Prima Secundae
285. Summa Theologiae I-II, Q.114, Articles 6-10: Restoring Grace, and Whether Merit Increases Charity and Perseverance
Class of 2016-05-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/285-summa-theologiae-i-ii-q-114-articles-6-10-restoring-grace/

[0:00] Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo Gracias. God, their enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Amen. And help us to understand all that you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

[0:32] Amen. Actually, I was quite enthusiastic about Thomas's approval of my saying thank you first, right? But I was reading in the in the Gospel of John, you know, at the chapter was eleven, where you have the Lazarus being raised from the dead, right, and so on. But Christ, you know, prays first, do you know? But he first thanks God, right? Huh? And Thomas said, "We should thank God first before you ask for something.

[1:03] again, You should thank what you received already, right? So, when I start there. Actually, I started putting it before because I always forget to say it after. So I, you know, remember before when I, before I asked him. But I was good to see the order that I was following the order of our Lord Himself, right? But now I'm going to give a little, little objection to our Lord here, right?

[1:29] Something else he says in the Gospel of John, right? And I told you the story there. This guy who had been in the Dominicans told me that his teacher said, you know, seldom affirm, never affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish, right? And we've seen as we go through here that Thomas is always in reply, almost, you know, pointing out, to distinguish or something, you know, some kind of distinction that that's a starting point for the thing.

[1:58] Okay. Now one of the very important things that Christ says in the Gospel Saint John is that the Father and I are one. Okay.

[2:10] Now, shouldn't he have what distinguished, right? Because if I'm a Sabellian, right, I might say, okay, they're one person really, huh? You know, could be one person. I mean, he didn't say something else. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So then, Sabellius, you know, who thought that the Father and the Son and maybe the Holy Spirit too, I guess, are really one in the same person, but they call the Father because he does this, and the Son because he does that, and Holy Spirit because he does that.

[2:41] It's really the same person, right, doing all these things, right? So Christ says the Father and I are one, right? Why doesn't he distinguish and say, you know, we're one God, but we're not one person, right? Huh? You know, why does he? Why doesn't he? I just say the Father and I are one. I mean, he's not an inferiority to to Thomas's way of proceeding. You know, Thomas means to say, you know, we're one God, but we're not one person, right?

[3:13] You know, because you could both affirm and deny that we're one, right? We're one God, but we're not one person. You know, that's very important, isn't it? So, I didn't defend our Lord. Well the first thing that comes to my mind is that he does speak of the Father and I, so there's some distinction there. But somebody might say that the Sabellius is saying, you know, he's saying there that the Father and I are really one person, right?

[3:45] He's not telling us that they're one. So, like I'm, I'm, I'm a grandfather and a and and a philosopher, right? Well, it's not the same thing to be a grandfather and a philosopher, but I'm the same person who's, you know, they call me a grandfather for one thing I did, and a professor, a philosopher for another reason, something else I did, right? Is it? So the Father and I, you know, see?

[4:15] Do you distinguish and say in what sense he meant they were one? Well, in some sense they're not one, huh? In some other places he'll say, you know, the Father sent me, and so forth. So there's got to have to suppose there must be some kind. I know, but you got to bring another text in there. I mean, here, here he's not distinguishing. So, why does he speak that way, right?

[4:37] In the context of the situation. I can't remember exactly what scripture is there, but he's making a particular point, and it's not an exhaustive explanation of his relationship with the Father, being one with him, but is he's making a specific point in a particular context? Yeah. Maybe he's making a claim of divinity. So this is the unity. So I could be, I don't know. I know, but I mean, it doesn't distinguish whether they're one God or one person.

[5:17] In one case you affirm, in the other case you deny. And so, making that distinction, you shouldn't affirm or deny it, because Sabellus is going to misunderstand it. And what he knows, we learn from confused and mistaken tongues. So I'm following that word. Somebody say, isn't John better in the beginning? He says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God. Now, if you're toward something, there's a distinction between you and what you toward, right?

[5:45] But then there's not distinction in in divinity, and then he adds, and the Word was God, right now, where the distinction is made there, right now. So can you say that the Word was God? Well, then you say, well, okay, then there's one God, the one to whom He is the Word, right?

