Secunda Secundae
2. II-II, Q.1, Articles 1–2: is the object of faith the First Truth, and is it simple or complex (a statement)?
Class of 2017-09-21
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/12-secunda-secundae/002-ii-ii-q-1-articles-1-2-is-the-object-of-faith-the-first-truth/

[0:00] To the first, therefore, one proceeds thus. It seems that the object of faith is not the first truth, right? That's kind of funny, you know. A guy who wasn't used to this thing would say Thomas always begins by arguing against what he thinks, and then he changes his mind and says what he thinks, and so on. But this is the way he what?

[0:28] Get your mind to really think about the thing, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. For that would seem to be the object of faith that is proposed to us for believing, right? But not only are there proposed to us to believe the things which pertain to the what divinity, which is the first truth, right? But also those things which pertain to the humanity of Christ, huh? And the sacraments of the what church, and even the condition of creatures, right?

[1:08] Huh? You've got an immortal soul or something, right? Therefore, not only is the first truth the object of faith. Well, that convinces a dummy like me, you know. I don't see any way out of that, do you? No, no, it's you know.

[1:31] Second objection. Moreover, faith and infidelity, or lack of faith, are about the same thing, right? Since they're opposites, huh? But about all the things which are in sacred scripture or contained in sacred scripture, there can be what lack of faith, right? Infidelity.

[1:54] For whatever of these things a man denies, he's he's regarded as what unfaithful. Unbeliever. Therefore, also faith is about all those things which are contained in sacred scripture, right? But there are many things that are contained about men and about other what created things, huh? Who was the father of so and so, and who was the son, and who was a husband, and who was the wife, and all that sort of stuff, right?

[2:22] Huh? Okay. Therefore, the object of faith is not only the first truth, but also created truth, huh? Who was Solomon the son of? I deny that. Unbelievable. Yeah. Yeah, but they're not the first truth. They're David and Solomon, are they? No.

[2:54] Now another very impressive argument. Moreover, faith is divided against what charity in the distinction of the theological virtues. But by charity, we not only right love God, who is the summa bonitas, but also we love our what neighbor.

[3:17] Therefore, the object of faith is not only the first truth, right? Just like the object of what of. Charity is not just the what, summa bonitas, which is God, right?

[3:34] Okay. You know, in in both summas, you know, he takes up the goodness of God. The first chapter or the first article is that God is good, right? And then the second chapter article would be that God is not just good, but He's goodness itself.

[3:54] And then the third one is that can't be anything bad in Him, right? And then the last one is that He's the summum bonum, right? Okay. So to say God is the summum bonum seems to be in the order of good, like saying God is the first what truth is in the order of truth, right? So if I'm supposed to love not only God but my neighbor, right?

[4:27] Well, then I believe not only the first truth, right, but also truth about David and Solomon and so on, right? I'm convinced this stuff here. I mean, I don't see any way out of this, right? I'm tied up, and Aristotle, you know, spoke of these objections as tying the mind up, right? And can't go forward until it what unties the knot, huh? You've got to see the knot first.

[4:58] Hmm? You've got to see the knot first. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You have to examine the knot. Of course, you can untie it, right? Even then, it's hard to untie it, huh? Okay. So why is Thomas making things so difficult for us, huh? So you'll have to make more effort in our part, huh? Mm-hmm. Okay.

[5:23] when I was first teaching college out in St. Mary's College in California, there, remember, was one class in particular where almost every day this guy would come in and an objection, right? What was saying? Yeah, because I'd heard all these objections, you know, my readings and so on, and so I'd untie his objection and so on. Well, anyway, and the class was over one day he's talking to me and he said, you know, I come to class and you know I say I got him today.

[5:54] He'll never be able to answer this, you know. But he was convinced he was he couldn't get me, you know, huh? Yeah. But it was beautiful to see him because I knew, you know, how to untie the objection, you know, and he was, he was, you know, he was like this, you know, when he posed the objection, you know, and then as he saw me untying it, he would, you know, he would just, you know, go back in his seat, you know, relax, you know.

