Prima Pars
Lecture 4: Faith as Foundation: Definition, Necessity, and the Church's Role

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

You know, if I write a book or an article, I guess I shouldn't write to that book or it's mine. It belongs to me, right? And you can't, you know, reproduce that book without, you know, my permission or something like that. It belongs to me, right? But what I write, you know, is partly from my teachers and partly from what everybody knows and so on. It's not all mine, really. But I claim to have it all mine, right? But I mean, God, it's everything, right? So don't we belong more to God than that book belongs to me? Well, the state tells you what you can do with your body. You can't take certain drugs. You can't do certain things. Really, if you stop and think, your mind and your will really belong to God, not to you. So they belong to you in some sense. They belong more to him than to you. So I don't belong to myself. It's kind of a starting discovery. I suppose I belong somewhat to my wife, right? And to some extent, your children belong to you, right? Okay. But I belong more to God than to my wife. And my children belong more to God than to me, right? It's in some sense which you can speak of belonging and human affairs. So if you don't accept that dependence, like Karl Marx says, you know, Karl Marx admits that, right? That if someone else is a source of my being, right? He owed him my life and everything, then I'm completely dependent upon him, right? And so what Karl Marx tries to do is try to say that man has made himself, right? And that man, by transforming the world around him, you know, transforms himself. And therefore, if I made myself, I don't have to ask who made me. I made myself. But at least he's admitting, you know, that if I was made by God, right, that I would be completely dependent upon him. At least he has that clarity, right? I said, but these people, you know, I mentioned how Sartre, you know, says, you know, that we're not atheistic in the sense that we, you know, exhaust ourselves by trying to prove he didn't exist, but we're atheistic in the sense that it doesn't make a difference to us whether he does or doesn't, you know? Well, that seems to me, you know, pride, you know. Okay, now it comes to the very nature of faith, huh? Okay, the definition of faith, huh? And first of all, you have the statement of the definition by the Council itself. Now, this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, notice we were talking earlier in the board we had on here, talking about the importance of the beginning, right? Nothing is more necessary. So to lose the faith, in some sense, is worse than to lose, what, hope or charity. Because it can be to some extent, although imperfect, without them, but they can't be without it at all. So if you lose faith, you lose everything. So faith is the beginning of human salvation, huh? The Catholic Church professes it to be a, what, supernatural virtue, huh? So it's equality, right? Different species of equality, habit or disposition. By means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, huh? But because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation, and can neither deceive nor be deceived, huh? So it's different than in believing a human teacher who can both deceive and be deceived, huh? And then he goes to, like in other places we've seen, the biblical statement, the definition, huh? And when Thomas takes up the definition of faith, he'll go to the same text there in the epistle to the Hebrews, huh? And I would check, you know, English translations of the Bible. I'd always go to this definition there and see how they translated that. And some of them, you know, translated it as the evidence of what is not seen, you know, which is kind of like a contradiction almost in words, you know. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And some days they'll translate substance as assurance of things hoped for. Well, that's not exactly the way of translating it, huh? Substance is more the sense of a foundation, huh? Mm-hmm. Okay. For faith is the apostle. And again, that's how he's referred to by Antonia Messia there, right? Rather than St. Paul, he's called the apostle, huh? Apostle of the Gentiles. Faith is, as the apostle testifies, the substance of things hoped for. And now argumentum is the, what, way the Latins translate the Greek word, it's actually a lenkos, huh? And it's kind of striking at first when you see that, because a lenkos means refutation. Originally, in the Greek philosophy, but at least in Aristotle, the book on sister refutations, a lenkos. But I think it's a sense more of what, the conviction, okay, of what is not seen, right? That you're convinced by what is, to assent to what is not seen, huh? That's the meaning of it, huh? It's not argument in the sense of a argument, huh? Faith declares the apostle as the substance of things hoped for. It's kind of a foundation of things hoped for, right? And what's hoped for is the beatific, what, vision, right, huh? Eternal life, huh? When Thomas sometimes is going to divide the articles of faith according to the, what, humanity and the divinity of Christ, huh? He'll go and quote the definition of eternal