Prima Secundae
Lecture 209: The Essence of Original Sin: Nature, Unity, and Concupiscence

Transcript
================================================================================

You know, when one son is the governor of Texas, the other one is the governor of Florida, you know. So, I mean, there's a certain tendency of a father to kind of force the son into his footsteps, right? Because the father sees the son more as a, what, continuation of himself, right? I think a son naturally feels that way, you know. You know, even after my father died, you know, I was talking to my cousin one day, he said, that's just like your father, you know. He said, what? I mean, I just imitate my father or something in the way, you know. He said, this is like a poach to floss or something, I don't know. But, you know, I remember, you know, being, you know, pleased in my mind, you know, that I was like my father in some way, you know. So, I mean, a son likes to see that right now. You know, if your father, you know, was on the football team or the basketball team or something, you know, the son likes to kind of follow the father and the father rejoices in that, you know. So, but that's the idea that the father is more like a mover or a maker, right? So he sees the son as a continuation of his father, right? I think that's why, too, sometimes the father makes mistakes. You know, he wants a son. He's got to have a son, right? That's kind of a joke. You know, sometimes the father has all kinds of daughters and he keeps on paying another daughter, you know. He says, don't go that way. So he says, don't go that way. So, you know, but I get a kick out of one of my neighbors there, you know. He doesn't have any son. I think he has a couple of daughters, I guess, but he's very attached to his daughter right now. I see him in the morning. He's always watching, you know, until she gets on the bus, you know, to make sure that she's on his safety and so on. But I see him sometimes out there playing kitsch with her, right, you know. He's like a father with his son. And I kind of amused at this, you know, but the daughter seems to enjoy it and he's enjoying playing kitsch with her, you know. And she's kind of, you know, something for a boy in a sense, you know. It's a very pleasing sight to see, you know. And he's a wonderful girl because I know when she comes home and after, if I'm out there mowing the lawn, she'd say, hello, how are you, Mr. Perkwist? And she's a very nice girl, you know. But you can kind of see something, you know, of, it's kind of like she's sunscreening for the boy by playing kitsch with her father, you know. She does a good job doing it, you know. It's just, where the mother, you know, sees, you know, that the son is a, what, kind of a fulfillment of herself, you know. The offspring in general, right, which is like matter being perfected by form, you know. Interesting. So, I mean, there's a lot of truth that, you know, that the mother is like the matter, right, and most of the matter of the child does come from the mother, right? But the father is just a maker, right? He's hardly the matter of it, right? There's not much matter at all that he gives, right? That's manious of form. But they say it's no more complicated, as we say now, right? Okay. So, the reply to the first objection, then, in patre preexisted filios as an inactive principle, right? But in the mother as in a material beginning, right? In the passer, right? There's some truth to that even now, right? Even despite our advancement. Okay, we saw the reply to the second objection, I think, didn't we? And the third one. To the third, it should be said that that purgation, going before the Blessed Virgin, is not required to taking away the transfusion of original sin. But because it's necessary that the mother of God, what? Yeah. For something is not a suitable, worthy receptacle of God, except it be what? Yeah. Want to go all the way then, Thomas? Okay. You wonder how, when Thomas was informed about the definition, right? He closed his eyes and deaf, as Gardeningo says, you've got something left. Yeah, yeah. Well, you see, what about our Lord, huh? He brought it into the thing, and everything went well, you know. Benny Scipsisti taught me, you know. I went to the College of St. Thomas, and they have in the center there this statue of St. Thomas there, you know. And, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, uh, and, uh, uh, and, uh, uh, and, uh, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, speak from the likes of our minds. Lord, and whom are riches, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Jesus Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you're written. Amen. Original sin is regardless essence here, huh? Question 82, that's what we're written. Then we're ought to consider about original sin as regards its essence, huh? What times have I known the essence of original sin? About this, four things are asked. First, when the original sin is a what? Obvious, huh? Firm