Tertia Pars
Lecture 79: Christ's Conception and the Active Principle of the Holy Spirit

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

Man was preserved from sin, immune, all the way down to the formation of the body of Christ. One of the times in his after communion prayer, they prays in particular for charity and patience. You need patience to go through all these things, huh? To third, it should be said that in human nature before Christ, there was a, what, womb. That is the infection of original, what, sin in act, huh? But the medicine for the wound was not there in act, huh? But only according to the power of origin, insofar as from those fathers who has propagated the, what, flesh of Christ, huh? Now, Lumbees, this is the next article, is that loins or what? Yeah. Yeah, that's the best part. Yeah, that's the best part. Yeah, that's the best part. The story should be able to spill it. Lumbago, you know, you got the, you got the thing, yeah, your loins, you got the, the, the, the. Loins, right. I don't know if the words are related here. Lumbar, that's lumbar, that's the back, yeah, that's the lower back. Okay, but this is more of the loins, huh? So, it was decimated to the loins. Tithed, tithed. One ten. Yeah. For the apostle says, in Ad Hebrew, chapter 7, that Levi, who was the, what? The what? Great, great, great, great, great. Okay, that's, I never heard that word. Pro-apos. Yeah. Nepotism, nepotism. Yeah. It is. He was decimated, huh? Tithed, tithed, in Abraham, huh? Because, uh, giving tithes to Melchizedek, that was that idea of tithing again, huh? Okay. Still, Levi was in his, what? Loins, huh? Likewise, Christ was in the loins of Abraham when he gave a tithe, huh? Therefore, also, Christ was tithed in Abraham. It's a strange argument, huh? Moreover, Christ, uh, took, uh, from the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, which he took from his, what? Mother. But his mother was tithed in Abraham, right? Therefore, for like reason, Christ. Moreover, that in Abraham is tithed that needed, what? Cure. As Augustine says in the 10th book of Genesis to the letter. However, but all flesh subject to sin needs to be cured, huh? Since, therefore, the flesh of Christ was subject to sin, as has been said, it seems that the flesh of Christ was tithed in, what? Abraham. Don't recommend this for your Sunday sermon. Moreover, this does not seem in any way to take away from the dignity of Christ, huh? The worth of Christ, huh? For nothing prevents, uh, the, what, father of some high priest, right? Giving, uh, tithes to some priest, a son, his son, being a, what, greater priest, than a simple, what, priest, huh? Though, although, therefore, it is said that Christ is tithed, huh? Abraham giving tithes to, well, is that right? Not, nevertheless, on account of this, is excluded that Christ can be greater than, what? A strange article. I don't know about this, Thomas, sometimes, huh? Yeah, you gotta, you gotta read the five objections of what the objection was. Okay. But against this is what Augustine says in the 10th book of, oh, Augustine's responsible for this nonsense, okay. Uh, but against this is what Augustine says in the 10th book upon Genesis to the letter, that Christ there, to wit, in Abraham, right, was not tithed, right, huh? Who's fleshed, uh, from there, is it? Right. Yeah. Not the, what, fervor of the wound, but he drew the matter for, what, medicine. Now, let's see what Thomas makes these sense of this, yeah. Let's see what he does, huh? I answer, it should be said that according to the intention of the apostle, that's saying Paul himself, huh, it is necessary to say that Christ was not tithed in the, what, loins of Abraham, for the apostle proves greater is the priesthood, right, which is according to the order of Melchizedek, right, to which Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, right, with Levi already existing in his, what, loins, right, to whom pertains the legal, what, priesthood, huh? For if Christ also was tithed in Abraham, right, then his priesthood would not be according to the order of Melchizedek, but be less than the priesthood of Melchizedek, huh? And therefore it should be said that Christ was not tithed in the loins of Abraham as Nephi was. That makes some sense, huh? Because he who gives, what, tithes, retains nine for himself, right, and gives a tenth to another, huh, which is a sign of perfection, insofar as ten is in a way the limit of all numbers, huh, which go forward as far as ten, right, huh? And therefore the one who gives tithes, pretends himself imperfect, and he attributes perfection to the other. But the imperfection of the human race is an account of sin, which needs its perfection, which is cured from what? Sin. Sin. But to cure one from sin is of Christ alone, for he is the lamb who takes away the sin of the world, huh? As is said in John there, right, John the Baptist, huh? He buries his, what? His figure he buries, right? Melchizedek. Oh, oh, excuse me, okay. But Melchizedek buries his figure, as the apostle proves, Hebrew 7, huh? Through this, therefore, that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, who is prefigured, as it were, the one conceived