Prima Secundae
244. Summa I-II Q.102 a.3: The Reasons for the Old Law Sacrifices (Worship, Rejecting Idols, and Figures of Christ)
Class of 2015-10-29
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/244-summa-i-ii-q-102-a-3-the-reasons-for-the-old-law-sacrifices/

[0:00] Okay, where are we now? We're in the body. Article three. Article three, huh? Okay. And. Begin the particulars now. To the third, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that there cannot be a suitable reason assigned for the ceremonies which pertain to sacrifices, huh? For those things which are offered in sacrifice are those things which are necessary for sustaining human life, just as certain animals and certain what breads, I guess, huh?

[0:38] But such a sustentation, sustenance, God does not need, right? According to that of Psalm forty-nine, nor do I eat the what fleshes of bulls or the blood of goats. Do I drink these? I mean, of course not. Therefore, unsuitably are these sacrifices offered to God, huh?

[1:04] Moreover, in the sacrifice divine are not offered except from three genera of four-footed animals, from the genus of what, cattle, sheep, sheep and goats, yeah, and about birds, commonly the what, the turtle dove, I guess, and the dove, yeah, especially one.

[1:30] Especially, however, in the cleaning of what, yeah, the killing sacrifice from what, sparrows. Sparrows. But many other animals are more noble than these, right? Since, therefore, everything which is best should be offered to God, it seems that only these things should sacrifices be offered to God.

[1:55] Moreover, just as man has dominion over the the birds and the beasts, so also over the fish. Therefore, inconveniently are fish excluded from divine sacrifice. Well, I'm in favor of excluding fish, especially salmon.

[2:18] I read these these accounts, you know, the early, you know, invasion of the West. There, that Washington Irving has, you know, and of course all these Indians are gathering salmon, you know, and they they really preserve it, you know, and they have a offering to the white man.

[2:41] Moreover, indifferently are offered what turtle doves and doves, yeah. So, just as one offers the what the little ones, I guess it is. What? Yeah, the young, yeah. So also they should what get the young and. Oh my goodness! There's fourteen objections here. So it's getting really into particulars here, huh? This is where you get kinda depressed Yeah, yeah. Moreover, God is the author of life, of the life not only of men but also of animals, as is clear through what is said in Genesis one.

[3:31] But death is opposed to life. Therefore, we're not offering to God, animals that are killed, but more living animals. Especially because the apostle admonishes us in Romans twelve that we show or exhibit our bodies as a living host, holy, pleasing to God, huh? Oh my God. Moreover, in animals, huh? If animals are what offered to God in sacrifice, only those that are killed. There seems to be no difference in how they are killed, right?

[4:11] Therefore, unsuitably is determined the way of immolating them, especially in birds, as is clear in Leviticus one. Moreover, every defect of an animal is a way to corruption and death. If therefore animals killed are offered to God, unsuitably does one prohibit the offering of an imperfect animal, of one who is lame or blind or some other way injured.

[4:43] Moreover, those who offer hosts to God ought to partake of them, according to that apostle. Where the apostle says, "One Corinthians are not those who eat the what? Yeah, partakers of the altar. Inconveniently, therefore, certain parts of the hosts are offered. Are subtracted from the ones offered; you can't eat them. As, for example, blood and the what? Fat and the what? Is that the shoulder pectoral bone, breastbone, or breastbone?

[5:19] Yeah, yeah. Okay. Moreover, just as holocausts are offered in honor of God, so also the peaceful, yeah, and the hosts for sin. But no animal of the feminine sex is offered to God in holocaust, huh?

[5:41] But to come about holocaust from the four-footed animals as well as from the birds. Therefore, unsuitably in the peace offerings and for sin are offered animals of the feminine what sex. And nevertheless, in Peaceful offerings are not offered. What? Birds. Birds. huh? That was the objection of the medieval national organization of women.

[6:14] Moreover, all hosts peaceful offerings are seen to be one kind, right? Therefore, why not not to lay down this sweat difference that of some peaceful fleshes ought not to be wet.

[6:38] Left over for the the next day. Next day, yeah. Of some, however, they can be, as is commanded in Leviticus seven. Moreover, all sins in this come together that they are what they turn one away from God.

[6:54] But for all sins in reconciliation of God, one genus of sacrifice ought to be what? Yeah. Moreover, all animals which are offered sacrifice in one way are offered, namely killed. It does not seem therefore suitable that from what? Yeah. In a diverse way that comes about an offering. For now they are offered what?

