Tertia Pars
102. Seeing God as He Is, and Whether Christ Suffered in His Whole Soul (ST III q.46 a.7-8)
Class of 2010-09-23
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/102-seeing-god-as-he-is-and-whether-christ-suffered-in-his-whole/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit. Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels, to enlighten our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you have written. In the. Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit. Amen. Before we begin the text here, I wanted to give a little exegesis here of the Epistle of Saint John, the first epistle.

[0:34] There, like I think about it again because of this famous text that I'm sure you're familiar with, but you know I was talking last time about can God make something that is not like Himself, and the answer is what? No, no. no. I was reading Thomas today, he says God can't do something that isn't just That does a mimic of Himself too, this or that in particular, huh?

[1:02] Okay, this is the famous passage where he talks about the seeing God as He is, right? And he says, "Beloved Agapetoi huh We get the word from Agapet. Now we are what the Tekna Theou we are the sons of God. Okay.

[1:30] Children. Yes, just a second here. Yeah, I was going back a little bit before I wanted to start before that. Behold, he says, "What manner of love the Father has given us that we are called the sons of God, right? " Or the children of God, Tekna theou. Yeah, children. Yeah. And and he's and we are not only called but we are, okay. On account of this, he says the world does not know us, huh?

[2:12] That because it doesn't know Him, right? And then he says, "Beloved Agapetoi. now we are the children of God, right? " And it is not yet manifest or appear what we will be, okay? And then he says, "We know that when He is what made known, we will be what homoyoi, like Him, right? "

[2:44] Because we shall see Him as He is, right? Okay. Now, what does he mean there, huh? He says, "When we see him as he is, we will be like him." Right? Does he mean we're not like him yet?

[3:06] How do you understand that? Because if we're the the children of God, you must be what like him by being. You know, we are called, but are children of God. And then, when we are said to be made the image and likeness of God, even without being, you know, through grace, children of God, right? We are like him, right? When Shakespeare calls reason God-like, that's that likeness that we have in our image, being made the image and likeness of God.

[3:40] So, how do you understand the saying that we will be like him when we see him as he is? What? Without sin. Yeah, I mean, does that mean we're not like him yet? We'll be more perfectly like him. Yeah, yeah, as if by maybe antonomasia, right? You know, we will be most like him when we see him as he is, right? He just says, you know, we will be like him because we will see him as he is, huh?

[4:11] So you assume likeness to God because you're made in His image and likeness, and so Shakespeare says, you know, reason is God-like there in the exhortation, and then we're even more like him by grace, right? Whereby we are the children of God, right? But we will be most of all like him when we see him as he is, right? Okay.

[4:36] Now, when we get through with this treatise here on this, we're going to come back to the fundamental thing that God became man, right? And we're going to look at the text that we saw already earlier in the Summa Theologiae, right? And we're going to compare it with the text from the Summa Contra Gentiles, okay? And there's eight reasons given in the Summa Contra Gentiles, ten reasons given what in the Summa Theologiae, right?

[5:07] Why God became a man. This is the best way for us to be what saved, not the only way, but the best way, right? We're going to compare the eight and the ten reasons. There's some overlap. There are quite a bit of overlap, I should say, right? But the reasons are ordered a little bit differently, huh? And in the Summa, if you recall, there are ten reasons: five for the good and five for for the bad, right?

[5:36] And the five for the good start off with faith, and then hope, and then charity, and then example, and so on, and so on. Now, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the first reason that Thomas gives is not one that he gives explicitly in the Summa Theologiae. But he's already shown in the previous volume that the only way we can see God as He is, which you want to do, is if the form by which we see God is in fact God Himself.

[6:14] Unless God is joined to our reason as the form by which it sees God, you would never see God as He is. So it says in the Psalms, I guess, "In your light we shall see light." Right? Okay. And you say, well, you might say, well, could that be possible, right? That God would be joined to our mind as the form by which we see, and you might despair of such, and therefore despair of your own what happiness, right?

[6:46] How could this be be? So when God joined human nature to Himself in one person, right, then He what strengthened our hope, right? See, because hope is not only desire but a desire for what is possible. And so Thomas begins with that reason. He begins with the reason from hope rather than, and I can assume theologiae, from faith and then hope. And then he goes on to the to the reason from hope.

[7:24] I mean, from faith and the reasons for charity and so on, right? But he begins with hope, right? Okay. Now, what does John do here? Now, if you recall the text here,

[7:38] just where I just read, huh? We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is, right? And then the very next sentence after that's the second line, and everyone having this hope

[7:59] purifies himself. Okay, the Greek word there, hagnizei, right? And then later on, you know, the hagnos huh? You know, they'll translate it in English, in Latin, they'll translate it as pure, right? Pure huh It can be translated as pure or holy, right? So you make yourself pure and holy because you have this hope to see God as He is face to face, huh? Um, that's interesting, right?

[8:29] That he goes to hope rather than right talking about love, although love is involved here and faith is involved, right? But it's because hope aims at what this vision of God as He is, this vision of God face to face, as your what end or goal in life, right? The end or purpose of your whole existence, and so it's kind of natural that Thomas begins with the reason from.

