Tertia Pars
Lecture 72: Mary's Virginity and Betrothal to Joseph

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

Okay, so we're up to what Article 3 is it? The third one goes forward thus. It seemed that the mother of Christ did not remain a virgin after the giving birth to Christ. For it is said in Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 18, Before Joseph and Mary came together, there was found in the uterus her having, what, something from the Holy Spirit. But the evangelist would not have said, before they came together, right? Unless they were certain about their, what, coming together, right? Because no one says about eating, I guess, that before he dined, right? He didn't die. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin sometime came together and flushed the union with Joseph, right? And thus she did not remain a virgin after the birth. It's a little bit like the objection, you know, that he's the firstborn. It's not come up again, you know, the firstborn. You call him the firstborn even if it's, what? The only one. Yeah, yeah. Even though she'll be speaking, it isn't the firstborn if there's no other ones. I mean, everything is that way of speaking, you know? But you call it the firstborn, right? Moreover, there is added to the words of the, from the words of this angel saying to Joseph, Do not fear to take Mary as your spouse. But communion marriage, right, is consummated through the fleshly union. Therefore, it seems that some, at some time, there is a fleshly union between Mary and Joseph, right? And therefore, it seems that she did not remain a virgin after the birth, yeah. Moreover, thereafter, a few words is added. And he took her as his wife, I guess, and did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn. But this adverb, donek, is a customary to signify determined time in which being completely right comes to be that up to which that time did not come about, yeah. So, if I say, if I read comic books and if I read Thomas, that's true. I must have read Thomas eventually, right? But the word, what? Knowing there refers to the fleshly union, right? Just as in Genesis 4 it is said that Adam knew his, what? Wife. Therefore, it seems that after, what? The Blessed Virgin was not known by, what? It was known by Joseph. Therefore, it seems that she did not remain a virgin after, what? Moreover, the firstborn, first generated, cannot be said except the one who has subsequent brothers, right? Whence Romans 8, whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn and many, what? Brothers. But the Evangelist names Christ the firstborn of his mother. Therefore, she had other sons after Christ. And this is seen that the mother of Christ was not a virgin after giving birth, huh? Moreover, John, too, has said, after this, he descended to Capernaum, to wit, Christ, and his mother and his brothers, huh? Family. But brothers are, it has said, those who are generated from the same, what? Parent. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ, huh? Moreover, in Matthew chapter 27, it said, There were there, next to the cross of Christ, many women from afar, who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. But it seems that this Mary, which here is called the mother of James and Joseph, was also the mother of Christ. For it says in John 19 that she stood next to the cross of Christ. Mary is, what? Mother. Therefore, it seems that the mother of Christ did not remain a virgin after birth. But against this is what is said in Ezekiel 44, that this gate was closed, right? And not opened, and the man did not, what? Go through it? Yeah. The man did not go forth from it or through it. Because the Lord, God of Israel, came in through it, right? Which Augustine, expounding in a certain sermon, says, What is that gate in the house of the Lord that is closed? Except Mary, the one always, what? Intact. And what is it that a man does not go through it, except that Joseph did not, what? Know her. And what is it that the Lord alone entered and went forth from it, except that the Holy Spirit made her pregnant, and the Lord of the angels was born through her? And what is it that it was closed forever, except that Mary, the virgin, was a virgin before giving birth, and a virgin in giving birth, and a virgin after birth, right? So that's why Thomas has these three articles, right? To explain the words of the great Augustine. I answer it should be said that without any doubt, that should be detested, the heir of Helvidius, who presumed, that's pride, who presumed to say that the mother of Christ was known, right, in a fleshly way by Joseph after giving birth, and that she generated other, what, sons, huh? That's the work that we just pointed out for a guest, from Jerome, right? Contra. For this first takes away from the perfection of Christ, who just as according to his divine nature is the only begotten of the Father, right, as being his son, perfect in all things, right? So it is also appropriate that he be the only begotten of his mother as being the, what, most perfect seed