Tertia Pars
Lecture 113: The Efficient Cause of Christ's Passion

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

He'd be quite a good age, you know, and so that, why did you do something dishonorable just to prolong his life, and he's not going to have much of a life anyway, you know. That's like Eliezer. He's going to start forgetting things, he's going to start forgetting. That's like Eliezer in the book of Maccabees. So if I offer the sacrifice to the faith in God, to gain my life, I've only got a short while to live, and I'd wreck sort of the reputation and the wisdom of my old age. Whereas this way, I'm not losing much in terms of life. I can give you examples of the young. But, yeah, I talk about that too with my father when my nephew, a few years ago, had cancer. He had cancer right now, he's in remission and everything, so thank you for that. But I remember my dad telling me on the phone, he's over some tears, he's like, oh, he's so young, he's so young. He's only 11 at the time. He's so young, I know, it shouldn't have happened to you. It shouldn't have happened to a boy. People who do ambulance work, if there's a big accident with adults, it can be pretty emotionally trying. But there's something about children, if they're injured or sick, it kicks in some sort of instinct that wraps up your response. Great. This is really interesting. People, I mean, feel welcome. Okay. Can you have time for one more? Or stop now, it's 5, 4, 20. Mm-hmm. Short. And I did that. Okay. Okay, to the 10th one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ did not suffer in a suitable what? Place, right? For Christ suffered according to his, what, human flesh, which was conceived from the Virgin in Nazareth, right? And he was born in Bethlehem. Therefore, it seems that not in Jerusalem, but either in Nazareth or in Bethlehem, he ought to, what, suffer, right? Moreover, truth ought to correspond to the figure. But the passion of Christ, then, was figured through the sacrifices of the old law. But these sacrifices were offered up in the temple. Therefore, Christ in the temple ought to suffer, and not outside the gate of the, what, city. Because he's going to be, what, like those sinful animals. Yeah, yeah. I suppose he's going to say that in the old city. Moreover, medicine ought to correspond to the sickness. But the passion of Christ was medicine against the sin of Adam. But Adam was not, what, buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron, huh? For he said in Joshua 14, the name of Hebron before was called, what? Herbal. Adam, however, most of all in the land of, what, was cited, right? Right, yeah. Of course, he did get on the cross, right? You know, so the tweet, we saw that before. Okay, but again, this is what is said in Luke 13, huh? Prophet ought not to perish except outside of what? Jerusalem, right? Conveniently, therefore, Jerusalem, he suffered. Thomas in the body is just, you know, that it is so, right? Like, the answer should be said that as is said in the book of the 83 questions, all things the Savior did in their proper places and times, huh? Because just as all things are in His hand, so also all places. And therefore, in a suitable time, Christ suffers, so also in a suitable place did He suffer, huh? The first, therefore, it should be said. Why Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem or Nazareth, right? No prophet is on his own country. The first, therefore, it should be said that Christ most suitably suffered in Jerusalem. First, because Jerusalem was the place chosen by God for offering sacrifices to Himself, huh? Which, figural sacrifices figured the passion of Christ, right? Which is the true sacrifice, huh? Figural almost has a sense there of signify, right? According to that, Ephesians 5, that He handed Himself over as a host, as it was, an offering in the odor of sweetness, huh? When Bede says, in a certain homily, that the hour is passion approaching, the Lord, what? Which drew up to the place of His passion. To wit, in Jerusalem, right? In which He came about five days before the Paschal Feast, huh? So that's what, Palm Sunday, is it? Just as the Paschal Lamb was, what? The Paschal Feast. The 10th day. According to the precept of the law, He was brought to the place of being offered upon. Yeah, they had several rituals. One was they had to cleanse them, and then they offered prayer. The second thing. Yeah, they did it a certain way. They washed them, and then they prayed over them or something. And then they would bring them there. St. Alfonso has a thought about that. Because of how Christ fulfilled all these figures. Secondly, because the power of His passion was to be diffused to the whole world, right? In the middle of what? In the inhabited earth, right? He wished to suffer. That is in Jerusalem. Whence it is said in Psalm 73, God, our God, our King, before the ages, worked salvation in the middle of the earth. That is in Jerusalem, which is said to be the umbilical cord of the earth. Right down here, right? Yeah, I looked that up. It's, yeah. Umbilicus in Latin just means the middle or center or something. Yeah. That's another word. I don't know what it comes from. The