Tertia Pars
Lecture 31: Christ as Head of the Church: Nature and Scope

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

who in an invisible way vivifies the church and unites it. But to the head is compared, Christ is compared to the head according to his visible nature, right? By which a man is what? Put over other men, right? Referred to them. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is called the soul of the church too. Deuteronomy 13 says it's called the Holy Spirit. Now, the next article. Where the Christ is the head of men as he guards their what? Bodies, not being obvious that he's obviously going to be the head of them as their souls, right? To the second one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ is not the head of men as he guards their what? Body, huh? Tell that to these feminists, right? Oh, fuck. For Christ is said to be the head of the church insofar as he pours in spiritual sense and the motion of grace in the church, huh? But of this spiritual sense and motion, the body is not, what? Capable. Therefore, he is not the head of men according to their what? Bodies, huh? Moreover, according to the bodies, we communicate or have in common with the brutes, huh? If therefore Christ were the head of men as he guards their bodies, he would follow that he was also the head of brute animals, huh? Which is, doesn't fit. Inconvenient. Aristotle says in the first book of the Nicomarckian Ethics, with the truth, all things fit, right? Harmony. So inconvenience doesn't fit. It means it's false, huh? Stronger than inconvenience in English. Moreover, Christ drew his body from what? Other men, right? As is seen in Luke 3 and Matthew 1. Now, those are two that have an account of the birth of Christ, huh? But the head is first among all the other members, right? Therefore, Christ is not the head of the church as he guards the body, huh? Against this is what is said in Philippians 3. He reformed the body of our what? Humility, huh? Making it configured to the body of his what? Clarity, huh? In terms of resurrection, this would seem to be involved here, huh? Thomas says, The answer should be said that the human body has a natural order to the reasonable soul, right? Which is its own form and what? Hoover, huh? And insofar as it is the form of the body of the substantial form, or insofar as it is its form, it receives from the soul life and the other properties that are suitable to the human body, according to its species, huh? And insofar as the soul is the mover of the body, the body serves the soul as a what? Instrument. Thus, therefore, it should be said that the humanity of Christ has the power of flowing in, right? Insofar as it is joined to the word of God, huh? To which the body is united through the soul, as has been said above, huh? Whence the whole humanity of Christ, according to its soul and body, flows into men as regards the what? Soul and as regards what? The body. But chiefly as regards the soul, right? In the secondary way as regards the body. In one way, insofar as the what? Members of the body are put forward as arms of justice to the soul existing through Christ, as the apostle says in Romans 6, 13, huh? In another way, insofar as the life of glory is derived from the soul to the what? Body, huh? According to that of Romans 8, who raised Jesus from the dead will vivify also our mortal bodies, huh? An account of the spirit dwelling, his spirit dwelling in you. What is that about the, is it about the Eucharist sometimes that they have a thing there about the body as well as the soul? Maybe is that in some way in the two species in which you, in our liturgy, we have. Yeah, I see it elsewhere in Thomas. That's kind of striking, right? I think it's rooted in the passage in the scripture in the Old Testament that's forbidding the eating of an animal's blood because it's because the soul is in the blood. I mean, the life of the animal is in its blood, so you shouldn't eat the life source of an animal. That's probably what's often used comparing Eucharist to the species of Christ. The species of life for his soul. I know that one psalm there, what, 62, O God, you are my God whom I seek. For you my flesh pines and my soul thirsts. Yeah, the body mentions as well as the soul. And then later on you speak of, you know, receiving this banquet, right? Which is sometimes applied to the Eucharist, sometimes to the last state of man. You know, that's kind of in harmony what he's saying there, right? Although it's one thing chiefly, right? And the other in a secondary way. So in one way I suppose it's because the body serves the soul in its operations, right? That it's going to be, what, ruled by Christ, right? And the other because it's going to, what, be glorified through the soul, too. For the glory of the soul will be derived down to the body. So he applied to the first objection, he says. That the sense of spiritual grace does not arrive at the body first and, what, chiefly. But in second place and as, what, an instrument, huh? Now what about the body of those dogs you're talking about there today, huh? Well, the body of the brute animal has no relation to the rational soul, as does the, what, human body, right? And therefore it's not really similar, huh? The public says that they're intelligent, they think. And the third objection about Christ getting his body from all those people he's sinned from. Although Christ drew the matter of his body from other men, right? Nevertheless, the immortal life of the body all men draw from Christ, huh? According to that of 1 Corinthians 15. Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are, what, unified, huh? Of course, Christ's, what, resurrection, we'll come back to that when we get to that point. Now is Christ the head of all men? What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what It's the head of those who are in the church, huh? Maybe not even all of them. But Thomas is going to take the other side. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ is not the head of all men. For the head does not have relation except to the members, right, of its body. But the unfaithful, the unbelievers, in no way are members of the church. Which is the body of Christ, huh? Therefore Christ is not the head of, what, all men, huh? If you're a branch cut off from the vine right now, well then, how can you be the head of that? It's not part of the body, right? Moreover the apostle says, Ephesians 5, verse 25, 27, that Christ handed himself over for the church, huh? That he might show to him a glorious church, having no stain, right, or ruffle, huh? Or something of the sort. But there are many, even among the faithful, in whom is found, what, stain, huh? In the rust of sin, huh? What's ruga there? Wrinkle. Wrinkle, wrinkle, that's, yeah. Yeah, wrinkle of sin. I've got a wrinkled soul, I didn't know that. Not only stain, but it's wrinkled. Gotta be ironed out. Therefore neither would he be the head of all the, even of all the faithful, right? Moreover the sacraments of the old law are compared to Christ as shadows to a, what, body. As it's said in Colossians 2, 17. But the fathers of the Old Testament, huh? Served, what, those sacraments in their time, according to that, Hebrews 8. The exemplar and shadows served, what, heavenly things. Therefore it does not pertain to the body of Christ, huh? Therefore they do not pertain to the body of Christ. And thus Christ is not the head of, what, all men, huh? But against this is what is said in 1 Timothy 4, verse 10. The Savior, he's the Savior of all. And most of all, of the, what, faithful, right? So it seems in some ways he's of these others, huh? And in the first episode, John, chapter 2. He is a propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole, what, world, huh? To save men, or to be a, what, best way to translate it in English, propitiator. Yeah, expiator. For the sins of them belongs to Christ according as he is head. Therefore Christ is the head of all men. There's some question there in the words of the consecration, right? To say all men. Oh, oh. Yeah, yeah. The answer should be said that this is a difference between the natural body of a man and the mystical body of the, what, church. Because the members or parts of the natural body are all simul, together, huh? But the members of the mystical body are not all, what, together. Neither as regards, what, the being of nature. Because the body of the church was constituted or is constituted for men who were from the beginning of the world to its end, huh? So they're not all existing at the same time, right? Nor as regards, what, the being of grace, because of those also who are in one time. Some lack grace that afterwards they are going to, what, have. But others already, what, have it, right? Thus, therefore, members of the mystical body are not only taken according as they are in act, but also as they are in, what, ability. But some are in ability, which will never be reduced to act. Some are, which, what, sometime will be reduced to act, according to this threefold grade, which one is through faith, the second through, what, charity of the way, and the third through the... Oh, yeah. Thus, therefore, it should be said that taking generally, according to the whole, what, time of the world, Christ is the head of all men, but according to diverse grades. First and chiefly is the head of those who are united in act to him through, what, glory, huh? And that's the church, what, term thing, I guess, huh? Second, of those who enact united to him through charity, huh? And that could be the soul of the purgatory, I suppose, huh? And then people in this life, huh? Who have charity. Third, of those who enact united to him through faith, huh? But don't have, maybe, a foreign faith, huh? Fourth, of those who are united to him, owning potency, not yet reduced to act, which, nevertheless, is going to be reduced to act, right? According to divine, what, predestination. Fifth, of those who, in ability, united to him, which will never be, what, reduced to act, as men in this world living, who are not, what, predestined them, who, nevertheless, receding from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ. And in no sense, because the ability cannot be reduced to act anymore, right, they are no longer, what? St. Thomas says in his commentary on the final judgment, in Matthew, he says that some will have a, sort of, discussion or discernment of their merits and debilence, and others won't have it at all. Those are the ones who have never joined him. There's going to be no examination. They're just going to go straight to hell. Oh, they have nothing to do with Christ. Bang. That's it. So Thomas has, what, five grades here, right? Those who are united to him in glory, right? And those who are united to him, what? In charity, but not in glory, huh? And those who are united to him by, what, faith? Those who are united to him by faith or charity, but are going to be united to him. And then those who could be, but will not be. And they're kind of in the bottom. Now, the first one is talking about the unfaithful here, right, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that those who are not believers, although in act they are not of the church, right, they are nevertheless in, what, ability. Which ability is founded in two things. First and chiefly in the virtue of Christ, right, huh? Which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole of the human, what, race, huh? Like Thomas says in me, what? How