[7:28] What Ears of corn Now simila Flour and. Now bread, right? Sometimes cooked. Yeah. Sometimes in the what? Yeah. Sometimes in the what? Whatever that is. What's that? Gridiron.

[8:00] Wow. Oven pan and gridiron. There you go. Moreover, everything which comes into our use ought to be what? We ought to recognize to be from God, right?

[8:15] Unsuitably therefore, apart from these animals, only these are offered to God: bread, wine, oil, That's frankincense. and salt. Yeah. Moreover, the bodily sacrifice expresses inwardly the sacrifice of the heart by which a man offers his spirit to God. But in the inward sacrifice there is more of what sweetness, right, which honey represents, than of what sharpness, which salt represents. Huh. For he said in Ecclesiastes twenty four seven, my what spirit is sweet more than honey.

[9:04] Eat the scriptures too. They turn it out, you don't? They or something. It was a beautiful custom among the Jews because they had manuscripts. They didn't want to get them destroyed by handling them, so they had these pointers to read the letters. Yeah. But when a child, young boy is learning to read the Hebrew, he's allowed to touch the book once. And so what they do is they, have a little boy, they touch his finger to the scroll and they dip it in honey and they put it in his mouth.

[9:38] Therefore, unsuitably, it's an prohibited sacrifice to add what honey. Yeah. Which also makes the bread savory. And they are commanded there to add salt, which is biting, I guess, and Is that Is that incense Incense here Yeah, which has a bitter savor, right?

[10:08] Therefore, it seems that those things which pertain to the ceremonies and sacrifices do not have a reasonable cause. I'm convinced, aren't you? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[10:22] Against this is what is said in Leviticus 1: 13. All things offered right huh? The priest offers upon the altar in a holocaust and an odor most sweet to the Lord. But it is said in Wisdom 7: 28, God loves no one who doesn't dwell with wisdom. From which it can be taken that whatever is acceptable to God is with wisdom. Therefore, all those ceremonies and sacrifices were with wisdom, as having reasonable causes.

[11:06] That's a good answer. Covers all the bases. Yeah. Okay. Look at that. Yeah. See, this is going to be the last article of the day here.

[11:29] Answer should be said that as has been said above, the ceremonies of the old law had a twofold cause. One, in the letter, to the letter, according as they are ordered to the what worship of God. Another, figuratively or mystical, right? According as they are ordered to figuring Christ, huh? And from both parts can be suitably assigned a cause of the ceremonia which pertain to what sacrifices, huh?

[12:09] Which is what this article is about, right? That that particular one. Now, according as sacrifices are ordered to the worship of God, a twofold what? One can take in two ways a cause of sacrifices. In one way, according as to the sacrifices is represented the ordering of the mind to God,

[12:40] to which the what? One offering the sacrifices what aroused? Yeah. Now, to the right ordering of the mind to God pertains that everything which man has, he recognizes to be from God as from a first what? Beginning, and it's ordered in God as it were in a last end, right?

[13:16] So they use the word circle there, right? Now, right? Heraclitus says that the beginning and the end are the same, right? Yeah. And this is represented in offerings and sacrifices, according as a man from these things has, as were in recognition that they are from God, he offers them what Honor honor God, according as it is said by David in the first book of Paralipomenon. Yours are all things, right?

[13:51] And what we've taken from your hand we give to you. So when you brought the newborn, the firstborn, did you bring them to the temple? Right, gotta give them back to God. Maybe God said, well, you can keep them. A little bit. That's what I just read a quote from Augustine where he says, "All our goods are either God or from God." Yeah.

[14:22] And therefore, in the offering of sacrifice, a man professes that God is the first beginning of the creation of things and the last end to which all other things are what referred. And also, you're commanded to look before and after, right? Huh? You should be orderly, and you look before and after, right? So, where should you first look before, and where first after?

[15:06] See, I'm going to look before and after because I've been taught this by my master there, Shakespeare. And what should I look before of, which I look after first? Everything

[15:20] in your experience you look before, because everything's from. Oh, should I look before yesterday, or should I? That's the first thing I should look, or should I look before? You know,

[15:34] first active reason. What should I do? In the second sense, especially before and cause and effect. Well, before and after shouldn't you look and see what is before, before and after? Yeah. The beginning of the end. Well, no, no, because that's going to be looking after. See, what what what is always before seeing it before and after? What do you see always before? Some distinction. Yeah, yeah.

