Tertia Pars
31. Aquinas on Christ's Beatific Knowledge (ST III q.10 a.1–2): The Soul of Christ Does Not Comprehend God but Knows All Things in the Word
Class of 2009-02-19
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/031-aquinas-on-christs-beatific-knowledge-st-iii-q-10-a-1-2-the/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit, Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, Amen. help us to understand all truth. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. I was reading through the encyclicals of Benedict XV, among whom is the one on Saint Ephrem, you know, of, Syria, and that's the one where he makes him the universal doctor of the Church, right?

[0:38] It's got was it Principio something Apostolorum petro, you know, that's the way the way it's Latin title of it, you know. But anyway, he also has an encyclical on Saint Dominic, and there's a couple paragraphs here that I thought were relevant for our thing here. Paragraph two in the encyclical he says, "This man of God, in true Dominicus, the Lord's man, right, was fully given up to Holy Church, which had in him an invincible champion of the faith.

[1:19] The order of preachers, you know, the Dominican. That's their official name. That's why they put OP after their names as a priest. The order of preachers, too, found by him, has ever been the stout defense of the Roman Church. And so, not only did he strengthen the temple in his time, but he provided for the continuance of the defense. The words of Honorius III, Pope Honorius III, in approving the order, seem prophetical.

[1:49] Now he quotes the words of Honorius III. looking to the brethren of thy order as the future champions of the faith and the true lights of the world. The beautiful expression, now the true lights of the world. That's

[2:09] then later on the seventh paragraph here. The very wisdom of God seemed to speak to the Dominicans. Isn't that a strong phrase? The very wisdom of God seemed to speak to the Dominicans when there rose up among them such heralds and defenders of Christian wisdom as Hyacinth Polonus, huh? He's a great in Poland and went to Russia, went to Scandinavian countries and so on. Peter the Martyr, huh?

[2:39] Vincent Ferrer, right? And such miracles of genius and erudition as Albert the Great, Raymond de Penafort. he's famous for the work in the canon law, but I like him for. Being Master General Dominicans for about three years till he resigned, but that's got Thomas to write the Summa Contra Gentiles my favorite book, so that's enough claim. So he says, such miracles of genius and erudition as Albert the Great, Raymond de Penafort, Thomas Aquinas, in whom especially a follower of Dominic, God deigned to enlighten His Church.

[3:25] That's very strong. God deigned to light His Church with this Thomas. This order, therefore, always in honor as a teacher of truth, acquired new lustre when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own. That's beautiful. Teaching of Thomas to be her own, and that doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the Master and patron of Catholic schools. That's master, though not as opposed to slave, but master in sense of, but magister, right?

[4:00] So I mean, we call the Lombard the magister, you know, by antonomasia but really Thomas should be called the Magister, huh? So we're going to go back to the magisteria now. So you can have this. We want to look at those little passages. Yeah. Okay. I did find the one

[4:21] on the printed yet Yeah. yeah Okay. So we're up to question ten here. Now, following the what the rule of two or three, right? If one is going to divide the knowledge of Christ, I divided it into two: his knowledge as God, and his knowledge as man. That exhausts the subject, right? Now you can't really divide his knowledge as what God, although we do see a distinction, huh, a reason between what you'll see spoken to here again: the scienza, what vision, and the simplicis intelligentiae, right?

[5:16] But that's not really a distinction between two things, huh? Or two knowledges of God, right? But on the side of the human knowledge, he divides it into three, right? That's what these three questions will be about. His knowledge in the specific vision that he has in his human nature of God, and then his infused knowledge, and then his knowledge acquired by experience. So he's still following the rule of what two or three, right?

[5:47] In fact, all the way down here, following the rule of two to three, right? This whole question of the knowledge of Christ is part of a division of what. The good things assumed, right? Grace and knowledge and power, and that's a larger two. The things co-assumed, right? The good things, and then the defects assumed, right? The mortal flesh and so on.

