Tertia Pars
Lecture 129: The Ascension of Christ: Suitability, Nature, and Power

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

Now we go to the next question, which is on the ascension of Christ. Then we're not to consider, and I guess a little premium is what I've seen you would say. Then we're not to consider about the ascension of Christ. And about this, six things are sought or asked. First, whether it was appropriate or suitable for Christ to ascend. Secondly, according to what nature it belonged for him to ascend. How can his divine nature ascend? It can't be any higher than that, right? Third, whether he ascended by his own power. Fourth, whether he ascended above all the bodily heavens. Fifth, whether he ascended above all spiritual creatures. And sixth, about the effect of the ascension, right? Thomas Aquinas has the disputed questions about spiritual creatures. There's 11 articles in it. But sometimes they call them separate substances, right? They also call them spiritual creatures. First of all, was it suitable or convenient for Christ to ascend? He's going to argue against this, right? Stubborn man about these things, huh? To the first, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that it was not suitable for Christ to ascend. For, as the philosopher says, that's the Aristotle by Antonia Masia. This is Aristotle, who calls Homer sometimes the poet. And the Federalist Vapors quote Shakespeare, but identify him as the poet says. He's the poet. Where Aristotle says in the second book on the universe, the Ticero Mundo, that those things which have themselves in the best way, right, possess their own good without motion. Because motion is to acquire something you don't have, right? But Christ had himself in the best way, right? Because according to his divine nature, he was the highest good, huh? The sumbono. And according to his human nature, he was supremely glorified, huh? In the highest way. So you're not going to be as glorious in your body when you resurrect, even you're saved, as Christ's body is glorious, huh? Therefore, he has his good without motion. But ascension is a certain motion. Therefore, it is not suitable that Christ should ascend. That's pretty convincing, huh? Well, maybe you're talking about, you know, an exterior good, huh? Moreover, everything that moves, moves for something better, huh? But for Christ, it was not better to be in heaven than to be on earth. For nothing accrued to him through the fact that he was, what, in heaven. Either as regards his soul, right? His soul was no wiser, was it, for having ascended, right? Nor as regards his body, right? Because his body was glorious once he ascended. Therefore, it seems that Christ ought not to ascend into heaven, huh? Let's seem to indicate that he would seek something better, right, huh? Amazing, Thomas gets these arguments, huh? Where's he get the other one? Yeah, you've got to dig these little tidbits up on it, in order to take them out of context. But stumbling blocks in everybody's way. Moreover, the Son of God assumed human nature for our salvation, huh? But it would be more salutary, or saving for men, that he would always, what, converse with us on earth, right? As he himself says to disciples, huh? There will come a day, right, when you desire to see one day of the Son of Man, and you will not see it, huh? Therefore, it seems that it was not suitable for Christ to ascend, what, to heaven, huh? Do you remember those parts in the Life Theory of St. Teresa of Avila, you know, where Christ is present in his human nature with her? But she can't quite express the way he's with her, you know? It's not by simply imaginary vision, or even by the eyes, you know? But she's, you know, completely certain of his presence there next to her. Didn't he say to her once something that, you know, she thought he was, like, sensibly present, and he corrected her and said, I'm not present that way anymore, or something like that? I remember somebody telling that I haven't read it, but I... One of these very impressive, one time in my life where Christ says to her, I will have you converse with angels and not with men. That's so beautiful, you know? But I will converse with angels and not with men. It's just... So wouldn't it be better for him to stay on earth, right, as they... It might be for us. Moreover, as Gregory says in the 14th book of Moralia, The body of Christ, right, in no way was changed after the resurrection. But not immediately after the resurrection did he ascend to heaven, right? But he said himself, right after the resurrection, I have not yet ascended to my Father. So is that Mary Magdalene, is it? Therefore, it seems that neither after 40 days ought he to, what, ascend, huh? But against all, this is what the Lord himself says, John 20. I will ascend to my Father and your Father, right? Thomas would say he's my Father