Oh, I forgot to...
I thought he left it over here.
I forgot to...
Okay, sit down.
So, we're going to launch into the prologue of St. John, which begins at the beginning
with the word.
And we're going to use St. Thomas's commentary.
On this prologue.
I'm trying to think if I should write it down.
I guess I better.
So, he's going to comment on the first verse, and the beginning is the word, and the word
was with God, and the word was God, right?
So...
So, this is when was the word.
It's all about the word, okay?
First, this is when, in the beginning.
Secondly, and the word was with God.
Okay?
Okay.
Where's the brush?
The one brush?
Yeah.
That's right.
The word was with God.
Fernley?
Oh, and now, this is...
Where?
Where's the word?
because it's all about
the word
it's the person
and the word was God
and this is
what he was
where, what
and then finally
how he was
the word was God
and he was
the word was God
and the word was God
this was in the beginning of God
but he was
God
and then finally
God
this is
and then finally
the word was God
and he was
the word was God
and this was
God
and then finally
he was
the word was God
and then finally
when someone
was approaching
he was
and then finally
So that's the order in which he's going to comment on the beginning of the prologue.
So first he talks about what it means when he talks about the word, verbum, in Latin.
What's he talking about?
Because that's what the first thing is.
In the beginning was the word.
Well, what does that mean?
The word.
What's he talking about?
Word.
So this is not obvious, but that's why we're reading this stuff, to find out things, right?
We don't know what it means.
So he's going to tell us what it means, because it means something.
In our intellect, there are three things.
The power of the intellect itself.
Yeah.
The power of the intellect itself.
The species of the thing understood, which is its form, and he kind of explains, relating
to the intellect itself in the same way that the species of color relates to the pupil
of the eye.
Okay, so you've got the power of the intellect itself, and you've got this species of the
thing that's understood.
It's the essence of the thing, the form of the thing.
Okay.
Remember, I was just talking earlier about the form that makes a thing be what it is
becomes the form of your intellect, right?
That's what it is to know.
Well, that's the species.
That's what he means.
The species of the thing.
The form of the thing, which he says is like color related to the pupil of the eye, because
the color informs your pupil, so you see the color.
Well, the form of the thing informs your intellect, so you know it.
Okay?
You see it.
So that's the second thing.
And the third thing is the operation of the intellect.
Okay?
So you've got the intellect itself, but then you also have the operation of the intellect.
This is not the same thing in us.
In God, it is.
And that's going to be important.
But for us, there are three things, you know, there's the intellect, there's the form of
the thing that you know, and then there's the actual intellection.
Okay?
All right.
Now, this is important, and this is surprising, if you've never thought of it before.
But none of these is signified by an external word spoken aloud.
The word that we say doesn't significantly...
It doesn't signify the intellect, it doesn't signify the operation of the intellect,
and it doesn't even signify this form, because he's going to explain that information of
your intellect is not what your word signifies.
What your word signifies...
Okay?
...is what happens when these three things get together.
You've got your intellect, and you've got the thing that informs the intellect, and
then you've got the intellect that intellects.
And the fruit of that is the word.
It's the concept of your mind.
That's what it means to know.
Is it...
Okay?
It can be what it is.
It becomes the form of your intellect.
That's called a species impresa.
Then your mind does this wonderful thing, which is to know, which means it reproduces
this form.
It expresses it, and that's the species expressa.
It's the fruit of intellection.
So you've got...
Okay?
The intellect, you've got the form of the thing you understand, and then you've got
the operation of the intellect when it understands, and the result of all that is this concept.
See, when you know something, that's what you do.
You produce in your mind that concept of the thing.
So that's how the...
That's how you know.
That's what knowledge is.
So we say, therefore, that which is properly called an interior word is what the intellect
forms by understanding.
See, our exterior word, the words that we use, we pronounce, these sounds, which are
different in different languages.
These are simply exterior signs of this interior word, which is what we produce when we know
something.
So that which is thus expressed, namely formed by the soul, is called the interior word.
And so it is related to the intellect.
Not as that...
By which...
