Tertia Pars
74. Summa III, Q.32 a.4 & Q.33 aa.1–2: Mary's Role in Conceiving Christ, the Body Formed and Given a Soul in an Instant
Class of 2010-02-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/074-summa-iii-q-32-a-4-q-33-aa-1-2-marys-role-in-conceiving-christ/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son Holy Spirit Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our mind, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:29] Looking at a little text of Thomas, there you know, in the articles of faith and the sacraments, to the Bishop Panormitanus or something, and when Thomas divides up the sacraments to distinguish all seven sacraments, how many distinctions or divisions does he give to arrive at the seven? Probably two. or three

[0:53] Probably two I'm guessing two. No, he he he does it by five divisions, right? Five distinctions, four of which are into two, and one is into three. Okay.

[1:11] Now the the first distinction is between those sacraments that are to the good of the individual his spiritual life, and the other ones that are kind of to the common good, right? That's the first division, right? Okay. And in that first group, there are five sacraments, and the second group two. But then he divides that first group into those that are ordered, you might say, to the good, right?

[1:36] Then those who are ordered to what against sin, right? And that's the what second division, right? Okay. Then he divides the first part of that into three. You know, because he often makes comparison to the plant soul, right? You know, generation, growth, and nourishment, so on. And then he he divides in the fourth division, he divides the other part into what confession or penance, we don't call it, and and the last anointing and so on, okay.

[2:16] And then he divides the other one into the matrimony and orders, right? Okay. So it's five divisions altogether, right? And they're all into two or three, but in this case, there there one is into three, and the rest are into what two, right? So anyway, I was thinking about his distinction there between confession and and the last anointing, we wanna call it, and he's speaking of how confession is ordered to the good of the what soul, right?

[2:49] Now, in curing the soul of sin and so on, while the last anointing. Can act upon the body, if what necessary for the salvation of the soul, right? As well as upon the the soul, right? It was kind of interesting distinction, but kind of hard in sense to understand, right? And I was talking about the other day to somebody, and I said, you know, like just when somebody's under a deathbed, you know, I guess you can't give them communion unless they're they respond to the thing.

[3:26] You don't just go and give it to somebody who's yeah, yeah. Or if the mind is wandering, you know, even then, you know. But I was I was remarking about it when my my grandmother's at the end there was in the hospital, um, and you know she was her mind was wandering all the time, you know. But the priest came with with the thing. Came out of it, yeah, you know, and and and and one of the other persons who was there said, you know, the priest had told them this is this often happens that they come out, you know.

[3:54] But there you see, you can see that the body needs to be strengthened, right? And therefore, that's something different, you know. It's kind of a twofold thing, missing. Well, I got thinking, you know, I got thinking about this this prayer that we say very often, the Hail Mary, right? Huh? And you say in the second, the first part is really praising Mary, right? But the second half is is the prayer of the asking.

[4:21] You say, Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, right? Now and at the hour of our death, huh? So you explicitly praying or asking her to pray for you as what sinners, right? And then you ask her to pray for you as sinners, both now and at the hour of death. Something is singled out then about the special need at at that time, right? So it corresponds in a way to the distinction between the two sacraments, huh?

[4:56] It's just it's two sacraments, right? One to purge of your sins now, and then another one to purge of your sins and at the hour of death, right? Because of the special needs the soul has at that time, right? And you ask Mary to pray for you as sinner now and at the hour of death. So it's the same distinction, it seems, you know. It corresponds to it.

[5:20] I mean, huh? It's it's not the same thing, but it's corresponds to the same fact that there's there's a a need now to to have your sins forgiven, but then there's a special need, right? And you actually distinguish it from from that, huh? Okay, um, I was teaching the Posterior Analytics right? I was saying well, you have something like this in in the human thing, right? Because the Posterior Analytics is addressed to the soul, to the reason, right?

[5:52] And the emotions and the senses and the imagination. Take no delight in what we're doing. It's just the tool of reason, right? Huh? But now you go and you read. They say, you know, great fiction like Shakespeare's plays, huh? Well, Shakespeare's plays appeal to the senses and the imagination and the emotions, as well as to the reason, right? So, it's a kind of similar what distinction, right?

