Tertia Pars
Lecture 30: Equivocation, Distinction of Senses, and Metaphorical Speech

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

When I explain what each sense meant, I'd say, now, later on in the course, you're going to mix up these senses. So they didn't even talk to four senses, right? Now, the second sense of before, before in being, means, if this can be without that, right, but not vice versa, then this is before that in being, right? Now, later on in the course, I asked them, you know, about what's better, right? And my favorite example was, is it better to philosophize or to breathe? And they all say it's better to breathe than to philosophize, huh? I said, okay, now what's your reason for saying breathing is better than philosophizing? And of course, the reason they give us something like this, that if you're not breathing, you're not going to be philosophizing anything else, right? Well, that shows you that you can breathe without philosophizing, but you can't philosophize without, what, breathing. That shows that breathing is before philosophizing in the second sense of before in being, right? But does it show that it's before in the sense of being better? I mean, water can be without beer, right? Water better than beer? Water can be without wine? Water better than wine, you know? You see? Or bricks can be, what? Be without a brick wall or a brick house, but it's piled bricks better than a brick wall. You see? So they're confusing the second and the fourth sense, right? But I've told them, you know, I've distinguished those four different senses before in the course, and I've told them that they're going to mix up the senses, right? And sure enough, they do, right? You see what I mean? And so, as I say, Aristotle, in the book on the statistical reputations, gives us the first kind of mistake, is the one from mixing up the senses of a word. And he says that that's the most common mistake made, right? You've heard me, the one I always give the students there, about whole and part, right, huh? There's a whole more than a part? And people will say yes. And then I say, well now, what's a man? Well, he's an animal, right? He's not just an animal. He's an animal that has reason, right? So to be an animal is only a part of what a man is, huh? Okay? But then I say, but animal includes, besides man, dog, cat, horse, elephant. So what's only a part of man includes more than man. So sometimes the part is more than the whole. Yeah, I guess you're right. So they all take it in by that argument, right? Well, I'm mixing up the two senses of what? Whole and part, right? The universal whole, like animal in comparison to man, dog, cat, and horse, right? And then the composed whole, and the definition is an example of a composed whole, right? Where animal is a part of the definition of man, right? So you're mixing up two holes, right? The composed whole is always more than one of the parts that compose it. And the universal whole is always said of more than one of its parts, right? Like animal is said of more than dog is said of, right? So they're mixing up animal as a composing part of the definition of man, as an animal, that's reason, right? With animal as a universal whole, said of man, dog, cat, and horse. You can even, what? Give an argument that deceives or can't answer, you know, the average guy, right? An argument against one of the axioms, right? One of these obvious statements is that the whole is more than one of its parts. By mixing up different senses of the word whole, so you've got to be careful about those things, right? That's why the philosopher, you know, devotes the whole fifth book of wisdom to distinguishing the senses of the words used everywhere. Especially in wisdom and in the axioms. But in other places, he uses that same, what, tool, you know, dialectic, right? Distinguishing the senses of grace. It still gives you rules in the book on places for distinguishing the senses of a word. Like one place is to look at it's opposite, right? I take the word liberal, right? Well, liberal in politics is opposed to conservative, right? But in ethics, when you speak of a liberal man, in the fourth book of ethics, the opposite of liberal is most of all stingy. And when you speak of the liberal arts, the opposite of liberal is what? Servile. Not the conservative arts, right? So you've got liberal as opposed to conservative, liberal as opposed to servile, liberal as opposed to what? Stingy, right? Three different meanings of liberal, because it has three different, what, opposites, right? It's funny when they make these things. They find out that political conservatives, right, give more money to charity than liberals. You know, something about political liberals is somebody who's generous with other people's money. I just enjoy this, you know, as a professor, you know, seeing these very liberal professors sometimes, you know, when it comes to how they're going to, you know, divide up the money that's available for faculty raises, right? They vote their pocketbook interest, right? Rather than, you know, seeing that money goes to people being needed more, you know? It's like seeing the cars of the Marxist historians drive. Yeah. So let's look at the second one here now, the second objection, right? It says, well, disposition precedes perfection, right? To the second it should be said, that just as disposition in the way of generation, right? In the road of generation, precedes perfection to which it disposes, right? In those things which are, what? Gradually, successively, right? Not all at once, right? Perfected. So, naturally, it follows perfection that one has already, what? Achieved, right? And this is a famous example that is very common in philosophy. Just as the heat, which was a disposition for the form of fire, is also an effect flowing forth from the form of the fire