Tertia Pars
34. Christ's Infused Knowledge: Reasoning Step by Step, Compared with the Angels, Held as a Habit, Split into Many Habits (Summa III, Q.11, aa.3–6)
Class of 2009-02-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/034-christs-infused-knowledge-reasoning-step-by-step-compared/

[0:00] To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that the soul of Christ did not have this knowledge by way of what colatio, which means literally what bringing together, right?

[0:18] For Damascene says in the third book, in Christ we do not speak of what counsel, nor of what choice. That's kind of a strange thing.

[0:34] But looking at at choice is what the consequence of counsel, right? But these are not removed from Christ except in so far as they imply bringing together in discourse.

[0:54] The way I understand collatio in discourse, you have to bring together before you can discourse. You have to bring together the major and the minor premise, and then you can discourse to the conclusion. You can run to conclusion. Therefore, it seems that in Christ there was not a what bringing together or discursive what knowledge. Moreover, man needs bringing together in the discourse of reason to inquire into those things which he does not know.

[1:25] But the soul of Christ knew all things, as has been said above. Therefore, there was not in him this discursive or discursive knowledge. huh You have an ability for a large discourse apparently.

[1:41] Moreover, the knowledge of the soul of Christ had itself in the manner of what those who comprehend, which is what conformed to the angels, as is said in Matthew twenty two thirty. But in the angels there is not a discursive or bring together knowledge, as is clear through no less a man than Dionysius, chapter the divine names. Therefore, in the soul of Christ there was not a discursive or bringing together knowledge.

[2:16] But against this is that Christ had a rational soul. But the proper operation of the rational soul is to bring together. Here's the thing, and to run from one thing to another. So Shakespeare defines it by discurrere, because that implies that you can conferre. So you define something by the ultimate. Shakespeare knows what he's doing. huh? He obviously, wrote this before us. Therefore, in Christ there was a discursive or bringing together knowledge.

[2:53] I answer. It should be said that some knowledge or science can be called discursive or collativa, bringing together in two ways. In one way, as far as the acquiring of that knowledge as happens in us, who proceed to knowing one thing through another, as an effect through causes, and the reverse. Incidentally, sometimes when Thomas gives a division of discourse, right? You'll say there are four discourses, right?

[3:32] As far as things are concerned, from cause to effect, like in geometry; from effect to cause, more commonly, like in natural science and other places; from like to like, or one is not the cause or effect of the other, but there's a likeness there, right? And then from what opposite to opposite. Interesting that division into four.

[4:01] So Thomas mentions this. Sometimes mentions just these first two: effects through causes and causes through effects. And of course, in the book in the Posterior Analytics, you talk about two kinds of demonstration, which in Latin they call the demonstration propter quid, which is from the cause to the effect, and then the demonstration quia that it is so, from effect to cause. And in this way, the knowledge of the soul of Christ was not what discursive or bringing together, right?

[4:35] Because this knowledge about which we now speak was what given to him what divinely, and not acquired by the investigation of what reason. In another way, a knowledge can be called discursive or collativa as regards its what use. Just as those knowing sometimes from causes what conclude effects, not as it were learning new, but wishing to use the knowledge which they already have. And in this way, the knowledge of the soul of Christ is able to be what collativa discursive, because he's able from one to conclude another, just as it what pleases him, right?

[5:30] Just as in Matthew chapter 17, the Lord asked from what Peter His son from Peter. Yeah. From which do the kings of the earth take tribute from their sons or from what aliens? And Peter answered from aliens. He concludes, therefore, the friends are free.

[5:59] Or the time you know, in the other time and chapter there, when they say whose son is Christ, and they say David. So then, being David, then how can they call him Lord, right? He's kind of syllogizing there, right? Okay, getting him in trouble. Okay.

[6:21] So I was a little surprised at the beginning when he said that he's going to take the opposite side from what the objection says, right? They did not have science by way of collation. Well, of course, he's saying in the body of the article here that this infused knowledge was not what acquired by collatio, which is what I would expect.

