Prima Pars
Lecture 101: Predestination, Certainty, and the Number of the Elect

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

Okay, let's go on to Article 6 now, where the predestination is certain. To the sixth one proceeds thus, it seems that predestination is not certain, because on that in Apocalypse, Chapter 3, hold what you have, let someone else get your crown, right? Take your crown. Augustine says that another would not, what? Take it on, unless this one had what failed. So, it is possible to acquire and lose a crown, which is the effect of predestination. Therefore, predestination is not certain. It's interesting how we're said to reign with Christ in heaven, right? How kingship is tied up with this seeing the first truth. And of course, in the Gospel of St. John, he says, you know, you are king, he says, Christ says, for this was I born, for this I came into the world, I make a testimony unto the truth, right? So, the connection there between being king and the truth, is interesting. And they use the word crown, right? Shakespeare uses the phrase of the crowned truth. So, that's very, very interesting. I noticed how in Thomas, in the scripture itself and so on, sometimes they only mention Christ as being king and priest, like in Psalm 109 and so on. They leave out as being, what, prophet, right? But then I think that king involves not only the command and directing our lives, but also, yeah, yeah, it's assessing the truth, right? And it comes down to the other passages I mentioned, right? I used to call the statement about contradiction, right? The king of all statements. It's, it rules all the other ones over. Yeah, yeah, yeah, oh, yeah, I get this. I stick that in the eye, I get that. Into your mind, yeah. Sorry. Maybe it made an impression on me. Yeah. Moreover, possibly laid down, nothing impossible follows, as Aristoteluses in the good wisdom. But it's possible for someone predestined, as Peter, for example, to sin, right? And then to be killed, right? But this taking place, then the effect of predestination would be frustrating. Therefore, this is not impossible. Therefore, predestination is not certain. Moreover, whatever God was able to do, he can do. But he was able to not predestinate, predestine whom he predestined. Therefore, now he's able to not predestine him. Therefore, predestination is not, what? Certain. Was he convinced by the opposite side? That was clever. Was it, was it, Voltaire is supposed to have gone through, you know, taken all the objections, just that bothered his Catholic friends, huh? I see a quote from Voltaire today, right somewhere, where he said, what he ever prayed for was that my enemies would look ridiculous. Right. But against this is what is said by the gloss on Romans 8. Whom he foreknow, he predestined, right? Predestination is a foreknowledge and preparation of the benefits of God, which most certainly, right? By which most certainly, certissime, right? Is the Latin. Most surely, right? Are freed, whoever are, now Thomas says, I answer it should be said that predestination most surely, right? And infallibly achieves its effect, right? But nevertheless, it does not place, what? Necessity upon things. That the effect from necessity come about, huh? This comes out of what we saw in general, about foresight. foresight. For it has been said above that predestination is a part of providence. But not all things which are subject to providence are necessary. But some happen contingently according to the condition of the proximate causes, which divine providence or to such effects. And nevertheless, the order of providence is infallible as has been shown, right? So God, what? God's providence is certain, but for some things he orders necessary clauses, right? So those things won't necessarily happen, right? Other things he has contingent clauses and they're going to take place too. But contingently. That's kind of the marvelous thing about divine providence. And I say that's why they compare what the poet does in his plot, right? Where he makes chance events, right? Or someone comes just to make a moment or he orders these events for what? An effect that's pleasing to the audience. And nevertheless, the order of providence is infallible as has been shown above. Thus, therefore, the order of predestination is certain. And nevertheless, the free will is not taken away from which the effect of predestination comes about in a contingent way. So he's just bringing that under what we saw already under providence. And for this, we're now to also consider what we said above about the divine knowledge and the divine will. About both of them we said that they did not take contingency away from things. Although they are most, what, certain, most sure and unable to fail, right? Fail proof. Fail safe. Now, the first objection was saying what about that crown you could lose, right? The first, therefore, it should be said that a crown is said to be as someone in two ways. In one way from the divine predestination and thus no one what? Loses his crown. In another way from the merit of grace for what we merit is in some way ours, right? And thus someone is able to lose the crown that he merits you could say, right? Through a mortal sin that gets into later on. Another takes the crown lost insofar as in place of it he is what? For God does not permit some to fall but that he what? Yeah. According