Secunda Secundae
11. Explicit Faith in the Trinity, the Merit of Believing, and Reason's Role in Faith (ST II-II q.2 a.8-10, q.3 a.1)
Class of 2017-11-16
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/12-secunda-secundae/011-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-the-merit-of-believing-and/

[0:00] Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order them in our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you've written. Okay. To the eighth one proceeds thus. You know, article eight.

[0:27] It seems that to believe in the Trinity explicitly is now the necessity of salvation. For the apostle says, "Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter eleven." To believe is necessary. what the person approaching God, right? To believe that he is that he is right, and that to those seeking him, he is the rewarder. Yeah.

[1:02] But this can be believed. in the code, without faith, in, the Trinity. Therefore, it is not necessary to explicitly have faith about the Trinity. Sounds pretty good argument. Yeah.

[1:21] Now Thomas's reply. To the first, therefore, it should be said that those two things to explicitly believe about God in all time and regards to all people was what necessary, but is not sufficient for every time and for all. This is a very simple answer. I said, I said, you got a tricky there, Thomas. Take the easy way out. What a thing! It's like a good answer, right?

[1:53] Yeah. Okay. Moreover, the Lord says, John seventeen verse six. Father, I have made known your name before men, which Augustine expounding says, not that name by which you are called what. No, but that by which you are called what? Patrem meum? And afterwards he adds, in this that God made this world made known to all nations, in this that is not what worshipped with false gods, is known in what Judea, right?

[2:36] In this that the Father is of Christ, to whom is taken away the sin of the world, this name before hidden is now manifest to them. Therefore, it was not necessary before the advent of Christ that in the deity there be paternity and, sonship. Therefore, the Trinity doesn't have to be believed explicitly.

[3:05] He says, "To the second, it should be said that before the what coming of Christ, the faith, the Trinity was what hidden in the faith of the more like the, you know, the what he called the,

[3:23] yeah, among the old ones I believe, you know, yeah, I mean, but there were the ones who had belief, right, things. But the Christ was manifested, known to the world, right, to the apostles. So it's still using the same principle there. They had a primo, right? Okay.

[3:56] For that we are held the third argument explicitly to believe, to believe that in God there is what the object of beatitude. But the object of beatitude is the what? Yeah, the highest one, good, the best, which can be understood in God without the distinction of what? Yeah. So where does Thomas say that God is the bonitas summa? Of course. Among other questions. Yeah, I mean, you can say there's kind of, you know, five parts to knowing God, and the first part is, you know, does God exist, right?

[4:40] And the second part is what the substance of God, right? And among them is that he's perfect and therefore good, and he eventually shows that he's goodness itself and so on, and he's the summa bonum, right? So that's in the substance of God, right? And then you have what God does, and then you have the Trinity forth, and then the Christ coming man.

[5:11] So the object of beatitude is the bonitas summa, which can be understood in God, right? Even without what the distinction of persons. So this is before that when Thomas takes it up. Yeah. Therefore, it's not necessary to believe explicitly the Trinity.

[5:32] To the third, it should be said that the highest goodness of God, according to the mode in which we now understand to an effect, can be understood without the Trinity of persons. But according as it's understood in itself, in so far as it's seen by the blessed, it cannot be understood without the Trinity of the what persons. And moreover, the mission of the divine persons leads us into what beatitude.

[6:02] So that refers to Christ's mission and and the Holy Spirit's mission. But against this is that in the Old Testament, in many ways, has expressed the trinity of the persons, just as it said in the beginning of Genesis, the expression of trinity. Let us make man to our image and our what likeness. Well, faciamus, I guess. It's plural, right? Therefore, from the beginning of the necessity of salvation was it to believe the what trinity?

[6:43] That's kind of interesting. It sounds begins here with the mystery of Christ rather than the mystery of the trinity, right? And it should be said that the mystery of Christ to be explicitly believed is not possible without faith of the what trinity.

[7:03] Now the Son of God assumed what flesh, so that through the grace of the Holy Spirit he might renovate, make new again the world, right? And also, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

[7:21] Didn't have a human father, right? And therefore, in that way in which the mystery of Christ before Christ was what explicitly believed by the greater, right?

