Tertia Pars
61. Summa III, Q. 25, Arts. 4–6 and Q. 26: The Cross, Mary's Hyperdulia, Relics of the Saints, and Christ the Mediator
Class of 2009-11-19
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/061-summa-iii-q-25-arts-4-6-and-q-26-the-cross-marys-hyperdulia/

[0:00] Whether the cross of Christ should be adored by the adoration of latria. To the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the cross of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of latria.

[0:18] For no pious son venerates the what contempt shown, I suppose, to his father. For example, the flagellum the scourge, yeah, by which he was scourged, or the wood in which he was suspended, right? But he more abhors that. But Christ on the wood of the cross underwent the most disgraceful, you might say, death. According to that, of wisdom chapter two with the most ugly or most painful death we condemn him.

[1:00] Therefore, we ought not to venerate the cross, but more to abhor it. Not to say, sometimes in the early church there was certain fear of the cross. There, I mean, it wasn't too real. Publicly manifested for a couple centuries, they didn't venerate the cross. It was too horrible. Yeah, too real. I think Saint Saint Sabina, Saint Sabina's Roman Dominican convent is the first, or they say it's one of the earliest depictions of art to adore.

[1:27] It's from what third fourth century or something after it went. When was crucifixion outlawed? Wasn't it from maybe Constantine? Yeah, I think you're right. More where

[1:46] the humanity of Christ is adored by the adoration of latria, in so far as it is joined to the Son of God in person, right? But this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore, the cross of Christ is not to be adored by the adoration of latria.

[2:05] Moreover, just as the cross of Christ was a tool of his passion and death, so also many other things—the nails, the crown, and the lance—to which we do not exhibit or show the culture worship of latria. Therefore, it seems that the cross of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of latria.

[2:31] But against all this is that we show the adoration of latria to that in which we place the hope of our what salvation. But in the cross of Christ, we place our hope. For the church sings, "Oh, cross, hail, unique hope, right? " And this in the time of what passion.

[3:01] Increase justice for the pious and obtain forgiveness for the the guilty. Oh right, yeah. Therefore, the cross of Christ should be adored by the adoration of Latria Lex orandi, lex credendi, right? Lex, lex,

[3:26] okay. Um, an answer should be said that has been said above. Honor or reverence. Now he takes them all and says synonyms, right? Before he spoke of honor as what being the reverence shown to someone because of their excellence. Honor or reverence is not owed except to a reasonable creature, right? So we shouldn't honor the horse that wins the Kentucky Derby, put those flowers on him, and so.

[4:01] on More oats Sometimes an animal saves a man's life, right? Yeah. Um, to a insensible creature is not owed honor reverence, except by reason of a rational nature. And this in two ways. In one way, in so far as it represents the reasonable nature. In another way, in so far as it is joined to it in some what way.

[4:47] Now, in the first way, men are accustomed to venerate the image of the king. In the second way, his what Clothing, right? And both men venerate by the same veneration by which they venerate also the what king.

[5:13] I suppose you know you show respect to the flag, right? You're doing this showing respect to the country, really. So if you burn the flag, you're showing disrespect to the to the the country, right?

[5:37] So the military is very clear not to let the flag touch the ground and you know things that are absurd. If, therefore, we speak about the cross itself, in which Christ was crucified, in both ways it is to be venerated by us.

[6:00] In one way, in so far as it represents to us. The figure of Christ extended on it. Another way, from its contact to members of Christ,

[6:16] and from this that it was deluged, you might say, with His blood. Right. Whence, in both ways, is adored by the same adoration with Christ. That is to say, by the adoration of what? Latria. An account of this also we what? Speak to him and praise him. Yeah. As if. Yeah. Thomas is getting away what he does, huh? He came here at the summa, was it, and from the cross, wasn't it?

[6:53] He spoke as is worthy of you. Beni scriptus est Thomas. That's what the story says, anyway. I told you the statue they had at Cardinal St. Thomas' there, you know, Beni scriptus est Thomas. The statue, Thomas' there, in the center of the two main buildings there.

[7:18] Now, if we speak of the effigy of the cross of Christ in any other matter, as what in stone or wood, so go. Thus we venerate the cross only as what.

