Tertia Pars
Lecture 89: Christ's Circumcision, Naming, and Presentation in the Temple

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

Now we've got to go into the circumcision of Christ, huh? My goodness. No, all these details, you know. I mean, they're all discussed in the fathers, you know. If you go back to the beginning of question 27, you know. Look at the big premium there. So he says, after the four said in which we have followed things out about the union of God and man, right? And about those things which follow upon the union, right? It remains, right? Consider about those things which the incarnate Son of God in the human nature united to himself did or underwent, right? Which consideration, he says, would be fourfold. For first, we will consider those things which pertain to his entry into the world. Secondly, to those things which pertain to his ongoing process of his life in this world. Third, about his exit from this world, right? And fourth, about those things which pertain to his exaltation after this life. About the first, and this is his, what? Entry, right? Four things ought to be considered. First, about the conception of Christ. Secondly, about nativity. I guess we just finished that now, so. And third, about his circumcision, right? And fourth, about his, what? Baptism. Baptism takes place when he's 30, right? Thereabouts. Okay. But now we've got to take out the circumcision, huh? And then you're going to have several questions, I think, on the baptism start in 38, huh? Okay. So, the word articulus is well chosen, right? It articulates all these things, right? Mm-hmm. Then we're not to consider about the circumcision of Christ, huh? And because the circumcision is a certain profession of the law to be observed, according to that of Galatians 5, I testify to every man, what? Circumcising himself, right? Mm-hmm. That he is a debtor to the, what? The whole law. The whole law. At the same time, would these ought to be, what, asked about the other lawful things, right? Little things. Mm-hmm. Observed about the boy, what? Christ, huh? So, about these four things are asked, huh? First, about his circumcision, right? Secondly, about the imposition of the name, huh? Second, about his offering, right, of him there in the temple. And finally, about the purgation of the mother, right? To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ should not be circumcised, huh? Because the truth coming, the figure, ceases. But the circumcision of Adam was, what, commanded as a sign of the agreement that was about the seed to be born, right? It's clear, Genesis 17. But this agreement was completed in the birth of Christ. Therefore, the circumcision ought to be, what? At once. Moreover, every doing of Christ, every action of Christ, is our instruction, huh? When it is said, John 13, I have given you an example, that as I have done, so you also ought to do. And therefore, but we ought not to be, what, circumcised, right? It's a medical procedure, I guess. According to that, Galatians 5, 2, if we are, what, circumcised, Christ profits you nothing, huh? Therefore, it seems that neither Christ ought to be, what, circumcised, huh? Moreover, circumcision is ordered to the remedy of original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as it's clear from the things foresaid, said above. Therefore, Christ ought not to be, what, circumcised. Against this is what is said in Luke chapter 2. After eight days, we're, what? That the boy might be, what? Now, let's see how Thomas handles this. The answer should be said that for many reasons, Christ ought to be, what, circumcised, huh? First, that he might show the truth of human flesh, huh? Against the Manichaeans, who said that he had a fantastic, imaginary body, right? And against Apollinaris, who said that the body of Christ was consubstantial to his, what, divinity. And against Valentine, who said that the body of Christ was brought from heaven, like it's a different, heavenly body, rather than, huh? That's interesting if he gets at that one, right? Yeah. Pretty concrete demonstration of that. Yeah. Secondly, that he might approve of the circumcision, which long ago, right, God instituted, right? Third, that he might, uh, how do they translate it to come pro-barat, huh? Yeah, third. Okay. And he has a sense of proving it stronger or something. Himself to be of the race of, what, Abraham, right? Who, uh, took the commandment of circumcision as a sign of the faith, which he had, huh? Yeah, ratifying. Fourth, that he would take away an excuse from the Jews, right? That they would not receive him if he was, what, okay? Took him by the Theltean circumcised dog, because Othello says, and... Yeah. Yeah, King David said that thing a lot. Oh, that's right. Yeah. Secondly, that the virtue of obedience he might, what, commend to us by his own example, right? Whence the eighth day he was circumcised, just as in the law. Such as was commanded in the law, right? Sixth, that in the likeness of the flesh of sin he came, right? Uh, he came to what? A remedy by which the flesh of sin he was accustomed to, what? Cleanse, yeah. He did not refuse that, right, huh? To come in the smilitude of the flesh of sin, huh? Second, or seven, rather, that the sustaining in himself the weight of the, what, law, he would liberate others from the weight of the, what, law. According to that of Galatians 4. God sent his son made under the law that those who run the law might be, what, redeemed, huh? Okay, now what about the figure serving