or offspring of her, right? Secondly, this heir does injury to the Holy Spirit, whose, what, holy place, I guess, was the virginal womb, huh? In which he formed the flesh of Christ, huh? Whence it were not suitable about another, and that this be violated by a male mixture, right? It's a sacred workshop of the Holy Spirit, so to speak, right? And no one else should be in there, huh? Keep off my computer. Third, it takes away from the dignity and holiness of the Mother of God, who would seem most ungrateful, right, if she were not, what, contended with him. So great a son, huh? And if the virginity, which was miraculously conserved in there, she spontaneously... And if the virginity, which was the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity, the virginity. Thank you, Steve. what wish to lose through the flesh to union and fourth it would be the greatest presumption to be imputed to joseph right if him whom the angel revealing knew to have conceived god of the holy spirit right he would attempt to pollute right and therefore simply it should be asserted that the mother of god just as she conceived is a virgin and brought forth of the virgin so also a virgin after giving birth she remained what forever now to the first therefore it should be said and that as jerome says in the book against telvidius right it should be understood that this preposition ante before right although often it indicates things following right nevertheless only those things which before i thought right it shows nor is it necessary that the things that come about since therefore something else intervenes right less those things which are thought come about right just as if someone were to say before i what that eats in the gate he's going to navigate right he's not understood that in the gate he eats after he what navigates but because he thought to eat in the gate right and likewise the evangelist says that before they came together there was found mary in the womb having from the holy spirit not because they after came together but because when they were seen when they were seen to come together there came about the conception of the holy spirit from which it was made that further they would not what or later time come together right to the second it should be said as augustine says in the book on nuptials and cubisence that the mother of god is called the what coniux which means what right okay the one joined from the faith the first faith of what the twirlow which did not which was not known by what the flesh union nor would it be so known when amber says upon luke that not the what interruption of virginity but the testimony of what of the union the celebration of the nuptials declared right switch down there you see that sometimes a church there's a window there where they have joseph and mary being betrothed yeah this is the french church downtown it's gonna close down now but that's where it is one okay the third it should be said huh we didn't know her until she brought forth their firstborn okay the third should be said that some say this should not be understood about the knowledge of the flesh but of the knowledge of what knowing for christian says um that joseph did not know her before she brought forth of what what dignity or worth or excellence she was but after she brought forth then he knew her because through uh uh her offspring right she was more beautiful and more worthy than the whole world right because whom the whole world cannot capture they can in the narrow room of her alone was she alone received right yeah yeah song like that i don't think those words um some of her refer this to the knowledge of sight for just as uh to moses speaking with god his face was what glorified that they could not look upon it right the sons of israel so mary by the clarity of the power of the most high overshadowed was not able to be known by joseph until she what brought forth but after the bringing forth by joseph she is found to be what known by the uh beauty of her face not by the touch of what lust but jerome however concedes this to be understood about the knowledge of question but says usque vedona in scriptures in two ways can be understood for sometimes it designates a certain time as in that of galatians on account of transgression transgression law was laid down until there came about the seed which is promised sometimes it signifies an infant time according to that of psalm 122 our eyes are to the lord our god until his what pity on us from which should not be understood that after the uh the mercy has been called upon our eyes are what averted from god and according to this way of speaking it signifies those things about which one is able to doubt if they are not written but other ones are what left to our understanding and according to this the evangelist says that the mother of god was not known by man up until the what bringing forth that much more we understand that she was not known that she was not known after and this footnote did you have this footnote too or had another uh example of that which