[7:37] Which we venerate by the adoration of latria, as has been said above. So the paragraph above was referring to the relics of the true cross. Yeah. But then, but how did that? Didn't understand in the first part of that because the second part I do understand because the blood was soaked into it. But the first seems to be the same as the. It's like a figure of Christ.

[8:02] It's like an image of him stretched out. Physically stretched out. Yeah, the arms, you know, represented by the cross. Oh, okay. Yeah, I see. Good thing. Now, what about this being a thing that we should abhor? Well, to the first, therefore, it should be said that in the cross of Christ, as regards the opinion or the intention of the faithless, is considered the disgrace of Christ. So they want him to die by this kind of death.

[8:40] But as regards the effect of our salvation, there is considered the divine power of him, by which he triumphed over his what enemies, according to that of Colossians two. He took it from the what? Middle and affixed it to the cross, right? And taking away the princes and the powers, he took it away confidently, triumphing over them in himself.

[9:15] And therefore, the apostle says, one Corinthians one eighteen, the word of the cross to those perishing is stupidity, but to those who are saved, that is to us, it is the power of what God.

[9:47] Okay. To the second, it should be said that the cross of Christ, although it was not united to the Word of God in person, right, it was nevertheless united in some way, in some other way, right. And those are the two ways mentioned by the article, right? Representationem, representing it in some way, right, and also by contact. And for this reason only is shown to it what reverence, huh?

[10:22] So as on what we in Good Friday we kiss the cross, right? Yeah. Do that too, or what? Yeah, yeah, actually, it's the corpus that day. Oh, that's right. But we kiss the cross on Easter vigil. Right. Because it comes out, we have a ceremony. Tomb is opened because we bury the corpus on Friday. in the tomb Tomb. That's Saturday evening, Easter Sunday. The glorious cross is taken out.

[10:50] and processed To the third, it should be said. What about the nails? The rest of this. That as regards the what reason of contact of the members of Christ, we adore not only the cross, but also all those things which are Christ, right? Whence Damascene says in the fourth book, the most precious wood, right, as being sanctified by contact with the holy body and blood, is suitably what to be adored.

[11:32] The nails, the what vestments? Is it? What? Clothing. Clothing. Well, clothing. Yeah. And then the lambs. And his what? Sacred loaves. Yeah. But these do not represent the image of Christ as does the cross. Nails, the lambs. Whence it is said, the sign of the Son of Man that will appear in the heavens, right?

[12:03] And therefore, the angel said to the to the woman, "You seek Jesus, and as in the crucified, right? He does not say the lanced one, but the crucified one.

[12:24] And hence it is that the image of the cross of Christ we venerate, in whatever matter it is, but not the image of the nails or

[12:37] any other of this sort. Should we go on and take it away? or take a break Okay, just have it go again because it mentions the contact, but that doesn't have the representation. But would

[12:52] one suffice for the veneration of the contact? Yeah, he does say that. The reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we worship, not only the cross, but all that belongs. Yeah, but but another nail you wouldn't you wouldn't because another nail you wouldn't nail was not used on the cross. I mean, just a nail. Yeah, yeah, not any nail, just the one that was nailed there. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[13:17] Because the other nails that we have in your thing here, they did not touch his blood or body, and they don't represent. The nail does represent. White cross wood, it's not in the original original wood.

[13:39] But you know, if you have a fragment of the cross, which I guess there's always there's more than there could have been. I don't know. There would have been multiplication of the loaves, but I mean, there would not be an image. It would there, but there would be contact. Not be surprised. Sometimes I've seen relics. I guess at the beginning, I think two little pieces make it into a little cross.

[13:59] Yeah, yeah. To the fifth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Mother of God should be adored by the adoration of latria. Thomas is getting in danger again.

[14:26] It seems that the same honor should be shown to the Mother of the King and to the King. Whence it is said in the third book of Kings that there is placed the throne of the Mother of the King, who sits at his what right side. And Augustine says in his sermon on the Assumption, the throne of God, the what, the Lord of Heaven, the tabernacle of Christ, is worthy to be there where He is.

[15:02] But Christ is adored by the adoration of latria, therefore His Mother. Moreover, Damascene says in the fourth book that the honor of the Mother refers to the Son, but the Son is adored by the adoration of latria, therefore the Mother. Moreover, Christ took to Christ is joined more His Mother than the cross, but the cross is adored by the adoration of latria, therefore the Mother by the same adoration.

