Tertia Pars
Lecture 87: The Manifestation of Christ's Birth to Angels and Stars

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

Yeah, but don't trust anybody over 30. I thought that was a new slogan. Is that the slogan of the 1960s? Can't trust anybody over 30. They're saying, no fool worse than an old fool. But you know, the clown says to Lear, you're old before your time. And Lear says, what do you mean by that? You're old before you're wise. You're well said, you know. You've grown old, but you haven't picked up any wisdom. You're old before your time. There's an old saying like this to my dad. He used to say it once in a while. Too soon I get old, too late I get smart. The first barber I was in, he used to have a little sign like that on his wall, you know. Get too soon, you know, old. Yeah, yeah. To be wise. Let's see if I can do one more article or whatever. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ to himself ought to make known his birth. Now, it's funny this thing showing up here. The cause, which is per se, right, is always more potent than that which is through another. It is said in the Eighth Book of Natural Hearing there. But Christ makes known his birth to others, through the shepherds, through the angels, and the magi's, through the star. Therefore, much more ought he to make known to himself his birth, huh? It's funny these things that show up here, you know. As Aristotle says, that the per se is always before the per se, but in the beginning of it, huh? Moreover, in Ecclesiastes, chapter 20, it is said, The wisdom that is hidden, and a treasure that is not seen, what usefulness is in either, huh? But Christ, from the beginning of his conception, had fully a treasure of wisdom and grace, huh? Therefore, unless he made known this fullness through his doings and his words, in vain would be given to him wisdom and grace, huh? Like his brothers said to him, you know, go down, why don't you show yourself? Show yourself, and, yeah. Which is not suitable, because God and nature do nothing in vain, as Aristotle says in the first book about the universe, huh? Pretty good, that Aristotle, huh? Moreover, in the book about the infancy of the Savior, now what about this book here? It's read that Christ, in his youth, did many miracles, right? I think that's going to challenge this authority, right? And therefore, it seems that he made known his nativity by himself. Well, that isn't a fact, huh? It's the facts, man. But against this is what Leo Papa says, that the, what? The Magi found the boy, baby boy, Jesus, in no way, right, different from the, yeah, human infancy. But other infants do not manifest themselves, right? I would be great, huh? A little baby, steady. Okay. That's John Paul. Mm-hmm. John Paul. And they said, ever since he was born, he started doing this. Therefore, other, okay, therefore, never was it suitable to Christ through himself, make known as his nativity. I answer, it should be said, Thomas says, that the birth of Christ is ordered to human salvation, which is through, what? Faith. But a saving faith, right, confesses the divinity and the humanity of Christ, huh? So it's necessary that the nativity of Christ be made known so that the showing of his divinity does not prejudice the faith in his, what? Humanity, right? But this was done when Christ in himself showed, what? The likeness of human infirmity, right? And nevertheless, through, what, the creatures of God, he showed in himself the power of his, what? Divinity. And therefore, Christ, not through himself, made known as nativity, but through some other, what? Creatures, huh? So it would detract from his humanity, right? Right. Okay. Now, what about hiding these things, right? To the second, it should be said that... Oh, excuse me, the first objection. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that in the way of generation and motion is necessary to arrive through the imperfect to the perfect, huh? And therefore, Christ, before is made known to other creatures, and afterwards, he makes known himself to himself by a perfect, what? Manifestation, huh? The second, it should be said that although wisdom hidden is useless, nevertheless, it does not pertain to the wise one that in every time he makes known himself, but in a, what? Suitable time, right? For it is said, Ecclesiastical is 26. There is, what? Not having the sense of, what? Speech. And there is a one being silent, knowing the time for an apt, an apt time, right? Thus, therefore, the wisdom of giving to Christ was not useless, because he made known himself in a, what? Suitable time, huh? And this very fact that he, what? Was hidden for a suitable time? Mm-hmm. Is a sign of his, what? Yeah. I mean, the last course I had from Insigne Dion, you know, he was, he was talking about the role of the appetite there, and the life of the mind, and so on. And he was illustrating it from Augustine's