De Anima (On the Soul)
159. Summa Theologiae I, Q.89, Articles 5-8: The Separated Soul's Knowledge of Distant Things and the Living
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/159-summa-theologiae-i-q-89-articles-5-8-the-separated-souls/

[0:00] such a different state. " She says, "We're both praising God. I'm praising God face to face, and you're praising God behind a veil. " Kind of interesting, huh? That's what she said there.

[0:13] So, we should say the next four articles for next time, right? Guardian angels God our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, Pray for us. and help us to understand all that you've written. In the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:40] So we're up to Article Five here in Question eighty-nine. To the fifth one proceeds thus: It seems that the habits of science acquired here do not remain in the separated soul. For the Apostle says in the First Corinthians, "Science is what destroyed, right? " And notice that's what in antonomasia for Saint Paul, Saint Paul and Saint Peter by antonomasia are called the apostles.

[1:22] Moreover, some who are less good, like Berquist huh, in this world, huh, flower in science. Others, what, who are better? Lack science, right? Okay. So if, therefore, the habits of science remain, also after death in the soul, it would follow that some who are less good, right, in the future state, would be more potent than some ones more good, right, which seems inconvenient, right? Doesn't seem fitting.

[2:11] Moreover, the separated souls have knowledge through the flowing in of the divine light. If, therefore, the science acquired in the here acquired remained in the separate soul, it would follow that there would be two forms of one kind in the same subject, which is impossible. Of course, would it be in fact the same kind of science? I don't think so. Moreover, the philosopher says that's another antonomasia there, therefore Aristotle.

[2:48] Moreover, the philosopher says in the book of the Categories the predicaments that habit is a quality difficultly what moved or changed, but from sickness or from something of this sort sometimes science is corrupted. But there's no greater change in this life than the change which is through death. Therefore, it seems that the habit of science is corrupted by what death, huh?

[3:22] But against this is what Saint Jerome says, huh, in the epistle to Apollina. we learn on the earth the science of which remains with us in what heaven, huh?

[3:41] I answer: It should be said that some, and there's reference in the footnote there to Avicenna, laid down that the habit of science is not in the understanding itself, but in the sensing powers, the inward senses, the imagination, and the cogitative power, and the memory, and that the understandable forms are not what conserved in the possible understanding. And if this opinion were true, it would follow then that the body being destroyed wholly, the habit of science here acquired would be destroyed.

[4:22] But because science is in the understanding, which is the place of forms, as is said in the third book about the soul, it is necessary that the habit of science here acquired is partly in the foresaid sensing powers. And partly in the understanding itself, and this can be considered from the very acts from which the habits of science are acquired. For habits are like the acts from which they are acquired, as is said in the second book of the Nicomachean Ethics.

[4:59] But the acts of the understanding, from which in the present life our science is acquired, are by turning of the understanding towards images, which are in the foresaid sensing powers. Whence through such acts

[5:22] there is acquired by the possible understanding itself a certain facility to considering through forms that it has received, and in the foresaid lower powers, the inward senses, in other words, are acquired a certain what ability, certain facility, to turn right,

[5:50] that by turning towards them the understanding is able to look upon things understandable. But just as the act of the understanding chiefly and formally is in the understanding itself, in a material way and in a disposition in the lower powers, so it should also be said about the what habit, right? Okay. So my habit of geometry is primarily in my reason, but there's something in my what imagination when I can picture triangles and circles and so on that what cooperates to this, right?

[6:26] That's kind of a what disposition for science, huh? Okay. It's my reason that understands what a triangle is, huh? When I imagine a triangle, huh? Okay. So it's chiefly in the in the habit is chiefly in the understanding, right?

[6:51] So it makes a distinction there. Quantum ergo, as regards then that of the present our present science that is had in the lower powers, that is say in the interior senses, there does not remain in the separated soul. I don't want to have a body imagination there in my separated soul. But as regards that which is had in the understanding itself, it is necessary that the what that it remain, huh?

