Prima Secundae
205. The Debt of Punishment after Sin: Names of the Holy Spirit, Satisfaction, Medicinal Punishment, and Sons Punished for Their Fathers (Summa I-II, Q. 87, aa. 6–8)
Class of 2015-02-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/205-the-debt-of-punishment-after-sin-names-of-the-holy-spirit/

[0:01] I want to give you an exam right after the prayer, okay? From the Gospel here of Matthew. Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias.

[0:19] God, your enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illuminate our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand all that you have written. Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:40] Now I was reading the, reading the third chapter there of Matthew today, right, at home there. And this is has the baptism of Christ in there, right? Now the question is this: Who is said to descend upon him like a dove? Huh?

[1:05] I knew you'd answer that. That's why I held my tongue. That's the obvious thing to say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But he's not called the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit, but he's not called the Holy Spirit. What is he called? The Spirit of God. Yeah, Spirit of God. Yeah, yeah. So I think that's interesting, right? In other words, that's like another way the Holy Spirit can be named, right?

[1:31] The Spirit of God, right? Huh? Um. Now, at the end of Matthew, when he sends them forth, right? What is he called? Holy Spirit. Yeah, it's called the Holy Spirit, huh? At the very end there. Um. Kai tou hagiou pneumatos, right? Okay, the Holy Spirit, huh? So you have the two names: the one in the beginning, in the in the baptism, I suppose that's the first mention of him, and and then at the end, so it's kind of nice to remember the beginning and the end.

[2:08] I don't think Thomas in the in the Summa Theologiae takes up Spirit of God as the name of the Holy Spirit. Um. Now, is there another name of the Holy Spirit, right? Spirit of Jesus. Yeah, yeah. But I was thinking of this passage here in John that I kept running across and I don't know it's the, daily reading or something something. And it's in the first epistle of Saint John, right?

[2:36] I'll read you the English here first. Whoever we are of God, whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of what error. So in the Greek there, it's the pneuma tes aletheias right? To pneuma tes aletheias And to you got the article pneuma tes planes, right? You get the word planes, you get the word planet, right?

[3:19] Planes, the spirit. Now who's this? Who's to pneuma tes planes? Well, that's the devil, right? He's by antonomasia, right? He is the origin of lying and so on, right? He's called the father of lies. But who's the to pneuma tes aletheias Who's that? I would say the Holy Spirit? Yeah, I would say so, right? Okay. Now you could understand that though in two ways, huh? You could say he's the what?

[3:48] The spirit that teaches truth or inspires truth. But you could also, and that's of course would be, you know, parallel to pneuma tes planes. The one is the source of truth, the other of error. But the other way you could say is that he's what? Spirit of Christ. Yeah, I'm the way, the truth, and the life, because truth is applied to him, right? I don't think our Greek brethren would like that interpretation of the text, but it seems to me you could say he's called the spirit of truth, both because he inspires truth, right?

[4:21] And because he's the what? He proceeds from the one who is truth itself, right? And would he be the pneuma tes aletheias in the first sense if he was not in that other sense that he proceeded from the one who is truth itself? That's why he's the spirit of truth, right? So in those three texts that I was referring to now, in the beginning, the end of Matthew, then the one here in in John, which my attention was, you know, the masses they're reading the epistle of John.

[4:50] I was kind of struck by that, right? You know, I don't know why Thomas neglects those other names, but you know. All right, with with the second person of the Trinity, he has what? How many names does he take up in the Summa? Three. Three, yeah. He's called the Son of God, right? Which would be analogous to Spirit of God, right? The Son of God. And then he's called what?

[5:16] Image. He's called the Word, yeah, and then Image, yeah, yeah, yeah. And it seems to me that that image is almost common to those two, right? But what the the Word says and Son say, right, is that this likeness, this image, the one saying it proceeds by way of what? Nature. And that Son, right? And then the other by way of the intellect, right? But because to be and to understand are the same thing in God, then the one who proceeds as an image by way of what?

[5:55] Nature and by way of what? Yeah, is the same one. Why? In us, it's not the same, right? So my son Paul, and my and my definition of reason I got from you know Shakespeare and so on, I gave birth to both of those, right? In some sense, right? I generated both of them, but they're not the same thing, right? One is a son, and the other is a is a thought, right?

[6:23] Concept, right? I suppose a man doesn't really have a concept in the first sense, right? The moment has that. We just have the concept in this sense, here, right? We just have thoughts, right? I mean, they can, you know, convert to a real human being. they just convert to a to a thought, a concept.

[6:48] So maybe we can expand a little bit on the names of the Holy Spirit, right? Okay, I knew you were going to say Holy Spirit. I think usually they talk with their text. They talk about you know the the Trinity being present, you know, and and then they'll use the term Holy Spirit because that's the more common one, right? But I don't know why you couldn't say you know Spirit of what of God, right?

