Tertia Pars
Lecture 102: Christ's Teaching: Written vs. Spoken Word

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

Okay. Now we're down to the fourth article, right? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that Christ ought to have treated of his teaching by the written word, right? Scripto. Sacred scripture means what? Writings, yeah. Scripto. Name of a pen, I guess. Scripto. But, okay. Okay. For scripture is found for this purpose that teaching might be, what? Commended to the memory for the future, right? But the teaching of Christ was to endure forever, right? According to that of Luke chapter 21, heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to, what? But, yeah. I've written down what he had to say. It's kind of funny, you know, with these two great writers there, or authors, that Shakespeare did apparently nothing to ensure that his works had survived, as far as we know, right? It was, I think I said, we've got to cut these things together, you know, and after he died, right? But, you know, so the first folio there was, what, 1623, I guess, something like that. But after Shakespeare died in 1616 or something. So, but he seems to have, you know, think that I saw how great his plays were, you know? I don't know if Aristotle did much either, just keep his works, you know? But, I don't know. Thomas was supposed to have written Summa Cognita, you know, pieces of scrap paper, you know, as they say, I don't know. That paper was a strange thing in those days. Yes, yeah. Okay. More of the old law, right, huh? Preceded, right? In the figure of Christ, right, huh? According to that of Hebrews 10, huh? The law had the shadow of future, what? Good, son. But the old law was, what? Written down, right? Descriptive. By God, huh? According to that of Exodus 24, I would give you two stone tablets, huh? And the law and the commands, which I have written, right? So, he's written in stone, as they say nowadays, right? Christ didn't even write on a paper, let alone on a stone, huh? Therefore, it seems also that Christ ought to have written down his right, his teaching, right? He did write in the sand. It's kind of like writing stones, probably. Yeah, but I mean... Moreover, Christ, to Christ, who came to enlighten those who are in darkness, huh? And who are sitting in the shadow of death, huh? As is said in Luke 1 there. That's sacrament, right? It pertains to him to exclude the occasion of error, right, huh? And to open the road to, what? Of faith, huh? But he should have done this, or he would have done this by writing down his, what? Teaching. For, as Augustine says in the first book on the consent, the agreement of the Gospels, huh? It is customary for some, right, to be moved, to move the question. Wherefore, the Lord himself wrote down nothing, right, huh? That others writing about him, right, it was necessary to what? To believe these others writing about him, huh? For these, and most of all the pagans, right, seek, who want to blame Christ, right, huh? Or do not, what, dare to blaspheme. And to him they attribute the most excellent wisdom, right, huh? But as it were to a man, huh? Now the disciples said, you know, they say. They say. The disciples. They call his disciples. They say that the disciples and he tells the Master to be more than he really wants. Yeah. When they said that he was. Son of God and the Word of God, huh? To whom all things are made. And afterwards he joins. They seem prepared, not what others about him for their own judgment preached, huh? Therefore it seems Christ ought to have treated his teaching by the written Word, huh? But against this is that none of the books, there are no books by him written in the canon of Scripture. You know, Aristotle's book there, the book on Superfutations, huh? It ends up, you know, like a guy's completing his lecture and saying, you know, that I'm the first man to have worked this out, you know? And therefore you should be thankful for what has been discovered here and be forgiving for what is missing, you know, and so on. And it's kind of, you know, it's just like, like, like some of his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, account of the lectures in, in, in the, in the, the, the, the Lyceum in the school, you know, because they're pretty well, you know, when Thomas expounds them, they're pretty well ordered, you know, and so it's not like a, you know, an admist thing like that, or ordinary student notes or something like that, but it's certainly hard to understand, though. With the Thomas Day, you wouldn't get too far. Well, let's see how Thomas can illuminate us, you know. I'm always willing to learn from Thomas. I answer, it should be said, that it was suitable to what? For Christ not to have written his own teaching, huh? No, I was going to say this. First, on account of his, what? Worth, huh? For to a more excellent teacher, a more excellent way of teaching is suitable, right? And therefore, to Christ, as it were to the