Tertia Pars
1. From the Head to the Feet: The Word Made Flesh and the Plan of the Tertia Pars
Class of 2008-09-18
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/001-from-the-head-to-the-feet-the-word-made-flesh-and-the-plan/

[0:00] Say okay. Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God our enlightenment. Guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, and help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. I thought I'd begin with a word here from the Gospel of Saint John,

[0:34] chapter twenty. Here after the resurrection, but Mary was standing outside weeping at the tomb. So as she wept, she stooped down and looked into the tomb, and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid.

[1:15] Now, what do those two angels represent? One sitting at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. And why did I begin this? year Maybe divinity and humanity. Yeah, yeah. And in the Catena Aurea and also in Thomas's commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, there are many things I've said about this, but the one that we're interested in is coming from Gregory the Great, huh?

[1:47] Or he said the angel sits at the head when it is preached by the apostles. In the beginning was the word, so he just rehearses the divinity.

[2:01] And the Word sits at the feet when it is said the word was made what flesh, huh? Okay. So I thought we were going from the head to feet, huh? Because we like to invoke the angels, right? We're going to go from the guidance of the angel who sat at the head, right, contemplating the divinity of Christ, to the angel who sat at the feet. Now, right, we're going to instruct us about the humanity of Christ.

[2:34] Now, another struck me about the two passages that Gregory refers to. It's just quoting at the beginning of each passage, but in the beginning was the word, and the word was made flesh. Huh? Kind of struck me that those two passages juxtaposed there to explain, what the symbolism is of the two angels sitting at the. Where Christ's head was and where his feet were. That they involve these two figures of speech that I usually consider together.

[3:07] And you know the terrible names of those two speeches, huh? For the neophytes here, we'll call them, they have terrible names. Antonomasia right? And synecdoche. Now, why do I consider those two figures of speech together? What do they have in common? And he's standing out above the other, and the other is the either part for the whole, a whole for the part. So maybe one is standing for.

[3:53] Yeah. Well, actually, both are concerned with whole and part, right? But in antonomasia, is whole and part in the sense of universal whole and part. And synecdoche is whole and part in the sense of composed whole and part. So if you recall in logic, we distinguish between the composed whole

[4:29] and what we call the universal whole. And usually, I say the composed whole is put together from its parts, but not said of them. And universal whole is said of its parts, but not put together from them. Okay. So when you now Plato talks about this in the dialogue called the Symposium, right? But he doesn't use these horrible names. He just speaks of giving the name of the whole to the part, or you know, he's talking about how the word lover, right, is given to the romantic lover, right?

[5:09] Okay. Even though it's a common name, right? Or the word poet, which in Greek means maker, is given to what we call the poet, but just a Greek word for what? Just like the word Bible is just the Greek word for book.

[5:26] So in antonomasia, is when the name that is what said of many, right, is given to one of them in particular because it stands out.

[5:40] And so when Saint John says, "In the beginning was the Word," huh? Meaning the thought, right? Well, I get thoughts, you get thoughts, and angels have thoughts, and so on, right? But among all thoughts, this one stands out. And you may recall I kind of explained that in four steps, right? What's unique about this thought? See that it can be called by antonomasia thought. Well, it's the only thought that God has.

[6:17] Must be something. It's the only thought that God has, right? Because He's, you know, infinitely superior, right? Must be some thought, right? And then we said secondly that one thought is better than another because it's about a better thing. Well, this is a thought about God, and it's the only thought about God that is expresses fully what God is.

[6:44] And then third, this is the only thought that is subsistent, the only thought that is a person. And last but not least, this thought is God. Okay, so you can see why this is among all thoughts the thought, huh, by antonomasia Okay. But now, when Saint John says in the second passage, "Here, and the Word was made flesh," right?

[7:16] Well, now you're giving the what name of a composing part, flesh, to the whole, right? And certain heretics, right, have taken that statement as not being said figuratively but properly, right? And therefore, people like Arius, right, say, or Apollinaris, they substitute the word for the soul. See, as if he took on just flesh and not a human soul, right? So it's important to realize that you're speaking here by synecdoche, You see, the word was made flesh.

[7:58] There are examples of that in Scripture: "all flesh has come to be," and so on. And sometimes men are called souls, right? But that's synecdoche too. Charles De Koninck used to point out when you say Saint Peter pray for us, by giving the name of the what composed whole to what is only a part, the soul.

[8:24] I won't be between my death and the resurrection, right? My soul will be, but I won't be. But you can still refer to me. It was quite pray for purgation. We know he's taking a long time in purgatory there, and it's giving a little shove forward.

[8:43] and God will understand you're speaking by giving the name of the whole to only a part of it, okay. Now, you may recall how the old rule of two and three, huh? And kind of a footnote to the consideration of the rule of two or three is what Aristotle points out in the first book of Natural hearing, the Physics, where he shows the change between contraries or opposites.

