Prima Secundae
Lecture 257: The Order and Suitability of the Decalogue

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

father, right? You're kind of immortalizing yourself, right, and your children. I've often said, you know, this kind of Christian idea of marriage is two in one flesh, right? But the husband and wife are more two in one flesh of their child than they are in the marriage act, right? Because the marriage act is transitory, right? But the husband and wife are joined in the one flesh of the child, right? And even if they should separate or get divorced, I can't take my flesh, you know? So I mean, you're very much, that's really something of yourself again, right? You know, your child, right? So he says you naturally what? Love your child just as you naturally love yourself. And Shakespeare has even these villains, you know, like, what's his name? Aaron there in the, when they were in the plays, who still after his, he's still looking after his little boy, you know, even though he's doing terrible things, you know, to lose enemies, right? They had a review there in the, one of the latest national reviews there, you know, somebody wrote, what's the name of the book? Children of the monsters, right? But he's studying, you know, the children of, not Hitler, but Stalin and all the different tyrants, right? And what happened to them, you know? And some of them, of course, tried to continue what their fathers were doing, like the ones in North Korea there and Assad there, you know, and so on. But some of them, you know, turned against, you know, and finally saw that. You have to live by lies, you know, if you want to, as Sotsinetskin said, I guess, if you want to, you know, to accept your parents, right? Did Fidel have any kids? Yeah, I guess, I guess one of his daughters came to the United States and she wrote a book and talked about how awful it was to be in that country the way it is in the police state. Do you remember what the Pope gave him when he went to kill him? I just learned this the other day. Cross? No, the Pope gave to Fidel. He met Fidel. I haven't seen a picture of Fidel. He met with Fidel and he gave him, I think, some CDs or something, recordings of either sermons or something, lectures or something, of a priest who taught him when he went to LA. And the priest is an old, old man, I think he's in Miami now. And he said publicly, anytime Fidel wants to come to order your confession. But he makes it clear that Fidel has to do public penance for instance, because the sins are not right. And that's what the Pope gave him, the sermons of this priest. And that's what the Pope gave him to think about this whole day of Jesus. Yeah. Huh? Yeah. Talk to him. And I'll have to find out where I read it. Is it in the Wanderer? Where do I go to the Wanderer? I mention this right now because even these tyrants, you know, horrible as they are, you know, have some love with their own children, right? And they want maybe their children to, you know, succeed them, you know, in their crimes, yeah. Yeah. I suppose the mafia is like that too, a little bit, huh? Oh, yeah. Family. Family, yeah. You know? C.F.R. Friar was an Englishman, originally American, born into a mafia family as father was being a mafia. They had to flee to England, I guess. And so he grew up there, had a terrible life, a life of petty crimes and stuff like that, until this moment of conversion. And that was an exceptionally fine friar, the C.F.R. is part of our show. It's a fascinating example of a child senior, one of his parents' ways. Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We went to Italian restaurant there, a little one, and we stood there. And the owner of it, you know, was a student of Rosalie's, you know, and she was teaching sixth grade. And she was talking about how, when she knew him as a student, he was always smiling, you know. He still was always smiling, you know. But there was some, you know, tradition of the mafia and the family there, you know. And she was always the teacher worried about him, you know, being led astray, you know, by the family. But, so the son is something of the father, and fathers love their sons as something of themselves. As the philosopher himself says in the Eighth Book of the Ethics. Whence, for the same reason, there are not laid down any precepts in the Decalogue pertaining to the love of one's sons, just as neither any ordering men to himself. It's interesting, huh? But it's the same thing for loving your wife or something like that, huh? You know. When the father here is not here, but he was being, you know, ordained there, right, huh? Rose and I came, you know, and the abbot comes, you know, and he says, I see about your better half, he says. But you see, your better half, it's like we say to yourself, right, huh? Kind of natural, right? Flesh of your flesh, bone of your bone, as Adam said, right? Well, some would say, you know, about marriage there, he says, you know, the benefit of marriage is you don't have to argue with your neighbor, even strangers, I mean. You don't have to argue with strangers. Kind of cynical. You know. That's interesting, huh? He sees a connection there, right? There are not big commandments about explicitly, except more hidden, you know, loving God, right? But, yeah, yeah. And it's like that, where you don't have to have a command to love your child, right? You can't actually do that. Now, the fifth one, right? Saying, well, here you have a command not to desire your neighbor's wife, right? Not to desire your neighbor's possessions, right? Well, then why not have a command, I mean, to not desire your neighbor's