Tertia Pars
Lecture 60: Prayer and Priesthood in Christ: Nature and Purpose

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

to question 21 here in the premium here. Then we're not to consider about the prayer of Christ. And about this are asked four things. First, whether it belongs to Christ to what? Second article is rather strange. Whether it belongs to him according to his what? His animal nature, right? His century. That's strange. Whether it belongs to him to pray for himself or only for what? Others, huh? In a chapter in John, he has a prayer for himself and then he has a prayer for the apostles and then a prayer for those who are going to believe the apostles. And then every prayer of his is heard, right? To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that it does not belong to Christ to pray. For, as Damascene says, prayer is the asking of suitable things from God. That's the definition that's used a lot by Thomas on that prayer. That definition. But since Christ was able to do what? All things. It does not seem to belong to him that he asks for anything from anyone. Therefore, it seems that Christ does not belong to Christ to pray. And we're not going to assume in nature, though. Anyway, that's what he says. More is not necessary in praying to ask for that which someone knows will be in the future, certainly, huh? Just as we do not pray that the sun will rise tomorrow. Maybe we should, I don't know. Nor is it suitable that someone in praying asks for that which he knows will in no way be in the future. But Christ knew about all things what would be in the future. Therefore, it does not belong to him in praying to ask for anything, huh? It's an interesting argument. More of what Damascene says in the third book, that prayer is the ascent of the understanding to God. And of course, those two definitions are both necessary to make a perfect definition of prayer. But the understanding of Christ does not need to go up to God, because always his understanding was joined to God, huh? Not only according to the apostatic union, but also according to his enjoyment of what the attitude he saw of God as he was, face to face. And therefore, Christ does not belong to Christ to pray, huh? It's a very interesting, huh? It's a very interesting, huh? Much more interesting than the previous question. But against this is what is said in Luke chapter 6. He was in those days, it happened in those days, that he went forth to the mountain to pray, right? And he was, what? Involved the whole night in the prayer of God, yes. The one I had this morning. I answered, it should be said, this has been said in the second part, that prayer is a certain unfolding, you might say, of one's own will before God, right? That it might be, what? Fulfilled, huh? If therefore in Christ there was only one will to wit the divine, right? In no way would it belong to him to, what? Pray. Because the divine will, through itself, is effective of all those things which it wills. According to that of Psalm 134. All things, whatever that he wills, God makes, huh? But because in Christ, other is the divine will and the human will, right? And the human will is not, through itself, right? Efficacious to fulfilling those things which it wills, except through the divine power. Hence it is that Christ, according as he is man, and having a, what? Human will. It belongs to him to pray, huh? That seems reasonable to me, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ is able to perfect all things which he willed, according as he is God, not according as he is, what? Man. Because according as he was man, he did not have omnipotence, huh? As has been had above. Nevertheless, he himself, being God and man, right, wished to what? To the Father, right? Not as if he himself were impotent, right? But on account of our, what? Instruction. And there he seems to be saying that he's praying to the Father, right? Okay. First, that he might show himself to be from the Father, right? Whence he himself says in John chapter 11, on account of this people that stand around, right, I have said, to wit, the words of prayer, that they might believe that you have, what? Sent me. Whence Hillary, in the 10th book about the Trinity, said, huh? He did not need prayer, right? But he prayed for us, lest we be ignorant of his being, the son. Secondly, that he might give to us an example. Whence Ambrose says about Luke, and Luke, do not be so insidious, right? To open ears, right? That you think the son of God, as one infirm to act, right? That that might be, what? Fulfilled, that he himself was not able to fulfill. For he is the author, the origin of power, right? The teacher of, what? Obedience. And to the precepts of virtue, he informs us by his own example. Whence Augustine says upon John, the Lord was able in the form of a servant, if it was necessary to pray in silence. But thus he wished to, what? Show a prayer to the