Tertia Pars
Lecture 66: The Adoration of Christ: Unity of Person and Multiplicity of Causes

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, pray for us. And help us to understand what you have written. Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. I think I've mentioned how in my home parish there, where I grew up, the Activity Parish in St. Paul, Minnesota. And over the altar there, they had, I don't know, called baldachino or something, but it was a wooden one. And one year there, the workmen were caning, you know, fishing up there. And they got up there, and I think they said, hey, there's some words here that have faded, right? I mean, they're gold. And so, you know, so we restored them, yes. That's the pastor said, and of course it turned out to be adorote devotee, the first word from Thomas' things. We were all very excited. We followed Thomas and that they had been put in there. But as I reminded of the little item in my life there from the title of the 25th questionnaire on the adoration of Christ. Then we're not to consider about those things, he says in the premium, which belong or pertain to Christ in comparison to us, right? I distinguish to the Father. And first, about the adoration of Christ, by which we adore him. Secondly, about this, that he is our mediator to God. And that's going to be the next question, 26, huh? And that will complete the consideration of what those things that belong to him, where he says the union, huh? That follow upon the union. Then we can get to the things that he did and suffered, huh? And about this, four things are asked, huh? Six things, did I say four? And first, whether by one and the same adoration should be a devoid, the divinity of Christ and his humanity, huh? And you've got to be careful, those guys don't want to have a separate adoration, like the story is. And secondly, whether his flesh should be adored by the adoration of Latriae. Well, Latriae is an adoration given to God himself, so what about his flesh then? And third, whether the adoration of Latriae should be shown to the image of Christ. And fourth, whether it should be shown to the cross of Christ. And then, another guy here now, huh? Who that should be shown to his mother, right? And then about the, what, adoration of the relics of the, what, saints. Of course, the relics of Thomas, I guess, are quite dispersed, huh? I don't know, but the same way for the female St. David doing it, I guess. Oh, Catherine. Catherine, yeah, yeah, yeah. Her head is in one place and the rest of her body. Another church I've been in had one of her feet and so on, so. And they used to fight about these things, too. To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that not by the same adoration ought to be adored the humanity or human nature of Christ and his, what, divinity, huh? The first objection is very interesting here. The divinity of Christ should be adored, which is common to the Father and the Son. When it is said in John chapter 5, all honor the Son as they, just as they honor the Father. But the humanity of Christ is not common to him and the Father. Therefore, not by the same adoration should be adored the humanity of Christ and his divinity. That's an interesting argument. Moreover, honor is properly the reward of virtue, as the philosopher says in the fourth book of Nicomachean Ethics. So Aristotle set up to, what, Plato, the monument, right? He says, the first man to show by both word and deed that the happy life is the virtuous life. That's an honor to the great Plato, who was the chief philosopher with Aristotle. Now he merited, now virtue merits a, what, its own reward through its act, right? Since, therefore, in Christ, other is the doing of his divine and his human nature. It's none of the same operation. It seems that by another honor should be adored the humanity of Christ and another is, what, divinity. Moreover, the soul of Christ, if it was not united to the word, ought to be venerated on account of the excellence of his wisdom and the grace which he had, huh? Full of grace and truth. But nothing of dignity is taken away from him, from this, that he's united to the word. Therefore, the human nature should be adored by its own veneration, apart from, huh, the veneration which is shown to his, what, divinity, huh? Pretty convincing arguments, huh? But here comes the second Constance Nopo, I guess. But against this is what is said in the chapters of the Fifth Synod. If someone, where one reads thus, if someone says in the two natures Christ should be adored, from which two adorations are introduced, huh, and not by one adoration, the, what, God, the Word incarnate, with his own, what, flesh is adored, just as has been handed down from the beginning of the Church of God, such a one's anathema. They think twice about these arguments, huh? Mm-hmm. That's why Thomas says the three things the angel does for you. He distinctens the light of your mind, he orders your images, and he arouses you to consider more correctly. That sounds pretty correct to me, but apparently it isn't. Now Thomas is looking for a distinction here, right? I answer it should be said, that in the one who is honored, we are able to consider two things. To wit, the one to whom honor is shown, and the cause of the honor. For, properly speaking, honor is shown to the whole thing that subsists. For we do not say that the hand of a man is honored, but that the man is honored. And if sometimes it happens that there is said to be honored the hand or the foot of someone, this is not by reason that, what, these parts in themselves are honored, right? But because in these parts the whole is, what, honored, huh? On the baptized. That is also that Lebanese expression about, I