Tertia Pars
Lecture 40: Christ's Knowledge, Learning, and Power

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

what? Went forward. To the second thus, one goes forward thus. It seems that by this knowledge Christ did not, what? Progress, or in this knowledge he did not. For just as according to the knowledge of beatitude, the vision that his soul had, or according to the poured in knowledge, Christ knew all things, so according to this knowledge we said he knew all things, but according to those sciences he did not progress, right? Therefore neither according to what? This. Moreover, to go forward is something imperfect, because the perfect does not receive an addition, right? What Einstein said about this piece of Mozart, it's not perfectible, he says, because perfection is imperfectible. That's what he's saying here. But in Christ one cannot, what? Put or place any imperfect knowledge, it seems. Therefore, according to this knowledge, Christ did not go forward, progress. More, Damascene says, he's now one of these doctors of the universal church, who say that Christ, what? Went forward in wisdom and grace as receiving some addition. They do not venerate the union, the apostatic union. Okay? But not to venerate that union is impious. Therefore, it is impious to say that his knowledge receives some, what? Addition, huh? Well, Thomas is going to soften, what damn is he was saying there, obviously. But against this is what is had in Luke 2, 52, that Christ went forward in wisdom and age and what? Grace before God and men. And Ambrose, huh? Said that he, what? Went forward according to human, what? Wisdom, huh? So this is taking now the words more as they are, right? Not to say that, you know, like, he manifested his knowledge more as he went, no. He actually did progress in knowledge of some kind, right? He's taking it that way, huh? In his subjection, right? And Thomas will take it in the part of the same article that he did go forward, huh? In his experiential knowledge. But human wisdom is that which is acquired in a human way, right? It's natural to us. To it, through the light of the acting upon understanding, huh? Therefore, Christ went forward according to, what? The knowledge. Oh, so he says, I answer, it should be said. The twofold is the going forward of science. One in its, what? Essence, insofar as the habit of science is, what? Increased. Another in its effect is someone, um, according to the same and equal habit of science, demonstrates to others first lesser things, and later on greater things and more subtle things, huh? It's up here. Um, is that that, but is that that same argument about manifesting, or it's- Yeah, yeah. The second way is saying that, um, uh, if you say only that second way did he go forward, then he didn't really go forward in his knowledge, right? Okay? Yeah. Okay, but, but no, but no, the second way is manifest that Christ went forward in knowledge and grace, just as in, what? Age, huh? Because according to the growth of his age, right, he began to do greater, what? Works. Which showed, huh? A greater wisdom and grace, huh? But as regards the habit of science, is manifest that the habit of infuse now, poured in science in him, was not, what? A greater wisdom. Since from the beginning, he fully had all infused, what? Knowledge. And much less would the blessed science in him be able to be, what? A greater wisdom. The same is true for us, huh? We get to see God as he is face to face, but we won't keep on, what? Growing in that knowledge, huh? Now, about the divine science, that it cannot be increased, that's knowledge he had in his divine nature, where I was shown in the, what, first part, huh? Change into God, huh? If, therefore, apart from the habit of infused knowledge, there was not in the soul of Christ some habit of acquired knowledge as, what? Seems to be to some people. And to me, at one time, it seemed, huh? And again, here's a reference down to the, to the, what, sentences, right? No science or knowledge in Christ would be increased according to its essence, but only, what? To experience, that is through the turning of the, what, intelligent species infused to the, what? To the images, yeah. And according to this, they say that the knowledge of Christ progressed by, what, experience, by his turning the intellectual species that are infused, right, to those things which newly he took through his, what, senses, huh? So, is that saying he's just understanding what he knew already? Well, he's saying, some people are saying this, yeah. Yeah. And it's like, I knew perfectly, you know, by my infused knowledge what a man is, and, oh, here's a man, here's a man, there's a man, right? Yeah. You see? So, I'm not really learning anything, right? Yeah. But I'm taking my full understanding of what a man is and, and apply it to this thing that just struck my senses there. Yeah. See? But then Thomas is going to argue that, no, there is some increase in the habit of science itself, right? Yeah. But because it seems inconvenient, right, unfitting, that some natural understandable act be lacking in Christ, huh? sense to draw out, huh? Understandable forms from images is a certain natural action of man according to the agent intellect. And the agent intellect in some ways is higher than the possible intellect as the agent and the patient, huh? It is suitable, it seems, that to place this action in Christ, huh? The action of the acting upon understanding. And from this it follows that in the soul of Christ there could be some habit of science, huh? Which through what? This separation of species would be able to be what? Increase. From this that the agent intellect after the first understandable forms, certain phantisms, it is able to what? Abstract others, right? Yeah. So he's changed the opinion of Thomas, huh? You see how hard these questions are? What? See how hard these questions are? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So now, when he touched on this before, he just... He said he changed... He said in the... The manifesting business... In the general question there, where he divided the three kinds of knowledge, right? Um, yeah. Um, yeah. Um, yeah. It's in the, uh, fourth article of the question nine, right? You know, by the article. After he says that Christ, or gives the reason why he thinks that Christ has this experiential knowledge, right? Acquired. So, let's do it. So, let's do it. So, let's do it. So, let's do it. So, let's do it. And although quam vis aliter alibi, elsewhere, script serum, I have written otherwise, right? So he's admitting that he's said something else, elsewhere, right? And that's in fact the commentator in the sentences. When I'm thinking of it, when he used that Luke, that scripture quote, before, I wrote it down by the main paper. Well, yeah, in the art premium he's going to say now, he's going to understand that word that, just as what it says on the surface there, right? That he did progress in some kind of wisdom, right? Human wisdom. The knowledge got him to the active agent. When he used it before, are you thinking about the quote where it said that it had to do with his not knowing the day or the hour of his coming? No, it was Luke, it was Luke 2.52. It was the same scripture verse, but he said you understand it as just showing other people. Oh, and he said we didn't need to, it's really annoying. I was used to the answer to the third. Oh, yeah, you know what? Yeah, yeah, that's right. It was grace of Christ. Whether the grace of Christ could increase. And the third objection was that the child Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace of God. So, yeah, that's question 7, article 12. Objection. Sure. I noticed in the art premium there, he just quotes the first part of that thing. Shenzere Tate. But Sam's, now, is this the thing Mary Pham was getting at? Or was he completely different? He was maintaining against infused knowledge. He didn't have infused knowledge because then he wouldn't be told him. I think that's what I'm saying. So, he must say. As I, as Brother Thomas, gave it to me. Yeah, okay. But I haven't read the art of Genesis, I'm not sure. Yeah, so, you know, what St. Thomas is saying is here, somehow he's, is increasing in this habit, or can increase in this habit. Yeah, well, no distinction he makes here now in the art premium here, right? Because in those knowledge of, what, beatitude, the beatific vision that Christ has, and in his infused knowledge, he doesn't, what, progress, right? But what he does in this knowledge, yeah? Yeah. To the first effort should be said that both the infused knowledge of the soul in Christ, as well as, what, the blessed knowledge, the beatific vision, was the effect of an agent of infinite power, right, namely God, right, who is able, at once, he wants, to do the whole thing, right? And thus, in neither knowledge, neither of those two knowledges, does Christ go forward, right? But from the beginning, he had it perfect. But the acquired knowledge is only from the acting upon understanding, the agent intellect, which does not do the whole at once, but successively, right? And therefore, according to this knowledge, Christ, from the beginning, did not, what, know all things, right, but bit by bit, and after some time, to it in perfect, what, age? Which is clear from this, that the evangelist, at the same time, says that he progressed in knowledge and age, right? So he takes that as, by the time he's three, two years old, by the time he's three, he comes to do a lot of stuff. Now, the second objection is saying, what about the imperfect? Well, he says, this knowledge also in Christ, was always perfect according to the time, right? Right? Although it is not perfect simply and, what, according to nature, and therefore it could, what, receive growth, huh? So I quoted there from my little grandchild, Sophia, right? Lady Wisdom, as I call her. If you're mostly good, you go to heaven. If you're mostly bad, you go to the perpetrator, right? So she's pretty perfect knowledge for her age, right? About age of two or something. Now, he softens what Damascene says, huh? To the third, it should be said that the words of Damascene are understood as regards those who say simply there is addition to the, what? Father Christ. That is according to any knowledge that he had, right? And especially according to infused knowledge, which is caused in the soul of Christ from his union to the, what? Word. Not over, is it to be understood of the growth of the knowledge which is caused in the natural agent. So, in other words, the infused knowledge of Christ and the division of Christ, right, are something granted to him because of his hypostatic union, right? Why, this is not because of the hypostatic union, but because he's a man. Yeah, so it's not really infringing upon his, what? His respect for the hypostatic union that he has, this knowledge increasing, yeah. So I rest my case, Thomas says. I stand corrected, huh? That prayer, you know, or correct, you know, it's taken from Thomas's things. He's, we call upon the angels, right? Sticking the light on my order, and it aroused us to consider more correctly. So Thomas was aroused to consider more correctly by his guardian angel, huh? So I hope our guardian angels will do the same for us, huh? What do you say? Well, it's in the footnote of this edition, when St. Thomas says, some have said, they break