Secunda Secundae
5. Summa II-II, Question 1, Articles 7–8: How the articles of faith grew over time, and why there are fourteen (unity, Trinity, the humanity of Christ; the rule of two or three)
Class of 2017-10-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/12-secunda-secundae/005-summa-ii-ii-question-1-articles-7-8-how-the-articles-of-faith/

[0:00] Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, ordains our images and arouses us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand what you have written. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. We're up to Article 7 here, in, Question

[0:29] One. To the seventh, one goes forward thus: It seems that the articles of faith do not what increase or grow according to the succession of times. Because, as the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter eleven, verse one, faith is the substance of things hoped for. But in all time, it's the same things that should be hoped for. Therefore, in all time, there are the same things believed.

[0:59] Well, that convinces me this objection, right? He's never going to be able to answer these objections. I mean, he's done himself in, you know.

[1:11] Moreover, in the sciences humanly ordered, through the succession of times, there is growth brought about on account of the defect of knowledge in the first ones who found sciences. As is clear through the philosopher, that of course refers to Aristotle by Antonomasia, in the second book of the Metaphysics. But the teaching of faith is not found humanly, but it's handed over from God, for it's a gift of God, as is said in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter two, verse three.

[1:51] Since therefore in God there is no defect of knowledge can can fall, it seems that from the beginning the knowledge of the things to be believed was perfect, and that they did not increase according to succession of times. That's a darn good objection. huh I'm I'm convinced, huh? I mean, if you're not convinced now, I mean, that what takes you to?

[2:15] Moreover, the operation of grace is not less orderly proceeding than the operation of nature, but nature always takes its beginning from the perfect, as Boethius says in the book on the Consolation of Philosophy. Famous quote from from Boethius.

[2:39] Some days think of Boethius as the greatest mind between Augustine and Thomas, you know, but some he's very top guy. Therefore, it seems that the operation of grace would take its beginning from perfect things. That those who first treated the teaching of faith would know it most what perfectly, huh?

[3:06] You'll be wiser than the apostles. I mean, that's ridiculous, huh? Okay. Moreover, just as through the apostles to us the faith of Christ has come, so also in the Old Testament,

[3:25] through the earlier fathers, knowledge arrived at the ones afterwards of faith. According to that of Deuteronomy chapter thirty-two verse seven, ask your father, and he will announce to you. But the apostles were plenissime, most fully, huh, instructed about the mysteries. For they took right as just as they were before in time, so they had it more abundantly than the others, as the gloss says, huh. Super that upon that of Romans eight twenty-three, for we having the first fruits, you might say, of the spirit.

[4:06] We just got hand-me-downs, right? So how can we be superior, huh? Therefore, it seems that the knowledge of things to be believed did not grow through the succession of what times. Okay. Because I'm going to vote now. You're convinced, right? But against this, and sometimes it's very brief because he's not replying to the objections yet. His own thing, but against this is what Gregory says, right? Gregory the Great, I guess that's he's a big shot, huh?

[4:43] He's a big one. That according to the what time, the knowledge of the holy fathers grew, right, and that they were what the more they were near to the coming of the Savior, so much the sacraments of salvation were more fully what received by them, right?

[5:06] Now what the heck is Thomas going to say, huh? Well, let's go to the middle part, right, huh? Every article is divided into three parts, isn't it? The rule of two or three, right? Yeah.

[5:27] I'm a great teacher of the rule of two or three. The most division should be into two or three, or both, right? Of course, it goes back to Socrates and Plato to divide into two always, and there's very good reason for that, which is what

[5:46] we divide by opposites, and opposites are two. Aristotle when he's talking about there being three dimensions, you know, he quotes a weaker argument, but nevertheless interesting one. A sign, he says, three is the first number about which we say what all. So if you and I are going to the movies, both of us are going. But if you and I and all three of us are going, you know, we're all going, yeah.

[6:13] So three seems to be all right, and you find this for the most part, right? So if someone divides into more than three, then you have to what? Divide more. You divide into two or three and subdivide one of these into two or three until you get your your ten, right? So when Thomas is explaining the ten categories, right? He doesn't divide them at once into ten, but he divides them into what?

[6:41] Three. Three at first yeah. He's They're divided by the way something can be said of you or me or some other individual substance, right? So some things can be said of Michael by reason of what he is, and some things can be said of Michael not by reason of what he is, but something in him in addition to what he is, or something can be said of him by reason of something outside of him, like he's in this room, or he's clothed today, right?

[7:10] Huh? Okay. Or he's sitting, right? No, no, that's that's a second, yeah, that's a second, yeah, yeah. So he subdivides into three, and then he subdivides them into two or three until he gets his his ten, right? Huh?

[7:30] When Thomas is dividing the text of what? Aristotle, or when he's dividing even sacred scripture, he'll divide usually into two or what? Three. So what about the four Gospels? Huh? See, we tend to divide the first three against the what? The fourth one. Yeah.

[7:54] Then the first three is divided into three of course, huh? So it's a division into two and then a three. My answer should be said that thus it has itself in the teaching of the faith, the articles of faith, as the beginnings, principles, the beginnings, as English word for that, known to themselves, right? In the doctrine which is had through natural reason. So Euclid, the beginning of the elements, right?

[8:27] He has the axioms, right? And the postulates which are known to themselves. All right angles are equal. The whole is more than a part. In which beginnings a certain order is found that some are contained in the others implicitly, huh? Just as all beginnings are reduced to this as to the first of all, it's impossible at the same time to affirm and negate, as is clear through the philosopher.

