Tertia Pars
28. Aquinas, Summa III q.8, Articles 4-8: Christ as Head of the Angels, Grace of the Head, Other Heads, and the Devil and Antichrist as Heads of the Wicked
Class of 2009-02-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/028-aquinas-summa-iii-q-8-articles-4-8-christ-as-head-of-the/

[0:00] The fourth article: Who the Christ, according as he is man, is the head of the angels. To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that Christ, according as he is man, is not the head of the angels. For the head and the members are of one nature. But Christ, according as he is man, is not conformed in nature with the angels, but only with men. For in no way did he grasp the angels, says in Hebrews chapter two, but he grasped the what seed of Abraham.

[0:37] Therefore, Christ, according as he is man, is not the head of the angels. Suppose the question would be: Is he is the head of the angels only as God and not as man? Right. Suppose that question. Further, of those Christ is the head who pertain to the church, which is his body, as is said in Ephesians one, chapter one. But the angels do not pertain to the church, for the church is the congregation of the faithful.

[1:11] But faith is not in the angels, for they do not walk by faith, but through what species through the sight of God. Otherwise, they would be what wandering distantly from the Lord, according as the apostle argues in Second Corinthians. Therefore, Christ, according as he is man, is not the head of the angels. Though we saw before in the other article that Christ is the head of those who see, right?

[1:41] God face to face, even more so. Moreover Augustine says upon John, that just as the word was from the beginning with the Father, just as the word that was from the beginning towards the Father, vivified souls, so the word made flesh, vivified bodies. There you have the soul and the body,

[2:09] which the angels of course lack, right? But the word made flesh is Christ, according as he is man. Therefore, Christ as man does not pour life into the angels. And thus, according as man, he is not the head of the what angels. How is he going to get around all this stuff?

[2:36] Beanie. But against is what the apostle says in Colossians chapter two, who is the head of every prince and what power? In the same reason, would there be about the ages of the other what orders?

[2:56] The princes are the heads of the what third or third hierarchy, right? And the powers are in the second one, huh? Okay. Answer: It should be said that has been said above. Where there is one body, is necessary to lay down one what head.

[3:23] But one body is said by way of likeness, one multitude ordered in one thing according to distinct acts or duties. But is manifest, however, that to the one end which is the glory of the divine enjoyment are ordered both men and angels, huh?

[3:48] Whence the mystical body of the church not only consists of men, but also of what angels, ordered to the same end, huh? But of this whole multitude, Christ is a head, because he is more what closer to God, right? And he more perfectly partakes of his what? Gifts. Not only then men does he does this, but also then of the angels, right?

[4:24] And of his influence, not only do men receive, but also the angels, huh? For it is said in Ephesians one, chapter verse twenty, that he constituted him, to wit, Christ, God the Father, constituted him to the right hand in what? In the heavens, above every prince and power and virtue and lord, huh? Well, that's taking the what? These last three there are the second what hierarchy, huh?

[4:57] But in the ascending order, there, right? The lords, the virtues, and the powers they're sometimes called, and then the princes, huh? Then the angels, the archangels are below the princes. But in Greek, there, the archai would be the same word as prince.

[5:18] And every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the future, and he subjected all under his what feet, huh? And therefore Christ is not only the head of men, but also of angels. Whence Matthew says, chapter four, verse eleven, that the angels what approached him and ministered to him, right?

[5:45] So he's before them in order, right? And he also what? He also received things from him, right? Does that mean that the grace that the angels have is derived from the passion of Christ? It seems to say that Saint Paul, by his reconciling all things in heaven and earth, by the cross. I don't know if the angels though would need to what Christ's death on the cross would they?

[6:18] But but they do have grace. Yeah. Was that derived directly through God or instrumentally through Christ's passion? Yeah. What do you think? I don't know. If it was derived, he talks about the influence on the angels from Christ, which would seem to be these indicating. What other influence would they have besides this grace? Well, I see when Christ was incarnate, right? He had the fullness of grace and truth, right?

