Tertia Pars
Lecture 43: Defects of the Soul in Christ: Sin, Inclination, and Ignorance

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

The third one proceeds, it seems that Christ contracted body defects. For that we are said to contract, that together with nature we draw from our what? Origin. But Christ, together with human nature, drew from his mother, right? Right? Defects and body infirmities to his originate, whose flesh was subject to these what? Defects. Therefore it seems that he contracted these defects. Moreover, that which is caused from the principles of nature, together with nature is drawn, and thus it is what? Contracted, drawn with. But these punishments are caused from the principles of human nature. Therefore Christ contracted them. Moreover, according to these defects, Christ is likened to other men, as is said in Hebrews 2. But other men contract these defects. Therefore it seems also that Christ contracted these defects. But against all this is that these defects are contracted from sin. According to that of Romans chapter 5. Through one man, sin came into this world. And through sin came in, what? Death. But in Christ, sin had no place. Therefore Christ did not contract these defects. It's a very subtle thing he's saying here, right? Now, Tom's got to explain, first of all, this word contract, huh? I answer. It should be said that in the word con-tractity, right? There is understood the order of effect to cause. To wit, that that is said to be contrary, huh? Drawn with, I suppose you'd say, huh? That together, simul, together, with its cause, from necessity is drawn, right? Now, the cause of death and of these defects in human nature is sin. Why? Because through sin, death entered into this world. And therefore, those are properly said to contract these defects, who incurred these defects from the debt of sin. Christ, however, did not have these defects from the debt of, what? Sin. Because, as Augustine said, expounding that of John, chapter 3, verse 31, who is from above, is above all, right? From above came Christ, that is, from the height of human nature, which it had before the sin of the first man. He took on, therefore, human nature without sin, in that purity in which it was in the state of, what? In this sentence, huh? In Mary, too, right? Thomas doesn't know that. Even Brother Thomas doesn't know that. And, like way, he's able to take on, what? Human nature without defects. Thus, therefore, it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects, as it were, from the, what? Debt of sin, you see, in them, but from his own, what? Will. That's fairly clear. Now, what's Thomas here now? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the flesh of the virgin was conceived in, what? Thomas. He's got something explained to do it. It gets up there. I see texts from Thomas in the sentence where he seems to speak of her as being free of virginal sin. So, I'm not sure whether there was some... Yeah, that's what the, I thought that Peter had told us, both St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, they have, in there, dragged and scattered, the reasons that Skoda's put together, but they never seem to put it together. So, they seem to say one thing here, something there, and... Wasn't there some defects in the transmission, now that they had, things were handed down to a tradition that said that Mary wasn't conceived about anything else, and... That's my understanding, is that there was, like, reading the bribery or something that they all read every year, did you not hear these things? No, I never... So, there was, like, authorities on that side of the question, and so, if they were just taken... Yeah, but somehow, at least, somebody else would say that in their writings were the reasons that you could conclude that she wasn't conceived, but they were scattered around, so they seem to never recalling, putting together reasons. But that would be a reason why, if they thought that it hadn't been revealed. In other words, we only know it because it's revealed. And they had a source that was traditional, saying that she wasn't. I think Thomas say, you know, the time of mortal sin, you know, that God redeems all of us from mortal sin, right? Some of us, by forgiving us after we have committed these mortal sins, others by preserving us from committing them in the first place, you know? That's the reason we're saying that type of reason in the original sin. Yeah, yeah. That Christ, you know, is redeeming all of us from original sin, but most of us, with the exception of one, right? By baptism and so on, right? But in the case of Mary, by preserving her, right, from contracting the original sin. It's more perfect. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you know how Teresa of Nesu, Teresa of Nesu, uses that example, you know, if you run along the path and you fall off the stone and he picks you up, you're thankful, right? But if he runs ahead and gets the stone out of the way before you get there, you're more thankful to him, huh? And therefore, contracted these defects, huh? Shame you, Thomas. But the flesh of, you know, I remember reading, and I think it was Benez, I think, he was the spiritual advisor of Jesus of Avalon. He's very strong about your having original sin, right? It's most like, you know, he's really, you know, very severe. I mean, it's kind of a frightening thing to see that, you know, to see that determination of his mind there, huh? Determination of his mind there, you know. What was his view? That she had original sin, right? Oh, really? That she was, like, like John the Baptist there, curing in the womb. Oh, okay. Well, you're on the way there, but I mean... But that was after the Council of Trash, too, in that, wasn't it? Maybe he had his opinion form before the Council of Trash, because the Council of Trash talks about the freedom of the original sin, but we're not talking about the book. It's a single heart that she's not doing. Yeah, yeah. Well, maybe it was... What we see? It was here. Dominican. It was Dominican. Yeah. Oh, okay. Matthew. I think he tried to draw on Augustine as authority, too. I don't know, but... I don't know. Let's see. Now, as I had my grandchildren there, my son-in-law had that whole biographical thing of Benedict XVI, and if you've seen the movie, you have a copy around here. It's between his... What was his birth in 1927? Oh, Milestones. Yeah, Milestones, yeah. Yeah, right. Yeah, it's some interesting things in there, you know, but you realize a lot of the problems of the church, you know, at this time, and so on, and they were using revelation as being identical with scripture, just using revelation as a synonym for scripture, and, of course, scripture has to be interpreted according to modern historical methods, and therefore everything is up for grabs, kind of, you know, but the alternative magisterium, you know, the scriptural scholars... You've got, you know, the primary place now, right? Because they know the historical method, right? And therefore, they, the good ones who can speak with authority in what Scripture is saying, and that's Revelation, right? And he said, well, you know, and there's some, I forget the guy's name now, but kind of known for his unorthodox views, but he was saying, you know, that this is really what the other councils were teaching, you see, and there's some, you know, fooling around the text a little bit there. And then, I've been thinking there's something wrong with this, you know, but you realize how they're close to kind of opposing themselves upon the churches as a supreme authority. But that the Revelation is not entirely in Scripture, right? That's what they're trying to say in a sense that, you know, the Scripture has to be written. According to Method, that's the second thing, ero. We are. The other way they do that is like Brother Bernard Monnery and the other ones, they do it by saying, well, the Church of Magisterium, that's the real authority. But, of course, the Church of Teaching is historically conditioned. Yeah. So only those who really understand the conditions that it was formulated could really interpret it correctly. Yeah. So that's the other way they do. You get the impression, too, some of the circumstances moving in, you know, where, you know, the Saturday 2 Acts of Vatican, too, was that everything is, you know, fluid. You know, things really opened up, you know. You know, that's a thing, you know. Yeah. It's clear back to the point. There's nothing that can define there. Mm-hmm. But the flesh of Christ was taken from the Virgin without, what? Sin. Yeah. Without guilt, yeah. Without guilt. And likewise, he was able to, what? Take on a nature without, what? Pointing at one. But he wished to take on pain, right? Or punishment, right? How does it translate point in there? Not punishment or pain or penalties? Penalties, yeah. On account of the work of, what? Our redemption. Fulfilling the work of our redemption. As has been said. And therefore he had, what? These defects. Not contracting them, but voluntarily, what? Taking them on, yeah. To second, it should be said, that the cause of death and of the other defects of the body in human nature is twofold. One remote, which is taken on the side of the, what? Material principles of the human body, insofar as it is composed from, what? Contrary. But this cause was imputed by original justice that was given to our father there, Adam. And therefore the proximate cause of death and of the other defects is sin, to which is taken away original justice. An account of this, because Christ was without sin, is not said to have contracted these defects, but to have taken them on voluntarily, right? Would you say, then, that because of the principles of the human body, they had a remote cause, because eventually he would have grown old? According to the justice, well, the justice wouldn't have had those things, right? Well, so you're looking at the remote cause, but the immediate cause was sin, right? Yeah. I agree with him that he didn't contract it, but even if he didn't contract it, but just the nature of the human body, as it is, it would have grown old. At least, I know, I've read that somewhere in