Prima Secundae
265. Grace, Part 1 (ST I-II q.109 a.1): Can We Know Truth Without Grace? God as First Mover, and How Words Like 'Act' and 'Motion' Carry Over
Class of 2016-02-18
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/265-grace-part-1-st-i-ii-q-109-a-1-can-we-know-truth-without/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, Deo gratias God, our enlightenment, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, Pray for us. help us to understand all that you have written.

[0:30] Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. So we're up to 109 here. Let's look at the premium again here, just to see where we are. Consequently, we're not to consider about the exterior source of human acts, to wit, God, in so far as we are aided by Him through grace, huh, to acting well. And first, we ought to consider about the grace of God. Secondly, about its cause, which would be down one twelve, and third, about its effects, which would be down in one thirteen, I guess.

[1:15] So that's a nice distinction of three, right? Huh? Reminds me a little bit of the treatise on love, right? We have the love in itself, and then the causes of love, the effects of love effects of love, huh? So it looks before and after, right? The first consideration will be threefold again, huh?

[1:38] For first, we will consider about the necessity of grace, huh? Secondly, about grace itself as regards what it is, its essence, huh? I know Father De Koninck had kind of a prejudice against kind of a prejudice against the word 'essence', right? Especially in French, you know, where it can be gasoline. He's doing like butter.

[2:04] And then third, about its what division? So that's one o nine, one ten, and one eleven, right? These three questions. This question about the necessity is kind of like the question whether something is, right? Huh? As distinguished from what it is, huh?

[2:27] Now about the first, he asks ten things, or ten things are asked. First, whether without grace, man is able to know something true. Second, whether without the grace of God, is man able to do or to will something good, huh?

[2:52] Third, whether man without grace is able to love God above all things. Fourth, whether without grace he is able to observe the precepts of the law.

[3:10] Fifth, whether without grace he is able to merit eternal life. I kind of doubt that. Six, whether man is able to prepare himself for grace without grace. That seems like you're going to have an infinite regress there, right?

[3:32] Seven, whether man without grace is able to rise from sin. Eight, whether without grace man is able to avoid sin. Nine, whether man is able to what?

[3:57] Grace without divine aid to do good and to avoid sin. That's kind of, you know, redundant. Thomas, a little bit. And then ten, whether he can what persevere in the good by himself? Huh. That's kind of a thorough discussion of the necessity of grace, huh?

[4:24] So let's look at the first article now. Maybe we'll look at the objections and one by one and their answers now before we look at the body of the article.

[4:39] The first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that man without grace is able to know no what The thing that is true. For it is said upon that of one Corinthians twelve, no one is able to say the Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit, says the gloss of Ambrose, huh?

[5:09] And the gloss of Ambrose is about to say yes, everything true by whomever it is said is from the Holy Spirit. Very well. Even the devil right.

[5:22] But the Holy Spirit dwells in us by grace. Therefore, we're not able to know the truth without grace. Now, how's he going to answer that?

[5:40] Let's look the reply to that. To the first, therefore, should be said that everything true by whomever it is said is from the Holy Spirit, as one pouring in our natural what light and moving us to understand and to speak the truth, huh?

[6:03] But not, however, is every truth right by Holy Spirit indwelling or inhabiting right by grace, making us what acceptable, or as from one giving some habitual gift added above what nature right.

[6:27] But this is only in some truths being known and spoken of, and most of all in those which pertain to the faith about which the Apostle what speaks. Okay. So you're

[6:43] going to say we depend upon the Holy Spirit for every truth, at least as far as having our what, our mind and our the light of our mind right, and as far as what being moved by Him to do whatever we do right. That goes back to a more general proposition, right, that no creature does anything without being in some way moved by the first what mover, huh?

[7:06] Which is a hard thing to understand. Has not we taken up the proof of that here in this part of this taken up in the third book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, right? Or you take up God as the mover of things and maker. Okay.

[7:27] Moreover, Augustine says in the first book of the Soliloquies, I haven't read those for a long time. I Read them a long time ago. The Soliloquies.

[7:37] It's around his early early time there, around the time he's a good version. I think it's the day he makes his famous statement about prayer. May I know myself, man? And then he says it's in both ways. May I know you? May I know myself? That the most Augustine says in the Soliloquies that the most what certain of the disciplines or sciences are such that are what illustrated by the sun that they can be seen, but God, however, is the one who what enlightens.

[8:17] The reason thus is in what minds, as in what eyes. Okay. Look, yeah. For the eyes of the mind are the senses of the soul, right? Okay. So there's a discussion, you know, the the mind seeing and hearing, right? Huh? The mind itself, huh? Kind of carrying over from the senses.

[8:43] But the senses of the body, no matter how pure they are, is not able to see something visible without the illustration of the what sun. Therefore, the human mind, no matter how perfect. Is not able by reasoning to know some truth without the what divine illustration, which pertains to the aid of what grace?

