Prima Pars
Lecture 3: Two Roads to Knowledge of God: Revelation and Reason

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

you have to divide into two or three. In the Ten Commandments, we divide them into three and seven, right? As long as you see the tablets there, the three and the seven, right? But when you subdivide those seven, you divide into two or three. The ten categories of Aristotle, right? We divide them sometimes into two, substance and nine general accidents. Or Thomas Fiji divides it into what? Three, yeah? And he subdivides one, three, six. He subdivides six, one and five, the five, two and three, right? He's always dividing into two or three until he gets his what? Ten. Same if you take the seven parts of philosophy. Nobody can understand the division of seven. But basically there's what? Looking philosophy, practical philosophy, which are the two chief kinds of philosophy, and then the two, a logic. And practical philosophy is subdivided into ethics, domestics, politics. Looking philosophy, as you saw in the sixth book of wisdom, into natural philosophy, mathematics, wisdom, right? So you divide into three, and two of them are subdivided into what? Three, yeah. That's when we can understand these things by dividing it into two or three, right? Now another famous division of the seven is the seven sacraments, right? Well, you can't understand that. By one division, right? So you divide what? Five of them against two of them, right? There's five of them ordered to the good of the individual, right? And matrimony and orders are ordered to the good of others, and the good of the multitude, huh? That's a division into two, right? Then you divide the five into the three that go together, huh? Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, right? And the two repairing ones. Confession or penance, we don't call it. And the last one, man. You see? So you're always dividing into two or three, right? When Aristotle's dealing with the categories and he's talking about quality, I forget exactly what the four types of quality are, but he makes a division into four. Is that an exception or is there... Yeah, I could say it's an exception, yeah. That's why I say it's the rule for the most part. Although when he gets to the fifth book of wisdom, you'll see that he kind of withdraws power from that, right? Yeah, okay, but he's a different thing. But as I say, this is a good rule, right? So there's a real distinction here between what he's doing in the first chapter then, or what the Vatican I is doing in the first chapter, and what he's doing in chapters two, three, and four. Do you see? Okay. So let's look here now in the chapter of Revelation. What does the word Revelation mean? What would be the Latin for that? Well, I mean, it's got a more concrete origin, the word, though. The veil? The veil? Yeah, yeah, yeah. If there's a veil or a curtain between us, right? Yeah. Okay. And the curtain is being pulled back to some extent, right? But notice this revelation here is not a complete revelation because we don't fully see what is being revealed here yet, huh? And what is revealed here will not be fully revealed until we see God as he is, face to face, huh? Okay. So you could distinguish the revelation that is being spoken of here that corresponds to faith, right, from the revelation that will result when we see God as he is, face to face. So when Thomas, at the end, say, of the adorote, devotee, right, is the word, what? Jesu krem velatum, kaspicia, right? Well, he's veiled, huh? In the sense he doesn't see God as he is, face to face yet, right? And so that's going to be drawn back and then you'll see God as he is, face to face, huh? But there won't be another faith corresponding to that revelation. Faith will be succeeded by seeing God as he is, face to face, huh? And that won't be belief anymore, okay? So it's interesting that the word revelation has, in a sense, two meanings, right? And corresponding to one of them on our side is faith and on the other side is what? Yeah, the beatific vision, huh? Seeing God as he is, to use St. John's word, or like St. Paul says, seeing him face to face, huh? When you get later on to the definition of faith, you know, and the substance of things hoped for, right? The kind of foundation of the things you're going to, what, see, huh? Because you're believing what you're going to see later on, huh? It's an interesting thing in the life of St. Teresa of Avila, right? She appeared to one of her nuns after her death, right? And she says, you know, we're not two different situations, she said, you and I, huh? Because we're both, what, praising God, right, huh? But I'm praising God face to face, right? Seeing him as he is, and you're praising God kind of behind the veil. So, it's kind of interesting, you know, the continuity between the contemplative life, right, and the next life, huh? When our Lord says to Martha, you know, that Mary hath chosen the better part, right? I mean, the contemplative part as opposed to the practical one, and it shall not be taken away from her. What Thomas says, he says that second thing because the practical life comes to an end with this life. The contemplative life, continues the next life, but it's more perfect, right? Yeah. But in a way, there's a continuity there that when Teresa of Avila says to us, you're not, right? In a way, you