Tertia Pars
Lecture 26: Grace, Virtues, Gifts, and Prophecy in Christ

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

This is the first section, right? Was there the gift of the fear there? To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that in Christ there is not the gift of fear. For hope is more potent than fear. Ah, good idea. For the object of hope is the good, and of fear, the bad. But in Christ there was not the virtue of hope. Therefore there was not in him the gift of fear. That's the same theological place there, right? We saw he used another article, right? If he has moral virtues, he's going to ask me, what's the origin, right? And the virtue of faith, remember that? Here you argue if he doesn't have the better, if he doesn't have the what? Moreover, by the gift of fear, one fears either the separation from God, right? Which pertains to chaste fear, custom. Or to be punished by him, which pertains to what? Servile fear, huh? As Augustine says on the Epistles of John. But Christ did not fear to be separated from God through sin, nor to be punished by him on account of his what? Kilt. Because it was impossible for him to what? Sin. As will be said below. But fear is not about the impossible. Therefore in Christ there was not the what? Yeah. I remember one of my former students doing her, well, I sent you it there, you know, on fear, right? All different senses of fear, right? I remember Father Boulay talking about these different senses of fear, huh? But you will find out some more senses of fear as you read through time, sir. Moreover, as is said in 1 John 4, verse 18, perfect charity casts out fear, huh? But in Christ there was the most perfect charity, according to that of Ephesians 3, the super-eminent charity of the knowledge of Christ, and so on. Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of what? Well, see, it does cast out many kinds of fear, right? But is there some kind of fear? That's what, there's a particular translation, poorly translated, it says, perfect love casts out all fear. The scripture says, there's an ambiguity in the scripture there. That's what, sometimes translations are more interpretation than translations. So they add something and it shouldn't be there. It doesn't cast out all fear. But against this is what is said in Isaiah 11, that the Spirit filled him with the what? Spirit of the fear of the Lord. Spirit of the fear of the Lord. I answer it should be said, that as has been said in the second part, fear regards two objects, of which one is a, what? Terrible evil, right? Another is the one who's, what? Infer evil. Just as one fears the king insofar as he has the power of what? Point to death, huh? Now he who has power would not be feared unless he had a certain, what? Eminence of power, right? To whom one is not able easily to exist, huh? What does your style say, though? To be in the power of another man? For those things which we have readily ability to repel, right? We do not fear. And thus it is clear that someone is not feared except on account of his, what? Eminence, huh? Thus therefore it should be said that there was in Christ, huh? A fear of God not according as it regards, what? The evil of separation from God through guilt, right? Nor according as it regards the evil of punishment for guilt, right? But according as it regards the divine, what? Eminence, huh? Divine excellence, huh? In so far as the soul of Christ by certain affection of reverence is moved in, what? Towards God. Led by the, what? Holy Spirit, huh? Whence in Hebrews 5, 7 is said that in all things he was heard on account of his, what? Reverence, huh? And this affection of reverence to God, Christ according as he was man, right? Christ had more fully, right? Than others, huh? And therefore to him, scripture attributes the fullness of the fear of the Lord, right? So you have this even, I think, in the Vedic vision, you're going to have a certain, what? Reverence of God, huh? Sin and fear is just saying you're nothingness compared to him, right? Outly dependent you are upon him, right? You know? You're being in the hand. Somehow, utterly dependent you are upon him. But it simply is excellence, right? It's often that psalm is used in support of this saying that the fear of the Lord is holy, enduring forever. They use it as an argument saying it will be one of the saints. But this is kind of, you know, remote from the very first meaning of fear, right? And it still keeps something in the notion of fear. Sometimes Thomas will speak of wonder as a form of fear, huh? And it's one you have for something in its excellence, huh? I was reading Macbeth there, you know, my periodical edition said it was in Shakespeare. And I didn't realize that there's a famous, another famous emendation by the great Theobald in Macbeth, huh? And so I looked it up in, you know, the folios, which is the original edition that we have of the play, or a spiritual copy of it, have in the bank and school of time. And Theobald changed school to show, S-H-O-A-L. And the footnote in the New Hudson Shakespeare, Ebenezer, I guess, is the Ebenezer Black