Tertia Pars
69. Summa III q.30 a.4: The Order of the Annunciation and Wonder as the Beginning of Philosophy; q.31 a.1: Christ's Flesh Taken from Adam
Class of 2010-01-07
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/069-summa-iii-q-30-a-4-the-order-of-the-annunciation-and-wonder/

[0:00] How they have the mass all the time. It's always the reading from John's epistle, right? Every Sunday, every day of the week, they're reading the little passage from the very first epistle, which is the main one, I guess.

[0:16] Okay, so up up to the fourth article, right? Whether the Annunciation was perfected, completed in a suitable order, right? Quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt sunt ordinata sunt, right?

[0:39] To the fourth, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Annunciation was not made in a or perfected in a suitable order, right? For the dignity of the Mother of God depends on the offspring conceived, right?

[1:00] But the cause ought to be what made known before the what effect. Therefore, first the angel ought to what announce to the angel the conception of the offspring, than to express her dignity by saluting her.

[1:23] Of course, she hasn't she hasn't agreed yet. That might be a problem. I don't know. We'll see what he says. Moreover, proof either ought to be what omitted in those things which are not doubtful, or to what go before in those things which can be doubtful.

[1:53] But the angel first would seem to have announced that about which the Virgin would doubt, and in doubting would ask or seek, saying, "How can this what come about? " And after the proof or the assurance had been joined, then from the example of Elizabeth, then from the what power of God. Therefore, in an unsuitable order, annunciation to the angel was made.

[2:28] Moreover, the greater cannot be sufficiently proved to the lesser. But it was a greater thing for the Virgin to what bring forth than from the old woman. Therefore, was not a sufficient proof of the angel proving the conception of the Virgin from the conception of the old one.

[2:54] But against this is what is said. Hey, there it is. Romans thirteen one. Thomas loves to quote that. Quae a Deo sunt ordinata sunt. Things which are from God are ordered. Huh. Divine wisdom. Sapientis est ordinare But the angel however is sent by God to this that he would announce to the Virgin, as is said in Luke one twenty six. Therefore, ordinatissime, huh? Most orderly was the announcement completed through the angel.

[3:24] Huh. So Thomas says, I answer it should be said that the annunciation, the announcing, in a congruent order, right, was perfected by the angel, right, huh?

[3:46] For the angel intended three things about the Virgin. Huh. First was to render her mind attentive to the consideration of so great a thing,

[4:02] which he did by saluting her with a new and uncustomary, unaccustomed salutation. Whence Origen says upon Luke that if she had known to some other one, right, a similar speech to have been made, huh, as one who had a now to the law. Never would she, as a what stranger, have feared such a what greeting, in which salutation is sent before her suitability to what conception or conception conceiving, in that he said gratia plena, right.

[5:11] And then he said he expressed the conceived, and my thing they have a little footnote here, but future conceiving, right? He said the Lord is what with you, and he announces before the honor following upon this when he said, blessed are you among what women. So he first aroused the what? Yeah. And since, since that's the wonder he spoke about before, right? This is

[5:50] the way to rouse wonder there in the humble. I've seen a Diana showing like this. Used to say, teaching without wonder is nothing. He says, even logic, you gotta.

[6:09] He has this one course. I don't know if you've seen it. The one course where he's hinting at this text and the sentences, right? And it's a text where Thomas puts logic with natural philosophy, as opposed to what grammar, right? You kind of tend to put logic and grammar together, you know. But here he's putting it with natural philosophy as opposed to grammar, right? And he's hinting about this is, you know, he's trying to rouse your wonder with the fact that Thomas is going to do this.

[6:59] Secondly, however, he intended to instruct her about the mystery of the incarnation, right, which was going to be fulfilled in her, which he did for announcing the conception and the what, giving birth, right? Saying, "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb," etc.

[7:29] And by showing the dignity or worth of the offspring conceived, when he says he will be great, and also by demonstrating the way or the mode of conception, when he said the Holy Spirit shall come upon you.

[7:51] The third thing he intended was to induce her soul to consent, which he did by the example Elizabeth, and by the reason taken from the divine what omnipotence.

