[ 0 → 1] Amen. [ 30 → 54] So we had started talking about... [ 58 → 59] There we go. [ 60 → 61] Yes. [ 61 → 71] The humanity of our Lord. [ 71 → 78] I think I've spoken about this before to some of you, but I don't know if I haven't... [ 78 → 80] Some things I haven't said to you. [ 80 → 88] And repetitio est mater studiorum, we say in scholastic philosophy. [ 88 → 89] Repetition is the mother of... [ 89 → 90] Statute. [ 90 → 91] And the study. [ 91 → 93] So it's not gonna hurt to hear it again. [ 93 → 98] You know what they used to say about St. Albert? [ 98 → 103] Brother Albert, where are you? [ 103 → 106] He was such a good teacher that he made teachers of his students. [ 106 → 110] Brother Reginald's nodding his head. [ 110 → 112] He's a teacher. [ 112 → 116] That's what you had to do, right? [ 116 → 118] Okay. [ 118 → 120] So that's what I'm trying to do with you. [ 120 → 120] Okay. [ 120 → 130] So we were saying the second person of the Blessed Trinity has been the focus of everything [ 130 → 140] we've been trying to contemplate, took on human nature and became a man. [ 140 → 153] Now, the difficulty, obviously, or the mystery, rather, consists in how we can be both truly man and truly God at the same time. [ 154 → 165] And we're talking about the mystery of Trinity, about how, you know, you have one God, and it's really one God. [ 168 → 170] We really don't believe that, I think, sometimes. [ 171 → 172] It's one thing. [ 174 → 177] There's one God, one being. [ 178 → 181] We're two persons, now, whatever that means. [ 182 → 183] That's who we believe. [ 184 → 186] This is the opposite. [ 187 → 191] We've got one person and two natures. [ 194 → 198] It's still one thing, one being. [ 199 → 200] And that's the whole thing. [ 200 → 215] That's the whole point, really, is you've got this human nature that's kind of stuck on to God. [ 217 → 221] St. Thomas used the example of a, he says it's like if you added a hand to a man. [ 223 → 225] There's only one being in the Lord Jesus Christ. [ 225 → 226] It's the being of God. [ 226 → 227] Right? [ 228 → 229] Um. [ 229 → 235] I gave a couple sermons to the Dominican sisters in New Zealand. [ 237 → 237] And I was surprised. [ 237 → 238] They really liked it. [ 239 → 241] Because sometimes I think when I'm talking, no one understands what I'm saying. [ 244 → 244] They did. [ 245 → 246] And a bunch of you told me the same thing. [ 246 → 247] So, gracias. [ 247 → 248] That's good. [ 248 → 248] Thank you. [ 254 → 256] But the subject was the personality. [ 259 → 260] What is personality? [ 262 → 264] Because there's only one personality in our Lord Jesus Christ. [ 264 → 265] He has only one person. [ 266 → 269] So, try and understand that mystery while you have to. [ 269 → 269] What's a person? [ 270 → 271] What's that mean? [ 272 → 274] And it's not an easy question, I can tell you. [ 274 → 280] But the theologians are still fighting about that one. [ 283 → 288] But Cajetan explains it very well. [ 289 → 301] And the whole, see, the whole point of a person is that it, it's the final limit. [ 303 → 307] The, he say, he calls it the ultimate term of a nature. [ 308 → 309] He kind of closes it off. [ 312 → 319] See, and that's why our Lord Jesus Christ doesn't have a human person because his human nature is not closed off. [ 320 → 321] It's attached to something else. [ 325 → 333] 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. [ 337 → 348] And everything else, any individual nature that has a, that's rational, is a person. [ 349 → 361] A man, an individual man, well, that's, it's an individual nature of a, it's an individual substance of a rational nature. [ 361 → 363] That's the definition of personality. [ 364 → 365] It was from Wefuse. [ 366 → 367] He was a pretty smart guy. [ 368 → 369] St. Thomas quotes him quite often. [ 372 → 375] An individual nature of a rational, an individual substance of a rational nature. [ 378 → 379] But you see, with our Lord Jesus Christ. [ 379 → 380] We've got that. [ 381 → 382] He's humanity. [ 383 → 387] He's an individual nature of a rational, an individual, an individual substance. [ 387 → 388] He's not an accident. [ 388 → 389] He's a substance. [ 389 → 392] He's a man of a rational nature. [ 393 → 394] But he's not a person. [ 396 → 399] So, in fact, that's not really what personality is. [ 400 → 401] That's not enough. [ 402 → 407] And we would never know that unless there had been this case of our Lord Jesus Christ. [ 408 → 409] That's why. [ 409 → 413] That's why Scotus, good old Scotus, everything Scotus says is wrong. [ 416 → 422] Because he decided at some point to contradict St. Thomas and