Tertia Pars
32. Christ's Knowledge of the Infinite and His Supreme Vision of God (ST III q.10 a.3–4), with a Digression on 'Simply' vs. 'In Some Way' and the Prologue to Infused Knowledge (q.11)
Class of 2009-02-19
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/032-christs-knowledge-of-the-infinite-and-his-supreme-vision/

[0:00] It seems that the soul of Christ is not able to know an infinity of things in the Word. For that the infinite be known is repugnant to the definition of the infinite, in so far as it is said in the third book of the Physics that the infinite is that whose quantity, taking always, there is always something outside to be taken. Right. Okay. So when Aristotle's talking about the division of the continuous.

[0:30] You can always divide the line more, right? Okay. There's always something more to be taken. On the same way, numbers, right? You can always have a greater number.

[0:44] But it is impossible to separate the definition from the defined, because this would contradictories to be what the same time. Therefore, it is impossible that the soul of Christ knows what infinite.

[1:03] Moreover, a knowledge of infinite things is infinite, but the science of Christ cannot be what infinite, for his capacity is what limited, since he is a creature, right, as man.

[1:19] Therefore, the soul of Christ is not able to know an infinity of things. So, moreover, to the infinite, there can't be anything greater than the infinite. But more things are contained in the divine science, absolutely speaking, than the science of the soul of Christ, as has been said. Therefore, the soul of Christ does not know what infinite. You can see how what's his name there?

[1:51] No, the other guy, the heretic. Oh. Faribault, right? Yeah, Faribault. gets mixed up Oh, that's yeah, yeah. The modern. But against this is the soul of Christ knows his whole power in all the things that is capable of, right? But he can what?

[2:14] Yeah, cleanse infinite his sins. Huh? For he is a propitiation for our sins, as is said by Saint John in his first epistle, not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world, right? So, if we keep on sinning, he can still cleanse us. Therefore, the soul of Christ knows infinite things. Huh?

[2:39] Answer. It should be said that science is not of anything except of what is, a being. In that being and true are what convertible. These are two of the so-called transcendentals, the most universals.

[2:58] Now, in two ways, is something called a being. In one way, simply, namely, what is a being an act. In another way, secundum quid, which is what being in potency, right? Okay. So, do we have any toothpicks in this room?

[3:19] Potency. Yeah. You had to qualify, right? You would say simply. I think you have some. Well, a lot of them. Potency, yeah, yeah. But you wouldn't say simply, though, not that you're an act.

[3:33] And because, as is said in the ninth book of wisdom, ninth book after the books in actual philosophy, each thing is known according as it is an act, not according as it is in what potency. One way Aristotle shows that is from geometry, where you have to draw a line, make it actual, to see the proposition.

[3:59] Okay. Because, as is said in the ninth book of wisdom, each thing is known according as it is an act, not according as it is in the ability or in potency. Knowledge first and chiefly regards being an act, but in a secondary way, it regards being in what potency, which is not noble by itself, but according as what. In her power, visibility exists. Yeah.

[4:32] So, as regards the first way of knowing or knowledge, the soul of Christ does not know what, But, because there are not infinity of things in act, even if one takes into account all things which are in act, according to every time. This is something taken up earlier in the first volume, if you know, first prima pars. In that the state of generation corruption does not remain forever, right?

[5:05] Whence there is a certain number, not only of those things which are without generation corruption, but even of generable and what corruptible. There's a number of cats, number of dogs.

[5:20] But as regards the other way of knowing, the soul of Christ in the Word knows an infinity of things, for he knows, as has been said, all things which are in the power of the creature. When, since in the power of the creature are an infinity of things, in this way he knows an infinity of things.

[5:45] But as by knowledge of simple what intelligence, not however by knowledge of what. Yeah. Because things are actually in some time past, present, and future. Are not infinite, but the things that could have been, right?

[6:08] He gives a little twist there to the distinction of knowledge. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's scientiae visionis et simplicis intelligentiae, not of the things that are in the power of God, but of the creature. That distinction that he he sees. What about

[6:31] the subjection drawn from the consideration of infinite in the physics there? Infinity is in motion. Time is on. To the first, therefore, it should be said that infinite, as has been said in the first part, is taken or is said in two ways. In one way, by reason of form, and in this way, the infinite is said negatively, to wit, that which is a form or act not limited by some matter or subject in which it is what we see.

