Prima Secundae
Lecture 262: Division of Ceremonial Precepts and Their Causes

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

The third one proceeds thus. It seems there ought not to be many ceremonial precepts. For those things which are towards the end, or for the end, ought to be proportioned to the end. That's like a relative distinction, isn't it? To the end, ad venum, right? I think that's a key word. But the ceremonial precepts, as has been said, are ordered to the worship of God and in the figure of what? Christ. But there is one God from whom are all, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom, as is said in 1 Corinthians, therefore the ceremonial ought not to be multiplied. Moreover, the multitude of ceremonial precepts is the occasion of transgression. According to that which Peter himself says in Acts 15, why do you tempt God? He tried to impose a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. But the transgression of divine precepts is contrary to human salvation. Therefore, since every law ought to be suitable to the salvation of men, as Isidore says, it seems that there ought not to be many ceremonial precepts given. So that's a powerful argument. Moreover, the ceremonial precepts pertain to the exterior worship of God and the bodily one, as has been said. But this worship, body worship, ought to diminish, because it orders to Christ, who teaches men to worship God in spirit and truth. Therefore, there ought not to be many ceremonial precepts given. It's a very Protestant, in a way, of both the second and third article they touch upon, where Christendom was around greatly by that sort of angelism, and this understanding of human nature as being a body and soul as a unit, sort of breaking it apart in a car to the really further process. Against this is what is said in O.C. chapter 8. I will write for them many laws within them, right? In Job 11, that he might show them the secrets of his wisdom. Multiple is his what? Law. Answer, it should be said that it has been said above. Every law is given to some what? People. But in the people, two kinds of men are contained. Some are prone to evil, who should be, what, coerced by the pieces of the law, and some have an inclination to the good, either by nature or by what custom, or more even by grace. And such ought to be, what, through the pieces of the law, instructed and what promoted to what is better, right? Now, as regards both generative men, it is expedient, huh? That the ceremonial precepts in the old law be, what, multiplied, huh? Because there were in those, in that people, some who were prone to idolatry. At least the bad people, right? I mean, the people who were cleansed and with this. And therefore it is necessary that from the worship of idolatry, they'd be called back through the ceremonial precepts to the true worship of God, right? And because in many ways men serve idolatry, it's necessary, a contrario, for many things to be instituted, to repress each one of these things, right? And again, many things to be imposed upon them. There's a word being weighed down from those things which, what, touch upon the divine worship. They would not have leisure to get involved in idolatry, huh? It's being busy. When you're up on a mountain there, they made a golden captain there or something, huh? Because he disappeared and said, well, what happened to him? But they engaged in idolatry there, right? And then he came down and broke the tablets, I guess. I don't know. But on the side of those who are prompt to good, it was necessary there also be a multiplication of the ceremonial precepts, huh? Because through this, in diverse ways, the mind of them would be referred to God, huh? And more assiduous, huh? And also because the mystery of Christ that was figured through these ceremonial things brings many, what, utilities, usefulnesses to the world. And many things should be considered about it, which is necessary to be figured through diverse, what, ceremonial, right? Okay? It seems that many of the fathers of the early centuries of the church are the pleasure in finding all these thoughts behind all these things. Yeah. I have to say it's their mind, you know? Some of the Syriac fathers had peculiar insights into some of the figures. One of them I remember, I don't remember how, it was one of them where Elisha, that ball of Saul that somehow, like Jacob of Saru, that's a figure of the blessed mother. So, I can't remember now, why? I thought, wow, I would have never figured it out. They have all these interesting figures they've taught about. Very good. The first effort should be said, huh? When that which is ordered to an end is enough or sufficient to leading one to the end, then it suffices that one thing lead to one end, huh? As one medicine, if it is efficacious, suffices sometimes to induce health, right? And that is not necessary to multiply the medicine, right? Why take three pills in the morning and