Tertia Pars
Lecture 122: Christ's Descent to Hell: Person, Nature, and Liberation

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

Let's say our little prayer in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment, Guardian Angels, think of the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray with us. Help us to understand all that you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. So, strange question here, right? Was the whole Christ in hell, right? The third one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ was not whole in hell. For the body of Christ is some part of him, right? But the body of Christ was not in hell. Therefore, the whole Christ was not in hell. Seems clear enough, right? Moreover, nothing whose parts are separated from each other can be called a whole. That's a nice fundamental thought. But this body and the soul, which are the parts of human nature, were separated from each other after death. He descended to hell when he was dead, right? Being dead. Therefore, he could not be as a whole in what? Maybe he's going to say something about the whole person is there, but not the whole human nature is in there. But we'll see what the Master says. Moreover, that whole is said to be in place of which nothing is outside of that place. But something of Christ is outside hell because his body was in the sepulcher and his divinity everywhere. Therefore, Christ was not as a whole in hell. But against this is what Augustine says in the book about the symbol of faith, the creed. That the whole son before the father, the whole in heaven, the whole in earth, the whole in the virginal womb, the whole on the cross, the whole in inferno, right? The whole in paradise, in which he introduced the thief, right? So, did the thief get into heaven before the prophets downstairs? Oh, yeah, he didn't praise himself. I ask you, it should be said that just as is clear from these things which were said in the first part, the masculine genus, huh, refers to the hypostasis or person, but the neutral genus pertains to the nature, right? So, that's why I guess you can say that the father, the son is alluosa from the father. They don't want to say alluod, right? Because that would imply that he's of a different nature or something. Now, in the death of Christ, although the soul was indeed separated from the body, neither, however, was separated from the person of the son of God. And therefore, in that triduum of the death of Christ, it should be said that the whole Christ was in the, what, tomb, huh, sepulcher, because the whole person was there, right? Through the body united to it. And likewise, the whole was in hell because the whole person of Christ was there by reason of the soul united to it. And the whole Christ then was everywhere by reason of the divine nature. Okay, the master has spoken and it makes sense what the master says, right? To the first effort should be said that the body that was then in the sepulcher is not a part of the uncreated person, but a part of the nature that he took on. And therefore, through the fact that the body of Christ was not in hell, one does not exclude but that the whole Christ was there. But it can be shown that he was not there, the whole that pertains his human nature. So in one sense, the whole was not there, right? The whole human nature was not there, but the whole person was there. But Thomas would say that Peter is not in heaven, right? Complete person there. Okay, now second objection here. The second should be said that from the soul and the body united is constituted the wholeness of human nature, but not the wholeness of the divine person. And therefore, the union of the body and the soul being untied through death, there remains the whole Christ, meaning the whole what person? But Christ is the name of the, what, person, right? But there does not remain the human nature in its totality. So that's the distinction that Thomas sees. The third should be said that the person of Christ was whole in each place, but not wholly. Because in no place, or by no place, was he, what, limited or had a line drawn around him. But neither all places together taken are able to comprehend, to surround his immensity. Rather, he, by his immensity, comprehends all things. But this has place in those things which are in a bodily and circonscripted way, described way, in place. Because the whole is there, nothing of it is, what, outside. But this in God has no place. Whence, Augustine says in the Sermon on the Symbol of Faith, not through, what, diverse times or places do we say Christ was, what, everywhere whole. That now he is, what, whole there, and another time he is there the whole. But that always he is everywhere the whole. The whole person, huh? Quite a guy who's a gusset, isn't he, huh? I was looking at this Roman text, you know, on the sentences by Thomas, which I think is probably by him. I'm not convinced it is. You can get that on the Navarish, Thomas, you know, the Roman sentences. So, I'm kind of reading that, before I go back to my favorite book, the Sumacai Gentiles. I was hesitating my mind, which I got to do, you know. But, very interesting things in there, right? And, like, there's