or seizing? To the first, therefore, it should be said that circumcision, by removing the, uh, pellicula, that's the, um, yeah, yeah, uh, made in the memory of the generation, in the memory of the act for generation, right? Signifies the, what, taking away, is it, of the old generation, from which oldness we are liberated through the passion of Christ. And therefore, the truth of this figure was not... fully fulfilled in the birth of christ but rather in his what action before which circumcision had its what power and status and therefore it's appropriate that christ before his passion as it were a son of abraham be what circumcised but not afterwards right but probably giving us an example right now okay the second should be said that christ underwent circumcision in that time in which he was under the what command the law and therefore his action in us and this should be imitated by us that we observe those things which in our time in precepta because for each uh action or business there is a time and an opportunity is said in these acts and moreover as origin says just as what we are dead with him dying and we rise with christ rising so we are circumcised by spiritual circumcision through christ and therefore we do not need the what fleshly circumcision and this is what the apostle says in colossians 2 in whom to wit christ we are circumcised by a circumcision not made by the hand right in the flesh of our body of the flesh but in the circumcision of our lord jesus christ that apostle would get in that circumcision there right now that spiritual circumcision um now what about original sin to the third it should be said that just as christ by his own will underwent our death right which is the effect of sin right then although having in himself no sin right that he might liberate us from sin and spiritually make us die to sin so also circumcision which was a remedy of original sin he received without this that he had original sin that he might free us from the yoke of law of the law right and that in us he might effect a what position that he would fulfill the truth that's subtle that thomas huh to get those seven reasons down now the first one's interesting though to show the truth of his human flesh and second he would approve of the circumcision which long ago god instituted and he would prove himself to be of the race of abraham right and take away excuse for them to not receive him who showed the virtue of obedience to us and then to relieve us of sin the weight of the law who showed the truth of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of The second one proceeds thus. It seems that unsuitably was a name placed upon Christ. I was talking about this phrase, imposition hominis, right? Placing upon a name, you know. But we say it in English, we say put a name upon something, right? Put a label upon something. It's that the name is above, right? And that's why when I understand the English word understanding, you know, to understand a name or word means to know what stands under it, right? The evangelical truth ought to what? Respond, of course, bond to the foreannouncing of the prophets, right? But the prophets, another name of Christ they announced. For it is said, Isaiah 7, Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son, and his name will be called Immanuel. Like Immanuel Kant, right? Among others. And eight... Call him. Name. Accelerate. Spolia de trae. Take away the spoil. Yeah. Festina, pre-dar. Hasten to... Take away the trae. I don't know where are those names. In 9-6, his name shall be called Admirable, right? The counselor of God, the strong one, the father of the future aid, the prince of what? Peace. In Zechariah 6-12, Behold a man, the, what? The orient, huh? Yeah. That's the one that, it, it, uh... Because of a transition, but it usually comes off now as branch. That's the one. Oh, yeah. Oh, well, that was the one for, you know, that's the one for the dead now. Oh, really? Yeah. For the dead now. You know, so the east, the dawn. Yeah. But it comes from this general sense of, to spring forth from, so it can have a sense of light, or, or... Or a branch. Oh, yeah. Oh. So, so it's a problematic thing. It's kind of like the Latin word. I know, uh, Pula Lazio is the word in eight, not for this necessarily, but I think of it with this association. It's the tender shoots of something that first comes up. Mm-hmm. And Bonnetter uses that in reference to, the Jews, should have cultivated the faith of God, the one God of the Old Testament, would have founded it through to the Revelation of the Trinity. So he says it's really, the Revelation of the Trinity, it's the earliest one that's contained in that, but it's the most of the full of us. This is what, in Zachary, though, right? He's quoted, isn't it? These things. Right. Oriens, in Zachary's... He's saying that's what, the word there in Zachary comes from... No, no, I mean, in the Zachary of the New Testament, though, I mean... No, no, this is... The prophet, the prophet. I know it is, but I mean... Oh, he says Oriens ex alto. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's the same connection. The same word. The day, spring, or whatever. Yeah, they sometimes... Moreover, Isaiah 62, it is said, there will be called for you a new name, which the mouth of the Lord named. But this name, Jesus, is not a new name, but it was placed upon many in the Old Testament, as is clear from the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3.39. Therefore, it seems unsuitably called... He was called by the name of what? Jesus. Jesus, huh? Moreover, this name, Jesus, signifies salvation, right? He saves people from their sins. It is clear through that which is said in Matthew 1.21. You will bring forth a son, and you will call his name Jesus, for he will make his people safe, or save them, right? From their sins. But the salvation through Christ was made not only in circumcision, but also in the what? In circumcision. Yeah, in the flesh, it refers to the foreskin, that's what it means. Yeah. So you still have foreskin, and then you're Gentile. Yeah, that's what you're called Gentile. Yeah. It is clear through the Apostle, Romans 4. Unsuitably, therefore, was this name imposed upon Christ in his, what? Circumcision. But against this is the authority of Scripture, in which it is said in Luke 2, that after there were consummated eight days, that the boy might be circumcised, his name was called, what? Jesus. The kind of funny way it says, Bocatumis nomineus Jesus. The name is... I answer it should be said that names ought to correspond to the properties of things, right? And this is clear in the names of genre and species, insofar as it is said in the fourth book of metaphysics, that the ratio, which the name signifies, is a definition, which designates the thing's own nature. Now, the names of individual men are always imposed from some property of that to which the name is, what? Placed. Either from, what? By time, just as there are placed upon the names of some saints upon those who are born in their... And so do people, you know, even they give them the name of the saint of the day, right? Or at least it's the second name, right? You know, people who've done that, yeah. She is very separate. I said, can't say that. She wanted to call, you know, and he said, no, no, no, no, no. Let's call him Jesus. That's the name you got there. That was really funny. I said, I was getting in trouble with the old pastor because he said, Dwayne? He said, it's not a safe team. How'd you get, you know? Because I... See, I was christened Hugo Dwayne, so Hugo was the saint's name, but Dwayne was not. So he got to call me Dwayne. Or from the relative, right, as when the son is upon this place, the name of the, what? Father, huh? Or someone of his relatives, yeah. And just as the relatives, you might say, or the near relatives of John the Baptist, right, wished him to be called by the name of his father, Zachary, right? Not over John, because no one in your relatives is called by this name, as it's said in Luke 1. Or even from some event, as Joseph is called, what? Called his firstborn, Manasseh, saying. Yeah. Or also from some quality of the one to whom the name is imposed, huh? Because he who first came forth from the womb of his mother was red, and... Yeah. Yeah. Or skin. No, red, and very like it, skin. Yeah, so he was called Esau, which is interpreted... I wonder what Thomas would think of that way the Indians had, naming somebody, you know, by something that moved with... came by, you know? You know? Sitting bull, you know? I mean, whatever. Whatever he... That's too reasonable way of naming things, right? Yeah. But names which are placed upon someone divinely, right, always signify some gratuitous gift, right? Given to them divinely. Just as in Genesis 17, 5, he said to Abraham, you'll be called Abraham, right? Because I will constitute you the father of many, what? Nations. And in Matthew 16, 16, he said to Peter, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my, what, church, yeah? Because, therefore, to the man Christ, this gift of grace was given, that to him all would be, what, saved. Therefore, suitably, he has called his name Jesus, which means Savior. The angel announcing this name, not only to the mother, but also to Joseph, who would be his future nourisher. Some concrete, Thomas. I'd say it goes like the fact that Thomas is kind of a very solid man there, you know, whether he was or not, you know, the facility of his teaching. Weighting teacher, weighting, there's a lot of weight, and a man of substance. Now, what about all these plethora of names here in Isaiah, son? To the first, therefore, it should be said that in all those names, in some way it signified this name, what, Jesus, which is significant of salvation, right? For in this, that is, he said, Emmanuel, that's interpreted, what, God be with us, there's designated the cause of salvation, right? Which is nothing other than the union of the divine and human nature in the person of the Son of God, by which is made that God would be, what, with us, huh? But to this, that is said, call his name, Excelleras, Spolia, Detrahi, is designated from whom he would save us, huh? This is so, the way Thomas does this, huh? Because from the devil, whose spoils he takes away, according to that of Colossians 2, Expoilions, huh? How do they translate, Expoilions? They're the spoiling, oh, they just don't make a name for him. Expoiling Principatas and Potestatas, he, what, confidently, right? In this, that is, we call his name admirable, is designated the road and, what, end of our salvation, insofar as by the wonderful consul of divinity and power, we are led to the inheritance of a future, of the future age, right? In which there will be perfect peace of the sons of God under the, what? The one leading after God? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What is said, Echever, Oriens, his name, right? The same refers as the first, to the mystic incarnation, according as there, what, arises in the darkness a light for those, right? Of course, in the New Testament, it talks about that, too, right? Those are sitting in the shadow of death and so on, right? Okay. So, in a sense, these are all, what, foretelling in some way the name Jesus, right? Mm-hmm. Without using that name, huh? Interesting. Mm-hmm. Now, what about these other guys who got this name, huh? Shouldn't you have a new name, huh? Yeah. The second, it should be said that those who were, what, before Christ, this name could belong, right? For some reason, right? Mm-hmm. And the, I've been told, you know, Father, I have Jesse and Joshua are all forms of the name of Jesus. I've been told they're all forms. Yeah. But according to the notion of a spiritual universal salvation, this name is private to Christ, huh? So, he's, uh, went to an Messiah. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Jesus, right, huh? Mm-hmm. And according to this, it is said to be, what? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm, huh? So, the philosopher is the new name of Aristotle, huh? Mm-hmm. Ha, ha, ha, ha. The philosopher. Aristotle calls Homer the poet. To the third, it should be said that as is read in Genesis 17, uh, the same time, uh, or together, Christ, I mean, Abraham, received the imposition of the name from God and the command of what? Circumcision. And therefore, among the Jews, it was customary that on the day of circumcision, names would be placed upon, what? Boys. As it were, uh, before circumcision, they did not have perfect being, right? Mm-hmm. Just as now, for boys in baptism, names are, what? Placed, huh? Of course, now they want to actually leave the hospital without giving a name, I guess. Yeah. Because they got to have it for the records, I guess. So, I, whence upon that of Proverbs chapter 4. I, the son, I was a son of my father, tender and, uh, only begotten before my mother, says the gloss. Wherefore, Solomon, um, calls himself, what? Only begotten. Only begotten before his mother, who, uh, preceded his father, his, the same who? Yeah, brother, yeah. And therefore, a priest. Yeah. Can we find the line? Can we get to him for it? We're going to stop, I guess, for a third year. Yeah. Son of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment. Guardian Angels, think from the lights of our minds, order and move in our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Praise God. And help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son of the Holy Spirit, Amen. So I was asking this question the other day. If you had to, with the brevity of wisdom, if you had to state in one sentence what our faith is, what would you say? That's what the man who lives in. And the faith of Peter is up. But his faith is what? You are Christ, the Son of the what? Living God. Living God, right? And the Church is built upon that faith, right? So if you had to state in one sentence what our faith is, you'd say Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And St. John is very close to Peter, of course. At the end there, almost to the Gospel, the end of the 20th chapter, he says, These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That seemed to me to be the, what the brevity of wisdom, right? The statement of our faith. And it's interesting that it follows the order of the four Gospels, because Matthew, Mark, and Luke were represented by the animals that had their feet on the ground, right? Compared to John, right, represented by the eagle. So the first three Gospels emphasize more the humanity of Christ and John, the, what, divinity, yeah? But they divide those first three Gospels sometimes according to the fact that kings and priests and prophets were, what, anointed, right? So you have the kingship in Matthew and the prophecy and Mark and the priesthood and, what, Luke. Luke, yeah, yeah. So I think that's the way to go, right? Now, you could state that same faith briefly by saying Jesus is Emmanuel. Although the order is different, you say God first, but it means God with us, right? So you have his being God, and then with us, because he's taken on our, what, nature, right? Or, you know, it's like John would say, he's the word of God made flesh, right? Right, okay, but the order there is the reverse, right? And probably the first way to state it, then, is the way that Peter's confession of faith states it out in the way even our friend, say, John does, right? And those are both, of course, in the Gospels, and the order of the Gospels follows that, too, okay? Now, I've spoken before about the rule of two or three here, but if you take, say, the Apostles' Creed, in the Apostles' Creed, you don't divide it into two, you divide it into, what, three, right? But, as Thomas points out in the little treatises on the articles of faith, it was common to divide the articles of faith that are found in the Acts of the Apostles into either 14, he says, or, what, 12, right? I kind of put in those two ones that Thomas gives, huh? It would be traditionalist time. And they both divide according to the divinity and the, what, humanity, right? So you have that same division into two, right? But the one division has seven, one for God and his distributable nature, right? One for each member of the Trinity, and then three articles for the three works of God, the creation of the world, and the sanctification, and then the, what, glorifying of us, right? And these correspond to what you have in the Creed, where we say, I believe in God, the Father, I might be creator of heaven and