[9:00] That's Aristotle by antonomasia in the fourth book of. First philosophy, or they call it metaphysics. Here's the quote: Shakespeare, "To be or not to be," that is the question. It's a question because you can't both be and not be, right? Which is it Yeah. Which is it. Yeah. But it's one or the other, right? So,

[9:31] and likewise, all articles are implicitly contained in some first things that are what believable, as one believes God to be and to have providence about what the salvation of men. And then the famous text here from Hebrews eleven six: the one approaching God is necessary, right, To believe that he is, And that to those seeking him, he is. The what? The rewarder yeah.

[10:06] For in the divine being is included all things which we believe to exist in God, what, eternally, in which our beatitude what consists. Kind of amazing. I was looking at the compendium of theology, and

[10:26] the order there is just the reverse of the Summa. In the three things that follow upon the simplicity of God, so in the Summa you take up what God is altogether simple. Then he's perfect. Then he's what?

[10:46] No, yeah, yeah. Well, perfect, but that's attached to perfect. Then he's what infinite? Then there's just one God, right? Well, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, I mean, in the Compendium Theology, it's just reverse. First he shows that he's what one, and he's infinite, and he's perfect, right? And you can argue from one of these to the other, right?

[11:11] I don't know if you could reverse. You could change the order of the theorems in Euclid, you know, and still, you know. I mean, if you have some, you find that these things are so closely related, right? You have something that we'll call A, and you can use A to prove B, C, and D immediately from A. It can also prove C from B and D from C, right?

[11:34] I say, gee, because these things are really tied together, but you kind of see what he means by saying what implicit, right? Yeah, yeah. Kind of amazing. The Summa Contra Gentiles he's he's showing you know the basic arguments for saying that God is what simple and not composed, and then after he gives those basic arguments, about four or five of them, then he throws in arguments from God being good, universally perfect, and so on.

[12:03] Just how easy? What does he do this for? You know, he shows these things are so what tied together, right? Now, so in the Essentia Divina, in the divine being are included all the things that we believe to exist in God eternally, in which our beatitude what consists, and in the faith of providence is included all the things which God in time has dispensed for the salvation of men, which are the what via the road into beatitude, huh?

[12:38] And in this way also, right? Some of the other subsequent articles are contained in other ones, as just in the faith of the redemption of man is implicitly contained both the incarnation of Christ and his passion, and all things of what this sort, huh?

[13:00] Thus, therefore, it should be said that as far as the substance of the articles of faith, there is not made any growth of them to the succession of times, because whatever the ones who came later or afterwards believed to be contained in the faith of the one preceding, right? They were contained. Yeah, yeah, in the faith of the ones preceding, although implicitly, right? Yeah. But as far as what?

[13:31] Explanation to unfolding them. Yeah. The number of articles increases, right? Okay. So they speak of the the thing from what definition of the immaculate conception, right, to the assumption as a myriad century, right? Well, these not known before. Of course, they are known before, but they're made much more explicit now, right? Okay.

[13:58] My teacher, De Koninck, there was one of the theologians who had a a private session with Pius the twelfth. You know whether it should be defined or not, huh? And so he went back to Thomas's teaching. You know that strictly speaking, Peter is not in heaven now, because Peter is a creature composed of body and soul, and his body is not there. So you can say the soul of Peter is there, right?

[14:22] But it's kind of figurative speech to say Peter is there. You don't want to say it's about Mary. Yeah. So the whole Mary's got to be there, right? He was very impressed with this argument, you know. So, so I don't know what else he said to to Pius the twelfth, but interesting.

[14:44] My aunt, who was you know was was was Lutheran, you know, but she she she met Pius the twelfth, and she was very impressed with the man, you know. Just he was he was a very impressive character.

[15:00] Okay. So some things which are explicitly known by those who came afterwards, which by the ones who came before were not known explicitly, right? Okay.

[15:16] Whence the Lord says to Moses, Exodus six two three, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of what Jacob. And my name of what? Yeah. I have not indicated to them, right? And David said, above the ancients, the old ones, I have understood, right? And the apostle says, to the Ephesians, huh? To other generations was not known, right, the mystery of Christ, as now it's been revealed, right?

[15:54] And to the holy apostles and prophets, huh? Through the course of time, it is. In other terms, is this the same as when people inquire about development of doctrine? Or is that really a different thing I suppose you could say that, yeah, yeah. Like Saint Vincent of Leran talked about, comparing it to the growth of seed to a plant. This is the same life, so he says it develops but doesn't change.

[16:26] That's the key of his data. So the first objection, then, the one from, we all believe the same things. That always they were the same things hoped for among all, right? But nevertheless, to hoping for these things, men did not arrive except through Christ, and the more that they were remote from Christ, right, in time, so longer were they from the achievement of these things to be what hoped for.

[17:00] Whence the apostle says in the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to the faith, all these are what died, not having received the promises, but regarding them from a long distance, so to speak, huh?

[17:20] Yeah. For the more something is seen at a distance, the less distinctly it is what seen. And therefore, the goods hoped for are more distinctly known by those who were near to the coming of what Christ.

[17:42] Now the second objection, huh? Would you say that the apostles had explicit faith about the infallibility, the immaculate conception, the assumption, et cetera, et cetera?

[17:54] Well, maybe they knew more than we did about these things, huh? Because they were more in contact with the teacher. Okay. They certainly had the implicit faith. They had the substance. of the faith. Would you say they had explicit faith, or was that it was only explicit? We talked to them a lot, you know. We don't necessarily have an account of every conversation that they had with Christ, huh?