kaira tushim is that. No, it is. Samuel Johnson says that the end of all travel is as short as the Mediterranean. The goal of all travel. Yeah. Third, because this most of all was suitable to his, what? Humility, right? That he chose the most, what? Shameful, you might say, kind of death, right? So also it pertained to his humility that he, in a place, so, what? Celebrated, right? He did not refuse to suffer confusion, right? There's this opposite of glory there. Whence Leopapa says in his sermon about the, what? Epiphany, right? Who took on the form of a slave, right? Chose Bethlehem for his, what? Birth, which is not so well known, right? But Jerusalem for his, what? Yes. That's right, right? Fourth, you might show from the princes of the population, was, came forth the iniquity of who was killing him, right? And therefore, in Jerusalem, where the princes had dwelt, he wished to suffer. Whence it is said in Act 4, that they came together in that city against the holy boy, right? Jesus, whom, what? You anointed, meaning, as addressed to God. Yeah. Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Gents and population of Israel, right? Right. Gentiles and population of Israel. I was like, when I had St. Thomas's commentary on that Psalm 20, this, why do you abandon me? And because he, there's a line there where, it just, I'm not a man, I'm a warrior, I'm an old man. And then he gets the expression, the objectio clavis, the cast off of the people. And what they said was, totally, totally, take him away, to crucify him. So the people said that, and that he's pre-provisited, but he was the cast off of the people, and the cast of the people. So it was fulfilled, quite literally. I'm always impressed with that. That Psalm was so remarkable. The second, it should be said, that Christ, not in the temple, or in the city, right? But outside the gate, suffered, and it comes to three reasons, huh? First, the truth might correspond to the, what, figure? For the ox, I guess, huh? And the goat? Mm-hmm. Which were offered by most solemn sacrifice, right? For the expiation of sin, I guess, of the whole multitude, right? They were burnt outside the camp, as is commanded in Levite 16. Of which animals, the blood is, what, taken for sin and holy things through the priest, right? The body of them are remated, I guess, outside the camps. On account of which Jesus, they might make, what, holy his people, suffered outside the gate. Secondly, that to this might be given an example to us of going out from, what, worldly conversation. Once there is subjoined, in the epistle of Hebrews, I guess, let us go therefore out to him, right, outside the camps, carrying his, what, shaming, right? Third, as Christendom says in his sermon about the passion, the Lord did not wish to, what, undergo, to suffer under a roof, not in the Judaic temple, lest the Jews, what, lest it be thought that for that people alone he was offered, right? And therefore, outside the city, outside the walls, that it might be known that his sacrifice was common for the whole earth, right? There was a common, what, purification, right? To the third, it should be said, where did you get there, where Adam was, right? To the third, it should be said that Jerome says upon Matthew, some expound the place of Calvary in which Adam is buried, right, huh? And thus, it is called, because there, the, what? Yeah, the head. And this, he says, is a favorable interpretation in sweetening the ears of the people, right, huh? But not however true. The chins are always popular. Outside the city, huh? And outside the gate, there are places in which are, what? The head of the criminal, the condemned. Damned, yeah. And Calvary is of the place where the beheaded, right? Takes its name, huh? And account of which there, Christ is crucified, huh? That what was before the area of the damned, huh? Would be erected, the, what? The standard of the martyrs. Yeah, I think so, that's what that woman, so he held up. Adam Howard could have been buried along the, what? Next day. Hebron, in the book of Jesus, the son of Nazareth, we read, right? That's one of the books of the old, okay? More ought Christ to be crucified in the common place of the damned than according to the sepulcher of Adam. It might be shown that the Christ, the cross of Christ, was not only a remedy against the personal sin of Adam, but against the sin of the whole world, right? Yeah. And where? Mm-hmm. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, there in light in that, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our alignings. Order and illumine our images and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, an angelic doctor. Help us to understand what you have written. The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Rep to Christ with the these, huh? To the eleventh one goes forward thus. It seems it was not suitable that Christ be crucified with thieves. For it is said in 2 Corinthians chapter 6, But partaking of justice with iniquity. Christ was made justice for us by God. But iniquity pertains to the thieves. Therefore it is not suitable that Christ, together with the thieves, be crucified. Moreover, upon that of Matthew 26, If it is necessary for me to die with you, I will not deny you. Yes, that's Peter, right? It says, origin, huh? To die with Jesus, who is dying for all right, is not what? Amen. And Ambrose says upon that of Luke 22, I am prepared to be with you and to go to prison and to death. It says the passion of Christ has imitated, I suppose you would say. But not equals, right? Much less, therefore, is it suitable that Christ, together with thieves, should suffer him. Moreover, Matthew 27 has said that the thieves who were crucified with him, that they insulted him, I guess it was. But in Luke 23, it is said that one of those who was crucified with Christ, he said, remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom. Therefore, it seems that apart from the blaspheming thieves, there was one crucified, not blaspheming, right? First time I ever heard that. Usually they say it's just what? He blasphemed it first and then later on. One of them turned, right? And thus it seems unsuitable to be narrated by the evangelists that Christ was crucified with thieves. But against all this is what is prophesied in Isaiah chapter 53, and that he was regarded as among the wicked. Now, I answer it should be said that Christ was crucified among thieves. For one reason, according to the intention, as regards to the intention of the Jews, right? But for another reason, as regards to the ordering that God himself made in these matters. As regards to the intention of the Jews, he was crucified with what? Two what? Thieves, right? That is, Christensen said, he might be made a partaker of suspicion of them, right? To association, I guess, huh? But this did not come about. For about them nothing is said, huh? But of him everywhere the cross is on it, right? For kings deposing or laying aside their crowns, right? Assume the cross, huh? In purples, in crowns, I guess, in arms, in the sacred meal, wherever the cross on the earth is, what? Now, as regards the ordering of God, right, huh? Christ was crucified with thieves, as Jerome says upon Matthew, just as for us, Christ was made, what? The curse to the cross? Thus, for the salvation of all, among the wicked, I suppose, he was crucified as if himself being, what? One of the noxious persons, right? Secondly, as Leo Papa says in his Sermon on the Passion, two thieves, one on the right, one on the left, were crucified. That in the form of the cross, I suppose, or the being, would be demonstrated those who in the judgment of all men would make the, what? Distinction, huh? Augustine says upon John that the cross itself, if you pay attention, was a tribunal, huh? In the middle was constituted the judge, the one who believed was liberated, the one who insulted was damned, huh? It signifies what is going to come about, about the living and the dead, for some will be placed on the right and some on the, what? Left, huh? So is it clear from the Gospels that the good thief is on the right? Good Friday liturgy, two candles, one on the right gets lit. I've often heard that, you know. According, third, according to Hillary, huh? The two thieves, right, huh? Are, what? That's another word for left, I guess. Yeah, I guess so. These, they do. Left on the left hand, yeah. Yeah, they are. But it can also be harmful, you know. They are fixed on the right and the left, right? Showing that every diversity of the humankind are called to the sacrament of the Passion of our Lord, right? But because through the diversity of the faithful and the unfaithful, there comes a division of all, on the right and on the left, one from both, side of the right, is saved by the justification of what? Faith, faith. Thomas is plagiarizing, huh? Jerome, Leopapa, Hillary. He's got nothing to say for himself, doesn't he? No, no, no, no. He's a lawsuit. I remember what Christoph says there, you know. He should say some things better than our predecessors said to them, and other things just as well as they did. Or some things are said so well that it is presumptuous to try to improve upon them, right? But at least try to come up to say it as well as he said it, which, of course, you do when you quote them, right? Fourth, because as Bede says upon Mark, the thieves who were crucified with the Lord signifies those who, under faith and the confession of Christ, undergo the what? Can you have martyred them? Or the what? They put themselves under established. Yeah, the white martyrdom. I used to think of this. The Irish monks are the white martyrdom. But those who for what? Glory. Glory, bear themselves, are designated by the faith of the thief on the right. Those who look for human praise, huh? Imitate, right? Those on the left, right? His mind and acts, huh? So all those four reasons, though, seem to be in terms of what God wanted to be signified by this, huh? And signified at the time of the what? Passion of death, right? Now the first objection there about mixing up the two, right? Partaking. To the first effort should be said that just as Christ did not have the death of death, right, but he voluntarily underwent death, right? That by his own what? Power or virtue he might overcome death, right? So likewise, it was a duty to him. It was in his merit