Secunda Secundae
3. Aquinas on Faith, Part 1: Mary's Unique Grace, Whether Anything False Can Be Believed (II-II Q.1 A.3), and Whether Faith Is About Things Seen (A.4)
Class of 2017-09-28
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/12-secunda-secundae/003-aquinas-on-faith-part-1-marys-unique-grace-whether-anything/

[0:00] Father and Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, enlighten our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you're written. Move us, God, to know and love you. Help us, God, to know and love you. Father and Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:31] On the Sunday after our last class, there you know, I know if you had the same reading, but it was from Isaiah. You know the famous one. Seek the Lord, while He may be found. Call Him while He's near. Let the scoundrel forsake his way and the wickedest thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord for mercy. To our God, who is generous and forgiving. But then these words here struck me because they fit in.

[1:02] I know if you had reading to you. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. Well, it fit exactly the point Thomas is making in the Article Two there, right? So one way in which God's thought is above ours and we're below God is pointed out by Thomas that God knows all things by knowing Himself, and He's completely simple.

[1:39] So He knows all composed things by the simple way, right? Well, we're just the reverse. We know everything in a composed way, our statements and so on, and even simple things we know in a composed way. So His thoughts are above our thoughts, and our thoughts are very low, right? And that's why we have the habit of faith being per modum enuntiabilis, even though it's basically based upon something simple, the first truth, right?

[2:12] So that comes out in the first. The first article is that God is the first what? Truth, yeah. And the first truth is completely simple. Well, then how can you be something enuntiabile? Well, you have to take into account that our ways are not His ways, that our thoughts are not His thoughts.

[2:32] He says in the body article, if you recall, in another way ex parte credentis, right? And according to this, the object of faith is something complexum. By the way, it's something what? enuntiabile something statable, right, in a proposition. Okay. So I'm going to

[2:56] bring my Bible, so this is why I get the best shorter in the Indicata. These heavy books, huh? Yeah. Some people give it to us because it's not enough for our liturgy but it's very beautiful Yeah Well it was interesting. I was reading an introductory thing by Father Father Peter J. Cameron, O. P. , and he says, "Not long ago, I happened upon the writings of the 17th century French Dominican theologian Father Louis Chardon.

[3:30] His two-volume meditation on the Lord's Passion and How the Cross of Jesus is considered a masterpiece. Father Chardon died of the plague in 1651 at the age of 56. The Cross of Jesus—that's his work—offers a profound meditation on the mystery of Our Lady's sorrows. But now it struck me this year. I just got through reading this about a week, a month ago or something, Monsignor Dion, my thesis director, Monsignor Maurice Dion, his article on the Laval theology and philosophy, that the grace of Mary is of the what hypostatic order, Hypostatic order, right?

[4:10] So it's something not just it's not that she's not that she's just what more particular grace than we are, but her grace is of a entirely different what order, right? But something like this, this guy is quoting. He says

[4:26] Chardon reflects on what makes the Blessed Virgin Mary unique and states that the singular grace of Mary—that's not just more, but of a different what order—the fruit of her immaculate conception, which is of the hypostatic order, right? Because she's the Mother of God—resulted in Mary's kinship with God. That's a really strong way of putting it. For the grace proper to the Mother of God is hers alone.

[4:55] Since Mary, the Mother of God, entered into the supernatural state in eminent way, not granted to any other creature, she constitutes an order all by herself, somewhere between God by nature and God by participation.

[5:15] Father Chardon goes so far as to claim that Mary is next to Christ, the object of our acts of religion, rather than someone we can imitate.

[5:26] That's interesting. considering when she came to Fathom and she said how God wants not only devotion to her immaculate heart, but even reparation to her macular heart. That's a really strong statement. Yeah. That's kinda wonder. Yeah. Yeah.

[5:44] I was thinking, you know, a little bit about the prayer that we have. You say Hail Mary, full of grace, right? How do we say that about any other saint? That's kind of unique to Mary, right? Yeah. It's kind of like a universal clause. He's called the mediatrix of all grace sometimes, right? But you can't be the mediatrix of grace unless you have grace in a different what order, right?