to that in Job chapter 34 he crushes many and numerous ones he makes others to stand for them. Thus in the place of the angels falling are substituted what? Men. In the place of the Jews the Gentiles he is substituted in the state of grace also as regards this that he takes the crown of the one falling that the goods which the other made right he rejoices in eternal life in which everyone rejoices about the goods both by himself and done by what? Others. So I guess to get there we'll be rejoicing more about what this has done than what we've done. I guess to get there to get there to get there to get there yeah if somebody don't know about praying for me that's why you see all those interesting connections there when you get there you know if you get to the other place you're not going to be interested in who helped you to get there so rejoices you've got to to hate them I suppose now the second objection right saying well can't the man who is predestined sin right to the second it should be said that although it is possible for the one who is predestined to die in mortal sin right considered by himself right considered by itself nevertheless this is impossible it being laid down in so far as it's laid down for him to be predestined right once it does not follow that predestination can what fail okay of course there's some things that are possible absolutely are by themselves they're not possible given something else right could I be standing now instead of sitting but can I be standing when I am sitting you have to see that distinction there right you just consider me by myself my muscles and my time and so I could be standing now but if you consider the fact that I'm sitting now I can't be standing now right so considering the fact that so and so is predestined right then he cannot die in moral sin he might die in moral sin but he's going to be forgiven or something but he can't die in moral sin right even though if you consider him by himself apart from the fact he's predestined yeah he could die in moral sin makes sense okay now the third objection is throwing it back in God now right can't God will differently than he did right so to the third it should be said that predestination includes the divine will as has been said above and has been said above that God to will something created is necessary what ex supposizione what does that mean well what it means though is that you know if you consider God's will absolutely could God both will that I be and that I not be it would be impossible for God to will me not to be well you mean either or yeah he could will me to be or will me not to be right okay but having willed me to be he can't change his will right so given that God has willed me to be he cannot what will me not to be that's a thing that I before studied the divine will which is an interesting thing to study it's really God himself but let me break it down this way as it is said above that for God to will something created is necessary not absolutely but supposizione supposizione on account of the unchangeableness of the divine will but it is not so absolutely right so it ought to be said here about your destination whence it is not necessary to say that God is able to not predestine whom he predestines in the what taking this in the composed sense this is touching upon what the kind of stake you're making of the philosophy of composition and division right the second people say you know the sophists say to you can you be standing when you're sitting you say well if I can't be standing now then I had to be sitting now I had no choice of it right so what would you say can I be standing when I'm sitting not simultaneously if you take it in the composed sense right I can't be standing when I'm sitting right okay but if you take it in the divided sense you say at the time when I'm sitting I could be standing right okay but I couldn't be standing when I'm sitting okay so he's touching upon that that's the active fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of amphiboli right where the words have actually two or more meanings right and you have the fallacy of composition and division right it's a very common in the book on sophistical reputations although absolutely considering God is able to predestine or not to predestine right but from this is not taken away then the certitude of predestination right Now we come to whether the number of the predestined is certain. I'm not complaining what the number is, by the way. You don't get your hopes up. We already know that Jehovah's Witnesses told us. Do they have an actual number? 