Prima Secundae
Lecture 287: Grace, Human Nature, and Merit in Thomistic Theology

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

Yeah, this physician-assisted suicide, right? And we're able to end your life and keep yourself alive, right? Third objection. The good of the understanding is the true, as the philosopher says in the Sixth Book of the Ethics. So he takes up the virtues of reason, right, in the Sixth Book. But the understanding is able to know the truth to itself, just as each other thing is able to do its own natural operation by itself. Therefore, much more is a man able to himself to make and to do and will good. To third, it should be said that also the true, a man is not able to know without the divine aid, as has been said above. And nevertheless, more is human nature corrupted by sin as regards the, what, desire for good, and as regards the knowledge of truth. Now, against this, is what the apostle says, because it's said contra here, in Romans 9. It is not of the one willing, to wit, to will, right, Tom says, nor of the one running, to what, run, but of the God taking mercy upon him. And Augustine says in the book on corruption, corruption, I mean, correction, yeah, correction, not corruption, and grace, that without grace, nothing, what, either thinking or willing or loving or doing, will men do what? Good, huh? Augustine, huh? He's got a tough, tough mind. Thomas says that Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers, right? I tend to say, you know, Augustine and Thomas are the chief theologians, huh? I don't know who, anybody would be quite the equal of those two, you know? But there are some other great minds too, of course. I answer, Thomas says, it should be said that the nature of man can be considered in two ways. In one way, in its, say, what, integrity, right? In its wholeness, huh? Just as it was in the first parent before sin, right? In another way, according as it is corrupt in us after the sin of the first, what, parent, huh? Now, according to both statuses, huh? Human nature needs the divine aid, right? To doing or willing any good, right? Just as it depends upon the first, what, mover, huh? This has been said. But in the state of integral nature, as regards the sufficiency of the operating power, man can, through his natural powers, will and do good, right? That is proportioned to his nature, such as is the good of acquired, what, virtue. Now, however, the excelling good, right? Super, huh? Exactly, super. See, but you've got the word super, right? That's taken from the continuous, yeah. Super, excuse me. Super, as is the good of infused, what, virtue, huh? Which is, one of the English philosophers, he always complains about that word infused, right? You know, this crude, you know. As if he can name these things without taking words from the senses, right? But you can see the difference between something that's acquired by your own acts and one that's poured into you, as it says, right? But he objected the word poured in, right? Infused. But in the state of corrupt nature, man fails also, right? Even fails from that which is able to do according to his nature, right? It's Aristotle saying, right? Most men prefer a life suitable to beasts, right? Not the life that fits our nature. That they are not able, he's not able to fulfill the whole good, right, of this sort to his natural powers, huh? But because human nature is not entirely corrupted, right? By sin, huh? That he's deprived of the whole good of nature, and that's not true, huh? He is able also in the state even of corrupt nature, right? He's able, through the virtuous nature, some particular good, right, to do. As to build houses, as Augustine says, to plant vineyards, right? And other things of this sort, huh? Not, however, the whole good can act to him, right? Such that he fails in nothing, right? Just as an infirm or sick man can to himself have some motion, right, huh? But he cannot perfectly move by the motion of a healthy man unless he be cured by the aid of, what? Medicine, huh? Thus, therefore, huh? A man needs a gratuitous virtue, right, or power added above the natural power, right, in the state of, what, integral nature, as regards one thing, to do and to will the supernatural good, right? But in the state of corrupt nature, I guess I'm in the state of corrupt nature, huh? I guess so. As regards two things, right? To wit, that he be healed, right? And further, that he do the good of supernatural virtue or power, which is meritorious, huh? But further, in either state, a man needs divine aid that he, what, be moved, yeah, to acting what? Well, huh? I mean, to a while there was a segment about using Plano and Aristotle to show that the first sin had actually taken place, right? You know, original sin had taken place, a lot of evidence, right, that man is, yeah, something's wrong, yeah. Now we have to article, do we have time for another article? Okay. Whither man is able to love God, right? Above all things, from his, what, natural powers alone, without grace, huh? We have time for another article, we have time for another article, we have time for another article, we have time for another article, To the third, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that man is not able to love God above all things from his natural powers only without grace. Does Tom's going to take you to the side? Well, to love God above all things is the proper and principal act of what? Charity, huh? But man does not have charity to himself because, as St. Paul says, the charity of God is diffused in our hearts by the, what, Holy Spirit, right? Who is given to us. As is said in the epistle to Romans, chapter 5, verse 5, too. Therefore, a man from natural things alone is not able to love God above all things. That's by charity, and that's not by your natural powers, right? Moreover, no nature is able, above itself, can act upon, right? As power of what is above itself. But to love something more than oneself is to tend to something above oneself. Therefore, no natural, created nature is able to love God above itself without the heat of what? Grace. Oh, wait. We should look at the replies. The