Tertia Pars
97. Summa III, Q.45: The Transfiguration of Christ – Its Brightness, Witnesses and the Father's Voice
Class of 2010-05-14
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/097-summa-iii-q-45-the-transfiguration-of-christ-its-brightness/

[0:00] Then we ought to consider about the transfiguration of Christ. I happened to be looking on Wednesday a little bit at EWTN there, and they had a little program on the Vatican museums there, and there was some kind of a doctor

[0:17] explaining some things. And they had a couple of sarcophaguses you know, which had like a freeze, you might say, on the whole the whole side of the sarcophagus. And Christ appears several times. He's cut down the whole life, not the whole life of Christ, but a whole series of things he did, and then Christ is with these people or those people, and then he did his miracles and so on.

[0:37] It was kind of interesting. And then, for some reason, they went to this painting by Raphael, painting the transfiguration. I said, Ah, this is a sign now. I've got to talk about the transfiguration. You see that painting? I was looking trying to find one in the house that had some paintings of copies of it. That's the famous one. It's in the Vatican. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's he's almost you know up in the air, you know, and and and Elias and Moses, you know, in the air with them, and then then the apostles are there, and then there's kind of a lower thing.

[1:08] So and they're trying to cast out the demon down below. Oh, that's because they couldn't do it, so he came down the mountain. and he cast out the demons Yeah, yeah. So it's interesting.

[1:24] Okay, then we're not to consider about the transfiguration of Christ, and about these four things are asked. First, whether it was suitable for Christ to be transfigured, and second, whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of glory, right? Then about the witnesses, of the transfiguration, and then about the testimony of the paternal what voice. Although Thomas is going to talk about the cloud and the Holy Spirit there too, but so the more hidden in the first.

[2:03] To the first, therefore, one proceeds thus: It seems it was not suitable for Christ to be transfigured. And this is a question of the use of the word "figure," right? Get the definition here of from Euclid during the second objection. For it does not belong to a true body, that it be changed in diverse figures, right? But to a fantastic or imaginary body, huh? But the body of Christ was not fantastical.

[2:36] we're not doing that, we're not Manichaeans. But the true body, huh? Therefore, it seems that it ought not to be transfigured. That's almost like taking "figure" to mean what the shape, right? And therefore, the body changes shape, you know. No, it didn't mean that. That's what happened with Circe there, in. In the Odyssey, right? Huh? He changed you into a beast, you know, and you get the.

[2:59] Oh, it's a horrible story, you know, but it's kind of, you know, you know, symbolic of what. Moses, put his staff. as a snake. Yeah, yeah. See, so, so. Moreover, figure is in the fourth species of quality. Now you see, I know the categories on that. But clarity is in the third species, huh? Sensible qualities. Taking on therefore clarity by Christ ought not to be called transfiguration, right?

[3:32] It's a question now just of the of the use of the word, right? Moreover, of the glorious body, there are four what gifts, huh? To wit, impassibility, right? You can't be acted upon. Agility, right? You can go quickly, right? Huh? I need a little bit of that. Go to Europe now.

[4:00] Subtlety, right? Huh? Spirituality, I can go through the wall, right? Huh? And clarity, right? Huh? You can go through the wall now too. No, no, no! You have to have compassion, compassion for suffering, impassibility. Passion is your suffering but impassible suffering can't Therefore, ought not more to be transfigured according to the assumption of of just that one clarity, right? Huh? Then according to the assumption of the other gifts, huh?

[4:35] But against all this is what is said in Matthew, chapter seventeen, that Jesus was transfigured before three of his disciples, huh? Answer: It should be said, huh? That the Lord, huh? Ah, his disciples, having foreannounced his passion, right? Huh? He wanted to lead them into the following of his passion, huh? Taking up the cross. Now here is the principle: It's necessary, however, for this that someone directly?

[5:12] Huh? Go forward on a road, right? That he foreknows some way the what end? Huh? When I come up here, I got to know where I am going, to know what road to take, right?

[5:30] Just as the archer, right, does not directly what? Cast the arrow unless first he sees the target, right? Signum there means target. Ah, in which I'd aim, right? Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, in the first book, right, he's talking about what is the end or purpose of man, right? And then he compares it, you know, saying if we know what the end of purpose of man is, then like the man with the bow and arrow, right, we're more apt to what, Get it, you know.

