Prima Secundae
Lecture 160: The Three Theological Virtues: Faith, Hope, and Charity

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

Now he's down to what? He's separated the theological virtues from the virtues of, or the natural virtues of man, you might say, the intellectual moral virtues. Now he's going to separate them among themselves, right? And lo and behold, how many will there be? I would think there'd be just two, one in reason and one in the will, right? Yeah, but what does that matter? I think. It's going to be three, right? To the third, then, one proceeds thus. It seems unsuitably that there are laid down to be three virtues, theological virtues, faith or belief, hope, and charity. For the theological virtues have themselves in order to divine the attitude, as inclination of nature to a, what? The natural end, right? But among the virtues ordered to the natural end, there is laid down only one natural virtue to it, the understanding of what? Beginnings, yeah. The understanding of the axioms, right? Therefore, there ought to be laid down to be only one theological virtue. Moreover, the theological virtues are more perfect than intellectual and moral virtues. But among the intellectual virtues, faith or belief is not placed, right? I kind of like to call faith sometimes, you know, rubs off some of this idea of hope on it, you know? I trust you, you know? Faithful person, I trust you, you know? And so on. Yeah. But among the intellectual virtues, faith or belief is not laid down. For it's something less than virtue, since it's imperfect knowledge, right? Right, huh? That's true. Taking somebody else's word for it, right? We call that a virtue, huh? Yeah. Likewise, among the moral virtues, hope is not placed, right? But something less than virtue, then it's a passion, right? There you go. So lover has hope, right? It's a passion, huh? Football players, they think they're going to win the game, but they hope to win the game, right? Therefore, much less ought they be laid down to be theological virtues. They seem to be less than what? Than the virtues, intellectual virtues and the moral virtues, right? So he takes these two, you know, one for intellect, fides and then spes, and they seem to be lower than intellectual and moral virtues. The other ones are higher, right? Yeah. This is really cool. It's all mixed up. Yeah. Moreover, the theological virtues order the soul of man to God, right? But to God, the human soul cannot be ordered except through the intellectual part, huh? In which are the understanding and what? Will, right? Therefore, there ought not to be except two theological virtues, as Perkwist says, right? One which perfects the intellect, another which perfects the will, right? But the Greeks say nothing too much, right? You know? I mean, if you have one virtue that perfects the reason, why do you need two for the will? If you need two for the will, I just need two for the reason, right? But against all this nonsense is what the Apostle says, and that's St. Paul by Antonia Messia, right? The Apostle. Who is it? Paul and Peter, I guess, are the ones that are called the Apostles there, I guess, in Scripture there? But that's by Antonia Messia, huh? Like Homer and Shakespeare, right? Antonia Messia. Now, however, there remains faith, hope, and charity, these three, right? That's marvelous that Augustine took those three, right? I don't think it's all the original them, but I mean, he did that for the ingredient, right? I mean, educated, you know, Catholic, wanting to know his faith and better and so on. That's what did work, and then Thomas does that towards the end of his life there in the catechetical instructions in Naples, so that's where he became, I guess, Dominican to Naples, right, and back there and taught for a while and so on. I am sure it should be said, and that it has been said above, the theological virtues in this way, order man to supernatural beatitude, just as through, what, natural inclination, man is ordered into an end that is connatural in accordance with his own, what, nature, right? Now, this happens according to two things. First, according to the reason or the understanding, insofar as it contains the first universal beginnings known to us by the natural light of reason. He's talking about the human virtue here now, right? Not the theological virtues. From which reason goes forward, both in speculative matters and in things to be done, right? So do good and avoid evil, right? You naturally know this, right? Do unto your neighbor, you should have your neighbor do unto you, right? You naturally know that, huh? Something that I would be and not be, same time, the same way, right? And secondly, through the rectitude of the will, naturally tending to the good of what? Reason, right, huh? But these two fall short or fail, right? From the order to supernatural beatitude, right? According to that, in the first epistle to Corinthians, chapter 2, the ninth verse, eye has not seen and ear has not heard, right? And into the heart of man it does not go up, the things which God has prepared for those who love him, right? Now this is talking about the natural order in our mind, which is the road from the senses into reason, right? So he says, the eye is not seen and the ear is not heard, because it comes into the heart of man. The heart, this includes the mind of man, not just heart now, the sense of the will inside the mind. The things which God has prepared for those who love him, right? Just like Romeo, huh? He doesn't know what's in there, what's waiting here