life in the 17th chapter, I think it is, of St. John's Gospel, where Christ says eternal life is to know, what, you, right? And him will you have sent, right? And so that's one way of saying that it's good to know the divinity of Christ and the humanity of Christ. And then he divides articles of faith, either six or seven articles on the divinity and six articles on the, what, humanity, right? Okay. Sometimes he dies into seven, sometimes into six, huh? So you have the incarnation, the death of our Lord, right, descendant to hell, resurrection, ascension, second coming, those six. And then there's six ways to divide according to the divinity. There's a couple ways of doing it, okay? So, you see, it's the substance of things hoped for. It's kind of like a foundation, right? Now, we were talking before how there's two revelations, right? There's a revelation that corresponds to faith, right, which is not a complete revelation because you don't see God as he is, right? You don't see him face to face, huh? But what you hope for is to see him face to face, right? But this partial revelation that we accept by faith, which corresponds to faith, is in a way a foundation for what we're going to see later on face to face, huh? And so if eternal life is to see him as he is and him who he has sent, then faith is believing both of those, right? But not really seeing them fully, huh? That's why I said the substance of things hoped for, right? But also, when he says hoped for, you have a reference to what? The will, right? And the will is going to move us to our ascent here, huh? Okay? Although the virtue in reason itself helps reason to what? Follow the movement of the will. But the will is moved by divine grace, huh? Then moves reason to ascent to these things, huh? But it's more sweet for reason to ascent to it, because it's got the gift of what? Faith, huh? Okay? But it's... The ascent of faith is meritorious, right? Because the ascent is free, huh? Okay? Reason is not forced to ascent, huh? But it's moved by the will, which is moved by divine grace to ascent. to it. Now, the reasonable service of faith, the service of faith is reasonable. Now, first thing it says, why God joins external signs of his revelation to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit. Well, it's in our view that this might not be contrary to reason, right? It might be in harmony with reason, because grace shouldn't go against nature, but elevate it, huh? So, supernatural, above the natural, doesn't mean against the natural. Super doesn't mean contra. Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason. It was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit, external indications of his revelation. That is to say, divine acts, huh? And first and foremost, miracles and what? Prophecies, right? Which clearly demonstrating, as they do, the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, huh? I suppose the miracle is more the omnipotence, right? And prophecies, huh? Future contingent things that reveal the infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation, and are suited to the understanding of all, because they're more, what, sensible signs, right? I was mentioning, you know, how that great Hilary of Poitiers, right? Coming in as a Greek philosopher, right? And picking up the Bible, you know, and seeing, what? Moses asking God, who shall I say sent me, you know? What's your name? And God says, I am who am, right? That's a mode of credibility, right? This impressed healer, right? But the average guy wouldn't maybe see this so well, right? Okay? So since the basic road is the road from the senses into reason, right? These miracles that can be sensed, right? Or these prophecies that are fulfilled in time by something that can be sensed, right? Would be what? For most men, right? That's why I think it says, and suited to the understanding of all, right? So there are many modes of credibility that might strike the philosopher, but not the everyman, right? But these ones, very much so, right? So then it goes down to the presence of such signs in Moses and the prophets and in Christ and the apostles, huh? Hence, Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ our Lord himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies. While the apostles we read, it's at the end of the Gospel of what? Mark. And they went forth and preached everywhere while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended them, huh? Okay. Again, it is written, we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place. That's one of the epistles of Peter, huh? Our author here didn't see that, I don't think. Okay. So the church says it's not a, what? Cheikus sensus, right? A blind descent, huh? Okay. But nevertheless, it is a, what? Free, huh? Okay. So you have the internal age of the Holy Spirit and they are, what? Partly in reason itself, right? Because faith is a habit to us, right? A habit, huh? A disposition of the reason itself, huh? And by it, one is disposed to follow the lead of the will, right? But the will is also assisted by divine grace to move the reason to ascend to the particles of faith, right? So you have both in the will and in the reason itself, internal aids to believing, right? Okay. But