Secunda Secundae
6. Summa II-II, Question 1, Articles 8–10: The objections on the articles answered, the Creed as a summary of Scripture, the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and the Pope's authority over the Creed
Class of 2017-10-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/12-secunda-secundae/006-summa-ii-ii-question-1-articles-8-10-the-objections-on-the/

[0:00] Okay, got a few objections here. Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said. Talking about the philosophers, know about the unity of God. Many things through faith we hold about God, which can be what philosophers investigate by natural reason, right? But we're not able to do. Yeah, as example, his providence and his omnipotence, right? And that he alone should be what worshipped. Which all of these are contained under the article of the unity of what

[0:41] God. It's interesting in the Summa Theologiae when he takes up the substance of God. In the Summa Theologiae, the last thing he shows us that God is one. When the Summa Contra Gentiles it's next to the last one. The last one is that God is what infinite, right? When the Summa Theologiae, his infinity is taken up right after his his goodness, right?

[1:24] I try to see why does why does he do that, right? Well, I think part of it is the fact that the Summa Theologiae in the Prima Pars, you go from

[1:39] the unity of God to the Trinity of persons, right? So the last thing you want to say maybe is what God is one. Before you take up the Trinity, right? Just taking up in the same book, right? But in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the

[2:01] Trinity is not taken up until the fourth book, right? Because the fourth book is about those things that can be known about God only by faith, and the first three books are about those things can be known about God by natural reason as well as by faith, right? So there's not a tendency, you know, to emphasize quite as much, right? Maybe that's why he puts it last, right?

[2:21] Because of that, and it's kind of common, you know, to talk about De Deo Uno et Trino, right? Well, you want to you know end up with that there. There's only one God, you know, so we won't be accused of being polytheists like the Muhammad, I think, thought that we were polytheists, right? They can't understand the Trinity, and they think that you're saying that there are three what?

[2:46] Gods. Yeah, yeah, and they have you know little sayings, you know, put against you know there being he has no son, no no wife, and so they go and say the thing that Muhammad did, huh? But you know, he thought that we're kind of relapsing into this polytheism, you know. It's a. So it's kind of appropriate that he wants to make the article, the argument for the being only one God, right?

[3:17] The last thing before we go into the Trinity, which begins in question twenty-seven, which is the cube of what? Yeah. Thomas says a cube number has the same significances that which is a cube. Must be very chance. Begins the Trinity in chapter twenty-seven, but it helps my memory, you know. I mean, you know, the old man may start to forget things, you know, and remember.

[3:46] Okay. Okay. To the second, it should be said that the name of divinity itself implies a certain what? Foreseeing provision, right? Okay. No, the Greek, I mean, the virtue of reason there in the cardinal virtues is called what? Prudence, right? Well, what does prudence mean, right? Providence. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And my friend, there, Winston Churchill, you know, he uses the term foresight rather than prudence, right?

[4:31] But that's really a kind of a principal part, you know, of prudence, foresight. So he's talking about that here, right? Okay. Okay. But that's when he's talking about the the origin of the word, you know, for God.

[4:53] Now, power in those having understanding does not operate except according to both will and what knowledge. And therefore, the omnipotence of God includes, in some way, what knowledge of all things and what providence.

[5:12] For he cannot what will those things all things which he wills and inferior things except that he knows also them and has providence over them, right?

[5:28] Now, to the third, let's go back and check the third for a second with the objection. Yes. Same knowledge. Yeah. To the third, it should be said that of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is one knowledge as regards the unity of what essence, which pertains to the first article. I believe in one God, and now we say stop there, right? Stop. Okay.

[6:04] As regards the distinction of persons, which is by the relations of what origin. I remember what I was saying to how Thomas uses what the first post predicament? The first post predicament in the categories is the distinction of the four kinds of opposites: contradictories and contraries, and having and lacking, and relations. Right. And Thomas, you know, gives a what distinction of distinction when he's investigating the Trinity, huh?

[6:43] Because the Trinity, it's an article of faith that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are really distinct, right? Not just names of the same person, you know, because he does different things, right? Like I'm a husband and a father and a teacher and all these things, right? But the same person. But Thomas, what's a distinction of distinction? It's into two. Material and formal Yeah, and material distinction is by the division of the continuous, like when I divide up the apple pie among us, right?

[7:23] That's the division of the continuous. Well, you don't have the continuous in God because He's not a body, right? Now, the other kind of distinction is they call it formal distinction, right? And that's by opposites.