three pills at night? Yeah. Unless you're HMOs as other ones. An account of the weakness and imperfection of what is towards the end is necessary for it to be, what? Multiplied. Just as many remedies are given to the infirm, right? When one does not suffice for healing. But the ceremonies of the old law are invalid, right? Imperfect. Oath to what? Christ, yeah? Which is more, what? Super excellent, right? And to subjugating the minds of men to God, right? Whence the apostle says to the Hebrews 7, the reprobation, the disproof, I suppose, of the preceding command, on account of its infirmity and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to what? Perfection. And therefore, on account of the imperfection that is necessary for these ceremonies to be, what? Multiplied. Now, what about the inability to fulfill all these, right? The second should be said that it belongs to the wise lawgiver to permit lesser, minor, transgressions that greater ones might be awarded. And therefore, that one might avoid the transgression of idolatry and of the pride which in the hearts of the Jews, right, was born if they, what? Fulfilled the precepts. Not on account of this did God, what? Omit to treat certain, what? Mini-ceremonial precepts. Because easily from this they might take the, what? So, I think, you know, so I think they see there is a skill, power, and so were thus all the precepts in order that they... Yeah, yeah. He seems to be saying, God is saying that God allows that in a sense to have, what, to avoid the greater transgressions, huh? He has these little things. To the third, it should be said that the old law in many ways diminishes, what, bodily worship. On account of this, that it establishes that not in every place sacrifices should be offered, nor by just, what, anybody. And many things of this sort it establishes for the diminution of exterior culture, as also Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian one, says, right, whoever he is. They still get this doctor perplexed down here for this, in my text, so. He's saying, I suppose, even though whoever he is affirms the contrary. Why is he called a Gypsius, yeah. Okay. Why is that he's called a Gypsius? It's necessary, nevertheless, that, what, one does not lessen, attenuate, huh, the bodily worship of God, that men would be, what, declined to the worship of demons, huh? There you go. Okay. There you go. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Amen. Help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. I guess we're up to the last article here in question 101, article 4. That's where we left off. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the ceremonies of the old law are unsuitably divided into sacrifices, sacreds, sacraments, and observances. For heaven's sake, it's a division into four. I was, I need a little bit of relief, you know, from doing moral theology, you know, and there's a quote that I give from the sapiential books in the Old Testament, that he who adds another science, adds another pain, it says. And Thomas says, well, there's the pain of learning, which is a discomfort of learning, and because that's especially about ethics, because it's kind of uncertain compared to some, so it's kind of, you know, painful to learn. But then also the pain of seeing one's own defects, right? And the defects of the world around one, right? That's kind of depressing, right? So I figured I said, I got through reading the second book of the sentences, right? Which has got a lot of stuff about morality there. So I need a little break from this. So I said, I go back and reread the compendium of theology, right? What's interesting in the compendium of theology, as it guards the substance of God's concern, he divides it really into three instead of into five. And so the unity of God is not a separate part. Like if you look at the beginning of the Summa, in the Prima Pars there, he divides the consideration of the substance of God into five parts, right? The simplicity of God, the perfection of God, which is attached to goodness, right? The infinity of God is being omnipresent, therefore, and then is being unchangeable, therefore infinite, and finally is being one. Well, in the compendium of theology, the unity of God is in the middle of the treatise on the simplicity of God. Not a separate part, right? And then he takes up the infinity of God before his perfection, but he points out that the infinity of God is tied to his perfection rather than the infinity of a straight line, right? Because the infinity of a straight line is where it's lacking an input. But God is not said to be infinite by deprivation or lack, but simply by negation, right? And you're negating any potency that's going to contract his actuality. So it pertains to perfection, right? And then he argues on that to perfection of God, right? So perfection of God and the infinity of God are together, right? And he starts with the unchangeableness