Tertia Pars
Lecture 120: The Hypostatic Union and Christ's Death

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

Now, whether in the death of Christ he separated his divinity from his what? Flesh, right? To the second one goes forward thus. It seems that in the death of Christ, the divinity was separated from his flesh. For it's said in Matthew chapter 27, the Lord hanging on the cross cried out, God, my God, why would you abandon me, right? Which Ambrose, expounding, the man cries out, who's going to what? Die? About to die by the separation. Divinity. By the divinity. Since the divinity is free from death, right? Truly death could not there be unless life had what? Depart. Because the divine nature is life itself. I think I'll tell you this to somebody, giving their child the name Ambrose. So that's a good name, I said. And thus it seems that in the death of Christ is his divinity separated from his flesh. And see how you can say that kind of, huh? Because if Christ in his divine nature is life itself, and in death he's separated from life, or you lose your life, then you must have lost his divinity, right? Moreover, if you remove the middle term, right? The middle, the extremes will be what? Separated, right? But the divinity, divine nature was joined to the flesh by reason of the soul, as we pointed out before, right? It's been had above. Therefore, it seems that since in the death of Christ the soul was in fact separated from the body, right? Consequently, the divinity would be separated from the flesh. Good argument, huh? Moreover, more is the vivifying power of God than that of the soul. But the body cannot die unless the soul be separated. Therefore, it seems much less right is it able to die unless the divinity be separated from it. Hmm. I wonder if Thomas ever slapped the table down like he did when he was finishing off the Manichaeans. I really got a good argument there. I really got a good argument there. Good objection there. I wonder what Thomas said. I just remember this anecdote about Thomas there where one of the brothers said, hey, there's an elephant in the street out there. Did you hear that story? Thomas ran to the window in the heart making fun of him, you know. He said, I'd rather believe there was an elephant in the street than the one of my brothers could lie. But against this, those things which are of human nature are not said of the Son of God except by reason of the union, huh? But about the Son of God is said that which belongs to the body of Christ after death. To wit, to be what? Buried. As is clear in the symbol of faith, right? Symbol means literally in Greek, what? Thrown together, right? It doesn't mean just thrown together. The word is said that the Son of God was conceived and born from the Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried. So how can you say that the Son of God, which is the divine person there, right, was buried if the body was not, what? I'm thinking of Socrates, huh? Because towards the end of it, Socrates is going to die. One of them says, where should we bury Socrates? He says, you have to catch me first. He identified himself as being just a soul, right? And the body was not him, you know, so. You have to catch me first. Well, I'm really afraid of it because of this, right? You know, if the soul, if the body was separated from the divinity, then why couldn't the divinity be said to be buried, right? How could the Son of God be buried? Not the divinity, but the Son of God would be buried, right? The Son of God is not still joined to the body or vice versa. That's beautiful. Don't realize the discussion about death can be so lively, huh? You can groan if you want. I answer, it should be said that that which is conceded through the grace, right, of God is never recalled, right, without some, what? Kilton. That's beautiful, huh? Once it is said in Romans 11, that without penance are the gifts of God and the calling, right? That's beautiful. Much more is this true about the grace of union, by which the divinity was united to the flesh of Christ, but united to it in person, right? Not the, realize that, the union is made in the person, but hypostatic union, right? Not in the divine nature. And that's even greater, right, huh? A grace than the grace of adoption, right? But which other people are, what? Sanctified, huh? And even more permanent from its notion, or its ratio, because this grace is ordered to, what? The personal union, but the grace of adoption to a certain affectionate union, huh? And nevertheless, we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without, what? Guilt, huh? Since, therefore, in Christ, there can be no sin, right? It is impossible that there be untied the union of his divinity from his, what? Flesh, huh? And therefore, just as before death, the flesh of Christ was united, according to the person, hypostasis, to the word of God, so also it remained united after death, that to it there was not another hypostasis of the word of God in the flesh of Christ, right, after death, as Damascene says in the third book, huh? Now what about the being abandoned, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that abandonment should not be referred to an untying of the personal union, right? But to this, that God the Father exposed him to, what? His passion. Whence, to abandon is nothing other than to not protect him from