and your Father in a somewhat different way, huh? He's his son and we're his sons in a somewhat different way. There's some likeness there, huh? I was saying this thing from the founder of Opus Dei there, you know? That's Christian. He says, there's more distance between you and God than between you and a two-year-old. And then he says, but, you know, a two-year-old, you're a child of God, right? And don't forget it, he says. Son of God. Good, good, he said, huh? Warren Murray is asking me if he could say, you know, there's more distance between you and God than between you and a cockroach or something. There's an infinite distance, you know? Thomas says it's a beautiful argument where, you know, he's going through everything God knows, right? And some people say he doesn't know lowly things, right? Because he wouldn't be coming in to know lowly things, right? And Thomas says, well, the difference between these lowly creatures and the highest creatures, right, is like nothing compared to the distance between even the highest creature and God, right? So if there was a reason for God not to know the lowly things, because that low distance, then the reason for him not to know any of these creatures, you know? It beautifully said, you know, before I go. Now, Thomas says, I answer. It should be said that place ought to be proportioned or suitable to the, what, thing in place? Locust to the located, right? But Christ, through his resurrection, You know, he's going to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or not to be proportioned or begin a what? Immortal and incorruptible life, according to this human nature, right? But the place in which that we inhabit, we dwell. The place in which we dwell is the place of generation and what? Corruption. But the heavenly place is the place of incorruption, especially in the old understanding of heaven. That's right. And therefore, it is not suitable that Christ, after the resurrection, remained on earth. But it was suitable that he ascended to heaven, right? A suitable place for him, huh? Now, what about the first objection from the philosopher, right? That the best things possess their good without motion. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that best having itself, that without motion it possesses its own good, is God, right? Who is omnino, entirely, completely immutable, right? According to that of Malachi, chapter 3, verse 6. I am the Lord, and I do not, what? Change, you know? I have some heretics now, I want to say God changes, you know? He gets all shook up with our loving heaven, so... It's a little exaggeration, but they're saying something like that, you know? Leave no stone unturned. What? Leave no stone unturned. Yeah. Model of Pharisees. But every creature is in some way, what? Changeable. As is clear through Augustine in the book on Genesis, to the letter, right? I guess Augustine did a couple works in Genesis, and one of them was criticized by Jerome, I think. And so he wrote something on Genesis, to the letter, you know? And because the nature assumed by the Son of God remains, what? Something created, right? As is clear from those things which have been said above, it was not unsuitable if to it some motion is attributed, huh? Now, what about getting better in regards to his soul or his body in this thing, huh? To the second it should be said, that through this, that Christ is sent into heaven, nothing accrued to him as regards what is of the essence of glory, either according to his body, right? Or according to his soul. So his body did not become any more glorious, or his soul any more blessed, right? Nevertheless, there are, what, accrued to him some things as regards the suitability, right? The decency of his place, right, huh? Which is for the, what, beniesi, the well-being of glory, huh? Not that to his body something either of perfection or of conservation was acquired from the heavenly body, right, huh? But only in accordion to a certain, what, fittingness, yeah. And this in some way pertained to his glory, right, huh? And of this, and of this fittingness, he could have a certain, what, joy, huh? Not that then, newly, he began, what, rejoice about it when he ascended to heaven, but because in a new way he rejoiced about it, huh? As of a thing, what, fulfilled, huh? Whence upon that of Psalm 15, delights at your right hand forever, right? Whiskling through, or to the end. The gloss says, huh? That delight and joy, joy, see? Thou be in me, in what? Sitting down, human what? And with all the human octutibus, where are the octutibus, I'm guessing, the things that are... How do you translate that octutibus there? Well, anything that pertains to human vision or human sight, or goes away? They can go away from the sight of that. The sight of men, okay. Octutibus has to do with gazing or contemplating. Now, the third objection is a little different