Tertia Pars
64. Summa III, Q27 a.6 & Q28 a.1–2: John the Baptist and Jeremiah Made Holy in the Womb; Mary a Virgin in Conceiving and Giving Birth
Class of 2009-12-10
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/064-summa-iii-q27-a-6-q28-a-1-2-john-the-baptist-and-jeremiah/

[0:00] The Son, Holy Spirit. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, think from the lights of our minds, order, to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly St Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand all that you're written. Father, the Son, of the Holy Spirit. Amen. You're up to Article Six here, in Question Twenty Seven, the last article in Question Twenty Seven.

[0:31] Of course, we already corrected Thomas last time, so take this with a grain of salt here. To the sixth, one proceeds thus: It seems that to be made holy in the womb after Christ was private to the Blessed Virgin,

[0:53] for it is said, on account of this, the Blessed Virgin was made holy in the womb, that she might be rendered suitable to be the mother of God. Of course, nowadays we would say that's why she was immaculately conceived, right? But this is private to her; therefore, she alone was made holy in the womb.

[1:21] Moreover, some seem to have approached more near to Christ than Jeremiah and John the Baptist, who are said to be sanctified or made holy in the womb. For Christ is in a special way said to be the Son of David and Abraham, on account of the promise made especially to them about Christ, and Isaiah also most expressly prophesied about Christ, and the apostles conversed with Christ. But nevertheless, they are not said to have been made holy in the womb.

[2:04] Therefore, also neither to Jeremiah and to John the Baptist does it belong to be made holy in the womb. Of course, we can just leave out the Blessed Virgin because she's immaculately conceived, and just see if there's some other people, right, who were not immaculately conceived but were made holy in the womb. Moreover, Job about himself says, "Huh? From infancy, right? His what? Mercy. Mercy grew with me, and from my the womb it came out with me, huh?

[2:50] And nevertheless, on account of this, we do not say that he was made holy in the womb. Therefore, also neither John the Baptist and Jeremiah are we forced to say were made holy in the womb, huh?

[3:06] Now he said contra of course you have some of these scriptural texts that indicate this to be true about Jeremiah's and about John the Baptist. But against this is what is said about Jeremiah's in Jeremiah's chapter one verse five. Before you came out of the womb, I have made you what holy, sanctified you. And about John the Baptist is said in Luke one, verse fifteen, he was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from the womb of his what mother right.

[3:46] So without judging this point whether there might be anybody else, it seems that Jeremiah's at least and John the Baptist were made holy in the womb.

[4:03] I answer it should be said that Augustine, Augustine in his epistle to Dardanus seems to speak in what in dubious way about the sanctification of these in the womb.

[4:23] For there it could be that the exaltation of John in the womb, as he himself said, was what a great tree? A sign of so great a thing right. To wit that a woman would be the mother of God,

[4:43] to be known what from the greater, not known from the what little. Less. Whence in the gospel it is not said, the infant believed in his womb, but he rejoiced. For we see exaltation to be not only of little ones but also of the beasts.

[5:12] Someone gave my my my son a dog you know and the dog was so excited when he came back you know. Had to run around the house with him for a while, calm the dog down. He was so excited.

[5:27] But this is unaccustomed to be because in the what That is in the womb. And therefore, just as miracles are what Apt to come about, so was done divinely in the infant, not made what human from the infinite.

[5:58] Although also if. To that extent, in the boy or in the his accelerated use of reason and the will that in the what maternal organs, huh, viscera, he was already able to what recognize to believe and consent. To which in other little ones, age is expected, right, that they be able to. And this, in miracles to be had, I attribute or I think belongs to divine power.

[6:36] But because expressly in the gospel it is said that by the Holy Spirit he was what filled still from the womb of his mother, right? And of Jeremiah, it is expressly said that before he came out of the womb, I sanctified you. It would seem to be what to be asserted that they were made holy in the womb,

[7:05] although in the womb they did not have the use of what free free will, about which Augustine was a question. Just as boys who are sanctified by baptism do not at once have the use of what free will,

[7:29] nor is it to be believed that some other saints that some others were made holy in the womb, about which or about whom Scripture does not make what mention, right?

[7:43] There are some seems to be excluding other ones, from that right, because these privileges of grace, which are given to some apart from the common law, common way, are all ordered to the utility or usefulness of others, according to that of one Corinthians twelve. To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit, a useful way.

