Prima Pars
Lecture 54: Figures of Speech and Divine Names in Scripture

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

So you transfer the name from one to the other. But maybe also for a cause and effect sometimes you give the name one to the other. If you speak of somebody's words, it's his wisdom, right? Well, strictly speaking, they're an effect of his wisdom, right? Maybe it's something of mentonomy, huh? But there, it's a different connection between cause and effect or container and contained than whole and part, right? So those are, you know, I'm not saying I've succeeded in enumerating all the ones, but those are the more common, certainly, figures of speech. I don't know of any place in Thomas where he plays them all together, right? I asked him to see a Dion one time, you know, about it looking like you're... It's the same question you asked me. And, of course, he referred to me to quintillion, right? So when I came back, I just said quintillion. It's a defect, I agreed, you know, that quintillion's not that good, you know. So I tried to piece it together from Thomas, at least for the main figures of speech, huh? They're horrible names, you know. In an English dictionary, you probably won't find the way in Antoinette Messiah. If you get the big Oxford dictionary, you'll find Antoinette Messiah in there and so on, right? But you see it in Thomas a lot, these words, you know, in Scripture when it comes up, huh? But you see, the Bible will speak both, what, properly and metaphorically of the same thing, huh? And when it's a metaphoric in one place, it's a property in another place, huh? But Thomas would give various reasons why Scripture will speak metaphorically, huh? Part is because it's natural for us to be led by the sensible things, huh? There might not be any other way to express some spiritual realities. Yeah, but I mean, if you say, for example, that God is fire, right? That's a common metaphor. Therefore, and people say, well, fire, by reason of its heat, signifies a divine love. By reason of its light, the divine knowledge, right? By reason of its transforming power, the divine power, right? Okay. But when I say that God is all-powerful, or God is all-knowing, or God is all-loving, or something of this sort, then I'm speaking properly, right? When I say it's fire, I'm speaking, what, metaphorically, right? Or, you know, you find in Thomas, you know, the fire is also a metaphor for the Trinity sometimes, huh? Because from fire proceeds light, and that's the sun proceeding from the Father, and from fire proceeds what? Heat, the Holy Spirit, right? But sometimes, sometimes they'll take it as a metaphor for God's acting upon us, right? And they'll say, the sun enlightens the world before it warms it. And so God enlightens us by faith before he warms us by charity, huh? So you have to, you know, believe before you can love in the strict sense of charity. That's a beautiful metaphor, right, huh? And there's some likeness there to fire which enlightens before it, what, warms the earth, right? Okay. So that's a beautiful metaphor, fire, huh? And when Moses goes to see the burning bush, right, you know, the bush represents the human nature of Christ, and the fire, the divine nature of Christ, for the reason that I gave before, in terms of his knowledge and his love and his power, and the fire not consuming the bush, represents the fact that the human nature is not swallowed up by the divine nature, as you'd expect. You might expect the heretics would say that, right, huh? But, you know, some of them, so, in the Summa Theologiae, you're getting more what is said of God properly, right? In the same way in the divine names of Dionysius, right? But then Dionysius, there's another book on, you know, symbolic theology, which means metaphorical theology, where you're expounding the names said of God metaphorically, right? But Thomas will talk about that more when he's in the commentary on Scripture, you know, because Scripture will, from time to time, speak metaphorically, huh? I've come to cast fire upon the earth. Now, what do I want but that it be enkindled, our Lord says there in the Gospel of St. Luke, huh? But that's speaking metaphorically, right? He's talking about love, right? Yes, sir. Well, Scott, I talked about this before, you said the question on the, well, in the Creed, light from light, how does that fit in light? You said it's more than metaphorical. Yeah, yeah. Well, Thomas is kind of nuanced about that, you know, because some people might not understand anything more than the metaphorical aspect, right? Okay. You know? Now, sometimes you see in the cartoons, you know, guy has a little light bulb in his head. That's kind of metaphorical, right? But if you have the idea that light manifests something, right? Okay? Then light is said more properly in understanding than in sensing, right? Yeah. Because something is made more manifest there. But some of the, you know, the higher church fathers will see that, I guess, to, you know, this aspect. So, when I say, you know, or the teachers say, enlightens you, right? I think you're speaking properly there. But for some people, it might not get beyond the point of the metaphor, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. So, you know, I kind of neglected there, you know, the teaching about the figures of speech, right? And it's important for understanding sacred scripture, right? Mm-hmm. And it's important for understanding, what? Poetry. And for speeches, too, but more for poetry. And, but Thomas would raise that question, you know, you know, why does scripture use the same thing that poetry uses, right? And it explained, you know, it's for different reasons, why they both use metaphors, for example. I noticed Thomas in that famous little prayer there that the church is singled out for special attention. The Adorote, Devote. You know, in the Inchimedian of Indulgences, the new one was made up after Vatican II, that was one of the prayers signaled out as being of special importance. I noticed one of the last Lenten, that kind of retreat that they have in the Vatican there, you know, where the Pope has somebody give, appoint somebody to be the, so you're lecturing now for the Pope, I mean, not lecturing, but you're giving. Yeah. And the last one there, the guy took, the Adorote, Devote, and some Bishop or Cardinal, you know, there was a sign there, you know, give that kind of pieces for his thing, huh? But, you know, in there you have, what? You have rhythm, and you have rhyming, huh? And you have, what? Alliteration, right? You know, hope, variable, veritatis, various. There you have alliteration, right? Just like Shakespeare, full fathom five, thy father lies. But it's for a different reason that Thomas is doing it than Shakespeare, right? Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's beautiful. So, um, we got to the objections here, yeah? Oh, yeah. Four. We're down to Article 4 now, yeah. Okay. We can have time here, yeah. Stop. Yeah. Okay. So, going back to metaphor, which is kind of the most important of the figures of speech there, Thomas, you know, will sometimes give us a reason why Scripture uses metaphors. Because, simply the fact that man wants to be led by what is, what, sensible, right? And some people can't get beyond that either, right? And, uh, but also, you know, Thomas says that it's to, what, stimulate the mind, right? To understand the metaphor, what's hidden under it, huh? But, uh, the interesting reason he gives, another reason he gives in the sentences, is that the whole of man should be subject to God, okay? That means especially our mind and our will, right? But even our legs. So, why do we genuflect in, in, in church there, right, huh? So, all the way down to the legs, right? They partake of this, huh? And Thomas says, well, between the legs, which are a more material part of our body, and our mind and the will, you've got something called imagination, okay? And imagination is a very important ability we have, but it's also very dangerous. one, huh? Okay? And people are led astray, you know, and what Shakespeare calls sinful fantasy. People are always imagining things they should be imagining, right? You know, and temptations they have with that, right? So it's very important that the imagination be, what, subject to God too, right? And in its metaphor is you are, what, bringing the imagination out into the service of God. So if it's important that even your legs be in the service of God and you genuflect, how much more important that this more noble faculty, the imagination, should be brought into this subjection to God, huh? And of course you know how you have these authors who talk about the Christian imagination, right? I mean there's a very direct subordination and imagination to divine worship by, what, the metaphors and such, you know? It's also kind of a, you know, refreshing to the imagination to have the metaphor. I know myself, I mean, you know, you're studying philosophy, kind of an abstract thing there, you're getting kind of tired of your imagination, your intuitive paralysis. So you pick up a little Shakespeare or something, you know, and it kind of refreshes the imagination, right? But scripture does that, right? It's kind of, in some ways, scripture is more refreshing than the Summa, right? You know? But the Summa is always, you know, kind of proceeding, you know, properly, right? But you kind of go down, you know, the things we say properly and say this, I can say it metaphorically. It's kind of pleasing to see that. So there's a lot of reasons why scripture uses metaphoric summa. But then the main cause of error is what it's called, what? Bold imagination. Beautiful text of the Amnesians there where Thomas develops that. But it kind of involves the main cause of deception, the sight of the knowing powers, which is false imagination, which means imagining things other than they are, and imagining things, they're trying to imagine things that can't be imagined, you know? And boldness, of course, comes from pride, huh? So you've got the two causes there. Bold imagination. You seem to think that this bold imagination is something new, but it shows that now. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The word was made flesh, you know? The word was in place of the, what? Soul in Christ, huh? That's bold imagination, right? You know? See, you go through these areas, huh? I know I taught, you know, my first, you know, long time teaching was at St. Mary's College in California there, and I taught there three years before I had my doctorate. And that college had been around for about a hundred years, huh? In fact, when I was out there, they had the hundredth anniversary of that college, so they had a big, you know, academic procession, and L.B. Jake and I spoke there, right? He was vice president at the time, huh? And he was one of the speakers there. But anyway, it's kind interesting, around the library, they had some old books there, right? And so, one of my favorite authors there, St. Alphonsus de Lourdes, right? More for a spiritual reading. But he had a book up there, he had a book on heresies. What a thick book. And it's description of all these heresies, something like Augustine's great book on heresies, right? And then Refutation of the Heresies, right? He really, this guy is something, you know? You think of him more in terms of moral theology and that sort of thing, but he has this thing on heresies and, but, you know, bold imagination, right? We think of all these, where all these, you know, mistakes and errors come from, you know? But it comes from bold imagination, right? I mean, parallel universes, you know? That was my brother, you know, the, those who, who, I didn't realize this, you know, but my brother Mark had, you know, reading the great books out there at Thomas Aquinas and so on. And they all teach Euclid, right? You know, it's kind of a common thing and so on. And of course, it used to be very common, huh, that everybody was still Euclid. And then they would tend to, to take off on these things, see? So my brother Mark had the liberalism moro geometrico demonstrata, right, huh? And the various theorems, huh? And like, one of the theorems was, at any point in argument, to construct a tangent. Or a liberal's mind and reality extended to infinity will never meet. Like, part of the lines, see? And I was reading one of the English novelists, right, you know, and where the, the, the pedagogue, so to speak, goes to, on the grand tour with his, his pupil, right, huh? And he's trying to, you know, keep him from getting into trouble, you know? And a young man, in discretion, you know, extended never meet, you know? And that's why these sort of things, huh? And, you know, if, if, everybody knows the first theorem of Euclid, which is on a straight line to construct the equilateral triangle, right? And my brother Mark had the theorem in there, on a flattened federal republic to construct a pyramid