:56] But life is not an operation, but the very being of the one living. Therefore, the last end, which is beatitude, is not a what operation.

[22:15] So actually, you know, to live or or life has its double sense, right? It can it can refer the operation or it can refer to your very what being, right? Huh? So,

[22:28] my death, which is the opposite of life, is opposed to life in the sense of my what being a living animal, right? If I say my life is is me,

[22:48] then you're talking about operation, right? Activity, right? My life is listening to Mozart. Something or eating steak. What was Monsignor Deon said? Was teaching teaching of his life? What did he say?

[23:05] Oh, somebody said it was good. Going to retire, and he said, "That's my life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. " See, it doesn't mean he'd be dead if he stopped teaching. But to his senses, okay. Moreover, Boethius says in the third book of Consolation that the beatitude is a state made perfect by the bringing together of all goods. Right. That means a collection, or it means you know, in God, right, that you have in the sense all goods.

[23:45] Thomas often quotes scripture there, where God says to, "He says to Moses, 'I will show you every good. ' " It's like it's on the collection, right? And and Thomas says, "It is myself. I show you myself. We show you every good. " We have to speak that way, right?

[24:09] Thomas is talking there, you know, about the angels and how we have to know a simple thing in a composed way, right? Our way of knowing is not the way the thing is, right? So the angels, we we know the things above us, which are more simple than we are, in a more what composed way, right? But we know the things below us in a way that's more simple than they are.

[24:35] It's kind of interesting, right? So, in the sense we say God is every good, rolled into one. You know, it's because we have to. We can't express very well the universality of his goodness, right? And that's scripture's own way of speaking there, when God says, "You know, I will show you every good, " meaning I will show you myself, right?

[25:14] When we try to imagine the excellence of an angel, even now, we say, you know, if you imagine a man who was, you know, had the musical gifts of Mozart and the poetic gifts of Shakespeare and Homer and the philosophical gifts of Aristotle, the theological gifts of Thomas, the scientific gifts of Einstein, all this rolled into one, you know, you know, you know, then you see really, you know, he has the fullness, right?

[25:38] You know, the prudential work of George Washington or a military thing of MacArthur or somebody, all rolled into one. One hell of a guy. What Thomas is talking

[25:52] about the perfection of an angel. Each angel has the whole perfection of his kind, right? Which we don't have, right? No man has the whole perfection of man, and no man reveals everything which man is capable of, right?

[26:08] How about Christ? Well, yeah, I bet we consider that, but except for the proofs of rules, they say. That's what Chesterton said about God. God is being, all that being can possibly be. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you know, the thing thing is interesting that Christ doesn't show, you know, his understanding of

[26:37] numbers and so on, right? Understanding of the natural world, right? It doesn't mean he didn't have it. No, no, it didn't show it. It didn't show it all. He showed some, but not all.

[26:54] Just poetic, yeah. Since human, I suppose if I could teach, you know, it doesn't. He's teaching the young. He doesn't, you know, see everything he knows, right? But he says something that's, you know, capable of, right?

[27:15] Remember Saint Francis de Sales, you know, he gives kind of a parable, you know, and he says, "this is our Lord's favorite way of teaching," you know, and he's kind of imitating Our Lord, but it's kind of proportioned to the to the audiences he's dealing with too, you know. So there's, you know, profound things that you can think about too.

[27:35] You have to admire his moderation, right, in teaching. To shorten off, you know, a little bit his his knowledge of the moon and the sun the moon and the stars. And St. Bonaventure says that about preaching. He says you have to consider your audience. Are they? He says, are they sensuales not meaning sinful, but meaning are they people rooted in the senses, or are they spiritualis? Are they spiritual?

[28:02] Give them milk to drink, yeah. Okay. But status, huh? In the Latin, there boethius, huh? It says status, right? This is not name an operation, right? Therefore, beatitude is not an operation. That's kind of the interesting thing. I have to see what by now, but Boethius is a word there. Beautiful though, beautiful. It's like when Thomas Aquinas has an article on the definition that can be turned to something like that, and each objection singles out one part of the definition and objects to it, you know, and but it kind of concentrates your mind upon the the whole definition in a distinct way, right?

[28:50] It's something beautiful about the way he does these things. Moreover, beatitude signifies something existing in the Blessed One, since it is the last perfection of man. But operation does not signify as something existing in the one operating, but more something what proceeding from it. Therefore, beatitude is not a what operation.

[29:22] Moreover, beatitude is what something remaining in the one who is blessed. But operation or doing doesn't persist; it passes away. I always forgot about geometry now. Since I come here, I'll come back a little bit. But therefore, beatitude is not an operation. Right? That's interesting. Aristotle is talking about the blessedness of God. There, you know, he's saying if he's always in the state which we can only sometimes be.

[29:54] You know, that's marvelous. He says, right? And if when he is in it, always. In a better way than we, even more so, you know. But he's got to fill the wonder, you know, about God, huh?

[30:09] But these operations, they come and go, right? Moreover, of one man there is one beatitude. The operations they're doing are many, right? There's many theorems in Euclid and so on.

