Prima Secundae
Lecture 222: Punishment, Sin, and Eternal Justice in Thomistic Theology

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

Okay, now, to the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that to sin is owed a punishment that is infinite in quantity, huh? For it is said in Jeremiah 10, verse 24, Correct me, Lord, in your judgment, but not in your furor, not in your anger. Yeah, unless perhaps you would reduce me to nothing. But ira, or furor, anger, or the furor of God, metaphorically signifies the divine justice. But to be reduced to nothing is an infinite punishment, right? Just as to make something for nothing, as God does, is of infinite power. That's the only God can create, right? The angels can't create. Therefore, according to the vindictive divine judgment, Sin is punished, what? By infinite punishment, according to quantity. Jeremiah says their freedom. Moreover, to the quantity of guilt corresponds to quantity of punishment, according to that of Deuteronomy, chapter 25. For the measure of sin will be the measure of what? Yeah. But for a sin which is committed against God, but a sin which is committed against God is infinite, according to the one you're offending, you might say. For that is more grave the sin, the greater is the person against whom one has sinned. Justice is a more grave sin to strike the prince than to strike a private, what? Citizen. But the magnitude of God is, what? Infinite. Therefore, an infinite punishment is owed for the sin that is committed against God. Moreover, something is infinite in two ways, in duration and what? In quantity. But in duration the punishment is infinite, therefore quantity. Against this, because according to this, the punishment of all mortal sins would be what? Equal. For one infinite is not greater than another infinite, huh? Sounds like the mother. Okay. Answer, it should be said that punishment is proportioned to the what? In sin. In sin, however, there are two things to be considered. One of which is the turning away from the unchangeable what? Good. Which is infinite good. Once from this side, the sin is what? Infinite, huh? Another thing in sin is the disordered conversion of the soul to a changeable what? Good. And on this side, sin is what? Finite. Because this changeable good is something what? Finite or limited. And also because the conversion itself is finite, huh? For the acts of creatures cannot be what? Infinite, huh? So, on the side of aversion, there corresponds to sin the punishment of damnation, which is also infinite, huh? Because you're losing a what? Yeah, something to consider, right? Losing infinite good. For is the loss of an infinite good to wit God? But from the side of the disordered conversion, there corresponds to it the punishment of the, what? Sin. Which is also, what? Finite, huh? Well, that's a good distinction, it seems to me, that he has there, right? I was thinking, you know, how would I approach the question, why should one love God, you know? I'd say, well, as far as I know from my study of the Summa Cantu Gentiles, and chapters, book 1, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41, there are five reasons why you should love God. Because in chapter 37, he shows that God is good. You should love good things, right? So that's one reason to love God, because he's good. Then in chapter 38, he shows that God is not just good, but he's goodness itself, after which all things that are good are good, right? That's even more reason to love him, right? And then, kind of intermission there in the 39th chapter, right? Because God is goodness itself, he can't do anything bad in him. So there's no reason not to love him. Not most of us, you know, I guess everybody gets in everybody's nerves, you know, they don't. There's always something not to love in everybody, in ourselves. So maybe he was getting ready to get married. And my friend Warren Murray says, people will tolerate you, Berkowitz, because of your knowledge. And then the fourth reason he gives is that God is the good of every good, right? That's a phrase that comes from his friend there, St. Augustine, right? That's beautiful. That one's missing in the Summa Theologiae, right? That article, right? And then in the 41st chapter there, that God is the Summa Bonum, right? So there's five good reasons to love God, huh? Now it would be scandalous to say, why should we love God? Yeah. Why should we love God? It's obvious to you as a Christian that you should love God. You've got the commandment to love God, right? I mean, why is this a question? Why, Berkowitz, are you asking the question, why should we love God? Yeah, but should any Christian be in doubt that he should love God? Should there be a question for him? Especially since he's already commanded, you really shouldn't have a question. I mean, you can't get to marriage and why should I love you? It might be a question to ask. But it's a question, you know, if the marriage is God, why should I love God? Yeah, yeah. You could say, though, you know, that theology, like Inselm says, it's belief-seeking understanding, right? So you believe that you should love God, right? And so no one should be in doubt about it, right? Okay? Well, you ask the question, why should you love God? Then your belief is seeking what? Understanding. And that's okay for a belief to seek understanding, right? Yeah. But it's not if you're seeking a reason to believe, right? But if your belief is now seeking something in addition, there