Tertia Pars
40. Summa III q.15 a.4–5: The Passions of Christ's Soul and His True Bodily Pain (with notes on 'undergoing', Logos and Hilary's hard text)
Class of 2009-04-23
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/040-summa-iii-q-15-a-4-5-the-passions-of-christs-soul-and-his/

[0:00] Article 4 here now, whether the soul of Christ was possible, able to what undergo, right? Huh? Okay. We had an undergoing soul. To the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the soul of Christ was not able to what? Able to suffer, right? Able to undergo. For nothing undergoes except from something stronger than it, because the agent is more outstanding than the patient, as is clear through Augustine in the twelfth book on the Genesis to letter, and through the philosopher in the third book on the soul.

[0:49] So Augustine and Aristotle are saying the same thing, huh? I used to teach the first book of Natural Hearing huh And Aristotle faces some problem and he resolves it, right? Well, Augustine has the same problem, right? As far as we know, he does it independently of Aristotle. So, and it's from our point of view more interesting, right? So the Aristotle and Thomas to the same difficulty, give the same solution, but independently of each other.

[1:20] Of course, Thomas comes along and has the advantage of being able to read both of these masters. But no creature was more what powerful, outstanding than the soul of Christ, right? Therefore, the soul of Christ could not was not able to undergo anything from any creature, and therefore he was not what able to suffer. For there would be in vain in him the ability to suffer if he could not suffer from anyone.

[2:03] Moreover, Tully, that means Cicero, right? In the book of the Tusculan Questions, huh? The Tuscan Questions. That the passions of the soul, passiones, are certain sicknesses, huh? But in the soul of Christ there was no sickness, for the sickness of the soul follows upon sin, as is clear through that of Psalm 40 verse five. Heal my soul, because I have sinned before you. Therefore, in Christ there were no what passions.

[2:45] Moreover, the passions of the soul seem to be the same with the foams of sin, right? Whence the apostle says he calls them the passions of what? Sins, but in Christ there is no foams of sin. Therefore, it seems that in Him there were no what passions. Okay, now notice this is kind of a general one leading into the next series of articles, which will be about particular passions.

[3:15] Okay, but again, this is what is said in Psalm eighty-seven, verse four. In the person of Christ, my soul was filled with what evils, not sins, over, but human evils. That is sorrows, as the gloss there expounds. Therefore, the soul of Christ was able to undergo.

[3:48] The answer, it should be said, that the soul in the body constituted right happens or is able to undergo in two ways. In one way, a bodily undergoing; in another way, an animal or a soul-like undergoing. By bodily undergoing, it suffers through the wounding of the body. For since the soul is the form of the body, it follows that the being of the soul and the body is what one.

[4:28] perichoresis, the body shares in the existence of the soul, but the existence of the soul is not entirely immersed in the body. Therefore, it has some activities that are not in the body, and therefore it is necessary that the body being disturbed through some bodily passion undergoing it is necessary that the soul perichoresis right be disturbed. As far as the being that it has in the body, because therefore the body of Christ was able to suffer, it was mortal.

[5:09] It was necessary also that his soul be in some way what undergoable, sufferable, able to suffer. Now, by an animal passion, the soul is said to undergo, according to the operation, which is either what private to the soul or chiefly of the soul than of the what body, right? And although also, according to understanding and sensing, the soul is said to undergo something. That's kind of a what extension of the word, right?

[5:51] I think we've talked about this before a bit. About that word, huh? We've talked about that word, huh? Passio, which means originally suffering, but the word in in Greek and the word in Latin, right, have been what carried over to other things, huh?

[6:17] And the English word suffering has stuck on the first meaning. Okay. So the suffering means to what we see something that is harmful to you, right, and destructive of you, right, huh? But now, if you drop out the idea that what you receive is destructive, right, but nevertheless keep the idea that it's being received in the body, then you have something like sensing, right? Okay. And then if you drop out the idea of the body, but just keep the idea of receiving, then as Aristotle says, even understanding is a kind of what undergoing, right?