[6:20] He's a beautiful student, right, huh? You know. Thomas's fellow students called him the what, Dumb Ox right huh You know it was the title that the great Chesterton took for his little biography of Thomas, the Dumb Ox huh. And one day, the teacher of Thomas there, Albert the Great, arranged to have a debate between himself and Thomas, right? And Thomas, of course, won. And then he turned to the other students and said,

[6:57] "I tell you that his bellow will be heard around the world." Good example. It's just have to admire in a teacher though that if he has a student who's better than him, right? That he doesn't resent it, or you know, at the end of his life, Albert the Great lived to you know, good good old age and. Thomas, died, you know, young, forty nine, the age when the mind is best, as Aristotle said, forty nine.

[7:36] God took him when his mind was at its best. So Albert goes down to Paris to defend the teaching of Thomas at the end of his life. You know, it's kind of marvelous, though, right? There is a story told about Plato coming into the Academy, the Greek school after which academic world is named. That's an amazing thing. Academic world is named from the school of Plato, the most famous school in the world, right?

[8:01] Came in. There is nobody there but Aristotle. Says no matter. He says he's a whole school by himself. Some people think in some of the late dialogues of Plato, his influence already was applied to Aristotle's objections, right?

[8:22] Okay. Now, who is this Dionysius that he's quoting here in the Sed contra? right? He's using because a very short Sed contra. right? Usually, have some authority, maybe from Augustine or something. But here it's from Dionysius, who wrote the book on the what? Divine names, right? In the book on the celestial hierarchy, right? And Thomas wrote a commentary on the divine names, and Albert the Great on the celestial hierarchy, right?

[8:54] So Dionysius was a what? The Areopagite. Yeah, yeah. That Saint Paul had met Athens. Yeah, very famous, huh? Very famous, very great, great, great mind. And what does he say? He says that faith is about a simple and always existing truth, right? That's the first truth, right? Well, you are going to go against Dionysius, right? Maybe there is something wrong. Even the demonic we can't see anything wrong with those objections.

[9:27] Maybe there is something wrong with them, right? So what does Thomas say? I answer. It should be said that the object of any what knowing habit has what? Yeah, the object has that which is known in a material way, right? Huh? Which is is the material object, and that to which it is known, which is the formal ratio of the object. What the hell does that mean?

[10:08] When I see you, what do I really see? Color, yeah. I don't know you. I don't see your substance, really, do I? Do I see the inner man? No.

[10:29] Even your shape, I know through color, right? Yeah, I can see you guys are alive, right? So on. But it's through color that I know this. If I know it.

[10:44] Get a little bit water here. Now you placing one of my medicines in it here, or ordering it again? I mean I should say, there's a little thing that says this may affect your throat. This medicine. I don't know, but affecting my throat or not.

[11:18] Okay. And that through which it is known, which is the formal reason of the object, right? Okay. Just as in the science of geometry, what is known materially are the what conclusions, right? But the formal reason of knowing are the what middle terms of the demonstration, through which the conclusion are what is known, right? Huh?

[11:58] Thus, therefore, in faith, if we consider the formal reason of the object, is nothing other than the what. The first truth. Yeah. For do not, for faith does not what about which we are speaking, does not assent to something, except because it is revealed by what. God. Whence it rests upon the what divine truth as a what medium, right, whereby all the things are what known, right?

[12:32] Thus, therefore, in faith, if we consider the formal reason of the object, it is nothing other than the what first truth, huh? For faith, about which we are speaking, assents does not assent to something, or assents to something, does not assent to it, except because it is revealed by God, right? Whence it rests upon the this truth, right, as its middle, as the middle that shows these things.

[13:10] If therefore we consider materially those things to which faith assents, it is not only God himself, but many what other things. Which nevertheless do not come under the assent of faith, except according as they have some order to what God, huh?

[13:32] That through somewhat effects of divinity, man is aided to tending in divine what enjoyment. Enjoyment, huh? And therefore, also on the part of the object of faith, is it in is in a way the first truth, in so far as nothing comes under faith except in relation to what God. Just as the object of medicine is said to be health, right? Because medicine considers nothing except in relation to what health.

[14:10] Yeah, yeah. There's kind of a double reason there why you could say the first truth is the object of faith, right? Huh? We ascend to what are we ascend to by faith in the light of the what first truth? And we what know all things in comparison in relation to the first truth, huh? Which is God Himself, huh? Okay.

