Tertia Pars
Lecture 74: The Annunciation: Necessity, Messenger, and Mode

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

This is the last question on the Blessed Virgin, right? Then we're not to consider about the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin. We'd say Annunciation too, right? But this is not congenital. And about this are asked four things. First, whether it was suitable to announce to her what was going to be, what, generated in her? Strange you should ask that question. Second, through whom it was to be announced to her, right? And then, in what way it ought to be announced to her? And then about the order of announcing. So very thorough as usual, right, this Thomas here, huh? To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that it was not necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin what was going to come about in her, huh? Strange that she has to say. For announcing, for this would seem to be necessary, that one might have the consent of the Virgin, huh? But the consent does not seem to have been necessary, because the conception of the Virgin was foreannounced in the prophecy of what? Yeah. Which, without our choice or consent, right, is completed, as a certain gloss says, huh? Therefore, it was not necessary for such a enunciation to come about. How would she know that she's the one? Yeah, well, that would be a big surprise. What is going on? Moreover, the Blessed Virgin had the faith of, what, the Incarnation, without which no one is able to be, what, in the state of salvation. Because, as is said, Romans 3.22, the justice of God is through the faith of Jesus Christ. But, about that, that someone believes with certitude, then it does not need to be further, what, instructed. Therefore, to the Blessed Virgin, it was not necessary that to her be announced the Incarnation of the Son. How should she know that she's going to be the one to whom he's going to come, huh? Moreover, as the, just as the Blessed Virgin bodily conceived Christ, so each holy soul conceives him spiritually. Whence the Apostle says, Galatians 4, My little ones and little sons, whom again I, what, bring forth? Until Christ is formed in you, huh? It's kind of a model there, the assumptions, right? Didn't it formate the Christians in the movies? Oh, I didn't know that. But to those who spiritually act to conceive her, such a conception is not, what, announced to them, right? Something didn't come down and say, you should conceive him in your soul, Mr. Barquist. Therefore, neither to the Blessed Virgin should be announced that she would, in her womb, conceive the Son of God, huh? That's interesting, these questions, Thomas, does it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But again, this is what is had in Luke 1, 3, 1. The angel said to her, Behold, you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, huh? The pronunciation is only in Luke, isn't it, huh? It's not in Matthew, isn't it? Right, yeah. Yeah. There's a certain telling of the St. Joseph, huh? The answer, it should be said that it was congruent, right? Suitable. Well, that to the Blessed Virgin be announced that she was going to, what? Christ. Christ. First, that there might be observed a suitable order of the union of the Son of God to the Virgin, huh? That she might, her mind, first be, what? Instructed before she conceived in her, what? Yeah. Yeah. Flesh. Once Augustine says in the book on virginity, More blessed is Mary in perceiving the faith of Christ than in conceiving the, what? Right, right. Yeah. And afterwards, he says that the maternal nearness would in no way benefit Mary, huh? Unless, more happily, right, she brought forth Christ in her heart than in her flesh, huh? Strong words, that to Augustine, huh? Yeah. Didn't he say someplace to Augustine, you know, that would not profit her to bring him forth in her body, if she not brought him forth in her soul? He says something like that. Yeah, you're right. No. Second, that she could be a more certain witness of this sacrament, huh? When she was instructed about it divinely, huh? Third, that voluntary gift of her service, right, she might offer to what? God. To which she showed herself prompt, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, huh? That's a very good reason, isn't it, John? Mm-hmm. Third, that there might be shown a certain spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature. And therefore, through the Annunciation, is expected to consent to the Virgin in place of the whole human nature. That's right. That's right. Yeah. That's what the next thing, in his famous sermon, yeah, his famous sermon. He's got to be doing the French thing. Yeah. One of our brothers, his son was called Bernard, and he's just a Bernard, and so forth, because he's French. So, anyway, but, you know, that's what his famous sermon