Tertia Pars
54. Summa III, Q. 20: Is Christ Subject to the Father and to Himself? (with the 'crowning' sense of before and conjecture about the Trinity)
Class of 2009-10-29
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/054-summa-iii-q-20-is-christ-subject-to-the-father-and-to-himself/

[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 all your virtue, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. So I was looking at Shakespeare's play there. All's well that ends well, which of course is a mercy and forgiveness play.

[0:35] But these one two lines in there it says, "All's well that ends well." Still, defines, and that's in the Latin word for end. Still, defines the what, the crown. And then the second line is, "Whatever the course, the end is the renown." It's the renown and crown there. Well, that's another useful mentioning of crown, right? Where crown is used for the end, all's well that ends well, right?

[1:13] Still, the fiend finds, f-i-n-e, but it's from the Latin word for end. The crown, right? Okay. And remember, I was talking about the senses of the word before. Remember, Aristotle has in the categories, and there's he gives the four central senses of before, first, right? Before in time, before in being, before in the discourse of reason, and before in goodness, huh? And then he brings in another sense afterwards, right?

[1:46] That he finished and then he didn't, and it's not fifth in order. And this is the sense in which the cause is before the effect, right? But it's most like the what second sense, because just as the effect depends upon the cause, so what's after in being depends upon what is before in being. So they're similar, right? I call that the crowning sense, right? Because it's kind of the the end of what reason tries to do.

[2:12] It tries to know the reason why, right? For that, that it might know is so, right? But it wants to eventually know why it is so, right? I was thinking, you know, a good example of this. They ask our Lord there, you know, what is the greatest commandment? And and this is about the law, right? The foundation of the whole law, and you should love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and so on.

[2:42] And then later on, you had about the neighbor, but the first thing is to love God, right? And in some sense, that's more fundamental than loving your neighbor, because you should love your neighbor because you love God, not love God because you love your neighbor. So the most fundamental law, you might say, is to love God from your whole heart and your whole soul, and so on.

[3:05] But why we know that's so, because Christ Himself has said so. But why is that so? What's you know? Because this is faith seeking what understanding. Why this is so, right? What's what's the middle term there to show that that's not only the greatest of the laws, but the foundation of all law, right? And yeah, what is the reason? What's the middle term for that?

[3:38] What? You love what's good. Well, that's true. Find something a little more precise than that. Yeah, yeah. Well, if you study in the Prima Secundae, if you study the treatise on law, right? One of the first questions there is what is law? And Thomas develops the definition of law has four parts. It's a ordering by reason for the common good, promulgated by who is authority, right? So, in the very definition of law, is that it's for the common good.

[4:23] Well, of course, God is the common good of the whole what universe, right? So to love the common good, the whole universe is the foundation of all law. If law is the ordering of what

[4:41] by reason for the sake of the common good, huh? Okay. So you got to be firm in the common good to which everything is ordered in order to follow the law. But that's why I call that the crowning sense, right? Huh? You know, the mind does not rest with knowing that this is so, but wants to know why it is so, right?

[5:03] As being Thomas there this morning in the Quaestiones Quaestiones disputatae de potentia, and he's talking about the Father and the Son and the idea that the Son is the the thought, right? Huh? Okay. And one of the objections is saying, "Well,

[5:31] we can know this by reason because by reason we know that God understands that God thinks, right? " And therefore, when we know that He has this thought, right? And Thomas says, "Well, we know that God understands, but we know the way He does understand. See, we have only a perfect understanding of that. "

[5:56] And then he goes on. It's like interesting, but just develop a little bit here. When you imagine something, you naturally form a what image of it, right? And when you think of something, you naturally form a what thought of it, right? It proceeds from your thinking of it a thought of what you're thinking of, just like when you imagine something, there is a image right formed. Well, if God thinks about Himself, and we can know that by reason, God knows Himself, right?

[6:29] Wouldn't there be what proceeding from God a thought of Himself? Well, we don't really know that by natural reason because we don't know that God's way of thinking is that much like ours, right? But Thomas says but he says you can conjecture. Says, but you can conjecture, he says, which which is a Latin word for to guess, right? See, you can guess that God has a thought because he thinks as we think, and we don't think without forming a thought or having a thought of what we're thinking about, right?

