Tertia Pars
111. Christ's Soul and Body in Death: Still United to the Word, Not a Man During the Three Days, Not Corrupted in the Tomb (Question 50, Articles 3–6)
Class of 2010-10-28
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/111-christs-soul-and-body-in-death-still-united-to-the-word-not/

[0:00] Whether in the death of Christ there was a separation of his divinity from his what soul, right? To the third, one should proceed. Thus, it seems that in the death of Christ there was a separation of his divinity from his soul. Interesting. Saint Thomas keeps on speaking that way, right? Even though in a sense he's talking about what the divine person, right? Or the separation of the divinity from the soul in one person, just the same person does not have joined to it at the same time the divine nature, which he can't lose, and the soul.

[0:38] For the Lord says, John chapter ten verse eighteen, no one takes away my soul from me, but I lay it down, right? And again I take it up. But it does not seem that the body is able to lay down the soul, separating it from itself, because the soul is not subject to the power of the body, but rather the reverse. And thus it seems that Christ, according as he is the Word of God, it belongs to him to lay down his soul, right?

[1:11] And this is to what separate it from himself. Therefore, through the death, the soul of Christ was separated from his divinity. Pretty good argument. However, Athanasius says, "Maledictus!" Right, accursed! Right. Who the whole man whom the Son of God assumed? Does not confess. Yeah. The third day, rising from the dead, right? Took up.

[1:43] He assumed again. Excuse me. That again does not confess that he took up again, right? Right. Or liberated, right? But one could not take up the whole man again unless at some time the whole man was separated from the Word of God, huh? But the whole man is composed from soul and body. Therefore, at some time there was a separation of divinity from the body and from the what soul.

[2:14] You know, Thomas is going to say that you know, like more explicitly in the fourth article, that Christ was what no longer a man when he was dead, right?

[2:39] So there's not a man joined to what the Word of God, right? Was the Word of God a man during that period? No, because the body and the soul were not joined, and that's what you need for a man, right? Okay. That's why the Docetists often say Saint Peter is not in heaven, right? The soul Peter is in heaven, right? But Peter's not there.

[3:09] Yeah, it's a synecdoche right? I guess when they're discussing the assumption of the Blessed Virgin was a Docetic argument, right? If if her body was not assumed, then the Blessed Virgin was not in heaven. The press prize the twelfth. They tell me, "Had enough."

[3:32] They had a little Italian thing on EWTN the other day, there, which is dealing with the, I think, the early life of Paul the Sixth, right? Many a time when he comes in contact with Pius the Twelfth, right? No, Pius the Ten. Pius the Ten, during the little boy. No, no, this is this is when he was moving up in the thing, but he kind of press Pius the Twelfth.

[3:54] That's where the story goes, right? And the town, the Germans, you know, coming in, so on, Nazis, and you know, I says, "What would you do if they came in?" You know. Well, one day says, "I'd fight for the church." Another guy, all kind of kind of practical things, you know. What would you do? He says that Montini Montini says, "I'd say my mass All of a sudden Pius XII is like yes you know, First sensible answer."

[4:29] So you'd be calling upon him for you know his opinion as to what should be done, right? These various circumstances. Anyway, okay. Objection three now, right? For an account of the union to the whole man, the Son of God is truly said to be a man, right? If therefore the union of the soul and the body, being what untied through death,

[5:13] the Word of God would remain united to the soul. It would follow truly that what. That the Son of God can truly be said to be a soul, right? But this is false because since the soul is the form of the body, it would follow that the Word of God was the form of a body, which is what impossible. Therefore, in the death of Christ, the soul was not separated from the what Word of God.

[5:51] The argument seems to be saying, you know, that. If it was just the soul, then he would be the form of the body, right? But not in his divine nature, though. So not really going to be a problem.

[6:05] Moreover, the body and the soul separated from each other are not one hypostasis but two. If, therefore, the Word of God remained united both to the soul and to the body and to the body of Christ, separated from each other through the death of Christ, it would seem to follow that the Word of God during the death of Christ was what two hypostasis which is unsuitable or unconvenient.