father, right? That he would keep in mind that he was our, what? Teacher. Teacher by example. Now the second objection is saying he knew the future, huh? To the second it should be said that among the things that Christ knew were in the future, he knew some of them to come about in account of his prayer. Kind of a subtle thing that he'd tell us to say. And these things, not unsuitably, he asked from God. Now the third objection from the other definition of prayer, right? To the third it should be said that ascension is nothing other than emotion in that which is above. But motion, as is said in the third book about the soul, is said in two ways. In one way properly, according as it implies the going forth from ability to act, insofar as it's an act of the imperfect, that's what motion means in the eight books of natural hearing, right? And thus to ascend belongs to that which is, what? In potency above and not in, what? Act. And in this way, Damascene says in the third book, the understanding, the human understanding of Christ did not need to go up to God. Because it was always united to God, right? both according to its personal being, right, and according to the blessed contemplation. He was seeing God always face to face. In another way, motion is said to be the act of the perfect. That is what exists in act. Just as to understand and to sense there is said to be a certain motion. And in this way, the understanding of Christ always ascended to God because he always contemplated him as existing above himself. That's beautifully said, huh? Can I let this again in that distinction? Aristotle, in the Third Book of the Soul, he'll kind of deny the strictly speaking, in a strict sense, sensing or understanding is emotion, right? But sometimes, because motion is the activity that's most known to us, sometimes we kind of carry the word over and say, you're moved, right? And so sometimes even the topic of God, they say, you know, he's moved by his own goodness, right, to do this or that, right? But you don't really mean motion in the original sense of the word. The way that Aristotle brings out the difference between these two things in the Ninth Book of Wisdom is he'll say, when you're walking home, you haven't walked home yet. And when you have walked home, you're not walking home. But when you're understanding what a triangle is, you have understood what a triangle is. So, the activity of walking home is always incomplete, right? And in a sense, it never becomes complete because when you have walked home, you're not walking home, yeah. But the activity of understanding and even the activity of hearing the music of Mozart, when you're hearing the music of Mozart, you have heard the music of Mozart, huh? When you're understanding what a triangle is, you have understood what a triangle is. That's a perfect act, right? Thomas will use the word in the commentary, operatio as opposed to motion, right? But it comes up again when Plato will sometimes say, you know that the first mover moves itself, right? Of course, Thomas understands that as a paper meaning that God knows and loves himself, right? And of course, you find that in our language, right? Because we'll use the verb, obviously, for knowing and loving. And the verb always signifies with time, and time is the measure of motion. So there's a tendency to carry over the word motion. but it's really a different type of act, huh? From, uh, it's actually perfect, huh? to carry over the word motion. to carry over the word motion. So there's a tendency So there's a tendency Now whether it belongs to Christ to pray according to his, what, sensuality, meaning his, what, animal nature, right, his sensual nature. The second one proceeds thus, it seems that it belongs to Christ to pray according to his sensual nature, his animal nature. For it is said in Psalm 83, from the person of Christ, Cor meum et caro meum, exult in the living God, right? Reminds me of that psalm there, O God, you are my God, why seek? Few my flesh pines, and my soul thirsts. But sensualitas is said to be the, what, desire of the flesh, right? Therefore Christ's sensuality can ascend to God, to the living God, exalting him, right? And for a like reason, praying, yeah? Moreover, of that, it belongs, it seems to belong, or it seems to be, to pray, of whom it is to desire what is asked for, right? But Christ asked something that he desired, that sensuality desired, when he said, let this chalice pass for me, huh? Therefore the sensuality of Christ. Great, huh? It's interesting to come here in the psalm sometimes, Thomas expound in the psalm, and he said, well, here God is answering not the prayer, but the desire of the man, right? Because the desire kind of is in principle, or in potency, kind of a prayer, right? And so sometimes God answers the prayer, sometimes he answers the desire without the prayer, right? I say, here, I got this desire for food, or whatever, you