Tertia Pars
42. Christ's Wonder and Anger, Christ as Both Wayfarer and Comprehensor, and a Look Ahead to Q.16 (Summa III, Q.15, Arts. 8–10)
Class of 2009-04-30
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/042-christs-wonder-and-anger-christ-as-both-wayfarer-and-comprehensor/

[0:00] I'm just going to take up wondering next, because sometimes wondering is what Tied up with fear, right? Like Shakespeare says, "huh? It harrows me with fear and wonder, huh? To the eighth, one proceeds. Thus, it seems that in Christ there was not wonder, for the philosopher says in the first book of wisdom, there, the metaphysics, that wonder is caused from this that someone sees an effect and doesn't know the cause, and thus to wonder is not except the one who is ignorant.

[1:07] But in Christ there was not any ignorance, therefore in Christ there was no what wonder. Moreover, Damascene says in the second book that wonder is fear from great imagining, imagining great, and therefore the philosopher says in the fourth book of Nicomachean Ethics that the magnanimous man is not what filled with wonder, right? Because nothing is great to him.

[1:40] But Christ was most magnanimous, Maximus magnanimous The magnanimous man does great things in all the virtues. huh I remember Warren Murray was directing somebody's thesis on magnanimity, right? Of course, you're trying to find a good example of magnanimous man, but all these men who are spoken as magnanimous, like Winston Churchill and so on, they turn out not to be altogether magnanimous. And he says the only example he could find of magnanimous man was was Christ, you know.

[2:15] But anyway, no one admires about someone what he himself is able to do, but Christ is able to do whatever it was great in things. Therefore, it seems that he would what wonder about no one, nothing.

[2:37] But against this, again, this pesky text from the Gospels are keeping showing up here, right? Of course, the Second Vatican Council said that the the four gospels are the greatest part of Scripture, right? Even among the books of the New Testament, huh?

[2:57] But against this is what is said in Matthew chapter eight. Hearing Jesus hearing to wit, the words of the centurion, marveled, right? huh Miratus est. The, answer. It should be said that admiration is properly about something new that's not customary, right? Okay.

[3:27] I was reading this in Augustine there in the Golden Chain, talking about the miracles, right? I mean, the miracle is greater than God's creating the world and preserving it in existence and so on.

[3:45] No. Or more marvelous than a than a reasonable soul. Interesting in this thing I was reading about Catherine of Siena, right? She had a vision of a reasonable soul. She said, "It's more beautiful thing in the world." Yeah.

[4:02] But normally we don't wonder at those things because we see them all the time, right? You know, if I let go of the rock and it falls to the ground, do you wonder at it? Well, you might not know why the rock falls to the ground. Einstein said he didn't know, and he admired Newton for knowing that he didn't know. He's trying to find out, but we don't tend to wonder about that because that's what we expect, right?

[4:35] But if he let go of the rock and went up instead of down, they did wonder, you know, why did it go up? You know.

[4:44] And that's why we wonder. You know, miracle is taken from the word wonder, right? See, the miracle is not the greatest thing God has done, is it? See, but it's what not the customary way things are in nature, right? And therefore it arouses what wonder, yeah. So he says de novo aliquo insolito, something new and uncustomary.

[5:12] So in that way, he's saying nothing different from what Aristotle is saying himself. Hmm. It's about about in objection one. But see, Aristotle talks about wonder there. He he will

[5:30] single out the example there of the discovery by the Greek geometers of the incommensurability of the of the diagonal of the square with the side, and this is contrary to what you'd expect, right? Huh. Okay. And Thomas, you know, sometimes he comes back upon an example and talks about that, right?

[5:55] And Einstein talks about wonder, you know, in the early wonder. It was a father bringing home a magnet, right? And the magnet seemed to move things without being in contact with them. Now it's contrary to what you'd expect. How could one body move another body without touching it? So

[6:19] it's something that's contrary to what you expect. It makes you wonder, huh? Human beings, you know, I mean, they're kind of strange the way we act sometimes. But if somebody acts in a way you don't expect them to act, then you kind of wonder what's what's wrong with so and so. What's you know? You see? And so, Augustus is making that same point. in the golden chain which talks about the miracles, right?

[6:43] And how these are not the most wonderful things God has done, but the creation of the world we don't wonder at because it's always there. The world's there; it's always with us. The world is too much with us, as we say.