[7:13] Huh? Because he proceeds from God, right? Huh? Okay, we're up to Article Six here in the Question eighty-seven: Whether the what need of punishment right remains after sin? Well, I really in doubt about that, are we? To the sixth, one proceeds thus. It seems that the what being subject to punishment does not remain after sin, right? The death. For if we remove the cause, we remove the effect.

[8:02] But sin is the cause of the what being guilty of what punishment or being required to be punished. Therefore, when the sin is removed, the cause of the what? you know, that you're obligated to punishment. huh? The obligation of punishment. How should we translate viatus? Obligation of punishment or the death of punishment?

[8:29] Okay, so that's straight stuff there, cause and effect, right? Moreover, sin is removed through this, and returns to what Virtue. Virtue. But the virtuous man is not owed punishment, but more reward. Therefore, sin being removed does not remain the debt punishment.

[9:05] More punishments are medicinal, as is said in the second book of the Nicomachian Ethics. huh Yeah, yeah More medicines are painful, it's interesting. You know, Aristotle's book should be called the Nicomachean Ethics, right? Huh? He has another book that's come down to us called Eudemian Ethics, right? But the more famous one is the Nicomachean Ethics. Why should you name, you know, a science there, book containing a science of ethics?

[9:36] Why should you name that with this name of a person, you know, individual person, the Comicus, right But it's in some right? Yeah, I guess his son is named Nicomachus, and he had his father I think had the same name too. So it could say the ethics he learned from his father, right, or the ethics he was trying to teach his son, or or both. Right no it's kind of interesting, right, that he that that should be.

[10:04] Is that just by chance that the thing stuck there, you know? Because none of the books in natural philosophy or in wisdom and so on are said to be, you know. Yeah, yeah. Maybe some significance in that, huh?

[10:24] Importance of father and son, you know. You know those books of in in the ethic. I mean, the books in the Bible. There, the Bible as a whole is divided into two or three parts. Two. Yeah, yeah. What's the basis of the division of of the Bible into those two parts, huh?

[10:55] Law and grace. Yeah, yeah. And who is it? Says John, say the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. So Thomas divides the Old Testament on the basis of law, and the New Testament on the basis of what grace, right? The origin of grace, right? The nature of grace and the effect of grace, right? In three. But how does he divide the Old Testament, huh?

[11:23] How does he divide law? Two. Yeah. Yeah. Law of the king or the father. Yeah, the law of the king and the law of the father, right, huh? And which is more like ethics of those two? The law of the father and the father Yeah, yeah. And of course, in those those books that are under the law of the father, they had this my son, you know, you know.

[11:45] So it shows kind of the importance of father and son there, right? In this kind of teaching, huh? You know. I remember when De Koninck came down one time, and and he'd come down and he'd give talks, you know, maybe ten talks around town, you know, and they talk at the college and so on, talk at the some of the schools around. I remember going over to hear a talk at his giving at the the Saint Paul Seminary, right, huh?

[12:13] You know, and you know, but being very insistent upon what Aristotle says, you know, that the importance of being brought up well, right? And Aristotle says something like, you know, it makes no little difference how a man is brought up; it makes a great deal difference, he says, or rather, all the difference. That's you know, it's all it's so strong, right? It's like it's like you know, you know, if you come from from a bad family, so we say, right, huh?

[12:40] Let me tell you, come from a good family can be the the black sheep, as I say, of the family, you know, but but the black sheep is not the the general offspring of the good family, right? But you might be someone in there. I mean, there was there was Judas there in the apostles, right? I mean. But I mean, or most of them are bad, right?

[13:00] I mean, you know, that's. I mean, it's really, it's very hard, you know. Once you, brought up badly, you know, but it's like Aristotle saying it's almost like impossible, you know. But you wonder if isn't it part of the you know behind the idea that Nicomachean Ethics, right? Huh. That he learned this maybe some of these things from his father, right? Who was a doctor, right? And he was trying to communicate them to his son, right?

[13:26] Huh. You know, or both, right? A little pun on the word "Nicomachean right "comicus," right? The name of both, but reminds you a little bit of the Bible there, right? Father and son.

[13:46] Does Christ call his apostles sons too, or sometimes, or did you speak that way? Yeah, little sons, little ones. Yeah, yeah. I used to call it "referring to children." I remember the little ones, right? I was talking to Diane DeSoto, Tell, my favorite student. See the little ones, she picked it up, and she said, "call it referring to my children." It's the little ones. Because monks, does it know they're the little ones, right?

[14:12] Huh. But that's what he said. The filioli, right? You know, filioli, yeah. That's one of his titles in Isaiah, where Christ is. Pater futuri saeculi It's one of his titles Also, I was told by a priest that the translation to my children or little ones, it's in English, it misses a certain important nuances, which the Spanish muchacho would be closer. There's a more of a charity, a sort of fatherly bond in a way, and so the English word is still quite captured from what he was telling.