of total power. So, he, huh? He has a good imagination. Yeah, yeah. But I realized a lot of people had done the same thing before him. I mean, I saw the English novels, you know, where the people knew the Euclid, you know, and they would, they would have these, uh, these, uh, theorems, you know? But, uh, you know, you, you know, this idea that, that a line touches a circle at only one point, right? So, that's practically nothing to do with it, right? So, at any point in argument, they construct a tangent, you know? Yeah, beautiful, beautiful theorem, huh? So, you realize what a, what a fruitful thing, this thing, the imagination is, but how it quickly, you know, leads people astray, you know? And, uh, I remember, you know, um, I think in Toyin Beach, you know, world history there, you know? Um, he has a picture here, one type of, uh, of the hosts in the, you know, the monstrance, you know? You know, and kind of, you know, and comparing it to, uh, to, uh, uh, these, uh, uh, Sarah's and, you know, these things you had in the, uh, you know, the kind of worship of fruits and so on, right? You know, the thing like that, you know? Making all these connections in the imagination, you know? They have nothing to do with what the thing's really about, you know? It's just somewhere where, where, where, where, where back in the worship of the green deities and so on, you know? You know, and then you just kind of, a, a hold over for that, you know? And then you see, there's all these things, you know? Go to the website, there's people that are trying to make a connection to the Catholic devotion to the Eucharist, it's, it's sun worship. Yeah, yeah, it's something like that, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because monstrances, monstrances are often, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I see, you see, in the Midsummer Night's Green, which is, by its very title, right, right? Shows the connection between fiction and imagination, right? And finding a dream, right? And that's where Shakespeare has his greatest thing about the danger of imagination, huh? Really profound what he says in there, huh? Mm-hmm. And, uh, he kind of understands this, you know? And even, uh, uh, good writers like, um, Jane Austen there, you know? North Anger Abbey, you know? Where the girl, you know, is invited out there. North Anger Abbey is, you know, how the Abbeys are taken over and made into houses, you know, for the, during the time. And, and her imagination is carried away, right? And, uh, thinks all kinds of things are going on in this, this house like that. But, but she, she sees, um, imagination is a cause of deception, huh? Mm-hmm. And, uh, with the modern world, it's especially tied up with this because the, the, uh, the customs in the modern world give a great prominence to imagination. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. A little excerpt, a little excursus on dreams. He talks about sometimes the truth, sometimes the false, blah, blah, blah. And then he quotes in the scripture, he says, why we shouldn't trust in them, even though God can use them. But the reason why, because he quotes from one of the wisdom books, he says, because many have been led astray by dreams. That's the reason why our first reaction should be one of great caution, just dismissive. And sure enough, it was providential. The very next day, we're going to retreat. Peter was asking about dreams. He said, many have been led astray by dreams. And he thought it was so wise that I knew that scripture. He just read that day. He's just worried about it. It has to be old in order for it to be wise. And you can just wake up with his dad and be wise. I mean, buy it, right? And St. John on the cross says, even if they are from God, just ignore them. The devil can make you so famous. Well, Thomas' understanding of the figures of speech, you know, is really greater than anybody else has ever seen. And, you know, in the Comprehend of Psalms, you know, he has the best explanation of the metaphor of sweet. He happens to explain, you know, sweet as the Lord, and taste, you know, the Lord is, you know, see how sweet he is. And even for understanding sweet, it's used in more common in daily life, huh? Because Thomas says, sweet, there's a metaphor. A metaphor is based on likeness. And what is the likeness there underlying this, huh? And he says that there are three things in the metaphor of sweet, huh? And the sweet is, what, pleasant, right? And it's, what, refreshing? And what else? It's restful. Restful, see? Now, it strikes me, you know, how profound that is, huh? You know, it was always a common thing. When I was growing up, you know, a kid gets lost, and the police pick him up, right? And now the kid's crying, and they're trying to find the parents and contact the parents, so they get the kid out there. Yeah. Well, what do you do with a kid in the police station who's crying? Yeah, or you buy him an ice cream phone. That's a common thing, you know? And the kid quiets down, huh? Okay? And my wife and I, we would be driving, say, out to Minnesota, you know, here, with the three kids in there who are little. And sometimes they get a little bit restless, to say the least, especially when you bring them out of hours driving. Well, what I did, I remember one time, was I put three kinds of candy, like an M&M and a, you know, nibs or something like that, three of them in a little bag, and I stapled it. And then I put three more little packages and stapled it. And then I put one in a big bag, you know, and that was Daddy's bag, you know? And when my wife and I cannot stay on the noise anymore in the back seat, say it's time for a Daddy treat. So I get a little bag, you know? Open up, and there's three things in there. There's M&Ms, maybe, you know, dots and something else. And each one gets, the three children, each one gets a little one, and they share, you know, and so on, they talk, and, you know. So it's very pleasant for a while, you know. So you realize that candy really does, you know, quiet you down, you see? And then it's also, what? Refreshes you, right? So people, you know, got these machines in all the buildings, you know, refreshments, you know, you see? And then it's obviously pleasant, right? See? So I find it's all kinds of applications, these three things. We often describe the beautiful as sweet, right? Okay? Shakespeare says your sweet form, your beautiful form, right? Well, obviously, the beautiful is that which pleases when seeing