Secunda Secundae
Lecture 12: Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity: Necessity for Salvation

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

that's my neighbor thomas says that the more intellectual the more understanding you have the more you appreciate what the common good i don't think my daughter's cat and much appreciation of the common good right yeah yeah just thinking of your own stomach you know one of your daughters we kept her my daughter's sister about keeping one of them and uh we didn't give away that one but there was a nice you know sofa or what it was where um the daughter now like to go and take her after a nap while i was watching the cat one time and tablet i know about that place too and so she comes and she picks up and there at the time when she did she got then she walked away a real sense of the private good though i thought so it's kind of a joke between rosie and i you know you know if somebody cuts me off in traffic like i go to the third it should be said that the lesser the miners do not have a implicit faith in the faith of the greater except insofar as the greater adhere to the what divine doctrine doctrine teaching just as the apostle says in the first epistle to the corinthians 4 be imitators of me secreted ego christi this is i am of christ so should i imitate paul insofar as he imitates christ right beautiful there our style says that man is the most imitative of the animals realize that when you're imitating the sound of the cat or the dog or the cow right with your grandchildren right imitating all these things right huh my daughter's got uh her husband they got 10 acres there they got quite a few cows you know so i have a pretty good cow thing and i and so i went out there with the grandchildren i use my cow um and they all come running over you know and they they just you know they're amazed at this you know i i call the cows my cousins you know i told them say oh doesn't say brothers now i said you know cousins you know that you know yeah yeah but they're my cousins right yeah yeah but you know you know what was the teacher who's the great teacher of plato i mean of aristotle's it was plato right and what did plato do what did he write yeah yeah what's the difference between the dialogues that plato wrote and the works like uh you know aristotle's three books on the soul and you know natural hearing and so on right these are like lectures right huh okay but the dialogues are what imitations right of men involved in um philosophical or somewhat philosophical conversations right why did why did plato do that well because whatever what aristotle was to say that man is most imitative of animals and at first we learned by what imitation yeah i always remember the first time you know one of the first times when dick connie came down from quebec there and he would give a lecture you know maybe at the saint paul seminary there and give a lecture at the college of saint thomas and you know around the various areas and we watched him you know lecturing and the way he'd use his hands and so on we realized our professors you know who studied under him you know had picked up these things right and you do that without thinking right and even after i had my doctor i go up to quebec you know and talk to monsignor dian you know about philosophical questions huh but when i come home i realized i had all these nervous gestures you know you had you know you know one one of my brother's friends there you know who studied there said he's really hearted me that dian you know because you know he's lecturing you know forgive you you know he's so excited about about the point he's trying to make you know and uh so you pick up some of these you know these these kind of nervous gestures and then you start kind of laughing at yourself you know i mean you don't realize you're doing that but you don't see man is by nature the most imitator of the animals you imitate these people if you admire them especially but first we learn by imitation you know and so plato wrote these dialogues now of course people get mixed up because they don't realize aristotle wrote dialogues and aristotle's dialogues have been for the most part lost right and you have fragments of them right you have aristotle's fragments of aristotle's lost dialogue and philosophy right but it's kind of beautiful the way the passage goes he says either you ought to philosophize or you ought not to philosophize now if you say you ought to philosophize then you ought to do so if you say you ought not to philosophize you're gonna have to philosophize to show why not so in either case you must follow they say you know plato talks i mean uh cicero says that aristotle's dialogue is even better than plato's and plato's are masterpieces too you know and uh but we've lost them and so they both realize the importance of what imitation right and that you first introduce people to these things an imitation of philosophy or men engaged in philosophical conversation here st paul is saying right imitate me insofar as i imitate what christian yeah yeah or imitate me insofar as i imitate me insofar as insofar as insofar as insofar as insofar as insofar as insofar as insofar as imitators of me as i am of christ didn't some write a book called imitation of christ that's what uh therese is very attached to that book you know yeah so man is the most imitator of the animals right it's important to see that whence human knowledge is not the rule of faith but divine truth from which is some of the what greater fail fall short