[9:23] And then in the next reading, he shows that there must be a third thing besides the contraries, but then he stops with the fact that they are enough to explain change. And I often stop on that when I teach that first book of Natural hearing, and I say, now you will find this to be true very often. That two is not enough, although in some cases it is,

[9:51] but three is enough. And there's so many very important examples of that that it's worth noting. I was looking. At the Verbum Dei there in Vatican II, and I think it's the end of the second chapter, right, where it's talking about sacred scripture, the Bible, sacred tradition, right, and the magisterium of the Church, three things, right, and it says that none of these two can stand without the other.

[10:24] You need all three. That's a beautiful example of three, right? Another example of three is there are three theological virtues, huh? That's all you need: faith, hope, and charity. You need you need all three.

[10:47] I think there is a real connection between the Mass, let's say, and these three theological virtues, huh? And when I say a lot of times Thomas's prayer there before Mass, there the Adoro Te Devote. Well, in the middle quatrain, you have asking for faith, hope, and charity, and then of course we're told in the words of the consecration, "Do this in remembrance of me." So it's appropriate to say this prayer.

[11:12] A lot of us learned as a child before the before the crucifix, right? Um, but that also asks for faith, hope, and what charity. Now I was thinking of the music of the Mass. Remember how I spoke of the symmetry of that? There are five parts of the music: the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, and the Benedictus, and the Agnus Dei. And the two extremes here are prayers asking for God's mercy.

[11:45] The next two, the Gloria and the Sanctus, are praising God, and then the the Creed is a profession of faith. So there you have what faith. In the prayer, you have hope, and then praise goes with what love. Like that passage I had from Augustine, you know, Amare in laudibus, love and praises, and laudare in amore? to praise and love, huh? Okay. And so, if we love somebody or something, we'll be praising.

[12:17] We'll be praising Mozart, or praising Shakespeare, or praising Thomas, or praising you know someone else that I love, right? Okay. So three is a very important number, right? And actually, it seems to me that there is basically three orders, huh, in which one can consider sacred doctrine.

[12:46] And one of those orders, of course, is that found in the Bible, huh? That's the fundamental one, right? But then, when Saint Augustine was asked by a educated layman, you might say, huh, to give him a kind of a summary of Christian teaching, right? He divided it in his book called the Enchiridion which means in the hand, like a manual. He divided the whole of Christian doctrine according to faith, hope, and what charity, right?

[13:18] And so, corresponding to faith, he explained the creed. Corresponding to hope, the Our Father. And corresponding to what charity, the two commandments of love and the Ten Commandments, huh? So in a way, you take in the whole of Christian doctrine. For an educated layman, for most men, right, and for all of us as children, right.

[13:44] But it's divided into what three? You get completeness there, right? The the catechism of the Catholic Church, I should say, it's got four parts, right? But that's because the part on sanctification, which includes the sacraments, is what expanded there, right? Okay, but basically it's ordered under those same three.

[14:13] Now Thomas Aquinas, of course, follows Augustine there. In his catechetical instructions at Naples, there at the end of his life, he gives it in faith, hope, and charity. And when his friend Reginald there asked him for a kind of a shorter work that he could keep at hand and and read all the time, Thomas started to write the Compendium of Theology, right? That's divided according to faith, hope, and what charity, right?

[14:42] Okay. So that's a division of sacred doctrine that's appropriate to children, right? And to every Christian, right? It's fundamental for all of us, huh?

[14:55] But is that the division into three that Thomas uses in the two Sumas? He uses that in the Compendium, right? In the catechetical instruction, that's very appropriate. But is that the three that he has here?

[15:09] No. What are the three that Thomas uses in the two Sumas? Because that's going to be enough. There's another three. God himself, yeah. God is the beginning of all things. God is the end. Yeah, yeah. Now we talked a little bit about antonomasia there when we talked about the word, right?

[15:34] But in the Apocalypse of Saint John, the last book here, the Bible, huh? It's amazing how many times it comes up, huh? And you'll find used in one way or another, either I am the Alpha and the Omega. Or he'll say I am the first and the last. ho protos kai ho eschatos huh? And he'll say I am what? The beginning, the he arche, kai to telos, the end, huh?

[16:07] Okay. For example, in chapter one, verse eight, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. Right? Okay. And then in chapter two, verse eight, "And to the angel of the church at Smyrna, right, thus says the first and the last,

[16:33] who is dead and is alive. " Huh? That's kind of tying into two, right? Okay. And then at the end of the book, chapter twenty-one. I don't know those first two chapters are there. The last two chapters here. Chapter twenty-one here, verse six.

[16:59] He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the what? End, huh? " arche kai telos huh. And then in verse thirteen, culmination of the whole thing, huh?

