Tertia Pars
36. Christ, the Angels, and the Limits of His Soul's Power: Omnipotence and Changing Creatures (ST III, Q.12 a.4; Q.13 aa.1–2)
Class of 2009-03-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/036-christ-the-angels-and-the-limits-of-his-souls-power-omnipotence/

[0:00] It seems that Christ got knowledge from the angels. For it is said in Luke twenty-two that the angel appeared to Christ from heaven, comforting him.

[0:16] Confortatio could be strengthening him too, right? But comforting or strengthening comes about through the exhortoria words, right? The urging words of the one teaching, according to that of Job chapter four. Behold, you have what taught many, and you have strengthened weak hands. You have confirmed the vacillating with your speeches. Therefore, Christ was taught by the angels.

[0:53] Moreover, Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy, "For I see Jesus Himself, right, coming to what to our what unchanging, unchanging, coming in an unchanging way to us, right? Okay. Obediently being subject to the Father and to the formations through the angels. Yeah. No, fix the grammar there. What is it? What is it? Obediently subject to what? Or I see that even Jesus, the supersubstantial substance of supercelestial substances.

[1:52] But the second part there was. I mean, obediently, there, right? He is subject, right, to the formation through angelic formation. He is subject to the formations of the Father and God through the angels, right? So the angels in between. It seems, therefore, that Christ was what wished to be subject to the ordination of the divine law to which men are taught. by means of the angels Yeah.

[2:21] So just as the human and the third objection, just as human body in a natural order is subject to celestial bodies, so also the human mind to the angelic minds. But the body of Christ was subject to the impressions of the celestial bodies, for he suffered heat in the summer and cold in winter, just as the other human passions. Therefore, his mind was subject to the illuminations of the super celestial spirits.

[2:56] but again, this is what Dionysius says in the seventh chapter, of the celestial hierarchy, that the highest angels to Jesus himself make what question, and they what learn right the knowledge of his divine operation for us right, and Jesus without any media teaches them, so they were stupefied by God becoming man right, they would even ask this man here to explain what this all about, but it's not of the same to teach and to be taught, therefore Christ did not get knowledge from the angels.

[3:38] I answer: It should be said that the human soul, as it is a middle between the spiritual substances and bodily things, he's on the think Arab philosophers say he's on the horizon between the material world and the immaterial world. So in two ways he is apt to be perfected. In one way through a knowledge taken from sensible things, and in another way by a knowledge poured in or pressed upon him from the enlightenment of spiritual substances.

[4:16] And in both ways the soul of Christ was perfect. From sensible things, according to his experiential knowledge, for which there is not required the what angelic light, but suffices the light of the agent intellect. From the impression of a superior one, according to the infused knowledge, which is immediately gotten from God and not from the angels. Just as above the common way of creatures his soul was united to the Word in the unity of person, so above the common mode of men, immediately by the Word of God he was filled with what knowledge and grace, not by the angels in between, who also from the flowing in of the Word receive the knowledge of things in their what beginning.

[5:17] As in the second book on Genesis to the letter, Augustine says, so both in his infused knowledge and in his what experiential knowledge, the one he uses the agent intellect which is sufficient given his most excellent gift right, we got to be fortified by the angels to

[5:42] have this gift in the most excellent way, and then in terms of infused knowledge he gets it directly from God just as the angels get their infused knowledge from from God right, so he doesn't need to get it through the angels as a. In between, huh?

[6:02] Yeah. So when we, in this case, in middle, Middle angel. Now the first one. What about this being comforting, huh? To the first, there should be said that that comfortatio, that comforting or strengthening of the angels, was not by way of instruction, but to showing the what was proper to human nature, whence Bede says upon Luke in

[6:44] the what of both natures, testimony of both nature. The angels ministered to him, and I said to have what Comfort him. Comfort him. For the creator, need the reciting of the creature, but having been made a man, just as an account of us, he has said, so an account of us he is what. Comfort. Yeah. That in us the the faith of and belief in his incarnation might be confirmed.

