Tertia Pars
98. God Became Man: 'Standing For', the Fallacy of Accident, and the Senses of 'Necessary' – Introduction to the Passion (ST III q.46)
Class of 2010-09-09
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/098-god-became-man-standing-for-the-fallacy-of-accident-and-the/

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

[0:23] So, before we start up here with question forty-six on the Passion of Christ, just call a couple things here. Would you agree to this statement? Would you assent to this statement

[0:43] that God became man? Okay. I notice in the in a thing on the incarnation, the quote from Augustine: "God became man so that man might become God." Right. Okay. So let's put that statement that you've all sent it to now right on the board here. God

[1:11] became man. Now, forgetting about that statement, right? Because if you're, if I was a follower of the sophist, right, I would, or even the guy who's going to might have a resisting audience, right? He would go into a lot of other extraneous things, right? And then somewhat later, you're not thinking about that at all, right? He would ask you this second question, right? Is the Holy Spirit God?

[1:39] What would you say? Okay, you assent to the statement that the Holy Spirit is God. Okay. Now, syllogize those two huh? God became man. the. Holy Spirit is God. Therefore, right? But the Holy Spirit became man. Now I know you want to assent to that, right? Okay. But doesn't it follow from the two things you admitted, right? Only only one condition. the equivocation. Okay, now this is this is the unasked.

[2:29] There's obviously a mistake in this argument, right? Yeah. But if you ask somebody what is the mistake, he'd probably be inclined to say that to say what? Yeah. But is that in fact the mistake being made? Does the word God here, in the word God here, mean something different?

[2:57] If they did, then you'd be saying, well, one meaning the word God is the Holy Spirit. Another meaning the word God is the Son, and another meaning maybe is the Father, right? And these are the difficulties going to get into, because the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit, are one and the same God, numerically speaking, right? Okay. And so when God is said of the Father, we say the Father is God, and say the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

[3:27] Can the word God have a different meaning in each case? That would get you into even more difficulties, right? Okay. So the way out of this argument is not to say that the word God here has a different meaning, right? Okay.

[3:49] So what is the difficulty here, right? Suppose. Yeah. Say. Now, would you admit that Jesus He is the Son of God? Now, Son is not the one of whom he is a Son, right?

[4:20] So, if he's the Son of God, then he's not what? God, right. Because the Son is not the one of whom he is a Son. Right. Do y'all agree to that? Yeah. That's natural reason, right? No one is the Son of himself, right? So the Son is not the one of whom he is a Son. So if he's the Son of God, then obviously he's not what God.

[4:49] God. The Jews are right. So here we're denying the Trinity. Here we're getting all the stuff of the incarnation, right? Huh? You know. Okay. Now what what's the way out of this, right?

[5:11] Suppose you say certainly not different meaning. Suppose. Yeah. Now suppose is kind of a Latin, you know, Latinism. But how would you express that in English? huh? It stands for something. Yeah. Yeah. Now, when you say that God became man, right? Huh. Um. The word God there stands for the Son of God, right? Okay. But notice that's not exactly the same thing as the word God there means the Son of God.

[5:53] Because if you say, "Why can you say that God became a man? " Well, because the Word was made flesh, the Word became a man, right? In almost the same sentence, or at the same sentence, in different clause, we're told that the Word of God is God, right? So if the Word of God became man, was made flesh, and the Word of God is God, then somehow you can say in some way that God became man, right?

[6:26] Okay. So what distinction am I introducing here, right? Well, I'm kind of an orthodox fellow, right? And when I say that God became man, right?

[6:51] I, when I'm supposed to mean that the Son of God or the Word of God became man, that's what I mean, right? Okay. So that God there is standing for the Son of Man, or Son of God rather. subjectively. But that is not the meaning of the what? Word God. So that my meaning and the meaning of the word are not the same, right?

[7:28] But the word is standing there for the what? Son of God, right? That's kind of a subtle thing, right? Now, I don't want to get confused with the other case, right? We were talking before class began about the figures of speech, right?

[7:55] And Thomas, when he explains the figures of speech there in the commentaries and the epistles of Paul, there's one place St. Paul uses the figure of speech called irony, right? Where you're saying just what? Yeah, yeah. Okay.