[16:06] So. Is distinction before order? For example, there is a distinction of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, but Thomas argues that there is no before and after, that the Father is in no way before the Son, right? So there could be a distinction without a before and after, but there can't be a before and after without a distinction.

[16:38] So you know, I mentioned how Thomas there, I think, is in this one of the senses of text I have, where Thomas says, you know, the first thing that pertains to order is distinction, or rather, it's presupposed to it, right? then. You know, okay. So you're looking before, before and after, right? And what do you see before every before and after? Distinction, right? Okay. Now, what comes after looking before and after?

[17:08] Yeah, I could say order. Yeah, of course, it's almost the same thing as seeing before and after. You're seeing order, right? But then you can say, you know, reason can look what?

[17:20] What comes first and what comes last, right? Or what looks, you know, for the beginning, the end, right? Because that's kind of a continuation of it, right? You know.

[17:35] See, when Aristotle's in the in the book on the poetic art, there, he talks about what beginning, middle, and end, right? And Homer has taught the other Greeks to make a plot that has a beginning, middle, and end, rather than it's about one man, right? Because sometimes one man goes through things that have any connection, right? Okay. So

[18:00] that's the Aristotle defines beginning as what before something, but not after anything, and end is after something, but not before anything, and then the middle is both before and after, right? So he's talking here, primum principium, right? Huh? You know, you really got a, yeah, and then ultimus, but ultimus means the last end, right? Yeah. So you're looking for what is first and what is last, right?

[18:31] But you're looking for what the first beginning and the last what end? So that's really to look for what is first and last, or what is the beginning, what's an end, and then what is first and first beginning, the last end is to this comes after, right? You should do that, right?

[18:59] You know, when you say that that they have two things like before and after, don't they come before? Something that negates these. Doesn't the affirmative come before the negative?

[19:20] So, if you say I'm not a carpenter, you know what a carpenter is first, don't you? doesn't, it? You know, a carpenter comes before our knowledge, not a carpenter, right?

[19:35] So, in logic, right now, you first learn what a genus is and what a species is, right? The same thing can be a genus and a species. Then you ask, but is every genus a species?

[19:56] Is every species a genus? And that's something that's known, right? So the highest genera, the ten categories, right? They are genera that are not species, and the lowest species are species that are not a genus, right? So what do you know first? A genus that is not a species, and a species that is not a genus, or something that is both a genus and a species?

[20:32] Tony would do genus it's not species first Well, I mean, when I say that substance and quantity and quality, substance is a genus that is not a species, right? I'm negating species, right?

[20:51] So something that is both a genus and a species wouldn't that be known before something that is a genus but not a species? They have to know a negative through the affirmative, right? And what is a species but not a genus? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, take a simple example here. I'm a father and a son, right?

[21:16] Now, is there a father who's not a son? Yeah. Yeah. Maybe there's a son who's not a father, right? But it seems you kind of know that afterwards, right? Huh? You say to the students, huh?

[21:35] Can the same thing be both a whole and a part? You know, I mean, like like like Massachusetts is a part of New England, right?

[21:54] Yeah. But then New England is a part of the United States, you know. So these things that are both a whole and a part, you know, there are a lot of examples of those, right? Huh? Right. Now

[22:14] is there a part that is not a whole? Or is there a whole that is not a part? I used to say to the students, huh? He had two main discoveries in the 20th century, right? Huh? One was the special theory, special relativity, which led on to the general relativity, right? And the other was quantum theory, right? Huh? Einstein, after he invented the two theories of relativity, then he went looking for what?

[22:43] This has stimulated the cosmos, right? Huh? What is the cosmos? It's the whole thing. It's a whole that is not a part. See, now, Heisenberg and the great quantum physicists, they went into studying the elementary particles, right? And they are looking for a part that is not a what? Whole, right. See, see. Now, some I've seen some scientists say, you know, maybe we'll, you know, we we we found water, and we thought that was, you know, a fundamental thing, but then we had hydrogen, oxygen, and then we had photoelectron.

[23:17] I mean, this goes on forever, right? Well, Heisenberg, Heisenberg says, I never thought this would go on forever, right? But when you got to elementary particles, have we, have we, you know, come to the end, right? Or you know, and but anyway, the the point was, I said, Einstein was looking for a hole that is not a part, and Heisenberg was looking for a part that is not a whole, and they both thought they'd found it, right?