know, if we're doing the same thing, you and I, we're both praising God, but the difference is that I'm praising him face to face, praising him behind the veil. You see? Okay. So notice, there's two senses of revelation, and, but not two faiths corresponding to them, right? Okay. That's interesting. So he begins here in the first part on Revelation here, the distinction of true roads leading to a knowledge of God. And this is a distinction that Thomas makes at the beginning of the, what, Summa Contra Gentiles. and one you might call the road of the natural light of human reason. First you have, now, as I mentioned before, now, the bold print there is the text, the other is my division, right? It's not in the text, right? So don't give it the authority that it has, right? Okay. I'm trying to do like Thomas does to lay out what the council is doing, right? So it first describes the road of the natural light of human reason. And first there's a description of this road by the council and then followed by the biblical statement of the same road, huh? The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches, huh? That God, the source and end of all things, notice that's looking back now to what we saw in the first chapter, right? The first chapter divided the beginnings about the things, right? Into God in himself mainly, right? God is the source or beginning of things and God is the end of all things, huh? It's exactly what Thomas does in the first three books of the Seminogenesis. God in himself, God is the creator, God is the end and providence for the end, right? Now the same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, the Alpha and the Omega, as he says in the Apocalypse, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, can be known with certainty, can be known with certainty, okay? That's very strong, right? From the consideration of created things by the natural power of what? Human reason, huh? So reasoning from his effects, right? Reasoning from created things, we could know with certitude, God, the source and end of all things, right? Thank you. So Thomas in the second question, the summa would do that, right? Now you'll notice when you get to Thomas there in the second question, I think there are three articles. And one article says, is about those who say, what? The existence of God is obvious, right? And Thomas rejects that, huh? And then there are others who say it's not obvious, but you can't prove it either. And he rejects that, right? And then the truth is in between those two extremes, huh? And that's exactly what the Church is teaching right here. The truth is in between two extremes. All my reports go with the modest truth, nor mourn or clipped, but so, as Shakespeare says, huh? Okay? They say more or less than the truth. They are villains and the sons of darkness, as Falstaff says. Okay? So to say that the existence of God is obvious, right? The census is saying more than the truth, huh? And saying that it's not obvious, but you can't even demonstrate it, is saying less than the truth, huh? Now you have a lot of people running around the Catholic colleges nowadays who say you can't prove it, right? Now that doesn't mean it's easy to prove it, right? Or that most people will be able to understand the proof, son. When I was in graduate school there, they kind of gave a course for the last year's students one time on the five ways, right? That Thomas has, huh? Which are not original with Thomas, and I go back to their office. And each of us had to work on one of the five ways, huh? And you could, for your paper, either take a modern philosophy discussing that proof, right? Or you could take a modern populist discussing one of those proofs, right? And everybody that we examined had failed to understand the proof he was discussing. I think I mentioned how I did mine on Descartes because I was writing my doctoral thesis on a comparison verse down Descartes. So I was kind of familiar with Descartes, right? And Descartes, if I remember rightly now, had misunderstood the major premise and the minor premise of the argument he was discussing. So Descartes, you know, said, I think it was giving us a little lesson as to the difficulty of the proofs, huh? And Descartes said, now I think I can demonstrate these in the sense of God, but I would not be so presumptuous as to say so. And he says, you know, I believe there's a God more from what my mother taught me than from his understanding of the proofs. But he's kind of trying to emphasize upon us, or impress upon us, the difficulty of these proofs, you know? I mean, sometimes you have this naivety in Catholic colleges sometimes, you know, you get a freshman, you give the proofs, and I can go out and convince the whole world, right? And he doesn't really understand the proofs yet. And, but, despite all the difficulty of understanding the proofs, you've got to be clear that, what, the Church is maintaining now, and this is an article of faith now, that you can prove the systems of God with certitude from created things, huh? And some people in Catholic colleges nowadays, more opposite, the other extreme error, right? That you can't, right? Okay? Or it hasn't been done, huh? Okay? And the council follows this teaching with a biblical statement of the same road from the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. This is the famous text, chapter 1, verse 20. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, huh? So St. Paul is teaching there already, what the Church is teaching here. Okay, now the second road is the road of what? Revelation, okay? And first of all, there's a description of this road by the council, and then it's followed again by a biblical statement of the same road, huh? It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness, huh? Now, we'll see some of that wisdom in part two, and get the reasons for the two roads, eh? Okay? But his goodness, huh? In taking account of our weakness and so on. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a, what? Supernatural way, right? When super means, what? Above, huh? Okay? Then you have the biblical statement of the same road. This is how the apostle puts it. And notice how they call St. Paul there the, what? Oh, superior. Yeah. And I guess if you go through the New Testament carefully, you'll see that Peter and Paul are called apostles, and the others not. You see, when they write their letters and so on, huh? And Thomas will say they are the apostles by Antonio Masia, that figure of speech we spoke about before. And I notice how John and Paul II often called them the princes, princesses of the apostles, huh? Okay? And you know the famous feast there we have in the summer there, right? Feast of Peter and Paul, right? So he's called the apostle. Thomas will often refer to him as the apostle, just like he refers to Aristotle as the philosopher. This is how the apostle puts it. In many and various ways, God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets. But in these last days, he's spoken to us by his son, right? Or by his son, huh? Okay. The epistle of Hebrews is about the son, Christ on the origin of grace. So you have these two roads, right? Okay, now the two reasons why revelation is necessary and their difference. This is the second part of this. Now, Thomas himself will talk about how the supernatural road is necessary. Even for those things that our reason can know by itself, right? By its natural powers. And following this, the council teaches the same thing here. It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can even in the present state of the human race be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude, and with no intermingling of error, right? Okay. So, as Thomas will explain this, a little more headling, if we only had this natural road, first of all, there'd be very few men who would, what, follow that road down to knowing that God exists. Some men would be excluded just because they're not intelligent enough to follow this road. But even those who are intelligent enough, for the most part, are taken up with other things, right? The necessities of life, huh? So they don't have the time to do it, right? And even those who might have the ability and the time, well, let's go through all this. So, very few, right, men would ever come to know these things. And even those few who could, would take most of their life before they arrived at the goal. And yet a man has to know about these things to direct his whole life, huh? So you can see the need, right, for this. Now, the second part of this, part two here, is why this revelation is necessary absolutely, right? Okay? Now, Aristotle, in the chapter, in the fifth book of Wisdom, in the chapter on Necessary, he distinguishes four different meanings of the word necessary, huh? Okay? And they're connected with different kinds of cause, right? And two of them are connected with the cause called the end, okay? One of them is connected with the cause called the mover, and one is connected with the intrinsic cause, huh? Okay? So if I say, for example, that two, it's necessary that two be what? Half of four, right? Okay? Well, that's due to what two is, right? Yeah, contingent came, okay? When the tusami came, or when the Katrina came and so on, right? Maybe you had to move, right? Yes. Well, that's because what? The water was more what? Powerful, right, huh? Okay? So the wind, let's say, or the wind, the wave, the way it is, huh? Blue, right? Okay? They couldn't resist it, right, huh? That's the mover, right? Okay? Then he speaks regarding to the end of two kinds of necessity, right? One is that without which the end cannot be, what? Attained. Attained at all, okay? So is it necessary to breathe? Yeah. But not in this sense here, because sometimes a person fails in his breathing, right? Okay? But if you're going to live, then you must breathe, right? If you're going to live, then you must what? Eat, right? Okay? But then he gets another sense of what is necessary to achieve the end well, okay? Okay? So is logic necessary to philosophize? Or you might say to philosophize well, right? But men can philosophize without logic, right? In fact, logic was the last part of philosophy to be, what? Worked on, right? Okay? So men were philosophizing before logic was found, but they were making a lot of mistakes that they wouldn't make after they learned logic, right? So Thomas gives the example, like, a horse is necessary for a journey, right? Well, you can go without the horse, it's going to take a long time to get there, right? You can't get there well, right? Okay? So you need a car, right? A car is necessary. Okay? Well, not in a sense that it's impossible to get someone without a car, but you can't get to