of God like he does in the Summa, contra gentiles. So there you have, you know, three instead of... So the question then remains why these, what, five, right, huh? I mentioned that years ago, you know, I was going to give a talk at a convention. And I was going to compare the consideration of the substance of God in the two Summas and in the compendium, right? And I said, that's a little bit too, you know, too much. So I just do it at the two Summas, right? And I didn't think it was appropriate to say that one order is correct because incorrect, or that one is even better than the other. You know, that would be presumptuous for this dimwit to say that. But I thought I should restrict myself to showing what do you see in proceeding in one order better, right? And what in the other order better, right? And there's some reasons you can say each one brings out something, right? And so you might ask, why does Thomas, you know, divide into five, you know, and not just into three like he does in the compendium, right? Because it makes sense, huh? And he follows the rule of two or three, right? Which he seems to follow quite often, huh? And I say, well, maybe he wants to emphasize the one unity of God because he's going to have the Trinity, right? He doesn't want to have you not have it fixed in your mind, you know? Whatever is the distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it's not a distinction of three gods, right? There's only one God, right? And then he pulls out to infinity because that's going to help us to understand how God can create, right? And that's the next part there in the Prima Fars after the Trinity, right? But I have to think about that some more right now. Yeah, yeah, oh yeah, yeah. It's very, very interesting. But let me ask you this little question here. I know you've been looking before and after, right, into your direction of William Shakespeare, right? And if this is before that, right, can that be before this? What would you say? Yeah. But only in different senses, huh? Okay. So, is the human nature of Christ before the divine nature, or is the divine nature before the human nature? Yeah. Yeah. So, Peter's confession of faith in chapter 16, that Chesarea, is going from humanity to the divinity, huh? Thou art the Christ, the Son, the living God, right? And the doubting Thomas, his profession of faith, my Lord and my God, right? When Thomas comments on that and he says, my Lord, he's referring to his human nature because even as man he's our Lord and not only as God, right? And it's appropriate because he's got to be led through the senses, right, to, you know, to make his confession of faith, right? Doesn't get quite the pride, he says, better as those who, without this, right? But you're going from the human nature to the divine nature. So, which sense of before is that, from the human nature to the divine nature, huh? Of Christ. Which sense of, which one of the four central senses is it? Before knowing. Yeah. So, and that's which sense there? That's the third sense, yeah, yeah. But in what sense is the divine nature before the human nature? In being, yeah. Because it can be without, yeah, yeah. And how about, uh, and better, yeah. Doesn't he, Christ say, you know, the Father is greater than I, according to his human nature? The quasi-fifth sense. Yeah. The cause, yeah. The cause, right? Now, you can't really say in the first sense, but in a sense attached to the first sense, right? Because Christ's divine nature is not in time, right? So Christ's nature is not before his human nature in time, right? But I suppose if he asked Christ, he'd say something like he said, you know, before Abraham was, I am, right? And, uh, why does he speak that way, right? Well, because eternity is not before time in time. But you could say maybe eternity is before time in duration, right? Okay? Before there was any time, God was, right? Or God is, I should say, right? Okay? See what I mean? So that's a sense that is, uh, on the side of the first sense, but it's not the first sense, right? Okay? So you gotta be very careful, right, huh? I used to say to the students, you know, um, did, what was the reason why you passed the exam? Was the reason why you passed the exam because you studied? Or was the reason why you passed, the reason why you studied passing the exam? So that's not the best reason, I say, you know? It's a study, right? But, um, let's say that a lot of students do that, right? Okay? Okay, so, um, is studying for the exam and passing the exam, are they both ahead of each other, right? Ahead of the other in the same sense, see? So what, in case you're talking about the reason why, and therefore the cause, right? Okay? But what's the problem here? So what, in case you're talking about the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam, the exam Two different senses of cause, right? So studying is a cause of your passing the exam in the sense of the mover or