De Anima (On the Soul)
76. Replies to the Objections, the Central Question of Philosophy, and Thessalonians 5 and Psalm 99: Rejoice, Pray, Give Thanks
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/076-replies-to-the-objections-the-central-question-of-philosophy/

[0:00] Okay. Now let's look at the reply to the objections here. The first objection was that there can't be many immaterial substances of the same kind, right? And the soul is immaterial substance. Well, Thomas would agree that if you have a complete immaterial substance, right, there can't be two of the same kind. But the soul, although subsistent, able to exist by itself, is. proportioned to this body as the form of a body.

[0:36] So he says to the first. Therefore, it should be said that although the understanding soul does not have a matter from which it is right, in that way, just like the angel, right? Nevertheless, is the form of some matter, yeah, which does not belong to the what angel, right? And therefore, according to the division of matter, there are many what souls of one kind, huh? So it's proportional to that, right?

[1:11] But many angels of the same kind is altogether impossible, right? They are not able to be many angels of the same what species? Yeah, same exact kind, huh?

[1:29] And the second objection was saying, well, if you multiply the souls by the bodies, then when the bodies are gone, yeah, then the distinction of the souls would disappear. And

[1:43] I was making that home to comparison there of the nuts and the bolts, right? Where the bolts are made for this nut, right? Yeah. But it doesn't mean that the bolts will not be distinct one from another if the nuts were what gone, yeah. Yeah. But still, it still has proportion to that particular bolt nut. But. To the second, it should be said that each thing, in this way, has unity in which it has being, huh?

[2:15] And you get to the fourth book of wisdom, you'll see this more fully. Aristotle will show how unity and being go together, right? And that's why things try to preserve the unity, just as they try to preserve their what being, yeah. So you divide something, right, and you destroy it, huh? So he's coming back to that principle. Each thing, in that way, has unity in which it has being, and consequently, there is the same judgment about the multiplication of a thing as one or being many, and about its being.

[2:58] But it is manifest that the understanding soul is according to its being united to a body as a form, and nevertheless, as we saw in the previous question, we saw the soul subsistent. Nevertheless, with the body being destroyed, the understanding soul remains in its being. Well, in the same way, right, for the same reason, the multitude of souls is according to the multitude of bodies. And nevertheless, the body is being destroyed, the souls remain multiplied in their what being, huh?

[3:34] So, just as the being of the soul, right, is shared by the body, but it's a being that the soul has by itself, right, not only in the body. So, since unity follows upon being, the two go together. The soul has a unity, right, that the body shares in, but that the soul has by itself. And so, the same way for multiplicity, which is a number of what many ones, huh?

[4:08] So, if there are many souls, there are many existences and many unities, right? And therefore, if the existence is independent of the body, then the unity is.

[4:23] But nevertheless, you can say that what it's made for that body, right, and proportional of that body. In the resurrection, you don't have to worry about my soul getting into your body or vice versa. Like I have these stupid TV dramas sometimes. Now, the third objection was based on the fact that if my understanding is individual, right, then how do you understand the universal, right?

[5:00] Thomas says to the third, it should be said that the individuation of the one understanding, or of the form by which it understands, does not exclude the understanding universals. Otherwise, right, since the separated understanding, the separated substances are subsisting substances and therefore individuals, they would not either be able to understand the universals, huh? So, by having a separated what substance understands for all of us, he's not going to avoid that substance being an individual, right?

[5:39] And so the same objection would apply to that. But the materiality, the material character of the one knowing, and of the form by which it knows, is what impedes knowledge of the what universal. The fact that it's in this or that part of matter, right?

[6:01] For just as every action is according to the mode of the form by which the agent acts, as heating according to the mode of the heat, so knowledge is according to the mode of the form by which the knower knows.

[6:17] But it is manifest that the common nature is distinguished and multiplied by. The individuating principles, which are on the side of matter. If, therefore, the form by which there is knowledge were material, not separated from the conditions of matter, it would be a likeness of the nature, the species, of the genus, according as that nature is distinct and multiplied through individuating principles, and thus it would not be able to know the nature of the thing in its community.

[6:53] But if the species is separated from the conditions of individual matter, separated from the continuous, it would be a likeness of the nature without those things which distinguish and multiply it, and thus it would know the universal.

[7:12] And it does not make any difference, as far as this is concerned, whether there is one understanding or many, because even if there is one only, it would be necessary for it to be some individual, right? And the species which it understands is something individual. So the species, being something immaterial, can be a likeness of the what universal, right? What's common to many. In the same way, if you look at the definition, right?

[7:47] What's the definition of circle? See, it's a plane figure contained by one line, every point of which is equidistant from a point interior called the center. Now, is that a definition of this circle over here on the left?