references, St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, and Albert the Great. All of them will break it. Well, Alexander and St. Bonaventure, or excuse me, Albert and St. Bonaventure on the book of the Sentences. A lot of times, Thomas says, he disagrees with Albert the Great, I've noticed that, you know, and some have said, he doesn't name him by day, and it saves us a little respect for his teacher there. Albert doesn't say, as Albert raves. But it is amazing about Vera as a fidget, you know. I think that was imagination. Okay. Shall we do an article here before I break? Sure. Now, whether Christ learned something from the men, right? Well, Thomas doesn't want to say he's a dimwit, right? The third one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ learned something from men. For it is said in Luke 2 that they found him in the temple in the middle of doctors, questioning them and responding, right? But to ask and to respond is of a learner. Not necessarily, huh? Therefore, Christ from men learned something, right? Moreover, to acquire knowledge from a man's teaching seems to be more noble than to acquire it from the senses. Because in the soul of man's teaching are the understandable forms in act, right? In sensible things, there are understandable forms, only in ability. But Christ took experimental knowledge from sensible things. Therefore, much more would he be able to take knowledge in learning it from what men. Moreover, Christ, according to experimental knowledge in the beginning, did not know all things he just said in the last article. But he progressed in it. But anyone hearing speech that signifies of another or of something can learn who he doesn't know. Therefore, Christ could learn from men some things which he did not know according to his what? That's what a risky state like that is. You know, he chose to try to teach him something there in the thing. I know that already. I remember one time I figured out this thing here that had bothered me for many years, philosophical question. So I ran down to check it out with Monsignor Dion. He says, okay. And I became, he says, I know where you're going. He says, is it a damn? Can I go there? Christ. That's what it was like, Christ, all right? I know where you're going. I know where you're going. Moreover, Christ, according to what? Oh, that's me. Sorry. But against this is what is said in Isaiah 55, 4. Behold, I give you a what? A leader and a preceptor of traditions. But of the preceptor, the one who gives commands, there is not to be taught but to teach, right? Therefore, Christ did not be seized some knowledge, the teaching of the man, right? That's interesting, because that's, at least in the volume, I think that's the word that St. Peter first used in the preceptor. I think it's the one who gets the fish. I think he was the best preceptor. I think that's the word. I'll look at it. So Aristotle says, the wise men doesn't learn from others, right? He learns from him. This has got to be the first theory, too, about Christ. But Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that in each genus, that which is the first mover is not moved by that species of motion. Just as the first thing that alters things, this is not itself altered. It's the old knowledge there with the sun not being changed, right? We alter things. But Christ has constituted the head of the church. I was looking at the 16th there, his last talks there, two or three talks there on St. Paul, right? And he's talking about the Ephesians and the Colossians and those two epistles and how they have a lot of things in common and talking about the head, why he's called the head there. So I just mentioned that. We've talked about this being the head. But Christ has constituted the head of the church, nay, of all men, not just of the church, as has it said above. And not only, what? All men that he, what? He sees through some grace, but all who receive from him the teaching of the truth. Whence he himself says, John 18, If for this I was born, if for this I came into the world, that I might give testimony to thee, what? Truth. So Thomas quotes at the beginning of my favorite book there, Summa Contra Gentiles. By St. Alphonsus in the Meditations on the Passion, quotes the other words, Come to cast fire upon the earth, a little diwishly. Being kindled, huh? But it came for both purposes. It shows a difference in those two works, huh? And therefore it was not suitable to his dignity, right? And that he be taught by any one of men, huh? So that's pretty clear to Thomas, huh? I wonder if St. Joseph showed him something. Don't show it to me. I'll figure it out myself. I have a little loosey there. You know, she'll be all, you know, I'll do it myself, you know. She'll do everything herself, you know. And sometimes she doesn't know quite enough how to do it herself. But we'll see what he says here in reply to those objections, you know. The first objection, of course, is that he was questioning, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Origen says, right? The Lord asks, not that he might, what? Learn something, but that he might, what? Teach. The one who's questioning. From which fountain of teaching, from one fountain of teaching, right? Flows both to ask them and to answer wisely. When's there in the gospel that said that they were stupefied, huh? Okay? All who heard him, right? Upon his prudence and his responses, huh? He was teaching on savage persons. Yeah. He studied Plato. He knew all that. Well, he could have read it, too. Nothing to stop him. I mean, there's a Socrates examination there in the, what is it, chapter 22 there of Matthew, right? You know, whose son is David, you know? Yeah. I mean, Christ, you see David, and he gets him