[7:38] So Thomas says the distinction of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit can't be by material distinction; it must be by formal distinction. But then he eliminates three of the four kinds of opposite because they involve one member having a kind of non-being, right? Being a non-being and having and lacking kind of a non-being, right? And even one contrary is lacking something compared to the other. Well, I am who I am is what God is, so those can't be it.

[8:08] It must be by the fourth way, right? So he separates three of the kinds against the fourth one, right? And he says it can't be one of the first three; it must be the fourth one. So the Father and the Son, as their names would indicate, differ by what? Relatives, right? And the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son together, right?

[8:32] So as regards the distinction of persons, which is by the relations of origin, in some way the knowledge of the Father is included knowledge of the Son, for it not be a Father if you didn't have a Son.

[8:51] Which the joining is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, yeah. And as regards all this, those are well moved who lay down that there's one article for all three persons, right? Because there's the same knowledge of what opposites, right? The same knowledge of special relatives. But because about the individual persons, some things should be observed about which it happens there happens to be error, right? In part with some people.

[9:21] And as regards this, right, about the three persons, are laid down three articles to get rid of the heretics, right? Who succumbed to them? For Arius believed that the Father was omnipotent and eternal, but he did not believe that the Son was what co-equal and consubstantial with the Father, and therefore it's necessary to lay down an article about the person of the Son to determine this, right?

[9:54] God from God, true God from true God, begotten not made, and so. And the same reason against what? For the same reason against Macedonius, it was necessary to lay down a third article about the Holy Spirit, that He's equally God and equally to be adored.

[10:19] Likewise, the conception of Christ and His nativity and His resurrection, eternal life, according to one reason, could be comprehended under one article, in so far as they are ordered to one thing, right? But according to another reason, they can be distinguished, in so far as each have their special what difficulties. So you're going to be a 12 man or a 14 man?

[10:46] The 12 party and the 14 party. Don't know who you're talking to, right? What did Bonaventure do? You know? I think he he said he recognized both. I don't know if he came down with one or the other. Yeah. He claimed both. Because Thomas seems either to open, but he seems to bring up more the 14, right? Yeah.

[11:19] Yeah. Okay. I like this fourth objection. To the fourth, it should be said, to the Son and the Holy Spirit, it belongs to be sent, right? They can't be sent unless you're from somebody. So the Father cannot be what sent, but it belongs to them to be sent for the sanctifying of creatures, right? About which many things to be believed, their their cur take up. And therefore, about the person of the the Son and the Holy Spirit, many articles are multiplied than concerning the person of the Father, because He wasn't sent, right?

[11:57] Qui nunquam mittitur, as has been said in my first book. Yeah. Yeah. if he had sent himself. He would have got more attention. Yeah. Yeah. That was more press. That's his fault

[12:17] Well I say this prayer though. Sometimes they say, "May God the Father strengthen you, right? May God the Son enlighten you, and may God the Holy Spirit fill your heart with His love, right? " There, I'm kind of giving the Father a little. Yeah.

[12:39] To the fifth, it should be said, that the sanctification of the creature by grace, and the consummation by what glory, come about also through the gift of charity, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, and by the gift of wisdom, that is appropriated to the what Son.

[13:03] And therefore, both work, the each work pertains to the Son and the Holy Spirit, by appropriation according to diverse reasons. Okay. So my little trochaic tetrameter, right? Move us, God, to know and love you, huh? One is the Son, the one is the Holy Spirit, huh? And you're addressing the Father. Move us, God.

[13:31] What about the Eucharist, huh? It is special difficulty. To the sixth, it should be said in the sacrament of the Eucharist, two things can be considered. One that is a sacrament, and thus it has the same what reason with the other effects of grace that sanctifies. Another is that it's what contained there the body of Christ is contained, and thus it's con it's included under what? Omnipotence.

[13:59] Yeah. Just as all other miracles, which are attributed to omnipotence. one of our hymns that we say on Sunday I like, because it refers to both of these characteristics. Fast and pray, he did as man. Great deeds he performed as God. Yeah. That's beautiful I like that.

[14:31] See, grace in some ways contained in all the sacraments, right? But only in the Eucharist do you have the body and blood of our Lord, which is kind of the source of what grace in the sacrament. Yeah. Special. Up to Article Nine here now.