[6:12] Than the rest of us, huh? And maybe full grace is saying that, huh? He's saying in a way too, right? There's a charbon that he's quoting, right? Or my teacher, you know, grace of Mary is of hypostatic order, right? Got a and it's a beautiful thing, you know. It's got proper quotes too from the, you know, popes and so on. You know about the grace of Mary, but it's unique, huh?

[6:36] Unique. You're thinking, talk about God, you know, huh? You say, well, you know, one saint is better than another saint, huh? Because he partakes more grace than other saints, right?

[6:58] So one is better because one partakes of goodness more, right? Huh? Was God better than us because he partakes of goodness more? No, he's not partaking of goodness. He's goodness itself, right? And so God is better than us, not in the way that someone who partakes more of goodness is better than someone who partakes less of it, but because he's goodness itself, right? And we're in another order, you know, partaking of goodness, right?

[7:24] But Mary's a little like that, right? That's why she's called the mediatrix of of all grace, huh? Or she's called full of grace, uh there are graces of the hypostatic orders my teacher my senior dion said. uh charles de conic and maurice dion, my two great teachers up there, were both periti at the Second Vatican Council, you know, for the Cardinal of Quebec. In fact, de Conic died in Rome, you know.

[7:57] His wife received a letter from him that got after he died, you know, and said, "My work here is finished." He understood a little differently, you know. He's coming home, you know, but he was finished in one way. Yeah. Okay, we're up to Article Three and Question One. Now, I believe that's where we, okay.

[8:23] Yeah, we're going to tie you up right now, but you'll be untied, you know, huh? You'll be as good as Houdini or better, you know, by the time you get through with all these, the untying of these things. To the third one proceeds thus: It seems that faith can be what? Subject to something false, huh? Can you believe something false by faith? My sense is what you're asking here, right?

[8:54] Well, let's see what he says here, huh? Faith is divided against hope in what? Charity, right? But under faith, hope there can be something false, for many hope that they will obtain eternal life, right? Will not have it. Likewise about charity, for many are loved as were good, who nevertheless are not what? Good, huh? Therefore, also to faith something can be what? False, yeah.

[9:33] Moreover, Abraham believed Christ was what? To be born, according to that of John 8. Abraham, your father, rejoiced on that he might see my day, huh? But after the time of Abraham, God is able not to have become what? Flesh, for it only by his own will did he take on flesh, and therefore it could be false, right? What Abraham believed about Christ, therefore something false can be under faith.

[10:11] Yeah, convinced of that argument, huh? Carry it. Moreover, the faith of the ancients was that Christ would be born, right? And this faith survived in many until the preaching of the gospel, right? But now, when the preaching of the gospel was, Christ was already what? Born. Yeah, while they were believing that he was to be born, so they were under, you know, it's false, right? Yeah, yeah.

[10:47] If you think Duane Berquist will be born and I'm already born will be born and I'm already born, then you're thinking falsely, right, huh? If you believe, but you know, yeah. So some people who had not had the gospel preached to them yet, right, might still believe, right, that the Savior would be born. Yeah.

[11:15] Okay, but Christ already being born, right? Before he began to be approached, it was false that Christ was to be born in the future. Therefore, something false can be come under faith. You can believe something false by faith. It's kind of a hard argument. Pretty clever, huh?

[11:40] I remember I said that once to my mother of one of her sons. I said, "Your son's really smart." She said, "He's clever. He's not smart." Yeah. Moreover, one right of those pertaining to faith is that someone believes that under the sacrament of the altar, the true body of Christ is contained, right? But it can happen that when something is not correctly what consecrated, that there's not there the true body of Christ, but only bread, right?

[12:21] Therefore, under faith can come something what false. Okay. Now he had the said contra, right? And he's going back to the Nicomachean Ethics, huh? But against this, huh? No virtue perfecting the understanding has itself to the false, which is the what evil, the bad of the understanding, is as clear through the philosopher, right? It's naming Aristotle by what? antonomasia. In the sixth book of the Ethics, that's the what book of the Ethics, which is about the virtues of reason, right?

[13:06] So the virtues that perfect reason to knowing the truth, nothing false is under them, huh? But faith is a certain virtue perfecting the understanding, right? Therefore, there cannot be anything false under the under faith, huh? Okay. Now, St. Thomas replies to the question now before he replies to the objections,

[13:37] huh? I answer: It should be said that nothing is under some power or ability or some habit or some act except by reason of the what formal object, huh? As color is seen, huh, cannot be seen except through what light, huh? And the conclusion cannot be known except through the middle term of the what demonstration, right?

