Tertia Pars
33. Studiorum Ducem and Christ's Infused Knowledge: Does It Reach All Things, and Does It Need Images? (Summa III, Q.11, aa.1–2)
Class of 2009-02-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/033-studiorum-ducem-and-christs-infused-knowledge-does-it-reach/

[0:01] In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit. Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Help us to understand what you have written. For the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. We'll be looking at the encyclicals of Pius XI that are on the Vatican website there.

[0:33] So I got across to Studiorum Ducem, which they have just in Italian and Latin, huh? And this is the encyclical of Pius XI that it's about Thomas, huh? But he quotes

[0:49] John XXII, who's the Pope who canonized Thomas, right? And he has two very interesting quotes here from John XXII in the words that he addressed to the Patres Cardinales, in the Consistory. The first one is Ipse plus illuminavit ecclesiam quam omnes alii doctores. He more enlightened the Church than all the other doctors. It's a very strong statement. And then the second statement: In cuius libris plus proficiat homo uno anno quam in aliorum doctrina toto tempore vitae suae In whose books, huh, a man progresses more in one year than in the teaching of others in the whole time of his life.

[1:46] You see, I'm startling things for you guys. And then, and he goes in. He has, you know, he has like a paragraph on Thomas's dogmatic theology and moral theology, and even ascetic theology. And when he's talking about dogmatic theology, he says

[2:16] he speaks of Thomas locupletissimum, right? And he's the the richest, huh? The author, huh? The dogmatic theology ipsa quoque auctorem habet omnium locupletissimum Thomas, huh? I guess locuples might have meant originally you had a lot of land, you know, you're a wealthy man, huh? So it has its most wealthy author, Thomas, huh? He says neque idem quisquam for never did anyone pénétravit altius, huh? Penetrate in a higher way, right?

[2:59] Out subtilius exposuit, or more subtly laid out, expounded the Augusta quaecumque sunt mysteria, huh? The great mysteries, whatever ones there are. And then he goes on talking about in moral theology, huh? Solidum theologiae doctrinam de moribus conditam huh? He gave us a solid teaching of about morals, which are suitable says to directing human acts to their supernatural end. Not an individual man, he goes on to say, but every society, both domestic and what civil, huh?

[3:41] Then later on, he has a paragraph where he's talking about Thomas as the doctor of what the Eucharist, huh? And how everywhere in the world where the church is, these songs of his are sung, right? And then he says at towards the end here, Sané mirabitur nemo, No one should be surprised, huh? Quod hic doctoris eucharistici huh Those capitalized Quoque cognomen exhibet, So, it's like a surname, right?

[4:16] He's the doctor of the Eucharist, huh? Pius the, I mean, Paul the Sixth, or something like that, I think, in his encyclical on the Eucharist. And Thomas is the doctor of the what Eucharist, huh? So I'll give this for the reproduction. I hope to those who can work a little bit of Latin there. Even our Maronite liturgy, we have a hymn for benediction. At least it's supposed to be for benediction.

[4:43] Every every tongue shall sing in glory, which is a translation of Pange Lingua. Yeah. I guess it's in this part of the Summa where Thomas came into the chapel and said, you know, the Christ, I written well. Bene scripsisti de me Thoma. My college of Saint Thomas, there they had the statue of Thomas, and then written into the stone, Bene scripsisti de me Thoma What do you take as a reward?

[5:13] He says, huh? Thomas says, you alone. Okay. So we're up to question eleven now, right, on the infused knowledge of Christ, huh? Then we're not

[5:26] to consider about the infused knowledge of Christ, huh? Poured in knowledge, and about this four things are asked: whether through this knowledge Christ knew what all things, huh? Secondly, whether he could use this knowledge, not turning to the phantasms or images, and third, whether this knowledge was bringing together, right, and discoursing from one thing to another. And fourth, about the comparison of this knowledge to the angelic knowledge.

[6:07] And fifth, whether it was a habitual science, science in the form of a habitum. And finally, whether it was distinct through diverse what habits.

[6:23] So let's look to the first article. To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that by this knowledge Christ did not know all things.

[6:36] For this knowledge was poured into Christ for the perfection of the ability of his understanding. But the possible, the undergoing understanding of the human soul does not seem to be in potency or ability to all things, simply, but only to those things to which it can be reduced to act through the acting upon understanding, the agent intellect, which is the proper thing acting upon it, which are knowable according to natural reason.

[7:13] Therefore, according to this knowledge, he does not know those things which exceed natural reason. But of course, this infused knowledge is not purely what natural, okay? It's supernatural knowledge, not as high as the beatific vision, but it's kind of a something like what the angels have.

[7:38] Moreover, as Aristotle says in the third book about the soul, the images are to the human understanding as colors are to what sight. That's why Thomas says when the teacher explains something, he has to use a sensible example, right? So you can have an image, right, in which you consider even the universal. And so even when you do geometry, right, and you think about the triangle, you imagine a triangle, right, in which you consider something universal though.