in sin, right, huh? And all who descend from him, for that reason that they contracted, what? Original sin. They need a curing, that is, through what? Christ. This is very subtle, Thomas, I must say. Isaac over, and Jacob, and Levi, and all the others who were in Abraham, that from him they were derived, not only according to the corpulentum substantia, right? Which Thomas admits that Christ is there, according to the corpulentum substantia, meaning before. But also were there, as Christ was not, according to the seed-like reason, right? Through which the original sin is, what? Contracted. And therefore, all in Abraham are tithed, that is, they are prefigured to need the curing, which is through Christ. But Christ. Christ alone was thus in Adam, that from him he was derived not according to the seed-like reason, but according to what? The bodily substance. And therefore he was not in Abraham as one needing to be cured, but more as the medicine of the, what? Wound. And therefore he was not in the loins of Abraham tied, right? And this is clearly responsible for the first, huh? So he's in Abraham only according to copulantum substantia, but I think I was in there according to the seed-like reason which made he contracted sin. Okay, now Thomas, you're in trouble here again. To second should be said that because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, he was in Abraham as, she was in Abraham as needing, what? Cure. And there she was, what? Tithed, huh? As if therefore, or from there, descending according to the seed-like reason, right? Okay, but this ain't the truth, you're Thomas. Cut that out of my text, I guess. But about the body of Christ, it is not, what? That's so. Okay, now the third objection. That in Abraham was tithed, what needed, what? Curing, right? But that needs curing. That is subject to sin, right? But the flesh of Christ is not subject to sin. To the third should be said that the flesh of Christ is said to have been in the ancient fathers subject to sin according to the quality which it had in those parents who were tithed, right? Not over according to the quality which he had insofar as it is an act in Christ who was not tithed. To the fourth, it should be said that the Levitical priesthood was derived according to the origin of flesh. Whence it was not less in Abraham than in, what? Levi. Whence through this that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek is to one, what? Greater. Here, it shows that the priesthood of Melchizedek, insofar as it had the figure of Christ, right, was greater than the Levitical priesthood, right? But the priesthood of Christ does not follow a fleshly origin, the origin according to flesh, but a spiritual, what? Grace. And therefore is able to be that the father gives tithes to some priest as to a, what? Christ, as a lesser to a greater, right? Nevertheless, his son, if he is a Pontifex, a high priest, is greater than that priest, right? Not on account of the fleshly origin, but on account of the spiritual grace that he has in Christ. We're looking at Thomas today, and the little thing on the symbol of Apostolorum, you know, the Apostles' Creed, right? And he's talking about eternal life there, and how wonderful it is, right? And there's a nice thing he has to say there, right? But he's talking about how, obviously, knowledge, you know, he's going to have knowledge to the fullness, but also pleasure, right, and so on. And he says honor, too, right? See? And then he says, now all the laymen want to be king, and all the priests want to be the bishop. Well, there's a promise to us in England, right, you know? You know? Kingdom and free, you know? Because it's very explicit, it says kingdom, you know? So you're going to rule, you're going to be like a king, you know? So what the laymen do you want, they're going to get, and I suppose the priesthood you get there in heaven is kind of like a, you know, like a status of a bishop, right? So we're going to get the honor that we seek, you know, in this life. We'll get to be Monsignor. Yeah. That's right. That was good. We'll get to be Monsignor. But San Anselm didn't want to be bishop at all. You should take a little break here, huh? Don't stay too late here, you might get freezing out there. Then we're not to consider about the principio activo, right? The active, the acting upon principle, and the conception of Christ. And about this, four things are asked. First, whether the Holy Spirit was the active beginning of the conception of Christ. Secondly, whether it can be said that Christ was conceptus de Spiritus Santo, right? Preposition de, you know. You have to understand my thing, I guess, you know. Problem about that. Third, whether it can be said that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Christ, according to the flesh. I'm sure Thomas will say no. And fourth, whether the Blessed Virgin did something actively in the conception of Christ, huh? Hmm? Not the active conception itself. Well, to the first one goes forward thus. It seems that the effecting of the conception of Christ ought not to be attributed to the Holy Spirit. And I can argue against this. Because, as Augustine says in the first book about