[8:06] Or is it the one on the right that's the definition? Oh, it's both. Well, in a way, it's neither, right? Because what separates the here or there is left out of the definition of circle, right? Yeah, the definition is a likeness of what is common to both of those circles, right? Yeah. So the so though my definition is in my mind, right? In that sense, it's a definition, an individual definition, right?

[8:35] It's a definition of what is universal. It's a likeness of what is universal. And so the understandable form, the form which we understand, it's a likeness of the universal. But if it were material, it would have to be a likeness only of a what individual, because it would involve that which makes something individual.

[9:02] Now the fourth was something like that. The same difficulty there. To the fourth, it should be said that where the understanding is one or many, that which is understood is one,

[9:16] for that which is understood is not in the understanding by itself, right? But according to its likeness, for the stone is not in the soul, as Aristotle says, but the form of the stone, as is said in the third book about the soul. And nevertheless, the stone is that which is understood, not the what species of stone, the form of stone, except by the reflection of the understanding upon itself.

[9:48] Otherwise, the sciences would not be about things, but about the understandable forms. But it could happen that to one thing, diverse things could be assimilated by diverse what forms, huh? Just like when I take the cookie press, right? All these cookies are what like the one what form cutter. Yeah, yeah. So it's possible for many things to be a likeness of the but same thing.

[10:24] And because knowledge comes about through the assimilation of the one knowing to the thing known, it follows that. From by diverse things, huh? Excuse me. That the same thing is able to be known by diverse knowers, right? As is clear in the case of the senses. For many seeing the same color, for many see the same color by different what? Likenesses, huh? Or they hear the same music, right, huh?

[10:58] And likewise, many understandings understand the same thing understood. But there is this difference between the sense and the understanding, according to the position of Aristotle, that a thing is sensed according to that disposition which it has outside the soul. In its what particularity, right?

[11:24] For the nature of the thing which is understood is outside the soul, but it does not have that way of being outside the soul, in which it is understood. For one understands the common nature, leaving aside the individuating principles. But it does not have this way of being outside the soul. So the thing is universal when it's what in the understanding, right? Outside the understanding, it's singular.

[11:55] But according to the position of Plato, had a world of forms, right? The thing understood in that way is outside the soul, which is understood. For he posited that the natures of things are separated from matter and even outside of our soul, right? Remember that goes back to that central question of philosophy. Remember that one. Does

[12:19] Does truth require right? I know the author of it from you did before. Call back your attention. Thank you. I don't think I was here for this.

[12:38] Does truth require that the way we know be the way things are? Does truth require that the way we know be the way things are? I call that the central question of philosophy.

[13:14] I call it the central question of philosophy because just as all the radii of a circle meet at the center of the circle, right? So everything the philosopher talks about and his goal come together in this question. Because the philosopher talks either about the way things are, like the way the soul is, for example, right, or the way natural things are, or in political philosophy, the way political things are, and so on, or we talk about the way we know, like in logic, and so on.

[13:47] And the end of the philosopher is to know the truth. This is a question that brings together what the philosopher talks about and his ender goal. Now, there are two possible answers to this question, which are yes, yes, no.

[14:14] And Plato seems to be answering yes, and Aristotle is answering no. So this is something that separates the two chief philosophers, and it could go down through the history of philosophy. Maybe the history of philosophy before, but to go down to the history of philosophy, you could say, does Plato or Aristotle have more followers?

[14:47] And probably you can point out more people who are following Plato. Yeah. Now, the Aristotle. I think the reason why we'd be apt to answer yes to this question is because we all have in mind the truth in some ways the agreement of the mind with things, the harmony of the mind with things, and so that might make you think that the way we know has to be the way things are, otherwise the mind is not in harmony or agreement with things.

[15:29] Well, what the soul or what the reason says about things has to agree with them, right? So when reason says that what is is, and what is not is not, then it's saying the truth, right? When it says what is is not,

[15:57] or what is not is, then it's saying falsehood, right? But the first place where we we saw there in natural philosophy, Aristotle touching upon this, was when he talked about mathematical abstraction and so on? And he raised the question there: Can reason know in distinction? Can reason truly know in distinction, in separation? Things that don't exist in separation.

[16:38] Yes. Now, when Thomas explains that, he'll start with something. We have two things that are joined accidentally. Like, for example, I am a philosopher and I am a grandfather. Okay. Now, can you know that I am a philosopher without knowing anything about my being a grandfather? Yes. And vice versa, can the nurse there at the hospital know me truly to be a grandfather and know nothing about my being a philosopher?

[17:11] Yeah. So, by being a philosopher or my being a grandfather, both of which are found in me, one can be known without the other, right? Or my being white, huh? Without my being a philosopher, or vice versa, right?

[17:32] Okay. Now you see this in a way in the senses beforehand. The eye knows the whiteness of the sugar without its sweetness. The sense of taste knows the sweetness of the sugar without its whiteness Color, yeah. Now is you could say the knowledge of the eye is incomplete. It doesn't know everything that's in the sugar, right? Right. But is it false? No. No. Incomplete knowledge is not the same thing as being false.