that. That part is the most thing. But I know some people will spontaneously speak of something beautiful as restful, you know. If you have a beautiful view from your household looks, then you say, well, how restful, you know, the beautiful hills or whatever it is, you know. That's very restful, right? And it was because, you know, it was always, when I grew up, you say about a beautiful girl, you know, she has a sight for sore eyes, refreshing, right? But, I mean, anything beautiful is refreshing, right? And, you know, I used to go in the lower reading room there at the College of St. Thomas, I went to college, you know, and there was a beautiful painting there on the wall there, you know. And you're reading, you know, logic, you know, the first finger, the second finger, the third finger, and you're getting kind of tired of your eyes, and you kind of sit back and look at that beautiful painting, huh? And, so, you know, it's a tough thing about that, but Thomas analyzes in the likeness there, right? That the sweet is pleasant, it's refreshing, and it's what? Restful, yeah. And that this is true about, you know, the various, other uses of the word sweet that you're talking about. You know, you say that it's sweet, you know, to be loved by somebody, right, huh? Okay. What does that mean? Well, it means it's pleasing, right? But it also means it's refreshing, right? In fact, somebody likes you, you know? And it's also restful, right? Or the opposite. If you find someone, you know, who's your enemy, right? It's, you know, what William F. Buckley said, you know, about some of his enemies, you know, he says, the tenacious ill will, you know, not just to be opposed to him, you know, or his thing, but tenacious ill will, you know, you know, it makes you kind of like, you see, you know, and you see somebody doesn't really like you, you know, they can't stand you. So, it makes you kind of restless, right? See, why you find someone loves you, you kind of rest in their heart and so on, right? And so, you know, it makes a lot of sense. But, I mean, Thomas has explained the metaphor sweet in talking about the use of it in the psalm there in a way that helps you to understand the use of the word sweetest metaphor in talking about love or talking about the beautiful or, you know, it's, you need to understand these things. It's funny, I'm noticing that, you know, I was reading him just today about the, the, the, you know, the seven orders used to have in this sacrament, you know, orders and so on. And, why these, you know, and of course, Thomas gives to a few opinions, you know, and he says, he gives opinions, but this is nothing. And he says, well, it's nothing. But this is nothing. That's the phrase he used, this is nothing. But that's nothing he says. Then funny, it comes down to, I think it's the correct explanation of it, right? It's all reference to the Eucharist. And by the different, you know, proximities of the Eucharist in some way, either in the preparation of it or the actual of it or else in the preparing the agnus for it, you know, the congregation for it. But I mean, I mean, but this is nothing. Yeah, you see, it's so clear in your way, you know, you see, but people kind of, you know, getting caught up, you know, they're trying to say, well, this is tied up with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. So they're trying to give a connection between the seven orders there, the acolytes and the exorcists and the seven, you know, or another one's trying to compare it to gratis, gratis, dada, you know, and the seven things at St. Paul. You know, but this is nothing, But you get the reason why it is, you know, nothing, you know, but he sees so clearly, you know. The Maronites have five or nine and they connect it to the nine orders of angels. Yeah, that comes up too, because one objection says there shouldn't be seven, there should be nine because of the angels. But Thomas explains why they shouldn't, you know, be in the sixth sense nine. But anyway, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, and help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Last but not least, huh? Let's just stand back for a little second here, think a little bit about this. Both Augustine of Hippo and Thomas of Aquino say that in giving us the Our Father right, Christ not only taught us how to pray, what to pray for, but He also taught us what to desire, what to want, huh? And also the order in which we should want these things, huh? And so the first of the seven petitions in the Our Father in Matthew write is, Hallowed be thy name, huh? So name comes in to the thing we're supposed to desire the most, at least to the statement of that, the way it's stated in the Our Father. However you understand those words, right? And you have the same exact words in Matthew, in Luke. Luke is the other gospel, but it doesn't have all seven petitions, right? But it's, Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, right? And then give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our... Actually, I was looking at my Greek dictionary, they had in the one, Ophilimata, forgive our Ophilimata, which is kind of like our trespasses, our things, you know, that one said harm our dear sins. But anyway, there's some, you know, other texts too, of course, but that's the one they adopted. So it's a great deal of importance then, right, to the names, huh? And I guess it's very striking with Dionysius, who Thomas has a great deal of respect for, whether he is or is not the... I don't think he is the one converted by Paul, but he has a great deal of authority and a great deal of excellence. But when Thomas, at the beginning of his commentary on the divine names, he says that Dionysius has artfully divided, right? Without going into all four works that Thomas speaks of there, just two of the works, right? You have the Divinis Dominibus, and then you have the symbolic theology, where symbol has the meaning of metaphor, right? So he's written one book about the names said properly of God, like good and so on, and then another book about the names said of God metaphorically, yeah, yeah. So it's divided according to the names, huh? So that prominence, huh? Now, contrast that with the Summa Theologiae. The Summa Theologiae is not about names. It's about things. And the main thing it's about is God. But if you're going to talk about God and other things in relation to God, you have to name them to talk about them. So ex consequente, you might