[14:51] Sed contra me Okay. After I said contrary I guess, okay. But against this is what is said in the second book of Kings, chapter twelve. That David said to Nathan, "I have sinned to the what? Lord." And Nathan said to David, "Huh." The Lord, right, has carried over, right, transferred your sin, and you will not what die. He's been forgiven, right. But nevertheless, because you have what.

[15:36] I guess yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the horrible thing with the son there, right? Revolts against him and so on, right? That's the son of Bathsheba I guess right, too, or a son of the adulterous thing. Okay. Therefore, one is punished by God even after his sin has been what dismissed, right? And thus the obligation of punishment remains, even though the sin has been what removed. That's a good text, right?

[16:06] Huh? Doesn't Thomas say when he's talking about David being the author of the Psalms for the most part, right? That this is to give us hope, you know, that that he had a sinner rather than someone who was altogether immaculate, right? Proposing these prayers, right? Huh? Because prayer is tied up with the virtue of hope, right? Huh? And you might despair because of your sins, right? But when David, a really serious thing, right, adultery and then murder as a consequence of that, huh?

[16:39] That was like that's in Saint Thomas, the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, the genealogy. He doesn't even name Bathsheba. He says that Solomon was born the wife of Uriah. Wow, that's really powerful way of saying something. Yeah.

[17:01] There's no pictures of her that have come down to. Well, let's see what Thomas says. The body of the article here now. I answer, it should be said that two things can be considered, are able to be considered in sin, right? One is the what guilty act, huh? Actus culpae, and then the stain, what falling upon this, huh?

[17:36] Now it is clear that seizing the act of sin, there remains what the obligation, right? In all what actual sins, huh? supposed to original sin, right? There's no after you're baptized. There's no punishment, you know, say ten Hail Marys or something.

[18:06] But the act of sin makes a man what subject to punishment, insofar as he has gone beyond the order of divine what justice, huh? To which he cannot return, except through a certain what recompense of punishment, huh? Which reduces one to the equality of justice, huh? That the one who indulged, let's say, more than he should have to his own will, than he ought to have, acting against the commandment of God, huh?

[18:46] According to the order of divine justice, he suffers something against that which he will or wants. He does spontaneously, right? Suppose in his own initiative, right? Or, yeah, yeah, uninvited.

[19:09] Which also, in what injuries, right, done to men, is observed that through the recompense of punishment, there is what made whole again, you might say, right? Huh? reintegrate greater, the equality of justice is made whole again, huh? Okay. So, notice how the word equality there is used with justice, right? Huh? Now, Thomas says that all of our words come from the continuous. I think I mentioned I was teaching the continuous with my students on Tuesday night, there from the beginning of the sixth book of Natural Hearing, and so we use the word just to mean what equal.

[19:55] It just fits, huh? It's? Equal, neither more nor less, huh? So the idea of equality is in the idea of justice, right? But the word justice, taken from equality, I mean the word equality, I should say, is taken from what quantity, right? Huh? Applied to other things, but it's hard for us to get beyond that, right?

[20:22] I was thinking about God, you know, and they say people think about God, you know, do they think of God as having a surface? You know, yeah, because you know I think they do, huh? You know, and you seeing him face to face, so that there's a surface there, right? I mean, in the metaphor, right? Huh? Speaking metaphorically, there, of course, right? But but God is not a body, right?

[20:47] Huh? So the old Catholicism used to say God is a spirit who cannot be seen with bodily eyes. Mm-hmm. I think it's kind of striking here in this Gospel Matthew, just recall what it's a metaphor there. Um, what's the contrast that are being made between the the gospel the baptism of John and the baptism that Christ will confer, right? Huh? So well, one of Christ is said by the Spirit and what?

[21:30] Water. Doesn't say water. We mean Christ. I'm sorry. Yeah, what is the baptism of Christ going to be as opposed to the? I mean, yeah, to the baptism of John, right? It's the Holy Spirit, I think, is in there. But what's the other one? He doesn't say water. Oh, St. John's epistle? No, no, no, in the Matthew's Gospel there. Fire. Fire, yeah. That's a kind of strange way of describing water, isn't it?

[22:01] You know, I mean, in the old four elements, you know, fire and water are very much opposed, right? Because fire is hot and dry, and water is wet and cold, right? So I mean, how can you use fire instead of water, right? Huh? That's really striking thing, isn't it? You know. And of course you have fire there in terms of the punishment of the wicked, right? And so you can see how the same thing can be a metaphor for the good and the bad, just like lion is a metaphor for God sometimes and a metaphor for the devil going around.

[22:34] Kind of the lion consuming fire. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Those metaphors are interesting. Okay. Um. Once it is clear that ceasing the act of sin, right, or the injury, right. Bestowed, there remains the debt of what punishment, huh?