[8:15] And you know, my example, you know, when I was teaching at Assumption, I said, "If I come here on the weekend and I find you drunk under the table," and I say, "What a fine example of an Assumption College student." You know, I don't mean that, right? Didn't say it right away, right? I mean the opposite of what my words say, right? Okay. But notice that's a figure of speech called irony, right?

[8:40] And there's always a connection between what your words mean and what you mean, right? But what your words mean and what you mean are not the same thing. When I say what a fine example of an Assumption College student, I mean just the opposite of that, right? That's kind of a usual thing, right? I mean the opposite of what my words say, right? See. And sometimes people get mixed up, not so much with irony, but with the metaphor, right?

[9:11] So if you looked up the word "pig" in the dictionary, right, they might give as a meaning of the word "pig" glutton, right? But then it's not really metaphor if that was a meaning of the word.

[9:24] So when I call you a pig, using this as a metaphor, the word "pig" means a four-footed animal with a tail and a snout and certain characteristics that we all are familiar with, right? But what I mean is that you're a glutton, you're eating too much or something, right? Okay.

[9:43] So my meaning and the meaning of my word is not the same in a figure of what speech, right? huh If I say that's that's a bad place. That's what I call a metonym, right? Was the place really bad? No, but the people who are living there or something, right, are conducting their nefarious business are bad, right? Okay. So I don't really mean the place is bad, but I mean that the people contained in the place are bad, right?

[10:24] Okay. So now this is something quite different from what we're talking about here, right? But notice that in both cases, the meaning of the what, of the speaker, right, and the meaning of the word, are not exactly the same, right? Okay.

[10:53] So the meaning of the speaker here, when I say God became a man, is what the word God stands for there, right? Now you could say the same thing in human things. You could say I am the son of a man, right?

[11:11] I'm not the son just any man. I'm the son of Reno Victor Berquist, right? And so a man there is standing for Reno Victor Berquist, right? When you say I'm the son of a man, right? But

[11:33] is that the meaning of a man? One meaning of the word man is Reno Victor Berquist. Or again, if you say I'm the father of a man, well then a man there is standing for Paul Thomas Berquist huh? Or Marcus Berquist but Paul Thomas Berquist the first one, right? Okay. But is that a meaning of man, Paul Thomas Berquist It's kind of a subtle thing, right?

[12:08] So it seems to me, nevertheless, that there's something kind of common, right, to speaking figuratively and speaking this way here, and that is that the meaning of the word and the meaning of the speaker are not identical, right? Okay. Now maybe they're closer here than they are in the other case, right?

[12:34] Because one could say here, hey, the son of God became a man. The son of God is God, right? So God did become a man truly, right? But nevertheless, there's a little difference between exactly what I mean and what the word God means, right?

[12:51] The same way I speak of the son of God, right? And sometimes the Scripture in the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, right? Now what does the word God stands for there. He sees the Son of God.

[13:11] I guess the Father and the Son Yeah, insofar as there's one God, right? And they're breathing the Holy Spirit, right? Okay. So that's kind of subtle thing you've got to, you know, see there to avoid being deceived by the sophist, right?

[13:32] But now, what kind of a mistake is being made here? Huh? See, it's not the mistake that comes from equivocation, right? Huh? It's not from the word God having a different meaning in these two cases, right? So what is the kind of mistake being made here, do you think? If I think. no. how would it be that for me? I gave an example. I think I give to people.

[14:18] I give it to to my students. I give to ordinary students kind of a clever little syllogism. I'd say a square is an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral. Do you agree? An equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral is a definition of square. Do you agree? And therefore, a square is a definition of square. Have you heard that before. No, I've never. heard. Yeah. Or you say man is an animal that has reason, right?

[14:56] Do you agree? An animal that has reason is a definition of man, right? So man is a definition of reason. Something wrong there, right? But it seems that it follows from those two statements that you've admitted, right? What kind of mistake is being made here, right?

[15:21] Well, the definition of man is man as known distinctly, right? It's not man simply, is it? So you're making the mistake of simply, in some respect, right? In some way, the definition of man is man, right? Not man simply without qualification, no. But as man is known, and is known distinctly, right? And the definition of square is not the same thing as a square.