life, you know? Well, he says, to the fifth it should be said that the pleasure of adultery and the usefulness of what? Well, are on account of themselves desirable, right, huh? Insofar as they have the ratio of a good that is delightful or what? Useful. I remember at high school there, you know, to Catholic high school, and they used to have a homeroom at the college, you know, and give a little father advice sometimes from the teacher. Of course, our teacher was the brother of the bishop, you know, and so on. So, he's talking about money's not everything, you know, and so on. This one kid says, you know, but what it is, it'll buy. So, it's very desirable, right? You know, what it is, it'll buy. And since you have money, you've got it all, right? You know, I mean, not really, but it kind of seems that way, right? So, he says, wealth and the woman and so on, collectible, they are, what? Poptressipsa, petubilia, huh? Counting themselves desirable. And an account of this is necessary in them to prohibit not only the, what? The doing of it, but also the concubiscence. But, what? Murder, huh? Homicide, and false witness and so on, right? Are in themselves horrible, right, huh? Okay. Because one's neighbor and truth are naturally, what? Loved, huh? And they are not, so that's contrary to lying about them or killing them, right? And they're not desired to, what? That means, not them, but the killing of them, right? Or bearing false witness are not desired except an account of something else, yeah. So, I'm ready to, you know, to take over your position, right, huh? Or something, you know? Yeah. You know, it happens all the time in Stalin. And therefore, it's not necessary about the sin of homicide and false testimony to prohibit the sin of the heart, but only of the work, huh? You know, you've got the deed, yeah. That makes some sense, doesn't it? Yeah. I would like St. Augustine's comment about the truth. He says, if somebody doubts whether he really loves the truth, ask him if he likes to be deceived. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, what about the sixth objection, which says, if you're preventing, what, bad desire, why not prevent bad anger, too, right? You're right. You've got to be really, really deeply disturbed. Yeah. But they have articles on road rage from time to time, you know, and I guess there's a certain amount of this road rage going on, right? People don't just— But the thing is that— He pulled off. Yeah, I mean, I could understand that he pulled around and bumped the car or something, but did he stop and get out and pull it out and beat him up? Yeah. Yeah. To the sixth it should be said, as has been said, all the passions of the irascible are derived from the passions of the—what? Yeah. And therefore in the precepts of the Decalogue, which are certain prima, first elements of the law—not all the elements of the law, but the first elements—there's no mention made of the passions irascible, but only of the ones from which they arrive, namely the passion of the concubiscible, right? Mm-hmm. And you know, Thomas is always quoting in this regard, you know, he says, the animals fight over food and sex, right? Yeah? So the irascible arises from the concubiscible. It's kind of the defender of the concubiscible, right? Or helping the irascible get what it wants, you know? Okay. So we'll go on to Article 6 now, or do you want a break after this? Take a little break out of this. it i love it to the sixth one goes for it thus it seems that unsuitably are ordered the ten precepts of the decalogue the first objection is against the three being before the seven right even though three is less than seven right but that's that'd be wrong reason huh for the dilectio of the neighbor right seems to be a what a way before right previa how do you translate the word previa pre means before and via means road right yeah that's that's not really good uh in english okay i was reading thomas there you know today in the sentences there he's talking about how peccatum you know peccatum in nature as well as an art right there's studies of written and so then culpa is is is uh peccatum in in the will right in man right but you have peccatum in the tour right but then later on um in the next uh article or so he's talking about the definition of peccatum and one of which is the one quote here by ambrose and he's using it kind of like we'd use it you know so how do you translate peccatum you want to talk about the thing um more general right now because he says explicitly you know peccatum is more general than than uh than kupa right now and and peccatum is found even in nature right now we can't translate sin you know you know you know if you know if the if the baby uh is generated you know deformed or something you know it's not a sin you know yeah but uh but maybe you should have to almost translate you know maybe cut them there in that context as failure right now you know you know yeah i mean people who have a child who's born with an arm or something you know and uh you see nature has failed right huh he's not a we wouldn't see the nature committed sin here see but peccatum you know you know a lot of times you just translate it by the word sin right so yeah i got a problem there in the words a little bit yeah yeah let's go on this wonderful first objection the love of one's neighbor seems to be a what a way before to the love of god because the neighbor is more known to us than god huh it's only you love your parents it seems like before you love god right now according to that of the first epistle of john the fourth chapter who his brother whom he sees does not love god whom he did