Tertia Pars
38. The Bodily Defects Christ Took On (ST III q.14 a.1–4)
Class of 2009-04-02
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/038-the-bodily-defects-christ-took-on-st-iii-q-14-a-1-4/

[0:00] Then one ought to consider about the defects which Christ took on in his human nature, his body and in his soul. And first about the defects of the body, secondly about the defects of the soul.

[0:19] About the first, four things are asked. First, in general, whether the Son of God ought to take on in human nature defects of the what body.

[0:35] Second, whether he took on the necessity of being subject to these what defects. Third, whether he contracted these defects. And fourth, whether he took on what all defects of this what kind in his body. I think he's more radical to say that I think His passions were disordered and other things. What do you mean by that? But we'll see. To the first then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Son of God ought not to take on human nature with defects of the body.

[1:24] For just as the soul is united to the Word of God personally, so also the body. But the soul of Christ had every kind of perfection, both as regards grace and as regards what knowledge, about which has been spoken above. Therefore, the body ought to be in all ways what perfect, having no defect in itself. Haven't you read about in the early church there wasn't there a problem if a priest or man had some defect in the body he couldn't be ordained.

[2:08] Yeah. No I don't know what defects. It was exactly. Okay. Still pretty healthy. Still can't. A mute, a mute can't. Perfect. Can't pronounce. Yeah. Something else. Missing fingers, he needs special. Yeah. I mean, the Paschal Lamb had to be without limbs, they say, in the Scripture. So it seems if he's if he's a high priest, he should be his body should be. Yeah. I think you have those examples of one actor said is famous guitarist or something that had no arms and he played with his feet.

[2:42] You know, it was a church to say you know we can't have a priest playing a master with his feet. You know. Yeah, yeah. Just because.

[2:52] Moreover, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God. In that vision or by that vision, by which the blessed saw God, he saw him as he is, face to face. And thus the soul of Christ was what blessed. But from the beatitude or blessedness of the soul, the body is glorified.

[3:20] For Augustine says in the Epistle to Dioscorus. So powerful, huh? By nature, did God make the soul that from its most full beatitude there flows over into the lower nature, which is the body, not beatitude, which is private to the one what enjoying and understanding God, but the fullness of health and the vigor of incorruption. The body of Christ, therefore, was incorruptible and without any defect. So Christ must have what prevented the overflow from the soul.

[4:09] He had these defects. Moreover, pain, so on, follows upon guilt. But in Christ there was no guilt, according to that of the First Epistle of Peter, chapter two, who did not do what sin. Done make sin. Therefore, neither would there be what body defects, which are penal punishments. Punishments.

[4:42] Therefore, they had not to have been in him, right? Therefore, body defects, which are punishments, should not be in him. Moreover, no one who is wise takes on that which impedes him from his own end. But through defects, body defects of this sort, in many ways would seem to be impeded the end of incarnation. First, because on account of these infirmities, men are impeded from knowledge of him, according to that of Isaiah chapter fifty-three.

[5:25] Ah, we what desired him is despised in the last of men, a man of pain and knowing what infirmity, and as it were hidden was his face and despised, whence he didn't regard him as anyone. Now you all said puzzled by that what the what Moses helped

[5:56] in the snake like serpent, yeah, you know, you know. Servants are not very very nice things, you know. And so he's he despised I think compared to that himself. Secondly, because the desire of the holy fathers does not seem to be what fulfilled, whose person is said, rise up, rise up, take on what strength, the arm of the Lord, and something that's applied to the word.

[6:29] Third, because more suitably through what strength than to infirmity, would seem that the power of the devil can be what overcome, and human infirmity can be healed. Therefore, it does not seem suitable that the Son of God takes on human nature with bodily infirmities or bodily what defects.

[7:01] That's some ways most interesting objection, but against this is what is said in Hebrews chapter two. In that in which he suffered and was tempted, he is able to aid those right who are what tempted. Hence

[7:24] David says, "I lifted up my eyes to the mountains, whence comes what my help? Therefore, it is suitable that the Son of God would take on a flesh subject to human infirmities, that in it he could suffer and be tempted, and thus render aid to us.

