[ 0 → 6] Oh, I forgot to... [ 6 → 8] I thought he left it over here. [ 30 → 60] I forgot to... [ 60 → 80] Okay, sit down. [ 90 → 107] So, we're going to launch into the prologue of St. John, which begins at the beginning [ 107 → 112] with the word. [ 112 → 117] And we're going to use St. Thomas's commentary. [ 120 → 123] On this prologue. [ 123 → 138] I'm trying to think if I should write it down. [ 138 → 138] I guess I better. [ 150 → 159] So, he's going to comment on the first verse, and the beginning is the word, and the word [ 159 → 162] was with God, and the word was God, right? [ 162 → 167] So... [ 180 → 190] So, this is when was the word. [ 190 → 192] It's all about the word, okay? [ 192 → 195] First, this is when, in the beginning. [ 195 → 207] Secondly, and the word was with God. [ 207 → 208] Okay? [ 208 → 209] Okay. [ 209 → 210] Okay. [ 210 → 210] Okay. [ 210 → 210] Okay. [ 210 → 213] Where's the brush? [ 213 → 214] The one brush? [ 214 → 214] Yeah. [ 214 → 215] That's right. [ 215 → 215] The word was with God. [ 215 → 215] Fernley? [ 215 → 216] Fernley? [ 216 → 226] Oh, and now, this is... [ 227 → 230] Where? [ 230 → 240] Where's the word? [ 240 → 244] because it's all about [ 244 → 246] the word [ 246 → 247] it's the person [ 247 → 260] and the word was God [ 260 → 267] and this is [ 267 → 268] what he was [ 268 → 281] where, what [ 281 → 282] and then finally [ 282 → 284] how he was [ 284 → 288] the word was God [ 288 → 291] and he was [ 291 → 292] the word was God [ 292 → 294] and the word was God [ 294 → 295] this was in the beginning of God [ 295 → 297] but he was [ 297 → 298] God [ 298 → 300] and then finally [ 300 → 301] God [ 313 → 316] this is [ 316 → 317] and then finally [ 317 → 318] the word was God [ 318 → 319] and he was [ 319 → 320] the word was God [ 320 → 323] and this was [ 323 → 324] God [ 324 → 324] and then finally [ 324 → 326] he was [ 326 → 327] the word was God [ 327 → 327] and then finally [ 327 → 328] when someone [ 328 → 328] was approaching [ 328 → 328] he was [ 328 → 328] and then finally [ 328 → 343] So that's the order in which he's going to comment on the beginning of the prologue. [ 343 → 352] So first he talks about what it means when he talks about the word, verbum, in Latin. [ 352 → 354] What's he talking about? [ 354 → 356] Because that's what the first thing is. [ 356 → 357] In the beginning was the word. [ 357 → 358] Well, what does that mean? [ 358 → 359] The word. [ 359 → 360] What's he talking about? [ 360 → 361] Word. [ 361 → 374] So this is not obvious, but that's why we're reading this stuff, to find out things, right? [ 374 → 375] We don't know what it means. [ 375 → 381] So he's going to tell us what it means, because it means something. [ 381 → 386] In our intellect, there are three things. [ 386 → 388] The power of the intellect itself. [ 388 → 388] Yeah. [ 388 → 391] The power of the intellect itself. [ 391 → 400] The species of the thing understood, which is its form, and he kind of explains, relating [ 400 → 406] to the intellect itself in the same way that the species of color relates to the pupil [ 406 → 407] of the eye. [ 407 → 412] Okay, so you've got the power of the intellect itself, and you've got this species of the [ 412 → 413] thing that's understood. [ 413 → 416] It's the essence of the thing, the form of the thing. [ 416 → 417] Okay. [ 417 → 422] Remember, I was just talking earlier about the form that makes a thing be what it is [ 422 → 426] becomes the form of your intellect, right? [ 426 → 427] That's what it is to know. [ 427 → 429] Well, that's the species. [ 429 → 430] That's what he means. [ 430 → 431] The species of the thing. [ 431 → 438] The form of the thing, which he says is like color related to the pupil of the eye, because [ 438 → 441] the color informs your pupil, so you see the color. [ 441 → 444] Well, the form of the thing informs your intellect, so you know it. [ 444 → 445] Okay? [ 445 → 446] You see it. [ 446 → 452] So that's the second thing. [ 452 → 455] And the third thing is the operation of the intellect. [ 455 → 456] Okay? [ 456 → 461] So you've got the intellect itself, but then you also have the operation of the intellect. [ 461 → 465] This is not the same thing in us. [ 465 → 467] In God, it is. [ 467 → 471] And that's going to be important. [ 471 → 476] But for us, there are three things, you know, there's the intellect, there's the form of [ 476 → 481] the thing that you know, and then there's the actual intellection. [ 481 → 482] Okay? [ 482 → 483] All right. [ 483 → 493] Now, this is important, and this is surprising, if you've never thought of it before. [ 493 → 503] But none of these is signified by an external word spoken aloud. [ 503 → 506] The word that we say doesn't significantly... [ 506 → 514] It doesn't signify the intellect, it doesn't signify the operation of the intellect, [ 514 → 526] and it doesn't even signify this form, because he's going to explain that information of [ 526 → 533] your intellect is not what your word signifies. [ 533 → 535] What your word signifies... [ 535 → 536] Okay? [ 536 → 541] ...is what happens when these three things get together. [ 541 → 545] You've got your intellect, and you've got the thing that informs the intellect, and [ 545 → 550] then you've got the intellect that intellects. [ 550 → 555] And the fruit of that is the word. [ 