[23:46] What they're looking for, But isn't a whole that's not a part less known to us than something that's both a whole and a part, and isn't a part that is not a whole less known to us Something that's both a whole and a part, right? So what's more known to us, huh? Before and after, or first and and last?

[24:11] Yeah, because first is before everything, else is not after anything, right? And the end is something after everything, but can something be both a beginning and an end?

[24:30] Yeah, must there be something before it? Just something before the beginning of me? I was born in January eighteenth, nineteen thirty six, but I think I must have begun in my mother's womb already before nineteen thirty five, right? But there was nothing before my beginning.

[24:56] Yeah, yeah. So I so I had a beginning, right? But maybe you know something before the beginning, right? So you see, first beginning. Now you're talking about something, you know. First. Yeah, yeah. So if you're looking before and after, you're going to find a beginning and end. Before you find the first beginning, and the what? Last end, right? Okay. Yeah.

[25:22] So if I look before and after, I'm going to look before before and after, which is look for distinction, right? And if I'm going to look after before and after, I'm going to look for first and last, and beginning and end, and at last for the first beginning and the last end, if there's such a thing, right? But it's less known to us, right? Yeah. But we found that about God, right?

[25:45] Huh? So so what are we doing here? He says, and therefore in the offering of sacrifices, man protests, huh, or professes, you might say, right, that God is the first beginning of creation of things and the last end, huh, to which. Omnia, yeah, all things ought to be referred, right? Okay.

[26:10] So you know what you are doing when you offer sacrifice, right? I don't think people stop and think about that, you know. You are trying to make the you know recall that or think of that. This is the problem Pantheists like Karl Rahner and the rest of them, because they don't admit there's a difference between God and creation. what we call creation—it's only stuff. Seems an undue and prayer exactly.

[26:40] I remember reading through the Enchiridion Symbolorum, you know, and it seems that oh, 19th century, the popes are are correcting some German theologian, you know, who's got these you know pantheistic ideas, right? You know. But I don't. Warren Murray says that C. S. Lewis says somewhere, you know, that pantheism is kind of the natural religion of man, right? He just thinks.

[27:17] Yeah yeah yeah Well Tocqueville also said one of the dangers facing just our American democracy was lapsing into pantheism. If I remember correctly. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, he talked about the danger of pantheism and democratic things, and we have to unite against that.

[27:29] And because it pertains to the right ordering of the mind to God, that the human mind does not recognize another first author thing except God alone. Nor in some other thing does he constitute his own end, right? On account of this, one is prohibited, huh? In the law to offer a sacrifice to something other except to what, God? That's interesting, right? Huh? You offer sacrifice only to God, right?

[28:02] Huh? You can you can play here comes the chief when the president walks in, but you can't sacrifice to him, right? Huh? And as much as by pleasing, otherwise. Yeah.

[28:20] And therefore, as a cause of ceremonies about what sacrifices can be assigned, a reason another way from this that through what things of this sort men are withdrawn from the sacrifices to idols, huh?

[28:40] Whence also the precepts about sacrifices were not given to the people of the Jews until after they had what declined to idolatry, right? By adoring the what? The golden thing. Yeah. Hmm. As if these sacrifices were instituted, that the people that were prompted sacrificing would offer these sacrifices more to God than to idols.

[29:19] Whence it is said in Jeremiah seven, "I have not spoken with your what fathers, and I did not command them in the day that I led them out of the land of Egypt about the word of holocausts and victims."

[29:41] Now, among all the goods, however, which God gave to the human race, lapsed through what sin? Most of all was that He gave His own Son. Right. Once. It is said in John three sixteen. Oh, I'm still in Luke. Going through the going through the reading it. Thus God loved the world, so loved the world, huh? They say sometimes sick. They were flexible. He so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in him would not perish, but might have eternal life.

[30:29] They should say that to begin their sermon, right? And therefore, the most potent sacrifice is that which Christ in which or that by which Christ offers himself to God in the odor of sweetness, as is said in Ephesians 5: 2.

[30:56] On account of this, all other sacrifices offered in the old law that what they might figure this one singular and special sacrifice. As it were the perfect through the what imperfect, huh? Whence the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews chapter ten that the priest of the old law offered what often the same hosts, which never could take away sin, but Christ for sin offered himself in simple term, right?