there, from Glasgow. He says, this is the brilliant emendation of, what? Theobald, huh? Which is then adopted by almost all modern literatures. So I went to the, you know, I had the Yale Shakespeare there, you know, and I see, yeah, they adopted what Theobald said. They don't attribute to Theobald, they just, you know, mention that, in the footnote, you know, it's at school in the folios. And they have Shor, S-H. And then the, look at my other edition, you know, sure enough, they adopted it, right? But he says, the brilliant emendation, huh? The emendation that he has in Henry V, you know, in the death of, of false death, no description of it, right? I guess the original, the text that we have, it says, and he tabled the green fields. And Theobald says, and he babbled the green fields. It's a document of the rest of it, right? This requires the happiest emendation ever made in Shakespeare, right? You know, there's certain defects in the text, right? And then, you know, when I was reading this other edition there, or what's his name, I can't forget the name of the guy. Rolf, Rolf's edition of Shakespeare, right? The Hamlet, you know, in the definition there of reason, right? You know, looking before and after is part of it. And Theobald says, almost to America, the phrase, right? You go to Homer, and you see that's a central thing, you know? Looking before and behind yourself, right? And, uh, so you kind of admire Theobald, right? Yeah. You know? Two beautiful emendations, you know? And then seeing this, you know, Shakespeare was saying the same thing, somewhat even better, than Homer was saying. The two greatest poets, you know? See exactly the same thing as characterizing reason. You find some text of Shakespeare, and a lot of times you don't find them at all, in modern editions at all. You don't. Not these interesting little footnotes as you sometimes have in these, you know? I think the 19th century, they weren't as crazy as we are, you know? Yeah, we got TV. which cannot be amended. So, on the first objection of saying, well, why doesn't he have hope, right? He says, to the first it should be said, therefore, that the habits of virtues and of gifts properly and per se regard the good, but the bad consequently. For it pertains to the very definition of virtue that it renders one's, what, work good. So, Aristotle defines virtue there at first as what makes its however good and its activity good, right? And therefore, we can speak of the virtue of a knife, right? Sharpness is the virtue of a knife. Good knife is sharp. And therefore, it is of the notion of the gift of fear, which is not that evil that, what, fear regards, but the eminence of that good, right? To it, the divine goodness, huh? By whose power some evil can be, what, affected, right? But hope, according as it is a virtue, regards not only the doer of the good, but also the good itself insofar as it is not what it has. And therefore, to Christ, because he already has the perfect gift of the attitude of the vision, there is not attributed the virtue of hope, but the gift of what? Fear. Because in his divine nature, he's so different, right? Fears himself. He's reverence for himself. It's God, right? And the second objection regards what? Fear, according as it is, regards the object which is evil. When you talk even about timorum kostusa, that's something less than the gift, I think, of the fear, right? Because then you fear to be separated from God, right? You don't fear to be punished, but you fear the separation from him, right? That doesn't seem to be the ultimate stage, you know, it's going to have in heaven. Yeah, because they can't lose him now. You don't fear to be punished once you enjoy the beauty of the vision, nor do you fear that you can ever be separated from God, you know, you can no longer be separated from him. But you still have this, what, reverence for him, right? You know, it's an infinite distance between the two of them. Even the soul of the perfect time can't lose, in that respect there. Now, perfect charity casts forth servile fear, right? Which regards, what, chiefly punishment, right? And thus, fear was not in Christ, huh? It came to gratia gratis dati, right? And then we went to the fullness of Christ's grace, huh? These prophecies come into the gratia gratis dati. Mm-hmm. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and rouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. I was reading a little biographical sketch there of Pius X, again, St. Pius X, when he was Bishop of Montaua, he would give the poor students a copy of the Summa, just to say something to read. So, if he was here, he'd get you a copy of the Summa. Let's just recall a bit here the division of all these articles in Question 7. It seems to me that the first, what, eight articles, right, are about the grace of Christ, and then in 9, 10, 11, and 12, it's sort of about, if you can use the word, the quantity of the grace, right? Okay? And the eight articles could be divided into two parts. The first six dealing with sanctifying grace, in general, and the virtues and gifts that are associated