Tertia Pars
Lecture 62: Christ's Priesthood: Expiation of Sins and Eternal Effects

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

To the third, one proceeds thus. It seems that the effect of the priesthood of Christ was not the expiation of what? Sins. And notice here, there's got a whole article devoted to this rather than to the second and third reason why sacrifice was necessary, right? Kind of agrees with the emphasis and the order of the things that the priest is there while we sacrifice. To the third, one proceeds thus. It seems that the effect of the priesthood of Christ was not the expiation of sins. For it belongs to God alone to delete what? Sins. According to that of Isaiah chapter 43. It is I who wipe out your iniquities on account of myself. And they often quote that when they're talking about the objections to Christ who is he to forgive sins, right? Only God can forgive sins. And they'll quote this text here from Isaiah. It's in the text I kind of see. But Christ is not a priest according as he's God. God is not a priest, huh? But according as he's a man. I guess you don't even see an angel as a priest, huh? I don't think so. So a man can't forgive sins, huh? It's God, only God. It's like, you can't do it as man. You can't do it as God. Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not... What? What did you say? It doesn't make to be a sin. Yeah. Fucking this is me. I don't know. Just our first thoughts, not our last thoughts. Moreover, the apostle says in Hebrews chapter 10 that the victims of the Old Testament were not able to make, what? Perfect, huh? Otherwise, they would, what? I see. Yeah. In that they had no, what? Once purified. But in them, there was a commemoration of sins that came about through the years, huh? Each year. But likewise, under the priesthood of Christ, there comes about a commemoration of sins when it is said, and that's from the Our Father, right? There is offered continually sacrifice in the church where it is said, give us our daily bread, right? Today. Therefore, through the priesthood of Christ, sins are not expiated. Isn't that the way they speak in the Old Testament? You know, they keep on offering sacrifices and you still can't get rid of the sins. So they keep on offering the sacrifice and maybe it's not getting rid of sins, right? Is that the way the argument is going? It's not a lot. Yeah? Yeah. Okay. Moreover, for sin in the Old Law, most of all, was immolated the what? The he-goat. The she-goat? No, the he-goat. The he-goat. The copra is the she-goat. Okay. She-goat. For the sin of the prince, right? Or the copra, that's the female goat? The copra, the she-goat, yeah. For the sin of one of the people. Or the vittles, huh? Vittles. I found out that's actually the proper pronunciation of it. Well, I always thought it was victuals. That's the proper pronunciation. Yeah. Vittles. Yeah. For the sin of the priest, huh? That's interesting, huh? Seeing how he found. Seeing how he found. Seeing how he found the Old Testament. Yeah. That's why the other 13th says, you know, that talking about the scholastics, you know, the contributions to the understanding of Scripture. Both from their commentaries on Scripture, but also from their theological works. I can go to those scriptural scholars there and see if they know these things, you know. But Christ is compared to none of these but to the Lamb. According to that of Jeremiah 11, I, as a lamb, a mild lamb, right, is carried to what? Victim of God. Oh, the Lamb of God, right? About the state. It was about the world. That's interesting to see. Well, why is he now, you know, those animals, right? Just like, why was he now a Levite, right? It's going to be his answer, huh? I'm dying to know it. Therefore, it seems that his priesthood was not, what? Exhibitive of sins, huh? How do they turn it expiativum? Expiativum. It's just, yeah, they transliterate, huh? Translate. But against this is what the Apostle says. Hey, this is a pretty important work, this Hebrews, huh? The priesthood of Christ, huh? The blood of Christ, who offered himself through the Holy Spirit, right? Immaculate, offered himself to God, cleanses our consciences from dead works, and I guess that's sin, huh? To serving the living God, right? But dead works are called sins, or sins are called dead works. Therefore, the priesthood of Christ has the power of, what? Cleansing sins, huh? Like in the prayer there, Thomas the Adder, Ote Devote, you know? One trap of which, you know, for all the sins in the world, huh? How many quatrains are in that prayer? Seven is a symbol of what? Yeah? Of wisdom. Yeah. But seven quatrains is what? And 28 is the second perfect number. I told you how in the Summa Kani Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 28, is about perfection of God. Is that just by chance? Perhaps. But I think, you know, the idea of the seven quatrains, I think that's kind of, you know, the way his