everything. [ 423 → 424] Right at the bottom line of everything. [ 424 → 426] And so everything he says is wrong. [ 428 → 436] Because his definition of person is to not be united to the second person of the Blessed Trinity. [ 439 → 440] I mean, it's not completely stupid. [ 440 → 441] He's not a stupid man. [ 441 → 444] His name was, you know, St. Thomas' angelic doctor. [ 445 → 448] The title of Scotus is the subtle doctor. [ 450 → 451] And he is. [ 451 → 452] He's very subtle. [ 452 → 455] He comes up with distinctions that nobody ever imagined before. [ 458 → 460] So his way of defining person is negative. [ 461 → 463] It's to not be the second person of the Blessed Trinity. [ 465 → 467] Which is not completely stupid. [ 467 → 468] Because I said the only cause. [ 468 → 473] The only case that comes up is in the case of the Incarnation. [ 475 → 477] But Cajun says, well, you know, but that's not. [ 478 → 481] Personality can't just be something negative. [ 481 → 483] Because it's the highest thing in all creation. [ 485 → 489] To be an individual nature of rational nature is the highest thing there is to be. [ 492 → 493] So it can't be just something negative. [ 495 → 498] So he, well, it's not really subject. [ 498 → 498] It kind of is. [ 500 → 507] He explains, his definition is, it's the ultimate term. [ 513 → 515] Of a thing. [ 517 → 522] And the example he gives is a worm. [ 526 → 527] You've got worms. [ 527 → 527] You've got to. [ 528 → 529] A term here and a term here. [ 529 → 530] Two terms. [ 533 → 534] But you cut it in half. [ 535 → 537] And you've got two worms. [ 537 → 538] Because, you know, they're still alive. [ 539 → 540] A worm is still alive, right? [ 540 → 542] So instead of one worm, you've got two worms. [ 544 → 545] So you've got this. [ 545 → 552] So you have just the fact of dividing it makes it be something. [ 552 → 555] You know, it's not a rational nature, but it's a substance. [ 556 → 556] Right? [ 556 → 557] You had one substance. [ 557 → 558] Now you have two substances. [ 558 → 559] And when you did it, it was put a term. [ 561 → 563] Instead of having two terms, now you have four terms. [ 566 → 567] So you've got a real thing. [ 568 → 571] It's not rational, so it's not a person, but it's a subsistence. [ 571 → 573] Because a person is simply an individual. [ 574 → 577] It's a subsistence that has a reason. [ 578 → 579] So it's the same thing as a person. [ 579 → 585] And he says, Kajin explains, [ 586 → 587] that that's what personality is. [ 588 → 592] It's the term of the rational nature. [ 592 → 598] And you see, in our Lord Jesus Christ, his humanity, [ 598 → 601] you don't have that term, because it's united [ 602 → 604] to the second person of the Blessed Trinity. [ 607 → 608] He's the term. [ 611 → 616] And there's a verse in one of the Psalms, [ 616 → 618] which I quoted to the sisters. [ 618 → 618] I can't remember the name of it. [ 618 → 618] I can't remember the name of it. [ 618 → 620] I told them, if you just know this verse, [ 620 → 622] you don't need to know all this other stuff about Kajin. [ 623 → 624] Because it explains it, really. [ 625 → 629] In capite eus posuisti [ 629 → 634] coronum de lapide prezioso. [ 634 → 636] Remember that's in, I can't remember what psalm it is. [ 637 → 639] 20-something, I think. [ 639 → 641] In capite eus posuisti [ 641 → 644] coronum de lapide prezioso. [ 645 → 646] So on his head, [ 647 → 648] you have placed, [ 648 → 650] you have placed a crown of precious stone. [ 654 → 658] And literally, it's probably talking about David or somebody. [ 659 → 660] But the Fathers of the Church say, [ 660 → 662] that's our Lord Jesus Christ. [ 663 → 666] And that's the divine apostasis, [ 666 → 670] the divine person who tops off [ 670 → 673] the humanity of Christ. [ 673 → 676] On his head, that is on the head of our Lord Jesus Christ, [ 676 → 677] on his top, on the, [ 677 → 681] on this terminating point. [ 682 → 685] See, it's not terminated by a human person, [ 685 → 685] like everybody else. [ 686 → 687] It's terminated [ 687 → 694] by this crown of precious stone, [ 694 → 695] which is a divine person, [ 695 → 697] the second person of the Blessed Trinity. [ 698 → 700] His human nature is topped off [ 700 → 705] by the second person of the Blessed Trinity, [ 705 → 706] by the Word. [ 707 → 709] That's what the Incarnation is. [ 710 → 712] So anyway, that's what we're going to kind of talk about, okay? [ 716 → 720] This union of the humanity and divinity of Christ, [ 720 → 721] it's in the person. [ 728 → 730] So the answer the Church gives to this question about [ 730 → 733] how we can be, [ 733 → 737] our Lord is