[30:30] Therefore, beatitude is not an operation, huh? Because then I have forty-eight beatitudes in the first book of Euclid, right? Only the forty-seventh theorem would be the the the Pythagorean theorem, right? The beatitude knowing that.

[30:48] Moreover, beatitude is in the one blessed without interruption. But the operation of man is frequently interrupted by sleep, as Aristotle's talking about, right? Because he's marveling about God, right? Because there's no interruption there, right? God's blessedness, or by some other occupation, or by rest, sleep, right? Therefore, beatitude is not an operation, huh? So when Aristotle talks about the listening to music there in the *the eighth book of politics.

[31:19] he says, well, sometimes we rest and and for music as a rule to play, you know, taking our rest and so on. I remember coming back from a session with Monsignor Dianne, exhausted, you know, go back to Warren's house and Diane De Sotel is there, you know, she was student there. She's playing the piano and so. he's like, oh, it's all restful.

[31:53] But I'm no longer at this intense intellectual activity with Monsignor Dianne, right? So, yeah, it's not an operation. What was he a musician at all himself, Monsignor Dionne or Belay, I don't know if they played instrument or not. I heard, you know, I heard stories, you know, I don't know if they're true or not. that Monsignor Dionne was conducting the choir for a while, you know. So I don't know.

[32:23] Even know about these stories, how they get get going, you know? But again, this is what the philosopher says in the first book of the Ethics that happiness is an operation, activity, according to perfect virtue, right?

[32:44] I answer it should be said that according as beatitude of man is something created existing in him, right? It is necessary now to say that the beatitude of man is a what operation, activity, right?

[33:05] For beatitude is the last perfection of man. But each thing is perfect to the extent that it is in what act. So Aristotle shows in the ninth book an act and ability. For ability without act is something what imperfect. Therefore, beatitude is in the last act. It consists, therefore, in the last act of man. But it is manifest that doing or operation or activity is the last act of the one operating, right, or acting, whence it is called by the philosopher second act in the second book about the soul.

[33:55] For the one having a form is able to be acting in ability, right? Just as the one knowing in ability is what in potency considering, right?

[34:12] And thus it is that in other things each thing is said to be an account of its what operation, as is said in the second book on the universe, the first book. of On the Heavens It's necessary, therefore, that the beatitude of man be a what. operation of the act. It goes back to the understanding of ability and act, right? This is the ultimate act. of man I'm going to make a sound.

[34:45] I've got a book called The Ultimate Act of Man. Wow. It sounds interesting, right? The last act of man. Yeah. What would that? What is he talking about? You could you could make a little more dramatic, call it final act.

[35:01] Now the first is solved. To the first therefore should be said that life is said in two ways, right? In one way, the to be, the existence of the one living, right? And in this sense, beatitude is not what life. Ah.

[35:26] For it has been shown that the being of one man, whatever it might be, is not the beatitude of man, right? And God only is the beatitude is what being. That's how Thomas would show that no one can be as blessed as God, right? Because he is his own beatitude, right? None of the rest of us are our own beatitude. In another way, life is said to be the doing of the one living, right?

[35:55] According as the beginning of life is reduced to act, and thus we speak of an active life or contemplative life. Or voluptuous life, and this way, eternal life is said to be the last end. Now, there, that comes in another way of naming the last end. Beautiful there, and that's I think the way Saint John's talking about in that epistle, right? Jesus, we must see God as He is, which is clear through this that is said, John seventeen three.

[36:29] This is eternal life, huh? That they know you, God, the what, true one, God, huh? There, God Himself seems to be saying that eternal life is knowing rather than loving.

[36:50] To the second, it should be said that Boethius, in defining beatitude, considers the common notion of beatitude, right? Now, there's a common thought of beatitude that it be a what perfect common good, and he signifies it, and this is signified when he says it is a state perfect by the bringing together of what all goods, through which nothing other is signified except that the one who is blessed is in the state of a perfect what good, huh?

[37:33] But Aristotle expresses the very essence of beatitude, showing through what man is in the state, and that is through a certain what operation, and therefore, in the first book of the Ethics, he himself shows that beatitude is a what perfect good, huh?

[37:55] I think you'd say other things about wait, there's this thing there, right? God was saying earlier there, right? That God Himself says, "I will show you every good," right? As if God is the collection of all goods, and that's kind of our way of what knowing the simple through what Compose, yeah. It's like God is what all these rolled into one, right?

[38:24] Universe. God is universe. He turned it. It's all turned into one in God, right? Huh? Okay. And that's just turned out into many, right? But God is. That's kind of our mind has to speak that way, right?

[38:47] To the third, it should be said that just as is said in the what ninth book of Wisdom, the ninth book after the books of Natural Philosophy. Twofold is action, right? This distinction that Aristotle makes. One which proceeds from the one doing it in exterior matter, as to what? Burn. Yeah. And to. dry. Yeah. Or secare is to cut. Cut. Cut. Yeah. Sorry. Secare. And such a doing cannot be beatitude, right?