the Trinity, undivided are the works of the Trinity, right? Just as undivided is the essence of the Trinity. That's why we say it in the name of the Father, right? Sing it out. But to effect in the conception of Christ is a certain divine work. Therefore, it seems that ought not to be more attributed to the Holy Spirit than to the Father or the, what? The Son. So this is a question of appropriations because of the Holy Spirit, what the Master says. Moreover, the Apostle says, incidentally, there's another thing here. I was thinking, you know how John doesn't name himself in the Gospel there? He says, the disciple whom Christ loved. Isn't that phrase, you know, really Antonia Messiah, it's not one word, but it has the, it functions at Antonia Messiah, right? Because he's not the only one, obviously, that he loved, right? So he's said to be by Antonia Messiah. Yeah, that's interesting, yeah? It's amazing how important Antonia Messiah is there in Scripture that we're speaking. Yes, and God does it also. Well, our Lord does, I guess. Yeah, but Thomas gives another explanation of it. You know, he's saying that he's asking him to perform a miracle, and he does that not as man, but as God, right? And she's not his mother, as God, right? But then on the cross, when he suffers in his human nature, right, then he acknowledges her as mother. It's kind of a subtle thing. Although it can't have made that sense, too, you know, that she is the woman, right? Right. Yeah. More of the apostles says, Galatians 4, chapter 3, or her first book, that when the fullness of time came, right, God sent his only son, right, his son, made from a woman, right, huh? Which Augustine, expounding in the fourth book of the Trinity, says, in that respect, he was sent in which he was made from the woman. But the mission of the son is attributed most of all to the father, as in the first part is that. Therefore, also the conception, according as he was made from the woman, especially to be attributed to the father. That's interesting, right? However, Proverbs chapter 9, verse 1, it said, wisdom built for itself a, what, house. But the wisdom of, what, Christ himself is a wisdom of God, according to that of 1 Corinthians 1, verse 24. Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. But the house of this wisdom is the body of Christ, which is also said to be his, what, temple, according to that of John chapter 2. This he said about the temple of his body. Therefore, it seems that to affect the conception of the body of Christ, it is especially to be attributed to the Son, not to the Holy Spirit. I think you have it thoroughly confused, Thomas. That's my old teacher, because Sirius used to say, you know, it's the business of the teacher to confuse the issue. It makes you stop and think, though, right? But against all this is what is said in Luke chapter 1, verse 35, that the Holy Spirit will come upon you. Now, the first distinction Thomas makes, he says, I answer, it should be said, that the conception of the body of Christ is a work, an operation of the, oh, what, and the whole Trinity has done, right? But it is, what, appropriate, you might say, it's attributed, nevertheless, to the, what, Holy Spirit, right? It's like creation is attributed to the, what, the Father, right? Like in the Apostles' Creed, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. But he created heaven and earth, and not the Son and the Holy Spirit? No, attributed to him. So, now, why should this be appropriated to the Holy Spirit? First, because this fits the cause of incarnation, which is considered on the side of God. For the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, as it's had in the, what, first part. But this came about from the maximo, right? Love of God, right, huh? That the Son of God took on for himself flesh in the virginal womb. Whence it is said to, what, he said to Nicodemus there, which he's talking about, baptism and so on. For, lest God loves the world that he gave his only, what, God and the Son. So, love is appropriate to the Holy Spirit, right? That's a good reason, I think. That's usually the reason that we give, you know? Now, secondly, this is a secondary reason, because this fits the cause of incarnation on the side of the nature of what? Assumed. Because by this is given to be understood that the human nature assumed by the Son of God in the unity of his person is not from any, what, merits, right? But from grace alone, right? The human nature deserved to be united to the person of the, or is it gratuitous, if that's part, huh? But grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit, right? But there are divisions of graces, but the same Spirit. Whence Augustine says in Caridion, that that mode in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit insinuates for us the grace of God, right? Of which God, of which man, rather, no merits preceding, right, from the, what, nature, which you begin to be, is joined to the Word of God in so great into a person that the same one is the, what, Son of God, huh? Third, because this fits the end or limit of the incarnation. For to this end is the incarnation, that that man who is conceived would be the