that he be placed with thieves, right? But he wished to be what? Guarders among the wicked, right? That by his own power he might destroy what? Iniquity, huh? Big sense, huh? Because he's the Pharisees and other sinners, right? That by his own power he might not be able to do it, right? That by his own power he might not be able to do it, right? That by his own power he might not be able to do it, right? That by his own power he might not be able to do it, right? That by his own power he might not be able to do it, right? But in order to destroy their iniquity, not to partake of it. When Christendom says upon John that the thief on the cross was what? Converted, huh? And brought into what? This is not less than to what? Break rocks. Break rocks. Which I guess that's what happened after he died. Rocks. Yeah. Rocks. Isn't that kind of the first miracle attributed to, I don't want to call it a miracle, to St. Therese? You know? Yeah, that is. Praying for this guy who was going to... Pranzani or whatever. Apparently, you know, a terrible criminal or something, you know. And so he knows he sends you repentance, right? But she prayed for him and then before he died he has to cross, right? He kissed the cross. He kissed it or something. Yeah. So the sign of their prayers were heard, you know? But somebody a little bit like this, right? They didn't mean a lesser sense of curse. I think it's Christmas. Or maybe it's in St. Thomas' commentary on Matthew's Gospel. When the kid talks about his crying out with a loud voice before he died. He said that was a sign, too, that he was laying down his life at a certain time when he chose. Because he didn't have... A man dying by crucifixion after him retreats, but he doesn't have energy to shout with a loud voice. And he said that he didn't die like everybody else because just watching him die was enough to convert the centurion. Because as we said, seeing him die, he said. So just to see him die the way he did was enough to convert the centurion. And all had need that for them, someone else would die, right? Not them for what? Others, huh? Yeah. What about this third guy? To this third, it should be said. As Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the evangelists, we're able to understand that Matthew laid down, right? A plural number for the singular. That's always kind of a strange explanation that Guston gives. When he says that the thieves, what? Cursed him. Cursed him and assaulted him. Or it can be said, according to Jerome, that the first, at first, both blasphemed. Then later, seeing the signs, one of them believed. Which I think is a little more. I see that explanation of Guston in terms of, you know. Plural and singular, right? So if I come home to him and Rosie says, how did the class go? And I said, they attacked me. Because only one of you guys attacked me. But I said, they attacked me. That's it, right? Even though there's only just one of you. I mean, speak that way, don't I? It's not a pure invention. You speak that way, right? Yeah. Or you could say, they asked me. Sometimes it's one more than one of us asked you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's an amazing thing. Well, you never know. Well, you never know. Well, you never know. Well, you never know. Well, you never know. Well, you never know. Well, you never know. Now, whether the passion of Christ should be attributed to his divinity, strange that he should think it's necessary here to bring this out, but kind of a footnote here. To the twelfth one proceeds thus. It seems that the passion of Christ should be attributed to his divine nature, right? For it is said in 1 Corinthians 2, if they knew, they would never have crucified the Lord of what? Glory. But the Lord of glory is Christ according to his divinity. So it's through his divinity that he gives us glory, right? Therefore, the passion of Christ belonged to him according to his divinity. Moreover, the beginning of the salvation of man is the divinity itself. According to that of Psalm 36, the salvation of the just is from the Lord. If, therefore, the passion of Christ does not pertain to his divinity, it would seem that it could not be fruitful for us. That's an interesting argument, huh? More were the Jews were punished for the sin of the killing of Christ, as were the homicide of God himself, right? Which the magnitude of their punishment shows. But this would not be if the passion did not pertain to the divinity. Therefore, the passion of Christ pertains to the divinity, right? But against this is what Athanasius says in the epistle to Epictetus. That the nature of God remaining, the verb is what? Not able to suffer, right? Or by nature, remaining God, right? The word is what? Not able to suffer. But it's impassable. But impassable is what is not able to suffer. Therefore, the passion of Christ did not pertain to his divinity. Let's go back to the mystery of the incarnation here. I answer, it should be said, that it has been said above. The union of the human nature and the divine nature was made in the person, right? Or as in the Greek say, the hypostasis, right? Or as in the Latin say, sometimes the suppositora. It's a Latin word for