[6:53] See, so he could still, you know, be the source of grace and illumination for even the angels, right? Before his what? Passion. Yeah, without his passion, you know.

[7:09] It's man who was in need of that redemption, not not the angels. The angels had not sinned ever. But they were raised above their nature. That's true. Yeah, yeah. But but I mean, the death on the cross is involved something besides that, you know. That might be indicated in the passage of Saint Paul, because he refers to his making peace or reconciling all things in heaven and earth by the cross.

[7:34] Maybe because there was, as far as we were at enmity with God, then we were also at enmity with the good angels. Yeah. So they could have reconciled us, but that that may not apply to the angels. The angels themselves were not in any way touched with. Wasn't the breach was between earth and heaven? Yeah. I don't think the angels had a chance for any redemption. There was a third of the angels that had out; the other end of them.

[7:59] That's right. I guess my question is like in the realm of efficient causes: Is the grace that they have does that derive from Christ's passion, or was it just? I mean, God can give grace without coming through Christ's passion, right? And whether if it does derive from his passion, I think that I don't know. It's kind of an interesting question. No. I've never seen that in Thomas or anybody else, for that matter.

[8:30] Was there? You know that they were redeemed in some way or they got grace through his passion. I think yeah, I think he he argues that they do have the grace of Christ, but how how he argues, I don't know. Now the first objection was saying that hey, we're not the same nature as the angels, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the influence of Christ upon all men is chiefly with regards to their soul, not in regard to their what body, right?

[9:11] And according to their soul, men come together, the angels in the what nature of the genus, though not in the nature of the species, right? They're both what intellectual creatures, having will and so on.

[9:29] And by reason of this conformity, Christ is able to be said to be the head of the angels, although there is lacking the conformity as regards the what body, right?

[9:44] That doesn't destroy this, right? Because it's chiefly in regard to our soul that Christ is, and that's where we agree with the angels, huh?

[9:57] Now the Second thing was about the congregation, of the faithful. Well, we already point out the difficulty in that. To second, it should be said that the church, according to the status of the road, is a congregation of the believers, right? But according to the status of the fatherland, is the congregation not of the believers, but of those comprehending God?

[10:21] Now, Christ was not only on the way, but also a what? Comprehensor, and therefore not only of the faithful, but also of those comprehending is he the head,

[10:39] as most fully having grace and glory, right? That makes me think, you know, that he's what? It's not through his passion, right? That he's their head, right?

[10:55] I think so. Saint Paul talks about this when he emptied himself, and was obedient even unto death on the cross. For this reason, he was exalted above all the angels. But I don't know what that relates. What's your answer? But but his glory is is in relation. I mean, Christ suffers as a viator, right? But he seems to be yeah yeah. Wouldn't his relationship as son to the Father mean that he had been always emptying himself completely anyway by virtue of his sonship, and so the passion itself?

[11:38] I mean, it was a unique event, but he, by his nature, he was already doing the total self-giving to God. Something like that Actually, it's it's Ratzinger that kind of pre-pope thing, pre-pope thing. At least as far as I understand it. What's interesting, we call the Eucharist the the Panis Angelicus right? But but is it you know the angels receive the Eucharist? I don't think that is true.

[12:07] No, because even we won't receive the Eucharist in heaven, right? So, oh no, I wouldn't want to stretch that. say, because he's Panis Angelicus. because the Eucharist in the way it comes from the from the death on the cross, huh? But but it's not called the Panis Angelicus, because the angels receive it. It's more the Word itself that is the Panis Angelicus. And that's our Lord speaks that way when the man says to him, Luke's Gospel: "Blessed is he who eats bread in the kingdom of heaven."

[12:39] The commentaries always say that's the vision of God. That's what the angels feast on. Yeah. But Saint Thomas says that one of his prayers. Yeah. That the the angels feed on you, or a plano and man according to his according to his measure, something like that.

