Tertia Pars
18. Summa III q.5 a.3–4 and q.6 a.1: Christ's Soul and Mind, and the Order of the Assumption (Flesh Assumed Through the Soul)
Class of 2008-12-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/018-summa-iii-q-5-a-3-4-and-q-6-a-1-christs-soul-and-mind-and/

[0:00] Okay, now the famous misunderstanding of the phrase and the word was made what flesh. It's interesting that God will say things in this way, right? Giving us the occasion, you might say, to misunderstand, huh? But He wants to make a point. We'll see what that is. To the third, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Son of God did not assume a soul.

[0:38] Well no, it's the Notice, the first two articles are about the body, right? That part, and now the next two articles are about what the soul, right? Okay. Well, the previous questions about human nature as a whole, and the kind implicit in that is that He would take on a human body, a human soul, but He's spelling this out, right?

[1:05] For John, treating of the mystery of the incarnation, of course, that word incarnation comes from. Yeah. Yeah. Says the word was made flesh. Okay, so Incarnatio comes from those words. Sounds kind of way of speaking of the word it was made flesh, making no mention of the soul.

[1:40] But he did not say that it was made flesh, meaning that it was what turned into flesh, right? That's not a heresy. We can dispose of it another time. But because He took on flesh, right? Therefore, it does not seem that He took on a soul.

[2:04] Remember the woman next door there, and there was a boy, and she was a Protestant of some sort, and she had read in the Gospels, there you know, the brothers and sisters of Christ, who had speaks of that, and we're trying to explain to her, you know, that this doesn't mean always mean brother and sister now, right? And because you can find even the Old Testament, people are saying we're brothers, right?

[2:29] Even though they may be, you know, uncle and nephew or something, right? Yeah. And but people can, you know, honest folk, you know, can can can get mixed up in these things.

[2:50] Moreover, the soul is necessary to the body so that it might what be alive through it, huh? But this does not seem to be necessary to the body of Christ. It seems, because the word of God itself,

[3:09] about whom it is said in the Psalm thirty-five, "Lord, with you is the fountain of what?" Yeah, some sometimes call him the fountain of eternal life, right? But what does he need a soul for then, right? He got the fountain of life, right? The fountain of life is going into. Therefore, it seems superfluous, right, that a soul should be what? Present, huh? When the word is present, when the fountain of life is present, and God and nature do nothing in vain, right?

[3:48] As even the philosopher says in the first book about the universe. Therefore, it seems that the Son of God did not assume a soul. There would be no need to assume this, right? Because in this case, he'd be redeeming just our what? Yeah, not our soul. As

[4:13] third objection is a little more strange. Further, from the union of the soul to the body is constituted a common what? Nature, which is the human species. But in the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no common what species to be taken, as Damascene says in the third book. Let's just kind of understand what Damascene is saying, and we'll don't worry too much about it. We'll see what Damascene means.

[4:44] He did not, therefore, take on a what? Soul, right? I guess Damascene is speaking about the the word and the what human nature becoming one thing, right? Okay, nature.

[5:01] But against this is what Augustine says in the book on Christian struggle. Agony. Nor will we hear those who say only a human body was taken on by the what word of God, right? And that thus they hear or understand the word was made flesh, and that they deny that man either a soul or they had something of man beside the what flesh only.

[5:51] Okay, to answer, it should be said that as Augustine says in the book on heresies. The this opinion was first that of what Arius, and later on of Apollinaris, right? Thomas talks about those two of the Summa Contra Gentiles, that the Son of God assumed only flesh, without a what soul, laying down that the Word itself was to the flesh in the place of a what soul, from which it would follow that in Christ there are not two natures, but one only, right?

[6:34] For from the soul and one flesh, human, or from the soul and from the flesh, one human nature is put together, constituted. But this position cannot stand

[6:52] for three reasons. First, because it is repugnant to the authority of Scripture, in which the Lord makes mention about a soul. And Thomas gives a text of Matthew twenty-six during the Passion of our Lord. My soul is what said was sorrowful even unto death right? Right up to death. And in John ten verse eighteen, I have power of what laying down my soul, because he has power of taking up.

[7:28] He says too, I think. But to this Apollinaris answers that in these words the soul is taken what Metaphorically. metaphorically, through which way or in that way in which in the Old Testament this kind of a strange text, right? The soul of God is what commemorated, right? Spoken of. Ah, my soul hates your what? New moons and your festivals. Yeah. But as Augustine says in the book of the eighty-three questions, the evangelists in the what gospel narration narrate that Jesus what wondered, huh?

