Prima Secundae
262. Hope in Shakespeare's All's Well and the Theological Virtues; New Law vs. Old Law (ST I-II q.107, aa.1-2)
Class of 2016-02-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/262-hope-in-shakespeares-alls-well-and-the-theological-virtues/

[0:00] Okay, why must you read as you like it? Huh? I mean, all's well that ends well. Excuse me. He's getting all mixed up now. I think all's well that ends well. In order to understand the theological virtue of hope.

[0:24] Well, now I'm reading the sentences right now, and I've got talking about Christ. You know, he's talking about the virtues again, right? And now he's into the theological virtues. I just got into the I'm in the 26th distinction, right? And the distinctions right before 26, we're talking about faith, and then the 26th distinction is about hope, right? And then I guess the 27th will be about talking about charity, be a number of them.

[0:56] But anyway, it's interesting. The 26th distinction has got two questions, but each question has got about five articles. So I mean, you know, you know how Thomas has questions, and they really, you know, what the two questions are.

[1:14] The first question is about the emotion called what? Hope, yeah. And that's in the sense appetite, right? In the in the irascible appetite, right? Huh? And then the what? Second question is about the virtue of of hope, right? Which is not an emotion, right? See, but has some likeness, right? I think it's kind of interesting, right? Because Thomas, in the senses, going to what? Lead you to understand the hope that's an emotion from which the other one is named, but they're not the same thing, but there's some likeness, huh?

[1:50] And so on, right? Now, when Thomas talks about why are there three theological virtues? He says the theological virtues direct us to our last what? End, right?

[2:13] Now, why do you need three virtues to direct you to your last end? Wouldn't it be enough, you know, to have, let's just say, one virtue in reason and one in the will, right? And when I was a little boy, you know, in the catechism, you know, who made me? God made me. Why'd you make you? To know Him and love Him in this world and to be happy with Him for the next.

[2:41] You know, so what? What do you need that that third thing? See, well, couldn't you be helped to understand the need for that third thing, right? By seeing something like this in the emotions, right? And then this would be a stepping stone, right, to understanding why there are three theological virtues, right? Huh?

[3:04] We see faith is necessary because by faith you know what the end is, right? Charity is necessary because by charity you love the end, right? But what do you need the third? What isn't enough to know and to love the end? Is enough to to pursue the end, right? See?

[3:28] Because of the difficulty of getting there? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And of course, the difficulty is the object of the irascible, right? Okay. And and hope is for some difficult good, right? And the emotion is right. And that you think you can get to, right? Okay. Now, what's that got to do with all of the irascible, right? Well, of course, it's for the emotions, right? We're not looking for the three theological virtues here in this.

[3:59] But the two main characters here, I want to call your attention to, is Bertram, right? Who's the count, who's succeeding to the thing, huh? And then there's Helena, right? Who's the daughter to Gerard de Narbonne, a famous physician, sometime since dead, right? And of course, they think that she's still waiting her father, right? But unbeknownst to others, she has fallen in love with what the count, right?

[4:34] But she's a commoner; she's not nobility. Okay. Now, in the very first act, huh? We learn about us, the audience, right? About her attachment to him, right? And someone has been saying, you know, something about her father, and they leave, right? Now she is a soloquy by herself, right?

[5:00] Well, were that all? Now, what's happened is that her Bertram is going to go. Has been called to the court or the king. And he's going to be away now, recently.

[5:13] And she's talking about her father. Well, were that all? I think not on my father. And these great tears grace his remembrance more than those I shed for him. What was he like? I have forgotten. My imagination carries no favor in it, but Bertram's. I am undone. There is no living none if Bertram be away. He's he's leaving to go to the court. No, he's going to hardly court, right?

[5:43] She's just nobody, huh? Now she's talking about her situation, right? Were all one that I should love a bright particular star. And think to wed it, he is so above me, right? It might say something hopeless, right? How can she even pursue such a man, right? In his bright radiance, in collateral light, must I be comforted, not in his sphere? He just moves in a higher sphere, you know.