is it's necessary that you bring until it's in ice under his feet yeah doesn't mean that afterward that you will cease to rain yeah yeah that's another example of that yeah to the fourth then it should be said that the custom of divine scriptures is that they are called firstborn not only the one whom brothers follow but the one who what is the firstborn otherwise if he is not the firstborn unless they follow brothers uh so long according to the law uh the firstborn uh the firstborn not owed until what others were procreated now you have to offer up the firstborn to god or something in scripture and you couldn't offer up the firstborn so you had a brother if that way of being understood yeah which is clearly false because within the first month right the firstborn are commanded to be what redeemed according to the law to give to god you get that firstborn what back from god right happens right so why would you I thought you were first born in that first month if you didn't, what, have a first born yet. Yeah, right. That's a good argument. But even today, wouldn't married folks say something like, this is our first one? I remember when our second child was being born, right? And I was kind of in a little, kind of a waiting room there, right? And this other guy comes in, and his wife is in, but they're first, right? And he was obviously kind of, you know, more nervous than I was, because I had to do this once at least. And so, is this your first, he says, you know? You know, he said, oh, I'm used to this stuff. But notice, he would call the one being born his first, even though he doesn't know and doesn't have a second one, right? Well, you used the word first, right? This is your first one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He said, yeah. Right? Well, there you have that sense where you'd speak even though he doesn't have a second one, so how can you have a first one? Dangerous, these words, aren't they? Especially in the hands of a heretic, right? Okay, now, fifth objection was the one that my neighbor had, yeah. He speaks of his brothers, right, huh? To the fifth it should be said that some, as Jerome says upon Matthew, about another wife of Joseph, right? To suspect the brothers of, what? Of our Lord, huh? But we, the brothers of the Lord, not the sons of Joseph, right? But the, what? Cousins and so on, right? Of the Lord, huh? Understand, right, huh? The sons of Mary and the sons of, what? The aunt, right? Come on, Terry. Anyway, for, as someone's sprung out, in four ways in sacred scripture, brothers are said, right? And this is what we saw earlier in the text of Jerome there, right? Natura gente cognazione in effect, right? So they say about Thomas, he so reverence to the Church Fathers, and he seems to have inherited the mind of the law. Yeah. Whence the brothers of our Lord, they're called the brothers of our Lord, not according to nature, as being born from the same, what? Mother, but according to, what? Yeah, kinship, yeah. As we're consanguine, right? Same blood, right? Existing, right? Joseph, however, as Jerome says against Avidius' son, more should be believed to have remained a virgin himself, right? Because to have another wife is not written that he had another wife, right? And fornication in the holy man does not fall. It'll take place, okay. Now, to the sixth, it should be said that the Mary, who is said to be the mother of James and Joseph, right, huh? Is not understood to be the mother of the Lord, who in the, what, Gospel, is not accustomed to be named, except by this naming of this dignity, that she is the mother of what? Jesus, right? But this Mary is understood to be the wife of Elpheus, right? Whose son is what? James Lesser, who is said to be the brother of the Lord, right? Wasn't he the apostle that they wanted to look at, you know? What did Christ look at? Looked like a man. And, well, this is the nearest thing, you know, it's a cousin here, you know? It's a cousin. Lots of family resemblance. I think I read that, you know, the people, you know, in the early church there. You read that, too? Yes. There's some text in Augusta, I don't know where it is, but I saw one time where some things you would like to have seen, you know, and of course, one was Christ in the flesh, right? One was Rome in its glory. Maybe there's something else, but this is the nearest thing, you know, you could see. Now, whether she vowed virginity, right? To the fourth, one goes forward thus. It seemed that the mother of God did not, what, avow virginity, huh? For it is said in Deuteronomy chapter 7, there will not be before you anyone sterile, right? Of either sex, I guess, huh? But sterility follows virginity, huh? Therefore, the saving virginity is against the precept of the old law. But still, the old law had a status before Christ was born. Therefore, it could not be listed to the Blessed Virgin to vow virginity for that, what, time. Moreover, the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7, about virgins. I do not have a command of the Lord, right? But I do give