By which the intellect understands, but as that in which it understands.
Now, that's pretty deep.
It seems like a fine distinction.
But that's the difference between the spatias impressa and the spatias expressa.
The spatias impressa is simply this form that makes a thing be what it is, that becomes
the form of your intellect.
That's by which you understand.
But the fruit of the actual understanding, which results from all of this, your intellect,
the operation of the intellect on this interior form, the fruit of all that is the word.
The concept of which our exterior words are the sign.
Okay?
This is all pretty highfalutin philosophy.
Okay?
But it's not really that hard.
And this is the way it really is.
This is the philosophy of perennies, as they call it, the perennial philosophy.
This is real philosophy.
And see, he's going to...
St. John's going to use this to help us understand what in the world...
In the world this prologue means.
Thus we have the meaning of the word verbum, word.
See it's this interior word, the spatias expressa.
Secondly, from what has been said, we can conceive that the word is always something
proceeding...
Existing from an intellect that is existing in act.
Right?
Because you've got the intellect and the word proceeds from it.
Wait, it's spatias expressa.
It's expressed.
You know what that means?
Press out.
Again.
Expresso.
That's part of what it means to be a word.
And it's an exact similitude, if it's perfect inflection.
And this is the next step, which is going to help us understand, because this applies
to what we want to talk about.
And if indeed the one understanding and the thing understood are the same, so if what
the one whose understanding understands is himself, then the word is the concept and
likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds.
Okay?
So when you know something, you have this operation where you...
Expresses the likeness of it.
Well, if what you understand is yourself, then that's is a likeness of you.
Okay.
So that's in general.
Now he's going to apply it to God and show the difference between...
Okay.
So he Low15.
I tell this is how God will know.
Okay?
When God will know?
He'll know he'll heal us and him...
Our word and his word.
The first difference, according to Augustine, is in that our word is formable before it
is formed.
It passes from potency to act.
We don't know...
We don't know and then we know.
Well, obviously, in God that's not the case.
He's always knowing.
God doesn't pass from potency to act, because...
introduces paraphrase of example.
...There's a philosophical abbreviation for that.
that, because he's the first act. For anything to pass from potency to act, there has to be
something outside that gives it that act. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
That's one of the proofs of the existence of God. By movement is the first proof.
So there has to be something at the beginning, the unmoved mover,
who's not in potency to anything.
By definition is the first act, right?
So his word is not formable before it's formed, because if it was, it never would be,
because there's no way to form it, because he's the beginning. By definition, that's who God is.
So this word, which is the first act, is the first act.
What we're talking about is not formable before it's formed.
That's why it was in the beginning. It always was. He's going to explain it.
The second difference, he turned our word into the divine word, is that our word is imperfect.
But the divine word is most perfect, and he's going to explain about that, too.
It means it's equal. We saw that earlier in Dong-Yong.
It's equal to what it understands.
Because if you perform...
If you perfectly know something, well, then your concept is the same thing.
Exactly.
See, that's why I was talking this morning about faith,
and how it's only by faith that we can know God as he is in himself.
Because it's God's knowledge of himself, which becomes our knowledge.
But it's the only one who can know God is God.
And he knows himself by his word, which knows him perfectly.
So the only way we can know God truly, have the beatific vision,
is by participation in that knowledge.
The knowledge that God has of himself in his word, and that's what faith is.
And that's what the whole Gospel of St. John is all about.
That's what he says at the end, right?
I've written these things so that you can believe, and believing have eternal life.
Eternal life, which is sharing in this knowledge and love that God has of himself.
We'll see the love later, but start with knowledge.
And then finally, and this is the interesting part.
The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as ourselves.
But the divine word is of the same nature as God.
And therefore, it is something subsisting in the divine nature.
This concept that God has of himself and knowing himself is not just a concept in his head,
like it is our concept, even when we know ourselves.
It's just an idea in our head of us.
Well, it doesn't work that way with God. He's going to explain.
It's not just an idea that God has of himself.
It's something that subsists in the divine nature.
That is, it is God.
This is what we have to see.