555 → 560] It's the concept of your mind. [ 560 → 563] That's what it means to know. [ 563 → 564] Is it... [ 564 → 565] Okay? [ 565 → 567] It can be what it is. [ 567 → 568] It becomes the form of your intellect. [ 568 → 573] That's called a species impresa. [ 573 → 584] Then your mind does this wonderful thing, which is to know, which means it reproduces [ 584 → 585] this form. [ 585 → 590] It expresses it, and that's the species expressa. [ 590 → 592] It's the fruit of intellection. [ 592 → 594] So you've got... [ 594 → 595] Okay? [ 595 → 602] The intellect, you've got the form of the thing you understand, and then you've got [ 602 → 609] the operation of the intellect when it understands, and the result of all that is this concept. [ 609 → 613] See, when you know something, that's what you do. [ 613 → 620] You produce in your mind that concept of the thing. [ 620 → 623] So that's how the... [ 623 → 624] That's how you know. [ 624 → 628] That's what knowledge is. [ 628 → 644] So we say, therefore, that which is properly called an interior word is what the intellect [ 644 → 646] forms by understanding. [ 646 → 652] See, our exterior word, the words that we use, we pronounce, these sounds, which are [ 652 → 654] different in different languages. [ 654 → 661] These are simply exterior signs of this interior word, which is what we produce when we know [ 661 → 668] something. [ 668 → 676] So that which is thus expressed, namely formed by the soul, is called the interior word. [ 676 → 681] And so it is related to the intellect. [ 681 → 682] Not as that... [ 682 → 683] By which... [ 683 → 688] By which the intellect understands, but as that in which it understands. [ 688 → 690] Now, that's pretty deep. [ 690 → 694] It seems like a fine distinction. [ 694 → 700] But that's the difference between the spatias impressa and the spatias expressa. [ 700 → 705] The spatias impressa is simply this form that makes a thing be what it is, that becomes [ 705 → 709] the form of your intellect. [ 709 → 712] That's by which you understand. [ 712 → 719] But the fruit of the actual understanding, which results from all of this, your intellect, [ 719 → 728] the operation of the intellect on this interior form, the fruit of all that is the word. [ 728 → 736] The concept of which our exterior words are the sign. [ 736 → 740] Okay? [ 740 → 741] This is all pretty highfalutin philosophy. [ 741 → 742] Okay? [ 742 → 746] But it's not really that hard. [ 746 → 754] And this is the way it really is. [ 754 → 759] This is the philosophy of perennies, as they call it, the perennial philosophy. [ 759 → 767] This is real philosophy. [ 767 → 768] And see, he's going to... [ 768 → 771] St. John's going to use this to help us understand what in the world... [ 771 → 777] In the world this prologue means. [ 777 → 783] Thus we have the meaning of the word verbum, word. [ 783 → 791] See it's this interior word, the spatias expressa. [ 791 → 799] Secondly, from what has been said, we can conceive that the word is always something [ 799 → 800] proceeding... [ 800 → 806] Existing from an intellect that is existing in act. [ 806 → 809] Right? [ 809 → 814] Because you've got the intellect and the word proceeds from it. [ 814 → 819] Wait, it's spatias expressa. [ 819 → 820] It's expressed. [ 820 → 823] You know what that means? [ 823 → 824] Press out. [ 824 → 825] Again. [ 825 → 826] Expresso. [ 826 → 827] Expresso. [ 827 → 828] Expresso. [ 828 → 829] Expresso. [ 829 → 830] Expresso. [ 830 → 831] Expresso. [ 831 → 832] Expresso. [ 832 → 833] Expresso. [ 833 → 834] Expresso. [ 834 → 835] Expresso. [ 835 → 836] Expresso. [ 836 → 837] Expresso. [ 837 → 838] Expresso. [ 838 → 839] Expresso. [ 839 → 840] Expresso. [ 840 → 841] Expresso. [ 841 → 842] Expresso. [ 842 → 843] Expresso. [ 843 → 844] Expresso. [ 844 → 845] Expresso. [ 845 → 846] Expresso. [ 846 → 847] Expresso. [ 847 → 848] Expresso. [ 848 → 849] Expresso. [ 849 → 850] Expresso. [ 850 → 851] Expresso. [ 851 → 852] Expresso. [ 852 → 853] Expresso. [ 853 → 854] Expresso. [ 854 → 855] Expresso. [ 855 → 856] Expresso. [ 856 → 857] Expresso. [ 857 → 858] Expresso. [ 858 → 859] Expresso. [ 859 → 865] That's part of what it means to be a word. [ 865 → 872] And it's an exact similitude, if it's perfect inflection. [ 872 → 877] And this is the next step, which is going to help us understand, because this applies [ 877 → 880] to what we want to talk about. [ 880 → 890] And if indeed the one understanding and the thing understood are the same, so if what [ 890 → 899] the one whose understanding understands is himself, then the word is the concept and [ 899 → 903] likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds. [ 903 → 904] Okay? [ 904 → 910] So when you know something, you have this operation where you... [ 910 → 913] Expresses the likeness of it. [ 913 → 924] Well, if what you understand is yourself, then that's is a likeness of you. [ 924 → 928] Okay. [ 928 → 930] So that's in general. [ 930 → 937] Now he's going to apply it to God and show the difference between... [ 937 → 938] Okay. [ 938 → 939] Okay. [ 939 → 940] Okay. [ 940 → 941] Okay. [ 941 → 942] So he Low15. [ 942 → 943] I tell this is how God will know. [ 943 → 944] Okay? [ 944 → 945] When God will know? [ 945 → 946] He'll know he'll heal us and him... [ 946 → 947] Our word and his word. [ 947 → 950] The first difference, according to Augustine, is in that our word is formable before it [ 950 → 952] is formed. [ 952 → 955] It passes from potency to act. [ 955 → 956] We don't know... [ 956 → 958] We don't know and then we know. [ 958 → 961] Well, obviously, in God that's not the case. [ 961 → 963] He's always knowing. [ 963 → 967] God doesn't pass from potency to act, because... [ 967 → 968] introduces paraphrase of example. [ 968 → 969] ...There's a philosophical abbreviation for that. [ 969 → 974] that, because he's the first act. For anything to pass from potency to act, there has to be [ 974 → 979] something outside that gives it that act. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. [ 980 → 985] That's one of the proofs of the existence of God. By movement is the first proof. [ 988 → 991] So there has to be something at the beginning, the unmoved mover, [ 992 → 996] who's not in potency to anything. [ 996 → 1003] By definition is the first act, right? [1008 → 1013] So his word is not formable before it's formed, because if it was, it never would be, [1013 → 1019] because there's no way to form it, because he's the beginning. By definition, that's who God is. [1024 → 1026] So this word, which is the first act, is the first act. [1026 → 1029] What we're talking about is not formable before it's formed. [1030 → 1035] That's why it was in the beginning. It always was. He's going to explain it. [1037 → 1041] The second difference, he turned our word into the divine word, is that our word is imperfect. [1042 → 1046] But the divine word is most perfect, and he's going to explain about that, too. [1047 → 1051] It means it's equal. We saw that earlier in Dong-Yong. [1051 → 1054] It's equal to what it understands. [1054 → 1055] Because if you perform... [1056 → 1063] If you perfectly know something, well, then your concept is the same thing. [1064 → 1064] Exactly. [1065 → 1070] See, that's why I was talking this morning about faith, [1073 → 1083] and how it's only by faith that we can know God as he is in himself. [1083 → 1090] Because it's God's knowledge of himself, which becomes our knowledge. [1092 → 1095] But it's the only one who can know God is God. [1096 → 1101] And he knows himself by his word, which knows him perfectly. [1104 → 1110] So the only way we can know God truly, have the beatific vision, [1110 → 1113] is by participation in that knowledge. [1113 → 1117] The knowledge that God has of himself in his word, and that's what faith is. [1117 → 1120] And that's what the whole Gospel of St. John is all about. [1120 → 1123] That's what he says at the end, right? [1123 → 1131] I've written these things so that you can believe, and believing have eternal life. [1131 → 1137] Eternal life, which is sharing in this knowledge and love that God has of himself. [1137 → 1142] We'll see the love later, but start with knowledge. [1143 → 1148] And then finally, and this is the interesting part. [1151 → 1158] The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as ourselves. [1159 → 1164] But the divine word is of the same nature as God. [1167 → 1172] And therefore, it is something subsisting in the divine nature. [1173 → 1180] This concept that God has of himself and knowing himself is not just a concept in his head, [1180 → 1184] like it is our concept, even when we know ourselves. [1184 → 1187] It's just an idea in our head of us. [1189 → 1192] Well, it doesn't work that way with God. He's going to explain. [1196 → 1199] It's not just an idea that God has of himself. [1199 → 1202] It's something that subsists in the divine nature. [1202 → 1205] That is, it is God. [1206 → 1208] This is what we have to see. [1208 → 1210] It's going to explain. [1215 → 1216] For the concept... [1216 → 1218] Okay, now here we go. [1219 → 1222] This is really important, and it's not easy. [1224 → 1230] For the concept understood, which the intellect seems to form about something, [1230 → 1235] has only intelligible being within our soul. [1238 → 1242] When he says the concept understood, [1243 → 1245] which the intellect seems to form, [1246 → 1255] understood isn't to be taken in a passive way, but in an active way. [1255 → 1258] That is, the concept understood [1260 → 1264] which the intellect seems to form about something. [1264 → 1268] So the concept understood here, it's not that you're understanding the concept. [1268 → 1271] Usually we talk about, you know, a book that I understood. [1271 → 1273] It means I understand what the book says. [1273 → 1275] I understand the book. [1275 → 1279] Well, concept understood doesn't mean he's understood the concept. [1279 → 1284] It means the concept that's been understood, [1285 → 1287] intellecta, [1287 → 1289] it means it's been produced by the intellect. [1289 → 1294] Understood is an active sense. [1294 → 1296] It's produced. [1296 → 1299] Like we were saying, that's what happens when you know something. [1299 → 1301] You produce this concept. [1301 → 1306] So this ratio intellect... [1306 → 1310] This concept understood means the concept that's been conceived [1310 → 1312] when you know. [1312 → 1313] Okay? [1313 → 1315] And it's going to come up over and over again. [1315 → 1318] And it's really important because that's who our Lord is. [1318 → 1320] He's the concept understood of God himself. [1320 → 1326] When God knows himself, he produces this