Prima Pars
Lecture 160: The Three Acts of Reason and Divine Mission

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

A lot of times, you know, I'm explaining what reasoning is, I'd say, now, two dogs get together, they produce sometimes a dog, right? They don't produce a cat. If two cats come together, they produce a cat, not a dog. If human beings come together, they produce a human being. Well, if two statens come together, what do you get? A staten, yeah. And when you add, subtract, and so on, and two narrows come together, what do you get? A number, right? Okay. So, the idea of reproducing, right, the idea, you know, is very much in the idea of the syllogism. So, this is touching upon the, what, third act of reason, right? Now, the first act of reason is understanding what something is, right? And there we talk, you know, most perfectly about definition, what division helps us out something else, and more generally, distinction, right? So, to say that ignorance is dull, not sharp, right, but dull, is to say it can't distinguish them, it can't divide them, it can't define them things, right? I've seen that, you know, years ago, you see, it's very dull, and very hard, but I didn't, you know, see the word, I'm feeling it, too, I'll say. And, you know, what happens to words sometimes, they get a degradation in meaning. Take the word imitation, for example, right? When Aristotle says that tragedy is an imitation, right? Well, the word imitation has had a degradation in meaning, because in our commercial society, an imitation is an inferior likeness, right? And when Aristotle says that tragedy or comedy is an imitation of human life, it doesn't mean it's an inferior likeness. It means simply it's a likeness, right? As he says in the book, you can represent men as they are, he says, you can represent them as they are thought to be, you can represent them as they should be, right? You see, you can represent them, you know, make them better than they are, right? So that's not opposed to an imitation, but an outward imitation would seem to be, you know, inferior likeness. Well, you can use the word feeling, right? And the theology department at Assumption, you know, they got very tired of students, you know, saying, I feel that this, you know, is so, or that is so, right? And finally made a rule, you know, we don't know what you feel, we want to know what you think. So tell what you think, now what you feel. And so it became kind of a rule, you're not to say I feel this or that, depending on what you think, you know? And so the word feeling is kind of degradation there, right? But nevertheless, there is this tendency, you know, to pause to some extent, right? Not just the students, to say, I feel that this is so, right? And they're usually talking about a statement, right? Okay? I feel we should do this, or I feel this is going to happen, you know? So, you could tie this up then, and we use also the word, you know, we say, he's got a good sense, right? We use the word drawn from senses. Meaning he has good judgment, right? Okay? So you can tie this up then, with the second act, huh? When you think it sounds mistaken, right? You feel that this is so, right? That's a statement, right? So there you have the first, the second, and third act. It's a perfectly ordinary Shakespeare, you know? It's one of these incredible examples, you know, of a precision in Shakespeare that serves no clear poetic purpose, right? And a precision, if you saw it at first sight, you know, would kind of distract you from getting the poetic effect of his work, right? But it's a good example of that, huh? It's amazing how much he, and how well it's ordinary, but it's that last, right? Yes. The first act is order to the second, and the second act is order to the third, right? So is he well-educated, or did he just kind of stop it by himself? He's just lucky. Well, nobody knows where Shakespeare's wisdom comes from, right? You see? But it is the gift of nature, right? Or from his reading, or a bit of both, right? But it's so well done, you know, that it seems to be something natural, right? And, uh, but anyway, how, even knowing where his wisdom comes from, it's there. It's a beautiful thing there in Richard the Second, you know, where Gaunt, the dying Gaunt, who's the uncle of King Richard, once gave him a little bit of advice about making a rule in England, right? He's going to be in deep trouble before long, right? And maybe you hear me because I'm dying, you know, and people sometimes are not listening to when they're dying, because there's no reason to extenuate, and so on. And, uh, York just saying, it's not going to be good, right? Direct not him whose way himself will choose. So is that what else said, though, right? And this is true in life, right? Direct not him whose way himself will choose, huh? The guy won't, there's no docilogy, won't listen to the church even, right? That's what it has to say, who chooses his own way, huh? So it's, you know, it's incredible, the wisdom of Shakespeare and some of those. It's true in Jesus, huh? I had thought about this before, but I just knew you again, I got thinking, gee, I didn't do the three acts of Jesus, you know? So it's the only thing that's the interaction of speaking Shakespearean language. As I say, the word fear has got that degradation, right? You're talking about emotion, right? But, you know, I'm sorry to, in fact, to Warren Murray about that, to think of it there, and he's pointing out the word, to a cent, right? A