Tertia Pars
Lecture 111: The Soul's Suffering and the Beatific Vision in Christ

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, stand in 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. Help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Before we begin with the text here, I wanted to give a little exegesis here of Epistle of St. John. Uh-huh, the first epistle there. Like, I think about it again because of this famous text that I'm sure you're familiar with. But, you know, I was talking last time about, can God make something that is not like himself? And the answer is what? No. No, no. I was reading Thomas today, he says, God can't do something that isn't just. That does a mimic of himself, too. This or that in particular, huh? Okay. This is the famous passage there where he talks about the, seeing God, huh? As he is, right? And he says, um, beloved Agapetoi, huh? Let me get the word from Agapet. Now we are what? The Tekna Thee. We are the sons of God, huh? Okay. Yeah, let's go back a little bit before that. I wanted to start a little bit before that. Behold, huh? He says, what manner of love the Father has given us that we are called the sons of God, right? Or the children of God, Tekna. Yeah, children, yeah. And, and he says, and we are. Not only called, but we are. Okay. On account of this, he says, the world does not know us, huh? Because it doesn't know him, right? And then he says, beloved Agapetoi. Now we are the children of God, right? And it is not yet manifest, huh, or here, what we will be. Okay. And then he says, we know that when he is, what, made known, huh? We will be, what, homoyoi, like him, right? Because we shall see him as he is, right? Now, what does he mean there, huh? He says, when we see him as he is, we will be like him, right? Does he mean we're not like him yet? How do you understand that? Because if we're the children of God, we must be, what, like him by being, you know, we are called, but are children of God. And then when we are said to be made in the image and likeness of God, even without being, you know, the grace children of God, right? We are like him, right? When Shakespeare calls reason God-like, huh? That's that likeness that we have in our image, being made in the image and likeness of God. So how do you understand the saying that we will be like him when we see him as he is? What? Without sin. Yeah. I mean, does that mean we're not like him yet? We'll be more perfectly like him. Yeah, yeah. As if by maybe Antonia, right? Right. You know? We'll be most like him when we see him as he is, right? He just says, you know, we will be like him because we will see him as he is, huh? So you have a certain likeness to God because you're made in his image and likeness. And so Shakespeare says, you know, the reason is God-like there in the exhortation. And then we're even more like him by grace, right? Or by we are the children of God, right? But we will be most of all like him when we see him as he is, right? Now, when we get through with this treatise here on this, we're going to come back to the fundamental thing that God became man, right? And we're going to look at the text that we saw already earlier in the Summa Theologiae, right? And we're going to compare it with the text from the Summa Contra Gentiles, huh? And there's eight reasons given in the Summa Contra Gentiles, ten reasons given, what, in the Summa Theologiae, right? Why God became a man. However, this is the best way for us to be, what? Saved, not the only way, but the best way, right? We're going to compare the eight and the ten reasons. There's some overlap, there's quite a bit of overlap, I should say, right? But the reasons are ordered a little bit differently, huh? And in the Summa, if you recall, there are ten reasons, five for the good and five for the bad, right? And the five for the good start off with faith and then hope and then charity and then example and so on and so on. So, now, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the first reason that Thomas gives, that's not one that he gives explicitly in the Summa Theologiae, but he's always shown in the previous volume that the only way we can see God as he is, which you want to do, is if the form by which we see God is in fact God himself. So, unless God is joined to our reason, as the form by which it sees God, you would never see God as he is. So, it says in the Psalms, I guess, in your light we shall see light, right? Okay? But you say, well, you might say, well, it could have been possible, right? That God would be joined to our mind as the form of which we see. And you might despair of such, and therefore despair of your own, what? Happiness, right? Happiness be, yeah? So, when God joined human nature to himself in one person, right? Then he, what? Strengthened our hope, right? See? Because hope is not only a desire, but a desire for what is possible. And so, Thomas begins with that reason, huh? Begins with the reason from hope, rather than, and I can assume theologiae, from faith and then hope. Then he goes on to the reason from hope, I mean from faith and the reasons for charity and so on, right? But he begins with hope, right? Okay? Now, what does John do here? Now, if you recall the