Tertia Pars
77. Christ's Two Births, Mary as True Mother and Mother of God, and Whether Christ Has Two Sonships
Class of 2010-02-11
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/077-christs-two-births-mary-as-true-mother-and-mother-of-god/

[0:00] Now, whether to Christ should be attributed some birth in time, right? Some temporal birth. To the second, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that to Christ should not be attributed any

[0:20] time-wise, any temporal birth. For to be born is like a what motion of a thing not existing, right? Before he's born, and that doing by reason of the birth that it might be. But Christ was from eternal eternity. Therefore, he could not be born temporally.

[0:54] He came to be by being born as a man. In some way. So he came to be. secundum quid Is going to be that old distinction again. Just a guess. Moreover, that which is in itself perfect does not need birth, but the person of the Son of God from eternity was perfect. But he wasn't a perfect man.

[1:23] Therefore, did not need a temporal birth, and therefore it seems that he was not born in time. So in the fullness of time, he wasn't born, according to this argument.

[1:39] But we don't jump to conclusions here. Moreover, birth belongs properly to a what person? But in Christ there is only one person, right? Therefore, in Christ there is only one what birth? For it's only one by which He simply is, right? Everybody's got to use a little distinction there. Aristotle taught him. Plato taught him. Moreover, what is born by two births is twice born, right? But this seems to be false.

[2:16] Christ is twice born, because the birth by which He was born of the Father does not undergo any interruption, since it is eternal. Which nevertheless is required for this adverb twice, huh? For that is said to run twice, which, with some interruption, runs, huh? Therefore, it seems that in Christ there should not be placed a twofold birth, huh? But against all this is what Damascene says in the third book.

[2:56] We confess there to be two what births of Christ, huh? One from the Father, which is eternal, and one in the last times, an account of us.

[3:12] So I was just say, it seems like when I was growing up in these days, I don't know, but there was a mass almost like you know, middle of the night or something, you know. But the first mass of this series would have the Gospel of Saint John and was celebrating the eternal birth, huh? And then,

[3:30] yeah, it's a little bit like you know, when they have Christ what coming, you know, they sometimes say, well, there's going to be a last coming, and there's a yeah, there's a coming into your souls and things too, and they distinguish three comings, you know, and something like that, you know. So,

[3:50] lex orandi, lex credendi, huh? Okay. Um, let's see what the master says here. All right, to the body article two here. Okay. I answer. It should be said that it has been said. Nature is compared to birth as the term or end, right? To the

[4:23] motion or change, huh? For motion is diversified by the diversity of terms or ends or limits, as is clear to the philosopher in the fifth book of the what? Natural hearing, huh? That's the book where Aristotle distinguishes between various kinds of change there are in the natural world, right? This is a point he makes there. But in Christ, however, there is a twofold nature, one of which he gets from eternity from the Father, another he gets or takes or receives in time from his mother, and therefore it is necessary to attribute to Christ two births, one by which he is eternally born from the Father, the other in which, in time, he is born from his mother.

[5:27] Now the first objection is that of Feliciano, the happy one, happy, lucky heretic, right, huh? The happy heretic. Which Augustine, in the book against Feliciano, right, thus unties, huh?

[5:53] For they what imagine, right? Fingamus. Yeah, as many wish, right? There to be in the world a general what soul, which by its unspeakable motion, right, vivifies what some seeds that they might not be what

[6:22] with the thing generated, but they might give life to things born, right? For these in the universe, right, the womb, an undergoing matter, they are formed to their what uses, huh?

[6:47] And it comes about to make one with it the person of this thing, which does not, which it stands, does not but have the same substance, but the soul acting and the matter undergoing from two substances, there comes about one man. Thus the soul the old, is born, I guess, from the womb, not because it existed, but not because before it was born.

