Tertia Pars
Lecture 114: Voluntary Submission and the Passion of Christ

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

hospital you know and they had kind of maybe a serious thing and and sometimes the doctors would say if he's not willing to go on living he's not going to survive you know and so he would just kind of give up you know now i don't know you know it might be ambiguous in some cases but it doesn't seem to be clear that the person's doing wrong right you know just you know i don't want to go on any longer you know i suffer enough or something you know you know and therefore he's not trying to impede his death right but that makes you take its course you know this other person is struggling trying to you know get cured of cancer he's going to fight it you know you know and sometimes they succeed you know for a while anyway and uh i don't think you're killing yourself if you lose that will to to go on i don't think i think some people ask me about i don't know all the details i don't know how many people do but like with john paul the second yeah the infection that he died with it and they said uh he didn't want to go to the hospital and so they said we had that whole group from well basavar is excellent gazi and then one of the first trips they had up here one right after he died did what did he commit suicide didn't even he just didn't want to go to the hospital and uh he started he resisted having any treatment and i said well i don't really resist any treatment and one thing i did here everything they needed to take care of him was they didn't have to send him to the hospital on that occasion they had all the staff and medicine and they had about vatic in particular but that was the question that came up what did did he was that just like uh like a suicide and i i said well i don't know in particular but i kind of doubt i wouldn't be inclined to think that but i said it's sort of along those lines that um you know he had seen what there is to see in terms of uh his bodily health is always going right down the drain he figured well okay this is it it's time to stop you know he said let me go to the house of the father right that's what he said yeah that's kind of you know it's not going to fight anymore i heard of someone who uh lost and was dying lost control of his powers he said okay that's it no more food no more yeah that's uh amy norris that we know uh died of cancer she she had some i don't know what her innards were all messed up with cancer and it came to a point where eating and drinking were causing more trouble than they were worth it she consulted with the priest can i stop eating now and he said yeah because it's causing too much harm so yeah they gave her popsicles and they gave her water and they had an idea or something but so she could get some kind of nutrition or an amateur but fluid ice cream and stuff but uh otherwise she couldn't really okay the second article here we're gonna take a break okay the second one proceeds thus it seems that christ was not dead from what obedience did not die from obedience for obedience regards a precept christ but it's not read that to christ was what commanded that he would suffer therefore he did not suffer from obedience so i don't know if that's entirely true because he obeyed pontius pilate to condemn the death that's what some say a pontius points it out his obedience to his execution moreover that is said that someone does from obedience that he does some necessity or precept but christ not from necessity but voluntarily suffered therefore he did not suffer from obedience moreover charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience but christ is said to have suffered from charity according to that of ephesians chapter 5 walk in love just as christ what loved us and himself over for us therefore the passion of christ ought to be more attributed to charity than to what obedience but against this is what is said in philippians 2. factus est obedience patria he was made obedient to the father usque mortem up to death i answer it should be said that most suitably convenient issimo it's a strong word was it that christ would suffer from obedience first because this was suitable to the justification of man for just as through the disobedience of one man many sinners were what constituted so through the obedience of one man many just were constituted as is said in romans 5 kind of wiping out the disobedience of adam we can i'm gonna have a talk with that guy when you get there what were you thinking secondly this was suitable to the reconciliation of god to men right according to that of romans 5 for we are reconciled to god through the death of his son in so far as the death of christ was a certain sacrifice most acceptable to god according to that ephesians chapter 5 he handed himself over for us an offering and a host in a uh odor of sweetness but obedience is placed before what all sacrifices according to that of one kings chapter 