Tertia Pars
Lecture 27: The Fullness and Infinity of Christ's Grace

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

Because it's a defect in no need having what? Probable, right? Christ understands probable arguments, right? But his mind is not in this state of what? Semi-doubt, right? So that's not really an ability that I have. He doesn't have, right? Now the second objection, right? What about this justification of the impious, right? To the second it should be said that to operating grace there pertains, per se, right, to make one, what, just, right? But that one makes someone just from being impious, this happens to him on the part of the subject in whom there is found, what, sin. So the soul of Christ, therefore, was justified, right, through operating grace insofar as he was made just through it and holy from the very beginning of his conception. Not that he was, what, a sinner, right? Okay. So when Socrates teaches Mino, Mino's slave boy, the way to double a square, right, huh? The slave boy was originally mistaken about how to double a square, right? So it belonged to teaching a man how to double a square, which is the way you take the diagonal square, right? That's the way you do it. But in teaching the slave boy that, is it essential to teaching someone how to double a square that you remove him from the state of being mistaken? Socrates asked the slave boy, how do you double a square? The slave boy says, you double the side. Well, the slave boy's mistaken as to how to double a square, right? Because if you double the side of the square, you get a square four times as big, right, huh? But if the slave boy had said to Socrates, I don't know, okay? Then he would have learned how to double a square without ever having been, what, mistaken, right? See, kind of a new analogy I'm making here, right? So Thomas is saying it belongs to operating grace to make you justified in the sight of God, right? It doesn't belong to operating grace necessarily that he removes sin from you, right? Although it would do so in the case of someone who's in the state of sin, right? Okay? But that's ever the case in Christ, right? So operating grace in Christ doesn't have to remove him from, what, a state of sin, right? Just like my teaching you how to double a square might not necessarily have to remove you from being mistaken about the matter. So usually we are mistaken before we know, huh? Okay? I'll take a little break now before we go on. I'm assuming it doesn't have the... Their objection, yeah. ...reply to the third. Is yours that right? Reply to the third? No, it doesn't. Okay, here's the footnote here. To the third it should be said, and it says some codices, right, add this response to the third, right? So let's go to that. To the third it should be said that the fullness of grace is attributed to the soul of Christ according to the capacity of the creature, not in comparison to the fullness, the infinite fullness of the, what, divine goodness, right? So grace is always, even in the soul of Christ, sanctifying grace is always, what, you know, partaking of the divine nature, and therefore it can't be as full as the divine nature itself. So you're talking about the fullness of grace according to the capacity of the creature, right? Which can never be equal, right? To divine nature itself. You're never going to find out if this is private to Christ, huh? To have the fullness of grace, huh? What are you going to say here about lexorandi, lexcredendi, huh? What about the Mary being called full of grace, right? What about Dion's article there, huh? The grace of Mary is of, I think, the static order, right? So it was good, huh? Christ the 10th, they're giving. Grace is private to Christ, right? But he alone. To the tenth one goes forward thus. It seems that the fullness of grace is not private to Christ. For what is private, in a lot of ways proprium, I think people will translate that properly, you know, but it has a sense of privity, right? What is proprium to something belongs to it, what? Alone. But to be full of grace is attributed to some other ones. For it is said in Luke chapter 1, verse 28, to the Blessed Virgin, and this is the angel speaking, Hail, full of grace, right? The Lord is with you. It's also said in Acts 6, that Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, right? Therefore the fullness of grace is not, what, private or proper to Christ. He alone is not full of grace, the objection is the same, right? Again, Mary would be the first objection, but even Stephen, Eric. More, that which is able to be communicated to others through Christ does not seem to be private to Christ. But the fullness of grace is able to be communicated by Christ to others. For the Apostle says, and that's the St. Paul, huh? By Antoinette Messiah, called the Apostle. John Paul II would call him the, what, the princes of the Apostles, he and Peter, huh? But they're by Antoinette Messiah, called Apostles. Ephesians 3, that we might be, what, filled in all the fullness of, what, God, huh? Therefore the fullness of grace is not private to, what, Christ, huh? Moreover, the state of the way would seem to be proportioned to the state of the homeland, right? Fatherland. But in