Tertia Pars
25. Can Christ's Grace Increase? (ST III, Q.7, a.12): Natural Limits, 'Simply' vs. 'In a Qualified Sense', and Freedom from Envy
Class of 2009-01-29
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/025-can-christs-grace-increase-st-iii-q-7-a-12-natural-limits/

[0:00] In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, Order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, and help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:29] I think I mentioned last time that I happened to be reading the encyclicals of Pope Pius X, and there's an encyclical on Saint Anselm, right? I think it's called Latin title is Communium Rerum, something like that. And I was very impressed by this encyclical. Of course, he's describing at some length there Saint Anselm's problems that he had with the King of England when he was Bishop, you know, at Canterbury Archbishop there.

[1:05] He was exiled a couple of times, I think, and all kinds of things. But from the point of view of our course in theology here, about oh, it's about maybe number 44 in the text there, you know, the numbered sections. 44 almost to the end to the end description of Anselm as the theologian and what he did for the development of theology in the Middle Ages. And among other things, I mean, he talks about something that you find even in Boethius and other people, Augustine avoiding the extreme of being presumptuous when you take up these mysteries of the faith that you're going to measure them by human reason or measure them by philosophy and and not have faith and so on.

[1:49] But then the other extreme of not trying to understand so far as you can these mysteries that you believe, huh? That's a very good point, and something Father Boulet emphasizes a lot, huh? That it's it's very nice text in in the encyclical. And then later on, another thing Father Boulet used to talk about too, when you have faith seeking understanding, is a kind of a foretaste of heaven where you're going to really understand these things, huh?

[2:17] But it's natural for you to to do that, huh? So I think it's a very good, very interesting work. Then I got a little bit curious there, so I decided to go to Google there and look up Saint Anselm, right? And I noticed on Saint Anselm. There's about three or four different places you get this encyclical. You know, I was getting it off the people, you know, the Vatican, the website, you know.

[2:41] So if you go to the Vatican website, go to Pope Pius X, you'll find under encyclicals, you know. But you can also get it directly in one of these ones where Saint Anselm is there. But then they have some a little bit of Saint Anselm's works there in English too. On the website at the Ethereal Library, the Christian libraries, and I started reading one of them. I've always heard about this work of St.

[3:06] Anselm called "Cur Deus Homo," right? Why did God become a man? And people said well, this is unreasonable. He should come down here and lower himself and all that sort of stuff. And I went through the first book. There's two books, make up the work, right? And there's little short chapters. I think there's 25 chapters there in book one. And just got through reading the first book one.

[3:28] I'm going to read book two now. But it's very interesting little work, you know. It's written kind of as a dialogue between August Saint Anselm and another guy, right? And and he raises questions and Anselm answers them and and so on, huh? And so it's a probably work to if you have a chance to to read that

[3:50] for what we're studying right now. Goes back to the question that Thomas had there, you know. Was it suitable if he become a man and so on, right? Was it necessary and so on, right?

[4:06] Did the Pope comment at all about that Anselm's work? No, he doesn't talk about that, but he does say, you know, that Anselm was by his moderation, avoiding those two extremes, right? Was preparing the way for the great princes of this scholastic theology, Thomas and Bonaventure He mentions Bonaventure, right? As well, Thomas primarily. And then he speaks later on of how Thomas, you know, sometimes doesn't entirely agree with Anselm.

[4:33] He he goes further than Anselm, right? But that he's very moderate. The thing I didn't realize, you know, when I went to the website there, as I say, to Google for that, read some little biographical things of Anselm and so on. Well, I guess he died in 1109, huh? Yeah. So they're having some, you know, symposia, you know, conferences on his thought this year, you see, because the 900th, I guess, in 1109.

[5:05] So maybe there'll be another encyclical, maybe you know, there'll be another encyclical on him this year. By wouldn't be surprised at going Benedict Benedict, but it was very interesting that particular. Yeah.

[5:23] One of the earliest encyclicals of Pius X is the one dealing with the the law of separation in France around 1904. That's where they threw all the religious orders out of the country, and they took over all the churches, all the historical churches anyway. And he's protesting all this, you know, violation of the independence of the thing. So I was talking to Warren Murray on the phone today about this, and he's saying, "Well, one good effect though was that some of the orders, right, once the.

[5:55] Monasteries were closed, right, in France. First of all, they tried to live just with the people in the in the town, but that didn't wasn't suitable for their religious life. So they looked for a place where they could go, and they went over to England. And they started, you know, Benedictine. There weren't even Benedictine, you know, one since 18th, right, in England. And then later on, they were allowed to come back into France.

[6:13] He said the other good thing was of course when they took over all these historic churches, then the state has to maintain them, right? But, of course they allowed them to say the mass that are in them, right? He said they could never maintain, you know, the church of France. Could never, you know, keep up these buildings, you know, from collapsing and so on. So, anyway, interesting.