know? So maybe he'll answer those desires, too, right? Okay. Moreover, it is more to be united to God in person than to ascend to God by prayer. But sensuality, like the body itself, was assumed by God in unity of the person. And that's kind of emphasized by John, he says, and the word was made, what? Flesh. Just as any part of human nature. Therefore, even more so, could he descend to God praying, huh? Against this is what is said in Philippians 2. It's said that the Son of God, according to the nature which he assumed, was made in the likeness of what men. But other men don't pray according to their sensuality. Therefore, neither Christ prays according to his sensuality. So do I pray by my emotions? Thomas is going to reply to this now. And he's going to use his reason to look for distinctions, right? The answer, it should be said that to pray according to sensuality can be understood in two ways. In one way, that prayer is an act of sensuality. And in this way, Christ did not pray according to sensuality. Now the kid is asking for something. Is it a sensuality? Is it asking for the candy or what? Do you people have Halloween here or not? Do they come here demanding candy? They don't come here. They just don't come here. I'm always waiting to stock up so that we can eat affluence. We should be prepared. Because his sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us, right? For in us, he is not able to pray for a twofold, what, reason. First, because the emotion of sensuality is not able to, what, transcend, sense things, right? Sensitive things. And therefore, is not able to go up to God, which is required for prayer, right? Secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering, insofar as someone desires something as to be, what, fulfilled by God. And this is only a reason, huh? To order things, huh? Looking before and after. Whence prayer is an act of reason, right? Now, in the second part, when Thomas takes up, I think it's the virtue of religion, right? The fundamental act of the virtue of religion is devotion, right? But then the second act is that of prayer. Prayer is really an act of, what, reason, huh? Unfolding and ordering, you know, what you want done to satisfy your desire, right? But the act of devotion there is more fundamental, right? Prayer must be done. So, for ratio is an act of reason, it can't be an act of, what, sensuality. Is devotion, you call it the will or something? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And why is that first? Well, because the will is moving the reason here. So, they say prayer is the interpreter of desire, right? Is that because of the connection of faith? Well, I mean, when Augustine and Thomas give their catechetical lessons, so to speak, they attribute the creed to faith and prayer to hope. And then the, you know, commandments is going to charity, right? But, you know, when they talk about it's necessary for prayer to be heard as far as decisions of your will, they usually say there are three, right? Devotion and humility, right? Yeah, yeah. And, what's the other one? No, I mean, the act of the will there. The hope, yeah, yeah. Okay. So, you have the hope and the devotion and the humility, right? And we kind of go through the ingredient of indulgences where they have the prayers. In order for these prayers to be, to gain indulgence, they've got to be said devoutly and with humility and stuff. So, and it doesn't always spell out all three of those, but all three of them show up somewhere in the text, you know. And Thomas will say, you know, a devotion comes from charity, right? So, in the Our Father, we say, Our Father. Our Father is a name of endearment. And, you know, how Mother, I mean, St. Teresa would sit there with, you know, what are you doing? She's saying how nice it is to call him Father, right? That's what she's meditating on, right? Did everyone want to think there. And when you say Our, you should love your neighbor, right? So, Thomas says, why do you say Our Father, you know? Well, prior it is to, what, arouse your devotion, right? Okay. So, but prayer itself is kind of what? The expression of what your desire is by reason, right? The unfolding of it as well, right? We saw it here, in the first article there. Oratio es quidum explicatio, right? Procre von tatus, before God, that he might, what? Fulfill it, right? So, it's kind of a unfolding of your desire in the order in which you want God to act to realize your desires, right? In a way, these two reasons he gives here, they kind of correspond to those two definitions of Damascene, right? The one of being the center of the mind to God, and the other being kind of the laying out, right? Which you want him to do, right? In another way, one can be said to what? Pray according to sensuality, because his reason right in praying to God proposes that there, what? What is in the desire of his, what? Sensuality, right? Insofar as his prayer