[7:21] Because as is said in the book on the length and shortness of life, that's one of Aristotle's little books, right? On Many things. In two ways some form is corrupted. In one way, as such, when is corrupted by its contrary, as hot is corrupted by cold. In another way, by accident. When its subject is corrupted, huh?

[7:49] But it's manifest that through the corruption of the subject, meaning the body, the science which is in the human understanding cannot be what corrupted, since the understanding itself is incorruptible, as has been shown above. Similarly, neither is are the intelligible forms able to be corrupted by their contraries, which are in the possible understanding, because to an understandable intention nothing is contrary. That's what we said is the same knowledge of what opposites, right?

[8:24] So my thought of what sickness doesn't corrupt my thought of health, does it? No, It actually helps me when thought helps the other thought, right? Okay.

[8:38] And this is especially true as regards a simple understanding. by which one understands what a thing is, as regards the operation by which the understanding puts together and divides, making an affirmative or negative statement, or even when it reasons, there is found contrariety in understanding, according as what is false in a statement or an argument is contrary to the what true right. And in this way, sometimes science is corrupted by its contrary, when someone through some false argumentation is led away from a knowledge of the what truth.

[9:23] And therefore, the philosopher in the foresaid book lays down two ways by which science, as such, is corrupted, to wit, by forgetfulness on the side of the memory, or by deception on the part on the side of a false what argument. But this does not have place in the separated soul. Whence it should be said that the habit of science, according as it is in the understanding, remains in the separated soul.

[9:56] So things are received in the understanding, right? These forms in a much more what stable way than they received anything in the body, right? So if you have habits even in the body that is somewhat what stable in this life, right? Therefore, it's already these habits in the mind, huh? In the understanding are going to be what permanent, huh? Okay, but you won't understand by turning to images, huh?

[10:20] In the separated soul, you have another way of what understanding, huh? Okay. Now, as regards the text of Saint Paul there, the objection: science is destroyed, right? Huh? Okay. He says to the first, therefore it should be said that the apostle does not speak there about science as regards the very habit, but as regards the act of knowledge. Whence to the proof of this he adduces: now I know what in part, huh?

[10:55] I know him perfectly now. He's talking about the act. And the second objection was saying, what about the? See, maybe the theologian has more of a habit of science than Mother Teresa, right? So he's going to be better off than Mother Teresa next life. Okay, that's the objection, right? Okay. Um. Or the or the Pharisee than the woman who put her mite into the widow, right?

[11:26] Um. To the second, it should be said that just as according to the stature of the body, someone less good, right, is greater than someone more good. So nothing prevents someone less good to have some habit of science in the future, which someone more good does not have, right? But nevertheless, this is of no what amount or no concern, moment in comparison to the other prerogatives which the what better ones have, right?

[12:03] So they're going to see God much more what clearly, right? Than the man who has less charity. A man with less charity might have some habits that a science, right? Some geometry habits that the mother Teresa or someone doesn't have, but she's going to see God much more clearly, and that's going to be omni and omnibus, right? God is all in all. So it's kind of you know no great concern, right?

[12:31] Now the third objection we've already solved, and Thomas solves like we did. You won't have two sciences of the same what definition or same kind. The kind that is derived from what turning to images, right? And the kind that is gotten directly from God, flowing into the soul, some kind of light.

[12:57] And the fourth objection was the one who was saying that what it is quite a change there from death. And Thomas says, well, yeah, you'll lose what there was a science in the interior what senses, huh? But you won't lose what is a science in the understanding, which primarily in the science and in the understanding. So he said that argument proceeds about the corruption of science as regards what is had on the side of the sense powers.

[13:31] Now the next article is going to talk more about though is the act exactly the same kind as was in this life, right? And that's going to be the next article. To the sixth, one proceeds thus: It seems that the act of science or the act of science here acquired does not remain in the separated soul. For the philosopher says in the first book about the soul that the body being corrupted, the soul neither what recalls nor what loves, right?

