Tertia Pars
104. Summa III, Q. 46 a. 11–12 and Q. 47 a. 1–2: Christ Crucified Among Thieves, the Passion and His Divinity, Laying Down His Life, and Dying Out of Obedience
Class of 2010-09-30
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/104-summa-iii-q-46-a-11-12-and-q-47-a-1-2-christ-crucified-among/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God our light and might, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, ordain luminar images and arouse us to consider more quickly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angel doctor, help us to understand what you have written. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:27] Reputed Christ with the thieves. To the eleventh one goes forward thus: It seems it was not suitable that Christ be crucified with thieves, for it is said in Second Corinthians chapter 6, What partaking of justice with iniquity? But Christ was made justice for us by God. But iniquity pertains to the thieves. Therefore, it is not suitable that Christ together with the thieves be but crucified.

[1:08] Moreover, upon that of Matthew twenty-six, if it is necessary for me to die with you, I will not deny you. I guess that's Peter, right? Says Origin, huh? To die with Jesus, who is dying for all, right, is not what. Amen.

[1:29] And Ambrose says upon that of Luke twenty-two, I am prepared to be with you and to go to what prison and to death. uh it says the passion of Christ has imitators, I suppose you would say, but not equals, right? Much less, therefore, is it suitable that Christ together with thieves should what suffer, huh?

[1:57] Moreover, Matthew twenty-seven is said that the thieves who were crucified with him that they insulted him. I guess it was, but in Luke twenty-three it is said that one of those who was crucified with Christ, he said, "Remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom." Therefore, it seems that apart from the blaspheming thieves, there was one crucified, not blaspheming, right? First time I ever heard that.

[2:26] Usually, say it's just what he blasphemed at first, and then later on, one of them turned, right? Ready. And thus it seems unsuitable to be narrated by the evangelists that Christ was crucified with thieves.

[2:43] But against all this is what is prophesied in Isaiah chapter fifty-three, and that he was what regarded as among the what wicked, huh? Now, answer should be said. That Christ was crucified among thieves, for one reason, according to the intention, as regards the intention of the Jews, right? But for another reason, as regards the ordering that God Himself made in these matters. As regards the intention of the Jews, he was crucified with what?

[3:23] Two what? Thieves, right? That, as Augustine said, he might be made a partaker of suspicion of them, right? The association, I guess. But this did not come about, for about them nothing is said, huh? But of him everywhere the cross is on it, right?

[3:46] Ah, for kings deposing or laying aside their crowns, right? Assume the cross, huh? In purple's, in crowns, I guess, in arms, in the sacred meal, wherever the cross on the earth is what.

[4:12] Wherever it appears I guess Yeah It stands up Now, as regards the ordering of God, right? Huh? Christ was crucified with thieves, as Jerome says upon Matthew. Just as for us, Christ was made what? The curse to the cross. Thus, for the salvation of all, among the wicked, I suppose, he was crucified as if himself being what? One of the noxious persons, right?

[4:53] Secondly, as Leo Papa says in his sermon on the Passion, two thieves, one on the right, one on the left, were crucified. That in the form of the cross, I suppose, or the beam,

[5:10] would be demonstrated those who, in the judgment of all men, would make the what distinction there. Augustine says upon John that the cross itself, if you pay attention, was a tribunal. In the middle was constituted the judge, the one who believed was liberated, the one who insulted was damned. For it signifies what is going to come about about the living and the dead. For some will be placed on the right, and some on the what?

[5:46] Left, huh? So is it clear from the Gospels that the good thief is on the right? I can't remember. I know we do that. We do that in Good Friday liturgy. Two candles. The one on the right gets lit.

[6:03] I can't remember. I've often heard that, you know. According third, according to Hillary, huh? The two thieves, right, huh? Are what? That's another word for left, I guess. Yeah, I guess so. These thieves. Left on the left hand, yeah. Yeah, they are. But it can also mean harmful. They are fixed on the right and the left, right? Mm-hmm. Showing that every diversity of the humankind are called to the sacrament of passion of our Lord, right?

[6:45] Mm-hmm. But because through the diversity of the faithful, the unfaithful, there comes a division of all on the right and on the left. One from both. Said right is saved by the justification of what? Faith.

[7:10] Thomas is plagiarizing, huh? Jerome, Leo, Papa, Hillary. He's got nothing to say for himself, then. I remember what what. Charles Talis says there, you know.

