Tertia Pars
Lecture 110: Whether Christ Suffered All Human Passions and Pains

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

and Augustine and Gregory and this and so on. What are you reading now? No, but in a sense you're not reading like one guy, you know? Oh, yeah. I mean, that's really, I noticed that thing in philosophy, you know, when you read Aristotle, Aristotle was to the earlier Greeks, you know, a little bit like Thomas, his church father, so I'm not that he follows them in the sense, you know, he agrees with them that much, but he learned from them, right? And he seems to have inherited the mind of Plato and all those before him, right? And whatever is good in them, he draws out, you know, and brings together, you know, the way Thomas brings together all these things in the church fathers. And so I have the impression when I read a man like Thomas Aquinas, I'm not reading, you know, Thomas Aquinas, one man, right? However brilliant he may be, right? But in a sense he's speaking in the, what, and with the strength of all these church fathers before him, and of course the philosophers too, the same way with Aristotle, when you read Descartes, we read his other philosophers, and each guy is off on his own, you know, you're reading this one guy, and he's kind of on his own, you know, and he's, yeah, yeah. Can we do the one here before the break here? To the fifth one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ, what, sustained or underwent all, what, passions or all sufferings, right? For Hillary, huh, says in the tenth book about the Trinity, huh, the only begotten of God, huh, to what, achieving the sacrament of his death, right? Right, huh, consumed, you might say, in himself, or took on in himself, what? Every kind of human, what, suffering, right, huh? He testifies this when, inclining his head, he's sent forth his spirit, right? Therefore it seems that all human sufferings he's sustained, right? Now maybe there's some distinction, though, to me. Maybe this is true in some way, and so might not. Moreover, Isaiah says, chapter 52, huh, Behold, my servant, what, understand and be exalted and elevated, and he will be greatly sublime, huh, and many will be, what, struck dumb, so to speak, huh, dupefied over him, right, huh? So inglorious will be his appearance among men, right, huh? And his form among the sons of, what, men, huh? But Christ was exalted according to this, that he had every grace and every, what, science, for which those admiring, many admiring him, were, what, stupefied, huh? Therefore, it seems that he was inglorious in sustaining every human, what, passion, right? Moreover, the passion of Christ is ordered to the liberation of man from sin, as has been said above. But Christ came to liberate men from every genus of, what, sin? Therefore, you have to suffer every genus of passion, son. Now, our story is here in the more popular writings there, you know, that he's scourged for the sins of our flesh, and he's crowned for the sins of, what, more pride, you know, huh? It might be like the different genre of sins, right, huh? Sins of the flesh, sins of the spirit, right? He's suffering, you know? But we'll see what Thomas says, huh? Who cares what purpose is? This sounds kind of like the objection of Father von Balthasar, that he couldn't really understand the extremity of sin unless he underwent the torments of the damned. That's sort of his thing. He had to despair and suffer the torments of the damned. Otherwise, we're not really free from all our sins and all the punishments and all that. That's his thinking. That's strange, huh? The soldiers first, what, broke his... With the legs. Yeah. Were crucified with him, right? But when they came to Jesus, they did not, what? So that's something he didn't say, right? That goes back to not to have his body divided, though, I suppose, huh? Therefore, he did not undergo every human, what, suffering, I guess, huh? I answer that human passions can be considered, what? Two ways, huh? In one way, as regards the species, huh? And thus, it was not necessary that Christ undergo every, what, human suffering, right? A species means the, what, the particular kind, right? Okay? Because many species of passion are, what, contrary one to another, right? Just as combustion and fire and subversion of water, right? I mean, if you're, if you're, if you have a millstone tied to your thick and you're going to the water, right, to drown, like, you're not going to die by being burnt at the stake, right? If you're burnt at the stake, you're not going to be, what? Back on the ground. It's often you undergo both of those. It's a contrariety. We speak, he says, however, now, Thomas says, about passions inflected from the outside, huh? Because the passions caused from within, just as, what, there are bodily sicknesses, he ought not to, what, suffer, as has been said above, huh? That's what that means, the passions, right? The emotions. Either that, or even the modern, I think, because he, I went and looked at that, he