[14:07] But to consider those things which one knows before is to recall. Therefore, the separated soul is not able to have the act of science which it here acquired.

[14:23] Moreover, the understandable forms are not more potent in the separated soul than they are in the soul united to the body. But the understandable forms we are not able to understand here now except by turning. Upon the phantasms or images, so when I want to understand what a triangle is, I can't just use my understandable form. I have to form an image of what a triangle, and then I turn towards that and understand what it is of that thing I imagined.

[14:57] The proper object of the reason is of what it is of something sensed or imagined. So I sense or imagine when I what try to understand what a triangle is, what a circle is. So if I can't in this life do it, you know, the forms are no more powerful than they were in this life, right? How can I do? How can I understand anything by them in the next life?

[15:19] That's an interesting objection. Moreover, the philosopher says in the second book of ethics that habits are like the acts, or the habits render acts like the acts by which they are acquired, because that's something said about even the moral virtues, right? And Aristotle gives a kind of paradox there: by doing just things, we become just, right? And by doing courageous things, we become courageous, and by doing tempered things, we become temperate.

[15:51] And then Aristotle raises an objection: well, how can we become just by doing just things? Aren't we already just if we do just things? But the point is, there is a struggle, and and some what special attention necessary to do something just before you've acquired the habit. But after you acquire the habit, you do it in a stable way and with ease compared to what you did before you had the habit.

[16:17] Of course, we learn to play the piano by playing the piano, right? Well, how can you learn to play the piano by playing the piano? Don't you know how to play the piano? If you play the piano again, there's a certain what struggle there, right? I go through the go by the rules sometimes in the bottom of my building there, where they have some of the practice rules.

[16:35] I hear somebody practicing some piano piece. Sometimes very nice a piece, you know, but they're making mistakes and you know, repeating themselves and so on. But that's where we acquire a habit, right? Okay. And of course, once you acquire the habit, then you what produce acts like the acts that you began with, right? From which you acquired the habit in the first place.

[16:58] But the habit of sciences are here acquired by the act of the understanding turning itself upon the images. Therefore, they cannot render any other act but that. But such acts obviously cannot belong to the separated soul; It doesn't have those inward senses anymore. Therefore, the separated soul does not have some act of science here acquired.

[17:23] But against all this is what is said in the Gospel of Saint Luke, the sixteenth chapter, where it's said to the the wealthy man, put down into hell, right? Remember that you receive good things in this life, right? Recordare right? Recall that you receive good things in this life, and and that the other guy receives bad things. This one, now it's the reverse. I answer: It should be said that in an act there are two things to consider.

[17:56] One is the form of the act, and the other is the way of it. And the form of the act is considered from its object, to which the act of the knowing power is directed by the form, which is a likeness of the what object, right?

[18:18] But the mode or way of the act is measured from the power of the agent. Just as that someone sees a stone happens from the fact that the form of the stone is in the eye, but that he sees the what stone sharply happens from the what seeing power. Of the eye, huh?

[18:46] Since therefore the understandable forms remain in separated soul, as has been said in the previous article. But the state of the separated soul is not the same as it is now. It follows then that by the understandable forms here acquired, the separated soul is able to understand the things that understood before, but not in the same way. That is not by turning towards images, right? But in a way suitable to the separated soul.

[19:20] And therefore, there remains in the soul separated the act of science here acquired with the same object, but not in the same way—not by turning towards what an image, huh? Okay.

[19:36] Now, the first objection from Aristotle, about not recalling, he says that the philosopher speaks there about reminiscence or recalling, according as memory pertains to the what sensing power, right? Okay. Not, however, as memory is in a certain way in the understanding.

[20:01] Okay, so we distinguish between what the memory and the understanding, which is the retaining of the forms, right, and the sense memory, which is tied to the singular.

[20:14] Now, the second objection was saying that these understandable forms are the same, and how can they be more potent there than they were in this life? He says to the second, it should be said that the diverse way of understanding of the separated soul as opposed to the soul in the body does not come about from a diverse power of the forms, right? But rather from a diverse state of the what soul understanding.

