Tertia Pars
Lecture 82: Christ's Sanctification and Perfection from Conception

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

Think about that a little bit. They never say, they never mention that God loves himself. As far as I know, I didn't hear it from the pulpit of you. I just keep on hearing he loves us. Unconditional. Okay. Grew up to Article 3, right? Whether the flesh of Christ was first conceived and afterwards, what? Taken on, huh? To this third one proceeds thus. It seems that the flesh of Christ was before conceived and afterwards assumed, huh? For what is not cannot be taken on or taken up. But the flesh of Christ begins to be through conception. Therefore, it seems that it was taken on by the word of God after it was, what? Conceived, huh? Well, of course, it could be at the same time, and yet you're assuming something that is. Anyway. Moreover, the flesh of Christ was taken on by the word of God. Mediante, huh? The rational soul, right? But in the end of conception, it takes on a, what? It gets a rational soul. Therefore, in the end of conception, it was assumed. But in the end of conception, it is said to be, what? Therefore, it was first conceived and afterwards assumed, huh? Moreover, in everything generated before in time is that which is imperfect than that which is perfect, as is clear through the philosopher in the ninth book of wisdom. But the body of Christ is something generated. Therefore, to its ultimate and last perfection, which consists in union to the word of God, not at once in the first instance of conception did it arrive, but first it was flesh conceived and afterwards flesh assumed, huh? But again, this is what Augustine says in the book on faith to Peter. Now, that's not the Apostle Peter, as far as I know. Strangely, it's kind of funny, you know, that he's laid down to somebody named Peter. But again, most firmly hold, huh? And in no way doubt, right? That the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin before it was taken on by the, what? Yeah. Okay? Is this not by Augustine? Because my eyes and footnotes says Fulgenzius, do you hear that? Might be not there. The answer, it should be said, that as has been said above, we properly say that God was made a man, huh? Not however properly do we say that man was made, what? God. Because God took on, or drew to himself, huh? Took to himself, I guess you'd say, huh? Some say it's ad sumari, huh? Take to oneself. Take to, yeah. So some said Sibi, took to himself, that which is of man, right? That did not pre-exist which was of man, as it were, parasy subsisting, before it was taken up by the word. We have another historian here or something. If the flesh of Christ was conceived, before it was taken up by the word, you would have some hypostasis, apart from the hypostasis of the word of God, right? Which is against the notion of the, what? Incarnation. According to which we lay down that the word of God was united to human nature, and to all of its parts, in the union of, what? Yeah, hypostatic union. Nor was it suitable that a pre-existing hypostasis of a human nature, or some part of it, that the word of God would, by its assumption, destroy, right? That would be a most appropriate person in Tegon, you're... So long. I'm taking over now. And therefore, against faith, is it to say that the flesh of Christ was before conceived, and afterwards taken up by the word of, what? God. Now, to the first it should be said, that if the flesh of Christ was not formed or conceived in instant, right, but through the succession of time, it would be necessary for one of two things to follow. Either that what was taken on was not yet, what? Flesh. Or that it was, what? Before a conception of flesh, then it was taken on. But because we lay down that the conception in an instant was perfect, consequently, in that flesh at the same time was, what? To be conceived. It was being conceived, and it was conceived. Okay? And thus, as Augustine says in the book on faith to Peter, we say that the, what? Word of God conceived by the, what? Receiving of flesh. And the flesh itself, by the incarnation of the word, was, what? Yeah. And to this is clear the response to the, what, second, for Simo, together. When the flesh was conceived, it was, what? Has been conceived and is animated, huh? Now, Nearestau talks about, you know, these perfect operations in the night book of wisdom, right? And he compares, you know, understanding, let's say, with walking home, right? And he says, well, when you're walking home, have you walked home? No. But when you're understanding something, have you understood yet? Yeah. When I understand the Pythagorean theorem, I have understood it, right? So when Christ is being conceived, he has been conceived, because of the infinite power, right? Of the Holy Spirit. So it's like the operation he calls perfect, right? He calls walking home imperfect, because as long as you're walking home, you haven't walked home yet. Sort of, because it created, merely created power of the generation imperfect, so that the conception is imperfect. Yeah. In the same way, you know, I'm not, like when Christ is in the boat there, you know, it's there, right? But if you've got to row the boat there, or be pulled by the wind, and you're going to port, you're not, you haven't gone to port yet. You haven't arrived, right? You're not safe yet. To theory, it should be said that in the mystery of the incarnation, huh, one