[7:35] As far as pertains to it, it was not wholly non-being, right? Thus, therefore, more sublimely, the Son of God is born according to man, in that same what way which he is taught the soul to be born with the body, not because of both there is one substance, because from both there is one person. But not ever from this

[8:08] do we say they begin to be the Son of God. Nay, in some temporal way, someone believes something what? Some divinity is temporal, right? For not from eternity do we know the flesh of the Son of God,

[8:30] nor the truth of the human body, but we what think it to have received a certain what. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly. Quote that. I don't get that very well. Does some of that leave us text to read? He says, "Let us suppose," says Augustine. Yeah. Let us suppose, as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul, which by ineffable movement so gives life to all seed that is not compounded with the things begotten, but bestows life that they may be begotten.

[9:09] Without doubt, when the soul reaches the womb, being intent on fashioning the passable matter to its own purpose, it unites itself to the personality thereof, though manifestly but not of the same substance. And thus, of the active soul and passive matter, one man is made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born from out the womb, but not as though before birth it was nothing at all in itself.

[9:39] Thus, then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was born as man. Just as the soul is held to be born together with the body, not as though they both made one substance, but that from both one person results. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to exist, lest it be thought that his divinity is temporal. Nor do we acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity, lest it be thought that he took not truly the body but some substance.

[10:08] I'm gonna answer the objection, but. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Let's look at the second objection here. That which in itself is perfect does not need what birth, right? But the Son of God was from eternity perfect. To the second should be said that this was the reason of Nestorius, right? Which Cyril solves in a certain epistle, right? Saying, "We do not say that the Son of God needed necessarily, on account of himself, right, a second birth, right, and after that which he was from the Father, right."

[10:59] But it is what foolish and untaught that the one existing before all ages and who is co-eternal with the Father to need a what a begetting that he might be in some second way, because on account of us, on account of our salvation, he says in the creed, right, uniting himself to it according to subsistence, what is human, he proceeded from a woman. On account of this, he is said to be born.

[11:37] What? In flesh. In flesh, yeah. Yeah. This one of these things mentioned. This is included in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. Yeah. Yeah. He didn't need this temporal birth for himself, but for us, right? Yeah. Okay. Ah, the third objection: that birth belongs properly to the person, but in Christ is only one person, right? To third, should be said that birth is of the person as a subject, but of nature as a term or limit.

[12:30] But is possible for one subject for for one subject to be many what changes? Which? Yeah. Which nevertheless are vary according to what their terms or limits.

[12:50] Which we do not say as if the eternal birth was a change or motion, right? But because it is signified by way of a motion or change.

[13:17] So the one birth terminates in the divine nature, and the other in the human nature, right? The two different ones. To fourth, it should be said that Christ can be said to be twice born, according to two births, huh? Just as is said one to twice twice run who runs in two times, right? Huh? So likewise, one can be said to be born twice, who once is born eternity and once in time.

[13:51] Why? Because eternity and time much more differ than two times. Well, nevertheless, both designate a measure of what duration. Take a little break right now. It's the mini break after that first objection. Yeah, Article Three, right?

[14:17] Okay, to the third one goes forward. Thus, it seems that according to the temporal birth of Christ, the Blessed Virgin is not able to be said to be his mother, right? Strange, that this has come upright. Okay. For as has been said above, the Blessed Virgin did nothing actively in the generation of Christ, but she only administered the matter. But this does not seem to suffice to the notion of a mother.

[14:54] Otherwise, the would we be said to be the mother of the of the bed or the? stool. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called the mother of Christ. Moreover, Christ was born miraculously from the Blessed Virgin. But a miraculous generation does not suffice to the notion of the of motherhood or sonship. For we do not say that what Eve was the daughter of what Adam.

[15:35] Therefore, it seems that neither Christ ought to be called the son of the Blessed Virgin. That's getting complicated. Moreover, to the mother seems to pertain the

[15:54] cutting out, separation of the seed. But as Damascene says in the third book, the body of Christ, not seed, but by the Holy Spirit, by the Holy Spirit was formed. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the mother of Christ. But against this is what is said Matthew one eighteen. This was the generation of Christ, and when his mother, mother Jesus Mary was, espoused yeah to Joseph.