not see and what way can he love right it would seem to indicate you would love your your mother or your neighbor before god right but the first three precepts pertain to the love of god the seven others come afterwards to the love of neighbor therefore insuidably the precepts of the decalogue order right god didn't look before and after when he gave them right that's a beautiful objection right okay moreover two affirmative precepts are commanded the acts of the virtue to negative precepts are prohibited the acts of vices that's interesting right but according to boethius in the commentary in the categories of aristotle the predicament forum that's the that's the word first should be what rooted out vices then virtues inserted therefore among the precepts pertaining to one's neighbor first ought to be laid down the negative precepts than the affirmative ones yeah repent repent repent well now that that was the precepts yeah first two are negative yeah maybe he's talking about the seven though maybe however the precepts of the law are given about the acts of man but before it's the act of the heart than of the mouth and exterior work therefore unsuitably are ordered the precepts about not desiring which retain to the heart at their place last right well these are wonderful objections aren't they you can see how thomas does look before and after right now even they're giving injections but against this is what the apostle says in romans 13 this is always quoted by thomas quia deo sunt ordinata sunt but the precepts of the decalogue are given immediately by god as has been said therefore they must have a suitable what order right therefore they have a suitable order that's beautiful i was reading thomas there and he's talking about how the bad cannot have a parasitic cause right and why is that right well the parasitic cause right aims at the what good then because would all want so if bad had a parasitic cause it would be aiming at the bad which is impossible that's one argument he gives and then the second argument he gives is that the parasitic cause makes what is like itself but one is able to make something because of actuality which is something good and therefore can't be a parasitic cause of thing and he gives the third and last one the things that are produced by a parasitic cause have a definite order the things which are by order are good if i was thinking that right here you know quite a deal sun ordinata sunt so look before and after proceed in order answer should be said that as has been said the precepts of the decalogue are given about those things which at once in what promptly right are the mind of man what accepts what they do they take down the sign of the ten commandments there in oklahoma recently you know some person judge said this violation of church and state but this is not something christian i mean particularly right it's uh something uh stop them impromptu men told me he's really really really awful okay now it's manifest that to that extent something is more received by reason that is more of what contrary right whose contrary is more grave right and more repugnant to what reason huh now it's manifest that since the order of reason begins from the end maxima is it against reason that man has himself disorderly with regard to the end so i was saying earlier right you're going to say what is sin i mean what is a bad will it's a will whose end or purpose is something other than god right whose ultimate end right recommend might be might be eats the steak right enjoy yeah but to make eating enjoying steak your ultimate end life yeah yeah now the end of human life and of society is god and therefore first is necessary that the precepts the decalogue order man to god since its contrary is most grave okay i know so aristotle does that in a way in the what nicomachean ethics right because in the first book he what takes up what happiness is and then he goes through the yeah yeah but since he defines the end as what active in accordance with virtue then he comes back in the 10th book and and is more distinct about the end right he does begin from the the end in the first book not the second book he defines moral virtue and takes them up takes them up with books one through five or two through five rather okay this is beautiful thomas even i can understand this still it's marvelous just as in the army huh which is ordered to the leader has to an end first is that the lord is subject to the what leader and the contrary this is gravissimo right huh second the other is comes that he be what coordinated with others huh okay it's interesting when aristotle talks about the order of the universe he compares it to the order of the army rather than to the order of the city right because the city is much more chaotic right huh but the army is uh clearly Now, among those things by which one is ordered to God, first it occurs that man faithfully is, what, subject to him, having no partaking with enemies, yeah, with the devil and so on, right, huh? Second, however, is that he show, what, reverence to him, right, huh? Third, that he gives, what, service to him, right, huh? Now, it's a greater sin in the army if the soldier, acting unfaithfully, has a pact with the, what, enemy, than if he shows some irreverence towards the leader, right? That's bad, too, but not as bad as to be in cahoots with the enemy, right? And this is also more grave than if in, what, some service of the, what, Lord, he's found, what, deficient, right? It's beautiful the way he orders those things, huh? Now, in the precepts ordering one to one's neighbor, it is manifest that it's more repugnant to