[7:26] We should say some things better than our predecessors said them, and other things just as well as they did, or some things are said so well that it is presumptuous to try to improve upon them, right? But at least try to come up, say it as well as he said it, which of course you do when you you quote them, right?

[7:49] Fourth, because as Bede says upon Mark, huh? The thieves who were crucified with the Lord signifies those who, under faith and the confession of Christ, undergo the what? Can you have martyred them? Or the what? They put themselves under established. Yeah, the white martyrdom. I used to think of this. The Irish monks are the white martyrdom.

[8:21] But those who for what? For eternal glory. Glory, bear themselves, are designated by the faith of the thief on the right. Those who look for human praise, huh? Imitate right those on the left, right? His mind and acts, huh?

[8:49] So all those four reasons seem to be in terms of what God wanted to be signified by this, huh? Yeah. And signified at the time of the what? Passion death.

[9:12] Now the first objection there about mixing up the two, right? Right, taking to the first effort should be said that just as Christ did not have the death of death, right, but he voluntarily underwent death, right, that by his own what power of virtue he might overcome death, right? So likewise, it wasn't due to him, it wasn't his merit, that he be placed with thieves, right? But he wished to be what the guard is among the wicked, right?

[9:49] That by his own power he might destroy what iniquity, huh? Makes sense, huh? Because he's the Pharisees and other sinners, right? But in order to destroy their iniquity, not to partake of it.

[10:09] When St. Chrysostom says upon John that the thief on the cross was what converted, huh, and brought into what paradise? This is not less than to what Greek rocks.

[10:29] Which I guess that's around what happened after he died. Yeah. Isn't that kind of the first miracle attributed to? Called a miracle to Saint Therese you know. Yeah, the converted. Praying for this guy who's going to. Pranzini or whatever they were. Yeah, Apparently, you know, a terrible criminal or something, you know, but and showing no signs of repentance, right? But she prayed for him, and then before he died, he kissed the cross, right?

[11:01] Kissed the cross. Kissed something, so that sign that her prayers were were heard, you know. But something a little bit like this, right? I mean, bless your sense of hers. Yeah, that's what I think. It's Chrysostom, or maybe it's St. Thomas's commentary in Matthew's gospel when it talks about his crying out with a loud voice before he died. Yeah. That was a sign too that he was laying down his life at a certain time when he chose.

[11:32] Because he didn't have man dying by crucifixion after him retreats, but he doesn't have energy to shout with a loud voice. And and he says he didn't die like everybody else because just watching him die was enough to convert the centurion because as we said, seeing him die, he said. So just to see him die the way he did was enough to convert the centurion.

[11:57] Oh, is that right? Yeah, I forget. To the second, it should be said that it was not suitable that Christ, huh, that with Christ anyone else would suffer from the same cause. Whence origin there joins all were in sin, huh, and all had need that for them someone else would die, right? Not them for what others, huh?

[12:31] That's what that good thief said to the other. We we got what we deserve. Yeah. No complaint. What about this third guy, huh? To the third, it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of evangelists,

[12:52] we are able to understand that Matthew laid down right a plural number for the singular. That's always kind of a strange explanation that Augustine gives. When he says that the thieves what Cursed him. cursed him and assaulted him,

[13:09] or it can be said according to Jerome that the first at first both blasphemed, then later seeing the signs, one of them believed, which I think is a

[13:24] little more. I see that explanation of Guston in terms of you know plural and singular, right? Yeah. So if I come home then Rosie says, "How did class go?" And I said, "They attacked me." Because only one of you guys attacked me. That's what they attacked me. I would say, right? You know, there's just one of you. Yeah. That's. I speak that way, don't we? That's not a pure invention.

[13:49] You speak that way, right? Yeah. Or you could say they asked me such as one more than one of us asked you. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what makes it.

[13:59] Well, you never know. Now, whether the passion of Christ should be attributed to his divinity, I'm afraid that he should think it necessary here to bring this out, but kind of a footnote here. To the twelfth, one proceeds thus:

[14:24] It seems that the passion of Christ should be attributed attributed to his divine nature, right? For it is said in one Corinthians two, if they knew, they would never have crucified the Lord of what glory. But the Lord of glory is Christ according to his divinity. So it's through his divinity that he gives us glory, right? Therefore, the passion of Christ belonged to him according to his divinity.