[6:46] To the first, therefore, it should be said that from Christ is excluded counsel, rightly by Damascene, the counsel that is with what doubt, right? And consequently, the choice, which in its definition, in Aristotle's definition of it, includes such what counsel. The choice is the result of taking counsel, thinking what I should do and then choosing to do. But does not exclude from Christ the use of what counseling, right?

[7:20] The second objection: Christ knows all things; therefore, doesn't need to use these things. To the second, it should be said that that argument proceeds about discourse and bringing together, insofar as they're ordered to acquiring knowledge, right? Okay, Christ doesn't have to use these to acquire knowledge.

[7:44] Now, what about this conformity to the angels? To the third, it should be said that the blessed are conformed to the angels as regards the gratuitous gifts, huh? But there remains a difference which is what according to nature, and therefore to use collation and discourse is connatural to the souls of the blessed, not, however, to the what angels. So I'll still be doing Euclid there in heaven.

[8:17] Now I say, what's about that guy? Look at the theorem there in Euclid this morning. There about: if you subtract from an even number an odd number, the result will be what?

[8:37] Yeah, or then the reverse. You know, if you subtract from an even number an odd number, the result will be what? Odd number, right? But if you subtract an odd number from an odd number, you'll get a what? And how do you prove those things? You better be Euclid, yeah. It's interesting, even before you see the proof, you get kind of guess what it would be. You don't need dialectic there in the sciences.

[9:08] Okay. So we look at article what? Yeah. I often wonder about music there, huh? Because Thomas speaks as if the pleasure of music will be found in heaven. But do the angels appreciate music? Huh? Not having ears.

[9:35] Maybe they could produce it for us. Madison's Music of Mozart. I say, how could anything be more beautiful than this? And I'm sure in heaven there must be more beautiful music than Mozart. But I mean, I can't, I can't imagine it or picture it. Huh? I just think anything more beautiful than Mozart's music. Okay, the fourth article. You can hope. To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in Christ, huh?

[10:11] Oh, just one more word about Mozart there, huh? You know the the pieces that John Paul II singled out by Mozart were, of course, the Requiem, right? Because they had a concert of the Requiem there, and the the Great Mass at Mozart, and then the incomparable motet, the Ave Verum Corpus. But if you listen to the to to

[10:36] Mozart's things of the Eucharist, huh? He has you know, I can listen to the Eucharist, and the introduction to the one of those is just absolutely perfect. And and and when he comes back to it, the end he brings it back again, you know, just absolutely magnificent. Have to bring it in in some way to let you hear it, you know. There's some of the the greatness of Ave Verum Corpus.

[10:59] My wife says, "Nobody wants for your food." I said, "Well, Ave Verum Corpus there, during the Jesu Joy of Man's Desire by Bach, and have to see what the rest of me." will be You have the Kyrie from the Great Mass. I don't know if they can sing it though. Oh, you

[11:23] have some pretty good singers in the church there, in the parish there. Very good. To the okay. To the fourth, one proceeds thus. It seems that in Christ, huh? This knowledge was what less than in the what angels, huh? Well, I doubt that very much.

[11:47] For perfection is proportional to the perfectable. But the human soul, according to the order of nature, is below the what angelic nature. Since he took on a nature inferior to the angels, right?

[12:08] But not in a condition inferior to them. Since, therefore, the knowledge about which we now speak is infused to the soul of Christ for its perfection, it seems that knowledge of this sort was below the knowledge by which the angelic nature is perfected.

[12:29] Thomas says, "I see he's not going to reply to his objections in detail, right, huh?" Moreover, the knowledge of the soul of Christ was in some way what collativa and discursiva which cannot be said of the knowledge of the angels. Therefore, the knowledge of the soul of Christ was below that of the knowledge of the angels.

[12:54] Moreover, when some knowledge is more immaterial, is so more potent. But the knowledge of the angels is more immaterial than the knowledge of the soul of Christ, because the soul of Christ was the act of the body, right? That's the definition of the soul: the first act of a natural body composed of tools.

