Prima Pars
Lecture 1: Vatican I on God's Nature and Distinction from Creation

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

The Consul was interrupted by the Risorgimento and so on. And in a way, the things, the two documents that were, did get out of the Vatican I, were kind of continued and to some extent completed, right, in the Second Vatican Consul. So in the Second Vatican Consul, there are, what, 16 documents? But of these 16 documents, four are called, what, constitutions, which have a certain universality, you know, importance. But of those four constitutions, two are called, what, dogmatic constitutions and two are more like pastoral constitutions. So the two dogmatic constitutions are the one in the Church and the one in Revelation, right, Dei Verbum. So Dei Verbum, in a sense, is a continuation of this document right here. The other document came out of Vatican I, they were going to do something broader in the Church, but they were interrupted and just completed the part on the, what, papal infallibility, right? So that teaching on papal infallibility and so on was repeated in the, what, one on the Revelation in Vatican II. But, excuse me, not so much there, in the one in the Church, I mean, okay? So you kind of see that the two, Vatican I and Vatican II, are in a way kind of one consul almost, in that regard. Just like the Second World War is a continuation of the First World War, as many historians like to present it as being. So this is just the constitution of the Catholic faith, right? But the one, Dei Verbum, is more on Scripture, you know? This here takes a little more broader view of, a more fundamental view, you might say, about faith and reason and so on. Now, there will be a kind of profession of faith in here in the first chapter, as you know, but there is a, before that, in the earlier session, there is the, what, more full profession of faith, huh? It's basically the Constantinople Icene Creed, with some things spread out from Consul Trent, okay? Now, of course, they don't look forward to Vatican II here. They look back to, what, the Consul of Trent, huh? So you'll see this in the introductory kind of speech here of P.O. Nono, huh? Okay? And let's look at that a little bit, but that's not so much the document we're interested in as the thing that comes afterwards. I suppose that's a reference to the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew, huh? Now, behold him with you all days, right? Even until the consummation of the world. Hence, never at any time has he ceased to stand by his beloved bride, huh? This is the church. Assisting her when she teaches. Blessing her in her labors. And third, bringing her help when she is in, what, danger, huh? Now, this redemptive providence appears very clearly in a number of benefits. But most especially is it manifested in the advantages which have been secured for the Christian world by ecumenical consuls, huh? Sounds like John Paul II, right? Who always goes back to Vatican II, huh? Among which the Consul of Trent, which is the last consul for these people, requires special mention. Celebrated though it was in evil days, huh? Thence came a closer definition and more fruitful exposition of the holy dogmas of religion and the condemnation and repression of errors, huh? Of course, Thomas began to subconte gentiles with the twofold office of the wise man to teach the truth and to refute errors, huh? And this goes back to Aristotle saying the same thing, that it belongs to the wise man to do those two things, huh? Now, the consuls also have a pastoral aspect, huh? Thence, too, the restoration and vigorous strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, huh? The advancement of the clergy and zeal for learning and piety. And I guess the Consul of Trent had a lot to do with getting seminaries more strongly, solidly established, huh? The founding of colleges for the training of the young for the service of religion. And finally, the renewal of the moral life of the Christian people by a more accurate instruction of the faithful and a more frequent reception of the sacraments. What is more, thence also came a closer union of the members with the visible head, that means with the Pope, I guess, huh? And an increased vigor in the whole mystical body of Christ. And some people see it as the best definition of the church, right? The mystical body of Christ. Was it Pius XII that are famous encyclical now? I think so, yeah. Thence came the multiplication of religious orders and other organizations of Christian piety, right? Counter-reformation, as we say. Thence to that determined and constant ardor for the spreading of Christ's kingdom abroad in the world, even at the cost of shedding one's blood. Okay? But everything hasn't gone right, as he's got to go on to say. So he's kind of sitting on stage for a while. He has documented. While we recall with grateful hearts, as is only fitting, these and other outstanding gains, which the divine mercy has bestowed in the church, especially by means of the last ecumenical synod, meaning the Council of Tranta, we cannot subdue the bitter grief that we feel at most serious evils, which have largely arisen either because the authority of the Sacred Synod was held in contempt by all too many, or because its wise decrees were neglected. That's a joke about the spirit of Vatican II is not to read Vatican II. I like that, huh? If you go through, you know, the different church councils, and you see the various disciplinary things, you know, about correcting abuses in the clergy and laity and so on, huh? Yeah, and of course, the next council, the same, you know, abuses are still there, you know, it's like the average guy going back to confession, the same sins over again, you know? You never quite hear us, huh? Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the church, he's free now to the Protestant things, and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, huh? You know, was it Charles Bormeo did the famous thing on the divisions, you know, among them, they kept on dividing and subdividing, and once you give up the magisterium, then everybody goes off on his own, huh? Either at variance or in agreement with one another. And by this means, a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed, huh? So the devil practices a divide and conquer as well. Indeed, even the Holy Bible itself, which they at one time claimed to be the sole source and judge the Christian faith. And you hear these Protestant ministers who have converted to Catholicism, you know, on EWTN, you know, and they get on the way home where the program is. It's always a good idea that you can't have the Bible stand all by itself, right? Because how do we get these books, you know, as the books, right? And of course, Vatican II says that the magisterium of the Church and the sacred tradition and the Scripture, right? Those three are such that no one can stand without the others, huh? Well, it's a good example of three is enough, right? But one is not enough, huh? So they gave up, you might say, the magisterium, and they gave up the tradition, the sacred tradition, right? And they claimed the Bible was the sole source and judge the Christian faith. But it was no longer held to be divine, right? With these... scriptural scholars in Germany, etc. But they began to assimilate it to the inventions of myth. I think I mentioned how in the current issue of U.S. Lewis World Report, you know, C.S. Lewis made the cover. And so there's a three or four page article in there on him. Not too bad, you know, it tells some interesting things again about him. But it's resisting, you know, this somebody trying to get to him, namely God, and how he's trying to reduce, you know, Christian religion to a myth, you know, and he just couldn't quite fit it into a myth, you know, and he's getting more and more frustrated. But this is that way of thinking, huh? Kind of interesting is his conversion. Thereupon there came into being and spread far and wide throughout the world that doctrine of rationalism or naturalism. Now, I suppose rationalism means what? Solar ratio, huh? See, giving up belief altogether, right? And trying to reduce yourself only to what man has by his what? Human nature, yeah. Utterly opposed to the Christian religion, since this is of supernatural origin. And it spares no effort to bring it about, he says, that Christ, who alone is our Lord and Savior, is shut out from the minds of people and the moral life of nations, huh? Interesting, you know, every Christmas now you have this desire to get rid of, of, um... Christmas. Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And say happy holidays, you know, and not say happy Christmas. Because, uh, I thought you got the, you know, Walmart to back down, you know, they wanted to say, you know, happy holidays, and get so much protest going, and so they finally don't need to have Christmas, uh, displays. Wow, that's pretty. Yeah. I mean, there's a real fight going on every Christmas, you know, for the whole month there that people are talking about this, you know. Thus they would establish what they call the rule of simple reason or nature. I gave you another copy here of the Confessions, right? But, you know, if you had a chance to look at that thing by John Paul II on Augustine, right? That's what he was into, right, huh? The Manichaeans are appealing to him. You don't have to, you know, believe these guys, you know, just use your reason instead, you know? We'll do it all by your reason, right? And, uh, I think there's a certain appeal there to, what, pride. In this article in C.S. Lewis, I guess, at an early age, eight years old or something like that, at an early age, he realized that he had, um, good taste. Good taste in literature, right? And all the rest of these guys out there are Philistines, right? Well, there's a lot of truth to that, but that's an occasion for pride, right? And then he realized, after his conversion, how this had been the occasion for his pride. And that's where you get the idea you're going to do it all by, what, reason, you know? I guess there's one of his, um, barographies, you know, or autobiography things, where he's, um, going across the campus there, and so the guy, you know, who's some kind of scholar, you know, you know, he says, the evidence for the resurrection is pretty good. He has those, you know, so I felt that thinking feeling, you know? You know, I mean, his defense is, you know, we're breaking down. That's kind of interesting. Thus they would establish what they call the