[15:36] Isn't the contact there right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But against this is that the Mother of God is a pure what creature. Therefore, there ought not to be shown to her the adoration of what latria.

[15:55] Thomas says, I answer it should be said that because latria is owed to God alone, it should not be is not owed to a creature, in so far as a creature is venerated by itself.

[16:13] Now, although insensible creatures are not capable of veneration in themselves, a rational creature is capable of veneration according to itself. And therefore, to no pure creature, rational creature, is owed the worship of what latria. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is purely a rational creature, there is not owed to her the adoration of latria, but only the veneration of what dulia.

[16:51] More eminently, however, than to other creatures, in so far as she herself is the Mother of God, and therefore it is said that there is owed to her not just any dulia, but hyper dulia. When De Koninck was involved in the definition there of the Assumption, and so on, right? But you know, I think we speak of this as the Marian century. Now it begins with the with the with the 1854 was the Immaculate Conception, and kind of ends with 1950 or so with the Assumption.

[17:34] But De Koninck was saying, "Why were these defined so late? " You might say in the history of the Church, right? Well, he said, "So great are these mysteries, right, and so elevated she in these mysteries that if it had been defined earlier, she would have been thought to be another what? " Person of the Trinity. Yeah, yeah, you see. And it's a little bit like the question of why is it that the mystery of the Trinity just so prominent in the Gospels is not so prominent in the Old Testament?

[18:09] And they say, well, if it were, then they would have been, yeah, they would have understood in a polytheistic way. Would have had a certain danger, right? So if there was a certain unfolding, gradity of these what mysteries, that makes some sense to me, you know. And I think I think De Conti had the idea that there'd be mysteries now of Joseph. There will be now that Mary is has been properly honored, right?

[18:39] Then it's time for Joseph, you know, but he's not equal to Mary, but he's pretty important nevertheless, right? And I know it's in Christian iconology that I have the one that was made up there. You know, they have what six litanies that they single out, right, for special mention, and you know, two of them deal with Christ, and one with Mary, and one with Joseph, and one with all the saints, right?

[19:06] But Joseph has a kind of place there, huh? You know, just that he's the only saint besides Mary that has his own litany that I mean that singled out. Yeah, yeah. So maybe Joseph. You see some of these books about Joseph too, you know, bringing up some of these things.

[19:31] Patron of Holy Death. Okay. To the first therefore should be said that to the mother the king is not owed an equal honor to the honor which is owed to the king, but there is owed to her a what? A similar honor by reason of a certain excellence, and the authorities brought in signify what this.

[20:04] To the second, it should be said that the honor of the mother is referred to the son because the mother is honored on account of the son, but not, however, in the same way in which the honor of the image is referred to the what exemplar, because the image itself, in so far as it is considered by itself as a certain thing, in no way should be what venerated.

[20:32] venerated by itself should be. And to the third, it should be said that the cross, in so far as it is considered by itself, is not capable of honor, but the Blessed Virgin is, according to herself, capable of veneration, and therefore is not a similar reason.

[20:56] That was quick work. Now, what about the relics of the saints? huh Kind of interesting he sticks this in here. To the sixth, one goes forward thus. It seems that the relics of the saints in no way should be adored,

[21:14] for there should not be done anything that can be an occasion of error. But to adore the relics of the dead seems to pertain to the mistake of the Gentiles,

[21:28] who gave honor to what dead men. Therefore, the relics of the saints should not be honored. Moreover, it seems stupid to venerate a insensible thing. But the relics of the saints are without sensation. Therefore, it is stupid to venerate them. Sounds like Heraclitus. He says, you know, the corpses of men are more fit to be cast out than dung. You know, I mean, you know, stick in the mist.

[22:07] Moreover, a dead body is not of the same species with a living body. It's only a man, equivocally as Aristotle says, "On the eye of the dead, the corpse is not an eye except equivocally. And consequently it does not seem to be the same in number."

[22:27] Single individual. Therefore, it seems that after the death of some saint, his body should not be what adored. And against this is what is said in the book of ecclesiastical dogmas that the bodies of saints and especially the relics of the blessed martyrs, as if what members of Christ most sincerely should be adored, we believe should be adored. And afterwards, it is added, "Is someone against this sentence, which is to be not a Christian but a follower of Eunomius or Vigilantius right.