[7:40] Implicitly, offered and as it were shadowy way by what the lesser ones. So also the mystery of trinity. And therefore, also after the time of what grace being divulged, all are held to what explicitly believing the mystery trinity. When Isaiah was around, maybe wasn't, but the lesser ones like you and me. Okay.

[8:14] And all who are reborn in Christ, right? They achieve this through calling upon the Trinity, according to that of Matthew, the last chapter, I guess, verse 19. Going forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[8:38] I guess in the early church there sometimes they would baptize you just the name of Christ, wasn't it? Yeah. Yeah. That was one of the things the apostles said And Paul, Saint Paul, made the first of it too. maybe refers to it Yeah, yeah I haven't I don't recall but I know the theologians would take up that question Yeah, it's kind of a hard one to explain, you know, but but it's implicit, you know, in in it, yeah, yeah.

[9:08] I think if you're interpreting that thing, trying to baptize somebody that way. Like the priest in Boston a few years ago Remember that Baptizing people in the name of the

[9:23] Creator Redeemer Sanctifier Yeah, the something the redeemer, the sanctifier. Cardinal Law had to come out and say those are all invalid. Please go back.

[9:34] So how how do we understand or what do we understand by explicit faith in the Trinity and explicit faith in Christ, you know, particularly in reference to the Muslims, the Jews, etc. Yeah, but you haven't decreed, you know, but you have explicit there. But maybe the the Muslim can be saved, right, without having that explicit of faith, huh? Are they like the simple ones Yeah, yeah, you're the minor minor. What does Thomas mean by explicitly in the Trinity explicitly in Christ What we have in the creeds now?

[10:06] You know. Right, so the profession of faith. Yeah. Yeah. But then he says this is necessary. Is he referring just to believers, or is he referring to all persons?

[10:18] Well, he seems to be opening the door, I guess, to other people. You know, some implicit faith being able to, you know, was not expected of them, right? I guess you would say it's an explicit act of faith is necessary for those who come to know the truth. Yeah, but if you're a Catholic, right, you suddenly have to do that. Maybe if you're a Christian just you know.

[11:00] Article nine. Whether to believe is meritorious. The ninth one proceeds thus. It seems that to believe is not meritorious. For the source or beginning of meriting is what charity, right? As has been said above. But faith is the what? Walking before charity, huh? Just as nature comes before charity, huh? Therefore, the act of nature is not meritorious because we do not merit by natural things. So also neither by the act of faith.

[11:50] Let's look at the reply to this, the first objection. To the first, therefore, it should be said that nature is compared to charity, which is a what? Principle of meriting. That's charity, right? As matter to what form?

[12:10] Now faith is compared to charity as a disposition preceding the what final form. As manifest, however, that the subject or matter cannot act in virtue of the form. Yeah Except in virtue of the form Yeah. Then it's not able to act in virtue of the form. It doesn't have it yet. Nor also the disposition preceding before the form arrives.

[12:44] But after the form arrives, both the subject, like the matter, or the disposition preceding acts in virtue of the what? Form, which is the principal source of what? Yeah. So later on, charity is said to be the form of of of faith, formed faith, right? Yeah. Just as the heat of the fire, right, acts in virtue of the substantial form of the what? Fire, right. But you can have what disposition for fire as you're warming up the thing, right?

[13:25] And it hasn't yet burst into flames, right? So the substantial form has not arrived yet, huh? Thus, therefore, neither nature nor faith, right, without charity, are able to produce. Yeah. But charity arriving on the scene, right? The act of faith becomes meritorious by what? Charity. Just as the act of nature and of natural what? Freedom of will. Okay.

[14:07] Moreover, second objection here: to believe is in the middle between what opinion and to know, or considering things that are known. But the consideration of science is not meritorious; similar neither opinion. Therefore, neither is belief, which is in the middle of these two, meritorious. That presses you, right?

[14:41] To second, it should be said that in science two things can be considered: one is the assent of the one knowing to the thing what, Known. and the what consideration of the thing known. That's right Yeah Now, the assent of science of knowledge is not subject to free will, right? Because the one knowing is forced to assent by the strength of the demonstration.