does not consider the ascent, right, as something pre-existing, progressing, usque, up to the divinity of union, right, as Photinus, the heretic, proposed, right, huh? But rather, it's considered there a descent, huh? According as the perfect word of God took on the imperfection of our nature, according to that of John chapter 6. I have come down from heaven. It's come down. I was reading the, what was it, thing on the, on the symbol, the symbol of Pastelor, right, of Thomas. He's talking about Christ on the cross, right, and how he teaches us things on the cross. And you know the prayer of Thomas after communion, you know, where he says, he asks for the virtues, right? Okay, increasing the virtue and elimination of the vices and so on. But the virtues he mentions there are charity, patience, humility, and obedience, right? Well, in this, treat us on the, the creed there, I think that's where I saw it. He's speaking about how Christ gives an example of the virtues on there, charity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. patience, humility, obedience. Exactly those four, right? So I've often thought about those four. You can see why obviously he has charity in there, right? And so on. And maybe other reasons why those other riches are important. But it's exactly the four that he speaks of as Christ is exemplified on the cross and he's in that same order, right? So it's kind of appropriate, I suppose. You know, after the communion where you're contemplating in the mystery of his dying on the cross and so on, that you ask for an increase of those virtues that he most exemplifies on the cross and in his Passionate Nephthous Cross, too, of course. And it's those four virtues, huh? She brings out the shinde de chelo. That's why I sometimes divide, you know, the six articles of the humanity of Christ, you know, the three of descent and the three of ascent, yeah. You know, you have to divide it into two or three, you know. You can also divide those six into three if you want it instead of into two. But that's a different way, yeah? To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that the conception of Christ was what? Natural. For according to the conception of the flesh of Christ, he is said to be the Son of Man, huh? You know, a lot in Daniel there about the Son of Man. Kind of striking. But he is the true and natural Son of Man, just as he is the true and natural Son of God, huh? Therefore, his conception was natural. Moreover, no creature produces a miraculous operation. But the conception of Christ is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, who is a, what, pure creature. For he said that the Virgin conceived Christ, huh? Therefore, it seems that it was not miraculous, but a natural conception. Moreover, in order that some transmutation be natural, it suffices that the passive principle be natural, as has been had above, huh? But the passive principle on the side of the mother in the conception of Christ was natural. As is clear for the thing said, therefore, the conception of Christ was natural. Now, what do you say? What do you say, respondio? It's probably natural in two ways. But against this is what Dionysius says in the epistle to the monk. Chaos, huh? Above man did Christ those things which are of man, right? And in this he shows what? He shows us the Virgin, supernaturally conceiving, huh? I answer, it should be said, that as Ambrose says in the book on Incarnation, much in this mystery is what? We find according to nature and beyond nature, right? If we consider that which is on the side of the matter, right? Conceived, which the mother administers, the whole is what? Natural. Totum es naturali. If, however, we consider that which is on the side of the act of power, which I guess is the Holy Spirit, huh? The whole is what? Miraculous, huh? And because each thing is more judged according to its form than according to its matter, right? And likewise, according to the agent more than according to the, what? Patient. Hence it is that the conception of Christ ought to be said, Simpliciter. There's that distinction again now. Simpliciter, miraculous, and supernatural. But, secundum aliquid, natural. I thought you were going to say something like this, because when he talks about the movement of heavenly bodies, right? Is this natural or voluntary? Well, on the part of the bodies, there is a natural aptitude for this motion. So in that sense, it's natural, right? But the mover, or the angels, right? And they are voluntary in moving it. So therefore, it's voluntary on the side, you know? So you have to make that kind of distinction, right? Now, is this wooden table artificial or natural? But we would say the table is something natural or artificial. We would say it's artificial. Yeah. Even though the matter is something natural, right? See? But it's kind of the things that Thomas is making here, right? The form is from art, right? And it's a table more by reason of its form than by reason of its matter. And it's artificial by its agent, right? As opposed to its matter. You just pulled the button on all the advertising again. Natural foods. Made with natural... Made with natural... Made with natural that. Well, no. It's not natural. It's artificial. Natural. I'm part of that. I'm part of that. But we don't name them. If you don't understand artificial correct. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ is said to be the natural son of man, right? Insofar as he has a true human, what? Nature. By which he is the son of man. Even though he has this, what? Miraculously. Just as the blind man illuminated, sees naturally through the visual power, which nevertheless he has, what? Yeah, that's a nice comparison, right? Does he have natural sight? Yes. Miraculously. Right. We have natural sight. Natural, right? It's what about these old women in the scripture there that conceive, right? To the second, it should be said that the conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin not as a word to the act of principle, but because she ministers matter to the conception and because the conception was celebrated in her womb. It's interesting. There's a psalm there where, you know, they compare Christ coming out of the womb there, right? The womb coming out of his bridal chamber, right? And running over the world. Now he says, a passive principle, a natural passive principle, suffices for a natural change when in a natural and accustomed way it is moved by its own, what? Active principle. But this does not take place in the thing proposed, right? And therefore that conception cannot be said to be simplicitare. Naturalis, huh? That's an interesting distinction, this simplicitare and secundum quid. As I mentioned there, that's underlying the second kind of mistake outside of speech. The mistake for mixing up what is so simply and what is so not simply, but in some way. In the great dialogue of Theta de Mino, right? It's so striking because Mino objects to investigating what they don't know, what virtue is, and he makes the mistake of mixing up simply and what. Yeah. And then Socrates, when he replies to that, he makes the same kind of mistake. And Aristotle, you know, notes this there in the beginning of the posture analytics. And he makes the same kind of mistake. And he makes the same kind of mistake. And he makes the same kind of mistake. And he makes the same kind of mistake. And he makes the same kind of mistake. And he makes the same kind of mistake. And he makes the same kind of mistake. So what Mino is overlooking is the fact that what you don't know, you can know in some imperfect way. So as I used to always say to the students, the man who's being paid to look for the cause of some disease, right? He knows in some way what he's looking for, the cause of that disease, right? But he doesn't know it simply, because then his research should be over. He said, we wouldn't pay him. Yeah, yeah. But if we know in some way, he knows in some way where to look. Then Socrates replies, you know, well, has a slave boy ever studied geometry? No. And yet a theorem of geometry comes out of the slave boy's answers. Socrates says, well, I didn't teach him. He recalled it now. Well, that implies that the slave boy already knew it when he actually answered wrongly that the way the double squares the double the side. And that way you get a thing four times as big. So, but if you know the major premise and the minor premise, or what will be the major and minor premise of a syllogism, but you never put them together, you don't know the conclusion. And so you go through Euclid, you know, comes a new theorem, and he brings together things, and you say, what's that? And you make this little reference there. You go back and look up what the theorem which you forgot. And yeah, yeah. So you don't really know the new theorem until you put those together, and then you see the new theorem following from them. But you're able to know them from what you knew already. You don't have to prove any other theorems before you can prove this one, right? But to be able to know something is to know it? No, yeah. Because obviously you have to go, you know, abolish schools, right? I already know French. I already know German. I already know Chinese, you know? I go to the Chinese restaurants, you get these little things there, you know, with the fortune cookies, you know. On the back, you should have a, teach you a Chinese word, right? So, you know. I'd be able to learn a little bit of Chinese this way. We've got a chance right there. Yeah, question 34 here. Then one ought to consider about the perfection of the child, what? Conceived, huh? And this goes back now to question 27, let me say here. I want to look back at the premium there, 27. Let's look back at 27 years for a second here. After the forest said, in which, about the union of God and man and about those things which follow upon this union have been treated right, it remains to be considered about those things which the Son of God incarnate in human nature, united to himself, did or underwent. Which consideration is fourfold, huh? For first we consider about those things which pertain to his entry into the world. Fourth, secondly, about those things which belong to the procession of his life in this world. And that's starting up in question, what, 40? That's still a way of long ways here. Third, about his exit from this world, right? That's up in question 46. And fourth, about those things which pertain to his exaltation after this life. Now, we mentioned how Thomas divides the Gospel of what? Matthew, according to the first three of these four, right? Now, about the first four, about the first rather, four things occur to be considered. First, about the conception of Christ. Secondly, about his, what, nativity. And that starts, apparently, in, what, 35? Okay. Third, about his circumcision. Fourth, about