Holy, would be Holy, right, and the Son of God, right, huh? But both of these are attributed to the Holy Spirit. For through him, we are, men are made sons of, what, God, huh? According to that of Galatians chapter 4, verse 6. Because that you are sons of God, God sent his, what, the Spirit of his Son in our hearts, crying out, Abba, Father. For he is also... He is also the spirit of what? Just therefore as others by the Holy Spirit are sanctified spiritually, that they might be adoptive sons of God, right? So Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is conceived in sanctity that he might be the natural son of God. Whence in Romans 1.4, according to one gloss, what is sent before? Therefore, who was predestined the son of God in what? Power. Is manifested through that which immediately follows, according to the spirit of sanctification, right? That is, through which he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. And therefore the angel announcing, through this that he has sent before, that the Holy Spirit will come upon you. And he concludes, and therefore what will be born from you will be, what? Holy, and will be called the son of God. He created a mind, this angel had, right? That's what he's saying. That's what he meant. That's what he said. I was reading Thomas there, he's talking about forgetting the thing on the Apostles' Creed, you know, and he's saying, you know, after he's talked about the portings of it, and then he's talking about the objection, which I believe, you know, and all this sort of stuff, you know. And he said, well, he says, if the peasant doesn't believe the philosopher, right, he would seem kind of stupid, right? But he says, the distance between the peasant and the philosopher's mind doesn't compare to the distance between our mind and the angelic mind. So, if it's stupid for the peasant not to believe the philosopher, well then, he's going to worry for the philosopher not to believe the angel when he speaks. So love, grace, and sanctification, and sonship, right? These are all appropriately attributed to him. Now, Thomas, and you apply the first objection now. This is where you have to go be careful, because you know, we had the article back there about can you attribute something, you know, appropriate, you know what it was. Yeah. You have to understand what that means, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the work of conception is common to the whole trinity, right? Nevertheless, according to some way, he is attributed to what? Individual persons, right? For to the father is attributed authority, right? The origin, with respect to the person of the son, who, through this conception, assumes it to himself, right? To the son is attributed the assumption of the flesh, right? But to the Holy Spirit, the formation of the body, which is assumed by the son. For the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the son, according to that of Galatians 4, verse 6. For God sent the spirit of his son. But just as the power of the soul, which is in the seed, is contained in the spirit, which is in the seed, it forms the body in the generation of other men. So the power of God, which is the son, according to that of Corinthians 1, Christ, the power of God, right? Through the Holy Spirit, formed the body that he assumed. And this also, the words of the angel show, saying, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, as it were, to prepare, preparing and forming the matter of the body of Christ. And the power of the Most High, that is, of Christ, will overshadow you, right? That is, the body of humanity, he will, what? Yeah. The incorporeal light, the divinity, the shadow from light will be formed in the body, right? That's what he speaks of, overshadowing, right? Because there's, there's the light of divinity and the darkness of the, yeah. Shadows is, you saw, the body and light. Yeah. Yeah. But the body, it never works. Or it doesn't have any shadow. Yeah. But basically, basically the objection is saying, this is the work of the Trinity, so it's not taking into account the fact that we appropriate things to one person or another, right? So in the Apostles' Creed, creation is attributed to the Father, right? Believe in God, the Father Almighty. But then, sanctification is attributed to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, and the forgiveness of sins, right? Well, it's attributed to the Holy Spirit, right? And again, you know, when Christ breathes the Holy Spirit upon them, right? Does the Holy Spirit forgive sins and not the other members of the Trinity? But it's attributed to him, right? So you have that in the Creed, huh? I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, right? You know, they speak of the Holy Spirit as being, as we're the soul of the Church, right? Communion of saints is obviously tied up with that. And then, forgiveness of sins, right? So those are appropriate to the Holy Spirit, huh? In the Creed, huh? And then, the last things too, right? Yeah. in Roman, right? The new version of the Absolution makes sense. God taught us. The resurrection is on. You've got to set the Holy Spirit in the book for the forgiveness of sins. You