Prima Pars
Lecture 164: Divine Missions and the Two Orders of Understanding

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

I don't want to talk about the order talking about the Trinity before incarnation the right order to the eighth one goes forward thus it seems that no divine person is sent except by the one from whom he proceeds but eternally because as the great Augustine says in the fourth book of the Trinity the father is sent by no one because he is from no one that's the way you translate it the father is sent by or from no one because he is from no one if therefore some divine person is sent by another it is necessary that he be from that one moreover the one sending has authority with respect to the one sent but with regard to a divine person there cannot be any authority except of origin the one proceeds from the other therefore it is necessary that the divine person which is sent be from the one sending him this convinces me if a third objection if a divine person can be sent by one from whom he is not nothing would prevent saying that the Holy Spirit is given by a man right although he's not from him which is against what Augustine says in the 15th book about the Trinity therefore no divine person is sent except by the one from whom he is I was all determined in my mind after reading these objections but then I got this set contract you know and I got tied into a knot but against this is that the son is what sent by the Holy Spirit according to that of Isaiah's chapter 48 verse 16 and now what the Lord and God and his spirit sent me I think Christ quotes it doesn't he he was in the synagogue one time but the son is not from the Holy Spirit therefore the divine person is sent by someone from whom he is not a Thomas in the reply is going to not reply to objections in particular right because he's going to solve it in the body of the article he's going to really mix up that they can right and be careful here now I answer it should be said that about this some are found to have spoken in other ways for according to some a divine person is not sent except by the one from whom he is eternally right that's what my you know inconsiderate judgment you'd ask me this out of the blue right I'd say you know having read the first seven articles wouldn't you answer it that way but Thomas is going to kind of stretch it here a bit and according to this when the son of God is sent by the Holy Spirit it refers to the what human nature right according as he is sent to preaching by the Holy Spirit but Augustine I don't know this is a troublemaker Augustine is really a troublemaker stirs things up a lot Augustine however says in the second book of the Trinity that the son is sent both what by himself and by the Holy Spirit now now he got you know the Holy the son is not from himself so how can he send himself and he's not from the Holy Spirit so how can he be sent by the Holy Spirit this is really you know this is a way to conclude isn't it and he also says apparently Augustine the Holy Spirit also is sent both what by himself and by the son well the son is okay but by himself I don't know get that and thus to be sent in God does not belong to any person right but only to the person existing from another but to send belongs to what each person no he seems to be holding on at this point so you can't be sent unless you're from another right but the sender can be what someone other than the one from whom you are that's just kind of you know okay now Thomas is going to see the truth is somewhere in between right both of these have in some way truth he says I'm glad I'm not totally mistaken right there's some truth of what I first think for when some person is said to be sent there is designated what both a person existing from another right and a visible or invisible effect right by which or point to which the sending of that divine person is to be noted right and we've seen those two things before right that is sent from here to there right but it's not really a change in God right okay but in a way some persons are from somewhere let's say they're from another person right okay and they're not sent by a change to us but through a change in us they're sent to be in us in a new way as known or what loved by one okay if therefore Thomas says sending designates as a what beginning of the person who is sent thus not just any person sends right but only the one to whom it belongs to be a beginning of that person and thus the son is sent only by the father right and the Holy Spirit by the father and the son since the son proceeds only from the father right and therefore he's only what sent by the father if the word sending right designates the one as a what beginning of that person who is sent and the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the father and the son so he can be said to be sent by the father and the son right but not the what son sending himself the Holy Spirit sending himself if however the person sending is understood to be the beginning or source of the effect right in the creature according to which mission should be observed thus the whole trinity sends the person what sent and that's maybe what you were talking about father a little bit earlier right truth in what you say some some some yeah but not an account of this does man give the Holy Spirit right because not even the effect of race is he able to what cause so give up your ambition to send the Holy Spirit to somebody and to this is clear the solution to the objections right incidentally when you go through the disputed questions of Thomas sometimes he'll come down one side and answer the objections on the other side right but sometimes he'll say the truth is in between and then you'll answer both sets of objections you know it's much more complicated but that's true you know so after the break we'll talk a little bit about the order of our teaching you know and then we'll talk a little bit about names okay example here in the Trinity, the Incarnation, just to see