[13:17] Because the soul of Christ was the act of a body, and it did have turning towards phantasms, which cannot be said of the angels. Therefore, the knowledge of the angels was more potent than the knowledge of the soul of Christ.

[13:35] They'll bring me to stake if I maintain that. But against this is what the apostle says, Hebrews chapter two, verse nine. He who was a what? A little bit less than the angels, right? We see Jesus on account of the passion of his death, crowned with glory and what honor. That goes back to what the psalm made. I think it is. Okay. I use that part of the psalm there for one way of dividing the six mysteries about Christ.

[14:12] You have the three ones where he's what humble, and the three ones where he's glorified. The answer should be said that the infused knowledge of the soul of Christ can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to that by which he had a what cause flowing this into him. In another way, according as he had it from the subject receiving this.

[14:48] Now, as regards the first, the knowledge infused into the soul of Christ was much more excellent than the knowledge of the angels. Both as regards the multitude of things known, the number of things known, right, and as regards the certitude of his what clarity of his knowledge. Because the spiritual light that was poured into the soul of Christ is much greater than the light that pertains to the angelic nature.

[15:18] But as regards the second, the knowledge poured into the soul of Christ was below the angelic knowledge. As regards what the way of knowing which is natural to the human soul, which is by conversion to the what images and through. So he's usually admitting it more in terms of the purely human knowledge of Christ that that's inferior to the angels in some way, right? And that is that it involves turning to images and so on.

[15:52] See my guardian angel, thinking about me. What? What's he creating these images all the time for? Whether the infused knowledge in Christ was a what habitual science?

[16:14] To the fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in Christ there was no habitual knowledge. But as you know, in God in His divinity, right? There is no habitual knowledge. There is only knowledge in the sense of actually knowing. Otherwise, he'd be have some kind of potency, right, to be actualized. Have an accident and so on.

[16:40] It has been said, for it has been said, that the soul of Christ is befitting the soul of Christ, the greatest perfection. But more is perfection of knowledge existing in act than pre-existing in what habit. Therefore, it was suitable, right, that he would know all things in act, and therefore that he have no habitual knowledge.

[17:07] But he's not pure act, I don't think, in his human nature. He was tired there when he got to the to the Samaria there with the

[17:23] thirsty too. That's in that. That's part of that word there. Lassus is in the. It just reminds me of the Kyrie eleison It's the old Mass in the Kyrie eleison because it refers. It's sort of asking mercy from Christ because you did this great work. You came down. You were tired. Yeah. So don't let that go to waste. That's part of the hymn. of the time. Did you sing it?

[17:45] I didn't sing it. No. We had a fellow that was a friend of my sister's, and he just did the voice. Oh, he sang it. Oh, really? Oh, yeah. Sing the whole mass. Oh, yeah.

[18:00] That scene where he sits down there and talks to her and so on. To me, it's so real, huh? That that it seems like you're right there with him, you know.

[18:14] Moreover, since habit is ordered to act, it would seem in vain to have an habitual knowledge that is never reduced to act. So you can't just have Euclid in habit. You've got to keep on thinking about these things again and again, right?

[18:33] Since, however, Christ knew all things, it is not what you would not be able to what you would not be able to consider all of them in act one by knowing one after the other, right? Because one cannot go through an infinity numbering them, right?

[18:58] Therefore, in vain there would be in him habitual knowledge, which is unsuitable. Therefore, he had actual knowledge of all things which he knew, and not habitual.

[19:11] Now, Christ did. These forms which he knew, this infused knowledge, were the infinite number. I don't think so. Maybe he would know by one form many things that you and I would know only by many forms. Huh? We're the guys that have infinity. If I wanted to think about all numbers in particular, I'd have to think about two and then three. I can remember my children are little.

[19:38] You know, Daddy, can you count to a hundred? Yeah. Wow, you know, hundred, and then a little later on in life, you know, Daddy, can you count to a thousand? Yeah. Wow. You know, my kids are getting larger than the amount, you know, but. And if you're the president of the states, you can count to trillions.