[6:05] That doesn't satisfy me, right? Why, why Christ speak this way, right? In other words, is there more reason why He would say we are one because we're one God, than that we are one, than we are not one because we're not one person? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They didn't know of the Trinity so they think there are two gods And the Jewish monotheistic perspective could have come to many wild misinterpretations.

[6:49] Yeah. Had He said, "Well, you know, we're one, but we're different persons," it would have said, "Oh, they're a polytheist or something like that." Yeah. I'd have to see the context of it and try to see what He said. Folks. I wonder if you know if you go back to this distinction we make sometimes between like some simpliciter and secundum quid" that sort of thing, right?

[7:16] And if I actually am I, what do you say? I am. Right. See, they say, "I say I didn't distinguish because I am a man, but I'm not in my car." So in some sense, I am not, right? I am not in my car, but I'm justified in saying I am without distinguishing why. Simply, yeah, yeah. Okay. Now, if you're talking about the, you know, human things, the substance of a thing, right?

[8:02] It's nature, right? You're saying what? You're talking about the divine nature, so we are one what? God, right? But we differ by what? Relation, right? Now, of course, relation, God is not different in a different category. I mean, a different thing than the divine substance, right? But if you go back to to us, you know, we're distinguishing substance and and relation, right? Substance is more being simply, right?

[8:31] Relation is something "secundum quid," right? Not quite the same thing in God, right? But there might be a reason for saying that, right? You know, we are one God but two persons, right?

[8:47] Think about that a little bit. huh? I'm struck by that. huh? When Thomas is saying that God is saying almost the same thing, when he says the Father and I are one, and the Father is in me and I am in the Father, that's kind of interesting that this says the same, right?

[9:10] But when you say He's the thought of God, right? Well, a thought is in what? The thinker, right, isn't it? So if He's the thought of God, the Father, right? He's in the Father, right? Kind of interesting that that can be said.

[9:30] Okay, we're up to Article Seven, I guess here, and Question One Fourteen: Whether a man is able to merit what reparation after a lapse? I suspect he's not.

[9:48] To the seventh one goes forward. Thus, it seems that someone is able to merit for himself reparation after a lapse, for that which is justly. Asked from from God, a man seems able to what merit. But nothing is more justly asked from God, as Augustine says, than that he be repaired after a lapse. According to that is Psalm seventy, when my power, strength fails, right? Do not abandon me, right?

[10:28] Don't leave me abandoned. Therefore, a man can merit that he be what be repaired after a lapse, as if there's just, justly asked from God, right? Okay.

[10:46] Well, most of the time it says that this is said to be just in another sense, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the desire by which someone desires reparation after a lapse is said to be just, right? And likewise, the prayer for that is said to be what just, because it tends to justice, right? Not that it is what based on justice as way of what, more than one, but only upon what.

[11:19] We see. So it's got to be careful therein understanding the text. You got to distinguish the sense in which is said to be just, right?

[11:38] So it's just for me to seek forgiveness for my lapse. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Moreover, more is a man able to what ask for? Right, works for himself, right? Than those for another, right? Or more do they what profit a man? Right, his own works than that they profit what another, right? But man can in some way merit reparation after a lapse for another, right? Can merit reparation after a lapse, right?

[12:25] Just as he can in some way merit the first grace for another. Yeah. Therefore, much more can he merit that he be repaired after a lapse.

[12:38] Of course, if you're meritin' for the one, you already have grace, and you're you know. Yeah, yeah. Well, in this case, you try and do it for yourself. You you're you're you're a lapsed Christian, right? Okay.

[12:53] So the second, that's that's not too hard to see the solution to that objection, right? To the second, should be said that someone can merit ex congruo right? That's not. ex condigno, right? The first grace, huh? Because there is not a what impediment, huh? At least on the part of the one meriting, which is found when someone, right, after the merit of what grace has receded from justice, right?

[13:24] Then he has an impediment, huh? Okay. Moreover, a man who at some time was in grace, through the good works that he does, merits for himself what eternal life, huh? But one cannot what arrive at eternal life unless he be repaired by grace. Therefore, it seems that he merits for himself reparation for grace. So can I, by one act of charity, Thomas says, huh? Can I merit eternal life?

[14:02] Yep, isn't it so? I love God above all the things, right? Do I merit from that act of loving God in this way eternal life? Now, if I lapse after this wonderful act of love, right, I've merited eternal life, so I have to merit the what reparation for my lapse, because without being repaired, I'm not going to get to eternal life. So I've merited eternal life; I won't get there without being repaired.