[8:11] And Aristotle makes that comparison. The images are to human understanding as colors outside there to the eye. It's a very important proportion. But it does not pertain to the perfection of the power of sight to know those things which are entirely without what color. Therefore, neither to the perfection of the human understanding does it pertain to know those things of which there cannot be what images, right?

[8:47] Such as are the separate substances. So I don't have any image of a guardian angel, or if I do, it's a false image. The great cause of deception is false imagination. Which means either imagining things other than they are, right, or trying to imagine things that cannot be imagined. So most people imagine the soul to be a kind of what ghost-like thing, substance in the shape of human body, right?

[9:19] And that's the way Dante represents the souls there that the that he meets on the way through purgatory and hell, for that matter. That's how he recognizes who it is by the shape of the ghost-like thing. Well, that's not what the soul is at all.

[9:36] But thus, therefore, since this knowledge was in Christ for the perfection of his soul, understanding soul, it seems that through this knowledge he would not know what separated substances.

[9:56] But again, that argument seems to be based upon our natural. way of knowing. Moreover, to the perfection of understanding, it does not belong to know singulars. It seems, therefore, that through this knowledge, the soul of Christ does not know singulars. So, through my reason, I know the universal, not the singular. Through my senses, I know this man and that man, but through my reason, I know what a man is.

[10:31] Knowing what a man is doesn't enable me to know all men, does it? Except in the sense that it's said of all men, right? Not as such.

[10:40] But against this is what is said in the prophet Isaiah, chapter eleven, that the Spirit filled him with what wisdom and understanding, science and counsel, under which are comprehended all things knowable. For to wisdom pertains the knowledge of all divine things. That's even true for Aristotle, right? Wisdom is the knowledge of God. To the understanding pertains the knowledge of immaterial things. To science, the knowledge of all conclusions.

[11:17] To counsel, the knowledge of all things to be done. Therefore, it seems that Christ, according to the knowledge poured into him by the Holy Spirit, had knowledge of all things.

[11:32] So Thomas says, I answer it should be said, as has been said before, It was fitting that the soul of Christ, Through all things, was what Perfect. huh? Through this, that, what All of his power was reduced to what Act.

[11:58] Now it should be considered that in the human soul, just as in every creature, there is considered a twofold passive power, power to be what acted upon.

[12:13] One in comparison to the natural what agent, another in comparison to the what first agent, who is able to reduce right or lead back any creature to some what higher act than that to which it can be led by the natural agent. And this is called the potentia obedientiae, the power of what obeying the divine command in the creature. Now, both powers of the soul of Christ was reduced in act according to the what.

[12:58] Knowledge divinely poured in, and therefore, according to it, the soul of Christ first knew whatever by man can be known through the power of the light of his agent intellect, just as whatever pertained to the human sciences. It doesn't mean humanities, it means geometry as well, right? But all the human sciences. Secondly, through this knowledge, Christ knew all those things which become known to men through what divine revelation, whether they pertain to the gift of wisdom, or to the gift of prophecy, right?

[13:50] Or to any other gift of the what Holy Spirit? huh? Incidentally that's in the dialogue that same huh Incidentally that's in the dialogue that same encyclical about the Doctor Sapientiae, right? being part of theology. Interesting.

[14:11] But all of these things more abundantly and fully than others, the soul of Christ knew. Nevertheless, the very essence or substance of God, he did not know through what this knowledge, but only through the what first the beatific vision that we talked about last week. So the forms by which he knows these infused forms by which he knows are above the forms that we get from the images,

[14:48] but they're still created forms, son. And therefore, through them, he can't see God as He is. He can only see God as He is through the beatific vision, whereby God is joined to our mind as the form by which we see God as He is.

[15:16] Now, so it applies to the first objection there, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that argument proceeds from the what natural action of the what understanding soul, which is in comparison to its what natural agent, which is the intellect agent, the acting upon understanding.

[15:53] So that's the kind of knowledge that Aristotle talks about in the third book about the soul, where he says that the natural object of our reason. Is what it is of something sensed or what imagined? And the imagination is even closer, right? The image than the senses to the reason, huh?

[16:13] So that becomes a problem in theology, right? In theology, how can you talk about the angels and God when there's no image of them, right? And well, that's why you have to know them primarily by negation. God is what incorporeal. That is to say, bodyless, right? God is simple. That is to say, not composed, right? That is

[16:39] via negativa, right? Okay. So you imagine a body and you say God is bodyless. Okay. So you don't know God in himself, but you know him by creatures and ultimately by some negation of the imperfections of creatures.

[17:04] Now the second objection has got that same problem because it's talking about our natural knowledge. But Thomas here unfolds a little bit of what we learned in the third book about the soul. We did the few books of the soul a little bit, didn't we? And we did the part on the soul and the summa, didn't we? Yeah. Some of you were. Yeah. Yeah. We'll go back there, you see.