[6:21] Huh? Okay. Well, then when Thomas gets to the to the last distinction, where he's distinguishing between matrimony and holy orders, right? Huh? He seems to give a similar distinction there, right? Because matrimony is ordered both to the bodily good and the spiritual good of the children. So the three things that you say for the parents is well, you you generate your children, you nourish them, and then you instruct them, right?

[6:48] Huh? So you're concerned with both their body when you generate their body, you don't generate their soul with their body, and you nourish that body, right? And then you what address yourself to the soul? So both the body and the soul, right? Huh? While the the priest is such, right? Huh? It's actually not the priest who would ever feed you, right? I mean, in some cases, but I mean, it's not the duty of the priest to feed us, right?

[7:14] And or and therefore he seems to be directed directly to the what exclusive to the soul, right? So it kind if you understand the distinction between confession and and the last anointing, right? Huh? There's some similarity in that distinction, and distinction between matrimony and what? Yeah, and between the two things that you ask Mary to pray for our sinners now and at the hour of our what death, you know, kind of interesting to see that distinction.

[7:47] It's kind of a hard distinction for us to see, you know, but there's something like that in human affairs, huh? Um, and I said one distinction I gave was between logic there and the fiction, right? Huh?

[8:09] Maybe the love of man and of woman too. We can fly to that. We'll let you in the last word of the day. Okay, so let's go to Article Four here in Question Thirty Two.

[8:29] To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the Blessed Virgin did what something actively, right? In the conception of the body of Christ, huh? And the first argument is from the great Damascene, right, in the third book, huh? The Orthodox faith, right? So it should be okay, huh? For the most part.

[8:57] for Damascene says in the third book. That the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, purging her, right, and giving her a what power, susceptible of the Word of God, likewise a what generative power, right.

[9:18] But she had, by nature, the what passive generating power, right. Just as every woman, right, according to the teaching of Aristotle, therefore he must have he gave something in addition, right. It must have been an active generative power, right. And that she did something actively in the what conception of Christ.

[9:44] Now you put accomplishment, right, to unite the human nature to the second person of the Trinity. Moreover, all the powers of the living soul are active powers. As the commentator, that's what Averroes is huh The Thomas really deserves that title, don't you? As the commentator says in the second book about the soul, but the generative power, both in the male as in the woman, pertains to the what living soul.

[10:24] Therefore, both in the male and in the woman, it operates actively to the conception of the what offspring. Moreover, the woman to the conception of the offspring administers the matter from which naturally the body of the offspring is formed. But nature is a what intrinsic beginning resource of motion. Therefore, it seems that in matter itself, which the blessed virgin administered to the conception of Christ, there was some active principle.

[11:01] That's an old mistake about matter, anyway. That's a fine Latin philosophy discussed philosophy discussed. But against this is that the active principle in the generation is called the ratio seminalis, right? The seed-like ratio. But as Augustine says on the tenth book of Genesis to the letter, the body of Christ in what only bodily matter only bodily matter, through the divine what

[11:35] conception formation was taken from the virgin. Not, however, according to some seed-like human thing. Therefore, the blessed virgin did nothing active in the conception of the body of what Christ.

[11:55] Okay. Let's see what Thomas says. about this. I answer. He says it should be said that some say that the blessed virgin did something actively in the conception of Christ, both by a natural power and by a what supernatural power. Now they said by a natural power because they place in every or in any natural matter some active principle, right? This is something Thomas attacks in the natural philosophy.

[12:31] Otherwise, what? Sorry. Do you know where that comes from? Because it says down here that it was the the some say is Bonaventure and Alexander of Hales. Is that um? Are they following something from Plato or something? Or when you said that, some sort of. I don't know who it comes from exactly, but I mean it is an opinion that Thomas, even the first book of Natural Hearing, the first book of the Physics, right?

