Tertia Pars
Lecture 23: The Order of Assumption in the Incarnation

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

Now, what is this next article? It's a strange one. This is the reverse, huh? Was the flesh united to what? The word before the soul was what? United, huh? To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that the flesh of Christ was first assumed by the word, then it was united to the what? Soul. For Augustine says in the book on faith to Peter, hold most firmly, right? And in no way doubt. That's pretty strong. How does your translation work? That's a lot of funny. The English translation? I'm sorry, I was most firmly hold and no wise doubt that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin without the Godhead before it was assumed by the word. Yeah. It seems like it's being assumed there, right? In the flesh. But the flesh of Christ would seem to have been first conceived and united to the rational soul because the material disposition is before in the way of generation than the, what? Form that completes, huh? Therefore, before was the flesh of Christ assumed and it was united to the, what? Soul. So in Aristotle's way of looking at it the body is first of all kind of like a plant, right? It has like a plant soul but not a permanent plant soul, right? On the way. And then an animal soul, right? And finally he sees the rational soul, right? So if this is before in the order of generation why wouldn't flesh be assumed, right? Moreover, just as a soul is a part of human nature so the body. But the human soul does not have another beginning of its being in Christ than other men as is clear, as you saw in the previous article from the authority of the old Papa, huh? Therefore it seems that neither would the body of Christ have a, what? Another, or a different way a beginning of being than in us. But in us, flesh is conceived before the rational soul comes, huh? Therefore also it was in Christ and thus flesh was, what? Assumed by the word before it's united to the soul. So a lot of times this goes back to the definition of soul which Aristotle works out in the second book of the, about the soul. But the soul is the first act of a natural body composed of tools. So if the body doesn't have this distinction of organs and tools then it would have this form that we call the soul, right? And so, you know, in the body let's say there's a fertilized egg or something, this sort of seed what you first see is, what? Cell division and growth something that we have in common with the plant, right, huh? And then later on you see, what? Sensation, right? And then later on, right? So, we just argued in the previous one, right? From your papa, I guess, or somebody. That it wouldn't be different, right? As far as the origin of his soul so why should the origin of his body be different, right? More, as is said in the book The first cause flows more into the cause and is more, and is united to it before the second cause. But the soul of Christ is compared to the word as a, what? Second cause to the first. Therefore, the word is united to the flesh before the soul. That's a difficult proposition in the book of Causes, huh? But we'll see what Tom says about that. But again, this is what Damascene says in the third book, huh? That semo, right? The flesh of the word of God at the same time the flesh, what? Animated. Rational, intellectual, right? He didn't have an animal soul there and a plant soul or something. Therefore, the union of the word to the flesh did not precede the union to, what? The soul, right? At times, I guess I'll go back maybe to the arguments that is flesh really worthy or suitable to be assumed without having the soul, right? I answer it should be said that human flesh is able to be assumed by the word by the order which it has to the rational soul as to its own form. But this order it does not have before the rational soul comes to it. Because at once or at the same time when some matter becomes what? The proper matter for some form it receives that form. Whence in the same instant alteration which is disposing the body to receive the new form, right? Is ended in which is brought in the substantial form. And hence it is that flesh ought not to be assumed before it was what? Human flesh, huh? Which it is made when the rational soul comes. Just therefore as the soul is not assumed before the flesh, right? Because it would be against nature to the soul that it be before it be united to the body. That's what it is. Actually this is the form of the body. So the flesh ought not to be assumed before the soul because it is not really what? Human flesh before it has a rational soul. Are you convinced of that? All of you is I'm trying to sort of pieces I've heard about the souls of Thomas Aquinas and these are the abortion and when the soul you know the soul this is like animation I've heard that term. And I'm not sure what Thomas says elsewhere but my impression is that he wasn't sure when you know that he thought He didn't think that humans that the rational soul was there At conception. Yeah, at the very moment at conception, yeah. And that goes back to the definition of what the soul is, right? It's a