his, what, baptism, huh? Okay. Now, we're still in the conception, right? Stingy, yeah. Now, about his conception is necessary to consider first as regards to the mother conceiving. Secondly, to the, what, mode of conception. And now, as regards perfection of the seed. And this is question, what, 34. Sorry, so we don't think we're completely lost where we are. Can't see the forest for the trees, huh? Then we're not to consider about the perfection of the offspring conceived. And about this, four things are asked. First, whether in the first instant of the conception, Christ was sanctified by, what, grace. Whether in the same instant, he had the use of, what, free will, free judgment. Third, whether in the same instant, he was able to, what? And fourth, whether in the same instant, he was fully a comprehensive, right? First, whether Christ was sanctified in the first instant of his conception. To the first, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ was not sanctified in the first instant of his conception. Now, who would think that? For it is said in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, not before what is spiritual, but what is animal. And then what is spiritual? So, we generate our offspring, and then we nourish them, and then we instruct them. But the sanctification of grace pertains to spirituality. Therefore, not at once, in the beginning of his conception, did Christ, what? Grace. Yeah. But after some space of time. Moreover, sanctification seems to be from sin, sanctified from sin. According to that of 1 Corinthians 6. In this you were, at some time, to wit, sinners, right? But you are washed, huh? But you are, what? Sanctified. But in Christ there never was sin. Therefore, it does not belong to him to be sanctified by grace. Moreover, just as through the word of God all things are made, so through the word incarnate are all men sanctified who are sanctified. As is said in Hebrews chapter 2. Who sanctifies and who are what? And all who are sanctified from one, right? But the word of God through which all things are made is not what? Self-made. As Augustine says in the first book of the Trinity. Therefore, Christ through whom are sanctified all is not himself sanctified. But against this is what is said in Luke 1, chapter 1. Who will be born from you will be called, what? Son of God, huh? In John chapter 10. Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. I answer. It should be said, that it has been said above, that the abundance of the sanctifying grace of the, excuse me, the abundance of the grace sanctifying the soul of Christ is derived from the union of the word, right? According to that of John. For we saw his glory, as it were, the only begotten from the Father. And there's kind of a consequence of that. Full of grace and what? Truth, right? For it has been shown above that in the first instant of his conception, the body of Christ was animated and taken on by the, what? Word of God. So if the one who is only begotten from the Father, the consequence of that be full of grace and truth, he must be from the very first, huh? Because he was taken on by the word. Whence consequently it is that in the very first instant of conception, Christ had the fullness of grace sanctifying his soul and his body, huh? Interesting, his body, huh? Now what about St. Paul here, 1 Corinthians 15? Not before what is spiritual, but what is animal. He says right there, huh? Look before and after, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said, yeah, that that order which the apostle lays down there, right, pertains to those who come, right, through some kind of progress to the spiritual state, right? But in the mystery of the incarnation, more is considered the descent of the divine fullness upon human nature and human nature than the progress of human nature, of a human nature, as it were, pre-existing in God, huh? That gets you back into the heretics, right? Yeah. That's it? And therefore, in the man, Christ, from the beginning, there was perfect, what? Spiritualness. Spirituality. The second, it should be said, sanctificare is for something to become, what? Holy. You can't make a word in English, can you? For sanctificare, but holy? Holified? There's no word there. Made holy, I suppose you could say, huh? Mm-hmm. That's not the word. It's like a man in English. Yeah. It's a mere holy, I suppose you have to say, huh? Sanctified. Mere holy. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Something comes to be, not only from the contrary, but also from what is opposed negatively or in a privative, lacking way. Just as white comes to be from the black and also from what is not white. Now we are made holy from being sinners. And thus our being made holy is from sin. But Christ, according as his man, was made holy because this holiness of grace, he did not always what have because he was not always a man. Not however was he made holy from a sinner because he never had sin. But he was made holy from not holy, according to man, not in this primitive sense. Privation is what it is, a negation in a subject, right? You know what you said. That he was sometime a man, and it was not holy, okay? But only in the negative sense, huh? Because when he was not a man, he did not have human holiness. Okay? So he was never a man without being holy. But he was, at one time, not a man, right? And therefore he was made together a man and a holy man, huh? The rest of us are conceived