[17:29] Repetition is the mother. I told you how Thomas Aquinas started out in the in the faculty of theology at Laval, right? And then of course in order to teach the theology, he had to explain the philosophy that's used in the theology. And then he just ended up just teaching philosophy, so he also went over to the faculty of philosophy and teach there. So then he went over to the faculty of philosophy.

[17:51] You're not teaching theology, you're teaching philosophy. Well, okay. He says to the second, it should be said that the human soul in the state of this life, when it is in a way what tied, huh, to the body, huh, that is not able to understand without a what image, huh? So in this state, it's not able to understand the separated substances as they are. You know some things about them, and you have to have some what likeness to our own mind, but you have to have some negations, right, of the defects and so on.

[18:35] But after the status of this life, the soul is able in some way to what understand or to know the separate substances through itself, huh? This has been said in the first part. So when my soul is separated from my body, my soul will understand itself through itself. And then it's like the angels, right?

[19:02] But this is especially manifest in the case of the souls of what the blessed, right? Now Christ is an unusual status, right? Because Christ before the passion was not only a what viator, one on the road. He said to be on the road because his body is not yet what glorified, right? But he was also a comprehensor because he enjoyed the what vision of God as he is beatific vision.

[19:39] Whence his soul was able to know the separated substances, in the way in which the what. Yeah, He had even a greater knowledge, right? The knowledge a separated soul has, right, In that state, huh Because he had the beatific vision, right. Now, what about knowing singulars? Because Boethius says the thing is singular when sensed and universal when understood, huh? And Albert the Great says the first thing to be considered in logic is the universal, right?

[20:24] And I say more sensibly, the first thing we consider in logic is names said of many things. But it's I think, a little more sensible, a little more in sense of word, right? Considering a lowly intellect that you're trying to instruct.

[20:53] He says, "To the third, it should be said that a knowledge of singulars does not belong to the perfection of the understanding soul according to speculative or theoretical knowledge.

[21:15] So, it pertains to perfection of my understanding in theoretical or looking philosophy to know what what man is, right? What a soul is and so on, but not to know your this man here or this soul here, right? Okay.

[21:36] But it does belong to the perfection of the understanding soul according to practical knowledge, which is not perfected without a knowledge of the what singulars in which is action operation. That's where Aristotle says in the beginning of the 14 books of wisdom that the man of experience often succeeds better than the man of art or science because you don't cure man, you cure this man,

[22:10] and sometimes you might know how to start your what car better than the mechanic does because you know the peculiarities of that what car, right? And sometimes you know better how to

[22:27] if you're nauseated, so you might know better how to relieve your nausea than the doctor would, right? Because you know from experience. And I know sometimes I talk to people about that and say, "Well, I like popcorn or something, right? " Or, "Well, that'd be the inverse, " so I know myself those. I know what what would relieve me, right? And so that's because perfection of this is in the singular, what you do.

[22:56] Whence to foresight? Huh? That's what prudence means. There's required memory of past things, right? Knowledge of what? Present. And foresight of future, right? So providentia is a contraction of providentia Foresight. Of course, now reason looks before and after, right? So you see that in the word foresight, the idea of looking before and after in that perfection. As Tullius, and that means Cicero, right? That's one of his names.

[23:33] So don't be too shocked there in the Gospels, you know, where sometimes it seems that what they'll say, you know, modern scholars, that they don't know the name of these apostles, right? Well, here instead of saying Cicero, he says what? Tullius, right? See, we're not accustomed to do that, right? But Thomas does, you know, everybody knows what he's talking about, right? Here he says Tullius. another place he says what?

[24:00] I was looking at Julius Caesar or Shakespeare this morning, and it's Cicero, not Tullius. Okay. So there's some question there about Nathaniel, there, right? Yeah. Yes, Is Nathaniel one of the apostles or not? And some say no, but I think so. I think he is. Does Nathaniel come back there at the end of John's Gospel? And there's only about you know six or seven people there at the shore there.

[24:30] Yeah. He's stuck in there with the other apostles. so. Anyway, we'll leave that for when we talk about words rather than things. Okay. Because therefore Christ had the fullness of foresight, right? According to the gift of counsel,

[24:59] it follows that he knew all singulars, both those in the past, those in the present, and even those in the future, like you and I here. Okay.

[25:13] So some knowledge he has, huh? I remember. Remember when I was reading, doing my doctoral thesis in comparison of Aristotle and Descartes, right? And I'd comment to Monsignor Dionne down some crazy thing that Descartes said. He was kind of flabbergasted. Descartes could, you know, repeat a mistake that's been, you know, made over and over again down the centuries. If Thomas was alive today, and he'd read these guys who say, you know, Christ didn't know that he was Christ.

[25:45] You know, he didn't know he was the Son of God. I mean, he would have been. How many times do you have to fall on the same vomit? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Could Christ, according to this knowledge, understand? According to this infused knowledge, could he understand without turning to the what? Images, huh?