144,000. Oh, yeah, okay. To the seventh one proceeds thus. It seems that the number of the predestined is not certain or sure. I guess certain is a Latin word, but sure is the English word, huh? Be sure to that. It's usually better to use the native word if you can. Occasionally it's too difficult, but I'm sure about that. Now, a number to which an addition can be made is not certain or sure. But addition can be made to the number of the predestined, so it seems. For it says in Deuteronomy, chapter 1, that the Lord, our God, added to this number many, what? Thousands, right? That is defined before God who knows who are his. Therefore the number of the predestined is not, what? Certain. Second objection. Moreover, one cannot assign a reason, wherefore more in this number than in that one, God foreordered men to salvation. But nothing by God without reason is disposed. Therefore the number of the saved, there's not a certain number of those saved be ordered by, or foreordered, or foreordained by God. Moreover, the operation of God is more perfect than the operation of nature. But in the works of nature, good is found for the most part. Defect and bad, rarely, the fewer, but joyous. If, therefore, by God was instituted the number of those saved, more would be saved than those damned. Of which the contrary is shown in Matthew, chapter 7, where it is said, Wide and spacious is the way which leads to perdition, and many there are who enter into it. Narrow is the gate and straight the way which leads to life, and few there are who find it. It says in the sapiential books, a number of fools is what? Infinite. Therefore, obviously God is not foreordained with the number of those saved. But against this is what the great Augustine says. He's quite a guy, Augustine, isn't he? He's the most quoted guy in the catechism of the Catholic Church. He more than Thomas himself. But against this is what Augustine says in the book on the correction. Correct me, I guess, in grace. Certain is the number of those predestined, which can neither be increased nor... Thomas says, I answer, it should be said that the number of those predestined is certain. But now, some say that it is certain formally, but not materially. Now, what does that mean? Not an exact number that are saved, but is it the idea formally? No, it means that the number is certain, but who are so numbered might not be, right? Oh, that's right. It's like there's so many thrones in heaven with people. Yeah. Yeah. It's like if I have to say, get three of you guys to help me, so I'm going to select three of you guys now. So the number is... Well, who the three are is not maybe yet certain, right? Okay. I'm going to be president, you know, and I'm kind of stuck in my cabinet, right? Well, maybe there's ten positions in the cabinet, right? So the number of ministers is determined, right? But who those ten will be is not. But some say that this is certain or sure formally, but not materially, as if we were to say that it's certain that a hundred or a thousand will be saved, right? But not over these or those, right? But this takes away the certitude of predestination, Thomas says, about which we have already spoken, right? And therefore, it's necessary that the number of those predestined is certain to God, not only formally, but also what? Formally. Yeah. Materially. But it should be known that the number of the predestined is certain to God, not only by reason of knowledge, because he knows how many are to be saved, right? For thus also to God is certain the number of the drops of rain, right? And the sands of the sea, right? But also by reason of his choice, right? And his definition of each. Now, to the knowledge of this, or the evidence of this, it should be known. That every agent intends to make something limited, as appears of what was said above about the infinite. Now, it goes back to the discussion of the infinity of God, right? And of course, infinite, the word itself is what contradicts, I mean, in a sense, the word infinite is saying endless, right? So Aristotle says there's an opposition between something being endless and being an end. If something is endless, there's no end, so every agent that acts for an end, as every agent does, especially those that have mine, then God's going to be aiming at something what? Yeah, something limited. Something has an end to it. So, to the knowledge of this, or the evidence of this, it should be known that every agent intends to do something limited, something in-did, as is clear from what has been said above about infinite. But whoever intends some determined measure in its effect, thinks out some number in its essential parts, which are as such required for the perfection of the whole. But he does not, as such, choose some number in those things which are not chiefly required, but only in account of what? Another. But he takes such a number, but he takes such a number of these sort, as is necessary in account of the life. Thus, the housebuilder thinks out a determined measure of the house. That's been my experience with housebuilders. And also a determined number of mansions or rooms, which he wishes to make in the house. And a determined number of measures of the wall and of the what? But he does not choose a determined number of stones. He takes as many as are enough to fill out the whole measure of the wall. Thus, therefore, it should be considered in God with respect to the whole universe, which is his effect. He foreorders in what measure ought the whole universe be, and what number would be suitable to its essential parts. Which has some order to its perpetuity. How many spheres are how many stars, right? How many elements, how many species of things. But corruptible individuals are not ordered to the good universe chiefly, but secondarily, insofar as in them is saved the good of the what? The good of the species. Whence, although God knows the number of all individuals, not however the what? Number of the cattle or the what? The what? The what? Or as of this, sorry. Um. Um. Um. Um. It's not as such or per se preordered by God, right? So God knows how many ants there are, right? But he doesn't, as such, order this number of ants to be, right? But a sufficient number to preserve the ant as a species of things. But tot, that many of these sort, divine providence produces, that are sufficient for the conservation of that species. But, we're in a very noble place, though. Among all creatures, chiefly, are rational creatures ordered to the good universe, which, as such, are incorruptible. That's a sign that we're not just there for the species. And most powerfully, they, those ones among them, who, what? Achieve beatitude, right? Who immediately attain to the last end, which is God himself. Whence, certain to God is a number predestined, not only by way of knowledge, but also by way of what is chiefly, what? Prefect. Yeah. The limit. Yeah. Defined, huh? But it's not, thus, entirely true about the number of the, what? Reprobates, huh? Why? Because they seem to be preordered by God for the good of the elect, huh? For whom all things cooperate in the good, huh? So, again, he makes that distinction between the two, right? Now, the last paragraph is going to discuss a little bit about what is that number, right? And Todd's just going to give a few opinions there, but he's not going to say that it's known except to God, right? About the number of all the predestined men, what it is, some say that that many of men are saved as angels fell. So we're going to be enough to fill up the ranks, right? And that's pretty well established that we're going to fill up the ranks, right? So, I mean, that's a very probable opinion, it seems to me, huh? Some say that as many of men will be saved as angels have to remain. I don't know if that's for a friendship or a couple of us off, you know, like with a guardian angel. More democratic equality. Yeah, yeah. But that seems as probable as the first one, right? Some say as many of men will be saved as angels fell, and above this, as many as their angels created. And I don't see what the reason for the dead is. But it's even better to say that to God alone is known the number of the elect to be located in the happiness above, right? It's very supernal. So we didn't get the number. I know. It's 244,000 and going out. Actually, it's in the footnote number four. I mean, it's in some apocalypse. Yeah. What's number four? I find it a third. That's like, you know, the 153 fish that are saved there and they come up on the shore of eternity in the last chapter of John, right? So it's 153 or 144,000, or just to understand these numbers in some symbolic way. We talked about how the lesson explains 153, right? 144,000 is tied up with the 12, right? 12 tribes, the 12 apostles. So it doesn't mean that you can take them like your friends in the elite, right? More than 6,000, and 6,000, and 6,000, and the only ones in their lives that cover all of us. We don't judge things. We vote among those. Okay. Now, the first objection was talking about this text from Deuteronomy, right? Thomas Fistinguish is, again, like he did before in this article. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that word of Deuteronomy should be understood of those who are noted beforehand, right, by God with respect to present, what? Justice, right? But the number of these is increased and diminished, right? And not the number of, what? Predestined, right? It's like you might say those, the number of people in church is increases and decreases, right? But it's not the same as the number of predestined, right? So he's saying that number to which something is added or subtracted is not the number of predestined. It's the number of those called to present justice. Okay. Now, second objection saying, you can't sign a reason more for one number than another, right? To the second, it should be said that the reason for the quantity of some part should be taken from its proportion or ratio, or from the proportion or ratio of that part to the whole. For thus, before God, there's a reason why he made so many stars, or so many species of things, and wherefore, so many predestined, from the ratio of the chief, what, parts to the good universe, huh? I hope there's some ratio of me to the good universe. That's quite a thing, huh? That's the way you got it done, huh? So in that sense, I mean, it makes a lot of sense to say that there's a connection between the perfection of the church, right, and the number of those who are going to be more predestined. Yeah, like someone who tells the saints, right? And they send them to you with that. Now, the third objection was the one about God being more perfect in nature, in nature achieving the good for the most part, and so on. How come then this and that's all? To this third, it should be said that the good that is proportional to the common status of nature happens for the most part, and the defect from this good happens rarely. But the good which excels the common state of nature is found in fewer, and the defect from this good in more. Now, just as it is clear that many men there are who have a sufficient knowledge for the rule of their own life, like driving a car or something, right? Most men can grab a car. And there are few who lack the science, who are morons, or are called stupid or morons. How do they turn that, the morioners? Yeah, yeah. Morioners. But there are very few with respect to others who attain to having a profound knowledge of understandable things, huh? And they say there's only