[18:20] So. it would seem they would They're closer to him, right? Huh? This is Thomas is saying. He applied to the second objection, right? To the second, it should be said that the proficiency of knowledge happens in two ways. In one way, on the part of the one teaching, who grows in knowledge,

[18:44] whether it be one or what many through the succession of times, and this is the reason for the growth in the sciences found through human what reason. In another way, though, on the part of the one what learning. Just as the teacher who knows the whole art does not at once, from the beginning, treat it to the what? Yeah, because he's not able to what? Grasp it, right?

[19:16] But bit by bit, paulatim, Thomas likes to say that. my emphasis, paulatim, bit by bit, condescending to his what capacity? And for this reason, men what grew, yeah, in the knowledge of faith, the succession of times. Whence the apostle in the Epistle to Galatians compares the state of the Old Testament to what? Childhood, yeah.

[19:45] So the part of the the learner, huh? Kind of amazing way Aristotle proceeds in the ninth book of Wisdom, my favorite book in the ninth book there.

[19:59] But. Basically, there's two things he's going to do in the ninth book. He's going to see all the point out all the distinctions of ability and act, and then he's going to show the order, right? But the book is divided into three parts. So in the first part, he talks about motion and the abilities for motion, the ability to be moved, the ability, you know, to to be moved by another, right?

[20:25] The ability to move another, right? And so on, right? The rational ability to move another, and the natural ability to move another, right? And then the second part, he distinguishes the different senses of act, and now you see, many more senses of ability, right? Why did he do that in the beginning? You know, you weren't ready. He's got to give you a little bit, you know, and then he's got to, you know, give you this whole universality, right?

[20:56] And you say, oh my gosh, what a smart guy he was, you know. You know how dumb I was, I am, you know. I always called my old teacher, huh, Kasurik, an undergraduate, and he was the wisest guy at the College of Saint Thomas, you know, in Saint Paul, Minnesota, which is they call themselves the University of Saint Thomas now, but my day was College of Saint Thomas.

[21:21] He was the wisest man in the whole college, huh? But he said, compared to Aristotle, he says, I got the brain of an angle

[21:50] Third objection now, right? Let's go back to the third objection. See, make sure you know the operation here. He's comparing the operation of grace with the operation of nature, right?

[22:06] To the third, it should be said that for natural generation, two causes are presupposed: the agent and matter. Hey, act and ability, right? But according to the order of the agent cause, that is naturally before, which is more perfect, and that way nature takes its origin from the perfect, huh? Okay. Because the imperfect things are not brought to perfection except through some things already pre-existing that are perfect.

[22:44] But according to the order of the material cause, that is before, which is what? More imperfect. Yeah, yeah. So notice I was talking about the text and the categories. Or one of the five senses that Aristotle distinguishes of before is, or the causes before the effect, right? Well, that's got many meanings because the word cause has many meanings. So you can break that down. And here he's talking about the difference between the agent cause and the what,

[23:15] material cause. So when Aristotle's talking, not Aristotle, but when Thomas is leading into the perfection of God, he reasons him as being the first maker of all things, right? So he's a cause in the sense of the agent, right? And therefore he must be more perfect than these things that he's made. So that's one way of arguing to the perfection of God. There'd be many other ways of course of doing so.

[23:45] But that's where the the moderns break down, right? Because they they think like the early Greeks that the beginning of all things is what, matter, right? And therefore the beginning of all things is the least perfect thing of all. Now they've got a what, split personality? Because what's what's the end of human knowledge?

[24:12] On the beginning you got to know the way things are, but that's not enough. Got to know why they are the way they are, right? And if the cause of their being why they are as a cause, you don't really know things till you know that. So the final thing in our knowledge is to know what, the first cause First cause and the last cause. But then there's another argument, huh?

[24:34] Knowledge of a better thing is what, better knowledge. So the end of all our knowledge must be a knowledge of the best thing. Now if the best thing is the first cause, everything fits together, as Aristotle says, the truth, all things harmonize, right? But if the first cause is matter, which is the least perfect of things, the least form, then

[25:00] your ultimate end is, yeah. And the moderns can't, you know. Yeah. So Marx says we got to get busy and start making things. De Koninck spent a long time, you know, studying Marxism because it was very predominant at the time. But but you know, really when you get through with this, you begin to realize even something about the Eucharist, huh? Why do you use natural things, huh?

[25:39] Kind of to make what? Why do you use fully natural things like an apple or an orange or something, right? Why do you use bread, which is in some way made by us, and then wine, which is made by us to some extent, huh? Why do you use something made by us to institute the Eucharist? Why didn't he take water, something natural, you got in the stream, and

[26:05] apples or something else that's natural? Well, the things we make ourselves, we seem to understand better, don't we? So he takes something that we ourselves have made, and now tells us that this is my body, this is my blood. The act of faith required in us is what greater than if he'd taken something purely natural? Interesting, right? Because Marx was insisting, you know, that and a lot of the moderns see that, huh?

[26:35] You have to make something to know it. So we know things best of all that we made ourselves. And then come back and see this is interesting. They took things made by us in a way, bread and wine, rather than purely natural things to institute the what Eucharist, right? It's if he's demanding even more. What? He wanted for a He wanted our cooperation as well. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[27:04] But he also he also wanted us to make a greater act of faith, right? These are things that we think we we understand, you know, because we make, you know. My daughter's all the kids you know, little girls making loaves of bread. You know, they make all their breads themselves and so on. And my daughter's got ten children. You know, so they're all making bread. You know, the little girls and sometimes even the boys, right?

