Secunda Secundae
Lecture 10: Faith, Reason, and the Necessity of Belief for Salvation

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

Okay. We've got Article 3 now? Yep. Okay. To the third one goes forward. To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that to believe is not necessary for salvation. I don't think you're going to argue that way. How are you going to confuse that issue? Well, the thing is, he'll give us reasons that I can't answer. It's as simple as it seems. I can't answer. For the salvation and perfection of each thing would seem to be sufficient to things that belong to it according to its nature. It gives the cat claws and it gives the... But those things which are of faith exceed the natural reason of man, right? Since they are non operentia, not appearing, right? Therefore, to believe doesn't seem to be necessary for salvation. Second, moreover, dangerously, does man assent to those things in which he cannot, what? Judge. Judge whether what is proposed to him is true or false. According to that of Job 12. Noni oris verba judicat. Do not, what? Judge words. Some people substitute words for thoughts, right? That's what you're doing, you know. But such a judgment man cannot be able to have in those things which are of faith because a man is not able to resolve them into first beginnings, right? Principia prima, which are the axioms and the so-called postulates, right? To which we judge about all things. Therefore, it's dangerous to give faith to such things, right? To believe, therefore, is not necessary for salvation. Something so dangerous, my goodness. Moreover, the salvation of man consists in God, according to that of Psalm 36. He solace on the salvation of the justice from the Lord. But the invisible things of God to the things which are made are understood, right? Being looked upon, huh? And even his, what? Eternal power and divinity, huh? As it says in Romans 1.20. This is the one that they talk about the natural knowledge that we can have of God, right, huh? This is where the church uses this text and saying it's possible to have some natural knowledge of God. But the things that are seen by the understanding are not believed, right? So from the things that are seen, we can know some things about God. Boy, isn't that enough, you know? We ain't gonna have some other stuff. Yeah, it's nonsense, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Therefore, it's not necessary for the salvation that man believes some things, huh? Not against all this nonsense, huh? Here's what is said in Hebrews chapter 11, verse 6. Sine fide, without faith, right? It's impossible to please God, huh? Very strong statement, huh? Now, Thomas says, I answer it should be said that in all, what? Nature is ordered, is found that for the perfection of the lower nature, two things, what? Come together. One which is according to its own motion, right? Another which is according to the motion of superior nature, right? That's why my little prayer there, you know, I say, move us, God, to know and love you, right? Well, which motion is that talking about? The motion of a superior nature, right? But then the second part of my prayer is, right, help us to know and love you, right? Because according to one's own motion, one must, what, try to know and love God, right? We still need God's help there, too, right? Yeah. That's why I had two parts of the prayer, right? Okay, and the true cake, the tramiter. The unpublished poems of 24 hours. Well, you know, Thomas's prayer is one of them that's called there in there. Rhythmus. The Rhythmus, Thomas, right? The Rhythmus for Christianus. Yeah. Meditating Thomas, you know, he seems to use the true cake, right? It's contrary to what's most common to us, the iambic, right? Aristotle talks about the iambic as being something we kind of fall into almost in daily speech, right? So Shakespeare's is the true cake when he's talking about the witches, right? Fair is foul when the fall is fair. Havreth with the fog into filthy air. He likes to make somebody a little different from us, you know, with a different meter, right? So Thomas says like in the prayers, there are visus, tactus, gustus, and tefalitur. That's true cake, it seems to me. Okay. Just as water, according to its own motion, is moved to the center, right? So earth, air, fire, and water, they thought, all fell towards the center, right? But according to the motion of the moon, cerca centrum, right? It was a different kind of motion, right? Secundum fluxum and refluxum, right? You're talking about the, yeah, dump the tide, yeah. That's due to the moon, right? And then, more complicated example, similarly, where the, what, orbs of the planets are moved by their own motion from east to west, right? But by the motion, the first orb from the east to the west, you know? So accepted on faith, right? Now, only the rational nature, only the created rational nature has an immediate order to God, right? Because the other creatures do not attain to something, what? Universal, right? Large discourse, right? One sense of the great Shakespeare's words. But only to something particular, partaking of the divine goodness either in being only, right? As the inanimate