Prima Secundae
25. Summa I-II q.5 a.5-6: Can Man Reach Beatitude by His Natural Powers or Through an Angel?
Class of 2011-05-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/025-summa-i-ii-q-5-a-5-6-can-man-reach-beatitude-by-his-natural/

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

[0:31] Amen. So, whether man, through his own natural powers, is able to acquire beatitudinem. To the fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that man, through his own natural powers, I guess you would say, is able to what achieve beatitudinem. For nature does not fail in necessary things, but nothing is more necessary to man than that to which or by which he achieves his last end. Therefore, this cannot be lacking to human nature.

[1:08] Therefore, man is able through his what natural powers to achieve beatitudinem. Pretty good argument. Moreover, a man, since he is more noble than the unreasonable creatures, would seem to be more what sufficient. But the irrational creatures, through their natural powers, are able to achieve their ends. Therefore, much more is man, through his natural powers, able to achieve what beatitudinem Now, he always quotes Aristotle from De Caelo we'll see when that objection comes up.

[1:54] Beatitude is a what perfect operation, according to the philosopher. But belongs to the same one to begin a thing and to what perfect it. Since, therefore, an imperfect operation, which is the beginning in human operations, is under the natural power of man, by which he is what lord of his own acts. It seems that through his natural power, he is able to attain to a perfect operation, which is beatitudo huh.

[2:32] I think about something before I understand it, right? So, thinking about something and understanding must be in my power, right? But against this, man is the beginning naturally of his acts through understanding and will. But the last beatitude prepared for the saints exceeds both the understanding of man and the will of man. For the apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter two, that eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, nor has it gone up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.

[3:20] Therefore, man through his own natural powers is not able to what achieve Beatitude. The sed contra is worth more than the three arguments, huh? Because the argument by faith is stronger than the argument from reason in theology, huh? Not in not in geometry.

[3:42] They got to be teaching the grandchildren their geometry, you know. So I had had the two oldest, you know, Kate seemed to pick it up pretty quick, but Sarah was kind of frustrated. So we got to about the, you know, sixth theorem, you know, so a little bit.

[4:02] I answer, Thomas says, that it should be said that the imperfect beatitude, which is able to be had in this life, can be what is able to be acquired by man through his what natural powers, in that way in which what the virtue, huh? Also, right? In whose operation or doing that consists, about which one will speak below, right? That's the happiness that Aristotle spoke of, right?

[4:38] But the perfect beatitude of man, as has been said above, consists in the very division vision, in the very sight of the divine essence, the divine nature.

[4:52] But to see God through His very nature is above the nature not only of man, but of every creature, huh? As has been shown in the first part of the summa. For the natural knowledge of each creature is according to the way of its substance, as is said about the, you know, understanding substance, right? In the book De Causis, huh? What is the book De Causis? Do you know that?

[5:25] We have an commentary. on it somewhere Yeah. And Thomas says a commentary on it, huh? And first they thought it was a book by Aristotle, huh? And then later on they realized it was a Arab book by one of the Arab philosophers, huh? Following Aristotle. But there's a few you know mistakes in the book, but it's a pretty good book. It's kind of you know the completion of wisdom, huh?

[5:49] You're talking about the immaterial substances. This is a famous quote there from the book De Causis. It's kind of like you know epigrams, and he says you know, and Thomas's you know, unfolding that brevity is a soul of wit. huh? And then Yahoo there spoke before the U. S. Senate and House, you know, together, and he spoke very well, right? But very short and brief and to the point, you know, and it's marvelous.

[6:25] Well, even Rush Limbaugh was talking about how good it was, and he says, you know, brevity is a soul of wit. and this is what he had Netanyahu, you know, so this is what you have, what Who is this Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Oh, yeah. Because I guess brother brothers don't know about that. Obama kind of insulted the Israelis recently, yeah, yeah, to their face, ah, basically saying, oh, you guys should just go back to the borders of nineteen sixty seven.

[6:54] Yeah. That would resolve all the conflicts, and Netanyahu just on international television said, no. Indefensible, yeah. Yeah. So in De Causis you have these, you know, kind of very brevity is a soul wit. These famous statements that are common.