[6:33] Convenience doesn't fit. Therefore, it the soul did not remain united to the Word after the death of Christ. If you have the body and the soul both joined to the same person, you still have one hypostasis, the Son of what of God.

[6:58] But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. Although Christ was dead as man, right? And his soul, right, was divided from his what uncontaminated body, right? Nevertheless, his what divinity remains inseparable from both. I say from the soul and the what body, huh? So though the soul and the body were separated, right? They they both remain united to his what the divine person.

[7:38] That's what Damascene is saying. So Damascene is very good here. So Thomas says the answer should be said that the soul is united to the Word of God, and more immediately right, and before than the body, since the body is united to the Word of God by means of the what soul. Since, therefore, the Word of God was not separated in death from the what body, much less was it separated from the what soul.

[8:13] So this is an argument, like using dialectic, right? You say that the what the Word of God would be more apt to be separated from the body than from the soul, right? So if it's not separated from the body, then it's not what separated from the soul, right? Could argue that question first Yeah Good argument. Yeah.

[8:47] It's a sin to take your money. then it must be a sin to take your life, your life, yeah. Socrates argues there in the in the Phaedo, right, with this kind of an argument, right? Because he argues which is more apt to survive death, the body or the soul, right? Well, he argues that the soul is more godlike than the body. Everybody agrees to that, right? So if God is immortal and the soul is more like God than the body, that doesn't mean that the soul itself is immortal yet.

[9:24] But it's more likely to survive death than the body, right? Then Socrates says, but the body does in some way survive, huh? At least the bones do, right? The immortal part of the body, right? Well, then a fortiori if something of the body remains, and even more so down there, he says the mummies he talks about Egypt, right? Even the flesh in some way remains. Then a fortiori, the soul remains, huh?

[9:49] Good argument, huh? This is a kind of argument Thomas is using here. It's a place in dialectic, huh? Whence, just as about the Son of God, that which belongs to the body by the separated soul is what

[10:11] belongs to the body, separated from the soul, right? To be buried, right? So also is said in the symbol. That's what you call the symbol of faith, right? We call it the creed, right? From the word to believe, but in Latin, I say symbolum. It is said that he descended to, yeah, which was his soul, right? Separated from his body. So that's not beautiful. He says, right?

[10:38] He was he was buried, right? And he was sent into hell. So he was buried through his body, right? And you couldn't say that the Son of God was buried if his body did not remain united to his person, yeah. And then he couldn't descend to hell unless his soul remained, huh? Very good, Very good. You see, when Cajetan got to you know defending you know for his doctor or for the degree, would be they, you know, they took him on their shoulders, you know, and took him down to the tavern, you know.

[11:16] So I remember they always took Thomas up on their shoulders and carried him down to one of these taverns to celebrate the the great.

[11:30] Where is it? Is it to the vein that they have, you know, different wines served in the reception after a guy gets his degree? You know, depending upon whether he got a high honor or a very ordinary wine, you know. Way of not saying it, you know, but indicating the quality of the wine served. You'd be no better,

[11:58] yeah. I was at one of these receptions after somebody's doctor. I forget whose it was, but Warren Murray, you know. We were standing right next to him. They bring the bottles in, you know. So every time they come by the four power glass with the champagne. So kind of a nice, nice reception, but

[12:19] okay. So that's beautiful, Thomas. Is there right? Just carefully read the symbol. You can read Thomas on the symbol, and then you know you come back to again from these things here. You know, you see how rich the symbol is.

[12:41] Okay. What about laying down his what soul, right? Huh? And the objection said that he the body can't lay it down, take it up again, so it must be the word of God that is laying it down, and therefore it's separated from it, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Augustine, expounding that word of John, huh? Yeah. Notice Thomas quote Augustine. Is he being a faithful disciple of Aristotle, and he quotes Augustine?