[16:37] I answer: It should be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the true and natural mother of Christ. For as has been said above, the body of Christ was not brought from heaven, as the heretic Valentinus right She was the aqueduct, right for the heavenly body, the heretic, but it was taken from the Virgin Mother and was formed from the most pure bloods of this woman. And this own is required for the notion of the mother, as has been said from above.

[17:11] Whence the blessed virgin is truly the mother of what Christ. Now, to what about this first objection here about the bed, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that fatherhood or motherhood and sonship do not fit every generation, but only the generation of living things. And therefore, some inanimate things come to be from some matter. Not on account of this does there come about the relation of motherhood and sonship, but only in the generation of the living, which is properly called what birth.

[17:55] So these cherries here were never born, apparently. Except as trees. To the second, it should be said that, as Damascene says in the third book, the birth in time by which Christ is born, on account of our or for the sake of, huh, our salvation, is in some way, huh, secundum nos, according to us, right? Because he was born a man from a woman, and in a suitable time of conception, right?

[18:35] But above us, however, in so far as not from what the male seed, right, but from the Holy Spirit, right, and the Holy what virgin, right,

[18:51] above the law of conception, right. Of course, we we maintain that for the woman comes part of the seed, right? Which does didn't hold following the the philosopher.

[19:08] Thus, therefore, on the side of the mother, huh, that paternity was what natural, and on the side the apparition of the Holy Spirit was miraculous. Whence the blessed virgin is the true and natural mother of what Christ.

[19:29] So the same thing can be natural and miraculous, a little bit like they'll say, but the heavenly bodies? Their motion is considered natural according to the aptitude of the heavenly bodies in this motion, but voluntary in the part of the angels pushing them around.

[19:50] Ron McCarter is as far as I know that's the only way they do move around. Um. Now, to the third, should be said that as has been said above, the resolution of the seed of the woman does not pertain to the necessity of conception, and therefore the resolution of the seed is not a necessity required for the mother. That's a kind of obscure thing about the woman's seed, there, because sometimes he denies that the seed comes entirely from the man, right?

[20:29] But there's some seed whereby the the body of the woman is prepared for this. But we're not to dwell too much in that. Now the important thing: whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God, and I, the Nestorius say that she should be called the Mother of Christ, but not the Mother of God. And I so preach in the cathedral there in Constantinople. To the fourth one proceeds thus: it seems that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the what Mother of God,

[21:06] for it should not be said about the divine mysteries anything about the divine mercies, except what is had from Sacred Scripture. But never in Sacred Scripture is it read that she is the mother or the generator of God, right? But rather she is the mother of Christ, or the mother of the boy, right? It is clear in Matthew one eighteen. Therefore, she ought not to be called the Blessed Virgin.

[21:37] Therefore, ought not to be said that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God. But it seems that Scripture is backing up my friend Nestorius. You guys should not be attacking my friend Nestorius the historians. More open hand Yes. Moreover, Christ is said to be God according to divine nature. But the divine nature did not take its begetting from the Virgin, right? Therefore, the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God.

[22:16] She's Mother of God according to its human nature. Moreover, this name God is commonly said of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, it would seem to follow that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[22:40] So now we get back to the idea of what how the word God can stand for just one person in particular, right? So when you say the beginning was the Word and the Word was the Word God, God stands for what? The Father, yeah. suppositio. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God. But against this is what is said in the chapters of Cyril, approved of in the Synod of Ephesus, and that's the one that is most important for her being called the Mother of God, right?

[23:20] And it's referenced as much as the four Gospels, right? These four councils. If someone does not confess God to be according to the truth, Emmanuel, which means God with us, right? An account of this, the generator of God, the Holy Spirit.

[23:46] He generated him what? In a fleshlike way, made flesh from the Word God. Anathema sit right. Be accursed. Okay. I answer. It should be said that it has been said above. Every name signifies in the con, signifying in the concrete some nature, right? Can support right, can stand for. I think, is the way that we translate that in, in English, right? For every hypostasis of that what nature.