[12:55] You know, argues against right. And the principle that they have in mind is otherwise they believe there would not be a what yeah they see they go back to the idea that nature is an intrinsic principle right so if the active principle was not in the matter it wouldn't be natural but when Aristotle defines nature there in the second book of natural hearing then he goes on to say that both matter and form are nature right but in a different sense yeah and so something can be natural just by reason of the matter and that that comes up a lot in natural philosophy in the old when you talk about say the heavenly bodies right they're being moved by the what material substances so is

[13:48] this a natural motion well there's a natural aptitude in the heavenly bodies to be moved in this way so there's a passive principle that makes it what natural right okay

[14:04] so Thomas says in which they are deceived right okay because a transmutation transformation is said to be natural on account of an intrinsic principle not only an active one but also a what passive one as the philosopher says expressly right in the eighth book of the physics huh or he's speaking that in heavy bodies right and in light bodies there is a passive principle of natural motion and not an active

[14:44] nor is it possible he says that matter act for its own formation because it is not in act nor is it possible that something move itself unless it be divided into parts of which one is moving and the other is what moved which happens only in animate things as is proven in the eighth book of the physics so he kind of dismisses the idea that it could be by a natural active power right okay

[15:18] by a supernatural power because they say to the mothers required not only that she administered the matter which is the menstrual blood but also the seed which is mixed with the what male seed having an active power of generation and because in the Blessed Virgin there was not made any resolution of seed on a concomit of a most integral virginity they say that the Holy Spirit supernaturally gave to her an active power in power in the conception of the body of Christ which other mothers have through some what seed result huh

[16:03] But this cannot stand, Sed contra, because each thing is on account of its own what operation or doing, as is said in the second book, De Caelo, right?

[16:21] It's interesting, Thomas, he just says De Caelo, right? A lot of times they call De Caelo et Mundo, right? But I think the Greek word can mean the heavens or the universe, and really the name of the book is about the universe. But in Latin, I guess De Caelo sometimes does mean the universe, but the heavens as opposed to the earth. So they'll say, well, it's not the whole, so it's De Caelo et Mundo.

[16:45] But here he just says De Caelo, right? Okay, since each thing is an account of its own, nature would not have distinguished, right, for the work of generation, the male and the female sex, unless there were a distinct operation of the man from the operation of the woman. But in generation, are distinguished the operation of the agent and the patient, whence it is left that the whole what active power is on the side of the man, the passive power on the side of the woman, right?

[17:33] On account of which, in plants, in which there is what both powers are mixed, there is no distinction of the male and the female. But I guess there is some kind of distinction of that, so don't take this as a grain of salt here. Because therefore the Blessed Virgin did not take that she would be the father of Christ, right? But only his mother. As a consequence, that she did not what take a active power in the conception of Christ.

[18:06] With her, she did something from which it would follow that to be the father of what Christ, or did nothing, right, as some say, from which it would follow that this active power was what given in vain, yeah. And therefore it should be said that in the conception of Christ, the Blessed Virgin did nothing actively, but only administered the what matter. Ah, but she nevertheless did something actively before conception, in preparing the matter that might be apt for what conception.

[18:53] No, so we do make that distinction there between the art that prepares the matter and the art that what induces the the form, yeah. So he's admitting something active there. It seems in the preparation of the what of the matter, yeah, yeah, but not in the formation of it by the rational. soul.

[19:27] in regard to the text of Damascene, he explains Damascene now a different way than the objection understands it. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that conception had three privileges, you might say, unique things: one, that it was without what original sin; that it was not of a what pure man, but of one who is both God and man; and third, that it was the conception of a virgin. And these three things it had from the Holy Spirit, and therefore Damascene says, as regards the first, that the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, purging her, right?

[20:13] That is preserving her, lest she conceive with what original sin, you know, didn't conceive herself. She wasn't herself conceived of original sin, right? As regards the second, that what he's giving a power susceptible of the Word of God, that she might conceive the Word of God. As regards the third, sema generativa, which is where the objection really comes from, right? That remaining a virgin, she could generate, not actively but passively, as other mothers conceive or attain this from the seed of the what man.

[21:15] Okay. Now the idea that all the powers of the vegetative soul, right, the plant soul, are active. To the second, it should be said that the generative power in the woman is imperfect with respect to the generating power which is in the man, and therefore, just as in the art, the what lower art disposes the matter, the superior art induces the form, as is said in the second book of Physics.

[21:49] So also the generative power of the woman prepares the matter, but the active power of the man forms the matter thus prepared. The third objection, he says, to the third, it should be said that this transmutation is natural, or in order that this transmutation be natural, it is not required that in the matter there be a what active principle, but only a passive one, right? That's kind of a common thing through the the books of natural, hearing Physics, that the matter is a sense of nature different from form, and something can be called natural by reason of the matter, right?