[17:19] And my reward is with me to render to each one according to his works, huh? Now he says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Says all three, right?

[17:36] Now, is he speaking properly, or is he speaking figuratively? When he says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, I am the beginning and the end."

[17:52] The Alpha and Omega. He would be speaking properly. He's not. he's not. letters of the alphabet. What about when he says, "I am the beginning and the end"?

[18:05] Literally. Well, there are many beginnings and ends, right? This is the beginning of the table here. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Among all beginnings, he is the beginning because he's the first beginning, the beginning of all the things, right? And he's the end of all the things, right? Is it good of all goods, as Augustine says, huh? Okay. So he is, by antonomasia, the beginning and the end, right?

[18:41] Okay. So in the two Summas, the Summa Theologiae, which we're going to be doing some more work in, and the summa, Contra Gentiles. In both of them, there is a division of sacred doctrine according to God in Himself. God is the what maker, right? And then God is the what end, right? Huh? Okay. But there's still an enormous what variation between these two works, huh?

[19:20] And in the case of the Summa Contra Gentiles huh? What's unique about that work is that Thomas crisscrosses, you might say, those three, right, with another distinction, and that is distinction between those things that can be known about God and discovered even by natural reason, though for most of us we have to rely upon faith, huh? And then those things that can be known, right, only by faith, huh?

[19:58] So just diagram. A little bit the way that is done in the Summa Contra Gentiles Summa Contra Gentiles has four books, okay, and so book one is about God by himself, right? Okay,

[20:32] and there we learn of course that God exists, and we learn what his substance is, what his operation is, and so on. And then in book two,

[20:45] he talks about God as the what maker, right? And talking about God as a maker, he talks somewhat about the things he's made too, right? Their distinctions, so on, right? So far as it's appropriate for the theologian to talk about, especially the things he made that are what rational, like us and the angels, huh? Then in book three, he talks about God as the end, okay? But to that is attached then the consideration of the divine providence.

[21:26] So he shows first in book three that God is the end of all things, and and in a very special way of us and the angels, and then he shows in general God's providence over the whole of what he's made, right? Directing everything to himself, and then there's a third part where he talks about God's special providence over what man, okay, and and the rational creature you could say, right?

[21:54] Okay, but it all comes under this heading of God as he is. Now, he tries to restrict himself in these three books to something that can be known about God or found out about God by natural reason, right? And some of the greatest philosophers of the past, and especially Aristotle, right, but Plato to some extent, had found many of these things, right? Okay, and so he gives reasons, you know, that a pure philosopher, right, or a mere philosopher could could follow, huh?

[22:31] Aristotle could follow, and then he'll give what you know quotes from Scripture too, right? Okay. Well, then in book four, he does the same three things, huh? Not divided into separate books, huh? He considers what can be known about God in himself only by faith, right? And so he takes up the Trinity there, right?

[23:04] I notice that place the Trinity, in a much different place because in the Summa Theologiae as we've found in the prima pars, you take up God by Himself, you take up the Trinity, right? But Thomas is crisscrossing this division with the other division, right? The division between those things that can be known only by faith and those things that can be known by reason as well as by faith.

[23:35] And then, so this corresponds to God by Himself, right? But no, only by faith. Then God is the Maker, he says. Well, and the Word was made flesh. That's a making, right? It's one hell of a making, Thomas says, right? It's the greatest thing he made.

[23:59] So then you have the incarnation, right? And then things about man's last end, right? Resurrection of the body and these things and so on. They might call eschatology nowadays, right? The last things.

[24:27] Now, to the incarnation, he attaches the consideration of the sacraments, but they are like tools that Christ is using, right? But notice they come under God as the Maker, right? The most marvelous thing He's made is is what the Word flesh, right? But He's made wonderful things like the Eucharist, right? Baptism and so on, right? And all the sacraments, huh?

[24:56] You see that? So basically, you have a division into these three, but you in a sense, go through that division twice because of this other division, right? By reason as by faith, although reason is not very sufficient for this, but it is is equal. And incidentally, I think I made this point before for you, but

[25:26] you know the Church Fathers explain something in divine providence from the Jews not being converted, right? Now this is not good that the Jews are not all converted, but out of that bad, you might say, thing, God brought one good thing, right? And that is that the Jews who were not converted and who in many cases were terribly opposed to the Christians and chased Paul out of the city and you know almost stoned him to death and so on.

[25:58] They are witnesses to the authenticity of the what, the books of the Old Testament, huh? For which the Christians argued that hey, these things were foreseen, huh? And if you read them carefully and see, hey, this is about this man we just talked about, right? But if there had not been people like the Jews who would not be converted and who were opposed to Christians, the pagans might say, well, you just put those books up yourself, you know, or something like that, right?