maker, right? It made it possible for you to fill out the exam. But passing the exam, if that's the extent of your interest in these things, is the reason why you studied, right, to pass the exam. That was a cause in the sense of what? End or purpose, right? Now, Aristotle has an interesting thing there, right? In the ethics, he talks about how you acquire virtues by, what, repeated acts, right? And then he raises a question, how can we say it's by doing, what, courageous things that you've become courageous, huh? So are you courageous because you did courageous things? Or do you do courageous things because you're courageous? Which is it? Well, then, you know, is this before that and that before this in the same sense? Is it, you know, is it the doing of courageous acts before you have the virtue of courage, right? Is that different than the doing of courageous acts after you have courage, right? He says, you know, you do it more perfectly, right, after you have the virtue, and you do it with greater, what, stability, right, huh? See? Why beforehand, before you have acquired the virtue, there's a great struggle, right? And that you don't do this perfectly, right? And it's not the same stability that you're going to do the courageous thing before you have the virtue. For temperaments, you have temperaments that are more courageous by nature. Yeah, yeah. Temperaments which are more fearful by nature. Yeah. And so the developing habit of courage is harder for those with a fearful type of temperament. Well, what virtue? Yeah, yeah. But the natural gift that somebody might have, you know, an actual gift might come before us doing courageous acts in a different way than the habit would, right, huh? Yeah. You know, so I mean, it kind of stings those things. Yeah. I was reading the Compendium of Theology, right, and got through the part there in the Trinity, right, huh? And Thomas raised the question there, did God the Father, right, huh, generate the Son because he's the Father, right? Or is he the Father because he generated the Son? Because Father and Son are relatives, right, huh? And they're based upon the act of generation, right? And you know how in the order of the Summa and the Prima Pars there, he takes up what? He's divided into three, huh? The processions, right? And then the relations that are based upon those processions, right? And then the persons who are those relations in a sense. So there it seems that because he generated the Son, that's why he's the Father and the one who was generated is the Son, right? But then he says, yeah, but doesn't the Father generate the Son? Doesn't the person have the act of generation, right? And so doesn't he have to be that person before he can perform the act of generating the Son? That's a very difficult thing, though, right, huh? And Thomas says, well, if by Father you mean the relation as relation, right, then it's what? But after the what? Generation, right? Because he's, he generated the Son, right, huh? Then he has this relation to the Son of Father, right, huh? See? But if by Father you mean the subsisting person, right, huh? Then it's before, right? The act of generation, right? And because he has the ability to generate, right, then he can generate, right, huh? That's a very subtle thing, right? But he says in the case of the Son, in both cases, it's after, right? Because he naturally, the generation of the Son is before the Son, right? And before him being the Son, right? Well, that's very, very subtle, right, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, there's a before and after in our knowledge of the Trinity, right, huh? And so we can consider fatherhood as simply as a relation, right? Or it can consider it as being the same thing as a father and the same as this person and constituting this person, right, huh? And the person has to be constituted before he can, you know, generate somebody, right? See? But as a relation, he's, it's a result. That's what we understand, right? And that's very, very, very subtle. And this is the compendial theology, too, right? Brother Reginald, right, is walking around with this. Yeah, this is the catechism for the brothers. So, now, first objection. The ceremonies of the old law figure, what, Christ, huh? Signify Christ in some way. But this comes about only through sacrifices, through which is figured the sacrifice by which Christ offers himself as a, what, oblation and a host to God. As is said in the epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 5. Therefore, only the sacrifices are ceremonial. Moreover, the old law is ordered to the new one. But in the old law, the what? By the new law, rather, the sacrifice itself is the sacrament of the, what, altar. Thomas' work is called the Venerabile Sacrament of Altar. Therefore, in the old law, we're not, not to distinguish between sacraments and sacrifices. This guy can really confuse an issue, can't he, huh? Here's me. Yeah, right, teacher, because