Secunda Secundae
Lecture 3: Faith and Falsity: The Formal Object of Faith

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

I'm going in a complex way, right, what is not complex. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's an amazing thing, right? So, go on to Article 3. Third objection, third reply. Okay. He's still got a few ropes around him, you see. Okay, now, to the third, when you see God face to face now, we see him as he is. That the vision of the Fatherland, right, Patrie, right, means Fatherland, will be of the first truth according as it is in itself, right? According to that, I always like the fact that it's 1-3-2, right? You know, you get those 1-3-2? You can remember what that thing is, right? First chapter, the first epistle, rather. Third chapter, the second verse, right? When he appears, we will be like him, right? And we will see him as he is. Now, if someone was going to make an objection from this quote and say, well, then before we see him as he is, we're not like him. What would you say to that objection that I'm making as a sophist? Let us create man according to our image. Yeah, yeah. We're already like him, you know? So how can he say we'll be like him when we see him as he is? He's speaking, it seems to me, by what? And told him to see him. Yeah, yeah. Then we'll be most like him, right, huh? When we see him as he is, right? And we'll know him, in a sense, in the way that God knows himself, huh? Because God will be joined to our mind as that by which we see him as he is. And that's the way God knows himself, right? So we'll be most like him, you know? So by Antonia, we'll be like him, right, huh? Not that we weren't like him, you know, by being made in his image and likeness, and maybe more so by, you know, by grace, right? We'll be most like him, right? So you've got to know that Antonia, right, huh? Well, that runs through these things, right? The Bible, the Gospels, Christ himself is named Christ by Antonia, Messiah. Yeah, but then we'll be like him, you know, yeah. And that vision will not be by way of what? Something statable, right, huh? But by way of a simple, what, understanding, right? Now, the light of glory is what makes your reason able to receive God is that by which you see him as he is, huh? It doesn't enlighten, illumine God, right? It's not a light in that sense. But through faith, we do not grasp the first truth as it is in itself, right? Once it's not a similar reason, right? Infusing two different things, right? Time will start on Article 3, huh? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. father and the son holy spirit amen god our enlightenment guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds or in women our images and arouse us to consider more quickly saint thomas aquinas angelic doctor help us to understand all that you've written move us god to know and love you help us god to know and love you father and the son holy spirit amen on the sunday after our last class there you know i don't know if you had the same reading but it's from isaiah you know the famous one seek the lord while he may be fine found call him why he's near let the scoundrel forsake his way and wicked his thoughts let him turn to the lord for mercy to our god who is generous and forgiving then these words here struck me because they fit in i don't know if you had reading to you for my thoughts are not your thoughts nor are your ways my ways says the lord as high as the heavens are above the earth so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts well that fit exactly the point thomas is making in the article 2 there right so um one way in which god's thought is above ours and we're below god is pointed out by thomas that god knows all things by knowing himself and he's completely simple so he knows all composed things by a simple way right but we're just the reverse we know everything in a composed way our statements and so on and even simple things we know in a composed way so his thoughts are above our thoughts and our thoughts are very low right and that's why we have um the object to face being promoted even though it's basically based upon something simple the first truth right so that comes out in the first uh the first article is that well god is the first what truth yeah and the first truth is completely simple well then how can you be as something invincible well you have to take into account that our ways are not his ways and our thoughts not his thoughts he says in the body of the article if you recall in another way it's party credentis right and according to this the object of faith is something complexism by the way of something what in the object is something statable right in a proposition so i'm going to bring my bible i said which is why i get that that's shorter and if you cut out these heavy books huh yeah can you read the midificat at all yeah yeah some people give it to us because it's not enough for our liturgy but it was interesting i was reading the introductory thing by father uh father peter jay and cameron he says not long ago i happened upon the writings of the 17th century french dominican theologian father louis chardon his two-volume meditation in the lord's passion and tell the cross of jesus is considered a masterpiece father chardon died of the plague in 1651 at the age of 56 the cross of jesus that's his work offers a profound meditation on the mystery of our lady of sorrows but now it struck me this year i just got through reading this uh about a week a month ago or something monsignor dion's uh my thesis director monsignor marise dion his article in the laval teal as you can feel so speak that the grace of mary is of the what hypostatic order right so it's something it's not that she's not that she's just what more particular grace than we are but her grace is of an entirely different what order right but