three men in the world who understand material activity, and Einstein is not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. And they say there's only three men in the world who are not one of them. I told you a story when Heisenberg was first thinking of going to college and his father took him over, he was thinking of being a math teacher, right? And his father took him over because he'd be a mathematician, a big guy at the university. And of course, the guy's kind of a strange guy, so he asked Heisenberg, you know, what he's been reading, and Heisenberg was reading books and math, but in physics. Oh, then you lost to math, then you lost to math. Your mind is contaminated by the material world, right? That's how you end up in physics rather than math, turn them away from the... I mean, I was talking to a mathematician one time, and I guess sometimes he was consulted by a quantum physicist and so on, right? He wanted some help in the math, dealing with these things, you know, and so on. Of course, I know a little bit of these things I read, you know, these popular books for scientists, you know. Oh, yeah, it's interesting. I love what they're using this stuff for, he says. So they don't really know it, you know. But, because I see physicists joking about the mathematicians, you know. And like they do, we take this stuff and we actually apply it to the sensible world. Well, since, therefore, the eternal beatitude, consisting in the seeing of God, exceeds the common status of nature, especially according as it is destitute of grace through the corruption of what? There's no sin. Fewer there are who are, what? Saved. But also Thomas goes on to say. And in this also, most of all, the mercy of God appeared. It sounds strange at first, huh? That he, what? Holds up some of them in this salvation, right? He draws them up into this. From which most fail on account of the common, what? Yeah. Inclination of nature, right? Now, some days they'll go back to the fact that if we're animals, right, that we tend to follow it as sensible, right? And be more noble. And therefore, for most part. So, I mean, Thomas and Augustine before him, right? Of course, other thinkers, you know, have his opinion, at least, that the more are lost than are saved, right? He's very undemocratic, huh? Passions pointed out that only two made it through the desert, into the promised land, out of the 5,000. Yeah. And St. Paul says that, yeah. Now, all these things were done for a figure for us, but most of them God was not pleased, right? So, if this is a figure of us in the church, you know, just saying that St. Paul says explicitly, you know, this is a figure, but most of them God was not pleased with them, right? And with the Lord, he said, necessary. I told you, seeing this book by St. Anselman, Catholic shop one time. Meditation to gain the fear of the Lord. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. And St. Paul made that magician. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. Mm. The predestination is able to be aided by the prayers of the saints. Now, to the aid that he proceeds thus, it seems that predestination cannot be aided by the prayers of the saints. That's like the question of whether, the more general question of whether prayers can affect foresight or providence. The first objection. Nothing eternal is preceded by something temporal. That's pretty clear, right? And consequently, the temporal is not able to aid that which is eternal. But predestination is eternal. Since, therefore, the prayers of the saints that take place in time, they cannot possibly aid, right, that someone be predestined. Therefore, predestination is not aided by the prayers of... Moreover, nothing, just as nothing needs counsel except on account of some defective knowledge. So, nothing needs aid except on account of some defective power, right? But neither of these things belongs to God predestined. Whence it is said, Romans 11, who aids the spirit of the, what, Lord, huh? Or who is his counselor, right? Therefore, predestination is not aided by the prayers of the saints. It reminds me there when he says spiritum domini, right? Thomas, he's arguing about the Holy Spirit being God and so on. And at one point, he has to stop and show that one text he uses for the Holy Spirit is not called the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit to his day. Yeah. But these are the same. It shows from the text of St. Paul, they're the same. That's kind of interesting, huh? Because we call the second person of the Blessed Trinity the Son of God, right? And you don't find too often the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of God, right? But he is in Scripture called the Spirit of God. Here he's called the Spirit of the Lord, huh? And so, it's not one of the names of the Holy Spirit that he considers in the treatise on the Trinity here. But it is one that you find in Scripture. And it seems to be analogous to the Son of God, the Spirit of God, that he's speaking. Therefore, predestination is not aided by the prayers of the saints, huh? God does need our help there, doesn't it? More, it belongs to the same, to aid and to impede. But predestination cannot be impeded by anybody. Therefore, another can be aided by anybody. Interesting statement. There's some probability, at least, huh? But against this is what is said in Genesis 25. Isaac asked