[13:19] Well, no, he's also being a faithful disciple of Aristotle because Aristotle has a beautiful passage, right? He says there are some things he says we should say better than our predecessors said them, right? And other things we should try to say as as well as they said it. Thomas says, you know, said so well, so you know, no,

[13:42] prove upon this, right? You know, they say Shakespeare expresses our emotions and so on better than we can express them ourselves, right? So he says so perfectly, right? Death lies in air like an untimely frost upon the sweetest flower of all the field. Right, He can't improve upon that, huh?

[14:13] So Augustine's words: since Christ is Word and Soul and Flesh, right, eh? Whether from this that he is the Word, right? He lays down his Soul, or from this that he is the Soul,

[14:36] or again from this that he is what Flesh, huh? Good division there. And if we say that the Word of God laid down the Soul, it would follow, right, like in this argument, that at some time that Soul was separated from the Word, right, huh? Which is false.

[14:58] Now death, huh? Separates the body from the soul, right, huh? But from the Word, I do not say that the Soul is what separated, huh?

[15:17] If we say that the Soul itself lays itself down, it would follow that it's separated from itself, which is most absurd, huh? It remains, therefore, that the flesh itself, huh, says himself, lays down its Soul and again takes it up, not, however, by its own power, right, but by the power of the Word inhabiting the flesh, huh? So the flesh, by its what, it's kind of a tool of its divine nature, right, huh?

[15:48] A divine person can lay down his Soul and take it up again, huh? Because as has been said above, through death, the divinity of the Word is not separated from the flesh. So it's interesting. He's using this kind of argument throughout this argument. This kind of isn't it that he's using this kind of argumentation that he did in the body in this in response to this objection too is that right

[16:20] well he's teaching the same thing here but he's he's answering the objection that says the body can't what lay down the soul and take it up again because the body doesn't have that power right so it seems to eliminate that possibility the soul can't lay itself down right therefore it must be that the the divine word laid down the soul and then took it up again right

[16:43] Athanasius said well no I agreed with you that the soul can't lay itself down because it would be separated from itself right so we both agree upon that and fill it out right but then

[16:57] this other one doesn't doesn't make sense because then he didn't descend to hell right okay therefore it must be that the body right laid down the soul how can the body do that in so far as it's saying what yeah divine person anima Christi scientifically corpus but solvably yeah how could the body save you right in so far as it's the body of what this divine person right has the power to to save us huh

[17:33] it always struck me in that respect as just our Lord's words what's the meaning of who cares if you take bread bread and it was flesh who cares that's what he what he indicates in John chapter six about the flesh profits nothing and is by itself yeah yeah but the spirit joined to it and uses its power so that's the that's what it always struck me is that's the power behind when he says this is my body who cares except that it's got this divine power this divine person in it that's important

[18:09] but the soul is there too everything being joined to it. Now to second it should be said that in those words Athanasius does not understand that the whole man is what newly taken that is all of his parts right as if the word of God had what deposited the parts of human nature through death right huh but again that what the whole totality of nature is assumed the resurrection when are made whole again the union of the soul and the what body right so he took on the man again right in so far as what he held on to the not that didn't hold on to the body and soul separately right but they reunited again right and therefore he now is now is the

[19:03] man joined again to what the man is joined to the divine person To the to the person, yeah. The divine person is a man, right? As you're going to say in the next article, to be more clear, maybe what we're saying here is that in that triduum, right, his soul went down to here, and the body went there, right, and then it wasn't a man during that time.

[19:31] Contrary to Father Van Golf's right. You thought he was a man during that time? Well, he speaks to me about I I never. symmetric. I. I don't. I don't. I can't claim to understand it or even remember it correctly. He makes the point of sort of being being dead, and so I. It's but you have to review if you have time. My days are numbered.

