Prima Secundae
Lecture 29: Beatitude, Divine Illumination, and Human Merit

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

no blessed creature is able to communicate his beatitude to another, right? And there's something, again, like that in human teaching, right? Now, they say, you're perfect, and you can make another like yourself. When you come into class, and you explain something, right? And there are students who will understand somewhat what you say, right? But then if they turn to some other student, you know, outside the class, and try to explain it, you realize they're not able to explain that, right, huh? Which case is because of the imperfect way that they, what, possess that, right, huh? I notice, you know, when I go through Euclid there, and I, you know, it's a kind of complicated theorem, right? I can follow it if I take my time and not too tired. But now someone said to me, now, Dwayne, how would you prove that, you know? The board now proved it. I don't know if I could do it, huh? That's because it's not really become second nature to me now. And I was teaching in college, and I appreciate teaching somewhat the same things over and over again, you know? I never had notes, nothing like that, right? Just come to class and cheer and so on. Second nature to me now, these things, right? But I probably couldn't do that with all those theorems of Euclid. That's not second nature to me now, right? That's kind of a dislikeness of what he's saying here, though, right? Even though this is in the same, something within the capacity of my mind, right? But you can understand what somebody's saying in a kind of imperfect way, but not, what? Yeah, yeah. Sometimes I hear a talk, you know, and I say, that's a very good talk, you know. But now if I had to try to make it as convincing to talk about the same matter to somebody else, I couldn't do it. So I have an imperfect thinking. But here, you know, it's kind of fixed, this imperfect participation of the divine light, huh? You only have it in your light, we shall see light, right? It doesn't become my light in a sense. It remains his light essentially, naturally. And only in a partaking way, right? I partake of it in some imperfect way. And therefore I can't comprehend God, right? I'll never know God as much as he is, what? Know. Knowable, yeah. Just like I can't love him as much as he's lovable, right? Now, what about the angel enlightening us, huh? The blessed angel, right, enlightens the understanding of man, or even the understanding of a lower, what, angel, as regards some reasons of the divine works, right? But not over as regards the vision of the divine, what, essence, huh? So when we talk about the high angels illuminating or enlightening the lower ones, right, it's never as regards seeing God as he is face to face. It's something that they see in God that the lower angels don't see. And then they enlighten them in regard to those things. For to seeing him, right, all are immediate, huh? That means without a middle, right? You're enlightened by what? God, huh? So I won't see God as he is face to face if I do someday, right, huh? Through the help of my guardian angel. But he might enlighten me about some things he sees in God that I don't see in God. Because he sees God maybe more clearly than I see God, right? Of course, they say sometimes even the saints illuminate the light of the angels, right, about some things, huh? Because some of them are higher than some of the angels. Do we have time for another? If we do a break? Sure. Okay, Article 7 here. Do we have time for another? Do we have time for another? Do we have time for another? Do we have time for another? whether there are required some good, what, deeds, in order that man might achieve the attitude from God. You've got to do something. Good job. Now, a baby is baptized, right? It's pretty quick, right? To the seventh one proceeds thus, it seems that there is not required any doings of man, nor that he might achieve the attitude from God. For God, since he is an agent of infinite, unlimited power, he does not presuppose enacting some matter, right? Or even some disposition of matter, right? But at once he's able to produce the whole. But the works of man, since they are not required for his beatitude as an efficient cause, because God alone does this, right? They cannot be required for it except as, what? Dispositions. Therefore, God does not presuppose, right? It's not, it's a pre-need, you might say, right? Yeah, require. I think we're just saying it. Dispositions, right? Enacting. Can confer, right? Beatitude without the, what? Precedent works, right? So you can take a dummy, he's never studied philosophy, and lighten him more than me, right now. Moreover, just as God is the author of beatitude, with no intermediary, right? Immediately. So, also institutes, what? Nature without any intermediate. But in the first institution of nature, he produces the creatures, huh? With no disposition preceding, right, huh? Or without any, what? Action of the creature preceding, right? But at once he made each perfect in its cheese. So when he created your soul or my soul, right? Immediately, yeah. Therefore, it seems that he can confer beatitude in man without any preceding, what? Operations, huh? So why didn't he do this? He could have done it, right? Moreover, the apostle says in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, that the beatitude of man, huh? Is that to which God confers, right? Justice without, what? Works. Therefore, there is not required some works of man for achieving, what? The epistle, huh? Of course, in