say, as a consequence of wanting to talk about God, right? You have to at some time, like we're doing here in this 13th question, huh? Talk about the names you're using, right? And this is kind of a general view of it, and then occasionally it'll come up again in some particular question or article, where a name, there's some problem about a name that's being used, huh? But nevertheless, if you say, what is this book about? You say it's about things, or it's about one thing in particular, and one thing mainly, God, right, huh? And a few other, and some other things, but in comparison to God, is there a beginning or there end? Now, if you look at the works of Dionysius, what are they about? See? Yeah, about the names of God, right? Either the names, you know, that are said property of God, or the names that are said metaphorically of God, huh? And there's some other books he has, right? Maybe I shouldn't go into those, really, but Thomas says, you know, sometimes you have something that is found primarily in God and in a kind of diminished way in the creature, and that's what the divine names is about, those names. Other names are said more properly creatures, like stone, and then they're carried over to God, even metaphorically, huh? And then there's some things he says we can't find anything like this in creatures, like for the Trinity. So that's a separate book by Dionysius on the Trinity. And then you get through all these names you still don't know what he is, so then there's this book on mystical theology, which is, you know, being joined to God as not being really known to you as he is. But anyway, it's closer to what we're talking about here, the distinction between the divine names and the symbolic theology, yeah? Okay? Now, if you talk about names, you write a book about names, the names of God, whether they be as proper names or as metaphorical, or as metaphorically called, you're going to have to talk about, to understand those names, you're going to have to talk about the things they signify, right? So the man who writes the book about names, as Dionysius says, he says so in the very beginning. And in fact, the word he uses is onema, the same word that you have in Hallowed be thy name. Onema, the same word Aristotle has in the, what? Perry Hermeneus, he talks about the name, huh? If you're going to talk about names and try to understand them, you've got to talk about the things that they, what? Yeah, yeah. So, but notice the difference in the way these things are constructed, right? The one is a book about things, right? And because you want to talk about those things, at some time you have something to say about the names, right? As Thomas does here, right? But nevertheless, it's basically about things. In other case, the book is about names, and in order to understand the names, you have to talk about the things that the names signify, right? And therefore you must talk about things, right? So both. Well, what's up front is the one case things, the other case the name, huh? Okay? Now, it's got an interesting distinction, isn't it? Okay? Let's compare the Summa Theologiae, which is a great work, got a lot of authority in the church and so on, with the divine names of Dionysius, right? And what's the first difference between these two great books? Well, one is about things, namely about God, really, and the other is about names. Okay? And that's not contradicted by the fact that Thomas would at some time talk about names, and vice versa, right? Okay? Just like, you know, Aristotle's 14 books of wisdom, what are they about? Names are about things. Things, but he has a few chapters there on the definitions. He has a whole fifth book about names, right? But chiefly you'd say the 14 books of wisdom are about things, about the first causes and about substance, and so on, right? Okay? But he does devote a whole book to talking about the names, because these names are all equivocal by reason, and men are most, you know, deceived by equivocal, by reason words, and they have a hard time grasping these words, and so it's very important to have a book about them. But now it's raised just a little problem here, okay? You say, which is more important, words or things? In other words, do you want to know about things for the sake of knowing about words or names, or do you want to know about names for the sake of knowing about things? Names. Yeah, yeah. So it seems that things are the more important thing to talk about. So why should the great Dionysius, right, put words or names up front, right? Why should you write a book about the divine names rather than a book about the divine attributes or something like that, huh? You see? It's a little problem, right? It's kind of a strange thing, right? Thomas will often say in philosophy that philosophy is not about names, right? It's about things. It's amazing. And it's at the, you know, So they didn't even have to talk about names at some point. That's not what it's chiefly about. It's about things. So why should Dionysius make the book about names, you know? But that's a little bit of a problem, isn't it? Except he's looking at how we know God, so then therefore you can focus on names. Well, that's going to come out, I see. You talk about names. To understand the names, you have to know in some way the things that the names signify, right? And they signify things through thoughts, so thoughts will come up a bit too, how we know this thing, right? But the order seems to be the reverse of here, right? We talked about the thing God here, right? And then we talked about how we know God, and then last of all, about names, you see? Well, in another case, names are up front, right? And I mentioned that interesting distinction that Thomas makes in the commentary on the Psalms, where he says, who teaches, teaches either things or words. Okay? It's like the distinction I was making here between the Summa and Dionysius. And Thomas says, when he teaches faith and morals, we're teaching things. When he teaches sacred scripture, we're teaching words. Now, is that put down in our scripture? No, by no means. But why does he speak that way, right? See? That's a little bit like the problem raised about Dionysius, huh? Okay? Because is Dionysius more interested in the names than in the thing? That wouldn't make any sense. He wouldn't be the great man that he is if he was. Yes. Because the name signifies the thing by means of our understanding, the concept of our mind. So there's, maybe in terms of