hypostasis. But there remained, nevertheless, the distinction of nature. That to it, it was the same person and hypostasis of both the divine and the human nature. But the properties of each nature being kept or saved. And therefore, as has been said above, the passion should be attributed to the suppositum, right? To the person, right? Of the divine nature. But not by reason of the divine nature, which is incapable of undergoing, right? But by reason of the, what? Human nature. Whence it is said in the Epistle, the Sonata, the Epistle of the Sonata, right? The Syrah. If someone does not confess that the, what? Word of God suffered in, what? His flesh, yeah? He's crucified in his flesh. Anathema said, he cursed. John 23 didn't want that in the Vatican too, huh? John 23 didn't want to have any anathemas. In the text of Vatican II and Paul VI, you know, along with that. People go back and read, it's really dark, and it's to find anathemas all over the place. The passion of Christ, therefore, pertains to the, what? Suppositum, right? Of the divine nature. By reason of the sufferable, able to suffer, nature assumed. Not by reason of the divine nature. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not according as he is the Lord of glory, but according as he is also the, what? Sufferable man, huh? Able to suffer. It's interesting how the understanding of the incarnation, doesn't have a very statement of that, huh? We're understanding. Now, what about the salvation and justice from the Lord? To the second, it should be said, that as it's said in a certain sermon of the Council of Ephesus, that the death of Christ, as it were, what? Made the death of God, in the sense that it's through the union of the person, right? Destroy death, huh? Because he was both God and man who had suffered, huh? But the nature of God was not injured, right? Nor by its change did it undergo, what? Passion, so. What about this punishment of the Jews? To the third, it should be said, that as is added there, the Jews did not crucify a pure man, a mere man, but a, what, hurl presumptions to God, huh? To place the, what? The high prison. Oh, that's it, yeah. To speak by word of God, that some rebel tears up the body there, for the mouth of merely tearing up a document, but as destroying the imperial message and security. To find the image where he saw it was as a part of what was hidden under it, was the imperial wound, the sum of our nature, and not the mere utterance upon him. Thomas, I can't say it better as August. Quote this guy, huh? But this, that, what is the quote, probably? From the same thing above as in the second, I think. My footnote says the Acts, Part 3, Chapter 10, Homily 2, Theodosius, A-N-C-Y-R, or something. Oh, I see. Oh, it's here, I'm here. Yeah. So 3 is taken from the same thing. Now, does it say, does it say there, sun by nature at the end? I have not to mix, not to worry about it. It could be. You're born from nature. Born by nature, yeah. Yeah, not to put forth through the tongue, right? Yeah, begot by nature. Yeah, the word, the word begot by nature. By nature, yeah. So, back again to our premium for a second. Just here, Monsieur Dionne can't help but point out premiums, you know? Yeah. So, back again to our premiums, you know? Yeah. They have a penchant for granted. Beginning of question 46. Consequently, we're not to consider about those things which pertain to the exit of Christ from this world. And first about his passion, secondly about his death, third about his barrier, I guess, fourth about his descent to hell, yeah. So that's, you're dividing it to four, right? And then about the passion, there occurs, at first of those four, a three-fold consideration. First about the passion itself, and that's this question we just finished. Then about the efficient cause of the passion. That's the one coming up now, and finally there'll be the fruit of the passion. So 47 will be on the efficient cause. Then we're not to consider about the efficient cause of the passion of Christ. And about this thing, six things are asked. First, whether Christ was killed by others or by himself. Secondly, from what motive he gave himself over to this what? Passion. Third, whether the father handed him over to suffering. Fourth, whether it was suitable that through the hands of the Gentiles he suffered, or rather from the Jews. Five, whether the ones who killed him knew him. He says, Father, they don't know what they do. Forgive them, for they don't know what they do, right? In some sense, they knew him. Sixth, about the sin of those who killed Christ. I remember hearing a Jewish woman say one time, you know, he was a nice man, you know, and so on, but why do they have to say he's God? Why do they claim he's God? You're the Jewish woman? That's the common Jewish woman. Yeah, it's the common Jewish objection. He's such a nice man, but why did he have to make himself God? That's the common objection. And Rabbi Jacob Neusner, in his book that the Pope votes and takes on, it's interesting because he has a whole translation of the outdoers, you know. And, anyways, but that was his objection in the book, his rabbi talks to Jesus, or whatever it was, and basically