Prima Secundae
Lecture 228: Venial Sin in Innocence and Angelic Sin

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

To the third, one proceeds thus. It seems that man in this state of innocence would be able to sin, what, immediately, huh? I'm just seeing an address of Louis Dubreuil there, the great French physicist there, you know, one of these academic institutions here in France back in 1932, you know. He's talking about how you have to be open to the higher things, you know, and so on. And if you're not, this mechanical age would be nothing more than a kind of complicated barbarism, he said. You know, why not the way it was said, you know. The spirit and the machine he was talking about. I wasn't too sure if the man was getting better or worse, you know. This is right before Hitler was coming to power on 1932, right? Hitler came to power once in 1933, wasn't it? Yeah, yeah. Nice demonstration of how good we've become, right? Now, whether man in the state of innocence would be able to sin venally, huh? To the third, one proceeds thus. It seems that man in the state of innocence would be able to, what, sin venally. Oh, he's going to take to the side, huh? Because upon that of 1 Timothy, chapter 2, Adam was not, what? Yeah. No, it was a woman who was a dude, right? Okay. The gloss says, being inexperienced with the divine severity, right, huh? In that he would be able to, what? Yeah. That he believed that it was a venial thing to, what, have been committed, right, huh? But this he would not have believed unless he was able to, what, sin venally, right? That's the sort of argument. These guys are really marvelous, these medieval men, huh? Therefore, venally, he would be able to, what, sin, by not sinning mortally, right? So I'm going to have a little venous in here, to eat that apple, right? What the hell? Well, that thing I was telling you about, this guy, the concerto, was talking to me, you know? Oh, God's not going to punish me for not going to Mass on Sunday, you know? You know? Can't see that at all. See, now it's a mortal sinner, right? You can't see it? This is Adam here. Moreover, Augustine says in the 11th book upon Genesis to the letter, it should not be, what, judged, huh? That man would, what, be? That the tempter would not have thrown man down, I guess, huh? Unless there had preceded in the soul of man a certain alatio, which is the name of, for pride, you know? If he's not already down, yeah. But the alatio preceding, what, his throwing down, which was made through, what, immortal sin, the sin that he committed, could not be except a venial sin, right? In other words, he couldn't have, he didn't fall until he fell. And so, unless this had preceded his falling, so, must have been only a venial sin, right? He must have been capable of that, huh? No, these are, I hate to be a magister in the Middle Ages, what would I do when the students do these things at me? Because maybe Thomas is telling them at himself, I don't know. Likewise, also, in the same work, Augustine says, that the man, right, some desire of experiencing it, you might say, solicited the man, right, huh? When he saw the woman, having taken the, what, forbidden apple, not to have been, what, died, yeah. Well, maybe he thought, maybe, you know, you won't die when you eat this, right? Didn't he say you'll die if you did that? What, the Lord said that, yeah. Well, she's, she's, yeah, so, yeah. There seems to have been, in Eve, some motion of infidelity, huh, in that she doubted about the words of the Lord, right? As is clear through this that she said, huh? We die, yeah. This is had in Genesis 3. But these seem to be venial sins. Therefore, man would be able to sin venially before he sinned, what, mortally? The little before the big, right? Wouldn't you say, yeah, that's quite, quite reasonable. Moreover, mortal sin is more opposed to the wholeness, the integrity of the first state, than venial sin. But man would, is able to sin mortally, notwithstanding the integrity of the first status, huh? Therefore, also, he would be able to sin venially. That's, that's like a nice, dialectical place, isn't it, right? If, if, if Adam and Eve are capable of mortal sin, despite being in the state of innocence, they're capable of a lesser sin, right? If I could do something really mean, could I do something that's a little bit mean? You know? If I'm able to decapitate you, could I just kick in the shins? Yeah, yeah. But against this is that for each sin, there is owed some, what, punishment, huh? What did I mention then? I was, I was looking at the Our Father there in, in the Sermon on the Mount. And, uh, in the Greek there, the text is really, what, debt and debtor. And then the idea of trespassing, that comes into the text, you know, later on. So, like, it's almost like a synonym for what he was saying in the Our Father. But we, we adopted that word, it comes after the actual text of the Our Father, and trespasses, yeah. And it's interesting, yeah. Sin. Because I know, in Arabic and Syriac, they use two words there. Yeah. They don't say, forgive us our debts. They say, forgive us this and this. And I don't know what to do with it, one of them means sin. Yeah. But this example, Christ goes later on, you know, about the man whose debt was forbidden, I mean, forgiven, right? And they wouldn't forgive the debt of, yeah. And that's kind of, you know, dealing with that part of the Our Father where you say, you know, that you have to, you have to forgive your neighbor in order to be