[6:21] What did you say? Was that possible? One for dividing the knowledge of God, the two. Well, you'll find this distinction between what they call the knowledge of things past, present, and future, right? That God has, and that's called the scientia visionis, the science of vision of sight. And then the things that what could have been, right, but God didn't make, and so on, things He capable doing, and that's the science of simple what intelligence, simplicis intelligentiae a term they use, right?

[6:49] But that's not two different knowledges in God. It's kind of distinction of reason, on the side of the things known, right? But not a distinction of two real distinct knowledges in God, no. But in the human soul of Christ, the distinction into three is three really different things, three different things, three different knowledges, not not just a distinction of reason, but distinction of things. Yeah. Okay.

[7:20] He takes up the blessed science first. I suppose it's appropriate in the order of theology because everything because you refer it to God, right? This is closest to God of any of the three knowledges.

[7:33] So, the beginning of question ten, of course, he he gives us division of the three, and then he says we're going to ask four things. First, about the first kind of knowledge, the knowledge in the division, whether Christ comprehended

[7:54] the word or the divine essence. Secondly, whether he knew all things in the word, and whether the soul of Christ in the word knew infinity of things,

[8:13] and whether he saw the word or the divine essence more clearly than what any other creature, even than the seraphim. To the first, therefore, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ comprehended the word or the divine essence. For Isidore, huh? The great authority there says that the Trinity to itself what alone is known, and to the man taken on.

[8:49] Therefore, the man taken on has in common with the Holy Trinity that knowledge. Which is what proper to the Holy Trinity itself, but that is a knowledge of comprehension. Therefore, the soul of Christ comprehended the divine essence.

[9:13] So, why does Isidore put those two together if they're not both comprehension? Moreover, it is greater to be united to God in personal being, right, than according to the vision.

[9:32] But as Damascene says in the third book, the whole divinity in one of the persons is united to human nature in Christ. Much more, therefore, is the whole divine nature seen by the soul of Christ, and thus it seems that the soul of Christ comprehends the divine essence. More. as Augustine says in the book on the Trinity, what belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to the Son of Man by grace.

[10:10] But to comprehend the divine essence belongs to the Son of God by nature. Therefore, it belongs to the Son of Man by grace. And thus it seems that the soul of Christ by grace comprehends the Word.

[10:28] But against this is what Augustine says in the book on the eighty-three questions that what comprehends itself is what limited to itself. But the essence, the divine essence, is not limited in comparison to the soul of Christ, since it exceeds that soul infinitely. Therefore, the soul of Christ does not comprehend the Word. So, what do you guys think?

[11:01] Thomas says, "I answer. It should be said, This is clear from the things said before or above. In this way was made the union of natures in the person of Christ, that nevertheless the what property you might say of each nature remained what not mixed up with that of the other nature. So, in the what in the Trinity you have a real distinction of persons, huh? In the mystery of Incarnation, you have a real distinction of what natures, yeah.

[11:39] Thus, the as Damascene says in the third book, the uncreated remains what uncreated, and the created remains within the limits of the what creature.

[11:55] It is, however, impossible that some creature could comprehend the divine essence, as has been said in the first part, in that the infinite cannot be comprehended by the finite, the unlimited by the limited. Huh?

[12:19] To to comprehend the divine essence would be to know the divine essence as much as it's knowable, right? And therefore, it should be said that the soul of Christ in no way comprehended the divine essence. That's putting him in his place, right?

[12:40] Now you say that, JC. Women are fine in their place. See how he reacted to that. Well, you got to put the creature in his place too, right? Not be like. Faust, right? And think that what is in some way infinite is simply speaking infinite.

[13:11] Now, at first, text from Isidore, he says, for this reason, huh? The man taken on is numbered with the divine Trinity in his knowledge, not by reason of what comprehension, right? But by reason of a most what excellent knowledge above other creatures, huh? Now, to the second objection, which is taken from the fact that we join to the divine person there. To the second, it should be said that not even in that union which is according to personal being does the human nature comprehend the what word of God or the divine nature.