[14:39] So you are made in the image and likeness of God, right? Aristotle doesn't say that, you know, but you're being what compared to God, right? Huh? Related to God, right? Huh? So in that way too, the first truth, right, is what unites all the things, right? Okay. So that would be an object of faith in relation to the first truth. Yeah, yeah. Like the Virgin Birth would be in relation to God as well.

[15:05] Yeah, yeah. She's the Mother of God, right? Yeah. That's heretical not to do say she's the Mother of Jesus, but not of God, right? Yeah. So you have to go all the way to God, right? Huh? See.

[15:24] And my end is eternal life, which is God too, right? Huh? He is eternal life, Remember? that, yeah. Yeah. So both the light by which I ascend to these things, and the way I consider these things in comparison to God, right?

[15:43] You know, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, which is a little shorter than the Summa Theologiae, Thomas considers God by Himself, and then he considers God as the beginning of things, right? And then he considers God as the end of things. So everything is considered in comparison to what God, right?

[16:06] He does that twice, right? Insofar as it's going to be known by natural reason as well as by faith, and insofar as it's going to be known only by faith.

[16:16] So he talks about God in Himself, and then God is the, as he said, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, right? So the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles is about God in Himself. Second, about God as the beginning of things, making things and moving them. And then God being the end, right? Having providence over things.

[16:42] So, now let's see how he answers the objections. To the first, therefore, it should be said that those things which pertain to the humanity of Christ and to the sacraments of the Church, or to any creatures, they count, they fall under, they come under faith, in so far as through these we are ordered to what God,

[17:12] and we also, it's the second thing, we ascend to them on account of the divine what truth. Why is the Bible called the Bible? Because it's a collection of books. Well, the word "biblias" in Greek just means book, right? So the Bible means the book. What way of speaking is that? Antonomasia. Yeah, Antonomasia. That's the Greek name for it, right? You take a name that's common to many, and you give it what?

[17:55] To one that stands out. So among all the books there are, the Bible is said to be the book. Why? Because it's the word of God Himself, right?

[18:09] Okay. Now another way of saying that is to say it's the book of books, right? But to say it's the book is to say it by

[18:22] Antonomasia. Gospels are named by Antonomasia. The gospel just means good news, right? But this is the the best news, right? We could have, right?

[18:35] Christ is named by Antonomasia. Not only is Christ anointed, right, but many other people anointed, right. But among all those who are anointed, he stands out, right? So he's called the Anointed.

[18:54] But the Greeks use this figure of speech. Aristotle, in his book on the poetic art, he calls Homer the poet, right? And for us, the poet is who? Shakespeare. Yeah. So I was reading the Federalist Papers one time. They're talking about the importance of staying together, the colonies, and so on, right? If we don't, we'll be squabbling with each other and, you know, fighting about the margins of our states, all sort of stuff.

[19:26] And so he says, if we don't, he says, in the words of the poet, "A long farewell to all my greatness." Beautiful words. Didn't say who the poet is, but any fool would know it's Shakespeare, right? Henry the Eighth, right?

[19:46] Which is as the poet says, is the book. The Bible, right? The book. Okay. And similarly, it should be said about the second thing, about all those things which in sacred scripture are treated, right? It's always in respect to what? To God, right? Okay.

[20:24] Now what's the name of this thing I was reading earlier You mentioned it was Verbum Dei, right? Okay. Now, translated into our native language here, it means "Word of God," right?

[20:42] Now, "Word of God" is an amphiboly. It's the Greek word for that. What's an amphiboly? Well, it's speech that has more than one what meaning, right? Now, I like this amphiboly of "Word of God" because the Word of God, in one sense, is about the Word of God, in another sense.

[21:14] The Bible is most of all about what? The Christ. Yeah, the Word of God, as John calls him, right? And he tells us the Word of God became, was made flesh, right? Became man, right? So the Word of God can also mean the Bible too. But it will point out in this Verbum Dei, you know, the Bible is mainly about the Word of God made flesh, right?

[21:44] And that's why they say that even among the books of New Testament, the Gospels have preeminence, right? Because they're chief witness to the words and the deeds of the Word of God made flesh, right? But even the Old Testament, you're looking, you know, for the prophecies and the things that preparing the way for the Word of God to become man, right? So the Bible, the Word of God, in the sense of the Bible, is chiefly about the Word of God.

