Tertia Pars
113. Christ's Descent into Hell I: The Whole Christ in Hell, How Long He Stayed, and the Freeing of the Holy Fathers (with Asides on the Names of God and the Highest Good)
Class of 2010-11-17
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/113-christs-descent-into-hell-i-the-whole-christ-in-hell-how/

[0:02] Let's say our little prayer. in. The name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God our enlightenment, guardian angels, think of the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, Pray with us. Help us to understand all that you've written.

[0:31] Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. So, strange question here, right? Was the whole Christ in hell, right? The third one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ was not whole in hell. For the body of Christ is some part of him, right? But the body of Christ was not in hell. Therefore, the whole Christ was not in hell. Seems clear enough, right?

[1:12] Moreover, nothing whose parts are separated from each other can be called a whole. That's a nice fundamental thought. But this body and the soul, which are the parts of human nature, were separated from each other after death. He descended to hell when he was dead, right? Being dead, therefore, he could not be as a whole in what.

[1:41] Maybe we go see something about the whole person is there, but not the whole human nature is in there. We'll see what the master says.

[1:52] Moreover, that whole is said to be in place of which nothing is outside that place. But something of Christ was outside hell, because his body was in the sepulcher, and his divinity everywhere. Therefore, Christ was not as a whole in hell.

[2:14] But against this is what Augustine says in the book about the symbol faith, the creed, that the whole Son before the Father, the whole in heaven, the whole in earth, the whole in the virginal womb, the whole on the cross, the whole in inferno, right? The whole in paradise, in which he introduced the thief. Right.

[2:42] So did the thief get into heaven before the the prophets downstairs? Or even from Christ himself. I answer: It should be said that just as is clear from these things which were said in the first part. The masculine genus, huh, refers to the hypostasis or person, but the neutral genus pertains to the nature, right? So that's why I guess you can say that the father, the son is aliud, right?

[3:20] Because that would imply that he's of a different nature or something. Um. Now, in the death of Christ, although the soul was indeed separated from the body, neither, however, was separated from the person of the Son of God,

[3:41] and therefore, in that triduum of the death of Christ, it should be said that the whole Christ was in the what tomb, sepulcher, because the whole person was there, right? Through the body united to it,

[3:59] and likewise, the whole was in hell because the whole person of Christ was there by reason of the soul united to it, and the whole Christ then was everywhere by reason of the divine nature. Okay, the master has spoken. It makes sense what the master says, right?

[4:28] To the first effort should be said that the body that was then in the sepulcher is not a part of the uncreated person, but a part of the nature that he took on, and therefore, through the fact that the body of Christ was not in hell, one does not exclude, but that the whole Christ was there.

[4:58] But it can be shown that he was not there. The whole that pertains to human nature, so in one sense, the whole was not there, right? The whole human nature was not there, but the whole person was there. Okay.

[5:13] But Thomas will say that Peter is not in heaven, right? Not a complete person there. Okay. Now, second objection here. The second should be said that from the soul and the body united is constituted the wholeness of human nature, but not the wholeness of the divine person, and therefore, the union of the body and the soul being untied through death, there remains the whole Christ, meaning the whole what person, but Christ is the name of the what person, right?

[5:51] But there does not remain the human nature in its totality, so that's distinction that Thomas sees. The third should be said that the person of Christ was whole in each place, but not wholly, because in no place or by no place was he what limited or had a line drawn around him.

[6:20] But neither all places together taken are able to comprehend him to surround his immensity. Rather, he by his immensity comprehends all things. But this has place in those things which are in a bodily and circonscripted way, described way, in place, because the whole is there; nothing of it is what outside. But this in God has no place, whence Augustine says in the Sermon on the Symbol of faith.

[6:58] Not through what diverse times or places do we say Christ was what everywhere whole. That now he is what whole there, and another time he is there the whole, but that always he is everywhere the whole, the whole person. Quite a guy is Augustine, isn't he?

[7:25] I was looking at this Roman text, you know, on the Sentences by Thomas, which I think is probably by him. Not convinced it is.

[7:39] You can get that on the Navarrese Thomas, you know, the Roman Sentences. So I'm kind of reading that, you know, before I go back to my favorite book, the Summa Contra Gentiles I was hesitating my mind, which I got to do, you know? But very interesting things in there, right? And

[7:57] like there's an article there. Whether there's a sumum bonum, right? Highest good, right? And Thomas says in the beginning, he says, "Well, we can give three reasons for it being a sumum bonum. Two are taken from Aristotle, one from Augustine. But then when you see the one from Augustine, you go, 'That's also Aristotle. ' So in a sense, all three reasons can be given, right? And but taken from Aristotle, beautiful text, you know.

