Prima Secundae
Lecture 282: Hope as a Theological Virtue and the Old and New Law

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

Okay, why must you read as you like it, huh? I mean, all's well that ends well. Excuse me. He's getting all mixed up now. I think all's well that ends well. In order to understand the theological virtue of hope. Well, now I'm reading the sentences, right? And I've got talking about Christ, you know. He's talking about the virtues again, right? And now he's into the theological virtues. And I just got into the, I mean, the 26th distinction, right? And the distinction's right before 26. We're talking about faith, huh? And then the 26th distinction is about hope, right? And then I guess the 27th would be about charity. It would be a number of them. But anyway, it's interesting, the 26th distinction. It's got two questions. But each question has got about five articles. So, I mean, you know, you know how it comes to his questions. And you really, you know what the two questions are? Well, the first question is about the emotion called what? And that's in the sense appetite, right? In the erasical appetite, right? And then the what? The second question is about the virtue of hope, right? Which is not an emotion, right? See? But it has some likeness, right? I think it's kind of interesting, right? Because Thomas, in a sense, is going to, what? Lead you to understand the hope that it's an emotion from which the other one is named. But they're not the same thing. But there's some likeness, huh? And so on, right? Now, when Thomas talks about why are there three theological virtues, huh? Well, he says that theological virtues direct us to our last, what? End, right? Now, why do you need three virtues to direct you to your last end, huh? Wouldn't it be enough, you know, to have, let's just say, one virtue in reason and one in the will, right? And when I was a little boy, you know, in the catechism, you know, who made me, God made me, why'd you make, you know, to know him and love him in this world and to be happy with him forever the next, you know? I said, one for, you know? What do you need that third thing, see? Well, couldn't you be helped to understand the need for that third thing, right? By seeing something like this in the emotions, right? And then this would be a stepping stone, right? To understanding what there are three theological virtues, right, huh? Well, you see, faith is necessary because by faith you know what the end is, right, huh? Charity is necessary because by charity you love the end, right, huh? But what do you need a third one? Isn't it enough to know and to love the end? Isn't it enough to pursue the end, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, of course, the difficulty is the object of the irascible, right, huh? And hope is for some difficult good, right, and the emotion is, right, and that you think you can get to, right, huh, okay? Now, what's that got to do with all of the irascible, right? Well, of course, it's for the emotions, right? We're not looking for the theological virtues here in this, huh? But the two main characters here that I want to call your attention to is Bertrand, right, who's the count of Roussillon, who's succeeding to the thing, huh? And then there's Helena, right, who's the daughter to Gerard de Narbonne, a famous physician, sometime since dead, right, huh? And, of course, they think that she's still waiting, her father, right, huh? But unbeknownst to others, she has fallen in love with what? The count, right? But she's a commoner. She's not nobility. Okay. Now, in the very first act, huh, we learn about us, the admins, right, about her attachment to him, right, huh? And someone has been saying, you know, something about her father, and they leave, right? Now she has a silhouette by herself, right? Well, were that all? Now, what's happened is that her Bertrand is going to go, has been called to the court, or the king, and he's going to be away now. So he's a king. And she's talking about her father. Oh, were that all? I think not on my father. And these great tears grace his remembrance more than those I shed for him. What was he like? I have forgotten. My imagination carries no favor in it but Bertrand's. I am undone. There is no living none if Bertrand be away. He's leaving to go to the court. Nobody's going to go to the court, right? She's just a nobody, huh? Oh, she's talking about her situation, right? To her all one that I should love a bright particular star and think to wed it. He is so above me, right? It might say something hopeless, right? How can she even pursue such a man, right? In his bright radiance, in collateral light, must I be comforted, not in his sphere. He just moves in a higher sphere. You know, you don't. The ambition in my love thus plagues itself, right? She loves a man now who you think is hopeless to think of ever marrying him, right? And she suddenly knows him, right? The hind that would be mated by the lion must die for love. That's what they said, right? And then she goes back to how she's always looked at him and, you know, found him handsome and so on. It was pretty, though a plague, to see him every hour, to sit and draw his arched brows, his hawking