Tertia Pars
Lecture 118: Christ's Passion: Reconciliation, Heaven's Gate, and Exaltation

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

So we're entirely liberated then from punishment, huh? By Christ, huh? He said it well. Huh? He mentioned it well. Okay. We're going to be reconciled now to God, right? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that through the passion of Christ we are not reconciled to what? God, huh? For reconciliation has no place among, what, friends. But God always, what, loves us according to that of the Book of Wisdom, chapter 11. He loves all things which are and he hates none of those which he has made, right? Because he hasn't made sin, though, has he? Therefore the passion of Christ does not reconcile us to God. So is the prodigal son reconciled to his father? Oh, brother. I mean, but what does that mean, though? Because his father had never stopped loving him, had he? That's the art of the saying, in a sense, right? The father had never stopped loving him, so. Yeah, yeah. He rejected his son. He loved his son, but he loved his stupidity. He loved the obstacles in some place. Still, he had to come back to his father to reconcile, right? We'll see what Thomas says, but, you know, I'm just thinking of that story and a parable that we're told. More of the same is not able to be a beginning and a, what? Effect, huh? Whence grace, which is the beginning of meriting, it does not fall under merit. But the love of God is the beginning of the passion of Christ, according to that of John 3. For God so loved the world, huh? That he gave his only begotten son. Therefore, it does not seem that through the passion of Christ we are, what? Reconciled to God. Thus that newly we, what? He would begin to love us, huh? Or de novo might be. Okay, three. Moreover, the passion of Christ is fulfilled through men killing Christ, huh? Who from this gravely offended God, right? Therefore, the passion of Christ is more the cause of indignation or anger than reconciliation with God, huh? But against all this is what the apostle says, huh? Romans 5, chapter, verse 10. We are reconciled to God through the death of his son, huh? So, you can see how theology and scripture are helped here, right? Okay, that text there is brought in here and then you read this and study about this then you're struck when you read that again, huh? I answer it should be said that the passion of Christ is a cause of our reconciliation to God in two ways, huh? Thomas says a distinct knowledge of things compared to we who have a confused knowledge of things. In one way, insofar as it removes sin to which men are constituted enemies of God according to that of Wisdom, chapter 14. In like way, they are hateful, right, to God. The impious man in his, what? Impiety, huh? Who says God doesn't hate the sinner, huh? Well, it's just a sin, huh? You have to make some distinctions there, right? In Psalm 5, verse 7, he hates all who do bad things, yeah. In another way, insofar as it is a sacrifice most acceptable to God. For this is properly the effect of sacrifice that through it, God is what? I don't like what the Greeks thought, right? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I must have got this from Homer, huh? That was Thomas, huh? Well, it's interesting because one appeased, placated, and reconciled. Yeah. Just as man remits the offense committed towards him, right? On account of some service, right? Acceptable service that is shown to him, right? Whence it is said in the first book of Kings, chapter 26, if the Lord, what? Against me. The sacrifice. Sorry, I'm sorry. And likewise, so good it was that Christ voluntarily suffered that on account of this, the good found in human nature, right? That God was, what? Pleased, or placated, you might say maybe, about all the, what? Offense of the human race as regards those who joined themselves to Christ, what? Suffering. In the fourth said, what? Way, right? Faith and charity, etc. I guess. Yeah, let's back to that first article, which is about being freed from sin, right? Because that is in here, right? Mm-hmm. Entred into the third one. Mm-hmm. Entred into the second one, right? But then as far as it's the most acceptable sacrifice because of the love of which Christ underwent this. To the first, therefore, it should be said that God loves all men as regards the nature which he himself has made, right? But he hates them as regards the, what? Guilt which men commit against him, right? According to that of Ecclesiasticus 12, the Most High has in hate sinners, right? Now, I don't know if you want to stick this in your sermons or not. Good thing to put in there. Yeah. I told you I was in the bookstore there one time and I saw, what, by, who was it? St. Bernard of Clarke? It was a meditation to gain the fear of the Lord, right? Now, that's what you don't very often find nowadays, you know? St. Robert Bellarmine and all the torments of the damned. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The fear of God. Yeah, yeah. There should be the standard thing in the old, you know, parish missions, you know, the four last things, you know? It's worth thinking about. But, you know. Why is it one of the parishes and somebody walking out after church, you know, he claps and steps in, you know, heart attack or something, you know? That was an occasion for the next sermon, you know? Yeah, yeah. You never know when your time comes, you know, when you're not going to be around anymore, huh? I think that happened in the Pope John and he's praises one of the Lebanese band and we had a heart attack and that's right and true. Not because of the sermon. We hope not. I didn't hear that part. I can't say. I just caught the math out there. He's buried in... There's a little cemetery there in downtown Boston, you know, kind of a historic cemetery. I got to the map there, and I asked the guy with the old firing brimstone to scare the woods out of his congregation. Now what about starting to love us and so on? To the second it should be said that Christ has not said in this respect to reconcile us to God, that he began to what? Love us again. Yeah. To know, right? Since it's written, I have loved you with a perpetual what? Love. But because through the passion of Christ is taken away, the cause of hate, huh? Both an account of the washing away of sin, right? And also an account of the recompense of a more acceptable good, I guess, referring back to the sacrifice aspect. Now what about the wicked people who did this and so on? How can this be reconciling us? To the third it should be said that just as those who killed Christ were men, right, huh? So also that Christ killed was a man, huh? But greater was the charity of Christ's suffering than the iniquity of the, what? Yeah. And therefore the passion of the passion of Christ is more valuable, shall we say, to reconciling God to the whole human race than provoking to anger. That's going to be interesting, you know, because you can contrast the true writer, the iniquity of those who killed him and their sin. You know, Christ himself is sometimes angry with the, you know, he said in Scripture to be angry, right? With the hardness of their hearts, right? You see, there's one or two passages, at least in Scripture, you know? And yet God is, what, more pleased, you know? Charity is a kind of friendship. For the sake of this friend, you can even love some of your nature. In Shakespeare, in those last plays, right, the kind of mercy and forgiveness plays, I call them, right? You know, something like that, right? Because some man's, you know, charity, or whatever I put it, you know, is more pleasing, you know, than the iniquity of the man that he's deceiving for. Isabella deceives for Angela, right? You know, measure for measure. Measure for measure. I was taking the Scripture, right? The words measure for measure, right? Yeah. Take a little break now? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now down to Article 5, I guess, huh? For the Christ by his passion opened for us the gate of heaven. To the fifth one precedes us. It seems that Christ by his passion did not open for us the gate of heaven. For it is said in Proverbs 11, 18, to the one sowing justice, that's a faithful reward, huh? But the reward of justice is entry into the heavenly kingdom. Therefore, it seems that the Holy Fathers who did the deeds of justice faithfully achieved entry into the heavenly kingdom, even without the passion of Christ. Therefore, the passion of Christ was not the cause of the opening of the heavenly gate to heaven. The gate of the heavenly kingdom. Moreover, before the passion of Christ, Elias was taken up into heaven, as is said in the fourth book of Kings. But the effect did not precede the cause. Therefore, it seems that the opening of the heavenly gate was not in effect to the passion of Christ. Moreover, as is read in Matthew 3, Christ, you know, the heavens opened up. But the baptism precedes passion. Therefore, the opening of heaven is not in effect to the passion of Christ. Moreover, it is said he ascended preparing the way before us. But nothing other seems to be preparing the way to heaven than to open the, what, gate. Therefore, it seems that, again, heaven is open for us, not to the passion, but to the ascension of Christ. Oh, there you go. Okay. It thoroughly confused the matter. Yeah. So, an old teacher considered saying, the physical teacher is to confuse the issue. Yeah. I said it sounds like joy and stuff. But again, this is what the apostle says, Hebrews 10. We have confidence in the entry of the saints, or the holy places, in the blood of, what, Christ. I answered, it should be said that the closing of