one of the things that... I don't know, I always wonder now... Well, Adam's body would not have grown old if he kept on behaving as he should have. Was that, was that, that was because of the death? That was because of the original, yeah. Was it because of the death? Pre-reported from it? Yeah. But apart from that, it would have decayed anyway, without being preserved by a special gift. Thomas and Stanley talks about original sin, you know, we can probably estimate, right, given the nature of our soul as immortal, right, that the defect of the body, of not being immortal, right, would be, what, taken care of by this pre-natural gift, you want to call it that? So Christ, you know, not having sin, would have been, what, his body would have been given this gift, right, to make it suitable for the immortal soul. And so, it's really the sin that is the proximate cause. Now, what about Christ being assimilated to other men, huh, his third objection, huh? And other men attracted, right? Well, it's easily solved now with all these distinctions, huh? Christ in these defects is likened to other men as he guards the quality of the defect, huh? Not as he guards the, what, cause. And therefore, he did not contract these defects and sins, huh? Interesting, ridiculous Christ, huh? Mm-hmm. I'd like to have talked to him, huh? There's some text of Augustine, you know, where he's talking, you know, like we do sometimes, you know, things in the past you would like to have seen, you know. I think one of the things that Augustine said was Rome in all his glory. But one thing I think he said was seeing Christ in the flesh, right, you know? He didn't like to have seen that. You could see that, you know? I think I'd probably take Thomas in all his glory than Rome in all his glory. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's it. Thomas lecturing in the people. Oh, look, Thomas, this is marvelous. I'd give it all for Chris's to Mount John. Yeah. Oh, man. Yeah. John. You can take one more. Sure. Yeah. To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ ought to take on all these bodily defects of men, right? For Daneson says that what is not able to be assumed is not able to be cured, right? But Christ came to cure all our defects. Therefore, he ought to take on all our defects. More of it has been said that in order that Christ might satisfy for us, he ought to have habits that are perfecting us in the soul and defects in the body. That's a nice distinction he saw earlier. But he, on the side of the soul, took on the fullness of all grace. Therefore, on the side of the body, ought to school all the defects. That's imagination there, kind of seeing a little unfortunate. Further, among all bodily defects, a special place is taken by death. But Christ took on death. Therefore, much more, all other defects you have to assume. That's kind of the ultimate. The most important ones, yeah. Yeah, yeah. But against this is that contraries are not able to come about together in the same one. But some infirmities are contrary to what? Each other. As we're caused from contrary what? Principles. Therefore, it's not possible that Christ took on all these, what? So, human beings, we have to divide up these defects to some extent among ourselves because one goes, you know, without another, right? On the contrary. Yeah. Against this is that contraries are not able to come about. Oh, we just said, all right, okay. I answered, it ought to be said, it has been said, that Christ took on human defects to satisfy for the sin of what? Human nature. Now, for this is required that he have the perfection of knowledge and grace in his soul. So, it's what these modern heretics don't see, right? They think he's got to be, what? Ignorant either who he is. Who am I? And, yeah. Therefore, Christ ought to assume those defects which follow from, what? The common sin of the whole human nature. Not, however, those which are, what? Repugnant to the perfection of knowledge and grace. Therefore, it is not suitable that he take on all the defects and human infirmities. For there are some defects which are repugnant to the perfection of, what? Knowledge and grace. Such as ignorance, right? The proneness to evil. And the difficulty towards the good. Some defects there are, which are not consequent, commonly to the whole of human nature, on account of the sin of the first man, but are caused in some men from some particular causes. Shakespeare talks about this, huh? Yeah. Just as, what, leprosy and, what, the falling sickness, huh? Even Caesar's supposed to have had, huh? Morbus caducus. I think so, yeah. Knows of this sort, huh? Which defects sometimes are caused in the guilt of men as from, what? The disorder of, what? What? Inordinate eating. Yeah. Sometimes from the defect of the power that formed them, right? Neither of which belongs to Christ, because his flesh was conceived by the Holy Spirit, right? Who is of infinite wisdom and power, not being able to, what? Ur and fail. And thus, nothing disordered in the rule of his life did he exercise on. But there are, uh, third defects, which in all men are