[13:00] Okay. To the third, it should be said, the objection is saying that the word was made flesh, right? Okay. To the third, it should be said, that Augustine speaks there according to a certain likening of the cause to the effect, in so far as a bodily thing acts in bodies, and a spiritual thing in what? Spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by reason of the what?

[13:35] Spiritual nature, to wit, the divine, is able to cause something not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels, on account of the what? Greatest joining of him to God, to wit, by the union that is personal, right? Now there seems to be saying that the humanity of Christ, by reason of what? His divine nature, right, can cause something not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of the angels, right?

[14:14] Doesn't seem to be. So it's an instrument of the divinity, that's what. Yeah. Yeah. Even for the angels In some way Now we've got to find out whether the grace of Christ, which Christ is the head. The church is the same as the grace of him as an individual man, right?

[14:42] To the fifth, one proceeds thus: It seems that it is not the same grace by which Christ is the head of the church with the individual grace of that man. He seems going to take the other side of the same.

[15:00] So the distinction between the two is what not to be understood as being two different graces, huh? That's the way it seems like it's going to go, Well, let's let Thomas unfold himself.

[15:22] For the apostle says in Romans five, if by the what sin of one many are dead, right? Much more by the grace of God and the gift and the grace of the one man Jesus Christ does it abound for what in more things.

[15:44] But other is the actual sin of Adam, and other original sin that was what. The Adam's sin was eventually forgiven him, right? But Original sin persisted, huh? Down to us miserable creatures. So, therefore, other is the personal grace which is private to Christ, and other is the grace of him in so far as he is the head of the church, which is derived from him to others.

[16:18] That's a kind of a subtle objection, huh? Moreover, habits are distinguished by their acts. But to another act is ordered in Christ his personal grace, right? To it, to the sanctification, the holiness of what that soul, right? And to another act is ordered the grace of the head to the making holy of others. Therefore, other is the personal grace of Christ, another is the grace of him in so far as he is the what head of the church.

[17:01] I was thinking of myself as a teacher now, right? Is that knowledge I have, right? Is knowledge that I have that perfects me in some way, right? As a man, right? Is that something other than the knowledge whereby, I teach you?

[17:21] It would be strange if it were. I was thinking of one knowledge whereby my mind is perfected, right? And now the knowledge by which I I teach you guys. Second hand news. I think that he says right.

[17:48] Is he talking about the habit or the act? Because he says the habits are distinguished by the act. Yeah. The one act is ordered to sanctification of the soul. Yeah. But the other is. So he said, "this habit is the same, but the acts are different Yeah, so so so my argument so my understanding of the Pythagorean theorem. the habits are different because the acts are different.

[18:07] Yeah, my understanding of Pythagorean theorem is not the same thing as my teaching of Pythagorean theorem. Right. There's some distinction of act there, right? The act. Yeah.

[18:23] I think it was the opposite. Moreover, as has been said above, in Christ one distinguishes a threefold grace, right? To wit, the grace of union, the grace of the head, and the singular grace of that man.

[18:49] But the singular grace of Christ is other from the grace of the union, right? Therefore, also is it other from the grace of the head.

[19:05] So we don't maybe understand this distinction of these two graces as well as we thought we did, right? But against this is what is said in John one verse sixteen, of his fullness we have all received. The rest of my case. Beautiful text, huh? Yeah. According to this, according as he is our what, head, that we get or receive from him, right? Therefore, according as he has the fullness of grace, he is our head.

[19:42] But the fullness of grace he had, according as he was perfect in that grace of the person, right? Of personal grace. Therefore, according to the personal grace, he is also our head. And thus is not other the grace of the head and that personal grace, huh?

[20:03] Just like the teacher. I answer. It should be said that each thing acts in so far as it is a being in act. Now it's necessary that

[20:22] it be the same in act by which something is an act and by which it what. Acts just as the same as the heat by which fire is hot and by which it what heats. Why do you take the example of the teacher? Not a sense.

