Tertia Pars
39. Summa III q.15 a.1–3: Whether Christ Had Sin, the Fomes of Sin, or Ignorance (with music, moral virtue and reason's rule over the emotions)
Class of 2009-04-23
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/039-summa-iii-q-15-a-1-3-whether-christ-had-sin-the-fomes-of/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels strengthen the lights of our mind, pour into our minds images and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand what you've written. Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Amen. Whose birthday is it today? Saint George. Feast of Saint George. He's a Saint

[0:31] George, yeah, but whose birthday is it? Wait, it's March, but the April 23rd. April 23rd. We said our first. A week after the Pope's birthday. We said our first mass on April 23rd. That's right. Oh, is it the birthday of Pope John Paul II? No,

[1:04] it's May 20th. It's not Blaine Berkeley's birthday. Happy birthday, George. It's Shakespeare's birthday. Oh, yeah. Well, actually, the only date they have is they know he was baptized on the 26th. It was customary to baptize on the third day after your birth, so the traditional one is the 23rd, which is also as someone was pointing out here, the feast of Saint George, right? He's kind of the patron there of England, huh?

[1:22] That was in what? fifteen sixty four Yeah. But anyway, I was reading the Merchant of Venice, right? Of course, I know what's going to happen, though. So we're reading fast through these things to see what happens, what's going to happen. But maybe a scene here, a scene there, and so, but I think this description here by Bassanio's words here is my experience in reading the modern thinkers, right?

[1:54] I think I've given this before, but struck me again. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff. You shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search.

[2:21] What does he mean? You know, you spend all this time trying to get a little bit out of what he means, and it's not worth the search, you know. Now, have to ask your own advice here about this other little reference here.

[2:37] You know, Jessica, who's the daughter of the Shylock, she's going to run off with Lorenzo, right? And Graziano says about her, "Now by my hood, a Gentile and no Jew, right? He's kind of she's going to become a Christian, right? " And there's a footnote here. That expression, "Now by my hood," and the footnote says.

[3:04] Graziano is disguised with a mask, and in swearing by his hood, he implies a likening of himself to a hooded monk, swearing by his monastic character. So do you gentlemen use that expression? You know, by my hood. We'll start. We'll start using it My by my hood, brother. No. Yeah. See how we want to adopt that or not? I was just going to see if you guys.

[3:32] I wonder when you're already using it, huh? Yeah, nice little notes they have in the the new Hudson Shakespeare, which is now old, huh? Okay, up to question fifteen, right? Yes. And you're surprised, or I'm surprised, that Thomas should have a question on the defects pertaining to the soul. I didn't know there's any defects in the soul, right? And about this, ten things are asked. First, within Christ there was sin.

[4:03] I'm surprised that Thomas should even ask this, right? Whether in him there was the what? The fountain of sin, right? The. Second whether there was in him the tinder of sin Yeah. Yeah. Third, whether there was in him ignorance, huh?

[4:24] Fourth, whether his soul was able to undergo, right, to suffer. Whether in it there was sensible pain, huh? Whether there was in it sadness, right? So these are not necessarily moral defects he's talking about, except for the first one. There, first couple ones, but. And whether there was in it fear? Whether there was in it wonder, admiratio? Whether there was in it anger?

[5:04] And whether at the same time he was on the way and one had gotten a hold of the end of our life. So, again, we must approve Thomas's for his thoroughness, right? Okay, so let's look at the first article. To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in Christ there was what sin, huh? For it is said in the Psalm, "God, my God, why have you what abandoned me, huh?

[5:40] " For far from my salvation are the words of my what sins. But these words are said from the person of Christ himself. As is clear from this, that he put them forth on the cross. This is the one that's in what Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and in John.

[6:05] And the ones that most reveal the the intensity or depth of his suffering, right? Therefore, it seems that in Christ there were sins or delicta.

[6:20] Moreover, Romans chapter five, the apostle says that in Adam all what sinned, because in him they were in their origin. But Christ originally was in what Adam, right? Sinned for him. Therefore, in him he what sinned like the rest of us. Moreover, the apostle says Hebrews two verse eighteen, that in that in which Christ what suffered and was tempted, he is able to aid those also who are what tempted.

[7:03] But we most of all need his aid against sin. Therefore, it seems that in him there was what sin. Aren't the modern scholars like this stuff? They'll stop. They'll do like Voltaire. They'll stop and die. See, okay. Yeah.

[7:24] I put in the you know these little bookmarks you have for the web one for the Holy Father because one for the Roman Curia, right? So I was looking in the Congregation for the Faith there and their various warnings and so on, and I was looking for this one I mentioned before, Roger Haight, and they say what's wrong with his method and then his errors, you know.

