Tertia Pars
26. Habitual Grace Follows the Union (Q.7, a.13); Mixing Up Word Senses; Introduction to Q.8 on Christ as Head of the Church
Class of 2009-01-29
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/026-habitual-grace-follows-the-union-q-7-a-13-mixing-up-word/

[0:00] Okay, let's article thirteen now. Whether the habitual grace of Christ followed upon the what union? To the thirteenth, therefore, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the habitual grace in Christ was not subsequent to the union, for the same thing does not follow upon itself.

[0:31] But this habitual grace seems to be the same thing with the grace of what union? For Augustine says in the book on the predestination of saints

[0:46] that that grace comes about on the beginning of faith in any what Christian man, by which grace that man from the beginning was made what Christ. Of which the two, of which two, the first pertains to habitual grace, the second to the grace of union. Therefore, it seems that the habitual grace does not follow upon union.

[1:18] A little obscure text there, but could it be anointed Christly, made Christ? We say that grace by which, from the beginning of faith, any man I guess becomes a Christian, right? Which means by habitual grace, by that grace that man from beginning was made Christ, right? So it seems to be talking about the the made flesh, right? Moreover, disposition goes before perfection in time, or at least in understanding.

[2:02] But habitual grace seems to be a disposition of human nature for the what personal union. Therefore, it seems that habitual grace does not follow upon union, but more what precedes it. Like we were saying before in the previous article, that because it's ordered to this end, right, of the personal union, therefore he had what this amount of grace, right?

[2:30] Yeah. So when that. Moreover, the common is before the private, huh? But habitual grace is common to Christ and other men, but the grace of union is private to Christ. He alone has the hypostatic union. Therefore, according to the understanding, habitual grace is before the union itself. Therefore, it does not what follow upon it, huh?

[3:03] But again, this is what is said in Isaiah chapter forty-two. Behold, my servant; I have what taken him up. After which it says, "I gave my spirit upon him," which seems to pertain to the gift of habitual grace. Whence it remains that the taking on of human nature and the union of the person precedes the habitual grace in what Christ

[3:38] Thomas says. I answer: It should be said that the union of human nature to the divine person, which we said above was what the very grace of union. That's why he doesn't have a special consideration of grace union here because he's already taken up the incarnation, right? That's the reason he gave. Remember at the beginning, he's going to distinguish three graces: the grace of Christ as an individual man, the grace of Christ as head of the church.

[4:06] Should be the next question, right? Then the grace of union. So we've already talked about the grace of union in talking about the incarnation itself and how that takes place.

[4:18] So he says the union of human nature to the divine person, which above we said was the very what grace of union, right? Precedes the habitual grace in Christ, not in the order of what time. So there's no time in which he was what incarnate before he had habitual grace, right? But the order of nature and what understanding, right?

[4:52] And this for a threefold what reason? First, he says, according to the order of the principles of both, for the beginning of the union is the person of the Son assuming what human nature, who according to this is said to be sent into the what world that he took on human nature. But the beginning of what habitual grace, which is given with what charity, is the Holy Spirit, who according to this is said to be sent that inhabits the mind by what charity.

[5:44] So the Holy Spirit can't in himself change when he inhabits you, right? It comes to you, right? But he's said to come to you by reason of the gift of what love that he gives.

[5:57] He's in you by new what effective is. Trinity. But now, the sending of the Son, according to the order of nature, is before the sending of the Holy Spirit, just as in the order of nature the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and what?

[6:22] Yeah. Just as the love of the Holy Spirit, right, proceeds from the Son and the Father, in the order of what nature? Remember how Augustine speaks of the order naturae, right? So the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, right? So therefore, the the mission. Remember how the Holy Spirit and the Son are both said to be sent, but the Father is not, right?

[6:54] So those persons that proceed from another are said to be sent, right? So if we understand the Son is proceeding from the Father before the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, right?