[6:38] The monastery we were in in Nova Scotia was inhabited by Augustinians who had gotten kicked out of France. They were traveling. Yeah, Oh, the Caposcania.

[6:49] Yeah. So good comes out even of bad sometimes. Some good things. There's a story that when the Christian in Scotland, some big boy had smuggled out a statue of Our Lady and ended up in

[7:07] Belgium, and it's still there because the Belgians will uh Belgium will give it back to us. Because it developed its own cult there, but it's still called Our Lady of M.

[7:23] Okay, so we're up to Article Twelve here in Question Seven. That the grace of Christ is able to grow, right? To increase. To the twelfth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the grace of Christ is able to be increased. For to everything that is finite or limited, there can be some addition, right? But the grace of Christ was finite, as is said in the previous articles, back in Article Ten, I guess.

[8:00] Therefore, it is able to be what? Increased. Yeah. Right. And maybe Thomas saw the need to have this article here because different senses of infinite, right, that are hard to to say.

[8:18] Moreover, the increase of grace comes about through the power of God, the divine power. According to that of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter Nine, God is potent, huh? To make all grace abound in you, huh? But the divine power, since is infinite, can in no way be what restricted by some limit, huh? Therefore, it seems that the grace of Christ could have been made what greater, huh?

[8:57] Moreover, it says in Luke chapter two, verse fifty-two, that the boy Jesus went forward in age and wisdom and grace before God and men. Right? Those words are sapientia et gratia. These two things we're talking about here, about the power of Christ. Well, I get scripture even on your side, right? Therefore, the grace of Christ is able to what increase or grow.

[9:30] But against all this is what is said in the first chapter of St. John's Gospel. We see him as it were the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. But nothing greater can be understood than that someone be the only begotten from the Father. Therefore, cannot be or even be understood that there be a greater grace than that. by. Which Christ was what filled.

[10:07] He's taking the objection here, is saying that what his being full of grace and truth is a sense result of his being the what only begotten from the Father, and nothing greater than that, right? So how can there be a fullness greater than what he has there?

[10:25] Thomas makes sees a distinction here to begin with. I answer it should be said that some form is not able to be increased, and this can happen in two ways. that some form cannot be increased,

[10:44] in one way on the side of the what subject of the form, in another way on the side of the form itself. Now he starts to explain these two ways. On the side of the subject, when the subject attains to the furthest it can in partaking of that form, according to its own what mode or measure,

[11:18] just as if one was to say that air that it cannot increase in heat when it arrives at the what furthest grade of heat that can still be saved with the nature of what here in the ancient what science if you made the air too hot it would turn into what fire right huh? So even that air therefore would never have the heat that say fire had right, but it could have what the most heat or the hottest that air could be and still be air.

[11:54] Okay, that's according to the the subject, huh? Just like you could say this glass here, right? Can you have more water in a glass than this? Not in this glass. Well, maybe sorry, the edge, right? Okay, but there's a limit here, huh? The subject, how much it can receive, right? Okay, but water can be received greater than that, but not in this cup. Okay, that's one way it can be limited by the subject.

[12:22] On the side of the form, there is excluded a possibility of growth when some subject reaches the what furthest perfection in which that form can be had.

[12:38] Just as if one was to say using the old physics, you know, that the heat of what fire cannot be increased, because there's not able to be a more perfect grade of heat than that to which what fire attains, huh?

[12:59] Now he starts to apply this distinction to the matter at hand. Just as in the case of other forms, there is a what, determined proper measure from divine wisdom, so also of what, grace, huh? According to that of the Book of Wisdom, chapter eleven. That's a book, I guess. That's what the original text we have is in Greek, isn't it? Yes.

[13:36] You have disposed all things in number, weight, and what, measure, right? Augustine Thomas often explained those words, son. But now the measure for some form is fixed ahead in comparison to its end. Let me give the example again from the older science. Just as there is not a greater what, heaviness, huh, than the heaviness of the earth, huh? Because there cannot be a lower place than the place of the what, right?

[14:12] In the older knowledge, the earth was at the very center of the universe, right? And heavy things go down, right? And the very center of the universe is as low as you can get, as far as you get away from from the heavens, right? Okay. Now what has this got to do with the question at hand? Well, he says the end of grace is nothing other than the union of a rational creature to God.

[14:47] Okay. So in general, you can say, what's the purpose of grace, huh? What to unite us with God, right, huh? Okay. Now is there some what limit beyond which you cannot receive grace, huh? Well, is there some union to God then which there is no and cannot be any greater one? That's the what, hypostatic union, right? To be united to God so that this divine person is in fact what, a man, as well as you and me.

[15:27] There can't be any greater union than that, huh? I think that's who he's going to say. Let's let him say it though. So the end of grace is the union of the rational creature to God, but there cannot be, nor even be understood, a greater union of the rational creature to God than that which is in a what. Person, and therefore the grace of Christ reaches to the highest measure of grace.

