Secunda Secundae
Lecture 7: The Articles of Faith and the Symbol of the Creed

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

A philosophy which comes from the love of wisdom, the word, that there are seven parts right now. And the culminating work, you know, the one that Aristotle calls wisdom, or he calls it first philosophy, because it's not the wisdom of God, it's the wisdom of reason. But there's 14 books, you know, by chance. I think I'd make a joke, you know, with Thomas in the Summa kinder Gentiles. He begins his consideration of perfection of God in chapter 28. And 28 is the second, what, perfect number, is that by chance? It might be, I don't know. But seven has got a little more, you know, claim to be tied up. Now, Thomas is not, you know, fanatic about this. Some, however, distinguish 12 articles of faith, right? Six pertaining to the, what, divinity, and six pertaining to the humanity, right? For the three articles of the three persons, they comprehend under one, right? Because there is the same knowledge of the three persons, the same knowledge of relatives, as Aristotle said. And the article about the work of glorification and the distinguishing, too. And the resurrection of the flesh and the glory of the soul, right? There's a little difficulty there. Different difficulty in those two. Similarly, the article of consecutivity, they join in one, right? I can live with that, too, you know? So he gives the one into two sixes, right? So he's not, you know, the fanatic that I am, you know? Catechism, I think. Is it in his 12 articles, I believe? Yeah. I don't think so. But they say one of the customary traditions about the 12 articles, that each apostle wrote one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And Thomas, where has it, you know? Which one is, which one? I believe it is. Yeah. It's my article! My article! Yeah! It's only my article out! That's a beautiful little story there, isn't it? One that you should tell to children, maybe. Maybe adults, too, huh? They're going to become like little children again if they're going to get into heaven, I guess. The Egyptians here, okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said. Talking about the philosophers know about the unity of God. Many things through faith we hold about God, which can be what? Philosophers investigate by natural reason, right? But we're not able to do. As for example, his providence and his omnipotence, right? And that he alone should be what? Worship. Which, all of these are contained under the article of the unity of what? God. Right, huh? It's interesting in the Summa Theologiae, when he takes up the substance of God, in the Summa Theologiae, the last thing he shows is that God is one. Where in the Summa Contra Gentiles, it's a mix to the last one. The last one is that God is, what? Infinite, right? When the Summa Theologiae, his infinity is taken up right after his goodness, right? I try to see, why does he do that, right? Well, I think part of it is the fact that the Summa Theologiae, in the Prima Pars, you go from the unity of God to the Trinity of persons, right? So the last thing you want to say, maybe, is what? God is one. Before you take up the Trinity, right? Just take it up in the same book, right? But in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the Trinity is not taken up until the fourth book, right? Because the fourth book is about those things that can be known about God only by faith. And the first three books are about those things that can be known about God by natural reason, as well as by faith, right? So there's not a tendency, you know, to emphasize quite as much, right? Maybe that's why he puts it last, right? Because of that. And it's kind of common, you know, to talk about De Deo, Uno, and Tuino, right? Well, you know, you want to end up with that, there's only one God, you know? So he won't be accused of being polytheists, like Muhammad, I think, thought they were polytheists, right? They can't understand the Trinity, and they think that you're saying that there are three, what? God. Yeah, yeah. And they have, you know, little sayings, you know, put against, you know. He has no son, no wife, and so on. They want to say the thing that Muhammad did, huh? But, you know, he thought that we were kind of relapsing into this polytheism, you know. So it's kind of appropriate that he wants to make the article, the argument for the only one God, the last thing before we go into the Trinity, which begins in question 27, which is the cube of what? Three. Yeah. Yeah. And Thomas says a cube number has the same significance as that of which is a cube. That's maybe my chance, huh? It begins the Trinity in chapter 27. Well, it helps my memory, you know. I mean, you know, the old man, I start to forget things, you know, and remember this. Okay. To the second it should be said, huh? That the name of divinity itself implies a certain, what? Foreseeing, provision, right? No, the Greek, I mean, the virtue of reason there in the cardinal virtues is called, what? Prudence, right? Well, what does prudence mean, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And my friend there, Winston Churchill, you know, he uses the term foresight rather than prudence, right? But that's really kind of a principal part, you know, of