things, right? Or also in seeing, in living and knowing singulars, right? As the plants and the animals, right? But the, what, rational nature, insofar as it knows the universal nature of good, and of being, right? As immediate order to the universal beginning of being, right? The first being. Yeah, but here it just says the first being, right? Cheapium. Okay. perfection, Yeah, you're correct. Perfection, huh? Of the rational creature not only then consists in that what belongs to him according to his nature, right? But also in that which attributes to him from a certain, what, partaking of the divine, what, goodness, huh? Whence above it has been said, and this is back in the Prima Secundae, that the last beatitude of man consists in a certain supernatural vision of God, huh? Whereby we see him as he is, right? We see him as he is, as St. John says, To which vision man is led not only, right? Yeah, it's not even to be led except by way of learning from God the what? Teacher, right? According to that of John 6, verse 45, right? Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me, huh? Yes, I like this man. Yeah. He listens to him. Audit means what more, say here, listen, either way. I, that's right, I would prefer, but I don't know if I can argue with a man. Yeah. Yeah. How did he do this? He got a right now, okay. They translate in your English nations. Here, what? Your feet is excited to, right? Now, of this learning, man becomes a partaker, not at once, right? But successively, right? Discursively, right? According to the mode of his, what? Nature, right? Now, everyone thus learning, this is necessary that he believe, in order that he might come to a perfect, what? Knowledge, yeah? As also the philosopher says. Who is this philosopher he's always called? He never gives us his name. It's not me, by the way. Maybe it was Kassarik. Well, Kassarik said he had the brains of an angle world compared to this guy called the philosopher. Even though he's wiser than anybody else at the College of St. Thomas than I was a student there. Just as the philosopher says, and this is a reference now down to the famous text in the system refutations, they say for the learner to believe. It's necessary for the learner to what? To believe. Whence in order that man might arrive at a perfect vision of the attitude there is presupposed, right? That he believe God as a student, right? Believes his master teaching. That's kind of a beautiful way of proceeding, isn't it? It's all the thing, huh? Even in terms of human learning, right? You need to believe the, what, teacher, right? You know? Keep on coming back to me. I mean, the conic saying one time in class, you know, he used to explain, you know, sometimes a word equivocal by reason, you know, saying, you know, that every respectable word in philosophy is equivocal by reason, right? And I didn't try to prove that at the time, you know, but the more I did, the more I see the truth of that, right? And if he hadn't said that, I would not have thought so much about what words equivocal by reason, right? I was kind of joking by myself, you know, of how I might lead students along, you know, like I could actually lead students along, you know, and say, do you think we can define something by words equivocal by reason? And it might seem like, you know, how can you use words that have many meanings, right, to define something? You're not going to do what? Yeah, you're not going to really pinpoint what you're trying to define, right? And, but then I got thinking, you know, I say, well, I got thinking about Shakespeare's definition, for example, of reason, right? And every word in there is equivocal by reason. Well, how can you define it with words non-equivocal by reason? Well, ability, right, is a word equivocal by reason. That's the first word you might say in the definition of reason, is the ability of reason is capability, but I'll take a little bit of shorting it to ability. Well, if you know the ordered senses of the word ability, you could see which one he has in mind, right? Without trying to be too profound, you could say it's a sense of the ability to do something, right? The rest of the definition tells you the reason he's able to do. Okay, what's the second word? Discourse. Discourse, yeah. Well, there's two main senses of the word discourse, right? To run from one thing to another, kind of a loose sense of this. We're always running from one thing to another, right? It's kind of scatterbrains, but... Then there's a more precise sense of it. Running from what you know to what you don't know in such a way as to come to know what you don't know. Hey, that's something, right? Well, both of these senses, reason is able to what? Of course, right? Then you've got the next word is large, right? Again, equivocal by reason, right? Large can mean it covers a large area, or it could mean what? Large as opposed to small as opposed to small thought. So, is reason capable of a discourse about the universal? Yeah? Is it capable of a discourse about great things? Yeah, more so about small things, right? But you can't see the full power of reason until you see it's able to what? Discourse about great things, right? So now you've got to use both senses