[6:17] You don't. The ambition in my love thus plagues itself, right? She loves a man now who you think is hopeless to think of every marrying him, right? And she certainly knows him, right? The hind that would be mated by the lion must die for love.

[6:41] Really said, right? And then she goes back to how she's always looked at him and you know found him handsome and so on. 'Twas pretty though a plague to see him every hour, to sit and draw his arched brows, his hawking eye, his curls, in our heart's table, heart too capable of every line and trick, meaning what peculiarity of his sweet favor, right? But now he's gone, and my idolatrous fancy must sanctify his relics, right?

[7:15] Well, what does she do? She knows him, right? She found him. And she loves him, but can she pursue him? The hind that would be mated by the lion must die for love.

[7:29] The ambition in my love thus plagues itself, right? I mean, I'm just you know shook by this, you know. In his bright radiance, and collateral light, must I be comforted, not in his sphere? Okay. So in this. hit on something to that Yeah. Do it. This is the same what the same first scene, right? Huh? But then some other conversation here, but you know, kind of loose conversation.

[8:03] And then at the end of the first scene, you have you know no slow Lafeu first, right? huh? Parolles is a kind of funny guy. As his name is, you know, get the good husband, he says, right? And uses as uses these so farewell. So he exits. Now she's all by herself. Our remedies often ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. The fated sky, the fateful sky, huh?

[8:48] The fated sky gives us free scope. Only doth backward pull our slow designs when we ourselves are dull. What power is it which mounts my love so high that makes me see and cannot feed mine eye? The mightiest space and fortune nature brings to join, like lights, and kiss like native things.

[9:20] Impossible be strange attempts to those that weigh their pains and sense, and do suppose what hath been cannot be. Whoever strove to show her merit, that did miss her love?

[9:38] Of course, the case of hope—you case, you have to have merits, right? To get the thing. Now, her father was a very famous physician, and he had left her a secret what? Potion. Potion. Of course. Yeah. And the king is what sick? Has kind of given up. The king's disease. My project may deceive me. But my intents are fixed and will not leave me. So she decides to go off to the what?

[10:06] Cure the king. King. And if she cures the king, I mean, he's going to he'll put me what? She'll be at court. He'll be there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what happens, right? The the the thing cures, right? Okay. But but notice, huh? What that's the third thing, right? And for her to pursue him, she has to not only know him, and he's good, right? And love him.

[10:30] that she loves the good in him, but it is possible for her to what? Obtain, yeah, yeah, yeah. And this is the way she's going to do it. See, so she couldn't pursue him without having that hope, right?

[10:48] The same thing is true on theological virtue of hope, right? But on the will. I wonder if that's why other versions of that answer in the catechism that one said know him and love him It's like know him love him and serve him isn't it, because that's the way we can hold and obtain it. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's kind of interesting, right? Like I was saying, you know, the other day, there.

[11:11] I know it is to be president. I know I want to be president, you know, lots of people, but I have no hope of being of being president.

[11:23] And getting into the contest, I mean, raising money. I don't know how to raise money. My brother Mark, you see, there's an art of. Raising money, just like everything else, art-related. But I don't know how to do it. And so, am I going to pursue being president? Do you think? But I I know it is. I know it's good to be president, and have that you know.

[11:52] I've been on Air Force One myself, so I know it's nice to be, you know. But you know, and I I like that. I like to be. You actually flying on Air Force One. Yeah. And the other perks of the. Yeah. I picture myself there getting on Air Force One, you know. And so, so.

[12:21] Marine saluting as he's going. Yeah, but see, and that's the thing, right? That it's possible for me to do this, right? Thomas says, you know, that the the he has an objection here from the just to hope, and I mean the to know and to and to love is enough, right? But he says the will is of the possible and the impossible. You see, and of course, at first passage, there it's like her love is something impossible, right?