[13:58] Because although the whole was united to human nature in the one person of the Son, nevertheless the whole excellence or power of the divinity was not what had a line drawn around it by human nature. circumscripta Whence Augustine says in the Epistle to Volusianum uh, I wish you to know I did not does Christian teaching have this. It's not taught in Christian teaching that God was what, and so poured into flesh that the care of governing the universe that he deserted that or left it, right?

[14:51] Or that it was transferred to this what A little corpuscula, yeah, as were contracted and collected it, right? And likewise, the soul of Christ sees the whole essence of God, but nevertheless it does not what comprehend it because he does not totally see it. That is, he does not see it as perfectly as it is what visible, right? Thomas often uses a little analogy there. He talks about not only Christ's soul but our soul seeing God as He is and not comprehending Him.

[15:33] It doesn't mean you see one part of God and not another part because God has no parts, right? And his next interesting comparison to help us with this, he says that when you know a statement by demonstration, say in geometry, and you know it by some kind of probable argument, huh?

[16:02] The man who knows it by the probable argument, he knows the whole statement, subject and predicate, right? But he doesn't know the whole statement as much as it's knowable. So take the Pythagorean theorem. I can go to the board there and demonstrate that now if I had to there. The TAC class, huh? But if you accept that because Euclid says so, or the geometers say so, right?

[16:30] Which is a probable reason to accept it, right? You know the whole statement, but you don't know it as much as it's what knowable, right? So

[16:43] that means that everything you can know too in seeing God, you don't know, because you don't know God as much as He's knowable. A lot of times too, you know, we we in philosophy and even science, you have some kind of a beginning or principle, which many things follow, right? And the better mind will see more consequences of it than the lesser mind, huh? So one guy knows it more than the other guy does, huh?

[17:19] You might both know the the whole, right? But one guy knows it and sees what follows from it. So Christ sees the whole divine essence, but He doesn't see it as much as it's what knowable. And we'll see, He sees it more clearly, though, than the other creature will see in another article. But at this point, we're just talking about does He comprehend it, right? He doesn't see it as He sees it in His divine nature.

[17:51] Could someone could someone then say, well, then that then that that that Christ didn't know He was God in a certain sense? That's the different follow. That doesn't follow from that, no. Yeah. Because that's talking about the fact. Yeah.

[18:11] Yeah. he knows the Trinity and everything, right? He knows himself and His divinity, right? I mean, when we see God as He is, we'll see the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, right? Yeah. And He affords you, Christ sees that, right? He sees God. Because he's right now Himself. Yeah. Yeah. That's me. That's me. Yeah. That's me as God, but not me as man. Okay. So what is uh?

[18:35] What I'm trying to figure out though, what what is that? What's the distinction or whatever that makes that not follow? Makes what? What? The reason why he can't comprehend Him, or what? No, the reason why someone couldn't say. He didn't know. He didn't know. In a in a in a in a circumstance. And what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to figure out from. Yes, I mean I know it's a stupid statement.

[19:08] I'm trying to figure out why. Why they say this, you mean? Somehow, if someone were to say that if he didn't comprehend, yeah, I think it's a difference. I think what he's trying to say is somebody will say Christ didn't know who he was, he didn't know he was God, and they might say, well, one of the reasons is because St. Thomas says he didn't see the whole, he didn't see totally what God was, but of course that's not him as man.

[19:37] Yeah. That's nothing. So it's so like two. Doesn't there's no connection with the. I don't see it, anyways. I think I see what you're. Yeah. It looks like it's kind of wound up with this question that if his knowledge of the divinity was of the whole, but not complete, not totally, as he says here. He sees God as He is, right? So he sees everything. He sees, but he just doesn't. see everything there is to see Yeah, so then I'm saying, well, but but doesn't that say that then in a certain way he doesn't know God that he doesn't know he doesn't comprehend because he doesn't he doesn't know it with a comprehensor's knowledge.