already, what? Pre-existing, right? So as you heat something, you're disposing this matter to receive the form of fire, right? But once it besieges the form of fire, then there follows upon this a more perfect, right? Effect, which is heat, right? But human nature is united in Christ to the person of the word from the beginning without any, what? Succession in time, right? Whence the habitual grace is not understood as going before the union, right? But as, what? Falling upon it. As a certain, what? Natural property falls upon something, right? Whence Augustine says in Inchiridia that the grace is, in a way, natural to the man Christ, right? Because he's the person, right? The second person, okay? Now, when Thomas talks about dialectic and demonstration, right? He says, well, before you know the truth, right, and are sure about it, you proceed with probability dialectically, right? So, in the way of generation, then dialectic, in a way, is a disposition for knowing the truth later on. But once you come to know the truth with certitude, right, and have a demonstration, not just probable arguments, right? Then he says, you can, what? More easily see the probable arguments that prepare the way for the sun. Now, in our case, because we, you know, gradually come to know things, huh? Dialectic is going to proceed, what? Knowing the truth, right? But for someone like God, who knows the truth all at once, right? Eternally. Then, what? Dialectic will in no way be a disposition for God to know the truth, right? But because he knows the truth, he knows much better than we do, the power arguments by which the truth could be, what? Shown, right, huh? Do you see? Okay? That's a very subtle thing, but it's a common thing in philosophy to speak of what later on is going to be a property of the thing, right? It's a disposition for what it is, and it's gradually being prepared for that one. But once you have this nature, then what was before a disposition is now an effect following upon that nature. You know, that's an example there from ancient physics there, that heating the water, heating the, you know, the paper, something like that, right, is disposing that thing for the form of fire, right? But once the form of fire arrives, then there will follow upon the nature of fire as like a property, right? Connecting with the nature of fire, heat, right? So is heat before or after fire? Well, once you have the nature of fire, it's after fire, right? It's a property that you found upon, right? But if you don't always have the nature of fire, but you're gradually acquiring it, right, then fire, or heat rather, is what? A disposition, right? Correct, right? But in the case of Christ, he wasn't gradually, right, taking on human nature. There was a temporal process, right? It took no time at all. It's all at once. So he never was, what, on the way to acquiring this, right? So the habitual grace was never a disposition. Like a human nature out here somewhere. Existing by itself without being joined to the second person as a trinity. Because if it was by itself out here, it would have a human person there, right? You see? So there can't be any human nature out there in time before it's joined to this, right? So, you know, you're thinking of habitual grace disposing for the union. Then you're thinking that human nature is out here. And let's make this human nature out here suitable, disposed so it can be joined to Christ, right? I mean, you're joined to the second person as a trinity. That's not the way it took place, right? Right. See? That human nature never existed except in union to the, what? Second person, right? And therefore, the habitual grace was never a disposition whereby it was made suitable to be joined to him, right? But it was always an effect of the fact that it was joined to him, that it would fall into this human nature, right? Or flow from this union, this great, what? The habitual grace, right? Hmm? See, all I think it comes clear when you read Thomas. Read them or not, things become clear, right? It's right, you know, in the life of Thomas, him coming in to lecture, and some students, you know, objected what Thomas was saying, you know? Oh, it was so shocking, you were objected to Thomas, and Thomas just sat down very quiet, and gradually explained, I just didn't saw the point. Oh, you see it, yeah. One wonderful man, Thomas was. So we're up to the third objection now, right? Yeah. And the third is saying, well, the common is before the private, huh? Okay? You kind of see that in the development of things, right? You know, you have a fertilized egg, you don't see understanding right away, or even sensing. You see, what? Growth, right? Like we have in common with the plants. And then, eventually, you see what the sense is developing, right? And then, finally, you know, the age of reason. Now, Thomas, again, sees a distinction that the subjecture doesn't see. The third, therefore, should be said, that the common is before the private, if both are of one, what? Genus, right? But in those things which are a diverse genera, nothing prevents what is private to be before what is common. Now, the grace of union is not in the genus of habitual grace, huh? It's kind of like, you know, another habitual race, or even a super-excellent habitual race. It's not a habitual race at all. It's not in that genus or kind of thing. But it's above every genus, right? Just as is the divine person itself, right? Whence this private, huh? How does your translation translate propium, but I translate it private? Yeah, but property, see, doesn't get a sense that you want to get there. I mean, sometimes that's a proper translation of propium, right? But other times, it's more proper to translate it as private. You speak of the bonum commune and the bonum propium, common good and the proper good? That's the proper. Yeah. Right? It