that's the business of the teacher to confuse the issue. So we dimmits don't think we understand as much as we think we understand, huh? Moreover, the sacred is called, what is what? Dedicated to God, right, huh? According to which mode? The tabernacle and the vases, huh? Dishes are, what? To be made sacred. But all ceremonial ordered to the cult of God, as has been said. Therefore, all the ceremonial things are, what? Sacred, huh? Therefore, one part of the ceremonies ought not to be called sacred, huh? Or sacra, sacred things, holy things, huh? Moreover, observances are said from observing, huh? But all the precepts of the law ought to be observed. For it is said in Deuteronomy 8, 11, Observe and beware, lest you forget, dear Lord, the Lord your God, right? And that you neglect his commands and his judgments and his ceremonies. Therefore, these observances ought not to be laid down as one part of the ceremonials. Moreover, the solemnities among the ceremonial are numbered, since they are in the shadow of the future, right? As is clear in the epistle to the Colossians. But likewise, the offerings and the gifts, huh? As is clear through the apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 9. Which, nevertheless, don't seem to be contained underneath these four. Therefore, unsuitably, the foregoing distinction of the ceremonials. Thomas, why did he do this to me, Thomas? I told you about this guy, my friend of my brother, you know, self-teaching philosophy, you know. He's describing the way the students, you know, look up at you, you know, and say, Why are you doing this to me? He adds another science, adds another pain. Why are you doing this to me? But against this is what, that in the, what, old law, each of these... of the foregoing, are called what? Ceremonia. How do they translate ceremonia there? Because in English we say ceremonies, but that's it. Ceremonia is the way to translate it. Yeah, yeah. There's no way to do it. For sacrifices are called ceremonia in Numbers, the book of Numbers, right? 15th chapter. To offer the vitulum, right? And its sacrifices and the what? Pouring out? As his what? Ceremonies, right? Demand, right? Okay. Was it in the compendium of theology there Thomas mentioned something, you know? No, it wasn't there. No, excuse me. It was in the sentences. And he's talking about whether the spark or reason can be, what? Extinguished, huh? And this is referring to the natural, what? Law and so on, huh? And Thomas is saying, well, it can be obscured, but it can't be really extinguished, right? And then he mentions something from one of the Church Fathers, I guess it is, where he speaks, you know, of this and then the irascible and the concubal appetite under the likeness of certain animals, right? And so he speaks of the spark there as being the eagle, right? Because I guess people say the eagle flies above all, what? All the other, even birds, right? So, I mean, the eagle, the spark there, you know, the natural spark, is above everything else, right? Okay. And then the vitulum here, which is mentioned here, that's what he's writing, the vitulum, that represents the, what? Concubal appetite, right? And that's the bull calf or something, you know. And guess what animal represents the irascible? No, no. He says the lion. The lion. The lion. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of interesting how, you know, how we speak of the lion as being the king of the forest, right? And Thomas says, you know, that the irascible shares in reason more than the, what? Concubisable, right? Because irascible, you know, you're doing this for that. I'm not going to get even with you, right? That's why I'm doing this. And there's kind of a connection there with reason, right? Even though you hear his reason imperfectly, right? Why the concubisable, you know, you sit there with your candy, you know, or your pop or whatever it is, and you don't even think about it, you just put it in your mouth, right? You know? So I didn't have much connection with the reason, right? So it's kind of interesting, huh? You know, like, I was mentioning how Mozart's last symphonies, right? The last five symphonies. Well, the first and the fifth of them, right? The two extremes are both in C major, right? And they both represent magnanimity, which is the virtue in the irascible, right? And then the 40th and 38th both represent, what? Fortitude, which is again in the irascible, right? Okay? So it's dominated by irascible, because Mozart is putting the finishing touches on his 40 or so symphonies, right? And you know, in the Jupiter symphony, the fact that the English critic called the name the Jupiter, right? That's not the concubisable. That's the, like the lion, right, huh? You know? Okay. Now, about the sacrament of order, it is said on Levite 7, this anointing of Aaron and his sons in the, what? Ceremonias, huh? Okay? This is a text from authority, right? From the fact that