then you have these external helps, right? Which are the miracles and the prophecies fulfilled, right? Okay. So it goes on to say now that although the ascent of faith faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind, right? It's not a cheikus sensus. Yet it's not sufficient, right? Those exterior signs, huh? Okay. Yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without both the inspiration, right? And that's more in the will, I suppose, huh? And the illumination, which is more in the reason, of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing in the truth, huh? And Fr. Boulay, when he was talking about these things there at the vault, he used to take the example, you know, from Carter Newman, right? And how before his conversion, he found certain things difficult to believe, that the Roman Catholic Church taught. But after his conversion, all of a sudden became easier for him to accept? Yeah. But that's a facility in accepting and believing the truth that the Spirit gives you, right? And so faith in itself, even though it may not work through charity, huh? Okay. This is what we call unformed faith, right? Huh? Is nevertheless a gift of God, right? Huh? And separation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God himself, when he accepts and collaborates with his grace, which he could have rejected as though a free act. Now, what, part three here, what thing should be believed by faith? Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things are to be believed, which are contained in the Word of God, as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church's matters to be believed as divinely revealed. And I mix the distinction here, which some people don't want to make. Whether or by her solemn judgment, right? When he's proceeding or declaring ex cathedra, right? So if you read, you know, ones I'm more familiar with, the recent ones, like the Assumption, right? And Pius XII or the American Conception, right? You know, it's very clear, you know, that whoever doesn't accept this, is suffered, what? Shipwrecked. Shipwrecked of faith, huh? Okay. But also in your ordinary universal magisterium, right? So the Church has continuously taught something, right? You know, without saying, you know, that's also something to be, what? Believed, huh? Okay. And that's often neglected nowadays, huh? Okay. Back to the paragraph before, what was your comment about charity? That is a little crazy, even though it may not work through charity. Yeah. There is what they call unformed faith, right? Oh, yeah. Okay. Faith that is not formed by charity, huh? Even that unformed faith is a gift of God, right? Oh, okay. And something retained to the supernatural order, huh? Okay? But then when it's formed by faith, it's more perfect, huh? Okay? What St. Paul says, you know, charity believes all, hopes all, right? But that's a more perfect faith, huh? It's been formed by charity, huh? Okay? You know, there's a lot of problem there, you know, that's where Luther got off, right? Because he doesn't see the distinction, right? And the faith that saves is the faith that is formed by charity, huh? And, you know, Thomas, you know, will be very precise there when he gets into what it is to believe God, to believe in God, right? And the phrase to believe in God means, what, to tend by faith to God, and that's a faith that is, what, formed by charity, huh? When Thomas talks sometimes about the three virtues, the theological virtues, and which is great. And of course, St. Paul is very clear that charity is the greatest in the three, right? Which is greater, hope or faith, right? Well, I think you could answer that hope is greater, right? When Thomas distinguishes the three, he says, by faith we know the end in some way, right? That's why it's necessary, right? Because we're directed to an end that surpasses the grasp of our reason, right? So we have to know about this end in some way in order to what? Pursue it, right? So by faith we know the end, by what? Hope we tend towards the end, right? And by charity, in a way, we are what? Yeah, we're united to the end, right? So it's obviously good to know the end, but better to tend towards it, and even better to be what? United with it, right? You know, I used to sometimes, you know, contrast St. Therese of Lisieux with Augustine a little bit, you know, for the male-female difference. But there's a beautiful passage there, at the end of our life there, in St. Therese of Lisieux, where she says, I don't know what more I can have in heaven than I have now. She says, because our union, she says, is already complete. And I say, I can't imagine Augustine saying that, you know, because Augustine says, the vision is the whole reward, right? What more can I have? I'm sure she knows this too, but, I mean, as far as what? The union of charity, it's already complete, you know? It's kind of an amazing thing she says that. But that's why charity will remain in the next life, right? Maybe to be even more perfect, but charity will remain. But faith and hope will be replaced by the vision of him as he is and by the firmness of that, huh? So faith and hope have something imperfect about them, right? But charity, you're already tending towards God, right? And