when he gets into the... He's just got to stand there and hold the torch, you know, isn't he? You know, the other guys fool around, but he's, you know, he's lost because of Rosalind, you know? And then he gets his fate, huh? Whence is necessary, as regards both, that something be added supernaturally to man, to ordering him to this, what? Supernaturian, right? And first, as regards the understanding, there are added to man certain supernatural, above the natural beginnings, right? Which are what? Grasped by a divine light, right? And these are the what? Believables, right? About which is faith or what? Belief, huh? That's what the conic used to say, you know. He thought he didn't have the faith, right? Because he finds the circuit he has about these things, he doesn't know where it comes from. It doesn't know how it comes from. You know, the gift of God, right, huh? They asked more of Adler, why aren't you a Catholic? Well, they'd say faith is a gift. And it sure is, huh? He finally gets to it, and he became a Catholic, huh? And what do you say? Yeah, more of Adler, yeah. Secondly, the will is ordered to that end, right? Both as regards the motion of intention, tending towards it. as towards something that it's possible to what? Obtain. Obtain, yeah. Which pertains to hope, right? And as regards a certain spiritual union, through which in some way it is transformed into that end that comes about to charity, right? Now, you know, I remember one time when I was at Paul there, everybody knows this text that you quoted there from St. Paul, right? And then St. Paul said, but the greatest of these is what? Charity, right? And so I raise a question that St. Paul doesn't seem to touch upon there. Which is greater, faith or what? Hope, right? And sometimes Thomas, you know, would explain rather simply the three theological virtues by saying that by faith we in some way know what our end is or our goal is, right? By hope we, what? Start to tend towards that end. And then by charity we are already in a way joined to that end, huh? But then you can see that charity is the best, right? And then hope is even better than what? Than faith, yeah, yeah. So I was asking that, you know, thing. And then Warren Murray pointed out there that in the day spay, right, the dispute question on faith, I mean, on hope, Thomas is explicitly right, and that hope is after charity, right? And before, is that? Well, it's kind of interesting here. You see kind of the same thing here, right? Because he's saying that by charity, one is kodomodo, transformed to the last end, right? I'm always kind of amazed by this one thing there, you know, where St. Teresa de Su, you know, she's saying there towards the end of her life, you know, I don't know what I could have more in heaven. Our union is already complete, she said. Because I said, can you imagine Augustine saying that, you know? You know, he says the revision is the whole reward, you know, and so on, you know? So, and, but she should say that, it's always amazing, he's always amazed at him that St. Teresa de Su should say that, right, huh? What more can I have, you know? But there's a union there, right, huh? Already, huh? Okay. For the desire of each thing naturally moves and tends towards an end that is, what, the natural fitting to it, right, huh? And this motion arises from a certain, what, conformity of the thing to its end, right? So by St. Divine Grace, you're, what, your soul is, what, kind of made natural to this supernatural end, right? Because you're partaking of the divine nature, right, huh? And therefore you want to see God the way God sees God. But you will by seeing God by God himself, right? Light we shall see light, it says, huh? Maybe it's a little difficult to still see that distinction there between hope and, what, charity, right, huh? Okay. He says, secondly, as the will is ordered to that end, both as regards the, what, motion of intention, right, huh? Tending towards it, right? As in that which is possible to be attained, huh? Okay. Now when Augustine and Thomas take up the sacred doctrine according to faith over charity, what do they talk about according to hope? Yeah, yeah, yeah. By the case of faith, they talk about the creed, right, huh? And then regard to charity, the two commandments of love and the ten commandments and so on. Well, what are you doing in the Our Father? They expound the Our Father, right, huh? Things that are. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah, which you're, you're never going to be tending towards, right, huh? Because it kind of fits what he's saying here, huh? Intentions, right? Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, right? It's not as if you're joined to the kingdom already, is it? But you're intending that kingdom, right? Thy kingdom come. But hallowed be thy name first, right? Put it in order, huh? That I might love you above all things, and all things for the sake of you, even myself. Which is hard to do, right, huh? But you have to love God more than yourself, right? And insofar as you say, thy kingdom come, that's your intention, right, huh? You want to go there. And you're, what? You're kind of tending to have something possible for you, right? Give us our trespasses, right? Possible to be forgiven, right, huh? And put me poor, but Judas there, it's like he thought he could not be forgiven, right, huh? And then the other way, quantum ad unionum, according to a certain spiritual, what? Union, right, huh? Well, see, that's what Teresa of Avalon, who's Teresa of the Silver, is saying, right, huh? What