[20:47] Not however that every act by which something is an act suffices for this that it be a principle of acting in another right? Because the agent is what more outstanding than the patient right? As Augustine says in the twelfth book on Genesis to the letter, and as the philosopher says in the third book about the soul right? He's arguing about the acting upon intellect being better than the what undergoing

[21:19] it. Is necessary that the agent in others have act according to a certain what eminence or excellence. Now it has been said above that in the soul of Christ grace was received according to the greatest eminence the greatest excellence. And therefore from the eminence the excellence of the grace which he received it belongs to him right that that grace be derived to others right. And this pertains to the notion of being the head.

[21:57] And therefore it is the same in essence the personal grace for which the soul of Christ was justified. And his grace according as he is the head of the church, justifying others, but it differs only according to what. Notion, yeah, It would be the same thing. So you could say the knowledge that the teacher has, you can distinguish between that knowledge as perfecting his mind right. And as being the source of his teaching others right.

[22:39] Because to be the source of teaching others doesn't have the same meaning as what perfecting his mind right. But it's really the same knowledge in essence.

[22:51] It's the same thing right? That is perfecting his mind and enabling him to teach others. I think so right. Otherwise, I'm very much mistaken as to what I've been doing for the last forty years or fifty years or whatever it is.

[23:10] My first public lecture was on Lindbergh. I was in the lower grades and I give I wrote a paper on Lindbergh. And the teacher so impressed they had him go up to the seventh or eighth grade and read in front of the class. That was my first lecture. Got the bug, then, you know.

[23:39] Then later on, about the fifth or sixth grade, we'd go to the. Had one big room, which is really the library in the activity in the Timothy grade school, and I used to go up in the back part of it where there's a little. You know, walked up and you could play and fool around up there, and but you had to take a book out. That's what astronomy books was.

[23:56] So I got interested in astronomy, and then I'd give a lecture on astronomy Sixth grade. So. I'm reading this biography of John Yves and he went to Jesuit school when he was younger. And there's an interesting thing that the Jesuits divided the students into the Romans and the Carthaginians. Oh, they compete against each other, and they debate against each other. That's awful Very good. Yes. Now, how's he going to answer this first objection?

[24:35] To the first, therefore, it should be said that original sin in Adam, which is the sin of what, the nature, was derived from the actual sin of him, right, which was the personal sin, because in him the person corrupted the what, nature that was to be handed down to us. By which corruption, as a medium or middle, the sin of the first man is derived to those who come afterwards, right?

[25:10] According as the corrupt nature corrupts the what, person, huh? But grace is not derived from Christ to us by means of human nature, but through what, only the personal action of Christ himself. Whence it is not necessary in Christ to distinguish a twofold grace, of which one corresponds to nature and another to the person, as in Adam is distinguished the sin of the nature and the person.

[25:42] That'd be really easy to follow if you knew a little more of the teaching about original sin, huh? Hard thing to understand, but the nature has been corrupted, right, as a result of personal sin.

[25:54] And so, when Adam did penance and was forgiven for his personal sin, nature was not repaired, right? But Christ doesn't, what? grace is not derived from Christ in us by means of what, human nature, huh? But only through the personal action he says of Christ himself. So, thing that should help.

[26:21] Now, the second thing says, well, what about these different acts, right? To the second, it should be said that diverse acts of which one is the reason and cause of the other do not diversify habit, huh? For the personal act of grace, which is to make holy, formally speaking, as a form, the one having it, right, is the reason for the justification of others, which pertains to the grace of the head, right?

[26:52] And hence it is that through this difference are not diversified the essence of the habit, right? So, just as the knowledge whereby the teacher's head is perfected, right, is the reason and cause of being able to teach others, right? You have certain eminence in that knowledge, then the distinction of the acts is not enough to give a distinction of what habits, huh? And the fire when it heats, right?

[27:21] The water, by a different heat than it has, or by its hot itself. But one is the reason for the other, right? Thomas's example, huh?

[27:44] Now the third objection says, "Why is there a distinction of one and not the other?" Right? To the third, it should be said that the personal grace and the grace of the head are ordered to some what act, right?

