Tertia Pars
Lecture 106: Christ's Transfiguration: Suitability, Glory, and Witnesses

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

Then we ought to consider about the transfiguration of Christ. I happened to be looking on Wednesday a little bit at EWTN there, and they had a program on the Vatican Museums there, and there was some kind of a doctor explaining some things. They had a couple of sarcophaguses, you know, which had like a freeze, you might say, on the whole side of the sarcophagus. And Christ appears several times. He's got kind of a whole life, not the whole life of Christ, but a whole series of things he did, and then a crisis with these people or those people whenever he did his miracles and so on. That's kind of interesting. And then for some reason, they went to this painting by Raphael, paying the transfiguration. I said, ah, this is a sign, now I've got to talk about the transfiguration. You see that painting? I was looking, trying to find one in the house that had some paintings of copies. That's the famous one, some of that again? Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's almost, you know, up in the air, you know, and Elias and Moses, you know, in the air with him, and then the apostles are there, and then there's kind of a lower thing. And they're trying to cast out the demon down below. Oh, that's because they couldn't do it, so he came down the mountain. Yeah, yeah. So it's interesting, ain't it? Okay, then we're not to consider about the transfiguration of Christ. And about this, four things are asked. First, whether it is suitable for Christ to be transfigured. And second, whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of glory, right? Then about the witnesses of the transfiguration. And then about the testimony of the paternal, what? Voice. Although Thomas is going to talk about the cloud and the Holy Spirit there, too. So the more hidden in the first. To the first, therefore, one proceeds thus. It seems it was not suitable for Christ to be transfigured. And this is a question of the use of the word figure, right? I get the definition here from Euclid there in the second objection. For it does not belong to a true body, that it be changed in diverse figures, right? But to a fantastic or imaginary body. But the body of Christ was not fantastical, we're not doing that, we're not Manichaeans. But the true body, therefore it seems that it has not to be transfigured. That's almost like taking the figure to mean the shape, right? And therefore, the body changes shape, you know. No, it didn't mean that. That's what happened with Circe there in the Odyssey, right? Change you into a beast, you know. It's a horrible story, you know, but it's kind of, you know, symbolic of what... Moses put his staff as a snake. Yeah, yeah. See, so... Moreover, figure is in the fourth species of quality. Now, you see, I know the categories on that. But clarity is in the third species, huh? Sensible qualities. Taking on, therefore, clarity by Christ ought not to be called transfiguration. I have this question now, just of the use of the word, right? Moreover, of the glorious body, there are four, what? Kisses. To wit, impassibility, right? You can't be acted upon. Agility, right? You can go quickly, right? I need a little bit of that. I'll go to Europe now. Subtlety, right, huh? Spirituality. I can go through the wall, right, huh? And clarity, right, huh? You can go through the wall now, too. You can go through the wall now, too. Then, according to the assumption of the other gifts, huh? Against all this is what is said in Matthew, chapter 17, that Jesus was transfigured before three of his disciples, huh? The answer should be said, huh? That the Lord, huh? His disciples, having forenounced his passion, right, huh? He wanted to lead them into the following of his passion, huh? I'm taking up the one's cross. Now, here's the principle. It's necessary, however, for this, that someone directly, huh, go forward on a road, right, that he foreknow in some way the, what? End, huh? When I come up here, I've got to know where I'm going. To know what road to take, right? Just as the arrow man, right, does not directly, what, huh? Ask the arrow, unless first he sees the target, right? Signum there, and his target, in which he had aim, right? And Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, in the first book, right, he's talking about what is the end or purpose of man, right? And then he compares it, you know, saying if we know what the end or purpose of man is, then like the man with the bow and arrow, right, we're more apt to what? Get it, you know? So, you know, when you develop it, sometimes you say, if you know the end or purpose of man, you can then aim at it, you might have to hit it, right? But if you don't know the end or purpose of man, you're shooting your arrow just at random, right? The chances are, you know, practically a needle of hitting the target, right? It doesn't mean, though, that if you see the target, you