should be the common good and the private good, right? Okay? Whence this private, nothing prevents being before the common. Because it does not have itself by addition to the common, you know? Like man adds something to animal, right? Maybe reason, right? But more as the beginning and the origin of what is what? Common, right? So this union of human nature to the second person of God's trinity, which union is the grace of human, right? That is what? The source of this whole genus of habitual grace, right? In a sense, the source of habitual grace of Christ and habitual grace of what? All of us, right? It's not like another habitual grace, right? It's something outside that genus, huh? Let's look a little bit here at the, just a premium. We've got to stop preaching. Question 8 is about the grace of Christ according as he is the, what? The habitual grace. Yeah. You may recall that Thomas distinguished grace, the grace of union, right? Which is, not going to have a special consideration right here, because that's the very union, right? Then the habitual grace of Christ, which we just talked about in the question 7 here, right? And now he's going to talk about his grace as head of the church, huh? Then we're not to consider about the grace of Christ according as he is the head of the church, huh? And about this, eight things are asked, huh? I didn't know that there were eight things asked, did you? But Thomas has heard these things asked in one place or another, right? So you may not know that eight things are asked, but Thomas knows there's at least these eight things asked. And first, whether Christ is the head of the church, huh? Secondly, whether he is the head of men as regards their body or only as regards their, what? Souls, huh? That's unusual, huh? Whether he is the head of all men. Well, there's some bad guys out there, you know. Fourth, whether he is the head of, what? Angels, huh? Because they're not human beings. They're not human, you know. Okay, now those four questions, although they're distinct, they all deal with the idea of, what? Being a head, right, huh? But in the second one, you're talking about the composing parts of man, the body and the soul, right? And then in the third article about the, what, subject parts, right? This is being a head extended to all of which man has said, right, huh? Angels get stuck in there because he was superior there, right? Angels get stuck in there, right? Angels get stuck in there, right? Angels get stuck in there, right? And then get stuck in there, right? Angels get stuck in there, right? Now, with their grace, according to which he, or by which he is the head of the church, is that the same thing with the habitual grace, according as he's a singular man? That's a very interesting question. You seem to know it's really distinct, right? That's really the conversion of six. Oh yeah, yeah. Six, with it to be head of the church, is private to Christ, right? Why about Benedict XVI now? Is it the end of the church? There must be some distinction to be seen there, right? Thomasin, I often quote the sober man there, Anaxagris, right? Aristotle said that Anaxagris was like a sober man, when he said that mind is the origin of things, right? But he attributed to this greater mind the distinction of things, right? And the order of that. So that's what our reason he's trying to see, mainly, is distinction and order. And Thomas has always seen a distinction that I didn't see before. That shows the superiority of his mind over my mind. He always sees an order before I see him. That's one order between us. Now, the seventh and eighth would be divided against all the ones before, right? Because they're talking about now the opposite thing, right? Whether the devil is the head of all that. You read Scute butters, right? C.S. Lewis, huh? You know, you've got the higher devil there, you know, in the lower one is trying to tempt some man. And his uncle over there, the higher devil is giving advice how to do it and so on. He's not being too successful in his tempting of him and you realize he's going to be under the wrath of the higher. A lot of people enjoyed that book. And then, the one about the Antichrist, right? The Antichrist also is able to be called the head of all the bad, right? There's some distinction between the devil and the Antichrist. I have to do it between Christ and Benedict XVI, right? He's the vicar of Christ, right? He's called that, right? You've heard that famous thing there. I've probably told him many times, you know, but the Mother Superior of somebody just ordered, you know, was being introduced to John XXIII. And she got a little bit rattled, you know? And she ended up saying that, I am the Mother Superior of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the Order of the Sister of the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, you know? But I am the Mother Superior of the Holy Spirit. And John says, I am just the humble vicar of Christ. That's a marvelous thing. You're supposed to turn off my bed. That's a little more open, you know? That's a marvelous story, you know? John XXIII. Got to wait until next week, huh? Whether it was appropriate. And yesterday would have been impossible. It would have been a really rough day, you know? My students are coming Wednesday night. They didn't tell me. Yesterday was really bad. And I was like, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. And help us to understand all that you have written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. A little scriptural lesson here before we begin. Do you know Thomas' prayers before and after communion? And it's kind of addressed to the Father, right? So I was kind of struck when I was going through the Gospel of John again here. And you have chapter 6, which is a chapter that deals with the Eucharist. And he says, they're talking about, you know, what Moses or God gave us, that bread from heaven, and so on. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. So the Greek there says, al-hopater mu, my Father, right? Didosin gives human you, ton artan, the bread from what? Heaven, right? Ton alei thiinona, the true bread, right? That kind of agrees with Thomas' what? Using that form of the prayer, right? He addresses it to the Father, you know, asking for the bread and to be prepared to receive the bread. And then the after communion prayer, he's thanking the Father, right? So I don't know whether that's, you know, attribution or not, but I mean. And I got thinking, you know, going back to the chapter 3, where he's talking to Nicodemus. And he says, for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Now, how are you to understand the word God there, right? Yeah, standing for the Father, right? Because he's not the son of the Holy Spirit. He's not the son of the divine nature, because that's going to get you in trouble. So, it's just like in the beginning. The beginning was the word, and the word was toward God. Well, then God there is standing for the Father, right? In the same way here, right? But if God, being the Father, so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, well, then it's not, it's in harmony with, later on, he also gave him his Son in the form of what? This bread from heaven, huh? So, you're kind of wondering, you know, I see another communion in prayers, but Thomas, that stands out in my mind, is addressing it to the Father, right? Why did he choose to do so, right? Well, in a sense, it's the way Christ speaks here in this chapter, that verse, anyway. And in harmony with what is said in chapter, what? Three, two, huh? Say, John? Our Lord is atonist. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. You hear that famous thing, and they ask John Paul II, you know, are you atonist? And he says, well, the Pope has to be atonist, right? So, he asks our Lord, are you atonist? Well, Christ has to be atonist. Let's look at the premium again. That's why we begin question eight here. Then we're not to consider about the grace of Christ, according as he is the head of the church, huh? So, we've had the grace of union, and we have the, what? Personal grace of Christ, huh? And now, the grace of Christ as he's the head of the church. And about this are asked eight things, huh? First, whether Christ is the head of the church, huh? And secondly, whether he's the head of men, as he guards the body, or only as he guards the, what? Souls. Third, whether he is the head of all men, huh? That's saying, what? Even those who are not being in the church, what does that mean? That's a good question. And even further apart, whether he's the head of the, what? Angels, huh? Then, whether the grace, according as he is the head of the church, is the same with the habitual grace that he has, as he is an individual man, huh? And then, whether to be head of the church is private to Christ, huh? Unique to him. And a little bit of the other side, huh? Same signs of opposites, huh? Whether the devil is the head of all evil. And whether the antichrist can also be said to be the head of all the evil, huh? So if you're interested in the evil there, you'll have some entertainment there at seven and eight. Now notice how, in the first article there, he adds the, according as he is man, right? To the first one goes forward thus, it seems that Christ, according as he is a man, does not belong to him to be the head of the, what? Church. For the head flows in sense and motion to the members of the body. But sense and spiritual motion, which is by grace, is not poured into us from Christ, the man, because, as Augustine says in the 15th book about the Trinity, nor also does Christ, according as he is man, give the Holy Spirit. But only insofar as he is, what? God, huh? And therefore to him, according as he is man, it does not belong to be the head of the, what? Church, huh? Moreover, of the head there does not seem to be another head. But of Christ, as he is man, the head is God, huh? According to that of 1 Corinthians 11.3, the head of Christ is God. Therefore, Christ himself is not a head, huh? How can the head have a head, huh? It's monstrous. Moreover, the head in man is a certain particular member receiving influence from the heart. But Christ is the universal beginning of the whole church, huh? Therefore, he is not the head of the church, huh? But against this is what is said in Ephesians chapter 1. He made him, or gave him to be the head over the whole, what? Church, huh? So Thomas says, I answer, it should be said that the whole church is said to be one mystical body, huh, by likeness to the natural body of man, which, according to its diverse members or parts, has diverse acts, as the apostle teaches us, huh, in the epistle to the Romans. And thus, Christ is said to be the head of the church by a certain likeness of the human head, in which we are able to consider three things. To wit, order, perfection, and virtue. Order, because the head is the first part of man, starting from above, huh? And hence it is that every beginning is customarily called a, what? Head. Of course, in Latin, a couple, there is a word for, what? Chapter two, huh? That's my favorite book there, the Summa Color Gentiles, they're called Caput or Capitulum sometimes, although it's, of course, in English we used the word, what, heading? The heading? According to that of Jeremiah's two, to every head of the way he laid down a, what? Bravo. What? Is that what it is? Bravo. I think I'm not sure of it in Jeremiah, too, but I don't know what this is about. What, what do you have in English there for that, Lupana? That's the sign of, like, prostitution. Yeah. That seems very criticizing in general, but, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. But