disposition, right? That makes sense to me. Secondly, whether it is, what? One only in one man, right? Third, whether it is concupiscencia. That makes sense to me. And fourth, whether it is equally in all. Hmm. That's an interesting, you know. Some are more equal than others, yeah. And first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that original sin is not a habitus, huh? Original sin is the lack of original justice, huh? As Anselm says in the book on the original conception, huh? Hmm. And thus, original sin is a certain privation or lack, huh? But privation or lack is supposed to habit, huh? That's what you don't have. Yeah. Is your ignorance a habit? For some people. Are you a picture of the ignorance of the people? Some people. Some people. I have known them. Some of you are firm in the habit. Some people. That's enough. Their original sin is not a what? Habit. Habit, huh? It's not a privational act. Moreover, actual sin has more of the notion of what guilt, I guess, than original, insofar as it is more of the notion of the voluntarium. But the habit of actual sin does not have the aspect of guilt, otherwise it would foul that the man's sleeping. With sin, culpably. Yeah. While he's sleeping. Therefore, no habit, original habit, has the notion of what? Guilt. Guilt, huh? Moreover, in bad things, the act always precedes the what? Habit. For no bad habit is infused, but acquired. That's worth remembering. Yeah. But then you serve it. Bad habits are not infused, they are acquired. Here's a crap. But some act does not but precede original sin. Therefore, original sin is not a habit. But against this is what Augustine says in the book about the baptism of boys, that according to original sin, the little ones are concubisable, even though they are not in act, what? Desiring or having concubisable. But habilitas is said according to some what? Habit. Habit. Therefore, original sin is a what? Habit. Habit. Hmm. This is going to begin with a little distinction here. And it should be said, as has been said above, that two-fold is what? Habit. Habit. One by which a power is inclined to act in, just as sciences, and moreover choosing, are called what? Habits. Habits. There's the first species of faulty, right, in the categories. And in this way, original sin is not a what? Habit. Habit. In another way, a habit is said to be the disposition of some nature composed from many what? Things. Things, huh? According to which one has oneself well or badly to something. And especially when such a disposition was turned, as it were, into what? Something in nature, huh? Mm-hmm. As is clear in the case of sickness and what? Health. So what's the doctor called sickness? Habit or disposition? Disposition, usually, yeah. And in this way, original sin is a habitant, for it is a certain disordered disposition, arriving or coming about from the dissolution of that harmony in which consists the notion of original justice. Just as the sickness of the body is a disordered disposition of the body, according to which equality is untied, and which consists the ratio of health. Simple view of health. Yeah. We got, huh? Yeah. Whence the original sin is called the what? Langer or sickness of nature. Of nature, yeah. The first sin. The argument from the end cylinder. The first effort should be said that bodily sickness has something of what? Privation or lack. Right. Insofar as it takes away the quality of what? Health. And something what? Positive. That is, the humors, the bodily fluids, disorderly disposed. Thus also, original sin has both the lack of original justice, right? Mm-hmm. But it's not just that, right? Or that alone. Yeah. But with this, a disordered disposition of the parts of the what? Soul. Soul. Yeah. Whence is not a pure privation, just a lack, but it is a corrupt act, right? Mm-hmm. What's the difference between ignorance and error? Yeah. Ignorance is just a lack, right? You know? Could we say it's just a pure lack, right? Mm-hmm. But error is what? I don't know, Ross. Yeah. It involves a lack of knowledge, right? But then it involves, as it were, a claimed knowledge. Yeah. That's not correct. Yeah. I was looking at Euclid there at my daughter's house there, you know? I take a little bit of Euclid every day. A ton of different minds, you know? But, uh, I was in college at the time, you know, and I graduated from college before I first read Euclid, huh? And my old teacher historically said, Duane, you should go out and get Euclid and start studying it. And I said, why? He said, go out and get it. You haven't got to study here. Don't ask stupid questions. Yeah. Yeah. And so, my politician friend, Fred Monroe, you know, says, Duane, what are you doing these days? I said, I'm studying geometry. He kind of, you know, long for the concomitant on this, you know, what are you doing that for? And I said, well, I studied this theorem in book three, you know, where Euclid shows that if a straight line is tangent to . . . . It touches at one point, you know. Between that straight line and the