[7:16] For it is said about the intelligentsia, and that's more of the understanding substance, that it knows the things which are above itself and the things which are below itself, but according to the mode of its substance, right? So it knows the things below it better than those things below it know themselves, huh? But it knows the things above it in a lesser way than the things above it know it.

[7:42] But all knowledge which is according to the mode of the created substance falls short from the vision of the divine essence, which infinitely exceeds every created but substance. Whence neither man nor any creature, not even the my guardian angel, huh? As he tells me, is able to achieve what the last beatitude through his what natural powers. As you saw before, you can see God as He is only when your mind is formed by God Himself as the form, by which you see.

[8:23] Him. So you see God in Himself through God. It's a very amazing thing. Says in the Psalms, "In your light we shall see light."

[8:38] By creating a created form, it's inadequate to express God as He is. One reason Thomas gives is that the created form is not its own existence. So how can it represent the one who says, "I am who am," without what Not itself being its own existence, huh?

[9:04] Now, what about the first objection? That nature doesn't fail in necessary things. To the first, therefore, it should be said that just as nature does not fail man in necessary things, although he doesn't give him what weapons and clothing as what to the other animals. Why, in place of this, he gives him reason and what Hands. and hands

[9:38] by which he's able to what acquire these things for himself. That's why they call that category that you know habitus there. It's man's category.

[9:53] Therefore, neither is there failing to man in necessary things, although it does not give to him. Some beginning by which he is able to what achieve beatitude? Why? Because that would have been impossible. But he does give him something, namely free judgment, free will, right, by which he is able to turn towards God, who will make him what blessed. And then he quotes a beautiful thing there, huh?

[10:26] The things that we are able to do through our friends, huh? Through us in some way where possible or able to do, right? As is said in the third book of the ethics, huh? So what I'm able to understand through the help of my guardian angel, I'm able to understand, right? But not without his help, right? Therefore, it's you're able to understand through God.

[10:54] Now, what about man being more noble than the other irrational creatures, huh? To the second should be said that of a more noble condition is that nature which is able to achieve a perfect good, although it needs some exterior aid to doing this, huh? Then the nature which is not able to achieve a perfect good, but achieves some what imperfect good, even though to the achievement of that it does not need an exterior what aid.

[11:32] And this is the famous distinction the philosopher gives in the second book about the universe, huh? Just as he is better disposed for health, who can achieve perfect health, although he does achieve this through the aid of what medicine, right? Then the one who is able only to achieve a certain imperfect health, but without the what aid of medicine, huh? So I'm better off if I can take my pills morning and evening.

[12:10] Yeah. And have a better health than the man who doesn't take any medicine, but has inferior health to mine, right? Yeah. That was Aristotle's example there. And therefore, the reasonable creature who was able to achieve the perfect good of beatitude, needing for this the divine help, right, is more perfect than the irrational creature who is not capable of this what good, huh? But he achieves a certain imperfect good by virtue of his what nature.

[12:59] So I'm better off than the guy down there making hamburgers in McDonald's, right? Huh? Who doesn't need, you know, any help to make these hamburgers? Because I can learn about arithmetic from Euclid, right? Maybe he can't. So I'm better off, aren't I? But he will serve billions and billions.

[13:23] Why was he grandchildren? Arithmetic and geometry too, huh? He said you'll get hungry after a while. It's interesting. I mean, some people can, you know, have a very simple job in life, right? They don't need anybody to really what instruct them, right? Huh?

[13:51] And other people can, you know, achieve something higher, but they need the help of Thomas Aquinas or Euclid or Aristotle. Or. In what sense is it high? I'd

[14:08] say more spiritual good, right? Good to the mind, yeah. So a theorem Euclid is better than a hamburger, huh? Either hamburgers are necessary. Yeah.

[14:24] Then what about some of like the really simple humble saints that they did not acquire any learning? Yeah. Yeah. They acquired the happiness. Yeah, but they might have had what the love of God, right? Oh, okay. Okay. And what's in Scripture? Ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia. Where there's humility, there is what wisdom, right? And interesting, you know how humility would dispose of wisdom, among other things, because you're kind of disposed to think that God is the source of everything, right?

[15:02] You're not relying upon yourself; you're relying upon God as the first cause of things, and that's to know God as the first cause. So you're disposed to think of God.