reason, and, say, more grave sin, if man does not observe the order owed to persons to whom he is more a debtor, huh? And therefore, among the precepts ordering one to one's neighbor, first is laid down the precepts pertaining to one's parents. Notice, oh, it's insistent upon the, you know, theology of the family and so on, and the preparation of the family and how fundamental the family is, but tied up with the, what, or honor your father and mother, right? I mean, that's tied up with the family, that particular command, right? And they're saying this is the kind of fundamental thing, right, for the family there in society. Among the other precepts, there also appears an order according to the order of the gravity of the sins, huh? For it is more grave and more repugnant to reason, right, huh? To sin by deed than by what? Word. By word, yeah. And by word, then, by what? Heart. Yeah. Okay. And among the sins of deed, most grave, more grave, is what? Homicide, murder. Through which is taken away the life of a man already, what, existing. Then adultery, which has impeded the certitude of the pro-to-weak. Yeah. And adultery is more grave than what? Yeah. Yeah, which pertains to exterior goods. So a man is more hurt by his wife being abused than his car being stolen. I remember when the kids were little, you know, when they were studying the commandments, you know, and what was the question? Yeah, it was what adultery was, you know. So I said, well, I'm going to tell them what adultery is, right? So I said, well, it's stealing somebody's mother or father. So I told them. That's a childhood answer, yeah. Yeah, yeah. But it seems to me, like, it's actually a pretty horrible thing to steal somebody's father or mother, right? That's what you're doing in a sense, right, adultery. I thought that was appropriate for the age, right? Yeah. That's a good explanation of what adultery was, huh? And so you can see that it's not hard to see that those are ordered properly among them, that the deeds before the sin of word and the word before the sin of what? Desire, right? You're out of order. You missed the whole order here of the Ten Commandments, huh? You have to put the what? The end before everything else, right? And so the first three commandments pertain to the end, yeah? And then you have the ones that are what? Or to our neighbor, right? And then you begin with the one you're most adept to, your parents, right? And also, yeah. And then, yeah. When there are conflicting ends, what do you do? Well, that's another question, but... But then the last six, right, huh? He says that you start with the most severe ones, the sins of deed, right? And then the sins of word, and then the sins of what? Desire, right? And then, of course, in the deed, you start with the worst one. Murder, and then you go to adultery, and then theft, right? So I'd rather steal my wife than take my life, you know? I'd rather steal your car than steal your wife. Yeah, yeah. I'd rather steal my car than steal my wife. Okay. Now, what about this first objection, right, huh? The first objection says that we, what? Even John seems to be saying this, right, huh? That you've got to... How can you love God if you don't love your neighbor? So it's like you must love your neighbor before you can love God, right? You've got to love your mother before you can love God, right? So it's a previa, he says, huh? And so, okay. Now, why does he... What does Thomas say here, huh? He doesn't do all the distinctions here, because he repeats himself all the time, but... To the first, therefore, it should be said that although secundum viam senses, according to the road of the senses, the neighbor is more known than God, right? Nevertheless, the love of God is the reason for the love of one's, what? Neighbor. As will be made clear later on, right, huh? And therefore, the precepts ordering to God shouldn't be ordered before, right? Okay. Now, you know, I mentioned before how Monsignor is always using that text of Thomas in the question 117, article 1, about the teacher, right? With a man going to be a teacher. He distinguishes two ways he teaches, right? One is by leading him by the hand, and this is called monodexia, right, huh? And the other one is where you, what, give the order principles to conclusions, giving the reason why something is so, right, huh? Okay? And here he's talking about that second kind of order, right, where you're giving the reason first, right, huh? But it doesn't mean you couldn't at some time use the other order, right, huh? And I was talking about, you know, before how the order in Peter's confession of faith, right? The art, the Christ, the Son, the living God, huh? So he ascends from the humanity of Christ, because he's Christus or anointed as man, right? And he ascends to his divinity, right, huh? Okay. But then you have the other order in John, where you learn that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God, right? And through the Word all things are made, and then finally in the earth the Word was made flesh, right, and became man. So he had two different orders, right, huh? And I think, right, when the angels announce his birth there in Luke, he starts from his, what, humanity, right, and then he ascends to his divinity, right? Okay. But in terms of what he says here, the reason, right, huh, you see, if you wanted to give the reason for this, would you say, would you ask the question, why is this Son, right, of man, why is this man the Son of God? Would you ask that question? Or would you ask the other question, say, why did the Word of God become a man? Which would be the way to ask the question, yeah? And