Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
St. Thomas.
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
So, we'll continue with St. Thomas.
A couple of you have remarked that you actually understood something of what I was saying yesterday,
which is encouraging, because I wasn't very clear sometimes, especially at the end.
I apologize, but I get confused myself sometimes.
This is not easy stuff.
So, we'll just finish his commentary.
Well, it's this question in the Contra Gentiles, the fourth book, chapter 11.
It's an interesting book, the Contra Gentiles, because it's quite different from the Summa.
If you read the Summa, it's always, you know, the objections.
There's response, and then there's response to objections.
The Contra Gentiles is, it's kind of a stream of consciousness method, sort of like James Joyce.
It just goes on and on and on.
There's no, it's not as ordered, in a way.
So, in a way, it's kind of hard to organize it.
But you get these flashes of light.
When you listen to him talk, St. Thomas, as you, hopefully you had, if you, we've been reading this.
You don't understand everything he's saying, necessarily, but sometimes it gets through.
And particularly on this point, I think it's good to read something like that,
because that's all we're ever going to get on the, about the Trinity anyway.
We're not going to understand it.
I was just talking to you, one of you, about,
the famous story of St. Augustine, it says, after he wrote his De Trinitate.
I forget how the story goes, but the idea is that this man takes him out by the ocean,
on the beach, and tells him, well, dig a hole in the sand.
So he does, and he says, now put the ocean in your hole.
I said, well, that's not going to fit.
He said, well, that's what you're trying to do.
Put the Trinity in your little head.
And yet, what he says, in his De Trinitate, is the basis of all of Trinitarian theology ever since.
So, you know, he put something in his little hole.
So that's what we're trying to do, is put a little water in our little hole here.
And that's pretty good already, okay?
And it's life-giving, this water.
It's the fountain that mounts up to eternal life, right?
And it multiplies itself, right?
That's what our Lord said.
That's what our Lord says to the seminarians.
That's how it works.
And that's kind of how theology works, too.
You get a little bit, and it multiplies.
You get one little idea, and then you can understand all sorts of other things you never understood before.
And that's what St. Thomas says in his famous Councils to this friar,
asking for some advice about reading, about studying.
There's 16 Councils.
And the first one is, don't jump into the ocean.
Go through little rivulets.
And you get little things you understand, and then it gets bitter, okay?
You jump in the ocean, you're just going to drown.
Just try to get little things.
So I'm going to try to give you some more little rivulets.
Okay.
So now he's going to go on to explain.
How in spite of this absolute unity in nature,
there's still distinction in God, because we've explained how the Word is God.
And there's one God.
It's numerically one.
There's only one God.
And God is God, and the Word is God.
There's God the Father, and there's God the Son, and there's only one God.
But there's...
Now he's going to explain the distinction.
Because obviously that's the question that follows.
Well, how can they be one?
And yet, still you're saying they're distinct.
If there's this absolute unity, how can they be distinct?
Now he starts by using the example of the distinction between three things.
One is subsistence, essence, and being.
He says, although in God, these are most truly one,
there is still in God whatever belongs to the notion of a subsistence,
or of essence, or of being itself.
So now he's going to explain what he means by these terms.
For it belongs to him that he should not be in something.
That's what it means to subsist.
You exist.
You stand on your own two feet.
We're talking about the difference between substance and accident.
A substance subsists.
It exists separately on its own from everything else.
Whereas an accident doesn't subsist.
It exists in something else.
Right?
We talked about that yesterday.
A color, for example, exists in something that's colored.
You just can't have a color walking.
There has to be something colored that walks around.
Color has to exist in something that subsists.
That's what it means to subsist.
And God subsists because he doesn't exist in something else.
And each of the persons subsists.
And that's really where the mystery is.
They aren't accidents.
They're substances.
They're subsistences.
In this one subject.
But anyway, that's not what he's talking about yet.
He's just talking about the notion of subsistence.
Means it's something that is not in something but subsists.
And God, well, that's true about God.
He subsists.
God doesn't exist.
He's something else, obviously.
He's a substance.
Also, we call him essence because he is what he is.
That's what an essence means.
It's the essence of something is what it is.
So that applies to God as well.
He's an essence.
He is what he is.
And also being.
It means that he is in act.
So subsistence, essence, and being are three different notions.