[7:49] So he's denying the Trinity, right? He's denying the divinity of Christ. He's denying the universality of the Church, and so on, all kinds of things, you know. And they say, like Thomas says there, when he's talking or following Saint Paul there in the epistles, there, you know, if you're at this age and you don't know the articles of the faith, time is going against you. You know, and this guy was was was president of the American Catholic Theological Society, yeah.

[8:17] So, you say, brother, father, he must have got through the injections, but not the. It's it stimulated his imagination. Moreover, in the Second Corinthians chapter five, he said that God, he who did not know sin, right, to which Christ was made for us. sin. So that's pretty severe, right? He was made sin for us, huh? But that which is what,

[8:54] but that is truly what God has made it to be, right? Therefore, in Christ there is truly sin, right? Moreover, as Augustine says in the book on Christian,

[9:11] Combat. In the man Christ, the Son of God, gave himself as an example for us. But man needs example not only to live right, but also that of taking penance for his sins. Therefore, it seems that Christ ought to be sin, so that doing penance for his sins would give us an example of penance.

[9:38] Yeah, five. You know, most days he's got five. But against this is what he himself says in John chapter eight: "Who of you will convince me or convict me rather of what sin? Right."

[9:58] So let's see what Thomas is going to say to this now. Don't answer. that nowadays Yeah. Answer: It should be said that as has been said above, Christ took on our defects that He might satisfy for us, and that He might approve the truth of what human nature in Himself, right? And that He might become an example for us of virtue.

[10:29] Now, according to these three things, it is manifest or clear that He ought not to take on the defect of what sin. First, for sin does nothing to what satisfy, right?

[10:46] Moreover, more it impedes the power of what satisfaction, because as is said in Ecclesiasticus, chapter thirty-four, the Most High does not approve of the gifts of what wicked, yeah.

[11:08] Likewise, from sin is not shown the truth of human nature, because sin does not pertain to human nature, of which God is the cause, but more it is brought in against nature through the seeding of the devil, as Damascene says.

[11:37] Third, by sinning, he would not be able to give examples of virtue, since sin is contrary to virtue, and therefore Christ in no way took on the defect of sin, neither that of original sin nor that of actual sin. Actual sin is divided into what mortal and venial, right?

[12:03] According as it is said, now actually the words sin is said of these three is, you might say analogous, right? It's not univocal in meaning, right?

[12:17] Mortal sin is not just more sin than venial sin; it is, but it's different in kind from venial sin. According to that which Peter is said in the first epistle, Peter, who did not do sin, nor was there found deceit in his what mouth.

[12:44] So now he's got to go back and answer these objections. Just look at the objection again. The first one is taken from the Psalm there, right?

[12:57] To the first, therefore, it should be said that as Damascene says in the third book. One something is said of Christ in one way, according to what his natural property, right, and the hypostatic one. Just as he is said that he was made man, right, and that he suffered for us, right. In another way, according to what personal propriety, and what.

[13:38] Yeah, in so far as some things are said of him in our person, which in no way belong to him as such. Whence among the seven rules of Tyconius, which Augustine lays down in the third book of Christian doctrine,

[14:05] first is laid down about the Lord and His body. When Christ and the what church are what judged to be one person, right, or considered to be one person, and according to this, Christ in the person or from the person of His members, right, meaning us, says the words of my what. Yeah, not that they were what sins in the head himself, right? So when Christ said to Saint Paul, "Why are you what?

[14:41] " Yeah, was it Christ the head himself, or his members are being persecuted? Yeah, but Christ says you're persecuting me. Yeah, so that that's kind of a subtle thing, but it seems to be what Scripture does speak in those ways, right? So you have to take that into account, huh? Yeah. I looked up that thing of this Tychonius and Saint Augustine, and had this interesting thing. He said Tychonius was a he liked his rules, so he raised them up as something worthwhile.

[15:17] He said personally, Tychonius, he was a Donatist who actually wrote arguments against the Donatist, but he said he was the most illogical. He had the most illogical mind because he still remained a Donatist.

[15:33] Interesting. But he says I approve these these rules. Well, if you read this thing I was mentioning earlier, there, Father Roger Haight there, the Jesuit, you know, they'll say in the in the document for the congregation, right? Although he says in page so and so, although Christ is divine, right? Later on, you know. Yeah. And this is I've seen this thing before. These people, you know, they they will put in some orthodox.

[16:04] Sounding statements that they can, you know, point to or something, and say, "What does mean that?" And then, then these other ones. The congregation is not fooled by that. Lip service, there. huh

[16:19] Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Okay. The second one is saying, "Wasn't Christ descended from Adam, right? And didn't we all sin in Adam?" Ergo.