[7:01] Okay. Now, in English, right, they say the word suffering is stuck on the first what meaning, and so either you have to carry the word suffering over, or find another word that in some way undergoes this carryover, and to me, the best choice in English is the word undergoing, right? Because it seems to me in its first meaning, undergoing has a sense of something bad, and I point to the fact that we say that you're under the weather.

[7:45] What does that mean? See, it means that the weather has acted upon you in a way that's harmful to you, right? Made you sick, huh? And if we say about somebody, no, he's undergone a lot. Well, it's not good things undergone, right? I'm afraid of bad things, right? Huh? You see, see. But now, if you drop the idea of what you receive as being harmful to you, right, but nevertheless as receiving, right, well, then Aristotle will carry that word over.

[8:19] You can say sensing is a kind of undergoing, right? Okay. And of course, since there's a body there, you could maybe, you know, undergo in a bad sense if the sounds are too loud, you know, or your eye, you know, if you shine a light in the eye long enough, you can go blind, I suppose, right? But really, the eye is being what perfected by sound and by color and so on, right?

[8:46] But it's nevertheless being received in the body, right? And then when Aristotle gets to talk about reason, he says understanding is also a kind of undergoing, right? Because you're receiving something whereby you understand. So,

[9:06] and so the word understanding has got the word under there too, but it's not to understand something is that to be like being under the weather? No, you dropped out the bad sense, right? Okay. So Thomas is referring to the fact of what's taking place in the Greek word or the English word, right? Okay. You find this a lot. you see, there's one of the great difficulties in our thinking it's very simple, though the cause, that the English word was never carried over, and that's because we learned philosophy and theology from the Greeks and the Romans, right?

[9:47] And so sometimes we don't carry the English word over, and we we take over the Greek word and transliterate it, right? Not translate it, and Then we're using the word in the later sense without knowing the earlier sense. Yeah, yeah.

[10:07] You know, I was mentioning earlier the Gospel of Saint John, and I think it's interesting that we've kept the English word there, word, right? So we say in the beginning was the word, right? But in English has the word "word" been moved to mean thought?

[10:31] But the Greek word that word is translation of logos. Logos means first the spoken word in Greek in Greek word too, right? The spoken word first of all, and then the written word. But then later on, logos means the thought that the word signifies. So rather than translate it and say the beginning was the thought, we've kept the English word that corresponds to the original meaning of the word logos, right?

[11:05] And now you have to what carry it over, right? Okay. I think I mentioned how how Shakespeare there in Romeo and Juliet he carries the word "birth" over to mean what a thing is. See, but normally speaking, we say the birth of a thing, we don't mean what it is. So the English word is kind of stuck on the first meaning of birth. I think it's kind of interesting in the translation of the Gospel of Saint John that we kind of what kept the original meaning of the Greek word logos, which is not to mean the word there either.

[11:52] See, in the beginning was the word. It's not word; it's a thought—a most unusual thought to say, you know. But you know, if you wanted to translate it, right, you have to say thought because the English word "word" has not moved. So we have to kind of move it, or else go back to the to the original Greek. Probably because of the the Latin and the Latin related terms, because verbum yeah, the Latin could have been the Latin.

[12:22] yeah, yeah. I don't know how much the Latin verbum is not as much moved to mean thought as as the Greek word logos. So the Latin translation is also kind of funny. I mean, he could have said rather. Yeah. Yeah.

[12:45] Anyway, word there means the Gospel of John thought. I know Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in one of his books somewhere on living in the spirit of the Lord. That

[13:00] maybe it's some it's related to this, anyways. The idea that the English word that we transliterate from the Latin word "verbum gives a verb that means action. And if he he speaks that way of what's the action of the liturgy? Oh yeah. It's when the word comes to dwell on the altar. That's the action. That's what happens. That's the action. That's actually a liturgical. You see that in the old missals.

[13:27] Talk about octave Infra octave Yeah. But that he's pointing out that's related to the idea of the verbum Yeah. And God's word is not just like ours. It's not just something. It's just sort of static. Yeah. Yeah. Action. And that's reflected actually in the Old Testament. or one of the first One of the few things I remember from learning some Hebrew when it often in the prophets it says the word of the Lord came to the prophets.