[14:52] To Ninth, one proceeds thus. It seems that unsuitably the articles of faith are placed in the symbolo, which is the creed, right? Got to be careful that word symbolo. In other words, the symbolo means actually thrown together, right? And the thing just thrown together, you know. But

[15:15] maybe put together be better, right? Symbolo means thrown together. Yes, in Greek, balo, throw, and soon together. Sometimes you throw things haphazardly. Sometimes you're aiming at a target. Yeah.

[15:33] So, objection one. Sacred Scripture is the rule of faith, to which it is not licit, right? To add or subtract, right? For it is said in Deuteronomy four two, you shall not add to this word that has been spoken to you, nor shall you take away from it.

[15:57] Therefore, it is illicit to constitute some symbolum, to throw together something, right? Is the word the rule of faith after the what? Sacred Scripture has been edited. It is interesting how the Protestants accept the symbol of faith, thanks to the Scriptures.

[16:25] Moreover, as the Apostle says, Ephesians four, one is the faith, but the symbolum, symbol, is a profession of faith. Therefore, unsuitably is treated the what? Many symbols. A multiple, multiple symbolum. More than one, maybe. Is that mean that many creeds? Is that what? We got the Athanasian Creed and so on.

[16:50] Yeah. The Apostles. Nice. Yeah. There. Moreover, the confession of faith, which is contained in the creed or symbol, pertains to all the faithful, but it does not belong to all the faithful to believe in Deum, right? Now he's going to explain this, and he gets to talk about the the act of faith, right? But credere in deum pertains to what? Faith is informed by charity, right? But only to those who have formed faith, right?

[17:24] Formed by by what? Charity. Therefore, unsuitably is the symbol of faith treated under this form of words, I believe in unum deum, right? Saint Augustine explains that in one place. One place.

[17:40] I don't remember what exactly it is, but. I believe God. I believe in God. You know, what is the meaning of these things? So, talk about them when it gets to the to the act of faith, right?

[17:56] Moreover, the what? Descent to hell. Yeah, is one of the articles of faith, right? It has been said above, but in the what? Symbol of the fathers, which is what? Apostles' Creed. These you call it, don't we? Apostles' Creed. There's there's not made mention of the descent to inferos Therefore, it seems insufficiently what collected, right?

[18:23] Thomas was saying, you know, in this article on whether the Father is before the Son. I think he quoted the Athanasian Creed. There's no before and after in the Trinity. Well, it doesn't maybe say that explicitly in the other creeds, maybe because he's quoting the Athanasian Creed. And kind of interesting, you know. I don't like the Athanasian Creed. Yeah. Well, I was in some course there in theology in college.

[18:48] It was just St. Thomas, and we had to read one of the church fathers, and it's like that took Athanasius. Oh, so he's always stuck on my mind, you know. I mean, he's he's he's my my model there, you know, what a church father should be, you know. And he had quite a tough life there, you know. Doctor Carroll describes that there's some physical description of him at one of the early accounts there was at Nicaea.

[19:13] I guess he was in Nicaea, and he said And it says he had red hair and blue eyes. Wow, I can never picture it. It seems like

[19:24] he was the original. Always thought people with red hair, you know, they're more irascible than the rest of us, you know, because of the red hair. I don't know.

[19:39] Moreover, as Augustine says, expounding that of John fourteen one, believe in God and believe in me. But we believe what? What we say by Peter and Paul. Yeah. But should not be said to believe except in God. Since, therefore, the Catholic Church is purely something created, it seems that Insuitably as it said in unum sanctum catholicum et apostolicum ecclesiam, right? That's what it says. Yeah.

[20:21] Moreover, the symbol is treated for this that we might it might be the rule of faith, right? But the rule of faith ought to be proposed to all and publicly.

[20:34] Therefore, each creed, you might say, each symbolum, ought to be sung in the mass, right? Just as a symbol of the fathers, right? Because now we usually say that's a symbol of the Fathers, Is that the Nicene Creed, or what? The? Apostles' Creed is, I think, some of the. Would you call the symbol of the fathers the Apostles' Creed? No, no, I think that's Nicene. Is it?

[20:59] Yeah, Because the descendant of Philip is in the Apostles' Creed, right? Not in that one. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, he suffered, died, and was buried. That makes more sense. The fathers, Council Fathers.

[21:16] Yeah, because in fact, we'll see later. We'll see here. Come up with such a symbol of us, the Lord. Therefore, it does not seem to be a suitable editing of the articles of faith in the symbol. But against all this, is that the universal church is not able to err, Yeah that's a symbol because it's governed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. For our Lord promised this to His disciples, saying that when He comes, right, the Spirit of Truth, He would teach you all truth.