[23:13] To this, I answer: It should be said, as Augustine says in the book on the City of God, if the what paternal clothing and ring right or something of this sort is so much dearer to what those who come after, the more they are what affection for their parents. In no way should be what spurned. Yeah, the bodies which are more familiarly and more

[23:48] closely joined than any what. For these pertain to the nature of man himself. From which it is clear that. The one who has affection for someone, even those things which what are left of him after death, he venerates, huh? Not only the body or the parts of his body, but also some exterior things as clothing and similar.

[24:27] But it is manifest that we hold the what saints of God in veneration, as it were, members of Christ, sons of God, and friends, right, and also our intercessors, and therefore their relics, ah, we ought to by what? By fitting honor. Yeah. Venerate in their memory, and especially their bodies, which were the temple of the Holy Spirit and tools of the Holy Spirit in them dwelling and operating, and they are to the body of Christ configured through the glorious of what resurrection.

[25:16] Whence also God Himself suitably honors these relics by making miracles in their what presence? That's a good way of. Harking from God doesn't that honors them right by working miracles in there. You know, said when Saint Francis of Sales was exhumed for his cause canonization, he was I guess found largely not completely incorrupt. And when Saint James Chantal was there, and she went to venerate, she went to kiss his foot.

[25:46] His foot was raised up to her. That's that's pretty good. It's like reaching out to shake someone's hand. Yeah. Maybe he was just trying to kick her. Yeah. Yeah, I never let you do that.

[26:11] Yeah, I was looking for Saint Hugo because my confirmation, I mean, my baptism name, and the Hugo who was known for singing these hymns to the Blessed Virgin, and apparently annoyed the Protestants or whatever was, so they killed him, right, and so on. His body was put in the church and started singing the hymns. I find it easy to cut on Tom to you know to shut up you know go out at the funeral you know I mean the.

[26:38] I guess made his point. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that this was the reason of what the argument of Gelasius, huh? That whose words Jerome introduces, right? In the book which he wrote against him, right, saying

[27:11] near the rite of the Gentiles, we see and the pretext religion introduced, and that the what ashes is it, pulvis, yeah, a little bit of ashes. Yeah. No, not in what small vessel, right? Closed in a precious limit.

[27:33] Kissing. Against whom Jerome says in the Epistle to Riparius, we not only what undico, the relics of the martyrs, Yeah, Neither. moon or the angels we adore to it by the adoration of Latria. but we honor the relics of the martyrs as. we adore him whose the whose martyrs they are. Yeah, witnesses, yeah. Oh, witnesses. yeah. We honor servants that the honor of the servants might be down to our God.

[28:17] Thus, therefore, in honoring the relics of the saints, we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who show the cult of Latria to dead men.

[28:35] How. About the stupidity of you know sensible bodies. To the second, it should be said that the body without sensation we did not adore on account of itself, but on account of the soul which was what joined to it, which soul now enjoys God, right? On account of God, of which they were the ministers.

[29:02] To the third, it should be said that the dead body of some saint is not the same in number in that it was first when it lived, on account of the diversity of the form, right? Which is the soul. Nevertheless, it's the same by reason of the matter, which is going to be again united to its form. Should we try to do question twenty-six, and then we can do it this section of the.

[29:36] Then we're not to consider about this that Christ is the mediator of God and man, and about this we ask two things: first, whether to be the mediator of God and man is proper or private to Christ, right? And secondly, whether this belongs to him according to his human nature.

[29:59] To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that to be the mediator of God and men is not proper or private to Christ. For a priest and a prophet seems to be a mediator between God and men, according to that of Deuteronomy, chapter five, verse five. I, in that time, right, was a what a Fowler was it, and a middle between you and God. Moses must be saying this on.

[30:35] But to be a prophet and a priest is not private to Christ. He's not the only. Therefore, neither is he what to be mediator. Moreover, that which belongs to good angels and bad cannot be said to be private to Christ. But to be a middle between God and men belongs to the good angels, as Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names. It belongs also to the bad angels, that is to say, the demons, for they have some things in common with God, namely immortality.

[31:14] Some things they have common with men that they are in soul what passive sounds like a Platonist idea, and consequently what miserable, as is clear through Augustine now, so immortality in common with God and misery in common with us. Leave us much, doesn't it?

