Tertia Pars
Lecture 37: Christ's Infused Knowledge and Its Perfection

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

For the fourth article, whether the soul of Christ sees the word more perfectly than any other, what, creature? Well, I bet he does, huh? We'll find out. To the fourth one goes forward thus, it seems that the soul of Christ does not more perfectly see the word than any other creature, right? For the perfection of knowledge is according to the, what, medium of knowing, right? For that is more perfect knowledge which is had by means of the demonstrative syllogism than that which is had by means of the, what, telectical syllogism. But all the blessed see the word immediately through the divine essence itself, as has been said in the first part, huh? So you can't see God as he is through a created, what, form. God has to be joined to your mind as not only that which you see, but that by which you see what you see. And in his light we shall see light, as the psalm says, huh? So they have the same medium, right, of knowing, right? The divine essence, huh? So you see, if I know the Pythagorean theorem through a demonstrative syllogism, and you know it through a dialectical syllogism, I know it better than you do, you see? But if you know it through the, what, demonstration, then you seem to be, what, see just as well as I see it, right? Well, that seems to be the objection, right? So we see God as he is through the divine essence. So I'm seeing it through the divine essence. Here's the divine essence. We should see it equally clearly, right? It's democratic. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Moreover, the perfection of a vision does not exceed the, what, seeing power. But the power of the rational soul, which is the, what, soul of Christ, is below the intellectual power of an angel. This is clear through Dionysius in the fourth chapter of the celestial hierarchy. Therefore, the soul of Christ does not see the word more perfectly than the angels. So, like my old teacher could say, he'd take all human minds and wrap them up into one huge mind, you know, Einstein and Aristotle and everything else together, and still indigable to the angels' mind, right? Lord, Lord. Moreover, God infinitely sees the word more perfectly than the soul. Infantly, right? But there are, what, infinite grades between that mode in which God sees his word and the mode in which the soul of Christ sees it. Therefore, it should not be asserted that the soul of Christ more perfectly sees the word or the divine essence than any other, what, creature, huh? Just get a thing there, huh? Supposed to avoid envy, right? It seems to be nothing, you know? It's like saying, you know, the difference between your mind and my mind is like this, and between my mind and God is, uh. So, the difference between your mind and my mind seems to be nothing compared to, you know? Okay. And Thomas sometimes speaks that way, right? You know, the wisest philosopher, you know, and the, you know, peasant down there, right? The distance between their minds is nothing compared to the distance between the human mind and the angelic mind, right? That's really, you know? But again, this is what the apostle says, Ephesians 1.21. That God constituted, what, Christ and the celestial things above every, what, prince and power and virtue and Lord, right? And every name that can be named, not only in this age, but in the future, huh? But in the celestial glory, someone is higher and more perfectly he knows God, right, huh? Therefore, the soul of Christ is above all of them, must see God more perfectly than any other, what, creature. God hates equality, that's what my teacher Kisirk used to say. The answer, it should be said, that the sight of the divine essence, right, belongs to all the blessed, huh? According to partaking of a light derived to them from the fountain of the, what, word of God, huh? According to that of Ecclesiastical 1.5. The word of God on high is a fountain of, what, wisdom, huh? Okay, sometimes it's called God the fountain of eternal life, huh? But now, to this word of God, more nearly is joined the soul of Christ, which is united to the word in person, than any other, what, creature. And therefore, more fully he receives the influence, the flowing in, of light in which God is seen by the word, than any other, what, creature. And therefore, ahead of or before all other creatures, more perfectly he sees, what, the first truth, which is the divine, what, essence, huh? It's the object of faith, the first truth, huh? And therefore, it is said in John 1.14, we see his glory as of the only begotten, the Father, huh? Full not only of, what, grace, but also of, what, truth, huh? Well, it's both gratia there and veritas there, you can apply to the human nature of grace there, right? I was looking at the golden chain there, and some of the church fathers take it, one's referring to his divinity, one to his humanity, right? So, you know, a little ways. My cousin Donald, when he was first reading it, you know, would say, they shouldn't give this to the average Catholic, he's going to be so confused. Because they say different things about the same text, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you kind of realize the richness of the text. I was looking at encyclicals of Benedict XV, and there's a famous one, the Spiritus Paracletus, you know, which is about St. Jerome, but it's a lot about how you should approach Scripture, you know. And Jerome's enthusiasm about it, you know, all these layers of meaning, you know, in Scripture, you know, and he's always discovering something, you know, underneath this. And that's part of what's so wonderful about it, right, huh? See, you know. I know I'm never going to arrive fully understanding it, right? What Augustine says, you know, there's more things in Scripture he doesn't understand than he does. Well, Augustine says that. What is a mortal like you or me supposed to? Well, you might have another way of explaining this, but you can't say this was wrong. But the closer you come to God, the more you are, what? Enlightened, huh? You