[14:16] Now it has been said in the first article here, huh, that the ratio formalis of the object of faith is the first truth. Whence nothing can come under faith except in so far as it stands under the formal object, which is the first truth. Under which nothing false can what here. Just as none being can come under being, right, nor malum evil under goodness, huh.

[14:54] Whence it remains that what or follows that nothing false, huh, can be what under faith, huh. Okay. It's like saying that what proper object of faith is something that's revealed by God, but that's revealed by God can be false. Therefore, okay, so there must be something wrong with these objections, right? But you're still tied up and can't go forward until you're untied, huh?

[15:29] Now what Thomas does in the first reply, right, he makes a kind of distinction between, you know, faith, course, and hope and charity, but then he kind of doesn't say that you can have hope either or charity, you know, subject to something. Yeah. The first, therefore, should be said that because the true is the good of the understanding, it's not over the good of the appetitive power.

[16:02] So the object of the will, for example, is the good, right? The object of reason is truth, right? Therefore, all virtues which perfect the understanding exclude totally the false. This is true not only of faith but also of natural understanding and reasoned-out understanding. Okay. Because the notion of virtue is that it has itself only to the what to the good, huh? Now the virtues perfecting the desiring power of the soul do not exclude totally what falsehood.

[16:41] For someone according to justice, which is a virtue in the will, right, or temperance, which is a virtue in the concupiscible appetite, right, he can what act, right, having so false opinion about that about which he acts, huh?

[17:05] So you can have some false opinion what the just thing to do, right? What's owed to somebody or something, right? You're trying to be just, but you know, because of your ignorance of some item or something, right? In the matter, you might be mistaken. And therefore, since faith perfects the understanding, but hope and charity, the appetitive part, right? Remember that question I raised: Why are there two virtues in the appetitive part?

[17:41] There's not a similar reason about both of them, right? Okay. He's not going to completely admit that you can be mistaken, right? That hope and charity have something false under them, right? Huh? But nevertheless, neither is what something false under hope, huh?

[18:08] For someone hopes himself to have eternal life. Does not Yeah, it does not. huh Ho Hope himself to have eternal life according to his own what? Power. Power, right? Huh? For this would be not hope but presumption, which is false, right? But according to the aid of grace, right? In which, if he perseveres, infallible way, he will achieve what? Eternal life, right?

[18:45] What? That's a powerful statement by itself. Yeah, yeah. So he hopes that by the aid of grace, if he perseveres, he will be saved, right? Huh? And therefore, he's not mistaken about that, right?

[19:05] Likewise, to charity pertains to love God in He is. Whence it does not refer to charity, whether in this one is God who loves him on account of God, right? Okay. Kind of. You don't have to discern that.

[19:26] You don't have to love your neighbors. Yeah. Loving him in God, right? Okay. Now, regarding the second one, to the second, it should be said: this is the one now about the man who believes by faith, right? That Christ will be born, right? And he does in that little time where Christ has been born, but the gospel has not been preached to all the nations, and so on.

[20:03] Okay, but that means the third objection. Excuse me. Yeah. To the second, it should be said that God is what? If God might say we're not to be incarnate in flesh. Yeah. Considered in itself, huh? Okay. For God not to be incarnate, considered in itself, is something possible after the time of Abraham, right? Okay. But according as it comes under divine foreknowledge, it has a certain what?

[20:34] Necessity of infallibility, as in the first has been said, huh? Mm. That part goes back to what? The fact that God is in what? Eternity. Eternity. Yeah. So that every now, past, present, and future is present to what? To God. Yeah. They compare the now of eternity sometimes to the center of a circle, right? Which is exactly opposite any point on the circumference, right? Well, one of them is before after the other, right?

[21:10] So the before and after nows and time are all present to God now in His eternal view, right? And so, insofar as it comes under divine praescientia foreknowledge, in a period of time, it has a certain necessity of infallibility, as has been said in the first book. And this way, it comes under faith, because you're believing this because God is revealing this.

[21:44] Whence, insofar as it comes under faith, it cannot be what false. This comes up again, you know, when you talk about contingent things, right? Things that can be and not be. Well, can you have certitude about them in the future?