truly God and truly man at the same time. [ 737 → 742] Is a hypostatic union. [ 744 → 746] You know, we learn that even sometimes, [ 746 → 748] and you can really learn it in Catechism, [ 748 → 750] but we're going to try to understand, [ 750 → 751] well, what does that really mean? [ 755 → 757] Well, it's a union of two natures [ 757 → 759] and the divine person of the Word. [ 760 → 762] Both natures remain perfectly intact. [ 762 → 763] He's true man. [ 763 → 763] He's true man. [ 767 → 775] And yet, these natures are not separate [ 775 → 778] and autonomous [ 778 → 783] because they both belong to one person [ 783 → 787] who possesses both, [ 788 → 792] who exists and acts in and by both [ 792 → 793] of these natures. [ 796 → 797] And Catechism insists on the fact, [ 797 → 797] he does say, [ 798 → 799] in a way, he has a human person [ 799 → 804] in the sense that his nature, [ 804 → 805] human nature has a person. [ 809 → 810] But it's this crown [ 810 → 814] of precious stone, which is, [ 815 → 816] see, the second verse of the Blessed Trinity [ 816 → 817] has two natures. [ 818 → 821] He's the person of two things. [ 824 → 827] He tops off, not just God, [ 827 → 828] whatever that means, [ 828 → 830] but this man, [ 832 → 835] Jesus of Nazareth. [ 838 → 840] So, trying to understand a little bit, [ 841 → 842] St. Thomas uses an example [ 842 → 849] to explain this union of the human nature of Christ [ 849 → 851] to the Word who already exists from all eternity [ 851 → 854] and to whom is added this second nature, [ 854 → 856] which is this idea of a hand. [ 858 → 861] You know, if a man existed [ 861 → 865] and then you added a hand to him, [ 867 → 869] well, the hand would no longer have [ 869 → 870] a separate existence by itself. [ 871 → 875] It would begin to share in the existence of this man. [ 878 → 881] And that's what theology teaches us, [ 881 → 882] that the being of the humanity of Christ [ 882 → 886] is the very being of the second person [ 886 → 887] of the Holy Trinity. [ 887 → 889] Which is the very being of God. [ 890 → 891] There is no human being [ 893 → 894] in our Lord. [ 896 → 899] His being is the being of God. [ 907 → 910] So, in this way, the humanity of Christ [ 910 → 911] is similar to an accident. [ 913 → 915] Because the very definition of an accident [ 915 → 917] is something, [ 917 → 924] something that is apt to exist, not on its own, separately from everything else, [ 924 → 929] which is a substance, that's a definition of substance, it exists alone, separately [ 929 → 932] from everything else. Well, accident is the opposite, it's something that doesn't exist [ 932 → 943] separately on its own, but rather in something else. Now we say apt to exist [ 943 → 952] and not simply exist, because there is a case of an accident, it's an accident, [ 952 → 965] but that does not exist in something else, that exists all by itself. Who can tell me [ 965 → 971] what it is? It's supernatural. It's one of the sacraments. [ 973 → 983] Come on, accident? What do we talk about accidents in the sacraments? Eucharist. [ 983 → 992] There you've got an accident, you know, the whiteness of the host. It doesn't exist [ 992 → 999] in anything. It doesn't exist in a substance, because it's not bread anymore, right? [ 999 → 1002] It's not the whiteness of bread, the bread's not there, the bread's gone. [1003 → 1014] It's become the body of Christ. But the accident is not, the whiteness is not the whiteness [1014 → 1018] of the body of Christ, you know. The body of our Lord doesn't mean a little round white [1018 → 1031] thing, it doesn't become white. You know, that's another whole question, but. See, it's [1031 → 1032] it's an accident that exists. [1033 → 1036] without being in a substance. [1038 → 1040] So that's why we say an accident is [1040 → 1044] definitely something apt to exist in a substance. [1047 → 1049] So even those accidents [1049 → 1052] are apt to exist in a substance. They don't, by a miracle, but [1052 → 1054] anyway, that's kind of a detail. [1058 → 1060] But you see, the humanity of Christ [1060 → 1064] is like an accident [1064 → 1066] because it doesn't exist separately on its own, [1068 → 1075] but it exists in the divine person, sort of like an accident [1075 → 1078] exists in a substance. [1083 → 1087] You see what I mean? It doesn't exist separately on its own, [1087 → 1089] like a substance, it exists in something else, like an accident. [1090 → 1093] I'm not saying it's an accident, but it's in that [1093 → 1095] sense, it's like an accident. [1096 → 1098] And it gives a notion of what's going on here, [1099 → 1102] that his humanity exists in