won't necessarily hit it. But, you know, yeah, but it's tremendously better, right? You know, if I just shoot my arrow at random, what's my chance of hitting you? You know, if I aim at you, right, then I got, you know, much better. Whence, Thomas, huh? Lord, we do not know where you're going, and in what way are we able to know the, what? Road, huh? And this is especially necessary when the road is, what? Difficult and rough. And the journey, laborious, huh? But when the end is joyful, kunditas, huh? But Christ, through his passion, obtained to this that he arrived at, what? Glory, yeah. Not only the glory of his soul, which he had from the beginning of his conception, right? But also the body, according to that of Luke, chapter 24. These things are necessary for Christ to undergo. So you might also enter into his glory. He must, I mean, he, or he's kind of explained to them. They're scandalized by the death, yeah. To which he leads us, who follow in the footsteps, huh, of his passion, right? According to that of Acts 14, huh? To many tribulations it is necessary for us to enter into the kingdom of the, what? Heavens. And therefore it is suitable that he show to his disciples the glory of his, what? Brilliance, yeah. Which is, for him to be, what, transfigured, right, huh? To which he wants to configure his own, right? According to that of Philippians 3. He reforms, he will reform the body of our humility, making it configured to the body of his clarity, huh? That's, yeah, clarity. When's Bede says upon Mark, huh? By pious provision, right, it was done, that by contemplation of the always remaining joy, delayed for a brief time, right, huh? We might tolerate more bravely, huh, the adverse things of this life. It's a brevet time as compared to eternity. It might seem long, you know, but... It's funny, huh, people get older, you know, each year seems to go by faster and faster and faster. And I think the reason for it is the ratio, right? Yeah. So when I'm one year is old, another year is as much as my life has been. Now that I'm 74, one year is dropping the bucket, you know? So one year seems to go by, you know, very quickly. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I came to the point where I'm from almost half my life in Austin. That's pretty amazing, isn't it? When I got in, half my life was just 12 years. If I keep on saying, people ask me directions, I don't know how to get somewhere. And I say, well, I'm from Minnesota. Oh, okay. Well, actually, I've been logging on Massachusetts than Minnesota. I think I find my way around St. Paul probably better than I can find my way around. Worcester. Worcester. Because I think the Worcester was laying up in a madman. Oh, yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Jerome says upon Matthew, right? No one should think, right? To this, that Christ is said to be transfigured, right? That he lost his pristine form and face, right? Or that he lost the truth of his body and assumed some spiritual body or air-like body, right? So, but in what way he was transformed, huh? The evangelist demonstrates saying that his face, what? Was he splendid like the sun? And his vestments were made white as snow, right? And later on, Thomas will be talking about this distinction between the face being brighter than the clothes, right? Because the sun is brighter than the what? Where the splendor of the face is shown and the brightness or the candor of the vest is described, the substance is not taken away, but the glory is what? Changed, huh? On the second, by the second, he explains the use of the word figure, right? To the second, it should be said that figure is considered around the extremity of the body, right? It's like in a square, let's say, in a circle, you know? It's the outward part, right? We have one being square and the other being circle, right? In the center, there'd be not distinguishable, right? And then he gives the quote from Euclid, huh? For a figure is that which is, what? Contained by a limit or limits, huh? Okay? And therefore, all those things which are considered about the, what? Extremity of a body, the end of a body, in some way seem to pertain to its, what? Figure. Just as color, so also the clarity of a body, not transparent, is to be noted in its, what? Surface. And therefore, the assumption of the brightness or clarity is called transfiguration, right? Because suddenly, what? Surface of the body, right? Okay, we'll let you get away with that, Thomas, huh? Okay. I noticed in that first reply, they had the word, quote there, the word transformatus, right? Transform. Because the Greek word there, I mean, there's tablets in that category. You had the word morphia there, too, huh? Metamorphosis. That word is extended, right, to a lot of other things, even to the souls of morphia. But what you see, I think, kind of, is that that fourth species of quality, which is shape or form or figure, is applied to the other species of quality, right? So, if you're healthy, we say you're in good