the Lord for Rebekah, his what? Wife, huh? And he gave, what? Yeah. And from that concept, that one conceived, is born Jacob, right? Who was predestined, huh? Some people sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, right? He's predestined. But that predestination would not have been fulfilled if he was not born. Therefore, predestination is aided by the prayers of the saints, huh? Thank you. The reading this morning at Mass was from the Book of Tobit, you know? And I guess Sarah's married seven men and they've all been living in on a wedding night. And then, so, Toby gets out of bed and says, let's pray, and so on. I was thinking, you know, people get married, the way they usually do it is they can select the readings, you know, for the wedding. And there's a number of readings from which you choose, right? They should add this, it seems to me, to the choices. You might throw people up a bit. Twice we had that. I think one reading is mandatory as this one, and the other one you can choose from. The answer should be said about this question, that diverse errors came about. For some, noting the certitude of divine predestination, said that prayers were, what? Superpholous, huh? Or whatever else was done to achieving, what? Eternal salvation, huh? Because these things done are not done, the predestined would achieve their, or reach their goal, and the reprobate would not, huh? But against this, he says, are all the admonitions of sacred scripture, exhorting one to prayer, and to other good, what? Works, huh? There's something wrong with that opinion, I guess. Others say that through prayers, divine predestination is changed. And this is said to have been the opinion of the Egyptians. Who laid down that the divine ordering, which they called fate, huh? Could be impeded by some sacrifices and prayers, huh? That's kind of the other extreme error, right? You might see this. But against this also is the same authority as sacred scripture. For it is said in the first book of Kings. They call it now the first book of Samuel, I guess they call it that first. I think Thomas in his cranium or prologue to scripture, you know, he says that the books of Kings are primarily to narrate these lives of the great prophets, right? So in a sense, it is just a statement calling it the Kings, but we do it from that, huh? I kind of discovered from studying history, you know, that it makes sense to some extent to put political and military history together. And then social and economic history together, right? And of course, I think it makes sense to study first political and military history because the dates are very much more sharp, right? But in the case of social and economic history, you know, you say, when did the car replace the automobile or replace the horse or something, you know? Well, gradually some are doing some or not. So they're not a precise thing, right? But in political military, you know, that was one of them. That was the end of Napoleon, right? So-and-so was elected or so-and-so was defeated. That's the end of his political career or something, you know? Okay. But against this is authority as sacred scripture. For it is said in the first book of Kings. That's probably what I was thinking about here because it's called Kings because the dates of the kings are more hard. Yeah. But it might not be important. But the what? The triumphal one, right? Israel does not, what? Bent, huh? Repentance. And in Romans 11.29, it said that without penance are the gifts of God and his, what? Calling, huh? No regrets. No regrets in God's calling us. So now Thomas has to, what? Sail between Sola and Slybdus, right? He's got to sail between these two eras, right? The one who says that we can change God's, what? Redestination and change his providence by our prayers. The other is that, you know, it's all fixed, it's all set. So putting prayer in that makes no difference, right? So how does Thomas sail between these two rocks, huh? And therefore, it ought to be said otherwise, that in predestination there are two things to be considered. On the one hand, the preordering, the divine preordering itself, right? And it's effect, right? As regards to... The first of these, in no way, it says, can predestination be aided by the prayers of the saints. For it does not come about by the prayers of the saints that someone is predestined by God. But as regards the second thing, predestination is said to be aided by the prayers of the saints, and also by other good works. Because providence, of which predestination is a part, does not subtract or eliminate the second causes. But just as it provides for effects, so also for the order of the second causes comes under providence. Thus, therefore, thus are provided natural effects, that also natural causes are ordered to those natural effects, without which those effects would not come about. So also, there are predestined by God the salvation of someone, but also under the very ordered providence, falls what whoever promotes a man to salvation, who will belong to salvation. Either his own prayers, right? Or the prayers of others, or other good things, or whatever of this sort, right? Without which someone would not, what? Whence, to those predestined, we're not to try to, what? Do well, right? And to pray. Because through these things, right? The effect of predestination is fulfilled with certitude. An