[31:36] We are therefore therefore to be a mediator of God and men is not proper or private to Christ. Moreover, to the office of mediator belongs to. Yeah.

[31:56] To one of those between whom he is mediator, for the other, but the Holy Spirit is said in Romans eight. Properly translated, interpellate it's a proper way of translating to call it When they say here, interrupt, break in on, interpose an objection, disturb, hinder, obstruct, cause something that's going in between. Yeah, calls upon them.

[32:21] Intercedes, intercedes. You could say there if I use the word "inter" in there. For us to God with inexpressible groans. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a mediator between God and men. Therefore, it's not private to Christ. That's pretty interesting, I think. But against this is what is said in one Timothy two five. One is the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

[32:55] I answered. That's a miss, Thomas. I hate to be responsible answering all these things. I answered. Should be said that the office of mediator properly is to join those between whom he is the mediator. For the middle are united in the what middle. But to unite men to God perfectly belongs to Christ, through whom men are reconciled to God. According to that of the Second Corinthians chapter five, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and therefore Christ alone is the perfect mediator of God in men.

[33:49] In so far as through his own death, he reconciled the human race to God. Whence, since the apostle has said, the mediator of God and men is the man Christ Jesus. He joins to that who gave himself as redemption for all. But nothing prevents some others secundum quid, you know, this kind of distinction there, to be called mediators between God and what men. In so far to it as they cooperate to the union of men with God, either by disposing men for this right or as living tools ministers.

[34:45] So to the first, therefore, it should be said that prophets and priests of the old law are called mediators between God and men in these two ways already mentioned dispositivae right. And as minister, in so far as they announce ahead of time and prefigure the true and perfect mediator of God and what men.

[35:18] But the priests of the new law can be called mediators of God and of men, in so far as they are living tools. That's what minister is, of the true mediator. In place of him, or in the. Unplaceable, but

[35:38] sort of like that, as to say, in other words, yeah, showing these saving sacraments to men, right? And is is representative of that? Yeah, that has to mean unplaceable. Yeah, it's a vice president,

[35:58] though. He's less than that vice president. Okay, especially the president. The second, it should be said that the good angels, as Augustine says in the ninth book, the City of God, are not rightly able to be called mediators between God and men,

[36:22] since they both have with God, that is, beatitude and immortality. Neither of these, or nothing of these, do they share with miserable and mortal men.

[36:39] In in which way are they not therefore more remote from men, right? Enjoined to God, than constituted between both as middle. That's come interesting thing to point out. Dionysius nevertheless says that they are what mediators, right, middles, because according to the grade of nature, they are below God and constitute above men, and they exercise the office of mediator, not chiefly and in a perfect way, but in these same two ways, ministeriality, right, as living tools, instruments, and as disposing.

[37:30] Whence in Matthew four eleven is said that the angels acceded to administered to him in Christ. Now the demons have with God immortality, with men misery.

[37:51] To this, therefore, the the demon places himself as a middle between what. Immortal and miserable. Yeah, that he would not allow them to go over to immortal blessedness, but he leads them to immortal misery. Whence he is said to be a bad in between who separates what friends, malus medius. Yeah, that's very spoken of very roughly there in Scripture, isn't it, about the man who separates friends.

[38:29] Christ, however, has with God. Common beatitude, right? But with men, what mortality, and therefore, for this, he placed himself in between and middle, that passing over from what mortality, he might make immortal those who are mortal, which he showed by rising from the dead in himself, and that from the miserable he might make beatitude, whence he had never what left his beatitude, right? And therefore, he is the good mediator who reconciles.

[39:17] Yeah, that's beautifully said, isn't it? Yeah, yeah. Make a nice, nice sermon on that. So is that that's Augustine on the City of God? Yeah. Is that what that reference. is Book 9, no? 15, maybe? Mm-hmm. Chapter 13. Oh yeah, sorry, yeah. Yeah.

[39:37] Oh, I see a book 9, chapter. Now, what about the Holy Spirit? huh? To the third, should be said that since he is in all things equal to God, right? He cannot be said to be a in the middle, right? Or mediator between God and men, right? But only Christ, who, although according to His divinity is equal to the Father, nevertheless, according to His humanity, is less than the Father.

