Tertia Pars
Lecture 2: Structure of Sacred Doctrine and the Incarnation

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

a little bit, the way that is done in the Summa Conti Gentilis. Summa Conti Gentilis has four books, and so book one is about God by himself, right? And there we learn, of course, that God exists, and we learn what his substance is, what his operation is, and so on. And then in book two, he talks about God as the, what, maker, right? And talking about God as a maker, he talks somewhat about the things he's made, too, right? Their distinctions, so on, right? So far as appropriate for the theologian to talk about, especially the things he made that are, what, rational, like us and the angels, huh? And then in book three, he talks about God as the end, huh? Okay? But to that is attached, then, the consideration of the divine providence. So he shows first in book three that God is the end of all things, and in a very special way of us, the angels, and then he shows, in general, God's providence over the whole, what he's made, right? Directing everything to himself, and then there's a third part where he talks about God's special providence over, what? Man, huh? Okay? And the rational creature, you could say, right? Okay? But it all comes under this heading of God as he is. Now, he tries to restrict himself in these three books to something that can be known about God, or found out about God, by natural reason, right? And some of the greatest philosophers of the past, and especially Aristotle, right? But later, to some extent, had found many of these things, right? Okay? And so he gives reasons, you know, that a pure philosopher, right? Or a mere philosopher could follow, huh? Aristotle could follow. And then he'll give, what? You know, quotes in Scripture, too, right? Okay? Well, then, in Book 4, he does the same three things, huh? Not divided into second books, huh? He considers what can be known about God in himself only by faith, right? And so he takes up the Trinity there, right? I notice that place, the Trinity, in a much different place, because in the Summa Theologiae, as we've found in the Prima Pars, you take up God by himself, you take up the Trinity, right? But Thomas is crisscrossing this division with this other division, right? A division between those things that can be known only by faith, and those things that can be known by reason as well as by faith, huh? And then, so this corresponds to God by self, right? No one by faith. Then God's the maker, he says, well, and the word was made flesh. That's a making, right? It's one hell of a making, Thomas says, right? It's the greatest thing he made. So, then you have the incarnation, right? And then, things about man's last hymn, right? Resurrection of the body and these things and so on. They might call eschatology nowadays, right? The last things, okay? Now, to the incarnation, he attaches the consideration of the sacraments, huh? Because they are like tools that Christ is using, right? But notice, they come under God as a maker, right? The most marvelous thing he's made is what? The word flesh, right? But he's made wonderful things like the Eucharist, right? Baptism and so on, right? The old sacraments, huh? You see that? So, basically, you have a division into these three, but you, in a sense, go through that division twice because of this other division, right? By reason, as by faith, although reason is not very sufficient for this, but it is evil. And incidentally, I think I made this point before for you, but, you know, the Church Fathers explain something in divine providence from the Jews not being converted, right? Now, this is not good that the Jews were not all converted, but out of that bad, you might say, thing, God, right? One good thing, right? And that is that the Jews who were not converted, and in many cases, were terribly opposed to the Christians, and chased Paul out of the city, and, you know, almost stoned him to death, and so on. They are witnesses to the authenticity of the, what? The books of the Old Testament, huh? For which the Christians argued that, hey, these things were foreseen, huh? And if you read them carefully, you'd see, hey, this is about this man we just talked about, right? But if there had not been people like the Jews who would not be converted, and who were opposed to Christians, the pagans might say, well, you just put those books up yourself, you know, or something like that, right? Okay? Well, you know today how very often, you know, when we oppose something of abortion or something, the historic, and say, well, you're just opposed to abortion because you're a Catholic. I say, no, no! You know? Or you're opposed to homosexuality because you're a Catholic, right? Then we pick up, you know, Plato's last work, The Laws, and he proposes a law against homosexuality because it's against nature, right? So even in a pagan society where this vice is very prevalent and tolerated, a philosopher, by reason alone, without the faith, right, can come to know this, right? Okay? And, you know, the church teaches us in the First Vatican Council that we can know that God exists, right? We know some things about God by reason alone, right? But if Thomas is using his reason to know these things by reason alone as well as by faith, right? I mean, so he just does that because he's influenced by his faith, right? But when Aristotle or Plato or somebody arrives at these things without the faith, then that's what? Shows that these things can be known, right? Okay. So you see, what I'm saying here is that the division of Sumitano Gentiles is based