Prima Secundae
281. Aquinas on the Justification of the Impious: The Order of Its Parts, Why It Is God's Greatest Work, and Whether It Is a Miracle (ST I-II q.113 a.8–10)
Class of 2016-04-21
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/281-aquinas-on-the-justification-of-the-impious-the-order-of/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Amen. Thank you God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. 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. Very great with us Help us to understand all that you have written.

[0:31] Father, and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit. Amen. So up to Article Eight, I guess. To the eighth one proceeds thus: It seems that the infusion, the pouring in, I guess, of grace is not first in the order of nature among those things which are required for the justification of the impious.

[1:02] First argument: For that is before to recede from evil than to accede to the good. According to that of Psalm thirty-six, declina, decline from evil, and then et fac bonum, right? But the emission of culpae of guilt, I guess, pertains to the recess from evil. Therefore, the infusion of grace pertains to the pursuit of the good. Therefore, naturally before is remission of culpae in, the infusion of grace.

[1:41] Well, for a guy who looks before and after. I mean, that's so far as he can look before and after. That sounds pretty good, huh?

[1:50] Now, what does Thomas do? Well, before you look before and after, you have to see the distinction. To the first therefore, it should be said that the recess from the term and the excess to the term are able to be considered in two ways.

[2:10] In one way, on the side of the thing that is movable, and thus naturally the recess from the term precedes the excess to the what term.

[2:24] For before is in the mobile subject that the opposite be what taken away, huh? Gotten rid of. And afterwards, that that which is what acquired, right, through motion.

[2:43] the mobile acquires through motion, right, comes naturally next, right? So I'm not altogether sinning by looking at the objections first, right? huh? They're moving the bad things, right? That would lead you astray. And then we see in the in the body. But on the part of the agent, it is the what reverse, huh?

[3:13] For the agent, through the form which pre-exists in it, that is in the agent, acts for the removing of the what contrary. Yeah. Just as the sun, through its own light, huh, acts for removing the what darknesses. And therefore, on the side of the sun, before is to enlighten, then to remove the what darkness. But on the side of the air, first is to be purged from darkness, then to what tame light, huh?

[3:51] In the order of nature. Although both are simul in what time, huh? So two different senses there of what before. One case they're simul right? In? Other case, one is before, but one the side of matter, one the side of the agent, huh? Okay. You know how in the second book of the physics, Aristotle talks about nature's both matter and form. So sometimes what is before for matter, right, is said to be before by nature, right, and sometimes what is before by form.

[4:22] But two different senses of nature, right? And therefore, two different senses of before, right? Same way too, we talk about you know the the

[4:37] Aristotle gets one of the corollaries about the causes, right? That the many causes of the same thing per se, and then one thing can be two things can be causes of each other. Well, therefore, they're both before the other, right? But different senses, yeah, because different kind of cause, huh? Okay.

[5:00] So the the end is first in what intention there before anything, but in being, right, the agent there is before the end that it makes, right? I mean, not all ends, but the house that he makes or something like that, huh?

[5:21] And because the infusion of grace and the remission of guilt are said on this part of God justifying, who's the what? Not the mobile subject here, but the agent. Therefore, in the order of nature, before is the infusion of grace, and the remission of what guilt. But if one takes these things on the side of the man justified, it's reverse. For before, in the order of nature, is liberation from what guilt, then the consecution of the what justifying grace, huh?

[6:00] So you got to make room there for the grace, huh? Before you can receive it, and you have to therefore get rid of the junk in you, okay.

[6:16] Or it can be said that the terms of justification are guilt, as that from which, and justice as that to which. But grace is the cause of both the what, remission of guilt and the adoption of what, justice, justice. Okay, let's get away with that, Thomas. I'll see what you can do with the next one here. Moreover, disposition precedes naturally the form for which it disposes. Well, I can see why he had the other objection first.

[6:49] But the motion of free will is a certain disposition for the reception of grace; therefore, naturally it precedes the infusion of grace. But to the second should be said that the disposition of the subject precedes the reception of the form in the order of what nature, huh? But it follows nevertheless the act of the agent to which also the subject is disposed.