[22:15] In the other sense, right? Okay. That's interesting. That amphiboly, right? Equivocation is when a word has more than one meaning, right? But amphiboly is the Greek word, huh? Where a speech like "Word of God," huh? Number of words has more than one meaning, right? And when there's a connection between the two, it's kind of beautiful to see that, huh? You know, the Vatican too is very interesting.

[22:47] The way it says, you know, that just as the Son of God becomes man, right? So the Word of God, meaning many things, takes on human language, right, and becomes human too. It's a beautiful analogy between the two, right? Two senses in which the Word of God becomes flesh. Okay. God adapts himself into our way of speaking, huh?

[23:22] It's beautiful. Beautiful to see that, huh? I've taught for years, you know, at Assumption College. there, the philosophy of nature, right? But then I saw Shakespeare calling the word the philosophy of nature, the wisdom of nature. Says, well, that's very good, right? The wisdom about nature, but the wisdom about nature is the wisdom about the wisdom that nature reveals and what it does. So the wisdom of nature, in one sense, is about the wisdom of nature.

[23:58] In another sense, just like the word of God, in one sense, is about the word of God. It's beautiful to see that connection, right? And our mind is, gravity is a sort of word, right? Say two things with one word, or two things with one few words, right? Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

[24:23] What about the third objection, which is a little different, huh? You know, charity is not only the love of God, it seems, but the love of your neighbor, right? Well, then, you know,

[24:38] to say that faith is about the first truth is like saying that well, charity is about the love of God, and you're leaving out the love of man, and you're we anybody who says he loves God and doesn't love man is in trouble, to say the least. Yeah, liar.

[25:01] We says to the third, it should be said that also charity loves the neighbor on account of what? God, huh? And thus the object of charity properly is God Himself, right, huh? Okay. So sometimes they say we we love what our neighbor in God, right, huh? Okay.

[25:31] And so he he corrects, you know, the objection, right? Okay. Now you're untied, huh? We can go on to the second article. He's going to tie us up again. He he's going to tie us up ten times in this in this question. I mean, you know, and he's going to, you know, and he has usually has about you know in the Summa Theologiae he has about three what Objections.

[25:57] objections, right? If you go to the Quaestiones Disputatae, you might have ten or twelve objections, right? So I mean, you got really really really tied up, huh? We'll do that in

[26:13] return. To the second, then one proceeds thus: It seems that the object of faith is not something what complex by way of something what enunciabilis, something able to be stated, right? In a statement, right?

[26:41] Sometimes you know they'll say that Aristotle's second book in Logic, the Peri Hermeneias, is about the what proposition, right? And actually, proposition originally meant something like premise, Because it's pro-pono, right? the place before, right? So I like to say it's about a what statement, right? So is the object of faith something stated, right?

[27:08] Well, the first objection says the object of faith is the first truth, but the first truth is something what Incomplexum. In complexum. The first truth is God, and and God is what not composed in any way, right? If you read the question on the simplicity of God, right, Thomas has eight articles, right?

[27:40] And the first six articles show that he's not composed in this way or this way or this way or this way this way. In fact, he exhausts all the ways that the creatures are composed, and then the seventh article he says what in no way can he be composed. And the first argument is inductive, right? From the fact he's eliminated all the ways, right? But then he gives syllogisms, you know, for three, three, four more syllogisms, right?

[28:11] So how can faith be something what? It's a statement, right? How can you believe a statement when your object is the first truth, and the first truth is not composed? But a statement is composed of subject and predicate, noun and verb, as Aristotle said.

[28:34] That convinces this dummy here, you know. We were talking to this guy, and he says, "I always believe the last guy I talked to." He says,

[28:49] "I always believe the last objection I heard." Right? I'm in sad shape if you do that in that shape. But yeah, yeah, yeah. The stability of a wind sock. Who's the famous Frenchman now? No, the writer. Voltaire, right? Oh, Voltaire. They say Voltaire. You know, we look at objections. Then when he met these Catholics, he would he would pop these out of his head, right? And of course they couldn't answer them, right?

[29:21] So, you know, he had a lot of fun. He had a lot of fun with these things, right? I guess there was one attacker. The church said, "You know, get rid of Thomas. We could we could really get rid of the church, you know." This is exaggeration, you know. But it's it's one of the popes quoted this, you know. But this is you know that that's not true.