[12:45] Huh? You know, the hind Mary, you know, and it's a plague, right? Some things you can't get, but but. So you need this what ability, right? Yeah. It's interesting when when Thomas says, you know, the object of all theological the theological virtues is God, right? Well, we distinguish virtues just like powers by their acts, and their acts by their what object, right? So how can there be three different virtues if the object is the same God, right?

[13:30] Well, that's not the formal object though, God. Now that that's a difficult thing to do, but just take a simple example going back to the senses. Got back to the more knowing. If you brought me into this room blindfolded, right? And let me feel my way around, right? I could eventually come to the conclusion that these tables in the middle here, the top of the table is a rectangle, right?

[14:02] But the top of this table here is curved at the ends, right? Now that same shape of the tables I can know, and in fact do know by my eyes now, right? Well, is seeing and feeling the same? Is the sense of touch by its hardness, right? Well, what's the formal object of that? See, the formal object of the eye is color, right? So I know the shape of these tabletops by my what?

[14:39] By my eye through as color, right? Color extends this far and then it curves off that way, right? You see, while I would know the same shape by the what sense of touch by its hardness, right? The hardness stops and the air begins, right? So the formal object would not be the same, right? So in what way is God the object of faith? True. Yeah, as the first truth, right?

[15:11] He's the object of what hope. I mean, I mean of love, charity as the summum bonum the highest good, right? The last chapter Thomas on the goodness of God, right? He's the sumum bonum.

[15:25] Okay, so he's the object of faith as the first truth. He's the object of charity as the highest good. In what way is he the object of hope?

[15:41] Difficult one? Yeah, the the the h the highest, the, most difficult of all. And Thomas goes on to explain, you know, why they speak sometimes of the object of hope as being beatitude, huh? We define it as the you know you know the substance of things hoped for right Huh Which is the beatitude right as the, you know, you know the substance of things hoped for, right?

[16:03] Huh? Which is the attitude, right? When Thomas quotes, I mean, Boethius, right? Happiness, you know, is a status produced by the accumulation of all goods, right? Well, what'd be more difficult to get than than all goods, right? Huh?

[16:24] When you get God, you get all goods, right? But therefore, that's the arduum, most difficult of all, right? Huh? So insofar as God is the most difficult thing to get, he's the object of hope, right? Huh? So, but this kind of helps you to understand it, right? Huh? Starting with with as emotion, right? So it's interesting here that first question was five articles, right? About the the, yeah, especially the first five articles about it, and then you know, beautiful consideration of emotions again, too.

[16:59] It's kind of reminding me of when I was working on the definition of comedy, you know, in the old days, and and I was reading the sen, I mean, the sentences on this by reading on the the veritate, you know. But then I realized eventually that hope is one of the principal passions, right? It had to be hope rather than boldness, right? And so it's kind of nice to see that again, another consideration of it.

[17:30] Beautiful, beautiful understanding of emotions. I mean, understanding the distinction of the eleven emotions is useful for understanding comedy and tragedy, right? But useful for understanding the virtues that are concerned about the emotions, and for understanding the

[17:54] music, which is an imitation of emotions. Thomas says a beautiful thing too. One objection says that that what what moral virtues most like hope?

[18:12] The virtues Aristotle takes up in the Nicomachean Ethics. Fortitude. Well, that's close, but it's not fortitude because fortitude has obviously something bad, right? In a sense that you're trying to repulse, right? Huh? Well, what is the the virtue that aims at great things? Magnanimity. Yeah, and magnanimity is concerned with hope, right?

[18:39] And so magnanimity is the moral virtue that most resembles what? Yeah, but magnitudes about magnanimity is about hope, right? And you begin to realize, you know, it helps you to understand these things.

[18:54] And and magnanimity makes it possible to do great, do great human things, right? But you know the other one, something supernatural, right? So beautiful, beautiful consideration that twenty-six distinction of the third, third book, you know,

[19:14] magnificent, magnificent text. Okay, we're up to question one oh seven. Again, that anyway. Incidentally she cures the king, you know, but then, you know, it's kind of a forced marriage, right? And Bertram is indignant, you know. he's been forced to marry this commoner, and he takes off, you know, and he's got a, you know, so she's got more difficulties to overcome, you know. But he can read the great play.