centurion. Well, that's usually a state that you're talking about, right? But you use, again, the word, what, sense there, huh? You use a centurion, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, and of course, feeling is, you know, used in the sense of touch, which is the touch to an assertitude, you know, the one where, unless you get touched the Christ, you don't believe about the wounds and so on. So, it's not etymologically a bad word, but it just has a degradation in democratic customs, you know? The word imitation does. Imitation, I think the degradation comes from commercial customs, right? And every time something is successful, then they put out a cheap imitation, and they try to, you know, you know, sell it, and people buy it because it's cheaper, you know, and so on. And, like, baby's Irish cream, there's all kinds of, you know, cream of the Christ, that aren't good as baby's, but they just want to try it, you know? But they cost less, you know, it's less, you know? And so, imitation means a cheap likeness, invitation this, invitation that. But I think feeling has got to be, because of democratic customs, where people, you know, live by their feelings in the sense of emotions, right? I mean, that's kind of equivocation, the word feeling, feeling to mean emotion, and then, you know, feeling meaning that you think this is so, right? So, this word is really unthinking, in a sense, how Shakespeare uses this, unfeeling, unthinking. Yeah, yeah, but in the sense of the second act, though, you know? Yeah. See, in a sense, the students, although they, you know, they're using it in a bit of a degraded sense, they're trying to express what they thought in the sense of a statement, right? Yeah, no. I feel that this is so, right? I think that it is so, right? This statement, right? And a lot of times, I suppose, we use the word feeling, not meaning so much our emotions, although you can have that, that's the meaning you want to give, but you're not altogether sure, right? You say, well, I feel we should do this, but I'm not going to, you know, say, you know, I'm sure this is what we should do, but I feel that we should, you know, at the corner or something, right? You skip that, I'm sorry. That way you can sleep more. Yeah. Yeah, I feel good about this, that's more the emotion. Yeah. Somebody said that he was at a funeral, and there's a lot of priests in the sanctuary, and he said, really gave me that good feeling. I don't know what the heck that meant. He felt good, there were a lot of priests in the sanctuary. That's great. So, you going to get in here? Sure. Oh, we haven't got any. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it's very interesting that Thomas has a whole question devoted here in quite the late articles to the missions of the divine person. So, he takes it quite seriously what this mission is. To the first one proceeds thus, it seems that it does not belong to a divine person to be, what, sent. For the one sent is less than the one sending. But one divine person is not less than another. Therefore, one person is not sent by another. Moreover, everything that it, everyone that is sent, is separated from the one sending it. Hence, Jerome says in his commentary on Ezekiel, that what is joined and is, what, joined in one body cannot be sent, right? So, if you're one of those, you know, two persons together, you know, like, you can't send your friend, your partner. But in the divine person, nothing is, what, is that true? Yeah. Therefore, one person is not sent by another, right? That would be... Moreover, their objection, whoever is sent goes out or is away from one place, right? And he goes to another place. They know, right? But this can't belong to a divine person, since he's, what, everywhere. So often you go from one place to another place, huh? So it's going to take a little while to understand what this being sent means, huh? Therefore, the divine person does not belong to a divine person to be sent. Now, why do you even speak of this at all? Well, the sin contrary tells you. It's in Scripture. You better pay attention to what you see in Scripture. But again, this is what is said in John chapter 8. I am not alone, but I am the one who, what, sent me. And who sent me, the Father. Now, Thomas says, The answer should be said that in the definition of mission or sending, two things are implied, huh? One of which is the relation of the one sent to the one from whom or by whom he is sent, right? The other is the relation of the one sent to the term or the limit, the goal to which he is sent, huh? Now, through this, that someone is sent, is shown a going forward of the one sent from the one sending. Either according to command, as the Lord sends his servant, or by counsel, as the counselor is said to send the king to war, to fight, or by origin, as it is said that the flower is sent forth from the, what, tree, yeah? Do we see there are plants that they send forth, their flowers that they put forth? Yeah, and it has shown its relation to the, what, term or limit to which it is sent, that in some way it begins to be there, right? Either because before it was, what, not at all where it was sent, right? Or because it begins there in some way to be in which he was not there before. And after all this, we can start to understand what it means, huh, for a mission of a divine person. So he says, the mission, therefore, can belong to a divine person, according as it implies, on the one hand, a going forward of origin from the one