[20:04] We learn the best. Though when I was out in in for my son's ceremony. There, you know, I was looking over his books. You know, and he had a copy of Reagan's autobiography, right? So, kind of interesting, right? And I found out that Reagan, you know, not only was a lover of jelly beans, but also popcorn. And I guess after one time there, you know, when he was in the White House, there, he had to have some stomach things removed or something, you know.

[20:32] And he was told not to eat popcorn, right? On the things he says, he knows popcorn. You could live on popcorn. I get on popcorn. Nice to eat off the popcorn, you know, because he described earlier, you know, how when he'd go out to Camp David, you know, some of his people, they'd watch a movie, right? Big bowls of popcorn.

[20:54] W when I had these these things removed, you know, from my stomach, they they and scarring, what they call. Yeah. And also not to eat popcorn. I forgot about. I ate some popcorn and I had a bleeding. I go to the hospital. They had to stop the bleeding. So you got to obey what they say, you know. about that stomach until it heals. Popcorn now, you know, but uh...

[21:18] But no, no, I, you know, now I'm very careful to observe the rules of the game. So Reagan had to eat popcorn, poor man. I started reading. He had this this very authoritative biography of Mao Tse-tung. You know what a monster he was. The recent one that came out a few years ago. Yeah, it was written by a Chinese woman and and another historian. yeah. And it's very written.

[21:42] I didn't get through the whole thing. because I had to go to my brothers, you know. But um, yeah, it's delighting in torturing people and burying them alive. I don't know how many times they buried people alive. Just just gross, you know. And

[21:59] but of course, you know, Marshall comes out very naive, you know, because he he he helped to save the communists when Chiang had them over that barrel, you know. And so there's still another one. Oh yeah, those guys. Yeah, yeah. Those guys are almost fellow travelers, if not communists. He built them up.

[22:20] It's like what Life Magazine, you know, portrayed Castro. You know, as as a kind of a another Lincoln or something, you know. Yeah. I guess you know when Castro came to Washington, you see there Nixon after interviewing, he said, "Get rid of this guy," you know, but they didn't, you know. Yeah. I guess they were planning it. I guess I think Eisenhower was planning an invasion too before Kennedy goofed it up.

[22:44] Yeah. Well, didn't wasn't it John Paul was named Man of the Year by Time Magazine. They came to tell him at the Vatican. They named Man of the Year, and he he thought for a moment. He didn't respond. He said, "Well." Says you know you've named Adolf Hitler and Castro or some other people you've named some other some other important figures as many, I don't know this is kind of a dubious distinction and they said oh well you're we have our good list and our bad list and he said which one am I on

[23:25] okay third objection yeah to third objection should be said that the word of God on account of the union of human nature is not said to be human nature but is said to be a man right which means one having human nature, right? now the soul and the body are essential parts of human nature

[23:55] whence on account of the union of the word to both of them it does not follow that the word of God is a soul or a body but that he is what having a soul or a body huh okay how about this

[24:14] now to the fourth about there being two hypostases, I mean hypostases I should say just as Damascene says in the third book that in the death of Christ is separated the soul from the body the one hypostasis is not divided into two hypostases or the one person into two persons right

[24:37] but and the body and the soul according to the same have existence from the what beginning in the hypostasis of the word and in the death each of them being divided from the other one they remain having one hypostasis of the word

[25:04] whence the one hypostasis of the word exists as the hypostasis of both the soul and the what body just like you know they say Thomas said before the word of God could assume more human nature yeah yeah there would be many reasons to do so but he could have done that again so you'd be one person

[25:30] for never does the soul or the body have its own hypostasis apart from the hypostasis of the word for one always is the what hypostasis of the word and never one two so this the objection is thinking of the soul and the body each having its own hypostasis right and therefore there being two hypostases only one hypostasis the one in the word.

[26:00] Now we see a man. During those three days, huh? Okay, so I ask this to the parish priest to see what he says. Kind of afraid to ask sometimes. Okay.