[24:27] So I can be said to be generated from, by man, right? And then a man there stands for. Yeah. Since the union of the incarnation was made in what? In the hypostasis, because the hypostatic union, right? As has been said above, is manifest that this name God is able to stand for the hypostasis having a human nature and a what divine. And therefore, whatever belongs to the divine nature and the human can be attributed to that person who has both of these natures.

[25:18] Um. Either according as what it stands for, for it there stands a name signifying the divine nature, right? Or according as for it there stands a name signifying the what human nature. For to be conceived and born is attributed to a person, and to a hypostasis according to the nature, according to that nature, in which is conceived and born. Since therefore, in the beginning of that conception, the human nature assumed was assumed by the what divine person, as has been said before.

[26:10] Consequently, it can truly be said. God was conceived, born. And born of the virgin. For from this someone, some woman is said to be the mother of someone, who what? Sees and generates. Whence it follows that the Blessed Virgin truly is called the Mother of God, huh?

[26:38] Alone, this in this way could be negated. Only in this way could be denied, right? That the Blessed Virgin was the Mother of God, if either the humanity before

[26:52] was subject to conception, right, and birth, then that man was the Son of God, right, as Photinus posited, right? Or that that humanity was not assumed in the unity of what person,

[27:16] or the hypostasis of the Word of God, as Nestorius posits. But both of these are Arian, whence it is heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.

[27:36] The first objection, he says, is from Nestorius, but you can only say what's in Scripture. How would you apply to that? The Protestants are wrong.

[27:51] Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that this was the objection of Nestorius, which is solved from this that although it is not found expressly in Scripture, right, said that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, nevertheless it is found expressly in Scripture that Jesus Christ is true God, as is clear in one John five twenty, and that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of Jesus Christ.

[28:27] Whence it follows of necessity, in the words of Scripture, that she be the Mother of what God. You also say those from the tradition of the church, right, Is is found in the four, you know, fundamental councils. Yeah, we had the reading this morning from was it Second Thessalonians? What was it? Second Timothy. Second Thessalonians. Second Thessalonians about to keep the traditions that we've given you, whether by word of mouth or writing.

[29:05] Yeah. For it is said, in Romans nine five, that from the Jews according to the flesh, Christ, who is above all, God blessed in what forever, but is not from the Jews except by means of the Blessed Virgin. Whence the one who is above all, God blessed forever, is truly born of the Blessed Virgin or from the Blessed Virgin, as from his what mother.

[29:40] Now the second objection he says is also from Nestorius. Okay. Now that second objection, that's the objection Nestorius. But Cyril in a certain epistle against Nestorius, right, solves it saying thus: Just as the soul of man, with its own body, is what, born, and nevertheless is regarded as one. And if one wishes to say that he is what, the generator of the flesh, but not, however, the generation of the soul, exceedingly what, superfluous, huh?

[30:28] Does he speak, huh? But such a thing taking place, we perceive in the generation of Christ, for he is born from. The substance of God the Father, the Word of God, right? Because He took on flesh, it is necessary to confess that He was born according to the flesh from the woman. It should be said, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin is said to be the mother of God, not because she is the mother of His divine nature, but because she is of a what person having the divine nature and humanity.

[31:13] She is the mother of that person according to His human nature. So she's the mother of God according to His what human nature? That's what we understand, right? But you don't have to always add, you know, the way that she's the mother of God, right? But you say she's the mother of God, not according to His divine nature, but according to His what human nature? Which is simply Mother of God, Holy Mary, Mother of God.

[32:00] When did that come in? Because was it? I don't know if it was in Thomas's time the second part of the Hail Mary was it?

[32:09] Didn't he mention it in his sermon? He explains it because he said, "I know I read it somewhere." Didn't see it anywhere about it. He just comments about the second part being added by the Church. he just sort of mentions it Okay." okay, But I don't know Back that far.