he says, that's what, a Jewish rabbi wouldn't have an objection, because he doesn't necessarily teach things contrary to the law, but he adds something to the law. He says, what's that? He says, himself. Because he says, he's the whole purpose of it. He says, it all points to him. And that's when they find that incomprehensible. Wow. And I'm always amazed because the Jews see something and so many contemporary Catholic scholars refuse. And then he says, he's the whole fellow that everything went before. To the first end, one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ was not killed by another, but by himself. For he says, in John 10, verse 18, no one from me takes my soul, but I lay it down. That's right, too. But he is said to kill someone who, what, takes his, what, soul, right? Shakespeare will speak that way, you know? Like when the little prince is killed there, you know, that it's like the jewel box, you know, and the jewel's been taken out of it. You know, so you know, it's dead. Therefore, Christ was not killed by others, but by himself. And Richard, given that text, is in Psalm, what, 48, I think it is? Who teaches, teaches either words or, what, things? When we teach faith and morals, we teach things. When we teach scripture, we teach words. That's what's up front, you know? So it's significant, you know, that the work is called on the divine names, because it's kind of coming out of the scripture in that sense. So the words here can be misunderstood, right, huh? It's a great thing to teach these words. Which we need to do to the church fathers and the church, just to, you know, to correctly understand these words. I mean, how easily you can go astray, right, on your own, huh? Moreover, those who are killed by others, bit by bit, huh, as nature becomes debilitated, they, what, fail, perish. And most of all, this appears in those crucified, huh? For as Augustine says in the fourth book of the Trinity, by a long death, they are crucified those who are suspended on the wood, huh? In Christ's order, this did not happen. For crying out with a great voice, he sent forth his spirit. Doing that text before. And it's just said in Matthew 27. Therefore, Christ was not killed by others, but by himself, huh? Moreover, those who are killed by others die by violence, huh? And therefore, they don't die voluntarily. Because the violent is opposed to the voluntary. Good philosophical principle. But Augustine says in the fourth book of the Trinity that the spirit of Christ did not desert, I mean, did not depart in the body or flesh. Unwilling. Unwillingly. But because he wished, huh? When he wished. And what way he wished. Therefore, Christ is not killed by others, but by himself, huh? Against all this is what is said in Luke 18. After they had flagellated him, right? They killed him. So they killed him. Of course, the heretics would say, well, they just say that because they thought they killed him. It can be very, you know, endless, you know, these disputes on heretics, huh? I answer it should be said that something can be the cause of some effect in two ways. In one way, by acting directly towards him, huh? And in this way, the persecutors of Christ killed him, right? Because they inflicted upon him or brought upon him a sufficient cause of his, what? Death, huh? Since, by intention or with intention, of killing him and, what? The effect following from this, right? Because from that cause, death, what? Foul. Foul. Foul. Foul. Foul. So by intention of killing him and by the effect of that intention, right? Because from that cause, they're foul. In another way, one is said to be, what? The cause of something indirectly because he does not impede, right? When he, what? Yeah. Jeff says there's someone, um, what is that? Send another? I think he says it's a Jewish ranch. Ranch, yeah. Poor, thoroughly poor. Oh, okay. That's what he wants today, yeah. Because he doesn't close the window. Yeah, yeah, we wouldn't open it now. There's two leaves in here, Rosalie. We'll have to order rain. And we all folks, we didn't forget, we left the window open there. But we didn't forget, we locked the door sometimes and other things of this sort. To which the, what? Embrace is the rain. And in this way, Christ was the cause of his, what? Passion and death, huh? For he was able to... impede his own passion and what yeah so he's saying in that sense he's a cause of his death he didn't impede when he could first by reprimanding his adversaries right that either they would not wish to or they would not be able to what kill him secondly because his spirit had the power of what very conserving the nature of his flesh lest by any kind of injury right inflicted he'd be oppressed which the soul of christ had because it was joined to the word of god the unity of a what person as augustine says in the fourth book of the trinity what's augustine doing talking about the incarnation because therefore the soul christ did not what repulse you might say from its own body his own body the injury and uh inflicted upon him but wished that the bodily nature would succumb to that what harm he said to have laid down his soul and to have voluntarily what died so when uh