Prima Pars
Lecture 51: Knowledge of God and the Divine Names

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

It should be said that from images either taken from the sense in a natural order of things or divinely formed imagination, to that extent, a more excellent knowledge, understandable knowledge is had insofar as the understandable light in man was, what? Stronger, right? So what is the dreams that the pharaoh had, right? What did the dreams mean, right? But the prophet, the Hebrew prophet there, right, having this superior light can understand what the images mean, right? The slim cows and so on, and the fat cows. There's going to be seven years of fatness in that land and seven years of what? Famine, right? You've got to store up things for that time, right? Okay. So whether the images are something divinely formed, or even the natural images, right? There's another light there that draws more out of the image, and that's the light of faith. And thus, by revelation, from images, a fuller knowledge is taken from the pouring in of this divine light, which strengthens the natural light of reason. And so I love that phrase there, you know, in the episode, what is it, James, you know, about the father of lights. But every perfect gift is coming down from the father of lights. But why is he called the father of lights in the plural? One gift is the natural light of reason. Another gift is the light of faith, right? And the last gift is the light of glory, right? Whereby, we talked about that before, whereby you see God as he is, right? But he's the father of lights. Most perfect gifts come down from him. Okay. Now, the third objection is a little bit different from the first two, huh? First two are saying, we have the same knowledge by natural reason as you have by faith, so they're not really different. And so the first, the reply to the first two objections is showing, well, no. There's some things you know, right, from images, whether they're natural images or divinely formed images. There's some things you know by the natural light of reason, by the light of faith, that you didn't know by the natural light of reason, huh? Okay. But this third objection is saying, well, yeah, but this is knowledge of, this is belief. The third, it should be said, that belief is a certain knowledge, right? Insofar as the understanding is determined by belief to something noble. But this determination to one does not proceed from the, what, vision of the one believing, but from the vision of the one who is believed. And thus, insofar as vision is lacking, it falls short of the notion of, what, knowledge which is in science. For science determines the understanding to one, to the vision understanding of, what, first beginnings, huh? The Thomas sees the certain truth in that objection there, right, huh? But there's something of knowledge there, insofar as the understanding is determined by belief to something, what, noble, right, huh? So even the mystery of the Trinity is in some way, what, noble by us, right? But to revelation and to belief. Remember before in Aristotle, or not Aristotle, but Thomas was talking before about the theologies of science. And then the objection was, well, science is based upon something obvious and known, right? And Thomas compared theology, in a way, to those sciences that borrow their beginnings from another science. Okay? Like astronomy borrows things from geometry, right? And accepts them on the word of the geometry. Yeah. And music borrows things from arithmetic, the science of numbers, and accepts them, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So, in that sense, theology is a science more like astronomy or music than like arithmetic or, what, geometry, right? Mm-hmm. Because based upon the beginnings that it takes from the science of God and the blessed, huh? Okay? So Thomas up there now is among the blessed, right? Mm-hmm. And we can take from him or from God himself the beginnings of this science called, what? Theology, right? And, but that's already going all the way back to, what, to Pythagoras, right? That distinction. The Pythagoras distinguished the quadrivium, you know, part of the liberal arts as they became known as, the trivium and the quadrivium. The quadrivium was arithmetic and geometry and astronomy and, what, music, right? But arithmetic and geometry were kind of more fundamental, and music borrowed from arithmetic and geometry, or astronomy, rather, borrowed from, what, geometry, huh? So, when Aristotle argues that the earth is round and the sphere, he argues from the shadow it casts upon the moon, which is circular, huh? So, it's kind of like a geometrical argument, okay? So, you know, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas will, in the third book there, he's showing that God is the end of all things first, right? And then, in a special way, he's the end of those creatures that can understand. And, their end is to see him as he is, right? But, he kind of, it seems in a little different order, right? He says, is the knowledge that everybody has, that there is a God, is that sufficient to satisfy us, right? And he argues that that is not enough, right? Well, then how about the knowledge that the philosophers get of God? Is that enough to satisfy our mind, right? And he gives you the reason why that's not enough to satisfy our mind. And then, how about the knowledge you have of God by belief, you know, by faith? Is that enough to