Prima Secundae
Lecture 178: The Beatitudes and Fruits of the Holy Spirit

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

The eighth beatitude is a certain confirmation in making known of all the ones going before him. For from this someone is confirmed in poverty of spirit and mildness in the ones following. It happens that from these goods, on account of no persecution, will he, what? Receive. Whence the eighth beatitude in some way pertains to all the seven, what? Preceding. That's what the best one thing to say. It's like a summary of all of it. Yeah, yeah. Now to the sixth one here. What's this problem here? Four in Ambrose, seven in Augusta, and the Gospel gives eight. Yeah. But he says, you know, to the sixth it should be said that Luke narrates the sermon of the Lord given to the crowds, the moths. Whence the beatitudes are numbered, by him according to the capacity of the moths. Who know only the voluptuous and the temporal and earthly beatitude. Whence the Lord through the four beatitudes excludes, what? Four, which seem to pertain to the, what? Four said beatitude. Which the first is the abundance of exterior goods, which he excludes through this that he said, blessed are the poor. Second is that man had himself well as he guards the body, in foods, in drinks, and others of this sort. And this excludes through the second that he lays down, blessed are those who, what? Hunger. Hunger. Third is that man had himself well as he guards the joyfulness of the heart. He excludes this, saying, blessed are those who now weep. Weep. And fourth is the exterior favor of men. And this excludes fourth, and he says, blessed are men when they, what? Blessed are you when men hate you. And as Ambrose says, property pertains to temperance, which does not seek illicit things. Hunger to justice, because the man who hungers suffers with them. Bestows, is generous with those who suffer. Yeah, suffering with them. Fetus to prudencia, which it is to flee, what? Tichido, what is that? Fertual. Fertual things. And to undergo, to suffer the odium of men to, what? Fortitude, right? That's what the 40th symphony is about, huh? Patti. It was an old man that kicked Mozart down the stairs. What do you say about the, next to the last opera there, the German empress or something there? A piece of German swanishness, you know? It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. It says more about who the swan is. Now, whether the rewards of the Beatitudes are suitably enumerated. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the rewards of the Beatitudes are not what suitably enumerated. For in the kingdom of the heavens, which is eternal life, all goods are contained. Therefore, when one lays down the kingdom of the heavens, it is not necessary to lay down another. And thus don't say, if you're not satisfied with the kingdom of heaven, what will you be satisfied with? Moreover, the kingdom of the heavens is laid down as a reward both in the first Beatitudes and in the eighth one. Therefore, for the same reason, I will be placed in all of them. It contains all of them. Moreover, in the Beatitudes, one proceeds ascending, going up, as Augustine says. In the rewards, however, one seems to proceed going down. Well, the possession of the earth is less than the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore, unsuitably, are these rewards assigned. My head, no, it's clarified, but it's confused again, right? But against this is the authority of the Lord himself, proposing what? These rewards, huh? When they say the argument from authority is the strongest, right? In theology. In theology, huh? My answer should be said that these rewards are most soon to be assigned, having considered the condition of the Beatitudes according to the three Beatitudes above, what? Assigned. For these three Beatitudes are taken by withdrawal from those things in which the voluptuous Beatitude consists, huh? Which man desires, seeking that which he naturally desires, right? Not where he ought to, what? Seek. To it in God, but in temporal things and fallen things, huh? And therefore, the rewards of the first three Beatitudes are taken according to those things which some seek in earthly Beatitude, huh? For men seek in exterior things wealth and honors, a certain excellence and abundance, huh? Both of which is implied in the kingdom of the heavens, through which man achieves an excellence and abundance of goods in, what? God, huh? And therefore, the kingdom of the heavens, the Lord promises to those poor in spirit, huh? Men seek, huh, ferociousness and without mildness, through disputes and wars according to, to seek security, by destroying their enemies, huh? Whence the Lord promises to the mild, secure