Tertia Pars
Lecture 67: Veneration of the Cross, Mary, Relics, and Christ as Mediator

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

Whither the cross of Christ should be adored by the adoration of Latria? To the fourth one goes forward thus, it seems that the cross of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of Latria. For no pious son venerates the, what, contempt shown, I suppose, to his father, for example, the flagellum, the scourge, yeah, the wood in which he was scourged, or the wood in which he was suspended, right? But he more abhors that, huh? But Christ on the wood of the cross underwent the most disgraceful, you might say, death, according to that of Wisdom, Chapter 2, with the most ugly, almost, yeah, death. We condemn him. Therefore we ought not to venerate the cross, but more to abhor it, huh? Well, to say sometimes in the early church there was a certain fear of the cross there, I mean, it was too real. It wasn't publicly manifested for a couple of people who didn't venerate the cross. Yeah, too real. I think that St. Sabina sent the Sabina in Rome, and I think it was the first, or they'd say it's one of the earliest depictions of art on the doors. One was crucifixion outlawed, let's see, from maybe Constance? Yeah, that's right. Moreover, the humanity of Christ is adored by the adoration of Latvia, insofar as it is joined to the Son of God in person, right? But this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore, the cross of Christ is not to be adored by the adoration of Latvia. Moreover, just as the cross of Christ was a tool of his passion and death, so also many other things, the nails, the crown, and the lance, to which we did not exhibit or show the culture of worship of Latvia. Therefore, it seems that the cross of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of Latvia. But against all this is that we show the adoration of Latvia to that in which we place the hope of our, what, salvation. But in the cross of Christ, we place our hope. But the church sings, huh? Oh, cross, huh? Hail. Unique hope, right? And this in the time of, what, passion. Increase justice for the pious and obtain forgiveness for the guilty. Yeah. That's a great excuse. Okay. Therefore, the cross of Christ should be adored by the adoration of Latvia. Lex arondi, lex credendi, right? Lex, lex, uh... From the time. Okay. An answer should be said, this has been said above, honor or reverence. Now he takes a moment as synonyms, right? Before he spoke of honor as, what, being the reverence shown to someone because of their excellence. Honor or reverence is not owed except to a reasonable creature, right? So he shouldn't honor the horse that wins the tucky derby. Put those flowers on him and so on. More hoax. Sometimes an animal saves a man's life, right? Yeah. To a insensible creature is not owed honor or reverence except by reason of a rational nature. And this in two ways. In one way, insofar as it represents the reasonable nature. In another way, insofar as it is joined to it in some way. Now in the first way, men are accustomed to venerate the image of the king. In the second way is, what, clothing, right? And both men venerate by the same veneration by which they venerate also the, what, king. I suppose, you know, you show respect to the flag, right? You're doing this, showing respect to the country, really. So if you burn the flag, you're showing disrespect to the country, right? So the military is very clear not to let the flag touch the ground and, you know, things that are this sort. If, therefore, we speak about the cross itself in which Christ was crucified, in both ways it is to be venerated by us. In one way, insofar as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended on it. Another way, from its contact to the members of Christ. And from this, that it was deluged, you might say, with his blood, right? Whence, in both ways, is adored by the same adoration with Christ. That is to say, by the adoration of, what? Latria. And account of this also we, what? As if, yeah. Thomas is giving away what he does, huh? He came out of the summa, was it? In front of the cross, wasn't it? He spoke, is this worthy of you? And he's got just a tomah. So, that's what the story says, anyway. I told you the statue they had at College of St. Thomas, there's no pretty scripturally told, right? The statue of Thomas there in the center of the two main buildings there. Now, if we speak of the effigy of the cross of Christ in any other matter, as, what, in stone or wood? So, thus we venerate the cross only as, what? Which we venerate by the adoration of Latria. As has been said above. So, the period up above is a thing, really like the true cross. Yeah. Now, what about this being a thing that we should have, of horror? Well, to the first, therefore, it should be said that in the cross of Christ, as regards the opinion or the intention of the faithless, it's considered the disgrace of Christ, huh? So, they want him to die by this kind of death. But as regards the effect of our salvation, there is considered the divine power of him, by which