[15:18] And Aristotle talks about that sometimes. coactus a veritate. So you're kind of forced by the truth itself to admit this, and then is that meritorious?

[15:37] Yeah. And therefore, the assent of science is not meritorious. But the consider, actual consideration of the thing known, is subject to what? Yeah. This is important.

[15:58] Yeah, That's so important. For is in the power of man to consider or not to consider, right? And therefore, the consideration of science or of knowledge can be what meritorious, if it be referred to the end of charity, that is, to the honor of God or the utility of one's what neighbor. But in faith, both are subject to free will. And therefore, as regards the act of whether the act of faith can be meritorious, and therefore as regards both of these things, the act of faith can be meritorious.

[16:40] But to opinion does not have a firm assent; it's something debile, weak, infirm, according to the philosopher, in fact, in the first book of Posterior Analytics. That's the what

[16:58] Thomas's commentary in just two books of Aristotle's logic, right? And one is the Posterior Analytics, right, which is kind of the high point of logic, and then the other one is on the what, Peri Hermeneias. But we have the you know young student who asked Thomas to explain this, so he's kind of had to you know had to be kind to his neighbor.

[17:24] But the the postanalytics is the one that he was singling out to be the commoner. Wish he'd come in more though, you know. Whence opinion does not seem to proceed from perfect what, will.

[17:46] And therefore, on the part of assent, it does not have much the reason of what, the character of merit. But on the part of the actual consideration, it can be meritorious.

[18:03] So in the beatific vision, we would say there's no merits because it's kind of weak assent, you know. In the beatific vision? Oh, the beatific vision. I think you're kind of forced. Yeah, yeah,

[18:19] you had merit in there. Yeah, yeah, merit in there, you know. Because there, you're almost fixed. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Otherwise, you'd be increasing merit out of infinity, you know. I would just say that it also has no increase in charity, therefore,

[18:41] in the beatific vision, there's no merit. I'll take it anyway. Yeah, despite all the drawbacks. As it's like you're before scientific truths, you cannot but ascend. Okay. Whoever, look at the third objection here now. Whoever the one who assents to something by believing, or has a cause sufficiently inducing him to believing, does not seem to what, have this, what? He even has this or not? He doesn't have it.

[19:23] He doesn't have as meritorious though, right? Because it is not to him now free to believe and not believe, right? But if he does not have a sufficient thing inducing him to believe, it's light-headed, yeah. And he quoted quotes from the Old Testament there, who believes too quickly, right? Is of light of heart, huh? Light headed, as he said. And this does not seem to be meritorious.

[19:59] Therefore, to believe in no way is meritorious. To third, it should be said that the one who believes has something sufficient leading him into believing, for he is induced by the authority of divine what Doctrine. teaching, confirmed by what miracles, right, and also what instinct, an interior instinct, right, of God inviting him, right. Whence he does not light-headedly believe believes.

[20:38] Nevertheless, he does not have a sufficient thing inducing him to believing, right, and therefore does not take away the rat seal of merit. That's what the character of belief is, because I still don't see the object. I have a motive to believe the authority, some witness to their credibility, but even when I'm induced to believe this person is a witness to the truth, I still don't. see. the thing Yeah Yeah.

[21:03] Is that true about the human teachers too? To some extent to some extent extent More so in sacred doctrine than mathematics. Yeah. When I was at the hall there, you know, the greatest minds were Charles De Koninck and Monsignor Dionne, right? And I was writing my doctoral thesis under Monsignor Dionne, right? And I'm afraid that the particular thing that this led me to go to De Koninck but

[21:50] I wanted to see what he thought about this, you know. So I went and asked him about. it. He says, "why did you come and ask me? You get the honors here.

[22:00] My my friend Warren Murray, he went up to the hall. He he went with the intention of studying under De Koninck huh Because De Koninck taught the philosophy. of nature and. He was really into that stuff. And and Warren had his scientific background, you know, chemistry and so on. And that's how I first got to know Warren. You know, he's always answering the right questions in class, biology and so on.