[26:15] To the fourth, one proceeds thus: It seems that Christ, in the triduum of the death, was a what? Man. Between his death and his resurrection, was he a man? For Augustine says in the first book about the Trinity, such was that taking on that it made God a man and man a God.

[26:41] That taking on did not cease to death. Therefore, it seems that through death he did not cease to be a what? Man. Moreover, the philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics that each man is his own what? Understanding. Hence, after the death,

[27:09] speaking to the what? Soul of Christ, we say, Holy Father, Holy Peter, Sancte Peter, pray for us, right? So that's going to be explained in the next key, right? The devil you pray to, but the Virgin, that's not sanctity. But after death, the Son of God was not separated from the intellectual soul. Therefore, in that triduum, the Son of God was a man, right? So this is thinking like Socrates, right?

[27:40] It shows you the influence of that. Moreover, now listen into some of you here. Every priest is a man. You know he's taken from among men, right? To offer the sacrifice and so on. But in that triduum of death, Christ was a priest. Otherwise, it would not be true what is said in Psalm 109: You are priests forever, eternally. Therefore, Christ in that triduum was a man.

[28:10] Otherwise, he wouldn't be a priest. Okay, Houdini, how do you get out all these things? Yeah. See now. But against this, removing the higher, the lower is removed. But living or animated is superior to animal and to man. It's talking about the the what? Categorical order, right? So I'm a man, and man is an animal, and animal is a what? Living body, right? So if it's not living body, it's not an animal, and therefore not a what?

[28:43] Man. So if you take out the superior predication. But in that triduum of death, the body of Christ was not alive nor animated. Therefore, it was not a man. Fair enough. Now, what does the master say here? I answer: It should be said that Christ truly was what dead. This is an article of faith. Whence to assert everything that to which is anything is taken what to which is taken away, the truth of the death of Christ is a mistake or error against faith.

[29:25] On account of which, in the epistle, the synodal, epistle or letter of Cyril right it said, if one does not confess that the Word of God suffers. suffered in the flesh was crucified in the flesh, and that He tasted what death in the flesh, nothing was said than to be accursed. But pertains to the truth of the death of man or of an animal, for that matter, that through death he ceases to be a man or a what animal.

[30:03] But the death of man or of animal comes about from the separation of the soul, which completes the definition of animal or of man. In fact, animal comes from the word animal meaning soul, right?

[30:18] And therefore, to say that Christ in the triduum of death was a man, simply and absolutely speaking, is erroneous, mistake. One could always say that Christ in the triduum was a dead man, right? But a dead man is not a what man? Call that the diminishing, you know, thing, like a burnt-down house, not a house anymore, right?

[30:49] You know, a suit torn to pieces is not a suit anymore, right? And broken-up chair is no longer chair. Now, some have confessed that Christ in the triduum was a man, saying somewhat erroneous or mistaken words,

[31:18] but not having the sense of error in what faith, as Hugo of Saint Victor. Now, that's my nickname. My middle name is Hugo. I used to be not christened Hugo. My confirmation name is Victor. Okay.

[31:39] Who, for that reason, said Christ in the triduum of death was a man because he said the soul was what? Back back to our friend Socrates, right? Which nevertheless is false, as has been shown in the first part. We talked about the soul of man.

[32:00] Now, the magister, that's Peter Lombard, the sentences in the twenty-second. Distinction in the third book laid down that Christ in the triduum of death was a man for another reason,

[32:15] for he believed that the union of the body and soul was not of the what definition of man, but suffices for this that someone be a man that he has a human soul and a body, right? Whether joined or not joined, which clearly is also clear, which is also false from those things which are said in the first part and from those things which are said about the mode of union, huh?

[32:42] So you're equivocating on body there too, maybe. Perhaps, yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Word of God took on flesh and and soul united, right? And therefore, that taking on made God a man and man a what God, and that taking on did not cease through the separation of soul of the Word. Separation of the word from the soul. Soul and from the flesh, but nevertheless there ceased the what union of flesh and soul, yeah.