[20:16] No, he knows God, he knows the Trinity, but he doesn't know them as much as they're knowable. Only God knows that as much as knowable. The same thing we say about love, you know, no one can love God as much as He's loveable, right? No one can praise God or glorify God as much as He's worthy of praise and glory. You know how Saint Francis de Sales goes up until the praise of God is to Himself, right?

[20:44] Or you know, Christ speaks the glory I had with you before the creation of the world, and we're thankful for that because we realize you know we exhaust ourselves praising God. We have not praised Him as much as He's worthy of praise, right? So would that would that mean then in a certain way, in a certain sense, we don't love God? That seems kind of no, no, no.

[21:07] We love God, but God is infinitely loveable, right? And so the creature can never have an infinite love for God, right? He can always have in this life more love for God, right? But you can never love Him as much as He's loveable, right?

[21:30] God would accept, you know, being loved by us less than He's loveable, right? Because we realize we can never love Him, right, as much as He is what loveable, right? But He expects the bishop to love Him more than than than me, right? You see, according to your state of life, right, a certain you know love he wants you to arrive at by the time you kick the bucket,

[22:01] and you have that amount of love for eternity, huh? And you wonder if every individual sees things differently, then every individual is loving God in a unique way, maybe unique aspects of God, and so the collective love of humanity of God are just all these. Yeah, but it's only a drop in the bucket compared to His love, though, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Less than that because even no no ratio, huh?

[22:35] Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Contra Gentiles points out that other things being equal, right, you love yourself more than others, and that's interesting. you apply it to God's love of Himself, right?

[22:55] Our happiness in heaven is founded just chiefly in God, right? But God's not us, right? So God's going to enjoy Himself even more than we enjoy ourselves. You could enjoy Him rather, huh? Because He is Himself.

[23:14] Amazing, amazing being. Okay. Now the third objection, huh? How to understand the words of Augustine? To the third, it should be said that though that word of Augustine should be understood about the grace of union, by which all things which are said of the Son of God, according to His divine nature, are said of the Son of Man, on account of the identity of the what? Suppositum, huh?

[23:52] The individual substance, the person. And according to this, it can be truly said that the Son of Man is a comprehensor, right, of the divine essence, not according to His soul, but according to His divine nature, right? Through which, in which way also, it can be said that the Son of Man is the Creator, right? Okay. It's a bit like you know when you have accidental predication in man, huh?

[24:19] If I'm a a geometer, right, huh? Well, I'm a grandfather too, right? So it can be truly said that this geometer is a grandfather, or this grandfather is a geometer, right? But I'm not a grandfather through my knowledge of geometry, right? To do that, right? But you can truly say that this because both of these are in the same person, right? This person here is a geometer and a grandfather, right?

[24:47] And this person here is God and man. So you can transfer, right, what is said of one to the other, but it doesn't mean that it's said according to the same nature, though.

[25:01] Christ is God, right? That's why they're mad at Him, you know, in the Gospel, right? He makes Himself equal to God, but He doesn't make Himself equal to God in His human nature, but in His divine nature, He's equal to God. He is God.

[25:20] Okay. And according to this, it can be truly said that the Son of Man is the comprehensor of the divine essence, not according to the soul, but according to the divine nature. In which way one can also say that the Son of Man is the what? Creator, huh? You didn't say that Mary's the mother of God. Even more amazing, huh? Sometimes you know, it used to bother some non-Catholics, you know, say the mother of God, right?

[25:50] But they must understand what it's meant by that, huh? That's why Nestorius didn't refer to that definition as a defiant definition. Okay. That's probably her greatest title, Mother of God. I would think you are greater than Mother of the Church, right? That's great too, but. Now, to some sense of which the soul of Christ in the Word sees all things, or knows all things. To the second, one goes forward.

