Tertia Pars
Lecture 132: Christ's Judicial Power: Nature, Attribution, and Universality

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

59. Then we ought to consider about the judicial power of Christ. About this, six things are asked. First, whether judicial power should be attributed to Christ, whether it belongs to him according as he is man, whether he obtained it right for merit or by merit. Fourth, whether his judicial power is universal with respect to all men. Fifth, whether besides the judgment that he does in this time, there should be expected a universal future judgment. And sixth, whether the judicial power extends even to... Yeah, here's his day level. I'm talking like I need you about this. But about the carrying out of the final judgment, more conveniently it will be tweeted when we consider about those things which pertain to the end of the world. Eschatology, as they call it. Now, however, it suffices to touch only upon those things which pertain to the dignity of Christ. To the first, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that judicial power should not be especially attributed to Christ. For the judgment of some seem to pertain to... What? Lordship. Whence it is said in Romans 14, who are you, right, to judge an alien or... Yeah. But to be the Lord of creatures has come to the whole Trinity. Therefore, it ought not to be... The judicial power ought not to be especially attributed to what? Christ. More with Daniel 7, it is said, The Ancient of Days sits. And after words is joined or added, Judgment sits and the books are what? Opened. But the Ancient of Days is understood the what? Father. Because, as Hilary says, the Father is eternity, right? It's appropriate to him. Therefore, the judicial power ought not to be attributed to the Father than to Christ. Moreover, it seems that the same one should judge to whom it belongs to what? Examine, I guess? But to examine, prosecute, pertains to the Holy Spirit, huh? For the Lord says, when he comes, that is to say, the Holy Spirit, he will convict the world of sin and of justice and of judgment. Therefore, the judicial power more ought to be attributed to the Holy Spirit than to Christ. So, to the Father, the Holy Spirit, and to the whole Trinity, huh? Not for that Christ. Not for that Christ. But, again, this is what is said in Acts 10 about Christ. This is the one who is constituted by God, the judge of the living, and the dead. The answer should be said that for judgment, or making judgment, three things are required. First, the power of what? Coursing, huh? Those are subject, huh? Once it says in Ecclesiasticus 7, Do not seek to become a judge unless you are able by power to break iniquities, huh? Secondly, there is required the zeal of rectitude, that someone not from hate or envies it, but from the love of justice gives forth a judgment, according to that of Proverbs 3, huh? Whom the Lord loves, he corrects, huh? And as were a father and his son, he, what? Pleases himself, huh? Third, there is required wisdom, huh? By which is formed the judgment, right? Whom is said in Ecclesiasticus 10, The wise judge judges his own, what? People. But the first two are presupposed to judgment, but properly, the third is that according to which is, what? Taken the form of judgment. Because the reason for the judgment is the law of wisdom, or truth, according to which it is, what? Judged, huh? And because the son is generated wisdom, right? And the truth proceeding from the father, and he perfectly, what? Represents it. Therefore, properly, the judicial power is attributed to the son of God, huh? Whence Augustine says in the book on true religion that this is the unchangeable truth, which is said to be, what? The law of all arts. This is rightly said to be the law of all arts, huh? And the art of the omnipotent arts, huh? That however, we, in all rational souls, rightly judge according to truth of what is below us, is thus true of us when we, what? Adhere to him, right? But only, what? Truth itself, what? Judges, huh? The ipsa vera nek pata. Neither the, what? The father doesn't judge about it or something? Yeah, neither the ipsa. There's a quote from Preston. The ipsa vera nek pata, too. It's not similar to it. It's in the design of the father does this, right, huh? I think so, yeah. But he's not less than it, huh? Yeah. And therefore, what the father judges, he judges, what? Through him, huh? Through the truth, yeah. Yeah. And therefore, afterwards, he concludes, the father, therefore, does not judge anyone, but he gives all judgment to the, what? Son, right, huh? Hmm. He seems to be arguing there in the body there in terms of the, what? Divine nature, the divine divinity of Christ, right? And what's appropriated to this thing like wisdom, right? Just like power is attributed to the father, right? It's in John's Gospel, the Lord says something about being a judge because he is the son of man, or something like that. Yeah. They'll come up with a second article, I guess. To the first, therefore, it should be said that from that argument is proven that the judicial power is common to the whole, what? Trinity. Trinity. Which is true. But nevertheless, through a certain appropriation, the judicial power is attributed to the son, yeah. Because wisdom is appropriated to him, right? True. That's why I go back to the first paragraph in the body there where he says the first two of these three things required, right, huh? Is more presupposed to judgment, right? But the form of judgment is more wisdom, right? Whereby you judge if this person is in accordance with the law or not, right? Right? Power is something, if the power was equal there, then that would be appropriate to the father, right? In the zeal, rectitude, right, huh? Kind of mean it would be appropriate to the Holy Spirit, huh? It's like when Thomas was talking about order there, right? He said, what belongs to the idea of order? And the first thing he says is distinction, right? But then he kind of corrects himself and says this is what. presupposed to order, right? But really, order consists in the before and after, right? But if this is before that, there must be some distinction between this and that. But the order is more that this is before that, right? And that this is not that, yeah? Here he seems to be saying, right? You've got to have power to judge, but that's not really, that's kind of presupposed to what the judgment is, right? The judgment is more like an act of reason, right? Therefore, tied up with wisdom, huh? Now to the second, huh? As Augustine says in the sixth book of the Trinity, to the Father's attributed eternity on account of the, what? Yeah. Which is implied in the notion of eternity. In other words, that the one is a beginning. It has no beginning, right? It has no beginning. But there, Augustine says that the Son is the art of the, what? Father, right, huh? And thus, therefore, the authority of judging is attributed to the Father