[16:01] Thus, therefore, it is manifest that the grace of Christ is not able to be increased on the side of the grace itself, right? If it could, there could be a union to God greater than,

[16:21] yeah, than a human or reasonable nature be joined to God more than to the person of God. No, so his grace, right, is going to correspond to that end, right? Cannot be greater. But neither on the side of the subject, huh? Because Christ, as he is man, from the first instant of his conception, was a true and full what? Comprehensor. That is to say, he had the beatific vision, right?

[17:02] Whence in him there could not be an increase of grace, just as neither in the other blessed can there be an increase of grace.

[17:15] Whose grace did not be increased in that they are in the end of what? Life, huh? They reach their goal. Now men like than I, who are purely on the way, right? I says purely because what Christ was not as far as his body, right, in his ultimate goal, right? But as far as his soul, right, his soul is not going to be joined to God any more than it was at the what moment of his what conception, right?

[17:50] That perfection is due to Christ because he's going to be the source of grace and wisdom for all the rest of us. But we who are purely on the way, right? Neither our body nor our soul has yet reached its goal, right? Grace can be increased on the side of form, huh? Because they have not attained the highest grade of grace, and also it can be increased on the side of the what subject, because they have not yet reached their what end or goal.

[18:29] That's a mouthful. I often wonder whether I should go on reading. You know, after you know we do our first reading at the house there, and we just sit around the rest of the day and we think the thing that I read already.

[18:49] I know I go up and see Diano's lectures sometimes, and remember some phrase or two of him, you know, and think about the rest of the day.

[18:58] I criticized my French teacher, Caserque, and I said, "Hey, you're repeating yourself." And I will do so, he says, until I understand it. That's my prerogative, my right to repeat myself until the thing really sinks in, right?

[19:21] They say that's the difference between men and women, right? My brother Mark one time was teaching at the Jesuit College there, and he had a special program which didn't keep up because it was too expensive. But he had just eight students, period. And he'd take each one of these eight students for two hours a week, privately, and reading the great books, right? And one thing he noticed was one difference between men and women.

[19:48] Sometimes you know you have a woman who would get the idea quicker than a man, right? But they weren't willing to go over and over the same thing again and again, right? It's got to be something, what? Yeah Yeah, that's kind of interesting, right? Doctor, was it the women that didn't want to go over? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a little bit like you know,

[20:13] a man can put on the same you know shirt, the same pants day after day, you know. And woman, I got to change her. She got to change herself, but you got to change too, right? You expect to do that, right? And and I notice this with eating too. A man can eat the same meal, the same food, you know, week after week, right? Huh? My brother Mark and I lived together, you know.

[20:38] We had a little schedule, you know. So, like, one day we had chicken, one day we had steak, one day we had, you know, fish, but week after week after week, you know, this would drive women crazy, right?

[20:52] When I was working at the bookstore, the females ridiculed me because when I bought a new pair of shoes, I bought the same kind that I had before. Yeah. They noticed that right away. Now, Thomas is saying the way to be wise is to be a man of one book, right? Okay. So now it's the reply to objections, right?

[21:30] Thomas is replying the first objection that says, "Hey, the grace of Christ is finite," as we said before, right? Then can it be increased? To the first, therefore, should be said that if we speak of mathematical quantities, to each finite quantity there can be a what addition? Yeah. Because from the side of a finite quantity, there is nothing that is repugnant to what addition, right? So you look at the you know theorems, say in Euclid, there you can always what bisect a line, right?

[22:12] Then get smaller and smaller, right? Or in Book Four, you have the famous theorems about inscribing squares inside of circles and circumscribing them, and then doing the reverse, right? So circles within squares, squares within circles, and circles around squares. So you can keep on going forever, right? You know, smaller or bigger, right? Huh? Yeah.

[22:38] But now the great discovery of Aristotle, right? In the text, Anaxagoras in the first book of Natural Physics, if however we speak of natural quantity, there can be a repugnance from the side of the what form, huh?

[22:59] To which there is owed a what determined quantity, just as other accidents are determined. And so, in Aristotle's reasoning against Anaxagoras, Anaxagoras says that everything is composed of an infinitively small pieces of everything, right? Aristotle says, well, if the parts can be infinitely small, if the parts can fall below just any size, then the whole can fall below any size.

[23:38] But now, if you go out to natural world, what do you find? Just any size for a dog or a cat or a tree. Well, different kinds of animals and different plants have certain limits within which that kind of animal or plant is found, right? So those limits are not due to quantity per se by itself, right? But due to the what nature of this thing. Okay.

[24:02] Now, when Aristotle takes up the continuous in the sixth book of Natural Hearing, he says the continuous is what divisible forever, right? But that's considering the continuous in general or by itself, right? When you descend down to the continuous individual things, right? Then you find that because of their form and therefore their nature, there are certain limits above which or below which they are not found. So you couldn't find have a man as small as a molecule of water, or as tall as the Empire State Building, right?