[8:13] Because nothing would come from the making holy of some in the womb unless it were made known to the what church, yeah. And although of the judgments of God, one is not able to assign a reason. Wherefore, to this one and not to that, this gift of grace was conferred, huh? Nevertheless, it seems that both of these were made holy in the womb. To prefiguring the sanctification that is going to come about to Christ, huh?

[8:52] First to his passion, according to that of Hebrews thirteen, God or Jesus that he might sanctify through his blood the people. He underwent or suffered outside the what gates of Jerusalem, which passion Jeremiah's most openly, huh, most fully, for announced in words and mysteries, and by his passions most expressly what prefigured, huh.

[9:32] And secondly, through baptism, but you were washed, but made holy, to which the baptism of John by his baptism prepared men, right? So Thomas is giving what a reason, although he's saying you know you can't really be too sure about these things, right? But a reason why it might be that Jeremiah's and John the Baptist, because their connection with baptism and the Passion of Christ, right? You know how Saint Paul says that in baptism you are what buried with Christ and so on.

[10:08] Very explicit about the signification, especially when they used to immerse the whole person in the water and came up out of the water. That this was signifying in a kind of open way the fact that you are being incorporated into the death of Christ. When it says

[10:32] that they were sanctified, does that mean that they're being kind of made without sin, or yeah, yeah, they're cleansed original sin, right? They don't have any actual sin in the womb, I don't think, but they have original sin in the womb and they're purged from, you know, they're washed from that. Does that suggest that they're not going to be able to sin, like our Lady didn't? No, no, I mean, just like baptism.

[10:56] No, okay. But the effect of baptism is not God is not what restricted. Yeah, restricted, bound to to give the effect of baptism only by water. That's the common way in which it is done, right? I've got to correct

[11:19] Thomas here as you apply to the first objection here, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin, who was chosen by God as His mother, obtained a more what fuller sanctification or grace of sanctification than John the Baptist and Jeremiah's son. But say, say we corrected him with that last week, huh? With the encyclical there, of Pius IX.

[11:51] But who were chosen as special what prefigurations of the being made holy of Christ, the sanctification that Christ gave us? A sign of which is that it was given to the Blessed Virgin, among others, that she would sin neither mortally nor what venially, right, huh? But we also said that she would also not what sin, not contract original sin at all, right? She was happily conceived. To others, however, it was given that they would not what sin mortally.

[12:35] Divine grace, what protecting them, right? So we see about St. Teresa of Dessille, you know, that she never committed a mortal sin, right? As an excuse here from making venial sins, right? Yeah. Okay. That's where Saint John says, you know, if we have no sin, you know, we're liars and so on.

[13:01] Now the second objection about weren't some other people as close to Christ or even more so. To the second, therefore, it should be said as regards others, as regards other things. Some saints were what more joined to Christ, right? Than Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Whoever were most joined to him, as far as an express figure of his what sanctification. So I guess that's a specialty of Jeremiah, huh?

[13:36] As a prophet, is the is the passion and death of our Lord. I think so. Yeah. Now the what third objection there. The thing about the what Job says about himself. To the third is that is there actually having mercy? I guess about which Job speaks, does not signify infused virtue, but a certain what natural inclination to the act of this what virtue. Okay. Now we can go on to the next question here, which is twenty-eight on the what virginity of the Mother of God.

[14:32] I think Thomas would be one hundred percent okay here. I always think of Saint Jerome, you know, among others, but especially Saint Jerome being one of the great defenders of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin.

[14:51] Then what I consider about the virginity of the Mother of God, and about this thing, or about this four things are asked. First, whether she was a virgin in conceiving, and secondly, whether she was a virgin in what giving birth. Whether she remained a virgin after giving birth, and whether she what made the vow of what virginity, huh? To the first, one proceeds thus: It seems that the Mother of God was not a virgin in conceiving Christ.

[15:39] For no offspring, huh, who has a father and a mother, right, is conceived from a mother who is a what virgin. But Christ is not only said to have a mother. But also a father, for it is said in Luke chapter two, his father and mother were what marveling on those things which were said about him. And below Mary says, "Behold, I and your father, weeping, hah, sorrowing, have sought you, right?

[16:24] Therefore, Christ was not conceived from his what virgin mother, huh? You guys know how to answer that, huh? Moreover, Matthew one, it is proved that Christ was the son of Abraham and David. Through this, that Joseph descended from David. Which proof would seem to be nothing if Joseph was not the father of what Christ, huh?