[14:57] Moreover, the beginning of the salvation of man is the divinity itself, according to that of Psalm 36. The salvation of the just is from the Lord. If, therefore, the passion of Christ does not pertain to his divinity, it would seem that it could not be fruitful for us. That's interesting argument, huh? Moreover, the Jews were punished for the sin of the killing of Christ, as were the homicide of God himself, right?

[15:33] Which the magnitude of their what punishment shows, but this would not be if the passion did not pertain to the divinity. Therefore, the passion of Christ pertains to the what divinity, right?

[15:52] But against this is what Athanasius says in the epistle to Epictetus that the nature of God remaining, the verb is what not able to suffer, right?

[16:14] Or by nature remaining God, right? The word is what not able to suffer. But it's impassable. But impassable is what is not able to suffer. Therefore, the passion of Christ did not pertain to his divinity.

[16:35] Let's go back to the mystery of. The incarnation here. I answer: It should be said that it has been said above. The union of the human nature and the divine nature was made in the person, right? Or as in the Greeks say the hypostasis, right? Or as the Latin says sometimes the suppositum. It's a Latin word for hypostasis.

[17:02] But there remain, nevertheless, the distinction of nature, that to it it was the same person and hypostasis of both the divine and human nature, but the properties of each nature being kept or saved.

[17:23] And therefore, as has been said above, the passion should be attributed to the suppositum, right, to the person, right, of the divine nature, but not by reason of the divine nature, which is incapable of undergoing, right, but by reason of the what human nature.

[17:47] Whence it is said in the epistle, the synodal epistle, the synodal epistle right, of Cyril, if someone does not confess that the what Word of God suffered in what his flesh and was crucified in his flesh, anathema be he cursed.

[18:14] John twenty two didn't want that in Vatican II, huh? What's that? John, the twenty three won didn't want to have the anathemas. Oh. In the text of Vatican II and Paul VI, you know, along with that,

[18:33] people go back and read it's really dark. and it's to find anathemas all over the place. The passion of Christ, therefore, pertains to the what Suppositum, right? of the divine nature, by reason of the sufferable, able to suffer nature assumed, not by reason of the divine nature that it was.

[19:06] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not according as he is the Lord of glory, but according as he is also the what sufferable man. huh? Able to suffer.

[19:34] It's interesting how the understanding of the incarnation does into that very statement than that, huh? Better understanding. Now, what about the salvation of justice from the Lord? To the second, it should be said that as is said in a certain sermon of the Council of Ephesus, that the death of Christ. As it were, what made the death of God, in the sense that it's through the union of the person, right?

[20:05] Destroyed death, huh? Because he was both God and man who had suffered, huh? But the nature of God was not injured, right? Nor by its change did it undergo what passions.

[20:27] What about this punishment of the Jews? To the third, it should be said that, as is added there, the Jews did not crucify a pure man, a mere man, but they what hurled presumptions to God, huh?

[20:53] To place the what? The prince, the leader. Excuse me, the high priest, I think. Oh, that's it. Yeah. To speak by word of mouth, and that his words are committed to writing on parchment, and sent out to the cities, and that some rebel tears up the document, it will be led forth to endure the death sentence, not for merely tearing up a document, but as destroying the imperial message.

[21:35] But not the Jew then stands in security as as crucifying mere man, since what he saw was as a parchment, but what was hidden under it was the imperial word, the Son of God by nature nature, and not the mere utterance of a common. Thomas, I can't say better than August quotes this guy. Yeah. What

[22:08] is that? What is the quote probably? For the same thing above as in the second, I think. Council of Ephesus, I guess. Yeah. My footnote says the Acts, Part Three, Chapter Ten, Homily Two, Theodosius, A N C Y R or something. Oh, I see. Oh, I see. Imperium. Yeah. And so three is taken from the same thing. Now does it say Does it say there sun by nature at the end?

[22:43] I have not to mix, not to worry, but it could be. Yeah, born from nature. Born by nature, yeah. Not put forth through the tongue, right? Yeah, begotten by nature. Yeah, he's the word. Begotten by nature, by nature, yeah.

[22:58] So, back again to our premium for a second. Just here, Monsieur Dionne can't help but point out premiums, you know. Yeah. So, back again to our premiums, you know? Yeah. They have a penchant for granted. Beginning of question 46. Consequently, we're not to consider about those things which pertain to the exit of Christ from this world, and first about his passion, secondly about his death, third about his burial, burial, I guess, fourth about his descent to what?