[7:20] And therefore, the motion of free will in the order of nature precedes the attaining of grace, but it what, the infusion of what, grace, huh? Okay, it's kind of subtly saying there.

[7:45] So he distinguishes between infusion of grace and the what, attaining of grace by the soul, right? Because infusion of grace is talking about God pouring it in, yeah. And that's also disposing you, right? But you must be disposed for you can receive the grace, huh? Take the fire of the paper. Yeah.

[8:08] Okay. Moreover, the third objection: sin impedes the soul lest to tend freely towards God. But before it's removed, that which prohibits motion, the motion follows. Huh? If I want to move something and it's screwed down with nuts and bolts and so on, got to remove those things first, and then you can move it, right? Or if it's stuck to the ground, right, by some kind of sticky substance, right?

[8:42] Get down. Therefore, before naturally is the remission of guilt and the motion of free will against sin, right? Then the motion of free will towards God and the infusion of grace, huh?

[9:05] But to the third, it should be said that as the philosopher says in the second book of the physics. What is he calling this old guy for? In the. In theology, or

[9:20] it just is. The philosopher says in the second book of the physics, in the movements of the soul, entirely what precedes motion in the beginning of what speculation, or in the end of action. But in exterior motions, the remotion of the impediment precedes the achievement of the end. And because the motion of free will is a motion of the soul, before in the order of nature, it's moved towards God as an end, and then to removing the impediment of what sin. Kind of subtle He mentioned that a number of times Mm some questions ago about

[10:08] making God your end Yeah. Or if sin is to make something else your end That's sort of what he's talking about Okay. But against this, the cause is naturally before the effect.

[10:30] But the infusion of grace is the cause of all other things which are required for the justification of the impious. Therefore, it's naturally what? Before. Before.

[10:44] Let's see what Thomas says. in the body of the article here for to be fully illuminated. huh? Since some impediments to our thinking have been removed.

[10:56] Hence, it should be said that the foregoing four things, which are required for the justification of the impious, in time are simul together, right?

[11:11] Because the justification of the impious is not a successive thing, as has been said. But in the order of nature, which is the second sense, really of before, one of them is before another, right?

[11:30] And among them, in natural order, first is the infusion of grace. Second, the motion of free will towards God, right? Third is the motion of free will against what sin. And then fourth is the remission of guilt.

[11:53] What a ability to look before and after this guy had. Take the rest of my life to figure out that order. Yeah. The reason for this is because in any motion, naturally first is the motion of the mover.

[12:16] Second, however, is the disposition of matter, or the motion of the mobile, right? But last is the what? Or terminus of motion, to which the motion of the mover terminates, right? The motion, therefore, of God moving is the infusion of what?

[12:49] As has been said above. Must have used the word motion of God, huh? Yeah, I was gonna say I thought that was strange. But he has to do this right to manifest it. The motion or disposition of the mobile is a twofold motion of what free will, and the terminus or the end of the motion is the remission of what guilt, as is clear from the things said above.

[13:22] And therefore, in the natural order, first in the justification of the impious is the infusion of grace. Second is the motion of free will toward God.

[13:37] Third is the motion of free will against sin, because on account of this, the one who is justified detests sin or is sin, because it is against God.

[13:52] Whence the motion of free will in God precedes naturally the motion of free will against what sin. It is the cause and the reason for it.

[14:09] And fourth and last is the remission of guilt, to which the whole transformation is ordered as a to a what End. To an end.

[14:26] Put that in your pipe and smoke it down a little bit, huh? And now we got the 64 dollar question. Yeah. Yeah. To the ninth, it proceeds thus: one proceeds thus; it proceeds thus. It seems that the justification of the impious is not the greatest work of God, even more so than creation.

[15:05] For through the justification of the impious, someone achieves the grace of the way of the road. But to glorification, someone achieves the grace of what? Acquires the grace of what? Of the fatherland, Patriarchal, Patriarchal.

[15:33] Yeah. There's no mother. I mean, Mary, Mary's up there. but. I mean, in God, there's no, there's a father, but God is a father. He's not a mother. Which is something greater, right? Glorification than the grace of the way. And therefore, the glorification of the angels or of men is a greater work than the justification of the impious. That's a pretty good argument, huh?