[16:59] So that's the question people raise in this genealogy. Talks about the descent to what Joseph, right? Rather than to Mary. Therefore, it seems that the mother of Christ conceived him from the seed of what Joseph. And this does not seem that she was a virgin in conceiving.

[17:28] Moreover, it is said in Galatians chapter four, God sent His son made from a woman. But a woman, in the custom way of speaking, is said the one who is what known by man. Therefore, Christ was not conceived from his virgin from a virgin mother.

[18:00] Moreover, of those things which are of the same species, there is the same way of generation, because generation receives its species, its nature, definition, from its what in turn, huh? Just as other motions, but Christ was of the same species with other men. He was made in the likeness of men and inhabit found as a man. But other men are generated from the mixture of a man woman, right?

[18:35] What about Adam? No, what about Adam? And what about Eve, huh? Right. Um. It seems, therefore, that Christ also, in a like way, was generated. And thus it does not seem that he was conceived from a virgin mother. Right.

[19:03] Moreover, each natural form has a matter determined to it, outside of which it is not able to be. But the matter of the form, of the human form, would seem to be the seed of the man and the woman, female. If therefore the body of Christ was not conceived from the seed of a man or the male and the female, it would not have been a what a human body, which is unfitting.

[19:37] Doesn't fit. It seems, therefore, that she he was not conceived from the what virgin mother. But against this, what is said in Isaiah seven fourteen? Behold, a virgin shall what Conceive.

[20:00] Well. Thomas has no doubt about what the truth is. I answer: It should be said that it should be confessed, simpliciter right? No qualification. That the what mother of Christ, as a virgin, conceived, right? Huh? And the contrary of this pertains to the heresy of the Ebionites, right? After Ebion, and the Cerinthus, Cyrinthe after Serinthus, who thought Christ to be a pure man, right? Huh? And who thought him to be born from both what sexes, huh?

[20:45] The male and the female. So Thomas kind of laid down the authority there, right? But then, Fides Quaerens Intellectum, right? Ah, that Christ should be conceived from a virgin was suitable for at least four reasons, huh?

[21:14] First, to preserve the dignity of the Father, what? Sending him. Sending him. It's got an interesting reason he gives here, huh? For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not suitable that he have another Father than God,

[21:41] lest the dignity of God be transferred to another. It's got a subtle, subtle reason, huh? Interesting. Secondly, this was suitable to the property of the Son who was what sent,

[22:09] who is the Word of God. But the Word, without any what corruption of the heart, is conceived. Rather, any corruption of the heart does not what undergo the conception of a what perfect Word, right?

[22:40] That's why our thoughts are so imperfect, right? As opposed to God's one thought. Because therefore the flesh was thus taken on by the Word of God, that it would be the flesh of the Word of God, huh? It was suitable also that it would be conceived without the corruption of the mother.

[23:13] Third, this was suitable to the dignity of the humanity of Christ, in which sin would not be able to have any place, and through which would be taken away the sin of the world, according to that of John, chapter one, verse twenty-nine. Behold the Lamb of God, that is the innocent one, right, who takes away the sin of the world. So, you had that in the mass.

[23:49] You had that in your mass too, before communion or at Agnus Dei Okay. He says it three times. Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Mercy on us, right? Mercy on us. That's a piece. We do. kind of, we have it in the morning kind of doxology. Mm-hmm. You, oh, Christ, take away the sin of the world. have mercy on us.

[24:23] Now, it would not be able to be in a nature already what corrupt, right? That there would arise from the incubitus. How do you translate that?

[24:41] Actually I think that's a good one Yeah, that's the meaning of it. Yeah, I don't know how to translate one word. Car would be born without the infection of what original sin. Comes through the male, in that sense. When Augustine says in the book on nuptials and incubitus, so the sexual union, nuptial sexual union, was not there, right, in the marriage of what Mary Joseph, because in the

[25:21] in the flesh of sin, right, something could not come about without any what concupiscence of the flesh, which happens from sin, without which would be able he wished to be conceived, who in the future would be without what sin. huh? So he's saying they would have contracted some institutional sin, right, Mm-hmm. Through Joseph generating him, So that the humanity of Christ huh? She should be free from any sin, would not be in that way.