circle, you cannot insert a what? Another line. Another line, right? If I was knitting before I could slow this, you know what a rectilineal angle is, you know, two straight lines like that? We can kind of, in like a scissors, close them up and make them smaller and smaller, right? So could you make an angle that would be smaller than any rectilineal angle? Of course you couldn't do that, could you, right? You can always have a smaller rectilineal angle, right? You can always bisect it, like, you know. And if you just kind of, you know, think of the straight line or the tangent there, you say, okay, they meet at just a point, right? But above that point there's open space, right? So obviously you can stick in the line there, right? You would think that, right? Well, this is a theorem where not only are you ignorant of what the truth about this matter is, but you have to think something false about it, right? So your wonder is aroused when you find this out, right? Not only because you didn't know it before, but because you thought the opposite of that, right? So he was kind of sort of wondering, right? You know? And so it was actually that big funding for studying geometry, like kid stuff or something, you know? It was taken away, right? Yeah. When I was looking through the third book this time, I saw this beautiful theorem. I said, well, but could you insert a curve line between the thing? Well, of course, there's a beautiful theorem there, but he shows that internally two circles can touch only at a point. So if you had, you know, a smaller circle inside the bigger circle touching at a point, then the, what, straight line drawn to that point would, what, touch both circles, right? But the bigger circle, its curve would be, what, below that of the, what, smaller circle. And then you could have even a bigger circle of them, you know? That's a wonderful thing, you see? Or the other theorem that used to get me was theorem five there in book two, you know? Where Euclid says if you divide a straight line into equal segments and unequal segments, the rectangle that takes, you know, the unequal segments will always be smaller than the, what, one on the half of the line, the equal line. So, but by how much, you see? Well, it's magnificent, you know? It's by, what, the square and the line between the points of, what, section. It's amazing, right? So, there you have the delights you have in geometry, you know, where you find something very simple, right? You see? Because you say, well, how are these two figures going to be good in, right? Well, one will always be bigger than the other, right? But exactly by the square. We use it the way he does this. And, but once you realize that, then you realize that you can have, what, a rectangle with less perimeter but more area. That's it. I would think, you know, that if the perimeter rectangle was more, the area would have to be more, right? Yeah, I think, yeah. You know? And I always used to recall this story, when I talk about this in class sometimes, I think it's a Russian story, but it's a guy who was, you know, he could have all the land he could run around in a day. Of course, the model, of course, is that he tried to take up too much land with a heart attack. And so he got nothing, in a sense. But I mean, if you're going to get as much, try to get as much land as you can in a day, should you run around, you know, in an oblong or in a, what, square? I mean, as far as it's among the land, right? Mm-hmm. And so these ones arouse wonder, right? Or they're contrary to what you'd expect, right? Mm-hmm. You'd expect, if the perimeter is greater, that the area would have to be greater, right? It could actually have more perimeter but less, what, area. That's the way, when Thomas in Aristotle gives the example there of the, the incommensibility, you know, of the side of a square with the diagonal. Mm-hmm. And that's kind of, you can't, no matter how small you take, you can't find something that will measure both, right? Mm-hmm. You know, that kind of is contrary to what you'd think, you know, at first, right? And Einstein himself, he talks about wonder, right? He talks about his father bringing home a magnet, right? And it seems like one thing is moving another thing, coming into what? Contact. Contact with it, huh? And that seems to be contrary to what you'd expect, right? Mm-hmm. And at this time, I was going to wonder, Einstein, right? How could that be? You know? Of course, it's really something they're hidden there, and then. Mm-hmm. Of course, they're wrong, Einstein. It was there, right? Beautiful. That's the beginning of looking philosophy, right? Mm-hmm. That's your philosophy is the middle, and wisdom, or first philosophy, is the end. So he doesn't deny the fact that there is a lack of regional justice there, right? Mm-hmm. But there's also a, what, disordered disposition in the parts of the soul, right? Mm-hmm. And it should be said, huh? An actual sin is a, what, disorder of an act, right? Mm-hmm. Original, however, since it is