Tertia Pars
Lecture 71: The Virgin Conception and Birth of Christ

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

Thomas has no doubt about what the truth is. I answer it should be said that it should be confessed some pichy tear, right? Not in the qualification. That the mother of Christ as a virgin conceived, right? And the contrary of this pertains to the heresy of the Ebionites, right? After Ebion. And the Syrinthus, Syrinthi after Syrinthus, who thought Christ to be a pure man, right? And who thought him to be born from both, what? Sex or something? The female. Thomas kind of laid down the authority there, right? But then, fides, quavering intellectum, right? That Christ should be conceived from a virgin was suitable for at least four reasons, huh? First, to preserve the dignity of the Father, what? Sending him. It's got an interesting reason he gets there, huh? For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not suitable that he have another Father than God. Lest the dignity of God be transferred to another, huh? It's kind of subtle. Yeah. Subtle reason, huh? Interesting. Secondly, this was suitable to the property of the Son who was, what? Sent. Who is the Word of God, but the Word without any, what? Corruption of the heart is conceived. Rather, any corruption of the heart does not, what? Undergo the conception of a, what? Perfect Word, right? That's why our thoughts are so imperfect, right? As opposed to God's one thought. Because, therefore, the flesh was thus taken on by the Word of God, that it would be the flesh of the Word of God, huh? It was suitable also that it would be conceived without the corruption of the mother, huh? Third, this was suitable to the dignity of the humanity of Christ, huh? In which sin would not be able to have any place, huh? And through which would be taken away the sin of the world, according to that of John, chapter 1, verse 29. Behold the Lamb of God, that is the innocent one, right? Who takes away the sin of the world, huh? So, he had that in the Mass. Do you have that in your Mass, too? Before, before, before, before, before communion, or? At the agnostic? Okay. He says, God, three times. Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Mercy on us, right? Mercy on us. That's a piece. We do kind of, we have it in the morning kind of doxology. Mm-hmm. You, oh Christ, take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us. Now, it would not be able to be in a nature already, what? Corrupt, right? That there would arise from the, that cubitility, how do you translate that? Yeah, that's the meaning of it, yeah. I don't know how to translate that in one word. Car would be born without the infection of, what? Original sin, huh? Comes through the mail, in that sense. When St. Gustin says in the book on nuptials and cubits, so the sexual union, nuptials, sexual union, was not there, right? In the marriage of, what? Mary and Joseph. Because in the, in the flesh of sin, right? Something could not come about without any, what? Incubits in the flesh, which happens from sin. Without which would be able, uh, he wished to be conceived, who in the future would be without, what? Sin, huh? So he's saying they would have contracted some institutional sin, right? Mm-hmm. Through Joseph generating him. So that the humanity of Christ, huh? She should be free from any sin. Would not be in that way. Right about. Fourth, an account of the very end of the incarnation of Christ, who, um, was for this purpose that men might be reborn as sons of God, not from the will of the flesh, right? Nor from the will of man, but from God, huh? Some St. John. That is from the power of God. Of which thing, an exemplar, ought to appear in the, what? Conception of Christ. When St. Augustine says in the book about holy virginity, It is necessary that our head, huh, by America, according to the body, to be born of the virgin, that it might signify his own, what? Members, right? Parts of his mystical body of the, what? Virgin of the church, according to the spirit, might be born, huh? It's also interesting the way he arranges those arguments, right? The one who sent him, the one who was sent, then from the humanity that he took on, right? And then the end, which was done, huh? What about these objections, huh? I remember the Protestant woman next door there, you know, talking to my brother Mark and I, you know, over the fence there about, but it says in the gospel that his brothers, you know, because he has to stop and explain, you know, because Thomas always quotes the thing in the Old Testament there where, was it, Abraham and Lot are called brothers, you know, or what is it? I said, uncle and nephew, something like that. So you have to explain that to the use of the words, right? And Jerome says that there are four different ways to be brothers. Yeah. Well, those are kind of her arguments, and he had brothers, right? Yeah. That's probably come up again here, but, I mean, somebody tried to explain to her, you know, that's the sound. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, the first thereof, it should be said, that as Bede says upon Luke, the father of the Savior is called, or Joseph is called the father of the Savior, right? Not that he was truly, according to the Photinians, right? But to conserve the, what, reputation, right? Fame of Mary, right? That he might be, what, taught to be the father, right? By men, huh? When St. Luke, it says, what put a batter is his thought, right? The son of Joseph, right? Or, as Augustine says in the book on good marriage, that in that way, the father of Christ, Joseph is called, in which he is also understood to be the man of Mary, right, huh? Without any mixture of flesh, right, huh? By the joining of, what, marriage. Much more to join than if he were, what, elsewhere adopted, huh? Nor on account of this, I do not to be called Joseph the Father Christ, because he did not, what, generate him by the sexual generation. Although, what? Because sometimes a father also is the one who, what, did not procreate from sexual union, but adopted, what, elsewhere, right? Who is it? The marketist? The Greek philosopher, he says, you shouldn't generate a son, you should adopt one. He said, you generate, you know what you're getting. When you adopt, you know what you're getting. This is kind of a rationalism, which I don't quite agree with, you know. You can see some point in what he's saying there. Oh, that's... What you take with the good Lord gives you. All the problems. Okay, now the second one is about the... Why is the genealogy given to Joseph, right? Rather than to marry him. To second, it should be said that, as Jerome says, upon the Gospel of Matthew, since Joseph is not the father of the Lord, the Savior, the order of his generation is, what, deduced down to Joseph. First, because it is not of the custom of Scripture that the order of women in generations would be, what, set down. And then from one tribe were, what, Mary and Joseph. Whence from the law, one was, what, bound to take someone who was, what, near in one's own tribe. I guess it's still taking place there over in Afghanistan and so on, right? To take from the same tribe. But I'm getting in trouble to take it from another tribe, right? And as Augustine says in the book on nuptials and cubisence, the series of generations is brought down to Joseph, right? Lest in that, what, marriage to the male sex, as the more important one, there come about, what, injury, right, huh? Nevertheless, to the truth of which nothing will be lacking, because from the seed of David and Joseph also was, what, Mary, huh? You see that in those miracles about the multiplication of the loaves, right, huh? You give the, what, number of people, like 5,000, that's the men, right? And then you don't enumerate the woman, right? And the kids, I don't believe, are presumably fed too, right? You don't have a field deal with these things. The third, therefore, it should be said, as the gloss says there, huh? Moliere, woman, for feminine, is placed there in the way of speaking of the, what? Hebrews, right? For the use of the Hebrew speech, cause woman, not those, what, who've lost her identity, but females, huh? Interesting, talking about the, you know, words of Christ, you know, they talk about the miracle at Canada there. He calls Mary woman. My time has not yet come, woman. And then on the cross, he calls her mother, right? And Augustine and Thomas sometimes explain that in terms of the fact that she's the mother of what suffered on the cross, in the name of the human nature, right? But she's not the mother of his divinity, whereby he, what, changed water into wine, right? So he calls her mother there rather than, you know. But it was, I think it was in the, in, where was I reading? It might have been in Thomas and John, but there's another explanation of it, that he calls her mother because of, what? I mean, excuse me, woman, because of her, what? Mercy, right? It's kind of interesting, right? In other words, it's more characteristic of the woman to be merciful than the man, right? And that's why Mary being, being the woman, is called the mother of mercy, right? And she's never called the mother of, what, justice, right? So he calls her mother because she is the, I mean, excuse me, woman, because she is the woman. And this is seen in her, what, taking pity on these people running out of wine at the wedding ceremony, huh? That's kind of interesting, huh? That's a different explanation of it. I mean, they're both compatible with it, I mean. You know, Christ speaks of the apostles having a, having a share in the judging at the last, judgment, you know. But it's not really an appropriate role for Mary as the woman. Yeah, yeah. See? But, you know, this very famous prayer, we call her the mother of mercy