[18:12] Okay. Now, if I said, you know, that the sugar is not sweet, then I'd be false, right? Or if I said the sugar is not white,

[18:28] I'd be false. But saying it's white, leaving out that it's sweet or vice versa, there's no falsity there, right? So Aristotle's pointing out that we can know things in separation that don't exist in separation, right? Now, in the case of mathematics, if I had ice cube here and a wooden cube and a plastic cube and so on, Aristotle would say you can understand that shape of cube without plastic, without wood, without what?

[19:06] Yeah. Now, in the world, does there exist a cube that is not wooden or plastic or some other material? Or you can understand sphere without rubber ball, without steel ball or marble, like a marble you played with as a kid. Ah, even though it doesn't exist in the world, a sphere that isn't either a glass one or a rubber one or a wooden one or plastic or some other material, right?

[19:38] Okay. Aristotle says if it can be understood without that, right? Now, notice that case is different from the white and the sweet because I can understand sphere without rubber ball. Yeah. But I couldn't understand a rubber ball without a sphere. So one is understandable without the other, but not vice versa, right? Okay. But likewise, can I understand what's common to you and I,

[20:12] leaving aside the differences between you and I? Can I know what a white man and a black man have in common, leaving aside whiteness and blackness and the other color that a man might have?

[20:30] Aristotle says the falsity would come if you said the way we understand man in separation from black and white and all colors. If you were to say that, therefore, in reality, there's a man that is neither white nor black nor yellow nor any other color. Right. But I can understand what's come to you and the black man, the yellow man, right? Leaving aside your what differences, son.

[21:02] Now the same way you can say about order, right? Can I know things truly in the reverse order that they come in reality? Well, Sherlock Holmes says we're going to have to reason backwards, son. And Watson says, "What do you mean? We're going to have to reason from the effect back to the cause. Is our mind false in knowing the effect before the cause?

[21:36] When in things the cause is before the effect. A murder has been committed. Who did it? Say. We're working our way back, right? As I say to the students, I know you before I know your parents,

[22:02] and I might know your parents before I know your grandparents. Am I false in knowing you before I know your parents? When your parents came before you, right? But in my knowledge, you come before your parents.

[22:26] The falsity would come is if you attributed to things the order of your knowing. because you are before your parents in my knowledge. Therefore, in the real world, you came before your parents.

[22:43] That's what Hegel does. So you can see a bit in those things, son, that the way we know doesn't have to be the way things are. We can know things in distinction that don't exist in what? Yeah. We can know things in even the contrary order, which they are.

[23:15] We know the effect before the cause, son. Or I know what water before hydrogen, right? But if water is in fact H2O. Then hydrogen is before water, right? But after, in my knowledge, is my knowledge false? No, no. The falsity would come if you identify the two. Now you read Spinoza, right? Spinoza says the order in our thoughts and the order in things is the same. And Hegel takes it over from him, right?

[23:58] And since we tend to know the what general before the particular, right? Then Hegel makes the most general and the most confused idea of our mind the idea of being, the beginning of all things. And so he identifies the most confused thought in our mind with the one that said, "I am who am." See, confusing those two different senses of general, right? We talked about the Shakespeare puns on right.

[24:34] So he's alluding to this, huh? In the sense, what Plato's doing, huh? Plato thought that because I know things, right, truly by definitions and so on, right? And the definition is of the universal in separation from what all singulars, right? If we're truly knowing through definitions, as he thought he were, right, then truly in things the universal must exist in separation from what singulars. Otherwise, the way we know would not be the way things are, and there'd be falsehood there, right?

[25:13] So, in order to make the way we know, which is by definitions, right, correspond to the way things are, he said that just as in the definition there's nothing of the what material singular, right? So in things there's a world of forms, right, which can which correspond to our definitions, right? And likewise, he had this mathematical world, right, corresponding to geometry and arithmetic. He ends up with the three-decker world, so to speak: sensible material world, the mathematical world, and then the world of the what forms.

[25:58] And in a way, it's because he's convinced that we have truth in geometry as we do, and then we have truth through definitions as Socrates showed, right? If you add a yes to that, you're going to have to conclude that there's a mathematical world in addition to this world and the world of forms. Now, I see those who follow Plato answering yes sometimes have quite different positions.

[26:25] Like Ockham in the 14th century, he answered yes to this question. Really. But he knew that there wasn't a world of forms. So he said well then we don't know we don't know anything. See, and so that was the skepticism that spread to universities in the 14th century. You think our skepticism is bad, which is very bad too, at our universities. But in those days, it was a big scandal, right?

[26:51] Outside of them, We don't know things the way they are, as outside of our mind there's only singulars, right? Right. And all our knowledge is universal, or our scientific knowledge is universal. So there's no truth there in our knowledge. Forget about it.