an article in there, whether there's a sumum bonum, right? How it's good, right? And Thomas says, in the beginning, he says, well, we can give three reasons for it being a sumum bonum. Two are taken from Aristotle, one from Augustine. But then when you see the one from Augustine, you realize, that's also in Aristotle. So, in a sense, all three reasons could be given, right? But taken from Aristotle. Beautiful text, you know. But then I was reading later on there, where he's talking about the name God, right? And whether this is the most proper name of God. God, huh? And, of course, you have the authority of I am who I am, right? That name. Where, the other scene says, it's the kind of most proper name of God. And then you have Dionysius, who's saying that good is the fundamental name of God. Because in the Book of the Divine Names, it begins with good, right? What Thomas says, that that for which the name God is taken, right? It's just the idea of, as Damascene says, to consider things, to know them by the mind, right? To direct things and so on. And all these things are true about God, but they're not as distinctive of what God does as to say that God is the source of to be and everything, right? So he says, or in terms of his production of things, that the ultimate reason why he produces things is because he's good. So if you're considering that from which the name good is taken or that from which the name I am who I am is taken, it's more proper name to God, right? But if you take the other aspect, what the name is applied to, then God is the most proper name of God because it signifies the divine nature, you know? So it's kind of interesting the way he explains the distinction of those names and their priority, right? Mm-hmm. Because Thomas will often make this distinction. I have all these different things in my thing there. In every name you can distinguish between that from which the name is taken and what the name signifies, that to which it is applied. And these are sometimes the same, he says, but many times not the same, right? And Thomas always gives an example. We don't know if it's a good etymology, but the lapis, right, means, you know, hurts the foot, laid it, well, that's not what the word stone signifies. That's where the name is taken from, right? But in the case of the word white, you know, they can color, right? Then the name, that from which it is taken and what it signifies is exactly the same, right? And so when you ask, you know, whether God is the name of the divine nature or the divine operation, right? Of course, one of the objections will say, well, Damascene takes it from the Greek word theostein or theorine to see, right? Or another word where it could be taken from that signifies the divine control of things and so on. And Thomas says, well, that's from which the name is taken, right? But that to which the name is applied is what? The divine nature. So that's what the word signifies. It's the name of the divine nature. But this is why I was thinking about the text again was because, you know, the distinction Thomas makes here between the masculine and the, and, well, in the sentences, too, he talks about how grammar and logic are similar in that they're about signs, right? And how you signify things and so on. And then Thomas says when he's talking about the name God now, you can say the word God of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but you can't say that there are three, what? Gods. But you can say that there are three who have the divine nature. Because that signifies by an adjective. Adjective, he says, like an adjective. So that's kind of interesting, right? Because you might say, well, what does it mean to be God to have the divine nature? But because the way a noun signifies, an adjective signifies, you can say there are three tres habens, habens, the divine nature, but you can't say, he's not caring enough. You want your money back? No, he says, well, get your money. So, remember when you go in for one of these, you know, especially when you go in for not just a 50-minute class, but one of these night classes, you know, two and a half hours? You know your voice is going to be breaking up in the middle of a lecture and so on. And because I know some of my colleagues do there and say, I got a cold, you know, I got to go and give this course tonight. So, that's interesting now, right? You might say, to have the divine nature to be God means the same thing in a sense, doesn't it? See? Just like to be a human being and to have human nature signify the same thing, right? But there's a difference, the grammarian would say, in the way they signify, right? Because one signifies, I'd say, in Latin, substantive, right? And the other, adjective, right? So, the distinction in grammar is important and you've got to be careful, right? So, you can say there are three who have the divine nature, but they're on three gods. You've got to be very careful. Interesting what Thomas says about those things. But anyway. So, you've got to be careful. So, you've got to be careful. So, you've got to be careful. So, you've got to be careful. see if you can figure out the reasons why. It's kind of interesting when he