substantial form of a body composed of what? Tools, right? Yeah. Organs. So if you don't have the organs there, right? Then you wouldn't have the form of that kind of body. And so for Thomas following Aristotle, right? There's a series of generations, right? And it's like you're a plant before you're an animal and before you're a what? A man, right? Okay. In that case that doesn't say exactly when the change takes place, right? Okay. But you know, I mean when you work your way back from let's say you talk about the evil abortion, right? See? You could give an argument against abortion even before the rational soul was there. Even though you might say it would be unless you sin but it's a great sin, right? Okay. And Thomas, you know, when he takes up the moral question of let's say masturbation, right? That's a very serious sin, right? But that's less sin than murder. Right? Okay. so the closer you are to an actual human being the more what? Enyus or more evil is the sin, right? Yeah. But it doesn't mean that the sin begins only when it's actually human being. Right. So otherwise masturbation would not be wrong, right? And the fertilized egg and whatever Stipson may go through before it becomes a man, if that's true, would be even closer, right, to an actual man than the seed and masturbation, right? Right. Right. Right. But either if that's wrong, then it's what it's already being. Right, right? Okay? In a similar way, another example, reasoning the same way about, say, a moral doubt, you'd say, well, because this is even closer to something, as you know, it's a man, and that would be if you're out hunting, and you know you're out with your buddy hunting deer. You know he's over there somewhere, you see something move in the bush, but you're not sure if it's a deer or your buddy. Did you shoot at it? No. Well, you know your buddy's out hunting, and you're not really sure if that's him. But you still commit a sin, even if it wasn't your buddy. You still commit a sin. You were willing to kill somebody. So the same way here, I think that's it that one of the priests, he argues for, even if it was true, it isn't really human life yet. But the fact is, if there's a moral doubt, you still have no right to act. You never act with a doubtful conscience in that case. That's right. Amen. Okay, now, in regard to your first objection there, he says. I think sometimes, you know, aren't there some of these, of the poor life people who might argue from Christ to us, right? What takes place in our conception, you know? I think I'd be careful about that, right? Because look at what Thomas says in regard to the first objection. To the first, therefore, it should be said that human flesh gets its being through the soul, right? And therefore, before the coming of the soul, is not human flesh. But there's able to be a disposition for human flesh, right? But now, in the conception, nevertheless, of Christ, right? The Holy Spirit, who is an agent of what? Infinite power, which your daddy was not. Simo, right? At the same time, right? Together. Together. Both disposes the matter and brings it to what? Right. Yeah. But maybe your daddy couldn't do that, you see? See? So you've got to be kind of careful if you want to argue and say that there's a rational soul in the fertilized egg. See? That may be not be certain, right? Even though in Christ there was always, what? The two together, right? But the agens infinite virtutis here, right? Is not your father, but the Holy Spirit, right? You see what I mean? Yes. You've got to be careful, you know, of reasoning, you know, of saying that we know by faith that the rational soul is there from the beginning because this is so in Christ. Well, maybe there's a difference there between us and Christ, right? Sure. Okay? Because his daddy, not his daddy. No, I didn't. Yeah. I've just been reading all this, it's generated the genealogy of Matthew's gospel, all these mistakes. Yeah. Okay, now the second objection is directly saying, well, he's got to be the same as us, right? In every respect. To the second it should be said that the form and act gives the species of a specific nature. The matter, however, as far as itself is concerned, is in ability, right? In potency to the species. And therefore, it would be against the notion of the form that it, what? Pre-exist to the nature of the species, which species is perfected by its union to matter. But it is not against the nature of matter, but it is not against the nature of matter that it pre-exists to the, what? Nature of the species. And therefore, and that's the word now, dissimilitude, right? The unlikeness, you might say, right? Which is between our origin and the origin of Christ, according as our flesh is before conceived, then it is, what? Animated. Not over the flesh of, what? Christ. And according to that, which, what? Precedes the completion of nature, right? It's speaking about us, I guess. Just as we are conceived from the seed of the man, right? Not whoever Christ, but from the, what? Holy Spirit overshadowed her, right? But the difference, which would be in regard to the origin of the soul. The soul existed before the body, right? That would, what? Redound