those, what? Persecuting him. Does that make sense, you know? Like some of these moderns, but they did Christ to swear on the cross, you know, this is crazy, as you say. Or he said himself to be abandoned as regards that prayer, which he said, Father, if it is possible to come about, let this chalice pass for me, as Augustine expounds in the book on the grace of the New Testament, huh? Quite a man, this Augustine, isn't he? The most quotable of the Church Fathers, I guess, huh? You can see it in the Vatican, in the Council, or the Catechism, right? Other places. The Popes usually quote Augustine or Thomas, it seems, you know, at times, more than anybody else in there. Now what about the middle here? To the second, it should be said that the Word of God is said to be united to the flesh by means of the soul, insofar as flesh pertains to human nature through the soul. The what? Through the soul, right? Which the Son of God intended to assume. Not, however, in the sense that the soul is, as it were, a middle, joining the two, what? Together, right? For the flesh has, from the soul, that it pertains to human nature, even after the soul is separated from it, insofar as in the, what? Dead flesh, there remains, by divine order, a certain order to, what? Resurrection. And therefore, there is not taken away the union of the divine nature to the flesh, huh? In the person. If you take that context, you'd say, well, you see, it's time of the union of the divine nature with the flesh, right? which is a mistake. But we saw them by the article, a complete phrase. Divinitas, unites, carni, christi, in persona. Now what about the two, about the greater power of life, of God and of the soul? To the third, it should be said that the soul has the power of vivifying formalitarian, it's an intrinsic form, right? And therefore it being present and united formally is necessary for the body to be alive. But the divinity, divine nature, does not have the, what, power of vivifying formally, but effectively. For it is not able to be the form of a white body, because then it would have the ratio of a part. God is partless. And therefore it's not necessary that the union of divinity to the flesh remaining, that the flesh be alive, right? Because then they have the soul. Because God does not act for necessity, but from will. He's gone for a break, or did he go? He's thirsty for a break. Oh my goodness, he got so good. The weakness of flesh. He had his seminar as a decanning up there, you know, and he'd let us, he had a little break there, you know. He said, now come back in, children, he says. He said, now come back in, children, he said, now come back in, children, he said, now come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children, come back in, children. whether in the death of Christ there was a separation of his divinity from his, what, soul, right? To the third, one should proceed thus. It seems that in the death of Christ there was a separation of his divinity from his soul. Interesting, St. Thomas keeps on speaking that way, right? Even though, in a sense, he's talking about, what, the divine person, right? Or the separation of the divinity from the soul in one person. Just the same person does not have joy into it at the same time the divine nature that you can't lose and the soul. For the Lord says, John chapter 10, verse 18, no one takes away my soul from me, but I lay it down, right? And again, I take it up. But it does not seem that the body is able to lay down the soul, separating it from itself, because the soul is not subject to the power of the body, but rather the reverse. And this it seems that Christ, according as he is the word of God, it belongs to him to lay down his soul, right? And this is to, what? Separate it from himself. Therefore, through the death, the soul of Christ was separated from his divinity. Pretty good argument. Moreover, Athanasius says, Maledictum, right? Accursed, right? Who the whole man, who the Son of God assumed, the third day rising from the dead, right, huh? Assumed again. That again. Does not confess that he took up again, right? Right. Or liberated, right? But one could not take up the whole man again, unless at some time the whole man was separated from the word of God, huh? But the whole man is composed from soul and body. Therefore, at some time, there was a separation of divinity from the body and from the, what? Soul. Now, Thomas is going to say that, you know, like more explicitly in the fourth article, that Christ was, what? No longer a man when he was dead, right? So there's not a man joined to, what? The word of God, right? Was the word of God a man during that treaty? No, because the body and the soul were not joined and that's what you need for a man, right? Okay. That's why, as Decanic often say, St. Peter is not in heaven, right? The soul of Peter is in heaven, right? But Peter is not there. Yeah, it's a Synecdoche again, right? I guess when they're discussing the assumption of the Blessed Virgin, there's a Decanic argument, right? If her body was not assumed, then the Blessed Virgin was not in heaven. I've got to press Pius XII to tell me, I don't know. Yeah, I had a little Italian thing on EWTN the other day there, which is dealing with the, I think, the early life of Paul VI, right? Many of the time when he comes in contact with Pius XII, right? Now Pius X. Pius X, right? The little