[22:03] See, will Dean Berquist be standing in a half hour from now or not? Right. See, I could stand there. I could remain sitting. Right. See, but if what I'm doing an hour from now was present to you, then you could be sure that I would be sitting or standing a half hour from now. Right. Well, it's not present to you, but I would be doing half hour from now.

[22:31] You never know. Not yet. But it's present to what God, right? So, insofar as it comes under divine foreknowledge, then it's infallibly what true, right? It's all contingent. Yeah. Yeah. So God knows necessarily I'll be sitting or laying down. Maybe I'll collapse in here and be in the big right. Maybe I'll be laying here flat, you know. But He knows which position I'm going to be in, because it's all present to Him in His what eternity.

[23:06] Yeah. It's kind of an amazing thing, right? And that's why they say God is what cannot be mistaken about the future, like you and I can be mistaken who's going to win the election. We've got it, you know. Do they say that, right? Who's going to win the game or something, right? Can't know for sure. We we can't, but God cannot, because He's seeing already the touchdown being scored, and the home run being hit, or whatever it is.

[23:37] It's all present to Him, huh? Past, present, future. It's interesting. Mark with them when you study the divine what divine eternity, right? Thomas always defends Boethius's definition interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio. Huh? The all at once in perfect possession of an ending life. Huh? So God is not in time. Huh? He's timeless, without time. Huh? And you know what's our what's our end? They call it eternal life, right?

[24:19] So we're going to partake of God's eternity, right? When we see God as He is face to face, then we partake of God's eternity.

[24:33] Marvelous thing, huh? This is the way Thomas solves it, right? Okay. So if you know the guy getting up to bat, right? He could strike out, or he could hit a home run. Yeah. If what he does was already present to, then you would know his certitude, right? That he hit a home run, or that he struck out, or whatever. He did. You're, yeah, yeah. We're just in time, right?

[25:20] Huh? We live in time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sometimes people, you know, think of God's eternity as kind of an endless time, right? But that's not what eternity is.

[25:43] It has no beginning and no end, but it has no before and after. Time is defined as what the number of the before and after in motion.

[26:04] I know some things about God, right? One of the five attributes of divine substance is that He in no way is subject to change. And so, to that consideration of the God being immobile, is attached the consideration of His what eternity, huh?

[26:30] Why to us we're always subject to motion, right? Then we're in time, huh? Yeah. In the third book of Natural Hearing, huh, the physics, so-called, he defines motion, right? Book four, he talks about time. It holds semester on time from Charles De Koninck right? Yeah. And the time of class. Beautiful, beautiful chorus. Whole semester on time from Charles De Koninck right Of course in place too.

[27:16] That's very hard for us to understand, divine eternity. Yeah. But most people think it's just kind of an endless time, you know. I remember a classmate of mine in high school, and he said, "Well, you know, after we're in heaven for a few million years, don't you think we'll get bored?"

[27:37] That's the best he could do, you know. Why don't I do something else? Yeah. Now, on the third objection, how's he answer that one? Right? Here's this guy who thinks, by faith, right, that God will be what?

[28:08] Will be born, right? Huh? He's already born. Okay. To the third, it should be said. That this pertains to the faith of the one believing, right? After the birth of Christ, that he believes him, at sometimes to what? Sometimes to be born, yeah. But that determination, the time in which he is what deceived, that was not from faith, right? But from human, yes, yeah, conjecture, conjecture is a guess, right?

[28:50] Okay. For it's possible for a believing man, right, from a human guess, to estimate something false, right? But that's not under the formal object of God has revealed it, right? But he guesses when this is going to take place. It's like you know people are always predicting when the world is going to come to an end. It's supposed to be last Saturday. Yeah, that's what we were talking about, yeah, yeah.

[29:20] But we believe that the world will come to an end, right? Time will come to an end. It says in the last book, Apocalypse, right? Time is no more. But God doesn't reveal

[29:36] to us the exact what. The, you know, so that's by guess, right? So you're not, you're not. Faith is not. So it's not false under faith, right? When you say it's going to be, you know. I'm thinking pretty badly. We're out there now, by the way, you know. Saying the same, you know, it must be coming to the end. Yeah, yeah. So our conjecture is that it's going to be pretty soon, you know, and.