is an understanding of why you should love God, right? Why should you love God? Well, he's the purpose of the universe. That's one reason, I guess. He's the end of it. That's what it's all about. It's a beautiful part there, to be this tractatus there in Summa Contagente. You've got to push that book a little bit, you know? Reputation is tied up with the, you know, what's your favorite book of Thomas? That's not all I read by Thomas, but, you know, I read for the things here, you know. That's an interesting distinction, though, I mean, as far as the punishment of hell, right? That's great, you know? The one is in terms of what? Turning away from God, and that's really the more serious one, right? The worst one, right? You turn away from the one who is the reason why anything is good in the first place. That's why those who seek other good is changing their own. They are bound to be disappointed. That's what Chesterton says about life of seekers and not life of finders. Mm-hmm. I was starting to look at that chapter 10 of Matthew, and that's where the 12 apostles are named, right? But the way they're named is they are named in couples, right? So he begins, he names Peter first, right? Matthew does. And then he brings in Andrew as a brother of him, right? And then he brings in James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John, you know? And then who does he go to? I think it's Philip and Bartholomew are next right now. I don't know why. And then he has Thomas and Matthew, yeah. I think one of the other gospels, Matthew before Thomas, but Matthew, he mentions his name, the tax collector. He sticks it in, the talonis, whatever the word the Greek is, talonis. That's kind of a marvelous tone. I think I know it's that humility, right, that Matthew has, huh? I mean, why should this terrible tax collector, right, be writing the first of the gospels, right? This would be the first book of the, what, New Testament, right? The Second Vatican Council says that even among the books of the New Testament, the four gospels are the, what, principle, right? You know, this is the first of the four gospels, right? 28 chapters, I think it's perfection. But why should this be, why should it be at this tax? You know, why? You can see maybe why John should have an epistle, I mean, have a gospel, right? And maybe Mark, you know, because he was the pupil of Peter, here, and Luke is supposed to have been a pupil of Paul, you know? Why, why, why, why in first place here? Huh? The tax collector. Yeah, why? Is it because of his humility, you know? It certainly shows up when he says, you know, tax collector. He's forgiven much, well, love. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right here. Who, who, who, who's that woman, Mary Macon, that she had kind of a torn past, didn't she? Rage past, yeah. Yeah, and more of any forgiven her than anybody else, so, it seemed like, and so she was, had a reason to love him, you know? First time to announce it. Yeah, yeah, it's, it's kind of a marvelous thing. Some Dominican people wrote a book on Mary Macon. I never, I remember hearing about it, but I didn't, I never read it, it was, I ran across it, but there's some similarity between her great, she comes in names, tells Peter, doesn't she, and John, you know, and then they, they go running down there, you know? She's there at the cross, crucifixion, too, wasn't she, along with John, in terms of humility, right, huh, you know? The one, the sins of the flesh, I guess, and then the sins of the avarice, or what they are, the tax care, I mean, I mean, when, when they're talking about, you know, how many times did you forgive your thing, and so on, and, well, you know, then, it's business about getting two or three other witnesses, you know, and then the church, he doesn't hear, you listen to the church, well, then treat him like a tax collector. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, there must be the humility, right, maybe he's got a high place there, and all the apostles have a high place, he said, well, poor Judas, he said, to the first effort should be said, that to, what, reduced to nothing, right, entirely, one who sins does not, what, fit the divine justice, because it is repugnant to the, what, yeah, which is according to divine justice, as has been said, right, so do the damned wish to not be anymore, or not? That's a good question, yeah, I mean. It says in Scripture that they don't wish they could die, but they won't. Yeah, yeah. Again, it says it's natural to want to be, though, you know, so I don't know how you think to say that. But he is said to be, what, nothing, who is deprived of spiritual goods, according to that of 1 Corinthians 13, if I do not have charity, I am nothing. Well, that's strong enough, right, huh? My friend Jim Fransack, he always liked those things, he used to quote from Augustine, you know, and say, well, you know, sin is nothing, and the man who sins becomes nothing, right? But this is kind of inspiring Augustine's way of speaking, huh? The second should be said that that argument proceeds about sin on the part of what? The third should be said that the duration of the punishment corresponds to the duration of the what? Guilt. Not on the side of the what? Act, but on the side of the what? Stain. Which stain remains, right? Which stain remaining? There remains the what? The debt of punishment, yeah. But the bitterness of the punishment corresponds to the graveness of the guilt, huh? But a guilt that