[33:35] You got quite coughing a bit though, right? Because Thomas is saying that what during this time he's no longer a what a man, right? Huh? Though soul and body are still joined, yeah. What about the old guy Aristotle here, right? Well, that's kind of like a snakicky too, right? He's a brain. To the second, should be said that man is said to be his own understanding, not because the understanding is the whole man, but because the understanding is the chief part of what man, in which virtually exists the whole what.

[34:12] Definition. Yeah. Just as if the rector of the city is said to be the whole city, because in him there consists the whole ordering of the city.

[34:27] That's kind of a common thing proposed. Commonly speaking, Aristotle says, "For reason more than anything else is man." He says it doesn't mean reason alone, right? Is man, huh? But reason more than anything else is man. Therefore, the life according to reason must be man's life, huh? It would be strange, he says, if man should choose the life of something other than himself, but men do choose the life of something other than themselves.

[35:01] The irascible man, you know, barking everybody takes on the life of a dog. The guy eating too much. That of the pig, and so on.

[35:19] Now, what about the priesthood? Well, to the third, it should be said that to be a priest belongs to man by reason of his soul, right? In which is the character of what order? Huh? So that's a permanent thing, huh? That's what two segments that have a character, I guess. Confirmation and the priesthood.

[35:42] Whence, through death, a man does not lose the what? Priestly order. Priestly order, yeah. And even less so than Christ, huh? Who is the origin? Origin. The whole what? Priesthood, right? Alter Christus, right? I was talking about it the other day. Somebody was asking me about the priesthood who's basically going to leave the priesthood, and they were asking, "Oh, does he? Does he? Doesn't he? I I learned once the priest always a priest, and I said, 'Well, yeah, he'll be a priest even if he goes to hell.

[36:17] He'll be a priest. ' Yeah, yeah, because he's got that soul. Give me tampon, darling. Cool, huh? No, no, maybe better stuff. Okay. Body of Christ was incinerated, right? Reduced to ashes, I guess you'd say. In the sepulchre, It's incinerated it means burnt, right? It means reduced to ashes, huh? To the third death one proceeds. It seems that the body of Christ

[37:04] became ashes in the in the tomb. For just as death is the punishment of the sin of the first parent, so also this return to ashes. For it is said to the first man after sin, "You are dust, and dust you shall return," huh?

[37:23] This is said in Genesis three. But Christ underwent death that he might liberate us from death. Therefore, he ought to his body ought to have been turned to dust that he might liberate us from from dust, huh?

[37:41] Moreover, the body of Christ was of the same nature with our bodies, but our bodies immediately after death begin to dissolve, right? And are disposed to putrefaction because the natural heat being exhaled, huh? And there comes a extraneous heat which causes the putrefaction. Therefore, it seems that similarly this would happen to the body of Christ. Moreover, as has been said, Christ wished to be buried that he might give men the hope of rising even from their tombs, right?

[38:22] Therefore, ought also to have undergone incineration or reduction to dust that he might give the hope of rising. To those turned to dust, right after they're dead, but against this is what is said in Psalm fifteen: He will not give his holy one to see what corruption. Which Damascene expounds in the third book about the corruption, which is by the resolving something to its elements, right?

[39:01] Answer: It was not suitable for the body of Christ to be what corrupted, yeah, putrefied, or in any way to return to ashes. Because the putrefaction of any body arises from the infirmity of the nature of that body, which is not able any more to contain that body as something one. But the death of Christ, as has been said above, ought not to be with the what infirmity of nature, lest it be believed that it was not what voluntary, right?

[39:42] And therefore, not from sickness, but from. A passion did he wish to die, to which he spontaneously what offered himself right. And therefore Christ, lest death be ascribed to the weakness of his nature, did not wish his what body in any way to be putrefied or corrupted in any way, but to showing the power, but for the showing of his divine power, he wished his body to remain what uncorrupted.

[40:22] Huh. Whence Christian says, huh, living other men, huh, to those who what work strenuously, I guess. Their own deeds, what radiant. Shine forth in their lifetime. Yeah, but these perishing, they perish. Huh. But in Christ is the holy contrary. For before his crucifixion, all things are what.

[41:02] Weakness. That he might be crucified, all things. But as when he is crucified, all things are made more what clear, that we might know him not to be a pure man who has been crucified. Huh.

[41:20] So he spoke out there into the the cross right, and likewise not corrupting in there. Now to the first it should be said that Christ, since he was not subject to sin, nor is he subject to death, nor to what turning to dust. In our nevertheless voluntarily sustained death on account of our salvation, for the reasons given above. If, however, his body was putrefied or resolved, it would be more detrimental to human salvation, because it would not be believed in him to be a what divine power right.

[42:08] Whence from his person it is said in Psalm twenty nine, what usefulness in my blood when I descend to what corruption? As if, if my body putrefies, there is lost the usefulness of the blood that I have shed. Huh.

[42:37] To the second should be said that the body of Christ, as regards the condition of a sufferable, able to suffer, bot nature, was what able to be. Putrefied, although not as regards the merit of putrifaction, which is sin, but the divine power preserved or reserved or kept from the body of Christ from putrefaction, just as it raised him from what death, huh?

[43:15] And he says it's enough that he rose from the dead, right? To give us help. To the third, should be said that Christ, from the tomb, resurrected by divine power, which is not limited by any, it's not confined by any limits, and therefore that he rose from the what sepulcher is a sufficient argument that men would be what raised up by divine power, not only from the sepulcher but also from what the dust, huh?

[43:48] That's enough. That's Thomas enough. To expect a man to go through. Okay, so come to the last article here in this question. To the fourth, one goes for thus: it seems that Christ was not in sepulcher only one day and two nights.

[44:17] For as is said in Matthew twelve, just as Jonah was in the stomach, I guess, of the whale three days and three nights, right? So the Son of Man would be in the what heart of the earth for three days and three nights. But in the heart of the earth he was, he was existing in the what tomb. Therefore, he was not only in the tomb one day and two nights, huh?

[44:48] Moreover, Gregory says in the Easter homily, I guess, huh, that just as Samson took away, I guess, in the middle of the night, the gates of what Gaza, so Christ, in the middle of the night, taking the gates of what? hell? he rose, right? But after he rose, he was not in sepulcher. Therefore, he was not in sepulcher for two whole what nights, huh?

[45:24] Moreover, through death, the light of Christ overcame darkness. But night pertains to darkness; day to light. Therefore, it is more suitable that the body of Christ be in sepulcher two days and one night than one day and two nights. But again,

[45:50] this is what Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity: that from the evening of the burial to the early morning of the resurrection, there are what thirty-six hours, right?

[46:07] That is a whole night with a whole day and a whole what? My answer should be said that the time in which Christ remained in the tomb represents the effect of what his death. For it is said above that through the death of Christ we are freed from a twofold death, to wit, from the death of the soul. And from the death of the body, and this is signified through the two nights by which Christ remained in the what?

[46:54] Tomb. His death, because it was not coming about from sin, but was undertaken from charity, does not have the notion of a night, but a day, and therefore it is signified to the whole day in which Christ was in the what? Sepulcher. And thus it was suitable that Christ, one day and two nights, was in the what? Tomb.

[47:32] Now, what about the first part? There was in there three days and three nights. It was going to be what figure of speech? Augustine. Antonomasia No, that's the one. Part from whole. Huh? Synecdoche Synecdoche See. Oh, that's right. Yeah, and antonomasia and synecdoche are both involve whole and part, right? But Antonomasia the universal whole and its part, and the synecdoche, the composed or integral whole and its part, right?

