Prima Secundae
Lecture 248: The Goodness of the Old Law and Divine Dispensation

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

teenagers. Did I tell you this story before? Maybe I did. And in the St. Paul newspaper, they're back home. And we used to read just for the jokes. And these little problems that these kids have. Well, this is actually the thing one day, the girl was writing in, right? And her boyfriend wants her to wear candy-flavored lipstick. Of course, she wants to put on real lipstick, yeah. But he wants her candy. And so, you know, what should I do? And the advice is very short. Buy him a lollipop. He wants to have his taste of candy when he kisses her, right? I thought the kids would understand this, right? Because the pleasure of a kiss and the pleasure of candy is not the same thing, right? You've got to have, you know, candy-flavored lipstick to kiss the girl. He's taking the pleasure of candy, you know, rather than the pleasure of a kiss. But that's the same thing is true, right, about tragedy and comedy and different types, right? And when I studied Shakespeare's plays, and eventually I came to the conclusion that there's four different kinds of plays, at least, right? And the pleasure that you get from each of these is somewhat, what, different, right? And if you're looking, you know, for this to be a tragedy when it's a different kind of play, then you're going to enjoy it as you should, right? And the same way in music, you know, I mean, the same thing from a symphony and from a violin piano sonata, you know? I was going through my violin piano sonata the Mozart the other day and said, gee, with this stuff, maybe even the common man would like this pretty soon, you know? Maybe he wouldn't like right away the symphonies, you know, but he should be able to like this. This would be really nice, you know? So the pleasure of the violin piano sonata is something different than the symphonies, right? And so, Aristotle's making this point, though, when he's talking about fiction, right? And then he's talking about philosophy, right? He's talking about, what, each matter, each science, right, as its own way of proceeding, right, that fits that particular, yeah, yeah. You find people you know who are looking for kind of an imaginative thing in philosophy, right? They're looking for something that you're looking for in fiction rather than something you're looking for in philosophy, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, who knows? Thomas, in the one text that I was referring to there, the Bosumas, he's talking about how a statement, right, can seem to be obvious, right, to custom, right, but more generally, you know, a statement that is customarily heard, right, would be thought to be, what, known, right, or thought to be true, right? And you heard something bad about somebody all your life, you know, it's pretty hard to think of it as being good, right, you know, even though they might be slandered, you know, and so on, but the customary thing. That's why I used to make a study, you know, the customs of the modern world, and like I told you about the way I divided them, kind of, but if you go to what the talk was about democratic customs, right, that he says that the love of equality is even stronger than the love of what? Of liberty, right? So they'll interfere with the liberty of religion, you might say, right, or, you know, in order to get more equality, right, you know, and the whole argument, you know, for blacks and whites, or females and males, or, you know, lesbians, is based on what? Equality, yeah, okay? Oh, love is equal, you hear them saying that, right, but you realize a tremendous influence of what? Custom, right, huh? Hmm? Yeah, yeah, that's what Shakespeare says, yeah, yeah, yeah. But in calling it a tyrant, you see, a tyrant is a man who rules the country for his own good, right, and for the good of a part rather than the whole, right? And that's what custom does to the mind, right? It makes you what? No one way of proceeding, let's say, right? And you try to proceed that way every time, huh? There's always a joke, you know, and you'd be on a committee, a college professor in a committee, you know, and a guy from economics, and a guy from sociology, and a guy from English, and a guy from philosophy, they all approach the same question differently, right? As if no one is really, you know, approaching it the way they should approach it, you know? I told you how the sociologist says to me one day in a committee evening, I suppose you're doing a word count in Thomas. I said, what the hell would I be doing a word count for in Thomas? I think a sociologist does word count in some place, I don't know, but I have no idea about how I might proceed, right, huh? You know, you talk to a scientist, you know, what experiment is this based on, you know? Was it Edmund Burke and or G.K. Chesterton who had the famous statement that customs is the democracy of the day, and that seems to imply that there are customs and then there are customs, former being transitory-favish sort of things like we see today, but perhaps a true custom, but it's something that withstands the test of time, which is actually the basic reality of human nature, God, law, and natural law. Yeah, they say it takes a hundred years to know whether a work of art is worthwhile, you know, if it's still being appreciated and talked about a hundred years, but the one that's being talked about just today, you know, it's… Yeah, that's old, you know. That was the hottest thing out two years ago. Now, nobody wants to touch it, you know. Some of the commentators know that there was a long march through the institution, the cultural institution of the West. There's