do we rotate the vote there, right? One drop is sufficient, right? Mm-hmm. Secondarily in, what, free will we say, right? But free judgment is the way the Latinx say it. Now, what about the church, the glorious church, right? Not having a stain or a wrinkle. This is the ultimate end or goal to which we are led through the passion of Christ, huh? Whence this will be in the state of the fatherland, right? Not in the state of the road, huh? In which, if we say we do not have sin, we seduce ourselves. as is said in 1 John verse 1. Okay, but there are nevertheless some, meaning sins I guess, right? To wit, the mortal ones, which those who, what? Clack, who are members of Christ through an actual union of charity. So they have venial sins, but not mortal sins, which should be contrary to charity. Okay, whoever are subject to these sins, meaning the mortal sins I guess, right? Are not members of Christ actually, but in ability, right? Except perhaps imperfectly through unformed faith. This charity is a form of faith, as you know. Which unites one to Christ, secundum quid, and non suppliciter. So you can tell somebody that. But you're united to Christ, secundum quid, and not suppliciter. That distinction shows up a lot of places here. But, yeah, yeah, yeah. We're going to unite you to suppliciter there, as a solid confession. Through Christ, man might, what? Attain the life of grace, huh? For faith without works is dead, as is said in James 2. But these get from Christ a certain act of life, which is, what? To believe. Just as if a dead member was moved in some way by, what? A man. So they're moved a little bit, these people, right? Now, the Holy Fathers did not insist upon the legal sacraments, as there were some things, but as images and shadows of the, what? Future things, huh? But the same thing is the motion in an image, insofar as it is an image, and in the thing, as is clear through the philosopher in the book of, what? Human reminiscence, huh? So you might have a picture of somebody, and you go from the picture to the, what? Person of which it is a picture, right? And therefore, the ancient fathers, in serving, or observing the legal sacraments, were born towards Christ through faith and the same love of which we are also born towards Christ. And therefore, the ancient fathers pertain to the same body, the church, to which we pertain. So you have the prophets there in the, they deal, right? Apostles and the prophets, and so on. Want to take a break now, or? Apostles and the prophets, and so on. Apostles and the prophets, and so on. Apostles and the prophets, and so on. The fourth article. For the Christ, according as he is man, is the head of the angels. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ, according as he is man, is not the head of the angels. For the head and the members are of one nature. But Christ, according as he is man, is not conformed in nature with the angels, but only with men. For in no way did he grasp the angels, says in Hebrews chapter 2. But he grasped the, what? Seed of Abraham. Therefore Christ, according as he is man, is not the head of the angels. I suppose the question would be, is the head of the angels only as God and not as man, right? I suppose that's the question. Further, of those, Christ is the head who pertain to the church. Which is his body, as is said in Ephesians chapter 1. But the angels do not pertain to the church. For the church is the congregation of the faithful. But faith is not in the angels. For they do not walk by faith, but through, what? Species in the sight of God. Otherwise they would be, what? Wandering distantly from the Lord. According as the apostle argues in 2 Corinthians. Therefore, Christ, according as he is man, is not the head of the angels, huh? Though we saw before in the other article that Christ is the head of those who see, right? God face to face even more so. Morbeth Augustine says upon John, that just as the word was from the beginning with the Father, just as the word that was from the beginning towards the Father, vilified souls, so the word made flesh, vilified bodies. There you have the soul and the body. Which the angels, of course, lack, right? But the word made flesh is Christ, according as he is man. Therefore, Christ, as man, does not pour life into the angels, huh? And thus, according as man, he is not the head of the, what? Angels, huh? How's he going to get around all this stuff? Beanie, huh? But against is what the apostle says in Colossians chapter 2. Who is the head of every prince and, well, power. And the same reason would there be about the ages of the other, what? Orders, huh? The princes are the heads of the, what? Third or third hierarchy, right? And the powers are in the second one, huh? Okay. I answer, it should be said, that has been said above, where there is one body is necessary to lay down one, what? Head. But one body is said by way of likeness. It's one multitude ordered in one thing according to distinct acts or duties. But it is manifest over that to the one end, which is the glory of the divine enjoyment, are ordered both men and angels, huh? Whence the mystical body of the church not only consists of men, but also of what? Angels, the order to the same end, huh? But of this whole multitude, Christ is ahead because he is more, what? Closer to God, right? And he more perfectly partakes of his, what? Yes. Not only then men, as he does it to us, but also then of the angels, right? And of his influence, not only do men receive, but also the angels, huh? For it is said in Ephesians 1, chapter verse 20, that he constituted him, to which Christ, God the Father, constituted him, to the right hand in, what? In the heavens? Above every prince and power and virtue and Lord, huh? Well, that's