[23:07] But if we speak about the taking away of sin as regards the stain, thus it is manifest that the stain of sin cannot be taken away from the soul except by this that the soul is joined to God, right? Through distance from whom, right, he has incurred the detriment, huh, of his own what, suffering, diminishing, you might say, of his own. cleanliness cleanness had a sense of what brightness, didn't it?

[23:42] Yeah, yeah, as has been said above, huh? But man is joined to God through his what will, whence the stain of sin cannot be taken away from a man unless the will of man accepts, right, the order of divine justice, huh?

[24:06] That he either what spontaneously, right, huh, takes upon himself the punishment and recompense for his past guilt, or even that which is restored to him by God, right? He patiently what sustains, yeah, and in either way the punishment has the reason of what satisfaction, huh? Now I guess purgatory is mainly that that second case, right? That's why St Bonaventure says in this life we do satisfaction, purgatory

[24:44] does passion, undergoing, that's it. Now satisfactory, right, punishment diminishes something of the notion of what? Yeah. For it's of the notion of punishment that be against what the will, but satisfactory punishment, although according to an absolute consideration is against the will, nevertheless, and in itself is what voluntary, right? Because one is what choosing, right, to undergo this, right? Whence simply it is voluntary, but secundum quid involuntary, right?

[25:28] As has been said above, has been said above about the voluntary, the involuntary. Isn't that the old classical example? You know, the guy throwing things out of the thing because ship, because otherwise the ship will go down, and he doesn't mean he wants to do that, but simply speaking, he does want to do it given the whole circumstances, right? Okay. I suppose you know if you if you admit to you know having a legs cut off or something, you know, because if you don't you're going to die.

[25:56] Well, it's not the thing you want to do, but on the whole, yeah, yeah, terrible situation, but anyway. It should be said, therefore, that the stain of guilt being what, there can remain the what? Death. Yeah, not of punishment simply, but of satisfactory punishment. Okay.

[26:25] That's the same example he uses about your guardian angel. He says, "Your guardian angel said that you go to hell, " and he said that he uses the same text. He says, "Well, absolutely simple in one way. No, your angel doesn't want you go to hell, but if you deserve it,

[26:45] that's it. " Tough jib. No skin off my nose. The first, therefore, should be said that just as seizing the act of sin, there remains a stain, right? So also there can remain the what? Guilt or about death. Debt, yeah.

[27:07] But when the stain ceases, there does not remain the what? Reason. Reason. Because you're willing to undergo it satisfactorily, right? Now, okay. Of course, they say something in purgatory. There is something of that in purgatory, right? That you're now willing to undergo this, so you can be purified to see God eventually. Because you want to see God. It's kind of similar to at least I've heard compared to sometimes it's like some at least some of the martyrs who they don't really want to be tortured and die, but in order to witness that, okay, I'll do it.

[27:42] Has not a whole lot of volunteering. I read that was it Saint John the Cross said you wanted his friends to pray that he'd have his purgatory on earth. That's kind of a frightening thing in some ways to think of, you know, because he's he's a pretty strict guy with himself, you know. He he wants his purgatory on earth, right? That's the best way to do it.

[28:07] Yeah. Maybe now or maybe later Pay me now or pay me later. What does Prince Hal say to Falstaff? "You owe God to death," he says.

[28:21] But since it is kind of the punishment of original sin, isn't it? Now. Y'all got a death. The second should be said that to the virtuous man punishment is not owed simpliciter, right? But nevertheless, it can be what owed to himself as something what satisfactory, right?

[29:00] Because this pertains to virtue itself, right? That one satisfies for those things which one has offended, either God or another what man. To the third, it should be said that the stain being removed,

[29:25] the wound of the what a sin is healed as regards what the will. But there is required nevertheless punishment for the healing of the other parts of the soul, other powers of soul, because through the preceding sin they have become disordered. So that is necessary for that they be cured through contraries. There is required for the restitution of the equality of justice and for removing the scandal of others, right? That they be built up in what punishment, or scandalized in guilt.

[30:06] It's a beautiful phrase, eh? Edificentri bona, qui sunt scandalati in culpa. Send this to every bishop, the United States, but the politicians. Yeah, that is clear from the example induced from about David.

[30:27] Okay, let's go to Article Seven now. To the seventh, one goes forward thus. It seems that not every punishment is an account of somewhat guilt.

[30:52] For it is said in John nine about the man born blind. Neither he has sinned nor his parents that he be born blind. That was the question, right? Because they they were the apostles asking that question. Was it his sin or his parents? Yeah, like every one of them? You know, you say what neither one.

[31:17] And likewise, it seems that there are many boys, eh? Even baptized that suffer grave what punishments, as fears, oppressions, the demons, and many other things of the sort. But when nevertheless there is no sin in them after they have been what baptized, eh?

[31:40] And before they are baptized, there is not in them more of sin than in other boys who do not undergo these things. Therefore, not every punishment is for sin.