[7:21] huh Yeah There's a beautiful expression there Yeah. So we're supposed to be consoled by the angels then, huh? To tell your guardian angel, I'm sad today, or I'm worn out, or something, and. You

[7:43] must be amused at us, huh? To the second, it should be said that Dionysius says that Christ was subject to the angelic formations, not by reason of himself, but by reason of those things which were done about his incarnation and about the administration constituted in his what. Speechless age. Yes, infantile age.

[8:18] Once he subjoins that through the angels as a in between is announced to Joseph from the father, right? The reception, recession into Egypt, right? Find Egypt, and again the what? Return to Judea from Egypt, right? So the angels. So it's there in the middle there, right? Yeah. And some of that pertains to the incarnation, right? Yeah. He was he was speechless, but the infans means he's not able to speak, so so quite of age he wouldn't have told Joseph.

[8:54] Yeah. Yeah. He sent the angels He used sign language Let's go The third one saying, "Well, his body was subject to the the sun and the moon and so on." To the third, should be said that the son of of God assumed a what, able to suffer body, right? As will be said below, to get into the the defects, right, that he received or he took on, co-assumed, and therefore his body was suitably subject to the what, impression of the celestial bodies, huh?

[9:38] But his soul was not subject to the what, impression of the celestial spirits, huh? That's sufficient isn't it? That's Did Thomas believe that... celestial... bodies influence men like directly And what is he saying here just in the general way that we Well, they act upon They can affect our body directly. Yeah, they can't act upon our mind or our will directly, but indirectly they influence it because of the effect they have upon the body.

[10:17] One practical example of that: New York City ambulance people have a legend, and I don't know if empirically it's borne out, but they say that during the summers when there's a full moon, all the lunatics come out of the woodwork, and that's when they get the craziest of all calls. That's what lunatic means. right? Yeah, exactly. But I don't know if it's really been proven, but that's what they all say.

[10:42] They said that it moves the chemicals in your body, just like it moves the tides. You know, the moon's gravity pulls the tides, and it does something to your, you know, physical chemistry. That's a theory. I guess Ptolemy Ptolemy has got you know the different planets and how they influence different things. That's the idea behind astronomy.

[11:07] Yeah, I think they take it to another level. Yeah, but Thomas did he he did a commentary on the meteorology. Aristotle. Yeah. And what is that about? Is that more of that? No, that's that's more of the intermediary things, you know. The De Caelo et Mundo Mundo is more about the heavenly bodies. Yeah, it's more about the things between heaven and earth. You know, you know, lightning and things of the sort.

[11:34] Thomas is actually, they say, afraid of lightning because his sister had been killed by lightning. His sister, so he was supposed to be a little nervous about this lightning. Yeah, I've told the story before that my my mom knew some farmer in Missouri. I don't remember exactly, but he was out in the field. Mules are common out there in the early days back then. And a farmer had a mule he was plowing his field or something, and storm came along suddenly, and the lightning struck the mule.

[12:06] Didn't kill it, but struck it down. Bang! Just right down on the ground. It got up, and it got better. But whenever he'd go back in that field and plow that field, that, the mule, every time they got to that spot, he'd go, he wouldn't walk in that way. He learned his lesson. So that last time I was there, boy, I remember.

[12:27] Sense memory. Well, when I was a little, my cat tried to jump on the stove, you know, and and his pot the burner. No, he didn't get hurt, but she never he never tried he never tried to go in that stove again. He learned his lesson, you know, not the place to go. He starts, like you know, getting the stove. My mother was cooking, you know, and he thought he'd get up there and get a little bit.