It's going to explain.
For the concept...
Okay, now here we go.
This is really important, and it's not easy.
For the concept understood, which the intellect seems to form about something,
has only intelligible being within our soul.
When he says the concept understood,
which the intellect seems to form,
understood isn't to be taken in a passive way, but in an active way.
That is, the concept understood
which the intellect seems to form about something.
So the concept understood here, it's not that you're understanding the concept.
Usually we talk about, you know, a book that I understood.
It means I understand what the book says.
I understand the book.
Well, concept understood doesn't mean he's understood the concept.
It means the concept that's been understood,
intellecta,
it means it's been produced by the intellect.
Understood is an active sense.
It's produced.
Like we were saying, that's what happens when you know something.
You produce this concept.
So this ratio intellect...
This concept understood means the concept that's been conceived
when you know.
Okay?
And it's going to come up over and over again.
And it's really important because that's who our Lord is.
He's the concept understood of God himself.
When God knows himself, he produces this concept,
which is the word.
He understands it,
but it's the opposite sense of what we usually understand by understand.
He understands it means he produces it actively as a concept.
So the concept understood is simply the word that's been intellecta.
It's been understood that is produced.
As the speech is expressa.
It's been expressed.
Okay?
So everything he says depends on that.
So I'll read again.
For the concept understood,
which the intellect seems to form...
See, it's something that the intellect forms.
It's not that it's knowing something.
It's forming this intellect, this concept rather.
The concept understood,
which the intellect seems to form,
about something,
has only intelligible being within our soul.
See, our concept, intellecta,
is just an idea in our head.
Okay, that's what it means.
Which the intellect seems to form about something,
for us,
has only intelligible being within our soul.
It's just an idea.
But in our soul,
understanding is not the same as the soul nature.
Soul's nature.
Because the soul is not its own operation.
I'll repeat that.
But I mentioned that before.
God...
See, with us, we have our being.
We are.
And then we have an act of intelligence.
So our being,
is different from our operation.
You know, we are, and then we have an idea.
With God, it doesn't work that way.
Precisely because...
Well, how, where would he ever be able to do that?
Because he's...
There would have to be another God
who would give him the possibility
to pass from potency to knowing,
to knowing.
And by definition,
God can't be that way.
He's the first...
He's the thing that has to be at the beginning.
The unmoved mover.
So in God,
his act of knowing can't be different from him.
It's the same thing.
Okay?
It's really quite simple,
but you have to kind of do it in order.
Or you get mixed up.
But this is showing...
Well, it's showing us who our Lord really is.
So he goes on.
Therefore,
the word formed by our intellect
is not of the essence of the soul,
because
the soul's operation is not its nature.
So the word formed
is something different from the soul.
The word formed by our intellect is not of the essence of the soul,
but is an accident of it.
Right?
It's something added to it.
But in God,
to understand
and to be
are the same.
It's what I was just saying.
It's not that God is and then he has an idea.
He has an act of understanding that something
new.
Well, no.
That's impossible.
Because
where is he going to get it from?
So to understand and to be is the same thing.
And thus,
the word of the divine intellect is not something accidental.
It's not an accident,
a new thing that's added on to this being that exists
and then something new
that just kind of belongs to this thing that exists.
It's accidental.
Because that's impossible.
So the word,
is essential.
It's the same thing as him.
We're going to see there is kind of a difference.
But that's where the Trinity comes in.
But it's the same thing.
It's the same being.
The word was God.
But in God,
to understand and to be are the same thing.
And thus,
the word of the divine intellect is not something accidental,
but pertains to his very nature.
Because whatever is in the nature of God is God.
That's a principle.
Everything that is in God is God.
Because there can be no distinction.
There can't be any accidents in God.
It's all one.
Okay.
All right?
We still here?
This is kind of the hardest part.
Everything kind of follows after you get to the main idea.
Because it's always the same thing.
Once you kind of get up to this level,
it's like climbing a mountain, you know?
This is tough, hard stuff.
But once you get up to the top, it's easy.
You can see everything all around.
And it all makes sense.