rule of simple reason or nature, huh? That's going back to the doctrine of rationalism or naturalism. So you can kind of see, he's kind of setting the stage for what this document's going to be emphasizing, huh? Talking about faith and reason and the need of both of them and how they help each other and so on, right? This is kind of setting the circumstances of the thing. This, uh, Father, um, he was there, I gave him those church histories, you know? But I used to have, I don't know, I lost it, but I used to have a, another one of his books was on the 20 councils, more or less. And give you kind of historical background leading up to each council, you know? So you kind of see the circumstances for the council, huh? And if you go into the, um, uh, Vatican II, the thing on priestly training and so on, I think I've given you part of that passage there where you should start with the Bible and then you go to what the church fathers have contributed to the elucidation of this or that mystery, right? And then, count should be taken, he says, the later church history and what the councils did. Well, maybe the councils less so, but it's something like the church fathers a bit. It's a kind of ad hoc character about the theological teaching in the church fathers and even in the councils because if you look at Augustine's work, there's so many contra, contra, contra because this heretic has denied this article of the faith and I got answered this heretic about that article faith was kind of a little contingent aspect of what you're talking about, right? And to some extent the councils have usually arisen at a time when somebody has denied something, right? So it might be way back they denied the divinity of Christ or they might be denied that Mary was the mother of God or what it was. And the Council of Trent has a lot of teaching on the sacraments, right? But that's because the Lutherans and so on were cutting down the number of sacraments and misunderstanding the ones they kept and so on, right? So you kind of, you know, we've got to develop the teaching about the sacraments more at what? In detail, right? Okay? There's kind of an ad hoc character a bit, right? Okay? And so he's kind of setting the circumstances for why this is kind of important at this time. The abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion and the denial of God and his Christ has plunged the minds and many into the abyss of pantheism, materialism and atheism that runs all the way through the modern philosophers. But the talkful, right? Who's the teacher of the difference between democratic customs and aristocratic customs? But in the second volume of democracy in America, he talks about the influence of democratic customs upon religion, right? This is what he emphasizes, pantheism. It suggests pantheistic notions to men's minds. And he says you can see it in French literature in his time, you can see it in German philosophy, he says. Well, you go through, you know, the Enchiridium symbolorum and watch the correction of the Catholic theologians in Germany, mainly, they're always being corrected for their somewhat pantheistic ideas. And even Ronner and Kuhn, you know, has kind of these pantheistic ideas. But it's a very characteristic of the modern thing. It's a force to be with you, you know, as I tell the students. That's a pantheistic notion of God, because you become a part of the force. But Einstein's notion of God was pantheistic. He admitted that. Okay? There's this notion of God. Materialism, of course, that's as old as the hills, And atheism, huh? But notice, huh? And the consequence is that they strive to destroy rational nature itself. Well, in other words, they set out to make reason supreme and end up denying reason. As they say, the Church is the only one who defends reason anymore if they're able to know anything. To deny any criterion of what is right and just, huh? And to overthrow the very foundations of human society. You see, the, I think I spoke a little bit here before, about the three major sources of the modern world and its customs. And the first major source of the modern world as customs was the mercantile origin of the modern city. I've talked about that before in the late Middle Ages. and the second major source was the mathematical union of natural science and technical science. You've raised a modern experimental science. And this really got going in the 17th and 18th century. And the third major source was the democratic revolution, huh? And the social condition of relative inequality as opposed to the hereditary inequality of the aristocratic times, huh? Well, what drives experimental science is the hypothesis, right? And as Einstein says, the hypothesis is freely imagined. So it has no justification by itself, huh? Because it's freely imagined. But then we deduce the consequences of the hypothesis. hypothesis. And if the experiment or observation agrees with the predictions on the base of the hypothesis, then that's a kind of confirmation of the hypothesis, right? But if you examine the form of this confirmation, it's not a syllogism. So you're saying if A is so, then B is so. B is so. It doesn't follow necessarily that A is so. If I am a dog, then I am an animal. But I am an animal. Therefore, I'm a dog. You know, I told