says, because they can come from either defective in the form of principle, but the form of principle here is the power of the Holy Spirit. So that couldn't, that couldn't happen, or it had come from bad living, he says, that didn't happen either, so. But according to the genus, right, he suffered every, what, human passion, right, huh? Now, where do you learn the distinction between species and genus, by the way? Yeah, poor friend, the Isegogi, right? So I told you, I asked my colleagues, who's read the Isegogi? Nobody had. Some of them have not even heard of it. Eventually, it catches up with you, you know. I'm not knowing these basic things, huh? Which can be considered now, this way in which he underwent every passion. It's a kundum genus, right? In one way, on the part of men, right, huh? Because he underwent something from the Gentiles and from the, what, Jews, huh? From both the males and the, what? Yeah. As is clear about the maids accusing Peter, huh? He underwent something also from the princes and from their ministers, right? And from the people, right? I think that all of them. The populari was? Well, I mean, all of them. I think the princes and their ministers would be the high priests. Yeah. And the crowd, yeah. According to that is Psalm 2, right? Where do the Gentiles, what? Rage and the people meditate in the end of things, huh? That's what it is. It's quite a psalm, isn't it? The kings of the earth, right? Come together, stand up, right? And the princes come together in one against the Lord and against his, what? Christ. So the psalms have got some prophecy in them, right? Kind of like the fifth gospel, they say sometimes, huh? He suffered also from those who were, what? Familiar to him and known, right, huh? Just as from Jude, Judas, betraying him, right? And from Peter, what? Didn't I? So this is considering a part of, what? Of men who were doing this, huh? Another way is clear the same thing from the side or the side of those things in which man is able to, what? Suffer, huh? For Christ suffered in his friends, deserting them, right, huh? In his fame, through blasphemies against him, said, huh? There's it against him. in honor and glory, through what, making fun of him, right, and contumulities, he stood upon him. In things even, through this, that he was despoiled of his, what, vestments, and in his soul, through sadness and, what, yeah, and fear, in his body, through, what, wounds and scourging, yeah. Third, it can be considered, as regards the memories of his body, where Christ suffered in his head the crown of spines, yeah? Piercing. Piercing, piercing, pungent. Yeah, we're pungent, huh? Because he supplies the food, right? Pungent. In his hands and feet, the fixing of the nails, right? In his face, the blows and the spit, huh? Spool, that means the spit in Latin, not spool, it's talking about the word, the spew ends. And in the whole body, right, scourging, yeah. He was, he suffered according to every bodily sense, according to touch, by being scourged and fixed with nails, in taste by the, what? Renegrine ball. Renegrine ball. Well, smell in the fetid's place, right, of dead cadavers, which is called Calvary. I don't know, I don't know, but beam. Beam, yeah. In his ears, by the voices, right, acerated, right, said, by the voices of those blaspheming and making fun of him, right? And even in his sight, by seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved and beat them. That's kind of, hmm. So, he answers then the first objection from Hillary, it should be understood as regards omnia genera, right? Non omnia specia, so that's a distinction. That's where Thomas had been if he had not studied porphyry, right? I mentioned how in the Summa Cargiatilla is one of the arguments that nothing is said univocally of God and us, is that every name said univocally is either a genus or a species or a difference or a property or an accent. And then he goes to illuminate them all, right? So, he understood well the ace of go again. There was a complete division of names said univocally of many things. So, here he's using the distinction between genus and species. It's like you see with Shakespeare or Homer or something like that, right? They have every genus, right? They excel in tragedy and comedy, right? Maybe some other kinds in between those two. The second, it should be said, huh? The likeness there is to be noted, not as regards the number of sufferings and graces, but as regards the magnitude, huh? Of both, huh? For just as he was sublime in the gifts of graces above all others, right? So, he is dejected below others the dignity of his, what? Passion. I always thought as a child, you know. The person who's capable of great happiness is capable of great, what? Yeah. The person who's not capable of much happiness isn't capable of much misery either. I think there's something to be said about that, huh? You know? It's, um... That's why, you know, the great tragedies are about a man who's, what, in some way sublime in great happiness, right? It's a