shape. Yeah. See? You're in good form. Yeah, yeah. And you can speak even of science, it would be a form of the mind and so on, right? And then later on, you apply it even to the category of substance there, right? We have the soul as a form of the body, right? The morphia. And even, even, wait, this is divina substantia forma est. So, even the change in the quality of a, what, body, right? Can be called a transformation. But here you've got the words figure and form of it. It's the same in the Greek you have that. I'm trying to remember what the Greek word is that's used there for transfiguration. Yeah, isn't that like... Metamorphosis? The same word from... Yeah. Yeah, metamorphosis. Phoses. It's full of faith and have been transformed. It's morphed of it. Emporphosis and autonum, before that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's even more extended than the word figure, morphed is, form is, right? Now, why does he use this one of the four gifts, right? To the third it should be said that among the four, said four gifts, the clarity alone is a quality of the person in himself, right? Because the other three gifts are not perceived except in some act or motion or undergoing, right? So that you're not able to be acted upon by things unharmed, right? Or that you can move around quickly, right? You can step through the door, step through the wall. Well, Christ, therefore, shows in himself some signs, you might say, of the three gifts, right? For example, agility, when he walks upon the, what? See? Impassibility, subtlety, when he goes forth from the closed womb of the virgin. Impassibility, when from the hands of the Jews who want to come off the cliff or stone him, he evades them, right? But not on account of these things, as he said, to be transfigured, but only on account of the clarity which pertains to the aspect of the person himself. Now, whether that clarity... The article 2 here, it seems that that clarity was not the, what, clarity of glory, right? For it is said in the gloss of bead, upon that of Matthew 17, that's the chapter where the consecration is, he was transfigured before them, he shows in his mortal body, right, not immortality, because his body is going to die, right, but a clarity similar to that of, what, future immortality. But the clarity of glory is the clarity of the immortal body, therefore that clarity which Christ showed to the disciples was not the clarity of, what, glory, right, so we say it's not the clarity of the glorified body, the immortal body, right, it's not the immortal body. Moreover, it is said upon that of Luke 9, they will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God, says the gloss of bead, that is a glorification of the body in an imaginary representation of the future, what, beatitude, but the image of something is not the thing itself, therefore that clarity is not the clarity of beatitude. Moreover, the clarity of glory is not except in the human body, but that clarity of transfiguration appeared not only in the body of Christ, but also in his clothing, and in the lucid cloud which overshadowed the disciples. Therefore, it seems that that clarity was not the clarity of glory. But against this is what is said in Matthew 17, or upon that of Matthew 17 that he was transfigured before them, Jerome says, how he will be future in the time of judgment, such he appeared to the apostles, and upon that of Matthew 16, until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. Christendom says, wishing to show what is that glory in which afterwards he would come, right, revealed to them in the present life, as was possible for them to learn, right, so that neither would they sorrow now in the death of the Lord, right, see what this is going to lead to. Now, Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that that clarity which Christ took on in the transfiguration was the clarity of glory, as regards the essence of it, what it was. Not, however, as regards the, what, way of being. For the clarity of the glory of the body, that we're hoping for, right, is derived from the clarity of the soul, as Augustine says in his epistle to Dioscoris. And likewise, the clarity of the body of Christ in the transfiguration was derived from his divinity, as Danesim says, and from the glory of his, what, soul. So it is the glory of the clarity of glory, but that from the beginning of his conception, of the conception of Christ, the glory of his soul did not, what, be down to the body, was by certain what divine dispensation done, right? So that in a sufferable body, right, a body able to suffer, he might fulfill the mysteries of our redemption, as has been said above. But not by this was taken away the power of Christ, of deriving the glory of the soul to the body, he could let it come through, right, if he wanted to, huh? And this he did, as regards clarity, right, allowed to shine forth, in the transfiguration, but in a different way than in the glorified body. For in the glorified body, clarity