taking the, what? There's the last three there of the second, what? Hierarchy, huh? But in the ascending order there, right? The lords, the virtues and the powers they're sometimes called. And then the princes, huh? Then the angels, the archangels are below the princes. But in Greek there, see, archai would be the same word as prince. And every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the future, and he's subjected all under his, what? Feet, huh? And therefore Christ is not only the head of men, but also of angels. Whence Matthew says, chapter 4, verse 11, that the angels, what? Approached him and ministered to him, right? So, he's before them in order, right? And he also, what? He also received things from him, right? Does that mean that the grace of the angels have is derived from the passion of Christ? It seems to say that St. Paul was reconciling all things in heaven and earth. I don't know if the angels, though, would need to, what? Christ's death on the cross would do. But they do have grace. Yeah. Was that derived directly through God, or instrumentally through Christ's passion? What do you think? I don't know. If it was derived, he talks about the influence on the angels from Christ, which would seem to be the most indicating that. What other influence would they have besides the grace? Well, you see, when Christ was incarnate, right, he had the fullness of grace and truth, right? See? So, he could still, you know, be the source of grace and illumination for you and the angels, right? Before he is, what? You know, without his passion, right? It's man who is in need of that redemption, not the angels. The angels have not sinned ever. But they were raised above their nature. That's true, yeah, yeah. But, I mean, the death of the cross is involved something besides that, you know? That might be indicated in the passage of St. Paul, because he refers to his making peace or reconciling to all things in heaven and earth, but maybe because there was, as far as we were in enmity of God, then we were also in enmity, so he could reconcile us. The angels themselves are not in any way touched with sin, yeah. I don't think the angels had a chance for any redemption. There was a third of the angels that had out the other end of them. That's right. I guess my question is, like, in the realm of efficient causes, does the grace that they have, does that derive from Christ's passion? I mean, God can give grace without coming through Christ's passion, and whether, if it does derive from his passion, I think that, I don't know, it's kind of an interesting question. I've never seen that in Thomas or anybody else that matter, you know, that they were redeemed in some way, or they got grace through his passion. I think, yeah, I think he argues that they do have the grace of Christ, but how he argues that I don't know. Now, the first objection was saying that, hey, we're not the same nature as the angels, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the influence of Christ upon all men is chiefly with regards to their soul, not with regard to their, what, body, right? And according to their soul, men come together, the angels, in the, what, nature of the genus, though not in the nature of the species, right? They're both, what, intellectual creatures, having will, and so on. And by reason of this conformity, Christ is able to be said to be the head of the angels, although there is lacking in conformity as regards the, what, body, right? That doesn't destroy us, right? Because they're chiefly, in regard to our soul, Christ is. And that's what we agree with the angels, huh? Yeah, we agree. The second thing was about the congregation of the faithful. Well, you already point out the difficulty in that. To the second, it should be said that the church, according to the status of the road, is a congregation of the believers, right? But according to the status of the fatherland, it's the congregation not of the believers, but of those comprehending God. Now, Christ was not only on the way, but also a, what, comprehensor. And therefore, not only of the faithful, but also of those comprehending, is he the head, as most fully having grace and glory, right? That made me think, you know, that he's, what? It's not through his passion, right, that he's their head, right? That's it. St. Paul talked about this. When he emptied himself, there was a beating even under death on the cross. For this reason, he was exalted. But I don't know if that's the late stuff. But his glory is in relation to him. But I mean, grace suffers as a viator, right? But he seems to be, yeah, yeah. Wouldn't his relationship as son to the father mean that he had been always emptying himself completely anyway by virtue of his sonship? And so the passion itself, I mean, it was a unique event, but he, by his nature, he was already doing the total self-giving to God. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's rats and girth. You know, that kind of pre-Poked him, pre-Poked him. Right. At least as far as I understand it. It's interesting that we call the Eucharist the Panis Angelicus, right? But is it, you know, that the angels receive the Eucharist? I don't think that is true. No. Because even we won't receive the Eucharist in heaven, right? So I wouldn't want to stretch that, say, because he's Panis Angelicus. Because the Eucharist, in a way, comes from the death on the cross. But it's not called the Panis Angelicus, because the angels receive it. It's more the Word itself that is the Panis Angelicus. And that's, our Lord speaks that way. Blessed is he who eats bread in the kingdom of heaven. That's the vision of God. That's what the angels speak to him. That's St. Thomas' that one. Yeah. That the angels feed on