[9:14] Thomas says to second it should be said that the bodily sun enlightens in exterior way, right? But the understandable light, which is God, enlightens within. huh? Whence the natural light of the human soul is put into their right is the illustration or the enlightenment of what God, by which we illustrated by him to knowing those things which pertain to natural knowledge.

[9:49] But to this is not required another illustration, but only to that which exceeds natural knowledge, the articles of faith and things of This sort

[10:09] So he's saying that even in our natural knowledge, right, we're enlightened by what God. huh? That's what Saint John, says of light enlightening every man. Yeah, yeah. We don't need the light of grace to know everything.

[10:36] moreover, the human mind is not able to understand the truth. This is the third objection now, except by what? cogitating, thinking about it. Yeah. this is clear to Augustine in the fourteenth book about the Trinity. But the Apostle, meaning Saint Paul, says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter three, we are not sufficient to think something by ourselves, as we're from ourselves. Therefore, man is not able to know truth to himself without the aid of what?

[11:13] Grace, huh? Okay. Now, to the third, it should be said that always we need the divine aid for thinking anything, in so far as he moves our understanding to acting. This is something that's said about all creatures, right? That they can't do what they do without, in some way, being moved by God, right?

[11:46] But to understand and act is what to think, cogitari, as is clear through Augustine in the fourteenth book of the Trinity. That doesn't mean you necessarily need grace, right? God's not giving grace when he moves plants to be produced, right? Okay.

[12:10] Now, here we got Confession of Augustine here, and he said contra, right? But against this is what Augustine says in the first book of the Retractions, right? He's just saying, you know, another in the academic world, you know, that this should be requirement of all professors. Every every every tenure professor. should write a book of retractions, yeah. Your tenure must be conditioned upon writing a book of retractions.

[12:39] Yeah, I'm just not allowed to retire until you write your book retractions. I think that's that's a beautiful example of the proper humility of an academic person like Augustine was. Some ways, you know.

[12:57] Maybe Pope Francis will write a book of retractions. Maybe we could suggest it to him. Got in trouble today. He said that that Trump is not a Christian. Oh, dear. Yeah, because Christian doesn't build walls; he builds bridges. So everybody's talking about this now in the news, and they're showing pictures, you know, on the TV of the people of the Vatican City with all these walls around it.

[13:26] So he's opening his mouth again in a kind of a careless way, I guess. People were saying this, but somebody said that Ted Kennedy wasn't a Christian because Christians build over bridges, not off. And apologizes for that.

[13:45] So Augustine says in the book Retractions, "I do not approve what I said in a what prayer, right? God who does not what accept the clean does not wish except the clean to know truth, right? Huh? I answered that it is possible for many, even those not what clean, to know many things that are what true. But through grace, a man is made clean, according to that of Psalm fifty-two.

[14:16] Create a clean heart in me, God, and innovate what? Renew a right spirit. Yeah. In my visceral parts, yeah. Therefore, without grace, man is able to know what some truth. Okay.

[14:36] Now we can look at the body of the article. the answer. Should be said that to know the truth is a certain use or an act of the understandable light, huh?

[14:55] Because according to the Apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians, everything that is what. It manifest is light, huh? But the use implies a certain what motion, okay? I know what Thomas says here, right? Huh? Largely taking motion, right? According as Aristotle says, right, that to understand and to will are said to be certain motions, as is clear through the philosopher in the third book about the soul, right?

[15:33] Okay. Let's just stop on that a little bit here and and go back to something that Thomas says there about words, huh? Of course, words are very important for human beings, and especially for us Christians, right? So I'm kind of struck by the fact that in the Our Father, right, huh? We say Our Father who art in heaven. Is above us, right? And the first of the seven petitions is what?

[16:10] Hallowed be Thy name, huh? Okay. That kind of runs through. I'm thinking of the psalm. I think it's one, one twelve, I think, in the correct numbering. You know, praise you servants the Lord, praise the name the Lord. And the rising to setting of the sun is the name the Lord to be praised. You know, Matted and lots, huh? High above all nations is the Lord above the heavens.

[16:35] This is glory. Who's like the Lord our God? Who raises up the poor from the dust and looks upon the heavens and the earth below, right? But you have kind of three times in that prayer saying that we should praise him through his name, right?

[16:49] But anyway, when we talk about names here, um, you know I've quoted to you before what Thomas says that all of our names come from the continuous or what is in the continuous, huh? Now a lot of times when Thomas is explaining this, he'll go back to the sixth book of the physics and so on and talk about how if you have a certain line, right, and something goes down that line, right, and takes some time to go down that line, right, you have three continuous things, right?

[17:30] The line is continuous, and therefore the motion down the line is continuous, and then the time it takes is continuous, right? And the continuous is sometimes defined as it is in logic as that whose parts meet at a common boundary, like the parts of a line meet at a point, to the parts of a plane meet at a line, the parts of a body meet at a surface.

[17:58] Um. Uh. Or the other definition is in terms of it's what is divisible forever, right? Okay. And you don't have something indivisible in the continuous until you get to the point, right? Point is neither length nor width nor depth, huh? Okay.