concept, [1326 → 1328] which is the word. [1328 → 1330] He understands it, [1330 → 1334] but it's the opposite sense of what we usually understand by understand. [1334 → 1339] He understands it means he produces it actively as a concept. [1339 → 1344] So the concept understood is simply the word that's been intellecta. [1344 → 1347] It's been understood that is produced. [1348 → 1350] As the speech is expressa. [1350 → 1353] It's been expressed. [1353 → 1355] Okay? [1355 → 1357] So everything he says depends on that. [1357 → 1359] So I'll read again. [1359 → 1362] For the concept understood, [1362 → 1366] which the intellect seems to form... [1366 → 1368] See, it's something that the intellect forms. [1368 → 1370] It's not that it's knowing something. [1370 → 1374] It's forming this intellect, this concept rather. [1374 → 1376] The concept understood, [1376 → 1378] which the intellect seems to form, [1378 → 1380] about something, [1380 → 1382] has only intelligible being within our soul. [1382 → 1385] See, our concept, intellecta, [1385 → 1390] is just an idea in our head. [1390 → 1392] Okay, that's what it means. [1392 → 1395] Which the intellect seems to form about something, [1395 → 1398] for us, [1398 → 1401] has only intelligible being within our soul. [1401 → 1406] It's just an idea. [1406 → 1409] But in our soul, [1409 → 1413] understanding is not the same as the soul nature. [1413 → 1414] Soul's nature. [1414 → 1418] Because the soul is not its own operation. [1418 → 1421] I'll repeat that. [1421 → 1425] But I mentioned that before. [1425 → 1427] God... [1427 → 1429] See, with us, we have our being. [1429 → 1430] We are. [1430 → 1432] And then we have an act of intelligence. [1432 → 1434] So our being, [1434 → 1444] is different from our operation. [1444 → 1447] You know, we are, and then we have an idea. [1447 → 1449] With God, it doesn't work that way. [1449 → 1451] Precisely because... [1451 → 1454] Well, how, where would he ever be able to do that? [1454 → 1455] Because he's... [1455 → 1457] There would have to be another God [1457 → 1459] who would give him the possibility [1459 → 1462] to pass from potency to knowing, [1462 → 1463] to knowing. [1464 → 1467] And by definition, [1467 → 1469] God can't be that way. [1469 → 1470] He's the first... [1470 → 1472] He's the thing that has to be at the beginning. [1472 → 1474] The unmoved mover. [1474 → 1475] So in God, [1475 → 1478] his act of knowing can't be different from him. [1478 → 1483] It's the same thing. [1483 → 1484] Okay? [1484 → 1485] It's really quite simple, [1485 → 1487] but you have to kind of do it in order. [1487 → 1492] Or you get mixed up. [1492 → 1493] But this is showing... [1493 → 1500] Well, it's showing us who our Lord really is. [1500 → 1501] So he goes on. [1501 → 1503] Therefore, [1503 → 1506] the word formed by our intellect [1506 → 1508] is not of the essence of the soul, [1508 → 1510] because [1510 → 1513] the soul's operation is not its nature. [1513 → 1515] So the word formed [1515 → 1518] is something different from the soul. [1518 → 1521] The word formed by our intellect is not of the essence of the soul, [1521 → 1522] but is an accident of it. [1522 → 1523] Right? [1523 → 1526] It's something added to it. [1526 → 1529] But in God, [1529 → 1531] to understand [1531 → 1533] and to be [1533 → 1535] are the same. [1535 → 1537] It's what I was just saying. [1537 → 1541] It's not that God is and then he has an idea. [1541 → 1544] He has an act of understanding that something [1544 → 1545] new. [1545 → 1546] Well, no. [1546 → 1547] That's impossible. [1547 → 1548] Because [1548 → 1550] where is he going to get it from? [1552 → 1559] So to understand and to be is the same thing. [1559 → 1560] And thus, [1560 → 1564] the word of the divine intellect is not something accidental. [1564 → 1566] It's not an accident, [1566 → 1569] a new thing that's added on to this being that exists [1569 → 1571] and then something new [1571 → 1575] that just kind of belongs to this thing that exists. [1575 → 1578] It's accidental. [1578 → 1580] Because that's impossible. [1580 → 1582] So the word, [1582 → 1585] is essential. [1585 → 1589] It's the same thing as him. [1589 → 1594] We're going to see there is kind of a difference. [1594 → 1596] But that's where the Trinity comes in. [1596 → 1597] But it's the same thing. [1597 → 1599] It's the same being. [1599 → 1606] The word was God. [1606 → 1608] But in God, [1608 → 1610] to understand and to be are the same thing. [1610 → 1611] And thus, [1611 → 1614] the word of the divine intellect is not something accidental, [1614 → 1616] but pertains to his very nature. [1616 → 1621] Because whatever is in the nature of God is God. [1621 → 1622] That's a principle. [1622 → 1625] Everything that is in God is God. [1625 → 1627] Because there can be no distinction. [1627 → 1630] There can't be any accidents in God. [1630 → 1631] It's all one. [1631 → 1632] It's all one. [1641 → 1644] Okay. [1644 → 1645] All right? [1645 → 1649] We still here? [1649 → 1650] This is kind of the hardest part. [1650 → 1654] Everything kind of follows after you get to the main idea. [1654 → 1656] Because it's always the same thing. [1656 → 1659] Once you kind of get up to this level, [1659 → 1661] it's like climbing a mountain, you know? [1661 → 1662] This is tough, hard stuff. [1662 → 1664] But once