the head of the way means, you know, the beginning of it, right? Sometimes we have an expression, oh, in the rivers, the headwaters, what does that mean? Yeah, yeah, so that's the point. So the idea of order, right, order means before and after. What's first is called the head. The perfection, however, because in the head are, what, flourishing, you might say, or vigorous, all the senses, both the interior senses and the exterior senses, huh? While in the other members of the body is only the sense of what? Touch, huh? So smell, hearing, sight, and the interior senses, taste, huh? And hence it is said in Isaiah chapter 9, the old and the honorable one, he is the head. And virtue or power because the power and motion of the other members and the governing of them in their acts is from the head, an account of the sensing power and the moving power dominating there. Whence the ruler is said to be the head of the people, right? According to that of 1 Kings chapter 15. When you were little in your eyes, you were made the head in the tribes of Israel. So these three things belong to Christ spiritually. For first, by his nearness to God, his grace is higher. Father, and before, although not in time, right, huh? Because all receive grace with regard to what? His grace, huh? According to that of Romans 8, 29. Whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his son. He might be the firstborn in many, what, brothers, huh? Secondly, as he regards perfection, he has the fullness of all graces. According to that of John chapter 1, verse 14. We saw him full of grace and truth. And third, he has the power of pouring in grace on all members of the church. According to that of John 1, verse 16. Of his fullness, we have all, what, received, huh? And thus it is clear that, suitably, Christ is said to be the head of the church, huh? So three things there in that likeness, huh? Now, the first objection of saying to give grace belongs to what? Christ is God, not his man, huh? Well, Thomas sees a distinction here, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that to give grace, or the Holy Spirit, belongs to Christ, according as he is God, authoritatively, right? Or his original author, source. But instrumentally, it belongs to him, according as he is man, insofar as his humanity was a, what? An instrument, a tool of his, what? Divinity, right? And thus, his actions, from the power of his divinity, were saving for us, right? So different, as causing grace in us, both through his merit and through a certain, what? Efficient power. Augustine denies Christ, according as he is man, to give the Holy Spirit by, what? Yeah. And that's the idea of being the, what, original source of these things, huh? But instrumentally, and as ministers, which is a living instrument, even the other saints are said to give the Holy Spirit, according to that of Galatians chapter 3, who rendered to you the Holy Spirit, etc. With the Pharisees there, objecting to Christ, forgiving this man's sin, who does he think he is? Only God can forgive sins, right? But just, like a priest now, can forgive sins as an instrument of Christ, right? We forth, sorry, Christ in his human nature could forgive sins as an instrument of his, what? Divinity, huh? And the second objection is saying, well, Christ has a head, which is, yeah, Christ is man. So how can a head have a head, right? Well, Thomas is going to explain a little bit about speaking metaphorically. The second, it should be said that in metaphorical speeches, one should not note a likeness as regards all things. Because in this case, it should not be a likeness, but the very truth of the thing. Now, of the natural head, there is not another head, right, huh? Why? Because the human body is not part of, what? Another body, right? But the body said in a way of likeness, that is some, what? Ordered multitude is a part of another multitude, huh? Just as the domestic multitude is a part of the, what? Yeah. I'm supposed to say the same thing in the army there, right, huh? The captain might be, what? The head of his company, but the colonel is the head of the head, right? See, so it's not like Thomas is inventing this distinction, right? But you can see it in other things. And therefore, the paterfamilias, huh? Who is the head of the domestic multitude, has above himself, as a head, the ruler of the, what? The city, huh? So he's got to be reading Romeo and Juliet, right? At the end there, you know, he calls together Montague, see what God has found means to punish you, you know? Your hate with the love of your children. So he's their head, right, huh? You know, Mr. Father Copeland was the head of his daughter there, right? And in this way, nothing prevents the head of Christ to be God, when nevertheless he is the head of the white church, yeah. Interesting in scripture, you know, God is sometimes metaphorically called fire, and many reasons for that likeness, huh? Other times, metaphorically, he's called, what? Water, huh? You know, my soul is thirsting for God, and so on, source of life. And yet, in Greek philosophy, water and fire are seen as opposites, because one is hot and dry, and the other is wet and moist, right? So how can he be, you know? Well, you don't understand what we do with metaphorical things. I'm not supposed to be in every way of life, right? If God was in every way, like fire or vice versa, and water, then you'd have a contradiction there, right? Right, okay? But he's assimilated one way, to fire, because of light and changing things and so on, and subtlety and so on, and to water because of life and other things, huh? Okay? And likewise, you know, fire can be a metaphor for something bad in scripture, too, huh? Same like the lion, they always point out the lion can be a metaphor for the devil going around and saying, no, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me,