into a pairing contradiction, right? Mm-hmm. And so how can David call him Lord if he's his son, right? And so he's doing what Socrates does, right? In Mark's gospel, it says all the people, when he said that, they just left it hanging there, but they were delaying it. Yeah, yeah. Now, Socrates admits that is trap, right? There is something amusing about this, you know? Yeah. Okay, now, what about, is it more noble to learn from the, you know? Yeah. To the second, it should be said that the one who learns from man does not take immediately his knowledge from the understandable forms, which are in the mind of the other one. But by means of, what? Sensible vocal sounds, no words, which are the science of intellectual conceptions, huh? I was reading Julius Caesar there, you know, and Romans, friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. So what a beautiful way of, you know, saying that rather than say, you know, listen, yeah. Lend me your ears. Isn't that a much more vivid, concrete way of, you're more apt to pay attention to somebody who says, lend me your ear, right? Isn't that beautiful? Isn't that beautiful? Isn't that beautiful the way those things are said? If you read a contemporary now or something like that, you don't want to cross any lines that you want to remember, you know? Anything that's said, oh, how well that's said, you know? You don't even have that impression, you know, huh? Now, just as vocal sounds formed by men are signs of the understandable knowledge of them, so creatures, right, created by God are signs of his wisdom. Whence it says in the book of Ecclesiasticus that God poured his wisdom over all his what? Works. That's like the second definition of nature, the tecanic says, around something of an art and things whereby they'll move to their end. Just, therefore, as it is more worthy to be taught by God than by men, right? So it is more worthy to get knowledge from sensible creatures. Thank you. then to the, what? Yeah. It's very impressive. I think you respect St. Andrews because the philosophers from Alexandria went out to see him in the books and I said, well, where's your books? And he pointed to the matrix. This is my book. Now to the third objection of a patoctinid. When you learn from another man, otherwise he's progressing, right? From lesser knowledge to more knowledge. To the third it should be said that Christ went forward in experimental knowledge just as he did in age. And just as an opportune age requires, it's required in order that man might get knowledge by what? Recovery. So also that he might get knowledge by what? By learning from another. And the Lord did nothing, did not fit his age, right? And therefore, hearing the, what? Speeches of teaching. He did not accommodate his hearing except in that time which he was able through, what? The road of experience to attain that grade of, what? Science, right? Once Gregory says upon Ezekiel, in the twelfth year of age, he was, what? Yeah. Men on earth who, according to the use of reason, did not, what? Sub-petit. What is that? Sub-petit. In the twelfth year of age, he deigned to question men on earth and in the course of reason, the word of doctrine did not work safe before the age of perfection. I guess he's saying because he didn't do it until the age of 12, right? He had to, you know? Be sufficient for him. So that's that. Men he wasn't there. He was, he was adequate to his age. So is he saying that because of his age, had he been at the age of reason, meaning, say, 18 or 21 or something like that, that he wouldn't be able to question men? He wouldn't have gone there to the temple at the age of five or something like that, right? But the age of 12 is what? That's when they, the, the... Yeah. They come of age under the law. So it's an appropriateness at that age that he did it. Yeah. Take a little break now? It seems that Christ got knowledge from the angels, for it is said in Luke 22 that the angel appeared to Christ from heaven comforting him, or comfortatze could be strengthening him too, right? But comforting or strengthening comes about through the exhortoria words, right? The urging words of the one teaching. According to that of Job chapter 4, behold, you have what? Taught many and you have strengthened weak hands. You have confirmed the vacillating with your speeches, huh? Therefore Christ was taught by the angels. Moreover, Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the celestial heartbreak, for I see Jesus himself, right? Coming to what? Coming in an unchanging way to us, right? Okay. Obediently being subject to the Father and to the formations through the angels. Yeah, a little funny grammar there. What does it say? Obediently being subject to what? Well, I see that in Jesus, the super substantial substance of super celestial substances. But the second part there was, I mean, obedient there, right? He is subject, right? Through the formation, through angelic? Formations. He is subject to the formations of the Father and God through the angels, right? The angels in between. It seems, therefore, that Christ was, what? No. Wished to be subject to the ordination of the divine law, to which men are. So, just as the human, and the third objection, just as the human body in a natural order is subject to the celestial bodies, so also the human mind to the angelic minds. But the body of Christ was subject to the impressions of the celestial bodies, for he suffered heat in the summer and cold in the winter, just as the other human passions. Therefore, his mind was subject to the illuminations of the super celestial spirits. But, again, this is what Dionysius says in the seventh chapter of the celestial hierarchy, that the highest angels to