Amen.
So we had started talking about...
There we go.
Yes.
The humanity of our Lord.
I think I've spoken about this before to some of you, but I don't know if I haven't...
Some things I haven't said to you.
And repetitio est mater studiorum, we say in scholastic philosophy.
Repetition is the mother of...
Statute.
And the study.
So it's not gonna hurt to hear it again.
You know what they used to say about St. Albert?
Brother Albert, where are you?
He was such a good teacher that he made teachers of his students.
Brother Reginald's nodding his head.
He's a teacher.
That's what you had to do, right?
Okay.
So that's what I'm trying to do with you.
Okay.
So we were saying the second person of the Blessed Trinity has been the focus of everything
we've been trying to contemplate, took on human nature and became a man.
Now, the difficulty, obviously, or the mystery, rather, consists in how we can be both truly man and truly God at the same time.
And we're talking about the mystery of Trinity, about how, you know, you have one God, and it's really one God.
We really don't believe that, I think, sometimes.
It's one thing.
There's one God, one being.
We're two persons, now, whatever that means.
That's who we believe.
This is the opposite.
We've got one person and two natures.
It's still one thing, one being.
And that's the whole thing.
That's the whole point, really, is you've got this human nature that's kind of stuck on to God.
St. Thomas used the example of a, he says it's like if you added a hand to a man.
There's only one being in the Lord Jesus Christ.
It's the being of God.
Right?
Um.
I gave a couple sermons to the Dominican sisters in New Zealand.
And I was surprised.
They really liked it.
Because sometimes I think when I'm talking, no one understands what I'm saying.
They did.
And a bunch of you told me the same thing.
So, gracias.
That's good.
Thank you.
But the subject was the personality.
What is personality?
Because there's only one personality in our Lord Jesus Christ.
He has only one person.
So, try and understand that mystery while you have to.
What's a person?
What's that mean?
And it's not an easy question, I can tell you.
But the theologians are still fighting about that one.
But Cajetan explains it very well.
And the whole, see, the whole point of a person is that it, it's the final limit.
The, he say, he calls it the ultimate term of a nature.
He kind of closes it off.
See, and that's why our Lord Jesus Christ doesn't have a human person because his human nature is not closed off.
It's attached to something else.
And how he explains how the only reason why we ever had to come up with definition of a personality is because of the case of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And everything else, any individual nature that has a, that's rational, is a person.
A man, an individual man, well, that's, it's an individual nature of a, it's an individual substance of a rational nature.
That's the definition of personality.
It was from Wefuse.
He was a pretty smart guy.
St. Thomas quotes him quite often.
An individual nature of a rational, an individual substance of a rational nature.
But you see, with our Lord Jesus Christ.
We've got that.
He's humanity.
He's an individual nature of a rational, an individual, an individual substance.
He's not an accident.
He's a substance.
He's a man of a rational nature.
But he's not a person.
So, in fact, that's not really what personality is.
That's not enough.
And we would never know that unless there had been this case of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That's why.
That's why Scotus, good old Scotus, everything Scotus says is wrong.
Because he decided at some point to contradict St. Thomas and everything.
Right at the bottom line of everything.
And so everything he says is wrong.
Because his definition of person is to not be united to the second person of the Blessed Trinity.
I mean, it's not completely stupid.
He's not a stupid man.
His name was, you know, St. Thomas' angelic doctor.
The title of Scotus is the subtle doctor.
And he is.
He's very subtle.
He comes up with distinctions that nobody ever imagined before.
So his way of defining person is negative.
It's to not be the second person of the Blessed Trinity.
Which is not completely stupid.
Because I said the only cause.
The only case that comes up is in the case of the Incarnation.
But Cajun says, well, you know, but that's not.
Personality can't just be something negative.
Because it's the highest thing in all creation.
To be an individual nature of rational nature is the highest thing there is to be.
So it can't be just something negative.
So he, well, it's not really subject.
It kind of is.