[26:25] Okay. Well, you know today how very often, you know, when you oppose something like abortion or something of this sort, and you say, well, you're just opposed to abortion because you're a Catholic, I say, no, no, you know, or are you opposed to homosexuality because you're a Catholic, right? Then we pick up, you know, Plato's last work, the Laws, and he proposes a law against homosexuality because it's against nature, right?

[26:51] So even in a pagan society where this vice was very prevalent and tolerated, a philosopher by reason alone, without the faith, right, can come to know this, right? Okay. And you know the Church teaches us in the First Vatican Council that we can know that God exists, right? We Know some things about God by reason alone, right? But if Thomas is using his reason to know these things, by reason alone as well as by faith, right?

[27:21] I mean, so he just does that because he's influenced by his faith, right? But when Aristotle or Plato or somebody arrives at these things without the faith, then that's what shows that these things can be known, right? Okay. So you see what I'm saying here is that the division of Contra gentiles is based upon those three things, right? But it's a little bit complicated by being crisscrossed with this division between things that can be known by reason as well as by faith and by faith what only, right?

[28:01] Do you see that? Now perhaps there was a reason why Thomas crisscrossed them, right? Because the Dominican General said we want some help there down in Spain, right? Because we're meeting these very intelligent Jews that are very intelligent Mohammedans, right? And we want to talk to them, right? So Thomas wanted to separate those things that you could talk to in different ways, right? These things down here you can't prove to the non-believer, but you can answer objections that these are impossible, right?

[28:38] You can show the reasonableness and so on. By these things here, you can use arguments to convince them, right? Okay. But it does bring something out: the fact that there are some things that can be known by both and some not.

[28:55] That's an important thing, right? And you see that even in the senses, huh? There are some things that only the eye knows, and some things that only touch knows. But there are some things that they both know, like the shape of this glass. I can know it by touch, without my eyes, and I can know it with my eyes without touching it. So it's like this with faith and reason, right?

[29:23] There are some things that only faith knows, the Trinity, the incarnation, right? Some of these things are about the last things. But there are some things that reason can know as well as faith, huh? Okay.

[29:40] Now, the Summa Theologiae, as you know, is divided into what? Three parts, right? You might say, "Oh, oh, I bet that's those three parts he's talking about." Oh, no, they're not. Okay.

[29:58] Now, if you look, you don't have the other volume properly. Today, but if you look back in question two of the prima pars, right? Because, therefore, the chief intention he says of this sacred teaching is to consider the knowledge of God, and not only according as it is in Himself, right?

[30:23] Or not only, and not only according as He is in Himself, but also according as He is the what, principium of things and the end of things, right? And especially of rational creatures, right? Okay, so he's basing himself upon that threefold division, right? He's touching upon the fact that he's the end of all things, right? But in a special way of us, and Thomas will have that in the subdivision here, right?

[30:54] Okay. So he says, aiming at the exposition, the laying out of his teaching. First, we will treat of God, right, and that's the prima pars. Secondly, about the motion of the rational creature to God, that would be the second part, and third, about Christ.

[31:36] Who, as he is a man, is the via, the road, for us to tend to God, right? Well, if you go through the whole of the prima pars, which you didn't do, right? But in the whole of the prima pars, you would talk about God by Himself, right, including the Trinity, right? Okay. So now we're talking about God's knowledge, right? And then you talk about God in general as the Maker of all things and so on, and then God is the end, right, of all things in general.

[32:14] And the whole of the second part, and even the whole of the third part, right, in different ways, are all concerned with the what rational creatures having God as an end in a special way, right? And all the means of getting there, like the virtues in the second part, and then through God becoming man and being the what way. Of course, Thomas's words are taken from Christ's words: "I am the way, the truth, and the life," right?

[32:47] As God, He's truth itself and life itself. As man, He's the road, the way to this truth and this life, huh? Okay. So notice you might say that this part here is expanded upon, right? By Thomas in the second part, and it kind of you know almost unveils as a thing, right? In terms of seeing, you know, clearly that in the first two books here, you know, that's divided upon those three, but still based upon those three, right?

[33:20] now, I'm sorry. so, so basically, all three are in the first part, and then he then he expands on the third in the end. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I see. Now, Thomas does here in the the third part of Book Three, right? He talks about God as the end of all things, right? Then he talks about his providence over the whole of creation, right, in general, and then the third and last part of Book Three is about his special providence over man.

[34:07] And you might say that the second part of the Summa is like corresponds to the third part here, and the third part corresponds down here to what? This here. Okay. The Trinity is taken up there in the Summa. Okay. You see that? But you know, following Aristotle said, and what and what Nicholas of Cusa knows, right? When you get into what we call moral theology, that second part of the Summa, you got to go greatly into detail as all the particular things man has to, you know, be responsible for.