[32:45] Mother of all grace, Mother of mercy to our race, protect us now from Satan's power. And once at life's closing hour. Where'd you hear that? It's in the, it's in the pressing text. O, Mary, Mother of all grace, Mother of mercy to our race, protect us now from Satan's power. and once at life's closing hour. It's kind of like a rhyme, Yeah. But it's kind of the the two parts of the of the Hail Mary, right?

[33:09] Yeah. Now and then, you know, kind of the hour of death. Okay. Now the third objection, right? Oh no What? Yeah. Yeah. It has to be mother of all three. Yeah, that's that's get you in a little trouble, I think. To the third, should be said. That this name God, although it is common to the three persons, nevertheless, quandoque, sometimes, right, stands for only the what, person of the Father, sometimes for only the person of the Son of the Holy Spirit, as has been said above.

[33:59] And therefore, when it is said the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, this name God stands for only the person of the Son that was made flesh.

[34:19] So I'm the son of a man. I'm a man. therefore I'm the son of myself, right? You're a man, so I'm your son. Okay, you're getting closer.

[34:39] We recognize, I think, in that in that expression, I'm the son of a man, that a man, although it's you know, man is common to many men, right? Including myself, it stands there for my father in that context, right?

[35:00] I don't think that should be understood as another meaning of a man. That's not one meaning of a man. We know Victor Berquist But because man signifies what has human nature, right? If

[35:27] it didn't stand for my father, right, because he had human nature, right, But it's something other than, than than than a a special meaning of the word a man, right? That would be to misunderstand it.

[35:43] That's a kind of subtle thing. but you don't want to confuse that, right? I mean, that one meaning of a man is any man. Another meaning of a man is we know Victor Berquist Well, we, got time to do this nice long article here.

[36:12] Which one you want to stop? To the fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in Christ there are two what? Sonships. How do they translate in English? Sonships? They just say uh? It would seem that there are two filiations in Christ. Okay, okay.

[36:43] For nativity is a cause of what? Sonship, right? But in Christ there are two nativities. Therefore, also in Christ there are two sonships. But son is what? The name of the person, right? Son of one person.

[37:04] Moreover, sonship, by which someone is said to be the son of someone, as a of a mother or a father, depends in some way from what? Yeah. Because the to be of a relation is to what? Have oneself in some way to another, right? Whence, taking away one of the relatives, the other one is what? Destroyed, right?

[37:37] But the eternal sonship by which Christ is the son of God the Father does not depend upon the mother, right? Because nothing eternal depends upon the temporal. Therefore, Christ is not the son of the mother, whom by eternal sonship. Either, therefore, in no way is he the son, which is against the thing we said before, or it's necessary that he be his son or her son, I guess.

[38:09] By a certain other temporal sonship. Therefore, in Christ there are two sonships, huh? Moreover, one of the relatives is placed in the definition of the other, right?

[38:27] From which it is clear that one of the relatives is specified from the other. But one and the same is not able to be in what? Diverse species.

[38:42] Therefore, it seems impossible that one and the same relation should be what? Terminated to extremes or limits that are entirely diverse. But Christ is said to be the son of the eternal Father and the son of the temporal mother, right? So two different terms, which are terms omnino diversi, altogether diverse. Therefore, it seems not possible. It's not able to be by the same relation that he is said to be the son of the Father and of the mother.

[39:15] Therefore, in Christ there are two sonships. Now, if you were not exposed to this guy Thomas here, what would you have thought about this question? If there's an eternal sonship at the other extreme, it would refer to one thing. It would refer to one thing. But it's interesting in Scripture's way of. speaking, though, they speak of him as Son of God and Son of Man, right? It seems like he's got two sonships there, doesn't it?

[39:49] It seems like. Yeah. You know, we would have thought of the debilitas, unicondi. Among other things. yeah. We would probably have thought that, you know.