first, therefore, it should be said. That's the argument from charity, right? Okay. The first, therefore, it should be said that charity loves God above all things in a more eminent way than, what, nature does, huh? So he's not going to deny that nature loves God above all things. For nature loves God above all things insofar as he is the beginning and the end of natural, what? Good, huh? But charity loves God above all things insofar as he is the object of beatitude, huh? And according as man has a certain spiritual society with God, huh? Thomas talks about that, huh? When he talks about charity being a, what, form of friendship, right, huh? That, therefore, it's in spiritual society we have with God in heaven. Because it goes back to what our style says, right? That friends, you know, live together, right, huh? They spend life together, right? So we have to spend life and guide it to us in society with God, right? By charity. Now, charity adds above, also, adds above natural, what, love of God, a certain promptness, right? And a certain, what? Pleasure, right, huh? Just as any habit of virtue adds on the act, good act, which it produces from, what? Yeah, a man not having the habit of, what? Virtue, right, huh? By nature, we can have. Yeah, yeah. But the habit of virtue even there is the natural. Because it's in promptness, right? And pleasure, right, huh? So it pained me to return your billfold, you know, that I found. I don't really have the virtue, do I? I said, enjoy, huh? You know? Here, here. Here, here. Okay. Now, to the second objection, huh? This is going to go about this thing above yourself. To the second, it should be said, there was said that no nature is able to go above itself. It should not be understood that it cannot be, what, carried to some object which is above itself. For it manifests that our understanding, by natural knowledge, right, is able to know some things which are above itself, as is clear, natural knowledge of God, which even St. Paul talks about there in Romans, huh? But it should be understood that nature cannot go to an act that exceeds a proportion of its power. But such an act is not to love God above all things, huh? It's not above his power. For this is natural to, what, in a created nature, as has been said above. Oh, that's in the body of the article. We'll see that, huh? That guy surprises people, right, huh? Because they think that it begins, loving God above all things in some way belongs only to what? Yeah, yeah. Whoever God, since he is a sumum bonum, it's the fifth chapter of Thomas on the good summa, there is owed the sumus amor, right? The highest love, which is that he'd be loved above all things, right? But for the highest love, giving it to God, which is owed to him by us, man is not sufficient without grace. Otherwise, in vain, would grace be added, right? Therefore, man is not able, without grace, from natural things alone, to love God above all things. To the third, it should be said that love is said to be the highest, not only as regards the grade of love, but also to the reason for loving and the way of loving. And according to this, the supreme grade of love is that by which charity loves God as beatifying us, right? Aristotle didn't know that. Aristotle talks in the ethics, you know, about how it's hard to have friendship, you know, when there's great distance, right? And then, you know, a man and God, how could they be friends, right? It's too far apart, right? But against this, the first man in natural things alone was constituted as is laid down by what? Some, right, huh? In which state is manifest in some way he loved God. But he did not love God equally to himself or less because according to this, he would have sinned, right? Therefore, he loved God above himself. Therefore, God, a man from his natural powers alone is able to love God more than himself and above all things. The answer should be said that just as above was said in the first book of the Summa Contra and the Summa Theologiae, in which also about the natural love of the angels there were diverse opinions, what? Laid down, right, huh? Man in the state of integral nature can operate by virtue of his nature, the good which is, what? Connatural to him, right? Without the addition of a gratuitous gift. Although not without, as we said before, the aid of God, what? Moving him, right, huh? But to love God above all things is something connatural to man. That's something people have a hard time seeing, you see. And also to each, any creature, right? Not only to the rational one, but to the what? Irrational. And even to the inanimate according to the kind of love they have, right? Yeah. Which is able to belong to any creature, right? The reason for this is that it is natural to each thing, huh? That it desire and love something according as it is, what? Act by nature to be. For thus a thing acts insofar as it naturally act to act, as Augustine says and as Aristotle says in the second book of the physics. But it is manifest that the good of the part is an account of the good of the whole. of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good of the good Whence also, by natural desire or love, each particular thing loves its own what? Proper good, on account of the good, the common good, of the whole what? Universe, which is God. Whence Tanisha says in the Book on the Divine Names that God converts all things to love of himself. Whence man, in the state of integral nature, referred the love of himself to the love of God as to a what? End. And likewise the love of all what? Other things, huh? To all be moved by God to himself as the end of the whole universe. And thus he loves God more than himself and above all. But now, in the state of corrupt nature, which I guess I am in. You also? Man falls short of this, huh? According to the desire of his rational what? Will. Which, on account of the corruption of nature, follows the, what? Private good, huh? Unless it be healed by the grace of God, huh? So, and therefore it should be said that man, in the state of, what? Integral nature does not need the gift of grace added to his natural goods for loving God naturally, right? Above all