gives the reasons why there's a sumum bonum, a highest good, right? He proceeds a little differently than he does in my favorite book, the Summa Contra Gentiles. Because in the Summa Contra Gentiles, he shows first that God is good. Then he shows secondly that God is goodness itself. And then he shows third that it can't be anything bad in God. And then fourth, that God is the good of every good. And then finally, that he's the good. Summa Bonum, right? And so he argues from the things he's shown before to God being the highest good there, right? But in the sentences, you don't have it in the order of teaching, so to speak, right? And so it's kind of like starting from raw, you know? And so why, what reason could you give for saying there's a summa bonum, right? Well, the first reason he gives is taken from Aristotle. Aristotle in the metaphysics says that the order of parts that some hold to each other is an account of their order to the purpose of that whole, right? So the order of the seat and the back and so on of the chair is an account of what? Sitting, right? So this is a common distinction Aristotle makes, right? The order of the parts of the chair to each other, right? And then the order of the whole chair to what? Sitting. And so that sitting is better than the chair, right? Because the end or purpose of something is better than what is for the safety of the end, right? Well, he says the universe is an ordered whole, right? And therefore the order of the parts among them is an account of their order to... Yeah, yeah. And the comparison of Aristotle makes is, you know, the order of the parts of the army is an account of their order to the leader and to his goal, which is victory, right? And so if God is then the good, which is the reason for the order of the universe, then he must be the summa bona. Beautiful, right? And then he takes, you know, he's seen the connection between end and purpose. Then he goes to Aristotle in the second book of wisdom where Aristotle shows that there is a first end, right? Well, then it's got to be the end of everything else, right? Therefore it must be the chief good, right? And then he goes to, presumably from Augustine, you know, that the perfect, imperfect arises from the perfect, right? That goes back to what Aristotle showed that act, simply speaking, is before ability, right? And therefore the first cause is going to be pure act and therefore the supreme good, right? And it's kind of beautiful, you know? But it's beautiful when he talks about, you know, he's saying in theology, you can obviously proceed from sacred scripture, right? But then there's another article, can you proceed from what the saints say, right? Thomas says, well, yes, yes. But it's probably built, probably, right? And not the same authority that the words of sacred scripture, right? And then, of course, another article, can you proceed from the words of the philosopher? Because they're, you know, of less authority, obviously, you know? But Thomas then talks about grace not destroying nature, right? So what the philosophy of the truth demonstrates, you can use this, right? Even in theology, you know? And you see it in this argument for the thing that, you know, how he uses Aristotle, but you judge this in harmony with the reason, right? You know, you don't say that what Aristotle said is true because it's so useful in theology, but to be versed, it's useful in theology because it's so true. A beautiful text there. Interesting things. But some of these Thomas is, you know, I kind of recall in my mind the reasons he gave for saying God is a sumum bonum in the Silica Gentiles and it's because where it comes up in the order of which you've seen before, right? And then the way he proceeds here where he's kind of, you know, kind of going from scratch, you know? Beautiful, beautiful text in there. Okay. Up to the fourth article here. It seems that Christ did not contract along, what? Delay. Delay, you might say. Yeah. For Christ, for this reason, he sent him to hell that he might liberate or free men from it, huh? But this at once was done from the fact that in his descent, it is easy in the sight of God to ennoble the poor one, right? Therefore, it seems there should be no delay in, what? Going to hell. And he's got a quote there. I was just thinking of that. Odie, Mecrumeris, and Paradiso, yeah. There was a better way. Right? More of Augustine says in the Sermon on the Passion that without any, what? Delay, so to speak, right? To the command of the Lord and the Savior, all the, what? Stones were, what? Broken. Broken and so on. An iron barn. Iron barn. Period. Whence in the person of the angels following Christ is said, Open up the gates. Open up the gates. But for this reason, Christ then descended that he might break, right? The doors of hell. Therefore, Christ in hell stayed for no time. Moreover, Luke 23, the Lord, hanging on the cross, said to the thief, This day you'll be with me in paradise. Do you ever hear Haydn's music there for the seven last words? That's really, really beautiful. I guess there exists a number of forms, you know, some where it's hung. There's one where they, you know, it's kind of like a string quartet or