[20:44] Okay. Uh, look like saying you know, can you walk faster in air or in water? Well, in the air, right? Okay. So you say, well, I got the same muscles, the same. When I was in the water, how can I walk? You know, well, not the muscles are different, right? But that the soul—I mean, the body—is now in the air rather than in the water, right? So when the soul is in the body, its existence is communicated to the body, and its operation therefore naturally turned towards the body.

[21:25] But when the soul is separated from the body, then it's naturally turned towards the immaterial world. That's going to be kind of quite a shock to us, I think. We turn upwards, right? Instead of having our heads down at the towards the material world, right? And towards images, so it's because not that the forms are different, right, or more potent or something, you know, in the separated soul, but because the state of the soul itself is different now, right?

[21:54] It's not in the body anymore. A little different, huh? Maybe that's probably why the purgatory. Right. We can get used to it Yeah. A purgatory is going to be like, like correcting exams, you know. Your attention is riveted to something beneath your dignity.

[22:27] That's the worst thing about being a teacher is correcting exams or correcting papers, you know. I remember my father used to pretend, you know, it's getting easier, you know, he says. Teacher, you know, twenty years more than me, you know, it's like that. It doesn't get any easier, he says.

[22:48] Because the students who don't say anything for interesting even on a paper, right? You know, just got to go through it though to see how they grade the darn thing and so on. So that's kind of a standing joke, you know. When you get to purgatory, they'll say, "Yeah, you can get out purgatory, but you get all these exams, you know." Yeah. On Everest or something, you know, exams.

[23:10] Oh no, no, no! Never get out purgatory. That's the way the angels are. I mean, the the demons, I should say, are being punished on by bodies, right? They don't, you know, they can't go a body in the sense of what sense pain. because you don't have senses, right? But their attention is what bound to these bodies, right? And they suffer because they are what

[23:38] fixated on something inferior to them, right? It's a terrible thing, right? So now, when when they when the when the angels, the bad angels, refuse to be subject to what is above them, right, they are made what subject to what is below them, huh? And it's greatly below their dignity to be what subject to some body, right? And they have their attention forced to a sense in the direction of some insignificant thing, right?

[24:09] So like I'm reminded of, I was watching Irving in one of those little short stories, you know, talking about being in a stuck in some inn there in England, and terrible rainy season, looking out in the courtyard there, you know, with the chicken there, and bored stiff, you know, looking for something to occupy your mind, and knowing a couple old magazines, old newspapers around that you you read them six times the same newspaper.

[24:39] You're just really bored. You know it's. I always say that you know, even the punishment of hell. The worst thing is going to be what, boredom and loneliness, huh? Not the sense pain, right? See, the boredom is going to be what. It's going to be a boring place. Because you haven't used your mind and applied it to higher things, right? And then loneliness is the punishment for not having what, the friendship that is charity, huh?

[25:15] So. I think that's a good thing Okay. Let's look at the seventh article here now. Whether, wait, wait, did we skip one here? Yeah, one replies. Yeah, yeah, third objection. Okay.

[25:44] To the third, that's the one that's saying that habits produce acts like the ones that generate the habits, right? To the third, it should be said that the acts through which habits are acquired are like the acts which the habits cause. As regards the species of the act, huh? Not always. As regards the way of acting, for to do just things, but not justly, that is pleasantly, causes the habit of political justice.

[26:19] But once you have that habit, then you can what do the same thing what, selectively huh? Selectively, huh? Okay. So, when you're acquiring a habit, it's a difficulty that you do the operation you're supposed to do, right? And you know, if you watch somebody being taught to play the piano or something like that, it's a difficulty, right? Once they acquire the habit, then they can do this, and and it's pleasantly, right?

[26:47] Okay, with a certain stability that you do it, but you know, freedom from mistakes, huh? Okay. Now the seventh objection, our seventh article, whether local distance, huh, impedes the knowledge of separated soul. For Augustine says in the book about care. For the dead, huh? Giving care to about the dead, that the souls of the dead. Are there where the things that take place here they cannot know, right?