[22:33] Not just by reason of the. Now we're up to question. Thirty-three. Then when ought to consider about the mode and order in the conception of Christ, and about these four things are asked. First, whether the body of Christ is the in the first instant of the conception was formed.

[23:08] Thomas is going to say yes. Not some of these pro-life people who try to take that and say therefore in the first moment of conception you know there's already yeah you got to be kind of careful about that.

[23:26] Second, whether in the first instance of conception it was animated now of the soul. Third, whether in the first instant of conception it was assumed taken up taken on by the word.

[23:45] And fourth, whether that conception was natural miraculous. Very stingy this Thomas isn't he? Yeah, one little thing goes by. Every little thing he's got he's got it he's got it. Yeah. Niggard truth as Shakespeare calls it in the sonnets stingy truth. To the first one proceeds thus: it seems that the body of Christ was not formed in the first instant of conception,

[24:37] for it is said in the second chapter of the Gospel of John. Forty-six years the temple was what built right? Huh. Which Augustine, expounding in the fourth book about the Trinity, says this number fits the perfection of the what of the Lord's body. Manifestly, yeah. And in the book of the eighty-three questions,

[25:08] not with not absurdly is forty-six years said to be fabricated the temple that figures is what body right? Huh. Because as many years as there were in the fabrication of the temple, so many days were there in the perfection of the body of the Lord. Right.

[25:33] Therefore, not in the first instant of conception was the body of Christ perfectly formed. I like be changing the English word order. Therefore, the body of Christ was not perfectly formed in the first instant of the conception. Right. Therefore, not in the first instant of conception was the body of Christ perfectly formed. It's kind of funny if you read these things in the Latt all the time; they pick up certain ways of speaking, you know, in English, and you can identify them, you know, when they you know.

[26:08] I read I read Mike Mike Hickens' thesis or something He gave it to U or I don't remember. And all I I mean sort of sounds like he's thinking in Latin. Yeah. So it felt like the way his word order was, he was just kind of going through like he reads this stuff in Latin. Well, Albert the Great and the Paralytics are looking at now doing that with the class on Wednesday night, and and he'll give kind of you know a Latin the Greek order in the Latin first, and then he'll give the way we usually say it in Latin, you know, and it's not but confusing to say the least.

[26:54] Apart from the fact that Aristotle doesn't change the order of his students, he uses them. Very enjoy doing that. Does every teacher enjoy losing his students?

[27:13] More to the formation of the body of Christ is required locomotion, right? Change of place by which the most pure bloods of the Blessed Virgin arrived at a suitable place for generation. But no body can be moved in place in an instant. Huh? In that the time of motion is divided according to the division of the mobile, as is proved in the sixth book of the physics.

[27:44] Therefore, the body of Christ was not formed in instant. Aristotle shows that motion or you know locomotion takes time, right? Because that's the way Aristotle argues that illumination is not a locomotion, huh? Because it doesn't take any time. Of course, we know very you know interesting instruments can actually see that it does take some time for the light to fill this room, but you know it seems kind of kind of incredible that something would move that fast, right?

[28:21] It's interesting because Thomas talks about the heavenly bodies, and Aristotle speaks about them as being eternal and so on, and because you don't see them, you know, corrupting, you know, like like you see bodies down on the earth are corrupting all the time, and Thomas says, "Well, but you could say, you know, maybe it takes longer than you know the lives of many men, you know, for these changes to be.

[28:45] Take place and to be noticeable in the heavenly bodies. So, you know, he has a little caution there, right? Huh? You know, even though it appears that they don't change, right? But he doesn't have any, you know, caution. He talks about the, you know, light, huh? But so, from a formal point of view, Aristotle's syllogism is correct, right?

[29:11] Illumination takes no time. Locomotion takes time. Therefore, illumination is not a locomotion. But the minor premise there might be what mistake, right? Does take some time, although very, very little, right? It's a hundred eighty-six thousand miles per second, something like that. That's for that clock. Yeah. Yeah.

[29:33] Yeah. But even Thomas says, you know that the sun rises and oh, you know, that's incredible to think that you know that could be anything that fast, right? Yeah. What do you think of these computers and all this? It's the same, just a different telephone, you know. I dial a number and it rings out in Florida. That fast? Yeah. That's over a telephone line. That's pretty. Yeah.