[23:47] The hell. The hell, yeah. So that's he divides it into four, right? Huh? And then about the passion, there occurs the first of those four, a threefold consideration: first about the passion itself, and that's the question we just finished; then about the efficient cause of the passion; that's the one coming up now; and finally there'll be the fruit of the passion. Forty-seven will be on the efficient cause.

[24:25] Then we're not to consider about the efficient cause of the passion of Christ, and about this thing, six things are asked: first, whether Christ was killed by others or by himself. The first, it's just a suicide.

[24:46] Secondly, from what motive he gave himself over to this what passion? Third, whether the Father handed him over to suffering? Fourth, whether it was suitable that to the hands of the Gentiles he suffered, or rather from the Jews? Fifth,

[25:13] whether the ones who killed him knew him? He says Father, don't know what they do. Forgive them, for they don't know what they do, right? In some sense, they knew him. Sixth, about the sin of those who what

[25:31] killed Christ? We're hearing a Jewish woman say one time, you know, he was a nice man, you know, and so on, but why did he have to seize God? Why have to claim he's God? The religious. That is, that's the common. Even Stang's mother. Yeah, it was. It's the common Jewish objection. Yeah, he's such a nice man, but why did he have to make himself God? That's the common objection, and Rabbi Jacob Neusner, in his book that the Pope quotes and takes on, is interesting because he's been some interesting.

[26:00] He has a whole translation of the Talmud, you know. Yeah. And anyways, but that was his objection in the in the book. His rabbi talks to Jesus or whatever it was. Basically, he says that's what a Jewish rabbi wouldn't have an objection because he doesn't he doesn't necessarily teach things contrary to the law, but he adds something to the law. He says, "What's that? " He says, "Himself, " because he says he's the whole purpose of it.

[26:26] He says it all points to him, and that's when they find it incomprehensible. Why? And I'm always amazed because the Jews see something that so many contemporary Catholic scholars refuse. That he said he's the fulfillment of everything that went before.

[26:46] To the first then one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ was not killed by another, but by himself. For he says, John 10 verse 18, no one from me takes my soul, but I lay it down.

[27:17] But he is said to kill someone who what takes his what soul right? Shakespeare will speak that way, you know, like when the little princess killed there, you know that it's like the jewel box, you know, when the jewel's been taken out of it, you know, so it's dead. Therefore, Christ was not killed by others, but by himself. Have you heard that? text is in Psalm what 48, I think it is.

[27:54] Who teaches teaches either words or what things? When we teach faith and morals, we teach things. When we teach scripture, we teach words. That's what's up front, you know.

[28:15] So it's significant, you know, that the work is called on the divine names because kind of coming out of off the scripture in that sense. So the words here can be misunderstood, right? It's a great thing to teach these words. What

[28:33] you really do need the church fathers and the church, you know, to correctly understand these words. I mean, how easily you can go astray, right, on your own.

[28:49] Moreover, those who are killed by others, bit by bit, as nature becomes debilitated, they what fail perish. And most of all, this appears in those crucified. For as Augustine says in the fourth book of the Trinity, by a long death they are crucified; those who are suspended on the wood.

[29:16] In Christ, however, this did not happen. For crying out with a great voice, he sent forth his spirit. We've seen that text before. And as is said in Matthew twenty-seven, therefore Christ was not killed by others, but by himself.

[29:39] Moreover, those who are killed by others die by violence, and therefore they don't die voluntarily, because the violent is opposed to the voluntary. Good philosophical principle.

[30:02] But Augustine says in the fourth book of the Trinity that the spirit of Christ did not desert. I mean, did not leave. Departed the body or flesh, unwillingly, but because he wished, when he wished, and what way he wished.

[30:25] Therefore, Christ was not killed by others, but by himself. But against all this is what is said in Luke eighteen, after they had flagellated him, right? They killed him. They killed him. So they killed

[30:45] him. Because the heretics say, "Well, they just said that because they thought they had killed him." It can be very, you know, endless. You know these disputes of the heretics.

[31:01] I answer: It should be said that something can be the cause of some effect in two ways. In one way, by acting directly towards it, and in this way, the persecutors of Christ killed him, right?