He explains, his definition is, it's the ultimate term.
Of a thing.
And the example he gives is a worm.
You've got worms.
You've got to.
A term here and a term here.
Two terms.
But you cut it in half.
And you've got two worms.
Because, you know, they're still alive.
A worm is still alive, right?
So instead of one worm, you've got two worms.
So you've got this.
So you have just the fact of dividing it makes it be something.
You know, it's not a rational nature, but it's a substance.
Right?
You had one substance.
Now you have two substances.
And when you did it, it was put a term.
Instead of having two terms, now you have four terms.
So you've got a real thing.
It's not rational, so it's not a person, but it's a subsistence.
Because a person is simply an individual.
It's a subsistence that has a reason.
So it's the same thing as a person.
And he says, Kajin explains,
that that's what personality is.
It's the term of the rational nature.
And you see, in our Lord Jesus Christ, his humanity,
you don't have that term, because it's united
to the second person of the Blessed Trinity.
He's the term.
And there's a verse in one of the Psalms,
which I quoted to the sisters.
I can't remember the name of it.
I told them, if you just know this verse,
you don't need to know all this other stuff about Kajin.
Because it explains it, really.
In capite eus posuisti
coronum de lapide prezioso.
Remember that's in, I can't remember what psalm it is.
20-something, I think.
In capite eus posuisti
coronum de lapide prezioso.
So on his head,
you have placed,
you have placed a crown of precious stone.
And literally, it's probably talking about David or somebody.
But the Fathers of the Church say,
that's our Lord Jesus Christ.
And that's the divine apostasis,
the divine person who tops off
the humanity of Christ.
On his head, that is on the head of our Lord Jesus Christ,
on his top, on the,
on this terminating point.
See, it's not terminated by a human person,
like everybody else.
It's terminated
by this crown of precious stone,
which is a divine person,
the second person of the Blessed Trinity.
His human nature is topped off
by the second person of the Blessed Trinity,
by the Word.
That's what the Incarnation is.
So anyway, that's what we're going to kind of talk about, okay?
This union of the humanity and divinity of Christ,
it's in the person.
So the answer the Church gives to this question about
how we can be,
our Lord is truly God and truly man at the same time.
Is a hypostatic union.
You know, we learn that even sometimes,
and you can really learn it in Catechism,
but we're going to try to understand,
well, what does that really mean?
Well, it's a union of two natures
and the divine person of the Word.
Both natures remain perfectly intact.
He's true man.
And yet, these natures are not separate
and autonomous
because they both belong to one person
who possesses both,
who exists and acts in and by both
of these natures.
And Catechism insists on the fact,
he does say,
in a way, he has a human person
in the sense that his nature,
human nature has a person.
But it's this crown
of precious stone, which is,
see, the second verse of the Blessed Trinity
has two natures.
He's the person of two things.
He tops off, not just God,
whatever that means,
but this man,
Jesus of Nazareth.
So, trying to understand a little bit,
St. Thomas uses an example
to explain this union of the human nature of Christ
to the Word who already exists from all eternity
and to whom is added this second nature,
which is this idea of a hand.
You know, if a man existed
and then you added a hand to him,
well, the hand would no longer have
a separate existence by itself.
It would begin to share in the existence of this man.
And that's what theology teaches us,
that the being of the humanity of Christ
is the very being of the second person
of the Holy Trinity.
Which is the very being of God.
There is no human being
in our Lord.
His being is the being of God.
So, in this way, the humanity of Christ
is similar to an accident.
Because the very definition of an accident
is something,
something that is apt to exist, not on its own, separately from everything else,
which is a substance, that's a definition of substance, it exists alone, separately
from everything else. Well, accident is the opposite, it's something that doesn't exist
separately on its own, but rather in something else. Now we say apt to exist
and not simply exist, because there is a case of an accident, it's an accident,
but that does not exist in something else, that exists all by itself. Who can tell me
what it is? It's supernatural. It's one of the sacraments.