And they all apply to God.
He is subsistence.
He is an essence.
And he is being.
Then he goes on to show how in God, similarly, there must be the three things that belong
to intellectual activity.
Just as God subsists, and he has an essence, and he is, but with regard to his intellectual
activity.
There are these three things.
Namely, the one who understands, his active understanding, and the intention understood
that we talked about yesterday.
Understood in an active sense.
This species expressa.
The word.
What?
The concept.
The concept in which he knows.
Himself.
In fact.
So in God, you have these three things.
The one who understands.
His active understanding, which is the same thing.
There's no difference in God, right?
Because he's always an act.
He's not one thing, and then he's adding another act.
It's the same thing.
And then there's this intention understood.
Understood.
Which again, is the same thing.
Because it perfectly expresses what he is, to the point where it's exactly the same thing,
which we just tried to explain.
It's the same being.
And as I mentioned, there's only difference is relation.
Now that's what we can explain now, what the difference is.
Because that's what we have to explain here.
That there's still a distinction, and I mentioned before, the distinction is on the level of
relation.
So this is what he can explain.
So all these three things, the one who understands, his active understanding, and this intention
understood, must all be in God, because he's an intellectual being.
So he's the one who understands.
There's his active understanding.
And there's his intention understood.
All those things are necessary for a being to understand, that is an intellectual being.
So all those three things are in God.
He's just not some sort of blind force.
I remember my best friend when I was a kid, I met him after, years later, we were talking
about God.
And for him, that's what God is.
He's a force.
I think that's in some movie somewhere.
He's a force.
Well, he's not just a force.
He knows.
So he has an active understanding, which is the same as active being, and he has his
intention understood, which are all one thing.
However, unlike subsistence, essence, and being, which are in fact one thing, period,
by their very nature, these three things imply a certain distinction.
Because it's intention understood, even though it's the same thing as the one who understands,
because it's a perfect act of knowledge, and so it's exactly what it knows, nevertheless,
there remains this relation of origin.
It's the same thing.
The art of understanding is from origin to this principle of understanding.
In the one who's the principle of the act of understanding, there's a relation of origin
to this act of understanding, which is the same thing as him.
I'm sorry.
That's an active relation of origin.
That is, the one who understands has an active relation of origin.
He's the one who God knows.
And there's a passive relation of origin in the word,
which is the fruit of this active knowledge.
The father knows himself, and the son is the fruit of that,
actually of our father knowing himself.
So the father begets the son.
And the son is begotten by the father.
So the father has a relation of origin, that he is the origin of the son,
and the son has a passive relation of origin to the father.
He is begotten by the father.
So even though they're the same thing,
the same being that we talked about before,
God's absolutely one. There's only one God.
It's one thing.
They remain, nevertheless, a relation of origin.
Active in the father, passive in the son.
And that's what makes a difference.
That's what they are.
They're relations.
So that's why, in spite of the absolute union of the word to its principle,
and one essence,
there remains, nevertheless, a distinction between them,
which consists in these opposing relations.
And the Council of Florence,
in the 15th century,
puts it this way.
In God, all things are one and the same,
except for the opposition of relation.
In God, all things are one and the same.
It's exactly the same thing.
Everything in God is one,
except when there is an opposition of relation.
See, the Council of Florence,
if you remember, if you've done any serious ecclesiastical history,
its main object was to reconcile the Greeks.
Because, you know, there was already the schism of the Greeks
that had happened centuries before that.
At the Council of Florence, they had the Greeks come,
and they reconciled.
But to do that, they had to solve certain difficulties
that had arisen between the Greek theology
and the Roman theology
on this question of the Trinity.
Because the Greeks insisted on the fact
that the original creed said,
How does it go again?
The Father proceeds from the Father.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
It didn't say it proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The words et filioque, you may have heard that.
That's what they talked about, which means and the Son,
was added a couple hundred years later.
Originally, what the first creed said was the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
because that's what our Lord says.
It's right in the Gospel, right?
He doesn't say it proceeds from the Son.
That comes from the Church and the reflection and everything.
And St. Thomas talks about it.
And it's very simple.
Because the only difference in the persons is relation of origin,
if the Holy Ghost didn't proceed,
if the Holy Ghost didn't proceed from the Son,
he wouldn't be distinct from the Son.