more I could have in heaven? Our union is now, what? Complete. So she's regarded as, in Pius XI, that she was the greatest saint of modern times, you know? Well, it's because of that spiritual union. But that's through what? Charity, yeah. She's the same word, union, you know? I don't think she's thinking of St. Thomas, I don't know. She's excited. But if you go back to the, you know, the Tuyasana love there, remember that? Union is one of the, but, yeah, yeah. Union, what does Shakespeare say? Love, orders, number? Because it makes two, one, right? Yeah. One is not a number, right? If one were a number, it would be an odd number, right? But it's not a number. It's kind of a pun there. You know, Euclid gives, what, two definitions there of an odd number, right? One that's negative, right? It's not divisible into two equal parts, right? And one is obviously not divisible into equal parts. And the other is the difference from an even number by one. They both, in a way, kind of fit one, right? But the genus of number of multitude doesn't fit one, right? So it has the differences, but not the, what, the genus. I talked about this, you know. Father Boulay, you know, really hammered this into us, you know, that one way these names become equivocal, right, when applied to God, you know, is you drop the, what, genus and keep the, what, the difference, yeah? That's what you do if you call one a number, right, huh? You drop the genus, which is a multitude, right? But it differs from an even number by one. You keep the difference, right? This comes up in that text I was talking about in the sentences there, you know, where Thomas is talking about where there's order in the Trinity, right? And you've got to be very careful because when I first read about these things, like in the De Potentia and so on, Thomas says, you know, there's the order of this from that, but not of this before that. And so I first thought that order was a before and after, and they said, oh, and now Thomas seems to say, well, there's the order of this before that and the order of this from that, right? And in the Trinity, there's, the Father is in no way before the Son, right? But the Son is from the Father, right? And the Father and the Son are in no way before with the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? So I said there must be two kinds of order here, right? This before that and this from that, right? But when you go to this fuller explanation of it in the sentences, Thomas points out that no, no, generically speaking, in general, right, order is always the before and after. And sometimes in the species of order, this is from that, right? As well as being before that, right? Well, what is being kept here when Augustine speaks of the order of this from that, he's keeping the what? Thank you. Thank you. The difference in dropping the, what? Genus, right? That's what we do when we make 1 to be a, what? We call it a number, right? Yeah, this is a equivocal use of the word number, right? But equivocal by reason, because you drop the genus, right? Which is multitude, right? Multitude composed of units, right? That doesn't fit the 1, right? And you keep the, what? But the difference, right? So when I say, if it were a number, it would be an odd number, right? Because it keeps the, what? The difference of odd number that separates it from an even number, right? But, equivocal, it's not really a, what? Number at all. So the poet is right, huh? There's a saying, I guess, on this a bit in time, is that 1 is not a number. So you can't look out for number 1. Yeah, yeah. Or, as we've heard before. It can't be good, yeah. Or, as we've heard before, you don't have a number of heads. Yeah. But sometimes you go back to the sentences, and sometimes, in earlier work, Thomas spells things out, right? He does no later work, right? And so you can misunderstand the later things, you know. So it's good to go back there, you know. Remember the one course where Dianne was spending, in a forgotten text he says, you know, in the sentences, right? This is another text that he had in mind there. It was a comparison between logic and grammar, and logic and natural philosophy, right? And, of course, logic and grammar belong to the, what, the trivium, right, huh? So you expect them to be closer, right? But, in this respect, logic, Thomas is putting out, is closer to a natural philosophy, like grammar is off there, you know. And, sort of forgotten text. What is a text? It's about having the course where he mentions the text, right? You know, but he's, you know, holding us in suspense, right, huh? Well, he can't tell you if we get a suspense or not. Yeah, yeah. Well, I didn't have, at that time, you know, a copy of the sentences, you know, so I didn't read the sentences much, and I would, you know, just write anything else to Thomas, you know, but you go back to find some things, you know. So, let's go out of union. So you kind of see the distinction there between hope and charity, right? But it's still kind of a puzzle that there has to be two there for the will, right? But it's not all together, you know, that's surprising, you know, when you talk about the moral virtues, right? There are many moral virtues, right? But then one virtue and reason corresponding to them. So you have more unity and reason than you have in, what, the moral virtues, right? The moral virtues are in the will and in the, what, you know, sense appetite, huh? But there's one prudence, right? So you have more unity there than the reason, right? It's not surprising, right? One