he triumphed over his, what? Enemies. According to that of Colossians 2, he took it from the, what, middle, and affixed it to the cross, right? And taking away the princes and the powers, he took it away confidently, trumping over them in himself. And therefore, the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 1, 18, the word of the cross to those perishing is stupidity. But to those who are saved, that is to us, it is the power of what? God. To the second, it should be said that the cross of Christ, although it was not united to the word of God in person, right, it was nevertheless united in some way, in some other way, right? And those are the two ways mentioned, by the particle, right? By representationum, representing it in some way, right? And also by contact. And for this reason only, is there shown to it, what, reverence, huh? So it's on what? Well, we in Good Friday, we kissed the cross, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Do that too, or what? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah, actually, yeah, actually, it's the corpus that day. Oh, that's right. But we kissed the cross on Easter vigil. Right. Because it comes out of, we have a ceremony where the tomb is open, because we bury the corpus on Friday, in the tomb, and it's Saturday evening. where the cross is to God. Mm-hmm. What does that mean? To the third, it should be said, what about the nails and the rest of this? That as regards the, what, reason of contact of the members of Christ, we adore not only the cross, but also all those things which are of Christ, right? When Stanislaus says in the fourth book, the most precious wood, right, as being sanctified by contact with the holy body and blood, God is suitably, what, to be adored. The nails, the, what, vestments, is it? What? Clothing. Right. Clothing. Yeah. And then the lambs. And his, what? Yeah. But these do not represent the image of Christ as does the cross. Whence it is said, the sign of the Son of Man that will appear in the heavens, right? And therefore, the angel said to the woman, you seek Jesus, and as we need the crucified, right? He does not say the lanced one, but the crucified one, right? And hence it is that the image of the cross of Christ we venerate in whatever matter it is, but not the image of the nails or the nail of the son. Should we go on? Can you just go again? Because it mentions the contact, but that doesn't have the representation, but wouldn't one suffice for the veneration? Is it the contact? Yeah, I just say that. The reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we worship not only on the cross, but all that belongs to. Yeah, but another nail you wouldn't, another nail you wouldn't, a nail was not used on the cross. I mean, it's a nail. Yeah, not any nail, just the one that was made. Yeah. Yeah. Because the other nails that we have in your thing here, they did not touch his blood or body, and they don't represent the nail that's represented. Why a cross would, it's not in the original wood. You know, if you have a fragment of the cross, which I guess there's more than there could have been, I don't know. There would have been a multiplication, like the loaves, but I mean, there would not be an image, would there, but there would be a contact on a piece of the cross. Some of them have seen relics, I guess, at the beginning, I think two little pieces. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. To the fifth one goes forward thus, it seems that the mother of God should be adored by the adoration of Latria. Oh, Thomas is getting in danger here again. It seems that the same honor should be shown to the mother of the king and to the king. Whence it is said in the third book of Kings, and that there is placed the throne of the mother of the king who sits at his, what, right side. And Augustine says in his sermon on the assumption, the throne of God, the, what, the Lord of Heaven, the tabernacle of Christ is worthy to be there where he is. But Christ is adored by the adoration of Latria, therefore his mother. Morver and Danesine says in the fourth book that the honor of the mother refers to the son, but the son is adored by the adoration of Latria, therefore the mother. Morver, Christ, to Christ is joined more his mother than the cross, but the cross is adored by the adoration of Latria, therefore the mother by the same adoration. Isn't that contact there, right? Yeah, yeah. But against this is that the mother of God is a pure, what, creature. Therefore there ought not to be shown to her the adoration of, what, Latria. Thomas says, I answer it should be said that because Latria is owed to God alone, it should not be, is not owed to a creature insofar as a creature is venerated by itself. Now, although insensible creatures are not capable of veneration in themselves, a rational creature is capable of veneration according to itself. And therefore to no pure creature, rational creature, is owed the worship of, what, Latria. Since therefore the Blessed Virgin is purely a rational creature, there is not owed to her the adoration of Latria, but only the veneration