redounds from the soul as a certain quality permanent affecting the body, right? Whence to shine bodily is not miraculous at all in the glorified body, but to the body of Christ in the transfiguration was derived clarity from his divinity and his soul, right, huh? Not by way of a, what, remaining quality, right, and when affecting his body, but more through the mode of a, what, passing passion. Just as when the air is illuminated by the sun, huh? Like when I blush, right, huh? Is that, and my face becomes red, is that a new quality now in my face that was not there before? But something that is, what, transient, huh? There are a lot of distinguishes between that, right, in the habit and the disposition there in the first species of quality. Whence that brightness was in the body of Christ, appearing in the body of Christ, was miraculous, right, huh? Just as when he walked upon the, what, ways of the water. Whence Danesia says in the fourth epistle to Caius, upon that man Christ acted those things which are of man, or above man, huh? He did those things which are of man. And this shows the virgin supernaturally conceiving, right? And the unstable water, right, sustaining the weight of material and earthly, what, feet, huh? Weight. I corrected a little bit my friend, I was very shocked by this, but Hugo to St. Victor, huh? Because I was, I baptized Hugo Duane Burquist, and so now they say Duane H, Duane Hugo Burquist, but that's, you know, it's happened in time, you know? But that's my thing, and my father's name was Reno Victor Burquist, so I took Victor as my confirmation name, right? So I've always been attached, for reason of the name, to Hugo St. Victor. So you're very sensitive to this correction. Yes, yes, I am. I found the Hugo St. Victor, you know, this division of human knowledge according to the distinction of the order it considers, that Thomas gives in the beginning of his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. There's the order which reason doesn't make, and the order which reason makes in its own acts, and the order which reason makes in the acts of the will, and the order it makes in the exterior matter. Well, that's already in the didascalia of Hugo St. Victor, right? Although Hugo says, makes four kinds of philosophy right in Thomas, doesn't call the, you know, mechanical arts philosophy, right? But he has that same division of human knowledge, huh? By the order it considers, huh? It's I use as a, you know, sign confirming the definition of reason of Shakespeare, right? It's defined ultimately by before and after, by order. And therefore, the fact that you can distinguish, to some extent, or to a large extent, the knowledge of reason by the order it considers shows that this is really kind of the way to define reason, huh? So much said in favor of Thomas Bowery from Hugo St. Victor. Once it ought not to be said, as Hugo St. Victor says, that Christ took on the dotes of clarity and transfiguration, of agility and walking upon the sea, and of subtlety and going forth from the religion. Because dos, huh? Names a certain quality remaining, huh? In the glorious body, huh? But miraculously, he had those things which pertain, nevertheless, to the gifts, huh? And he makes a very interesting comparison here. And it is similar, as regards the soul, of the vision by which Paul saw God in rapture, huh? He's carried up to the third heaven, as it said in the second part. Now, this is kind of a usual position, but St. Augustine first said this, that Moses and Paul saw God as he is, face to face, but not as a, what, permanent gift, or like it would be, but per modem passionis, something transient, transient way, right? And Thomas is comparing that to Christ here, right? So you could say that Paul and Moses, huh? That's what he says. And I don't know if this is, you know, official church doctrine, but it is the teaching of Augustine and Thomas followed in Augustine. And those are pretty big names. So you could say that, yeah, you're seeing God face to face. This is the Vedic vision as you carry as the essence, but not the... the mode of having it, right? So when Paul came down to earth again, he said, what? I chastised my body, you know, that's preaching to others. I lose my own soul, right? That's a beautiful comparison. So the first objection from that word is not shown that the clarity of Christ was not the clarity of glory, but there was not the clarity of a glorified body, right? Because the body of Christ was not yet immortal. So just as by dispensation was made, that in Christ the glory of the soul would not redound to the body, so it was by dispensation that it would redound as regards the gift of what? Clarity, the gift of impassibility, right? Okay. Now the second objection was the one about the use of the word imaginary there in the text from Bean, right? The second should be said that that clarity is said to be imaginaria, which comes from image, right? Not but that it was a true clarity of glory, right? But because it was a