Tertia Pars
Lecture 73: Mary and Joseph's True Marriage: Form and Perfection

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

Sitting there on the rock or something with the child, he's not getting an egg out of the tree. You seen those ones? No, I haven't. So he's not getting a little bit of food for that one on the way down. It was also suitable from the side or on the side of the Virgin. First, because through this, she is rendered immune from what? Punishment, huh? Lest she be stoned by the Jews as a what? Tortress, huh? And secondly, that through this, she might be freed from infamy, right? When Ambrose says on Luke, she was betrothed, lest infamy, right? Would be what? Maybe it has to do with burning, so she'd be shamed or something. Yeah, against her virginity. To whom, third, that from Joseph, service might be shown, right? As Jerome says, right? Yeah, yeah. She was spoused, lest she be wounded by the ill-fame of violated virginity, Kahn, in whom the pregnant womb would be, would be token corruption. But then Joseph, what is that? That she, Joseph might take care of her, right? Oh, she might be ministered, she might be shown, serviced by Joseph. So, three reasons for the Virgin. Seven reasons so far. What's that? Seven reasons so far. Yeah. Okay. And on our side, first, that by the testimony of Joseph, right, might be approved that Christ was born from the, what? Virgin, huh? Whence Ambrose says upon Luke, huh? A more complete, you might say, test or witness of the chastity, you might say, of the husband, what, or one married, brings forth, who is also able to, what, be sorrowful of an injury, right, huh? And to vindicate the opprobrium, right, right, if he did not know the holy thing, the sacrament. Okay. Secondly, because the words of the Virgin would be more, what, more believable, rendered more, yeah, asserting her, what, virginity, right? Whence Ambrose says upon Luke that the faith of Mary is more asserted by words, right, and the cause of lying, what, moved, huh? For it seems to wish to hide, right, the guilt, right, by lying, the one who is pregnant not being, what, married, huh? But this cause or reason for lying, one betrothed does not have, right, huh? Since the reward of the concatenation, right, and the grace of, what, of marriage, right, is the bringing forth of the, what, the woman, huh? Which, too, pertain to the firmness of our, what, faith, huh? So, again, the testimony of Joseph and the words of Mary, right, huh? Both of them. Okay. Third, that there might be taken away the excuse from, what, virgins, right, who, on account of their lack of caution, right, do not avoid, what, infini, huh? Prince Ambrose says, yeah, I suppose if she was not betrothed, then she said, well, this is reckless, you know, other virgins doing this, right? Okay. So that it should not be suitable for virgins to have, what, living a sinister opinion, right? Right, right, to be left with a veil of excuse, that the infamy of the mother of the Lord, right? But he didn't say it's the best of the people, wasn't it, didn't you say it? Yeah. There's an excuse for their misbehavior. Oh, she did it, so, you know. Yeah, right, wow. Okay. And fourth, because of this is signified the, what, universal church, which, since it is a virgin, is betrothed to one man, Christ, right? As Augustine says in the book, Unholy Virginity, huh? That's the other reason by Augustine, from Augustine. There can also be a fifth reason, because the mother of the Lord was betrothed and a virgin in the person of her, both virginity and matrimony, or what? Honor. Against the heretics detracting from either of these. You know, Augustine says, and Thomas says, that he chose to be born of a virgin to, bless that state, right? And then he went to, what, to be blessed by the widow, to bless that state of widowhood. And then finally he went to Cana to bless the state of matrimony. But in that order, right? So the virgin was the highest state, and then widowhood was above, you know, marriage, right? And you kind of see that in these saints, like the French of DeSales there, which is, Yeah, yeah, yeah, she was a widow, right? When she founded her, the order of it, Mark and Mary. So also the same as the seed. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's another one, yeah. So widowhood is a state higher than even matrimony, right? But all three states were lawful, right? He was born a virgin first, and then he was blessed by Anna, was it, in the temple? A widow. And then he went to the, he even turned the water into wine. Don't forget that part. Okay, now how's he going to handle these objections, right, huh? Isn't betrothal ordered to the flesh reunion, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, God, from a familiar instinct of the Holy Spirit, right, is, what, believed, huh? To have, what, yeah, taking hope or confidence of the, what, divine aid that should never come to the car reunion, okay? But this, nevertheless, she committed to the divine, what, judgment, right? Whence, in no way, did she undergo anything detrimental to her, what, virginity, huh? So she's kind of on the, you know what we say about St. John. The Baptist, is he a prophet or is he an apostle? He's kind of almost on the border, right? But he's kind of between the New and the Old Testament, right? In the Old Testament, you know, you'd have to get married. It's a thing to do, right? And so you didn't get