a book called The Long March because there's some of the leading cultural rulers and shakers who radically changed the customs and traditions and mores that made our society possible and change it for the worst we can see in current events. But it's really quite fascinating to see the intense focus of certain political groups that have been trying to re-engineer the West. It's traditions, it's culture, and human nature itself. But there's a question just how durable are these innovations. And since what we've told them are very far unrelated to the national law to human nature, they wouldn't, I think, take root in the last too long, but they'll cause a lot of damage in the process. But it's through propaganda, through the child, through the customs, through the education, through the days of young and… I mean, when they first proposed, you know, this being recorded twenty-three years ago, you know, these things about homosexuality, they just dismissed it. I mean, bother, that's nonsense, you know. And I've seen things, you know, around interactive civil war and so on, you know, where doctors were very much opposed to abortion, you know, and so on. All the first benefits are called. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because it's one of them. Yeah. We're going downhill there. Fair is foul, and foul is fair. Over through the fall, I'll get to fill the air. Okay, Article 4 here. Whether the rulers of the multitude are able to dispense in human laws. To the fourth one goes for it thus. It seems that the rulers of the multitude cannot dispense in human laws. Why? Because the law is laid down for the common usefulness, right? As Isidore says. But the common good ought not to be, what, overlooked or set aside for some private, what, commodia, some person, because, as the philosophy says in the first book of the ethics, the good of the nation is more divinely the good of one man. That's why I thought he'd run for office one time, but this was back in high school, you know, when I was very young, you know. It's like, as Washington say, you know, this is a letter from Washington, he was very young, where he was in battle, you know, and then the bullets were whizzing over him. He says, what a pleasing sound that is, he says. Well, later in life, he was asked, did you actually see that? And he says, I was very young, then he said. That's what I said. I was young and foolish. I was young and foolish. This Cheney, you know, I guess, he was in Wyoming, and he was young, he was a very good student, right? He had very good grades and so on. And this guy had been to Yale, said, you should try to go to Yale, you know. And so he applied, and he was, because of his great record, he was, you know, given a scholarship and all this stuff and so on. And of course, he got out there, and he started drinking beer and doing this sort of stuff, and got thrown out of Yale. And he got driving under the influence a couple times, arrested, right, for driving under the influence. And I guess when you apply to jobs, right, in the government, he says, have you ever been arrested, right? That's one of the questions they ask, right? And even he got into some position, the guy said, you've been arrested? Yeah, twice. Did you put it on your form? Some of the form, you know, had the form run over, because he'd put down, he'd been arrested twice, you know. But even he was running for vice president, you know, that sort of a thing, you know. But anyway, somebody said to him, how'd you turn around in your life, he says. Well, he says, I got married, and I stopped going to the bars. That's how he turned his diaper around. Therefore, it seems the one not to dispense, right, with someone against the, what, the act against the common good, the common law. Moreover, to those who are, what, constituted over others, right, it is commanded, right, you should hear the small one as the great one, right? Nor should you accept the, what, person of anyone, because it is the, what, yeah. But to concede to someone what is commonly denied to all would seem to be an acceptance of other persons. And therefore, dispensations of this sort, the rulers of the universe, of the multitude, are not able to, what, make, since it's against the precept of the divine law. Moreover, the human law, if it is right, it is necessary that it be in agreement with the natural law and the divine law. Otherwise, it would not be, what, with religion, nor would it be with what, discipline, which is required for the laws, as Isidore says. But in the divine law, in the natural, no man is able to dispense. Therefore, neither also in, what, human law. But against this is what the apostle says, 1 Corinthians. Dispensation was, what? Trust me. Yeah, credited to me. Well, what's this, Tom's going to say right now, eh? Answer, it should be said that the dispensation properly, what, implies the measurement, right, of something common to the, what? Yeah. Hence, also, the, what, governor of the family is said to be a dispenser, right, eh? Insofar as to each one of the family, he distributes with weight and measure, right, eh? Both the operations and the necessities of, what, life, eh? Thus, therefore, in whatever multitude from which, what, said to dispense, that he orders in what way some common precept should be, what, fulfilled by the individuals, eh? Now, it happens that some precept that is, what, commodious to the multitude, ut in pluribus, right, is not suitable to this person, right, or in this case. Of course, Aristotle says that they began the ethics, right, huh? You have to speak in many things here, ut in pluribus, right, that is not suitable to this person or in this case. Because either through this there will be