[27:27] So they they know what bread is, right? Huh? You know, so it's curious, huh? But these little thoughts that occur. But there is a split personality in the modern mind, right? Because the end of all knowledge should be a knowledge of the best thing, and the end of all knowledge must be a knowledge of the first cause. And the modern, or the really Greek, even the fact that matter's beginning of all things, they're not the same thing, right?

[27:55] Yeah. So you can't have two ultimate ends, right? So split personality or something, you know, split division. He's touching upon that here in this third thing here.

[28:15] Yeah. So he points out the difference, huh? In the order, determined by the material cause and by the what, the mover or maker, right? The agent cause, huh? Now, in the manifestation of faith, God is as the agent, right? Who has perfect knowledge from eternity, huh? Man is like matter, receiving the inflow of the divine what agent, right?

[28:48] That's my little prayer there, huh? Move us, God, to know and love you, right? So he's the mover, and we're being moved to know and love him.

[28:59] So man is secret material, right, receiving the influx of the divine agent, and therefore it is necessary for the knowledge of faith in men to proceed from the imperfect to the what perfect.

[29:17] Now, though in men some have themselves, by way of being a agent cause, who were the what teachers of the faith. Nevertheless, the manifestation of the spirit is given to such for the common what utilitatem. And therefore, such was given to the fathers, who the instructors of faith of the knowledge of faith, as was necessary for that time to be treated to that people, either what openly, yeah, or in a what A figure, right.

[29:51] So that explains a lot of the ways that things are said, even in the creation description there in the first book of the Bible. I was seeing that what you were saying with the Eucharist, because it's interesting. Because so you go back to the miracle of Cana, where he actually used a natural thing, the water, wine, wine. And I was just thinking that's interesting because then it goes to a different level where it begins with the man-made wine.

[30:18] Yeah. This is kind of his first public miracle, right? Amazing thing. Amazing thing. I'm thankful it was wine, not beer that he. They were Middle Easterns. they weren't Germans.

[30:47] As I get older, my taste for beer declines, you know, and my taste for wine increases, you know, but not for beer. Okay, but now this last objection here, and the reply is very interesting, huh?

[31:09] Because you're supposed to ask your father, right? Yeah. Okay. To the fourth, it should be said, the ultimate consummation of grace was made through Christ, whence his time is said to be the time of what? Fullness, huh? In the fullness of time. became man. Galatians four four. And those therefore who were nearer to Christ, either before as John the Baptist or after as the apostles, plenius, right?

[31:37] More fully, huh? Knew the mysteries of what? Faith. That's kind of an amazing thing to see, right? Whence, concerning the status of man, we see this: that perfection is what? In youth. Yeah. And to that extent man has a status that is more perfect, either before, or after, the more he's closer to youth. That's just talking about the material thing, right? But in the mind, huh? I think that's interesting what he says there.

[32:06] sicut plenius mysteria fidei cognoverunt huh? They more fully know these things, huh? Yeah Even though they might not have manifested that to everybody. Yeah, because we're receiving it, yeah. People didn't Yeah. So here you. Could you say then that the apostles had the fullness, fuller knowledge, and then explicitation? Yeah, for us was was over the course of time, yeah. Over time through the church. As Saint Paul says, you know, he gave the milk to the children, right?

[32:35] Huh? They couldn't take, you know. Do you foresee a future formulation of faith or explicitation of faith in the near future? Well, you know, my my teacher, I mentioned De Koninck, Charles De Koninck at Laval University. He was a peritus for the Cardinal Quebec at the Second Vatican Council, but I was mentioning how the fact he had this.

[33:00] Session with Pius XII, right? But he thought, you know, how we speak of this is the Marian century, right? Beginning with the definition of the immaculate conception, you know, and being made very explicit, ending up with the Assumption, right? He thought that the mysteries about Joseph, right, which would fit your name, would become more what? Yeah, yeah, that there'd be more unfolded of that, right? And so I know John Paul II's got a thing on Joseph, you know, so so maybe this would be more unfolded, you know?

[33:35] When I was a little boy in Saint Paul, Minnesota, when I grew up, it's like every parish had, like in my own parish church nativity, you had a little chapel for the Blessed Virgin and one for Joseph, you know. And in having going to Catholic church, it seemed like everyone had it, you know, a little separate chapel for those two guys. I mean, those two persons,

[34:00] one for Mary and one for Joseph. And people would, after Mass, sometimes go over to Mary's chapel or go over to Joseph's chapel. So, so it seemed like Joseph should be, you know, next. My sister's wedding, they had the parish had the altar to St. Joseph. So my sister and her husband, after they received communion, went to Mary's altar and her husband to Joseph's altar. And

[34:24] my brother Mark and his wife, his wife, they went over to just Mary, you know, yeah, the flowers, whatever it is, to to marry and to honor her, you know. Do you see any further? I know some speak about Mary as mediatrix of all grace. Do you see any further Marian development aside from that one? Because it seems Rome is hesitant to explicitate that one. Yeah, yeah, but there's there's really some very explicit texts on it already, you know.

[34:51] I mean, I suppose there could be, you know, but actually, the Second Vatican Council is kind of, in a sense, a completion of the first one, right? And you're kind of defining the mysteries about what? The Church, and because there's a special chapter on Mary, right, in there, you know. Mother of the Church. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And some would say her mediation is is uh, present in her title as Mater Ecclesia.