15 eilior better is obedience than victims and therefore it is suitable that the sacrifice of the passion death of christ proceeded what from obedience third this was suitable to his victory by which he triumphed over death and the author of death for the soldier is not able to conquer unless he obeys the what peter and thus the man christ obtained victory through this provided that he was obedient to god according to that of proverbs 21 28 a man obedient speaks victories right to the first therefore it should be said that christ did get a what an doctrine that's a command i guess from the father did he suffer for he said in john chapter 10 verse 18 i have the power of laying down my soul and i have the power again taking it up and this command i have taken from what my father yeah to wit of laying down his soul and taking it up from which as christian says huh it should not be understood it should not be understood that first he what expected here and then yeah it was done he had needed he had needed yeah but he showed a voluntary proceeding right and he destroyed the suspicion of any contrary to the father because however in the death of christ the old law was consumed huh or completed according to that that he himself dying says it is what completed yeah consumed now it's got a different meaning huh completely drunk something that's good is that what they have now what is that what they have that the new translation no no no i just i'm just saying daily life is thinking consuming something um it can be understood that in undergoing or suffering he fulfilled all the commands of the old law right now the moral commands because in the precepts which are founded in the precepts of charity he fulfilled that insofar as he suffered from the love of the father according to that of john 14 that the world might know that I love the Father, and just as the Father has given to me a command, there's another statement of command, so I go, let us rise up, let us go hence, to wit, to the place of passion, and also from the love of his neighbor, according to that of Galatians 2. He loved me, St. Paul is like a saying this, and handed himself over for me. The ceremonial precepts of the law, which are ordered especially to sacrifices and offerings. Christ fulfilled this by his passion insofar as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of that true sacrifice, which Christ offered by dying for us. Whence it is said in Colossians 2, 2. Let no one judge you in food and drink, or in the part of the festal day, or the new moon, which are shadows of the future things. The body of it is Christ, in that Christ is compared to those as the body to its shadow. The precepts, the judicial precepts of the law, which are especially ordered to satisfy the injury, Christ fulfilled by his passion, because as in Psalm 68, he says, what he did not steal, that he paid, permitting himself to be affected on the wood for the apple, which from the tree was stolen, the man took against the command of God. I never made that connection before. He was fixed on the tree, because the other one was taken away. I never had to do that. To the second, it should be said that obedience, although it implies the necessity of respect to what is command, nevertheless it implies will, respect to the fulfilling or carrying out of the command, and such was the obedience of Christ, for the passion and death considered in itself or by itself was repugnant to his natural will, right? But Christ wished to will God about this, according to that of Psalm 39, that he might do your will, my God, I wish, or that I might do your will, my God, I wish, or I will. Wednesday says in Matthew 26, if this cannot pass from me, this chalice, unless I drink it, your will be done. Now what about charity? Well, he says, to the third, it should be said that for the same reason, Christ suffered from charity and obedience, because precepts of charity, he fulfilled only from obedience, right? And he was obedient from his love to the Father, what? Commanding him. I suppose there's something about the obedience as a virtue that's very proximate to his death, right? And charity is kind of a universal cause, huh? Thomas often says that, right? It's attributed sometimes the immediate effect to the proximate cause, right? And the charity is still the cause. It's like the example, you know, my soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior, because he has regarded the holiness of his handmaid, or behold, henceforth all nations, you call me blessed. Well, is she being raised to that height because of charity or because of humility? Proximate cause. Because he who humbles himself should be exalted, right? So it's attributing her exaltation to humility. It doesn't mean it's not due to charity, too. But charity is kind of a, what, universal cause, right? It's the form of all the virtues. It commands all the, what, virtues. It's to the virtues as priors to the vices, right? You know, when