Prima Pars
Lecture 46: The Light of Glory and Differential Vision of God

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

To the fifth one proceeds thus, it seems that the creative understanding does not need some created light to seeing the essence of God. For that which is, what, lucid of itself or by itself in sensible things, does not need another light that might be seen, therefore neither in understandable things. But God is understandable light. Thomas in the prayer there, communion prayer, calls him lux vera, right? Therefore he is not seen through some created light. It's not to be making God visible that this light is required. It's a little different sense of light, but we'll see what's in the answer. Moreover, when God is seen through some middle, right? Some middle term, so to speak, through another, he is not seen through his own essence. But when something is seen through some created light, it is seen through some middle. Therefore it is not seen through its very essence. So, there's another interesting objection, I'll know a different one. Moreover, that which is created, nothing prevents it from being natural to being natural to some creature. If, therefore, through some created light, the essence of God was seen, that light could be natural to some creature, couldn't it? That's what he said. And thus that creature would not need another light to seeing God, which is impossible. Therefore, it is not necessary that every creature requires for seeing God some light added above his natural light. By now, DeMaule saw this one quote from Psalms. But against this is what is said in Psalm 35. That's the correct number, I assume. Verse 10. In your light we shall see light. What are those two lights that he's talking about there, right? Not the same light. The light illuminate. The light we'll see in the looks of error. It's God himself. God is light. There's no darkness in him, Scripture says. What's this other light in which you will see him, right? Was the light to make him visible? No? Okay. I answer it should be said that everything that is raised up to something that is above its nature, right, is necessary that it be disposed, right, by some disposition which is above its own what nature. Now, incidentally, disposition is in what category? Yeah. It's the first species of quality, huh? A lot of times you don't meet the categories, you meet them in foreign words or foreign-born words, you know? But, to some extent, everybody understands those, right? And if you went down to the order of Christians who never studied philosophy and you say, well, you know what a dog is, you know what a cat is? I say, yeah, I can't know what a dog is, what a cat is. I recognize him anyway. Right? And is the size of a dog or the size of a cat? Is the size of a dog what a dog is? The man in the street wouldn't say that. It's not the same thing, what a dog is and the size of a dog. What a cat is and the size of a cat. But now he's distinguished between substance, which is what a thing is, and size, which is called quantity, right? See? And you see, if you use the more Latin word, it's substance and quantity. You see, it's interesting in those two, well, I don't know. You see? But Aristotle calls substance there in the open places. Tiesti, what it is, right? So what a dog is and the size of a dog, right? Same thing? What a man is and the size of a man, okay? And then, if you want to separate the next one, instead of saying quality, right? You know, but take something more particular and say, well, is the shape of a thing and the size of a thing the same thing? No, that's it. You see? Now, disposition maybe is not a common word, but say, is the body and the health of the body the same thing? See, now you're distinguishing in a sense between the disposition, right? And that of which it is a disposition, right? We even say a man is indisposed. Yeah, yeah. And when Thomas says, what is grace, right? Well, it's kind of like a disposition of the soul, right? If you had to put it in the categories, you'd put it in quality. But it's an unusual quality that the philosopher wouldn't know about. Just if air is going to receive the form of fire, it is necessary to be disposed by some disposition for that form, which would be heat, right? Okay. So they saw, for example, like say paper would be receiving the form of what? Fire, right? In order to receive the form of fire, you'd have to heat the paper, right? And that's the disposition that makes the paper suitable for that. And this is something we see, you know, in ethics there when we see that the emotions are kind of what? Habituated to follow reason, right? And therefore they become something more reasonable. But reason is something above the emotions. And the emotions can be raised to the level of something reasonable through some kind of a disposition of the emotions. And therefore it has to be acquired by disposition by repeated acts and so on. But when some created understanding sees God through his very nature and his very nature, the nature itself or the essence of God becomes the what? Understandable form of the understanding. What does that mean? The form by which it understands, huh? Okay. So now you're receiving as the form of your mind a form that is what? Not your natural form, right? A form that is way