eye, his curls, in a heart's table, heart too capable of every line and trick, meaning what? The peculiarity of his sweet favor, right? But now he's gone, and my idolatrous fancy must sanctify his relics, right? Well, what does she do? She knows him, right? And she loves him. But can she pursue him? The hind that would be mated by the lion must die for love. The ambition of my love thus plagues itself, right? I mean, I'm just, you know, shook up by this, you know? In his bright radiance and collateral life, must I be comforted not to miss fear. Okay? In this... You should have to hit on something. Yeah. Do it. This is the same, what? The same first scene, right, huh? But then some other conversation here with, you know, kind of this conversation. And then at the end of the first scene, you have, you know, no, it's locally at first, right, huh? And then, you know, Parole is a kind of funny guy. His name is, you know, get me a good husband, he says, right? And use him as he uses me. So farewell. So he exits. Now she's all by herself. Our remedies often ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. The fated sky, the fateful sky, huh? The fated sky gives us free scope. Only doth backward pull our slow designs when we ourselves are dull. What power is it which mounts my love so high, that makes me see and cannot feed mine eye? The mightiest space and fortune nature brings to join like lights and kiss like native things. Impossible be strange attempts to those that weigh their pains and sense, and do suppose what hath been cannot be. Whoever strove to show her merit, they didn't miss her love. Of course, in the case of hope, you have to have merits, right? Now, her father was a very famous physician, and he had left her a secret, what? Potion. Of course. Yeah. And the king is, what? Sick. Has kind of given up. The king's disease. My project may deceive. me, but my intents are fixed and will not leave me, huh? So she decides to go off to the, what? King. And if she cures the king, I mean, he's going to, what do you want? She'll be in court. He'll be there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's what happens, right? The thing cures, right? But notice, huh? That's the third thing, right? And for her to pursue him, she has to not only know him, and he's good, right? And love him, that she loves the good in him, but that it's possible for her to, what? Yeah, yeah. And this is the way she's going to do it, see? So she couldn't pursue him without having that hope, right? The same thing is true on theological virtue, hope, right? But on the will. I wonder if that's why some of the other versions of that answer in the cataclysm, that would be said, know him and love him. It's like, know him, love him, and serve him, isn't it? Because that's the way we can hold it and attain it and go make it something like that. Yeah. I think that's kind of interesting, right? Like I was saying, you know, the other day there, I know what it is to be president. I know, I want to be president, you know, boss people around. But I have no hope of being president. And getting into the contest, I mean, raising money, I don't know how to raise money. My brother Mark, you see, there's an art of raising money just like everything else. But I don't know how to do it. And so, am I going to pursue being president, do you think? But I know it is. I know it's good to be president and have that, you know, I've been on Air Force One myself, so I know it's nice to be, you know. But, you know, and I like that. I'd like to be, you know. Especially flying around Air Force One. Yeah, yeah. And the other perks of the other. Each one is okay. Yeah, yeah. I picture myself there getting on our first one, you know. And so on. Really saluting it as you're going. Yeah. But, you see, and that's the thing, right? That it's possible for me to do this, right? Thomas says, you know, that the, he has an objection, you know, from there, just to hope and, I mean, to know and to love is enough, right? But he says, the will is of the possible and the impossible, you see? And of course, in that first passage, it's like our love is something impossible, right? You know? The hind, Mary, you know? And it's a plague, right? Some things you can't get. But, so you need this, what? Ability, right? It's interesting. When Thomas says, you know, the object of all theological, the theological virtues is God, right? Well, we distinguish virtues, just like powers, by their acts and their acts, by their, what? Object, right? So how can there be three different virtues if the object is the same God, right? Well, that's not the formal object, though, God. Now, that's a difficult thing to do, but just take a simple example, going back to the senses, you've got to put back something more known. If you brought me into this room blindfolded, right, and let my feel my way around, right, I could eventually come to the conclusion that these tables in the middle here, the top of the table is a rectangle, right? But the top of this table here is curved at the ends, right? Now, that same shape of the tables, I can know, and in fact, do know by my eyes now, right? Well, is seeing and feeling the same? Is the sense of touch by its hardness, right? Well, what's