[9:00] In terms of hope, because he's talking about salvation, reaching our end or our goal, and therefore he wants to start with hope. You know, so in some ways, it's something in the order of the Summa Theologiae, right? I mean, Summa Contra Gentiles that's my favorite book, by the way. Because you don't have any order in the what, Summa Theologiae, right? But there are things in that list that you don't find so explicitly in the other either, right?

[9:26] But we'll make that comparison. I was struck by this text, here, that right away it goes to hope, right? And you know how both the great Augustine and Thomas, when they talk about faith, hope, and charity, and for the Catechetical Instructions, you know, they'll talk about the creed, you know, with faith, and the Ten Commandments and the Two Commandments of love with charity, but then with hope, they always talk about what prayer, The Our Father, they expound the Our Father, right? Okay, so you want to give, in a nutshell, so to speak, Catholic or Christian doctrine, right?

[10:06] You expound the creed, right? What we believe, and you expound the Our Father, what we are to what hope for, desire, right, as well as pray for, right? And then the commandments you're supposed to obey, right, and so on. Of course, what's the first thing we ask for in the Our Father? Hallowed be thy name, right? Which is, you know, you know, one of the meanings of the word Agnes, and it can be translated as holy or pure.

[10:33] They're very almost the same meaning, holy and pure, there. And then the second thing is thy kingdom come, right? As Thomas explains, the kingdom is the ordered society of those who see God face to face as He is, right? So, you know, you got be holy, you got purify yourself in order that the kingdom will what come, and you can see God as He is, Why is the place in Thomas's reason for this He begins.

[11:07] He gives eight reasons there, right? Yeah. And the first reason is that our end is to see God as He is, right? We naturally want to see God as He is, right? But we can't see God as He is unless God is joined to our mind as the form by which we see Him. Okay. And then the question is, well, is that possible, right? You know, well, then when you have the incarnation, right, and God has joined human nature, so that it's one and the same person, right, who's God and man, right?

[11:43] Well, then your hope is what strengthened, right? It's possible for your mind to be joined in a lesser way than in the incarnation, right? But in the way to enable you to see God as He is face to face. And that's the end of the incarnation, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[12:05] But in some sense, it seems to me that hope is directed to our last end in in a way that that faith and charity are not as explicitly, but other they're connected with it.

[12:23] But hope, you're you're tending towards that. Yeah, it's related then because the definition is given of faith in Hebrews. Faith is the substance of things. Hope for it, yeah, yeah. Just kind of a foundation in in the things you hope for, right?

[12:51] It's interesting that said that substance of things loved, right? Yes. But is hope is brought in there? But anyway, it's another. So up to Article Seven here in Question Forty Six.

[13:12] To the seventh, it seems that Christ did not suffer according to his whole soul, right? For the soul suffers when the body suffers, huh? per accidens, right? Insofar as it's the act of a body, huh? First act of an actual body composed of tools. huh? It kind of gets to say first act of a body equipped with tools.

[13:41] That's the original meaning of organic body, right? But the soul is not the act of the body by every part of itself, by every power of itself, huh? For the understanding is not the act of any what body, huh? And that goes the will. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not what suffer according to his whole soul, only according to those parts of the soul that would be in the body, right?

[14:19] The sense powers and things that sort. Moreover, each power of the soul undergoes from its own what object, right? But of the superior part of reason, the object are the eternal reasons, which intending to look upon and consult, right? Augustine says in the twelfth book of Trinity. But from these eternal reasons, Christ could undergo no harm, right? Since in no way are they contrary to him. Therefore, it seems that he did not suffer according to the whole soul.

[15:00] Moreover, when the sensible passion goes so far as to get to reason, then there is a complete passion or suffering, which was not in Christ, as Jerome says, but only propassio—that's a technical term, right? So no way did it disturb, you know, the higher powers of Christ, huh? So he starts talking irrational, like we don't get angry or something, right?

[15:32] Once Dionysius says in the epistle to John the Evangelist, I guess that the those passions he underwent, right, according to judgment only, right, he only as much as he allowed them. Therefore, it does not seem that Christ suffered according to his whole soul.

[16:00] Moreover, passion causes what? Pain, huh? But in the speculative intellect, there is no pain. That's what always attracted me to speculative intellect. When I was a student, I read this, you know, and now in this context, but other contexts, that's what I want. There's really no sadness opposed to the speculative intellect, right? Either you're mistaken, you think you know the truth, so you're not sad.

[16:35] Because the pleasure which is in being in considering in considering something, there is no what sadness opposed, as the philosopher says in the first book about places there. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not suffer according to his whole soul.

[16:55] But against this is what is said in Psalm 87, huh? From the person of Christ, huh? What does Alphonse say, right? It's like another gospel, right? The Psalms when they say things about Christ. My soul is what filled with evils, huh? Not vices, right? But pains, right? By which the soul what suffers with the flesh, huh? Or the evils of the what Perish perishing people suffering with them, right?