and so on, because that's what she is. I was reading that in Washington Irving, he was president at the trial of Aaron Burry, you know, and so on, and all these women are feeling sorry for him and so on. So these men say, wow, I just mean he's not to be felt sorry for. There's a man who aimed and shot and killed Alexander Hamilton and so on, right? I feel sorry. That's what they say to a child, you know, they kind of, they bump themselves, they run kind of naturally to their mother more than to their father to be consoled. That's right. Right off, kid. To the fourth, it should be said that that reason has place in those things that go forward in being by way of what? Nature. Nature. In that nature, just as it is determined to one effect, so it is also determined to one way of producing that. But since the supernatural divine power is able to do infinite things, just as it is not determined to just one effect, so it is not determined to one way of producing the effect, and therefore, just as by divine power, it could come about that the first man was formed of the clay of the earth, right? So also, it could come about that by divine power, the body of Christ was formed from the Virgin without a male seed. So both in Adam and Eve, too, right? Either one of them is generated from a couple, right? So divine power is not determined to one. That's one argument, Thomas Kidd, incidentally, you know, for saying that God produced the universe not naturally, but by what? Choice, huh? Because there are many things he had to bring into existence by creation, and so he couldn't be limited to just one. And so if he did some and not others, he must have had, what? Choice, huh? If he had produced the universe by natural necessity, like Gaspinoza thinks, right? And like Avicenna seems to think, right? Then he could only produce, what? One thing, huh? And you have to have that second thing involved in creating other things. And eventually get this multiplication. But all the angels have to be produced by creation because they don't have any matter from which they're produced. So God is not determined to one thing. Therefore it's a matter of choice. See Spinoza says that creation follows from God like it follows from being a triangle. In which you have two angles, or angles of the right angles. It's determined to. By his very nature, it's just what happens. Yeah, yeah, something follows by natural necessity, right? Like a property of God and a provision. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like it follows from being two that you're half of four, right? It's not out of choice, right? That kind of natural necessity, huh? If you're two, you'll be half of four, right? If you're a triangle, you will have angles equal to right angles. If you're God, you'll have these things that follow, right? Now to the fifth it should be said, and this is going to go more into what Aristotle thought. To the fifth it should be said that according to the philosopher in the book on a generation of animals, the seed of the male is not as matter in the conception of the animal, but only as, what, agent, huh? And only the woman or the female brings the matter into the conception. And we don't quite go along with that exactly in our thinking anymore, right? Whence through this that the seed of the man, or the male, was lacking the conception of the body of Christ, it does not fall that she would not be lacking the, what, suitable matter, right? If, however, the seed of the man were the matter the fetus concedes in animals, is manifest that it is not a matter remaining in the same form, but a matter that has been, what, changed. Now though the natural power cannot transform something to a certain form, except a determined matter, nevertheless the divine power that is infinite can transmute every matter into any form, right? Whence just as he transformed the clay of the earth, right, into the body of Adam, so the body of Christ can be transmuted, they can transmute the matter ministered by the, what, mother, even if it is not, what, sufficient matter for a natural conception. Now, whether the mother of Christ was a virgin in giving birth, huh? To the second one proceeds thus, Thus, it seems that the mother of Christ was not a virgin in the, what, giving birth, huh? For Ambrose says, upon Luke, who made holy the, what, other womb? There might be, uh, born a prophet, right? He it is who opened the womb of the mother that the Immaculate One might go, what, forth. But the opening of the womb excludes, what, virginity. Therefore the mother of Christ was not a, what, virgin in the giving forth, moreover, nothing in the mystery of Christ ought to be, uh, anything to which his body would appear to be, what, imaginary rather than real, huh? Fantastical. That's where you get the word fantastic, right? I think there's a, I thought it changes me a little bit, you know? Yeah. But it comes in