is, what, irreparable of itself as, that is, what, should last forever, and therefore there is owed to it eternal punishment. But not on the side of conversion does it have infinity, huh? And therefore there is not owed to it from this side a, what, yeah. So the fire is consuming Don Giovanni are not, what, infinite. They're bad enough. Should we stop here or what? Time to move, okay. Time to move, okay. Time to move, okay. Time to move, okay. Time to move, okay. Time to move, okay. Time to move, okay. whether every sin brings in the what death of eternal punishment to the fifth one proceeds thus it seems that every sin brings in the what death of eternal punishment for punishment has been said is proportioned to the what guilt but eternal punishment differs from a temporal in infinitum but no sin would seem to differ from another infinitum for every sin is a human act which is not able to be infinite since therefore to some sin is owed eternal punishment as has been said it seems that to no sin not there to be a temporal punishment only yeah say one sin can't differ from another one infinitely right so you don't get the same punishment now why one be punished infinitely and the other one not unless there's an infinite difference but it can't be an infinite difference because human act can't be infinite terrible well that convinces me right you can you can convince a dimment of anything moreover original sin is the least of sins once augustine says in the in caridian and faith open charity i guess that the what mildest punishment is of those were punished for original sin only but to original sin is owed a perpetual what punishment for they will never see what the kingdom of god the boys who without baptism have deceived with original sin as is clear through that which the lord says john 3 3 unless one is reborn again he cannot see the what kingdom of god therefore much more the punishment of all other sins will be eternal over to sin is not owed a greater punishment from this that it is joined to another sin since both sin each sin has its own what punishment according to divine justice but to venial sin is owed what if with mortal sin is found in someone damned because in hell there is no what remission therefore divinial sin simply is owed eternal punishment therefore to no sin should there be temporal punishment perfectly there's going to be a prayer right you can be punished there for your venial sins uh against this is what gregory says in the fourth dialogue that some what guilt yeah other guilt are remitted uh after this life therefore not all eternal sins are punished by what not all sins are punished by eternal punishment i answer it should be said that this has been said above uh and that sin causes the debt of eternal punishment insofar as it irreparably is repugnant to the order of divine justice now how is that to this that it is contrary to the very beginning of the order which is the last end for it is manifest that in some sins there is some what disorder but not a contrariety to the last end but only a disorder about those things which are towards the end right in so far as more or less suitably does one what yeah yeah upon them right but the order to the ultimate end being what being saved yeah yeah reserved as it when a man is what although he's exceedingly what affected or to some triple thing but he's not nevertheless an account of that want to offend but god by doing something against his precept whence to these sins eternal punishment is not owed but what temporal huh you said the question of the beginning of the order right and move that english word beginning you know so it has that sense right now you're a man of principle gonna stick to your principles you see these things you know you're a man of beginnings gonna stick to your beginnings so you put chris you know then you're coming aware of other meanings in the word beginning right you see the danger is that that these words in uh that are not translated but uh transliterated transliterated i say um or be taken in their leader meanings right so i say you know he has no principles it's all kind of funny to say he has no beginnings because the word beginning is kind of stuck under earlier meanings right and we've taken over the principle and it's what one of its maybe later meanings huh first meaning of beginning is what the point is the beginning of a line the line is beginning of the surface right surface is the beginning of the body right and you have the sensitive beginning in time right my beginning go back to well 1830 1936 1935 was in my mother's womb now that's why i might be kind of go back don't try to hold on to my beginnings right nicodemus there you know can man be go back to his mother's womb and be born again oh he's getting up that beginning huh beginning is in the past to the first it should be said that sins do not differ in infinitum on the part of conversion to a changeable good in which consists of the act they differ however in infinitum on the part of aversion for some sins are committed by aversion from the last end some through a disorder about those things which are to the end but the last end is from those things which are what to the end but the end the last end from those things which are to the end differs in infinitum right okay that clear to you but you know what does christ say you know you don't know they say you don't know where you're going and how you get there and he said why are they what the road who does and the what