[27:29] Okay. The souls of the dead, huh, are there where they are not able to know the things which take place here. But they do know some of the things which are done by us. Therefore, local distance impedes the knowledge of the separated soul. Moreover, Augustine says in the book on divining by the demons that the demons, on account of the swiftness of the motion, announce some things unknown to us.

[28:09] But the agility of motion would make nothing of this sort if the local distance did not impede the knowledge of the of the demon. Much more, therefore, does local distance impede the knowledge of separated soul, which is inferior in nature to the demon.

[28:33] Moreover, just as one can be distant by place, so by time. But the distance of time. Impedes the knowledge of the separated soul, for they do not know future things. Therefore, it seems that also distance by place impedes the knowledge of separated soul. But against this is what is said in Luke, Gospel Saint Luke, chapter sixteen. Did you read the Gospel of St. Luke today? Did you celebrate the Annunciation today?

[29:06] Yeah. So the reading was from Luke, wasn't it? That's for the Annunciation. The Annunciation is not given in Matthew, I don't think, is it? No. No. So just in Luke.

[29:20] This is really the day when when God became man too. huh? We have the text in Emmanuel. huh? So it's really the feast of the Incarnation as well as the feast of the Annunciation. That's why it's nine months before Christmas, according to the. Thought it takes nine months, huh? The old professor, German professor, he's dead now. but he used to say, his brother-in-law says the first baby can come any time.

[29:48] After that, it takes nine months. That was kind of funny. See, after that it takes nine months anyway. So I guess this is what is said in the Gospel Saint Luke, the sixteen chapter, that the rich man, when he was in torments, looking up his eyes or raising up his eyes, saw Abraham at distance. Therefore, local distance does not impede the knowledge of separated soul. I answer it should be said that some have laid down that the separated soul would know singulars by abstracting from what sensible things.

[30:46] Which, if this were true, he says, it could be said that local distance impedes the knowledge of the separated soul. For it would be required either that sensible things would act upon the separated soul, right? Or the separated soul would act upon what sensible things? And as regards both of these, there would be required some determined distance. But the fore said position is what impossible, right? Because the separation of forms from sensible things comes to be through the senses, huh?

[31:30] And the other sense powers, huh? Which do not remain in act in the separated soul, huh? The root of them is there, but not the the actuality of them.

[31:45] The separated soul, however, understands or singular things through the what inflowing of forms of the divine light, which light equally has itself to what is near and what is what distant, right? Whence local distance in no way impedes the knowledge of separated soul.

[32:12] So watch out for me, right? I'm gone. Okay. Now, to the first, which is objection from Augustine. Augustine does not say that, in account of this, that the souls there of the dead are not able to see the things which are done here, and that local distance is believed to be the cause of ignorance. But this can happen in account of something else, as will be said below, right?

[32:57] So he's not Augustine is not denying is not asserting that the cause that they don't know what's going on here is what they're too far away, right? In place, huh? But there are other reasons why they don't maybe know these things.

[33:16] Now, in the book on the divination of by demons, which is saying, hey, there it seems to be saying that the angels and the demons, anyway, right,

[33:30] can go more swiftly from one place to another, and therefore they can more know things at a distance than we can, and so on. To the second, it should be said that Augustine there speaks according to that opinion by which some lay down that the demons have bodies naturally what united to them, right?

[33:50] By which position also they would be able to have what sense powers, for the knowledge of which is required to determine distance. In this opinion, also in the same book, Augustine expressly touches upon, although he more what seems to touch upon it, reciting it than asserting it to be what the truth, right? As is clear through those things which he says in the twenty-first book of the City of God.

[34:22] So go to the twenty-first book of the City of God to see maybe what Augustine's real position might be, right? But Augustine is not as clear as Dionysius is about the angels having no what. Body, right? Huh?