[35:20] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We're talking about my other teacher, great teacher in Quebec. There was Monsignor Dionne right? I don't know if you ever heard of him, but he he was a peritus too in the Vatican too. he and De Koninck for the Cardinal of Quebec and so on. But his article there in the *Laval théologique et philosophique* is called "The Grace of Mary is of the Hypostatic Order," right?

[35:43] And I was going to Dominican last time. Yes, you'll have to give us a copy of that. now Yeah, You you can get it. I have to get the reference there, but you can get it on the internet now. you know, the articles of the, you know, the *Laval théologique et philosophique So, um but then Mary's grace is of a what different order, right? than other saints, right?

[36:08] And that's because of universal, the universal mediatrix. But he has, you know, very good quotes from the popes, you know, that touch upon that, you know. So,

[36:21] yeah. I'm always suspicious of anybody suspicious of Mary's right dignity, right? I always think, you know, that that's a sure sign of something, you know, wrong with that person. You know, As a theologian, they hesitate to bestow upon Mary her proper praise, you know.

[36:47] Okay, so we're up to article. Article eight, right? Now we're going to find out what the articles of faith really are. Now, to this eighth one proceeds thus. It seems that unsuitably are the articles of faith what enumerated, right?

[37:15] Now, those things which are able to be known by a demonstrative reason, right? That's by natural reason. Therefore, do not pertain to faith that before all should be believed, right? As has been said, but for God to be one can be known by what demonstration? Even Aristotle knew that.

[37:38] Whence the philosopher proves this in the twelfth book of what first philosophy, as he calls it, Andronicus of Rhodes called Metaphysica right, after the books in natural philosophy, and many other philosophers induces things for demonstrations, right? For this, therefore, God to be one ought not to be one of the articles of faith, but ought to be a what Preambula, you know, so to speak, you know.

[38:10] We can have six objections here What? Six objections. Oh my gosh! Yes. Moreover, just as of the necessity of faith that we believe God to be omnipotent, so also we believe Him to be knowing all things and providing for all things. And about both of these, some people have erred, right? They're mistaken. Therefore, there ought to be among the articles of faith mention about the wisdom and the providence of God, just as about His what omnipotence.

[38:47] This is very convincing for a dummy like me. You know. Moreover, the same is the knowledge of the Father and the Son, according to that of John fourteen, who sees me sees also the Father, right? You know, show us the Father, he said. Yeah. And but you've seen me, you've seen the Father, right? Therefore, there ought to be one article about the Father and the Son, and for the same reason about the Holy Spirit.

[39:20] You're doing all in one article. That's it. Moreover, the person of the Father is not less than that of the of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but many articles are laid down about the person of the Holy Spirit, and likewise many about the person of the Son. Therefore, many articles ought to be laid down about the person of the Father, right? I'm just looking at the in the sentences, Thomas's.

[39:55] Commentary in the sentences. He has an explicit article, whether the father is before the what, son, huh? I don't think he asks it explicitly in an article in the Suma here, you know, but it's in the sentences, right? And so I was looking at the body of the article there, and he says, in the beginning, he's denying that the father is in any way before the son.

[40:21] And he says, he's not before him in duration, he's not before him in nature, he's not before him in knowledge, he's not before him in dignity. So that's almost exactly the order before in the categories, right? Aristotle talks about the word before there in the second post predicaments, huh? He says the first sense of before is what, time is before, right? Well, before in duration would be laid alongside that because time is the duration most known to us, right?

[40:58] But that would be the first one. The before in nature could be said to be correspondent before in being, and then the last ones are actually words, you know, before in knowledge and before in what, dignity or or worth or goodness. So in no way is the. It kind of strikes me Thomas must know that text from the from the categories, right? It's really kind of amazing thing that he he sees that in the second post predicament huh?

[41:26] The first post predicament is a distinction of the opposites, right? Because you got to see opposites before you can see before and after, right? So

[41:42] can't put the son and the Holy Spirit before the Father, can you? Yeah, yeah. It's an equality. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, you know they how in in like in the Marietti here they they print the Thomas' hands, you know, and in big thing, you know, you can see right away, you know. So my brother Mark and I are going to lock these guys up in the little shed, you know, and just give them the objections, you know, and they have to think about it for a week, you know, you know, and come up with an answer if they could realize how dumb you are, you know.

[42:17] I mean, comparing to to Thomas, Heraclitus, you know, one of their favorites is dispute. Heraclitus says dispute. Yeah. Well, Thomas has what you call the what, quaestiones disputatae, right? You might have fifteen or twenty arguments on one side and ten on the other side. So this is like an abbreviation, you know, for beginners of the some prominent objections, you know, and so on. But it really exercises the mind.

[42:52] Remember one time when I was teaching out at Saint Mary's College in California there. And some of the philosophers down at the University of California would ask him to put on one of these medieval disputations, you know.

[43:13] But it might be, you know, a good student, you know, thinking up one or two objections, and another student giving them a couple others, and then, and the after all, but he's tied up there. Then the master comes in there and explains it, and then he,

[43:29] Thomas arranged the debate between himself and what Albert the Great, I mean, did between himself and Thomas, and of course Thomas won the won the debate. He says, "You'll, his bellow will be heard around the world, right? This guy you call the dumb ox

[43:56] Now, we're, up to the fifth objection, I guess. Right. Yep. Okay. Moreover, just as something is appropriated to the person of the Father and to the person of the Holy Spirit, you know what appropriation means, don't you? Look it in the study of the Trinity. It's an

[44:18] likeness between some attribute of God and in this personal properties of the person that it's appropriated to. So the to the person of the Son according to what divinity. But in the articles, there is laid down some work appropriate to the Father, to with the opus of what creation, of even God the Father, Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, right? What's the whole Trinity? They created, right?