[16:39] And Thomas here begins from a distinction that Augustine sees, right? To the second, it should be said that Augustine says in the tenth book on Genesis to the letter, "Not in every way was Christ in Adam, and in the other, what fathers, in which we were there, right? For we were in Adam according to the the rationem seminalem, right, the seedy reason, right, seedy idea, and according to what corpulentiam, the bodily substance, because as he himself says there, since in that what seed and visible bodiness, huh?

[17:28] Bodiness, and invisible what seed, you might say, right, or both what together run from Adam, right? But Christ took on the visible substance of flesh from the flesh of the Virgin, but the reason of his conception was not from the the male seed, right, but much otherwise, and it came down from above from the Holy Spirit, overshadowed her, right?

[18:05] Hence he was not in Adam according to a seedy reason, huh? But only according to what bodily substance, and therefore Christ did not take an active way from Adam, human nature, but only in a material way, but an active way from the Holy Spirit, just as Adam himself, in a material way, took his body from the earth, yeah, dust, but actively from what God, huh? An account of this, Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom he was only according to what matter.

[18:47] So he's a pretty good guy, that Augustine, you know. We know what Thomas's best teaches, right? Augustine and Aristotle, right? So third objection, huh?

[19:08] That Christ was tempted, right? Huh? He's able, therefore, to help those who are tempted, huh? That's a little weaker argument, huh? To the third, should be said that Christ, by his being tempted and by his suffering, brought aid to us, right? By satisfying for us, huh? But sin would not work together to satisfaction, but would more impede it, huh? This has been said, and therefore, is not necessary that he have in himself sin, but that he be altogether pure from sin.

[19:55] Otherwise, the sin which he had. Punishment which he sustained would have been owed to him for his own what sin? Yeah, wouldn't wouldn't be satisfactory for us then.

[20:22] I suppose Mary can be more helpful than the other saints because she had no sin, right? Okay. The fourth objection. He was made for us sin, right? Hard to understand those words, huh? It's pretty pretty strong, really. Okay. To the fourth, it should be said that God made Christ sin, not that in Himself He would have sin, right? But because He made Him the what victim or the host for sin,

[21:02] as is said in the prophet Hosea chapter four, the sins of my people what? Yeah. To wit, the priests who, according to the law, ate the hosts offered for what sin?

[21:25] And according to this way or in this way, it said in Isaiah chapter fifty-three that the Lord placed upon him right placed in him the iniquities of all us, right?

[21:40] Because He handed him over that he might be a host for the sins of all men, huh? Or He made him sin, that is, having the likeness of the flesh of sin, and in this, on account of the fact that He took on a body that was able to suffer and was mortal, right? So He took on the body in the condition that it has as a result of sin, but without the sin, right?

[22:13] And so He had said to what have a likeness of the flesh of sin. Is that clear? The two solutions that He gives to that.

[22:33] Now the fifth one. How about an example of what? Repentance. Repentance, Yeah. To the fifth, it should be said that the one being penitent is able to give a praiseworthy example, not from the fact that he has sinned, but in this that he. Sustains or undergoes punishment voluntarily for what is sin. Whence Christ most of all, or gave a greatest example for penitence, when not for his own sin but for the sins of others, he voluntarily, right?

[23:13] He wished to undergo what punishment, right? It's very good the way he does it, right? I've often thought about about the virtue of of faith, right? Did Christ have the virtue of faith?

[23:34] No, not saint. I often thought, well, isn't then Mary the greatest example of faith, right? So there seems to be some virtues that are not in Christ, but that is in somebody else, right? Okay. And I suppose in Thomas's saying, in some way Christ is giving example to those who are penitent, right? Because they are praiseworthy in so far as they voluntarily undergo punishment for sin, but for their own sin, by he for the sins of others, right?

[24:14] Huh? But in terms of of if you look at it, for example, someone who's penitent because of their own sins, then you have to go to the other saints, right? But not not to Mary, right? Right. No. So Mary, for Mary, can go to faith, but not for Christ as having that virtue. And for someone doing penance for his own sins, he can't go to Mary even.

[24:37] He's got to go to to Peter, you know, who went out and wept after after he denied Christ three times. That's one of the things in the sermon for The feast of Mary Magdalene. She says the example of the saints for us. Yeah. In terms of innocence and repentance, but since you can't have both of those in the same person, God designed that they have the same name.

[25:01] Mary Magdalene, Blessed Virgin Mary, innocence and penance. Now, second article: Whether in Christ there was the fomes peccati, right? And I know the best way to translate fomes, that's kind of like the, you know, the fountain of the, sort of stuff, the,

[25:31] I think it was foaming down there, right? You know, this revolt. You know, I see another, another one inhabiting my flesh there against my my reason.