[8:26] And he became angry, right? And he was what saddened, and he was hungry, right? Which thus showed that he had a true soul, just as from the fact that he ate and slept and was fatigued, it was demonstrated that he had a true what human body, huh? Otherwise, if these are referred to the metaphor. Since like things are read in the Old Testament about God, the faith of the what gospel narration would perish.

[9:09] For others, what is prophetically announced in figures; other, what is written according to the what propriety of things and proper qualities of things by the evangelists in a historical what way.

[9:30] But basically, saying in the beginning of this argument that the New Testament, right, the Gospels, Christ refers sometimes to his what soul, right, in things that his soul would do, like wonder, that the the word itself not wonder, right?

[9:52] Does God wonder in His divine nature? Hm? Wonders that what he's made How many days till Christmas Secondly, because this takes the foresaid error, takes away from the usefulness of incarnation, which is the what liberation of man from sin, I guess. For as Augustine argues, he's a pretty important guy. He's Augustine. I know who he is, but he's pretty important. Whoever he is, for as Augustine argues in the book against what, yeah, if taking on flesh, the Son of God omitted the soul, either he thinking it to be what,

[10:47] you're unimportant, right? Not to be needing in medicine, right? Or thinking it to be what alien from himself, right? He did not give to it the benefit of redemption, or judging it to be wholly what incurable, he didn't, yeah, or vile and to no uses apt, he threw it away.

[11:26] These two things imply blasphemy in God, right? In what way is He omnipotent if He is not able to cure the what desperate, right? In what way is He the God of all if He did not Himself make our what soul?

[11:50] And the two others, right, is not known. The cause is not known in the what one of the soul. In the other, merit is not held. So we read that in English.

[12:19] Yeah, that's a lot. He's got English text there. English was the whole thing. Yeah, I just read the whole text of Augustine. If the Son of God, in taking flesh, passed over the soul, either he knew its sinlessness and trusted it did not need a remedy, or he considered it unsuitable to him and did not bestow on it the boon of redemption, or he reckoned it altogether incurable and was unable to heal it, or he cast it off as worthless and seemingly unfit for any use.

[12:56] Now, two of these reasons imply a blasphemy against God. For how, for how shall we call him omnipotent if he is unable to heal what is beyond hope, or God of all if he has not made our soul? And as regards the other two reasons, in one the cause of the soul is ignored, and in the other no place is given to merit. Is he to be considered to understand the cause of the soul who seeks to separate it from the sin of wilful transgression, enabled as it is to receive the law by the endowment of the habit of reason?

[13:39] Or how can his generosity be known to anyone who says it was despised on account of its ignoble sinfulness? If you look at its origin, the substance of the soul is more precious than the body. But if at the sin of transgression, on account of its intelligence, it is worse than the body. Now I know and declare that Christ is perfect wisdom. Nor have I any doubt that he is most loving.

[14:12] And because of the first of these, he did not despise what was better and more capable of prudence. And because of the second, he protected what was most wounded.

[14:27] Basically, the soul is even more in need, you might say, redemption than the what body, because it's through the soul that man what fell, yeah. And it's through his freedom of his will, right? He's capable of sin, right? So the soul is even more in need of what redemption than the what body.

[14:52] That's what Thomas talks about the judgment on the soul after death, right? Where the soul is by itself without the body before the general judgment, huh? There's certain order there, right? Because sin begins in the sense in the soul, right? It proceeds to the body.

[15:14] Okay, then the third reason is because this position is against the truth of the incarnation. For flesh and the other parts of man get their what species through the soul. Once as Aristotle said, the soul leaving, there is not what flesh or bone except what equivocally. Aristotle says something about the eye, right? The eye of the corpse is eye equivocally, right? Doesn't have the ability to see anymore.

[15:44] This is clear through the philosopher in the second book about the soul. So he defines the soul in the seventh book of wisdom, there, the metaphysics.

[16:00] Okay, now let's go back and say to the first objection, which is, hey, what about this word made flesh, right? The soul is so important, why is it not mentioned, and and on so on.

[16:14] Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that when it is said that the word was made flesh, flesh is laid down for the whole man, right? As if one were to say that the word was made what man, right? And we've talked before about this figure of speech, which is called what? Synecdoche. Yeah, the name of the whole was given to the part, the name of the part is given to the whole.

[16:41] He's a brain. That's the Synecdoche, right? And Thomas says this is not just invented for this purpose here, right? As it says in Isaiah chapter forty, huh? All flesh will see the what? Yeah. So sometimes we're called flesh, and sometimes you'll find passages in Scripture where we're called souls, right? So we're giving the name of the part to the what? Oh. right. And sometimes the philosopher gets close to that way of speaking, right?