and quiet possession of the, what? Land of the living, huh? To which has signified the solidity of eternal goods. Men seek in concupiscences and the pleasures of the world to have consolation against the labors of the present life, huh? And therefore, the Lord promises consolation to those who mourn. The other two Beatitudes pertain to the works of active Beatitude, which are the works of the virtues ordering men to their, what? Neighbor. From which works men are withdrawn on account of a disordered love of their own good. And therefore, the Lord attributes those rewards to these Beatitudes, on account of which men from them, what? Always going to fall away or depart. Yeah. They depart from the works of justice, not rendering debt, what is owed, but more seeking things that belong to others, right? That they might be filled with temporal goods. And therefore, the Lord, to those thirsting for justice, promises, yeah, they fall, some from the works of mercy, lest they become mixed up with the miseries of others. And therefore, the Lord promises to the merciful, mercy, to which they will be liberated from all misery. Not just the miseries of others, but all miseries, even their own. So, the last two ultimate Beatitudes pertain to contemplative happiness or Beatitude, and therefore, according to his stability dispositions, which are placed in the merit, the rewards that are, what? Rendered. For the cleanness of the eye disposes one to see clearly, whence to the clean of heart the divine vision is promised. To constitute or establish peace, either in oneself, among one's own parts, or among others, makes no man to be an imitator of God, who is the God of unity and peace. And therefore, for reward is rendered to these people the glory of the divine Sonhood. Which is, in the perfect joining to God, who consummated, what? Wisdom, huh? It's like the words of St. John there, right? Where the children of God now, doesn't care what we should be, right? He's talking about the wisdom there, seeing God as he is, huh? To the first, I'll let it just say over and over again, this thing. The first thereof it should be said, that just as Jerome said, and I guess it was the homily in Matthew, it says in my footnote. So, that's the one you wanted to trade the city of Paris for? This is Chrysostom. This is Chrysostom. Oh, yeah. Chrysostom, no, you want to change, Chrysostom on John. You're sure? I thought it was going to change. Did he say he won three Paris? No, I'm pretty, you can check it out. I don't know where he fights, but I'm pretty sure he said for Chrysostom on John. Right, right. Okay. As Chrysostom says, all the rewards are, what, one in reality and things, to which eternal beatitude, which the human understanding cannot grasp. And therefore, it's necessary that to the various goods known to us, it be described, observing the suitability to the merits by which the rewards are, what, attributed to them. To the second it should be said, that the eighth beatitude is the firmness of all the beatitudes, right, and therefore it is, what, owed to it, the rewards of all the beatitudes, right, and therefore it returns to the beginning, that be understood to follow upon all the rewards attributed. For according to the ungrows, to the poor in spirit is promised the King of Heaven as regards the glory of the soul, but to those who have suffered persecution in the body as regards the glory of the body. And Tom said a quote there from Augustine, you know, that the soul will not enjoy God before the resurrection as much as it will after it's joined to its body, because then it would be perfect in his nature, yeah. So Christ's play to the thought of the soul, you know, as kind of, the body's kind of a clothing around the... Dead wing. Yeah. For him, for the resurrection would be a horrible thing, right? It's like getting back in that body that would be... A necessary correction. Yeah. To the third, it should be said also that the rewards, according to addition, have themselves to each other, right? For it is more to possess the land of the kingdom of the heavens than simply to have it. For many things we have not firmly and peacefully to be possessed. For it is more to possess the land of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom of the kingdom It's more to be consoled in the kingdom than to have it and possess it. For many are with pain. We possess many things with pain. More is it to be saturated than simply to be consoled. And mercy exceeds satirity. So that more a man receives any merit or is able to desire it. It's even more to see God. Just as he is greater in the fury of the king, not only eats there, I guess, but also sees the face of the king. For the highest dignity in