things, huh? Although he would need the aid of God, right? Even in the state of integral nature, in order, moving him, right, huh? But in the state of corrupt nature, man needs also for this, the aid of grace, healing nature, right? And my nature is blasted on, like a, like a plant that's been blasted by the weather, huh? That's what I am here, huh? I'm in a bad shape, I guess. You need help. I do, I do, I do. You need the help of grace. You need the help of grace. of the father the son holy spirit amen thank you god thank you guardian angels thank you thomas aquinas dio gracias god our enlightenment help us god to know and love you guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds or to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more quickly saint thomas aquinas angelic doctor pray for us help us to understand what you've written since you're interested in the accomplishments of my grandchildren i thought i'd give you a little bit for claire right six years old now right claire played outstanding soccer season in the spring and fall scoring between four and ten goals every game she is in first grade and is excited to do her schoolwork every day she absolutely loves ballet and continues to dress up and dance at home often claire loves to play with nicholas that's the little baby and with her dollies and she just learned how to ride a bike the last thing is the one i got the greatest attention claire was listening to mozart's avivaro cd right mama it is so so beautiful at the end mom asked her how she'd like to be this song she said oh mama it was heaven singing on earth yeah it was heaven singing on earth it's like i could john paul ii called you know the avivarum corpus to the incomparable right motet there you know and well i had it for our wedding you know i had it for the communion service you know and warren murray had it for his in his wedding too you know so uh that's pretty good that she uh sees that no it was heaven singing on earth that that's what struck me that uh that phrase okay let's look at the objections here article four for the apostle says in the epistle to the romans that the nations of the gentiles who do not have the law they do naturally those things which are of the law but that which man naturally does he can do through himself or by himself without what grace and therefore man can do the precepts of the law observe them without what grace to the first therefore it should be said that as augustine says in the book on spirit and clutter it should not move us that naturally he says those things which are the law they do for this is something that the spirit of grace does that the image of god in which we are naturally made he established in us so he's saying that uh he's going to make distinctions in the body article right but if they perform in some way the laws because of the nature of god but gave them right and we'll see the distinctions he makes in the body of the article moreover jerome says in the exposition of the catholic faith that those are maledicendos huh yes the thing in the mass this morning was uh from uh was it the prophets there jeremiah was it but uh he's saying you know cursed is a man who uh puts his trusted man right huh rather than god right like i could see the woman's up there doing the reading today there and she looked hesitant to say cursed but it's impossible for a man what he's not able to do through himself right by himself therefore a man's not able to fulfill all the precepts of the law by himself what thomas implies that which you're able to do with the help of god right is not altogether impossible for us according to that of the philosophy now it quotes aristotle in the third book of the ethics that the things we're able to do through our friends right in some way able to do through ourselves right of course charity is a kind of friendship with god right once jerome there confesses that are what yeah so that we say huh we can always what and thus we confess that our what free judgment is our judgment is free right that we do not say right when we say never at the same time that we always need the what help of god in some way right over among all the precepts of the law the greatest is that you shall love the lord your god from your whole heart but man can fulfill this command from his natural powers alone by loving god above all things as was said above right therefore all commands of the law a man can fulfill without grace to 30 said it should be said that the precept about the love of god a man cannot fulfill from purely natural powers according as it is fulfilled from what charity right he said before you know the part naturally loves the whole right and subordinates itself to the whole and so god is a natural source of things you can do this by your natural what powers but to love him as the source of eternal life right uh requires what charity and so on but notice thomas seems to in in the body of the article as he does with the said contra here to proceed mainly by what authority right because the authority here is that the condemnation of this heresy right but against this is what augustine says in the book on heresies that this pertains to the heresy of the pelagians who believe without grace man is able to do all the divine what yeah okay so now thomas makes some distinctions here in the body article but basically he's proceeding for authority i think here the answer it should be said that to fulfill the commandments of the law can happen in two ways in one way as regards the very substance of the deeds insofar as a man can do just things and brave things right another what works of virtue and in this way and in this way man in the state of integral nature right would be able to what fulfill all the commands of the law otherwise in that state he would not be able to what not not not sin right since this is nothing other not there is nothing other than transgress the divine commands but now in the state of corrupt nature right one cannot what man cannot fulfill all the divine commandments without grace healing him they didn't seem to give me a reason for that right here but he's proceeding by authority right in the uh