above your natural form. So you have to be disposed to what? Receive that form because there's got to be some ratio there between the form and the subject. Whence is necessary that some supernatural disposition be added above to it, huh? So that it might be raised up to so great a, what? Sublimity. Since, therefore, the natural power of the created understanding does not suffice to see, huh? The essence of God as has been shown, right? And that was backed in what? The second article, right? Okay. But before we did that the first day, right? Okay. First class. Article 2. No, this is Article 4. Okay. That's what this text here refers to Article 4. Yeah, yeah. Article 4, yeah. Excuse me. Okay. Since, therefore, the natural power of the created understanding does not suffice for seeing the essence of God, right? Okay. It has been shown. It's necessary that from divine grace, right, there be added some power of what? Understanding, right? So it's not inside the object so much, but it's inside of the mind. And this must augment, but this growth, okay, of the intellectual power is called the what? Illumination of the understanding, right? Lumen or Lux Light. Just as the understandable is called what? Lumen or Lux Light. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. And this is the light about which it is said in the book of the Apocalypse, chapter 21, that the clarity of God illuminates it. That is the society of the blessed seeing God. And according to this light, we are made, what? Like God, huh? D.E. Formes, huh? Seeing form is God anyway. That is like God. According to that of John 3, 2. When he appears, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. Now this is one of the most important texts in scripture, right? To see God as he is, right? It's referring to the Peter Christian, right? In theology, we see God as he is not, right? But he is not, right? He's not composed. He's not limited and so on, right? When we see him as he is, we will be what? Similar to him, right? We'll be similar to him by, what? This light that raises up our power of understanding so that God can be received in the mind as the form of which you will now see God as he is. See what he's doing there, huh? And according to this light, we are made de-formes on the same form of the divine form. That is like God, right? But it's very precise that text of John, you see it, right? When he appears, we will be like him. Because just as God sees himself as he is, right? So we must become like him to see him as he is, right? Because it isn't natural for us to see him as he is. It's natural for us to see the tribe as he is. And maybe the dog and the cat to some extent as they are, right? But it ain't natural to us to see God as he is. And so the only way we could come to see God as he is would require us to become like God. And so when he appears to us as he is, we must have become like him to see him as he is. That's interesting, huh? Now, at least the word light there is, you've got to be kind of careful there. Because usually we think of light, to begin with in the senses, as making something actually visible that's not visible until the light is there, right? And when Aristotle speaks of the act of understanding as a kind of light, it makes what is able to be understandable actually understandable, right? Was this light doing that? Is God only understandable in ability or in potency and this makes him actually understandable? No, that's just understandable, right? Because there is objection to the saying, well, God is, in a sense, is understandable, right? In act, huh? He's pure act. So if God is pure act and God is understandable, he's understandable in act. He's purely understandable. Well, what do you need this light for, right? Well, for the first, therefore, it should be said that the created light is necessary for seeing the divine essence, not that by this light the essence of God becomes what? Understandable. Because the essence of God, secundum se, right, by itself or in itself, is understandable, right? But it's necessary that the understanding might become, what, powerful enough, right, to understand it, right? In the way in which a power or ability becomes more powerful to operate through a habit. So when I acquire the habit of geometry, right, my mind is more able to understand the triangle and we're able to understand the circle, right? We're able to know how to make an oblong or a square equal to a given oblong, right? You know, my mind is, you know, my mind is really become more powerful, right? Okay. Just as the bodily light is necessary in exterior vision, insofar as it makes the, what, the medium, right, transparent and act, so it can be moved by the color, if the way Aristotle understands it, huh? Now the second objection, in a way, is thinking of this light as a medium through which you, what, see God, right, huh? As if you see this first, so to speak, and God do it, okay? And that's, again, an misunderstanding, right, huh? Okay. To the second, therefore, it should be said that that light is not required for seeing the essence and nature of God, as if it were a likeness in which God is seen, right? So it's not like the image I have of you when I go home at night, right? It's not like the thought I have of what a man is, right? It's a likeness in which I see