it does not what prejudice the simple yeah which um believe the true faith right now unless they but stubbornly or pernaciously but adhere to the errors in particular against the universal faith of the church which cannot fail the lord saying luke 22 i have prayed for you peter that your faith not fail up to seventh article here Whither to explicitly believe the mystery of Christ is a necessity of salvation among what? All, right? Even the menorahs, huh? Now how is he going to argue against that? To the seventh one proceeds thus. It seems that to believe explicitly the mystery of Christ is not a necessity of salvation among all, right? For man is not held to explicitly believe those things which the angels are ignorant of, huh? Because the explanation of faith comes about the divine revelation, which arise at what? For men, middle of the angels, right? That's why I always say a mental prayer there about the angels, right, huh? But the angels were ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation. Once they ask in Psalm 23, who is this king of glory, right, huh? And in Isaiah 63, who is it that comes from what? Yeah, now it's Edom. The what? As Dionysius expounds, right, huh? Therefore, to believe explicitly the mystery of the incarnation, men are not held to that, huh? You get this a lot from Jews sometimes, you know, they'll say, you know, they respect Christ, you know, as a teacher and so on, you know. But why do you have to say he's God? You know? Yeah, yeah. Otherwise he liked it, but why do you need to be? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Moreover, second objection here. It stands that the blessed John the Baptist, huh, was of the, what? Greaters. And most close to, what, Christ. About whom the Lord says himself, Matthew 11, that among those born of woman, right, no one greater has arisen, right? That's quite a testimony. But John the Baptist doesn't seem to know the mystery of Christ explicitly, yeah? Since he asked from Christ, when he's in prison, I guess, huh? Are you the one who's to come, or do we expect another? As had Matthew 11. Therefore, even the greater ones are not held to having explicit faith about Christ, huh? Moreover, many of the Gentiles obtained salvation through the ministering of the angels, right? As Dionysius says in the ninth chapter in the celestial hierarchy. The Gentiles did not have faith of Christ, either explicit or implicit, right, as it seems, because no revelation had been made to them. Therefore, it seems that to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ was not necessary for all for salvation. But again, this is what Augustine says in the book on correction, I guess it is. It's corruption or what? What? Yeah, okay. It's a reproof. Yeah. Okay. A correction isn't included, but it's like a rebuke or something. But the word is corrupts you. Yeah. Corrupts you. Okay, that faith is, what, healthy, sound, huh? Which you believe no man, whether of a greater or lesser age, to be freed from the contagion of death and the obligation of sin, except through the one mediator, huh, of God and men, which is Jesus Christ. I answer, Thomas says, it should be said that it has been said above, that that properly and per se pertains to the object of faith, through which man attains or arrives at beatitude, right? But the way for men of coming to beatitude is the mystery of the, what, incarnation, passion of Christ. For it is said in Acts, chapter 4, verse 12, there is no other name given to men in which is necessary for us, what, to be saved. And therefore, the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, in some way, right, must be believed in all time, among all. But nevertheless, diversely, according to the diversity of times and, what, persons. For before the state of sin, that's just before Adam's sin, I guess he's talking about here, huh, man had an explicit faith about the incarnation of Christ, according as they were ordered to, what, consummation of glory. But not over, according as it was ordered to liberation from sin, through the passion of resurrection, because he hadn't sinned yet. Because man was not foreknowing of his future, what, sin. But it seems that he was in some way prescient, right, foreknowing of the incarnation of Christ, through this that he said, on account of this, man leaves his father and mother and adheres to his wife. And the apostle says, in the epistle to the Ephesians, he calls that a, what, that is in Christ in the church, which sacrament is not believable, credible. The first man to have, yeah. But, after sin, it was explicitly, what, believed the mystery of Christ, not only as regards the incarnation, but also as regards the passion, right, and the resurrection, by which the human race is freed from sin and from death. Otherwise, it would not have been prefigured the passion of Christ by some sacrifices, both before and under the, what, the law. Of which sacrifices, these things signified explicitly the greater ones knew, the lesser knew them under the, what, veil of the sacrifices, right? And, believing those things divine to be disposed about the Christ to come, in what way it has, what, veiled knowledge. And, therefore, as has been said above, those things which pertain to the mystery of Christ, that are more distinctly known, the more they get nearer to what, we get nearer to Christ. But, after the time of the grace revealed, both the greater and the lesser are held to have an explicit faith about the mysteries of, what, Christ. Especially those that are commonly held solemnly in the church and publicly pronounced, as are the articles of, what, incarnation. Thomas spoke of those right before, right? The ones about the divinity and the ones about the incarnation. Other, more subtle considerations about the incarnation, the articles of the incarnation are held, some more and some less, to believe explicitly, according as they, what, fit the state and the office of each of them, right? Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the angels not entirely was hid in the mystery of the kingdom of God, huh? As Augustine says in the fifth book, Supergenesis, to the letter, right? Was that a reply to Jerome or something? Some of these reasons of this mystery were perfectly renowned, Christ revealing them, right? To the second, it should be said that John the Baptist did not... seek about the coming of Christ in the flesh as if he were ignorant of it, right? Since he himself explicitly confesses it, saying I have seen and I have given testimony that this is the Son of God. Once he does not say, are you the one who what? Coming? Are you the one who is to come? Yeah. Asking about the future and about the past. Likewise, it should not be believed that he ignored him, right? As coming to what? Passion. For he says, behold the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God was sacrificed, I guess, even the real Lamb. And behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Announcing beforehand his future immolation, right? And this the prophets, how this is predicted, right? This is especially clear in chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah. Yes. That's why I always think, you know, blessed version wasn't just... No, no. She's meditating on the more than the hills. Yeah. Yeah. So she suffered that too, knowing that it's going to take place. Now it can be said, as Gregory says, right? That he inquired ignorant with her to the infernal time, right? I mean to hell, I guess. He would descend in his own what? Person, yeah. Because you know how much they wanted to see God as he is, right? That they were looking to, you know. It was quite an occasion for them, huh? He descended down there, right? People kind of didn't neglect the... They don't know what it means to descend to hell. They get puzzled by that too. But they don't stop and investigate it, you know? And how important that was, right? For them, huh? And you can read these things about purgatory too, you know. The greatest punishment is not fire, but it's you're going to see God as he is. Similarly, it should not be believed that he was ignorant of his coming to what? His passion. For he said, behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, right? Foretelling his future immolation, right? Okay, I guess I read that already. It can also be said as Gregory says that he inquired ignorance, ignorant, whither to inferno, right? To hell. In his proper, his own person, right? For he knew that the, what? The passion would extend to those who were in limbo or detained on there, right? According to that is Zachary, to coque and sanguine testament to a mystic set free the bound from the lake in which there is no water. But nevertheless, he's not held explicitly to believe these things before it was completed, right? To himself, he ought to, what? Or by himself to send. Or it can be said that Ambrose says this because he did not ask from doubt or ignorance but more from, what? Piety. Or, the one I usually think of first, or as Chrysostom says, right? He did not ask as it were he himself who was ignorant but that to Christ there might be satisfaction made to the disciples. Whence Christ to the instruction of the disciples responds showing the signs that he's done, you know, resurrecting people and all the other things he does, right? The third, to many of the Gentiles there is made some revelation about Christ as it's clear through those things which have been foresaid. For Job 19 says, I know that my Redemptor, Redeemer, lives, right? Even the Sybil, right? Pronounced some things about Christ as Augustine says, huh? It was found also in the histories of the Romans in this time of Augustus Constantine and Irene, his mother, there was found some sepulcher in which there lay a man what? Having a golden something or other. In his chest which is written, Christ born from the Virgin and I believe in him, oh soul. So by the times of Irene and Constantine again I will see. Yeah. But if there are some saved to whom this revelation is not made, they were not what? Saved without faith in the mediator. Because although they do not have an explicit faith, they had nevertheless an implicit faith in divine providence. Believing God to be the liberator of men according to the common ways, right? According to some knowing the truth that he himself has revealed. Who teaches us about the beasts of the flesh of the earth. I always thought in terms of, you know, he's doing that for his disciples, right? I mean, John Baptist, you know, saying, you know. Or someone saying he's living in the dark night of the field. Yeah. I'd go up to Leval, you know, after having a doctor and so on, and so I could talk to some of the students, you know, now studying there, right? And they'd say, what's Dion talking about these days? I know they've got him mixed up, you know, because I... But then there'd be an occasion where he'd say, I don't think that's really what, you know, you sing in class, you know, or lecture, you know, because, you know. But I mean, you know, as a professor, a teacher, you know, you ask questions in an exam, you know, and you're... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Punishment for us professors, right? To hear our mobile thoughts. Coming back. Got time for another article? What? Okay, okay, we'll start there. That's it. Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order them in our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas and Jelly Doctor, help us to understand and assure it. To the eighth one proceeds thus. You know, it's a particle eight. It seems that to believe in the Trinity explicitly is now the necessity of salvation. For the Apostle says, this is Hebrews chapter 11, to believe is necessary like the person approaching God, right? To believe, we are asked that he is, right? And that to those seeking him, he is the rewarder, yeah. But this can be believed, in the code, without faith in the Trinity. Therefore, it's not necessary to explicitly have faith about the Trinity. It's not a pretty good argument. Notice Thomas's reply, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that those two things to explicitly believe about God in all time and regards to all people was what? necessary, but it's not sufficient for every time and for all. This is a very simple answer. I said, you're kind of tricky there, Thomas. Take the easy way out. What a saying is like a good answer, right? Okay, moreover, the Lord says, John 17, verse 6, Father, I have made known your name for men, which Augustine expounding says, not that name by which you are called, what? No, but that by which you are called, what? Potter males, right? And afterwards, he adds, in this, that God made this world known to all nations. In this, that he's not, what? Worshipped with false gods. He's known in, what? Judea, right? In this, that the Father is of Christ, who has taken away the sin of the world. This name before hidden is now manifest to them. Therefore, it was not necessary before the advent of Christ that in the deity there be paternity and sonship. Therefore, the Trinity doesn't have to be believed explicitly. He says, to the second, it should be said that before the, what? Coming of Christ, the faith of the Trinity was, what? Hidden in the faith of the war, like the, you know, they would call them the, among the old ones, it would be the, yeah. I mean, but there were the ones who had belief, right? A few things. But through Christ was manifested, it known, to the world, right? To the apostles. So it's still using the same principle there. They had a primo, right? Okay. For that, we are held the third argument, explicitly to believe, to believe that that in God there is, what? The object of the attitude. But the object of the attitude is the, what? Yeah. The highest, I'm good. The best. Which can be understood in God without the distinction of, what? Yeah. So where does Thomas say that God is a bodhita summa? Of course. Among other places. Yeah. I mean, you can say there's kind of, you know, five parts to knowing God. And the first part is, you know, does God exist, right? And the second part is, what? The substance of God, right? And among them is that he's perfect and therefore good. And he eventually shows that he's good as itself and so on. And he's a summa bonum, right? So that's in the substance of God, right? And then you have what God does. And then you have the Trinity forth and then the Christ becoming man. So, the object of beatitude is the bodhita summa, which can be understood in God, right? Even without, what? The distinction of persons. So this is before that when Thomas takes it up. Yeah. Therefore, it's not necessary to believe explicitly in the Trinity. To the third, it should be said that the highest goodness of God, according to the mode in which we know understand to an effect, can be understood without the Trinity of persons. But according as it's understood in itself, insofar as it's seen by the blessed, it cannot be understood without the Trinity of the, what? Persons. And moreover, the mission of the divine persons leads us into, what? Beatitude. So that refers to Christ's mission and the Holy Spirit's mission. Against this is that in the Old Testament, in many ways, it's expressed the Trinity of the persons, just as it's said in the beginning of Genesis. It's the expression of the Trinity. Let us make man to our image and our, what? Likeness. Well, it's faciamus, I guess. It's plural, right? Therefore, from the beginning of the society of salvation was it to believe the, what? Trinity. Now, it's kind of interesting that Thomas begins here with the mystery of Christ rather than the mystery of the Trinity, right? Answer, it should be said that the mystery of Christ to be explicitly believed is not possible without faith of the, what? Trinity, huh? Now, the Son of God assumed, what? Flesh so that through the grace of the Holy Spirit he might renovate, make new again the world, right? And also, it was conceived by the Holy Spirit, huh? He didn't have a human father, right? And therefore, in that way in which the mystery of Christ before Christ was, what? Explicitly believed by the greater, right? Implicity of her and as it were shadowy way by, what? The lesser ones. So also the mystery of the Trinity. And therefore, also, after the time of, what? Grace being divulged all are held to, what? Explicitly. Believing the mystery of the Trinity when Isaiah was around and he wasn't for the lesser ones like you and me. Okay? And all who are reborn in Christ, right? They achieve this through calling upon the Trinity according to that of Matthew in the last chapter, I guess, verse 19. Going forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I guess in the early church there sometimes he would baptize you in just the name of Christ, wasn't it? Yeah. I've seen it. I have much more. Yeah. It's kind of a hard one to explain, you know, but it's implicit, you know, in it, yeah. Yeah. I think if you're tripling out and trying to baptize somebody that way. Like the priest who was and the creator and they were saying, those are all invalid, please go back. Or what do we others have, like explicit faith in the Trinity and explicit faith in Christ in reference to the Muslims, which you use, etc.? Yeah, but you have in the creed, you know, but you have it explicit there. But maybe the Muslim can be saved, right, without having that explicit faith, huh? Yeah. You're the main new buyer. What does the promise mean by explicitly in the Trinity, explicitly in Christ? What do we have in the creeds now, you know? Right, so the profession of faith. Yeah, yeah. But then, he says, is it necessary to be referring just to believers, or is he referring to all persons? Well, he seems to be opening the door, I guess, to other people, you know? Some implicit faith, being able to, you know, it's not expected of them, right? Yeah. An explicit act of faith is necessary for those who come to know the truth. Yeah, if you're a Catholic, right? You suddenly have to do that. Maybe if you're a Christian, you still, you know? It's Article 9. whether to believe is meritorious to the ninth one proceeds thus it seems that to believe is not meritorious for the source or beginning of meriting is what charity right as has been said above but faith is the what walking before charity huh just as nature comes before charity therefore the act of nature is not meritorious because we do not merit by natural things so also neither by the act of faith let's look at the reply to this the first objection to the first therefore it should be said that nature is compared to charity which is a what principle of meriting that's charity right as matter to what form now faith is compared to charity as a disposition preceding the what final form now it's manifest however that the subject or matter cannot act in virtue of the form it's not able to act in the virtue of the form nor also the disposition preceding before the form arrives but after the form arrives but after the form arrives both the subject like the matter or the disposition preceding acts in virtue of the what form which is the principal source of what yeah so later on charity is said to be the form of faith formed faith right just as the heat of the fire right acts in virtue of the substantial form of the what fire but you can have what disposition for fire as you're warming up the thing right and as you have burst into flames right so the substantial form has not arrived yet thus therefore neither nature nor faith right without charity are able to produce but charity arriving on the scene right the act of faith becomes meritorious by what just as the act of nature and of natural what freedom of will more of a second objection here to believe is in the middle between what opinion and to know or considering things that are known but the consideration of science is not meritorious similar neither opinion therefore neither is belief which is in the middle of these two meritorious that just depresses you right to second it should be said that in science two things can be considered one is the ascent of the one knowing to the thing what known and the what consideration of the thing known now the ascent of science of knowledge is not subject to free will right because the one knowing is forced to ascent by the strength of the demonstration and Aristotle talks about that sometimes coactis of veritate coerced so you're kind of forced by the truth itself to admit this and then is that meritorious yeah and therefore the ascent of science is not meritorious but the actual consideration of the thing known is subject to what yeah for it's in the power of man to consider or not to consider right and therefore the consideration of science or of knowledge can be what meritorious if it be referred to the end of charity that is to the honor of God or the utility of one's what neighbor but in faith both are subject to free will and therefore as regards the act whether the act of faith could be meritorious and therefore as regards both of these things the act of faith can be meritorious but to opinion does not have a firm ascent something debulé weak infirm according to the philosopher in fact in the first book of the posterior analytics that's the what Thomas's commentary in just two books of Aristotle's logic right and one is the postural analytics right which is kind of the high point of logic and then the other one is on the what perihermoneus but we have the young student who asked Thomas to explain so he's kind of had to be kind to this neighbor but the postural is the one that he was singling out to me to comment on which he had comment on more though you know whence opinion does not seem to proceed from perfect will and therefore on the part of the ascent it does not have much reason of what take character merit but on the part of the actual consideration it can be meritorious you would say there's no merit because it's a kind of weak ascent do you know in the teacadition oh the teacadition I think yeah yeah you're not merit there you're not merit there yeah because their will is fixed yeah otherwise you'd be increasing merit out of infinitum me I'll take it anyway yeah despite all the drawbacks