a lot of places easily or well without a car, right? Okay? So, when the council speaks here of necessary absolutely, they're thinking of an end that cannot be but achieved without revelation, right? But we were talking before that revelation is necessary even for those things, right? That reason can naturally come to know. You can say, well, we couldn't attain those things well, right? Without revelation, because very few of us never attain it. And even those who did attain it, it would take them most of their life to get there. And they'd probably make a lot of mistakes on the way, too, and so on, right? So revelation is necessary to get well to those things that we could know naturally, right? But then for those things like the Trinity and things of that sort, natural reason couldn't get there at all, right? So revelation is necessary for those things, right? You'll see Thomas in the beginning of the Summa there, the first article in the Summa Theologia would be whether, besides philosophy, some other teaching, you know, is necessary, right? And he'll make that distinction, right? It's maybe even more fully in the Summa Concentiva and stuff. He'll make that distinction there. It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary. But the reason why it's absolutely necessary is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, right? That is a sharing of the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind, and its natural powers. And then it requires a biblical statement of the same, from St. Paul's Epistle of the Corinthians. Indeed, eye is not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts, into our minds even. To conceive what things God has prepared for those who love Him, right? So if we're going to work towards an end that our natural reason can't know, right? That's got to be revealed to us, huh? Absolutely necessary. But as the great Heraclitus said, the things that can be seen and heard and learned are what I prize the most. But he has only, you know, experience of our natural knowledge, right? Okay? Because these have not been seen or heard, nor even conceived of, right? By our natural powers, huh? Okay? So you see what he's saying here, huh? You know, sometime maybe we'll have a chance to do that chapter on the necessary in the fifth book of wisdom, right? But Aristotle gives the chapter on necessary, it's attached to the chapters on the causes, right? And that's because the different senses of necessary are connected with the different senses of cause, huh? And the two senses of necessary that come in here, right, are these two senses that are referenced to the end, huh? That without which the end cannot be reached at all. And that without which the end cannot be reached, what? Well. Well, right. You see? So you might say, you know, you need a college education nowadays, huh? You need to go to college, do you? Can't live unless you go to college? Mm. No, but presumably you can't live well in this society unless you've been to, what? College. It's necessary to live well, right? Whatever this society considers living well, right? Okay? You see? But breathing and eating are absolutely necessary. You can't live without breathing and what? Okay? Aristotle says when he talks about wisdom, you know, every other knowledge is more necessary. But none is, what? Better, right? Okay. Is Mozart necessary? Yeah, well. To hear well is necessary, yeah. Okay? Is wine necessary at the meal? Yeah. When the French say, you know, a meal without wine is like a day without sunshine. Okay? But is sunshine absolutely necessary for there to be a day? No, it can be a cloudy year, you know? It's still, even on a cloudy day, it's still light because of the sun. Yeah, yeah. But, you see, but, okay. But some things are necessary for something to be, some for it to be well, right? Okay? So when I talk about logic, I would say, what? Is logic necessary for philosophy? I wanted to see what sense is necessary, right? Okay? Necessary to do philosophy well, right? You can do philosophy in some way or other. Without it, it's not going to be done well. So it's necessary in that sense, huh? It's not necessary in the way that eating and breathing is necessary for life. Do you see? Can you review the one for the mover? What? Can you review the understanding of the connection of the necessary connected to the mover? Well, the expectation of aristocracy is there is that the mover is so powerful it can't be assisted, right? Can't be assisted, yeah. Yeah, yeah, okay? So if they throw a rope around you and they pull you and you can't, that's not enough to exist. You've got to go, right? You know? But I mean, I'll take an example there. It's too sound or something, right? It's too sound or something, right? It's too sound or something. Yeah. That's from the mover, right? The maker. But these two senses are necessary here from the end. But the first sense is necessary. It's necessary for knowing those things which reason as such can know. That's for the, what? For knowing such things well, right? Because it wouldn't be, these things would be known well if hardly anybody knew them. And those people only did their life. And a lot of maybe mistakes. And so on, right? They're thinking about these things, right? Okay. So notice you're seeing a necessity of belief even in regard to those things that reason here can naturally know