[18:26] So all of these three things here, huh? The magnitude there, the the length in this case, and the motion down there, and the time it takes, they're all what continuous, right?

[18:43] Now sometimes Thomas will say that these give rise to a few different senses, huh? You can speak of the beginning of a line, the beginning of a motion, the beginning of the time, right? Okay. Um. But if you look at the the word before that we've talked about, because in the definition of reason. Mean before and after. Which continues today? Take the first senses. what's the first sense of before that Aristotle gives in the fifth book of wisdom.

[19:27] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Now you could say that first sense could be attached, right? As very close senses before in motion, right? Before in the magnitude of line, right? Huh. Okay. Ah, but it's an emphasis there upon before in the sense of what time? Yeah. Okay. Now,

[19:54] take the word in which we've talked about before, right? Huh. The word in had eight. Senses, right? And what's the first sense of in? Yeah, that's one of the continuous things, right? Huh? See, now Thomas, when he goes through the eight senses of of in, in the fourth book of Aristotle's Physics, he orders them and so on. But then he says Aristotle seems to have left out a sense of in time, right?

[20:27] Huh? And Thomas says, well, that is another sense, but it would be what attached to the first sense is proximity, right? Okay. Ah, so.

[20:44] But nevertheless, the first sense here is said to be what place? I'm in this room. We are in this room, right? Huh? Okay. The water is in the glass, right? Contained by the glass, and so on. Okay. Now, what about the sense of above and below? We're talking about the other day, right?

[21:11] Maybe it's closer to place, it seems to me, than time. But it's kind of curious that we have above and below as well as in, right? Huh? You know, because in in there you're kind of what surrounded by your place, right? So it's not above you or below you, exactly, right? It's not before you or after you, right? You know, my heart, for example, is in my body as a part in a whole, which is the second sense of in.

[21:42] But you wouldn't say that my heart is before after my body, would you? Say, or above or below my body? Say, but it's only in my body. It must be in there. Must. Wouldn't be talking. Some things. Some things. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Now, what what continuous thing has not been touched upon yet as a starting point?

[22:12] In the word in, and in the word maybe above and below, you have from place, right? Extended to all kinds of other things, right?

[22:22] In before you have time, right? Extended to all kinds of other things, right? These are all words equivocal by reason, right? These are order in these meanings, right? Okay. What continuous thing do we leave out? Motion. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Now, Aristotle says that what in the ninth book of Wisdom, which is the book on act and ability, right, that the first meaning of act for us is what.

[23:00] Motion, right? Okay. And you can go back to the fact that our knowledge starts with our senses. And to quote Shakespeare again, "Things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs," right? So, if our knowledge begins with our senses, and things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs, right? You can see why act would come first from what? Motion, right?

[23:33] Now, how is the word motion there as naming act first or meaning act act meaning first motion? How is that extended, right? Beginning from motion in or through places to some other kind. Well, of course, the motion that is most continuous is what? Yeah, yeah. And so that's kind of carried over to other motions, right? And so

[24:13] I was born on January 18th, 1936, but I think I came to be in 1935. Then I came to be in my mother's womb there. And where does that expression come to be?

[24:30] Must be from motion Yeah, yeah. It's named originally from what? Coming and going is first. Motion, local motion. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So even among the various kinds of motion, there's a movement, right? Okay. Well, now in the reference he's making to Aristotle here in the what? Third book of the De Anima, right? Aristotle saying how we sometimes carry the word motion, right? And therefore act to over to what?

[25:05] Things like sensing and understanding, right? Okay. Now in the metaphysics, here in the ninth book, he's very concrete about distinguishing the two, right? And of course, motion is always a what? Imperfect act. And you define motion in the third book of the physics. It's the act of what is able to be, in so far as it's still able to be. Okay, so it's an imperfect act, an act that's incomplete by its very nature, right?

[25:36] It's an act which, when it's completed, is no longer there. Right. Okay. So Aristotle would say, when I'm walking home, have I walked home? No. And when I have walked home, am I walking home? No. So it's always an imperfect what? Yeah, yeah. Are we there yet? You know, the kids say, "Are we there yet?" You know, well, as long as you're getting there, you're not there.

[26:10] When we stop, we'll be there. So, but now he says, an activity like, like seeing, right? Then, when I see you, have I seen you yet? Yeah. That's a perfect act, right? Then, okay.

[26:32] When I understand something, have I understood it yet? I say to the girls, "When I'm loving you, have I loved you yet?" Oh, yes, yes.

[26:44] That's kind of a perfect act, right? Then, okay. Now, I was kind of struck, you know, by, by Thomas as reading the summa. I mean, the sentences, and he's talking about, you know, whether faith survives in heaven and why it doesn't survive, you know, in heaven and so on. He also raises the question: Does charity survive in heaven? Right? Okay. Of course, there's many objections to say it doesn't, right?