text here, just where I just read, huh? We know that when he appears, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is, right? And then the very next sentence after that's the second line. And everyone having this hope purifies himself, huh? The Greek word there, agnidze, right? And then later on, you know, the agnos, huh? You know, they'll translate it in English, in Latin, they'll translate it as pure, right? Pure, huh? It can be translated as pure or holy, right? So you make yourself pure and holy because you have this hope to see God as he is face to face, huh? Now, I think that's interesting, right? That he goes to hope rather than, right, talking about love, although love is involved here and faith is involved, right? But it's because hope aims at what? This vision of God as he is, this vision of God face to face, as your, what, end or goal in life, right? The end or purpose of your whole existence. And so, it's kind of natural that Thomas begins with the reason from, in terms of hope, because he's talking about salvation, reaching our end or our goal. And therefore, he wants to start with hope, you know? So in some ways, it's something in the order of the Summa Theologiae, right? I mean, Summa Tangentia, that's my favorite book, by the way. Because you don't have any order in the, what, Summa Theologiae, right? But there are things in that list that you don't find so explicitly in the other either, right? But we'll make that comparison, huh? I was struck by this text here, that right away, it goes to, what, hope, right? And, you know how both the great Augustine and Thomas, when they talk about faith, hope, and charity, and for the catechetical instructions, you know? They'll talk about the creed, you know, with faith, and the Ten Commandments, the two commandments of love, with charity. But then with hope, they always talk about, what? Prayer. He, our Father, that expound, He, our Father, right? Prayer. Prayer. Prayer. Prayer. Okay, so you want to give in a nutshell, so to speak, Catholic or Christian doctrine, right? You expound the creed, right, what we believe, and you expound the Our Father what we are to what? Hope for and desire, right, as well as pray for, right? And then the commandments you're supposed to obey, right, and so on. Of course, what's the first thing we ask for in the Our Father? Hallowed be thy name, right? Okay, which is, you know, one of the meanings of the word agnes, and it can be translated as holy or purer. They're very, almost the same meaning, holy and pure there. And then the second thing is thy kingdom come, right? As Thomas explains, the kingdom is the ordered society of those who see God face to face as he is, right? So, you know, you've got to be holy, you've got to purify yourself in order that the kingdom will, what, come and you can see God. He begins, he gives eight reasons there, right? Yeah. And the first reason is that our end is to see God as he is, right? We naturally want to see God as he is, right? But we can't see God as he is, unless God is joined to our mind as the form by which we see him. And then the question is, well, is that possible, right? You know? Well, then when you have the incarnation, right? And God has joined human nature, so that it's one and the same person, right, who is God and man, right? Well, then your hope is what? Strengthened, right? It's possible for your mind to be joined in a lesser way than in the incarnation, right? But in the way to enable you to see God as he is face to face. And that's the end of the incarnation, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But in some sense, it seems to me that hope is directed to our last end in a way that faith and charity are not as explicit, although they're connect with it then. But hope, you're tending towards that end. Yeah, it's related then, because the definition is given to faith in Hebrews, faith is the substance of things hoped for. Yeah, yeah. It's just kind of a foundation in the things you hope for, right? It's interesting. I said the substance of things loved, right? Yes. But hope is brought in there. But anyway, that's another thing. So we're up to Article 7 here in Question 46. To the seventh, it seems that Christ did not suffer according to his whole soul, right? For the soul suffers when the body suffers, huh? Procedent, right? Insofar as it's the act of a body, huh? The first act of an actual body composed of tools, huh? It kind of gets to say, first act of a body equipped with tools. That's the original meaning of an organic body, right? But the soul is not the act of the body by every part of itself, by every power of itself, huh? For the understanding is not the act of any, what? Body, huh? And that goes the will. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not, what? Suffer according to his whole soul. Only according to those parts of the soul that would be in the body, right? The sense of powers and things like that, sir. Moreover, each power of the soul undergoes from its own, what? Object, right? But of the superior part of reason, the object, are the eternal reasons, which intending to look upon and consult, right? Augustine says in the 12th Book of Trinity. But from these eternal reasons, Christ could undergo no harm, right? Now, since in no way are they contrary to him. Therefore, it seems that he did not suffer according to the whole soul. Moreover, when the sensible passion goes so far as to get the reason, then there is a complete passion or suffering, which was not in Christ, as Jerome says, but only propostial. That's a technical term, right? So in no way did it disturb, you know, the higher powers of Christ, huh? So he starts talking irrational, like we don't get angry or something, right? Once Dionysius says in the epistle to John's evangelist, I guess, that those passions he underwent, right, according to judgment only, right, as much as he allowed them to, Therefore, it does not seem that Christ suffered according to his whole soul. Moreover, passion causes what? Pain, huh? But in the speculative intellect, there is no pain. That's what always attracted me to the speculative intellect. When I was a student, I heard this, you know, and now in this context, but in other contexts, that's what I want. There's really no sadness opposed to the speculative intellect, right? Either you're mistaken, you think you know the truth, so you're not sad. Because the pleasure, which is in considering something, there is no, what, sadness opposed, as the philosopher says in the first book about places there. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not suffer according to his whole soul. But against this is what is said in Psalm 87, huh? From the person of Christ, huh? What does Alphonse say, right? It's like another gospel, right? The Psalms, and they say things about Christ. My soul is, what, filled with evils. Not vices, right, but pains, right? By which the soul, what, suffers with the flesh, huh? Or the evils of the, what, perishing people. Suffering with them, right? Like he weeps, weeps over a shoe song, right? But his soul would not have been filled with evils if his soul, if he did not suffer according to his whole soul. Therefore, Christ suffered according to his whole soul. Well, Thomas will agree that he did, but he'll make some distinctions here, right? Thomas begins with a very simple point. I answer it should be said that whole is said with regard to, what, parts, huh? Now, sometimes, you know, they start off at the distinction of, what, two kinds of wholes. And one is called the integral or composed whole. The whole is put together from its parts. This book is put together from the pages and so on. And then the other kind of whole is universal whole, right? Because universal, in Greek, for example, comes from the word whole, kathalou, the word Catholic, according to the, what, whole, bringing together kata and holas. And then the parts are called particulars, right? It's from the word part, huh? Then there's this third kind of whole and part, huh? Which is called the potestative, what? The whole power. And Aristotle, in the few books about the soul, calls the powers of the soul, parts of the soul, right, huh? But it's not parts in the sense of, what, of put together to make the soul, right? Nor is it parts of the soul, like species are parts of a genus, right? Thus, therefore, the whole soul is said to, what, suffer, insofar as it suffers according to its, what, essence. It's nature. Or insofar as it suffers according to all of its, what, powers, right? So he makes a distinction there, right? But it should be considered, he says, that some power of the soul is able to suffer or undergo in two ways, huh? One way by the undergoing that is proper to it, which is according as it undergoes from its own object, just as its sight undergoes. from the superabundance of the what visible right but in another way some power of the soul suffers by the what undergoing of the subject which it is founded upon right just as sight suffers when the sense of touch suffers right in the eye so if i stick a pin in your eye you're going to suffer but not from what what's proper to the eye right that'd be more like when you have a too much light you know like people have snow blinds and they're climbing the mountains or something like that or if they did like in the spanish war you know pop your eye open and channel it in there you go blind eventually right but then you're suffering what is property in the eye right they stick a pin in there that's because sense of what sight like all senses are based ultimately upon touch in some way right okay when the eye is is is uh pricked or something right pierced pierced yeah or even also when it's distempered right through heat right your eyes get tired you know so it's more touched in sight as such thus therefore he says if we understand the whole soul by reason of its essence its substance its nature right thus is manifest that the whole soul of christ right suffered for the whole soul the whole essence of the soul is joined to the body so as augustine says the whole is in the hole and the hole was in each part now when thomas you know is defending that uh saying of augustine and some people you know misunderstand how the soul is in the body right like they are and he says it's not in the body as something that's in the place because if it's in the body if something's in the place it couldn't be in the head and in the foot you can't be in