[26:15] I remember when I was teaching the the anima there. Sometimes I'd have a guy in class who was convinced that the brain is the organ of reason, right? It was reason, and so I'd kind of take his side for a little bit. Just say, and I'd say, you know, a blow on the eye interferes with what? Seeing, right? Therefore, the eye is the organ of sight. A blow on the brain interferes with thinking.

[26:41] Therefore, the brain is the organ of sight, right? Or alcohol going to the brain interferes with thinking. Therefore, the brain is the organ of thought, right? What kind of, you know, that seemed to be definitive, right, huh? I said, well, now suppose you and I were in a room with no source of light, a black room, except for this one light bulb here in the center of the room, and the light bulb was on, so we could see each other, right?

[27:14] Now, blow on the what? Light bulb would interfere with what? Our seeing each other, right? Therefore, the light bulb is the organ of sight. What's wrong?

[27:31] And if you walk out of this room right now, it's going to interfere with my seeing you. Therefore, you're the organ of my sight.

[27:41] Now, what's the difference here between hitting your eye and therefore interfering with you seeing, and hitting the light bulb in the example there, right? Interfering with my seeing you, or you're leaving the room, interfering with my seeing you.

[27:59] Well, in the case of hitting the eye, it's because you're what? Interfering with the organ of sight, right? But in the case of hitting the light bulb, turn the light off, right? Or you're leaving the room, you're interfering with the what? Object. Okay. So there's two ways to interfere with my seeing you, right? Interfering with the organ of sight, or interfering with the what? Object, right? So if a blow on the brain interferes with thinking, right?

[28:38] Or alcohol going to the brain interferes with thinking. That shows there's a connection between the brain and thinking, right? But does that by itself tell you whether it's that of the organ or on the side of the what? Object. It doesn't, right? Okay. Now, by a separate argument, which I'm going to right now, we can argue that the ability to understand universal is not in a what body, right?

[29:09] Because every body is continuous, and what is received in the continuous is singular for that very reason. And so, if something is received in the understanding universally and not singularly, that shows that the understanding is not a body. Therefore, the blow on the brain or the alcohol going to the brain interferes with thinking, not by interfering with the organ of sight, which there isn't. I mean, understanding, of which there is no organ.

[29:43] It's not a body, but on the side of the object. And that's why when Aristotle says that the proper object of our reason is of what it is of something imagined or sensed. Well, you take away the image, then you take away what something on the side of the object, huh? Just like if you leave the room, right? So by seeing you, right, I'm seeing the color of you out there.

[30:15] So you take away you out there, and I can't see the color of you, even though my seeing the color of you takes place in my eye, and not in you. And likewise, the understanding of what a triangle is takes place in the understanding, which is not a body, but you understand that what it is of one of these things imagined. And so, you interfere the imagination, you interfere with the what thinking, right?

[30:41] So Aristotle says that images are necessary there in thinking, not only in getting your first knowledge of the triangle, but even after you understand the theorem that the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, when you want to think about that again, you have to imagine a triangle, because you're understanding what it is of this thing imagined. Okay. So this is behind the question here, right?

[31:05] Can Christ, by this knowledge poured in, which is not natural but above the natural, can he understand or know without turning to the what images? Because you have to form an image of you and me, right, to think about us. Okay. Now the objections are taken from what Aristotle talks about our natural understanding. So he says the second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ is not able to understand by this knowledge except by turning to the phantasms.

[31:40] That's the Greek word for images. For the phantasms or images are compared to the understanding soul as colors to sight, but the exterior color, but the exact comparison. As Aristotle says in the third book about the soul. Now this is a very important what, like this a ratio a proportion in Euclid's sense, right? And philosophy is filled with proportions that are necessary.

[32:09] But the power of seeing of Christ cannot go into act except by turning to what, colors. So you're going to argue from that ratio, right? Therefore, neither does this understanding soul understand something except by turning to what, images, right?

[32:31] Moreover, the soul of Christ is of the same nature with our souls. Otherwise, he would not be of the same species with us. Wouldn't be the same kind of thing.

[32:43] Against what was the Apostle says in Philippians two seven. That he was made in the likeness of men. But our soul cannot understand except by turning to images. Therefore, neither can the soul of Christ.

[33:06] Moreover, the senses are given to man that they might what serve the understanding. Aristotle gives interesting reason in the De Anima why we have more than one sense. In terms of the good of the reason. And in terms of the good of what geometry in particular. Because if we didn't have what more than one sense, we'd confuse surface with what color. We couldn't separate surface from color, which you must do in geometry, right?

[33:40] You consider surface without color. But I know surface without color by my hand. And I know surface without hardness by my eye. So I can separate surface from both of them, right? Because I have these two senses. So in the same way, I can separate shape, right, from hardness or from color, right? But I can't know the top of this thing without blue or something, or gold around the frame of the picture there.