That's where the filioque comes from.
The Holy Ghost has to proceed not just from the Father,
but from the Father and the Son.
And so that's what we're talking about.
That's why it's saying here in the Council of Florence,
it was explaining to these Greeks, you know, what the creed has to be.
And they did accept it.
That's the point.
They ended up not really following through
because one of the reasons they did it was they were being attacked by the Muslims
and they wanted some help from the West.
So, anyway, that's the whole thing.
It's explaining to them, in God, everything is one,
except where there's not opposition of relation.
So if there's not an opposition of relation between the Son
and the Holy Ghost,
then there's not an opposition of relation.
If the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the Son,
he's not distinct from the Son.
You see?
If there's no opposition of relation,
that is, if the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the Son,
well, there's no difference between the Holy Ghost and the Son.
You can't say there's three persons in the Blessed Trinity,
which the Greeks wanted to say,
unless you have this opposition of relation.
See, part of it is, this whole thing with St. Augustine
and his De Trinitate,
he's the one who really understood
the Blessed Trinity,
the little hole in the sand.
But, I mean, it still got, he got somewhere
that it's a matter of this opposition of relation.
The Greeks hadn't got, really understood.
That wasn't part of their theology.
That's part of the problem.
But, anyway,
this is really what it comes down to.
The distinction of the persons,
and what we're talking about here is the Father and the Son,
their difference isn't in the essence,
it's in, simply in these opposing relations.
Of origin.
The Son proceeds from the Father.
He really does.
The theology,
even used the word produced.
The Son is produced.
By the Father,
but it obviously doesn't mean created, okay?
But he comes from the Father.
He really does.
He's really the Son.
And the Father is really the Father.
And that's what makes him distinct.
Otherwise, they're exactly the same thing.
Okay.
So, St. Thomas is going to explain this a little bit.
Now, you encouraged me,
the couple of you who talked to me
about what I was talking about yesterday.
I thought nobody understood what I was talking about.
But, apparently some of you do.
So, here we go.
Therefore,
since in God,
the one understanding,
the act of understanding,
and the intention understood,
which is his own word,
are the same thing,
there must most truly be in God
that which belongs to the notion
of the one understanding,
that which belongs to the notion of the act of understanding,
and that which belongs to the notion
of the intention understood,
or word.
So, he's just explaining what I was talking about.
But, in the essence of interior word,
which is the intention understood,
there is this,
that it proceeds
from the one understanding,
according to his act of understanding,
since it is, as it were,
the term of the intellectual operation.
See, that's what happens
when you have the act of understanding.
That's what happens when you have the act of understanding.
That's what understanding means,
is to conceive this concept,
this word,
this interior word.
This is what he goes on to say.
For, in the act of understanding,
the intellect conceives
and forms
the intention,
or the essence understood,
and this is the interior word.
It is necessary, therefore,
that from God,
according to his very act of understanding,
there proceed his word.
God knows, so,
knowing is precise what it is,
is to produce this word,
in which you know.
If you don't produce a word,
well, you don't know.
God knows, so he produces it.
The word of God is, therefore,
compared to God understanding,
whose word he is,
as to him from whom he is.
For this belongs to the very notion
of a word.
So, Revelation teaches us
that there is a word.
That's what we started with, right?
In the beginning was a word.
Well, that's what it means.
There's God's understanding.
There's God understanding,
and then there's
the fruit of his understanding,
his word.
Therefore, although in God
the one understanding,
the act of understanding,
and the intention understood,
or word,
are by essence one,
and for this reason it is necessary
that each be God,
the one understanding,
the act of understanding,
and the intention understood,
are all one thing.
They're all God.
Nevertheless, there remains
the sole distinction of relation,
insofar as the word is related
to the one who conceives
as to him from whom he is.
Insofar as the word is related
to the one who conceives
as to him from whom he is.
.
This is why the evangelist,
seeing that he had said
the word was God,
to keep one from understanding
that all distinction
between the word and God speaking
or conceiving the word
was taken away,
added,
this was in the beginning with God.
.
Okay, so he said the word was God,
but to make sure we don't get mixed up,
I think, well that means there's no distinction,
then he adds it right away,
this was in the beginning with God.
.