two places and it's not in the body as in part is in a what hole but it's in the body as in form is what yeah yeah so you got to know those eight senses of in which are thought out by aristotle in the fourth book of natural hearing the physics right but unlike the fifth book of wisdom where he orders these meetings right what he does is what just gives you the eight meanings and thomas in his commentary says we're going to order the eight meanings imitating aristotle in the fifth book of wisdom right and so he he orders them right starting from being in place and being a part in the whole right and being a genus and a species and a species and a genius and then a form and matter and the whole and the parts and i got you in my power that's the seventh sentence i left my heart in san francisco that's the eighth sense of him right okay the orders them perfectly right i was reading in the sentences there the discussion whether god's power is infinite and so on right what it means to say that god is infinite of course the word infinite is and it can involve indication or or lack that's a little different which one it is of what end right and so thomas when he gets into that thing he says well as aristotle says aristotle shows in the fifth book of wisdom right the word end has many meanings and uh he recalls the first meaning of end and then the last meaning of end right because most people they falsely imagine right god to be infinite uh in the first sense of end uh in the first sense of end is the end of a what line is a point the end of a uh triangle is a line and the end of a cube is a square right now so the the limit of something that has quantity god is not a body doesn't have quantity right so he doesn't have a limit in that sense or you know uh limited not uh we're not limited in the way that you would imagine a body going on forever right now of course scripture does speak you know he's wider than this he's higher than this and so on and that's one of the objections you know about god not being a body over that way back in the dream of bars right and uh but thomas says so this is to be understood what metaphorically huh well it's kind of interesting because in the word like end the word is carried over by a likeness of what ratios just like the word first or beginning is carried over by like this or ratios or the word in is carried over by a likeness of ratios and so um metaphor is based upon likeness right so that first sense you know might be used in a metaphorical way of speaking right huh but when you try to speak properly about god right it's not that first sense it's not the what second sense huh which is the end of a journey or the end of emotion right because god doesn't move or change right uh now the third sense you could say he's what endless in that sense because he has no purpose god but he is the end of all things and the alpha and omega the first and the last the beginning and the end right huh i was thinking about that a little bit because in in uh my parish the tabernacle has got an alpha and omega kind of a formalized alpha and omega and i've seen another tabernacle i don't think they all have it but but you see it's fairly easy i think sometimes do you have a tabernacle our tabernacle has two sets of doors first has the the initials for the holy name of jesus in greek yeah you open that and it's an alpha and omega yeah those two open and there's angels yeah yeah now i think about that the other day again and i say um he's both god and man right but he is is he the beginning and the end as man or as god as god i would think as god as god yeah yeah that's kind of interesting that this is very much associated with the eucharist right he said eucharist you know from the words of consecration his body and blood are there right but his soul and divinity are there as a consequence of being joined to this body and blood huh but it's interesting that we use this sumo alpha omega because you want to emphasize the fact that he's what what god says in the apocalypse right i'm the alpha and omega the first and last but these are very important words for you know understanding god and they're very important for theology right because basically the order of theology is to talk about god in himself and then god is the beginning of all things and then god is the end of all things right and so in the summa kind of gentiles the first book is about god in himself or by himself and the second book is about god is the beginning of everything else and then the third book is about god is the end of all things that's really a key thing right but both of these words beginning and end are in the fifth book of wisdom beginning is the first word and then the word end although it appears in discussion of causes right but by itself is taken up in the third part of book five and so you know if you want to understand god i mean uh especially the third and the fourth sense of end the third sense of of end in the fifth book is purpose that for the sake of which then the fourth sense of end is when you see a definition is an end right it limits something right okay okay and to that you detach no way matter is limited by form and so on well god's actuality god's perfection is in no way