prudence, foresight. So he's talking about that here, right? Okay. But that's what he's talking about, the origin of the word, you know, for God. Now power in those having understanding does not operate except according to both will and, what, knowledge. And therefore the omnipotence of God includes in some way, what, knowledge of all things and, what, providence. For he cannot, what, will those things, all things which he wills and inferior things, except that he knows also them and has providence over them, right? Now to the third, let's go back and just check the third for a second with the objection here, so. Yeah. To the third it should be said, huh? That of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is one knowledge as regards the unity of what? Essence. Essence, huh? Which pertains to the first article, huh? One God, and now we say stop there, right? Stop. As regards the distinction of persons, which is by the relations of, what, origin. I remember what I was saying to how Thomas uses, what, the first post predicament? The first post predicament in the categories is the distinction of the four kinds of opposites, huh? Contradictories and contraries and having and lacking and relations, right? And Thomas, you know, gives a, what, distinction of distinction. He's investigating the Trinity, huh? Because the Trinity, it's an article of faith that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are really distinct, right? Not just names of the same person, you know, because he does different things, right? Like I have a husband and a father and a teacher and all these things, right? But I'm the same person. But Thomas puts a distinction of distinction. It's in the two. Yeah. And material distinction is by the division of the continuous. Like when I divided up the apple pie among us, right? That's the division of the continuous. Well, you don't have the continuous in God because he's not a body, right? Now, the other kind of distinction is they call it formal distinction, right? And that's by opposites. So Thomas says the distinction of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit can't be by material distinction. It must be by formal distinction. But then he eliminates three of the four kinds of opposites because they involve one member having a kind of non-being, right? Being a non-being and having and lacking, kind of a non-being, right? And even one contrary is lacking something compared to the other. Well, I am who I am is what God is. So those can't be it. It must be by the fourth way, right? So he separates three of the kinds against the fourth one, right? And he says it can't be one of the first three. It must be the fourth one. So the Father and the Son, as their names would indicate, differed by what? Relalties, right? And the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son together, right? So as regards the distinction of persons, which is by the relations of origin, in some way the knowledge of the Father is included in the knowledge of the Son. For it would not be a father if you didn't have a son, the Holy Spirit, yeah. And as regards all this, those are well-moved who lay down that there's one article for all three persons, right? Because there's the same knowledge of what? Opposites, right? The same knowledge of special abilities. But because about the individual persons, something should be observed about which there happens to be error, right? In part of some people. And as regards this, right, about the three persons are laid down three articles to get rid of the heretics, right? For Aries believed that the Father was omnipotent and eternal, but he did not believe that the Son was, what, co-equal and consubstantial to the Father. And therefore it's necessary to lay down an article about the person of the Son to determine this, right? God from God, true God from true God, huh? The God does not lead, and so on. And the same reason against what? The same reason against Macedonius, huh? It's necessary to lay down a third article about the Holy Spirit, huh? Equally God and equally to be adored, huh? Likewise, the conception of Christ and his nativity and his resurrection and eternal life, according to one reason, could be comprehended under one article, insofar as they are ordered to one thing, right? But according to another reason, they can be distinguished, insofar as they each have their special, what, difficulties, huh? So you're going to be a 12-man or a 14-man? The 12-party and the 14-party. Who are you talking to, right? What did the Bonaventure do, do you know? Well, I think he said he recognized both. I don't think he did. Because Thomas seems to either do open, but he seems to bring out more than 14, right, huh? Yeah, yeah. To the fourth, it should be said, to the Son and the Holy Spirit, it belongs to be sent, right? They can't be sent unless you're from somebody. So the Father cannot be, what, sent, huh? But it belongs to them to be sent for the sanctifying of creatures, right? About which many things to be believed, their cure, take up. And therefore, about the person of the Son and the Holy Spirit, many articles are multiplied concerning the person of the Father, because he wasn't sent, right? Qu'i nunquam mititor, as has been said in the first book. Yeah. Yeah, if he had sent himself, he