[34:39] But Thomas is very clear about the angels having no body. Now the third objection is talking about our not knowing what what is distant in time, meaning the future. That's a lot different from place, isn't it? To the third, it should be said that future things which are distant in time are not beings in act, right? They don't actually exist yet. Huh? Whence, in themselves, they're not knowable.

[35:13] Because something is knowable because it what Isn't somewhere, right? Because just as something is deficient from being, so it's deficient from what knowability, huh?

[35:30] But those things which are distant in place are beings in act, and in this way, and are knowable in themselves. Whence there is not the same reason about local distance and about distance in what time, right? Okay. You see the you see the ways you apply into that.

[35:52] People over there in in Iraq, or over there in Rome, or over there in Paris, right? They actually exist as much as you and I do, right? But my great grandchildren don't actually exist at all yet, do they?

[36:12] So the people in Paris that are more right now are more knowable to me, right? Than my great grandchildren, who are in the future only. I assume I have some great grandchildren in the future, but they're not knowable to me now, right? Huh? Okay.

[36:34] Okay. Now the thing that he left undetermined there will come up in the next article, right? Why the you know why don't we know why don't the separated souls know everything that's going on here, right? Some things they know, and some they don't know, right? It's not because some are closer to them, right, in distance, and some further away, right? Okay. That's going to be in the next article.

[37:00] where he takes up the question now. Okay. Um. To the eighth, one proceeds thus. It seems that the separated soul know the things which are done here, huh? For unless they knew them, they would not have any care about them. But they do have care about the things which are here done, according to that in Luke sixteen twenty eight, where the the man in hell there says, "Right, I have five brothers, right?

[37:39] " And wants to do something to witness to them, right? Tell them to not get to this place that I am at, right? Lest they come to this place of torment. Therefore, the separated souls know the things which are what done here, right? Okay.

[37:59] Moreover, frequently the dead appear to the what living, huh? Either when they're sleeping or even when they are awake, right? And admonish them about the things which are here done, as Samuel appears to Saul, as is had in the first book of Kings, chapter twenty-eight. But this would not be if they did not know the things which are here, right? Therefore, the things which are here done, they what know, huh?

[38:40] Moreover, the separated soul know the things which are done here. I mean, excuse me. Know the things which are done among them, right? If therefore the things which are done among us they did not know, their knowledge would be impeded by what local distance, which has been denied above.

[39:05] But against this is what is said in the book of Job, chapter fourteen, whether his sons are noble or ignoble, he does not know. Right? That would do his sons. After he's died. somebody apparently. I answer. It should be said that by natural knowledge, now, right? Those forms that are left, right, in the mind, naturally, right? By natural knowledge about which now we are treating, the souls of the dead do not know the things that are done here,

[39:46] and the reason of this can be gotten from the things already said. Because the separated soul knows singular things through this that in some way it is what determined to them, right? Either through the what footprint, the vestige, right, of some preceding knowledge, or what affection, right? Or it could be through the what divine ordering, right?

[40:22] But the souls of the dead, according to the what divine ordering, and according to their way of being, are separated from the what association with the living, and are joined to the association of the what spiritual substances, meaning the angels, right, which are separated from bodies. So naturally, be turned. My separated soul would naturally be turned towards what the immaterial world, right, and to the angels, whom I would be worshiping as if they were God, right.

[41:07] Whence the things that are done among us, they are what ignorant of those things, right? And this reason, Gregory. That's Gregory the Great, I assume, right? The Pope. St. Gregory, the Great. And this reason is assigned by Gregory in the twelfth book of the Moralia, saying, "Huh,

[41:36] that the dead, right? Do not know those still living in the flesh, right? How they are disposed, right? Because the life of the spirit is much different from the life of the flesh, right? Just as bodies, bodily things, and bodyless or incorporeal things are diverse in kind, so they are also distinct in knowledge, right? So that means if a soul in purgatory, you pray for a soul in purgatory.