[19:57] It's a little more developed than my desire to be, you know, am I going to really pursue the presidency? What's wrong with me? What's wrong with me? What's missing is is hope, you know, that that I can overcome all these difficulties. You know. But also if you became president you wouldn't have time to read as much Shakespeare. That's true. That's true. Or or the military. I drink as much tea.

[20:32] Probably a lot of time. Drink enough tea, yeah. Yeah, that's nice. Yeah, they're saying on the radio today Rubio is going to be juggling things. They're going to spend more money on ads and less money on airplane trips.

[21:01] Staff. Okay, now the comparison of the new law to the old, right? What a thorough man this Thomas is. Then we're not to consider about the comparison of the new law to the old law, and about this four things are asked. First, whether the new law is another law from the old one. That was already known by now.

[21:31] Secondly, whether the new law fulfills the old. Oh, this is marvelous. Third, whether the new law is contained in the old. My goodness, Thomas, excel yourself.

[21:49] Whether it is more what grave, burdensome, yeah, weigh you down, Whether the new law or the old. What do you think? To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the new law is not other from the old law.

[22:13] For both law give what. Faith of God. Give faith of God to those having it, right? Because without faith, it is impossible to please God, as is said in Hebrews eleven. But there is the same faith of what, the ancients and the moderns, as is said by the gloss in Matthew twenty-one. Therefore, also there is the same what, law.

[22:46] Let's see what to reply to that is, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the unity of faith of both testaments attests to the unity of the what, end. For it has been said above that the object of the theological virtues, among which is faith, is the last what, end.

[23:13] But nevertheless, faith has a different status in the old and the new law. For they believe something in the future that we what, believe has been done, right, huh?

[23:30] Let me reply to that second objection. I see. Moreover, Augustine says in the book against Adamantius the Manichean, disciple of Manichaeus, that a brief difference of the law, in the Old Testament, and the Gospel is fear and what, love.

[23:57] But according to these two, the new law and the old cannot be diversified, because also in the old law are proposed precepts of charity, as in Leviticus nineteen, verse eighteen: "You should love your what neighbor." And Deuteronomy six five: "Love the Lord your God."

[24:23] So Augustine doesn't make any sense there, right? And likewise, they cannot be diversified through the other difference which Augustine assigns, huh? Against in against Faust, right? That the Old Testament has temporal promises, right?

[24:46] You have a land flowing with milk and honey, and so on, right? And these things like that. Have children and. Yeah. But the New Testament has spiritual and eternal promises.

[25:03] Okay. Because also in the New Testament are promised some temporal things, according to that of Mark ten: "You will what." Receive a hundred times in this time, houses and brothers and so on. Yeah. And in the Old Testament, right? One hopes for what? Spiritual promises. Promises and eternal ones, huh? According to that, the, Epistle to the Hebrews, huh? Now we desire a better what? Father, the heavenly one, which is said about the ancient what fathers, right?

[25:43] Therefore, it seems that the new law is not other from the old. Let's see if he's going to defend his master, Augustine. To second, it should be said that all the differences which are assigned between the new law and the old are taken according to perfect and imperfect. Must be a good point to make, huh?

[26:23] For the precepts of what? Each law, right? Are given about the acts of virtues, right? But for doing the works of the virtues, the imperfect are in one way inclined, right, huh? Because they do not yet have the what habit of virtue. And another, those who are perfected by the habit of what virtue?

[26:56] Those who do not yet have the habit of virtue are inclined to act or to do the works of virtue from some extrinsic cause.

[27:11] Please, your mother. Oh, are you getting hit? Yeah. Yeah. As from the threatening of punishments, or from the promise of some extrinsic remunerations, as the honor you'll have, Riches. riches or something of this sort, huh? Pizza. So if you're brave, you'll if you're brave, you'll be honored, right, huh? Yeah. Yeah.