the, I want to say in terms of the order of knowing the thing or something. Well, maybe as a little way of diminishing that, the delphinus here, huh? One thing I've noticed, huh? So when Augustine talks about theology, he uses the term Christian doctrine, right? Okay? And Thomas, in the beginning, if you go back to the first question, he talks about Sacra Doctrina, right? And sometimes I contrast Sacra Doctrina, or Christian Doctrina, with mathematics, right? Because mathematics is named from the student, the learner. And mathematics, in a sense, means the things that can be learned, or learned most easily, right? Kind of by Antonia Messia. Not the only things that can be learned, I hope. But the things that can be learned most easily by us, and most thoroughly by us, right? Not the greatest things to know, by any means. But they're the most, you know, something you're most able to learn by ourselves. And on the part of the student, you could say, not only are they easier to learn, but he needs the least of any of the sciences, belief in the words of his teacher. Because he can see fairly quickly that what the teacher is saying must be true, right? He doesn't have to hold on to the words of the teacher as if, you know, it's going to take him a long time to come to know this, huh? Why Sacra Doctrina, or Doctrina Christiana, I would say, is named for the doctor, the teacher, and I think that's maybe a sign, right? That there, the student, is most dependent upon the teacher, right? Especially the teacher that is the teacher, Christ, huh? Okay? Like Thomas says, you know, in the beginning here, the argument from faith or human belief, or from belief rather, is the weakest in philosophy, huh? But the strongest in what? Yeah, yeah. So, that's again a reason to say that you depend most of all upon the teacher here, right? Okay? Now, let's see, Dian used to give a little text there. I asked him one time, well, where is that text? He couldn't be where it was. I have run across it since, some of the disputed questions, anyway. But, he's contrasting the teacher with the, what, student, right? And he says the teacher gets from things some knowledge, right, of those things. And once he gets this knowledge, and understands these things, then he looks for the suitable words with which to express what he understands. So, what comes first is the things, and then second, the teacher's thoughts about those things, or his understanding of those things, and then putting into the suitable words, right, in which to express what he has understood, right? But the student hears first the words of the teacher. And from the words of the teacher's teacher, if he's good, and so on, he comes to the knowledge of the teacher, to the thoughts of the teacher, behind those words. And ultimately, to the, what, things behind the, yeah, yeah. So, there is a kind of priority, you might say, of beforeness, of words on the side of what? Yeah, yeah. And since theology is, most of all, doctrina, most of all, dependent upon the teacher, beginning with the words is most, what, appropriate, right? And so, when we pick up, you know, going back to what Thomas said, that when you teach scripture, you're teaching words, huh? Well, you begin with the words of St. John, or St. Matthew, or words of our Lord in the Gospels. And that's what comes first, the words. And then you try to understand what the words mean, right? And you finally come to some understanding of the things, right? That our Lord, or the Gospel writer, is touching upon. But words come first, right? Not that they're the most important, right? But it comes first, right? You see something like that in our Lord teaching them how to pray, because you teach somebody how to pray, you first teach them the words to use, huh? Like it says in the song, let the words of my mouth and the thought of my heart find fear before you. But it says words first, right? And so, if you think back, you probably learned the Our Father maybe from your mother. I think I probably, I can't remember when I learned it, but I've known it for some time. And, but did I understand those words? So not the way I understood them after I read Thomas, or St. Augustine, or St. John Damascene or somebody. But in a sense, that's where you have to begin, right? And you know, the little children, you know, they say the Our Father, the Hail Mary, we say the rosary with them, you know? I actually have a way of saying the rosary, you know. We say one Hail Mary for a whole decade. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. One will be for each one, right? And see, with the whole decade with the Hail Mary, right? So they get the words down, but they don't what? Yeah. Yeah. You see? And then gradually come to understand them more and more, right? Okay. And that's true, I mean, of learning, huh? Who was it? Who was the famous philosopher? Was it? I think it was one of the Arab philosophers, right? And he read the words of our style, couldn't make any sense of them at all. And it's funny, somebody came along and helped him to kind of penetrate those words, right? That's kind of what it is to be starting off with a difficult thing, you know? So, I'll just explain a bit why you say that, right? Okay. Now, to come back to the comparison I was making at the beginning of the class there, that the Our Father teaches us both what to pray for, right? But also, as Augustine says, it teaches us what to want and desire. And more than that, it teaches us the order which to desire these things, right? So, he said the first petition is, hallowed be thy name, right? And the word name is in there, unama, the very word that... Dionysius uses it, Aristotle uses it for a name, onoma. But notice a contrast theorem, hallowed be thy name, right? Dionysius' book is called about the divine names. It's in the plural, right? So why, you know, it says hallowed be thy name, do you have just one name? But Dionysius, you know, says there are many names, right? And Thomas says the same thing in the Stratus here, right? Why do you say, hallowed be thy name? Why do you say, hallowed be thy names? Because all the names are reduced to one name. Well, go back to the Our Father now, see? The first petition is hallowed be thy name, right? The second petition is thy kingdom come. Now as Augustine and Thomas both point out, what is that kingdom you're asking to come? Well, the kingdom of heaven. But what is it? It's the ordered society of those who see God. It's exactly what it is. So