[17:29] Like he weeps weeps over uh Jerusalem, right? But his soul would not have been filled with evils if his soul he did not suffer according to his whole soul. Therefore, Christ suffered according to his whole soul. Well, Thomas will agree that he did, but he'll make some distinctions here, right? Thomas begins a very simple point. I answer: It should be said that whole is said with regard to what or parts, huh?

[18:04] Now, sometimes, you know, they start off with the distinction of what two kinds of wholes. And one is called the integral or composed whole. The whole is put together from its parts, like this book is put together from the pages and so on. And then the other kind of whole is universal whole, right? Because universal in Greek, for example, comes from the word whole, kath' holou the word Catholic, according to the what whole, bring together kata and holas.

[18:34] And then the parts are called particulars, right? From the word part. Then there's this third kind of whole and part, huh? Which is called the potestative one, the whole power. And Aristotle, in the three books about the soul, calls the powers of the soul parts of the soul, right, huh? But it's not parts in the sense of what. Of put together to make the soul, right? Nor is it parts of the soul like species are parts of a genus, right?

[19:13] Thus, therefore, the whole soul is said to what suffer, in so far as it suffers according to its what essence, its nature, or in so far as it suffers according to all of its what powers, right? So he makes a distinction there, right?

[19:38] But should be considered, he says, that some power of the soul is able to suffer or undergo in two ways, one way by the undergoing that is proper to it,

[19:54] which is according as it undergoes from its own object, just as a sight undergoes. From the superabundance of the what visible, right? But in another way, some power of the soul

[20:16] suffers by the what undergoing of the subject which it is founded upon, right? Just as sight suffers when the sense of touch suffers, right? In the eye, huh? So if I stick a pin in your eye, you're going to suffer the, but not from what what's proper to the eye, right? That'd be more like when you have a too much light, you know, like people have snow blindness and they're climbing the mountains or something like that, huh?

[20:44] Or if they did like in the Spanish Civil War, you know, pop your eye open and shine a light in there, you go blind eventually, right? But then you're suffering what what is proper to the eye, right? If I stick a pin in there, that's because sense of what sight, like all senses, are based ultimately upon touch in some way, right? Okay.

[21:07] When the eye is is is pricked or something, right? Punched. Pierced, pierced, yeah. Or even also when it's distempered, right? Through heat, right? Get a fever. Your eyes get tired, you know, so it's more touched in sight as such. Thus, therefore, he says, if we understand the whole soul by reason of its essence, its substance, its nature, right? Thus, it is manifest that the whole soul of Christ, right, suffered.

[21:42] For the whole soul, the whole essence of the soul is joined to the body. So, as Augustine says, the whole was in the whole, and the whole was in each part, huh?

[21:56] Now, when Thomas is defending that saying of Augustine, huh? And some people, you know, misunderstand how the soul is in the body, right? Like they are. And he says it's not in the body as something is in a place, huh? Because if it's in the body as something is in a place, it couldn't be in the head and in the foot.

[22:24] You can't be two places. And it's not in the body as a part is in a what hole. But it's in the body as in form is what. Yeah, yeah. So you got to know those eight senses of in which are thought out by Aristotle in the fourth book of Natural Hearing, the Physics, right? But unlike the fifth book of Wisdom, where he orders these meanings, right?

[22:56] What he does is what just gives you the eight meanings, and Thomas in his commentary says we're going to order the eight meanings. Imitating Aristotle in the fifth book of wisdom, right? And so he orders them, right? Starting from being in place and being a part in a whole, right? And being a genus and a species and a species and a genus, and then a form and matter and the whole and the parts.

[23:22] And I got you in my power. That's the seventh sense. I left my heart in San Francisco. That's the eighth sense of end, right? Okay. He orders them perfectly, right?

[23:36] I was reading in the sentences there, a discussion of whether God's power is infinite and so on, right? What it means to say that God is infinite. Of course, the word "infinite" and it can involve negation or or lack. That's a little different, which one it is. Of what end, right? And so Thomas, when he gets into that thing, he says, "Well, as Aristotle says, Aristotle shows in the fifth book of wisdom, right?

[24:08] The word 'end' has many meanings, huh? And he recalls the first meaning of end, and then the last meaning of end, right? Because most people they falsely imagine, right, God to be infinite, huh? In the first sense of end, huh? The first sense of end is the end of a what? Line is a point. The end of a triangle is a line. The end of a cube is a square, right?

[24:46] So the the limit of some even that has quantity. God is not a body; doesn't have quantity, right? So he doesn't have a limit in that sense, or you know, a limit is not not unlimited in the way that you would imagine a body going on forever, right? Now, of course, Scripture does speak. You know, He's wider than this, and He's higher than this, and so on.

[25:07] And that's one objection, you know, about God not being a body. Remember that way back in the prima pars, right? And but Thomas says so. This is to be understood what metaphorically, huh? But it's kind of interesting because in a word like "end," huh? The word is carried over by likeness of what ratios, huh? Just like the word "first" or "beginning" is carried over by likeness of ratios, or the word "end" is carried over by likeness of ratios.

[25:40] And so metaphor is based upon likeness, right? So at first sense, you know, might be used in a metaphorical way of speaking, right? Huh? But when you try to speak properly about God, right? It's not that first sense. It's not the what second sense, huh? Which is the end of a journey or the end of a motion, right? Because God doesn't move or change, right?