Shakespeare talks about what you should do in a play, he says, or stiff not the modesty of nature, huh? For anything so done is overdone, right? But away from the purpose of the play. Whose in the beginning was and is to hold the merit to nature, to show virtue of her own face, scorn her own image. It's kind of interesting what he does, right? Instead of saying virtue and vice, it would sound kind of pedantic and like a teacher, right? So he says virtue and scorn. Well, scorn is, of course, the, what, effect of pride, and therefore it's kind of a metonym for pride, and pride kind of stands there for the vices because it's the queen of the vices, huh? Yeah, the mother of the vices. So what vice, what pride is to vice, charity is to the virtues, right? So pride in some way commands the other vices, huh? And charity commands the other virtues, huh? But you know, as you attribute, you know, I've been puzzled for a while when I'm thinking about this because why does the Blessed Virgin and the Magnificat speak of her exaltation as due to her what? Yeah. And not to her love of God. Well, it had to be opposed that way, right? But the humility is kind of the proximate thing for exaltation. Because he who humbles himself should be exalted, right? But humility is formed by her charity. So that's the remote cause but then the fundamental cause, right? Well, it seems, maybe it's not exactly the same here, but it's something like this, right? That he undergoes death by obedience to the Father, right? That's kind of the proximate thing, right? He's obeying the Father and going to meet Judas there in the garden, right? And everything that follows upon that. But yet his obedience, like his other virtues, will be formed by his, what? His charity, yeah. And now when Christ, you know, has mercy upon somebody, you might attribute his actions to mercy, right? But that's again informed by love, huh? Now, we're going to have a break now. Let's go to Article 3. Article 3, right? Okay, whether the God the Father handed Christ over to his Passion, to the third one goes forward thus. It seems that God the Father did not hand over Christ to his Passion, right? For it's iniquitous and cruel. It seems that an innocent man be turned over to, what, suffering and death, right? But it's said in Deuteronomy 32, God is faithful and without any iniquity. Therefore, the innocent Christ he would not hand over to Passion and what? Death, right? That's what the man is doing, but you might think, you know, the woman is doing something, right? How can he do that to his soul and son? Moreover, it does not seem that someone by himself and by another is handed over to death. But Christ handed himself over for us, according to what is said in Isaiah 53, he handed over to death his own soul. Therefore, it does not seem that the God the Father handed him more, right? Moreover, Judas is criticized, and the fact that he handed Christ over to the Jews. One of you is a devil, right? One of you is a devil. We said in account of Jude, who was going to hand him over, right? Likewise, are held in low esteem, the Jews, who handed him over to Pilate, according to that which he itself says, John 18, your nation and your priests have handed you over to me. Right? It says that. And pride handed him more, he may be crucified, right? But there is not any agreement of justice with iniquity. Therefore, it seems that God the Father did not hand Christ over to his life, the passion of death. But against all this is what is said in Romans 8. It must be important work, this Romans, huh? Yeah. He did not take, was it, pity on it? God did not spare. Spare his own son. That bridge it. Said pro nobis, but for all of us, he handed him, what? Over, right? I answer it should be said, that as has been said, Christ suffered voluntarily from obedience to his, what? Father. Out of obedience to his Father. Whence, according to three things, God the Father handed Christ over to his, what? Passion. In one way, according to his, what? Eternal will. He preordered him the passion of Christ to the liberation of the human race. According to that of Isaiah chapter 53. That God placed on him the iniquity of all of us. And again, God wished to, what? Break him. Break him down. Infirmity. Secondly, insofar as he breathed into him a will of suffering for us. By pouring into him charity. Whence it is said, once there it follows, he was offered because he willed. Third, in not protecting him from passion, right? But in exposing him to, yeah, it's a little bit like Christ, you know. Not this. Whence it is said in Matthew 27, 46. Hanging on the cross, Christ said, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why didn't you stop this, so to speak, right? Why did you allow this, right? Because he exposed him to the power of those persecuting him, as Augustine says. Okay, I guess I better hold the father guilty here. He says, to the first therefore it should be said, and that to hand over an innocent man to his passion