Prima Secundae
Lecture 307: Merit, Grace, and Reparation After Lapse

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

Okay, we're up to Article 5, is it? Okay, whether man is able to merit the first grace. To the first, therefore, it should be, to the first one goes forward thus. It seems that man is able to merit the first grace. I guess he's going to take it to the side, huh? Contrary, why? Contrary is prison. Yeah. Because, as Augustine says, faith merits justification. But a man is justified through the first grace. Therefore, man is able to merit the first grace, huh? Now, this is serious. To the first, therefore, it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on retractions, he himself for some time was deceived in this, right, huh? In that he believed the beginning of faith to be from us. Have you read Augustine's retractions? I haven't seen it. I've looked at the one where I was reading one of his books, and I saw that it was qualified. Yeah. That he believed the beginning of faith to be from us, right, huh? But the consummation to be given to us from God, huh? Which he himself, ibidem meaning there, I guess, huh? He retracts, huh? Because all the other guys are going around, like, getting here, they never retract anything, right? And to, in this sense, seems to retain that faith, what, merits, what, justification. But if we suppose that as the truth of faith has it, that the beginning of faith, right, is in us from God, right, huh? Then, already, the act of faith follows the first, what, grace. And thus, it is not able to be meritorious to the first grace, huh? But by faith, therefore, man is, what, justified. Not as a word that man, by believing, merits his justification, but because when he is, what, justified, he believes. In that the motion of faith is required for the justification of the impious, huh? So the quote in the objection from Gustin is that before, let's see, Epistle 186, yeah. They have a text here from Trent, huh? Gratis justificaria iduticamera, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification, right? That's kind of a lower deal. Okay. I don't know if you have that in the text that's in the footnote here. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I haven't read through Densinger for a while, but I shouldn't do it again. That's where you kind of know what, you know, but it just sticks in your mind what the decision is. Okay. Morver, the second objection. God does not give grace except to those worthy of it, huh? But one is not said to be worthy of some gift unless he merits it. Ex condigno, right? Therefore, someone ex condigno can merit the first grace. To the second, huh? It should be said that God does not give grace except to the, what? Worthy. Yeah. Not that they are before worthy, right? Worthy. But because he, through grace, makes them worthy. That would probably annoy some people, I'm sure. Because he alone can make clean from the unclean, the one conceived in, what? The seed, I guess, huh? We should say, Job 14.4. That's part of a prayer. Yeah. Okay. There, this comes from Job, look at Job 14.4, yeah. They're supposed to pray, then, oh God, make me worthy of receiving your grace. What's the song that used to be said at the, for the altar there, when I was an altar boy in the old days? Yeah. Moreover, among men, or among men, someone is able to, what? Merit a gift already accepted, just as the one who receives a horse from, what? Lord. Merits it by using it well in the service of his Lord, huh? So you give me a book of Thomason, and I really read it, then I merit that book, right? But God is more liberal than man. Therefore, much more does the man merit the first grace, now received, right? From God to his subsequent works, huh? Destroy that, I'm sure. To the third, it should be said that every good work of man proceeds from the first grace as from a, what, beginning, huh? It does not, however, proceed from any human gift, and therefore it is not, what, same reason about the gift of grace and about the, what, human gift, huh? The ginsis is that the ratio of grace is repugnant to the, what, merit of works. It's, according to that of Romans 4, to the one who works, reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to, what, death. But that a man merits that is imputed as the reward of his work, and therefore the first grace a man is not able to, what, merit, huh? It's not gratis, it's not gratis, huh? Yeah. I mean, this whole thing here is about to be a reward, yeah, I mean, about it meriting. And it should be said that the gift of grace can be considered in two ways, huh? You know, he's always distinguishing, huh? In one way, according to the definition of a gratuitous gift. This is manifest that every merit is repugnant to, what, grace, huh? Because then it's not gratis, right? Because, as is said in Romans 11, 6, the apostle says, huh? If from works, already not from grace. That's the exo peribus, jam non ex gratia. Did St. Paul have a sense of anger? He's got fights everywhere he went. Yeah, doesn't give him the sword, you know? It was just a couple days ago, wasn't it, the reading from the Acts of the Apostles was where he's left, like, dead almost from the beating they got, and then they got up and his friends came to him. He shows up and everybody says, we took him and took him out of town and got him to go someplace else, because it was always a couple wherever he went. But, yeah, the next day he's back to preaching. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I like that church of his in Rome, don't you? That's a nice one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess his body's there, too, I think. But his head's supposed to be over it. In another way, it can be considered according to the nature of the thing which is, what, given. And thus also it's not possible to fall under merit of one not having grace. Both because it exceeds the proportion of nature, right? Then also because before grace, in the state of sin, right? Man has an impediment of meriting grace, which is sin itself. These things he pointed out before, those same two things, right? Now after one already has grace, he cannot what? The grace already had cannot what? Fall under merit, because then the cause would be what? After the effect, right? Because reward is the end of the work. But grace is the beginning. Thomas is looking before and after. Good man. But grace is the beginning of every good work in us, as has been said above. But if someone merited the gratuitous gift by virtue of a preceding grace, it would already not be the, what, first grace. Once it is manifested, no one is able to merit for himself the first, what, grace. I suspected he'd say that. Well, that's getting me, Pelagius, I'm getting me. I suppose Pelagius said that, though, right? That you could, yeah. I don't know if this. It's almost like the same title here, Particle 6. Whether man can merit for another the first grace. To 6, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that man is able to merit for another the first grace. Apparently he's going to take the other side. You know, somebody that's innocent will come by and say, he always takes the opposite of what the question is. That's the person they have, you know. How does he make up the time? Well, he's always disagreeing with people, you know. He's disagreeing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because Matthew 9, verse 2, upon that, Christ, what, seeing the faith. So the gloss says, Quantum wallet, huh? Put before God, right, huh? So, before another, right, huh? Inward and outwardly heal man. But the interior healing of man is through the first grace. Therefore, a man is able to merit for another the first grace, huh? Does it say where that comes from? Yeah. The title of the work, Gloss of Ordinality. Yeah. There are different glosses. Yeah. And that's one. It's a Ming, Ming, ML. ML, 114, 115. Yeah. To the first effort should be said that the faith of others is valuable for others for salvation, right? By the merit of being, what? Congrui, huh? Fitting. Non merito condigni, right? So what did Monica... It's fitting that such tears should be rewarded. Yeah. There's doubt at the 40 lights, 40 Ezer lights there, the demonstration there against Planned Parenthood, right? I was there down there. And the one woman who was speaking there, I guess she does a lot of counseling and so on. But she's talking about she's down there one day and this man came along, right? Give him more cycle. And he stopped. And he said... And she was, you know, praying. He said, Can I pray with you? She said, Yes. And so they started saying the mercy chap and so on. And he didn't really do another book. She said, Can you read this? Oh, yeah. So he belted out, you know, the thing is so loud. Well, finally, the woman comes out of the abortion clinic and apparently she's already on the table and she could hear this guy's voice praying for her. And she turned around. She left and came out. She's apparently quite a regular person there, you know, to try to get things. And, you know, it's really some very striking stories, you know. I mean, why didn't they close the windows, you know, shut out this guy. I mean, he must have a powerful voice, I mean, to be able to do that, you know. Yeah, yeah, that's a good story. There's a lady, that's a sidewalk story outside the abortion clinic. Somebody drove in, a couple drove in, and when they drove in, they got out of their car and went and pulled out and she said, Please don't go in there. And they both looked at it and they went in and then just a few minutes later they both came out and they smiled and they waited and we decided to keep our baby. Yay! Yeah, I know. Thank God. You know, those who claim to be promoting choice definitely don't want to promote informed choice. Yeah. That's a laugh