[13:53] In Hebrew it literally means the word of the Lord happened to the prophet. It's like he he underwent this word from the Lord. That's what it really means.

[14:05] Remember in Shakespeare's definition of reason, you said he uses the Latin transliterated letters discourse, right? But in that other passage I use a lot of times in explaining it, you know, where Romeo or where Friar Lawrence says to Romeo, "Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast." Well, the first meaning of that statement is running with your legs, right? But already Friar Lawrence is not using in that sense.

[14:38] But he's using run in the case of what action, right? And then finally, running is applied to the act of reason itself. And sometimes you'll find people say, you know, let me run through this once more, Professor, to explain something, right? And run down a course of figures like that. And there they're using the run in kind of a third sense, right? But in the definition of reason, Shakespeare uses the word running.

[15:09] I mean, the Latin word discourse, which comes from the Latin word to run, but it would have seemed kind of strange English to say the ability for a large running, because the word running has not been move so much in English, right? You can kind of see the beginning of that in the words of Friar Lawrence: "Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast," right? And so we just speak of people who jump to conclusions.

[15:40] Well, it doesn't mean you don't with your legs. You don't jump to conclusions. And so it's being applied now to the act of the mind, right?

[15:49] So you got to be kind of sensitive to those things. And so, as is commonly said, there's a wall there. You know, either have to move the English word, right, or you also have to go back to the Greek word and see how that was moved, right? Because otherwise, you're going to take a word in a state of sense without going through the earlier senses, and your mind doesn't know what's talking about anymore.

[16:11] On a sort of contemporary related note, there's a lot of movement within the language as far as redefining words to mean something other than they have traditionally meant in a way that's not moving something over and defining something more clearly, but actually to muddy the waters in a certain way. It's a, it's interesting. We find this with the computer, you know, the guy with vocabulary, you know.

[16:36] Oh yeah. What's a domain, you know? What's your domain? My son, you picked up all these words, and he said, "What's your domain? I don't know my domain." Well, who's your server? Yeah, that's right. Who's your server? I don't know. Nobody serves me. Yeah, my domain, wherever your server is, that's your domain. You could say that your home is your castle. That's your domain, and your name is your server.

[17:11] So, Thomas here is referring to what Aristotle was very clear there in the third, second, and third books on the soul, right? That this word for undergoing, right, is being used a different sense. Okay.

[17:32] You see, back in Natural Philosophy, he's talking about motion. He has acting upon and undergoing, right? And that's the first sense of it, really. And then later on, he applies it to sensing, and then finally to understanding. Okay, so he's referring back to this. And although, although

[17:57] according to understanding and sensing, right, the soul is said in some way to pati, to suffer, right, huh? To undergo, right? Nevertheless, as has been said in the second part here, the Suma most properly are called passions or undergoings, the affections of the what? Soul, right? Huh? The affections, excuse me, of the sensitive appetite, huh? Okay. You see, that's some what in the use of English word.

[18:30] If I say somebody's passionate, doesn't mean he understands a lot. It means he's got. It means he's not thinking. Yeah. So you're talking about the man's emotions, right? Huh? So what we call emotions in English sometimes, in Latin they speak of the passiones animae, right? Huh? Okay. Rather than the sensing or the understanding of the soul, right?

[19:01] Which he says we're in Christ, right? Just as other things which pertain to what the nature of man, right? Whence Augustine says in the fourteenth book of the City of God that the Lord Himself, right, when He deigned to what in the form of a slave, right, to lead a life there, right, human life, He humanly, right,

[19:36] joined those things which He judged to be what should be joined, right? Nor in the one in whom there was a true body of man, right, and a true what soul of man, right, was there a false one? Yeah. Now I read in in the devotion to the Sacred Heart, right, that you can start with the emotion of Christ, right,

[20:19] and then from there ascend to the love that is in His will, human will, and then ascend from that to the love which is in His what, divine will, right, huh? So He has this emotion, right, and He wept there when Lazarus and so on.