[6:03] So when you develop it, sometimes you say, if you you know the end or purpose of man, you can then aim at it. You might have to hit it, right? But if you don't know the end or purpose of man, you're shooting your arrow just at random, right?

[6:20] The chances are, you know, practically a needle of hitting the target, right? It doesn't mean though that if you see the target, you won't necessarily hit it. But you know. Yeah, but tremendously better, right? You know, if I just shoot my arrow at random, what's my chance of hitting you? You know, but aim at you, right? Then like that, you know, much better. Whence Thomas,

[6:53] Lord, we do not know where you're going, and in what way we able to know the what? Road, huh? And this is especially necessary when the road is what difficult and rough, and the journey laborious, huh? But when the end is joyful, jucunditas kunditas, huh?

[7:26] But Christ, through his passion, obtained to this that he arrived at what? Glory, yeah. Not only the glory of his soul, which he had from the beginning of his conception, right? But also the body, according to that of Luke chapter twenty-four. These things were necessary for Christ to undergo, so you might also enter into his glories. To that, he must. I mean, the or he kind of explained to them.

[7:59] They're scandalized by the death, yeah. To which he leads us who follow in the footsteps of his passion, right? According to that of Acts fourteen, huh? Through many tribulations is necessary for us to enter into the kingdom of the what? Heavens. And therefore, it is suitable that he show to his disciples the glory of his what? Brilliance, yeah. Which is for him to be what transfigured, right?

[8:35] To which he wants to configure his own, right? According to that of Philippians three, he reforms. He will reform the body of our humility, making it configured to the body of his clarity. huh? That's yeah, clarity. When's Bede says upon Mark, huh? By pious provision, right, it was done that by contemplation of the always remaining joy, delayed for a brief time, right? We might tolerate more bravely, huh, the adverse things of this life.

[9:17] It's a brevet time as compared to eternity. It might seem long, you know, but it's funny how people get older. You know, each year seems to go by faster and faster and faster. And I think the reason for is the ratio, right? Yeah. So when I'm one year old, another year is is as much as my life has been. Now that I'm 74. One year is dropping the bucket.

[9:43] You know, so one year seems to go by, you know, more quickly. Yeah. I think about that sometimes. I'm almost. When I got here, half my life was just 12 years. If I keep on saying right, but I don't ask me directions. I don't know yet how to get somewhere. And saying, well, I'm from Minnesota. Oh, okay. Well, actually, I'm living now in Massachusetts and Minnesota.

[10:25] I think I find my way around St. Paul probably better than I can find my way around. Worcester. Worcester. I think Worcester is like a man. Oh, yeah.

[10:40] To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Jerome says upon Matthew, right, no one should think, right, to this that Christ is said to be transfigured, right, that he lost his pristine form and face, right, or that he lost the truth of his body and assumed some spiritual body or air-like body, right.

[11:07] But in what way he was transformed, the evangelist demonstrates saying that his face what was he splendid like the sun, and his vestments were made white as snow, right. And later on, Thomas will be talking about this distinction between the face being brighter than the what clothes, right? Because the sun is brighter than the what snow.

[11:33] Where the splendor of the face is shown and the brightness or the candor of the what vest is described, the substance is not taken away, but the glory is what changed. On the second, reply the second, he he explains the use of the word figure, right. To the second, it should be said that figure is considered around the extremity of the body, right?

[12:04] It's like in in a square, let's say, and a circle. You know, it's the the outward part, right? We have one big square and the other big circle, right? In the center, they'd be not distinguishable, right? And then he gives the quote from Euclid. For a figure is that which is what contained by a limit or limits, huh?

[12:35] And therefore, all those things which are considered about the what extremity of a body, the end of a body, in some way seem to pertain to its what figure. Just as color, so also the clarity of a body, not transparent, is to be noted in its what surface. And therefore, the assumption of the. Brightness or clarity is called transfiguration, right? Because on the surface of the body, right now.

[13:10] Okay, we'll let you get away with that, Thomas. Okay. I noticed in that first reply, they they had the word quote there with the word transformatus, right? Okay, transformed.

[13:29] Because the Greek word there, I mean, Aristotle is in that category. Yeah, the word morphia there too, huh? Metamorphosis, son. That word is extended, right, to a lot of other things, even to the souls of morphe huh? So.

