Tertia Pars
Lecture 84: Christ's Two Births and Mary as Mother of God

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

When I come in here from the cold there, I'm becoming what? A man? I'm becoming warm, right? I'm warming up. So I'm named from the term of my change, not from the one who's. An account of this, nativity or birth, is not denominated from the person who is born, but from the nature to which birth terminates or ends up. And the third objection here. To the third should be said that nature, properly speaking, does not begin to be, but more the person begins to be in some what? Nature. Because, as has been said, nature signifies as that by which something is, right? By person signifies as what has to be subsisting. It has to be not another, right? In itself. So who was born? Yeah. Now, whether to Christ should be attributed some birth in time, right? Some temporal birth. To the second one goes forward thus. It seems that to Christ should not be attributed any time-wise, any temporal birth. For to be born is like a, what? Motion of a thing not existing, right? Before he's born. And that doing by reason of the birth that it might be. But Christ was from eternal. Therefore, he could not be born temporarily. He come to be by being born as a man. So he came to be secundum wit. Is it going to be that old distinction again? Just a guess. Moreover, that which is in itself perfect does not need birth. But the person of the Son of God from eternity was perfect. But he wasn't a perfect man. Therefore, he did not need a temporal birth. And therefore, it seems that he was not born in time. So in the fullness of time, he wasn't born, according to this argument. But we don't. Don't jump to the conclusion here. Morver birth belongs properly to a, what? Person. But in Christ, there is only one person, right? And therefore, in Christ, there is only one, what? Right. Okay. There's only one by which he simply is, right? Everybody's got to use a little distinction. I don't know. Aristotle taught him, huh? Peter taught him. Morver, what is born by two births is twice born, right? But this seems to be false. Christ is twice born. Because the birth by which he was born of the Father does not undergo any interruption, since it is eternal. Which, nevertheless, is required for this adverb twice, huh? For that is said to run twice, which, with some interruption, runs, huh? Therefore, it seems that in Christ there should not be placed a twofold birth, huh? But against all this is what Damascene says in the third book. We confess there to be two, what? Births of Christ, huh? One from the Father, which is eternal, and one in the last times in account of us. So as I say, it seems like when I was growing up, at least, I don't know what you do now, but there was a Mass almost like, you know, the middle of the night or something, you know? But the first Mass of this series would have the Gospel of St. John, and it was celebrating the eternal birth, huh? And then, yeah. It's a little bit like, you know, when they have Christ's coming, you know, and they sometimes say, well, there's going to be a last coming, and there's a coming into your soul sometimes, too, and they distinguish three comings, you know? And something like that, you know? So, lexorandi, lexquidendi, huh? Okay. Let's see what the Master says here. I answer, it should be said, that it has been said, nature is compared to birth as the term or end, right? To the motion or change, huh? For motion is diversified by the diversity of terms or ends or limits, as is clear to the philosopher in the fifth book of the, what? Natural hearing, huh? That's the book where Aristotle distinguishes between various kinds of change there are in the natural world, right? This is the point he makes there. But in Christ, however, there is a two-fold nature, one of which he gets from eternity from the Father, another he gets or takes or receives in time from his mother, and therefore it is necessary to attribute to Christ two births, one by which he is eternally born from the Father, the other in which in time he is born from his mother, huh? Now, the first objection is that of Feliciano, huh? The happy one, happy-lucky heretic, right, huh? Which Augustine, in the book against Feliciano, right, thus unties, huh? For they, what, imagine, right, fingamos, yeah, as many wish, right, there to be in the world a general, what, soul, which by its unspeakable motion, right, vivifies, what, some seeds, that they might not be, what, with the thing generated, but they might give life to things born, right? For these in the uterus, right, the womb, and undergoing matter, they are formed to their, what, uses, huh? And it comes about to make one with it. The person of this thing, which does not, which it stands does not, what, have the same substance, but the soul acting and the matter undergoing from two substances that comes about one man. Thus, the soul, the old, is born, I guess, from the womb, not because it existed, what, not because before it was born, as far as it pertains to it, it was not holy, none being, right? Thus, therefore, more sublimely, the Son of God is born according to man, in its same, what, way which he is taught the soul to be born with the body, huh? Not because of both there's one substance, because from both there's one person. But not over from this, do we say they begin to be the Son of God, huh? May, in some temporal way, someone believes something, what, some divinity is temporal, right? For not from eternity do we know the flesh of the Son of God, huh? nor the truth of the human body, but we, what, think it to have received a certain, what? Yeah, I'm not sure exactly, I quote that very well, but some of that, I think there's text to read. He says, let us suppose, let us suppose as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul, which by ineffable movement, so gives life to all see that it is not compounded with the things begotten, but bestows life that they may be begotten. Without doubt, when the soul reaches the womb, being intent on fashioning the passable matter to its own purpose, it unites itself to the personality thereof, though manifestly but not of the same substance. And thus, of the active soul and passive matter, one man is made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born from out the womb, but not as though before birth it was nothing at all in itself. Thus then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was born as man, just as the soul is held to be born together with the body, not as though they both made one substance, but that from both one person was born. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to exist, lest it be thought that his divinity is temporal, nor do we acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God who has been from eternity, that lest it be thought that he took, not a true he would find it, but some of them were born. I don't know how to answer the objection, but... They're multiple. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Let's look at the second objection here. That which in itself is perfect does not need, what? Birth, right? But the Son of God was matrily perfect. The second should be said that this was the reason of Nestorius, right? Which Cyril solves in a certain epistle, right? Saying, we do not say that the Son of God needed necessarily an account of himself, right? A second birth, right? After that, which he was from the Father, right? But it is, what? Foolish and untaught that the one existing before all ages and who is co-eterned with the Father to need a, what? A beginning that he might be in some second way. Because on account of us, on account of our salvation, like it says in the Creed, right? Uniting himself to it according to subsistence, what is human. He proceeded from a woman. On account of this, he is said to be born, what? In flesh. In flesh, yeah. This is included in the act of the Ephesus. Yeah. So he didn't need this temporal birth for himself, but for us, right? Yeah. Okay. Uh, the third objection, huh? That birth belongs probably to the person. But in Christ, there's only one person, right? To third should be said that birth is of the person as a subject, but of nature as a term or a limit. But it's possible for one subject, for one subject to be many, what? Changes, which, yeah, which nevertheless are very according to what? Their terms or limits. Which we do not say is if the eternal birth was a change or motion, right? But because it is signified by way of a motion or change. So the one birth terminates in the divine nature, the other in the human nature, right? So the two different ones. To the fourth, it should be said that Christ can be said to be twice born, according to two births, huh? Just as is said, one to twice run, who runs in two times, right, huh? So likewise, one can be said to be born twice, who once is born in eternity and once in time. Why? Because eternity and time much more differ than two times. We nevertheless both designate a measure of, what, duration. It's a little break right now. It's really a break after that first objection. We are in Article 3, right? Okay, to the third one goes forward thus. It seems that according to the temporal birth of Christ, the Blessed Virgin is not able to be said to be his mother, right? Strangely, this has come up, right? For it has been said above, the Blessed Virgin did nothing actively in the generation of Christ, but she only administered the matter. But this does not seem to suffice to the notion of a mother. Otherwise, would we be said to be the mother of the bed or the... Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called the mother of Christ. Moreover, Christ was born miraculously from the Blessed Virgin. But a miraculous generation does not suffice to the notion of motherhood or sonship. For we do not say that Eve was the daughter of what? Adam. Adam. Therefore, it seems that neither Christ ought to be called the son of the Blessed Virgin. That's getting complicated. Moreover, to the mother seems to pertain the cutting out, separation of the seed. But as Damascene says in the third book, the body of Christ, not seed, but by the Holy Spirit, was formed. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the mother of Christ. But against this is what is said in Matthew 1.18. This was the generation of Christ. And when his mother, Mother Jesus Mary, was... He espoused, yeah, to Joseph. I answer it should be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the true and natural mother of Christ. For, as has been said above, the body of Christ was not brought from heaven, as the heretic Valentinus writes, said that she was the aqueduct, right, for the heavenly body. The heretic. But it was taken from the Virgin Mother and was formed from the most pure bloods of this woman. And this own is required for the notion of the mother, as has been said from above. Whence the Blessed Virgin is truly the mother of what? Christ, huh? Now, to what about this first objection here about the bed, right? To the first therefore it should be said that fatherhood or motherhood and sonship do not fit every generation, but only the generation of living things. And therefore some inanimate things come to be from some matter. Not on account of this does there come about the relation of motherhood and sonship, but only the generation of living, which is properly called, what? Birth, huh? So these cherries here were never born, apparently. Three. To the second it should be said that as Damascene says in the third book, the birth and time by which Christ is born on account of our, or for the sake of, huh? Our salvation is in some way, huh? Secundum knows according to us, right? Because he was born a man from a woman and in a suitable time of conception, right? But