[27:13] Although he's going to maintain that it does. But one argument that is there goes back to seeing charity as a kind of what motion towards God, right? Then, you see. Well, when a motion is what completed, no longer exists, right? So, if if charity is a motion, right? Well, then it's not going to survive, right? In heaven, right? Yeah. And Thomas says, "Well, it's a motion," and he goes back to what Aristotle says here, right?

[27:46] Then, it's not a motion in the strict sense, is it? It's not an imperfect act; it's a perfect act, and so on, right? Okay. Larger, the Latin says, "largiendum motum," right, according as to understand and to will and to love, you could say too, right? Are some sometimes said to be right? As is clear, the Philosopher explains that equivocation in the word, right. So, the word motion is carried over to these perfect acts, like to understand, to love, to will, and so on, right?

[28:22] To see, to hear, right? Now, it's carried over to another thing too, though, right? Kind of a little different way, huh? And that is what form is called act, right? Then, okay. So, what's the definition of the soul, for example? Do you remember that definition? In studying the soul, how did Aristotle define the soul in the in the De Anima? You know.

[28:54] First act of a body composed of tools. Yeah, first act of a natural body composed of tools, right? Okay. First act of a natural body furnished with tools—you kind of could say, okay. And that's the meaning, organic, right? It's an organ is a Greek word for tool, the common word, huh? Um, but notice that's not the first meaning of act, is it? Right? Say, and you'd never call the soul itself an activity, would you, or an action?

[29:32] An act is more naming activity or action, right, than form. But yet it's been carried over from what activity or action to what form, right? Okay. So that's another thing, right? Uh, the act which is most known to us, right, is motion, and then that word act is carried over from motion and placed upon what? Upon form, right? Huh? That's one way it moves, right? Or over here, where emotion is carried over and applied to understanding or to loving God and so on, right?

[30:13] Huh? Do you see? Okay. Thomas admits, you know, that hope is more like emotion than love, right? See, yeah. And that love is not eliminated by the presence of the one loved; the feeling gets increased, right? You know, you see people down there, you know, waiting for their their relatives to arrive in the train or the airplane or whatever it is, right? And and they,

[30:42] yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember when I was first married into a family with an Italian wife, you know, and some other Italian relatives are coming over to to become Americans, right? Coming from Italy, and so we're down there at the airport there, right? Huh? I can see my my mother-in-law, you know, just I mean, it's ecstatic, you know. It's so funny though. I mean, the first family came in was was from France, right?

[31:11] Huh? And then, you know, first a Canadian, you know, and all of a sudden, you know, this Italian came in, and these kids like to fight. I said, "I'm the biggest Swede," you know. I mean, I was like to fight too a bit, you know, just being in the presence of these Italians, you know, right.

[31:29] Mathematical transversely. So, so, so, it makes more sense to say that love remains when you get to the thing you love, right? Get to the presence of the one you love, then, then hope, right? Huh? It's hope like emotion, right? Huh? See, and it's kind of like a seeking, right? Huh? The same way desire, right? Desire is more like a what emotion, right? I notice, you know, that when Thomas talks about Aristotle and the whole tradition there, when they talk about the will, right, and and this the emotions and so on, they they speak of it as the appetitive power, right?

[32:10] What does appetite mean? Yeah, it means desire, right? The desiring power, right? Why do you name it from desire? You know, desire is more like a what emotion, and it's more known to us, right? Huh? Okay. Even the irascible appetite, right? You know, anger is a very what movable, a very much of emotion, right? You can you can see that, right? Huh? But it's because motion is most what known to us, right?

[32:43] It's kind of funny. Just this last couple of days here, I was reading a couple articles where Thomas is obviously going back to the what before meaning of what act, right? Huh? And so the Objection is saying that that it's thinking of love of God as being kind of an emotion right towards God or something you know, and kind of falling back on the earlier what meaning right?

[33:08] Huh? That's a common thing with these words that are equivocal by reason, huh? That you if you make the mistake right of mixing up these senses, huh? You're usually falling back upon an earlier sense from a what later sense, huh? Your mind can't move it. As Monsignor Dionisio said, he can't move the word. Of course, modern philosophers, you know, are very much of the sort, right? They can't move the word, right?

[33:40] They make up their own words. Yeah, but they they can't move the word carried over, right? Okay. Now, when Aristotle divides being, right? What are the two main divisions of being? huh

[34:00] Uh the ones that in the mind are the ones that are Well, he does bring out that yeah, but the two main divisions of being are being according to the figures of predication: substance, quantity, quality, and so on, right? And then being in the sense of act and what ability, right? Okay. Well, now with the division of being according to figures of predication, it begins with substance, right?

[34:28] Which means what standing under, right? Huh? Etymologically, right? Standing under, right? And that goes back to what to place, right? We talked about that before, right? Okay. Um.

[34:47] I mentioned how Thomas was talking about the definition of of faith there in Saint Paul, right? Huh? And in the Latin text, it says "substantia right? "Sperandarum," huh? The substance of things hoped for, conviction of what is not seen, right? And I said, I wonder if he knows the etymology of the Greek word. I looked it up in the in the text of Saint Paul and "it's hypostasis," right?