[7:10] Then these two sendings, right? Christ is sent into the world; he becomes incarnate, right? And he what gets us habitual grace through the Holy Spirit? Well, then one should be before the other, right? It's kind of a subtle thing here. So the mission or the sending of the Son, according to the order of nature, is before the mission of the Holy Spirit. Just as in the order of nature, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the

[7:45] yeah the love of the Holy Spirit, yeah. Whence the personal union, by which is understood the mission of the Son, is before in the order of nature a habitual grace, by which is understood the mission of the what Holy Spirit. You see what he's saying there now. He's saying just as the we understand the Son is proceeding what from the Father, right? Before the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, right?

[8:16] So the mission of the Son, right, in his incarnation, is understood as being before the mission of the Holy Spirit in the giving of grace and habitual grace to the Son, right? Okay.

[8:36] Second, one can take the reason for this order from the relation of grace to its cause, huh? Because grace is caused in man from the presence of divinity, just as light in the air from the presence of the what sun, huh? Whence it is said in Ezekiel chapter forty-three. The glory of God entered what Israel, right through the Oriental, Eastern way, right, and the earth was splendid from His what Majesty.

[9:15] Majesty. But the presence of God in Christ is understood according to the union of human nature to the divine Person, whence the habitual grace of Christ is understood as following this union, just as the splendor of the Son.

[9:37] It's a little bit that text from from Saint John earlier too, right? Because he's the only begotten of the Father, right? Then he's full of grace and what? Truth, right.

[9:52] Third, the reason of this order can be taken from the end of grace, for grace is ordered. To acting well, but actions are of what? Individual substances, supposita, right? Individuals. Whence action, and consequently the grace ordered to action, right? Presupposes the hypostasis, the person what? Acting, right? The acting person is.

[10:37] But the hypostasis is not presupposed in human nature for union. You don't have a human hypostasis there, right? That has to be pushed out of the way, right?

[10:53] And therefore, the grace of union, according to understanding, precedes the what? Habitual grace. Yeah. Now you're saying that the individual who acts is presupposed to his action, right? But the habitual grace is ordered to what? What one's going to do with this individual grace, right? So just as the person is before the action, right? So the grace of union, whereby one is a person, right? There's no human person there, right?

[11:38] Is before understood as before the grace whereby one is ordered to acting and doing some things, right? I think, therefore, I am," said Descartes, right? So you have to be an individual substance before you can do anything, right?

[11:58] Even though, if you always did something, right, there's still an order there of nature, right? Understand, right? We understand that something is before it can do something, right? But I

[12:14] want to say person here by the hypostatic union, right? And this is the same thing as the what grace of union huh? So that's understood as before the grace whereby you are disposed to what? Do something. huh? They're convincing me, Thomas. yeah. Difficult, huh?

[12:48] But notice, the second argument there is pretty clear too, isn't it? The reason of this order is from the relation of grace to its cause. But grace is caused in man, obviously from the presence of what, the divinity, as light in the air from the sun, right? And even a text there from Ezekiel that metaphorically compares right, God to the what, sun, right?

[13:22] So the presence of God in Christ is understood by the union of human nature to divine person, right? That's the grace of union, right? Whence the habitual grace of Christ is understood as following upon this union, just as splendor follows upon the what, the sun rising up from its bed, right? That's what happens. It's in French there, se couche or something like that, and the sun goes to bed and it sets.

[13:54] And the first one is a little more difficult, huh? But still, that's the order, right? Reminds me of the metaphor of fire. Fire is sometimes a metaphor for the divine nature, and then the light represents the divine understanding, and the heat, the divine what, love, maybe the divine power to to change things. But sometimes you take fire as being a metaphor for the Trinity, huh? And then the substance of the fire represents the Father, right?

[14:31] And from the Father there proceeds both light and what fire, because both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from what? Yeah. But in a way, you you see light as what, proceeding from the fire before the heat, right? So the fire or the the fire through its light, giving rise to what heat, right? And sometimes they apply that also to faith and charity, and they say, well, the sun enlightens the world before it warms it.