[30:04] we can use a change So far, everybody's been wrong up till now. Yeah. It was possible that a faithful man, a believing man, right, from a human guess, right, could estimate something false. But that from faith itself that he estimates something false, this is impossible, right? How's

[30:37] the answer to the fourth objection, which is the one from? Yeah, yeah. To the fourth, it should be said that the belief of the believer does not refer to this individual species of bread or that one, right? But to this, that the true body of Christ is under the species of sensible bread, cuando when has been rightly what consecrated, right? That's what the faith is. Whence if it is not rightly consecrated, it will not be under faith on account of this what?

[31:14] False, yeah. Because faith is not saying that this individual priest at the altar today—he might be an unbeliever for all we know, right? You know, there might be some guy who's pretending. Yeah, he needs a job. He needs a job, but he's not even a priest. He's up there doing this, and everybody's deceived. Yeah, Yeah, yeah.

[31:47] So when you go to your mass, is it under faith that if you are doing it rightly, right? Is it, yeah, yeah? That's my intention. Yeah.

[31:58] I don't mean to suspect you of being an unbeliever or something, right? Defect. You know. There's some of these, you know, oh, in Europe there's some of the, you know, priests who were in kind of some doubt about whether this was so or not, and there was blood. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's a number of several of those in Europe, there. You know. In this country, it's supposed to be 50 percent of the Catholic priests don't believe in real presence to whatever degree that.

[32:28] Yeah. I know it can happen sometimes, especially either it's not uncommon with older priests. Yeah. Sometimes when they turn the pages of the missal, they turn two pages and they don't even they don't even notice that they skipped the consecration. I remember that happened once at Christendom. I don't think that actually happened, but I know the priest. When he got to the Our Father, he said, "Did I do the con?"

[32:48] He asked everybody in the congregation, "Did I do the consecration?" They said, "Yes, Father." Oh, okay, because he he didn't remember. Yeah. Couldn't remember. So that can happen. You'll skip that. Yeah. What do you do? Somebody should tell the priest, Father you forgot consecration. Well, if you go to Italian masses, are you? Wait, wait,

[33:09] hold. Now, her priest doesn't believe that it's so, is that invalid then? if he doesn't believe something specifically in the transubstantiation or something, Yeah, that might affect his consecration. It's kind of crazy. He has to have intention to do that. Yeah. If he doesn't believe in divinity of Christ or something, it may affect it, but it might not. Depends. I guess that's hard to guess that to what extent it enters into intention.

[33:39] Okay. So you're saying faith is not an object of faith this individual consecration, right? Yeah, yeah. But one part. The priest is supposed to have the intention of.

[33:52] We used to have that prayer before. Priest said before the mass, "This is my intention to offer the holy sacrifice of mass and to make present the body and blood of Christ, and according to the rites of the church." Yes. But the the other thing is the Maronites do it in consecration. It's a custom required, but often they will show the consecranda. The matter. This is what you're going to consecrate.

[34:15] This is what you're going to consecrate. They show the consecranda what the matter is. because your attention has to be on the matter It's kind of interesting That's that's that's where that comes from. That's my understanding of it. I don't know why ever told me that. No, I know when Bishop Gregory did. He said he called it courtesy. It's a courtesy. You got to show you. This is what you're going to do.

[34:35] This is what you're going to do with both with the paten and the chalice. So you you can sort of form your intention on that matter.

[34:46] Why else? Why else do it? I don't know Why not? Yes. Hi Good afternoon. Okay. Let's go now to. To the fourth article, fourth and fifth kind of go together, right? The object of faith can be something seen, right? And then it could be something known through something else, right?

[35:21] To the fourth, one proceeds thus: It seems that the object of faith is something seen. For the Lord Himself said to Thomas, "Huh, in the Gospel Saint John, because you see me, you believe. " Therefore, about the same thing as vision and what faith. That seems to be a pretty, you know, pretty strong, you know. Voltaire must have liked that one, you know, and so.

[35:50] the devil likes to quote scripture Yeah Yeah, yeah, you like to quote Thomas. The objections, huh? Moreover, the Apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter thirteen, verse twelve, "We see now through a mirror in a what enigma, right? " Kind of a darkened way. He speaks there about the knowledge of what faith. So videmos, right? Therefore, what is believed is seen, right?