[26:24] Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ in the Word does not know all things. For he said in the Gospel of Mark, chapter thirteen, about that day, no one knows. or the hour no one knows guess, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, except the what Father. Therefore, he doesn't know all things in the Word.

[26:54] Moreover, the more perfectly one knows some beginning, the more one the more things one knows in that beginning. But God perfectly sees his own what? More perfectly sees his own essence than the soul of Christ. Therefore, he knows more things in the Word than the soul of Christ does. Therefore, the soul of Christ in the Word does not know what all things.

[27:38] Moreover, the quantity, the amount of knowledge, is observed according to the quantity of things known. If, therefore, the soul of Christ knew in the Word all the things which the Word knows, it would follow that the science of the soul of Christ is equal to the divine science. The created to wit to the uncreated, and that's a good science.

[28:11] But against this is what is said on that of the Apocalypse, chapter five, verse twelve, that the Lamb is worthy who was what slain to take on what divinity and science. That is the knowledge of all things.

[28:36] I was reading in the golden chain this morning. There, Saint John, and that Saint John, Saint John the Baptist says, "Behold, the Son, the Lamb of God." So,

[28:50] about the sins, takes away the sins of the world, and then a couple of his disciples go and pursue him, right? And and one of the commentators or one of the church fathers says, "Well, sometimes you say great things about God, people are not drawn to him, right? To say something humble, here's the Lamb of God, right? That, therefore, interesting observation by one of the was Cusanus or one of the one of those.

[29:16] Guys, using the golden chain. Okay. And the gloss says what a knowledge of all things, huh? Okay. Now, says I answer. It should be said that when is asked, huh, whether Christ knew all things in the Word, it should be said that the word omni all things can be taken in what two ways, huh?

[29:59] In one way, properly, that it is distributed for all things which, in any way, are now or were or what will be, right? Whether there are things done or things said or thought, right? That's the basically the word omni? According to any what time,

[30:32] and thus it should be said that the soul of Christ in the Word knows all things, huh? All things past, present, future, right? All thoughts, sayings, and what deeds, right? Okay.

[30:53] Now, each created understanding, right, knows in the Word not all things simply, but more the more perfect it sees the Word, huh? For to know, blessed understanding is lacking, but that it know in the Word all things that pertain to it, huh? So, as Kara was talking about earlier, Dominic, right? He must know pretty well the the status of the whole Dominican Order, right? He might not know about the Jesuits, but I mean, doesn't want to know about them, but he would know, maybe you know, about his his order, right?

[31:42] Okay. Um. But to Christ, however, and to his what dignity or worth pertain in some way all things, in so far as all things are to be subject to him. For he is constituted the judge of all by God, because he is the what Son of Man, as is said in John five, verse twenty-seven, right? And therefore the soul of Christ in the Word knows all things that exist.

[32:21] In any time, right? Okay. And also the thoughts of men, of whom he is the what? Judge. For he said of him in John chapter two, for he knew what was in man, knew the thoughts his people right what they're thinking of. How can he forget sin? And all this sort of stuff. They're always you know got some complaint. They get a lot of. I see a nice phrase there in Shakespeare there in a fellow there something he says.

[32:56] And don't let my ear be a stranger to your thoughts. The marvelous stuff, huh? Yeah. Don't make my ear a stranger to your thoughts. Ear? Yeah. So tell me what you think. Yeah, I know your thoughts through the words that you say that I hear, right? So, but kind of what he said was kind of usual, you know. But not having, you know, or letting or making out what he said, his ears be a stranger to your thoughts.

[33:33] Um. But we're often ignorant of the thoughts of others, right? Some people say we couldn't get along with each other. We knew, we knew what other people think think of us, right? We just couldn't get along. It's probably good. He doesn't know. It's not everybody's body. Yeah, I was thinking. I'm glad God only knows that stuff. Yeah, if

[33:59] the priest is up there and giving his sermon, you know, and some people don't like the sermon, you know, and you know these people are thinking this or that about the sermon.