[7:02] Okay. Now, in Christ, there could not be something new and unaccustomed as regards his what divine knowledge, huh? Nor as regards his human knowledge, by which he knew things in the Word,

[7:27] or even that by which he knew things through what these these species that were placed in them, right? But there could be something new and unaccustomed to him according to his experiential knowledge, huh?

[7:52] According as there could what daily occur some new things, right? And therefore, if we speak about Christ as regards his divine knowledge, his knowledge as God, I guess that refers to, or his blessed knowledge whereby he sees God as He is face to face, or even his infused knowledge, which is called indita before the indita species, there would not be in Christ wonder, right?

[8:26] If, however, we speak of him as regards his experiential knowledge, thus there could be what wonder at him, right? That's interesting because remember how was it experiential knowledge that Thomas didn't see in the in the sentences, right? As being part of Christ's array of knowledge. And you see, but here it's kind of interesting that's tied up with the fact that he could what wonder, right? Yeah. Maybe Saint Thomas wondered Yeah.

[9:00] Is it the centurion who says, you know, you're going to have to come down to my house to cure the servant of the boy, you know? Yeah. And he says, I'm a man, you know. I give commands and they do it, you know. It's almost like saying, you know, you can command nature, right? In the way that I command, you know, it really does. Really striking, you know.

[9:23] This guy's a pagan. He's not even a Jew or anything like that. He has, you know, and yet he's he's gotta respect the military sometimes. Okay.

[9:43] And he took on this affection to our instruction, right? To wit, that he teaches us to wonder about, but also he wondered about. Yeah. Once Augustine says in the first book on on Genesis against the Manichaeans that the Lord what wondered right he signifies to us ought to be what wondered at.

[10:28] It's something to be wondered at that we should be moved to wonder at certain things. What's necessary for all such motions are not signs of a disturbed soul, right? But of a what teaching magisterium.

[10:56] So I wonder at this Saint Catherine of Siena, right? Quite a formidable woman. So the first thing, although Christ was not ignorant of anything, there nevertheless could be something new occurring to his what experiential knowledge, right? From which wonder was what caused, huh?

[11:29] To the second, it should be said that Christ wondered about the faith of centurion, not by reason that it was something great to him, but because it was great in comparison to others, right? It's pagan, right? How could he? That's what he said. Yeah. Not not found such faith in all of Israel. Yeah. Yeah. Sometimes I can see a little child who says something very wise, Mary Sophia.

[12:05] Yeah. But maybe that's great compared to what you know, you know, but compared to other children, right? To come out with this little thing that they say, huh?

[12:24] Now to the third, it should be said that he was able to do all things according to his divine power, according to which in him there was not wonder, right? But only according to his human experimental what knowledge,

[12:41] huh? Sometimes Thomas, you know, when he's arguing against those who deny that Christ had a human soul, you know, these heresies. There's some, you know, who who said that in place of human soul was his divinity, right? And there are others who are forced to admit some kind of soul, but in place of his reason, he has the divinity, right? So therefore, he really has an animal soul, right?

[13:06] But not a understanding soul. But then Thomas would point to the fact that he has admiratio, wonder, right? And that's tied up with the fact that Christ must have had a rational soul, So that had reason, right? He could have wonder. huh

[13:26] So Aristotle talks a little bit about wonder there too. He talks about tragedy and how it arouses in wonder. But you had that at the end of what of Hamlet there, where Hamlet's friend, right, is going to tell Fortinbras what's taking place. You know, if you would see out of woe or wonder, he says, right? So woe is another word for what pity, right? Once they're using the word fear, he says wonder, right?

[14:00] There's a dead king there, a dead queen, a dead prince, a dead, you know, this whole group of bodies, right? That befits the field, as Fortinbras says, but not the throne, okay? But it evokes a certain wonder, the tragedy, you know. It's interesting when Aristotle is giving the arguments to Zeno in the eight books of Natural Hearing. You know the famous arguments of Zeno against motion, huh?

[14:30] And some of the arguments really have the same basis, but the way they said they arouse what more wonder, right? And so he was talking about the argument of Achilles cannot catch the tortoise, huh? And he says, it's a certain tragodia, huh? a certain tragedy, right? And Thomas says that is a certain magnification of words arousing what wonder, right? Okay.