to a diversity of nature, right? Would lead to a diversity of nature, you know? Now, let me take a very good example here of a different kind of form, right? Or known form, right? You see difficulty in wood existing before the chair. But do you see some difficulty in the form of the chair existing before the wood existing? I knew I had it. Huh? Because the form of the chair is something that's going to exist in the wood, right? It doesn't make any sense for the form of the chair to exist before the matter out of which the chair is made exists, right? But it's not inappropriate that the matter out of which the chair is going to be made should in some sense exist before the chair actually exists, right? And then the third objection to that difficult proposition for the book of causes. Thomas has a commentary in the book. Of course, in the early works of Thomas, he was still following the opinion that the book of causes was written by Aristotle, right? And then, of course, he realizes that it's not by Aristotle. Oh, wow. What? But he has a commentary on the book of causes and, you know, occasionally disagrees with some things in there. But he has a good term of respect for it, huh? Was it some sort of Greek work? Yeah, it's a Greek word. It goes back to... After Aristotle? Yeah, yeah, when the Neoplatonists there. I'm trying to think of whose name it is now. I know his name, but I can't think of it. But then it was kind of modified by the Arabs and so on, you know, taking away these things. I didn't figure out what it was. Now, to the third objection, it should be said that the word of God, right, is understood before to be united to the flesh, then the soul, through the common way in which he is, what? In other creatures, right? Through his essence, power, and presence. Before I say, however, not in time, but in, what? Nature. For before is understood flesh to be a certain being, which it has in the word, then it'd be, what? Animated, right? Which it has in the soul. But by the personal union, before, in our understanding, is necessary that the flesh be united to the soul, then to the, what? Word. Because from its union to the soul, it has, that it is able to be united to the word in person. Especially because person is not found except in a, what? Rational nature, huh? So don't worry too much about that objection. Take a little break now? Yeah. So we're up to article, what, five here? To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that the Son of God would assume the whole of human nature by means of its, what, hearts. For Augustine says in the book on Christian agony that the invisible and unchangeable truth, that's capitalized, meaning that when he says I'm truth, through the spirit the soul and through the soul the body and thus he assumed the whole man, right? But spirit, soul, and body are parts of the whole man. Therefore the whole man was assumed, he assumed the whole man by means of the, what, parts. Moreover, therefore the Son of God assumed flesh by means of the soul, or by the soul is a middle term, because the soul is more like God than the body. But the parts of human nature, since they're more simple, would seem to be more like God, who is altogether simple, right? Who is most simple than the whole. Therefore he assumed the whole by means of the parts. Overlooking the main difference between us and God, right? Between the material world, where the simple is imperfect, right? Well, in God the simple is the perfect. Moreover, the whole results in the union of parts. But union is understood as the end of the assumption. The parts are understood as before the assumption. Therefore he assumed the whole through the, what, parts. But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. In the Lord Jesus Christ, we do not, what, the parts of the parts, but which are, what, things that are in a proximate way, right? Composed. To wit, the Godhood and the, what, humanity. But humanity is a certain whole that is put together from the soul and the body as from parts. Therefore the Son of God assumed the parts through the middle of the whole. Now Thomas says, I answer it should be said, that when it is said that something is in the middle, in the taking on of the Incarnation, there is not designated the order of time, right? Okay, now that's, why does he put that forward? Because we tend to fall back upon the earlier, even upon the first meaning of a word, right? Because Simo, well Simo is what? Yeah, yeah. In English we usually say together, right? So if you and I came at the same time, right? Together, we came together, we came at the same time, not one of us before or after together. Her style takes up Simo, Haman in Greek, right after he takes up before and after it, because it's known by its negation, being either before or after. But Simo is made the assuming of the whole and of all the parts. For it has been shown that together, the soul and the body are united to each other, to constitute a human nature in the word. But there is designated instead there, the order of what? Nature. Whence through that which is before by nature is taken on that which is after by nature. Something over is before by nature in