these are all called ceremonia. And about the sacred things, it is said in Exodus 38. These are the tools of the tabernacle, the testimony, and the ceremonies of the Levites, right? And the observance is, if you are averse not following me, nor what? Observing the ceremonies which I propose to you, right? Okay? So there's texts like this, I guess, in Scripture. Maybe there are others besides these, but he gives these ones. So this is kind of coming from Scripture, right, huh? Distinction of these four being observance, being ceremonies. And what's Thomas going to do with a distinction of four? That's just terrible. You've got to distinguish into two or three, don't you? So one way of getting four is to distinguish into what? One and three. Three, see? Like when Thomas divides order in comparison to reason, right? He divides it into four, right? There's the order which reason does not make but considers, like the natural order. There's the order which reason makes in its own acts. There's the order which reason makes in the acts of the will. And the order which reason makes in exterior matter, like in this table. And so natural philosophy is about that first order, he says. Logic is about the second order. Ethics and other parts of practical philosophy about the third order. And the mechanical arts, right? Like the art of cooking, the art of carpentry, and so on. You're concerned with the last kind of order, right? Although he divides it into four if you stop and think. The first order could be, what? Distinguished from the last three. Because the first is an order not made by reason, right? The last three are orders made by reason in its own acts or in the acts of the will which are very close to it, or they're in exterior matter, right? But here he's going to divide it into what? Two, not one and three, but two and what? Two, yeah. Let this guy get away with it. Division. Four, you know. We can avoid that, huh? Now, what about the four cardinal virtues, right? So how would you divide those? Into four originating? We might do that, you know, for brevity's sake, right? Yeah, you kind of divide prudence which is in reason and the other ones which are in the appetite, right? Yeah. Okay. But here it's two and two, right? That's a horrible two according to the rule of two or three, yeah? My answer should be said, this has been said, the ceremonial precepts are ordered to the worship of God in which worship can be considered both, what? The worship itself and those, what? Yeah. And the tools of worshipping, right, huh? Now, the worship especially consists in the sacrifices, right? Which are offered in reverence of, what? God, huh? The instruments of worshipping pertain to the, what? Sacra. He's following the order in which these things are enumerated, right? Just as the tabernacle and the vases and other things of this sort, right? Now, the other two are on the part of those, what? Worshipping, huh? Two things can be considered. One is there being, what? Instituted for a divine cult which comes about through a certain consecration either the people or the ministers themselves, huh? And to this pertains the, what? Sacraments, huh? That's very close to us, right? You might say, you know, you go to Mass and the priest has been, what? Consecrated for this and the people are baptized, right? They're going to receive communion. They have a sacrament too, right? So you get the people sometimes too, right? And then there are, what? Individual, what? Way of behaving, right? Conversatio. It doesn't mean it's conversation, but way of life. By which they are distinguished from those who do not, what? Worship God, right? And to this pertain observances as like in food and vestments and others of this sort, right? So that makes sense, doesn't it? Okay. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that sacrifices ought to be offered both in some places and through some men, right? And the whole of this pertains to the worship of God. Whence just as through sacrifices signified Christ, what? Offered upright. So through the sacraments and the sacred things of those are figured the, what? Sacraments and the sacred things of the new law. And through their observances is, what? Figured the way of behaving of the people of the, what? New law. Which, all which pertain to, what? Christ. Now, to the second, it should be said that the sacrifice, the new law, that is the, what? Eucharist. Now, sometimes they explain that word as meaning with thanksgiving, right? Because Christ gives. But sometimes Thomas takes it as being... You're welcome. You're welcome. Eucharist, good grace, the plenitude of grace, like he says in the little prayer. The Eucharist is said to contain the one who is the very source of grace, right? So he says the sacrifice of the new law, that is the Eucharist, contains Christ himself. So it's kind of the end of all the sacraments. Who is the author of sanctification? He sanctified the people through