[34:14] But Christ is going to judge all these things, right? So he has to know. I suppose if you go to somebody confession, you've got to open your mind to them, right? What your situation is, because they're going to what? Make a judgment, right? Okay. But therefore, it's your things. Christ be the judge of all, that's right. Especially in the last judgment, he's got to know everything.

[34:40] In another way, though, taking all what more largely, right? That it extends not only to all things which are in act in some time, right? Doesn't mean just presently, but to the past, future, right? But also to all things whatsoever that are in what power, but never brought to act.

[35:07] Of these, some are only in the divine power, right? So all the things that God could do, the infinity of them, they didn't do, right? But He was able to do. And not all of this sort does the soul of Christ know in the what word right? For this would be to comprehend all the things which God is able to do, which would be to comprehend the divine power, right?

[35:33] And since that's the same thing as the divine essence, it would be consequently to what comprehend the divine essence. For the virtue of each virtue or power is known by a knowledge of those things in which it is capable, or for which it is capable.

[35:52] There are some things that are not only in the divine power, but also in the power of the creature, right? And all of these the soul of Christ knows, huh? That's interesting, right? So if your mother and father had married other people, right? And Christ, would know what would have been result of That you should have married so and, so you would have You would have been happier You would have had these people these children, these grandchildren.

[36:28] For he comprehends in the word the essence of every creature, right, and consequently the power and the virtue and all things which are in the power of the creature, right. So he knows everything that

[36:47] God knows, right, by the scientia visionis, right? But not everything that God knows by the so-called scientia simplicis intelligentiae, where he knows everything that is his power, right? So that for that reason that might answer your question. If. He knows what creatures are capable of. Then he knows this one that he has to be is united with God, Yeah, because, he was, and is, and will be.

[37:19] He knows himself. Yeah. Creation, even what's possible. So he would know himself. He doesn't know all things possible. Possible creatures. Or the creatures. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But he knows all things that are in some time, right? Yeah. And in the fullness of time he came and and still around actually. Yeah.

[37:48] Yeah. Now the first objection was taken from this text to help you to understand that text, right? Now he says that word is understood by these heretics, Arius, right? Eunomius, not as regards the knowledge of the soul, which they did not what place in Christ. They said that the divinity of Christ, which is not really divinity, is in place of the soul, right? Unomius, not as regards the divine knowledge of the Son, which they placed to be or which they laid down to be less than the what Father, right?

[38:26] Unomius, not as regards the divine knowledge of the soul, But this cannot stand because through the Word of God all things were what made, huh? And among other things, also what through him were made all times, huh? And nothing made through him is not known by him, right?

[38:57] He is said therefore to not know the day and the hour of the judgment, because he does not make this what to be known. Asked by the apostles about this in Acts chapter one, he did not wish to what reveal this, huh? Just as a contrario, it is said in Genesis twenty-two. Now I know that you what fear God. That is, now I have made this known.

[39:32] It's not as if God Himself didn't know until this. I guess that's the time when he sacrifices the son or something. Okay. The son is the father is already said to know in that he what gives this knowledge to the son. Whence in this that it is said except the father, it is given to be understood that the son knows, not only as regards the divine nature, but also as regards the what human.

[40:09] Because as Chrysostom reasons, if to the man Christ is given to know, in what way each person ought to be judged, which is a much greater thing, much more was it given to him to know something much less, which is the time of the judgment. Now there are some other explanations that people give that phrase too. Origen expounds this about Christ according to his body, which is the what church, which is ignorant of this time, right?

[40:47] And some say this is to be understood of the Son of God, the adopted Son, not the natural. I don't think these are the most likely interpretations of that passage, as earlier ones are.