[15:58] Not something the same, right? But in some way, it is a square. It's a square in a qualified sense. It's a square as known, as known distinctly, in geometry. There is a mistake, though, for simply and in some respect, I think. But what kind of mistake is is this? Because

[16:25] this is not simply in some respect. I hope you're not going to say that, right? I said Holy Spirit is in some respect. I was thinking.

[16:36] Or in some respect, God became man. You didn't do that I was thinking of that. Yeah Well? I don't know if this is the right way to put it, but it seems that in the first statement, the speaker is using God in a

[16:56] figurative way, and the sophist is trying to force him to make that in a literal way. No, This is not a figurative thing. God really did become man, because the Word of God was made flesh, right? Yeah. And we're told in the same sentence almost, right? From the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and then later on we're told that this Word was made flesh, was made a man, right?

[17:25] But in one in one use, God stands for one person. Yeah. Yeah. In the other sense, stands for the nature itself. Yeah, yeah. So I identify standing for with with figurative speech, right? Okay. But I wanted to point out that there is something similar, right? Huh? That is possible, you see, to mean something by your words, right? Or by word that that word doesn't what signify. Sounds kind of strange, right?

[17:57] So I say you are a pig, but I mean you are a brute right? Even though that's not really what the word pig means, right? Okay. Um.

[18:10] So when I say God became a man, God stands for the Son of God, right? Even though that's not the meaning, right? And what it stands for is what I mean, right? Me, the speaker, right? That's what I mean, right?

[18:29] even Augustine says God became man, so man might become God, right? I was thinking about that that that day because we're going to come back to that, you know. I was thinking about how. What does he mean? Well, God really did become man, right? But did man become God, right?

[18:49] Well, my first thought was, of course, just thinking about man becoming God in the sense of partaking in the divine, right? That sucks, right? But the man Jesus Christ. He really did become God, right? Okay, and that's and through his really becoming God, right, that we partake, you know. So that's more subtle than than we realize at first, you know. Okay, so what's the kind of mistake being made here?

[19:20] All right, does perhaps hinge on the verbs? Is the the the beingness of the first statement becoming is different from the beingness of is in the second? That's true, but here you're affirming. the subject of the first sentence, right? Or the subject, second one. And here you are saying of this middle term that became man, right? So. You are going to

[20:20] have to remind us the kind of mistakes we can make. It seems like fishing. I say, why didn't I think of this that I could go ask Monsignor Dionne, you know, and see what he think, you know, see I've got an answer myself, but you know, check with him, you know, and see if he agrees with my answer, right? But but now I am on my own, unless I find angels helping me.

[20:44] It seems to me that the fallacy involved here is the fallacy of the accident, which is Aristotle says in the book. It's the first kind of mistake outside of speech, right? And

[20:59] this is not a mistake in speech, right? That this has two different meanings, right? That would be the fallacy of equivocation. But what took place in the incarnation, right? Was there a union of the divine nature with the human nature? The two natures come together, become one. Not one thing. No, they were not. The union was not in the natures. Well, they call it the hypostatic union, right?

[21:27] The union was in the hypostasis in the person, right? If it was in the natures, then the Holy Spirit and the Father would have been what? Incarnated too, huh? See, if the divine nature had become somehow tied up with the human nature or turned into it, like what the heresy says, then the the Father and the Holy Spirit would have been tied up with the human, right?

[21:56] So, in a way, the the divine nature, you might say, is what accidental to the union, right? Insofar as the union is not in the the nature, or insofar as he has nature, but the union is in the what person, right? Okay, but because he has a nature, he can be called God and is God, right? And therefore, you can say God became man, right? Okay, but the union between the the Holy Spirit and the and the Son of God, they both have the same nature.

[22:31] In fact, they are both the same nature, right? But that's not what the union was made, right? But in their personhood, right, what makes them to be this or that person, right? They don't unite; they're distinct, right? And that's where the union took place. So the union didn't take place in what they have in common, the divine nature, but the union took place in what they don't have in common, the distinction of their what persons, right?

[23:03] So you are confusing. The accidental man, right? Okay. He was in the person, and not in the the nature. Because God in the first statement is the person, and God in the second is the nature.