[36:27] Put down your pipe and smoke it, right, for a little bit. Brother Mark and I went to lock up a few professors, you know, and drop the objections in, you know, see if they could answer them, and then then

[36:45] give them the rest of the article. Should be. It should be like a requirement for PhD. Yeah. But it's kind of funny the way they put these texts, you know. They'll put the answers, you know, in big print down there, you know.

[37:03] But it is. That's like the one I tell you. One of our colleagues here, at the beginning of where the question is, somebody wrote yes, no.

[37:13] But I think with these, you know, computers and so on, you could just give them the objections first, you know, and then and then they'll see the rest of the text until until you you've been locked up for a while with objections, right?

[37:28] Moreover, faith is a certain spiritual what light, huh? But by what any light, something is seen. Therefore, faith is about things seen. See, we dummies are really pressed to these arguments, are we? Pretty good arguments, huh? Better than the last ones in the last article, right? They stumped me.

[37:57] Okay. Moreover, any sense is called a sight, right? Okay. So Warren Murray and I were trying to work with my friend Jim there, you know, and sort of making, you know, some recordings of Mozart. You know, we try different emotions, right? That he's imitating, right? And he listens to the emotion. Oh, yeah. Now I see. Yeah, yeah. So you use the word see, right? Huh? Or I give you, you know, two wines, you know, but one better maker or something, you know, or more expensive wine, maybe, and you know, taste them.

[38:36] Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, now I see. This is this is yeah, this is better. Yeah, you know. And you know, I when I drive in the car, sometimes I put on the classical music station, you know, and there would be a some Mozart symphony on. Sometimes say he's not not conducting that well, you know, and wait to see who it is, you know, and so on.

[39:00] And but then you you listen to that recording, then go back and listen to Beecham right? Brother Marcus says Beecham taught the other conductors how to conduct Mozart. He conducts so well. In the you see, ah, that's now I see. You know how what does somebody's voice sound like? You know, but use that seeing, don't you? Right. For the other senses, but fides est ex auditu, right?

[39:28] Faith is from hearing. Okay. So if you use sight for all the senses to some extent, right? Okay, and faith is ex auditu. Then faith is about things seen, you know. It's kind of yeah interesting, Yes it is interesting Okay. Are you all tied up. You untie up. You know. Okay. How's a spiritual work of mercy to?

[40:04] To untie, yeah. To untie the captives. But notice they said contra, right? Beautiful said contra. But against this is what the apostle says, right? In the epistle of the Hebrews, that faith is the what? Argumentum non non apparentium, okay.

[40:27] Actually, the word argumentum is a little different there in the Greek. But we'll go into that. We'll get the definition of this. Will be part of the what definition of it? Faith is the argument of what is not seen. The conviction of what is not seen. They say. Okay.

[40:50] So non apparentium, things are not seen, right? Let's come back to this, you know, the whole text there when it gets to the definition of faith itself, right?

[41:08] Okay. I must see something wrong with these objections, huh? I always try to use this text here, and it's when I check in the Bible, you know, it's a translation. I always see how they translate these things. Okay.

[41:36] Thomas says, "I answer. It should be said that faith implies the assent of the understanding, right, to that which is what believed, huh? But the understanding assents to something in two ways.

[41:55] In one way, because to this it is moved by its own what? Yeah. Which is either known to itself, as is clear in the first beginnings, like a whole is what? A part. Yeah. If you know what a whole is, you know what a part is. It's known to itself, right? For knowing what a whole and a part is, that a whole is more than a part.

[42:24] Do you know what an odd number is? You know what an even number is. Well, then it should be obvious to you that no odd number is what even, right? even right And no even number is odd. So those are called beginning statements, right? The first beginnings.

[42:47] Kind of interesting there. Joshua was at the house last night. There, you know, doing the third book on the soul, and he's involved in his graduate work there at BU, and he's got a group of students in ethics, right? Huh? It's kind of you know discussions, and they got to write a paper and so on. And

[43:13] I was saying to him, you know, you want them to ask him this question, huh? Is anything good or bad by nature? It's a good question to ask these students in ethics, huh? And I'd say, now, what do you think of this if-then statement? If nothing is good or bad by nature, then anything goes. If you're not quite confident to assert that anything goes, then there must be something good or bad by what nature, yeah, yeah.

