Prima Secundae
Lecture 23: Comprehension, Rectitude of Will, and Perfect Beatitude

Transcript
================================================================================

Before our break, now, well, therefore, beatitudes require comprehension, huh? For Augustine says to Paulina about seeing God, to attain by the mind, to attain God by the mind, magna es beatitudo, right? It's a great beatitude, huh? To comprehend, however, is impossible. We'll never see God or understand God as much as he is, what, understandable, right? And we'll never love God as much as he is, what, lovable, right? In that sense, there's a certain likeness there. Therefore, without comprehension, there is, what, beatitude, huh? However, beatitude is the perfection of man according to his understanding part, in which there are not any other powers than that of the understanding and the will. This has been said in the first part. But the understanding is sufficiently perfected by the vision of God, the will, by the, what, pleasure in it, huh? Therefore, there's not required comprehension as something third, huh? I suspect there's some equivocation here in the word comprehension here, right, huh? Moreover, beatitude consists in operation. But operations are determined according to objects, huh? That's the old principle that Aristotle has in the ethics, right? You know the abilities by their acts and the acts by their, what, object. So you know the difference between seeing and hearing by the difference between color and sound. And you know the difference between the powers by the difference between seeing and, what, hearing, huh? But the general objects are two. The good, the true, and the good, huh? Now the true corresponds to vision, and the good corresponds to, what, pleasure. Therefore, there's not required comprehension as some third thing, huh? Okay? But against all this is what the apostle says. First epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 9. Thus run, that you might, what, comprehend, huh? But spiritual running, it's like a race here, Tom, I mean, Paul says, ends at, what, beatitude, huh? When he himself says, in the second epistle to Timothy, I have fought the, what, yeah? Good battle and a good fight. I have completed the running, right? I have kept the faith, and the rest is set forth for me, a crown of, what, justice, huh? And therefore comprehension is required for beatitude, huh? I answer, it should be said, that since beatitude consists in the, what, achievement of the last end, those things that are required for beatitude should be considered from the, what, order of men to, what, the end. I'd say Thomas is looking before and after, as far as I can see. But, to this understandable end, man is ordered, in part, by his understanding, or through his understanding, and partly through his, what, will, huh? Through his understanding, insofar as in the understanding, there pre-exists some knowledge, some imperfect knowledge of the end, huh? So what's the definition of faith there that St. Paul gives? Hebrews, specifically Hebrews, some of you don't say it's St. Paul, but we'll say it's St. Paul. Substance of things, hope for the conviction of what is not seen, right? Well, Thomas says substance means they're, what, the foundation, in a sense, huh? So it's kind of a foretaste of the things that we're going to, what, the hope to see, right? So he says, through the understanding, insofar as in the understanding, there pre-exists some imperfect knowledge of the end, huh? So when I study the Trinity, and especially, you know, I think, hey, this is the way it's going to be. Even though I don't know how it's going to be, but, you know, I mean, but, you know, I say, you know, there's nothing more to seek than this, huh? It's like Thomas says, I study the body so I can understand the soul, and I study the soul so I can understand where an angel is. And I study the angel so I can understand what God is. That's it. Through the will, first through what? Love, huh? Which is the first motion of the will towards something, right? Secondly, through a real, what, relation, I guess, habitudinam, it's kind of hard to translate that exactly. Having yourself towards, of the lover towards the, what, love, huh? Which can be threefold, huh? This guy is really subtle, huh? Father Paul used to talk about mental indigestion, you know, huh? So, I mean, you could just, what, kind of slow down, you know, and kind of savor what Thomas says and think about it now. We tend to go too fast and slow down. And Brother Mark and I would always say, we're going to strain this professor's head out, you know, because he's all over the place. He says, well, what we're going to do is we're going to lock him in a little prison cell. Oh, and I dropped just one page of Thomas in each day. Well, the guy starved for some kind of mental nourishment by this time. He wants to read something, you know, but just enough, you know, to, not too much so that he runs over the place. But he's just got that little one page of Thomas. You know, to wait. Sometimes, he says, the loved is present to the one, what, loving. And then no longer is he sought, right? Sometimes he is not present, or he's not present, but it is impossible to, what, attain it. And then also it is not, what, sought, huh? Sometimes, however, it is possible to obtain it, but it is elevated above his ability, you might say, of the one, what? Yeah. So that at once, immediately, he's not able to be had. And this is the relation of the one hoping to the, what, here, which is the only relation that makes one investigate the end. You don't have the end, and you judge it though to be possible in some way, right? And to these three, there corresponds something in the beatitude itself. This is the three theological virtues he's talking about, in a sense. Because those are the virtues that have God himself as their