[23:26] Well, I said the word "God." You see, is taken from the nature, right? And God signifies what has the divine nature, right? So, what has the divine nature is both the Son and the Holy Spirit and the Father too, for that matter. But the distinction, right, is something that they don't have in common, right? The sonhood is a procession, as he called it. Okay.

[23:59] So they're not united in that in which the union of human and divine natures took place, right? So it seems to me the fallacy of the what accidental. Next time, when we're talking on

[24:19] the phone now, I'll get him to listen to it, but he thinks he doesn't. He's just as old, you know. But I think I write there, you know. Let's just see where we put the marker or something. That's a very important thing. This idea stands for, right? And it comes up in phrases like "the Son of God," right? The difficulties you'd be in if you didn't, right,

[24:47] very subtle. I'm not going to go into it now, but but just kind of warn you. You know, I think I've I've quoted this thing from one of the lost dialogues of Aristotle. The one about should you philosophize? You know, there's a whole bunch of versions of it, but basically, what he says is either you ought to philosophize or you ought not to philosophize. What do you say?

[25:23] If you say you ought to philosophize, then do so. If you say you ought not to philosophize, you're going to have to philosophize to show why not. So, in any case, you must philosophize, right? Well, imitating the great Aristotle there, huh? Something a little more humble than that. I say, is it necessary to understand the word "necessary"? What would you say? Necessary. Yeah, if you say it's necessary, you better do so, right?

[25:52] If you say it's not necessary, you're going to have to understand necessary to understand why it's not necessary, right? Okay. Now, applying that little thing here to the theology bit, right? You may recall in the first question of the Summa, right? First article was what?

[26:17] Well sacred doctrine Yeah, whether there is necessary some doctrine beyond the, you know, natural knowledge of man, right? Okay. So that's a question of necessary, right there, right? Okay. And then Thomas gets a little bit in there, and he's talking about God, and he points out that first thing you got to consider is does God exist, right?

[26:47] And he says if you don't determine that question, you know, then the rest of theology is gone. Okay. Now, one of the arguments for the existence of God is based upon the dependence of the contingent, what can be and not be, upon what must be, what is necessary to be, right? And then the dependence of what is necessary to be through another upon what is necessary to be another.

[27:17] through itself, and that's God. So that's another place you got to know about necessary, right? Okay. But now even the the philosophers knew about God's existing, at least the best of them, right? But now you come to the two beliefs that kind of really separate us, even from the great Aristotle, right? And one is that there are three persons in God, right? Separates us from Mohammedans, right?

[27:49] Okay. And the other is that the incarnation, that God became what, man, right? Now, you could ask, is it necessary that there be three persons in God?

[28:08] Is it necessary that God became man? Well, you better understand the word necessary, right? Huh? Because both are necessary, but not in the same sense of what necessary, right? Huh?

[28:30] That there are three persons in God is necessary in the same way that three as a number is necessary. Um. Or the square is a quadrilateral, right? Or a triangle has interior angles equal to the right angles.

[28:53] God necessarily what understands himself; he cannot not. It's not a matter of choice, right? And therefore, necessarily has a thought of himself, right? If he has a thought of himself, he knows how good he is, and therefore necessarily loves himself, right? So we would know by natural reason that God is necessarily three persons, but with the help of revelation we find out, right, that God is necessarily that, right.

[29:22] So God the Father didn't choose to have a Son, right? And God the Father and God the Son didn't choose to breathe the Holy Spirit, right?

[29:33] But now is necessary that God become man in that way, that same sense of necessary. Aristotle distinguishes in the fifth book of Wisdom the senses of necessary, right? You have that absolute necessity we talk about cannot not be, right? And then you have necessity from a what extrinsic cause, either the agent. Which is force, right? And then necessity from the what? End. And that's divided into two meanings.

[30:10] That without which the end cannot be achieved at all, like it's necessary for me to breathe, right? And then without which one cannot live well. I'd have steak and wine. Both sides. Both sides, yeah, yeah. Okay.

[30:28] Well, you see that the Father, God the Father, has a Son, right? He's not forced to have a Son, right? Okay. And it's not to achieve some end, right? Yeah, the Son. No, it's an absolute necessity, right? Like two is half a four, right?