forgiven by God, right? And that kind of fits with the words of the Our Father there, which is debt, right? You know, that particular thing, but I don't know how the thing got mixed up, I mean, how they got chosen that way, but anyway. Yeah, okay, we're up to the, yeah. Okay, but nothing punishable, right, could there be in the state of innocence, as Augustine says in the 14th book on the city of God. Therefore, one could not sin by some sin, by which he was not ejected from that status of integrity. But even sin does not change the status of man. Therefore, he could not, what, sin. Amen. Amen. Amen. Venially. Follow that? I wrote there from Augustine. By any sin. You probably said he was not able to commit any sin to be thrown out of the state of innocence. Yeah. But then he said it wasn't innocent. There could be nothing punishable in the state of innocence, right? So you have to leave the state of innocence, right, to be worthy of punishment. And it's only by mortal sin that you could be, leave that status, right? Thomas says, I answer you, it should be said that it is commonly, right, laid down that man in the state of innocence is not able to, what, sin venially. On my text here, in the bottom, it refers to, you know, Albert the Great, right, in his thing on the second book of Sentences, and Bonaventure, right, in the second sentences, and in his Ad Claris Acqua song. That's true. Yeah, okay. This over should not be thus understood as if that which is for us a venial, if it were what? Committed would be for them what? Morto. On account of the altitude of their state. For the dignity of the person is a certain circumstance aggravating the sin. It does not, however, transfer it to another species unless there comes about it the deformity of, what, disobedience or, I guess, of breaking the vow or something, or something of this sort, right, which cannot be said in the thing proposed. Whence that which is of itself venial could not be carried over to being mortal on account of the dignity of the first, what? Thus, therefore, it should be understood that he was not able to, what, sin venially because he was not able to be, that he commits something that would be of itself venial before he lost the integrity of the first, what? Yeah. Let's go back to that. Applied, the ejection, right? Now, how is he going to justify this? The reason for this is because venial sin happens in us either on account of the imperfection of the act as sudden motions in the genus of, what, mortal sins, right? We have a sudden doubt about the rule of the faith or something, right? Or an account of, what, a disorder existing about those things which are to the end, but not about the end itself, right? Keeping the suitable order to the, what, end. Now, both of these things happen on account of a certain defect of order, from the fact that the lower is not contained firmly under the higher. Now, that in us there arises suddenly a motion of, what, sensuality, happens from this, that sensuality, that's the, what, the emotions now, right? Sense desires. Are not altogether subject to, what, reason, huh? Well, they didn't know they were naked until after they sinned, right? So there weren't these sudden unreasonable passions, right? Now, that there arises a sudden motion in reason itself, comes about in us from this, that the carrying out of the act of reason is not, what, subject to deliberation, which is from the higher good. Now, that the human soul is disordered about those things which are towards the end, with the suitable order to the end being kept, this comes about from this, that those things which are towards the end are not ordered infallibility there, under the end, which holds the highest place, as a, what, beginning in desirable things, as had been said above. But in the state of innocence, as was had in the first one, this was talked about in the first three of the paris, there was an infallible, what, you know, a firmness of infallible order, right? That always the lower was contained under the higher, so long as the highest thing of man was contained under God. So, so long as, what, completely, then the, what, emotions and the body, you know, was subject to the reason and the body to the, what, soul, right? Okay? This, this is the beautiful proportion, you know, in God, right, huh? And so in the, the highest part of man, his reason was no longer subject to God, then what was lower than reason was no longer subject to reason, right? It's a little bit like that, you know, the story of the debt and the servant, right? So the, yeah, so quite a high state of life we had in those days, huh? Yeah. Wait till I see Adam. No, I'm not, he's probably, he's probably heard it so often. Everybody's been there. What did you do that for? And so also Augustine says in the 14th book about the city of God, huh? So Augustine, I think, is one of the main teachers of Thomas, huh? By the written word, huh? Not by the spoken word, huh? And therefore it's necessary that, what? The disorder in man would not be except in, what? From this, that the highest thing of man, the highest part of man was not subject to, what? God. God, huh? And that comes about through Morbison. Which is clear that man in the state of innocence, not be able to sin venially before he sinned, what? Mortally. Now, look before and after, right? Isn't this a good example of a before and after that you wouldn't probably think about, right? You had to, what? Moral sin had to come before any venial sins, right? By an hour