mind worked, right? Yeah. Planning it in. He says, The answer should be said that for the perfect or complete cleansing of sins, huh? Two things are required, right? According as there are two things in sin. One is the, what? Stain of guilt, I guess? I might say sin itself as false. Okay. And the other is the obligation of being punished? Yeah. Something, I guess. But the macula, is that stain, huh? Supposed to immacula. Okay? The stain of guilt, huh? Is taken out by grace, right? By which the heart of the sinner is converted to God. But the obligation for punishment, right? Is wholly taken away through this that man does satisfaction to God, huh? But both of these things the priesthood of Christ effects. Right, she's. For by virtue of it, grace is given to us, huh? By which our hearts are turned around towards God. God bless you, According to that of Romans chapter 3. You're justified gratis, huh? Freely. Through his grace, through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus, whom God proposes as a what? Through faith in his what? Blood, huh? And he also for us fully satisfies, huh? Insofar as he himself took on our sicknesses, huh? And he himself carried our sorrows, huh? Once it is clear that the priesthood of Christ had the full vim, the full power of expiating, what? Sins, huh? It's interesting the distinction he makes between those two, huh? And they both come from Christ. And St. Paul talks about the bearing one another's burdens and so on, you know, kind of sharing in what Christ does in the second thing. What about the first objection, which was kind of nice, you know? Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that although Christ was not a priest according as he is, what? God, huh? That's why that passage you saw earlier about the priest is taken from among men, right? And constituted as a mediator between men and God. So, he's not a priest according as he is, God, huh? But according as he is man, man, huh? One hover and the same was both a priest and God, right? Whence in the Synod of Ephesus, it is read, huh? Is someone our, what? High priest? He's called Apostle because he's, in the way, sent by the Father, right? Interesting. I don't find him often called Apostle. I think it's in that letter. If someone says that our high priest and Apostle says that he came to be, right? Not from God, the Word, but as there were another one apart from him, especially a man from a woman, right? If it's not the same person, let him be accursed, huh? Half of him, I said. And therefore, insofar as his human nature operated in the power of his divinity, then that sacrifice was most efficacious for, what? Deleting sins, huh? So, insofar as his humanity operated in the power of his divinity, huh? An account of which Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity, that because four things are to be considered in every sacrifice, huh? To whom it is offered, right? I guess that's what? God, right? By whom it is offered, right? What is offered? That's Christ as hostia, right? A co-author, Christ as priest. And for whom it is offered, right? He himself, the same one, huh? And the true mediator, huh? Through the sacrifice of, what? Peace. Reconciling us to God, huh? One, he remained with the one to whom it was, what? Offered, right? One in himself, he did it for those for whom he offered it. One, the one who offered. And what is, what? Offered, huh? In some sense, they're all the same. I don't know. If you say for whom he offered it, it was part of his body, right, huh? His mystical body, huh? So, what Christ did as man was, what? Sufficient to delete sins because it was operating in the, what? Power is divinity, huh? I suppose you see that about the priest in the confession, too, or something like that, huh? So, how can the priest forgive sins? Because he's even further removed. He might seem to be God. In the humanity of Christ. So, when Christ, you know, it's right after the resurrection, he breathes upon them, right? And he says, what? He sees the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, sins you retain, they are retained. I mean, it's kind of significant to me that it's joined to, what? Breathing the Holy Spirit into them, right? Otherwise, you're not going to be defending the idea that God is the one who, what? The new formula for the Lord, back in the penance, God's father and mercy is reconciled the world and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Yeah. It's kind of like appropriating the Holy Spirit because of the role of love of God in forgiveness of sins, right? Charity covers a multitude of sins, huh? Not every kind of law. What's that? Not every kind of law. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Not L-U-V. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You'll be asked for Father Owen Bennett. Not L-U-V law. You hear these awful things, you know, how they made it. He said, in a sense, you know, to vote down this homosexual thing, you know, homosexual marriage, you know. But the acidite things you read in the paper every day of these people who are in favor of that. I don't have any right to say how people can love, you know. Let people say that's nonsense. These people are really, you know, far gone. I don't know what you can do with them. Well, it's the, if Socrates showed people that they didn't know what they thought they knew, what some people do now, I think, is they try to convince people what they do know, which is this Republican nature. They don't know. And they don't do it by reason, they do it by, what I mean, sloganeering. Sloganeering. You've got to be inclusive, hey, you know, everybody has a right. There's a lot. Mr. Blake Lennon had his famous quote about having the right to be wrong. Who is that? Mr. Blake Lennon. Oh, if he said it, it wouldn't surprise me. He was still known as... And he exercised in threats to... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The second it should be said that sins are not... Remembered in the New Law, on account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of Christ, right, as if through him sins are not sufficiently, what, expiated, like they were not through the sacrifice of the Old Testament. But they are remembered as regards those who either do not wish or want to be partakers of a sacrifice, right, as are the unfaithful, for whose sins we, what, pray, that they might be, what, converted, or also as regards those who, after partaking of the sacrifice, deviate from it in whatever way by, what, sinning, right? Now the sacrifice that quotidié, daily, is offered in the church, right, is not other from the sacrifice that Christ himself, what, offered, but is its commemoration, right? When Augustine says in the 10th book about the city of God that the priest himself, Christ offering, he is the, what, the offering, yeah, of which thing the sacrament daily wishes to be the sacrifice of the church, yeah? So the sacrifice of the church wishes to be the daily sacrifice of the same thing, right? Okay. Now what about being a lamb instead of a male or female goat or a fiddle? Well, to fear it should be said that Origen says, huh? I mean, you know, amazed the way Thomas quote Origen a lot, you know, with approval, and in other cases it would be very severe, you know? And he even said it's shameful, you know, some of the mistakes of Origen, and so it's kind of interesting, you know. He didn't simply dismiss Origen because of some bad mistakes. To fear it should be said that, as Origen says upon John, that although diverse animals are offered in the law, nevertheless the daily sacrifice that was offered both in the morning and the evening was the lamb, huh? So that's kind of standard sacrifice, right? All poor little lambs every morning and evening, right? When the little ones are offered up, huh? As is had in Numbers chapter 28. Whence is signified that the offering of the lamb, that is of Christ, was a sacrifice that was, what? A consummation of all the, what? Others, huh? Sort of like we say at the Eucharist is a consummation of all the other, what? Sacraments, right? Then the bride and groom, you know, they would seek union after they get hitched, right? And therefore, John 1 just said, Behold the lamb of God, behold the one who takes away the, what? Sins of the world, huh? So he solves that differently than he solved the one about the, not being from the tribe of the Levites, right? They have a point to make, right? That this is a different priesthood, right? Than the old one. But here he doesn't do that. He takes the fact that this is kind of the principal or chief sacrifice, right? Morning and, what? Evening, right? It's like they say, what? Lods and vespers are the principal ones, huh? Morning and evening, huh? They're offered up. So the lamb was offered up in the morning and the evening. There's one company that sells chicken, you know, I forget the name of them. But there's these cute advertisements, you know, where the cows are saying, and they're chicken, you know, because they'll beat it. No, somebody else picked it up, you know, and they're saying, you know, eat something else. The chickens are out there, you know, saying eat something else. Good job. Thank you. Fish. Two of them. Yeah. So you take a little break now? Good luck. Yeah. Good luck. Good luck. Good luck. Article 4, here is it? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the effect of the priesthood of Christ not only pertains to others, but also to himself, right? Because to the office of the priest, it belongs to pray for the people, according to that of the second Maccabees. And the priests do prayer when they consummate the, what? Sacrifice, huh? So the Maccabees, a lot of prayers and things. But Christ not only prayed for others, but also for himself, as it is said above. And as he expressly said in Hebrews 5, that in the days of his flesh, right, he offered, what? What? Prayers, supplications, to the one who was able to, what? Save him from death, huh? Sent these prayers with strong clamor, right, and tears, huh? Therefore, the priesthood of Christ was had not only in others, the effect of it, but also in himself, huh? Moreover, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice in his passion. But through his passion, he not only merited for others, but also for himself, right? So he merited his glory, his resurrection, so. Therefore, the sacrifice, I mean, the priesthood of Christ not only had an effect upon others, but also in himself. Moreover, the priesthood of the old law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the old law, not only for others, but also for himself, offered sacrifice, huh? For he said in Leviticus chapter 16, that the priest entered the holy place, that he might pray for himself and for his house and for the whole assembly of the sons of Israel. Therefore, also the priesthood of Christ, not only in others, but in himself, had an effect, huh? He said he had more so of our priesthood, right? Okay. But against this, huh? It's what is read in the Synod of Ephesus. If someone says that Christ for himself offered a offering, right, and not more for us only, for he did not need sacrifice, he did not know sin, and that must sit. Notice again there, you see, in that text there, you see the importance of what? We need sacrifice for sin. That's kind of the first thing that comes to mind, right? Okay. So, I mean, what you have in mind at first is that you offer sacrifice, first of all, for sins. Christ didn't have any sins, so why would he offer sacrifice for himself, huh? I answer. It should be said. It has been said. A priest is constituted, or established as a middle between God and the, what? People, huh? But he needs a go-between, a middle to God, who through himself is not able to approach God, huh? And such a one is subject, right, to, what, a priest, who is partaking of the effect of the priesthood, right? But this does not belong to Christ, for the apostle says he exceeds through himself, right? He approaches through himself to God, right? Always living to intercede for us. And therefore, it does not belong to Christ to receive in himself the effect of his, what, priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others, huh? For the first agent in any genus is so flowing out that is not receiving in that genus, as the sun illuminates, but is not, what, enlightened. And the fire heats, but is not, what, made on. But Christ is the fountain of the whole priesthood, huh? That's a nice expression, huh? Yeah. For the law, a legal priesthood, the old thing, was a figure of it, right? But the priest of the new law operates in his, what, person. In alter Christis, huh? He operates in his person. According to that, it's 2 Corinthians. For I also, but I have, what, given, if I have given something for you, I have done so in the person of, what? Christ. And therefore, it does not belong to Christ to receive the effect of, what? You can preach to it, huh? In the past, you can translate it on the presence of Christ. The early, whatever can be said, for the creation which pertains to us. Now, what about the first argument, which is saying that he prayed for himself and that this belonged to the priest to pray and so on, right? Thomas knows his distinction here. He's always looking for distinctions, this guy. To the first, therefore, it should be said that prayer, although it does belong to priests, right, is not over their, what, private office, right? for it belongs to each one, right? Both for himself and for others to pray. And according to that of James, chapter 5, pray for each other that we might be, what, saved, huh? And thus, it could be said that the prayer by which Christ prayed for himself was not an act of his, what, priesthood. And sometimes we speak even of the priesthood of the faithful, you know, of the layperson, you know, and we think of prayer and things of that sort of things that he does, right? But maybe priesthood in a strict sense, right? Is not constituted by prayer, specifically. But then Thomas seems to reject this thing. But this response seems to be excluded through this, huh? That the apostle in Hebrews, chapter 5, when he said, you a priest forever, according to the order of a texed act, right? He then adds, who in the days of his flesh, prayers, etc., right? He offered prayers. And thus, it seems that the prayer by which Christ prayed pertained to his, what, priesthood, huh? And therefore, it ought to be said that other priests partake of the effect of his priesthood, not insofar as they are priests, but insofar as they are, what, sinners, huh? As will be said below, huh? But Christ, speaking simply, did not have sin, right? He had, nevertheless, the likeness of sin in the flesh, insofar as he had the, what, flesh that a sinner deserved, right? He was not a