[28:06] But the grace of union is not ordered to some act, but to what personal being, right? And therefore, the personal grace and the grace of the head come together in the essence of the habit, not, however, the grace of the what union.

[28:31] So you could call these two that are said to be the same, your habitual grace, right? And the other is the grace of union, which is ordered to being rather than habit, which is ordered to act.

[28:47] Although the personal grace is able in some way to be called the grace of union, in so far as it makes one suitable for the what union. And according to this, one in essence is the grace of union, and the grace of the head, and the singular grace of the person, but differing only in what reason. Nevertheless, I think he's saying that there's a more of a distinction, right, between the personal grace, the grace of union, rather, and the other two than between those two, huh?

[29:19] Because they're both ordered in a more immediate way to act, but the grace of union, in a sense, is is the hypostatic union, it's a different kind of thing. It's not ordered to act right away, but to one's being a person, huh? Being the same person in two natures. Now, what about Benedict XVI? Here, now, I am going to find out about him.

[29:49] To the sixth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that to be head of the church is not private to Christ. For it is said in the first Kings chapter fifteen, when you were little in your eyes, you were made head in the tribes of Israel. Right. Therefore, it seems for the same reason that another man besides Christ can be the head of the what church.

[30:24] Moreover, from this Christ is said to be the head of the church; that he pours in grace upon the members, he pours grace upon the members of the church. But thus also to others it pertains to what give grace to others, according to that of Ephesians four. Let what no let no bad speech proceed from your mouth. But if there is someone that is good to the building up of faith, that you give grace to those hearing, right?

[30:58] That's what you should say. Therefore, it seems that there are others than Christ to whom it belongs to be the what head of the church.

[31:14] Moreover, Christ, from the fact that he presides in the church, not only is said to be the head, but also the pastor and the foundation of the church. But not only to himself does Christ retain the name of pastor, according to that of one Peter five, when there appears the prince of pastors, right? who receive a what unfading crown of glory, or even the name of foundation, according to that of Apocalypse twenty one, the wall of the city having twelve foundations.

[31:51] That's the twelve apostles. That's why when Thomas talks about the twelve articles of the faith, sometimes he playfully attributes one article to each of the apostles. Each of them, a you know, a row, emphasizing that.

[32:14] Which is why I follow the division into twelve rather than into fourteen. Like to keep the apostles there, kind of foundation there. Therefore, it seems also that the name of, in addition, the name of head, be retained solely for him, right?

[32:35] But against this is what is said in Colossians two: the head of the church is that from which the body through the connections and.

[32:47] Nerves and so on is what constructed and administered, growing in the growth of what God, but this belongs to Christ alone. Thomas says, "I answer. It should be said that the head flows upon the other members in two ways. In one way, by a what inside, huh, flowing in. In so far as the moving power and the sensitive power from the head is derived to the other members.

[33:26] In another way, according to a certain exterior governing, according as according to sight of the senses, which are rooted in the head, a man is directed in his what exterior actions, huh. Now the interior flowing in of grace cannot be from anyone except from Christ alone, whose humanity, from the fact that it is joined to the divinity, has the power of what justifying. But the flowing in upon the members of the church, as regards the exterior governing, can also belong to others, huh.

[34:10] And according to this, some others can be called what heads of the church, huh. According to that of Amos six, the highest what heads of the people, right, the excellent or most excellent heads of the people, but nevertheless in a different way from Christ, huh.

[34:34] First, as regards this, that Christ is the head of all those who pertain to the church, according to every place and time and state. Other men are said to be heads according to some special places, as the bishops of their what churches, huh. Or even according to a determined time, as the Pope is the head of the whole church, in the time that is to say, of his what pontificate.

[35:06] And according to a what determined status, as they are in the state of the wayfarer, huh. In another way, according as Christ is the head of the church by his own virtue and authority. But others are said to be heads in so far as they what, yeah, they carry out their office in the person of Christ. According to that, is Second Corinthians two.