you my example in logic class. If Berkowitz dropped dead last night, then I predicted he'd be absent from class today. Okay. He's absent from class today. Therefore, he dropped dead. I say that's wishful thinking, but it's not logical thinking, huh? Einstein says, you know, that Newtonian physics predicted so many things that were shown to be so that men began to think it must be true. And then Einstein, with his theories of relativity, showed he could predict the same things with a different theory, plus some things that Newton couldn't predict. And therefore, it became crystal clear, he said, to the physicist that you never know. And that's why Claude Bernard, the famous physiologist, says that doubt is intrinsic to the experimental method. So if you put these two things together, right, that the hypothesis is freely imagined and therefore is not justified by itself, and the confirmation by its consequence is not a syllogism, well then doubt becomes intrinsic to the experimental method. Well, if that's the only method you think is reliable, the scientific method, then everything is what? Very doubtful. Doubtful, right, doubtful, right? Now, I was mentioning, I was reading this book on Florence and so on, but I mean, especially in his own opinions throughout there, right, that everything should be doubted, right? And this is kind of a result of the customs of experimental science. Doubt is intrinsic to the experimental method. So if that's the only method, and it seems to be good, if the only method is accustomed to it, then everything is doubtful, right? But democratic customs also lead to this too, because democratic customs, says, are all equal. So my opinion is as good as yours, and my opinion is different than yours. So everything that seems doubtful, right, huh? So, and this is very characteristic of the modern world, huh? With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many, even among the children of the Catholic Church, have strayed from the path of genuine piety. And as the truth was gradually diluted in them, their Catholic sensibility was, what, weakened, huh? I always tell the example of my friend who was helping out in the confirmation program, or preparation of a confirmation program. And part of this is called the review of the faith, right? So he comes into class, you know, with these high school kids, and asks them what the seven sacraments were. He just wanted them to name the seven sacraments. Well, collectively, they could not come up with the names of the seven sacraments. And graduation was among the sacraments that people suggested. I mean, seriously. Talk about the truth was gradually diluted in them. This is very much any kind of a ceremony. It's a sacrament or something, you know? And their Catholic sensibility is weakened, huh? Ego's counting. Yeah. But now he's getting out a little more particular and closer to the work we're going to be looking at. Led away by diverse and strange teachings. Diverse and strange teachings. And confusing nature and grace. I'm mixing them up. And mixing up what? Then human knowledge and divine faith, right? Now, as I often say, the beginning of trouble for our mind is not seeing some distinction or misunderstanding some distinction. And Pio Nona is talking about not seeing, right? Or misunderstanding the distinction between nature and grace and between human and knowledge and what? Divine faith, huh? And they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy Mother Church holds and teaches. And to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the, what? Faith. At the sight of all this, how can the inmost being of the Church not suffer engrish? For just as God wills all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. I guess that's in St. Paul, right? Just as Christ came to save what was lost and to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So the Church appointed by God to be mother and, what? Mistress, huh? Mater and magistra, huh? Of nations. That's the phrase that John 23 was founded. Recognize your obligations to all and is always ready and anxious to raise the fallen, to steady those who stumble, to embrace those who return. That's the three states, right? To raise the fallen, to steady those who stumble, to embrace those who return and to strengthen the good and urge them on to what is better. Thus she can never cease from witnessing to the truth of God, which heals all, and from declaring it. For she knows that these words are directed to her. My spirit which is upon you and my words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart out of your mouth from this time forth and forevermore. And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines on the two rules of the wise men. But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter, before all eyes, the saving teaching of Christ, and by the power given to us by God to reject and condemn the contrary errors. This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in scripture and tradition. Those are the three things, right? It's very explicitly in Vatican II and David Verbum, right? That these three cannot, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm right speaking as the military academy. I mean, you know, we have the M1 rifles, and you have a little