[26:10] Now the third sense, you could say he's what endless in that sense because he has no purpose, God. But he is the end of all things, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, right? I was thinking about that a little bit because in in my parish, the tabernacle has got an Alpha and Omega, kind of a formalized Alpha and Omega.

[26:36] And I seen another tabernacle. I don't think they all have it, but but you see it fairly. You see it, I think, sometimes in the tabernacle. Our tabernacle has two sets of doors. First, has the initials with the holy name of Jesus in Greek. Yeah. You open that, and there's an Alpha and Omega. Yeah. And those two open, and there's angels on the other side. Yeah, yeah.

[26:57] Now I think about that the other day again, and I say, um, he's both God and man, right? But he is—is he the beginning and the end as man or as God?

[27:13] Which is it? I think as God. What? I would think as God. As God, yeah, yeah. That's kind of interesting that this is very much associated with the Eucharist, right? And so, a Eucharist, you know, from the words of consecration, his body and blood are there, right? But his soul and divinity are there as a consequence of being joined to his body and blood, huh? But it's interesting that we use this symbol Alpha and Omega because we want to emphasize the fact that he's what?

[27:46] What God says in the Apocalypse, right? I'm the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, huh? But these are very important words for you know understanding God, and they're very important for theology, right? Because basically the order of theology is to talk about God in Himself, and then God is the beginning of all things, and then God is the end of all things, right? And so in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the first book is about God in Himself or by Himself, huh?

[28:18] And the second book is about God as the beginning of everything else, and then the third book is about God as the end of all things. So that's really a key thing, right? But both of these words, beginning and end, are in the fifth book of Wisdom. Beginning is the first word, and then the word end, although it appears in discussion of causes, right? But by itself, it's taken up in the third part of Book Five, huh?

[28:48] And so, you know, if you want to understand God, I mean, uh, especially the third and the fourth sense of end, huh? The third sense of of end. In the fifth book, is purpose, huh? That for the sake of which, huh? In the fourth sense of end, is when you see a definition is an end, right? You limit something, right? Okay. And to that you attach, no way matter is limited by form and so on.

[29:22] Well, God's actuality, God's perfection is in no way limited, right? So when you say God is infinite, you're thinking primarily of the fourth sense of what? Of end in the fifth book of wisdom. It's a negation of that sense of what? End, huh? There's no limit. There's no end to God's perfection.

[29:51] But when you say God is the end of the universe, when you say I'm the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, then the meaning of end. And there is what? Third sense Third sense, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because the word end or limit in Greek, in the fourth sense is where you get the sense of definition, right? Comes from finis, and in Latin or or Greek, you know, sometimes I just say terminus, right?

[30:20] Or in Greek they'll say horos, right? So limit means what? Definition, right? What's the horos in this thing? It's his definition, and you can find the thing, and it's limited, right? And then you show that God is in no way but limited in that fourth sense. So you got to know the third sense and the fourth sense to understand how God is the end of the whole universe in the third sense of end, and how He's endless by the negation of the fourth sense of end.

[30:51] It's more important, huh? But here you have to understand the eight senses of end. I told you, you know that. I was first teaching logic at some college, you know. I got thinking about the phrase "to think out something," right? And I began to realize that there are many senses of thinking out,

[31:24] which correspond to the many senses of end. So I have to see Monsignor Dionne next time. I said, "What do you think of this way of speaking?" He says, "Marvelous! He thought it was very good to know." But then he added, "French, he can't do it in French." He says, "It's another example of the defect of French for philosophy."

[31:44] Both Monsignor Dionne and Father Boulay, whose native language was French, right? And they both insisted that English was superior to French for philosophy and for poetry, for both.

[32:02] So I used to get the French. No man, how can they? You can't give it the authority of Monsignor Dionne, you know. I mean, he says that Marcus doesn't know French, so he doesn't appreciate the language. You know, his French is so poor, you know. And but here's a guy who's native language,

[32:22] and he says so. Monsignor Dionne always said that that English is to French like Greek to Latin. Greek is superior to Latin for both philosophy and for poetry, and English is superior to French. How is English compared to Greek? Well, they're they're good rivals. Oh, yeah, good rivals. Yeah, English, English is kind of a really marvelous thing. Talked about the Hurd up there, above all, you know, in linguistics.

[32:54] Now, for him, the greatest economic for the human mind is the English language. I mean, they really see how how something about this language.

[33:08] But Thomas says, you know, people falsely imagine the soul to be in the body, as the body is said to be in place, right? Or they falsely imagine it to be in the body as a part is in a whole, right? And in neither of those senses is a soul in the body. So they can't understand the way in which the whole soul is in the whole body, but also in each part.

[33:39] And so because of that, that's actually the phrase that goes back to Augustine, right? My text gives the reference to the De Trinitate, right, Libra six. I don't remember that phrase being explicitly in Aristotle, you know. But if you look at the disputed questions on the soul, there always be an article: is the whole soul in the whole body and in each part, right? Augustine says that, and if this reference is correct, it's from the De Trinitate, Book Six, right?