[7:04] So same thing for God, right? And I mean Thomas is always very careful to deny that natural reason can arrive at the understanding of Trinity, right? And that's, I guess, Church doctrine, right? But it is interesting. He says, you know, you can conjecture, right? That maybe he's like us, you know, but it's a guess, right? And then we learn by faith that he that that there is some likeness of that kind, right?

[7:33] Okay. So we're up to question twenty here in the Tertia Pars, right? About which Christ said to Thomas, "Bene scripsisti de me Thoma, right? You've written well, about me, huh? I think that's quite a endorsement, right? Yeah. It has a little blurb on the back of your edition. of Summa. Yeah. No, I told you I went to College Saint Thomas there, and in the the two front buildings, right, there's kind of a archway between the two, and then there's you know statue Thomas and underneath it has in stone, you know, Bene scripsisti de me Thoma you know.

[8:12] Okay. Okay. Look just back at the premium here, just so we don't get lost in the texture. Look at the premium to all this in question what sixteen, huh?

[8:39] In the premium at the beginning of question sixteen, Thomas says, "Then one ought to consider about those things which follow upon union. " Okay, hypostatic union. Which is to talk about that hypostatic union up to this point, right? And first, as regards those things which belong to Christ, so he couldn't have said it by himself, right?

[9:09] Secondly, about those things which belong to Christ in comparison to God the Father, right? Third, with regard to those things which belong to Christ as regards us, right? That's the division, I think, into three. Okay.

[9:30] Okay. Then he goes on to divide the part that we just got through the last class, right? About the first, a twofold consideration occurs. About those things which belong to Christ according to being and becoming, and those things that belong to him by reason of what unity, right? Okay.

[9:54] And we get 17 there. huh? He said divided those okay. So we're up to now the part dealing. With him with regard to the Father, and Thomas is going to divide that, right?

[10:09] Kind of interesting division there. Interesting. Then we're not to consider. Look at the proemium, the beginning of chapter twenty. Then we're not to consider about those things which belong to Christ in comparison to the Father,

[10:30] of which some are said of Him according to His relation to the Father, that He is subject to Him, right? That He prays, right? That's kind of interesting. I often notice that as I read the the Latin there. When we use the word pray, we have to put a preposition there, right? I don't pray God, do you? No, I pray to God, right? Or I pray to Mary or somebody, right?

[11:02] Okay, but in that's all one word there in the in the Latin, okay. Second, that He prayed, and third, that He ministered to Him in what priesthood. So you rather Christ there. you better see what that is going to be about, and whether He's according to the order of Melchizedek, right, and so on. Okay. The pray there that that's often used in Shakespeare's type English. I pray you this.

[11:35] Saint Thomas More uses that all the time. Yeah. Yeah. So he mentions three things there, right? And some things are said, or can be said, according to the relation of the Father to Him, right? To wit, if the Father adopted Him, right, and that He predestined Him, right.

[12:09] So he puts these two into what a question? Questions with five, five parts. First, therefore, we're not to consider about the subjection of Christ to the Father. Secondly, about His prayer, right? That's the next question, one. Third, about His what priesthood, right? Those three that are said then of Christ in reference to the Father, and then the two, right, of the Father towards the Son. Fourth, about whether adoption belongs to Him, right?

[12:49] That's I can see the problem there, maybe. And fifth, about His what predestined, okay. So that's going to take us up to about what? To twenty four, right? And then in question twenty five, we'll begin the third part of this, right? Those things that pertain to Christ in comparison to us. So again, you have basically a division into three, right? Christ in Himself, and then Christ towards the Father, and then Christ towards us.

[13:28] Now about the first, there's two questions, just two articles in this question twenty, huh? Whether Christ is subject to the Father, and whether He is subject to Himself.

[13:45] That's kind of like saying, can you obey yourself? I asked that somebody thought that was possible. I do it all the time. I obey myself all the time.