[12:50] It's like the old saying: "The burnt paw teaches best." I guess you can do a little bit of that, sure, Paul. Remember in this treatise on the coassumpta huh? Coassumpta things taken on with the body and soul. There was divided into three, right? Wasn't it? Grace and knowledge and power, yeah. So this is the thing we're meaning here. Then we're not to consider about the power of the soul of Christ, and about this four things are asked.

[13:34] First, whether he had omnipotence, simply speaking, huh? Secondly. Secondly, whether he had omnipotence with respect to bodily creatures, huh? Third, whether he had omnipotence with respect to his own body. And fourth, whether he had omnipotence with respect to the carrying out of his own will. Curious, huh? Okay. But let's look at least at the first article here. Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence, huh? To the first, one goes forward.

[14:18] Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence. For Ambrose says upon Luke, the power which the Son of God had naturally, the man from time to time would what receive, yeah. But this especially seen according to the soul, which is the more potent part of man. Since therefore the Son of God from eternity had omnipotence, it seems that the soul of Christ in time or extempore would take on omnipotence, huh?

[15:08] Moreover, just as the power of God is infinite, so also is his what knowledge. But the soul of Christ had knowledge of all those things which God knows in some way, huh? We didn't know everything that God knows. We knew all the things that God knows by his Scientia visionis. I think that's what he maintained, huh?

[15:35] Therefore, also he had all power, and thus he is what omnipotent, huh? Moreover, the soul of Christ had all knowledge, but of all the treasures, huh? But of the, but some of the knowledges or sciences are practical, and some are speculative. Therefore, he had of those things which he knew a practical what knowledge that he knew how to make those things which he knew, and thus it seems that he is able to what do all things.

[16:14] But against all this is that it's private to God. What is private to God, or proper to God, is not able to belong to some creature. But it is private to God, right? To be omnipotent, according to that in Exodus chapter fifteen.

[16:34] This is my God, and I glorify Him, right? And afterwards, subjoined Omnipotent is his what Name. Yeah, no, so it has a prominence there in the creed. There, I believe in God the Father, God the Almighty Almighty, we see in English.

[16:54] Therefore, the soul of Christ, since he is a what creature, does not have what omnipotence. That's why Thomas, in that communion prayer, he kind of addresses the person God the Father, and he speaks of the thing omnipotent, right? There's many reasons why that's appropriate to the Father, though it's not. He's alone, obviously. See, it's the beginning of the other person, son. Some way, and power is is the beginning.

[17:41] I answer, Thomas says, it should be said, as has been said above, that in the mystery of the incarnation, in such a way was the union made in the person, right? That nevertheless there remained a distinction of natures,

[18:07] to wit, both natures retaining what was private or proper to it. Now the active power of each thing follows upon its form, which is the beginning acting.

[18:30] Now the form is either the nature of the thing itself in simple things, or it is what constituting the nature of the thing, Perfecting it, completing it in those things which are put together from matter and form.

[18:48] Whence it is manifest that the active power of each thing follows upon its what nature. And in this way, omnipotence has itself as a consequence of the divine nature.

[19:06] It has itself consequentially to the divine nature. How's that for translation? Because the divine nature is ipsum, to be, the to be of God in circumscriptum

[19:27] And reading through the golden chain there. You know, Christ will say, "I am." And some of the church fathers say, "Well, he's telling them that he's God." You know. I know these scriptural scholars say, "well, when, you say I am," he means me. But it also has this other sense. I am right, which is you know more the way we look at the words themselves rather than the Greek idiom. It makes context in the sense in the context there that he's saying I'm God.

[20:08] So because the divine nature is to be itself, being itself, on what? Yeah. A line drawn around it Yeah. a line drawn around it, as is clear through Dionysius in the fifth chapter, of the divine names. Hence it is that the what he has an active power with respect to everything that can have the notion of what being, and that's what means to have omnipotence.

[20:43] That's why he can't make contradiction. Can God make a square circle? As opposed to the very notion of being, right? Now, as little that was always the thing that they would say, you know, catch the catch the Catholic boy, you know. Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it? Well, it seems every answer you get a bit of problem there, right? But that's really a contradiction, right?