[21:56] But the symbolum is edited by the authority of the universal church. Therefore, there can't be anything unsuitable in containing it. That's in the general general. Thomas's reply here, the respondio, right? I should say, is what very short. To our answer should be said that, as the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews, eleven, chapter six, approaching God is necessary to what? To believe.

[22:36] But to believe, one is that able unless the truth is what proposed to him, which he he should believe. And therefore, it was necessary for the truth of faith to be not thrown together, but gathered together in one, with Facilius, more easily it could be proposed to what all. Lest someone by ignorance from the truth of faith should fail, right? And from this collection of positions

[23:12] of the faith, the name symboli is acceptum Because we use in English, you call it the creed, right? Huh. But the symbol is all

[23:25] together. Now, isn't it all in the Bible? What do we need this thing for? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the truth of faith in sacred scripture is contained diffusae, right? Yeah. In various modis, In various ways. And in some obscurity,

[23:52] thus that for to elicit the truth of faith from sacred scripture requires longum studium, a long study and exercise, to which not all, right?

[24:08] Yeah, the moment is necessary, right, to know the truth of the faith, right? Of which many occupied with other pursuits and other businesses are not able to give themselves over to what? Studies, yeah. And therefore, necessary from the what positions of sacred scripture to collect something manifest in a summary way, and that could be proposed to all to believe, which is not added to sacred scripture, but rather what assumed from sacred scripture.

[24:46] Distilled, yeah. Okay. Second objection: Unes fides, huh? I guess this is the one about there being many many things. To second, it should be said that in all the symbols, all the creeds, the same truth of faith is taught.

[25:16] But there is necessary for the people to be more diligently instructed about the truth of faith. Ubi errores surgunt where errors, what? Arise. Lest the faith of the simple be corrupted by what? Heretics, huh? And this was the cause where it was wherefore it was necessary to edit many what? Symbols. So in some extent they were thrown together according to necessity of what? This problem. Yeah, yeah.

[25:50] Was it was Augustine? Some church fathers say that heresy is necessary for the development of theology, right? Huh? Because it requires you to to answer this heresy and to go into it more deeply, right? Huh? To explain it, you know. That's why some some have said that today is necessary that to be like Paul VI did in the sixties. he made a creed of the people of God, so maybe he could do that again, for the errors of today, which is only fifty years later.

[26:24] And this was the cause where it was necessary to edit many symbols, right? Which in no other way differ except that in one plenius, huh, more fully is made explicit what in the other contained implicitly, right? According as the what? Presence or something. Yeah, heretics requires it. Oh yes, right.

[26:55] The third objection: Not all believers believe in God, having formed faith, right? He says, to third, it should be said that the confession of faith is treated in the creed or symbol as it were from the person of the whole church, which is united by faith. But the faith of the church as a whole is formed faith, huh? For such a faith is found in all those who are in number and merit of the church.

[27:31] And therefore the confession of faith in the symbol is treated according as it belongs to formed faith. That those who do not have even those faithful who do not have formed faith might strive to attain to this what form, huh? Sure. Okay. Now, what about this descent to hell, right? Huh?

[28:04] What did you say, brother? Was was the apostles? Apostles. What we call the Apostles' Creed is the one, that doesn't It'll come up in the fourth Yeah We'll see in the fourth Yeah. Yeah. Both names So the symbol of fathers would be the Nicene Yes. To the fourth, it should be said that about the descent to hell, no error is exhorted among heretics, right? And therefore, it was not necessary for some explanation about this to come about, huh?

[28:36] An account of this was not reiterated in the symbol. What? Fathers, Nicene Yeah. What was supposed. As it were, what? Predetermined. In the symbol of the apostles, right?

[28:52] For the sequent symbol, does not what. Cause the preceding one, but rather what expounds it. as has been said. the fifth one now. St. Augustine expounding, huh? You believe in God, believe in me, huh? But by Peter or Paul we believe, but we do not say... In the church. Yeah. Okay. To the fifth, it should be said that if it be said in Sanctum Ecclesiam Catholicam, and this should be understood according as our faith is referred to the what Holy Spirit, who sanctifies the church.

[29:51] That the sense is, I believe in the Holy Spirit, sanctifying the church. But it is better he says, and according to a more common use, that it be not be, be placed there what in, but. Simply said, yeah, I believe the Holy Catholic Church. This is Leo Papa saying he's a big shot To six, it should be said. What about the one you say in church? It should be said that because the symbol of the fathers, is declarative of the symbol of the apostles, right?