[14:06] To the first one proceeds thus: it seems that it should not be said that Christ is subject to the Father. Okay, I think I'd agree with Thomas, and he's going to take the opposite side. I assume of that. right? And it is. For everything that is subject to God the Father is a what creature? Because as is said in the book about ecclesiastical dogmas in the Trinity, nothing is what serving nor subject.

[14:42] But it should not be said simply without qualification that Christ is a creature. Therefore, it ought not to be said simply that Christ is subject to God the Father, huh? That's a pretty good. Oh yeah.

[15:02] Moreover, from this something is said to be subject to God. God, that it is subservient, right, to His dominion, yeah. But to the human nature in Christ cannot be attributed service, huh? Or slavery or something. Maybe stronger can be weaker. Starmy that would servitude.

[15:27] For Damascene says in the third book, it should be known that neither. What? The slave, the human nature. Yeah. Are we able to say that what? The slave, the human nature of Christ, he's talking about. He says this. Okay.

[15:51] For servitude and lordship, the name are not what. Yeah, not names or knowledge of nature, but of those things that are towards something, as are fatherhood and what, sonhood. Therefore, Christ, according to his human nature, is not subject to what, God, the Father.

[16:23] Moreover, one Corinthians fifteen said, "When all things are subject to him, then the Son himself will be subject to the one who subjects to himself all things." But as is said in Hebrews two eight, now it is what, not yet. Do we see that to him are subject all things? Therefore, not yet is he subject to the Father, who subjects to himself all things.

[16:59] He doesn't subject himself to the Father apparently from this quote right until all things are subject to him and they're not all subject to him yet. That psalmist quote, the Lord said to my Lord, "Sit my right hand, to make your enemies your footstool It's not quite yet then right? Okay.

[17:20] But against this is what is said in John chapter fourteen, the Father is greater than me. And Augustine says in the first book of the Trinity, not unreasonably right, does Scripture say both that the Son is equal to the Father and the Father is greater than the Son? For that is said according to what the form of God is divine nature. This, in account of the form of a what, servant, is understood without any confusion of these two natures.

[18:00] But the lesser is subject to the greater. Therefore, Christ, according to the form of a servant, is subject to the what, Father. Now, what is Thomas going to say about this? It's interesting what he comes up with.

[18:20] I answer: It should be said that to anyone having some nature belongs those things which are appropriate to that nature, or which are proper to the sense of being, belonging that nature. But human nature, from its condition, has a threefold subjection to God. Have you realized how subject I was to him? Have you realized that?

[18:50] One according to the what, grade of goodness, huh? In so far as the divine nature is the very essence of goodness, huh? Is goodness itself? This is clear through Dionysius in the first chapter of the Divine Names. Yes, he begins with the name Good.

[19:14] But the created nature has a certain partaking of the divine goodness, as it were, subject to the what rays of that what goodness? Just like the emotions are subject to reason because they partake of reason, or when they partake of reason.

[19:47] Ah, Thomas is saying. I was looking in the commentary in John this morning, and he's talking about the the in the Latin the regulus, right? Who who has the The son, I guess it is. The son who is sick, right? He wants Christ to come, and Christ doesn't go, but he does cure the the son, right? And Thomas is talking the spiritual senses of this, right? He says, when your reason rules the rest of you as it should, it's a king.

[20:22] But when it doesn't, completely rule them, and they're sick, as it were. Then it's like the regulars, right? Like this servant. You have reason, but imperfectly, right? And and it's and this is part of the spiritual meaning here, right? That he's not ruling the way he should himself, huh?

[20:51] It's interesting. I think Shakespeare used the word king or even queen that way, you know. That the one who really has their their passions under their reason is like a king or a queen, you know. depending on whether it's talking about male or female, but but I think I've seen that in Shakespeare. Just kind of reminds me of it.

[21:15] Secondly, human nature is subject to God as regards the what power of God, right? Now, insofar as human nature, just as any creature, is subject to the operation of the divine disposition, huh?

