Tertia Pars
Lecture 85: Christ's Birth: Relations, Manifestation, and Divine Wisdom

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

and that no relations are real right and other people kind of think they're all real and and aristotle was the first to see clearly that that some relations are real and some are not real but we have to understand things relatively from our way of understanding you know something else towards them yeah yeah now to the first it should be said that the the temporal birth it's got oh should you stop here it's 4 30 i don't want to go on to the objections finish up okay the first therefore it should be said that the temporal birth would have caused in christ a real temporal sonship right if he was there if there was there a subject capable of this sonship right which is not able to be for the eternal what suppositum is not hypostasis is not able to be what susceptible of a temporal relations has been said nor can it be said that he is susceptible susceptible or susceptible of a temporal sonship by reason of the human nature just as of a temporal what birth because it would be necessary for the human nature to be in some way the subject to sonship right just as it is in some way subject to what birth for since the ethiope is said to be white by reason of his teeth is necessary that the teeth of the ethiope should be the subject of what whiteness but human nature in no way can be the subject of sonship because this relation directly regards the what persona the second should be said and that the eternal sonship does not depend uh from the mother the temporal mother but to this eternal sonship is understood together a temporal what respect depending from the mother according as christ is said to be the son of the mother that's there she has a real relation to him right and therefore it's good yeah now to the third one in being follow another as i said in the fourth book of wisdom metaphysics and therefore just as it happens that in one of the extremes a relation is a certain being right in another it is not a being right but a thought only just as about the what knowable in science the philosopher says that's his example in the fifth book of metaphysics and thomas will distinguish four kinds of relations that are not real and he takes them two of them from aristotle aristotle speaks of and two that that that uh avicenna speaks of right it's very striking and some texts he'll say you know aristotle says these two and avicenna says these two you know not that aristotle didn't know the other kinds but he has a text you know where aristotle brings out these two right you know when i say duane berkwist is duane berkwist then i have a certain relation that duane is the same as duane you know that's not a real relation because there's not really two duanes there right and uh so aristotle talks about that and and and the one speaking of right here right and avicenna speaks of two other kinds of like today is before tomorrow tomorrow doesn't really exist so can i be a relation to something that doesn't exist and then you have a relation uh related to the subject which it is right but you don't have a relation relation it's real but anyway that's uh it's uh there are many places every time it touches upon those so it happens that on the part of one extreme or limit right there is one relation and so also it happens right on the part of one extreme that there's one relation on the part of another extreme there are many relations right just as in men on the side of their parents there is found the two four relation one of fatherhood and the other of motherhood right which differ in species right on account of this that for another reason is the father and another the mother the source of what generation for if there were many by reason of the same uh for the same reason uh for the same reason a beginning of one action as when many what pull the ship right and all there would be one in the same what relation but on the side of the offspring there is what there is one only sonship secundum realm in reality but twofold according to reason right in so far as it corresponds uh to what other parents according to two uh respects understood right and thus also in in to some extent in christ there's only one real but sonship which regards the eternal what father there's nevertheless a another respect temple respect of which he regards his temple mother right eat our dinner or something or a break God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all the truth. So up to 35.6, right? Question 35, article 6. Okay, whether Christ was born without the pain of his mother, right? On to the sixth one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ was not born without the pain of his mother. For just as the death of men follows from the sin of the first parents, according to that of Genesis chapter 2, in whatever day you eat, you will die by death, huh? It's kind of double, definitely there. Morti mori, yeah, man. So also, the pain of giving birth, according to that of Genesis 3, in pain you will bear what? Sons. But Christ wished to undergo what? Death, right? Therefore, it seems that for like reason, his birth would be with what? Sorrow. Sorrow. Pain. Moreover, the end is proportional to the beginning. But the end of the life of Christ was with pain. According to that of Isaiah, truly he bore our pains. Therefore, it seems that also in his nativity there would be the pain of birth, right? Of born another's pain. We died our own. Moreover, in the book about the origin, the birth of the Savior, it is narrated that for the birth of Christ, obstetricians, huh? Okay. Yeah. Which seemed to be necessary to the one giving birth on account of the pain. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin brought forth with pain, huh? But against all this is what Augustine says in his Sermon on the Nativity, speaking to the Virgin Mother, neither in conception, he says, was she found without modesty, shall we say, nor in birth was she found without, what? With pain. He says, the answer should be said that the pain of the one giving birth is caused from the opening of the muscles, I guess you'd say, huh? To relate our word, mite, I don't know, yeah, through which the offspring come forth. But it has been said above that Christ came forth from the closed womb of his mother, like he came through the wall there after the resurrection. And thus there was no opening of the muscles there, huh? Like the channel. Yeah. An account of this, in that giving birth, there was no, what? Pain. Just as not some corruption, but there was there the greatest, what? Joy. From this that a man, God, is born into the, what? According to that of Isaiah 35, huh? The one, what, germinating? Mm-hmm. Will germinate like a lily and will exalt with joy and praise, huh? Some other words that this is a marvelous thing of giving birth. She was quite taken up with this one. Mm-hmm. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the pain of birth follows in the woman, the, what, commixture, commixture with the male, right? Mm-hmm. When, since Genesis 3, 16, after it has been said, you will bring forth in pain, it joins to this, you will be under the power of the man, huh? But as Augustine says in the Sermon on the Inception of the Blessed Virgin, from this sentence, the Virgin Mother of God is, what? Okay. Accepted. On account of her. Okay. Back to the conception, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Because without the, what, colluvionic, sin, yeah, and without the detriment of the male mixture, she received Christ, right? And without pain, she generated him. Without validation of her integrity, with the modesty of virginity, remaining intact. But Christ undertook death by a spontaneous or free will that he might satisfy for us. Not for the necessity of that sentence, because he himself was not in debt to it. But she wasn't in debt to it. A little bit upon Thomas there, if we can say that. More of the objection to the second one now, about the end corresponding to the beginning. The second should be said that Christ, by dying, destroyed our death. So, by his pain, he freed us from pain, son. And thus he wished to die with pain, right? But the pain of the mother giving birth did not pertain to Christ himself, who for our sins came to satisfy him. And therefore, it's not necessary that his mother bring forth with, what, pain. Now, what about these obstetricians? Well, there's some lack of authenticity, I guess, in that text, huh? To third should be said in Luke 2, 7, that the Blessed Virgin, herself, the boy whom she brought forth, right, she wrapped him around with the claws and placed him in the crib, I guess, and from this is shown that the narration of that book, the Orto Salvatore that you referred to, was apocryphal, which is apocryphal to be false, right? When Jerome says, against Talvidius, there was no obstetrician there, right? No care of woman, right? Intercessing. And she was both mother and the obstetrician, if you want to say that. For he says, with the claws, he wrapped the infinite and placed him in the, what, yeah. Which opinion overcomes the delirious sayings of the apocryphal books. Now, Christ ought to be born in Bethlehem, right? To the seventh one goes forth thus, it seems that Christ ought not to be born in Bethlehem. For it is said in Isaiah chapter 2, from Sion the law comes forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. But Christ is truly the word of God, huh? Therefore, from Jerusalem, he ought to go forth into the world, huh? Moreover, Matthew 2 is said to be written about Christ, that he will be called the, what, Nazarene, which is taken from that, which is written in Isaiah chapter 11. The flower from its root will come forth or ascend, for Nazareth is interpreted, the word I guess, floss, huh, flower, huh? But most of all, someone is named from the place's nativity. Thomas de Quino, right? Right. Augustine of Hippo. Okay. This is one, huh? Hippo? Augustine. They always call him, what's the name of that cyclical? Augustine of Hipponensum, yeah. Oh, not all. I