certain likeness representing the perfection of that glory according as it is a, what? Glorified body, right? So it's truly one thing, but also an image of another thing, right? Which is going to be the permanent state of the soul at the end. And that's what he says in the start of the third one here. To the third should be said that just as that clarity, which was in the body of Christ, represents the future clarity of his body, so the clarity of his vestments designate the future clarity of the saints. Like where the robes are priced down, which is, what? Excelled by the clarity of Christ. Just as the candor, the brightness of the snow is overcome, is excelled by the candor, brightness of the, what? Sun. So we're not going to be as bright as he will be. We'll be happy. Once Gregory says in the 32nd Book of the Morals that the vestments of Christ were made splendid because in that, what, culmination of supernal clarity, all the saints, right, who adhere to him will be shining by the light of justice, right? For by the name of the vestments, the just who are joined to him is signified. We cling to him, right? In the way clothing is. According to that of Isaiah's son, by all of these, as it were, by an ornament you are vested. Now, the lucid cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Spirit. Or, the, what, eternal power, as Origen says, by which the saints are protected in the future, what? Glory. Although also, suitably, it can signify the clarity of the renovated world, which will be the tent of the saints, huh? Whence, uh, Peter, uh, to make, Peter, disposing to make the tents, uh, the lucid cloud overshadowed the, what do you need, tenfoenia of the cloud? Yeah. Now. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that not solubly are brought in the witnesses of the transfiguration. For each one is most of all able to give witness about things what known to him, right? But of what sort would be the future glory in the time the transfiguration of Christ was not, yeah, to experience, but only to the angels. Therefore, the witnesses of the transfiguration more ought to have been the angels than men. Moreover, the witnesses of truth does not, no fiction befits the witnesses of truth, but truth. But Moses and Elias were not truly, what, there, but imaginarily. Well, Thomas is going to say that's not so. For, he says, for a certain gloss is upon that of Luke 9, Moses and Elias were there. It should be known, he says, that neither the body or the souls of Moses or Elias there appeared, but in some creature's subject form. Yeah, and one can believe that this was, what, done by the angelic ministry, that the angels assumed they're persons, huh? Therefore, it does not seem that they were suitable to test it. Well, that contradicts objection more. The angels should have been. Yeah, this is an attack upon Moses and Elias here, huh? Yeah. Don't mess with God. Or his prophets. Or his prophets. Moreover, Acts 10 is said that to Christ all the prophets gave testimony, right? Mm-hmm. Therefore, not only to Moses and Elias ought to be witnesses, but all the prophets. That's true. King David. Yeah. Moreover, the glory of Christ is promised to all the faithful, who, through his transfiguration, he wished to, what, unkindle the desire for that glory. Therefore, not only Peter and James and John ought to be taken on to, what, witness his transfiguration, but all the disciples, right? So the third and four are similar, but the one is in terms of the prophets who are not there and the apostles who are not there. But three is enough, huh? Of course, I only have two in the other case. Sometimes two is enough. In contrary is the authority of the scriptures, yeah. Let's see what Thomas responds, huh? I just want to hear this guy's answers, huh? Yeah. I can see if he had a chance to ask Thomas one or two questions, you know, he's going to appear, you know. You've got bald in that case, you know. Oh, I ask him. Which I ask him, yeah. It's like when the genie comes down, you know, you've got one promise here, one wish to be fulfilled. And I said, where did I read that to do something? Oh, it was in the introduction of 12th Night, which I started, and somebody called me, something or something, I don't remember the connection, but it was kind of a, some, and someone passed me by a dog in there, and some queen, one of the queen's name, one of her subjects is very close. Oh, yeah, yeah. She said, she says, would you grant me anything? I asked him. He said, I'll grant you anything you want if you give me my one wish. Okay. She said, I want your dog. He said, okay. So he gave her the dog. He said, now you're going to grant my wish? Yes. I want my dog. Okay, so Christ wanted to be transfigured, huh? They might show his glory to men, right? And he might provoke men to, what, desire it, huh? So Thomas gives that chapter 17 as the, what, the chapter dealing with the end of all this teaching, right? But the goal is to bring us to. But to the glory of eternal beatitude, men are