[8:27] But then I was reading later on there where he's talking about the the name God, right? And whether this is the most proper name of God, huh? God, huh? And of course you have the authority of I am who am, right? That name, where Augustine says is kind of most proper name of God, and then you have Dionysius who's saying that good is the fundamental name of God, because in the book on the Divine Names, it begins with good, right?

[8:56] Because But Thomas says that that for which the name God is taken, right, is just the idea of, as Damascene says, to consider things, to know them by the mind, right, to direct things, and so on. And all these things are true about God, but they're not as distinctive of what God does as to say that God is the source of to be and everything, right? So he says, or in terms of the production of things, the ultimate reason why he produces things is because he's good.

[9:31] So if you're considering that from which the name good is taken, or that from which the name I am who I am is taken, it's more the proper name to God, right? But if you take the other aspect, what the name is applied to, then God is the most proper name of God because it signifies the divine what nature, you know. So it's kind of interesting the way he explains the distinction of those names and their priority, right? Because Thomas often makes this distinction, I have all these different things in my thing there.

[10:07] In every name, you can distinguish between that from which the name is taken, and and what the name signifies, that to which it is applied. And these are sometimes the same, he says, but many times what? Not the same, right? Thomas does a good example. We don't know it's good etymology, but the lapis, right, means you know hurts the foot. Laid it. Well, that doesn't. That's not what the word stone signifies.

[10:34] That's what the name is taken from, right? But in the case of the word white, you know, the color, right? Or then the name, that from which it is taken and what signifies is exactly the same, right? And so when he asks, you know, whether God is the name of the divine nature or the divine operation, right? Of course, one of the objections will say, well, Damascene takes it from the Greek word theaomai to see, right?

[11:04] Or another word where it could be taken from that signifies the divine control of things and so on. And Thomas says, well, that's that from which the name is taken, right? But that to which the name is applied is what the divine nature. So that's what the word signifies. It's the name of the divine nature. But this is why I was thinking about the text again was because no distinction Thomas makes here between the masculine and the and well in the sentences, too he talks about how

[11:41] grammar and logic are similar in that they're about signs, right? And how you signify things and so on. And then Thomas says when he's talking about the name God. Now you can say the word God of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, but you can't say that there are three what gods. But you could, you can say that there are three who have the divine nature, because that signifies by an adjective, adjective, he says, like an adjective.

[12:12] So that's kind of interesting, right? Because you might say, well, what does it mean to be God? Have the divine nature, but because the way a noun signifies and adjective signifies, you can say there are three tres habentes the divine nature, but you can't say he's not carrying me now. You want your money back? No, he's all get you, buddy.

[12:43] So when you go in for one of these, you know, especially going in for just a fifty-minute class, one of these late classes, you know, two and a half hours.

[12:55] You know your voice is going to be breaking up in the middle of the lecture and so on, and because I know some of my colleagues do there and say I got a cold, you know I got to go and give this course today. So

[13:08] that's interesting, now, right? Huh? Let's see. To have the divine nature to be God means the same thing in a sense, doesn't it? See, just like to be a human being and to have human nature is signified the same thing, right? But there's a difference. The grammarian would say in the way they signify, right? Because the one signifies, I'd say, in Latin substantive, right, and the other adjective, right.

[13:34] So the distinction in grammar is important, and you got to be careful, right? So you can say there are three who have the divine nature, but there aren't three gods. You got to be very careful.

[13:53] Interesting what Thomas says about those things, but anyway. See if you can figure out the reasons why. It's kind of interesting, and he gives the reasons why there's a summum bonum the highest good, right? He proceeds a little differently than he does in my favorite book, the Summa Contra Gentiles. Because in the Summa Contra Gentiles, he shows first that God is good. Then he shows secondly that God is goodness itself.

[14:23] And then he shows third that it can't be anything bad in God. And then fourth that God is the good of every good. And then finally that He's the summum bonum, right? And so he argues from the things he's shown before to God being the highest good there, right? But in the sentences, you don't have it in the order of teaching, so to speak, right? And so it's kind of like starting from raw, you know.

