Tertia Pars
72. Summa III q.31 a.5–8: The Matter of Christ's Body – The Virgin's Pure Blood, Christ in Adam and the Fathers, and Why He Was Not Tithed in Abraham
Class of 2010-01-28
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/072-summa-iii-q-31-a-5-8-the-matter-of-christs-body-the-virgins/

[0:00] And then Article, 511. Okay, so let's say I'm a prayer. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the, Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand what you're written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:39] To the fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the flesh of Christ was not conceived from the most pure blood of the virgin.

[0:52] I don't know. I think the the biology in these old days was kind of mixed up. You know, the woman's period knows that that's when you could become fertile because the blood could be stamped with the with the male thing and and so we'll take this to the greater sense what Thomas says anyway. Okay, but something to be learned here. For it is said in the collect yeah, that's the collect of the Mass, It says at the Feast of Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, that the Word God wished to take his flesh from the Virgin, right?

[1:31] But flesh differs from blood, huh? Therefore, the body of Christ is not taken from the blood of the what virgin. Moreover, as the woman was formed miraculously from the man, that's Eve, huh? So the body of Christ was miraculously formed from that of the Virgin, but the woman is not said to have been formed from the blood of the man, but more from his flesh and from his bones, huh?

[2:04] An extra bone or something, right? That they used. And the one guy, give you an extra bone, you know, and just he was Adam again, I guess. What he thought he was, but according to that which is said in Genesis chapter two, verse twenty-three, this one now is a bone from my bones and flesh from my what flesh. Therefore, it seems that neither should the body of Christ been formed from the blood of the Virgin, but more from her flesh and bones, huh?

[2:46] Moreover, the body of Christ was of the same species with the bodies of other men, but the bodies of other men are not formed from the most pure blood. But from the seed and the menstruous what Blood, Now that maybe is the old biology, right? It seems kind of probably, you know, you know. But anyway, it doesn't seem to be true. Therefore, it seems that neither was the body of Christ conceived from the most pure bloods, Part of the Virgin, right?

[3:25] Now, against all this is what Damascene says in the third book, that the Son of God put together, constructed for Himself from the most chaste and pure bloods of the Virgin, a flesh animated by a rational soul. That's a mouthful, a stateful, form. I answer: It should be said, Thomas says, that it has been said above. The in the conception of Christ, it took place according to the condition of nature that he was born from a what woman, right?

[4:08] But above the condition of nature that he was born from a what virgin, huh? Now the natural condition has this: that in the generation of the animal, the woman administers the matter, right?

[4:29] But on the side of the man is the active principle in generation, as the philosopher proves in the book on the generation of what animals. Like I mentioned before, the word semen means what seed, right? So it's like saying the whole seed comes from the man, right? But we would say no, the fertilized egg is, you know, something from both. Ah, but the woman who conceives from the male is not a what virgin, huh?

[5:01] And therefore, to the supernatural way of generation of Christ, it pertains that the active principle, huh, in that generation was the supernatural divine power. But to the natural way of that generation pertains that the matter from which his body was conceived was conformed to the matter which other women uh um provide, uh

[5:34] to con the conception of the offspring, huh? But this matter, Aristotle, huh? But this matter, according to the philosopher in the book on the generation of animals, is the blood of the what woman? Ah, not just any one whatsoever blood, but that which has been led to a more what ample or perfect digestion. Through the generative power of the woman, that might be a matter apt to what concept, huh?

[6:10] That's that way comes closer to the idea of truth, right? And therefore, from such a matter was the body of Christ what conceived? Now, the first objection here, taken from that text in the collect. To the first, therefore, it should be said that since the blessed Virgin was of the same nature with other women, consequently it was that she had flesh and bones of the same nature.

[6:43] But flesh and bones in other women are actual parts of the what bodies, but ones that are attached, huh? From which is put together constituted the wholeness or integrity of the body, and therefore they cannot be taken away without corruption of the body or diminution of the body.

[7:09] But Christ, who came to repair what was corrupt, ought not to infer any corruption or diminution to the integrity of his what mother? Makes sense, huh? And therefore, were not not to have the body of Christ formed from the flesh or the bones, of the Virgin, but of the blood, which was not yet in act a part, right? But in ability or potency, it was the whole, as is said in the book of the generation of what animals, huh?