[13:59] But what what you see, I think, kind of is that that fourth species of quality, which is shape or form or figure, is applied to the other species of quality, right? So if you're healthy, we say you're in good shape.

[14:17] Yeah. In good form, son. Yeah, yeah. And you can speak even of science as being a form of the mind, and so on, right? And then later on, you apply it even to the category of substance there, right? We have the the soul is a form of the body, right morphe

[14:37] And even Boethius says, "divina substantia Forma est." So even the change into the quality of a what body, right, can be called a transformation. But here you've got the words figure and form of it. It's the same in the Greek, you have that. I'm trying to remember what the Greek word is that's used there for transfiguration. Yeah, isn't that like Metamorphosis? The same word from... Yeah.

[15:33] Yeah, metamorphosis. Phoses. It's full of faith and have been transformed. It's morphed of it. Emporphosis and autonum, before. that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's even more extended than the word figure morphed is form is right? Now, why does he use this one of the four gifts, right? To the third, it should be said that among the four said four gifts,

[16:18] the clarity alone is a quality of the person in himself, right? Because the other three gifts are not perceived except in some act or motion or undergoing, right? So that you're not able to be acted upon by things unharmed, right? Or that you can move around quickly, right? You can step through the door, step through the wall. Okay.

[16:52] Christ therefore shows in himself some signs, you might say, of the three gifts, right? For example, agility when he walks upon the what? See, Impassibility, subtlety when he goes forth from the closed womb of the Virgin, impassibility when, from the hands of the Jews who want to throw him off the cliff or stone him, he evades them, right? But not in account of these things is he said to be transfigured, but only in account of the clarity which pertains to the aspect of the person himself.

[17:37] Now, whether that clarity The article 2 here. It seems that that clarity was not the what, clarity of glory, right? For it is said in the gloss of Bede upon that of Matthew 17. That's the chapter where transfiguration is. He was transfigured before them. He shows in his mortal body, right? Not immortality, because his body is going to die, right? But the a clarity similar to that of what, future immortality.

[18:18] But the clarity of glory is a clarity of the immortal body. Therefore, that clarity which Christ showed to the disciples was not the clarity of what, glory, right? So we say it's not the clarity of the glorified body, the immortal body, right? It's not an immortal body.

[18:41] More is said upon that of Luke 9, they will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. Says the gloss of Bede huh? That is a glorification of the body in a imaginary representation of the future what, beatitude, But the image of something is not the thing itself. Therefore, that clarity is not the clarity of beatitude. Moreover, the clarity of glory is not except in the human body.

[19:16] But that clarity of transfiguration appeared not only in the body of Christ but also in his clothing, huh? And in the lucid cloud which overshadowed the disciples. Therefore, it seems that that clarity was not the clarity of glory,

[19:36] huh? But against this is what is said in Matthew 17, or upon that of Matthew 17 that he was transfigured before them. Jerome says, huh?

[19:48] How he will be future in the time of judgment, such he appeared to the what, apostles, huh? And upon that of Matthew 16, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, Christ says, huh? He wishing wishing to show what is that glory in which afterwards he would come, right? He revealed to them in the present life,

[20:16] as was possible for them to learn, right? So that neither would they sorrow, huh? Now in the death of the Lord, right? See what this is going to lead to.

[20:29] Now Thomas says, I answer it should be said that that clarity which Christ took on in the transfiguration was the clarity of glory, as regards the essence of it, what it was. Not, however, as regards the what way of being,

[20:50] for the clarity of the glorious body that we're hoping for, right, is derived from the clarity of the soul, as Augustine says in his epistle to Dioscorus,

[21:05] and likewise the clarity of the body of Christ in the transfiguration was derived from his divinity, as Damascene says, and from the glory of his what soul. What is the glory of the clarity of glory? But that from the beginning of his conception, the conception of Christ, the glory of his soul did not redound to the body, was by certain what divine dispensation done, right? So that in a sufferable body, right, a body able to suffer, he might fulfill the mysteries of our redemption, as has been said above.

[21:53] But not by this was taken away the power of Christ of deriving the glory of his soul to the body. He could let it come through, right, if he wanted to, and this he did as regards clarity, right. Allow it to shine forth in the transfiguration, but in a different way than in the glorified body, for in the glorified body, clarity redounds from the soul as a certain quality permanent affecting the body, right.