[27:08] You find that somewhat, you know, in a less radical form in English empiricists. So, as What else he's alluding to there at the end of the reply to the fourth objection, huh but according to the sentencium of Plato, the position of Plato, right? the thing understood. in that way is outside the soul in which is understood. For he posited that the natures of things, natures of man and dog and so on, exist right, separated from matter, right, and outside the soul.

[27:52] Okay. Now the fifth objection is very brief because we're going to take this up more later on. Question one seventeen. That science is other in the in the student and in the teacher, right? So my knowledge is not your knowledge, numerically speaking. But in what way does caused will be shown in the what? Seventeen. Yeah, yeah.

[28:21] Because that involves what Socrates said, right? That in a way learning is what recalling, right? All right. And Socrates says, you know, I'm intellectual midwife. He's helping you to give birth, right? You know, to knowledge that's already in you, at least in potency. Huh? How do you think about Augustine? Augustine is simply saying in that text Thomas says that

[28:51] there aren't many souls differing in kind, right? Huh? But there are many individual souls. Augustine is not going to deny that. So maybe try look at Article three here if we take a little break now. Sure. Okay. I don't know if we have time to do Article three, or also I can give you a lecture on Thessalonians. and the psalm is I think ninety nine in the correct numbering, but sometimes it's numbered a hundred, right?

[29:23] And they sing it in church sometimes, you know, there's a version of it, especially in the church and so on. But the way the psalm goes, it says, "Sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, huh? Come before him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God; he made us, his we are, his people, the flock he tends.

[29:54] Enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. Give thanks to him, bless his name, for he is good. The Lord whose kindness endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations, son. Now, I remember one time when the kids were little, you know, I thought we should, you know, find a song to say with them, you know. This one here seems very appropriate for little children to sing.

[30:19] You know, sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands, huh? But notice, huh? In the first part of the psalm, you twice. Talk about joy, right? At least. So it begins with the first verse: "There, sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, right? " But there you are talking really about obeying the Ten Commandments, right?

[30:45] You know, which is tied up with loving God. If you love me, you do my commandments, right? And then it says, "Come before me with joyful song." And then what does it say? Know that the Lord is God. He made us his; we are his people, the flock he tends. Now, if you know the Summa Contra Gentiles, that's the way Thomas divides what theology. You consider God by Himself, and then God is the Maker, and then God is the End and the One who is provident, right?

[31:22] So, in the first book of the Summa contra Gentiles, he talks about God by Himself, right? Second book, he talks about God as the Maker, right? Third book, he talks about God being the End of all things and His Providence over all things, huh? Well, that's what you say there in the second part: "Come before the Lord with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God." First book of Summa Contra Gentiles.

[31:49] He made us his; we are. Second book, right? His people, the flock he tends. Third book, he's our shepherd; he directs us. Huh? Beautiful, right? So I say that. In retrospect, I say it's kind of agitation to me to read Verquist to read the Summa contra Gentiles. So the Summa Theologiae, which is really based on that too, but it's more, even more explicit, the way the books are divided in the Summa Contra Gentiles, right?

[32:17] That's basically the way you consider theology and the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Consider God by Himself, and then as the Maker, and then as the End, and that's what you consider as Providence, huh? Okay.

[32:37] Now, in terms of faith, hope, and charity, which is basically what the Christian is characterized by, right? What do these two refer to? Say, well, theology is the science by which faith is engendered, nourished, strengthened, and defended, as Thomas says in the beginning of the Summa, there, right? So, come before him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God. He made us his; we are his people, the flock he tends.

[33:04] That refers to theology in a way, right? And to the faith, right? But the first part, sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, right? That refers to obeying God, right? And that's what you do because of what charity, right? Now, you know, there is a third theological virtue. Where did they come up?

[33:31] See, in a sense, what this is saying is, do the will of God, right? Serve the Lord. In other words, right? Yeah. I used to say in the old, the old catechism, right? You know, why did God make me, right? To know Him and love Him in this world, right? And to be happy with Him forever, the next, right? But you have the two things: to know Him and to love Him, right?

[33:54] But this psalm, in a sense, is saying, do both with joy, right? God loves a cheerful giver and so on, right? See, joyfully do the will of God, right? Joyfully think about God, huh? Okay. Joyfully read the Summa Contra Gentiles you know, he can, right? Huh? You see? Okay. But what about hope?

[34:22] Now, next part, my Christian, I'm working with the way I memorized the translations. I can't, you know, you know, no Hebrew, right? But I was kind of stuck in the way the English version I had went, enter His gates with thanksgiving, His courts with praise, huh? Well, there, the to me, there seems to be a certain order there, right? That when you ask God for something, you're thinking about your need, right?