a sin of nature, right? Yeah. It's a, what, disordered disposition of the nature itself. Mm-hmm. Which has the notion of guilt insofar as it's derived from the first parenting, where it was voluntary, right? Mm-hmm. The act. Mm-hmm. But this disordered disposition of nature has a notion of, what? An aspect of a habit. Mm-hmm. But the disordered disposition in an act does not have the, what? Notion of a habit. Notion of a habit, huh? In account of this, original sin is able to be a habit, but not, what? An actual sin. Yeah. So the word sin here is said in these two is not, what, indivocal, right? Exactly. The same meaning, right? Mm-hmm. He's saying now that actual sin, right, is a disordered act, right? But original sin is a disordered, what? Nature. Disposition. Disposition of the nature itself. No. He doesn't explain what he means when he says it's a sin of nature. Yeah, I mean... Except that it's a dis... Well, it doesn't mean that nature itself is responsible for that, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's a disordered disposition of nature, right? Of the nature itself, yeah. So it's called, therefore, the commentator, because that's a subject, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a disordered disposition now in one's nature. Yeah. So that's why Adam and Eve, I guess, are covering themselves, right? You know, who told you you didn't have any clothes, right? You see? But then they realized that their passions were not being a reason anymore, right? Mm-hmm. Because their nature, I guess, has images to correspond with the original, right? And that's what they, in some way, officiated. They had original justice, yeah. Yeah. And they were created, yeah. And that was to be passed on, you know, to their offspring, right? Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so he ends at the end of the second objection, and therefore original sin can be a habit, but actual sin cannot be a habit. I may proceed from a habit, but the act itself is not a habit. Now the third objection, and this goes back to ignorance of the distinction of the two meanings he gives of habit in the beginning of the body of the article. He says that objection goes forward about habit by which a power is inclined to its act. But such a habit is not what original sin is, although also from original sin there follows some inclination, right, to a disordered act, not directly, but indirectly, to it by the removal of what would what? Prohibit. Prevent this sin. Prevent it, yeah. So that's an accidental cause, right? Mm-hmm. That is of what? Original justice, right, huh? Which would prevent this. Which prohibits or prevents disordered what? Motions. Motions. So there weren't any disordered emotions in God, in Christ rather, I mean, because he what? Didn't have original sin, right? Right. I think it's not in Mary either. It's all in Thomas. Some of those insects. Just as from, what, bodily sickness indirectly follows an inclination to what? Disordered bodily, what? Motions. But that actually, that has a purpose. I think that's not a bad, although it's not, it's not normal for us to do that. Nor ought it to be said that original sin is an infused outcome, or acquired by the act, except in the first parent, huh? But not in this person, right? Right. But something born to a, what? Initiate the beginning, I guess you'd say. So you can no longer pass this on, the original justice, right, to their offspring. They're going to have good talking to you, they're going to have a... Yeah, it's going to be a long day, a judgment day. Or Adam and Eve, yeah. They've got a lot to answer, bro. Every single child that ever came into the world, they've got to talk to him about it. I was reading an article there on the, the word of the sisters of life, you know? Mm-hmm. And of course, you know, they deal with young girls who are, you know, maybe in high school or something like that, who got pregnant, right? And they were scared stiff, you know, to tell their parents and so on, right? So this is what the sister says. Now, why don't you come to the conference, right, huh? We'll invite your parents, and we'll both tell them. Oh, good. And so, as they did, you know, and the father, you know, said, well, I will be the father then of this child, you know? You know, like, you know, take him on as if his own child, right? And so, how do we need the girl, you know, and so on. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of different to see how often a good word this is, you know? Yeah, yeah. It's really, really, very impressive. Yeah. The kind of work they do, it's such a difficult work, you know? Yeah. Yeah, it is. I mean, you know, in rural, in high school, but even in college, too. I mean, there's tremendous pressure to get an abortion and not to go on to the normal life. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it's really, really. Yeah. Absolutely. the second article. The second one proceeds thus, it seems that in one man there are many original sins. That sounds pretty bad. I think one wasn't bad enough. Yeah, really. For it is said in Psalm 50, behold, I was conceived in what? Iniquities. That's in the plural. And my mother conceived me in what? Yeah. Wow. I don't say that to your mother now because it's not a really major typo. But it's not a major typo. What is it? It says Psalm 1. Oops. And it says it in both of them. Are you sure it's not Psalm L, like a lowercase l? Oh, this one is, yeah, but the English. Psalm N is L means 50, Roman numeral 50. You're right. That's lowercase. That's much better. But the sin in which man is conceived is the original sin. Therefore, there are many original sins in one man. Boy, I thought it was bad. This is worse. Or one in the same habit does not incline one to contrary things. For a habit inclines by way of nature, right? It's like a second nature, he said, right? Which tends towards one thing, not towards contrary things. But original sin, even one man inclines to diverse sins and contrary sins. Like despair and presumption. Yeah. Therefore, original sin is not one habit, but many. I'm convinced, aren't you? Wow. Please take this time to convince you of the opposite of what he thinks. Why does he do that? I can get you mixed up, that's why. Okay. Purpose of the teacher to confuse things. Moreover, original sin infects all of the parts of the soul. But diverse parts of the soul are diverse subjects of what? Sin. Sin. It is clear from the foregoing things. Since therefore one sin cannot be a diverse subject, it seems, that original sin is not one, but many. This is pretty convincing, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Just snap, snap off like, like, uh... Sends it to the Pope, see what he has to say. I don't care if you're supposed to have done it, I don't know. Yeah. That's what you were saying before. But again, this is what is said in John, chapter 1, verse 29. Behold the Lamb of God, behold the one who takes away the kakumundi. The sin. Singular. That's the, in the singular, right? Right. It's a good little bit of grammar, right? It's singular, right? Yep. The kakumundi, right? Right. Which is said singularity, right? Singularity. Because the kakumundi, the sin of the world, that is original sin, is what? One. One. Hmm. As a gloss, there, expounds, huh? Thomas is going to do in the face of these injections, I don't know. I think he's... I think he'll probably figure it out. I was thinking of the likeness between Thomas and Houdini, right? Houdini allowed himself to be tied in the kinds of knots. Yeah. And somehow he got three of these knots, you know? You know, I used that expression, right, in the third book of wisdom, right? It's like having your legs tied together, right? You know, you can't go forward, right? So, untying the knot, right? Mm-hmm. We use that in the plot of a play, too, right? Which tells us there's a plot that have tying to the knot and untying to the knot, right? Mm-hmm. And we say, even in sports, this game is all tied up, you know? Mm-hmm. Until he gets up and knocks it out of the ballpark. This game is untied, right? It's no longer tied up, you know? Yeah. Well, I think Thomas is... He's going to be drowned. He's got a trick up his sleeve here, I think. Something's got... Hence, it should be said that in one man, there is one original sin, right? But in one man, right? Mm-hmm. So maybe there's two original sins, one in you and one in me, right? Okay? But in one man, there's only one he's saying. Mm-hmm. That's his opinion now, right? That's his reason to say. The reason for which can be taken in what? Two ways. Two ways, huh? In one way, on the part of the cause of original sin, huh? For it's been said above that only, what? The first sin of the first parent was carried over to their posterity. Mm-hmm. Not all their, what? Actual sins that have been committed after that. Mm-hmm. Whence original sin in one man is one in number, and in all men it is one by proportion. Mm-hmm. With respect to the first, what? Beginning. Beginning, which I guess is Adam. Mm-hmm. In another way, one can take the reason for this from the very essence of, what? Original sin. For in every disordered, what? Disposition. Disposition. The unity of the species is considered on the side of the, what? Cause. The unity, according to number, on the side of the, what? Subject. Just as in bodily sickness, there are diverse sicknesses in kind or in species which proceed from diverse, what? Cause. As for example, from the superabundance of the hot or the cold, huh? Mm-hmm. Like my tires have been, certainly. Mm-hmm. You wonder whether they got tracks, huh, because of the coldness, huh? Mm-hmm. Why would it happen at this time, you know, that the, to register, you know, that the tires are low? Mm-hmm. First one tire, then today, two other tires, right? Mm-hmm. So that's one cause, the superabundance of, of the hot. Or it might be the superabundance of the cold. Mm-hmm. Or from the injury of the, what? Of the lungs? Lungs, yeah. Or of the liver, right? The liver, I guess, yeah. Hepatitis, I