[22:23] Professor, you know, asked a question, everybody's got a. You see, Murray, tell me the answer. So this this attracted me to Warren, you know. So so, but when Warren went up to study under De Koninck De Koninck be perfectly clear that the greatest mind here is Monsignor Dionne So so, when I went to see him about it. He said, "What are you asking me for, Dionne I said, "I want to know what you think, anyway.

[22:54] " He says, "Okay. " It's funny, even you know, Mrs. De Koninck, you know, she's you know, greatly loved her husband, right, and thought very highly, of him, you know, and so on. And this young lady who went to Thomas Aquinas College out there in California, she you know, enrolled up there, right? And

[23:21] and she was staying, you know, at De Koninck's house there, you know, kind of helping out the thing. And and De Koninck made perfectly clear that Monsignor Dionne is the greatest mind here.

[23:37] And he said, much more, even she said that, you know. My brother Mark says the first day he met Mr. De Koninck, you know. you have my husband yet, you know? And so that's the first thing he comes out with, you know. And then he makes perfectly clear that this guy's coming up to study under him. Dionne is the greatest mind

[23:59] See, Dionne is a younger man. He had sent Warren to France to study under the great Jacques Maritain And then he. you know was in the private group there. They were working with Maritain. He began to see Maritain didn't understand the text of Thomas, and he was, you know, leading him astray in the understanding of it. And Mrs. De Konin, Mrs. uh, his wife, yeah, uh, you know, he's not, he's not coming over to this session, you know.

[24:33] Hell hath no fury. Yeah, the woman scorned, yeah. Mrs. Codybrand. Yeah. But De Koninck made so clear to Mrs. His wife, you know, Dionne that she had to say that to this young lady that was still there Like it was per se notum or something.

[24:55] Yeah. Once Dionne said to me, "You know, there's temptation to pride. You know, as a fact, he understood Thomas, and other people didn't understand Thomas that well. You know. Okay. So, get to the body article now. It said contra first, right? Yeah.

[25:30] But against this is what is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the saints, through faith, right, achieved what? The promises. Yeah. Which would not be unless they merited by. faith Therefore, ipsum credere, to believe itself is meritorious.

[25:54] What Thomas answers here, very to the point, that I answer. It should be said that has been said above. Our acts are what meritorious. In so far as they proceed, right, from free will, right, moved by God, through us. That's, that's good. well said. that he's. he's, uh, yeah. Whence every human act, which is subject to free will, right? So I guess doesn't mean the digestion of food you were talking about earlier.

[26:35] That is subject to free will, if it be related to what to God, is able to be meritorious. But to believe is an act of the understanding, right? Assenting to divine truth, from the command of the will, moved by God, through grace. That's a great definition.

[27:09] So would you say, Thomas expresses himself well, or expresses the truth well? He must know the truth, right? And thus, it is subject to what? Free will, in order to God Himself In order to God himself. Hence, the act of faith can be meritorious. So someone who cannot exercise free will, therefore, cannot merit. Mm hmm I guess someone's in a coma Yeah. Now, what about not being meritorious here in the next article?

[27:55] Article ten here. To the tenth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that a reason brought in to what thinking about those things of faith diminishes the merit of faith.

[28:15] And he quotes in the first objection the great Gregory the Great, I guess. Okay, for Gregory says, in his student homily, that faith does not have merit to which what But human reason gives us experience. So if we know it directly,

[28:36] if therefore human reason sufficiently gives us experience, it totally excludes the merit of faith, and therefore it seems that whatever human reason is brought in to those things are faith, it diminishes what merit of faith, and it's really convincing. No matter at all.

[29:08] Moreover, let's look at Plankus. Take it too far. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Gregory speaks in the case that case when a man does not have the will to believe except on account of the reason what brought in.

[29:35] But when a man has the will of believing those things which are faith from authority alone, divine authority, even if he has a what demonstrative reason, huh? That's the. Yeah, just some of those things, as example that God exists, right? Not on account of this is taken or diminished the merit of faith.

[30:09] This guy was talking about Charles de Koninck said he believes more. His mother told him about God than he did studying Thomas, right? Huh? Any questions he said about the example given here of demonstrating, right? It's possible to demonstrate that by actual reason, right? He says, "I think I can prove the existence of God." He says, "But I would not be so presumptuous as to say so."