above us, however, insofar as not from what the male seed, right? But from the Holy Spirit, right? And the holy, what? Virgin, right? Above the law of conception, right? Of course, we maintain that for the woman comes part of the seed, right? Which Thomas didn't hold in following the philosopher. Thus, therefore, on the side of the mother, huh? That deity was, what? Natural. And on the side of the apparition of the Holy Spirit was miraculous. Whence the Blessed Virgin is the true and natural mother of, what? Christ, huh? So the same thing can be natural and miraculous. A little bit like they'll say, but the heavenly bodies, right? Their motion is considered natural according to the aptitude of the heavenly bodies in this motion, but voluntary and the part of the angels pushing them around, huh? Wrong to conscience, as far as I know, that's why they do move around. Now, to the third should be said, that as has been said above, the resolution of the seed of the woman does not pertain to necessity of conception. And therefore, the resolution of the seed is not a necessity required for the mother. That's a kind of obscure thing about the woman's seed in there, huh? Because sometimes he denies that, oh, that the seed comes in there, like from a man, right? But there's some seed whereby the body, the woman is prepared for this, huh? Mm-hmm. But we're not to dwell too much in that. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, the important thing, whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God. And I, the story, say that she should be called the Mother of Christ, but not the Mother of God. And I so preach in the cathedral there in Constantinople. To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. For it should not be said about the divine mysteries, anything about the divine mercies, except what it's had from sacred scripture. But never in sacred scripture is it read that she is the Mother or the Generator of God, right? But rather, she is the Mother of Christ, or the Mother of the Boy, right? It is clear in Matthew 1.18. Therefore, she hath not to be called the Blessed Virgin. Therefore, it hath not to be said that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God. But it seems that scripture is backing up my friend, Nestorius. You guys should not be attacking my friend, Nestorius. More open-hand. Yes. Moreover, Christ is said to be God according to divine nature. But the divine nature did not take its beginning from the Virgin, right? Therefore, the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. She is the Mother of God according to its human nature. Moreover, this name God is commonly said of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, it would seem to follow that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So now we get back to the idea of how the word God can stand for just one person in particular, right? So when you say in the beginning was the word and the word was toward God, God stands for what? The Father, yeah. Supplizitio. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God. But against this is what is said in the chapters of Cyril, approved of in the Synod of Ephesus. And that's the one that is most important for her being called the Mother of God, right? And it's reverenced as much as the four Gospels, right? These four consuls. If someone does not confess God to be, according to the truth, Emmanuel, which means God with us, right? An account of this, the generator of God, the Holy Spirit. He generated him, what? In a flesh-like way. Made flesh from the word God. Anathema set, right? The accursed. Okay. Answer, it should be said that it has been said above. Every name signifies in the concrete, signifying in the concretes of nature, right? Can saponere, can stand for it, is the way that we translate that in English, right? For every hypostasis of that, what? Nature. So I can be said to be generated by man, right? And that a man there stands for. Yeah. Since the union of the Incarnation was made in, what? In the hypostasis, it's because it's a hypostatic union, right? As has been said above. The hypostasis is manifest that this name God is able to stand for the hypostasis having a human nature and a, what? Divine. And therefore, whatever belongs to the divine nature and the human can be attributed to that person who has both of these natures. Either according as, what? It stands for. For it there stands a name signifying the divine nature, right? Or according as, for it there stands a name signifying the, what? Human nature. For to be conceived and born is attributed to a person and to a hypostasis, according to the nature, according to that nature, which is conceived and born. Since, therefore, in the beginning of that conception, the human nature assumed, was assumed by the, what? Divine person, as has been said before. For, consequently, it can truly be said, and born of the virgin. For from this, someone, some woman is said to be the mother of someone, who, what? Sees and generates. Whence it follows the blessed virgin, truly is called the mother of God, huh? Alone, this, in this way could be negated, only in this way could be denied, right? That the blessed virgin was the mother of God. If either the humanity before was subject to conception, right? And birth, then that man was the son of God, right? As Photinus posited, right? Or that that humanity was not assumed in the unity of, what? Person. Or the hypostasis of the word of God, as Nestorius posits. But both of these are Arunis. Whence it is heretical to deny that the blessed virgin is the mother of God. The first objection, he says, is from Nestorius. But you can only say what's in Scripture. How would you apply to that? To the first, therefore, it should be said that this was the objection of Nestorius, huh? Which is, Saul, from this, that although it is not found expressed in Scripture, right? Said that the blessed virgin is the mother of God, huh? Nevertheless, it is found expressed in Scripture that Jesus Christ is true God. As is clear in 1 John 5, 20. And that the blessed virgin is the mother of Jesus Christ. Whence it falls for necessity, in the words of Scripture, that she be the mother of, what? God. You also say, though, it's from the traditional church, right? It's found in the four, you know, fundamental councils. Yeah, we have that reading this morning from, was it Thessalonians? What was it, 2 Timothy? 