upon those three things, right? But it's a little bit complicated by being criss-crotched with this division between things that can be known by reason as well as by faith and by faith what? Only, right? You see that? Now, perhaps there's a reason why Thomas criss-crossed them, right? Because the Dominican general said, we want some help there down in Spain, right? Because we're meeting these very intelligent Jews that are very intelligent Mohammedans, right? And we wanted to talk to them, right? So Thomas wanted to, what, separate those things that you could talk to in different ways, right? These things down here you can't prove to the non-believer, but you can answer subjections if these things are impossible, right? You can show the reasonableness and so on. By these things here you can use arguments to convince them, right? Okay? But it does bring something out, the fact that there are some things that can be known by both and some not. That's an important thing, right? And you see that even in the senses, huh? There are some things that only the eye knows, and some things that only touch knows. But there are some things that they both know. Like the shape of this glass, I can know it by touch, without my eyes, and I can know if my eyes without touching it, huh? So it's like this with faith and reason, right? There are some things that only faith knows, huh? The Trinity of the Incarnation, right? Some of these things are about the last things. But there are some things that reason can know as well as faith, huh? Okay? Now, the summa theologia, as you know, is divided into what? Three parts, right? You might say, oh, oh, I bet that's those three parts he's talking about. Oh, no, they're not. Okay? Now, if you look, you don't have the other volume, probably. today, but if you look back in question two of the Prima Pars, right, because therefore the chief intention, he says, of this sacred teaching is to consider the knowledge of God and not only according as it is in himself, right, and not only according as he is in himself, but also according as he is the, what, principium of things and the end of things, right, and especially of rational creatures, right, okay, so he's basing himself upon that threefold division, right, he's touching upon the fact that he's the end of all things, right, but in a special way of us, and Thomas would have that in a subduation here, right, okay, so he says, aiming at the exposition, the laying out of this teaching, first, we'll treat of God, right, and that's the Prima Pars, secondly, about the motion of the rational creature to God, that would be the second part, and third, about Christ, who, as he is the man, is the via, the road, for us to tend to God, right, well, if you go through the whole of the Prima Pars, which you didn't do, right, but in the whole of the Prima Pars, you would talk about God by himself, right, including the Trinity, right, okay, so that was more like God's knowledge, right, and then you talk about God in general as the maker of all things and so on, and then God is the end, right, of all things in general, and the whole of the second part, and even the whole of the third part, right, in different ways, are all concerned with the, what, rational creatures, having God as an end, in a special way, right, and all the means of getting there, like the virtues in the second part, and then through God becoming man, and being the way, of course, Thomas' words are taken from Christ's words, I am the way, the truth, and the life, right, as God is truth itself, and life itself, as man, he's the road, the way to this truth in this life, okay, so notice you might say that this part here is expanded upon, right, by Thomas in the second third part, and it kind of, you know, almost envelopes the thing, right, in terms of seeing, you know, clearly like in the first three books here, you know, that's divided upon those three, but it's still based upon those three, right, now, I'm sorry, so, so basically all three are in the first part, and then he, then he expands on the third, and the end, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, see, now Thomas does here in the, the third part of book three, right, he talks about God as the end of all things, right, then he talks about his providence over the whole creation, right, in general, and then the third and last part of book three is about his special providence over man, and you might say that the second part of the summa, it's like, corresponds to the third part here, and the third part corresponds down here to what, this here, okay, the Trinity was taken up there in the summa, okay, you see that, but, you know, following what Aristotle said, and what, and you confess, I suppose, knows, right, when you get into what we call moral theology, that's the second part of the summa, you've got to go greatly into detail as all the particular things man has to, you know, be responsible for, so, but you're still following basically the idea of these three parts, right, you see that, but now, perhaps the most interesting difference in the way that three give rise to what's been considered, each one of them, in the summa gentiles, the incarnation is under, what, America, in the summa theologiae, it's under God as the name, what, in it, yeah, and both of these are correct, the incarnation is the greatest thing that God made, it's a miracle of miracles, as Thomas says, right, every other miracle is for the sake of this one, right, so he's not incorrect in talking about the incarnation under the heading of God the maker, right, the most magnificent thing he's