fallen state now, venial sins happen before a mortal sin, right? And they kind of dispose in some way, I suppose, for a mortal sin, right? They're not corrected in some way. But in the state of innocence, it would be just the reverse. A mortal sin had to come before. See the importance? You see how Thomas looks before and after. But I guess Augustine, he was seeing this before and after, before. Thomas saw it. A lot of befores there, right? Quite a man is Augustine. I've talked to you about John Paul II in Syphilical and Augustine. You realize how important he is to the church. See the assumption there, the order of the AA is the initials, I think, you know. Augustinians do the assumption, right? The Dominicans say, you know, that their, their, their, yeah, yeah, that their order in the monastery is based upon Augustine and so on, you know, they live, they live over Augustine. But the, the substance had some August, Augustine scholars and all this kind of a thing in there over there. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that vigno is not taken, what, there, according as we are now speaking of vigno, right? That is said to be vigno, which is easily, what, a rejection. To the second, it should be said that that illatio, which went before in the soul of man, was the first mortal sin of man, right? So that pride is the beginning, right? Well, evil for us, huh? It is said to precede, what, casting down, in the exterior act of sin, and fouling this illation, right? Illation. Is both the, what, desire of experiencing in man, and the doubt in the woman, where she doubted God, right? Under the suggestion of Diabolus, Satana. Which from this alone, she, what, yeah, in a certain ratio, that she heard the mention of the precept by the serpent, as she did not wish, what, under precept, yeah. That's why they say, you know, that they start their redemption from Mary, right? To redeem the womanhood, you know? Mercy, or... Yeah, yeah. To the third, it should be said that mortal sin, to such an extent, is opposed to the integrity or wholeness of the first status. State, that it, what, corrupts it, right? Which venial sin could not, what, is not able to do. And because there cannot be together any, what, disorder with the integrity of the first state, it follows that the first man, huh, would not be able to sin venially before he sinned, what, mortally, huh? It'll break after this difficult looking before and after here of this art. angels now to the fourth one goes forward thus it seems that the good or bad angel is able to sin venialy more like us yeah it's not his superiority okay man since he comes together with the angels in the highest part of the soul which is called the mind according to that of gregory in his homily man understands with the angels yeah you know how how they use the word understanding you know sometimes as a synonym for reason right human understanding and so man has this power called understanding right but then and the angel has it too called understanding right but then since the angel has fully this power right his faculty keeps the name understanding and we have it in a what shadowed way as they say and we get a new name called what reason right so when shakespeare defines you know our understanding he defines it as a reason right and therefore defines it by what discourse right and even the second part of looking he used the word looking rather than the word seeing right and daniel would be seeing before and after right and uh so i mean looking goes with with uh the first part of uh discourse you know so ours is properly named that's the one that's basically named i've talked about a lot you know that the uh uh the lesser one keeps the what i mean uh lose the name and the one that fully keeps it keeps it right sometimes reverse right one that has nothing more than that right keeps it common name right so you know we say is it is a girl a man or a woman well she's a woman right so you have woman and girl but then woman is what one who's fully developed right and then the girl gets a new name you know because she has imperfect the same with boy and man right or kitten you know it's a kitten what's different than a kitten and a puppy well a kitten is a cat and a puppy is a dog you can say that right but then we distinguish sometimes between the cat and the kitten right kittens are no more cute you know they're kind of playful you know they are like little kids and little boys you know i know i know i know yeah yeah so man understands what the angels right but man according to the higher part of his soul is able to send what penially therefore also the angel moreover whoever is able to do what is more is able to do what is less that's that's like an italical place right okay if you missed 100 200 pounds you missed 100 pounds right but the angel is able to love what created good more than god which he did by sinning mortally therefore he also is able to love the created good below god in a disordered way sinning venially into the greater you can do the lesser thing right if i can murder you i can suddenly steal from you yeah yeah yeah moreover the bad angels seem to do some things which are from their genus venial sins by provoking men to laughter and to other levities of this sort but the circumstances of the person does not what make for you what does that make of a venial or immortal sin this has been said unless some special prohibition is over stated i mean over which is not in the thing proposed therefore the angel