most excellent teacher, this way was befitting, that he might impress his teaching upon the hearts of his, what? Here's, huh? On account of which it is said in Matthew chapter 7, that he was teaching them as having, what? The power, right, huh? Whence also among the Gentiles, huh? Pythagoras, huh? That's funny. We mentioned Pythagoras as well. And Socrates, right? But Socrates is certainly clearly this. For things written are ordered to the impressing of the teaching, right? In the hearts of the hearers as to, what? An end, huh? What is Thomas saying here? He's saying that the spoken word is a more, what? Perfect tool of teaching than the, what? Written word, right? Still, some months of the year now, you're going to hear, Fou-yé-fou! Fou-yé-fou! One of my brother Marcus's friends says, you know, It's enough to get your rattles, you know? He's so excited, you know, kind of, you know? He gives you something. But there's something about the, you know, and the same with Deconic, you know, Deconic, you know, he would, we'd come in, we'd read, like, to the physics, right? The first book of the physics. And we'd read the text of Thomas there, you know, and Deconic would kind of explain it for it. We'd sit back, you know, and he'd go in, get a problem with Dick Carter, the problem with his mother-in-law and his father, how it's resolved, you know, by it, and how they're kind of repeating the errors that Aristotle's expounding and so on, and so on. So there's something about that written, that spoken word, you know, that you really need that, huh, for some reason, huh? I was in, my wife, for some reason, I don't know why, actually went to Building 19, you know. The prices are good, that's why. It's a junky place, though. It's so junky, she says. But anyway, there are books there, you know. I can't look at the books to see something. Well, they had a book of, what's his name now? Guy wrote The Closing American Mind there. The Miller. What? Yeah, it blew me out, it blew me out. It was kind of a collection of articles, articles, marked down from $17 to $0.99, so I said, Mama's a buy, I mean, you know. And, but in there, among other things, it has this, talking about, you know, Strauss, right, huh? The great teacher there, kind of a recollection of what it was like to be under the young Strauss and so on. And, but you get the kind of impression of the spoken word, right? And what an influence that Strauss had upon these people with this, what, spoken word, huh? And my brother Marvin was talking about one guy, he was talking about, he wanted to study under Strauss, you know. So he came to Strauss and said, he wanted to study under him, you know. Yeah. And Strauss says, we'll see. You know, he's got his, you know, you know, slave driver, you know, and you really have to work hard, you know, to him, you know. We'll see if you really want to, you know, learn under me, you know. We'll see. What do you really want to learn from me? That's not what the spoken word do, I think it's through, you know. I think this is, you know, what is, in this first, you know, thing here. I guess maybe that's why I was telling you before. I always, I found, especially as I got older and I got here, I can't listen and take notes. I have to listen and then I remember stuff. I can't write stuff down. Yeah, that's true. I was telling you the story with my brother Marcus at Laval there, and you know, you have a lot of oral exams, you know, and he came to take the oral exam, and he did very well, you know. And the guy said, I don't think you're going to take any notes. Marcus, I can't follow you, you know, if I take notes. Especially when you're in French, you know, you try. You know, the guy's like, in French, you got to read his page, this is what the guy's saying, you know. You're not too sure. It's kind of driving me kind of crazy, people take notes, you see, you know. Right away, whatever, you know, right away, teaching in college, right away, they're taking notes. They don't really follow what you're saying, I don't think. But Socrates is kind of an example of that, you know. I don't know about Pythagoras, I don't know how much about Pythagoras, but. Of course, they say with Pythagoras there, you had to, what, I think you had to be, you had kind of a vow of silence, you know, for when you were learning first there. You just don't open your mouth at all. For a number of years. I don't know what it was, but maybe, it's interesting he mentions Pythagoras here, huh? I mean, I, you know, there's Socrates, right? But, uh. Aristotle was very pathetic, he wasn't sitting down writing books. Yeah, yeah, but he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, It should be known, however, that as Augustine says in the first book on the agreement of the Gospels, some Gentiles thought that Christ, right? To have written some books, right, containing some magical things, right, huh, by which he did his miracles, which the Christian teaching condemns, right, huh? And