with it, in general and in particular, right? And now the two articles we'll be looking at first today, the ones for what is called gratia gratis data, right? And that's a distinction that's made when you talk about grace in the Piuma Secundae, but it's a common distinction. And there are eight articles about one particular gratia gratis data that is going to take it up. So let's look at the objections here first. To the seventh one goes forward thus, it seems that in Christ there was not grace gratis data, for to the one who has something in its fullness, it does not belong for him to have that by partaking. The partaking, of course, means take a part, right? Have a part of it. But Christ had grace in fullness, according to that of John 1, verse 14, where he said to be full of grace and what? Truth. And that instead is behind the articles or the different questions we're on now, right? We're taking up the grace of Christ first, and then we're taking up his knowledge next, right? Then his power. But grace's gratis data seem to be certain partakings in a, what, divided way and in a particular way that are attributed to diverse persons. Gratis, according to that of 1 Corinthians 12, we have a division of these graces, which Thomas would take up in the treatise on grace in some detail. There are divisions of graces, huh? Okay. And some are given this, and some are given that, right? So therefore, it seems in Christ there are not these, what, particular graces, huh? Moreover, what is given to someone does not seem to be given to him, what? Gratis, huh? Or what is owed to someone, I should say, right? What is owed to someone does not seem to be given to him gratis, huh? Gratuitously, huh? But it was owed to the man Christ that he would abound in the, what, word of wisdom and knowledge, huh? And that he would be, what, powerful, right, in the powers for doing things. And other things of this sort which pertain to gratis, gratis data, right? So he's objected in saying, well, these things aren't, what, gratis in Christ, they're owed to him, right, because of who he is, huh? Since he is the, what, power of God and the wisdom of God, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians. Therefore, it was not suitable for Christ to have graces gratuitously given. Moreover, graces gratuitously given are ordered to the utility of the faithful, according to that of 1 Corinthians 12. Well, to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to, what, utility, to the building of the Church. So they sometimes distinguish this grace and say it's ordered really to others, not to the, what, sanctification or perfection of the one having it, huh? But for his service to the Church and so on. But it does not seem to, a habit does not seem to belong to usefulness or any other disposition if a man does not use that, right? Of course, it's said in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 20, hidden wisdom and unseen treasure, right? What usefulness is there in such things, huh? But Christ is not, we don't read, huh, that Christ used, what, all these graces, gratis, or rituals to have given, especially as regards to the genera of, what, tongues. Therefore, in Christ, there are not all the, what, graces gratuitously given, huh? So you're all convinced, huh? That's the way Thomas will convince you of the opposite of what he thinks before he tries to convince you of what the truth is, huh? But against this is what Augustine says in the Epistle to Dardano, huh? How do they translate it in English? I don't know. That just as in the head are all the senses, huh? So in Christ, there were all the, what, graces, huh? Well, Thomas says, I answer, it should be said that as has been had in the second part, the graces gratuitously given are ordered to the manifestation of faith and spiritual teaching. But it's necessary for the one who teaches to have those things through which his teaching will be made manifest. Otherwise, his teaching will be, what? Useless, huh? But of spiritual teaching and of the faith, the first and the chief teacher is Christ, huh? Doesn't he say someplace don't call yourself teacher? According to that of Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 2, that when the beginning was, what, taken from the enunciated by the Lord to those who heard in us was confirmed and God rendering testimony, right, by signs and prodigious things, huh? Whence it is manifest that in Christ there was most excellently all the graces given, what? Gratuitously. As in the first and chief teacher of the faith, huh? You know Thomas' division there of the Gospel of Matthew? The Gospel of Matthew. Yeah. Now that middle part is going through the world, Thomas says. He goes through the world teaching, huh? And so Thomas divides it according to the various aspects of Christ's teaching, huh? He's prepared for his teaching by, what, his baptism and by his temptation, right? So he's a proven spokesman, you might say, right? And then you have the, what, Sermon on the Mount which is kind of the culmination of the teaching, right? And the Sermon on the Mount which is, what is