[21:37] In a third way, especially human nature is subject to God through its own what act? Insofar as by its own will, it obeys his what commands, huh?

[21:53] And this threefold subjection to the Father, Christ what confesses about himself. First, Matthew, huh? It's interesting. He takes that text. I knew he's going to take that text. Why do you call? Or why do you ask me about good, right? One is good, namely God, right? When Thomas comes in that passage, he says because God is goodness itself. Well, that's why he says only God is good, right?

[22:21] Why call me good, right? He's really putting himself under God, right? That first quote, that first sense, right? Whence Jerome says, huh? Because, huh? He called the what? He called you good teacher. Yeah, good, right?

[22:47] And not God, or the Son of God confessed. He says that although he is a holy man, in comparison to God, he is what not good, huh? To Plato, there in the in the Symposium, right when he gets to the higher love matters, right, and then he has ascent to God, the beautiful itself, right, and God is beauty itself, he would say, right, and you know if you say that you know comparison to God, we are none beings, right, maybe even the saints in comparison to God could be called ugly, right,

[23:31] maybe a little hyperbole, I don't know, but I mean given the distance there, right, don't call me beautiful, right, by which he gives us to understand that he, according to his human nature, right, does not arrive at the grade of divine goodness.

[23:59] That's an awfully strong way of saying that my goodness is not what equal to the goodness of God, right, huh? And because in those things which are not great by a what quantity, the same it is to be what greater to be better, as Augustine says in the sixth book, of the Trinity From this or by this reason or for this reason, the Father is said to be greater than Christ according to his what human nature.

[24:40] Secondly, the subjection is attributed to Christ, in so far as all things which are done about humanity of Christ, we believe were what done by divine what disposition, right? Didn't have his own life, right? But just what God had proclaimed for him to do. Whence Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy that Christ is subject to the orderings of God the Father, right?

[25:20] And this is the subjection of servitude, according as every creature serves God, being subject to His what ordering. According to that, a wisdom book of wisdom chapter sixteen, huh? The creature is serving to his what maker, and according to this also, the Son of God is said to be taking on the form of a servant, yeah,

[25:56] Form, as it were, of a creature, right? Okay. Third, the third subjection is attributed to himself. He attributes to himself, saying, "What are pleasing to him, I do always, right?" And this is the subjection of what obedience. Hence, it is said in Philippians chapter two that he was made obedient to the Father, usque ad mortem right even to death even to death, death on the cross.

[26:35] That's interesting, huh? He probably comes up with one way of being subject, and Thomas comes up with three ways that are being subject and showing that Christ is subject as man in all three of these ways to the what? Father. And shows it by Christ's own words. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[26:56] So you say the argument from authority is the strongest in theology. Now, the first objection was saying, "Well, we were not supposed to say that Christ was simply a what creature, right?"

[27:12] To the first, therefore, it should be said that just as it should not be understood simply that Christ is a creature, but only according to his what human nature. Can you speak of Christ? You're talking about the person, right? The person is not a creature, right? So you don't want to say that without qualification that he's a what creature, but according to his human nature, he's a creature.

[27:41] Whether this be added as a determination or not, as has been said above, so also it should not be simply understood that Christ is subject to the Father, but only according to his human nature is he subject to the Father. Otherwise, you'd be saying the whole person was subject to him, right?

[28:02] Even if this determination is not always added, right? Whichever more suitably should be added to avoid the error of Arius, who posited the Son less than the Father, right? So Thomas has objection in there because of an important point he wants to make, right? In answer to the what misuse of that by the Arians, right? You got to be kind of

[28:34] careful there, right? Say simply without qualification is subject to the Father. Then you're going to say simply without qualification he's less than the Father, right? And yet he's equal to the Father too.

[28:58] Okay, now let's look at the second objection here again. Here. I guess the objection correct is saying you apply this to the person, not to the the nature, right? That you're a father, a son, or master as servant, right? To the second, it should be said that the relation of servitude and dominion are founded upon action and passion acting upon undergoing. In so far as what belongs to the servant to be moved by the Lord, huh?