of discourse, right? I mean, at large, rather. Just as use both senses of what? Discourse, right? Looking. What's got many three senses, huh? Looking at the eyes, looking at the imagination, looking at reason, right? What's that third sense you have in mind, right? Trying to understand, right? Now, what's sense of before and after? All of them. You can't define reason without using five words or five phrases that are, what, all equivocal by, what? Reason, right? Now, what about the famous definition of motion? It's the act of what is able to be insofar as it's able to be. You're defining it by act of ability, and there, really, you are equivocal by reason, right? So, you kind of turn the twist on this student, right? Now, of course, can you define without words equivocal by reason? Can you define without words equivocal by reason? But all because he says every respectable word in philosophy is a word equivocal by reason, huh? Nobody else ever said that, you know, never even read anything for else, but, you know, it's certainly true, right? And no one was true when he said it. But I remember what he said, right, huh? I remember how deconic, I mean, how, uh, Kosturik, you know, insists, you know, that Aristotle doesn't use the abstract word for the categories. It doesn't call it relation, right? He calls it prosti. Albert translates idoliquid, right? Toward something, right? And then one day I picked up the gospel of a guy called John, and he says, in the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, right? Prost, right? And that's just what Kosturik was saying about the way Aristotle describes that category relations, we say, right? Not by that abstract word, but posti, towards something, right? Son of God is toward God, and God stands there for a father, right? He's starting to introduce you to the idea that the Trinity is going to be distinguished by relations. Okay, so, the replies already in Article 3? Article 3? My goodness. To the first, it should be said that since, because the nature of man depends upon a, what, higher nature, right? To his perfection does not suffice natural knowledge, knowledge, but this requires something supernatural, right? That's because he's made in the image and likeness of God, we would say, right? But he has something godlike, namely reason, right? The dog and the cat doesn't have anything godlike, huh? Hmm? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Incidentally, Shakespeare's definition of reason tells you how to understand the word equivocal by reason. Yeah, but first you've got to run from one meaning to another meaning, you've got to separate the meanings, and then, as you run from one to the other you've got to be looking before and after right to see which one comes before which one comes after that's the way you eventually work it out and then you have reason yeah yeah and then you have the the uh understanding of the word equivocal by reason now we distinguish its main senses but it's the order of them right yeah now this is very important you applied the second objection here right huh okay it's danger right yeah the second should be said that just as man by the natural light of the understanding a sense to what beginnings right so the virtuous man through the habit of the virtue has a right judgment about those things which belong to that virtue and in this way right also through the light of what faith divinely infused into man a man is sensed to those things which are of faith right and not to their what countries and therefore there is nothing of danger or damnation in those who are in christ jesus illuminated through faith by him right okay you have a certain inclination due to the virtue itself right because it's a habit right it's a disposition yeah yeah and so you you you supernaturally right reject what is contrary to that right except what is in accordance with it now to the third it should be said that the invisible things of god in a higher way because it requires many things like the trinity etc uh the faith precedes which then what reason natural reason was seeding from creatures and god would know right so the aristotle didn't arrive at the what understanding of the trinity right he was preceding ex creaturis in the um who cheatins right sometimes they take the text of our style there you know that we use the word three and praising god right oh he must have known something about it thomas kind of puts that in some proper you know yeah once it is said in ecclesiasticus pluriuma super sensum hominis many things above the sense of man his judgment and the bridge are shown to you right now so i'll be gone for two weeks now so Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas and the Yellow Doctor. Help us to understand what you have written. Now this, I'm going to read you right now. It's got something to do with the second part here of the Secunda Secunda. Again with the few words of John Adams, right? And he, as you know, was the second President of the United States. Having taken the oath of office, Mr. Adams, in his inaugural address, spoke of his predecessor as one, quote, who by a long course of great actions, regulated by prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Does