the state of the fatherland, there will be a certain, what, fullness, huh? Because in that celestial fatherland, where there is the fullness of every good, right? Although to some it is given, what, more excellently, right? Nothing nevertheless is possessed, what, in a singular way. It is clear to Gregory in the homily about the hundred, what, sheep, huh? Therefore in the state of the way, the fullness of grace is had by individual men. And therefore the fullness of grace is not proper to, what, Christ. But now against all this is the text of St. John, huh? Where the fullness of grace is attributed to Christ insofar as he is the only begotten from the father. According to that of John 1, verse 14. We saw him, as it were, the, what, only begotten from the father. The only one generated from the father. Full of grace and, what, truth, right? So if he's full of grace and truth because he's unigenitum, ma patrae, he is a Latin there, right? He's the only, he's the unigenitum, that means only, the only one generated by the father. Then he's the only one full of grace and truth. But esigenitum, unigenitum, from the father, is proper to Christ. Therefore, it's private to him to be full of grace and truth. Now how's time to resolve all these difficulties, huh? I was reading a book about the quantum physicists and so on, you know, and some of them, you know, really got depressed trying to understand this, you know. And then one guy committed suicide and, you know, all kinds of things. Yeah, we've never heard about that. Yeah, and some guys took up drink and other things. He found some personal things about these people, you know. And he had a lot of these, and he was more proud of them. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And they had, you know, a kind of disordered life, some of them, you know. Wukong Pali is, I guess his father left his mother and took up with some woman about the age of Wukong himself. His mother committed suicide, and Pali took the drink, and his wife, then he got married, and his wife left him after a year or so. And he started drinking, so he realized these things. But anyway, when Heisenberg, you know, was a friend of Pali, what he describes in all of his books there were, they were working on some theory, you know, and finally Pali died in Heisenberg. He's up in the air with her. It was physical or because they couldn't solve the problem, you know. Okay, Thomas says, I answer it should be said that the fullness of grace can be noted in two ways. In one way, on the side of the grace itself, and the other way, on the side of the one having the grace. On the side of the grace itself, there is said to be fullness from this, that someone arrives at the, what? The summit, huh? The highest point of grace, you might say. Both as regards the essence of grace, and as regards the, what? Power, right, huh? Because He has grace, both in the greatest excellence in which it can be had, and in the greatest extension to all the effects of, what? Grace, right? And such a fullness of grace is private to, what? Christ, huh? On the side of the subject of her, there is said to be fullness of grace, when someone has fully grace according to his, what? Condition. Either according to intensity, insofar as in him, grace is intensified to the limit, fixed ahead of time for him by, what? God, huh? According to that of Ephesians, chapter 4, verse 7. That to each one of us, right? Is given the grace according to the measure of the giving of, what? Christ, huh? You know, you hear that sometimes said, you know, to a lot different containers, you know. And it's one case to say, what do you think, you know, the soul is a bucket for grace, right? But I mean, in a sense, one bucket is bigger than the other, right? You know, and it's, so to speak, there's a measure to which you're going to be brought. Or also according to, what? Virtue, insofar as someone has the, what? Faculty of grace to all those things which pertain to his status or his, what? Office, right? As the Apostle says, Ephesians 3, huh? To me, the least of the saints, right? Is given this grace, right? To illuminate men and so on, huh? And such a fullness of grace is not private to Christ, but is communicated to others, what? Through Christ. So in heaven, if you get there, you'll be full of grace, right? According to the, what? Limit set for you, right? Okay. Okay. It's your, that's your slot, right there in heaven, right? Okay. And, you know, I just, I was reading some encyclicals there of Pius X, you know. There's one encyclical on Gregory the Great, right? On one of the anniversaries of his death. And then another beautiful one on St. Anselm, right? Who was bishop and so on. And one on St. Charles Borromeo, right? But these people have a certain fullness of grace for the, what? That they were called to in this life, right? Very, very beautiful. Now, talk about the Blessed Virgin, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace, huh? Not on the side of grace itself. Not on the side of grace itself. Not on the side of grace itself. Not on the side of grace itself. Not on the side of grace itself. Not on the side of grace itself. Because she did not have grace in the highest excellence in which