can't get closer to God than to be joined to Him in, what? In person. So He must be more enlightened than the rest of us. And therefore He sees the first truth better than anybody else, huh? Even the angels, huh? They're not that close, they're not united in the world. Now, the first objection is talking about, hey, the same medium, right? So it says, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the perfection of knowledge on the side of the, what, thing known is observed according to the, what, medium, right, but on the side of the, what, one knowing, it's observed according to his, what? Potency or power or his, what, habit, huh? I'm trying to acquire that habit of numerical philosophy there, reading the seventh, eighth, and ninth books, but I'm not, you know, my habit is not perfect yet, huh? They get me up on the board and say, now, prove that now. I can follow it, but I don't know if I can get up and repeat it on the board always, you know? And thus it is that among, what, men, even among men, through one medium, right, one more perfectly knows some conclusion than, what, another. So his power, right, is united with the medium, better, right? Or through the habit, he's more united with it, huh? And in this way, the soul of Christ, which is filled with a more abundant light, more perfectly knows the divine essence than the other, what, blessed, although all, what? Yeah. So I read every word that Thomas did in the Super Conscientilis, but I still think he understands the conclusion better than I do, even though I have the same middle term. I just don't have, you know, as I read it again and again, I get a little bit of grasp of it, you know, so my habit there is getting me, huh? To the second it should be said, huh? It's about, now, the objection from the angels, right? There you've got a more powerful mind than a human mind, but you're forgetting something here, right? To the second it should be said that the division of the divine essence exceeds the natural power of each, what, creature, as has been said in the first part. And therefore, the grade in it is more to be observed according to the order of grace, in which Christ is, what, most excellent, than according to the order of nature, by which the angelic nature is referring to the, what, human mind. Now, a teacher, I could certainly used to have the idea that, playful idea, that the guardian angel of the Blessed Virgin was actually a low angel, right? But getting the job of being the guardian angel of the Blessed Virgin, he was raised quite, right? The third it should be said, huh? That about the grace, about grace, that there cannot be a, what, greater grace than the grace of Christ in regard to the union of the, what, word. It's just that that's been said, huh? So, likewise, huh? The same thing should be said about the perfection of the divine vision, right? Although absolutely, considering, there could be a grade more sublime, according to the infinity divine, what, power, right? So, could God be seen more clearly by a creature in Christ's season? Is there still a sense of existence? Yeah, yeah. Absolutely, yeah. But no one can see God as, no creature can see God as clearly as Christ's season? Those things are not incompatible, those two, right? How did you decide where to stop? Because he could have gone, the same with the Blessed Virgin Mary. She's so exalted, but she's not infinite. So, how did you decide to stop there, right? What are you going to do? It's just a problem. Those are the counts, nine counts, but we won't. I'm sure he's got it all figured out. Someone might say, you know, you can always praise God or love God more than you do, right? And you can always receive more grace than you're received, right? So, why can't you catch up to Mary or catch up to Christ or something, right? But, I think it's ignoring the fact that Christ has the grace that fits the one who is, what? Yeah, and who's also joined, you know, to the saved person, right? So, even though there's a way in which I can always have more grace, that's always going to be less than the grace of Christ, right? It's going to be the grace that, it's fitting if you're doing work today, right? Who's not joined to the divine person, right? That person. ...because they just have such a huge head start. LAUGHTER Or, to make a more holy example, just as I keep on, you know, reading the numerical philosophy there, right? Or, given reading the Summa Karni Shantila is, I can always understand those things better than I do now. And, uh, but I never understand them as well as Thomas understands them, or Euclid understands them. Declanica, when I had Declanica at the Wall there, I was, when I was first up there in, uh, 5860, those couple years there, 5860, in 58. And, uh, they kind of been teaching, you know, the eight books of natural hearing, the physics, since the 30s, you know. And he says, I still see something new every time I go through those. You know? So, I mean, he's never going to understand it as well as, you know, and I'm sorry to say this, too, you know, you're never going to understand it as well as Aristotle understood it, or Thomas understood it. But you can always understand it better, you know. Dejan would come down to the Twin Cities here, and they'd be his way down, you know, so they could kind of examine, you know, look at what he has to say. He said, they're always, he told me, he says, they're all at the same level. He says they were before, except for Kassari. He's always understanding them better. Other guys kind of know this, kind of. You know, there's a lot of truth to that, you know. I mean, a lot of people who are not, uh, understand these things better, you know, than they did, uh, last year and the year before. Just going to beat themselves. Or we call it, we call it the plateau of mediocrity. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe they're going backwards, you know. And Freddie, you know, sometimes you're finding on your papers, you know, people you wrote years ago, well, that's pretty good, you know. But you don't understand why I'm clear now that, you know, this becomes kind of easy. They haven't looked at it for a while, you know. So let's just look at the premium here, because we'll stop the premium here. We'll stop the premium here. We'll stop the premium here. 41st, 40th chapter here, right? I mean, 11th, excuse me. 11th question. Then we're not to consider about the sciencia indita. Did you make up the word indita? Daud, somebody were trying to say that? Or the infused knowledge of the soul of Christ, right? This is in between now, the more human knowledge and the division, right? And about this thing, six things are asked. Whether through this knowledge Christ knows all things, huh? I wouldn't know what to say about that, you know? We'll see what the master has to say. Whether he could use this knowledge, not turning to the, what, images, huh? You see, Aristotle saw that not only do we get our thoughts from the images, but that when we try to think about them, once I know what a triangle is, when I think again about what a triangle is, I've got an imagined triangle, right? And the proper object of our mind is that what it is is something, what, imagined, huh? And that's why it's so difficult for us to understand at all, something you can't, what, imagine, right? But that's why if you can't imagine it too, then you can't understand it anymore. So you're dependent that way. So this knowledge is infused, well, do you have to turn to the images, huh? But, by the way, it's imparted in the, and so it's like, imparted. Yeah. It's in here, yeah. Yeah. Well, that's closer to infused, yeah, they're using them kind of as, almost as it was. It has to do with motion, they said, but I think this one, they say, to put in or on, introduce. Yeah, that's closer to infused, yeah. They're using kind of a synonym, it's almost here. And third, with this knowledge, was coletiva. Now, a lot of times, you'll find that Albert the Great and Thomas will speak of our knowledge as being coletiva et discrisiva. But coletiva kind of means, what, bringing together, right? And then discrisiva, in its highest senses, going from things you know to what you don't know, right? We can say that in syllogism, you've got to bring together the major premise and the minor premise in order to, what, draw the conclusion, right, huh? So I bring together the statement that, let's say, every mother's a woman and no man is a woman, therefore no man is a mother, right? Well, the discourse is going from the premises to the conclusion, quite discrisiva, right? But, coletiva, you're bringing together these things, huh? But there's something that's kind of mixed up the two of them together, right? Remember how Shakespeare says reason is the ability for a large discourse, right? So it's that discrisiva thing that is characteristic of human knowledge. Well, is this knowledge of that sort, huh? Then the comparison of this knowledge to the angelic knowledge, right? Because it's the way the angel seems to know, right? It doesn't know by getting from things like we do in the ages. Whether there was a, what, habitual science here then in Christ, huh? And whether it was distinct by diverse habits, huh? I want to find out what these things are. Just, like my, I remember this English professor I had in freshman college there and we did a little bit of Shakespeare, you know, in the courts, you see, and read some plays you probably didn't read in high school and so on. So he began, you know, the lecture, you know, talking a little bit about Shakespeare, you know, he says, oh, I want to go to the text, you know, let's go read the play itself, you know. Kind of get you enthusiastic enough for the play, you know. He could hardly reach to the end of the song. I've got to get in here, that's who I am. With this text, you know, I've got to say what Thomas says, you know, and pretend I don't know what he says, you know. I do know. Like, new again, right? Yeah. Yeah. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand what you have written. For the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. We'll be looking at the encyclicals of Pius XI that are on the Vatican website there. So I got across to Studiorum Ducem, which they have just in Italian and Latin. And this is the encyclical of Pius XI that's about Thomas. But he quotes John XXII, who's the Pope who canonized Thomas, right? And he has two very interesting quotes here from John XXII in the words that he addressed to the Patres Cardinales in the Consistory. The first one is, Ipse plus illuminavit ecclesiam quam omnes alii doctores. He more enlightened the Church than all the other doctors. It's a very strong statement. And then the second statement, In whose books a man progresses more in one year than in the teaching of others in the whole time of his life. You see, I'm shardling things for you guys. And then he goes in, he has like a paragraph on Thomas' dogmatic theology, and moral theology, and even ascetic theology. And when he's talking about dogmatic theology, he says, he speaks of Thomas' locu pletissimum, right? And he's the richest, the author, the dogmatic theology. Ipse coque actorum habit omnium locu pletissimum toma. I guess loco pletissimum, originally you had a lot of land, you know. You're a wealthy man, huh? So it has as its most wealthy author, Thomas, huh? He says, Neque idem quisquam, for never did anyone, out penetravit altios, huh? Penetrate in a higher way, right? Out subtilius exposed with, or more subtly laid out, huh? Expounded. The augusta quae cumque sut mysteria, huh? The great mysteries, whatever ones there are. And then he goes on to talk to them about, in moral theology, huh? Solidum theologiae doctrinum de moribus conditit, huh? He gave us a solid teaching about morals, which are suitable, he says, to directing human acts to their supernatural end. And not an individual man, he goes on to say, but every society, both domestic and, what, civil, huh? And later on he has a paragraph where he's talking about Thomas as the doctor of, what, the Eucharist, huh? And how everywhere in the world where the church is, these songs of his are sung, right, huh? And then he says, towards the end