object, huh? So we're directed by these three, huh? And to these three, there corresponds something in the beatitude itself. For the perfect knowledge of the end corresponds to the, what, imperfect. The presence, however, of the end itself corresponds to the relation of, what, hope. But pleasure in the end, already present, there follows upon this pleasure to light. And therefore, it is necessary for beatitude that these three things, what, run together. Three is enough, right? Two is not enough. Aristotle was right. And therefore it is necessary, okay, to wit, the vision, which is the perfect knowledge of the understandable in, comprehension, which implies the, what, presence of the in, I think that's kind of brought out when you say you're seeing him face to face, right? He's present, right? It's not brought out so much. So clearly when you say you're seeing him as he is, but he says seeing him face to face. Pleasure or enjoyment, which implies the resting of the thing loving in the loved, okay? So the lover is said to be in the thing loved. I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Okay. So the heart is in that. Okay, now it's not down until ad primum that we get the two meanings of comprehension, right? There are these two meanings. To the first therefore it should be said that comprehension is said in two ways. In one way, the including of the one comprehended in the one comprehending it. And thus everything that is comprehended by something limited is what? Limited, huh? Whence in this way God is not able to be comprehended by some, what? Create intellect, huh? You never know God as much as he is knowable. I wonder sometimes if you can hear Mozart as much as he is hearable. To keep on hearing more in him as I, come on. Or sometimes, you know, if you have a painting, you know, a production of a famous painting on your wall or something like that, and you see you notice something you didn't notice before. When I first came to Worcester, you know, I went down, I was down in the bookstore and they had some of these prints, you know, and some of the kind of other ones there, the canals there. And I said, okay, I'll put that in my shabby little room. And, well, one day I was, you know, I said I'd get dressed in this side of the room or something over here, you know, putting my stockings on. And gee, wherever I am, it looks like I'm looking right down the canal, right? How can that be, you know? But there's one of those paintings interesting, right? And I don't know how the paintings do it, but you just follow right across like that. And there's some paintings, you know, of people, you know, where the eyes seem to follow you right around. And Washington Irving talks about these, you know, the servants there in the great houses of England there, you know, there's something strange about that painting because he does follow you right around, you know? It is a kind of amazing thing, you see that, right? But I hadn't noticed it, you know, and there was someone there, I said, hey, where I go, I'm looking straight down the thing, you know? There's something strange going on there, you know? So, I mean, you know, a lot of times you don't see something as much as it is seeable, right? You don't hear something, you know? I think God will have your full attention, but even so, I don't think you're going to see everything that is seeable anymore, right? So, in this way, God cannot be comprehended by some great intellect. In another way, comprehension names nothing other than the, what? Holding, you might say, right? Of something that has had, what? In the present, yeah. Just as someone, what? Getting to somebody is said to comprehend them when he holds them, right? Someone to please get you, right? And, comprehension in this way is required for beatitude, right? So, our style said the most common mistake is the mistake for mixing up the senses of a word, right? So, here you have a distinction of two meanings of comprehend, right? So, don't confuse the two, right? Otherwise, you'll be mistaken. Now, to the second objection, what about, why should it just be two? Because you've got the intellect and the will, right? The second should be said that just as to the will pertains both hope and love, right? Because it belongs to the same to love something and to tend towards it when it is not, what, what? Had, huh? So, also to the will pertains both comprehension, the sense that we indicated in Article I, or Injection I, and pleasure, right? Because it belongs to the same one to have something and to, what? Rest in it, huh? That's interesting, huh? That's probably the attitude of having God, and it sounds kind of strange, right? I think that comprehension is more of a part of the meaning, right? But comprehension is being denied, you know, in the first, uh, reply to the first objection, that's in the intellect, right? Um, to catch the comprehension, like the police catching somebody, catch God with their hand, like somebody with their will, right? That's what I'm thinking, you know? Yeah, yeah. But you're seeking God by your will, right? And you want to have him, right, huh? Interesting. Interesting, in the, uh, fifth book of wisdom there, when Aristotle takes up the word, uh, perfect, right? And I think I mentioned before how he gives three basic senses of the word perfect, right? Perfect or complete. First sense is if you have all your parts. My favorite example is the French restaurants here in Quebec, you know, you see in the menu, report complet. Complete meal meant you had, uh, some kind of appetizer, a main course, and some kind of a dessert. Maybe nothing more than jello, but it's a complete meal, right? It's got all the parts of a meal, right? And, um, in the second sense of perfect is what has all the ability of its kind. So Homer is the, what, perfect poet, huh? Or Mozart is a perfect musician, huh? Aristotle