[31:53] That's convincing, right? Moreover, it's like they tie you up, you know, and they they tie you up really good. You know, they tie you once and they go over. It's not long; keeps on tying you up more and more, huh?

[32:15] Moreover, it's for the same reason it seems that sinners prosper and some innocents are punished, right? But we find both of these things often in human affairs. For it is said about the iniquitous, the bad, in Psalm seventy-two. They are not in the what, and with men they are not what discouraged. And Job twenty-one seven, the impious live, are raised up, are comforted by their wealth.

[32:55] In Habacuc one thirteen, huh? Wherefore do you regard what? Yeah, Those who are contentful, and silent when the what? The impious now. He jumps underfoot, just man. Yeah. The more just. Therefore, not every punishment is inflicted for what guilt.

[33:25] More about Christ it is said, one Peter's two, that he did not make sin, nor is he found right with deceit in his mouth.

[33:36] Nevertheless, it is said that he suffered for us. Therefore, not always is punishment dispensed by God for what guilt. But against this is what is said in Job chapter four: whoever what perished right, or when were the right righteous? Huh? Deleted right.

[34:08] When rather one sees that those who do wicked wicked things, God blowing right, Perished, right, and Augustine says now huh is the great Augustine in the first volume of his Retractions right? And if that isn't humility right, How many guys have written a book of Retractions? I mean, Kant and Descartes, the rest of them, their whole writings would have to be retracted.

[34:40] Have a book burning Yeah. And that every punishment is just, and for sin some sin one is what. Paid out, paid out deal. What the hell's Tom going to get out of this mess? The heck.

[35:04] Answer should be said that as has been said, punishment can be considered in two ways, huh? Simply, and in so far as it is what satisfactory. Now, satisfactory punishment, that's when you do voluntarily undergo, right? Isn't it? Is in some way what voluntary, right? Huh?

[35:32] And because it can happen that those who differ in the what debt of punishment, that one that they be one according to the will by the union of what love. That's the first effect of love. We studied love a long time ago, didn't we? The first effect of love that Thomas talks about is. Union, right? Huh? Okay.

[36:00] Hence it is that sometimes someone who has not sinned carries the what punishment voluntarily for another, right? Just as we see in human affairs that someone what hands himself over for the debt of a what another, right?

[36:25] If therefore we speak about punishment simply, according as it has the notion of punishment, thus it always has order to one's own what guilt, yeah.

[36:42] But sometimes to one's what actual guilt, as when someone has what is punished either by God or by men for a sin committed. Sometimes with regard to original guilt, right? How does that refer to that original sin?

[37:04] And this either chiefly or principally, or as a consequence, huh? For chiefly the punishment original sin is that human nature is left to itself, destitute of the aid of original what justice, right?

[37:28] But to this follow all the what penalties which happen from the defect of nature in men. Well, this goes back to original sin. It should be known nevertheless that sometimes something seems to be a punishment or punishing that nevertheless does not have, simply speaking, the notion or definition of punishment. For punishment is a species of what of the bad, as has been said in the first book.

[38:06] But evil is the lack of good, huh? Since, however, there are many goods of man, to wit, of the soul or the body and exterior things. That's a division into three, right? And that goes back to the what the Greeks, right? Aristotle talks about that, right? That's a famous division.

[38:34] It happens sometimes that a man suffers detriment in a lesser good that he might be increased in a greater good, huh? Just as when he suffers the detriment of money on account of the health of his body, right?

[38:55] People are willing to pay money to get medicine and get doctors' attention. Or he says, in both of these, meaning the what goods of the body and the exterior goods, an account of the what health of the soul, Health of the soul and on account of the glory of what God.

[39:20] And then such a what detriment is not simply the evil of man, but it's one what secundum quid, huh? That's a helpful distinction Thomas has in mind. Gets involved a lot of problems.

[39:41] If you leave this room, you'll cease to be in some way. Secundum quid, right, huh? Cease to be in this room, right? I assume you will not cease to be. But there's a man out there with a knife.

[39:59] Whence it is. Is not said simply the what definition of punishment, but of medicine, right? For doctors, push austere potions, right, upon the what sick, sick, the infirm, infirmary. It used to call it what they call place for the infirmary. Yeah, yeah, the place for the infirm that they might confer health. Yeah, so is that a punishment? I give you a bitter potion. It's going to cure you.

[40:33] Is that a punishment? I'm going to punish you now. Take your punishment. Yeah, you see it, don't we? Kind of faithfully, though, huh? And because things of this sort do not properly have the definition of punishment, they are not led back to guilt as to a cause,

[41:00] except to this extent that what that it is necessary to exhibit, right, punishing medicines, right, to human nature is from the corruption of nature, right, and that's a punishment of what Original sin, huh?