[25:42] The second one precedes us. It seems that in Christ there was the the root of sin or the fomes fountain of sin. How does your book translate that, Dave, You have the English text there. Dave, you know it's the same word? foaming. Yeah,

[25:56] yeah. It's just the Latin word that I looked up, like tinder or kindling for a fire. Yeah. Catch it. Yeah, yeah. We're in flammable. The sin, yeah. Flammable matter down there. Later, really. Yeah.

[26:21] From the same beginning, right, is derived the fomes of sin, right, and the sufferability of the body, right, be able to suffer, or its mortality, right, to it from the subtraction or taking away of original justice. Stimulus, peccati. Yeah. yeah.

[26:50] By which or through which, at once or together, the lower powers of the soul were what? Subject Subject to reason and the body to the soul, right? So after he lost original justice, right, then his body was no longer subject to his soul, so he could be immortal, and his

[27:16] lower powers are no longer subject to reason, and so on. But in Christ there was the ability to suffer the body and the mortality. Therefore, also there must have been in him the fomes of what sin.

[27:34] Moreover, as Damascene says in the third book, by the consent, you might say, of the divine will, the flesh of Christ was permitted to suffer and to do those things which are proper to the flesh. But as proper to the flesh that it lusts or desires things desirable for itself, right? Since, therefore, the foams are nothing other than concupiscence, as is said by the gloss in Romans seven, verse eight.

[28:09] It seems that in Christ there were the what? Foams of sin, yeah. Moreover, by reason of the foams, the flesh desires against the spirit, right? As is said, Galatians chapter five.

[28:30] But a spirit is shown the more to be stronger and more worthy of a what crown? The more it has what up over the host or over the enemy, right? Dominated the concupiscence of the what flesh? According to that of Second Timothy chapter two, he is not crowned who has not legitimately or lawfully what fought and struggled. But Christ overhad the strongest and most victorious spirit, and most of all worthy of a crown.

[29:14] According to that of Apocalypse chapter six verse two, There is given to him a crown, and he went forth what conquering, right? That he might conquer. It seems, therefore, in Christ there was the what most of all the foams of sin, so he can most of all conquer and most of all deserve a what crown, right?

[29:43] But against all this is what is said in Matthew one verse twenty. What is born in him is of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit excludes sin and inclination of sin, which is implied by the name of the foams, the fountains here. Therefore, in Christ there was no foams of sin.

[30:11] Well, Thomas says, I answer it should be said that as has been said above, Christ most perfectly had grace and all the what virtues.

[30:25] This might seem kind of strange. You should even have a question about the defects of the soul, right? Of course, he's going to exclude in these first two articles. He's dealing with sin as such.

[30:38] But moral virtue, which is in the irrational part of the soul, makes it subject to what reason, right? Even Aristotle saw this, right? So Aristotle divided the virtues of man. He divided those into the virtues of reason itself, and the virtues of something other than reason that's irrational in that sense, but is able to partake of reason.

[31:08] And the moral virtue makes the lower powers subject to what reason? Habituates them to follow reason, right? That's why Aristotle in the book of the politics. There, you know, he talks about how important it is that you listen to the right kind of music, because your emotions are moved in accordance or in harmony with the music. And I remember years ago there, my brother Richard was at the College of Saint Thomas there, and Austin was still there.

[31:44] before he went to Notre Dame, and he had a course with him in the arts and so on. And that's when I first read Austin's essay, which is a copy of it, towards an evaluation of music. Right? He's talking about why the music of the 18th century was so good, right? But it represents the emotions in a reasonable state. So when you listen to to Bach or Mozart or something like that or Handel, your emotions are moved in sympathy with the music.

[32:19] Your emotions are being moved in a reasonable way, and that's a kind of a what disposition for moral virtue, right? But you listen to rock and roll or this other crazy stuff that goes on now, your emotions are being moved in a irrational way, in a way that is

[32:42] opposed to reason, right? You're being disposed, right, for vice, huh? Moral vice, huh? So this is totally neglected in education now. Aristotle speaks there, you know, you have to observe too what paintings you look at too. But but he says the music is even more important than the paintings because it's much more powerful with the emotions than the paintings.

[33:23] Of course, when Aristotle speaks of, you know, defines tragedy, I think you do the same thing with comedy, but we've lost that part. But in the definition of tragedy is that it produces a catharsis, right? A purgation of the emotions, huh? So you remove something

[33:47] irrational from the emotions, huh? Okay. Remember one time a friend who was in conflict with his brother, right? Huh? And they happened to be showing the the Shakespeare play there, the one that's about brothers, there, right? You know, as you like it, huh? So I took him to see the Shakespeare play and see the change in his rapport with his brother, right? Huh? Because you see that very much, right?