it is able to be had. Nor to all the effects of grace. But she said to be full of grace in comparison to what? Yeah. Because she had grace sufficient to the state to which she was chosen by God, right? That she would be the what? Mother of God. Now, apart from Christ, there's no higher state to which anybody has been called than that of the mother of God, right? And likewise, Stephen was said to be full of grace. Because he had grace sufficient in order that he might be a suitable minister and witness of God to which he was called. He's like the first martyr, right? So that's quite an honor, right? So he had grace sufficient, right? All the grace he needed to be the that. But one of these fullnesses is more than another right, according as someone is divinely ordered beforehand to a higher or a lower what? State, right? Okay, now, the second objection is taken from the text of St. Paul there, right? To the second should be said that the apostle there speaks of that fullness of grace which is taken from the side of the subject, right? In comparison to that to which a man is divinely, what? Pre-ordained. Which is either something common to which all the saints are pre-ordained, right? Or to something special that pertains to the excellence of some, right? And I think after the Blessed Virgin, I think the apostles are the ones that are called to the highest state, isn't it? And St. Joseph. And Mary St. Joseph, yeah. But you find the apostles mentioned, you know? And according to this, a certain fullness of grace is common to all the saints, that to it they have grace sufficient to, what? Meriting eternal life, which consists in the full enjoyment of, what? God, right? And this fullness, the apostle wishes for the faithful to whom he is, what? Writing, huh? So in some sense, we're all called to be full of grace, right? Which means to have grace sufficient to merit eternal life, huh? Now to the third objection, huh? Those gifts which are common in the fatherland, to it the vision of God, the comprehension and the enjoyment, those of this sort, have certain gifts correspond to them in the state of the way, which are common to the saints, huh? But there are certain prerogatives of the saints in the fatherland and on the way, which are not had by, what? All, right, huh? So you should ask God to get you to the place you're called to, right? You know, the envy is one of the capital vices, isn't it? What did Shakespeare say at the end of Julius Caesar, you know, all the, you know, did what they did, you know, telling Caesar out of envy, except for what? Brutus, right? He did it, you know, because he thought Caesar was going to make himself dictator or something, right? But it shows you how common envy, what, is, right? And didn't we, when he did the, we did some of the stuff on friendship there. I had the quotes from the novelists about, you know, how envy is the thing that disfigures our friendship, right? And one guy has a very clear way of saying, he says, you see, it's hard for a man to, you know, keep stable, to bear wealth, his good fortune, right? That will create a good fortune. It's even harder for his friends to bear his good fortune. He's talking about the prevalence of, what, envy, right? But isn't that to come out of the Gospels, so on, that the enmity for, you know, towards Christ, the Pharisees and so on, is tied up with, what, envy? Actually, it's mentioned in the Gospels, right? And, of course, in the epistles there, it speaks of this as, what, you know, the devil's envy, right? Being the origin of sin and so on. So envy is really a horrible thing, right? It's right up there with pride, you know. In the commentary on Job, Ron, there's a beautiful sentence in there where he says, and pride kills the great ones and the little ones. And, of course, you know, they talk about how, in the aristocratic, you're subject to pride, right? Because of the excellence of your position. But in democracy, envy is more than vice, right? Everybody's striving to be, to prove themselves, right? Get ahead and so on, right? And we can't all get ahead, we can't all win the game, we can't all get the position. So there's a tremendous amount of envy, right? And the sociologist says, you know, it's on envy, you know, in democratic times. So, given the prevalence of envy in our fallen state here, and the horrible things it's led to, right? I remember he was saying to me one time, you know, after the great man died, after the connie died, you know, you know, you can see the envy that people had for him, you know? Yeah, yeah. You can see that, you know, people. And so, but you see it in every walk of life, you know? I remember even, you know, St. Trezor de Sue, you know, some of the older sisters, you know, being envious of this younger one who's making so close to God and so superior. Well, I've been in the order of 50 years, you know, and it's, you know, I'll start, you know, the new one is, so, you know, it's kind of hard, you know, given the prevalence of envy in our fallen state, you say, well, how can there be no envy in heaven, right? You see? Because you say, well, when you end the fact that this person sees God more clearly than you do, right? And, well, but there can't be any