[30:39] So it would just be like the parents who would not believe unless they had signs. Yeah. Yeah. But someone says, you know, I've never seen any miracles, you know, in my life, and I'm not going to believe, you know, unless I have a miracle right to prove it. That's in a sense what they're saying to Christ, aren't they? In a way.

[31:06] Yeah. The second objection: whatever diminishes the nature of virtue diminishes the nature of merit, because the felicity, right, happiness, is the what reward of virtue, as also the philosopher says in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics. But human reason would seem to diminish the ratio of virtue of faith itself, because it's of the very nature ratio of what faith is that it be of things that are not appearing, right?

[31:55] This has been said above. And the more more reasons are induced to something, so the less is it not what apparent. Therefore, human reason brought in for those things which are faith diminishes the merit of faith.

[32:23] To second, it should be said, Thomas says that the reasons which are brought in for the authority of faith are not demonstrations which what.

[32:38] To the intelligible understanding of man, yeah. They can give you the vision Yeah And therefore, they do not cease to be not what appearing. But they remove the impediments to faith, right? By showing it to be not impossible what is proposed in faith, right? Especially what you do with talking of the Trinity, right?

[33:09] Because the Mohammedan might think that we've got you now. you're really saying there's three gods or something, you know. Because we know there can be only one God, and you got three persons, and you all say all three persons are God. You know,

[33:29] that seems like you're in trouble there, right? Whence do such arguments, right, that show it's not impossible what's being proposed, right? One does not diminish the merit of faith, nor the ratio of faith,

[33:52] but the rationes demonstrative, demonstrative reasons that are brought in to those things which are of faith are certain what? Preambles. Yeah, walking before, right? Yeah, but not articles Yeah they're, approaching it though, right?

[34:14] Although, right, they diminish the ratio of faith because they make something to appear, but it has been proposed, right? They do not, however, diminish the ratio of what?

[34:28] Through which the will is prompt to believing those things, even if they do not what? appear. And therefore it does not diminish the ratio. All right, huh? Okay, subtle thing there. Okay, new

[34:56] objection here. Contraries, contrary are the cause. Philosopher? Empedocles, right, huh? Empedocles yeah. So he said love and hate are the movers, right? And it's because sometimes earth, air, fire, and water come together, and sometimes they are separated. So they must be contrary what? Causes of these contrary effects.

[35:38] But those things which are induced in the contrariety of faith increase the merit of faith. Whether it be the persecution of the one forcing one, or trying to force one to receive from the faith, or some ratio persuading this some way, huh? Therefore, the ratio aiding faith diminishes the merit of what? Faith.

[36:09] If you're persecuted for the faith, you increase your merit, but if you're helped, you decrease your merit. Yeah. So that's why we persecuted you just for mission study. To the third, it should be said that those things which are repugnant to faith, right, within the consideration of man or in exterior persecution, to that extent increase merit of faith, in so far as they show the will to be more prompt and firm in faith, huh?

[36:49] I've heard that said sometimes. Thomas said in fact that praising the early church fathers for holding on to the faith, even though they couldn't answer some of the arguments, right, and that showed that they were prompt and firm in faith, and therefore the martyrs had more merit of faith, not receding from faith in account of persecution, and also even what sapientes, right,

[37:20] had more merit of faith, not receding from faith in account of the rationes philosophorum, right, or the heretics too, or the heretics against the faith, bringing arguments.

[37:36] That's what that Frenchman is doing, right? Reading the objections, you know, to these things, and then giving them to embarrass these young Christians, yeah. But those things which what Belong or come together with faith. Yeah. do not always diminish the promptitude of the will for believing, and therefore do not always diminish the merit of what faith. huh

[38:10] Sometimes they do maybe I like his authority in this. Contrary, right? For us, we're kind of slow to understand these things, huh? But against this is what is said in the first epistle of Peter, chapter three, verse fifteen. Parate semper be always prepared. You say right for the satisfaction to everyone asking you for a reason of those things which are in you by faith, right and hope.

[38:38] But this is not the apostle would not induce us to this if through this the merit of faith were diminished. Therefore, the ratio does not what reason does not diminish the merit of faith.