[14:35] Therefore, I must merit to be repaired, despite my my thing, you know. Yeah, sounds kind of like a prodigal. Yeah, but Thomas sometimes talks about how someone is living a very good life, right? He quickly recovers from a lapse, you know, of some sort, right? And even Peter did, right? Went out and wept bitterly, right? You know. Okay.

[15:04] Now, what about this meriting of eternal life? Also, Thomas says. To the theory, it should be said that some, huh? Now, I don't know. My text is C Bonaventure. Since, since it doesn't mean Bonaventure is saying that, though he might be talking to somebody else, right? Refers to the reference down there, right?

[15:26] Okay. So don't accuse Bonaventure of doing this, yeah. Okay. Some say that no one merits absolutely eternal life, huh? Except through the act of final what grace, and only under this condition if he what perseveres, right? But this is said unreasonably, Thomas says, huh? Because sometimes the act of last grace is not more meritorious, but less, right? And then the preceding, the act of the preceding, on account of the what oppression of sickness or something, right?

[16:10] Whence it should be said that each act of charity merits absolutely eternal life. What Thomas has been, that right? But to thesequent or following sin, there is placed an impediment to the preceding merit. huh? That's what he says. So that it does not what achieve its effect. Just as also natural cause fails from their effects on account of the what?

[16:42] Yeah, yeah. So as he goes, the stone is going to what fall to the ground, but something might impede it falling to the ground, right? Something doesn't break. One thing we know is it's not going to spin on its axis. Yeah. We we've clarified that. No, that's kind of interesting, right? You can merit eternal life, but the effect there is impeded by your your lapse.

[17:20] Of course, the text is very clear. This is the one that they hear in mass, at least that we hear in mass every year. Again, this is what is said in Ezekiel eighteen, right? Verse twenty-four. That's the one where he talks about my just or unjust, right? Yeah. So if the just man turns away from his justice, right, and commits what iniquity, all the justices of him which he had done, I will not will not be what.

[17:53] That's pretty rough, right? But if the big sinner, you know, turns away, yeah, that's you know, so that's unfair. You know, that was the text. Therefore, nothing to the preceding merits avail, right? For this that one can what raise up. Therefore, one is not able to merit reparation after a future what lapse.

[18:23] So let's look at Thomas says in the body of the article. See if we get some more illumination here. I answer: It should be said that no one can merit for himself reparation after a future what lapse, neither by the merit of what worth, right, nor the merit of what fitting.

[18:48] That's rough, rough speaking, right? Now, if by the merit of worth he cannot merit for himself, because the reason for this merit depends upon the motion of what divine grace.

[19:07] Which movement is interrupted by the what Following sin? Whence all the benefits which afterwards someone achieves from God, by which he is repaired, do not come under what merit? As it were, that the motion of the grace before does not extend itself to what to this?

[19:40] Now the merit of congruity Of being fitting right, by which someone merits for another a first what grace, is impeded, that it what achieves effect, on account of the impediment of sin in the one who what for which what. One merits. Okay, much more therefore is one impeded the efficacy of such merit by the impediment which is in the one who merits and in the one for whom merits.

[20:16] For here both come in, come together in one person, and therefore in no way can someone merit reparation after what lapse. I wonder what uh, Pope Francis would say about this.

[20:38] There's a, There's a reference to Denzinger. I can't look it up right now. but it's got a reference to Denzinger I'm sure it's addressed at some time It's part of the text they have here, but it's not that full. The just one merits eternal life, and

[21:44] of him the eternal life. if nevertheless he deceases in gratia, right? Let's look at Article Eight here now, Whether man can merit a growth of grace or charity. Now, what would you think Thomas is going to say to this one?

[22:20] You might think that they're parallel the two cases, right? Huh? But are they? Because the one who going to merit an increase of this hasn't lost the source of what merit, right? Right doesn't have impediment to it. To the eighth one proceeds thus. It seems that a man is not able to merit the growth of grace or what charity, right?

[22:51] For when someone receives the reward that he merits, there is not owed to him another merit, huh? Just as is said of some in Matthew six, they have received their what reward, right?