[34:07] So that's a reason he gives from the end that the senses in man are ordered to the reason. If therefore the soul of man was able to understand without turning to the images, which are received or taken or gotten from the senses, it follows the senses would serve no purpose, right? They would be in vain. In the soul of Christ, which is not suitable thing to be.

[34:37] Then fit together. It seems therefore that the soul of Christ could not understand except by turning itself to images, right? He's going to admit to some, strength to this argument because he's going to say Christ also does have this natural knowledge, which we'll talk about the next question, right? But does that apply to this above natural knowledge here, right?

[35:03] But against this is that the soul of Christ knows some things through images that cannot be known. Excuse me, Christ knows some things that are not able to be known by images. To wit, he separated what substances. Therefore, he can understand by not turning himself to the images. So he understands what Rafael is and what Gabriel is and what Michael is, and not this Michael either. He doesn't need to watch this.

[35:37] He does the watch though. He does. I need to know. I need to know. Now Thomas is going back to this same beginning he had in the previous thing. I answer. It should be said that Christ, in his status before the passion, right. Why do you say before the passion? Yeah, yeah, because his body was not yet at its final state, right? That Christ in his in his state before the passion was simul at the same time, Viator, right, on the road.

[36:20] What's that thing they call Eucharist viaticum? Yeah, yeah, because that's when you're still on the road, right? Yeah. I'll take you with it. And Comprehensor, right, and and the one who comprehends, as will be more clear later on, right? So why did you say specified passion? Well, because his body was not yet glorified, right, as it would at the resurrection. See, why is Christ said to be a Viator?

[36:53] not because he doesn't have the beatific vision, because he already has it. So as having the beatific vision, he's a comprehensor, right? He comprehends God, right? He's got hold of him, right? But on the side of his body, right, he's not yet what glorified, right? So before his passion, he's a viator as well as a comprehensor. Afterwards, he's only comprehensor. Yeah. But would it be more exacting to say before his resurrection rather than before the passion, because during his passion he still wasn't glorified?

[37:34] Okay, okay. But he's just kind of being extra careful there, right? Okay. You could say I mean you know I'm not denying that, but I mean it's just that's where the turn took place around that time, right? Yeah, it's okay. Yeah, yeah. Right? Does your problem? Yeah, except the only thing is I was kind of being cautious too because I guess doesn't say John about when he's lifted up that he's glorified.

[38:07] Well, as he said when Judas when Judas went out and it was night and then Christ, the next thing he says is now is the Son of Man glorified. Yeah. But that's a different sense of glory. I think. But at the same time, maybe it's I I don't know why he was. Well, he's kind of saying that because because it's a sure thing now is going to be glorified, right?

[38:26] Yeah. Doesn't mean he's glorified that exact moment. Right. Yeah. The only other thing I started to think is I don't know did any of those the words of the the psalm about my God why have you forsaken me we don't say he lost his comprehension. That'd be interesting though. Yeah. I was

[38:55] thinking about about those seven words, you know, there on the cross, and you know, you have the meditation, the seven words there in Saint Francis de Sales, or. Saint Alphonsus Liguori, but you know he makes references to all kinds of other earlier works on those seven words. But one of the seven words is found only in Matthew and Mark, right? And those are the ones you just quoted, right?

[39:22] Okay. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And interesting, the first first two Gospels have only that word, and it's found in both Matthew and Mark, right? So that's the seven among the seven words. That's the word that most of all signifies his suffering, right? And he suffered in his soul, not as well as his body, right? Okay. But then the other six words, three of them are found only in what Luke, and the other three only in what John, right?

[39:58] And I was thinking about the three words that are found only in Luke, and how they are what connected, huh? And the first word is, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they do." So he's asking for mercy, and he's having mercy, you might say, upon those who have crucified him, right? Then the second word is, "This day shall be with me in paradise," and now he's having mercy again and showing mercy towards the penitent thief, huh?

[40:34] Now the third word is, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." Well, how do you unite that with the first two, right? Well, the way I would unite them is to say,

[40:49] "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy," right? The first two words, the Luke is Christ is showing mercy towards those who crucified him and towards the penitent thief, and then the way he's asking for mercy, right? And a lot of the saints, I think, on their deathbed, and maybe you and I would do the same. You know, we say, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," right?

[41:12] You are asking what for mercy for God, right? You see, that's you can connect that then, right? Blessed are merciful, for they shall obtain mercy, huh? Maybe it's appropriate to to Luke because he emphasizes the priesthood of Christ, huh? And the priesthood is concerned with showing mercy, right? The sacraments and so on. Now, in the case of of the three words in John, I see more clearly, although I think the first one is connected too.

