Tertia Pars
Lecture 81: The Formation and Animation of Christ's Body in the Womb

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

33. Then we're not to consider about the mode and order in the conception of Christ. And about these four things are asked. First, whether the body of Christ in the first instant of the conception was formed. And Thomas is going to say yes. Not some of these pro-life people who try to take that and say therefore in the first moment of conception, you know, it's already important. Yeah, you've got to be kind of careful about that. Second, whether in the first instance of conception it was animated, now, the soul. Third, whether in the first instant of conception it was assumed, taken up, taken on by the word. And fourth, whether that conception was natural or miraculous. Very stingy this, Thomas, isn't he? Wonderful. Yeah, wonderful things go by. Every little thing he's got, he's got a, he's got a... Pick it to death. Yeah. Niggard truth, as Shakespeare calls it in the sonnets. Stingy truth. To the first, one proceeds thus. It seems that the body of Christ was not formed in the first instant of conception. For it is said in the second chapter of the Gospel of John, 46 years the Temple was, what, built, right? Which Augustine expounding in the fourth book of the Trinity says, this number fits the perfection of the, what, of the Lord's body manifestly, yeah. And in the book of the 83 questions, not absurdly, is 46 years said to be fabricated, the Temple, that figures is, what, body, right, huh? Because as many years as there were in the fabrication of the Temple, so many days were there in the perfection of the body of the Lord, right? Therefore, not in the first instant of conception was the body of Christ perfectly formed. I'd like to be changing the English word over there. Therefore, the body of Christ is not perfectly formed in the first instant of the conception, right? Therefore, not in the first instant of conception was the body of Christ perfectly formed. It's kind of funny, if you read these things in the Latt all the time, they pick up certain ways of speaking, you know, in English. And you can identify them, you know, when they speak, you know. I read Mike Hickens' thesis or something. He came to you or, I don't remember. And all I could, I'd say it sounded like he's thinking in Latin. It sounded like the way his word order was just kind of going through, like, the Greek system in Latin. Well, Albert de Graden in the Paralympics are looking at now that he's doing that with the class on Wednesday night, and he'll give kind of, you know, a Latin, the Greek order in the Latin first, and then he'll give it the way we usually say it in Latin, you know. It's a little bit confusing, to say the least. Apart from the fact that Aristarchus doesn't change the letters, don't he? He uses them. I really enjoy doing that, huh? Did every teacher enjoy losing his students? Moreover, to the formation of the body of Christ, Christ, huh, is required locomotion, right? Change your place. By which the most pure bloods of the Blessed Virgin arrive at a suitable place for generation. But no body can be moved in place in an instant, huh? In that the time of motion is divided according to the division of the mobile, as is proved in the sixth book of the physics. Therefore, the body of Christ was not formed in instant, huh? So Aristarchus shows that motion, you know, locomotion takes time, right? Because that's the way Aristarchus argues that illumination is not a locomotion, huh? It doesn't take any time. Of course, we know very, you know, interesting instruments can actually see that it does take some time for the light to fill this room, but, you know, it seems kind of, kind of incredible that something would move that fast, right? It's interesting, because when Thomas talks about the heavenly bodies, and Aristotle speaks about them as being eternal and so on, and because you don't see them, you know, corrupting, you know, like you see bodies down the earth they're corrupting all the time. And Thomas says, well, but you could say, you know, maybe it takes longer than, you know, the lives of many men, you know, for these changes to be, take place and to be noticeable in the heavenly bodies. So, in other words, he has a little caution there, right, huh? You know, even though it appears that they don't change, right? But he doesn't have any, you know, caution. He talks about the, you know, light, huh? But, so, from a formal point of view, Aristotle's syllogism is correct, right? Illumination takes no time. Locomotion takes time. Therefore, illumination is not a locomotion. But the minor premise there might be a mistake, right? It does take some time, although very, very little, right? It's 1,000, 6,000 miles per second, something like that. That's what I call it. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But even Thomas says, you know, that the sun rises, and the whole, you know, that's incredible to think that, you know, that could be, anything can be that fast, right? What do you think of these computers and all this? But, it's the same with just about a telephone, you know? I dial a number, and it rings in Florida. That's it. I mean, that's over a telephone line. I mean, that's, that's pretty mean. Yeah, yeah. Miracles about a science, right? They're in place. They say. Moreover, the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of the Virgin, as has been said above. But that matter could not in the same instant be what? Blood and flesh, right? Because, thus, matter would, at the same time, be under two, what? Forms. Therefore, there was another instant in which it was last blood. Therefore, other was the instant in which it was last blood, and other in which it was first, what? Flesh. But between any two instances, there is a middle, what? Time. Therefore, the body of Christ was not formed in instant, but through some time. Well, this comes back. This is the fame, this argument that comes up again and again, right? Well, it comes up in Hegel and everybody, you know? It goes all the way back to the Greeks, people say, you know, take it, it changes it in contradictories, right? When what is not a cat becomes a cat, right? And you say, well, there's some time in which it was not a cat, right? But since that time is not forever, there is a last instant, right? In which it was, what? Not a cat, okay? Now, there's a later time in which it is a cat, right? And it wasn't always a cat, right? So there's a first instant in which it is a cat, right? Now, there's a last instant in which it is not a cat, and the first instant in which it is a cat, are they the same instant? Yeah. You say they are the same, right? Then, in that instant, it both is and is not a cat, which is something that Hegel would admit, right? You know? It's not a cat, but it's not a cat, but it's not a cat, but it's not a cat, but it's not a cat, But if you say that it's not the same instant, right? Well, then there's going to be some time between those two instances, right? Now, in that time in between, is it not a cat or is it a cat? Well, if it's not a cat, then you shouldn't have, in a sense, it's a last instance, you should put it up here again, right? Or if you say it is a cat in this time in between, well, then this is not the first instance over here, right? So you can't have any time between those two instances. So it seems that the last instance which is not a cat is also the first instance which is a cat. And this is the way Hegel maintains, you know, that, you know, change is a contradiction, right? And this runs through because it creates problems in theology, right? So they say, you know, in Eucharist, right, it's the same thing. Let's see, the blood becomes, excuse me, not the blood, the wine. The wine becomes the blood of Christ, right? And you say, well, it's not always wine then, is it, huh? So there's a last instant, right, in which it is wine. And then the first instance that is blood, right? Well, are they in the same instant? Well, then you're going to have both the wine, and that's theoretical, right? Well, if they're not, then you've got to have a time in between. And is it wine or is it blood in there? It's wine, and it's not the past instant. And so you get to the same problem, right? Aristotle solves that. It looks a natural here, right? And Thomas would probably give a little solution of it here, right? It's just similar to the, I guess it's not the same, but I was associated with my money with it. It wasn't Zeno, you shoot an arrow at a target, you never really get it. Yeah, it's related to that, related to that, yeah. Yeah, it's a little different problem. Yeah, I was associated with that. Aristotle's going to, you know, teach that there's no last instant in which it is not a, what, cat. But only the first instant in which it is a cat. Cat or the book's natural hearing right now, but Thomas will touch upon that. It's interesting that it shows up here again, huh? It shows up in the Tweet of Sun, on the Eucharist, and the other places, huh? Moreover, the power of growing, the augmentative power, requires a determinate time for its act. So also does the generating power. Now, both power, both of them are a natural power pertaining to the living soul. But the body of Christ grew for a determined time, just as that in the bodies of other men, right? The Word is said in the second chapter of Luke that he progressed, you might say, in age and wisdom, right? So if it was growing, it took time, right? When it was generating, it took time, huh? Therefore, it seems for a like reason that the formation of his body, which pertains to the generating power, was not an instant, but in a determined time in which the bodies of other men were, what, formed, huh? But against this is what Gregory says in the 18th book of the Morals, that the angel announcing and the Holy Spirit coming at once, huh? The Word in the womb, at once, the Word was flesh, right? The saiste of the language, you know? You see that in Aristotle in the prior lyrics, right? You know, the verb, you know? So, I was kind of, I had a Greek text, and I was kind of translating it as I went along in the class last night, and some of them were looking at it in English, you know, and of course they have more words, you know? He said, you need words out, you know? I said, no, no, I'm just kidding, what the guy says. Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that in the conceiving of the body of Christ, three things are to be considered, huh? First, the locomotion of the blood to the place of generation. Secondly, the formation of the body from such matter. Third, the growth by which it is brought to a perfect, what, size, huh? In the middle of which, the notion of conception consists. For the first is a, what, preamble to the conception, and the third is something that follows upon the conception, huh? Now, the first is not able to be in an instant, huh? Because this is against the very definition, the very notion of locomotion of anybody, right, huh? Whose parts successively enter a place, huh? Likewise, the third must be, what, successive, right, huh? Because, on the one hand, growth is not without some locomotion, and also because it goes forth from the power of the soul operating in the body in all form, which does not operate except in what time, huh? But the very formation of the body in which chiefly the ratio of the notion of the definition of conception consists was in an instant, huh, for a two-fold reason, huh? First, on account of the infinite power of the agent, to wit the Holy Spirit, by whom the body of Christ is formed, huh? This has been said above, huh? For, in that way, an agent can more, what, quickly dispose matter, the more it is of greater power, huh? For the more an agent is of greater power, the more power an agent has, if I see anything, that's right, the more quickly it can dispose. Greater power, yeah. Whence an agent of infinite power is able, in an instant, to dispose matter for a, what, suitable form, huh? Secondly, on the part of the person of Christ, huh, whose body is to be formed, huh? For it was not congruent, huh, or suitable, and that he assume a, what, in a human body except one formed. For if before a perfect formation, some time of conception went before, the whole conception would not be, what, which is not attributed to him except by reason of the, what, assumption. And therefore, in the very first instant in which the matter arrived at the place of generation, it was perfectly formed, the body of Christ, and, what, assumed, huh? And through this, it is said that the Son of God is said to be conceived, right? Because in no other way is it possible. That's kind of subtle in the second argument there. And that's much the idea that it wouldn't be suitable, but the idea that you couldn't speak of him as being, what? I can see. Yeah. What we say, by faith, is the same thing. Yeah. Now, I answer this text of Augustine by saying, huh, that the word Augustine in both places does not refer to the, to only the formation of the body of Christ, right? but to the formation of it together with some, what? Yeah. Up to the time of, what? Birth. Birth. Whence, according to the notion of that number, it is said to be preferred. Back to the time of nine, what, months of which Christ was in the womb of the Virgin. I've seen that before, I guess, in the, actually it's in the numbers, but I don't remember the exact details of it. Well, nine months, nine months, thirty, two hundred and seventy, two hundred and seventy-six, because he adds to six days, because he adds to 46, he multiplies 46 by something. Yeah. He gets some other number in there, to be at the two hundred and forty-six, or two hundred and seventy-six. Now, the second objection was taken from the blood getting to the place, right? To the second, it should be said that that locomotion was not comprehended within, what, or under the conception, but is the preamble of the conception, right? Now, the third one is the way he solves the same thing when it comes to the Eucharist. He kind of gets an article, it's in French there, I don't know if that's probably been eventually in English, it's in these new editions, but it's called in French, Paradox de devenir, par la contradiction. So it deals with this thing that's solved, this problem, right? It's in the physics and solved there in the physics, right? But it touches upon the importance of it for theology, right? And the Eucharist and so on, right? It's one place, but here it shows up again, right? You never know it's an old friend, huh? You kind of see, you know, the importance of natural philosophy, right? For, even for, what, theology, right, huh? In this particular difficulty, huh? To the third, it should be said that one cannot assign a last instant in which the matter was, what? Blood, huh? But one can assign a last time, right? That is, continued, huh? Not by something in the middle intervening, right? But continuous to the first instant in which it was, what, the flesh of Christ was formed, huh? And this instant was the term of the, what? Time of the locomotion of the matter to the place of, what? Generation, right? Now, to the fourth, huh? That's the one saying, why shouldn't it be the same in the boat? So, to the fourth, it should be said that growth comes through the, what? The power of growing of the one that grows, huh? But the formation of the body comes about through the generating power, not of the one who's generated, right? But of the part of the father generating from, what? The seed in which operates the formative power derived from the soul of the father, huh? But the body of Christ was not formed from the, what? Seed of the man, as has been said above, but from the operation of the Holy Spirit. And therefore, such ought to have been the formation as befitted the Holy Spirit. But the growth of the body of Christ was made according to the growing