[15:09] So God enlightens our mind by faith, before He warms our heart by what, charity, yeah. So it was kind of interesting things there, right? So if

[15:27] we understand the Son is proceeding from the Father before the not not before in timing like that, so that the Holy Spirit can then rise in the Father and the Son together, right? Well then the coming into the world, right, the proceeding of them into the world, you'd understand the Son's proceeding into the world before that of the what, Holy Spirit, right? What did Christ say you know, unless I leave the Holy Spirit won't come right.

[15:57] Yeah. It's an order, right? So Christ coming into the world is before, in a sense, the Holy Spirit's coming in fully, like He does with the, with the Pentecost, right?

[16:13] So the mission of the Son into the world, then, which is by His incarnation, right, is before the mission of the Holy Spirit giving Him what grace and and love. let's go to the schedule of grace, huh? I rest my case. Well, Thomas rest his case. Quote it, quote it right there. Yeah, yeah.

[16:42] Now the first objection: nothing follows upon itself, and the objection is saying habitual grace seems to be the same thing as a grace of union, right? According to this text of Augustine. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Augustine there calls grace or names grace the gratuitous will of God, right? Gratuitously giving us what benefits, right? Huh?

[17:17] And on account of this, it is the same grace he says by which any man becomes a Christian, as the grace by which what Christ is made a man, right? Huh? Because both are by the gratuitous will of God without merits, isn't done right? Okay. Um. Yeah, that

[17:45] comes into the explanation of the word grace sometimes, huh? That grace is something what. Without merit. Yeah, something gratuitous in God's part, right? It precedes any merit, right? Okay.

[18:02] So sometimes when they translate grace as favor, they want some of these new translations, right? Huh? But that's not entirely outside the meanings of the word grace, right? Huh? Because I say you are in my good graces. We see that sometimes. People say that sometimes, right?

[18:19] In more secular circumstances, right? Huh? I do something, you know, I get into your good graces, right? See, that's your now you are inclined to do good things for me, right? Or you know, or to favor me in some way, right? Huh? Let me see. So that's the meaning of grace there when you say, well, just as I don't deserve the grace that God gives me, right?

[18:45] Huh? So human nature, Christ didn't deserve, right, to be joined to what the divine person, right? That was gratuitous in God's part, right? There was a great favor, you might say, that that God bestowed upon human nature, that we joined His His Person, the Person of the Son, right? You see.

[19:14] So this guy is mixing up two or three different senses of grace, right? Shame on him! and his objection, right? but as the philosopher says, the most common mistake is the one for mixing up the senses of a what? Word, huh?

[19:33] I told you that when I would teach the Shakespeare's definition of reason there, and then we go in Aristotle's text there, the basic senses of the word before, right? And I go through the four central senses: before in time, right? Before in being, before in the discourse of reason, before in the sense of what goodness, right? Okay.

[19:59] And after. explaining what each sense meant. I'd say now later on in the course you're going to mix up these senses. See, so they didn't even taught the four senses, right?

[20:10] Now the second sense of before, before in being means if this can be without that, right? But not vice versa, then this is before that in being, right? Okay. Now later on in the course I asked them, you know, about what's better, right? And my favorite example was, is it better to philosophize or to breathe?

[20:38] And they all say it's better to breathe than to philosophize. Huh? I said, okay. now what's your reason for saying breathing is better than philosophizing? Of course the reason they give is something like this: that you're not breathing, you're not going to be philosophizing or anything else, right? Well that shows you that you can breathe without philosophizing, but you can't philosophize without what? Breathing. That shows that breathing is before philosophizing in the second sense of before and being, right?

[21:13] But does it show that it's before in the sense of being better? I mean water can be without beer, right? Water better than beer? Water can be without wine. Is water better than wine? You know, you see. Or bricks can be what? Be without a brick wall or a brick house, but it's piled bricks better than a brick wall. You. See? So they're confusing the second and the fourth sense, right?

[21:44] But I've told them, you know, I distinguished those four different senses before in the course, and I've told them that they're going to mix up the senses, right? And sure enough they do, right? Is that it? And so as they say, Aristotle in the book on the Sophistical Refutations gives us the first kind of mistake is the one for mixing up the senses of a word, and he says that that's the most common what mistake made, right?