[17:19] Aristotle would say, reason more than anything else is man. But now, why do you use this figure of speech here, right? But therefore, huh? The whole man is signified by flesh, because, as is said in the authority induced, because through the flesh, the Son of God became what visible, right? Hence, there is added, and we saw His what glory, right? That's one reason he gives, right?

[17:59] It's like to say, and the word was made flesh, and the word was made what visible, right? That's one way of emphasizing that, right? And Thomas takes that from the text itself, where we saw His what glory, right? When did they see His glory? Flesh. Yeah, and especially on on the transfiguration, right? But the transfiguration was what a light shining through the body, right? Okay.

[18:33] Or, therefore, because as Augustine says in the book on eighty-three questions, I don't know what's going to show up among those eighty-three questions. I guess. Yeah. Ah. In that whole unity of taking on, the principal chief thing is the word itself, right? And the last thing is what the flesh, right?

[19:04] Wishing, therefore, the the gospel writer wishing, therefore, to commend to us the what love of the humility of God, right? Word and flesh names, omitting the soul, which is less than the word, but better than the flesh, right? Went all the way down to the flesh, right? Okay.

[19:32] And Thomas gives other reason here. It was reasonable that he named the flesh, which on the fact that it's more distant from the what word, right, would seem to be less what. distant what Yeah. Take honorable, right? Okay. And because the Manichaeans, right? You want it indicating all the way down to the to the flesh.

[20:10] So, what do you think of those three reasons? Any other reasons you can think of? Two reasons. I mean, you you kind of start off the idea that that Saint John would speak in an appropriate way, right? And what is the way in which he spoke? Well, he spoke using the vernacular, right? But why is it appropriate that he should emphasize the flesh, right? Why

[20:56] is that appropriate? It increases your your your love for for God's humility that he abased himself all the way down to the flesh. Yeah.

[21:11] That's kind of the middle reason he gives there from the text of Augustine, right? Sort of like he says elsewhere about the incarnation, the way that arouses our hope, glory ourselves, as we can see what he brought himself down in our whole nature.

[21:35] Kind of in this this third reason that he gives there, I mean, it's kind of like saying a fortiori, right? He took on the soul, right? He went all the way down to the flesh, you know. But if he said he took on the soul, and you say, well, you know, the flesh is too lowly for him to go down to, or to, you know, see, you want him to to clear up where there might be difficulty in understanding.

[22:16] The first one is kind of interesting too, because he takes it right from the text of John, right? Because John is going to give, in a sense, the he's going to narrate very much so the visible appearance of Christ, right? And that's a result of his going all the way down to flesh, right? Taking on that which is what visible, right? If he had taken on a what soul without a body, right?

[22:52] Then he would have been invisible to us, right? And that would be unnatural for us to be led by something. Not by the sensible, right? That runs through, you know, all the sacraments and these things that they have something what sensible whereby we're led to the sensible to something that that's not able to be sensed, huh? But you have to start with something sensible, right?

[23:20] You know, the First Vatican Council talks about the motives of credibility, and there are some motives of credibility that are peculiar to some people and not to others, right? I always give the example, there of Hillary, you know, reading the Old Testament, saying, "I am who am," and that you know, just profundity, you know, maybe wouldn't strike the man in the street so much, right? But the second, the First Vatican Council says that the miracles and the fulfillment of prophecies, right?

[23:50] These are appropriate to everybody, right? But why are they appropriate to everybody? Why the miracle is a motive of credibility is that appropriate to all of us? Well, because there is something sensible about the miracle, right?

[24:05] And so we have to be led by, in general, by something sensible to those things that are not able to be sensed, huh? And so John emphasized emphasized that he went all the way down to flesh to take on something, right? That was sensible, so that he could what, as Nicodemus says, we could see his glory, right, in his body, right? And the way he says it in second chapter about the way the priests came in, yeah, the miracle is that they saw his glory in that miracle.

[24:36] I think it says the way they began to believe. I thought well, as I said, they began to believe something manifested glory, just this sign. Yeah, sometimes when I talk about that miracle, I talk about it among other things as preparing us for the Eucharist, huh? Because in the Eucharist, when the body, when the bread and wine is changed to the body and blood of our Lord, you don't sense the body and blood of our Lord there, right?

[25:09] But when the water is changed into the wine, right, you could sense the what, the wine, right, huh? So there you see something of God's power to transform things, right? And so it prepares the way, right, for the miracle of the of the Eucharist, right?