[30:04] Miracles about in science, right? The space age. Moreover, the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of the Virgin, as has been said above. But that matter could not, in the same instant, be what blood and flesh, right? Because thus matter would at the same time be under two what forms. Therefore, there was another instant in which it was last blood. Therefore, other was the instant which was last blood, and other in which it was first what flesh.

[30:57] But between any two instances, there is a middle what time. Therefore, the body of Christ was not formed an instant, but through some time. Well, this comes back. This is the famous argument that comes up again and again, right? Well, it comes up, you know, in Hegel and everybody. You know, it goes all the way back to the Greeks, huh? But

[31:24] people say, you know, take any two of the contradictions, right? When what is not a cat becomes a cat, right? And you say, well, there is some time in which it was not a cat, right? Huh? Okay.

[31:49] But since that time is not forever, there is a last instant, right, in which it was not a cat, right? Now, there's a later time in which it is a cat, right? And it wasn't always a cat, right? So there's a first instant in which it is a cat, right? Now, is a last instant in which it is not a cat, and the first instant in which it is a cat, are they the same instant?

[32:30] Yeah. If you say they are the same, right? Then in that instant, it both is and is not a cat, which is something that Hegel would admit, right? You know. But if you say that it's not the same instant, right? Well, then there's going to be some time between those two instances, right? Now, in that time in between, is it not a cat, or is it a cat?

[33:02] Well, if it's not a cat, then you shouldn't have instances. Well, this you should put up here again, right? Or if you say it is a cat in this time in between, well then this is not the first instance over here, right? So you can't have any time between those two instances. So it seems that the last instance which is not a cat, is also the first instance, which is a cat.

[33:23] And this is the way Hegel maintains, you know, that you know, change is a contradiction, right? And now this this runs through because it it creates problems in in theology, right? So they say, you know, in Eucharist, right, it's the same thing. Let's say the blood becomes, I shouldn't say the blood of wine,

[33:48] the wine becomes the blood of Christ, right? And you say, well, it's not always wine that is it, huh? So there's a last instant, right, in which it is wine, and and there's a first instant that is blood, right? Well, are they the same instant? Well, then you're going to have both the wine, and that's heretical, right? But if they're not, then you've got to have a time in between.

[34:18] And is it wine? Is it blood in there? It's wine, then it's not the last instant. And so he did the same problem, right?

[34:28] Aristotle solves that and invokes a natural hearing, right? And Thomas will probably give a little solution of it here, right? It's just similar to the, I guess it's not the same, but I always associated my mind with it. It wasn't Zeno, you shoot an arrow at a target, you never get. Yeah, it's related to that. You name that, yeah, yeah. It's a little different problem, yeah. I was associated with that.

[34:54] Aristotle's going to, you know, teach that there's no last instant in which it is not a what cat, but only a first instant which it is a cat.

[35:13] Okay. Can't go to the books of natural hearing right now natural hearing right now, but Thomas will touch upon that. So it's interesting; it shows up here again, huh? It shows up in the treatise on the on the Eucharist and the other places, huh?

[35:32] Moreover, the power of growing, the augmentative power, requires a determinate time for its act. So also does the generating power. Now both power, both of them are a natural power pertaining to the living soul. But the body of Christ grew for a determined time, just as that in the bodies of other men, right? For it is said in the second chapter of Luke that he progressed, you might say, in age and wisdom, right?

[36:13] So if his growing took time, right? When is generating take time? Therefore, it seems for a like reason that the formation of his body, which pertained to the which pertains to the generating power, was not an instant, but in a determined time in which the bodies of other men were what formed, huh?

[36:39] But against this is what Gregory says in the eighteenth book of the morals that the angel announcing and the Holy Spirit coming at once, huh? The word in the womb at once.

[36:59] The word was flesh, right? Okay, A little concision of the language, huh? We see that in Aristotle in the Prior Analytics right? You know, they'll develop the verb, you know. I was kind of, I was kind of, had Greek text and I was kind of translating as I went along in the class last night, and some of them were looking at in English, you know, because they have more words, you know.