think Padme is not. Okay. I can't actually ask any Portuguese. Therefore, it seems that in Nazareth, he ought to have been born, where also he was conceived and nourished, right? Moreover, for this the Lord was born into the world, that he might announce the truth, the faith of truth, huh? According to that of John 18. For this was I born, for this I came into the world, that I might give testimony unto the The truth, huh? St. Alphonsus is saying he came in to make kindle fire, right? That's the only reason he came in. St. Alphonsus didn't say, Christ did. St. Alphonsus was quoting. Yeah, yeah. I got struck out because Thomas quotes this at the beginning of the Summa College of Gentiles and Alphonsus at the beginning of the Meditations on the Passion, yeah. It came for both these purposes. But the way the text that he says, the English text I have says, you know, alone for this, right? And not alone, he came also for this here. But this could be, what, brought about more easily if he was born in the city of Rome, right? Which then had domination over the whole world. Whence Paul, writing to the Romans, says, our faith is announced to the whole world, right? Therefore it seems he ought not to have been born in Bethlehem, huh? Yeah. So the baby came, yeah. But against this is what is said in Micaiah chapter 5, and you, Bethlehem, Ephratah, what does that mean? You know what he says when he opens up the mouth of somebody? And he said, Ephratah, well, that's a different word, I think, yeah. It sounds like, but that doesn't mean to be open, yeah. From you will come forth, right? For me, the one who is the Lord in Israel. Well, Thomas says, I answer. It should be said that Christ wished to be born in Bethlehem for a two-fold reason, huh? It's interesting that you should give two reasons for this. First, because he was made from the seed of David according to the flesh, as is said in Romans chapter 1, verse 3. To whom also there was made a promise, a special promise, about Christ, according to that of the second book of, what, Kings, huh? A man, what, to whom is constituted? Oh, it must be a description of David. Yeah. The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ. Okay. And therefore, in Bethlehem, from whom, or from which David was born, right, he wished to be, what, born, huh? That from the very place of his birth, the promise made to him to be fulfilled will be shown, right? And this, the evangelist designates, saying, that he was of the house and family of David, huh? Well, that gives David a great deal of prominence, doesn't it, huh? Mm-hmm. He wanted to be born from the city that David was born of, huh? Yeah. Actually, they announced a marriage, too, don't they? He will be. Yeah. The throne of the throne of David. Second reason, because, as Gregory says in the homily, Bethlehem means, what, a house of bread, huh? But Christ it is, who said, I am the living bread, comes down from heaven, huh? So it's in the very name of Bethlehem, huh? Mm-hmm. Isn't the rest of those two reasons he gives, huh? Mm-hmm. To the first, and now what about the word coming forth from Jerusalem, right, in the law? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that just as David was born in Bethlehem, so also he chose, what, Jerusalem, that in it he might constitute the seat of his kingdom, and he might build the temple of God there. And thus Jerusalem was a city at the same time royal and priestly, huh? Those two things, huh? But the priesthood of Christ and his kingdom were especially completed or consummated in his, what, passion. And therefore, suitably, he chose Bethlehem for his nativity, Jerusalem for his, what, passion, huh? At the same time, by this, he refuted, you might say, right, confounded the glory of men, right, huh? Who glory from this that they are, what, from noble cities, huh? They draw their origin from noble cities, huh? Like Churchill was born in, Churchill was born in Blenheim, right? Christ drove her to reverse in a ignoble, huh, city, which to be born, right? And in a noble city to suffer a problem, huh? He just goes against the grain all the time. Yeah, no, he brings a big up. Yeah. Just backwards. Yeah. Back and backwards. Choose to be, to be put to death in an obscure place and born in a famous place, you know, town, you know. Well, just as an incentivized Baptist in the world of Paul, when I bowed my hand, because he was, he was conditioned to Baptist. He said, I bowed my hand and the whole world came up right. Now I can see things right. Because my dad didn't want to get buried in a parish church, right? He's already buried down at the cathedral. In a real church, as she said. Right, of course. In a real church. Not according to the origin of his, what? Right. Flesh. And therefore, in the city of Nazareth, he wished to be educated and, what? Nourished, huh? They might flower there, right? Go in wisdom and strength. But in Bethlehem, he wished, as it were, a, what? Is it? Gregory is a god. Yeah. Yeah. Like a wonder, yeah. To be born. Yeah. Green. Because, as Gregory says, through