[15:03] Well now I was mentioning about some of the theorems I know of Euclid, right? Huh? That theorem I like so much in the second book, the fifth one, the second book. The way it stated in Euclid is thus: He says,

[15:23] if you cut a straight line in equal and unequal segments, right, the rectangle contained by the unequal segments, right, or excuse me, see that the the square contained by what the equal sections will be equal to the rectangle contained by the equal segments plus the square on the line between the points of section. Okay, so what?

[15:52] But then it occurred to me, you see. That if you think of this line as representing the perimeter of a rectangle, right, then you can see that with the same perimeter, the square is going to have more area than the what oblong, right? So, let's say if you have five by five, the area is twenty-five, right? And if you have four by six, the area is only what twenty-four, but four, which had the same perimeter, twenty.

[16:38] Now, as you depart further from that, and you see that seven and three, you still have twenty all around here, but now it's only twenty-one, right? Now you could say that the difference between the one of these and five squared will be the difference. So one squared is one, two squared is four, that means twenty-one. And once you see that, then you realize something even more interesting: that you could have a rectangle, let's say two by ten, whose perimeter would be what twenty-four, as opposed to here the perimeter is what twenty, but the area here is only twenty, right?

[17:25] So with more fence, you can gain less area, right? You see, and that seems you know crazy at first, right? So you're going to make a yard for your kid to play in, and you're going to fence off an area, right? And my kid has got more room to play in with the area I fenced off. I use less fence; it costs me less than you. You know, it kind of arouses wonder, right, that you can contain more area with less fence.

[17:59] You see, so when you put it that way, it's arouses more wonder than the original what the way Euclid states it, right? But by still basing myself upon what Euclid has shown there, right? But this is said with a quadrum tragodia a certain tragedy to arouse what wonder, right? And I found that without a theorem of Euclid, if you just change a little bit, oh, especially when people are talking Euclid.

[18:21] Euclid was a poet. Yeah. Maybe maybe enough time for the break. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Whether in Christ there was anger, the ninth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in Christ there was not what anger.

[19:02] For it is said in James chapter one, the epistle, the anger of man does not work the justice of God. That's something I have to remember all the time when I get super angry at the Obama administration. So I always thought if I was sitting in the same room with with Ted Kennedy, you know, I'd just berate him. You know,

[19:32] probably not be very effective. You know, just denouncing him for his anti-life. Okay, but whatever was in Christ pertained to the what justice of God, right? For he was made for us justice from God, as is said in one Corinthians one. Therefore, it seems that in Christ there was no what anger, right? Moreover, anger is opposed to mildness.

[20:04] This is clear in the fourth book of ethics. Aristotle has a virtue that what moderates anger, right? Okay. Shakespeare plays on that with the metaphor, right? They are in the very wrath of love, he says. Okay. They

[20:26] are in the very wrath of love. Okay. Clubs cannot part them. Yeah, yeah, but but notice the idea that wrath and love are both emotions that need to be what moderated, right? And but he's playing they're in the very wrath of love. Clubs cannot part them, right?

[20:49] It's like use clubs to part the the angry dogs, you know. So you have to need club to separate these lovers that are so intense. So they got to get married off right away, you know. And it's in as you like it, you know.

[21:04] But you find you know that same type of metaphor, you know, when when Hotspur, you know, can't control what he has to say, and he says what drunk with drunk with anger, right? Well, it's a likeness from species to species, they say. So when Thomas takes up the the virtues there in the second part of the second part, he takes up you know the four cardinal virtues and the three theological virtues.

[21:32] He takes up the other virtues by having a likeness in their mode. So when he takes up temperance, he'll take up what mansuetudo, right? Because it has something like it in terms of what moderating, huh? So you have this this sensual desire that very much needs moderation, and anger is something like that, very strong emotions that move us to do something we shouldn't do. But Christ was most what mild, huh?

[22:06] What does he say? Learn of me for I am what? Yeah. In Greek, it's another use to translate "mansuetus." Yeah. Moreover, Gregory says in the fifth book of morals that anger through vice blinds the eye of the mind. Okay. It's beautiful. The eye of the mind. That's what reason. Okay. But anger through what zeal disturbs it, right? Huh? But in the eye of the mind in Christ, there was nothing blind or nothing disturbed, right?