to take that into account here in this response. What about hiding a miracle? To the second it should be said that as Ambrose says upon Luke, the Lord would hurt, right? And that some doubt about his origin, right? And they doubt about the what? Purity. Purity of his mother, right? They're actually expecting his mother, right? Okay. For he knew that tender was the shame of the virgin, right? And lascivious, the fame, not lascivious, but what does it look like? What do you have for the book? Slippery, inconstant, and it's deceitful. Yeah, the fame of... The fair name of... Yeah, it's lost, I guess, on Stippery, yeah. Lubricant. So you have to look at the word lubricate, right? Stippery, yeah. Nor did he think that his origin, the faith of his origin, ought to be, what? Strone with injuries to his mother. Good son, huh? Good boy. But Thomas makes another, sees a distinction here. It should be known, however, that of the miracles of God, some are that about which there is faith, right? Just as the miracle of the virgin birth. And of the resurrection of the Lord, right? And also the sacrament of the altar. So he calls the Eucharist, huh? So he says, take previous as fetus, not to get faith, right? But something that you are, you need to believe. Okay? Okay? And some miracles are to the, what? Confirmation of faith, right? So like when he said to Lazarus, come forth, right? And they've been in the tomb there for four days, right? Okay? And these ought to be manifest, right? Okay? Is that the sentence? Yeah, an idio-dominant. The first kind, the Lord willed that they be more hidden. Oh, that's good. Okay. And therefore the Lord wished these to be more hidden, right? That the faith or belief in them might be more, what? Meritorious, huh? But some miracles are for the approval, we might say, right? The confirmation of faith. And these ought to be, what? Manifest, right? So the blind man there being cured by Christ, right? Or the Lazarus being raised and so on. Okay? Two parts of that reply. Now what about hiding it for the devil? To the third should be said, as Augustine says in the third book about the Trinity, The devil is able to do many things by virtue of his nature, from which nevertheless he is prevented by the power of God. And in this way it can be said that by virtue of his nature, by the power of his nature, the devil would be able to know that the mother of God was not, what? Corrupted, right? But a virgin, huh? But he was prevented from God to know the way of the, what? Divine birth, bringing forth, huh? There was a stand against this, but afterwards, in some way, right, the devil could know him to be, what? The son of God, huh? Because already it was a time that Christ would show his power against the devil, right? And he would undergo persecution aroused by him, right? But in infancy, it's necessary to prevent the malice of the devil, lest he more, what? Sharply or vividly persecute him, right, huh? When Christ neither was disposed to, what? Suffer, nor to show his power, right, huh? But in all other things, show himself like, you know, in fifth. When it's Leo Papa, in the sermon about the Epiphany, huh? That the Magi found the boy Jesus small in size, right, huh? In need of what? He didn't help. Impotentum, right? Not powerful. And in no way separated from the generality of human, what? Infancy, huh? He acted like a baby, right? Okay. Ambrose, nevertheless, upon Luke, seems more to refer to the members of the devil for the fourth coin reason about deceiving the prince of the world, he says. But nevertheless, more are deceived the princes of the world, right, huh? For the malice of the devils, even easily, what? Grasps of occult things, hidden things. But those who are occupied with secular vanities are not able to know divine things, huh? How many allegiance does the Pope have, as Stalding said? The guys who are interviewing are speaking to Stalding, you know, and getting Stalding's, you know. I was in kind of a good mood, Stalding, you know. He has this translator there, right? And he says, you know too much, he says. We're going to have to send you to Siberia, he says. And he says, he's making toasts, you know, huh? He says, so-and-so, he's in charge of bringing, you know, materials up to the front lines. He better do so or he'll be hung. He goes all like this, you know. One guy after another, you know, we could toast him and say something like that, you know. He better do this or he'll be. Because everyone was looking at, you know, all the Russians who were keeping their eyes on Stalding and everything. And he looks like he's completely in control, you know. Churchill and, for a while, Churchill and Roosevelt called him Uncle Joe, you know. But as they began to see that he was not going to, you know, fulfill his promises, they started to refer to him as the bear, you know, Russian bear. You could see him, you know, pouring water in his glass instead of vodka, you know, so he could stay more sober, you know, keep his eyes open. So it doesn't say in Scripture that they would not have crucified him if they know he was the king of glory, right? Isn't that something of that effect? There's a text in here, but I think Thomas quotes it sometimes. Yeah. What about, you know, being stoned, huh? To the fourth, it should be said that one was stoned by the judgment of adultery according to the law. Not only the one who was, what, betrothed or married, but