[43:56] But then, how do you, you know, say take now take a position that there is something good or bad by nature, or there's nothing good or bad by nature, and then defend your position? I get them thinking, you know, um, but a little bit, a little bit easier thing, right? Are there some statements that are what naturally known to be true,

[44:23] or is every statement in need of proof by other statements? Well, if every statement is in need of proof by other statements, could you ever prove any statement?

[44:37] Yeah, because whatever statements you use to prove something, I would say, well, before you use them to prove that, prove them, and then whatever you use to try to prove them, before you use that to prove them, prove them, statements. And so you'd know nothing, right? But you have job security. Yeah. In which case you can't know this. You can't know the statement. Every statement is need of proof by the statements to be true, right?

[45:06] Proof. But some people, without thinking about it, and they think, you know, that I'm not going to accept any of your statements, Professor Breckless, unless you prove them. And so they think that every statement that you're going to accept, you must have a what? Proof. Proof. That means by other statements, right? In which case, you have to say that no statement can be proven, right? And you can't even know, therefore, that every statement is needed proof, which is what you think, but you don't have any proof of it.

[45:45] So, are there some statements that are known without proof? See, because then these would be naturally known, right? Well, you take example of whole and part, right? Huh?

[46:04] If you know what a whole and a part is, do you need a proof that the whole is more than a part? Or if you know what an odd number is and what an even number is, which most people know, and that no what odd number is a even number. Yeah, yeah. If you know what a perfect number is, you know it's a composite number and not a prime number.

[46:30] It's just obvious to a man who knows these things, huh? So there are some statements that are known what? By nature. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[46:46] That's a little easy to see, but you're getting open to the guy with the idea that maybe some things are by nature, right? Is anything good or bad by nature?

[46:58] Well, write down what you think so. And then prove it, right? See, I'm telling you, you know, what he should do. You know, he's got to watch himself, kind of can't be too dogmatic, you know. But but see, it seems that's a good question to ask them, you know, huh?

[47:18] Okay. So, start again at the beginning of the body. of the article here. It should be said, right, that faith implies an assent, right, of the understanding to that which is believed, right. Okay. But the understanding assents to something in two ways. In one way, because it is moved to this by its own what object, right?

[47:47] Which is either known to itself, right? As we say that the what whole is more than the part, right? Huh? An expression known to itself it doesn't mean that you use the statement the whole is more than a part to prove that the statement whole is a part. Doesn't mean that, right? See, it means it's known not to other statements, right? Or if it's known to itself in some way, it's known through its parts, but not through other statements, right?

[48:16] Just as is clear in the first beginnings, which we talk about in logic, of which there is what, Natural understanding That's what you mean by natural understanding Yeah I call it natural understanding, right? As opposed to reasoned out understanding, right? Or it is known through what? Another thing known, as is clear about conclusions, of which there is what certain knowledge. Science means certain knowledge.

[48:47] So we have a conclusion that follows necessarily from statements that are already known, right? Ultimately, it goes back to statements that are known to themselves. Otherwise, nothing would be known, right?

[49:02] Now, in another way, the understanding assents to something, not because it is sufficiently moved by its own object, but by a certain what choice. So that the reason is being moved by the what will rather than by its own object,

[49:28] voluntarily, right? Declining, right? In one part more than another, right? Aristotle is always talking about the two parts of a contradiction. One says it is so, and the other says it is not so, right? Which is it, right? And you're being inclined to one or the other by what? Not by your own object or by proof, but by a what

[49:53] choice? Choice, okay. Now, if this comes to be with doubt, right, and with fear of the other part, right, then you have something called an opinion or a guess, right?

[50:16] So who's going to win the World Series this year? Well, you know, I'd have to say I don't know. Now, if I study, you know, somebody still don't know, but my guess is, what does that mean? I am inclined, you know, to one side of a contradiction, right? The Red Sox will win. The Red Sox will not win. Which is it? I'm inclined, maybe to one of them, right?

[50:46] But with fear of what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. My wife watches the baseball game, and the or the football game. You know, she gets so nervous. You know, she has to turn it off. See it. I said, "Rosie, why did you turn it off?" I said, "I figure I'm finding the station fine." You know, they won, sixteen to thirteen. You know, well, what happened was, I guess there was at the end of the game, the the this is a football game now, this one, this one, and there was like two minutes left in the game, and they were behind, you know, like three, four points, you know, so a field goal would not be enough, you know, to tie it up.