that they call a choice, you know, pro-choice. It's not uninformed. They even know what choice is. Now a second. Moreover, the prayers of the just are not empty, but efficacious. According to that of James, multum valet deprecatio justi assidua. Much does the continual prayer of the just fail. But there it is, what? Four said, pray for each other that you might be saved. Since therefore the salvation of man cannot be except the grace, it seems that one man is able to merit for another the first grace. The second, it should be said that the asking, I guess, impetrazio, how do they translate that, of prayer is based on, what? Mercy, huh? For the merit of, but the merit of condignia, of worth, is the rest of justice. And therefore, many things, by praying, a man asks for from divine mercy, which nevertheless is not merit according to justice. According to that of Daniel 9, 18, neither in our justifications do we, what? First of our prayers before your face, but in your many mercies, huh? You know what, this quote is also in romance recently. That's very good. Very good. Very good. So these are the prayers of Monica, among others. Moreover, Luke 16, make for yourselves friends with the mammon of iniquity, so that when it fails, they receive you in eternal tabernacles. Make friends with the mammon of iniquity. I tell you, it was Monday when we caught the money, right? So the, the, we went down there, all of us there to count the money on Monday. It wasn't there to be counted. And so, we looked trying to get in touch with the assistant there who was, the pastor had been over in the Holy Land, right? And so he was coming back. Well, the assistant had gone down to Boston to pick him up at the thing and they forgot about the, Oh, the bad money. Yeah. So I was like, we should go out and strike us. We'll learn them, you know? But, but, so the father's apologizing, you know, for forgetting it. But they, but there's a certain place where they leave it for us, you know, and we're checking out every place, you know, and, and what is it when you're trying to get somebody to... Well, if that's what you're counting as the mammon of iniquity, then the place where you come should be called the den of iniquity. But no one receives as we see it in the eternal tabernacles, right? The eternal tense of that, except through grace, huh? To which someone alone merits, to which alone a man merits eternal life. Therefore, one man can acquire for another by meriting the first grace. He says that the poor, right, receiving alms, yeah, are said to receive others in the eternal tense, either by, what, asking for them forgiveness, I pray, or by meriting through other, what, good things, congruable. For also, materially speaking, because through the works of mercy, which one exercises towards the poor, he merits to be received in eternal things. So many ways of answering that, I guess. against this is what is said in Jeremiah 15. If Moses and, what, Samuel stand before me, there will not be, what, who nevertheless were of the greatest merit before God. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. Therefore, it seems that no one is able to merit for another the first grace. That's kind of obscure there. Well, God is saying this, I guess, right? If Moses and Samuel stand before me praying, right? Nevertheless, my soul will not be, so they can't. Yeah, they're not going to. Okay, that makes sense. Now let's see what the master says here. The answer should be said that from the foregoing, it is clear that our work has the notion of what merit from two things. First, from the strength of the divine motion, right? And thus, one merits something ex-continual. Another way, it has the ratio of merit according as it proceeds from free judgment, insofar as we voluntarily do something. And in this way, it has the merit of what being fitting. Because it is fitting that when a man uses will, his power, that God operates according to the super-excellent power. More excellently. That's really excellently, excellently, isn't there? From which it is clear that by the merit of, what? Worth, no one can merit for another the first grace except Christ alone. That's interesting, huh? Because each one of us is moved, right, through the gift of grace, huh? That he might arrive at, what, eternal life. And therefore, the merit of worth cannot extend beyond this, what, motion. But the soul of Christ is moved by God, by grace, not only that he himself, right, might arrive at the glory of eternal life, but also that he might, what, bring others to it, insofar as he is the head of the church and the author of human salvation, according to that of the epistles of Hebrews, chapter 2, who brought many sons into, what, glory, the author of salvation, et cetera. But by the merit of being fitting, one can merit for another the first grace, huh? That's kind of a qualified merit there. Because a man in grace, constant in grace, fulfills the will of God, it is fitting, according to the proportion of friendship, huh? That God fulfills the will of that man in the salvation of another. So pray for your children, right, if you have any. Okay? Yeah. Although sometimes there can be had an impediment on the part of the one who, what, someone desires, some saint, just, yeah, desires a justification. And in this case speaks the authority of Jeremiah, ultimately, what, induced on the one from Sincontra. Okay, gotta stop now, I guess. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Dios, gracias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Thank you, Jesus. And help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Actually, I was quite enthusiastic about Thomas' approval of my saying thank you first, right? I was reading in the Gospel of John, you know, at the chapter, it was 11, where you have Lazarus being raised from the dead, right, and so on. But Christ, you know, prays first, you know. But he first thanks God, right, and Thomas said, we should thank God first before you ask for something again. You should thank what you received already, right? So, when I start there. Actually, I started putting it before because I always forget to say it after. So, you know, remember before when I asked him. But it was good to see the order. I was following the order of our Lord himself, right? But I'm going to give you a little objection to our Lord here, right? Something else he says in the Gospel of John, right? And I told you the story there, this guy who had been in the Dominicans, told him that his teacher said, you know, seldom affirm, never affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish, right? And we've seen as we go through here that Thomas is always in the reply almost, you know, pointing out, do preach it here or teach it to her or something, you know, some kind of distinction that's a starting point for the thing, right? Okay. Now, one of the very important things that Christ says in the Gospel of St. John is that the Father and I are one, okay? Shouldn't he have what? Distinguished, right? Because if I'm a Sibelian, right, I might say, okay, they're one person really, huh? You know? It could be one person. I mean, he didn't say something else. Something else. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So maybe Sibelius, you know, who thought that the Father and the Son and maybe the Holy Spirit too, I guess, are really one and the same person, but they call it a Father because he does this and a Son because he does that and the Holy Spirit because he does that. It's really the same person, right? Doing all these things, right? So Christ says, the Father and I are one, right? Why does he distinguish and say, you know, we're one God, but we're not one person, right, huh? You know? Why does he, why does he say, the Father and I are one? I mean, isn't that an inferiority to Thomas' way of proceeding, you know? Thomas means to say, you know, we're one God, but we're not one person, right? You know? You know? You can both affirm and deny that we're one, right? We're one God, but we're not one person, you know? That's very important, isn't it? So, I can defend that word. There's some distinction. But some might say that the Sibelius is saying, you know, he's saying that the Father and I are really, what, one person, right, huh? So, like, I'm a grandfather and a philosopher, right? Well, it's not the same thing to be a grandfather and a philosopher, but I'm the same person as, you know, they call me grandfather for one thing I did and a professor or philosopher for another reason, something else I did, right? You see? So, the Father and I, you know, you see? You know, distinguish and say in what sense he meant they were one. Because in some sense they're not one, huh? In some other places, you know, I know, but you've got to bring another text in there. I mean, here he's not distinguishing, huh? Why does he speak that way, right? In the context of the situation. I can't remember exactly what the scripture is there, but he's making a particular point. Yeah. And it's not an exhaustive explanation of his relationship with the Father, being one with him, but he's making a specific point in a particular context. Yeah. Maybe he's making a claim of divinity. So, that's the unity of it. It could be, I don't know. Well, I know, but I mean, it doesn't distinguish whether they're one God or one person. In one case, you'd affirm, in the other case, you'd deny it. And so, without making that distinction, you shouldn't affirm or deny it, because Sabellus is going to misunderstand it. And, well, he knows we go from confused, this thing. So, he's following that word. So, I might say, isn't John better in the beginning? He says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God. Now, if you're toward something, there's a distinction between you and what you're toward, right? But