Jesus himself make, what? Question them. And they, what? Learn, right? The knowledge of his divine operation for us, right? And Jesus, without any immediate teachers, never mind. So they were stupefied by God becoming man, right? And they would even ask this man here to explain what this is all about. But it's not of the same to teach and to be taught. Therefore, Christ did not get knowledge from the angels. I answer, it should be said, that the human soul, as it is a middle between the spiritual substances and bodily things, He's on the, I think Arab philosophers say, He's on the horizon, not between the material world and immaterial world. So, in two ways, he is apt to be perfected. In one way, through a knowledge taken from sensible things, and in another way, by a knowledge poured in or pressed upon him from the enlightenment of spiritual substances. And in both ways, the soul of Christ was perfect. From sensible things, according to his experiential knowledge, for which there is not required the, what? Angelic light, but suffices the light of the agent's light. From the impression of a superior one, according to the infused knowledge, which is immediately gotten from God and not from the angels. Just as above the common way of creatures, his soul was united to the word in unity of a person. So, above the common mode of men, immediately, by the word of God, he was filled with, what? Knowledge and grace, huh? Not by the angels in between, who also, from the flowing end of the word, receive the knowledge of things in their, what? The beginning, as in the second book of Genesis to the letter, Gustav says, huh? So, both it is infused knowledge, and it is, what? Experiential knowledge, huh? The one who uses the age intellect, which is sufficient, given its most excellent gift, right? We've got to be fortified by the angels. So, you don't have this gift in the most excellent way. And then, in terms of infused knowledge, he gets it directly from God, just as the angels get their infused knowledge from God, right? So, he doesn't need to get it to the angels. He's like, in between, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, when we, in this case, in middle... Middle angel. Now, the first one, what about this being comforting, huh? To the first effort should be said, that that comfortatio, that comforting or strengthening of the angels, was not by way of instruction, but to showing the, what? Was proper to human nature, huh? Whence Bid says, upon Luke, in the, what? Of both natures. Yes. The angels ministered to him, and they said to have, what? Comfort him. Comfort him. For the creator, need the reciting of the creature, but having been made a man, just as an account of us he has said, so an account of us he has, what? Yeah. That, in us, the faith and belief in his incarnation might be confirmed, huh? Yeah. So, are we supposed to be consoled by the angels then, huh? Don't tell your garden angel, I'm sad today, or I'm worn out or something, and you must be amused at us, huh? The second it should be said, the Dionysius says that Christ was subject to the angelic formations, not by reason of himself, but by reason of those things which were done about his incarnation, and about the ministration constituted in his, what? Speechless age. Yes, infantile age. Mm-hmm. And again, the return to Judea from Egypt, right? So the angels. So it's there, and you can do that, right? Yeah. And some of that pertains to the incarnation, right? Yeah, yeah. Because Joseph is... He was speechless, but the infant means he's not able to speak, so... Mm-hmm. So according to his age, he wouldn't have told Joseph. Yeah. The third one, saying, well, his body was subject to the sun and the moon and so on. The third should be said that the Son of God assumed a, what? Able to suffer body, right? As will be said below. You get into the defects, right, that he received. Or we took on, co-assumed. And therefore, his body was suitably subject to the, what? Impression of the celestial bodies, huh? But his soul was not subject to the, what? Impression of the celestial spirits, huh? The next question is, isn't it? Next. Did Thomas believe that... Well, they act upon, they can affect our body directly, yeah, they can't act upon our mind or our will directly, but indirectly they influence the effect they have upon the body. One practical example, that New York City ambulance people have a legend, and I don't know if empirically it's borne out, but they say that during the summers when there's a full moon, all the lunatics come out of the woodwork, and that's when they get the craziest of all calls. That's what lunatics mean. Right, yeah, exactly. But I don't know if it's really been proven, but that's what they all say. They say that it moves the chemicals in your body just like it moves the tide, you know, the moon's gravity pulls the tide that it does something to your, you know, physical condition. That's a theory. I guess Ptolemy, Ptolemy has got, you know, the different plans and how they influence different things, you know. Yeah, that's the idea behind astronomy. Yeah, I think I've seen it to another level. Yeah, right. But Thomas did, he did a commentary on meteorology of... Christology, yeah. Yeah. And what is that about? Is that, you know, what is that... No, that's more of the intermediary things, you know. The day Chela at Mundo is more about the heavenly bodies. Yeah, it's more about the things between heaven and earth, you know, creating, you know, lightning and things like this sort. Thomas is actually, they say, afraid of lightning because his sister had been killed by lightning. Quite a lot. But his sister, so he's supposed to be a little bit nervous about this