Confessions, huh? Mm-hmm. And I remember talking about the one time when, I guess, Monica wanted the bishop to talk to Augustine. Mm-hmm. And the bishop said, he's not ready yet. Mm-hmm. You know? That's kind of interesting, you know, huh? Because there has to be a certain, you know, facility there before you could talk to Augustine. Mm-hmm. And then they get disillusioned, and they leave, and because they weren't, they weren't really prepared to become Catholic. That's what that priest, I think, we have some articles about a missionary priest, when people wanted to become Catholic, he'd always, they got close to the baptism, he would stop, and he'd say, now, if you stop now, and walk away, then become Catholic, do you think you could save your soul? And he says, if they say yes, he says, you're not ready to be Catholic. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. You have to be convinced that this is the only way. That's what my mother was always saying to my father who was not a Catholic, you know, to not come in until he was, you know, convinced. Yeah. Now, that book about him to see the Savior is a pocketful. I thought he'd say this. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And therefore Chrysostom upon John says that Christ did not make miracles before he converted water into wine. Isn't it marvelous? That should be the first miracle of Christ. For me, it's a wine lover, you know. And you'll save the better wine until now, you know. It was better than the wine that was first served. And that was intentional, right? He made a better wine, huh? According to that which is said in John 2, 11, this, Christ made this as the beginning of his what? Signs, huh? I guess they say that John was back earlier to the public life of Christ than the three Gospels before him, right? And so you get the count of the first miracle, yeah. It was very important, this was, you see. But I used to use that as kind of a miracle that not only, you know, convinced the apostles, you know, they began to believe in him, right? But the kind of a miracle that disposes for believing the Eucharist later on, right? But he didn't, you know, keep the accidents, the water. Yeah. Because then you could not see the miracle that had taken place, right? But in the case of, you know, the Eucharist, he keeps accidents of the wine, you know, you don't see the blood. But do you prepare, you know, he kind of prepares, you know, to believe that miracle, huh? Because in a sense, the Eucharist is kind of the grace of the sacraments, right? In some ways, one of the, you know, really kind of supreme test for faith, you might say, right? To believe this. And you see people now sometimes mocking this, you know, that they can believe this, you know. I was hearing Father Groschel, and you gave it to the end there, you know, and it's time I had some friends who are apparently atheists, right, huh? And sometimes they say in all kinds of seriousness, how do you think about that stuff, you know? And he says, it's a gift. It's kind of, you know, a simple answer, right? I'd rather go in and try and, you know, show the reasonableness of it, which would be a long discussion. It's a gift. He says it kind of stops them, you know? Especially with the Eucharist, I think it was something in church today, that it's one of the things for an unbeliever, at least an unbeliever in the Eucharist, he doesn't have Catholic faith in the Eucharist, it seems blasphemous to the surface, but for a believer, it's blasphemous to the night. Yeah, yeah. That's the same way you can say the Incarnation or the Virgin Birth or the Mother of God, if you really look at it, say if you're not a believer in one or the other, it seems stupid or foolish, or even blasphemous to the surface. To the Jews, the Incarnation is a blasphemy. That's what we do it, we do it in our life, and for us, it's blasphemy to the night. It's a vision. It's a family. So, age rite, he had done miracles. These rites would not have needed another one manifesting him. Whenever John the Baptist says that he might be made known to Israel, on account of that, have come baptizing in water. Subli did not begin to make signs in his first age, but they would, what, think that the Incarnation was a phantasm, an image, right? And before the opportune time, they would have, what, turned aboard the cross, melted by, what, envies of the void? This gives, for people who would have thought the Incarnation to be unreal, and out of sheer spite, would have crucified him before the proper time. Yeah. The word there is phantasm, actually. So, should we stop? Yeah. I was reading him earlier from the... In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, your enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds. Order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Pray for us. And help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. In case you haven't heard, I have another grandchild. Oh, we were born this morning here. In Texas or Kansas? Texas, Texas. My son and his wife, so. At seven? They get seven, yeah, yeah. A little girl. Claire Marie, Maria. Everything goes well in nine months? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Went quickly, because she called at about six o'clock, she was going to the hospital. He threw together a call, the baby was born. So, went quickly. One of my brother Mark's children was born on the California State Freeway. You know, with the patrolman. They didn't make it. So, I always joked to him about, please don't know where he was, you know, because one of those traffic aisles. That's a landmark. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, there should be a mark there, you know, to say, so-and-so was born. Well, they put markers where somebody dies, and not where somebody's born. Yeah. That's not a highlight. I don't think so much, you know, El Paso, but there's snow in Texas a lot, but I don't know if El Paso gets snowed. They're in high elevation, you know, that one. Yeah, maybe they get snowed after that. I mean, yeah. We're talking about the baby, you know. Okay. So, question 36, article 5. Whether the birth of Christ ought to be manifested through the angels and through a star. To the fifth, one goes forward thus. It seems that it ought not to be made known through the angels the birth of Christ. For the angels are spiritual substances. That means, what, immaterial substances, bodiless substances. According to that of the Psalm 103, who makes his angels spirits. But the birth of Christ was according to the flesh, not by a, what, not according to a spiritual substance, therefore, not to be shown or manifested to the, what, angels. We argue that the angels can't, what, exercise priesthood, right? The priesthood's got to have this mixture of the spirit and the body, right? To be conformed to Christ and the sacraments and so on. Moreover, greater is the affinity of the just to the angels than to any others. According to that of Psalm, that the angel, the Lord, came in the circle of those fearing God, right? And he helped them to escape, I guess, huh? But to the just to, namely Simeon and Anna, the birth of Christ was not made known through the angels. Therefore, neither to the pastors or the shepherds ought it to be manifested or made known through the angels, huh? Moreover, I know this is going to be star business, huh? So there's two arguments against angels, and now maybe it's going to be two arguments against a star, right? Moreover, it seems that neither to the magi ought to it have been made known through a star. For this would seem to be the occasion of error, according to those who thought that the stars dominated the births of, what, men. But the occasions of sinners should be taken away from it, huh? Therefore, it's not suitable that through a star the birth of Christ be made known, huh? So Shakespeare has many references to the stars, you know, how they influence things down here, right? At least the characters in the plays think that they do and so on. Yeah, terrible things happen. For moreover, a sign ought to be certain, huh? In order that through it something might be made known. But a star does not seem to be a certain sign of the birth of Christ, huh? Therefore, insolubly, was the birth of Christ made known through a star, you know? You can associate this unusual celestial phenomenon with the birth of Christ, huh? But against all this is what is said in Deuteronomy chapter 32, the works of God are, what, perfect. But such a making known was a divine work. Irvo, it's a syllogism, I guess. Therefore, through suitable signs, was it done, huh? Now, I answer it should be said, that just as the making known by syllogism, huh, comes about to those things which are more known, to the one to which something ought to be made known, right? So also the making known, which is through signs, ought to come about to those things which are familiar to those to whom they are, what? Made known. But it is manifest, huh, that to just men is familiar, you might say, right? And accustomed to be taught by the inward instinct of the, what? Holy Spirit, huh? There's an inward instinct there showing up, huh? Without the demonstration of, what? Sensible signs, huh? To wit, to the spirit of, what? Prophecies, huh? But others who are given over to bodily things, they are brought to sensible things, to understandable things, huh? Now, the Jews were accustomed to get divine answers, or, of course, responding to their questions, through angels, right? Through whom also they received the law, according to that of the Acts chapter 7. You have, what? You have received the law in the disposition of the, what? Angels. Now, let's not emphasize very much in modern classes. The role of the angels there in the disposing of the law, right? But Gentiles, huh? And most of all