impeded something better, right, or there might be do something bad, as is clear from the thing said, what, above, that's back in question 96. But it's dangerous that this would be, what, that this judgment would be committed to just anyone, right, except perhaps when some evident and subtle danger takes place, right? And therefore, the one who has his business to rule a multitude would have the power of dispensing in the human law, which is, what, subject to his authority. That's to say, in those persons or cases in which the law fails, right, huh? He gives license that the precepts of the law not be, what, observed, huh? So I was taking a role there one time in the military academy, right? And the officers that come from Washington to examine our military academy, right? And our company was the supreme company. So they will start good stuff, you know? So we were the escort for the military men. Well, I was responsible to make sure everybody was there. Well, this numbskull got him, come up late, and he was going to run up there, you know? I said, no, stay here. Mark and Mark, they, I said, oh, Mark, you're absent. They said, just stay, stay here. I want you to run up there with these, when we're. So I was, I was, I was plotted by my commander, right? They mean for, for, that was, you know? Yeah. When he says here, it's like also entering John. Sometimes I've worked good things on the Sabbath, but other times you seem to observe the Sabbath. Yeah, yeah. Because he's showing that in a certain sense he has a judgment about what's passing, what's passing, what's passing, what's passing, what's passing, what's passing, what's passing. If, however, without such a reason, right, for his will alone, huh, he gives a license, right, huh, he will not be faithful in the dispensation, or he will be, what, imprudent, huh? Unfaithful if he does not have the intention for the common good, see? Wouldn't have the common good of the school, this guy goes running up there, when this is supposed to be the top company in the school. Imprudent, huh, if he ignores the reason for, what, dispensing, right, huh? On account of which the Lord says in Luke 12, whom, you think, is the, what, faithful dispenser and the prudent one, huh? That's a prudent sign to take into account the individual circumstances, right? Which the Lord constitutes as over his family, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that when someone is, what, with someone being dispensed, the common good is not observed, that's one thing, right? But that not to be done in prejudice of the common good, right? But with the intention that it is, what, helps the common good, huh? To the second, it should be said that it's not an accepting of persons. if one does not observe equal things in unequal persons. Whence, when the condition of some person requires that reasonably in this something special should be observed, it is not an exception of persons, if to someone some special grace is what comes about. To the third, it should be said that the natural law, insofar as it contains common precepts, which never fail, not able to receive dispensation, right? But in other precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions of the common precepts, sometimes through men they are, what, dispensed. As men, what, something loaned is not returned to the betrayer of his country or something of this sort, huh? So I want my gun back and I'm mad at my wife or something. You might not give it to me, right? The example of the story I give is at the party, right, you know, where they're running short, so some guy will get some more beer or something, and some of them must be his car, right? And I drive down there. And I come back to the party with the beer and so on. I found this guy who's really drunk and he wants his keys. Well, maybe I shouldn't give him his keys if he's right away. But they're his keys, right? Do I have a right to keep his keys from him? It's my knife, my gun, my keys. You got me right to not give me back my gun, my... To the divine law, thus a man has himself as a private person to the public law which is subject. Whence, just as in the human law, the human public law, one cannot dispense someone except the one who has the authority, right, from whom the law has authority, right, or the one to whom it's committed. So in the precepts of the divine law, which are from God, no one can dispense except God or the one to which it's especially, what, committed. The priest is asked when he hears a confession, say, by some authority in the state, in a case or something, in a federal court or whatever. He says something that what the man knows there, the person he knows has God. He doesn't know what he's in. And there's something else along these lines that no human authority has any rightful to that knowledge. So he says, he can say, I don't know anything. Because one, he doesn't know it as a man. Even if he knows it, in his human knowledge, you have no right to ask about this because you can't. God knows it would be the knowledge and secret. Now we go on to the old law. Now we go on to the old law. Now we go on to the old law. Now we go on to the old law. Now we go on to the old law. Now we go on to the old law. Then we're not to consider about the old law, right? It's the law of the, what, Old Testament, huh? That reminds me of how Thomas divides Scripture, right? He divides Scripture into two or three. Yeah, what's the basis of the division now? What? That's not the way Thomas divides it. Yeah, he quotes John, I think it was, who says, the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. And so he divides the Old Testament, it's about law, and then he subdivides it into the law of the king and