[7:48] I suppose the blood brings the nourishment or to all the parts of the body, right? Supplies the matter that can be formed into flesh and bones and so on. Anyway,

[8:01] and therefore it is said that he took flesh from the Virgin, not that the matter of the body was in act flesh, but blood, which is flesh in potency. That's the way he solves that objection, huh?

[8:22] He took it from the flesh of the Virgin, not what is in act the flesh the Virgin, but in ability. Oh, that's talking about that, huh? It's becoming kind of wheezed over here, to me, brother.

[8:42] To the second, it should be said that, as has been said in the first part, Adam, who was constituted as the what beginning and the principle of human nature, had something in his body, right, that did not pertain. It had in his body something of what flesh and bone that did not pertain to his what personal wholeness. He had the extra rib, right? Like this friend of mine mentioned.

[9:13] Yeah, but so things that did not pertain to his integrity, his individual personal integrity, right? But only in so far as he was the beginning of what human nature, right? And of such was formed the woman, without any detriment to man, because this is for prizing, so so felicity doesn't quite now. Okay, but there was nothing such in the body of the virgin, right? From which the body of Christ is able to be formed without some corruption of the maternal body.

[9:58] Now this third argument is talking. About other men are formed ex semine right, and sanguine, menstrual. To the third, it should be said that the seed of the woman, right?

[10:24] Yeah. Oh no, it is a tripping seed, huh. But it is something imperfect in the genus of what? Yeah. The only thing I know is that the man determines the sex, right?

[10:42] They make fun of Henry VIII, right, because he's he's mad at all these women because he started getting daughters and not, and, not men. But the man is responsible for whether it's a male or female, the male principle. So, in that sense, the male is more determinative, more active. In that sense,

[11:08] on account of the imperfection of the feminine power, right, and therefore such a seed is not the matter which necessity required for a conception, as the philosopher says in the book on the generation of animals. And therefore, in the conception of Christ, it was not, especially because there was not what,

[11:33] because although it is imperfect in the genus of seed, right, nevertheless it's resolved to a certain concupiscence, just as the seed of the man. But in that original conception, concupiscence should have what? No place. And therefore Damascene says that the body of Christ was not seminalis right, even from the imperfect seed there.

[12:06] Now the menstrual blood, which women emit through what months, has a certain natural impurity of corruption, right? Just as the other superfluities, by which nature which nature does not need, but expels them, right?

[12:29] And from such menstrual having corruption, which nature is what eliminating by, if not, it doesn't need, are not formed what a concept. But this is a certain purgation, huh, of that pure blood, which by certain digestion is prepared for conception, as being more pure and more perfect than other what? Yeah.

[13:02] But it has nevertheless the impurity of lust, you might say, in the conception of other men. In so far as from that mixture of the male and the female, such a blood is attracted to the place suitable for generation. But this, in the conception of Christ, was not, because by the operation of the Holy Spirit, such blood in the womb of the Virgin was united, and formed into a what offspring.

[13:36] And therefore, it is said that the body of Christ was formed from the most chaste, and the most purified right blood of the what Virgin.

[13:51] That's pretty good going back to Damascene there, he says in the sed contra Okay, I was reading Thomas there in the in the last couple of chapters there of the John, you know, and of course he's talking about the three apparitions of Christ to the apostles. And the first time when Thomas is not there, right. The second time when Thomas is there, right. And then the third time when he appears to the seven, were not all named, but Nathaniel's there, right?

[14:30] I was expecting to think that he really is an apostle, but anyway. But Thomas says there's kind of order among these three appearances, because in the first appearance he breathes upon, receive the Holy Spirit, and therefore he manifests his divine nature, because it says God that he gives them what the Holy Spirit. And then in the second appearance, where he says to Thomas, you know, put your fingers here and so on, this is his what his personality, his individuality, right?

[15:06] He's the same individual who was on the cross, right? And then in the third appearance, when he has fish and bread with them, right, and eats with them, then that he has the same nature as they have, right? He doesn't eat fish and bread because he needs them, you know, but eats them in a human way, right? Showing that he has the same nature as his apostles.