here, huh? This is talking about us, right? I mean, better for us now, but he's stated, right? To the third, it should be said, that although the presence, the body presence of Christ, was subtracted or taken away from the, what, faithful, by his ascension, right? The presence, nevertheless, of his divinity, was always, what, to the faithful. According to that, which he himself says, Behold, I am with you all days, even to the, what? The consummation of the age. For who ascended to heaven does not desert us, adopted ones, as Leo Papa says. Because you see in the Eucharist that he's even present in his, what? Bodily, yeah. That's in between, in a sense. You don't always have that. But the ascension of Christ in heaven, by which he subtracted his bodily presence of us, was more useful for us than his bodily presence would have been. Thomas says this in many places, you know. But now, see the reasons he gave us here. First, an account of the growth of faith, right? Which is about things not seen. Whence the Lord himself says, John 16, that the Holy Spirit coming will argue or convict the world of justice, that is, of those things which they believe. For as Augustine says upon John, the, what? Person of the faithful will be a, what? Condemnation of the unfaithful. Whence he adds, because I go to the Father, and now you will not see me. Blessed are those who do not see and believe, right? It will therefore be our, what, justice, huh? About which the world will be, what, convicted, right? Because in me, whom you do not see, you, what, believe, huh? Secondly, to the raising up of hope, right? So he's going to divide these reasons according to faith, hope, and, what, charity, huh? Whence he says, John 14, if I go away, prepare for you a place, right? I will come again, and I will take you to myself. That where I am, you also will be, right? So through this, that Christ gathered up his, what, human nature, soon into heaven, he gives us the hope of arriving there, right? Because where is the body? There the eagles will be, what, gathered, right? I don't know why people want to translate that, you know, why translate it to, yeah. Yeah, yeah, I don't know why they do that. You see that in some new Bible? Yeah, I'm not sure if the Greek word is ambiguous. Yeah, but I mean, it seems more appropriate to translate it as Aquila, you know, the eagles, right? Yeah, yeah. There's no way around. I always think, my brother Mark talks about, about, you know, he and, and, uh, Ron McCartney and so on, and, and, uh, Pete Luke and so on, climbing the mountains, right? And my brother Mark and Peter kind of hedge, you know, and Ron's kind of getting tired. And then you see the, you know, these things start surfing over your head. Then you see, you see the guy's kind of falling behind, you know. There's encouragement to go on, you know. I mean, my brother Mark says, as soon as they come right down to you, you know, to, you know, to see if you're ready. They're ready. They smell carrying, carrying flesh. Talk to you off. Yeah, talk to you off enough. Yeah. It's a pace to be in shape, you know, before you go climbing the mountains, you know. Once it is said, um, in, uh, Mickey S, uh, he goes up, he is. Sins, right? Preparing the way before us. It's kind of interesting, huh? Usually you see Thomas talking about it in terms of faith, you know, but he gives in terms of hope as well. It's very interesting. Third to what? Raising up the affection of charity to heavenly things. Whence the Apostle says, Colossians 3, seek what is above, right? Where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, right? Savor the things which are above, not those things which are upon earth, right? And as is said in Matthew chapter 6, where your treasure is, there also your heart will be. And because the Holy Spirit is love, carrying us away to heavenly things, therefore the Lord says to the disciples, John 16, it's expedient for you that I go, for if I do not go, the paraclete will not come to you. If however I leave, I will send him to you. Which Augustine expounding upon John says, you are not able to what? Receive the Spirit. Yeah, to grasp on the sound of the Spirit, so long as you persist in knowing according to the flesh. But Christ, however, departing bodily, right? Not only the Holy Spirit, but also the Father and the Son was, what, present to them? Spiritually, yeah? Okay. It would be too much attached to the flesh of Christ, right? Rather than to his, what, divinity, I suppose. Yes, Mary Magdalene was in a tundra. Yeah. One of the saints on our calendar is an early martyr named Aqualina, which is a little 12-year-old girl, little eagle. And I remember because I heard for a while that our calendar kept spelling it Aqualina. And so I told the, let's hear Michael, it's like, look, she's a little eagle, now we're going to drip. And then he wrote back, well, he