[22:45] Okay. Therefore, in Christ, there was no anger by vice nor anger through what zeal, huh? But against this is what is said in John chapter two about him being fulfilled in the psalm that the what Zeal. zeal of your house eats me up. Okay. The answer, it should be said, Thomas says that in has been said in the second part. Anger is an effect of what sadness, huh?

[23:19] But from the sadness created in someone, right, there follows in him in the sensitive part the desire of repelling, huh, the injury imposed by oneself or others, right? And thus anger is a passion, in a sense, put together from sadness and the desire of vengeance, huh, vindicta. It is said, however, that in Christ there can be what sadness, right? See the order that Thomas says. We took up sadness first.

[23:59] Okay. Um. Okay. Um. And there can be a what desire for we say revenge or what? Vengeance. Vindiction. Uh, this is sometimes with sin, right?

[24:25] For some, when someone what seeks revenge without the order of what reason, and in that way, anger in Christ could not be, right? And this is called anger. That's a vice, right? Okay. I mentioned that before. I think we're talking one day here about how. When I grew up, you know, anger is give us one of the capital sins, right? But you're talking about this anger per vitium, right?

[24:54] Otherwise, Christ would be guilty of one of these sins. But sometimes such a desire is without sin; nay, is even what praiseworthy. When someone desires revenge, according to the order of what justice, and this is called anger by zeal, right? For Augustine says upon John that the zeal of the house of God eats him up, right? He eats him up right? Who all perverse things that he sees, he wishes to what make amends.

[25:33] Yeah, and if he cannot amend them, he what tolerates them and mourns. And such an anger was in what Christ. Okay, was not an anger per zeal that would disturb the what function of his reason. I suppose he'll bring that out. Hence these objections.

[25:56] Now the first objection about the anger of man does not work the justice of God. To the first, therefore, it should be said, as Gregory says in the fifth book of the morals, anger in two ways is related to man. For sometimes it goes before reason, right, and draws it with itself to doing, right, and then anger is properly said to what operate, right? Why? Because operations attributed to the principal what agent, right?

[26:35] And according to this, it is understood that the anger of man does not work the justice of what God. Sometimes, however, anger follows reason, and is as it were a tool, instrument of it, and then the operation which is of justice is not attributed to anger but to what reason, right?

[27:07] To second, it should be said that the anger which goes beyond the order of reason is opposed to mildness, but not the anger which is what moderated, huh? Which is reduced to the proper mean, right? To reason.

[27:31] For mansuetudo, mildness holds the medium in what anger, huh? Shakespeare puns upon that, you know. No mean happiness to be constituted in the mean.

[27:48] It plays play upon the two meanings of mean, right? It's no little happiness to be constituted in the mean. As Thomas says, what virtue is the what road to happiness, and vice is the road to misery, right? But the moral virtues consist in hitting the mean,

[28:15] now. Because the very important clarification Aristotle says, right? If a word signifies an act already with an excess, then there's no mean of the of the extreme. He says. So he says adultery. He says, is not right if you do it just the right amount, but adultery is already it's already excessive, right? Okay. And getting drunk is what, by definition, too much. And stealing is by definition already in excess, right?

[28:55] So he says there's no mean of the excess. So if I steal just the right amount, not too much, not too little, no. It was a great quote in the journal *The Criterion*. Are you familiar with that? Any chance? No. Arts, politics, fascinating journal and history as well, culture, and it's something to the effect of the contemporary sophisticates pride themselves on being in the mean between the extremes of right and wrong.

[29:25] You know, it's kind of humorous. Yeah, yeah. No, the Clintons are saying abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Yeah, yeah, yeah. As if there's a mean, you know, that you should hit. But Aristotle says there's no mean of the extreme. It's already by definition an extreme. There's one more quote which is I think very, very good. This applies to Clinton in this particular context. He's a proud member of the herd of independent minds.

[30:00] Tolstoy is a real thinker. Bart, you could say he's a typical nonconformist. Now, to the third, it should be said that in us, according to the natural order, the powers of the soul impede each other, right? So that the operation of one power, when it's very intense, weakens the operation of what? Another. And from this there proceeds, it follows that the emotion of what anger, right? Even if it be moderated by reason, to some extent impedes the eye of the what soul contemplating, right?

[30:56] But in Christ, through the moderation of the divine power, to each power was permitted to act what was proper to it, and therefore one power was not impeded from what another. And therefore, just as the delight of the mind contemplating did not impede what the sadness or the pain of the lower part, so a converso, right, the passions of the lower part, in no way impede the act of what reason.