[21:13] A stone so big that God could not lift it. That's a contradiction. That's like a square circle, right? So God could not make a square circle, but that's not a what lessening of his power, right? Because that isn't anything. That's to make nothing, right?

[21:35] And nothing is impossible with God. Yeah. That's quoting scripture. Yeah. I'm quoting Ralph McInerney on divine omnipotence. right. Just as every other thing has an active power with respect to those things to which the perfection of its nature extends, right? Just as the hot to what eating. Since therefore the soul of Christ is a part of human nature, it's impossible that soul have what omnipotence simply there.

[22:24] Okay, now what about the first objection that says, "Hey, that man has from time what the Son of God has naturally." Well, that's because the union of the person, all right. To the first, therefore, it should be said that man gets in time the omnipotence which the Son of God has from eternity through that union of the what person, from which it is made that just as the man is said to be what God.

[22:54] So he is said to be what, yeah, not as it were by another omnipotence of the man than that of the what, son of God, just as not by another deity, right? But from this that there is one person of God and man, so you can say of the man the things that belong to this person for reason of his divine nature, and vice versa. So you can say God died, for us, huh?

[23:23] And we can say this man is what, Creator of the world. yeah, yeah. But not by reason of his human nature did he create the world, or did he die for reason of his divine nature but of his human nature? Okay.

[23:40] The second objection has got a long, my goodness, a long reply. So even the man who exemplifies brevity, right, has to repeat. This is talking about well, didn't he have this kind of infinity in his knowledge, right? Do I not also in his power, right?

[24:04] Now to the second, it should be said that there is another reason about knowledge and about an act of power, as some say, right? Wherever these guys are. For the active power follows upon the nature of the thing, and that the action is considered as going forth from the what, agent. But knowledge is not always had through the essence of the one knowing, but it can be had through the likening of the one knowing to the things known according to likenesses received.

[24:41] Okay, like we know ourselves through our images and so on. Always receiving likenesses of things. But this reason does not seem to be what sufficient, because just as someone is able to know through a likeness received from another, so he is able to act by a form received from what, another. huh? And you priests should know something about that. Just as water or iron heats through heat received from the fire, that's a

[25:21] simple enough example, right? My teacher Kasurik would say, you can tell a man's understanding by the examples he chooses, examples he gives. Therefore, not through this, huh, is it prevented, right? That just as the soul of Christ through likenesses of all things poured into him from God is able to know all things, so through the same likeness he is able to what, to do them, right? So we've got to consider something further to see this.

[25:59] Therefore, it should be considered further that that which is what from a superior nature is received in the lower one, but it is had through the what way of the inferior. Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver. So, receiving the teaching of Thomas in this class, equally all of us. Some are receiving it more fully than others, huh?

[26:33] For heat is not received in the same perfection and power by water as it is in the what fire? huh? You can still scald yourself, but not quite as hot as the fire. Because, therefore, the soul of Christ was of a lower nature than the divine nature, right?

[26:58] The likenesses of things are not received in the soul of Christ according to the same perfection and power as they are in the what divine nature. And hence it is that the knowledge of the soul of Christ is lower than the divine knowledge, lower than the knowledge that he has as God, huh?

[27:24] As far as the what way of knowing? Because God knows more perfectly than the soul of Christ, both as regards the number of things known, right? Because the soul of Christ does not know all those things which God is able to make, right? Which nevertheless God does know by what is called the knowledge of simple understanding, huh? Although he does know all the things present, past, and future which God knows by what is called the knowledge of vision, right?

[28:03] scientia visionis. And likewise, the likenesses of things of the soul poured into the soul of Christ do not equal the divine power in what acting that he is able to do, or they are able to do all things which God is able to do, right? Are also in that way to act as God acts, who acts with an infinite power of which the creature is not capable.