the gate, this is kind of a metaphor, is the obstacle, right? It's an obstacle preventing men from entering. Men are prevented from entering in the heavenly kingdom on account of sin. Just as it's said in Isaiah chapter 35, that way is called holy. And there are not a Passover to anyone who was polluted with sin, I guess. But there is a twofold sin impeding one from the entry into the heavenly kingdom. One is that common to the whole human race, which is the sin of the first parent. And through this sin, every man was prevented from entering into the heavenly kingdom. Once it is read in Genesis 3.24, that after the sin of the first man, God, what? He stared the cherubim and a flaming sword, you know, turn around and saw it, right? To guard him away to life, to your life. Another is a special sin of each person. Through his own act, his own act is committed, yeah. But the passion of Christ, through the passion of Christ, we are liberated not only from the common sin of the whole human race, as regards both the guilt and the punishment, he paying the price for us, but also from his own sins, right? The sins of each one, who communicate to his passion through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And therefore, through the passion of Christ, is open for us the door of the heavenly kingdom. And this is what the apostle says, Hebrews 9, that Christ, the high priest of the future goods, through his own blood entered once into the holy, holy, right? Having found eternal, what? Redemption. And this is signified in Numbers, chapter 35, where it is said that the homicide, well, what? In the city of Refuge, until the great priest dies, who is anointed, the holy oil. Yeah, you'll be able to go back to his house. To go back to his house, yeah. That's interesting. The religion has slayered before he's in his mother, the man who has slain without hatred and envy. What's this, the homicide, right? Yeah. Okay, now, what about the, the, uh, the fathers. Yeah. About the doing the deeds of justice, right? Mm-hmm. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Holy Fathers doing the deeds of justice merited entry into the heavenly kingdom through faith and the passion of Christ. Mm-hmm. According to that of Hebrews, chapter 11, the saints, through faith, conquered kingdoms, huh? They worked justice, through which also each one is purged from sin as regards the cleansing of his own person, right? But, nevertheless, the faith of one person, right, or his justice does not suffice to remove the impediment that was present through the, uh, you might say, the whole human creature, right? Mm-hmm. which was removed by the price of the blood of Christ. And, therefore, before the passion of Christ, no one could enter the heavenly kingdom by, what, obtaining eternal beatitude, which consists in the full, what, enjoyment of God, huh? Mm-hmm. To effect the original sin there, right? The effect of the... Mm-hmm. Now, what about Elias, huh? Oh, he was raised up to the aerial heaven, right? Aerial heaven, not to the imperial heaven, which is the place of the blessed, Mm-hmm. And, similarly, neither Hanaka, who was carried up to the, what, a terrestrial paradise, where he's believed to live together with Elias, right, until the advent of the Antichrist, Those would be the two witnesses, I think. Yeah. Hmm. It's interesting, when you read the life of Columbus, I guess he believed in the world that there was going to be this, that's where the credit union had been, you know? Oh. And that there was a place where it raised up, you know, and the top of that's where it was. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. What about baptism of Christ, what the heavens opened up? It should be said, as has been said above, that Christ being baptized, the heavens opened up, huh? Not on account of Christ himself, to whom always the heaven was opened, you might say, right? But to signify that the heaven is open to the baptized by the baptism of Christ, which has efficacy from his passion. I knew he was going to say that. Yeah. To the fourth, it should be said, this is about the ascension, that Christ, by his passion, merited for us entry into the heavenly kingdom, and he removed the impediment. but through his passion, he has where he reduced us into the possession of the heavenly kingdom, huh? And therefore, it is said that ascending, he prepared the, what, trip before us, huh? We're going to say that to the sky, too, huh? With a Christ who his own passion merited to be exalted, right? To the sixth, one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ who his own passion did not merit to be exalted. For just as knowledge of the truth is proper to God, so also sublimity, according to that of Psalm 112. Raised up above all nations, the Lord, and above the heavens, this is what? Glory. But Christ, according as man, had