[22:15] You heard me the one I always give the students there about whole and part, right? Huh? It's a whole more than a part, and people will say yes, and then I say, well now what's a man? Well he's an animal, right? He's not just an animal. He's an animal that has reason, right? Okay. So to be an animal is only part of what a man is, huh?

[22:40] Okay. But then I say, but animal includes besides man, dog, cat, horse, elephant. So what's only a part of man includes more than man. So sometimes the part is more than the whole. Yeah, I guess you're right. So they all take it in by that argument, right? Well I'm mixing up the two senses of what whole and part, right? The universal whole. Like animal in comparison to man, dog, cat, and horse, right?

[23:07] And then the composed whole, and the definition is example of a composed whole, right? Where animal is a part of the definition of man, right? So you're mixing up two holes, right? The composed whole is always more than one of the parts that compose it, and the universal whole is always said of more than one of its parts, right? Like animal is said of more than dog is said of, right?

[23:36] So they're mixing up animal as a composing part of the definition of man as an animal that's a reason, right? With animal as a universal whole said of man, dog, cat, and horse.

[23:50] So you can even what give an argument that deceives or can't answer, you know, the average guy, right? An argument against one of the axioms, right? One of these obvious statements that the whole is more than one of its parts by mixing up different senses of the word whole.

[24:14] So you got to be careful about those things, right? That's why the philosopher, you know, devotes a whole fifth book of wisdom to distinguishing the senses of the words used everywhere, and especially in wisdom and in the axioms. But in other places, he uses that same what tool, you know, dialectic, right? Distinguishing the senses of grace. Aristotle gives you rules in the book on places for distinguishing the senses of a word.

[24:50] Like one place is to look at its opposite, right? Like take the word liberal, right? Well, liberal in politics is opposed to conservative, right? But in ethics, when you speak of a liberal man in the fourth book of ethics, the opposite of liberal is most of all stingy. And when you speak of the liberal arts, the opposite of liberal is what servile, not the conservative arts, right?

[25:18] So you got liberals opposed to conservative, liberals opposed to servile, liberals opposed to what stingy, right? Three different meanings of liberal because it has three different what opposites, right? It's funny when they make these things. They they find out that political conservatives, right, give more money to charity than liberals. You know, someone who's political liberal is somebody who's who's generous with other people's money. I enjoy seeing

[26:00] as a professor, you know, seeing these very liberal professors sometimes, you know, when it comes to how they're gonna. You know, divide up the money that's available for faculty raises, right? They they vote their their their pocketbook interests, right? Rather than you know, see you know, money goes to people being needed more, you know. It's like seeing the cars of the Marxist historians drive. Yeah.

[26:31] So let's look at the second one here now. The second objection. It says, "What disposition precedes perfection, right? " To the second, it should be said that just as disposition in the way of generation, right, in the road of generation, precedes perfection to which it disposes, right, in those things which are what gradually, perfection. Gradually, successively, right, not all at once, right, perfected.

[27:08] So naturally, it follows perfection that one has already what achieved, right? And this is a famous example that is very common in philosophy, just as the heat, which was a disposition for the form of fire, is also an effect flowing forth from the form of the fire, already what pre-existing, right? So you heat something, you're disposing this matter to receive the form of fire, right? But once it receives the form of fire, then there falls upon this a more perfect, right, effect, which is heat, right?

[27:50] But human nature is united in Christ to the person of the Word from the beginning, without any what succession in time, right? Whence the habitual grace is not understood as going before the union, right? But as what falling upon it as a certain what natural property falls upon something, right? Whence Augustine says in the Enchiridion that the grace is in a way natural to the man Christ, right?

[28:32] Because he is the person, right? Second person. Now when Thomas talks about dialectic and demonstration, right, he says, "Well, before you know the truth, right, and are sure about it, you proceed with probability dialectically, right? " So in the way of generation, then dialectic in a way is a disposition for knowing the truth later on. But once you come to know the truth with certitude, right, and have a demonstration, not just probable arguments, right, then he says you can what?