something else, like the hand [1102 → 1105] exists in a man, which is [1105 → 1105] the [1105 → 1111] example that St. Thomas gives [1111 → 1112] to explain. [1120 → 1127] So it's only a comparison because the humanity [1129 → 1132] of Christ doesn't become a part of God like the hand [1132 → 1133] becomes a part of the man. [1137 → 1140] The parallel expresses simply that [1141 → 1144] the human nature assumed by the word begins to share in the [1144 → 1147] being of the word like the hand begins to share in the being [1149 → 1150] of the man. [1150 → 1155] And it doesn't exist alone, on its own, like substances do. [1157 → 1158] It exists in God. [1159 → 1164] Now, that by which a being exists alone, separately, on its own, [1164 → 1171] when it's an intelligent being, is what is designated by the term personality, [1171 → 1172] as I was just saying. [1174 → 1177] Now, it's not personality in the psychological sense, right? [1177 → 1181] Which is how we usually use it. [1181 → 1185] He has a good personality, or something. [1186 → 1187] It's the ontological sense. [1188 → 1190] It's a subsisting being of a rational nature. [1201 → 1204] But since, in the case of our Lord, [1205 → 1207] he doesn't have this independent existence, [1207 → 1211] but exists in God, [1213 → 1214] well, and he doesn't have a human personality. [1215 → 1218] He doesn't exist separately, on his own. [1222 → 1222] See, [1222 → 1230] On the top of this man, [1232 → 1236] has been placed this crown of precious stone, [1236 → 1237] which is the, [1237 → 1239] second person, which is the treaty. [1239 → 1243] Okay. [1243 → 1251] Are you ready to hear some more Cajetan, what he says about this? [1251 → 1253] Beware of Cajetan. [1253 → 1263] He's, it's not easy, but he really, sometimes he explains things very well. [1263 → 1264] Okay. [1264 → 1265] Okay. [1265 → 1266] Okay. [1266 → 1267] Okay. [1268 → 1273] Because he refines, this analogy. [1276 → 1278] To express better what it means, [1279 → 1282] this relationship between the man of Christ [1282 → 1285] and his... divinity... [1288 → 1291] as being an accident of his divinity. [1294 → 1295] He says, [1295 → 1297] The Humanity of Christ is not like an accident, [1297 → 1301] but rather more like a habitus, [1302 → 1304] a garment or a vestment. [1306 → 1306] And that's something, [1306 → 1310] some of the fathers of the church use that example. [1310 → 1312] Pope St. Leo, for example. [1313 → 1314] Read Pope St. Leo. [1314 → 1315] He also has sermons, [1317 → 1318] beautiful sermons, [1319 → 1324] for the liturgy for Christmas and Lent, especially. [1324 → 1330] He uses the verb clothe to speak of the Incarnation. [1334 → 1337] Nativitas Domini Nostri Iesu Christi [1337 → 1340] Qua se nature nostre carne vestivit. [1341 → 1343] The nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, [1343 → 1348] by which he clothed himself [1348 → 1353] with the flesh of our nature. [1354 → 1354] That's it. [1354 → 1356] Vestivit se carne nostre nature. [1357 → 1360] It's like a garment that he put on. [1362 → 1364] And that's just on Pope St. Leo, right? [1364 → 1365] You probably recognize that. [1365 → 1366] St. Paul says that. [1369 → 1370] He says that our Lord was [1370 → 1372] abitu inventus ut omu. [1374 → 1377] In habit, he was found as a man. [1378 → 1379] So it's St. Paul [1379 → 1383] who compares the Incarnation [1384 → 1389] It's as if God put on a garment. [1393 → 1396] And Cajun explains this image is similar [1396 → 1397] to that of an accident [1397 → 1401] because a garment causes accidental being [1401 → 1405] in the one who is clothed in it. [1409 → 1412] And St. Thomas compares how, [1412 → 1414] explains how this comparison, [1414 → 1418] was fitting in that it is a habit [1420 → 1422] or the clothing of a man that's changed by the man [1422 → 1423] and not the contrary. [1423 → 1428] Just as it was the humanity of Christ [1428 → 1430] that was changed and lifted up by the divinity [1432 → 1433] and not the divinity that was changed by him. [1433 → 1435] When a man puts on a habit, it's the habit that changes. [1435 → 1438] It's formed according to his demands. [1439 → 1443] And it's the same thing in the Incarnation. [1443 → 1444] Divinity doesn't change at all. [1444 → 1448] But humanity does. [1448 → 1450] It's lifted up. [1456 → 1460] So the image is similar because [1461 → 1464] a garment causes accidental being [1464 → 1467] in the one who wears it. [1467 → 1468] He's clothed. [1468 → 1469] It's one of the nine accidents [1469 → 1471] that are there with Gary R. Stanley, [1471 → 1473] the abitus. [1473 → 1478] it's a certain mode of being [1478 → 1479] of