[34:14] In that play, you have, you know, the older brother. Offending the younger brother, right, keeping him down and so on, and then the and the other pair of brothers, the younger brothers usurp the throne of the older brother, right. Of course, eventually end up in the forest of Arden, which is for represent nature, right, and then they're finally reconciled, the two pairs of brothers. Beautiful. So,

[34:45] good good fiction and good music are a stepping stone to moral virtue. This is interesting. Thing there's two quotes that were related, was kind of interesting. One had to do with Carl Rahner talking about how he really just wasn't interested in art and music, and then this other quote by then Cardinal Ratzinger talking about unnamed of course but he said A certain theologian, big and post-Vatican, two who sort of prides himself on being a barbarian.

[35:20] And anyway, Cardinal Ratzinger talks about. He says for a theologian to not be in touch with the beautiful is a very dangerous thing. It's very interesting to see that. Of course, he plays Mozart, right? Yeah. And he adds something: that Mozart plays something. And in Mozart music, you see all of the human tragedy. The tragedy, the human tragedy. On a related note, Evelyn Waugh's novel Helena about Constantine's mother.

[35:54] It was his favorite work among his works. And there was a fascinating character, a Roman poet who was quite gifted, and he was a Christian convert. He was very concerned that poets and philosophers be have their character well developed, because he greatly feared someone with the gifts of a Cicero, but with the soul of a jackal. Sort of like Nietzsche. Or somebody else. Okay. So, reading what the body there quickest.

[36:44] Okay, answer should be said. This has been said. Christ most perfectly had grace in all the virtues. But moral virtue, which is in the irrational part of the soul, makes it subject to what reason, right? And the more so, the more perfect it is a what virtue. Just as temperance, the concupiscible appetite, and fortitude and gentleness, the irascible appetite. That distinction between the concupiscible irascible goes back to what Plato and Aristotle.

[37:28] And the concupiscible appetite is concerned with what is pleasing or agreeable to the senses or disagreeable to the senses. And the irascible is more the fighter for the concupiscible. So, desire and pleasure and pain or sadness and so on are in the concupiscible. And anger and boldness and fear are in the irascible.

[38:06] So temperance moderates the desire for sense pleasure, right? In fortitude strengthens the irascible right to undergo fighting and defense and so on. And mansuetudo moderates what anger.

[38:25] Okay. Now the inclination of the sensual appetite, sense appetite, sense desire, um, towards that which is against reason, right, It pertains to the what notion of the this foams, right.

[38:52] Thus, therefore, it is clear that the more virtue is in someone perfect, the more in him is weakened the force of what foams, huh? Since, therefore, in Christ was virtue in the most perfect way, it follows that in him there was no what.

[39:17] Yeah. Since even this defect is not able to be ordered to satisfying, but it more inclines us to the contrary of what satisfaction. The first objection says, "Weren't both of these things derived from what the subtraction original justice?"

[39:53] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the lower powers belonging to the sensual appetite are naturally able to obey reason, but not the bodily powers, huh? Or of the what bodily fluids, huh, and so on, or even those of the what? Yeah. So who thinking about it can he cube it to himself as? Which I was taller or you know, okay. And therefore, the perfection of virtue, which is according to right reason, does not exclude the what ability of the body to suffer, right?

[40:35] But it does exclude the what fountain of sin, the foams, whose reason consists, whose definition consists in the resistance of the sense appetite to reason. And if you go back to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and he says, "Well, it makes a nice proportion." He says, "Just as the medical doctor who's going to try to cure the body by medicine, right, by the art." Must know something about what the body is by nature, right?

[41:11] So the moral philosopher has to know something about the soul and what's its makeup. And Aristotle divides the soul in a way that's appropriate to the ethics into the rational part, right? Then the part that doesn't have reason, right? There isn't reason. Okay. But then he subdivides it, the rational part, into the part that can what obey reason, can be trained to obey reason, and the part that what cannot, right?

[41:47] Like like my ability to grow, right? Okay. So my ability to be angry there to be sad that can be trained with repeated acts, right? To obey reason, huh? But but my ability to grow can't be really trained by my reason, huh? Okay. Um. So Plato compares, you know, reason is to the emotions, something like a man to his horse, right? And of course, the man gets on the horse at first.

[42:23] The horse wants to throw him off, right? If the man gets up, you know, then the the horse wins, right, huh? And but if the man gets on the horse again, and he continues to get on the horse, eventually he can what tame the horse, right? In Washington Irving's tour on the prairies, there beautiful descriptions of how they were taming the horses, these wild horses they would capture.