[29:57] By the command of the Lord, right? Now, to act or to do something is not attributed to the nature, as to the one doing it, right? But to the person. This is the famous thing in philosophy that acts are the supposita and the singular supposita,

[30:18] according to the what? for The philosopher. Who is that guy anyway? But there is attributed the action of nature. Is attributed action to nature,

[30:35] as to that by which the person of the hypostasis acts. See, just like you might say, another. Is it my mind that understands, or or is it me that understands?

[30:50] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Does my will love, or do I love by my will? My stomach digest my food, or or do I do it?

[31:10] Fortunately, you don't have to think about it. That's a problem Well, you don't have to think about it, but you will think about it. You don't have to And therefore, although not properly, as it said, that nature is a lord or a servant, right? Nevertheless, it can probably be said that some hypostasis or person is a lord or a servant according to this or that what But nature.

[31:43] And according to this, nothing prevents Christ to be said to be subject to the Father or a servant according to his human nature, right? The same we might say that we rule over the beasts, right? And why do we rule the beasts? Was by our nature, you might say, right? To an extent, human nature rules over the nature of the beast, right? But the beast, by his nature, is the servant of man, the horse, right?

[32:07] He shouldn't be. And and man by his nature should rule over the beast, huh? One of Obama's czars thinks that the animal should be right to be represented in court, right? Well, the next time he has a court case, we'll have a cow represented in the defendant's case.

[32:38] When you're gonna kill the cow for meat, right? The cow should have right to be represented by some defendants. Now, the third argument is saying that Christ is going to turn over and be subject to the Father when everything else is subject to Him. It's if that's a culmination, right? This is not true yet.

[33:04] To the third, it should be said, as Augustine says in the first book of the Trinity, then Christ will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father when the just, in whom now He rules by what faith, are brought to the division, right? To the species, right? To the form of God, that they see the very common essence, the essence common to the Father and the what Son, they see God as He is.

[33:36] And then He will be totally subject to the Father, not only in Himself, but also in His members. It's kind of a subtle thing here. Through the full partaking of the divine goodness, huh? Then also all things will be fully subject to Him by the final fulfilling of His will about them. Although even now all things are subject to Him as regards His what power, right? Huh?

[34:07] According to that of Matthew twenty-eight, "There is given to me all power in heaven and on earth." Since he's saying that Christ, as an individual man, right, is completely subject to the Father now, right? Huh? But Christ as mystical body will be completely subject to the Father later on when we all, when mystical body, see Him as He is face to face.

[34:44] Okay. Now, whether Christ is. Subject to himself. Well, this is kind of a strange thing, but I remember we were discussing this in Cajetan one time. You know, talking about I forget some part of the Summa, you know, but it's it's the thing that Thomas determines everything formally. Formality.

[35:09] He divides things up, right? We were saying about reason. I remember I said it last time, wasn't I? That in the ability to look before and after is included the ability to look for what distinctions, right? If anybody looks for distinctions and sees distinctions, it's it's Thomas Aquinas, right? In some place I forget now, it is Aristotle who says, you know, most men are not good at seeing distinctions.

[35:36] Yeah. You see all the time in the in the newspaper and and don't make fundamental distinctions. I see them. To the second one proceeds thus: it seems that Christ is not subject to himself,

[35:56] for Cyril says in his synodic epistle, this is to the council. which the synod of Ephesus received, right, is authoritative. He says neither is Christ a what servant to himself, nor is he what Lord. For it is foolish, right?

[36:25] More so, impious to thus say or to what think? Think, yeah. And this also Damascene asserts in the third book, saying, "Ah, the one being Christ cannot be a servant of himself and Lord of himself, right? " Sounds like a what contradiction? There's a couple big, big, big names here, huh?

[37:01] Damascene's always causing trouble. Typical Middle Eastern. But to that extent, he is said to be the what servant of the Father, insofar as he's subject to him. Therefore, Christ is not subject to himself, right?

[37:25] Moreover, service is said with reference to the Lord, right, to the Master. But there is not a relation of something to itself. Whence Hilary says in the book of the Trinity. That nothing is like itself or equal to itself, right? When you say that Socrates is Socrates, Socrates is the same as Socrates. That's a relation of reason, huh? Because there really aren't two Socrates to be what, to to be related to each other.