commonly found from the sin of the first man. As death, hunger, thirst, being tired, right? Others of this sort. And these, and all of these defects, Christ, what? They're gone. Which, in Gus, which Damascene calls natural and what? Yeah. Indetractable. Natural because they follow commonly the whole human nature, right? Indetractable because they, by a defect of knowledge and grace. Now, what about not curing all these little defects, right? The first, therefore, it should be said that all of the particular defects of men are caused from the corruptibility, right? And the sufferability, the able to suffer the body, with certain particular causes added above these, right? And, therefore, when Christ cured the, what, passability, the ability to suffer and the corruptibility of our body to this that he assumed it, consequently, all other, what, defects, huh? You didn't have to be irascible and a coward and all these things, right? Some people, from their nature, are irascible, right? And others are cowardly and others are, you know? But these particular defects, they're not common to all men, right? They proceed from particular causes acting upon, what, a common defect we all have, right? So, when he's curing those common defects, we assume, right? He's curing the other ones, yeah. And a second objection taken from the fullness of the virtues of the soul, why not the fullness of the soul? Okay. To the second should be said that the fullness of all grace and knowledge was owed to the, what, soul of Christ as such, from the very fact that it was taken on by the, what, word of God. And, therefore, absolutely, Christ took on every fullness of wisdom and grace. But he took on the defects of our nature, dispensative, huh? So that he might satisfy for our, what, sins. Not because they belong to him as such, huh? And, therefore, it's not necessary that he take on all, right? But only those that are sufficient to satisfy for the sin of the whole, what, human nature. So that I die and that I get hungry and thirsty and tired, this follows from the fact that it's original sin, right? That I'm a coward or I'm irascible or, you know, I'm a leper or something, right? Or something else, this doesn't follow commonly, right? But from what particular causes acting upon these common conditions, huh? To the third should be said that death comes in all men from the sin of the first parent. Not, however, the other defects, even though they are less than, what, death. That's the reason is not similar. And stop them. How can there be defects in the soul, right? Going on dangerous ground, isn't it? In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our mind, where we live in our ears and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. Whose birthday is it today? St. George. He's a St. George. Who's birthday is it? It's March 15th. April 20th. It's March 15th, April 23rd. April 23rd. We said our first pass. We said our first pass on the reward date. That's right. Oh, he doesn't say it's not the birth of the Pope's on the side. No. We made plans. Not Wayne Berkley's birthday. No? Happy birthday, George. It's Shakespeare's birthday. Oh, man. Actually, the only date they have is, they know he was baptized on the 26th. It was customary to baptize on the third day after your birth. So the traditional one is the 23rd, which is also, as someone was pointing out here, the Feast of St. George, right? He's kind of the patron there of England, huh? That was in what? 15... 1564. Oh. But anyway, as you're reading The Merchant of Venice, right? Uh-huh. Of course, I know what's going to happen, though. So we're reading fast through these things to see what happens is going to happen. But maybe a scene here, a scene there. And so I think this description here by Bassanio's words here is my experience of reading The Modern Thinkers, right? Uh-huh. I think I've heard this before, but it struck me again. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff. You shall seek all day ere you find them. And when you have them, they are not worth the search. What does he mean, you know? And you spend all this time trying to get a little bit out of what he means, and it's not worth the search, eh? Now, I have to ask your own advice here about this other little reference here. You know, Jessica, who's the daughter of Shylock, she's going to run off with Lorenzo, right? And Graziano says about her, now by my hood, a Gentile and no Jew, right? He's kind of, she's going to become a Christian, right? And there's a footnote here, that expression, now by my hood. And the footnote says, Graziano is disguised with a mask, and in swearing by his hood, he implies a likening of himself to a hooded monk, swearing by his monastic character. So do you generally use that expression? You know, by my hood! We'll start, we'll start. Am I by my hood, brother? The answer is no. Yeah. See, I don't want to adopt that, I don't know, I just got to see if you guys, I want to know what you're already using it, huh? Yeah, nice little notes they have in the new Hudson Shakespeare, which is now old, huh? Okay, we're up to