and death against his will, is impious and what? Cruel. Cruel. Yeah, that's, I've heard moral theology say, shienti at valentia not pete in a year ago, right? You can't do an injury to somebody knowing and willing. So if you say, go ahead and smash my windshield with a baseball bat and I do it, well, you can't hold me responsible. You know what I'm going to do it? You told me to go do it. It's a kiss. That's a kiss. Thus God the Father did not hand Christ over, right? But by inspiring him the will of what? Suffering for us, huh? In which is shown both the severity of God, who did not wish sin to be dismissed without punishment, which the apostle signifies saying he did not spare his own son and what? Also his goodness is shown in this that since a man sufficiently was not able to what? Satisfy, punish, which end of those. He gave a satisfactory one who couldn't satisfy, right? Which the apostle signifies, and he said, for all of us, he handed them over, right? And Romans 3, he said, whom with Christ through faith he proposed a, what? In his blood, right, huh? Yeah, and they say he's an orphan of Christ, and I'm sure he's writing. Yeah, I saw that thing people are very impressed with, and Dickens there, you know, the guy who gives his life to that person in France there in the revolution. Is that the... The far better thing I do that I've ever done before. Is that Scarlet? They always quote those words. Is that Scarlet? Tale of two cities. Tale of two cities, yeah. Yeah. But he has the final kind of words, right? But he's willingly dying for the other man, right? Now, what about the two wills, right? Was it Christ or the Father would hand him over? He says that Christ, according as he was God, huh, handed himself over to death by the same will and action by which the Father handed him over. Because he had one will, right, in the divine nature. But in so far, as he was man, he handed himself over by a will inspired by the Father. Whence is not contrary in this that Father handed over Christ and he handed over himself. Yeah. For the good one. Thomas, he's just saying so clearly. Yeah. That's because he was looking out for his day. Okay. Now, what about these other people handing him over, right? To the third, it should be said that the same action is diverse ways judged in the good and in the bad, according as it proceeds from a diverse route. For the Father handed over Christ and he himself himself from charity, right? And therefore, they are praised, right? But Judas handed him over from cupidity, the Jews from envy, and Pilate from worldly fears. Who feared Caesar. And therefore, they are right to yield him. Yeah. Yeah. That's pretty cool too, huh? Now, whether it was suitable that Christ undergo from the Gentiles, huh? To the fourth, one proceeds thus. It seems it was not suitable that Christ undergo from the Gentiles. Because through the death of Christ, men were to be liberated from sin. It would seem most suitable that the fewest possible, right? Would sin in his death, huh? But the Jews sinned in his death, from whose person is said, Here is the heir, let us come and kill him, right? And Christ does a parable. Therefore, it seems suitable that in the passion of the death of Christ, the Gentiles would not be implicated in him. Moreover, true thought, of course, bond to the figure. But... The figurative sacrifices of the old law, the Jews offered, and not the Gentiles. Therefore, neither the Passion of Christ, which was a true sacrifice, ought to be fulfilled through the hand of the Gentiles. Moreover, as it's said in John 5, 18, the Jews sought to kill Christ. Not only because he dissolved the Sabbath, but also because he called his father God, making himself equal to God. But these seem to be only against the law of the Jews. Whence they themselves say, according to law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God. It seems therefore suitable that Christ, not by the Gentiles, but by the Jews who suffer, and false what they said, to us it is not illicit to kill anyone, since many sins, according to the law, were punished by death, as is clear in David 29. I'll tell anybody that they stoned the adulterer. They stoned the Stephen. I answer it should be said that in the very way of the Passion of Christ, is prefigured its effect. That's the next question, right? The effect, the next question I'm going to talk about. But the first, first he says, for the Passion of Christ, the effect it had, effect of salvation it had in the Jews, many of whom were baptized in the death of Christ, as is clear, Acts 2.41. Secondly, because the Jews preaching, the effect of the Passion of Christ, passed over to the Gentiles. And therefore it was suitable that Christ began to suffer from the Jews, and afterwards the Jews tending over, his Passion was completed through the hand of the Gentiles, just like the Salvation would be begun with the Jews, and then the Gentiles, huh? That's the division of John's Gospel, chapter 18 and 