[38:03] That's what the Bill Cosby had a joke many years ago about his funeral. He wants to plan that when they put in the casket, he's going to have because he often hears this. He goes awakes and he says, "I don't hear people say, doesn't he look like himself? " I'm going to have a tape recorded. There's my voice. Don't I look like myself?

[38:34] Moreover, just as the reasonable soul and the flesh are one man, right? So God and the man are one. What Christ, Athanasius says, huh? But a man is not said to be subject to himself, or a servant of himself, or greater than himself, on account of the fact that his body is subject to his what, soul. Therefore, neither should Christ be said to be subject to himself, on account of this that his humanity is subject to his what divinity, huh?

[39:17] But against this is what Augustine says in the first book about the Trinity. Truth shows, according to this way, in which the Father is greater than Christ, according to his human nature, that he is also less than himself.

[39:37] Moreover, as he himself argues in the same place, thus is taken from the Son of God the form of a servant, or is taken on by the Son of God the form of a servant. That he does not lose the form of God, right? But according to the form of God, the nature of God, which is common to the Father and the Son, the Father is greater than the Son according to his human nature.

[40:05] Therefore, also the Son is greater than himself according to his what human nature. Moreover, Christ, according to his human nature, is the servant of God the Father, according to that of John chapter 20. I go up, I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God. But whoever is a servant of the Father is a servant of the Son. Otherwise, not all things which are of the Father would be of the Son.

[40:41] Therefore, Christ is a servant of himself and subject to himself. So let's say you. What? Very good argument for. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's going to reply very briefly to the adalia too, but.

[41:03] I answer. It should be said that as has been said, to be Lord or Master and servant is attributed to a person or a hypostasis according to some what nature. Since therefore Christ is said to be, when therefore Christ is said to be the Lord or servant of himself, or the what, the Son of God or the Word of God is the Lord of the man Christ, this can be understood in what two ways.

[41:42] In one way, that this be understood to be said by reason of another hypostasis or person, right? As if other is the person of the Word of God, lording it over, and the other of the man serving, and this pertains to the heresy of Nestorius. Whence, in condemnation of Nestorius, it is said in the Synod of Ephesus, if someone says that God or the Lord,

[42:24] that the Word, right, God, or is the Lord of the of what Christ, the Word that is from God the Father, right, and not the same and does not confess the same, rather is to be at once both what God and man, as the Word made flesh, according to scriptures, let him be accursed. This is anathema means, and in this way it is negated or denied by Cyril and what Damascene.

[43:04] And under this same sense, it should be denied that Christ is less than himself, or that he is what subject to himself. There is not one person in Christ subject to another person in Christ, right?

[43:21] In another way, it can be understood according to the diversity of natures in the one person or hypostasis, and thus we are able to say, according to one of them, in which he agrees or comes together with the Father, together he with the Father, right? Is precise to be before and to dominate, right? And according to the other nature in which he comes together with us, he is under to be under and to serve.

[44:00] And according to this way, Augustine says that the Son is less than himself, right? Okay, now Tom's going to get a little more caution here. It should be known, however, that since this name Christ is the name of the what person, just as this name Son, right? Those things per se and absolutely right are able to be said of Christ, which belong to him by reason of his person, which is eternal, right?

[44:42] And most of all, those relations. Which more properly seem to pertain to the personal hypostasis. But those things which belong to him according to human nature, more should be attributed to him with a determination. We've talked about that kind of distinction before, right? Simply, in Latin, it says "simpliciter et secundum quid." huh Sometimes simply and not simply, right? Which is also the name of one of the

[45:22] kinds of fallacies, right? The mistake for mixing up what is so simply with what is what not so simply, right? You've heard me talk about that in like Meno Plato, right?

[45:39] Can you go looking for what you don't know? Yeah. And say, well, we're paying all these guys to find the cure for cancer or something else, right? So we're paying them to look for what they don't know. Well, along comes our friend Meno. He says, "How can you look for what you don't know? You don't know what you're looking for."