Come on, accident? What do we talk about accidents in the sacraments? Eucharist.
There you've got an accident, you know, the whiteness of the host. It doesn't exist
in anything. It doesn't exist in a substance, because it's not bread anymore, right?
It's not the whiteness of bread, the bread's not there, the bread's gone.
It's become the body of Christ. But the accident is not, the whiteness is not the whiteness
of the body of Christ, you know. The body of our Lord doesn't mean a little round white
thing, it doesn't become white. You know, that's another whole question, but. See, it's
it's an accident that exists.
without being in a substance.
So that's why we say an accident is
definitely something apt to exist in a substance.
So even those accidents
are apt to exist in a substance. They don't, by a miracle, but
anyway, that's kind of a detail.
But you see, the humanity of Christ
is like an accident
because it doesn't exist separately on its own,
but it exists in the divine person, sort of like an accident
exists in a substance.
You see what I mean? It doesn't exist separately on its own,
like a substance, it exists in something else, like an accident.
I'm not saying it's an accident, but it's in that
sense, it's like an accident.
And it gives a notion of what's going on here,
that his humanity exists in something else, like the hand
exists in a man, which is
the
example that St. Thomas gives
to explain.
So it's only a comparison because the humanity
of Christ doesn't become a part of God like the hand
becomes a part of the man.
The parallel expresses simply that
the human nature assumed by the word begins to share in the
being of the word like the hand begins to share in the being
of the man.
And it doesn't exist alone, on its own, like substances do.
It exists in God.
Now, that by which a being exists alone, separately, on its own,
when it's an intelligent being, is what is designated by the term personality,
as I was just saying.
Now, it's not personality in the psychological sense, right?
Which is how we usually use it.
He has a good personality, or something.
It's the ontological sense.
It's a subsisting being of a rational nature.
But since, in the case of our Lord,
he doesn't have this independent existence,
but exists in God,
well, and he doesn't have a human personality.
He doesn't exist separately, on his own.
See,
On the top of this man,
has been placed this crown of precious stone,
which is the,
second person, which is the treaty.
Okay.
Are you ready to hear some more Cajetan, what he says about this?
Beware of Cajetan.
He's, it's not easy, but he really, sometimes he explains things very well.
Okay.
Because he refines, this analogy.
To express better what it means,
this relationship between the man of Christ
and his... divinity...
as being an accident of his divinity.
He says,
The Humanity of Christ is not like an accident,
but rather more like a habitus,
a garment or a vestment.
And that's something,
some of the fathers of the church use that example.
Pope St. Leo, for example.
Read Pope St. Leo.
He also has sermons,
beautiful sermons,
for the liturgy for Christmas and Lent, especially.
He uses the verb clothe to speak of the Incarnation.
Nativitas Domini Nostri Iesu Christi
Qua se nature nostre carne vestivit.
The nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which he clothed himself
with the flesh of our nature.
That's it.
Vestivit se carne nostre nature.
It's like a garment that he put on.
And that's just on Pope St. Leo, right?
You probably recognize that.
St. Paul says that.
He says that our Lord was
abitu inventus ut omu.
In habit, he was found as a man.
So it's St. Paul
who compares the Incarnation
It's as if God put on a garment.
And Cajun explains this image is similar
to that of an accident
because a garment causes accidental being
in the one who is clothed in it.
And St. Thomas compares how,
explains how this comparison,
was fitting in that it is a habit
or the clothing of a man that's changed by the man
and not the contrary.
Just as it was the humanity of Christ
that was changed and lifted up by the divinity
and not the divinity that was changed by him.
When a man puts on a habit, it's the habit that changes.
It's formed according to his demands.
And it's the same thing in the Incarnation.
Divinity doesn't change at all.
But humanity does.
It's lifted up.
So the image is similar because
a garment causes accidental being
in the one who wears it.
He's clothed.