the point. Sometimes in Scripture it says, do good and avoid evil. Another time it says in Scripture, turn away from the evil you're doing and do good. Now Thomas is a man who looks before and after. He notices in these two passages the order is what? Just reverse, right? The one good is before evil, the other is evil before good, right? I mean, turn away from the evil. Okay. Now you see those two kinds of things in Scripture, right? Now, you see this also in the Psalms in the Our Father, right? These are kind of many prayers, right? In the Our Father, the, you know, that will be done, so the doing of good is before the ones about turning away from the bad, forget us our sins and so on, right? Yes, right. But in the Psalms, it's the reverse order. Because as Thomas calling Augustine there says, the first 50 Psalms are concerned with repentance and fighting against your sin, right? And the correct number in the 50th Psalms is this one that St. Teresa of Avila was so fond of, right? But it's a Psalm asking God to, you know, forgiveness, right? Okay. And then doing good deeds comes in the second 50, right? And resting in God in the last 50. So it's just the reverse of the order of the, what? Our Father. You have the same parts in the Our Father in the Psalms, right? So, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, is kind of resting in God, right? Thy will be done. You know, stay at any bread is a good deed, right? And then the ones with sin is a lack, right? So, it's something like, you know, that order of do good and avoid evil, turn away from evil and do good, right? Okay? So, Thomas says, well, that's not a random scripture, right? But how do you explain those two orders? How can one be before the other and vice versa? How can that be so, right? What way does one come before the other? Well, they be avoiding evil and doing good in terms of our experience. Because we're usually doing evil before we're doing good. Yeah. Well, Thomas, the terms Thomas would use would be, in the one, you have the order of intention. It's because you primarily intend to do good that you want to avoid the bad, right? Okay? The same way as a philosopher, right? I want to know the truth and avoid error, right? I want to avoid error because I intend to know the truth, right? Because I intend to know the truth. And as a consequence of that, I want to avoid error, which would be the pediment to know the truth, right? Okay? And then he calls the other order, the order of execution, the order of carrying out, right? You see? And so, as you say, you're in a sinful state, more or less. And so, the first thing you've got to do is be, what? Translator? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And even, you know, in baptism, the kind of difference is upon the washing of the soul and symbolism. And I think it's kind of appropriate, therefore, that the psalms be in the order of execution. Because they're, what? They're on out, right? Okay? By their father's contact, right? Now, this is something different than what I'm going to talk about now. But notice how you could have exactly the reverse order, right? Now, as Paul VI said one time, you know, the whole church is built on the faith of Peter. That's what Christ said. But what is the faith of Peter? Well, it's a cesaree of Philippi, where other people are saying Christ is this, and Christ is the heaven. They're all mixed up. And so, what do you say? And he says, what? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Okay? And he praises him. Christ praises him, right? That flesh and blood did reveal this to you, that's my Father, who's in heaven, right? And then he goes on to say, thou, Peter, upon this rock I was built by church, and so on, right? But notice the order there, right? The humanity is given before the what? Divinity, right? Okay? Now, you know that Peter and John are very close. You see this in the Gospel of St. John. And now at the end of the Gospel of St. John, St. John says, these things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Well, that's really the same profession of faith as Peter has made, right? Except Peter is addressing Christ in person, so he says you. And John is not, so he says Jesus, right? Is the Christ, the Son of God. I didn't use the word living, but same thing. Basically. Okay, so that's one order, right? Okay? But now if you look at the beginning of John's Gospel, and some people say John's Gospel is the greatest Gospel, but anyway. It begins by saying the beginning was the word, and the word was towards God, right? And the word was God. So you get the divinity of the word, right? And then they're honestly, and the word was made, what? Flesh. Which was the greatest making of God according to Thomas. It was, not the gentleness. Okay? So there you go from the, what? Divinity. Divinity of the word to his being man. Just in first order. So how can, what's the correct order? You see? Well, it's a little bit like asking, what's the correct order? You know, do good and avoid evil, or turn away from your sins and try to be good. So, what would be the difference in these two orders? Well, look for a second here in question 117, where the one man can teach another, right? And I'm not going to go into the whole thing here, but just in the body of the article, the last, in your edit, just in the last paragraph here, the last thing, where it begins, the teacher leads the student from things already known to a now to the unknown in two ways. Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? Do you have that part? He says the teacher, however, leads the student from things foreknown to a now to the unknown in two ways. First, he says, by proposing to him some aids or tools, right, which his understanding uses to acquiring knowledge, as when he proposes to him some statements less universal. That seems like out of order is the reverse of the order that his teacher Aristotle taught him in the beginning of the eight books of natural hearing. Or when he proposes to him some sensible examples, right, or some likenesses or what? Opposites, huh? Or things of this sort from which the understanding of the one learning, and they use the word in Latin, mani ducitara, I was talking about that word in the text we had today, remember? By which the understanding of the one learning is led by the hand to a knowledge of the truth unknown, right? And Monsignor Dianne gave a course which was on the manudexio proper to logic, right? And another one on the manudexio proper to wisdom, which is totally neglected, he says. Now, in another way, when he strengthens the understanding of the one learning, right, not by some active power, as it were, of a superior nature like our guardian angels, between the lights of our minds, you know how I say that, that little prayer? Just as it has been said above about the angels illuminating us, right? Why? Because all human understandings are one grade in the order of nature. But insofar as he proposes to the student the order of what? Premises or principles. to conclusions. Because perhaps by himself, he does not have such a power of bringing things together so that he can deduce from the principles conclusions. And therefore it is said in the first book of Apostle Analytics that a demonstration is a solution making us to what? To know. And in this way, the one who demonstrates makes the what? Hear, know it. Okay? So these are two different ways, right? And what is before in one order might be what? After in another, right? Okay? Now, in the easy science, like Euclid's elements, right? Which some of you don't find as easy, but it's called it easy. You hardly need any mind taxi at all. See? And you're mainly doing this second thing here, right? But in these other sciences, the money taxi required is extensive, yeah? And especially in a science like logic, which has the greatest difficulties, Thomas says. Maximum difficultata. And wisdom, right? Now, this reminds me of the text in the fifth book of wisdom there, when Aristotle talks about the word before, right? And he perceives a little differently than he does in the categories, right? Because the fifth book begins with the word beginning. A very good place to begin. And that first reading, dealing with the word beginning, ends up with a common notion of beginning. But it's first, he says, in being, or becoming, or knowing. And when he gets to talk about before, he says, well, before and after, he's talking about order, and order proceeds from some beginning. And so he recalls the notion of what? Beginning, and he divides before and after, according to those three. Before and being, before and what? Knowing, and before and becoming. And this corresponds roughly to the first three meanings of before and the categories. Okay? The fourth one is much more distant, right? But that's the one in goodness, right? And Aristotle takes that up, and he takes it to the word perfect, more appropriate there. Okay? When he gets into talking about before in knowing, then he points out a distinction, fundamental distinction between the senses and reason. For the senses, the senses know only the singularity. And so, the senses, do the senses in any way know the universal? Well, I see a man over here. I see a glass. I see a chair here. Okay? In a sense, the universal is exemplified in the singular, right? But the senses know directly, you could say, the singular, right? Which exemplifies the universal. So, for the senses, the singular is more known than the universal. Okay? The singular is known directly, and if the universal is known at all by the senses, it's own insofar as it's exemplified, right? Okay? For reason, it's just the reverse. As the great Boethius says, a thing is singular when sensed, the universal is understood. When I understand what this is over here, but I understand what's a man, two-footed animal. And the singular is kind of what? Less known to reason. Okay? So, what you are as an individual is less known to me than that you are a man. Okay? So, that kind of corresponds a little bit to this, right? Because when he says, proponent a adiqua sensibility exempla, right? See? Manudexia goes back to the fact that our knowledge begins in the senses, and therefore you have to begin with sensible examples. You can't teach without sensible examples, right? Right? And so, that's kind of before according to the senses, right? Now, in what sense is the humanity of Christ before the divinity of Christ? Yeah? Because our knowledge begins in the senses, right? So, the humanity of Christ is sensible, right? You know, tucked by fingers in his side, right? And so on. Then you trust his eyes, trust his touch, but actually, I guess it's enough that he sees him. But anyway. But the humanity is sensible, right? And Thomas interprets the words of him, my Lord and my God. My Lord is referring to him as man. Because even as man, he's our Lord. And God is what's invisible, right? It's the same order as in Peter's confession of faith, right? Okay? But obviously, it goes back to the fact that for the senses, the singular is before the universal, and the human nature of Christ, right? For the senses, it's more known than divine nature. That's an understatement, right? Because the divine nature does not seem to be known at all, right? Okay? Okay? And, you know, with the Holy Spirit coming there, the fire is more, what, known for the senses, right, than the Holy Spirit, right? Okay? Or in the order of what? Manudexio, if you want to use that word, right? Okay? In the order of manudexio, the human nature of Christ comes before the what? Divine nature, right? But now, the second order, he refers to the order of demonstration, right? And if you know the post-analytics, you could also say the order of what? Definition, right? Now, which is before in definition? The universal, I was going to say, but I don't know what that is. Yeah? But I mean, when you talk about, in the word was made flesh, right? In that sentence, in the word was made flesh, the word is in that statement, isn't