[28:39] But no thing to the knowledge of which, in some way, there is to the knowledge of which having is required infinite power, although in some Way of knowing is of a what, infinite power.

[29:02] But there are some things which it cannot be done except by infinite power, as creation, right? And as of this sort, as is clear from those things which I said in the first part. And therefore, the soul of Christ, since it be a creature, and of a limited what power, is able to know all things, but not in every way. Is not able to do all things, which pertains to the notion of omnipotence.

[29:37] And among other things, is manifest that it is not able to what. Create himself. Create himself. That's a mouthful, Thomas. There. One of the characters is saying in Shakespeare, "you know to chew on this," you know. And the footnote there in the in the New Hudson Shakespeare is saying, is quoting Bacon, you know, saying some books are to be read and chewed, right? And this is true of Thomas, huh?

[30:11] Chew on these things, and you get how juicy they are and tasty, you know. What what Socrates calls a feast of reason, right? Delicious things to chew on in here. If you read them superficially, I mean, you're not going to really appreciate them, huh?

[30:36] Wisdom is what kind of knowledge? Savory knowledge, right? If I drank wine the way I drink Whitbread, I mean, I would appreciate the wine, you know, like I let it go to the sides of the mouth and breathe over it and so on, savor it, you know. That's what you have to read these things, you know.

[30:58] Sapida scientia. That's why I say. it's a marvelous Shakespeare there, right? And when Romeo says, "Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavory guide," means foolish guy, huh? Put the ship on the rocks and so on, can take his life.

[31:24] Okay. Christ had all knowledge, he says, huh? Doesn't that include practical knowledge then? To the third, it should be said that the soul of Christ had both a practical knowledge and a what? Speculative knowledge. Nevertheless, it was not necessary that he had what? A practical knowledge of all those things of which he had a what? Speculative knowledge. For to speculative or looking knowledge, having it suffices conformity alone, right?

[31:59] Or the likening of the one knowing to the thing known. But for practical knowledge, required forms of things in the understanding that are what? That are able to make, right? Now it is more to have a form and to press that form had in another than only to have the form. Just as is more to what light and illuminate than only to what? To shine, yeah. To shine is a good way to say.

[32:33] And hence it is that the soul of Christ had a speculative knowledge of creating, right? Because he knew in what way God created, but he did not have the practical knowledge of this because he did not have a knowledge that was productive of creation,

[32:55] huh? Can I go back just a second? And this is like the definition of speculative knowledge. Is it the knower? No, he's just he's just touching upon distinction between speculative and practical knowledge, right? There are other places where he goes into what this difference is.

[33:22] But you first distinguish these by their ends, because the purpose of looking knowledge, of speculative knowledge, is something to understand, right? And the purpose of practical knowledge is to make or to do.

[33:46] So Aristotle in the Ethics there, you know, he speaks of the who is an unsuitable hearer of these matters, and it can be because you lack experience to judge these things, or because you have no desire to live in accordance with reason. And so he says that man is like the guy who listens to medical advice and says you've got to lose some weight, you've got to do some exercise, but you're not willing to do that, so you're a useless hearer of medical advice.

[34:16] And Aristotle, being the son of a very excellent physician, right, must have known about this. But we all know about this, you know, and if we don't follow the advice, right? My friend, my friend Jim, there, he was a smoker, you know, and his lung collapsed, and the doctor told him to give up smoking. He refused to, so

[34:44] he's a useless hearer of this piece of medical advice. You know, it seems kind of reasonable in circumstances, huh? But Father Abbott always tells the story of some monastery doing some hospital visits, and he comes to the lady's room, and she has all these tubes in her, whatnot, and he asked her if he could do anything for her, and she says, "Father, would I really need you?