guess, is what? Come from, I guess it comes from the liver, right? Yes. Hepatitis is from the liver? Oh, yes. Yes. It's a disease in the liver, huh? But one sickness in kind or in species in one man is not except in one, what? One in number, right? One in number, right? Now, the cause of this corrupt disposition, which is called original sin, is one thing only. Mm-hmm. Namely, the lack of original justice. Mm-hmm. To which is taken away the subjection of the human mind to, what? To God. And therefore, original sin is one in species. And therefore, in one man, it cannot be except one in number. But in diverse men, it is one in kind, in proportion, but diverse in number, right? Mm-hmm. So I can't multiply original sin in my stuff, but I can, my offspring. Mm-hmm. I told you this one guy I used to work with, he saw me in church there with the grandchildren, and he said, are you responsible for this? Mm-hmm. Because they're all behaving, you know? Yes, yes, yes. So original sin is not noticeable in their behavior. Mm-hmm. Give them time. Mm-hmm. Now, what about this first objection from Psalm 50, right? Yeah. And the correct number, of course. Mm-hmm. He's the one that, uh, saying, that we said, that was very fond of the same, right? And so Augustine takes that as being representative of, a characteristic of the first, like, 50 psalms, right? That they're concerned with. Repentance. Yeah. Purification. Yeah. That's beginning spiritual life, right? To stop sinning, right? Right. Right. Then the second 50 is for what? To progress in the virtues, right? And the third, to rest in God, right? The son says to me, on Sunday, we just rest in God. There you go. That's pretty good, you know? That's kind of the reward of the week or something, you know? the rest of God on Sunday to the first thereof it should be said that plurality is said in peccatis according to the custom of divine what? scripture which frequently lays down the plural number for singular I heard something like that about the name for God there Elohim yeah it's plural yeah yeah it's plural but it's not yeah let's see what he says I'll mention something just as in Matthew 2 it says they are dead right who sought the soul of the what boy but it was just one guy just Herod Herod yeah Shakespeare's got this out here or the second reason why he could say this right that's one explanation he gives right in terms of the the peculiarity in the Hebrew language maybe yeah or because in original sin in a what power you might say virtually right pre-exists all actual sins right just as in a certain what beginning right when sin is multiple and it's what power right just like a great principle which is the beginning of many conclusions right now that's the second explanation he gives right or this is the third he says because in the sin of the first parent which is what passed on to origin there were many what deformities of pride you'll be like the gods that are good and evil disobedience the command of God right they were told not to eat that gule right or because many parts of the soul are infected the original what sin this could be it's maybe under the sense of it being manifold power I know we even use it in English sometimes we refer to something that's usually either great in power or even in extension size we use the plural we speak of the waters of the ocean well there's not more than one water there why do we say plural but the skies or whatever the heavens why do we say that it's not they do that in Hebrew and I don't know about other languages but like the word for life because it's so it's such a great thing in its power that in we always use it and I think in Hebrew like you say the toast for the Jewish the hayim is in the plural we just translate it as to life but actually it's in the plural in Hebrew I think when you toast somebody in Hebrew you say the hayim which means to life but it's actually a plural and and I think it has to do with this sense of it being a great power or something that could be another way of expressing it to second it this is the one about you know people the original sin they go dealing contrary things right to second it should be said that one habit is not able to incline per se to itself and directly that is to its own but form to contraries right but indirectly and by accident that is by the removal of what prohibits nothing is prohibited by this just as when the harmony of the mixed body is dissolved the elements tend to contrary places yeah that's like it one goes to one part one goes to that part and likewise the harmony of original justice being what dissolved the diverse powers the soul now are carried into different places to third it should be said then that original sin infects diverse parts of the soul according as they are parts of what one whole just as original justice contains all parts of the soul in one right and therefore there is only one what original sin original sin just as there is one fever in one man although diverse parts of the body are being what weighed down