[19:59] Wow. Moreover, habitual knowledge is a suit in perfection of the one knowing. But perfection is more noble than the what? Perfectible. Perfectible. If, therefore, in the soul of Christ there was some created habit of knowledge, it followed that something created was more noble than the soul of Christ. Therefore, there is not in the soul of Christ some habitual what knowledge, huh?

[20:33] But against this, huh? The knowledge of Christ about which we now speak was univocal to our knowledge. Why is he saying that? Just as his soul was the one species with our soul, but our knowledge was in the genus of habit. Therefore, the knowledge of Christ was what habitual. Maybe he's going to be talking there about his human knowledge, right? There, infused knowledge.

[21:03] I answer. It should be said, as has been said above, that the mode of this knowledge, um, infused knowledge in the soul of Christ, was suitable to the subject what receiving it. From the general beginning that the received is in the receiver in the what mode or way of the receiver. That's always a consolation to professor, right? What professor says is received in each student according to the way of that receiver.

[21:40] Some are more prepared than others, right? Um, but this way is kind of natural to the human soul. That sometimes is understanding an act. Sometimes in what potency? Aristotle talks about this very much in the third book. But the middle between pure ability and complete act is what habitum,

[22:13] and of the same genus as the middle and the what extremes. And therefore, it is clear that the connatural way of the human soul is that it receives knowledge by way of what habitum.

[22:29] And therefore, it should be said that the infused knowledge of the soul of Christ was what habitual. He was able to use it whenever he what wanted. Yeah.

[22:52] Okay. The first objection is talking about the maxima perfection, right? And this seems to be contrary to that. To the first, therefore, it should be said that in the soul of Christ there was a twofold knowledge, and both, in its own way, was what most perfect. One exceeding the mode of human knowledge, by which he saw the essence of God, right,

[23:20] and other things in that essence. And this was the most perfect simpliciter. And such knowledge was not habitual, but actual with respect to all those things which, in this way, he knew. When you get the beatific vision, you always be what? Yeah, always be actual. Never be habitual. You want you know? I think I'll see him as he is today, and not something else tomorrow or something.

[23:51] No, you'll be seeing him as he is always, huh? Okay. Another another knowledge was in Christ, according to the way proportioned to human nature. In so far as he knew things through species or forms poured into him divinely, right, about which knowledge we now what speak. And this knowledge was not simpliciter, right? Most perfect, but most perfect in the genus of what human knowledge. Whence it was not necessary that it always be in what

[24:32] actum. Now the second objection here, right, which is the one from this infinity, huh? I knew everything. The second, it should be said, that habits are reduced in act at the command of the will. For a habit is that which someone, by which someone acts when he wants to. And it goes back to what the great de Verre was, not so great de Verre was, but anyway, that's good there.

[25:06] Now the will has itself to infinity of things in determinate what ways, not limited to. And this is not in vain, although what it does intend in all actually,

[25:29] so long as it tends actually in what is what suitable to the place and what time. So I can't go to Euclid now, but you guys, okay, wouldn't be appropriate for me to go to Euclid at this time. Maybe in a couple minutes. And therefore, also the habit is not in vain, although not all things are reduced to act which are subject to the habit.

[25:57] So long as that is reduced to act, that is what fitting to the suitable end of the will according to the need of what. Yeah, I'm surprised he Answers that way, you know, rather than pointing out that the one form he can know many things. Huh?

[26:30] I mean, sometimes one wonders, you know, one's puzzling over the the theory of relativity, or why did he explain these things? Or what did he, you know, what did he tell us more about these things? You know, but maybe he had more important things to inform us about, huh? That's kind of in accordance with this, huh? Now, people a lot of times they don't find in the gospels Christ telling jokes or having a good laugh with the apostles, right?

[27:01] And of course, this is one of the virtues that Aristotle talks about, Nicomachean Ethics, and people recognize this as being something necessary to human life, huh?