and our mother is, yeah? Not a sin. And therefore, okay, on account of which the angel says, what is born from you will be, what? Holy. Which Gregory, expounding in the 18th Book of the Morals, says, to the distinction from our holiness, right, Christ is asserted to be born, what? Holy. We, however, if we are made holy, we do not hover born, because we are restricted by the condition of our corruptible nature, right? He, however, alone is truly, what? Born holy. Who, from the carnal conjunction, was not conceived, huh? The third objection here. He cannot be made holy because he makes others holy, right? To the third it should be said that in a different way does God do the creation of things through the Son, and in another way, the whole, what? Trinity, the sanctification of men through the man Christ. For the word of God is of the same power and operation with God the Father. Whence the Father does not do something through the Son as it were through a tool, right? Right, which moves, being moved itself, huh? But the humanity of Christ is as a tool, right? Of his divinity, as has been said above, huh? And therefore the humanity of Christ is both, what? Sanctifying and, what? Sanctified, huh? It's like a moved mover, right, huh? It's too many. That's the way Thomas explains kind of the union of human nature with God there. According to the Athanasian Creed, they compare it to the union of the soul and the body. And he says, well, it shouldn't be understood insofar as the body, the soul is the form of the body, because divinity is not the form of the body, but insofar as the body is a tool in a sense of the soul, right? And it's a tool in the sense of a joined tool, like my hand, right? Because the humanity of Christ is joined to his person, right? So it's like a joined tool of God, right? There's a great efficacy from that. So a tool is kind of a moved mover, huh? I'll do one more article here before we I was going to say kick the bucket I don't want to say that I was getting up my face kick the bucket that's all I want to say I don't even know three priests yeah good sir I think four I think there's only the last anointing to the second one goes forward thus it seems that Christ as man did not have the use of what free judgment in the first instant of his what conception this is of course has to be taken up before we can talk about his verity I suppose on the next article for before is to be of a thing than to act or to what operate but the use of free judgment free will is a certain what operation therefore since therefore the soul of Christ began to be in the first instant of his conception it seems impossible in the first instant of his conception he would have the use of what free judgment moreover the use of free judgment is choice but choice presupposes deliberation the deliberation of counsel for the philosopher says in the third book about the ethics that choice is the desire of what has been pre-consult therefore it seems therefore it seems impossible that in the first instant of his conception that Christ had the use of free judgment moreover free judgment is a faculty of the will and the reason as has been had in the first part and thus the use of free judgment is an act of the will and the reason or the understanding but the act of the understanding presupposes of the act of the sense which is not able to be without the convenience of what organs which did not seem to have been there in the first instant of the conception of Christ therefore it seems that Christ was not able to have the use of free judgment in the first instant of his conception of course he had many kinds of knowledge I guess we'll see what the master says write us into me and you can hear the master but against this is what Augustine says in the book about the Trinity as soon as the word came into the womb preserving the truth of each nature he was made flesh and a perfect man but a perfect man has the use of free judgment therefore Christ had in the first instant of his conception the use of free will I tell you I downloaded that in the my computer there the Vatican there the Augustinum something like that the encyclical of John Paul II on Santa Castaneda really impressive you know I mean Augustine the centenary the centenary was birth or something yeah some yeah yeah yeah but really impressive you know to see him lay it out he lays it out pretty strongly there you know Augustine he reads something this thing I was telling you about about the about the virtues of Christ on the cross you know and so on but Thomas you know before going into that he says you know as Beatrice Agustino says as blessed Augustine I don't remember using that phrase so often but as blessed Augustine says you know this is you know the master teaching us on the cross you know the devil Paul used that in the first thing he wrote in his post which was not an encyclical it was in a letter on catechesis and it's a quote I always remember it struck me and it still strikes me he says one of the most popular and sublime images of Christ the teacher is the crucifix that's interesting he points out the two things that's popular but it's a sublime image of Christ the teacher which is why it belongs in the cross okay I actually should be said this has been said above that the human nature which Christ assumed right there belonged what spiritual perfection unto that human nature in which he did not progress which he had at once from the