the formal object of that? See? The formal object of the eye is color, right? So I know the shape of these table tops by my, what? My eye through as color, right? The color extends this far and then it curves off that way, right? You see? I would know the same shape by the, what? Sense of touch by its hardness, right, huh? The hardness stops and the air begins, right? So the formal object would not be the same, right? So, in what way is God the object of faith? Yeah, as the first truth, right, huh? He's the object of what? Hope, I mean, of love, charity, as the sumum bonum, the highest good, right? The last chapter, Thomas, on the goodness of God, right? He's the sumum bonum, okay? So he's the object of faith as the first truth. He's the object of charity as the highest good. In what way is he the object of hope? Yeah, the highest, most difficult of all. And Thomas goes on to explain, you know, why they speak sometimes of the object of hope as being the attitude, huh? We define it as the, you know, the substance of things hoped for, right, huh? Which is the attitude, right? What Thomas quotes, I mean, Boethius, right? Happiness, you know, is a status produced by the accumulation of all goods, right? Well, what would be more difficult to get than all goods, right, huh? When you get God, you get all goods, right? But therefore, that's the arduum most difficult of all, right, huh? So insofar as God is the most difficult thing to get. He's the object of hope, right, huh? So this kind of helps you to understand it, right, huh? Starting with his emotion, right? So it's interesting, again, that first question was five articles, right, about the, the, yeah, especially the first four articles I heard about it. And then, you know, beautiful consideration of emotions, again, too. It kind of reminded me of when I was working on the definition of comedy, you know, in the old days, and, and I was reading the sentence, I mean, the sentences on this by reading on the, uh, uh, De Veritate, you know? But then I realized, and eventually that, uh, hope is one of the principal passions, right? It had to be hope rather than, uh, boldness, right? And, uh, so it's kind of nice to see that again, huh? Another consideration of it. Beautiful, beautiful understanding of emotions, huh? I mean, understanding the distinction of the eleven emotions is useful for understanding, um, comedy and tragedy, right? But useful for understanding the virtues that are concerned about the emotions, and for understanding the, uh, um, music, which is an imitation of emotions, huh? Thomas says a beautiful thing, too. You know, one of the objections says that, that, what, what, what, what, uh, moral virtue is most like hope? The virtues that Aristotle takes up in the Nicomachean Ethics. Fortitude. Well, that's close, but it's not fortitude, huh? Because fortitude has, obviously, something bad, right, in a sense that you're trying to repulse, right? But what is the, the virtue that aims at great things? Yeah. And magnanimity is concerned with hope, right? You know? And so magnanimity is the moral virtue that most resembles what? Yeah. The magnitude is about, magnanimity is about hope, right? And you begin to realize, you know, how it helps you to understand these things, huh? And, and magnanimity makes it possible you do great, great human things, right? But, you know, the other one, something supernatural, right? So beautiful, beautiful. Consideration that, uh, 26, uh, distinction of the third, third book, you know? Magnificent, magnificent text. So beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. So beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. Okay, we're up to question 107. Again that, anyway. Incidentally, she cures the king, you know, but then, you know, it's kind of like a forced marriage, right? And Bertram is indignant, you know, he's been forced to marry this commoner, and he takes off, you know, and he's got a, you know, so she's got more difficulties to overcome, you know, but he can read the great play. It's a little more developed than my desire to be, you know, am I going to really pursue the presidency? What's wrong with me? What's wrong with me? What's missing is hope, you know, that I can overcome all these difficulties. That's true, that's true. I drink as much tea. I drink enough tea, yeah. It's a disadvantage to me, but you're willing to even have to fly down to Europe. Yeah, they're saying on the radio today, Rubio's going to be chugging things, they're going to spend more money on ads and less money on airplane trips. Staff. Now the comparison of the new law to the old, right? Therese man, as Thomas is. Then we're not to consider about the comparison of the new law to the old law. And about this, four things are asked. First, whether the new law is another law from the old one. That was already known by now. Secondly, whether the new law fulfills the old. Oh, this is marvelous. Third, whether the new law is contained in the old? My goodness, Thomas. You can sell yourself. Whether it is more, what, grave. More burdensome. Burdensome, yeah. Weigh you down. Whether the new law or the old. Well, what do you think? To the first one goes forward thus. It seems that the new law is not other from the old law. For both law give what? Give faith of God to those having it, right? Because without faith it is impossible to please God. As is said in Hebrews 11. But there is the same faith of what? The ancients and the moderns as is said by the gloss in Matthew 21. Therefore also there is the same what? Well, let's see what the reply to that is. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the unity of faith of both testaments attests to the unity of the what? End. For it has been said above that the object of the theological virtues among which is faith is the last, what? End. But nevertheless, faith has a different status in the old and the new law. For they believe something in the future that we, what, believe has been done, right? Well, I'm going to reply to that second objection, I see. Whoever Augustine says in the book against Adamantius, the Manichean, disciple of Manichean, that a brief difference of the law in the Old Testament and the gospel is fear and what? Love, huh? But according to these two, the new law and the old cannot be diversified because also in the old law are proposed precepts of charity. As in Leviticus 19, verse 18, you should love your, what, neighbor. In Deuteronomy 6, 5, love the Lord your God, huh? Augustine doesn't make any sense there, right? And likewise, they cannot be diversified through the other difference which Augustine assigns, huh? Against, and against Faust, right? That the Old Testament has temporal promises, right? You have a land flowing with milk and honey and so on, right? And these things like that. You have children and, yeah. But the New Testament has spiritual and eternal promises. Because also in the New Testament are promised some temporal things. According to that of Mark 10, you will, what, receive a hundred times in this time, houses and brothers and so on. Yeah. And in the Old Testament, right, one hopes for what? Promises and eternal ones, huh? According to that, so to the Hebrews, huh? Now we desire a better, what, Father, the Heavenly One, which is said about the ancient, what, Fathers, right? Therefore, it seems that the New Law is not other from the Old, huh? Defend his master, Augustine, huh? To second, it should be said that all the differences which are assigned between the New Law and the Old are taken according to perfect and imperfect. That would be a good point to make, huh? For the precepts of, what, each law, right, are given about the acts of virtues, right? But for doing the works of the virtues, the imperfect are in one way inclined, right, huh? One, because they do not yet have the, what, habit of virtue. And another, those who are perfected by the habit of, what, virtue. Those who do not yet have the habit of virtue are inclined to act or to do the works of virtue from some extrinsic cause. Please, please your mother, yeah, yeah, yeah, as from the threatening of punishments or from the promise of some extrinsic remunerations as the honor you'll have, riches or something of this sort, huh? So if you're brave, you'll, if you're brave, you'll be honored, right, huh? In the middle, yeah, yeah, yeah, and therefore the Old Law, which is given to the imperfect, that is, those who have not yet, what, arrived or obtained, yeah, spiritual grace, is said to be the law of fear. Oh, I see. Insofar as they are induced to observing, to observance of the precepts, through the threatening of certain, what, punishments, huh? And they are said to have, what, certain temporal, what? Promises, right, huh? But those who have the virtue, these are the perfect now, are inclined to doing the works of virtue on account of their love of the virtue itself. And not on account of some punishment or some extrinsic, what, remuneration. And therefore the new law, whose chiefness, principality, consists in the, what, spiritual grace, huh, bestowed on their hearts, is said to be the law of love, huh? And it's said to have spiritual and eternal promises, which are the object of virtue, and especially of the supreme virtue, their charity. And thus, per se, we are inclined to them, right? Not as a word towards something extraneous, but as a word to our own, right? To our property, proper instance. To our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property, our property. Thank you. one's own everything in account of this the old law is said to restrain the hand but not the soul right huh because by the fear of punishment one abstains from some sin not simply because his will recedes from the sin as we sees the will of the one who by the law of justice abstains from what yeah with the virtue an account of this the new law which is a law of love is said to stream the soul itself right now much it's your hand there is some however in the status of the old testament having both charity and the grace of the holy spirit who chiefly expected spiritual promises and eternal ones and according to this they pertain to the new law you know they were in the time of the old glory likewise this is for us also in the old testament there are some fleshly ones not yet what arriving at the perfection new law which is necessary even in the new testament to be led to the works of virtue through the fear of punishments and