[23:11] If therefore someone merited the growth of charity or grace, it would follow that grace, being augmented, cannot what further expects another what reward, which is not fitting, right? To the first, therefore it should be said that the reward is the what end of what merit, right? The limit of merit. But there is a twofold limit of motion, to wit, the last limit, right, and the middle, right,

[23:57] which is both a beginning and a what limit, huh? It's beginning of what comes later and the term which comes before. And such a term is the reward of what growth, yeah.

[24:14] For the reward of what human favor is like a last term to those who are constituted in the what. Yeah so they don't receive any other reward Yeah, that's the one. The end of your life, right? When they receive no other mercy, right? But the other one is something in the middle, which I'll explain more in the thing here.

[24:56] But against this is what Augustine says upon the Epistle of John against this is what Augustine says upon the Epistle of John, huh? The charity merits to be what increased. And increased it merits to be what Perfected, huh?

[25:16] Therefore, the growth of charity or grace falls under what merit? Now, the second objection is one a little more for philosopher to understand. Nothing acts beyond its own what form, species? Huh. But the source of merit is grace or charity, as has been said above. Therefore, no one can what merit a greater grace or charity than the one he has. then it would be acting beyond its what?

[25:52] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Another distinction that Thomas gives here now in the second objection. To second should be said that the increase of grace is not above the what power of the pre-existing grace, although is above the quantity. See, so I have a a lesser amount of grace, right? Which is therefore inferior to the grace I would have if it grows, right? In quantity, but it's not beyond the what power of the lesser grace, huh?

[26:31] That's kind of an interesting distinction, huh? Just as the tree, although it is above the quantity of the seed, is nevertheless not above its what? Yeah. That's the quantity

[26:49] of size. Yeah, The quantity of its power Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like the premises in the beginning of geometry, something like that, right? They're much less than the first book of geometry, I'd say, huh? In quantity, right? But in power, they are what able to extend to the conclusions of geometry.

[27:32] Moreover, that which fair objection. Moreover, that which comes under what merit? A man what merits through each act Proceeding by grace or what charity? Huh. Just as by each such act a man merits what eternal life. If therefore the growth of grace or charity comes under merit, it seems through any act informed by charity, someone merits say what? Yeah. But that which a man merits, he achieves infallibly, right, from God, huh?

[28:13] Unless he be impeded through a subsequent what sin. For it is said in the second epistle to Timothy, chapter one. I know the one to whom I have what believed, right, and I am certain that he is what powerful to give the what. keeping preserving what my deposit.

[28:46] That part of the reward though deposit to him there I think. Why do they translate that in the English text? Somebody, else It's in the third section I know whom I have believed, and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him. Committed, yeah. I have placed it in his care. Yeah.

[29:11] Thus it would follow that through any meritorious act, grace and charity is increased, right? Which seems to be unfitting because sometimes meritorious acts are not very what fervent, right? That they suffice for the what growth of charity, huh? Therefore, the growth of charity does not come under what merit, huh?

[29:39] No, Thomas says that all. Justing answer this. To third, it should be said that by any meritorious act, a man merits a increase of grace, just as he merits the what consummation of grace, which is eternal life, right? But just as eternal life is not rendered at once, but in its time, right, huh? So neither is grace increased at once, but in its what time. When someone is sufficiently what disposed for the growth of what grace, huh?

[30:24] Maybe like. Someone receives, for example, sacrament of confirmation, but he's not in state of grace. I say it won't have as effect until grace is restored to the soul. Yeah. He's already received. He hasn't benefited. Something maybe. Yeah. Yeah. I know something like this in philosophy, you know. Like I'm reading as they say the Summa Contra Gentiles Gentiles, right? Am I understanding these things better now than I did the last time I read it?

[31:00] No. But sometimes you read a text, you don't seem to be understanding any better than you did the last time you read it, right? But you may be getting prepared all of a sudden. Ah, now I see something I didn't see before, right? Deanna is supposed to point something out to De Koninck there, and philosophy of nature, and De Koninck and his great humility. How could I have taught this for all these years and not seen this?

[31:36] I mean, it's like you know, I'm kind of just going through the Summa Contra Gentiles. I don't know how many times I read it, but I say, okay, yeah, I got to forget how much is in here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But suddenly you read, or sometimes I read the thing, you know, you know, reading, we read it twice, right? I read the paragraph or something like that, and then I read it again and even seeing it, right Huh because the the rat the Latin word order is different. than. English You see something you didn't see it, you know, and you read it second time, right?