[34:49] When you thank God, it's a little less me, right? But nevertheless, you're looking back to what you've received from Him, right? But you're thanking Him what you've already received rather than give me more, give me more, right? Okay. But when you praise God, you're not asking for anything, right? Not thanking Him, you're praising Him because He's in Himself so good and so excellent, huh? Okay. And therefore, you're kind of you know going beyond yourself, right?

[35:18] Okay. So the way the psalm was received, enter his gates with thanksgiving, His courts with praise. If you've gone even further in, when you're praising Him, huh? Okay. It's kind of beautiful the way it builds, right? But thanksgiving and praise, I mean, almost, you know, in in explanation of the psalms, they're almost interchangeably, right? Okay. Okay. Enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. Give thanks to Him, bless His name, for he is good, right?

[35:54] Okay. And then it talks about His mercy, right, and His faithfulness, huh? Okay. Now, what about what about hope? what about hope, right? Okay. Now, as you know, when when Saint Augustine in the Ingredient on Faith, Hope, and Charity, right? He was asked by a by a layman, he might say, but for kind of a summary, you know, of Christian doctrine, right? Augustine writes the Enchiridion, right?

[36:26] Something you can have in your hand, something. You know, conciseness, brevity is all with, and is divided according to faith, hope, and what charity, right? Okay, it's not divided the way the Summa is divided, huh? Divided according to faith, hope, and charity. And Thomas follows Augustine there, right? Huh? When he writes his own catechetical instructions, as they call them sometimes the Naples Sermons at the end of his life.

[36:55] Now, what you do when you talk about faith, you talk about the what creed, and you expound the articles of faith. You talk about the hope. You talk about the Our Father, maybe the Hail Mary, but primarily the Our Father, because in prayer you're relying upon God, right? And then when you talk about charity, you talk about the two commandments of love, and the what, ten commandments, right?

[37:23] Okay. Now, in the last chapter here of the Thessalonians, huh? He's giving them some advice, some exhortations, right? Of course, you have to look at Thomas's commentary where he divides this up. Now, let's just just a little bit of it. Reference again, one the first the first epistle, Thessalonians chapter five. Okay.

[38:10] Now I'm not going to read the whole text here, but see this here. Starting in verse twelve here, before we come to one thing in a minute, but we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly and love because of their work.

[38:33] Okay, this is in reference to your superiors and what. Be at peace among yourselves, huh? And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the idle, encourage the faint-hearted, right? Help the weak. Be patient with them all, right? Okay, these are very very gentle instructions as to how to behave to other people, right?

[39:01] See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Okay. Now the lines that's kind of stuck because of my preoccupation with Psalm 99 there. are the next three verses, verses 16, 17, and 18. Okay. Now I was kind of struck by these three verses because

[39:32] of the order here, right? The 16th verse. Rejoice always. Okay. Pantota Pantote chairete Pantote Always rejoice, chairete chairete. Okay. Same thing he had in those first two parts of the what 99th Psalm, right? Okay.

[40:01] Verse 17. Pray constantly. Okay. Adia adialeiptos huh? Which means unceasingly. Pros you proseuchesthe. It's the Greek word for to pray, right? Pros you proseuchesthe Of course, euche in in Greek can mean what asking or prayer. I think I mentioned how Aristotle when he's talking about the best city, which I don't think is very possible, right? Right. At exceptional circumstances, but he says he says according to a prayer.

[40:37] That in other words, the circumstances you would need to establish the best city are so exceptional that you would more what pray for those circumstances than expect them to that you can bring them about yourself, right?

[40:51] Pray constantly. Now the eighth verse, the first part right here. Give thanks in all circumstances, son. Okay. In panti eucharisteite eucharisteite and you know how the word eucharist means Thanksgiving, right? I think it's because our Lord is doing the thing. He says what he's thanking God. You know how he does that in the Greek, huh?

[41:25] Giving thanks, right? He's going to start the institute. Now those three verses, when Thomas is defining the text, he says now he's talked about certain things you should do with reference to your brethren, like the ones I was reading, right? All these things about you know, but now he turns to God. What should you be? You know, you should. Was exhorting them to be in regard to God, right?

[41:52] And three things: rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances. Pantote chairete rejoice always. Adialeiptos proseuchesthe pray unceasingly en panti and everything eucharisteite give thanks, son. Okay. Now, also that refers to hope in a way, right? According to the explanation that you have in Augustine and Thomas, where when they take up Christian doctrine according to faith, hope, and charity, they do what?

[42:37] They consider the creed according to faith, right? And theology is kind of a what? According to the definition of Augustine, he quotes there the beginning of the summa. at the beginning of the Summa, yes. It's a sciencia, right? And he quotes the words of Augustine that this is a science by which faith is engendered, nourished, strengthened, and defended, right? So that part come before with joyful song.

[43:03] Know what the Lord is God. He made us as we are, as people of the flock He tends. That's all about the faith, in a sense, right? Okay. And it gives you the the actual division of the Summa Contra Gentiles. It's a division of theology, the basic one, right? Which is the the science by which faith is engendered and others nourished, strengthened, and what defended, right? Okay.