is able to sin venially against this is that greater is refection of the angel than the perfection of man in the first state but man the first date was not able to sin vehement therefore much less the angel that's a good night to doubt the argument out the answer should be said that the understanding of the angel as has been said in the first book is not discursive was right so that would not be a good definition of the shellic uh understanding that shakespeare has right he says what is a man doesn't say what is an angel well so he does compare man to the angel right now even calls reason godlike in some way right it's not discursive that it proceeds from premises or principles beginnings to conclusions right understanding both of them separately right as happens in us once it's necessary that whenever one considers conclusion he considers them what as they are in the beginnings right now this famous comparison of aristotle but in desirables as has been said many times right and aristotle said at first ends are like what beginnings and those things which are towards the end are like what conclusions whence the mind of the angel is not born towards those things which are towards the end except according as they are what standing under the order to the end and an account of this from his very nature he has that he's not able in him to have or to be the disorder about those things which are towards the end unless there be a disorder about the end itself because it sees them yeah the discourse which is yeah but the good angels are what not moved in those things which are towards the end except in order to the what suitable end which is what god and account of this all of their acts are acts of charity and thus in them there cannot be a venial sin now the evil angels angels are moved into nothing except in order to the end of the sin of pride in them right and therefore in all they sin mortally whatever things that they do by their own what will unless they do naturally right he goes on to say is otherwise about the desire of the natural good which is in them right that wouldn't have to say have to be mortal to the first therefore it should be said that man comes together with the angels in mind or in understanding but he differs in the way of understanding you understand by discourse um thomas says sometimes you know intelligere hominesis per modum motus right the understanding of man is in the manner of motion it's the most part by discourse that we come to understand something yeah the second should be said that the angel is what to god is an ultimate end they can't love it by itself so to speak right or some disordered in because he's a bad angel right for the reason now i already said That's where we'll be in heaven, I guess, huh? It'll be like that, yeah? Love each other only in God. Like yourself? Yeah, yeah. Now, to the third it should be said, that all those things which seem to be venial, the demons procure that they might attract men to their own, what? Familiarity, right? And that thus they might lead them into, what? Mortal sin. Whence in all such things they sin mortally an account of their intention for the end, huh? It's interesting that neither the good nor the bad angel can sin veniently, right? But because, what? Everything they do, it seems, is what? Tied up to what they're in, right? Because they don't discourse from the end to the means. And so if the good angel is always in the end, which is God, for the devil is always in the end of his pride, so he always sins mortally, huh? Oh, shout out from both sides. Yeah. Should we take another article or no? Okay, we can't finish this question. I'm going to continue. I'm going to continue. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Father, God. Help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, amen. What you see in Washington is respect to the common good, right? Of course, the common good of the country is better than any other good in the country, right? So you have to respect that, huh? And God is a common good of the whole universe, right? And it's obviously, you know, common good for our songs. But to respect the common good, you know, is kind of a good sign, you know? You missed all our praise of George Washington. He's preparing to suffer. He's thinking of the common good. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha There is one thing that one of my students did one time, you know, he knew these two guys were taking drugs, right? I don't know if I ever told you this story. And they were talking about how their mind was expanding under these drugs, right? So he didn't, you know, say anything opposed. He said, it's very interesting, you know. Tell me the next time you're on drugs, right? Call me up. And so they called him up and he came over and he brought his little recorder, right? And recorded them under the influence of drugs, right? Apparently they spent the whole time talking about the little light that lights up on the recorder, you know, little red light or something like that. And so they're, oh, oh, oh, that's all they're doing, right? Well, then when they were sober, right, you know, not only the influence that is to say of drugs, he came back and played the thing for them. And they couldn't stand their own, you know, ooh, it's like there's no red light on top. That's what you think about it, you know. What a good way of handling these guys, right? You know, rather than arguing about this thing, you know? Well, if they get high on