[35:15] Which is etymologically the same as "substancia," right? "Hypo" means under, right? "Stasis" stand under, right? And but Thomas, in the thing he says, was saying that the substance of things hoped for is like we say, light is the hypostasis of color. He's the word "hypostasis" there, right? Huh? The Latin form of the Greek word "hypostasis." So he seems like he knows the Greek here, you know? And it seems parallel.

[35:45] But that goes back. The idea of standing under goes back to what the continuous, right? Huh? To place, huh? Probably more than time, right? Huh? And then the other main meaning is into act and ability. But a built is known through act, and the first act is what emotion huh? Then act is carried over in one way to form, another way to these perfect activities like understanding and loving and seeing and so on.

[36:26] Have you heard me? Are you just hearing me, which haven't heard me yet? He's hearing you, regardless. Okay. Now, in in the dialogue, a lot of times Aristotle will use the term what undergoing, right, huh? The Greek word, you know, for suffering to undergo, right, huh? And this is first used even in the inanimate world, right? Okay. So the the marble underwent the chipping away of Michelangelo, right, huh?

[37:05] But then Aristotle says that the senses what they don't act upon their object, they undergo, right, huh? But he's careful to point out that this is a different sense of undergoing, right, from the undergoing of what the matter, right? Okay. Because when when clay receives a shape, right, it becomes the shape of that clay, right? When the dough receives the cookie Christmas cookies, you know, and it got some like the shape of a tree and some you know some other shape, you know, the dough receives that shape as its own shape, not right, huh?

[37:46] Does the eye receive you know the shape of the apple as its own shape, right? Hopefully not. No. But in some way it undergoes and it's acted upon by the shape of the what apple, right, huh? Okay. Men get talking the shape of a woman. I mean, all excited about this. They're sort of being acted upon, right? But the eye doesn't take on the shape of a woman, does it?

[38:09] See. So this is a different sense of undergoing, right, huh? But You got that word in there under, right? And you got the word going, right, huh? So so they both go back to you know to motion and to you know location or place, right, under, right, undergoing, right, huh? So we can't escape that, right, huh? You know. So Thomas, you know, points out as they say that all of our naming really goes back to the continuous, right, or what is in the continuous, huh?

[38:46] You know the word form we talked about, right? You know the the being called an act comes from motion, but Form itself seems to name the what termination of the continuous, right? The first sense of form is the is is the form of the glass, or the form of a statue, the form of a man, the form of a chair, right? But it's the termination of the continuous, right?

[39:13] Something in the continuous, so we can't can't avoid that. It goes back to all these namings. So it's interesting to see that. So he's putting out that we're using the word motion here in a what extended sense, right? We see, however, in bodily things, that for motion is not only required the form which is a what source, a beginning of that motion or action, right?

[39:53] But it was also required the emotion of the first mover, right? Okay, now he's not going to demonstrate that here in this article. He's recalling that from the other part of theology, right?

[40:07] Now, you're going to get a little more concrete here, following Aristotle, right? Huh? The first mover in the order of bodies is the heavenly body, right? Huh? I mean, I'm going into all the details of Aristotle, right? At that, right? It's kind of interesting, huh?

[40:30] You know, Aristotle thought that the sun and the moon and the stars were what eternal, right? And they don't what change or come into being or go out of being, right? Huh? You know. And it's because for centuries now, right? men have not seen any real change in the in the sun, right? Huh? Okay. Now, Thomas, when he comments on this in the book on the universe, the De Caelo et Mundo they call it in Latin, but the second book in Natural Philosophy, Aristotle, he says, well, it might be though that it takes what more time, right, than that of many generations for these things to change, right?

[41:18] So he's aware of the fact that this argument of Aristotle is not necessary, right? Huh? Okay. But it takes a long time these things to change, right? Huh? Now, some guy said the sun was a hot stone on fire, right? Huh? Well, if the it's a hot stone on fire, it would eventually what burn out in the course of number of generations of men, right? And just like you know, and the great fire that burnt down what London, right?

[41:50] Um, didn't last for that long a time, really, right? These great forest fires we had out in the west there, you know, they get all the newspapers are talking about them, you know, and how many miles and under control and ten percent under control. I know what these things mean. I knew some guys who who do this the summer, right? They go out and fight these fires, you know, so on.

[42:12] But they don't really last for a long time, right? So Aristotle knew that the sun couldn't be a hot stone on fire like Anaxagoras is supposed to have said or something, right? Got in trouble, right, for denying the divinity of it. But I guess what happened was, you know, there were you know meteors that fall to the ground sometimes, and what they're still burning, right? Most of the time they're burnt up before they they come down ashes or something or don't even notice it.

[42:43] But I guess in the in the in the mid in the uh southwest there, there's one the Indians talking about, right? And now they can actually you know photograph and see the where the land was thing, but they thought this was some big story the Indians had, huh? But Anaxagoras apparently was aware of this, right? So maybe that's what he thought the sun was, you know, The falling stars they call these things, right?