two ways. One way from the side of the agent and another from the side of matter. For these two kinds of clauses preexist to the thing. Now, from the side of the agent, that is simply first, which first falls in his intention. But, secundum quid, right? Is first that from which his doing operation begins, right? And this, because his intention is before his what? Operation, right? On the side of matter, from the side of matter, that is before, which exists before in the transformation of matter. But now, in the incarnation, it's necessary most of all to pay attention to the order which is on the side of the agent. Because as Augustine says, there he comes in that guy again, because as Augustine says in the epistle to Volusianum, in such things, the whole reason of the thing done is the power of the one doing it. Like the resurrection, right? Where Christ says to the Sadducees, right? You know neither the power of God nor the scriptures. But it is manifest that according to the intention of the one making, before always is the complete, then the incomplete, right? So for the house builder, what is before in his intention? The foundation of the house or the whole house? Yeah. He might, in fact, make the foundation for the rest of the house, as far as my experience of this is. Okay? And consequently, he says, therefore the whole, then the, what? Parts, right? And therefore it should be said that the word of God took on the parts of human nature by means of the, what? Yeah. Or by the whole of the middle. Just as he took on the body on account of the order which it has to the reasonable soul, so he took on the body and the soul on account of the order which they have to, what? Human nature as a whole. So he's consistent here in the sky. He's thinking as far as I can see. Now from that text of Augustine, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that from those words of Augustine, nothing is given to be understood except that the word, in taking on the parts of human nature, took on the, what? Whole human nature. And thus the taking on of the parts is before in the, what? In the via, in the road of operation in our understanding, not in time. But the assumption of the nature is before in the via intentionis, which is to be before simply as has been said, right? And we've talked about those two orders before, haven't we? Now sometimes Thomas will quote scripture where he'll say, do good and avoid evil, right? Other times they'll say, now turn away from evil and do good. And Thomas says, well, what's the difference in these two orders? Well, to do good and avoid evil is the order of intention. But to turn away from evil and do good is the order of what? Yeah. I've mentioned how in the order of the Our Father, you have which order. Yeah. So the first two petitions of the Our Father are for the end. Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come. The next two petitions are for the means that will be done, right? And give us a state of chief means in the support of them, right? And the last is the ones that are dealing with the impediments to the end, right? Forgive us our sins and donate us into, you know, other sins. But in the Psalms, in the way Thomas following Augustine divides them, right? You have the Psalms divided into three fifties and the first fifty are about turning away from your sin, right? The second fifty are about doing good deeds and going forward. And the last fifty are about resting in God, right? So that's more in the order of what? Yeah. And that's kind of appropriate, huh, because the Psalms are much longer than the Our Father, right? Yeah, there's two different orders here, huh? Mm-hmm. Now, the second objection was saying, well, even in the order of suitability of taking on, right? Aren't the parts more like God, right? Well, he said, because they're simpler. The second should be said that God is such that he, what? He's in such a way simple that he's also most perfect. And therefore, the whole is more like God than the part insofar as it is more, what? Perfect, right? Okay. So Thomas makes a big point of that in Prima Pars, if you remember, right? Because he takes up, what? Simplicity of God and then the perfection of God, right? Kind of in contrast with material things, right? Where material things, the more composed is more perfect, right? And so there's kind of an opposition between simplicity and perfection, right? Now, do you ever transcend that in material things? Does it simpler ever become? Now, sometimes in our making, you know, they tell me that the first computers were much bigger and they thought a whole room and they could do anything compared to a little thing you'd do, right? Yeah, yeah. Now they get, you know, smaller and do more, right? And Aristotle, you know, when he's comparing tragedy and comedy, right? And he says, which is superior, tragedy or comedy, huh? And he argues that they have, you know, they're similar because they both have the same effect, pity and fear, right? But tragedy produces effect with fewer, what? Words, right? Yeah. So it's more perfect, huh? So sometimes the simpler or the shorter is more, what? Yeah. And I've talked a lot about, you know, brevity