[27:12] But I would think in those thirty years that he spent there with Joseph and Mary, right, that there would have been some humor, huh? But Chesterton, is he talking about God or about humanity of Christ? Orthodoxy. We talk about God. The last line is orthodoxy, yeah, but I think speaking about God and divine nature.

[27:33] Something to great for him to show us, right? His humor, you know. But some people try, you know, force a couple of things out, you know, like when he says he would become like one of us, you know, and Adam and Eve fell, you know. But

[27:49] you know, I mean, Christ's public life there is very short—two or three years, huh? And not too much room for humor, right? But I would think in those thirty years, domestic life there must have been some, some humor about the. You know, we don't have any jokes saved from that period, you know, but. That's

[28:12] the reason that never never mentions about Christ smiling, is because he always was, for something. I think it was Chesterton one of this. No, he wouldn't mention something that's obvious. Just always. You read the one about Thomas there, where the somebody said there's an elephant going down the street, and Thomas ran to the window to look out, and the guys start laughing. Him said, "I'd rather believe that there was an elephant going down the street than that one of my brothers could lie."

[28:49] Yeah, that was his own. I don't know if it's sibling brothers or consorts, which. Okay, now the third objection here is about the. Have it being perfection, something being more perfect than the soul of Christ. To the third, it should be said that good and being is said in two ways. In one way, simply, and thus being and good is called what substance, which subsists in its being and in its what goodness.

[29:37] Another way is said being and good secundum quid, and in this way, being is a what accident, huh? Not because it itself has being and goodness, but because by it, a subject has being and what good.

[29:57] Thus, therefore, habitual knowledge is not simply better or more worthy than the soul of Christ, but it is what secundum quid, right? For the whole goodness or habitual goodness of knowledge, um, uh, yeah, gives rise to the goodness of the subject, huh? Okay.

[30:22] So the grammar, I mean, the knowledge of geometry they have from Euclid, right? Is a perfection of me, not a perfection of geometry, huh?

[30:36] Okay. That is a problem comes up again and again there about the substance and accident, which is better, right? Because accident seems to perfect substance, so is accident better? Well, Thomas will make a distinction here between being simply and being in some way. It's a little hard to understand, but anyway, we'll leave that for the time being.

[31:03] Now, as the knowledge. Of the soul of Christ to be distinguished by diverse habits, according to diverse habits. To the sixth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in the soul of Christ there was not except one habit of knowledge. For the more a knowledge is perfect, the more it is what one. Whence the higher angels understand through forms more universal,

[31:34] as is said in the first part. But the knowledge of Christ was most perfect. Therefore, it was most of all one. Therefore, it was not distinguished by diverse habits Yeah, in many habits. Moreover, our faith is derived from the knowledge of Christ. Whence it is said in Hebrews twelve two, looking towards the author of faith and the consummator of faith. Jesus, I always like that text very much.

[32:08] Is the origin of faith and the rewarder of faith, so to speak? Factor of faith. Faith is said to be what substantia, per modum, kind of a foundation of things hoped for. But one is the habit of faith about all things to be believed, as has been said in the second part. So you don't have one virtue of faith about the humanity of Christ, another about the divinity of Christ, another one about the Blessed Virgin, another one about the last things.

[32:39] No, it's one and the same. Moreover, sciences are distinguished according to diverse reasons of the knowable. But the soul of Christ knew all things by one reason, or reason of one thing, to wit, the light divinely poured in. Therefore, in Christ there was only one habit of knowledge.

[33:09] But against this is what is said in Zachary three nine, that upon one stone or rock that is Christ there are seven what. Yeah, but to the eye is understood knowledge. Therefore, it seems in Christ there are many habits, science. That's an interesting text, isn't it?

[33:34] Zachary, the place where you got the text there, that in that day there be one name. The end is Zachary. I look back at thing, but time of the vision there, right? Why we have many names for Christ? I mean, for God in this world, but we see God as He is. We have one name for Him. Yeah, exactly. Hang on. Exactly 14 verse 9. And the Lord will be the Lord will be King over all all the land or all the earth.