think, your hands. It's like in the unknown soldier, all soldiers are honored, right? In which way also some man can be honored in something outside, as in his vestment or in his image or in his messenger. Now, the cause of honor is from this that the one who is honored has some excellence. For honor is reverence shown to someone on account of his excellence. So he kind of defines honor by what? Reverence, huh? And therefore, if in one man there are many causes of honor, for example, his being, his proletorship, his knowledge and his virtue, there will be of that man one honor on the side of the one who is honored, huh? But many on account of the causes of honor, huh? For a man, for the man is the one who is honored, huh? For the man is the one who is honored, huh? and both an account of his knowledge and an account of his virtue. Since therefore in Christ one only is the person of the divine human nature, and one hypostasis, and one suppositum, we saw what those words meant before. There is one adoration of him, and one honor of him from the side of the one who is adored. But on the side of the call for which he is honored, there can be said to be many, what? Adorations. That by another honor is honored on account of his uncreated wisdom, his divine wisdom, and on account of his, what? Created wisdom. If however there was placed in Christ many persons or hypostasis, it would follow that simpliciter, and there are many adorations, huh? So simpliciter loquendo. There's only one person there. And honor is shown to the person, right? You know, there might be many causes by honor shown to this person. And this is, it is, that in the synods, is reprobated, huh? For it is said in the chapters of Syrah, someone dares to say, huh? Adachia. It's the motto of the enlightenment, so-called. Aude sapere, right? Dare to know. Right out of the serpent's mouth. So adachia is a very dangerous thing in the life of the mind. See, Chris outed, huh, as someone dares to say, huh, that the, what, man taken on should be co-adored, right? Adored with, with the word God, right? As were other to other, right? As if there should be two adorations of him, right? And not more, by one adoration, is honored Emmanuel, God with us. According as the word was made flesh, he's anathema. Let him be accursed. Strong words from Cyril, huh? Now what about the first before objection? Thomas makes an interesting point about this. To the first, therefore, it should be said that in the Trinity, there are three who are honored, but one is the cause of the honor, namely their, what? Divine nature, right? But in the mystery of the Incarnation, it is the reverse. And he could be honored as far as the cause is concerned, right? Both from his humanity, right? And from his divinity. And therefore, in another way, is one honor of the Trinity, and another way, one honor of what? Christ, huh? In the case of the Trinity, there are three who are honored, right? But one cause of their being honored, huh? But in the case of the Incarnation, there's one who is honored, but two reasons why he can be honored, right? He's honorable both because of his divine nature, but also because of his human nature. It's interesting, huh? But there's two mysteries that kind of reverse of each other, huh? Now, what about the second objection that says, hey, you've got two different operations here. Well, Thomas points out the application of the distinction in the text there, huh? To the second, it should be said that it's not operation that is honored, huh? But that's the reason for the honor, right? So would you give the Medal of Honor to the thing the soldier did? No, you give it to the soldier, right? He's the one who's honored, and so it's not what he did that is honored, but it's he who is honored because of what he did. I had a soldier in my class one time, an older man, you know, and had been in the Army for 34 years, whatever it was. He says, it should not be called the Congressional Medal of Honor, but it's a Medal of Honor. He's very clear that he made me... God will have to be vilified by association. Yeah, yeah. Especially now with the Congressional Medal of Honor, yeah. Assassination by association. Yeah. And therefore, through this, that in Christ there are two operations, is not shown that there are two, what? Adorations, but that there are two causes of adoration. Okay, now what about the third objection, just saying, well, shouldn't his soul be venerated, right? Because of what it has, and it shouldn't be... It loses adoration because he's been united to. To the third, Thomas says, it should be said that the soul of Christ, if it were not united to the word of God, would be that which is the most chief thing in that man. And therefore, to it especially would honor be owed, right? Because the man is what is most puted, right? In him. But because the soul of Christ is united to a more worthy person, to that person especially is owed the honor to which the soul of Christ is united. Nor through this is diminished the dignity of the soul of Christ, but it's actually increased, because it's joined to something more noble. I think you'd be through with this, but the second article has something to say about humanity. To the second one proceeds thus, it seems that the humanity of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of what? Lactriae. That's kind of the technical name, right, for what's owed to God, right? Well, it seems you can't worship that humanity, right? That kind of thing. Because on that thing in Psalm 98, adore the what? Yeah? The print of his feet. What's due? Of that, because it is holy, the gloss says, the flesh taken on by the word of God without impiety is adored by us, right? Because no one spiritually