2 Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians, about to keep the traditions that we've given your mother by word of mouth or writing. Yeah. For it is said in Romans 9, 5, that from the Jews, according to the flesh, Christ, who is above all, God blessed in, what? Forever. But he's not from the Jews, except by means of the blessed virgin. Whence the one who is above all, God blessed forever, is truly born in the blessed virgin, or from the blessed virgin, as from his, what? Mother. Now, the second objection, he says, is also from Nestorius, huh? Now, that second objection, that's the objection of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a certain epistle against Nestorius, right? So is it saying thus, huh? Just as the soul of man, with its own body, is what? Born? And nevertheless is regarded as one. And if one wishes to say, that he is what? The generator of the flesh, but not, however, the generation of the soul. Exceedingly, what? Superphilous, huh? Does he speak, huh? But such a thing taking place, we perceive in the generation of Christ. For he is born from... the substance of god the father the word of god right because he took on flesh is necessary to confess that he was born according to the flesh from the woman it should be said therefore that the blessed virgin is said to be the mother of god not because she is the mother of his divine nature but because she is of a what person having the divine nature and humanity she is the mother of that person according to his human nature and so she's the mother of god according to his what human nature that's what we understand right but you don't have to always add you know the way that she's the mother of god right but you say she's the mother of god not according to his divine nature but according to his what human nature which is simply mother of god god huh when did that come in because it was it was it i don't know if it was in thomas's time in the second part of the young there was it um didn't he mention in his sermon and he explains it because he said i know i read it somewhere he just comments about the second part being handed by the church he said oh okay okay okay back that far mother of all grace mother of mercy to our race protect us now from satan's power and we'll set that closing out you can hear that i'm saying that there's an impression of the text oh mary mother of all grace mother of mercy to our race protect us now from satan's power and we'll set that closing out it's kind of the rhyme yeah but it's not the two parts of the are of the hail mary right yeah now and then you don't get the idea now the third objection right but yeah yeah yeah that's that's get you in a little trouble i think to the third should be said that this name god although it is common to the three person nevertheless whenever sometimes right stands for only the what person of the father sometimes for only the person of the son of the holy spirit as in that above and therefore when it is said the blessed virgin is the mother of god this name god stands for only the person of the son that was made flesh so i'm the son of a man i'm a man therefore i'm the son of myself right you're a man so i'm your son you're getting closer well we recognize i think in that in that first line the son of a man that a man although it's you know man's common to many men right myself uh it stands there for my father in the context right i don't think that should be understood as another meaning of a man that's not one meaning of a man we know victor berkwist but because man signifies what has human nature um it didn't stand for my father right because he had a human name but something other than than than than than a a special meaning of the word a man right that'd be to misunderstand it that's a kind of self-think i don't want to confuse that right i mean that one meaning of a man is any man another meaning of a man is you know victor berkwist well we've got time to do this nice long article here well we've got time to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing we're going to do this nice thing Look at this, to the fifth one goes forward thus, it seems that in Christ there are two, what? Sonships? How do they translate it in English? Sonships? They just say, it would seem that there are two affiliations in Christ. Okay, okay. For nativity is a cause of what? Sonship, right? But in Christ there are two nativities, therefore also in Christ there are two sonships. But son is what? The name of the person, right? Son of a person. Moreover, sonship, by which someone is said to be the son of someone, of a mother or father, depends in some way from what? Yeah, because to be of a relation is to what? Have oneself in some way to another, right? Once taking away one of the relatives, the other one is what? Destroyed, right? But the eternal sonship by which Christ is the son of God the Father does not depend upon the mother, right? Because nothing eternal depends upon the temporal. Therefore, Christ is not the son of the mother by eternal sonship. Either, therefore, in no way is he the son, which is again the thing we said before, or it's necessary that he be his son, or her son, I guess, by a certain other temporal sonship. Therefore, in Christ there are two sonships. Moreover, one of the relatives is placed to the definition of the other, right? From which it is clear that one of