so if you're going to ask the question, why did the Word of God become a man, you have to already know the Word in himself, right? You know that the Word, you know, was in the beginning, and he was toward God, and in fact he was God, right, huh? And that all things were made through him, right? And then you ask, and you find your torture, to your amazement, that the Word became flesh, right, the Word became a man, and then you would ask the question, well, why did the Word become a man, right? Why didn't the Father or the Holy Spirit become a man, you know? Why should God become a man at all, right? And so on. Isn't that the natural way to go, right? So you have to know the Word before you know the humanity, right? But in the profession of faith of Peter, you first talk about the, what, humanity of Christ, right? So you can make a perfectly good profession of faith, right? And Christ says, you know, blessed are you, you know, because flesh and bone didn't, flesh and blood, or whatever he says, didn't reveal this to you, but my Father who's in heaven, and thou art Peter, and upon this rock, you know, I will build my church. And Paul VI, you know, said, you know, the church is built on the faith of Peter, so that's perfect, very good as a, you know, thing. But if you want to give the reason for things, right, you may want to proceed the other way around, right? And that's why Thomas, in the Summa Theologiae, for example, he didn't talk about the Incarnation until the third part, right? In the first part, you hear about God and about the Word. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. He's being God and so on, right? And if you want to give reasons for things, you might want to proceed in this other, what, order, right? So he gives us in terms of God wanting to give the reason, right? Love me, love my children, right? But you can't expect that somebody loves you that they're going to love your children. Why? Because they love you, right? And I actually have a certain interest in the children of my friends, right? But I love them in particular, the children, because they're the children of my friends, right? Or if I love my brother, I love my brother's children, right? So what's the reason? The reason why I love my brother's children in particular is because I love my brother, right? So the reason why I love my neighbor is because I love what? God, huh? If I was talking, you know, in a very serious way to one of these abortionists, and I'd say, you know, what are you going to do on the last day when Christ says, you know, I was in the womb and you aborted me, right? And they'll say, well, when did we see you in the womb and abort you? Well, when you did it to my little ones, these little ones, you did it unto me, you know? And that's, I mean, I should be kind of a little frightened to hear that, it seems to me, you know? Well, you can correlate that with the other thing. He says about whoever receives one child in my name, you see me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what Father Harden always points to with Christian marriage, always having to be open to marriage because the children come from God. You receive them from God. And he says that's what distinctly of the Christians, the pagans, notice that because abortion was common in the old world. And he said that they said, see how they love each other? And they, one of the ways was that they saw that they didn't kill their children. Yeah, yeah. That was different. Yeah. That's how pagan we've become. Except, as Father Harden says, the old paganism was polytheistic, but modern paganism was strictly monotheistic. That's what you've applied to the first objection then, right? Now, second objection, right? Shouldn't we have the negative ones first because you've got to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, right? Where you seem to be talking about removing the evil before, right? And there's some way to say that it makes sense too, right? To second, it should be said that God is the universal beginning of being for all things, right? He is also the Father. Also, the Father is a beginning, a certain beginning of being for the what? Son. And therefore, suitably after the precepts pertaining to God, is laid down the precepts pertaining to parents. That's beautifully said, right, huh? Now, he says the argument, I suppose, that you have in the objection, right? The ratio proceeds when the affirmative negative pertain to the same, what? Genus of deed, huh? Although also in this, there is not had altogether efficacy, huh? Because although in the carrying out of work, first should be, what? Vices, then the inserting of what? Virtues, huh? According to that of Psalm 33. Decline from evil and do good, right? There you see the order. There's some order that the way this is seeing that's true, right, huh? And Isaiah says, seize from acting perversely, right? And learn to, what? Do well, right, huh? Nevertheless, in knowledge is before virtue, then sin, because through the right is known the oblique, as is said in the first book of the Deanimus Aristophees, right? And you might say that through order is known disorder, you know? I used to always say, who knows better the ignorance of the student, the student or the professor? The professor knows more what you don't know than what you know, yeah. And through the law is knowledge of sin, as it's said in Romans 12, right? And according to this, the affirmative precept ought to be first laid down. But this is not, what? The rotsy of the order, but that which was, what? That which was laid, what? Down above. Because in the precepts pertaining to God, which are