Fagbouleh used to be very good about that too, you know? Going back to the difference that Eunar Stahl pointed out between reason and will, right? That the good is in things, right? Right, truth is primarily in the mind, huh? So the will moves towards God as he is in himself, right? But reason doesn't yet attain God as he is in himself by faith, huh? It's not until we take vision that you'll see God as he is. And then your love of him will be even greater, right? But already in this life, if we really have charity, we love God as he is. We don't see him as he is yet. So in some way, you could say that the will is more proportioned to God than reason is, huh? And therefore, it's part of the reason why God moves the reason through the will in this life, huh? The reason is moved by the will to assent to these things, huh? But that shows, in a sense, what? That the will is more proportioned to God than reason, huh? And I started to go back to that simple example there that everybody knows of Augustine who's supposed to have been walking along the seashore trying to understand the Trinity, right? And he sees this little boy who's running down to the ocean and getting some water and putting him in a little hole he's dug in the ground. And Augustine says, what are you doing? He's distracted by this boy. He says, well, I'm putting the ocean into this hole. You can't get the ocean into that hole, you know? And the little boy says, well, you think, can you get the Trinity into your mind? And then the boy's supposed to have disappeared, right? You know, like this thing. Well, in a sense, you can't put the ocean into yourself very well, but you can jump into the ocean, right? Okay? And that's the way love goes. It goes into the thing loved, right? I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Okay? And Christ says, where your treasure is, there your heart shall be, right? So, the will is able to go into God as he is in himself, then you are able to put God into your mind, huh? So, because the will is more proportioned to God, that's one of the reasons why God moves the reason through the will in the act of faith, huh? Okay? Now, the very important thing here, and this is something people don't like to point out sometimes today. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, huh? This is from St. Paul, there in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters. It follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it. Neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the, what, end. That's very strong, yeah? Now, you know, Thomas, when he's asking, where the theology is a science there, right, in the beginning of the Summa, and there's this famous quote from Augustine, you know, that theology is a science by which faith is engendered, right? Nourished, strengthened, and defended, and so on. But there you see how theology is, what, in a sense, subordinated to faith, right? It's there to engender faith in other people and in those who already have it, to nourish it and defend it and so on against these attacks that are made upon us sometimes. But it's really for the sake of faith, huh? Okay. We better stop. What? We better stop for today. Okay, okay. So we'll start there at the bottom of page 10, I guess. We'll start there at the bottom of page 10, I guess. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. First, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightened, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, ordinal luminary images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, pray for us. And help us to understand what you're written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. I was thinking, you know, just about how the word revelation, we said, has two meanings. And one is revelation that corresponds to, on our side, faith, right? And then the second one is the full revelation, which corresponds on our part to the Pacific vision, seeing God as He is, face to face. That's a fuller revelation now, because then you're seeing God as He is, right? But it reminds me a little bit of how Thomas Aquinas, in those communion prayers, will speak of convivium. Like, for the Eucharist, he'll say, o sacrum convivium, right? O sacred banquet, huh? And then when he talks about the Pacific vision, he's asking for that, say, at the prayer, after communion, he says, oh, in a fabulae convivium, huh? Inexpressible, huh? Unspeakable. Banquet, huh? Well, the idea of the banquet is, it's a metaphor, right? The banquet is supposed to be a meal that has everything, right? You know, I don't know if you've been to some of these buffets, you know, or brunches, you know, where it's a breakfast and a dinner together, huh? I remember one time taking my mother to when we were teaching out in California, and I'm going down this line, and all the different table-to-table things, you know, and I'm like, and then I looked over on the other side. The real good stuff was on the other side. So I'm back, and you're after that in those days. I've got two plates, you know, and guys that tend to spread to help me, you know, carry my plates back. I used to know a guy at the package store who would go to these brunches, and of course, you'd go there, and you'd spend two or three