something, you know. It's really beautiful, you know. And you kind of, nice little meditation just to hear, the way he writes the music for each of the words of Christ on the cross. I was kind of thinking of the music he has for that. Don't ask me now, but though, especially by present condition. But there's beautiful music there. You know, my favorite piece of it, by Haydn it now. From which it is clear that on the same day Christ was in, what? In paradise. But not according to the body, according to which he was placed in the sepulcher. Therefore, according to the soul, which descended to what? All right. And this, it seems, he did not contract to delay in hell. Like, he must have gone down the same day, he said, to this day he was in paradise, right? You and a lot of other guys, too. But against this is what Peter says in the second chapter of the Acts. Whom Christ, whom God, what? Raised up, untying the sorrows of hell, right? Because it was impossible for him to be held by it. Therefore, it seems that until the hour of resurrection, he remained in what? It all. Yeah. You didn't learn this question in your catechism, did you? No, I don't think so, yeah. No, he descended to hell. I remember that with the creed, you know. I learned about it. It's episode, it's escapades here. Yeah. I answered, it should be said, that Christ, that he might, what? Undertake in himself our punishments, right? Wished to place his body in the, what? Tomb. Tomb. So also he wished his soul to, what? Descend into hell, right? And as I was saying before, you know, Thomas says that, in a way, the resurrection is the reward for his death, and the ascension is the reward for his descent into hell, right? He says it explicitly. Which kind of gives me the idea that you can put, you know, the first three articles is the descent, right? He emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave, as he says, in the Philippians, I guess it is. And then, you know, even more so he died, and all the way down the hill. And then the ascent, right? Resurrection, the ascension, and then the second glorious coming in. So his body remained in the tomb for a whole day and two, what? Knights, to prove, right, the truth of his death, right? Whence so long it is believed that his soul was, what? Hell. That at the same time, his soul might be brought out from hell in his body from the... Yeah. Okay. Now, what about that first objection, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ, descending to hell, freed the saints there existing, not at once by inducing them or leading them out from the place of hell, right? But enlightening them in hell itself by the light of what? Glory, yeah? And nevertheless, it was suitable that so long his soul would remain in hell as long as his body remained in the sepulcher. When he says luce gloria, ilustrando, does that mean that he means that we see the beat of vision, right? The good prophets, you know what? There's a lot of glory, but does you refer to the beat of vision, right? Not the redistribution between glory and grace, right? Kind of gratia consumata, you know? To the second, it should be said that the, what are those, the doors of hell? The bars. Bars, bars, okay. Are said to be the impediments, right? By which the Holy Fathers were prohibited to go out from hell by reason of the guilt of the first, what? Parent. Which Christ, at once, descending to the infernal regions, by the power of his own passion and death, right? He broke these gates, huh? But nevertheless, he wished to remain in hell sometime for the, for said reason, right? And that's what his body and soul should be, right? Same time, he should go inside. His soul should leave hell at the same time that his, yeah, either before or after, which has to be known by. No, in the categories there, Aristotle has a chapter on before and after, right? Or on before, but it includes after. And then the chapter on Simo or together, right? But it's like you know the meaning of together by the negation of before and after. So if I say you and I were born together at the same time, I wasn't born before you or after you, right? It's just like Aristotle says in the Tenth Book of Wisdom that equal is really known by the negation of more and less. It's kind of interesting. So even when you talk about God and say that God the Father is in no way before God the Son, right? But they're hama, together, Simo. We do so by negating all the senses of before, or all the chief senses that Aristotle gives in the Twelfth Chapter of the Categories, huh? I wish people wouldn't think of me as being primarily a logician, you know. I'm not the fanatic that once you do a logician, you guys spend about eight years studying logic, and then you're ready to do the other. You have a way of confirming his opinion. He's popular legend. Yeah. My friend Warren, he was such an enemy. He'd spend eight years studying logic, but he'd never had these guys in philosophy, you know. It's just like when they teach a language, you know, and they would spend like a year or so doing just a grammy on the old tough days, you know, and you're not reading anything hard in the language, you know, and that's just too hard for us to take. The