thomas more someone like that lays down his head on the block is he uh voluntarily dying well not impeding yeah well but he could have tried that's the point he didn't try he could have fought and you know run away or something but he didn't do it it's like the franciscan martyrs and the masters one of the priests one of the priests was told you know confess allah or die and he was a priest and he was at the altar he just laid his head on the office like that and then he kind of pull back it's what it didn't do just like that it was said six months ago yeah put his arm out and the guy came to put the needle in because they think oh i didn't know that yeah but they didn't mention that because they said they used it against that kind of thing to the first effort should be said that when it is said that no one takes my soul from me is to be understood me not willing because what uh someone takes from somebody unwillingly who is unable to resist right that is properly called taking right he never suffered anything right and the second one here huh what about that shout right to the second should be said that christ would show his passion right was inflicted right through violence huh that this did not what so um he conserved his bodily nature and it's what strength that even in the extremities uh placed he could shout with a loud voice right then which among other miracles of his death is is counted among other miracles of his death whence it is said in mark 15 that the centurion seen who stood opposite because thus shouting he expired said truly this man is the son of god i think the jews would have seen that or heard that yeah they're blinded there not to hear that yeah they're there this i know i don't know if it's in mark's gospel i mean it's luke's when it said that after he died many of them beating their breasts yeah they saw it they basically saw they saw something now it was also marvelous in the death of christ that death came what more quickly i guess to others who were affected with a like punishment or suffering or pain whence is said in john 19 that those who were christ the what legs were broken right that they might die more quickly but when they came to jesus they found him dead once they did not break his legs and mark 15 said that pilot marveled that he was what dead for just as by his will his body nature was conserved in his vigor to the end so also when he wished suddenly he gave into that what injury now what about the this is violence not to the third should be said that christ at the same time underwent violence right that he might die and nevertheless he voluntarily died because the violence inflicted upon his body which nevertheless to that extent overcame his body as much as he willed it to overcome his body right so the fundamental distinction is the body of the article you have those who are acting directly for it and one who's i'm not impeding it when he could have treated right that's often in morals they talk about that like the guilt like even in secular course you recognize that where you're you're guilty of what you're um basically if you can be guilty of something even if the effect doesn't follow you're guilty of something because you might say you would have seen the whole thing through and you didn't you didn't do what was in your power to do that okay um so his death is the separation of the soul from the body and wasn't his willing to call him that in other words no he says that what they were doing to him was sufficient to separate the soul from the body in the natural order yeah and he did not impede it from eventually doing that although he kept the strength to cry out but he could have continued living if he wanted to right yeah he could have repeated that yeah so couldn't somebody say that what they did was more in his case i mean in my case you know somebody tried to kill me like that it would be the right cause in other words my will couldn't keep my dying but in his case his will could have been defeated dying and so why isn't that what they did was more like an occasion than a cause well they were directly acting in inflicting upon him something that was going to directly cause death right so that's your intention it was their intention yeah yeah and what they did was sufficient to cause death but was it actually the cause he said yeah it actually caused the separation of soul because he it's earlier question he said he allowed his nature both and much of his human nature to undergo what was natural so that's like with his emotions and so forth like at the agony in the garden he allowed it to undergo the fear and everything else and even if he will but even even if with you with you you might not have power to resist death in those cases but you could try to resist it and that was in one way there you could do it unwillingly you could you could fight against even if you wouldn't overcome it you could do what's in your power to do that it was hard in christ's cases it seems that he did have it almost seems that separation could only occur but you know there's something you used to always hear when you're growing up and people would be you know there's something you used to think about it