[14:48] And so why? What reason could you give for saying there's a summum bonum, right? Well, the first reason he gives is taken from Aristotle. Aristotle in the Metaphysics says that the order of parts of some whole to each other is an account of their order to the purpose of that whole, right? So the order of the seat and the back and so on of the chair is an account of what sitting, right?

[15:16] So this is a common distinction Aristotle makes, right? The order of the parts of the chair to each other, right? And then the order of the whole chair to what sitting. And so that sitting is better than the chair, right? Because the end or purpose of something is better than what is for the sake of the end, right? Well, he says the universe is an ordered whole, right?

[15:40] And therefore the order of the parts among them is an account of their order to... Yeah, yeah, and the comparison of Aristotle makes is you know the order of the parts of the army is an account of their order to the leader and to his goal, which is victory, right? And so if God is then the good, which is the reason for the order of the universe, then He must be the summum bonum.

[16:05] Beautiful, right? And then he takes, you know, he's seen the connection between end and purpose. Then he goes to Aristotle in the second book of Wisdom, where Aristotle shows that there's a first end, right? Well, then it's going to be the end of everything else, right? Therefore, it must be the chief good, right? And then he goes to, presumably from Augustine, you know, that the perfect imperfect arises from the perfect, right?

[16:31] That goes back what Aristotle showed that act, simply speaking, is before ability, right? And therefore the first cause is going to be pure act, and therefore the supreme good, and kind of beautiful, you know. But it's beautiful when he talks about, you know, he's saying in theology you can obviously proceed from sacred scripture, right? But then he's another article: can you proceed from what the saints say?

[16:58] Thomas says, well, yes, yes. But it's probable, probable, right? And not the same authority—the words of sacred scripture, right? And then, of course, another article: Can you proceed from the words of the philosopher? Because they're, you know, of less authority, obviously, you know. But Thomas then talks about grace, not not destroying nature, right? So, what the philosophers truly demonstrates, you can use this, right? Even in theology, and he's in this argument for the thing, you know.

[17:26] How about using Aristotle? But you judge this in harmony with reason, right? You know, you don't see that what Aristotle said is true because it's so useful in theology. But the reverse: it's useful in theology because it's so true. Beautiful text there. Interesting things, but some of these Thomas's, you know, I kind of recall in my mind the reasons he gave for saying God is a sumum bonum in the in the Summa Contra Gentiles and it's because where it comes up in the order of which you've seen before, right?

[18:03] And then the way it proceeds here, where it's kind of, you know, kind of going from scratch, you know. Beautiful, beautiful text in there.

[18:15] Profound. Okay, up to the fourth article here. It seems that Christ did not contract a long what delay, delay, you might say, and now for Christ, for this reason, descended into hell that he might liberate or free men from it.

[18:44] But this at once was done from the fact that in his descent, it is easy in the sight of God to ennoble the poor one, right? Therefore, it seems there should be no delay in what going to hell,

[19:06] and I think he's got a quote there. The thing I was just thinking that hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Yeah, there was a better way, right? More of Augustine says in the Sermon on the Passion that without any what delay, so to speak, right, to the command of the Lord and the Savior, all the what stones were what broken, broken, and so on. An iron bar, I guess.

[19:35] Iron bars. Period. Whence, in the person of the angels, following Christ is said, "Open up the gates, open up the." gates. But for this reason, Christ then descended, that he might break right the doors of hell. Therefore, Christ in hell stayed for no time, right?

[20:05] Moreover, Luke twenty three, the Lord hanging on the cross said to the thief, "This day you will be with me in paradise." huh? Did you ever Do you ever hear Haydn's music there for the seven last words? It's really really beautiful. I guess it exists a number of forms, you know, some where it's sung. There is one where they, you know, it's kind of a string quartet or something.

[20:29] You know, it's really beautiful. You know, and you kind of nice little meditation just to hear the way he makes some music for each of the words of Christ on the cross. I was just kind of thinking of the way words the music he has for that. Don't ask me now, though, especially especially by present condition. But it's beautiful music there. You know my favorite piece by by Haydn.

[20:54] Um. From which it is clear that on the same day Christ was in what? In paradise, but not according to the body, according to which he was placed in the sepulcher. Therefore, according to the soul, which descended to what? All right. And this, it seems he did not contract to delay. in hell. Like, he must have gone down the same day. He said to the to the thief, "This day you will be in paradise, right?