[27:43] And therefore, the old law, which is given to the imperfect, that is, those who have not yet what arrived or obtained, yeah, spiritual grace, is said to be the law of fear. Oh, I see. Insofar as they are induced to observing to observance of the precepts through the threatening of certain what punishments, huh?

[28:13] And they are said to have what, certain temporal what, promises, right? But those who have the virtue, these are the perfect now, are inclined to doing the works of virtue on account of their love of the virtue itself, and not on account of some punishment or some extrinsic what, remuneration. And therefore, the new law, whose chiefness, principality, consists in the what, spiritual grace bestowed on their hearts, is said to be the law of love, and it's said to have spiritual and eternal promises, which are the object of virtue, and especially of the supreme virtue, their charity.

[29:08] And thus, per se, we are inclined to them, right? Not as a word towards something extraneous, but as a word to our own, right? To our proper thing, proper instance of. One's own, there I think.

[29:25] In account to this, the old law is said to restrain the hand, but not the soul, right? Huh? Because by the fear of punishment, one abstains from some sin, not simply because his will recedes from the sin, as recedes the will of the one who, by the law of justice, abstains from what? Yeah, who has the love of virtue? In account to this, the new law, which is the law of love, is said to restrain the soul itself, right?

[30:02] Huh? Not just your hand. That's kind of a sign that Islam is imperfect. I know. There is some, however, in the status of the Old Testament, having both charity and the grace of the Holy Spirit, who chiefly expected spiritual promises and eternal ones. And according to this, they pertain to the new law, even though they were in the time of the old law, right? Likewise, as for us, also in the Old Testament, there are some fleshly ones, not yet what arriving at the perfection of the new law, which is necessary even in the New Testament to be led to the works of virtue through the fear of punishments and through some temporal promises.

[31:08] So you're kind of in the old law. Remember Ike. Remember Reverend Ike. He was out of Chicago. He was a preacher. He said, "If you serve God, gold, diamonds, and cars, they're going to send more money." The old law, although it gives the precepts of charity, does not, however, through it is is not given the what the Holy Spirit, through whom is defunded, poured in, spread out, charity in our hearts, as is said in Romans five, huh?

[31:45] That was a good explanation Okay. So that's good. Some truth in objection, right? You know, because you're saying you can be kind of imperfect in the New Testament, right? And perfect, like maybe Moses or somebody, right, in the Old Testament. Moreover, the apostle seems to distinguish both laws, calling the old law the law of what deeds is it? Works. The new law, calling it the law of what faith.

[32:25] But the old law was also of faith, according to what? That if Hebrews eleven all were proven by the testimony of what? Faith. Faith. And what's his name there? Abraham. He's called kind of. Yeah. Yeah. Which is said about the fathers of the Old Testament. Similarly, the new law is the law of things to be what? Done. For it is said in Matthew five, do well to those who hate you.

[32:56] And in Luke twenty two, do this in my commemoration. Therefore, the old, the new law is not other from the old law, right? To the third, it should be said that it has been said above. The new law is said to be the law of faith, in so far as its what? Principality consists in grace itself, which is given inwardly to those believing. Whence it is said to be the grace of what?

[33:29] Faith. Grace of the faithful. I almost be saying that. It has, however, secondarily some things to be done, both moral things and what sacramental things. But in these does not consist the principality of the new law, just as the principality of the old law consists in them. For those in the Old Testament that were what accepted by God through faith, according to this, pertain to the New Testament, huh?

[34:07] But they are not justified. They are not justified except by the faith of Christ, who is the author of the New Testament. Whence about Moses the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews that he what? The treasures of Egypt, he thought. Less. He thought what shame or disgrace for the sake of Christ, greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. Yeah. Treasures of Egypt. Improperium was that improperium Christi.