[32:08] So you are being d disposed, right, by the first reading, and then you are ready for the to see something in the second reading because you didn't see the the first reading, right? But the first reading was getting you disposed to see something, yeah.

[32:27] But something like that, huh? With grace, huh? The fervor of the soul, right? Sometimes the soul is kind of dry, you know, and but you continue to try to pray, right? And then you get what the fervor, right, huh? And then maybe you get the increase of grace.

[32:48] What does it happen there? Is it Teresa of Avila there? You know, always heard there's an increase of grace, just kind of a a little kind of trial, trial, some sort, yeah. Yeah. Or there is Korea bars and have some diabolical torment. Yeah. Oh, must be a big fish coming.

[33:22] That's going to be contrary here again. We said Augustine, but but he's quite an authority here. But again, this is what Augustine says upon the Epistle of John,

[33:36] that charity merits to be increased, so that what increased it merits to be what perfected, right? Therefore, the growth of charity or grace does fall under merit.

[33:53] Now, I, answer it should be said, Thomas says, that has been said above. That comes under the merit of what condigno, of worthiness, to which the motion of grace extends itself, right?

[34:11] But now this thing we said about the two terms, the motion of some what mover not only extends to the last term of the motion, but also to the what whole progress, huh? The whole going forward in motion. You got a question there? Okay. Now the term of the motion of grace is eternal life, huh? Spring up into eternal life, as Christ says in the Gospel of John, there.

[34:44] But the progress in this motion is according to the growth of charity or what grace, huh? According to that, and it's a beautiful quote now here from Proverbs chapter four verse eighteen, right? That the semita, the paths of the just, right, are like a light splendens, huh? But it's like increasing, right, huh? You know, like like the the sun when it rises, right? It it it gets more and more beautiful.

[35:21] And it grows usque to the perfect day, right? Which is the day of glory. It's kind of taken from the metaphor there, from the the sun, right? Rising, the sun rising, not the earth turning guys' axis.

[35:37] That's a what do you call those guys that got the bad thing about grace there. Yeah, yeah, that's what they always say, you know. I don't even see her turning itself Now, it's the sun rising, huh? Shakespeare has beautiful sonnets there about the sun

[36:00] casting the golden lakes and so on. Okay. Thus, therefore, the the what growth of grace comes under the merit of worth. It's a marvelous thing.

[36:20] But he argues because it it it disposes us for what? Its its motion extends to eternal life, right? So therefore, it extends to. It's that's a merit, right? You're meriting eternal life, so you're meriting the stepping stone

[36:41] Well, what you got with that Thomas? So, it's pretty good. Good another nine. Another article. here? Article nine. Oh my goodness, we're going to be through with this. What we're going to do? I think the world is going to stop. To the ninth, one goes forward Thus, it seems that someone can merit what perseverance. Well, you would think so after the last answer. Yeah.

[37:31] Now, that which a man obtains by asking for it, right? Huh? Can come under the merit of one having grace. But by asking for perseverance, right? Men obtain this what from God, huh? Otherwise, in vain would one ask from God in the petitions of the what Lord's Prayer, as Augustine expounds in the book on. the Our Father Yeah. So Thomas takes the one let the kingdom come right, you know.

[38:09] The kingdom comes only if you persevere. So you're asking for his kingdom to come, right? Therefore, perseverance can come under the merit of of one having grace, huh? Thomas answers to the first therefore it should be said that even those things which we do not merit, we ask for by what praying. For God hears what. Both sinners. Yeah. Asking for what forgiveness for their sins which they do not what merit, huh?

[38:52] So we say forgive us our trespasses. We got to do that every day for the daily sins, right? Okay. It is clear for Augustine upon that of John nine. We know that God does not hear sinners, right? That was said in defense of Christ, right? You know when he. Yeah.

[39:16] Otherwise, in vain would the publican have said, right? God be propitious to me, a sinner, as is said in Luke, and it was heard, right? And likewise, the gift of perseverance, someone by asking for God, right, for himself or for others, although it does not come under what merit, huh?