know, when Thomas talks about the Articles of Faith, you'll divide it a little bit differently, you know? You won't have them appropriated here. We'll talk about that sometime. The division now. Oh, I've improved upon it. The new and improved St. Thomas. To the second, it should be said that mission refers to the person assuming who is, what, sent from the Father. But conception refers to the body assumed, right? Which is formed by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And therefore, although mission and conception are the same in, what, subject, that's the old philosophical term. Because develets, they differ in their definition. Mission is attributed to the Father from whom the Son proceeds, right? The Son, in his divinity, doesn't proceed from the Holy Spirit, from the Father. But to effect the conception is attributed to the, what, Holy Spirit. But to take on flesh is attributed to the Son. He's the only one that took on flesh. That's not an appropriation. He's the only one who did it. It says, you know, God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, right? Who sent his only Son? Yeah, because he's not the Son of the Holy Spirit. So there, the sending, the mission is attributed to the Father, right? He sent his only Son, right? Now, what about the formation of that house for itself, huh? To theory, it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on the questions of the Old and New Testament, huh? That question, huh, can be understood in a geminim, in a twofold. Can we see that? First, the house of Christ is a church, right? Which he built for himself by his, what, blood. Then, also, his body can be said to be his house, right? Just as it is said to be his, what, temple, right? So he says, what is made by the Holy Spirit is also the Son of God. How do you translate that there? Huh? Huh? On account of the unity of the nature and the will. it was done by the Holy Ghost is done by the Son of God because there's the one nature. Yeah, the one power. It was done. The Son of God is done. The Spirit of the Holy Spirit of the Son of God is done. Maybe that's what it is. It's done of the Holy Spirit. You're talking about how they both do this, right? Because they have the same power, right? Yeah. Okay, I'll get to this next one. Whether Christ ought to be said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit. To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ ought not to be said to be conceived. Now how would you translate day? Of? They put of and then they put in parentheses day. Day. I'm wondering why exactly they did that. It's something you can sense. It's a sense of front. Yeah, not necessarily out of like the table. What do we have in the Nicene Creed there? Do we have Dale? Day Spirit of Santo. Well, which creed? The Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed. Day Spirit of Santo. Yeah, Day Spirit of Santo. But it's interesting because in one of the earlier creeds we have in our liturgy. It may be... See, the Nicene Creed, they might have modified it with a constant and opal creed. When they put them together. But I know it's in the Greek it says ex. Ex Spirit. Yeah. The thing is in Syria, it just has... They don't have a distinction as men and men. Men and men. From and from. From and from and men. There's nothing. But I know we... I looked up in the Greek because the text that we have in St. James and Athens is he was conceived and it was saying from the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. Yeah. I don't know what the text there, the Syriac is. But I know... And I looked up in the Greek of one of the early creeds of Densinger. And it says ex in Greek. Talking about the Son and God the Father. Don't they say Deum De Deo? Or what does it say? Deum De Deo. Yeah. But in English we say God from God. God from God. Yeah. Kind of... No Latin a little bit, you know. Because on that of Romans 11.36, from him and through him and in him are all things, right? August, the gloss of Augustine says, it should be noted that he does not say De Ipso, right? But Ex Ipso. Now Ex Ipso are heaven and what? The earth. Because he made them. Not over De Ipso. Because it is not of his substance, right? So that seems like Thomas often goes back to the day as the idea of substance. I think for your own substance. But the Holy Spirit did not form the body of Christ of his substance. Therefore Christ hath not to be said conceived of the Holy Spirit. How do you say anything? Do you say conceived of the Holy Spirit? I think when we said the Ipso's Creed, conceived by the Holy Spirit. I don't know. I see you definitely. I see why I like it. Well, but... Conceived of the Holy Spirit? I don't know. Is that the Ipso's Creed or Ipso's Creed? That's the Ipso's Creed. But the Ipso's Creed would say he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That's how they stand. Born in the Virgin Mary. Born in the Virgin Mary. So how I'm going to say it was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Oh, okay. But I don't remember what the Latin is now. Oh, yeah. Yeah, by and the Virgin Mary. What's the Christian called that? From? Well, moreover, the active principle, De Quo, something is conceived, has