Vollständiges Transkript von „St. Thomas DESTROYS Protestants on Justification“. Klicke auf einen Zeitstempel, um das Video an dieser Stelle zu öffnen. Du brauchst ein anderes Video? Nutze den YouTube-Transkript-Generator.
0:02 The Lord is the Son of God. Jesus Christ.
1:01 doing. I've been having a fantastic day. It is Friday, May 16th, 2025. We have just finished, I think, around a week and a half, almost, no, no, around a little over a week through the Leo 9 papacy. I think a week and one day, a week was yesterday. So I'm doing awesome. I hope you guys are doing awesome. Tonight, it's Friday, so I wanted to do a deep dive into an issue. This is going to be the issue of particularly the topic of justification, although I'm going to get a little bit more specific about that and talk a little bit about the interpretation of some concepts in the writings of St. Paul and the writings of Scripture in general. Generally, things like faith and works,
1:46 justification, terms like that I'm going to be going over. And we're going to be looking at it in light of most specifically the the writings of St. Thomas. If you look below, I gave you a lot of different references to St. Thomas. We're going to be going over all of those references to St. Thomas. Don't worry about it. You guys don't actually have to read everything. I also gave you some references to St. Augustine. If you're particularly interested in St. Augustine's view of justification, he interprets these texts in the same exact way that St. Thomas does. And obviously in the same exact way that I'm going to present. And then I also gave a a link to a modern book from a Jesuit author from the 1930s who specifically wrote about the theology of St. Paul. He has a work, it's two volumes
2:34 long. It's pretty cool. It's pretty comprehensive work. So if you wanted to, if you're interested in this sort of thing, you know, especially the reading of sacred scripture, according to the mind of St. Paul, you can do nothing better than read that two volume work that I linked to below and then also read the commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas. Both those works are very good. But basically, the way that I wanted to start this whole thing out with, and oh wow, look, gifted 20 memberships. I thank you. Yeah, the new setup is working. Don't worry about it. I'm working on it. It's not done yet. I'm going to have a fish. It's going to be an awesome fish. But basically, where I wanted to start out this whole discussion with is that oftentimes you will have a,
3:25 I think, quite unhelpful discussion that will take place between Protestants and Catholics when we're talking about issues like the works of the law. or justification by faith without the works of the law. Justification is not by faith alone, but by faith in works, etc., etc. When you get these types of phrases, these types of affirmations and negations throughout sacred scripture, you really do get very one-sided answers that are coming from both Catholics and Protestants. On the one side, what you'll get is you'll get a lot of Catholics in particular who they don't really know how to interpret the text in accordance with the context and things like that. And they want a very easy solution to
4:13 how they're going to read through the works of St. Paul. So what they're going to do is they're going to say in an unqualified way. So by unqualified, I mean in every single instance, when terms like works or works of the law are etc. When these terms are used, they're actually only referring to the works of the ceremonial, in particular, the ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law. So this obviously, from anybody who has read through the Epistles of St. Paul, they know there are very obvious sections where this is not the sense of works or works of the law or law that is used by St. Paul. And then on the other hand, you have a lot of Protestants in particular, When they view this term
5:00 works, they'll think about works as in anything proceeding from an act of the will, right? So works are going to encompass basically any sort of human act that could possibly be done. And then also when we're thinking about justification, justification in particular, they're going to think about this as some sort of declaration on the part of God. So this is how these Protestants will often bring forward the case. And what I want to clarify before I continue is I'm being restrictive with my terms because we do need to clarify a number of different sects within Protestantism, a number of different ideological and theological sects.
5:48 understandings of things like justification within Protestantism. Because when I go through and explain these texts according to the mind of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, you'll actually get a group within Protestantism and they affirm what's called a duplex justitia, a double justice. So they do actually believe that there is a sense in which we speak about the justice, or I'm going to say justice, but know that it's the same word as righteousness. I just That's just the Catholic way of talking. So when it comes to the justice of God, they're going to think about this justice not only as imputed, they're going to also think about this justice as infused. And this is actually the more classical Protestant position. So they're going to think
6:35 about when we see these texts of Christianity, there is, you have a man which is justified by faith apart from the works of the law or apart from works or whichever other formulation you want to think of. When they're thinking about justification, they're thinking about that first justice, right? A lot of them will interpret these texts this way. It's talking about this first justice, but we do actually have an infused justice, which by obedience, by act of charity, by prayer, by communion with the sacraments. They do believe that this other type of justice, the second justice, which is unfused into us, they do think that this justice is going to be the justice which grows. So this is actually extremely similar to the way in which Catholic authors
7:23 are going to explain these texts. So you have to remember that, yes, sure, for your average Protestant that you're going to run into, on the street, your average person that you're going to talk to, let's say at your grandma's Baptist church or your parents' low church, evangelical church. Sure, they're going to interpret these texts in a very, I don't know how to put this nicely, but a very stupid way. They're going to interpret these texts in a way which is just completely ridiculous from any sensible reading of the text, right? but there actually is a contingency of Protestantism and they're going to read these texts differently. So just keep that in mind. So when you see in the title or whatever, it talks about
8:10 Protestantism, not necessarily speaking about Protestantism in a universal way. So something that we need to also be careful with is our reading of these texts is going to be slightly different than some of those Protestants. Because for us Catholics, we believe that there is a single formal cause of justification. Oh, yeah, single formal cause of justification. And that is, in the words of St. Augustine, not the justice whereby God is just, but the justice whereby he makes us just, right? So this is going to be the way in which we think about justification within us. We think about justification actually as a type of motion. So when you have a motion, let's say you have a cup of, or rather you have a
8:59 pot of water that you put on the stove and you put cold water in that pot and then you turn the heat up and then the water goes from being cold to being hot, right? By the application of heat. So in a similar way, when Catholics think about justification, justificatio, you know, the first part justice, the second part making, we're thinking about it actually just like you're making the water hot, so you're making us just. So justification is actually us going from sin to justice. So there's kind of a twofold movement. One is the remission of sins where the guilt of sin is removed, and the other is the actual positive justice. But this happens by the one act of the infusion of justice. So when we're
9:47 looking at justification, we might point at a chapter of sacred scripture like Titus chapter 3. although we can point to many other texts. In Titus chapter three, this is actually the famous text that the Diamond Brothers use. And I happen to agree that this is one of my favorite texts to explain the principle. You have us, we're in our passions, our worldliness, we're addicted to the world, we are in all of these sins. But then through the mercy of God, not by any works of justice done within us, but actually purely out of his mercy, he justifies us, he regenerates us, he sanctifies us, right? we are actually turned from creatures as our final end, we're turned back properly to God as our final end. So that is that motion of justification, it's some sort of change within us, right?