is the perfect, what, philosopher, right, huh? Um, and then the third sense is what has reached its, what, end, right? And then he distinguishes these senses to the sense of which God is perfect, huh? As even Averroes saw, and Thomas also agrees with Averroes there, right? That the creature is perfect in its kind. It's lacking nothing that pertains to its kind, right? But, um, the, what, God is perfect lacking in nothing. He's universally perfect, right, huh? That's kind of good old Aristotle sees that, right? But then he takes up some other words which, uh, Thomas says are, uh, uh, kind of attached to the word perfect, right? And one of the words is Averroes, to have, huh? Interesting that he sees that as, another one is through itself, huh? And the other one is, is limit, huh? Okay? You know what, uh, Shark Holmes says, huh? There's that famous story that, I think it's called the Norwood Builder, right? But this guy has a, an infamous woman, you know, when she's from earlier life. And so he's trying to make it appear as if her son has killed him. And he, and burnt his body, right, huh? And it's very convincing, the evidence that he's, glad he's got into hiding, right? Shark Holmes is called in, you know, by the woman. And, uh, he's almost convinced, you know, and almost fooled himself, right? And then the guy adds one more. what piece of evidence which wasn't there before and so he's caught right huh and it's kind of funny because Jacques Holmes realized he's hiding somewhere there must be some kind of a way to hide in the house and he's seen that the buildings are where the walls are and so on where it might be so he has some stuff probably didn't you know and has people yell fire fire and the smoke is there the guy comes running out he's supposed to be dead you know but anyway kind of the aftermath there when when Jacques Holmes was talking about the case with with what dr. Watson dr. Watson yeah and he says he lacked the what supreme gift of the artist he says knowing when to stop I've seen this said you know about Titian you know I had this book on home there about the Italian paintings there and they talk about you know when to stop always huh and I hear the same thing you know people who listen to the music of Mozart he always knows he always arrives at his goal never goes beyond it he knows exactly when to stop you know in the same way Shakespeare knows just when to stop it's just it's something uh most people you know if they think they got a good thing going they they go you know they can't stop that supreme gift of the artist but it kind of a little hint there it's this idea of limit right huh and uh sometimes too when you're trying to convince somebody or persuade a crowd or it is you gotta know when to stop right just the right thing yeah yeah yeah just like you know and when my country's talking to the crowd there he knows when to stop and so on so so so that's one of the words here is how it gives us limit right and uh of course that's very close to the word in as you get the word in right so that's very close to the word the third sense of perfect right but then he has through itself and then to have right interesting so he sees this is as pertaining to their perfection right I can't be perfect if I haven't reached my end what is my end what's to see God as he is right so that's going to be required for my beatitude right to reach my end to see God as he is so but then I better have him right yeah me but yeah that's what we always are told about that especially about grace yeah even though it's imperfect in this life they say it's the gift by which we possess and are possessed by God yeah yeah that possession you know but you know you can kind of understand the importance of the word have there because the opposite of it to have is to lack right and that's kind of the meaning of the bad right the bad is lacking which you are able to have and should have but don't have right so you can see kind of the idea of how have pertains to what perfection right now you know if the professor says to the students you know they're sadly lacking that's an imperfection in those students right now you know so what does he say there Christ didn't they say this God so loved the world that he what he sent his only son yeah yeah since he gave us his only son right now if someone gives us something I suppose we what yeah yeah hope is a virtue that some ways not understood as well as not talked about as much really you know exactly what it is as much as faith and charity you know and I was at the ball there you know I kept thinking you know well everybody knows the text of St. Paul you know there remains faith hope and charity but the greatest of these is charity well then looking before and after like I was doing even then without having a mind shakes his agitation I was looking and saying what is the um charity is the greatest so then what comes next is it faith or hope right and some people kind of thinking faith you know let's talk about it but uh then Warren Murray's found out there in the disputed questions on hope right where Thomas is big and the hope is what higher even then hey it's kind of interesting and I can kind of see it when Thomas has a kind of a simple uh distinction of the three you know he says by faith we know the end in some way by hope we tend towards the end by charity we're in a way joined to the end right but there you can see how charity is is the greatest but if by hope you're what tending towards the end right so both Augustine and Thomas you know they'll take up what prayer with hope right so you better talk about God or pray to God you might say well in talking about God you in some way know the end how wonderful he is but when you pray to God you are in a sense what tending towards God yeah so um Thomas speaks in the disputed questions on hope there that hope is greater you know