baptism, huh? What happens in baptism? The epistle. Yeah, yeah. That's why some, they say they do a delay to baptism, you know? Yeah, yeah. And say, get my sins, you know, get my sins, and then get baptized at the end. I don't know if that, I don't know if that works, but it sounds like a good idea anyway. Kind of dicey. I can't sometimes, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't. The order of the will to the last end, which is thus required for the achievement of the last end, just as the suitable distribution of matter for the achievement of its, what, form. But from this is not shown, Thomas says, that some operation of man ought to precede his, what, beatitude, because God is able at the same time to make the will to be rightly tending to the end and the end itself that follows upon us. Just as whenever he, what, at the same time, simul, disposes matter and induces, what, the form, what, since it's necessary. But the order of divine wisdom, huh, requires a hope fiat. Something other than this. Yeah, it does not come about, right? That it should not be the best. Yeah. Now, quoting the philosopher again, huh? As is said in the second book about the universe, De Cielo Rundo. Of those things which are, what, huh? Born, are born to have a perfect good, right? Some have this without motion, right? Some by one motion, and some by, what? Many, huh? So you speak of man and the angels, right, on their natural knowledge, huh? The angel is born to have, what, his natural knowledge complete, right? And he's created. But we're to achieve it through, what, motion, which motion is called discourse, right? Now, to have a perfect good without motion belongs to that which naturally has that, huh? But now to have beatitude naturally is of God alone. God is beatitude itself. Whence of God alone is it proper that to beatitude, right, he is not moved through any preceding, what, operation. Since beatitude exceeds every created nature, can't belong to any created nature, by nature, by its nature, that is to say. No pure creature suitably attains beatitude without the motion of some, what, operation of which it tends to that. But the angel, huh, but the angel, who is superior in the order of nature than man, achieves that, huh, according to the order of divine wisdom, right, by one motion, that is, what, by the motion of one, one motion of, of meritorious operation, as has been, what, laid out in the first book, right? So, you know, Thomas says it's not in the moment of creation that they were blessed, right? In the moment of creation, their natural knowledge was perfect, right? And those who referred back to natural knowledge, to the glory of God, then they received and could take place, right? Those who rested in their natural excellence, right, and then referred back to God, were lost, right? So it's kind of frightening to us, huh, who live in time and make mistakes and sometimes, you know, repent of these mistakes and so on. You know, to have, you know, one, one, you know, yeah. But you've got to realize what perfect the angel was in his knowledge, right? He was making a decision, you might say, a choice, with complete knowledge, you might say, huh? And we don't. We make kind of half-ignorant, half-knowing choices, right? We make kind of half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half-ignorant, half You read about these, you know, counseling people who had abortions and so on, you know, and a lot of these women, they're, you know, kind of hard to believe, even if they are, but some of them are so ignorant, you know, as to what this is all about. Well, is mercy going towards us or not towards the injured? I mean, did you just have one chance? Yeah. There was not much mercy involved. Well, you've got to realize how much more excellent they were, though. We need mercy. We need mercy. We're miserable. Mercy doesn't have to do with misery. The angels weren't miserable when they were. Oh, yeah. We're the one that shows off the mercy of God. Our style says in the third book about the soul there, is it man, it's animal, it has a sense of time, and we live in time, right? And our life, that is to say, is measured by time, right? Angels' life isn't measured by time, right? So, you know, the people like Origen and so on who thought that the fallen angels could, yeah. They're kind of thinking of them as being like us in time, and they're not. It's hard for us to understand how well formed they are, you know? Yeah. I told you how my son Marcus said, why couldn't we be born, you know, knowing all we need to know? And I said, well, you want to be born an angel then, right? That's not the way man is, right? We're not born knowing all that we need to know, huh? That's why we need fathers and mothers and teachers, right? We often pray for our fathers, our brothers, our teachers. Mm-hmm. I think that's very significant. Our teachers are always included. Yeah, yeah. Thomas, you know, he explains those scriptures where it says, all fatherhood is named, you know, from God, right? God's fatherhood, but all fatherhood in heaven and on earth, right? And he says, what's this in heaven, right? When so far as one angel illuminates another angel, right, huh? And he's like his father, right? So. But men achieve beatitude by many movements of, what? Operations, huh? Which are called merits, huh? Once also, according to the philosopher, beatitude is the reward of virtuous, what? Operations. People must understand the meaning of virtue as its own reward. That's kind of the sense, right, huh? That virtue gives rise to, what? Happiness, right? Thomas says often that virtue is the road to happiness and vice is the road to misery. Read in a daily newspaper and you'll see. I see. And vice is the road to just awful things that you read about, you know, every day in the newspaper, you know. Funny, you don't want to read about it anymore, but you know what's going on all the time, you know. People are terrible, right, because of their vice. Okay, the reply to the first objection. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the operation of man is not required for the achievement of beatitude on account of the insufficiency of the divine power making us blessed, huh? But that there might be, what? Preserved. Preserved order in things, huh? Sapientis est ordinari, right? Belongs to the wise to order. Preserved order. I was reading this chapter there, you know, whether God punishes us, right? In the volume of the Summa Contra Gentiles, huh? One of the arguments, of course, is that God leaves nothing out of order. And so when you step out of order, right, he's got to balance things again, right? Well, why does he have to punish us, you know? Well, one reason is he doesn't leave anything disordered. Belongs to the wise to order things, huh? And, you know, even the wisest of human laws can't, you know, order all things and correct all the disorder in human society, right? They don't know inside people's souls very well, of course. But God doesn't leave anything disordered, right? Of course, Thomas gives a simple example there of, you know, the one animal eating the other animal, right? He brings some good out of the evil of the animal. One animal being destroyed. The other animal has a, what? A meal, right? So he balances things that way, right? That's horrible things there. And Dante, there you know that. Oh, yeah. The devils are chewing up the damned and stuff. That's big. That's kind of... To the second it should be said that the first creatures, at once God, what? Produced perfect, right, huh? Without any, what? Disposition or operation of the creature preceding. Because, thus, he instituted the first individuals of the different species, that, to them, nature would be propagated to those that come after. And likewise, because through Christ, who is both God and man, the attitude was going to be, what? Drive to others. According to that of the apostle in the epistle to Hebrews chapter 2, that he brought many sons into glory, right? At once, from the beginning of his conception, huh? Without any, what? Meritorious operation preceding. His soul was blessed, huh? That's a very interesting reason he's giving there, right? That shows that he can do that without, what? Any preceding things, huh? In other words, Christ did not merit his beatitude, right? That he merited, except it's on the part of his body, right? But not on the part of his soul, huh? He enjoyed the Vedic vision from the moment of his, what? Incarnation. But this is singular in him, right, huh? Although, huh? To baptize boys, huh? The, what? There comes, what? The merit of Christ to their achieving beatitude. Although they are lacking in, what? Yeah, how could this be? In that, through baptism, they are made perfect members of, what? Christ. That's interesting, Thomas' prayer before communion, right, huh? He wants to, he's praying to God the Father, right, huh? That he might so receive the body that Christ took from the Blessed Virgin, right? That he might be made, what? A member of his mystical body, huh? But this isn't even a better way. A better way, anyway. It's kind of interesting, those two, you know, kind of principal sacraments. Baptism and the Eucharist, right? And both, one is, what? Made a member of Christ, huh? I suppose other sacraments to some extent, too, you know? But those two seem to have this, like this right here he's talking about, right? And then, Deacon Thomas' prayer there for the Eucharist. Now, to the third, it should be said that the apostle speaks there of the beatitude of hope, right? Which is had through, what? Justifying grace. Justifying grace. Which is not given on account of, what? Preceding works, huh? But does not have the notion of the end of motion as beatitude, but it's more the beginning of motion by which one tends to beatitude. In the other article, it says he gives grace and glory, right? Take a little break here before we do the last article. Take a little break. Take a little break. Take a little break. Take a little break. Take a little break. Take a little break. Take a little break. It's kind of funny this comes from the end here, right? Whether every man desires what? Beatitude, huh? To the eighth one goes forward thus. It seems that not all desire beatitude, huh? For no one is able to desire what he doesn't know, since the good grasp of known is the object of desire. As is said in the third book about the soul. But many do not know what beatitude is. Because as Augustine says in the thirteenth book about the Trinity, it's clear from this that some place beatitude in the pleasure of the body, right? Some in the virtue of the soul, some in other things. Therefore, not all desire beatitude, huh? Some in money. That's really how the case today works. In the paper where the person who won one of these million dollar things, you know? And some other woman had the same names of a person, right? Oh, no. So people are calling her, you're trying to sell her something, or asking for money from her, you know? Because she has the same names. So, if you win these things, you're probably going to be hounded to death. Oh, yeah. You've got to disconnect your phone and put guards up around the house. Yeah. Having