[34:09] So, but Aristotle agrees with that, right? But you have to realize that this false imagination, right, the people have. It's good to know these words in there, like the word nature, right? The word nature is in the fifth book of wisdom too. It's kind of surprising that it's there because it's not, you know, properly natural philosophy. But one meaning of the word nature is what a thing is, and that's the universality of wisdom.

[34:52] I was thinking, you know, about this diversity in our civilization now. You know, Plato in the Laws, which is his last work, the Athenian Stranger there, he proposes a law against homosexuality. And the reason for it is that it's against what nature, right? Okay.

[35:17] Now, abortion, obviously, but even contraception, right? They're both against nature, too, right? But if you go back to the word nature, the very first meaning of nature, as you can see in prenatal, postnatal, nativity, is birth, right? So it's very clear in the word itself that homosexuality and abortion, right, and even contraception, you know, contraception is against birth, right? Against nature, it's still clear, right? If you understand the word nature.

[35:56] And therefore, it's wrong. So, I often remark how Aristotle, you know, Aristotle himself remarks how the most common mistake in thinking is from mixing up the senses of a word. I said, only a mind that depends upon the senses could make this kind of mistake, right? That for this one word, they think there's one what thing or one meaning.

[36:38] I told you that you know, sophistic argument I give sometimes, you know, against the axiom that a whole is more than the part. And I say, well, I start off and I say, well, man is an animal. Yeah, man is an animal. Yeah. Then I'll quote my mother's saying. No, I should make my saying. Man is an animal. And I, I say, well, I mean, it's an animal that has reason.

[37:03] Okay, well, that's better," she'd say. So then you get the point across that although man is an animal, that's not the whole of what man is, right? So animal is only a part of what man is. And then I go on and say, but animal includes besides man, dog, cat, horse, elephant. So sometimes the part contains more than the whole. Oh yeah, yeah. They're all taken in by this, right?

[37:29] And what you're doing here is confusing those two senses that Aristotle gives of whole in the fifth book of wisdom, the composed whole, the whole that is put together from its parts, and the universal whole, which is set of its parts, right? And so the axiom that the whole is more than the part, you know, to be explicit, in the case the composed whole, it means that the composed whole is put together from more than just one of its parts.

[38:01] And for the universal whole, it's set of more than just one of its parts. And so they're confusing the two, right? Because when you say animal includes besides man, dog, cat, horse, you're talking about animal, is universal whole, containing man, animal, and all the other species. And it's set of more than any one of those. So it's more in the way that that whole is more than its part.

[38:28] And then you talk about the definition of man as an animal that has reason, right? Then animal is a composing part of the definition of man, and is not the whole of man either, right? So you mix those two senses, and you get the students there denying, you know, the axiom that Euclid gives us, and we use all the time, right?

[39:00] You know, some people are scandalized. You know, and they maybe an argument against the faith. You know, because some of them are hard to answer right now. I can give an argument against something obvious that the whole is more than apart. and the students are tied up on it, right? Well, how much more easy it would be, you know, to give an argument. You might have trouble, right?

[39:23] Not the trundies. Yeah, yeah. I remember reading somewhere something about the church fathers. You know, as being commendable for holding on to the faith before they could answer some of these arguments, right? Yeah. In the course of time, you know, you get these great minds like Augusta and Thomas. And pretty hard to get arguments they can't answer. But

[39:46] sometimes the merit, the merit of the faith would be to say that well, if you can't necessarily refute this thing directly, you can say, well, I'm not sure what this means, but. I know it doesn't mean that. Yeah, yeah. It's easier, sort of, depending on authority. Take care of myself a lot of times. Now I really understand it very well. Something or else. Next time, a little bit better.

[40:15] Next time, a little more. Be patient, you know. Patient with my own. You didn't appreciate Mozart the first time here. No, for no, for what? My my two brothers brought home the magic flute of Mozart, and I listened to the whole thing. Dull, you know, docile. I didn't really hear anything. It's just you know,

[40:37] like Samuel Johnson saying he didn't, he wasn't blessed with the ear for music, right? I listened to the clarinet today this morning. Okay. So he quotes this truth now, which we can go back and study and study the soul. I think we did before a little bit that the whole is in the whole, and the whole in each part, and therefore the body suffering.

[41:14] And being and being disposed to be suffering, meaning it's near death. Yeah, yeah. The whole soul what suffers, right? Okay. But if we understand by the whole soul, according to all of its what powers, then in that sense, the whole soul is not in what every part of the body, right? Not according to all its powers. It's in the eye, according to the power of seeing, and in the stomach there for the power of digesting, and so on.

[41:42] And some powers, like the reason, the will, is not in the body at all. One of my colleagues there, former students, you know, was reading the Canadian doctors now who are

[41:59] electrically, you know, stimulating parts of the brain and saying, "What do you see?" You know, and so on. Oh, talking Sunday, you know. Yeah. And

[42:08] but they know the guys doing with the thing, you know, but but they just never get an act of will. Yeah. And so he decides to put it. The will is not in the brain. It's not there. It's not in the body. Look someplace else.