[31:30] but in us they would, right? In the psalms, I thought of St. Gregory's quote here, Psalm six, the first of the penitential psalms, where he says, "My eye is disturbed." By anger, pure anger, whatever wrath the eye of your mind. They talk about like in the Greek courts and the other courts, but the first guys they tried, they'd be very angry with, and they and they would punish them very severely.

[32:00] And then later people not quite as severe because they're angry and it calmed down. So it's obviously injustice being done because of the anger. Now the tenth article. Whether in Christ was at the same time a what, viator, man on the road, and a comprehensor, right?

[32:29] One who's arrived, gotten a hold of things. To the tenth, one proceeds thus: it seems that Christ is not at the same time a viator and comprehensor, because a viator, it pertains to him to be moved to the end of beatitude, right? But to the one who has gotten a hold of things, Comprehensor, it belongs to rest in the end.

[33:00] But one cannot at the same time move towards the end and rest in the end. Can't disagree with that. Therefore, it seems it cannot be together that Christ was both a viator and a comprehensor, right? If he is, he's going to arouse wonder. He'll be admirable. That's true.

[33:23] Moreover, to be moved to beatitude, or to obtain it, does not belong to man according to his body, but according to his what, soul. Whence Augustine says in the Epistle to Dioscorus that to the lower nature, which is the body, beatitude rebounds, you might say, or overflows from the soul, right? Excuse me, not beatitude, but

[33:56] not beatitude strictly speaking, which is proper to the one enjoying and understanding, right? But Christ, although he had a sufferable body, body could suffer, nevertheless, according to his mind, enjoyed God what, fully. Therefore, Christ was not a viator, but a pure what, comprehensor. Moreover, the saints whose souls are in heaven and whose bodies are in the sepulchers enjoy beatitude according to the soul, although their bodies are what, subject to death.

[34:37] Nevertheless, they are not said to be viators, but only comprehensors, right? Therefore, for a like reason, although the body of Christ was mortal, because nevertheless his mind enjoyed God, it seems that he was a pure comprehensor and in no way a viator on the road, in no way. It's kind of interesting. I was thinking that objection there, you know, in terms of what do you say about these these souls there?

[35:07] They don't even Augustine says that the soul will see God even more perfectly after it's united with the body, right? So aren't they still on the way, you know? Okay. Well, this makes use of that, right? So you know why say it about one and not the other, right? But against this is what is said, Jeremiah, chapter fourteen.

[35:35] That like a what? Colon, colonist? Cultivator, tiller, tenant, farmer, colonist, and so it could be a farmer, maybe. And as a viator, declining to what? Yeah. So I guess the farmer. is a very good thing This is said about the crop here. Yeah. But this is being said about Christ, apparently. The whole context there, huh? Because he's trying to maintain that he is a viator in some way or was.

[36:12] And Sir Thomas says it should be said that someone is said to be a viator from this that he what tends towards beatitude, huh? But he's said to be a comprehensor from this that he has already obtained beatitude, according to that of one Corinthians nine, sic curite just so run right that you might what comprehend, huh? Okay, there you see the word word in the Latin either where you get the word comprehensor, right?

[36:46] And that's obviously talking about beatitude. And Philippians three again, same word. I follow if in some way I might what? Yeah. Okay. But the perfect beatitude of man consists in the soul and the body, right? Okay. But in a secondary way, in the body, as has been said, the second part where he talks about what beatitude is. In the soul, as regards that which is proper to it, according as the mind sees and enjoys what God.

[37:26] Incidentally, you know Thomas says that when you see God as He is face to face, you know other things in God besides God, right? And Thomas argues very well in Summa Contra Gentiles and elsewhere that you see in God everything you naturally want to know. So all those theorems in Euclid I'll see them all I'll see them all at once, right? And I think it's beautiful there because you see that the whole supernatural order, so to speak, is in harmony with the natural order, right?

[38:00] That our natural desire to know and to understand this thing here will be satisfied there, right? Not that that sort of beatitude will be chiefly about, but the but the natural desire will be satisfied, huh?

[38:19] In the body, however, according as the body rises, spiritual being very subject to the Thomas explains us in some detail, and in power, right, and in glory, and in corruption, right, all these dotes they call him, right, the gifts.