something. But it's a, what, perfection of the understanding, strengthening it to seeing God, huh? Okay. And therefore, it can be said that it's not a middle in which God is seen, right? Because God is seen in himself, right? But under which he is seen, right, huh? And this does not take away the immediate, what, vision of God, huh? Just as my science of geometry doesn't get in the way of my seeing the triangle as it is, right? It strengthens my mind to see the triangle as it is. Now, the third direction was a little different. The third direction was saying that, what, if this light of glory, as they call it, was, say, what, something created, right? Like when you create an angel, at least, not a man, create an angel who actually has power in, right? Okay. Well, Thomas adds it very simply. To the third, it should be said that the disposition to the form of fire is not able to be natural except to something having the form of fire. Whence the light of glory could not be natural to a creature unless the creature was of the very divine nature. Now, that's impossible, he says. But through this light, the created creature becomes, what, Dei Formis. How would you translate that, Dei Formis? Dei Formis. Transliteration. Comes as a form of God, right? Going back a little bit there, we talked about understanding or loving, for that matter. Grammatically, right? They seem to be just like the verbs that have the name and activity that's acting upon something else, right? So, I kick the chair. I is the subject there, and then kick, and then the chair, right? Well, me and the chair, where is the kicking in comparison to me and the chair? In between, you say, right, huh? So, it's me and there's a chair, and the kicking is in between. between right okay that's because i'm in a way acting upon the chair right through my kicking at it okay now grammatically it seems the same thing to say i see the chair you might think the seeing is between me and the chair or i love the chair or i love candy or something um the love is between me and what i love right is that the way it is like that or is the grammatical yeah from something to another before yeah yeah but yes but is it my seeing the chair that unites me with the chair in a sense right or is my seeing the chair a result of the chair being in me in some way well what comes first right does the chair in some way act upon my eye right and therefore producing something in my eye like itself right and then i see it see so the chair in a sense is united to my eye or likeness of the chair is united to my eye right here in some way and the result of that is that i see the chair so the grammar there is deceiving right is deceptive right because grammatically when i say i kick chair right i have no contact with this chair uh or my leg in the chair no contact except through my kicking right okay um so it does make sense that kicking is between me and the chair um and and therefore the union of me and the chair so to speak in this act of kicking um is the key but in my seeing the chair grammatically it seems like the same thing i see the chair right i kick the chair but actually the chair has to be in some way the chair has to be in some way united to me uh before i see it okay and they call that the the visible form right into that that union right so that's a beginning of my seeing the chair right okay now is it the same way uh in the case of my loving something right um does love begin to unite me with the person or the thing i love right or does that person or that thing make an impression upon my heart and then i begin to what love it right see um you know thomas says you know the the loving is an undergoing right and i used to sometimes refer to the the word we use in english sometimes impression right which means press upon right then and let's take the example of the students thinking i was familiar to them you know you go to the party you know and and maybe your friends notice you made a big impression upon her right or she made a big impression upon you in a sense you're saying that because you acted upon her you made an impression upon her that she's begun to like you or because she made an impression upon you upon your heart that you began to like her right so um if she made no impression upon my heart i would not have begun to like her okay and uh or i listen to the music of mozart right makes an impression upon my heart you know i like this food or something right um yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so um in a way my liking this food or liking the music of mozart liking this woman or something is resolved of of of her or the music whatever it is having acted upon my heart right that the union of me in a sense of this object is uh what gives rise to the loving right in that sense the loving is not between me and the one who made an impression upon my heart but my loving or liking this person or thing is a result of having made an impression upon my heart make sense yeah now going back to knowing in the case of knowing the thing known has acted upon the knowing power and every agent makes something like itself right so we speak of it as inducing a form like its own form right and that's called in latin like the form of sensibilities right but it's a form by which you now see that person right or know