[8:14] So he wants her attention first. That's what he does first, right? And then he gives her the what? Yeah, and then he moves her to assent. Yeah, that sounds. Or the tissime, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

[8:44] Okay, now the first objection here, right? To the first, it should be said that to the humble soul, right, nothing is more marvelous than the hearing of one's own excellence, right? For wonder, admiratio, maxime, right,

[9:15] causes the attention of the what soul, right? That's interesting for the philosopher because Aristotle shows there in the *Proemium* to wisdom that admiratio is the beginning of what philosophy, right? And of course, the great Plato or Socrates had said this before. That's in the dialogue called the *Theaetetus*, right? Think I mentioned this before, where Theaetetus is introduced to what Socrates? I mean, to yeah, to Socrates by his teacher Theodorus, right?

[9:51] And Theodorus says that my pupil is something of a philosopher. And then they get into conversation. Theaetetus who's actually historically a very famous geometer, and in the course of the conversation, Theaetetus is full of wonder, right? At that point, Socrates stops and says, "Theaetetus seems to, you know, guessed rightly about your nature, huh? Because he says there is no other beginning of philosophy than wonder. He's very, very strong about that, right?

[10:21] And then he has a beautiful, somewhat poetical thing. he says, "And it wasn't a bad, he says, what genealogy, the one who said that what

[10:33] Iris was the offspring of wonder. What does that mean? I think what's interesting about it is that if you read this, the passage there, right, and you don't wonder, what does he mean by saying it wasn't a bad genealogy, the one who said that Iris was the offspring of Thalma, right? Thalma is where you get to be called for wonder, right? So who's Iris, huh?

[11:08] Yeah, she's a messenger of Zeus or Juno, and Iris is also the rainbow personified, right? Well, of course, the first thing you want to ask is to understand Iris, right, before you understand the whole thing. Why is Iris both the messenger of God,

[11:32] the angel God, and the rainbow personified? What do those two have in common? Is it bridging heaven and earth? Yeah, yeah. The rainbow unites heaven and earth, right? And the messenger of God unites heaven and earth, man and God, right? So why does our friend Socrates, right, say it was a good genealogy, right? Well, he's saying that wonder unites heaven and earth, or God and man, right?

[12:10] Because wonder makes one to look for the cause, and for the cause of the cause, right? And wonder doesn't stop until one comes to the first cause, which is God, right? So wonder unites man and God, at least on the side of his what reason, yeah, yeah. Was beautifully said, right? But what's interesting to me is that he says, and kind of we got to stop and think, what does this mean, right?

[12:36] And if you don't wonder about that, then you're not a philosopher, right? You know, Because he just said there is no other beginning of philosophy than wonder, you know. People say, you know, they don't understand that sentence, and they don't wonder about it, and they're not really very philosophical, right? It seems fitting. It seems fitting that the part of our eye is called Iris. It has to do with seeing or something Mm hmm

[13:03] Is that the color part. I don't know what part. of it is Is it the inactive one That's a good question. I would suspect too. A lot of things are named from mythology. Now you see in Shakespeare's play,

[13:20] where does Iris appear in Shakespeare's play? Where is? What play does Shakespeare speak of Iris? Oh, is that? No, I was going to say Tempest. Yeah, the Tempest. Yeah. It's also the young lady called Miranda, right? Oh, that's. You know, it's just to have the word for wonder, right? But when he has this vision that Prospero, you know, conjures up with his spirits, and when Iris appears, hail, many-coloured messenger.

[13:54] So you had the two ideas of the rainbow and the messenger, right? Hail, many-coloured messenger. Then you see, you know, the beauty of Shakespeare and Plato, right? Both of you, both a little bit of a poet these two guys.

[14:20] So Admiratio maxime attentionem animi facit, right now. And therefore, the angel, wishing to render attentive the mind of the Virgin, right, to the hearing of so great a mystery, right, begins from praise. That's kind of

[14:49] beautiful because I mean you can say it's appropriate that he praise her. I mean she's praiseworthy. I mean, but in terms of the order of it, right? It begins from that because of her humility. This is going to arouse what? Wonder, yeah. That for make her attentive to to receive a message of so great importance for her and for the whole human race. Not marvelous. That brother that told me about.

[15:25] I put it at the beginning. Brother Ted from the Brothers of Hope. Oh. I sent him an email this month ago, and I have

[15:34] the custom of asking Maria to top the email. Well that rouses wonder, "What am I supposed to sing Gratia plena?" That's that's fine. It'll work.

[15:46] Well, Thomas explains there one of Aristotle's examples there in the proemium to Wisdom, because Aristotle is talking about wonder. There, he gives the example there. Of the incommensurability, you know, of the diagonal and the side, and he doesn't Aristotle explain there the significance of this example, right? But Thomas, in another text, he refers to this example as something being true that's contrary to what you'd expect, right?