a, what, counsel. But the perfection of the counsels ought to begin from Christ, huh? Who is the end of the law, as the Apostle says. Therefore, it was not suitable that the virgin put forth a, emitted a vow of virginity, right? Moreover, according to the gloss of Jerome, 1 Timothy chapter 5, that to those of vow of virginity, not only to marry, but also to wish to marry, right? Is damnable, right? But the mother of Christ, huh, committed no damnable sin, as has been said above. When therefore, since therefore she was, what, betrothed, right? Dispensata, that'd be true, as has had Luke 1, it seems that she did not, what? You met the vow of virginity, huh? But again, this is what Augustine says in the book on the holy virginity. That Mary responds to the angel announcing, In what way can this come about, huh? Since I do not, what, know man? Which she would not have said unless she had vowed herself as a virgin to, what, God, huh? What Thomas says. I am sure it should be said, that just as is had in the second part, works of perfection are more praiseworthy if they are celebrated from, what, vow, huh? But virginity in the mother of God, especially out to, what, flourish, right? As is clear from the reasons said above. And therefore, it is suitable that her virginity was, what, consecrated? created to God by a vow, a affirming vow. But it's true that in the time of the law, it was necessary to insist upon generation, both women and men, because according to the origin of the flesh, the worship of God should be what? Propagated before from that people, from that people that Christ would be born of them. The mother of God, it is not believed, before she was what? Betrothed to Joseph, absolutely vowed to gentile, although she had this in her what? Desire, right, huh? But above this, she committed her will to the divine what? What? Judgment, right, huh? Afterwards, having taken a spouse, according as the customs of that time required, right? At the same time, with that, she, what? Emitted the vow of, what? Rigidity. Now, to the first objection there, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that because it seems to be, what? Prohibited by the law not to give, what? Work to, what? Leaving seed upon the earth, not having offspring, I guess, huh? Therefore, not some teacher there. Did the one who generated God vow of virginity, but with this condition, if it be pleasing to, what? God, huh? After it became known to her that this was, what? Acceptable. Yeah, accepted by God. She absolutely vowed it, right, huh? Before it was, what? By the angel, right? After the second, it should be said that just as the fullness of grace is perfectly in Christ and nevertheless some beginning of it receded in the mother, right? So also the observation of the consuls, which came about through the grace of God, right, is begun perfectly in Christ, but in some way it was begun in the virgin, his, what? Mother, huh? That's another excellence there in Mary, right? Now that worry, huh? Of the apostle should be understood about those who absolutely vow, what? Chastity. Chastity. Which the mother of God did not do before she was, what? Betrothed to Joseph, right? But after the betrothal, from a common will, you know, for her and Joseph, it says, at the same time, with her spouse, she, what? Emitted? Put forth? Sent forth? The vow of virginity, right? Okay. So he's saying St. Joseph talked about it? That's what he says, sir. I imagine now what Dick Connick said, you know, that the Marian century there that began with the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and ends with the declaration of the Mystery of the Assumption, right? In 1950 with Pius XII. It's called the Marian century, right? But why was this so late? You know, I might say almost 2,000 years, right? After the birth of Christ. Maybe there was some, you know, recent divine providence providence that you wanted to proclaim fully the mysteries of Mary after the mysteries of Christ were well proclaimed and established, right? And then he was saying that maybe now that the mysteries of Mary have been kind of fully proclaimed, right? From the beginning, you know, the Immaculate Conception, to the end, the Assumption, now maybe mysteries of Joseph will come more up, you know? You can see a little bit here, right? In that Tertsium, you know? But that Atsikunum we had earlier there was talking about the three stages of Mary's grace, right? Immaculate Conception corresponds to one, right? With the grace given to her that she could become the mother of Christ, right? And then the grace she received when she actually became the mother of Christ, right? And then the grace that she received when she was assumed into the glory of heaven, right? Coronation. Occasionally I see a book on Joseph advertised, and I say, I should really get that, you know, and see what they're coming up with now, you know? In this, against how videos, Jerome uses Joseph as one of his arguments, saying that if he was a just man, that you can expect that he was doing the most holiest thing. plus just the