[38:57] Now going back to his principle here in the beginning of respondeo, I answer it should be said that as has been said, the act of faith can be meritorious in so far as it's subject to the will, not only as regards use but also as regards what assent. That's the act of faith For the ratio of human reason, right into those things which are faith, in two ways can have itself to the will of the one believing.

[39:30] In one way as preceding, because someone either does not have the will or does not have a prompt will for believing, unless human reason is what right in. And thus the human human reason right in diminishes the merit of faith,

[39:58] as has been said above that the passion preceding what choice in the virtue in the moral virtues diminishes the praise of the what. Yeah. I really want to be praised from my generous alms. Yeah. Just as a man what ought to exercise the acts of the moral virtues on account of judgment of reason, not on account of what passion.

[40:30] We're talking today there about the doctor prescribed you suicide or that sort of thing like that, and and people who are in support of it, you know, they usually end up by talking about you know, well, you don't have to suffer, you know, so you're feeling pity, you know, for these people, right, huh? And that's not.

[40:57] a reason for practicing justice Yeah, yeah. Because you have to exercise the acts of moral virtues, propter judicium rationis, on account of the judgment of what, reason, non propter passionem, right? Okay. So we went down to the Boston there when they were debating that in the committee there, right? Huh? Because you bring these guys in, you know, as you know, treating kindly, you know, their spouse, you know, and things, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[41:34] But but they make it, you know, make it, you know, sound like you know you're you're inhuman and making people, you know, suffer, you know, and going to die anyway, you know, and so on. And that's not an account of judicium rationis, but propter passionem, right?

[41:57] So a man has to believe things which are of faith, not on account of human reason, but on account of what Divine authority. Another way human reason can have itself to the will of believing consequenter, right? Huh? Hey, Thomas is looking before and after. Yeah, right. Yeah. So he must have read Shakespeare too, huh? Yeah must know

[42:30] In the original Latin Now, but when a man has a promptum, huh, a prompt will to believing, right? Huh? He loves the truth, but believed. and over it he thinks out, right? And embraces whatever reasons he can find, yeah.

[43:03] And as regards this, human reason does not exclude the merit of faith, but it is a sign of the greater merit. Just as passion, consequence, huh, in moral virtues is a sign of a more prompt will. Not one preceding, you would say, huh? Okay. This has been said above.

[43:33] And this is signified John four forty two, where the Samaritan, right? Samaritans. Yeah, to the woman, through this what human reason is figured when it says, "I do not now on account of your speech believe." We believe now because we heard ourselves. He's got authority. Better to have. Reasons or not to have reasons? She says better those who do not see. Yeah. Before or after? Here's the question.

[44:03] Before or after? Or either way? Yeah. Say you know more lust for those who do not see But believe. Yeah. Let me this exterior act of faith will be easier to see now.

[44:24] Then, we wanted to consider about the exterior act of faith, which is confession, right? Because every confession is used for a number of senses, right? Yeah, that's what somebody somebody was asking. We celebrated. Who was it? It was the woman saying, "Oh, Francis de Breen Confessor." Well, how could she be a confessor? She's a woman.

[44:55] These words are equivocal by reason, you know. It's cause you all kinds of troubles. First, with the confession, two things are asked here. First, with the confession is an act of faith. Secondly, whether confession is necessary for salvation.

[45:14] Okay. the first question: whether confession is an act of faith. The first one proceeds thus. It seems that confession is not an act of faith,

[45:27] for it's not the same act that what pertains to diverse virtues. but confession pertains to what? Penance. Yeah, no, no, I was young. It wasn't confession the name that was commonly used. Confession, yeah. Yeah, Not reconciliation, but confession.

[46:02] So confession pertains to penance, of which it is a part, really, it is a part. Therefore, it's not the act of faith. Sir Thomas is here. The first, therefore, it should be said that threefold is the confession which is praised in what scriptures.