that person right and the case of the understanding the form of intelligibilities the understandable form right okay and so um uh what is the understandable form of which god understands right and say what's himself right then okay and when thomas after thomas has shown that then he concludes what does god know well you know that which we have the understandable form what does god know himself right okay and then later on you say well but but understanding itself understands other things right but it doesn't understand other things by having you know the understandable form of them pressed upon him right but by understanding himself right and how this takes place he doesn't want to explain that right no well then the question is what is the understandable form by which i see god as he is right see because the understandable form which i know god in this life is not god right but the understandable form of which i see god must be god what himself right okay but they have god is the understandable form of your mind is not opposed to your nature but uh it's not natural to you right okay it's it's um having the form of something above you as your form as your form well how can that be possible right unless there be some disposition of your understanding right whereby um that is now the appropriate form of your understanding and that disposition whereby um your understanding is a um suitable subject for this divine substance as a form of your understanding is this what's called the light and glory right okay um but it's not something you you you see and and through knowing you know god because that's the second injection is excluding right now it's not a middle right um what's what you have in philosophy right you know you know understand act and ability and pure act and you do that yet it's an understanding of god but not as he is right you know it's in this by by analogy and by negation ultimately you know him um and it's not um a light like the agent like to make god actually understandable right so it's kind of word light in another meaning right but it's appropriate because um it has something to do with something coming to be understood by you right but it's actually a disposition of your of your understanding whereby it can receive the divine substance as the understandable form of which it understands and what does it understand understands god as he is right you do that so that's that's um quite quite a sublime thing yeah quite a sublime thing So that's one of the things coming down from the Father of Lights. Interesting in those prayers of Thomas before and after communion, but kind of addressed it to God the Father, right? But appropriation, every prayer in a sense is directly directed to God, but it's appropriated to the Father, right? And so, again, you speak of the Father of Lights, you can refer to God, but it could be appropriate to the Father, too, right? But you're asking Him in a sense, you know, to ultimately bring it to this effable convivium, right? He speaks of a banquet. How does that compare with how the angels know God? Well, the angels, it's hard to do the vision, which turns the same as the way we know it, right? They know the light of glory. But the natural knowledge that the angel has of God is much better than the natural knowledge we have of God. Because we know God from, actually from motion, right? From sensible things which are not as like God as the angelic substance is, right? And so the angel knows God in knowing his own, naturally in knowing his own substance, but he's an effect that he makes more like God, right? Even though he's infinitely distant from God, right? So he can't know God as he is in knowing him, but he can know him much better than we know him. But as I say, you know, in some of the saints there, they have a knowledge of God by his effects, right? But by spiritual effects in the soul, right? Which are, and it gives them a better knowledge of God than the philosopher has, who knows God more through these sensible effects. But even so, even in our life, they speak of a knowledge of the soul as being the window or the doorway to the consideration of immaterial things. So if you can't know the immateriality of your own soul, you have a hard time understanding the immateriality of the angel, right? And as Thomas says in one place, he says, you know, I consider the body so I could consider the soul. And I consider the soul so I might consider the angels. And I consider the angels so I might consider God, and that's it. You know? But sometimes it makes me think, it makes you, you know, start with the fears on the soul like we did, you know? And then go to the fears on the angels, right? And then go to the fears on God, you know? Well, my first teacher there, at the College of St. Thomas there, in Cusart, you know, said that when you die, your soul is separated from your body, and you encounter your guardian angel, right? Oh! You know, you're going to, this is God! He'll say, no, no, no. I mean, he's going to be so, you know, a marvelous creature, right? That you're going to think this must be God. I mean, what more could you, you know, could be more beautiful than this. And, of course, you know, when you study the angels, you find out that each angel is different in kind from other angels, you know, two kinds. And