[42:32] Well, that's what I. Whether it's these same experiments that Father Anthony Kramer used to tell us about, they did this thing where the guy would stimulate the brain with some electric thing. Guy's arm would go up, and then the the scientists would say, "Do that again." He says, "I didn't do this. You did this." So it's sort of a back door to this part of the soul.

[42:54] Yeah. It's not in the body. But they didn't make any shoes though. That's what I couldn't say. Yeah. Yeah. Where did you say this

[43:08] Well, no, it comes from De Trinitate of Augustine, right? Okay. Book six. Yeah, they don't give the reference here, but yeah, Merriam-Edwards is good that way, you know. One thing that Merriam-Edwards is good for is it'll give you the what they call the parallel, you know. Richard Thomas talked about this elsewhere, you know. So if you're studying something in particular, you can go and find right away those passages, you know.

[43:31] So it's just nice. This edition has most of them, but that has more. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's it's good that way. But it's a it it isn't a more general principle.

[43:47] Like it probably didn't originate with Augustine. Well, no, it agrees with what Aristotle says, but it's not explicitly that phrase, you know. In my text is, in fact, italicized, right? Yeah. In the references to Augustine, but if you go to see it at the *Spiritual Questions on the Soul*, right? There'll be an article about this. Okay. And you'll see that it goes back to Augustine, that kind of he's kind of when he's phrased, but Aristotle understood that too, right?

[44:14] Okay. And as I say, as reading the sentences, there, Thomas, you know, points out this kind of a a double false imagination, huh? And false imagination is the chief cause of deception, right? Imagining something other than it is, or trying to imagine something that cannot be imagined, huh? Yeah. And you really get into trouble, right? No, Socrates there in the *Parmenides*, you know, he's trying to understand the universal, and he's a young man, of course, and *Parmenides* is questioning him.

[44:45] It's like a sail, you know, that's spread over these things. Well, if man was like a sail, you know, Proaves, you'd have only part of the sail over you. It's the only big part of what a man is. But the whole what a man is is found in you, and in you, and you, and so on. But he's he's kind of resolving to the what imagination, huh?

[45:08] That's why it's a bad idea in logic, you know. You have these circles, you know, and all this sort of stuff, you know. Intrinsically evil, I think. Yeah.

[45:20] Okay. So if we understand the whole soul by reason of its essence or nature, right, then it's manifest that the whole soul of Christ suffers, right? But then goes on the next paragraph. But if we understand the whole soul according to all of its powers, right, huh? Thus, in speaking about the what undergoings that are proper to each power, right? It does suffer according to all the lower powers, right, huh?

[45:49] Because in the in each of the lower powers of the soul, which act and guide the temporal things, there is found something that is a cause of what pain, Christ, huh? But according to this. Superior reason, right, does not suffer in Christ on the side of its object, to wit, God, right? Which was not to the soul of Christ a cause of what, pain, but of pleasure and joy.

[46:29] But according to that way of passion in which a some power is said to suffer on the side or from the side of its what subject, right? In that sense, all the powers of the soul of Christ, what, suffered, right? Insofar as they're rooted in the soul, right? For all the powers of the soul are radicantur rooted in the essence, huh? The word radicatur, radicantur, to which the what passion arises when the body suffers, right?

[47:03] Of which the soul is the act. It's a famous definition of the soul: the first act of a natural body equipped with tools or composed of tools. What's

[47:19] more, manifestly for the sake of something than a tool. The modern biologists use the word organic without realizing it comes from the Greek word for tool, right? And so, use the common word tool instead of organ, right? The choice of word there that we all use points out that there's for the sake of something there, right? Yeah, it's like what's organic food, calamari or something squid.

[47:49] Yeah. Now, so applying the first objection here, the first, therefore, it should be said that although the understanding, according as it is a certain what power, is not an act of the what body, right? Then the essence, nevertheless, of the soul is an act of the body, huh? The substance, the nature of the soul, and in that what essence of the soul is rooted radicantur In, the understanding power, huh?

[48:34] As has been shown in the first part. To see the distinction he's making there, right? It's not from its own object it's suffering, right? But insofar as it's rooted in the soul, which is in fact the act of the body.

[48:53] Now the second one here, which is taken from the superior part of reason, considering the eternal reasons, right, which are delightful not anyway. And he says, to that second, it should be said that that argument proceeds about the undergoing, which is on the side of the what? Yeah, the power's own object, right?

[49:19] According to which, superior reason in Christ did not suffer, right? So, superior reason of Christ did not suffer from its object. If it suffered at all, it's because it was rooted in the soul, which is the act of the body, right? Now, the third one, I can anticipate this because I've seen that term before, "propassio," right now, but it's kind of a diminution of the word "passio," right?

[49:47] Okay. I suppose in English now, the word "passion" like the word "emotion," right now. If I say you're you're emotional, you're getting emotional, it means that your reason is being affected. A bit, right? You're not quite, quite yourself, right? And so, in that sense, Christ didn't have emotion, right?

[50:12] So they coined this word, "propassion," right? That Christ underwent these emotions, but not in a way that disturbed the use of his what reason? So even he was angry at the Pharisees, there, right? The hardness of their hearts, It says in the Gospels, he was not what thrown off his, his cool, you know.