[41:30] But in the state of innocence, it would not be necessary for the what to do someone to develop virtue through punishing or painful exercise. Yeah, yeah. So exercise wouldn't be punishing, wouldn't be. No pain, no gain. Yes, I

[41:52] mean, yeah. This is wonderful. This is wonderful. That's the current state of affairs, yeah. Yeah. Whence that there's something what punishing in these things is reduced to original guilt as to a cause. So go down to the local place and tell.

[42:18] So result of original sin. No pain, no gain. I say they had a name an exercise champion, like return to Eden or something. This is the road back. This is the way back

[42:37] Okay, so now we get to the first objection about these poor little boys who are born with defects or undergo these things. To the first, therefore, it should be said that defects of this sort of those who are born, right, or also of boys, right, are effects and punishments of original what sin has been said. And they remain even after baptism on account of the cause said above.

[43:08] And that they are not equally in all happens on account of the diversity of nature, which is what left them right. But defects of this sort are ordered according to divine providence, right? To the salvation of men, either of those who suffer them or of others who are admonished by these what punishments, and also to the glory of what God.

[43:47] See we these cases you know of people you know born with these defects and the the rest of the family taking care of that one defective baby or something you know the wonderful things it does for their character you know.

[44:06] The second should be said that temporal and what yeah are some goods of man right but parva money isn't everything that's a small good a small good of man money

[44:25] but spiritual goods are magna magna. Somebody's describing to me the way they sing you know when in the seminary when the bishop comes you know magna you know because of this thing yeah so they really raise the voices y'all.

[44:52] It pertains therefore to divine justice, huh? And that he give what spiritual goods to the virtuous, right? And of temporal goods and evils, so many does he give to them that are sufficient for what virtue, right? As Dionysius says in the eighth chapter of Divine Names,

[45:18] that it belongs to divine justice to not what soften, right? Strength. The strength of the best, huh? Yeah, yeah. It's quite a guy, this Dionysius. Yeah, yeah, yeah. To others, this that temporal things are given gives rise to what the evil of spiritual things.

[45:49] Whence in Psalm seventy-two he concludes, and therefore what pride held them, right? I was thinking, you know, you know that thing we were talking about last time about the connection between humility and charity. Right now, you know, the two prayers I kind of grew up with. One was the prayer for charity. You know, come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of thy faithful, kindle them the fire of thy love.

[46:16] Another prayer was Jesus make an humble heart, make a heart like unto thine. Maybe we should put those two prayers together. You know, prayer book, right? And say the two of them together, right? Because you can't have one without the what, the other, right? So you shouldn't maybe ask for one without asking for the other, right? So you ask for charity, and the same time you, what, ask for humility, right?

[46:40] That's kind of interesting. I'm going to arrange a prayer book, right, on that, based on that text, right? That's kind of interesting, I think, to think of that.

[46:54] Okay. The third, it should be said, that Christ, of course, sustained satisfactory what punishment, not for his own, but for our sins. Huh? Wonder is that's a shock to the to the Muslims too, huh? But I think the idea of us being pantheists, right? That we got to be eliminated. You know, it seems like you know they're doing something good, right? They're getting rid of these these pantheists, right?

[47:31] What do you think? That's a convenient excuse for one thing. Yeah, you can see, you know. But was there some evidence of this in in in the Koran that he was? Well, he he said himself that's why his insistence on one God. Yeah, yeah. That he's aiming at the Christians because because God doesn't have a son. Yeah. If there's a son, that means they're worshiping many gods.

[47:57] Therefore, they should be eliminated. Does he go on and say that? Then I wonder. That's interesting because that kind of gives a little background, you know. By way of

[48:10] further background, too, it seems that he was an historian of heresy that he was familiar with. That concept of God, son, not being God, but just a man, and he never met an Orthodox Catholic, from what I've read, anyway. So his understanding of Christianity was erroneous. Yeah, I mean that would be less reason to regard this as as pistis and agrapha if if we don't really think that the son was God, right?

[48:42] I mean, if he hadn't run into that, you know, the Orthodox position, right, that the son is God, right, you know, because then you got then you got pantheism, right? Seems right. It's very hard to understand that. I wonder if it might be also it it's a mystery, but God the Son. God be one. Trinity

[49:08] seems like you could say that one way of looking at it is that it makes more sense than, and perhaps to even a Muslim, than having this son who's sort of a man, but sort of godlike, but not truly God. It depends on the way you look at it, I guess, but that seems kind of pantheistic in a certain way as well. Yeah. I was talking to Warren Murry today on the phone, and and I was talking about something I'd read there in Thomas there, and he's quoting Avicenna, right?

[49:40] huh? And Avicenna of course, thought that the heavenly bodies, you know, had souls, right? And but that the end of man's intellectual life is to be united to one of these souls, right? And therefore, and Thomas, you know, doesn't try to argue against it there by reason. But he just says this is against what the church teaches, right? Where to be joined to God, right, in the beatific vision, right, is the end of man.