[22:30] Whence to shine bodily is not miraculous at all in the glorified body, but to the body of Christ in the transfiguration was derived clarity from his divinity and his soul, right, huh? Not by way of a what remaining quality, right, and one affecting his body, but more through the mode of a what passing passion, just as when the air is illuminated by the sun, huh? Or like when, I blush, right, huh?

[23:09] Is that and my face becomes red? Is that a new quality now in my face that was not there before? But something that is what transient, huh? Aristotle distinguished between that, right, in the habit and the disposition there in the first species of quality. Whence that brightness was in the body of Christ, appearing by Christ, was miraculous, right, huh? Just as when he walked upon the what ways of the water, whence Dionysius says in the fourth epistle to Caius.

[23:48] Upon that man, Christ acted those things which are of man, or above man. He did those things which are of man, and this shows the the Virgin supernaturally conceiving, right? And the unstable water, right, sustaining the weight of material and earthly what feet. I correct a little bit, my my friend. I was very shocked by this, but Hugo de Saint Victor, because I was I'm baptized Hugo Duane Berkwest, so now I say Duane H Duane Hugo Burquist, but that's and it's happened in time, you know.

[24:28] But that's my thing, and my father's name was Reno Victor Burquist, so I took Victor as my confirmation name, right? So I've always been attached. Reason of the name to Hugo Saint Victor. So you're very sensitive to this correction. Yes, yes, I am.

[24:47] I I found Hugo Saint Victor. You know this division of human knowledge according to the distinction of the order it considers that Thomas gives in the beginning of his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. There's the order which reason doesn't make, and the order which reason makes its own acts, and the order which reason makes in the acts the will, and the order it makes in exterior matter.

[25:09] Well, that's already in in the Didascalia of Hugo Saint Victor, right? Although Hugo says picks up four kinds of philosophy, right? And Thomas doesn't call the you know mechanical arts philosophy, right? But he he has that same division of of human knowledge by the order it considers, which I use as a you know sign confirming the definition of reason of Shakespeare, right? Which defined ultimately by before and after by order, and therefore the fact that you can distinguish to some extent or to a large extent the knowledge of reason by the order it considers shows that this is really kind of the way to define reason, huh?

[25:51] So much said in favor of Thomas Brown from Hugo of Saint Victor. Whence it ought not to be said, as Hugo Saint Victor says, that Christ took on the dotes of clarity and transfiguration, of agility in walking upon the sea, and of subtlety in going forth from the

[26:14] dos huh names a certain quality remaining in the glorious body, but miraculously he had those things which pertain nevertheless to the gifts huh? And he makes a very interesting comparison here, and it is similar as regards the soul of the vision by which Paul saw God in rapture, was carried up to the third heaven, as is said in the second part. Now this is kind of a usual position, but

[26:45] Saint Augustine first said this. That Moses and Paul saw God as He is, face to face, but not as a what permanent gift or like it would be, but per modum passionis, something transient, a transient way, right? And Thomas is comparing that to Christ here, right?

[27:16] So, so you could say that that Paul and and Moses, huh? That's what he says. And I don't know if this is you know official church doctrine, but it is the teaching of Augustine and Thomas, following Augustine. And those are pretty big names. So you say that, yeah, you're seeing God face to face. This is the beatific vision as regards the essence, but not the The mode of having it right.

[27:42] Okay. So when Paul came down to earth again, he said, "What? I chastise my body. You know, lest preaching to others, I lose my own soul." Right. That's

[27:59] a beautiful comparison. Yeah. So the first objection from that word is not shown that the clarity of Christ was not the clarity of glory, but it was not the clarity of a glorified body. Right. Because the body of Christ was not yet immortal. So just as by dispensation was made that in Christ the glory of the soul would not redound to the body, so it was by dispensation that it would redound as regards the gift of what clarity.

[28:40] the gift of impassibility. right? Okay. Now the second objection was the one about the use of the word imaginary there in the text from

[28:55] Bede right the second should be said that that clarity is said to be imaginaria, which comes from image. Right. Not, but that it was a true clarity of glory. Right. But because it was a certain likeness representing the perfection of that glory, according as it is a what glorified body. Right.

[29:21] So it's truly one thing, but also an image of another thing. Right. Which is going to be the permanent state of the soul at the end. And that's what he says in the start of the third one here. To the third should be said that just as that clarity which was in the body of Christ represents the future clarity of his body, so the clarity of his vestments designate the future clarity of the saints.