[40:07] But again, this is what Damascene says in the third book. Damascene is important here, huh? That those things which are of nature are multiplied in Christ, right? These two natures. Not, over, those things which are of the person.

[40:26] But sonship, most of all, maxime, pertains to the person, for it is a personal property, as is clear from those things which were said in the first part, huh? Therefore, in Christ is only one sonship, huh?

[40:46] Well, I answer. It should be said that about this there are diverse opinions. Well, at least he conceded that much, huh? For some paying attention to the cause of sonship, which is nativitas, birth, right? Place in Christ two sonships, just as there are two what? Births.

[41:09] Others paying attention to the subject of sonship, which is the person of the hypostasis, place in Christ only one sonship, just as there's only one hypostasis or what? Person.

[41:28] Okay, you can see why people have different opinions, right? Now, the unity of a relation or its plurality is not to be what noted according to the terms. That's strange. He says that. But according to the cause or the subject, right?

[41:55] For if according to the terms it is observed, it would be necessary that each man in himself has two what sonships? One by which he is referred to the father, another which he is referred to his mother. So I'm the son of my father, and the son of my mother. So I have two sonships, right?

[42:19] But recte considerante—that's what we pray for, right? Correctly consider. It appears that by the same relation, each one is referred to his own what? Mother, on account of the unity of the what? Cause. For it's by the same birth that a man is born from his father and his what? Mother, huh? Whence, by the same relation, he is referred to what? Both, huh?

[42:57] So I'm the son of my father and mother, I guess, huh? Not the son of my father and also the son of my mother. Some way to say that, I suppose, but. Now,

[43:17] this is important here, and the same reason is about the teacher, right? Who teaches many disciples the same what teaching? So do I have

[43:32] three teacherships here? I think Thomas Thomas says elsewhere: if I teach the same man, let's say logic and geometry, then I. Two, yeah, because geometry is not the same thing as logic. The subject. I mean, yeah, yeah, the basis for the relation there is.

[44:03] But by the same teaching, that that you are all my students. So there's the same reason he says about the teacher who teaches many disciples the same teaching. And about the Lord who governs diverse subjects by the same what? Power, huh?

[44:35] But if there are diverse causes differing in species, consequently there seems to be what? Relations differing in species or kind, huh? Whence nothing prevents many such relations being in the same. Just as if someone is of some the teacher in what grammar, and of others in logic. Other is the notion of his magisterium of both. So I teach these guys logic there on on Wednesday night. I teach you guys theologies.

[45:17] So, and thus, by other relations, one and the same man can be a master of either diverse ones, right, or the same according to diverse teachings. Yeah,

[45:38] it happens, however, quandoque sometimes that someone has a relation to many according to diverse causes of the same species, right? Just as when someone is a father of diverse sons according to diverse acts of generation,

[46:02] whence fatherhood does not differ in what species, since the acts of generation are not are the same in what species, and because. so. I can't have uh many fatherhoods, according to my different children, right? I'm one father. One father of all. So, my daughter's only one mother of the all.

[46:33] Because, yeah. Hence, fatherhood is not able to differ in species, right? Since the acts of generation are the same in species or kind, right? And because many forms of the same species or kind cannot be at the same time in the same subject, right? It is not possible that there be many fatherhoods in the one who is a father of many sons by natural generation. It would be different, however, if he were the father of one by natural generation and another by what?

[47:20] Adoption. So God's a father in a different way of the son, divine generation, and of us, right? Adopted sons. Now, it is manifest, however, that is not by one and the same nativity that Christ is born from the Father from eternity, right? And from the mother from time, right? Nor is the birth of one what species or or kind, right? Whence, as regards this, it is necessary to say that in Christ there are diverse sonships, one temporal and the other what?

[48:04] Eternal. But because the subject of sonship is not the nature or a part of the nature, but only the person hypostasis, in Christ, however, there is not any hypostasis or person except the eternal one. It is not possible to be in Christ some sonship except that which is in the eternal what hypostasis. But every relation which extemporary from time is said of God. Does not place in God, the eternal God, anything secundum rem, right?