general, right? Commanding many, right? So there's more colonels than there are, what? Generals, and there's more captains than colonels, and there's more sergeants than, you know? So you go down, a thing like that. Okay, to the first now. It should be said, huh? That the understanding needs, right? Understandable forms through which it, what? Understand, right? In the beauty of vision, the understandable form will be God himself, huh? And therefore it's necessary that in it there be laid down some natural, what? Habit added to the, what? Power, right? It's time of the natural understanding, right? The axioms. But the very nature of the will suffices for it to have a natural order to the, what? End, huh? Would it be as regards to the intention of the end, or as regards its, what? Conformity to it, huh? But in the order to those things which are above nature, to neither or to none of these, does the nature of the power suffice. And therefore it's necessary that to come about the addition of a supernatural habit as regards both, right? That's kind of interesting, huh? Because Aristotle thought and saw it there was a habit, which I call natural understanding, right? He calls it noose. Thomas calls it intellectus, right? But it's a natural habit, right? Of understanding these, what? Axioms, right? But you need a habit. And you need that habit because you need understandable forms to understand anything, right? But the will by its very nature is, what? Inclined to happiness, right? And you need a virtue to desire happiness. But to desire the supernatural happiness, right? And to tend towards it, right? You need, what? Because your natural inclination is not sufficient, right? To the second, it should be said that belief and hope imply a certain imperfection, right? Because belief is about those things which are not seen. So what is the definition of belief there by St. Paul? Hmm? Evidence? No. You don't say evidence. Translations are bad. That's a bad translation, yeah. That's when it's evidence means it's from seeing. It's the evidence of what's not seen. Maybe or something, or? Probably that's what I'm trying to say is conviction, right? Conviction. Yeah. It's the word lingkos, right? To the beginning of the reputation, too. But in the sense of overcoming, right? The conviction of what is not seen. Mm-hmm. Yeah? Is it accepting without question? Well, in all of that, yeah. But you're convinced of what is not seen as being true, right? Mm-hmm. The substance of things hoped for, right? Kind of like a foundation of this. Things hoped for. We hope for the beauty of vision, right? You're already kind of having a certain foundation for that because you learn about the Trinity and you learn about these other things that you'll see there, right? Mm-hmm. But, leave that for the treatise on faith in particular where you get the definition right. Okay. Because belief is about things which you're not seeing and hope is about those things which are not had, right? So I have no hope to have a wife. I have no hope to have a wife. Thanks be to God. I already have one, so I can't have any hope, you know? That's a fellow I know. He always brings to his wife. It's the best wife he ever had. She's the best wife I ever had. But to have belief and hope about those things which are above the ability of the human nature, right, exceeds every virtue, what? Proportion to man, right? According to that of 1 Corinthians, that what is infirm of God is stronger than what? Yeah. And that's, Aristotle, I think, would agree with this because he has this famous text that we always refer to there in the beginning of the comment of the Dianima, the three books on the soul. He's talking about the excellence of the study of the soul, right, huh? And he says that We hold that all knowledge as such is good, right? But one knowledge is better in two ways, right? One is because it's about a better thing, right? Or because it is more what? Certain. More certain, excuse me. Yeah, more clear. Okay. In both ways, the knowledge of the soul, right? Stands out, right? Because you're studying the best thing in the natural world, right? The soul. And you're very sure that you have a soul because of your internal experience, right? But Aristotle doesn't, at that point, say which criterion is stronger, right? But we have another text of Aristotle where he says that the object is more the criterion, right? It's more essential than knowledge, right? And so simply speaking, knowledge of a better thing is better, right? In some respects, I couldn't have quit. The more certain knowledge, right? So if I get here and I count the chairs here, I can be pretty certain how many chairs are in this room, you know, if you guys would move out of here, you know? But I can, you know, count and recount and be very certain, you know? It's a big deal, you know, to know how many chairs are in this room, you know? And so it's better to know, Aristotle says, a better thing imperfectly than to know a lesser thing perfectly, right? But it kind of fits in what Aristotle is saying here, right? And Aristotle is a beautiful example, he says. Just as a glimpse, he says, of someone we love is better than a leisurely view of someone you don't care about. So I see his exam in class, you know, I mean, you see the boss there sitting at his desk all day, you know? And then you look out the window and you see your girlfriend over there in the office thing, you know, sure, it's more to you than all that, right? You see, you know, hours and hours of staring at the boss. So even an imperfect knowledge of