it, five, six, and seven chapters, right? And then you have two chapters devoted to miracles confirming the teaching, right? And then you have him, what, selecting the twelve apostles and sending them out to teach. And then he's refuting the disciples of John who are a little bit confused about who he is and the Pharisees, right? Okay. And then the next group of chapters, chapters 13 through 16, Thomas says, there he brings out the power of his teaching, right? And then the next group of chapters, 17 through 20, the end and final goal of his, what, teaching, right? Starting with the metamorphosis, the transfiguration on the mountain. There he is. So, Thomas emphasizes very much the idea of being a, what? A teacher, yeah? So, if Christ is the first and the chief teacher of the faith, right? And the graces, gratuitously given as they're called, right? As distinguished from sanctifying grace. If those are the ones that are ordered to, what? The usefulness and the success, you might say, of your teaching. Then it makes sense to say that Christ would have these in, what? Abundance, yeah. Being the first and, what? Chief teacher of the faith, huh? So, by intonum Messiah, he is the teacher, right? Now, in the first objection, right? Thomas says, that's the one that said that the, what? This text in St. Paul seems to speak of graces, gratuitously given as kind of, what? Particular, huh? Graces, huh? And, therefore, not appropriate to Christ as a fullness of grace. Now, Thomas here, at the beginning of his reply here, touches upon the distinction between the two races. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that just as grace making one, what? Acceptable, right? Or sanctifying grace, as we sometimes call it. Is ordered to meritorious acts, huh? Both interior acts, right? As well as exterior acts, huh? So, grace, gratuitously given, is ordered to certain exterior acts, huh? That are making known or manifesting the, what? Faith, huh? As is, for example, the operation of, what? Miracles, huh? And other things of this sort, huh? Now, in both graces, huh? Christ had fullness, right? Insofar as, what? His soul was united to his, what? Divinity, huh? He had full efficacy for perfecting all the four said acts, huh? But other saints who are moved by God as tools or instruments, right? Not united, but separated tools, huh? They receive, in a particular or divided way, this efficacy to perfecting these or those acts, right? But not toward maybe perfecting all of these acts, right? And therefore, in other saints, these graces are divided, as St. Paul is talking on those texts. But they're not in a divided way in Christ, but in their fullness, huh? In the second text there, you have this text that, in the Corinthians, that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, right? And Thomas makes a distinction here. To the second it should be said, that Christ is said to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, insofar as he is the eternal son of God. And in this way, it doesn't belong to him to have grace at all. You didn't sanctify in grace, huh? God has no grace. No sanctify in grace, huh? Because remember that text that he had earlier from St. Peter, that we become, what, partakers of the divine nature by grace, huh? Well, obviously, God doesn't have to have grace, then, to partake of the nature that he is, huh? And thus, as, what, the eternal son of God, it does not belong to him to have grace, but more to be the giver of grace, huh? But it belongs to him to have grace according to his, what, human nature. So all of this business about the grace of Christ presupposes a distinction between his divine nature and his human nature, and the grace pertains to the perfecting of his, what, human nature, and not his, what, divine nature, right? In itself, you know, more of the sanctifying grace, and then as the supreme and first and chief teacher, right, in these graces, I could do just a given, right? Now, why didn't he go around speaking all these different languages? He could not have done even, you know, John Paul II, right, in his mastery of languages, huh? To the third, it should be said that the gift of tongues was given to the apostles because they were sent to teach all, what, nations. And that's at the end of the Gospel, saying, what, Matthew, right, huh? Go make disciples of all nations, right? Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and so on. Christ, however, in one, what, race only of the Jews, wished to, in prison, preach, right, according to what he himself says in Matthew 15, chapter 15. I am not sent except to the, what, lost sheep of the house of Israel, right? And the apostle says, Romans 15, I say, Jesus Christ was the minister of, what, circumcision, which applies to the Jews, you know, later on, the debate there as to whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised, right? And that's not necessary. And therefore, it's not necessary that he would speak in, what, many languages, if he's sent just to one people speaking one language, huh? Nevertheless, there was not lacking to him a knowledge of all, what, tongues, yeah. Because even the hidden things of the hearts were not hidden from him, huh? As will be said below, huh? The vocal sounds of which are signs of the thoughts of these men, right? I was wondering, every crowd, you know. It didn't become common kind of in the parish churches, you know. Usually, even the daily mass, you know, somebody's machine goes off. Kind of funny, you know, kind of a little embarrassed, you know, sometimes, especially if they got out to communion or something, and the thing goes off. Nevertheless, he did not have without use this knowledge, just as is not useless, the one has a habit, the one does not use, when it is not, what, opportunities, right? Okay, now the eighth article, he descends to one, what, gratuitous, huh? Grace, huh? Prophecy, right? To the eighth, one goes forward thus. It seems that in Christ there was not prophecy. Prophecy, for prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect, what, knowledge, huh? According to that of Numbers, chapter 12, is someone among you is a prophet of the Lord, through sleep, or in a vision, huh? I can make a vision, I will speak to him, huh? But Christ had a full and perfect knowledge, huh? Much more than Moses did, about whom there is joy in the afterwards, that clearly, and not through enigmas, did he see, what? God, right? Therefore one ought not, in Christ, to lay down prophecies, huh? So, funny thing there, I can't remember what it was, but, see. Even Moses was a basket case. I was trying to encourage you to, you know. That's kind of a nice little pun. So it's over, I forget what it was down the last few days. Moreover, just as faith is of those things which are not seen, and hope is of those things which are not had yet. So profit, Prophecy is of those things which are not present, but are at a, what? Distance, huh? For prophecy is said to be as a word, what? Seeing or speaking at a distance? Speaking, yeah, I found that. It's kind of a strange word. Yeah. But in Christ, one does not place faith nor hope as has been said above, right? Because of the imperfection, right? Christ had to be a clear vision, huh? In his human nature, at the moment of his conception. And therefore, he didn't have hope either, because hope is primarily to see God as he is, face to face. So Christ wouldn't need hope, huh? He already had that. Therefore, also, prophecy ought not to be placed in Christ. It seems to be something imperfect or obscure. Moreover, prophecy is of an inferior order than the angel. Whence about Moses, who was supreme among the prophets, as has been said in the second part. Augustine, incidentally, and Thomas Aquinas, they both are of the opinion that Moses among the ancients and St. Paul among the moderns, so to speak, they both saw God as he is, face to face, in a passing way. And then Paul describes being carried up to the third heaven, you know. He saw God as he is. I don't think the church has ever, you know, officially decided whether Augustine and Thomas are right, but they both are of that position, right, huh? But it shows the eminence, right, of these two men, huh? That they, even that Augustine and Thomas should think that they had that, huh? But about Moses said that he spoke with the angel in, what? Solitude, right? But Christ was not less than the angels according to the knowledge of the soul, but only according to the, what? Suffering of the body, right? As it said in Hebrews 2.9. That goes back to a text in the, what? Psalms, right, huh? Therefore, it seems that Christ was not a, what? Prophet, huh? Okay? But against all this is what is said in Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 15. I will raise up a prophet for you, the God, huh? I will raise up a prophet for you from your, what? Brothers, right, huh? In other words, he's going to, salvation is from the Jews, right? It's going to be from, yeah. And he himself says, Matthew 13, huh? After he's been kind of rejected by his hometown. A prophet is not without honor except in his own, what? Country, right? So, Christ seems to be saying that I am a prophet, right? I mean, that's one of the reasons why I don't have any honor here in my hometown, huh? And we know his father and his mother, you know, his father is a carpenter and his mother, you know? One of us, you know? So I'll give you so. Great. Okay. Answer, it should be said that a prophet is said to be quasi-pokul-fans, huh? Or seeing at a, what? Distance, yeah. In so far as he knows and says those things which are distant from the senses of, what? Men, huh? As Augustine himself says in the 16th book against Faust, huh? Faust is a Manichaean, huh? I guess, you know, Augustine was kind of impressed with Faust and then when he met the Faust, he couldn't really judge whether Faust was saying the truth or not in this high-colluting, fluting things he was talking about. But he found out that Faust didn't know, I guess, the liberal arts, right? If he didn't know the things that Augustine could judge, he continued to know, right? And so how could he be, you know? So, you know, maybe I'm kind of doubt whether he knew these higher things, he