Which is what we said,
exactly the same thing we saw
in his commentary on the Gospel of John, right?
.
He's perfectly consistent with himself.
I'm just repeating myself,
but it doesn't hurt, right?
.
This is pretty heavy stuff.
.
And it's worth thinking about it
over and over again.
That's what we're going to be doing for eternity.
.
We won't need to, you know,
go look for something else
to keep us so entertained.
This is it.
.
And it will be plenty,
more than plenty.
.
And we'll see everything else in that too,
but that would be accidental.
.
See, our life will really be
their life.
.
It will be ours.
.
I came that I might have life
and that I might have it
to the full.
.
Well, that's full.
.
Overflowing.
.
So now it gets easy.
.
Using these fundamental notions,
he goes on to show how these,
they explain the different expressions
that the Holy Scripture uses to speak
about the second person
of the Blessed Trinity.
.
And some of these we've seen before,
but now this doesn't,
again, it doesn't hurt to repeat them.
.
And it becomes easier as you,
it's like a language,
you learn to speak it
and it's just,
oh yeah, of course.
.
He starts with the text of St. Paul,
which calls him the image
of the invisible God.
.
We haven't gotten to that part yet,
that's Colossians.
.
We saw Hebrews,
but we'll get to Hebrews too.
.
The image of the invisible God.
.
Now the word interiorly conceived
is a kind of notion
and likeness
of the thing understood.
.
But a likeness of one thing
existing in another
is essentially an exemplar
if it stands to the other
as principle.
.
Or it is essentially an image
if it is related to that
whose likeness it is
as to a principle.
.
Okay, say,
so if you've got a likeness
of one thing
that's in another.
.
If this thing
is the principle
of the other thing,
then this likeness
is an exemplar
of the other thing.
.
Okay.
The two things are alike.
If this is the principle
of this thing,
then that likeness
is called an exemplar
of the other thing.
.
If this thing
is the principle
of the other thing,
then this becomes an image
of that thing.
.
Okay?
So you've got this likeness
in two things,
if this thing
is the principle
of that thing,
then this is an exemplar
of that other thing.
If this thing
is produced
by the other thing,
then this likeness
is an image
of the other thing.
.
Now,
in our intellect,
one sees an example
of each of these situations,
where since the likeness
of the artifact
existing in the mind
of the artist
is the principle
of operation
which constitutes
the artifact,
you know,
I have a mind,
I have an idea
in my mind
that I'm going
to make a table,
so I've got this idea
in my mind
of a table,
becomes the principle
of the table.
.
The likeness,
then,
in the mind
of the artist
is related
to the artifact
as an exemplar
to that exemplified.
.
The idea I had
becomes the example
according to which
I make the table.
.
So the table,
its likeness
is the principle
and its likeness
is,
in my mind,
is an exemplar
and in it
is an image.
.
But the likeness
of a natural thing
conceived
in our intellect
.
is related
to the thing
whose likeness
it is
as to a principle.
Like, okay,
this thing,
um,
this is the other
way around.
.
The likeness
of a natural thing
conceived in our intellect
is related to the thing
whose likeness
it is.
See,
the idea of the table,
when I know it,
the idea
is the principle
of the image
in my mind.
.
So there,
my idea
is an image.
.
Because
the principle
is here.
.
It's the tableness
which becomes
the principle
of the idea
in my mind.
.
Whereas when I make
a table,
it's the image,
the idea
in my mind
is the image.
.
Since,
however,
God understands
both himself
and other things,
his act of understanding
is the principle
of things understood
by him,
since they are caused
by his intellect
and will.
.
So,
right,
active understanding,
production of the word,
is the principle
of all these other things
that he makes,
just like the principle
in my mind
that made the table
is the principle,
exemplar of all these things
that I make.
So,
I'm saying with God,
to compare
the things
made by God
to this
active understanding
which is his word,
then the word
is the
exemplar
of the things
that are made.
.
But,
this active understanding,
if it is referred
to the intelligible
which is himself,
and not to the things
he makes,
then it's referred to,
it's referred to him
as a principle
and not
as an exemplar.
When he makes something
according to his word,
well, the word is an exemplar
for those things.
But, when it's a matter
of this word
compared to God
understanding himself,
well, the principle is God.
So, this thing is
an image,
if it's referred
to God
knowing himself.