[35:10] I'll let you know." And the other one is when he did some work in his psychology studies, and he would work. He went to the mental hospital. When you go to the some of the patients in the mental hospitals, know more. They've studied more psychology and psychiatry than the doctors have. They can tell. Have you read this article, Doctor Abbott? But it does them no good. They never apply it themselves.

[35:42] They'll tell everybody what they learned, but it doesn't work for themselves. That's what the Merchant of Venice is there you know is there, you know, Portia says that one

[35:58] So you know that's very good for ethics. There, the two ladies are talking. Mary hath chosen the better part. The way they understand that, Christ says, "Mary hath chosen the better part, and it shall not be taken away from her." Says that Martha, "So the looking knowledge is better, and it won't be taken away from you. It will be perfected in the next life by the practical knowledge, right?

[36:29] Knowledge how to how to make a house, or how to cook, or something, how to sew. That's more necessary. Yeah, yeah. But I mean, it won't be taken away, right? Yeah, sense. There won't be any reason to practice this here. Because there's many, many men.

[36:54] They're better than what we can do. So I have students. I say, you know, when you get to the scriptural passage, now they say, "Well, then we have to do the practical in this life, you know, because we'll have the next life. Next life, we just have the speculative knowledge. " What's a good

[37:14] time to learn it? Right, of course, not. One more here. Incidentally, at the end of this, at the end of this article they have a little footnote here, huh? Adverte it Cajetan perhaps. Point out here that the author here corrects the way of speaking about the knowledge of the soul of Christ with respect to all those things which come to be by God, huh? In the third book of the Sentences, distinction fourteen, article last ad two, he calls practical knowledge, which here he proves not to be practical, because it is not factiva.

[38:15] This is the end of this. Yeah, he says Cajetan saying he speaks a little more formally here than he did in. Yeah. Okay. Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with respect to what changing creatures, right?

[38:35] To the second, one proceeds thus. It seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with respect to the change of creatures, huh? For himself says in Matthew, the last chapter there,

[38:53] verse eighteen: "There is given to me all power in heaven and on earth." But by the name heaven and earth is understood all creature. This is clear when it says in Genesis one one, in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Therefore, it seems that the soul of Christ had power with respect to what changing creatures, huh? That sounds pretty convincing to me.

[39:23] Of course, maybe I should consider more carefully. Moreover, the soul of Christ is more perfect than any creature. But each creature is able to be moved by some other creature. For as Augustine says in the third book of the Trinity, that just as the more what gross and heavy bodies in the lower bodies are ruled by the more subtle, more potent ones in certain order, so all bodies are moved or ruled by the what rational spirit of life.

[40:00] And the spirit of rational life, the what sinner, right? The pious and the just. But the soul of Christ. Moved even the supreme spirits, enlightening them, as Dionysius says in the seventh chapter of the celestial hierarchy. Therefore, it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with respect to the change of creatures.

[40:34] Moreover, the soul of Christ had most fully the grace of miracles or powers, just as the other graces. But every change of creature can pertain to the grace of miracles, since even miraculously the celestial bodies are changed from their order, as Dionysius proves in the Epistle to Polycarp. That's where he's supposed to talk about what is going on down Egypt during the crucifixion. Might be that one.

[41:07] I don't know. Therefore, the soul of Christ had omnipotence with respect to the change of creatures. But against this, that it belongs the same one to change creatures, to whom it belongs to conserve them. But this is of God alone, for it said in Hebrew one three, He carries all things by the what? Power of His Word, huh? By the word of His power. Therefore, only God has omnipotence with respect to the change of creatures, and therefore it does not belong to the soul of Christ.

[41:52] Now here Thomas says we have need of a twofold what distinction, of which the first is on the side of the change of creatures, which is threefold.

[42:06] One which is natural, which comes about from its own agent according to the order of what? Nature. Another is miraculous, huh? Which comes about from a supernatural agent above the accustomed order and course of nature,

[42:32] as the what? Raising up of the dead. The third is according as every creature is what? Able to be returned to nothing. The second distinction is taken on the side of the soul of Christ, which can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature and power, whether that be natural or gratuitous. Another, in so far as the tool, right, of the word of God personally joined to Him, right.