also the one who was kept in the house of the father, right? As a virgin who was going to be at some time, what, espoused. Whence it is said in Deuteronomy chapter 22, if there's not found in the girl virginity, right, with stones, right? The men of the city should, what, bruise her, right, and let her die, right? I guess it's not law from Israel that one fornicates in the house of one's, what, father, right? Or it can be said, according to some, that the Blessed Virgin was of the, what, of Heron, when she was cognate of Elizabeth, right? But a virgin of the priestly genus, right, on account of what? Virgil, yeah. Yeah, or raping, is killed, right, huh? For it's said in Leviticus 21 that the daughter of a priest, if she be apprehended in stupro, is it? It's deflowering. Yeah, and she violates the name of her father, right? She be, what, burned with flames. Those were the days. Those were the days. But some refer the word of Jerome to the stoning of, what, infamy, right? The first part is answering more the objection. Now, I've got to read this second article, this is, where Mary and Joseph, this is a true marriage, right? And, of course, one might think at first, you know, well, it isn't, though. And then why do we hold up the Holy Family as a model for us, and so on. The second one goes forward thus. It seems that between Mary and Joseph, there was not a true matrimony. We must have gone and taken the other side, Thomas. For Jerome says against Helvideus, that guy, yeah, Thomas is attacking him in the competing of the theology, too, for his, he says, his position about the virginity of Mary is abominable, it says. He's being strong in the competing of the theology. This is the letter, I think. This is the one, I guess, Helvideus, maybe his Latin wasn't too good or something. Oh, and so we're all being a Latinist, he says, he sort of introduces his, he says, so many people have wanted me to answer this guy, and he says, I refuse because he's just such a nincompoor. I would want to dignify this guy with a response. He says, well, at long last, people have prevailed upon me so that he who does not know how to speak will at last learn how to keep silence. But then the school of Pythagoras there, you weren't allowed to talk for a long time until you had studied a few, a number of years. For Jerome says against Helvideus, that Joseph was the custos, like the guardian, I guess, of Mary, more than, what, her husband, right? But if it were a true matrimony, true marriage, truly Joseph would be what? Yeah. Therefore, it seems that there was not a true marriage, right, between Mary and Joseph, huh? I always find it kind of interesting that word matrimonial, because it seems to come from the mother, right? That's what, as a Dominican priest about her, as far as theology, he points that out. He says, the sacrament takes its name after this, because people get married principally, chiefly, because of the beginning of children, which is chiefly the woman's duty, her office, right, her role. That's why the sacrament is named after her, whereas the inheritance is chiefly the work of the father, except we call it patrimony. So that takes its name, even though both contribute to it. Yeah, same with mother, but they both have everything, but it's a distinction of the name, which refers more to the role of mother. Interesting, yeah. Moreover, on that of Matthew 1, Jacob, genuated Joseph, the husband, would you say, right? Yeah. Of Mary. It's interesting that text, when he's reading it this morning, the priest is saying, and then, you know, Jesse begot David, you know, and so on. Then he got down to Joseph, he didn't say, and then Joseph begot, he didn't say that. No, he says, and then, Jacob begot Joseph. And then Joseph was betoed to Mary, or something like that, of whom was born. It changes the wording there, right? You know? You expect it to continue, because it's been all the way down. It could say, he begot so-and-so, and then so-and-so begot so-and-so, and so. And then he doesn't say that when he gets down to Joseph, which is not an oversight. And that's also, St. Thomas says it in his commentary there, when it begins about the birth of Christ, he said, in the land of the Sikh era, in this way was Christ born. So, however, meaning to distinguish it from all the others, it was born. Well, again, Jerome says, son, when you hear virum, right, then, let somebody say, you hear that, especially a woman will say, my man, you know, when they're meeting their husband, right? Jerostalus says we don't always give the relative with the correct name, you know? Let there be no suspicion, right, of nuptials, right? But remember, of scriptures, that spouses, male spouses, right, are called men, and the female called wives, right? But true matrimony is not brought about from what? A spouse, I think, yeah. Yeah. But from the very wedding, right? Therefore, it is not a true matrimony between the Blessed Virgin and, what? Joseph, right, huh? Moreover, Matthew 1.19, this says, Joseph, her man, since he was just, right, and did not want to, what, hand or overwrite, that is, in his house, to, cohabiting, for a time, wished to dismiss her, akuttehan hinwe. That is the, to change the time of, what, nuptials, as a regius expounds. Therefore, it seems that not yet, the nuptials being celebrated, it was not yet a true, what? Yeah. Especially since after contracting matrimony, it is not visit