[7:51] Well, what's Thomas going to do with this? Answer: It should be said that it was suitable that a body taken on by the Son of God be subject to human infirmities and defects, and especially in account of these three reasons.

[8:15] First, because for this the Son of God took on human flesh and came into the world, that he might satisfy for the sin of the human race.

[8:30] Now one person satisfies the sin of another, and he takes on the punishment due to sin in himself. Now these defects, these bodily defects, like death, which is the greatest one, right? Hunger and thirst, huh?

[8:55] Of course, you had the thirst of Christ there at the yeah, but also the will, yeah. And the hunger after his forty days of fasting, right? Yeah. See how he comes to this. And other defects of this sort are the punishment of what sin, which was brought into the world through Adam. According to that of Romans chapter five verse twelve, through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin came death.

[9:29] Whence it is suitable, as regards the very end or purpose of incarnation, that these punishments he take on them in our these penalties in our flesh, that he take them on. Yeah. In place of what? Us. According to that of Isaiah chapter 53 truly he what Bored. our sicknesses Our

[10:00] sicknesses, yeah. St Alphonsus often takes what things of Isaiah there in those meditations on the passion of our Lord. Okay, so that's the first reason Thomas gives, and maybe it's significant he gives that as the first reason. It's something very clear.

[10:27] Secondly, on account of what instruction you might say in the faith of the incarnation, because human nature was not otherwise known to men, except in so far as it is what subject to these bodily defects. We have no experience of Adam before his fall, right?

[10:55] And without these defects, if without these defects, the Son of God took upon human nature, he would seem to not have been a what true man, nor to have had true flesh, but a fantastic or imaginative one, as the Manicheans say. And therefore, as is said in Philippians two, he emptied himself, right, taking on the form of a servant or a slave, right,

[11:30] being made in the likeness of men and found in habit as what men. Whence Thomas, through the sight of the wounds, was called back to faith, as is said in John twenty.

[11:49] It's interesting. It seems in the modern world they they kind of take this no no the other extreme where it's like well I won't believe he's a man unless he has the baser defects. Yeah. Yeah. I really like that.

[12:07] Yeah. Unless he racks up a whole, unless he racks up a whole series of. series of sins you know It's interesting the order of these reasons, huh? And third, on account of the example of patience, which he showed to us, tolerating strongly these passions and human defects, right? Whence it is said in Hebrews twelve three, he sustained from sinners against himself contradiction, that we might not grow tired, right, failing in our what souls.

[12:55] In that prayer of Thomas after communion, there, where he talks about the things, vices, right, and then the virtues. Well, of course, obviously charity is a virtue he mentions in particular, but humility, obedience, and what? Patience, yeah.

[13:18] Because the importance of those virtues, son, in particular, right? But this is one the the the virtues singled out here, right? Is the example of patience, huh? But also humility and obedience, huh? And charity, yeah. Right. Did you want to say something about the order? Well, it seems to me that the first one is perhaps the most what? Important. The most necessary, right?

[14:07] Since both the second and the third are in terms of the virtues, huh? But the second one is in terms of faith, which kind of the beginning, right? Kind of virtues, huh? So you have to have faith that he did become a man.

[14:27] And this is an aid to faith. Unless you had that faith, he did become a man, and then all this suffering would not have been real, right? Would have been a fantastic redemption. Yeah. So actually, the second and third are both aids Yeah The virtue. one to the virtue of faith, and the other to patience.

[14:55] Okay. Let's now back to the second of the objections, huh? Why was the soul more perfect than the body, right? Or why did the soul escape? You know, we haven't come to a question of the effects of the soul yet. But anyway.

[15:14] To the first, it should be said that satisfaction for the sin of another has, as it were, as for its matter, the punishments, right, which someone undergoes for the sin of what? Another, right.

[15:35] But for its beginning, it has the habit of the soul from which one is inclined to what? Willing to what? To satisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction is efficacy, right? For the satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity, right? As he said below, right? I give my body up to be burnt, and so on, right? I have no charity.

[16:13] And therefore, it is necessary that the soul of Christ be perfect as regards the habit of the sciences and the virtues, that he might have the what ability to satisfy him, and that his body would be subject to infirmities, so that the matter of satisfaction would not be what lacking. It's a very solid reply that he has there, right? It's in terms of the first reason given in the in the body, right?