[25:59] Bye bye. Fourth, an account of the very end of the incarnation of Christ, who was for this purpose that men might be reborn as sons of God, not from the will of the flesh, right, nor from the will of man, but from God. That's from Saint John.

[26:29] That is from the power of God, of which thing an exemplar had to appear in the conception of Christ. Hence, Augustine says in the book about holy virginity, is necessary that our head, by a miracle,

[26:53] according to the body, to be born of the virgin, that it might signify his own what members, right, parts of his mystical body of the what virgin, of the church, according to the spirit, might be born.

[27:18] So it's interesting way he ranges those arguments, right? The one who sent him, the one who was sent, then from the humanity that he took on, right, and then the end for which this was done.

[27:37] What about these objections? Remember the Protestant woman next door there, you know, talking to my brother Mark and I, you know, over the fence there about. But it says in the gospel that his brothers, you know, because he had to stop and explain, you know. Because Thomas always quotes the thing in the Old Testament there, where is it Abraham and Lot are called brothers, you know, or what is it?

[28:02] Yes, as an uncle and nephew or something like that. So he had to explain that use of the of the words, right? And Jerome says that there are four different ways of being brother. Yeah. Yeah. That was kind of her argument. He had brothers, right? Yeah. That's probably come up again here, but I mean, so we're trying to explain to her, you know. Anyway. that to some

[28:28] sister for a wife. when we're smaller Yeah. Okay. The first, therefore, should be said that, as Bede says upon Luke, the father, the savior, is called Joseph is called the father, the savior, right? Not that he was truly, according to the Photinians, right, but to conserve the what. Reputation, right? Fame of Mary, right? That he might be what taught to be the father, right, by men. Hence, St Luke says, "what putabatur is thought thought, right?

[29:19] The son of Joseph, right? Or, as Augustine says in the book on good marriage, that in that way the father of Christ, Joseph, is called, in which he is also understood to be the man of Mary, right? Without any mixture of flesh, right?

[29:46] By the joining of what marriage, much more is he joined than if he were what else were adopted, huh? Nor on account of this, I do not to be called Joseph the Father Christ, because he did not what generate him by the sexual generation. Although what?

[30:22] Because sometimes the father also is the one who what did not procreate from sexual union, but adopted what elsewhere, right? Who is it The Democratist there, the Greek philosopher, he says you shouldn't generate a son, you should adopt one. He said, you generate, you know what you're getting. You adopt, you know what you're getting. This is kind of a rationalism which I don't quite agree with, you know.

[30:54] But you see some point when he's saying that, nonetheless. What you take what the good Lord gives you. All the problems. Okay, now the second one is about the why is the genealogy given to Joseph, right, rather than to Mary? To second, it should be said that as Jerome says upon the Gospel of Matthew, since Joseph is not the father of the Lord the Saviour, the order of his generation is what deduced down to Joseph.

[31:47] First, because it is not of the custom of Scripture that the order of woman in generations would be what set down, and then from one tribe were what Mary and Joseph.

[32:07] Whence from the law, one was what bound to take someone who was what near in one's own tribe. I guess it's still taking place there over in Afghanistan and so on, right? You take from the same tribe. Can trouble you take it from another tribe, right?

[32:32] And as Augustine says in the book on Nuptials and Concupiscence, the series of generations is brought down to Joseph, right? Lest in that what marriage to the male sex as the more potent one there come about what injury, right, huh?

[32:57] Nevertheless, to the truth of which nothing will be lacking, because from the seed of David and Joseph, also was what Mary. You see that in those miracles about the multiplication of loaves, right? You give the what number of people, five thousand. That's the men, right? And then you don't, you don't rate the woman, right? And the kids, I don't believe her because it will be fed too, right?

[33:36] So you don't have a field deal with these things. God preserve us. The third, therefore, it, should be said as the gloss says there, huh? Moliere, woman, for feminine, is placed there in the way of speaking of the what Hebrews, right? For the use of the Hebrew speech, calls woman, not those what

[34:12] with lots of gentility, but females, huh? Interesting time about the you know words of Christ. You know they talk about at the miracle at Cana there, he calls Mary woman. My time has not yet come, woman. And then on the cross, he calls her mother, right? And Augustine and Thomas sometimes explain that in terms of the fact that she's the mother of what suffered on the cross, namely the human nature, right?