[29:55] Like the robes of Christ, which is what excelled by the clarity of Christ, just as the candor, the brightness of the snow, is overcome, is excelled by the candor, brightness of the what sun. So we're not going to be as bright as he will be.

[30:21] Once Gregory says in the thirty-second book of the morals that the vestments of Christ were made splendid, because in that what culmination of supernal clarity, all the saints, right. Who adhere to him will be shining by the light of justice, right? For by the name of the vestments, the just who are joined to him is signified. We cling to him, right? In the way clothing is, according to that of Isaiah, huh?

[31:02] By all these, as it were, by an ornament you are vested. Now the lucid cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Spirit, or the what paternal power, as Origen says, by which the saints are protected in the future what glory.

[31:30] Although also suitably it can signify the clarity of the renovated world, huh? Which will be the tent of the saints, huh? Whence Peter to make Peter disposing to make tents, the lucid cloud overshadowed the. What do you mean? Tent for you, the cloud.

[32:04] No. To the third one goes forward. Thus, it seems that not suitably are brought in the witnesses of the transfiguration. For for each one is most of all able to give witness about things what known to him, right?

[32:33] But of what sort would be the future glory? Ah, in the time the transfiguration of Christ was not. not an experience. Yeah, experience, but only to the angels. Therefore, the witnesses of transfiguration more ought to have been the angels than men.

[32:56] Moreover, the witnesses of truth does not no fiction befits the witnesses of truth, but truth. But Moses and Elias were not truly what there, but imaginarily. Well. Thomas is going to say that's not so. For he says, for a certain gloss is upon that of Luke nine, Moses and Elias were there. It should be known, he says, that neither the body or the souls of Moses or Elias there appeared, but in some creature's subject form, yeah.

[33:42] And one can believe that this was what done by angelic ministry, that the angels assume their persons. Therefore, it does not seem that they were suitable witnesses. What Thomas is going to? No. That contradicts objection one. Yeah. This is attack upon Moses and Elias here, huh? Yeah. Don't mess with God. Or his prophets. Or his prophets. Moreover, Acts ten is said that to Christ all the prophets gave testimony, right?

[34:18] Therefore, not only to Moses and Elias ought to be witnesses, but all the prophets. True, King David. Yeah. Jeremiah. Moreover, the glory of Christ is

[34:35] is promised to all the faithful who, through his transfiguration, he wished to and kindle the desire for that glory. Therefore, not only Peter and James and John, ought to be taken on to what witness his transfiguration, but all the disciples, right? So the third and fourth are similar, but the one is in terms of the prophets who are not there and apostles who are not there. Yeah.

[35:03] But three is enough. I only have two. The other case. Sometimes two is enough. In contrary is the authority of the scriptures, yeah. What's your Thomas' response? I just want to hear this guy's answers, huh? Yeah.

[35:27] Um, I can see if you had a chance to ask Thomas one or two questions, you know, he's going to fury enough. It would be a poor night time show. Which one I ask him? Yeah, it's like when the genie comes down. You know, one promise here, one one one wish to be fulfilled. You know, where did I read that? Oh, it was in the introduction.

[35:52] I don't remember in connection, but it was some some passage about a dog in there, and some queen, one of the queens, name one, one of her subjects is very close. Oh yeah, yeah. She said, she says, would you grant me anything I ask? He said, I'll grant you anything you want if you give me my one wish. Okay. She said, I want your dog. He said, okay, so he gave her the dog.

[36:14] He says, now you're going to grant my wish. Yes, I want my dog. Okay, so Christ wanted to be transfigured, huh? They might show his glory to men, right? And he might provoke men to what desire of it, huh? So Thomas gives that chapter 17 as the what the chapter dealing with the end of all his teaching, right? But the goal is just bring us to. But to the glory of eternal beatitude, men are brought through Christ, not only those who were what after him in time, I guess, but also those who preceded him in time.

[37:09] Whence heading to the passion, right? The crowds which followed and and those who preceded shouted Hosanna, right? That's probably the spiritual meaning of that text, right? Some were coming before, and some after. And therefore, it was suitable that of those going before, there be witnesses to wit Moses and Elias, and of those following, Peter, James, and John. For in the mouth of two or three testes stands every word.