[16:45] Now, as for him to really satisfy for our sins, he has to take on what as matter a satisfaction the bodily defects that Adam incurred because of his sin, right? That we inherit from our father Adam, but in order for that matter to be efficacious in undergoing those things, it had to proceed from what perfection of his will, right? And from his what love, right? Right son, greater love than this has no man, and so on.

[17:21] So that's beautiful the way he does that, huh? It corresponds to the first what reason given. So, if he didn't have that perfection of charity in the soul, then his suffering would not be what? Not satisfactory, efficacious. Just calling

[18:00] me Thomas, by the way. Is there anybody? Somebody. Two guys are corresponding with me, right? And one guy sent me an email, and instead of addressing it to Doctor Burkes or something like that, he said Brother Thomas. And then the same day, just a few minutes later, he sends another one and apologizes for calling me Brother Thomas. It was a compliment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's kind of funny, though, I think, you know.

[18:35] Okay. The second objection is saying what? If he had his perfection of the soul, even of the beatific vision, right, then that should overflow into the soul, right? Okay, I mean into the body. Okay.

[18:55] Thomas says to the second, it should be said that according to the natural relation which is between the soul and the body, from the glory of the soul there flows over glory to the body, right? But this natural relation in Christ was subject to the what? The will of his divinity, his divine will,

[19:23] from which it was done or made that the beatitude might remain in the soul and not be derived from the body. impeding of it, right?

[19:36] But the flesh suffered what are suitable to a what undergoing nature, according to that, according to what Damascene says, right? That it was pleasing to his divine will to admit his flesh to what Suffer and to undergo the things which... are Proper to it, huh? Kind of

[20:07] like, kind of like Euclid's, too. Because the species still have the, as they say, acts and undergoes what's proper to the accident, what's proper to the wine and the soul He's saying here, it is natural for the glory of the soul to flow into the body, because of the union, right? So, so by his divine will, he has to prevent this, right? Of course, in a way, in in in the transfiguration, right, allows the glory of his soul to flow into his body, right, temporarily.

[20:49] Pulls out the stopper. Yeah, or at least a little bit. Because otherwise, they'd have been killed. I think you see something also, you know, in his appearances after resurrection, he doesn't always let the the glory of his what soul flow through the body, right? Because it'd be too too bright for. For man, would never saw him

[21:15] transfigured. Probably interpretation I read recently of that light in the mechanism actually was the fact because of the glorified body that you could take it in that that sense too, yeah. But there's probably some, you know, sort of hiding that there is other sense that he's not not quite just the ordinary. No, but the count doesn't speak as if back when Moses came down the hill right there, you know, they had to put a veil over him.

[21:43] You know, he didn't have to put a veil over his head or something. The brightest. Centuries ago, and I thought it would appear to him. I think one, wasn't one one thing that he could only show. The hand, yeah. First and more, more the body. Because if she saw the rest of his whole body, it would have been too too bright, too much.

[22:09] Yeah, I was reading that passage in here one time. The hand. Now the third one, but guilt is what I mean. Punishment is the consequence of guilt, right? There's no guilt in Christ, huh? To the third, it should be said that punishment always follows upon guilt, actual or what original.

[22:39] But sometimes of the one who is punished, sometimes of the another for whom the one who undergoes satisfies, huh? Unless it happens in Christ, according to that Isaiah 53. He was wounded for our iniquities. He was what? Broken. Broken for our what?

[23:08] Sins. Now the fourth objection is saying this impeded the what? End of the thing. Because they wouldn't know him, right? He was so miserable looking, right?

[23:31] And then because the lack of power there, apparently. Now I think I've seen talk about this before, right? Wants to overcome the devil by justice rather than by what? Power? Power. Yeah. To the fourth, it should be said that the infirmity taken on by Christ does not impede the incarnation, but most of all, what promotes it, as has been said. I think that's referring back to the three arguments, three reasons given in the body article.

[24:05] And although through these infirmities is hidden his divinity, nevertheless, is made known his humanity, which is a road, right, to arriving at his divinity, right. According to that of Romans chapter five, we have access to God through Jesus Christ. That's very much in Thomas's explanation of "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Right.