[16:22] And Thomas is making the point is that we wonder not so much about something whose cause is unknown to us, period, but something that is contrary to what we'd expect, right? And then we wonder what caused it, right? So if I left go of this glass here and fell to the floor, you wouldn't be surprised it fell to the floor, even though we don't really know why it falls to the floor.

[16:52] And Einstein says, you know, he admired Newton for knowing that didn't know why it falls to the floor, but because it happens all the time, we don't wonder about it, right? Even though we might not know the cause. But if I left go of this glass right now and went up, you know, we'd wonder.

[17:10] Not only because you didn't know why it went up, but because it's contrary to what you'd expect it would do. You see? And that's why I like so much, you know. you've heard my wonder about the fifth theorem in the second book of Euclid, right?

[17:29] Refresh our memory. Yeah. Well, if you kind of rephrase, especially the fifth theorem, you know, speaking tragically as Aristotle says, you find out that you can have a rectangle with less perimeter and containing more what? Area. Yeah. And it seems, you know, if I give you some fence and and I give myself some fence, I give you a greater length of fence, right? And then you enclose an area for your kids to play in, or whatever.

[18:11] And I enclose an area in my yard. You're going to enclose a bigger area, right? Yeah. But I've got more land enclosed with less and used less fence than you did. You you spent more money, but in terms of the American guy, understand? You spent more money to enclose less land, right? How stupid can you be, huh?

[18:37] But anyway, it seems contrary to what, yeah, that the you can have more area for less perimeter, right? Therefore, I think it arouses, right, I wonder that theorem. huh? So as I transpose the numbers and say, if the sum of two numbers is greater than the sum of two other numbers, would the product be more? You would think so, right? But the sum of two numbers can be greater, and their product be what less?

[19:17] That's kind of strange, right? But the same principle, right? Just transpose the numbers, right? So, so two and ten is what twelve, and four and five are what nine, yeah. But four and five is equal, and you can take something, you know, five and five, which would be ten, and still less than twelve, would be twenty-five, right? So the, you know, so it's possible to have what the sum of two numbers be greater than the sum of two other numbers, but their product be what less?

[19:53] And people who don't have uh any mathematical training. That's kind of you know, rather soon wonder. right It's contrary to what you'd expect, right? Okay. But in a sense, that's what's involved here in a way, though, see. because the humble person, when they're praised in this way, right, it's contrary to what they would expect, right? They don't think so highly of themselves, so you know, okay. So there's something similar about you know the way wonder is aroused in in this case, right?

[20:30] The humble person and the way the wonder is aroused, especially the philosophers, right? You know, and Einstein, you know, in in the in his little autobiographical sketch of his life, right? He speaks of that wonder he has as a child, right? And his father bought him a magnet, right? And the idea that one body could move another body with not coming into contact with it, apparently, right, is what struck his what with wonder, yeah.

[21:04] Okay. Now to the second about about doubt. Now to the second, it should be said, and this is the big difference between Mary in part and Zachariah, yeah, that he he doubted, right? Well, he's doubting Thomas. and so he's punished by not being able to what speak until until yeah. To second, it should be said that Ambrose expressly says upon Luke that the Blessed Virgin did not doubt of the words of the angel, right?

[21:45] And he's a pretty big chap that Ambrose is one of the four or five great doctors of the Western Church. Before he says more temperate, right, Or moderate, His response of Mary than the words of the priest. I guess that's reference to yeah. For he said, "How can this come about?" And he responds, "Whence do I know this?" Right? She says, "How is it going to

[22:18] come about?" Yeah. But he said, he responded to the angel. Yeah, what's how I know this? For he denies himself, or yeah, to believe who denies himself to to know this.

[22:36] But she does not doubt what is going to be done. Who asks in what way it's going to come about? Yeah. Okay. In a sense that she really is asking that seriously, how's it coming about? Then she doesn't believe it's going to come about. She just wants to know how it's going to be done, right? Because she doesn't know man, she says, right? Okay. Augustine however seems to say that she what doubted huh I don't know about you Augustine.

[23:08] For he says in the book of the questions of the old and of the New Testament, huh? Ah, to Mary, what Hesitant is it? In doubt about the concept, the angel preaches the what possibility. But such a doubt, he says, Mary says ad rationis. Then what incredulity, right? That's kind of a subtle thing, though. But I think you know the the difference there, right? You know.

[23:55] Like that Christmas song, "What manner of child is this?" Right? That's a very wonderful thing is taking place, you know. And that's not really doubting that it took place, right? Just kind of amazed that that would take place, right?