[29:41] You couldn't get rid of the church. You get rid of Thomas, but but it's a great testimony to the excellence of Thomas, right? That he said, you know, thought he could.

[29:53] Okay. Moreover, in the exposition of faith in the symbol, in, the creed is contained the creed, but in the symbol though, is not laid down what enunciable things, but things, right? For it's not said, I believe that God is omnipotent, but I believe in God, the Almighty. Huh? Believe in God, the Father Almighty. Okay. Well, that's not a form grammatically at least of a statement, is it?

[30:25] Therefore, the object of faith is not something to be stated, but it's a thing, huh? Moreover, to faith succeeds what vision, according to that of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter thirteen, verse twelve. We see now through a what mirror, in a what darkness, enigma, right? But then, face to face, right? So there's two ways that they speak of the vision of God, right? And one is in St.

[31:02] John's right epistle, right, where he says that we know when he appears, we shall be like him. That's antonomasia saying, because we're like him already, right? We're made the image and likeness of God, and then by grace we even more like him. But now St. John says, right, that we know when he appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is,

[31:30] as if we weren't like him before, right? But he's saying, you know, then we'll be like him, right, by antonomasia, because God knows himself, right, through himself, right, and you can only see God as he is if God joins himself to your mind as that by which you see him as he is.

[31:56] So we know when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. But this other way of saying it, we shall see him face to face, right, is is kind of a metaphorical way, right, of saying the same thing, huh?

[32:14] Like they said about Moses, right? They talk to God, like talk to your friend. It's kind of a marvelous thing. So we see now through a mirror, right? In kind of enigma, right?

[32:35] Something that's not clear, right? But then face to face, right? But the vision of the fatherland, right, patria, is about the incomplex, right? Because God is altogether simple, since it's of the divine essence itself, right?

[32:57] Now the second thinking about God, and when Thomas thinks about God in the two Sumas, he first thinks about whether God exists, right? And that's when he thinks out the reasons of God, right? And then he thinks about the what usually calls it the substance of God, right? That God is simple and he's

[33:24] not changing and so on, right? Now, there's five things he says about God, right? Now, he's simple and perfect. He's infinite and what one, right? Those four things, and then that he's without any motion or change, right?

[33:43] And but he calls that the consideration of the substance of God. Then he goes on in the third thing to consider what God does, right? Both the doing that remains in him and the doing that extends to us, making and moving us. And then those three things about God we share with Aristotle too. He did those three things. And then the fourth thing is to think about the Trinity, right?

[34:11] Which only we we believers really think about. And then the fifth thing is to think about the Word of God, a member of the Trinity, He made flesh, right? And all that follows from that, right? You know, but in that order he has those five things, right? Okay. Here he uses the term essence, right? Now, but usually he calls it the substance of God,

[34:38] right? So at the end of the third objection, he says, "But the vision of the fatherland, huh, is of the incomplex, right? Now, since it is of the divine essence itself, huh, the divine nature itself, right, the divine substance itself. Okay. Therefore, also the faith of the of the way, right? We're on the road right now.

[35:22] But against this, and this is objection now, to make one, you know, begin to think twice about what the objections have concluded. Faith is in the middle between what knowledge and opinion. But the middle and extremes are of the same what genus.

[35:44] Since therefore science and opinion are about things that are able to be stated, right, enunciabilia. It seems likewise that faith is about things that can be what stated, right.

[35:58] Mary is assumed into heaven. It's a statement, isn't it? And that's the object of faith, since faith is about things that are stateable. Is something what complex? Well, now feel the the the bounds around you. you know that you really can't move. You know,

[36:32] it's interesting. Aristotle, you know, spoke also when he's writing the famous book on on tragedy and comedy, and he says that two things is about the plot, huh? That Homer realized the plot should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, right? And then he defines that. Then later on, he says the plot has two parts, huh? Tying the knots and then untying them, right, huh?

[37:05] And Shakespeare has one character says, "Oh, tying them must untangle. It's not I. It is too hard a knot for me to untie." We have a hard time untying all these knots, huh?