satisfy our mind, right? Is there something imperfect about that, right? And so, finally, he argues that we can only be satisfied by seeing God as he is, face to face, right? And so, he argues with, you know, a great probability that that's our end, right? And therefore, in this life, we don't reach our last end, huh? Of course, there's all kinds of reasons to say we're not. I'm not completely happy in this life, but everybody, to some extent, knows it, right? It's very reasonable, right? I know. But, I mean, even Thackeray and Vanity Fair, you know, the Red Vanity Fair, kind of the most famous novel, Thackeray. You know, there's the rivalry between Thackeray and Dickens, right? These guys trying to help do the other guy. And so, around the same time that these come out, the Vanity Fair and David Copperfield, the two best novels, right? And I guess they were kind of, you know, sort of friction because they were in competition, huh? And then there's a funny thing, you know, like the Thackeray's daughter's supposed to have said, you know, you should get out of me, Dickens. And, Daddy, why don't you write more like Mr. Dickens? And I guess just towards the end of their life there, they happened to pass each other on this big building or something like that. They passed each other, and they used to walk by each other, they don't say anything. And one of them turned around and shook his hand, and that was kind of a reconciliation there at the end. But anyway, at the end of Vanity Fair, which is kind of a portrait of the vanity of Victorian England, in a sense, but the Indian elf says, for who in this life ever gets what he wants? Or, having gotten it to satisfy? You know? In other words, either you're dissatisfied because you didn't get what you wanted to get, right? Or else, you get what you wanted and you realize it's not as great as you thought it was going to be. And, but that's true, you know. When I was in high school, I thought, gee, it would be wonderful to be in college, in high school, high school is kind of, you know, high school is, you know. You get to college, there's all kinds of problems and things, you know, that they're angry about. Why don't you get the question? That would be good, you know. In fact, I guess, teaching now, it's just fine, you know. There's always something, you know, that disturbs these things. How about retirement? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think there's all kinds of problems, you know. You know, there was so much repair to do at home. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You got to, you know, work in social security. You've got to, you know, get new greatness for your health insurance and so on, you know, all kinds of things, you know. And then old age and all the properties set in and so on. So you realize, but Thomas, you know, we'll talk about how, even in terms of knowing, you can't be satisfied, right? You know, he says, the more you know, the more you want to know. And so there's a dissatisfaction just because of that, right? And, of course, the more you know about God without knowing what he is, the more you want to know what he is. So. But here the order is a little bit different, right? Because here he began with, what, the knowledge of God as he is, right? Kind of appropriate order in theology, but not so much in philosophy, right? Okay. Now, what's the connection between the 12th question, which has 13 articles, and the next question, the 13th question? The names of God. We've talked about this before. Yeah. The names of things as we know them. Yeah. Yeah. And so, a little bit about God here in the previous articles, questions, rather, 2 through 11. And then in question 12, he talked about how we know God. And now in question 13, he's going to talk about the names of God, right? And interesting, you know, I find the way Scripture speaks, I mean, just take the Our Father, for example. What's the first thing we ask for, the Our Father? You know. We use the word name there, right? You know. And Scripture will say, you know, in Psalms, our help is in the name of the Lord. Okay. Was our help really in the name of the Lord or in the Lord himself? Yeah. And we want to, that God's name be made holy in us, or that God himself be made holy in us, huh? But it shows how posy connected these things are. The reason that Scripture will speak that way, right? Okay. It reminds me, you know, of Thomas' text there in the premium to the Nicomachean Ethics. He talks about logic there. And he says, logic is about reason ordering its, what, thinking, right? When it orders its thoughts, and the vocal sounds that signify these thoughts, right? Well, I've tried to, in some of my writings here, kind of unfold a bit what Thomas says there, right? And you say, well, how do you order your thinking? Because if your thinking is disordered, you are, what? Couldn't be mistaken, right? The Greeks in the Latins, the Greeks have the word plane, and the Latins have the word error, right? But both the word error and the word plane come from the respective words for wander, right? Okay. So when your mind wanders, it wanders into error, right? Okay. Now, the Lord says, you know, to the Sadducees that you error. The Greek word is planosite, right? Get the word planet, because the planets seem to wander around the sky a bit. But now, how are you going to order your thinking? Can you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch your thinking? How