to dismiss the female spouse, right? Okay? But against all this, it's what Augustine says in the second book on the agreement with the evangelists, right? That it is not lawful, is it? That Joseph, on account of this, from the union of Mary was separated, that the evangelist thinks this, right? When he says, Joseph, the vira Maria, right, husband of Mary, that not from his, what, embrace, right? Right. But that the virgin brought forth Christ, right? Mm-hmm. In this example, manifest, he's insinuated to faithful, yeah, that even observing a mutual consent, right? Observing content. Yeah. Right. There can remain and be called a marriage, right, then, without the, what? Yeah, without the, you know, sexist area. Okay. to the body. I've always been kind of confused about that. Let's just say about that. Can a man and a woman marry and take a vow of chastity or something? Or a vow of... I don't know. If they have the intention up front, I don't know how it will be handled, but I know it can be done after they're married. Let's say, I know of a case, it's a town where usually the bishop, it has to come from the bishop, I think. It's not a question, just a master. Didn't Therese's parents actually marry with him in the 10th of the month? That I don't know. Did they change their mind with the help of the priest? That I don't know. Of course, they might have not manifested it to the priest when they got married. That I don't know. I don't know the detail there. But I know there is at least one case I know where there was a couple after they were married. And children. They already had children. And it may have also been driven by the fact that I think he had sickness. He was ill. And so they decided in some way to accept that where we consecrated ourselves and saying, well, we won't have a relationship. And they did this over a period of time. The bishop discerned the whole thing. I don't know all the details, but I know it was discerned for a time with the bishop. And then they were able to do that. He later died. Now he died. But you can deduce at the beginning of the marriage. That's the question. You know, without having the intention to having children. It seems kind of strange to me. But I've heard something that it has been allowed. I don't know. Yeah. I'd have to ask somebody who's a canonist who would have to know. It's not exactly the same thing as people intending to have relations and not have kids. Because that's, I think, something like an impediment. Yeah. Because they're not actually contracted. Yeah, that would invalidate the marriage. Yeah, that would invalidate. But if somebody says, no, we just don't want to replace him on consecrated chastity or virginity, I don't know that presents it. I think it would probably be something that would be slow to accept only because you don't want two youthful people who are just sort of high-octane devotion at the beginning of their marriage and then they're not going to keep it later. Say, well, don't take something on you that sounds great at the beginning. It sounds real quiet, but maybe beyond your strength. I don't know. I think it would certainly be unusual. What is Augustine talking about here, you know? He says, Servata pari consensu continentia, right? Posee per monere vocari que canigene. It's still be called in marriage, right? Non per mixto corpore sexu, right? See, I also had that friend who was corresponding to Paulina Signola, who, I don't know if he did this from the beginning, but he was married, but then they took a vow and they started a monastery somewhere. And I guess they must have separated, but they still lived near each other, the couple. Because Augustine was always writing Paulina Signola. There was a bunch of writers of Paulina Signola. It was very interesting. But I'm not too sure. Did you know what he was talking about? Yeah, that's right. I don't know if they had normal relations before, if they had children or anything before. Sometimes you read about them in Desert Fathers. In Desert Fathers, you run across these things, yeah. Especially when they've done these stories and the monk has kind of contempt for himself and he asks the Lord, you know, Lord, tell me something that's a really example of a protection. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Lord sends him to some little hubble somewhere and there's this old poor couple there and anyway, he's trying to figure out, you know, what's so special. He requires him and he tells him his wife and how he was there. His wife, but they had made his wife because of him. Okay. Let's see what Thomas says in here about this. Answered should be said that matrimonium, matrimonium, or conyugium, marriage, right? Join with, right? Conyugium is joined with. Conyug. Well, joined with, yeah. Is said to be true from this that it attains to its own, what? Perfection. Perfection. Now, twofold is perfection of a thing. It's first perfection and it's what? Second, huh? Now, the first perfection consists in the very form of the thing, right? From which it gets its species, huh? The second perfection consists in the doing, the operation of the thing, to which a thing in some way attains to its end, right? Now, the form of matrimony consists in a certain indivisible showing together of, what? Souls, right? Through which one of the conjugal, one spouse, spouse, yeah, is indivisibly held to observe faith to the other one. But the end of matrimony is the offspring, the proles, to be generated and to be, what? Educated, right? Now, to the first of these, one arrives, right? To concubitum conjugalum now. Concubitum, what is it? How do they translate that? That's what they said then? Well, it doesn't seem to be the texture, doesn't it? Yeah, it doesn't seem to be I think, I was, concubitum literally means sleeping together, I think, in a prison. Yeah. Lying together, sleeping together, intercourse, so. Okay. Okay. To the second, to other doings of the man and the wife, right? By which they, what? Help each other to nourishing the offspring, right? Because that, because the first has to do with generanda, right? And then the second is that you're kind of. Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm talking about for the end. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Okay, so all that pertains to the second. Yeah, yeah. Thus, therefore, it should be said that as you card, the first perfection, altogether is it true that the matrimony of the virgin mother of God and Joseph, it was a true marriage thing, because both consented in the what? Conjugal bond, you know? I see, but not however expressively in the carnal union, except under the condition if it be pleasing to God. Whence the angel calls Mary, the wife, the wife, yeah, of Joseph, saying to Joseph, do not fear to take Mary as your, what, conjugal spouse. Okay? Well, even there, I think it might be more to the point here that it's not just to take her as your spouse, but to take her your spouse, and it's just a positive, it's the same, another form of the same name, Mary, your spouse. Tom seems to have been arguing from that text of the angel saying that, from the words of the angel saying that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Which, Guston expounded in the book on nuptial things and equivocins, is called a connuxt, right, from the first faith of betrothal, right, which neither knew the concubi to the carnal union, right, nor was going to know it. Now, as regards the second perfection, which is through the act of manpower, it refers to the carnal union to which offspring are generated, there was not, yeah, that marriage was not consummated, right, them. Okay, once Ambrose says upon Luke, it should not move you that scripture calls Mary the, what, connuxtion for not a, what, taking away A virginity, but a testification of, I don't know what to translate from Eugene is, is it? A virginity, I use a test, it's just marriage or something. The celebration of... Marriage and a couple, mating, pair, close connection. Yeah. And sitting away from the reality of... We had a dead matrimony nevertheless, or had also, the second perfection as regards the education of the offspring. That would be true, too, if you adopted someone, right? But you're not generated, right? You still have this part of the second perfection, right? Once Augustine says in the book on nuptials and occupants, every good of nuptials is fulfilled in those parents of Christ, right? Proles, fides, and sacramentum, right? For the offspring, the prole, we know is the Lord Jesus, right? Faith, because no adultery. Sacrament, because no what? Divorce, huh? Was that the sacrament, huh? There only the adultual union was not, huh? I suppose if the man and woman married, and for some reason they couldn't reproduce, right? But they adopted a child, right? And educated that child. You say that's a true marriage, right? You'd say that, right? Or say, before they could cancelate the marriage, kind of illness and everything, to control their act, things safe that they could adopt a child. Yeah, so yeah. Will it become? Yeah, yeah. Will it be? Yeah. Well, I think, well, Tom's got about this, this, this. That's the answer, I think, then. Okay. What about Jerome here? To the second, it should be said that Jerome takes their married tomb, right? From the consummation act of marriage, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. I remember that, you know, I had one of the early classes, you know, where the guy was talking about the girl, the Catholic girl was marrying a guy who was not really Catholic, but the American Catholic Church, right? And as you're coming back from the altar, right, he says to her, take a good look around, he says, this is the last time you'll be in here. Oh, boy. So, at least the story was told to us, she marched back to the altar, right? And they put her in the custody of her brothers or something like that, right? And they, you know, had to marry Janelle, too. Oh. You see, because he had some old students, you know. They always struck you, they always struck you, the story, you know. Wow. Yeah, that's great. And Tom had taught her how her fortitude, you know, because he might not have any fortitude to do that. Yeah, yeah. What ever happened to her? I don't know. It could be interesting. I'm hearing more of that story, you know. Wow. But if the marriage happened to be conservated, it could be, you know, annulled. I know a terrible story, and I was first, and we were in a bachelor in Worcester there, that this man, he was teaching in high school, and he'd married a woman, right? He wanted children, right? And then he found out that she was taking some kind of pill or something that prevented this thing, and she had no intention of having children. He was trying to get the marriage annulled, but it was very hard in those days to