And that's what he's saying.
I'll say that again.
His active understanding
is a principle
of things understood by him,
sincere cause
by his intellect,
but it is referred
to the intelligible
which is himself,
as to a principle.
For this intelligible
is identified
with the intellect
understanding
of which the word
conceived
as a certain emanation.
That is,
the intellect understanding
produces the word.
So, the word
isn't the principle anymore.
It's the fruit
of the understanding.
And so, it's the image.
You know,
the word,
that's exactly
what the word is.
It's the picture of God.
It's God's knowledge
of himself.
Excuse the word.
I mean,
this is silly,
but a selfie.
Yuck.
But, that's
not bad
as an example.
But, you see,
the picture comes
from God
understanding
himself.
So,
the word
is God's
knowledge
of himself.
Excuse the word.
I mean,
this is silly,
but a selfie.
The picture comes
from what he's
looking at,
which is himself,
in that case.
If he's knowing
the world,
then this word
is the principle.
But, compared
to God,
it's an image.
It's the image.
It's the reflection
of what we saw
with Saint Paul,
right?
It's the reflection.
He's the mirror.
That's who he is.
Okay,
so,
therefore,
the word
of God
must be referred
to the other
things understood
by God
as exemplar,
and he must be
referred to
God himself,
whose word
he is,
as image.
Hence,
one reads
of the word
of God
in Colossians
that he is
the image
of the invisible
God.
And we'll see
that text
tomorrow
of Saint Paul.
Then he explains,
Saint Thomas
goes on
to explain
the text
we saw
this morning
in Hebrews,
1 to 3,
where he's called
the figure
of the substance
of God.
Now,
there is
a difference
between intellect
and sense.
For sense
apprehends
a thing
in its exterior
accidents,
which are
color,
taste,
quantity,
and others
of this kind.
But intellect
enters into
what is interior
to the thing.
You know,
you know
the essence
of the thing,
and since
every knowledge
is perfected
by the likeness
between knower
and the known,
there must be
in the sense
a likeness
of the sensible
thing
with regard
to its sensible
accidents.
You know,
you see
the color
that you see
is actually
what's there.
It's an image.
It's a likeness.
But,
with regard
to sense,
it's a likeness
of the sensible
accident.
In the intellect,
however,
there must be
a similitude
of the thing
with regard
to its essence.
Okay,
because knowledge
is this idea
of correspondence,
right?
So,
if sense knowledge
is a correspondence
to the exterior
accident,
if it's
intellectual knowledge,
it's correspondence
according to
the essence
of the thing.
Therefore,
the word
conceived
in the intellect
is the image
or exemplar
of the substance
of the thing
understood.
Right?
If you look
at it
with regard
to creatures,
well,
then it's
the exemplar
of the thing,
of the substance
of the thing.
But,
if it's
with regard
to God,
then it's
the image
of the substance
of the thing,
of the substance
of the thing,
which is
why,
then,
since then
the word
of God
is the image
of God,
which he
just explained,
it is necessary
that the image
of God
in his,
it is necessary
the image
of God
in his essence,
because that's
what intellectual
knowledge is,
it's of the essence.
So,
it's an image
of his essence,
not just an image
of exterior actions,
it's an image
of his actions,
and that's why
Saint Paul says
he's the figure
of his substance.
He's explaining
that term.
The figure,
the caractere,
we saw the word,
of his
.
It's not,
not just,
it's of his
essence.
So,
the sun
is the
essence
of the
essence
of God.
So,
the sun
is the figure,
the representation,
the caractere,
the expression,
the image
of the
essence
of God,
of his
substance,
the figure
of his
substance.
And that's
why he's
equal to
God,
because he's
the perfect
likeness
of that
substance,
to be a perfect
likeness,
to be able to
really express
what he is,
to be the knowledge
of what he is.
He wouldn't
really know.
He wouldn't
attain him
as he
is.
So,
to attain him
as he
is,
it has to be
perfect,
equal.
So,
the
Aryans
are
wrong.
The
sun
is equal
to the
Father,
or he
wouldn't
be
the
Word.
He
then
distinguishes
the
notion
of
image.