[15:33] Kind of beautiful the way he puts that up, huh? Yes. Which is another explanation there of the 153 fish besides the one that Augustine gives, huh? A little more extreme, but he says he uses the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, right? And the seven. Apostles, if they're all apostles, there are seven that are there, and seven times seven is forty-nine, right? To which, if we add one because of the unity that they have, that's fifty, right?

[16:07] And then you multiply that to the trinity, which gives you one hundred and fifty, right? Then you profess this in thought, word, and deed. One fifty-three. He's kind of building on it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. yeah. See, like Augustine says, you know, to get to heaven, which is what these fish represent, because it wants to get to heaven. they're put up on the shore of eternity, huh?

[16:32] And that's why the net doesn't break, he says, right? Because this is those who are saved, right? Huh? By the the earlier catch, you know, the nets broke and some fish, you know, were lost. That's the way the church is in this world, you know, where you can gather men, but some people fall out, so on. So he said, get to heaven by obeying the ten commandments through the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

[16:57] So then he takes seventeen and sixteen, fifteen, all the way down, and adds up to one fifty-three. Sometimes I try to add those numbers. I try to wake up in the middle of the night you know, get to sleep. I try to ask those numbers and say, it comes up to one fifty-three. I've done it many times. I'm pretty sure it adds up to one one fifty-three.

[17:20] That's the way I've tried that before too. Whenever you add up a series of numbers like that, it's going to be a series. We'll take the first and the last one, and you get a certain number. but we'll take the second and the last and second, and you get the same number. So you can find out what that number is. Divide the total by two, and then you say, well, it's whatever that number.

[17:41] I like to say one seventeen is eighteen, right? Sixteen and two is eighteen. So you say, well, seventeen divided by two is going to be eight. Eight pairs. Eight times eighteen plus whatever's left over in the middle. It's odd. It doesn't. That's one.

[18:01] Eighteen. Eighteen times eight. It's four sixty one one hundred four. No, I can't. I can't. Eighteen eight sixty one forty one forty four, and there's be nine in the middle. One fifty-three. That's probably a good way to fall asleep. Or stay awake. Hey guys, I gotta get a piece of paper.

[18:35] Okay, to the six one. Goes forward. Thus, it seems that the body of Christ was, according to something, what, signatum, individualized, you might say, right, in Adam and in the other what, parts, right, as if, as if the same what, piece of flesh or whatever it is, individualized in them, you know, it's come down to him, right. Okay.

[19:08] Now my little footnote here says this article has its occasion from the error of those thinking that the body of Christ was formed from a certain determined portion, integrally transfused, right, successively from person to person, from Adam, right, all the way down to the Blessed Virgin. said Hoc est very figmentum. I'll see what Thomas says anyway.

[19:43] For Augustine says in the tenth book on Genesis to the letter that the flesh of Christ was in Adam and Abraham according to bodily what substance. No, I understand Augustine, huh? But bodily substance is something signatum, or something. It's kind of way of speaking of something that is what individualized, right? Yeah. Sometimes

[20:15] you see Thomas when they talk about individual matter, they call matter signata, you know. I think it has that sense. I mean, you wouldn't know it for the word so much, but that's the sense it has.

[20:26] Moreover, Romans one three it is said that Christ was made from the seed of David according to the flesh, but the seed of David was something what individually signed, right, in him. Therefore, Christ was in David according to something what signed, yeah, and the same reason in other fathers.

[20:52] Moreover, Christ had a certain affinity to the human race, in so far as he took flesh from the human race, huh? But if his flesh was not according to something individually signed in Adam, it would seem to have nothing, no affinity, to the human race, huh? That was derived from what Adam, but more to other things, huh? To those other things, whence the matter of his flesh was what taken, huh?

[21:28] So there's got to be some piece of flesh or whatever it is, individual piece of flesh that's been handed down to all these people, all the way down to the Blessed Virgin and then into Christ, right? Otherwise. that's the way the argument's going on

[21:49] But against this is what Augustine says in the tenth book upon Genesis to the letter. In whatever way Christ was in Adam and Abraham, right? Other men were there, but this is not what convertible, huh?

[22:09] Because other men were not in Adam and Abraham according to some what individually signed matter, but only according to what the origin, as is said in the first part. Therefore, neither was Christ in Adam and Abraham according to something individually signed, and for the same reason not in the other what fathers.