something [1479 → 1482] it's clothed [1482 → 1489] but it's different than just saying an accident [1489 → 1491] that our Lord's humanity is an accident [1491 → 1492] because [1492 → 1496] in this case the garment itself [1496 → 1497] is a certain substance [1497 → 1502] and that's in fact the case with our Lord [1502 → 1504] his human nature [1504 → 1505] is a substance, it's not an accident [1505 → 1508] just like a garment [1508 → 1509] is a substance [1509 → 1511] and causes accidental being [1511 → 1514] and the one who wears it [1514 → 1516] makes him clothed [1518 → 1522] but the garment itself [1522 → 1524] is something [1524 → 1525] it's a substance [1525 → 1527] and similarly our Lord's humanity [1527 → 1529] is something [1529 → 1529] something [1529 → 1531] something [1532 → 1544] but it exists in God [1544 → 1546] so in that sense [1546 → 1547] it's like an accident [1547 → 1550] with our Lord [1550 → 1551] whereas [1551 → 1555] that's where the comparison breaks down [1555 → 1556] of accident [1556 → 1557] because although the humanity of Christ [1557 → 1558] does not exist on its own [1558 → 1561] and so in that sense it's like an accident [1561 → 1562] but [1562 → 1563] it's not an accident [1563 → 1568] it's a substance [1568 → 1569] the humanity of our Lord [1569 → 1569] is a substance [1569 → 1573] so that's where the mystery is [1573 → 1573] you see [1573 → 1574] it's a substance [1574 → 1576] that exists in God [1576 → 1576] like an accident [1576 → 1579] exists in the substance [1579 → 1582] I don't know if that's making any sense [1582 → 1583] to you at all [1583 → 1583] but anyway [1583 → 1586] this is what [1586 → 1587] Count Gina explains [1587 → 1588] so [1588 → 1589] so [1589 → 1590] so [1590 → 1591] so [1591 → 1591] so [1591 → 1591] so [1591 → 1591] so [1591 → 1591] so [1591 → 1595] let's listen to what he says [1595 → 1597] what it's worth [1597 → 1600] it is common to both a vestment [1600 → 1602] and an accident [1602 → 1606] to be united accidentally to Socrates [1606 → 1608] for Socrates for example he's white [1608 → 1611] okay so he's got a garment [1611 → 1615] and that's an accident of him that makes him clothed [1615 → 1616] and he's also white [1616 → 1622] for a garment does not cause in Socrates anything more than accidental being [1622 → 1624] it makes him clothed or vested [1624 → 1629] the difference between them however [1629 → 1631] is that a garment is in itself a certain substance [1631 → 1633] for example a piece of wool [1633 → 1636] but whiteness is in itself an accident [1636 → 1637] see and that's why it fits with the incarnation [1637 → 1644] because the humanity of the Lord even though it's in his person [1644 → 1646] and not doesn't [1646 → 1646] zippered [1646 → 1646] zippered [1646 → 1647] exists on itself [1647 → 1651] still a man is a substance [1651 → 1654] it's not an accident [1654 → 1658] so that's where the comparison breaks down you see [1658 → 1661] because this humanity of the Lord is not an accident [1661 → 1662] it's a substance [1662 → 1667] it exists in our Lord's person like an accident exists in something [1667 → 1668] but it's not an accident [1668 → 1675] thus whiteness is both in itself an accident [1675 → 1676] and accidentally [1676 → 1680] united to Socrates but a garment is in itself a substance [1680 → 1684] but confers only accidental being to Socrates [1684 → 1685] that is to be vested [1685 → 1689] make Socrates be vested [1689 → 1690] that's accidental being [1690 → 1695] because the human nature is in itself a substance [1695 → 1697] and is added to the word of God [1697 → 1702] after he has perfect being [1702 → 1706] therefore it is judged to be united accidentally to the word of God [1706 → 1710] like a habit or garment is accidentally joined to Socrates [1710 → 1715] now Socrates already exists and you add this habit to him [1715 → 1723] well if you use a habit to compare human nature to the word [1723 → 1732] well it would seem like he was just united accidentally to the word [1732 → 1736] but he says this judgment is false [1736 → 1743] and this is shown because such a union [1743 → 1748] that is of the garment to Socrates [1748 → 1752] insofar as it has its term in Socrates [1752 → 1755] is according to accidental being [1755 → 1757] it just makes Socrates vested [1757 → 1761] a garment is a substance [1761 → 1765] but it only gives accidental being to Socrates [1765 → 1765] makes him vested [1766 → 1771] the human nature of Christ however [1771 → 1774] is united to the word of God in such a way [1774 → 1775] that it confers on the word of God [1775 → 1777] substantial being [1777 → 1781] because