through some temporal promises so you're kind of in the old law the old law although it gives the precepts of charity does not offer through it is not given the what the holy spirit through whom is defunded on poured in spread her out charity in our hearts as is said in romans 5. some truth in the objection right you know because he's saying you can be kind of perfect in the new testament right and perfect like maybe moses somebody right in the old testament more where the apostle seems to distinguish both laws calling the old law the law of what deeds is it works the new law calling it the law of what faith but the old law was also a faith according to what that if he was 11 all were proven by the testimony of what faith and what's his name there abraham he's called kind of father which is said about the fathers of the old testament similarly the new law is the law of things to be what done for it is said in matthew 5 do well to those who hate you and in luke 22 do this in my commemoration therefore the old the new law is not other from the old law right to the third it should be said that it has been said above the new law is said to be the law of faith insofar as its what principality consists in grace itself which is given inwardly to those believing whence it is said to be the grace of what faith grace of the faithful almost to be saying that it has however secondarily some things to be done both moral things and what sacramental things but in these does not consist the principality of the new law just as the principality of the old law consists in them for those in the old testament that were what accepted by god through faith according to this pertain to the new testament but they are not justified they're not justified except by the faith of christ who is the author of the new testament whence about moses the apostle says in the epistle to the hebrews that he what bless he thought he thought points of shame or disgrace for the sake of christ greater riches than the treasures of the egyptians yeah treasures of the egyptians improprium what's that improprium christi the greater wealth but against this is what the apostle says right in the epistle to the hebrews that the priesthood being what transferred carried over is necessary that there also be a translation of the law carrying over the law right something different but other is the priesthood of the new and the old testament as the apostle proves there therefore there is another law thomas says i answer it should be said this has been said above every law orders human behavior let's put it that way in order to some end now those things those things that are ordered to the end can be in two ways diversified according to what notion of the end in one way because they are ordered to diverse ends and this is a diversity of species and most of all could be the what approximate end another way according to nearness to the end or distance from it just as it is clear that motions differ in species according as they are ordered to diverse what limits and according as one part of the motion is nearer to the end or limit than another right there should be noted a difference in motion according to perfect then what imperfect thus therefore two laws can be distinguished in two ways in one way is being altogether diverse as being ordered to diverse ends just as the law of the city which was ordered to this that the people dominate right isn't species different from that which was ordered to the best ones the city dominate another way two laws can be distinguished according as one is nearer to the end and the other more what remote as in one in the same city there is said to be another law which is placed upon the perfect men who at once able to follow out those things which pertain to the common good another law about the discipline of boys who are instructed in what in what way um after this they might pursue the works of men yeah it should be said therefore that according to the first mode the new law is not other from the old law because of both there is one end that makes sense doesn't it he's a demon like me can see something in that you know i gotta think about a little bit more before it sinks in but you know would you think the old law has got a different end to the new law ultimate end now what is that one end that men be subject to what god now there is one god the new and old testament according to the orthodox faith right okay according to that of romans 3. one god is it who justifies circumcision from faith and the foreskin by what faith in another in the other way the new law is different from the old because the old law is we're a pedagogue of boys it's coming back to boys as the apostle says but the new law is the law of perfection which is the law of charity about which the Apostle says that it is the bond of what? Perfection. We've got to stop there. Whether the new law fulfills, the old law, right? To the second one goes forward thus, it seems that the new law does not fulfill the old law. For fulfilling is contrary to eliminating. Evacuating, huh? But the new law, what? Takes away or excludes the observances of the old law. For it's said by the Apostle that if we are circumcised, right, huh? Yeah. Therefore, the new law is not fulfilling the old law, right? Let's see what Thomas says in reply to that. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the new law does not eliminate the observance of the old law except as regards the ceremonial. But these were in a, what? Figure of the future. Whence from the fact that the ceremonial precepts are fulfilled, whence from this, that the ceremonial precepts are fulfilled, perfected those things which they are, what? They figured. They should not be further observed because then you'd be saying that they're not yet. Because if they observed, they would still signify something as future and not, what? Fulfilled. Just as the promise of a, what? Future gift does not have place when the promise is now, what? Fulfilled through the exhibition of the gift. And through this way, the ceremonials of the laws of the laws are taken away when they are filled. Well, I can kind of see that. Moreover, second objection, the contrary is not fulfilling its contrary. But the Lord in the new law proposed some precepts contrary to the precepts of the old law. That's a more serious objection, isn't it? For it said in Matthew 5, you heard that it was said to the ancients, who dismisses his wife, will give to her a book of repudiation. Sounds pretty bad. But I say to you, whoever dismisses his wife causes her to what? Adultery, yeah. And therefore, consequently, and the same is consequently clear in the prohibition of what? Swearing. And the prohibition of the... Tent? Yeah. Eye for an eye. And in the hate of enemies, huh? And likewise, the Lord excludes the precepts of the old law about the discretion of foods. For it's not what enters into your mouth that therefore the new law is not fulfilling of the old. Okay, Thomas, let's see the end of these things here. To the second should be said that as Augustine says against Faust, right? Those precepts of the law are not contrary to the precepts of the old law. Now, this is getting serious. For what the Lord commanded about the wife not being dismissed is not contrary to that which the law commanded. What do you mean? For neither does the law say who wishes should dismiss his wife, right? Which would be contrary to not dismiss her, right? But he did not wish to what? Yeah. Who would, what, use this as in a, what, delay or something? That in the dispute, huh? You make it right out to you. You might not say. You might think it over a little more. Yeah. Yeah. It might fuel your anger if you're writing out a little bit. Yeah. That's obviously not the way it takes it. Whence the Lord to confirming this that not easily should one dismiss a wife accepts only the cause of, what, fornication, right? The same thing should be said in the prohibition of the oath, huh? This has been said. The same thing is clear in the prohibition of retaliation. For the law, what, you know, you do not proceed to a moderate revenge from which the Lord perfectly removes the one who admonishes us to abstain altogether from revenge, huh? About hate of enemies, he removes the false understanding of the Pharisees, warning us not that we're not having a person in hate, right? But his, what, that comes from all the time in this discussion of the pro-life people, you know. They're condemning people, you know. And we say, we're not condemning them, we're just condemning the act, right? Yeah, yeah. About the discretion of foods, this was ceremonial, right? The Lord did not command that then they be not observed, but he shows that to know food according to nature were the unclean, right? But only according to a, what, figure. Moreover, whoever acts against the law does not fulfill the law, but Christ in some things acted against the law. For he touched the leper, oh my God, as it's said in Matthew 8, which is against the law, right? Similar, he seems to have violated the Sabbath many times. Once about him, the Jews say, this is, this man is not from God, who does not guard thee. Therefore, Christ did not fulfill the law, and that's the new law given by Christ, who is not fulfilling the old. That's only what they thought, huh? To the third, it should be said that the tact of the leper was prohibited in the law because from this, a man would incur a certain, what, a cleanliness or irregularity, just as from the tact touching of a dead. This has been said above. But the Lord, who was a cleanser of what, leprosy, was not able to incur and cleanliness, To those things that he did in the Sabbath, the Sabbath was not solved. Secundum rei veritatum, according to the truth of the thing, as it shows in the Gospel. Also because he did miracles by divine power, which always acts in things. Also because the works of human salvation he did. Since the Pharisees also provided for the salvation of animals on the day of the Sabbath. That's what he argues, right? And also because by reason of necessity he excuses the apostles on the Sabbath for collecting the spices. But he seems to solve this, he seems to solve this according to the superstitious understanding of the Pharisees who do that from the even salubrious works not to stay on the Sabbath which was against the intention of the law. Fourth objection. In the old law contained moral precepts and judicial ones but the Lord