here, Sané mirabitur nemo, no one should be surprised, huh? Quod hic doctoris eucharistici, huh? Those capitalized. Quoque cognomen, eccepina. So it's like a surname, right? He's the doctor of the Eucharist, huh? Pius the, I mean, Paul VI is something like that, I think, in his encyclical on the Eucharist, huh? And Thomas is the doctor of the, what, Eucharist, huh? And so I'll give this for the reproduction, I hope, to those who can work a little bit of Latin there. Even our Maronite liturgy, we have a hymn for benediction. It's supposed to be for benediction. Every tongue shall sing in glory, which is a translation of Panjilin. I guess it's in this part of the Summa where Thomas came into the chapel and said, you know, the Christ are written well. And he said, Beneis Kripsisti Tova. My college of St. Thomas there, they had the statue of Thomas and then written into the stone, Beneis Kripsisti Tova. What do you take as a reward, he says, huh? Thomas says, you alone. So we're up to question 11 now, right, on the infused knowledge of Christ, huh? Then we're not to consider about the infused knowledge of Christ, huh? Poured in knowledge. And about this, four things are asked. Whether through this knowledge, Christ knew what? All things, huh? Secondly, whether he could use this knowledge, not turning to the phantasms or images. And third, whether this knowledge was bringing together, right, and discoursing. From one thing to another. And fourth, about the comparison of this knowledge to the angelic knowledge. And fifth, whether it was a habitual science, science in the form of a habit, huh? And finally, whether it was distinct through diverse habits. So let's look at the first article. To the first one goes forward thus. It seems that by this knowledge, Christ did not know all things. For this knowledge was poured into Christ for the perfection of the ability of his understanding. But the possible, the undergoing understanding of the human soul does not seem to be in potency or ability to all things, simply, but only to those things to which it can be reduced to act through the acting upon understanding, the agent-elect, which is the proper thing acting upon it, which are knowable according to natural reason. Therefore, according to this knowledge, he does not know those things which exceed natural reason. But, of course, this infused knowledge is not purely, what, natural, huh? It's supernatural knowledge. Not as high as the vision, but it's kind of a, something like what the angels have. More, as Aristotle says in the third book about the soul, the images are to the human understanding as colors are to, what, sight. That's why Thomas says when the teacher explains something, he has to use a sensible example, right? So you can have an image, right? In which you consider even the universal. And so even when you do geometry, right, and you think about the triangle, you imagine a triangle, right? In which you consider something universal, though. And Aristotle makes that comparison, huh? Images are to the human understanding as colors outside there are to the eye. It's a very important proportion, huh? But it does not pertain to the perfection of the power of sight to know those things which are entirely without, what, color. Therefore, neither to the perfection of the human understanding does it pertain to know those things of which there cannot be, what, images, right? Such as are the separate substances. So I don't have any image in a guardian angel. Or if I do, it's a false image, right? The great cause of deception is false imagination, huh? Which means either imagining things other than they are, right? Or trying to imagine things that cannot be imagined, huh? So most people imagine the soul to be a kind of, what, ghost-like, huh? Substance in the shape of human body, right? And that's the way Dante represents the souls there that he meets on the way through purgatory and hell, for that matter. That's how he recognizes who it is by the shape of the ghost-like thing. Well, that's not what the soul is at all. Thus, therefore, since this knowledge was in Christ for the perfection of his soul, understanding soul, it seems that through this knowledge he would not know what separated substances, but again, that argument seems to be based upon our natural way of knowing. Moreover, to the perfection of understanding, it does not belong to no singulars. It seems, therefore, that through this knowledge, the soul of Christ does not know singulars. So through my reason, I know the universal, not the singular. Through my senses, I know this man and that man. But through my reason, I know what a man is. Knowing what a man is doesn't enable me to know all men, does it? Except in the sense that it's said of all men, but not as such. But against this is what is said in the prophet Isaiah chapter 11, that the Spirit filled him with what? Wisdom and understanding, science and counsel, under which are comprehended all things knowable. For to wisdom pertains the knowledge of all divine things. It's even true for Aristotle, right? Wisdom is the knowledge of God. To the understanding pertains the knowledge of immaterial things. To science the knowledge of all conclusions. To counsel the knowledge of all things to be done. Therefore, it seems that Christ, according to the knowledge brought into him by the Holy Spirit, had knowledge of all things. So Thomas says, Now it should be considered that in the human soul, just as in every creature, there is considered a two-fold passive power. Power to be, what, hected upon, huh? One in comparison to the natural, what, agent. Another in comparison to the, what, first agent. Who is able to reduce, right, or lead back any creature to somewhat higher act than that to which it can be led by the natural agent. And this is called the potency obedience, the power of what, obeying, huh? The divine command, the creature. Now, both powers of the soul of Christ was reduced in act according to the, what, knowledge divinely poured in. And therefore, according to it, the soul of Christ first knew whatever by man can be known through the power of the