the relatives is specified from the other, but one and the same is not able to be in, what? Diverse species. Therefore, it seems impossible that one and the same relation should be, what? Terminated to extremes or limits that are entirely diverse. But Christ is said to be the son of the eternal father and the son of the temporal mother, right? So they're two different terms. Which are terms omnino, diversity, all together diverse. Therefore, it seems not possible, it's not able to be, by the same relation that he said to be the son of the father and of the mother. Therefore, in Christ there are two sonships. Now, if you were not exposed to this guy, Thomas here, what would you have thought about this question? If there's an eternal sonship at the other extreme, it would refer to one thing. It would refer to one thing. But it's interesting, in Scripture's way of speaking, though, they speak of him as son of God and son of man, right? It seems like he's got two sonships there, doesn't it? It seems like. Yeah. You know, we would have thought of the debilitas, unicondi. Among other things, yeah. We would probably have thought that, you know. But, again, this is what Damascene says in the third book. Damascene is important here, huh? That those things which are of nature are multiplied in Christ, right? These two natures. Not over those things which are of the person. But sonship, most of all, maximae, pertains to the person. For it is a personal property, as it's clear from those things which were said in the first part, huh? Therefore, in Christ, there's only one sonship, huh? Well, I answer it should be said that about this there are diverse opinions. Well, at least you can see that much, huh? For some, paying attention to the cause of sonship, which is the divitas, birth, right? Place in Christ two sonships, just as there are two, what? Births. Others, paying attention to the subject of sonship, which is the person or the hypostasis, place in Christ only one sonship, just as there's only one hypostasis or what? Person. Okay, you can see why people have different opinions, right? Now, the unity of a relation or its plurality is not to be, what? Noted according to the terms. Now, that's strange he says that. But according to the cause or the subject, right? For if according to the terms it is observed, it would be necessary that each man in himself has two, what? Sonships. One by which he is referred to the father, another by which he is referred to his mother. So I'm the son of my father and the son of my mother. So two sonships, right? But erecte considerante. That's what we pray for, right? You might be correctly considered. It appears that by the same relation, each one is referred to his own, what? Mother. On account of the unity of the, what? Cause, huh? For it is by the same birth that a man is born from his father and his, what? Mother, huh? Whence, by the same relation, he is referred to, what? Both, huh? So I'm the son of my father and mother, I guess, huh? I'm not the son of my father and also the son of my mother. Somebody could say that, I suppose, but, see. Now, this is important here. And the same reason is about the teacher, right? Who teaches many disciples the same, what? Teaching. So do I have three teacherships here? I think Thomas says elsewhere, if I teach the same man, let's say, logic and geometry, then I'm, too, yeah. The geometry is not the same thing as logic. Subject. I mean, yeah, yeah. The basis for the relation there is. But it's by the same teaching that you're all my students. So there's the same reason, he says, about the teacher who teaches many disciples the same teaching. And about the Lord who governs diverse subjects by the same, what? Power, huh? But if there are diverse causes, differing in species, consequently, there seems to be, what? Relations differing in species are kind, huh? Whence nothing prevents many such relations being in the same. Just as if someone is a some teacher in, what? Grammar, and of others in logic, other is the notion of his magisterium or both. So I teach these guys logic there on Wednesday night. I teach you guys theologies. So, and thus, by other relations, one and the same man can be a master of either diverse ones, right? Or the same according to diverse teachings, yeah. It happens however, a quantum way sometimes, that someone has a relation to many according to diverse causes of the same species, right? Just as when someone is a father of diverse sons according to diverse acts of generation. Whence fatherhood does not differ in what species, since the acts of generation are not, are the same in what species? And because... And because... I can't have many fatherhoods according to my different children, right? I'm one father. I'm the father of the wall. So, my daughter's only one mother of the wall. Because, yeah, fatherhood is not able to differ in species, right? Since the acts of generation are the same in species of kind, right? And because many forms of the same species of kind cannot be at the same time in the same subject, right? It is not possible that there be many fatherhoods in the one who is a father of many sons by natural what? Generation. It would be different, however, if he were the father of one by natural generation and another by what? Adoption. So, God's a father in a different way of a son. Divine generation and of us, right? That would be something. Now, it is manifest, however, that it is not by one and the same nativity that Christ is born from the father from eternity, right? And from the mother from time, right? Nor is the birth of one, what? Species or kind, right? Whence, as regards this, it is necessary to say that in Christ there are diverse sonships, one temporal and the other, what? Eternal. But because the subject of sonship is not the nature or a part of the nature, but only the person hypostasis, in Christ, however, there is not any