[15:16] There's a quote now going around because I was I was looking at a my I don't have any newspapers there at the house there with the grandchildren, but my son-in-law comes back in the weekends. He brings a stack of you know the the USA Today and the you know. But anyway, there's a quote there from Hawking, the the atheist there, the mathematician there, and so on. And he's saying, you know, well, human mind is just like like the computer, right?

[15:44] Computer eventually wears out and doesn't have any afterlife. Same way with us, right? So then I I had to take the car in to to get the oil change and you know fixed you know and when it came back it gets me into. Run it down, and so I'm sitting there, and they have a little kind of a lounge there where you can wait for your car being fixed.

[16:05] I picked up the, I have this Time magazine there, you know, and I picked quotes. Here's that same quote again. From from Hawking, you know. Propaganda. Yeah, but I mean, just you know, computer, right? Huh? So he has no idea, you know, of the immortality of man, soul. Has no idea of obviously of God, therefore, right? And there's some pride there.

[16:44] Oh, Steve. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I used to work down my father's doctor, you know, in Acrosti. I'm a guy truck driver, and he says, "Still taking brains to be a truck driver, " you know.

[17:11] Okay. So we're not self-sufficient, but a humble man is more quick to recognize he's not self-sufficient. He's not master of his fate, as the poem says. Okay.

[17:42] But I'm just trying to say, as regards human beings are concerned, right? Some people can reach something higher in life than others, right? But they might need what more exterior help, and it's better to be able to reach something higher, even if you need exterior help, and to not be able to achieve something higher, even though you can achieve the lower things just by your own what powers, you know.

[18:06] Yeah, yeah. When I can breathe without anybody's help, I guess at least so far. Yeah, so far. So far. Yeah, at last. I mean, you know, but if that's the best thing I can achieve, you know, breathing, you know, well, it's not as good, right? I can know some theology, right, by the help of Thomas to know some theology, maybe. I don't need Thomas's help to breathe, right?

[18:37] Not yet. I need machines' help to to breathe. I need his intercession. Yeah. I always, you know, think now and again in the car. I think of saying to my guardian angel, you know, little prayer to the guardian angel, angel God, my guardian dear, you know, and because you are driving on the highway, you know, people make mistakes and so on. You need your angel there to tell you when to keep the distance.

[19:15] Yeah. Okay. Now, what about this imperfect and perfect, right? To the third, it should be said that when the imperfect and the perfect are of the same species, right, the same form or kind, they're able to be caused by the same power, right?

[19:42] So it's through my same reason that I'm able to think about things, right, and to think them out and understand them, right. But then you're dealing with things of the same what species, right?

[19:57] But this is, however, not necessary if they are of a what different species of kind. For not whatever is able to cause the disposition of matter is able to induce the ultimate what perfection.

[20:17] But the imperfect operation, which is under the natural power of man, is not of the same what kind with the operation with that perfect operation, which is the beatitude of man, which is seeing God as He is, face to face. Since the species of the operation depends upon the what object, right, whence the argument does not follow. Ratio non sequitur. Okay, look at Article Six here now.

[20:53] Where the man can achieve beatitude through the action of some what higher creature, right, huh? Can my guardian angel or one of the seraphim, huh?

[21:06] Give me this. To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that man is able to become blessed through the action of some higher creature. To what, of somewhat angel, huh?

[21:25] I like whom angel says, but he's warning me. I can't do this for you. First objection. Since there is a a twofold order is found in things. One of the parts of the universe to each other, and the other of the whole universe to the good which is outside universe, namely God. The first order is ordered to the second, as to an end, as is said in the twelfth book of wisdom, the metaphysics.

[22:02] So Thomas is always quoting that from Aristotle. There's an order of the parts of universe to each other, and then the order of the whole universe to something outside universe, which is God, huh? And you could make the same distinction about the chair here, right, huh? That the parts of the chair have a certain order to each other. With my fast knowledge of geometry, I notice it's a slightly what obtuse angle here, at which this part comes down to the seat, right?

[22:35] So there's an order of the parts, huh? Of the chair to each other, the legs are not all in the front, or all in the back, but one at each corner, huh? And so. But all that order of the parts of the chair to each other is an account of the order of the whole chair to something outside the chair, which is your sitting or my sitting, right?