power of the soul of Christ, Christ, which, since in species or kind, is conformed to our soul, in the same way ought, right, that body to be, what, augmented, just as other human bodies are, what, augmented, right, increased. And from this is shown the truth of, what, human nature, huh? So the power of generating is not a bodily power with the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of generating is not a bodily power with the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of generating is not a bodily power with the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of generating is not a bodily power with the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of generating is not a bodily power with the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of the Holy Spirit, huh? So the power of the Holy Spirit, huh? Now, the second objection here, or second arctic, whether the body of Christ was animated in the first instant of conception. The second one goes forward thus. It seems that the body of Christ was not animated in the first instant of conception. For Leo Papa says in the Epistle to Julian, not of another nature was the flesh of Christ than ours, nor by any other soul was what? It breathed in in the beginning, right? Than in the case of other men. But in other men, the soul was not what? Poured in in the very first instant of the conception. Therefore, neither was the soul, not the soul to be funded or poured into the body of Christ in the first instant of his, what, conception, right? That sounds very pro-life here. I mean, Thomas. The way Thomas would speak is like in that first moment of conception in human beings, you don't yet have a, what, organic body, right? A body composed of tools, right? The tools are not there. So you don't have the proper matter for the human soul yet, right? So it wouldn't be the same in Christ, the objection is the same, right? Moreover, the soul, just as any natural form, requires a determined quantity in its, what, matter. This is what Aristotle makes use of in the first book of natural hearing when he argues against Anaxagoras. But in the first instant of the conception of the body of Christ, it did not have as much quantity as has the bodies of other men when they are animated, huh? Otherwise, if he was continually afterwards growing or augmented, either he would have been, what, born earlier, or in his nativity he would have been of more quantity than other infants, huh? Of which the first is against Augustine, the fourth book of the Trinity, huh? Where he proves that he was in the space of nine months in the womb of the Virgin, right? So, of course, that's the way the church has nine months there between. It's not nine months, it's six days. Okay, thank you. Secondly, however, secondly, according to which is against Leo Papa, who in his Sermon on the Epiphany, right, that they found the boy Jesus in no way, right, distinguished from what is commonly found in the human infant, right? Therefore, the body of Christ is not animated in the first instant of his conception, huh? Moreover, where there is a before and after, there are many, what, instances, right? But according to the philosopher in the book on the generation of animals, in the generation of man is required a before and after. For first he is living, and afterwards an animal, and afterwards a, what, man. Okay? Therefore, there could not be a, what, animation of Christ perfected in the first, what, instant of his conception, huh? You see why Aristotle would say that in a sense that when you have a fertilized egg, what do you have next, right? You don't have sensation, it seems, right? But you see, you have cell division, growth, like you have in a plant, right? And then there on, you get the sense powers, and finally you're disposed to have the rational soul. But I think the church has ever said exactly when the rational soul is infused, right? But against this is what Damascene says in the third book on the orthodox faith. Simo caro, simo dei verbo caro, simo caro animata, anima rationality and intellectuality. So what word, how can you say simo in English? You usually say it at the same time, but it's not, yeah, you can say together, you know. Together flesh, together the flesh of the word of God, together flesh, animated by a reasonable and understandable, understanding soul, right? I answer it should be said that in order that the conception might be attributed to the son of God, right? As we confess in the symbol, right? In the Apostles, Creed or the Creed, Nicene Creed, saying who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, right? It is necessary to say that the body, when it was what? Conceived, was taken on by the word of God. It has been shown above that the word of God took on a body by means of what? Soul. Mediante. And the soul, mediante, what? The spiritual part of it, namely the understanding part. Whence is necessary that in the first instant of conception, the body of Christ was animated by the rational soul. It would not be fair, it didn't, the word of God, right? It had taken on a body that was not, what, formed by rational soul, and I had the spiritual powers, right? It's interesting, I never thought about that, but we said, he's using this twice now, because of what we confess in the Creed. He, the son of