earth, right? And then, with the Son, you just mentioned the human things, but then you get down to the Holy Spirit, and you say, these three things that pertain to this life, huh? I mean, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the goodness of sins, and that's the deal of grace, huh? And then finally, glorifying, resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, right? Those two are right under that third one, right? So here you end up with seven, the way it's done, huh? Now, the division into six and six to twelve, they begin again with an article of God, and then, because of the connection between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they make just one article for the Trinity as a whole, right? And then they have creation, sanctifying, and they get six by dividing these into two separate ones, right? Although it might make more sense to keep them, you know, under this one, right? And sanctifying, just as under sanctifying, you have, what, these three, you know, the communion of saints, against the sins, and so on. Now, as far as on the humanity side, they are almost the same, except for the fact that the one here separates the, you know, reincarnation kind of from the, what, bird, right? Okay. Although I think it would make more sense to kind of put those two together, right? Just like they put together the suffering and death, and so on. So, if I had to choose between these two, I would follow this one here, right? For the humanity. It's also nice to have six and six in it, the twelve apostles, right? This is the apostles' creed. But now my glory comes in here. What I would do here is follow this one here in saying glorify this one, right? Sanctify one, creation is one. But, instead of, what, three or one, I would make, what, two. Yeah. Because it seems to me that the father and the son being relative to each other, they're being the same and out of opposites, right? And they're so close. You remember how Thomas takes up the Trinity, remember? He took up the father first, right? And then he came to the son, he had three names there. But he took up only the name, what? And the word. Yeah. The son was treated. Yeah, yeah. See, kind of the way that these two go together, right? And then, you'd have another one about the Holy Spirit or about the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the father and the son. It seems to make sense to me to do that, right? And in terms of heresies, right, there were some who admitted finally that the son was, what, God as well as the father, but they denied the divinity of the, what, Holy Spirit, right? So it's kind of like a separate thing, right? Why is Christ always saying, oh, nor we did, you know. But these kind of go together. They deny one, they deny the other, right? But you can, to some extent, right, admit the father and son as being God and then not say the Holy Spirit as being God. So that's a little distinction I would make. So I end up with six here, right? One for God, the father and the son, the distinction of the father and the son, distinction of the Holy Spirit from the father and the son, and then the, what, three, right? So you end up with, what, six, huh? But notice how in theology we follow this distinction of these two more than the distinction of the three, right? So if we take up the father, the son, the Holy Spirit, we don't take up the humanity of Christ in the Prima Pars, who are not here until the Territi of Pars, the humanity of Christ. So we take up the divinity of Christ, and all that involves in the Prima Pars, is that the Territi of Pars we get to the humanity. And Thomas follows that, too, in the, in creating that faithful and charity, right? Under faith, he divides it into the divinity and humanity of Christ. He divides it into two, right? Okay. And, notice, although that's different from the order of the Apostles' Creed, which is according to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, right? It is, in accordance with Peter's perfection of faith, into two, right? there are Christ, you are the Christ, the Son, the divinity. God, right? And with St. John saying this, it's written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Excuse me, Dr. Burke, was that kind of the starting point? Where's all this from? Well, this is very common in the Middle Ages when they would distinguish the articles of faith, right? Okay. Which are found in the Apostles' Creed, you know? And then kind of expanded upon in the Nicene Creed and so on. But they would divide, it says, into sometimes 14 articles. Okay. Seven on the Divinity of Christ and seven on the Humanity of Christ. And sometimes they divide them into, what, 12, right? Okay. Okay. Well, now, I'm, like this division of these into six, better than into the seven here, right? But then up here, I would propose that we combine these two into glorifying, so you get these three here. But instead of all this, you used to have two articles here, right? I got into, I just didn't know where all the people came from in the first place. Yeah. It said in the Articulate Svide, you know, Thomas says. Okay. There's some bishop writing talent, you know, once an explanation of the articles of faith and sacraments and so on. Yes. So, um. I'd say it's a beautiful example to compare the Creed, the Apostles' Creed, with this. The rule, what I call the rule of two or three or both, right? Sometimes it's good to divide something into two, something into three, but sometimes into both. But, as I was saying before, I