[39:47] I guess since there's a lot of things that we get from God about merit, we can ask things about merit. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point, huh? You know. Okay. That justifies the statement I heard somebody make: "God is more ready to give than we are to ask." Mm-hmm.

[40:21] Moreover, is greater to what not be able to sin than to not sin. But to not be able to sin comes under merit, for one merits eternal life, of whose definition is impeccabilitas, huh? You become impeccable at that time, huh? At last. Yeah. Yeah.

[40:49] And who are the saints here saying the deathbed? Ah, I shall sin no more. Ah, I shall sin no more. Okay. Therefore, much more is one able to merit that he what? Not sin. Yeah. Which is to persevere, right?

[41:07] Now Thomas sees a distinction here, right? To the second, it should be said that the perseverance which will be in what glory is compared to the what meritorious motion of free will as its term, right, huh? But not the perseverance of the road, huh? The way. For the reason foresaid, which we'll see in the body of the article, I guess. Okay.

[41:38] So he's seeing the distinction between meriting this perseverance in heaven and then on the road, right? And the third one, I have to read the body of the article, I guess, for it. But let's look at it anyway. Moreover, greater is the growth of grace than perseverance in the grace which someone has, but someone can merit a growth of grace as has been said above, and therefore more is able to merit perseverance in the grace which he has.

[42:11] Now we'll have to see what the body of the article is to see what this will be. But against this is that everything that someone merits, he what achieves from God, unless he be impeded by sin. But many have meritorious works who do not what obtain perseverance. Nor can it be said that this comes about in account of the impediment of sin, because this which is to sin is opposed to what perseverance.

[42:47] Thus, therefore, someone had merited perseverance; God would not permit him to fall into sin, right? Therefore, perseverance does not come under what merit? Okay. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. It's marvelous, marvelous stuff, huh? I answer answer: It should be said that since man naturally has free what will, that is flexible to the good and to the bad, right, huh? In two ways, someone can obtain perseverance in the good from God.

[43:29] In one way, through this, that the free will is determined to the good by consummate grace, huh? Which will be in glory, right? That your will will be filled, right, huh? There won't be any room in there. Everything else got to be all and all, right? Since it's somewhere, got to be all and all.

[44:04] Another way, on the part of the divine motion, right, which is on the road, I guess, huh? Which inclines man to the good, usque in finem, right, huh?

[44:23] Now, just as is clear from the things that have been said, huh? My my, text first. Articles five and eight. That which comes under human merit, huh? That that comes under human merit, that is compared to the motion of free will directed by God moving.

[44:47] As a what? Yeah. Compared to the motion. Yeah. But not that which is compared to the foregoing motion, as a what beginning, right, huh?

[45:07] Whence it is clear that the perseverance of glory, which is the term or the end of the foresaid motion, right, comes under what merit? But the perseverance of the road does not come under what merit, because it depends only upon the divine motion, which is the beginning of all what merit.

[45:41] But God gratuitously, right, gives the gift of what perseverance to whom he what gives it? Yeah. Largitur largitur. So he distinguishes between the perseverance of the end and on the road, huh?

[46:16] The perseverance in the end is that your heart is then what completely filled, right? No room for anything else but God. You know, when you eat too much, there's no room for anything more, you know. Even on Thanksgiving, you know, are you gonna walk around?

[46:39] Some stuff, you know. Yeah, but your your your will is filled more fully than your stomach at Thanksgiving, right? At the end, huh? But on the road, right, huh? The perseverance of the road does not come under merit, because it depends only upon what

[47:34] divine moving of us, right? Which is the beginning of all what merit, huh? He's got to keep on moving us, huh? Got a text here at the bottom of the page here from the church documents, the Council of Arausio The adjutorium, the aid of God, also right, should be implored for those reborn, right, or healed, right, huh? That they might what arrive at the good end, or that in the good they work their able to what perdure to persist.

[48:43] Denziger, which gift of perseverance elsewhere is not able to be had except by the one who is potent, huh? To make the one who stands that he stand, right? Here stand, because you make that continue to stand, huh? That he persist persistently stands, and the one who falls too can be restored, huh?

[49:21] You can't know this with absolute infallible certitude unless you learn it from a special revelation. What year was that council. These different the ones here I don't know, they're different quotes from Denzinger 806, 26. Yeah.