[7:16] So when you say God is infinite, the negative there i n is a mere negation. It's not a what lack, and this kind of infinite in itself is most knowable, right? Because it's most an act, an account of perfection of the act, although it is not able to be comprehended by the limited power of the what creature. For thus God is said to be infinite, right?

[7:56] And such an infinite, the soul of Christ does know, although it doesn't what comprehend it, right? In another way, the infinite is said according to the potency or ability of matter, which is said what privativi, right? It's a different kind of opposition

[8:19] from this that does not have the form which it is naturally apt to have, and in this way is said the infinite in what quantity, huh? And such an infinite, by its very reason, is unknown because it is as were matter with the lack of form, as is said in the third book of physics. But all knowledge is being informed, huh? Is through some form or act.

[8:49] Thus, therefore, if this kind of infinite were known, um. According to what is very way of this thing being known, it would be impossible for it to be known. For the its way of being known, considered in its own nature, right, is that one takes part of it after part, as is said in the third book of physics. And in this way, it is true that taking its quantity to it part after part, there is always another one to be taken.

[9:31] But just as material things can be taken by the intellect in a material way, and many things in a united way, so infinite things can be taken by the intellect, not in the manner of the infinite, part after part, but as it were, what in a limited way. So that those things which are in themselves infinite are limited. To the understanding of the one knowing, and in this way the soul of Christ knows infinite things, in so far as it knows them, not by running through right Singula, one after the other, but in something one, right?

[10:19] As an example, in some creature in whose power there pre-existed infinity of things, but that power is something one, right? And chiefly in the word itself.

[10:32] That's a mouthful, right? But you can see you can see how the problem that the infinite gives, right? I remember some Jesuit there I met, Phil Solheim there's a whole big book on infinite, you know. And you don't ever move there that much about the infinite. Think of the history of the discussion of the infinite. Who's it? I think it's Berkeley who doesn't like the idea that something should be infinitely divisible.

[11:07] He doesn't like that idea at all. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I refute him thus, and Samuel Johnson kicked a stone. Samuel Johnson kicked a stone and said, "I refute him thus." Yeah. I'd

[11:27] say even Bishop Berkeley, you know, opens the door to a study before he tries to leave. You know, we we go down to the to go down there to go swimming up. It's a little warmer down there, and go by the place where he he came over to America for a while. Oh, yeah. And there's some kind of I haven't actually visited the place, but I see the signs for it.

[11:53] And got a little missionary work or something he's doing in the states. I don't know, but Bishop Berkeley. Now the second objection is going to

[12:19] say what? He's a creature, therefore he's finite. Okay. Some distinction has got to be seen here. To the second, it should be said that nothing prevents something from being infinite in one way, that in another way is what Limit limited, huh? Just as if we imagine in quantities a surface which is in its length infinite, but in its width what finite, huh? Thus, therefore, if there were infinity of men in number, huh?

[13:02] They would what? Have infinite being in some way, right? Namely, according to the multitude of them. But nevertheless, by reason of their what nature essence, they would not have what infinity. In that every essence is limited by reason of one what species.

[13:25] But that which is simpliciter infinitum, by reason of its essence, is God, as has been said in the first part. Aristotle talks about that, and he gives the meanings of perfect, right? Which distinguishes between the way in which God is perfect, and the way in which other things are perfect. Other things are perfect in their kind, but God is simply perfect. Huh? He's lacking in nothing. And even Averroes saw that Aristotle's talking about God there.

[14:00] St. Thomas sees that he's talking about God there. It's beautiful. Now the proper object of the understanding is the what it is, as is said in the third book about the soul, and to which pertains the notion of the what species. To define the species by its genus and what difference. Thus, therefore, the soul of Christ, on account of the fact that it has a limited capacity, that which is simply infinite in essence, to it God, it attains, in some way, but it does not comprehend.