you get up to the top, it's easy. [1664 → 1666] You can see everything all around. [1666 → 1668] And it all makes sense. [1668 → 1669] But you got to go up. [1669 → 1672] Step by step. [1672 → 1673] Carefully. [1673 → 1676] Don't fall. [1676 → 1677] And you see. [1677 → 1678] Well, yeah. [1678 → 1679] It's easy. [1679 → 1681] And then everything else falls. [1681 → 1682] We're going to see. [1682 → 1683] We're going to do some text. [1683 → 1686] He has a beautiful text in the Contra Gentiles [1686 → 1691] where he explains this. [1691 → 1692] And then once he's explained it, [1692 → 1695] then he gives all these different quotes from Scripture, [1695 → 1698] and you understand what they mean. [1699 → 1706] From what has been said, [1706 → 1708] it is also clear that the Word, [1708 → 1709] capital W, [1709 → 1711] properly speaking, [1711 → 1718] is always taken personally in divine things, [1718 → 1724] since it implies only something expressed by an intellect. [1724 → 1726] Now, this means to take it personally. [1726 → 1727] Don't take it personally. [1727 → 1728] But that's not what I mean. [1728 → 1729] That's not what I mean. [1729 → 1740] It means a person. [1740 → 1743] That's the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity. [1743 → 1745] But it's a divine person, is what he's saying. [1745 → 1749] It's not just an ID in his head. [1749 → 1750] He has it. [1750 → 1756] It's God. [1756 → 1757] But what has been said, [1757 → 1758] the Word, properly speaking, [1758 → 1760] is always taken personally in divine things, [1760 → 1767] since it implies only something expressed by an intellect. [1767 → 1769] See, because the intellect, [1769 → 1771] God's intellect and his Word, [1771 → 1775] are exactly the same thing, [1775 → 1779] then the Word was God. [1779 → 1782] And there's only one God. [1782 → 1785] We're going to see this again. [1785 → 1786] But there is a difference. [1786 → 1787] There is a difference. [1787 → 1790] A relation. [1790 → 1793] Because the intellect is the principle of the Word, [1793 → 1795] and the Word comes from the intellect. [1795 → 1801] So there's this relation between the two. [1801 → 1802] But it's the same thing. [1802 → 1804] See, relation is a very funny thing. [1804 → 1806] When we study philosophy, you see it. [1806 → 1808] It's the thinnest kind of reality that exists. [1808 → 1810] Because it doesn't exist in things. [1810 → 1814] It exists between things. [1814 → 1817] But it exists. [1817 → 1821] It's one of the ten twin categories of being of Aristotle. [1821 → 1825] I mean, it's real. [1825 → 1832] But it doesn't exist in things. [1832 → 1834] It's between things. [1834 → 1836] See, substances are things that exist. [1836 → 1839] Other accidents are modifications of the things. [1839 → 1840] You can have the quantity of it, [1840 → 1842] or the quality of it, [1842 → 1843] or different things. [1844 → 1848] But they always, those are, [1848 → 1850] accidents are actually in the thing. [1850 → 1852] But a relation is between things. [1852 → 1856] See, that's why you can talk about, [1856 → 1859] have some notion at least how this can happen, [1859 → 1862] where you have one thing, [1862 → 1870] and yet there's persons because there's relations. [1870 → 1872] Which doesn't change the thing. [1874 → 1876] Anyway, that's the whole mystery of the rest of the term. [1876 → 1878] I'm not going to get too far into that. [1878 → 1879] But we have to get a little bit into it, [1879 → 1881] because that's who our Lord is. [1891 → 1893] See, there's God. [1893 → 1894] And then there's the concept of God, [1894 → 1896] as he knows himself. [1896 → 1897] And it's the same thing. [1897 → 1899] But there is a difference between [1899 → 1902] the fact that this word comes from him. [1902 → 1905] So he's the principle of the word. [1905 → 1908] And the word comes from him. [1908 → 1911] So you have this relation between the principle [1911 → 1914] and what comes from it, [1914 → 1916] that direction, and also backwards. [1916 → 1920] And that's who they are, the persons. [1920 → 1923] Even though there's one God. [1923 → 1927] They're what's called subsisting relations. [1927 → 1931] They're relations which subsist. [1931 → 1936] They exist as real things. [1936 → 1945] Okay, anyway. [1945 → 1950] Likewise, [1950 → 1953] it's clear that [1953 → 1955] the word in divine things [1955 → 1959] is the likeness of the one from whom it proceeds. [1959 → 1961] Because that's what a word is. [1961 → 1966] Right? [1966 → 1969] It's the concept of what you know. [1969 → 1970] And the concept of what you know [1970 → 1972] is the likeness of what you know, right? [1972 → 1974] That's what it means. [1974 → 1977] Your idea corresponds to the thing that is. [1977 → 1979] So it's like a reflection of the thing you know. [1979 → 1981] So it's a likeness. [1981 → 1985] So the word is like the Father. [1985 → 1987] And he's perfectly like the Father. [1987 → 1989] But we're going to go into this more. [1989 → 1990] We see that in Scripture. [1990 → 1991] And if you listen to it, [1991 → 1992] listen to some of the things [1992 → 1994] that you'll hear in the reading. [1994 → 1996] Some of the things you already heard there [1996 → 1997] from Scripture, [1997 → 1999] because that's what he starts with. [1999 → 2001] Which is where this comes from, okay? [2001 → 2003] It's not Whistle and Dixie. [2003 → 2006] This is Revelation. [2006 → 2007] We don't, you know, [2007 → 2008] how are we supposed to know this? [2008 → 2010] But God's told us. [2010 → 2012] And [2012 → 2015] most people don't seem to care much, but [2015 → 2018] I mean, this is important. [2018 → 2020] And anyway, that's what I mean. [2020 → 2024] Likewise, that the word in divine things [2024 → 2026] is a likeness of the one from whom it proceeds. [2026 → 2028] And that it is co-eternal [2028 → 2031] with the one from whom it proceeds. [2031 → 2033] Since it was never merely formable [2033 → 2036] before being formed, but always an act. [2036 → 2038] This word that God has himself [2038 → 2039] has always been there. [2039 → 2041] He hasn't just sort of started one day to know himself. [2041 → 2045] He's always known himself. [2045 → 2046] So it's a likeness. [2046 → 2048] It's co-eternal. [2048 → 2049] And also it follows that [2049 → 2052] it is equal to the Father. [2052 → 2054] Since it is perfect [2054 → 2059] and expressive of the Father's entire being. [2059 → 2062] See, if the word wasn't equal to the Father, [2062 → 2064] it couldn't express the Father. [2064 → 2066] It would be an imperfect word. [2066 → 2067] Which is a blasphemy. [2067 → 2069] God knows God is perfect. [2069 → 2071] He knows himself perfectly. [2071 → 2076] So his concept of himself is equal to himself. [2076 → 2078] Or it wouldn't be perfect. [2079 → 2086] And that it is equal to the Father [2086 → 2088] since it is perfect and expressive [2088 → 2089] of the Father's entire being. [2089 → 2092] And it follows that it is co-essential [2092 → 2095] and consubstantial with the Father. [2095 → 2096] Now this is another step. [2096 → 2106] And that it is co-essential [2106 → 2108] and consubstantial with the Father [2108 → 2114] since it is his substance. [2114 → 2119] Because we just said it's one thing. [2119 → 2126] His knowledge of himself is perfect. [2126 → 2130] So it's the same thing. [2130 → 2136] Again, it's not something added on to him. [2136 → 2137] So we're going to see in Scripture, [2137 → 2138] he used the word, [2138 → 2139] well you've seen it already, [2139 → 2140] the mirror. [2140 → 2141] It's just a mirror. [2141 → 2145] The word is a mirror of him. [2145 → 2156] But it's the same thing. [2156 → 2158] It is also evident that in any nature, [2158 → 2160] that which proceeds [2160 → 2162] and has the likeness of the nature [2162 → 2163] from which it proceeds [2163 → 2166] is called a son. [2167 → 2170] And since this word proceeds [2170 → 2172] and the likeness and identity of the nature [2172 → 2174] of the one from whom it proceeds, [2174 → 2178] it is fittingly and properly called son. [2178 → 2184] And its production is properly called generation. [2184 → 2187] And that's another step. [2187 → 2188] But this word, [2188 → 2192] because we've seen it has the same nature as God, [2192 → 2194] so it's called a son [2194 → 2196] because that's what a son is. [2196 → 2198] It's something that proceeds [2198 → 2201] in the likeness and identity of nature. [2201 → 2204] Something proceeds [2204 → 2211] in the likeness at the same level of nature. [2211 → 2213] You know, [2213 → 2215] something that proceeds from something [2215 → 2216] and it's the same thing. [2216 → 2220] If it's a dog, it becomes a dog or whatever. [2220 → 2223] It's a son. [2223 → 2225] And we just saw that that's what the word is. [2226 → 2231] It's in the likeness and identity of nature. [2231 → 2233] And not even just specifically, [2233 → 2236] but numerically the same nature. [2236 → 2238] You know, when a dog proceeds from a dog, [2238 → 2240] well, it's the likeness of nature, okay, [2240 → 2242] but it's not the same thing. [2242 → 2244] Whereas here, it's the same thing. [2244 → 2246] We're going to talk about that. [2246 → 2248] It's specifically the same [2248 → 2252] because the word is God, [2252 → 2254] but it's the same thing. [2254 → 2255] It's the same God. [2255 → 2258] There's only one God. [2258 → 2260] And the word is God with his Father. [2260 → 2263] See, that's why we say in the beginning was the word [2263 → 2265] and the word was with God. [2265 → 2267] So he's different from them. [2267 → 2269] And yet the word was God [2269 → 2271] because he's the same. [2271 → 2273] He has the same nature. [2273 → 2275] But there's a distinction. [2275 → 2277] That's what St. John is saying. [2277 → 2279] That's what he means. [2285 → 2287] And so it's called a generation. [2287 → 2289] Unigenitus, a patre. [2289 → 2291] He's the only begotten [2291 → 2293] because he's a son. [2293 → 2295] You know, a being that proceeds from another [2295 → 2297] as a son, well, [2297 → 2300] then this process is a generation. [2304 → 2306] Oh, my God, okay. [2306 → 2309] Wow, that took a long time. [2309 → 2311] Well, we covered a lot of ground. [2315 → 2328] Well, a little more time. [2328 → 2333] Well, he explains why he began with the Son [2333 → 2334] instead of the Father. [2334 → 2338] You know, we said in the beginning was the word. [2338 → 2339] Well, wait a minute. [2339 → 2340] If the word comes from the Father, [2340 → 2343] why doesn't it begin with the Father? [2343 → 2344] Right? [2344 → 2345] That's the question. [2345 → 2346] The answer? [2346 → 2347] Because through the Son, [2347 → 