[20:42] So did Christ have any emotions? Yes, okay, and passions in that sense, right? But Thomas says it should be known, however, that passions or emotions were in Christ in a different way than in us as regards three things, right?

[21:06] First, as regards the object of those emotions, because in us many times these emotions are born to illicit things, which in Christ was not, right?

[21:24] So when you are growing up, you know you hear that anger is a sin, right? Well, of course Christ gets angry with the well, it's because our anger is probably most of the time got the wrong object to get angry about, huh? You know.

[21:44] Secondly, as regards the what beginning, because these emotions frequently, right, in us come before the judgment of what reason, but in Christ all movements of the sense desire arose according to the disposition of what reason. Whence Augustine says in the fourteenth book about the City of God that these motions, by the grace of a most certain disposition, thus when Christ wished, right, he took on by his human soul just as he wished to what he made a man, right, huh?

[22:32] And third, as regards an effect, because in us sometimes these motions do not stop in the sense appetite, right, but they draw reason, I guess, after them, right?

[22:47] But this was not in Christ, because the emotions naturally are suitable to human flesh. Thus, from his disposition, from the disposition of him in the what, he remained in the sensitive appetite, that his reason from them, in no way was impeded to do the things which were suitable for it to do. Huh. Whence Jerome now says, in the Gospel of Matthew, that our Lord, that he might what, prove the truth of the what,

[23:32] truly was what saddened contristatus. But lest the passion in the soul of him would dominate, right? Through this this kind of tender word, propassionum, he is said that he began to what, be saddened, right? Huh. That passion, a perfect passion is understood when to the soul that is reason it dominates it, right? But propassio, when it is begun in the sensitive appetite, what does not extend, but further, right?

[24:10] St. Thomas even makes that point. The temptation again when it says he fasted forty days and forty nights and he was hungry. Yeah. He says that's because he wanted to be hungry. Yeah. Yeah. And he said the devil would not have approached him unless one, he went out to the desert. Two, can he let him approach? Otherwise, he said the devil wouldn't dare. But that's what they say about the the sadness in the Garden of Gethsemane.

[24:42] That it's the Gospel says that's what Jerome's commenting on. He began to be sad. because he willed to be sad. So the um. He wasn't overwhelmed and unhinged or something. They say why do they pro-passion politicians are worse than the devil himself because they dare to approach our Lord.

[25:04] Oh yeah, and they're not even hungry. Oh boy, I got the answer for that. Now the first objection said, well, to suffer the one who caused you to suffer has got to be more powerful, right? Huh. Let's be. To the first, therefore, should be said that the soul of Christ was able to resist the passions, that they would not come upon him. Especially he could do this by his what divine power, but by his own will, he subjected himself to the passions, both those of the body and those of the what, soul, right.

[25:54] Now, what about Cicero here? To the second, it should be said that Tullius there speaks according to the opinion of the Stoics, right? Who did not call passions whatever emotions of the sensitive appetite, but only the what, Disordered ones, right? For such passions, it is manifest were not in Christ. Okay, I think there's a lot of ambiguity there about what the the position of the Stoics, you know, because sometimes they spoke of as not having what emotions at all, right?

[26:34] And saying, well, they're going to kill my wife and children. I can do about so out of my hands. I shouldn't feel anything, right? You know, and and that's where Shakespeare, you know, speaks of them as a stock, you know, making a pun upon, you know, you know, you can stock you can hit hit this chair and hit it hit it and just takes it, you know, doesn't doesn't doesn't complain at all.

[26:59] And let's be no stocks, you know. Shakespeare says that one of the things. But going back to to what the question of Aristotle, should reason rule the emotions as a father rules his son, or as a master rules a slave, right? And some people say, you know, well, for the Stoics, reason rules emotion as a master rules a slave, huh? So it's not there are two differences we spoke of there that the master rules a slave for the good of the master, not of the slave, and the slave has nothing to say about what he does, right?