God is better than a perfect knowledge of the square or the triangle or something, right? It's a very imperfect knowledge that we have with the Trinity, right? It's still... My wife had on the Catholic radio station there, you know, huh? Somebody was calling in, you know, and trying to get on top of the Trinity, you know? Well, even the first thing that was being said, you know, was something, right, huh? But you're starting out with the fact, you know, that he and his wife and his son all had the same nature, but with three different persons. Okay, so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit all had the same nature, you know? Because some of the, you know, it wasn't going to make all the differences. Yeah, yeah. But it's satisfying to get a bit, you know? So notice that thing. Quod infermum est dei, huh? Stronger than what? To the third now, which is Perkins' objection, right? It should be said that to the appetite, two things pertain. Motion towards the end, right? And conformity to the end through, what? Love, right? And thus it's necessary that in human appetite, there be laid two theological virtues. To wit, hope, and what? Charity, right? Mm-hmm. It's kind of interesting, isn't it, huh? He's saying that hope is more motion to the end. Love is more the conforming confirmation to the end, huh? You don't tend towards God by charity. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. It's kind of the definition, almost, of love. It's conformity of the heart. It's object, right? Mm-hmm. We kind of talked about that before in the truth of some love, huh? Mm-hmm. So by charity, my heart is conformed to God, and by hope, I, what, tend towards Him, right? Thomas talks about, you know, how, in the Summa Kanshi Adilas, how the hope, you know, disposes for love, right? Because if you hope to receive something from someone, that's a stepping stone to loving that person, even for their own sake, right? But once you have that friendship with that person, right, then you have hope, even more so, of what? Receiving something from them, right? So that hope is a stepping stone to the friendship of charity, but the friendship of charity strengthens the hope, right? And so you might, you know, the more you love God, the more you hope in God, and therefore the more you, what, move towards Him, right? You know, that's kind of interesting, the distinction He makes there, you know, between hope and love, you know? So love is, you know, it seems kind of puzzled to say, well, love is, doesn't love move you towards God, right? But is it really love that's moving you towards God, or is it the hope? Now, the hope might be what? Being informed by love and being stronger because there's love there, right? Okay? But it's not the same thing, is it? Yeah. Could you say that, well, they exist simultaneously, and that there is a type of union where one begins to love God, and then there's hope of a greater union, and so there's sort of a, both of them are working together. Yeah, in the order of generation, you know, you know, when they're talking about the spiritual sense of Abraham begot Isaac, and he begot Jacob, hope begot what? I mean, faith begot hope, and hope begot, what, charity, right, huh? And in Vatican II there, they quote that at the beginning of the, there is a claim to Verbum Dei, right, huh? Which is saying that by hope you might come to belief, right, belief you might come to hope, and by hope you might come to love, right? But then once you get love, right, charity, how do you think, then that, what, affects both the hope and even the faith, right, huh? Okay? But maybe if you go back to human things there, right, if a man loves a woman, right, there's a certain conformity of his heart to this woman, right, huh? And, but then that's something different than his hope of gaining her, right? And his hope is what? Kind of emotion towards her, right, huh? Now, if he loves her and she loves in return, then his hope would be very great, right, huh? There's still a different thing, right, the hope of winning her and the love, right, huh? Or if I love steak, right, and I hope to have steak, you know? You're driving in the steakhouse? Hope it isn't closed yet or something, yeah. You're driving in a trip, you're across country, you know, and you're going late, you know, driving late and so on, and you hope the place is, you know, you get something to eat, you know? But they're two different things, aren't they, right? One is you're being conformed to this thing, right? And your hope of what? Getting it, right? Mm-hmm. To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that this is not the order of the theological virtues. That belief is before hope, right? And hope before what? Charity. For the root is before that which is from the root. But charity is the root of all the virtues. According to that of Ephesians chapter 3. Rooted in charity and founded in charity, right? So the root is taken from nature and the foundation from art. So both of these things. Therefore charity is before all the others. Of course we guys that have studied the 12th chapter categories, we know that the word before has no one sense. We're really prepared for understanding, thinking about order. You've got to get it pretty early in the morning to pull up. Moreover, Augustine says in the first book of the Doctrina Christiana, that one is not able to love what he does not what? Believe to be. Yeah. Is that right? Yeah. Moreover, if he believes and loves, then by acting well, he brings about that also which he hopes for. Therefore, it