light of his agent intellect, just as whatever pertained to the human sciences. It doesn't mean the humanities, it means geometry as well, right? But all the human sciences. Secondly, through this knowledge, Christ knew all those things which become known to men through, what, divine revelation. Whether they pertain to the gift of wisdom, or to the gift of prophecy, right? Or to any other gift of the, what, Holy Spirit, huh? Incidentally, that's in the dialogue, that same encyclical about the totum sapientia, right, being part of theology, huh? Interesting. But all of these things, more abundantly and fully than others, the soul of Christ knew. Nevertheless, the very essence or substance of God, he did not know through, what, this knowledge, huh? But only through the, what, first, the beatific vision that we talked about last week, huh? So the forms by which he knows, huh? These infused forms by which he knows are above the forms that we get from the images. But they're still created forms, huh? And therefore, through them, he can't see God as he is. He can only see God as he is through the beatific vision, whereby God is joined to our mind as the form by which we see God as he is. Now, so he applies to the first objection there, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that argument proceeds from the, what, natural action of the, what, understanding soul, which is in comparison to its, what, natural agent, which is the intellect agents, huh, the acting upon understanding, huh, okay? So that's the kind of knowledge that Aristotle talks about in the third book about the soul, where he says that the natural object of our reason is what it is, of something sensed or, what, imagined. And the imagination is even closer, right, the image, than the senses to the reason, huh? So that becomes a problem in theology, right? In theology, how can you talk about the angels and God when there's no image of them, right? And, well, that's why you have to know them primarily by negation. God is, what, incorporeal. That is to say, bodiless, right? God is simple. That is to say, not composed, right? That is, uh, uh, via negativa, right? Okay. So you imagine a body, and you say God is bodiless. Okay? So you don't know God in himself, but you know him by creatures, and ultimately by some negation of the imperfections of creatures. Now, the second objection has got that same problem, because it's talking about our natural knowledge. But Thomas here unfolds a little bit of what we learned in the third book about the soul. We did the three books of the soul a little bit, didn't we? And we did the part on the soul and the summa, didn't we? You know, some of you were, you know. You know, we'll go back there, you see. Repetition is the mother's side. I told you how much Indian started out in the, uh, in the faculty of theology at Laval, right? And then, of course, in order to teach the theology, he had to explain the philosophy that's used in the theology. And then he just ended up just teaching philosophy. So he also went over to the faculty of philosophy and teach there. So then he went over to the faculty of philosophy. You're not teaching theology, you're teaching philosophy. Well, okay. He says, to a second, it should be said that the human soul, in the state of this life, when it is in a way, what, tied, huh, to the body, huh, that is not able to understand without a, what, image, huh? So in this state, it's not able to understand the separated substances as they are. You know some things about them, and you have to have some, what, like this to our own mind, but you have to have some negations, right, of the defects and so on. But after the status of this life, the soul is able, in some way, to, what, understand or to know the separated substances through itself, huh? This has been said in the first part. So when my soul is separated from my body, my soul will understand itself through itself. And then it's like the angels, right? But this is especially manifest in the case of the souls of, what, the blessed, right? Now, Christ is an unusual status, right? Because Christ, before the Passion, was not only a, what, viator, one on the road. He said to be on the road because his body is not yet, what, glorified, right? But he was also a Comprehensor because he enjoyed the, what, vision of God as he is, viator vision. Whence his soul was able to know the separated substances in the way in which the, what? Yeah. He had even a greater knowledge, right? The knowledge a separated soul has, right? In that state, huh? Because he had the viator vision, right? He had the viator vision, right? He had the viator vision, right? He had the viator vision, right? Now, what about going singular, huh? Because the way he says, the thing is singular when sensed and universal when understood, huh? And Albert the Great says, the first thing to be considered in logic is the, what, universal, right? And I say more sensibly, the first thing we consider in logic is names said of many things. But it's, I think, a little more sensible, a little more, you can sense a word, right? Consider it a little bit. Intellects, you're trying to instruct. He says, to the third it should be said that a knowledge of singulars does not belong to the perfection of the understanding soul according to speculative or theoretical knowledge. So it pertains to perfection of my understanding in theoretical or looking philosophy to know what man is, right? What his soul is and so on. But not to know you're this man here or this soul here, right? Okay? But it does belong to the perfection of the understanding soul according to practical knowledge, huh? which is not perfected without a knowledge of the, what, singulars in which is action, huh? Operation. That's where Estelle says in the beginning of the 14 books of wisdom that the man of experience often succeeds better than the man of art or science. Because you don't cure man, you cure this man, huh? And sometimes you might know how to start your, what, car better than the mechanic does. Because you know the peculiarities of that, what, car, right, huh? And sometimes