[44:46] What's appropriated to the Father? And some work is appropriate to the Holy Spirit, that He spoke through the prophets, right, or that He He enkindles charity in our hearts and so on. Therefore, also among the articles of faith, there ought to be some work appropriate to the Son, secundum divinitatem, right? Huh? Well, he's the light, the light as everybody comes into this world, isn't that one? I'm not sure about this objection here, but but that's that's in the Gospel, though, right?

[45:20] It's not in the Creed, maybe uh, specifically, huh? It's interesting. it's what they said there, the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets. I don't know from what source it is, but the Arabic translation of our Creed adds something to this in the Creed. It says the Holy Spirit is spoken through the prophets and the apostles. I know why they add that. What's the source? I don't know, but I think it's curious.

[45:42] It's interesting. Might be done in that. But it's interesting because it connects that with the Church. Yeah. It's very, very. interesting. I don't know the source of it why they do that

[45:57] Moreover the sacrament of the Eucharist has a special difficulty, right, among many articles. Therefore, it ought to be laid down as a special article, right? You're saying it has a special difficulty, right? And there's all these places in Europe there, you know, where some priest who is in some doubt about the real presence, right, got a blood-soaked thing or something, you know. You're going to see that in Portugal.

[46:25] Maybe so. Santa Raines. Yeah. But I guess, you know, when I was a little boy in grade school there, you know, you're not supposed to go back with a host in your mouth, right, to take it out of your mouth, right now. And sisters would tell us these, you know, pious stories, you know, about some kid putting it in his handkerchief, coming home with blood. Oh, boy, they're going to take it out of my mouth, you know. The only way the sisters are good, you know, for proportion to us kids, you know.

[47:03] Yeah, yeah. I remember the sisters. These St. Joseph's sisters had these black robes, you know, and they talked about how beautiful the the snowflakes looked when they hit that black, you know, and they're beautiful, these snowflakes, you know, but you'd see it on the black, you know. So I remember talking about God's beauty there in those things.

[47:28] Well, now we got to look at the body of the article, right? But in the contrary, he says, "Is the authority of the church thus enumerating them?"

[47:40] Okay. I answer. It should be said. This has been said, and this was in, I guess, Article what six there, right? It says odd one here, four, okay.

[47:59] Those things per se pertain to faith, by the vision of which we what Enjoy eternal life. eternal life, and through which we are also led to eternal life, huh? But two things are proposed for us to be seen. One is the hiddenness of the divinity, right? Huh? The vision of which makes us what blessed, Blessed, huh? And the mystery, right, of the humanity of Christ, through which we have access in the glory of what the sons of God.

[48:37] as it said in Romans five two? And, he gives this famous text here, right? Whence it is said in John seventeen three, "This is eternal life, that they might know you, God, the true God, and whom you have sent, Jesus Christ."

[48:56] Okay. No, I brought that with me here. Okay. Yeah, yeah. But before that, just take a the text from Hebrews there, right? Where in chapter eleven, verse one, huh? He gives what later on he'll talk about as being the definition of faith, right? Okay. So in the Latin, it says in in the Hebrews the Hebrews, chapter eleven, verse one." Est autem fides? Faith is sperandarum what? Substantia right?

[49:39] And then rerum argumentum, huh? Non apparentium, huh? The argumentum now the question how you should translate that right of things not what seen okay now in the Greek it says huh estin de pistis right faith is elpizomenon things believed I mean hoped for yeah hypostasis right It doesn't use the Greek word for substance in Aristotle as the categories right but hypostasis right it's kind of the idea of the foundation right huh

[50:23] so it's the elpizomenon pragmaton the things hoped for right the foundation well no and I've studied under these famous guys Kasurik and De Koninck and Dionne but also Thomas I even read in Euclid you know the geometry now hear about the Pythagorean theorem I believe the Pythagorean theorem before I've even seen the demonstration right and so you believe certain things that your teacher says to you that's kind of a foundation but later on maybe you'll come to actually what understand it's so right and then I accept it not because Euclid says that you know the Pythagorean theorem is the truth but because I see that it must be so right by the argument huh and so

[51:14] the belief that you have is a kind of foundation of which you're going to know or see later on right even in human learning huh okay and so

[51:25] but what is it that we hope for right see but before I go on to that huh we'll come to that in another text right before I go on there um

[51:40] you know the the Latin word in the second part of the definition is the argumentum right and I don't think that should be translated argument right see it's just not an argument in the sense of what we see in logic right it's not a syllogism or something that's going to see now what what is the Greek word huh the Greek word is elenchos see elenchos well in Aristotle you know the book on sophistical refutations right where refutation is elenchos well it doesn't mean the refutation of things not seen you know so I got a problem about you know translate that right now myself when I tried to translate it I translate it it by the word conviction right conviction of things not seen right and

[52:37] that is partly the notion of elenchos right because refutation right makes you what You're overcome by it, right? Huh? You see. And if it's a true, I mean, a specific refutation. is not real refutation, right? But a real elenchos, right, is a refutation and it overcomes you, right? Huh? You have to change your thinking, not right? Huh? So I kind of think we translate in English by conviction, right?