so I hear a lot of times people you know speaker church has been the greatest because everybody's heard that text to fall on us you know but they went about can't look before and after right that's the fourth sense of before and after right which is which is better right because it's of the same to have something and to rest in it huh the third should be said that comprehension is not some operation what vision yeah but is a certain what relation to the end now had huh whence also that vision or the thing what seen according as it is what yeah is the object of comprehension not to be thought about there right you know the uh in the vision you see God but you see God through God being joined to your mind is that by which you see him now there there's an aspect there of having God right God is joined to your mind what forever right it's like marriage in a sense right but metaphoric it's compared to marriage right huh so he says the prophet will see I have betrothed you right by faith huh and so if God is inside your mind is that by which you see as well as what you see then don't you have God take a little break now sure Article 4 here, right? This is going to straighten me out, I guess, this article. To the 4th one proceeds thus. It seems that rightness, or rectitude, of the will is not required for, what? Beatitude, huh? Makes things sound easy. It's to say about my brother Marcus. The most rectified, I used to call him. For beatitude essentially consists in the operation of the understanding, as has been said. But for the perfect operation of the understanding, there is not required the rectitude of the will, to which men are called, what? Clean, huh? Mundi. For Augustine says in the book of Retractions, I do not approve of what I have said in prayer, that God does not, what? Wish, except to the clean, for them to know the truth, right? We're not clean. I answer that it is possible for many also who are not clean to, what? Know many, what? True things, huh? So, therefore, the rectitude of the will is not required for, what? Beatitude seems to be quoting Augustine. Now, what does it say? Blessed are the pure in spirit, for they shall see God, right? Okay, so Augustine seems to be saying it at one time, you've got to be pure to see God, you know? And now, he seems to be retracting this, right? The first is not more, the before does not depend on the, what? After. But the operation of the understanding is before the operation of the, what? Will. Therefore, the attitude, which is the perfect operation of the understanding, does not depend upon the rectitude of the, what? Will. Moreover, what is ordered to something, as to an end, is not necessary when the end has been, what? Tained. Just as the boat is no longer after one has arrived at port. But the rectitude of the will, which is through, what? Virtue, is ordered to beatitude as an end. Therefore, beatitude being obtained is not necessary anymore to have the rectitude of the will. But against this is what is said in Matthew 5. Blessed are the, what? Pure in heart, because they will see God. And Hebrews 12, verse 14. Let us, what? Pursue peace with all. And, you know, sanctimonia, this can take a different sentence. Holiness. Yeah, but words are degraded in meaning, right? Without which no one sees, what? God. Now, what does Thomas say? I answer it should be said that the rectitude of the will is required to beatitude both before and, what? Concomitant they're falling upon, right? Antecedently, because the rectitude of the will is, right, through a suitable order to the last end. But the end is compared to that which is ordered to the end as a form is to, what? Matter. Whence, just as matter is not able to achieve form unless it be in a, what? Suitable way disposed. Yes. We're going to lose our soul, right? When our body gets too corrupt, right? So, nothing achieves the end unless it be in a suitable way ordered to that end, huh? And therefore, no one is able to arrive at beatitude unless they have the rectitude of the, what? will, huh? Now, for another reason, I suppose. Concomitante, right? Fouling upon or going along with. Because, as has been said, the last beatitude, the ultimate beatitude of man, consists in the vision of the divine essence, huh? Which is the very substance or essence of goodness, huh? God is not only good, but goodness itself. And therefore, the will of the one seeing the essence of God of necessity loves whatever he loves under order to, what? God. Just as the will, this is the kind of word she saw before, just as the will of someone not seeing the essence of God of necessity loves whatever he loves under the common thought of the good which he knows, right? So, we talked before of how the good is what all want, right, huh? You say, well, how do you mean? People want bad things, don't they? You say, well, yeah, but they want them under the, what? Common notion of good. It's got to be good in some way, right? So, if you annoy me, then, what? Getting rid of you. Yeah, yeah. But I desire it as a way of getting rid of an annoyance. And it's good to be free of an annoyance, isn't it? So, why not eliminate you, right? So, I can't really will even that bad thing without doing so under the aspect of being good in some way, right? If I should get up to Mass, you know, on Sunday, you know, it's going to interfere in my sleep, you know. So, skip, you know. You don't sleep in the homily. So, notice that proportion there again, huh? That the will of the one seeing God from necessity loves whatever he loves under, what? Ordered to God just as the will of the one not seeing the essence of God of necessity wills whatever loves whatever he loves under the common notion of the good which he does know, right? And this is what makes the will right that it loves things under the order to God. Whence is manifest that the attitude cannot be without, what? A