sending. And according, as it implies on the other side, as far as a term, right, a new way of existing in another, right? Just as a son is said to be sent by the Father into the world, huh? According as he begins to be in the world in a visible way, right? Through the flesh that he's assumed, right? And nevertheless, before that, he was already in the world in another way, as is said in John 1, verses 10, huh, okay? So you can kind of see here, it's kind of implied here, that for a divine person to be sent, he has to proceed from somebody, right? And in that regard, the son could be sent, because he does proceed from the Father, right? And his being sent by the Father implies no, you know, inferiority to the Father, right? But you just get the idea that he is sent, that he proceeds from the Father, right? Okay? And that's why he said to be sent by the Father, right? But then on the other hand, as far as the other relation, right, to whom he's sent, he has to begin to be there, right, in some way he was not in there before, right? And of course, this would be more a change in the one to whom he is sent, than it would be a change in him, because he can't, what, change, right, huh? Okay? So, those are going to be unfolded more, but they get kind of a rough idea of what this means, huh? Now, Thomas replies to the first objection that it seems that to be sent, the one sent is always less than the one who sends, right, huh? Thomas says, well, sending implies a lesserness than the one who is sent, when it implies a, what, receding from a principal sending, either according to command, right, or according to, what, consul, right? Because the one commanding is greater, right, and the one advising is wiser, right? Because it's interesting, because Aristotle gives the consulers an example of a mover, right? When he touches on the four kinds of clauses, but in divine things, it does not imply except the going forward of, what, origin, which is according to equality, as he said before, right? The one who proceeds is equal to the one from whom he proceeds, having the same nature. So the way Thomas proceeds here, it seems like, what, he distinguishes three things, right? The man, consul, and then something of origin, right? Although you might say that maybe you're dropping out part of the idea of being sent, the idea of this inferiority, right? And just keeping the idea that there's an origin of one from the other, but you drop the idea of the inequality between the two, huh? I think that's this question. Yeah, yeah, it's perfectly ordered here, you know, the order of learning, huh? And I was thinking about numbers, you know, and of course I had in my mind, you know, when you talk about God, and what I thought Belay was always drumming into us, how the names are carried over to God, often by dropping the genus, huh? And keeping the, what? The difference, right, huh? Can we give an example of those before? Well, anyway, I was thinking about how sometimes in Euclid, one is spoken of as a number, right? Okay. And so I was asking the question, if one were a number, would it be an odd or an even number, right? And I was putting the question to Warren Murray, and of course he said, well, you know, they do speak of it as an odd number, right? Okay. So, I said, well, that's interesting, because Euclid gives two definitions of odd number, right? And one definition of odd number is a number that differs from an even number by one. It's either one more or one less than an even number. That's the second definition of it. I said, well, now, one is not a number, strictly speaking. Maybe you'd be using number, or number equivalently, right? But it is less than two by one. So, if you say, the definition of odd number is a number... So, if you say, the definition of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number is a number of odd number more or less than by one, from an even number, we can keep the difference and apply it to one, but you drop the genus, which is a number. That's just like, you're going to call it God, right? There's only one God. But it's kind of strange, right, because it's the same way of carrying the name war, right? By keeping the genus, I mean, there's difference, but dropping the genus, you know? But here, you drop an inequality between the one sending and the one sent, but you keep something of the more common notion of sending, that the one sent is from, proceeds from the one who is sent to be sender, right? To be sending him. Now, the second objection, right, is about being, what, separated, right? The second should be said that that which is thus sent, that it begins to be where before in no way it was, by its mission, is moved, what, locally, right? In place. whence necessarily is separated in place from the one sending it. But this does not happen in the sending of a divine person, because a divine person who is sent, just as he does not begin to be where before he was not, because he's everywhere, So he does not cease to be where he was. He's everywhere. When such a mission is without any separation, but it has only the distinction of what? Origin, huh? And the third objection is taking it as if he was going from one place to another, right? And Thomas simply applies to the third should be said that that objection proceeds about ascending, which takes place according to a local motion, which does not have any place in God. So you're resolving to the, what, imagination, right? And as Boethius says, you know, you have to transcend the imagination