[37:43] Two from the all or three from the all Rule of two or three of two or three, right? To the first, therefore, should be said that Christ, through his transfiguration, manifested to the disciples the glory of his body. Which pertains to men alone. The angels don't have any bodies. What do they care about the glory of the body? And therefore, suitably, not the angels but men, for our witnesses, are brought into this.

[38:18] That's a marvelous answer, objection. Yeah. Now that second one, Thomas is going to, you know, talk about the authority or lack of it of that text, right? Yeah. The second, it should be said that that gloss is said to be taken from the book which is entitled "Of the Marvels of Sacred Scripture," which is not a book authentic, right? But falsely ascribed to Augustine, and therefore one not not to stand upon that gloss, right?

[38:52] Um, it Jerome says upon Matthew, huh? It should be considered, huh, that to the scribes and the Pharisees, demanding or asking for a sign from heaven, he did not wish to give them signs from heaven. Here, however, that he might what increase the the faith of the apostles, he gives a sign from heaven, right? Elias from there descending, where he what had ascended, huh? From Moses rising up from what?

[39:28] From the depths of hell, right? Inferno. Which is not to be thus understood as if the soul of Moses took on what his body, but that that his soul appeared through some body what assumed as the angels also appear sometimes, but Elias appeared in his own body, huh? Not what taken from the imperium heaven, which is highest, I guess, but from some eminent place in which he was carried up in the fiery chariot.

[40:08] And so, Elias is going to come back at the end, right, and before the second coming, right? Because what he's asking about what the imperium heaven is. Yeah.

[40:22] Was that just a physical thing? Might be the highest. The highest. The highest. The highest. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So he's just talking between that he didn't come from the. He he'll go all the way up to appear in heaven, but then went up to some elevated place. Yeah. Somewhere, but not. Yeah. Um. Okay. So, Thomas just goes against the authority of that, right?

[40:52] And then talks about the reality of them, right? Because otherwise, they're not be suitable witnesses; they were present, huh? To the third, it should be said, huh? This is the ones arguing about why just these two guys, right? Or why they in particular? To the third, it should be said, as Chrysostom says upon Matthew, Moses and Elias are brought in the middle on account of many reasons, right?

[41:25] First is this, because the crowds said that he was what, Elias or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Um He brings, I guess, the with him the head of the heads of the prophets. Yeah. That at least thus would appear the difference of these servants of the Lord. That's kind of a silly Little thing, right? Yeah. Possibly they copied a prophet, I didn't mean they took their heads off, but.

[42:02] This is not translating exactly. Correctly. Okay. The second reason is because Moses gave the law, right? And Elias was what very zealous for the glory of the Lord, right?

[42:22] Whence through this that together with Christ they appear, there is excluded the calumny of the Jews accusing Christ of being a transgressor of the law, which would be against Moses, right? When they say, you know, we know who Moses is, I don't know who this guy is, you know. This is in the gospel. And the blasphemy of God that they accused him, assuming the glory of God.

[42:47] Usurped for himself. Yeah. Yeah. So he brings in Moses, who's preeminent as far as giving the law among men, and then Elias, who was most zealous for the glory of God, and that's against those two attacks, right? That he's transgressed the law and he's usurping the glory of God and he forgives sins and other such things. So he brings in these people who are obviously subordinated to him.

[43:17] You'll see in that painting as legend of Raphael you know, where he's up in the center and then they're kind of almost kneeling on this side of him. The third reason, this is very interesting. He might show that he has power of life and death, right? And he's the judge both of the dead and the living. Through this, that Moses is already dead, Elias still living, he brought them together.

[43:42] That's marvelous. Look at this guy, Chrysostom Who he is? I guess he's a bishop. Yeah. Very good. Paris is is worth a Chrysostom, I guess.

[44:01] The fourth reason is because, as Luke says, they spoke with him about the excess, right? Nothing too much, you know. Which he was going to complete in Jerusalem. That is about his passion and death.

[44:20] And therefore, that he might what confirm the souls of disciples about this, he brings in the middle those who expose themselves to death for God. For Moses, with the danger of death, offered himself to the Pharaoh, right? And Elias to Ahab, the king.

[44:43] Fifth reason, because he wished that his disciples would imitate, I guess, the mildness of Moses and the zeal of Elias. That's kind of interesting, because you wouldn't think of those two going together, right? Yeah. But. uh

[45:03] was it John Paul and he beatified John XXIII and Pius IX at the same time. So they're very different popes. John 23rd was you know aggiornamento and Pius IX was condemning all the errors of the world. So he's brought them together.