[49:45] Here's Denzinger 826. If someone says that someone is justified. Or without the special aid of God, in His what, receive justice, perseveres, or can persevere, or with it he's not able, anathema sit. That's a sober thought, huh?

[50:12] Yeah. This is Trent. Yeah. But the difficulty with the references in this this edition of the Saint Thomas Aquinas here, this is an older edition, referring to different numbering, and I don't know what it's referring to. Yeah. Because that edition The different editions of Denzinger they change the numbers they add things Right, a little one, like a little Denzinger of the old edition. I've read through that, but I have to read it again.

[50:49] I'm sure I missed it. That's useful Yeah. Yeah. That's what as they say blessed Columba Marmion used to do his table reading, at Denzinger. So it distinguishes then between the perseverance of the road and the perseverance of the term, right to the end. Okay, now so you want to know who the temporal goods come under merit?

[51:44] To the tenth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that temporal goods come under what merit, huh? For that which is promised to some as a reward of justice comes under merit. But temporal goods are promised in the old law, right? As a reward of what justice, as is clear in Deuteronomy chapter twenty-eight. Therefore, it seems that temporal goods come under what merit, huh?

[52:26] Now the ad primum there, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Augustine says against Faust in the fourth book, huh? In those temporal what promises were figured, right? The future what spiritual things which are fulfilled in us, huh? That carnal people, huh?

[52:53] cleave to the promises of, present life, and of them not only the what, but also the life was what, yeah. Yeah, so they're just examples of prophetic words and then examples and figures. Yeah, yeah. But it's it's like a more a figure of what do you get in the new?

[53:25] So the figure is not true, right? Comes in the text, or is it Saint John? I think yeah. He gives about three, at least two different meanings of true, and one meaning of true is opposed to what false. Okay, what other meaning of true, right? True as opposed to figure. Yeah, figure has another one. Yeah, and then true in the terms of what is so essentially and what is so by participation, right?

[53:59] We might say that Christ is a true Son of God, right? Aren't we sons of God? You know that's what John said. You know, but you know we partake of sonship, right? Yeah, that's the same thing. Yeah, kind of

[54:21] funny there when they're talking about you making yourself equal to God and so on. You know, he's a son of God, and don't we call these other people? Yeah, he doesn't develop the whole thing there, you know, but but you can do that. You can call me that, right? I mean, doesn't really, you know, it's just too much open there about how he should be said so in a fuller way, but

[54:57] okay. It's a granule rule there, you know, for for what distinction in sense of word that Aristotle gives in the in the logic, right? It's got more than more than one opposite. It's got more than one meaning, right?

[55:22] Just talking about liberal, right? That's just an example in class, right? What's the opposite of liberal? When politics is conservative, right? Huh? But another opposite of liberal is servile, right? Huh?

[55:37] And then another example opposite of liberal is stingy, stingy, yeah. So liberal's got at least three different meanings there, right? Because there's there's three different opposites, right, for it. So that's a very important rule.

[55:54] But Thomas is since using that, right? When he's talking about the word true in Scripture, there, huh? That in the commentary on John. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, things in there, you know. Yeah, I read. Why everything got stopped? That's another story. But it's yeah, there's just so much you have to go back. Yeah, yeah.

[56:22] Thomas says somewhere he never does. He doesn't really fully unfold the words of of Christ. Okay. So we're down to the first objection. Yeah, we take the second objection now, right? Okay. First one that takes to Augustine. Maura, that seems second objection. That seems to come under merit that God just gives back to someone for some service that he has made, right? But God sometimes recompenses right men for the service made to him with some temporal goods So.

[57:13] he said in is said in Exodus one, and because the what? Yeah, feared God, he built for them what Houses, huh? Whence the gloss of Gregory, huh? Now he's a pretty important guy, I guess. That Gregory, Moralia. That it's of the benignity of God, right? That toward the reward of their kindness Yeah,

[57:42] Was it to be what paid in eternal life, huh? But for the guilt of what, Life. Life. They did to save the babies, I think. Yeah, they received a temporal recompense. Okay, in Ezekiel twenty nine it said that the king of Babylon, Babylon served what? Served By a great serenity against Tyre. And a reward was not rendered to it. And afterwards there was a mercy for, I mean, reward for the army, and he gave them land of Egypt for which they.