then, there's not a distinction in divinity. And then, he adds, and the Word was God, right? Well, then the distinction is made there, right? Then you say that the Word was God. Well, then you say, well, okay. Then, there wasn't God the one to whom he is the Word, right? You know? That didn't satisfy me, right? Well, why didn't Christ speak this way, right? In other words, is there more reason for why he would say, we are one because we're one God, than that we are one, that we are not one because we're not one person? Yeah? Well, the atheistic perspective could have come to many wild misinterpretations. Yeah. Had he said, well, you know, we're one, but we're different persons, it would have said, oh, they're a polytheist, or something like that. Yeah? He would have tried to send folks. I wonder if, you know, if you go back to this distinction we make sometimes between, like, some pichetarian secundum quid, that sort of thing, right? And, if I actually am I, what would you say? I am, right? You say, I didn't distinguish because I am a man, but I'm not in my car. So, in some sense, I am not, right? I am not in my car. But I'm justified in saying I am without distinguishing why. Simply, yeah. Yeah. Okay? Now, if you're talking about the, you know, human things, the substance of a thing, right? It's nature, right? You're saying, what? You're talking about the divine nature. So, we are one, what? God, right? But we differ by, what? Relation, right? Now, per sevelation, God is not different in a different category. I mean, a different thing than the divine substance, right? But, if you go back to us, you know, we distinguishing substance and relation, right? Substance is more being simply, right? Relation is something they couldn't have quit, right? Not that it's quite the same thing in God, right? But there might be a reason for saying that, right? We are one God, but two persons, right? Think about that a little bit, huh? I'm struck by that, huh? When Thomas is saying that God is saying almost the same thing, when he says, the Father and I are one, and the Father is in me, and I am in the Father. That's kind of interesting that it says the same, right? But, when you say he's the thought of God, right, huh? When the thought is in what? The thinker, right, isn't it? So, if he's the thought of God, the Father, right? He's in the Father, right? Kind of interesting that that can be said, huh? Okay, we're up to Article 7, I guess, here, in Question 114. Whether a man is able to merit, what? Reparation after a lapse, huh? No, I suspect he's not. To the seventh one goes forward thus. It seems that someone is able to merit for himself reparation after a lapse, huh? For that which is just. For that which is just. For that which is just. justly asked from God, a man seems able to what? Merit. But nothing is more justly asked from God, as Augustine says, than that he be repaired after a lapse. According to that is Psalm 70. When my power, strength fails, right? Do not abandon me, right? Leave me abandon. Therefore a man can merit that he be, what, prepared after a lapse, as if there's just, I guess, justly asked from God, right? Okay. Well, most of the time it says, that this is said to be just in another sense, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the desire by which someone desires reparation after a lapse is said to be just, right? And likewise, the prayer for that is said to be, what, just? Because it tends to justice, right? Not that it is, what, based on justice as way of, what, adorn me upon, what? Let me see, huh? So it's got to be careful there in understanding the text, you got to distinguish the sense in which it's said to be just, right? So it's just for me to seek forgiveness for my lapse. Yeah. Yeah. Moreover, more is a man able to, what, ask for, right, works for himself, right, than those for another, right? Or more do they, what, profit a man, right, his own works, than that they profit, what, another, right? But man can in some way merit reparation after a lapse for another, right? Can merit reparation after a lapse, right? Just as he can in some way merit the first grace, huh, for another. Yeah. Therefore, much more can he merit that he be prepared after a lapse, huh? Of course, when you're meriting for another one, you already have grace in your, you know? Yeah, yeah. Well, in this case, you try to do it for yourself, you're a lapsed Christian, right? Okay. So the second, that's, it's not too hard to see the solution to that objection, right? To the second should be said that someone can merit ex congruo, right? That's not ex condigno, right, huh? The first grace, huh? Because there is not a, what, impediment, huh? At least on the part of the one merit, which is found when someone, right, after the merit of, what, grace has receded from justice, right? Then he has an impediment, huh? Moreover, a man who at some time was in grace, through