[39:22] Huh? For such an operation is not the action and perfection of the agent, right? So making a chair can't be my beatitude, because making a chair is the perfection of the chair, as such, not of me, right? And it can't be teaching either, because teaching is the perfection of the student as such, right? Huh? And that's kind of you know where Marx makes his mistake, right? Because most teachers will say, I mean, college teachers, that they come to learn the subject better in teaching, right?

[39:55] Huh? So that teaching perfects the teacher, but that's accidental to teaching, right? You don't teach in so far as you don't know. In so far as you're learning the very thing you're trying to teach, that may be the human condition, you know, for the most part, right? But even so, it's accidental that the professor learns what he's teaching. He should know it. ought to be Yeah So that's the first kind of mistake outside of language, right?

[40:27] The fallacy of the accident, right? And that's the one that Marx makes, right? Because he sees man as perfecting himself by making. Because when man makes, he kind of learns, you know. And I've seen practical men say that to me, you know. I'm learning a lot, you know. Like you know, it's interesting work he's doing, you know. So he's perfecting himself as he perfects other things, right?

[40:52] But that's accidental too to making. It's accidental that in making something, you perfect yourself in some way, right? But you perfect the thing you're making is not accidental to it, right? Okay. So if you make McDonald hamburgers day after day, you're probably not learning about making McDonald hamburger, but you're perfecting those hamburgers every day, right? As far as I have perfect.

[41:22] But people making wine, you know, they learn things and then they make it better, you know, and like that, and so on. But that's still accidental, right? You can see how people are easily deceived, though, because it happens most of the time, right? And therefore, it seems essential to making that you learn by making, right? Or you learn by teaching or something, right?

[41:48] It's still accidental. Okay. Other is the action remaining in the doer, right, as to sense, right, to understand and to will. And this kind of an action is the perfection and act of the what agent, huh? And such an operation can be what the attitude, but not the first one, right? And incidentally, in the ninth book of wisdom, Aristotle says, and this, the happiness is this kind of activity, right?

[42:31] He saw that, right? It couldn't be the activity of making that activity is going out to something outside of oneself, right? Because that's when you're perfecting something outside of you, right?

[42:46] Or someone is directing somebody else, right? Can that be the ultimate end there to direct others? Because directing others is helping them to their end, and therefore perfecting others must not be perfecting you, right?

[43:03] You can see that in God. Is God perfected by creating universes? Learn some things about. I never knew that. Or is God perfected in Himself by directing us to? Got nothing to gain. Got nothing to lose

[43:32] too. Okay. Now the fourth objection, about operations we're aware of are all transitory, right? It's a little hard for us to understand something, you know. To the fourth, it should be said that since beatitude says a certain last perfection, according as diverse things are capable of beatitude, they're able to arrive at diverse grades of perfection. According to this, it is necessary that beatitude or happiness be said in diverse ways.

[44:17] For in God there is beatitude through His very what essence, His very substance, because His being is His operation, right? By which He does not enjoy another, but Himself. In angels, however, in the blessed angels, their ultimate perfection is according to some operation, by which they are joined to the uncreated good. And this operation in them is one and what eternal. In men, according to the status of the present life, the last perfection is by an operation by which man is joined to God.

[45:00] But this operation neither can be what continuous, and consequently neither what unique, huh? Because the operation is multiplied by something cutting up in between, right?

[45:18] And account of this in the status of the present life, perfect beatitude cannot be had by what man. Whence the philosopher, huh, in the first book of the Ethics, laying down the beatitude of man's life, says that it is imperfect, right? After many things, concluding, let us call them blessed as men. Say that's blessed secundum quid, not simpliciter, right? But there is promise to us from God, perfect beatitude, huh?

[45:53] When we will be as the angels in heaven, as he says in Matthew. There he's talking about marriage. Okay, to that. Ceases, right? Now, as regards that perfect beatitude, the objection: what ceases? Because one and continual, continuous and eternal, is the operation in that state of beatitude,

[46:20] in which the mind of man is what joined to God. But in the present life, as regard to the extent that we what, yeah, or or fail from the unity and continuity of that operation, to that extent we what Fail from per perfection of beatitude. But there is some partaking of beatitude, right? And the more so, the more that operation can be what continuous and one.

[46:54] And therefore, in the active life, which is occupied with many things, there is less of the notion of beatitude than in the what contemplative life, which turns around one thing, namely the contemplation of truth. And therefore, is sometimes man in his act does not what do such an operation? This kind of operation, nevertheless, he is ready, right? You might say, to have it what to do it always, right?

[47:33] And because also the cessation of the act, as a sleep or the occupation of something natural, very discreet here, is ordered to the foresaid what operation, right?

[47:48] So there seems to be a continued operation. I say, I woke up thinking about this thing here again. And through this is the clearly reply to the fifth and the sixth what objection, Objection, right?

[48:06] So it's an operation that will not what come and go, right? Well, come, but it won't go. And once it comes, it won't come and go. And Augustine said that before Thomas, of course. So you're kind of partaking of what eternal life, right? There's no before and after in that operation, right?

[48:28] Oh boy! Stop, Augustine.