Tertia Pars
Lecture 131: The Session of Christ at the Right of the Father

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

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gracias. God, your enlightenment. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand all that you have to do. A nice passage there in the three-fifths psalm, where he's talking about God's justice is above the mountains, and his truth above the clouds, and his mercy above the heavens. And Thomas talks about degradation there, right? And how one is, in a sense, superior to the other, right? It's kind of an interesting text there. Okay. Then we're not to consider about the sitting of Christ, huh? Did we get the word session, huh? Yes. Session. Yeah. Sitting of the Congress, yeah. This is the sitting of Christ to the right of the Father, right? And about this, four things are asked. Whether Christ should sit at the, what? Right of the Father. Secondly, whether this belongs to him by his divine nature. Third, whether it belongs to him by his human nature, or according to his human nature. And fourth, whether it is private to Christ, huh? I mean, there I think appropriate would be translated as private, huh? It's not appropriate, because that's what the second and third articles are touching upon now. So I scandalize people by translating appropriate or private sometimes. I'm kind of stubborn about that. To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that it does not belong to Christ to sit at the right of the Father, of God the Father. For right and left are differences of bodily positions. I thought there were political differences, but it had an origin, I guess, from the French thing. It happened to sit. But nothing bodily belongs to God, because God is a, what? Spirit. A material substance. As is said in John chapter 4. Therefore, it seems that Christ should not sit at the, what? Right of the Father. Moreover, if someone sits to the right of someone, that one sits at his left. If, therefore, Christ sits at the right of the Father, it would follow that the Father sits at the left of the Son, which is not fitting at all. Moreover, to sit and to stand would seem to have, what? Opposition, right? But Stephen, St. Stephen, says, Acts 7. Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of the power of God. Therefore, it seems that Christ is not set at the, what? Right of the Father. Got a little restless there, isn't it? But against all this is what is said in the Gospel of St. Mark in the 16th chapter. It's the last chapter, I guess. That the Lord Jesus, right? After he had spoken to them, he sent them to heaven, and he sat at the right of God, right? Thomas says, I answer it should be said, that in the name of sitting, we can understand, what? Two things, huh? To wit, rest or quiet, huh? According to that of Luke 24, sit here in the, what? City, huh? And also the royal or judicial power. According to that of Proverbs chapter 20, that the king who sits in the seat of judgment, huh? Dissipates all evil by his, what? Gaze, huh? But in both ways, huh? It belongs to Christ to sit at the right of the Father. In one way, insofar as he remains eternally incorruptible, in the beatitude of the Father, which is said to be his, what? Right, huh? According to that of Psalm 15. The light's on his right, forever right, to the endless. When Segestin says in the book on the symbol or the creed, he sits at the right of the Father. Well, understand to sit, to what? To dwell, huh? In which way we say about some man, huh? In his own country he sat for what? Three years. Yeah, for three years, huh? Thus, therefore, believe that Christ dwelt in the right of the God the Father. Blessed is him, and the name of his beatitude is the, what? Right of the Father. In another way, Christ is said to sit at the right of the, what? Father, insofar as he rules with the Father. And from him he has the power of judging, the judicial power. Just as one who sits at the right of the king, right, assists him in ruling and in, what? Judging. Judging, right? Once Augustine says another sermon on the creed, understand the right and the right, that power which that man, what? Took or received, huh? From God, who will come to judge, huh? Who before came to be judged, huh? That's interesting, huh? See, he takes two different sermons on Augustine, right, huh? So you must have read them carefully, frequently, and with whoever it's. To the first thereof, it should be said, as Damascene says in the fourth book, we do not, what? Place. Local place, huh? The right of the Father, right, huh? For who is, what? Not able to be, have a line drawn around him, right? That's how I use that term, you know, to draw a line around something, right? Draw a line around happiness there in the Nicomache ethics. So in what way is the one who cannot have a line drawn around them, huh? Able to be, what? To obtain a place in the right, huh? For the right and the left of those things are those things which are circumscribed, or have lines drawn around them. But the right of the Father we call the glory and, what? Honor of his, what? Divinity, huh? Okay, now the second text here, right? When the Father be at the left, and so on. To the second should be said that that argument proceeds according as to sit is understood, to sit at the right is understood in a bodily way, right, huh? Once Augustine says in a certain sermon about the Creed, if we take this, what? In a fleshy way or bodily way, huh? That Christ sits at the right of the Father, he would be to the left, right, huh? But there, that is an eternal beatitude, everything is, what? On the right, huh? Like those leftists in a bad position, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because there is no, what? Misery there, right, huh? Okay. But you know, we speak of, you know, the right-hand man of the king, right? Doesn't mean the king is inferior because he's on the left, no? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's not to be understood in a bodily sense, right? So there's a right and no left, huh? So it's like, I want you to know, understanding it is relative, right? Because right is relative to left, huh? So you can't have one without the other, right? You can't be the taller without the shorter and something on the right without something on the left, right? It's not to be understood that way, huh? It's funny, though, Thomas didn't say that there's a metaphor here, does he, huh? Didn't say that at all. Maybe like some of those, I can't remember how it's worded, but sometimes there's certain, when you take something, perfection, we're familiar with, and you leave out whatever the invitation is, and you say, oh, you say that much of that. So maybe that's the way that's being used. Well, too, sometimes the metaphor is on the side of that from which the name is taken, right? Rather than that which is applied. It's always a difficult thing. The third should be said, as Gregory says in the Hominion of the Ascension, to sit is of one, what? Judging, huh? But to stand of one fighting, huh? Or one who's aiding, huh? Stephanie, therefore, in the labor of the fight is placed, right? He sees him standing, having him as one to aid him, right, huh? He just sat there and seemed to be not concerned about him, right? Don't you sit there. Help me. But Marx describes this after the Ascension that he sits, right? Because after the glory of his, what, Assumption, he'll be seen as a judge in the end. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, whether to sit at the right of the Father belongs to Christ according to his God. The second one goes forward thus. It seems that to sit at the right of God the Father does not belong to Christ according as he is God. For Christ, according as his God, is the right arm, is it? Dexter, this is Dexter and the right arm. The right of the Father, yeah. But it does not seem to be the same to be the right of something. And the one who sits at the right of him. Therefore, Christ, according as he is God, does not sit at the right of the Father. Moreover, Mark 16 has said that the Lord Jesus was assumed in heaven. He sits from the right of God. But Christ was not assumed in heaven according as he is God. Therefore, neither according as God does he sit at the right of God. It's a good argument. Moreover, Christ, according as he is God, is equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, Christ, according as he is God, sits at the right of the Father, for like reason, the Holy Spirit would sit at the right of the Father and the Son. And the Father at the right of the Son, which is never, what, found. But against this is what Damascene says, that we call the right of the Father, the glory and honor of his divinity, in which the Son of God existed before the ages as being God and consubstantial to the, what, Father, right? It's coming back in the creed now, it's kind of consubstantial. Yeah. The answer, it should be said that, as is clear from the things foresaid, by the name of right, three things are able to be understood. Those ones are two. We've got three things, huh? In one way, according to Damascene, the glory of his, what, divinity, right? In another way, according to Augustine, the beatitude of the Father. In a third way, according to the same meaning of Augustine, the judicial power, right? But sitting, as has been said, either indwelling or the, what, kingly or judicial dignity is designed or signifies. Whence to sit at the right of the Father is nothing other than, together with the Father, to have the glory of divinity and beatitude and the judicial power. And this, in an unchangeable way, in a royal way, I guess. But this belongs to the Son, according as his God. Whence is manifest that Christ, according as his God, sits at the right of the Father. Thusover, that this preposition, odd, which is, what, transitive, implies only a personal, what, distinction, huh? Now, why didn't he say that at the beginning of John's Gospel, right? They get the word odd, right? Because the Greek word is, what, narkein, ologos, kenokos, a prus, don't think, right? Well, that's insane, or odd, huh? Tell us there now, see? That's the Latin as odd, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know why. I don't know why, because they'll translate, in logic there, they'll translate the category, post-T, towards something as ad-aliquid, right? No, don't translate by ad, but... Did he translate that one? And the order of origin, right, huh? Not, however, a grade of nature or dignity, right? Which shows none in the divine persons, right? Quality, then, we spoke about it. No, Dr. Brickless, this one asks the three, because it refers to the right, whereas the one has two, because the one is on the sitting. Okay. Travian. That's the same question, why is it? Travian, travian. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the son is said to be the right of the father by appropriation, in the way in which also he is said to be the power of the father, right? The virtue of the father. But the right of the father, according to the foresaid three meanings, is something common to the, what, three persons, huh? Yeah, I thought, this is my, just to clarify my own understanding, I thought appropriations are curious or peculiar because what is said is actually common to all three, but it helps to understand something about one of the three. Yeah. That's what I'm wondering why he said that. Yeah, it's what St. Paul says, that Christ is the virtue and the wisdom, I guess, huh? Yeah. Of the father, right? Yeah. It's not just the... It's only his, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I guess that's what I'm wondering about here, it seems to be, at the end, maybe he's leaving something unsaid here that, because I thought, if one of them is by appropriation, and he says, but, the right of the father, according to the three significations, the foresaid, is something common to three persons, but meaning, but it's not an appropriation. Because appropriation is common to three, but it helps understand it, it hasn't had something added. Yeah, there's some proper, yeah. Whereas this meaning, maybe it's not an appropriation. I don't know. That's why I'm trying to figure out what he means. Well, he's saying he's making a distinctly last sentence, and with the said there, at the beginning, the right of the father is said appropriation, but the right of the father, according to the three significations, the foresaid, is something common to three persons. But every appropriation is common to three persons, but then it adds something, it helps understand something, the one of the three. So that's what I'm guessing, maybe he means that, by saying it's common to three, but it doesn't, it doesn't add something else. I, I don't know, that's why I couldn't figure it out. Unless he, he's speaking elliptically, but he's leaving something out, but I don't, he might be putting more meaning to the said than there is. But in the order of the four, I find that it's private to Christ, you know, isn't that? Yeah, we'll walk clearly at that point, yeah. The second argument here seems to say it's got to refer to his human nature, right? That Christ, according as he is man, is assumed to the divine honor, which is designated in the foresaid sitting. But nevertheless, that divine honor belongs to Christ insofar as he's God, not to some, what? Assumption, yeah, something, but to his eternal origin from the father. So he seems to be taking that text as, and they're referring to his sitting in his human nature, right? But he can also sit in his divine nature, right? Down to the third, it should be said that in no way it can be said that the father sits at the right of the, what? Son or the Holy Spirit, huh? Because the father and the Holy Spirit draw their origin from the father and not the, what? Reverse. But the Holy Spirit properly is said to sit at the, what? Right of the father or the son, according to the foresaid sense, huh? Although according to a certain appropriation, it's attributed to the son, to whom is appropriated equality, right? Go back to Trinity, we saw that, huh? As Augustine says, huh? That in the father, there is unity, in the son, equality, and in the Holy Spirit, the connection of unity and equality. That in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity, in the father, there is unity. It's like God hates equality, but doesn't he love his son? Things other than self. Now, whether to sit at the right of the Father belongs to Christ according as he is man. To third, one proceeds thus. It seems that to sit at the right of the Father does not belong to Christ according as he is man. For as Damascene says, the right of the Father we call the glory and the honor of his what? Of the divinity. But the honor and glory of divinity, the divine nature does not belong to Christ according as he is man. Therefore, it seems that Christ according as he is man would not sit at the right of the Father. Moreover, to sit at the right of the one ruling would seem to exclude what? Subjection. Because the one who sits at the right of the one ruling, in a way, rules with him, right? But Christ according as man is subject to the Father. As is said in 1 Corinthians 15. However, it seems that Christ according as he is man is not at the right of the Father. Moreover, Romans 8, upon that who is at the right of God, the gloss expounds, that is equal to the Father in the honor by which, what? Is, or at the right of the Father, that is in the greater goods of God. And upon that of Hebrews 1.3, he sits at the right of God up high. The gloss says, that is to equality with the Father, right? Above all, in place and dignity. But to be equal to God does not belong to Christ according as he is man. Not even equal to himself. For according, as he himself says in John chapter 14, the Father is greater than man. Therefore, it seems that to sit at the right of the Father does not belong to Christ according as he is man. Against this is what Augustine says in his