[24:37] Now the ancient fathers, as the other point of objection, desired in Christ not bodily strength, but what? Strength. Yeah. Through which he would overcome the devil and heal what human infirmity. yeah. But a lot of times, Thomas will talk about the fact that the devil in instigating his death, right, is what violating justice, right, and therefore he loses his right to to hold us prisoner.

[25:17] The second article. Whether Christ, from necessity, what? Was subject to these defects of the body. The second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that Christ was not from necessity subject to these defects. This is strange. Thomas should be taken. He takes opposite side of the way he begins, right?

[25:46] Now he's going to be taking the other side that he of necessity was subject to these things. For it is said in Isaiah chapter fifty-three, he was offered up because he what wished, and he's speaking about his being offered up to what his passion. But the will is opposed to necessity.

[26:09] Therefore, Christ was not from necessity subject to the defects of the body. Moreover, Damascene says in the third book, nothing what coerced in Christ should be considered, huh? But all voluntary.

[26:32] What is voluntary is not necessary, and therefore defects of this sort were not from necessity in Christ. Moreover, necessity is induced yeah, from someone more powerful. But no creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ, to which it pertains to conserve one's own body. Therefore, these defects or infirmities were not in Christ from necessity, huh? Now, don't stop now because you might get the wrong answer.

[27:25] But against this is what the apostle says, Romans eight. God sent His Son in the likeness of the what flesh of sin, huh? But the condition of the flesh of sin is that it has necessity of dying, right, and of sustaining or undergoing other what passions of this sort. Therefore, such necessity of sustaining these defects was in the flesh of what Christ. Seems to be saying here they took on a what mortal flesh, right?

[28:03] Flesh subject to what hunger and thirst and ultimately what death, so couldn't avoid it. Now, fortunately, he studied the word necessity with his master Aristotle. An old pagan. Okay. Answer: It should be said that twofold is necessity. One is of what? coactio, force, huh? Which comes about from an extrinsic what? Agent, huh?

[28:41] And this necessity is contrary both to nature and to the will, both of whom are an intrinsic what? Beginning or source, huh? But another is the natural necessity, which follows upon natural what? Beginnings. As example, form, right? As it is necessary that fire heat, huh? Due to its form, right? Or matter, as it is necessary that a body be, a body that is composed from contraries be what?

[29:22] Dissolved, right? Now nature is Aristotle shows in the second book. Natural hearing is both matter and what? Form, right? So he takes us to there.

[29:39] I was thinking about the commandments of love this morning, and he says, "Love your God from your whole heart and your whole soul, and so on, and love your neighbor as yourself, right? " But why isn't there a third commandment? Because you're supposed to love yourself, right? As well as God and your neighbor. And it's implied we say love your neighbor as yourself. So why isn't there a third commandment instead of just two?

[30:06] I mean, grace is just two. Why isn't there a commandment to love yourself? Why not? Yeah, it's natural necessity, right? But that it's natural necessity is not that that. Yeah, forced, right? You know, I've been forced to love myself.

[30:26] I naturally love myself, right? Richard, that is I am I, Shakespeare says, right kind of part one is I really love myself for that those horrible things, right?

[30:41] My worst enemy. I sin like that. So these are distinctions that Aristotle what? Made, right? Different senses of necessity. The fifth book of wisdom is first word taken up is beginning, right? Then cause, then element, then what? Nature and then necessity. Fifth word, huh?

[31:19] Now, according to this necessity, which follows upon matter, right? The body of Christ was subject to the necessity of death and of other defects of this sort, right?

[31:36] Because, as has been said by the what, bene placito divine will of Christ, he permitted his flesh to do and to undergo the things that were what, yeah. And but this necessity was caused from the what principles of what human flesh, right?

[32:09] If, however, we speak of the necessity of what force, coactio, according as it is what repugnant to the bodily nature, thus also the body of Christ, according to the condition of its own nature, was subject necessity of the nail what piercing and of the the scourge striking, right, huh?