sinner. And therefore, it ought not to be said simply that he partake or partook of the effect of the priesthood, right? But, secundum quid, to wit, according to the, what? Yeah. So, he took on, in a sense, sinful flesh, in the sense that there was a smoothitude of sin in his flesh without sin, right? whence it is specifically who is able to make someone what? Safe from death, huh? Yeah, the Christ's sacrifice to the one who is saved. So in a qualified way then, that is. Can you explain that a little bit more? Well, he's saying, simply speaking, those partake of the effect of his priesthood who have sins to be, what? Yeah, Christ had no sins to be expiated, right? But he had the flesh that was subject to death, right? Right, and therefore he, what? Or became that, yeah. Be married to the resurrection and so on, right? Clarification because of his things. So in some qualified sense, he's partaking of that. I like this, I didn't quite get the distinction, the first part, you know, when he gave that, and then it seemed like he was going to, or he says it seems like this is excluded, and he cites Hebrews, but then as we go along, it kind of sounds like he was going back to that first. Yeah, it doesn't altogether resolve that, I don't think, here. Yeah, okay. But he does seem to say, you know, that prayer is not accrued to the priest in the way that it is to offer sacrifice, right? Yeah. So the layman cannot offer the sacrifice of the Mass, huh? Of course, the right woman cannot. But the layman can pray as well as the priest, right? So it's not really what the constitute is. This is what's curious, I mean, it's striking to me, always, this one. It doesn't mean that layman can't offer sacrifice at all, but not like the priest. Yeah, but it's my understanding that the layman doesn't offer sacrifice. Well, this is, yeah, what's curious, well, that's what he said in Article 2, as I wrote it down, because it's striking, that everything which is offered to God, for this, that the spirit of man is born into God, is able to be called a sacrifice. And I think of that in terms of Fatima, because the angel, among other things, the angel said to the children, make whatever you do a sacrifice, except that it's a children. And not only that, but it's very striking when Lucia was asked by somebody, if you remember, Francisco saw the angel, but he couldn't hear it. So he depended on, he kind of guessed a lot of the conversation, basically half of it, because he could hear Lucia, but he couldn't hear the blessed mother. So somebody asked Lucia, did the blessed mother tell you to pray for sinners? And Lucia said no. And of course, in her simplicity, that's the only answer she gave. Francisco grabbed her, and said, you just told a lie. Didn't she tell us to pray for sinners? And she said no. She told us to pray for an end of the war, but for sinners, she told us to offer sacrifice. And I thought, well, that's not the prayer, and sacrifice might say they share in something, but sacrifice is something more than a prayer. More than just a prayer. It seems to be my understanding of the way that that master that he's supposed to offer. Yeah. But he can't confect the sacrifice, he can't make it present. He doesn't offer it in the same way. He doesn't make it present. Yeah. But he's supposed to be, because offering to that action, it's not so much a petition. You don't just accept this one, but he's actually supposed to offer it. Yeah, they partake of the offering, but they don't offer it in the same way, because they can serve well. Well, the thing that Augustine says, though, about the invisible sacrifice, right? Mm-hmm. That the layman could partake in, yeah. Yeah, yeah. And the divine mercy chapel, you see, the offering you, the bottom of the gospel. Yeah, yeah. And that's the other prayer that came from the prophet. When did Christ actually institute the priesthood? A couple, I think. Yeah, he did. He did this in memory of me. Yeah. That's kind of what makes it, when to be a priest, that you can offer the... Exactly. ...the man, yeah, yeah. So the other is, I guess, just as the priest derives his priesthood from Christ, then in another way, the faith will derives it. But the priest also has the power to hear sins, I mean, you know, to judge them, so that's in view of preparing people for the Eucharist. Mm-hmm. So I mean, that's kind of the principal thing, then, the Mass in the Eucharist. Yeah. I guess that's kind of a two-fold application of the merits of the sacrifice. Yeah. At the Mass, and then also in the church, and anointing of the sacraments. Yeah, yeah. But I was always struck by that, from the fan of it, for sinners, we're not supposed to just pray because of the opposite. It's something for war to just, you know, forgive them or something. But even if someone says, does it belong to the priest to instruct the laity? And we say, well, yes. But in view of preparing them for the Mass. Yeah. In the, you