Sermon on the Creed. Understand this right, the power right, which that man received from God. That he might come to judge who before came to be, what? Judged, huh? Where are we coming out there, huh? Expressing himself. Answer, it should be said, as has been said, by the name of the right of the Father, is understood either the, what? Glory of his divinity, or his eternal beatitude, or his judicial and royal power. Now, this preposition, odd, toward, designates a certain, what? Approach to the right, huh? Which has designated a certain, a certain coming together with a certain, what? Distinction. Which can be understood in three ways, huh? In one way, that there be an agreement in nature and a distinction in person. And thus, Christ, according as he is the Son of God, sits at the right of the Father. Because he has the same nature with the Father. Whence the foresaid, belong essentially to the Son, just as to the, what? Father. And this is to be an equality of the Father, huh? In another way, according to the, what? Grace of union. Which implies, reversely, the distinction of nature and the unity of the, what? Person. And according to this, Christ, according as he is man, is the Son of God, and consequently, sitting at the right of the Father. Thus, nevertheless, that secundum quad does not designate the condition of the nature, but the unity of the suppositum, huh? Unity of the person. This has been expanded above, huh? In a third way, the foresaid excess can be understood according to habitual grace, which is more abundant in Christ, compared to all other creatures, right? So, much so that the, what, human nature in Christ is more blessed than, what, other creatures, huh? And above all other creatures, he has royal and judicial, what, power, huh? Thus, therefore, if the word secundum quad, according to which, designates the condition of nature, Christ, according as he is God, sits at the right of the Father, that is, in the quality of the Father. According as he is man, he sits at the right of the Father, that is, in the more potent goods of the Father, above all other creatures. That is, in greater beatitude and having judicial power. If, however, secundum quad, designates the unity of the suppositum, thus also, according as he is man, he sits at the right of the Father, according to, what, of honor. Insofar as by the same honor we venerate the Son of God, with the, what, same, when nature assumed, as has been said above, huh? It's sort of in the Eucharist here, huh? We honor that, right? There's God, right? There's human nature there, right, huh? But it's because of the divine person there. Thomas is seeing a lot of distinctions there, right? His divine nature in his person and, in another way, in his human nature, right? So there's no feast in the Church, is there, for the sitting of Christ? There may be an unstood assumption, huh? So maybe this is not appropriate for one of your sermons, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that the human nature of Christ, huh? The humanity of Christ, according to the conditions of his nature, does not have the glory or honor of, what, the divine nature. Which, nevertheless, it has, by reason of the person, to whom it is, what? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whence Augustine, I mean, Danicine there, adds, In which, to wit, Gloria, the divine nature, right? The Son of God, existing before ages as God, and consubstantial to the Father, sits, right? And what? With him. Yeah. In his flesh, huh? For the one hypostasis, huh? One person is adored, a one adoration, with his flesh, by every, what, creature? Mohammed doesn't go along with that, huh? Yeah. That's no problem. That's no problem. That's no problem. To second should be said that Christ, according as man, is subject to the Father insofar as secundum quad designates the condition of what? Nature. And according to this, the human nature, it does not belong to him to sit at the right of the Father by reason of what? Equality, according as his man. For thus it belongs to him to sit at the right of the Father, according as through this is designated the excellence of beatitude and the judicial power above what? Every creature in this human nature. To third should be said that to be in equality of the Father does not pertain to the what? Of Christ, but only to the person what? Assuming. But to be in the greater goods of God, according as it implies a certain excess of other creatures, belongs to the assumed nature. So when they're having the benediction there, when they praise the, you're praising the human nature? Yeah? I think it's supposed to be God. I think it's supposed to be both. Yeah, yeah. But if you say it's human nature, it's as joint to this what? Divine person, right? Yeah. He's speaking about benediction. Yeah, no, I haven't really seen the title. Yeah, we call, we call, the Eastern Church called the Divine Presence and Divine Lawless. No, no, that, that, that prayer is called the Divine Presence and the Benediction. Yeah. Oh. I mean, sometimes we say, you know, that the human nature of Christ is a creature, huh? But Thomas says, you shouldn't be said, Christ is a creature. That's because of the person there, right, huh? So if you're, that's kind of a subtle thing there, right? So if you're giving divine praises to the human nature by itself, that