boy? No, no, this is when he was moving up in the thing, but he kind of pressed Pius XII, that's where the story goes, right? And the time the Germans, you know, are coming in and so on, Nazis, and, you know, he says, what would you do if they came in, you know? Well, one guy says, I'd fight for the church! Another guy, all kind of practical things, you know. What would you do? He says to Montini, and Montini says, I'd say my mass. All of a sudden Pius XII is like, yes, you know. First, it's a lantern. So, you'd be calling upon him for, you know, his opinion as to what should be done, right? These various circumstances. Anyway, objection three now, right? For an account of the union to the whole man, the Son of God is truly said to be a man, right? If, therefore, the union of the soul and the body being, what, untied through death, the Word of God would remain united to the soul. It would follow truly that, what? That the Son of God can truly be said to be a soul. But this is false, because since the soul is a form of the body, it would follow that the Word of God was the form of a body, which is, what? Impossible. Therefore, in the death of Christ, the soul was not separated from the Word of God. The argument seems to be saying, you know, that if it was just the soul, then he would be the form of the body, right? But not in his divine nature, though, see? So it's not going to be a problem. Moreover, the body and the soul separated from each other are not one hypostasis, but two. If, therefore, the Word of God remained united both to the soul and to the body and to the body of Christ, separated from each other through the death of Christ, which seemed to follow that the Word of God during the death of Christ was, what? Two hypostasis, which is unsuitable and convenient. Convenience doesn't fit. Therefore, the soul did not remain united to the Word after the death of Christ. But if you have the body and the soul both joined to the same person, you still have one hypostasis, the Son of God. But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. Although Christ was dead as man, right, and his soul, right, was divided from his, what, uncontaminated body, right? Nevertheless, his, what, divinity remains inseparable from both. I say, from the soul and the, what, body, so the soul and the body were separated, right? They both remained united to his, what, the divine person. That's what Damascene is saying, so Damascene is very good here. So Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that the soul is united to the word of God and more immediately, right, and before than the body, since the body is united to the word of God by means of the, what, soul. Since therefore the word of God was not separated in death from the, what, body, much less was it separated from the, what, soul. So this is an argument like we said dialectic, right? You say that the, what, the word of God would be more apt to be separated from the body than from the soul, right? So if it's not separated from the body then it's not, what, separated from the soul, right? Could argue that. question first. Yeah, yeah. It's a sin to take your money then it must be a sin to take your life, your life, yeah. See, Socrates argues there in the, in the Theodal, right, with this kind of an argument, right? Because he argues which is more apt to survive death, the body or the soul, right? Well, he argues that the soul is more godlike than the body. Everybody agrees to that, right? So if God is immortal and the soul is more like God than the body, it doesn't mean that the soul is immortal yet but it's more likely to survive death than the body, right? Then Socrates says but the body does in some way survive, huh? At least the bones do, right? The immortal part of the body, right? Well, then a fortiori if simply the body remains and even more so down there he says the mummies he talks about Egypt, right? Even the flesh in some way remains then a fortiori the soul remains, huh? Good argument, huh? This is the kind of argument Thomas is using here as a place and doubt it be, yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Whence, just as about the Son of God, that which belongs to the body by the separated soul, is what? It belongs to the body separated from the soul, right? To be buried, right? So also is said in the symbol, that's what you call it, symbol of fide, right? We call it the creed, right? From the way to believe, but in the Bible I say symbol. He said that he descended to, yeah, which was his soul, right? Separated from his body. So that's kind of beautiful what he says, right? He was buried, right? And he descended to hell. So he was buried through his body, right? And you couldn't say that the Son of God was buried if his body did not remain united to his person. And then he couldn't descend to hell unless his soul remained there, right? Very good talk. Very good. They say when Kajetan got through, you know, defending, you know, for his doctorate or for whatever the degree would be, they, you know, they took him on their shoulders, you know, and took him down to the tavern and out. So I said, did they ever take taverns up on their shoulders and out and carry him down to one of these taverns to celebrate the great, uh, where is it? Is it the Levine that they have, you know, different wines served in the reception after a guy gets his degree, you know? Depending upon whether he's got high honors or a very ordinary wine, you know? I mean, way of not, uh, saying it, you know, but indicating the quality of the wine served, huh? They know very well. They know. They know. They know. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. They know very well. Tom says, you know, he said so well, so, oh, you know, no. Fool upon this, right? You know, they say Shakespeare expresses our emotions and so on. Better than we can express them ourselves, right? But he says so perfectly, right? Death lies in hell like an untimely frost upon the sweetest flower of all the fields, right? You cannot fool upon that, huh? So, Augustine's words, huh? Since Christ is word and soul and flesh, right? Whether from this that he is the word, right? He lays down the soul. Or from this that he is the soul. Or again, from this that he is what? Flesh, huh? Good division there. And if we say that the word of God laid down the soul, it would follow, right, like in this argument, that at some time that soul was separated from the word, right, huh? Which is false. Now, death, huh? Separates the body from the soul, right, huh? But from the word, I do not say that the soul is what? Separated, huh? If we say that the soul itself lays itself down, it would follow that it's separated from itself, which is most absurd, huh? It remains, therefore, that the flesh itself lays down its soul and again takes it up. Not, however, by its own power, right? But by the power of the word inhabiting the flesh, huh? So the flesh by its what? It's kind of a tool of this divine nature, right, huh? A divine person can lay down his soul and take it up again, huh? Because as has been said above, through death, the divinity of the word is not separated from the flesh. It's interesting how he's using this kind of argument to wrap up this article. Isn't it that he's using this kind of argumentation that he did in the body in response to this objection, too? Is that right? Well, he's teaching the same thing. He's answering the objection that says, the body can't, what? Lay down the soul and take it up again, because the body doesn't have that power, right? So it seems to eliminate that possibility. The soul can't lay itself down, right? Therefore, it must be that the divine word laid down the soul and then took it up again, right? Taman said, well, no, I agree with you that the soul can't lay itself down, because it will be separated from itself, right? So we both agree upon that to fill it out, right? But then this other one doesn't make sense because then he didn't descend to hell, right? Therefore, it must be that the body laid down the soul. How can the body do that? When so far as it's a, what? Yeah. Arima Christi Santitikale, huh? Krapus. What? Salve. Yeah. How can the body save you, right? When so far as it's the body of this divine person, right? And the power to save us, huh? Well, it struck me in that respect, it's just our Lord's words, what's the meaning of who cares to retain bread into his flesh? Who cares? That's what he indicates in John chapter 6 about the flesh, that it's by itself. Yeah, yeah. But the spirit joins with it, and it's his power. So that's the, that's the, it always struck me, that's the power behind, when he says this is my body, who cares? Except that it's, yeah, this is my power, it's my person in the United States. That's why it's important. But the soul is there too, where he's being joined to it. In the universe. Yeah. Now, to the second it should be said that in those words, Athanasius does not understand that the whole man is, what, newly taken, that is all of his parts, right? As if the word of God had, what, deposited the parts of human nature to death, right? But again, that what? The whole totality of nature is assumed in the resurrection, when are made whole again, the union of the soul and the, what, body, right? So he took on a man again, right? Insofar as, what, he held on to the, not that he didn't hold on to the body and the soul separately, right? But they reunited again, right? And therefore he now is, now there's a man joined again, to what? To the, to the person, yeah. The divine person is a man, right? As you're going to say in the next article, to be more clear maybe, what we're saying here, is that in that triduum, right, his soul went down to here and the body went there, right? And then, he wasn't a man. You thought he was a man doing that thing? Well, he speaks of something about, I never, I never should have. Oh, I hope it's negative, it's negative. I don't, I don't, I can't claim to understand it, or even remember correctly, he makes the point of being, sort of being, being dead. And so I, I, it's, it's, but you have to read it. I'm going to check one out. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha My days are numbered. You know the best. I was out in my son's ceremony there. I was looking over his books and he had a copy of Regan's autobiography, right? Kind of interesting, right? I found out that Regan not only was a lover of chili beans, but also popcorn. I guess after one time when he was in the White House there, he had to have some stomach things removed or something, you know. And he was told not to eat popcorn, right? He says, you know, it's popcorn. You could live on popcorn. I could live on popcorn. And I thought you loved the popcorn, you know. Because he described earlier, you know, how when he'd go out to Camp David, you know, some of his people, they'd watch a movie, right? You can pull some popcorn. When I had these things removed, you know, from my stomach therapy, and scotting, whatever they call it. And they told us not to eat popcorn. I forgot about it. I ate some popcorn. I had to bleed again. I'd go to the hospital, you know, to stop the bleeding. So you've got to obey what he's there, you know. About that stomach and tongue. I felt healed. I'm a popcorn now, you know. But now I'm very careful to observe the rules of the game. So Regan had to get a popcorn, poor man. I started reading this very authoritative biography of Mao Tse-sung, you know. What a monster he was. There's a recent one that came out a few years ago. Yeah, it was written by a Chinese woman and another historian. Yes. And it's very written. I didn't get through the whole thing if I had to go to my brothers, you know. But, you know, it's delighting and torturing people and burying them alive. I don't know how many times they bury people alive. It's just gross, you know. But, of course, you know, Marshall comes out very naive, you know, because he helped to save the communists when Cheyenne had them over that barrel, you know. And so there's still another one Oh, yeah, those guys, yeah, yeah. Those guys are almost film travelers, if not communists. He built them up. It's like what Life Magazine, you know, portrayed Castro, you know, as a kind of a Lincoln or something, you know. Yeah. I guess, you know, when Castro came to Washington, you see their Nixon after anything, he said, get rid of this guy, you know, but they didn't, you know. They were planning it, I guess. I think I was planning an invasion, too, before Kennedy goofed it up, you know. Yeah. Well, didn't John Paul was named a man here by Time Magazine? Mm-hmm. He thought for a moment, and he said, well, he said, you know, you've named Adolf Hitler and Castro or some other people. You've named some other some other important figures as Mandy. I don't know. This is kind of a dubious distinction. And they said, oh, well, we have our good list and our bad list. And he said, which one am I on? Yeah. The third objection should be said, that the word of God, an account of the union of human nature, is not said to be human nature, but it's said to be a man, right? Which means one having human nature, right? Now, the soul and the body are essential parts of human nature. Whence, an account of the union of the word to both of them, it does not follow that the word of God is a soul or a body, but that he is, what? Having a soul or a body, huh? Okay. I bet this. Now, to the fourth, about there being two hypostases. I mean, hypostases, I should say. Just as Damascene says in the third book, that in the death of Christ is separated the soul from the body. The one hypostasis is not divided into two hypostases, huh? Or the one person into two persons, right? But, and the body and the soul, according to the same, have existence from the, what? Beginning in the hypostases of the word. And in the death, each of them being divided from the other one, they remain having one hypostasis of the word. Whence, the one hypostasis of the word exists as the hypostasis of both the soul and the, what? Body, huh? Just like, you know, they say, Thomas said before, the word of God could assume... Yeah, yeah, yeah. They may have reasons to do so, but he could have done that. Okay, and so you'd be one person, huh? For never does the soul or the body have its own hypostasis, apart from the hypostasis of the word. For one always is the, what? Hypostasis of the word, and never, what? Two. So this, the objection is thinking of the soul and the body having its own hypostasis, right? And that would be two hypostasis. Only one hypostasis, so one of the word. Now, we see a man. During those three days, huh? So I asked this to the parish priest and see what he says? Kind of afraid to ask sometimes. Okay. To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ in the plurum of the death was a, what, man. Between his death and his resurrection was he a man. For Augustine says in the first book about the Trinity, such was that taking on that it made God a man and man a God. That taking on did not cease to death. Therefore it seems that through death he did not cease to be a, what, man. Moreover, the philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics that each man is his own, what, understanding. Whence after the death, speaking to the, what, soul of Christ, we say, Holy Father, Holy Peter, Sancti Peter, pray for us, right? So that's going to be explained as a synesthetic, right? That's a virgin, that's not a synesthetic. But after death, the Son of God was not separated from the intellectual soul. Therefore, in that plurum, the Son of God was a man, right? This is thinking like Socrates, right? It shows you the influence of that. Moreover now, this is into some of the other. Every priest is a man. You know, he's taken from Hmong men, right? To offer sacrifices and so on. But in that plurum of death, Christ was a priest. Otherwise it would not be true what is said in Psalm 109. You are priests forever, eternally. Therefore, Christ in that plurum was a man. Otherwise you wouldn't be a priest. Okay, Houdini, how do you get out all these things? We'll see now. But