the life yeah so truth the life is the end here right but he's the road right huh don't they sometimes say you know it's like you're getting off the road when you what it's good man moral sin right why in a venous sin you're looking at the flowers on the way and stopping stopping for an ice cream and and uh you're not getting there very you're getting their kind of links you know you're kind of imputed from getting to your your destination right huh you know that's helps you to understand about where it is right there's a philosophy doing right now the philosopher is on the what road to wisdom right now if a guy gets off the road to wisdom he's he's he's way to foolishness yeah yeah he's not on the difference right so he might spend more time you know you know get lost in geometry and never gets on to Natural philosophy, alone wisdom, right, eh? No, he's going to be delayed, right, eh? Talking to a guy at the funeral there, after the funeral. He went to the University of Vermont. He was a philosopher, I guess, but he hasn't done any philosophies. As far as his things got out, he's taken a different road, right? To the second, it should be said that to original sin is not owed eternal punishment by reason of its, what, gravity, but by reason of the condition of the subject, the man who was found without, what, grace? Without the wedding karma, I guess, eh? To which only is there a mission of sin, eh? Isn't that some discussion now in the Church, though, about the, you know? Yeah. Yeah. A question there may be. In that case, it should be said to the third about the funeral sin, eh? That the eternity of punishment of it in hell does not respond to the quantity of the guilt, but to the, what, irremissial, it can't be remitted, right? Of it, as has been said, right? The man who has a moral sin, right? And then he's also being punished for his angel sins, right? But he can't, it's kind of, it's not per se that it is being punished, right, forever. But because of his condition, right? That he can't give any forgiveness for eating too much ice cream, or whatever it was he did. Stop your nom. don't need it because I want to give you an exam right after the prayer, okay, in the Gospel here of Matthew. In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Amen. I was reading the third chapter there of Matthew today, right, at home there, and this has the baptism of Christ in there, right? Now the question is this, who is said to descend upon him like a dove, huh? I knew you'd answer that. That's why I held my tongue. That's the obvious thing to say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But he's not called the Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit, but he's not called the Holy Spirit. What is he called? The Spirit of God. Yeah, Spirit of God, yeah, yeah. So I think that's interesting, right? In other words, that's like another way the Holy Spirit can be named, right? The Spirit of God, right? Now, at the end of Matthew, when he sends them forth, right, what is he called? Yeah, it's called the Holy Spirit, huh? At the very end there, right? Okay, the Holy Spirit, huh? So you have the two names, the one in the beginning in the baptism, I suppose that's the first mention of him, and then at the end, so it's kind of nice to remember the beginning and the end. And I don't think Thomas, in the Summa Theology, he takes up the Spirit of God as the name of the Holy Spirit. Now, is there another name of the Holy Spirit, right? Yeah. But I was thinking of this passage here in John that I kept on across, and I know it's the daily reading to something, and it's in the first epistle of St. John, right? I'll read you the English here first. Whoever we are of God, whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of, what? Error. So in the Greek there, huh? It's the pneuma, te saletheos, right? To pneuma, te saletheos. And to, well, I got the article, pneuma, te saletheos, right? You get the word planes, you get the word planet, right? Planes, the Spirit. Now, who's the pneuma, te saletheos? Well, I think it's the devil, right? It's by Antonia Messiah, right? He is the origin of lying and so on, right? He's called the father of lies, huh? But who's the pneuma, te saletheos? De saletheos. Who's that? Yeah, I would say so, right? Okay. Now, you could understand that, though, in two ways, huh? You could say he's the, what, the Spirit that teaches truth or inspires truth. But you could also, and that's, of course, would be, you know, parallel to pneuma, te saletheos, the one is the source of truth, the other of error. But the other way you could say is that he's, what, you know, I am the way, the truth, the life, because truth is applied to him, right? I don't think our Greek brethren would like that, the interpretation of the text. But it seems to me you could say he's called the Spirit of Truth, both because he inspires truth, right? And because he's the, what, he proceeds from the one who is truth itself, right? And would he be the pneuma te saletheos in the first sense if he was not in that other sense that he proceeded from, the one who is truth itself. That's why he's the spirit of truth, right? So in those three texts that I was referring to now, in the beginning, the end of Matthew, then the one here in John, which my attention was, you know, the master, it was in the, in the master, they're meeting the epistle of John. I was kind of struck by that, right? You know? I don't know why Thomas neglects those other