[34:44] It would be hard to tell that The reproach Reproach of Christ Yeah. Greater, greater wealth. Okay. But against this is what the apostle says, right, in the epistle to the Hebrews, that the priesthood being what transferred carried over, is necessary that there also be a translation of the law. Carrying over the law, right? Something different. But other is the priesthood of the new and the old testament, as the apostle proves there.

[35:19] Therefore, there is another law. Thomas says, "I answer it should be said, this has been said above. Every law orders human behavior. Let's put it that way, in order to some end.

[35:39] Now those things, those things that are ordered to the end, can be in two ways diversified according to what, notion of the end. In one way, because they are ordered to diverse ends, and this is a diversity of species, and most often be the what, proximate end. In another way, according to nearness to the end or distance from it. Just as it is clear that motions differ in species according as they are ordered to diverse what, limits,

[36:25] and according as one part of the motion is nearer to the end or limit than another, right? There should be noted a difference in motion according to perfect end, what, imperfect.

[36:41] Thus, therefore, two laws can be distinguished in two ways. In one way, as being altogether diverse, as being ordered to diverse ends. Just as the law of the city, which was ordered to this that the people dominate, right, is in species different from that which was ordered to the the best ones, the city, dominate. In another way, two laws can be distinguished according as one is nearer to the end and the other more what, remote.

[37:22] As in one and the same city, there is said to be another law which is placed upon the perfect men, who at once able to follow out those things which pertain to the common good. Another law about the discipline of boys, who are instructed in what in what way,

[37:44] after this they might pursue the works of men, yeah. It should be said therefore that according to the first mode, the new law is not other from the old law, because of both there is one end. That makes sense, doesn't it? Even Demagogic can see something in that, you know. I got to think about a little bit more before it sinks in, but you know, would you think the old law is got a different end than the new law?

[38:13] Ultimate end. That's what I like about reading Saint Thomas's commentaries when he always asks what's the matter. All the books of the Old Testament, he goes, Christ, Christ, Christ, Christ, Christ. That's what all of them are in terms of their matter. Yeah. The same matter is, I guess, in a similar way, the same end. Okay. Now, what is that one end? That men be subject to what?

[38:40] God. God. Now there is one God, the New and Old Testament, according to the Orthodox faith, right? Okay. According to that of Romans three, one God is it who justifies circumcision from faith and the foreskin by what? Faith. In another, in the other way, the new law is different from the old, huh? Because the old law is, as we're a pedagogue of boys, it's coming back to boys, as the apostle says.

[39:15] But the new law is the law of perfection, which is the law of charity. About which the apostle says that it is the bond of what perfection. Perfection huh

[39:33] Do we gotta stop there or maybe on Okay. Whether the new law fulfills the old law, right? To the second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the new law does not fulfill the old law, for fulfilling is contrary to eliminating, evacuating, huh? But the new law what takes away or excludes the observances of the old law, for it's said by the apostle that if we are circumcised, right, huh?

[40:23] Yeah. Therefore, the new law is not fulfilling the old law, right? Let's see what Thomas says. in reply to that. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the new law does not eliminate the observance of the old law, except as regards the ceremonial. Okay. But these were in a what figure of the future. Whence, from the fact that the ceremonial precepts are fulfilled, whence from this that the ceremonial precepts are fulfilled, perfected those things which they are what they figured.

[41:08] They should not be further observed, because then you'd be saying that they're not yet. Because if they observed, they would still signify something as future, and not what fulfilled. Just as the promise of a what future gift does not have place when the promise is now what fulfilled through the exhibition of the gift. And to this way, the ceremonials of the laws of the of the laws are taken away when they are filled, huh?

[41:40] Well, I can kind of see that, huh? Okay. Moreover, second objection: the contrary is not fulfilling its contrary. But the Lord in the new law proposed some precepts contrary to the precepts of the old law. This is a more serious objection, isn't it? For it's said in Matthew five, you heard that was said to the ancients, who dismisses his wife, huh, will give to her a book of repudiation.