sometimes in Cusart is explaining a bit of how we don't really count the angels, right? They're so different. You don't think counting. You count things that are somewhat like, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But each angel is different. Oh, oh. It's a kind of a world, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. What's the famous lines of Miranda there in Shakespeare's play, you know, that, oh, brave new world, right? Yeah. You see? But Miranda has been, what, marooned on the desert island, or the island, I don't know, it's a desert, but on the island, and the only man she's known is her father, who's kind of an old man, right? Yeah. And that cow man is half savage, right? Yeah. Well, then the young man is shipwrecked on the island, right? You know? And she sees, you know, brave new world. That's where the words come from, right? It has such creatures in it, you know? But that's, but her name is taken from what? Wonder. Wonder, yeah. But that's where it will be, you know, brave new world, right? When you see these angels, see them in that sense of understanding, you know, brave new world, they have such creatures. I didn't realize that that beautiful thing's around, you know? It's, uh, I was kind of surprised that they were in Kansas there and she had a grand show. I was kind of surprised, they had a kind of beautiful state, you know? Yeah. You think of, well, suddenly it's been with the kind of sunburn. Yeah. It's really that beautiful. I mean, you know? And it's kind of struck by how Hillyard was, and, you know, and the, and the Patrick to come down the airplane, you know, and you see the green everywhere. Yeah. And it's very well, you know, forced in a sense. I mean, I think it's supposed to guide the, the farmland, you know? And it's kind of, and it's kind of beautiful. It's beautiful, Kansas. Yeah. I mean, maybe you see the angels. It's quite this beautiful. I mean, this is, this is interesting, you know? They say, you know, they took all the best minds, you know, Aristotle's mind, and Euclid's mind, and Einstein's mind, always don't, you know, he still would have something equal to an angel, you know? He would be, you know, today, you know? Because Sir, he used to say, the angel watching you make a decision, it's like, you know, you're watching an angle where I make a decision. You make a decision. Interesting. So, I got by here, they said, pass it to your own risk, you know? Yeah. I did, you know, it seemed too bad. It was beautiful. I don't know. I caught this. I don't know. I don't know. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas Angelic Doctor, pray for us. And help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. It was very interesting what the Pope was saying about the Greeks and the Church, right? In terms of the reason. Okay, Article 6. Whether of those seeing the essence of God, one sees him, what? More perfectly than the other. And of course he says, to the sixth one perceives, that's on the opposite side, right? It seems that of those seeing the essence of God, one does not see him more perfectly than the other. For it's said in the first epistle of John, the third chapter, second verse, we shall see him as he is. Opposed to theology, where we see him as he is not. He is incorporeal, immaterial, and so on. Not composed. But he is in one way, right? Therefore, in one way, he is seen by all. Therefore, he is not seen, what? More perfectly, or what? Less perfectly, huh? More of what Augustine says in the book of the 83 questions. A lot of questions in there. That one is not able to, what? Understand one thing more than a, what? Another, right? But all seeing the God whose essence understand the divine, what? Essence, huh? For God is seen by the, what? Understanding, huh? Not by the eyes, huh? That passage that was in the, this morning in Mass, I don't know if you had any in Mass, the one from the book of Job? In my flesh. In my flesh. Yeah, yeah. But the translation seems a little different. The other translation, I will see him from my flesh, which I think is a good translation. You know, the one we have in the Latin here is in my flesh, right? But from my flesh is almost, you know, saying that he's going to see it with the eye, right? Although you can understand it in a way that would still be orthodox, you know. But it's kind of, you know, I had it kind of on my mind when I heard him say it with it from today. I think I was reading the thing from the pulpit there. Okay. Therefore, though seeing the divine essence, one does not see more clearly than the other, huh? It's kind of interesting, huh? And, you know, when we understand something in this life, the things we understand in a way are, what? Absent, huh? And that's why they compare understanding to, what? Imagining. Because when I imagine something, I form an image of it, right? And when I think about something, I form a thought of it. And the reason why you have to form an image or form a thought is because you're knowing something in its, what? Absence, right? But when we see God as he is, we would not be knowing him as something absent, right? But it would be more like sensation insofar as it's, what? Immediate thing. So when I see you, I don't form an image of you. That's when I remember you. But when I see you, you're there. I