the kingly kingdom, the son of the king has. Can we go on to the fruits? Time to do a little bit of the fruits. Then we ought to consider about the fruits. In Latin there, you have even the dianima, I mean the ethics. In English they use the word happiness, right? But in Latin they have the word felicitas. And so it's got the idea of fruit in there, right? It's like happiness is the fruit of good deeds, right? Misery is the fruit of bad deeds of good deeds. And about this four things are asked. First, whether the fruits of the Holy Spirit are acts. Second, whether they differ from the Beatitudes. Third, about their number. Fourth, about the opposition of them to the brooks of the flesh. I see a beautiful text there, you know, where injection was argued against our bodies being in heaven, you know. And one of the scriptural texts says, flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom. And Thomas says, well, flesh and blood here are taken for the corruption of the flesh and the blood, you know. And it might seem, you know, it's kind of arbitrary for him to say that. So you can say the resurrection, right? But you say, you know, the flesh, you know, goes against the spirit, right? Then you have a real text where you're using the flesh for the corruption of the flesh, right? So you get back your flesh and blood, but not in this corrupt state that it now is. I forget whether it's in St. Thomas or somebody when our Lord accuses some, I think it was the Pharisees, thinking according to the flesh or something. And whichever father was saying, he was commenting, he said, well, we know that living according to the flesh is bad. So thinking according to the flesh is bad, too. To the first end, one goes for it thus. It seems that the fruits of the Holy Spirit, I guess there's, what, about 12 of them? I don't know where it is, isn't it? Which the apostle names in Galatians chapter 5 are not acts. For that of which there is some fruit ought not to be called a fruit. The vessel and go on forever. But of our acts there is some fruit. For it says in the book of Wisdom, chapter 3, Glorioso, Son, glorious is the fruit of good works. And John 4, verse 36, Who reaps, Son, he sees the reward, and he gathers fruit into eternal life. Therefore, our acts should not be called, what, fruits. More of Augustine says in the 10th book of the Trinity, We enjoy things known in which the will, on account of the things, what, rest. But our will ought not to rest in its own acts, hope to say. Therefore, the acts, our acts, ought not to be called fruits. What's it, enjoy God, huh? I enjoy our own acts. Moreover, among the fruits of the Holy Spirit are enumerated by the apostle, St. Paul, that is, some virtues, to wit, charity, mildness, faith, chastity, right? But virtues are not acts, but habits, huh? This has been said above. Therefore, the fruits are not acts. But against this is what is said in Matthew 12. Well, from its fruit the tree is known, that is, from his works of man, as is there expounded by the saints. Therefore, those very human acts are said to be, what? Fruits. Fruits, huh? Well, let's see what the Master says. The answer, it should be said, that the name of fruit is carried over, huh? From body of things to spiritual things, huh? If you have the Latin there, notice the word is translatum, right? You hear Thomas using the text sometimes, translatio nominis, right? But in English, the word translation is carrying over the meaning, right? Not the word. But Thomas will use it for, yeah. And of course, the Greek word metaphor is etymologically the same as translatio, right? But metaphor is used for carrying over the word, right? So just by chance, you know, that the word translatio has been limited to carrying over the meaning, right? And not the word, huh? And metaphor, you know, the Greek word, the same etymology is used for carrying over the word, huh? So you hear this text of Thomas, translatio nominis. You hear over the word from one thing and then you place it upon something else and you carry it over and place it. So the name fruit is carried over from bodily things to, what, spiritual things, huh? Now that is said in bodies to be the fruit which is produced from the plant, right? When it arrives at its, what, perfection. And it has in itself, huh, a certain sweetness, huh? Slavite, word slav, huh? Which fruits are able to be compared to two things, huh? To wit, to the tree producing it, and to the man who, what? Obtains. Obtains the fruit from the, what, tree, huh? Okay. According to this, therefore, the name of fruit in spiritual things can be taken in two ways, huh? In one way, that be said to be the fruit of the man, as were of a tree. That is, what is, what? Produced by