[31:40] Now, did did the prophets who died in harmony with God did they get the beatific vision before or after the Christ's sacrifice? Yeah, they were

[31:56] suffering, I don't think, but yeah, but it's. I think when your soul is separated from your body, you don't have the distraction of the body, right? So the intensity that you must have to want to see God must become really. And purgatory is a rough place, huh? Not that they were in purgatory, but I mean there must have been something, something the desire to see God must be very strong.

[32:41] Okay. Christ, however, for sins offered one, right, self in semper eterna. And because from the figured is taken the reason for the figure, therefore the reasons for this, what, yeah,

[33:07] should be taken from the true sacrifice of Christ. Now, poor Thomas got to go through all these and and show this, okay? But he's distinguishing between the what the two reasons, right? One for them now, right? And the other to figure this future sacrifice of Christ.

[33:34] Now, what's the first objection here, right? Why I don't eat flesh and I don't drink the blood of goats and so on, right? I think I am. Okay.

[33:48] To the first, therefore, it should be said that God does not wish these sacrifices to be offered to Himself on account of the things themselves which are offered, right? As if He needed them, right? Huh? Whence it is said in Isaiah one, huh? The holocausts of bulls, wasn't it? Rams. Rams, and the flesh of what, the fat, huh? And the blood of cattle, goats, lambs. I do not wish.

[34:19] Nolo nolo. But He wished them to be offered to Him, as has been said above, both to excluding idolatry, right? As well as to signify the suitable order of the human mind to what God, huh?

[34:44] And also to figuring the mystery of the redemption of mankind, right? Made through what Christ, huh? Those three things, are you saying, right? To excluding idolatry, to signifying the suitable order of the human mind to God, and to figuring the mystery of redemption, yeah, to Christ.

[35:19] What do we see in the sacrifice of the Mass there, right now? When they sacrifice, I mean, to get to to the the wine and the blood, right? What do they say at the end? Say in memory. Do this in memory of me, as he said. In memory of me. Yeah. That's what that work you mentioned before says of the reasons Christ instituted the sacrifice. One is that we remember.

[35:42] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You see that the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, right, is to signify the separation of the blood and the body, right, Lord. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[36:17] Is that fig? Is that figurative then? Yeah, yeah. But do we see sometimes it's got to be an enactment of the sacrifice on the cross?

[36:41] Father Hardin always explains that that part about the offering or representation is in terms of the fact that since Christ still has human will, he can still offer himself as sacrifice even if he can't die. He says that's one

[37:08] of the reasons he can save us because he's still offering now today. But does the sacrifice of the mass have the same efficacy as the sacrifice on the cross, or does it get its efficacy from the sacrifice on the cross?

[37:19] The same sacrifice. Yeah, it's different manner, same same victim, yeah, same offering, different manner. Yeah, yeah. So that's that's why I I don't know that I've ever read it anywhere else or seen it. Father Hardin always insists on that because it's that's what it is. It's a continuation of the same offering here, it's not the same way. Yeah.

[37:46] That's it Yeah Okay, but now we're in the Old Testament, right? So, excluding idolatry, yeah. Well, I always I always think of the time when when they had the calf there when he was up on the mountain, wasn't it? That was really a pretty frustrated Moses, if you can say. Didn't Didn't he break the the the? I was I was like Joshua's youthful innocence. Sounds like a battle down there.

[38:29] No, it's not. No, it's not. Yeah. Signifying the suitable order of the human mind to God, it's right. Yeah, that is. Okay, now look at the second one. Check, check. Look at the objection again.

[39:03] But they're more, no more noble animals, right? Huh? To nothing. Yeah. To second, it should be said, as regards all the foresaid, huh? And then, as you, my main text says, you're going back to the reply to the first objection, right? For all those three reasons, right? Huh? There was a suitable reason where for these animals were offered to God in sacrifice and others. First, to excluding idolatry, right?

[39:40] Because all these animals were offered what? Idolatry, right? The offer to their gods, right? Huh? Or they used them for bad things, huh? Doing bad things. Yeah. These animals, before the Egyptians, with whom they were what living, were abominable to what kill. Once they did not offer them in sacrifice to their what.

[40:25] Whence it is said in Exodus eight, the abominations Egyptians we what. Shall we offer to the Lord our God Yeah. But they worshiped the what, lambs. They venerated the goats.

[40:44] I was I was uh born under the sign of the goat, right? Yeah. Capricorn, Capricorn, yeah, yeah. Because in their figure the demons what period.