his own, what, blood, as is said in the Epistle of the Hebrews. And therefore the sacrifice also is a, what? Sacrament, huh? But the sacrifices of the old law do not contain Christ. But they figured him, yeah. And therefore they are not called, what? Yeah. But for designating them apart, there were certain sacraments in the old law, which were figures of the future, what? Yeah. Behold the Lamb of God, right? Was he a lamb or what? Although to some consecrations certain sacrifices are joined. Now to the third objection. Aren't all these things sacred and holy? Well, that's what he says. To the third it should be said that also sacrifice and sacraments are sacred. But some things that are sacred, yeah. But nevertheless were not sacrifices, nor what? Sacraments. And therefore they retain the common name of, what? Sacred, huh? We've met that way of speaking before, haven't we, right? Maybe right in the first book of logic, right? Aristotle sometimes distinguishes disposition against habit, right? Another time he divides habit. He says habit is a disposition. Well, how can he have it both ways, huh? A habit is like a firm disposition, right? So it has something special that not every disposition has, right? I used to talk, you know, I used to talk about somebody's mood, right? And sometimes you tell a joke or something and somebody's mood changes, right? Or either you see these things, you know, for people stopping at a drink on the way back from work, you know, and it's a mood changer, right? That's what it's called. But it's something easily changed, right? So somebody comes in and then they change, you know. But a habit is something, you know, you can't just, you know. Just go buy a bar at home. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a mood changer. If you just do that thing, you know, one swallow does not make a sumber, you know. That's kind of, you know. Put Aristotle. Yeah. So the one that has nothing special beyond the meaning of disposition, right, keeps the common name, and then the other one gets a, what? New name, right, huh? Okay. And I used to always say, you know, how my mother didn't like him when I said man is an animal. Yeah, I mean, you know, you can use animals in those two senses, right? So he's not just an animal. So he has reason. He said, well, that's better, Dwight. Her mother never went to college, but she didn't like me saying that man is an animal. I always joke about that, you know. You don't have to treat the girl like a thing, you know. Treat her like nothing then, huh? Not treat her as a thing, you got to treat her as nothing, right? To the fourth, it should be said. I see this example in class. I'd say, yeah. If the biologist says you're an animal, that's maybe not insulting you, right? But if your girlfriend says you're an animal, that's insulting you. To the fourth, it should be said that those things which pertain to the lifestyle, let's say, we say it nowadays, of the people worshiping God retain for themselves the common name of what? What? Observances. So he's solving that in a similar way, right? Insofar as they, what? Fail from the foregoing. They do not, they're not called sacra or holy because they do not have an immediate respect to the worship of God, right? As the tabernacle and the vases do, right? But to certain, what? To certain consequence, they were ceremonial insofar as they pertain to a certain suitability of the people worshiping God, huh? Yes, this observation used to be, when I was young, you used to have to fast from, what, midnight, right, huh? Now you fast an hour, you know, but that's kind of a, what? Is that a sacred thing? Or is there something, you know, for the, to be a suitable people, you know, just going in there eating, you know, down on Amber and then go and see a communion? That's kind of irreverent, right? You have to be well-disposed towards these things, right? Some people like to wait some time to go after Mass, too, before they eat something, you know? Because I can't really do that all the time, but, I mean, it makes sense, you know, kind of out of the same proper disposition, right? So they keep the common name of observances now. So he solves third and fourth in a similar manner, right, huh? Okay. To the fifth, it should be said that just as sacrifices are offered in a determined place, so also they are offered at determined times, huh? Whence also the solemnities are, what? To be numbered among things that are, what? Sacred. But oblations and gifts are, what? To be numbered with sacrifices because they are offered to God. Whence the apostle says every, what, priest, huh? is taken from men and is constituted for men and those things which are to God, then he offered donah, which means what? Gifts, right? And sacrifices, right? It's the kind of other words they're used talking about these things because they're offered to God, he says. Okay, we'll let Thomas off then on this one, shall we? Okay, now we...