knowledge of all truth, not from some preceding merit, but from the union of God and man. According to that of John 1, we saw his glory as that of the only begotten, from the Father, full of grace and truth. Therefore, neither exaltation did he have from the merit of passion, but from the union alone. Maybe something about his body, right? Moreover, Christ merited from the first instant of his conception, as has been said above. But there was not greater charity in him in the time of passion than, what, before. Christ is not growing in the virtues, or going from virtue to virtue, like the saints do. Therefore, since charity is the principle of meriting, it seems that he did not merit more through his, he did not merit his exaltation more through his passion than before, right? Objection. Yeah. Moreover, the glory of the body results in the glory of the soul, as Augustine says in the Epistle to Deoscaris. But Christ, through his passion, did not merit exaltation as regards the glory of the soul, because his soul was blessed from the first instant of his conception. Therefore, also, neither through his passion did he merit exaltation as regards the glory of the body. It can actually result from the glory of the soul, right? But against all this is what is said in Philippians chapter 2. He was made obedient to death, right? The death, however, of the cross, on account of which God has, what, exalted him. Well, I answer myself, Thomas says, that merit implies a certain equality, what? To justice. Whence, Apostle says, and to the one who works right, a reward, I guess, is imputed according to a kind of debt. It's kind of owed to him, as it were. Now, when someone from his own unjust will attributes to himself more than he ought, right, it is just that he be diminished, right, as regards that which is owed to him, as who steals one sheep, is it? Renders four, right? As it's said in Exodus 22. And he is said to merit this, insofar as through this, he is punished one who has a bad will. Yeah, that's what Zacchaeus said, like to find that money. It's not worth it. Yeah. This also, when someone from a just will takes away what he ought to have, yeah, yeah. He merits that something further be added above, right? As it were, the merit of his just will. And thus it is said in Luke 14, who humbles himself shall be what? Exalted. But Christ over in his passion humbled himself below his dignity in four ways. First, as regards his very passion and death, of which he was not a deader. Second, as regards the place, because his body was placed in the, what, tomb, his soul in hell, right? Third, as regards the confusion and the insults, I guess, right, which he sustains. Fourth, as regards this, that he was handed over to, what, human power, according as he says to Pilate, you would not have any power unless it was given to you from above. And therefore, through his passion, he merited exaltation, as regards four things. First, as regards his glorious resurrection. Whence it is said in Psalm 138, you know my sitting down, that is the humility of my passion, and my resurrection, right? Second, as regards his ascent to heaven, right? Whence it is said in Ephesians 4, he descended first in the lower parts of the earth, and the one who descends, he it is also who ascends over all the heavens. Third, as regards the concession of the right hand of the Father, right, and the manifestation of his divinity, according to that of Isaiah chapter 52. He will be exalted and elevated, and he will be very sublime, right? Just as many over him, thus... So it's so glorious, what they look among them, so they'll be astonished. They'll be astonished at his glory. And Philippians 2, he was made obedient unto death, the death of the cross, and account of which God has exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name, that to wit, by all he would be named God, and all would show him what? Reverence. And this is what is joined, that in the name of Jesus, every knee might be bent, right? Celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. And fourth, it regards the judiciary power, for it is said in Job 36, your cause is that of the, what, impious, was judged, you receive judgment, and what, cause, whatever that means to that. If thy cause has been judged, as that of the wicked, cause and judgment, thou shalt recover. Yeah. No, because of the, false judgment, he deserves to judge, right? Did you say, a case, like a quick thing? Yeah. You're kind of wondering, you're gone. He had it, in Shakespeare, where the man has been falsely accused, you know, and then he's made the, the judge of his own case, right? No, it's kind of, it's not. To the first therefore, it should be said, that the beginning of merit, merit is on the side of the soul, right? But the body is the tool, of a meritorious act, and therefore, the perfection