[29:12] More easily see the probable arguments that prepare the way for this, huh? Now, in our case, because we, you know, gradually come to to know things, huh? Dialectic is going to proceed what? Knowing the truth, right? But for someone like God who knows the truth all at once, right, eternally, then what? Dialectic will in no way be a disposition for God to know the truth, right? But because He knows the truth, He knows much better than we do the probable arguments by which the truth could be what?

[29:56] Shown, right? eh Do you see? Okay. That's a it's a very subtle thing, but it's a common thing in philosophy to speak of what, what later on is going to be a property of the thing, right? It's a disposition for what it is, and it's gradually being prepared for that. But once you have this nature, then what was before a disposition is now a effect following upon that nature.

[30:39] That's the example here from the ancient physics there, that the heating the water, heating the, you know, the paper, something like that, right, is disposing that thing for the form of fire, right? But once the form of fire arises, then there follow upon the nature of fire as like a property, right, connected with the nature of fire, heat, right? So is heat before or after fire? Well, it's once you have the nature of fire, it's after fire, right, as a property following upon it.

[31:15] But if you don't always have the nature of fire, but you're gradually acquiring it, right, then fire or heat rather is what a disposition, right, correct, right? You see. But in the case of Christ, He wasn't gradually, right, taking on human nature. There was a temporal process, right. It took no time at all. It's all at once. So He never was what on the way to acquiring this, right?

[31:48] So the habitual grace was never a disposition, again, human nature out here somewhere, existing by itself without being joined to the second person of the Trinity. Because if it was by itself out here, it would have a human, it would be a human person there, right? Yes. You see, so it can't be any human nature out there in time before it's joined to this, right? So you know, if you're thinking if you're thinking of habitual grace disposing for the union, then you're thinking the human nature is out here, and let's make this human nature out here suitable, disposed so it can be joined to Christ, right?

[32:26] I mean, joined to the second person of the Trinity. That's not the way it took place, right? Right. See, that human nature never existed except in union to the what? Second person, right? And therefore, the habitual grace was never a disposition whereby it was made suitable to be joined to Him, right? But it's always an effect of the fact that it was joined to Him that it would fall into this human nature, right, or flow from this union, this great what habitual grace, right?

[33:05] It's the only thing that comes clear. You read Thomas. Read him enough, things become clear, right? They describe, you know, one in the life of Thomas, him coming in to lecture, and some students, you know, objected what Thomas was saying, you know, and it was so shocking they would object to Thomas. Thomas just sat down very quiet. He gradually explains. I understand some point. Oh, you see it, yes.

[33:33] One fond old man, Thomas was. So we're up to the third objection now, right? Yeah. The third is saying, well, the common is before the private, huh? Okay.

[33:57] And you kind of see that in in the development of things, right? You know, you have a fertilized egg. You don't see understanding right away, or even sensing. You see what growth, right? Like we have in common with the plants, and then eventually you see what the sense is developing, right? And then finally, you know, the age of reason. Okay.

[34:26] Now Thomas again sees a distinction that Objection doesn't see. The third, therefore, should be said that the common is before the private if both are of one what genus, right? But in those things which are diverse genera, nothing prevents what is private to be before what is common. Now the grace of union is not in the genus of habitual grace, huh? It's not like you know another habitual grace, or even a super excellent habitual grace.

[35:07] It's not a habitual grace at all. It's not in that genus or kind of thing. But it's above every genus, right? Just as is the divine person itself, right? Whence this private, huh? How does your translation translate "proprium"? But I translate "private." Yeah, but "proprius" he doesn't give the sense that you want to sense that you want to give there.

[35:36] Sometimes that's a proper translation, "of proprium," right? But other times it's more proper to translate it as "private." He speaks of the bonum commune and the bonum proprium, common good and the proper good. That's improper. Yeah.

[35:55] Should be the common good and the private good, right? Okay. Whence this private, nothing prevents being before the common. Because it does not have itself by addition to the common, you know, like man adds something to animal, right? No, any reason, right? But more as the beginning and the origin of what is what common, right? So that this union of human nature to the second person of the Trinity, which union is the grace of union, right?