the word for imagination, huh? Fantastic. Imaginary. That's a little different to me now. But this does not seem to be, what, to belong to a true body, right? But to an imaginary one. That it can, what, go forth or go through, uh, things that are closed, huh? Uh, in the two bodies are not able to be, what, together, right? Therefore Christ ought not to go forth from the, uh, womb of his mother, uh, being closed. Uh, there for the body of Christ, right? But not to go forth from the closed womb of his mother, right? Because then you'd have two bodies sitting together, right? In other words, the idea is that he came forth from Mary, like he comes into the room where the apostles are, the door is locked, right? And he just passes through, right? Uh, sure. Uh, which by, my own mother thought it was a marvelous way of giving birth, right? She heard this, she thought, how wonderful, you know? Yeah. Now, we don't have any experience in this, right? We don't experience this pain of giving birth, huh? But one, one mother's saying, you know, gee, I said, this really is painful, you know? Yeah. And so, I said, I know it's supposed to be hard, right? She realized I was like, this, this is bad. I was telling you about this, so, uh, so to hear that Mary then gave birth, you know, in this way, I said, well, that's the way to go. But that might seem to be something unreal, right, huh? Moreover, Gregory says in the homily on the octave of the Paschal Feast, huh, that through this, that door is being closed, right, huh? After resurrection, he came in to the disciples, right, huh? He showed his body to be of the same nature, but of another, what? Glory. And therefore, through, uh, the clothes to transit seems to pertain to the glory of the body, right, huh? Maybe we'll be able to do that now when we're, uh, glorified now, if we're able to go through the, through the wall. The walls, I suppose, but, um, but the body of Christ in his conception was not, what? Glorified, huh? But was able to suffer, right, huh? Having a likeness of the flesh of sin, right, huh? It had sin, but, but it was able to undergo, right? As the, uh, uh, uh, sinful body does, as the apostle says in Romans 8, therefore he did not go out to the, what, closed, uh, womb of the virgin, huh? Um, but against this is what is said in a certain sermon of the consul of Ephesus, right, huh? And that is that nature, after giving birth, does not know further the, what, virgins, not a virgin anymore. Um, but grace and, what, it shows both, what, the one giving birth and makes a mother and it does not, what, yeah, harm it, yeah. And therefore the mother of Christ was a virgin also in giving birth, huh? Um, by answer it should be said that without any doubt it should be asserted that the mother of Christ was also a virgin in giving birth, huh? For the prophet not only says, behold, a virgin shall conceive, but also that she shall bring forth a son, right, huh? So she must remain a virgin, not only in conceiving him, but in bringing him, what? Um, four of them, and this is appropriate. on account of three things. First, because this fits the property of the one who is born, who is the, what? Word of God. For the word, not only in the heart, is conceived without corruption, right? But also without corruption, it proceeds from the heart. Whence it is shown that that body was of the word of God. Whence, one might show, right, that that body was of the word of God. He had taken on this word of God. It was suitable that it would be born of an incorrupt womb of the virgin. Whence in a certain sermon of the Council of Ephesus is read, who brought forth pure flesh did not cease from, what? Virginity, huh? Because the word was born in flesh, right, huh? God guarded the virginity, huh? Showing himself through this, that he was the word, huh? Nor does our word, when it is brought forth, huh? Corrupt the mind, huh? Nor does God, the word, the substantial word, choosing birth, or being brought forth, does he destroy or take away virginity, right? Secondly, this was suitable to the effect of the incarnation of Christ. For he came for this purpose that he might take away our, what? Corruption. Whence it was not suitable that he corrupt the virginity of his mother in being, what? Born. Whence Augustine says in a certain sermon on the nativity of our Lord. Let it not be said that through his, what? Coming, the integrity of her, right, is violated, who came to heal the things that are, what? Third, it was suitable, lest the, what? Honor of the mother, uh, in being born, he would diminish it, right? Who, uh, commanded parents to be, what? Honored, right, huh? I might use that also, though. That's what she was back and conceived, right? Yeah. The honor that he would show to, uh, his mother, right, huh? Yeah. I think I mentioned how Alphonsus de Guri there in his, in his sermons there in the Maca conception, you know, you argue from the