[38:39] But Christ, before the passion, according to the mind, he fully saw God, right, and thus he had beatitude as regards what is proper to the soul. But as regards the other things, the what gifts to be bestowed upon the body, they were lacking, right? The beatitude was lacking to him. because his soul was able to suffer, right, and his body was able to suffer and was mortal, right?

[39:10] As is clear from the things said above, and therefore, at the same time, he was comprehensor in so far as he had the beatitude proper to the soul, and he was a viator in so far as he tended towards beatitude according to that which was lacking to him of beatitude. namely the the body there.

[39:34] Now the first objection says you can't moving towards something and being there, right? He says to the first, it should be said that it's impossible to be to move towards an end and to rest in the end according to the same thing. But according to diverse things, nothing prevents this, huh?

[39:54] Just as a man at the same time is knowing as regards those things which he already knows and learning as regards those things which he does not yet know, right? So am I a knower or a learner? What do you think?

[40:13] Yes. If I'm a learner, I haven't arrived. If I'm a knower, I have arrived. Well, can I both be arriving and have arrived? Well, if it's about the same theorem, right? Either I'm learning it or I know it. Yeah, but I can know some theorems and be learning other ones. Okay, I can't be learning the very theorem that I know.

[40:40] Yeah. That's nice. We're getting out of that. See, the sophist wants to make you appear to contradict yourself, right? Now the second objection here.

[41:00] To the second, it should be said that beatitude chiefly and properly consists in the soul, according to the mind. That's the reason in the will. But nevertheless, secondarily, and as it were, instrumentally. There is required for beatitude the goods of the body, right? Just as the philosopher himself says in the first book of the Ethics, that the exterior goods even serve toolwise beatitude, right? Okay. Yeah. So notice, huh?

[41:36] This book here, this is, you know, toolwise, right, huh? This is an exterior good of mine, but it's serving my mind as a tool, right, huh? So this side related question of the souls in heaven.

[41:55] Yeah, I mean, he's agree with Augustine that beatitude chiefly and properly consists in the soul, according to the the mind, meaning the the intellect and the will, right? But in a secondary way, to the goods of the what body, Body right,Okay So that's why since it's only secondarily that's why we would just go ahead and call them comprehensives So in some ways, a viator, in so far as he didn't have those secondary gifts of the body there, right?

[42:29] Okay. Which are kind of listed there in the body of the article there, but they're taking that more detail in the other places. Now, what about this third thing, though? Right? Why not call it in the saints? That right? There's not the same reason about the souls of the what dead saints and about Christ in account of two things. First, because the souls of the saints are not what passible and can't suffer anymore, as was the soul of Christ.

[43:10] Secondly, because their bodies don't do anything by which they tend towards beatitude, as Christ, according to the passions of the body, tended in beatitude as regards the glory of his body. huh It's pretty, pretty, pretty good. This guy the way he gets out of these Nazi ties. But but that doesn't exactly tell us. Well, they're they're comprehensors in their soul. Yeah, yeah. But what does it tell us about their body?

[43:38] Well, they don't have full beatitude. Yeah, yeah, but but but through their bodies, they're not what striving to get the goal, right? And their soul even is not what undergoing. Not able to. Yeah, yeah. So with the soul of Christ, he's undergoing these passions we talked about, right? Things of that sort, fear, sadness, and so on, right? But the body is not sharing anything. Yeah, yeah. And and through his body, he's he's what gaining his uh, glorification of his body in a sense, right?

[44:16] Okay. So he's more reason to call him a viator, right? Right. Then these guys are just waiting for the body to be resurrected. Yeah. Maybe we should stop there. We can just look at the at what's going to come up. But like, in the next article. Okay. Um

[44:45] Hey this guy's really thorough. He's a really thorough guy. Isn't this Thomas, what do you think of this guy? Hard to beat. Interesting that was it Urban IV that commanded him to do the Golden Chain, huh?

[45:07] I think he, I think the Pope died before he finished it, you know, but but his dedication. Okay. Then we're not to consider about those things which follow upon the what union, huh?

[45:25] Now go way way back here to question one here, I guess. Yeah. Still not going to get see if you look at the at the end of the prologue there, right?