that ring a bell both of you? That's the second half of the Secunda Secunda, right? So, who by a long course of great actions, regulated by prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, had merited the gratitude of his fellow citizens, commanded the highest praises of foreign nations, and secured immortal glory with posterity. Isn't that wonderful, huh? Okay. Now, you know, Adams was vice-president under John, yeah, okay. Now, here's a nice thing here from Jefferson, right, who would later hear us, huh? We subjoin Jefferson's comprehensive character of Washington. The result of long observation, because he was in the cabinet, you know, as Secretary of State and so on. The result of long observation and cabinet experience, and written in after years, when there was no temptation to insincere eulogy. This is the quote now that he has from Jefferson. His integrity was most pure. His justice, the most inflexible I have ever known. No motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred. Being able to bias his decision. He was indeed, in every sense of the word, a wise, a good, and a great man. Very impressive, would you say, huh? Now, a little bit later on here when Washington had died, you know. A deep sorrow spread over the nation on hearing that Washington was no more. Congress, which was in session, immediately adjourned for the day. The next morning it was resolved that the Speaker's chair be shrouded with black, that the members and officers of the House wear black during the session, and that a joint committee of both houses be appointed to consider on the most suitable manner of doing honor to the memory of the man, quote, first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow citizens. Public testimonials of grief and reverence were displayed in every part of the Union, nor were these sentiments confined to the United States. Of course, you know how Lafayette, you know, one of his sons, he named George Washington Lafayette. And, you know, in the First World War when Pershing went over with our, you know, troops, right? And partied to help France fight, what, Germany and so on. And when he arrived in Paris, he says, we are here, Lafayette. That's marvelous. When the news of Washington's death reached England, Lord Bridport, huh, who had command of a British fleet of nearly 60, sailed the line. Lying at Torbay, huh, he lowered his flag half-mast, every ship following the example. And Bonaparte, First Consul of France at this time, announcing his death to the army, ordered that black crape should be suspended from all the standards and flags throughout the public service for 10 days, huh? A little bit here where our friend Washington Irving is summing up a little bit of character of Washington. The character of Washington may want some of those poetic elements which dazzle and delight the multitude, but it possessed fewer inequalities and a rare union of virtues than perhaps ever fell to the lot of one man. Prudence, firmness, sagacity, moderation, an overruling judgment, an immovable justice, courage that never faltered, patience that never wearied, truth that disdained all artifice, magnanimity without alloy. It seems as if Providence had endowed him in a preeminent degree with the qualities requisite to fit him for the high destiny he was called upon to fulfill, to conduct a momentous revolution which was to form an era in the history of the world and to inaugurate a new and untried government, huh? The fame of Washington stands apart from every other in history, shining with a truer luster and a more benignant glory. With us, his memory remains a national property where all sympathies throughout our widely extended and a Frisade empire meet in unison. Under all dissensions and amid all the storms of party, his precepts and examples speak to us from the grave with a paternal appeal and his name by all revered forms a universal tie of brotherhood, a watchword of our union. Of course, you know, we don't honor him anymore, right? We're not getting a statue down there in Virginia. He ends with this quote from an eminent British statesman quoting him. It will be the duty of the historian and the sage of all nations, writes an eminent British statesman Lord Braugham. To let no occasion pass of commemorating this illustrious man and until time shall be no more will attest to the progress which our race has made in wisdom and virtue be derived from the veneration paid to the immortal name of Washington. I was impressed with that, you know? Okay. What? What year did Washington die in Africa? What year? Well, it's at the end of the 18th century, you know? Yeah, yeah. He's at the end, yeah. Yeah. Just like my friend Washington Irving, he did it before the Civil War, right? He didn't see that horrible thing, you know? That sort of thing. Oh, yeah, he was, he was, the first government or first location of the government was in New York, right? And his little handmaid and lady who took care of him, you know, she went into this bookshop there, right? And Washington was in there looking at books, right? Oh. And she said, she's the little one named after you, you know, she said. So Washington put his hand on the man and gave him a blessing. And