seems that faith goes before charity and charity before hope. The plot thickens. Moreover, love is the beginning of every affection, as has been said above. But hope names a certain affection, right? Affectioner means an act of the repetitive power, the desire power. For it is a certain impassion, as has been said above. And therefore, charity, which is a love, is before hope. Are you convinced? Are you confused enough? But against this is the order in which the apostle enumerates these. However, there remains belief, hope, and charity. There's a reason why St. Paul put him in that order, right? He doesn't write the way I do. He just kind of sets this, plot, sets this. The answer should be said that twofold is order. Two-wit of generation, right? And of what? Perfection, huh? Now, order of generation, to some extent, corresponds to the first order in the categories, right? This is the type of time, right? It's the order of motion, right? Okay, and this is talked about at the end of that premium to what? Fairbomb day, right? It's by believing you might come to have hope, and hope might come to have love, right? And then perfection. That's the fourth sense of... Before. Yeah. Okay? Now, in the order of generation, is that in which matter is before what? Before. And also the imperfect before the what? Perfect. Perfect. In one end, the same thing, huh? Faith, or belief, comes before hope, and hope before what? Charity. According to what? Acts. The acts. For the habits are according together, right? Like it's similar now. The habits are similar, but the... Acts. Yeah. I think that what Thomas teaches is that sanctifying grace is in the soul itself, right? And then this is from the soul, you know, the will and the reason and so on proceed, right? So from sanctifying grace in the soul that proceeds in the powers, these virtues that affect them, right? So that kind of comes together, right? Just like my soul probably, what? Gives rise to my reason and my will at the same time. Seemal, right? But as far as the act is concerned, the act of the reason comes before the act of the will, because the will can't love something that you don't know, huh? For one cannot, what? For the appetite, the appetitive power, is not able to, what? Yeah. Either by hoping or loving, except what has been grasped by the sense or by the, what? Understanding. Understanding, huh? Through fides, huh? Through hope, I mean, through faith or belief, the understanding grasps those things which we hope and love, right? Whence is necessary that in the order of generation, hope, I mean, belief, precedes hope and what? Charity, right, huh? Likewise, from this that a man loves something, likewise, from this a man loves something, that he grasps that as his own what? Good, right, huh? Now, through this that a man hopes to what? Obtain some good, right? From another, right, huh? He regards the one in whom he has hope as his own what? Good, right? Whence from this that a man hopes about someone, he proceeds to what? Love himself, huh? And thus in the order of generation, according to Acts, hope precedes what? Love, huh? Okay. What is, what is, uh, who's that? It's a Benedict? The stages of love there, you know? But the first stage of love is where you love yourself for your own sake, huh? Then you get into trouble. It's not self-sufficient. And then you begin to love God for what? For your own good, right? And then you get to know the guy. You say that, you know, you find him lovable, apart from what he does for you, right? Oh, by himself, yeah. Yeah. And then finally, he says, you begin to love yourself for the sake of God. He says that's what I achieved in this life fully, right? But in the next life, right? And so, this is what Thomas is touching upon here, right? You're loving God because you hope to get what you need from him, right? But then you start to love him for his own sake eventually, right? Because you become familiar with him, right? And this is the kind of habit, I think, you know, with people, you know, where we hope to get something with somebody, so we can put them up or something. And, uh, but as you get to know them, you know, then we maybe, what, start to love them, you know, apart from what they do for you, right? Okay. But in the order of perfection, charity precedes both, what, belief and, what, hope. In that both, what, belief as well as hope are formed by charity, right? Okay, this is the order, but the form is perfection, right? And acquires the perfection of virtue, right? And thus charity is the mother of all the virtues, right? And their, what, root, huh? Insofar as it is the form of all the, what, virtues, right? As will be said below, huh? And to this is the response to the first, right? Because the first is talking about it's being perfect in what? Perfection, right? Gee, it's not. Not in the order of generation, right? Which is what St. Paul is talking about there, right? To the second, it should be said that Augustine speaks about the hope there, by which one hopes from merits already had, right? That he himself will arrive at, what, beatitude, huh? And this belongs to not raw hope, shall we say, but formed hope, right? Which follows what? Charity, right? But one is able to hope before he has what? Charity. but not from the merits which he already has, but from the merits that he hopes himself to what? Yeah, yeah. So let's talk about that text there in the book, the Sumacanian Gentiles, where Thomas says that if you hope to receive good from another, this is a stepping stone to what? Eventually loving that