10:37 So when we interpret these texts, obviously what we're going to say is that when it comes to this motion from cold to hot, let's say, this motion from cold to hot, there's no sort of proceeding works on our part. We don't actually go in and we work really super hard. And then God looks at us. He's like, oh, wow, he really worked super hard. He's actually making himself just this. This would be the heresy of the Pelagians. Right. So this is not actually what happens. Hey, buddy, get out of here. Yeah. Give me one second. My son ran him.
11:26 Dude, how does a three-year-old learn how to unlock a door? See, that's what happens when you're Catholic. When you're Catholic, my son, his name is Augustine. When you're Catholic, you have a big brain. You're really smart. So when you're three years old, you can figure out things like opening a door. This is actually what sanctifying grace does to us. It elevates, makes nature higher. So our kids are able to do a lot more things than Protestant kids are able to in virtue of their... external communion with Christ Church. But anyways, so as I was saying, you have this motion, right, from injustice to justice. And it's not the fact that we ourselves are somehow going to kind of like you may
12:11 acquire the habit of chastity, let's say. You become a chaste person by doing chaste acts or justice or fortitude. You become tough through suffering adversity. It's not going to be through these various different works of our own will. This is not an acquired habit, right? This is an infused habit. So this is something which God, by his mercy, he infuses grace into us. He brings about, and the virtues which flow from grace, is faith, but not merely an unformed faith, but it is faith which works by love, according to what St. Paul says in Galatians. So we can talk about that first motion of justice.
12:56 When we talk about making just, somebody could go from unjust to just. The water can go from cold to hot. But we could also think about a second motion if we wanted to frame it in this way, is we could talk about this second motion of going from hot to even hotter, right? So you're not cold, but you're actually increasing in heat. So in this way, we can not only talk about the justification of the impious, so from injustice to justice or injustice to justice, but the justification of the pious, where you go from being just to being more just, right? So we have this process of sometimes we just in normal contemporary speak, which is influenced by Protestantism, we usually call this
13:43 process like the process of sanctification. You are made just because by that initial justification, but then you're actually, you become even more just throughout your life, right? So it's going to be slightly different when we're interpreting these texts versus when a lot of these Protestants are interpreting these texts. Because yes, we agree when it comes to this second half that we do works of justice and this increases our amount of justice, right? We're made more righteous throughout our lives. through obedience to Christ, through actually charity, which is the fulfillment of the law, which has been poured forth in our hearts, through the spiritual combat that St. Paul describes in Romans 7, through the walking after the spirit that he describes in Romans chapter
14:32 8, right? These are the ways in which we are going to increase right there. But it's going to kind of be a disagreement right there on that first half that I mentioned. Is it going to be this first type of justice? Is is it going to be kind of like a line, you know, like a linear connection? We go from injustice to justice, then increase of justice. And this removes sin. And this increases within us communion with Christ. And this is what justification is. Or is it on the other hand, you're going to have this initial act, which, you know, brings about the regeneration within us, which for them is that's going to be the beginning of sanctification, regeneration, the change of the heart. But you also have this, which colloquially called justification, which is going to consist
15:21 of the imputation of Christ's justice and the forgiveness of sin. So it's a lot more of a subtle distinction with certain Protestant groups versus with other Protestant groups. So you just have to keep that in mind. So I want to do first, before I get actually into the text of St. Thomas, I want to... get into the general distinctions. You may, at first, when you're hearing me lay out these general distinctions, you may be asking, you know, where is this in scripture? Like, where the heck are you getting this from? Are you just making this up? No, these are all actually drawn from sacred scripture. It's just important, I think very helpful if we're going to talk about something
16:07 in particular that we actually go over the general distinctions first as a summary, because I think that's that helps you understand things better. So the first distinction that we're going to need to make in order to understand all of these texts and sacred scripture is that we can use the word justification, as I mentioned, in a number of different senses. So first, you can use the word justification as in like a preparation for justice. Beforehand, you are removing impediments. You could technically speak about some sort of disposition towards or preparation for justice. You can talk about that as justification. In sacred scripture, it's almost never used in this way. So yeah, I mean, but technically speaking, it could be used in
16:53 this way. Okay, so the second way in which we could talk about justification is we could talk about in terms of making us just. So in terms of making us just, as we mentioned, this could either be of the impious, and then it is from injustice to justice, or of the pious. And then it is from lesser justice to greater. So those are the two ways in which we could talk about us being made just. In most cases, when St. Paul talks about justification, he's actually using it in the first sense. So the motion from injustice to justice.