[22:37] I answer: It should be said that, as it has been said above, the matter of the body of Christ was not the flesh and the bone of the Blessed Virgin. Nor something that was in act a part of her body, right? But her blood, the blood which is flesh in ability and potency. But whatever was in the Blessed Virgin, taken from her parents, was in act a part of the body of the Blessed Virgin.

[23:13] Whence that which was in the Blessed Virgin, taken from her parents, was not the matter of the body of Christ. And therefore it should be said that the body of Christ was not in Adam and the other fathers according to something individually signed, stamped. Thus, that some part of the body of Adam, right, or some other person, other one, could be what designated in a determinate way.

[23:47] So that one could say that from this matter was formed the what body of Christ, huh? But was there according to its what origin, kind of like an efficient cause, I guess. Just as the flesh of other men, right? Now the body of Christ had a relation to Adam and to the other fathers by means of the body of his mother. Whence, in no other way, was in the fathers the body of Christ than the body of his mother was, huh?

[24:22] Which was not in the what fathers according to matter individually signed, just as neither is the body's of other men, huh? As is said in the first part, huh? I'm not a chip off the old block, I guess, huh? Not, not exactly.

[24:47] Christ is not a chip off the old. Okay. What about these texts now? Well, Thomas handles this now. To the first, therefore, it should be said, when it is said that Christ was in Adam, according to bodily substance, right? It should not be understood in this way that the body of Christ was in Adam, according to a certain what? Excuse me, that the body of Christ in Adam was a certain bodily substance, huh?

[25:25] But because the bodily substance of the body of Christ, was that is the matter which he took from the Virgin, was in Adam as in a active principle, like an efficient cause, huh?

[25:41] Not, however, as in a material principle, huh? Because through the generative power of Adam, and of others descending from Adam, right, down to the Blessed Virgin, it was brought about or made that that matter was such a way prepared for the conception of the body of Christ, huh?

[26:10] But that matter formed into the body of Christ, but that body, that matter formed the body of Christ was not through the power of the seed derived from Adam, huh? Then get original sin, I guess. And therefore, Christ is said to have been in Adam

[26:30] originally according to bodily substance, not according to what? The active power of the seed, huh? Okay. Okay. Notice Thomas says he's seeing a distinction between the way he was in Adam, right, and the other men are, right? The other men are in Adam as in an active principle, right? And Christ's body was not in Adam in that way, but according to bodily substance, more like material way, right?

[27:24] But the active principle is the Holy Spirit, right? I think so. Another question coming up there. Yeah. Now, to the second, it should be said that although the body of Christ was not in Adam, and in the other fathers according to a seed-like reason, right? The body, nevertheless, the Blessed Virgin was conceived from the seed of the what man, right? And was in Adam, and in the other fathers according to a what seedy reason, right?

[28:07] Seed-like reason. Because it might be another problem for Thomas once the act of conception is defined conception is defined, right? Yeah. And therefore, by means of the Blessed Virgin, Christ, according to the flesh, is said to be from the seed of David by way of what origin? Because his mother's body was.

[28:32] But that matter was not formed in the body of Christ through. a. Seed derived from David, but his mother's flesh was mother's blood. To the third, it should be said that Christ had an affinity to the human race, according to the likeness of what species, huh? It's an animal that has reason, right? But the likeness of a species is to be noted, not according to the remote matter, but according to the what proximate matter you're made out of, and according to the active principle that generates something like itself in species.

[29:18] Thus, therefore, the affinity of Christ to the human race is sufficiently preserved or conserved through this that the body of Christ was formed from the blood of the Virgin, derived by origin from Adam, right, and the other what fathers, huh? Nor does it make any difference to this affinity whence that matter of those of that blood, right, was taken, just as neither does it refer make any difference in the generation of other men, right, as in the first part has been said.

[30:07] Seventh article here. To the seventh, one goes forward thus, It seems that the flesh of Christ in the Ancient fathers, right, was not what infected with sin.

[30:30] For he said in wisdom, chapter seven, that in the divine wisdom nothing stained, shall we say, cannot come, comes in, runs in. But Christ is the wisdom of God, as is said in one Corinthians one twenty four. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was never what stained with sin, right? He's talking about the flesh of Christ, and the Father is not the flesh of Christ in in Christ, right?