It's one of the nine accidents
that are there with Gary R. Stanley,
the abitus.
it's a certain mode of being
of something
it's clothed
but it's different than just saying an accident
that our Lord's humanity is an accident
because
in this case the garment itself
is a certain substance
and that's in fact the case with our Lord
his human nature
is a substance, it's not an accident
just like a garment
is a substance
and causes accidental being
and the one who wears it
makes him clothed
but the garment itself
is something
it's a substance
and similarly our Lord's humanity
is something
something
but it exists in God
so in that sense
it's like an accident
with our Lord
whereas
that's where the comparison breaks down
of accident
because although the humanity of Christ
does not exist on its own
and so in that sense it's like an accident
but
it's not an accident
it's a substance
the humanity of our Lord
is a substance
so that's where the mystery is
you see
it's a substance
that exists in God
like an accident
exists in the substance
I don't know if that's making any sense
to you at all
but anyway
this is what
Count Gina explains
so
let's listen to what he says
what it's worth
it is common to both a vestment
and an accident
to be united accidentally to Socrates
for Socrates for example he's white
okay so he's got a garment
and that's an accident of him that makes him clothed
and he's also white
for a garment does not cause in Socrates anything more than accidental being
it makes him clothed or vested
the difference between them however
is that a garment is in itself a certain substance
for example a piece of wool
but whiteness is in itself an accident
see and that's why it fits with the incarnation
because the humanity of the Lord even though it's in his person
and not doesn't
zippered
exists on itself
still a man is a substance
it's not an accident
so that's where the comparison breaks down you see
because this humanity of the Lord is not an accident
it's a substance
it exists in our Lord's person like an accident exists in something
but it's not an accident
thus whiteness is both in itself an accident
and accidentally
united to Socrates but a garment is in itself a substance
but confers only accidental being to Socrates
that is to be vested
make Socrates be vested
that's accidental being
because the human nature is in itself a substance
and is added to the word of God
after he has perfect being
therefore it is judged to be united accidentally to the word of God
like a habit or garment is accidentally joined to Socrates
now Socrates already exists and you add this habit to him
well if you use a habit to compare human nature to the word
well it would seem like he was just united accidentally to the word
but he says this judgment is false
and this is shown because such a union
that is of the garment to Socrates
insofar as it has its term in Socrates
is according to accidental being
it just makes Socrates vested
a garment is a substance
but it only gives accidental being to Socrates
makes him vested
the human nature of Christ however
is united to the word of God in such a way
that it confers on the word of God
substantial being
because it confers on him to be a man
and it is obvious that to be a man
is in the genus of substantial being
and not in the genus of accidental being
to be a man is not accidental
accidental
it is substantial
for the son of God has become man in such a way
that he is most truly man
therefore supposing that vestment is the name of a substance
now this is the climax of the whole thing
supposing that vestment is the name of a substance
for the clarity of the doctrine
the union of the vestment to the person vested
is according to the doctrine of God
accidental being because it does not confer on the vested person that he be a vestment but vested.
But the human nature is united to the divine person according to substantial being because
it confers on the Word of God that he be man simply and in truth and not just in a way,
secundum quid. So that's the difference. This garment, which is a substance,
just makes Socrates vested. It doesn't make him a vestment. Whereas the humanity of our
Lord doesn't make him just some accidental thing. It makes him be a man. He truly is a man. That's
what we say, right? That's what we're trying to kind of understand.
Okay.
So it's like an accident to think his humanity exists in the person. It doesn't
exist separate from the divinity. But it's not an accident because it doesn't give him
accidental being. He has substantial being. See, that's why the Lord says,
before Abraham, I am.
Now, the man who says those words, obviously, didn't exist before Abraham. And that's what the
Jews saw. And that's why they took stones and wanted to kill him because he was blaspheming,
making himself out to be God when he was just a man. They know who his parents and he didn't
exist before Abraham. Nonetheless, because his existence was not his own existence,
which began at his birth, but rather the existence of God himself, he could say that he existed before
Abraham. Just like a man without a hand, to whom was afterwards added a hand, this hand would itself
be younger than the rest of the man. But because it shared in the being of the totality of the man,
it would share his existence and his life.