names, but, you know. With the second person of the Trinity, he has, what, how many names does he take up in the Summa? Three. Three, yeah. He's called the Son of God, right? Which would be analogous to the Spirit of God, right? The Son of God. And then he's called, what? Amen. He's called the Word, yeah? And then image, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it seems to me that image is almost common to those two, right? But what the, the Word says, and sons say, right, is that this likeness, this image, the one saying that proceeds by way of what? Nature. And that's Son, right? And then the other by way of the intellect, right? But because to be and to understand are the same thing in God, then the one who proceeds as an image by way of what? Nature. And by way of what? Yeah, is the same one, right? And else it's not the same, right? So my son, Paul, and my, and my definition of reason I got from, you know, Shakespeare and so on, I gave birth to both of those, right, in some sense, right? I generated both of them, but they're not the same thing, right? One is a son and the other is a, is a thought, right? Concept, right? I suppose a man doesn't really have a concept in the first sense, right? The woman has that. And we just have the concept in this sense, right? We just have thoughts, right? I mean, they can, you know, convert to a real human being, they just convert to a, to a thought, a concept. Maybe we can expand a little bit on the names of the Holy Spirit, right? I knew you were going to say Holy Spirit, and then, but I think usually they talk, they text, they talk about, you know, the Trinity being present, you know, and, and then they'll use the term Holy Spirit because that's the more common one, right? But I don't know why you couldn't say, you know, the Spirit of what? Of God, right, huh? Because he proceeds from God, right, huh? Okay, we're up to Article 6 here in the Question 87, whether the, what, need of punishment, right, remains after sin? Not really in doubt about that, are we? To the sixth, one proceeds thus. It seems that the, what, being subject to punishment does not remain after sin, right? The death. For if we remove the cause, we remove the effect. But sin is the cause of the, what, being guilty of, what, punishment, or being required to be punished. Therefore, when the sin is removed, the cause of the, what, you know, that you're obligated to punishment, huh? The obligation of punishment. How should we translate it as obligation of punishment, or the death of punishment? Mm-hmm. So that's straight stuff there, cause and effect, right? Moreover, sin is removed through this, and returns to what? Virtue. Virtue. But the virtuous man is not owed punishment, but more reward. Therefore, sin being removed does not remain the debt punishment. More punishments are medicinal, as is said in the second book of the Nicomachian Ethics, huh? Yeah, yeah. It's interesting, you know, Aristotle's book should be called the Nicomachian Ethics, right, huh? I mean, there's another book that's come down to us called Eudemian Ethics, right? But the more famous one is the Nicomachian Ethics. Why should you name, you know, a science there, a book containing the science of ethics, why should you name that with this name of a person, you know, an individual person, the Comicus, right? Yeah, I guess his son is named Nicomachus, and he had his father, I think, had the same name, too. So it could say the ethics he learned from his father, right, or the ethics he was trying to teach his son, or both. right now it's kind of interesting right that he that that should be is that just by chance that the thing stuck there you know none of the books in natural philosophy or in wisdom and so on are said to be you know yeah yeah there's some significance in that huh importance of father and son you know you know those books of um in the ethic i mean the books in the bible there the bible as a whole is divided into two or three parts what's the basis of the division of the bible into those two parts huh yeah yeah and who is it says john say the law was given by moses but grace the truth came through jesus christ so thomas divides the old testament on the basis of law and the new testament on the basis of what grace right the origin of grace right the nature of grace and the effect of grace right in three but how does he divide the old testament huh how does he divide law yeah yeah yeah the law of the king and the law of the father right and which is more like ethics of those two yeah yeah and of course in those those books that are under the law of the father you had this my son you know you know so it shows kind of the importance of father and son there right in this kind of teaching you know i remember when the connie came down one time and he'd come down and he'd give talks you know maybe 10 talks around town you know and they'd talk at the college and so on talk at the some of the schools around i remember going over to hear a talk at his giving at the uh the saint paul seminary right huh you know and uh you know but being very insistent upon what aristotle says you know that um the importance of being brought up well right and aristotle says something like you know it makes no little difference how a man is brought up it makes a great deal of difference he says or rather all the difference it's always so strong right it's like it's like you know you know you come from a bad family so we say right huh um we'd say you come from a good