long way to fall, right? To go, you know, if you're already down below, you haven't got very far to fall, right? To once have been happy until it's all, right? As a very sufficiency, right, huh? Christ didn't have to undergo every particular thing. They didn't have to drown and be burned in the stake, anything like that, right? Um, insufficiency, even the least suffering of Christ was enough to redeem the human race from all, what, sins, you know, prick his finger, right? But according to suitability, it was sufficient that he undergo all the genera of passions, as has already been said, huh? Okay, so take a little break and get out of Mozart now. Read the brothers here so they can... Whether the dolor, I suppose that would be the pain, right? For the suffering of Christ was greater than that of others. To the sixth one goes forward thus. It seems that the pain of the suffering of Christ was not greater than that of other pains. For the pain of the one's suffering is increased in its weight and by the weight and link, you might say, of the end of going, right? But some martyrs sustained, what? Longer and more grave passions in Christ, as is clear in the case of what? Lawrence, who was what? Broiled on that. Particula. Particula, that's the word I learned. It made me over to the lattice. And the Vincent, whose flesh were what? Lacerated with horn nails. Therefore, it seems that the suffering, or the pain rather, of Christ's suffering was not, actually was the greatest. Moreover, the virtue of the mind mitigates what? So much so that the Stoics posited that sadness does not fall in the soul of the one. So Shakespeare kind of makes fun of that now. He calls the Stoics stock, you know, like a piece of wood, you know, and you can take a piece of wood and you're, whack it, whack it, whack it. And the wood doesn't just stand there and takes it, right? Sorry, that's what St. Jerome said about Aurelius, for his epithetheia, he said, either the man's a stone or he's God. And Aristotle laid down that a moral virtue holds the middle in passions, right? So they kind of contrast the Stoics with Aristotle there, you know, Aristotle's idea that it's to hit the mean, right? Not to be without. I mean, the Stoics would say, you know, if your son dies or your wife dies, you know, you'd say, well, I always knew he was mortal, you know? That's the praise. Well, even Christ, you know, sorrowed there at the death of, yeah, even though he's going to praise him from the dead, but they didn't make light of this, right? So, I mean, moderate lamenting the death of, you know, a friend or a son or, but in Christ there was the most perfect virtue of the mind. Therefore, it seems that in Christ there was the least, what? Moreover, the more of someone's suffering is more, what? Sensible. Yeah, sensitive, yeah. The more is the, what? Pain of the suffering. But the soul is more sensible than the body, since the body senses from the soul. So, Adam, therefore, Adam also, in the state of innocence, seems to, what? Have a body. More sensitive than the body. Yeah. Who assumed the human body with natural defects. Therefore, it seems that the pain of the soul suffering in purgatory, or in hell, or even the pain of Adam, if he suffered, was more than the pain of the suffering of Christ. Moreover, the loss of a greater good causes a greater pain. But the sinner in sinning loses a greater good than Christ did by, what? Suffering. Because the life of grace is better than the life of nature. Christ, however, who lost life after three days, would resurrect, right? He seems less to have lost than those who live, lose life. Who abide. Yeah, who lose life by the name of death. Therefore, it seems that the pain of Christ was not the greatest pain. Moreover, the innocence of the one's suffering diminishes the pain of the suffering. But Christ suffered innocently. He was, I am a, what? A gentle lamb, right? I am like a lamb, brought to the victim. Therefore, it seems that the pain of the suffering of Christ was not the greatest. Moreover, in those things which are Christ, nothing was superfluous. But the least pain of Christ would be sufficient for the salvation of human, for the end of human salvation. For it would have an infinite, what? Power from the divine person there. Therefore, it would be superfluous to assume the greatest, what? Pain. That would answer to the objection. Especially for redeeming the race of human beings. What's the appropriate? Yeah, he could prick his finger. Yeah. It would be sufficient. But against, this is what is had in the lamentations there in the Old Testament. In the person of Christ. Pay attention and see if there is a pain as my pain. Yeah. If there is no one equal to it, right? I answer it should be said, that it has been said above, when one tweeted of the defects taken on by Christ, right? Remember how that was the division there, the things, the goods or perfections taken on by him, right? Like the division and so on. Then the defects taken on, right? Which was the flesh that could