[32:48] According as such necessity is repugnant to the will, it is manifest that in Christ there was not a what a necessity of these defects, right? Neither with respect to the divine will nor with respect to the human will, absolutely, in so far as it follows what reason after deliberation, but only according to the natural movement of the will, in so far as it naturally flees death and the what.

[33:27] This is not my will, but thine be done. That's his what. Yeah, yeah. But he's referring to his natural will. He says that my will, but but it is his deliberative will. Yeah, that's what the so his divine will or his human will was ordered to divine will and his natural motion of the will. It says take away was everything was perfectly ordered. It wasn't. There was no disorder.

[33:58] On the first objection, it should be said that Christ is said to be what offered because he he willed so. Both by his divine will and by his deliberate human will, although death was against the natural motion of the human will, as Damascene says.

[34:44] Now the second objection he says has been answered about what we said in the what in the body, right? All things are voluntary in so far as they agree with the divine will here and the what deliberate. will Christ.

[35:10] Now, what about the power of Christ's soul? To the third, it should be said that nothing was more what powerful than the soul of Christ absolutely, but nothing prevents something from being what. Powerful as regards this effect, as of the nail to the what piercing, and

[35:35] this I say, according as the soul of Christ is considered according to its own nature and what power. So I suppose if people had the nails were bent when they

[36:12] struck the nail. Yeah. So, was it necessary that the nail pierces in? Yeah, so he's saying here in the body article, right? If we speak of the necessity of force, according as is repugnant to the bodily nature, thus again the body of Christ, according to the what condition of its own nature, was subject to the necessity of the nail piercing and of the scourge. Yeah. Where was striking?

[36:47] I always had the thought that it seems like with the passion that Christ really was sort of preserving himself too. That I always wondered if the sufferings, what was done to his body, even more than just some ordinary man could have taken, was he as he was going through this actually, sort of preserving his body? You still have life longer than man. Yeah, yeah. Some of the saints seem to say that.

[37:31] Yeah. It's a great question. Got to take another article here. The third one proceeds. It seems that Christ contracted, huh, bodily defects. For that we are said to contract, that together with nature we draw from our what origin. But Christ, together with human nature,

[38:13] drew from his mother, right, defects and bodily infirmities through his origin, right, whose flesh was subject to these what defects. Therefore, it seems that he contracted these defects.

[38:35] Moreover, that which is caused from the principles of nature, together with nature, is drawn, and thus it is what contracted drawn with. But these punishments are caused from the principles of human nature. Therefore, Christ what contracted them.

[39:02] Moreover, according to these defects, Christ is likened to other men, as is said in Hebrews two. But other men contract these defects. Therefore, it seems also that Christ contracted these defects.

[39:22] But against all this is that these defects are contracted from sin. According to that of Romans chapter five, through one man sin came into this world, and through sin came in what death. But in Christ, sin had no place. Therefore, Christ did not contract. these defects. It's a very subtle thing he's saying here, right?

[39:55] Now, Tom's got to explain first of all this word "contract." I answer: It should be said that in the word con tract, right? There is understood the order of effect to cause.

[40:14] To wit, that that is said to be contrahi huh, drawn with. I suppose you'd say, huh, that together simul, together with its cause from necessity is drawn, right?

[40:33] Now, the cause of death and of these defects of human nature is sin. Why? Because through sin. Death entered into this world, and therefore those are properly said to contract these defects who incur these defects from the debt of sin.

[41:05] Christ, however, did not have these defects from the debt of what sin, because as Augustine said, expounding that of John chapter three verse thirty one, who is from above is above all right. From above came Christ, that is from the height of human nature, which it had before the sin of the first man.

[41:35] He took on therefore human nature, without sin, in that purity in which it was in the state of what, Innocence, huh? And Mary too, right? Thomas doesn't know that. Even his brother Thomas doesn't know that.

[41:59] And likewise, he is able to take on what human nature without defects. Thus, therefore, it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects, as it were, from the what debt of sin, receiving them, but from his own what will.

[42:21] That's fairly clear. huh? Now, watch, Thomas, here now. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the flesh of the virgin was conceived in what?