hours there, right? You'd eat your breakfast, you know, and you've got to eat your dinner in the same sitting. But, you know, St. Thomas explains sometimes the words of God, you know, to Abraham or Moses, says, I will show you every good, and Thomas says, that is myself. So the banquet's kind of a metaphor for every good, huh? And so, but it's interesting that Thomas uses that same metaphor, huh? For the Eucharist, we call it Os Sacrum Convivium, but then at the end of that thing from the Liturgy, I guess it is, he'll say that it's the pignus, the pledge of eternal life, right? So it's kind of an anticipation of it, huh? Okay? And then he'll use the word Convivium again in the prayer after communion, he's asking for the beatific vision. And then he calls it the ineffable banquet, huh? There's that interesting psalm there, I think it's Psalm 62 in the correct numbering, where the soul is said to be at a banquet, huh? And you can understand that as referring to the Eucharist, huh? Or you can understand it as referring to the banquet of eternal life. But the two go together, huh? Because one is, in a sense, a foretaste of the other. In a way, that's in the definition, then, of faith, huh? That's the substance of things hoped for, right? Substance has a sense there of, what? Substare, to stand under, huh? The Greek word is etymologically the same, it's hypostasis there, not usia. But hypostasis has the same etymology, it's substantia, subunder, standa. So it's like a foundation of the things hoped for. What's hoped for is eternal life. Eternal life is to know him and him whom he was sent, right? To know God as he is. And so sometimes, Thomas will go back to that, as we mentioned last time, to divide the articles of faith, huh? Okay? Like in the Adorote Devote, right? He'll say, In cruce lati abat soleditas, on the cross, is hidden only the divinity. But here, also the humanity is hidden. But he's believing both, and then he asks for what the penitent thief asked for. So kind of you're asking for eternal life, but this is like a foretaste of eternal life. And so you divide, sometimes, the articles of faith by the same, what? Two things that Christ has in the definition in St. John, eternal life. Eternal life is to know you, you know, God, and him whom you have sent, huh? To know, in a sense, the divinity and the humanity of Christ. So, that's also in the definition of what? Of faith, huh? So you look at these three things. The two meanings of revelation, right? Or the two uses of the metaphor convivium, right? And then the definition of faith as a substance of things hoped for. The conviction of what is not seen, huh? But there's a reference back to the will there when you say the substance of things hoped for. Because hope is in the will, right? And you want to bring out that the ascent of reason to what it doesn't see is due to its being moved by the will to ascent, huh? Although it's also helped by the internal gift of faith, huh? And it's also helped by these external signs. Can we just, I think, look last time at part four there, necessity of faith for salvation? On the bottom of page 10, I guess where you were. And that's a very strong thing. Since then, without faith, it is impossible to, what? Please God. And reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters. It follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it. Neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the, what? End, huh? And Thomas sometimes, when he talks about that, we'll say, even in terms of learning a human science from a human teacher, right? You need, what? A kind of human belief in this teacher, huh? And you won't achieve wisdom without that human belief first. And so God is not doing violence to our nature when, for the highest of all, right, he requires this belief before he gives us the full knowledge, huh? But as I was mentioning last time, as you go from the lowest up towards the highest of the philosophical sciences, even, the dependence upon the teacher becomes greater, right? And I mentioned, too, how the word mathematics, which is most proportioned to our mind, is named from the student. But theology is sometimes given the name Sacra Doctrina, or Doctrina Christianites, Augustine's, titleless work. But you're naming it from the teacher, Doctrina, as opposed to mathematics. It's kind of like the two opposite, what, extremes, huh? And so your dependency of belief becomes even greater as you go up to the higher things. Now, part five here was the necessity, right, of the church for faith, huh? And first of all, is this two-fold necessity of the church for faith, huh? Again, I remind you that the thick black thing is the official text. The other is just that nitwit or dimwit commentator, right? Dividing the text a bit, huh? Okay. But that's important. I mentioned how before the great wise men of Greece, the seven wise men put up at the Oracle of Delphi, know thyself, right? And as far as the life of the mind is concerned, know yourself means, in part, knowing whether you're a wit, or whether you're a dimwit, or a what? Nitwit, huh? And most of us are, at best, dimwits, right? And therefore, we need to believe the wits, huh? In order to, what? Learn from them, huh? But even these wits, and