suffer, right? In Christ's suffering, there was true pain, right? Both the sensible one, which is caused from the injury done to the body, right? The bodily injury. And the interior pain, right? Which is caused from the apprehension of something, what? Yeah. Which is called, what? Sadness. Now, sometimes we take pain in the strict sense, it's tied up with the sense of touch, right? But sadness is something a little more spiritual, right? So, envy, that kind of sadness, but that's a more spiritual thing, right? Or pity is what? More called sadness than called, what? Pain, right? And loneliness is more sadness than pain, yeah. Yeah. He was thin as a rail when he died. A few months before he died, it was his birthday, and my mother got his picture, and she sent it to me, and she wrote me, and said, it pains me to see this, because she pitied him in his suffering. Yeah, because sometimes we use the word pain to cover both, like he does here somewhat. But sometimes, you know, you'll use the word pain just for what is tied up with the sense of touch, you know? You make the same thing with the good, you know, the distinction between pleasure, right? Which more names the bodily thing. And then joy, huh? I said, C.S. Lewis, they're surprised by joy. Well, then, it's the more spiritual thing, right? Yeah, yeah. This is pain, yeah. Pained by joy. Yeah. I don't think she did too much for his reputation, but no. Yeah. Well, let's, I think it's got to be the best of us. And also this interior pain, right? Which is caused from the apprehension of something, what? Well, let's go. Harmful. And there you see more strictly, which is called, what, christitia, sadness. Now, both pains, right, in Christ was, what, the greatest among the pains of present life, which happened on account of four, what, reasons, right? First, an account of the causes of the, what, pain. For sensible, for the cause of sensible pain is the injury of the, what, body, right, huh? Which has, what, bitterness, right, huh? Both from the general character of suffering, but also from the genus of passion, which death of the, what, nailed, I guess, huh, on the cross is most bitter, huh? Because it is fitted into the nerves, I guess, right? And the very sensitive parts, right, huh? Mainly in the hands and in the feet, right, huh? And the weight of the body hanging continually increase the, what, pain. So, in a sense, you see doctors studying these things and saying things like this, too, you know? And because this also, or the length of this pain, because they do not at once die as those who are, what, killed by a sword, no? So, in some sense, a guillotine is more merciful, yeah, yeah. As well as more efficient, you know? Don't say, you know, show my head afterwards, you know, well, we're at the show. But the cause of, what, interior pain, right, huh? First, because of all of the sins of the human race, right, huh? For which he made satisfaction by, what, suffering, right? Whence, as were, he ascribes them to himself, right? I guess, huh? Saying in Psalm 21, the words of, what, like son, yeah. Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of others, abandoning him, I guess, delinquent, in his death, right, huh? And especially of the disciples who underwent scandal in the suffering of Christ, in the Passion of Christ, huh? Third, also, the loss of bodily life, which is naturally, what, horrible to, you know, to the life of him. Secondly, the magnitude can be considered from the sensitivity, you might say, the perceptibility of the patient, right, huh? For according to the body, it was, what? Optimae complexionata, right? Well, balanced body, right? Since his body was formed miraculously by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Just as others, right, which had done through miracles are more putin' than others, as Chrysostom says, right, huh? About the wine that Christ converted the water in the thing. Seems good wine, huh? Best. Yeah, best wine, yeah. Best wine, right? And therefore, in Christ, most of all, with vigorous, you might say, the sense of what? Touch. So Aristoteles says that the man's got a better sense of touch or a better mind, right? I kind of gave a commencement address one time at Assumption, you know, before my time, you know, but, you know, se diego sum, right? Everybody's talking about neglect of the sense of touch, right? How the basic thoughts, you know, of you and mind come more from touch than from sight. So the idea of good, you know, is to have the touch, and the idea of what substance and so on, right? And nature and so on. Sense of the interior, yeah. By the sense of sympathy, you know, pity and so on, it's touched. You see, you know, somebody's suffering touches us, right? You say that, huh? So, Aristotle and Thomas often refers to that thing about the sense of touch. He's got a good sense of touch. He's got a good mind. He's got a good imagination. He's got a good mind. He's got a good sense of touch. But some fidgety, he's got a good sense of touch. So you see the guys who are very