envy in heaven, you know? And so, you know, when you're dealing, even though in this life, you know, when you're dealing with friendship, the prevalence of envy is a sign of the defect of our friendship, right? And something that's opposed to what friendship is, huh? Because envy is defined as what? Sadness over the good fortune of another, right? What's obviously opposed to loving your friend for his own sake, right? I used to take the example there, and I talked to the students when I was teaching in college there, you know, I'd say, well, you got your roommate there, right, huh? You know, he's, they're both graduating this year, and your roommate has got a real nice job lined up, you know? You can't find anything, you know? Don't you have a little bit of envy for him, you know? I say, girls, you know, one of you has got a real nice... Boyfriend, you know, as many going places, you know, a handsome guy, you know, he's all set in life with a good job, you know, or a good occupation, and you don't have anything like that, you know. She's poor. Kind of funny, you know, like when you go to these dances, you know, and of course some girl, everybody wants to dance with, you know, and some other one, no one's asking, you know. My friends, you're a friend, so he's a very handsome guy, you know, and so on. You always got an ugly girl to dance with, right? He said, give her a little thrill, he said. He's kind of a kind guy, you know, just this way, you know. We were told in some of the jokes, you know, it was not bad. Envy is, as I say, a terrible vice, but it's very prominent, right? And so, why is there no envy in heaven, right? There can't be any envy in heaven. Because hell. Well, you see, Thomas takes up envy in the treatise on charity, right? Because he takes up the different virtues in the secunda, secunda, right? He takes up, you know, the vices opposed to those virtues, right? And the place where envy is taken up, then, is in the treatise on charity, because it's the vice opposed to charity, right? That's actually got me thinking, you know, even in terms of human friendship, right? You know, the charity is the kind of friendship, as we learn in the treatise on charity, yeah? But then, even human friendship, right? You see the novelists, you know, that I used to give there, seeing that envy was found in human friendship very often. And this is a sign of the defect, right? And of these friendships, right? That you have this feeling of envy, right? But it's a very common thing. The novelists are good at observing people, right? And they see that it's very common that people are envious of the, you know, unfortunately, even if they're friends, right? So, but I first discovered this, and I mean, I got thinking about this because of the treatise on charity, right? And so, the consideration of envy, even for human friendship, has a two-fold use, right? One, by its opposition to friendship, right? It helps you to understand friendship better, because opposites alongside each other are more clear. And then secondly, because of its prevalence, right, it shows that in our experience of human friendship, we often find this, what, defect, right? And you realize that there are these defects that are often in our friendship. And then, as far as you yourself are concerned, if you feel envy at the good success of your friend, you've got to fight that, right? Because that's really opposed to friendship, right? You know, they vary, you know, often arises, but there's one being, one being, you know, going back to, you know, the physicist right there, you know, you're describing Kramer there, who was close to Bohr, you know, but every time he got a good idea, it seems some younger physicists came along and got a little bit better, and got the recognition of the new ideas. It's causing being frustrated, you know? It must have been like, you know, the older nun, resenting, you know, St. Therese or something like that. I mentioned that, you know, one colleague there, you know, who was doing a lot of publishing and getting a lot of, you know, recognition, you know, nationwide, right? And so on, and, you know, he's even coming down the hall, you know, and telling me or other people, you know, about his latest publication, right? But he didn't do it in the sense that he was bragging about it. He just, you know, like he expected us to rejoice in it because we were his friends, right? And it's kind of a healthy thing, you see? And kind of respect that he's treating you like a real friend, that you would rejoice to know that he succeeded in having another publication, you know? I kind of, you know, regard him as having, you know, a real, what, appreciation, you know, of friendship, you know, what he did that sound like, you know? And I would see him, you know, help people who were having trouble with publishing or something, you know? And so on, so on. Good man. Were his books good? Oh, yeah. He's good. He's good, you know. Most of the very good things insults Nitsin, you know, and of course, the Soltanitsin family insults Nitsin himself. So this is the first man that's understood me. Oh, yeah. Who was that? Well, he's got a number of books on Soltanitsin, but he's got a Soltanitsin reader, too, you