right will, right? Come bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the house to the Lord during the hours of night and then it speaks of God blessing you, right? You've got to bless him first, right? Let's say you've got to, you know, you know, hallow him. That would be his name first, right? It's hard to understand the sin of the angels, you know, the devils, you know? But the way Thomas explains it there in the Summa is that the angels wanted their, what? The bad ones wanted their beatitude from themselves as we're right rather than to receive it as a gift from God, huh? And kind of hard to understand how evil that is but that's what led to their fall, right? Or was their fall? In between you saw the angels there in questions 50 through 64 but 63 and 64 about the guilt of them and then their punishment in the 64. That's why it's kind of interesting that on the 33rd Psalm with the correct number, right? Come bless the Lord all your servants of the Lord who stay in the house of the Lord during the hours of night, right? And then may the Lord bless you from science, right? That's the attitude, right? But you have to first in a sense bless God, right? Let's say honor and glorify Him, right? Before He's going to give you the vision, right? But Connery went to the devils, right? They wanted to have it from themselves in the attitude. It's frightening, frightening to read about their fall, you know? It's a magnificent creature, you know? Naturally, much more magnificent than us. Like Falstaff says, you know, what? I got more flesh than the man you're the flesh this week. What am I supposed to do? But you see, even compared to the angels, we're flesh, right? You know? And if they fell, you know, can't we fall? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, to the first, he says, it should be said that Augustine speaks of the knowledge of the true, which is not the very, what? Essence of goodness, right? To the second, it should be said that every act of the will proceeds from some act of the understanding. Now, someone, but some act of the will is before some act of the, what? Understanding. Not every act of the will is after every act of the understanding. Absolutely, you can say some act of the understanding comes before any act of the will, right? But not every act of the will comes after every act of the understanding. Now, the will tends towards the, what? Last act of the understanding, which is, what? Beatitude, right? And therefore, the right inclination of the will is presupposed to beatitude, just as the right motion of the arrow to the, what? The target. Yeah. I've been watching these Robin Hood movies, kind of for about $10, about 174 episodes, you know. And the grandchildren, I just love it, we're taking it out, the grandchildren are out there, and they're just crazy about these things. But, you know, the way they shoot the arrows, you know, just right at the target. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, the straight motion of the arrow to the, what? Hitting of the target, we'd say, huh? The signis, is it right? Mm-hmm. So, you're not going to get to beatitude unless you... No. Yeah. Aristotle uses that example of the arrow a lot, too, right? Now, what about this objection that what's ordered to the end ceases when you get there, huh? You don't need it anymore. To the third, it should be said that not everything that is ordered to the end ceases to be when the end has come about, huh? But only that which has itself under the aspect of, what, imperfection as motion, right, huh? Whence the instruments, tools of motion, are not necessary after one has arrived at the end. But the suitable order to the end is, what, necessary, right? So, the philosopher is a lover of wisdom, right, huh? Is it necessary to love wisdom to get to wisdom? Yeah. But now, once you get wisdom, do you need to love wisdom anymore? No. Thomas argues, you know, you're distinguishing between love and wanting and pleasure, right? Wanting is in the absence of the good, right? Pleasure is in the, what? Presence. Possession of the good, yeah. Presence of it. Which is love? What about love, then, right? Is that in the presence or in the absence of the good? Both, Thomas says, right? But he says it's more in the, what? Presence of the, what? Good, right? Okay. So, the philosopher, in the beginning of the philosophical life, he's got to love wisdom, right? Otherwise, he's not going to persist in the pursuit of wisdom, right? He'll never arrive at wisdom. But when he possesses some wisdom, right? Does he love it more or less than he did in the beginning? More, yeah. It becomes more natural to you, right? More fitting, huh? Maybe in some way, at the beginning, he has to exercise his love and remove obstacles, too. Yeah, yeah. And Thomas says, if you find something in the love that is not lovable, then you don't love it more when you get it than you did before, right? Okay. But if there's nothing, you know, repugnant to love, right, then you love it more when you, what? Array, right? In possessing, right? So, we'll love God more when we see him as he is than we ever loved him in this life, huh? Much more. And you won't find anything repugnant to love in you. Okay? So, he'll be more, your heart will be more conformed to him, right? You know, that's kind of what love is, huh? The conformity of the heart with the, what? Object, right? And the heart is more conformed to the good once it's in possession of it, huh? Unless there's nothing in it that's repugnant to love, huh? So, not only will we not cease to love God when we see him as he is, but we will love him more than we did before we saw him as he is, huh? There, it's kind of the next one's a little bit more time. Okay. I think I need my body to be blessed, huh? Well, according to Socrates, you don't, but I think according to Thomas, you will. Thank you. Thank you.