[25:31] Because it's sensible, right? So all those reasons are interesting, huh? And as St. John says, that he manifested his glory in the sign. Yeah. I think the third argument there too, you know, a lot of times in philosophy we show the less obvious case, right?

[26:01] You know, Thomas is talking sometimes about the way the philosophers reasoned the existence of God. God, and some of them, like Aristotle, assumed that the universe always existed, right?

[26:18] Well, it's less obvious that God exists if the universe always existed. So, if even in that case, assuming the universe already existed, you can still argue that there is a God. Well, then, a fortiori, if the universe did not exist and began to exist, it had to be, you know, created, You see, so I mean,

[26:51] or sometimes with sins, you know, he showed the lesser sin is is a sin. The a fortiori, this other thing is what is sinful, you know.

[27:12] So, if you assume something, you'd say God would be less apt to assume, right? Namely, flesh than the soul. If you assume that which or took on that which God would be less apt to take on, then a fortiori he took on that which is more. Nobody would take it on. So they're all interesting in their own own way. And Thomas stopped at those two because that's all he knew.

[27:52] In these, in these, like the first two articles, and even this article, in the body he gives what three arguments, right? Sometimes, as you know from the Summa, Contra Gentiles he may give more arguments, but but three is enough, huh? They say if you give you know more than three, you know the guy forgets the first one, then you don't get anything. He's got three arguments in mind, so he's well, stop at three.

[28:15] But t here is a human human reason there for these things. Yeah. Should we take a little break now? What three twenty or what? You finished the last two chapters.

[28:30] Oh, excuse me. Okay. Now the second says, "why do you need a soul to make the to give life to the body? " And here you got the fountain of life, right? To the first, it should be said that the Word is the fountain of life as the first what efficient cause of life, right? But the soul is the beginning of life to the body as its very what form.

[28:57] Well, God can't be the form of a body, right? But the form is the effect of the agent, huh? Hence, from the presence of the word, one should more conclude that the body was what, insouled,

[29:16] just as from the presence of fire, one concludes that the body to which the fire adheres is hot. Okay. So you should argue more that, in fact, that the fountain of life was there, and that the body would what receive its own what life, its soul, and that what would take away the life from the body, huh? Just as from the fact that the fire is there, it's going to make the stone, whatever it is, hot, right?

[29:59] Now the third objection was based upon misunderstanding there of what Damascene. To the third, it should be said that it was not unsuitable, but rather necessary to say that in Christ there was a nature which was constituted through a soul coming to a body. Damascene, however, denies that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is a common species in the sense of what some third thing resulting from the union of the divinity and the humanity.

[30:33] Huh? Well, take Thomas's word for that. That's what Damascene said, huh? So we take a little break now. Is that appropriate, then? So up to Article Four here, right?

[30:49] Okay. So they say sometimes, you know, Aristotle and Thomas use the word intellectum to mean the power itself, and sometimes the soul, right? But the two go together in the sense. To the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Son of God did not assume a human mind, and this could include the will as well, you know, like Augustine speaks, or the understanding, right? And it could mean the understanding soul or the understanding self.

[31:22] For where is present the thing itself, one does not require its image. But certainly the statue of the man when he's there. The man's there. But man, according to his mind, is to the image of God, as Augustine says in the book on the Trinity. I guess God says so too in the Genesis. Since, therefore, in Christ there is present the divine Word itself, it was not necessary that there be there any human what mind.

[32:01] Moreover, a greater light diminishes or obfuscates the lesser, so you don't notice the what candle when the sun is out, right? But the Word of God, who is the light, enlightening every man coming into this world, as is said in John one nine, is compared to our mind as the greater light to the what lesser.

[32:29] Thomas saying the prayer there for communion, right? Light of How does he say eternal glory, right? Eternal light. Sicut sub lumine claritatis aeternae Yeah. So I mean, obviously, this light of my mind is completely obfuscated by the presence, right?

[32:58] Because Aristotle compares the agent intellectum to light. Because the mind itself is a certain light, as it were, a lamp illuminated from the first light. For the lamp of the Lord is the spirit of man. Therefore, in Christ, who is the Word of God, it was not necessary that there be a what human mind. Moreover, the assumption of human nature by the Word of God is called incarnation.

[33:31] But the understanding of the human mind is not flesh, nor is it the. Act of the flesh, huh? It's not a form in the flesh, because it's not the act of any body, as is proved by Aristotle in the third book about the soul. Therefore, it seems that the Son of God would not what assume right human mind, human soul. But against this is what Augustine says in the book about faith, that Peter hold most firmly right, and in no way doubt.