[48:20] So when you say the word was made flesh, that's example of synecdoche, right? Huh? He's a brain, you know. That's synecdoche, right? But if you say

[48:37] Christ, right? You know, and this common name anointed, right? Yeah. He said of him by antonomasia right? There's a transfer of universal whole to to part. Okay. Augustine identifies this this figure of speech, but doesn't happen to name it, right? I think those names derive from the Greek rhetoricians, I think, you know. And so I don't say they profound those names, you know, or pretty

[49:08] revealing it. That's so, but but they are names for these things. You want to know them. To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the Gospels, some people, not knowing the way of Scripture, right, huh?

[49:29] Ah, wish to what? To what? Compute. Yeah. Annate those three hours. From what noon time I guess to what three o'clock? Three o'clock. As he's just saying in the sixth, it was called the, what the noon hour Noontime. Nine. Okay, in which the sun was what obscured, right? And the day those three other hours, in which again it was what rendered to the earth, that is from nine usque ad setting the sun, right?

[50:18] Um, there follows then the night of the the future night of the Sabbath, which with its day is computed. There would therefore be two what nights and two days, huh? Okay, after the Sabbath would follow the night of the first Sabbath, that is what starting to rise the the day of the Lord's day in which the Lord resurrected, right? And still there what? It's the right way of the three days and three nights will not stay Yeah, it remains therefore the one find in that a custom mode of speaking of Scripture, right?

[51:04] Huh? In which a parte totum intelligitur, right? Huh? Okay, so synecdochically can be either one. You can you can be using the name of the whole for the part or part for the whole, right? But it's the integral composed whole, right? Okay.

[51:30] What if I say I went to the monastery today? Part an integral part. I'm sorry. Yeah, part of the integral whole for. Yeah, yeah. I didn't do the whole day. I came up here in the afternoon and then go home in the evening afternoo, right? So it's a part of the day I did, right? Okay.

[51:57] What day can I see you? You know, I could see all maybe all day, but you know, Thursday I go to the doctor or something or something like that, you know. We commonly use those ways of speaking. What's unfamiliar maybe is the word they use to name it, right? You know, the kind of used to use the example of the Moliere comedy, you know, Moliere comedy. Yeah.

[52:22] But the guy learns he's been speaking prose all his life. I didn't know that. What is it, crazy of not knowing the name, the word, right?

[52:37] So I've been using synecdoche all my life, but I have been. We have been using synecdoche right? And antonomasia, very common. I give you, Mister American, Mister Republican, Mister Integrity, my friend Bob Taft. So you call him Mister Republican, right? That's what. What figure of speech is that? Yeah, yeah, he's not the only Republican, right? Mister Republican, Mister Integrity, my friend Bob

[53:11] Taft. So, thus that one night and one day we take for one natural day, right? And thus the first day is counted from its what?

[53:33] Last part, right? Because Christ in the sixth hour was dead, right? Buried on the sixth day, I guess. Secondly, the day is is integral whole with twenty four hours of night and day, right? The night refers the following pertains to the third day, right? Huh?

[54:01] For just as the first days an account of the future lapse of man from light to darkness, so this an account of the operation of man from darkness is counted into what light, huh?

[54:29] Okay, but the the key thing there is is the idea of the part for the whole. To the second, it should be said, as Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity, Christ in the what? Early morning, right? Diluculum, I guess, right?

[54:55] Rose in which something of light appeared, right? Huh? And still something remained of what? The darkness of what? Of night, huh? Whence about the woman is said in John twenty that when Tenebrae adhuc erant for the darkness still was, became the monument, right?

[55:16] And the reason of these darknesses, Gregory says, that Christ in the middle of the night rose, right? Huh? Not dividing the night into two equal parts, but within that night, huh? In fact diluculum that early morning is a part of the night and a part of the day can be called on account of its what? Communicate with everything, right? It's, like twilight, you know, late on the day, right?

[55:47] This twilight, you know, day or night, was kind of a mix of both, right? Twilight. To the third, it should be said that so much does light in the death of Christ prevail that it signified through one day, right? Because the darkness of two nights, that is of our twofold death, there of the soul and body, it removes, right? That's one light done. Okay.