would have got some more attention, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was more press. Yeah. Well, I say this prayer, though, sometimes they say, may God the Father strengthen you, right? May God the Son enlighten you, and may God the Holy Spirit fill your heart with his love, right, huh? There, I'm kind of giving that Father low. Yeah. Right. To the fifth, it should be said, that the sanctification of the creature by grace, and the consummation by, what, glory, come about also through the gift of charity, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, and by the gift of wisdom, and is appropriated to the, what? The Son. The Son. And therefore, both work, the Son and the Holy Spirit, by appropriation according to diverse reasons, huh? Okay? It's my little trochaic tetrameter, right, huh? Move us, God, to know and love you, huh? No one is the Son, and no one is the Holy Spirit, huh? And you're addressing the Father. Mm-hmm. Move us, God. What about the Eucharist, huh? It has special difficulty. To the sixth, it should be said, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, two things can be considered, one that is a sacrament, and thus it has the same, what, reason with the other effects of grace that sanctifies. Another is that it's, what, contained there, the body of Christ is contained, and thus it's included under, what? Indipotence. Yeah. Just as all other miracles, which are attributed to indipotence. I got out of that, but... One of our hymns that we say on Sunday, I like, is it refers to both of these characteristics. Fast and pray he did as man. Great deeds he performed as God. Yeah. See, grace in some ways is contained in all the sacraments, right? But only in the Eucharist do you have the body and blood of our Lord, which is kind of the source of what grace in the sacrament. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're up to Article 9 here now. To 9th, one proceeds thus. It seems that unsuitably, the articles of faith are placed in the Symbolo, which is the creed, right? You've got to be careful that word Symbolo, like other words, huh? The Symbolo means actually thrown together, right? It implies that they're just thrown together, you know? But maybe if you put Symbolo, it means thrown together, yes, really in Greek, ballo, throw, and soon together. Sometimes you throw things ahead of me. Sometimes you're aiming at a target. Yeah. So, Section 1. Sacred Scripture is the rule of faith, to which it is not licit, right, to add or subtract, right? For it's said in Deuteronomy 4.2, you shall not add to this word that is spoken to you, nor shall you take away from it, huh? Therefore, it's illicit to constitute some Symbolo, huh? To throw together something, right? There's a word, the rule of faith, after the, what, Sacred Scripture has been edited, huh? The Symbolo of faith, thanks to the Scriptures. Moreover, as the Apostle says, Ephesians 4, one is the faith, but the Symbolo is a profession of faith. Therefore, unsuitably is treated the, what? A multiple symbol, a multiple symbol, more than one maybe, huh? Does that mean the many creeds? We've got the Athanasian creed and so on. Moreover, the confession of faith, which is contained in the creed or symbol, pertains to all the faithful, but it does not belong to all the faithful to believe in Deum, right? Now, he's going to explain this, and he gets to talk about the act of faith, right? But the creed or in Deum pertains to what? Faith is informed by charity, right? But only to those who have formed faith, right? Formed by, by what? Charity. Therefore, unsuitably is a symbol of faith created under this form of words, I believe, in Unum Deum, right? I don't know. What exactly? Yeah. I believe in God, I believe in God, you know? Therefore, what is the meaning of these things? So talk about how he gets to the act of faith, right? Moreover, the, what? Yeah. It's one of the articles of faith, right? It says and said above. But in the, what? Apostles' creed, as you call it, don't we know? Apostles' creed? There's not made mention of the descent in first. Therefore, it seems insufficiently, what? Collected, right? Thomas was saying, you know, in this article on whether the father is before the son, I think he quoted the Athanasian creed, there's no before an actor in the Trinity. Well, he doesn't maybe say that explicitly in the other creeds, maybe, because he's quoted the Athanasian creed, and kind of interesting, you know? I don't like the Athanasian creed. Yeah. I was in some course there in theology in college, and so it was just St. Thomas, and we had to write in one of the church fathers, and so I took Athanasia, and so I got... So he's always stuck on my mind, you know? I mean, he's my model there, you know, what a church father should be, you know? He had quite a tough life there, you know? He... There's a little description of the way I see it. He says he had red hair. Wow, I've never fixed it. He was the original. I always saw people with red hair, you know, that they're more irascible than the rest of us, you know, because of the red hair, I don't know. Moreover, as Augustine says, expounding that of John 14.1, believe in God and believe in me. But we believe what? Yeah? It should not be said to believe except in God. Since, therefore, the