[34:47] So just still following basically the idea of these three parts, right? You see that? But now perhaps the most interesting difference in the way the three give rise to what's being considered each one of them. In the Summa Contra Gentiles, the incarnation is under what? The Maker. In the Summa Theologiae, it's under God as the what? Maker. Yeah.

[35:24] And both of these are correct. The incarnation is the greatest thing that God made. It's a miracle of miracles, as Thomas says, right? Every other miracle is the sake of this one. Right. So it's not incorrect in talking about the incarnation under the heading of God, the maker, right?

[35:51] And the most magnificent thing is made. You see that, but when we consider why did God become a man, right? Now you know many questions we ask about the incarnation. Many questions we ask about the Trinity, right? And basically, there's three very central questions. huh? You talk of the Trinity, the first question I suppose is: Are the three persons in God? The answer to that question is yes.

[36:33] Okay, but then there comes the second question: How can there be three persons in God? Because God is altogether what simple, right? You put together from these three persons, and it would be simple, right?

[36:49] Well, if you followed the course last year, you see the way out of that, right? God is not put together from these three persons, right? Each person is God, right? And there's no difference between each person and God,

[37:08] but compared to each other, right? They're relative to each other and therefore distinct from each other. And then there rises the third question, right? Why are there three persons, right? No more, no less, right? And then we go back to the fact that they have to be distinguished by relations of origin, by relations of proceeding one from the other, right? And there can be only two proceedings within God: one according to the reason, and one according to the will, right?

[37:42] So the Son proceeds as the Word of God, as Saint John teaches us, and the Holy Spirit is the breath, the love, right? Okay, we haven't seen a similar three questions about the what incarnation. First question: Be did God become a man?

[38:02] And of course, Thomas in the Summa Contra Gentiles spends a lot of time just showing from Scripture, right, that God did become a man, right? That's a fact. And then there rises second question: Well, how could God become a man, right? Doesn't become mean that you change, you're not which, and we learn that God can't change at all. So how can God become a man, right? When a sphere becomes a cube, is no longer a sphere, right?

[38:32] So if God became a man, he can't be God. You have to understand this, right? So we're going to have to understand how did God become a man? How's this? How could it be, right? And then the third main question is: Why did God become a man, right? And notice that question is going to be different than the question: Why are there three persons of God? Because The question, "Why did God become a man?"

[39:01] is going to touch upon the end or purpose of this right, and why are there a few persons of God? God is the end of all things, so there's no end or purpose consign for that, right? A different kind of answer, right? Okay.

[39:18] And so, you know, one could give you know foolish answers to why God became a man. You could say he was curious as to what it'd be like to be a man because he didn't know what it's like to be a man. That's kind of human human explanation, right? He wasn't quite satisfied with being God. He wanted to be man as well as God, right? He wanted to be all it could be.

[39:44] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he should, yeah. See, but as I thought, well, God is everything, right? So those are laughable answers, right? Okay, but for us men and for our salvation, he became man. But then you get into the question of was it necessary for him to become man, to redeem us, right? And then you come back to my paraphrase of Aristotle's lost dialogue in philosophy.

[40:12] You've heard the famous fragment. You know, we lost Aristotle wrote dialogues like Plato, but they've all been lost. And Cicero says even better than Plato's, but we have a fragment from the lost dialogue in philosophy, and it goes like this: Either you ought to philosophize, or you ought not to philosophize. What do you say? You say you ought to philosophize. You're going to have to do so.

[40:36] Should do so. If you say you ought not to philosophize, you're going to have to show why you. What? You're going to have to philosophize to show why you shouldn't. do it. Okay. And I remember this in in the conversation between David Bohm, a physicist, and Maurice Price, I think it was, an English physicist. And Bohm was saying you can't avoid philosophy. You have to, you know.

[40:58] Even if you said I'm going to be an empiricist, you know, you've got empirical philosophy, right? And Maurice Price said, you know, well, of course, my philosophy is to avoid philosophy. I know it's a trap, he says, you know, huh? Because then you, know, Kasurik told me an interesting thing, you know, and when the Communists were still in power in Moscow, and he went over there with American professors, right?

[41:22] And they were talking with a, you know, minister of education, and one American professor says we don't require philosophy at my school, and the minister of education said no philosophy is a bad philosophy. But I have a simple, a simpler example, this sort of thing, and I say, is it necessary to understand the word necessary? If you say it is necessary, you're better. See, it's not necessary.

[41:48] You're going to have to understand necessary to show why it's not necessary. See. And so this arises when you ask, was the incarnation necessary, right, for our salvation? And in terms of an end, well, Aristotle distinguishes two senses necessary: that without which something cannot be, and that without which it cannot be done well, right? And he'll argue, as I think Augustine does before him, that God could have redeemed us in some other way, but there was no more suitable way to do it than this, and he'll give, you know, eight reasons, ten reasons for this, you know.