God, was conceived. Sure. But you couldn't privilege him, unless he had possession of the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Okay, the first objection here, saying, isn't this making him less human or something? To the first effort, it's more human, really. Yeah. To the first effort, it should be said that the beginning of the breathing end of the soul can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to the disposition of the body, and thus, not from, what, any other beginning, right, was breathed in the soul to the body of Christ and to the bodies of other men, right? For just as, at once, when the body is formed of another man, the soul is poured in, so, likewise, as it in Christ, huh? But in another way, one can consider the foresaid beginning only according to time. And thus, because before in time was formed, what, perfectly the body of Christ, before in time was it also, what, animated, huh? Yeah. So when is the acorn an oak tree? Is the acorn really an oak tree? Yeah. The seed of an oak tree, yeah. But, pretty strictly speaking, it's not an oak tree yet. What about this objection from, from quantity, right? Remember how Annexapius had the position, you know, that flesh and blood and bone and everything else is inside of everything, infinitely small pieces. And Aristotle argues by an if-then argument that if the parts can fall below any size, right, then the hole can fall below any size. Yes. Yes. Yes. But then he goes out to nature, he says, but the hole doesn't fall below just any size. And therefore the parts don't, right? So there seems to be a limit in the size, right? That's something the scientists once in a while, you know, the physicists even, you know, stop and consider, you know, why is it that all these different elementary particles have a definite size, right? They don't fall below the size. Well, in geometry, see, if you take the famous theorems of Book 4, let's say, that inside of any circle you can inscribe a square, and inside of any square you can inscribe a circle. Well, that involves then the squares and circles can get smaller and smaller and smaller. There's no such thing as a what? Yeah, because inside of any square you can inscribe a circle. Inside of any circle, a square, so that second square is smaller than the first one, right? And you can inscribe in that circle. It goes on and on and on, right? I'm sure there's those kind of clever, I don't know, birthday cards or what they were, but they had a picture of the postman bringing you a card, and on the card was a picture of a postman bringing you a card. You see how mine would go? Kind of clever, those things, you know, he didn't think it was a great idea, those cards. When Brother Stephen was here, Brother Gustin took a picture of him, he took a picture of outside, and he's standing, he's got his dark glasses on, he's got a sort of serious look on his face, and he's standing on his arms like this, and Brother Gustin took the picture of Brother Stephen and shrunk it down, and stuck it in his arm like a little mannequin. And then that mannequin had another little Brother Stephen in his arm. Well, Thomas says, to the second it should be said that the soul requires a suitable quantity in the matter to which it is, what, poured in. But that quantity has its own latitude, which Aristotle himself does say, right, huh? Because it can be saved both in a greater and in a lesser, what, quantity, right? But the quantity of the body, which it has, when, what, is first, when the soul is first poured into it, right, huh? Is proportional to the quantity, to the perfect quantity, to which it will arrive through, what, growth. And thus, of greater men, their bodies have a greater quantity in their first animation. I don't know if that's true, but... Okay. But Christ, in his, what, perfect age, had a suitable and a, what, not a mediocre, but a middling quantity, right, the virtue, into which is proportion the, what, to which is proportion the quantity which his body had in the time in which other, in which the bodies of other men are, what, animated. But less than it had in the beginning of its, what, conception. But nevertheless, that small quantity was not so small that in it could not be, what, preserved the notion of a, what, animated body. Since in such a quantity, the bodies of, what, small men, right, are animated, huh? I don't know, I don't know about that, but... President Augustine is the largest brother in our community, and he said, when he was born, he weighed 14 pounds. Mm-hmm. So, we all felt sorry for his mother, we know. And he's the biggest, right? He's the largest man. Yeah. Maybe there's some two. Now, it should be said, just thinking about the Aristotle. To the third should be said, in the generation of other men, there has place what the philosopher says. On account of this, that the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul. Whence first, as it were imperfectly disposed, it receives a soul, an imperfect soul. And afterwards, when it is perfectly disposed, it received a perfect soul. But the body of Christ, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed in a, what, instant. Whence at once, in the first instant, it received a perfect form, that is to say. A reasonable soul. A little breakdown? Yeah, okay. Take that quick with that.