person, right? For their own sake and apart from what they do for you, right? But then after you start to love that person for their own sake, this is a foundation for what? Friendship, right, huh? And now when you see that you love this person, they love you, well, now you're going to hope much more to get from them, right, huh? And now you have a kind of formed hope, right, huh? Because of love, huh? But in the early generation was first this hope to get something from them, right? My mother always tells me, you know, about giving my brothers and I, you know, a bath in a tub there or something like that, you know? And, you know, as soon as the kids come out to the students and question them, Mama, what would happen if something happened to you? You know, what happened to us? And my mother's first reaction was, you know, to assure us to be taken care of. Well, and Margaret would come and Aunt Ellen, you know, and they would take care of you. Oh, okay, okay. My mother said, well, yeah, a little let down, you know, like they realize that, you know, they want the security, right, you know? They'll be taken care of, you know, I mean. And that's what, you know, we are, right, naturally, right? We first seek, you know, good. What's in it for me? Yeah. So your mother's going to feed you, you know, and take care of it and so on. I want you to get all the goods. I want you to get what I want. Yeah. It's like, you know, they say, you know, when the mother goes somewhere, you know, called away from the house for a while, you know, and the last thing she wants to hear, she comes back and, oh, you know, the meals are out, you know, like, it's not hurting this, but the fact, the meals are the, these things are not done or those things are not done. Okay. So now the third objection, right? To the third it should be said, this has been said, we've treated the passions before, that hope regards two things, right? In one way, as its principal object, the good that one hopes for, right? With respect to this, always love precedes what? Hope, huh? For never would one hope for some good unless he desired that good and loved it, right? But hope regards also that from which one hopes to be able to achieve that good, right? And in respect to this, first hope precedes love, huh? Although afterwards, from love itself, hope is what? Very increased, huh? Through this then, that someone regards to someone else, that he's able to achieve some good, he begins to what? Love him, right, huh? But then from this, that he loves him, he afterwards more strongly hopes in him, right? So that's the way it goes, right? Yeah, he's saying that love necessarily precedes hope, but you don't hope for something unless you think it's good, and you don't think it's good unless you love it. So love is preceding love. Yeah, but it may not be a love that's really fully, what, charity there, the original love, right? You're not loving God for his own sake, but your loving God is your good, right? Yeah. And that's, charity wouldn't include that? Well, you've got to love yourself for the sake of God, to have charity fully, right? But I thought charity would include both the love, the cupid sense and the love of benefits, both. Yeah, but it's, it's not really charity in the strict sense, in the full sense, unless you have the Amar Amatitia for God, right? But the love that precedes hope. It would be kind of a, a love of contributions, you know? Would it be supernatural in church? Well, something perfect though, in the genus, right? It wouldn't be a virtue perfectly, it seems to me. So it is supernatural? Yeah. So in other words, there's a supernatural love that's not... Well, as you begin to know what, by faith, what God is, right, then you start to want this, right? I read about, about the third book of the Summa Chantilis, right? Thomas says that when you see God as he is, right, you will understand also everything that you naturally want him to understand. And you do it all at once, right? So instead of going painfully through all these theorems in your life, I'll see them all at once, right? And instead of going through, you know, astronomy and botany and psychology, right? I'll see all these things at once, right? See, I want that, right? Now, is that charity? If it's supernatural love... Well, am I loving God for his own sake, or am I loving him for... What I get it. ...affection of my mind, right? For satisfaction of my mind. That's supernatural love, that's not charity. Well, insofar as it proceeds, they say, from belief, right? It's something above human love, right? But I don't know if that's charity, strictly speaking, because that's a love of friendship rather than a love of... A cupiscence, a love of wanting. It's a love... The love of... A cupiscence can be called the love of what? Of wanting, right? And the love of friendship, the love of wishing well, right? So I have the love of wanting for God, right? But to add the love of wishing well, right? But when it goes on to the perpetrator, the love of friendship, it doesn't cancel out... No, no, no. In the Our Father, you know, in the order there, I mean, Augustine and Thomas say, everything that you should want is in the Our Father, right? But also the order in which you should want it, right? So the first two petitions pertain to the end, which you should want most of all. And the third and fourth petitions pertain to the means to the end. And the last petitions to remove all the impediments, you know, to the end. And this is the order in which you should want these, right? But then, if you look at