[34:56] But she's not the mother of his divinity, whereby he he what changed water into wine, right? So he calls her mother there rather than. But it was I think it was in the in where was I reading? It might have been in Thomas, St. and John, but other explanation of it that he calls her mother because of what? I mean, excuse me, woman, because of her what mercy, right?

[35:23] Kind of interesting, right? In other words, it's more characteristic of the woman to be merciful than the man, right? And that's why Mary, being being the woman, is called the mother of mercy, right? And she's never called the mother of what justice, right? So he calls her mother because she is the excuse me woman because she is the woman, and this is seen in her what. Taking pity on these people running out of wine at the wedding ceremony.

[35:59] That's kind of interesting, huh? That's a different explanation. I mean, they're both compatible. I mean, Christ speaks of the apostles having a having a share in the judging at the last judgment. You know, but that's not an appropriate role for Mary as the woman. See, but you know, this very famous prayer we call her the Mother of Mercy, and so on, because that's what she is.

[36:46] I was reading that in Washington Irving when he was president, the trial of Aaron Burr, you know, and all these women are feeling sorry for him, and so on.

[36:56] Some of these men say, "Wow, I see many not to be felt sorry for." There is a man who who aimed and shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, and so on, right? But women feel

[37:15] sorry. As they see a child, you know, they kind of they bump themselves. They run kind of naturally to their mother more than to their father to be console. That's right. Shut up, kid. That's what you get for monkeying around. Just walk it off. Objection four. Now is it?

[37:54] Yes. Okay. Now he says, "What about the being exactly the same way of being generated?" To the fourth, it should be said that that reason has place in those things that go forward in being by way of what Nature. nature. In that nature, just as it is determined to one effect, so it is also determined to one way of producing that. But since the supernatural divine power is able to do infinite things, just as it is not determined to just one effect, so it is not determined to one way of what producing the effect.

[38:44] And therefore, just as by divine power it could come about that the first man was formed of the Clay of the earth, right? So also it could come about that by a divine power the body of Christ was formed from the Virgin without a what

[39:05] male seed, huh? So both in in Adam and in Eve too, right? Either one of them is generated from a from a couple, right? So divine power is not determined to one. That's one argument Thomas Kidd, incidentally, you know, for saying that God produced universe not naturally but by what choice, huh? Because there are many things he had to bring into existence by creation, and so he couldn't be limited to just one.

[39:40] And so if he did some and not others, he must have had what choice? If he had produced universe by natural necessity, like Spinoza thinks, right, and like Avicenna seems to think, right, then he could only produce what one thing,And You have to have that second thing, you know, involved in creating other things, and eventually get this multiplication. But

[40:13] all the angels had to be produced by what creation, because they don't have any matter from which they're produced, huh? So God is not determined to one thing, huh? Therefore, it's a matter of choice.

[40:29] See, Spinoza says, you know, the creation follows from God, like it follows from being a triangle. In which you have two angles, angles of two right angles,

[40:40] determined. Oh, by the very nature, it's just what happens. Yeah, yeah, something follows by natural necessity, right? Like the property of God and creation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like it follows from being two that you're half a four, right? You know, it's not out of choice, right? But kind of natural necessity, huh? If you're two, you will be half a four, right? If you're a triangle, you will have angles equal to right angles.

[41:10] If you're God, you'll have these things that follow, right? Now, to the fifth, it should be said, and this is going more into what Aristotle thought. To the fifth, it should be said that according to the philosopher in the book on the generation of animals, the seed of the male is not as matter in the conception of the animal, but only as what agent, huh? And only the woman or the female

[41:53] brings the matter into the conception. We don't quite go along with that exactly in our thinking anymore, right? Whence through this that the seed of the man or the male was lacking in the conception of the body of Christ, it does not follow that you would not there would be lacking the what suitable matter, right, huh? If, however, the seed of the man, were the matter of the fetus conceived in animals, It, is manifest that it is not a matter remaining in the same form, but a matter that has been what changed.

[42:31] Now, though the natural power cannot transform something to a certain form except a determined matter, nevertheless the divine power that is infinite can transmute every matter into any form, right? Whence, just as he transformed the clay of the earth, right, into the body of Adam, so the body of Christ can be transmuted. into the

[43:04] They can transmute the matter ministered by the what mother, even if it is not what sufficient matter for a natural conception. Now, whether the mother of Christ was a virgin in giving birth,

[43:31] the second one proceeds. Thus, it seems that the mother of Christ was not a virgin in the what giving birth. For Ambrose says upon Luke,

[43:52] who made holy the what other womb, that there might be born a prophet, right? He it is who opened the womb of the mother that the immaculate one might go what forth.