[21:29] You and not other guys too." But against this is what Peter says in the second chapter of the Acts, whom Christ, whom God, what raised up, untying the sorrows of hell, right? Because it is impossible for him to be held by it. Therefore, it seems that until the hour of resurrection, he remained in what? hell.

[22:00] Yeah. You didn't earn this question in your catechism, did you? No, he descended to hell. I remember that with the creed, you know, I learned about it. It's episode, it's escapades here. Yeah.

[22:18] I answered, it should be said that Christ, that he might what undertake in himself our punishments, right? Wished to place his body in the what tomb, so also he wished his soul to what descend into hell, right? Okay. And as I was saying before, you know, Thomas says that in a way the resurrection is the reward for his death, and the ascension is reward for his descent into hell, right?

[22:51] He says explicitly, which kind of gives me the idea that you can put the you know the first three articles of the descent, right? He emptied himself, taking on the form of the slaves, he says, in the Philippians, I guess it is. And then, you know, he more so he died, and all the way down the hill, and then the ascent, right? Resurrection, the ascension, and then the second glorious coming in.

[23:20] So his body remained in the tomb for a whole day and two what nights to prove, right, the truth of his death, right? Whence so long it is believed that his soul was what hell, that at the same time his soul might be brought out from hell and his body from the. Yeah.

[23:56] No, what about that first objection, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ, descending to hell, freed the saints there existing, not at once by inducing them or leading them out from the place of hell, right? But enlightening them in hell itself by the light of what, Gloria.

[24:22] And nevertheless, it was suitable that so long his soul would remain in hell as long as his body remained in the what, sepulcher. And he says, luce gloria illustrando. Does that mean that he means that we see the beatific vision right? The

[24:42] good prophets, who are in glory, but as you refer to the beatific vision, right? Not we just distinguish glory and grace, right? Kind of gratia consumata, you know. To the second, should be said that the what are those the doors of hell, bars, bars, okay, are said to be the impediments, right, by which the holy fathers were prohibited to go out from hell by reason of the guilt of the first what parent original sin.

[25:29] Which Christ, at once descending to the infernal regions, by the power of his own passion and death, right, he broke these gates. But nevertheless, he wished to remain in hell some time for the foresaid reason, right? And that's why his body and soul should be what Same time, he should go inside.

[25:59] His soul should leave hell at the same time that his body too. Yeah. Neither before nor after. It has to be known, by no, in the categories Aristotle has a chapter on before and after, right? On before, but includes after, and then the chapter on simul together, right? But it's like you know the meaning of together by the negation of before and after.

[26:37] So if I say you and I were born together at the same time, I wasn't born before you or after you, right? That just like Aristotle says in the tenth book of wisdom that equal is really known by the negation of more and less.

[26:59] It's kind of interesting. So even when you talk about God and say that the Father, God the Father, is in no way before God the Son, right? But they're hama together, simul. We do so by negating all the senses of before or all the chief senses that Aristotle gives in the twelfth chapter, the categories. I wish

[27:35] people wouldn't think of me as being primarily a logician, you know. Not the fanatic that Monsignor Dionne was, I think I spent about 8 years studying logic and then you're ready to do the other. You have a way of confirming these opinions.

[27:56] These popular legends. Yeah. My friend Warren Ray says to me, if you spent 8 years studying logic, you probably never had these guys in philosophy, you know.

[28:12] It's just like when they teach a language, you know, and they would spend like a year, or so doing just the grammar on the old tough days, you know, and and you're not reading anything hard in the language, you know, and that's just too too hard for us to take.

[28:31] The third objection, then, to that word of the Lord, or that word of the Lord to the to the good thief, should be understood, not about the bodily paradise, the terrestrial bodily paradise, but the spiritual paradise, in which are said to be whoever enjoy the divine glory. That refers to the beatific vision, then. Whence the thief in place, huh?

[29:06] Descended with Christ to hell. That when, yeah. That he might be with Christ, right? Because it has been said to him, "You will be with me in paradise," right? But the reward in paradise was there because he enjoyed the divinity of Christ, just as the other saints. So it isn't that the beatific vision, but then why the other one is it now? Well, no, I think it is when he said, and then replied the second objection, then, right?

[29:49] First, turn the first. Yeah. Oh, said the glory of light. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think he gave the beatific vision, right? Well, I thought you said it wasn't. I'm sorry. No, I thought that, I said you'd understand the light of glory to refer to the beatific vision, right? We usually distinguish between the light of glory and the light of faith, you know, and grace and glory, right?