[31:01] If you can see that distinction. Moreover, Damascene says in the third book that Christ took on the what of our nature, yeah. But in the first status, human flesh was not infected with sin. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was not infected either in Adam nor in the other what fathers, huh? As

[31:39] if it's preserved from the other parts of the body, right? It's kind of hard. Moreover, Augustine says in the tenth book on Genesis, the letter, that the human nature always had with the wound, right? The medicine for the wound, but that which is infected cannot be the medicine for the wound. But more, it itself needs medicine.

[32:10] Therefore, always in human nature there was something not infected, from which afterwards the body of Christ was formed. You can see these medieval thinkers are pondering over these these questions here, huh For roaring fire in the wintertime.

[32:36] But against this is that the body of Christ does not defer to Adam and to the other fathers, except by means of the body of the Blessed Virgin, from whom he took flesh, right? But the body of the Blessed Virgin, the whole was in.

[32:57] Yeah. Yeah, well, that's the said contrary That's not Thomas' opinion. And thus, also, according as it was in the fathers, it was what subject to sin, right? Therefore, the flesh of Christ, according as it was in the fathers, was subject to sin.

[33:23] I answer: It should be said that when we say that Christ or his flesh was in Adam and in other fathers, right, we compare it or his flesh, right, to Adam and to the other fathers, right. Now it is manifest that other was the condition of the fathers, and other of Christ. For the fathers were subject to what sin, but Christ was altogether immune from sin altogether.

[34:02] Twofold or in two ways, therefore, in this comparison, can it happen to err, make a mistake? In one way, that we attribute to Christ or to his flesh, the condition that was in the what fathers,

[34:24] and that's a mistake you can make about the Blessed Virgin too. For example, if we say that Christ sinned in what Adam, because in him, in some way, he was right, quite false huh which is false, because not in that way.

[34:48] In it was so that to Christ the sin of Adam would pertain, right? Because it was not derived from it, according to the law of concupiscence, or according to the what

[35:08] seed-like ratio power. This has been said above. In another way, it happens to err, make a mistake, if we attribute to that which was an act in the fathers, right, the condition of Christ or his flesh. That's kind of the reverse, huh?

[35:32] That because the flesh of Christ, according as it was in Christ, was not subject to sin, right? So also in Adam and in the other fathers, there was some part of the body, right, which was not subject to sin. From which part afterwards the body of Christ was formed, as some have what laid down. In my footnote says Hugo Saint Victor. Yeah. You know.

[36:07] See, my name is really Hugo. My name's Christian Hugo, Duane Berquist And my confirmation name is Victor. So take me with a grain of salt. I'm guilty as charged. There's

[36:27] one of the books maybe it was uh the Pope's talks on the um Saint Paul or something, but one of those kind of pieces. They had Ugo De Vittoria there. He's this Italian guy? Oh yeah. He was Saint Victor, what? Yeah. That's a date. The thing we get from the Franciscan nuns, you know, and they quote from the Desert Fathers. Oh yeah. And sometimes they'll have some of the fathers' names in in uh Italian.

[36:58] Oh. They refer to we say Abba Pambo. They say Pombone. Richard Saint Victor, right? So my brother, one of my brothers is named Richard, you know. So Richard and Hugo, I thought we had some affinity, you know, these guys. Yeah. It's just by name, but.

[37:32] So you can make a mistake going either way, right? Which is not able to be, he says, right? First, because the flesh of Christ was not according to some what individually signed matter in Adam. That was the thing he's excluding in the previous article, I guess. And in the other fathers, right? That is able then to be distinguished from the rest of his flesh as the pure from the impure, right?

[38:03] Huh? As has been said above, huh? That's the article preceding this one, right? Secondly, because since human flesh was infected with what sin, from this that it is conceived through what concupiscence. Just as the whole flesh of another man is conceived by concupiscence, huh? So the whole is what stained with what sin, huh? And therefore, it should be said that the whole flesh of the ancient fathers was subject to sin.