17:39 Although there are some notable places where in sacred scripture where this second sense of justice, uh, is talked about. So the third way in which we could use the term justification is we can actually talk about the expression of justice. The expression of justice is some sort of like proving or showing forth or testing of our justice. So in a similar way, we could, uh, talk about, um, you know, somebody has shown forth their chastity by, you know, resisting the impulses of lust, an expression of justice. And lastly, and there's a lot of texts in the Old Testament, in some of the New Testament, they use it in this way. Lastly, we could talk about the judgment of
18:25 justice. So justification can be used in terms of, you know, like God will not justify the ungodly. Obviously, when we're talking, and I'll get into a few of these texts, but obviously when we talk about God, not justifying the ungodly, and then we get in Romans where it says God has justified the ungodly, you know, clearly in here, uh, justify is being used in two different senses, right? God justifies the ungodly by the justification of the impious. God does not justify the ungodly in the sense of the judgment of justice, because God does not judge, uh, clean that which is not clean, right? So a few different texts that I brought
19:11 up just to show the necessity of making these types of distinctions. As I said, in Exodus 23, 7, I will not justify the wicked. Or Proverbs 17, 15, he that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God. So when he says, I will not justify the wicked or he that justifieth the wicked are abominable before God, these are talking about in terms of the judgment of justice, right? And then in Romans 4, 5, it says, he that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly. So we're supposed to believe in God who justifies the ungodly. Well, I thought God said that he won't justify the ungodly. I thought that he said it was evil to justify the ungodly. Clearly, justify is being used in two different senses here. Okay, so second, we can talk about
20:00 justice in two different senses. So when we're talking about like somebody being made just, we could talk about it either in terms of natural justice. So for example, in Romans chapter two, that's a big theme is the natural law, natural justice, things like this. Obviously, we would be the most abhorrent Pelagians ever if we referred a lot of these texts to... you know, supernatural justice. Then you would basically have people buy their own natural works acquiring supernatural justice. Anyways. And then on the other hand, you have supernatural justice. So the supernatural justice, that's going to be, you know, the faith formed by charity. That's going to be the charity which is poured forth in our hearts. The first, the natural justice is going to be like, you know, like Aristotle's
20:46 conception of justice. And this natural justice, it's something which can be acquired. Oops. Acquired. And then the supernatural justice, that's something which has to be infused by God because there's no preceding works when it comes to him making us supernaturally just, right? So, and then for that, I just quoted the Romans 2 chapter. And then when it comes to works, this is the important distinction. Because a lot of people, they want to point to works or works of the law, and they want to place works or works in the law. They want to interpret that in terms of you know, like the ceremonial works of the law. But that's actually not the important distinction that we need to make. That distinction is important for interpreting
21:32 certain passages. But the better distinction to make is antecedent works versus consequent works, right? Antecedent works versus consequent works. So antecedent works, antecedent means before, consequent means after. So what is this talking about? It's asking whether you're actually justified or not when you do these. So antecedent works, the works that come before God has created a right spirit within us. God has poured forth charity within us. God has made us for good works, some of this language. Before this happens, none of those works are going to contribute towards justification, except we could speak about
22:21 it like a very remote sense. the preparation for justice, like removing certain impediments. So you have like pious pagans who are better disposed and God may, you know, out of his pure liberality, send a preacher to to those pagans. So antecedent works, you know, that's, that's what is very frequently rejected. When you read a lot of these texts, like you read, um, like Titus three, Ephesians two, when you read a lot of these texts, or I would even argue like a lot of the passages within Romans and Galatians as well, you can see very clearly that when it's talking about justify, it's talking about, um, And then when it's talking about works, it's talking about those antecedent works. If we didn't interpret it this way, it would make mincemeat out of a lot of sacred
23:08 scripture, which does talk about those works of charity, meriting, you know, meriting rewards, meriting increases in justice. And in this way, we could talk about these works of, you know, sanctifying us. And since by justification, we just mean make just, you know, making us more just, right? So this is the antecedent works. and then the consequent works. That's the distinction that's going to be really important. The distinction between the works of the law taken generally and works of the law taken in terms of the ceremonial works, this is actually less important, especially because since most of these passages are talking about antecedent works, it really actually doesn't matter which works of the law you're going to interpret this as. This is a point that a lot of
23:54 authors make. It's like, if you want to restrict works of the law to works of the ceremonial law, and these are antecedent works, it has the same effect if you actually expand it to all works, because it's Catholic dogma that no works done before justification, none of these works are going to justify in any sense, right? Except I said the like really remote sense, which we basically don't use, but it's Catholic dogma. you can read the Council of Trinity if you want to read about this. The justification of the impious, this doesn't take place by works. So really it doesn't matter what kind of works you want to interpret individual passages by because we're going to agree no matter what. When it comes to consequent works,
24:42 this is going to be very important as well. When it comes to these consequent works, these works which are done by a principle of justice, Obviously, this is going to concern those moral precepts, like not the ceremonial works we deny after the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the entire religious system of old Israel. We're going to deny that ceremonial works are going to justify in any way. You know, actually, not only do they not justify, they actually are damnable. They're dead and deadly, St. Augustine says. So then finally, you know, as I intimated in a number of different cases, law can either refer to
25:29 the natural law. So by law, we have on the one hand, the natural law. On the second hand, we have the mosaic law and then either ceremonial or moral precepts. And on the third hand, we can actually talk about the evangelical law, which St. Paul, he, in one case, he calls it the law of faith. You know, it's a law of faith, not of works that justifies. So these are the various different distinctions that we can bring forward when we're talking about this. But I wanted to generally bring forward the comment by St. Augustine on how we're going to bring this all together, because I think that he's going to provide one of the best syntheses on this point, most understandable ones.