[48:48] This is the famous teaching which Thomas and Augustine both get right. But secundum rationem tantum. That's a difficult thing we learned before. I know about before, as is had in the first part. And therefore, the sonship by which Christ is referred to his mother is not able to be a real relation, but only secundum what? Yeah. I can see people can misunderstand that, right?

[49:22] And this, as regards something at least, both opinions say something true, right? For if we pay attention to the what perfect notions or definitions of sonship, it is necessary to say that there are two sonships according to the what dual natures. If, however, we pay attention to the subject of sonship, what is not able to be anything except the eternal person, right? There cannot be in Christ reality there really, except the what eternal sonship.

[50:07] Nevertheless, he is said relatively a son to his mother by the relation which is what with the relation of eternity to Christ, huh? Just as God is said to be Lord by the relation which is understood together with the real relation by which the creature is subject to God, right? Aristotle points out in the fifth book of of wisdom, right? You know, he says some relations are based on quantity, some upon acting, upon undergoing, and some, and it comes down to the idea of of the relation where it's real on one side and the other simply because we can't understand one relation without understanding the other one to be relatively real, right?

[51:04] But it's not real relation, right? And Aristotle's example is that of knowledge, right? Where I understand what a triangle is, let's say, right, or you sense it, I see you, right? So, understanding what a triangle is, I have a real relation to the triangle, and seeing you, I have, right? But my seeing you remains in me; doesn't go out to you and affect you at all. So, when you are said relatively to me to be seen by me, there's nothing real in you, right?

[51:41] But my seeing you is something real in me, and therefore the relation that my seeing involves to you, right? And so God, in no way, is changed by his creating us, right? But we are changed, so we have a real dependence upon God and real relation to God. And Aristotle, I think, speaks of it as as the measure and the measure, right? The measure is really related to the measure, but the measure is not really related to the measure; doesn't depend upon it anyway, huh?

[52:12] It's hard to understand. That goes back to this teaching that God can't really have a relation that's real to us, right? Because then there'd be something added to God and you have an accident, right? It wouldn't be all together simple anymore, right? But we're really related to Him and really dependent upon Him, right? And it's a good example again of the way of understanding. You shouldn't confuse out the way things are, right?

[52:44] So, because we can't understand our relation to God without understanding the same kind of relation of God to us, that's not way of understanding, right? But you shouldn't jump from that and say, "Well, then there's a real relation of God to us."

[53:06] So maybe Mary has a real relation to Christ as His mother, and therefore we have to understand Him as the Son of His mother, but it's not a real relation in Him, right? Because He is the second person. It's a very yeah. I was mentioning how Augustine was talking there in this one twenty, you know, about

[53:31] you should help someone to understand what he believes according to his capacity to understand, and some little, some more, some a lot, you know. You wouldn't want to preach this from the pulpit. No, no, no, no, no, no! no. Harry didn't have a real relationship to our son. No,

[53:51] Christ didn't have a real relationship with his mother. That's a wouldn't everybody really sat around here What? He didn't really have a relationship. As a real relationship to God the

[54:01] Father. Yeah, well, that's that's what they always want to say, you know. Is God does God really have a relation? That's they like to say a real relationship with us, and then say no. Huh really, let the wind out of your sails, you know.

[54:35] Okay, but no, the way he speaks there huh And quamvis relatio dominii in that He's not real in God, right? Nevertheless, He really is the Lord from the real subjection of the creature to Him, right?

[54:54] The last paragraph here, I think. Oh yes, last one. For the Son is said relatively to the Mother, right? By the relation which is understood together with the relation of motherhood to the Christ, right? Just as God is said to be the Lord by the relation which is understood with the real relation. By which the creature is subject to God, right? And although the relation of Lord is not real in God, nevertheless He is really said to be what Lord from the real subjection of creature to Him, right?