mathematical, you know, they've got a good mind. He's got a good sense of touch. You know, you see the whole picture, you know? I was reading a book recently on the history of the quantum theory, you know, and of course, these great men like Bohr and Einstein and so on, they really weren't, you know, believers, right? So they didn't have, you know, they're very good at the math. They're very good at the... It's got a genius, you know, the development of mathematical physics. But you can look up, you know, if you go to Nobel Prize, right? You can look up, like all the Nobel Prizes in physics, and you can go to any one of them, and they'll give you, you know, a biographical sketch of Einstein or Bohr or Heisenberg, whoever it is, and then they'll give you his Nobel lecture, right? Which is on his discovery when she got the Nobel Prize. And then they have on there also there's some other things you can get extra things about him, you know? And so it's very interesting things in there. I was kind of looking at the things for Heisenberg and so on. But, you know, of course, most of these men are not most of them, but a lot of them were very musically inclined too, you know? You know, Einstein played Mozart rather than the violin and so on. Heisenberg, you know, he was known as a very good pianist, right? And so on. But for Heisenberg, you know, it gives meaning to life, you know? But, you know, it's kind of an irrational thing, you know, but it's a very mathematical thing, you know? And it's kind of strange to read about these guys, huh? And of course, they describe, you know, a boy, you know, like a young man. This is a book I read on the thing that gives you little biographical sketches to people, you know, and how, you know, throw away all that religion stuff, you know? You know, the young man and so on. And so they have, you know, don't have a good mind, simply speaking, but in some way, you know, you know, in the mathematical and they're really kind of brilliant, you know? But good's a quantum quid, you know? Maybe that's what Euclid is. I don't know. He's darn good in geometry, and, you know, I don't know how he was, you know, the whole. It's interesting how my father once mentioned before his book when he talked about this aspect of cultural things like music to the intellectual life. And he noted, he said he couldn't see how he could divorce it. He made this special note about, he didn't name him by name, but I read it later, why was he talking about Colorado? And Colorado just kind of cried himself that he didn't like any, you know, music, nothing, no cultural things to him. Lived in a vacuum. Yeah, yeah, he said, yeah, this theologian that I knew. A very well-known theologian. makes a point like that in the meta-war sort of trilogy, sort of modern trilogy or something like that, but there's a Canadian politician who is a brilliant politician, but he's hyper-developed. The observation is made in one particular area and completely underdeveloped in all sorts of problems. And so it's very interesting. Well, Plato says somewhere, you know, he never met a mathematician who could think, you know. That's kind of touching upon this, right? You get the mathematicians and I go, it's kind of fun when you read them because, you know how there's a theorem in geometry that the interior angles of a triangle are always equal to two right angles, right? And you say, well, no, no, because, you know, and they're thinking of the triangle and you take the north pole and you draw a line down to the equator and you draw another one down. They seem to be right angles to the equator, right? So now you get two right angles right down there plus the angle of the north pole. So some triangles, this is obviously the qualification, right? You know, you can't think, you know? You know, it's kind of amazing. That was like somebody once gave me a piece of paper rolled up like a comb, you know. And so it was the end was sticking out like a point, you know, you roll it like that and look through it. And I said, look through it with this eye and leave this eye open. And put your hand next to it, you know, it looks like there's a hole to your hand. He said, now, does that hole really exist? Hey, this is an optical illusion. What do you mean a hole in my hand? It seems to stop. Well, look at this. Yeah, probably like that, you know, all kinds of things, you know, where you're reaching for something that's not there, you know. So anyway, anyway. So this is the second reason, right? From the, what you might say, Christ's sense of touch is more privy than anybody else's sense of touch. Even Aristotle would agree, right? And therefore, he was, what, more afflicted by these things, huh? Just like Mozart had a very, what, sensitive ear, you know, they say, you know, as a child, they'd blow the trumpet and, oh, it's faints, you can't take his ears, so, you know. So, I mean, Mozart would be more annoyed by bad music or others, you know. He'd be more pained by it. So he'd sing off tune, you know, and sometimes the