But you got to go up.
Step by step.
Carefully.
Don't fall.
And you see.
Well, yeah.
It's easy.
And then everything else falls.
We're going to see.
We're going to do some text.
He has a beautiful text in the Contra Gentiles
where he explains this.
And then once he's explained it,
then he gives all these different quotes from Scripture,
and you understand what they mean.
From what has been said,
it is also clear that the Word,
capital W,
properly speaking,
is always taken personally in divine things,
since it implies only something expressed by an intellect.
Now, this means to take it personally.
Don't take it personally.
But that's not what I mean.
That's not what I mean.
It means a person.
That's the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity.
But it's a divine person, is what he's saying.
It's not just an ID in his head.
He has it.
It's God.
But what has been said,
the Word, properly speaking,
is always taken personally in divine things,
since it implies only something expressed by an intellect.
See, because the intellect,
God's intellect and his Word,
are exactly the same thing,
then the Word was God.
And there's only one God.
We're going to see this again.
But there is a difference.
There is a difference.
A relation.
Because the intellect is the principle of the Word,
and the Word comes from the intellect.
So there's this relation between the two.
But it's the same thing.
See, relation is a very funny thing.
When we study philosophy, you see it.
It's the thinnest kind of reality that exists.
Because it doesn't exist in things.
It exists between things.
But it exists.
It's one of the ten twin categories of being of Aristotle.
I mean, it's real.
But it doesn't exist in things.
It's between things.
See, substances are things that exist.
Other accidents are modifications of the things.
You can have the quantity of it,
or the quality of it,
or different things.
But they always, those are,
accidents are actually in the thing.
But a relation is between things.
See, that's why you can talk about,
have some notion at least how this can happen,
where you have one thing,
and yet there's persons because there's relations.
Which doesn't change the thing.
Anyway, that's the whole mystery of the rest of the term.
I'm not going to get too far into that.
But we have to get a little bit into it,
because that's who our Lord is.
See, there's God.
And then there's the concept of God,
as he knows himself.
And it's the same thing.
But there is a difference between
the fact that this word comes from him.
So he's the principle of the word.
And the word comes from him.
So you have this relation between the principle
and what comes from it,
that direction, and also backwards.
And that's who they are, the persons.
Even though there's one God.
They're what's called subsisting relations.
They're relations which subsist.
They exist as real things.
Okay, anyway.
Likewise,
it's clear that
the word in divine things
is the likeness of the one from whom it proceeds.
Because that's what a word is.
Right?
It's the concept of what you know.
And the concept of what you know
is the likeness of what you know, right?
That's what it means.
Your idea corresponds to the thing that is.
So it's like a reflection of the thing you know.
So it's a likeness.
So the word is like the Father.
And he's perfectly like the Father.
But we're going to go into this more.
We see that in Scripture.
And if you listen to it,
listen to some of the things
that you'll hear in the reading.
Some of the things you already heard there
from Scripture,
because that's what he starts with.
Which is where this comes from, okay?
It's not Whistle and Dixie.
This is Revelation.
We don't, you know,
how are we supposed to know this?
But God's told us.
And
most people don't seem to care much, but
I mean, this is important.
And anyway, that's what I mean.
Likewise, that the word in divine things
is a likeness of the one from whom it proceeds.
And that it is co-eternal
with the one from whom it proceeds.
Since it was never merely formable
before being formed, but always an act.
This word that God has himself
has always been there.
He hasn't just sort of started one day to know himself.
He's always known himself.
So it's a likeness.
It's co-eternal.
And also it follows that
it is equal to the Father.
Since it is perfect
and expressive of the Father's entire being.
See, if the word wasn't equal to the Father,
it couldn't express the Father.
It would be an imperfect word.
Which is a blasphemy.
God knows God is perfect.
He knows himself perfectly.
So his concept of himself is equal to himself.
Or it wouldn't be perfect.
And that it is equal to the Father
since it is perfect and expressive
of the Father's entire being.
And it follows that it is co-essential
and consubstantial with the Father.
Now this is another step.