it? But you already learned about the word and defined it in a sense, right? You spoke about the word was eternal, right? And the word was towards God. Someone who is God, that's the father, actually, right? You don't maybe know at that point. But later on, he's called the son, you know, the one who is God that he's towards is the father, right? And then that the word is God, right? So the word is defined without the flesh. But the flesh is what? Incarnation involves the word in its what? Definition. See, what is the incarnation? Without trying to be too exactly that for next year or next year, oh, I should say. But you can say that in the definition of the incarnation would be what? The word, right? But in the definition of the word, so as we can define the word and say what the word is, is the incarnation. So the word of God, second person of the blessed Trinity and so on, is before the incarnation in definition. In other words, to understand the incarnation, you've got to know who the son of God is, who the word of God is, the second person of the blessed Trinity is, and that this person took the human nature to himself and joined into his person, right? So you can't, so you can say that the mystery of the Trinity in definition is before the mystery of the what? Incarnation. So in the order of defining or stating what these things are, in the order of understanding, right? And that's the order that St. John is following in the beginning of his gospel, right? In the beginning was the word and the word was towards God and the word was God. And then thereon you realize that the word became flesh, right? You have to understand the word a little bit before you can understand what is meant by saying the word was made flesh, right? Which has problems being understood, right? But the word became man, right? How did this take place, right? And so on. But in terms of the senses, the flesh, right? The human nature is sensible in a way that the word is not, right? The word cannot be sensed, right? And therefore, the senses, the human nature of Christ is before, right? Do you see that? Now, why does Thomas give one deduct to before? Because that's before for us, right? Because we start the senses, right? Okay, so Peter's confession of faith, or the confession of faith that St. John has it in his gospel, right? These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, right? It follows that what? That order, right? But it's like the order of Manjadaxio, right? Or it's the order of what is before for the senses, right? But the other order is more for reason itself. That's trying to understand these things and define them, right? So far as they can be, you know, said. And then, your understanding of the Trinity, and the distinction of the person to the Trinity, and your understanding of the Word of God, right? The Son of God, is presupposed, right? To understanding what St. John says next. The Word was made flesh. Which is a, what's the Necdoche, right? For the name there, right? You know, St. John is where the name of the, what? Heart is given for the whole, right? It wasn't all. And, you know, a lot of heretics took it as being said not by figure of speech, right? Okay? So, but I mean, apart from that problem with the Word, you're saying, and the Word was made flesh, the Word was made man, right? You know, I think the Creed says what? What order does the Creed have? Well, I mean, I'd say that in the Nicene Creed, you know. Because here's the Word of Jesus Christ there, you know. But it kind of talks about as divinity a bit, huh? And then he became man, right? So, one is the order of maniodexio, you might say, right? One is the order of what is before in knowledge for the senses, and therefore for man, right? And the other is what is before in definition, if you need that word, that would be a strong word to use, right? Like what is before in definition. Now, I'll take a simple example of this order here. When Socrates asks in the dialogues, when he asks Mino what is virtue, right? And Mino gives examples, right? Or suppose you ask me, what is an animal, right? And I say, well, it's something like a dog or a cat or a horse, right? Now, dog and cat and horse are closer to your senses, right, than animal. Because dog and cat and horse are closer to your pet dog, your pet cat, your pet horse if you have one. Okay? So, in leading you by the hand, from your dog, my cat, your horse, horse, or from dog, cat, and horse to animal. That's the order of what? On your decks here, right? The order of who's beginning is the senses, right? Now, if I was to define dog and animal, right, would dog be the definition of animal? I'd define the dog as a four-footed animal that barks and like that. So, animal would be the definition of dog, right? So, then you say animal is before dog in definition. And so, the definition of animal as a living body with senses, right, is before the definition of dog. As an animal, it's four-footed and barks and so on, right? You see? And that'd be like the order of demonstration in second order, right? So, Aristotle talks in the beginning of the Eight Books of Natural Hearing that we should, but we know the confused before the distinct, and therefore the general before the particular. He's talking about the more universe is before the less universe. So, he's talking about in terms of what? The order of definition, the order of demonstration. So, to understand what a dog is, you have to understand what a animal is, right? But you, so that in the order of understanding, animal is before dog. But in the order of the senses, dog is before animal, right? So, it's like that with the Trinity and the incarnation, right? That in the order of defining and understanding, the Trinity is before the incarnation. It is into what? Understanding the what? Incarnation, right? But if you go back to the senses, right, then the humanity of Christ is before the divinity of Christ, right? Okay? So, when St. Peter says, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God, right? He