[42:17] Sounds pretty bad. But I say to you, whoever dismisses his wife, causes her to what? Adultery, yeah, and therefore consequently, and same is consequently clear in the prohibition of what swearing, and the prohibition of the

[42:40] retribution yeah, eye for an eye, and in the hate of enemies, huh? And likewise, the Lord excludes the precepts of the old law about the discretion of foods, for it's not what enters into your mouth that.

[42:59] Therefore, the new law is not fulfilling of the old. Okay, Thomas, let's see a hand on these things here. To second should be said that, as Augustine says against Faust, right, those precepts of the law are not contrary to the precepts of the old law. Come on, now this is getting serious. For what the Lord commanded about the wife not being dismissed is not contrary to that which the law commanded.

[43:31] What do you mean? For neither does the law say who wishes should dismiss his wife, right? To which would be contrary to not dismissing, right? But did not wish to what? Dismiss the wife from a man. Yeah. Who would what uses as an a what delay or something?

[43:59] That in the disputa. You may get right out. You you may not say. You might think it over a little more. Yeah. Yeah. Think it will only fuel your anger if you're writing out all of it. That's not the way it takes it. Once

[44:39] the Lord, to confirming this, that not easily should one dismiss a wife, accepts only the cause of what fornication, right? And the same thing should be said in the prohibition of the oath, huh? As has been said, the same thing is clear in the prohibition of retaliation.

[45:06] For the law, what? Of vindication or retaliation. Yeah. They do not proceed to a immoderate revenge. from from which the Lord perfectly removes the one who

[45:26] admonishes us to abstain altogether from revenge. About hate of enemies, he removes the false understanding of the Pharisees, warning us not that we not have a person in hate, right, but his. What? Fault or guilt Yeah. That comes up all the time in this discussion of the pro-life people. You know, they're condemning people. You know, and you say we're not condemning them; we're just condemning the act, right?

[45:59] Saint Augustine says we should love our neighbor so much we don't love in sin. We don't love the stupidity or something Yeah, yeah. About the discretion of foods, this was ceremonial, right? The Lord did not command that then they be not observed, but he shows that to know food according to nature were the unclean, right, but only according to a what figure. It's just like food goes in to your body.

[46:36] thoughts go into your body That's the figure maybe. Moreover, whoever acts against the law does not fulfill the law, but Christ in some things acted against the law, for he touched the leper. Oh my God! As is said in Matthew eight, which was against the law, right? Similar, he seems to have violated the Sabbath many times. Once about him, the Jews say, "This is this man is not from God, who does not guard the Sabbath."

[47:12] Yeah. Therefore, Christ did not fulfill the law, and thus the new law given by Christ was not fulfilling the old. That's only what they thought, huh? Yeah. When your objection proceeds from your enemies.

[47:30] To the third, should be said that the tact of the leper was prohibited in the law, because from this a man would incur a certain what uncleanness irregularity, just as from the tact touching of a dead. This has been said above, but the Lord, who was a cleanser of what leprosy, was not able to incur uncleanness. To those things that he did in the Sabbath, the Sabbath was not solved secundum rei veritatem, according to the truth of the thing, as it shows in the Gospel.

[48:10] Also, because he did miracles by divine power, which always acts in things. Also, because the works of human salvation, he did, since the Pharisees also provided for the salvation of animals on the day of the Sabbath. That's what he argues, right? And also because, by reason of necessity, the he excuses the apostles and the Sabbath for collecting the spices. But he seems to solve this. He seems to solve this according to the superstitious.

[48:48] understanding of the Pharisees who do violate the Sabbath who believe that from the even salubrious works, not to stay on the Sabbath, which was against the intention of the law.

[49:12] Fourth objection: In the old law, contained moral precepts and judicial ones, but the Lord. As regards some fulfilled the law, but no mention is made about the judicial and the ceremonial. Therefore, it seems that the new law is not totally fulfilling of the old. Well he had tassels on his garment We know that

[49:46] is that one of the ceremonial things Right Yeah it's one of the ceremonial Yeah Now, to the fourth, it should be said that ceremonial precepts of the law are not commemorated, because the what their observance is totally excluded through their fulfilment, right? So they are fulfilled, but but their fulfilment means they should not be what observed. Judicial precepts commemorates the what precept of the Italian? Retaliation. Then what is said about this should be understood about what all.