[23:00] And so my sitting or your sitting or someone's sitting, is what the reason why the parts of chair have the order they do to what each other, right? Okay.

[23:14] So Aristotle sees this as being in the universe as a whole, right, huh? In the twelfth book of wisdom, there what he's talking about. God, huh? Finally get there.

[23:28] In this comparison, just as the order of the parts of the army, huh? To each other is an account of the order of the whole army to the leader, but it's kind of a contraction to the end of the leader, right, huh? Which is victory, right, huh?

[23:48] But the order of the parts of universe to each other should be noted according as the higher creatures act upon the what lowers, as has been said in the first part of the summa. Now the beatitude, however, consists in the order of man to the good which is outside the universe, which is God.

[24:15] Therefore, through the action of the higher creature of the angel, in man, man will be rendered what blessed. So the order of the angels to us is a kind of the order of all of us to God, right? So we get to God through the fact that the angels help us. Well, there is some truth to that, right? The angels do help us to get to God, but can they help us to see God as He is face to face?

[24:44] Well, we'll see. We don't know now yet. We just, we just, we just. Yeah. Morver, second objection: What is in potency or ability such is able to be what reduced or led back to act to what is in act such? Just as what is able to be hot becomes hot in act through that which is hot in act. So the fire which is actually hot makes the water which is able to be hot actually hot, right?

[25:28] But man is in potency or inability, blessed. Therefore, he's able to be what rendered blessed in act through the angel who is in act blessed. That's good argument. That's pretty good.

[25:46] Yeah. I like that. Yeah. Yeah. It's a little sleight of hand there, but it's. No, no, no. That's a fundamental. Well, book book nine of wisdom, right? Huh? Where he shows that act is what simply before ability, because what is an ability goes to act to something already in act.

[26:04] It's not the principle here. So Euclid is already a blessed mathematician, right? We know. I read him, and then I become a blessed mathematician too, right?

[26:23] Just look at the theorem this morning. There, of between any two cube numbers, there's how many mean proportionals? Two, yeah. Between two square numbers, there's what one, and the two square numbers are in the what duplicate ratio. Of their sides. I was going to say.

[26:53] But how is it that I am an act, and you are only an ability? Some of you, because I come in contact with this Euclid, who is an act.

[27:06] He's really something, this guy. Moreover, the attitude consists in the operation of the understanding, as has been said above. But the angel is able to enlighten the understanding of man. That's why I pray every time before we study that the angel of God, you know, the angel will enlighten us.

[27:35] But the angel is able to enlighten the understanding of man, as has been said in the first part. Therefore, the angel is able to make man blessed.

[27:48] Now, my guardian angel is too humble to make such a claim, right? Now, against this, however, is what is said in Psalm eighty-three: the Lord gives both grace and glory. Now, which is stronger, the first three arguments, or that said contrary? What do you think?

[28:12] Three is stronger than one, isn't it? Three is better than one, isn't it? No, but Thomas said back in the premium that in theology the argument from authority is the strongest in theology, right? It's the weakest in philosophy, right? If I say between two numbers there is what? Between two Q numbers, there is two mean proportional. Because Euclid says so, that's the weakest argument I could give you, right?

[28:43] And would not be accepted by other mathematicians. But here you've got the scripture, right, and the psalms, which are contain the whole theology in the form of a prayer. And that's why Thomas says they use so much in liturgy, right? Okay. Those were the

[29:16] criticisms of the son of Sir Johnson, right? That didn't see the divine revelation as the foundation of theology. That was a clear thing that was brought out in these texts. There, according. In this, the yeah, the what do they call it not the doctrinal committee of the bishops. Yeah. Yeah. They have a like a twelve pages document. that. They said, "I haven't seen the document itself. I saw quotes from here and there.

[29:49] Cathy McLeod report, but they were, you know, condemning her book. You know, you might say, her theology book, which is printed by a provider.

[30:04] I guess Monsignor Diawas he sent over the Gorham for a while there in Quebec. You know, he was pretty strict. Says nothing here that's got to be printed. He says, I answer I answer. It should be said that since every creature of nature is subject to what laws?