know. Now, the second objection here, he merited in his passion not only for others, but for himself, right? Okay. To the second it should be said, that in the offering of the sacrifice, right, of the priest, two things can be considered. One is the sacrifice offered, right? And the devotion of the one, what, offering him. Fair more rightly there in the text on the virtue of religion, right? The fundamental act of religion is what? Devotion, yeah. And then you have things like prayer and sacrifice and so on, you know. Now, the proper effect of the priesthood is that which follows from the sacrifice itself. Christ, however, achieved through his passion, not as it were from the, what, strength of the sacrifice that is offered by way of satisfaction, right? But from his, what? Devotion, by which he sustained in humility, right, the passion, according to, what, charity, huh? It's kind of interesting, you know, I was reading that article of Thomas, where he's talking about connection between miracles and faith, right? And it's through faith that you kind of merit miracles, right? That's why Christ is not working miracles in place because they have no faith. And Thomas says, you know, the church will say, well, don't we merit through charity, right? Well, charity is kind of the universal principle of merit, right? But then through some other virtue, you, and it's informed by charity, you merit this particular thing, right? So, bless the poor in spirit, they shall inherit, you know? And so, I used to wonder about that in the Magnificat, right? My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoice in God, my Savior. Okay, it says, you regard the loneliness of his handmaid. So, well, why the loneliness of his handmaid, her humility, why not her love, her charity? Isn't that a greater thing in marriage, her charity, than humility? See? But her humility, informed by her charity, merits, what? Exaltation, because he humbles himself to be exalted, right? It's a proper effect to that. Well, it's kind of interesting in this respect that you have, what, charity, which is the universal principle of merit, and then the humility, right? Okay? So, it's the humility of his passion, merits, it's the glorification, right? By a particular cause, huh? But the universal cause is charity, yeah? Yeah. Now, what about this last argument here from the Old Testament here, right? Where the priest in the Old Testament was offering sacrifice for himself, right? As well as, where he says, to the third should be said that the figure is not able to equal the truth. Whence the priest, the figurative priest of the old law, was not able to attain to the perfection, to his perfection that he did not himself need a, what, satisfied sacrifice. But Christ did not need such a thing, right? Whence there is not the same reason about both. And this is what the apostle says, huh? It's again from the Hebrews. That the law constitute men, right, as priests having infirmity. Well, you know, that, the, the fact that the, the ceremonial outtum, uh, it's always wearing word, I guess. The word of the old. Which is after the law. The word of the old. Is the sun perfect in eternity. We just had the, had the, on November 4th they had the, the feast of child born male. Did you, did you have that here? No. As soon as I'd say, why should we read more about these guys on the Catholic thing? On, on, pin to pin. What a, what a life, I mean. And you really, If you read Pius X, it has a letter on some symphony, it's just beautiful. Oh, Pius X, yeah. Pius X does, it's on the back, I forget the title of it. He's really impressive, this guy, Borromeo. Of course, he knew St. Felpinary, too, huh? But it's kind of, I guess, at one time, he's talking about how Borromeo was sitting up a kind of a, kind of an order of this priest, you know, parish priest, or what it was, and so on. And he thought there should be, you know, a vow of poverty in there, you know, which is a necessary part. Or, Pius X thought, no. And so Pius X says, well, let's go and ask Friar so-and-so, this Humble Friar, who I guess is it wrong, you know, it's kind of stupid. He says, it shouldn't be that valid. So he made it, what Humble Friar said. Yeah, yeah. Well, that's what I remember, in the life of St. Peter Canisius, or shortly after Borromeo, I think. Yeah. And somebody was asking, because he had communication with Charles Borromeo at some point, and Borromeo was going to try to mediate something with, you know, with all the bishops and the princes, it's all mixed up all the time, the French and everything. And Canisius said, I hope they don't stomp Borromeo. He says, he's very holy. He says, a little tough. A little rough. A little too rough for most people, you know. A little too, I forget the word. He's a little too harsh. He's got to be scared. He just struggles with the powerful, you know, they really read something. Now, does the priesthood of Christ remain forever?