[50:36] In which precept he teaches the intention of the law not to be that the punishment of Italian Italian on account of the rage or something Yeah revenge, which he excludes, warning that man ought to be prepared to suffer greater injuries, right? But only in account of the law of justice, right? Which still the new law remains.

[51:06] But against this is what the Lord says. This is pretty good authority. I came not to solve the law, but to fulfil it. And afterwards he adds, one iota, or one what? One God, one. Yeah.

[51:27] Well, not pass away from the law until all come about them. What Sir Thomas says here in the body article. Answer: It should be said that as has been said, the new law, as compared to the old, as the perfect to the imperfect, but everything perfect is fulfilled.

[51:53] Everything perfect fulfils that which is lacking in the imperfect. And according to this, the new law fulfils the old law, in so far as it supplies that which was lacking, you might say, in the old law. It goes back to the idea that it's is it perfect to the imperfect now.

[52:22] So in his adulthood, complete your perfect you, what you were as a child. Was it contrary in what you did as a child? I put away the things I did as a child, but another way you could say it's it's perfected, right? Because it becomes basically Things of the child are ordered to that Yeah, yeah. Intended. Now, yeah. In the old law, two things can be considered: the end and the precepts contained in the law.

[52:56] Now, the end of any law is that men become just and virtuous. That very well observed here is it? Don't they pass a law about abortion somewhere? Make people worse. Whence the end of the old law was the justification of men, which the law could not able was not able to effect, but it was figured by some what? Ceremonial deeds. Yeah? and promised in words, right? Huh.

[53:29] And as regards this, the new law fulfills the old law by justifying it by the power of the passion of Christ, and this is what the apostle says in the epistle to the Romans that it was impossible for the what? God sending his son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, he damned sin in the flesh. Huh. That the justification of the law might be what fulfilled in us, right?

[54:04] And as regards this, the new law shows what the old law promised, right? Huh. According to that of the second epistle to the Corinthians, has many promises of God. How many promises of God there are? In him, it is that is in Christ. Huh. He's fulfilling the promises, right? All them in Christ. And as regards this, he completes what the old law figured, right? Huh. Whence in the epistle to the Colossians he says about the ceremonials that they were the shadows of the future, the body, however, was Christ himself, and therefore truth pertains to Christ, huh?

[54:53] The truth of these things, because the new law is said to be the law of truth, but the old law of the shadow or of the figure, right?

[55:07] The precepts, however, of the old law, Christ fulfilled both by deed and teaching. By deed. Because he what wished to be circumcised and to observe the other legal things, which were in that time to be observed, right? According to that of Galatians four, he was made under the law,

[55:31] but his own teaching fulfilled the precepts of the law in three ways. I didn't know that. First, because the by expressing the true understanding of the law, just as in homicide and adultery, in which prohibition the scribes and the Pharisees did not understand, except the prohibition of the exterior act, but you got to put away your desire to kill somebody, right? Whence the Lord fulfilled the law by showing that the interior acts of the sins also fall under what prohibition?

[56:12] That's when they start. Yeah. Secondly, the Lord fulfilled the precepts of the law by ordering in what way they might be more safely observed than the old law established. For the old law, for the old laws established that man should not what commit perjury. The new law observed that you have to altogether abstain from what swearing, except in case of necessity. You can't perjure yourself if you don't take an oath.

[56:49] Third, the Lord fulfilled the precepts of the law by adding certain what Counsels of perfection, as Matthew nineteen, where the Lord said to what.

[57:08] The one asking. The one who said that he hadn't observed the precepts of the law. Yeah, who wanted to do something more? One thing is lacking to you. If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have and come follow me, and so on. Okay. There's three ways. A lot of stuff in Thomas, isn't there?