the humanity that he assumed, he was born, as it were, in an alien nature. Yeah. Not according to his power, but according to nature, right? And, as also, Bede says, to this that he, what? Did in diverse places? He needed, I think he needed a... Diverse places. I think diversoria was a lodging. That he, in order that he who found no room at the inn, might prepare many mansions for it in his house. Yeah. Diversoria was a, yeah. So, like a place that there was no place for him almost, right? Yeah, I think so. Yeah. He prepared for us. Yeah, I think because that verb there in Latin is that he needed something, that he needed stuff, but there wasn't that. To the third, it should be said, that as is said in a certain sermon of the Council of Ephesus, right? In my footnotes is Theodorus, and Sir, whatever his name is. If he had chosen the great city of Rome, on account of the power of its citizens, he would have attributed the change of the old work, right? If he was the son of an emperor, it would be described as power too. His usefulness to his power, right? But that his divinity might be known, by that he transformed the world, right? He chose a poor mother, right? And a poor native country. For God chose the, what? Infirm of the world that he might confound the strong. As it's said in 1 Corinthians 1. And therefore that he might more show his power, right? In Rome itself, which was the head of the world, right? He established the head of his church, right? In a sign of his perfect, what? Victory. That from thence, faith might be derived to the whole world, huh? According to that of Isaiah chapter 26. He humbled the sublime city. And under, stamped on it. The cramped over. It, the foot of the poor one, right? That is Christ, the steps of the needy. That is the princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul. Paul is the rank of the apostle. I was mentioning, I was looking at the saints, right? And they mentioned first Peter and Paul together, right? And the other apostles after that. But Paul, John Paul II, he called them the princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul. So, that's interesting, huh? But actually, in the replies there, you see why he was born in Bethlehem. Why he grew up in Nazareth. Why he died in Jerusalem, or outside Jerusalem. And then why he established Peter eventually in Rome, huh? Why is Peter supposed to be leaving Rome? Meet Christ on the road? Oh, yeah. What are you doing? And that's what it says. I'm going to be crucified again, grace said. So, Peter turned back. To the eighth one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ was not born in a suitable time. For for this reason, Christ came that he might call back to liberty his own, right? But he was born in a time of slavery, in a sense, huh? In which the whole world was a tributary of Augustus, right? This is had in Luke 2, right? And that's why he went to Bethlehem, right? Therefore, it seems it was not a suitable time that Christ was born. I don't know. It's kind of a funny argument because it seems like he came to free us. That's where we didn't come at the time. But anyway, we'll see. There's something I don't see there. Moreover, the promises of Christ to be born were not made to the Gentiles, according to that of Romans 9.4, of whom are the promises? That's speaking to Jews, right? But Christ was born in the time in which an alien king dominated him, as was clear in Matthew 2. When he was born, Jesus, in the days of Herod the king, huh? Herod's not really a Jew, I guess, huh? He's a Jew. Therefore, it seems he was not born in a suitable time. Moreover, the time of the presence of Christ is compared in the world to the day, right? On account of this, that he is the light of the world. When he himself says, it's necessary for me to operate or to act in my deeds. The deeds of the one who sent me, right? So long as it is day, huh? But in the, what? In the heat of summer, I guess, the day is longer than winter. Yeah. Therefore, since he was born in the depth of winter, right? Actos Calandos January. It seems that he was not born in a suitable time. He should have been born in this. I never understood how they calculate it. But against all this is what is said in Galatians chapter 4, verse 4. For when the fullness of time came, right? God sent his only son, made from a woman, made under the, what? Law. So it's like a suitable time, the fullness of time, huh? It's a very interesting expression, the fullness of time, huh? How could time be more full? See, it's the excellence of the time. He says, answer, it should be said, that this is a difference between Christ and other men. That other men are born subject to the necessity of time. But Christ, as the Lord and the maker, you might say, right? Of all times, chose for himself a time in which he'd be born, just as he chose a mother and a place. And because, this is Thomas' famous quote, the things which are from God are, what? Order, right? He did all things in wisdom. And suitably disposed. Consequently, in a most suitable time, Christ was, what? Born, huh? It'd be easy to remember those two passages. Romans 13, why not? Was it 13? This one's with 8. Well, no, for sapientia it is. But it says, Romans 13, 1. Oh, this one's a typo. They put 8, 1 for both of them. Oh. Well, let me check it out. You are right. This is a discipline. What do you guys have? I have 8, 1, 2. He's got, I think we have to look at B, 8, 6. Yours says 13, 1 for Romans. I don't have 8. It doesn't have any footnote? I don't have any footnote. Okay. Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ came to lead us back, right, into the state of liberty from the status of, what? Slavery, right, huh? And therefore, just as our, what? Mortal nature he took on, right, huh? That he might bring us back to life. So, as Bede says, in that time, he, what? Yeah, to be incarnate, in which, once born, he would be written down under the census of Caesar, right? And from our, what? Yeah, he would be subject to, what? Servitude, right, huh? In that time, also, in which the whole world lived under one, what? Prince, Maxime Pax Fulimundo, Pax Romana. Shakespeare hints at that in Antony and Cleopatra, right? You know, the whole world's going to be, you know, at peace once Augustus has come to a big power. And therefore, it was suitable that in that time Christ be born, which is, what? Who is our peace, huh? Making both one. As it said in Ephesians 2, that's us and the Gentiles, I guess. Or the Hebrews and the Gentiles. Whence Jerome says upon Isaiah, son, looking over the old, what? Histories, right? We'll find up to the, what? 28th year of the reign of Caesar Augustus. In the whole world, there was discord, right? But the Lord being born, all these wars, what? Ceased. Abhijazim, Octavum. What about that number? 28th year of the Purpigenesis? Yeah. Why didn't he choose the first? That's not what I know. Why not the first? Why the second? That's like a rabbinic question. They always ask, why does the Purpigenesis begin with Beth, not Allah, in the second way of the alphabet, not first? Why? It's rabbinic, sir. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. This is the second person, isn't it? Right, what, why? 28 years. 28 years of the reign, I guess. Oh, 22 years? That's when the war is seized, you know, and there's peace. According to that of Isaiah's, right, nation will not rise up against, it's the sword against nation, right? It was suitable also that in that time in which one prince dominated the world, Christ should be born, who came to gather his own into one, that there might be one sheep, one path, one overlays, what, the flock, yeah. Interesting, the Pope there reigns from Rome, right, huh? Kind of succeeding the Roman Empire in a sense, in terms of unifying, yeah. So he gives, what, three reasons why that time was suitable? Well, one in terms of, yeah, he wanted to be born a slave to free us, right, peace, and then the unity, right? Kind of put together those two, but, so you can't, I guess it's too much, right, can't you? Yeah. Interesting, those Roman plays of Shakespeare, huh? That war, right. Mm-hmm. It's amazing there, the way, see, she speaks of himself, you know, like the North Star, you know, that doesn't move, everything else evolves around, you know. It's funny, because I was just rereading my favorite book, that's the God of Gentiles, and you have the, right after the existence of God is shown in chapter 13, and you have the, God is altogether unchangeable, right, in the eternal, 14 and 15, those two chapters. And I was thinking, gee, Caesar, you know, is kind of conferring himself to God, right? And everything evolves around him, but he doesn't move, right? And when they try to get him to, you know, to change somebody's exile, you know, he's going to not change, right? You know, but he's exile a man, that's it, right? You know, change the mind. It's so beautiful that Shakespeare does that, though, huh? Yeah, yeah. It's just marvelous. I got through rereading the, I was saying, kind of a breakthrough Shakespeare, so I was reading the seven plays that come down to us, Sophocles, right? Who, along with, Sophocles is the greatest of the Greek dramatists, and the old saying was, you know, that Sophocles is Homer writing tragedy, and Homer is Sophocles writing epic, so they saw the legacy of these two great men, but it's just marvelous to place things in them, and the, you know, I was reading first Ajax, why does Ajax get in trouble with the gods, and, yeah, well, you see, he's out in the battle, and Athena comes down, you know, to help him, right? He says, go away, I don't need you, you know, someone else. He does that a couple times, yeah, yeah. And so, it's kind of a Christian lesson for us, you know, you know, the idea of Athena is kind of crazy, but, you see, things like that, huh? And then, and then you get to Antigone there, you know, Antigone's trying to get her sister to bury the body of their brother, who's killed, and Crean won't allow the burial, right? And so, she says, fine, to Asmina, you know, I cannot love a friend whose love is