about God, right? You have to realize the great weakness of the human mind, right? And the fact, as Aristotle says in the Cranium to Wisdom, that the human mind is in many ways enslaved, right? To the needs of our body, the needs of our house, the needs of our car, right? Okay. And maybe most people, sometimes people might spend their whole life trying to get enough food or enough clothing or whatever it is, right? And maybe some days they go hungry, right? So, it would be very rare that someone would get to a knowledge of God that reason was capable of. And even those people would be spending most of their life before they got to this. And maybe along the way they make some mistakes in thinking about God, right? They're likely to make mistakes, huh? Okay? So, certainly you can't attain those things well without revelation, huh? Okay? But for those things that our natural reason cannot arrive at, right? Then faith is absolutely necessary, right? Because you can't direct yourself to them at all without... Do you see the idea? Okay? But you'll find that we use those two senses of necessary in daily life, right? You know, sometimes we say something is necessary and we mean one of these senses, sometimes the other sense, right? Okay? Money is necessary to live, right? People will say that, right? Absolutely. That's why I'm in poverty. That's why I'm in poverty. I mean, Robinson Crusoe is living there without money on the island there, right? Okay. Now, in part three, he goes to the two sources of what? Revelation, right? This is a common thing picked up in Vatican II and so on. Now, this supernatural revelation, this supernatural unveiling, right, huh? According to the belief of the Universal Church, as declared by the Sacred Council of Trent, right? Which is the Ecumenical Council, the last one at the time of Vatican I, right? Is contained in written books, that's Sacred Scripture, and on written, what? Traditions, right? Which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as they were from hand to hand until they, what? Reached us, huh? So not everything we believe, or is supernaturally revealed, is through the, what? Sacred Scriptures, huh? Okay. Some of them are passed down by tradition. Okay. Then he goes down to a particular consideration of one of these two, Sacred Scripture, and refers us back to the Consul Trent, I guess. The complete books of the Old and the New Testament, which, with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said consul, that's the Consul Trent, right? And as they are found in the Old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and, what? Canonical, right? I think Pius XII there, when they said that the Vulgate is free of error, right, they meant free of doctrinal error, right? They don't mean that in every case the translation was the best possible translation of the text, right? But that the use of the Vulgate by the Church Fathers, etc., and the doctors, the Church, showed there was free of doctrinal error, right? There wasn't anybody astray by translating the text in heretical fashion, right? But it doesn't mean you couldn't sometimes, you know, improve a translation or a word there or something like that. I was reading St. Paul this morning, and I think the Greek was Philadelphia. And it's one word in Greek, right? And then, in Latin, they had it the charity of brotherhood. Well, it's the same meaning, you know, but in Greek it's one word, right? Philadelphia, we get the word Adelphos and brotherly love. They translated a couple words, you know? So I had to do so. I noticed a number of places like they were doing that. One of my editions has the Latin on one side, and the Greek on another side. Now, why the Church considers them as sacred and canonical. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them by her authority, after they had been composed by unaided human skill, or simply because they contain revelation without error, but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and we're as such committed to the Church. So it's teaching there that the Holy Spirit is the, what, chief author, right? And the human authors are, as it were, instruments, right? Which doesn't deny there's something of the instrument in the way that they speak, right? Some of the, or in Hebrew and some in Greek, right? Okay. I want to take a little break here before we, kind of running through. So let's look at the last paragraph here now in the second chapter. To whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of sacred scripture. Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows, that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of a Christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, who are indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. And I don't know if that's followed by all contemporary scriptural scholars, by any means. Okay. Let's look at the canons here now. And they're anathemas. The first canon. If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made by the natural light of human reason, let him be anathema. So it's now an article of faith that God can be known from His effects, from creatures, with certitude, by human reason. Which doesn't mean that it's easy, or that most people, whoever gets to that stage, right? But it is, what? An article of faith that it is possible to know Him, right? With certitude from