the first two, hallowed be thy name is put before thy kingdom come, right? So that you should want to praise God, right? Glorify God. God be made, you know, hallowed in you before the Vedic vision, right? The Vedic vision, which is the kingdom, right? Thomas defines a kingdom as the order of society of those who see God, right? And so, I'm kind of interested in there in that one prayer that you probably know, you know, the prayer we say after communion, you know? That's a prayer we say. Grazie asteve, grallo. It's for faith. It's perfection. It's good every day. I just wanted to say, here it is. Carey and patience, humility and obedience and all virtues increase. Is it before that? It's not one of, say, Thomas God, is it? Anima Christi? No. Yeah, Anima Christi. So what do you say? What's the first thing you say, Anima Christi? Certificum. Yeah, so that's before all the rest, right? And that kind of corresponds to the first petition, Hallowed be thy name, right? Okay. And then what's the second one? Yeah, and that's kind of like that kingdom come, right? Okay. You kind of see the truth of what Gustin says, you know, and Thomas, you know, so I can ask for what's in your father, right? But it's circular because what's the last petition there? In horomortis me, folk come in, you may be near, utcum sanctis tuis, laudum te, in sae kola, sae kola, right? I say to say a little prayer, then I say to the saint of the day, you know, pray for him that I might come to see God as he is face to face and praise him to you forevermore. They always say that, you know, that kind of completes it, right? It's kind of circular in that way, right? That's like wishing God well, right? So you're not proposing that the love of concupiscence, right? The love of wanting would be charity, right? But it would be, there would be kind of a love of wanting there before you would, what, hope, you know? I guess my problem is that you don't hope to get a good that you don't want, right? I understood that the love of concupiscence was within the love of charity. In other words, it doesn't disappear with the love of charity. Yeah, I don't think it does. No, no, no. But it's not what defines it, right? It's not the defining aspect of it, right? It's interesting. So I have never, I never understood this text fully. I mean, I could never understand what this love was that preceded charity. The love that precedes hope, right? Yeah. It's not charity, right? In the order of generation. In the order of generation. Yeah. Because I, yeah, like I'm saying, I just figured, well, if it's supernatural in character, and it's love, it has to be charity. Yeah. Supernatural begotten way, something supernatural. Well, it's something that, it's an act that exceeds the capacity of our nature. It's a kind of love that exceeds the capacity of our nature, because we're exposed, but it depends on someone else's generation by faith. Right? Right. Which also exceeds the capacity of our nature. No. Right. But I mean, but if that hope that proceeds from this love of wanting, right, disposes for charity, right, then, well, then it's twice removed, so to speak, right, from being charity, right? Mm-hmm. That's the love of wanting. I guess, you know, you wonder what the suffering of purgatory is like, you know, because you don't have your body there, right? You're suffering that way, right? It's intense. But maybe you're wanting to see God, right? You know? In the prolonging of it, you might say, right? It purifies the soul, right? If you want to see this movie, they want to see this. You know? Could hardly wait. Kids in their little, you know, could hardly wait for Christmas, you know? Just this morning, maybe not, they would come down. We used to open our presents on Christmas Eve, you know, and my aunt would be there at the table, and my mother and father were talking, talk, talk, talk, talk. Why did they come to the living room? Come on, come on, You can't wait until they come in, you know, that was forbidden, you know, to not be the presents until grandma and whoever was there was there. How can they be, how can they sell they're talking? They're so distracted. With our presents to the open, yeah. They're so distracted. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I'm not saying they're suffering greatly, but the way that kid suffers, no. It's the tension that's fixed. That's what I think of in terms of the soul in purgatory, because they're not distracted with their bodies. Yeah, yeah. They're hoping. So you realize that this is everything that your mind has ever wanted, you know, good one. I don't know. It's supposed to be, uh, tough. Tough, yeah. Especially people like me, you know. You're not distracted by things like the stock market. You know, Thomas Praiser, you know, you know, Thomas Shishio, you know, so thirsty for this. It's a vision. St. John the Cross asked his friends, you know, pray that I might have my purgatory on earth. It's a great prayer. I mean, there's a saint of Genoa there that's supposed to be, what? Yeah. Hmm? Catherine. Catherine of Genoa, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, I still have to stop there, huh? Because that's a nice, uh, St. Bridget talks about crazy brain too. Mm-hmm. St. Bridget? You'll find out. See what they do to trees. Yeah. It's a great. I've been playing a brother, thank you very much. The trees can, it's better. Now you're talking. Now you know every other day. Now you know. So we'll find out about the infused virtues here in the next question, right? Mm-hmm. Causa virtutum. Thank you very much.