family it could be that the black sheep is a family you know but the black sheep is not the general offspring of the good family right but i mean you might be someone in there i mean there was there was uh judas there and the apostles right i mean but i mean or most of them are bad right i mean you know it's uh i mean it's really it's very hard you know once you uh brought up badly you know but it's like aristotle it's almost impossible you know but you wonder if isn't it part of you know behind the idea that nicomachean ethics right huh that he learned this maybe some of these things from his father right who was a doctor right and uh he was trying to communicate them to his son right huh you know or both right i don't know maybe a little pun on that we're in the comicus right the name of both but uh he reminds you a little bit of the bible there right father and son huh does christ call his apostles sons too or sometimes or did he speak that one yeah little sons little ones yeah yeah i used to call it refer to the children i remember the little ones right huh i was talking to diane dizzle tell that my favorite student say the little ones in fact she picked it up there she didn't call it free to my children the little ones right because amongst us you know they were the little ones right huh but that's what he said the filioli right you know filioli yeah i was told by a priest that uh the translation to uh my children or little ones it's in english this is a certain important nuances which the spanish muchacho would be closer there's a more of a charity a sort of bodily bond in a way and so the english words don't quite capture it from what he was telling me okay after i said contrary i guess okay but against this is what is said in the second book of kings chapter 12 that david said to nathan i have sinned to the what lord and nathan said to david huh the lord right is carried over right transferred your sin you will not what die he's been forgiven right but nevertheless because you have what i guess yeah horrible thing with the son there right it revolts against him and so on right that's it's the son of sheba i guess right too or the son of the adulterous thing okay therefore one is punished by god even after his sin has been what dismissed right and thus the obligation of punishment remains even though the sin has been what removed that's a good text right huh doesn't thomas say when he's talking about david being the uh author of the psalms for the most part right that this is to give us hope you know that that he had a sinner rather than someone who's altogether immaculate right proposing these prayers right huh because prayer is tied up with the virtue of hope right huh and you might despair because of your sins right but with david a really serious thing right adultery and then murder as a consequence of that huh there's no pictures of her they've come down let's see what thomas says the body of the article here now answer it should be said that two things can be considered are able to be considered are able to be considered in sin right one is the what guilty act act and then the stain what falling upon this huh now it is clear that seizing the act of sin there remains what the obligation right in all what actual sins huh supposed to original sin right there's no but you're baptized there's no punishment uh you know say ten almerys or something but the act of sin makes a man what subject to punishment insofar as he has gone beyond the order of divine what justice uh to which he cannot return except through a certain what recompense of punishment uh which reduces one to the equality of justice uh that the one who indulged but say uh more than he should have to his own will acting against the commandment of god according to the order of divine justice he suffers something against that which he will or wants he does spontaneously right i suppose in his own initiative right or yeah yeah uninvited which also in what injuries right done to men huh is observed that through the recompense of punishment there is what made whole again you might say right huh reintegrate greater the equality of justice is made whole again notice how the word equality there is used with justice right huh now thomas says um that the all of our words come from the continuous huh i think i mentioned i was teaching the continuous with my students on tuesday night there from the beginning of the sixth book of natural hearing and uh so we use the word just to mean what equal you know it just fits huh Equal, either more or less, huh? So the idea of equality is in the idea of justice, right? But the word justice taken from equality, I mean, the word equality, I should say, is taken from what? Quantity, right, huh? Applied to other things, but it's hard for us to get beyond that, right? Thinking about God, you know, when you say, people think about God, you know, do they think of God as having a surface? You know? You know, I think they do, huh? You know? And you're seeing him face to face, so that there's a surface there, right? In the metaphor, right, huh? You're speaking metaphorically there, of course, right? But God is not a body, right, huh? I don't think it's kind of striking here in this Gospel of Matthew, just to recall, but there's a metaphor there. What's the contrast there being made between the baptism of John and the baptism that Christ will confer, right, huh? The one of Christ is said by the Spirit and what? It doesn't say water. You mean