says, yes, she's from Biblos, which is my hometown. And my family goes, no, she's a little eagle. That's a beautiful text there now. And that'd be your sermon there in the Feast of the Ascension now, the raw material now, you've got to proportion it to the congregation. Break it up, pre-chewed food, as we call it. Yeah. On the fourth, it widens to lay, if this is the appropriate place you're going to be. To the fourth, it should be said, that although to Christ rising to immortal life, there was congruent or suitable a celestial place, nevertheless, he put off his ascension, right? That he might, what? Prove, in a sense, the truth of the resurrection, right? Whence it is said in Acts 1, verse 3, that after the Passion, he, what? Gave himself, or showed himself, living to the disciples in many, what? Arguments, you might say, in many signs, through 40 days, right? Whence the gloss says that because he was dead 40 hours, he confirmed himself to be alive in 40 days, or through the 40 days, the time, the present age, by which Christ is conversant in the church, can be understood. According to his man, he's from the, what, four elements, and he's instructed against transgression in the Decalade. So they see significance in the 40 days, right? In general, the reason is that he wants to approve his, what, resurrection, right? You want to say some parting words to the apostles, too, huh? That's the joke that St. Peter has good news and bad news on Easter Sunday when he comes back from the tomb and they say, well, what's the good news? God has truly rose from the dead. And they're happy. Well, what could possibly be the bad news? He says, well, he wants to talk about it last Friday. Those are his parting words. Well, the chapel where, where the college of St. Thomas there, the University of St. Thomas, I was a student there, you know, they have a beautiful painting there of the ascension there, you know. Could you imagine what they'd like from those apostles when they see him taken away from them? Now they keep on looking up there in the sky, right? He's coming back in there. And then there was haunting words, too, where it says some doubted. Yeah. Yeah. Is it Matthew or Mark? I can't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. Now, whether to ascend to heaven belongs to Christ according to his divine nature. Strange atonement. I have an article in this, right? It seems kind of obvious that it's not that. The second one proceeds thus. It seems that to ascend in heaven belongs to Christ according to his divine nature. How the heck is that an argument? Such a... For it's said in Psalm 46, God ascends in jubilation. Okay, let's see. And you're in army 33. The one who ascends to heaven is your what? Helper, I guess. But these are said of God even before the incarnation of Christ. Therefore, it belongs to Christ to ascend into heaven according as he is what? God. Moreover, is there the same one to ascend to heaven of whom it is to descend from heaven? According to that of the words in John 3, For no one ascends to heaven except the one who descends from heaven. Ephesians 4. Who descends? He it is also who ascends. But Christ descends from heaven not according as he is man, but according as he is God. For human nature was not in heaven before, but the divine. Therefore, it seems that Christ ascends in heaven according as he is God. That's a pretty clever one, Thomas. Moreover, Christ, by his ascension, ascends to the Father. But to equality with the Father, he does not arrive according as he is man. For thus he says, he is greater than me, right? Therefore, it seems that Christ descended according as he is God, right? No way he gets this from, it's from the students' exams. I remember one time I was collecting the students, you know, talking about the definition of motion there in natural philosophy, you know, and all the ways they misunderstand it and misstate the definition. It's amazing how many ways they can do it, you know. You wouldn't think the human mind would be kibble, that would be any mistakes, but it is. Somebody, when we studied with the Franciscans in history philosophy, they went over, among others, they went over Scotus and his doctrine, which could be unsurprisingly translated as this-ness. So, somebody wrote a whole paper on his doctrine of thinness. He just misread the word on the board. That's the whole doctrine of thinness. Okay. The doctrine for our tines. Tines, really. The doctrine for the obese. Against this is what is said in Ephesians 4, by the gloss on the text, what ascends, what is it except what descended? It stands to reason, I guess, that according to his humanity, Christ descended and what? Ascended, right? He descended by taking on human nature, right? The answer should be said that the phrase, secundum quad, I know it's the Latin there, huh? Respondio decendum quad, and then it has a little