is all about. We're waiting for you. We're waiting for you. Yeah. That's very beautiful. Say yes. Please say yes. Say yes for us all. Okay, they're all interesting reasons there, I think, huh? In this book, someone wrote in pencil, the first paragraph, two quotes from, it says, L.G. of 53 must be in the Gentium. So, the first paragraph, they're L.G. of 53, and then at the end, the fourth one, L.G. of 55. Kind of beautiful way, Thomas, is order these four reasons, isn't it? Mm-hmm. The three and four are very similar there, right? But one is, since, you know, more personal. And then, the last one is in the person of the whole human race, the whole human nature, you might say. It's just a question in the previous one. It really presupposes you actually believe the gospel. That's so striking, because nobody's in the serious room. I saw just sort of fantastic fables. It's very nice, it probably is, but, you know. Oh, yeah. I was listening to how a car heard it on the way home. It was maybe last week or something, you know. Some guy, I guess he was Jewish, you know, but he caught up, you know, and he was saying, I don't think of this stuff, you know. And he was saying, you know, this thing about the dividing of the sea, you know, the Red Sea, you know, that thing, it's a feeble, you know. And then this thing about this virgin birth, this is... So how he carred ahead with his son, he said, you're not getting into the Christmas party, he said. You better say, happy Christmas, you know, merry Christmas and so on, you know. I thought I got the guy to say merry Christmas. Yeah. Well, that's what the famous line about the Jewish grandmother who... her son was studying, a Jewish son was studying to be a rabbi and they were going to the ship. Moses and the party, well, it wasn't real. No, they didn't really party to the sea. They crossed over in two inches of water, you know, which is kind of a dissipation. And she says, glory be to God, the whole Egyptian army drowned in two inches of water. Father Gershon is the other one, right? She responds, were you there? Were you there? That's the other Jewish guy. That's the misbound. You were there. So, to the first, it should be said that the prophecy of predestination is what? Completed without our choice of causing it, right? But not without our judgment consenting, right? Funny the Latin I'm a bit too young, right? Yeah. How is it standing for? To the second, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin had an express faith about the future incarnation, but since she was humble, she did not suspect such holy things about herself. She's not. I think, yeah. And therefore, about this she ought to be instructed, right? She's going to be instructed in the humble too. Yeah. Yeah. Now, the third one is about, well, how come we don't get this for our spiritual concealing? To the third it should be said that the spiritual conception of Christ, which is through faith, right? Preceives the annunciation which is through the preaching of what? Faith, right? According as faith is ex audito from hearing. Not over on account of this does someone know for certain that he has what? Grace, right? But he knows that faith to be true which he has what? Received, huh? That's addressing the answer there. The objection is saying that we don't get announced that he's going to be an angel. I mean, it's kind of thinking the words of the angel there, right? You know, that she's full of grace. He's saying, well, you have to be told that, you know? Because one doesn't know for certain that he has grace, right? But one knows who has faith that he has certitude, huh? Yeah. So I'm sure that Mary's the mother of God, but I'm not sure that I have grace or that I love God, right? You know, it says in scripture that you don't know whether you're worthy of love or hate, right? Okay. Now how about to... To whom this enunciation should be made, right? To the second one goes forward thus. It seems that the enunciation, the announcing, should not have been made to the Blessed Virgin through a, what, angel, right? For to the highest angel, revelation is made immediately by God. It says Dianysius in the seventh chapter of the celestial hierarchy, right? It's the first hierarchy, right? It's the seraphim, see, peace and the goodness of God, right? And so on. The cherubim and his disposition and so on. But the mother of God is exalted above all the angels. Therefore it seems that she ought to be immediately by God and denounce the mysterious incarnation, and not to an angel. I guess I got a text, isn't it, huh? I don't know. Okay. More, if in this it was necessary to observe the common order, according as divine things are revealed to men through the, what, angels, right, huh? Similarly, divine things ought to be deferred to the woman through the man. Once the apostle says, 1 Corinthians 