is a soul, wit, right? But the wise man will say, what? Yeah. So sometimes you have a little kind of, what, foreshadowing there, right, of what God will be, right? That he will be most simple but most perfect. As Teresa of Avila says, you know, God is altogether simple and the closer you get to God, the safer you are. Shakespeare has the sonnet there, you know, where he says, you know, the simple miscalled simplicity, right? But generally speaking, in material things, you can say an animal is more perfect than a plant. In a man more so than a, and yet, they're more perfect but more composed, right? More complex, right? Sort of like that with our prayer, in different ways you can consider it. Prayer with words, prayer without words. Prayer with words is in some way more perfect, but not more simple. No, no. The dentist is my name, I'm going to get it crowned again, you know? I said, all this complication of the human life, I say, you know. It seems complicated, you know, all the things the dentist is doing, you know, and root canals and all kinds of stuff. The next time you come up, I was saying crowning with many crowns. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the nurse is asking me. What is that? I was just thinking that. Yeah, I know. The nurse is asking me, or the assistant, even crowned before, you shouldn't say quite that cleverly. You should set a schedule for your coronation. Yes, yes, yes. Three coronations. A tertium, I guess, right? Yeah. The whole results of the union of parts, the objection says, but union is understood as the end of the assumption. Therefore, the parts are pre-understood. To the third, it should be said that the personal union to which is terminated the assumption, that the personal union is that to which the assumption is, what, terminated. But not, however, the union of nature, which results from the, what, conjunction of the parts, huh? So that's confusing the two unions, I guess, and that's an objection. He's applying the objection, right? Mm-hmm. Now, whether the Son of God took on human nature by means of what? Grace, huh? Very thorough, Thomas. Our style talks about these guys like Thomas there in the second book of wisdom, you know. Some people don't want to read these guys, he says, because they seem to be kind of, you know, stingy, huh? You know, liberal, he says, because they want to clarify a real point. And some people think that's like being, you know, I used to go out to dinner with the other bachelor professors when I was a bachelor, you know. And of course, you know, when you get the bill, you know, we just kind of throw our money in, you know, and so on. But this one old professor, he always thought, just pay his share. Yeah, I used to kind of annoy us that way, you know, this guy. So guys, you know, that way with money, you don't think that's a good idea to be that picky about money. I mean, so Biden will cost over more than yours, or, you know, who cares, you know. So some people are like this, you know, they want to be like that same way, they want to be liberal, you know. Yeah, yeah. Let a few distinctions go by. It's better for humanism. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Forget it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's pass over these disagreements here. To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that the Son of God took on human nature by means of grace, right? For by grace, we are united to God. How can you object to that? But human nature in Christ, most of all, was united to God. Therefore, that union must have been made by grace. So, man, that's convincing. That convinces me, okay? Moreover, just as the body lives through the soul, which is its perfection, so the soul lives by grace. But human nature is rendered suitable for assumption through the soul. Therefore, the Son of God assumed the soul by means of grace. Again, the second thing that convinces me, right? More of Augustine says in the 15th book about the Trinity that the incarnate word is like our word in voice. But our word is united to voice by means of the what? Spirit. Therefore, the word of God is united to the flesh by means of the Holy Spirit. And thus, by means of grace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit. According to that of St. Paul, one of the Corinthians, that the divisions of grace there are, but the same spirit who gives us these so. But against this is that grace is a certain accent of the soul, as has been had in the second part. But the union of the word to human nature is made according to what? What? Subsistence in the hypostasis order. And not according to an accident, huh? Therefore, human nature is not assumed by means of grace as a middle. I answer. It should be said that in Christ is laid down the grace of union and what? Habitual grace, huh? Grace, therefore, cannot be understood as a, what, middle in the taking on of human nature, whether we speak of the grace of union or of, what, habitual grace. But the grace of union is that, what, personal being, huh, that gratis, huh, freely, was divinely given to human nature in the person of the, what, word. Which is the, what, limit of the taking on. Habitual