the Pentateuch and the prophets who encouraged people to follow it, and then the law of the father, right, which you have in the sapiential books. Then the New Testament divides the basis of grace, huh? The origin of grace in the Gospels, the nature of grace in the epistles of St. Paul, and the effect of grace in the Acts of the Apostles, and the canonical epistles in the Apocalypse, perhaps the beginning and then the growth of church in its final stage, right? It's kind of amazing, you know, that you can have in Thomas and other people too this kind of three divisions of sacred doctrine, right? One on the basis of law and grace, and then the one that Augustine uses in Caridion and Thomas in the catechetical instructions and in the compendium of theology, where the divisions into three, faith, hope, and what? Charity, and that's what the old Baltimore catechism had on that division, right? And still in the new catechism too, although they, you know, expanded the part on the sacraments, but it's basically that one to three. Then you have the one that you have in the Sumas there, where you have the God in himself, and God is the beginning, and then God is the end, huh? It's kind of amazing that you have these three different divisions of sacred doctrines, kind of a complete doctrine, right, in some ways, right? But three different ones, you know? It's actually kind of an amazing thing. This is about the old law. First, about the law itself. Secondly, about the, what? Precepts, huh? Star 99. And about the first, he asks six things. Whether the old law is good. Well, that's the question. Second, whether it is from God, huh? Does Thomas have all these doubts? Third, whether it is from God, by middle of the, what? By meeting with the angels, yeah. That was one of the articles in the thing. Did the soul of, the body of Eve came from, what? Adam, right, huh? Did her soul come from there? Yeah. And then the question, too, you know, you say that the soul of Adam come from God to the angels, right, and so on. So, get what his rule was. Might have brought some of them. The slime of the earth that he was made from. The angels fight. Okay. Fourth, whether it is given to all, right, huh? Whether it obliges all. Whether in a suitable time it was given, huh? To the first, then, one goes forward thus. Thus, it seems that the old law was not, what? Good. How's he going to prove that? For it is said in Ezekiel, chapter 20, verse 25, they have given them precepts that are not good, and judgments in which they cannot live. So, in his own words, he's condemning the law, right? That satisfies me. I mean, how would I know any better than that? But the law is not said to be good, except on account of the goodness of the precepts which it contains. Therefore, the old law was not good, huh? Wasn't there heresy there with the old law, and the Old Testament is from the bad God or something, or the evil God or something, right? Yeah. So, time is just being dangerous here, right? Moreover, it pertains to the goodness of the law, that it is proficient for the common salvation, as Isidore says. But the old law was not saving, but more killing, right? Tifer and harmful, nociva, right? And this is now no less than the apostle himself, and it's St. Paul by Antonin Messia, right? Romans 7, Without law, yeah. Without law, sin would be dead. I overlive without the law sometimes. That's really it. But when the command comes, it revives what? Sin. Yeah. And I am dead, right? And where the law entered in, then what? For I am abounded, yeah. That's pretty powerful, right? Therefore, the old law was not good. Moreover, it pertains to the goodness of law, that it be possible to observe it, and according to nature, and according to human, what? Custom. But the old law doesn't have this. For it is said by Peter himself, in the Acts chapter 15, verse 10. Why do you, what? Tempt to impose upon us a yoke upon the, what? Neck of the disciples, which neither us nor our fathers were able to bear. Therefore, it seems that the old law was not good. I rest my case now. You hear the story there of, what's his name, the Frenchman there? Molterio. I would learn his objections. And then go on and post, you know, post to get some ordinary Catholic, you know. Get the clergy. Yeah. But against this is what the apostle says. I'm contradicting himself, of course. Romans chapter 7, verse 12. Thus the law is, what? Holy, right? And the command, holy and just and good. Well, what is it? Talk about confusing the whole issue. I never was so confused to myself about the Old Testament as I am now, right? So I showed you the Siric Scripture, right? He says the duty of the professor to confuse the issue, right? That's certainly what Thomas does, right? He must have come up to that conclusion from reading Thomas. Yeah, yeah. I read through the fog and filthy air. Now Thomas says, huh? He's a brave man. The answer should be said that without any doubt, in this way they say in Latin, ob squae omni dubio, you say without all doubt. We'd say without any doubt, right? We'd say in English, huh? I suppose any, the old law was good, huh? For just as teaching is shown to be true from this that it is, what? Sounds with right reason. So also some law is shown to be good from this that it, in harmony with reason, huh? I see a connection between music and philosophy, right? It's a harmony, huh? Harmony, reason with things, and so on. But the old law is, what? In harmony with, what? Reason. Because it, what? Represses concupiscence, which is contrary to, what? Reason. It is clear in that command, you should not, what? The thing of any of this thing, yeah. Which is laid down in Exodus, chapter 20, verse 70. It also prohibits all sins which are