preacher's not too good up there, you know, to sing the thing, you know, but somebody's playing the thing, you know, not just right, you know. That's an example. He'd be more pained, you know. That's an example I always used with Christ's sensitivity, because most people don't appreciate it. His body was more perfect, therefore he suffered more than we do. That's an easy example of music. Somebody who has a trained ear suffers more when the choir's off pitch than somebody who's just tone deaf. Yeah. They don't hear it. And, you know, you develop a sense of taste for wine or something like that, so you're getting more, you know, ordinary beverages, right, you know. Not going to annoy you, kind of, you know, in a way that. So he says, and therefore in him maxime, right, was vigorous, the sense of, what, touch, right, from the perception of which there follows, what, pain. Pain, pain, okay. And his soul, according to the interior, what, powers, most efficaciously apprehended all the causes of, what, sadness, right? On a Sunday, when you think about, you know, people committing abortion, things of this sort, you know, mothers killing their own babies, really, you suffer from this, right? He's thinking about all the things around the world out there, terrible things. But this would be, Christ would be even more aware of the diversity and all of these things. You get this in the lives sometimes of the saints there, you know, where you read the saints being shown the state of a soul, or the condition of a soul in the state of mortal sin, right? And how ugly it is, you know, that, you know, the saints say, you know, that it was not, it's looked at it anymore, you know, that it would die, right? It just, it's a horrible thing, right? And a lot of times when people have problems trying to understand, you know, how there can be a hell and so on, right? They don't understand fully or very well what it is to turn away from God, right? You know, really, you know, evil it is, right? It's really hard for us to understand how evil, even the devil is, right? Don't mess with him, you know? I noticed that Father Utenauer, you know, there, he's got a book on exorcism, you know? I guess, I guess he is an exorcist, he's a book to that, you know? Of course, he's going around all the time fighting the UN and so on, you know? All these people going around the world, they're trying to pervert all these other nations and so on. He's seen evil everywhere, right? But I was struck by, you know, there's something devilish about this, you know? If the devil can get us to kill our own children, I mean, he must really hate us, you know? You know, it's hard to understand how evil he is, right? So, you know, the saints are more, isn't it one of the decades of the first five decades here of the Psalms, right? One of them is about, isn't it about the, you know, the fourth, was it, decade or something? But, you know, where you want to suffer from the evil of other people, right? I mean, I think we're all bothered to some extent by the, you know, by the evil we see in the world around us, you know? But some people are more so, right? But Christ would be so much more aware of that, huh? He would have much more sadness, huh? The third magnitude, third, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be considered from the purity of his, what? Suffering, right, huh? For in other ones' suffering, right, the interior sadness, huh? There's really a bit of justitia there, right, huh? Idigata is mitigated, right? And also the dolor exterior, that's more the pain in the sense of, I think, from some consideration of reason, right, huh? To which there's derived or overflowing, kind of, from the higher powers to the lower powers, right? But in Christ's suffering, this was, what? Not so. For he permitted each one of the powers to act what was, what? Yeah. As Dan the scene says, huh? Yeah. So you've got a toothache, right, since you can diminish it by distracting yourself with something, right? You know? But in Christ there, he got each power to do its own thing, right? And not, you know, to overflow, right? I sometimes use this kind of thing as a, with another scripture passage, when people say, you know, there's a passage in one of the wisdom books that says, knowledge brings sorrow. I say, well, that supreme knowledge brings supreme sorrow. But Christ says, brings sorrow. So he wants to have supreme knowledge. I know it's like every student come on Wednesday nights, you know, and we go from seven to nine, you know. And after you leave, I'm so awake, you know. You know, I've never heard, you know, it's just, you know, it's a hard time getting to sleep, you know. Well, what did I do now to, you know, my mind, you know. So that's the higher thing kind of overflowing, though, you know. Normally, but now it's like I'm a little tired, you know. But Christ is not allowed the one thing to overflow with the other one, right? So therefore, there's a purity of this, what? So, yeah. Fourth, it can be, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be