[34:06] That's pretty strong. Augustine says it there, right? That Christ, the Son of God, right, having the what, flesh of our kind and the rational what soul, right now,

[34:26] who about his flesh shed, touch and see, is palpable his touch, right? Because the spirit does not have flesh and bones, right, as you see me to have. And the soul also he shows, saying, "I lay down my soul, and again I take it up again." And his understanding also he shows, saying, "Learn from me, who am what meek and humble heart." And about him the prophet the Lord says, "Behold, my boy, what understand this?"

[35:07] Okay. I answer. It should be said that, as Augustine says in the book about heresies, the Apollinaristae the Apollinarists, dissenting about the soul of Christ in the Catholic Church, right, saying as the Arians did that Christ took on flesh only without a soul.

[35:39] In which questions conquered by the testimon Evangelical testimonies, they said that what mind of the soul, and for this the word was in place. But this position right

[36:03] is overcome by the same reasons the ones before were overcome. First, because it is contrary to the narration, the evangelical narration, which commemorates him as having what wonder.

[36:23] This is one of the modes of sacred scripture, the modus narrativus, Thomas calls it, the Psalms, I think it is. But admiration or wonder without reason is not able to be. Because it implies to bring together the effect to the cause, as when someone sees the effect whose cause he is ignorant of, and he seeks that cause, right? As is said in the beginning of metaphysics, right?

[36:53] The first book of wisdom. Secondly, so that's argument from authority, basically. Secondly, it's repugnant to the usefulness of incarnation, which is the justification of man from what sin?

[37:14] For the soul of man is not capable either of sin nor of the grace that what justifies him, except through what the mind. Whence especially is necessary that he take on the human what mind, rational soul. Whence Damascene says in the third book that the Word of God took on a body and a what understanding soul, a rational, reasoning soul, right? That's just about the same thing that Augustine says there, right?

[37:51] Okay. That's the content we had. And afterwards he adds, the whole is united to the whole, so that he might what make the whole, right? He might save the whole, right?

[38:11] He might gratuitously, right? Give salvation to the whole, right? For what is not able to be taken on is incurable, right? So basically, he's saying he's got to take on the soul as well as the body, right? And the soul, he might say, more than the body, because only that through that are we capable of being what justified, released from our sins. So if he didn't take that on, he wouldn't be redeeming that.

[38:47] Third, because it's contrary to the truth of the incarnation. For since the body is proportional to the soul as matter to its own form, that's where Aristotle argues in the in the second book of natural hearing that it belongs to the natural philosopher to consider both matter and form, right? Because in a way they're relative to each other, and it belongs to the same science to what talk about opposites.

[39:16] Just like you wouldn't have one science talking about virtue, another one about vice, okay? Or one logic about truth, another logic about error. You wouldn't have one science talking about what a father is, not talking about oh what a son is, another one talking about what a son is, and not a father, right? Or one science talking about what a husband is, not what a wife is, no one talking about a wife is, no, see, They'll go together.

[39:42] And therefore, if Christ had a soul without a what mind, he would not have had what true human flesh, but bestial flesh. Because only through the mind does our soul differ from what the bestial soul. Right. Whence Augustine says in the book of eighty-three questions that according to this error, it would follow that the Son of God was a certain beast. Right. With he took on a certain beast with the figure of a human body, which is ridiculous, huh?

[40:24] Which also, again, is repugnant to the divine truth, which undergoes no falsity of fiction, right? Beautiful word, fiction, Okay? woman's right to abortion, I would say, it's a fiction. Something unreal. It doesn't exist.

[40:52] Okay. So all these articles are very similar, aren't they? This one is so. Now the first argument says, "What do you need the image for? " You got the the thing. To the first, therefore, it should be said that where the thing itself is through its presence, there is not required its image to what take the place, right, of the thing. Just as where there is the the the the emperor, the soldiers do not venerate his what his image, huh?

[41:32] But nevertheless, there is required with the presence of the thing its image, that the image might be perfected from the what presence of the thing. Just as the image in the wax is perfected by the impression of the seal, right? And the image of man results in the mirror through his what presence, huh? Whence to perfecting the human mind is necessary that the Word of God united to Himself, right?

[42:08] So we might be what more in His image, right? It's kind of a common thing, isn't among the the Benedictines and so in the Middle Ages that we're trying to renovate this image, right? Okay. So in that sense, the presence of the Word is not taking away the image, but what renovating it, or you know, restoring it, huh? Refreshing it, huh?