would seem to be wrong, right? But if you're honoring that the human nature has joined to the divine person, then it's not as a creature, right? If you say Christ is a creature, you'd be saying that this person is a creature, right? That's not really correct. This person is not a creature. I thought you could say, perhaps, that the human nature of Christ is a creature, right? Even that, you've got to be careful with, right? If a creature is the name, you give it to a, I don't quit, right? To a person, right, huh? And you don't want to give it to this person, so you've got to be very careful. Yeah, yeah. Would you say my finger is a creature, you know? I can't care about that when you're speaking. There's five creatures, you know? There's one creature here that, supposedly to him, you know, huh? Now, the much away question, is this private to Christ? To the fourth one precedes us, it seems that to sit at the right of the Father is not private to Christ. For the Apostle says in Ephesians 2, that he, what, revived us, right? And made us to sit in heavenly things in Christ Jesus. But to be, what, resuscitated is not private to Christ, right? Therefore, for a like reason, needed to sit at the right of God on high. You don't have the phrase of sitting on the right there, of course, in that phrase. But you're sitting with him in celestial things. But does he have to find some times, though, it says in Scripture, to rule with Christ, right? It's the one that says, if we died with him, we shall reign with him. Yeah. Why not sit with him then? Yeah. Moreover, Augustine says in the book on the symbol, the creed, that for Christ to sit at the right of the Father, this is to dwell in his beatitude, huh? But this belongs to many others, right, to dwell in God's beatitude. Therefore, it seems to sit at the right of the Father is not private to Christ. Moreover, he himself says, Apocalypse 3, who comes, right, I will give him to sit with me on my throne. Yeah, this is good to hear you. And just as I have conquered and sit with my Father in his throne. No secret, just as. It's a pretty good argument, huh? And through this, Christ sits at the right of the Father, that he sits on his throne, right? Therefore, others who conquer will sit at the right of the Father, huh? More Matthew 20, huh? The Lord says, to sit at the right or my left is not mine to give, but to those to whom has been prepared by my Father. But this would be said in vain, unless it was prepared for some. Therefore, to sit at the right does not belong to Christ alone, huh? But against this is what is said to Hebrews 1. Reading that, reading that, reading that, the last week or so have been from Hebrews, you know? Yeah, the center of our office. Our office, we have. Yeah. To which of the angels, as he said, sit at my right, huh? That is in my more potent gifts, right? Or to me, according to what? Yeah. As it were, to no one, right? But the angels are superior to other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to others to sit at the right of the Father. Okay. I answer, it should be said, as has been said, For Christ is said to sit at the right of the Father, insofar as by his divine nature, he is in equality with the Father, right? And according to his human nature, in an excellent possession of the divine goods over all other creatures, huh? But both of these belong to Christ, what, alone, huh? Therefore, to no other, neither to angel nor to man, does it belong to sit at the right of the Father, except, but to Christ alone, huh? Now, what about this first objection from Ephesians? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that because Christ is our head, that which is given to Christ, right, is also what? In him, right? In an account of this, because he himself already is, what, revivified, huh? The apostle says that God, yeah, revivifies us to him, right, huh? Who nevertheless in us are not yet, what? Yeah. But are to be raised up. Okay. According to that of Romans 8, that who raised up Jesus Christ from dead, vilify also our mortal bodies, huh? And according to the same way of speaking, the apostle says that he'll make us to sit with him in heavenly things. To wit, in this, that he, our head, right, which is Christ, sits there, huh? It's kind of strange the way Thomas takes it, huh? Instead of saying he'll make us sit, but not quite equal. He says, because our head is there, right, huh? Yeah. Right along with him alone. Yeah, yeah. What about the attitude there? To the second, it should be said, because the right is the divine, what? The attitude, huh? To sit on the right does not signify simply to be in beatitude, but to have beatitude with a certain, what? The lordly power, and as it were, private and natural, right, huh? Which to Christ alone belongs, and to no other creature. But it can nevertheless be said that every saint who is in beatitude is constituted to the right of God, huh? Whence it is said, Matthew 25, put the sheep on the right, huh? So what's Thomas saying there? He seems to be saying that, in some sense of the word, you can say we're going to be... We'll be established there. Yeah, on the right, yeah. It might depend on your merits. You see, I question the angels are higher than other creatures, you know, that would affect. Well, Mary is above the angels. Not by nature, but by... So there may