grace, however, pertains to the special holiness of that man. And that's an effect following upon his, what, union. According to that of John 1, verse 14, we have seen his glory as that of the only begotten from the Father. Full of grace and truth, right? By which is given to be understood that by the fact that that man is, what, the only begotten from the Father, which he has the, what, the hypostatic union. He has this fullness of grace and, what, truth. So he didn't, he did not know who he was. As some of these contemporary scholars try to say, right, huh, if, therefore, right, if our, by grace is understood the will of God, right, huh, okay, doing something gratuitously, right, forgiving, then the union was made by grace, right? But not as a middle, but as the, what, efficient clause, huh? Now, how in the heck do you have God's objections, huh? Because by grace you're not to God, I can't deny that. Yeah, yeah. And Thomas points out, To the first, therefore, it should be said that our union to God is through our, what, operation, our doing, insofar as we know him and, what, love him. And therefore, such a union is by habitual grace, insofar as perfect operation goes forth from a, what, habitant, but the union of human nature to the word of God is not by, what, operation, but according to the personal being there, which does not depend from some, what, habitant, but is immediately from the, what, the nature itself, huh? That's interesting when he got out of that difficulty, huh? Tired of that knot. He did it through his love. They describe Thomas when he's his life and he's puzzling about something and he falls down on the ground and he starts praying and then gets up, ah, and he says, To the second it should be said, the second objection now, the soul, the body goes through the soul, right, and the soul through, what, grace, right? And therefore, this is, you assume the body through the soul, you should assume the, yeah. To the second it should be said that the soul is the substantial perfection of the body, huh? The substantial form of the body. But grace is a, what, accidental. Now, accidental means what? Not, not, not, not paratidans, but. Not part of its niche, not part of its niche. Yeah. In fact, it's a signature between substance and accident. And therefore, grace cannot order the soul to the, what, personal union, which is not an accident. Just as the soul to the body. Yeah. On the third thing. Our word, huh, our thought, is united to voice, huh, to the vocal sound, by means of spirit, not as a, what, formal medium, but as the mover, right? For from the word or thought conceived interiorly proceeds the spirit from which is formed the, what, voice. And similarly, from the eternal word proceeds the Holy Spirit who forms the body of Christ, as is clear below. But from this it does not follow that the grace of the Holy Spirit is the form of medium in the force that, what, union, huh? Amen. Amen. These are more. Let's go back for a second here at question four here, so let's see where the definition was. Beginning at question four there. Then one ought to consider about the union on the side of the, what? Assumed, right? About which first one ought to consider about those things which are taken on by the word of God, right? Secondly, about those things co-assumptis, taken on together with, which are certain perfections and even certain, what? Defects, huh? Now, the first of those two he subdivides then, right? Okay? And that corresponds to questions four, five, and six. The Son of God assumed human nature and its parts. When's considering the first? A threefold consideration occurs. First as regards human nature, right? Second as regards its parts and then what we just got through. Third as regards the order of the assumption, right? Now he's going to talk about the co-assumptis, right? Okay? And so at the beginning of question seven, now he's going to subdivide that part. Then one ought to consider about the things assumed with, but he assumed primarily, right? By the Son of God and human nature. And first about those things which pertain to his perfection. Secondly, about those things which pertain to the, what? Defect, right? Now among these defects is not ignorance, but there maybe is a body that can let suffer and so on, right? Now about the first, three things should be considered. First about the grace of Christ, right? Secondly, about his knowledge, huh? There's going to be perfection of him. And third about his, what? Power, huh? Now about the grace of Christ, there should be considered two things. Now how can we get two when he said three before? First about his grace according as he is a, what? Singular man, an individual man. Secondly, about his grace according as he is the, what? Head of the church, right? These next two questions, right? The question seven, right? And question eight. But about the grace of union, one is already, what? Spoken, right? That's referring to the hypostatic union, right? That's called a grace. It's any grace. Oh my God. About the first, he says he asked 13 things. A simple, unintelligent. Did he? Maybe we should stop there, huh? Go ahead. Stop there, yeah. Stop there. Thank you. Thank you.