of the soul, of Christ, which was the, uh, beginning of merit, thing, ought not in him, to be acquired through, Merit. Just as a perfection of the body, which was subject to the passion, and through this, was the tool, of what? Merit, huh? So, he's saying, the soul of Christ, was not perfected, through its, what? Through its merit, right? But the body could be, right? It would, would, would, um, depend upon the soul for this, right? But, but, but the actual meritorious act would be, in the bodily suffering, right? Or was it impossible that the body would lack, its own perfection, right? It could be, in a certain, merit, its own perfection, right? But the soul already was perfect, right? So, that Christ merited something, in, in his, uh, his soul. Because even the four things he gives in the body article, the first is, the resurrection of the body, right? In the sentient heaven, that's really more the, the body, right? And then, the city at the right hand. But even the judgment is, is given in his human, bodily presence, right? Now, what about the merit, from the first instant of his conception? I'm not saying a little different, than what I said here. Through his prior merits, Christ merited exaltation, from the side of his, what? So, whose will, was informed by charity, and other virtues. But in the passion, he merited his exaltation, by way of a certain, what? Recompense, Also from the side of the body. For it is just, that the body, which was, from love, from charity, subject to passion, huh? Would receive a, compensation, in, what? Glory, huh? Now, what about, the glory of the body, he thought of the glory of his soul. Well, we know that Christ didn't allow that glory to flow, right? It should be said, that by a certain dispensation, it was made in Christ, that the glory of the soul, before the passion, did not be down to the body, in order that he might obtain the glory of the body, in a, what? More honorable way, right? When he merited it, through his, what? Action. But the glory of the soul, it was not suitable to be deferred, huh? Because the soul is immediately united to the word, huh? When it was, what? Fitting, that it be filled with glory from the word, right? But the body is united to the word by means of the soul, right, huh? So he's talking about, what? Meriting exaltation of his body, right? To what his body underwent, huh? Commanded by soul, huh? I should stop there, huh? I think that's a question, and Thomas doesn't leave anything untouched here, huh? Death of Christ, huh? The death, and then the, the burial, right? Death, burial, descent. In the descent of Infernos, he was talking about it one time, in the forgotten article, you have it in one of the creeds, not the other one, I don't, I don't think it's in the, it's in the Nicene Creed? It's in the, it's in the Apostles' Creed, right? Yeah, I think you're right. On the Nicene Creed, In the Nicene Creed, then he just said that he died strictly, just as he suffered. Passers had support, that's kind of way, I suppose, death, he suffered there, too. Did he say suffered, died, and was buried? We say it in English, but when I can't remember, Passers had support, but I suppose you could say, does it include death? I suppose you could say, I suppose you could say, I suppose you could say, I suppose you could say, I suppose you could say, I suppose you could say, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our might in it, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, open and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, enjoy it, Doctor. Pray for us. And help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. There's a little side here, which I've got represented on the board here. A little text I'll sing in the sentences there. If you compare the fatherhood, right, of God the Father, is the fatherhood and the divine nature, is there any distinction between those two in reality? Are they two different things? There's no real distinction between those two. Now, likewise, between the fatherhood and God the Father, is there any real distinction? And the Father, yeah. No distinction, huh? Okay. What has it been now? No distinction. There's no real distinction, right? But there is a distinction, Thomas says, secundum rationum, right? And more precisely, maybe, you use the term, the way of signifying, right? Mori significandi. Okay. But is it the same distinction of reason on this side and on that side? I know we probably covered this, but it seems like the divine nature gives rise maybe to the, well... You don't want to say that, too. No, I don't want to say that. No. That's right. That's right. Stop. Yeah. Well, the distinction between these two, right, is a common distinction in talking about God. And they just describe it as the concrete and the, what, abstract, right? Okay. Just like we said, God is