him, huh? In another way, that be said to be the fruit of the man, that which the man, what? And not everything that is obtained by a man has a notion of a fruit, but that which is both last and having, what? Pleasure, right? It's interesting, in the 10th book of the Nicomachean Ethics, when Aristotle completes his consideration of happiness, right? He's already, you know, defined happiness in a way in the first book, right? But then he goes through all the virtues to see more exactly what it is. But in the last book, he talks about happiness and pleasure, right? You know? Because there is some kind of, what? Enjoyment. Yeah. Tied up with happiness because it's a perfect operation, right? Thomas is saying this is both what is ultimoma, last, and having pleasure. For a man has... Both a field and a tree, which, what, are not called, what, fruits, but only that which is last, what, from the field and the tree, the man intends to, what, have, huh, they plant all kinds of fruit trees there, my daughter and her husband there, you know, and they're ten acres there, so I don't know how it's going to take it, but it's going to be this and that and so on. I was praying. I was praying. And according to this, the fruit of man is said to be the last end of man, right? Which he ought to, what? Joy. Joy, yeah. If that is said to be the fruit of man, that which is produced from the man, thus the acts, the human acts themselves, are said to be the, what, fruit. For operation is the second act of the one operating, huh? The one form is the first act. And it has pleasure, right? If it be suitable to the one operating, huh? So when you listen to the music of Mozart, it's pleasure, right? It's convenient to hear, right? This music. If, therefore, the operation of man proceeds from man according to the faculty of his reason, is then said to be the fruit of, what? Reason. Reason. If, however, it proceeds from man according to a higher virtue, which is said to be, which is the virtue of the, what? Holy Spirit. Thus it is said to be, thus the operation of man is said to be a fruit of the, what? Holy Spirit. As a word of a certain divine, what? Seed, huh? Okay? For it is said in 1 John 3, everyone who is born from God does not make sin because the seed of him, meaning of God, remains in him, right? It's very concrete there. There's a seed there, huh? Now to the first thing about going on forever. However, the first effort should be said that since fruit has in some way the notion of something latched in an end, nothing prevents the fruit of one thing to be another fruit, right? Just as one end is ordered to another end, huh? Aristotle takes up the fourth clause, the end. He says it can be, what? An end of an end, right? It's not just the last thing, right? For our works, insofar as they are certain effects of the Holy Spirit in us operating, right, have the notion of a, what? Fruit. But insofar as they are ordered to the end of eternal life, then they have more of the notion of, what? Flowers. Whence it is said, this is a text I guess they often apply to the Blessed Virgin, huh? But it can be more general. Whence it is said in Ecclesiasticus 24, my flowers are the fruit of honor and... I don't know. Honestas. I never know how to translate. The honorable good, huh? To the second it should be said that when the will is said to take delight in something in account of itself, this can be understood in two ways, huh? In one way, according as Procter, the covenant says the final clause. And thus, for its own sake, one should not delight in something except in the last, what? In, right? Another way, according as it designates the formal clause, huh? And thus, Procter say, in account of itself, someone can delight in everything that is delectable according to its, what? Form. Well, just as it is clear that the sick one delights in health, Procter say, right, as in an end. In the sweet medicine, not as an end, but as having a, what? Delectable savor, huh? Yeah, the medicine is a boy there coated with cinnamon, you know? Oh, and I, mmm, good. I sat there licking one day, like a candy, you know, and licked through to the medicine. Oh, yeah. Shocked to the medicine. Learned your lesson. But in an austere medicine, in no way for its own sake, right? But only on account of another, right? So, if the medicine tastes good, you rejoice in the medicine, well, I mean, for its own sake, you know, as well as for the sake of one's health, right? But it tastes awful, you just... It's only for one reason, yeah. Thus, therefore, it should be said that in God, a man ought to delight, Procter say, as an account of his last, what? In virtuous acts, however, not an account of the end, but an account of the, what? Yeah, that they