third objection, then, huh? To that word of the Lord, or that word of the Lord to the good thief, huh? She'd be understood, not about the bodily paradise, the terrestrial bodily paradise, but the spiritual paradise, huh? In which are said to be whoever enjoy the divine glory. That refers to the Vedic vision, then, huh? Whence the thief in place, huh? That he might be with Christ, right? Because it has been said to him, you will be with me in paradise, right? But the reward in paradise was there because he enjoyed the divinity of Christ, just as the other saints. So, it isn't that the Vedic vision? Mm-hmm. But then, why in the other one is it not? Well, no, it is. When he said, and he applied a second objection there, right? The first, the first, he said the glory, the light of glory, my light. Yeah, I think he gave him the Vedic vision, right? Well, I thought you said it wasn't. I'm sorry. No, I thought that, I said, you'd understand the light of glory to refer to the Vedic vision, right? You should distinguish between the light of glory and the light of faith, you know, and grace and glory, right? And glory is kind of like, you know, grace completed, you know? Gratia consumata. Oh, okay. It is. Yeah. Okay. So, this is kind of a side of what Christ did for these, you know, but his soul did remain there, right? And then, it's only when he was going to rise in the dead that the two of them come up. At the same time, the soul left hell in the body. But the Vedic vision, I guess what you're asking. What? Because they went up to hell. That's why when he talks about the theme of purgatory, there's those that, you see the Vedic vision, because they're still living in purgatory. That's what was acting. To me, that was all that. Okay. Let's look at the next article, because this is kind of interesting here, right? Mm-hmm. To the fifth one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ, descending to hell, did not, what, free the Holy Fathers from there. It's kind of, well, why do you raise this question, right? It seems like, you know, we've already answered that. For Augustine says in the Epistle to Avodius, right, to those just persons, right, or those just souls, to those just ones who were in the womb of what? The bosom of Abraham. Yeah, the bosom of Abraham when Christ descended to hell, right, huh? Not yet, huh? Is he found to have, what, conferred something, right, by which he was, you know, according to his beatifying presence of his divinity. To whom, I think, maybe it's from whom? From whom the souls are just. Um, I see him withdraw. What does it say upon him? I fail to see that he ever be hearted, according to the deity. So once he enlightened them, they stay. But much he would have conferred upon them if he freed them from hell. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not free the Holy Fathers from, what? Hell. Hell. Moreover, no one is detained in hell except on account of sin. But the Holy Fathers, who, when they still were living, were justified by the faith of Christ from sin. Therefore, they did not need to be liberated from hell. Christ is sending to them, huh? Well, Christ was this thing from original sin, I suppose he's going to say. Moreover, the cause being removed, the effect is removed, huh? But the cause of descending to hell is sin, huh? Which was removed through the passion of Christ. Therefore, ah, not therefore through the descent of Christ to hell, where the, what, Holy Fathers brought out from hell. Well, that's what he's saying there, that if their sins are gone now because of the death on the cross, right, then they're no longer going to be down there in hell, huh? But again, this is what Augustine says in the Sermon on the Passion, that Christ, when he descended to hell, he broke the, what, the gate of hell, right? And the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. His essence, or nature, not see him as he is, in which consists the perfect beatitude of man, as has been said in the second part. For by this the Holy Fathers were detained in hell, that there is no entry for them to the life of glory on account of the sin of the first parent. And thus Christ, descending to hell, liberated the Holy Fathers from hell. Now, and this is what is said in the prophet Zachary, you in the blood of what? Your testament have brought those bound, right, from the lake in which there was no water. And Colossians 2, that what? The spoiling, you might say, the principles and the powers, that's the infernal ones, by taking away Isaac and Jacob and the other ones who are just. He led them out, you might say, a long way from the kingdom of darkness to heaven, right? There's the gloss there, there explains. Now, to the first argument there that we're translating to, well, to the first effort should be said that Augustine there speaks against those Christians who estimate that the old just ones, before the coming of Christ, right, were subject to beings of punishment in hell. Quence, a little bit before the words that were induced in that first objection, he sets forth this saying, Some add that this benefit was, what, conceded to the old saints, right? That the Lord, when he came into hell, he solved them from