[16:11] And the whole body of the article is necessary to be part of the first. So maybe we should read the whole body of the article now, huh? Do you think?

[16:26] Let's look at the second and the third, because they can be. Can't answer the first one without reading the body of the article, right? Because he gets the whole body of the article, and then he says in Peritheus, to what's been said in the body is clear the response to the first, huh? So we have to be in suspense until the body of the article. Maybe the second and the third one can be.

[16:50] Moreover, the justification of the impious is ordered to the particular good of one man, but the good of the universe is greater than the good of one man, as is clear in the first book of the Ethics, on that paganism again. He must have had better sources. Well, he's talking about about yeah, but about how the the good of the city, right? You know, spread the building.

[17:14] Therefore, a greater work is the creation of heaven and earth than the justification of the impious. To the second, it should be said that the good of the universe is greater than the particular good of one, if one takes both of them in the same what? Genus, same kind of thing. But the good of grace of one is greater than the good of the nature of the whole universe, huh?

[17:46] That's great. Something, isn't it? Because grace is partaking in the divine nature, right? So it's an entirely different genus than the nature of created things. Hmm.

[18:13] No, we'll see it. I'm a bit in the dark myself, with the slightest idea. Just going to say. Moreover, it's greater to make something from nothing,

[18:32] and where nothing cooperates with the agent, than to make something from something with some cooperation of the patient, the one undergoing. Of course, we argue that, of course, it is for power, right, to create, because of the distance there, right, going.

[18:54] But in the work of creation from nothing comes about something. Whence nothing is able to cooperate with the agent. But in the justification of the impious, God makes something from something. That is, from the impious, He makes the just one. And there is there also some cooperation on the part of man, because there is there the motion of free will, as has been said. Therefore, the justification of the impious is not the greatest work of God.

[19:30] That's a really good objection, sir. I no longer took time to think of these things, sir. He reads descriptions of Thomas, you know, and he's thinking about something, you know, and and it's a difficult thing, and then he falls down on the ground praying to God, you know. Not so hard. Get something on.

[19:52] Yeah. Well, he could admit some truth to this, right? To the third, therefore, it should be said that that argument proceeds on the part of the what way of acting, according to which creation is the greatest what work of God.

[20:15] So, in some sense, it is the greatest, but not in the sense of what is being made. Maybe we'll see what he says. But against this is what is said in Psalm 144. His mercies, right, upon all of his works. And in the collect, it is said, "Huh." And mine says, "Dominica sexta post Pentecosten." So I don't know, but that's what that's that authority. God, who, what?

[20:50] Uh you manifest your almighty power by pardoning, most of all by pardoning and having mercy. Yeah. And Augustine says, expounding that of John chapter fourteen verse twelve, greater than these he will do, because it is a greater work to make the just from the impious than to create heaven and earth. So hard that Augustine showing up, huh? Not, not Aristotle this time, but Augustine. Yeah, yeah. You had to go to Augustine this time.

[21:23] It's like saying even Aristotle saw this. The old pagan ring, which I don't think you guys can't see it now. But here you need to need Augustine.

[21:43] So he begins with a distinction. I answer: It should be said that some work can be called great in two ways. In one way, on the part of the way of what doing it right, and thus maximum is the work of creation, in which from nothing he makes what, yeah, and nothing from nothing means not from something. I was looking at Thomas there in the in the Summa there, and he's, I mean the Summa Contra Gentiles, he's talking about

[22:23] the fact that God didn't create the universe always, right? Huh? It has a beginning in time, and he goes through all these objections, right? Huh? The part of God and the part of the things created and so on, and the way in which they're created, and then he has three chapters responding to each of them. You know, there's seven arguments for the first, seven for the second, four for the third, and then he answers the seven, the answers the seven, the answers the four, right?

[22:57] Oh boy, he's not done now, say. No, no, no. He's that, but then there are some people who thought that they could prove by reason that what was from nothing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And one of the arguments is that the universe is making something from nothing. So before there was something, there was nothing, and therefore there was a beginning, right?