brought through Christ, not only those who were, what, after him in time, I guess, but also those who preceded him in time. Whence, heading to the Passion, right, the crowds which followed and those who preceded shouted Hosanna, right? That's part of the spiritual meaning of that text, right? Some were coming before and some after. And therefore it was suitable that of those going before there be witnesses to wit, Moses and Elias, and of those following, Peter, James, and John. For in the mouth of two or three testes stands every word. Rule of two or three, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ, through his transfiguration, manifested to the disciples the glory of his body, which pertains to men alone. The angels don't have any body, so what do they care about the glory of the body? And therefore, suitably, not the angels, but men for our witnesses are brought into this. So that's a marvelous answer, that's an objection. Yeah. Now that second one, Tom's going to, you know, talk about the authority or lack of it of that text, right? Yeah. The second, it should be said that that gloss is said to be taken from the book which is entitled, Of the Marvels of Sacred Scripture, which is not a book authentic, right? But falsely ascribed to what? Augustine. And therefore, one, not to stand upon that gloss, right? Yeah. It, Jerome says upon Matthew, huh? It should be considered, huh? That to the scribes and the Pharisees demanding or asking for a sign from heaven, he did not wish to give them signs from heaven. Here, however, that he might, what? Increase the faith of the apostles. He gives a sign from heaven, right? Elias from there descending where he, what? He had ascended, huh? From Moses rising up from, what? From the depths of hell, right? In Frisa. Which is not to be thus understood as if the soul of Moses took on, what? His body. But that his soul appeared to some body, what? Assumed as the angels also appear sometimes. But Elias appeared in his own body, huh? Not, what? Taken from the imperial heaven, which is Aesthes, I guess. But from some eminent place in which he was carried up in the fiery church. And so Elias is going to come back at the end, right? And before the second coming, right? I guess what thing is asking about what the imperial heaven is? Yeah. The highest part of the creative universe? Yeah. It will all have to be here in heaven, but then we have to some elevated place. Yeah. Somewhere. So Thomas just goes against the authority of that, right? And then he talks about the reality of them, right? Because otherwise they're not be suitable. Witnesses there were present, huh? To the third it should be said, huh? This is the one that's arguing about why just these two guys, right? Or why they in particular? To the third it should be said, as Christendom says upon Matthew, Moses and Elias are brought in the middle on account of many reasons, right? First is this, huh? Because the crowds said that he was what? Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets. Yeah. That at least thus would appear the difference of the servants of the Lord. That's kind of a silly thing, right? Yeah. Puzzlingly, they copied their prophet. I didn't mean they took their heads off, but... I didn't mean they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but they took their heads off, but correctly okay the second reason is because moses gave the law right and elias was what very zealous for the glory of the lord right whence through this that together with christ they appear there is excluded the calumny of the jews accusing christ of being a transgressor of the law which would be against moses right but they say you know we know who moses i don't know who this guy is you know he says in the gospel and the blasphemy of god that they accused him assuming the glory of god he served for himself yeah yeah so even moses who's preeminent as far as giving the law among men and then elias who was most zealous for the glory of god and that's against those two attacks right that he's transgressed through the law and he's a usurping the glory of god and he forgives sins and other such things so he brings in these people who are obviously subordinated to him as you'll see in that painting a legend of racial you know he's up in the center and then they're kind of almost kneeling and he decided on the third reason this is very interesting they might show that he has power of life and death right and he's the judge both of the dead and the living through this that moses is already dead the lies still living he brought them together that's a marvelous look at this guy chrysostom oh he is he's a bishop yeah very good paris is is worth a chrysostom i guess the fourth reason is because as luke says uh they spoke with him about the excess right nothing too much you know uh which is going to complete in jerusalem that is about his passion and death and therefore that he might what confirm the souls of disciples about this he brings in the middle those who