[42:28] We'll see them as he develops them. So, but those aren't the only questions he asks. But they're they're, you know, fundamental ones. Did God become a man? How could God become a man? Why could he? Okay.

[42:46] So let's look now at the frame in here to the Tertia Pars, right? And it's called a prologus, prologus, huh, which means forward, because our savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, the angel testifying to it, right,

[43:23] making his people right to save them from their what sins, right? Yeah. That's the beginning of Matthew's gospel, right? Because he showed navia, and in Latin is really what road. He shows the road of truth for us in himself, right? Through which to the beatitude, or by which to the beatitude or blessedness of mortal life, resurrecting, right? You are able to arrive. Now, this is all in terms now of getting to our end, then, right?

[44:05] Huh? Okay. So, in that twofold division of sacred doctrine according to God in Himself, God is the Maker, God is the end. In Summa Contra Gentiles, the actual consideration of the incarnation comes under God making, right? But here it's put under His what end? Huh?

[44:30] I don't say one is correct and the other is incorrect, but something different is being brought out, right? Or emphasized, you might say, right? Huh?

[44:42] Is necessary then to the what consummation, completion of the whole of the theological negotiation, right? After the consideration of the last end of human life and the virtues and the vices, right? Which is basically what he did in the what second part, huh? Second part takes up the end of man, and then it takes up what faith, hope, and charity, and prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, right?

[45:16] And then it takes other virtues kind of attached to those in similarity. Basically, that's what he's done. Our consideration follows here about the what savior himself and the benefits right bestowed upon the human race by him, right? Okay.

[45:43] Now it's going to subdivide this, right? About which first we're not to consider; it should be considered about the savior himself, right? Secondly, about the sacraments, right? By which we what?

[46:03] And third, about the end of immortal life, to which we arrive by rising through him, right? As you may know, Thomas didn't complete the third part, right? He completed the first of these three parts, and he was in the part on the what sacraments when he God called him home, right? Okay. And of course, they fill out their things from the what sentences, right? Huh? More or less in his order, right?

[46:33] Okay. Now, just briefly again, one last thing to kind of compare. In the Tertia Pars of Summa, you're going to take up the incarnation, right? The sacraments, the last things, right? But all of that is put under what? The end, right? Huh? In the division of Summa Theologiae, right? But these three are exactly the same what order, right? Huh? Going to talk about the Word made flesh, and then the sacraments, and then the final state of man in which Christ in sacraments leads us, right?

[47:13] Huh? Okay. So you can you know you could read this in the same order as these three, right? Okay. But here this is underneath the God's maker. this God is the end, right? Here it's all under getting back to the end, right?

[47:45] Now the order of the second part of Summa, which is about the end of man, right? Well, Thomas will bring out the end of man in the first part of Book Three, right? Then take up providence in general, and then the special providence of man. But Thomas puts a special consideration of God as the end of man in the second part.

[48:11] But the order is a little bit like the order of what Aristotle in the Ethics. Huh? We take up the end of man in Book One, and then take up the virtues in Books Two through Six and so on. Huh. Um. But one difference, Aristotle has a consideration of happiness before he takes up the virtues, and a further consideration after he takes them up. Thomas says the whole consideration of happiness before the whole consideration of virtues.

[48:45] Huh. It's appropriate what Aristotle does, right? But having done what he's done, then Thomas can. receive that way, right? Because Aristotle, in the first part of the Ethics, he shows that man's end consists in activity in accordance with virtue, right? But there are many virtues that are not all equal, right? So after he considers the virtues and sees something in their differences and so on, then he can say more precisely what it is, right?

[49:24] Ends up with human happiness and divine happiness, right? The more God-like happiness, which is contemplating God, and the more human happiness, which is being Winston Churchill. Okay.

[49:46] So notice he's dividing now the third part into three parts, then, right? Usually, when Thomas divides Scripture in his own works, it's always into three and two, huh? Have these two guys coming to the house? doing the categories now. We are comparing Thomas's two divisions of the categories. under, ten categories. And in both, he makes eight divisions to arrive at ten. But every division is into two or three.

[50:21] Okay, now the first of these three, he subdivides into what? Two, right? About the first, a twofold consideration occurs. First is about the mystery of the incarnation, huh? According as God for our salvation was made a man, right? That's fact, right? See. Secondly, about those things, which through Him our Savior, that is the incarnate God, were what done and that He underwent, huh? He suffered. Okay. So get a little bit of a what?

[51:02] Summary of His life that you have in the Gospels, huh? But he divides in those two parts there, right? good idea to do that. Okay.

[51:22] Let's look at the question one here. About the first three things, huh? Occur to be considered. First, about the suitability of the incarnation itself, huh?