[41:06] Used to agriculture, which among other things was sacred. So what he's saying is the Egyptians didn't offer these Yeah they didn't use them because they were they were so important. Yeah, yeah. Like the like the Indians have certain things, you know. Yeah.

[41:26] One of the one of the Indian woman there opened the door for Rose and I when we were coming to church, you know. So I said, I said, you must be one of those Thomas Christians. I said. She said yes.

[41:41] First of all, I said We got so many, you know Indians coming into the parish. I first said to this little this little boy, you know, are you a Thomas Christian? He didn't know what to say, and his mother says, "Yes, you are." So I guess it's accepted, you know. I don't know if they all. No, not all. of them. One province there. Or in Kerala, but I think it's usually the ones that say they can trace their family back to the Apostle.

[42:07] Yeah. So they're the first Christians of India. So that's what they would say. So not all of them are from the first. so now they would call themselves Thomas Christians, but yeah, maybe, maybe, some do today Yeah, yeah. These two ones, when the mother said, "Yes, you are a Thomas Christian," and so Rose said, "what did you say to that woman?" I said, "I said to her, 'Are you one of those Thomas Christians?

[42:26] '" I said, "I said to her." That's what Doctor Carroll points out when you mentioned earlier about Saint Thomas, you know, coming to know our Lord Yeah. through his senses. Yeah. And the same Doctor Carroll, Warren Carroll says that's why he kind of interprets God's providence for Thomas to go to India, where these people don't trust their senses. Yeah. He was the one to tell them, No, I took my finger.

[42:47] Really, I really did it. Secondly, this was suitable for the foresaid ordering of the mind to God, right? And this in two ways. First, because animals of this sort are what most of all useful, I guess, right? Are most of all that to which is sustained human life. Not the fish, right?

[43:27] And with this, that they are most what? Pure, yeah. And they have a most pure what? Nourishment, huh? There you go there's your steak right there? Other animals are either woody woody, woods animals, and not commonly what deputed for the use of men, or they are domestic, having an unclean nourishment, huh? As the pig and the what chicken. And a chicken, I think. Okay. Only that which is pure should be offered to God, right?

[44:10] Birds of this sort are especially offered because they are had in what abundance in the land of promise, yeah, the land of promise. That's interesting, promised land. Okay. Secondly, because through the immolation of these animals, the purity of the mind is designated, huh? For because this is said by the gloss in the gloss of Leviticus 1 I think it is it are down here in my footnote, but anyway, we offer the what vitulum, the

[44:47] yeah, when we overcome the pride of the flesh. The lamb, when we correct irrational emotions. The goat, when we overcome lasciviousness That's that's a yeah. That's in what sir? I mean, in Shakespeare's contemporary there.

[45:17] The what dove, when we observe chastity, because I guess they're faithful to their spouse or something. Is that what they say? Oh wait, the one before is the colomba. Yeah. When we are simple. Yeah. And then the turtle

[45:34] dove preserves chastity. Yeah. The unleavened bread, when we rejoice in the. sincerity, yeah, yeah. But in the dove, is manifested we signify charity, the loving bird, and the simplicity of the mind, eh?

[46:01] Be what Wise as serpents? And simple as doves. Yeah, we're, not going to offer up serpents. I hope not. Okay. That's why the Greeks they put a part of the reason. No, it's not. They have some staff, and they have some priests or bishops, and they have the serpent. Going back to to the yeah near yeah okay third it is suitable for these animals to be offered in a what figure of Christ

[46:39] because as is the same gloss says Christ in what in the calf on account of the virtue of the cross in the lamb on account of what innocence the goat ram ram ram yeah on account of what

[47:06] sovereignty yeah in the goat account of the likeness of the sin of flesh In the turtle dove and the dove the conjunction conjunction of two natures is shown or in the chastity of the turtle dove and charity of the dove. Yeah That obscure poem by Shakespeare you know about the turtle dove Yeah yeah. Yeah, it's about uh okay In the uh

[47:50] Yeah But they sp they sprinkle that on the people too. Yeah It's figured by the baptism. Okay Thomas you're reading something here so he's going back to the same three reasons that he touched upon the first one that's the way these objections are ordered okay aha to the third objection that the fish why are they left out because they live in waters they are more alien from man than the other animals huh which live in the air just as man does right and also because fish extracted from the water die at once huh once they cannot be offered in the temple as the other animals huh not at once they make a little prayer and pull the fish next to the altar.