lightning. And I've told this story before by some farmer in Missouri, I don't remember exactly, but he was out in the field. Mules were common out there, at least they were back then. And a farmer had a mule, he was plowing his field or something. And a storm came along suddenly and the lightning struck the mule. Didn't kill it, but it struck it down, bang, just right down on the ground. It got up and it got there. But whenever he'd go back in that field and plow that field, the mule, every time he got to that spot, he'd go, he wouldn't walk in that way. He learned his lesson. He said, last time I was there, boy. I remember. Sense memory. When I was a little, my cat tried to jump on the stove, you know, and his pot, the burner, he didn't really get hurt, but he never tried to go in that stove again. He learned his lesson, you know, not the place to go. So, he's not saying, you know, cooking at the stove, my mother was cooking, you know, and he thought he'd get up there and get a little bit of it. It's like that old saying, the front of the clock teaches best. I guess you can do a little bit of that. Sure. Power. Remember in this treatise on the co-assumptis, co-assumpti, things taken on with the body and soul, it was divided into three, right? Wasn't it grace and knowledge and power, yeah. So, this is the thing we're meaning here. Then we're not to consider about the power of the soul of Christ. And about this, four things are asked. First, whether he had omnipotence, simply speaking, huh? So, teach it there. Secondly, whether he had omnipotence with respect to bodily creatures, huh? Third, whether he had omnipotence with respect to his own body. And fourth, whether he had omnipotence with respect to the carrying out of his own will. Curious, huh? But let's look at least at the first article here. Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence, huh? To the first one goes forward thus. It seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence. For Ambrose says upon Luke, the power of which the Son of God had naturally, the man from time or in time would, what? Receive, yeah. But this is especially seen according to the soul, which is the more potent part of man. Since, therefore, the Son of God from eternity had omnipotence, it seems that the soul of Christ in time, or extemporary, would take on omnipotence, huh? Moreover, just as the power of God is infinite, so also is his, what? Knowledge. But the soul of Christ had knowledge of all those things which God knows in some way, huh? We didn't know everything that God knows. We didn't know all the things that God knows by his scienciae visionis. I think that's what he maintained, huh? Therefore, also, he had all power, and thus he is, what? Omnipotent, huh? Moreover, the soul of Christ had all knowledge, but of all the treasures, huh? But some of the knowledges or sciences are practical, and some are speculative. Therefore, he had of those things which he knew a practical, what? Knowledge. That he knew how to make those things which he knew. And thus it seems that he is able to, what? Do all things. But against all this is that it's private to God, what is private to God or proper to God is not able to belong to some creature. But it is private to God, right? To be omnipotent, according to that in Exodus chapter 15. This is my God, and I glorify him, right? And afterwards, he's subjoined. Omnipotent is his, what? Name. And so it has a prominence there in the creed there. I believe in God the Father, God the Almighty. Almighty, we see in English. Therefore, the soul of Christ, since he is a, what, creature, does not have, what, omnipotence, huh? That's why Thomas in that communion prayer, he kind of like addressed the person of God the Father, and he speaks of everything omnipotent, right? There's many reasons why that's appropriate to the Father, although it's not. He's alone, obviously. Because he's the beginning of the other person, so someone in power is the beginning. I answer, Thomas says, it should be said, as has been said above, that in the mystery of the Incarnation, in such a way was the union made in the person, right, that nevertheless there remained a distinction of natures. To wit, both natures retaining what was private or proper to it. Now, the active power of each thing follows upon its form, which is the beginning of acting. Now, the form is either the nature of the thing itself, in simple things, or it is, what, constituting the nature of the thing, effecting it, completing it, in those things which are put together from matter and form. Whence it is manifest that the active power of each thing follows upon its, what, nature. And in this way, omnipotence has itself as a consequence of the divine nature. It has itself consequentially to the divine nature. How's that for a translation? Because the divine nature is ipsum, to be, the to be of God in circumscriptum. And reading through the golden chain there, you know, Christ will say, I am. And some of the church fathers say, well, he's telling them that he's God. You know, I know these scriptures cause to say, well, when you say, I am, he means me. But it also has this other sense, I am, right? Which is, you know, more the way we look at the words themselves in the Greek idiom, right? It makes context in the sense of the context there that he's saying, I'm God. So because the divine nature is to be itself, on being itself, on what? Yeah. A line drawn around it. Yeah, a line drawn around it. As is clear through Dionysius in the fifth chapter, the divine names. Hence it is that the, what? But he has an active power with respect to everything that can have the notion of, what? Being. And that's what it means to have, innipotence. That's why he can't make courage. Can God make a square circle? That's opposed to the very notion of being, right? Now, as little, that was always the thing that they would say, you know. Catch the Catholic boy, you know. Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it? Well, it seems to have every answer, you've got even a problem there, right? But that's really a contradiction, right? A stone so big that God could not lift it. That's a contradiction. It's like a square circle, right? So God could not make a square circle, but that's not a, what? Lessening of his power, right? Because that isn't anything. That's to make nothing, right? Fine, that's a court description. Yeah. I'm quoting Ralph McInerney on divine omnipotence, right? Just as every other thing has an act of power with respect to those things to which the perfection of its nature extends, right? Just as the hot to, what? Eating. Since, therefore, the soul of Christ is a part of human nature, it's impossible. Does that soul have, what? Omnipotence. Omnipotence is simply there, huh? Okay, now, what about the first objection that says, hey, that man has from time what the Son of God has naturally? Well, that's because of the union of the person, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that man gets in time the omnipotence which the Son of God has in eternity through that union of the, what? Person, from which it is made that just as the man is said to be, what? God. So he is said to be, what? Yeah. Not as it were by another omnipotence of the man than that of the, what? Son of God. Just as not by another deity, right? But from this, that there is one person of God and man. So you can say of the man, the things that belong to this person for reason of his divine nature, and vice versa. So you can say God died for us. And you can say this man is what? Yeah. But not for reason of his human nature did he create the world. Or did he die for reason of his divine nature, but of his human nature? The second objection is called a long, my goodness, a long reply. So even the man who exemplifies brevity, right, has to repeat. This is talking about, well, didn't he have this kind of infinity in his knowledge, right? Why not also in his power, right? Now to the second, it should be said that there is another reason about knowledge and about an act of power. As some say, right? Whatever these guys are. For the act of power follows upon the nature of the thing. In that the action is considered as going forth from the, what? Agent. But knowledge is not always had through the essence of the one knowing. But it can be had through the likening of the one knowing to the thing known, according to likenesses received, huh? Okay? Like we know ourself, through our images and so on, always receiving likenesses of things, huh? But this reason does not seem to be, what? Sufficient. Because just as someone is able to know through a likeness received from another, so he's able to act by a form received from, what? Another, huh? And you priests should know something about that, huh? Just as water or iron heats through heat received from the fire, huh? That's a simple enough example, right? My teacher, Kassari, could say, you can tell man's understanding by the examples he chooses, the examples he gives, huh? Therefore, not through this, huh? Is it prevented, right? That just as the soul of Christ, through likenesses of all things, poured into him from God, is able to know all things, so through the same likeness, he is able to do them, right? So we've got to consider something further to see this one. Therefore, it should be considered further that that which is, what? From a superior nature is received in the lower one, but it is had through the, what? Way of the inferior. Whatever is received is received according to the more the receiver. So receiving the teaching of Thomas in this class, equally, all of us? Some are receiving it more fully than others, huh? For heat is not received in the same perfection and power by water as it is in the, what? Fire, huh? You can still scald yourself, but yeah. Not quite as hot as the fire. Because therefore the soul of Christ was of a lower nature than the divine nature, right? The likeness of things are not received in the soul of Christ according to the same perfection and power as they are in the, what? Divine nature. And hence it is that the knowledge of the soul of Christ is lower than the divine knowledge. Lower than the knowledge that he has as God, huh? As far as the, what? Way of knowing. Because God knows more perfectly than the soul of Christ. Both as regards the number of things known, right? Because the soul of Christ does not know all those things which God is able to make, right? Which nevertheless God does know by what is called the knowledge of simple understanding. Although he does know all the things present, past, and future which God knows by what is called the knowledge of vision, right? And likewise the likenesses of things of the soul poured into the soul of Christ do not equal the divine power in, what? Acting. That he is able to do, or they are able to do all things which God is able to do, right? Or also in that way to act as God acts, who acts with infinite power of which the creature is not capable. But no thing to the knowledge of which in some way there is, to the knowledge of which having is required infinite power, although in some way of knowing is of a, what? Infinite power. But there are some things which it cannot be done except by infinite power as creation, right? And as of this sort, as is clear from those things which are said in the first part. And therefore the soul of Christ, since it be a creature, and of a