[23:29] Thomas points out that really, when you say from nothing, you what is a way of saying not from something. It's not as if nothing is something from which it was made, right? Huh? And so by imagining that way, you have a kind of false imagination, right? So if something was made from nothing, then it was nothing before it was something, right? Okay.

[23:58] Yeah, just like if you make a make a table from a tree, well, the tree was before the the table, right? And therefore, the table wasn't always right. So if you made something from nothing, then it was nothing before it was something. Therefore, it had a beginning, right? And it's a duration And Thomas says, "well, that doesn't mean that So you can watch out, ex nihilo, right?

[24:25] Okay. Yeah. You find in other ways of speaking, you know, you find this one that we're talking about, that on Tuesday night with my students, they're in the eighth book of the physics, there, you know, and when Aristotle was arguing to the existence. Of the unmoved mover, right? And he

[24:56] he argues that either you come to something that moves itself, right, or you come to something that's altogether unmoved, right. And he first takes up the probable thing that it's from something that moves itself, right, at the beginning. And then he's going to argue that even if there is something moves itself, it's going to depend upon something that doesn't move at all, right. That's a further step, right?

[25:26] But why does he he do that, right? This this in between things. Well, Thomas says goes back to Plato, right? Huh? And Plato's the guy that said the through another depends upon the through what itself. So before the through another, is the through itself, right? So your coffee, huh? Is it sweet through itself? No. So if your coffee is sweet, so we must have used sugar or something that is sweet through itself, right?

[25:57] Okay. So if something is moved by another, it's moved through it through another, right, or by another. And therefore, there must be something before it that moves through itself, right? So Plato kind of you know, emphasizes that, right? Huh? And we often make use of that, huh? Okay. And

[26:24] that the through itself is before the through another, right? Okay. Gotta be kind of careful of that, right? And I see it kind of a lot of times in logic when we talk and we say that some statements are known through other statements. And those statements that are known through other statements are conclusions, right? Now, is every statement known through another statement?

[26:57] No, because then you'd have a what infinite regress, and you have to prove an infinity of things. Yeah, yeah. So so nothing would be known, right? To know A, you had to know B, and before you can know B, you had to know C, and so on forever. You never could even begin because anything you say, you know, to begin with, you say we have to prove that first, you know, and then.

[27:20] Okay, so it's a hopeless thing. So we must come to some statements if we know anything that are known what through themselves, right? I gotta be careful. But does that mean though? Say, are you proving a thing through itself? That's be a logical fallacy, isn't it?

[27:43] So a statement that's known through itself is a statement that is known but not through another statement. Something like that. What Thomas says about nothing, you're the same sort of thing, right? Okay. Not through something else. Not through something, yeah. Yeah. But it's it's interesting the way we use that way of speaking, though, huh? Even though it can be misleading to some people, right? Can mislead some people.

[28:18] You know, it's funny some scientists now thinking get something from nothing, right? And we know even we even we believe in creation, don't think you get something for nothing.

[28:32] What Warren says, I kind of my friend Warren that they're really kind of irrational, you know. Even the early Greeks had to say you can't get something from nothing. right? Anything except to get it from God. Yeah.

[28:53] It's no free lunch, you know, but this is even greater, you know, than a free lunch. Yeah, yeah. The interview of Bernie, you know, and they say, "Well, how are you going to pay for all this? I don't know."

[29:18] I saw Benitch, even Secretary of Education, member under, uh Bennett. Yeah. yeah, and he was on EWTN, you know, and he's convinced that she's going to be indicted, but I don't think anybody else thinks it's going to happen, you know.

[29:34] Yeah. Yeah. Or that. Yeah. Okay. So we're somewhere in the body, aren't we? Yeah, that's an opus magnum, on the part of the way of agenda part of the way of agenda, the way of acting. Another way that can be said to be the opus magnum, right?

[30:11] on account of the magnitude of that which comes about, right? And according to this, greater work is the justification of the what impious, because it what terminates at the what eternal good of partaking. partaking, yeah. Which the creation of heaven and earth turns at the good of mutable what Nature. nature, right? And therefore, Augustine, when he says that greater is it from the impious to make the just than to create heaven and earth, he adds.