expose themselves to death for god for moses with the danger of death offered himself to the pharaoh right and elias to aqab the king fifth reason because he wished that his disciples would imitate i guess the mildness of moses and the zeal of elias that's kind of interesting because you wouldn't think of those two going together right yeah but uh this is john paul and john 23rd and pierson knight at the same time they said they're very different folks yeah john where there was to go aggiornamento and pierson knight was condemning all the errors of modern world and so he brought them together the sixth reason adds hillary right they might show himself right through the law which moses gave right and through the prophets among whom elias was prokippus right he was the chief one right and he was preached by these people right that they would they were participating right okay so that's enough to see why these two are able to stand for these other guys now what about these three and not all the apostles a little bit about the order that we saw in the other text remember why he quite christ uh preached to the jews but not the gentiles he wanted it to be a sit in order right to the fourth it should be said that the highest the high mysteries should not be um exposed to all expounded to all immediately right but through the those who are greater in their time they ought to arrive at the obvious god loves the order right that's that's a sermon on scripture um there's two of them but he talked about the mountains the rivers like the dock and the sunlight hits the tops of the mountains yeah yeah yeah my old teacher considered to say god hates equality talking about that in the class of the novices this question is on the church and there's states and duties and order in the church but for the one of the objections is basically i call it the objection of democracy no no everybody should just be equal that's it you know all the same he says no and therefore as christian says he took up three more potent ones right huh for peter was excelling in the love which he had to christ right he says in the last chapter there john right and again in the power that was committed to him john in the privilege of the love by which he was loved by christ on account of his virginity huh and also on account of the prerogative of his ah there now that's the greatest gospel right and james on account of prerogative of his martyrdom now he's the see then the bishop he was the first he was the first martyr among the apostles yeah yeah the people celebrate matthias today no we had no we had him in august yeah yeah well father b came out you know father adam there came out you know he's all in the red you know because matthias is a that's right he's a martyr so the only the only apostle not martyr is saint john although they tried to kill him but they did yeah yeah yeah but nevertheless these he did not want to what announce what they had seen right left as as jerome says right huh it would seem incredible for the magnitude of the thing and after so great a glory fouling the what scandal of the cross or also that he would be totally impeded by the possible by the people right and when they were filled with the holy spirit then they were what witnesses of the spiritual things done now the last To the fourth one goes forward thus, it seems unsuitably is added the testimony of the paternal voice saying, this is my beloved son. Because, as is said, Job 33, how once God spoke, and he does not repeat himself, but in the baptism, the paternal voice was, what, professed this, therefore it is not suitable that he professed this again in the transfiguration. But you could say repetition is the mother of the learning, so. Yeah, and what's his name? Pedocles, the great philosopher, and Pedocles said, you know what, it's worth saying, can be said twice. Yes, and moreover in baptism, together with the paternal voice, the Holy Spirit was present in the species, or the dove, which in the transfiguration was not done, therefore is not suitable to have the protesting, professing of the Father, right? Moreover, Christ began to teach after baptism, and nevertheless, in baptism, the voice of the, what, Father, did not, was not brought in, introducing them to, what, hear him. Therefore, neither the transfiguration ought to be brought in, huh? He said, sir, here's my beloved son, hear me, I guess, and didn't say that in the other part? Yeah, he said that here, yeah, that the transfiguration, he listened to it. Moreover, one should not give to some, right, owe them, we're not that to say to them, those things that they are not able to bear. According to that of John, I still have other things to say to you which we're not able to bear yet, huh? But the disciples are not able to bear the voice of the Father, huh? But he said, the disciples, hearing it, fell on their faces, and were greatly afraid, huh? Therefore, we're not not to, what, to prove a voice, not to come to them, huh? That's kind of an audacious