[34:05] On that day. Yeah, the Lord, the Lord will be one, and His name one. Yeah, His name will be one. Yeah. So here's another quote from Zachary. Can't, can't neglect Zachary. Every bit of Scripture is good for teaching, as Saint Paul says.

[34:27] I answer. It should be said, as has been said, that the poured-in knowledge of the soul of Christ has the mode connatural to the what human soul, right? Is ever connatural to the human soul that it receives species in less universality than the what angels, so that

[34:56] it knows diverse specific natures through diverse intelligible what species. You see that word species used at least an adjective. There's specific us, right? The thing itself, okay. Diversas naturas specificas, right? Those are the natures of things in themselves. Through diverse intelligible species, right? That's in the mind.

[35:24] From this, however, it happens that in us there are diverse habits of sciences, because according to the diverse genera things know, in so far as those things are reduced in one genus, they are known by the same what habit of science, as is said in the first book of the Post Analytics, the one science which is of one what genus subject, and therefore the infused knowledge of Christ was distinct according to diverse what habits.

[36:04] Thomas often talks about man as being perfected by what the virtues and these are habits, right? In a broader sense, this is the way man is what naturally what perfected, right? And he's saying that this, in so far as this is in part due to what the receiver, right? In so far as he receives this in the human soul, right? It's appropriate that there be what perfections in the manner of habits and and many habits even.

[36:34] You know, you get going through the secunda secundae where Thomas goes through all the virtues almost. Yeah, what a complicated thing! All these virtues we need, you know, in order to be perfected, huh? You know, Thomas says a little bit in there about removing the vices and perfecting the virtues there in his prayers after communion, right? That's part of the thing. You see what he was. You know, you can see how you know one thing wrong with us, and everything gets fouled up, as Shakespeare says.

[37:08] Now, to the first, it should be said that as has been said above, the knowledge of the soul of Christ is most perfect and exceeding the knowledge of the angels

[37:26] as regards that which is considered in it on the side of what God flowing in, but is nevertheless below the angelic knowledge as regards the way of what of the receiver of the one receiving. And to this mode it pertains that that knowledge be distinguished by many habits, right, as it were through species more particular existing, right.

[38:02] Now, what about the objection from faith, which is the second objection? To the second, it should be said that our faith rests upon the first truth, and that's what Thomas will teach there in the beginning of the secunda secundae when he takes up faith first.

[38:22] And therefore, Christ is the author of our faith according to his divine knowledge, which is simply what one. So that's the knowledge Christ has as God, the first truth. You know, O verbo veritatis verius, In the adorate devote, credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius. You know, O verbo veritatis verius. Nice, nice rhyme there. To the third, it should be said. Thomas talking about now the divine light, but that's the other side of the picture.

[39:05] To the third, it should be said that the light divinely poured in is the reason of understanding, the common reason of understanding those things which are divine revealed, just as the light of what the understanding of those things which are naturally known. And therefore, it is necessary that in the soul of Christ, the species of what singular things to place them for knowing by knowledge that is proper to each one.

[39:41] And therefore, according to this, it is necessary that there be diverse habits of science in the soul of Christ. He seems to be making comparison there, right? Just as the agent intellect Aristotle compares it to light, right? And this light is what one, but as it illuminates different what images, right? You have different what forms, right? Down. In different sciences, so likewise the divine light pouring is one, right?

[40:08] But in so far as it illumines this or that thing particular, known by this or that form, right? Then it's going to be a multiplication of what happens.

[40:24] So he's interesting mind, this guy's mind. He knows a lot of stuff. Yeah, it would be interesting to talk to him, huh? Yeah. You know, I don't know. I mean, Nixon talks about going there to the to the Waldorf Astoria there to have a conversation with Douglas MacArthur, right? He says now there are different ways you have conversations, people, right? And when you have a conversation with Douglas MacArthur, you let him do all the talking.

[40:54] Is that what a conversation with Christ would be like? You know.