it confers on him to be a man [1781 → 1784] and it is obvious that to be a man [1784 → 1786] is in the genus of substantial being [1786 → 1794] and not in the genus of accidental being [1794 → 1795] to be a man is not accidental [1795 → 1795] accidental [1795 → 1797] it is substantial [1797 → 1801] for the son of God has become man in such a way [1801 → 1803] that he is most truly man [1803 → 1807] therefore supposing that vestment is the name of a substance [1807 → 1810] now this is the climax of the whole thing [1810 → 1814] supposing that vestment is the name of a substance [1814 → 1818] for the clarity of the doctrine [1818 → 1823] the union of the vestment to the person vested [1823 → 1825] is according to the doctrine of God [1825 → 1833] accidental being because it does not confer on the vested person that he be a vestment but vested. [1833 → 1842] But the human nature is united to the divine person according to substantial being because [1842 → 1849] it confers on the Word of God that he be man simply and in truth and not just in a way, [1849 → 1857] secundum quid. So that's the difference. This garment, which is a substance, [1857 → 1866] just makes Socrates vested. It doesn't make him a vestment. Whereas the humanity of our [1866 → 1875] Lord doesn't make him just some accidental thing. It makes him be a man. He truly is a man. That's [1875 → 1877] what we say, right? That's what we're trying to kind of understand. [1877 → 1878] Okay. [1879 → 1885] So it's like an accident to think his humanity exists in the person. It doesn't [1885 → 1893] exist separate from the divinity. But it's not an accident because it doesn't give him [1893 → 1903] accidental being. He has substantial being. See, that's why the Lord says, [1905 → 1907] before Abraham, I am. [1909 → 1918] Now, the man who says those words, obviously, didn't exist before Abraham. And that's what the [1918 → 1925] Jews saw. And that's why they took stones and wanted to kill him because he was blaspheming, [1925 → 1931] making himself out to be God when he was just a man. They know who his parents and he didn't [1931 → 1938] exist before Abraham. Nonetheless, because his existence was not his own existence, [1939 → 1945] which began at his birth, but rather the existence of God himself, he could say that he existed before [1945 → 1959] Abraham. Just like a man without a hand, to whom was afterwards added a hand, this hand would itself [1959 → 1965] be younger than the rest of the man. But because it shared in the being of the totality of the man, [1965 → 1969] it would share his existence and his life. [1969 → 1978] So, in a similar way, this human element in Christ is humanity, which is inserted into the [1978 → 1986] eternal existence of the word of God, acquires the same age as he. And so we can say, before [1986 → 1991] Abraham was, I am. Because it isn't a man who's speaking here, it's the divine person speaking [1991 → 1999] in the humanity that he has assumed. And there's only one being. Because there are only [1999 → 2008] two beings. There can only be one being in a thing, right? In something that's one. So this [2008 → 2019] humanity shares in the eternal being. And so he can say, before Abraham was, I am. And he can say [2019 → 2026] at the same time, the Father is greater than I, if he wants to speak according to this humanity [2026 → 2029] that he's had. Because according to his humanity, the Father is greater than he, [2029 → 2035] yes. But not according to his divinity, obviously, because he's the Father and the Son are equal, [2035 → 2046] right? Okay. Omnia Clara Sunt, as Gadgeton says. Is everything clearer? [2052 → 2053] I don't know, anyway. [2059 → 2064] I've got a few minutes left. [2070 → 2076] We'll do something easier now. Some more exegesis. I mean, it's harder in a different way. [2077 → 2081] Exegesis, like I said, it's kind of messy. You get grease all over it. Because you've got to [2081 → 2087] understand what they really want to say. And what the text really means. [2089 → 2093] So we'll take the verse, another verse that talks about our Lord, [2094 → 2098] that we quote in the liturgy at midnight mass. [2098 → 2098] So we'll do this. [2098 → 2128] So we'll take the verse, another verse that talks about our Lord, [2128 → 2128] and we'll do this. [2128 → 2134] Right? Christmas mass, right? [2136 → 2139] The Lord said to me, you're my son this day, begotten. [2142 → 2144] For the calmer, no, calmer, sorry, [2146 → 2154] French educate, calmes, writes the statement of this verse seven, it's of Psalm 109. [2156 → 2158] You are my son, I, my son, you are my son, you are my son, you are my son. [2158 → 2160] You and myself today generate you. [2160 → 2163] It's apparently in Hebrew it's a present, is unique in its form, both simple and grandiose [2163 → 2166] and should not be minimized lightly in its interpretation. [2166 → 2169] Perhaps it remain mysterious in the mind of the psalmist himself. [2169 → 2176] The revelation of the gospel was to reveal that's infinite depth. [2176 → 2182] Because there's things like that in the old testament, which perhaps even the [2182 → 2185] authors didn't understand the full meaning of it. It's only in a New Testament that we really see that. [2185 → 2186] So the psalmist also says that faith is something of indice, not cheap, for lameness is all it is. [2186 → 2188] And dear Paul, needless to say, there's not much I cannot do. [2188 → 2202] what God meant by saying it. So in the context of this psalm, this verse is [2202 → 2207] the beginning and foundation of the divine decree which is mentioned in the [2207 → 2214] previous verse, Egos constitutus sum rex habeo, I have been constituted king by [2214 → 2222] him. For all power in heaven and earth are due to Christ because he is the true [2222 → 2227] and natural Son of God. And Archbishop Lefebvre used to insist on that. The kingship of [2227 → 2234] Christ is an immediate consequence of his divinity. So if you deny the kingship [2234 → 2242] of Christ, it's an implicit denial of his divinity. That's why it's so important. [2243 → 2244] So, [2244 → 2248] now there are three expositions of this verse and they are all literal and [2248 → 2255] intended by the Holy Ghost. The first is with regard to the eternal generation, [2255 → 2264] genuite, I begotten thee, which is guided from the Apostle when he writes to the [2264 → 2271] Hebrews, chapter 1, where he says he has become not much more great than [2271 → 2273] the angels insofar as the name he has inherited is greater than the angels. [2273 → 2274] greater than the angels insofar as the name he has inherited is greater than the angels. [2274 → 2274] greater than the angels insofar as the name he has inherited is greater than the angels. [2274 → 2275] greater than the angels. [2275 → 2275] greater than the angels. [2275 → 2276] greater than the angels. [2276 → 2281] For to which of the angels has he said at any time, You are my son, and this day I have begotten thee? [2281 → 2288] So St. Paul uses it, an example, to prove his divinity. He's much greater than the angels. [2288 → 2292] Because, he goes on, St. Robert of Bethlehem, this text of the Apostle cannot be understood by any [2292 → 2299] created generation as of a birth or resurrection according to the flesh. For by a created [2299 → 2304] generation the angels are also sons of God. [2304 → 2314] So he can't say that when he's talking about being generated by God, that you're [2314 → 2317] talking about, just talking about the same way as angels are generated by God, [2317 → 2322] because it goes on later in this same epistle to say that he's much greater [2322 → 2326] than the angels. So his generations are not just like generations are. Because [2326 → 2328] you know in the Christmas Version they call about the sons of God, angels are [2328 → 2333] called sons of God. But that's not what this means because in the same place, [2333 → 2339] place, it says he's greater than the angels. That's the argument. Therefore, it is necessary [2339 → 2343] that the words of the psalm quoted by the apostle be understood as literally referring to the [2343 → 2348] eternal generation, as Saint Augustine rightly interprets it. Interpretation is favored both by [2348 → 2359] the word genui, in Hebrew, yalad, which properly signifies give birth. For God in the eternal [2359 → 2365] generation does not need a mother as a consort, but he himself generates. He gives birth himself [2365 → 2370] to his only begotten son, according to Psalm 109, ex utero ante luciferem genuite. [2373 → 2377] That's Psalm 109. This is Psalm 2. I think I might have said Psalm 109. This is Psalm 2. [2378 → 2386] Psalm 2 and Psalm 109 are kind of similar. They both talk about this generation. So, [2386 → 2389] that's the first interpretation. The second interpretation applies the text [2389 → 2389] to the psalmist. The first interpretation applies the text to the psalmist. The second [2389 → 2389] interpretation applies the text to the psalmist. The second interpretation applies the text to the [2389 → 2393] the resurrection of our Lord. And it's the same apostle [2393 → 2395] who says this in Acts chapter 13. [2397 → 2401] And we declare unto you that the promise which was made to our fathers, this same God hath fulfilled to our