[51:41] Secondly, about the way of the union of the incarnate Word, right? And then those things which follow upon this what? Union. Guys, last night they were asking me. It was off the course, of things, but why Mary said, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Because we're talking about you know the abstract and the concrete words, you know, and you say, "Well, you wouldn't say that I am justice.

[52:12] You might say I'm just. You wouldn't say I'm health. You health. I am health. No, you say I'm healthy. But didn't the Blessed Virgin know grammar or something? And I guess when she reported

[52:26] when she reported the words, they said, you know, what? You know, I am the Immaculate Conception. she'd say, I'm Immaculate conceived, huh? I don't want to go into that, you know, but but I think the solution is going to be along the lines of I wouldn't say Dionne there right? This famous article is that the grace of Mary is of hypostatic order, right? That Mary's grace, um, in a way, is sufficient for all of us,

[52:56] and therefore. Like when you say in the prayer we say, "Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness," right? Why do we say the Living One or the sweet? why don't we say our life, our sweetness? The same way of speaking that she uses when she says immaculate conception, right? Now, why call Mary our life, right? Is not to indicate that this is of the what hypostatic order, because life is that by which everything that is living is alive, right?

[53:37] And so it brings out her universal what causality. She's the aqueduct, I guess, is St. Bernard calls her, right? Mediatrix of grace. Now, the immaculate conception, right, is tied to that because because she was to be the mother of God, right? That's her greatest greatest title. She's the mother of God because she was foredestined to be the mother of God, right? That's why she was to be immaculately what conceived, right?

[54:10] So immaculate conception goes with her being the mother of God, right? Now, as the immaculate conception is a great what grace, right? But the grace of Mary, as you just said, is of the hypostatic order, right? So you state it in that way because of its what universal causality. When Christ gave her as a mother to John, John then stands in for all of us, right? She gave us as a mother for all, right?

[54:39] So that's not as strange as it might sound, but but it's in this very famous prayer, the Hail Holy Queen, right? You know, Alphonsus says the whole volume is done on that prayer, but it's a very important prayer. A lot of people say it, you know, in the rosary or something. You know, it's a prayer said on occasions.

[54:58] Okay, so about the first question here now, six things are asked, right? Whether it was suitable for God to become what flesh, right? Interesting how important John's Gospel is we say what incarnate don't we? we don't say humanize or something, right? Even though he became a man, right? It's a synecdoche like we were saying before, right? But we follow the words of what John, yeah.

[55:43] Now you know if you'd said to Aristotle or you know some reasonable man like that, you know, is it likely that God would become a man?

[55:57] Seems to me it's not likely. In rhetoric, when we define rhetorical arguments, there's two kinds of arguments. One is by example, and the other is called enthymeme, right? And Aristotle says enthymeme is an argument from likelihood or from science huh Well see Dionysius explained very profoundly, you know, or more profoundly anybody else. But likelihood it is, right? But a flimsy thing it is in some ways. And

[56:33] so, if you ask the question, is it likely that God become man, Or is it a stronger thing than likelihood? Is it probable that God would become man? You know, something very strange about this, huh?

[56:50] Now I'm struck by the demand, expectation in God's part that we should believe these things that are very what hard for many people to believe, huh?

[57:08] In the sixth chapter of John, of course, you know the famous chapter on the Eucharist there, sixth chapter, where he says you better eat my flesh and my blood and so on, and then the

[57:20] gospel writer says that people turn away from him and didn't follow him. Then you know, and Christ turns the apostles. You know, you know, some people think as if he was getting disturbed himself, you know, but he knew how they would react, to us you know. But he turned to them and he said, you know, you want to leave too, and that's when Peter says, you know, where will we go?

[57:41] You have the words of eternal life, right? But I was I was struck and I kind of hadn't really noticed it before. I was looking at the Gospel of Matthew again, and at the end there, the Gospel of Matthew, at the very time when the resurrected Christ is going to what ascend into heaven, right?

[58:02] At the last words of the gospel, but the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had directed them to go, and when they saw him, they worshipped him. But some doubted. I don't who those some doubted. It's not the eleven, I don't think. And then Jesus drew near and spoke to them, saying, "All power in heaven and earth," and he sends them off. But some doubted, right?

[58:36] That's what Matthew says, huh? But now it seems that many of our contemporaries, you know, even people in the pews, you know, they not sure that they believe in the real presence and so on. So. It's difficult for men to believe, right? And strange teachings, you know. Who can? Who can? But it seems to me that humility is necessary for what belief, huh? Yeah. When Thomas is talking about error there in the commentaries on the Psalms, I mean, on the epistles of St Paul.

[59:23] He says that you know pride is a cause of deception in two ways. The proud man overestimates his ability, so he tries to judge things that he's not capable of judging, and therefore easily makes mistakes. See that in the heretics all the time; they're judging things beyond their capacity to judge. And then you see that in modern scholars too. And then the other way he says is that they don't submit their minds to those wiser than them. Thomas says, when he's talking about being teachable.