26:19 So this is from On Faith and Works. So if you want to read more about this, you can actually read his work on the Spirit and the Letter. Basically, the whole work on the Spirit and the Letter is about this. So if you want to, you know, read a book about St. Augustine's view of justification, what better than just to read his work on the Spirit and the Letter, where the whole thing is about faith and works, right? So he says, and this is St. Augustine, and this is... on faith and works number 14. Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that
27:06 they need not perform good works in order to be saved. This in fact is what some had thought even in the time of the apostles. For at that time, there were some who did not understand certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul, who thought, therefore, that he had said, let us do evil that there may come good. They thought that this was what St. Paul meant when he said, the law entered in that sin may abound, and where sin abounded, grace did more abound. But what St. Paul means here is this, when man received the law, he presumed too much on his own strength. This is going to be something very important when we're interpreting the writings of St. Paul. St. Thomas is going to bring this up too. But basically, the purpose of the law, like the purpose of giving Israel the law, was
27:52 the fact that they would understand, one, through the ceremonial precepts, they would see and look forward to Christ and have faith in him rather than trusting in their observance of the law. But two, they would understand, and this is something especially St. Paul gets into in Romans chapter 7, they would understand that they are unable to, by their natural powers, obey all the precepts of the law, especially thou shalt not covet, right? Because when you understand the precept, thou shalt not covet, and you attempt to keep it, you recognize that concupiscence completely overcomes you. And therefore you turn to God, who you should have been turning to, you turn to God and you ask him for his grace. So the short term, the long and short of it that you'll get a lot of the authors describe is the law commands, but
28:41 does not give. So the law says thou shalt not covet, but it does not give the grace so that you may not covet. So this is why when the law was given sin abounds because it's commanding a bunch of people to do a bunch of things, but they can't actually keep it. Whereas the difference with that in the gospel. So a lot of the ways in which some Protestants will think about the gospel is They'll think about the new covenant. They'll think about it in the same exact way as the old covenant. They'll think, oh, there's all these precepts in the gospels. And these precepts, which is found from our Lord and from his apostles, these are basically the same as the old covenant precepts. So these are precepts. This is a yoke, which is not easy in life. This is a yoke, which our fathers are not even able to bear. So when it comes to this yoke,
29:30 we actually, according to them, we're in the same situation. We actually can't fulfill the law. We can't fulfill the law by charity. This is not something which is possible. Our righteousness cannot exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. We cannot walk after the Spirit. We cannot obey Christ. They think about the old law in the same way in which they think about the new law. But Whereas the old law commanded and did not give, rather it pointed forward to Christ who did give the grace to those who were justified in the old law. The new law, it commands and it gives. This is why Christ's yoke is so light.
30:16 It's because we have the promise of the Holy Spirit. And through the Spirit, and we have, by the grace of God through faith, we have that justice, whereby it's the justice of God, not the justice whereby he is just, but the justice whereby he makes us just. And through this, we're able to walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. And in this, the spirit lusts against the flesh and the flesh lusts against the spirit. So the gospel actually gives the grace to carry out what it commands. And that's the difference between the gospel and the old covenant. It's not that the gospel and the old covenant are the same exact where they have those weak and beggarly elements as St. Paul
31:01 describes in Galatians. And it really just completely confuses me how having that very common Protestant exegesis of St. Paul, you could read the book of Galatians. Everyone is free to go out there, pick up a Bible and read Galatians and see how it compares the weakness of the old law. The fact that the old covenant, the circumcision, the Sabbath, the observing of these customs, the commands which are written on stone, not in our hearts, these things were not able to make us just, right? We were supposed to look forward and look to Christ who makes us just by faith. And through this, we actually receive the power to carry out the command of charity and walk in the light.
31:51 not walk after darkness. And in this way, we're even said in certain passages of scripture, he walks in the light, does not sin. So the opposing exegesis does not make any sense to me. It's not historical. It's not Augustinian. It's not Thomist. To my mind, it's like a very, it's an exegesis that has to be shoved in through propaganda, which unfortunately a lot of people growing up in you know, low church Protestant groups, they're going to be imbibed with a lot of propaganda. Anyways, what St. Paul means here is this. When men received the law, he presumed too much on his own strength. He was too proud to ask God's help, as he should
32:39 have done, that he might overcome his evil desires. The result was that his sins were now more and greater because of the law, which he did not observe. When he realized his guilt, he turned to the faith for pardon and for help from the Lord who made heaven and earth. Thus, it was necessary that the Holy Spirit fill his heart with love in order that he might overcome his evil desires and perform out of love for God, whatever God commanded him. This is what St. Paul means. And this too is what the psalmist means when he says, their infirmities were multiplied. Afterwards, they made haste. When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law, it does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he
33:29 wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously, so notice the antecedent that I mentioned, he had not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious Not before, but after justification. But there is no need to discuss this matter any further, especially since I've treated of it at length in another book entitled On the Spirit and the Letter. And if this was a stream about St. Augustine, he has some awesome passages basically saying this. But if you want to read this, go on The Spirit and the Letter, number 14. But I actually wanted to get into the text from St. Thomas because texts from St. Thomas are just absolutely... Fantastic. So the first one is going to be, and these first
34:19 few, a lot of these are like niche areas within his Pauline commentaries. Because as I mentioned earlier, his commentaries on the Pauline epistles are just absolutely awesome. Some of my favorite reading is his commenter on the Pauline epistles. If you truly want to be convinced of the Catholic view of justification, that it is completely scriptural, completely according to the mind of the apostle. Read St. Thomas's commentary on the Pauline epistles. It's fantastic. Okay, so this first one is going to be from Galatians chapter two, and it's going to be his fourth lecture. So I'll make sure I make my screen bigger. Don't worry. I'm not going to make it so you guys cannot read it at
35:06 all. So this is what he says. Therefore, The apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the law, yet knowing for certain that man is not justified by the works of the law, that is, through the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, for that reason we have left the law and are living according to the precepts of the faith. For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law. For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved. However, it is said for the hearers of the law are not just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Therefore, it seems that a man would be justified by the works of the law.