itself as the seed in generation. But the Holy Spirit does not have himself as the seed in the conception of Christ. For Jerome says in his exposition of the Catholic faith, not as some sceleratissime, The Holy Spirit, they say, is in place of the seed, right? But by the power and the virtue of the Creator, we say, to be done or formed, the body of what? Christ. Therefore, it should not be said that Christ was conceived Dei Spiritus Sanctua. However, nothing one of two is formed, except in some way they're being mixed together. But the body of Christ was formed Dei Virgin Marya. If, therefore, Christ is said to be conceived Dei Spiritus Sanctua, it seems that there was made a certain convicture of the Holy Spirit and matter which the Virgin ministered, which is clearly what? False. Therefore, Christ hath not to be said Dei Spiritus Sanctua. Against all this is what is said in Matthew 1 AD, that before they came together, she was found in her womb having Dei Spiritus Sanctua. Oh, he said, my name is just here, huh? You ever had one of those old Missali Romanum? Right. Missali Romanum? My brother marked, you know, got a Missali Romanum for me and one for himself. We went to Quebec, there was a study there, you know. Of course, my brother left his Missali Romanum in church one day, and he forgot it. Oh. And somebody saw it there, and he saw the address of St. Paul, Minnesota, so he wrapped it up and he mailed it down to my mother. Oh, he mailed it there. Yeah, yeah. Oh. He's a very thoughtful person, you know, he's got to be, you know, this person, you know, the address, and they'll be glad to get it back if it's kind of expensive or something. You wouldn't think they're lost and found, you know, if it's got the address in there, it's got the address in the state of Minnesota. Some of the cases on there, you know, it's got to do, so some cleric is on there. Okay. So those are objections, right? Well, it's not a small problem. Well, I've done that too, you know, in my seven-year-old things, yeah. The economic and social. Okay, I answer it should be said that conception is not attributed to only the body of Christ, right? But also to Christ by reason of his body. Now, in the Holy Spirit, there is a two-fold relation to be considered with respect to Christ. For to the Son of God, right, who is said to be conceived, right, he has the relation of being of the same, what, substance, huh? But to his body, he has the relation of an efficient cause, huh? Now, this preposition, day, designates both, what, relation, right? Just as we say that some man is the suo apacto, right? And therefore, suitably, we are able to say that Christ is conceived of the Holy Spirit in this way, that the efficacy of the Holy Spirit refers to the body, what, assumed, and that's the efficient cause aspect of it, right? I think efficacy means maker, right? That one relation. but consubstantiality to the person, what, assuming it. Okay, Thomas, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're quite a guy. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the body of Christ, right, because it is not consubstantial to the Holy Spirit, is not properly able to be said to be conceived, what, Dei Spiritu Sancto, right? But more, Ex Spiritu Sancto, right, eh? Secret Ambrose says in his book on the Holy Spirit, eh? What? A different use of day. Yeah. About. For what is exotic quo, right? It's either from the substance or from its power, right? From the substance has the Son who is from the Father, right? But from the power has from God all things. In which way also in the womb Mary had, right? From the Holy Spirit, right? Okay, now what about this thing here, this denunciation by Jerome, right? To the second it should be said that upon this there seems to be a sort of diversity, right? Of Jerome to some other doctors, right? Who assert that the Holy Spirit in the conception was for the seed, right? For Augustus, or Chrysostom says upon Matthew that the Holy Spirit preceded, right? The only begotten of God, entry into the virgin, right? As the Holy Spirit going before in holiness, right? Was born Christ according to the body, right? The divinity coming in for the, what? Let's see. And Damascene says in the third book that he overshadowed, huh? Yeah. As were a divine seed, right? But for Thomas, huh? This is dissolved, huh? Because insofar as in the seed is understood the active power, right? Thus, Chrysostom and Damascene compare the Holy Spirit to the seed, right, huh? Or even the Son who is the power of the Most High, huh? But according as in seed is understood the bodily substance, which is transformed in the conception, Jerome denies that the Holy Spirit was what? Let's see. We do Fajste Salvatore, right? Great Thomas, huh? Just to rest numbskulls to get it into our heads. It's the secret of knowing, getting things into your head. So you think Jerome was calling Christendom and Damascene, Scalatissime? Not according to St. Thomas. You've got to watch out for this. Didn't Jerome have some controversy with Augustine? And that's why I guess he wrote the thing in Genesis to a letter, right? Because he was accused of being a little bit loose in the text or something, you