[42:47] Shame on you, Thomas. He's got, he's got something ex- explained to do, when he gets up there. Although I, I see texts from Thomas in in the uh the sentences where he seems to speak of her as being free of original sin. So I'm not sure that there was some. Yeah, that's what Father Peter had told us. both St Thomas and St Bonaventure they have in their writings scattered the reasons that Scotus put together, but they never seem to put it together.

[43:17] So they seem to say one thing here, another thing there, and. Wasn't there some defects in the transmission? Now that they had things were handed down through tradition that said that Mary wasn't conceived without original sin. That's my understanding. So there was like a reading of the breviary or something that they all read every year. Did you hear these things? No, I never. So there was like authorities on that side of the question, and so if.

[43:45] They were just taking custom, yeah. But some somehow at least somebody else would say that in their writings were the reasons that you could conclude that she wasn't. conceived, But they were scattered around, so they seem never to have collated. Put them together. But that would be a reason why if they thought that it hadn't been revealed. In other words, we only know it because it's revealed.

[44:07] We only know this if God revealed. it And if they had a source that was traditional, saying that she wasn't. I think Thomas say, you know, the time of mortal sin. You know, that God redeems all of us from mortal sin, right? Some of us by forgiving us after we have committed these mortal sins, others by preserving us from committing them in the first place. You know.

[44:34] That's the reason for saying that type of reason original sin. Yeah, yeah. So Christ, you know, is is redeeming all of us from original sin, but most of us, with exception of one, right? Um, uh, by baptism and so on, right? But in the case of Mary, by preserving her, right, from contracting original sin, but

[45:01] yeah, yeah, yeah. And you know, you know how how Teresa of Lisieux, Teresa of Lisieux, uses that example. You know, you know, if you run along the path and you fall of a stone, he picks you up. You're thankful, right? But if he runs ahead and gets the stone out of the way before you get there, you're more thankful to to him, huh?

[45:29] And therefore contracted these defects, huh? Shame, on you Thomas. But the flesh, of, you know, I remember reading, and I think it was Báñez I think he was the spiritual advisor of Teresa of Avila. He's very strong about her not. her having original sin, right? It's almost like you know, you know, he's really you know, very severe. I mean, it's kind of a frightening thing to see that, you know, to see that determination of his his mind there, huh?

[45:58] By the way, determination of his mind there, you know. What was his view that she had original sin, right? Oh, really? Oh. That she was in like John the Baptist. They're cured in the womb. Oh. We're on the way there, but. But that was after the Council of Trent, too. In that, but then did one thing. Maybe maybe he had his opinion formed before the Council. Yeah.

[46:21] The Council talks about treating original sin, but we're not talking about the blessing. Mm-hmm. So to single her out that she's not Yeah. Yeah.

[46:30] What was he? Was he a Dominican? He's Dominican, Yeah. Oh, okay. That's fine. I think he's trying to draw on Augustine's authority too. I don't know, but. I don't know. Let's see.

[46:44] Now, as I had my. grandchildren there. my son-in-law had that whole biographical thing of Benedict XVI, And if you've seen it, maybe, you have a copy around here. It's it's between his main was birth in 1927. Oh yeah, milestones. Yeah, milestones. Yeah, I haven't read it. yeah. It's some interesting things in there, you know. But you realize a lot of the the problems of the church, you know, at this time and so on.

[47:16] And you know, they were using revelation as being identical with scripture. Just using revelation as a synonym for scripture, and of course scripture has to be interpreted according to modern historical methods, and therefore everything is up for grabs, kind of, you know. But the alternative magisterium, you know the scriptural scholars. already. got, you know, the primary place now, right? Because they know the historical method, right? And therefore, they, the only ones who can speak with authority what Scripture is saying, and that's revelation, right?

[47:52] And he says, well, you know, and there's some—I forget the guy's name now, but kind of known for his unorthodox views. But he was saying, you know, that this is really what the other councils were teaching, you see. And there's some, you know, flinging off the text a little bit there, and and then vindicating there's something wrong with this, you know. But you realize how how they were close to kind of opposing themselves upon the churches as the supreme authority, but that the revelation is not entirely in Scripture, right?