do you order your thinking? Kind of hard to, right? And Thomas seems to suggest in that text that you order your thinking by ordering your thoughts. Okay. But again, how can you order your thoughts, because you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or imagine your thoughts, right? How do you order your thoughts? Order your senses. Yeah. Can you order your thoughts without at the same time ordering your, what? The words that signify your, what? Thoughts, right? It's kind of interesting. Aristotle, who's known as the father of logic, right? But when he talks about the statement, he defines the statement, say, in the Perihermeneus, he defines a statement that is a vocal sound. The words, right? The words, right? As if we can't really order our thoughts without ordering the words that, what? Signify those thoughts, right? And when you're trying to define something, you have to find the words to define it, right? And even, you know, you can see that in counting and calculating, you've got to have some kind of sensible things, you know, like a seven and a five, you know? You need something sensible, right? You know, when the apostles spoke to our Lord one time and they said, well, you know, John, he taught his disciples how to pray, right? So they asked our Lord to teach us how to pray, right? And Christ, you know, in Luke there, he says, well, he kind of teaches them to be our father, right? Well, how do you teach somebody to pray, right? You know, we've got to teach him to pray by some words, right? And at first, maybe he merely memorizes these words like a child, you know? And with my son Paul there, and they say the rosary in the evening there, you know, each of the children gets their chance to say the Hail Mary, and it's kind of funny because he's the ones saying the words, right? But I noticed myself in one of the psalms there where it says, you know, let the words of my mouth and the thought of my heart, you know, you know, find favor before you, right? But kind of the order is interesting, right? You've got to, first of all, you know, find the words or learn the words, and then, you know, words without thoughts don't go to heaven, as Shakespeare says, but you've got to have the words, right? And then eventually the thoughts come along. And it's kind of interesting, you know, that great mind there, St. Augustine there, they say he went to the cathedral there, wherever it was, in Milan there, to listen to the words, the wonderful style of Ambrose, the Ciceroonian style of Ambrose, and so on. But then with the words, the what? The thoughts came, you know, yeah. So, you can't downplay the importance of talking about the names of God, huh? And if you don't know how to talk about God, you don't know how to, what, think about God, huh? If you don't know how to speak about God, you don't know how to think about God, huh? So, Thomas is going to talk about the names of God, right, huh? So, he says, in the premium here, to this question, 13. Having considered those things which belong or pertain to divine knowledge, meaning the knowledge of God, why not to proceed to a consideration of divine names, meaning the names of God? For each thing is named by us according as we, what? Know it, right, huh? Okay. It's interesting going back to Dionysius, right, huh? He writes this book about the divine names, huh? Okay. It's kind of interesting that he doesn't say the book is about God, it's about the names of God, right? Well, isn't it about God, you know? I think I mentioned that interesting thing in the commentary on the Psalms, if you had Thomas's commentary on the Psalms, but in one place there, you know, he says, whoever teaches, teaches either words or things, huh? And when we teach scripture, we teach words, right? Well, it's kind of a simple way of speaking, but aren't you teaching us about God? It's not teaching us just about words, are you? Yeah, but kind of the words is up front there. You've got these words, and what do they mean, right? Okay. So, he's going to have 12 articles about the names of God, right? And about this, therefore, 12 things are asked. First, whether God is nameable by us, right? Can we name God, right? In some way. Secondly, whether some name said about God, are said of him, what? Substantially, right? Now, what does that mean? We'll see when we get there. That seems to be kind of strange, huh? Because you don't know God as he is, and what God is is a substance, right? But are some names said of God substantially, right? That's text me, huh? If you look at the beginning of that second article, Thomas, you know, usually takes the opposite side of the one he's going to take, right? And that first says, It seems that no name is said of God substantially. He's going to argue against it, you know? But then later on, he's going to say, Take to the side, right? Himself, huh? That's kind of strange, isn't it? What does that mean? Third, whether some names said of God are said properly of him, or whether all are attributed to him, what? Metaphorically, right? The Lord is my rock, huh? That's being said of God metaphorically. But are all things said of God metaphorically? You say, God is good, or God is perfect. Is that being said of him metaphorically? That's really what he is. He's very good, you'll find out. Or he did find out before, right? They say, what's his name? Dionysius has one book about the things that are said of God properly, and that's the book on divine names. Another