[58:28] Therefore, temporal goods do come under merit. The second should be said that those paybacks are said to be divinely made, according to a comparison to the divine what motion, Not however, according to respect to the malice of the what will, and especially as regards the king of Babylon, who did what Not as it were, wishing to serve God, right, huh? But rather that he might what serve dominion over it.

[59:20] Similarly, the nurses is it The midwives. midwives, although they had a good will as regards the liberation of the boys. Nevertheless, their will was not correct as far as the

[59:38] lie that they what. Yeah, yeah, okay. An odd reply, huh? We'll see if we can get the body of the article. We'll see what that is.

[1:00:15] Moreover, just as good has itself to merit, so evil to demerit. Upon account of the demerit of sins, some are punished by God by temporal punishments. That he or his father, you know, they was born blind, isn't it?

[1:00:31] Okay, just to care about the sodomites, huh? Therefore, temporal goods come under merit. Right. To third, should be said that temporal evils are inflicted in punishment for the impious, in so far as that through them they are not aided for the achievement of eternal life, but to the just, who are aided, what, through these evils, they are not punishments, but more medicines, as has been said above.

[1:01:17] Okay. But against, oh, third objection. But just as a good has itself to merit, so bad to demerit. Oh, okay. I said contra, rather. Excuse me. That's why he replies to that. But against this is that those things. Which come under merit, do not have themselves in the same way to all, but temporal goods, and have themselves similarly likewise or likewise fashion to the good and to bad according to what Ecclesiastes nine.

[1:01:53] Universa equi. all things equally come to the just and the impious, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, the one and the one condemning sacrifices. Therefore, temporal goods do not come under merit.

[1:02:14] To the fourth, it should be said that all things equally come to the good and the bad as regards the substance of good or of temporal goods or evils, but not as regards the what end, because the good through things of this sort are led by the hand. manu ductio that was Monsignor always talking about manu ductio to the beatitude, but not the bad. And hic de moralibus in communi dicta sufficienter the Prima Secundae right is in communi, but in the secunda secunda you do it in particular, right?

[1:02:51] Let's look at the by the article now. I answer it should be said that that which comes under merit is a what reward or merit that has the notion of some good, right? Now, the good of man is twofold: one simpliciter and the other secundum quid. Now, simpliciter, the good of man is his last end, according to that of Psalm seventy-two. For me to adhere to God is good,

[1:03:35] and consequently all those things which are ordered as leading to this end, right? And such things simpliciter come under what merit? But the good secundum quid and non simpliciter of man is what is good for him as now, right? Or what is to him in some way, secundum aliquid, good, right? And these do not come under merit simply, but some way.

[1:04:10] According to this, therefore, it should be said that if temporal goods are considered in so far as they are useful to the works of what by which we are led to eternal life, according to this they directly in simpliciter come under what merit? Just as the growth of grace in all things by which man is ordered to what arriving beatitude after the first grace.

[1:04:41] For to such an extent does God give to just men of the goods of time, and even also of evils, as is expedient for them, right? For arriving to yeah. So Paul had something he was complaining about, didn't he? Yeah, which is keeping him from being swollen from the revelations, the greatness of the revelations. And insofar as they are simpler, what? And in this respect, right? They are simply what?

[1:05:14] Simpliciter good these temporal things, right? Once it is said in Psalm 33 that those what fearing God are not what. They're good. they're not deprived. I guess you say.

[1:05:33] And in Psalm thirty six I do not see a just man. That sounds like the guy talking to Job. But if one considers these temporal goods as such, thus they are not simpliciter the goods of man, but secundum quid, eh? And thus they do not come simpliciter under merit, but secundum quid. Insofar as men are moved by God to doing some things, what? Temporally in which he is what?

[1:06:12] Its goal is attaining. Yeah, God favoring. That just its eternal life is simply the reward of the works of justice in relation to the divine motion. So the temporal goods, considered themselves, have the ratio of a reward, respect being had to the divine motion, by which the wills of men are moved to pursuing these things. Although sometimes in these things men do not have a right, but intention.

[1:06:49] So work hard, you get ahead, right? So both the goods the good is simpliciter and secundum quid, and the merit is. Yeah, I guess so.

[1:07:09] Yeah. So what reward do you get for finishing this one? Haec de moralibus in communi dicta. You get common knowledge of morality, not particular knowledge.

[1:07:31] A little break now. Yeah.