can pay, which is delightful to those who are, what? Virtuous, huh? So, it tells you, you don't have the virtue, then you rejoice in the act of the virtue, right? You're not paying your debts, you don't have virtue of justice. Once Ambrose says that the works of the virtues are called, what? Fruits. Because they refresh their possesses with a holy and sincere pleasure. To the third, it should be said that the names of the virtues are taken sometimes for their acts, as Augustine says, that faith is to believe who one does not see. Well, to believe who one does not see is not faith, the virtue, but it's the act of the virtue, right? And charity is the emotion of the soul to loving God in one's neighbor. Well, charity, that's not the habit, right? That's the act. And in this way, I take in the names of the virtues and the enumeration of the fruits. So, you're naming the act, right? Equivocity, right? But it's the name of the virtue. When I put you in jail, that would be justice, right? But not the virtue of justice, but the act of justice. Did you do an article, or what's your time schedule? The short one. It's really short. Okay, let's do an article too good. Where do the fruits differ from the Beatitudes? That's kind of a hard thing to separate them, right? To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that the fruits do not differ from the Beatitudes. For the Beatitudes are attributed to the gifts, but the gifts perfect man according as he is moved by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Beatitudes are the fruits of the Holy Spirit. More, just as the fruit of eternal life has itself to the future Beatitude, which is of the thing, so have itself the fruits of the present life to the Beatitudes of the present life, which are of hope. But the fruit of eternal life is that future Beatitude. Therefore, the fruit of the present life is those Beatitudes. One likeness is a slippery thing, as the great Plato says. A most slippery thing, he says. Moreover, of the notion of fruit is there to be something last and delectable. But this pertains to the notion of Beatitude, something last, as has been said about. Therefore, there's the same ratio, the same definition, as it were, of the fruit and Beatitude. Therefore, they ought not to be distinguished from each other. Now, distinction is the most basic thing of the reason, right? So, but against this, is that whose species are different, they also are different. But in diverse parts are divided, subject parts that means, fruits and Beatitudes, as is clear through the enumeration of both. Ergo, fruits differ from Beatitudes. I answer, it should be said, that more is required for the notion of Beatitude than for the notion of what? Fruit. For for the notion of fruit, it's sufficient that something have the ratio of something last and delectable, right? Pleasant. But for the ratio of Beatitude, there's further required that it be something perfect and what? Excelling. Excelling. Whence all Beatitudes are able to be called fruits. But none convert it to her, right? For those are fruits, whatever virtuous works, in which man, what? Delights. Delights, huh? But Beatitudes are called only those perfect works, which also, by reason of their perfection, are more attributed to the, what? Gifts than to the, what? Fritues, huh? So you might speak of fruits there with all the virtues, right? But Beatitudes more with the, what? Gifts because of their excellence, right? So he seems to be saying, though, that we keep the word fruit for the ones that are lesser, right? Because Beatitude brings out something more. Excelling, yeah. So the first objection, then, it says that argument proves that the Beatitudes are fruits, but not that all fruits are, what? Yeah. Beatitudes, right? And to the second, it should be said that the fruit of eternal life is simplicity, right? No, quendo, right? Last and perfect, right? And therefore, in no way is it distinguished from future Beatitude. But the fruits of the present life are not simply last and perfect. And therefore, not all fruits are, what? Beatitudes. Beatitudes, right? To the third, it should be said that something, ampleness, something in addition, is of the definition of Beatitude, than of the definition of fruit. That's a different way he distinguishes that than he distinguished Beatitude from the virtues and the gifts, right? Because there are habits, right? But this is an act, right? But he doesn't distinguish them in the same way here, right? It's like distinguishing wisdom from knowledge, right? Wisdom is knowledge, but not every knowledge is wisdom. If you know how many chairs in this room have knowledge, but it's not wisdom. So we'll be starting with Article 3 then, next time.