[14:49] as has been said. But that infinite which is found in the what in creatures is in potency, and it can be what comprehended by the soul of Christ. Because it is compared to it by reason of what it is, from which side it has no infinity.

[15:14] For even our own understanding understands universal, to to wit, the nature, the genus, or the species, which in some way are infinite, in so far as it can be said of what.

[15:30] So in a sense, we knowing the infinite in non-universal, or we knowing it in a what limited way, because it's definitely what what it is, right? Yeah. So I know what a number is, right? And therefore, I kind of know something that can be said of infinity of things. So I'm knowing an infinity of things and knowing what a number is, but I'm knowing an infinity of things in a what finite way.

[16:03] Right. It's one of the explanations we give of what Shakespeare says. The reason is the capability for a large discourse, right? Kind of discourse that covers a large area. To speak a little bit metaphorically, right? Because the universe, you might say, covers a large area, because it can be said of many things, and some can be said of infinity of things. So, in my mind, says no odd number is even, and making a statement about infinity of things, or two infinities of things, right?

[16:34] Yeah. But God is simply infinite, huh? That's another way. Then going back to the difference between Aristotle and Plato's the way that we know things. Truth is not quite the way that they are. Yeah, I mean this kind of distinction, you know, runs through philosophy. And if you go through Aristotle's books, you'll see in every book this distinction is being seen. This kind of distinction.

[17:17] He calls the enamy what sophismos tis," but in Latin you say "a sophism secundum quid," right? It's not simply a sophism huh It has something of a sophism huh.

[17:35] But I used to, and I talked to students about this a bit. I said, "I know this is hard to understand, but all day long you're mixing up these two because you're doing something bad because in some secundum quid it's good, right? Or you're not doing what is good because secundum quid it's bad, right? " And so there's nothing in this world that's so good that doesn't prevent you from doing something else, and therefore can be considered in some way as bad.

[18:03] And so you know, you take the example there. You know, if you annoy me, is it good for me to kill you? In some way, it does remove annoyance from my life, right?

[18:19] So even something like killing somebody can be seen as good in some way, right? And getting up and going to mass on Sunday, well, I can't sleep then, you know. So, some way it's bad. It prevents me from getting the rest I think I deserve and feel like having anyway.

[18:42] So, so all day long we're doing that, right? Aristotle talks about how the man who follows his passions or his senses, right. And something here and now is good, but if you look at the whole picture, simply, it's not good to be doing this, right? And so that distinction runs through the whole of ethics. I

[19:19] mean, abortion is obviously something very bad, but you know, some it avoids embarrassment maybe in some case, right? Or it, as you can, do you pursue your job or something, right? Or you know, it's like that, right? So the mind can always find something to justify even the most horrible things, huh? to win an election in the presidency. Yeah. So the relativism, which is so common today, where people say there are no absolutes, which of course is an absolute statement, where they're saying that well, you know, everything is relative because I guess it depends on its context. Is this maybe what's happening today an example of a twisting of

[20:06] real pursuit of philosophy of love of wisdom? I'm not saying it very well, but the first philosopher that we have, at least the fragments, that talk about reason, right? The great Anaxagoras, right? Aristotle praises him. He says he sounds like a sober man among drunk men. But what did he attribute to this greater mind, right? The distinction of things and the ordering of them. So Thomas will often, you know, times refer to Anaxagoras as having seen this, right?

[20:40] So here we're talking about a distinction or a kind of distinction, right? And it it corresponds to or is the basis for understanding the second kind of mistake in the sophistical refutations, the second kind of mistake outside of speech, right? Okay.

[21:04] And the first kind of mistake outside of speech is is the mistake of the accidental, right? And the second one is mixing up the simply and not simply, right? In some way. And I think I mentioned how in this great dialogue of Plato the Meno, he represents Meno as objecting to investigating what virtue is

[21:42] because you can't investigate what you don't know. If you don't know what you're looking for, how can you go looking for it. And if that objection were good, then you'd do away with logic and you'd do away with the

[21:59] art of calculation, right? Because both of these arts are to come to know what you don't know to what you do know, right? And if there's no way to come to what you don't know, then there wouldn't be these arts, huh? So it's an objection that's going to destroy the whole logic. It's eliminate, right? Like that. And I told you a simple example I was using in class.