Catholic Church is purely something created, it seems that in suitably, as it said, in unum sanctum catholicum and apostolicum ecclesiam, right? Moreover, the symbol is treated for this that it might be the rule of faith, right? But the rule of faith ought to be proposed to all in public. Therefore, each creed, you might say each symbolism, ought to be sung in the Mass, right? Just as a symbol of the Fathers, right? Because now we usually say that's a symbol of the Fathers. Is that the Nicene Creed, or what? The Apostles' Creed is, I think, some of the... Would you call the symbol of the Fathers the Apostles' Creed? No, no, I think that's Nicene. Is it? Yeah. Because the descendant of Philip is in the Apostles' Creed, right? They're not in the... Yeah, that's right. Yeah, he suffered, died, one, three, three. That would have more sense. The Fathers, the Council of Fathers. Yeah. Yeah, because, in fact, you'll see, later, you'll see here, come up that it says a symbol of the Apostle Lord. Therefore, it does not seem to be a suitable editing of the Articles of Faith and the Symbol. But against all this is that the Universal Church is not able to err because it's governed by the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth. For our Lord promised this to his disciples, saying that when he comes, right, the Spirit of Truth, he would teach you all truth. but the Symbolum is edited by the authority of the Universal Church. Therefore, there can't be anything unsuitable and contained in it, huh? Well, Thomas' reply here, the responde you read, I should say, is, what, very short, huh? Our answer should be said that, as the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11, chapter 6, approaching God is necessary to what? To believe. But to believe one is that able unless the truth is, what? Proposed to him which he should believe. And therefore, it was necessary for the truth of faith to be not thrown together but gathered together in one with Facilius more easily it could be proposed to, what? All. Lest someone by ignorance from the truth of faith should fail, right? And from this collection of positions of the faith the name Symboli Physic Sheptum. Because we use it in English we call it the Creed, right? Isn't it all in the Bible? We need this thing for it. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the truth of faith in sacred scripture is contained diffusae, right? Yeah. In various modis, in various ways. And in some obscurely, huh? Thus, that to elicit the truth of faith from sacred scripture requires long-gum studium, a long study and exercise to which not all, right? Yeah. To whom it is necessary, right, to know the truth of the faith, right? Of which many occupied without negotiates and other businesses are not able to give themselves over to, what? To these, yeah. and therefore it is necessary from the, what? Positions of sacred scripture to collect something manifest in a summary way and that could be proposed to all to believe which is not added to sacred scripture but rather what assumed from sacred scripture. true. true. true. second objection I guess this is the one about there being many to second should be said that in all the symbols all the creeds the same truth of faith is taught but there is necessary for the people to be more diligently instructed about the truth of faith lest the faith of the simple be corrupted by heretics and this was the cause wherefore it was necessary to edit many so to some extent they were thrown together according to necessity of what was it Augustine? some of the church fathers say that heresy is necessary for the development of theology because it requires you to answer this heresy and to go into it more deeply to explain it like Paul VI did the creed of the people and this was the cause where it was necessary to edit many symbol which in no other way differ except that in one plenial some more fully is explicit what in the other contained implicitly according as the heretics requires the third objection not all believers believe in God having formed faith he says the third should be said that the confession of faith is treated in the creed or symbol as it were from the person of the whole church which is united by faith but the faith in the church as a whole is formed faith for such a faith is found in all those who are in number and merit of the church and therefore the confession of faith and the symbol is tweeted according as it belongs to formed faith that those who do not have even those faithful who do not have formed faith might strive to attain to this what form now what about this descent to hell right what did you say what did you say what did we call it the apostles creed is the one that it was come up on the fourth yeah both names the symbol of the father to be denied to the fourth it should be said that about the descent to hell no error is exhorted among heretics right and therefore it was not necessary for some explanation about this to come about an account of this was not reiterated in the symbol what as it were what predetermined in the symbol of the apostles right for the sequent symbol does not what abolish the preceding one but rather what expounds it as has been said to the fifth one now it's Augustine expounding you know you believe in God believe in me you know