somebody liked it so this guy's quoting he says chardon reflects on what makes the blessed virgin mary unique and states that the singular grace of mary that's not just more but of a different what order the fruit of her immaculate conception which is of hypostatic order right because he's the mother of god resulted in mary's kinship with god that's a really strong way of footing it for the grace proper to the mother of god is hers alone since mary the mother of god entered into the supernatural state in an eminent way not granted to any other creature she constitutes an order all by herself somewhere between god by nature and god by participation father chardon goes so far as to claim that mary is next to christ the object of our acts of religion rather than someone we can imitate i was thinking a little bit about the prayer that we have he said hail mary full of grace right and we say that about any other saint it's kind of unique to mary right yeah he's kind of like a universal cause he's called the mediatrix of all grace sometimes right but you can't be the mediatrix of grace unless you have grace in a different what order right than the rest of us huh and maybe full of grace is saying that huh and he's saying in a way too right this is our norm that he's quoting right or my teacher you know grace of mary is a hypostatic order and it's a beautiful thing you know it's got proper quotes too from the the you know popes and so you know you know about the grace of mary but it's unique you know it's like when you talk about god you know huh and you say um well you know one saint is better than another saint now because he partakes more grace than other saints right um so one is better because one partakes of goodness more right now is god better than us because he partakes of goodness more no he's not partaking of goodness he's goodness itself right and so god is better than us not in the way that someone who partakes more goodness is better than someone who partakes less of it but because he's goodness itself right and we're in another order you know partaking of goodness right but mary's a little bit like that right you know that's what she's called the mediatrix of all grace or she's called full of grace uh there are graces of the hypostatic orders my teacher my senior dion said uh charles de conic and maurice dion my two great teachers up there were both peer parity at the second vatican council you know for the cardinal to come back in fact he kind of died in the room you know his wife received a letter from him after he died you know and said my work here is finished he understood a little differently you know he's coming home you know but he was finished in one yeah okay we're up to article three and question I believe that's where we think we're going to tie you up right now but you'll be untied you'll be as good as Houdini or better with all these the untying of these things to the third one proceeds thus it seems that faith can be what? subject to something false can you believe something false by faith? that's what you're asking here right? well let's see what he says here faith is divided against hope in what? charity right? but under faith, hope there can be something false for many hope that they will obtain eternal life will not have it likewise about charity for many are loved as we're good who nevertheless are not what? good therefore also to faith something can be what? yeah whoever Abraham believed Christ was what? to be born according to that of John 8 Abraham your father rejoiced on that he might see my day but after the time of Abraham God is able not to have become what? flesh for only by his own will did he take on flesh and therefore it could be false right? but Abraham believed about Christ therefore something false can be under faith you're not convinced of that argument huh? that's a period moreover the faith of the ancients was that Christ would be born right? and this faith survived in many until the preaching of the gospel right? but now when the preaching of the gospel was Christ was already what? born yeah but they were believing that he was to be born so they were under you know it's false right? yeah yeah you think Duane Berkus will be born and I'm already born and you're thinking falsely right? if you believe but you know yeah so some people who had not had the gospel preached to them yet right? might still believe right? that the Savior yeah but Christ already being born right? before he began to be approached it was false that Christ was to be born in the future therefore something false can be come under faith huh? you can believe something false by faith it's kind of a hard argument huh? pretty clever huh? not smart moreover one right of those pertaining to faith is that someone believes that under the sacrament of the altar the true body of Christ is contained right? but it can happen that when something is not correctly what? consecrated huh? that there's not there the true body of Christ but only bread right? therefore under faith can come something what? false now he had this said contra right? and he's going back to the Nicomachean ethics huh? but against this huh? no virtue perfecting the understanding has itself to the false which is the what? evil the bad of the understanding is as clear as is clear through the philosopher right? it's naming Aristotle by what? tonal messiah in the sixth book of the ethics that's the book of the ethics which is about the virtues of reason right? so the virtues that perfect reason to know the truth nothing false is under them huh? but faith is a certain virtue perfecting the understanding right? therefore there cannot be anything false under the faith huh? now see how Thomas replies to the question huh? before he replies to the objections huh? I answer it should be said that nothing is under some power or ability or some habit or