expresses his prayer. Again, there were expresses, right? The affection of sensuality as being, as it were, the advocate, the lawyer, representing the sensuality, right? And that's probably what I can tell the psalm I was saying, you know, O God, you're my God, you're my flesh pines, right? So even the body desires, right, to be glorified, right? Okay. So in that sense, Christ could pray according to sensuality, right? Not that his prayer would be an act of sensuality, but as if his prayer is, what, in some way expressing what his sensuality desires, yeah. And this, that he might instruct us about three things. First, that he might show us that he had taken on a true human nature with all of its natural affections, right? Secondly, that he might show that it is licit for man, right? According to his natural affection, to will something that God does not, what? Will. And third, that he might show, what? That man ought to subject his own affection, right? To the, what? Divine will. When Cigustin says in Ingridia, Thus, Christ, right? Geron's, what is that? Bearing. Bearing humanity. Bearing humanity. Yeah. He's king. Shows the, what? Private will of a man when he says, Let this chalice pass from me, right? For this was the human will, its own thing, right? And something private, wishing, right? But because he, what? Wishes to be a rectified man, right? And be directed to God, he joins. But not as I will, but as you, right? As if to say, see you and me, because he is able to, what? See yourself in me, right? Because he is able to will something of his own, even though God wills something else, right? That's very, very interesting. It's like when St. Paul wanted his stimulus where there was the flesh, right? To be moved, right? He was willing something, right? According to the, yeah. But he said, no, no. Yeah, yeah. Now, what about this objection that says, well, the heart is resulting in the true God, right? The living God. To the first effort should be said that the flesh exalts in the living God not through an act of the flesh ascending to God, right? But through the overflowing, right? From the heart to the flesh, right? In so far as the sense, desire, follows the motion of the rational. That's right, right? I think Moses is coming down from the mouth. It's basic. Yeah, yeah. What's the thing in there in the life of, of St. Teresa of Avila out there, you know, where she comes out of the thing and she wants to dance with the other nuns? So it's, you know, overflowing, right? Down into the body, right? Yeah. Kind of a marvelous little scene in there. I don't remember that part. Oh, yeah, that's, that's, what is it? I know she had a dance in that scene. Yeah, yeah. You heard about that, I told you about the one about partridge, you know that one, gotcha? Yeah. Someone brought some partridge up there and some other nun thought that she was enjoying the partridge a little too much and she says, well, penance is penance and partridge is partridge. The second should be said, although sensuality, right, wished what reason asked, right? Nevertheless, by praying to ask for this was not a sensuality, but a reason has been said. Now, the third objection, the union in person is according to, what? Personal being, which pertains to each part of human nature. But the ascension of prayer is through an act which does not belong except to, what? Reason. Whence there is not a, what? Like reason, huh? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Another article, right? What? He could probably really do both of them. Okay. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that it does not, it was not suitable for Christ to pray for himself, right? For Hillary says in the 10th book about the Trinity, since to him would not, what? Benefit the speech of prayer, right? To the progress of our faith, he spoke, right? Thus, therefore, it seems that Christ, not for himself, but for us, would pray, right? Moreover, no one prays except for that which he, what? Willes. Because as has been said, prayer is a certain unfolding, I guess you'd say, of the will through God to be fulfilled, right? Unfolding in the desires you have that you wish you would help to accomplish, right? But Christ wished to suffer those things which he, what? Suffered, huh? For Augustine says in the 26th book against Faust that man, many times, although he doesn't want to, is saddened, right? Although he, what? Doesn't want to, he sleeps. That's me now, my old life. Further, not willing, he eats and, what? He's hungry. Hungry. And thirsts. But Christ had all these things because he wanted to, right? And therefore did not belong to him to pray for himself. Moreover, Cyprian says in the book about prayer, the Lord's Prayer, the Father, Father, that the Master of Peace and Unity did not wish that they come about a private prayer, right? That when someone prays, that he would pray only for himself. So we say, our Father, right? But