know? Oh, what is his name? Mahoney. Dan Mahoney. Dan Mahoney. Yeah. Good man. Would this be a Soltanitsin reader that you find in the Adventist Press catalog? It might be in there, yeah, yeah. There's another guy with him in that particular thing. But he has a book on Soltanitsin, I think. Oh, before he wrote. So he's at Assumption College? Yeah, yeah. He wrote a book on De Gaulle and things, you know? Interesting, but good man. Yeah. He knows all the names. He knows George Wegel and so on, you know? Mm-hmm. When Wegel came to Assumption there and spoke on John Paul II, we wrote that. All right. But then of course we'd say, oh, Dan, he'd say, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. To the 11th, one goes forward thus, it seems that the grace of Christ is what? Infinite, huh? For everything immense is infinite, huh? Now, immensum, etymologically means what? Inmeasurable. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Shakespeare often talks about that, huh? How that goes together with infinite. See that in the text of Shakespeare. But the grace of Christ is immensa, right? And I see in the church councils, too, they'll speak, though, of the divine nature as being, what? Immensus, right? Inmeasurable, right? Kind of a synonym almost for infinite, huh? For it is said in John chapter 3 that God does not give the, what? Spirit adminsurum, in a measured way, right? Inmeasurable, right? To what? Maybe to Christ. Therefore the grace of Christ is, what? Infinite, huh? Moreover, an infinite effect shows an infinite power, which cannot be founded except in an infinite essence. But the effect of the grace of Christ is infinite, for it extends to the salvation of the whole human, what? Grace. For he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, right? And even if there were more sinners, he would be sufficient for that, right? Right? One drop of his blood there, Thomas says in the prayer, right? Great totemundum, for the sin. Okay. Therefore the grace of Christ is, what? Infinite. Moreover, everything finite, by addition, can arrive at a quantity of some, what? Finite thing, right? So if I could keep on getting taller, I could get as tall as an Empire State Building, right? If, therefore, the grace of Christ is finite, the grace of another man could so increase. that would arrive at equality with the grace of Christ, right? But against, this is what is said in Job 28, that there is not equal to him, what? Gold or what? Crystal, is it? According as Gregory expounds there, right? And therefore the grace of Christ is what? Infinite, huh? But against all this is that the grace of Christ is something created in the, what? Soul, right? So the grace of Christ is not the, what? Divine nature, huh? But everything created is finite, according to that of Wisdom chapter 11. For he disposed all things in number, weight, and what? Measure, right? Therefore the grace of Christ is not, what? Infinite, huh? And he says, I answer it should be said, that is clear from the things said before. In Christ, one can consider a two-fold grace. One, which is the grace of union, which, as has been said above, is for him to be united personally to the, what? Son of God, huh? The hypostatic union. Which is conceded gratuitously to human nature, right? Human nature doesn't deserve, right? To be united to the person of the Son of God. And it stands that this grace is infinite, right? According as the very person of the Word is what? Infinite, right? God is infinite. That's one of the five attributes of the substance of God, right? In our study in the Prima Paras, right? And Thomas devotes the last chapter on the substance of God in the Summa Congentilis, to the infinity of God. But the other grace is the habitual grace, right? Which is in the soul now of Christ. Which can be considered in two ways. In one way, according as it is a certain being or thing, right? And thus is necessary that it be a, what? Limited being, right? For it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject. And the soul of Christ is a certain creature, having a finite, what? Capacity. Whence the being of grace, since it cannot exceed its own subject, cannot be, what? Infinite, huh? In another way, it can be considered according to the proper notion of grace. Grace itself can be called infinite, in that it is not limited, because it has whatever is able to belong to the notion of grace, and is not given to him according to some certain measure, that which pertains to the notion of grace. In that, according to the proposal of the grace of God, of whom it is to measure grace, grace is conferred upon the soul of Christ as to a universal, what? Principle or cause of making grace in human nature, according to what is said there in Ephesians 1. He gratified us, huh? Made us graceful. In his beloved son. Just as if we say that the light of the son is infinite, not according to its being, but according to the notion of light, because it has whatever can pertain to the, what? Notion of light, huh? Do you understand the distinction or not? Well, can the grace of Christ, the grace that's in his soul, can that be an infinite being, like God is an infinite being? Yeah. But Aristotle talks about the soul