[42:40] Just like you put the image in the butter, right? And the butter kind of gets warm and loses its image and come back, united again with the seal.

[42:52] Now the second objection, huh? About the greater light. To the second, it should be said that the greater light takes away the lesser light of another body, illuminating, right? But nevertheless, it does not take away, but perfects the light of the body, what? Illuminating,

[43:16] To the presence of the sun, the light of the stars is what obscured, but the light of the air is what perfected. But the understanding or the mind of man is, as it were, a light enlightened by the light of the divine Word, and therefore through the light of the divine Word is not. Emptied out the mind of man, but more perfected. I'll buy that.

[43:50] To the third, should be said that although the understanding power is not the act of some body, nevertheless the essence of the human soul, which is a form of the body, requires that it be what more noble, in order that it might have the power of what understanding,

[44:16] and therefore it is necessary that it correspond to a body what better disposed. It's kind of strangely answered that third objection. Thomas says, "The better your flesh is, the better soul you'll have, right? The better understanding you'll have.

[44:58] So we'll try to do one article from question six. Okay, now we get to the before and after the proemium like so. Looking before and after order, huh?

[45:12] I bet you never hear this in your sermons, huh? Then went on to consider about the order of the foresaid taking on, right? And about this six things are asked. First, whether the Son of God took on flesh through the medium, you might say, of the what soul, right? And secondly, whether he assumed the soul through the what medium of the spirit of the mind. What's the difference between the word soul and the word spiritus when you apply it to man?

[45:59] Spiritus, higher powers of the soul. Yeah. So the soul is the first act of a natural body, composed of tools. So the soul, not maybe exclusively, but the soul is the source of those powers that are in the body, right? Okay. But the spirit is used for those powers of the soul that are not in the body, right? So a lot of times I wonder when I think about the Magnificat how my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, right?

[46:38] Why do you have the two words there, my soul and the spirit, right? In what sense does does her soul magnify the Lord? Is that referring to her divine maternity? No. Or

[46:57] immaculate conception. It's a higher principle. Well, I understand in various ways, huh? But if you want to take the contrast there between the soul and the spirit, right? My spirit rejoices in God my Savior. She means her her reason and her will, right? Her spirit. You know, this way we thinking here. When she says my soul magnifies the Lord, maybe she's referring to even what in her body giving what flesh to to God, right?

[47:35] Um. Increase. Yeah, I mean, it also refers to you know the body's service in magnifying the Lord when you praise Him with your tongue and so on, right?

[47:48] Remember, I was struck by that the way this that one psalm was a Psalm sixty two. Oh God, you are my God, whom I seek. For you, my flesh pines and my soul thirsts like the earth parched, lifeless, and so on. But it brings in both the body and the soul, right? And then goes on, you know, and kind of alternate between the two, huh? Where you know my lips are, you know, praising the Lord, you know, so that the the body is is what brought into praising God.

[48:22] So she says, my soul magnifies the Lord. Maybe she she's touching upon what she does to the Lord through her body, right? Huh? Giving birth to Him, taking flesh in her, but also maybe you know we're we're praising Him, right? She's doing the magnificat, I mean, the words, right? But then she says, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior. It's what emphasizes upon her reason and her will, you know, concentrating or dwelling in God.

[48:57] Okay. Doesn't Saint Paul speak of the sword dividing the spirit and the soul? I suppose that happens when you don't know whether you're in the body anymore, right? Like Saint Paul is carried up to the third heaven, right? Or like Saint Teresa of Avila talking about, you know, kind of divorce from the world, right? When you when you're carried away contemplating God.

[49:42] Okay, third, whether the soul of Christ was assumed by the Word before the what? Yeah, since it's before, right? Okay. And then the reverse, whether the flesh was what taken on by the Word before what it was united to the soul.

[50:13] And that's strange. That fifth one, whether the whole human nature is taken on by means of its what parts. And fifth, whether it is taken on by means of what grace? I can't remember.

[50:33] Think of these kind of questions. A man of leisure. Let's just look at the first article. Maybe there we go. Whether the Son of Man assumed the flesh with the what by means of the soul, so to speak. To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Son of God would not assume flesh by means of the what soul. Maybe he's going to take the opposite side.

[51:13] For more perfect is the way in which the Son of God is united to human nature in his parts than that by which it is in what all creatures. But in creatures it is immediately through essence, presence, and power. It goes back to the treatise on the substance of God, right? The operation of God. Therefore, much more was the Son of God united to flesh and not by means of the what soul.