the first table, last is placed the affirmative precept, because, what? Its transgression induces less, what? Guilt, huh? Obligation to punishment. So when he came down the mountain, then they put up a statue there, the God they're gonna, the golden God, huh? They're gonna worship, huh? That's when he broke the tablets, didn't he? In frustration, poor man. To the third, it should be said that the sin of the heart, right? Although it be for in, what? Execution, right, huh? You desire the woman before you commit adultery, right, huh? Nevertheless, its prohibition comes after in, what? Reason, right, huh? Because you see more of the exterior thing as being evil, right? You see more clearly that murdering somebody is bad than being mad at somebody, huh? Even though being mad somebody might lead you, lead you, lead you to, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we get time for one more article? The Feast of Reason of Thomas. What's his name? Socrates says, I'm going to have a feast of reason. I think that would have been written, though. I know. To the seventh one goes forward thus. It seems that the precepts of the Decalogue are unsuitably treated. For the precepts, the affirmative precepts, are ordered to the acts of the virtues. But the negative precepts abstract from the acts of the, what? Vices, huh? But about any matter, they are opposed to each other, virtues and, what? Vices. Therefore, in each matter about which there is already a precept to the Decalogue, there ought to be laid down an affirmative precept and a negative. Same signs of opposites, right? Okay. And so it will be, therefore, I laid down some affirmative and some negative. Moreover, Isidore says that every law stands by reason. But all the precepts of the Decalogue pertain to the divine law. And therefore, in all, there ought to be a reason assigned, and not only in the first and the third precept. Moreover, through the observance of the precepts, one merits rewards from God. But divine promises are about the rewards of the precepts. Therefore, the promise ought to be laid down in all the precepts, not only in the first and the fourth. Like, there's a long age, I guess, is promised, huh? So I'm 80 years old. I must have been, I'm my father and mother. That's why I live to be 80, right? What's the first one in the first commandment? What is the promise? He says in the first and the fourth. I remember the fourth one, but it was one of the first. I brought the catechism with you guys. Yeah, I remember the thousands who love me. I guess that's where it would be. Well, as Deconning said to Dionne there in Rome, you know, how could I have missed that, having taught this all these years? How could I have missed that thing about the commandments, right? Having learned them since I was a young kid, right? That there's a promise attached to the first and the fourth, right? It's the one that was surprisingly, yeah, I didn't do anything with the place. Moreover, the old law is called the law of fear, right? Insofar as through the threats of punishments we are induced to the observation of the precepts. But all the precepts of the Decalogue pertain to the old law. Therefore, in all of them there ought to be laid down some threat of punishment, and not only in the first and the second. Moreover, all the precepts of God ought to be retained in the memory. For it said in Proverbs 3, write them in the tables of your heart. Unsuitably, therefore, in only the third precept is there laid down mention about memory. And therefore, it seems that the precepts of the Decalogue are unsuitably treated of. Well, I'm convinced, aren't you? It's just quite a mess, you know? But against this is what is said in Wisdom, Chapter 11, that God made all things in number, weight, and measure. You think, yeah, but that shows it. He did omnia feature, huh? In number, weight, and measure, right? Much more, therefore, in the precepts of his law did he observe a suitable way of treating them. The argument from authority is the strongest in theology, right? I answer it should be said. Thomas' reply response, he was very short here, right? He answered it because it's more particular objection that you got to think. I answer it should be said that in the precepts of the divine law, maxima sapientia continator. I was reading about the boy Christ there and Luke there the other day, and they said he grew in wisdom, right? He used the word wisdom there, right? Whatever that means, because he didn't in some way grow internally, maybe. Whence it is said in Deuteronomy, Chapter 4, this is your wisdom and understanding before peoples, right? But it belongs to the wise men to dispose all things in a suitable way and order, right? Modo et ordine, huh? We talked about order on the previous one, but now we talked about modus, right? And therefore it's manifest that the precepts of the law are treated in the most, what? They should be, ought to be manifest, right? Okay, you guys are too dumb to see it, you know? So when we apply the objections, you'll begin to see a little bit of the marvelous way that, you know. To the first, therefore, it should be said that always, to affirmation, follows the negation of the, what? Opposite, huh? But not always, to the negation of one opposite, follows the affirmation of the other. It follows that if it is white, it is not, what? Black. It does not, however, follow that if it is not black, therefore it's white. Hey, that's my conduct skill there, right? He's showing logic here. Yeah, he's showing that, yeah. Okay, because to more things extends the negation than the affirmation. And thus, also, that one should not do somewhat