by Peter or Paul you believe but you do not say yeah to the fifth it should be said that it should be said in Sanctum Ecclesium Catholicum and this should be understood according as our faith is referred to the what Holy Spirit who sanctifies the church that the sentence is I believe in the Holy Spirit sanctifying the church but it is better it says and according to a more common use that it do not be placed there but in but yeah I believe the Holy Catholic church this is the Pope and say he's a good shot to the sixth it should be said what about the one you say in church it should be said that because the symbol of the fathers is declarative of the symbol of the apostles right and also was what given when the faith was already manifested and the church enjoying some peace right on account of this it was publicly sung in church but the symbol of the apostles that in the time of persecution was edited was what published secretly in the prima in the compilatoria as it were against the darkness of the years of the past and the future oh that's right it's not optional it's probably right it's not optional to pray the apostles creed or the Nicene creed yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so the article 10 To the tenth, then, one proceeds thus. It seems this does not pertain to the Summum Pontificium, right? That's really Summum, added to Pontificium there. To order the symbol of the faith, right? For the new addition of the symbol is necessary in account of making explicit the Articles of Faith, as has been said. But in the Old Testament, the Articles of Faith were more and more made explicit according to the succession of times, on account of this, that the truth of faith would be more manifest according to a greater, closer proximity to Christ, right? So what the prophet just was to be, what, unfolding in a sense of the law, right? But such a cause seizing in the new law, there ought not to come about a greater and greater explanation for expliciting the Articles of Faith. Therefore, it does not seem to, what, pertain to the authority of the Summum Pontificiax, a new addition of the symbol. That's what a lot of people wish. Oh, I think it would be. Moreover, that which is, what, forbidden under anathema, right, by the universal church, cannot be subject to the power of some man. But the new addition of the symbol is forbidden under the anathema of the authority of the universal church. For he said in the proceedings, I guess, of the first Ephesus, Council of Ephesus, that perlecto, symbolo, in this, they've seen synod, the Holy Synod decrees, another, to, what, bring forth, it is not listed, right, another faith, right, to write or to compose a part that, a part of the one defined by the Holy Fathers, who in the Nicene, they might work by the Holy Spirit, were gathered together by the Holy Spirit. And it adds the anathema punishment. Accursed, I guess. Anathema means accursed, doesn't it? And the same thing is reiterated in the Deeds of Descendants of Calcina. Therefore, it just seems it doesn't pertain to the authority of the Summa Pontifex, a new addition of the symbol. Moreover, Athanasius was not the Summa Pontifex, but the patriarch of Alexandria, and nevertheless, he, what, that's through the symbolism, what that is sung in the church. Do you ever sing that? Yeah. Yeah. You're welcome, right? Yeah. Prime and Christ. Yeah, they do. I think it's an option for them. One time a year, they sing it. Oh, they do. Benevictine. One time. One string, prime, one time a year. Okay. It takes a very long time to sing. Oh, no. So, if Athanasius did it, therefore, not more does it seem to pertain the addition of the symbolism than to the Holy, what, Father, than to others, right? Athanasius could do it. I'm an Athanasian man, as I said. That's my college. Yes, sir. I don't know if I have it anymore. Back in the 80s, but it's so Athanasius. And I said, where did you get that? And he said, I went to high school and he was saying, Athanasius. I'll tell you. Yeah. But against this is that the addition, the symbol was made in the general sunnah, right? But, what? Yeah. By the authority only of the Holy Pontus can be gathered, as is had in the decrees, distinction 17. Back there. Check that in there. Okay? Therefore, the addition of the symbol pertains to the authority of the Supreme Pontus. Pontus? Let's go back to what? Making a bridge or what? Bridge builder, yeah. Yeah. On spot during there or something like that. You find it a lot in St. Cathediciana, don't you, that idea of the bridge, yeah? Yeah, Christ. Yeah. Do you know if the Eastern Church, the Orthodox, have created a symbol since Athanasius? That's why they bought it to the Oakland. I know, but have they, they haven't created their own creed in the Senate or anything? No, I don't think so. I don't think they have gathered in the Senate, they might say, I think it's quite universal because they know they have to vote. last year they did, or this year they did, they finally did. Did they fight at the Oakland? No, no, no, That's not, there were representatives from the, it was their first Senate, general Senate. A couple of biggies were missing, the Russians weren't there, the Russians weren't there, the Romanians, the Romanians, the Romanians, the Romanians, the Romanians, the Romanians, the