don't need to. You're enough to terminate my act of seeing, right? But when you're not there, my seeing you has to, what, end in an image of you that I have to form or bring to mind again, huh? So in some sense, the word to see is more appropriate, huh? The word to understand, although it is seeing in a sense of understanding, not seeing with the eye, huh? But something about that word, see. Moreover, that one thing is seen more perfectly than another can happen from two things, either from the side of the, what, object seen or from the side of the knowing power, right? On the side of the object, through this that the object is more perfectly received in the one seeing. That is, by a more perfect likeness, which in the thing proposed here does not take place. For God is not through some likeness, right? But through his very essence or substance present to the understanding, seeing his substance or essence or nature. It remains, therefore, that if one sees him more perfectly than another, that this be by a difference of the knowing power. And thus it would follow that whose intellectual power is naturally more sublime would see him more clearly. But this is, doesn't fit, since to men is promised in beatitude a quality of angels, right? Okay? Actually, some of us will be higher than some of the angels and some of us lower than some of the angels. And so on and so. Okay? But against this is that eternal life consists of the vision of God, according to that of John 17, verse 3. This is eternal life, where he says to see him, right? And him whom you have sent. Therefore, if all equally see the essence of God, in eternal life, all be equal. But the contrary of this is said by the Apostle, meaning St. Paul, who is said by Antoinette Messiah, the Apostle, in the 1 Corinthians 15, star differs from star in clarity. Now, this is going to be connected, I think, in the body of the article with the previous article, right? Okay? Because you have to be raised up by the light of glory, right? To see God as he is, in order to receive him. So, who has more of the light of glory will see God more fully. I answer it should be said, that of those seeing God through his essence, or by his essence, one will see him more perfectly than another. Which would not be, through some likeness of God, more perfect, being in one of them than in the other, right? Like, if you have a confused notion of what a square is, and I have, what, a definition of square, I want to know more clearly, because I have a better likeness of a square than you guys have, right? Okay? Then it's a definition of something, right? If you guys have kind of a vague notion of what reason is, but I know that reason is the ability for large discourse, looking before and after, have a more perfect likeness of what reason is that you guys have. And therefore I see it more clearly, right? But we don't see God as he is, through some likeness. So, this is not the reason for this, huh? Okay? Which is not through some more perfect likeness of God in one than the other, since that future, that vision, that is future, the future, is not through some likeness as has been shown, right? The likeness would be something created and not be adequate. Representing God as he is. But it will be through this, that the understanding of one has a greater, what, virtue or power for seeing God than another. Now, the ability or the faculty of seeing God does not belong to the creator understanding by its, what, very nature, but through the light of glory, which constitutes the understanding in a certain, what, God-likeness, huh? As is clear from what above. Whence the understanding more partaking of the light of glory will see God more, what, perfectly, right? Okay, so this article 6 is obviously, presupposes article 5, right? Which talks about the looming glory. Now, who's going to have more light of glory? Well, he will more partake of the light of glory who has, what, more charity, who loves God more. Because where there is more charity, there is more desire. And the desire in some way makes the one desiring apt and prepared for the reception of the one desired. Whence who more has the charity will see God more perfectly and will be more what? Blessed. Blessed. Right? Okay? Now sometimes I explain that, I go back to Scripture speaking of a kind of marriage between God and us, huh? Okay? And even Shakespeare, you know, in the sonnet, you know, speaks of marriage. Let me not do the marriage of two minds, admit impediments, huh? Okay? So, there's a certain likeness there of the big vision to marriage, right? Okay? But a spiritual marriage, you might say. So this one's through Scripture, huh? And it's in the Song of Songs, especially, which is the book most devoted to this. And you realize that this marriage is more intimate than the first sense of marriage, right? And to be concrete, you know, in the bodily marriage, the bodies come together, but the bodies are, what, outside each other. They meet at their surfaces, right? And so, but in the case of this marriage, right, God is within the mind itself, is within the understanding itself, as the form which it understands. But just as marriage in the first sense, you want to unite yourself with someone you didn't love, who didn't love you, right? So the more the creature loves God, right, the