[50:09] It's not to be joined to some kind of angelic character thing, right? And so Warren's saying, you know, that the Muslims don't think, huh? Do they agree with that part of Avicenna's teaching about the souls? He doesn't think that our we can see God as He is. That this is not possible. It's impossible for for man to see God as He is. Therefore, that can't be the end of man, right?

[50:38] Whether they take this other thing or just go to the seventy two virgins, or whatever it is, but it's something, you know, less than that, right?

[50:52] And maybe Avicenna's position is even too high for them, too, you know. But it's certainly apparent in their idea that you cannot ever see God as He is face to face. Their paradise is just more material creation, essentially. Their paradise is just more material creation. Yeah, yeah. Thomas criticizes it as being of that sort, too, you know. Therefore, being more more human in the sense of, you know, yeah.

[51:19] Yeah. One thing is, I find it hard to point out too that not only is Islam is Nestorian in its origin, but also he said Mormonism is, which I, didn't know, Mormonism is Nestorian.

[51:37] What is it, Mormon? Mormonism originates from the Nestorianism. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he traces it in some way to the fact that he said when he was teaching at a Lutheran seminary with all these PhDs in theology, they kind of challenged him about certain things, and he said, "Well, how many Gospels are there originally? So there's four. He said no no. No, there's fifteen. Because there's all the apocryphal ones.

[52:07] So basically, how do you weed them out? " And that's that's the source of all these troubles. The stories, I guess, are influenced by the apocryphal Gospels

[52:20] among others. Okay. Could we go another one, or take a break, or okay? To the eighth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that someone is not punished for the sin of another.

[52:44] It seems that someone is punished for the sin of another rather. Okay. For it is said in Exodus chapter twenty, verse five. This is the famous text. I am the zealous God, right? Visiting iniquity of fathers on their sons to the third and the fourth generation. Those who hate me, right?

[53:11] And in Matthew twenty-three, that there come upon you all the what just blood that has been poured out upon the earth. Moreover, human justice is derived from divine justice. But according to human justice, sometimes sons are punished for their what parents. Justice is clear in the crime of what.

[53:42] Yeah, yeah. So you lose your your your no longer count or no longer the baron or the whatever it is. So it doesn't pass down to your sons, right?

[53:56] Therefore, also according to divine justice, one is punished for the sin of another. Moreover, if the son is said to not be punished for the sin of the father, but for his own sin, in so far as he imitates the paternal malice, right? This would not be said more of sons than of the extraneous people, who are by similar punish similar punishment punished by those to those whose sins they have what imitated, right?

[54:31] They're punished in a similar way. Therefore, it does not seem that sons are punished for their own sins, but for the sins of their parents.

[54:42] But against this is what is said in Ezekiel chapter eighteen, verse twenty. The son does not carry the what. Iniquity of his father. Yeah.

[54:56] I answer. It should be said that if we speak about punishment that is satisfactory, which is assumed voluntarily, right? Huh? It can happen that one carries the punishment of another, right? In so far as they are in some way what won by the bond of love, right? If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted for sin, in so far as it has the notion of punishment, thus only is each one punished for his own what sin.

[55:33] Because the act of sin is something personal, right? If, however, we speak of punishment which has the definition of medicine, thus it happens that one is punished for the sin of another.

[55:59] That's interesting distinction he's got here, right? Okay. It has been said that the detriment of bodily things, or even of the body itself, right, are certain.

[56:18] pains or punishments. Yeah, ordered to the salvation of the what soul, right? Whence nothing prevents someone being punished by such punishments for the sin of another, either by God or by man. So that the sons for the fathers, and the what servants, I guess, for their lords, in so far as they are things of them. So that's kind of the idea. The boy is something of the father, right?

[56:57] Thus, however, that if the son or the what one subject servant is a partaker of the guilt, right, then the such a punishment Yeah the p punishing defect of this sort has a notion of punishment as regards both, both of the one who is punished and the one for whom he is punished. But if he be not a partaker of the guilt, it has the ratio of punishment as regards the one for whom one what punishes.

[57:34] In so far as the one who is punished, it has only the ratio of what medicine, except per accidens insofar as he consents to the sin of another. In his order, however, to the good of the soul, if he patiently what sustains it, right?

[58:00] But spiritual punishments are not medicinal only, right? Because the good of the soul is not ordered to another better good, right? Whence, in the goods of the soul, no one suffers detriment without his own what guilt.

[58:22] And account of this by such punishments, as Augustine says in the Epistle to Avitum, which I'm sure you're familiar with. One is not punished for another, right? Because as regards the soul, the son is not a thing of the father.

[58:42] Whence the Lord assigning the cause of this says, "All souls are mine." Ezekiel. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said, that both things said seem to be referred to what temporal punishments or body punishments, right?

[59:13] In so far as sons are things of their what parents and successors, predecessors, huh? That's kind of foreign to our modern way of thinking, isn't it, huh? I'm my own man. Yeah, yeah.