[35:36] For I also, what I have given, right, if I have given anything. On account of you in the person of Christ, and we what? Our legates of Christ, huh? As it were, exhorting you to God through us, right? Or as it were, God exhorting through us, right? So we're a tool, right, of being used by God, huh?

[36:05] So in some sense, he admits heads, right? But these qualifications, right? You're head of the church for a time, or you're head of this diocese, right? Or you're what?

[36:23] My head through my authority, huh? Now that word in Kings that was quoted in the first objection, he says that word should be understood according as the notion of head is considered from exterior governing, as a king is said to be the head of his what kingdom, huh?

[36:49] And the second objection about grace, man does not give grace by flowing in inwardly, but by persuading an exterior way to those things which are what grace, huh?

[37:09] Now what about the next thing about pastors and fundamental? To the third, it should be said that as Augustine says upon John, if those what placed before right in the church are pastors, in what way is a one pastor except because all of those are what? Members Of one pastor? Yeah, so we're all members of the one pastor, which is Christ, huh? And likewise, others are said to be foundations and heads in so far as they are members of the one head and the one what foundation, huh?

[37:57] And and nevertheless, as Augustine says there, huh? What is a pastor gives what to his members, right? But to be the gate, right? None of us is called, right? For this he keeps as what proper to himself, huh? This is knows what chapter of the Last Supper, right? In John, where he says, "I'm the gate too," right?

[38:32] And this, because in the ostium, that's the gate, isn't it? Implies the what chief authority, huh? Insofar as the gate is that through which all come into the what house, huh? And Christ alone is the one to whom we have access in His in the grace in which we stand.

[38:55] But through the other foresaid names, there can be implied an authority not only principle, but also a secondary one. Well, Captain, as you go on to the little time here. I'm really interested in. Whether the devil is. the head of the bad. To the seventh one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the devil is not the head of the bad, right? For to the notion of head pertains that he pour in sense and motion members, as is said, ah, by certain gloss, huh?

[39:44] On that passage in Ephesians one, he gave the head and so on. But the devil does not have the power of of what pouring in the evil sin, which proceeds from the will of the one sinning. Therefore, the devil cannot be said to be the head of the bad.

[40:05] Seems like a put down there. Moreover, through each sin, a man becomes what bad, right? But not all sins are from the devil, which is manifest

[40:26] from the sins of the what demons. Who sins not from the persuasion of another? That's what it sounds like. That's what they translate it as. Yeah. And this is plain as regards the demons who did not sin through the persuasion of another.

[40:49] That they sin on their own That's what he said Likewise, nor does every sin of man proceed from the devil. For he said in the book of ecclesiastical dogmas, not all of our bad thoughts are always what aroused by the instinct of the devil, right? But sometimes they emerge from the motion of our own what judgment. Therefore, the devil is not the head of all those who are bad.

[41:25] Get bad on your own, huh? That's what he says about the guardian angels. You don't need the devil to sin every time you sin. You can do it by yourself. Perfectly capable of doing that.

[41:42] Moreover, one head is what over one body, but the whole multitude of those who are bad, evil, does not seem to have something in which they are united, because bad is what sometimes contrary to the bad, huh? What happens from diverse defects, as Dionysius said. Therefore, the devil cannot be said to be the head of all the bad, right?

[42:16] But against this is what is said upon that of Job eighteen, the memory of him perishes on the earth, and the gloss says there. And the gloss here is what from Gregory I guess, and my my footnote says

[42:33] about each one who is bad is said as to his head, that is to the devil turned back to him, right? So somebody as great as Gregory the Great, calling him the head, huh?

[42:50] I answer it should be said that as has been said above, a head not only what, interiorly or inwardly flows into members, but also it governs them in a what, outward way, right?

[43:09] Directing their acts to some what end, huh? Thus therefore it is able to be said that some head of some multitude, somebody said to be the head of some multitude, or according to both, right? According to an inward inflowing, or and an outward governing, and thus Christ is said to be the head of the church.