[48:32] That's what they're trying to say in the sense that you know the Scripture has to be read according to Method. That's the second thing, ergo we are. But the other way they do that is like Father Bernard Lonergan and other ones. They do it by saying, well, the church's magisterium—that's that's the real authority. But of course, the church's teaching is historically conditioned. Yeah. So only those who really understand the conditions in which it's formulated can really interpret it correctly.

[49:00] Yeah. So that's the other. way they do Kind of trumps the understanding To get the impression too, some of the circles he was moving in, you know, were, you know, this attitude after Vatican II was that everything is, you know, fluid. You know, things really opened up, you know. That sort of thing, you know. Yeah We were back to prime matter Yeah.

[49:31] yeah Yeah As if nothing had been defined or established. But the flesh of Christ was taken from the Virgin without what? Sin. Yeah, without guilt. Yeah. And likewise, he was able to what take on a nature without what poena when. But he wished to take on pain, right, or punishment, right? How do you translate poena in there? Not punishment or pain, but what penalties? Penalties, yeah. On account of the work of what our redemption, fulfilling the work of our redemption, as has been said, and therefore he had what these defects, not contracting them, but voluntarily what taking them on, yeah.

[50:38] Now, to second, it should be said that the cause of death and of the other defects of the body in human nature is twofold. One remote, which is taken on the side of the what material principles of the human body, in so far as it is composed from what contraries, but this cause was impeded by original justice that was given to our father there Adam, and therefore the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin, through which is taken away original justice.

[51:24] An account of this, because Christ was without sin, is not said to have contracted these defects, but to have taken them on voluntarily, right? So, could you say then that because of the principles of the human body, they have this remote causes that eventually he would have grown old and fallen apart? According to justice, well according to the justice, wouldn't have had those things, right? Well, say you're looking at the remote cause, but but but the immediate cause was sin, right?

[51:57] Yeah, I so I agree with him that he didn't contract it, but even if he didn't contract it, yeah, but just the nature of the human body as it is, he would have grown old. At least I know I've read that somewhere in one of the saints that I don't know I always wondered down. No, Adam's body would not have grown old if he kept on behaving as he should have.

[52:17] Was that was that because because original yeah was it because yeah yeah preternatural yeah but apart from that it would have decayed anyway. without being preserved by a special. gift But Thomas was saying when he talks about original sin, you know we can probably estimate, right now, given the nature of our souls as immortal, right, that the defect of the body of not being immortal, right, would be what

[52:49] taken care of by this preternatural gift. You want to call that okay? So Christ, you know, not having sin, would have been what his body would have been given this gift, right? That would make it suitable for the immortal soul, and so it's really the the sin that is the proximate cause.

[53:15] Now, what about Christ being assimilated to other men? His third objection. Other men contracting, right? Well, it's easily solved now with all these distinctions, huh? Christ, in these defects, is likened to other men as regards the quality of the defect, huh? Not as regards the what cause. And therefore, did not contract these defects as others did. huh?

[53:48] Interesting individual is Christ, huh? I'd? Like to have talked to him, huh? There's some text of Augustine, you know, where he's talking you like we do sometimes, you know, things in the past you'd like to have seen, you know. I think one of the things Augustine said was "Rome in all its glory."

[54:07] But, but, but, but one thing I think he said was seeing Christ in the in the flesh, right? You know, like to have seen that. And you can see it, you know. I think I'd probably take Thomas in all his glory than than Rome in all his glory. Yeah. Thomas lecturing in the people. That's that famous line somewhere I think Thomas. is journeying to Paris with one of the brothers, and they come over the hill, and there's all the beauty of Paris laid out.

[54:34] And the brother says, "oh, look, Thomas, isn't it marvelous? I'd give it all for Chrysostom on John. Yeah. John. Okay. Sure. To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ ought to what take on all these bodily defects of men, right? For Damascene says that what is unable to be assumed is not able to be cured, right? But Christ came to cure all our defects, therefore he ought to take on all our defects.

[55:25] Moreover, it has been said that in order that Christ might what satisfy for us, he ought to have habits that are perfecting us in what soul, in the soul, and defects in the what body. That's that nice distinction we saw earlier. But he, on the side of the soul, took on the fullness of all grace. Therefore, on the side of the body, ought to assume all defects.