[30:37] And also was what. Given when the faith was already manifested and the church, enjoying some peace, right? Huh. An account of this was publicly sung in church. But the symbol of the apostles in the time of persecution was edited, was what? Not published, huh?

[31:00] Secretly in the prima, in the Completoria Oh that's ideal, as it were, against the darkness of the errors of the past and the future. Oh, that's right. Now it's optional in Roman Rite.

[31:17] It's now optional to pray either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed. Yeah. Yeah. In Roman Rite, it says over two offices, yeah, right. Two forms, two forms. Past and future. They do not all pray. So, Article Ten. We've got a little time To the tenth, then, one proceeds thus. It seemed this does not pertain to the Summum Pontifex, right? That's really Summum, added to Pontifex there, to order the symbol of the faith, right?

[32:02] For the new addition of the symbol is necessary on account of the making explicit of the articles of faith, as has been said. But in the Old Testament, the articles of faith were more and more made explicit according to succession of times, on account of this that the truth of faith would be more manifest according to a greater closer proximity to Christ, right?

[32:32] So the, the what the prophets are supposed to be what, unfolding a sense of law, right? But such a cause ceasing in the new law, there ought not to come about a greater and greater explanation or expliciting of the articles of faith. Therefore, does not seem to what pertain to the authority of the Summum Pontifex, a new addition of symbol. That's what a lot of people wish.

[33:02] That's exactly this. Moreover, that which is what forbidden under anathema, right? But universal church cannot be subject to the power of some man. But the new addition of the symbol is forbidden under the anathema of the authority of the universal church. For he said in the proceedings, I guess, of the first Ephesus Council of Ephesus, that perlecto symbolo Nicaenae Synod, the Holy Synod decrees another to what bring forth it is not licit, right?

[33:51] Another faith, right? To write or to compose a part that apart from the one defined by the Holy Fathers, who in the Nicene thing were Holy Spirit were gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and it adds the anathema punishment, accursed,

[34:11] I guess, an anathema means accursed, doesn't it? And the same thing is reiterated in the deeds of Chalcedon Therefore, it seems it does not pertain to the authority of the Summum Pontifex, a new addition of the symbol. Moreover, Athanasius was not the Summus Pontifex. But the patriarch of Alexandria, and nevertheless he what constituted a symbolum, what that is sung in the church. Do you ever sing it?

[34:47] It used to be in the prime of the Roman right. Yeah. The olden stuff because they have prime in the crepe is interesting. Yeah,

[34:58] I think they do. I think it's an option for them. one time a year they sing that prime. They in the Benedict when they follow the old right they sing it once during prime. I forget what time of the year it is. Okay. It takes a very long time to sing it. Oh, okay. So if Athanasius did it, therefore not more does it seem to pertain the addition of the symbol than to the holy what Father than to others, right?

[35:26] If Athanasius could do it, I'm an Athanasian man. As I said, I went to my college. Yes, I know if I haven't any word of that. In the eighties, when so much of the kind of areas areas were prominent and these were popular, I met a guy who had a button on his lapel and said, "I love Saint Athanasius." And I said, "Where did you get that?"

[35:49] He says, "I went to high school in Saint Athanasius." I mean, what was the name of the football team? Yeah, yeah, who knows what. But against this is that the addition of the symbol was made in the general synod, right? But what? Such a synod. Yeah, by the authority only of the holy pontiff can be gathered, as is had in the decrees, distinction seventeen. I have to go back there and check that in.

[36:25] Okay. Therefore, the addition of the symbol pertains to the authority of the supreme pontiff. Pontiff? Let's go back to what making a bridge or what. Bridge builder. Yeah. Ponts. Yeah. I find a lot in Saint Catherine'sian a bunch of that idea of the bridge, yeah. Yeah, Christ, Christ is the bridge. Do you know if the Eastern Church the Orthodox created a symbol since since Athanasius? That's why they balk at the Filioque.

[36:57] I know, but have they they haven't created their own creed and synod or anything? No, I don't think so. I don't think they have gathered a synod. They haven't said any quorums are universal because they know they haven't. Well, last year they did, or this year they did, they finally did. Did they invite the Pope to Rome? No, no, no, no. That that's not. There were representatives from Rome, but not the Pope.