[24:11] And therefore, the angel induces a what proof not to taking away the infidelity, but to removing, right? Or you might say tempering reparation, right? So it doesn't become stupefaction. Stupefaction is kind of the name for excessive, you know, that that's an impediment to to investigation.

[24:35] What? The last jar hanging open. When we saw your custard that exploded, we were all stupefied. Now, to the third, it should be said that, as Ambrose says in Hexameron, on account of this, many what who are sterile came before right that the what giving birth might might be believed, right? And therefore, the conception of Elizabeth, the sterile one, was is brought in not as a sufficiens argumentum, right?

[25:25] But as a kind of what figurative example. And therefore, for the confirmation of this example, there is joined an efficacious argument from the divine omnipotence.

[25:49] I've often tried to say, you know, that the changing of water into wine is kind of preparation for the what Eucharist. And it's not, in fact, um uh as great a thing as as Eucharist, obviously. But it's more known, right? Because when the water is changed into the wine, the accidents of the water don't remain, right? But the wine has its, you know. So you know there's taken place the water been changed into wine, right?

[26:22] But on Eucharist you don't know this, right? So it says, "Wait, prepares us, right? He can turn water into wine. Why can't he turn wine into blood, right? What's the difference, really, right? " And so it prepares the way, right? Even though it's lesser.

[26:43] But again, you know, Thomas would say that all the miracles of the Old Testament, all other miracles, are ordered to the incarnation, right? But they're all something less than the incarnation, right? But they kind of what dispose us, right?

[27:00] You hear that little one I was giving there with the the word from the first beginning to the first cause. You know, and you say,

[27:23] see, in the fifth book of wisdom, huh? The first word is beginning, and the second word is cause, right? And Thomas gives us the reason why Aristotle gives beginning before cause is that beginning is more general than cause. Every cause is a beginning, but not every beginning is a what cause? Okay. Now both of these words are words equivocal by reason, huh? But the first meaning of beginning is beginning of the row, right?

[27:58] The beginning of the line, right? The beginning of the what continuous, right? Now, if you say that the surface is the beginning of the table, right? The surface is a beginning; it has a beginning. And you can say that the line is a beginning of the what surface, right? But the line is the beginning of the surface; is also a beginning that has a beginning. What's the beginning of the line?

[28:28] Yeah. But now, what is the point? Well, in that sense, the beginning does it have a beginning? No. So behind the surface is the beginning that is the line. Behind the line, the beginning that is the point, but the point has no beginning, right? That's what you're going to meet They don't have a cause, right? There's a cause that has a cause. Maybe that cause has a cause, but eventually you come to a cause that doesn't have a cause.

[29:02] And this is much easier to see, isn't it? But the point is, the beginning that has no beginning, right? And that God is a mover that has does not move, right? Or that He's a maker that is not made, right? But kind of prepares the way for it, right? Not just a strange idea, right? That there should be a cause that doesn't have a cause, right? Now, it's kind of a stupid objection that you used to hear when you were a kid, you know, you get the first, you know, question of the catechism: Who made me?

[29:34] You know, say, well, God made me, right? Okay. And then they'll say, well, then who made God? see? And uh, well, first, the answer is not. There's no answer to that, right? No one made God, right? And then they used to say to you, no, well, everything was made by someone, you know. And no. But they might, you know, might kind of think of that, right? Because everything you run into in life was made by somebody or something, right?

[30:02] And and so kind of, you know, by induction, you get the idea that everything has a maker, right? Everything was made by something, right? So who made God? You say, well, no, no. But it's kind of strange, you know, to say that there's a maker that was not made, right? But already you see in the very first meaning of beginning, the beginning of the continuous, right? That there's a beginning of the continuous that has no beginning, right?

[30:30] There's kind of an order there. You know. So if you say, why is the cube limited? Well, it's because the squares that bind it are limited, right? Well, why are they limited? The squares, well, because of lines. Why are the lines limited? Because of the point. And why is the point limited? Well, it's not, you know.

[30:53] Point is a beginning or a limit, you could say too, that has no beginning or has no limit, huh? So it kind of anticipates what you'll find out later on about causes. But it's not a Socratic argument, as you say, but kind of leads you from what is more known to you, right? Because the general is more known, right? The beginning is more known than the word cause.

[31:16] And the most well-known meaning of beginning is one we give in there, right? Can we finish the last one or we well We just finished the last one. Yeah. We're going to go into the conception here, right? Niggard truth is, Shakespeare says in the sonnets. I'm not sure I do the right chord, but okay.