[55:54] That's imagination there, kind of seeing a little, a little proportion. Further, among all bodily defects, a special place is taken by death. But Christ took on death, therefore much more all other defects ought to assume. That's kind of the most important ones. Yeah, yeah. But against this is that contraries are not able to come about together in the same one. But some infirmities are contrary to what each other, as were caused from contrary what principles.

[56:32] Therefore, it is not possible that Christ took on all these what infirmities. So, human beings we have to divide up these defects to some extent among ourselves because one goes, you know, without another, right? On the contrary.

[56:55] You can't have fever and chill at the same time. Yeah. Against this is that contraries are not able to come about. Oh, we just said all right, okay. Answer ought to be said. It has been said that Christ took on human defects to satisfy for the sin of what human nature. Now, for this is required that he have the perfection of knowledge and grace in his soul.

[57:30] This is what these modern heretics don't see, right? They think he's got to be what ignorant of who he is. Who am I? And yeah. Therefore, Christ ought to assume those defects which follow from what the common sin of the whole human nature. Not, however, those which are what repugnant to the perfection of knowledge and grace. Therefore, it is not suitable that he take on all the defects and human infirmities.

[58:08] For there are some defects which are repugnant to the perfection of what knowledge and grace, such as ignorance, right, the proneness to evil, and the difficulty towards the good.

[58:24] Some defects there are which are not consequent commonly to the whole of human nature, on account of the sin of the first man, but are caused in some men from some particular causes. Shakespeare talks about this, huh? Just as what leprosy and what the falling sickness, huh? Even Caesar's supposed to have had, huh? Morbus caducus.

[58:52] I think so. Yeah. None of this sort, huh? Which defects sometimes are caused from the guilt of men, as from what the disorder of what?

[59:07] What? Anordinate eating. Yeah. Sometimes from the defect of the power that formed them, right? Neither which belongs to Christ, because his flesh was conceived by the Holy Spirit, right? Who is of infinite wisdom and power, not being able to what err and fail, and thus nothing disordered in the rule of his life, in the exercise, huh? But there are there are defects which in all men are commonly found from the sin of the first man, as death, hunger, thirst, was being tired, right?

[59:56] None of this sort, and these and all these defects Christ took on, which Damascene, which Damascene calls natural and what? Yeah. Indetractable. That's a good translation. Yeah. Natural because they follow commonly the whole human nature, right? Indetractable because they what by defect of knowledge and grace.

[1:00:38] Don't wreck your reputation. Get detraction. Okay. Now. What about not curing all these little defects, right? The first, therefore, should be said that all the particular defects of men are caused from the corruptibility, right, and the sufferability, able to suffer the body, with certain particular causes added above these, right. And therefore, when Christ cured the what passibility, the ability to suffer, and the corruptibility of our body, through this that He assumed it, consequently all other what defects, huh?

[1:01:35] You didn't have to be irascible and a coward and all these things, right? Some people from their nature are irascible, right? And others are cowardly, and others are, you know. But these particular defects—they're not common to all men, right? They proceed from particular causes acting upon what a common defect we all have, right? Okay.

[1:02:09] So, in curing those common defects, we assume, right? He's curing the other ones, yeah. The second objection taken from the fullness of the virtues of the soul, why not the fullness of? Okay, to second should be said that the fullness of all grace and knowledge was owed to the what soul of Christ as such, from the very fact that it was taken on by the what Word of God.

[1:02:51] And therefore, absolutely, Christ took on every fullness of wisdom and grace, but He took on the defects of our nature dispensatively, so that He might satisfy for our what sins, not because they belong to Him as such. And therefore, it is not necessary that He take on all, right? But only those that are sufficient to satisfy for the sin of the whole of what human nature.

[1:03:38] So that I die and that I get hungry and thirsty and tired, this follows from the fact that original sin, right? That I'm a coward or I'm irascible or you know, or I'm a leper or something, right, or something else. This doesn't follow commonly, right? But from what particular causes acting upon these common conditions?

[1:04:12] To the third, should be said that death comes in all men from the sin of the first parent. Not, however, the other defects, even though they are less than what death. Hence, the reason is not similar.

[1:04:40] So, good time to stop. How could it be defects in the soul, right? This guy's going on dangerous ground, isn't he?