some act except by reason of the what? formal object huh? as color is seen huh? cannot be seen except through what? light huh? and the conclusion cannot be known except through the middle term of the what? demonstration right? now it has been said in the first article here huh? that the ratio formalis huh? of the object of faith is the first truth whence nothing can come under faith except in so far as it stands under the formal object which is the first truth under which nothing false can what? here just as none being can't come under being right? nor malum evil under goodness huh? whence it remains that what? or follows that nothing false huh? can be what? under faith huh? okay? it's it's like saying that proper object of faith is something that's revealed by God but nothing revealed by God can be false therefore okay? so there must be something wrong with these objections right? but you're still tied up and can't go forward until you're untied huh? now what Thomas does in the first reply right? he makes a kind of distinction between you know faith of course and hope and charity but then he kind of doesn't say that you can have hope either or charity you know subject to something the first therefore it should be said that because the true is the good of the understanding it's not over the good of the appetitive power so the object of the will for example is the good right? the object of reason is truth right? therefore all virtues which perfect the understanding exclude totally the false this is true not only of faith but also natural understanding and reasoned out understanding okay because the notion of virtue is that it has itself only to the what? to the good now the virtues perfecting the desiring power of the soul do not exclude totally what? falsehood for someone according to justice which is a virtue in the will right? or temperance which is a virtue in the concusal appetite right? he can what? act right? having so false opinion about that about which he acts so you can have some false opinion what's a just thing to do right? what's owed to somebody or something right? you're trying to be just but you know because of your ignorance of some item or something right? in the matter you might be mistaken and therefore since faith perfects the understanding but hope and charity the appetitive part right? remember that question I raised why are there two riches in the appetitive part? there's not a similar reason about both of them right? right? he's not going to completely admit that you can be mistaken right? that hope and charity have something false under them right but nevertheless neither is what something false under hope for someone hopes himself to have eternal life Yeah, it is not, huh? Hope himself to have eternal life according to his own what? Power, right, huh? For this would be not hope but presumption, which is false hope, right? But according to the aid of grace, right? In which if he perseveres in infallible way, he will achieve what? Eternal life, right? What? Yeah, yeah. So he hopes that by the aid of grace, if he perseveres, he will be saved, right? And therefore, he's not mistaken about that, right? Likewise, to charity pertains to love God in, he is. Whence it does not refer to charity, whether in this one is God, who loves him on account of God, right? Kind of. You don't have to discern that. You don't have to love your neighbors. Yeah. Loving him in God, right, huh? And regardless, the second one. To the second it should be said. This is the one now about the man who believes by faith, right? That Christ will be born, right? And it is not a little time where Christ has been born, but the gospel has not been preached to all the nations and so on. That means third objection, excuse me. To the second it should be said that God is what? Yeah. Consider it in itself, huh? For God not to be incarnate, consider it in itself is something possible after the time of Abraham, right? But according as it comes under divine foreknowledge, it has a certain, what? The necessity of infallibility has in the first has been said, huh? And that part goes back to what? The fact that God is in what? Eternity, yeah. So that every now, past, present, and future is present to what? To God. You know, they compare the now of eternity sometimes to the center of a circle, right? Which is exactly opposite any point on the circumference, right? But one of them is before or after the other, right? So the before and after nows and time are all present to God now in his eternal view, right? And so, insofar as it comes under divine prescientia, foreknowledge, in a period of time, it has a certain necessity of infallibility, as it was said in the first book. And this way it comes under faith, because you're believing this because God is revealing this, huh? Whence, insofar as it comes under faith, it cannot be what? False, okay? Well, this comes up again, you know, when you talk about contingent things, right? Things that can be or not be, huh? Well, can you have certitude about them in the future? See? Would any purpose be standing a half hour from now or not, right? I could stand or I could remain sitting, right? But if what I'm doing an hour from now is present to you, then you could be sure that I would be sitting or standing a half hour from now, right? Well, it's not present to you, but I'll be doing a half hour from now. You never know. Not yet. But it's present to what? God, right? So insofar as it comes under divine foreknowledge, huh? Then it's infallibly, what? True, right? So God knows necessarily, well, I'll be sitting or laying down, maybe I'll collapse in here, maybe I'll be in to me, right? I'll be laying here flat, you know? But He knows which position I'm going to be in. Because it's all pressing to Him and His, what? Turn to you. It's kind of an amazing thing, right? And that's why they say God is