[50:40] Talk about Obama. He's very cool, you know, even in objections, you know, huh? And they had on the TV the other night there. He was speaking in one of the states there. I forget which state it was. And this black lady got up, right? And she said she had voted for him, you know. But is this what we were promised? Oh, wow! He's smiling. He's very calm.

[51:00] There's nothing wrong with what he's been doing, but he's a cool, cool fish, you know. But even during Christ was was cool, right? Yeah. You know. Yeah, he said he was addressing some school children, and he had a teleprompter. Yeah, yeah, he did. Yeah, grade school. Yeah. So we don't know how how how great he is, or. So anyway, but the thing is apparently it's a myth that he's real, the real eloquent man.

[51:28] Well, that's what I remember when he right after he got elected or right before somebody was. I forget where I heard this. Somebody said, "Somebody's complaining about he's he's bad about this. He's bad about that. " Well, can't you say anything good about him? He reads a speech very well.

[51:48] It's being said about him during the campaign. Yeah, He he- he's a he is a fine speaker. He has good delivery and everything. I suppose as long as he has a text to follow, but I've heard it said, as I never seen, that if he ever has to do anything impromptu where he stumbles over himself, all over the place, he's like, "I can't put two words together."

[52:11] Who writes his speeches? And a number of people are responsible. Speeches are. Okay, so this third argument then is pointing this out, right? Then he says dolor, right? Pain, suffering, is said to be a perfect what passion undergoing, to which the soul is what disturbed, right? That when the passion, of the sensitive part, arrives at changing reason from the rectitude of its own what? Act. that it follows the passion, right?

[52:52] Tries to compare, you know, to a man who's using Plato's comparison, there, you know that. Reason is to emotions like a man is to the horse, right? Now a man gets on top of the horse. The first thing the horse does, it throws him off, right? So you got to keep on getting back on top of him, right? Huh? But the man who doesn't really control his emotions is like the man who gets thrown off the horse who's got his foot still in the things he's being dragged through the dirt by the horse, running away.

[53:20] That's why your reason is being dragged through the mud, you know, by by your emotions, you know. And that happens to all of us to some extent, right? But not never to Christ, right? Huh? You know, he was never being dragged by his emotions to say nasty things and you're going to hell or something, you know. Yeah, yeah. Kind of impressed with his kind of funny, funny

[53:47] side, so yeah. Okay. And does not have what free choice over it, right? Thus, the passion, the sensitive part, did not arrive in Christ as far as reason, right? Huh? The faculty itself, but on the side of the subject, right? Insofar as it's rooted in there.

[54:16] The same thing about the speculative intellect, which I delighted, right? Huh? The speculative intellect does not have any what pain or sadness on the side of its object, which is the true, absolutely what considered, not applied to any action. I want to do that. Which is perfect. Which is his perfection, right? Huh? But there can nevertheless pertain to it pain or sorrow, the cause of them, in the way said, insofar as it's rooted in the essence of the soul, right?

[54:53] So you see, Socrates talks about that in the dialogues. You know, the the pleasure of eating has, and in the apology, right? The pleasure of eating has a pain opposed to it, namely what hunger, right? And and the pleasure of taking a nap or going to bed at night has associated with the pain of being up. It's a fair night time. Sometimes I said, yeah, I'm going to start taking my pills.

[55:23] I'm going to I'm going to fall asleep after my pills. I'm still awake enough to get to bed. Well, you see, for for the pleasure of understanding, you know, a theorem of Euclid, right? There's no opposing what pain, right? Huh? I mean, Socrates kind of arguing this can't be the greatest thing if to the pleasure of eating or the pleasure of sleeping or what it may be, there's attached something bad, namely the pain of hunger, right?

[55:58] And you know the old saying of my grandmother, your grandmother, I guess, hunger makes good sauce, right? Yeah. You know, so you got to be hungry to really enjoy your food, right?

[56:10] When you drive across the country, there, you know, you tend to snack on something to stay awake, you know, and then you stop for a dinner or something like that, and you know, you don't have an appetite. I don't have an appetite. Yeah. You know that junk food, right? Yeah. So to enjoy your food, you've got to be hungry, right? Yeah. But then you got to suffer.

[56:27] Yeah. So you got to suffer too. Yeah. Or Socrates about you know to enjoy, it's really good to be able to scratch yourself sometimes, right? But then you've got to have. So Socrates makes you know real fun of his opponents, right? You know they want to get themselves all itchy, almost so they can enjoy that.

[56:46] But it shows these seem to act the greatest good because they're they're always associating like that. One is, you know. Mm-hmm. Uh. So you know the the idea, you know, you you're hungry, which is pain, right? Then you eat, then you overeat, then you get pain again. Socrates, how could this be the the best thing in life? You know. Yeah. What is a man if his chief good and market of his time is but to sleep, and feed, feed, and sleep.

[57:12] There's a there's a passage I just reread a passage from Belloc's The Four Men. Have you ever read that? Mm. He talks about the worst thing in the world and the best thing in the world. It's kind of a parody on this type of thing. It's it's yeah. Okay. Let's do the article. Yeah.