[43:06] You know, it's like a stone, right? It's burning, falling down, right? And these things that come down, but Aristotle, that can't be, that can't be. I mean, it wouldn't last that long, right? It's really hard to understand how the sun can go on. I mean, you realize—is it supposed to be 93 million miles? Yeah, but but notice if you look at you know how how the kind of a sphere there of how far the sun, you know, a sphere 93 million miles with a radius of 93 million miles, right?

[43:43] You know, we're receiving a very little bit of the light of the sun, right? You know, I mean, compared to. Yeah. And I notice myself, you know, and I got our place where I live. I started, you know, to expand the the the garden, you know, the vegetable garden, you know. And in the back of my property, there's one of these stone walls that they have a lot in this part of the country.

[44:11] And I was going right across, you know, all the back there, making lanes, and then the trees started to grow, right? And they're interfering with my getting the proper sunlight, you know, from my garden, you know. So, you know, all these things that grow down here, they really depend upon the light from the sun, right? That's only a fraction of how much is. Yeah. Ninety-three million, you know, just incredible, right?

[44:40] Well, now they say that Heisenberg's pupil there, right now, Fred Sakharov, he explained why the sun doesn't burn out so fast, right? It takes so long, right? But it takes such a long time, right? You can see how Aristotle could conclude, you know, that the heavenly bodies are what eternal, right? Even scripture speaks of them as being eternal, right? Although it could be, you know, interpreted as being, you know, very long-lasting, right?

[45:08] Eternal hills, as they say, right? Which we know are not eternal. Now the other mistake that Aristotle made was he thought that illumination is all at once, right?

[45:35] And that's because it takes a long time, not just the reverse, right? It takes so little time, right? For the light from the bulb, let's say, to reach the walls here, right? In fact, you can't. Seems to be all at once, right? Okay. So that was just the reverse problem, right? Takes so long for the sun to change. Doesn't seem to be diminished at all in size, right?

[46:07] I mean, my daughter—they're putting logs in the fire all the time because the other log is burned out. Yeah, yeah. But doesn't seem to be anything like that, right? That the sun—it just keeps on going on forever. So it's so long. It's so what slow to change, right? Why

[46:27] illumination seems to be all at once, right? So fast, right? Now I've read descriptions, you know, of how they were able to measure how fast it goes, but I still don't understand how they did it. Really fast, huh? Yeah. So you might say here's two mistakes in Aristotle, right? That light is what all at once, illumination is all at once, and the sun is eternal, but you have to have very good measurements, right?

[47:01] To question these things, huh? Aristotle knew that the Earth was was was round, right? Huh? But he didn't know that the Earth was turning on its axis. But I don't know why you'd think that the Earth would do that, right? Because if you take, you know, a rock and drop it, it goes in a straight line towards the center of the Earth, right? If you take some Earth and mold it into a ball, it doesn't start to spin.

[47:32] It goes in a straight line, falls in a straight line towards the center of the Earth. So it seemed to him clear that the bodies on this Earth, right, the inanimate bodies, go in a straight line, either up or down. While these ones up in the heavens, they go in this, yeah, yeah. That's all behind eventually arriving at this position that the heavenly bodies are influencing the motion down here, right?

[48:01] But there's some evidence of that even for us, you know, in the terms of the tide. I guess they think that the the moon is responsible for that. I guess. Yeah, Human motion sometimes too, yeah, yeah.

[48:14] So. So if you just had your ordinary experience, your common experience, it would make more sense to think of the sun and the moon and the stars as being eternal, unchangeable, right? And their substance, right? That they only have change of place, right? But they don't have change of quality, or let alone change of what substance, right? And that the Earth is what not revolving, but that the what heavenly bodies are going around us, right?

[48:46] Huh? Okay. And then you get to the idea, you know, that what a circular motion is more able to be eternal than a straight line motion, right? See. And so you're getting to the idea of you're starting to approach what he's going to say right now.

[49:11] For we see in bodies that motion is now required, the form which is the beginning of motion or action, but is also required the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of bodies is the heavenly body, that certainly can be seen in the change of the seasons and so on, right? Whence the more what fire has a perfect heat, it nevertheless does not alter other things except by motion of the what heavenly body, right?

[49:47] For it is manifest, but not to us, that all bodily motions, right, are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to a first bodily mover, right now. Thus, also, all motions, both bodily as well as spiritual—now using the word motion in what equivocal sense, right? But equivocal by reason, right? Are reduced in the first mover, without qualification. The first mover simply—that is what God, okay?

[50:31] And therefore, no matter how perfect some bodily nature or spiritual nature is, right, it is not able to proceed to its own act unless it be moved by God, right? Okay. So Thomas, in the second book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, he talks about creation, right, and how only God could what bring into existence something without having any what matter, right? That he would be the source of matter as well as of what form, right?