[30:50] But the incarnation is necessary in what sense? Was the Son forced to become man? No. Was it absolutely necessary? not. He chose to become man, right? God chose to become man. But was necessary for the end? Well, then, what do both Augustine and Thomas teach about that? Augustine first, and Thomas following. Yeah, yeah. It's not the only way, right? It's not that we couldn't be redeemed, or saved from our sins in some other way, right?

[31:29] But there was no better way to do it, right? Okay. Just like I say, you know is logic necessary. Well most of all. It had the greatest difficulties Thomas says, right? Huh? Logic, right? And maybe you have to be forced to, yes. But no. But for the well-being of philosophy, right? These errors and so on. How can you avoid these errors or recognize these errors? You don't even know what kinds of errors there are, right?

[32:05] As Boethius says, the bad must be known to be avoided, right? So even the good man, or even the good thinker, has to know the bad in order to avoid it. because you know. once I have a few quotes, I'm always kind of questioning. it but he said somewhere. He said Augustine says somewhere that the only part of logic worth teaching is the part on mistakes and errors, right?

[32:36] I don't know if that's true, but it kind of stuck in my mind anyway. But so even the good man has to know, you know. And even Augustine, you know, thinks that's worthwhile to know the kinds of mistakes there are. Not that you will necessarily avoid them all, but if you don't know the kinds of mistakes, you know, that's what I'm kind of struck with modern philosophy.

[32:55] They never really seem to be aware of the mistakes, you know, very much kinds of mistakes. Okay, so the two central mysteries of the faith, right? The two ones that really separate us from the Mohammedans and others, the three persons in God, right, and that God became man, right? They're necessary in different senses of the word. What? Yeah. Was it necessary to understand the word necessary? Yeah, to do these things well, right?

[33:42] So when we come back, when we get through going through this, right, we will, we will, following Saint Anselm there, right? Belief seeking, understanding, right? Is theology belief seeking, understanding? What would you say?

[34:04] Is that a definition of theology? I would say that it's part of the truth about what theology is, right? It's not the whole truth about theology, right? For example, theology is not only belief seeking, understanding, but it's also the defending of what you believe, right? Both against the heretics and even against the philosophers, right? Okay. So if you look at Thomas's treatise on the incarnation, they say in the fourth book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, he'll go through the passages in scriptures that the heretics have used to misunderstand these things, right, and to deny them and so on, right?

[34:53] And he'll show in a very overwhelming way, the same way Augustine does, right, that scriptures really teaching what we say, we believe, right? So there he's defending the faith, right, against the the heretics, right?

[35:09] Might say nourishing the faith too, as they say. And then he goes to the objections, right, from natural reason, saying it's impossible to be three persons in God, right, or it's impossible that God become a man, right? And he'll answer those arguments, right. Well, that's not so much faith seeking understanding as it is defending the faith, right? But defending the faith is certainly part of what theology is, and it's kind of implied in the definition of faith by Augustine.

[35:40] Act, right? It's to assent while thinking about something, right? If you're thinking about something, you're trying to understand it, so it's in the very definition of faith. And if it if you didn't think about it, try to understand a bit, but you're assenting to, you would be denying your nature, right? I'm just a sort of man, Augustine says, who would want to understand what he believes, right?

[36:01] Okay, it's got that humility there, you know. So when you get through going through the life of Christ, right, his passion, death, and so on, his glorification, then we'll come back and do a little bit of that, right, and say, there's really two different questions, right. One is why did God become a man, and then taking into account what we we're saying here, why was it that the Son of God became a man rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit, because they could also become a man, right?

[36:37] But why was it appropriate for the Son of God rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit, right? And okay, but now if you believe that God became man, you must wonder what did he do and say, and surprisingly also suffer, right? Ah, when he became a man, right? If you really do believe, as we do, that God became man, you say this is a very strange and unusual what thing, right?

[37:16] And you'd be very curious, you know, to wonder what he what did and said when he became a man, right? And that's why primarily we go to the the Gospels, right? Because they're the main account, aren't they, of what our Lord did and said and also suffered, right? He became a man, right? Okay, but in a sense Thomas is is trying to understand, right? These things that we hear about in the four Gospels, right?