Christ fulfilled what he taught. According to that of Act 1, Jesus began to do and to teach, right? Therefore, Christ never prayed for himself alone. Okay, but then, like the rejection I was giving there from chapter 17, right? The way Thomas divides it, he prays for himself and he prays for the apostles and he prays for those who will believe through the apostles. So there's three prayers there, right? And we, of course, pay most attention to the Our Father, but Christ teaches us some other prayers in that chapter, so they shouldn't be neglected. Well, I answer, Thomas says. It should be said that Christ prays for himself in two ways. In one way, by expressing the affection of his, what? Sensuality, as has been said. Or also of his simple will, which is considered as a, what, nature, huh? As when he prayed that the, what? Chalice of the passion might be taken away. Now that's two examples. The first. Yeah. In another way, by expressing the affection of his will that is deliberated, right? Deliberate will. Which is considered as, what, reason, right? Now he doesn't mean the will is reason, but he means reason as opposed to nature, right? As when he asks for the glory of the, what, resurrection. And this, reasonably. For, as has been said, Christ, for this reason, wanted to use prayer to the Father, that he might give to us an example of praying, right? And that he might show the Father to be the author from whom both eternally he went forward according to his divine nature, huh? And according to his human nature from whom he has whatever good he has. He wanted to show that the Father was the origin both of his divine nature, right? And of all the good his human nature had. But just as in his human nature, he had some goods from the Father already perceived, right? So also expected from him some goods not yet had, but to be perceived, right? And therefore, for the goods already received in human nature, he gave thanks to the Father, huh? Recognizing him as the source of the author. As is clear in Matthew 26, 27, and John 11, 41. So also, as he recognized the Father to be the author or origin, he asked, praying from him, the things that were, what? Lacking in his human nature, according to his human nature, to wit, the glory of the body and things of this sort. And in this also, he gave to us an example that of the gifts we have received, I guess, we give thanks, right? So you can't ask God for the creation of your immortal soul, but you should thank him, Dan. Well, thank him for the creation of your soul. And the things not yet had, that we should ask for praying, right? So you ask for the vision. Now, how about this text from the great Hillary, huh? To the first, it should be said that Hillary speaks as regards, what? Vocal prayer, right? Which was not necessary to him on account of himself, but only on account of, what? Us. Whence he says significantly that it did not, what? Benefit him, the sermon, speech or prayer. For if God, if the Lord, hears the desire of the poor, right? As is said in Psalm 9, much more the will of Christ as the, what? Vim ratsiv. I was saying that's from the commentary on the Psalms, right? Where Thomas says sometimes desire has the vim ratsionis, prayers in full sense. Whence he himself says in John 11, I know that you always hear me, but on account of this, people who are standing around and have said this, that they might believe that you have sent me, right? That's one of the reasons he gives, right? Not as an example to us, but, but, yeah, his origin is from the Father, right? Now what about this thing about the army from the Passion here? To the second it should be said that Christ willed to undergo those things that he suffered for that time, but nevertheless he willed that after the Passion he would acquire the glory of the body, right? which he did not yet have. Which glory he expected from the Father as from the origin of it, huh? And therefore, solubly from him, he asked for it, huh? That's the first prayer there in that chapter 17, huh? From John, huh? To the third it should be said that that glory which Christ, by praying, asked for himself pertains also to the salvation of others, huh? According to that of Romans 4, he rose from the dead on account of our, what, justification. And therefore that prayer which he made for himself was in some way also for others, huh? Just as whatever man asks some good from God that he might use it to the usefulness of others and not for himself only, he prays also for others, right? Okay, we'll look at the last one here now. Whither the prayer of Christ was always what? Heard. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the prayer of Christ was not always heard. For he asked for himself to remove the chalice of the passion, right? Which nevertheless was not carried off, not translated. Therefore it seems that not every prayer of his was what? Heard. Whither he prayed that his sin would not be what? Yeah, Father forgive them, right? But not to all was that sin dismissed, right? For some it was, but not all. For the Jews were punished for that sin. Therefore it seems that not every prayer of his was heard. Moreover, Christ prayed for those who would believe through the word of the apostles in him. That all in him would be what? One. That is also, that's the third prayer I said in the 17th chapter. That they might arrive at this, that they would be with him. But not all arrive at this, right? Therefore, not every prayer of his was heard. Moreover, in Psalm 21 it is said, in the person of Christ, I cried through the day and you didn't hear me. Therefore, not every prayer of his was heard. It's a rough one. But against this is what the apostle says in Hebrew 5 verse 7. With great clamor and tears, right? Offering. He was heard for his what? Reverence, huh? Just have the idea of humility there in prayer, huh? Reverence. Let's see what the master says here. I answer it should be said, that as has been said, prayer is in some way interpretativa, right? In the book of Aristotle, the Interpretatione, okay? Interprets the human will, right? Okay. Then, therefore, the prayer of the one praying is heard when his will is fulfilled. Now, he's going to distinguish, huh? The will simply of man is the will of what? Reason. For that, absolutely, we will. That we will according to reason that is deliberated about these things. But that we will according to the motion of sensuality, or even according to the motion of simple will, which is considered as a nature, we do not simply what will, but secundum quit, huh? Again, that distinction goes into there, right? As I used to say, you know, that's really, you had to almost go to Aristotle's book on Sophistical Refutations, where he talks about the different kinds of mistakes. And they all seem to arrive, most of them, from overlooking some distinction, right? So you kind of learn about the kinds of distinctions that you have to see to avoid these mistakes, right? But also the kinds of distinctions you have to see to see the truth about these things, huh? Which is considered as nature, but not simply do we will. Let's secundum quit, right, huh? If something else did not, what? Yeah, it was found through the liberation of reason, right? Whence such a will should more be called vileitas, huh? Than absolute will, right? Because man would will this if nothing else stood in the way, huh? I don't want to do it, but I will. Am I willing to do it or not? Do we see that, don't we, sometimes? Do you know? I think St. John's Cross, he speaks that way even of God in some way, right? Sometimes God grants our requests, but the kind of childish requests, the things that we should do without, we should mature. But sometimes because he treats us like children, and he's tolerant of us like a parent, he's a spoiled child, he doesn't give us things that he really doesn't want to give us in a certain way. He thinks we should be more mature, not asics, but he gives them to us sometimes. Yeah. So he speaks in a certain way, like a parent, well, I don't want to give a kid this, it's going to be more rotten. When my children were growing up, you know, we decided not to have a TV, you know, but one thing you do with little children is you read them, you know, stories and things and so on, and then read another one, you know, your voice. So you ought to stop, you know, but your deliberate will is, yeah, let's keep on going, yeah. But they say all things considered, right? I don't want to do this. Now, according to the will of reason, Christ, nothing other willed except what he knew God to will. And therefore, the absolute will of Christ, even the human, was fulfilled, right? Why? Because it was conformed to God, right? And consequently, every prayer of his was heard, right? For according to this, the prayers of others are fulfilled, right? That they are conformed, their wills, to God, right? According to that of Romans 8, who scrutinizes the hearts, right? Knows. That is, approves what the Spirit desires. That is what he makes the saints to, what? Desire. Because according to God, that is, according to the conformity of the divine will, he, what? Asks for the saints, son. He groans in the son. Okay. Now, what about this removing of the chalice, right? Well, to the first, therefore, it should be said that that asking about the translation of the chalice is diversely expounded by the, what? Saints. For Hillary says, on Matthew, that he asks that it pass from him, right? Not that he, what? He does not pray that he would, what? Yeah. But that, but as in another right, that from, that passes from him, might, what? Exceed? And therefore, he prays for those who would suffer after himself. Is that it? That the sense would be, in what way, in the way, by me is drunk the chalice of passion, right? So it might be drunk by others, right? Without the diffidence