[46:26] Is he talking about about the Savior? I mean, there's also going to be a later section on the sacraments, right? In the end, but about the Savior itself, he says there's a twofold consideration at the end of the prologue, right? First, about the mystery of the incarnation, according to which God, for our salvation, was made a man, right? Secondly, about those things through our Savior, that is, the incarnate God, were done and suffered, right?

[46:58] Okay. And that's not going to be till question what twenty seven, right? Okay. So then you have to go to the proemium to begin with question one, and about the first three things occur. First, about the suitability of the incarnation. Secondly, about the way of the what union of the incarnate Word, and then about those things which follow upon the what union, and that's question sixteen starting, right?

[47:30] So division into two, and the first of those two is divided into. Three, yeah, okay. He's always thought as a rule of two or three, right? Down the season. Really, not very original, right? He's limited. He's limited. Yeah. He doesn't think outside the box.

[48:01] So let's just look at the proemium here to question sixteen. There, the beginning of question sixteen. Then we're not to consider about those things which follow upon the union.

[48:14] And first about those things which belong to Christ, secundum se. Secondly, about those things which belong to Christ, in comparison to God, the what, Father. Now I was reading the golden chain there. Christ is saying, "Well, you can't believe because the Father is not drawing you to me, right? " And only those whom the Father has drawn can believe, right? And so the church fathers say there.

[48:48] Why does he attribute this to the Father? Well, all they say is because he's the beginning of the Son and the Holy Spirit. They both proceed from him, right? So they attribute it to the Father, but it's not really what limited to the Father. The Father, not not by, you know, without the Son and the Holy Spirit, is drawing them. But it's kind of interesting the way it's kind of, I suppose, appropriation, right?

[49:11] It's appropriated to the Father. It's the Father who. Well, the Father speaks in the beginning, is the way he's calling. Yeah. And those ones that the Father has given me, you know, he's going to keep and so on, right? Right. So it's interesting. I guess, suppose it's appropriation there. Father. Because he's the one that speaks. Yeah. Yeah. So maybe some things will be cleared up about him, the Father, there, right?

[49:35] And then about those things which belong to Christ, as regards what us, and that doesn't start till down to question what twenty-five. Say this guy is thorough, you know. So there's going to be what sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen. Oh my gosh. We can only hold up, you know, nothing here. Now how's this first thing divided, right? Secundum se. What They couldn't say what the heck does that mean?

[50:09] About the first, there's a twofold consideration. First, about those things which belong to Christ, according to what? Essay esse et fieri, being and coming to be, huh? Secondly, about those things which belong to Christ by reason of what? Unity, huh? And that's going to be starting in chapter what seventeen. What reminds me as a student of wisdom there metaphysics, it's about being in the one, right? So, esse et fieri and Unitas.

[50:48] So it may help you to know a little bit of philosophy. It could be just coincidence. But about the first twelve things are asked. Oh my gosh! I didn't know that many things are asked about this. Whether this is true that God is what is a man? Yeah. Secondly, whether this is true that man is God?

[51:20] You know, Augustine says God became man so that man could become God. It's a different sense here than what he's saying here, but it's interesting.

[51:32] Whether Christ can be called what Homo Dominicus? Yeah, Homo Dominicus. That's probably sometimes. Fourth, whether those things which belong to the man, the Son of Man, can be said of the Son of God in a conversari? Fifth, whether those things which belong to the Son of Man can be said of the divine nature? So different thing now, saying. And human, those things which belong to the Son of God.

[52:25] He's very solid. This guy. Whether this is true that the Son of God was made man? I know he was made flesh, but was he made man?

[52:46] And secondly, whether this is true that man was made what God? Strange. Very thorough, though, right? Okay. Whether this is true that Christ is a creature? I know there is something wrong with saying that. You gotta, you know, always say couldn't have quit, so you are not so petulant. Because thinking the divine person, all right.

[53:19] Nine. Whether this is true that this man, right, pointing out Christ, began to be, or was he always? And ten, whether this is true, Christ, according as he is a man, is a creature. Yeah, be careful about that too.

[53:45] Ten, whether this is true that Christ, according as He is man, is God. I'm kind of worried about that one. I think I think it would be I think we. better read them all. Yeah.

[54:02] Secondly, whether this is true that Christ, according as man, is a hypostasis or what? Persona Hey, gosh, this guy's got some rough stuff here.

[54:20] I think you better rest, rest up for this. rest up for this Take a week off for go into this.