fact that he was talked to by an angel more than once. He knew the king was going to desire to kill. He saw the shepherds and what it was told by the shepherds. And he saw the Magi. And he would have this holy fear. Plus, Mary herself, I mean, he would have known that she was as old as she could be. He would have stayed away from her. He would have not, you know, had any insistence upon of counseling and marriage. Plus, they had to wait. Even after Jesus was born, it was 40 days. He had to wait. He was purified. If Christ was obedient to him and married to him, he must be free to go home. That's the Mary of the Christ. Well, I always notice how in the litany that they have there in my edition of the Inchiridium and the Indulgences, right? They just have six litanies, right? And three, you know, are in regard to our Lord, the Sacred Heart and the Blood and the Holy Name. And then one to Mary, one to Joseph, and then one to all the saints. So Mary and Joseph get their own litany and the other saints get, you know, not that those are the only litanies, but those are the principal litanies. The six are singled out, you know. And so there you see kind of the prominence of Joseph, huh? But I grew up, you know, as a little boy there, you know, of course, in the Church of Nativity there in St. Paul, where I was, you'd have, you know, the main part of the church and then you'd have the side altars, you know, with the, or little side chapels, kind of, with the one for Mary, one for Joseph. It seemed like every church in those days had that, you know. I don't know if they have many more, but in those days they were very common, so you had a kind of preeminence or prominence of Joseph, right? And, uh, with Mary. Our Lord doesn't take proud of the church and modern church much less than anyone else, you know. Well, I mean, it's a good place to stop here, you know. We've got to go to the meeting of the trivium there, the board trustees and so on. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Thank you, God, and thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo Grazius. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, stream from the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Amen. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. I was looking at the compendium of theology there, and Thomas was talking about the defects in his body, right? There was a portal, right? And so on. And able to suffer things like hunger and thirst and so on. But he was making a distinction there, saying that in the case of us, we can be said to contract those things, huh? With original sin, huh? And contract means what? Drawn with. And so you have no choice about it, right? Along with original sin, you're going to get a mortal body, and a body that can suffer, and so on, right? Well, he didn't contract these defects of the body, Christ, huh? But he should be said to assume them, right? They took them on voluntarily, huh? Kind of interesting, huh? The way he is. Though way more distinct than what they remember being here, but just the way of speaking even about it, huh? So these were assumed as opposed to contract, huh? Yeah. Okay. We contract these defects of the body, right? But he voluntarily took them on so he could redeem us, huh? To make satisfaction for sin of Adam, huh? Okay. I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask, since we just talked about this with Our Lady, so how do we understand Our Lady suffered all these things, being free from original sin, she wouldn't contract? It seems it would fall, but she wouldn't contract all the defects, but I don't know. Yeah, yeah. I don't know if Thomas is talking specifically about that, huh? Yeah. Yeah. The dead is something. What's owed to the state of sin, the fall, certain things like mortality and all these other things? They'll say, well, look, that wasn't owed to Mary. I don't know exactly what Mary Ellen is saying. That wasn't her trust with it. But I know it's an issue. They have to reason out exactly what you're talking about. Well, how did she fit in if she suffered things? And if she died, you know, we switch to still. How would that be explained in terms of it? Then we're not to consider about the, what is it, betrothal, shall we say? Of the mother of God. And about this, two things are asked. Whether Christ ought to be born from one who was betrothed. And secondly, whether there was a true marriage between the mother of the Lord and Joseph, huh? To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ ought not to be born of a virgin who was betrothed. For betrothal is ordered to a fleshly or bodily union. But the mother of our Lord never willed to, what, use carnal union with a man. Because this would take away from the virginity of her mind, huh? Therefore, she ought not to be, what, betrothed, huh? Moreover, that Christ was born from a virgin was a miracle. When Augustine says in the epistle to the Volusianum that the power of God, right, through the unviolated viscera of the mother of the virgin brought forth the parts or members of