[48:57] But magis sunt alieni, huh? Alien from man than the other animals. I fully agree that they're alien from man. I'm gonna get some justification out of this, you know.

[49:14] Try to, you know, go to a fish place. Just tell them this reasoning. I mean, heck, the apostles were fishermen. They say connoisseurs, you know, really like fish, you know. Connoisseurs, you know that's what they say? If they give it over to them,

[49:41] they says in the turtles, right? And in the turtle doves, better are the what older ones than the what Young In the columbis, it's the reverse, huh? And therefore, as Rabbi Moses says, they're commanded to offer turtle doves is it, and the young of does, because everything that is best should be attributed to God.

[50:20] We have to get some of these animals to see the full fullness of the sun. To the fifth, it should be said. Now, this is the fifth one about being killed. Yeah, and even says in Romans 12, I'll show your bodies a living host, holy, pleasing to God.

[50:44] What does life itself have to do with the dead? Animals and sacrifices are what killed, offered, sacrifices are killed because they come into use of man, right? Killed, right? According as they are given by God for men to what for food, right?

[51:11] Also, they are what. Cremated. Yeah, Burned. Yeah, But you shouldn't do a steak now, you know. That's what I told you about by Kasurik, He liked his meat well done, you know, and he kept on sending it back in the restaurant and came back, and the guy just left it on the thing and burned and sent it out, you know, you know, you know, because it was just not the way to eat it.

[51:34] Yeah, yeah. They fixed him. Okay. Okay, that's because we cook it, don't we? Because through fire being cooked, they become apt for human use, right? So these animals eat the raw. It's terrible. So what's that stuff that fish thing they give? Sushi. Yeah.

[52:04] Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I won't forgive you. We all have our failings. Yeah, no, I think I've seen that. Yeah. I had no choice. I was a guest in someone's house and I didn't know what she prepared. Sprung it on me. I said, Oh, well, I guess I got to eat." I was like, "Remember giving a piece of candy one time? You know, one of these things with the ants, and I didn't know what it was in there."

[52:32] So I just like that. Vinny said, "How'd you like that?" I knew it was some kind of a thing that he's giving me that I would not choose to eat. I thought that actually tasted good. It did. Tasted good if you don't know what you're eating.

[52:51] Okay. Okay. Likewise, through the killing of the animals, it signified the destruction of sin, right? Huh? And that men were what? Worthy for their sins, huh?

[53:23] And if those animals in the place of them were killed, right? Huh? This would be to signifying the yeah expiation of sins. And through the killing of these animals, it also signified the killing of what? Christ, huh?

[53:45] So it gives three reasons in for this, right? Because they are killed by man for his and God intends this, right? And destruction of sins, and then to signify the death of Christ, huh? Okay, let's look at what this sixth objection was again, huh?

[54:16] Yeah, okay. To the sixth, it should be said that a special way of killing animals offered is determined in the law to exclude other ways by which the what? Animals. The idolaters, I guess, huh? Idolaters offered animals. To their idols, right? Huh?

[54:39] Or also, as Rabbi Moses says, the law chose a kind of death by which animals are what less afflicted when they're killed, huh? Okay, people don't understand that today. To which is excluded also the what? Lack of one's offering and the deterioration of the animals killed,

[55:03] That's interesting. Okay. You know how long it took Thomas to write this article. It's amazing how much he he wrote in his short life, huh? It's that

[55:20] seventh one, right? Every defect of an animal is a way to corruption and death. If therefore animals killed are offered to God, it's unsuitable that they what prohibit the imperfect one, yeah. To the seventh, it should be said that because animals stained or having defects are accustomed to be had in contempt before men, right? Therefore, it was prohibited lest God be offered in to be offered to God in sacrifice.

[55:58] An account also was prohibited lest they what. The payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, or the price of the dog. Yeah.

[56:31] And for the same reason, they're not offered animals before the seventh day, because such animals would be abortive, right? Not get a good consistency, right? On account of their.

[56:46] Okay, I'm going to give you a pass on that. So give you a pass on that. Okay. Moreover, those things which those who offer hosts to God ought to partake of them.

[57:00] Now, some parts are withdrawn, right? The right arm. Okay, this is a long answer. Would you like, would you like to stop here for next time? Yeah, maybe so. Yeah.