you, glory, pleno, and man, according to his measure. Something like that. To the third it should be said. The objection is saying that the Word was made flesh, right? To the third it should be said. The Augustine speaks there according to a certain likening of the cause to the effect, insofar as a bodily thing acts in bodies, and a spiritual thing in, what? Spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by reason of the, what? Spiritual nature, to wit, the divine, is able to cause something not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels. On account of the, what? Greatest joining of him to God, to wit, by the union that is personal, right? And there he's going to be saying that the humanity of Christ, by reason of what? His divine nature, right? Can cause something not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of the angels, right? It doesn't seem to be. So it's an instrument of the divinity, that's what it is. Yeah, yeah. Even for the angels, in some way. Okay, now we've got to find out whether the grace of Christ, which Christ is the head of the Lord, The church is the same as the grace of him as an individual man, right? To the fifth, one proceeds thus. It seems that it is not the same grace by which Christ is the head of the church with the individual grace of that man. He seems going to take the other side of the same. So the distinction between the two is what? Not to be understood as being two different graces, huh? That's the way it seems like it's going to go. Well, let's let Thomas unfold himself. For the apostle says in Romans 5, if by the, what, sin of one, many are dead, right? Much more by the grace of God and the gift and the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, does it abound for what? In more things. But other is the actual sin of Adam and other original sin that was what? Adam's sin was eventually forgiven him, right? Original sin persisted, huh? Down to us miserable creatures, so. Therefore, other is the personal grace which is private to Christ, and other is the grace of him insofar as he is the head of the church, which is derived from him to others. That's kind of a subtle objection, huh? Moreover, habits are distinguished by their acts. But to another act is ordered in Christ, his personal grace, right? To it, to the sanctification, the holiness, of what? That soul, right? And to another act is ordered in the grace of the head to the making holy of others. Therefore, other is the personal grace of Christ, and other is the grace of him insofar as he is the, what, head of the church. I was thinking of myself as a teacher now, right? Is that knowledge I have, right? Is the knowledge that I have that perfects me in some way, right? As a man, right? Is that something other than the knowledge whereby I teach you? Huh? It would be strange if it were. I was thinking of one knowledge whereby my mind is perfected, right? And now the knowledge by which I teach you guys. Second-hand news. I mean, maybe he says, right? Habits are distinguished by the act. Yeah. The one act is ordered to sanctification of the soul. Yeah. But the other is not. So he said the habit's the same, but the act is the same. Yeah, so my understanding of the Pythagorean theorem. The habits are different because the acts are different. Yeah, my understanding of the Pythagorean theorem is not the same thing as my teaching of the Pythagorean theorem. Right? There's some distinction of act there, right? Yeah. Moreover, as has been said above, in Christ one distinguishes a three-fold grace, right? To wit, the grace of union, the grace of the head, and the singular grace of that man. But the singular grace of Christ is other from the grace of the union, right? Therefore, also is it other from the grace of the head. So we don't maybe understand this distinction of these three graces as well as we thought we did, right? But against this is what is said in John 1, verse 16. Of his fullness we have all received. The rest of my case. Beautiful text, huh? According to this, according as he is our, what, head that we get or receive from him, right? Therefore, according as he has the fullness of grace, he is our head. But the fullness of grace he had according as he was perfect in that grace of the person, right? The personal grace. Therefore, according to the personal grace, he is also our head. And thus is not other the grace of the head and that personal grace, huh? The teacher. I answer. It should be said that each thing acts insofar as it is a being in act, huh? Now, it's necessary that it be the same in act by which something is in act and by which it, what, acts. Just as the same is the heat by which fire is hot and by which it, what, heats. Why do you take the example of the teacher? Not, however, that every act of which something is in act suffices for this that it be a principle of acting another, right? Because the agent is, what, more outstanding than the patient, right, huh? As Augustine says in the twelfth book on Genesis to the letter, and as the philosopher says in the third book about the soul, right? He's arguing about the acting upon intellect being better than the, what, undergoing it. It's necessary that the agent in others have act according to a certain, what, eminence or excellence. Now, it has been said above that in the soul of Christ, grace was received according to the greatest eminence, the greatest excellence. And therefore, from the eminence, the excellence of the grace which he received, it belongs to him, right, that that grace be derived to others, right? And this pertains to the notion of being the head. And therefore, it is the same in essence, the personal grace for which the soul of Christ was justified, and his grace according as he is the head