[37:21] It makes us think more deeply about these things, huh? Appreciate something you work for more, huh? But what you've overcome, right, huh? Now I answer, Thomas says, that things known are in the knower, in the way of the what knower, and that comes down to the more general proposition that things are in something, but in the receiver, right, in the manner of the receiver. But it is its own way of the human understanding, right?

[37:58] The human mind's own way of of knowing truth, huh? That does this by putting together and dividing, right, by making an affirmative or a what negative statement, right, huh? So I say a square is a what quadrilateral,

[38:18] or a square is not a circle, right, huh? That's my way of knowing truth, right? Yeah. What? About squares and circles and all kinds. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. God is what simple, right? God is perfect, right? God is good. God is goodness itself. There's nothing bad in God. And then in the summa caritatis, God is the good of every good. Marvelous, right? But they're all statements, aren't they, right?

[38:54] Either affirmative or negative, huh? So he said, componendo, right, putting together an affirmative statement, or dividendo, separating them in a negative statement, right? Okay, that's the way he's using those words.

[39:13] Now God doesn't believe, huh? An unbeliever. Yeah, he's an unbeliever. Yeah, sounds strange, right? He loves; he's love itself, right? But he's not a believer. And he has no hope. And he has no hope.

[39:36] And therefore, those things which, in themselves, right, are simple, right, are understanding knows in a certain what complex way, right? Now, speaking of that, huh? They said that you know we show that God is simple, right? And in the form of statements, right? He's not composed in this way or in the other way, right? Okay. And this is just the reverse of the way God knows, huh?

[40:10] As the divine understanding knows what in a simple way, in an uncomplex way, those things which are in themselves, huh, complex, huh? Okay. You know, when Thomas talks about the the angels, huh?

[40:35] As you go up, you know, from the lowest order of angels, which our guardian angels belong to, right, to the archangels and all the way up, you know, the three hierarchies, the angels get what

[40:50] simpler and more perfect as you go up. See, which is not true about material substances. A tree is more perfect than a what stone, but a stone is simpler than a tree. And a dog or a cat is superior to is better, more perfect than a what tree, but it's more complicated. And a man's even more complicated and more perfect than the what? Yeah, but the angels are just the reverse.

[41:23] As you go up in the angels, they get simpler and more perfect at the same time. And so finally, as you approach God, you say, "I bet, yeah, he's completely simple and universally what perfect, huh? Kind of amazing thing, right? So God knows simple, I mean, complex things in a simple way, and we know simple ways, simple things in a complex way. Huh? What a messed up thing we are, right?

[41:54] And the more German you are, the more complex it is. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So he's contrasting us with God, right? And therefore, those things which are in themselves simple, right? The human understanding knows, according to a certain what, complex way, right? Just as a converso, the opposite way, the divine understanding knows in a simple way, right, in in an incomplex way. Those things which in themselves are what, yeah.

[42:38] God knows everything by knowing what Himself. He's entirely simple. So he knows all complex things, and every creature is composed in more ways than one, right? He knows all these composed things in a completely simple way. I read just the reverse, and we got to know a simple thing in a composed way.

[43:06] Thus, therefore, the object of faith can be considered in two ways. In one way, on the side of the thing believed, right? And thus, the object of faith is something simple, uncomposed, incomplexum, right? Just as the thing about which faith is had. In another way, on the side of the one believing himself, right? And according to this, the object of faith is something complex, by way of something enunciable, right?

[43:41] But? I would say, stateable, right? You can put into a statement. So as Thomas goes through studying God in theology, right? It's statements about God that we're making all the time about God. God is simple. That's a statement, right? God is not composed in this way. God is not. He's not composed as a body. He's not composed of matter in what form. He's. There's no distinction God between the individual and the kind of thing it is.

[44:14] But thus there is, right? Thomas says, you know, if Socrates was a man, for the same reason he's Socrates, he'd be the only man there is.

[44:28] I'm Duane. I'm also a man. If I was a man for the same reason I'm Duane, I'd be the only man around. That's where the angels are. Each angel, right, is the only one of its kind.

[44:48] My first grade teacher there at Asserick, there an undergraduate, huh? He said, God hates equality. No two angels are equal in their nature. That raises a problem, you know. Sometimes Thomas talks about they. They say you know, kind of hard for us to understand the love of the angels, right? Because we love our own what? Kind right, you see, and we can love our own kind more than somebody's not our own kind, right?