eats his flesh unless he first, what? So you better say that prayer that Thomas said, the adorote, devotee, right? Apparently, I think he said, after he'd consecrated us, that's what they say, you know, after he'd consecrated us, he would pause there and say that prayer I'd wrote to us. They'd be pointing, right? So you've got to adore him before you can receive him. But I do not say, by that adoration, which is Lactriae, right? This is what the glass is saying, which is owed to the creature alone, huh? Yeah. Creator, yeah. Oh, creature, yeah. Well, half asleep today, I guess. But the flesh is a part of the humanity, right? Therefore, the humanity of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of what? Latriae, right? Okay, that's an authority, then. Moreover, the cultus Lactriae, the worship of Lactriae, is owed to no creature, right? For from this, the Gentiles are disproved, or reprobated, that they worshiped and served the creature, as is said in Romans chapter 1. But the humanity of Christ is a creature, therefore not to be adored by the adoration of Lactriae. Sounds convincing. Moreover, the adoration of Lactriae is owed to God in recognition of his greatest what? Dominion, huh? According to that, Deuteronomy 6, 13, you shall adore the Lord, yeah? And him only shall you serve. But Christ, according as his man, is less than the Father. Therefore, his humanity should not be adored by the adoration of, what? Lactriae, huh? Now, but against this is what Damascene says in the fourth book. That the flesh of Christ is adored, the word of God being, what? Carnate. None on account of itself, but on account of its being united in hypostasis with the word of God, huh? And upon that of the psalm, adore the, what? Footstool, is it? Of his feet, the glasses, who adores the body of Christ does not, what? Look upon the earth, but rather that of which it is the footstool, in whose honor he adores the footstool. But the word incarnate is adored by the adoration of Lactriae, therefore also his body or his, what? Humanity, huh? Thomas recalls the distinction he made in the previous body, the body of the previous article. I answer, he says, it should be said, that has been said above, the honor of adoration is given or owed to the subsisting, what? Hypostasis, to the person. Nevertheless, the reason for the honor is able to be something that does not subsist. Now the adoration, therefore, of the humanity of Christ is able to be understood in two ways. in one way that be of it as of the thing adored, right? And thus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing other than to adore the word of God made flesh, huh? Just as to adore the vestment of the king is nothing other than to adore the king, what? Yeah. That's what he kisses. Foot. Or shoe, huh? Yeah. And according to this, the adoration of the humanity of Christ is the adoration of what? Latria, huh? Another way can be understood the adoration of the humanity of Christ that comes about by reason of the humanity of Christ perfected with every gift of the graces. And thus the adoration of the humanity of Christ is not the adoration of Latria, right? But the adoration of what? Dullia. How do you translate the Dullia? It's a technical term, but do they just hang aside the word or do they have a type of word? Yeah. Thus that one in the same person of Christ is adored by the adoration of Latria on account of his what? Divinity and by the adoration of Dullia on account of the perfection of his what? Humanity. Nor is this inconvenient, he says, or unsuitable because to God the Father himself is owed the honor of Latria on account of his what? Divinity and the honor of Dullia on account of the dominion by which he governs what? Creatures. Whence upon that of Psalm 7 Lord God, my God in you I have hoped the gloss says he is the Lord of all by his power to which is owed Dullia but he is the God of all by creation to which is owed Latria. Latria is a name that honors it. It's owed to God and only. Now the first objection to the first therefore it should be said that that gloss ought not to be thus understood as were apart from each other right should be adored the flesh of Christ from his what? Divinity for this could happen only in this way if there was a different what? hypostasis of God and man but because as Danesine says if you what? Divide by subtle thoughts what is seen by what? Well it's understood not adorable is he as what? Preacher that is by the adoration of Latria and then thus understood as separated from the word of God there would be owed to it the adoration of Dulia not however just of any which is commonly shown to other creatures but a certain works in one which is sometimes called hyper above hyper Dulia and to this also he says is clear the response to the second and the third because the adoration of Latria is not shown to the humanity of Christ by reason of what? itself that by reason of the divinity to which is united according to which Christ is not less than the Father so the kind of subtle distinctions could be well wait let Tom speak for me stop and get to it the article about the origin right? why did that at first he said about the word splashes so Dulia well that's he said it's really behind yeah right But now, it's getting even more remote here now, because it's coming to the image of him, right? I don't know what the Muslims would think of this third article right now. I don't know what they would have thought of the first two. Might as well just start at the beginning. We part ways for the fact. But it's kind of iconoclastic. You don't allow any visitation of... Yeah. Nothing, yeah. The Christmas one. The Christmas stamp. The seasonal stamp for every faith. They've got the Kwanzaa one. They've