the infant, huh, which through closed doors, right, huh, he introduced the members of the, what, youth. Now, one of the six reasons for this is not going to be marvelous, right? If he demands an example, it's not, what, unique, huh? But miracles which are made for the confirmation of faith ought to be manifest, huh? Since, therefore, through this betrothal, this miracle was overshadowed, it seems to not be suitable that Christ was born of one betrothed, huh? You're hiding the miracle, right? Not in the mirror. Moreover, Ignatius the martyr, as Jerome says on Matthew, assigns this cause of the betrothal of the mother of God that the bringing forth would be hidden from the, what, devil, right, huh? When he would think not of a virgin, but of a wife, it was, what, generated. Which cause seems to be nothing, right? Because the devil, those things which bodily, right, come about, he knows by the perspicacity of his, what, sense, knowledge, or not, doesn't have any sense, no, sense of senses, huh? Also, because through many evident signs afterwards, the demons in some way knew Christ, huh? Once it is said in Mark, chapter 1, that the man in the unclean spirit, right, claimed, saying, what is it to you and us, Jesus of Nazareth, huh? Have you come to destroy us or to lose us? I know that you are the Holy One of God, huh? Therefore, it does not seem to be suitable that the mother of God was, what, betrothed to hide what's all about from the demons, huh? And fourth reason, moreover, another reason is a sign by Jerome, lest they stone the mother of God, right? Lest the mother of God be stoned by the Jews as an adulterous woman. And this reason seems to be nothing, huh? Because if she was not betrothed, one could not, what, condemn her of adultery, right, huh? And therefore, it does not seem reasonable that Christ was born of one, what, betrothed, huh? Against all this is what is said in Matthew 1, verse 18, when the mother was, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, right? And it says also in Luke chapter 1, that the Gabriel, the angel, was sent to Mary, a virgin betrothed to the man whose name was Joseph. So those are the two Gospels that have the infancy narrative to have their God. Okay. So what does the Master going to say about this now? It's funny when our Lord said to him, you know, you've written well, Thomas. He said, except for it. I was looking at the account of that in the Compendium of Theology, huh? And Thomas, you know, he's talking about how the virgin is free of all actual sin, mortal. Vino as well as mortal, right, huh? And then he quotes that thing, you know, to the macula, you know, down to the grass, yeah. Yeah, from a thing. And he said, why don't you tie it to the, to the, you know. It's a thing like that. It's all I'm going to have to do with him saying that because you don't have a purge, you don't have a person or an insolvent, therefore you don't have anything to attack. Yeah, but there's nothing to be sinful either. Yeah, you wouldn't have original sin until you have a rational soul. And so it's after the soul is infused that the purification of the original sin is contracted and that therefore you have to... He would be purged if he would be purged in the womb, right? I was talking to the Father here before. There's a little chapter in Thomas there where he asks the question, why did Christ want to be born of a virgin, right? And the first reason he gives is that if he was born of the union of the male and the female, then he would contract original sin. And I think that the male is more important than the female as far as contract original sin. And so that if Adam had not, if Adam himself had not gone along with the suggestion of Eve, we would not have had original sin passed down to us because of Eve, right? That came down to Adam, right? And that's also the reason that Thomas gives and he gets to talking about the virgin, right? That she did contract original sin because she was a result of the union of the male and the female. And then he also gives a reason to know about universal causality of Christ, right? He redeemed us all. And so it would take away from the dignity of Christ if Mary was not redeemed by him too, right? You know how in the definition of the thing it says in view of his merits, right? So that's kind of the way we get around that, right? And I mentioned how it's interesting that Thomas does in talk about mortal sin. He makes an interesting statement that we're all saved from mortal sin by Christ. Some of us by being forgiven after committing mortal sin, most of us I guess. And a few of us by being preserved from falling into mortal sin, right? So he has that way of speaking, right? She's still being saved from mortal sin even though he never committed mortal sin. In a way, the church is saying that about the original sin, right? That she's saved from original sin in view of the merits of Christ, right? Even though she never, what? Contracted it, right? So he says it was suitable that Christ be born of a virgin betrothed, both on account of