[30:15] And glory is kind of like, you know, grace completed, you know, Gratia consumata. Oh, okay, It is. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So this is kind of aside of what Christ did for these, you know, but his soul did remain there, right? And then it's only when he was going to rise from the dead that the two of them come up. Mm hmm The day that he made it would have been withdrawn when he resurrected No I don't think so But his soul would have left hell At.

[30:49] The same time, the soul left hell and the body. But did they lose the beatific vision. That's what he's asking. Yeah. Because they went up to they went up to heaven Yeah That's why when he talks about the thing about purgatory, there's those that didn't see the beatific vision because they're still in their purgatory. Okay. That's what was that? To me, that was unreal. Okay. Let's look at the next article because this is kind of interesting here, right? To the fifth one proceeds thus: It seems that Christ descending to hell did not what free the holy fathers from there.

[31:29] That's kind of why he raises question, right? Seems like you know, have we already answered that? For Augustine says in the Epistle to Evodius, right? To those just persons, right, or those just souls, to those just ones who were in the womb of what? The bosom of Abraham. Yeah, the bosom of Abraham when Christ descended to hell, right? Not yet, is he found to have what conferred something, right?

[32:13] By which? According to his beatifying presence of his divinity, to whom I think maybe it's or from whom, from whom the souls are just.

[32:34] I see him withdraw. How does it say it, from there I fail to see that he ever departed according to the beatific presence of his divine. Okay. So once he enlighten them, they stay enlightened. But much he would have conferred upon them if he freed them from hell. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not free the holy fathers from what hell.

[33:03] Moreover, no one is detained in hell except in account of sin. But the holy fathers, who when they still were living, were justified by the faith of Christ from sin. Therefore, they did not need to be liberated from hell. Christ descending to them, huh? Well, so it was this thing from the original sin, I suppose he's going to say.

[33:28] Moreover, the cause being removed, the effect is removed. But the cause of descending to hell is sin, which was removed through the passion of Christ. Therefore,

[33:45] not therefore through the descent of Christ to hell were the what holy fathers brought out from hell. That's what he's saying there: that if their sins are gone now because of the death on the cross, right, then they're no longer going to be down there in hell.

[34:11] But against this is what Augustine says in the Sermon on the Passion. That Christ, when he descended to hell, he broke the what, the gate of hell, right, and the the iron bars, bars, effect his ferials, yeah. Um, uh,

[34:34] and all the just ones who were held there, restricted by original sin, he what absolved them, right, put them free. Well, I answer, Thomas says. It should be said, as above has been said, that Christ descending to hell worked in the power of his own what, passion. But through the passion of Christ, was liberated the human race, not only from sin, but also from the guilt of sin.

[35:13] This has been said above. But in two ways, men are restricted by the what, guilt of punishment. In one way, for their actual sin, right, which each person commits in his own person, right. Another way for the sin of the whole human nature, right, that from the first parent arises originally in all men, right, as is said in Romans chapter five.

[35:50] Of which sin the punishment is bodily death, and exclusion from the life of glory. This is clear from those things which are said in Genesis chapter two.

[36:03] For God ejected man from paradise after the sin. To which before sin, death was threatened if he did sin, huh? And therefore Christ descending to hell, by the power of his passion, from this guilt he absolved the saints. By which guilt they were excluded from the life of glory. That they would not be able to see God,

[36:36] through his essence or nature, not see him as he is. In which consists the perfect beatitude of man, as has been said in the second part.

[36:54] For by this the holy fathers were detained in hell. That there is no entry for them to the life of glory on account of the sin of the first parent. And thus Christ descending to hell,

[37:11] excuse me, liberated the holy fathers from hell. And this, this is what is said in the prophet Zachary. You, in the blood of what, your testament, have brought those bound right from the lake in which there was no water.

[37:34] And Colossians two, that what, despoiling you might say the principles and the powers that's different ones by taking away Isaac and Jacob and the other ones who are just.

[37:49] He led them out, you might say, a long way from the kingdom of darkness to heaven, right? As the gloss there, there explains. Now, to the first argument that we're we're translating to will. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Augustine there speaks against those who estimate that the old just ones, before the coming of Christ, right, were subject to what, pains of punishment in hell.