[43:26] Or it's faith seeking understanding, right? He says, serve the Lord with gladness, right? Then it's referring to what? Obeying the commandments, right? And this is the object of charity, right? When they take up hope, they take up what? Prayer, right? But now you have prayer there, fouling upon what? Joy first, right? So, um, "Pantota chairete always rejoice, and ceaselessly pray and everything give thanks. Now Thomas takes up prayer in the "Secunda Secunde," right?

[44:08] Under the virtue of religion, the last article is about the integral parts of prayer, right? And one part is praying in the sense of asking God for things. Another part is what? Giving thanks, right? Because only if you give thanks are you what? Uh disposed to receive more. Yeah, you see, and but you all give thanks anyway, right? Yeah. See, didn't give it used to best, right?

[44:38] It's just okay. Yeah. Now a couple of things struck me about this. The first thing, of course, they say is the order there, right? It's the same as in the psalm, right? Except it's in regard to what pertains to hope as opposed to charity or to what faith, right? But in both cases, it's preceded by rejoice. Okay. Okay. See, always rejoice. See, now you see in the psalmist says, "Sing joyfully to the Lord, all your lands.

[45:15] Serve the Lord with gladness, right? But joy before serving the Lord, right? And then come before Him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God; He made us as we are, right? So we should do the will of God, right?

[45:32] After being exhorted to joy, right? We should what? Try to know God, right? Himself and as the beginning, the end of all things, right? But it's prefixed with joy. Now we're being told, right? Before we're being told to pray and to give thanks, which are connected, we're told to what? Rejoice, huh? Now, what's there to rejoice about?

[46:04] Well, if you read Thomas's commentary, you know what the answer is. Why is one supposed to be rejoicing always? I mean, there's a lot of bad things going on in the world, as you know, and a lot of you know troubles in the church and so on, right? But his Cardinal Law got to rejoice, you know. See, but he's saying that what? The goodness of God, right?

[46:32] It's infinite and so on, right? It outweighs something, so you can always rejoice in what God, the Lord, right? See, and of course that's more explicit in the psalm, right? Sing joyful to the Lord. See, in a sense, you're rejoicing in the Lord, right? Yeah. Come before Him with joyful song, right? Huh? See.

[46:57] Now, if I can take a secular example, you know, you know how Augustine is, you know, if you read his thing on catechetical instructions, you know, he uses sexual arousal in his explanation of of how one should give catechetical instructions. Don't misunderstand me now. Yeah, right. But the principle he's giving the man. If you read that, the first catechetical instructions, they call in English, De catechizan dis budibus it's called in the Latin, but Augustine is saying that he's giving advice to this man who's asking him how to give catechetical instructions.

[47:39] He says, "Your primary intention should be to show them the love that God has for us, right? Okay, that should be your primary intention. And and why is that so, right? See, well, the main thing, the ultimate thing, is to get the catechumen there to love God, right? See, and Augustine gives this principle, which that nothing more arouses love in us for someone than the experience of their love for us.

[48:10] Yeah, is it? And Thomas, you know, calls that principle in the in the fourth book of the Summa Contra Gentiles. But Augustine wants to manifest that, right? Huh? See, and he goes all the way down to sexual love, you know, you know, where if someone else is interested in you sexually, right? You know, it tends to arouse you. So I mean, in all kinds of love, right?

[48:33] He goes all the way down the line. See, but he's trying to fit that principle, right? Well, I'm not going to go and defend that blindly in my exposition, but you read some of Shakespeare's sonnets about friendship, right? Huh? And of course, you know where he's depressed with all the things that are wrong in the world or his life or what is, you know. But then, if I think of you, dear friend, right?

[48:58] You know, his joy is restored, right? Huh? But if for its joy, if you think of God in the midst of our troubles, right? Then we can, in a certain way, rejoice. But always, huh? See, now it's just not as explicit here in this text here because it just says always rejoice. I said, what is that rejoice about? But Thomas, in the commentary, he's saying these three things are all reference to God, right?

[49:24] So rejoice always in the Lord, right? I said that's that's that's pretty in agreement with the psalm, right? Sing joyfully to the Lord all lands, right? And even more clear in the second one, come before him with joyful song, right? It's because you're coming before him, you're thinking of him that you have joy, because his goodness outweighs all the what evil in this world and so on, right?

[49:48] In fact, the whole world seems to be nothing compared to God, right? Huh? Whether it be good or bad, right? Huh? There's nothing to to think about, huh? Okay.

[49:59] But here, so you have the same order, right? That you have in the psalm, but now it's in regard to what you do by hope, right? Because prayer is what makes us pray. I mean, it's linked with hope.