[36:31] That is what the source of this whole genus of habitual grace, right? In a sense, the source of habitual grace of Christ and habitual grace of what all us, right?

[36:47] It's not like another habitual grace, right? It's something outside that that genus, huh? Okay. Let's look a little bit here at the just the proemium We got to stop soon. Question eight is about the grace of Christ, according as he is the what? Yeah. You might recall that Thomas distinguished grace, the grace of union, right? Which is not going to have a special consideration right here because that's the very union, right?

[37:42] Okay. Then the habitual grace of Christ, which we just talked about in the question seven, here, right? And now he's going to talk about his grace as head of the church.

[37:54] Then, when I would consider about the grace of Christ, according as he is the head of the church, and about this, eight things are asked. I didn't know the eight things asked, did you?

[38:13] But Thomas has heard these things asked in one place or another, right? So you may not know that eight things are asked, but Thomas knows there's at least these eight things asked. And first, whether Christ is the head of the church.

[38:35] Secondly, whether he is the head of men as regards their body, or only as regards their what souls? That's unusual. Whether he is the head of all men? Well, there's some bad guys out there, you know. I don't know.

[39:00] Fourth, whether he is the head of what angels, huh? Because they're not human beings. They're not human, you know. Now those four questions, although they're distinct, they all deal with the idea of what being a head, right?

[39:33] But in the second one, you're talking about the composing parts of man, the body and the soul, right? And then in the third article about the what subject parts, right? This is being a head extended to all of which man is said, right?

[39:52] And then angels get stuck in there because because he was superior there, right? Now, whether grace according to which he or by which he is head of the church, is that the same thing with the habitual grace according as he is a singular man?

[40:21] That's a very interesting question. You see, those are really distinct, right? That word again comes up. What word? The number six. Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. Six, whether to be head of the church, is private to Christ, right? What about Benedict the Sixteenth now? so? Is he head of the church.

[40:55] There must be some some distinction to be seen there, right? Thomas, you know, I often quote uh, the, the sober man there, Anaxagoras, right? Aristotle said that Anaxagoras was like a sober man when he said that mind is the origin of things, right? But he attributed to this greater mind the distinction of things, right, and the ordering of them. So, so

[41:29] that's what our our reasoning is trying to see mainly is distinction and order. And Thomas is always seeing a distinction that I didn't see before, right? That shows his superiority of his mind over my mind, huh? He also always sees an order before I see it, huh? That's one order between us.

[41:56] Now, the seventh and eighth would be divided against all the ones before, right, huh? Because they're talking about now the opposite thing, right? Whether the devil is the head of all.

[42:14] You read screw tape letters, right? C. S. Lewis, huh? Yeah, you got the higher devil there. You know, and the lower one is, is trying to tempt some man, and his uncle there, the higher devil is giving advice how to do it, and so on. But he's not being too successful in his tempting of him, and he realizes he's going to be under the wrath of the higher.

[42:41] A lot of people enjoyed that book. And then the one about the antichrist, right? But the antichrist also is able to be called the head of all the bad, right? Maybe some distinction between the devil and the Antichrist, like there is between Christ and Benedict the Sixteenth, right? Huh? He's the vicar of Christ, right? He's called that right. The, uh... You heard that famous thing there. I've probably told it many times here, but the

[43:19] mother superior of some religious order, you know, was being introduced to John the Twenty Third, and she got a little bit rattled, you know, and she ended up saying that I am the mother superior of the Holy Spirit, instead of the order, of the order of the sister of the Holy Spirit, whatever it's enough. But I am the mother superior of the Holy Spirit, and John says, "I am just a humble vicar of Christ."

[43:41] That's an marvelous thing. You were supposed to turn off, man. That gets in the way of a moment, you know. I got a marvelous story, you know. John the Twenty Third.

[43:59] So, got to wait till next week, huh? Whether it is appropriate. And yesterday would have been impossible. It was a really rough day, you know. My students had come on Wednesday night and didn't tell me. Yesterday was really, really bad. And