Tertia Pars
Lecture 1: Jewish Knowledge of Christ and Voluntary Ignorance

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

To the fifth, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that the persecutors of Christ knew him, right? For he said in Matthew 21 that the rickolet, the farmers here, right, seeing the sun in that parable, right, said to themselves, Here is the air. Come, let us kill them. Whence Jerome says, most manifestly, Christ shows by these words that the princes of the Jews, not by ignorance, but by what? Envy, crucified the Son of God. For they understood him to be the one to whom the Father said to the prophet, Ask from me and I will give to you the Gentiles, as we read it, the inheritance, rather. Therefore it seemed that they knew him to be Christ or the Son of God. Moreover, John 15, the Lord himself says, Now however they see, and they hate me and my Father, right? But what is seen is manifestly what? Known. Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, give passion to him from hatred, right? From the cause of hatred. Moreover, in a certain sermon of the Consul of Ephesus, just as who, what? Tears up. We had this quote before, right? Yeah, yeah. As the word, tearing up the word of the emperor, is brought to death, right? Thus, crucifying a Jew? The Jew crucifying, oh, crucifying the Jew whom they saw. No, the Jew crucifying the one whom he saw, gave punishment as? To God himself. Imposing, yeah, presumptuous punishment. Sumptuously. Okay, this would not have been, however, if they did not know him to be the Son of God, right? Because ignorance would have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews crucifying Christ knew him to be the Son of God. But against this is what is said in 1 Corinthians 2. If they had known, never would they have crucified the Lord of what? Glory. And again in Acts 3, Peter says to the crowd, they're Jews speaking to them. I know that the ignorance you did this, just as you're, what? For instance. And therefore the Lord himself and the cross says, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Okay, so Tom's going to handle this now. This is just for the Magister, not for me. I answer it should be said that among the Jews some were more or greater and some less, huh? The greater were those who are called, what? Princes, huh? And they knew, as it's said in the book, the questions of the New Old Testament, just as the demons knew, right? Him to be the Christ promised in the law. For all the signs they saw in him, which was said to be, what? In the future by the prophets, right? But the mystery of his divinity, they were, what? Ignored of. And that's why, he says, the apostle, meaning St. Paul, says that if they had known, they would not have, what? Crucified. So they knew he was the Christ, but not the, what? Son of God. It should be known of them that their ignorance does not excuse them from the crime, or from crime, because it was in a certain way a... Affected. Affected. Studied. Yeah. For they saw evident signs of his divinity, but from their hatred and envy of Christ, they perverted them. And his words, right? By which he confessed himself to be the son of God, they did not wish to, what? Leave. Leave, huh? Whence he says of them, John 15, if I had not come and had not, what? Spoken to them, they would not have sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. And afterwards, he adds, if I had not done deeds in them which no one else, right, does, they would not have, what? Sin. And thus, from their person can be taken what is said in Job 21, they said to God, go away from us, son. Do not wish the knowledge of your ways. It's kind of a voluntary ignorance, right? And they've been excused by the ignorance, son. I wonder about this thing about abortion, you know, kind of a voluntary ignorance, you know, abortion. Oh, what it is, huh? Yeah, that's right. St. Alfonso talked about that in judging certain kind of sin, but I think it's another name of a study of ignorance. He calls it sort of a voluntary inadvertence, is what he calls it. I don't want to look over there to see it, that's what I think it is. I'm just going to keep looking this way. So that's an excuse, then, for ignorance, then. It's voluntary. A lot of people in the church now, they don't seem to know what the church teaches, right? Is that voluntary? To some extent, I always think it is what I, I'm sympathetic to many people who say, well, we're never taught these things, you know, we don't hear them in the pulpit. And I say, yeah, yeah, but we live in the information age. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. You don't know where the Vatican website is? You can't go to the public library and dig up an encyclical or something. Now, he says, the lesser ones, that's the people, right? Who did not know the mysteries of Scripture, right? They did not fully know him to be the Christ, right? Nor the Son of God, right? Although some of them also believed in him, right? But the multitude did what? Did not believe. And if sometimes they doubted whether he was the Christ, on account of the multitude of signs and the efficacy of the teaching, nevertheless, afterwards, they were deceived by their, what? Princes. That they would not believe him either to be the Son of God nor Christ, right? When Peter says to them, I know that through ignorance you did this just as your princes. Because through the princes they were, what? Seduced. Now, what about that story that Christ tells, huh? This is the heir, right? Let's get him. To the first effort should be said that those words are said from the person of the, what? The cultivators, yeah. The columnists, huh? To which it signified the rulers of the people. Who knew him to be the heir? Insofar as they knew him to be the Christ promised in the law, right? But against this response it seems to be those words of Psalm 2. Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles as your inheritance. And this is said to the same one to whom is said, you are my son this day I have begotten you. If therefore they knew him to be the one to whom is said, ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles and nations as your inheritance. It follows that they knew him to be the, what? Son of God. Chrysostom also there says that they knew him to be the son of God. It also says upon that of Luke 23 because they know what they do it should be known that not for them does he pray who understood him to be the, what? Son of God. But they would rather, what? They would rather crucify and confess it. Yeah. That's why not said for everybody. But to this it can be answered that they knew him to be the son of God not by nature but by the excellence of a singular grace. We're able nevertheless to say that all We'll say, okay, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order of luminar images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand all that you've written. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. I thought I'd begin with a word here from the Gospel of St. John, huh? Chapter 20 here, after the resurrection. But Mary was standing outside, weeping at the tomb. So as she wept, she stooped down and looked into the tomb, and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. Now what do those two angels represent? One sitting at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. And why did I begin this year's? Yeah, yeah. And in the Catena Aurea, and also in Thomas' commentary on the Gospel of St. John, there are many things that are said about this, but the one that we're interested in is coming from Gregory the Great, huh? Or he said, The angel sits at the head when it is preached by the apostles, and the beginning was the Word. So he just re-reerds the divinity. And the Word sits at the feet when it is said, the Word was made, what? Flesh, yeah? Okay. So I thought we were going from the head to feet, huh? Because we like to invoke the angels, right? We're going to go from the guidance of the angel who sat at the head, right? Contemplating the divinity of Christ, to the angel who sat at the feet now, right? We're going to instruct us about the humanity of Christ. Now, another thing struck me about the two passages that Gregory refers to. It's just quoting the beginning of each passage, but in the beginning was the Word, you know? And the Word was made flesh, you know? It kind of struck me that those two passages juxtaposed there to explain what the symbolism is of the two angels sitting at where Christ's head was and where his feet were, that they involved these two figures of speech that I usually consider together. And you know the terrible names of those two species, huh? It's going to be neophytes here, as you call them. They have terrible names. Totemacia, right? And synecdochia. Now, why do I consider those two figures of speech together? What do they have in common? And he's standing out above the other, and the other is the either part for the whole or the whole or the whole or the part. So maybe one is standing for it. Well, actually, both are concerned with whole and part, right? But in totemacia is whole and part in the sense of universal whole and part. And synecdoche is whole and part in the sense of composed whole part. So if you recall, in logic, we distinguish between the composed whole and what we call the universal whole. And usually I say the composed whole is put together from its parts, but not set in it. And universal whole is set in its parts, but not put together from it. So when you... Now, Plato talks about this in the dialogue called the Symposium, right? He doesn't use his verbal names. He just speaks of giving the name of the whole to the part. He's talking about how the word lover, right, is given to the romantic lover, right? Okay? Even though it's a common name, right? Or the word poet, which in Greek means maker, is given to what we call the poet. But it's just a Greek word for what? Just like the word Bible is just a Greek word for book, right? So, in Totemacia, is when the name that is what's said in many, right, is given to one of them in particular because it stands out. And so, in St. John's says, in the beginning was the word, meaning the thought, right? Well, I get thoughts, and you get thoughts, and angels have thoughts, and so on, right? But among all thoughts, this one stands out. And you may recall, I kind of explained that in four steps, right? What's unique about this thought? See? That it can be called by in Totemacia, the thought thought. Well, it's the only thought that God has. It must be something. It's the only thought that God has, right? Because he's, you know, infinitely superior, right? It must be some thought, right? And then he said, secondly, that one thought is better than another because it's about a better thing. Well, this is a thought about God. And it's the only thought about God that expresses fully what God is. And then third, this is the only thought that is subsisting. The only thought that is a person. And last, but not least, this thought is God. So you can see why this is among all thoughts the thought by in Totemacia. Okay? But now, St. John says in the second passage here, and the word was made flesh, right? Well, now you're giving the name of a composing part, flesh, to the whole, right? And certain heretics, right, have taken that statement as not being said figuratively, but properly, right? And therefore, people like Arius, right, say, or Apollinaris, they substitute the word for the soul. See? As if he took on just flesh and not a human soul, right? So, it's important to realize that you're speaking here by synecdoche, you see the word was made flesh. There are examples of that in Scripture, how flesh has come to be and so on. And sometimes men are called souls, right? But that's something you do. Charles, you can point out when you say, St. Peter, pray for us by giving the name of the composed whole to what is only a part, the soul. I won't be between my death and the resurrection, right? My soul will be, but I won't be. But you can still refer to me, let's pray for breakfast, and we know he's taking a long time in purgatory there, and let's give him a little shove here and forward. I'll be sure in this time a bit, and God will understand you're speaking by giving the name of the whole to your part thing. Okay? Now, you may recall how the old rule of two and three, huh? And kind of a footnote to the consideration of the rule of two or three is what Aristotle points out in the first book of natural hearing, the physics, where he shows the change between contraries and opposites, and then in the next reading he shows that there must be a third thing besides the contraries, but then he stops at the fact that they are enough to explain change, and I often stop on that when I teach that first book of natural hearing and I say, now, you will find this to be true very often, that two is not enough, although in some cases it is, but three is enough, and there's so many very important examples of that that's worth noting. I was looking I was looking at the at the I was looking at the at the I was looking at the I was looking I