So, in a similar way, this human element in Christ is humanity, which is inserted into the
eternal existence of the word of God, acquires the same age as he. And so we can say, before
Abraham was, I am. Because it isn't a man who's speaking here, it's the divine person speaking
in the humanity that he has assumed. And there's only one being. Because there are only
two beings. There can only be one being in a thing, right? In something that's one. So this
humanity shares in the eternal being. And so he can say, before Abraham was, I am. And he can say
at the same time, the Father is greater than I, if he wants to speak according to this humanity
that he's had. Because according to his humanity, the Father is greater than he,
yes. But not according to his divinity, obviously, because he's the Father and the Son are equal,
right? Okay. Omnia Clara Sunt, as Gadgeton says. Is everything clearer?
I don't know, anyway.
I've got a few minutes left.
We'll do something easier now. Some more exegesis. I mean, it's harder in a different way.
Exegesis, like I said, it's kind of messy. You get grease all over it. Because you've got to
understand what they really want to say. And what the text really means.
So we'll take the verse, another verse that talks about our Lord,
that we quote in the liturgy at midnight mass.
So we'll do this.
So we'll take the verse, another verse that talks about our Lord,
and we'll do this.
Right? Christmas mass, right?
The Lord said to me, you're my son this day, begotten.
For the calmer, no, calmer, sorry,
French educate, calmes, writes the statement of this verse seven, it's of Psalm 109.
You are my son, I, my son, you are my son, you are my son, you are my son.
You and myself today generate you.
It's apparently in Hebrew it's a present, is unique in its form, both simple and grandiose
and should not be minimized lightly in its interpretation.
Perhaps it remain mysterious in the mind of the psalmist himself.
The revelation of the gospel was to reveal that's infinite depth.
Because there's things like that in the old testament, which perhaps even the
authors didn't understand the full meaning of it. It's only in a New Testament that we really see that.
So the psalmist also says that faith is something of indice, not cheap, for lameness is all it is.
And dear Paul, needless to say, there's not much I cannot do.
what God meant by saying it. So in the context of this psalm, this verse is
the beginning and foundation of the divine decree which is mentioned in the
previous verse, Egos constitutus sum rex habeo, I have been constituted king by
him. For all power in heaven and earth are due to Christ because he is the true
and natural Son of God. And Archbishop Lefebvre used to insist on that. The kingship of
Christ is an immediate consequence of his divinity. So if you deny the kingship
of Christ, it's an implicit denial of his divinity. That's why it's so important.
So,
now there are three expositions of this verse and they are all literal and
intended by the Holy Ghost. The first is with regard to the eternal generation,
genuite, I begotten thee, which is guided from the Apostle when he writes to the
Hebrews, chapter 1, where he says he has become not much more great than
the angels insofar as the name he has inherited is greater than the angels.
greater than the angels insofar as the name he has inherited is greater than the angels.
greater than the angels.
For to which of the angels has he said at any time, You are my son, and this day I have begotten thee?
So St. Paul uses it, an example, to prove his divinity. He's much greater than the angels.
Because, he goes on, St. Robert of Bethlehem, this text of the Apostle cannot be understood by any
created generation as of a birth or resurrection according to the flesh. For by a created
generation the angels are also sons of God.
So he can't say that when he's talking about being generated by God, that you're
talking about, just talking about the same way as angels are generated by God,
because it goes on later in this same epistle to say that he's much greater
than the angels. So his generations are not just like generations are. Because
you know in the Christmas Version they call about the sons of God, angels are
called sons of God. But that's not what this means because in the same place,
place, it says he's greater than the angels. That's the argument. Therefore, it is necessary
that the words of the psalm quoted by the apostle be understood as literally referring to the
eternal generation, as Saint Augustine rightly interprets it. Interpretation is favored both by
the word genui, in Hebrew, yalad, which properly signifies give birth. For God in the eternal
generation does not need a mother as a consort, but he himself generates. He gives birth himself
to his only begotten son, according to Psalm 109, ex utero ante luciferem genuite.