[30:53] For heaven and earth pass away, but the salvation and the justification of the predestined remains. But it should be known that something great is said in two ways. Thank goodness. This is yeah. No this is the opus Yeah This is something.

[31:26] In one way, according to the absolute quantity, right? And in this way, the gift of glory is greater than the gift of grace, justifying the what impious.

[31:41] And according to this, the glorification of the just is a greater work than the justification of the what impious. Another way, something is great by its quantity of what proportion, just as a mountain is small and a grain is what large. If a grain of something, huh? Millet isn't it? Millet. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, small mountain. Yeah. So we speak of a small mountain. We might speak of a huge man.

[32:29] You know, six feet, seven feet, or something. You know, the the the policeman there, the law there, and the old thing. You know, tallest man I've ever seen in my life. Look at him. You don't think of misbehaving. So he's a he's a huge man, right? Huh? But but you might call a little mountain. You know, these little ones we got around here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, a little mountain.

[32:50] You know, huh? Like the Alps or something. You know, something like that. And in this way, the gift of grace, right, justifying the impious, is greater than the gift of glory, glorifying the just, because more does the gift of grace exceed the dignity of the impious, who was worthy of what punishment, than the gift of glory exceeds, right, the dignity of the just, who from this that he is justified is worthy of glory, right.

[33:32] And therefore Augustine says there. Let who will just judge right, whether it is greater to what create the just angels, than to justify the impious. For certainly if this is of what equal power, of this one greater is the what mercy, right.

[33:57] That's kind of interesting. In one way, saying the creation is the greatest work of God from the mode of what? Yeah, because you're making it from nothing, right?

[34:10] But then, what? Absolute quantity glorification is greater than what? Justification, but proportionally, who's being brought from one to the other, right? Justification. So you think you thought more for justifying you than for glorifying you? Have to

[34:51] do a hell of a lot, right? I use the expression to get us out of hell, right? Now, somebody like me, I'd be struggling around here trying to figure it out without seeing these distinctions, right?

[35:18] So, it's the one way in which creation is the greatest work of God, right? That's what the Bible begins with, right? And you get to the Gospels, and you learn about justification, right? And then you get to the Apocalypse, and you, yeah, yeah. The three, yeah, the three works of God outside Himself. Mhm. Mhm. But three works, each of them in its own way, is the greatest work of God, huh?

[35:46] So, should you admire God more for creating the world, or should you admire God more for justifying you, or should you admire God more for glorifying the saints? All three. Yeah, but for different reasons, right? Huh? Yeah. I'll be reading the Gospel of John there and say, "My God, I didn't realize there was this much in there. I've never read it before, more than once, but my gosh, there's so much in there.

[36:14] That's really more difficult than the other Gospels, it seems to me, too. " Yeah, it's making more. If I'm using the term right, more symbolic in the sense that there's more. He uses certain expressions, and not only words, but then he speaks of certain signs. Mhm. A lot more density.

[36:45] No, there's three three persons that they describe in the Gospels that Christ raised from the dead, and one of them, of course, is what

[36:59] Lazarus, right? And that's found only in John, that one, huh? Mhm. That's right. And then what are the other two? One is the the widow of name. The the son of the widow. Yeah. The other is the little girl, the daughter. of Jairus Yeah. I think was Is it the little girl that's found in all the other Synoptic Gospels? I think so. Yeah, but the widow of name, I think, is found only in in Luke.

[37:26] Yeah. Yeah. Let's kind of think about those, because Augustine kind of takes that as the three kinds of what the spiritual sense there of the the sinner who's just newly. Just, just found. Yeah. Girl. And that's little girl, and then the one who is. uh The idea, Another one is pretty confirmed. Yeah, yes, Yeah, Yeah, Kind of beautiful thing.

[37:55] Okay, so nice example three here, right? We had four things there in the justification, right? But we kind of said two of them are in the part of what the motion of free will, right? So we'll let him get them at the four. We get to the tenth article now. To the tenth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the justification of the impious is a miraculous work.