Romanians. Our answer should be said, Thomas says, that it has been said that a new addition of the symbol is necessary to avoiding what the errors are arising. But, to that authority, right, pertains the addition of a what symbol, to whose authority pertains it to determine as a judgment, right, those things which are of faith, that by all, not destroyed, or not, unshaken, unshaken, yeah, might be held. But this pertains to the authority of the sumum pontificis, to which greater and more difficult questions of the church should be referred, as is said in the decrees distinction, what, 17, whence also the Lord says Luke 22 to Peter, whom he had constituted as the sumum pontificim, I have prayed for you, Peter, right, that your faith do not what fail, and that you sometimes turning will confirm your brother's right. And the popes often quote that, right, you know. And this reason is because one faith ought to be of the whole church, right, according to that of one of the Corinthians. Let all of you say the same thing, right, that there not be a new schism, right, which cannot be observed unless the question of faith, faith, exorted from faith, determined by the one who is over the whole church, right, and thus his judgment is firmly held by the whole church. And therefore to the authority alone of the sumum pontificx pertains the new addition of a symbol, just as all other things which pertain to the whole church, right, as to congregate a general synod and other things of this sort. After the first, therefore, it should be said that in the teaching of what, Christ and the apostles, the truth of faith is sufficiently, what, explicit, huh? But because perversi homines, huh, perverse men, the pervert, the, what, apostolic doctrine and scriptures, they pertain to its what? Tradition. We were talking about the, the, last night with Joshua, huh? And Thomas is talking about the position of Averwes, right, that the possible understanding is a separated substance, right? And Thomas says, quam leviter erant, right? He says, why do you say leviter erant? It was very clear what Aristotle's saying, right, huh? About the part of the soul by which it, you know, understands. He's talking about a part of the soul, not a separated substance. But because perverse men, huh, pervert for their own perdition, right? The apostolic teaching and other scriptures, if it's necessary, at times preceding, that the explanation, that there be an explanation of faith against the errors that arise. And to the second it should be said that the prohibition and what judgment of the Senate extends itself. to private persons, right, of whom it does not belong to determine about the faith, right? For through this judgment, the general synod, right, is not, what, taking away the power, right, for a subsequent synod to make a new addition of the symbol, not containing another faith, but the same one more exposed. Thus, for example, the synod observes that the sequent or the following synod expounds something above that which the previous synod had exposed, on account of the necessity of some heresy arising, huh? On account of the necessity of some heresy arising, huh? Whence it pertains to the sumum patifich, by whose authority the synod is congregated and whose sentence is, what, confirmed, huh? To the third, it should be said about my friend Athanasius, right? It is not composed, a manifestation of faith, by way of a, what, symbol, but more by way of a certain, what, teaching, as from his very way of speaking appearance. But because the whole truth of the faith is contained briefly in his doctrine, right, huh? It was accepted by the, what, authority of the holy pontiff, so that it might be had as a rule, like, what, faith, huh? Okay. So it's in the Ingridian and so on, the Athanasian creed, right, as a standard authority, right? Right, and in the two, right? Infinity and humanity, isn't it? That's what he attempts to do, right? Two. Rule of two, right? Three. I have a question on the topic, and it's not to attack Pope Francis, but just recently he said that Amoris Laetitia is to a mystic. He said, read it, read it, it's to a mystic. Being a to a myst yourself, without, again, standing around self-in-opposition to Pope Francis, do you find, if you've read the book through Amoris Laetitia sufficiently, do you find it to be to a mystic? Because he's, he hasn't exposed to what he means by that, but I think he needs his moral, his moral teaching is to mystic, but how would you develop, again, just like you normally find? It's kind of scandalous, I think, a bit, you know. I'm sorry? It's kind of scandalous, is insisting upon his, his loose, you know, statements there, you know. Because he keeps saying, it's Schornborn, Schornborn's the authentic interpreter who's supposed to be mystic. Yeah. So you would, again, without going into detail, you wouldn't consider, Amoris Laetitia, the Tizia, the Tizia, it's funny, I had to ask a comment, but this particular book, whoever had it, at some point before we got it, scribbles and notes, in the beginning of Question 2, Article 1 of Question 2, he wrote, not important. It's like the one we had, like this one, somebody would go up each article, yes, no, yes, no, I just didn't know. I didn't have to get rid of it. I didn't think so. I don't know.