good, God is good, or God is goodness itself, right? Or God is wise, or he's wisdom itself, right? Okay. And that's the kind of distinction between these two, right? It's like the distinction between deitasan and deusan, or, you know, he loves and he loves itself, right? Okay. But the distinction between fatherhood and the divine nature is not one of abstract and concrete. What is the distinction there? His relation has an origin to another person. Okay. So this is in the genus of relation, right? Why the divine nature is in the genus of what? Substance. So you have a distinction there of what? Two different, what? Genera. Yeah. But here, you don't have a distinction of two different genera, but the abstract and the concrete in the same, what? Genus, in this case, the genus of relation. That's kind of subtle text that Thomas says, right? It's putting out, you know, he has this one question and the sentences. An article, whether these are the same, and an article, whether these are the same, right? Then, after he's kind of shown both to be true, and he's pointing out there's not a real distinction, but a distinction of reason, according to the way of signifying, here, it's this common kind of distinction in theology between the abstract and concrete, and here, between those different genera. It's kind of striking the text of Thomas, the clarity in which he sees those things, right? But God isn't in a genus, right? And in theology, why do we have that? Well, Thomas says that the abstract is simple and imperfect in creatures, right? So, if you talk about my knowledge or my health, something simple, but it's imperfect because it doesn't exist by itself, right? My knowledge is that by which I teach, but my knowledge doesn't teach you, does it? Okay? And this is the abstract. And in the concrete, he says, signifies as something composed and what? Perfect, huh? Okay. And so, he says, that's the reason why I used to know people say you can both affirm and deny all these words of God, right? We affirm the abstract because of its simplicity, right? And we affirm the concrete because of perfection signified by it. But we can deny them, right? If you abstract the reason and imperfection, you see, if God has wisdom, well then, that's all he is. He's that by which things are wise, but he's not wise himself, right? Or if you say God has wisdom, he's wise himself, right? And you bring out the perfection of God in knowing, but now you seem to have a composition of wisdom and the one who, what? Has it, right? And this goes back to our natural way of knowing. As Aristotle shows in the theory book about the soul, the proper object of our reason is the what it is of something, what? Sense or imagine, huh? The what is of a natural thing or a mathematical thing. And in all of these, the form is something, what? Simple, but imperfect, huh? And the perfect is always composed. So we can't, in this natural analogy we have of God, right, the analogy we have of God in his lifetime, we can't in theology really transcend this way of speaking, right? And you have to say, well, I say that God has wisdom in himself not because he isn't wise, but because he's wise in a very simple way. And I say he's wise not to signify that there's a real distinction between the have and the had, right? But to bring out the perfection, right? What good would it be, or would wisdom be to me if by wisdom I was not wise? You know? It would be perfect, right? What good would health be, you know, if I had health, but I wasn't helping by it, right? So the perfect two creatures is always that, right? And so you have this problem that God, and these are usually the first two things I can assume of, you know, Jane, right? You take these up together, but God is simple and it is what? Perfect, huh? But the creatures who tend to have a confused, or composed one of perfect and imperfect and simple, so you can't really know God as he is, right? But we have to, um, who's Thomas Coates, is it, right? Where is somebody who says we stutter, you know? We stutter about the divine nature, right? And so we realize that this can only be applied to God by reason of simplicity. We say God is wisdom itself. He's justice itself, right? He's love itself, right? But we say it is for reason of perfection of knowing or loving or being just and so on. Yeah, okay. Now, one thing that interests me very much, though, in creative things, is that sometimes you have a faint reflection of God, and that is where what is more simple is also more, what? Perfect, huh? I'm being an old student of the poetics of Aristotle, huh? I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book and the poetic art, but the part and tragedy and epic has come down to us from Aristotle. I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the book, but I don't know if you've had a chance to read the