[37:25] He said, "You do the words out, you know." No, no, just give what the guy says. Thomas says, "I answer. It should be said that in the conceiving of the body of Christ, three things are to be considered: first, the locomotion of the blood to the place of generation; secondly, the formation of the body from such matter; third, the growth by which it is brought to a perfect what size, huh?

[38:04] In the middle of which the notion of conception consists. For the first is a what preamble to the conception, and the third is something that follows upon the conception, huh? Now the first is not able to be in an instant, huh? Because this is against the very definition, the very notion of local motion of any body, right, huh? Whose parts successively enter a place, huh? Likewise, the third must be what successive, right, huh?

[38:45] Because on one hand growth is not without some locomotion, and also because it goes forth from the power of the soul operating in the body now formed, which does not operate except in what time.

[39:07] But the very formation of the body, in which chiefly the ratio of the notion of the definition of conception consists, was in an instant, for a twofold reason. First, on account of the infinite power of the agent, to wit, the Holy Spirit, by whom the body of Christ is formed,

[39:33] as has been said above. For the in that way an agent can more what quickly dispose matter the more is of greater power, or the more an agent is of greater power, the more power an agent has. If I'm saying this right, the more quickly it can dispose. Yeah. Okay.

[40:02] Whence an agent of infinite power is able in an instant to dispose matter for a what suitable form. Secondly, on the part of the Person of Christ, whose body is to be formed, for it was not congruent or suitable, and that he assumed a what in a human body except one formed.

[40:38] For if before a perfect formation, some time of conception went before, the whole conception would not be what, which is not attributed to him except by reason of the what assumption. And therefore, in the very first instant in which the matter arrived at the place of generation, it was perfectly formed the body of Christ in what assumed.

[41:15] And to this it is said that the Son of God is said to be conceived, right? Because in no other ways is it possible. That's kind of subtle. Second argument there.

[41:33] And not so much the idea that it wouldn't be suitable, but but the idea that you couldn't speak of him as being what. So he's kind of reasoning from what we say by faith. Then he brings in the fittingness of it.

[42:11] Now he answers these texts of Augustine by saying that the word Augustine in both places does not refer to the only the formation of the body of Christ, right? But to the formation of it together with some what? Yeah, up to the time of what? Birth. Birth.

[42:37] Whence, according to the notion of that number, it is said to be. perfected. the time of nine what months, of which Christ was in the womb of the Virgin. I've seen that before, I guess. And actually, the numbers, but I don't remember the exact details of it. Well, it's nine months, nine half years, two hundred seventy, two hundred seventy-six, because he adds the six days, because the six is perfect And uh I'm trying to remember now, how that's related to forty-six.

[43:07] He multiplies forty-six by something. Yeah, He gets some other number in there to get the two hundred forty-six and two hundred seventy-six. Now, the second objection was taken from the blood getting to the place, right? To the second, it should be said that that locomotion was not comprehended within what, or under the conception, but is the preamble to the conception, right? Okay.

[43:40] Okay. Now the third one is the way he solves the same thing when it comes to the Eucharist, huh? It's in French, there I don't know if it's been put in eventually, in English, it's, in these new editions, but it's called in French "Paradox de devenir" par la contradiction. So it deals with this thing to solve this this problem, right? That's in the physics and solved there in the physics, right?

[44:07] But it touches upon the importance of it for theology, right, and the Eucharist and so on. It's one place, but but here it shows up again, right? You never know; it's an old friend. You kind of see, you know, the importance of natural philosophy, right, for even for what theology, right, huh? In this particular difficulty, huh?

[44:34] To the third, it should be said that one cannot assign a last instant in which the matter was what blood, huh? But one can assign a last time, right? As continued, huh? Not by something in the middle intervening, right? But continuous to the first instant in which it was what the flesh of Christ was formed, huh? And this instant was the term of the what time of the locomotion of the matter to the place of what generation, right?

[45:26] Okay. Now to the fourth, huh? That's the one saying why shouldn't it be the same in the both. To the fourth, it should be said that growth comes through the what the power of growing of the one that grows, huh? But the formation, the body, comes about through the generating power, not of the one who is generated, right? But of the part, of the father, generating from what the seed, in which operates the formative power derived from the soul of the father.