[38:43] Now, was there in it something immune from sin, from which afterwards the body of Christ could be what formed, huh? My first objection there. That stained him in some way, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ did not take on a flesh of human kind subject to what sin. But cleansed from every infection of sin, right? Now there is different, maybe to the cleansing of the Blessed Virgin, in his opinion, right?

[39:25] And therefore, in the wisdom of God, nothing what stained his runs into it. Okay, second objection here. Assume the first fruits of our nature.

[39:45] The second, it should be said, that Christ is said to have taken on the first fruits of our nature, as regards the likeness of what condition, because he took on flesh not infected with sin, just as was the flesh of man before sinna, but not, however, as is understood, according to a continuation of purity of purity,

[40:12] such that that flesh of the pure. Man was preserved from sin, immune, all the way down to the formation of the body of Christ. I

[40:30] wonder, Thomas, in his after communion prayer, that he prays in particular for charity and patience. Need patience to go through all these things. To the

[40:46] third, it should be said that in human nature before Christ, there was a what wound. That is the infection of original what sin, in act. But the medicine for the wound was not there, in act. But only according to the power of origin, and so far as from the those fathers was propagated the what flesh of Christ.

[41:24] Okay. Now loins is the next article. That loins or what? Loins, yeah. Lumbago, You know, you got the that thing. Yeah, yeah. That near loins, you get the the. I'm probably a lower back problem. Yeah.

[41:50] The words are related here. As lumbar is the back, yeah, lower back. Okay. But this is more the loins, huh? So it was decimated in the loins. Tithed, tithed. One ten. Yeah.

[42:11] For the apostle says in Ad Hebrew chapter seven that Levi who was the what? What? Great grandson of Abraham. Okay, that's I never heard that one. Pro nepos Yeah. Nepotism nepotism Really? Yeah. It is.

[42:36] He was decimated, huh? Tithed tithed, in Abraham, huh? Because giving tithes to Melchizedek. That's where that idea of tithing begins, huh? Yeah, Abraham. Okay. Still, Levi was in his what Loins. loins, huh? Likewise, Christ was in the loins of Abraham when he gave a tithes. Therefore, also Christ was tithed in Abraham. Strange argument, huh?

[43:15] Moreover, Christ took from the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, which he took from his what? Mother mother. But his mother was tithed in Abraham, right? Therefore, for a like reason, Christ.

[43:36] Moreover, that in Abraham is tithed that needed what cure, as Augustine says in the tenth book of Genesis to the letter. But all flesh subject to sin needs to be cured, huh? Since, therefore, the flesh of Christ was subject to sin, as has been said, it seems that the flesh of Christ was tithed in what Abraham.

[44:11] Don't recommend this for your your Sunday sermon. Moreover, this does not seem in any way to take away from the dignity of Christ, huh? The worth of Christ, huh? For nothing prevents the what father of some high priest, right? Giving tithes to some priest, a son, his son being a what greater priest than a simple what priest, huh?

[44:59] Though, although, therefore, it is said that Christ is tithed, huh? Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek right? Not nevertheless, on account of this is excluded that Christ can be greater than what strange article. I don't know about this Thomas sometimes.

[45:26] Yeah, we got to read the five objections to what the objection was. Okay, but against this is what Augustine says in the tenth book of Augustine's responsible for this nonsense. Okay, but against this is what Augustine says in the tenth book upon Genesis to the letter that Christ there to wit, in Abraham, right, was not tithed, right? huh? Who's fleshed, uh, from there is it? Yeah, not the what fervor of the wound, but he drew the matter for what medicine.

[46:11] Now let's see what Thomas makes sense out of this. Yes, he does, huh? I answer: It should be said that, according to the intention of the apostle—that's Saint Paul himself—is necessary to say that Christ was not tithed in the what loins of Abraham.

[46:37] For the apostle proves: greater is the priesthood, right, which is according to the order of Melchizedek right than the priesthood of the Levite, the legal priesthood, right, through which Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, right, with Levi already existing in his what loins, right, to whom pertains the legal what priesthood, huh? For if Christ also was tithed in Abraham, right, then his priesthood would not be according to the order of Melchizedek, but be less than the priesthood of Melchizedek, huh?

[47:26] And therefore it should be said that Christ was not tithed in the loins of Abraham as Levi was. That makes some sense, huh? Because he who gives what tithes retains nine for himself, right, and gives the tenth to another, huh? Which is a sign of perfection, insofar as ten is in a way the limit of all numbers, huh? Which go forward as far as ten, right, huh?