[22:22] I'd come into class and I'd say, I don't know how many students are in class today, but I can direct myself to what I don't know with the greatest of ease. It's a very simple example. And so I count the students, right? And let's say get a number. Let's say 23, right? How did I direct myself with such great ease to 23, and I didn't know I was trying to arrive at 23?

[22:50] What's the answer to that? Well, yeah, but how did I know that's what I should have done to count? Even in a certain way that I would get to twenty three Yeah, but how do I know the way to what I didn't know? Because I don't know. You know, I always try to take example in class. I'd say, and I go into the filling station or wherever it is, and I say, "How do you get there?

[23:13] What's he going to say to me? Where? " Yeah, I can't tell how to get there, and that's not where you're trying to get, right? You see what I mean? So, what I'm trying to get is something unknown. How can I possibly know the way? Well, you knew it was a number. Yeah, so I knew in some way, right? See, so in knowing that I was looking for the number of students in class, I knew to take the road of counting, right?

[23:40] If the question had been, "What is a student? " I would have taken the road of defining, right? But now, 23 is in fact the number of students in class today. So, knowing that I was looking for the number of students in class, did I know in some qualified sense

[24:01] 23? Yeah. Yeah. See. You know, I always take an example. I always exemplify this. I pick out a young lady in the class. You know, and I ask her, "Do you know my brother Mark? " And she'd say, "No. " I said, "I go hear what she said. She doesn't know him, right? " That's you're going to contradict yourself in a second. I said, "Do you know who my brother is?

[24:26] " Yeah. "You know who the man is? " Yeah. "So that's where my brother Mark is. " You said you didn't know him. See? Well, in secundum quid, she didn't know where my brother Mark is. She knew every man in the world, right? In some way, right? Every brother, right? Okay. Sometimes you have a wise guy in class. I go home and tell my father, you know, Professor Burkard says I know everything.

[24:50] Well, in some sense, when you know the difference between something and nothing, you know everything, don't you? Because everything is something, right? But that's not to know simply without qualification everything, right? So this is one of the main ways the sophist makes you appear to contradict yourself, right? And so Mino, in a sense, is using that against Socrates. And but if you read the dialogue of Mino, Socrates makes that same kind of mistake in a more subtle way when he tries to answer Mino

[25:32] because he he what? Says that he knew it. Yeah, he he says maybe learning is just recalling what you already know. And then he said, "Well, that's an interesting idea, but you know, give me evidence of this. " And so the slave boy Mino is there, and the slave boys never studied geometry. He was born in the house of Mino, and he was a slave doing many things all his life.

[25:55] Never studied geometry. And so Socrates is asked the slave boy how do you double a square, and he says we double double the side. And then Socrates asks him questions, and the boy sees that he's mistaken about that. And he asks him more questions, and eventually, out of the answers of the slave boy comes the way to double a square. And Socrates says, "Why didn't teach him it?

[26:17] It came out of what he himself said, right? So he must have already known how to double a square. Well, you could say that the slave boy already knew things from which he was able to know how to double a square, right? Was that to know what how to double a square? See, actually, he didn't know how to double a square. He was mistaken about it. He thought you double the side, right?

[26:46] So to know something in ability is not to know it. Yeah, and they could say maybe somebody comes in class at the beginning of of their studies already knows what he's going to learn, in which case he doesn't have to pay to learn and stick around, right? So Socrates is making the same mistake, right? He's saying the slave boy already knew what he didn't really already know, except in the sense that he knew things so much he could.

[27:22] Or in their crude minds, they'd say you got a man, woman, they ever got a baby, right? No, no, maybe have a baby in ability, but actually got a baby. There's a big difference there. To

[27:38] get this idea across, but you see how that distinction underlies the whole logic, right? Because by knowing in some way what you don't know, you can direct yourself to what you don't know, right? And why do we pay people to find, you know, the cure for cancer or some other disease, right? Huh? They must, in some way, know what they're looking for without knowing it, see? And that's how they can do something that's relevant to finding out what they don't know, because they do know it in some way.