[51:10] And then in the third book, he talks about how God is who's all these things, right, that were created by him, right? I mean, that's where you have to see the reasons for that, right? Okay. In that part of theology,

[51:34] which motion is according to the what, or by reason of, is what providence, not by the necessity of nature, as is the motion of the heavenly what bodily, right?

[51:51] For not only from God is every motion, as from a first mover, but also from Him is all what formal perfection, perfection of form, I guess, huh? As from a first what Act. Act, huh? Okay.

[52:12] Aristotle, is saying, in the ninth book of wisdom, huh? The ninth book of wisdom, he argues. First, what he does is to take up what ability and act, right? Actually, there's three parts. He's dividing three parts, and Thomas divides the ninth book. And in the first part, Aristotle talks about what ability, but especially as ability is found in things that move, right? Ability in comparison to motion in strict sense.

[52:44] And then in the second part of the ninth book, he has a completely universal consideration of act, right? And then you discover other senses of ability, right? Because ability is known through act. And then what does he do in the third part, right? He distinguishes now ability and act very thoroughly in the first two parts. Now he talks about the order of act and ability, right? And he argues how act is before ability and what knowledge, right?

[53:20] And how it what is before it as a cause, right? And so on, right? And then he he says that although in the thing that goes from ability to act, it's an ability before it's an act. It goes from ability to act by reason of something already an act.

[53:41] So my water in the morning there is what cold before it's hot. It's able to be hot before it's actually hot, but it goes from ability to be hot to being actually hot because of the stove, huh? Okay. It's only then that you add the leaves, right?

[54:05] No. So this is the reason why Aristotle will conclude, eventually in the twelfth book, that the first being, the first cause, right, will be pure act, right? Okay. And that's the basis for saying why God is what is altogether simple, right? Why God is unchanging, right? God is pure act. There's no ability to be what actualized in God, right? Okay. And because act, he also argues in the ninth book that act is more perfect than ability, right?

[54:46] Ability is for the sake of act. So if God is pure act, then he's completely what perfect, right? So pure act is the middle term for showing all these things about the divine what substance, right? And even for showing that God's understanding and loving are the same as a substance, because otherwise his substance would be an ability for an act that is not its substance, right? So it's really kind of beautiful, right?

[55:18] That part is very is very well established now, but we have to first meet what ability and act, right? In natural philosophy, right? But even the ninth book of wisdom, I say in the first part, he treats of ability for motion, right? And he distinguishes you know actual ability and rational abilities and so on, but it's you know not a completely universal consideration of ability. And then only in the second part that he gives a universal consideration of act, and then you see other senses of what ability, right?

[55:56] Like the ability to understand and the ability to love and so on, and. Then to complete the universal consideration, then you're ready to really understand the order of these, right? Okay.

[56:15] Now Aristotle is a guy who always wants to stay as close as he can to the senses, right? In his reasoning and understanding, right? So he kind of wants to see more concretely, right? Huh? What's the order of movers and moved, right? Huh? And the heavenly bodies obviously seem to be something between God and the things down here, right?

[56:42] That's when he's seen in in the you know the tides of the ocean, right? But also in the change of seasons and how the sun comes

[56:55] up. Okay, so act is simply speaking before ability. So go back to the text there. It is manifest, however, that just as all bodily motions are reduced in the motion of the heavenly body as in a first bodily mover, so all motions, both corporal as spiritual, are reduced in the first what mover simpliciter.

[57:33] which is God, right? Huh? Okay, and that's understood motion there to include not only the first meaning of motion, right? But even understanding and loving and so on. And therefore, no matter how much, huh? How perfect is a bodily or spiritual nature? It cannot what proceed to its own act unless it be moved by what God, huh? Without you can do nothing, as our Lord says, right?

[58:06] Kind of struck it. I'm going through the St. John's Gospel there at the Catena Aurea, you know, and how much theology is being taught there, you know. It's kind of amazing to see that, more so than than even the other Gospels, right? And even about his div his divinity, right? That's why it's called Saint John the theologian. Yeah, The father and I are are one, right? Huh?

[58:32] I was reading Thomas this morning there. He's talking about the order of charity, you know, and he's talked about it earlier, but now he's talking about how's it affected by heaven, right? Huh? And you know, some people think that you you love the beatitude of the saints more than your own beatitude, and he says no.

[58:59] You love God above all other things, right? Even yourself, right? But you love your own beatitude more than the beatitude of the saints, right? And this is something natural. Grace doesn't go against nature. So even in heaven, we love our neighbor as ourselves. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[59:32] Okay. Which motion is according to the reason of his providence, right? Not according to the necessity of nature, as is the motion of the heavenly body, right? I think was it Avicenna? I think had the idea that creatures proceed from God not by will, but kind of by kind of a natural necessity, right? You have this tendency in some thinkers. Not only from God is every motion as from a first mover, but also every formal perfection, right?

[1:00:09] As from a first act, right? Okay, and that's the perfection of a form, right? Okay. Thus, therefore, the action of the understanding, and also of any created being, right, depends upon God, as regards two things. In one way, in so far as it has from Him the form through which or by which it what acts. But in another way, in so far as it is moved by Him to acting, right?