what cannot be mistaken about the future, like you and I can be mistaken. Who's going to win the election? Who's going to, you know? Do this or that, right? Who's going to win the game or something, right? I can't know for sure. We can't. But God can, huh? Because He's seeing already the touchdown being scored or the home run being yet or whatever it is. It's all present to Him, huh? Past, present, future. Mark with Him, you study the divine, what? Divine eternity, right? Thomas always defends, wait, this is a definition, on totesimo et perfecta possessio, fit in terminabilis, huh? The all at once and perfect possession of an ending life, huh? So God is not in time, huh? He's timeless. Without time, huh? And you know, what's our end? They call it eternal life, right? So we're going to partake of God's eternity, right? When we see God as He is, face to face, huh? Then we partake of God's eternity, huh? Marvelous thing, huh? Just the way Thomas solves it, right? So if you know, you're getting up to bat, right, huh? He could strike out or he could hit a home run. Yeah. If what he does was already present to you, then you would know with certitude, right? Did he hit a home run or that he struck out, or whatever. He did. You're, we're just in time, right, huh? We live in time. Yeah. Sometimes people, you know, think of God's eternity as kind of like an endless time, right? That's not what eternity is. It has no beginning and no end, but it has no before and after, huh? Time is defined as what? The number of the before and after in motion, huh? It's like I know some things about God, right, huh? One of the five attributes of the divine substance is that He's in no way subject to change. And so to that consideration of the God being immobile is attached to consideration of His, what, eternity, huh? Why, to us, we're always subject to motion, right? Then we're in time, huh? Yeah. In the third book of natural hearing, huh, the physics so-called, he defines motion, right? Book four, he talks about time. You know, semester on time from Charles DeConnick, right? Quite a time. Yeah. Quite a time, you're glad. Of course, huh. Of course, in place, too. It's very hard for us to understand, huh, divine eternity. But most people think it's just kind of an endless time, you know. Well, you know, after we're in heaven for a few million years, don't you think we'll get bored? That's the best you could do, you know. Why don't we do something else? Yeah. Now, in the third objection, that's the answer to that one, right? Here's this guy who thinks by faith, right, that God will be, what? He'll be born, right? He's already born. To the third, it should be said. He'll be born again. He'll be born again. He'll be born again. He'll be born again. He'll be born again. He'll be born again. This pertains to the faith of the one believing, right? After the birth of Christ, that he believes him at some times to what? Sometimes to be born, yeah. But that determination, the time in which he is, what, deceived, that was not from faith, right? But from human... Yes. Yeah, conjecture is a guess, right? Okay. For it's possible for a believing man, right? From a human guess to estimate something false, right? But that's not under the formal object of God has revealed it, right? But he guesses when this is going to take place. It's like, you know, people are always predicting when the world is going to come to an end. It's supposed to be last Saturday. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But we believe that the world will come to an end, right? Time will come to an end, it says in the last book, Apocalypse, right? Time is no more. But God has revealed to us the exact, what, the, you know, that's by a guess, right? So you're not, you're not, faith is not, somebody's not false under faith, right? When you say it's going to be, you know. I'm thinking it's a pretty bad one right out there now, by the way, you know. It's able to say, you know, we must be coming to the end. Yeah, yeah. So our conjecture is that it's going to be pretty soon, you know. Yeah. It's possible that a faithful man, a believing man, right, from a human guess, right, could estimate something false. But that from faith itself that he estimates something false, this is impossible, right? And how's the answer to the fourth objection, which is the one from, yeah. To the fourth it should be said, huh? That the belief of the believer does not refer to this individual species of bread or that one, right? But to this, that the true body of Christ is under the species of sensible bread. But when, when, it has been rightly, what, consecrated, right? That's what the faith is. When, if it is not rightly consecrated, it will not be under faith on account of this life. Oh, yeah. Because faith is not saying that this individual priest at the altar today, he might be a non-believer for all we know, right? You know, there might be some guy who's, you know, he needs a job. He needs a job, but. He's not even a priest, he's up there doing this. Everybody's, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So when I go to your Mass, is it under faith that, if you are doing it rightly, right? You see? Yeah. That's my intention. Yeah. I don't really suspect you of being an unbeliever or something, right? Right. There's some of these, you know, over in Europe there's some of the, you know, priests who were in kind of some doubt about whether this was so or not, and there was blood. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there's a number, there's several of those in Europe there, you know. Three percent of the Catholic priests don't believe in the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle of the Middle the Middle of the Middle the Middle of the Middle of the Middle Middle of the Middle of the Middle the Middle of the Middle the Middle of the Middle of the Middle