[53:04] Huh? Your mind is overtaken and accepts that this thing you don't see is so, right? Huh? Okay. It's not by argument. it's by reputation of it, right? But it's kind of you have to be careful with the word, right? Because you always check Bibles by seeing how they translate these things, you know. I think some might actually translate, you know, conviction,

[53:30] right? In space, salve, and it puts conviction. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. to be careful. now. Okay. But now, what is it that is hoped for, right? See, Well, it's eternal life, huh? Okay.

[53:43] And um, Yeah. In chapter 17 here of the Gospel of John, right? huh? You have this definition. Chapter 17, verse 3, huh? In Latin, it says, "hate est autum

[54:10] Vita eterna, right? Ucognoscant tesolum verum deum et quemistim Christum, So this is in the Greek there. Aute, right? De Estin Heonios Zoe, right? Eternal life. Hina Kignoskosin, that we know Set you, Tonmon, the only, Ali Thinan Thaon, the only true God. Kihon A Pestelas, whom you have sent, namely Yesun Kristana. Okay. So It's kinda divided into two, right? I was talking about the division of two and three, Okay?

[54:54] Because Thomas is going to distinguish, what, in the by the article, seven articles about the first of those two, and seven about the what? Second second, yeah. And sometimes he'll say that you can Maybe you say six and six two, but it's it's divided basically into what Two, right? huh? I kinda like the two sevens because seven is a simple wisdom, right? Seven wise men of Greece, huh?

[55:20] Okay. So Thomas is saying this is the distinction first of these things. So he quotes John seventeen three. Heces vite terna, right? That they might know you, God, right? The true God, right? And whom you are sent, Jesus, what? Christ, That's kind of said of him by reason of his human nature, right? He's anointed as as man, right? Not as God is not anointed. their Savior, And therefore the prima, the first distinction of things to believe, is that some pertain to the majesty of his divinity, of the divinity, right?

[56:02] Some to the mystery of the what, humanity of Christ, which is a sacrament of piety, right? As is said in the first epistle to Timothy.

[56:17] Now about the majesty of the divinity, Tria nobis credenda proponent. Two and three. yeah. Yeah. Now I'm I'm not a fanatic about this rule of two or three. I say, you know, I say Plato always divided into two. Aristotle says sometimes you should divide into three. you know, And he gives this sign that three is the first number of bouts. We say all, right? It must many times turn out to be all there is, right?

[56:43] And you see this again and again, right? I was talking to a colleague one time, and I said, uh They say you shouldn't give one. More than three examples. Well, my teacher told me that in college when taking, you know, you know the court speech course whatever it is, you know, you know, you lose them if you say give more than three, three examples, right? But three seems to be enough, right?

[57:03] Yeah. I used to, and I was in Quebec. You know, you go to the restaurant and you'd get said repas complet, complete meal. What does that mean? It's an appetizer of some sort, a main course, some kind of a little dessert. You know, but it's got to have those three parts. Then it's complete repas, you know, complete. Yeah, yeah. All the parts. Yeah, yeah. And Aristotle praises the great poet Homer for realizing the plot should have a beginning, a middle, and the end.

[57:35] Yeah. So, and I said to people, you know, how many meals do you eat in a day? Three. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So I mean, it's very often true that three is enough, huh?

[57:53] Even reading in the great Heisenberg there, you know, we had modern physics there, physics of the 20th century. They had these two great two units, right? Now you might say the the when the Einstein introduced right, and the one that Planck introduced right. There's got to be a third one, he said.

[58:22] No, it's kind of amazing to see the great the great physicists, you know, saying that, right? You know, this mind just, you know, there's got to be a third one. He said, you know, just kind of obvious to him, right?

[58:36] Some say this is a reflection of what the Trinity, right, is the source of all things, right? The two is showing up so often, huh? You can't burn one log by itself. Yeah, yeah. You can't burn two. You find trilogies, you know, very commonly, you know, more than tetralogies or something, you know, sort of thing. You get the young and the old, and then you seem to need a third thing, middle age, you know, or something.

[59:02] A king. Yeah. Right. A king. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Aristotle calls that, you know, not middle age, but he calls it prime of life, right? You know, you he describes in the rhetoric there, you know, the youth and and the people in prime of life and then the old, right? And how the youth are more hopeful and the old are kind of, you know, most things don't turn out very good, you know.

[59:23] So, but often we divide human age into those three, right? Huh? You know, that's enough. I still have a grade school, high school, and college, you know. You seem to need all three, huh? So, so he quotes that famous text then from John 17: 3, about what eternal life is, right? That gives you two, right? And therefore, the first distinction of things to be believed, as we said already, is that some pertain to the Majesty of Divinity, some pertain to the Mystery of the Humanity of Christ.

[1:00:04] Now, about the Majesty of Divinity, three things are proposed to us. First, the Unity of the Divinity, and to this pertains the first what article. Secondly, the Trinity of what persons, and about this there are three articles according to the three what persons. And third, there are proposed to us the private works of the Divinity, which the first pertains to the being of nature, and thus there is proposed to us the article of creation.

[1:00:45] The second to the being of grace, and under this article are proposed all things pertaining to the sanctification of man, right? And the third pertains to the being of glory, right? And thus there is laid down one article that covers both the resurrection of the flesh and what eternal life, and thus there are seven articles pertaining to what divinity.