[45:24] The sixth reason adds Hilary right that he might show himself right through the law which Moses gave right and through the prophets among whom Elias was praecipuus right was the chief one right that he was preached by these people right that they would they were participating right.

[45:48] Okay. So that's enough to see why these two are able to stand for these other guys. Now, what about these three and not all the apostles? Well, a little bit about the order that we saw in the other text. Remember why he, why Christ preached to the Jews but not the Gentiles? He wanted to be a certain order, right? To the fourth, it should be said that the highest, the high mysteries, should not be exposed to all, expounded to all immediately, right?

[46:30] But through the those who are greater in their time, they ought to arrive at the others. God loves order, right? And that's that sermon on scripture from Saint Thomas. The two of them, but he talked about the mountains who represent the doctors, and the sunlight hits the tops of the mountains first, and then it comes down. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like my old teacher, Kasurik said, "God hates equality."

[47:07] Talking about that in the analysis, there's questions on the church and there's states and duties and order in the church. But for the one of the objections is basically I call it the objection of democracy. No, no, everybody should just be equal. That's it. We're all the same. He says no. And therefore, as Chrysostom says, he took up three more potent ones, right? For Peter was excelling in the love which he had to Christ, right?

[47:46] He says in the last chapter there, John, right? And again in the power that was committed to him, John in the privilege of the love by which he was loved by Christ, on account of his virginity, huh? And also, on account of the prerogative of his, ah, there now—that's the greatest gospel, right?

[48:10] And James, on account of prerogative of his martyrdom, now he's the, see, then the bishop of. He was the first martyr among the apostles. Herod Yeah Brother of John yeah, Yeah. Did you people celebrate Matthias today? No, we had no. We had him in August

[48:30] Well, Father B came out, you know. Father Adam there came out, you know. He's all red, you know, because Matthias is a is a martyr, so. The only the only apostle non-martyr is Saint John. They tried to kill him, but they didn't. Yeah.

[48:52] But nevertheless, these he did not want to what announce what they had seen, right? Before the letter commission Lest, as as Jerome says, right? It would seem incredible for the magnitude of the thing, after so great a glory, fouling the what scandal of the cross, huh? Or also that he would be totally impeded by the apostles, by the by the people, right? And when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, then they were what witnesses of the spiritual things done.

[49:32] Now the last. Last article here. To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems unsuitable is added the testimony of the paternal voice saying, "This is my beloved son."

[49:48] Because, as is said, Job thirty-three. Once God spoke, and He does not repeat Himself. But in the baptism, the paternal voice was what? Professed this. Therefore, it is not suitable that He professes this again in the Transfiguration.

[50:16] But you could say repetition is the mother of learning. So. Yeah, and what what's his name? Empedocles, the great philosopher, and Empedocles said, "do you know what is worth saying? Can be said twice." Moreover, in baptism, together with the paternal voice, the Holy Spirit was present in the species or the dove, which in the Transfiguration was not done. Therefore, is not suitable to have the protesting, professing of the Father.

[50:50] Right. Moreover, Christ began to teach after baptism, and nevertheless, in bapt, but nevertheless, in baptism, the voice of the what Father did not was not brought in, introducing them to what hear Him. Therefore, neither the Transfiguration ought ought to be brought in. Okay. He says, "Here is my beloved son. Hear me, I guess," and didn't say that in the other part. Yeah, he said that here. Yeah.

[51:27] The Transfiguration. Listen to him here. Moreover, one should not give to some right or them. We're not not to say to them those things that they are not able to bear, according to that of John. I still I have other things to say to you which you are not able to bear yet. But the disciples were not able to bear the voice of the Father, for He said that the disciples hearing it fell on their faces and were greatly afraid.

[52:02] Therefore, we're not not to what the paternal voice ought not to come to them. That's kind of an audacious objection. You shouldn't have said that. Yeah.

[52:16] Don't you know what you did to be poor? That was the poor man. So there is some text, and I think in Thomas they were were talking about Job. You know. Kind of arguing with God, right? And where truth is concerned, there is no respect for persons.

[52:37] It's kind of a shocking thing to say. Yeah. Um. We have to respect God because He's truth itself. But not a problem. And it should be said, huh? That the adoption of sons of God, huh? Is through a certain conformity of the image. To the natural son of God, huh?