beginning right but the last perfection does not consist in power or in what habit but in operation whence it is said in the second book about the soul by the philosopher right that operation is a second act the soul is the first act and therefore and therefore it should be said that Christ in the very first instant of his conception had that operation of the soul which he was able right to have in an instant and such was the operation an operation which can be had in the instant right but such is the operation of the will and the understanding in which there consists the use of what free will right for at once and in an instant is perfected the operation and the understanding and the will much more than the bodily vision right let's go back now to the teaching there the philosopher in the ninth book of wisdom right in that intelligere these are the very things that Aristotle talks about there intelligere vele and centere is not a motion right which is the actus imperfecti the act of the imperfect which is successively gradually perfected right but it's an act of the perfect as is said in the 3D so going back to what I said if you take a motion like walking home Aristotle says that when you're walking home you haven't walked home when you have walked home you're no longer walking home so it's an it's an activity that is by its very nature but imperfect and then he contrasts out the perfect act like understanding or willing right or loving right so I'm loving my wife have I loved you yet he's all got to say I'm loving you but I haven't loved you yet so these operations be performed right in the instant right and when I'm understanding what a triangle is have I understood it yet it's a different type now you can see that our grammar is made to fit motion rather than these perfect acts and so we speak you know walking home is in the present but not the perfect you know but having walked home is perfect to something you know okay it doesn't make .50 somethings here so that's why he says subito at an instant is perfected the operation of the understanding of the will right much more than even the body vision right in that to understand to will but nevertheless also to sense so when I see that painting over there have I seen it yet and here you phrase not the ninth book but that's where it's bringing up more fully but also in the third book about the soul right when Aristotle says that sometimes he'll speak of understanding as emotion but it's really more perfect act understanding as anyway reasoning to be about like emotion and therefore it should be said that Christ in the first instant of his conception had the use of what free will free judgment now different senses before but you gentlemen have been trained in this here to the first therefore it should be said that to be is before by nature than to do right but is not However, before in time, right, huh? That's in a different sense. But together with the agent, when the agent has perfect being, right, it begins to what? Act, yeah. And that should be something impeding it, right? Just as fire, at once when it's generated, begins to what? Heat and to enlighten, huh? But heating is not terminated in an instant, but through succession of what? At times, it takes a while to cook the meat, right? But illuminating is perfected in a what? Well, yeah, okay, Thomas, well, it seems to be. And such an operation is the use of free will, right? Even God himself in his divine nature has free will, right? So God always loved us, huh? Very interesting to see that, right? No, he loved us, what? He always loved us. He loved us before we weren't. I wish they would talk about God loving himself a little bit. Any, like, you could qualify that and say that he always loved us long-term, but not unconditionally. Now, the second thing, what about what the philosopher says in the third book there? To the second it should be said that together, at the same time, Simo, right? Together, when consul or deliberation is ended, right, there can be what? Choice, huh? So these pro-choice people aren't really in favor of concilium or deliberatio, right? They don't have the facts out there, so they're not reading in favor of choice. You heard about the advertisement, or not advertisement, the message is going to be at the Super Bowl? Well, I guess this one player who's a Heisman winner, you know? Oh, I heard about this. Yeah, yeah, his mother was told, you know, you should abort this one, you know, and she had him. She was still Tina, I think she was still Tina. Or she lived in the Philippines. Yeah, no, and so she's, you know, she didn't know. She had him, and he ended up to be a Heisman. So, of course, when they heard that they were going to have this, you know, they've been fighting each other, the Planned Parenthood and the rest of the people there. Wow. You know, they'd say, oh, this is terrible, this is a terrible attack upon women, and so on, you know. I mean, I thought they saw the right choice, you know, didn't she? She made the right choice. No, he gets up there and we're going to have an advertisement, you know, about the, you know, their choice to kill the baby, you know? So it should be very interesting. I heard about this, but I didn't know. And it costs millions of dollars, I guess. It's going to be indisputable. Wow. Yeah, yeah. I don't know, he's still in college, right? He's still a college player? No, no, I think he's pro now. Yeah, I don't know. It's, it's, um, they've