of, what, Dulia. More eminently, however, than to other creatures, insofar as she herself is the mother of God. And therefore it is said that there's owed to her not just any Dulia, but hyper-Dulia. When the conic was involved in the definition there of the assumption and so on, right? But, you know, I think we speak of this as the Marian century, you know, it begins with the, with the, with the 1854 was the Act of Conception and kind of ends with 1850 or so with the, I mean, the assumption. But the conic was saying, why were these defined so late, you might say, in the history of the church, right? Well, he said, so great are these mysteries, right? And so elevated she in these mysteries that if it had been defined earlier, she would have been thought to be another, what? Prisoner. Yeah, yeah, you see. And it's a little bit like the question of why is it that the mystery of the Trinity, which is so prominent in the Gospels, is not so prominent in the Old Testament? And they say, well, if it were, then they would have been, yeah, they would have understood in a polytheistic way, would have had a certain danger, right? So if there's a certain unfolding gradually of these, what, mysteries, so that makes some sense to me, you know? And I think they kind of had the idea that there'd be mysteries now of Joseph that would be, now that Mary has been properly on it, right? Then it's time for Joseph, you know, but he's not equal to Mary, but he's pretty important nevertheless, right? And I noticed in the in-creating epithelgios that I had, the one that was made up there, you know, they have, what, six litanies that they single out, right, for a special mention, and, you know, three of them deal with Christ and one with Mary and one with Joseph and one with all the saints, right? But Joseph has a kind of place there, huh? You know, just that he's the only saint besides Mary, right? That has his own litany that, I mean, that's singled out, you know, maybe Joseph. You see some of these books about Joseph, too, you know, bringing on some of these things, patron of holy death. To the first therefore it should be said that to the mother the king is not owed an equal honor to the honor which is owed to the king, but there is owed to her a, what, a similar honor by reason of a certain excellence. And the authorities brought in signify, what, this, huh? To the second it should be said that the honor of the mother is referred to the son because the mother is honored and accounted to the son, but not, however, in the same way in which the honor of the image is referred to the, what, exemplar. Because the image itself insofar as it's considered by itself as a certain thing in no way should be, what, venerated by Mary should be. And to the third it should be said that the cross insofar as it's considered by itself is not capable of honor, huh? But the Blessed Virgin is, according to herself, capable of veneration and therefore is not a similar reason. Now what about the relics of the saints, huh? The kind of interesting sticks this in here. To the sixth one goes forward thus. one goes forward to the third one goes forward it seems that the relics of the saints in no way should be adored. For there should not be done anything that can be an occasion of error. But to adore the relics of the dead seems to pertain to the mistake of the Gentiles who gave honor to what? Dead men, huh? Therefore, the relics of the saints should not be honored. Moreover, it seems stupid to venerate an insensible thing, huh? But the relics of the saints are without sensation. Therefore, it is stupid to venerate them, huh? Sounds like Heraklash when he says, you know, the corpses of men are more fit to be cast out than dung, you know, I mean. You know, stick in the mist. Moreover, a dead body is not of the same species with a living body. It's only a man, equivocally, as Aristotle says, on the eye of the dead. The corpse is not an eye except equivocally. And consequently, it does not seem to be the same in number, huh? It's an individual. Therefore, it seems that after the death of some saint, his body should not be, what? Adored. And against this is what is said in the book of ecclesiastical dogmas. That the bodies of saints, and especially the relics of the blessed martyrs, as if, what? Members of Christ most sincerely should be adored, huh? We believe should be adored. And afterwards, it is added, is someone against this sentence, which is to be not a Christian, but a fowler, venomus, or vigilantes, right? To this, I answer it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on the city of God, if the, what? Paternal clothing and ring, right? Or something of this sort is so much dearer to, what? Those who come after, the more they are, what? Affection for their parents? In no way should be, what? Spurned, yeah? The bodies which are more familiarly and more closely joined than any, what? For these pertain to the nature of man himself, huh? From which it is clear that of man himself, he's not a Christian, The one who has affection for someone, even those things which, what, are left of him after