[43:40] Or according to own in exterior governing, and thus each prince or prelate is the head of the multitude subject to him. And in this way the devil is said to be the head of all bad, for he said Job forty one, he is the king over all the sons of pride. That's a beautiful passage there, right? That's the original sin of the devil, right? Is pride, and then later on is envy for us and so on.

[44:13] But he's said here very strong about his being a ruler. He is the king, right? Rex Rex over all the sons of pride. Our Lord calls him the prince of this world. Yeah. Pertains over to the governor that those whom he governs he leads them to his end. But the end of the devil is a turning away of the reasonable creature from God. Whence in the beginning he tempted man away from the obedience of the divine precept, right?

[44:52] Or for he tempted him away from obeying, huh? Now this is thing very interesting. That aversion from God has the ratio of an end, in so far as is desired under the likeness of liberty, huh? So you gotta be kind of careful about this democracy Liberté égalité. From the ages you broke the what yoke, huh? You bonds. He said, "I will not serve."

[45:32] In so far, therefore, as some are led to this end by sinning, they fall under the what rule and governing of the devil, and from this he is said to be their what head, huh?

[45:50] On the first objection, he says, "Well, although the devil does not flow in and inwardly to the rational mind, nevertheless, by suggestion, he induces to evil, huh?"

[46:13] Does Shakespeare say, "Sweet suggesting love," huh? Okay. What was the context of that one? That quote from Shakespeare? Yeah. Do you remember? Where it's from? Not offhand, no. Yeah. It's from anything. Um.

[46:36] The second one is about the what? Not all sins are from the devil. To the second, it should be said that the governor does not always suggest to each one that what his will, but he proposes to all a sign of his will, right? To the following of which some are aroused to be led, right? Others by what their own spontaneity, right? Just as is clear in the leader of the army, whose sign, right?

[47:14] The soldiers follow even with no one, persuaded, right? Thus, therefore, the first and the devil, who from the beginning sinned, as is said in one John verse three, is proposed to all for what to follow, right? Which some imitate by suggestion of him, right? Some by their own what spontaneous will, right? Without any suggestion, right?

[47:51] And thus he is the head of all the bad, the devil, in so far as they what imitate him, right? According to that of wisdom, chapter two, by the envy of the devil, death entered into the world, and they imitate him who are of his side, huh? Okay. Now, what all these sins have in common? Because they're all kind of different things. All sins come together in turning away from God, right?

[48:22] Although they differ from each other by their turning towards what different changeable goods, right? Okay. This abortion business, you know, you think of the devil's really the head of this.

[48:55] It's kind of you know leading us to hate ourselves, right? In abortion. Of course, he's the one who chiefly hates us. But it's devilish that he would lead us, if he could, those he hates, to hate themselves.

[49:22] Special hatred in the mother. Does Shakespeare say this above all to the own self be true? It must follow as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man. So, in a sense, the woman, she chooses abortion. She's being false to herself, right? And consequently, false to her baby, and false to her husband. Yeah. There are so many different levels of self-loathing within the culture that have been propagated, you know, for centuries now.

[49:56] Yeah. And yeah, get worse. Quote from the guy Steve from his own family, Mike Tyson. But wasn't it Mike Tyson's quote that no matter how much people can hate me, it doesn't even come close to how much I hate myself? When he was thrown in prison. Look at this last one here now. Whether the Antichrist is the head of evil, right? To this eighth one goes forward thus: It seems that the Antichrist is not the head of the evil.

[50:36] For of one body there are not diverse heads, but the devil is the head of the multitude of those who are bad. Therefore, the Antichrist is not their head.

[50:48] Moreover, Antichrist is a member of the devil, but the head is distinguished from the members. Therefore, the Antichrist is not the head of the evil. Moreover, the head has what influence on the members, but the Antichrist has no influence upon the bad men who came before him. Therefore, the Antichrist is not the head of the bad.

[51:17] But against this is what Job, upon that verse twenty-nine, asked him right about the wayfarers. Gloss says, when one speaks about the body of all the bad, suddenly to the what head of all the bad, one turns the words right. But who is that head? The Antichrist, huh? Okay.