[46:25] One is the confession of those things which are of faith, and this is the what proper act of faith as related to the end of faith, as has been said. Another is the confession of what. Thanksgiving. Yeah. And this is the act of what. latria,

[46:53] Which is ordered to honor God, to be shown in an exterior way, right? Which is the end of what? latria, right? Third is the confession of sinners, and this is ordered to the deletion of sin, which is the end of penance. What it pertains to pens, right? So,

[47:19] the father of logic said this is the most common way men people make mistakes, right? Mixing up the the words there, right? What's the

[47:30] famous example there in the medieval philosophers? They confused two philosophers, right? Because they had the same name, right? It came down. He said, "That's the same man, right? " Yeah. Remember one time when I was particularly reading a lot about Winston Churchill, right? And apparently there are two Winston Churcholes. One is the statesman, and the other is a novelist, right? And of course, I'd read in one of the biographies of Winston Churchill that he wrote a novel, right?

[48:11] He's kind of wrote a biographical novel. And so I was kind of looking around. In I didn't know about this other Winston Churchill, right? So I was looking around, you know, for the the Winston Churchill the statesman. And he had these these two names, right? Well, Chris apparently Churchill, the statesman, you know, discovered that there was this novelist, right, in his books, and people were mixing them up, right?

[48:36] And so I seen a little bit of the letter. You know, he sent to the guy, you know, how we can distinguish between ourselves. Well, a true true American form. I heard about some popular entertainer. I remember who it was. Yeah. When he found out that somebody in another part of the country had the same name, he sued him for having the same name. Yeah.

[49:02] I have trademark on my name. You can't take it. Yeah. Yeah. Business, business, and lawyer. So you know, this guy comes to my house there Wednesday night. There, his name is Richard. You know, he and Joshua, and Chris always told me that he had a brother named Richard. You know. My brother's name is

[49:30] Patrick. Must be the same one. What was it? Yukimura? Is that the one? Yeah. But I know that yeah, nobody thinks of the same guy now. Yeah, but the Middle Ages, they and didn't seem. Chester made fun of this. Scholars they often will critique some text and knock out its authority. They say it wasn't written by the who it's supposed to be. Yeah. So he was criticizing.

[50:05] Chester was poking fun at this attitude of certain scholars. Yeah. Well, the scholars today, when he's talking about the book of Job, and saying, "Well, it wasn't really written by this, " blah blah blah, he says, "Well, that's kind of like. . . " Say that Homer wasn't really written by Homer. It was written by somebody else who had the same name.

[50:29] Okay. We get to the second objection now, right? Moreover, from this or by this, that a man confesses faith, he is sometimes what retracted from doing this by what fear,

[51:01] or also on account of some what confusion, right? Embarrassed by this. Whence the apostle, Epistle to the Ephesians, asks to what that they pray for him. Yeah, that he might what with confidence, I guess, right? Make known the mystery of the gospel, but to not recede from the good on account of confusion or fear pertains to fortitude, right? That's one of the cardinal virtues,

[51:39] which moderates boldness and fears. Therefore, it seems that confession is not an act of faith, but more of what fortitude, constancy. To the second, Thomas says, it should be said that the removens prohibens is not a cause that is per se, but what per accidens, as is clear through the what philosopher in the eighth book of the physics, right? So,

[52:24] who's the guy in the Old Testament that? Samson. Samson, yeah, Yeah, Yeah. He's a causa removens prohibens. I was holding up the roof, right?

[52:42] Whence fortitude that removes the impediment of what confession of faith, at fear or being embarrassed, right, is not properly in per se the cause of confession, but per accidens. Very subtle, huh?

[53:15] It's a different kind of per accidens causa than say luck or chance, right? Okay. Third, moreover, just as through the fervor of faith one is induced to confessing the faith outwardly, right, so also one is induced to other exterior good deeds, making them right, as is said in Galatians five, verse six, that faith through love, right, works.

[54:02] But other exterior works are not laid down as being acts of faith; therefore, also neither confession. To the third, it should be said that interior faith, by way of love, right, causes all exterior acts of the virtues by means of other what? Virtues by commanding, not by what? Eliciting as an act of the virtue itself, huh? It commands that, right?

[54:42] But the confession there in faith we're talking about produces as its own act, right? Not through some other what? Virtue, right? Okay. Makes sense, huh? Makes sense.