you know better how to, if you're nauseated, so you might know better how to relieve your nausea than the doctor would, right? Because you know from experience, huh? And I know sometimes I talk to people about that and say, well, I like popcorn or something, right? Or fruit, or, well, that'd be even worse, you see? So, I know myself, though, say, I know what would relieve me, right? And so, that's because perfection of this is in singular, huh? That's what you do. Whence to foresight, huh? That's what prudence means. There's required memory of past things, right? Foresight, knowledge of what? Present, and foresight of future, right? So, prudence is a contraction of providentia. Foresight. Of course, now reason looks before and after, right? So, you see that in the word foresight, the idea of looking before and after in that perfection. There's Tullius, and that means Cicero, right? That's one of his names. So, don't be too shocked there in the Gospels, you know, where sometimes it seems that, what? They'll say, you know, modern scholars, that they don't know the name of these apostles, right? Well, here, instead of saying Cicero, he says, what? Tullius, right? See? We're not accustomed to do that, right? But Thomas does, you know, everybody knows what he's talking about, right? Here he says Tullius, another place he says, what? I was looking at Julius Caesar in Shakespeare this morning, and it's Cicero, it's not Tullius. So, there's some question there about Nathaniel there, right? Yes. Is Nathaniel one of the apostles or not, huh? And some say no, but I think so. I think he is. Does Nathaniel come back there at the end of John's Gospel? And there's only about, you know, six or seven of them get people there at the shore there, huh? But, yeah, he's stuck in there with the other apostles, so. Anyway, we'll leave that for when we talk about words rather than things. Because, therefore, Christ had the fullness of foresight, right? According to the gift of counsel, huh? It follows that he knew all singulars, both those in the past, those in the present, even those in the future, like you and I here. There's some knowledge he has, huh? I remember when I was reading, doing my doctoral thesis, with a person of Aristotle and Descartes, right? And I'd come in to Monsignor down to some crazy thing that Descartes said. He was kind of flabbergasted. Descartes could, you know, repeat a mistake that has been, you know, made over and over again down in centuries. If Thomas was alive today and he'd read these guys who say, you know, Christ didn't know that he was Christ, you know, didn't know he was the Son of God. How many times do you have to fall on the same vomit? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Could Christ, according to this knowledge, understand, according to this infused knowledge, could he understand without turning to the, what, images? I remember when I was teaching the anima there sometimes, I'd have a guy in class who was convinced that the brain is the organ of reason, right? It was a reason. And so I'd kind of take his side for a little bit, and I'd say, you know, a blow in the eye interferes with, what, seeing, right? Therefore the eye is the organ of sight. A blow on the brain interferes with thinking, therefore the brain is the organ of sight, right? Or alcohol going to the brain interferes with thinking, therefore the brain is the organ of thought, right? That kind of, you know, that seemed to be definitive, right, huh? And I said, well, now, suppose you and I were in a room with no source of light, the black room, except for this one light bulb here in the center of the room, huh? And the light bulb was on, so we could see each other, right? Now, a blow on the, what, light bulb would interfere with, what, by seeing each other, right? Therefore the light bulb is the organ of sight. What's wrong, see? Right. See? And if you walk out of this room right now, it's going to interfere with my seeing you. Therefore you're the organ of my sight. Now, what's the difference here between hitting your eye, therefore interfering with your seeing, and hitting the light bulb in the example there, right? And interfering with my seeing you. Or you're leaving the room, interfering with my seeing you, huh? Well, in the case of hitting the eye, it's because you're, what, interfering with the organ of sight, right? But in the case of hitting the light bulb, turning the light off, right? Or you're leaving the room, you're interfering with the, what, object. Okay? So there's two ways to interfere with my seeing you, right? Interfering with the organ of sight, or interfering with the, what, object, right? So, if a blow on the brain interferes with thinking, right? Or alcohol going to the brain interferes with thinking. That shows there's a connection between the brain and thinking, right? But does that by itself tell you whether it's that of the organ, or on the side of the, what, object? It doesn't, right? Okay? Now, by a separate argument, which I'm going to go into right now, we can argue that the ability to understand the universal is not in a, what, body, right? Because every body is continuous, and what is received in the continuous is singular for that very reason. And so, something is received in the understanding, universally, and not singularly, that shows that the understanding is not a body. Therefore, the blow on the brain, or the alcohol going to the brain, interferes with thinking, not by interfering with the organ of sight, which there is, I mean, understanding, of which there is no organ, it's not a body, but on the side of the object. And that's why when Aristotle says that the proper object of our reason is that what it is is something imagined or sensed. When you take away the image, then you take away, what, something on the side of the object, huh? Just like if you leave the room, right? So, by seeing you, right, I'm seeing the color of you out there. So, you take away you out there, and I can't see the color of you. So, even though my seeing the color of you takes place in my eye and not in you. And likewise, the understanding