hook like that, right? And you would, what, hook around like that, and you need a third one to hook around, and then you have a tripod, right, and you have to stand up, you know? But you need a third one, right? One or two can't stand up, you need three to stand together, right? But that's the way it is, those three things, huh? Sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the magisterium. One cannot stand without the other, so we rely on the word of God in scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved, and authentically expounded by the Catholic Church. Now, this first chapter is kind of different from the other chapters, isn't it? And to some extent, you might say the first chapter is a profession of faith, right? And it seems to me that the distinction and order of this profession of faith through the first chapter is kind of different from the other professions of faith I've seen. And perhaps it is somewhat of an ad hoc character that's emphasizing certain things that are denied in his time, right, or in our time, and need to be emphasized. But in the creeds that I've seen, the most authoritative creeds, there's really two ways that they divide the creed. In the Apostles' creed, say, in the Nicene Consenopo creed, which are the ones you're perhaps most acquainted with, most familiar with, there you divide what we believe according to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So with the Father, those things that are appropriate, to the Father, right? Although maybe not unique to Him, like creation and so on are taught, right? And with the Son, of course, the Incarnation, all those things that follow upon the Incarnation. And with the Holy Spirit, what's appropriate to Him, like sanctification and the last ones, huh? Because that's one way of dividing it according to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, huh? He had the same word in the Apostles' Creed and in the Iseum Constantinople Creed. But then like in the, I think it's in the Athanasian Creed, right? It's called the Athanasian Creed, which has a great deal of authority. And in the, I think the Creed there, the Fourth Lateran Council, right? You have it divided according to the divinity and the humanity of Christ, huh? Okay? And either one of these divisions is good, right? But it's a different way of dividing it, right? One into three parts and the other into two, right? The division into two is followed more in theology, okay? So you can see, you know, in the Summa Theologiae, huh? In the Prima Pars, it's all about God, right? And then it's down to the Teresia Pars, you get the Incarnation and all those things, huh? So it's more of that division, right? He had that even in Thomas' compendium of theology, okay? Well, when Thomas talks about, you know, the Incarnation, Faith, Hope, and Charity, then he followed the order of the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles' Creed, huh? Now here, as you can see in my division, because the small print is mine, right? And the bold print, the dark print, that's a text, huh? So you can ignore my words you want, but don't ignore the words of the council, right? But it seems to me that the order he follows here, that he follows, with one little tiny exception, seems like the order of the Summa Theologiae, I mean the Summa Contagentiles, huh? The order of God in himself, God is the, what? Beginning of things, creator, and then God is the end, where you take up God, the ruler. So, if you look at the Summa Contagentiles, the first book is about God in himself, well, the second book is about God as the maker, the creator of the world, and the third about God as the end and the ruler of the world, right? And that seems to be the way this is divided, huh? With maybe one little exception there, but, okay? So, the first part is God in himself, and his distinction from the, what? World, huh? Who believes and confesses his son, okay? So it says the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, and I think you've met those four before, right? And that's in the, what? Yeah, yeah. Okay? So this is who is believing and confessing, in case you didn't know. Okay? The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church believes and acknowledges, right? What does it believe and acknowledge? Well, in general, that there is one true and, what? Living God, huh? Creator, huh? And there, a little bit of this, that's a little exception I was getting, right? Okay? Because creator is more of, what, the second part, right? Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, huh? Okay? He's a Lord of heaven and earth because he's the, what? Creator of it, right? And so, people are talking about, my body belongs to me, right? You know, I always take this simple example, you know, if you and I are walking along the seashore there, and I pick up a piece of driftwood, right? And I start putting it into a little statue, right? To whom does that statue belong? Yeah. Because I really made it, right? But you could say, nevertheless, the material, the driftwood, I didn't make, right? But nevertheless, you say, I have a right to this because I'm the man who transformed it, right? Well, God not only gives things their form, but also their matter. So they belong to him entirely, right? So, I don't belong to myself, I belong to God. But you just argue from human thingings, right? If that statue belongs to me, even though I didn't make the matter, right? A fortiori, I belong to God because he made both my soul and my body, huh? Okay. So you see the order there of creator and lord of heaven and earth, right? He's the lord because he's the, what? Creator, yeah. Okay. And you say one true and living God, huh? Now, true doesn't mean so much as we're talking about today in book nine there, right? Okay. But you say God is one, well, that's going to be, in the Summa Theologiae, that's going to be, what? The fifth thing said of the substance, right? There's one God. And living doesn't come up until you talk about God having, what? Understanding and willing, right, huh? Okay, so. But notice, one refers to something we'd show in the treatise on the substance of God, right? Living, something we'd show in the treatise on the, what? Operations of God, right? Now, as we mentioned before, you have those two parts because you're knowing God from creatures, right? Even though we'll know in theology that God's substance and his operation are the same thing. But, not the same thought, unless. Why? Because we begin from the creature, right? And that's why I use that example. I think it's the simplest one to show it. Where, if you represent God by the center of the circle and creatures by the, what? Points on the circumference of the circle, right? Well, what's one in God is many creatures, right? But then, when you know God from creatures, you're going in the, what? From the right. Reverse order, yeah. And we can quote the great Heraclitus, right? Heraclitus is the way up and the way down are the same. Except you're going in different directions, right? And so, when creatures proceed from God, that's the way down. But when we go with our mind from creatures back to God, that's the way up, right? So, it's the same way, right? So, it's multiplicity at the end of this, right? What's multiple in the creatures is one in God. But if I'm knowing God from the creatures, I might say, well, God is the end of this line and he's also the end of this line. But the multiplicity is only in the creature, not in the end of those two lines because the end of those two lines is the same point. So, we have two thoughts when we start from creatures. But we say, we're the same in God, right? Okay? So, you have one on the substance of God and the other on the operation of God, huh? Because in you and me, our substance and operation are not the same. My substance and my understanding of the Tecumian theorem are not the same thing in me. And they weren't always together, either. The substance didn't always understand the Tecumian theorem, right? Okay? Now, as I say, one is the last thing Thomas shows in the substance of God. Okay? And living is something you see as a result of his understanding and what? Willing, huh? He's alive. Okay? He's almighty, huh? Okay? Now, eternal. Well, as I mentioned earlier, eternal will come up in the treatise of the Summa Theologiae after we show God is what? Unchangeable. Yeah. Unchangeable, right? Okay? Immeasurable is like what? Infinite. Incomprehensible, right? But since the divine substance and the divine operation are the same, the divine substance and the divine understanding, the divine will, are the same thing, if the substance is infinite, then the will and the will And the understanding infinite, huh? So in a way, in going from immeasurable, I think the Latin word is immensus. But mensuraris, forget the word to measure, huh? And some people say the word mind comes from that, right? Because the mind measures things, huh? Okay. So we use the word mens in Latin for mind, huh? It's going to be infinite in will and in understanding as well because they're the same thing. And every, what? Perfection, right? But perfection will be the second thing that Thomas will take up about the substance of God, right? In particular, as regards his distinction from the world, I don't know if that takes it exactly right. Since he is one singular, completely simple, and unchangeable spiritual, what? Substance, huh? Well, simple is the first thing you'll show about God after the existence of God, huh? God is altogether simple. And he'll, in the Summa Theologiae, he will have a separate article to negate each kind of composition of creatures, huh? And then finally you have an article, say, universally, there's no composition in God, right? It's completely simple and unchangeable, right? Well, that's another one of the five attributes of the substance of God in the Summa Theologiae, huh? And spiritual means what? Material. Immaterial, yeah. Now that's taken up in the simplicity of God. Okay. So is this as well-ordered as the Summa? What do you think? When Thomas is sometimes commenting on St. Paul, and St. Paul is giving immoral instruction, right, to this or that people, right? And he mentions certain virtues and maybe certain vices that he's criticizing in them and so on, right? And Thomas will say, well, is this a complete enumeration of the virtues or the vices, right? You know? And there's something ad hoc about St. Paul because he's writing an epistle to these people here and these people are lacking in these virtues or they're