[24:40] So Aristotle was the first man to what to see this, right? That there are limits in the quantities of natural things due to their natures, right? Limits that could not be foreseen from the point of view of pure mathematics of quantity considered by itself.

[25:04] And what kind of took place in modern physics, huh? What they call the physics of the twentieth century, starting with quantum theory in December of nineteen hundred, and then special relativity in nineteen oh five. What distinguishes modern physics from Newtonian physics, as they call the physics of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century, was the discovery of limits, right? In the quantities of natural things, due to the natures of these things, limits that could not have been foreseen from a purely mathematical point of view.

[25:43] And when you were applying pure mathematics to the natural world, you kind of assumed that it what's true of quantity by itself is true of the quantity of natural things. But then, December of 1900, Max Planck, who's called the father of modern physics, he proposed the what? Quantum hypothesis, right? That energy is given off or taken on not in just any amount, but there is a smallest amount,

[26:14] and you have to give or receive that amount or some multiple of that amount, but nothing less than that amount. It's a little bit like the monetary system, right? Where, where like in our system, there's a smallest amount, the penny, right? You can't give less than a penny. Okay.

[26:35] And then in this 1905, Einstein's special relativity proposed that there was a what? Maximum speed in the universe, right? Which was the speed of light. Okay. So although mathematically you could go beyond 186, 000 miles per second, in the real world, in actual world, this is not, according to the theory, right, possible, right?

[27:01] And then when they started to to work on the elementary particles, huh? Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli, the guys that got the Nobel Prize in quantum theory, they were working on this. They were looking at the idea that there's a minimum length in the universe, a length below which it can't be anything, which made no sense to the point of twentieth physics, right? Because it kind of, you know, closer to pure math there.

[27:27] And but it's interesting when they first started, you know, studying the elementary particles, they were speaking like Annaxagoras, right? And the same difficult as Annaxagoras. And the position would make it what? It seemed like, you know, out of any elementary particle you can get all the rest. So every elementary particle must be composed of all the rest. Well then inside each one of those there would be all the rest, and so on, getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

[27:53] But that's contrary, right, to our experience that the electron always has the same size and the proton and each elementary particle. So there's limits in these sizes, huh? So Thomas is putting out this distinction there, right? If you're in pure mathematics, right, you're in geometry, right? There's no such thing as a shortest line or a longest line, right? Or a smallest circle or a largest circle. And the very theorems that you can always inscribe, you know, a circle inside a square and vice versa, or circumscribe, these theorems that show you how to do this, imply that, right?

[28:33] That you can always have a bigger one, right? Okay. Always have a smaller one. But you go out to the nature of things, there is certain what? Limits, right?

[28:48] He quotes another text from from the philosopher, and that means Aristotle, right? But Aristotle incidentally had the idea too that there's a maximum speed in the universe. He anticipates in that respect Einstein, right? But the more genuine, did Aristotle saw that there are limits in the quantities of natural things due to their natures. He is kind of open to discovering that because, as you find out in the second book of Natural Hearing, the difference between what quantity in mathematics and quantity in natural science.

[29:31] And the natural scientist, the natural philosopher, is interested in, let's say, number, only in so far as it's a number of a natural thing. What's the number of legs you have, right? Or the number of ears you have, the number of chambers you have in your heart, or something, right? It's interested in shape, only in so far as the shape of something. What shape is the moon?

[29:56] What shape is the sun, or something, right? So, but the mathematician considers shape and number in separation from all what natural bodies, and therefore, if something happens to quantity or shape because of the nature of these things, that would not be discovered by the pure mathematician. So Aristotle was open to being the first man in history to see this difference,

[30:33] that there are limits in the quantities of natural things due to the natures of these things, limits that don't appear in the abstract consideration of quantity in what pure math.

[30:48] But in more particular, he also thought that there was a maximum speed in the universe. Aristotle would be the revolution of the you know the sun and the you know the daily revolution of the sky around us, right? He had reason to think that that was the fastest thing to ever go. Einstein had reason to think of what light is being the fastest, right?

[31:13] In a sense, what characterizes the physics of the 20th century is the discovery of these what limits, right? You know, when Einstein went on from special relativity to general relativity, he went on to state the universe as a whole, right, in cosmology, and one of the things that seemed probable as he went on was that the universe was finite,

[31:42] and that it assumed since the Renaissance the universe was what infinite, right? That was a tremendous shock, right? And they began to even wonder whether it was finite in time, you know, and they had the Big Bang and so on, right? But maybe it was limited in both what size and in time,

[32:06] and then as they say, when they went on to study elementary particles, they started to work the idea that there's minimum lengths in the universe, right? So limits in the direction of the small and limits in the direction of the what large.

[32:22] I think I mentioned before about there's an interesting essay there by Weizsäcker, who was a physicist who explained why the sun can go on so long without burning out. He was a student of Heisenberg, right? But interesting essay, one of his books there, where he begins by telling about the fact he's giving a lecture one time on developments in new physics, right, and how these limits were appearing everywhere, right?