That's Psalm 109. This is Psalm 2. I think I might have said Psalm 109. This is Psalm 2.
Psalm 2 and Psalm 109 are kind of similar. They both talk about this generation. So,
that's the first interpretation. The second interpretation applies the text
to the psalmist. The first interpretation applies the text to the psalmist. The second
interpretation applies the text to the psalmist. The second interpretation applies the text to the
the resurrection of our Lord. And it's the same apostle
who says this in Acts chapter 13.
And we declare unto you that the promise which was made to our fathers, this same God hath fulfilled to our children,
raising up Jesus, as in the second psalm it is written, thou art my son
this day have I begotten thee. So St. Peter quotes this in the Pentecost
and refers it to the resurrection.
So St. Robert goes on.
And these words fit perfectly with the resurrection of our Lord, firstly because resurrection is a certain
regeneration, genuïde,
as we read in Matthew 19,
in regeneration, that is in the resurrection,
when the Son of Man sits, etc.
And also because the generation of Christ
was from God alone,
and he himself was a son of God.
It's called primogenitus mortuorum
in Colossians chapter 1.
He's the firstborn of the dead, which is referring obviously to resurrection.
So that's why St. Paul can apply this
verse which talks about being begotten. Well, it's a certain generation.
He's a primogenitus mortuorum.
Okay.
And then the third interpretation,
the third interpretation is that the Day of Our Lord's Birth,
according to the flesh, which is that of St. Cyprian,
and comes from the end right of the night Mass of the same birth,
that's what we sing.
That's when we sing this verse.
For the church accommodates the words of this Psalm to the mystery of the nativity,
according to the flesh.
For that generation was a singular work of God,
as also the angel Gabriel said,
And thus the one, the holy one that should be born to you will be called the son of God.
Talking to a lady.
So that's a birth of the son of God.
And the Holy Fathers understand not only as pertaining to the divine generation of Christ,
but also to his human generation, the words of Isaiah.
Generatio nomeus Christi in arabit.
Who will explain his generation?
So that applies.
To the divine generation of Christ, but also to his human generation.
Thus according to those theologians who teach that the same sentence can have several literal senses,
we consider the sense of these words to be.
Today, that is in the day of eternity, I, God, begot you, God.
And today, that is the day of your birth according to your flesh, I begot thee, that is I made you to be God.
Man with the seed of man without the corruption of the mother.
Without the stain of sin.
And again, today, that is in the day of your resurrection, I begot thee, that is by my divine power,
I made you come back to life and a mortal and glorious life.
And then St. Robert Mellon goes on to show how this verse 8.
That follows.
In this psalm.
Derives the loyalty of Christ.
From his generation.
According to these three titles.
That we just mentioned.
Ask of me and I will give you.
The Gentiles as your heredity and your and.
The ends of the earth as your possession.
So this psalm.
And he explains.
The sense is very clear.
It is if God the father said because you are Christ, my natural son.
And by my power.
And.
Incarnate.
The second sense and raised from the dead the third sense.
Because you're my son, then ask of me.
Rightly, you can ask me power over all peoples as your as your heredity and the whole earth, even to its final limits as a position that is due to you because he's his son, that he can do that they can.
This.
He tells him, well, ask me and I'll make all peoples your inheritance.
Um.
He said.
Because of these three titles.
Okay.
It was done.
But you know, see, River bow in middle rarnota commentary of all 150 songs.
He was a cardinal.
He was very busy.
So he would spend a good part of his night writing this.
Uh.
commentary
of the Psalms.
It's very beautiful.
And you can get it in English.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, and is now,
and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.