their, what, sorrows. But in what way could it be understood that Abraham, in whose bosom the pious pauper, right, was received, was in those, what, doors, I don't see how, I don't see, right, this close could be, right? They were not suffering, you know, the punishments of hell, the sorrows, right? But they were deprived of the vision of God as he is, huh? Seeing God face to face, huh? Until Christ had died. And therefore, afterwards, he joins. It didn't say yet, but it would bestow upon them, right? Okay. It should be understood as regards the absolution from the, what? Yeah, what did it do for them, right? It didn't get them free from the pains, huh? Because they weren't suffering from them, right? But it contributed to them, you might say, as regards the attaining of glory, right? And consequently, it solved their sorrow, which then went from the delay of glory, right? From the hope of which hour, they had great, what? Joy, huh? That's interesting, huh? And the Shakespeare says, parting is such a sweet sorrow there in Roman and Juliet. And so that's kind of a contradiction, right? Because how can sorrow be sweet? Because sweet is pleasant. Well, the sorrow they have in separating is a sign of how much they love each other. And therefore, they're consoled by the fact that they know this, right? Well, it's a little bit different here, but here you're consoled by the hope that you're going to eventually see God as He is, right? Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. Well, it's a little bit. But even those, I suppose, in purgatory, someone can solve that. But therefore, it's the prophets, right, who are not undergoing the kind of physical thing. But he still does speak of Dolor, right? They're from the Dalish down, right? So there's something kind of mixed there, right? According to the dad of John, there's a beautiful quote he has here, Abraham, you know, they say, you're not yet 50 years old, and you see him, Abraham, or Abraham has seen you and so on. Abraham, your father, right? Exalted, right? That he might see my day, right? I say, oh boy! I'm waiting for that, huh? And then he joins, from which, right, according to his beatifying presence of his divinity, right? Never saw him. Is that right? They're talking about Christ himself. According to the beatifying presence of his father. Insofar as, even before the coming of Christ, huh? They were blessed in hope, right? Although they were not yet perfectly blessed. In reality. Yeah, yeah. That's why Aristotle speaks, you know, of a promising boy there, you know, said to be happy, right? You know? But he can't really have the happiness of a human being until his mind is developed and so on, right? But we would see him on the way, you know, kind of. Grandchild did, John. Talking very clearly on the phone, that way he says. The little girl next door at the Victoria, she was running up on our back deck there, you know, this morning, you know, when we were having breakfast, you know. And I saw her father coming after her in and grabbing her. And then I looked out a little bit at her aunt and I don't know if she's out with her mother and she's running up to the next door neighbors. So she's curious. And I guess the wife next door said to my wife, have you seen little fingerprints on your windows out there? You must have come over, I don't know if you didn't see them, you know. But I was about to go out here and, you know, I don't know whether she had gotten out loose soon enough. Because they had put up on her fence around the line and got a cute thing, you know. Okay, watch these buildings. Now, what about being detained on account of sin and so on? To second should be said that the Holy Fathers, when they were still, what? Alive, huh? Were freed from, by the faith of Christ, right? From all sin, both original and actual, right? And from the, what? Penalty, I guess, yeah. Yeah, of actual sins, huh? But not from the guilt of the punishment of original sin, by which they were excluded from, what? Glory, huh? The price not yet being paid, you might say, for the human redemption. Just as now the faithful Christ liberated by baptism from the guilt of actual sins, right? And from the guilt original as regards the exclusion from glory. Right. But they remain nevertheless obligated for the punishment of original sin as regards the necessity of bodily, what? Dying. Dying. Because they have been renovated in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh, right? According to that of Romans 8, huh? The body is dead on account of sin, but the spirit lives on account of justification, huh? Now, the third objection here. The third should be said that at once, Christ undergoing death, right? His soul descended to hell, right? And he showed the fruit of his passion to the holy ones, detained in hell, right? Although from that place they did not, what? Go forth. Go forth. Christ remaining in hell, right? Because the presence of Christ pertained to the what? Holy Spirit. Piling up of glory, right? Accumulation of glory. Parting of the Holy Spirit. Yeah. So they stayed down there for a while with him, I guess. This is insane. Mm-hmm. That's what it did. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.