[28:13] So that that distinction is fundamental in in action, right? In ethics, fundamental, and it's fundamental here, you know, these higher things, huh? So understanding that kind of distinction helps you understand this kind of mistake and this kind of sophistical refutation, right, where a person appears to contradict himself. But understanding this kind of distinction, you got to see this distinction, this kind of distinction, all kinds of things to to learn them.

[28:56] Reading and writing. That's one example I remember. We were doing the mina a few years ago. One of the monks asked about. Well, when I went to school, I didn't know what letters were, so the teacher just told us what they were. And then the clergyman said, "Yeah, but you know what sounds were. And she just. That's a sign for this sound. That's a sign for that sound."

[29:25] Okay. Now we're here at the third objection. Okay. It can't be something greater than the infinite, right? More things are contained in the knowledge, divine knowledge, than the knowledge of the soul of Christ. There we can't be knowing infinite, right?

[29:56] To the third, it should be said that. That which is infinite in every way cannot be except one, right? Whence the philosopher says in the first book about the universe, which in Latin they call the De Caelo et Mundo, that because a body is what in every direction, you might say, right, in every dimension, is impossible for there to be many what infinite bodies, huh? But if there is something infinite in one way only, nothing would prevent there from being many such things infinite, huh?

[30:40] As if we were to understand many what infinite lines, right? Contracted or extended rather in in length on some what surface, right? According to their latitude, in some on some finite surface according to its latitude. These speak about what parallel lines, right? You know, by extending them, you know, to infinity and they never meet, right? So you are going to have more than one infinite in that way, right?

[31:12] Because therefore the infinite is not a certain substance, but it happens to things which are called infinite, as is said in the third book of the physics. Just as the infinite is multiplied according to diverse subjects, so it is necessary that the property of the infinite be multiplied, thus that it belongs to each of these according to its subject. So there is some property of the infinite, and that to the infinite there is not something what greater, just as if we take what one infinite line.

[31:49] In that one, there is not something greater than the what infinite, huh? And similarly, if we take any one of the other infinite lines, is manifest that what the parts of each of them are what infinite. It is necessary, therefore, that what there is nothing greater in that line than all those what infinite things.

[32:22] Nevertheless, in another line, in the third one, there are more parts, even infinite besides what these, huh? And we see this happen in numbers, right? For the num for the species of what

[32:38] even numbers are infinite, and likewise the species of what odd numbers, right? And nevertheless, both what even and odd numbers are more than just the what even numbers, huh? Contrary, to Bertrand Russell, right? Oh, right. Yeah.

[33:02] But they kind of refuted that. Okay. Thus, therefore, it should be said that to the infinite, simply right, as regards all things, nothing is greater, right? But to the infinite, according to somewhat determined thing, right, there is nothing greater in that order, right? But one can take something greater outside that what order, right? So we've got infinite line. You there's nothing longer than that line in that line, right?

[33:37] But you can take another line next to it, or okay. So in this way, therefore, in this way, therefore, there are infinite things in the power of the creature. Nevertheless, there are more things in the power of God than in the power of the creature. And likewise, the soul of Christ knows infinite things by the knowledge of simple intelligence. But God knows more in this way of what understanding.

[34:08] Okay. So each each encounter with the infinite is something to relish or sigh for or say that you'll understand it better the next time you see it, huh? But you can see a little bit of it, right? Distinction he Thomas sees there, right? But it is a distinction of the kind between what is infinite simply, right, namely God, and what is infinite in somewhat way.

[34:44] Okay. There's infinity of men; they'd be finite in some way, right? Because they'd all be the same kind, kind of thing, a man, two-footed animal. Okay.

[35:03] That's For the fourth article, whether the soul of Christ sees the Word more perfectly than any other what creature? Well, I bet he does. We'll find out. To the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ does not more perfectly see the Word than any other creature, right?

[35:28] For the perfection of knowledge is according to the what medium of knowing, right? For that is more perfect knowledge which is had by means of the demonstrative syllogism than that which is had by means of the what dialectical syllogism. But all the blessed see the Word immediately through the divine essence itself, as has been said in the first part. So you can't see God as He is through a created what form.