[41:04] So it boils down to that he didn't want the apostles to know. To know when the day of judgment is going to be. Yeah. So in order not to lie to them or anything like that, he hid it from himself. Is that? No, no, he says,

[41:21] in this kind of obscure way, right? By saying that he didn't know what he means is that he's not in position to reveal it. That's so. It's a way that's the way the Catechism interprets as well. The Catholic Church uses this interpretation that the phrase means that I'm not able to tell you. Not that I don't know. It's like what they say when when someone calls they're looking for Father Abbott.

[41:51] They say he's not here right now, but he's you know he might be in the room, but that's not a lie because it means he's not available. He doesn't want to be available. And he uses that example from Genesis as sort of to explain this way. That's how we have to understand when God says to Abraham, "Now I know." Well, he didn't know before. So no, he says, "No, I made it known.

[42:13] If nothing else, to Abraham, if not to us, he revealed." So in this way, he says. I don't know. It means I'm not going to reveal. So that's how he's reasoning from another text. You know, so these these ways of speaking that got difficult to understand in scripture. You can see how scripture can't stand without the church, yeah, and the tradition that understands these passages properly. The heretic can easily take these things and and run with them.

[42:43] Isn't it also the the fact that St. Thomas gives different interpretations, and also says that there's still these are still just reasonable guesses about what it means. Some more reasonable than others. That there's still certain mystery to that. Yeah, sometimes there's you know for for Augustine and and Thomas there can be even a sense of letter more than one meaning. Yeah. And that's kind of striking, huh?

[43:15] Yeah. I know it's Thomas even the definition there of eternal life, huh? It's in know you the Father and Him whom you sent. Well, sometimes he takes as referring to what? Just the the Trinity, right? The mystery Trinity. Well, other times he takes it as referring to the divinity and humanity of Christ, huh? So I mean, he gives two different explanations of that, huh?

[43:51] Um, the one that I was struck by was because I grew up with it. In a sense, the little catechisms we had, the little books he had when I was, you know, more orthodox in those days. But they were sometimes divided according to, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." And this would be taken Christ, the teacher, the truth, right? Christ, you know, the lawgiver and so on, the king and so on.

[44:18] They take as two different characteristics of Christ as man, he's king, priest, and prophet, right? Okay. But in the context, Thomas usually takes the "I am the way" as referring to Christ in his human nature and the truth and the life in his divine nature, right? But but you know the Pope sometimes has taken those three as what the three Christ is called Christ because he's anointed like a king, he's anointed like a priest and like a prophet, you know, and there's examples of that in the Old Testament.

[44:52] And Christ is the anointed one, right? So he's these three, and so he he he gives us you know commandments as king, and he gives us the creed as as prophet and the sacraments and so on, you know, as priest and so on, and so that's one way of taking those three words to refer to the what human nature of Christ, huh? Although I think it fits the context a little bit more to say that I am the road.

[45:20] Human nature. That's why he says, you know, again the book, right, the third book here, about Christ, right, who as man is the road, right.

[45:37] Very, very prologue in this part, huh? And then the other two to his divine nature. But he does the same thing with that other, other part, this eternal life, right? To know him, You're the Father in Him whom you sent.

[45:56] But it's eternal life. That's what um that way of expounding scripture by St. Ephraim saying, Don't be sad that you can't go to scripture and break it all down. Yeah, glad that you can go back to the fountain for more. Yeah, yeah. You don't exhaust the. fountain when you get there Yeah. Well, it it it's in circle I was mentioning of of uh Benedict the fifteenth there that, that um or no, me also in my other book on on the on the doctrines of the church, but St.

[46:25] Ephraim wanted to be a man of one book, and that book is the Bible, and you don't really have the book, you know, you forget about the rest of them. Well, I was talking to somebody here about the somebody's told me where the Dominican thing there Thomas is supposed to said the way to become wise to be a man in one book, I was saying Ephraim, you know, in a very good way, Okay.

[46:58] second objection. Yeah, the more perfect the mind is, the more things it sees in the beginning, huh? Now, to the second, should be said that God more perfectly knows His own what essence than the soul of Christ does, because the God comprehends His own essence, huh? And therefore, He knows all things, not only which are an act in some time, right? Which is said to know by the science of vision, right?