limited right so when you say god is infinite you're thinking primarily of the fourth sense of what of end in the fifth book of wisdom it's a negation of that sense of what end there's no limit there's no end to god's perfection but when you say god is the end of the universe when you say i'm the alpha and the omega the first and the last to begin in the end then the meaning of you And there is what? Third sense, yeah. Because the word end or limit in Greek, in the fourth sense, is where you get the sense of a definition, right? Comes from theenies, eh? And in Latin or in Greek, you know, sometimes they'll just say terminus, right? Or in Greek they'll say horos, right? So limit means what definition, right? What's the horos in this thing? It's this definition. And you can find the thing and it's limited, right? And then you show that God is in no way but limited in that fourth sense, eh? So you've got to know the third sense and the fourth sense to understand how God is the end of the whole universe, in the third sense of end, and how he's endless by the negation of the fourth sense of end. It's important, eh? But here you have to understand the eight senses of end, eh? I told you, you know, I was first teaching logic and assumption in college, you know. I got thinking about the phrase to think out something, right? And I began to realize that there are many senses of thinking out which correspond to the many senses of end. So I'm going to have to see him on Gideon the next time. I said, what do you think of this way of speaking? He said, marvelous, he thought it was very good, you know. But then he added, French can't do it in French, he says. So another example of the defect of French for philosophy, eh? Both, both, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah I don't know what this means I know it doesn't mean that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's easier to sort of depending on authority. Yeah. I say to myself a lot of times, you know, I don't really understand it very well. Something you know, I'll say. Next time I read it, I'll understand it a little bit better. Next time, a little more. Be patient, you know. Patient with my own. You didn't appreciate Mozart the first time here. Not for what he said. My two brothers brought home the magic flute of Mozart. I just said the whole thing, you know, docile. I didn't really hear anything. It's just, you know, like Samuel Johnson saying he wasn't blessed with the year for music, right? I listened to the clarinet with Ted this morning. So he quotes this truth now, which we can go back and study, and we studied the soul. I think we did before a little bit. That the whole is in the whole, and the whole in each part. And therefore the body's suffering. And being disposed to be suffering, meaning it's near death. Yeah. The whole soul, what, suffers, right? Okay. But if we understand by the whole soul, according to all of its, what, powers, in that sense, the whole soul is not in, what, every part of the body, right? Not according to all its powers. It's in the eye according to the power of seeing, and in the stomach there for the power of digesting, and so on. And some powers, like the reason, the will, is not in the body at all. One of my colleagues there, former students, you know, was reading the Canadian doctors, you know, who are electrically, you know, stimulating parts of the brain, and saying, what do you see, you know, and so on. Oh, chocolate sundae, you know, and so on. Oh, yeah. And, but the guy's doing it with the thing, you know, but they just never get an act of will. And so even the scientists included, the will is not in the brains. It's not there. It's not in the body. Look someplace else. Well, that's what I, whether it's these same experiments that Father Anthony Cramer used to tell us about. They did this thing where the guy would stimulate the brain with some electric thing. The guy's arm would go up, and then the scientists would say, well, do that again. He says, I didn't do that. You did that. So I throw a backdoor to this part of this, but the soul is not in the body. But they didn't make any shoes, though. That's what they could have done, I say. Where did you say this in the podcast and what did you mention here? It comes from De Trinitati. No, it comes from De Trinitati of Augustine, right? Oh, okay. Book six. Yeah, they don't give the reference here, but I don't know. Yeah, the Marietta is good that way, you know. One thing that Marietta is good for is it'll give you the, what they call the parallel, you know, where Thomas talked about this elsewhere, you know, so. If you're studying something in particular, you can go and find out a way to those passages, you know, so it's just a nice... This division has most of them, but that has, it's Marietta. Yeah, yeah. So it's good that way. But it's, uh, it, there's in a more general principle? Like, it probably didn't originate with Augustine. Well, no, it agrees with what Aristotle says, but it's not explicitly that phrase, you know, in my text it's, in fact, italicized, right? Yeah. In the references to Augustine. But if you go to see that the dispute of questions on the soul, right, there'll be an article about this. Okay. And you'll