[32:08] So let's say proemium here to the thirty-first question, or actually a couple of the questions here, I guess, thirty-two and thirty-three. Then we're not to consider about the conception of the Savior.

[32:26] And first, as regards the matter from which his body was what conceived. Secondly, as regards the author of the conception. And third, as regards the mode and order of the conception. So that's these next three questions.

[32:49] Now about the first eight things are asked. First, whether the flesh of Christ was taken from Adam. Second, whether it was taken from David. It's interesting they just ask these two, huh? Third, about the genealogy of Christ, which is placed in the Gospels.

[33:18] And fourth, whether it was suitable for Christ to be born of what? Yeah. And whether the body of his body was formed from the most pure bloods of the Virgin, right?

[33:40] And fourth, or six rather, whether the flesh of Christ was in the old fathers, the antique fathers, according to some what? I think sign. Whether the flesh of Christ was in the fathers subject to sin, right?

[34:03] And further, whether it was what decimated? In the loins, I guess, of Abraham, right? Huh. So Adam and David and Abraham going to come in here.

[34:27] Special mention. To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the flesh of Christ was not taken from Adam. For the apostle, that's said of what Saint Paul by antonomasia. For the apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, fifteenth chapter, the first man from earth, earthly, the second man from heaven, heavenly. But the first man is Adam. The second man is Christ.

[35:07] Therefore, Christ is not from Adam, but he has a origin distinct from him. Moreover, the conception of Christ ought to be most miraculous. But it is more a miracle to form the body of man from the

[35:31] slime of the earth than from human matter, which is drawn from Adam. Therefore, it seems it was not suitable that Christ be taken that Christ took from Adam flesh.

[35:51] Therefore, it seems that the body of Christ ought not to be formed of the mass of the human race derived from Adam, but from some other matter. Yeah, but Adam is the one who sinned, right?

[36:06] Moreover, sin entered into this world through one man, to wit, Adam. Because all nations in him originally sinned, as is clear through the teaching of Romans chapter five. But if the body of Christ was taken from Adam, it would be in Adam originally when he sinned. Therefore, he would have contracted the original sin, which is not befitting the purity of Christ. Therefore, the body of Christ was not formed from matter taken from Adam.

[36:48] Against all this is what the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter two. He never what took hold of the angels, the son of God, but he took over the seed of what Abraham. But the seed of Abraham was taken from that of Adam. Ergo, the body of Christ was formed of matter taken from Adam. But Thomas says, "I answer, it should be said that Christ took human nature."

[37:25] That he might purge it from what corruption he took on human nature, but human nature would not need what purgation, except in so far as it is infected by an origin vitiated, which from what sinned from Adam. and therefore it is suitable that flesh taken from the matter derived from Adam, that he might cure that very nature through taking it on.

[38:02] Now what about this teaching of the apostle? But heavenly, the first, therefore, should be said that the second man, that is Christ, interestingly is called the second man.

[38:16] That is Christ is said to be of heaven, not as regards the matter of his body, right? But either as regards the power that formed his body, huh? Or as regards his what divinity, right? But according to his matter, the body of Christ was earthly, just as the body of what Adam.

[38:46] What about being very miraculous? The second should be said that as has been said above, the mystery of the incarnation of Christ is something miraculous, not as ordered to the confirmation of faith, but rather as article faith or the chief article of faith.

[39:10] And therefore, in the mystery of the incarnation, it is not required. required which should be more a miracle, as in miracles which were what confirmation, the confirmation of faith, but what was more suitable to the divine wisdom and more suitable for human salvation, which is required in all things which are of faith.

[39:36] Or can be said that in the mystery of the incarnation, not only is to be noted a miracle conceived from matter, but more from the way of conception and of giving birth, because it was a virgin who conceived and brought forth God, That's why Isaiah spoke of it. And to the third, it should be said that as has been said above, the body of Christ was in Adam, according to his body's substance, because the matter of the material matter of the or the matter of the material body of Christ was derived from Adam, but was not there according to what his seed, right?

[40:26] Because it was not conceived from the male seed, huh? And therefore, he did not contract original sin as others who were derived from Adam by way of the what? Yeah. What happened to the virgin, I don't know. I thought he might have a beginning of a solution there in that question. No, I think he's stuck. He's stuck for stuck in the slime of the earth. Stuck in the slime of the earth.

[40:56] The evil man does this on after him, huh?