of the church, justifying others, but it differs only according to what? Notion, yeah. It would be the same thing. So you could say the knowledge that the teacher has, you can distinguish between that knowledge as perfecting his mind, right, and as being the source of his teaching others, right? Because to be the source of teaching others doesn't have the same meaning as, what, perfecting his mind, right? But it's really the same knowledge in essence. It's the same thing, right? That is, perfecting his mind and enabling him to teach others, huh? I think so, right? Otherwise, I'm very much mistaken as to what I've been doing for the last 40 years or 50 years or whatever it is. My first public lecture was on Lindbergh, huh? I was in the lower grades, and I wrote a paper on Lindbergh, and the teacher was so impressed, they had him go up to the 7th or 8th grade and read it in front of the class. That was my first lecture. Got the bug then, you know? Then later on, about the 5th or 6th grade, we'd go to the, we had one big room which was in the library in the activity grade school, and I used to go up in the back part of it where there's a little, you know, walk up and you could play in 4N up there. But you had to take a book out. That's what the astronomy books was. So I get interested in astronomy, and then I give a lecture in astronomy in 6th grade. So... I didn't see the Chinese, and I didn't see much of the pleasure of school in Lindbergh, and it was so interesting that the Jesuits divided the students into the Romans and the Cartaginians, so they compete against each other, and they debate against each other. That's quite good. That's quite good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Very good. Now, how's he going to answer this first objection? To the first, therefore, it should be said that original sin in Adam, which is the sin of what? The nature, huh? Was derived from the actual sin of him, right? Which was a personal sin. Because in him, the person corrupted the, what? Nature is to be handed down to us. By which corruption is a medium or middle, well, the sin of the first man is derived to those who come afterwards, right? According as the corrupt nature corrupts the, what? Person, huh? But grace is not derived from Christ to us by means of human nature, but through, what? Only the personal action of Christ himself. Whence is not necessary in Christ to distinguish a twofold grace, of which one corresponds to nature and another to the person. As in Adam is distinguished the sin of the nature and the person. That'd be really easy to follow if he knew a little more of the teaching about original sin, huh? Hard thing to understand. But the nature has been corrupted, right? As a result of the personal sin. And so when Adam did penance and was forgiven for his personal sin, nature was not repaired, right? Right? But Christ doesn't, what? Grace is not derived from Christ in us by means of, what? Human nature, huh? But only the personal action he says of Christ himself. It's a thing that you run over. Now the second thing he says, well, what about these different acts, right? To the second it should be said, that diverse acts of which one is the reason and cause of the other do not diversify a habit, huh? For the personal act of grace, which is to make holy, formally speaking, as a form, the one having it, right? Is the reason for the justification of others, which pertains to the grace of the head, right? And hence it is that through this difference are not diversified the essence of the habit, right? So just as the knowledge provided by the teacher's head is perfected, right? Is the reason and cause of being able to teach others, right? You have certain eminence in that knowledge, huh? Then the distinction of the acts is not enough to give you a distinction of what habits, huh? In the fire when it heats, right? The water. It's by a different heat than it has, so it's by itself. But one is the reason for the other, right? Well, Thomas' example, huh? Now, the third objection says, huh? Why is there a distinction of one and not the other, right? To the third it should be said that the personal grace and the grace of the head are ordered to some, what? Act, right, huh? But the grace of union is not ordered to some act, but to what? The personal being, right? And therefore, the personal grace and the grace of the head come together in the essence of the habit, not over the grace of the, what? Union. So you could call these two that are said to be the same or habitual grace, right? And the other is the grace of union, which is ordered to being rather than a habit, which is ordered to act. Although the personal grace is able in some way to be called the grace of union, insofar as it makes one suitable for the, what? Union. And according to this, one, in essence, is the grace of union and the grace of the head and the singular grace of the person, but differing only in, what? Reason. Nevertheless, I think he's saying that there's more of a distinction, right, between the personal grace, the grace of union, rather, and the other two, between those two, huh? Because they're both ordered in a more immediate way to act, huh? But the grace of union, in a sense, is the hypostatic union. It's a different kind of thing, huh? It's not ordered to act right away, but to once being a person, huh? Being the same person in two natures. but to act right away, it's not ordered to act right away, but to act right away, it's not right away, it's not ordered to act right away, it's not ordered to act right away, it's not right away, it's not ordered to act right away, it's not ordered to act right away, it's not right away, it's not ordered to act right away, it's not ordered to act right away, it's not