[31:22] Because they inflicted upon him or brought upon him a sufficient cause of his what death, since by intention or with intention of killing him, and what

[31:38] the effect following from this, right? Because from that cause, death what followed? They done. So, by intention of killing him, and by the effect of that intention, right? Because from that cause, death followed. In another way, one is said to be what the cause of something indirectly, because he does not impede, right? When he what?

[32:16] Yeah. Just as is someone, um, what is it? Send another. I sent a generation of rain. Rain, yeah. Pour, thoroughly pour. Oh, okay. Something. That's what he was today, yeah. Because he doesn't, yeah, because he doesn't close the window. Yeah, we have a window open in the house. There's two leaves in there, Rosalie. We have to let the rain. And

[32:46] we all folks didn't forget. We asked for this open there, but we didn't forget we to lock the door sometimes and other things of this sort. So, through which the what embraces the rain. Rain or shower, shower, yeah. And in this way, Christ was the cause of his what? Passion, passion and death. Huh.

[33:09] For he was able to Impede his own passion and what death. So he's saying, in that sense, he's a cause of his death, right? He didn't impede it when he could.

[33:27] First, by reprimanding his adversaries, right? That either they would not wish to, or they would not be able to what kill him. Secondly, because his spirit had the power of what, conserving the nature of his flesh,

[33:48] lest by any kind of injury, right, inflicted, he'd be oppressed. Which the soul of Christ had, because it was joined to the Word of God, the unity of a what person? As Augustine says in the fourth book of Trinity.

[34:07] What's Augustine doing talking about the incarnation of the book of the Trinity? He's kind of all over the place. Because therefore the soul of Christ did not what repulse, you might say, from its own body, his own body, the injury

[34:28] inflicted upon him, but wished that the bodily nature would succumb to that what harm. He is said to have laid down his soul, and to have voluntarily what died. So when Thomas More or someone like that lays down his head on the block, is he voluntarily dying? Voluntarily dying. Well, he's not impeding it. Yeah.

[35:02] But he might have tried to impede it. Well, but he could have tried. That's the point. He didn't try. He could have fought and you know gotten run away or something, but he didn't do it. Laid his head down. It's like the Franciscan martyrs in Damascus, with the Mamluks One of the priests, one of the priests was told, you know, confess Allah or die, and he was a priest and he was at the altar and he just laid his head on the altar, just like that, and

[35:32] they got a pole axe and split his head in two, just like that. It was Saint Nicholas called me today. Yeah. Put his arm out, and the guy came and put the needle in because they they. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, Brother Peter mentioned that'cause they said they used it against him at canonization. I had to think it out a little bit. Was that good or bad?

[35:51] Just being helpful. Helping others. To the first barefoot should be said, the witness said that no one takes my soul from me. Is to be understood, mean not willing.

[36:15] Because what someone takes from somebody unwillingly, who is not able to resist, right? That is properly called taking, right? That's what I remember hearing said about Christ. He never suffered anything unwillingly, which is a good example, I think.

[36:39] On the second one here, what about that shout, right? To the second should be said that Christ would show that his passion, right, was inflicted right through violence, huh? That this did not what Take away his life. Um. He conserved his bodily nature in its what strength, huh? That even in the extremities placed, he could shout with a loud voice, right, huh? Which among other miracles of his death is counted among other miracles of his death.

[37:24] Whence it is said in Mark fifteen that the centurion, seeing who stood opposite, because thus shouting he expired, said truly this man is the son of God. I

[37:42] think the Jews would would have seen that or heard that, huh? Yeah. Little blind to not to hear that, yeah. Well, If they were there This, I know I don't know if it's in Mark's Gospel, but it's Luke's when it said that after he died, many of them went home beating their breasts. Yeah. They saw it. They basically saw. They saw something.

[38:04] Now it was also marvelous in the death of Christ that death came what more quickly, I guess, to others who were afflicted with a like punishment or suffering or pain. Whence it is said in John nineteen that of those who were with Christ the what legs were broken, right, that they might die more quickly, but when they came to Jesus, they found him dead. Whence they did not break his legs, huh?

[38:38] And Mark fifteen said that Pilate marvelled that he was what already dead. Dead. For just as by his will his bodily nature was conserved in its vigor to the end, so also when he wished suddenly he gave into that what injury, right?

[39:02] Now what about the idea that it was through violence, not through will? To the third should be said that Christ at the same time underwent. Violence, right? That he might die, and nevertheless he voluntarily died because the violence inflicted upon his body, which nevertheless

[39:34] to that extent overcame his body as much as he willed it to overcome his body, right? So the fundamental distinction is the body of the article.