okay okay whoever look at the third objection here now whoever the one who ascends to something by believing or has a cause sufficiently in seeing him to believing does not seem to have this what it doesn't have it it doesn't have it meritorious though because it is not to him now free to believe and not believe right but if he does not have a sufficient thing inducing him to believe it's lightheaded yeah and in quotes from the Old Testament there who believes too quickly right is of light of heart huh lightheaded as you say and this does not seem to be meritorious therefore to believe in no way is meritorious to third it should be said that the one who believes has something sufficient leading him into believing for he's induced by the authority of divine what teaching confirmed by what miracles right and also what is or fact by an interior instinct right of God inviting him right once he does not leviter ahead and believes nevertheless he does not have a sufficient thing inducing him to believing right and and therefore does not take away the right seal of merit I have voted to believe the authority and some witness to their credibility but even when I am induced to believe this person is a witness to the truth I still a witness a witness That's true about the human teachers, too. That makes sense, that makes sense. More so with sacred doctrines. When I was at the hall there, you know, the greatest minds were Charles DeConnick and Monsignor Dion, right? And I was writing my doctoral thesis under Monsignor Dion, right? And I forget the particular thing that led me to go to see DeConnick, but I wanted to see what he thought about this, you know? So I went in and asked him about it. He says, why did you come and ask me? You get the honors here. My friend Warren Murray, you know, he went up to the vault. He was going with intention of studying under DeConnick, huh? Because DeConnick taught the philosophy of nature, and he was really into that stuff. And Warren had his scientific background, you know, in chemistry and so on. And that's how I just got to know Warren, you know. He was always answering the right questions in class, in biology and so on. The professor, you know, would ask a question and everybody would go up. He said, Murray, tell me the answer. So this attracted me to Warren, you know, huh? So, so, but when Warren got up to the study of DeConnick, DeConnick would be perfectly clear that the greatest mind here is Bunginia. So when I went to see him about this, he said, what are you asking me for? You can be young. I said, well, I don't know what you think anyway. He says, okay. It's funny, even, you know, Mrs. DeConnick, you know, she's, you know, great to love her husband, right? And, in fact, very high to him, you know, and so on. And this young lady who went to Thomas Aquinas College out there in California, she, you know, enrolled up there, right? And, and she was staying, you know, at DeConnick's house there, you know, kind of helping out with the thing. And, and DeConnick would be quickly clear that Bunginia is the greatest mind here. And she said that, you know, because my brother Mark says the first day he met DeConnick, you know, you have my husband yet, you know? And so that's the first thing he comes out with, you know. And then he gets perfectly clear. And this guy's coming out to study under him. Dianne is the greatest mind up here. See, Dianne is a younger man. He had sent more to France to go to study under the great Jacques Maritain. And then he, you know, was in the private group there, they were working with Maritain. He began to see Maritain and didn't understand the text of Thomas. And he was, you know, leading up astray in the understanding of it. And then Mrs. DeConnick and Mrs., his wife, you know, you know, he's not, he's not coming to work to this section, you know. And so, yeah, the woman's scorned, yeah. Mrs. Tony Brown. Yeah. But DeConnick made it so clear to Mrs., his wife, you know, Dianne's, that she had to say that to the son. Maybe there was still an inferior. It's like it was Paris Saint-Noton or something, you know. Once in the answer to me, you know, this is temptation to pride, you know. It was in fact, you know, he understood Thomas, and other people didn't understand Thomas that well, you know. That's what it was. So, get to the body of the article now. It said Kantor first, right? Yeah. But, again, this is what is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the saints, through faith, right, achieved what? Yeah. Which would not be unless they merited by faith. Therefore, ipsum credere and to believe itself is meritorious. Thomas answers here very to the point that I answer it should be said, that has been said above. Our acts are what? Meritorious. Insofar as they proceed, right, from free will, right, moved by God through grace. That's good to have all said that. Whence every human act, which is subject to free will, right? So I guess that doesn't mean the digestion of food you were talking about earlier. That is subject to free will. If it be related to what? To God. He's able to be meritorious. But to believe is an act of the understanding, right? Assenting to the divine truth from the command of the will, moved by God through grace. So would you say Thomas expresses himself well or expresses the truth well? He must know the truth, right? And thus, it is subject to what? Free will in order to God himself. Once the act of faith can be meritorious. Free will, therefore, cannot merit. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.