himself, right? And on account of his mother, right? And on account of us. That's pretty complete, yeah. And on account of Christ himself for a fourfold reason. And I didn't expect him to be this, this unfolded this much, right? That's an expression you find in Shakespeare, and I guess, I don't know, it's the timeless thing, but unfold yourself, you'd say to somebody, right, huh? And I heard sometimes Charles Dickheim say, you know, unfold yourself to the student, you know? I'd say, you know, Thomas, unfold yourself, you know? Because kind of, you know, it's all, you know, tied up in his head and unfolded, and you see the whole thing, right? Like, you spread out a cloth. It's a good word of speaking, I think. Unfold yourself. It's the Latin form of that, it's just explicate, which means, it literally means to unfold. Yeah. Hold out, like the word, precarious, unfold something, excarious, unfold it. Yeah. So, I didn't realize it was going to unfold this many times. I keep on doing it. First, lest by the, what, faithless, right, he be rejected as one unlawfully, what, born, right, huh? For Ambrose, whence Ambrose says on Luke, huh, what to the Jews, what to what? Herod can be ascribed if the one born was seen from, what, persecuted, right? Yeah. You know? Yeah. Yeah. It's like you said. It's in a sense anyway. Yeah. I remember saying somewhere, you know, I think I mentioned this before, you know, but some woman was complaining about the phrase, illegitimate child, right? Oh. She says, in my day, we called him a love child. Oh. That's a common expression. My mother used to say, if two people, before they got married, then when the child was born, they used to say, oh, it's premature. That was a different way of telling it. Covering it up. Well, this one guy said, you know, the first child can come anytime. After that, it takes nine months. Secondly, that in a, what, the consueto, it means a customary, right? The customary way, his genealogy might be described through the, what? Yeah. He had that in Mass this morning there. He was reading that passage there from the beginning of, what, Matthew, yeah. And, uh, so, so, I think the priest, you know, you realize he's kind of losing his audience a bit there as he goes through all these names, you know. You know, when Thomas goes through it, you know, and Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob. Faith begot hope, and hope begot charity, and then it goes through all the other names, just some kind of a thing, and it's really kind of impressive, you know, but he just had it by itself, you know, it's, uh, that's what you think of, is it sinful, you know, to pass us over when you're reading scripture? Yeah. But it has to be unfolded, you know, like Thomas does. That's when the deep, you know, you read, you read the gospel today. You heard about that in the, in the, uh, talk about readings in, in the Congress there. Some Democrat, kind of a leftist, you know, he introduced a appendix, not appendix, but a, what do you call it, to the amendment, yeah, 70 pages long, right, huh? And some Republican demanded that, that it be read into the, uh, record. So the guy was going on, reading and reading, and the guy came back, he was very mad he was being read, because the whole plan, you know, to be revealed, and so on. So he, he, he was doing his, his amendment, and, which I guess apparently is against the, you have to, against the laws of the Senate, so you have to have the unanimous consent to stop, to stop a reading, so, but that didn't make any difference to these guys, I guess. Ah, really. Okay. Secondly, that in a custom way, his genealogy might be described through the man. Whence Amber says on Luke, huh, uh, who came into the, what, age, ought to be described by the custom of the age, huh? Uh, but the person of the male, right, is asked, who in the Senate, and in the other, what, offices of the city, right, takes on the, what, yeah. For custom instructs us of the scriptures, which always seeks the origin of the, what, yeah. Something I'm supposed to say, very deep about this. I wouldn't say, who, but. You could say, non-Jew. Yeah. These people get married down, they won't take the name of their husband, you know, they keep their own name, you know, and it's kind of, it's like being kind of ridiculous, you know, if you're, if you're two in one flesh, you should be, at least to take the other person's name, you know, but, uh, that's the idea that you take the man's name, you know, is the same custom, in a way, huh? They have a dick in shoes. Okay. Secondly, for the safe keeping, right, you might say, the tutelage, of the boy born, right, huh? Lest the devil against him would book here vehemently, what, arms, right? And therefore, Ignatius says that she was, uh, betrothed, that her, uh, giving birth would be hidden from the, what, devil. Fourth, that he might be nourished by Joseph, huh? Whence, uh, his father, he said, as it were, the one who, what, nourished by him, yeah. Okay. You see these, these winds of, uh, Joseph and Mary going down to Egypt, uh, and she said,