this edition of course you have the things of pious the fifth you know i thought of nap about set and so on so i mean no question about being you know authority right and that's as regards to the substance of the work right and even that he can't in the state of what fallen nature right now in another way one can fulfill the commands of the law not only as regards the substance of the doing but also as regards the way of doing it that they come about from what charity huh and in this sense neither in the state of what integral nature right nor in the state of what corrupt nature can a man fulfill without grace the commands of the law once when augustine once augustine says in the book on what correction yeah when he said without grace man can do nothing what good not only is showing what should be done as knowing, right, but also as, what, giving him that he would do with love what he knows, right, yeah? Okay. Now, apart from this, in a sense in which even Aristotle would know this, he needs, in addition to, what, this, in both states, right, the aid of God moving him to fulfilling the commands, right? Yes. Even Aristotle would do that, right? Yeah, this is Aristotle, that quote there from Aristotle, you know, the Edemian Ethics, huh? Kind of amazing, Aristotle would see that, right? Aristotle was somebody's stochastic. Okay, so he's in the applied injections. Now, Article 5. To the fifth, one goes forward thus. It seems that man is able to merit eternal life without grace. For the Lord says in Matthew 19, if you wish to enter into life, observe the commands, right? From which it seems that to enter into eternal life is something constituted in the will of man. But that which is in our will, constituted in our will, establishing our will, we are able to do through ourselves. Therefore, it seems that a man, to himself, is able to merit, what, eternal life. To the first, therefore, it should be said that man, by his own will, can, what, do works meritorious of eternal life. But as Augustine says in the same book, right, in order to do so, the will of man must be prepared by God through what? Grace. Do you follow that? Does that reply? Yes, I think so. I could say you can do through your will, right? Something meritorious, right? It's not your will alone. Yeah, it's not your will alone. Moreover, eternal life is a reward. Premium, I feel a mere sin. Premium, that's true. Yeah. Sinems, huh? Which is rendered to men by God, huh? According to that of Matthew 5, your reward is much in heaven, right? But the reward is rendered by God to man according to his works, huh? According to that of Psalm 61, he will render to each one according to his works, right? Since therefore man is lord of his works, huh? It seems that sin is constituting his power to arrive at, what, eternal life, huh? To second should be said that as the gloss says, huh? Maybe reference to Augustine here, but anyway, here he just identifies the gloss. In Romans 6, by the grace of God, eternal life. It is certain that eternal life, by good works, right, is rendered. But these works by which it is rendered pertain to, what? Grace of God, huh? Since also above it has been said that fulfilling the commandments of the law according to the suitable way, right, huh? The which they are fulfilling is meritorious requires, what? Grace, huh? Okay, now the third argument. Moreover, eternal life is the last end of human life. But each natural thing to its own natural powers can achieve its end. Therefore, much more man, who is of a higher nature, huh, to his natural powers can arrive at eternal life without some grace, right? Yeah, but it's eternal life, the natural end of man, right? To the third, it should be said that that objection goes forward about the natural end of man, right? Now, human nature from this that is more noble can be led to a higher end, right, huh? At least by the aid of grace, an end to which inferior or lower natures in no way are what? Notice the word there, inferiority. Where does it come from? Lower, yeah. Just as man is more, what, exposed to health who by some aids in medicine can attain health, right, than the one who can in no way, as the philosopher introduces us in the second book on the universe, huh? You often quote that passage in there, right? But against this is what the apostle says in the epistles to the Romans. Grazia Dei Vita Eterna. Eternal life by the grace of God, right? What's by that? Which therefore should be under, what therefore should be said as a cause, is there, that we understand God, right, to lead us to eternal life by his, what? His mercy. Your mercy, I guess. What Thomas says, I answer, it should be said that acts leading to an end must be, what, proportioned to that end, huh? Now, no act exceeds the proportion of its active source, huh? And therefore we see in natural things that no thing can perfect an effect to its operation which exceeds its active power, but it can only produce, right, to its operation an effect that is proportioned to its power. Now, eternal life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from the thing said above. And therefore man, through his natural powers, is not able to produce works meritorious or proportion, he can't produce meritorious works that are proportioned to eternal life. But for this is required a higher power, which is the power of, what? Grace. And therefore, without grace, man is not able to merit eternal life. He can, however, do works leading to something can actually be good for man, right? As he can labor in the field, right? He can drink, he can eat, and he can have a friend, you know. And others of these sort, as Augustine says, in his third response against the, what, Pelagians, huh? I haven't read Gus a long time, and he's saying, my cousin used to have a volume of works of... Gus and I go over to his house and read these things, you know. So I got the positions down pretty clear, but... I was saying last time there, you know, Thomas is very clear that Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers. I always say, Augustine and Thomas are the chief. Theologians, huh? Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm Thank you.