[41:45] I see more clearly the second and the third word, right? The first word is, you know, behold your mother, behold your son, son, behold your mother. The second word is, I thirst, right? And the third word is, it is what consummated, is perfected, right? Now Christ's bodily suffering, right. Is redemptive because he suffers out of what we say usually love of us right okay so we usually interpret the words I thirst not so much in his bodily thirst although he had that too but he's thirsting for the salvation of all mankind right and this shows his what his love of mankind huh and this is what made his his death on the cross very often we'll refer to this meritorious right because he died out

[42:40] of what charity right okay I was thinking the other day I was reading the Catena Aurea again and you know the part there in the fourth chapter where he's with the woman at the well there Samaria right and the apostles have gone out to the town to get some food right huh and they come back and they're offering Christ food and he says he's already got food right And he says, who's brought it, right and then he says my food is to do the will of my Father right okay so maybe that's another meaning in saying I thirst right he thirsts to do what the will of God right not my will but Thy will be done he he prayed in the garden right so

[43:24] Christ's death on the cross is meritorious both because he's what doing it out of love for us and because he's what obeying the will of the what Father right huh of course we have you know we talk about justice and we say you know you know there was a hunger and thirst for justice right huh okay well then you can see the connection between that and the next thing is consummated right it is what completed it is what perfected right the salvation of man is perfected why because Christ not only has died and suffered bodily right but he's done so out of love for us and out of obedience to the what Father and that's why it's efficacious you see they're tied together those two

[44:16] words right I I don't see as clearly as in the case of Luke to tie the first one with the last two you know but there's kind of interesting thing in the Catena Aurea there when they're talking about in the second chapter in second chapter we're at the feast of Cana right and Mary says well they're they're running low on the wine right and Christ says my time has not yet come woman and it almost seems like insulting your lack of respect for his mother right the church fathers notice that he calls her a woman and not mother and the reason they give is that a miracle which is the sense which he's asking him to perform there right.

[45:07] He performs a miracle insofar as he is what God, through his divine nature. But he didn't get his divine nature from his mother; he got it from his father. But then they say, but on the cross, where he's suffering in his human nature, and in his flesh, which he got from his mother, then he will now acknowledge her as his mother.

[45:37] But if you want to tie it up with the last two, maybe you could do so because of the fact that that you have to come to Christ through Mary, right? And she's the mother of grace, and many of these things you could say about it, right? But it's really interesting the way Scripture ha has those. you know In the first two gospels has only that. My God, my God, have you forsaken me?

[46:02] Right. Which is the one of the seven words that most of all reveals the fullness of the suffering. And it's found the same words really in Matthew and Mark, but only those words in Matthew and Mark. And then you have these other two groups of three, right? But there seems to be a connection between the three in Luke with each other, right? And then the three, especially the last two, I see more clearly in in John.

[46:29] Interestingly, the gospels are written. You know, I remember when I first started just kind of studying the gospels and comparing them, I was shocked in the account of the last Supper in. John, there's no account of the Eucharist, right? Although there's this chapter, you know, chapter six talks about the Eucharist, but but there was, you know, I was kind of shocked. But but but you got to realize the first three gospels have have abundantly talked about, right?

[46:54] And so John is giving what was was missing, you know. I guess John's account too of Christ's public life goes back earlier than the other gospel writers, huh? Yeah. I think St Thomas said reading about Yeah, yeah. And the church fathers say that too. Yeah. He makes a distinction as reading Matthew's gospel, called the apostles. Sometimes there are different accounts in the synoptics and in John, and he says, well, it seems it may have been more than one time that he called them.

[47:22] First, he sort of initial sort of introduction. Later, he called them a little bit more close discipleship, and then later he made them apostles. So really, it was like multiple times that he called them. So that's why some of the different accounts. This is going back to the thing from Thomas there in the beginning, though. Chrysostom there in the golden chain there when he's talking about

[47:49] no prophet is honored in his own country, he has a very strong statement about this effect of custom upon us, and it could be summed up in our proverb, you know, familiarity breeds contempt. Yeah. And you see all these wonderful things said about Thomas by the the Catholic theologians and so on. Nowadays, read Thomas more carefully and so on because it's clearer. You can learn more from him in one year, he says, than in a lifetime of the studies of the rest.

[48:16] But it's part of this familiarity, at least of the name, right? That they have a certain contempt, you know. But shows the influence of of custom. No prophet is honored in his own country. I remember when Vincent Smith there, you know, he was the big shot at Notre Dame for a while, and then went to St. John's, because he had set up an institute there for philosophy of science, and they had a big blow up at St.

[48:36] John's there, you know, about the church, and he went over to Columbia University, was teaching there for a while. He said he was more free to teach Aristotle there than he was at at St. John's, which was the Catholic school, you know. I think we have some of his books, isn't that right, Father? He has books on natural philosophy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[49:00] Kind of funny trying to see whether they're a Catholic college or not, and the former they came up with was, you know, Catholic in ecumenical sense.

[49:10] Anyway, let's go back to the text Okay, we're up in the response I answer should be said that Christ, in in the status before the passion, was the same time a viator on the road, and a comprehensor, one who's grasped the divinity, as we'll be more clear later on.