got the Christmas one. They've got the Muslim one. It's just as a feast. Right? I think of the Jewish one. But the Muslim one is just the Arabic word for feast. No image. Well, if we have an activity scene or something in our stamp, probably the Muslim will throw it out when it comes into the shop. I think that they have a special, it is a special feast actually. Yeah. It's a, is it Isaac one or something? Well, I didn't, I don't know if there's any particular piece, I just know that's the word for feast. Yeah, I know, but I mean, that's a feast color, but feast or something. Now to the third one goes forward thus. Thus, it seems that the image of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of Latvia. For it is said in Exodus chapter 20, verse 4, you should not make for yourselves something sculptured, I guess, or any likeness, huh? But no adoration should be done against the precept of God, huh? Therefore, the image of Christ doth not to be adored by the adoration of Latvia, huh? They said the devil can quote scripture in the Iconoclast because they quote scripture, I'm sure. Moreover, we ought not to communicate with the doings of the Gentiles, huh? As the Apostle says in Ephesians chapter 5. But the Gentiles of this especially are held guilty because they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of the corruptible man. Therefore, the image of Christ doth not to be adored by the adoration of Latvia. Moreover, Christ, the Christ is owed the adoration of Latvia by reason of his divinity, not by reason of his humanity. But to the image of his divinity, which is impressed upon the rational soul, is not owed the adoration of Latvia. Therefore, much less to the image, the bodily image, huh? Which represents the humanity of Christ himself. Moreover, nothing should be seen in the divine, what, worship to be done except what was instituted by God himself. Whence the Apostle says that he has handed down the teaching about the sacrifice of the Mass. He says, I have received from the Lord what I have handed down to you. But no handing down a tradition in Scripture is found about adoring images. Therefore, the image of Christ should not be adored by the adoration of Latvia. Pretty good arguments, I think, huh? That is a promise. Yeah. So Thomas can attack the faith better than the people who don't have it, huh? Knowledge is of opposites, right? My brother Mark and I, in the politics, we found we could satirize our own position better than the opposite position. I don't know why that is so, you know. We kind of, I don't know why we can do this. But again, this is what Damascene brings in Basil's saying, huh? The honor, the image, arrives at the, what, prototype, which is the exemplar. But the exemplar to it, Christ himself, should be adored by the adoration of Latvia, therefore also his, what, image, huh? Well, Bezos, pretty big authority. I answer it should be said that as the philosopher says in the book on memory and recalling, yeah, it's one of the little books that follow upon me, three books about the soul, yeah. Twofold is the movement of the soul towards an image, huh? In one, it's towards the image itself, according as it is a certain thing, huh? In another way, towards the image, insofar as it is the image of what? Another, huh? And among these, huh? Among these motions, there is this difference. That the first motion by which someone moves to an image insofar as it is a certain thing is other from the motion which is in the thing, or to the thing, rather. I made a mark. In English. In two. Yeah. But the second motion, which is towards the image insofar as it is an image, is one and the same with that which is in the thing. Thus, therefore, it should be said that to the image of Christ, insofar as it is a certain thing, to wit a piece of wood, sculpted, right, or drawn, no reverence should be shown, right? Because reverence should be shown only to a rational nature. It remains, therefore, that there be shown to it reverence only insofar as it is an image, huh? And thus it follows that the same, what? Reverence is shown to the image of Christ and to Christ himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored by the adoration of Latria, it follows that his image should be adored by the adoration of Latria. That's very interesting, huh? So sometimes when we see a picture of somebody, we don't know the person, and we just kind of look at the interesting face, you know, something like that. But if it's somebody we know, then we look at it and go to the person himself, right? We call that person, and maybe the scene, which is, this picture was taken, and so on. And then rejoicing or groaning, whatever it might be, in the thing itself, right? Through the image, yeah. Okay, now, what about the first objection here from Exodus, right? I'm sure these texts must have been quoted a lot by the iconoclasts, and thrown in our face, and who was it? Was it some of the Protestants, was it Calvinists or something? Yeah, the Huguenots, too. The Huguenots, they were ferocious. They'd throw out the relics, they'd burn all the shit, just throw in France. They were French colors. Well, he's John Calvinist. John Colbert. He's Frenchy. The little kids were throwing stones at him when he got to Switzerland. Good ecumenical accent. I first came to Worcester, and I was told, Baxter, you know, and there was a nice little restaurant, you know, it was called the Huguenots. Well, I wasn't quite sure if I should go to that restaurant or not, you know. Well, he's got a nice look at the restaurant. As long as I've got to come and I've got you in the shop. To the first, therefore, it should be said that there is not prohibited by that precept the making of what? Likeness. But