hypostasis or person except the eternal one. There is not possible to be in Christ, some sonship except that which is in the eternal, what? Hypostasis. But every relation which extemporary from time is said of God does not place in God, the eternal God, anything secundum rem, right? This is the famous teaching which Thomas and the custom both get, right? But secundum rationum tantum. That's a difficult thing we learned before, a little bit before, as is had in the first part. And therefore the sonship by which Christ is referred to his mother is not able to be a real relation, but only secundum what? Yeah. I can see you're going to misunderstand it, right? And thus, as regards something at least, both opinions say something true, right? For if we pay attention to the, what, perfect notions or definitions of sonship, it's necessary to say that there are two sonships according to the, what, dual teotivities. If, however, we pay attention to the subject of sonship, what is not able to be anything except the eternal person, right? There cannot be in Christ reality there, really, except the, what, eternal sonship. Nevertheless, he is said, relatively, a son to his mother by the relation which is, what, with the relation of eternity to Christ, huh? Just as God is said to be Lord by the relation which is understood together with the real relation by which the creature is subject to God, right? Aristotle puts it out in the fifth book of wisdom, right? You know, he says some relations are based on quantity, some upon acting, upon undergoing. And some, and it comes down to the idea of the relation where it's real on one side and the other simply because we can't understand one relation without understanding the other one to be relatively related, right? But it's not real relation, right? And Aristotle's example is that of knowledge, right, where I understand what a triangle is, let's say, or I sense it, I see you, right? So in understanding what a triangle is, I have a real relation to the triangle, and seeing you I have, right? But my seeing you remains in me, doesn't go out to you and affect you at all. So when you are said relatively to me to be seen by me, there's nothing real in you, right? But my seeing you is something real in me. And therefore, in the relation that my seeing involves to you, right? And so God in no way is changed by creating us, right? But we are changed, so we have a real dependence upon God and real relation to God. And Aristotle then speaks of it as the measure and the measure, right? The measure is really related to the measure, but the measure is not really related to the measure. It doesn't depend upon it in any way, right? It's hard to understand, but it goes back to this teaching that God can't really have a relation that's real to us, right? Because then there would be something added to God, and you have an accident, right? It wouldn't be altogether simple anymore. But we're really related to Him and really dependent upon Him, right? And it's a good example, again, of the way of understanding. You shouldn't confuse out the way things are, right? So because you can't understand our relation to God without understanding the same relation of God to us. That's not our way of understanding, right? But you shouldn't jump from that and say, well, then there's a real relation of God to us. So maybe Mary has a real relation to Christ as his mother, and therefore we have to understand Him as the son of his mother, but it's not a real relation in Him, right? Because He is the second person. It's a very... I was mentioning how Augustus was talking there in this 120, you know, about you should help someone to understand what he believes according to his capacity to understand. And some little, some more, some a lot, you know? You wouldn't want to preach this from the pulpit. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Harry didn't have a real relationship to our son. No, Christ didn't have a real relationship with his mother. That's a... Wouldn't everybody really step in the middle. What? He didn't really have a relationship with his mother. That's a real relationship to God's father. Yeah. Well, that's what they always want to say, you know. Is God... Does God really have a relationship... That's what I'd like to say. A real relationship with us. And they'll say, no. Huh? It's a wind up in a sail, you know. But notice the way he speaks there, huh? And quam vis relaxio dominat in that? He's not real in God, right? Nevertheless, he really is the Lord from the real subjection of the creature to him, right? The last paragraph here, I think. Oh, yeah, the last paragraph. Yeah. For the son is said relatively to the mother, right? By the relation which is understood together with the relation of the motherhood to the Christ, right? Just as God is said to be the Lord by the relation which is understood with the real relation, by which the creature is subject to God, right? And although the relation of Lord is not real in God, nevertheless, he is really said to be, what? Lord from the real subjection of the creature to him, right? And likewise, Christ is said to be really the son of the virgin mother from the real relation of motherhood to Christ. You put that in the background there of your head there and say, I will think about that again another time. But relations are one of the hardest things to understand, right? You know, when Albert and people talk about the relations, sometimes they mention, and Thomas does too, and Averro is selfish, too, you know. Some people think that all relations are, what, something of reason, right? Some people think that all relations are, what, something of reason, right? Some people think that all relations are, what, something of reason, right? Some people think that all relations are, what, something of reason, right? Some people think that all relations are, what, something of reason, right?