account of this is said in the second epistle of Peter. Stride so that through good works, you make certain your vocation electional. So I say, what about Monica's prayer? Let's say for Augustine, that's kind of a well-known example, right? Is Augustine predestined to eternal life because of the prayers of his mother, Monica? Would you say yes or no? No. But because God had predestined, right? Augustine to eternal life, in his plan of predestination, was that he would, what? Receive the graces necessary for his conversion, etc. Do the prayers of his mother, Monica, right? The bishops say that prayers of such a woman, right? Cannot be in vain, right? And prayers and tears and so on, you know? So the prayers of Monica were not the cause of divine predestination, but they were part of the predestination and the plan of predestination for this great son there, I guess, but quoting all. All the way through here, huh? So that's the distinction that Thomas uses to sail between those two extreme positions, right? Who is it? The Epicureans, you know, who said we can't change fate, necessity, right? So, you know, what you do is kind of a difference. But that's understanding, you're not realizing that God is what, God's populace extends even to the order, as he says here, his secondary causes. And since, I suppose, since we don't know who God is actually predestined in heaven, well, it would be better. That would be kind of, so it's saying, Apostles is a sign of predestination if you pray, if you have worship about the mother. It's a sign of predestination. In St. Kirtia the Great, have you ever read St. Kirtia the Great? But she seems to have, and there you get a very good understanding of how prayer is never really wasted, and even if someone is resisting, say you pray for someone who's getting a disordered life or something like that, and the prayers are lining up there, you know, and eventually they push this person in the right direction. Even, I guess, I suppose, if you pray for someone who's lost, I suppose the prayers are not wasted on it. It would help somebody. Now, the first objection, that the eternal cannot be affected by the temporal, right? What Thomas says, that's true about the predestination itself. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that that reason shows that predestination is not aided by the prayers of the saints as regards the preordering itself. Now, the second one here is about, well, God doesn't need our help. Okay. To the second, it should be said, that someone is said to be aided by another in two ways. In one way, insofar as he gets of him some power, right? And thus to be aided is of the infirm, right? Whence it does not belong to God to be aided in this way. And thus is to be understood those words, who aids the spirit of the Lord. In another way, one is said to be aided through another, through whom he carries out his operation as a Lord through his, what? Servant, minister. And in this way, God is aided by us insofar as we carry out his very ordering. According to that of the first epistle of the Corinthians, we are the, what? Thomas has scripture memorized, huh? They sing, you know, he just laughed up in the tower there, you know? And Mr. A, he memorized the whole scripture, I don't know. Some of these people had good memories, huh? I knew in high school we had a student who had a photographic memory, right? And they could give them, you know, in these long poems, three or four pages like that, and look at it just once, close it, say the whole thing. And we had a, I had a professor in college too, who was like that. It's a difficult time to look at it twice, he said. I hate that, you have to look at it twice. See, he usually had an English department, but I read Aristotle and Greek with him, you know, my brother and I did, and we did the Kamakian Ethics and the Frederic and Greek, and my brother did Dante and Italian with the guy, and Chaucer and Middle English, and another guy he was doing Arabic with, and of course he knew German a lot, you know, French, all those, those, things like that. They say he knew mathematical physics, I don't know, but they say he knew that. And one year, you know, at Christmastime, we were a big shot, and the organist got sick, you know, and we had a big surgery and so on, so he came over and paid the organ. I couldn't see any mistakes in the way, not that I don't know much about it, but the false notes, you know. But, see, you wonder whether Thomas or Augustine, you know, the way they quote this, huh? You go to Augustine's work, you know, or Thomas of that matter, he's proving the Trinity, you know, the Scripture, you know, so many things, like Ron MacArthur says you go to the Trinity, the Trinity, the Trinity, and Augustine, and you're really convinced, this is what Scripture is saying, you know. But he's quoting, you know, passages here and there, you know, and he's quoting them out, you know. De adjatoria sumis, right? Why are we giving him power? Yeah, we're not giving him what? We're carrying out his order, right? We're not giving him some power. Nor is this an account of the defect of divine power, but because he uses, what, middle causes, that the beauty of order, right, might be served in things, huh? And also that the, what, dignity of causality might be... And also that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth is that the truth