nevertheless, those who say, what, such books of Christ to have read, to affirm that, don't do any of those things, right? Yeah, they don't do any of the things that they marvel at in these books they read about, how Christ did them. Yeah, for by the divine judgment, that's here, right, that those books to, what, Peter and Paul, they say to have been, what, that they saw them pictured with Christ or something. Nor is it marvelous if by those portraying him, yeah, they were deceived, fingented, that means fictional, right? For the whole time which Christ was, what, in the mortal flesh, Paul was not yet his, what, disciple. I don't know if it's where he appears with Paul or something like that, I don't know. I just learned something about the shroud, because they, maybe they discovered it just several years ago, right, just on the right now, when they took this backing cloth off, they took it off several years ago, but just now, I just, it was just made known to me one of the characteristics, they said there's actually a very faint, another image on the back, but it's like the one on the front, it just covers the surface. And so they said, this rules out any possibility of any forgery, or photographic, anything, because it's on both sides, and it's slightly different from the front, slightly different, and they have to examine what this is all about, and it's curious. Is it, is it, is it the, the same image, or is it like the back of him? No, the, the, the whole shroud contains the front and the back, stretched out, but this is on the other side of the cloth, and I don't know, that there wasn't much I read about it, but they said, certainly, the face, you can make out the face, but it's slightly different, it's slightly, it's not exactly the same as what's on the front, but it's, there's some noticeable difference, I guess, to these guys have examined it, but it's curious. But they said, again, it's just, they said, the way they said, how, how thick is the, this burn mark on the cloth, as well, if you could take a human hair, and slice it into a hundred pieces, vertically, you know, the hair is this long, you slice it this way a hundred times, you got one-tenth the thickness of a red blood cell, and that's the thickest of any of these particles on the image, it's one-tenth of a blood cell thick. So, and, so it doesn't actually go through the cloth, it doesn't burn the cloth both sides, it just, I mean, it burns both sides, it's separate. They don't leave, that's, yeah, well, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, I went to the, I did the Drudge Report, just get the headlines a little bit, and, uh, there's an article on Noah's Ark, right? Oh, yeah. There's some kind of a foundation, something that, that supports the, all the research into this, and, of course, and so it had, had a little, you know, picture there, you know, of the, of the kind of Oriental guy, examining, you know, the wood of this, uh, thing up in Mount Arra. Mount Arra, yeah. Yeah. So, I don't know. They brought something, but, several years ago, it was in the Catholic Register that, um, there was an expedition going out. Yeah, yeah. Or, uh, to look for the, for the Ark. Yeah. I remember hearing about that, but then I hadn't heard about anything about it for a few, number of years now. Yeah, I hadn't heard much about it. It was, was, yeah. I, I, I, I heard, again, from satellite images, they can see the thing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's what I, that's what I've been told, but I, I mean, oh, actually, I haven't been told. I, I read about that, but I don't remember where, how you were thinking. But, supposedly, I guess the Turkish government creates a lot of trouble if you want to. Yeah. Well, I, I, I don't know why. I figured, because they must have disappeared, something bad must have happened. Because they said that the level of that whole mountain is all, quote, dangerous, like wild animals and brainers and, you know, what. But, I guess, I guess they did get something, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. The first objection, huh? The scripture is found to, what, preserve, has been said, right? Mm-hmm. It's the future. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said, as Augustine says in the same book, huh? That to all of his, what, students, huh? As, as to members of his own body, right? Christ is the head, right? Thus, when they wrote what, um, what he showed and said, right, huh? It should, what? Never be said that he didn't write. Yeah. For when his members, huh, did that, right, had, they knew, right, huh? For whatever he, about his deeds and words, wished us to read, right, huh, this, uh, he commanded to be written by those as if by his hands, huh? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thomas takes the Gospels as gospel truth. Yeah. I was talking about this guy writing in the mail today, you know, his former professor at Assumption there, Michael True, you know, which is saying a lot of false things, you know, but, you know, saying, you know, the various problems with the church, and it's authoritative, because this is what's wrong with the church, you know, and, uh, they don't pay enough attention to the, you know, the wonderful scriptural scholars of the last authoritative than the Gospels, huh? Well, what are you doing like this, you know, huh? And, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, uh, and, uh, uh, more historically accurate, you know, than the Gospels, right? No. Well, I mean, we should see what Thomas says. And, uh, uh, audacity to these guys, you know? Yeah, and take Mrs. Nussbaum's critique for these contemporary scholars, you were there? There's your historic background right after the window. I was telling Father earlier, when I'd see my two campus, and I'd say, are you behaving yourself like they'd say? And he says, I hope not. He's not behaving himself now, you know, he's, he's, you know, what's, you know, every six months or so, because I was crazy with that, and he was writing into the thing, and I see, in favor of, of married priests, and, and, and, uh, woman priests, and so on, and, uh, and, uh, he was English. Yeah. And his name is True? Yeah. Somebody was a clerk, and he'd make a nice pun on this, you know, the true man says many false things, you know? Incredible. So, you see, Christ did write, right, with his mystical body, right, and what he dictated to them, right? And he says, how about the old law, though? The old law, there is this written, written stone, huh? It says, the old law was given in, what? Sensible figures. So, also, suitably, it was written with sensible, what? Signs. But the teaching of Christ, which is the law of the spirit of life, ought to be written not by a pen, is that, Dr. Mento? Oh, that's the ink itself, okay. But the spirit of the living God, right, huh? Not in stone tablets, but on the flesh tablets of the heart, huh? As the apostle himself says. Mm-hmm. Now, what about those, he says? He says, those who do not want to believe. He says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says, he says The writings of the apostles about Christ, right, would not also themselves have believed Christ himself writing them, about whom they opined that he did his miracles by God's, yeah. I like the first one that he said in the Bible. They say they read about these magic tricks that they did, but they never seem to be able to do them. They read about them, but they can't do them. Oh, there's a time here, but let's look at the poem here, right, about the miracles. Then we're not to consider about the miracles done by what? Christ, eh? And first, in general, right, eh? Secondly, in special, about different kinds of miracles, right, eh? Third, in particular, about his transfiguration, eh? It's kind of curious, yeah. And about the first are asked four things, whether Christ ought to do miracles, whether he made or did them by his divine power, huh? And third, at what time he began to do miracles, or when he should have been to do them, and whether the miracles was officially shown his, what? Divinity. His divinity, eh? It's very interesting. Let's look at the premiere here for the next question here, which is on the particular ones. Then we're not to consider about the singular species of miracles, huh? First, about the miracles which he did about the spiritual substances, huh? Get into the pigs there and go into them. Or maybe the demons, yeah. Yeah. Secondly, about the miracles which he did about the celestial bodies, huh? Third, about the miracles which he did among men, about men. And then about, what? The rational creatures, huh? It's curious, huh? Oh, yeah. It reminded me of, I remember somebody gave me a priest, a heretic, gave me a paper tonight in college, scripture class, and this was about the person of Christ in the Gospel of Mark. Well, of course, I tried to take the word person there, as to what it means, so I wrote about his divinity. He manifested through his humanity. Well, he didn't like what I wrote, but he said, don't you see his humanity? And I said, well, it's about his person. What am I supposed to write about? His divinity. So, I tried to summarize the way his divinity, his divine person, was manifested through miracles he worked in nature. It wasn't the demon, the angelic order, human order, and the rest of creation. It's like the witnesses I took from his miracles. They all pointed to his divinity. He still told us. Then, the transfiguration of Christ, right? And about this are asked four things. Whether it was suitable for Christ to be transfigured, right? And second, whether the clarity, the brightness of the transfiguration was the glorious clarity of the body, right? And then about the witnesses of the, what, transfiguration. And fourth, about the testimony of the fatherly voice. He didn't talk about the cloud. Hmm? He didn't talk about the cloud. Uh-huh. So, let's see about that. He'll come up