[55:03] Let Thomas get away with that, anyway. Yeah, sounds pretty good. Now, against this, the argument from authority: Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Opus fidei in virtute, right? And the gloss says here

[55:31] that is confession, which proprie is a work of faith, huh? Okay. Hence, it should be said that the exterior acts of the virtue properly are acts for the ends according to what their species are referred, just as to what? jejunare To fast To fast right? According to its species, refers to the end of what? Yeah. Which is to compressure. Compression. It sounds pretty awful. What you guys do up here?

[56:23] Yeah. Okay. And therefore, it's an act of abstinence, right? Confession of those things which are of faith, according to its what species are ordered, just as to the end to that which is of faith, according to that of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, four, chapter thirteen. Having the same spirit of faith, we believe, on account of which also we what? Speak. Speak, yeah.

[57:05] For exterior speech is ordered to signifying that which is conceived in heart If you tell your children not to steal, what are you doing? It's an act of faith. No. No. It's like an act of justice. Yeah, yeah.

[57:34] Whence, just as the what? The interior. Interior conception, right? Of those things which are of faith. is properly an act of faith. So also the exterior. Yeah.

[57:50] Someone someone who doesn't have charity can still make a confession of faith. then. Is that correct? Okay. What? I said someone who doesn't have charity can still make a confession of faith. Yeah. Yeah.

[58:09] But it's got to be a faith, right now. What would we say to those who make a confession of imperfect faith? Like Protestants. Yeah, there's a question of what's their motive. You know, I know um...

[58:31] one of the things is the old axiom about what we believe what God has revealed and the church has proposed. Well, they believe what God has revealed? But they kind of skip over what's proposing. Who's the witness? And they they think it's just God himself. and they just kind of ignore the witness. So that's that's part of their imperfection. is there? It's kind of like having a right opinion.

[58:56] That's what I was thinking. Protestants they have a right opinion about God things God has revealed. I mean, it would be a real act of confession of faith, but it'd just be a imperfect or an incomplete confession. Or something. They can confess Jesus isn't their Lord. Jesus is Lord. If they have an opinion, it's correct? And they don't. have the right reason. They can confess he's a he's Lord, but have.

[59:18] an, um... But who on whose authority do they know that? That's the question. Well, but God doesn't appear to them directly. To the scriptures. that somebody But when the church gives them that, that's what I know. I said that to the lady once, who was a Protestant. I said, Where did you get the Bible? Well, I bought it down at the bookstore over here. I said no, no, no, no, no.

[59:39] That's not it. Where did you get the Bible? Their act of faith would imply the church even if they don't Yeah, explicitly. But they they kind of ignore it because most of them don't know that the Bible. Yeah, they thought Martin Luther wrote it or something, whatever. If I should go to the blackboard over here, the green board, and illustrate the geometrical theorem, right, and show how the thing can be proven and so on, right?

[1:00:08] Would that be an act of geometry? To show that would be an act of geometry for you, right? To acknowledge. Well, would you guys be instructed a bit, right? We would, yeah. Yeah. Would you call that the exterior act of geometry or what?

[1:00:32] It's not an exterior act of faith, is it? I don't know It's not the inward act of geometry, right, huh? Faith would be if you wrote in large letters the the conclusion on the board, And then we have the act of faith that. Yeah, that's true. But if you But that'd be human faith, though, right? Someone, yeah, confess articles of faith without having faith. Yeah, yeah. Some people get a PhD in theology and they don't believe in God.

[1:01:13] It's not the inward active faith. I know a guy who's taking a degree at Harvard there in the graduate school. You know, and the guy says, "Now, it's a pure hypothesis that Saint John believed in the divinity of Christ. " It's

[1:01:33] ridiculous, you know. And another professor there said, "You know, you gotta be, you know, come to hate the Gospel of Saint John. " So he called me up on the phone and said, "Can I come out to your house and we'll read the Gospels together? " These crazy place down here at Harvard, you know, once you undermine the authority of the church, what? Once you undermine the authority of the church, then you undermine the yeah, yeah, the rest of the scriptures, the rest of revelation.

[1:02:03] What is the guy thinking? He's doing teaching. He hates Saint John and things of that sort. Strange. That was not the exterior active theology. I don't think.

[1:02:20] Okay. No.