[27:42] Right, the father rules the what son for the good of the son, right? And the son has something to say about what he should what do, right? Okay, so

[28:00] when I give my emotions Mozart, right? I'm getting something that they want, right? And they have something to say, right? But if they want to listen to some other kind of music, I say no, we can't. But there's there's something to say about what they they do, you know, right? You can you can you can be a little Shakespeare now. I've done enough theology for a while, you know.

[28:20] Obviously, or you can take a walk or something, right? You know, or maybe the Stoics, you know, would be ruling the emotions like a master rules his what slave, right? And remember my cousin Downs saying I was talking one time to some psychologists who had talked about disorders, and kind of those for her the root of of these disorders in these people that their reason was ruling their emotions tyrannically, you might say, right?

[28:53] Huh? And So they they snap or something happens, you know, they get very carried. That's what. that's some Father Owen Bennett, used that, there was some quote I don't remember where from St. Thomas, where he probably using the same example. The language used was a little different. What I remember, Brother Owen saying was, "We can't rule our emotions like a tyrant rules a slave or a subject, but rather he says diplomatically."

[29:19] Yeah, yeah. That's the way he. was back to this business friend of my father's you know, I mean, you wrote your package degree or something, you know? I mean, some people just don't belong in college, you know. He said, "As a professor," and but so, but you're not going to have the kid just go out and and be a wastrel, right? Yeah. See, well, if he wants to, you know, work on cars and that's his life, and he loves cars, and okay, well, maybe this is the thing for him, right?

[29:51] Huh? So you have to some to some extent listen to what the what the son wants and what's suitable to him, right? Okay. So sometimes there's ambiguity there. Sometimes do the Stoics say that all emotions are a sickness? Because sometimes Thomas speaks as if the Stoics were all the same. And other times, you know, as if no, they're calling these what excessive ones, right? But they say there's ambiguity.

[30:26] I know as a child growing up, and you say, well, anger is a is one of the capital vices, wasn't it? And they say, well, is anger always a sin? You know, I mean, see, well, anger there doesn't mean emotion pure and simple, but this kind of disordered anger we have, right? So, but the kind of ambiguity as a child that was not explained to us. And then later on, with Christ, you know, actually, anger and sometimes actually speaks of him as being angry, but his actions indicate a certain, you know, righteous anger.

[31:04] You might say. Or even that one gospel is it Mark? It's kind of curious how after the resurrection, it talks about how Christ upbraided the disciples, where you don't get that. Yeah, because they wouldn't believe the other ones. Yeah, yeah, the testifying. But I know there's one when he he's in the synagogue, and I think it's a Mark's gospel one. They're hardly see. Yeah, he said is it lawful to heal the seven?

[31:29] They wouldn't answer. him. I mean it's he looked at them with anger. Oh, yeah, it. actually says that yeah, yeah. Now the passionus pecatorum there in the third objection, right?

[31:51] Those are the emotions of the sensitive appetite tending towards what illicit things, right? And these were not in Christ, just as neither the fomes of sin.

[32:11] Now we're up to Article Five here. What is this Latin word dolor? How would you translate it into English? Well, in this context, usually, I think I would say pain. Yeah. Yeah. Sensible. There, you know, he made this distinction between the beginning of the body, Article Four. Remember that the soul and the body constituted it can suffer two ways, right? In one way by passione corporale, another way by a passione animale animal or soul-like passio animalis?

[33:05] Well, pain is more something that you associate with the injury of the body, right? Sadness is probably more the name for the passioni animali, as. He calls it. Okay. Thomas was sometimes, you know, be very precise about distinguishing those two. You know, in the same way, pleasure

[33:31] is sometimes spoken of as something really sensitive, touch, right? And then delight, you know, or joy is something more what spiritual. Spiritual, yeah. What's the name of the book of C. S. Lewis? Surprised by Joy, which doesn't mean sensual. It means you're discovering, you know, you know, truth and great literature and so on, right? You know, but there's something.