don't know if the rest of you were there, but you need to state that same Creed by saying Jesus is the, what, Emmanuel, right? Right. Which means God with us and therefore touches upon this two-ness, right? He's God, he's with us because he's taken on our nature. So it's his humanity, his divinity, right? Or, you know, it's reversed the order, right? Saying that Jesus is the word of God made flesh, right? We could have the humanity and divinity, but in the reverse, what, order, right? But it seems to me the first order is the one given in Peter's Confession of Faith, and by St. John at the end of chapter 20 there, towards the end of the Gospel. These things originally said that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in believing in him you might have life, and so on. And it corresponds, they say, to the order of the Gospels, where you have the first three Gospels emphasizing the anointing of Christ as king, priest, and prophet, king, prophet, and priest of all the order. And then you have the divinity emphasize most of all in John. That's why Thomas says, you know, the first three Gospels are represented in Ezekiel, is it? By the animals that are on the ground, right? And then the eagle, you know, flies, you know, to the sun, is John, right? So it's beautiful the way those things are said, huh? I was crunching this morning on, there's about nine arguments, wait, no discourse in God. You know, Shakespeare begins the definition by saying reason is the ability for discourse, huh? Yeah, no discourse in God, huh? So how can he say that the reason is God-like books, or Shakespeare, huh? How can he say that? But since so far as reason, what, understands a bit, right? That's like God, huh? Who understands everything. At the end of the discourse. Yeah. It's beautiful, these nine arguments that Thomas had, but one of them I thought was very appropriate for us, you know. There's no defect in God, but discursive signifies an imperfection, right? It's a defect. He says the reason is a intellectus defectivo, so. Well, in all my years of teaching, I didn't see students, so I didn't see my own mind. And you took money for that, didn't you? I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. I didn't see my own mind. Was it in Antioch, I said, they were first ever called Christians, they said? I mean, is there a reason why we are called Christians rather than Jesuits? What? Yeah, yeah. Not only is the priest anointed, but, you know, the last anointing. But there's anointing even in what? Baptism. So you see this very much in Vatican II, right? Kind of ran through the documents on the bishop and the documents on the priest and the laity and so on. But each of them, in their own way, right, share in Christ's, what, kingly, priestly, prophetic roles, right? And, but it would seem kind of strange to say that we're saving somebody, right? Yeah, but even, in a sense, we're not even saving ourselves, right? Christ is saving us, right? Right. But we are, in some sense, anointed, right? So it makes more sense to call us, what, Christians than to call us, what? Yeah, because it means Savior, right? Yeah. Yeah. We are, in some sense, we are, in some sense, anointed. We're not with the Holy Spirit in the way Christ was, but we are anointed in a very true sense, right? Are we really, you know, you know, saviors? Well, mother and sister. In so far as he's, he's the savior and we're supposed to cooperate in his work, in a certain way we're sharing. I was thinking, though, a Christian more in terms of what we believe about him. Yeah. We believe he's the Christ, the son of the Holy Spirit. He's anointed. Yeah. That's what I was thinking of. Yeah. I mean, even in baptism, have you saved anybody, even in a human sense, you know? But you are anointed already, you know? I guess the confirmation you're anointed too, right? You know, it already is. The last anointing. In case you're up to Article 3 in Question 37, it seems, the third one goes forward thus. It seems unsuitably that Christ was offered in the, what, temple. Before it is said in Exodus 13, sanctify to me, or make holy for me, every firstborn that opens the womb, right, among the sons of Israel. Well, but Christ went forth from the closed womb of the virgin, he went through the walls, right? And thus he did not open the womb of the mother. Therefore, Christ, from this law, ought not to have been offered in the, what, temple, huh? Moreover, that which is always present to someone is not able to be, what, presented to him, right? But the humanity of Christ was always present, most of all, to, what, God, right, huh? As being always joined to him in unity of a person. Therefore, it was not necessary that before the Lord he be, what, he sent in there. Moreover, Christ is the, what, chief host, victim, right, to which all the offerings of the old law are referred as a figure is to the, what? Yeah, to the truth. But of a, what? How do they translate host here there? Victim or host? Yeah. But a victim, there ought not to be another victim. Therefore, it's not suitable that for Christ other, what, victims be offered, right? Mother would have to offer the virginism. Moreover, among the illegal or lawful sacrifices especially was the lamb, right? Who was, what, the daily sacrifice, as it's had in numbers? Whence also Christ is called a lamb, right? Behold the lamb of God, says John the Baptist. More, therefore, was it suitable that for Christ to be offered a lamb, right? Than a, what, pair of turtle does, I guess? Or two, what? Two.