[55:31] And likewise, Christ is said to be really the Son of the Virgin Mother from the real relation of motherhood to Christ. You put that in the background of your head there and say, I will think about that again another time. But

[55:53] relations are that one of the hardest things to understand, right? These distinctions. You know, you know, when Albert and people talk about the relations, sometimes they mention and Thomas does too, and Averro is selfish, too. You know, some people think that all relations are what something of reason, right? And that no relations are real, right? And other people kind of think they're all real. And Aristotle was the first to see clearly that some relations are real and some are not real.

[56:32] But we have to understand things relatively from our way of understanding, you know, something else towards them. Yeah, yeah. Now, to the first, it should be said that the the temporal birth. Oh, should we stop here? It's four thirty. I don't want to go on to the objections. finish up, okay. the first, therefore, it, should be said that the temporal birth would have caused in Christ a real temporal sonship, right?

[57:20] If he was there, if there was there a subject capable of this sonship, right? Which is not able to be. For the eternal what, suppositum, is not hypostasis is not able to be what susceptible of a temporal relations, has been said,

[57:46] nor can it be said that he is susceptible, susceptible or susceptible of a temporal sonship by reason of the human nature, just as of a temporal what birth, huh? Because it would be necessary for the human nature to be in some way the subject to sonship, right? Just as it is in some way subject to what birth. For since the Ethiopian is said to be white by reason of his teeth, it is necessary that the teeth of the Ethiopian should be the subject of what whiteness.

[58:27] But human nature in no way can be the subject of sonship, because this relation directly regards the what person. The second should be said, and

[58:43] that the eternal sonship does not depend from the mother, the temporal mother, but to this eternal sonship is understood together a temporal what respect, depending from the mother, according as Christ is said to be the son of the mother. That's there. She has a real relation to him, right? And therefore, it's yeah. Now, to the third, huh?

[59:21] One in being, follow another, as is said in the fourth book of wisdom metaphysics, and therefore just as it happens that in one of the extremes, a relation is a certain being, right? In another, it is not a being, right? But a thought only, just as about the what knowable in science, the philosopher says that's his example in the fifth book of the metaphysics.

[59:55] Thomas will distinguish four kinds of relations that are not real, and he takes them two of them from Aristotle, Aristotle speaks of, and two that that Avicenna speaks of, right? It's very very striking, and some texts will say you know Aristotle says these two and Avicenna says these two, you know, not that Aristotle didn't know the other kinds, but he has a text, you know, where? Aristotle brings out these two, right?

[1:00:27] You know, when I say Dwayne Burquist is Dwayne Burquist, then I have a certain relation. that duane is the same as Dwayne, you know. That's not real relation because there's not really two Dwayne's there, right? And so Aristotle talks about that, and the one we speaking of right here, right? Avicenna speaks of two other kinds, you know, like the day is before tomorrow, or tomorrow doesn't really exist.

[1:00:51] So can I be a relation to something that doesn't exist? And then when you have a relation related to the subject which it is, right? But you don't have a relation relation. It's real. But anyway, that's that's there many places where Thomas touches upon those.

[1:01:16] So it happens that on the part of one extreme or limit, right, there is one relation, and so also it happens, right, on the part of one extreme that there's one relation. On the part of another extreme, there are many relations, right? Just as in men, on the side of their parents, there is found the two-fold relation, one of fatherhood and the other of motherhood, right? Which differ in species, right?

[1:01:47] On account of this, that for another reason is the father, and another the mother, the source of what generation. For if there were many by reason of the same, for the same reason, a beginning of one action, as when many what pull the ship, right? In all, there would be one and the same what relation. But on the side of the offspring, there is one, there is one only sonship.

[1:02:23] secundum rem in reality, but twofold according to reason, right? Insofar as it corresponds to what other parents according to two respects understood, right? And thus also, and to some extent, in Christ, there is only one real what sonship, which regards the eternal what Father. There is nevertheless another respect, temporal respect, of which he regards his temporal mother, right?

[1:03:10] Need our dinner or something or break after that.