considered from this, that that passion and pain, huh, was assumed by Christ voluntarily, right, huh? On account of the end of the liberation of man from sin. And therefore, he assumed such a quantity of, what, pain that was proportional to the magnitude of the fruit that would then, what, follow, right, huh? From these, therefore, huh, all these causes considered together, right, huh? It appears manifestly that the pain of Christ was, what? Great. Yeah. It makes Christ very strange. You do this, right? I know when I choose this. You've got all the material for your sermons now, you know, and all else. Kind of absorb it, you know. I think with Thomas, you know, it's hardly any author more interesting than Thomas, you know. You've just got to kind of go take the time to digest it, you know. Most of the time we don't, you know, otherwise you get, well, they would say intellectual indigestion, right? He says so much, you know, on one page or so. What would John the 22nd say, you know? You can learn more from, you know, you're studying Thomas than from a lifetime of studying the Church Fathers, but it's obviously built upon them too. The first objection here, right? Talking about Lawrence and Vincent and so on. To the first effort should be said that that argument proceeds from only one of the things foreset, right? To it from the bodily injury, right, which is a cause of sensible pain. But from the other causes that we mentioned in the body of the article, right? Much more is the, what, pain of Christ, suffering, augmented, right? Now, what about the second thing here? If Christ was a bit stoic or Aristotelian, he could, you know. To the second, it should be said that moral virtue in one way mitigates interior sadness, right? And another, exterior sensible pain. Notice the use of the word tristitium in dola, right? That's more the strictest of them, right? For it directly diminishes, what? Interior, what? Sadness, huh? Constituting in it a middle as in a proper matter, right? Well, C.S. Lewis, you know, he tries to understand what Aristotle means by the purgation of the pity and fear there in tragedy, right? But there's some kind of a, what, mitigating of these emotions, right? And the tempering of these emotions, right? Now, the middle in the passions, now, moral virtue constitutes the middle in the, what, passions in the emotions, right? As is had in the second part, that when it takes up the ethical matter. Not according to the quantity of the thing, but according to the quantity of, what, ratio. To wit, that the emotion does not exceed the rule of, what, reason, right? And because the Stoics, huh, thought that no sadness was, what, useful for anything, right? Therefore, they believe that it would, what, totally be discordant from reason, right? And their consequently, that holy, it ought to be, what? Yeah, so that's like the Greek Stoic who said, you know, told me the son had died. He said, I always knew he was mortal. But according to the truth of things, right, some sadness is, what, yeah? As Augustine proves in the 14th book about the city of God, when it proceeds from a holy, what, love. As when one is saddened by the, what, one's own sins or by others, right, huh? He should be sad about your sins, huh? And even about the sins of others, right? People vote sometimes, you know. I mean, saddened me greatly. Voting sins. Not to which other ones, but I mean, but things like abortion, you know, saddened you even more. It can be taken on, right, also as useful for the end of satisfaction for sin, right? According to that of the 2 Corinthians chapter 7, huh? Awful lot of things in this, Paul, you know. The sadness which is according to God, right, yeah? Works penance in a, what, stable. Yeah, but also sadness that is not good, right, huh? Sadness can be to death or to despair, you know, that sort of thing, huh? You know, I was thinking of Judas, you know, himself, right? And therefore, Christ, that he might make satisfaction for the sins of all men, assumed the greatest, what, sadness, huh? His soul is sad, you know, to death, right? His soul, sadness, maxime, right, in its absolute quantity, not, however, exceeding the rule of reason, right, huh? The sadness was proportional to the sins of all men, right? What's the time when Christ, you know, even not taking his passion in death, but, you know, when he weeps over the city of Jerusalem, you know, and trying to get them under his face, you can't do this, you know? Okay, now, moral virtue does not directly diminish the, what, exterior pain, in a sense, right, huh? Because such a pain does not obey reason, right? So if you have the pain in your body, your reason can't so much overcome that. My wife had this problem with the tooth there, you know, and been on for about a day there, and then, anyway, finding over, I guess not. But sadness, you see, you can kind of reason, you know? Sometimes when you're sad about something, you kind of, you know, talk to your sadness, right, and you can kind of pick it