[49:43] The first act of reason, they call it what? Simplex apprehensio, right? So, when you grasp what something is, you know what it is, right? But when do you know what God is? When do you know God as He is? Yeah, when you're a comprehensor, right? Not in the sense you comprehend them, you know them as much as you knowable, but you know what He is, right? And then you you grasp Him, okay?

[50:09] Maximo word of hope, huh? Get hold of God, so to speak. And especially, right, the conditions of a viatoris he had on the side of his body, right? Insofar as it was able to suffer, right? While the conditions of a comprehender he had maxime, right, on the side of his understanding, what? Soul, right? Now it is a condition of the soul comprehending that in no way is it subject to its body, right?

[50:50] Or what? Depends upon it, right? But it wholly what? Dominates it, huh? Whence, after resurrection, from the soul glory pours out into the right, overflows into the what? Body, right?

[51:19] From this aura, the soul of the man who's on the road, right, needs to what? Turn to the images that he is tied to the body, right? And in a way, subject to it, right? And dependent upon it, huh?

[51:40] And therefore, the what? Blessed souls. Before and after the resurrection. Yeah. This is this is before the resurrection, but when the Father in heaven, yeah. They are able to understand without what? Turning towards the images, right? And this can be said about the soul. Necessary to say this about the soul of Christ, which fully had the faculties of one who comprehends. That may be why he said before his passion, because when he was dead, I guess you could say his body couldn't suffer anymore, and he wasn't really the author anymore.

[52:29] Yeah, certainly, because he had to be the division. Yeah, Yeah. And he could understand separate substances. Yeah, But he had to be a division before that too. Yeah, yeah. Body is just blurred. Yeah. Depending on the body, you know. He's saying now, even he was in the before the passion, right? He still could what understand by this infused knowledge without turning to the images, right? Just as in the beat division, he would do this.

[53:00] So you got some surprises coming to you as to how you're going to understand after your soul leaves the body, right? I mean, Aristotle and Thomas both see our soul as not understanding itself through itself, right? But has to know itself, the soul through its powers, right? And has to know the powers through their acts and and the acts through their what objects, right? So from the objects we discourse to the acts, from the acts to the powers, and from the powers to the soul, right?

[53:35] But if the soul knew itself through itself, it'd be just the reverse. You know, in the soul, you know the powers of the soul and their acts and objects.

[53:46] But when our soul is separated from the body, then the soul will know itself through itself to be actually understandable because it's separated from matter. Because you know, even in this life, things become understandable when they're separated from matter, the singular matter.

[54:08] Okay. Now that likeness that Aristotle saw there between the images, right? Pittman says, "Has this thought that does that? Does that anyway explain that in the sense of our own clarity at the judgment that we know ourselves through ourselves that we have then a clear understanding of ourselves? Yeah, but there'll be some infused knowledge at that time, you know. So we'll see the the the justice of the judgment of you and me and everybody else, right?

[54:38] Okay. You know, it's kind of frightening, huh? Yeah. I didn't know you were such a bad guy, Burquist. No. No. Be shouting at my sins will

[54:54] be shouting on the rooftops or something. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that likeness which the philosopher lays down is not to be observed as regards all things. For it is manifest that the end of the power of sight is to know what colors, but the end of the power of sight the power of understanding is not to know what the images, but to know the what understandable species or forms which it grasps from the images and in the images, right?

[55:36] According to the status of the present life. Tell that to Father Bernard Lonergan, because he says explicitly that St. Thomas says that we understand the human understanding knows the image, not the things that they're, but the image itself. That's what he says. But this kind of confused me because. He says, "The end the end of the um intellect is to know the intelligible species, but is the end of the intellect to know the intelligible species, or to know things through the intelligible species?

[56:12] So, what are we knowing? Aren't we knowing?" Yeah, you could take the species there as being the the object of too, you know. There's a little

[56:21] ambiguity in the way those words are used sometimes. I was looking at a text in the Summa Contra Gentiles this morning. There, where Thomas is speaking very explicitly about knowing things in themselves, right, and not knowing just, you know, he speaks of the ratio, Latin, right? And you know, a lot of times we think ratio is meaning thought or something like that. And

[56:49] but in English, sometimes we'll say, "I know the reason why he did that." And what do you mean? You're knowing a thought about why he did it? I don't mean that by reason. I do that. You mean something in the thing itself, right? What's causing him to do what he did, right? And sometimes ratio even has that sense, right? So species a ratio can have that sense, huh?

[57:15] Species is the the could be taken the sense to Aristotle's words of what it is of something, what sensed or imagined, right? Okay. So he says, "What is that?" He says, "Well, that's a man." What is this? This is a glass, right? So I'm knowing what it is of something sensed, rather than what is sensed, strictly speaking. Species is something what universal. Species is set of many differing in number, right?

[57:50] Signifying what it is. Okay. So therefore, the likeness is in regard to this, to which both what powers look, you might say, right? But not as to that in which the condition of both powers terminates, huh? Also I'll say Thomas is here because he's coming back upon this proportion and understanding it more perfectly than maybe some people do, right? And seeing exactly in what way these two ratios are what alike, okay.