[46:11] But the body of Christ was not formed from the what seed of the man, as has been said above, but from the operation of the Holy Spirit, and therefore such ought to have been the formation as befitted the Holy Spirit. But the growth of the body of Christ was made according to the growing power of the soul of Christ, Christ, which, since in species or kind, is conformed to our soul, in the same way ought right

[46:47] that body to be what augmented, just as other human bodies are what augmented, right, increased. And from this is shown the truth of what human nature.

[47:13] So the power generating was not a bodily power, but the Holy Spirit. Now the second objection here, or second article, whether the body of Christ was animated in the first instant of conception.

[47:35] The second one goes forward thus: It seems that the body of Christ was not animated in the first instant of conception. For Leo Papa says in the Epistle to Julian, "Not of another nature was the flesh of Christ than ours,

[48:01] nor nor by any other what soul was what it breathed in in the beginning, right? Than in the case of other men. But in other men, the soul was not what poured in in the very first instant of the conception. Therefore, neither was the soul at all to be funded or poured into the body of Christ in the first instant of his what conception, right? That sounds very pro-life here.

[48:47] I mean, Thomas. Well, in the way Thomas would speak is like in that first moment of conception in human beings, you don't yet have a what organic body, right? A body composed of tools, right? The tools are not there, so you don't have the proper matter for the human soul yet, huh?

[49:10] So wouldn't be the same in Christ? The objection is saying, right? Moreover, the soul, just as any natural form, requires a determined quantity in its what matter. This is what Aristotle makes use of in the first book of Natural Hearing when he argues against Anaxagoras. But in the first instant of the conception of the body of Christ, it did not have as much quantity as has the bodies of other men when they are animated.

[49:50] Otherwise, if he was continually afterwards growing or augmented, either he would have been what Born. born earlier, or in his nativity he would have been of more quantity than other infants. Ah, of which the first is against Augustine in the fourth book, the Trinity, where he proves that he was in the space of nine months in the womb of the Virgin, right?

[50:28] So that's the way the church has nine months there between. Mm-hmm. March is not nine months. Nine months and six days. Okay. Thank you.

[50:41] Secondly, however, secondly, okay, according to which is against Leo Papa, who in his sermon on the Epiphany, right, that there's they found the boy Jesus in no way, right, distinguished from what is commonly found in the human infant, right.

[51:11] Therefore, the body of Christ was not animated in the first instant of his conception. Moreover, where there is a before and after, there are many what instances, right? But according to the philosopher in the book on the generation of animals, in the generation of man is required a before and after, for first he is living, and afterwards an animal, and afterwards a what man.

[51:44] Therefore, there could not be a what animation of Christ perfected in the first what instant of his conception. Okay. You see, Aristotle said that in the sense that you have a fertilized egg. What do you have next? Right. You don't have sensations, right? But you see, you have cell division, growth, like you have in a plant, right? Then thereon you get the sense powers, and finally you're disposed to have the rational soul.

[52:17] Well, the church has ever said exactly when the rational soul is infused, right? But against this is what Damascene says in the third book on the Orthodox Faith: Simul caro, simul Dei Verbo caro, simul caro animata anima rationali et intellectuali Okay. So what word? How can you say "simul" in English? Usually say at the same time, but it's not.

[52:48] Yeah. You can say together, you know. Together, flesh. Together, the flesh of the Word of God. Together, flesh animated by a reasonable and understandable, understanding soul.

[53:11] I answer: It should be said that in order that the conception might be attributed to the Son of God, right, huh? As we confess in the symbol, right, in the Apostles. Creed or the Nicene Creed, saying who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, right? It is necessary to say that the body, when it was what conceived, was taken on by the Word of God.

[53:49] Has been shown above that the Word of God took on a body by means of what soul, mediante, okay, and the soul mediante what spiritual part of it, namely the understanding part. Whence it is necessary that in the first instant of conception, the body of Christ was animated by the rational soul. It would not be fitting to think of the Word of God, right? To take on a body that was not what formed by rational soul and had the the spiritual powers, right?

[54:32] Yeah, that's interesting. I never thought of that. So he's using this twice now. It's because of what we confess in the creed: He, the Son of God, was conceived of the Holy Spirit. But you couldn't have privileged him unless he had possession of the rational soul. Yeah.