words. It's not as he said, huh? And then, in Philoctetes, when Odysseus is trying to persuade the son of Achilles to kind of deceive this Philoctetes, right, and how he's going against his nature, and how you begin to despise yourself, you do this, beautiful things in there, you know, beautiful things, you know. Which ones, I know the trilogy of Antigone? Well, there's a few ones that are set there, you know, but one is Oedipus, the king, and then you have, yeah, but Everson Colonus is not really so much a tragic, like the Antigone is in Oedipus, the king, you know, because you might say it ends a kind of apotheosis of Odysseus, right? And Colonus is where he came from, that was his birthplace, and so on, so it's a very sweet place, and where, you know, the injustice done to poor Odysseus, you know, is covered in the gods, take him over, you know. Beautiful, beautiful play, beautiful play. Beautiful play. I can't go back and read Euripides anymore, Aeschylus, after I read Esophilus again. All I can do is go back and read Homer, you know, and then I'll sing around and come back to Shakespeare. I'm a little struck by this expression of Orbeez Toronto, at least from the last scripture, there's evidence that everybody figured the world was round, and the world was round, the world was round, the world was lands, the groups knew it, the groups knew it, and no happens, I don't know where they come out of the flat earth back then, and it came out in the dark, and it must have been the non-Christian. Well, doesn't the Pope give that, at Christmas time, the Irby and Orbeez, you know, kind of, to the city and to the world? Yeah, yeah. Coming out now, you know, about John Paul II, you know, sleeping on the floor there in the Vatican. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah. He slept on the floor? Slept on the floor, yeah. Was that on a regular basis, or just sometimes, or? Well, it was quite a bit. Oh, really? Yeah, and of course, he did sit in penances, too, you know. Really? Yeah. I don't know. At least this is a new real place. Yeah, it's coming out. Well, he knew. Somewhat him, yeah. He knows? Yeah. In his position. He's about to say, if I wrote to our bishop one day, he talked about accepting God's will, where men are you, you'd be cheerful about it. Do your best to be cheerful about it. Because if I knew, before I became a bishop, if I knew what I know now, I wouldn't want to be a bishop. But I accept what you're doing with goodwill, good cheer. So I wrote to our bishop, and said, we're praying for you. Well, Paul the Sixx used to wear a kind of hair shirt, too, I guess. Really? Paul the Sixx. I mean, I was, he's really strikingly in the setting, and that's what I remember, Bishop McGee, his secretary, had said, at the end of his life, he just kept getting thinner and thinner and thinner, and he ate almost nothing. Paul the Sixx. Paul the Sixx, and he said, he ate almost nothing. That was when he, towards the end of his life, all the priests had been asking for dispensation, but he had to sign him on, and it was somebody, and he said, one of them that really broke his heart, towards the end, was, like a priest who was like in his 70s, and he wanted to get married. And he said, Paul, he just burst into tears. He didn't believe it. Of course, some of these gyms are pretty tough, you know, this McChrystal, who's in charge now of the American troops in Afghanistan, he eats one meal a day, and he sleeps four hours a night. Wow. Is he Catholic? Huh? Is he Catholic? No, he's a man. Yeah. He'd be ashamed to waste it on him. Make it supernatural, make it very true. Gee whiz. I told you that story about MacArthur and the general visiting him. It was during the war, then, the general, you know, was coming through the area, so he knew MacArthur, so he stopped and had dinner with him, you know. So he's sitting, you know, at the table together, the two of them, and he noticed that MacArthur's not eating anything, you know. He said, why aren't you eating? He said, I'm too tired to eat. Too what? Too tired to eat. So the next morning, you know, the guy got up, you know, and he was leaving, and he says, say goodbye to MacArthur, but I don't want to wake the guy up, you know. Wake him up, he says. He went to the front two hours ago. So, I mean, these guys, they would go, you know, for, you know, sometimes they're doing these battle things for a couple of days without sleep, you know, so how can they be that tough, you know. But some of his crust already impressed me, far, only one meal a day, they say, and far asleep at night. Yeah. So, they're really disciplined. It makes it, in that respect, more believable in some of the extraordinary pens of the saints there. If a man who, for, you know, otherwise noble man and noble cause, if he could do that, and there's no suspicion of supernatural activity going on there, well, why couldn't a saint do it on there? Okay, now the second question is about being born under the foreigners, right? Alina Jena came, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.