ascends from his humanity, right? Which is Christ as the anointed, right? To his what? Divinity, right? Who's that priest that used to, you know, go around to the churches and so on, talk about the sacred heart of Jesus, right? But, you know, they say the proper order there, you know, is you start with the physical heart of Christ, right? And then it's emotional attached to Christ. And then the love that is human will. And then finally the love that is the divine will, right? So, you're ascending in that order, right? And that is like the order of Mandadaxia. So, that order, in some sense, is more fundamental, in the same way that the order of Mandadaxia is given before the other order, right? Mandadaxia was talking about the Mandadaxia required for wisdom. And he had a beautiful text of Albert the Great, right? And Albert was contrasting sciences like natural science, which require experience, and geometry, which don't require experience. You can sit in your office and think these things out, right? In your imagination. But then, when he speaks of wisdom, he says, experience. Once the Indian says, what does he mean by experience? It doesn't mean the experience of being. He says, no. What does experience mean? In the original sense, experience means what? You're bringing together many signatures that you've remembered, right? But the experience required for wisdom is not many signatures, but the many, what, particular sciences, right? And so, but like experience, right? It's like going from the less universe to the more universe, it was like induction from the singulars to the universal, right? Okay? So, you have to have a certain foundation in logic and geometry and natural philosophy and even ethics and political philosophy before you try to acquire wisdom, right? But when you study wisdom, you find out that it's about the most universal things, like being and one and true and good, and these enter into the definition of everything else, and the actions are seen there distinctly in wisdom, and these enter into all other things. So, in the order of definition and demonstration, wisdom is before all the rest. And they don't demonstrate, you know, the beginnings of wisdom. Wisdom demonstrates their beginnings, huh? Aristotle spends, you know, the fourth book of wisdom there defending the axiom of being and unbeing, huh? Underlife everything. And so, in the order of demonstration, in the order of definition, wisdom is before all the rest. But yet, it's the last part of philosophy that we learn, as Thomas says when he gives the order of learning science, because he requires this experience of all the other, what, fundamental, more particular, sciences, huh? Okay? So, I see that the Gospels, of course, come before the Summa, right? In the Gospels, you kind of, what, see the humanity of Christ before you start to understand his, what, divinity, right? And it's sort of the way the people around Christ, they see his humanity. And so, in graduate, they can be aware of his divinity, right? And, you know, the conversations, the Last Supper, they're, you know, show us the Father, what do you mean? He's, you know, Father's not, and I am the Father, and what are they talking about? Well, even then, the humanity is more of a way. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So you know him as the son of man before you know him as the son of God. So that's kind of the order from the senses and the order of but also the first order. So it's significant to Thomas because they were first, right? So we've just got to considering the Trinity, right? And now in the fall we'll proceed to talk about the Incarnation, the Tercepharis. So we're following the order of what? Understanding, the order of defining, right? The order of, say, China, the English Gospel, that would be, right? It's interesting that, you know, they count in Mark and Luke of that same question, right? They just have people saying, you are Christ, you know? Like Matthew, you know, it's like, oh, possible, right? Mark and Luke are apostles, right? And, you know, I'll take Peter, I mean, I'll say the best incision of it, they put Matthew and John at the outside to hold up the guy. And this is a good example, right? That you don't have the complete profession of faith in the words of Mark and Luke. It's implied, but it's not spelled out the way it is in the great. And of course, in St. John's, he has more spelled out. It was divinity, right? Even in his first epistle, St. John talked about what we've seen and heard and touched with our hands about the word of life. Yeah. It's the same order there. Yeah. Part of the sentence is to... Yeah. So, we're following the order of understanding rather than the other way. Could it be gone the other way? Is it possible to do that? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But the point is, as you try to understand Christ, right, eventually you're going to have to come to the fact that he's not a human person, but a divine person, right? That's it. And there's not two persons there that let the story of somebody thought, right? And so, eventually you're going to have to understand the Trinity to understand Christ, right? So, could it be St. John's, like, written a theology in the other order? Well, you could do that, yeah. And in a sense, we do that, of course, when we talk to our children, right? You know? The children are just more to the human nature, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Thomas does say that, you know, that that comes first, you know, as children, and even older children, right? You see? So, we're kind of led by the human nature of Christ Jesus, well, divine nature, right? Pasting man, that church of the name of the Chessica. That church of the Chessica. I quote it, that kind of bravado of Churchill, you know, someone said to him in his late life, you know, you prepared to meet your creator? The question is, is he prepared to meet me? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no