[42:50] How they're they're they're very wild at first, right? But how quickly they can be what brought into subjection, and then they obey the man, right, huh? And

[43:05] now sometimes we compare reason to the emotions like a man to what the boy, right? Aristotle has a very interesting question there in the Nicomachean Ethics. He says, should reason rule the emotions like the man rules his son, or like the master rules the slave?

[43:35] And he argues that reason should rule the emotions like a man rules his son. When the master rules the slave, the slave has nothing to say about what he's going to do, right? And the master rules the slave for the good of the master, not for the good of the slave, right? But the father rules his son for the good of his what son Son, and for the son has something to say about.

[44:10] She has something to say about what he does in life, right? So sometimes a father tries to force the son into what himself is, or what he wished to have been, or something, right? And it's not really what suitable for the the son, right? I always remember my my father there talking about one of his business friends, you know, had all kinds of hopes for his son, and so he sent him out to Amherst, was kind of a prestigious, you know, college out here.

[44:46] And the first year, his son of course flunked out of Amherst. We know he's not fit for Amherst; he wasn't fit for college at all, right? So

[44:58] comes back home, you know, and father said, "What do you really want?" And I guess he wanted a filling station. you know, a gas station. he was happy doing that, right? But he was telling me, you know, he's kind of learning the father's wisdom, right? Huh. So you know, you don't just you decide you're going to be this, you're going to be that. Because to me, it's not not fit for that.

[45:24] Huh. And so I used to work in my father's factory, you know. And my father come through sometimes, and he'd be with another business friend, and the guy would say, you know, oh, he'd be introducing me, you know, learning it from the ground up, you know. Because none of us really wanted to go into my father's business, you know.

[45:47] So finally, yeah. So finally, my my father and my uncle Elder said, "Why don't go to college and take one of those night courses and philosophy? " He was all about. But before he died, my father says, "You're going to have an easier time in life than I did."

[46:03] But no, Aristotle is making those comparisons, right? Because it's easier to see the comparison or Plato is is, you know, of a man to his horse or the man to the boy, right? Huh. Okay. But if you, um,

[46:18] when when Thomas talks about the the concupiscence there and the vices, you know, he speaks of them as being childish vices, right? Well, if you let a child have his own way all the time, eventually he ends up being unmanageable, right? And the parents can't do anything with him, you know. And that's the same way with your emotions, right? You let them have what they want all the time, and eventually get to a point that you just you can't control them, right?

[46:44] And it's like an unruly child. And so you can see, uh, what virtue is and isn't, right? What vices. So if Christ has perfection of virtue, then his what, his emotions, his concupiscible appetite, his irascible, are completely what subject to his reason, right? So there's no room there for the vices. But that irrational part that isn't subject to reason can still have what defects, right? Christ can get tired and so on, right?

[47:15] I can't reset in my body, you know. Don't be tired today. You know. I know you didn't sleep last night. Just kept on thinking about something.

[47:28] That doesn't work. I can't even sit here without you go to sleep that way. Now it's time to go to sleep. Now it's time to get now it's get the sleep you need. The body doesn't obey, you know. That's a probably a fun ballet

[47:46] problem, you know. They had him in the hospital one time trying to see if they could find a you know sleeping pill that would help him to sleep without being groggy the next day. Guess those things had a bad effect. Anyway.

[48:02] This is what Thomas is pointing out there, right? In the reply to the first objection, right? Huh. On the second objection here, right? Wasn't it God's will that Christ would allow His body to undergo what the body naturally undergoes, right?

[48:27] To the second, it should be said that the flesh naturally wants that which is pleasing to it, huh? By the desire or concupiscence of the sense appetite. But the flesh of man, huh? Who is a reasonable animal, right? Wants this according to the mode and order of what? Yeah, the measure and order of reason, right?

[49:01] Aristotle already taught this, right? That a good human act is a what? Reasonable. And so, good desire is a reasonable desire, right? And a reasonable desire is one that is ordered and measured by reason,

[49:23] huh? And in this way, the flesh of Christ, by the desire of the sense appetite, naturally desired food and drink and sleep. sleep, right? So after forty days there, he was hungry, right? And other things of this sort, which are desired in accordance with right reason, huh? As is clear by Damascene, in the third what book, huh?

[49:55] From this, however, it doesn't follow that in Christ there was the foams of sin, because that implies a desire for pleasant things outside the order of reason, huh? Outside the mode, huh? Thomas is always pointing out how the word mode comes from measure there, as Augustine explains.