2349] we are led to knowledge of the Father. [2349 → 2351] So we have to start with the Son [2351 → 2352] to know the Father. [2352 → 2354] As it's said later in John 17, [2354 → 2356] Father, I have manifested your name [2356 → 2359] to the men whom you gave me. [2359 → 2361] See, we're among these people. [2361 → 2364] We're among the men that God gave to his Son [2364 → 2367] so that we would know. [2367 → 2371] He's manifested the Father to us. [2371 → 2373] There's a beautiful phrase from Toller. [2373 → 2374] Remember we read Toller? [2374 → 2380] Remember we read Toller last year or the year before? [2380 → 2386] He's commenting on... [2386 → 2388] Our Lord said the same thing in Saint Matthew. [2388 → 2390] No one knows the Son but the Father [2390 → 2392] and no one knows the Father but the Son [2392 → 2396] and him to whom the Son will reveal him. [2396 → 2399] It's by the Son that we know the Father. [2399 → 2401] So that's why he mentions him first. [2401 → 2402] And Toller comments, [2402 → 2405] what no one can say, [2405 → 2408] what we can't even conceive, [2408 → 2410] is the gentleness and love [2410 → 2413] with which the eternal Son of God [2413 → 2417] opens the door of his Father's heart to us. [2417 → 2422] The tenderness with which he reveals incessantly [2422 → 2426] the treasures hidden in this impenetrable sanctuary, [2426 → 2430] the infinite riches of this divine abode. [2432 → 2433] You remember Toller. [2433 → 2434] He goes on and on and stuff like that. [2434 → 2438] That's Toller. [2438 → 2442] But that's true. [2442 → 2443] The second question. [2443 → 2448] Why did he say word and not Son at the beginning? [2448 → 2449] Because we saw he's the Son [2449 → 2451] and that's usually when we talk about the Father, [2451 → 2452] the Son and the Holy Ghost. [2452 → 2458] Why did he say word? [2458 → 2459] Well, first he said, [2459 → 2460] well, we might... [2460 → 2461] If he said Son, [2461 → 2463] I think it was a normal kind of generation [2463 → 2464] that we usually think of. [2464 → 2465] And that's not the case. [2465 → 2468] So we rather say the word first, [2468 → 2470] so we understand this is not [2470 → 2473] a carnal generation like us. [2473 → 2476] But secondly, [2476 → 2478] he says he was about to treat the word [2478 → 2482] in as much as he came to manifest the Father. [2482 → 2488] That's what the whole gospel is about. [2488 → 2490] Hence, since the notion of manifestation [2490 → 2494] is more strongly conveyed in the term word [2494 → 2495] than in the term Son, [2495 → 2502] he more appropriately used the term word. [2502 → 2510] Okay. [2510 → 2516] Then he explains... [2516 → 2517] That's about... [2517 → 2519] We're still trying to figure out [2519 → 2530] this term word. [2530 → 2532] Then he has to explain [2532 → 2539] the rest of that first little section. [2539 → 2540] In the beginning... [2540 → 2544] And in the beginning was the word. [2544 → 2545] What does this in beginning mean? [2545 → 2548] In principio? [2548 → 2551] Well, he says in principio can mean two things. [2551 → 2554] It can mean in the principle was the word. [2554 → 2555] And in that case, [2555 → 2558] it would mean that the word was in the Father. [2558 → 2559] He's the principle. [2559 → 2561] He's the principle of the Father. [2561 → 2562] The Father... [2562 → 2563] The Son comes from the Father. [2563 → 2564] So the Father is the principle. [2564 → 2566] So you can interpret that in meaning [2566 → 2567] in principio, [2567 → 2569] means that the word was in the principle, [2569 → 2572] meaning in the Father. [2572 → 2574] Or you can interpret as meaning [2574 → 2575] in the principle of time, [2575 → 2576] in the beginning of time. [2576 → 2577] That's usually how it's understood. [2577 → 2581] So the word was in the beginning of time. [2581 → 2582] Okay? [2582 → 2583] He was already there, in other words. [2583 → 2585] He didn't start. [2585 → 2586] And we'll see that comes up later [2586 → 2589] against the Aryans. [2589 → 2591] You know, the heretics had said [2591 → 2594] the Son was not equal to God. [2594 → 2595] And they said... [2595 → 2598] One of Arya's famous phrases, [2598 → 2602] there was a time when he was not. [2602 → 2603] Which is blasphemous, [2603 → 2606] but that's what he said. [2606 → 2610] And he said, well, that's against this. [2610 → 2612] Because in the beginning, he was already. [2612 → 2614] We were reading before, he was. [2614 → 2615] He didn't start. [2615 → 2616] He just always was. [2616 → 2618] In the beginning, he was. [2636 → 2656] So then he has some objections. [2656 → 2661] A principle exists before it acts, [2661 → 2665] so the Father must have existed before the Son. [2665 → 2671] Also, an action itself has succession. [2671 → 2675] A fire burns from the bottom up. [2675 → 2679] So there's some succession involved. [2679 → 2681] And lastly, [2681 → 2683] the duration of what comes from the principle [2683 → 2686] is determined by the will of the principle. [2686 → 2688] So if the Father is the principle of the Son, [2688 → 2692] well, then his duration depends on the principle, [2692 → 2694] says the objection. [2694 → 2698] It's all basically the same Aryan heresy. [2698 → 2700] And he answered, well, none of these happen [2700 → 2703] in our case of the Word. [2703 → 2706] Because God did not first