drugs, right? Well, if they get high on drugs, what must be they're low? Well, if they get high on drugs, what must be they're low? Well, the other one goes, I'm just doing some lunar cruising. I mean, why don't you introduce the animals to this? I mean, you know, they, I mean, somebody's got to be sober, at least the animals, to protect them. Don't get them. And the apostle, meaning St. Paul, right, speaks there about the concupiscence of what? Sensuality, huh? As appeared from the foregoing things. This, therefore, is the reason or the cause where, why to what? Yeah, concupiscence is not damnal in those who do not, what? Walk according to the flesh. By consenting to the concupiscence, right? Because they're in Christ Jesus. But the faithless are not in Christ Jesus, right? Therefore, in the faithless, it's damnable. The first, therefore, motions of the faithless are mortal sins. Come to defend the faithless, as we'll see. He does the oddest thing, doesn't he? Moreover, St. Anselm says in the book on grace and free will, free judgment, those who are not in Christ, sensing the flesh, follow damnation, even if they do not, what? According to the, what? Flesh, right? But damnation is not owed except to mortal sin. Therefore, in a man senses flesh, according to the first motion of the concupiscence, it seems that the first motion of concupiscence in the faithless is a mortal sin, huh? Moreover, Anselm says in the same book, Thus man is made that he ought not to, what? Sense concupiscence. But this debt is found, what? Seems to be, for man, through baptismal grace, which the faithless do not, what? Have. If they don't have baptism, they don't walk in Christ. Therefore, whenever the faithless one desires, even if he does not consent, he sins mortally, acting against, what? What? He ought to be, yeah. But against this is what is said in Acts 10, verse 34. God is not an acceptor of person. That's interesting. They should read it as a kind of argument. What therefore is not imputed for one to damnation, neither to another. But the first motions are not, what? In the faithful are not imputed to damnation, therefore neither to the, what? Faithless, huh? You wonder how this got to be a question there, you know, in the Middle Ages there, but anyway. I answer, it should be said that irrationally, unreasonably, right? It is said that the first motions of the faithless are mortal sins if they do not, what? Consent to them. That's what you meant by first motions, you know? And this is clear in two ways, huh? First, because sensuality itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin. It's got to be in the will, right? Okay. But there is the same nature of sensuality in the faithless and in the faithful. Whence it cannot be that the emotion alone of what sensuality in the faithless is a, what? Mortal sin, huh? And another way from the state of the sinner. For, what? Never does the dignity of a person diminish the sin, but more increases it. Whence neither is a sin less in the faithful than in the unfaithful, but multomeus, huh? Much more. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, right? That's the main tip. For the sins of the faithless, more merit, what? Forgiveness, on account of ignorance, according to that of what St. Paul himself says, right? In the first epistle of Timothy. That I obtain the mercy of God because I ignorantly, right? In the first epistle of faithless, right? In the first epistle of faithless, right? In the first epistle of faithless, right? I mean, he acted, yeah, when he persecuted the church, right? And they were afraid of him, right? Even after he was converted, right? They'd be after he had knocked off his horse. I've heard about this. And the sins of the faithful are, what? Aggravated and made greater on account of the sacraments of grace. You're more ungrateful, right? And he gives a text there from Hebrews 10, right? How much more, right, do you think, right, bad things, bad punishments sought to merit those who, what, lead, looted the blood of the Testament in which they were sanctified, right? Okay, they had a temple of the Holy Spirit, and then you go out and desecrate the temple, right? So if you're not made a temple of the Holy Spirit, then you're not as bad, yeah. All these Catholics practicing birth control and things of this sort, right, it's worse than for the, yeah, yeah, yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the apostle speaks of the damnation owed to, what, original sin, which is taken away through the grace of Jesus Christ. Yes, although there remains the, what, fervor, the foams of concubiscence, huh? Whence that the faithful desire is not in them a sign of the damnation of original sin as it is in the, what, yeah. That's why they get confused on this thing, huh? And in this way also should be understood what Anselm said, right? Whence is clear the solution to the second. To the third, it should be said that that debt of, what, not desiring was the original justice, right? It was owed them. Whence that which is opposed to this debt does not pertain to actual sin, but to, what, original sin. That's why they don't have the freedom from that first motion. I'm glad somebody's defending those faithless people, huh? Thomas, they're not a respecter of persons, right? That's why he hasn't said counter, right? He's imitating God, right? Who's not a, a cheptor, huh? How do you translate that cheptor there, huh? Yeah, I guess we say that, you know, huh? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.