made, you see that, but when we consider, why did God become a man, right, now, you know, there are many questions we ask about the incarnation, many questions we ask about the Trinity, right, but basically there's three very central questions, you're talking about the Trinity, the first question I suppose is, are there three persons in God, and the answer to that question is, yes, okay, but then there comes a second question, how can there be three persons in God, because God is altogether, what, simple, right, yeah, you put together from these three persons, then it won't be simple, right, well, if you followed the chorus last year, you see the way out of that, right, God is not put together from these three persons, right, each person is God, right, there's no difference between each person and God, but compared to each other, right, they're relative to each other, and therefore distinct from each other, and then there arises the third question, right, why are there three persons, right, no more nor less, right, and then we go back to the fact that they have to be distinguished by relations of origin, by relations of proceeding one from the other, right, and there could be only two proceedings within God, one according to the reason and one according to the will, right, so the Son proceeds as the Word of God, as St. John teaches us, and the Holy Spirit is the breath, the love, right, okay, we haven't seen a similar three questions about the, what, incarnation, the first question would be, did God become a man, right, and of course, Thomas in the Summa Cognitia spends a lot of time just showing the scripture, right, that God did become a man, right, that's a fact, you know, and then there arises a second question, well, how could God become a man, right, doesn't become mean that you change, you're not, but we learn that God can't change at all, so how can God become a man, right, when a sphere becomes a cube, it's no longer a sphere, right, so if God became a man, he'd no longer be God, you may actually understand this, right, so we're going to have to understand, how did God become a man, how is this, how could it be, right, and then the third main question is, well, why did God become a man, right, and notice that question is going to be different than the question, why are there a few persons of God, because the question, why did God become a man, is going to touch upon the end or purpose of this, right, and why are there a few persons of God, God is the end of all things, so there's no indicate sign for that, right, it'd be a different kind of answer, right, okay, and so, you know, one could give foolish answers to why God became a man, you could say, he's curious as to what it'd be like to be a man, because he didn't know what it was like to be a man, that's kind of a human explanation, right, it wasn't quite satisfied with being God, he wanted to be man as well as God, right, he wanted to be all he could be, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he says, yeah, but that's not, that God is everything, right, so those are laughable answers, right, okay, but for us men and for our salvation, he became man. But then you get into the question of was it necessary for him to become man to redeem us, right? And then you come back to my paraphrase of Aristotle's Lost Dialogue and Philosophy. You've heard the famous fragment. You know, we lost, Aristotle wrote Dialogue, like Plato, but devolved and lost, huh? And Cicero says even better than Plato's, but we have a fragment from the Lost Dialogue and Philosophy, and it goes like this. Either you ought to philosophize, or you ought not to philosophize, is what you say. If you say you ought to philosophize, you're going to have to do so. You should do so. If you say you ought not to philosophize, you're going to have to show why you, what? You're going to have to philosophize to show why you shouldn't do it. Okay? And I remember this in the conversation between David Bohm, a physicist, and Maurice Price, I think it was, an English physicist. And Bohm was saying you can't avoid philosophy. You have to, you know, even if you said I'm going to be an empiricist, you know, you've got empirical philosophy, right? And Maurice Price said, you know, well, of course, my philosophy is to avoid philosophy. I know that's the trap, he says, you know, huh? Because then, you know, Kisurik told me an interesting thing, you know, and the communist is still in power in Moscow. And he went over there with the American professors, right? And they were talking with a, you know, minister of education. And one American professor says, we don't require philosophy at my school. And the minister of education said, no philosophy is a bad philosophy. But I have a simple, a simpler example of this sort of thing. And I say, is it necessary to understand the word necessary? If you say it is necessary, you're better. See, it's not necessary, you're going to have to understand necessary to show why it's not necessary. And so this arises when you ask, was the incarnation necessary, right, for our salvation? And in terms of an end, well, Aristotle distinguishes two senses necessary. That without which something cannot be, and that without which it cannot be done well, right? And he'll argue, as I think Augustine does before him, that God could have redeemed this in some other way, but there is no more suitable way to do it than this. And he'll give, you know, eight reasons, ten reasons for this, you know? We'll see them as he develops them. So, but those aren't the only questions he asks, but they're, you know, fundamental