against this, removing the higher, the lower is removed. But living or animated is superior to animal and to man. It's talking about the category for order, right? So I am a man, and a man is an animal. An animal is a, what? Living body, right? So if it's not a living body, it's not an animal. And therefore not a, what? Man, huh? So if you take out the superior predication. But in that plurum of death, the body of Christ was not alive nor animated. Therefore, it was not a man. Fair enough. Now what does the master say here? I answer, it should be said that Christ truly was, what? Dead? This is an article of faith. Whence to assert everything that, which is, anything that has taken, what? Which has taken away the truth of the death of Christ is a mistake or error against faith. On account of which in the epistle, the synodal, synodal epistle or letter of Cyril, right? It said, if one does not confess that the word of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and that he tasted, what? Death in the flesh. And that must have been cursed. But it pertains to the truth of the death of man, or of an animal for that matter, death to death, he ceases to be a man or a wild animal. But the death of man or of animal comes about from the separation of the soul, which completes the definition of animal or of man. Animal comes in the word animal, meaning soul, right? And therefore to say that Christ in the triduum of death was a man, simply and absolutely speaking, is erroneous mistake. One could always say that Christ in the triduum was a dead man, right? But a dead man is not a what? Man. Call that the diminishing, you know, thing. Like a burnt-down house is not a house anymore, right? You know, a suit torn to pieces is not a suit anymore, right? And a broken-up chair is no longer a chair. Now, some have confessed that Christ in the triduum was a man, saying some what? Erroneous mistake in words, but not having the sense of error in what? Faith. As Hugo of St. Victor, now that's my middle name. My middle name is Hugo. Usually I was christened Hugo. My confirmation name is Victor. Okay. Who, for that reason, said Christ in the triduum of death was a man because he said the soul was what? Back to our friend Socrates, right? Which, nevertheless, is false, as has been shown in the first part when he talked about the soul of man. Now, the Magister, that's Peter Lombardi's sentences, in the 22nd distinction in the third book, laid down that Christ in the triduum of death was a man for another reason, huh? For he believed that the union of the body and the soul was not of the, what, definition of man, but suffices for this that someone be a man, that he has a human soul and a body, right? Whether joined or not joined, huh? Which clearly is also, which is also false from those things which are said in the first part and from those things which are said about the mood of union, huh? So? To be quick getting on body, man. Perhaps, yeah. The first effort should be said that the word of God took on flesh and so united, right? And therefore that taking on made God a man and man a, what? God. And that taking on did not cease the separation of the soul of the word the soul and the flesh. But nevertheless there ceased the, what, union of flesh and the soul, yeah. You can probably quaff it a bit though, right? Because Thomas is saying that, what, during this time he's no longer a, what, a man, right, huh? Those soul and body are still joined, yeah. What about the old guy Aristotle here, right? Well, that's kind of like a Snekiki too, right? He's a brain. To the second should be said that man is said to be his own understanding, not because the understanding is the whole man, but because the understanding is the chief part of, what, man. In which virtually exists the whole, what, just as if the rector of the city is said to be the whole city, because in him there consists the whole ordering of the city. That's kind of a common thing, commonly speaking Aristotle has. For reason more than anything else is man, he says. It doesn't mean reason alone, right? Is man, huh? But reason more than anything else is man. Therefore the life, according to reason, must be man's life, huh? So it would be strange, he says, if a man should choose the life of something other than himself. But men do choose the life of something other than themselves. The irascible man, you know, barking at everybody, takes on the life of a dog. The guy eating your butt instead of the pig and so on. Now what about the priesthood, huh? Well, to the third, it should be said that to be a priest belongs to man by reason of his soul, right? In which is the character of, what, order, huh? So that's a permanent thing, huh? It's what, three segments that have a character, I guess? Confirmation and priesthood. Whence through death a man does not lose the, what? Priestly order. Priestly order, yeah. And even less so than Christ, huh? Who is the origin, origin, the whole, what? Priesthood, right? Ultra Christus, right? I was talking about it the other day. Somebody was asking me about the priesthood, who's basically going to leave the priesthood. And they were asking, well, does he, does he, I learned, once a priest, always a priest. And I said, well, yeah, he'll be a priest, even if he goes to hell, he'll be a priest. Yeah, yeah. Because he's got that in his soul. And for the very cool one. Mm.