the astronomers, huh? Doesn't mean astrologists necessarily in the modern sense. Angels, are accustomed to, what? We guard the course of these stars, right? And therefore, to the just persons, to wit, to Simeon and Anna, was made known the nativity of Christ through the interior instinct of the Holy Spirit. Let's see, he's going to answer that objection, right? According to that of Luke chapter 2, he had received a, what? Response, or answer, from the Holy Spirit, huh? That he would not see death before he would see the Christ of the Lord, the anointed one of the Lord. But to the pastors, or the shepherds rather, and the magi, as they were given over or dedicated to bodily things, given to those, the nativity of Christ was made known through sensible or visible apparitions. And because this birth was not purely earthly, but in some way celestial, therefore, through celestial signs, the birth of Christ was revealed to both of them. As Augustine says in his Sermon on the Epiphany, huh? Angels, what? Inhabit the heavens, and the stars, what? Adorn them. And by both, therefore, the heavens narrate the glory of, what? God, huh? But reasonably, to the shepherds, as it were to Jews, huh? Among whom frequently were made the apparitions of the angels, there was revealed the nativity of Christ through the angels, right? Just like to Zachary, right, huh? Even to Mary, right? She's... Angels, yeah. Yeah, Joseph, yeah. But to the Magi, accustomed to the consideration of celestial bodies, it was made known through the sign of a star. It was made known through the sign of a star, huh? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? It was made known through the sign of a star, right? Because, as Chrysostom says, through things that were customary to them, right, the Lord wished to call them, right, as it were condescending to them. I would say that from the speed of speed, even the scripture God puts on in our language. Yeah, yeah. That's what I was like. Does she appear, too, in the color? At least it would look like. She looks like it, yeah. The one I was like, the St. Joan of Arc, one judge, her first trial, I think it was, there was a judge, he was from Limousin, which is somewhere, I guess, is it northern France? Somewhere. And she was from a little further south or something. She was kind of a country girl. And he asked her, kind of a smart aleck, he said, oh, so does this lady that appears to you, are these voices, do they speak French? And she said, yeah, better than you. There is, however, another reason, because, as Gregory says now, to the Jews, as it were to those using reason, right, a reasonable animal, that is to say an angel, ought to what? Preach. To the Gentile song, who use, who do not know how to use reason, right, to know God, not to, what, voice, vocal sounds, speech, but to signs, they are, what, let, huh? And just as the Lord is speaking, the preachers announce to the Gentiles, right, speaking, so to the one not yet, what, speaking, the mute elements preached. I mean, before Christ could speak. Yeah. That mute elements, they just, they were just signed. Okay, so, just as the Lord. I think so. Yeah. Who is not yet speaking. That's my understanding. That's the second reason he gives. There's also another reason. That's the third reason, I guess. Because, as Augustine says, in the Sermon on the Epiphany, that to Abraham, right, unnumbered was the promised succession, not by the seed of flesh, but by the fecundity of faith, right, to be generated. And therefore, it is compared to the multitude of the stars, that he might hope for celestial offspring, and therefore the Gentiles, designated in the stars, are aroused by the rising new star, that they might come to Christ, to whom they would be made the seed of Abraham. Subtle, yeah. But Thomas is not too original here, is he? One reason he draws from Chrysostom, one from Augustine, and one from Gregory, huh? No. What does Kachitian say about the Summa? He so venerated the fathers of the church that he seems to have inherited the mind of them all. I was reading, let me just give you this thing from, music came later, I was reading this thing from Bernard Clairvaux, and this is from the homilies and praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But you remember how Thomas spoke about, you know, is Christ one son or two sons? Remember that? If you listen to this little passage here from St. Bernard talking about the enunciation. This means you are to conceive, but by the Holy Spirit, not by man. You will therefore conceive the power of the Most High, the Son of God. Therefore the Holy to be born of you will be called the Son of God. This means he who comes in the bosom of the Father into your womb, will not only overshadow you, he will even take to himself something of your substance. He who is already the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, will henceforth be acknowledged