question 15, right? And you're surprised, or I'm surprised, that Thomas should have a question on the defects pertaining to his soul. I didn't know there was any defects in the soul, right? And about this ten things are asked. First, within Christ there was sin. I'm surprised that Thomas should even ask this, right? Whether in him there was the, what? The fountain of sin, right? The tender. Yeah. Yeah. Third, whether there was in him ignorance, huh? Fourth, whether his soul was able to undergo, right? To suffer. Whether in it there was sensible pain, huh? Whether there was in it sadness, right? So, these are not necessarily moral defects he's talking about, except for the first one there, first couple ones. But, and whether there was in it fear, whether there was in it wonder, admiratio, whether there was in it anger, and whether at the same time he was on the way and when he got a hold of the end of our life. So, again, let's prove Thomas' first thoroughness, right? Okay. So, let's look at the first article. To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that in Christ there was, what? Sin, huh? For it is said in the psalm, God, my God, why have you, what? Abandoned me, huh? For far from my salvation are the words of my, what? Sins. But these words, they said, from the person of Christ himself. It is clear from this that he put them forth on the cross, huh? This is the one that's in, what? Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and John, huh? And the ones that most reveal the intensity or depth of his suffering, right? Therefore, it seems that in Christ there were sins or delicta. Moreover, Romans chapter 5, the apostle says that in Adam all, what? Sinned. Because in him they were in their origin. But Christ originally was in, what? Adam, right? Sinned for him. Therefore, in him they, what? Sinned, like the rest of us. Moreover, the apostle says, Hebrews 2, verse 18, that in that in which Christ, what? Suffered and was tempted, he's able to aid those also who are, what? Tempted. But we most of all need his aid against sin. Therefore, it seems that in him there was, what? Sin, huh? Wouldn't the modern scholars like this stuff, huh? They'll stop. They'll do it like Voltaire. They'll stop and I'll say, okay. Yeah. I put in the, you know, these little bookmarks you have for the web? One for the Holy Father, the other one for the Roman Courier, right? So I was looking in the Congregation for the Faith there and their various warnings and so on. And I was looking for this one I mentioned before, Roger Height, huh? And they say, what's wrong with his method and then his errors, you know? So he's denying the Trinity, right? He's denying the divinity of Christ. He's denying the versatility of the Church and so on. All kinds of things, you know? And they say, like Thomas says there when he's talking, following St. Paul during the epistles there. You know, if you're at this age and you don't know the Articles of the Faith, time is going against you. You know, and this guy was president of the American Catholic Theological Society, huh? So, as you say, brother or father, he must have gotten through the injections, but not the... It stimulated his imagination. Too much television. Warmer, in the 2 Corinthians chapter 5, he said that God, he who did not know sin, right? To it, Christ was made for us. So that's pretty severe, right? He was made sin for us, huh? But that which is, what? That is truly what God has made it to be, right? Therefore, in Christ, there is truly sin, right? Moreover, as Augustine says in the book on Christian... What is it? Struggle. Struggle, yeah, yeah. Commit. In the man, Christ, the Son of God, gave himself as an example for us. But man needs an example not only to live right, but also that of taking penance over his sins. Therefore, it seems in Christ there ought to be sin, so that doing penance for his sins would give us an example of penance. So, yeah, five, you know, most times you guys have five, huh? But against this is what he himself says in John chapter 8. Who of you will convince me, or convict me, rather, of what? Sin, right? So, let's see what time is going to say to this now. The answer, it should be said, that as has been said above, Christ took on our defects that he might satisfy for us, and that he might approve the truth of what? Human nature in himself, right? And that he might become an example for us of virtue. Now, according to these three things, it is manifest or clear that he ought not to take on the defect of what? Sin. First, for sin does nothing to what? Satisfy, right? Moreover, it impedes the power of what? Satisfaction. Because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 34, the Most High does not approve of the gifts of what? Wicked, yeah. Likewise, from sin is not shown the truth of human nature, because sin does not pertain to human nature, of which God is the cause. But more, it is brought in against nature through the seeding of the devil, as Damascene says. Third, by sinning, he would not be able to give examples of virtue, since sin is contrary to virtue. And therefore, Christ in no way took on the defect of sin, neither that of original sin nor that of actual sin. It's actually sin that's divided into what more, to one, to one, to one, to one, to one, right? According as it is said, now actually the word sin is said of these three is, you might say, analogous, right? It's not univocal in meaning, right? In other words, mortal sin is not just more sin than venial sin it is, but it's different in kind, huh, from venial sin. According to that which Peter is said in the first epistle of Peter, who did not do sin, nor has there found deceit in his, what, mouth, huh? So now he's got to go back and answer these objections, huh? Just look at the objection again, huh? First one's taken from the psalm there, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Damascene says in the third book, something is said of Christ in one way according to, what, his natural property, right, and the hypostatic one, just as it is said that he was made man, right, and that he suffered for us, right? In another way, according to, what, personal propriety, and what? Yeah. Insofar as some things are said of him, in our person, which in no way belong to him, as section, whence among the seven rules of Tychonius, which Augustine lays down in the third book of Christian doctrine, first is laid down about the Lord and his body, when Christ and the, what, church are, what? Charged to be one person, right? Or considered to be one person. And according to this, Christ, in the person, or from the person of his members, right, meaning us, says the words of my, what? Yeah. Not that they were, what? Sins in the head himself, right? So when Christ said to St. Paul, why are you, what? Yeah. Was it Christ the head himself, or his members are being persecuted? Yeah. But Christ says, you're persecuting me. Yeah. That's kind of a subtle thing, but it seems to be what Scripture does speak in those ways, right? Yeah. So you have to take that into account, huh? I looked up that thing of this Tychonius and St. Augustine, and it's interesting thing. He said Tychonius was a, he liked his rules, so he lays a nod or something worthwhile. And he said, personally, Tychonius is, he was a Donatist, who actually wrote arguments against the Donatist, that he said, he was the most illogical, he had the most illogical mind because he still remained a Donatist. Oh, yeah. Interesting. But he says I approve these rules. Well, if you read this thing that I was mentioning earlier there about Father Roger Height there, the judgment. Oh, yeah. You know, they'll say in the document for the congregation, right, although he says in page so-and-so, although Christ is divine, right, later on, you know? Yeah. And this is, I've seen this thing before, these people, you know, they will put in some orthodox-sounding statements that they can, you know, point to or something, and say, well, he doesn't mean that. And then these other ones. But the congregation is not fooled by that lip service there, huh? Okay. The second one is saying, wasn't Christ descended from Adam, right? And didn't we all sin in Adam, huh? Ergo, huh? And Thomas here begins from a distinction that Augustine sees, right? To the second it should be said that Augustine says in the 10th book on Genesis to the letter, not in every way was Christ in Adam and in the other, what, fathers, in which we were there, right? For we were in Adam according to the, it calls the rationum seminala, right? The seedy reason, right? Seedy idea. And according to what? Corpulentum, huh? The bodily substance. Because, as he himself says there, since in that, what, seed and visible bodiness, huh? Bodiness and invisible, what? Seed, you might say, right? both, what, together run from Adam, right, huh? But Christ took on the visible substance of flesh from the flesh of the virgin, but the reason of his conception was not from the male seed, right? But much otherwise, and it came down from above, from the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, right? Whence he was not in Adam according to a seedy reason, huh? But only according to what? bodily substance. And therefore, Christ did not take an act away from Adam, human nature, but only in a material way, but an act away from the Holy Spirit. Just as Adam himself, in a material way, took his body from the earth, dust, but actively from what? God, huh? And on account of this, Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom he was only according to what mattered. So, he's a big good guy than Guston, you know? I wonder what Thomas' best teaches, right? Guston and Aristotle, right? So, third objection, huh? That Christ was tempted, right? He's able therefore to help those who are tempted, huh? It's a little weaker argument, huh? To the third it should be said that Christ by his being tempted and by his suffering brought aid to us, right? By satisfying for us, huh? But sin would not work together to satisfaction, but it would more impede him, says and said. And therefore it's not necessary that he have in himself sin, but that he be altogether pure from sin. Otherwise the sin which he what?