And that it is co-essential
and consubstantial with the Father
since it is his substance.
Because we just said it's one thing.
His knowledge of himself is perfect.
So it's the same thing.
Again, it's not something added on to him.
So we're going to see in Scripture,
he used the word,
well you've seen it already,
the mirror.
It's just a mirror.
The word is a mirror of him.
But it's the same thing.
It is also evident that in any nature,
that which proceeds
and has the likeness of the nature
from which it proceeds
is called a son.
And since this word proceeds
and the likeness and identity of the nature
of the one from whom it proceeds,
it is fittingly and properly called son.
And its production is properly called generation.
And that's another step.
But this word,
because we've seen it has the same nature as God,
so it's called a son
because that's what a son is.
It's something that proceeds
in the likeness and identity of nature.
Something proceeds
in the likeness at the same level of nature.
You know,
something that proceeds from something
and it's the same thing.
If it's a dog, it becomes a dog or whatever.
It's a son.
And we just saw that that's what the word is.
It's in the likeness and identity of nature.
And not even just specifically,
but numerically the same nature.
You know, when a dog proceeds from a dog,
well, it's the likeness of nature, okay,
but it's not the same thing.
Whereas here, it's the same thing.
We're going to talk about that.
It's specifically the same
because the word is God,
but it's the same thing.
It's the same God.
There's only one God.
And the word is God with his Father.
See, that's why we say in the beginning was the word
and the word was with God.
So he's different from them.
And yet the word was God
because he's the same.
He has the same nature.
But there's a distinction.
That's what St. John is saying.
That's what he means.
And so it's called a generation.
Unigenitus, a patre.
He's the only begotten
because he's a son.
You know, a being that proceeds from another
as a son, well,
then this process is a generation.
Oh, my God, okay.
Wow, that took a long time.
Well, we covered a lot of ground.
Well, a little more time.
Well, he explains why he began with the Son
instead of the Father.
You know, we said in the beginning was the word.
Well, wait a minute.
If the word comes from the Father,
why doesn't it begin with the Father?
Right?
That's the question.
The answer?
Because through the Son,
we are led to knowledge of the Father.
So we have to start with the Son
to know the Father.
As it's said later in John 17,
Father, I have manifested your name
to the men whom you gave me.
See, we're among these people.
We're among the men that God gave to his Son
so that we would know.
He's manifested the Father to us.
There's a beautiful phrase from Toller.
Remember we read Toller?
Remember we read Toller last year or the year before?
He's commenting on...
Our Lord said the same thing in Saint Matthew.
No one knows the Son but the Father
and no one knows the Father but the Son
and him to whom the Son will reveal him.
It's by the Son that we know the Father.
So that's why he mentions him first.
And Toller comments,
what no one can say,
what we can't even conceive,
is the gentleness and love
with which the eternal Son of God
opens the door of his Father's heart to us.
The tenderness with which he reveals incessantly
the treasures hidden in this impenetrable sanctuary,
the infinite riches of this divine abode.
You remember Toller.
He goes on and on and stuff like that.
That's Toller.
But that's true.
The second question.
Why did he say word and not Son at the beginning?
Because we saw he's the Son
and that's usually when we talk about the Father,
the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Why did he say word?
Well, first he said,
well, we might...
If he said Son,
I think it was a normal kind of generation
that we usually think of.
And that's not the case.
So we rather say the word first,
so we understand this is not
a carnal generation like us.
But secondly,
he says he was about to treat the word
in as much as he came to manifest the Father.
That's what the whole gospel is about.
Hence, since the notion of manifestation
is more strongly conveyed in the term word
than in the term Son,
he more appropriately used the term word.
Okay.
Then he explains...
That's about...
We're still trying to figure out
this term word.
Then he has to explain
the rest of that first little section.
In the beginning...
And in the beginning was the word.
What does this in beginning mean?
In principio?
Well, he says in principio can mean two things.
It can mean in the principle was the word.
And in that case,
it would mean that the word was in the Father.
He's the principle.
He's the principle of the Father.
The Father...
The Son comes from the Father.