[46:08] What's the answer to that? You know it in some way. Yeah, yeah. But simply, you don't know it, right? If you didn't know it in some way,

[46:19] you couldn't what direct your thinking towards it, huh? That's a very common mistake, right? Used to tell the students, you know, I know this distinction is hard to get a hold of, but but your life is based upon this because you're always doing something bad, simply speaking, because it's good in some way, or you're not doing something good for you to do, like study this course material, because in some way it's what bad.

[46:57] So we're making that kind of mistake in our daily actions all the time. Aristotle says in the Ethics, right, that the evil man, the bad man, right, is mistaken.

[47:15] He thinks that what is bad is what good, and what is good is bad, right? He's making that kind of a what mistake. Yeah, it's a very common thing, huh?

[47:34] And it's the it's it's the second kind of mistake outside of speech, right? First one is a mistake of the accidental one, which deceives even the wise, as Aristotle says, very strongly speaking. Then the second kind of mistake. For mixing up what is so simply what is, not so simply. Aristotle comes back to that that thing that we know there at the beginning of the Posterior Analytics, and he talks about, are coming to know what we don't know through what we do know.

[48:09] But you know the thing that's interesting is that when Socrates tries to answer Meno's objection, right, he makes the same kind of mistake. And Plato do that on purpose, right? You know,

[48:28] Thomas says, you know, that Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers, the principal ones, and they both seem to have arrived at some knowledge of God, right? Aristotle perhaps more perfectly than Plato, but Plato had some of that, right? You see that, and I can suppose in there the ascent to the beautiful itself, right? You know, you have to really admire Plato and as well as Aristotle, and Plato's dialogues and the

[48:56] a lot to be said for them. But those things which belong to him according to human nature should be attributed to him cum determinatione right? With the qualification.

[49:23] That, for example, we say Christ simply is what maximum, right? At dominum, ad dominum et ad servum, that he is however subject or a servant subject or a servant or less, with this determination secundum humanum naturam, right? Human nature, huh? Now sometimes I point to this thing that we do with names, where we tend to add something to the name to kind of make it for a child.

[50:05] I knew the girl whose name was Anne, Annette, and as she got older, she didn't want to be called Annette because it meant like little Anne, you see, and she wanted to be called Anne, right? So people started call your Anne instead of Annette, you know. But you kind of add that qualification, that determination, and it kind of what diminishes it, right? Huh?

[50:33] Little boy, his father's name was Jacob. He called little boy Jakey. Diminishing. Yeah. Yeah. I want a rose that he saw. Cousins there, his father's named Charles and he was named Charles. So when he's little, he was always referred to as Charlie Boy. But even as he's grown and had married and had children, he still called Charlie Boy. You

[50:59] can never quite escape that, right? So he's Charlie, but qualified, you know. Or if I say you are a mannequin, you know, that's you're a little man, right?

[51:14] Okay. So that's the way he understands the the Cyril and Damascene, right? Huh? They deny Christ is what Lord of Himself, according as to this is implied a plurality of what supposita, right? Hypostases or persons, right? Which is required that someone be what simpliciter, the Lord of another, right? Huh? Okay. So we'd say that Christ, we'd say that simply Christ is the Lord of Himself, or simply Christ is the servant of Himself.

[51:57] See, in some way he is, according to his what human nature, yeah. Okay, to the second it should be said, huh? That simply is necessary to be other the Lord and the servant, huh?

[52:28] But it is possible for some notion of what lordship and servitude, right, to be observed in so far as one is Lord of Himself according to other another, right? Okay. Now, you know, say that's not just invention of Thomas. I mean, you can say, I think there's something like self-control, right? Huh? Let me say somebody lacks self-control or he has self-control, and you know, is the controller and the controlled the same?

[53:06] Hm You're holding yourself See? Yeah, yeah. See, so one part of you is controlling the other, right? And therefore, you're said to have self-control, right? So something like this in a way, you know.