[39:52] The way something's a cause, sufficient cause. Yeah, those who are acting directly for it, and one who's not impeding it when he could impede it, right? That's often in morals they talk about that, like the guilt, like even in secular courts you recognize that where,

[40:12] well, I can't, it's not the right example, but you're you're guilty of what you're. What's the word? Basically, if you could be guilty of something, even if the effect doesn't follow, you're guilty of something because you might say you would have seen the whole thing through, and you didn't, you didn't do what was in your power to do. I can't. Wouldn't

[40:39] his death is a separation of soul from the body, and wasn't his willing the cause of that? In other words. No, he says what they were doing to him was sufficient to separate the soul from the body. In the natural order. Yeah, and he did not impede it from eventually doing that, although he kept the strength to cry out. So he could have continued living if he wanted to, right?

[41:07] Yeah, he could have repeated that, Yeah. So couldn't somebody say that what they did was more in his case? I mean, in my case, somebody tried to kill me like that. It wouldn't take too. long. It would be the direct cause. In other words, my will couldn't impede my dying, but in his case, his will could have impeded his dying, and so why isn't it that what they did was more like an occasion than a cause?

[41:32] Well, they were directly acting in inflicting upon him something that was going to directly cause death, right? So that's intention. Was there intention to kill? Yeah, but. And what they did was sufficient to cause death. But was it actually the cause of his death? Yeah. It actually caused the separation of soul from the body. Because he, as earlier question, he said he allowed his nature, both in my case, human nature, undergo what was natural.

[41:57] Oh. So that's like with with his emotions and so forth, like at the agony in the garden, he allowed it to undergo the fear and everything else.

[42:11] And and even with will, but even even with you, you might not have power to resist death in those cases, but. You could try to resist it, and that was in one way you you do it unwillingly. You could you could fight against it, even if you couldn't overcome it. You would could do what's in your power to do it. What's hard in Christ's cases? It seems that he didn't have to.

[42:33] It almost seems that separation could only occur by means of his willment as an efficient cause. Oh. I keep thinking of trouble saying that.

[42:48] Yeah, Because if he was directly uh, directing his actions, or what, you know, choosing what's going to lead to his death, right? and inflicting it upon himself, so to speak, then he would be killing himself, right? Then he'd be doing it, but not this other way. But you, you know, there's something you used to always hear when you're growing up, and people would be in the Hospital, you know, and they had kind of maybe a serious thing, and and sometimes the doctors will say if he's not willing to go on living, he's not going to survive, you know, and some people just kind of give up, you know.

[43:23] Now I don't know, you know, it might be ambiguous in some cases, but doesn't seem to be clear that the person is doing wrong, right? You know, just you know, I don't want to go any longer, you know, I suffered enough or something, you know, you know, and therefore he's not trying to impede his death, right? But that nature take its course, you know. this other person is struggling trying to you know get cured of cancer.

[43:48] he's going to fight it, you know, and you know, and sometimes they succeed, you know, for a while, anyway. And I don't think you're killing yourself if you lose that will to to go on. I don't think. I think some people ask me about, I don't know all the details. I don't know how many people do, but like with John Paul the Second, yeah, the infection and he died with it, and they said he didn't want to go to the hospital, and so they said we had the whole group from well Bassam Razik, Salim Ghazi, and then one of the first trips they had up here when right after he died.

[44:21] Did what? Didn't he commit suicide? Didn't he? even he just he didn't even want to go to the hospital, and he sort of he resisted having any treatment. And I said, well, I don't really resisted any treatment, and one thing I did here, everything they needed to take care of him was they didn't have to send him to the hospital for that occasion. They had all the staff and medicines at the Vatican to take care of, him.

[44:41] But that was a question that came up. Well, did did he? Was that just like like a suicide? And I I I said, well, I don't know the particulars, but I kind of doubt. I wouldn't be inclined to think that, but i said it's sort of along those lines that that um you know he's he had seen what there is to see in terms of his bodily health, is always just going right down the drain.

[45:02] He figured, well, okay, this is it. And it's time to time to stop, you know. He said, "Let me go to the house of the Father." Right. That's what he said. That's kind of you know. Not going to fight anymore. I heard of someone who lost, uh, was dying, lost control of his bowels. He said, "Okay, that's it. No more food, no more drinking. you know, just within 48 hours."