being, in a certain sense, all things. Yeah. It seems like it has a kind of infinite capacity. Yeah. I don't know how that would relate to... Yeah. Well, usually the distinction Thomas will make when he talks about those things is between simply and in some way, right? Yeah. And in some way, the soul is infinite, right? You know, Karl Marx and Engels, you know, the boys, they read Feuerbach, right? Oh, river of fire. Yeah. And Feuerbach says, you know, the human mind is infinite, the infinite is God, right? Oh. Therefore, the human mind is God, right? Okay. So in one sense, Marx and Engels following Feuerbach, do not deny that there's a God. They think that God is the human mind, right? And if you look at Karl Marx's doctoral thesis, you'll see this in the preface there, right? He rejects anything that doesn't regard the human mind and consciousness as the highest divinity, right? And now what's wrong with that argument, right? You see? Well, in a sense, it's the mistake of confusing, what? Simply and in some way, right? And so you see, the human mind is infinite in some way. It's, what? Infinite. In a sense, it can always learn something more, right? Okay. But there's always some kind of, what? Potency there that's not actualized. So, in a sense, to say the human mind is infinite means that it's always imperfect, right? It can always learn something more, right? When you say God is infinite, you're speaking of an infinity that's completely actual, right? Okay. And that's to be, what? Infinite simply, right? Okay. And when Aristotle talks about perfect in the Fifth Book of Wisdom, and he talks about things that are perfect in their kind, they have everything that pertains to the kind of thing they are, but they don't have everything that we found in other kinds of things, right? And then he speaks of something that is universally perfect, right? And I've heard of it, even before Thomas, right? He's talking about God there. So, we speak of God as being universally perfect. His perfection is not limited to any kind of thing, right? But he has perfections of all kinds of things, right? In a simple way, right? So, that's one reason why Thomas will say in that chapter on the goodness of God, where he says that God is the good of every good, where he says the good of a thing is his perfection, right? And the divine perfection comprehends perfections of all other things, and therefore he's the good of every good. And so, while we speak of Homer, right, as a perfect poet, well, a poet has to make a good plot. As Aristotle says in the Poetics, Homer taught all the other Greek poets how to make a good plot. And then, you know, a beautiful passage there in Hegel, you know, where he compares the characters of Homer to the characters in the French tragedies. And the characters in the French tragedies are very narrow, right? They're kind of a sonified passion or something. Why, the characters of Homer, you know, are like a diamond, you know, with all these facets to their characters, you know? So, his characters excel, the characters of, what, other men. And then, both Hegel and Aristotle praise the language of Homer, right? And how alive he is, huh? And, you know, when somebody throws a lance at somebody, you know, the lance is, you know, striving to get your innards, you know? It's such old life, yeah? And then, in these horrible battle scenes, you know, you have a beautiful simile, you know, that would restore things to calm. Like Shakespeare says in Hamilton, they're very whirlwind of your passion. You must, you know, have a smoothness that gives, you know, alms. you must, you know, you must, you know, you must, you know, And so you can say Homer is the, what, perfect poet, right? Plot, character, words, right? He has everything that a poet needs to have, right? But he doesn't have every perfection. He doesn't have the perfection of Euclid. He doesn't have the perfection of Aristotle, right? He doesn't have the perfection of Thomas Aquinas. He doesn't have the perfection of Mozart, right? Mozart is a perfect musician. Like Homer is a perfect poet, right? But Mozart doesn't have the perfection of Homer, and Homer doesn't have the perfection of Mozart. And some painter might be the perfect painter, you know? But he doesn't have the perfection of Mozart. So other things are perfect in their kind. They have a whole perfection of their kind of thing, right? I'm sorry, am I interrupting? No, no. But God is universally perfect, right? So you can kind of see this distinction between simply and in some respect, right? And this is a distinction that is not seen in one of the main kinds of mistakes that you talk about in the Swiss refutations. And, you know, I used to always exemplify this very simply in class, and I'd say, I always put upon some young lady, and I'd say to her, do you know my brother Mark? And she'd always say, what? No. I'd say, okay, now. I'd say, you're all right. What did she say? She didn't contradict herself in a moment. I said, you know what a brother is? Yeah. You know what a man is? Yeah. I'd say, well, that's what my brother Mark is. See, you do know my brother Mark, don't you? Now, she really contradicted herself. But in some way, in knowing what a brother