you see, you know, how Aristotle spent 20 years in the school of Plato. So even a wit learns from a, what? Another wit, right? Just as Mozart learned from Haydn, as he admits himself, or from, you know, the two box that he was in contact with, especially. But other great composers before him, right? So even the wit learns from wit. But therefore, it's all right, we dimwits need to learn from the wits, and therefore we need to, what? Believe them for those three, at least for those three reasons I was giving last time, huh? Because the wit knows the road to get somewhere, right? And you won't know that that's the road until you've gone down that road a long way, right? And so you're believing the wit. When you're believing the wit. You set out to follow that road, huh? That you would get somewhere by following that road. But when you do get somewhere, then you turn around and say, Hey, now I know, right? Now I don't need you anymore. Okay, now I know the Pythagorean theorem, right? I had to do 46 seconds to get there, but now I know it, and I don't just take it. There's almost something in workbook three that I wanted to learn, though. Yeah, yeah. But I believe Euclid that this is going to get me to the Pythagorean theorem, which I've heard about all my life, right? But then, again, the idea that the wise man sees those fundamental things that illuminate all kinds of other things, and they'll emphasize those things, and insist upon you getting a very distinct and strong knowledge of these basic things, and you don't realize how many things will be, what? How many doors is open for you until later on. But unless you, what? As Empedically says, press these things down firmly into your mind, right? They'll get away from you, huh? But if you press them firmly down into your mind, he says, you'll get many other things from them. Well, how do I know that? Well, you're going to have to believe me, right? But press this down firmly in your mind, and you'll start to see one thing after another, right? I know this myself, just as a teacher sometimes, I'm reading Shakespeare or something, and I run across something that kind of goes, and I say, oh, I could use this in this or that course, right? And sometimes you can go to the point of memorizing a little few words to the great guy. And then I'm in another class, another subject, and all of a sudden I see another use of the same thing. And then another class, another use, right? So he said something that is fruitful, that will lead to many things, but how would I know that first, right? Okay. And then, as I mentioned before, we have to, in these more difficult things, we have to think about them. In general, we have to think about something, sometimes a long time, before we really understand it. Why do you continue to think about something, unless you believe that by thinking about it long enough, you'll come to, what, understand it, right? And once you, you know, find this happening a lot with somebody, then you have even more belief in them, right? But at first you believe in him because, what? You know, think about it, huh? And, okay, you think about it for a while, and then it starts to become, what? Clear, right? So you're believing him, huh? Up until this point. You persevere in thinking about it, because you believe this is going to lead to some understanding, right? So, that we could fulfill our duty of embracing the true faith, and of persevering and wavering in it, God, through his only begotten son, founded the church, and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end, that she might be recognized by all as a guardian and teacher of the revealed word, huh? So we depend upon the church not only for teaching us the truth, but also the church is itself, as we said, I think, more explicitly later on, is itself a great witness to what? To the truth. Yeah, a motive of credibility, right? Seeing the church, huh? That's what he goes on to say here. How the institution and character of the church meets its necessity. And he says, in general, To the Catholic Church alone belong all those things, so many and so marvelous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the manifest credibility of the Christian faith. So you have all these examples of what? The miracles, right? The lives of the saints, huh? As well as the prophecies that are fulfilled and so on. And then he goes on to say in particular, The church itself is a sign or a motive of credibility. What is more, the church herself, by reason of her astonishing propagation, as Thomas, you know, he talks about this in Summa Contra Gentilis as well. This is not like Muhammad there, who's promising, what? You know, her reason, immaterial things, right? And using the sword, you know, to convert and so on. But the church here is propagated despite teaching things that are, what? Above our mind, right? And proposing a way of life that is not pleasant to the flesh, right? And yet it is propagated, huh? Her outstanding holiness in her great saints and her inexhaustible fertility and every kind of goodness by her Catholic unity, right? And Catholic means, what, universal. And her unconquerable, what, stability, right? Is a kind of great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontrovertible evidence of her own divine mission. And this is kind of interesting because isn't our age characterized by problems in believing? And isn't, you know, the Tocqueville talks about this, but we hear about it, right? And isn't it interesting, you know, that the two councils that are in the last two councils, Vatican I and now Vatican II, the two dogmatic constitutions in Vatican II, one was on divine revelation and the other was on the church, right? And why is it kind of providential that the mystery of the church, or the mysteries of the church, right, about the church, that they are being kind of, what, clarified in the councils of our time, right? Why is that appropriate? People are questioning more, so it's better to have more things written on them, especially from the church itself. Yeah, yeah. If the church itself is a great and perpetual motive of credibility, right, then the mystery of the church is something you want people to, what, meditate upon, right? Because that would be a help for them in believing, huh? What the church teaches. So, sometimes there's a kind of a ad hoc, you know, to the age, you know, the council is dealing with the problems of that age, in a way. So, maybe there's a reason why the mystery of the church is, in our time, right, the preoccupation of the Vatican I, which was not completed, but completed in Vatican II, right, in one of the two dogmatic constitutions. Isn't this a reason for it, right? In terms of what? The importance of the mystery of the church. The church and all these things are singled out here. It's propagation, it's holiness, it's fertility, every kind of goodness, it's Catholic unity, Christability, and so on, is a kind of greater perpetual motive of credibility. That we especially have a problem in our time, you know? As long as they call it Malaysia, the age of faith, right? Well, I mean, there are people who sometimes have problems with faith there, too, but they didn't call it the age of faith because, they wouldn't call our age the age of faith, I don't think. It's called ours the age of disbelief or the age of doubt or something, right? So, this, I think, is interesting, huh? Cast some light upon the stability of such a mystery, or mysteries, I should say, of the church being unfolded in our time, huh? I think I mentioned before, was it one of the historians, I guess, who taught medieval history, you know, and I guess he converted to the Catholic faith, and the guy before him had been the head of the medieval history converted himself. And, of course, it's kind of a, you know, curious thing to see, you know, all these conversions, people get into medieval history. But I suppose in medieval history, you tend to meet, what, the mystery of the church in a way, too. I kind of see it in a concrete way, and somehow it has an effect upon these people, right? That brings them into the church, huh? So, he speaks here, then, of the effect of this sign on those in and out of the church, right? So, it comes about that like a standard lifted up for the nations, she both invites to herself those who have not yet believed, and likewise assures her sons and daughters that the faith they profess rests on the firmest of foundations of. So, it helps those who are already in the church, right? That the descent of faith in them will not be a, what? A blind descent, right? It's an exterior help of the church. At the same time, it attracts people from the, what? Outside, right? I know one guy came into the church, you know, because the church was the only thing that was... I know one guy came into the church, right? I know one guy came into the church, right? I know one guy came into the church, right? I know one guy came into the church, right? I know one guy came into the church, right? I know one guy came into the church, right? I know one guy came into the church, right? Consistently in your teaching, pro-life, right? Because you knew by natural reason, right? The reasonableness of the pro-life position, right? And then you see the church teaching this, right? And you see a lot of these Protestant sects and so on, you know, equivocating and so on, huh? I mentioned the time when my son was in the Boy Scouts there, and the Boy Scouts thing was attached to the Episcopal Church there, and so one day we went over to one of their services to see what it was like, you know? And of course, it was kind of corny with our service in terms of having the same, you know, reading for the gospel. But we've just gone to Mass in our church and we went over to sit on their service and having to be the gospel for our Lord is being kind of tough there about what marriage is, right? And the permanence of it. And they had dropped those words out of it. Oh, they did? So I was going to twit the minister, you know, I said, What's the idea of dropping these words out? But you don't want to offend anybody in the congregation, you know, huh? But, you know, I mean, what's happened to Anglicans in England and, you know, places like that, so they keep on watering it down to all things in the perverse sense. To be nothing to anybody. Now, the inward aid now he talks about, right? To this witness of the church is added the effective help of power from on high. For the