Thomas, you know, you could say more precisely, that it's the ordered society of those who see God as he is. Okay? Now, once you see God as he is, you're going to break out into praise. Right. Okay? But we name things as we know them. And now when you know God as he is, do you have many names or one name? Yeah, yeah. And Thomas, I don't think you just assume here, I've seen him elsewhere. You ever make this reference to the end of Zacharias, one of the prophets there? And to this text here, verses eight, actually most of all in verse nine, but just read verse eight first. And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them to the east sea and half of them to the last sea. They shall be in summer and winter, and the Lord shall be king over all the earth. And in that day, there should be one Lord, and his name shall be one. Okay? And Thomas, you know, takes that as referring to what? Yeah, because we name things as we know them. Once you know God as he is, you don't have many thoughts in knowing him as he is. He's one and simple because you see him as he is. If you have really one name, and since you're asking, you know, for this hell would be thy name that comes after that kingdom come in the order of execution, not in the order of intention. And that kingdom come means what? The society, the order of society of those who see God as he is, right? Therefore, you're going to have only one name. Okay? So, let's go back to talking about names, shall we? All right, we'll go four here, huh? To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that these names said of God are synonymous names, huh? They're synonyms. Now, what is a synonym? What are synonyms? Yeah, yeah, okay? For synonymous names are said, those which signify altogether the same thing, huh? But these names said of God altogether signify the same thing in God. Because the goodness of God is his very, what, essence or nature. And likewise, the wisdom of God is his nature or substance. Therefore, these names are altogether synonyms. Convinced? Of course, do they signify the same thing? Yeah, yeah, it's the same thought. Well, the second objection replies to that. If it be said that these names signify the same thing, secundum rem, right? In reality, the wisdom of God and the goodness of God and the love of God are one and the same thing. Okay? But according to different, what, thoughts. Against this, we can say that a thought to which nothing corresponds, to which does not correspond something in the thing, right, is vain and empty, right? If, therefore, these thoughts are many and the thing is one, it seems that these thoughts are vain, huh? Empty, huh? Third objection. So notice the same objection is kind of replying to a kind of attempt to solve the first objection, right? Moreover, that is more one, which is one in reality or in things, and in thought, than that which is one in the thing, but multiple in thought. But God is what? Most one. Maxime unisa. Therefore, it seems that he is not one in thing, in reality, and many in, what, thought. And thus the name said of God did not signify diverse reasons, and thus their synonyms, right? Okay, this is again, in a sense, replying to that attempt to answer the first objection, but counting, trying to take out the premise that is being used to deny the synonyms, right? That there are different thoughts, right? Mm-hmm. There aren't, there aren't different thoughts. Okay? But the second objection is saying that there are different thoughts, and they don't correspond to anything, well then, that they're in vain, huh? But against this, huh, all synonyms added to each other, right? Bring about a, what? Negation, I guess you'd say. A new God seal. New God seal. Yeah, as if one should say a vestis indumentary, right? If, therefore, all names said of God as synonyms, one cannot suitably say about God, deus bonus, right? The good God, huh? Or the wise God, the merciful God, or something of this sort. Well, nevertheless, in Jeremiah's, huh? Most strong, great, powerful, the Lord of armies is his name, huh? Okay? Okay, now Thomas is going to reply in the body of the article. He's going to uphold the solution that was hinted at in the second objection, right? I answer, it should be said that these names said of God are not synonyms, which is easy to see if we were to say, right, that these names are brought in to remove something, right? Okay? So if you say God is, what, immaterial and he's unchangeable, right? Well, matter and change are not the same thing, although they're connected, huh? So if you're just negating things of God, right, you can negate different things in creatures. You can say God is not a stone, God is not a tree, right? Okay, they would be synonyms, right? Okay? It should be easy if all these names were that sort. That's the opinion that he denied when he said that some names are said of God, what, substantially, remember that? Okay? Or, and then the other thing was in the position of Rabbi Moses there, or designating the, what, relation of cause with respect to creatures, right? Okay? So if you say God is the mover and God is the first maker, well, mover is a cause of motion, maker is a cause of form. Well, okay. Thus, there would be diverse thoughts of these names, diverse meanings of these names, according to the diverse things that are being negated, okay? Or according to the diverse effects that are connoted in these, huh? Okay? But according to what has been said, names of this sort signify the divine, what, substance, huh? Although, what, imperfectly. Also, it clearly appears, according to the four said, that they have diverse, what, thoughts or meanings. For the ratio, or the thought or meaning, which the name signifies, is the conception or thought of the understanding about the things signified through the, what, name, huh? Okay? You can say, really, you know, that, um... in a way that our names or words signify our thoughts before they signify things. I mean, sometimes they'll say words signify things through thoughts, right? But then the thought is closer to the word than is the, what, thing, right? That's what I was saying before. The teacher uses his words, and from his words you come to the thoughts of the teacher, right? And if the teacher is thinking correctly, then through his thoughts you might come to the things, right? But the thoughts are closer to the, what, words, right? In that sense, the words of the teacher are closer to thoughts than the things, right? So you can get good