death, he venerates them. Not only the body or the parts of his body, but also some exterior things as clothing and similar. But it's manifest that we hold the, what, saints of God in veneration. As it were, members of Christ, sons of God and friends, right? And also our intercessors. And therefore their relics we ought to, by what? By venerate in their memory. And especially their bodies, which were the temple of the Holy Spirit. And tools of the Holy Spirit in them dwelling and operating. And they are to the body of Christ configured through the glorious of, what, resurrection. Whence also God himself suitably honors these relics by making miracles in their, what, presence. That's a good way of harping for, God doesn't have that on us then, right? By working miracles in their, yeah? And it was said when St. Francis of Sales was exhumed for his cost, canonization, he was, I guess, he was found wisely, not to put it in corrupt. And when St. James Chantal was there, she went to kiss his foot, and his foot was raised up to her. That's pretty good. It's like reaching out to shake someone's hand. Yeah. Maybe he was just trying to kick her. Yeah. Yeah, I never let you do that before. Yeah, I was looking for St. Hugo, because of my confirmation, I mean, the baptismal name. And the Hugo, who was known for singing these hymns to the Blessed Virgin. Oh. And apparently they annoyed the Protestants, whoever it was. So they killed him, right, and so on. His body was put in the church and started singing the hymns. And finally, he had to put on top to, you know, to shut up, you know, so he could go out at the funeral, you know. I mean, the... I guess he made his point. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that this was the reason of, what, the argument of Jelanus, huh? And that, whose words Jerome introduces, right, in the book which he wrote against him, right? Saying, near the rite of the Gentiles we see in the pretext religion introduced. And that the, what, ashes, is it, Bovis? Yeah. A little bit of ashes. Yeah. No, not in what small vessel, right? Closed in a precious limit. Kissing. Against Jerome says in the epistle to Imperium, we not only, what, undico, the relics of the martyrs. Yeah. Neither. Moon. Or the angels we adore to it by the adoration of Latria. But we honor the relics of the martyrs as... Or him whose martyrs they are. Yeah, witnesses, yeah. Oh, witnesses. Yeah. We honor servants that the honor of the servants might be down to our God. Thus, therefore, in honoring the relics of the saints, we do not fall into the air of the Gentiles, who show the cult of Latria to dead men. How about the stupidity of, you know, sensible bodies? To the second, it should be said that the body without sensation we did not adore on account of itself, but on account of the soul, which was, what? Joined to it. Which soul now enjoys God, right? On account of God of which they were the ministers. To the third, it should be said that the dead body of some saint is not the same in number in that it was first, when it lived, on account of the diversity of the form, right? Which is the soul. Nevertheless, it's the same by reason of the matter, which is going to be again united to its form. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Shall we try to do question 26, and then we can do it this section of the... Then we're not to consider about this that Christ is the mediator of God and man. And about this we ask two things. First, whether to be the mediator of God and man is proper or private to Christ, right? And secondly, whether this belongs to him according to his human nature. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that to be the mediator of God and man is not proper or private to Christ. For a priest and a prophet seems to be a mediator between God and man, according to that of Deuteronomy chapter 5, verse 5. I, in that time, right, was a, what, a follower? And a middle between you and God. Moses must be saying this on me. But to be a prophet and a priest is not private to Christ, he's not the only. Therefore, neither is he, what, to be a mediator. Moreover, that which belongs to good angels and bad cannot be said to be private to Christ. But to be a middle between God and man belongs to the good angels, as Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names. It belongs also to the bad angels, that is to say the demons, for they have some things in common with God, namely mortality. Some things they have in common with men, that they are in soul, what, passive, sounds like a patronist idea. And consequently, what, miserable, as is clear through Augustine now. So, immortality in common with God and misery in common with us. We are therefore, therefore, to be a mediator of God and men is not proper or private to Christ. Moreover, to the office of mediator belongs to, yeah, to one of those between whom he is a mediator for the other. But the Holy Spirit, this is said in Romans 8, it's a proper way to translate, interpell it, yeah. And they say here, interrupt, break in on, interpose an objection, disturb, hinder, obstruct. It's something that's going in between. Yeah, it's more, it calls upon them. Intercedes, you could say there, if I use the word enter in there, intercedes. For us to God with inexpressible groans. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a mediator between God and men. Therefore, it's not private to Christ. Pretty interesting, that's good. But against this is what is said in 1 Timothy 2.5. One is a mediator of God in men. The man, Christ Jesus. I answer. That's not me, it's Thomas. I hate to be responsible for answering all these things. I answer, it should be said, that the office of mediator properly is to join those between whom he is the mediator. For the middle are united in the, what, middle. But to unite men to God perfectly belongs to Christ. Through whom men are reconciled to God. According to that, according to that of the 2 Corinthians chapter 5. That God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. And therefore, Christ alone is the perfect mediator of God in men. In so far as through his own death, he reconciled the human race to God. Whence, since the Apostle has said, the mediator of God in men is the man, Christ Jesus. He joins to that, who gave himself as redemption for all. But nothing prevents some others, say kundum quid, you know, this kind of distinction there. To be called mediators between God and, what, men. In so far to wit, as they cooperate to the union of men with God, either by disposing men for this, right, or as living tools. So, to the first, therefore, it should be said that prophets and priests of the old law are called mediators between God and men. In these two ways I already mentioned, dispositive, right? And as ministerial. In so far as they announce ahead of time and prefigure the true and perfect mediator of God in men. But the priests of the new law can be called mediators of God and of men, in so far as they are living tools. That's what minister is, huh? Of the true mediator in place of him, or in the, not place of, but what? Sort of like that as a decision. Yeah. Showing these saving sacraments to men, right? It's represented to so far. Yeah. That, yeah. Yeah. It's vice president, huh? Right. He's less than that, but he's president. Okay. Especially the president, I am. To the second, it should be said that the good angels, as Augustine says in the ninth book of the city of God, are not rightly able to be called mediators between God and men, since they both have with God, that is, beatitude and immortality, neither of these, or nothing of these, do they share with miserable and mortal men. In which way are they not, therefore more remote from men, right? And joined to God than constituted between both as middles. That's kind of interesting thing to point out. Now, Dionysius, nevertheless, says that they are, what, medios, right, middles, because according to the grade of nature, they are below God and constitute above men. And they exercise the office of mediator, not chiefly and in a perfect way, but in the same two ways. Ministeriality, right? As living tools, instruments, and as disposing. Whence in Matthew 4, 11, it says that the angels acceded to and ministered to him in Christ. Now, the demons have with God immortality, with men, misery. To this, therefore, the demon placed himself as a middle between what? Yeah. That he would not allow them to go over to immortal, what's the mess? But he leads them to immortal misery. Whence he is said to be a bad in between who separates, what, friends, huh? Marvelous medias, huh? Yeah. That's very, spoken of very roughly there in scriptures, about the man who separates friends. Christ, however, has with God a common beatitude, right? But with men, what? Mortality, yeah? And therefore, for this, he placed himself in between a middle, that passing over from what? Mortality. He might make immortal those who are mortal. Which he showed by rising from the dead in himself, and that from the miserable, he might make beatitude. Whence he had never, what? Left his beatitude, right? And therefore, he is the good mediator who reconciles, what? I think he said, like, well, I don't know. Yeah. That's a good way to set, isn't it? Yeah, yeah. Make a nice sermon on that, though. So is that, that's Augustine on the City of God? Yeah. Is that what that's written? That's what that's written on the City of God. What is this? Book 9. 