[44:16] But the opening of the womb excludes what virginity. Therefore, the mother of Christ was not a what virgin in the giving forth or in the bringing forth.

[44:31] Moreover, nothing in the mystery of Christ ought to be anything to which his body would appear to be what imaginary rather than real, fantastical.

[44:48] Answering the word "fantastic," right? I think this kind of changes meaning a little bit, you know. But it comes in the word for imagination now. Fantastic, imaginary. It's a little different to me now.

[45:05] But this does not seem to be what True body? to belong to a true body, right? But to a imaginary one, that it can what go forth or go through things that are closed, huh?

[45:25] In the two bodies, are not able to be what together, right? Therefore, Christ ought not to go forth from the womb of his mother, being closed. Therefore, the body of Christ right ought not to go forth from the closed womb of his mother, right? Because then you'd have two bodies sitting together, right? So the idea is that he came forth from Mary, like he comes into the room where the apostles have the door is locked, right?

[46:01] He just passes through, right? Sure. Which by my own mother thought was a marvelous way of giving birth, right? She heard this, she thought, wonderful, you know.

[46:20] Now we don't have an experience of this, right? We don't experience this pain of giving birth, but but I read about one mother saying, you know, she, I say, this really is painful, you know. I say, I say, I know it's supposed to be hard, right? She was asking, this, this man was telling you about this, so to

[46:47] hear that Mary didn't give birth, you know, this way, say, well, that's the way to go. But that seemed to be something unreal, right?

[47:04] Moreover, Gregory says in the homily on the octave of the Paschal Fiesta that to this that door is being closed, right? After resurrection, he came into the disciples, right?

[47:21] He showed his body to be of the same nature, but of another what glory, and therefore through the close to transit seems to pertain to the glory of the body, right? Maybe we'll be able to do that now when we're glorified, now we'll go through the through the wall, empty walls, I suppose, but to go through.

[47:54] But the body of Christ in his conception was not what glorified, huh? But was able to suffer, right? Having a likeness of the flesh is sin, right? Not that it had sin, but but it was able to undergo, right? As the

[48:16] sinful body is, does, as the apostle says in Romans eight. Therefore, he did not go out through the what closed, virgin, huh? But against this is what is said in a certain sermon of the council of Ephesus, right?

[48:42] And that is that nature after giving birth does not know further the what virgins, not a virgin anymore, but grace and what that shows both what the one giving birth. And makes a mother, and it does not what? Kill the virginity or harm it, Yeah.

[49:15] And therefore, the mother Christ was a virgin also in giving birth. I answer: It should be said that, without any doubt, it should be asserted that the mother of Christ was also a virgin in giving birth.

[49:40] For the prophet not only says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," but also that she shall bring forth a son. Son, Right? So she must remain a virgin, not only in conceiving him but in bringing him what? Forth. And this is appropriate. On account of three things,

[50:04] first, because this fits the property of the one who is born, who is the what? Word of God. Word of God. For the word, not only in the heart, is conceived without corruption, right? But also without corruption, it proceeds from the heart. Whence it is shown that that body was of the Word of God. Whence that one might show, right, that that body was of the Word of God.

[50:43] He had taken on the Word of God. It was suitable that it would be born of an incorrupt womb of the virgin. Whence, in a certain sermon of the Council of Ephesus,

[51:02] is read, "Who brought forth pure flesh, did not cease from what virginity, huh? " But because the word was born in flesh, right? God guarded the virginity, huh? Showing himself through this that he was the word.

[51:30] Nor does our word, when is brought forth, corrupt the mind. Nor does God, the Word, the substantial Word, choosing birth or being brought forth, does he destroy or take away virginity, right?

[51:57] Secondly, this was suitable to the effect of the incarnation of Christ, for he came for this purpose that he might take away our what corruption. Whence it was not suitable that he corrupt the virginity of his mother in being what born. Whence Augustine says in a certain sermon on the nativity of our Lord,

[52:25] "Let not be said that through his what coming, the integrity of her right is violated, who came to heal the things that are what corrupted. "

[52:39] Third, it was suitable lest the what honor of the mother in being born, he would diminish it, right? Who commanded parents to be what honored, right?