know? You know, by the guy who's guns, I think all this thing is laboriously, you know? But, uh, hmm. The controversy just about everything. Except the women. Yeah. He had a little bit of anger, didn't he? Something, too. I think he'd say it was a choleric temperament. Yeah, yeah, yeah. By the time he says a little discourse, you know, on anger there, he's talking about you shall not kill and so on, right? It's kind of interesting, you know. Of course, he repeats the old controversy between the parapetetics and the stoics, you know? The stoic says the white man should have, be tranquil, you know, emotions at all. And the Aristotelians, the parapetetics, you know, say, no, man should have emotions, but they should be, you know, moderated by reason and so on. And he says, Thomas, that seems a little bit more true. Because otherwise, what would he have these, these, uh, ability for, uh, emotion, right? If they were just not to take any part in our life, right? And then, of course, you have the example of Christ being angry, you know, and so on, but with that reason, huh? Francis de Sales is about to go, he said, the fine, fine ideal is an impossible ideal. Oh. He starts speaking around it. Some ideal may. Well, he didn't get overcome, apparently, yeah. That was one of those, uh, things he had to overcome himself. He'd become very mild to these things, you have to overcome their anger. St. Alphonsus says in his work on the love of Jesus Christ, it takes mechanical and charity. He says, you've got all these virtues, and you're avoiding all those vices, and you've got the love of Christ. And so the first one who's love is patient, he says, well, then the one who really loves Christ loves to suffer. He says, it has to be patient, so I don't even know how to do it. Oh, yeah. He's going to have a lot of... I guess these, you know, men who get to be, you know, the power of Washington, so at least you have anger, you know, as a part of their nature, you know? And when I was teaching at St. Mary's College in California, the 100th anniversary of the college took place, so they had a big, you know, event, and they had, you know, Harvard, you know, processional, you know, people were referencing all these schools and so on. And LBJ, who was vice president at the time, this was before Kennedy's assassination, was the speaker, you know, and he didn't come out on the stage until, you know, the red, when he gave his speech, they had a little bit of a cold at there or something like that, but he was in kind of a side room there, you know, just off the thing and so on. And so the Christian Brothers, he was a Christian by the school, and he was saying how irascible he was, you know, with his subordinates, you know? Oh, really? Yeah, and see, it's even Kennedy that way, you know, you know, and my politician friend and he came back from the Democrat convention and said, well, is Kennedy really like cold as ice? Oh, yeah. So he can't tell you, but the people had this anger, you know, of course, people were talking about their maintain that there's anger in Obama's speech last night, you know, he was giving his something, you're like, how dare you question me, you know? Yeah, yeah, and he even attacked the Supreme Court, he liked the decision, he liked the recent decision, the Supreme Court decision, and he attacked the Supreme Court. Oh, good. And of course, I guess Alito, the judge down there, he was saying, you know. They think the cops are on the, you know, he eats our lives, you know, yeah. He eats our lives. Yeah, yeah. I guess one of the judges, Alito. Alito said, it's not true, it's not true, it's not true, it's not true, it's not true. Okay, I mean, he eats our lives. It would have been better if he went. What is he indicating it's not true? Well, the decision, you know, is allowing corporations, you know, to spend money in political campaigns, right? Right. But there's a law against foreign corporations, and I guess Obama, you know, spoke as if that's what opened the door, too, but they had not done that. So it seems to misunderstand, you know, that was not part of the decision, it wasn't on it. They didn't want to say that at all. And that was in his speech. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Wow. Oh, nice. Not very good. He's mad, that's what he said, he is, he's mad. What's it? Well, I think he must have this, you know, kind of, you know. Yeah. Someone said that, it may have been Cardinal George, he spoke of this sort of compressed fury. Oh, yeah. Oh. Did anyone else hear that? Yeah, I was wondering about it, just from the little, something I saw before his elective when I was with all of my folks, and I mean, he really is, he's cool, he's a cucumber. Whenever something happens to him, he's real cool. And I wonder if he's really raging inside, but he's really cool as far as presentations. Most of the time, I don't think I've ever seen him, like, blow up with somebody or something. Well, the father was saying there's something, have you heard of this, or supposedly all sorts of newspapers, the same, we're receiving the same letter to the editor. That's like in Fraser Obama. Oh, really? And supposedly, I don't know. I don't know.