[59:37] But if you're a chip off the old block, then you're something of your father, aren't you? The nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

[59:50] But if they refer to spiritual punishments, huh? This is said in account of the imitation of the guilt, right? Or there's some sin, therefore, in the son. Whence in Exodus is added to those who hate me, right? And in Matthew is said, "In you fill up the measure of your fathers." Huh? He's rough. Yeah.

[1:00:23] Now the sins of the fathers are said are said to be punished in the sons, because the sons are nourished in the what sins of the parents, and therefore more prone to what sinning. Both in account of custom as well as in account of what example, following the authority of their what fathers, huh?

[1:00:53] So Kandy was after a woman like his father, right? That's what they say, anyway. Okay. Yeah. So they are worthy of more what punishment, if seeing the punishments of their fathers they are not what corrected, huh? And therefore he adds in the third and fourth generation, because so long are men accustomed to what live that they see the third and fourth generation. I don't know. In Tuesday maybe today they don't get married till they're too old to have kids And thus, mutuo videre possent together they able to see what the sins of the son, oh, in the sons imitating right,

[1:01:53] sins of the fathers, and the fathers weeping over the punishment of their sons. Yeah. So the so the parents immortalize themselves in their offspring, right? This were to be new made when thou art old, and see thy blood warm when thou. feelst it cold thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee calls back the lovely April of her prime. You forget that, you know.

[1:02:46] So, what's the purpose of marriage, anyway? I think the purpose of marriage, in one word, is children, right? And so, the generation of children, and the feeding and clothing of them, and the educating of them, right, is the end of end of marriage, huh? I say, is end of marriage the love of the of the husband and wife? Well, I would say more of this: that the husband and wife should love each other very much, right?

[1:03:25] And they should love their children very much, right? And if they don't love each other very much and love their children very much, there's going to be some difficulty in achieving the purpose of of marriage, right, huh? But should you really say that the love of the husband and wife is the purpose of marriage? Say, or even the love of the children is the purpose of marriage, right?

[1:03:46] You know, it's really kind of the children, right? Now, that's not really said nowadays, you know, huh? I mean, if you talk to a young couple getting married, you say, "What's the purpose of marriage?" You know, huh? Well, we love each other, you know, or something like that. I don't know what they're going to say, but but they're not going to say children, probably, you know, unless they're really well brought up, you know.

[1:04:08] selfless for today Yeah. Think of for the others truly the children for the children. Today we're only thinking about ourselves. Yeah. Yeah. So it's too selfless to think just the children, and that's that's too selfless for the fallen human race, not just today, especially today, especially in today. Which is you find the attempts, you know, to to defend what they call traditional marriage, you know, and and they say, you know, the the Congress did pass something saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, right now.

[1:04:41] But but why is marriage between a man and a woman? Well, it's because its purpose is children. And if you don't say that, you can't really give the reason why. It's that it's just kind of a blind adherence to tradition there, right? Without seeing the what reason for it, right?

[1:05:00] That's why I was I I like to repeat at least to myself, nobody else, that when Christ repeats what said in Genesis that two shall become one flesh, the one flesh is the child. Yeah. Yeah. That's where they really become one flesh, not just the passing of an embrace, but the child. Yeah. So if they got divorced, they can't say, "I'll take my part of the child; you take your part," and you know.

[1:05:28] If I got divorced, I could take my books, but I couldn't take my part of the child of them, you know, you know. That's one reason why the husband and wife should love each other, because they immortalized each other in the children, right? Huh? And it's kind of the idea that child is something of the parents, right? And especially in terms of their body, right? now we're up to the second objection now, To the second it should be said second should be said that those punishments are bodily and temporal, which human justice inflicts to one on account of the sin of another, right?

[1:06:21] Huh? And they are remedies or medicines, right? Huh? Against what? Guilt. Guilt. Either of those who are punished, or others who are what? Prevented from similar guilt.

[1:06:42] To third, it should be said that we are more said to be punished for the sins of others, near near ones, than the extraneous ones, because the punishment of those near, in some way, redounds in those who have what? Sinned. Just like the rich man there, and wants his brothers to be told not to come here, because that's going to make him more miserable, right? In so far as the son is a certain thing of the father, according to his body, right?

[1:07:14] Not according to his soul. Then also because domestic examples and domestic punishments more move. Charity begins at home. Once, when someone is nourished in the sins of parents, he more vehemently what? follows Follows them, right? You know, they say, you know, this wife beating. You know, if you seen your your father beating your wife, then you're going to do that with your wife, right? And and if he's not what deterred from the punishment of them, he would seem to be more what?

[1:07:50] Once worthy of more greater punishment. Tough talk here. Does Thomas? say Cicero said the son is always in debt to his father. Debt to him for his first for his sins. Take a break now a little bit.