14, woman in church be sad, and if they wish to learn something, let them ask at the house their master's son or husband's son. I thought she was talking to one of my colleagues, you know, and his wife answered the phone and said, can I speak to your lord and master? She was quick, he says, just a minute, he's doing the dishes. She was quick. I just got the wrong side of his head on for some reason. And he could answer, he could answer, I come among you as one of the serves. Therefore, it seems that to the Blessed Virgin ought to be announced the Mr. Incarnation to some man, especially because Joseph, her man, right, huh, was instructed about this by the angel, right? So, and he had the following hierarchy, he had a, yes, sir, read. Moreover, no one is able to, what, suitably announce what he doesn't know, right? But the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the Incarnation. Whence Danesha says in the seventh chapter in Sletcher hierarchy, that from their person is said to be understood the question which is placed in Isaiah's chapter 63, who is this who comes up from Edom, huh? Therefore, it seems that to no angel could be suitably announced the, what, Incarnation. Moreover, the greater thing should be announced to the greater ones. But the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest among all those things which are announced to the angels, to men, right? Therefore, it seems that if through some angel it ought to be announced, that it ought to be announced through someone of the highest order, right? But Gabriel is not of the supreme order, he's not a seraphim, but he's of the order of the archangels, which is next to the last. Whence the church sings, Gabriel the archangel, we know, You could probably say sent, I'm not sure. Breathing, being blown. Yeah. Oh, it has to do with addressing speaking. Yeah. The pronouncement. Yeah. Therefore, this annunciation ought not to be made through Gabriel the archangel. It wasn't for soon to be done, right? That's a good one. I think all these arguments, I'm convinced of them all. Something's wrong with this whole thing. So, it would be nice just to have the rest of it cut off, you know, and you've got to think about those four objections and say, how the heck would I ever answer those? We'll never get through this material at all. This is that. Against this is what is said, Luke 1. Gabriel, the angel, was sent by God, and so on. There you just go, you know. The answer should be said that it was suitable to the mother of God to be announced through an angel the mystery of the divine incarnation. Why? For three reasons, huh? What a marvelous mind this guy is. First, that in this also would be observed the divine order, right? According to which, by the angels as a medium, divine things arrive at what? Men, huh? So you might have order here, right? Once Danesia says in the fourth chapter, the celestial hierarchy, that the divine mystery of the bedignity of Christ, huh? Yeah, Father Boyer used to say he's discovered another characteristic of God, the dignity. It's great. Expelled that one time. The angels first were, what? Taught, right? Afterwards, through them, to us, the grace of knowledge, what? Past, huh? Thus, the most, what? Divine Gabriel, Zachary, taught the property future from him. We are, in what way, the mystery of the ineffable God's formation would be, what? Yeah, it's a fear, the arctic. The arctic. Yeah. The divine order, you could say. Yeah. Secondly, this was suitable to the reparation, to human reparation, which the future would be through Christ. Whence Bede says in a homily, it's an apt beginning of the restoration of man, that an angel by God is sent to a virgin, right, by birth to be consecrated to the divine. Why? Because the first, the beginning of the fall of man, right, the cause was the serpent, right, from the devil, right, sent to the woman, deceiving her by the spirit of what? Pride, huh? But it's kind of like, like, it's a little bit like, you know, they talk about the fall began from the woman, right, and then it proceeded to the man, right, and so the redemption ought to begin from the woman and be completed in the man, right? But then if you take the whole story, it begins the fall from the, what, the devil, right, speaking to Eve, and then, you know, Eve, you know, suggesting to the man and getting him to go along with it, right? And so in the redemption, you've got to have the angel instead of the devil speaking to the woman, Mary, instead of Eve, and then. Yeah, that's what, uh, oh. There might be something about the, it was, or somewhere in the father, I don't remember what it read, the bad angel deceived the foolish virgin. Yeah. And here you have the good angel instructing the lion. Yeah, yeah. That's the reverse. Is it, is the man, Christ had his new Adam, or is it Joseph or both? Well, Christ is a new Adam, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Christ is a new Adam, because I started to become a new Joseph. Yeah, yeah. But I mean, it's kind of, you know, appropriate for our redemption, right? That, uh, the one whose sin is redeemed, you know, is going to, I mean, the whole, the reason why Christ became, or God became a man is that man might, what, redeem himself, right? But he can't, you know? Right. Unless he's a very special man, right? But then, uh, the Sam's got to be redeemed too. You know, and the fact that she began with that, you know, then she should have some role before, right? And then, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, And then the angel or the demon, right? Again, the angel should have some role, right? Something like that. The opposition would be then, you know, first half, the head of the human race fell, and this is the proof of the virgin, the new beginning, the new head of the. And third, because it was suitable to the virginity of the mother of God, right? Whence Jerome says in his sermon on the Assumption, that a well is the angel sent to the virgin, right, huh? Because it's always, the virginity is always next to her, the angels, right? It's the same thing. For in the flesh, to live without the flesh, right, is not earthly life, but an heavenly life, right? So actually he says to the Sadducees, right, whose wife is she going to be, right? And he said, well, they'll be like the angels in heaven, right? So they need to marry her to give in marriage. St. Thomas, too, is a question that in chapter 19, Matthew Johnson, that's what I'm thinking about here, too, is why the church, why John Paul said that's, that's sort of the most notable sign of consecrated life, is consecrated chastity, about the others. And I was reading St. Matthew's commentary, St. Thomas, when they asked him about marriage, can I be divorced for any reason? He says, well, just to ask the question, already implies a corrupt mind. They've already got a bad attitude. But then if they add, for any reason, they're even worse than that, because they want, for any reason, that they're already sort of cultivating this kind of vitality, right, yeah. Well, in these paintings of the Annunciation, you have the lily there, right? Mm-hmm. But that's also, you know, isn't that kind of the feast of the Incarnation, because that's when it becomes incarnate, right? The time of the, you know, fiat. Mm-hmm. But, I mean, we think of, you know, Christmas, but it's not really, that's the birth of Christ, right? But not the Incarnation itself. Yeah. That's nine months after the, so it's March 25th, yeah. It's when you celebrate the month's. We celebrate the month's. We have it on March 25th, but I don't think it's a bigger feast on March 25th as it is for us. We have one. We have six Sundays, six weeks of Advent, and the second week is the Annunciation of Mary. We celebrate the announcements, all the announcements. The Announcement of Zachariah, the birth of John, then the Announcement of Mary, then there's the Visitation, then there's the birth of John the Baptist. And this week we have Revelation of St. Joseph, his announcement. Then this coming Sunday is Genealogy Sunday, so we live them all. Genealogy. I used, I got that a couple of years in a row, and that's a tough one to read. There's a beautiful cuss in there with my daughter Maria and her friend Elizabeth, you know, who's married to my son, you know, but if they find a nice picture, you know, of the Visitation, you know, from me and Elizabeth, greeting each other, you know, and they'll send it to each other, you know. It's kind of a nice thing, because I just happen to have those names, Mary and Elizabeth. But they don't happen to me. Yeah. Okay. Now we see the answers now to the things here. The first, therefore, it should be said that the mother of God is above the angels as it guards the dignity to which she was divinely chosen. But as far as in the status of the present life, she is below the angels, huh? Because even Christ, by reason of his suffering life, right, is a little bit less than from the angels, right? That's that famous psalm 8, isn't it? Oh, right. Of course. Yeah. And because Christ was both, what, viator and comprehensor, as you guys, now to the divine things, he did not need to be instructed by the angels, right? But the mother of God was not yet in the status of the, what, those who see God face to face, right? And therefore, about the divine conception, she had to be instructed by the angels, right? I think that, well, unless he said that, I mean, Christ, even he in some sense was less than the angels, right, in his status, but more so than Mary. Quite marvelous, those angels, huh? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Um, what about not having a man, right? Okay. All right. Now, to the second should be said, as Augustine says in his Sermon on the Assumption, the Blessed Virgin Mary, right, huh, is what? Accepted from, right? Exhibitor, exception to, you might say, Mm-hmm. the true, what? Estimate from some general things, right? Mm-hmm. Because she, neither, what? Except she, didn't want my children. Yeah. Nor was she under, what? Yeah, power, who, from her most, uh, integral, viscera, right? Yeah. Uh, from the Holy Spirit, received Christ, and therefore she had not by means of the man to be instructed about the mystic incarnation, but by means of the angel. Since she didn't depend on him for a child. Yeah. Yeah. An account of which also she before was instructed in Joseph, where she was instructed before the conception, Joseph, however, what? Yeah. After, huh? He's the last of them, right? Yeah. That's what I'm going to know. That's what I'm going to know. Well, as St. Thomas gives, I know, in the commentary of that, he says about, somewhere, the more a man is removed from the senses, the more the angel can reveal things, so he can't sleep. But then they say, yeah, but the virgin was instructed while she was awake. Yeah. So what's that supposed to mean? You know? And he said, well, it would have been harder for her to believe. She needed some greater testimony, you might say, it's a greater sign to this marvel because she was the person that nobody had even seen her. There was no evidence of it at all. Whereas Joseph, at least had the evidence, she was a brother, she was pregnant. Yeah. So he had something go on and he didn't have the father and she could go to her. So he had some other sensible instruction. Now the third one, huh? About the angels not knowing themselves, huh? The mystery. To the third, it should be said that just as from the authority of Dionysius brought in, the angels knew the mystery of the incarnation, right? But nevertheless, they asked, right? Desiring to know more perfectly from Christ the reasons of this mystery. It's interesting, huh? There are students there, right? Yeah. Which are incomprehensible, right? These reasons to every created, what? Intellect, right? Wow. Whence Maximus says that whether the angels knew the future incarnation were not, not to, is not necessary to, what? To be in doubt about other invigilates? There can be no, the English is given, there can be no question that the angels knew that the incarnation was a big place. Yeah. And they'll call them in the question. But there was hidden from them the, what? Unsearchable conception. Conception of the Lord. Yeah. And the mode in which way the whole, in the, what? Begather, I don't know if there's a virgin. Genitory. The whole, the whole. Remained in all. In all. Well, it's in the... It won't, right? Oh, anyway, God believes me is not going to investigate it, right? Right. The conception of the Lord, right? So he says he knew it, but that they didn't know all the reasons for it, right? Yeah. All the reasons of it. How does that handle you get, Amy? Yeah, they give, it was not given to them to trace the manner of our Lord's conception, nor how it was that he remained whole in the Father, whole throughout the universe, and was whole in the narrow below of the earth. Yeah. The universe could not contain, he was contained in there. How could that be? Yeah. Now, what about not being the highest angel here? To the fourth, then, it should be said that some say that Gabriel was of the highest order, on account of what Gregory says, that the highest angel to come was not worthy, right? Who would announce the highest thing of all, right? But from this is not had that he was the highest among all the orders, but with respect to the angels, for he was of the order of the, what, archangels, huh? Whence also the church names him an archangel. And Gregory himself says in the homily about the undue sheep, that the archangels are called those who announce the highest things, right, huh? But it is sufficiently believable that he was the highest in the order of the, what, archangels, because he's going to announce the highest things, right? And as Gregory says, this name fits his office, right, huh? For Gabriel names the power of God, right? So Michael is what? Who's like God? And Ruth is what? The medication of God? I guess the EL has a reference to God, right? In the other part, some reference to God, huh? For he is named the fortitude of God, right, huh? For through the fortitude of God, who was to be announced the Lord of Powers, right? And potents in battle, right, huh? He'd come to fighting the aerial powers there, the demons. So, we've got time for a little one here? Stop. Okay. Now, next, uh... In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, you're enlightened. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, an angelic doctor. Amen. Help us to understand all that you're written. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, amen. I bet you guys weren't celebrating St. Raymond's opinion for it today. St. John the Baptist. With praises of John the Baptist, because yesterday we celebrated the baptism of the Lord. Yeah. I think it was St. Raymond's opinion for it, who asked Thomas to, you know, write the book for the Dominicans down there in Spain, and so on, so. He's the occasion, you know, for my favorite book, huh? So, I have to bear in mind, St. Raymond's opinion for it today. Yeah. Well, it's kind of, you know, the danger here of likeness of proportion, right, huh? Okay? And so he says, when the objection says, good act is to the, what, reward of heaven, right, huh? And a bad act, of course, is to the punishment of, he'll punish you, right, if you're bad in the face, but maybe wisdom would say. Now, he says, which is better, the good act or the reward? Yeah, the reward is better, right? Well, punishment is to the bad act, as the reward is to the good act, then punishment should be, what, worse than the bad act. But is that so, see? This over here is culpa, right? So, that's one of the arguments on the other side, right, when punishment is worse, huh? How would you solve that, you know? It seems kind of reasonable, right? Well, the reward seems that it might be something of a final cause, whereas the bad act is more like an effective cause. Yeah. He says the reward is, in some sense, the end of the good act, right? So, if the good act is for the sake of the reward, right, the end is better than what is for the sake of it, right? But the bad act is not for the sake of punishment. Where the punishment is to, what, correct the bad act, right? So, Tom's got to turn the thing, you know? And, now which is worse, see? A work of sin, to make this a little more, is it? Or, the loss of the, what, vision, you know? See? Which you'd say is worse. It would seem that mortal sin is worse than the loss of the vision. Yeah. Now, why is that so, right? Why is mortal sin removing a, what, greater good than this loss of the vision? Why is that so, right? Because it's, it's, I compare it to my imagination. I say, well, the mortal sin is the turning away from the vision. That's the consequence. If you turn away from it with sin towards something else, then that's just the consequence. You lose it. That's, but I don't know. Yeah. Well, Thomas points out that mortal sin is really opposed to the love of God, right, in himself. When the loss of the vision is the loss of my good, my enjoyment of God, right? Now, that's a great good for me, my enjoyment of God. But is that comparable or equal to the goodness of God in himself? So, it's kind of interesting what Thomas is putting out there about charity, right? In so far as it's the love of God, right? It's the love of God in himself, right? It's a little bit like, you know, like in the, at least in the version of confession that I've heard of the petition, you know? I'm hardly sorry if I don't think of it and so on. Because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, right? Most of all, it could offend me, my God, who art all good, right? They refer to what God is in himself, right? That's opposed, therefore, in some sense, to the goodness of God himself, huh? Which is a much greater good than my enjoyment of him. Great and good as that might be, right? Look how beautiful the way Thomas develops that text. And this is from? This is in the fifth article of the first question of the demodel, right? Jack Storch tells students, it's the greatest fetus of evil. If you want to really understand evil, it's like it's our way to write it out, John. You're going to be disappointed if you're going to get there, you know? You've got to hear all about the sins of the flesh or something, you know? But the first, you know, question is more general, you know, about what the bad is and that the bad is found in something good, though, right? And the good is the accidental pause of the bad and so on. Then he has his last two articles, which are on the distinction between Buena and Kupa, right? Which is worse, right, than the fifth article, right? And so it's a beautiful way he develops that, huh? He's quoting, isn't it? I think it's Gregory's quoting there where he says, you know, objections saying, hey, people fear the punishment, right? Because if they guard us worse than sin, right? And he says, well, that's what the bad people are like. The good people run away from this more than from what? That, right, huh? And so, as Aristotle says, the virtuous man is the measure of good and bad, right? So you've got to judge it not by what the bad man thinks is worse, right? What the good man thinks is worse, huh? And so, beautiful way he develops the things there. Okay. We're left off. Did you do Article 3 yet here in Question 30?