[1:01:21] Notice, huh? He's dividing by two or three all the time down there, isn't he? You know, like you couldn't understand the division into more than three. The human mind breaks down and tries to divide into more than three. It's got to combine divisions of two or three to understand to some extent these things. See, the way I came to this was that Plato in the Dialogues, where Socrates is proceeding by dividing, he always divides into two, right?

[1:01:48] And then Aristotle, like in the Parts of Animals and so on, he's talking about the animals. He says, "Well, makes some sense to divide into three here, you know, contrary to Plato. So you put Plato and what Aristotle together, and the only guys who seem to say two or three unless you go to Hegel, but he's always dividing into three, right? Kind of the raster Trinity is, and so among the great philosophers, there's only two or three guys who have tried to say what we always divide by two, always divide by three, but not any other number.

[1:02:28] So I say let's combine the two and say divide by two or three, or I sometimes say both, right? And and maybe this is not true always, but it's true what most part. So it's going to be a good rule, even though it's not true always, right? You can have a rule that is that is true for the most part, right? And it's very hard to understand the division into more than three.

[1:02:53] You know, makes sense to us. It means persuasion, right? I always think of it in practical matters. I think of I want to divide this table in equal parts. I wouldn't first start out with ten. Two, three. If you can do that, that's what the decimal system might say. The metric system is not sensible. Yeah.

[1:03:21] It's great on the paper. It's not sensible because I wouldn't divide this into ten parts. Okay. He's going to divide the ones for what? Humanity.

[1:03:35] Yeah. Likewise, about him whom he sent, right? About the humanity of Christ, there are laid down seven articles, huh? Which the first is about the incarnation or the conception of Christ, huh? Secondly, of his nativity from the Virgin, right? My mother always admired this, huh? That you know, he came right through, like he came through the wall, right? Huh? He came through the wall of her uterus.

[1:04:06] Third, about his passion and death and what? Yeah, Thomas explained an earlier article. There are those three. Really, have one difficulty, right? But God should die. I mean, my God! But if he can die, he can simply be buried and so on. Yeah. Fourth, about his descent to what? Hell. Yeah. Okay, it's a very interesting article, right? People kind of misunderstand what it means, you know, sometimes.

[1:04:35] They may have spent a while in hell, you know, suffering that way, right? He had suffered all. he could have suffered, you know. The fifth is about the resurrection, right? The sixth about ascension, and the seventh about his coming for judgment, huh? He had that in the Te Deum there too, right? The judgment. And sic in universo, and thus in the whole universe there are what? Fourteen.

[1:05:04] Yeah. All together. Now Aristotle's greatest book there, the first philosophy, as he calls it. How many books are there? Fourteen. Yeah. Fourteen books of wisdom. There you go Two sevens, right? Yeah. Fourteen books.

[1:05:24] Fourteen articles, huh? Isn't in Scripture some place where it says there are seven angels that stand before God? Yeah. What is that, you know? And the seven wise men of Greece, right? Who met at the Oracle of Delphi, they say. Seven virgin daughters. At who is the who was the? in the New Testament Didn't he have seven daughters or the deacon Philip? Oh, was it seven daughters he had?

[1:05:52] I don't remember The possible unmarried prophets They probably said they were prophets yes yes And this big book about the virtues, right, is divided into what seven, right? Faith, hope and charity, and the four cardinal virtues, right? So,

[1:06:12] exactly why seven is a symbol of wisdom, I'm not sure. You know, that seems to be that for a long time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:06:23] Well, there's there's seven changes seven parts of philosophy, or seven kinds of philosophy, right? There's three parts of looking philosophy: natural philosophy, mathematical philosophy, and first philosophy, and then three what parts of practical philosophy: ethics, domestic philosophy, political philosophy, and then logic, the tool philosophy. So you have seven parts, right? So it's interesting, right, that. Philosophy comes from the love of wisdom. The word etymologically that there are seven parts, right?

[1:06:58] The culminating work, you know, the one that Aristotle calls wisdom, or he calls it first philosophy. It's not the wisdom of God, but wisdom of reason. But his fourteen books, you know,

[1:07:12] that by chance. I think I make a joke, you know, that Thomas in the Summa Contra Gentiles, he begins his consideration perfection of God in chapter twenty-eight, and twenty-eight is the second what perfect number, huh? That by chance? It might be, I don't know. I wouldn't assist, but but seven is got a little more, you know, claim to be

[1:07:41] tied up with wisdom. Now Thomas is not, you know, fanatic about this. Some of our distinguished twelve articles of faith, right? Six pertaining to the what divinity, and six pertaining to the humanity, right? For the three articles of the three persons, they comprehend under one, right? Because there is the same knowledge of the three persons, the same knowledge of relatives, as Aristotle said. And the article about the work of glorification and the distinguishing, too.

[1:08:23] and the resurrection of the flesh and the glory of the soul, right? There kind of difficulty there, different difficulty in those two Similarly, the article of consubstantiality they join in one, right? I can live with that too, you know. So he gives the one into two sixes, right? So he's not you know the fanatic today, I mean. Catechism, I think, is it was twelve articles, I believe.

[1:08:50] I think so. Yeah. I know that's what they say. One of the one of the customary traditions about the twelve articles, each apostle wrote one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. In Thomas somewhere has that, you know, which one is which one labeled which? Yeah, my article, my article. Throw me my article out. But that's a beautiful little story, there. though isn't it You know, One that you should tell the children, maybe, maybe adults too.

[1:09:26] You got to come back little children again if you're going to get into heaven, I guess.