so, that was the last work he did, you know? And just at the end of his life, he wrote the biography of, urging him to do so, you know, and he was very good at that, huh? It's only one of the four or five volumes, you know, that pick up the lights there. But now we've got to go back from the cardinal virtues to the virtues, the theological virtues, right? Okay. Now, I was thinking about the way that Thomas sometimes shows a certain order among the three virtues. You may recall that. He said, by faith we know our, what, end, huh? By hope we are towards it. And then, by charity we are, and to some extent, already joined to our end, right? Well, I ran across this verse, which I'm sure you're familiar with. It's in the book of... Lamentations, okay, and chapter 3 there, verse 25. This is verse 25 there. The Lord is good to them that hope in him. That's referring to the second theological virtue. The Lord is good to them that hope in him, to the soul that seeketh him. That's like Thomas is saying there, right, huh? By faith you more know what your end is, right? But by hope you are, what, already tending towards the end, huh? And then, you know, I always go back to St. Teresa de Silla, you know, huh? About the third thing that Thomas says, right? Because she says, it's kind of an astonishing thing when she says it, you know, I don't know what more I can have in heaven than I have now. Our union is already complete. It's an amazing thing, right? What about me taking vision? But in St. Teresa de Silla says a woman is a better heart for love than a man does, right? That's true not only in the natural order, but in the supernatural order, too, huh? Kind of an amazing thing. So, to some extent, she's already, what? By her love for God, the union already joined her in, right? I think that makes beautiful sense, you know, in the way Thomas distinguishes them, right? Now, last thing before we go back to the text of Thomas. Thomas was, what, talking about three things involved, right? In the act of faith, huh? And he's had this terrible act in there, right? Greater Deum Deo, huh? So, yeah. And so, I thought maybe there's some way of kind of purifying a little bit of Thomas's wisdom there, right, huh? And, uh, but, you know, put it into English, you know, huh? My teacher, because he says, you've got to sometimes put it into English before you think you really grasp it, right? Right. Okay. Now, there's three things involved in this, right? Okay. You know, have you ever seen these, uh, texts of Thomas, you know, where he's talking about the knowledge of the Trinity? And the question is, can we know about the Trinity by natural reason alone? And Thomas, of course, will answer, no, we can. But anyway, he has objections here on the opposite side and so on. And he always seems to quote this text from Aristotle in the book on the universe, huh? Where Aristotle talks about, we praise God by the number three. And Thomas, uh, reply is that what Aristotle means is that there is a certain perfection in the number three, huh? And the favorite example of the perfection of it is the perfection of what is the beginning, a middle, and an end, right? Aristotle praises what? Homer, right? He taught all the other Greeks how to make a good, what? Plot, yeah. And it's not about one man or whatever happened to one man or group of men, but it's about a course of action as a beginning, a middle, an end. That's three, yeah? So there's some perfection here in these being three, right? Okay. Now, how would I state it in my English, right? That's what they have black book here, and the green board, or what do you call it? Yeah. So, right? Believing God, which Thomas calls what? The formal object, right? Believing God. But, about what? About, which is good to do. Those are the three things here, right? Believing God, about God, which is good to do, right? Now, let's talk about these first two things here, right? Let's remind a little bit of what Aristotle says in the premium to the three books on the soul. What does he say? He says, all knowledge, as such, is good, right? Knowledge can be bad, only gratidians, huh? Okay? Now, I used to contrast this with love, right? Could you say that all love, as such, is good? No. If I love something bad, as such, is bad. If I know what is bad, that's not as such, bad. Okay? So, there's a contrast between knowledge and what? Love. All knowledge, as such, is good. But then Aristotle says, but one knowledge, nevertheless, is better than another knowledge, right? And he says, there are two reasons why one knowledge can be better than another knowledge. One is that it's about a better thing. The other is that you know something better, or certain, and so on, right? And in that particular text here in the premium, he doesn't say, you know, are these two criteria equal, right? See? Well, but in the biological works, right? He says that the main criterion is what you know, not how you know. So it's better to know even imperfectly a better thing than to know perfectly. Hey, boy. Yeah. I can go with a great deal of certitude. I can count pretty good, you know? And, you know, we know the number of chairs in this room, you know. With a greater certitude than many other things, I'd