see that it goes back to Augustine, that kind of, he's kind of, you know, when he's phrased. But if Aristotle understood that too, right? And as I say, I was reading the sentences there where Thomas, you know, points out there's kind of a, a double false imagination, huh? And false imagination is the chief cause of deception, right? Imagining something other than it is, or trying to imagine something that cannot be imagined, huh? And you really get into trouble, right? You know, Socrates there in the Parmenides, you know, he's trying to understand the universal, and, uh, he's a young man, of course, and Parmenides is questioning, am I, and it's like a sail, you know, that's spread over these things? Well, if man was, like a sail, you know, you'd have only part of the sail over you. So you'd only be part of what a man is. But the whole what a man is is found in you, and in you, and you, and so on. But he's, he's kind of resolving to the, what, the imagination. That's why it's a bad idea in logic, you know, they have these circles, you know, and this sort of stuff, you know. Intrinsically evil, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So if we understand the whole soul by reason of its essence or nature, right, then it's manifested that the whole soul of Christ suffers, right? And he goes on in the next paragraph. But if we understand the whole soul according to all of its powers, right, thus in speaking about the, what, undergoings that are proper to each power, right, it does suffer according to all the lower powers, right, because in the, in each of the lower powers of the soul, which act in the guided temporal things, there is found something that is a cause of what? Pain in Christ. But according to this, superior reason, right, does not suffer in Christ on the side of its object to it, God, right, huh, which was not to the soul of Christ a cause of, what, pain, but of pleasure and joy, huh? But according to that way of passion in which a, some power is said to suffer on the side or from the side of its, what, subject, right, in that sense, all the powers of the soul of Christ, what, suffer, right, insofar as they're rooted in the soul, right? For all the powers of the soul are ready counter, huh? Rooted in the essence, huh? The word radish, ready counter, yeah, to which the, what, passion arise when the body suffers, right, huh? Of which the soul is the act, huh? It's a famous definition of the soul, the first act of a natural body equipped with tools or composed of tools, huh? It's more manifested for the sake of something than a tool. A lot of biologists use the word organic without realizing it comes from the Greek word for tool, right? And, so we use the common word tool instead of organ, right? The choice of word there that we all use points out that there's for the sake of something, right? Yeah, for the camera or something that's great. Yeah. Now, so, replying to the first dejection here, the first, therefore, it should be said that although the understanding, according as it is a certain what power, is not an act of the what? Body, right then? The essence, nevertheless, of the soul is an act of the body, huh? The substance, the nature of the soul. And in that, what? Essence of the soul is rooted, ready, kata, huh? In the understanding power, As has been shown in the first part. Okay? You see the distinction he's making there, right? It's not from its own object that it's suffering, right? But so far as it's rooted in the soul, which is in fact the act of the body. Now, the second one here, which is taken from the superior part of reason, considering the eternal reasons, right? Which are delightful in not any way. And he says, to that second, it should be said that that argument proceeds about the undergoing, which is on the side of the what? Yeah, the power's own object, right? According to which, superior reason in Christ did not suffer, right? So, superior reason of Christ did not suffer from its object. If it suffered at all, it's because it was rooted in the soul, which is the act of the body, right? Now, the third one, I can't anticipate this because I've seen that term before, pro-passio, right now, but it's kind of a diminution of the word passio, right? I suppose in English, now, the word passion, like the word emotion, right? If I say you're emotional, you're getting emotional, it means that your reason is being affected. a bit, right? You're not quite yourself, right? And so in that sense, Christ didn't have emotion, right? So they coined this word pro-passia, right, huh? That Christ underwent these emotions, but not in a way that disturbed the use of his, what, reason, huh? So even he was angry at the Pharisees there, right? The hardest for their hearts. It says in the Gospels he was not, what, thrown off his cool, you know? Talk about, oh, Bobby, he's very cool, you know, even in the injections, you know, huh? They had on the TV the other night there, he was speaking in one of the states there, I don't know what she did, it was, and this black woman got up, right? And she said she had voted for him, you know, but is this what we were promised? Oh, wow. He didn't smile, he didn't call it, there's nothing wrong with what he's been doing, but