ones. Did God become a man? How could God become a man? Why could he? So, let's look now at the framing here, to the tertia paris, right? And it's called a prologos, prologos, huh? Which means forward, huh? Because our Savior, the Lord, Jesus Christ, the angel testifying to it, right? Making his people, right, to save them from their, what, sins, right? And that's the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, right? Because he showed Navia, in Latin, is really what road, huh? He showed us the road of truth for us in himself, right? Through which, to the beatitude, or by which, to the beatitude or blessedness of mortal life, resurrecting, right? You're able to arrive, huh? Now, she's all in terms now of getting to our end then, right, huh? Okay? So, in that three-fold division of sacred doctrine according to God and himself, God is the maker, God is the end. In Sumacan Gentiles, the actual consideration of the incarnation comes under God's making, right? But here, it's put under his, what? End, huh? I don't say one is correct and the other is incorrect, but something different is being brought out, right? Or emphasized, you might say, right? Is necessary then to the, what? Consummation, huh? Completion of the whole of the theological negotiation, right? After the consideration of the last end of human life and the virtues and the vices, right? Which is basically what he did in the, what? Second part, huh? Second part, it takes up the end of man and then it takes up, what? Faith, hope, and charity and prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, right? And then it takes other virtues kind of attached to those in a similarity. Basically, that's what he's done. Our consideration follows here about the, what? Savior himself and the benefits, right? Restored upon the human race by him, right? Okay? Now, it's going to subdivide this, right? About which first we're not to consider it should be considered about the Savior himself, right? Secondly, about the sacraments, right? By which we, what? Asia. And third, about the end of a mortal life to which we arrive by rising through him, right? Okay? Okay? As you may know, Thomas didn't complete the third part, right? He completed the first of these three parts and he was in the part on the, what? Sacraments when he called him home, right? Okay? And of course, they fill out their things from the, what? Sentences, right? More or less in his order, right? Okay? Now, just briefly again one last time to kind of compare. In the Church of Paras, you're assuming you're going to take up the Incarnation, right? The sacraments and the last things, right? But all of that is put under, what? The end, right? In the division of the Summa Theology, right? But these three are in exactly the same, what? Order, right? Then we talk about the Word made flesh and then the sacraments and then the final state of man in which Christ and the sacraments lead us, right? Okay? So you can, you know, you can read this in the same order as these three, right? Okay? But here, this is underneath the God's maker, this God is the end, right? Here it's all under getting back to the end, right? Now the order of the second part of the Summa, which is about the end of man, right? Well, Thomas will bring out the end of man in the first part of Book 3, right? Then take a providence in general and then the special providence of man. But Thomas puts a special consideration of that is the end of man in the second part. But the order is a little bit like the order of what? Aristotle in the Ethics, right? We take up the end of man in Book 1 and then we take up the virtues in Books 2 through 6 and so on. But one difference. Aristotle has a consideration of happiness before he takes up the virtues and a further consideration after he takes them up. Thomas has the whole consideration of happiness before the whole consideration of virtues. It's appropriate what Aristotle does, right? But having done what he's done, Thomas can perceive that way, right? Because Aristotle in the first part of the Ethics he shows that man's end consists in activity in accordance with virtue, right? But there are many virtues that are not all equal, right? So after he considers the virtues and sees something of their differences and so on then he can say more precisely what it is, right? He ends up with human happiness and divine happiness, right? The more God-like happiness which is contemplating God and the more human happiness which is being Winston Churchill. So notice he's dividing now the third part into three parts then, right? Usually when Thomas divides scripture and his own works it's always in two, three, and two. one. One. One. One. we have these two guys coming to the house doing the categories now we are comparing Thomas' two divisions of the categories on their ten categories and in both he makes eight divisions to arrive at ten every division is into two or three now the first of these three he subdivides into what? two, right? about the first a twofold consideration occurs first is about the mystery of the incarnation according as God for our salvation was made a man, right? that's faturi, right? secondly about those things which through him our savior that is the incarnate God were what? done and that he underwent he suffered so get a little bit of a what? summary of his life that you have in the gospels but he divides in those two parts isn't it a good idea to do that? let's look at the question one here about the first three things occur to be considered first about the suitability of the incarnation itself secondly about the way of the