15 maybe? Chapter 15. Oh yeah, I'm sorry, yeah. Oh, I see. Book 9. Now what about the Holy Spirit? To the theory it should be said that since he is in all things equal to God, right, he cannot be said to be in the middle, right, or mediator between God and men, right? But only Christ, who, although according to his divinity is equal to the Father, nevertheless according to his humanity, is less than the Father. And this is a reference here to the symbol of St. Athanasius, as has been said. Whence upon that of Galatians chapter 3, Christ is the mediator, the gloss says, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is said to, to seed for us because he makes us to, to call, yeah, I mean, I see that's the word for him to translate that. Now, whether Christ is the mediator of God and men, according as he is man. For Augustine says in the book against Feliciano, one is the person of Christ, lest there not be one Christ, not what? One substance, lest being removed the dispensation mediator, either of God only or of man, he is said to be the son. He's got to be the son of both, the son of God and the son of man. We had the grammatically translated book list there. But he is not the son of God and the man, according as he is man, but only according as he is what? And man, yeah. Therefore neither should be said that he is the mediator of God and men, only according as he is what? Yeah, that's kind of an interesting thing. More, just as Christ, insofar as he is God, comes together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, so also insofar as he is man, he comes together with men. But on account of this, that insofar as he is God, he comes together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he cannot be said to be a mediator insofar as he is God, because above, or upon that of 1 Timothy 2, the mediator of God and men, the gloss says, insofar as he is the word, he is not the middle, because he is equal to God, right? And God before God, and at the same time one God. Therefore, neither also insofar as he is a man, he is said to be a mediator, on account of the agreement he has with men. Maybe there would be a amount of physics or something to get really in the middle, huh? Moreover, Christ is said to be mediator insofar as he reconciles us to God, which he does by taking away sin, which separates us from God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not insofar as he is man, but insofar as he is God. Therefore, Christ, insofar as he is man, is not a mediator, but insofar as he is, what? God, huh? It's an interesting argument. Of course, his flesh, or his humanity does take away sin as far as it's a tool, isn't it? But his divinity also, the master says. He cares what Perko says, or thinks. I mean, he speaks of himself as a liar. You got that part in John now? He's an idiot. He's an idiot. Yeah. He speaks of his own heart, you know. Watch those guys. But against this is what Augustine says in the ninth book about the city of God. Not from this, or account of this, is the mediator Christ because he is the word. For most of all, immortal, and most of all, blessed is the word, a long way from what, mortals, miseries. But he is a mediator, according as he is man, huh? He's quite an authority, is Augustine Thomas, huh? Why do you call Thomas ultra-Augustinus, Augustinus like you go, huh? St. Victor, huh? Yeah, it's interesting. So, I answer. It was Thomas, what does the catch then say? Thomas seems to have inherited the mind of all the church fathers because he so venerated them, huh? But Thomas says, you have to read those created in you carefully, frequently, in reference. Those are the three words he uses there. I answer, it should be said that in the mediator, we are able to consider two things. First, the notion of middle, huh? Secondly, the office of what? Joining, okay? Now, it is of the notion of a middle that it is distant from both extremes. For the mediator joins, okay. But the mediator joins through this that what pertains to one of them, right? He brings over to the other. Now, neither of these can belong to Christ according as is God, but only according as he is man. For according as he is God, he does not differ from the Father and the Son in nature and in the power of dominion. Nor also do the Father and the Holy Spirit have something that is not of the Son. So that thus, it could be said that what is of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, as it were, of other ones, right? But both belong to him in so far as he is man, because according as he is man, he is distant, both from God in his nature and from men in the dignity of his, what? Or in the worth of his grace and glory. Insofar also as he is man, it belongs to him to join men to God by showing or giving gifts, I mean precepts and gifts to men. And for men, to God by satisfying and calling upon God for them. And therefore, most truly, he is called a mediator according as he is, what? Man, huh? Now, what about the first objection there? Because that's kind of a powerful one there. To the first, therefore, it should be said that if the divine nature is subtracted from Christ, huh? There would be subtracted, consequently, from him a unique fullness of gracism, which belonged to him insofar as he is the only begotten from the Father, as is said in my favorite Gospel, John 1. From which fullness he has that he be constituted above all, what? Men. And more, near approaching to God. On second objection, that Christ, according as he is God, is in all things equal to the Father. But also, in human nature, he excels other men. And therefore, according as he is man, he can be, what? Mediator. Not, however, according as he is, what? God, huh? It makes his humanity here very important for us, at least. He's a mediator as man, huh? He's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator, he's a mediator