[32:49] You know, in the direction of large and so on, and this older physicist, you know, got very angry, and so. After his lecture, went to see this guy privately to see why he was so upset. Right? He didn't have any scientific objections, you know, to the things, but he just didn't like the idea of all these limits.

[33:13] So Weizsäcker got thinking about this, and he says that this belief in modern times that the universe was infinite—because Aristotle thought it was finite, right? The universe had reasons for thinking so, but this belief that the universe was infinite arose at the same time as they started giving up the study of theology. God is infinite, as you know, but the universe now has to be a substitute for God, and you've got to have something infinite to satisfy our mind.

[33:54] Well, then, when they found out that the universe maybe is not infinite after all, that's kind of a panic, you know. So that's interesting.

[34:06] So there's a lot of things to take up here about, you know, infinity, right? And even if you deal with just pure mathematics, huh? You can speak of a line as being what longer and longer and so on, but then if you have a surface, you've got another way that is can be what infinite, right? And then when you get to a body or a solid, then you have something that can be something infinite as far as quantity is concerned, right?

[34:37] Going off in all directions, right? They might say that a surface is infinite more so than a line. So how can that be? But it's infinite in a different what way, right?

[34:57] So once the philosopher says in the second book about the soul that of all things constituted by nature there is a limit, right, and a reason of their magnitude and growth, huh?

[35:15] That's why natural wine, right, naturally stops at a certain alcohol. Then keep on going. Different for different grapes, you know. But stop usually range eleven to fourteen percent, right? Something like that.

[35:34] And hence it is that to the quantity of the whole heaven, the universe, there can be no what addition, right? But that's for reason of the form, right, to the universe.

[35:48] Much therefore more in forms themselves, right, can be considered some limit, huh? Beyond which they don't go, right? So he's saying that even in quantity, right? Because of the form, right, of the natural thing, because of the nature of the thing, which is primarily its form, there's a limit as to how much it can be, right? So if quantity is limited by form, then form in itself, right, can have a limit, right?

[36:25] Much more, therefore, right, in forms themselves, there can be considered some limit, right? So what limits other things in itself much more, right, have a limit.

[36:41] And therefore, an account of this is not necessary that there can be any addition to the grace of Christ, even though in its very nature it is what limited, right? Do you see that?

[37:07] He's giving an argument there, a fortiori, right? He's saying we know that quantity considered by itself or abstraction, right, math, you can what? It doesn't seem to be limits, right? But then you go to the natural world and you see that there are limits in the sizes of different things, right? How big or how small they can be. That's due to the what? To the yeah, and to the form of the thing, right?

[37:40] Well, therefore, a fortiori, in forms themselves, there can be a what? A limit, right? Huh? Okay. If form itself had no limit, it would not give limit to other things on it. Okay.

[38:08] You know, if if whiteness existed by itself, like Plato spoke of it sometimes, it would seem to be unlimited in its what? Yeah. But would it be a limited period? No, it wouldn't have any wisdom in it. It wouldn't have the justice in it and so on, right? It would be lacking many things, right? It'd be limited to this one form of whiteness, right? But it would have the fullness of whiteness, right?

[38:38] You could have more, right? So in some way, it's infinite, right? But not simply without qualifications. So. Now this distinction that we've spoken about between simpliciter and secundum quid is the way they say it in Latin. In Greek, they say "haplos, but

[39:04] simply, not simply, you see a Latin simpliciter secundum quid." you see so that. This is a very important kind of distinction, and shows up all the time.

[39:29] You find it in the first distinctions of being. The first distinctions of being are into substance and accident, and into act and potency two different distinctions.

[39:54] Now, when I came into this room. Did I come to be? If you leave this room, will you cease to be? Yeah. So you would say, would you? When I came into this room, I came to be in this room. You got to qualify it, right? Sometimes I'll say, qualify it. You see the difference between substance and accident, right? When I leave this room, why cease to be?

[40:29] Unless they shoot me out there or something, right? But I will cease to be in this room. I cease to be sitting. Okay. So you see how the distinction comes there, right? The same way in act and ability, right? Are there chairs and the trees out here? Inability. Yeah, you have to add it there, right? You wouldn't say without qualification, simply. But there's no, right? Okay.

[41:06] Now I mentioned before how in the famous dialogue called Meno, which is an introduction to logic, Meno is saying you can't know what you don't know.

[41:18] But can you know what you don't know in some way? Yeah. And Meno doesn't see that distinction, and Socrates can't really bring it out either. He gets into trouble.

[41:34] Example: I told you that I was using class, and I'd come into class and I'd say, "I don't know how many students are in class today, right? "

[41:44] And yet I can direct myself to what I don't know with the greatest of ease. So I'm going to count here. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Ah. Now I directed myself to what I didn't know. There are eight students in class, right? But did I, in some way, know what I didn't know?