to be your Son as well. In this way, the Son born of God will be yours, and the Child born of you will be God's. In such a way that there be not two sons, however, but only one. And although he has one nature of you, another of God, yet you will not each have your own Son. But he will be the one Son of you both. What a plagiarist Thomas was, huh? But he usually gave credit. Most of it. So we just learned that St. John of the Annie, the church of Lawrence, when he was preaching, he thought it was, I like the way Fr. Rutler said it, he said, the treasury of the church being the reign of the Father, it's meant to be plundered, he says. So he just copies all the, just preaches it all to the people. He wasn't trying to be original. Well, this guy seems to only speak using scripture, you know. Everything seems to be, he puts it all to use it. What is he talking about? Tell us the story about, tell us the story about Aquinas was asked to preach like St. Bernard. Yeah, that was in Francis de Sales that mentioned it again. It's in the trees of the love of God. St. Thomas was dying and the Cistercians asked him where he was at the monastery where he was going to give us a comment around Canada like St. Bernard did. He said, well, give me Bernard's perfection and I'll give you a comment. Yeah, that's right. The first thing about, yeah. The first effort should be said that that needs to be made known which is of itself or by itself a cult, a hidden. Now, however, that which of itself is manifest. Now, his flesh who was to be born was what? Manifest. But his divinity was what? Hidden. And therefore, suitably, is made known his birth through the angels who are the ministers of God. Whence also with clarity, the angel appeared that he might show that the one who was born was the splendor of the fatherly glory, right? The total glory. Okay, we'll let you get away with that, Thomas. That's interesting. Kuchelati bat soliditas. I think like it. Okay. To the second, it should be said that the just do not need the visible appearance of the angels. That's what he saw in the body of it. How he appeared to, I mean how Simeon and Anna were moved by the instinct of the Holy Spirit. But to them is enough the inward instinct of the Holy Spirit on account of their, what? Perfection, huh? Have you seen this right now? It's kind of interesting, you know, he uses that, huh? But it reminds me a little bit of the point he makes with the metaphors, the scripture used metaphors, in the objection saying, well, that's what the poet uses metaphors. But metaphors are used by the poet for exactly the opposite reason that they're used by scripture. because in scripture we're dealing with something that's above our mind. So the metaphor is kind of trying to bring it down to our level, right? But in the case of the fiction, right, we're taking something that is kind of below reason and therefore we're trying to bring it up and give it more, what? Meaning, right? So you take the greatest work of Greek fiction there is the Iliad, right? And they say, well, there might have been a lot of people a lot of people a lot of people a lot of people a lot of people Pirate way or something, you know, that was behind this, you know. But when Homer gets through with it, it's, what, it seems to be the whole meaning of human life, huh? And the struggle of human life, and as Job says, our life on earth is a warfare, and so on, right? And so it seems to have much more meaning, huh? And you see in Mozart's operas, too, you know, they take a very mundane thing, and puts it into an hour, you know, and all of a sudden it seems to have, what, more meaning, right? And sometimes I come over and I was listening to Mozart, and I started babbling about this piece of music of Mozart, and the story of my old teacher would say, Dwayne, you think it has more meaning than it does have. But Mozart kind of, you know, teases you that way, right? He seems to be saying more, right? He seems to be representing the emotions, but he's giving the emotions more meaning than the emotions have in reality. Sometimes I compare it to what a great portrait painter does, you know. You know, like Titian or something like that, right? With one expression of a man's face, you get the whole character of that man, right? So that one expression of that man in the painting has more meaning than any one expression of a man in real life, huh? And when you think of, you know, a friend that you have, or you have many images of that friend, and he's smiling, and he's reacting to different things, and the way he looked at the time he did this, right? But no one, what, expression of that friend's face seems to capture the whole character of your friend, does it? You know, and not that people don't like pictures of themselves because they don't capture what they, you know, they're all full character, you know, or they look kind of stupid on this thing or