[45:25] Yeah. yeah Yeah Yeah that's Amy Norris that we know died of cancer She she had some I don't know what her innards were all messed up with cancer and it came to a point where eating and drinking were causing more trouble than they were worth She consulted with the priest can I stop eating now And the priest said yeah because it's causing you too much harm So you know they gave her popsicles and they gave her water and they had an IV or something but so she could get some kind of nutrition or not nutrition but fluid ice cubes and stuff but otherwise she couldn't really take any food

[46:11] Okay, the second article here. We're going to take a break here. Yeah, we could do the second one. Okay. The second one proceeds thus: It seems that Christ was not dead from obedience. Did not die from obedience. For obedience regards a precept.

[46:34] But is not read that Christ was what commanded that he what suffer, right? Therefore, he did not suffer from obedience. I don't know if that's entirely true. Because he obeyed Pontius Pilate and was condemned to death. Some say Pontius points out he was obedient even to his executioner. Moreover, that is said that someone does from obedience that he does from the necessity of a precept. But Christ, not from necessity, but voluntarily suffered.

[47:14] Therefore, he did not suffer from obedience. More charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience. But Christ is said to have suffered from charity, according to that of Ephesians chapter five. Walk in love, just as Christ what loved us and himself over for us. Therefore, the passion of Christ ought to be more attributed to charity than to what obedience.

[47:50] But against this is what is said in Philippians 2 Factus est obediens Patri. He was made obedient to the Father. Usque ad mortem up to death.

[48:04] I answer. It should be said that most suitably convenientissimo, it's a strong word, was it that Christ would suffer from obedience? First, because this was suitable to the justification of man. For just as through the disobedience of one man, many sinners were what constituted. So through the obedience of one man, many just were constituted, as is said in Romans five.

[48:42] Okay. Kind of wiping out the disobedience of. Adam, we can. I'm going to have a talk with that guy when he gets there. What were you thinking?

[48:59] And Eve. Oh yeah. Secondly, this was suitable to the reconciliation of God to men, right? According to that of Romans five, for we are reconciled to God through the death of His Son, in so far as the death of Christ was a certain sacrifice most acceptable to God, according to that of Ephesians chapter five. He handed himself over for us, an offering and a host in a odor of sweetness.

[49:44] But obedience is placed before what All sacrifices, according to that of one Kings chapter fifteen. Melior better is obedience than victims, and therefore it is suitable that the sacrifice of the passion death of Christ proceeded what from obedience.

[50:13] Third, this was suitable to His victory, by which He triumphed over death and the author of death. For the soldier is not able to conquer unless he obeys the what leader. And thus the man Christ obtained the victory through this, or by this, that He was obedient to God, according to that of Proverbs twenty one twenty eight. A man obedient speaks victories, right? You tell that's that kernel there.

[50:51] Yeah, see that Vir obediens loquetur victoriam Yeah Don't think they take a model to it do they Well, you can do it anyway. Nobody can stop Vir obediens loquetur victoriam. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ did get a what? Mandatum, that's a command, I guess, from the Father that He suffer. For He said in John chapter ten verse eighteen, "I have the power of laying down my soul, and I have the power again taking it up.

[51:29] And this command I have taken from what? My Father. Yeah. To wit, of laying down his soul and taking it up. From which, as Chrysostom says, huh? It should not be understood that first he what? Expected to Waited to hear and then It was done. He'd need to, he'd need to learn from him. Yeah. But necessary for to learn, Yeah. But he showed a voluntary proceeding, right?

[52:00] And he destroyed the suspicion of any contrariety to the Father. Because, however, in the death of Christ, the old law was consumed, huh, or completed, according to that that He Himself dying says, "It is what completed, yeah,

[52:24] consumed." Now it gets a different meaning, huh? You completely drunk something? It's consumed. Is that what they have now? What is that? What they have? Is that the new translation? No, no, no. I just, I was just saying in daily life you speak of, consuming something.

[52:41] Um, it can be understood that in undergoing or suffering, He fulfilled all the commands of the old law, right now. The moral commands, because in the precepts which are founded in the precepts of charity, He fulfilled that in so far as He suffered from the love of the Father, according to that of John fourteen, that the world might know. That I love the Father, and just as the Father has given to me a command, there is another statement of command.