thoughts maybe easier from the teacher than from things. Because you're getting, you know, these thoughts to the teacher's words, which are closer to your thoughts than the things. But anyway, but our understanding, since it knows God from creatures, it forms for understanding God, right? Thoughts that are proportioned to the perfections proceeding from God in, what, creatures. Which perfections pre-exist in God in a united way and simply, huh? But in creatures they are received in a divided way and in a multiple way, right? Thus, therefore, to the diverse perfections of creature, there corresponds one simple, what, beginning, huh? according as these, what, according to these thoughts imperfectly understood, huh? So I can't really grasp God very well, right? And each of these thoughts is an imperfect understanding of God, right? Starting from the multiple perfections of the creatures, huh? And therefore, the names attributed to God, although they signify one thing, nevertheless, because they signify this one thing, under many and diverse thoughts or reasons, they are not, what? Yeah. Get finished now? Okay. And thus is clear the solution to the first objection, right? Because synonyms are names which signify one thing by one, what? Thought. Thought, yeah. So it's not enough to say they signify one thing, but they signify one thing through one thought, okay? But those that signify diverse thoughts about one thing, right, do not first and through themselves signify one. And he gives the famous reason which Aristotle would point out, because a name does not signify a thing, except through, or mediante, mediante, is a medium, the thought of the understanding, as has been said, right? That's what Aristotle points out in the prayer of Meneas, right? And he talks about vocal sounds and thoughts and things, huh? So the vocal sounds signify things only through what? Thoughts, huh? That's why I can have, you know, a word like man, where outside of me there's only these individual men, right? But because you understand what man is in general, right? Yeah. Then I can have a word like man, right? Okay? If man was signifying primarily what's out there, I couldn't have it, because you're an individual, right? Yeah. Yeah. You're a micro or something, right? You see? But I have thoughts like man, right? How do I have that, right? Or words like man, I should say. Not just micro, but I have man. You see? That's universal in the mind. Not outside the mind, right? Look and be said of what's outside the mind. Now, the second objection is saying, well, if you've got many thoughts, but there's one thing, isn't this in vain, right? To the second it should be said that the many thoughts of these names, the many meanings of these names, are not in vain, right? Because to all of them, there corresponds one simple, what? Thing. To all of these, in many ways, and imperfectly, what? Represented, huh? Okay? Well, sometimes I go out and find the limb a little bit and say, yeah. I think the greatest minds at church have been, what? Men, right? Augustine and Thomas and so on, right? And Paul VI, when he made St. Teresa of Avila, Dr. Church, she's not a Dr. Church, nobody guessed it, he made the distinction, right? But he also pointed out, you know, that there's a certain kind of contemplative love, and he quoted St. Francis de Sales, that women are more capable, right? Okay? But, you know, leaving aside, the spiritual there from one time, I think he can say this, you know, if you look over in history, just a human thing. The great philosophers have been men, right? Great scientists have been men, right? You see? But women are by nature more of what? Loving, right? Okay? So the man is by nature more understanding, but the woman more loving. That's kind of a good example of what he's saying here, right? Because the understanding of God and the love of God are reflected in the man and the woman, but perhaps the understanding more in the man and the loving more in the woman, right? And so even if you read, you know, St. Francis de Sales talking about love, that's understanding love, right? But I mean, his examples will be taken more from what? St. Gertrude and St. Teresa of Avila and the woman saints, right? Where it's more clear, right? As I say, I was reading this morning there in the Catherine Psychopedic, the article and Gertrude again, and, you know, talking about her in the devotion to the Sacred Heart, right? I mean, it didn't start with Margaret Mary Alicocca. When I was over in France with the bishop recently, we went to Margaret Mary's place, you know? And, but why is it that these women are, are the propagators, so to speak, right? The ones to whom the mystery of the love of God, right? There's a famous thing in Gertrude's life there, you know, where Christ says, if you want to find me, you know where I am? I'm in the heart of Gertrude. Well, you can see it about a man's saint, although, you know, I think he was loved by the men's saints too, huh? So, so, you can see kind of how these two perfections of God, understanding and loving, they're in man and woman unequally, right? And, and, both of us are equal to God, right? But, it's divided, right? It's kind of interesting the way God has divided those things, huh? they notice how, like in the family, you know, that the father is more apt to disown his son, huh? To end up to certain standards than the mother would be, right? And, you see kind of the strength of the mother's love, right? And, you know, Aristotle's determining the truth about the great question of, this friendship consists more in loving or being loved, right? And, of course, he takes a sign from the woman who sometimes would give up her child because she couldn't feed the child or something, knowing that the one who took care of the child would be loved by that child more than her, but she seeks more to love the child, to be loved by him, right? You know? But, it kind of takes the example of the woman there as having perfection of what? Love, you know? So, we get an idea of understanding from maybe the man more than the woman and of loving more from the woman than the man and, but both of these reflect in an imperfect way the understanding and the love of God which are one thing, right? God's understanding and his loving are not two things but the man and the woman are not one thing but two things, right? But for that matter, even if you go inside the man and the woman, my reason and my heart or my reason and my will are the same thing