was looking I was looking at the at the Verbum Dei there in Vatican II, and I think it's the end of the second chapter, right? Where it's talking about sacred scripture, the Bible, sacred tradition, right? And the magisterium of the church. Three things, right? And it says that none of these two can stand without the other. You need all three. That's a beautiful example of three, right? Another example of three is there are three theological virtues, huh? That's all you need. Faith, hope, and charity. You need all three. I think there's a real connection between the Mass, let's say, and these three theological virtues, huh? And when I say a lot of times, Thomas' prayer there before Mass, they're the Adorote Devote. Well, in the middle quatrain, you have asking for faith, hope, and charity. And then, of course, we're told in the words of the consecration, do this in remembrance of me. So it's appropriate to say this prayer. A lot of us learned it's a child before the crucifix, right? But that also asks for faith, hope, and what? Charity, huh? Now, I was thinking of the music of the Mass, huh? Remember how I spoke of the symmetry of that? There are five parts of the music, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and Benedictus, and the Agnistus Dei. And the two extremes here are prayers asking for God's mercy, huh? The next two, the Gloria and the Sanctus, are praising God, and then the Creed is a perfection of faith. So there you have what? Faith. In the prayer, you have hope. And then praise goes with what? Love. Like that passage I had from Augustine, you know. Amare in laudibus? Love and praises. And laudare in amore? To praise and love, huh? Okay? And so if we love somebody or something, we'll be praising. We'll be praising Mozart, or praising Shakespeare, or praising Thomas, or praising, you know, someone else that I love, right? Okay. So three is a very important number, right? And actually, it seems to me that there's basically three orders, huh, in which one can consider sacred doctrine. And one of those orders, of course, is that found in the Bible, huh? That's the fundamental one, right? But then when St. Augustine was asked by an educated layman, you might say, huh, to give him a kind of a summary of Christian teaching, right? He divided it in his book called the Ingridium, which means in the hand, like a manual. He divided the whole of Christian doctrine according to faith, hope, and what? Charity, right? And so, corresponding to faith, he explained the creed. Corresponding to hope, he our father. Corresponding to love, and corresponding to love, and the Ten Commandments, huh? So in a way, he'd take in the whole of Christian doctrine for an educated layman, for most men, right? And for all of us as children, right? But it's divided into, what? Three, huh? You get to complete this there, right? The catechism of the Catholic Church, of course, you say it's got four parts, right? But that's because the part on sanctification, which includes the sacraments, is what expanded there, right? Okay? But basically, it's ordered under those same three, huh? Now, Thomas Aquinas, of course, follows Augustine there. In his catechetical instructions in Maples there at the end of his life, he gives, in faith, hope, and charity. And when his friend, Reginald there, asked him for kind of a shorter work that he could keep at hand and read all the time, Thomas started to write the compendium of theology, right? That's divided according to faith, hope, and what? Charity, right? So that's a division of sacred doctrine that's appropriate to children, right? And to every Christian, right? It's fundamental for all of us, huh? But is that the division of the three that Thomas uses in the two sumas? He uses that in the compendium, right? In the catechetical instruction, that's very appropriate. But is that the three that he has here? What are the three that Thomas uses in the two sumas? Because that's going to be enough. There's another three. Yeah, yeah. Now, we talked a little bit about Antonia Messiah there, when we talked about the Word, right? But in the Apocalypse of St. John here, the last book here, the Bible, it's amazing how many times this comes up, huh? And you'll find, used in one way or another, either I am the Alpha and the Omega, or he'll say I am the First and the Last, and he'll say, I am what? The beginning, the archaic, kai totalas, the end, huh? Okay? For example, in chapter 1, verse 8, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord God, right? Okay? And then, in chapter 2, verse 8, and to the angel of the church at Smyrna, right? Thus says the first and the last, who is dead and is alive, huh? That's got to tie in the two, right? Okay? And then, at the end of the book, chapter 21, those first two chapters were there, the last two chapters here. Chapter 21 here, verse 6, huh? And he said to me, it is done, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the, what? End, huh? Archaic, I tell us, huh? And then, in verse 13, a culmination of the whole thing, huh? And my reward is with me to render to each one according to his works, huh? Now he says, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. It says all three, right? Now, is he speaking properly, or is he speaking figuratively? He says, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, I am the beginning and the end. What about when he says, I am the beginning and the end? Well, there are many beginnings and ends, right? This is the beginning of the table here. Among all beginnings, he is the beginning, because he is the first beginning, the beginning of all the things, right? And he is the end of all the things, right? He is the good of all goods, as Augustine says, huh? Okay. So he is, by Antonio Messiah, the beginning and the end, right? So, in the two Summas, the Summa Theologiae, which we are going to be doing some work in, and the Summa Contagentiles, in both of them, there is a division of sacred doctrine, according to God in himself. God is the, what? Maker, right? And then God is the, what? End, right? Okay. But there is still an enormous, what? Variation between these two works, huh? And in the case of the Summa Contagentiles, what is unique about that work is that Thomas crisscrosses, you might say, those three, right? With another distinction. Distinction, and that is a distinction between those things that can be known about God and discovered even by natural reason, though for most of us, we have to rely upon faith, huh? And then those things that can be known, right, only by faith, huh? So, I'm just dragging.