[51:47] So if you're not immediately united to it, it seems right. There's some separation, right, of the body. Moreover, the soul and flesh are united to the what Word of God in the unity of the hypostasis or person.

[52:13] But the body immediately pertains to the person of the hypostasis of man, just as the what soul. Nay, seems more, huh? Near, right? To have itself to the hypostasis, the body of man, which is matter, than the soul, which is form, because the beginning or the source, the principle of individuation, which is implied in the name hypostasis, seems to be what matter, right, and material things, huh?

[52:47] The matter is the source of individuation, right? So since he's assumed, you know, the person, it seems matter is closer to that, right? Therefore, the Son of God did not assume flesh by means of the soul.

[53:06] Moreover, if you take away the middle, you separate those things which are joined through the middle. Just as removing the surface, there would cease to be color from the body, huh? Which is in the body through its surface. But separated by death, the soul, there still remains the union of the Word to the what flesh. So the body and the tomb was still united. Okay.

[53:35] Which will be more clearly drawn. Therefore, the Word is not joined to the flesh by means of the soul. That seems like would be not joined to the body any more. Once the soul is separated from the body in the death of our Lord, right? Let's see how he gets out of this, huh? Houdini, huh?

[53:56] If he got tied up, you know, huh? Aristotle, you know, he talks about objections, you know, in the third book of wisdom, which is all, you know, doing this sort of thing. You know, he talks about the mind being tied up, right, and it can't move, right? So it's not inappropriate to compare it to Houdini, right? And can be tied up, and the way you say, you never get out of this, you know.

[54:17] This, this isn't. But here it is, that gagging. I wish you knew who it was. Against this is what Augustine says in the Epistle to Felician that the what

[54:34] the magnitude of the divine power, right? Um? joined the or adapted, huh? The rational soul to itself, and through it, the human body, right? And the whole what, man? So Thomas seems to be following his other master, Augustine, huh? I'll have to bring that little thing in there. this little vision of Teresa of Avila there in the Feast of Augustine Well, I'll bring you to this little thing that the guy was thinking of doing that I forgot about today, but okay.

[55:20] My answer: It should be said that a middle is said with regard to a beginning and a what, end, huh? Whence, as beginning and end imply order, right? So also, right, the middle.

[55:43] But there is a twofold order: one of time, and the other of what, nature. Nature. Now, according to the order of time, there is not said in the mystery of Incarnation any middle, because the whole of human nature together, right, the word of God united to itself, as will be what clear below, right? So he's going to show later on more clearly that in time, right, he didn't what unite the soul to himself before the what body or vice versa, right?

[56:22] simul et semel together, right? Okay. Now, the order of nature among some things can be observed in two ways. In one way, according to the what grade of dignity, huh? As we say, for example, that the angels are what in between, right? Men and God, right?

[56:55] In another way, by reason of what causality, as we say that the middle cause exists between the first cause and the last effect, right? And notice, This touches upon what the crowning sense of before in Aristotle, right? The cause of before the effect, and then the fourth sense of before, right? Is in dignity, right? Okay. In

[57:29] this second order, he says, in some way follows upon the what first, because the cause is better, right, than the effect, as Dionysius says, huh? In the thirteenth chapter, of the celestial hierarchy, which is about the angels, right? God, through substances that are more near, acts upon those which are more what? Remote.

[58:01] That's why we invoke the angel ceremonies starting our studies, on If, therefore, we pay attention to the grade of dignity or worth, the soul is a middle between God and the what? Flesh. Because the soul is suddenly more like God than the flesh, and and in particular, you know what we call the spirit is the image of God the image of God. in it.

[58:32] And according to this, it can be said that the Son of God united flesh to Himself by means of the soul, right? But according to the order of causality, the soul itself is in some way because of the what? The flesh being able to be united, right, to the Son of God, huh? For it would not be able to be taken on except by the order which it has to the what?

[59:09] Rational soul. By which it has that it is human what? Flesh. For it has been said above that human nature, before others, is more what able to be taken on.

[59:29] You got that now? He denies that the soul is taken on in time before the body, right? And he affirms the reverse. Okay, so the first sense of before and after is in what? Time, right? Okay.

[59:53] Remember, I was quoting a little text there in the beginning of class. There, from the compendium, right? Where he said he's the firstborn, you know, and there he's before in time, right? And he's before in what? Causes before an effect, and he's before in the sense of dignity, right? But here he's denying that it's before in time, right? But he does see these other two ways, right?