of what a triangle is takes place in the understanding which is not a body. But your understanding of what it is is one of these things imagined. And so, you interfere with the imagination, you interfere with the, what, thinking, right? So, Aristotle says that images are necessary there in thinking, not only in getting your first knowledge of the triangle, but even after you understand the theorem that the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, and you want to think about that again, you have to imagine a triangle, because you understand what it is that this thing imagined. So, this is behind the question here, right? Can Christ, by this knowledge poured in, which is not natural, but above the natural, can he understand or know without turning to the, what, images, huh? You have to form an image of you and me, right, to think about us. Now, the objections are taken from what Aristotle talks about, an actual understanding. So, he says, to the second one goes forward thus, it seems that the soul of Christ is not able to understand by this knowledge, except by turning to the phantasms, that's the Greek word, for images. For the phantasms, or images, are compared to the understanding soul as colors to sight, but the exterior color, but the exact comparison. As Aristotle says in the third book about the soul. Now, this is a very important, what, like this, a ratio, a proportion in Euclid's sense, right? And philosophy is filled with proportions that are necessary. But the power of seeing of Christ cannot go into act, except by turning to, what, colors. So, we're going to argue from that ratio, right? Therefore, neither does this understanding soul understand something, except by turning to, what, images, right? Moreover, the soul of Christ is of the same nature with our souls. Otherwise, he would not be of the same species with us. It wouldn't be the same kind of thing. Against what the apostle says in Philippians 2, 7, that he was made in the likeness of men. But our soul cannot understand, except by turning to images. Therefore, neither can the soul of Christ. Moreover, the senses are given to man, that they might, what, serve the understanding. Aristotle gives an interesting reason in the anima, why we have more than one sense, in terms of the good of the reason, and in terms of the good of, what, geometry in particular. Because if we didn't have, what, more than one sense, we'd confuse surface with, what, color. Well, we couldn't separate surface from color, which we must do in geometry, right? We consider surface without color. But I know surface without color by my hand, and I know surface without hardness by my eye. So I can separate surface from both of them, right? Because they have these two senses. So, in the same way, I can separate shape, right, from hardness, or from color, right? But I can't know the top of this thing without blue or something, or gold around the frame of the picture there. So, that's a reason he gives from the end, that the senses in man are ordered to the reason. If, therefore, the soul of man was able to understand without turning to the images, which are received, or taken, or gotten from the senses, it follows the senses would serve no purpose, right? They would be in vain, in the soul of Christ, which is not a suitable thing to be. It doesn't fit together. It seems, therefore, that the soul of Christ could not understand, except by turning itself to images, right? He's going to admit to some strength to this argument, because he's going to say Christ also does have this natural knowledge, which he'll talk about in the next question, right? But does that apply to this above natural knowledge here, right? But against this is that the soul of Christ knows some things through images that cannot be known, excuse me, Christ knows some things that are not able to be known by images. To it, he separated, what? Substances, huh? Therefore, he can understand by not turning himself to the images. So he understands what Raphael is, and what Gabriel is, and what Michael is, huh? And not this Michael, either. He doesn't need to know much. He doesn't want you, though. He does. I need to know. I need to know. Thomas is going back to this same beginning he had in the previous thing. I answer, it should be said that Christ in his status before the Passion, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? He's going back to this same beginning, right? Why did you say before the Passion? Yeah, because the body was not yet at its final stage, right? That Christ in his state before the Passion was Simo, at the same time. Viator, right? On the road. What's that thing they call Eucharist? Viaticum? Viaticum, yeah. Yeah, because that's when you're still on the road, right? Via. Take you with it. Or take you with it. And Comprehensor, right? And the one who comprehends. As we'll be more clear later on, right? So why did you say He specified Passion? Well, because His body was not yet glorified, right? As it would at the Resurrection. See, why is Christ said to be a Viator? Not because He doesn't have the Viaticum Vision because He already has it, huh? So as having the Viaticum Vision, He's a Comprehensor, right? He comprehends God, right? He's got a hold of it, right? But on the side of His body, right? He's not yet glorified, right? So before His Passion, He's a Viator as well as a Comprehensor. Afterwards, He's only... Comprehensor. Yeah. Would it be more exacting to say before His Resurrection rather than before His Passion? Because during His Passion, He still was glorified. Okay, okay. Well, He's just kind of being extra careful there, right? Okay. You could say that to me. I'm not denying that. But that's what it turned to place around that time, right? Yeah. At least it's okay. Yeah. That's your problem, too? Yeah. Except the thing is, I was going to be cautious, too, because I guess it doesn't take time when He's lifted up and He's glorified. He said it when Judas went out and it was night, and then Christ, the next thing He says is, now is the Son of Man glorified. Yeah. But that's a different sense of glory, I think. But at the same time, maybe it's... I don't know why He was... Well, He's kind of saying that because it's a sure thing now that He's going to be glorified, right? It doesn't mean He's glorified at that exact moment. Yeah, I think I started to think as... I don't know, did you hear those words of the psalm about when God wanted you for the sake of me? We don't say He lost His comprehension. It's comprehension. I was thinking about those seven words, you know, that they're on the cross, and, you know, you have the meditation, the seven words there in St. Francis de Sales or St. Alphonsus, rather, Liguori. But, you know, he makes reference to all kinds of other earlier works on those seven words, huh? But one of the seven words is found only in Matthew and Mark, right? And those are the ones you just quoted, right? Okay. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And interesting, the first two Gospels have only that word. And it's found in both Matthew and Mark, right? So, that's the seven, among the seven words, that's the word that most of all signifies His suffering, right? Right. And He suffered in His soul, not as well as His body, right? Okay. But then the other six words, three of them are found only in, what, Luke, and the other three only in, what, John, right? And I was thinking about the three words that are found only in Luke and how they are, what, connected, huh? And the first word is, Father, forgive them for they don't know what they do. So, He's asking for mercy and He's having mercy, you might say, upon those who have crucified Him, right? Then the second word is, this day you shall be with Me in Paradise. And now He's having mercy again and showing mercy towards the penitent thief, huh? Now the third word is, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit. Well, how do you unite that with the first two, right? Well, the way I would unite them is to say, blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy, right? The first two words, Luke, is Christ is showing mercy towards those who crucified Him and towards the penitent thief. And then the way He's asking for mercy, right? Now a lot of the saints, I think, on their deathbed, and maybe you and I would do the same, you know, would say, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit, right? You're asking, what, for mercy for God, right? You see? That's, you can connect that then, right? Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy, huh? Maybe it's appropriate to Luke because he emphasizes the priesthood of Christ, huh? And the priesthood's concern is showing mercy, right? The sacraments and so on. Now, in the case of the three words in John, I see more clearly, although I think the first one is connected too, but I see more clearly the second and the third word, right? The first word is, you know, behold your mother, behold your son, son, behold your mother. And the second word is, I thirst, right? And the third word is, it is what consummate, is perfected, right? Now, Christ's bodily suffering, right, is redemptive because he suffers out of what? We say usually love of us, right? Okay. So, we usually interpret the words I thirst not so much in his bodily thirst, although he had that too, but he's thirsting for the salvation of all mankind, right? And this shows his, what? His love of mankind, huh? And this is what made his death on the cross, very often we'll refer to this, meritorious, right? Because he died out of what? Charity, right? Okay. But I was thinking the other day, I was reading the Katana Ori again, and you know the part there in the fourth chapter where he's with the woman at the well there, Samaria, right? And the apostles have gone out to the town to get some food, right? And they come back and they're offering Christ food. And he says, he's already got food, right? And he says, who's brought it, right? And then he says, my food is to do the will of my father, right? Okay. So maybe that's another meaning in saying I thirst, right? He thirsts to do what? The will of God, right? Not my will, but thine be done. He prayed in the garden, right? So Christ's death on the cross is meritorious, both because he's what? Doing it out of love for us and because he's what? Obeying the will of the what? Father, right? And of course we have, you know, we talk about justice and we say, you know, you know, there's a hunger and thirst for justice, right? Right now, okay. Well then, you can see the connection between that and the next thing is consummated, right? It is what? Completed. It is what? Perfected, right? The salvation of man is perfected. Why? Because Christ not only has died and suffered bodily, right? But he's done so out of love for us and out of obedience to the what? Father. And that's where it's efficacious. You see, they're tied together those two words, right? And I don't see, as clearly as in the case of Luke, to tie the first one with the last two, you know? But there's kind of interesting thing in the Katana Aurea there when they're talking about in the second chapter, in the second chapter, we're at the Feast of Cana, right? And Mary says, well, they're running low on wine, right? And Christ says, my time has not yet come, woman. And it almost seems like insulting or lack of respect for his mother, right? The Church Fathers notice that he calls her a woman and not mother. And the reason they give is that a miracle, which is the sense which he's asking him to perform there, right? He performs a miracle insofar as he's, what? God. To his divine nature. But he didn't get his divine nature from his mother. He got it from his father. But then they say, but on the cross, where he's suffering in his human nature and in his flesh, which he got from his mother, then he will now acknowledge her as his mother. But if you want to tie that up with the last two, maybe you could do so because of the fact that you have to come to Christ through Mary, right? And she's the mother of grace and many of these things you could say about it, right? It's really interesting the way Scripture has those, you know. And the first two Gospels has only that.