For
first,
there's
the image
that does
not share
the nature
of that
of which
is an
image,
whether it
be an
image with
respect to
exterior
accidents,
like the
statue
of a
man,
which
is
a concept
which is
a likeness
of his
essential
nature,
but it
doesn't
share in
his
nature.
Obviously,
it's just a
concept,
but it's
a concept,
it's a
likeness
of his
nature,
not just
an exterior
accident,
like a
statue
of the
man.
However,
it is
an image
to actually
share
the nature
of that
of which
it is
an image.
If you
had a
concept
of a
man,
which
is
on a
level
of nature,
that was
also
shared
in the
nature
of the
man,
then it
wouldn't
be
just
an image.
It would
be a
son,
because it
would be
a likeness,
but it
would be a
likeness that
shares in
the nature
of that
of which
is a
likeness,
and that's
what a
son is,
something
that's
like
its
principle,
and it
shares
its
nature
and its
principle.
It goes on to
apply this to
the word
and show why
he's called
the son.
This word
is an image,
it's a
likeness,
but it's
also an image
that shares
in the
nature
of that
of which
it is
a likeness,
that's
why
it's
called
son,
is what
you're
going
to
say.
The image
of a
son
is more,
but the
image of
a
thing
which has
the same
nature
without
whose image
it is,
is like
the son
of a
king.
In him,
the image
of his
father appears
and is
the same
in nature
as his
father.
Now it
was shown
in common
with the
one who
speaks
the same
nature.
The conclusion
therefore is
that the
word is
not only
image,
but also
son.
For so to
be one's
image is
to be of
the same
nature
with him
is not
found in
one who
cannot be
called a
son,
so long
as we
are not
called
sons.
The
word
is
not
the
same
as
the
word
son.
The
word
son
is
not
the
same
as
the
word
son.
The
word
son
is
the
origin
of
the
word.
Son
is
the
origin
of
God.
Son
is
the
origin
of
the
word
son.
That's
what
the
word
son
means.
The
word
is
a
deep
Okay, one last
stage. I mean, he goes on, but I think we have to stop.
This new name of
son leads to another consideration, for it implies that the procession
of the word must be natural.
It's not just something he thought up
one day, well, I think I'll do this.
It's not something he wills to do. It's natural.
Creation wasn't natural, it's something God
decided, but he didn't decide to have a son. It's natural.
And that agrees
with what we said about the word's intellectual procession, because that's not
chosen. God is, by his nature, intellectual.
He doesn't choose to have a word.
It's his nature to have a word.
Well, St. Thomas explains and goes on to show how this
leads to the notion of generation. We talk about
unigenitus. He's the only begotten
son. That's in scripture, too.
And this notion of generation includes both
procession, enlightness, and
identity of nature. He explains.
St. Thomas. Manifestly, however, God understands
himself naturally, just as he is naturally, because his
understanding is not different from his being. He would just keep saying the same thing.
It's simple.
For his act of understanding
is his being. There's no
difference. Really. It's the same thing.
But it is an act of understanding.
As well as being an act of being.
But it's the same thing.
Therefore, the word of God, understanding himself, naturally proceeds from him.
And since the
word of God is of the same nature as God speaking, and his like-mindedness is of the same nature,
God speaks.
and his likeness, it follows that this natural procession be unto a likeness of him
from whom there is a procession in identity of nature.
Natural procession be unto a likeness of him
from whom there is a procession in identity of nature.
Therefore, but, excuse me, but the essence of true generation and living thing
consists in the fact that what is generated proceeds from him who generates as his likeness
and is identified with him in his nature.
That's what generation is.
It's a likeness.
It proceeds in identity of nature.
Therefore, the word of God is truly begotten by God speaking.
And his proceeding can be called generation.
Or birth.
This is why the psalmist says,
this day have I begotten you.
That is, in eternity.
Which is always present and in which there is no notion of past or future.
That's this day.
Odie.
Which is eternity.
There's no.
There's no tomorrow.
There's no yesterday.
It's all today.
Thus it is clear that the Arians erred in saying that the father generated his son by his will.
For things which are by will are not natural things.
Okay.
So, so much for the Arians.
Okay, let's shoot.
Yeah, for now.
Hmm.
Yeah.
Jewel.
Alumnus Sanctus.
You
Yeah.
Um
mm hmm.
Mm hm.
Mm hmm.
Thank you.