[42:08] That soul in purgatory is not going to know that we're praying for them. Well, he's talking about natural knowledge here, right? Yeah. But let's read the whole body because he's got to talk about other kinds of knowledge, right? Okay. But as regards the souls of the blessed, now, right? Oh, excuse me, I skipped over that. And this Augustine also seems to touch upon in the book about care for the dead, saying that the souls of the dead, right, do not mix among the things of living, right.

[42:44] Okay. But as regards the souls of the blessed, there seems to be a difference between Gregory and what Augustine, right? For Gregory, there joins

[43:00] this, however, ought not to be what thought about the souls, the the holy souls, right? Because those that inwardly see the clarity, the splendor of the infinite God, right, in no way should it be believed that that which is outside, they're ignorant of, huh? Once they see the splendor of God, right, they know everything, so to speak, right? I often quote Gregory, saying, "What does the soul that sees God?

[43:32] What doesn't it know that, right? " Okay. Augustine, however, in the book about taking care for the dead, expressly says that the dead don't know, even the saints, what the living do, right, and what their own sons do, right. As is had in the gloss upon that, Abraham did not know us, Isaiah sixty-three, which he confirms through this. That he was not what visited by his own mother,

[44:13] nor was he consoled in sadnesses, right, as when he lived, huh? Nor is it probable that that the the life was made more cruel than the happy life, and through this that the Lord promised to Josiah the king. That before he died, he would not see the evils which would come upon his people, as is had in the fourth book of Kings. But Augustine says this what, doubting right.

[44:56] Whence he prefaces, as one wishes, take one may take what has been said. But Gregory speaks what. Suddenly, he's a pope, Gregory. Which is clear through this that he says, in no way should it be believed, right? That they are what, ignorant, huh? Okay.

[45:27] It seems more then he says, according to the judgment of Gregory, that the souls of the saints, seeing God, know all things that are present, huh?

[45:44] Which are here done right. For they are equal to the angels, about whom Augustine asserts that they are not ignorant of those things which are done among the living.

[46:02] But because the souls of the saints are joined most perfectly to the divine justice, neither are they saddened, right? Nor do they get involved in the things of the living, except according as the disposition of the divine justice what requires. them. Okay. So it would be contrary to their blessedness, to be saddened by the mess down here, right? Huh. But that they would know these things, huh?

[46:36] Okay. Now he doesn't seem to be speaking here explicitly about the souls and what purgatory does he? Okay. Um. I mean, the first one is about the one having five brothers and so on, huh?

[47:04] For the first, therefore, should be said that the souls of the dead are able to have care about the things of the living, even if they are ignorant of their status, huh? Just as we have care about the dead, huh? Saying prayers to them and so on, although we don't know their what state, right? Okay.

[47:43] So I remember Father Steiner saying to my mother, if my father died, you know, I'll never stop praying for him. You know, we don't know when you get out of purgatory, you know, and so on. so you never stop praying for you know someone who's died, right? You know. Okay, so you pray for them, not knowing whether they're still in what purgatory or not, right? But your prayers are not wasted, right?

[48:07] I mean, you're saying too many prayers for somebody. I'll pass them on to somebody else, right? Or God will pass them on to somebody else, huh?

[48:22] But they are able, right, to know the doings of those living, not to themselves, right? But either through the souls of those who what

[48:38] come to them, right? huh? Or through the Angels, right, or the demons? That's kind of interesting, right? Or even by the what spirit of God revealing, right? Okay. So all these things could be said of the what souls in purgatory, right? God can reveal to them, right? Burke was down there, or you, or somebody is praying for them, right? Huh? Or so and so is, you know, mass is being said for you or something, right?

[49:10] Okay. And or the somebody arrives in purgatory, fresh from this earth, right? And tells them what somebody's doing, right? Okay. Or the your angel, right? Or even a demon, right? No one trusts those guys, but or by special revelation, the spirit of God, right? So there's many ways then that the souls, even it seems in purgatory, could know about, huh?