[40:10] And this is reference here to the symbol of Saint Athanasius. This has been said. Whence, upon that of Galatians chapter three, Christ is mediator. The gloss says, not the Father or the Holy Spirit,

[40:29] but the Holy Spirit is said to intercede for us because He makes us to do it call. Yeah, I mean, it's enough to wait for to translate that. Now, whether Christ is the mediator of God and men according as he is man,

[40:55] for Augustine says in the book against Felicianum, one is the person of Christ. Lest there not be one Christ, not what one substance, lest being removed the dispensational mediator, either of God only or of man, he is said to be the son. He's got to be the son of both, son of God and son of man. Oh, bad, bad, the grammatically translated by Brooke was there. But he is not the son of God and the man according as he is man, but only according as he is what and man Therefore, neither should be said that he is the mediator of God and men only according as he is what.

[41:49] Yeah, that's kind of interesting thing. More, just as Christ, in so far as he is God, comes together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, so also, in so far as he is man, he comes together with men.

[42:07] But on account of this, that in so far as he is God, he comes together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he cannot be said to be a mediator in so far as he is God, because above or upon that of one Timothy two, the mediator of God and men, the gloss says, in so far as he is the Word, he is not the middle, because he is equal to God, right?

[42:35] And God before God and at the same time one God. Therefore, neither also, in so far as he is man, can he sit mediator, on account of the agreement he has with men.

[42:50] Maybe got to be a monophysite or something to get really in the middle, huh? Yeah. Moreover, Christ is said to be mediator in so far as he reconciles us to God, which he does by taking away sin, which separates us from God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not in so far as he is man, but in so far as he is God. Therefore, Christ, in so far as he is man, is not a mediator, but in so far as he is what God.

[43:28] It's interesting argument. Of course, his flesh or his humanity does take away sin, as far as it's a tool, isn't it? And he's given it to all. So the master says. Who cares what Brooke says? I think.

[43:48] And he speaks of himself as a liar. He got that part in John now. He's an idiot. He's an idiot. Yeah. Speaks of his own heart, you know.

[44:01] Watch those guys. But against this is what Augustine says in the ninth book about the city of God. Not from this, on account of this, is the mediator Christ because he is the Word.

[44:18] For most of all, immortal and most of all, blessed is the Word, a long way from what mortals' miseries. But he is a mediator, according as he is man. huh

[44:38] Why do you call Thomas alter Augustinus Augustinus like Hugo huh, Saint Victor. Um. Yeah, interesting. So answer. Was Thomas? What does the Cajetan said? Thomas seems to have inherited the mind of all the Church Fathers because he so venerated them. Thomas says you have to read those creator in you carefully, frequently, and with reverence. Those are the three words he uses there in the thing on docility.

[45:19] So you got to read or hear the words of the master. You read them carefully, frequently, and with reverence. You need all three of those. Carefully, every time, carefully, not once, many times, and

[45:41] with reverence. So. I answer. It should be said that in the mediator we are able to consider two things. First, the notion of middle. Secondly, the office of what joining. Okay. Now it is of the notion of a middle that it is distant from both extremes.

[46:13] For the mediator join okay. Yeah. But the mediator joins through this that what pertains to one of them, right? He brings over to the other. Now neither of these can belong to Christ according as he is God, but only according as he is man. For according as he is God, it does not differ from the Father and the Son in nature and in the power of dominion.

[46:48] Nor also. Do the Father and the Holy Spirit have something that is not of the Son? So that thus it could be said that what is of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, as it were, of other ones, right, is brought over to others. But both belong to Him in so far as He is man, because according as He is man, He is distant both from God in His nature and from men in the dignity of His what, or in the worth of His grace and glory.

[47:33] In so far also as He is man, it belongs to Him to join men to God by showing or giving gifts. I mean precepts and gifts to men, and for men to God by satisfying and calling upon God for them. And therefore, most truly, He is called a mediator, according as He is what man.

[48:04] Now, what about the first objection there? Because that's kind of a powerful one there. To the first therefore, it should be said that if the divine nature is subtracted from Christ, there would be subtracted consequently from Him a unique fullness of graces which belonged to him insofar as He is the only begotten from the Father, as is said in my favorite Gospel, John one, from which fullness He has that He be constituted above all what men, and more near approaching to God.