[55:05] Okay. The first objection here: say, isn't this making him less human or something? To the first therefore, make him more human, really. Yeah. To the first therefore, should be said that the beginning of the breathing in of the soul can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to the disposition of the body,

[55:34] and thus, not from what any other beginning, right, was breathed in the soul, to the body of Christ and to the bodies of other men, right?

[55:55] For just as at once when the body is formed of another man, the soul was poured in, so likewise was it in Christ. But in another way, one can consider the foresaid beginning only according to time, and thus, because before in time was formed what perfectly the body of Christ, before in time was it also what animated.

[56:31] Whereas our formation takes longer, yeah, yeah. So when is the acorn an oak tree? The acorn really an oak tree? Yeah, the seed of an oak tree. Yeah, but you strictly speaking, it's not oak tree yet. Takes some time.

[56:55] Now, what's this objection from from quantity, right? Remember how Anaxagoras had the position, you know, that flesh and blood and bone and everything else is inside of everything, infinitely small pieces. Aristotle argues by an if-then argument that if the parts can fall below any size, right, then the whole can fall below any size. But then he goes out to nature and says, but the whole doesn't fall, below just any size.

[57:28] And therefore, the parts don't, right? So there seems to be a limit in the in in the size, right? That's something the scientists once in a while, you know, the physicists even, you know, stop and consider, you know, why is it that that all these different elementary particles have a definite size, right? They don't find below the size.

[57:52] Well, in in geometry, see, if you take the famous theorems of Book Four, let's say, the inside of any circle you could inscribe a square, and inside of any square you could inscribe a circle. Well, that involves then the squares and circles can get smaller and smaller and smaller. There's no such thing as a what? Yeah, because inside of any square you can inscribe a circle, inside any circle a square.

[58:16] So that second square is smaller than the first one, right? And you can inscribe in that a circle. It goes on and on and on, right? Turtles all the way down.

[58:30] Sure those kind of clever I don't know birthday cards, or, what they were. But a picture of the postman bringing you a card, and on the card was a picture of a postman bringing a card. You see how I would go. Kind of clever little things, you know. He had a great idea of those cards. When Brother Stephen was here, Brother Augustine took a picture of him, took a picture of outside, and he's standing.

[58:52] He's got these dark glasses on. He's got sort of a serious look on his face, and he's standing with his arms like this. Brother Augustine took the picture of Brother Stephen and shrunk it down, and stuck it in his arm like a little mannequin. And then that mannequin had another little Brother Stephen

[59:09] in his arm. Thomas says, to a second, it should be said that the soul requires a suitable quantity in the matter to which it is what poured. But that quantity has a certain latitude, which Aristotle himself does say, right? Because it can be saved both in a greater and in a lesser what quantity, right?

[59:42] But the quantity of the body which it has when what is first when the soul is first poured into it, right? Is proportional to the quantity, to the perfect quantity to which it will arrive through what growth. And thus, of greater men, their bodies have a greater quantity in their first animation. I don't know if that's true, but

[1:00:11] okay. But Christ, in his what perfect age, had a suitable and a what not a mediocre, but a middling quantity, right? the virtue. into which is proportion the what?

[1:00:42] It's good. To which is proportion the quantity which his body had in the time in which other in which the bodies of other men are what animated, but less than it had in the beginning of its what conception.

[1:01:02] But nevertheless, that small quantity was not so small that in it could not be what preserved the notion of a what animated body, since in such a quantity the bodies of what small men, right, are animated. huh? I don't know, I don't know about that, but. President Augustine is the largest brother in our family, and he said when he was born, he weighed fourteen pounds. So we all felt sorry for his mother when he told us.

[1:01:43] He's the biggest, right? He's the largest. Yeah, that is impressive. I risked my king. Now, it should be said to think about Aristotle. To the third should be said that in the generation of other men, there has place what the philosopher says, an account of this that the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul. Whence first, as it were, imperfectly disposed, it receives a soul, an imperfect soul, and afterwards, when it is perfectly disposed, it receives a perfect soul.

[1:02:29] But the body of Christ, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed in a what instant. Whence, at once, in the first instant, it received a perfect form; that is to say, a reasonable soul. Take a little break now. Yeah. What was that?