[37:49] Huh? Because the Gospels don't always say, well, why did he do this, you know? Okay. I mean, when he tells the apostles in advance, and they hardly believe him, you know, he's going to go up to Jerusalem, and he's going to die, right? And he's going to resurrect and so on, and they hardly, you know, think he's think he's speaking figuratively or something, and so don't get to the point of saying, you know, why are you going to die on the cross?

[38:17] Why don't you, you know, have your head cut off or something else, you know? Okay. So now Thomas had divided this into what. How many parts? This life of Christ kind of into four parts, right? First was his coming into the world, right, and then his going through what, preaching and so on, right? And now the third part, right, which would be with his passion and death and so on, and descent into hell, and then the fourth part would be on the glorifying afterwards.

[38:54] Consequently, he says we ought to consider about those things which belong to the exit of Christ from the world. He divides us into what four parts? And first about his what, passion or suffering, right? Secondly about his what, death. Third about his what, burial, and fourth about the descent to. hell. Yeah.

[39:29] It's interesting that Thomas puts that here, right? Because sometimes he divides that against, he puts it with the, the resurrection and the ascension, right?

[39:42] Yeah. Because there's there's two ways of dividing the, the six articles they sometimes give of the faith there about Christ, and one is suggested by Psalm eight, right? Why he made him like the Lord of the angels, right? So in his becoming man, he kind of lowered himself, right? Taking on the form of a slave, as Saint Paul says in Philippians, and then in his death, he lowered himself, and then when he what, descended down into hell, right?

[40:14] Like the dead do, right? He's kind of going himself, and then the resurrection, which is what, reward in a way for his death, and then his ascension, which is reward for his descent into hell, right? And then his what second coming kind of corresponds to his first coming, which was in humility, right? Mercy and the second one in justice, right? In glory and so on. That's one way dividing them into the three, right?

[40:40] Well, there the descent is put with the what, second group, right? Okay. No. First group, yeah, yeah, yeah. But then in the the way that they divide them in the in the Te Deum, right, huh? Well, then you have his coming into the world, right? And then his death, and then his opening up heaven as a result of his death, and then his second coming, right? So divided into three.

[41:10] But he opened the kingdom of heaven after his death, right? And then Thomas gives the old division into the goods of the soul, the goods of the body, and exterior goods. So in the descent into hell, he gave the beatific vision to the prophets down there, right? That's the good of the soul. The resurrection, the good of the body, and then the what? Ascension, good place, you know.

[41:36] So their their descent into hell was put with resurrection and the, you know. So. the saints have put the first group sometime with the second group, right? So.

[41:51] Now about the passion itself. There occurs a threefold consideration. First, about the passion itself. Secondly, about the efficient cause of the passion. And third, about the fruit of the passion, the effect of the passion.

[42:15] This is very thorough what Thomas does, huh? Well I'll teach you because, you know, there's a painting, I guess, of. Fra Angelico, I believe, where the saints there are kind of watching Christ on the cross, right? Most of them are making, you know, genuflections or, you know, bursting into tears and penance, you know. Like Thomas is there? I understand. So he has Thomas represented that way, right?

[42:46] It doesn't mean that Thomas didn't do the the other devoting things, devout things too, but. You know, something unusual, Thomas. Right? He's trying to. This is really, I mean, if you know what God really is, Thomas, you know, as far as we can know what God is in this life, he knew better than anybody else. It seems he he really wonders, right? You know, faith seeking understanding, right?

[43:08] He really wonders that he should undergo all this, right? What's the meaning of all this? You know, it is a very strange thing, right?

[43:19] I certainly wouldn't choose to undergo this, would you? I mean, it's just very hard to understand. So about the first, he asks twelve things, huh? Or twelve things asked. First, whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for liberation of men, right? Well, you've got the word necessity, right? Important to understand the word necessity, right? Theology. Secondly, whether there was some other possible way of human liberation, right?

[43:56] So if it's to liberate us, that's the end or purpose of his suffering, right? If that's the end, was that the end that could be achieved only by this? Or this was the best way of doing it, right? These first two articles are, both kind of doing that. And the third article, even whether this mode was what. Convenient, right?

[44:23] Okay, So those those first two articles kind of what. Go together, don't they? Now the fourth one, the form of death, right? A little different one. Whether it was suitable that he suffer on a what cross,

[44:45] like Peter was to suffer later on, right? Going to follow me, follow me, he says. Lead you where you don't want to go. Remember Paul VI there, you know, referring to that that legend, you know, about Peter leaving Rome, you know, to avoid Rome. And seeing Christ walking into there. Where are you going?