get a marriage annulled. Even though she was willing to testify that she had no intention of having children, and even the priest who had married them, you know, was willing to testify that this was the situation, you know. And I went and saw a canon lawyer for him, you know, but she said, you've got to have two witnesses, you know, beforehand, where she told her intentions. Well, I've got to get two witnesses. It seems to be enough if the girl, you know, is willing to testify this fact, and even the priest who married them, you know. I mean, if they're lying, that's their punishment, but they don't think it was that at all. I say the bond, and in those days, maybe it wasn't even excessively so, because once you open that door, and that's what happened. I just read it in the current issue of the Wanderer that one of the sections there, where he wrote in and written in and said his marriage to his wife twice received an annullment for a certain diocese, twice in the same marriage, because the first time it was decreed, it was no. He appealed it to the Roman Rhoda, which reversed the decision. Then she did it again. The tribunal found it again. It was no. He appealed it again and wrote it. They again reversed the decision. Then she was in the process of doing it a third time, and she died. So he said, so you've got to be careful of these annullments. They're so easy now. It's sort of the other extreme. Yeah, of course, it's the other extreme. I remember that distinctly when I used to read it. It was over to Romano years ago. Once a year, the book is addressed to the Rhoda. And almost, at least years ago, it was almost always about marriage stuff. John Paul was so emphatic every single year. He would talk about the presumption and favor of the bond. Oh, he was always, and I think because he knew the number of annullments that were going through. So, you know, it's just like a paper mill. But. This guy's so desperate for a child. He even tried to adopt one with his mother, you know, but they wouldn't allow it. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't know. He wanted children. He wanted children. And she had no intention of having children. Wow. Terrible situation to be in. Yeah. Two witnesses beforehand. She probably didn't tell two people, you know, this is her intention before marriage, you know? Yeah. She could have, I mean, probably. There's no way to produce those people. I don't know. It happens like I find. In the second one, he answers the same way. That Jerome calls lupcius the nuptial concubitum, right? To the third, it should be said, as Ecclesiastes says upon Matthew, the Blessed Virgin was thus betrothed to Joseph, that she also, what? Dwelt in his house, was it? Well, for just as in the one who conceives in the house of the man, right, it's understood to be a what? Exception. So also in the one who sees outside the house, there is a suspected conjunction. And thus, it would not have been sufficiently provided for the fame of the Blessed Virgin through this, that she was betrothed, unless she also, what? Dwelt in the house. Once it says, and he did not wish to, what, hand her over, it means, is more, or better understood, that she did not wish to defame her in public, which would be understood about the what? Once the evangelist joins or adds that he wished, in a hidden way, to dismiss her. There's a traductial, at least, a little proof. Yeah. Because although she was, what, dwelling in the house, on account of the first faith of betrothalite, not yet had intervened the solemn celebration of the nuptials, an account of which also they had not yet, what? Yeah. When Christendom says, huh, the evangelist does not say, before she was, what, for the spouse? Yeah. Where the custom was, in the old times, I guess, many times, in the house, to have the ones who were, yeah. Betrothed, yeah. And therefore, also, the angel says to Joseph, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, huh? That is, do not fear to celebrate solemnly the nuptials, right? Although, others say that she was not yet introduced in the house, but only betrothed, right, huh? But the first more, it seems to be in agreement with the gospel, right? So, I don't know where all the customs were in those days. I don't know where the authority in those. You know, in Shakespeare's time, the betrothal was a much more serious thing here. It was, it wasn't like our engagement, it was much more, it was almost equivalent to marriage, right? Could hardly be broken, you know, without serious, serious consequences. That's what, I think of that little reading, and we have the announcement to the Blessed Version, which is coming up next, but it makes the point, historically, I guess, that if someone was espoused or betrothed at that time, if she were unfaithful, one of them was unfaithful, it would be considered guilty of adultery, even before the solemn celebration, and if one of them died, the other would be considered a widow, because it was, it was that serious, that it was carried up until, I mean, nothing is serious anymore. Marriage isn't serious, so who cares about it? So, if they can see, after that kind of betrothal, they'll look upon it as seriously as they do, you know, after one of our engagements, but before marriage, you can see it. Because there is not, uh, furtherness yet. It isn't even furtherness with marriage now. She'll take a little break now through the end.