[1:00:18] In which it's before by what? Nature, right? Now, in the first objection, it says, "Is in this way in which the Son of God is. In this human flesh, right, human nature, more immediate, right, than the way which is in all things, right. Okay, so suddenly he kind of

[1:00:57] united immediately to the flesh and not to the soul, right? Okay. Thomas says, "To the first, therefore, it should be said that there is a twofold order able to be considered between the creature and God. In one order, according to which creatures are caused by God and depend upon Him as from the what beginning or source of their being, and thus, on account of the what infinity of His power, God immediately right attains each thing, causing it and what conserving it, right?

[1:01:43] And to this it pertains that God is immediately in all things through His essence, power, and what presence. Another is the order according as things are led back to God as to their what end.

[1:02:04] And as regards this, there is found a middle between the creature and God, because the lower creatures are led back to God through the what higher ones, as Dionysius says in the book of the celestial hierarchy. And to this order pertains the what taking on of human nature by the Word of God, which is the what the limit, the end of the taking on, and therefore through the soul he is united to the what flesh.

[1:02:43] That's a very interesting distinction he makes there between those two what orders, right? So what theology is about? What consider God in Himself, and then God is the what beginning of things, and then God is the end. I am the Alpha and the Omega, right? The first and the last, the beginning and the end. But here he sees a little difference in them, right?

[1:03:09] There's more of a middle in the second order to the end, right? I think they kind of go to a thesis there in theology, there, right? You know, the scandal of mediation.

[1:03:32] Some people are kind of scandalized, I suppose, by our being led back to Christ through Mary, right? You know, so it's kind of a commonplace there in Mariology that you know to Christ through Mary, right? Plus, referring to being led back, right

[1:03:52] to the one that's closer to him, right? Okay, no one's closer to him Even among human beings, right? Then Mary, I suppose she's just closer to him than the angels, huh?

[1:04:08] But also, you know, in both the other saints too, right? He is back to God. That's interesting, huh? Surprised at that, how subtly he stands. That first objection, huh? Smart guy, this guy.

[1:04:29] I told you I'll tell you my teacher said, compared to Aristotle got the brain of an angel Like he says, if it's you compared to Thomas Aquinas, I got the brain of an angle worm or something

[1:04:57] Okay. Now, next one is: isn't the if matter is the principle of individuation, right? This seems to be proximate to what hypostasis is. so shouldn't the flesh be?

[1:05:12] To the second, it should be said that if the hypostasis of the Word of God was constituted subliterator, where it's important there, through human nature, it would follow that the body was what closer to it, since it is matter, which is the source of individuation. These things,

[1:05:38] just as the soul, which is the what specific form, has itself nearer to what human nature. Aristotle shows in the second book of Natural Hearing that both matter and form are nature, right? But then he argues that form is more nature than matter, and the reason he gives is that what by matter you have a natural thing in ability, but by form you have a natural thing actually.

[1:06:07] So if nature is that in which you have a natural thing, form is more, right? And this is kind of way here, in which the soul is more.

[1:06:21] But because the hypostasis in the case of the Word of God is before, right, and higher than human nature, right, not constituted by it simply, right?

[1:06:38] The more something in human nature is what nearer to him, right? The what the higher it is, the more it is what nearer to him.

[1:06:50] And therefore, the soul is nearer to the Word of God than the body. So the fundamental distinction is that the hypostasis of the Word of God is not constituted simply by the what body, right? If it were, you could argue that.

[1:07:28] Now, what about this body not being separated, right? To the third, it should be said. That nothing prevents something from being the cause of something as regards its aptitude, right, and suitability, which nevertheless, removed, it is not what taken away, huh?

[1:07:56] Because although in the coming about of something, it depends upon something, right? Afterwards, right, when it's been made, it does not depend upon it, right? I'll give you a very simple example here. If among or between some people, right, friendship is caused by someone as a middle, he receding, still the friendship what remains, huh?

[1:08:33] And if someone is led to matrimony, an account of beauty, which makes suitable for the woman, the adjoining conjugal joining, nevertheless, the beauty ceasing, there still remains the what conjugal bond, huh? And similarly, the soul being what separated, there remains a union of the word of God to what To flesh. That's a nice simple way of showing it, huh?

[1:09:16] This one woman, my wife, talked with huh? There's one guy who thought and he's the right guy for her, right? So he arranged a party where everybody was a married couple except these two. So they ended up talking to each other, and a week or two after, they knew they were going to get married, right? They get married, but even if that guy should disappear or something could happen to him, right?

[1:09:38] They're still married and still united. We have to stop there, right?