[48:07] And therefore the one who gives tithes protests himself imperfect, and he attributes perfection to the other. But the imperfection of human race is an account of sin, which needs its perfection, which is cured from what Sin. sin. But to cure one from sin is of Christ alone, for he is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, huh? As is said in John, there, John the Baptist, huh?

[48:46] He bears his what? Whose figure he bears, right? Melchizedek Oh? Oh, excuse me. Okay. But Melchizedek bears his figure, as the apostle proves Hebrew seven. Through this, therefore, that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek there is prefigured, as it were, the one conceived in sin, right, huh? And all who descend from him, for that reason that they contracted what? Original sin; they need the curing that is through what Christ.

[49:29] This is very subtle, Thomas. I must say, Isaac, over and Jacob and Levi, and all the others who were in Abraham, that from him they were derived, not only according to the corpulentum substantia, right, which Thomas admits that Christ is there according to corpulentum substantia many before, but also were there, as Christ was not, according to the

[49:57] seed-like reason, right, through which the original sin is what contracted, and therefore all in Abraham are tithed, that is, they are prefigured to need the curing which is through Christ.

[50:16] But. Christ alone was thus in Adam, that from him he was derived, not according to the seed-like reason, but according to what, the bodily substance. And therefore he was not in Abraham as one needing to be cured, but more as the medicine of the what wound. And therefore he was not in in the loins of Abraham, tithed right? This is clearly responsible the what first, huh?

[50:54] So he's in Abraham only according to corpulentum substantiam. I believe I was in there according to the seed-like reason, which meant he contracted sin.

[51:11] Okay, now Thomas, you're in trouble here again. To second should be said that because the blessed virgin was conceived in original sin, he was in Abraham as she was in Abraham as needing what cure. And there she was what tithed, huh? As as if therefore from there descending according to the seed-like reason, right? Okay, but this ain't the truth here, Thomas. Cut that out, my text, I guess.

[51:48] But about the body of Christ, it is not what thus. Okay, now the third objection. What's this one? That in Abraham was tithed, but needed what Cure curing, right? But that needs curing. That is subject to sin, right? But the flesh of Christ was not subject to sin.

[52:31] To the third should be said that the flesh of Christ is said to have been in the what ancient fathers subject to sin, according to the quality which it had in those parents who were tithed, right? Not over according to the quality which he had.

[52:54] Insofar as is an act in Christ who was not tithed. To the fourth, it should be said that the. The Levitical priesthood was derived according to the origin of flesh. Whence was not less in Abraham than in what? Levi. Whence through this that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek is to one what? Greater. It shows that the priesthood of Melchizedek, in so far as it had the figure of Christ, right, was greater than the Levitical priesthood, right.

[53:42] But the priesthood of Christ does not follow a fleshly origin, the origin according to flesh, but a spiritual what? Grace. And therefore, is able to be that the Father gives tithes to some priest as to a what? As a lesser to a greater, right? Nevertheless, his son, if he is a Pontifex, high priest, is greater than that priest, right? Not an account of the fleshly origin, but account on the spiritual grace that he has in Christ.

[54:16] uh I was looking at Towns today and the little thing on the Symbolum Apostolorum, you know, the Apostles' Creed, right? And he's talking about eternal life there, and how wonderful it is, right? Nice things he has to say there, right? But he's talking about how obviously, knowledge, you know, he's going to have knowledge to the fullness, but also pleasure, right, and so on. And he says honor too, right?

[54:48] See, and then he says, now all the laymen want to be king, and all the priests want to be the bishop. Well, there's a promise to us in heaven, right? You know, you know, kingdom and free, you know, because you're very explicit. It says kingdom, you know, you're going to rule, you're going to be like a king, you know. So what the laity want, they're going to get, and I suppose the priesthood you get there in heaven is kind of like a, you know, like a status of a bishop, right?

[55:12] So we're going to get the honor that we seek, you know, in this life. We seek to get to be Monsignor. Yeah. That's right. That was good. We'll get to be Monsignor. But San Anselm didn't want to be bishop at all. You should take a little break here, huh?