been trying to get it off, you know, in the wedding to CBS and protesting, you know, this is a terrible thing. This is going to defy us, you know, and everything, you know. Everybody should be united, you know. It's important to divide somebody, you know. Literally divide somebody, you know, for their parent, but divide yourself. Isn't this supposed to be, like, commercial? Well, it's not commercial. I mean, it's a message. I mean, it's not really commercial. Yeah, it's not advertising, but they're going to put it, I mean, it's a commercial slot. Yeah. During the Super Bowl. Yeah, man. It's not actually advertising. It's not, but it's a message. Yeah, he's getting the message. I saw that, I think it was, he must have been one of the team players. Well, yeah. I don't know if he's on these teams or what team he's on. Well, whatever it was, I remember because he became a superstar when he was in college. He won the Heisman Trophy. And he was always very polite because his mother made this, she made it polite. I was told to get rid of you, and I didn't. He puts messages in the Bible on his thing. Oh, yeah. He puts messages in the Bible, yeah. He puts messages in the Bible on his eyes, but he always makes chapter and verse some scriptural. I just read that in the register. Oh, oh. But I didn't connect with the Super Bowl. Yeah, yeah. That's the occasion, yes. This weekend, I think it's good. Yeah, Sunday, yeah. What? The second. The second, yeah, okay. The second should be said, Together, when consul integration is what? Ended, there can be choice. Now, those, he says, who need the deliberation of consul, right? In the ending of the consul, they first have certitude about choosing. And therefore, at once, they, what? Choose, right? Once it is clear that the deliberation of consul is not presupposed, yeah, to choice, except an account of the investigation of the uncertain, right? But Christ, over in the first instant of his conception, had the fullness of justifying grace. So also he had the fullness of, what? Truth known. According to that, again, in that text of John, full of grace and, what? Truth, right? I told you I should be reading the Gospel of John, you know? Whence, as it were, having certitude of, what? All things. He was able at once, an instant, to, what? Choose, huh? I remember how the Bumgarner talking about that, you know? That, of course, you know that, right? Because at the very moment of his, what, conception, he was able to, what, merit for us, you know? This Bible will say next one. And Father Bumgarner used to teach in St. Paul's seminary, you know? Because certainly he didn't know the answer, he said, we were at the Bumgarner. So, yeah, I was in his office asking questions. Pick up the phone. Call Father Bumgarner over at the... Even Father Bumgarner was also a, you know, a law graduate, you know? Oh, really? Yeah. But I remember he went to me over at his office there and I was seeing some article I'd written for the Journal of the Catholic, American Catholic Social Association, and he was going through people who had written things about wisdom, you know, and metaphysics and so on, and correcting them and so on. And so I said to him, it must have been a lot of work, I said, to write the Journal of the American Kind of Conversation. He says, he says, all these pretensions to learning, he says, to the house, see what I have, you know? It's just, it's just, it's nothing in the print with everything to say, except by mistake. To the third, it should be said, what about the pre-sposing senses? Christ's many kinds of knowledge. To the third, it should be said that the understanding of Christ, according to his infused, right, knowledge, was able to understand also, not turning to, what, images, right? Whence there could be in him the operation of will and understanding without the operation of, what, sins. But nevertheless, there could be in him also the operation of sense in the first instant of his conception. And most of all, as he guards the sense of, what, touch, by which sense the offspring conceived senses in his mother even, what, before he obtains a rational soul, right? That's the order of generation. As is said in the book on the generation of animals by the philosopher. Whence Christ, in the first instant of his conception, had a rational soul, his, what, body being formed, organized, right? Much more in that same instant, was he able to have the operation of the sense of, what, touch, huh? They said the baby, you know, knows the voice of his mother before he gets out of the womb, you know? So, the continuity there. I remember, I remember, you said, the mother, the young woman, she was expecting her first child, and she was, the last few, couple months where she was home, and in the afternoon, she would always, certain time, about two o'clock, and she would lie down on the sofa, and she would turn on the soap opera, and, you know, have rest, and watch TV, and so on. So, she'd know that after the child was born, whenever the music came out of the soap opera, the baby would just go sing. Yeah, you already knew the same, you already knew that music. I'm going to celebrate, my sister learned that. She and my brother, their first child, Ed, my husband and I, plays the guitar, and he likes to sing, and so on. So, they would sit down in the evening, and he would strum the guitar, and sing the baby before he was born. So, he would hear their voices, and so on.