[34:00] There's also a joke about that too, because the woman that he ended up, the divorced American woman that he married later on, her name was Joy. Pastor John, Surprised by Joy. There's more to it than that because she was a confirmed bachelor, and he was surprised by just how much he fell in love with her. How happy he was. Seems a kind of aggressive woman, though. I read about.

[34:29] It was strange too because the Anglican, the first Anglican bishop or something that he went to, refused because she was divorced. Yeah. Refused, so he went to some charismatic Anglican or whatever, evangelical Anglican. So it's kind of it's a strange one for

[34:48] C. S. Lewis. who, you know, started to think of all these different Christian themes. We used to have this but Laval used to kind of drive these texts over the great about women, you know, and he'd go through you know a whole bunch of the dangers of them and so on, and then end up with you know the one quote we always remember. If I said everything I know about women, he says, the whole world would be stupefied.

[35:24] So, to the fifth one proceeds thus: It seems that in Christ there was not true sensible what pain, right? Okay. For Hilary says in the tenth book about the Trinity when when

[35:53] when for what for Christ for Christ it was life to die to die. Yeah, since because the subjective. What would it be? What would he in what? What should he be estimated to? What suffered suffered in the sacrament of death? Who for himself

[36:26] what? Paid life to the dead. For those dying, yeah. Or who bestows life on such as die for him? Is the translation here? Oh, yeah, die for him. Per se. And below he said, the only begotten God

[36:49] took on a true man, right? Not failing from himself as God, in which although either what blows fell upon him, right, or wounds ascended, or nudi

[37:09] together, or suspension was he was elevated. These brought impetus of passion, but not over did they infer what pain, right? Therefore, in Christ there was not true pain. It's quite a text there.

[37:35] Translation here says, "As a dart piercing the water, he had no pain. " My time is going to have to explain that text somehow. for us. Moreover, this seems to be what proper to flesh conceived in sin, right? That it undergo a necessity of what pain. There wouldn't be any pain in the garden, right, before sin, right? But the flesh of Christ was not conceived with sin, but it was conceived from the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin.

[38:18] Therefore, he was not subject to necessity of undergoing what pain. Moreover, the pleasure of the contemplation divine things diminishes the sense of pain. Whence, for the martyrs in their passions, were more able to tolerate

[38:42] pain for the consideration of the divine what love. Turn me over, right? But the soul of Christ was in the highest way delighting in the contemplation of God, whom he saw through what his essence. Therefore, he is not able to sense unequal pain. So Thomas is going to say that what He didn't allow this to overflow from his soul into his what body.

[39:15] But against all this is what Isaiah says, chapter fifty-three. These are the chapters that Alphonsus uses. you know, almost like a gospel account of of his great suffering. Truly, he bore our what sicknesses and our pains. He himself bore.

[39:37] Okay, Thomas says, "I answer. It should be said, as has been said from those things in the second part, to the truth of sensible pain is required the injury of the body and the injury of the what sense.

[39:59] But the body of Christ was able to be what injured, because it was what able to suffer, and it was what mortal. That's why he's still considered to be a viator, right, in part, right?

[40:18] Nor was there lacking to him the sense of right of lesion of danger, which means the sense of touch, meaning, since the soul of Christ perfectly had all the natural powers.

[40:32] Whence it's a no, it's not doubtful at all, but that in Christ there was true what pain. Can't someone would think it seems to me if you've got the Holy Week, you would think that right? Why? But Thomas is giving the reason for it here now, okay? Because he had a body that was able to suffer, right, and it was mortal, right, died, and he had the sense of touch, right, the sense of the.

[41:08] And more, Aristotle says the better sense of touch you have, the better mind you'll have. So Christ would have a more what, a more sensitive, you might say, touch, right? Therefore, could feel pain more than what anybody else, right? Dollar. Yeah. Okay, now there's terrible at texting from Hillary, right? He just adds to it, he quotes more of it. What? He quotes more of it. Yeah. What can we do?