[45:25] And what did the angels love each other as much as we love each other? Well, Thomas points out that the angels are very intellectual, right? And the more intellectual you are, the more you love the what common good, and the common good is what caused more by distinction of kinds of things than by many individuals of the same kind. And therefore, the angels, because they love the common good so much, they love each other more because they are not what equal, right?

[46:03] But they're different kinds of things, right? A marvelous thing, right? You know? But the senses, love only the what private good, right? Don't love the common good.

[46:25] Truth is very much a common good, huh? Okay. So, so he sees a distinction, right? Now Thomas is always seeing distinction that we don't, but see, right?

[46:47] This one guy studied with the Dominicans, you know. He had this kind of way of saying. He says, he says, never affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish.

[46:59] Well, you can you can affirm and deny after you distinguish, but but make sure you better do that first, right? See a distinction, huh?

[47:09] So is the object of faith something simple or composed, right? Well, if you consider on the part of the thing that we believe in, right, it's altogether what simple God. But if you consider it on the part of the what believer, it's something what composed, right? We have to, you know, try to grasp God by what statements, right, that we can prove to be what true, right?

[47:35] So Thomas he takes up the substance of God. He what shows that God is what simple, or God is not composed, right? And then he shows that God is perfect and therefore good, right? And then he shows that God is what infinite, right? And God is one, right? And then the other thing he shows is that God is in no way what changeable, right? In no way moved, huh?

[48:07] And so these are all statements, right? So that's what you have to do to know this simple thing. We have to know them in a what composed way, right?

[48:20] But if it's in the case of the angels, they would know them in a simple way. Yeah, but not, but their natural knowledge of God would not be as simple as God's knowledge of Himself, right? And you know,

[48:36] as you mentioned before, God by knowing Himself knows all other things, right? Now the angels know primarily themselves, right? But knowing themselves, they don't know anything else. So they have to have more what thoughts, you might say, more understandable forms besides their their own substance, right? But as you go down in the order of angels, they require more of these what thoughts, right? They don't understand as well by those many more thoughts as the higher angels understand by fewer thoughts.

[49:11] So they're approaching God, right? huh? But? They still have a multiplicity of what of thoughts, right? Huh? And so the the knowledge is not as simple as God, right? It's certainly not as messed up as ours is, you know. As composed as our knowledge is, right now. You see, when an angel understands what a triangle is, he sees every property that belongs to a triangle, right? But I know what a triangle is, and I got to go through a whole demonstration that the triangle has its interior angles, two right angles, right, and so on, you know.

[49:48] So I don't see in knowing what a triangle is everything that belongs to a triangle. I got to go through no step here, you know, or steps. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's why you know when Shakespeare defines reason is ability for a large discourse, looking before and after. well, discourse you know means going one thing to another, right? So you got to go from one thing to another, right?

[50:12] But the angels know without eating discourse, In A fortiori, God doesn't make it discourse. you know, it's your dummies, right? You know? It's a joke about that. my teacher, there in the graduate concert there you know, where, she says we're all bastards, you know.

[50:34] Kind of mixed up, you know, half half spiritual, half bodily, right? Huh? You know, and we're just kind of a odd combination there, you know, of things. Okay.

[50:51] You know, you know the some of the Greek thinkers thought that the soul of a dog could go into a man, or the soul of a man to dog, and they say that there was a Pythagoras, you know, was saying, "Don't let that dog recognize my friend," you know, the soul of the dog. Well, of course Aristotle shows the impossibility of that, right now. But along the same lines, Aristotle shows that Thomas says that the same thing is true even about the soul of my body and the soul of your body, right?

[51:24] The soul of your body couldn't be the soul of my body, and vice versa, right? That my soul fits my body, right? Huh? Knowing my body, right? You know, so your mother and father what begin your body, right? Huh? And then God creates your immortal soul to fit that body, right? Huh? And so you didn't get your your immortal soul from from your mother and father, but you got the beginning of this body that God made a soul that what fits that body in particular.

[51:58] So unless your mother and father had prepared your body or begun your body, God would never have created your immortal soul, right? So you're very much indebted to your parents, not as much as obviously to God, but you know, but they had done that for you, right? You know. That's kind of a marvelous thing to see right now. To see, you know, the way what do you say, two to get married was the expression that they use, you know.