like to know some certitude. But big deal. You see how the moderns, you know, are taken up with mathematics and mathematical science, because it seems to be more precise and for certain, and so on. And therefore, this is the kind of knowledge that you need to pursue. Well, that's not true. Okay? But now thinking about what you're established there is, and about these first two things here, right? Believing God. God can neither deceive nor be deceived, right? So if you're believing God, you're going to be completely what? Certainness might have excellence, right? But to believe God, not about the number of chairs here in this room, but to believe God about God, that's the best thing you can know, right? Because you're knowing what? It's a knowledge of the best thing there is. Emotionally. Yeah. So it's good to have a knowledge of the body, right? But Aristotle emphasizes this when he's talking about the soul, because the soul is a better thing, right? So it's good as such to have knowledge of the body. It's also good as such to have knowledge of the soul. But it's better to know the soul than know the body, because the soul is a better thing than the body, right? Which is better to know? The soul, the souls, the different kinds of souls, or to know the angels? They're better, right? Which is better, to know the angels or to know God? Yeah. Okay? So the two criteria that Aristotle says, right? Having what? about a better thing. That's the main one, right? But also to have certitude about this thing, huh? To know, well, hey, my goodness. It seems to touch upon both reasons for saying one knowledge is better than another, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? That's the main one, right? It's good to do that. Good to believe God, especially about what? About God. Nothing better than the way you know what I do. But this last thing here not only talks about the goodness of that knowledge, right? Where you believe God about God, right? But it also points to the fact that the good is the object, now not of reason so much, but it's more the object of what? Will. And that's important, right? Because we don't have evidence for this, right? We're believing God, right? And nevertheless, our reason is moved by our what? Will in the act of faith, right? So, you see that it's good to believe. That's the three things that Thomas talks about, isn't it? But now it's in my native English, right? It's more clear to me, right? Thomas, you know, talks about the formal object, right, and material object and so on, right? But this is a good way of saying it, isn't it? It reminds me, you know, of that thing that Thomas says, huh? Did Aristotle know something? You know, the objection says, right? Because he says, we praise God with three. Thomas says, well, it's because three, what? There's an imperfection in three. They're getting it on the end, huh? That's what we were, right? I don't say this is . I told you how my great teacher undergraduate days, you know, he was the wise man at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and I'll call themselves the University of St. Thomas, but he said, he was the wise man in the whole college, but he said, compared to Aristotle, I got the mind of a, what? Engleworm. Engleworm. Engleworm. He never said how he'd be a person to Thomas. Didn't get that far. He had great respect for Decanic, right? Because he'd given up philosophy for a while because of the poor teaching he had, you know, as a student. And then he heard about Decanic, and then he, you know, I'm going to go up there. And he was a little bit older, you know, a little more speaking his mind, you know. When he got up there, he said to Decanic, he says, if you teach philosophy the way it's been taught to me in the States, he said, I'm going to get up and leave your class. And Decanic said, fine, fine. I'm as bad as that, he says. So there's this kind of, you know, from then on, they're kind of joking with each other, right? And when I was in graduate school there, Kersurik was going over to Russia, right, with a group of American professors, you know, kind of a tour, going to meet the minister of education over there and those sort of things, right? And so I heard from some priest I knew about Decanic going over. And so he said, they told Decanic, you know, that he was going over. He said, I hope he keeps his mouth shut over there. The more he does here, he'll never get out, you know. So his wife was frozen, you know, until he got out of the Russia, you know, back in the States. But the, I guess the CIA asked him to take, you know, a picture, photo of a secret installation. And that's, I don't know what they do to you if they catch you or you never know what they would do, you know. And he says, what did you do a thing like that for? I said. I said, your country asked you to do it, do you do it? There you go. My cousin Dominic, you know, he went into the Navy there for four years before he could go to graduate school. And he comes back, you know, from the Navy, you know, and he goes to Caesarea and tells all these crazy things that happened in the Navy, you know. And he said, everything I told him, he'd tell me something even more wildly. It's kind of funny, huh? Okay.