union of the incarnate word right? and then those things which follow upon this what? union days last night they were asking me it was off the course in a sense but why Mary said I am the Immaculate Conception because we're talking about you know the abstract and the concrete words you know and you say well you wouldn't say that I am justice you might say I'm just you wouldn't say I'm health you health? I am health no you say I'm healthy but didn't the Blessed Virgin know grammar or something? and I guess when she reported when she reported the words she'd say you know what? you know I am the Immaculate Conception she'd say I'm Immaculate Conceived well I don't want to go into that you know but but I think the solution is going to be along the lines of I wouldn't say Dion there right? this famous article is that the grace of Mary is of hypostatic order right? that Mary's grace in a way is sufficient for all of us and therefore like when you say in the prayer we say Hail Holy Queen Mother of Mercy our life our sweetness right? why don't we say the living one or the sweet? why don't we say our life our sweetness the same way of speaking that she uses when she says Amematic Conception right? see? now why call Mary our life right? is not to indicate that this is of the what? hypostatic order because life is that by which everything that is living is alive right? and so it brings out her universal what? causality she's the aqueduct I guess St. Verne calls her right? Mediatrix of grace now the Immaculate Conception right? is tied to that because because she was to be the mother of God right? that's her greatest title she's the mother of God because she was for destined to be the mother of God right? that's why she was to be immaculately conceived right? so the Immaculate Conception goes with her being the mother of God right? in other words the Immaculate Conception is a great what? grace right? but the grace of Mary as you just said is of the hypostatic order right? so you state it in that way because of its what? universal causality when Christ gave her as a mother to John John in a sense stands in for all of us right? she came as the mother of us all right? so that's not as strange as it might sound but it's in this very famous prayer the Holy Queen right? Alphonsus the whole of all has done that prayer it's a very important prayer you know? like people say it in the rosary or something it's a prayer said in occasions okay so about the first question here now six things are asked right? whether it was suitable for God to become what? flesh right? interesting how important John's gospel is we say what? incarnate don't we? we don't say humanize or something right? even though he became a man right? it's a synecdoche like we were saying before right? but we follow the words of what? John yeah now you know if you had said to Aristotle or you know some reasonable man like that you know is it likely that God would become a man? seems to me it's not likely in rhetoric when we define rhetorical arguments there's two kinds of arguments one is by example the other is called enthyme right? and Aristotle says enthyme is an argument from likelihood or from science son I don't see D.I. used to explain very profoundly you know the more profound than anybody else but likelihood it is right? but a flimsy thing it is in some ways and so if you ask the question is it likely that God become man or he's a stronger thing than likelihood is it probable that God would become man? something very strange about this now I'm struck by the demand expectation in God's part that we should believe these things that are very hard for many people to believe in the sixth chapter of John of course you know the famous chapter on the Eucharist the sixth chapter where he says you've got to eat my flesh and my blood and so on and then the gospel writer says that people turned away from him and didn't follow him then and Christ turned to the apostles some people think as if he was getting disturbed himself but he knew how they would react but he turned to them and he said you want to leave too and that's when Peter says you know where we go you know the words of eternal life right but I was struck and I kind of hadn't really noticed it before but I was looking at the gospel of Matthew again and at the end there of the gospel of Matthew at the very time when the resurrected Christ is going to what ascend into heaven right at the last words of the gospel but the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had directed them to go and when they saw him they worshipped him but some doubted I don't know who those some doubted that's not the eleven I don't think and then Jesus drew near and spoke to them saying all power and heaven and earth and he sends them off but some doubted right that's what Matthew says but it seems that many of our contemporaries people in the pews they're not sure that they believe in their real presence and so on so it's difficult for men to believe right and strange teachings you know who can who can but it seems to me that humility is necessary for what belief when Thomas is talking about error there in the commentaries on the Psalms I mean this is the St. Peter from St. Paul he says that you know pride is a cause of deception in two ways the proud man overestimates his ability so he tries to judge things that he's not capable of judging and therefore easily makes mistakes see that in the heretics all the time they're judging things beyond the capacity judge and then you see that person modern scholars too and then the other way he says is that they don't submit