it. Moreover, the essence of beatitude is the vision of the divine essence, the divine substance, the divine nature. But some think this to be impossible, that God be seen through his essence by man. Whence they don't, what? Desire the essence. Therefore, not all men desire beatitude. Moreover, Augustine says in the 13th book about the Trinity, that the blessed man is the one who has everything that he wishes, and wishes nothing bad. But not all, what? Wish this, huh? Because some badly wish some things, huh? And nevertheless, they will those things to, what? To will themselves, huh? And they will themselves to will those things. Therefore, not all wish bad, too. But again, this is what Augustine says in the 13th book about the Trinity. See, what is that? What is it? What is it? In the set context? See, what is it? In the set context? Mime or a farce or an actor. He says that, yeah. Okay. He says this in jest. All wish to be, what? Blessed, huh? None wish to be, what? No one does not know in his, what? Will. Therefore, everyone wishes to be, what? Blessed, huh? Thomas is going to answer this by a simple distinction, right? Answered should be said that beatitude can be, what? Considered in two ways. In one way, according to the common notion of beatitude, and thus is necessary that every man, what? Will beatitude, huh? For the definition or the notion of beatitude, common notion, is that it be a perfect good, huh? A good that is, what? Lacking in nothing, huh? Since, however, the good is the object of the will, the perfect good is something that wholly satisfies his will. Whence to desire beatitude is nothing other than to desire that his will be satiated, satisfied, huh? Which everyone wishes, right? In another way, we're able to speak about beatitude according to its, what, particular or special definition, as regards that in which beatitude consists, right? And remember how Thomas Horde spoke about beatitude and then what did it consist, right? You know, kind of a general notion and then this more precise notion. And in this way, he says, not all know beatitude, because they do not know that to which the common notion of beatitude, what? The law. And consequently, it regards this, not all, what? Yeah. Okay? And so, Romeo thinks that Juliet is happiness, right? Well, I think he's mistaken. You know, what is, in fact, we say at the end of Vanity Fair, the novel, you know, for who in this life ever gets what he wants, for having gotten it is, what, satisfied, right? It seems to have said something on that, you know, where you keep on saying this is in your happiness, you know? I mean, for a little kid, it's candy is happiness, right? Having all the candy you want, right? I think you're happy, right? And after a while, you say, well, no, no, it doesn't even make me happy. I like candy still, but it didn't really bring me happiness, candy, you know? And then you think it's a woman later on, you know? But no, no. Money. Money. Yeah, yeah. But none of these things satisfy, right? Yeah. Yeah. Once, Thomas says, is clearly the response to the first one, right, huh? Because they don't know in what happiness really consists, but they want to be happy, right? Just like at the beginning of the commentary of the Psalms, where he says, one thing we have in common, everybody wants to be happy, but we differ in the road we take to happiness, and then the end of that road. Yeah. Because not everybody is happy. Now, to the second, those who say that this vision of God is not possible, to the second it should be said, that since the will follows upon the grasping of the understanding or of the reason, just as it can happen that something is the, what, same, secundum rem, in reality, which nevertheless is diverse according to the, what, consideration of reason. So it happens that something is the same, secundum rem, in the thing, and nevertheless, in one way is, what, desired, another way is not desired. This falls upon the fact that the mind can know something in a confused way, and know it, what, distinctly, right? So in knowing what beatitude is in a confused way, they all want it, right? But they don't know distinctly in what it consists, and in that way, they don't want what true beatitude is. A lot of these, you know, discussions, you know, people, you know, where they come with the young people, and some of them are dissatisfied with life because they realize there's something more, and the idea of what happiness is of the guys and their parents, you realize that's not really going to satisfy them, you know? They're kind of searching for this perfect good, huh? I know as a child, I thought the idea, there must be something that when you have it, you don't want anything else. I don't know where I got that idea, but I just didn't have that idea, you know? But I didn't know what it was, you know? Okay? So because the will falls upon the reason, and the reason can know something, what? In an indistinct way, right? Or know it, what? Distinctly. It's like these guys want to get married, right? You have a break, a few steps, you're married. But then, they finally see this one woman and say, now I know, this is the one, this is what I'm looking for in my life. They know, they confuse me what they're looking for, right? But now I'm telling them, Judy or whoever your name is, then they realize, this is the one for me. So, the attitude can be considered under the thought of a, what? Final and perfect good, right? Which is the common, what? Thought of the attitude, huh? And thus naturally, and from necessity, right? The will, what? Tends towards that, right?