[42:09] In a confused way? Yeah. I knew I didn't know the number of students in class. I knew I was looking for the number of students in class. And that was enough to tell me to count. You see, Meno is saying you can't know how to get to what you don't know. And the answer to that is, well, if you know it in some way, right? You see, I told you the example story I was using in the class, and I would talk about this mistake, you know, and I'd take a young lady, and I'd say, "Do you know my brother Mark?

[42:45] " And she'd say, "No. " And then I'd say, "Now, do you know what a brother is? " "Yeah. " "Know what a man is? " "Yeah. " "So that's where my brother Mark is. " "So you do know him, right? "

[42:57] But in some way, she knows my brother Mark. In every man in this world, right? Every brother, in knowing what a man is and what a brother is, right? But that's not knowing by the mark. Simply, is it? It's a very imperfect way of of knowing him, right? So this distinction comes up all the time, right? And I notice when I talk about wisdom, Aristotle will say sometimes, you know, that

[43:32] simply speaking, only God is wise. Wisdom is the knowledge that God Himself has. So is first philosophy wisdom then? Yeah, yeah. Okay, but now if you're talking about the parts of philosophy, then first philosophy is wisdom simply, because it's about all things. And natural philosophy is that wisdom. Well, it's a wisdom about natural things, you could say. Or ethics is a wisdom about human life, right? But you wouldn't call it wisdom simply, right?

[44:15] So if you're comparing first philosophy to ethics or natural philosophy, first philosophy is wisdom simply, and ethics and natural philosophy only in a what secundum quid? If you compare even first philosophy to the knowledge of God, right? Then God's knowledge is what wisdom simply, and man's knowledge is only a very qualified sense, right? Okay.

[44:44] So, four distinctions. So it's possible for something to be said to be something simply, in one context, right? Not simply, in another context. And in the strictest sense, only God, simply speaking, is what infinite, right? But other things can be infinite in somewhat qualified way, right? But see, that is a kind of distinction that comes over and over again in philosophy, and to the whole philosophy. In in logic, for example, Aristotle says that an enthymeme is a syllogismos, syllogism tis.

[45:43] It's a syllogism, what? Secundum quid, right? It has something of the syllogism, but not fully or perfectly, right? If grace is a partaking of the divine nature.

[46:03] It's not the divine nature. The divine nature is infinite. If grace is only our partaking in some way of the divine nature, can grace be essentially infinite, like the divine nature is? No.

[46:21] And yet, the partaking of the divine nature in the soul, Christ, right, might be the what fullest, right? Yeah. Because the grace you receive is proportioned to your end, he says, right? And the end of grace is to unite us with God. And since there is no greater union with God than that of being joined to God in person, right?

[46:58] Then the grace that corresponds to that union of it makes one suitable to reach that goal, right? Must be the what? Yeah. Yeah. It must be the fullness of grace, right? Okay.

[47:20] But then he speaks this other distinction on the side of the subject, right? And you know, it's interesting, you know, how different Thomas is from what you know the contemporary theologians say, right? Where Christ doesn't know who he is and doesn't know this, doesn't know that. But he's saying that Christ has the fullness of knowledge right because he has the beatific vision bit of vision, right? And he has the fullness of grace from the moment of his what conception.

[47:44] And that's because the perfect is the source of all other things. So Christ, who's the source of all these things for us, is going to have these things in the beginning in perfection.

[48:01] We can be full of grace in that second sense, though. We can have at least by the time we die, all the grace to which God is what calling us, right? He's the

[48:17] the Father of the heavens, right? And so he's calling us to this heaven or that heaven, right? Maybe we'll go back to the cherubim. Maybe we'll be down there with the angels, right? But our cups will be full. Yeah. Yeah.

[48:39] Now the second objection here is referring now to the what infinite what power of God, right? Okay. Now this is very subtle. What I am just saying here.

[48:56] He makes a distinction here, right? In some sense, you have to admit, right, that God can always make more, right? To the second, therefore, it should be said. That although the divine power, being infinite, is able to make something greater and better than the habitual grace of Christ, right? Nevertheless, he's not able to make something that would be ordered to something greater than the personal union to the Son, who is only begotten from the what, Father, right?

[49:31] To which union sufficiently corresponds such a measure of grace, according to the definition of the what, divine wisdom, is made, huh? I know that's what belongs to wisdom. You know, we often quote Aristotle there, where he says it belongs to uh the wise man to order things, right, huh? But also belongs to the perfection of reason, which is wisdom, to What measure things, right? Okay.

[50:06] So he's admitting here in some way that there could be a greater grace, right? But could the grace of Christ be increased? Not, he's at the end already. Okay. And in one sense, he could not make what

[50:24] a grace to be ordered to something greater than the personal union, right? Okay. So no matter how much you guys try to get grace, you're not going to equal the habitual grace that Christ has in his soul, right? Huh?