more God would want to, what, unite that creature with himself, right? And therefore, the more charity you have, the more, what, light and glory you'd receive, and the more perfectly God would be united to you, and therefore, the more perfectly you would, what, see God, right? Okay? Okay, now let's look at the reply to the objections, huh? The first objection was taken from the text of St. John, which is, along with the text of St. Paul, about seeing God face-to-face. It's probably the two main texts that I see in Scripture, huh? I'm talking about this. In some ways, it's even more perfect than St. Paul's text, you know, which is perhaps a bit metaphorical when you speak of face-to-face, although it's a very good way of speaking, too. To the first, therefore, it should be said that when it is said we shall see him as he is, this adverb, sikuti, as he is, right, determines the way of the vision on the side of the thing, what? Seen. So the sense is that we shall see him to be just as he is, right? Because his very, to be, his very being, we will see, which is his very, what? Essence, yeah. But it does not determine the way of vision on the side of the one seeing. So the sense will be, what? That there will be so, it's perfectly a way of seeing, as in God there's a perfect way of, what? Being, right? Okay? And to this, he says, is clear the solution to the second objection. For when it is said that one does not understand the same one thing better than another, this has truth if it be taken to the mode of the thing understood. Because whoever understands a thing to be other than it is, does not truly understand it, right? But not if it refers to the way of what? Understanding, right? Because the understanding of one is more perfect than the understanding of a, what? Another, right? And so when I hear the music of Mozart, do I hear it other than it is? No. But someone else might have better ears and hear it better than me, right? Okay? Now the third objection, huh? Yeah, that's based upon the, what? Division there, right? To the third, it should be said that the diversity of seeing will not be on the side of the object because the same object is presented to all, namely the divine essence, nor by diverse partaking of the object through different, what? Likenesses, right? But through a diverse, what? Ability of the understanding, not its natural one, but its, what? Glorious one, meaning the light of glory, right? And therefore we might, and some saints might see, what? More than some angels, right? Even though the angel's natural ability to understand is better. Okay? Now just stop going on something here before we go on to the seventh article that's kind of related to this reasonable problem here about something. No creature can understand God as much as God understands himself. Okay? And you can see it's the same thing about love. No creature can love God as much as God loves himself. And kind of corollaries of those two statements, huh? No creature can understand God as much as he's understandable. And no creature can love God as much as he's lovable. Okay? I often think about that in Thomas' prayer there in the Adorote Devote, right? Where it says contemplating God, his whole mind, it would be both the mind and the will, right? That contemplating God, he fails to know him as much as he's knowable and he fails to love him as much as he's lovable. Okay? And in this life, huh, we can always understand God more than we do or better than we do, right? And we can always love him more than we do or better than we do, right? Okay? Now, you know as a fact, is that going to be true, though, in the next world? When I see God face to face, huh, and I understand God as he is, will I ever understand him better than I do? No. And I will love him more than I ever loved him in this life. Even the saints, I love God more when they see him than they did in this life. But will they in heaven ever love him more than they love him? Okay? That's a volatile paradox, right? Because if something is worth understanding, just like if it's worth seeing or hearing, right? You always seem to want to understand that thing better. You always want to see it better, right? And sometimes you see a famous painting and you see something in it, you know, and then you keep on looking and you see more in the painting, right? So if you really enjoy that painting, it's worth seeing and so on. You always want to see it better, don't you? And sometimes, you know, I'm driving in the car and I turn on 102.5 and it's the Mozart play and so on, and I get nothing to do much in the car, and it doesn't take much of my mental guilty to drive a car. and sometimes I listen to a piece more thoroughly than I do at home because at home sometimes I'm reading a book or something and it has this conflict in me, right? And then I realize what a wonderful piece this is. Gee, I have to listen to this piece more often, right? Okay. Now you get kind of a paradox here, right? Because if in heaven we were always understanding God more and more, right? Then there'd be something unlimited here or endless. In the same way for always loving God more and more, right? Then this would be something endless. And that's opposed to the idea of being the end. So if this is the end of all, the end of all and the be all, the end of all.