[37:18] but they it was their first Senate, general Senate since... a couple of biggies were missing. Russians weren't there. the Syrians weren't there. Romanians. Romanians. Bulgarians, I'm sorry Bulgarians weren't there. That was the protest. Georgians. So much for unity. I answer: it should be said, Thomas says, that it has been said that a new addition of the symbol is necessary to avoiding what the errors arising.

[37:49] But to that authority right pertains the addition of a what symbol, to whose authority pertains it to determine as a what judgment right those things which are faith that by all yeah not destroyed huh unshaken yeah may be held. But this pertains to the authority of the summa pontificis, to which greater and more difficult questions of the of the church should be referred, as said in the decrees distinction what seventeen huh

[38:32] okay um whence also the Lord says Luke twenty two to Peter whom he had constituted as a summa pontifex I have prayed for you Peter right that your faith do not what fail and that you sometimes turning will confirm your brothers right the popes often quote that right you know

[39:00] and this reason is because one faith ought to be of the whole church right according to that of one Corinthians let all of you say the same thing right that there not be in you schisms right

[39:17] which cannot be observed unless the question of faith questions question arises Faith exhorted from faith determined by the one who is over the whole church right and thus his judgment is firmly held by the whole church and therefore to the authority alone of the summa pontifex pertains the new addition of a symbol just as all other things which pertain to the whole church right as to congregate a general synod and other things of this sort now to

[40:01] the first therefore it should be said that in the teaching of what Christ and the apostles the truth of faith is sufficiently what made explicit but because perversi homines huh perverse men huh the pervert the what apostolic doctrine and scriptures and other teachings they pertain to its what Perdition. To their own perdition, yeah. Yeah We're talking about the the uh, De Anima last night with Joshua right now, and Thomas is talking about the position of Averroes, right that the possible understanding is a separated substance right.

[40:44] And Thomas says, "Quam leviter errant," right? Just why you say leviter? It was very clear what Aristotle was saying right now. The about the part of the soul by which it, you know, understands. He's talking about a part of the soul, not a separated substance.

[41:05] But because perverse men huh, pervert for their own perdition, right? The apostolic teaching and other scriptures. if it's necessary, at times preceding, that, the explanation that there be an explanation of faith against the errors that arise.

[41:29] Now, to the second, it should be said that the prohibition and what judgment of the Senate extends itself to. private persons, right, of whom it is not, or whom it does not belong to determine about the faith, right. For through this judgment, the general synod, right, is not what taken away the power, right, for a subsequent synod to make a new edition of the symbol, not containing another faith, but the same one more exposed.

[42:08] Thus, for example, the synod observes that the sequent or the following synod expounds something above that which the previous synod had exposed, on account of the necessity of some heresy arising, on account of the necessity of some heresy arising, whence it pertains to the summum pontiff, by whose authority the synod is congregated, and whose sentence is what confirmed.

[42:41] To the third, it should be said about my friend Athanasius, right, that he has not composed a manifestation of faith by way of a what symbol, but more by way of a certain what teaching, as from his very way of speaking appears. But because the whole truth of the faith is contained briefly in his doctrine, right, it was accepted by the what authority of the Holy Pontiff, so that it might be had as a rule of what faith.

[43:15] Okay, so it's in the the Quicumque and so on, the Athanasian Creed, right, as a standard authority, right. Split into two, right, divinity and humanity. That's what he does, right. Two rule of two, right.

[43:35] I have a question off the topic. Yeah And it's not to attack Pope Francis, but just recently he said that Amoris Laetitia is Thomistic. He said, "Read it, read it. It's Thomistic." Being a Thomist himself, without again standing ourselves in opposition to Pope Francis, do you find, if you've read through Amoris Laetitia sufficiently, do you find it to be Thomistic? As he has an explicit of what he means by that, but I think it means a moral,

[43:54] moral teaching is Thomistic. But how would you, without criticizing or, kind of scandalous, I think a bit, you know. I'm sorry. Kind of scandalous is is insisting upon his his loose, you know, statements there, you know. Because he keeps saying that Schönborn Schönborn is the authentic interpreter who's supposed to be Thomistic. Yeah.

[44:30] So you would, again, without going into details, you wouldn't consider Amoris Laetitia Thomistic. No. It's funny. I had to laugh as we're going along here. This is a passing comment, but this particular book, whoever had it at some point before we got it, scribbles in those the beginning of question two, article one, of, question two. He wrote, "Not important."

[45:04] Oh, just skip this one. It's not important. It's like what we have, like this one. And they have somebody go up each article. Yes. No. Yes. No.