be some saints who, by grace, are by grace, or something else else. But not by nature. Not by nature, and some saints it might be by grace, but others it might be not. I'm just going by... St. Thomas talks about... I had to look it up for somebody, I don't remember the details now, but... Ray LeClaire asked me about... St. Paul says, don't you know that we will judge angels? I said, what does St. Thomas say about that? Among other things, he said, well, St. Paul says that we, not you. So maybe St. Paul will, but not everybody. And that's one of his explanations. That's one of his explanations. And there's other words. I think I've maybe expeled it once before here. There's different ways. Now the, what, the third should... To the third should be said that by throne is signified the judicial power which Christ has in the Father. And by this, he said to sit on the throne of the Father, huh? But other saints have this from Christ, huh? Or by Christ. And according to this, they're said to sit in the throne of what? Christ. That's the word. getting some power of judging from him, right? According to that in Matthew 19, you also will sit upon, what, 12 chairs? Judging the 12 tribes of Israel, right? It's big on the right side of those fossils. You get up there. So if you go back to that text there from the Apocalypse, it says, who conquers, I'll give him to sit with me in my throne, right? Okay, just as I have conquered and I sit with my father in his throne, right? That's kind of what a distinction he's making here, right? He's not saying that we're sitting on the, what, his throne, being the father's throne, but in the throne of Christ because we're getting from him some power of judging from the apostles. I get it. Some power of judging from him. Now the fourth objection. To the fourth, it should be said, as Christendom says on Matthew, that place, right, that is the, what? Sitting with the right. Right. Is not open, I guess, in views. Inexcessible and approachable. To all, not only all men, but even to the angels, right? Just as, what, Paul places that, what? Special for the only begotten, saying, to which of the angels did he ever say, sit at my right, huh? The Lord, therefore, not as it were to some, what? Just being there, yeah. We're going to sit there, right? Right. But condescending to the, what? The one asking. The one asking response, huh? That this only, they ask, which was to stand, what? Before others. Before the others. Next to him, yeah. You know, Thomas has a discussion of who's greater, Peter or John, right? He doesn't ask about the other apostles, but those two guys. Because one is made out of the church, and the other is the one whom Jesus especially loved, and he gives the harvest back and forth, and finally, he says, maybe we shouldn't try to decide this. But he's very clear, though, it seems, he talks about Mary having the highest place, and then next to her, the apostles, right? And then, he kind of stops there, you know, but he finds it as foolish to try to be equal to Mary, or even to be equal to the apostles, right, huh? Because they're proximity to him, right? I was noticing you have a statue of Joseph there in the back, there with a gigable candle in front of his. Is that new, or is that there before? It's been there before. In the warmer weather, we put it out in the vest. Yeah, I remember seeing it. He's having a nose today there. Yeah, yeah. I thought, is that new? We move it inside. You want it to get cold to send me here. You want Joseph to get cold, yeah. But I would think that Joseph has the rank of an apostle, right? If not more, you know? Yeah, I kind of remember after the apostles. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And John the Baptist up there sometimes, maybe after the apostles. Yeah, well, the other thing about, you know, the rule of prayer is the rule of faith, you know? When I grew up, you know, it was always like every church, it seems, and knew of them, but in St. Paul, you always had a little side chapel to the Blessed Virgin, went to Joseph, right? There was kind of a promise given to Joseph, as well as Mary, that there was a given to the other apostles, right? So, I don't know. St. Teresa of Avila, she's really impressed with Joseph, huh? You know, by her way of protesting, she always disliked the fact that she was always in Lent, so she couldn't celebrate as festive as she wanted to. She used to go to her cell, and she had a little drum, and she had a little horn, and she, all by herself, they would hear her banging on her drum and tooting her horn. That's all right. I'm sure she got a lot of glory out of that. St. Joseph. I know, like in the Inchilidians, the dogeses, they had six lituries, right? And three of them are dealing with Christ, the Sacred Heart, and the Blood, and the Name, right? And one for Mary, one for Joseph, and one for all the saints, right? So, St. Joseph has that prominence in the rule of prayer, being the rule of faith there. One can also say that the sons of Zebedee, right, asked for a certain excellence before others, right, in partaking of his judicial, what, power, right? Once they did not ask that they would sit at the right or the left of the Father, but at the right or the left of what? Christ. Christ, huh? Okay. We'll break down. There's appropriate between two questions, huh? Thank you.