[36:03] God has to be joined to your mind as not only that what you see, but that by what you see what you see. And in His light we shall see light, as the Psalm says. So they have the same medium, right, of knowing, right, the divine essence.

[36:23] So you see, if I know the Pythagorean theorem through a demonstrative syllogism and you know it through dialectical syllogism, I know it better than you do. But if you know it through the what demonstration, then you seem to be what sees just as well as I see it, right? That seems to be the objection, right? So we see God as as He is through the divine essence.

[36:45] So I'm seeing it through the divine essence. You through the divine essence. We should see it equally clearly, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Moreover, the perfection of a vision does not exceed the what seeing power. But the power of the rational soul, which is the what soul of Christ, is below the intellectual power of an angel, as is clear through Dionysius in the fourth chapter of the celestial hierarchy.

[37:17] Therefore, the soul of Christ does not see the Word more perfectly than the angels. That my old teacher, Kierkegaard, said: take all human minds and wrap them up into one huge mind, you know, Einstein and Aristotle and everything else together, and still unequal to to the angels' mind, right? More of

[37:43] God infinitely sees the Word more perfectly than the soul infinitely, right? But there are infinite grades between that mode which God sees His Word and the mode in which the soul of Christ sees it. Therefore, it should not be asserted that the soul of Christ more perfectly sees the Word or the divine essence than any other what creature. Just because the thing there, supposed to avoid envy, right?

[38:15] Seems to be nothing, you know. It's like it's like saying you know, the difference between your mind and my mind is like this, and between my mind and God is so. The difference between your mind and my mind seems to be nothing compared to you know. Okay, the time sometimes speaks that way, right? You know the the wisest philosopher, you know, and the and the you know the peasant down there, right?

[38:44] The distance between their minds is nothing compared to the human mind and the angelic mind, right? That's really you know. But against this is what the apostle says, Ephesians one twenty one, that God constituted what Christ in the celestial things above every what prince and power and virtue and lord, right? In every name that can be named, not only in this age but in the future, but in the celestial glory, someone is higher.

[39:29] The more perfectly he knows God, right? Therefore, the soul of Christ is above all them, must see God more perfectly than any other what creature. God hates equality, as my teacher Kasurik used to say. I answer: It should be said that the sight of the divine essence, right, belongs to all the blessed, huh? According to partaking of a light derived to them from the fountain of the what Word of God, huh?

[40:11] According to that of Ecclesiastical one five, the Word of God on high is a fountain of what wisdom, huh? Okay, something is called God, the fountain of eternal life, huh? Okay.

[40:27] But now, to this Word of God more nearly is joined the soul of Christ, which is united to the Word in person than any other what creature, and therefore more fully he receives the influence, the flowing in of light in which God is seen by the Word than any other what creature,

[40:55] and therefore. Ahead of or before all other creatures, more perfectly he sees what the first truth, which is the divine, what, essence, huh? It's the object of faith, the first truth.

[41:13] And therefore, it is said in John one fourteen, we see his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full not only of what grace, but also of what truth. huh?

[41:49] Well, it's both gratia there and veritas there, you can apply to the human nature of Christ there, right? I was looking at the the golden chain there, and some of the church fathers take it. One's referring to his divinity, one to his humanity, right? So, you know, all the ways. My cousin Dale refers to me to get you don't say they shouldn't give this to the average Catholic.

[42:09] He's going to be so confused because they say different things about the same text. Yeah. But you kind you kind of realize the richness of the text. I was looking at encyclicals of Benedict the fifteenth and his famous one, the Spiritus Paracletus. You know, which is about Saint Jerome. It's a lot about how you approach Scripture. You know, and Jerome's enthusiasm about it. You know, all these layers of meaning.

[42:36] You know, in Scripture, you know, and he's always discovering something you know underneath this. And that's part of what's so wonderful about it, right? Huh? See, you know, I know never going to arrive fully understanding it, right? What Augustine says, you know, there's more things in Scripture he doesn't understand than he does. Well, Augustine says that. What is a mortal like you or me supposed to? Well, you might have another way of explaining this, but you can't say this is wrong.