the good works that he does, merits for himself, what, eternal life, huh? But one cannot, what, arrive at eternal life, huh? At eternal life, unless he'd be repaired by grace. Therefore, it seems that he merits from self-reparation for grace, right? So can I, by one act of charity, as Thomas says, huh, can I merit eternal life? Yep, isn't it so? I love God above all other things, right? Um, can I merit from that act of loving God in this way, eternal life? Now, if I lapse after this wonderful act of love, right, I merited eternal life, so I have to merit the, what, preparation for my lapse, because without being repaired, I'm not going to get to eternal life. So I merited eternal life, won't get there without being repaired, therefore I must merit to be repaired, despite my thing, huh? But Thomas Sondes talks about how someone's living living in a very good life, right? He quickly recovers from a lapse, you know, of some sort, right? And, uh, he and Peter did, right? Went out and wept bitterly, right? Now what about this meriting of eternal life, huh? Also Thomas says, huh? To the theory it should be said that some, huh? Now, I don't know, my text says, see, Bonaventure, since, since, doesn't mean it's Bonaventure saying that, though. He might be talking to somebody else, right? Be first, there's a reference down there, right, huh? Okay, so don't accuse Bonaventure of doing this, yeah? Okay. Some say that no one merits absolutely eternal life, huh? Except through the act of final, what, grace. And only under this condition, if he, what, perseveres, right? But this is said unreasonably, Thomas says, huh? Because sometimes the act of last grace is not more meritorious, but less, right? And then the preceding, the act of the preceding, on account of the, what, oppression of sickness or something, right? Okay. Whence it should be said that each act of charity merits absolutely eternal life, huh? Sometimes it means that, right? But through the sequent or following sin, there is placed an impediment to the preceding merit, huh? That's what he says, huh? So that it does not, what, achieve its effect. Just as also natural cause fails from their effects on account of the, what? Yeah, yeah. So any goal of this stone is going to, what, fall to ground, but somebody might impede it falling to ground, right? Somebody said, right? One thing we know is it's not going to spin on a thing. Yeah. We've declared that. That's kind of interesting, right, huh? You can merit eternal life, but the effect there is impeded by your, your lapse, huh? Of course, the text is very clear. This is the one that they, you hear in mass, huh? At least that we hear in mass every year. Again, this is what is said in Ezekiel 18, right? Verse 24. That's the one where he talks about my just or unjust, right, you remember? Yeah. So if the just man turns away from his justice, right, and commits what? Iniquity. All the justices, huh, of him which he had done, I will not, will not be, what? Yeah, it's pretty rough, right? But if the big sinner, you know, turns away. Yeah. Yeah. So that's unfair, you know. Okay. Therefore, nothing to the preceding merits avail, right? For this that one can, what? Rise up. Therefore, one is not able to merit reparation after the future, what? Lapse, huh? So that's what Thomas says in the body of the article. See if we get some more illumination here. The answer should be said that no one can merit for himself reparation after a future, what? Lapse, huh? Neither by the merit of, what? Worth, right? Nor the merit of, what? Fitting, huh? That's rough speaking, right? Now, if by the merit of worth, he cannot merit for himself. Because the reason for this merit depends upon the motion of, what? Divine grace, huh? Which movement is interrupted by the, what? Following sin, huh? Whence all the benefits which afterwards someone achieves from God, by which he is repaired, do not come under, what? Merit. As it were, that the motion of the grace before does not extend itself to, what? To this, huh? Now, the merit of gangui, huh? Of being fitting, right? By which someone merits for another a first, what? Grace is impeded, let it, what? Achieve its effect on account of the impediment of sin in the one who, what? For which one? For which one? For which one? For which one? For which one? For one merits. Much more, therefore, is one impeded the efficacy of such a merit by the impediment which is in the one who merits and merits. For here, both come together in one person. And therefore, in no way can someone merit reparation after what? Lapse. Poor Francis did say about this. There's a reference to Denzinger, I can't look it up right now. There's part of the text they have here, but it's not that full. The just one merits eternal life, and of him the eternal life if nevertheless he deceases in gratia, right? Let's look at Article 8 here now. Whether man can merit a growth of grace or charity.