[51:34] And Brady, you know, he threw in succession four passes, you know, huh? And the last one, you know, there was like twenty seconds left in the game. He threw it, and the guy ran the rest of the twenty-five yards. My little thing, you know, because there's like doing something backwards, you know. Were you nervous, you know? You know, we've done this before, you know. My wife was too nervous.

[52:01] That was a darn thing. See, my God, was there replaying it? There's some scenes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's a guess, right? Huh? My guess is. So when you guess, you're taking one side of the contradiction, but there's still this fear of the other. Okay.

[52:29] Okay. But if, however, it is with certitude, right? Without such what fear, then it is what? faith, right? Huh? Now those things are said to be seen, which through themselves move our understanding or our sense to knowledge of itself, right? Huh? Okay. So I look at you guys and see you sitting, right? Huh? Then, but I'm not guessing that you're sitting, right? I know it's you. And when I learn what a perfect number is, right, a number equal to the sum of everything that measures it, I know what a composite number is and what a prime number is.

[53:31] I realize it can't be a prime number because a prime number is measured only by what one. One can't add up to any number, so it must be a composite number, prime number. No, I see it from the object, right? Yeah.

[53:50] Those things are said to be seen, which, through themselves, move our understanding or our sense. Right? In that example I gave, to its knowledge. Whence it is manifest that neither faith nor opinion can be about things seen, either according to the sense or according to the what understanding.

[54:18] But is there some kind of seeing in faith? Seems to me. Seems to me. Let's go to our objections, right? Huh? Connect the first objection, right? It seems our Lord says to Thomas, right? Huh? And Thomas is the what the doubting Thomas, right? Huh? So unless they see, you know, the marks and the thing and the side where the lance went and so on, who not to believe?

[54:50] And of course, when he sees Christ, then because you see me, Christ says you believe, right? Huh? If it seems that it. is Vision, right? Okay. Okay. The first, therefore, should be said that Thomas sees one thing and believes another. He sees the man, right, and he believing confesses that he is what God when he says, "My Lord and my God." Okay, it's not the same thing that he sees and that he believes, right?

[55:29] Okay. But seeing the man there, right, with the wounds in his hands and in his side, then he what has a what his sign, you know, helps him to believe that this is God. Okay, what he sees and what he believes is not the same thing, right? I guess that was taught or somebody picked this up when I was a little boy, right? When you say the what's the yeah, when you say My Lord and my God

[56:00] when you see the consecration, yeah, yeah. So I still kind of say that many times. I think you know, I see this. I say, greater love than this hath no man, to lay down his life for his friends. That does it.

[56:21] That's our bishop's motto. Yeah, I was talking to to a young priest, and I was saying, you know, why do you have a separate consecration of the bread and the wine? Right. What to what represents the consecration? The blood and the flesh there and the death of Christ. Yeah, yeah. That's why sometimes they're greater love than this hath

[56:45] no man to lay down his life for his friends, right? Because it represents that death cross. I think we're kind of taught that in grade school, maybe in the Catholic grade school, something you know to say, "My Lord and my God," right? So kind of imitating the doubting Thomas, right? Yeah. In that you're imitating the believing, though. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[57:16] You always think of Thomas Aquinas, a big name after Thomas, right? Yeah. My my teacher there, the cert there, my undergraduate teacher, you know, is one the famous paintings there, you know, Fra Angelico, you know, where you know they're all seeing the crucifixion, right? The saints are standing there, you know, and almost all of them, you know, are you know you know crushed with the same thing that Christ is doing Thomas is there, trying to understand what's going on, you know.

[57:55] And standing last window, one of my favorite rooms in Tampa. It's a picture of the Christ Child in the temple. All the rabbis are standing around. These consternation on their face, and there's two unusual-looking figures. And one is down front. These windows were done about the year 1900. Here, there's one figure down front. He's all in red. He's got a very prominent nose. It's Cardinal Newman, and he's listening.

[58:21] Oh. And the other one is in the back. It's Dominican Friar Gholi Polly Friar and he's like there's a look of wonder on his face. Yeah.

[58:36] Yeah.