[48:50] Second objection: that Christ, according as He is God, is in all things equal to the Father, but also in human nature He excels other men, and therefore, according as He is man, He can be what mediator. Not, however, according as He is what God. It makes his his humanity here very important for us to be his mediator as

[49:25] man. I think I would have kind of goofed that up myself. I would have had kind of the two together somehow, you know. The mediator as far as he's both God and man. That probably isn't like that. I think. Not maybe after more carefully thinking. Didn't tell us.

[49:49] Because he wouldn't have had that excellence over other men if he is not God, though. So there's something about God in there, right? Yeah, yeah, but still.

[49:58] Now, and that third argument is very interesting because how can we reconcile except by our sins being removed, right? To the third, then it should be said that although authoritatively to remove sin belongs to Christ according as his God, nevertheless to satisfy for the sin of the human race belongs to him according as what man, and by this he is said to be the mediator of God and men.

[50:34] So is there, is there a feast of the divine mediator, or is that the the Good Friday or something? What would be the feast of the divine mediator. The divine mediator. It could be the incarnation, I'd say Christmas or... Oh as far as he satisfies his grace. Yeah. Maybe. Good Friday. Feast of Christ the Mediator. I started a new feast in the church. Interesting. Yeah, well, they the old calendar used to have Mary's mediatrix of all grace, why not Christ.

[51:12] If on the calendar Mary mediatrix of all grace why not Christ, you started something new. I'm still trying to make Saint Gertrude the Great, you know, back to the church. I think she's St. Gertrude the Great. We just had her Feast there Oh, Gertrude the Great. Yeah, November 11th. Yeah, we we know of it, but she's not officially on our calendar. Oh my goodness. What's that's, what the 16th?

[51:39] Is that her feast? 16th? 11th? Well, the 16th he was. yeah. I don't remember now. That was the 11th. Gertrude the Great. Yeah. Now just look at the proemium here to the next one, because that's where the break comes, you know. Post predicta, right? After the fore said, in which about the union of God and man, right? That's the first thing we took up. And then about those things which follow upon the union, right?

[52:08] That's we just finished now, right? It remains to consider about those things which the Son of God, incarnate, right, in human nature, or in the human nature united to himself rather, fecit or did or underwent, right, passus, right.

[52:32] Which consideration will be fourfold, and he said the first three correspond to the division of Matthew, right? First, you consider those things which pertain to his entry into the world. Secondly, about those things which pertain to his proceeding of his life in this world. Third, about his exit from this world, right? And then fourth, about those things which pertain to his exaltation after this life. Now, his exaltation after this life is that where is that shown in the New Testament?

[53:09] Is that in in the Apocalypse mainly, or where? I mean, as you say, the first three parts correspond to the Gospel of Matthew, right, which is about Christ, especially as man, right? Isn't he represented with a man? The Gospel of Matthew, right? But the exaltation afterwards, you know, the Lamb and so on. There, the Apocalypse isn't it there that you see it more more fully? I mean, it isn't already anticipated, you know, in the Gospels.

[53:41] I mean, you know, do you have description of Christ after his ascension? I mean, except in the Apocalypse, right? Maybe with either Saint Paul. Yeah, the bright light and Saint Stephen. When he said, "I see the heavens open and the Son standing at the right hand Yeah, But seen more fully in the Apocalypse, as far as I remember, you know. Yeah. I mean it's a glimpse of it there Well, what's what's the thing by the?

[54:10] Yeah, yeah, the one with the yeah, the Lamb there, the picture of the all the saints. Oh, that's that's the that's the Ghent Yeah, yeah, Ghent It's a it's a section of it. That's really marvelous Yeah, marvelous But it is kind of inspired by the Apocalypse and the vision. Yeah, the Apocalypse of the Lamb. Yeah, because the Lamb is standing on the altar and he's bleeding into the chalice.

[54:34] That's kind of interesting Yeah. You've probably seen. You may be seen. You've probably seen this image before. Yeah. I like the angels are swinging. their incense. Yeah, That's right. Yeah, I always like that. They had a big big blow up of that at one of the houses that we were in. They were in Germany. They had a church It was beautiful I had huge respect for it Yeah That's interesting Yeah beautiful

[54:58] yeah. One thing about um so on.