[38:33] Hence, a little bit before the words that were induced in that first objection, he sets forth this saying: Some add that this benefit was what conceded to the old saints, right, that the Lord, when he came into hell, he solved them from their what sorrows, huh? But in but in what way can it be understood that Abraham, in whose bosom the pious pauper, right, was received, was in those what?

[39:15] I don't see how I don't see right. This comes could be right. They were not suffering you know the the punishments of hell the sorrows right. But they were deprived of the vision of God as He is, huh? Seeing God face to face until Christ had died.

[39:34] And therefore afterwards he joins. It is he yet what it would bestow upon them right? Okay. It should be understood as regards the absolution from the what.

[40:05] The suffering, the punishment, the sorrow, the sufferings. Yeah, what did it do for them, right? It didn't get them free from the pains, because they weren't suffering, right? But it contributed to them, you might say, as regards the attaining of glory, right? And consequently, it solved their sorrow, which they underwent from the delay of glory, right?

[40:36] From the hope of which hour they had great joy. That's interesting. And Shakespeare says, "Parting is such sweet sorrow." There in Romeo and Juliet. And so that's kind of a contradiction, right? Because how can sorrow be sweet? Because sweet is pleasant. Well,

[40:59] the sorrow that they have in separating is a sign of how much they love each other, and therefore they're consoled by the fact that they know this, right? Well, it's a little bit different here. But here you're consoled by the hope that you're going to eventually see God as He is, right? But even those I suppose in purgatory, somewhat consoled by that. But a fortiori the prophets, right, who are not undergoing any kind of physical thing, but he still does speak of dolor, right?

[41:32] there from the Dalish, down, right? So there is something kind of mixed there, right? According to that John, that's a beautiful quote. He says, "Abraham, you know, they say you're not yet 50 years old. you've seen Abraham, or Abraham's seen you, and so on. Abraham, your father, right? Exalted, right? That he might see my day, right? Say, oh boy, I'm waiting for that, huh?

[42:01] And then he joins, from which, right? According to his beatifying presence of divinity, right? I never saw him. Is that right? They're talking about Christ himself. As he ever departed according to the beatific presence of his God. Insofar as even before the coming of Christ, they were blessed in hope, right? Huh? Although they were not yet perfectly blessed in reality. Yeah, yeah. That's where Aristotle speaks, you know, of promising boy there, you know, said to be happy, right?

[42:45] You know, but he can't really have the happiness of human being until his mind is developed and so on, right? But we we see him on the way, you know,

[42:56] kind of grandchild, dude, John, talking very clearly on the phone. He says, "Little girl next door, at the Victoria, she was running up on our back deck, there, you know, this morning, you know, when we're having breakfast, you know,

[43:17] and I saw her father coming after her and grabbing her, And then I looked out a little later on, and I don't know if she's out with her her mother, and she's running up the next door neighbor, so she's curious, and I guess the wife next door said to my wife have you seen little fingerprints on your windows out there, he must have come over, I didn't see him, you know, but I was about to go out and you know I don't know if she'd gotten out loose enough on the because they put up a fence or on the line to kind of keep him in, you know, but I watch his little ones.

[43:58] Now, what about being detained on account of sin and so on? To second should be said that the holy fathers, when they were still what alive, huh, were freed from by the faith of Christ, right? From all sin, both original and actual, right, huh? And from the what? Penalty, I guess. Yeah. Guilt of actual sins, huh? But not from the guilt of the punishment of original sin, by which they were excluded from what glory, huh?

[44:38] The price not yet being paid, you might say, for human redemption. Just as now the faithful Christ, liberated by baptism, from the guilt of actual sins, right, and from the guilt original as regards exclusion from glory. But they remain nevertheless obligated for the punishment of original sin, as regards the necessity of bodily what dying. Dying.

[45:07] Because they have been because they have been renovated in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh, right? According to that of Romans eight, the body is dead on account of sin, but the spirit lives on account of justification. huh? Now, the third objection here. The third, should be said that at once Christ, undergoing death, right, his soul descended to hell, right, and he showed the fruit of his passion to the holy ones detained in hell, right.

[45:55] Although from that place they did not what go forth, Christ remaining in hell, right. Because the presence of Christ pertained to the what? Tides of glory Piling up of glory, huh? Piling up of glory, huh? Accumulation of glory.

[46:17] Yeah. So they stayed down there for a while with them, I guess. So this is the same. Another one before we do that, man.