book, which is about names said of God, what? Metaphorically, right? It's kind of interesting the way he divides that. I remember one time I said, I think I'll try to, you know, parallel, huh? Saying things of God properly, and then say the same things of God metaphorically, huh? Taste and see how sweet is the Lord, right? So you say that God is sweet. You're saying of God metaphorically, some things you could say of God, what? Properly, right? So if I explain what it means to say that God is sweet, you might bring in the fact that God is what? He is good, right, huh? Okay. You know, what's the famous thing there, huh? When Moses saw the burning bush, right? But the Church Fathers say the burning bush represents the incarnate Word, huh? And the fire represents his divine nature, huh? And the bush is, what? Human nature, huh? And the fact that the bush is not consumed by the fire signifies that his divine nature doesn't, what? Swallow up and destroy or eliminate, burn up, so to speak, his human nature, right? The divine nature and the human nature remain intact, you might say, right? And so the wonder that Moses has that the bush is not consumed, in a way, is a wonder about the, what? Incarnation, huh? Then you say, well, the Church Fathers say, well, a metaphor involved is based upon some kind of likeness, huh? So how is fire a metaphor for the divine nature? Well, the light of fire is a metaphor for the divine, what? Understanding, right? And the heat of the fire is a metaphor for the divine love, huh? And the power of fire to transform things, huh, to change them, is a metaphor for the divine, what? Power, right? Okay. But now sometimes fire is used as a metaphor for, what? The Trinity, huh? And in that case, then, the substance of the fire is a metaphor for God the Father. And from the fire proceeds, what? Light and heat. And from the Father proceeds the Father, I mean the Son, who is like light. And the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, right? Okay. So some things are going to be said of God metaphorically, and some things are said of God, what? Properly, right, huh? Okay. Now, of course, Thomas is going to maintain that some things are said of God properly, and not all things are said of Him metaphorically, right? Although some people give that opinion, right? And then the fourth article, where there are many names said of God are, what? Synonyms, right? Well, synonym means what? Synonym. Synonyms, right? Yeah, yeah. Well, there are many names said of God, but are they synonyms? Well, God's altogether simple, right? You see? But, do they have the same meaning? So when I say God is perfect, and I say God is simple, is the perfection of God and the simplicity of God two different things in God? No. But are the words simple and the words perfect, are they synonyms instead of God? Do they have the same meaning? Okay. Well, there's no problem there, right? See? How can you truly say many things of God when He's altogether, what? Simple. Yeah. And so sometimes, you know, we take that example there that I like to take, the circle, right? And from the one simple God, there proceed, what? But many things and creatures which are divided amongst them, right? Okay, so you can further look to a circle here. And so, this point here is not this point here, and the other points which are the ends of the radiated circle. But our knowledge starts from creatures, right? Okay? So we have many thoughts corresponding to the many distinct perfections of things that are found in the creatures. But when we come back to God from creatures, right? We're knowing Him, in a sense, as the beginning of this line, right? Beginning of that line, right? And so I could say that this center circle is truly the beginning of this line, the beginning of that line, the beginning of that line. Again, it's only one point. But the end point of these lines is all, what? Different, right? So, the fact that we have many names truly said of God, but they're not synonyms, is the fact that we're knowing God from what? Creatures, and renaming God from creatures, right? So, although there's no comparison to the point of the center circle. He's the beginning of many lines, but he's one point. But the end of these lines are really many, right? So, not to be thought about there, right? And then the fifth article, whether some names are said of God and creatures univocally, or what? Equivocally, right? Well, a name is said of many things univocally when it's said with the same meaning in mind, right? It's said equivocally when it's said of many with different meanings in mind, right? Well, as you might guess, there's no name said of God in his divine nature in a creature univocally, right? There's always a different meaning, right? But if there's a different meaning, is it just by chance then? Or is it that there's a, what, reason why the same name is being said of God and us, right? So if I say that God is good and I can say that this human being is good, let's say, or dinner is good or something, does the word good mean the same thing? Not exactly, no. But is it by chance that we say the word good of the man and say the word good of God? And there's some reason for using the word good of both. That's what he's going to bring out in that article. Now, the seventh article, whether some names are said of God from time. Well, God, as you know, is eternal, right? Well, when you say, though, that God is, say, the creator or the