[50:22] Of course, the word measure is to have with the word mensura huh? Measure. What about conquering, you know, and getting a crown because you've conquered this vicious part of your lower nature, there, huh? They say about Saint Francis de Sales, he had a real temper and he became a very gentle saint. It was a model for for Paul the Sixth and John the Twenty Third and so on.

[50:51] And but there, he overcame this this irascible disorder that he had in nature. To the third, it should be said, huh? That the strength of the spirit, some strength of the spirit, is shown from this that it resists, right? The desires of the flesh, contrary to it, right? So was Benedict supposed to jump into the the bush, right, with with the thorns and so on, right? Saint Francis.

[51:27] Yeah. Okay. I thought it was Benedict when you. Maybe they did too. I know Saint Francis. Yeah, yeah. I think, yeah, Saint Francis did it too. Saint Francis did it too. They had that rose bush and they jumped. Yeah, yeah. So that's some fortitude of spirit, right? Fight off these the desires of the flesh. But even greater strength of spirit is shown if through this what power it is wholly compressed, right?

[52:04] So that is not able to desire or want against the spirit, right? And therefore, this belonged to Christ, whose spirit attained the highest what grade of fortitude, yeah.

[52:25] And although he did not sustain the interior fight on the part of what the fomes right? He sustained nevertheless an exterior fight from the side of the world and the devil, huh?

[52:41] And by overcoming of which he merited the crown of what victory, huh? So when it comes to temptations of Christ in the desert then wouldn't have been possible to actually have been tempted? He can be tempted in in and attacking the outside, right? But he doesn't have

[53:13] an emotion there that is what. Disorder. Yeah, it's prone to give into these things. And so he wouldn't be tempted the way we're tempted. Yeah, but but no no, he could be tempted by hunger in that sense, right? You know, but that's not that's not something vicious, right? The emotions that you should be hungry after fast forty days and forty nights, huh? So you're saying that he would he could be tempted by hunger, but not by gluttony.

[53:46] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, it's nonsense about him being gluttony. But hunger isn't a temptation. I mean, if I feel hungry and I want to eat the correct reasonable amount, that's not a real temptation. Yeah, well, it's that's what Thomas points out in his commentary on that. It was no sin for him to change his son of his breath. It wouldn't have been a sin. It wouldn't have been a sin because it was in his power to do it.

[54:13] There's nothing wrong with it, and he was hungry, but it was a temptation also, right? Yeah, I am the son. of God Yeah, I am the son of God. So it was always he said he used that as because he knew he was weak in terms of his hunger. That's why the devil approached him, and but it was the devil always tempted one obvious thing against something else.

[54:35] There's always two points to his temptation. So all the temptations were in a certain sense that way. Yeah, you have to read the commentary, I think Jerome said something about it was a temptation to against providence, against his father providence, to ask for bread or to make bread.

[54:59] So it wasn't directly. But do we do things in those cases? So our Lord actually be tempted to pride. Well, no, he couldn't be tempted to pride, but the devil didn't know that. So he tempted him by something exterior. He's more tempted to pride than the later temptations, right? Yeah. Because he starts with the the body of our son, the hunger, and then talks about going up to the top of the pinnacle and throwing himself down, or else.

[55:23] And he says the the temptation of the the bread thing, but was that that was preface by if you're the son of God, show your show your stuff, show your stuff, sort of sort of a demand, I think. You go back to that text in St. John that everything that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life.

[55:43] You have these three temptations corresponding to those three sources of sin, right? John of the Cross likes to talk about those three, you know, in Saint John.

[55:59] Should we do that one here before we take our break? Yes. Okay. Okay. Within Christ there was ignorance, right? It seems that in Christ there is ignorance,

[56:17] for that was truly in Christ that belonged to him according to human nature, although it does not belong to him according to divine nature, just as suffering and death, right? He truly suffered and died, right?

[56:36] But ignorance belongs to Christ according to human nature, for as Damascene says in the third book, they took on an ignorant, and slavish nature, huh? You see what Damascene thought of us, huh?

[56:58] Ignorance, huh? Oh yeah. Therefore, ignorance was truly in Christ, huh? Moreover, some is said to be ignorant through the defect of knowledge, huh? But some knowledge was lacking in Christ, for the apostle says, "He who did not know sin was made sin for us. " Therefore, in Christ there was what ignorance.

[57:31] Moreover, Isaiah says, chapter eight, before the boy knew to call what. Father and mother. Father and his mother. The strength of what taken away, but that boy is Christ. Therefore, in Christ there was some ignorance of things. That means he was ignorant of his father and mother. I don't know.