injury right, huh? Which pertains to the negative precepts, huh? Shouldn't kill you, shouldn't steal your wife, shouldn't steal your car. It extends to, what? Many persons, huh? According to the first dictative reason, and I was going back to the beginning, which is, what? Yeah, what's owed to him, right, huh? Or some benefit. For it is among the, what? Dictates the reason, right? That man is a debtor of, what? In service, right? Shown to those from whom he has, what? Yeah, that he owes benefits and service, right? To those from whom he has received benefits. If he is not yet, what? Never compense them. But there are two benefits of which sufficiently nothing can, what? Yeah. To it, God and Father, right? Now, that's quoting, you know, even Cicero, right, said, huh? If the son is always in debt to his father, right? And 840, you're always in debt to, what? God, right, huh? Even more so. And, of course, here you first do Aristotle saying this himself in the Eighth Book of the Ethics, right? Not a bad guy that Aristotle is, you know? And therefore, only two affirmative propositions or precepts are laid down. One about the honoring of what? parents another about the celebration of the Sabbath in commemoration of the divine benefit very smart but don't don't envy him right it's terrible to the envy of the devil you know that came into this world original sin of the guess is pride you know but then for pride comes this envy you know these rational animals getting heaven to the second it should be said that those precepts no no let's say objection right all the precepts pertain to the divine law therefore in all of them there ought to be some reason assigned and not only in the first and the what third precept he says to the second should be said that those precepts which are purely moralia right have a manifest reason right whence it's not necessary that in them some reason be what added but to some precepts there is added something what ceremonial or something that is determinative of a moral common principle right just as in the first precept one ought not to make a what sculpture and the third precept there is determined the day of the Sabbath right and therefore for both of these is necessary to assign a what reason you know less manifest reason for them right and you can think about that now shoot it over in your head but it's interesting now what about these promises right now you got to get promises to all them right why not just promises to the first and the fourth now according to my text to the third should be said that men would plurium amount for the most part order their acts to something that is useful right now and therefore in those precepts is necessary to add a promise of award from which there doesn't seem to be the utility right to follow or who's from whom some utility seems to be impeded right in fact because parents are already what yeah you see for one from them none does not expect any usefulness right okay and therefore the precept of the honor of parents is added to has added a promise right now that you're going to live long or something right similarly to the precept about the prohibition of idolatry huh because through this seems to be impeded the apparent usefulness that men believe themselves to achieve through what pact began with the devils huh yeah like beth there right and he mixed up with the now what about punishments huh the lex timoris huh to the fourth it should be said that punishments especially are necessary against those things which are what against those who are prone to evil right as is said in the 10th book of aristotle's necomachian ethics huh and therefore to those precepts of the law is added the threat of punishments in which there was a proneness to evil now men were prone to idolatry right on account of the general custom of the what nations huh and similarly also men were prone to perjury on account of the frequency frequency of the what oh and therefore to what these two first precepts is added what threat now to the fifth one huh about memory you gotta remember these things huh that's when they knocked them down there in oklahoma so you won't remember them to the fifth it should be said that the precepts about the sabbath pertains to a commemoration of a past benefit so that's gotta be remembered right and therefore especially in that there is a mention about what memory huh so i'm told not to commit suicide i mean commit murder homicide right huh i don't remember some other homicides i committed or something like that right but here in the sabbath you're remembering a benefit huh you might forget that god you should thank god huh i used to think you know sometimes you set aside a special mass i make this a mass of thanksgiving you know all the things you received from god right and therefore especially in this is a mention of memory right huh or because the precept of the sabbath has a determination join which is now the law of nature we saw that before right that this particular day should be set up you know for grievance and this therefore this precept needs a special what admonition yeah mark is sort of telling me one time you know this guy catholic says oh i think god's punished me for you know skipping mass on sunday you know mark is sort of said i think he will what do you think duane i said i think he will too but uh you know but i mean that's there's something what um uh the determination a young term might say right that this is what you got to do right huh you've got to go to mass on sunday right huh and so people need to be reminded that right huh okay we don't have time now let's stop here you you you you you you