35:52 So he brings forward these texts that talk about how we are not justified by the works of the law. And then now he brings forward a certain text which says, actually, we are justified. The doers of the law actually are the ones who are justified before God. So he's going to make an important distinction here. which is one that we saw in St. Augustine and I think is just plain throughout St. Paul. I answer that to be justified can be taken in two senses. So notice we're going to be distinguishing that word justification, namely doing what is just. So first you can talk about justification in terms of what you're doing. You know, you're, you can talk about, you know, being chased. Those are actions of chastity and then being made just. In the first sense, one is justified when he does the works of justice. So when you do what is just, you are just. This is important for
36:39 the final judgment. But in the second sense, no one is made just saved by God through grace. You can't make yourself just. You cannot bring yourself into a state of grace and a state of justification. It should be known, therefore, that some works of the law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the law, could not, strictly speaking, be called works of the law. For man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. So when it comes to the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, the moral precepts of the Mosaic law are actually very closely identified traditionally with the precepts of the natural law. Is most of what is contained in the moral precepts of the
37:25 Mosaic law are precepts. precepts which we can find by nature. So properly speaking, and by proper, he means unique. So these precepts, these moral precepts of the Mosaic Law, these are not unique to the Mosaic Law. Rather, they are contained in the natural law and the Mosaic Law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the works of the law. Why are they properly called it? Because they're uniquely in the Mosaic Law. Therefore, to that extent, is man justified by the moral laws so far as the execution of justice is concerned. So we are justified by the moral law in the sense that we do, uh, when we do what is just, uh, we are actually working justly and also by the ceremonial laws. So this is talking about under the
38:12 old Testament, also by the ceremonial laws that pertain to the sacraments as their observance is a work of obedience. And this is the way it is taken in the words of the apostle to the Romans. So, When it comes to the sacraments, we need to be very careful to distinguish between the sacraments of the old law, not the sacraments of the new law. The sacraments of the new law give grace. They don't only signify something future. But the sacraments of the old law, these are the weak and beggarly elements that St. Paul describes in Galatians. The sacraments of the old law did not give grace. They were elements which pointed forward to something future. The blood of bulls and goats cannot remove sin. So when it comes to those sacraments, works of the old, the ceremonial laws of the old law, the sacraments of the old law. This is only something which is meritorious
39:02 insofar as one, you know, somebody looks forward to the future and looks forward to the future Christ. And this is an occasion for them having faith in Christ, just in a similar way that like the preaching of the gospel today might be an occasion for somebody coming to faith in Christ. Or two, in terms of it being a work of obedience. You know, insofar as they obey God, you know, that is something which is an act of justice. But we're not at all saying that the sacraments of the old law give grace. That would be akin to a type of the heresy of the Judaizers. But with respect to being made just by the works of the law, a man does not seem to be justified by them because the sacraments of the old law did not confer grace. How
39:48 do you turn again to the weak and needy elements? That is, they neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the new law, however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements. Hence, they can justify, which is evident through all the statements from sacred scripture on baptism. Again, if there were any in the old law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the law, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ, whom God has proposed to be a propitiation through faith. Hence, the sacraments of the old law were certain protestations of the faith of Christ, just as our sacraments are, but not in the same way, because those sacraments were configured to the grace of Christ as something that lay in the future. Our sacraments, however, testify as things containing a grace that is present.