didn't know the lower things. It should be considered, however, huh? That one cannot be said that someone is a prophet from this, that he knows and announces those things which are, what? Adjah. With which he himself is, what? Not. And this is manifest both in place and in time, huh? For someone existing in Gaul would know and announce to others in Gaul, others existing in Gaul, those things which are then in, what? Are done in Syria, he would be, what? Prophetic, right, huh? Just as Elyseus said to Gezi, in what way a man, what? Came down from the chariot and encountered him, right? But if someone existing in Syria announced those things which are there, this would not be, what? Prophetic. And the same thing appears according to time, huh? For it's prophetic that Isaiah foretold that Cyrus, Cyrus, the king of the Persians, would rebuild the temple of God, huh? As is clear from Isaiah chapter 44. It was not prophetic that Esdras wrote this, right? In whose time this was made or done. If therefore God or the angels or even the blessed know and announce those things which are, what? Distant from our knowledge, this does not pertain to, what? Prophecy. Because in no way do they, what? Attain our status, huh? So God is not a prophet, huh? But Christ over, before, what? The passion reached our, what? Status, huh? Insofar as he's not only a comprehensive, right? One who had the vision in his soul, but also on the way because his body was not yet, what? Glorified, right? He's still a viator, huh? When on the way. And therefore, it was prophetic that those things which were distant from the knowledge of others on the way, he both, what? Knew and announced, right? And for this reason, there is said to be in him, what? Prophecy, huh? That's kind of a solid way Thomas has on saying that we can speak of prophecy in Christ, huh? Because in some ways, what? With us, huh? At least in the condition of his, what? Passable or sufferable, able to suffer a body, right? Now, in the first objection, huh? I was quoting a text here, it seems to indicate that prophecy is an obscuring and perfect knowledge, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that by those words is not shown that it's of the very definition of prophecy, a, what, enigmatic or dark knowledge, right? Which is through a dream or in a vision. But it is shown there the comparison of other prophets, who in a dream and in a vision received divine things, but that comparison to Moses, right? Who clear and not through what? Enigmatic or dark things saw God, huh? Who nevertheless is called a prophet, according to that Deuteronomy. There is not a resume, what? Greater prophet in Israel than, what? Moses, right? Let's go ahead. Let's go ahead. Let's go ahead. Let's go ahead. However, it can be said that although Christ had a full and open knowledge as regards the intellectual part of him, his understanding, he had nevertheless in his imagination certain likenesses in which also he could look upon divine things. In so far as he was not only a comprehensor who got a hold of the thing ever after, but also he was on the way, right? A viator, one word in the heart. So Thomas seems to be saying there that like Moses, and even more so, of course, than Moses, he has this clear vision, right? They can also have this kind of, what, in the imagination, right? Just as the lesser prophets, right, had revelations in the imagination in their sleep, right? Christ seems to share all of this, right? We'll see this when we get into Thomas talking about Christ's knowledge that are on. He will give not only several kinds of supernatural knowledge in Christ, but also a knowledge that comes with experience. So he may be more and more like us in all things but sin. But here's a little bit of something like that. He seems to share even in the, what, less perfect, right? Reminds me of St. Francis de Sales, I guess. His feast comes up this Saturday, I think. Do you have it at the same time? He actually did. Yeah, yeah. But sometimes he teaches a little bit of a parable. He says, Christ seems to have favored this way of teaching, so I'm going to teach the parable, right? But a parable kind of works through the, what, imagination, yeah. Now the second objection, perhaps for a second at that. This is arguing that, well, we argued before that Christ didn't have faith and hope because of the imperfection of them, right? And because of things that are not present that they're about and so on. Isn't prophecy like that, huh? Not about things that are present. Thomas says, to the second it should be said that faith is of those things which are not seen by the one believing, right? So you remember the definition of faith from the epistle to the Hebrews, right? The substance of things hoped for, right? The conviction of what is not seen, right? So since Christ sees these in the very big vision, he can't have faith, right? Contrary to the very definition of faith. Likewise, hope is of those things which are not had by the one, what? Hoping, right? What we hope for primarily is the vision of God, and Christ already has it, right? So it would be