[53:05] Which comes about in two ways, huh? First, by the grace of the road, right? In this life, which is a imperfect conformity to the. Son of God, huh? Natural son of God. Second, through glory, which is a perfect conformity, to the Son of God, huh? According to that of one John, now we are the sons of God, right, huh? And it does not yet appear what we will be.

[53:39] We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is. So we're already sons of God, but we're not as much like Him as we will be when He appears. That's before text them to show the the truth of the distinction that Thomas sees here.

[53:59] Because therefore we get grace through baptism, right, huh? And in the transfiguration is shown ahead of time to us in a way the clarity of the future glory. Therefore, both in the baptism as well as in the transfiguration, it was suitable to be made known the natural sonship of Christ by the testimony of the Father because we're going to be assimilated to it, both by baptism and more fully by by glory.

[54:34] Ah. Who alone is fully and perfectly conscious of that perfect generation, together with the Son and the Holy Spirit. How we know what He spoke all times.

[54:56] Now, this text and jawbread is referring actually to the eternal saying of it in the Trinity, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that word is referred to the eternal speech of God, huh? By which God the Father brings forth, right? A word unique and equal to Himself, right? Co-eternal with Himself. And nevertheless, it can be said that the same can be said by a what?

[55:32] Yeah, that God twice what brought forth. Not, however, in account of the same thing, right? But to showing those the diverse way in which men partake of the likeness of the what?

[55:47] Yeah, yeah. So there is a reason for him to himself. Yeah. Just like Mozart repeats himself sometimes, variations on a theme, but they're not the same, right? But here, here it seems like he's saying the same thing, but with but with a different kind of what reason, a different kind of simulation to his his own son, imperfect and perfect. Um.

[56:23] About the Holy Spirit here. To the second should be said that in baptism, where is there is declared the mystery of the first what regeneration? There is shown the operation of the whole Trinity. Through this, that there is the incarnate Son, and there appears the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove, and the Father is declared there in his voice, right? So also in the Transfiguration, which is the sacrament of the second regeneration.

[56:57] Interesting, he says that, huh? Um. The whole, no, it's the second regeneration. It got to be born again, as he says in the first one, right? So regeneration. The whole Trinity appears: the Father in the voice, the Son in man, and the Holy Spirit in the shining cloud. Because just as in baptism he gives what innocence, which is designated by the simplicity of the dove, so in the resurrection he gives to his chosen ones the clarity of glory, huh, and refreshment, huh, refrigeration, huh,

[57:40] from every evil, which is designated in the what? Lucid cloud, right? You have there, as in baptism, he gives innocence, and then he followed it with which is signified by the dove. So in the resurrection. Okay, is this translation? This text is missing that. Resurrection. Yeah, it's missing that the dove just signifies the innocence.

[58:10] Make out each translation's missing something Oh, okay. Yeah. Now, to the third, it should be said. My third objection was. Part about saying, "Hear me," I guess. Not just one and not the other. To third, should be said that Christ came to actually give grace. The promise in the word. Glory.

[58:47] Oh, you make a distinction, huh? He came to give actually grace, Which is the baptism and he promised glory by what? Word. Glory, And therefore, suitably in the transfiguration, men are induced that they to hear him. not However, in the baptism, huh? Because he actually gives us that grace in baptism, but then we don't have glory. Oh, I see. He promises that, so that's why we have to listen to it.

[59:16] Yeah. Okay, it's subtle, huh? And when it comes to scores, doctors, subtle. This is what they've got. Thousands of subtle ones, as far as I can see. Um now what about hearing things you can't bear. To the fourth, it should be said, it was suitable for the disciples to be terrified and prostrated by the paternal voice, right? That there might be shown the excellence of that glory which was then shown, right?

[59:57] And that it exceeds every sense and faculty or capacity of mortals, right? Too good to be true. According to that of Exodus 33, man would not see me and what live, huh? And this is what Jerome says upon Matthew that human fragility is not able to sustain these

[1:00:29] greater glory. But from this fragility, men are healed by Christ, bringing them into glory, which is signified through this that He says to them, "Get up, not be afraid."

[1:00:54] Makes sense, huh? That's a good place to get to then, huh? Because then the next one is the part dealing with the passion of Christ, right? Which is the third part, I guess, of that fourfold division. We're gonna have to wait till the fall to take this up again, huh?