which is our question original sin It's concupiscence. The third one goes forward thus. It seems that original sin is not what? Concupiscence. Yeah. For every sin is against what? Nature. Nature. As Damascene says in the second book. Go to the docks. Eight things. That's kind of summa for Thomas, right? What a summa. But concupiscence is according to nature. It is the act proper to the concubisable power, which is a natural power. Therefore concubiscence is not an original sin. It's a desire for candy. It's not wrong. A kid doesn't want candy. That's what I said. I can't argue with that one. The priest in my mother's hometown there used to have a bag of candy there, you know, and we'd go visit the priest. The guise of piety. Good morning, Father. That's what I used to do with Sister Mary Alphonsus. She was our English teacher. She always promised that if at recess you used one of your new vocabulary words in front of her, she would give you a piece of candy. So I made sure I used as many reposal characters as I could. My, my famous one goes, My, aren't the girls loquacious today? Moreover, through original sin, there are in us the passions of what? Sins. Sins. This is clearly through the Apostle. It means St. Paul. Romans chapter 7, right? But there are many other passions besides concubisence. That's true. Anger and so on. Therefore, original sin is not more concubisence than some other passion. Moreover, through original sin are disordered all the parts of the soul, as has been said. But the understanding is the highest among the parts of the soul, as is clear through the Philosopher in the Tenth Book of the Elyphics. Therefore, original sin is more, what, ignorance than concubisence, huh? Well, that's a first. I haven't heard that one before. Yeah, that's another argument, huh? Yeah. But again, this is what Augustus says. Who is this Augustus? He's always quoted. In his book of retraction, son, that concubisence is the, what? Original sin. There's guilt of original sin. Guilt of original sin, yeah. It's a tough one. I answer it should be said that each thing has its species from its, what, form. Now, it has been said above that the species' original sin is taken from its, what, cause. Whence is necessary that that which is formal, as opposed to material, an original sin, is taken on the site of the cause of, what, original sin. But if opposites, opposite are the, what, causes, huh? So, the pedicies is love and hate, right? One cause things to come together, and the other one separates them, right? So, I should tell the students that hate is more intellectual than love, because it distinguishes. It's more reasonable, yeah. It separates things, huh? Well, up, therefore, to, what? Note. Note, the cause of original sin, from the cause of, what, original justice, which is opposed to it, huh? I told you how this rule here, I was using that when I started to study comedy, right, huh? I said, well, this is the contrary, right, of tragedy, therefore, that, you know, the contrary of actions, right? But the whole ordering of original, what, justice, is from this, that the will of man was subject to, what? God. Which subjection, first and chiefly, was through the will, to whom it belongs to move all the other parts towards their, what? End. Hence, from the turning of the will away from God, there follows a disorder in all the other powers of the soul. Thus, therefore, the lack of original justice, by which the will was subject to God, is what is formal, the original sin. But every other disorder of the powers of the soul has itself, an original sin, as something what? Material. Mm-hmm. Now, the disorder of the other powers of the soul is especially to be noted in this, that they are turned towards, in a disordered way, to a... What, created good, I guess you could say. Yeah, a changeable good, right? Changeable. Which disorder, by its common name, can be called, what? Concupiscentia. Concupiscentia. And thus, original sin, materially speaking, is concupiscence, formally, the defect of, what? Original justice. Original justice. Now, that's a mouthful, right? Mm-hmm. I find it very, very helpful. I come back to it again and again, this sense of, every sin is the twofold thing, is turning away from God, and turning towards the creatures, yeah. Mm-hmm. Which she says earlier, we tell her. So, the punishment for turning away from God is to miss out on God, right? But then, you've got to be punished for turning towards the things, and then you've got the fire, or something. Yeah, yeah. Now, what about this first objection that says concupiscence is what? When in Canada, it's natural. The first, therefore, it should be said that because in man, the concupiscence is naturally what? Covered by reason. Covered by reason, or ruled by reason. Insofar as to desire is natural to man, insofar as it is according to the order of what reason. But the concupiscence, which goes beyond the limits of reason, is to man against what? Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature. Nature.