[30:32] That is, as having a limited power and also a limited what action? That which excels the created nature is not able to come about. by the power of any what creature,

[30:54] and therefore, if something is ought to come about that is above nature, right? This must immediately come about, my God, just as the raising up of the dead, right? The enlightening of the one blind, and other things of what this sort, huh? But it has been shown, however, that beatitude is a good exceeding created what nature. Does that mean we don't deserve it?

[31:36] If God says we deserve it, then we deserve it. That's why he's saying so, right? It's, he gives us the means, yeah. He's got to give us gratia, huh? Yeah, yeah. Whence it is impossible that through the action of any creature it be conferred, huh? But man is blessed, or comes to be blessed, God alone acting, right? If you're going to speak now of that perfect beatitude that we defined before,

[32:11] if, however, one speaks of imperfect beatitude, thus there is the same reason about it and the virtue in whose act it consists, right? And there can be helped by a superior creature, right? Like Euclid or my guardian angel or your guardian angel.

[32:42] Now, to the first, it should be said, huh? That many times it happens in active powers that are ordered, right, huh? That lead to some last end. What what leads to the last end itself belongs to the what highest power, right, huh? But the lower powers aid for the achievement of that last end by disposing, right, huh? Just as to the

[33:22] sailing art, let's say, huh, the governing art, which which commands, huh, the one that makes the boat to the governing art, huh? There pertains the use of the ship, right? On account of which the ship itself comes about, right? Thus, therefore, also in the ordered universe, man is aided by the angels at achieving his what. Last end, according to some things preceding it, huh? By which man is disposed to its what achievement, huh?

[34:04] Attaining. But the last end itself, he achieves only through the what first agent, which is God. That's a common thing said, huh? To lower art prepare us, huh? So you know I'm the great chef, huh? You're going to work in my kitchen tonight, huh? But you're going to peel potatoes, huh? You're going to tell me how. But I'm going to make the potato into something really taste good, you know, huh?

[34:39] You know. So I mean, are you going to, you know, defrost the steaks, you know, something like that, right? But I'm going to prepare the sauce for the steak or something, right? I'll tell you, get this out and that out and this out of the cupboard, right, and so on, and then how? Put it all together. Yeah. Sometimes my wife's in hurry, you know. Dwayne, get this, get this.

[35:06] I realize. Don't argue. I'm the supporting role there, you know, huh? I'm contributing in some way to the final, the final final product, right? You're disposing. Yeah. Yeah.

[35:20] What you probably already know is just about shipbuilding and helmsmen, because the fraternity called Phi Beta Kappa. You know what that stands for, Phi Beta Kappa? No. Philosophia, B U, Kubernaut. Philosophy is the helms of the flyer. I don't know how many of them actually live up to that, but it's a good model, anyways. Yeah. I try to explain that to Sophia, there, my granddaughter. Philosophia, it's a lover of Sophia.

[35:54] But no, in a way, you know, in the grade school prepares the students for what high school or high school for college, right? And

[36:03] hopefully, the college professor has something to teach the students that the high school professor couldn't teach, right? I saw that even when I was, you know, going to graduate school, you know, I'd asked Kasurik, you know, my undergraduate teacher was the best guy there in the college and taught me a lot, right? But some things wasn't quite sure about, right? So one De Koninck comes down, he says you're asking me these questions.

[36:31] So De Koninck came down, and stayed at Kasurik's house there, and then I came over, you know, and put all my questions, and De Koninck very politely answered them, and I can see a superiority right there, you know. And so I mean, but I was disposed, you know, by Kasurik, you know. And had these teachers in the right order, you know, Kasurik and De Koninck and then Dionne you know, in the right order, right?

[36:55] Would have been, if I had Dionne first, I would have been, you know, for you, you know, it's so tense, you know, you know. I told you when I came down there, this so and problem that I'd had, you know, undergraduate days and became relevant to my thesis and so on. And I was reading Thomas and I was listening to Monsignor Dionne and putting two and two together.

[37:19] I had the answer, you know. So I came down want to talk to Monsignor, and and he said, "No one's going to say," he says. So what they have said can I say it? But no one can see how one is disposing for a higher level one, you know. De Koninck used to say, "No, you know, this teaching ought to read Thomas, huh? The care and so on with the junior Thomas and take just what he says."