Trinity, right, that she was back and conceived. But the father, because it was his daughter, right? Christ, the word, because it was his mother, and then Holy Spirit, because she was his spouse, right? So each of them had a reason, a special reason to have her, uh, be conceived immaculately, huh? For whom he had that argument? Alphonsus de Guri, yeah. In the Glories of Mary, you know, the sermons he has in there on the different, uh, feasts of the Blessed Virgin, and different, uh, titles of her and so on. Okay, that first one is about the way of speaking there. To the first therefore it should be says, that Ambrose says this expounding that which the evangelist brings in about the law, that every masculine, right, opening the, what, holy womb to the Lord is, is called. That is the firstborn, I guess. Which, as Bede says, uh, is said in the custom of, the custom of birth, right? Not that the Lord, uh, the guest of the solely womb, that entering he made holy, right? Going out, would he, what, uh, causes lucidity, right? That should not be believed. It should be believed, right? Yeah. Whence that opening does not signify the, uh, tearing apart, you might say, right? Of the, uh, uh. They have their unlocking of the enclosure. Yeah. Yeah. A few doors, yeah. But only the going forth of the offspring from the womb of the mother, right? Okay. We're just talking about the way of speaking there, right? What opens the womb, right? But it's the firstborn, right? Yeah. It should be dedicated to God or something like this, but, so you speak that way, but even though it doesn't take place, right, that the, uh, covering there is torn apart and so on. Now, what about this fantastic character, this way of coming out, huh? The second should be said that Christ thus wished to show the truth of his body, right, huh? That also at the same time his divine nature might be, what, declared, right, huh? And therefore he mixed, you might say, marvelous things with, what, humble things, right? Whence, uh, he showed his body to be true. To be true, he was born from a, what, female, right? Woman. But you might show his divinity, he was born from a, what, virgin. For he's such a coming forth, he fits God, as Ambrose says, in his hymn of what? Nativity, right? That's kind of noted by Thomas. He talks about the Gospels, huh? He'll narrate something that shows his divinity and then something that shows his, what, humanity, yeah. When you get to, you know, like something in the Gospel there where it said, uh, and Christ left there because they wanted to put him to death, right? And why did he leave? He could have remained and, and be invisible or just stop them from, you know. But sometimes he wants to show his, what? Humanity. Humanity, yeah, yeah. That's when he's hungry and so on. Now what about the objection that says, hey, this is the property of the glorified body to be able to go through this? To the third, therefore, it should be said that some have said that Christ in his birth took on the gift of subtlety. That's one of the four gifts, huh? That the glorified body has, this gift of subtlety. When it went forth from the closed womb of the virgin, and when it walked on the, what, the dry feet on the sea, huh? They said that he had took on the gift of, what, agility, which is another gift of the glorified body. But this does not fit those things which were determined above, huh? For these gifts of the glorified body come from the flowing back, you might say, the glory of the soul to the, what, body, huh? As will be said below when we treat of the glorified bodies, huh? But it has been said, however, above, that Christ, before his passion, permitted to his flesh to do and to suffer the things that are proper to flesh, right? Nor did they come about such a flowing back of glory from the soul to the body, huh? And therefore, it should be said that all these things were done miraculously through the divine, what, power, huh? Whence Augustine says upon John that to the thickness or size of the body, whether it is divinity, the closed doors do not, 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 Don't stand in the way, yeah. For he, who they, not being open, right, was able to enter, who, being born, the virginity of his mother, unviolated, right, remained. And Danesia says in a certain epistle that Christ upon man did those things which are of man. And this he showed, and a virgin supernaturally conceiving shows this, and the unstable water sustaining the weight of the, what, terrestrial feet, huh? Christ above man operated those things which are of man, right? They're the same. Danesia is saying these are miracles, right, huh? Yeah. Yeah. He did these things that are above man. Amen. Okay. Should we take a little break? Should we take a little break? Should we take a little break? Should we take a little break? Should we take a little break? Should we take a little break?