[57:35] This is kind of a surprising thing, you know, when you first see it. To the eighth one goes for it. Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ at that time of his passion, right? Huh? Did not enjoy the whole what? Yeah. All right. Did not have the blessed enjoyment. The first obvious objection is it's impossible at the same time to be what sad and joyful, because pain and joy are contraries, right?

[58:10] Seems like a good principle, right? So Aristotle is using all the time in the eighth book of natural hearing. But the soul, but the whole soul of Christ, right, suffered pain at the time of his passion. Therefore, he was not able, as a whole, to what?

[58:33] Moreover, the philosopher says in the seventh book of the ethics, so he talks about pleasure and pain, somewhat. that sadness, if it is vehement, right, not only impedes the what contrary delight, right, but anyone and conversely, right? Huh.

[58:52] But the pain of the passion of Christ was maximus, huh? Greatest. And likewise, the pleasure of the enjoyment of the vision is maxima, right? As in the first of the second part, of the first part huh That's where he talks about the end of man, right?

[59:13] And therefore, it's not possible that the soul, the whole soul of Christ, at the same time, right, suffers and enjoys. He's going to get all this, huh? Yeah. Houdini, huh? He's been he's been tying himself up, you know.

[59:31] Moreover, that blessed enjoyment is according to what the knowledge and love of divine things, as is clear by Augustine in the first book of the Christian doctrine, right?

[59:47] That's the place where Augustine, you know, says we should what use the things that should be used and enjoy the things that should be enjoyed and don't try to enjoy the things that be used and use the things that should be enjoyed, yeah. But not all powers of the soul attain to knowledge and what to knowing and loving God. Therefore, the whole soul of Christ did not what enjoy.

[1:00:15] But against all this is what Damascene says in the third book, huh? That the divinity of Christ permits his flesh to act and suffer the things which are what proper to it, huh? Therefore, for a like reason, it's proper to the soul of Christ, insofar as it is blessed, that it would enjoy, right? Huh? The passion not impeding its what fruition, kind of a separation of. Of things.

[1:00:49] Now, what is Thomas going to say here? I answered, he says, "Huh, that it has been said before, the whole soul can be understood in two ways, right? According to its essence or nature or substance, and according to all its what powers, right? Because in one case you're talking about it as a totative whole, right? In the other case, you're talking about the wholeness of its what nature, right?

[1:01:20] If, however, one understands according to its essence, then the whole soul enjoys, insofar as it is in fact the subject of the higher part of the soul, to which it belongs to enjoy the what divinity, right? That just as the passion by reason of the essence is attributed to the superior part of the soul, so also conversely, the enjoyment by reason of the superior part of the soul is attributed to the what essence, huh?

[1:02:00] If, however, we take the whole soul by reason of all its powers, thus the whole soul does not what enjoy, neither directly, because enjoyment is not the act of just any part of the soul, right? Huh? Nor by an overflowing, huh? Redundancy, redundancy. I think they're redundant. Overflowing, because when Christ was what on the way, when he's a viator, right? A wayfarer. sometimes they translate viator, Do they translate the wayfarer?

[1:02:35] But it becomes a via via, which means way, huh And the way they treat the way in English. Because when Christ was a viator, and therefore not yet what his body didn't yet reach its end, right? There did not come about a what overflowing of glory from the superior part to lower part, nor from the soul to the what body By that clarified. But because neither conversely was the higher part of the soul

[1:03:11] was not impeded, right? Huh? Through that which was proper to it through the what lower part. Consequently, it is that the higher part of the soul perfectly enjoyed Christ's suffering, right? That's hard for us to understand, right? There's kind of a wall there between the two, right? You said that was the last question we had about the miracles of Christ, because the transfiguration was the one time we had that yeah overflow, yeah, and it was by way of kind of a miracle.

[1:03:42] Yeah, explains there. It's kind of interesting. But a temporary thing at that time, you see. But then after after the resurrection, yeah. Now what about these things being opposites? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the joy of enjoyment, the vision of God, right, is not contrary directly to the pain of what passion, because they are not about the what same thing. For nothing prevents contraries being within the same thing, but not according to the same, right?

[1:04:24] Just that Christ, as as man, was mortal, right? He was not more, but but by his divinity, he was never he was immortal, right? So he's both mortal, and immortal, but not according to the same, right?

[1:04:41] And thus the so nothing he says prevents contraries belonging to the same, if it's not according to the same. And thus the joy of fruition can pertain to the superior part of reason through its own what act, but the pain of the passion according to its own what subject. To the essence of the soul pertains the pain of the passion, from the side of the body of which the soul is the form, right?

[1:05:15] Substantial form. But the joy of fruition on the part of the what power to which it is what subject. Now what about the authority of great Aristotle here, right? Well, to the second, it, should be said that that word of the philosopher has truth by reason of the redundancy, which is natural, fit from one part of the soul to another, right? But this was not so in Christ, right?

[1:05:47] Because he did not allow this to take place. And the third one is what that reason proceeds about the totality of the soul as regards its what powers.

[1:06:05] Take a little break here now.