[1:00:04] You have to, you know, listen to or read carefully, frequently in reverence, the words of those, you know, more knowledgeable than you about something. So it requires humility

[1:00:20] to remove an impediment to believing, right? I don't think humility will ensure that you believe, but if you don't have humility, you're not going to believe because you're following, you're submitting your mind to a greater mind than your own, and something you don't see. But if you ask, why does God require that?

[1:00:48] Well, one reason they give is that this is the natural way for man to what come to know. In all the other sciences, we believe before we what know. So why should this not be true? The most difficult science of all.

[1:01:04] I believed the Pythagorean theorem before I knew it. You know, a lot of people believe the Pythagorean theorem without knowing it. When I taught in college, nobody seemed to be able to prove it. I can prove it, you know, but it's because I read Euclid, you know. When they say x squared equals y squared,

[1:01:26] but um, so it is natural for man to believe before he what, yeah, and and the more difficult the science is, the more this is true, huh? So the easiest science is mathematics, huh? And mathematics is named from the learner. mathema, discipulus, mathetes, and then the higher science, though, is named from the teacher, Sacra Doctrina. because you're more and more dependent upon the teacher the higher you what you're going in your studies, huh?

[1:02:05] So was it suitable that God become flesh? Don't be too quick to judge this matter. The second, whether it was necessary for the reparation of the human race. This is perhaps the most interesting article of all, right? But remember that distinction that Aristotle gives, huh?

[1:02:31] And if you talk about these two great mysteries, the Trinity and Incarnation, is it necessary that there be three persons in God? Yeah. But is it necessary for God to become man? Two different senses. See, it's necessary for there to be three persons in God, and that's one sense of necessary, right? It's like the sense in which we say it's necessary for two to be half of four.

[1:03:01] But when he says necessary for God to become man, that's necessity from the end. And then the question is, Aristotle distinguishes two senses there: that without which the end cannot be achieved at all, and that without which it cannot be achieved well. Like Thomas will say, you know, to live you got to have food. For a long journey, you need a horse. Well, you can you can go without a horse, but it's not going to be.

[1:03:26] If you can't make a good journey, you know, or you need a boat, you know, to get across the water. So it's necessary to understand the word necessary. Aristotle takes up there in the fifth book of wisdom.

[1:03:45] The third question: whether, if there had not been sin, would God have become what flesh? What do you think about that? Yeah, I think some some thought that he was going to become flesh even without that, but Thomas says Scripture seems to always do it in terms of sin. So Thomas and he inclines to that conclusion, right? Not Saint Albert, right? Saint Albert thought it was more pious to hold the other pieces.

[1:04:19] No. Yeah. We got last night there going through Thomas's two divisions of the eight, right? You know, the ten categories. I mentioned how Albert does and makes a little mistake about the, yeah, so. Yeah. Yeah. Get

[1:04:42] a paper one time when Albert at the crossroads of logic, right? Huh. Kind of hesitation, which way to go? One way leads to what Kajetan does, and that leads to what the Greek commentators did. Anyway.

[1:04:59] Whether he chiefly was incarnated to taking away what original sin, then what actual sin, right? I know you guys don't follow the news too much, you know, but t here is some evidence in the newspaper, you know, if t here is evidence of anything of this originality peccati, right? There is something seriously wrong with the human race. As well as the other. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There is something really wrong with the race, you know.

[1:05:26] I don't know. I understand, you know. I am designed for the human race. Hope the angels will take me in, but I am through with it.

[1:05:40] But no, it's original sin. in a sense is infecting the whole of humanity, right? With the exception of the Virgin Christ. And so, this is you know kind of a common evil, right? So you might suspect that Thomas is going to see that, huh?

[1:06:01] And then the fifth and sixth ones are more particular, but there are problems about that. Whether God was would have been suitably incarnated from the beginning of the world, you might say, "Gee whiz, we really need him to become flesh, right? Why did wait all this time?"

[1:06:21] And where the incarnation should have been deferred to the end of the world, that's not so. Problem for me, huh? Big trouble. So, just we touch upon the third way that I had ordered the questions, right?

[1:06:41] I'm thinking a little bit more of the Summa Contra Gentiles, right? Because there he begins more from the scriptural text, you know, and the heretics and so on, and shows that scriptural texts are really not the same as the heretics are saying, but is really pointing to the fact that God did become man, the same person now is both God and man, and so on. And then you have objections: "How could this be?

[1:07:02] It's impossible, right?" And he answers those objections, you know. And then you have, you know, but but if it's possible, is it suitable that this be done, right? But here he kind of begins with this.

[1:07:17] To the first, therefore, You stand there, right? We'll break, okay.