objection, I'm saying. You shouldn't have said that. Yeah. Don't you know what you did to be poor? There was more than that, right? So there's some text, I think it's in town, as they were, we're talking about, uh, Job, you know, kind of arguing with God, right? And where truth is concerned, there's no respect for persons. It's kind of a shocking thing to say that. Yeah. Um, because you have to respect God, because he's truth itself, but that's not a problem. Answer, it should be said, huh, that the adoption of sons of God, huh, is to a certain conformity of the image to the natural son of God, huh, which comes about in two ways, huh? First, by the grace of the road, right, in his life, which is an imperfect conformity to the son of God, huh, natural son of God. Second, through glory, which is a perfect conformity to the son of God, huh? According to that of one John. Now we are the sons of God, right, huh? And it does not yet appear what we will be. We know that when he appears, we will be like him, because we'll see him as he is, huh? So we're already sons of God, but we're not as much like him as we'll be when he appears. That's a beautiful text then, to show the truth of the distinction that Thomas sees here, huh? Because, therefore, we get grace through baptism, right, huh? And in the transfiguration is shown ahead of time to us, in a way, the clarity of the future glory. Therefore, both in the baptism, as well as in the transfiguration, it was suitable to be made known the natural sonship of Christ by the testimony of the Father, because you've got to be assimilated to it, both by baptism and, more fully, by Gloria, who alone is fully, perfectly conscious of that perfect generation, together with the Son and the Holy Spirit, huh? How we know how he spoke, what did he say? Now, this text from Job, right, is referring, actually, to the eternal saying of it in the Trinity, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that word is referred to the eternal speech of God, huh? By which God the Father brings forth, right, a word unique and equal to himself, right? Co-eternal with himself. And nevertheless, it can be said that the same can be said by a, what? Yeah, that God twice, what, brought forth? Not, however, on account of the same thing, right? But to show him those, the diverse way in which men partake of the likeness of the, what? Yeah. Yeah. So, there is a reason for him to repeat himself, huh? Yeah. Yeah. Just like Mozart repeats himself sometimes, huh? Variations of the thing, but they're not the same, right? But here, here, it seems like he's saying the same thing, but with, uh, but with a different kind of, what, reason, a different kind of simulation to his, to his own son. Imperfect, imperfect. Um, how about the Holy Spirit here? To the second should be said that in baptism, huh? Where is the, there is declared the mystery of the first, what, regeneration. There is shown the operation of the whole Trinity. Through this, that there is the incarnate Son, and there appears the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove, and the Father was declared there in his voice, right, huh? Um, so also, in the transfiguration, which is the sacrament of the second regeneration. Interesting, he says that, huh? Um, the whole, notice the second regeneration, you gotta be born again, as he says in the first one, right? So, regeneration. The whole Trinity appears, the Father in the voice, the Son in man, and the Holy Spirit in the shining cloud. Because just as in baptism, he gives, what, innocence, which is designated by the simplicity of the dove, so in the resurrection, he gives to his chosen ones the clarity of glory, huh? And refreshment, huh? Refrigeration, huh? Yeah. Uh, from every evil, which is designated in the, what, lucid cloud, right? You have there, um, as in baptism, he gives innocence, and then he follows the dove, which is designated by the dove. So in the resurrection... Okay, because this translation, this, um, text is missing that. Refrigeration? Yeah. It's missing that the dove just signifies the innocence. This, this, this, for the version of the hand. Yeah. Now, to the third, it should be said, my third objection was, what about saying, hear me, I guess, not just in one, not in the other. To the third, it should be said that Christ came to actually give grace, huh? Glory. Oh, you make a distinction here, huh? He came to give actually grace, and he promised glory by, what, word? Glory, and therefore, suitably in the transfiguration, men are induced that they, to hear him, not however, in the baptism, huh? Yeah. He actually gives us that grace of baptism, but then we don't have glory yet. Oh, I see. He promised him, though. So that's what we can listen to him. Yeah. Okay. It's subtle, huh? I don't know what they call it. Don't go to Dr. Subtleist. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thomas is the subtle one, as far as I can see. Thomas is the teasing one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.