[43:24] So, the closer you come to God, the more you are what enlightened, huh? You can't get closer to God than to be joined to him in what person. So he must be more enlightened than the rest of us, and therefore he sees the first truth better than anybody what else, huh? Even the angels, huh? They're not that close. They're not united in what. Person, yeah.

[43:52] Now the first objection is talking about hey, the same medium, right? Okay. So it says to the first, therefore it should be said that the perfection of knowledge on the side of the what thing known is observed according to the what medium, right? But on the side of the what one knowing, it's observed according to his what potency or power or his what habit. I'm trying to acquire that habit of numerical philosophy there, reading the seventh, eighth, and ninth books, but I'm not, you know, my habit is not perfect yet.

[44:45] Okay. They get me up at the board and say, now prove that. Now I I can follow it, but I don't know if I can get up and repeat it on the board always.

[44:57] And thus it is that among what men, even among men, through one medium, right, one more perfectly knows some conclusion than what another. So his power, right, is united with the medium better, right? Or through the habit, he's more united with it.

[45:23] And in this way, the soul of Christ, which is filled with a more abundant light, more perfectly knows the divine essence than the other what blessed. Although all what. See the essence of God Yeah. The same means. Same means. Or through ourselves.

[45:55] So I read every word of Thomas in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but I still think he understands conclusions better than I do. Even though I have the same middle term.

[46:07] I just don't have it, you know. As I read it again and again, I get a little bit of grasp of it you know so my habit there is getting me.

[46:23] To the second, it should be said. It's about now the objection from the angels, right? Here you got a more powerful mind than a human mind. But you're forgetting something here, right? To the second, it should be said that the vision of the divine essence exceeds the natural power of each what creature, as has been said in the first part. And therefore, the grade in it is more to be observed according to the order of grace, in which Christ is what most excellent, than according to the order of nature, by which the angelic nature is preferred to the what human mind Now, a teacher I could certainly used to have the idea that playful idea that the guardian angel, the Blessed Virgin, was actually a

[47:21] low angel, right? But getting the job of being the guardian angel, the Blessed Virgin, he was raised quite. The third, it should be said,

[47:47] that about the grace, about grace, that there cannot be a what greater grace than the grace of Christ with regard to the union of the what Word.

[48:04] Just as that's been said, so likewise, the same thing should be said about the perfection of the divine vision, right? Although, absolutely considering, there could be a grade more sublime according to infinity divine what power, right?

[48:27] So could God be seen more clearly by a creature? Christ sees it. That's why he says absolutely considering, because there's still the sentence. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah, yeah. But no one can see God as as no creature can see God as clearly as Christ sees it. Those things are not incompatible. Those two, right? How do you decide where to stop?

[48:58] Because it could have gone. Yeah, the same with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yeah, yeah. She's so exalted, but she's not infinite. So how did you decide to stop there? right. I'm sure he's got it all figured out.

[49:20] Somebody might say, you know, you can always praise God or love God more than you do, right? Huh? And you can always receive more grace than you're received, right? Huh? So why can't you catch up to Mary or catch up to Christ or something, right? But

[49:42] I think it's ignoring the fact that Christ has the grace that fits the one who is what. Yeah, and who's also joined, you know, to the same person, right? So even though there's a way which I can always have more grace, that's always going to be less than the grace of Christ, right? It's going to be the grace that is fitting for doing breakfast, they have, right?

[50:12] Who's not joined to the divine person, right? Not that person. Yeah, we'll never catch them because they just have such a huge head start. There's no catching them; they're just way ahead. Or, or make a more home example. Just as I keep on, you know, reading the numerical philosophy there, right? I keep on reading the Summa Contra Gentiles. I can always understand those things better than I do now, and but I never understand them as well as Thomas understands them or Euclid understands them.

[50:52] De Koninck when I had De Koninck at the wall there, I was when I was first up there in fifty-eight, sixty. Those couple years, there, fifty-eight, sixty, nineteen fifty-eight, and De Koninck had been teaching, you know, the eight books of Natural hearing, the physics since the thirties, you know. He says, I still see something new every time I go through those. You know, so I mean, he's never going to understand it as well as you know.