[51:50] So, who's this gloss now? It's Gregory again, right? Yeah. I guess the Moralia a lot is based on on Job, isn't it? It's Moralia on Job. Thomas quotes a lot Moralia in the second part there when he's talking because he had the species of pride in there and all kinds of wonderful things.

[52:21] Well, Thomas wrote the greatest work on evil, right? The Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo. That's really it. On about evil should be said, as has been said above, in a natural head three things are found: order, perfection, right, and the power of flowing in or influencing. Now, as regards the order of time, the Antichrist is not said to be the head of the bad, as a word that his what sin precedes, as there preceded the sin of the devil, right?

[53:11] So, that that sense the devil is more the head, right? Likewise, he's not said to be the head of the bad on account of the power of flowing into them or influencing them.

[53:27] If, however, some of his time he converts to the evil, inducing them to do so in exterior way, huh? Not however, those who were what before him were led by him to evil, right? Nor did they imitate his evil like they imitated the evil of the devil, huh? Whence, in this way, he cannot be said to be the head of all the the bad, but of some, right?

[53:57] It remains, therefore, that he is said to be the head of all the evil on account of the perfection of his what malice, huh? Whence upon that of Second Thessalonians two four, showing himself as it were God, right? Just as in Christ the gloss says, huh,

[54:24] all fullness of the divinity inhabits, so in the Antichrist the fullness of all what malice, huh? Not that his humanity is assumed by the devil in the unity of a person as the humanity of Christ was by the Son of God, huh? But because the devil his evil more eminently flows into him by way of suggestion than all others, huh? And according to this, all other what evil ones who preceded are as it were a figure of the Antichrist, right?

[55:03] Because he has it in the the fullness, right? According to that of Second Thessalonians, the mystery of iniquity what? already at war. Yeah. So we're saying we look forward to. the Antichrist. Although sometimes the apostles say he's already in the world, right? You know, there's some kind of thing. Yeah. Now, what about there being two heads?

[55:36] Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the devil and the Antichrist are not two heads but one, right? Why? Because the Antichrist is said to be a head in so far as most fully in him is impressed the evil of the what the malice of the devil, right? Whence upon that of Second Thessalonians chapter two verse four, showing himself as it were God, right?

[56:05] Huh? The gloss says that is in him will be the what the head of all evils to wit the devil, right? Who is the king or upon all sons of what right? Yeah, this this text says it, so it would be the same as the last one. Would be.

[56:42] Okay. But is not said to be in him through a personal union, right? Nor by an intrinsic habitation, right? Because the Trinity alone is what inside the mind, right? But through the effect of his what malice, right? Is this relating to possession? No. Well, it's a bit like you know when

[57:14] Judas is about to betray our Lord, right? And the devil entered into him, right? And Thomas said, "Well, it's not in the way in which God enters into us, right? But he's under his what control or power, right? "

[57:27] So there's a bit of a difference there, right? Like comparison, huh? Head is distinguished from members and so on. Head to head, huh? To the second, it should be said that just as the head of Christ is God, and nevertheless Christ is the head of the church, right? So the Antichrist is a member of the devil, and nevertheless he is, in some sense, the what head of the evil, right?

[58:08] What about the what influence, right? Well, especially regard to those who came before. To the third, it should be said that the Antichrist is not said to be the head of all what the wicked, on account of the likeness of influence, but on account of the likeness of perfection. In him, right? The devil, as it were, right, brings his what evil to a head.

[58:43] In the way in which someone is said to what bring his intention to a head, right? When he what perfects it, right? So a couple of worthy things we heard about here at the last two articles, here,

[59:06] and one is even worse than the other. Now, a teacher could say, don't, try and be as bad as the devil. You just can't. You won't succeed.

[59:17] You can't be as good as God. Obviously, He can't even be as bad as the devil. Your choice for preeminence, in either direction, is cut off. We should be the other.