Christ? I'm sorry. Yeah. What is the baptism of Christ going to be as opposed to the, I mean, yeah, to the baptism of John, right? It's the Holy Spirit, I think, isn't there? But what's the other one? It doesn't say water. Oh, St. John's Epistle? No, no, no, in the Matthew's Gospel there. Fire, yeah. That's a kind of strange way of describing water, isn't it? You know, I mean, in the old Four Elements, you know, fire and water are very much opposed, right? Because fire is hot and dry and water is wet and cold, right? So, I mean, how can you use fire instead of water, right? That's really a striking thing, isn't it? You know? And, of course, you have fire there in terms of the punishment of the wicked, right? So you can see how the same thing can be a metaphor for the good and the bad, just like lying is a metaphor for God sometimes and a metaphor for the devil going around with the lying. God consuming fire. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Metaphors are interesting. Okay. Once it is clear that ceasing the act of sin, right, or the injury, right, bestowed, there remains the debt of what? Punishment, huh? But if we speak about the taking away of sin as regards the stain, thus it is manifest that the stain of sin cannot be taken away from the soul except by this that the soul is joined to God, right? Through distance from whom, right, he has incurred the detriment, huh, of his own, what, the diminishment, you might say, of his own, you know, and he had a sense of what, brightness, didn't it? Yeah. Yeah. As has been said above, huh? But man is joined to God through his, what? Will. Will. Hence the stain of sin cannot be taken away from a man unless the will of man accepts, right, the order of divine justice, huh? That he either, what, spontaneously, right, huh, takes upon himself the punishment and recompense for his past guilt, or even that which is bestowed on him by God, right, he patiently, what? Sustains. Sustains, yeah. And in either way, the punishment has the reason of what? Satisfaction, huh? Now, I guess purgatory is mainly that second case, right? Satisfaction. Purgery sets. Undergoing. That's it. Now, satisfactory, right, punishment, diminishes something of the notion of what? Yeah. For it's of the notion of punishment that it be against, what? The will. But satisfactory punishment, although according to an absolute consideration, is against the will, nevertheless, and in itself is, what, voluntary, right? Because one is, what, choosing, right, to undergo this, right? When simply it is voluntary, but secundum quid, involuntary, right? As has been said above, has been said above about the voluntary and the involuntary. Isn't that the old classical example, you know, the guy throwing things out of the thing because, ship, because otherwise the ship will go down, and he doesn't really want to do that, but simply speaking, he does want to do it given the whole circumstances, right? Okay? I suppose, you know, if you admit to, you know, having legs cut off or something, you know, because if you know it's going to die, well, that's not the thing you want to do, but on the whole, yeah, terrible situation, but anyway. It should be said, therefore, that the stain of guilt being, what, there can remain the, what, yeah, not a punishment simply, but a satisfactory punishment, huh? He used to say that he says, well, in one way, no, he doesn't want you to go to hell, but if you deserve it, that's it, he's not upset about it. Tough joke. He'll see it off my nose. The first, therefore, it should be said, that just as seizing the act of sin, there remains a stain, right? So also there can remain the, what, debt, yeah. But when the stain ceases, there does not remain the, what, reason. Because you're willing to undergo it satisfactorily, right, no? Of course, they say something in purgatory, there is something of that in purgatory, right, that you're now willing to undergo this so you can be purified and to see God eventually, because you want to see God. It's kind of like some, at least some of the martyrs, who, they don't really want to be tortured and die, but in order to get a witness, the hell, you're not going to do it. Not a whole lot of volunteers. Mm-hmm. I read that, it was at St. John the Cross, that he wanted his friends to pray that he'd have his purgatory on earth. That's kind of a frightening thing in some ways to think of, you know, because he's a pretty strict guy with himself, you know. Yet he wants his purgatory on earth, right? That's the best way to do it. Yeah. What does Prince Hale say to false death? You owe God to death, he says. But since it is kind of the punishment of original sin, isn't it, huh? The second should be said that to the virtuous man, punishment is not owed simplicitare, right? But nevertheless, it can be what? Ode to oneself as something what? Satisfactory, right? Because this pertains to virtue itself, right? That one satisfies for those things which one has offended, either God or another, what? Man. To the third, it should be said that the stain being removed, the wound of the, what? A sin sealed as regards, what? The will. But there is required, nevertheless, punishment for the healing of the other parts of the soul, other powers of the soul. Because through the preceding sin, they have become disordered. So that is necessary for that they be cured through contraries. There is required for the restitution of the equality of justice and for removing the scandal of others, right?