[38:38] For miraculous works are greater than ones that are not miraculous. But the justification of the impious is greater work than the other miraculous works, right? As is clear through Augustine and the authority induced. Okay, that was authority back to the previous one here, right? Yeah.

[39:01] And uh greater than the uh heaven and earth creature. Yeah. What is that work of Augustine? That's John tract seventy-two. there it is. He's coming in John. That's a focal. You'd see the great decision. And therefore, the justification of the impious is a opus miraculosum.

[39:40] Is it outside the what? order of things that someone should be what justified in this way because it's a more normal way of being justified. You know.

[39:54] This may not be so. Moreover, let's look at the reply to the first objection. To the first, it should be said therefore that some miraculous works, although they are what less than the justification of the impious as regards the good that comes about, they are nevertheless outside of the custom, customary order of such effects.

[40:25] And therefore, they have more of the notion of miracle, right? Something that is. outside of the normal. Yeah, but this is the normal way of being justified, right? You know, justified by God's grace. Yeah, yeah.

[40:44] Moreover, the emotion of the will. Second objection. Moreover, the emotion of the will is thus in the soul as the natural inclination is in natural things. But when God does something in natural things against the inclination of nature, it's a miraculous what work, as when He enlightens the blind man. Or when He raises up the what the dead one. But the will of the impious tends in something bad.

[41:16] Hence, therefore, God, by justifying man, moves him in the contrary direction in the good. It seems that justification of the impious is miraculous. We say to the second should be said that not whenever a natural thing is moved against its inclination is a miraculous what work. Otherwise, it would be miraculous that water heats, or that a stone is thrown upwards.

[41:52] But when it is done outside the order of its own cause, which is apt to what do this. But to justify the impious, no other cause is able except God, huh?

[42:10] Just as neither is water able to what heat except the fire. And therefore, the justification impious is by God, and in this respect, not miraculous, huh? Who else would? That's the customary way of doing it.

[42:32] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, right, right. He's not even framing somebody else's, you know, way of, yeah, yeah. Except except the modern state, now you know.

[43:02] Moreover, just as wisdom is a gift of God, so also is justice. But it's miraculous when someone subito, right? John Paul II made that subito.

[43:18] Without the what, without study, he acquires wisdom from God. Therefore, it's miraculous that someone impious is justified by God. Well, to the third should be said that wisdom and knowledge, man is naturally apt to acquire by God, through his own what genius and study, right? Genius is supposed to be to discover something yourself, right? Studying. And there, when apart from this way, a man is made wise or knowing, it is what miraculous, right?

[43:55] But the grace justifying man is not naturally apt to acquire through his own operation, but by God what operating, huh? Hence, it's not what similar, right? Okay. So, miracle is something outside the ordinary what way of doing things, right? But this is not, you know, not some ordinary way of becoming justified other than. What we've read about in this question, right? This is the ordinary way of giving justification.

[44:32] The only way, I guess. Yeah. Okay. But against this, miraculous works are above the natural power, right? But the justification of the impious is not above the natural power. For Augustine says in the book of the Predestination of the Saints that to be able to have faith, just as to be able to have charity, pertains to the nature of men, right? But to have grace, right, is of the what faithful.

[45:13] Therefore, the justification impious is not what miraculous. That's kind of strange what he does there. That's curious. But the justification of the impious is not above the natural power. It means what? When so far as it's not above its natural power, to cooperate with God, is that which is? That must be what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. That's referring to the faithful faith So to be able to have faith, to be able to have charity, is of the nature of men, right?

[46:03] It's not a natural thing, but it's the nature of man to be able to have these things. Thomas answers in the body article. Answer should be said that in miraculous works, three things are accustomed to be found, huh? Of which one is on the part of the power of the agent, right? Because they're able to come about only by the what divine power, and therefore they are simpliciter mira, right?

[46:47] As it were having a hidden cause, as is said in the first. Wonder is raised when you hit on other causes or something, right? But if go of this thing and it fell to the ground, would you wonder why it fell to the ground? If I leave go of it and it goes up, say why did it go up? You know what the magician? It's up there.