up, right? I was driving up to Quebec one time with a new car, right? And I was up on the route to President Kennedy, there was an awful road up there in Maine, and I was going along Stoke, and the road was all, you know, potholes and so on. And this crazy Frenchman, you know, he thought I was going into the snow, so he, roar, roar, he's biting me, you know? Well, of course, his car kicks up a stone and whacks against the side of my car, you know? But I knew it was going to be a real mark, you know? But I said, oh, but I'm a philosopher. I don't take it, I don't take it too seriously. What do I care about? You know I was a mortal anyway. But you can't quite, you know, you can't quite reason with your bodily pain right now. That's what the Eliezer and the Old Testament, the Maccabees there, and he's being tortured for not only to sacrifice it. He said, he says, even though I'm suffering great pain in my body, but my soul is joyful. So he, obviously, he can't get rid of the pain. But his soul needs to have some kind of joy in the soul. What about Adam being more sensitive and so on, yeah? To the third, it should be said that the pain of the separated soul's suffering pertains to the status of future, what? The nation, which exceeds every evil of this life, just as the glory of the saints exceeds every good of the, what? The present life, right? Whence, when we say that Christ, that the pain of Christ was maximum, right? We do not compare it to the pain of the, what? Separated soul, right? That is, I don't know if it means just. The damned souls, or does it mean the ones in the purgatory too? I don't know. Now the body of Adam could not, what, suffer unless he sinned, eh? Unless it became mortal and able to suffer, eh? But less did he, what, was he pained suffering in the body of Christ in account of the reason to give him the body of the article. From which also it appears that if per impossibile, eh? One posits that Adam in the state of innocence could have suffered, right, eh? It would have been less than the, what, pain of Christ. Now the fourth one. Christ had only, the fourth one now. What about Christ? He didn't rise up in three days and so on, so that's a big deal. To the fourth it should be said that Christ, what, was pained not only for the, what, loss of his own bodily life, right, but also for the sins of everybody else. Which pain in Christ exceeded every pain of anyone who was contrite. Both because it proceeded from a greater wisdom and charity, right, eh? From which the pain of contrition is increased. Also because for the sins of all, together, he, what, suffered, yeah, according to that of Isaiah. Truly he bore our, what, pain, very suffering. More, he says, the bodily life of Christ was of such great dignity, such great worth, and especially being on account of being of the divinity that's united to it, right, that the loss of it, eh, even for an hour, was more, what, sorrowful or painful than the loss of any other man through whatever time, eh? That's interesting. That's very interesting that Thomas brings it up. Well, whence the philosopher says in the third book of the Ethics, and that the virtuous man more loves his own life, the more he knows it to be better. Better, yeah. I remember reading that in one of the famous biologists there, you know, not sure about the afterlife, you know, but afterlife, you know, of study and all this research, and, you know, that it all goes to nothing, you know, but, I mean, the more, you know, worthy your life is, the more excellent it is in some ways, the more you love it, right? And likewise, Christ exposed his life, most loved, right, on account of the good of charity, according to that of Jeremiah's son. I give my, what, another life or soul into the hands of my enemies. To the fifth one, eh? It should be said that the innocence of the one suffering diminishes the pain of the suffering as regards number, right, eh? Because when, what? When he suffers, eh? Well, yeah, I suppose when he's bad, eh? When he suffers. He, yeah, not only on account of the pain, but also on account of the guilt, right? By the innocent one, only on account of the pain, right? You think he also deserves this. Yeah, right. Okay. Which sadness or pain in him is increased in innocence, insofar as he apprehends that the punishment or harm is more not old, right? Whence also the others are more reprehensible if they do not, what? With him, yeah. According to that of Isaiah 57, the just one perishes, and there's no one who, what, recognizes sin in his heart, eh? Sometimes that's useful to reconsider, reconsider, think about it again. The sixth, it should be said that Christ wished to liberate the human race from sins, not only by his power, but also by justice, right? And therefore, not only did he pay attention to what power his, what sadness had from being I to the divinity, but also what pain he's, was sufficient according to human nature for such, what, satisfaction, eh? So he's got stuff right now, right here. He's got stuff right now, right here.