[50:20] But then, giving thanks is sometimes, they say, explained as an integral part of of prayer. And you look at Thomas's, you know, prayer after communion. There, it begins gratias tibi," ago right. You know, our custom says "deo gratias." No prayer shorter or grander, "deo gratias, right? Okay, but sometimes you take prayer in the in the more narrow sense, where prayer means what asking God for suitable things, right?

[50:51] And then we distinguish between prayer, right, as you do here in the text here in seventeen and eighteen, and giving thanks, right? Okay. Now,

[51:07] go back to the psalm, right? In a way, the psalm is itself a prayer, so that's it's not like a part of the of the psalm, but the whole psalm in a way is a prayer. But now, if you come back to the last part, there enters gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. That's interesting If you take thanksgiving and praise, how are they related to the theological virtues?

[51:35] How are they related? to it? Would praise be related to faith? Seems. Yeah, because you you learn of all the great things that God is and God has done, that leads you to praise, because I'll lead you to thanksgiving too. Well, I got thinking of the the text of um of Paul VI there that I mentioned before, I don't know if I'll give you a copy of it, but uh when he's talking about when I talk about the connection between music and love, okay, and this is the the address of Paul the sixth there on the feast of Saint Cecilia, who's the patroness of what music?

[52:28] Okay, and it's really kind of a golden chain from Augustine. Okay, and he's going to bring out the idea that music has a place in liturgy because liturgy is concerned with charity, right? And charity is a kind of love, huh? And he quotes Augustine to this effect, right? That about the one we love, we want to sing, right? Okay. Of course, you can see this very much in secular music.

[53:03] So, you know, I have that same text there, the one from Kierkegaard and Mozart's Don Giovanni, right? Why it is the opera of operas perfect, harmony there between the content and the thing, but but then he goes on to talk about the connection between love and what. Praise, and Augustine's words are very concrete there, huh? Amare and laudare amare et amare laudare and amore. To love and praise, and to praise and love, right?

[53:42] You know, as if Augustine sees those two as what going together, right? That is speaking of heaven. Yeah, But you just take something more similar than that. huh? If I love the music of Mozart, right? I naturally go on praising the music of Mozart. I love the plays of Shakespeare. I'm praising him, you know. Or I love Thomas's text. I'm praising him, you know. You know what I mean?

[54:09] You see, if a man loves a woman, he praises about the woman, right? You know, you know, who is Sylvia that all our swains do commend? Holy swains... her Heaven lend her such graces that she might admired be. You see, and there's a connection there between love and praise, and between both of them and music, huh? Of course, Aristotle saw that, but you know, from Augustine there, Paul VI shows that music is a natural sign of love, right?

[54:45] Huh? The most perfect expression of love, huh? Of course, you can see that in the Bible, right? The the book that is most fully devoted to love is called the what? Song. Yeah, which is

[54:59] very clear, right? But notice when you want to honor somebody, you use music, right? You know, the president rolls in, we play "Hail to the Chief," right? And when the conquering hero comes back, right? You

[55:16] play the march, right? Or you know, what's the one there, the Italian opera, you know? You know, triumphal march there, and they come back from the winning the victories, huh? But but that's or we want to honor the country, right? We play the national anthem twice, see? Then you stand attention, right? So on, if you're a soldier, and so on. So there's connection between music and love, and music and what praise, huh?

[55:42] But also between love and praise, huh? Obviously, you know, love presupposes faith, and so on, right? But but the connection between praise and love is closer than between, say, praise Sunday and what, and hope, right? But maybe Thanksgiving is closer to what?

[56:14] No. See, you go take this text here from the Thessalonians, right? See, and as I mentioned before, when Thomas takes up prayer there in the. Secunda Secundae, in the last article there on the parts of prayer, right? You know, one part is the ascent of the mind to God, right? Our Father who art in heaven. There's a mind going up, okay. But another part is is what?

[56:44] Why he should hear us, right? And then the other part is is the petition, the actual things you're asking for, and the other is what? Thanksgiving, right? And Thomas shows how prayers will then have these four parts. But you see this text here, right? Because pray always, right? And then thank, give thanks everywhere, right? And pante eucharistete, the two are are are linked there, right? Yeah. And

[57:25] and if you're not thankful what you received, then you're not really you know disposed to ask for more, right? Huh? I mean. you're you're You might be disposed to I mean that you're not worthy of being heard again, right? But again, you can see that human things, right? If we give good to somebody and they're not thankful for the good that we've done to them, that's not going to encourage us to give them more good, right?

[57:47] Huh? But if we do give something good to somebody, they're very thankful for this. This makes us want to give them more, right? You see what I mean? Um, uh, so there's a real connection there between those two, huh?

[58:04] I don't want to make too much of a you know separation or distinction between thanksgiving and and praise, but there's some distinction there between the two, right? And thanksgiving here is more is closer to prayer than praise in some senses, huh? And praise is closer to charity, huh?