[50:41] I mean, part of your presumption. i mean, right? I mean, you read that presumption, right? Because you're not ordered to that great a union with God that the human nature of Christ has with God, right? You're not ordered to what a personal union with God. You're ordered to seeing God as He is face to face, right? And some of you more clearly than others. Okay. And to get a grace that is commensurate to the clarity, a vision that is for ordainingly, right?

[51:19] So interesting to see how we are. Hey, you're higher than me. you know, I was thinking about this this thing, you know, envy there, huh? I said, where was I reading it? I think it was in the Gospel Saint Matthew. There is a special reference to envy there, right? Because Pilate knew that they had delivered Christ over out of envy, and partly because you have nothing wrong with the land, right?

[51:50] You know, and and so you're attacking a good man, right, and so on. It's out of envy, right? I said. So why is it, you know, if if you see more clearly than I do, right, huh? Or vice versa, God, why is it that you or I will not envy the other guy, right? Or why will I rejoice that you see God more clearly than I do?

[52:16] If you do, right? Why will I do that? Say. Well, you know, kind of from a human point of view, in terms of weaknesses and so. on. But one thing that strikes me is that the distance between the the highest angel, right, and the lowest angel, and the clarity with which you see God, right, that's as were nothing in comparison with the clarity with which God sees what himself, right.

[52:45] Thomas talks in that pre-communion prayer, right, the clarity of the divine divine knowledge, right, so that it's like you know. If one girl is a little bit more beautiful than another girl, right? She might be envious of that if that's all there is of the two of them, you know. Famous story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, right? You know, the Queen looks in the mirror, mine most beautiful of all, and she has always said yes to the mirror, right?

[53:18] But now it's saying no, so it's a beautiful, beautiful story about envy. I think it's a very, it's a very good, you know, moral now whole thing. But if one girl is just a little bit more beautiful than another girl, and there's a third girl who is, you know, just tremendous, is are the other two girls going to be envious of each other? You know, look, it's like nothing compared to this somebody really, you know.

[53:49] So team up. Yeah, but it would be kind of ridiculous to to to to be envious of God, right? Would even make any sense, right? Even in the universe, right? See, and see, but but the other thing that's perhaps more important is kind of a point that Thomas makes that the more understanding you are, the more you love the common good, right? Now, God is the common good of the kingdom of God, but next to God is the order of the universe or the order of what?

[54:30] The kingdom, right? So if you love the common good more than the private good, then you will love the fact that you do not equally see God, right, face to face, because there is an order then, like there is in the angels right now, right? And that is the what? Common good that is next to the common good, which is God Himself, right? Thomas has often referred to what Aristotle points out in the twelfth book of Wisdom.

[55:00] Now I was thinking about this this phrase, the kingdom of God, it actually has two meanings, right? One meaning by the kingdom of God, the order society of those who see God face to face, right? And then there's another meaning of kingdom of God in which the whole universe can be considered as kingdom, right? Huh? Okay. When Aristotle is talking about that second sense, he says that he compares it to the army, right?

[55:26] Huh? And the whole army is ordered to what? Victory, right? Like Douglas MacArthur said, right? In war, there's no substitute for victory. Well, that's the common good. That's what it was all about, right? Okay, so well said. So, but Aristotle says that the order of the whole army, right, is ultimately to victory, but the order of the army, one for the other, right, is on account of victory, right?

[55:57] So he says the order the whole universe is to God. But then next to that is the order of things universe one to another, right? And that's because of the order to God, right?

[56:12] Now this guy here, you know Thomas Aquinas. I don't know what metaphor to use. I told you my old teacher, used to say compared to Aristotle you'd say I got the brain of an angleworm. Great of an angleworm.

[56:30] And I could say compared to Thomas Aquinas I got the brain of an angleworm. But I'm under him, right? Huh? What's wrong with the academic world is, among other things, i love the problem but uh my own experience in the academic world is that everybody's trying to do his own thing. And it's not very what worthwhile. Most of all, what they're doing, right? Well, I'm going to try and do my own thing.

[57:03] I'm trying to do what Thomas is doing, right? Huh? And Thomas is trying to do what Augustine is doing, and so on, right? Huh? And the other church fathers, and so on. And so.

[57:19] But the order between me and Thomas here is an account of the order that we both have to what? To God, right? Now he's going to help me to understand God better, and God bless him for doing that, huh? Thank him when I get there too. I know he's going to think of me, but.

[57:43] What did what did Albert the Great say when he heard that Thomas had died? You know. The light of the church has been extinguished. Very strong words, huh? Say, who did you say said that? Saint Albert

[58:02] the Great, huh? It's interesting. I always compare Albert the Great and Thomas to Haydn and Mozart. Oh yeah. Because the older man recognized that the younger man, who was to some extent you know learned from him, right, was now what transcending him, right? Huh? And find and it's to me a beautiful example of a man free from envy, right? I see no envy at all in Haydn in respect to Mozart, though he recognized Mozart had transcended him, right?