[53:18] So let us, so I go. Let us rise up. Let us go hence to wit, to the place of passion, and also from the love of his neighbor, according to that of Galatians two. He loved me, Saint Paul, I guess, saying this, and handed himself over for me. The ceremonial precepts of the law, which

[53:45] are ordered especially to sacrifices and offerings, Christ fulfilled this by his passion, in so far as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of that true sacrifice which Christ offered by dying for us. Whence it is said in Colossians two, Let no one judge you in food and in drink, or in the part of the festival day or the new moon, which are shadows of the future things.

[54:23] The body, however, is Christ, and that Christ is compared to those as the body to its shadow. The precepts, the judicial precepts of the law, which are especially ordered to satisfying the injury, Suffering is injury suffering Yeah, Christ fulfilled by his passion, because, as in Psalm sixty-eight, he says, "What he did not steal, that he. "

[54:58] he paid, yeah. Paid, yeah. Permitting himself to be affected on the wood for the apple, yeah, which from the tree was stolen, the man took against the command of God. I had

[55:15] never made that connection before. He was fixed on the tree because the other one was taken away. I never had been like that. The second should be said that obedience, although it implies the necessity of respect to what is command, right? Nevertheless, it implies will, right, respect to the fulfilling or carrying out of the command, huh? And such was the obedience of Christ, For his, for the passion and death, considered in itself or by itself, was repugnant to his natural will, right?

[55:57] Now, but Christ wished to what? To fulfill. Will of God about this, huh? According to that of Psalm thirty-nine. That he might do your will, my God, I wish, or that I might do your will, my God, I wish, or I will. Wednesday says in Matthew twenty six, if this cannot pass from me this chalice, unless I drink it, your will be done.

[56:29] Now, what about charity? Well, he says to the third, it should be said that for the same reason Christ suffered from charity and obedience, because

[56:44] the precepts of charity he fulfilled only from obedience, right? And he was obedient from his love to the Father, commanding. I suppose there is something about the obedience as a virtue that's very proximate to his death, right? And charity is kind of a universal cause, huh?

[57:10] Thomas often says that, right? It's attributed sometimes the immediate effect to the proximate cause, right? And the charity is still the cause. It's like the example, you know, my soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior, because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid. For behold, henceforth all nations shall call me blessed. Well, she being raised to that height because of charity or because of humility.

[57:41] Proximate cause, because he who humbles himself should be exalted, right? So she attributing her exaltation to humility. Blessed me is not due to charity, too, but charity is kind of a what universal cause, right? It's the form of all the virtues that commands all the what virtues, huh? As to the virtues, as pride is to the vices, right? Huh? You know, when Shakespeare talks about what you should do in a play, says, "Or stiff not the modesty of nature, for anything so done is overdone, right?

[58:23] Away from the purpose of play. " Who's in in the beginning was and is to hold the mirror to nature, to show virtue her own face, scorn her own image. It's interesting what he does, right? Instead of saying virtue and vice, it would sound kind of pedantic and like a teacher, right? So he says virtue and scorn. Well, scorn is of course the what effect of pride, and therefore it's kind of a metonym for pride, and pride kind of stands here for the vices because it's the queen of the vices, huh?

[58:54] The mother of the vices. Yeah, the mother of the vices. So what? What vice? What pride is to vice? Charity is to the virtues, right? Okay. So pride, in some way, commands the vices, huh? And.

[59:14] Charity commands other, commands other virtues. But now, as you attribute, you know, I actually paused for a while thinking about this, because why does the blessed Virgin and the Magnificat speak of exaltation as due to what? Yeah, and not to her love of God. Well, it that would be opposed that way, right? But the humility is kind of proximate thing for exaltation, because he humbles himself to be exalted, right?

[59:46] But her humility is is formed by her charity, so that's the remote cause, but the fundamental cause, right? Well, it seems seems to me it's not exactly the same, but something like this, right? That

[1:00:03] he undergoes death by obedience to the Father, right? That's kind of proximate thing, right? He's obeying the Father and and going to meet Judas there in the garden, right? Everything that follows upon that.

[1:00:18] Again, his obedience, like his other virtues, will be formed by his what? His charity, yeah. And now, when Christ, you know, has mercy upon somebody, you might attribute his what his actions to mercy, right? But that's again informed by by love. Now, we're going to

[1:01:01] take a break now before we do article three.