[58:00] But against all this, huh? Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance, huh? Christ, however, for this reason came that he might take away our ignorances, It's the plural, for he came that he might enlighten those who were in darkness and who sat down in the shadow of death.

[58:27] Therefore, in Christ there was no ignorance. I answer: It should be said that just as in Christ there was the fullness of grace and what virtue, so also in him there was the fullness of all knowledge, as is clear from the things foresaid.

[58:53] For just as in Christ the fullness of grace and virtue excludes the fullness of sin, so the fullness of knowledge excludes ignorance, which is opposed to knowledge. Whence, just as in Christ there was no fullness of sin, so in Him there was none, no ignorance in Him, right? So that Saint John says, "Full of grace and what, truth?" There's many senses of the letter. I was looking at that, container already this morning, There's many senses of the letter of that, huh?

[59:31] But you can apply it to this then. Now, full of grace would be no fullness of sin in him, and full of truth there would be no what, ignorance in him, huh?

[59:44] Now the first objection there. He took on a ignorant and servile nature. How can he say that, right? Without being ignorant, how can he take on such a nature?

[59:59] You can see how this comes into the treatise right? These the things assumed with what he took on, huh? If he took on a servile and ignorant nature, then he'd take on with it civility and ignorance, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the nature taken on by Christ can be considered in two ways. In one way, by reason of the specific kind of thing it is, huh?

[1:00:32] And according to this, Damascene says it is ignorant and servile. Whence he joins that what? That it is a servant human nature of the one who made him of God, right? And it does not have knowledge of what future things, huh? When you have things to talk about. Another way it can be considered, according as, according to that which it has from its union to the divine person, the divine hypostasis, from which it has the fullness of knowledge and of what, Grace.

[1:01:12] grace. According to that, exactly in John one verse fourteen, we saw Him as the Word, the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. So, the union of those two in that one sentence there of John, right? He's saying, okay, He's full of grace and truth because He's the Unigenitum Patre, the only begotten from the Father. Those referring to the person, right? And in this way, human nature in Christ did not have what ignorance, right?

[1:01:48] So that's human nature considered in terms of hypostatic union. Yeah, yeah, what it has because of its being united to the divine person, right? And according to the text of John, right? Because of that union being the only begotten, it's full of grace and truth, right?

[1:02:12] If you just consider human nature by itself, you say, "Yeah, it's it's naturally the servant of God, right? " And it's naturally what ignorant of things, especially the future.

[1:02:26] They say that's the way Thomas, I think, and Augustine take the temptation of Adam and Eve, right? Huh? They're not tempted by sins of the flesh, because their flesh is subject to their reason at that time, but they're tempted by this what knowledge of future contingents. They won't have to rely upon God's providence, huh? So it's a very intellectual sin, you know, a very proud sin, right there.

[1:02:54] Like the temptation of Christ. But they weren't subject to that disorder, yet they are tempted by something sensible and obvious to something else. That's just a comparison.

[1:03:14] The second one about Christ not knowing sin. To the second, it should be said that Christ is said not to know sin because he doesn't know it by what experience, right?

[1:03:29] But he knows it by simple what knowledge, right? So you know what it is to be in battle. In a simple way. For simple knowledge, but not through experience, right? Okay.

[1:04:05] To the third, huh? It should be said that the prophet there speaks of the human knowledge of Christ. He says, therefore, before the boy knew, right, to wit, according to humanity, to call his father Joseph, who was his father, what, thought to be, and his mother, to wit, Maria. The fortitude of Damascus is taken away. Now, what does that mean? Well, this is not, he says, to be understood that at some time he was a man and he didn't what know this, huh?

[1:04:51] No one says he didn't know who he was himself, you know, and he didn't know his mother's father. But before he knew, that is, before he what

[1:05:02] man, having human knowledge, was taken away, either literally, the strength of Damascus, right, and the spoils of Samaria. By the king of the Syrians, or spiritually right, because not yet born, ah,

[1:05:27] people being called upon only, as the gloss of Jerome expounds. Now Augustine, however, in the sermon on the Epiphany, says this was completed in the adoring of the Magi, right? For he says before, through human flesh, human words were what? Yeah. He took the power of Damascus. That is to say, the wealth in which Damascus prided itself, right? Yeah. This was the ones that the Magi are bringing in, right?

[1:06:23] The spoils there for Samaria are these same things, right? For Samaria is taken for idolatry, and there the people were turned towards what? Worshiping idols. And these first spoils, the boy what took away idolatry? And according to this, is understood before the boy knew, as before he was what? Killed himself. You know, it's kind of strange.

[1:07:01] Obscure passage there, right? As Augustine says, there's more things in scripture I don't understand. I don't understand. Take a little break here now.