against, what? Reason, right? Once it is manifest that it was good, huh? And this is the, what? Argument of the Apostle, Romans 7, verse 22. Contelector, how would you translate that? Yeah. The law of God according to the, what? Inner man, right? That's the reason, I guess, huh? And again, the consent of the law. I consent to the law because it is, what? Good. Good, huh? So sometimes you go through the Ten Commandments and say, this is good, huh? And then you go through the Ten Commandments And then you go through the Ten Commandments And then you go through the Ten Commandments And then you go through the Ten Commandments And then you go through the Ten Commandments And then you go through the Ten Commandments It would be better. But it should be known that good has diverse what? Grace. As Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names. For there is some good that is perfect and some good that is what? Imperfect. The perfect goodness is in those things which are ordered to what? In, yeah. When it is such, yeah, that to it, per se, right, is sufficient to lead one to the what? End. Imperfect, however, good is what operates something that what? To the one that might arrive at the end. But nevertheless is not enough to lead one to the end. Just as a medicine is perfectly good, which cures what? Yeah. It makes healthy a man. Imperfect, however, which aids a man, but nevertheless is not able to what? Yeah. So they have some things to impede what, cancer but not cure it, right? Sometimes they can cure it, but if you look at the picture, it's mainly people dying from cancer, it seems to me. I don't see this. So you'd have a heart attack very often. They're dying of cancer all the time because they're living longer, you know? I thought as a little boy that everybody died of a heart attack. It's not the natural way to go. But now it's that everybody goes by cancer, you know? It should be known, however, that other is the end of human law and other the end of what? Divine law, right? For the end of human law is the temporal tranquility of the what? City. To which end the law arise by preventing or restricting exterior acts as regards those evils which are able to disturb the peaceful state of the city, huh? It's just black lives matter, you hear them charging down the street there yelling, you know, fry the, like bacon, please. Not making things too peaceful. But the end of the divine law is to lead man to the end of eternal, what? Felicity, huh? Felicity comes in the Latin word for what? What? Fruitfulness, yeah. Fruitfulness. Felix. Fruitful. Felix is fruitful, isn't it? Fecundus. Hmm? Fecundus is fruitful. But Felix is fruitful too. I think it's like fortunate but on the good side of fortune. How do they translate it, I think so? Happy, blessed, fertile, favorable, lucky, successful, or fruitful. Which end is impeded by any, what, sin? And not only by the exterior acts, right? So does the, when they speak of hate crimes now, you know, but is there really a law against hating your neighbor or, you know? Yes, I mean, yes, I mean, it's more the exterior act, right? Maybe you're punished for being angry with your neighbor or something like that. Maybe for striking him or something, you know, the exterior act. So, and not only through exterior acts, but also through, what, interior ones, especially you see in the last commandments, huh? And therefore, that which is enough or suffices for the perfection of human law, that it, what, prohibits sins and applies a punishment, does not suffice for the perfection of, what? Divine law. But it's necessary that it make man holy, suitable for partaking of eternal felicity, which cannot come about except through, what? Grace of the Holy Spirit, through which charity is, what, spread out or poured out in our hearts, which fulfills the law. By the grace of God is eternal life, as is said in Romans 6. Now, this grace, the old law, was not able to, what, confirm. Still, this was reserved to Christ, huh? Because, as is said in John 1, 17, the law by Moses was given, grace and truth through Jesus Christ. That's the text Thomas is going to divide the old, the Bible into, what? To, uh, law and grace, right? So the Old Testament, the basis of law and the New Testament, the basis of grace. The Second Vatican Council there in the, very, very, very, seems to, what, go along almost to what Thomas says about the New Testament, huh? Read the text, right? He talks, he talks first about the Gospels and then the Epistle of St. Paul, right? And then it talks about, you know, the Church and its growth and so on, right? So you kind of move the Acts of the Apostles with the later things rather than right after the Gospels, right? Even though that's where you place it in the Bible. You said earlier about, help us. Exterior things. Law and grace, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What's interesting, he can use that as a way of dividing the whole of the Bible, which is kind of a complete sacra doctrina, right? And Thomas even says that the Psalms have got the whole of sacred doctrine in them, right? Then you have this other order in the Enchimidion, the custom, faith, hope, and charity, which Thomas follows in his catechetical instructions and was following in the companion of theology, faith, hope, and charity, which is kind of appropriate. It's following in our catechisms, you know? Kind of for a beginner, but it's kind of a view of the whole, too, though, you know? And you have this other one in the Summa, the two Summas, right? Most clearly in the Summa, God of Gentiles, right? And though you end up with four books there, the first three books are God and himself, God is the beginning of things, and then God is the