[41:43] To get these texts, I realize I don't know my Latin very well. To the first, therefore, it should be said that in all these words and ones like them, right, Hilary does not intend to exclude from the flesh of Christ the truth of what pain, right, but the necessity of it, right. Okay. Whence after the four said words, he adds, right? For neither when he. Thirsted, or hungered, or wept,

[42:24] is the Lord shown, right, to have drunk, or to have eaten, or to have sorrowed, but to demonstrating the truth of His what body, right? He took on the custom of the body, right, the ways of the body. Thus, that by the custom of our nature, He satisfied the custom of the what body, right? Custom is taken in a kind of a different usual sense, right? It means the nature of it, huh?

[43:00] But as Warren Murray points out, even Aristotle was speak of the custom of nature, right? You know that custom is, distinguished from nature. Or when He took on what drink or food, not according to necessity of the body, but to give what way to the custom of the body, right? And He takes necessity in comparison to the first cause of these defects, which was what sin.

[43:38] So that for that reason, the flesh of Christ was not subject to necessity of these defects, because there was not in Him what sin. Whence

[43:53] he subjoins that Christ had a body, but what was proper to its origin, right? It was neither existing from the what vices of human conception, any of a human father, right? But in the form of our body,

[44:17] by the power of His virtue, subsisting, right? But as regards the proximate cause of these defects, which is the composition of the body from contraries, so it can suffer, right, from the contrary something too hot or too cold, right? The flesh of Christ was subject to necessity of these what defects? Let's see who that said on the boat is, right? This passage from Hillary is, in the sentences of Lombard, and that's what all St.

[45:00] Thomas and Bonaventure all have to sort of explain what Hilary means in the following length about it. Yeah, because he's a difficult passage. Okay, now the second objection is saying, well, it's arguing from the fact that he was not subject to sin, right? So, to

[45:29] the second, should be said that flesh conceived in sin was subject to pain, not only for the necessity of the natural principles of the body, but also for the necessity of the punishment of sin, or the guilt of sin, right? Which necessity in Christ was not, but only the necessity of the natural what principles.

[45:56] Now, the third objection is going to be solved, as you'd expect, by saying he didn't allow it to overflow, right? To the third, it should be said, as has been said above, that by virtue of his divinity of Christ, he disposed that thus the beatitude in his soul was contained; that it was not what derived to his body, so that his what ability to suffer and his mortality would be what taken away.

[46:25] And for the same reason, the pleasure of contemplation was thus contained in the mind; that it was not derived to the sensible powers, so that through this sensible pain would be what excluded.

[46:49] You can see that kind of in in the transfiguration, right? Because there he allows the glory of his soul to flow into the body, and you see what the ultimate state of us will be. You know, our bodies will shine like the sun, and it says, right? But it's subject to his will, right, to allow it to overflow the body. But just as the glory of the soul that you see in the glory of the body there overflowing from the soul in the transfiguration is not the usual what Christ allows in his body most of the time, so he doesn't allow it to overflow in his body, so he would not feel pain, right?

[47:30] Because he wouldn't be able to do what he wants to do. Give me time for it. We can stop now. I said, yeah. I found that he's sad. There's sadness in him next. Yeah. But I think I think the contrast between the word tristitia and dolor is expressed by the difference in English between pain and sorrow, right? Okay. So, when someone I love dies, I feel sorrow, right?

[48:02] But when I bump myself or run into something sharp or something, then I don't feel sorrow. I feel pain. There really a difference between those two things, pain and and sorrow. And something like that in the with pleasure and what joy, right? So it's more clear in some ways the the difference between pain and what sorrow, right?

[48:34] Aristotle talks about the definition of tragedy. He put in there the idea of pity, right? Well, pity is a form of what sadness, right? And the other forms of sadness like melancholy, right? Envy is a kind of sadness, right? But envy and and pity and melancholy are more of these passiones animales, as he calls them, as opposed to the pain, you know, where you got an ulcer, you got you know something, right?

[49:14] You probably have some of those pains. Got some toxins, infections there about a toothache, right? Well, that's not sorrow; it's pain. So there's a real difference between those things, right? And

[49:31] tragedy is not trying to purge pain, but to purge what you pity, so you feel pity for what is really pitiful, right? And there's a purple thing over here.