[51:21] I remember Cicero saying this too, you know. He just, you're never going to understand it as well as Aristotle understood it or Thomas understood it, but you can always understand it what better, you know. Dionne come down to the Twin Cities and he'd pay his way down. You know, they could kind of examine, you know, what he has to say. And he said, they're always. He told me, says they're all at the same level as they were before, except for Kasurik He's always understanding them better.

[51:48] Other guys kind of know this kind of, you know. And there's a lot of truth to that, you know. A lot of people who are not understanding these things better, you know, than they did last year, and the year before, Just going to beat themselves. Or we call it we call it the plateau of mediocrity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe they're going backwards, you know.

[52:20] And Freddy, you know, sometimes you're finding your papers. Yeah, you know, people you wrote years ago. Well, it's pretty good, you know. But you understand more clearly now that you know this is becoming kind of easy. I looked at it for a while, you know. So let's just look at the premium here, because we'll stop there at the proemium here. Forty-first, fortyth chapter here, right? I mean, eleventh.

[52:42] Excuse me. Then we ought to consider about the scientia indita. Have you ever looked up the word indita? Um. Daud, somebody were trying to say. Yeah. Um, that's the way. I usually hang on. Or the infused knowledge of the soul of Christ, right? This is in between now, the the more human knowledge and the vision, right? And about this thing, six things are asked. Whether through this knowledge, Christ knows all things, huh?

[53:24] That's something I wouldn't know what to say about that, you know. But we'll see what the Master has to say. Whether he could use this knowledge, not turning to the what images, huh? You see, Aristotle saw that not only do we get our thoughts from the images, but that when we try to think about them, once I know what I say, a triangle is. When I think again about what a triangle is, I got to imagine a triangle, right?

[53:56] And the proper object of our mind is that what it is is something what imagined, huh? And that's why it's so difficult for us to understand at all something you can't what imagine, right? But that's why if you can't imagine it too, then you can't understand it anymore. So you're dependent that way. So this knowledge is infused. Well, do you have to turn to the images, huh?

[54:24] But it's imparted indo and indere, so it's like imparted. Yeah. It's in here, yeah. To put in or on introduce. Yeah. That's closer to infused, yeah. The using kind of is almost synonyms. Motion, he said, but just when they say to put in or on, introduce. You know, that's closer to infused, yeah. The using kind of synonyms almost here.

[54:52] And third, whether this knowledge was collativa. Now a lot of times you'll find in Albert the Great and Thomas, they'll speak of our knowledge as being collativa et discursiva But collativa kind of means what bringing together, right? And then discursive, in its highest sense, is going from things you know to what you don't know, right? We can say, that in syllogism. you got to bring together the major premise and the minor premise in order to what draw a conclusion, right, huh?

[55:23] So I bring together the statement that let's say every mother is a woman and no man is a woman, therefore no man is a mother, right? Well, the discourse is going from the premises to conclusion, They call it discursiva right? But collativa you're bringing together these things, but there's something kind of mixed up the two of them together, right? Remember how Shakespeare says reason is the ability for a large discourse, right?

[55:55] So it's that discursive thing that is characteristic of human knowledge. Well, is this knowledge of that sort? Then the comparison of this knowledge to the angelic knowledge, right? Because the way the angel seems to know, right, doesn't know by getting from things like we do, the images.

[56:18] Whether there was a what habitual science here then in Christ, and whether it was distinct by diverse habits, huh? I want to find out what these things are. I think my my remember this English professor I had in freshman college there, and we did a little bit of Shakespeare, you know, in the course, you see, and read some plays you probably didn't read in high school and so on.

[56:47] So he began, you know, the lecture, you know, talking a little bit about Shakespeare you know, he says, Oh, I want to go to the text, you know, I've got to go read the play itself, you know.

[56:56] You kind of get your enthusiasm off for the play, you know. he could hardly restrain himself. I got to get in here. That's why I have this text, you know, I got to see what Thomas says, you know, and pretend I don't know what he says, you know. If I do know, you know, just like you know, new again, right?