whatever it is. But the portrait painter, in one expression, right, seems to capture the whole, what, character of this man, huh? And, but even, you know, when Aristotle pointed out that the plot in a tragedy or in an epic should have a beginning, middle and end, right? It should have this order, right, huh? So you're giving something more intelligibility than what? But, yeah, see, well, if I look back at him on my day today, I did this, I did that, you know? I took the bottles out, you picked out a sign, and I read a little bit of physics and said some prayers, and, you know? And they don't fit together to any coherent whole, do they? Ate an orange, you know, and, you know? What's that got to do with Alexio from the metaphysics and, you know, and putting the garbage out or something, you know, for the trash, for the pickup on Thursday? But, you know, in a great play, you know, it forms a beginning, middle, and end, right? So it has an order, and as you know, order is what the reason looks for, before and after, right? So, it has an intelligibility, it has more, more intelligibility than... It's sort of like that when our next-door neighbor was killed, suddenly, one Monday morning, in a car accident. And I remember, because I went to buy their house, a day or two later, and I saw her, she had some, like, flip-flops that she would wear on the yard. And I saw them there at the door, and I thought, gee whiz, you know, I thought, she, she, her soul came out of her body like her feet came out of her shoes. And I'm just thinking, that's why I put more, I put a lot of meaning in those shoes just sitting there. And she, you know, she just took them off going in the house, like anybody else would, you know? But I saw this meaning in that gesture, which is kind of what a novelist or some fiction writer would do. Or just a Monday, and they would have all kinds of meaning. Yeah, yeah. So, I think when you say instinct there, it's no good like that, right? Because it can be regarded to something that's below reason, right? Like, you speak of instinct, the animal, right? Who does reasonable things without knowing them, right? And you say being led by the Holy Spirit, who's above us, right? And is more reasonable what he does than we could ever have. And yet, you know, Thomas says, you know, when he's answering that objection about metaphors, he says, well, what's common to the poet and to the writer of Scripture is that he's dealing with something beyond our mind. By the one case, below our mind, and the other thing, above it, huh? My old friend, Jim Francis, used to say, you know, girls love to be told that you don't understand them. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha Arise a star from what? Jacob. And they have a reference here to Numbers 24, 17. When seeing a star outside the order of the world, they understood this to be, what? The one which Balaam prophesies as a future sign of the king of the Jews. Or it should be said that, as Augustine says, in the Sermon of the 15th, the same few guys is quoting again, right? Yeah, you'd be considered a plagiarist, right? Yeah, I don't know. Yeah. That from the angels, by some, what? Warning of revelation, the Magi heard that the star, what? Signified Christ born. They had some kind of illumination. And it is probable that from the, what? The good? When, in adoring Christ, the salvation of them is, what? Satan. Or, as Leo Papa says in the Sermon about the Epiphany, that apart from that species which, what? Aptutum. What does it say? Besides the outward form, which aroused the attention of their corporal real eyes, they more brilliantly enlightened their minds with the light of faith. Yeah. They remind us of light, right? As well as the exterior star. Yeah. Aptutum. It's kind of appropriate, too, that they should be led by both the spiritual illumination and by the star that is sensible, right? It's like our sacraments, you know? I suppose. Yeah. It's interesting. I just downloaded some pictures of this artist, Braddy Barth, who's an interesting lady. And she has two images of this, several images of the three wise men. Yeah. And one of them, she shows, it's like a procession. You've got the three kings, and you have an angel marching in front of it, and the angel's holding up the star on it like a pole. And so the angel's leading them, but they're looking at the star. And then there's another image that she has with the three wise men looking at a star, and the infant Christ is in the star. So there's two different images there. So she kind of verifies with both the one. Both things. The Christ himself says, yeah. Okay. Notice Thomas doesn't say one of those is correct, and the others are not correct, right? He's saying various ways in which they could be, what, helped by something, by some illumination of some sort of their mind, in addition to the vision of the star itself, right? Article 6. To the 6th.