[52:21] But I mean, you can see the way that we work together with God there, right? You can see the husband and wife, there, again, a body, and then God creates a mortal, soul that fits just that body, right now. So you and I get back somebody else's body, you know, at the end. Oops. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's consoling to know

[52:51] some some Slavs' body or something. Marvelous, huh? Aristotle, by the way, knew that that the human soul didn't come from the mother and father. He says, especially in the parts in the generation of animals, yeah, it's a marvelous thing that he saw that.

[53:18] But why the the soul of a dog or a cat comes from its parents, as well as its body, huh? And therefore, he says both of these things were opined among the what ancients, huh? And

[53:47] and according to something, both are true, right now. Okay. You are believing something about something that is simple, but you are believing it in a kind of what complex way, right?

[54:02] In the medieval, they get references to crazy things here, but in the Marietti there, you know, the different opinions. But anyway, okay. Time for another article or not? Do they reject and reply? Do they reply? Okay, very good, sir. You used. I forgot you were still tied up. Please, help me, help me. Well, I don't know if I can help you. but I think Thomas can. huh?

[54:40] So, to the first objection, should be said that that argument right proceeds about the object on the part of the thing believed, right? Not on the part of the way we we believe it, right? Okay.

[54:57] Now, what about the the symbol of faith? To the second, it should be said that in the symbolo, which we call the creed, right, huh? The thing thrown together are touched upon those things about which is faith, in so far as to those things is what terminated the act of believing. As from the very way of speaking appears, for the act of the one believing does not stop at the what, is statable, but it goes all the way to the thing, right?

[55:32] For we do not form statements, things that are enunciable, except that through them we might have knowledge about what things. And this is true both in in science, so also in what, faith, huh? So I don't form a a what, complex statement, a statement that is complex, right? To say that God is complex, but to know that He's what, simple, so much as I can know it, right?

[56:05] In this life, huh? Have to know it by negation, right? That He's not composed, right? Not a body Yeah Then I realize that. I'm, I'm, doing in a complex way, right? What is not complex. And it's not false okay Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's an amazing thing, right? So, go on to article three, or we can. third objection. Third reply. Okay. He's still got a he's still got a few ropes around him.

[56:41] You see. Okay. Now, to the third, when you see God face to face, now we see Him as He is. That the vision of the fatherland, right? Patriae, right? Means fatherland. Will be of the first truth, according as it is in itself, right? Huh?

[57:08] According to that, I always like the fact that it's one three two, right? You know, you get those one three two. I can remember what that thing is, right? First chapter, the. First first epistle, rather, third chapter, the second verse, right? When He appears, we will be like Him, right? And we will see Him as He is. Okay. Now, if someone you know was going to make an objection from this quote and say, "Well, then before we see Him as He is, we're not like Him."

[57:45] What would you say to that objection that I'm making as a sophist? Let us create. Let us create man in according to our image. Yeah, yeah. We're already like Him, you know. So how can He say we'll be like Him when we see Him as He is? He's speaking, it seems to me, by what? Antonomasia. So there's more than one way, right? Yeah, yeah. Then we'll be most like Him, right?

[58:08] Huh? When we see Him as He is, right? And we'll know Him in a sense, in the way that God knows Himself, huh? Because God will be joined to our mind, as that by which we see Him as He is. You know. And that's the way God knows Himself, right? So we'll be most like Him, you know. So by antonomasia, we will be like Him, right? Huh?

[58:30] Not that we weren't like Him, you know, by being made in His image and likeness, and maybe more so by, you know, by grace, right? We'll be most like Him, right? So you got to know that Antonomasia, right? Huh? You know. But that that runs through these things, right? The Bible, the Gospels, Christ Himself is named Christ by Antonomasia. Yeah, but then then we'll be like Him, you know.

[58:59] Yeah. And that vision will not be by way of what? Something statable, right? Huh? But by way of a simple what? Understanding, right? Now the light of glory is what makes your your reason able to receive God. Is that by which you see Him as He is. It doesn't enlighten, illumine God, right? The light of glory is not a light in that sense.

[59:26] But through faith we do not grasp the first truth as it is in itself, right? Whence it's not a similar reason, right? Confusing two different things, right? Okay. So next time we'll start on Article Three, huh?