40:35 Therefore, he says significantly that it is not by the works of the law that we are justified, but by the faith of Christ, because although some who observe the works of the law in times past were made just, nevertheless, This was only affected through the faith of Jesus Christ. So this gives us a good exposition of the role of the sacraments. But now let's go a little bit further into chapter three, lecture four, where he's going to go into a little bit of a different topic. So he says, therefore, for as many as are of the works of the law, for since he had said that they who are of faith will be blessed through being sons of Abraham, Someone might say that they are blessed both on account of the works of the law and on account of faith. Hence, to exclude this, he
41:21 says, as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. But against this, it can be said that the ancient fathers were of the works of the law. Therefore, they are under a curse and consequently damned, which is a Manichaean error. Hence, it is necessary to understand this correctly. So it says in Galatians, it says that if you are of the works of the law, you are under a curse. So the objection obviously comes forward. Well, how about the fathers of the patriarchs and prophets who were under the old law? Were they somehow cursed? And he answers, and it should be noted, the apostle does not say as many as observe the works of the law are under a curse, because this is false when applied to the time of the law. He says rather as many as are
42:08 of the works of the law, that is whoever trusts in the works of the law and believes that they will make but... be just by them are under a curse. And this is a very important distinction because a lot of times when you see texts like this, those who are of the works of the law, a lot of people will assume, oh, this is simply in terms of acts of obedience, right? Or acts of justice of any sort, right? They will assume that that is what is meant by the text. But actually, in accordance with the traditional exegesis of the passage, when we talk about somebody who's of the works of the law, we're talking about somebody who's trusting in the law. They're having faith in the law. That's what they're doing. They're looking to the law and they say, oh, they're trusting, really, if they're trusting in the law, then, and this is a significant theme in Romans
42:55 chapter 10. When they are of the law, these are people who are looking to the law. They're looking to establish their own justice. I think Philippians 3 also talks about this as well. They're looking to establish their own justice. They're looking to establish the justice of man. They're looking to somehow, by their own powers, observe the law. I mean, these people are basically Pelagians. So these types of people, those are people who are of the law, people who are trusting in the law in order to become just. But this is different than if somebody were to not have a justice which is of man or a justice which is of a law, but actually the justice of Christ or the justice of God. Because when we have the justice of Christ or the justice of God, this is by faith whereby we
43:44 trust in Christ. We recognize our own shortcomings, our own weaknesses. And we are asking of Christ to give us grace in order to walk after the spirit, not walk after the flesh. Right? So these are two completely different people that a lot of individuals, when they read these passages, they will attempt to say, well, people doing works of charity, right? which come from God justifying the ungodly. People who do these works of charity, they are the same exact as the people who are observing the Mosaic Law, entrusting in their own powers to observe the law. These are completely different categories of individuals for St. Paul. So continuing, for it is one thing to be of the works of the law
44:34 and another to observe the law. The latter consists in fulfilling the law, so that one who fulfills it is not under a curse. Huh, I wonder what fulfills the law? Charity. But to be of the works of the law is to trust in them and place one's hope in them. And they that are of the law in this way are under a curse, namely of transgression. Not that the law produces the curse, for concupiscence does not come from the law, but the knowledge of sin does, to which we are prone through concupiscence banned by the law. So this is the big thing that's going on in Romans chapter 7. the law has slayed me. Why does the law slay you? Because through the law, you have knowledge of sin, but you don't actually have the spirit that gets described in Romans chapter eight, whereby you don't have to walk after the flesh. So really what the law does is when
45:20 you hear the law, when you simply hear the precepts of the law, and you think that that's by your own works, you're supposed to somehow go and fulfill it. When you hear that, actually the knowledge of the law makes it worse because you know even more obligations. Whereas before ignorance was bliss, you know, for the Gentiles, you don't have the law in a written state. For the Jews who have it, you know, it's, it's some, it slays them because by the flesh, you know, concupiscence arises and makes everything worse. Right? So when it comes to these people, they are trusting in the law, but you know, you have Romans chapter eight, You actually have the spirit of God, which is poured forth in your heart. You walk after the spirit. You don't walk after the flesh.
46:09 You're actually turned away from the flesh. You're doing war with the flesh now. So these are completely different concepts, right? The law in the life of the believer and the law in the life of one who is not justified. Therefore, inasmuch as the law begets a knowledge of sin and offers no help against sin, They are said to be under a curse, since they are powerless to escape it by those works. Furthermore, some works of the law are ceremonies carried out in the observances. Others are works that pertain to morals, with which the moral precepts deal. Hence, according to a gloss, that which is said here, namely, as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse, is to be understood of ceremonial works and not of moral works. Or it should be said
46:58 that the apostle is speaking here of all works. This is very important. This is actually, I think, a matter which will be very helpful in talking to Protestants about with a lot of these texts, because for a lot of them, yeah, sure. The text could be read in either way. Some of them, I think it's actually extremely difficult to see whether St. Paul is talking about the Old Covenant in its totality or whether he's specifically talking about the ceremonial precepts. And sometimes, you know, he blurs the lines between the two. He goes from back and forth. I actually think it's quite difficult to discern, you know, which is he talking about in which place. I think that's not an easy thing to do. So we can actually, with almost all of these attacks, we can say, okay, well, in argument, in argument, I
47:49 will concede that this is talking about both ceremonial moral works. But this doesn't really matter because either way, this does not, condemn anything that Catholic soteriology teaches. For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God. Rather, they are the carrying out in the manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works, but by the habit of faith, not acquired, but infused. And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity. and all these being approved by the testimony of faith received not the promise."
48:34 Okay, now let's go a little bit later. This is chapter three, lecture four. This one, I believe he deals a little bit more precisely with the exegesis of St. James, his epistle. Therefore, he says, I say that by the law, curse was introduced. And yet the law cannot extricate one from the curse, because it is obvious that in the law no man is justified with God, that is, through the works of the law. On this point, it should be noted that those who reject the Old Testament took an occasion to do so from this word. Hence, it must be said that no one is justified in the law, that is, through the law. For through it came the knowledge of sin, but justification did not come through it. By the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. And then we
49:20 have here the objection. Okay, well, this is great. You know, you're bringing up, you know, not justified by the law, not by the works of the law. So this is fine and all. But what about St. James? So he says, but against this, it is said, was not Abraham our father justified by works? So this is how St. Thomas is going to answer this in a way that's probably surprising for a lot of people. I answer that to be justified can be taken in two senses, right? We're always distinguishing between the two senses of justification. Either the justification of the impious, which is from injustice to justice, or the justification of the pious, which consists in the acts which flow from justice already had. So antecedent works versus consequent works. I answer that to be justified can be taken in two senses, either
50:07 as referring to the execution and manifestation of justice. This is going to be the justification of the pious. And in this way, a man is justified, that is, proved just by the works performed. or as referring to the infused habit of justice. And in this way, one is not justified by works, since the habit of justice by which a man is justified before God is not acquired but infused by the grace of faith. Therefore, the apostle says significantly, with God, because the justice which is before God is interior in the heart, whereas the justice which is by works, that is, which manifests that one is just, is before men. It is in this sense that the apostle says with God, for not the hearers of the law, but the doers are just before God. For if Abraham were justified by works,
50:56 he has glory, but not before God. Thus, therefore, the conclusion of his reasoning is obvious, namely that the law cannot justify. Okay, now moving on to a few texts from his commentary on Romans. So this first one is going to be in chapter 2. Lecture three. I'm just making sure everything's fine with my stream. Yeah. Yeah. Bro. Oh my gosh. People crashing out. Dude, that's crazy. Um, actually Protestants believe in justification alone by faith alone and Catholics believe in justification by faith and works.