[47:44] That's why they call it the scientia visionis, because the past, the present, and the future are all present to God in His eternal what? Now, I see. Okay, it's like he's seeing them.

[48:04] My old teacher, Kasurik used to joke there used to be a program I know it's on the radio in the old days. You were there, did you ever? Yeah, no. And and they reenact some historical event, you know, the trial of Socrates, you know, something they're thinking about,

[48:21] and Kasurik talking about the scientia visionis You will be there, right? Now the past will be present to you, right? You know, it's kind of a thing because of this program. You listen to this thing, you know, it's kind of fun to listen to this program and the reenactment of these events, and they're present to you. And I think it's happening right now. You know, Socrates is being led to the trial or something, and but that's what they call it, the scientia visionis, right?

[48:45] When I read, you know, history, that's not really. Hearing about something in the past, you know, I'm trying to guess what's going to happen in the future, and so not seeing what's going to happen in the future may be quite different from what I imagine it to be. But also, all the things that He is able to make, right? Which He is said to know per simplicem intelligentiam, right?

[49:13] Simple understanding. As it had in the first, I think those phrases Thomas didn't invent. They were already, you know, in among the theologians. But because that's a distinction of what God's knowledge by reason, but it's not a distinction of two knowledges in God. God is one knowledge altogether, simple. But you distinguish it by the things what known, right? No, no, they're all known by the same knowledge.

[49:45] Okay. The soul of Christ, therefore, knows all things in this sense, right? Which God knows in Himself by the knowledge of vision, but not all the things which God knows in Himself by the knowledge of simple intelligence, right? And therefore, God knows more things in Himself than the soul of Christ.

[50:11] And that's not a put down What? That's not put down. No, no, no. No. So it's not, it's not a, it's also, it's not, it's not a lack either, because, uh,

[50:33] because the soul of Christ is perfect, so it has everything that the soul could possibly have. Yeah, he knows everything that pertains to him in his dignity as as the Son of Man, right? And belongs to his dignity as the Son of Man to be the judge of all of us. And therefore, he has to know everything. So maybe that, maybe that. He's not going to judge those people who could have been if your mother had married somebody else.

[51:02] You see? That's the idea to judge those people that never were, are, or will be. Okay. Now, even in the scientia visionis, he's going to make a distinction here, or see distinction in the third objection now.

[51:21] Um. The idea of being somewhat identity of the I mean equality there. To the third, it should be said that the quantity of knowledge is not only to be noted according to the number of things known, but also to the clarity of the what knowledge, huh? Okay.

[51:54] In that sense, I might be said I know more the the square than, let's say, the soul. They know more clearly what the square is than than the soul. Okay. Um. So, although the knowledge of the soul of Christ, which he has in the Word, Is equal to the what science of vision, right, which God has in Himself, as regards the number of things known, right. Nevertheless, the knowledge of God exceeds infinitely as regards the clarity of the knowledge, the knowledge of the soul of Christ, huh?

[52:30] In St. Thomas' communion prayer there. he's pushing the clarity. of his infinite mind? Because the uncreated light of the divine understanding infinitely exceeds the created light, any created light received in the soul of Christ, right? Not only as far as the what way of knowing, but also as far as the number of things known, huh? So if you limit yourself, you know, there is going back now to the old thing, right?

[53:04] But he knows infinitely more things than Christ knows in His soul, and even the things that Christ knows in His soul that God knows also, He knows in His divine knowing much more clearly, right? Than Christ, huh? To

[53:24] not mean that Christ has the confusion that we have when we see these things darkly and so on. Okay. So should we take a little break before we go on? So should we take a little break before we go on? So should we take a little break before we go on? So should we take a little break before we go on? So should we take a little break before we go on?

[53:37] So should we take a little break before we go on?