limited, what? Power. Is able to know all things, but not in every way. Is not able to do all things which pertains to the notion of omnipotence. And among other things, is manifest that is not able to, what? Pray himself. That's a mouthful, Thomas, there. One of the characters is saying, Shakespeare, you don't have to chew on this, you know. You don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on this, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to chew on it, you don't have to And the footnote there in The Legend of Shakespeare is quoting Bacon saying, some books are to be read and chewed, right? And this is true of Thomas, huh? Chewing these things. And you get how juicy they are and tasty, you know? But what Socrates calls a feast of reason, right? Delicious things to chew on in there. If you read them so officially, I mean, you're not going to really appreciate them, huh? Wisdom is what kind of knowledge, savory knowledge, right? If I drank wine, if I drank Whitberry, I mean, I would appreciate the wine, you know? I've got to go to the sides of the mouth and breathe over it and so on. Savor it, you know? That's what you have to read these things, you know? Sapida Shensia. That's why I say it's a marvelous Shakespeare there, right? When Romulus says, come, bitter conduct. Come, unsavory guide. It means foolish guide, huh? Put the ship on the rocks and so on. It's going to take his life. Christ had all knowledge, he says, huh? Doesn't that include practical knowledge then? To the third, it should be said that the soul of Christ had both a practical knowledge and a, what? Spectative knowledge. Nevertheless, it was not necessary that he had, what? A practical knowledge of all those things of which he had a, what? Spectative knowledge. For the speculative or looking knowledge having, it suffices conformity alone, right? Or the likening of the one knowing to the thing known. But for practical knowledge, it's required forms of things in the understanding that are, what? That are able to make, right? Yeah, yeah. Now there's more to have a form and to press that form had in another than only to have the form. Just as there's more to, what? Light and illuminate than only to, what? Shine. To shine, yeah. I mean shine is a good way to say. And hence it is that the soul of Christ had a speculative knowledge of creating, right? Because he knew in what way God created, but he did not have the practical knowledge of this because he did not have a knowledge that was productive of creation, huh? Can I go back just a second? And this is like a definition of speculative knowledge? Is that a knower? No, he's just touching upon the distinction between speculative and practical knowledge, right? There are other places where he goes into what this difference is. But you first distinguish these by their ends, huh? Because the purpose of looking knowledge or speculative knowledge is something to understand, right? And the purpose of practical knowledge is to make or to do. So Aristotle in the ethics theory, you know, he speaks of who is an unsuitable hero of these matters. And it can be because you lack experience to judge these things or because you have no desire to live in accordance with reason. And so he says that man is like the guy who listens to medical advice and says you've got to lose some weight, you've got to do some exercise, but you're not willing to do that. So you're a useless hero of medical advice. And Aristotle, being the son of a very excellent physician, right, must have known about this. Well, we all know about this, you know. And we don't follow the advice, right? My friend Jim there, he was a smoker, you know, and his lung collapsed. And the doctor told him to give up smoking, he refused to. Wow. So, you know, he's a useless hero of this piece of medical advice, you know, which seems kind of reasonable in the circumstances, huh? He said, Father, I would always tell this story. He was in a monastery and he was doing some hospital visits. And then he comes to the ladies room and she has all these tubes in her and whatnot. And he asked her if he could do anything for her. And she says, Father, when I really need you, I'll let you know. And the other one is, he says, when he did some work in his psychology studies, and he went to the mental hospital. He says, when you go to some of the patients in the mental hospital, they've studied more psychology and psychiatry than the doctors have. They can tell them. Have you read this article, Dr. Raman? But it does them no good. They never apply it to themselves. They'll tell everybody what they learned. But it doesn't work for themselves. That's what the Merchant of Ed is there, you know. Portions and stuff. So that's very good for ethics there, isn't it? The two ladies are talking. Mary hath chosen the better part. The way they understand that. Christ says, Mary hath chosen the better part, and it shall not be taken away from her. It says to Martha. The looking knowledge is better, and it will not be taken away from you. It will be perfected in the next slide. By the practical knowledge, right? The knowledge of how to make a house or how to cook or something. How to sew. It can't be more necessary. It's not better. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, it will be taken away, right? In a sense. There would be a reason to practice this here. Yeah. Because there's everything you need to do. They're better than what we can do. I have students that say, you know, in the guide to the scriptural passage, they say, well, then we've got to do the practical of this life, you know, keep going on in the next life. Next time we should have the structure of knowledge, right? Once you get time to desert.