51:47 Come on now. Come on now. This is just like... You have to realize, before I continue this next one, you have to realize that there are a lot of people... I think there's a two-fold concern right here for why I do things like this. This may sound like a laborious undertaking, just spending the large amount of time it took to find every single section of St. Thomas where he explains these texts and talks about... and brings forward these distinctions, et cetera, may sound like a laborious task. May ask, Wagner, why are you one hour into probably a two-hour stream where you're basically just going through like a million texts from St. Thomas and explaining everything, right? And explaining the same thing over and over again. Well, there's a two-fold reason. One is on the part of evangelism, right? So on the part of evangelism,
52:38 to attempt to explain these texts by... just saying, well, James 2 says, well, James 2 says, well, James 2 says, just kind of doing this throng verses of one another. To attempt to do it like this, and to attempt to present the Catholic view as, oh, the Catholic view is faithless works, the Protestant view is sola fide, and obviously we know all of this. To attempt to present the debate like this is, with all due respect, it's retarded. And what this does is, when it comes to our evangelism, Our evangelism is actually very severely stunted. There are certain people who are simple enough to just hear James chapter two and say, oh, well, I guess the Catholic view is right. Faithfulness works. There are certain people like that, but that's not something that you should rely on. So that's the
53:27 first part. And the second part is a catechetical part. So when it comes to Catholics, and this is very much tied in with evangelism apologetics, because for a lot of you who are converting into the Catholic faith, your first catechesis into Catholic doctrine is going to be through stuff like this, live streams, videos on the internet that you see. So if I attempt to give the very simplistic answers to certain problems that are actually incidentally harmful, and by incidentally, I don't mean like intentionally that people who frame things like these are trying to do this, but incidentally, it leads to a very false view of, of justification, a very, very false view of the spiritual life. This is why when you look at our spiritual authors who are
54:16 writing treatises and stuff like this, one of the first things that they talk about in a, in a treatise on Christian perfection, spiritual theology, whatever they call it, they're going to talk about our theology of justification. They're going to talk about the establishment of the supernatural organism. And you need to understand some very important texts in St. Paul that is talking about the role of concupiscence, what justice is, how justice increases. You need to understand a lot of these different texts in the proper way in order to understand the growth of the spiritual life. So there's actually very concrete implications to learning these types of things. So this is why I'm completely against false, overly simplistic narrative. I think
55:04 they're dishonest. whether you're intending to be dishonest or not. I think they're dishonest. I think they make mincemeat out of scripture, try to explain things like this. I think they are woefully inadequate when it comes to the Catholic tradition. And I think they're spiritually harmful. Okay. Romans chapter two, lecture three. This is going to be 212. But this point seems to conflict with his own statement below. that by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified before him. Consequently, nobody is justified precisely for doing the works of the law. The answer is that justification be taken in three ways. So usually we have two ways, but here he's gonna bring forward three ways. First, in one way, in regard to reputation. Then one is
55:53 said to be justified when he is regarded as just, you have made your sisters appear justified, that is by reputation. In this sense, the doer of the law will be justified, that is, are considered just, before God and men. Second, by doing what is just, this man went down to his home justified, Luke 18, 14, because the publican performed a work of justice by confessing his sin. In this way is verified the statement that the doers of the law will be justified, that is, by performing the justice of the law. In a third way, justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice. so that a person is said to be justified when he newly receives justice. So in terms of the cause of justice, this is going to be what I keep talking about when it comes to the justification of the
56:39 impious, initial justification, however you want to state it. Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God. It must not be supposed, however, that the doers of the law are justified as though acquiring justice through the works of the law. This cannot be accomplished either by the ceremonial works, which confer no justifying grace, or, so notice, not only by the ceremonial works of the law, or by the moral works, from which the habit of justice is not acquired. Rather, we do such works in virtue of an infused habit of justice. So, same idea going on here. So now, later in his commentary on Romans, chapter 3, lecture 2, let me zoom in for you.