[47:20] Okay. And according to this, both the justification of the impious, and as well as the creation of the world, and generally speaking, every work that by God alone is able to come about can be said to be what? Yeah.

[47:54] That's only one thing that's involved. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Secondly, in some miraculous works is found that the form brought in, induced, is above the natural power of such a matter, just as in the. rise raising of the dead, life is above the natural power of such a body, right?

[48:28] As far as this is concerned, the justification of the impious is not what miraculous, because naturally the soul is capable of grace. That's probably what it said in the Sed Contra.

[48:44] In that, for this that he is made to the image of God, he is capable of God by grace, as Augustine says. That's interesting, huh? Because we're made to the image of God, that we're capable of grace through God. That's the expression St. Bonaventure uses. He says we are beatific cognizants. Able to be blessed. Yeah, Yeah.

[49:15] So the other animals are not made to the image and likeness of God, and therefore not capable of what grace Grace, huh? Whereby they become partake of the divine nature.

[49:42] So the first thing it is miraculous. Second one, it is not right. Third, there is found in miraculous works something apart from the accustomed order of cause and effect, just as when someone sick acquires perfect health subito, apart from the accustomed cause of curse of nature, course of nature of healing rather, which comes from nature or what art? That's supposed to be the mother-in-law there, right? Peter, right?

[50:19] She's. As far as this is concerned, the justification of the impious sometimes is miraculous and sometimes not, for it is the accustomed and common course of justification that God, moving inwardly the soul, that man be converted to God, first by an imperfect conversion, and afterwards he arrives at a perfect one,

[50:51] because charity begun merits to be what increased, and increased it merits to be perfected, as Augustine says. That's why that gradualness that the Pope is talking about, something like that.

[51:18] But sometimes God vehemently moves the soul, that at once it has a what sudden perfection of justice, just as was in the conversion of Paul,

[51:33] there being what externally a miraculous prostration, right? And therefore the conversion of Paul, as it were miraculous, is commemorated in the Church, celebrated It's great celebration. Yeah, yeah.

[51:59] That's not usual, though, right? Huh? That's celebrated, right? So it's more not a miracle than it is a miracle, huh? That was the uh, conversion of a communist André Frossard he interviewed John Paul II one time? Mm-hmm. He said he was just an atheist, didn't believe in his nonsense, and one day for some reason, I guess he was with some Catholic gentleman who went into the church.

[52:25] Can I? I just want to stop here and make a visit. Okay, so he's waiting outside. So he went inside, and I guess there was a benediction or something, and he was just hit. Just a true, yeah, true. Like down to the knee. So it's celebrated.

[52:42] Maybe not quite like St Paul. but similar similar Wasn't Stalin in the seminary for a while? I don't know what the reason for his being there was either just to get a free education, or was why he was there. But he's a young man, isn't he? I don't know.

[53:04] Bishop Sheen? Bishop Sheen or something. In any case, it was a tale of two altar boys. Yeah. Do You remember this? Where one altar boy I think drops the wine or water at the altar when he's looking there, and the priest just lambasts him, chastises him, humiliates him, and then there was another altar boy who did the same thing around the same time in another country, and the priest was very gentle and understanding and charitable.

[53:36] And it turned out one of them ended up being Stalin, and then the other one was maybe Archbishop Sheen or something. I forget who the other one was, but it's supposed to be true. I think I heard it on EWTN years ago. Stalin was the one that was mistreated, I mean, by the priest. The one that, yeah, he was lambasted. Yeah.

[53:56] That's an excuse. It shows also. what's the saying if uh, I think Saint Faustina, if we knew how responsible we were for each other's eternal salvation, we'd be paralyzed with terror. And how gently we need to treat each other, and charitably in all ways, but how often we fall short. I think it was in Saint Faustina's diary. The Alzheimer's makes it harder. That's what God told Saint Catherine: of Siena.

[54:28] all your virtues and all your vices come to your neighbor. Now, in terms of what happens to your neighbor, what happens to you? it's got to depend on how you treat your neighbor I could take a break right now before the next question here, huh?