[49:49] And the second objection about the dead frequently appearing to the living, right? To second should be said that this that the dead appear in some way to the living either happens by special dispensation dispensation of God that the souls of the dead, right, take an interest among the things of living, and it should be what considered to be among the divine what miracles, right? Or these apparitions come about through the workings or operations of the good angels or the bad ones in some way, right?

[50:37] Even the dead being what ignorant of these things, huh? Just as the living, huh? Sometimes ignorantly, without knowing it, appear to other living ones in dreams, huh? As Augustine says in the aforesaid book,

[51:03] So you ever had somebody appear to you in a dream? I've had people tell me, you know, where they they dreamt about meeting some person that they had not met before, and then they got up that day and they walked out and they meet this person. So it's kind of the meaning of this is is hard to say, but okay. Whence about Samuel, right? Which is the the text they use there.

[51:29] Whence about Samuel, it can be said that he appeared by what divine revelation, according as it is said in Ecclesiasticus forty-six, that he slept. And made known to the king the end of his life. huh You read it in Lives of the Saints there, you know, where someone came in and said, "Well, this time next year I'll come back. You'll die next year at this time, right?"

[51:57] So they've been told that some of them, or that apparition was procured by the demons, right? If the authority ecclesiasticus is not deceived on account of this, that among the canonical scriptures is not had among the what Hebrews, right? Okay, right.

[52:22] It's pretty well established now, ecclesiasticus, right? They call it Sirach now, don't they, or what? I think they don't use any question mark. Okay. And the third one was saying about local distance, and he said to the third, "It should be said that ignorance of this

[52:44] kind does not happen from local distance, but on account of the foresaid what cause." So um the f thoughts that I have in my understanding will be something universal, right? That are left over in this life. So my knowing what a man is, how do I know what this man is doing, right? My knowing what a man is doesn't tell me what this man or this man is doing.

[53:13] I have to go back to my senses, right? But I don't have any senses when my soul is separated, right? It's going to be what the angel tells me, or what God reveals to me, or something of that sort, right? It's not going to be my natural knowledge, right? What's going on? I'm naturally going to be turned now to the immaterial world, huh? The affairs of this world, right?

[53:38] That's going to be if I add it to my my separated soul, right? Huh? I mean, it won't be actual until my soul is separated. You understand, right? To that point, I'll be still clinging to this body, you know, in this this material world, huh? But the minute my soul is separated from that, it's going to be another direction, huh?

[54:03] So it's going to be some more supernatural knowledge whereby I always know what you guys are still doing down here. It pertains to me to know that in some way, right?

[54:15] Or if one of you dies and comes and tells me in purgatory and haunts. Okay. So now you know all about the separated soul, right? Until you get to that state huh? So is that how we'll remember our past life when we die? Is from God infusing all that knowledge? You know, this is. Because we won't have our senses. But to some extent, though, you know your own what

[54:50] habits you have. Yeah, yeah, you know the singular immaterial things in you, right? Okay. And so you know to some extent your your reason and your will and so on, right? Okay. But do you remember, I went through a ball game on this day or something. No, maybe not. No.

[55:11] People suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I don't even know that, right? Yeah. No. No. But that would be something God could infuse all that in, so we'd remember our past, life. Yeah, yeah. But they say Regan, you know, they they show Regan. Regan his inauguration, You know what it's all about, right? Can I imagine that? You know,

[55:37] if I get Alzheimer's, they'll probably show me my wedding pictures, or something like that. What's that all about? You know, it's kind of hard to imagine yourself being in that kind of a state, you know. But you know,

[55:52] I know I worked in the package store there when the guy, you know, finally was in his seventies or almost eighties, but he got you know

[56:03] heart problems and so on. He was in the hospital there, and other guys they worked together in the package store for twenty years, right? And Dick goes down there and to see Charlie, and Charlie's wife is there. You remember Dick? You know, He worked for him 20 years. He didn't know him at all, right? I can't imagine that, you know. You hear, you know, husbands and wives not knowing each other, right?

[56:23] You know, and these these kind of ailments, you know. When you lost your senses altogether, right? When you had your senses altogether, I can do too much about going here, but.