is and what a man is, she knows my brother Mark and every brother in the world, right? In some way. But without that qualification, you know, that's a very perfect way of knowing your brother, right? You know? And simply, you'd say, she doesn't know my brother Mark, right? Do you know my brother? You know my brother, don't you? That's who my brother is. That's it. Okay. So, it's a diminished sense or a qualified sense that you know my brother Richard, right? But simply, without qualification, you'd say you don't know him, right? So, in a sense here, in the first parter, you're talking maybe about infinite, what? But simply, right? When you talk about the mind as being infinite, it's in some way, right? So, you could say that, although considered as a thing, as a student being, the grace of Christ can't be an infinite thing like the substance of God is, right? But his possession of grace is not limited to, what? One kind of grace, right? You know how it says in Scripture, you know, one star differs from another star, you know? And the Pope sometimes say this, you know, applies to the saints, right? So, one saint excels in this virtue, another saint maybe in that other virtue, right? And, but Christ is not limited to any, what, property, you might say, or any kind of grace, right? In that sense, you could speak of his grace as being, in some way, what, infinite, right? Or, sometimes we say that some people have enough grace to save themselves. Let's get into their teeth, so to speak. But some men have enough grace for themselves and somebody else, right? So, you have the example there, you know, you could have one of the tweets of the Sue, you know, praying for the man who was, I mean, put to death, right? He was a criminal and was unrepentant, right? But she made a special prayer, right? And he, you know, embraced the cross and repented it before his death, right? So, some saints have enough grace to save themselves and somebody else, right? But they say that only Christ and Mary, right, have enough grace to save the whole human race, right? So, in a sense, and these are more human beings, right? They have enough grace to save themselves, right? So, in some way, their grace is, what? Infinite, right? I was quoting earlier the prayer of Thomas there, you know, where the Adorotei devotee when the church singled out for spiritual importance, right? Who is una sira, salam fatrae. One drop of your blood, right? Can save the whole, what? The world from all sin, right? And even if there should be more people in the world, right? Even more sinners than there are. There's enough as there is, but... But no matter how many more sinners you added, one drop of Christ's blood would be enough to save, what? All of them, right? So, in some way, his grace is, what? Yeah. But it's not an infinite thing in the way that the divine substance is an infinite thing, right? Okay? See that? Those things are hard to see, you know, but even Mary in some way, right? Her grace will be infinite, right? In the full sense, as Christ is, okay. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that when it is said that the Father does not give the Spirit to the Son, ad mensura, right? In one way, this is sometimes expounded about the gift which God the Father from eternity gives to the Son, namely the divine nature, right? Yeah, okay. Which is an infinite gift, right? Whence a certain gloss says there, and my footnote says this from Augustine, but anyway, that so much is the Son as the Father is, right? Because he has the same, what? Nature, right? But in another way, this text can be referred to the gift which is given to, what? Human nature that united to the, what? Divine person, which is an infinite gift, right? Whence a gloss says there, just as the Father generated a full and perfect word, so the full and perfect is united to, what? Human nature, right? By the apostatic union. In a third way, though, he says, it can refer to the habitual grace, right? Insofar as the grace of Christ extends itself to all those things which pertain to, what? The nature of grace, right? Whence Augustine, expounding this, right? Says that measure is a certain division of gifts, right? To others is given through the Spirit the gift, the speech of wisdom, right? To others, the speech of knowledge. But Christ, who gives, does not, what? Take to some particular one, right? Okay? I was reading, I mentioned I was reading these encyclicals of Pius X, you know, and, how long was it now? One is on Anselm, and one is on Gregory the Great, and so on. But in one of them, he was saying, it's kind of a consolation, so to speak, for us to, to see the difficulties that this man faced and how he overcame them and so on, right? Put an example, more proportion to us in some way than Christ, right? Okay? So, but what is he seeing there? He's seeing Gregory the Great or Anselm in their role as a bishop, right? Or a pope, you know? And having similar difficulties to what he's experienced with the French government there and the Portuguese government and so on, right? And, so they have a grace or a particular function, right? But Christ's grace is not limited to any, what? Particular, what? Function, right, huh? In that sense, it's...