children, [2401 → 2405] raising up Jesus, as in the second psalm it is written, thou art my son [2405 → 2409] this day have I begotten thee. So St. Peter quotes this in the Pentecost [2409 → 2413] and refers it to the resurrection. [2417 → 2418] So St. Robert goes on. [2419 → 2423] And these words fit perfectly with the resurrection of our Lord, firstly because resurrection is a certain [2423 → 2427] regeneration, genuïde, [2427 → 2430] as we read in Matthew 19, [2431 → 2437] in regeneration, that is in the resurrection, [2438 → 2440] when the Son of Man sits, etc. [2442 → 2444] And also because the generation of Christ [2447 → 2448] was from God alone, [2448 → 2449] and he himself was a son of God. [2449 → 2452] It's called primogenitus mortuorum [2452 → 2456] in Colossians chapter 1. [2458 → 2462] He's the firstborn of the dead, which is referring obviously to resurrection. [2463 → 2465] So that's why St. Paul can apply this [2465 → 2470] verse which talks about being begotten. Well, it's a certain generation. [2470 → 2472] He's a primogenitus mortuorum. [2472 → 2473] Okay. [2477 → 2478] And then the third interpretation, [2480 → 2482] the third interpretation is that the Day of Our Lord's Birth, [2482 → 2483] according to the flesh, which is that of St. Cyprian, [2483 → 2489] and comes from the end right of the night Mass of the same birth, [2489 → 2491] that's what we sing. [2491 → 2494] That's when we sing this verse. [2494 → 2498] For the church accommodates the words of this Psalm to the mystery of the nativity, [2498 → 2500] according to the flesh. [2500 → 2503] For that generation was a singular work of God, [2503 → 2508] as also the angel Gabriel said, [2508 → 2512] And thus the one, the holy one that should be born to you will be called the son of God. [2513 → 2514] Talking to a lady. [2516 → 2518] So that's a birth of the son of God. [2520 → 2523] And the Holy Fathers understand not only as pertaining to the divine generation of Christ, [2524 → 2526] but also to his human generation, the words of Isaiah. [2528 → 2530] Generatio nomeus Christi in arabit. [2530 → 2533] Who will explain his generation? [2536 → 2537] So that applies. [2538 → 2542] To the divine generation of Christ, but also to his human generation. [2545 → 2549] Thus according to those theologians who teach that the same sentence can have several literal senses, [2549 → 2551] we consider the sense of these words to be. [2552 → 2556] Today, that is in the day of eternity, I, God, begot you, God. [2558 → 2565] And today, that is the day of your birth according to your flesh, I begot thee, that is I made you to be God. [2565 → 2568] Man with the seed of man without the corruption of the mother. [2568 → 2569] Without the stain of sin. [2570 → 2576] And again, today, that is in the day of your resurrection, I begot thee, that is by my divine power, [2576 → 2579] I made you come back to life and a mortal and glorious life. [2582 → 2586] And then St. Robert Mellon goes on to show how this verse 8. [2591 → 2592] That follows. [2593 → 2594] In this psalm. [2595 → 2597] Derives the loyalty of Christ. [2598 → 2599] From his generation. [2601 → 2602] According to these three titles. [2603 → 2604] That we just mentioned. [2605 → 2606] Ask of me and I will give you. [2608 → 2612] The Gentiles as your heredity and your and. [2613 → 2615] The ends of the earth as your possession. [2616 → 2617] So this psalm. [2619 → 2619] And he explains. [2620 → 2622] The sense is very clear. [2622 → 2626] It is if God the father said because you are Christ, my natural son. [2627 → 2628] And by my power. [2628 → 2628] And. [2628 → 2629] Incarnate. [2630 → 2633] The second sense and raised from the dead the third sense. [2635 → 2637] Because you're my son, then ask of me. [2638 → 2649] 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. [2651 → 2652] This. [2652 → 2657] He tells him, well, ask me and I'll make all peoples your inheritance. [2657 → 2658] Um. [2658 → 2659] He said. [2661 → 2663] Because of these three titles. [2667 → 2667] Okay. [2668 → 2668] It was done. [2674 → 2679] But you know, see, River bow in middle rarnota commentary of all 150 songs. [2681 → 2682] He was a cardinal. [2682 → 2683] He was very busy. [2683 → 2687] So he would spend a good part of his night writing this. [2687 → 2688] Uh. [2688 → 2688] Uh. [2688 → 2692] commentary [2692 → 2693] of the Psalms. [2693 → 2695] It's very beautiful. [2696 → 2697] And you can get it in English. [2712 → 2715] Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. [2715 → 2717] As it was in the beginning, and is now, [2717 → 2718] and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.