L-Y there, right? I mean, that's the medieval Latinist kind of trying to make an article in Latin, right? One of the parts of speech is missing in Latin, huh? And that, incidentally, is also one thing I noticed there in reading scripture, because, you say, and I don't say in principio erit verbum, right, huh? But in Greek it'll say, in Archein, ho logos, right? So you have the article there, and it kind of gives you the idea that this is being said by Antoinette Massey, huh? This is the thought, huh? The logos. Yes. And you see your perfect language there, this Latin. I think I mentioned, too, how when they studied Latin grammar, they realized the Latin grammarians did not understand their own language, and they had copied the Greek grammar, and then stuck on with it and took the addition to the Greek one. And that's why the order which you learn the cases in Latin is incorrect, huh? And it's following the order of the Greek, huh? And the Greek will have, you know, just like the genitive, the dative, the accusative. And the genitive, I guess, is used for what is imagined to be before the action of the verb. The dative with it, and the accusative after it. Of course, the dative in Latin comes after the accusative. I gave the book to you, right? The book would be the accusative, and to you would be the dative, right? And then the additive, they stuck on, because that seemed to be something the Latin's had, the Greeks didn't have, where you go to add it on to the list, right? But the additive actually functions like the genitive in Greek, right? Before the verb, meaning, right? So they didn't understand their own language. And then I guess we meant to have the Latin grammarians not understanding the English language, which is the same guy said as the greatest invention of the human mind, he thinks. The English language. But it's a kind of marvelous language in some ways. Rival Greek. The English philosophers are so bad as a sign of how bad they are. They had such a magnificent language to work with, huh? Once you did, you know, praise St. Thomas who was thinking so well in Latin, and Greek is so much superior. And I say, I brought St. Dian so great to think as well as he did in French. And English is so superior as he himself. He told me many times that English was superior to French for philosophy and for poetry. Despite his native language being in French, huh? Warren Murray assures me that the English novel is far superior to the French novel. So our answer, it should be said that Lee, a way, huh? Lee se kundum kwa, that phrase, can note two things, right? Maybe the condition of the one ascending, right? And the cause of the ascension, right? And if it designates the condition of the one ascending, then to ascend is not able to belong to Christ according to the condition of the divine nature. Because nothing is, what? Higher than the deity, right? Divine nature. Of which he could ascend, right? Nothing above, nothing above the divine nature that he could ascend to. Also because ascension ascension is a locomotion which cannot belong to the divine nature, right? Which is immobile and what? Not in place, huh? And in this way, ascension belongs to Christ according to his human nature, which is contained in what? Place. and is able to be subject to what? Motion, huh? Whence, in this sense, we are able to say that Christ ascended to heaven according as he is man, not according as he is, what? God. If our secundum quad designates it's the cause of the ascension since also Christ from the power of his divinity, right? Ascended to heaven, not however from the power of his, what? Human nature, right? Let's talk about the principal cause, huh? It should be said that Christ ascended to heaven not according as man but according as what? God is chiefly through his power as God. Once Augustine says in the Sermon on Ascension, De Nostrofui, I guess being of our nature, right? That the Son of God hung on the cross, right? Of his own that he ascended there. Nice little text from Augustine, huh? So Thomas sees the distinction there, right? Divine nature could not ascend, the human nature could, but the human nature might ascend. by the power of the divine nature as the principal cause anyway, right? Because it has a meritorious cause. Well, no, but I mean that the power to, what, grow up doesn't belong to human nature through being the human body as such, right? But is there a meritorious cause on the part of his human nature? Well, there might be, yeah. He merited that, right? I mean, the way Thomas will say sometimes he, what, by his death he merited his resurrection and by his descent into hell, his ascension. I'd like to add, if I can, a little bit, by his early coming, his glorious coming at the end, huh? And you have the, you know, the three, the three articles of faith, the descent, and then the three, the ascent, right, huh? That's