57:25 First, therefore, he says, Now, some take the apostles' words, so some do this today. So some
58:16 just restrict works of the law to the ceremonials of the old law and not to any of those other senses. in which we use the word justification. But this does not seem to be the apostle's intent. For he immediately adds, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But it is clear that sins are made known through prohibitions contained in the moral precepts. We see this all throughout St. Paul. He's describing this process in which we are commanded certain things, certain moral commands, and we cannot carry these moral commands out. So because we cannot carry these moral commands out, we need to obviously turn to God and ask him to have mercy and to grant unto us the grace and his justice whereby, you know, we may
59:02 truly be made just by God. Consequently, the apostle intends to say that by no works of the law, even those commanded by the moral precepts, is man justified in the sense that justice would be caused in him by works because as he states below, and if it is by grace, it is not now by works. Okay, so moving over to the next lecture. Actually, this is just like a brief paragraph in the next lecture that I thought would be connecting to something. So the first is that it is not caused by the law. This is what he says. It has been stated that in times past, God's justice could not exist in virtue of the works of the law, either because the just one himself fulfills the
59:50 promises about man's justification, I say that Christ was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, or rather God's justice by which a person is justified, of which it says below, not knowing the justice of God. Okay, well, I guess this is basically, uh, it's basically, you know, the same thing. Um, I don't know why I brought up that paragraph. Okay. The next one is, uh, in the next lecture, uh, this one is a very meaty passage. Okay, so he says, then when he says by what law, he states the cause of this exclusion. Since the Jews' boasting was about the law, as has been stated above, it seemed that their boasting had to be excluded by something of the
1:00:37 same genre or same genus, that is, by some law. Therefore, he asks, by what is their boasting to be excluded? Some may suppose that the apostle means their boasting was excluded by certain legal precepts, which commanded greater works. That is why he asks of works, as if to say, do I say that their boasting has been excluded by some law of works? But he answers, no, but by the law of faith. So it is plain that the apostle alludes here to two laws, that of works and that of faith. This is the evangelical law that I mentioned. At first glance, it would seem that by the law of works is meant the old law, by the law of faith, the new law, through which the Gentile is made equal to the Jew. But there is some doubt about this distinction. For even in the old
1:01:24 law, faith was necessary. And this is something very important, actually. Very important. One of the first precepts of the old law is actually about the ascent of faith. Interesting. For even in the old law, faith was necessary, just as it is in the new. You who fear the Lord believe him. I believe, therefore I have spoken. And indeed, works are required in the new law. namely the works of certain sacraments. As commanded in Luke, do this in memory of me and of moral observances. Be doers of the word and not hearers only. Consequently, it should be said that what he calls the law of works is a law outwardly preserved and written through which men's external works are directed. So notice, this
1:02:10 is when it prescribes what he ought to do and forbids what ought to be avoided. Notice this right here. So even when it comes to the law of faith, even when it comes to the new law, when it comes to the evangelical law, this can be treated as the law of works. If you merely consider the precepts of the Catholic religion, the moral precepts of the Catholic religion, if you merely consider this as something which is habituated by your own powers, rather than being something that flows from God's gifts of grace to you, that justice which he creates in you and is brought about ultimately by the motion of the spirit within us. So the law of works can even extend not only,
1:02:56 this is like for a lot of people, it's just like explosion of the head for this one. But not only does the law of works, can it be something of the natural law? Not only can it be of the ceremonial and moral precepts of the old law, it can even be for the new law. Even the new law can be treated as the works of the law. If it is something which is merely outwardly written and preserved and directs our external works. But, and then the flip side is also true. But what he calls the law of faith is a law inwardly written through which are directed not only external works, but even the very motions of the heart among which is the act of faith is first with the heart we believe under justification of the second law he speaks below. the law
1:03:43 of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. So when it comes to this inward law, this law of faith, the law of faith, because as St. Paul says in Romans 1, you know, the gospel is from faith to faith, from the faith of the old law to the faith of the new covenant. What you have is even when it comes to the old law, the old law, insofar as it was faith in something which was future, That is, you know, through the ceremonies, it's presenting Christ as future. Insofar as there is faith, which is commanded all throughout the old law, you know, like the Shema, for example, that's a profession of faith. That's a creed, you know, and I believe. So there is faith, which is commanded in the old law. And the old law was by the Old Testament saints
1:04:30 treated not of a law of works, but of the law of faith by which they were justified. Abraham was not justified by circumcision. Abraham was, he's our father according to faith, right? And then even on the flip side, this is the Jews, the Judaizers, in the new covenant treated the gospel as a law of works. This was, it was not just because they were observing the old law, they were also treating the gospel as a law of works. Because they were trying to establish their own justice rather than accept the justice of God, right? Which St. Paul, you know, he has some very colorful words about the descriptions of establishing your own justice. So let's continue. Then when he says, for we account, he shows how the Jews boasting is excluded by the law of faith, saying
1:05:18 for we apostles being taught the truth by Christ, account a man whomsoever he be, whether Jew or Gentile, to be justified by faith. He cleansed their hearts by faith. And this without the works of the law, not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace, but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts as stated in Titus, not because of deeds done by us in justice. This of course means without works prior to becoming just, but not without works following it. Remember the distinction between the antecedent and consequent, because as is stated in James, faith without works, that is subsequent works is dead and consequently cannot justify. Okay, so now let's go to chapter four. Romans chapter four, lecture one, number 325.
1:06:14 This is where he distinguishes between acquired and infused justice, which remember acquired justice has to do with natural justice. Infused justice is going to have to do with supernatural justice. Against this, one might object that becoming accustomed outward works generates an inward habit according to which a man's heart is also well disposed and so made ready to perform well and take pleasure in good works as a philosopher teaches in ethics too. So basically it's like, okay, well, just like when it comes to chastity, we can become chased through certain outward works, habituating it. You know, we have a habit of chastity. This is a virtue which inclines us to good acts. In the same way they say, well, why can't we do this when it comes to, um, Like, why
1:07:01 can't we have acquired justice whereby through the obedience of the precepts of the law, we become accustomed to it and actually grow within this acquired habit of justice. So he says, the answer is that this takes place in human justice through which man is ordained to the human good.
…