characterized by these vices. So his teaching is more perfect as far as what? Instructing this particular people, right? But it's not in terms of being a treatise in ethics as complete, right? As you might have in the Summa, okay? So there might be here something like that that they're emphasizing certain things that are, what, being neglected in contemporary thought or lack of thought and certain things that need to be emphasized, right? Okay. But maybe if you're going to just talk about the substance of God by itself apart from what the hell's going on in the so-called intellectual world or the economic world, right? Anything might be going on there, you know? But you might order these in a little, what, more logical way, right, then? Because here you're talking about his substance, right? And right before that you've been talking about his will and his understanding and so on, right, huh? Okay. So this is not divided, that the Summa will be divided into consideration the substance of God and the operation of God, right? Then you take up the Trinity, right? But you have to understand the operation of God if we can understand the Trinity. But you have to understand the substance of God before the operation. But that's in our way of knowing, yeah? Okay. But notice the emphasis here is upon his being, what, distinct from the world, huh? And as you mentioned in the opening address there, the, what, pantheism, right, the characteristic of the modern world, right? So, it's emphasizing that, right? Since he is one singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, they're mentioning all those together, because since he is all these things, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence distinct from the world, huh? Okay? But according to Tocqueville, right, he says, that's what you've got to watch out for in democratic customs, as far as religion is concerned, right? It's going to give people the idea of, what, pantheism. I suppose that's something to do with the idea, you know, of democracy, we're all equal, right? This idea of, you know, God's altogether distinct and completely in control is kind of, what, undemocratic, right? Okay? Tocqueville doesn't go in, you know, really into the reasons why, right? But he sees that this is the tendency of the democratic mind, huh? And as I say, you know, I always take the example of the students, you know, Star Wars, you know, the force will be with you and how you become a part of the dark side or the bright side, whatever it is, of the force after you die. But I said, this idea of the force, this pantheistic notion of God is not a result of much thought, but it's a thought that suggests itself because of democratic customs, huh? So it's kind of a good sign of this, huh? Because as I say, if you go through the Inconian symbol norm in the 19th century there, you see, Rome was always correcting him. It seems to be he's just a German theologian, you know, but even, you know, the Catholic faculty there who's fallen into this, huh? Okay? What's that word by, what was it, Siri, was that the cardinal that wrote the one, Gethsemane? And that's the one that was kind of pointing out these somewhat pantheistic sounding phrases in Kuhn and Rahner and so on, right, huh? So that's a tendency, right? So you have to watch out. And I mentioned how Einstein's idea of God was pantheistic, and he admits that, huh? You know, he refers back to Spinoza and so on, huh? And suddenly Hegel's notion of God is pantheistic. So that's a very dominant thing, right? So that may explain part of the order of this, right? That they're not considering God by himself. Let's just try to understand God, huh? But here we've got people running around with all these errors, right? And among these very prominent is what? Pantheism, right? So you want to emphasize, right? In that regard, Anaxagris is much wiser than Einstein, huh? Because he sees the greater mind as being, what, not mixed with things. And he gives that reason why the greater mind is not mixed with things, that it could not, what, rule over them if it was mixed up with them. But Einstein doesn't give any reason, so you kind of figure that's the custom, right? And perhaps the scientific customs lead in that same direction. And you have, in scientific customs, a synthesis upon equality, too. Because the equation is a common thing, huh? And so maybe that kind of disposes men a little bit for pantheistic ideas, too. But too, the democratic customs, too. Now, his beatitude does not depend upon the world, huh? He's supremely happy in himself and from himself, huh? You know, some of the people, you know, you'll find people saying, you know, well, he had to make the world, right? Because he was lonely or something, you know? Or, you know, he wanted to express himself or something. And they don't realize the, what Avicenna, you know, Thomas quotes Avicenna, the Arab philosopher. He says, God alone is liberal, right? Because, you know, the liberality, the virtual liberality is where you give, not in order to get a return, but just because it befits you to be generous, right? And so he says, God alone is liberal, right? In the full sense. Because he gets nothing out of this, huh? And even our praising him or thanking him, you know, is our good more than anything.