[52:56] You might use that also, though. That's what she was immaculately conceived, right? Yeah. The honor that he showed to his mother, right? Huh? Yeah. I think I mentioned how Alphonsus de Liguori there in his in his sermons there in the immaculate conception, you know, you argue from the Trinity, right, that she was immaculately conceived, but the Father, because it was her his daughter, right? Christ, the Word, because it was his mother, and then Holy Spirit, because she was his spouse, right?

[53:30] So each of them had a reason, special reason to have her be conceived immaculately, huh? I am sorry. Who made that argument? Alphonsus de Liguori Yeah. In the Glories of Mary, you know, the sermons he has in there on the different feasts of the Blessed Virgin, and different uh, titles of her, and so. on. Okay, that first one is about the way of speaking there. To the first, therefore, it should be says that Ambrose says this, expounding that which the evangelist brings in about the law that every masculine right opening the what holy womb to the Lord is is called that as the firstborn, I guess, to be dedicated.

[54:38] Which, as Bede says, is said in the custom of the customary birth, right? Not that the Lord, the guest of the holy womb, that

[54:57] entering he made holy, right? Going out would he what causes loss of virginity, right? That should not be believed. Should be believed, right? Yeah. Whence that opening does not signify the tearing apart, you might say, right? Of the.

[55:30] They have your unlocking of the enclosure. Yeah. The original purity. Yeah. Few doors doors. Yeah. But only the going forth of the offspring from the womb of the mother, right? Okay.

[55:47] We're just talking about the way of speaking there, right? Huh? But opens the womb, right? But it's the firstborn, right? Yeah. Should be dedicated to God or something like this, but so you speak that way. But even though it doesn't take place, right? That that the

[56:04] covering there is torn apart and so on. Now, what about this fantastic character? This way of coming out. To second should be said that Christ thus wished to show the truth of his body, right? Huh? That also at the same time his divine nature might be what declared, right? Huh? And therefore he mixed, you might say, marvelous things with what humble things, right? Whence he showed his body to be true.

[56:51] To be true, he was born from a what female, right? A woman. But he might show his divinity. He was born from a what virgin. Virgin. For such a coming forth befits God, as Ambrose says in his hymn of what Nativity, right? That's kind of noted by Thomas. He talks about the gospels. He'll narrate something that shows his divinity, and then something that shows his what humanity.

[57:24] Humanity, yeah. When you get to you know like something in the gospel there, where it said, "And Christ left there because they wanted to put him to death," right? And why did he? He could have remained and been invisible, or just stop them from. But sometimes he wants to show his what humanity, yeah, yeah. That's when he was hungry and so on.

[57:56] Now, what about the objection that says, "Hey, this is a property of the glorified body to be able to go through." To the third, therefore, should be said that some have said that Christ, in his birth, took on the gift of subtlety. That's one of the four gifts, huh? That the glorified body has gift of subtlety. When it went forth from the closed womb of the virgin, and when it walked on the what the dry feet on the sea, huh?

[58:31] They said that he had took on the gift of what agility, which is another gift of the glorified body. But this does not fit those things which were determined determined above, huh?

[58:46] For these gifts of the glorified body come from the flowing back, you might say, of the glory of the soul to the what body, huh? As will be said below, when we treat of the glorified bodies.

[59:09] But it has been said, however, above, that Christ, before His passion, permitted to His flesh to do and to suffer the things that are proper to flesh. Right.

[59:26] Nor did they come about such a flowing back of glory from the soul to the body. And therefore, it should be said that all these things were done miraculously through the divine what power.

[59:45] Whence Augustine says upon John that to the thickness or size of the body, whether is divinity, the closed doors do not what. Don't stand in the way, yeah.

[1:00:05] For he, who they not being open, right, was able to enter. Who, being born, the virginity of his mother, unviolated, right, remained. And Dionysius says in a certain epistle that Christ

[1:00:36] upon man did those things which are of man, and this he showed. And a virgin supernaturally conceiving shows this, and the unstable water sustaining the weight of the what? terrestrial feet? Christ above man operated those things which are of man, right?

[1:01:13] They're saying Dionysius is saying these are miracles, right? Huh? Yeah. Yeah. He did these things that are above man. Man. Okay. Should we take a

[1:01:24] little break?