[45:10] Turn Peter around. Then, what his passion was in general, right? Then I'll get that And then going into details of that, whether the pain,

[45:28] which he sustained in the passion, was maximus, right? And then whether his whole soul was suffering—that's interesting, right? The whole soul, does it mean? I was looking at Thomas's text there in the sentences there where he's following the teaching of Augustine that the whole soul is in what? Not just in the whole body, but each part of the body. Okay. Because someone says, "Well, my whole soul is in my head.

[46:04] How can it be in my foot? " Right? Then it'd be in two places at the same time, right? And if the soul is something simple and indivisible, well, like a point, if a point's here, it can't be there, can it? And Thomas says this is stupid. He says it's a beautiful example of false imagination, right? You're imagining the soul to be in the body as in a place, and the soul is not in the body; is in the place, but as a form in what matter, right?

[46:41] And you imagine the indivisibility of the what soul to be like that of a point, which has a position in the continuous, right? But it's outside the whole genus of the continuous. It's a beautiful example. A twofold false imagination, right? And false imagination is the fundamental cause of mistake.

[47:06] Imagining things other than they are, or trying to imagine something that cannot be imagined. So when Descartes was trying to, you know, locate the soul someplace up here in the gland here in the head or something, he was kind of imagining the soul like a a point. You know, it's got to be placed here rather than somewhere else, or it's got to be somewhere in a place, and it can't be in two places at the same time.

[47:28] So you've got this false. Imagination, huh? And people, you know, the more common example, of course, people imagine the soul is kind of an air-like thing, you know, Well, it's the shape of a man, right? Like an air too Which is where the poet That's the way Dante represents a soul, though, right? You know, because when he meets the soul of somebody he knows, he recognizes them because of his shape, but then he tries to hug them and embrace them, and and you can't hug the air, right?

[48:00] So, kind of frustrating. You want to hug this person you haven't seen. Still can't see. Yeah. Now, the eighth one would would surprise, of course, you know, the modern scholars, but not Thomas, right? Whether the passion impeded the joy of what fruition there, because he enjoyed the beatification, right? So this is really a thing that the moderns are not. I was listening to. I didn't get the whole program.

[48:30] but Father Groshol was on uh one of the evenings there, and people call in, you know, and they email in, so and ask questions. And one woman is writing in, and she says, "Well, the priest told me that he didn't know he was God until his baptism, and he didn't know he was the Son of God. And then when the father said, 'You know, this is my beloved Son, ' oh, I am.

[48:57] Wow. Yeah. And then, and then another question. So, we read again. There's some doctor. I don't know. I forget what his name was, but his name is given on the program. And

[49:17] he he he says that when Christ says, you know, to the apostle at one point, "Whom do men say that I am?" Right. And it's because he's seeking, you know, affirmation from them that he really was what he was. You know, I mean, it shows how how these things, you know, are

[49:40] misunderstood, huh? You know, and it's a these are common things, right? And my wife said, you know, there's somebody using in school there one time, you know, and she said that's not right, you know, and it had these crazy notions in them, you know, but but

[50:01] seeking assurance, yeah. So and see what this cycle rises, right? Okay. Now the ninth and tenth, of course, go together because they're about the kind of exterior things, right? About the time of the passion, right? Huh? And about the place of the passion, right? Huh? So Thomas considers all these things, right? Yeah. With a loving attention, he's a diligent, huh? Diligent thinker, which means a word to love, right?

[50:32] Huh? About these things, yeah. And this is somewhat like because time and place are extrinsic, right? Thing extrinsic measures. And then the eleventh one, whether it was suitable for him to be crucified with what? Thieves, huh? Now we know why they crucified him with thieves, but was it? You know, he himself was accepting this too, right? And this was part of his providence.

[51:00] And strange enough, the eleventh, the twelfth one, right, whether the passion of Christ should be attributed to his what divinity? Can we say that God suffered? We said God died on the cross.

[51:15] Well, not in his divine nature, but in his what human nature? Yeah, yeah. That's very important.