end of things. And then you have in the fourth book these same three things, but the difference is, insofar as this can be known by reason as well as faith in the first three books, and then only by faith in the last book, right? So basically you have that division into three, you know? Summa is kind of confused because the first part, the second part, the third part don't correspond to that. Both the second part and the third part are about God as the end. And then, so the second part begins with what the end of man is, and then you start talking about the virtues and the law of grace that help you to get there, right? And then even the tertiary part is that, you know, Christ has man as the way of tending towards God, so you're still talking about the movement towards God as an end. So it's kind of bolted, if I can be so irreverent in my way of describing it, right? I mean, the order there is kind of bloated, right? I assume a kind of gentile is the first, second, and third books that are marched closer in size to each other right now, but here it's because of the moral mess we're in, you know, and all the needs we, things we need, you know, to survive, right? If you're currently in any kind of gentleness, then take it to purpose. More than once, you refer to St. Thomas, assuming that's bloated. Oh, yeah, well, you're going to pay for that. But you know, my simple view of two and three, you know, that I'd be attracted to some kind of gentleness, you know, where the things are more crowned, you know? And then he justified himself, I remember. So Thomas is making another use of this text here, right, huh? He wants to talk about the imperfection of the old, right? The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth through Jesus Christ. And hence it is that the old law... is what? Good, but what? Imperfect. That's the grade of goodness that he talked about at the beginning of this long paragraph. According to that in Hebrews chapter 7 verse 19, that the law brought nothing to the perfect. That's a good quote that he has there to confirm what he's saying here. The sacred scripture is a soul theology. It's funny when Thomas would give the authority of text and be drawn from this book and then ten books later have they'll say you know. You realize how different this comes when you proceed in a different order, right? You bring things together, but anyway. Now what's his first objection? Let's go back and look at the text here. I gave them precepts not good and judgments in which they could not what? To the first therefore it should be said that the Lord speaks there about the ceremonial precepts, huh? It's one of the division of the old law, which are said to be not good because they don't what? Yeah. And I see I was reading in the in the epistle of the epistle of the gospel of Mark right today, right? And it's one place where the ninth chapter is it? Tenth chapter? Ninth chapter I guess. Where Christ is someone who says good master, right? What is necessary to continue to life? He says, why do you call me good? God alone is good, right? I mean if God, if Christ can say that as man I'm not good, I mean that way of speaking, right? Even though in other sense he is obviously good, right? You can see how the old or part of it could be said to be what? Yeah. See? When Thomas explains why God alone is good, it's because God is goodness itself, right? And nothing else is what? Goodness itself. So it's kind of partaking of the good of the things, right? So this way of speaking, you know, it reminds me of what Christ's way of speaking there, right? Christ himself said, don't call me good. You can misuse that obviously, right? But Christ himself says, he's not good, you know? God alone is good, huh? So they said, non bona quia gratia non conferibant, right, huh? Through which men are, what? Cleansed from what? Sin, right, huh? When nevertheless do these things, right? They show themselves to be what? Yeah. When significantly it is said, and judicia unquibus non vivant, huh? Judgments in which they do not, what? Live. That is, through which the life of grace they are not able to, what? Obtain, right? And afterwards he joins, and I polluted them, I guess, huh? In what? Their gifts, right? That is, they showed their gifts to be, what? Polluted, right? Because they offered, what? Everything that opens the, what? Wound and account of their, what? Crimes or sins, yeah. So that's a mouthful, right, from this guy, huh? He's pretty smart, this guy. You only got to admit that, huh? Pretty good. He's speaking about that. I would say that, I would say that. I would say that. Now, I've been noticing there in the sentences, and there's other places that Thomas, how often he does bring in Addison or a pair of ways, right? Sometimes he uses one of them against the other one, you know? But they do have some big mistakes, but there's so many wonderful things that they said, too, you know? It's the respect that he has, you know? And that's why his condemnation of the Latin of Erois. He says, they speak as if wisdom began with them. I remember Jacques, my teacher in graduate school there, for Descartes and so on, for modern philosophers, and he used to make a joke about the common title. Descartes is the father of modern philosophy, right? But he has no children, he says. Because they all say something different, right? You know, they keep up. But everybody speaks as if he somehow, you know, discovered, you know, what the beginning is. He's starting us on the road to wisdom, you know? The other people just miss the point, you know? I was saying, you know, this text I was giving you earlier there, you know, the third way he takes from, I mean, Avicenna, right? You begin the, you know, the disputed questions on truth there. Of course, you take up truth as, or the true as one of the transcendentals, as they call them, right? And he takes Avicenna, you know, for his explanation of them, of the transcendentals, right? You know, so, there's respect even for those guys, huh? Of course, they're probably not fully orthodox. We have it, I guess. Yeah. Wait, that was. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, now the second objection, right, huh? Okay. About what? Yeah, there was, but the, but there was mortifera, right, huh? Without the law, the sin was dead, like it didn't exist, right, huh? Okay. But when the command came, then it revised sin, right, huh? You can get a lax view of these things, right, huh? Stir up things. To a second, it should be said, the law is said to, what, kill, not effective, eh, right, but occasionality, now that's a name for, what, kind of accidental causality, right? From its, what, imperfection, right, huh? Because insofar as it does not confer grace, through which or by which men are able to, what, fulfill what it commands or to avoid what it, what, pervade, yeah. And thus, this occasion was not, what, given, but taken, what, from men. Whence the apostle says there, by occasion, right, huh, sin, through command, seduced me, and through it, it, what, killed me, yeah. And from this, and for this reason, it is said that the law enters in that, what, sin might abound, huh, that the word, what, ut, is held, what, secondly, but not causality, right, huh? A different sense of, uh, I should take that text of Shakespeare, you know, it must follow the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. And this above all to an own self be true, it must follow the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. So, um, is there kind of a causality there in saying to be false to what? I mean, to be true to yourself, right, or make you, what, true to others, right, huh? You're false to yourself. But when he says night and day, right, huh? Must follow the night the day. Is that causality? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he's, he's manifesting by, uh, somebody's not tied to the same, there's another sense of before and after, right, huh? I went to graduate school and then I got married. Well, it was consecutive, right? Was it because I went to graduate school that I got married? Yes, Mark. Insofar as men taking occasion from the law, more abundantly they, what, sinned, huh? And then also because it was more grave sin after the prohibition of the law. So these things are worse for us to do if we're Catholics and know the law, right? And people who don't, aren't being brought up with the law, right? Then also, because concubiscence grows, for we desire more the things that are committed to us. They joined up in school. Yeah, yeah. God, do it. So if your parents say you can't drink, you know, then you're going to have to... Tempted to drink. Tempted to drink, yeah. My father used to have a few bottles downstairs, right? And sometimes we'd take a bottle of root beer downstairs at little shot glasses, you know, and something. And we tend to be drinking, you know. And one time we dropped one of the glasses on. My mother heard that. She said, you know, I think they're down for booze. He probably knew what we were doing. You know, these kids, you know, he wanted to make the junk. That was a year I had to prepare for the kids. Yeah. Once I watched it, you heard this explosion. It's interesting, huh? We desire more of what is prohibited to us, right? It seems like a greater good because you have to struggle to get it, right? Enjoy it. Yeah. So the enjoyment is like better. Yeah. We love more what we make an effort to get, you know. Now, the third argument is about the possibility of it, right? It's not the condition of law, right? That can be observed, right? To the third, it should be said that the yoke of the law, right? Cannot be observed without, what? Grace. Yeah. Which the law does not give, right, huh? For it is said in Romans chapter 9, the 16th verse, It is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, right? That is, to will and to run in the precepts of God, but of the God who is having what mercy on us. Whence it is said in Psalm 118, 32, that I have run the way of your commands. When you have widened my heart, aren't you? Expanded my heart, right? Now, expand my heart to, he says, the gift of what? Grace and what? Charity. There's never a time here, you know? Well, now if it's good, now the question is given by God, right? Because some good things are often given by God, right? name of the father son holy spirit amen thank you god thank you guardian angels thank you thomas aquinas deo gracias god our enlightenment guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds or to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more quickly saint thomas aquinas angelic doctor help us to understand all that you have written the father son holy spirit amen okay i'm gonna make a little excursion today right so i was thinking about the passage there that is in the gospel of saint mark where christ says why do you call me good god alone is good huh and why does he you know say that as man he's not good right but god alone is good huh i was thinking about that again and then i was thinking of the words of christ to saint catherine of siena right and he says something similar right he says remember just two things i am who am and you are she who is not now you'd say well it doesn't christ know that that's in catherine exists doesn't christ know and in the gospel there that uh his human nature is something good right so what is the reason why he says these two things right it's