So the Father is the principle.
So you can interpret that in meaning
in principio,
means that the word was in the principle,
meaning in the Father.
Or you can interpret as meaning
in the principle of time,
in the beginning of time.
That's usually how it's understood.
So the word was in the beginning of time.
Okay?
He was already there, in other words.
He didn't start.
And we'll see that comes up later
against the Aryans.
You know, the heretics had said
the Son was not equal to God.
And they said...
One of Arya's famous phrases,
there was a time when he was not.
Which is blasphemous,
but that's what he said.
And he said, well, that's against this.
Because in the beginning, he was already.
We were reading before, he was.
He didn't start.
He just always was.
In the beginning, he was.
So then he has some objections.
A principle exists before it acts,
so the Father must have existed before the Son.
Also, an action itself has succession.
A fire burns from the bottom up.
So there's some succession involved.
And lastly,
the duration of what comes from the principle
is determined by the will of the principle.
So if the Father is the principle of the Son,
well, then his duration depends on the principle,
says the objection.
It's all basically the same Aryan heresy.
And he answered, well, none of these happen
in our case of the Word.
Because God did not first begin to exist
and then generate the Word.
Because he always knew himself.
And so he always produced the Word.
And that's the word that theologians word.
You can talk about the Word being produced.
Because the Father is the principle of the Son.
He's not created, but he's produced.
That's the terms they use.
There's no succession,
because God doesn't take time to figure something out.
He doesn't cogitate, is the word they use in philosophy.
He just knows.
He doesn't have a process of thinking it over.
He knows immediately.
And so the Word is there.
Always.
It didn't take some time.
And finally, about the duration,
it's not here determined by the will of the principle,
because the Father knows himself naturally.
It's not something he decided to do one day.
Or even for maternity.
It's natural for him to know himself.
So it's natural for him to have a son.
For God the Father, understanding himself,
conceives the Word.
And so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son.
Against the Aryans.
And he gives an example.
An example of this appears, in a limited degree, in fire.
And in the brightness issuing from it.
And this is an image that the fathers of the church use.
The fire and the brightness that issues from the fire.
For this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire.
So that's an image of the generation of the Son.
He proceeds naturally and without succession.
You don't have the fire and then kind of wait around.
Well then the light comes.
No, it's simultaneous.
And again, if the fire were eternal, its brightness would be co-eternal with it.
This is why the Son is called the brightness of the Father.
And here we get one of the texts we're going to see later.
From Saint Paul.
Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3.
Where he's called the brightness of his glory.
The splendor of his glory.
One of the phrases that Saint Paul uses to describe our Lord Jesus Christ.
So it says, brightness is co-eternal.
But, this example lacks an illustration of the identity of nature.
Because rightness doesn't have the same nature as the fire.
So this example works from one side, but it doesn't work from that side.
This is why the Son is called, I'm sorry.
But this example lacks an illustration of the identity of nature.
And so we call him Son.
Which shows the identity of nature that we were just talking about.
And so we call him Son.
Although in human Sonship, we do not find co-eternity.
So to express co-eternity, we have to call him the brightness of his glory.
But to express the fact that he's the same nature, we have to call him Son.
We have to use different words to express different things.
One word won't say the whole thing.
And then he quotes the Council of Ephesus.
Which is the council that proclaimed the divine maternity.
That our Lady was Mother of God.
Which says that the Son always co-exists with the Father.
For brightness indicates his unchangeability.
Birth points to the word himself.
The conception.
You know, word is conceived.
It's a conception.
But the name Son suggests his consenstantiality.
And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection.
Which cannot be expressed by one name.
We call him Son to show that he's of the same nature as the Father.
We call him Image to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way.
We'll see there's texts of St. Paul which call him an image.
The image of God.
We call him Brightness to show that he is co-eternal.
And he is called the Word to show that he is begotten in an immaterial manner.
Like a word is conceived.
But it's not a material conception.
It's an immaterial conception.
Okay.
Are we all right?
Are we following?
I know this is not kid stuff.
This is reality.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
Amen.