begin to exist [2706 → 2709] and then generate the Word. [2709 → 2712] Because he always knew himself. [2712 → 2715] And so he always produced the Word. [2715 → 2717] And that's the word that theologians word. [2717 → 2720] You can talk about the Word being produced. [2720 → 2722] Because the Father is the principle of the Son. [2722 → 2729] He's not created, but he's produced. [2729 → 2732] That's the terms they use. [2732 → 2735] There's no succession, [2735 → 2740] because God doesn't take time to figure something out. [2740 → 2743] He doesn't cogitate, is the word they use in philosophy. [2743 → 2745] He just knows. [2745 → 2749] He doesn't have a process of thinking it over. [2749 → 2751] He knows immediately. [2751 → 2754] And so the Word is there. [2754 → 2755] Always. [2755 → 2761] It didn't take some time. [2761 → 2763] And finally, about the duration, [2763 → 2766] it's not here determined by the will of the principle, [2766 → 2770] because the Father knows himself naturally. [2770 → 2774] It's not something he decided to do one day. [2774 → 2778] Or even for maternity. [2778 → 2780] It's natural for him to know himself. [2780 → 2788] So it's natural for him to have a son. [2788 → 2790] For God the Father, understanding himself, [2790 → 2792] conceives the Word. [2792 → 2796] And so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son. [2796 → 2801] Against the Aryans. [2801 → 2804] And he gives an example. [2804 → 2808] An example of this appears, in a limited degree, in fire. [2808 → 2810] And in the brightness issuing from it. [2810 → 2814] And this is an image that the fathers of the church use. [2814 → 2819] The fire and the brightness that issues from the fire. [2819 → 2824] For this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire. [2824 → 2830] So that's an image of the generation of the Son. [2830 → 2835] He proceeds naturally and without succession. [2835 → 2836] You don't have the fire and then kind of wait around. [2836 → 2838] Well then the light comes. [2838 → 2844] No, it's simultaneous. [2844 → 2848] And again, if the fire were eternal, its brightness would be co-eternal with it. [2848 → 2852] This is why the Son is called the brightness of the Father. [2852 → 2855] And here we get one of the texts we're going to see later. [2855 → 2857] From Saint Paul. [2857 → 2859] Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3. [2859 → 2862] Where he's called the brightness of his glory. [2862 → 2864] The splendor of his glory. [2864 → 2870] One of the phrases that Saint Paul uses to describe our Lord Jesus Christ. [2870 → 2877] So it says, brightness is co-eternal. [2877 → 2883] But, this example lacks an illustration of the identity of nature. [2883 → 2887] Because rightness doesn't have the same nature as the fire. [2887 → 2892] So this example works from one side, but it doesn't work from that side. [2894 → 2901] This is why the Son is called, I'm sorry. [2901 → 2904] But this example lacks an illustration of the identity of nature. [2904 → 2907] And so we call him Son. [2907 → 2914] Which shows the identity of nature that we were just talking about. [2914 → 2915] And so we call him Son. [2915 → 2919] Although in human Sonship, we do not find co-eternity. [2919 → 2922] So to express co-eternity, we have to call him the brightness of his glory. [2922 → 2928] But to express the fact that he's the same nature, we have to call him Son. [2928 → 2932] We have to use different words to express different things. [2932 → 2937] One word won't say the whole thing. [2945 → 2947] And then he quotes the Council of Ephesus. [2947 → 2952] Which is the council that proclaimed the divine maternity. [2952 → 2954] That our Lady was Mother of God. [2957 → 2960] Which says that the Son always co-exists with the Father. [2960 → 2963] For brightness indicates his unchangeability. [2963 → 2966] Birth points to the word himself. [2966 → 2967] The conception. [2967 → 2969] You know, word is conceived. [2969 → 2970] It's a conception. [2972 → 2976] But the name Son suggests his consenstantiality. [2976 → 2979] And so we give the Son various names to express his perfection. [2979 → 2981] Which cannot be expressed by one name. [2982 → 2985] We call him Son to show that he's of the same nature as the Father. [2985 → 2989] We call him Image to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way. [2989 → 2994] We'll see there's texts of St. Paul which call him an image. [2994 → 2999] The image of God. [2999 → 3002] We call him Brightness to show that he is co-eternal. [3002 → 3007] And he is called the Word to show that he is begotten in an immaterial manner. [3007 → 3011] Like a word is conceived. [3011 → 3015] But it's not a material conception. [3015 → 3017] It's an immaterial conception. [3020 → 3021] Okay. [3021 → 3023] Are we all right? [3023 → 3025] Are we following? [3025 → 3030] I know this is not kid stuff. [3035 → 3037] This is reality. [3041 → 3051] Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. [3051 → 3054] As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. [3054 → 3055] Amen. [3055 → 3056] Amen. [3056 → 3057] Amen. [3057 → 3058] Amen. [3058 → 3059] Amen. [3059 → 3060] Amen. [3060 → 3061] Amen. [3061 → 3062] Amen. [3062 → 3063] Amen. [3063 → 3064] Amen. [3065 → 3066] Amen. [3066 → 3067] Amen. [3067 → 3068] Amen. [3068 → 3069] Amen. [3069 → 3070] Amen.