interesting to compare these two ways right huh and i think it goes back to what you learn when you take up the substance of god in theology huh and thomas in the two sumas and he takes up the substance of god he has what five things that he shows right so you have the what simplicity of god right um in changeableness of god right perfection and therefore the goodness of god right the unity of god infinity of god right you have these five things and so what is there in the treatise on the simplicity of god and the treatise on the perfection and goodness of god that needs these two ways of speaking with these two ways of speaking proportionally right one about the goodness the other about the being of god right well what's common to the two do you know it would lead christ to speak in that way right as if catherine's hand doesn't exist right as if his human nature is not good right only god is good yeah but it's not simply because god is more good right than uh than the human nature of christ right it's not simply because god exists more fully than kathenusiana because he's going beyond that his way of speaking it's a very strong way of speaking right remember you are she who's not who you're talking to you know they'd say you know the guy you know um somebody who runs philosophy class you know asked the guy you know do i exist and the professor just said who's talking who's asking that question so i mean he says christ right you know who are you talking to when you told kathenusiana this right now and um well if you go to the the treatise on the goodness let's say of god in the summa uh contra gentiles right my favorite work uh there's five chapters about the goodness of god right chapters 37 38 39 40 and 41 right and in the 37th chapter he shows that god is good right in the 38th chapter that god is not only good but his goodness itself right and then in the what 39th chapter he says well there's gonna be nothing bad in god if his goodness itself right and then he defends what augustine had said that god in the next chapter that god is the good of every good he's goodness itself right and everything is good by goodness right then god is the good of every good right but zillow is showing that too that he's he's the end of all things so he's the good of every good then finally kind of anticlimactic the last chapter 41 there um that god is what sumum bonum right okay so i think christ is saying this huh because he knows that something is good because of goodness right and god is the only thing that is what goodness itself right so it's through goodness that you are good and god is the only thing that is goodness itself then god in some ways the only one that is what good right huh okay when i was with something like that when he says to saint catherine sienna remember just two things i am who am right and you are she who is not right and i was going to use that to attack the feminist but uh but uh but uh what do you learn in the treatise on the simplicity of god right we learn that the to be a god is this very what substance right the being of god is a substance and in no creature is the being right the creature itself huh it's something added to it right and this is proven again as you mentioned before through god being what pure act right because your being is to your substance that they're not the same thing as act is to ability right so something that has its being other than its substance is not going to be what pure act right then it's going to be okay so this goes back to what aristotle shows in the ninth book of wisdom that simply speaking act is before ability and therefore the first being the first cause is pure act and therefore in the first being the first cause that uh being that god it's very substance is to be right okay why in every creature they have their being from god so their substance is not their being okay okay so it's by your being that you are because in english the word being can be used in two senses right being can mean what is right like you're a human being right or it can mean the act of existence right exists itself well being the sense of essay or to be right is whereby you're said to be a being in the other sense well god's the only thing this being itself therefore he's the only being right playing in the two different senses there of of being right so the reason is is proportional similar right in the case of what he's saying to the young man if it is right that um why do you call me good god alone is good right and what he says to kathleen of siana um just remember that i am who am and you are she who is not right it's the same thing yeah it must be the same mind that said these two things right then may accept the authenticity of this words to saint kathleen right but then i was struck by the likeness between our lord's way of speaking there right and the way he speaks in the gospel and but the one is talking about being and the other about the goodness of god right it makes sense huh okay then but notice another difference though besides the fact of being in goodness fundamental difference there in the one he says that he i am who am right other cases seems to be saying i am not what good right god alone is good right well in the one case he's speaking of himself as god in the other case he's speaking of himself as what as man right just like christ says in one of the gospels you know the father is greater than i right but he's saying that of himself as man right but even as man he's less of himself as god okay okay so there's another difference between these two right now in one case he's speaking of himself as man in the case is as god right he's making the same point about god god though right proportionally right you