[43:16] You got those distinctions down your head. If therefore we speak of the soul of Christ according to its own nature and power, whether the natural or the gratuitous one, he has power for those for making those effects which are what suitable to the soul, to wit, to governing the body and disposing human acts, and also to illuminating or enlightening through the fullness of grace and science all rational creatures falling away from that perfection through the way which is suitable to a rational creature.

[44:05] If, however, we speak of the soul of Christ according as it is a tool of the Word, huh, united to it, thus it has an instrumental power to all those changes

[44:23] miraculous ones, right, making all them that are orderable to the what end of the Incarnation, which is to what? Yeah, it sounds like one of the posts, doesn't it? Yeah. Whether in heaven or on what earth, huh?

[44:44] But those changes of creatures, according as they can be turned back to nothing, corresponds to the creation of things in so far as they are produced what from nothing. And therefore, just as God alone is able to create, so He alone can what reduce creatures to nothing, who alone conserves them in being, lest they fall to nothing. Thus, therefore, it should be said that the soul of Christ does not have omnipotence with respect to the what changes of creatures.

[45:42] So he seems to be making a threefold distinction there, doesn't he? There's some things that the soul of Christ doesn't have the power over at all. Some things that he has power as a tool of the Word, right? And then finally, some things that he has power as yeah, the proper soul nature, right?

[46:07] So what's his name? Dionysius will speak of these what. Power that he has as a tool of his divinity. They kind of run the two words together at the end of something there You get Theandric or something. You run the man and and and God together there, right?

[46:35] Now the first objection was from the end of Matthew, right? He's given to me every power, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that as Jerome says, to him that power is given who a little before was what crucified and laid in the tomb, who afterwards rose. That is to Christ, according as he is what man.

[47:11] And there is said to what to him All power is given by reason of the union, right? Through which it is made that as man he would be what, omnipotent. And although before the resurrection it was known to the angels, right? After the resurrection, it was made known to all men, as Remigius says. huh He's what? about the eighth century isn't he Remigius? I think he's a he's a monk.

[47:49] uh they have a quote from Saint Thomas says in the Catena. Yeah, yeah. I've not Emegeus we just quoted in there. For then things are said to come about when they are what, Made known. made known. And therefore, for the resurrection, the Lord says that power is given to him in heaven and on earth. But the reason of his what divinity seems to be saying here, right?

[48:20] But it was hidden to men until that time. The second objection: the soul of Christ is more perfect than any other creature, and one creature can change another creature. To the second, then, it should be said that although every creature is changeable from another creature, apart from the highest angel,

[48:55] who nevertheless is able to be what enlightened by the soul of Christ, huh? Not, however, is every change which can come about concerning the creature able to come about from a creature. But there are some changes that can come about by or from God alone.

[49:19] Now, whatever changes of creatures that are able to come about the creatures can also come about through the soul of Christ, according as it is the tool of the what word, huh? Not, however, according to his own nature and power, because some of these changes do not pertain to the soul, nor as regards the what, neither as regards the order of nature, nor as regards the order of what grace, huh?

[49:54] Now, the third objection was taken from the the Christ having the excellence of these gratia, what gratis data. Third, it should be said that it has been said in the second part: the grace of powers or miracles. Is given to the soul of what some saint, not as his own power, right, but that through the divine power miracles might what come about. And this grace was most excellently given to the soul of Christ, that not only

[50:34] did he make miracles, but also he what transferred this grace to others. Whence it is said in Matthew chapter ten that having called together the twelve disciples, he gave them power of what over unclean spirits that he might might cast them out, and that they might cure every sickness and weakness.

[51:05] He says in Matthew about that though the languor, the sickness of the body, and infirmities of the soul. We'll stop there?