here in the objection, I know, in the second objection. Now, in the part about, what, the life of Christ, and then he'll talk about the exit of his life. We have the third division there in the 46th, so we'll get through the whole thing here about these miracles. That's why I have it. That's why I have it. Oh, yeah. That's good. I think you have a passion. Yeah, I got a big picture of that in the house there. It's about this size, you know. Does it show the whole image? No, just what I've given the book there, you know. That's Dominic, you know, rather than Thomas. And isn't this, there's a crisis, it's either on the cross or he's being crowned or something. There's something in the past. Yes, I have a civilization. Yeah. Okay. When you can see your... The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gracias. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Praise for us. And help us to understand all the true of it. Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. I was thinking, you know, of how the definition of theology that they attribute to St. Anne's psalm, but it goes back in the meaning to Augustine, right? Belief seeking understanding, huh? It's almost redundant, huh? In the definition of to believe that Augustine gives, and Thomas follows in the secundi secundi there. What's the definition of to believe, huh? With cogitacione, right? Yeah. And Thomas explains we need both parts of the definition. So it's, Ascentire, right? Cum cogitacione, which would be translated into English by, to ascent, to what God has revealed, right? To ascent while thinking about it. So if that's in there, right? You're thinking about something, you're trying to understand it so far as possible. So if you're not trying to understand what you believe, according to your time and capacity and so on, right? Do you believe? It's almost in the definition of to believe, right? Right, huh? So therefore, when St. Anselm says that theology is, or if he's theology there is, belief seeking understanding, it's almost, you know, redundant to say seeking understanding, because it's already the definition of the act of what? To believe, huh? It's to ascent while thinking about it, right? So I ascent that there are three persons of God, and then I think about this, then why are there three persons and not more or less, right? Or why are there different? What is the basis for this distinction, right? And how can there be this distinction in God and all these questions that arise? But in going through these mysteries about Christ, you know, you're asking all the time, you know, why did Christ want to be tempted? Why, you know? So you're thinking about something you believe, and that means you're trying to understand so far as our weak minds can do, right? But with some help from Thomas, right? To understand so far as possible for our weak minds, never, you know, presuming to completely ever understand these things, but, you know, something between our raw belief, right? Of course, you know, as Vatican I says, the ascent of faith should not be a chakus, right? A blind ascent, right? So we've got a number of articles here, huh? On miracles in general, and then the next question will be on particular kinds of miracles, and then, strange as may see, right? A question on the transfiguration. Now, about the first four things are asked. Whether Christ ought to have done miracles. Whether he did them by a divine power. Third, about the time in which he began to do miracles. And whether the miracles was officially shown his divine, what, nature. It seems that Christ ought not to have done miracles, huh? For the doings of Christ ought to be in harmony with his words, huh? But he himself says, Matthew 16, An evil generation, an adulterous generation, seeks a sign, right? And a sign will not be given to him, except the sign of Jonah the prophet, huh? It was three days, right? Therefore, one ought not to have done, what? Miracles, huh? Moreover, as Christ, in the second coming, huh? comes in great power and majesty, right? As is said in Matthew 24. So, in the first coming, he comes in weakness, huh? In infirmity. According to that of Isaiah chapter 53. A man of sorrows and knowing infirmity. But the operation of miracles more pertains to power than to weakness. They subject you to the people. Therefore, it is not suitable that in the first coming, he did miracles, huh? Moreover, Christ came to this, that through faith or belief, he might, what? Save men, huh? According to that of Hebrews 12, looking upon the originator of faith and the one who completes it, right? But miracles diminish the merit of faith, huh? Whence the Lord says, Unless you cease signs and prodigies, you do not believe, huh? Therefore, it seems that Christ ought not to do, what? Miracles, huh? Yeah. But against this, it is said from the person of adversaries, huh? What are we going to, what? Do. Because this man does many, what? Signs, huh? Thomas' beautiful text here. Answer, answer