Lord, the kind Lord, the merciful Lord, stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth. And also confirms, by his grace, those whom he has translated into his admirable light. So that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first, what? Abandoned, huh? And the two corollaries there has from this here. Consequently, the situation of those who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion. For those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question. This being so, giving thanks to God the Father who has made us worthy to share with the saints in light, let us not neglect so great a salvation, but looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Now, that's interesting, right? He's both the beginning and the what? The end, yeah. Let us hold the unshakable confession of our hope, huh? Okay, now, you have the canons here, huh? These anathemas here, right? So if you know doubt in your mind, is there what? You're obligated. We should skip those that might offend someone. So if anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God, let him be, what? Anathema, right? And on our part, you know, you see a lot of times in St. Paul, I guess, in other places, the obedience of faith, right? Which corresponds, you know, to the command of the son on the side of God, right? But when you speak of the obedience of faith, you're touching upon the fact that the will is involved there, right? The will is moving the reason to assent, huh? Okay. Now, can a human teacher command belief? No, not fruitantly. It doesn't seem that he can, does he, huh? I told you this story when my teacher, Kassari, went up to Laval the first time, and he said to Nikonik, you know, if you teach philosophy the way it's been taught to me down the States, I'll get up and leave your class. And Nikonik says, fine. He didn't say, thou must believe me, right? But God can command it because, you know, we belong to God fully, right? We belong to God more than we belong to ourselves, okay? Now, if you do speak of people belonging to somebody in real life, to some extent, you can say your children belong to you, right, huh? I can say my wife belongs to me, or I belong to my wife in some sense, right? Okay. But none of this is as complete as the way that we belong to what? God, right, huh? Because I didn't give my children their soul, right? It has something to do with their body, the protection of their body, right? But God is responsible not only for their body, but for their soul, right? So my children belong much more to God than they do to me, although in some sense they belong to me, right? That's an interesting question to ask, you know. Do the grandchildren belong more to the parents or to the grandchildren? But whichever is the correct answer to that, I think they belong more to the parents, right? than the grandparents, I think. But whatever you answer to those questions, they belong much more to God, right? That's the first thing to say. So God can, what? Command, right, huh? Our beliefs, huh? But I think it's a very common idea that human reason should be, what? Independent, right? I've met, you know, people, kind of crazy parents, you know, who say, you know, I'm not going to bring their kid up in any religion, you know, but let him or her decide they get to be 21 or something, but religion, if anything, they want to follow, right? You know, as if you cannot interfere with the independence of their mind, huh? Okay? That's kind of like an axiom for some of these people, right? The mind should be, what? Yeah, so independent, huh? Second, canon. I suppose canon means, what, rule, measure? Yeah. Is it measure the basic word against the canon? Yeah, that's what I understand. Yeah. Compilation like canon of scripture. Yeah, yeah. But something that you've got to be measured by, right, you know? So this is very precise. If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because the authority of God reveals it, let him be, what? Anathema, right? As Thomas said in the second quatrain there, in neohok verbo veritatis verius. He's believing God, right? Whatever the Son of God says, credo, quid, quid, dixi, dee, phileus, I believe whatever the Son of God says, neohok verbo veritatis verius. Nice of the narration there. Nothing than this word of truth is more, what? True. Yeah. So, you know, God is truth itself. This is the word of truth itself. Nothing is more true than the word of truth. But it comes out better in the Latin because you can't. The verbo veritatis verius, right? In English, it doesn't come out with the same first letter, huh? And consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because the authority of God reveals it, let him be anathema. Okay, now the thing about external signs. This is very important, too. If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one's internal experience or prior to inspiration, let him be anathema. That's very strong, right? Okay. The reasonable service of faith, huh? And what's a sign, by the way? What's Augustine's definition of sign that Thomas takes over in his thought? What's a sign, by the way? What's a sign, by the way? What's a sign, by the way? What's a sign, by the way? What's a sign, by the way? What's a sign, by the way?