one way of dividing the six articles in the Apostles' Creed, huh? And the other way is in the Te Deum, right? How to divide it, right? We divide it into three, right? You have the coming into this world, and then you have his death, which is the main thing, why he came to die for us, right? And the three things that follow from that, huh? And then you have the second coming, which was going to come to judge us, and so on. So you have it into three, and the middle divided into the passion and the three effects, right? When you overcome the sting of death, you open up the glory, huh? Which then he divides according to the good of the soul, the good of the body, and the exterior good, because of the sense of completeness, huh? And I was trying to reason out for the students there, in class there, what the chief good of man was, huh? I first showed that the inside goods, meaning the goods of the soul and the goods of the body, are better than the outside goods. And then the next thing is to show that the goods of the soul are better than the goods of the body, right? Did you convince them? One student said, nobody thinks that you think for a question. It's girls and money, you know. Odd man out. You're the odd man out. Now, the first objection here is in regard to these texts, you know, that seem to be said about God in the Old Testament, huh? To the first therefore it should be said that those authorities, prophetically, right, are said of God according as he was to be, what? Incarnated. Incarnated, huh? However, it is possible to say that to ascend, although it does not appropriate, right, does not properly belong to divine nature, it can nevertheless belong to it, what? Metaphorically. Metaphorically, huh? Insofar as it is said to what? He said to ascend in the heart of what? Man, huh? When the heart of man subjects himself to God and hums himself to God, right, huh? Again, you know, when Mary says, my soul magnifies the Lord, right, huh? How is that understood, right? Is she making him greater than he is? You know? That's what magnified means, doesn't it? To make. Great. He made himself greater than in her soul. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But if you apply it to God, you know, it's magnifying him, right? Mm-hmm. In the same way, metaphorically, he is said to ascend with respect to any creature from this that he subjects it to himself, right? So the same way he said that when we bless God? Yeah. That he isn't. If, if, if, um, uh, if we said that God, you know, uh, comes over us, right? Can that be said of God because we are coming under him? We're being subject to him, right? It's not like he's going up above us now. But we're subjecting ourselves to him, if you know, too, and so on. What about this text? The one who ascends is the one who descended, right, huh? Augustine says in the book on the Creed, right, on the symbol, who is it that, what, descends? It's the God-man, right? Mm-hmm. Who is it who ascends? The same God-man, right? For descent is in, uh, a two-fold descent is attributed to Christ, right? One by which he is said to, what, descend from heaven, which is attributed to the God-man according as he is, what, God. Not that this descent should be understood according to a locomotion, but according to this, what, emptying himself, right? By which when he was in the form of God, he, what, took on the form of a slave, right, there in the Philippians, this is the Philippians. Just as he is said to be, what, emptied, right? Mm-hmm. Not from this that he lost his own, what, fullness, huh? But from this that he took on our, what, littleness. So he is said to descend from heaven, not because he deserted heaven, right, but because he took on a earthly nature, right, huh, in the unity of his person. Another is the descent by which he descended in the lower parts of the earth, as is said in Ephesians 4, 9, which is a local descent, huh, whence it belongs to Christ according to the condition of his, what, human nature. We got to qualify that a bit, though, you know, because it's not like he's, his soul is, what, changing his place, right? But his power is being applied there, right? Mm-hmm. A little bit like we say of the angels, you know, in the right place. So he descended from heaven by taking on human nature, right? And he descends in his, what, human nature, right? Now, the third objection is going to unfold more later on, but he says to the third it should be said that Christ is said to ascend to the Father. He said, well, he's not equal as man to the Father. Insofar as he ascends to the sitting at the right hand of the Father, which belongs to Christ in some way according to his divine nature, in some way according to his human nature, as will be said below. We'll wait till we get to what's below, lest we proceed to sort of existence and seem to warn us against. So it's time for our break. Sure.