[58:39] Joy seems to be common to all three faith, hope, and love. Yeah, See, what struck me was you see that in thinking about that, singing joyfully to the Lord, all your lands. you had joy preceding something pertaining to charity, right? And then joy precedes something pertaining to what faith or theology, right? And here you've got joy preceding something pertaining to hope, right? Yeah.

[59:14] But Thomas's explanation of why we should rejoice always is because of the what? Um, of God Himself, right? Huh? So you know, not things that happen to us in this world, right?

[59:33] You know, that car that got totaled, you know, down there at West Point. I told you about that story, didn't I? Your car with the flood. Yeah, yeah, went down, you know. And and they had us, you know, parked down by the river, right? The parking lot down there. And I guess it really was, you know, tremendous rains yesterday. The Hudson rose, and the Hudson across is salt water in it.

[59:54] And then, you know, my son got to his car, which he'd rented, you know, the van of the kids. But it was little, wasn't quite as near, you know. But he had, you know, he was waiting for the water to pass, you know. And so, so the car got totaled. So he well, um,

[1:00:12] we were thinking about making another trip down there to pick up the license plate and so on. And we've talked to somebody down there. He said they'd mail it to us, and they never did. Oh. And and the insurance won't won't stop until, you know. So we've been calling them and stuff. I think they got a fight; he sent it out. They they found it or something.

[1:00:30] I don't know, but you got. Turned in the license plate you know, before they can get out. You're paying insurance on a car. You've lost a car. now you've paid insurance on a car that doesn't exist. Yeah, yeah. That's just one of my little problems in life. I mean, it doesn't like to rejoice. on, so. I can laugh about that one. I mean, it's nothing to rejoice about there, you know.

[1:00:49] I mean, whatever your troubles are, right? You turn to the Lord, right? Yeah. Then you can what rejoice in the Lord always, right? I say, you certainly can't, you know, rejoice in this world, right? What's happening? What's happening in the church now? I mean, this is, you know, more cardinal law and so on. You go, and they're getting pretty aggressive, you know, these people. One of the things we dressed.

[1:01:14] They're interviewing one of on TV the other day. They're saying, you know, we're coming after you, Bishop McCormick. You know, like he. So they're going after all these guys around the country. So they're all they're all sweating in there. But anyway, I mean, a lot of evil coming from this, you know. Sure. And bishops lose a lot of authority, and there's all kinds of wackos out there.

[1:01:36] You know, using this as an excuse, you're not to get demands for a female priesthood or whatever. You know, there are all kinds of crazy people out there. So, you know, but in the Lord, there's always, you know, that's you can always rejoice in the Lord, right? Turn to him, huh? And that makes a lot of sense, but I mean, it fits, you know. Coming back to the Psalm, you see, well, it kind of confirms what Thomas is saying.

[1:02:00] Come before the Lord with joyful song, right? You know, it's you know it's like it's like those stories you know told by the you know these sisters of

[1:02:15] what do they call them sisters of charity? How do they call them? No, the sisters of Mother Teresa, you know, huh? You know, but I mean, they're looking for Christ in these miserable beggars over there, you know. You know, and and the sisters come back happy, joyful, you know, because they see Christ in some some megadidan Indian there in the in the ground, you know. But they're rejoicing in Christ, meeting Christ in these people in some way.

[1:02:41] So that's basically the idea, right? Sing joyfully to the Lord, right? Sing joyfully to the world. Coming before the world with joyful song. I mean, you're trying to fall out when you go out to the world, but it's because of God, huh?

[1:03:00] Yeah. Okay. So it's exactly the same order there then, but now for hope, huh? Prayer and since it asking God for things and and being thankful, right, huh? Because you're praying always, then you've got to be what.

[1:03:34] Thanking is always right. That makes you think, you know, what's the distinction between thanking and praising, right? And how are they related to the theological virtues, huh? And now, I don't overextend extension there too much. It seems to me that of those two, Thanksgiving is closer to, more closely tied to what hope is doing, right? Than praise, right? And

[1:04:13] and praise more to charity, right? I'd give you that text sometime from Paul VI, but it's taken mainly from Augustine, you know. But you know, from like amare in laudibus, you know, to love in praises, and then Augustine's around laudare, you know, more, you know, to praise and love you know I mean he's really emphasizing the connection there between love and praise and between both of them and what music right Huh There's no way better to honor somebody or the country or something than music huh And no more, to praise and love, you know.

[1:04:39] I mean, he's really emphasizing the connection there between love and praise, and between both of them and what music, right? Huh? There's no way better to honor somebody or the country or something than music, huh? And no more perfect way of, you know, natural expression of love is what Augustine emphasizes too. That music is very much tied up with that.

[1:05:12] Shakespeare says, "If music be the food of love, play on, right? " There's many allusions in Shakespeare to that connection between music and love.

[1:05:25] So he's developing that in the in the address and the feast of Saint Cecilia, right? That the liturgy being a service