to make it in order to adore, right? Whence there is joined that thing, you should not adore it nor what? Worship it, right? And because, as has been said, that there is no doubt that there is no doubt that there is no doubt that there is no doubt The same is the motion in the image and to the thing. In that way, adoration is prohibited, by which is prohibited adoration of the thing of which there is a, what, image. Whence there is understood to be prohibited the adoration of the images which the Gentiles make in the veneration of their gods, right? Namely the demons, huh? And therefore, there's, as I said before, you should not have alien gods before me, huh? But to God, the true God, since he is bodiless and incorporeal, no body image can be what? Can be placed, yeah? Because, as Danesine says, it's of the greatest insipidity, insipidness. You know how Thomas explains, the wisdom is sapida gentia, savory knowledge. So it's greatest tastelessness, yeah. And impiety to what? Make a figure, sort of, what is divine, huh? But because the New Testament, God was made man, huh? He's able in his body image to be, what? Adored, huh? Well, I don't know, we're going to watch that. Yeah, those medieval, those renaissance artists watch that. Because that was a medieval custom, never had any... Yeah, I remember that, yeah. There's a poet before, talking about God and Father images for a day. Yeah, that's an image of the Trinity, as it recorded in Scripture. It's a type, technology, yeah. Yeah, but usually, from what I understand, it was kind of a general custom of medieval artists that didn't depict God and Father in any way because nobody had ever seen it. That was just a custom. But Isaiah saw, didn't he? Well, I'm just reading about that. He saw something with the angels figure for him. I was just reading that in the comments area. Now, the apostle prohibits us from, what? Having in common the fruitless works of the Gentiles, huh? That doesn't mean Aristotle is now, fifth book of names now, fifth book of wisdom. But to communicate with their useful works, huh? The apostle does not prohibit, right? Whatever is good, whatever is true, right? But the adoration of images is counted up among the fruitless works, right? As regards to things, huh? First, as regards this, that some of them adored these images as, what? Some things, right, huh? Believing in them there to be something of, what? Divine power, right? An account of the responses which demons gave in them, huh? Another mirrorable, marvelous, what? Effects, right? Heraclitus says, when they talk to these stages, he says, I meant you talk to his house. Interesting, early fragrance there, you know, when they start to criticize these things. The amorphic gods, it's all. Secondly, an account of the things of which they are images, right? For they placed certain images to some creatures which in them, right, they venerated by the veneration of Latria. But we adore by the adoration of Latria the image of Christ who is true God. Not an account of the image itself, but an account of the thing of which it is a, what? Image, huh? The third objection is the one from the soul there. To the third should be said that to the reasonable creature is owed reverence an account of itself. And therefore, if to the reasonable creature in which there is an image is shown the adoration of Latria, it can be an occasion of error. That the emotion of the one adoring the man stops there, right? In so far as there is a certain thing and is not born towards God which is an image which cannot happen in the case of the, what? Yeah. So should we adore the image of God and other men? It's in danger in that, right? Now what about the, not having a basis in scripture, right? To the fourth, it should be said that the apostles by a familiar instinct of the Holy Spirit. Some things they handed down to the churches to be observed which were not left in the writings. But in the observation, the church are ordered through the succession of the, what? Faithful. Whence he himself says, stand firm, right? And hold on to the traditions which you have learned whether through speech put forth by the mouth or through letter, right? Transmitted by writing. And among these traditions is the adoration of the images of what? Christ. Whence the blessed Luke is said to have depicted the image of Christ which is had in, what? Rome. Well, maybe that's what he's referring to. Isn't she all in Christ's house? Good Counsel? Isn't there any Good Counsel? Isn't that the one that's attributed to that? Is that in Rome? Yeah. Is it? That one is? I thought it's Pocoli Romani in that maybe. He's talking about Good Counsel. No, no. I think Good Counsel is something else. I'm not sure. It's in Italy, I think. Maybe it wasn't Rome at the time of the rebellion. The chance to hold is supposed to be by the book, too. Yeah. Was it perpetual help supposed to be also? It's a redemptive time. I should say I wish it wrong. Yeah. Maybe you can report to the mass effect. We're not just thinking about can a woman be ordained a priest, right? What's that? This question of can a woman be ordained a priest and it's in tradition mainly that the Pope seems to argue against it, right? Rather than from the written text, you know? Although I always refer to the lamb that the sacrifice had to have no dummies and be a male, right? Male. So if the lamb was the only figure of him had to be a male, then he'd be a male. Yeah. I don't know what the thing that I get. That's... What? Yeah, yeah. Of course, the reason Thomas gives you it would be very rejected by the feminists today, you know. Father Boulay used to say you can't teach the Church's doctrine of a woman today, he says. That's an argument for reason, too.