[53:24] Can I control myself? You know, control yourself. You see, to somebody sometime, you know, get in charge of yourself. You know, yeah, yeah. So it's not these ways of speaking are you know not used, huh? People don't realize sometimes, you know, when you when you When you make distinction, people say, "Well, yeah, that's our way of speaking." But then they themselves speak that way sometimes without realizing it, right?

[53:52] See, in a sense, making a distinction, right? So, you you in control of yourself in the same way you might be in control of your children.

[54:08] Yeah, There's something like this there, Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I was mentioning this text there, where I was reading in John this this morning, in fact, where you know, when reason rules, you know, the emotions and they obey reason, then reason is like the king, right? I see, and that's we're speaking. You find Shakespeare's plays too, as I mentioned.

[54:35] Okay, now to the third objection here. To third, it should be said that on account of the diverse parts of man. One of whom is above, another below, right? The philosopher says in the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics that there is justice of man to himself, right? Insofar as these two kinds of emotions, the irascible and the concupiscible, obey what reason,

[55:12] and according to this way, one man can be said to be what subject and servant according to diverse parts, right? So why can't we say this in Christ according to diverse natures, right? Okay.

[55:29] Now to the other arguments, he says is clear the response from what has been said. For Augustine asserts that the son is less than himself, or subject to himself, according to his human nature, right? Not according to a diversity of what? Supposita, right?

[55:51] It's interesting. Cyril is a big hero for the Monophysites, actually, because he was countering the stories which the old Monophysite thing was counteracting areas of the stories, Mhm. But then they went the other Yeah, yeah. yeah. They pick on it. It's like those things in Augustine. that... Yeah. And it gets more precise, in Thomas's Augustine. as he goes on, you know, It, gets more precise when he talks about grace, huh?

[56:17] Yeah. See the distinctions, huh? Yeah. I was looking at this this article there in the Questiones disputatae de Potentia there about whether the relations of father and son in the Trinity are real relations, right? Of course, Thomas is going to defend them as being real relations. But the first objection is a text I think from Damascene, which is a little bit implicit in its language, right? Huh?

[56:44] Yeah. And Thomas, you know, explains it. I think you know, got to be careful, you know. Explain it with piety. Yeah, yeah. But as Jerome says, ex verbis inordinate prolatis, heresy, right? Huh? Wasn't Damascene's writing there? whatever it was called wasn't that just a compilation of different other works or not? I don't know. What do you mean? The the one that he always quoting. Was based off of.

[57:14] Well, the Orthodox faith that work is is by him isn't it, as far as I know. Yes. Yeah. I thought that was I haven't even I haven't looked at it, so I won't, I won't comment. Yeah. But I was thinking it's just a compilation of different other people, and so I thought that maybe when he says this Damascene, maybe it's or maybe so, but. it's quite something else but Okay.

[57:37] Now we get to the I think, more interesting thing, the prayer of Christ, right? I know is in the Gospel today there that he went up and he prayed all night. He said. Thank you. Your gospel Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Did you have Simon and Jude yesterday, or what? No, no. We have a whole different year, whole year feast. Some feasts we have in common, but. I almost got out the root beer again.

[58:03] You know, when the kids were little, we had a thing on a feast of the apostle. We have root beer floats, which I particularly like. Right. So, a year of generosity, you're willing to share with it. Yeah, I think this marriage root beer and vanilla ice cream they just they're made for each other, you know. And so, so I almost got them for Alice. We'll have to remind Brother Pat to get that now.

[58:29] Whenever there's whenever there's a feast of an apostle, we root beer floats. You got to split up Simon and Judas. you can have one on one day, and we have them different days. so. Yeah, yeah. Unfortunate.

[58:43] I don't know too much about those people. I'll talk about in the Catholic Encyclopedia there, didn't seem to have too much on those guys, Simon and Judas.

[58:54] But there's kind of a controversy. Why he's called the Zealot, right? Some want to say he belongs to this party of the Pharisees, and others say no, he was very zealous in the faith. Okay, then we ought to consider about the prayer. We'll go on, or take a break, Take a break now before we begin. this Okay.