creatures. But now, if anyone says that it is impossible or not expedient that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown them, that can be anathema, right? And of course, that could apply even to those things that, what? Can be known by natural reason, right? Because so few would know them and after so much time and there's such a mixture of error and so on. Okay. So you want to avoid the heresy of denying that it can be known by natural reason, right? But at the same time, not be ignorant of how, what, difficult it is, right? And the need for divine revelation because of the few that would know it in just a long time and with so much error. And I'm always reminding of those words of Augustine there in the Treatise of the Trinity and he speaks of those with an immature and perverse love of reason, right? And perverse love of reason, I think, is not loving reason for the right end or goal, right? But I think immature, right? People who think that, you know, their reason is free to, what, judge all things, right? And not aware of all the aids and help that reason needs because it's so apt to make mistakes. I told you I had a sabbatical one time which I was devoting to mistakes and the causes of mistakes, you know, and so on. When you kind of see the whole thing kind of laid out there, you know, you realize that, gee whiz, we're going to be falling into mistakes any more, you know? It reminds me of this guy, you know, I went to a psychiatrist and he was saying after you study all these mental ailments, you know, everybody around you seems to be, you know, right on the edge, you know? Everybody looks very unstable, you know? I don't know if that's true, but maybe it's true for most of us are close. But as far as making mistakes, it's so close. And of course, if you're a logician, right? I used to put on the four forms of if-then speech, right? Two of which are syllogism and the two are not. I used to begin that part of logic getting four students up to the board, you know, to each one's. And sometimes you get a perfect example because the ones who had the valid ones thought they were invalid, and the ones who had the invalid ones thought they were valid. So it's four mistakes right in front of you, spontaneously, you know, from four students taken up on the front rows or whatever they were. How apt the human mind is to make mistakes, right? Now, I was mentioning, you know, how I taught the students the four senses of before, right? And talking about the mistake for mixing up the senses of the word, and I said, now, later on in the course you'll all make the mistake of mixing up these senses of before. And sure enough, they do. But they ask them, you know, which is better, to breathe or to philosophize? And they all say, to breathe is better than to philosophize. But then you ask them why, it's because to breathe is before philosophizing in the second sense of before. And they're concluding, therefore, it's before in the fourth sense. So they're mixing up the second and the fourth sense. I told you you'd do it. So even after they've been instructed as to what the meanings are, and told, you know. I remember sometimes, you know, saying to students, now, you get the point? Oh, yeah, okay. I say, now, on the final exam, I will ask this, and somebody will be mistaken about it again. Oh, no, no, no, now you see it. Now you see it. Sure enough, somebody will be mistaken and get the things mixed up. You realize how half the human mind is to what? To fail, it's a mistake. Even about things that are, you know, closer than this. People just lack common sense. They lack any experience of the weakness of the human mind. Now, the third one is referring now more to the supernatural knowledge itself. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development, let him be anathema, right? Again, he's touching upon that immature and perverse love of reason, huh? Reason is self-sufficient, right? To reach all these things. But also, you know, the thought that you can't be raised above, right? And then in particular, about one part of revelation there found in the scriptures. If anyone does not receive the sacred and canonical, the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the Holy Council of Trent listed them, and I suppose one reason why the Council of Trent listed them was because Luther and others had tried to exclude certain of the books, or denies that they were divinely inspired, let him be anathema, And revelation is on the side of what? God, the Holy Spirit, right? Now the next chapter is on our reception of this on the side of us, on faith. The first little part is the two reasons why we are obligated to have faith in God revealing. Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and Lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer, full submission of intellect and will by faith. How's the other wrote the photo began? Other wrote the wrote the latins deitas que subis viguris veritas que te revelans totid fecit. Okay? But I think heart there can include both the reason and the will, right? In other words, God exceeds the ability of our reason and our will, so we have to subordinate it to him, huh? But, you know, people talk so much about their body belonging to them and so on nowadays, but really, to whom do you belong, really? Well, I mean, to argue from things that we know, we've got laws about