[58:42] Now he says, "Nothing prevents by diverse statuses from diverse things for something to what tend towards this end." But a thing's own end is always what one, and therefore sight knows nothing without color. But the understanding, in some state, is able to know without the image, but not without the what?

[59:20] Yeah, yeah. Just taking more in the sense of that, but what she understands there, right? Okay. So, so long as the soul is in the body, right, it naturally turns towards the what images, right? So the body is a kind of a share, right, in this activity. But when the soul is separated from the body, right, in that status, it knows in a different way, right? It knows itself to itself, right, and without turning towards what images, huh?

[1:00:06] Now the third objection was the one saying is going to. Second one, okay. To second, it should be said that although the soul of Christ was of the same nature with our souls, right, it had nevertheless some status, right, some state, which our souls do not have now in reality, huh? But only in what? Oh. To wit, the status of comprehension.

[1:00:42] I was at Mass there a couple days ago, and the text was from Hebrews, because of Hebrews, right? And the translation, the definition there, it said the reality of things hoped for.

[1:01:00] Well, no, no. The reality of things hoped for is to be division, and that's not what faith is. Not the reality of things hoped for. So I said, I just got to say to the pastor Wednesday that translation's got to go. I said I came was going out, got the door, and then the pastor was there, and he agreed. He said, you know, just saying it. And I said, well, who translate these things?

[1:01:21] He says, he says that there's some committee that does it. He says. They only translate what they do is they tweak what they want. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:01:36] This question actually kind of confused me because he talks about Christ as comprehensor, but isn't he comprehensor insofar as he beats division? Yeah, yeah. But not insofar as he achieves knowledge. Well, he's saying though that Christ has a status.

[1:01:55] That the blessed will have eventually, right, in the beatific vision. By means of the beatific vision. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So that it's not

[1:02:10] impossible, right, for him to have this other status that the angels have, right, which is less than what he has the beatific vision. He can have that status even in what this life, right? When he's still a viator, right?

[1:02:31] So he's kind of arguing, I think, from the a fortiori, right? If he has the status of the blessed, right, even before, even for the passion, right, then he can have another supernatural knowledge, right, which is much less than the beatific vision, but much more than our natural what knowledge.

[1:02:57] But that doesn't make him a comprehensor. Right. That's why it confuses me because he's arguing in using this comprehensor status as like his principle for reaching his conclusion. Yeah, if he has a he status that high, right, of a comprehensor,

[1:03:18] then he's not what limited to our natural way of knowing, right? So he can have another knowledge that is what above our nature, not even that, not even comprehensor. Yeah. But it's kind of a fortiori argument, isn't it? Okay. The question is: Is that infused supernatural knowledge such the nature of that knowledge? Such that he doesn't have to turn to the phantasm or to use it to understand?

[1:03:46] You see. But that's what he's saying here, right? Right. This is a knowledge that is above the human knowledge, and it's. I think he's going to compare it around a bit to the angels and their knowledge, right? So, so he has, you know, the beatific vision in a way like God, a little bit, and then the infused knowledge like the angels have, and then what?

[1:04:12] That's kind of appropriate, you know. Sometimes, you know, when Thomas is talking about why it was appropriate, there are many reasons for it, of course, but one of the reasons why it's appropriate for him to take on human nature was he take on, in a sense, the whole of what universe, right? And because man is kind of what a little cosmos, right? His body and soul, right?

[1:04:36] And but in a way, having this knowledge here, he's taking on what what the angels have naturally, huh? So in a sense, he's all everything.

[1:05:03] Now the third objection was saying, "Well, these natural powers in Christ would be in vain if he had this knowledge that didn't require this." To the third, it should be said that although the soul of Christ is able to understand, not turning to the images, right? Nevertheless, he is able to understand turning to the images, huh? And therefore, the senses were not in vain in him, huh?

[1:05:35] Especially since the senses are not given to man only for understanding knowledge, but also for the necessity of what animal life, right? He's a little bit between himself and and the earlier work, right? Okay, he's a little between himself and the earlier work where he was denying apparently. Oh, oh, yeah. He changes mind, right? You know. So,

[1:06:03] but it's not only because of the animal life, right? But also, right? He says praeterea, right? But he also had that knowledge where he turned to the what images, right?

[1:06:21] And I don't know about maybe Thomas will touch upon here later on, but you know when he meets the who is the guy that's in the centurion is it? you know having found such faith in. Yeah, he kind of marvels, you know. What that's that's very human knowledge, it seems to me, right? You know, it doesn't seem by by his by his infusing knowledge that he wondered so much.

[1:06:41] I wouldn't think anyway. I think it's more by you know, it's a strange creature, you know, in front of my eyes, right? That it's making this beautiful, beautiful understanding profession of faith, really.

[1:06:57] Okay, we'll take a little break here.