[58:35] And Mozart wrote the quartets that he did on dedication Haydn, right? The Haydn quartets. Haydn came to Mozart's father and says, as an honest man before you and God, your son is the greatest composer known to be, right? You know, and

[58:52] do you have the same thing with with August? I mean Albert and and Thomas, right? Albert recognized Thomas as excellence. And uh perhaps with Plato and Aristotle too. If it's true, you know, Plato's supposed to go into the school and see Aristotle was all alone there in school one day, and he said, "Well, he's a whole school by himself."

[59:21] Okay. Notice Thomas is seeing a distinction here now in the second objection. then the second, then, it should be said that although the divine power is able to make something greater and better than the habitual grace of Christ, he seems to be admitting, right, in that sense. But that doesn't mean you could increase the grace of Christ because he had the fullness of the grace he was going to have, right, according to the prefixing of the divine what wisdom, right?

[59:54] But there's no way you could not make a greater grace, right? You could not, however, make one. That is ordered to something greater than the personal union to the what? Only begotten Son from the Father.

[1:00:13] To which union sufficiently corresponds such a measure of grace, according to the definition of divine what? Wisdom. So the divine wisdom says, "I will give this human nature, right? It's going to be taken from the Blessed Virgin, right? I'm going to give this human nature a grace that is sufficient, right? And makes suitable this human nature to be united to my own Son, right? In his divine person, right?

[1:00:50] Now he's going to give this woman Mary, right? Not that grace, right? It had to be less than that, right? But he's going to give her a grace that makes her suitable to being the mother of this man, right?

[1:01:11] And even your mother or my mother, right? Can't be called to that high an end or goal, right? And therefore, your mother or my mother, wonderful as they may have been, right? Or are, they could not have a grace what? Equal to that of Mary, right? Huh?

[1:01:35] But is it surprising to you that he says the grace of Christ could have been greater, even though the final cause of that grace is so? Yeah, yeah. You know, but it kind of respect there for the fact that grace is basically a partaking of the divine nature, right? Yes. And the divine nature is infinite. Oh, I see. So you can always partake of it more, right?

[1:01:59] And and the divine power which produces this grace or gives this grace to us, right? Is infinite, right? Okay. So God has the power to assimilate you more and more to Him, right?

[1:02:32] Okay. Now the third objection was this text from Luke there about the grew right, age and wisdom and so on. He says that in to the third should be said that in wisdom and grace someone is able to progress in two ways. In one way, according to the what? Habits of wisdom and grace, huh? Being augmented, right? And in this way, in Christ, there could not. Christ could not what go forward in these to more.

[1:03:15] In another way, according to effects, right. In so far as someone does wiser things and more powerful things, right. And thus Christ progressed in wisdom and grace as an age, because according to the progressing of his age, he did more perfect works

[1:03:43] that he might show himself what to be a true man, right. Both in those things which are to God and those things which are to men, as if he showed this in kind of an exterior way, right. Okay.

[1:03:59] Now, you know this is one of these ways of speaking that Scripture has, you know, where Thomas has to explain the way of speaking. Was it like when he when he took was it Abraham sacrificed his son right it was Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son but God stopped him from doing so right. Doesn't God say something like you know now I know you love me or something right okay.

[1:04:26] Well, is that to be understood that God didn't know before, and he said I'm going to see if this guy really loves me. See, well, that's obviously a false understanding of God. God's knowledge is complete. Okay. So the way Thomas understands that is it means that now I have made known right to you and the others right that you love me. Okay. And something like that here, right?

[1:04:56] See. Did he grow in wisdom and grace as he did in age, right? Or did he what make these known, right? Huh. By what he did exteriorly, that's the way Thomas understands that. But those ways of speaking, you can see how people could obviously misuse them, right, or misunderstand them, right. I was wondering in the text here, it it it almost sounds like he was saying here that it's Christ in order to make himself appear more like man and that he's growing.

[1:05:40] He did it kind of like he pretended that he was growing in wisdom by his outside. That doesn't sound like this thing was saying. Yeah, he didn't he didn't show this because that would be kind of an impediment for people to believe in his being a man, right.

[1:06:00] Yeah, it would be. He would appear if he, you know, started spouting metaphysics or something, right? From his thing, people would think he's not a human being. Right. Right. So he he didn't want to unnecessarily what?

[1:06:22] Scandalize them, right? Or let them. Yeah, yeah. He put on a good show when he was twelve. Yeah, he did. He did. Yeah, there he did. And that's the thing. I never fully understood. I was trying to get the connector, you know. But he he didn't, no, go into that much with me, you know. I was always kind of puzzled by that, because it seems, you know, that even if he must be about his father's business, right?

[1:06:49] You know, he could have told his mother and father, you know. It's a little hard to understand, you know, that thing. But maybe somewhere in the church fathers is some explanation of that. That's it seems kind of unnecessarily worrying his mother. You know, a mother would worry, a father too.

[1:07:15] I got a lot of merit for it. Yeah. So let's take a little break here now.