when you talk about what? God. God. In the same play, Richard II, you know, the queen is feeling sorrowful and she doesn't know why, you know? and the courtiers are trying to tell her, you know, that she's, her true things, she's weeping, what, imaginary things, right? It's kind of interesting, but true things, of course, is a conference of imaginary things, right? But here you're imagining, right, that the sending of the Holy Spirit, the sending of the Son, is a, what, locomotion, a change of place, right? Because what we call sending in daily life, right? You go from one place to another. There's no going from one place to another. But there is one person proceeding from another, right? But not by a proceeding that separates him from the one from whom he's proceeding. But yet he's going to be said to be and the one to whom he is sent in a new way, right? But not really by a change of what? The divine person, but by change the one to whom he is sent. So when I begin to know God, let's say, or to love him, you might say that he's in me in a way he wasn't before, right? But has he really been changed? Does my knowing him or loving him change him? He's in my knowledge and my love now, right? So in that way he said to be in me in a way he wasn't before. He was in me as my creator and in me as the one conserving me in existence and so on, right? He wasn't in me as known by me and loved by me, right? But now we could say, because I know him and love him, that he's in my knowledge and in my love, and therefore in a certain way he can be said to be in me in a new way he was not before. And that's sufficient to get the idea of what? Sent, right? So the son proceeds from the father, and that's why he's a sender, right? That's what it means. But he's sent to me by reason of his being in me in a new way. But not any change really in him, but by my beginning to know and love of him. And therefore he's in my knowledge, in my love, and therefore in a way can be said to be in me in a new way he wasn't before. He's not just in me as my creator and conserver, but in my love and my knowledge. Thomas Sweden unfolded that habitude regulation, huh? He puts ways in in a new way, right? You want to do that article or what? I think we can, yeah. Okay, we'll do the second one here. It's not too long. The second one goes forward thus, it seems that a mission is able to be, what? Eternal. For Gregory says, he's a pretty big authority, Gregory the Great, I guess. I was reading about Gregory the Great, but what a family he came from, you know, holy people and so on. Was it the present Holy Father give a talk? Oh, that's how I saw it, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. What a family he comes from, For Gregory says, and that is the son sent in that he is, what? Generated, but the generation of the son is eternal, therefore, what? Also his mission. Well, of course, he has to proceed from someone in order to be sent by that person, right? And he's, of course, he's proceeding from the father by generation, it's eternal, right? But it doesn't really have the notion, yet the full notion of being sent until you bring in the what? Being in the term, right? in a new way, and that involves maybe a temporal change, right? I began to know him and to love him, right? Now he's sent to me and me in a new way, that's the object of my love and my knowledge, in a way he was not before, right? Moreover, to whom it belongs for something to be sent temporally, that thing is what? Changed, right? To whoever belongs something in a temporal way, that thing has changed, but the divine person is not changed, right? Therefore, the admission of the divine person is not temporal, but eternal. Now this is something, this is a problem that comes up in talking about creation, did God always create the world? Well, we say that there was a beginning, right? He could have created eternally, but he did. Okay? So, God suddenly changed from inactivity to activity, right? You see? Or is it something said of God temporally because of a change in creatures, And, you know, the relation of God to creatures might be in time, but is it a real relation? Or is the relation said of God by reason of the fact that the creatures are in it, you know? That's something Aristotle had first said, right? It's possible that something is said relatively of something, not because there's a relation in it, but because something else has been related to it, huh? Like, no one has said of, yeah, even though there's nothing in the chair, right? But there's a relation in me when I know the chair, huh? But we'll see what Thomas saw these problems, right? He'll solve them for me. Moreover, mission implies a what? Going forward. But in general, the going forward of the divine presence is eternal. Therefore, mission, right? Now, against all this is what is said in Galatians 4, when the fullness of time came. God sent his own son, right? So, it's in time, right? That's a pretty good text, isn't it? It's a beautiful text, huh? And Warren Murray was expounding on the fullness of time, you know, saying, you know, there had to be, you know, the Greek philosophers first, you know. So, he had that, you know, philosophy, you know, as a tool for theology, right? And there had to be the Roman Empire, right? You know, because he's got a lot of other, you know, government from them, right? Get the roads made. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, all this is a preparation for this one. The roads to knowledge and those to the other countries. The roads to Rome. I answer, he says, it should be said, in those things which imply the origin of divine persons, there is a certain, what, difference to be noted, huh? Not made, but noted. For some in their meaning imply only a relation to a beginning, as going forward, huh? Exiting, right? But some, with that relation to the beginning, also determine a, what, limit and end of the proceeding. Of which some determine an eternal limiter as generation, right? And breathing, right? For generation is the going forward of a divine person into the divine, what? Nature. And breathing, passive accepted, implies the going forward of subsisting love, huh? That's what the Holy Spirit is, subsisting love. It's amazing. But some, also with the relation to the beginning, imply a temporal, what, term. As being sent, huh? Giving, right? For something is sent to this that it might be in it. And something is given to this that it might be had. But a divine person to be had by some creature or to be in a new way of existing in him is something temporal. So God begins to be in me in time, right? Or I begin to have God in the way it had happened before. Whence mission, sending, and giving in God are said only, what? Temporal. But generation and breathing only from what? Yeah. But procession and going forth are said in God sometimes eternally and temporally, right? Okay? For the Son from eternity proceeds that he be God, right? But in time that he be what? In man, right? According to a visible mission, huh? Or also that he be in man according to a, what? Invisible mission, huh? On the first objection, huh? On to the first, therefore, it should be said that Gregory speaks about the temporal generation of the Son, not from the Father, but from his what? Well, that's the easy way out, right? Or because from this, the Son has that he can be sent, that he was generated from eternity, right? Unless he proceeded from somebody, he could not be said to be sent by a person. So unless he proceeded from the Father, he could not be sent by the Father. And he proceeds from the Father eternally, right? That's not yet the notion of being sent, and that implies a temporal, what? Terminal. Now, the second objection says, well, if you're going to admit something in time for one of these divine persons, you're going to have to change, right? And this is what Aristotle said, time is the measure of motion, change, right? Now, to the second, it should be said that a divine person to be in a new way in someone, or to be had by someone, right? Temporarily. It's not because of a change of that divine person, but because of a change in the creature. Just as God is said in time to be the Lord, right? The things he's made, right? On account of the change of the, what? Creatures. So some things are said of God in time, by reason of a, what? Yeah. It gets developed a lot in the famous question, it's just be taught to the potencia, right? No, it's just another thing here about, and we're going to come back to the beginning of the reply. To the second, it should be said that a divine person is said to be in a new way in someone, right? Or to be had by someone, temporarily, right? Notice the use of the word in and the word to have, right? Now, in the fifth book of wisdom, Aristotle takes up the word to have, and he gives, you know, basic meanings of the word to have. He also has a chapter on it in the, what, categories, right? The last chapter in the category, what to have. But then, Aristotle makes a very interesting observation. He says that the word to have seems to have as meanings as the word to be in. And Thomas goes back to the eight meanings of in in the fourth book of natural hearing and compares them to the meanings of have, right? Okay. But just stop and think, right? You might say that the genus is in the, what, species, huh? Like animals and dog or cat, right? But you might say that the species, what, yeah? But you could also say the species has a genus, okay? You could also say the genus has a species, and the species is in the genus, in that sense, okay? Or you might say that the whole has parts, and the part is in the whole, right? I have you now, right? And you're in my power. So, there's that connection here, right? So, maybe there's a connection here between saying that a divine person is in someone in a new way, and that one in whom he is in a new way has God in a new way, right, huh? Time. It's kind of interesting to see that connection between in and what has, huh? Now, to the third, it should be said, huh? That, this is the one about, what? Mission implies, what? Going forward, but the going forward in the divine presence is eternal, and therefore the mission is, right? It says, to the third, then, it should be said that mission not only implies a going forward from the beginning, but it also determines, huh? It's meaning. And the, what? Temporal term of the procession, right? Whence mission only is, what? Temporal, right? Or, he says, you could say, that mission includes the eternal procession, right? And it adds something, right? To wit, a temporal effect, right? Now, the relation of the divine person to its beginning is not except from eternity. Whence, what? The procession is twin, Gemini. Eternal, eternity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Internal and temporal. Not on account of the relation to the what? Principle. Is it twin, right? But it's twin on the part of what? Eternal and eternal. Yeah. So, let me stop there. That's a mouthful, right?