[37:51] Yeah. Okay. So that's a common thing, huh? The order, the lower cause, right, doesn't induce the ultimate perfection, right? But lesser perfection, so those same Joseph's sisters taught me to read and write. They prepared me for something further, right?

[38:20] Now, what about the second objection here? Right, what is an act reduces what is an ability. Okay, that sounded pretty good argument there. To second, it should be said that when some form exists an act in someone according to its perfect being and its natural being, it can be a beginning of action in another, just as the hot is heated through heat, right?

[38:53] But if the form exists in someone imperfectly, and not according to its natural what being, it cannot be the beginning of the communication of itself to another. Just as the what intention of color which is in the what pupil of the eye cannot make another thing what white. Very subtle, Thomas still said, right? This is what they call intentional being rather than this natural being, right?

[39:35] And if I what have the taste of the wine in my mouth, right? What kind of being does I have in my mouth? This intentional being, right? And I can't. Use my tongue to imply them to communicate that taste to other things, can I?

[40:00] Nor also are all things which are enlightened or made hot able to what? To make hot or enlightened. Yeah. Because thus illumination and heating would extend forever, right? It never be cold, right? Light, however, the light of glory, however, by which God is seen, is in God perfectly according to its natural being. In each creature, it is what Imperfect. imperfectly, and according to a what likeness,

[40:41] and a or partaken, right? Okay. Whence. No blessed creature is able to communicate his beatitude to another, right? There's something again like that in human teaching, right?

[41:01] Now they say you're perfect, you can make another like yourself. When you come into class and you explain something, right? And there are students who will understand somewhat what you say, right? But then if they turn to some other student, you know, outside the class and try to explain it, you realize they're not able to explain that, right? Huh? Which case is because of the imperfect way that they what possess that, right?

[41:31] Huh? I notice you know when I go through Euclid there, and I you know it's a kind of complicated theorem, right? I can follow it if I take my time and not too tired. But now someone said to me, "Now, Duane, how would you prove that? You know, Get up to the board now and prove it? I don't know if I could do it, huh? That's because it's not really become second nature to me now.

[42:00] And I was teaching college, and of course you're teaching somewhat the same things over and over again, you know. I never had notes, nothing like that, right? Just come into class and cheer and so on. Second nature to me now these things, right?

[42:16] But I probably couldn't do that with all those theorems of Euclid. Not second nature to me now, right? Okay. That's kind of a dislikeness of what he's saying here, though, right? Even though this is in the same something within the capacity of my mind, right? But you can understand what somebody's saying in a kind of imperfect way, but not what. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes I hear a talk, you know, and I say that's a very good talk, you know.

[42:45] But now if I had to try to make it as convincing to talk about the same matter to somebody else, I couldn't do it. So I have an imperfect thing.

[42:56] But here, you know, it's kind of fixed this imperfect participation of divine light. You only have it in your light. We shall see light, right? Doesn't become my light in a sense. Remains his light essentially, naturally, and only in a partaking way, right? I partake of it in some imperfect way,

[43:25] and therefore I can't comprehend God, right? I'll never know God as much as He is what knowable, yeah. Just like I can't love Him as much as He's lovable, right?

[43:48] Now, what about the angel enlightening, us, huh? The blessed angel right enlightens the understanding of man, or even the understanding of a lower what? Angel, as regards some reasons of the divine work. right? But not over as regards the vision of the divine what essence, huh? So when we talk about the higher angels illuminating or enlightening the lower ones, right? It's never as regards seeing God as He is face to face, but something that they see in God that the lower angels don't see, and then enlighten them regarding to those things.

[44:33] For to seeing Him, right, all are immediate, huh? That means without a middle, right? You enlightened by what? God, huh? So I won't see God as He is face to face if I do someday, right, huh? Through the help of my guardian angel, but he might have enlightened me about some things he sees in God that I don't see in God, because he sees God maybe more clearly than I see God, right?

[45:06] Of course, they say sometimes even the saints illuminate, enlighten the angels, right? About some things, huh? Because some of them are higher than some of the angels.

[45:20] Okay, time for another? For a break? Sure. Article seven here.