kind of contrary to what faith and hope are, that Christ would have those, right? But prophecy is of those things which are distant from the common sense of men, with whom the prophet lives together, right? And communicates in the status of, what? Being on the road, right? And therefore, faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of the beatitude of Christ, who enjoys the vision of God, but not, what? Prophecy, right, huh? You see that? Yeah, what about the angel being above? To the third it should be said that the angel, since he is a comprehensor, right? Reminds you of what St. Paul says, you know, he's running to comprehend, right? To get a hold of God, huh? Since the angel, since he's a comprehensor, what does Christ say about the little ones? They're angels always see the face of my Father in heaven, right? Well, since he's a comprehensor, he is above a prophet who is a pure, what? Wayfarer. That's a good way. Good way to tell that he had a name. Okay? But not, however, above Christ, who at the same time is a wayfarer, because of his body, his condition, and he comprehends, oh, all right, one who comprehends, who enjoys the beatific vision, huh? So, that solves the problem, doesn't it? Thomas says if you raise an objection, you don't solve it, you're digging a hole and letting somebody fall into it. Now we have a number of articles that are going to deal with, what, the fullness of Christ's grace, huh? In the first article, of course, it's about whether there's a fullness of grace in Christ, right? And in the next article, I guess he's going to answer yes to that, huh? Whether this is private to Christ, right? Proper to Christ, huh? I know we say this prayer there, Hail Mary, full of grace. So we'll have to see about that, huh? Tonight, one goes forward thus. Thus, it seems that there is not in Christ a fullness of grace, huh? For from grace are derived the virtues, as has been said in the second part, huh? I think we mentioned before, huh, that when Thomas takes up grace and the virtues there in the second part, he'll say that sanctifying grace is in the soul itself, huh? And just as naturally from the soul itself there proceeds the power of understanding and the power of willing, right? So from the grace that's in the soul itself, right, there proceeds in the understanding, belief, right? Faith, the theological virtue of faith. And in the will, hope and charity, huh? Okay? So, he makes that truth. But in Christ there were not all the, what, virtues, huh? For there is not in him faith nor hope, right? Therefore, in Christ there is not the fullness of grace, huh? There's not the effect, you might say, of grace, huh? Grace didn't produce in his mind faith and hope like it does in my mind or your mind. Moreover, as is clear from those things which are said in the second part, grace is divided into operating grace and cooperating grace, huh? Now, operating grace is said to be that to which the impious person, right, is justified, huh? Which was not having a place in Christ who was never subject to any sin. Therefore, in Christ there was not a fullness of, what, grace, huh? Moreover, James 1, verse 17, it is said, huh? And every, what, optimal gift, right? And every perfect gift, huh? Is from above, coming down from the Father of, what, lights, huh? I love that text there because I kind of like the light of the mind, right? And it's kind of almost, you know, saying that, what, the natural light of reason and the light of faith. And, of course, later on, the light of glory, right? But these are, you know, what, these are perfect gifts, right? Come down from the Father of, lights. But what comes down is had in a, what, particular way, right? And not fully. Therefore, no creature, not even the soul of Christ, is able to have a fullness of the gifts of, what, grace, huh? And, of course, you know, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what But against all this nonsense is what is said in John 1. We saw him full of grace and truth. That's a pretty good, that's even better than Augustine, right? Even more authoritative than the text of Augustine often uses. I answer it should be said, that that is said to be fully had, right? Which is had wholly and what? Perfectly, right? Now Aristotle in the, I think it's the third book of natural hearing, the physics, says that whole and perfect mean almost what? Same thing, huh? And in the fifth book of wisdom, rather than physics, when he takes up the names there, right, of the causes and the names of the subject of wisdom and the names of the properties, right, which are the perfection or the defect of being, huh? Then he takes up the word perfect first, and then later on the word whole. That's the way Thomas divides the text. There's some other words that come in there attached to these considerations. But the principal words are perfect and whole, and then he refers to what Aristotle said, right? Now, wholeness and perfection can be observed in two ways, or noted in two ways. In one way, according to the, what, intensity of it, huh? As if I say someone has fully whiteness, if he has it, huh? As