should be said that divinely it is considered to man to do miracles. This is being said more generally, Christ, right? For two reasons, huh? First and chiefly, to confirming the truth which someone is teaching. Because those things which are of faith, that means divine faith, huh? Exceed human reason. And they cannot be, what? Proven through human reasons, huh? It is necessary that they be approved through the argument of the divine power. That when someone does works which only God is able to do, those things are believed to be said by God, right? Just as when someone bears letters with the ring of the king signed by the ring of the king, he's believed, right? But from the will of the king, who sees the things that are contained in them, is got the stamp there, right? You know how Hamlet got rid of those guilt stern? He had to seal the ring, right? And he changed the document, right? And, you know, put their names in instead of his name and stamped it. And they get executed by the king of England, right? And he appeared, you know, back to the constellation of his evil uncle. Secondly, to showing the presence of God in man through the grace of the Holy Spirit. As when a man does the works of God, God is believed to dwell in him through grace, huh? And, of course, this is why we have this sort of miracle for canonization, right? But even during a person's life, he's a miracle sometimes, right? And then you see that there must be holy, right? Whence it is said, Galatians 3, who gives you spirit and does what? Works in you, right? So, both of these things were to be manifested and made known to men about Christ, right? To it, that God was in him by grace, right? Not just by the grace of adoption, right? Not the grace of adoption, but the grace of what? Union. And secondly, that his supernatural teaching was in fact from what? God, right? And therefore, it is most suitable that he do what? Miracles, huh? Whence he himself says, John 10, If you don't want to believe me, then believe the works. And the works which the Father gives me that I do, they give testimony about me, huh? Approaches of suffering. If I hadn't done the works that no man had ever done. Yeah. So, in the Acts of the Apostle now, which they read all the time now, this season, you know? You see that? Now, he says in regard to that first objection, right? To the first it should be said, that this that he says, a sign will not be given to them, except the sign of Jonah, should be thus understood as Chrysostom says. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. That then they would not, what? We see such a sign as they asked for it to wit from heaven, right? Not that no sign would be given to them. So they're looking for a sign of fire coming down from heaven or something. Or because, what? He did signs not on account of them whom he knew to be, what? Stony. But that he might cleanse others, right? And therefore, not to them, but to others, these signs are, what? Given, huh? The second one, huh? He brings out a distinction there, right? The second should be said that though Christ came in the infirmity of flesh, which is made known through his, what? Sufferings. He came nevertheless in the power of God, which is made manifest by miracles, huh? So when they talk about the Gospels, you have something that will reveal the humanity of Christ, the weakness of Christ, and something that will, what? You feel it's divinity, right? So on the cross, he cries out, you know, and things of that sort, so that you realize that there's both of these things in Christ. What about diminishing the merit of faith, right? To the third, it should be said that miracles so much diminish the merit of faith, or that much they diminish the merit of faith, insofar as through this is shown the hardness of those who do not want to, what? Leave the things which are shown by divine scriptures, except through miracles, right? But nevertheless, it is better for them that they be, what? Either converted by miracles to faith, than that they remain all together, you know. And therefore, it is said in 1 Corinthians, it's signed to give unto the unfaithful that they might be converted to faith, huh? So is that what? I didn't even wonder, the guy was in doubt about the real presence, you know, and then the blood, you know, sisters would tell us these stories, you know, of some kind of communion, and instead of consuming the host, he put it in his napkin, you know, and took it back to his thing, and then you open it up again, it was blood. I was scared of what's out of us, you know? Well, they tell us a lot of these stories, I don't know whether they're true, you know. That was true in Portugal, Santarém, the Ubrace of Miracles, a woman, no superstitious reason, whatever, probably in her life, she thought this would work like a good-luck charm, but she went back to her house and it was blood all over her handkerchief. They had a preserved sister house. That's better. Yeah. Yeah. I did. I did.