19. Chapter 18, where he suffered from the Jews every night. Gentiles, yeah. Thomas Nick, I mean Thomas Nick, it's explicit, the division of the text. To the first, therefore, it should be said, because Christ, to showing the abundance of his charity, right, from which he suffered, on the cross, place, he asked forgiveness, right, for the persecutors, that the fruit of his petition might arrive at both the Jews and the Gentiles. Christ wished to suffer from both. Interesting what he says there. To the second, it should be said, that the Passion of Christ was the offering of a sacrifice, insofar as Christ, by his own will, sustained death from charity. But insofar as it was something suffered from the persecutors, it was not a sacrifice, but a, what? Most great sin. To the third, it should be said, as Augustine says, the Jews saying, it is not licit for us to kill anyone. The end who stood, it is not licit for them to kill someone on account of the sanctity of the festal day, which they began to celebrate. Or, they said this, as Christuskin says, because they wished to kill him, not as a transgressor of the law, but as a public, what? Enemy. Enemy, because he made himself a king, about which it was not for them to jackson. Or, because it was not licit for them to crucify, which they wished, but to, what? Stone. Stone, which they did to carry out in regard to stigthed. Or, better yet, it should be said that through the Romans, to whom they were subject, there was the power of killing, was what? Trebidon, right? I know some of the Pilate's bringing that up, because that's why Pilate said, crucify him yourself. Because he was mocking them. They had no power to do that. They were so busy, because he was mocking them. Because it says, that's what John says, he knew that they handed him over, out of envy. So he was sort of mocking their pettiness about this man. Now, whether the persecutors of Christ knew him, right? It's an interesting question. Hmm. Also they are said to know the true Son of God, because evident signs of this thing they have. To which, nevertheless, they do not wish to assent in the count of hate and envy, that they might know him to be the Son of God. That's the last course I had from Insignia de On there, you know, just on the roll of the appetite, you know, in the life of the mind, right? You see it right here in another context. Oh yeah, yeah. And of course, he took the Confessions of Augustine to illustrate some of these things, you know. And I guess, I remember talking about the time when Augustine's mother goes to the bishop, and says, we've talked to him. He says, not yet. He's like a DOSA, right? And they will, you know. I guess when I went to Insignia de On to see if he would prove, he would be my director for my thesis, right? You know, and I just submitted him with kind of an outline of it and so on. And so I looked to go over, you know, and he asked me a few innocuous questions, you know. And he said, no, I'm more serious of just, you know. You kind of propose a different ordering of the thing, you know. And then he said, I could see it was, you know, proven factors so good that I could piece it myself after that. That's all I did at the beginning. I said, oh, yes, it's not good. I could see it the way it is now. He said, I can see that. Oh. He said, I don't have any evidence of what I'm saying. You give me the thing, you know, I think you make the thesis like so. But this guy's checking your will a little bit, you know, and see if I was DOSA, you know, to these corrections. And then he said, well, who do you think you're going to direct your thesis? I said, you're super cool. Tom says in the commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, beautiful things about the role of the appetite, you know, and, you know, how pride is a cause of deception, right? Beautiful things in there, the fundamental. I mean, pride causes you to make mistakes by what? You overestimate your own ability, and therefore you apply your mind to judging something above the capacity of your mind. And that's one way you make mistakes. The other is that you don't submit your mind to those like Thomas, who are, you know, greater than your mind in this matter anyway, and therefore you fall onto the airway. They would be pulled back from error, prevented from error, pulled back from error, if you read Thomas, you know. There's his judgment. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. That's what it's in my brainwashed. You put a piece of bone there, or a piece of flesh, nothing happens. Put some blood there, it goes right through. And then I'd always go with my high school teacher there, where I first met Warren Murray, by the way, in biology class there, a sophomore, Mr. Gatto, you know. And he asked a question, if nobody knew the answer, he'd say, BONE HEADS! He'd slam the desk. You know, if we slammed the desk like that, I'd have a hand be broken, you know. People were actually physically afraid of Gatto, you know. The story's totally going to put people down the stairs. I didn't see that, you know. But I think I studied more for Gatto's exams than for anybody else in my academic career, you know. And that's what I was thinking, BONE HEADS! There was this thing, that's not a compliment I said. So Bud was a good example, you know, for the thought. Yeah, you had to choose one of those things. And about the flesh, I know somewhere, one of the scripture commentaries is, you say, well, if you, if we understand, commonly, to say that, you live according to the flesh, that's to live badly. Yeah. And to think according to the flesh, is to think badly. I think St. Thomas is that one, because it's, I think, maybe according to, apparently, St. Paul or something, you're thinking according to the flesh, you're judging according to the flesh. Yeah. There's a lot of people out there doing that, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, that was the, what, the first objection? Second? Second? Right. Okay. That's what I meant, yeah. Okay. To second should be said, at least the words now were, now they have seen, and they hate me and my father, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. The second should be said, that before those words, there is set forth, if I had not done deeds in them, which no one else has done, they would not have sinned, right? And afterwards he joins, now however they see, and they hate, both me and my father, from which is shown, that seeing the works, the marvelous works of Christ, right, it proceeded from hate, that they did not know him to be, what? The son of God. Yeah. So it's, the will is interfering with this, right? Mm-hmm. You wonder a little bit, with this, you know, the modern scientists, you know, that nature acts for an end, you know? Because you know, if they once admit, that nature acts for an end, then God's going to come in, right? And, and there was one scientist, I forget, I don't know what, the big shot, I think it was at Harvard, you know? He said, we can't admit that, you're going to have to admit God. Which was giving, everybody else got mad at him, because he was giving away the, the secret, right? Yeah. But it's, it's in the will that, that they don't want to, you know, accept this, right? Because they, they realize if they accept that, then they've got to. This was St. Alfonso's, and it was St. Alfonso's, draws a conclusion from that, which is to say that, the only reason that they, they don't want to admit this, is because they're living a bad life. It's a moral problem. Yeah. Yeah. They're attached to their sin, and if they, they admit God, well then they got to change. Yeah. He says it about the, the, the contemporary scientists, that they, Oh. They, they hadn't arrived at evolutionary thought yet, but that was, or the, we're not necessarily deists, but then, that they were, free thinkers or whatever. They said they just, they didn't want to admit God, or at least revelation, because, and then he says, it's all the root, it's a moral problem basically. But, I'm just no, free thinkers. But, it's not free as well. Yeah. And since you have to say, you know, that eyes are not for the sake of seeing, you know, not made for the sake of seeing. Oh no. But, you can't see with them, that's true. And the ears are not made for hearing, but, you can hear with them, you know. Yeah. Make use of them, yeah. Make a bridge for out of necessity. I, sometimes, you know, plants, you know, they grow around the house, in the yard there, you know. And the plant sends out these feelers, you know, to find things to swing around, to pull itself up, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I used to notice, especially with snow peas, you know, I would, you know, just, patch them for an end. Yeah. You know, both, both Plato, in the, I guess in Symposium, yeah, Aristotle and Dianna, they both say, you know, that, this reproduction in plants, and in animals, is to become like God, right? To be immortal, like God is, so far as possible, for the plants, right? But the mortal plants, and animals can't, be as individuals, immortal. But they can get a certain immortality, by what? Reproducing their kind, right? So, like Shakespeare, in the beginning of the sonnets, they're, you know, fairest creatures we desire increase, thereby beauty's rose, might never die. So, it's the kind of immortality that you're looking for, reproduction. That's, kind of, makes much sense out of things, you know? Yeah, and if you hear it, you get criticized, this idea of, when we speak of life everlasting, people say, well, that's really arrogant that you want to go on forever. Yeah. Well, yeah, what's wrong with that? Look at this. Yeah. Yeah. That's like David Hume, you know. They asked David Hume, you know, wasn't he bothered by the idea that, you know, death would be, not exist at all after his death? That's what he found. He said, no more bothered by that than the fact that I didn't exist before I was born.