[1:00:46] So the natural light of my reason, which is like a form by which I understand, is something I got from God, right? But also my what proceeding to understand, right, depends upon Him, right? Two different dependences we have upon what God, right? Okay, just by nature, still. Well, it can be by nature, yeah, yeah. Okay. Let's go on to make that distinction. For each form, *indita rebus huh, put put into right, created things by God, has efficacy, right, causality, with respect to some determined act, right?

[1:01:32] Okay. In which it can go according to its own what proper nature, right? But beyond which it is not able to go except through some form added above that. Just as water is not able to calefacere huh, unless it be calefacta by fire, right? Thus, therefore, the human understanding has some form, huh, act in the sense of form, to wit, the understandable light, huh, which of itself is sufficient to understanding some understandable things, right?

[1:02:23] To which we can what arrive at, we're able to arrive at the knowledge of them through sensible things, right? Okay. So I have some light in me whereby I can understand things, starting with my what senses, right? Following the road from my senses into my reason, right?

[1:02:48] Huh. But higher understandable things, right, like the Trinity, right. The human understanding is not able to know, unless it be perfected by a stronger what light, as by the light of faith, or the light of prophecy. Right? Yeah, they're different lights, you see.

[1:03:17] Which is called the light of grace, huh? Insofar as it is something added above nature, right? Thus, therefore, it should be said that for the knowledge of anything true,

[1:03:37] I'm not saying anything true, right? Man needs divine aid so that his intellect what is moved by God to its what act. But not it does not need, however, for knowing truth in all things that a what there be a new enlightenment added above the natural light, right? But only in some things which exceed our natural what knowledge, right?

[1:04:12] And then kind of little footnote here. Nevertheless, sometimes God miraculously, right, instructs through his grace some people about those things which are able to be known by natural reason, right? Just as sometimes he miraculously does some things which nature is able to do, right? Now, where is that? Where is I?

[1:04:37] Oh, yeah. The priest is telling us the parish priest. He's at a meeting last night. We had the pro-life committee there, and he comes to it. And I guess I guess in in Mexico, yeah, when the Pope was there, he the boy couldn't walk, you know. He hugged him, you know. Next morning, the boy was walking. He had not walked since. He did that with a kid in, uh, in Philadelphia too.

[1:05:05] Had some disease. Yeah. And the Pope kissed the baby, and they took her to the doctor and there was no more tumor. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you gotta be careful with this pope, I mean. Yeah.

[1:05:17] That's kind of striking, you know. Striking, yes. Yeah. I remember that time, you know, the biography of Pope Pius X, right? Was canonized, you know, and I guess there was a little boy who was crippled, you know, and and he's he was brought by his parents, you know, to the meeting. And the Pope picked him up and held him in his arms and go out talking, you know, like that.

[1:05:45] and then, kind of little boy, sit down and start running around. like... Yeah. They said he. they took his socks. Yeah. And sent it some little, some family wrote their daughter had some disease Yeah. and her legs were. Yeah. So they took without his knowledge they took his socks and sent them put these on. Yeah. So she was cured. So they wrote back. Yeah. And they gave the letter to the pope and he says, imagine that, she put on my socks.

[1:06:11] I wear them every day. My legs are killing me. Another thing they told about was these two nuns. I guess who were near retirement, so to speak, you know, and and this kind of special favor they got appointment with the pope, right? Huh. But they were you know kind of crippled old ladies, you know, and the the taxi cab driver was drove them to the to the meeting, and and he was waiting outside for them, right?

[1:06:37] They wasn't even him off, you know, And he didn't want to take them into the taxi because he didn't think they were the same people that went in, you know. It's kind of amazing amazing thing, you know. Pope Saint Pius the tenth, yeah, yeah. In my little biography, I just got a picture of his body laid out there after he died, you know, and I've never seen a so good looking a body.

[1:07:00] I mean, just just just just the figure of the man, you know, amazing thing. Which biography was that? I bring it to here. I bring it if I think of it, you know. I don't forget who the author is, but the little one. I was kind of interested in Pius the tenth, you know. Oh, Francis had a big devotion of Pius the tenth. You didn't know that.

[1:07:20] Francis did. Francis. Yeah. Wait, his feast day last August, they said the pope showed up unexpectedly in the basilica of St. Peter's at the tomb of Pius X. There were some pilgrims there who were having mass with some priest. Yeah. Pope Francis shows up for the mass. Yeah. Yeah. And he attended the mass sitting on the benches outside the altar where he- and they say- he said, no, I have a big devotion.

[1:07:43] He said, "I already celebrated mass, but I I wanted to come down. I have big devotion to Pius the tenth. Was it Cardinal Merry del Val Merry del Val Yes, a wonderful short volume on just reminiscences of Pope Saint Pius the tenth. Wonderful, wonderful book. We have it. Yeah. Great time.

[1:08:08] Okay, well that's the first article. It's pretty good, huh? Need a break or what? After that.