their minds to those wiser than them Thomas says when he's talking about being teachable, you have to listen to or read carefully, frequently in reverence, the words of those more knowledgeable about something. So it requires humility to remove an impediment to believing. I don't see humility, well, it's sure that you believe. But if you don't have humility, you're not going to believe. Because you're following, you're submitting your mind to a greater mind than your own. And it's something you don't see. But if you ask, why does God require that? Well, one reason they give is that this is the natural way for man to, what, come to know. In all the other sciences, we believe before we, what, know. So why should this not be true in the most difficult science of all? I believed the Pythagorean Theorem before I knew it. And I luckily believed the Pythagorean Theorem without knowing it. And when I taught in college, nobody seemed to be able to prove it. I can prove it, you know. But that's because I've read Euclid, you know. Obviously it's X squared, it goes Y squared. But, so it is natural for man to believe before he, what. And the more difficult the science is, the more this is true, huh? So the easiest science is mathematics, huh? And mathematics is named from the learner. It's Athena Gospodal, Mathetes. And then the higher science, though, is named from the teacher, Sacro Doctrina. Because you're more and more dependent upon the teacher, the higher you, what, you're going in your studies, huh? So, was it suitable that God become flesh, huh? Don't be too quick to judge this matter. The second, whether it was necessary for the reparation of the human race, huh? This is perhaps an interesting article of all, right? But remember that distinction that Aristotle gives, huh? So, and if you talk about these two great mysteries, the Trinity and Incarnation, is it necessary that there be three persons in God? But, is it necessary for God to become man? Two different senses, see? It's necessary for there to be three persons in God, and that's one sense of necessary, right? It's like the sense in which we say it's necessary for two to be half of four. But when we say it's necessary for God to become man, that's necessity from the end. And then the question is, Aristotle distinguishes two senses there. That without which the end cannot be achieved at all, and that without which it cannot be achieved well. Like Thomas would say, you know, to live you've got to have food. For a long journey you need a horse. Well, you can go without a horse, but it's not going to be. If you can't make a good journey, you know? Or you need a boat, you know, to get across the line. So, it's necessary to understand the word necessary, huh? Which Aristotle takes up there in the fifth book of wisdom, huh? The third question, whether, if there had not been sin, would God have become, what? Flesh. What do you think about that? Yeah. I think some thought that he was going to become flesh even without that, but Thomas says, Scripture seems to always do it in terms of sin, so Thomas and he inclines to that conclusion, right? They're not St. Albert, right? No. Yeah. When he got through last night, they're going through Thomas's two divisions of the eight, right? You know, the ten categories. I mentioned how Albert does and makes a little mistake about the, yeah, so. I gave a paper one time, and Albert at the crossroads of logic, right? He kind of hesitates, which way to go. One way leads to what Kajetan does, and that leads to what the great commentators did. Anyway. Whether he chiefly was incarnated to taking away, what, original sin, then what, actual sin, right? I know you guys don't follow the news too much, you know, but there's some evidence in the newspaper, you know, there's evidence of anything, of this originality of Picatin, right? There is something seriously wrong with the human race. Yeah, as well as the other. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's always something really wrong with the human race, you know, I don't know. I had something to say, you know, I'm designed for the human race, hope the angels will take me in, but I'm through with it. But no, it's original sin, in a sense, is infecting the whole of humanity, right? With the exception of the Virgin, Christ. And so, this is, you know, kind of a common evil, right? So, you might suspect that Thomas is going to see that, huh? And then, the fifth and sixth ones are more particular, but there are problems about that. Whether God would have been suitably incarnated from the beginning of the world. You might say, gee whiz, we really need him to become flesh, right? Why do you wait all this time? And where the incarnation should have been deferred to the end of the world, that's not so. It's a problem for me, huh? Yeah, big trouble, right? Okay? So, this is where you touch upon the third way that I don't know the question, right? But I'm thinking a little bit more of the Summa Contagentilis, right? Because there he begins more from the scriptural text, you know, and the heretics and so on. And it shows that the scriptural texts are really not the same as the heretics are saying, but it's really pointing to the fact that God did become man. The same person now is both God and man, and so on. And then you have the objection, well, how could this be? It's impossible, right? And he answers those objections, you know, and then you have, you know, but if it's possible, is it suitable that this be done, right? But here he kind of begins with this. To the first, therefore. You stand there, right? We'll break, okay.