much as it is apt to be, what? Had, huh? Another way, according to virtue or power, because a lot of times when Thomas uses the word virtue, there's something in the sense of power, right, huh? You know how they translate it? They translated virtue or power there in your text. There's a gift of tongues here in Las Vegas. Yeah. They use virtue or power. What do they use there for the word virtus? Second man. Another way, according to virtual power. For example, if someone is able to, what, fully have life, if someone is said to fully have life, who has it according to all its effects or all the operations of life. And thus, man has fully life, not over the brute animal or the plant. Right. Don't have understanding or will. Now he says, In both of these ways, Christ had the fullness of grace. First, because he had it in the summit, according to the most perfect way that it's able to be had. And this appears first from the nearness of the soul of Christ to the cause of grace. For it's been said that the more something receptive is nearer to the cause that is flowing in something, right, the more abundantly it, what, receives, right? So the closer you are to the fire, the more you receive the warmth of the fire. And therefore, the closer you are to God, the more grace is, what, poured into your soul, right? It couldn't be closer to, what, God than to be joined, right, in the same person to God. And therefore, the soul of Christ, which is more nearly joined to God among all, what, rational creatures, receives the greatest, what, flowing in of grace. Secondly, from the comparison to the, what, effect. For thus, the soul of Christ received grace that from it, in some way, it would be, what, transferred, right, poured over into others. And therefore, it's necessary that he had the greatest grace, just as fire, which is the cause of heat in all hot things, is most of all what. Likewise, as far as the power of grace, he had grace fully, because he had it through all the operations or the effects of grace. And therefore, and this therefore, because grace was given to him as to, what, the universal beginning or source in the genus of all those having, what, grace, huh? But the power of the first beginning of some genus extends itself universally to all the effects of that genus. Just as the sun, huh? Which is the universal cause of generation in the plants and so on, huh? Its power extends to all those things which come under, what, generation, right? So we can't ever get these plants growing around here again. It's going to be the sun that's going to be coming down here. And thus, the second fullness of grace is to be noted in Christ, insofar as, what, his grace extends itself to all the effects of grace, huh? Which are the virtues and the, what? Gifts, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and other things of this sort, right? Okay. So he argues, what, in the one hand, for the first kind of fullness, right? That no one, no creature, right, is, rational creature, is closer to God than the soul of Christ, huh? Because the human nature of Christ is joined to the right person, right? Therefore, he sees the fullness, right? So it's known to be closer to God than that, right? No creature could be closer to God. In a way, the human nature of Christ is a creature, huh? But no creature, a rational creature, could be closer to God than to be joined in person, right? Therefore, he must receive grace in the, what, fullest way possible, right? And then he's also set up as the, what, you know, it doesn't say John had after he says he's full of grace and truth and that we've all received from him, right, huh? He's set up as a universal source of, what, grace involved the virtues and gifts in the rest of us, right? And therefore, he has to have the fullness of power, right, to all the effects of grace, huh? Okay. So, now, what about this objection? How about this faith and hope, right, huh? Now, my grace is more powerful than his, isn't it? Because my grace results in faith and hope and he doesn't have this effect, right? That's a bit like saying, you know, my mind is, is what? Has more ability than Christ's mind because I'm able to be mistaken. He's not. That's really a defective ability, right? But I'm able to be mistaken, right, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that faith and hope name effects of grace but with a certain, right, defect, right, which is on the side of the one receiving grace, huh? Insofar as faith is of things not seen yet, right? And hope of things not yet had, huh? Whence is not necessary that in Christ, who is the author, the source of grace, right, that there were defects which faith and hope imply, right, are involved. But whatever is of perfection in faith and hope, right, is in Christ much more, what, perfectly. Just as in fire, there are not all the, what, ways of having heat, a defective way from the defect of the subject, right, but whatever pertains to the perfection of what? Some things I know, not in a strict sense, but I just have probability about it. What does Christ have just probability about some things?