of hope. Without the sense of, what? Pain. Without the fear of death. That's kind of crucial. Yeah. Or, according to Jerome, he significantly says, this chalice, that is of the people of the Jews. Jews, who were not able to have the excuse of ignorance, right? If they killed me, right? Having the law and the prophets, which, what? Or, according to Dionysius, the Alexandrian, who's, what he says, this chalice passed from me, is not this that had not come to me, right? Because unless it comes to me, it could not be, what? Pass. But just as what passed is neither, what? Untouched nor, what? Permanent. So the Savior, Leviter, likely. Uh, the Savior, the Savior, the Savior, the Savior, the Savior, the Savior, the Savior, the The coming-upon-in-tentation, right? He what? Scraged the flesh, wasn't it? Yeah. How do you understand? So the Savior beseeches that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed. He might come and go away. I don't know if that's it there or not. But maybe the more simple explanation of Ambrose, right? And Origen and Chrysostom say that he asks, as it were, man, as a man, by his natural will, right? Refusing death, that's what it's usually explained. If, therefore, it be understood that he asks through this, that other martyrs of his, what? Yeah, it may pass from him to them, from him to them, right? According to Hillary. Or if he asks that the fear of, what? Drinking, the chalice would not, what? Trouble him. Trouble him. Or that death would not, what? Detain him, right? You know? He would pass. Altogether is fulfilled that which he asks, right? That's the earlier, at least the earlier explanation, right? If it be understood to have asked that he did not drink, he would not drink the chalice of passion death, or he would not drink it from the Jews, what he asked for was not done, right? Because the reason which proposed petition did not wish that, what? It be fulfilled, right? But for our instruction, he wished to declare it to us what his natural will was, right? And what was the motion of sensuality, which, as a man, he had, huh? Well, I should say, it's so. The second it should be said, huh? That Christ did not pray for all of those, what? Nor for all who would, what? Believe in him. But for those only who were predestined, that to him they would, what? Tain eternal life. That's kind of interesting. Now, I was reading Thomas there, just the text in John there, where Christ says, a prophet is not, what? On his own country, right? And Thomas says, well, some prophets were, right? Yeah. Well, Christ is speaking in what Aristotle would call it in definite sentence, right? Like we say, boys will be boys, right? Yeah. We're not saying explicitly that every boy will act like a boy at all times, right? But we're speaking about what is true for the most part, right? Okay. So when Christ says, forgive them for they don't know what they do, he's not saying explicitly forgive all, right? Right? And so it can be understood as meaning most or some, right? Yeah, yeah. I say, you know, all women are crazy, right? That's it. But that's true. Yeah. But, you see, if you say every single woman, are crazy. I don't mean everyone, you know. Just most of them. Or teenagers are all crazy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Does that explain that St. Paul is saying all have sinned, but included there? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a little more section here. The same way he solves the third objection, right? Because it is a second objection. It says that. To the fourth, it should be said that when he says, he cried out and was, you do not hear, I'm out. I cry out, you do not hear. It should be understood as regards the affection of what? Yeah. Which you've used to death, right? So he had out his body to naturally, what? Fear, and so on. But he was heard as regards the affection of his, what? Reason, huh? Because of sensuality, desire of what was, you might say, expressed, which is natural, the word. But then, the subject of reason, that's what he's meaning, right? Well, I'll tell you an example, you know, the man who takes things to the ship, you know, and throws them over, you know, in order to, oh boy, there's the whole thing going down, right? Did he want to lose all that? But, but simply speaking, he'd say, he does choose to, to throw it over, right? I think it's, I'll think consider this is a thing to do. Yeah. That's in the question, St. Thomas uses that example, the question, whether the evils, if we suffer evil things, whether injuries in this world, Yeah. or even sin, or ultimately damnation, doesn't make our guardian angel sad. And he says, no. And not, not, simply speaking, absolutely, they will our salvation. Yeah. But if we deserve damnation, then they'll fix it. Yep. Oh, yeah. Now we'll. We'll see you next time. We'll see you next time. We'll see you next time. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.