he's a cool, cool fish, you know? But even with the already Christ, it was cool, right? Yeah. You know? He said he was addressing some school children, and he had a teleprompter. Yeah, yeah, he did, yeah, great school, yeah. So we don't know how great he is, or... So, anyway, the thing is, it's a myth that he's real, he's real ugly man. Well, that's what, I remember when he, right after he got elected, or right before, somebody was at, I forget where I heard this, somebody said, somebody was complaining about, he's this, he's bad about this, he's bad about that, well, can't you say anything good about him? He reads his speech very well. He's being said about him during the campaign. Yeah, he is a fine speaker, he has good delivery and everything, I suppose as long as he has a text to Trump. But I've heard it said, as I've never seen, that if he ever has to do anything impromptu, he stumbles over himself all the way. He's like, I can't put two words together. Okay, so this third argument then is pouring this out, right? Then he says, dolor, right? Pain, suffering, is said to be a perfect, what? Passion undergoing, to which the soul is, what? Disturbed, right? That when the passion of the sensitive part arrives at changing reason from the rectitude of its own, what? That. That it follows the passion, right? Tries to compare, you know, to a man who's using play with comparison, you know, the reason is to the emotions, like a man is to the horse, right? When a man gets on top of the horse, the person the horse does it, that's all off, right? So you've got to keep on getting back on top of him, right? But the man who doesn't really control his emotions, like the man gets thrown off the horse, he's got his foot still in the things, he's being dragged by the horse right away. That's why you're recently being dragged through the mud, you know, by your emotions, you know, and that happens to all of us to some extent, right? But not, never to Christ, right, huh? You know, he was never being dragged by his emotions to say nasty things and you're going to hell or something, you know. Yeah, yeah, kind of impressed with his, kind of wonder about the society, so yeah. Okay. And does not have, what, free choice over it, right? Thus the passion, the sensitive part did not arrive in Christ as far as reason, right, huh? The faculty itself, but on the side of the subject, right, insofar as it wouldn't, right? And the same thing about the speculative intellect, which I delighted in, right, huh? The speculative intellect does not have any, what, pain or sadness on the side of its object, which is the true, absolute, the, what, considered not applied to any action, I want you to do that, which is his perfection, right, huh? But there can never last pertain to a pain or a soul or the closet thing in the way said, insofar as it's rooted in the essence of the soul, right? So you see, Socrates talks about that in the dialogue, you know, the pleasure of eating has, and in the apology, right, the pleasure of eating has a pain opposed to it, namely what? Hunger, right? And the pleasure of taking a nap or going to bed at night has associated with the pain of being, oh, oh, I want to do that. I guess if you're at night time, sometimes I say, gee, I've got to start taking my pills and so I'm going to fall asleep without taking my pills. I'm probably still awake enough to get to bed. Well, you see, for the pleasure of understanding, you know, the theorem of Euclid, right, there's no opposing, what, pain, right, huh? But I mean, Socrates is kind of arguing this can't be the greatest thing if to the pleasure of eating or the pleasure of sleeping or what it might be, there's attached something bad, maybe the pain of hunger, right? And, you know, the old saying of my grandmother's grandmother, I guess, hunger makes good sauce, right? Yeah. So you've got to be hungry to really enjoy your food, right? When you travel across the country there, you know, you tend to snack on something to stay awake, you know, and then you stop for a dinner, something like that, and you know, I mean, you have an appetite, I don't have an appetite, you know, like junk food, right? So to enjoy your food, you've got to be hungry, right? But then you've got to suffer. So you've got to suffer, too. Or Socrates talks about, you know, to enjoy, it's really good to be able to scratch yourself sometimes, right? But then you've got to have, so Socrates makes, you know, real fun of his opponents, right? You know, they get themselves all itching over so they can enjoy them. But it shows these things aren't the greatest good, because they're always associating, like, one is, you know. So, you know, the idea, you know, you're hungry, which is pain, right? Then you eat, then you overeat, then you get pain again. It's like, how could this be the best thing in life, you know? But as a man, if it's his chief good and market this time, he doesn't eat. It's a stupid feed. He'd sleep. There's a passage, I just reread a passage from the four men, have you ever heard that? He talks about the worst thing in the world and the best thing in the world. It's kind of a parody of this type of thing. This is kind of a surprising thing, you know, when you first see it.