ruler of the universe, right? Is that said of God eternally or after he's created? Yeah. But then how can something be said of God extemporary? It's like, you know, something's been added to God, right? There's been some change, right? So that's how you can see all the problems are going to arise about these things, huh? Eighth article, whether this name God, and that's interesting, now he's descending down to the name God itself, right? This is getting, starting article eight, they're getting a little more particular, right? Whether this name God is a name of nature or a name of what? Operation, right? Whether this name God is a name that can be communicated, the tenth article. Whether it's taken univocally or equivocally, as it is said of God by nature and by God by participation. You're all gods, it says in scripture, right? And when you speak of the gods of the Greeks or something, you know, Zeus and so on. It's incredible, right? Right, huh? Okay. Okay. So they say Zeus is a god, and when we say the saints are gods, right? When we say God is God, what does this mean? Then the eleventh article. Whether this name who is, I am who am, is most of all the proper name of God, huh? Okay. We know when Moses said, you know, who's sending me, right? What did I tell him who sent me? What's your name? And then he said, I am who am, right, huh? So this raises the question then now. This is what God says. This is his name, right? Is that most of all his name? I am who am? Who is? Who is? What does our Lord say to a doctor of the church or a doctor of the church? St. Catherine of Siena, right, huh? Oh, yeah. Just remember two things. I am who am, and you are she who is not. But he can say that to all of us, right? There you find that name, huh? Used even in the conversations between our Lord and St. Catherine of Siena. So it seems that he's taking up the name Deus, which in English we translate by God, right? And the name who is, or I am who is, who am. Those two names he's taking up in particular articles here, right? Well, obviously, we're talking about the names of God, whether God is nameable. And obviously the name God comes up there, right? So it's not surprising that he should have two articles, or an article in particular, but actually there is what? The eighth, the ninth, and the tenth. Three of the twelve articles are about the name God in particular, right? Okay. And then there's one article on the name who is, right? Okay. Now the twelfth article, I suppose you could distinguish against the previous articles, because they're really about names. And this is now whether, actually, he's talking about propositions there, has come to mean statement, right? So whether you can make affirmative statements about God, okay? You see any problem making affirmative statements about God? What he is not. Hmm? If the only quality is not. Hmm. But now he's asking whether affirmative propositions are going to be said of God, right? Well, you can say it as an affirmative, and then you can say it as an opposite, too. Yeah. Oh. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But he's asking about whether affirmative statements are going to be made about God, huh? So you say God is this, and there's some distinction between the subject and the predicate, and there's some multiplicity there, right? You know? You know? That got stuck in there among the questions about the names. Yeah. But then you go back to Scripture, and you read through the Psalms, you know, how sometimes it seems like name is almost substituted for God, like by kind of, I don't know, is it by a metonymy, you know? You say our help is in the name of the Lord, huh? Hmm. Oh. Or praise the name of the Lord, right? Hmm. Are you supposed to praise the name of the Lord, really, or praise the Lord? Hmm. You know? Is that a metonym, or what is it? I think a metonym is a figure of speech, right? When you give the container for the contained, or vice versa, or the name for the named, and so on, right? When you say, for example, that a bad age or a bad time, right? Hmm. A bad time. Was a time bad? Hmm. Or if something that took place during that time was bad, see? Or you speak of, you know, an evil place, huh? Hmm. Is the place really evil? Or are the things that I've done in that place evil? Hmm. See? So here you're giving the name of the container to the contained, right? Hmm. Well, I think they call that, you know, metonym, huh? Hmm. Metonym, huh? And, uh, it's a common, fairly common, uh, speech. It's a name of speech in time. And sometimes, for example, you know, when they explain these things, let the earth praise the Lord, right? And they mean, you know, men on the earth praise the earth, not the earth itself, you know? Um, it's a common figure of speech. But it seems like, like, uh, it seems like you're, um, you've got a metonym in these parts of Scripture, huh? Um, it's a common figure, huh? Um, it's a common figure, huh? Um, it's a common figure, huh? Um, it's a common figure, huh? Well, I suppose we should stop there, then, huh? Yeah. And we can begin with a question. Article 1 right now, right? Yeah. Did your father really argue that the Earth is now from the shadow of the castle? I mean, that's in some of his arguments? That's one of his arguments, yeah. Yeah, he thought he was with us here. So he did go ahead of it when everyone made the world was fly? Well, a lot of people did, yeah. Yeah, but, you know, some of the intelligent people, maybe.