insofar as he's the beginning of the, what? Son. But the ratio, the reason, the definition of judgment, is attributed to the Son, who is the art and the wisdom of the Father. That it's just as the Father makes all things through the Son insofar as he is his, what? His art. So also he judges all things through the Son, his own Son, insofar as he is his, what? Wisdom and truth. And this is signified in Daniel, where first it is said that the Ancient of Days sits. And afterwards, there is added that the Son of Man arrives all the way to the, what? Ancient of Days. And what? Yeah. Yeah, from the Ancient of Days, right? Whence is understood, which is given to be understood, that the authority of judging is before the Father, from which the Son receives the power of what? Judging, huh? To the third, it should be said, that Augustine says upon John, that thus Christ says that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin, as if he will say that he, what? he would diffuse into our hearts charity, right, huh? For thus, fear being cast out, huh? We will have the liberty of, what? Convicting, huh? Thus, therefore, to the Holy Spirit will be attributed judgment, not as regards the, what? Ratio, definition of judgment, but as regards the effect of judging, which men have. I suppose that's the second thing that was being spoken of, right? The zeal there, right, huh? So you have to have charity before you can judge, right? But you judge by your wisdom, right? It's kind of presupposed to it, though, huh? Okay, whether the judicial power belongs to him as man. To the second one proceeds thus, it seems that the judicial power does not belong to Christ according as his man. For Augustine says in the book about true religion, the vera religione, that judgment is attributed to the Son insofar as he is the law of the, what? First truth. But this pertains to Christ according as his God. Therefore, the judicial power does not belong to Christ according as he is man, but according as he is, what? God. Moreover, I might say, you know, he belongs to him insofar as his truth itself, right? And his truth itself is God, not as man, right? Kind of judged by the truth, right? Moreover, it pertains to the judicial power to reward those acting well, just as to punish the bad. But the reward of good works is eternal beatitude, which is not given except by God. For Augustine says upon John that by partaking of God, the soul becomes blessed, not by partaking of a holy soul. Therefore, it seems that the judicial power does not belong to Christ according as he is man, but according as he is, what? God. Somebody just told me the other day, I want to be holy so I can be closer to Christ. And I said, no, I think it's the other way to run it. Closer to Christ, I wasn't going to be. Because I think that's basically what I think. Moreover, to the judicial power of Christ pertains to judge the hidden things of hearts, right? According to that of 1 Corinthians 4, Do not judge before the time, right? When the Lord will come, who will illumine the things hidden in darkness, and make known the counsels of hearts. But this pertains to only the divine power, according to that of Jeremiah's son. Depraved is the heart of man, inscrutable. Who knows it, huh? I, the Lord, huh? Examining the hearts and proving the ring of the kidneys. Who gives to each one according to his, what? Way. Therefore, the judicial power does not belong to Christ according as he is man, but according as he is God. But against this is what is said in John 5, 27. He gives power, he gives him the power to make judgment, right? Because he is, what? The son of man. I answer it should be said that Christendom, upon John, in his commentary on John, seems to think that the judicial power does not belong to Christ according as his man. But only according as he is, what? God. Whence he expounds the authority of John, induced, that's the one that said counter, I guess. He gave, what? To make judge. Because he is the, what? Son of man. Yeah. Do not, what? What? This. For he did not, on account of this, receive judgment because he is man, right? But because he is the ineffable, unspeakable son of God, huh? On account of which he is a judge, right? Because those things which are said are greater than according to man. That is, solving this opinion, he says, Do not wonder that he is the son of man, for he is also the son of God, huh? Which he proves the effect of resurrection. Once he joins, or adds, There will come an hour in which all who are in monuments will hear the voice of the son of what? God, huh? It should be known, or that although before God, or with God, remains the primeval authority of judging, right? Nevertheless, to men it is committed, right? By God, judicial power, and even to the apostles we saw before, right? With respect, or to those who are subject to their, what? Jurisdiction, huh? Whence it is said, Deuteronomy 1, judge what is just, right? And afterwards is added, because it is a judgment of what? God. That is, by whose authority you judge, right? But it is said above that Christ, even in what? His human nature, is the head of the whole church. And under his feet, God subjects all things. Whence to him also it pertains, according to his human nature, to have judicial power. On account of which it seems that the force and authority of the gospel should be thus understood. He gave him, what? Power to make judgment, because he is the son of man. Not on account of the condition of his nature, because thus all men would have this power, as Chrysostom objects, right? But this pertains to the grace of the, what? The head, which Christ took in human nature. So he seems to be disagreeing with the great Chrysostom there. I see. No. It's amazing to tell him she'd disagree with the Chrysostom. It belongs over to Christ in this way, the judicial power, according to human nature, on account of three things, huh? First, on account of his, what? Agreement and affinity of him to men. For thus, God, through intermediate causes, right? As a word, being near to their effects, he operates, right? So also he judges by the man Christ men, right? That more sweet might be the judgment for men, huh? Once the Apostle says, Hebrews 4, we do not have a, what? High priest who cannot take passion on our infirmities, being tempted in all things, in likeness to us, right? But without sin. Let us therefore go with hope or confidence to the throne of his, what? Grace, huh? Secondly, because in the final judgment, as Augustine says, there will be a resurrection of the bodies of the dead, right? Which God will raise up through the Son of Man. Just as through the same Christ, he, what? In our souls. Yeah, insofar as he is the, what? Son of God. Son of God, huh? So he vivifies our souls insofar as the Son of God in our bodies. That's kind of interesting, huh? Yeah. Third, because as Augustine says in the book, on the words of our Lord, it will be right, huh? That they see, right? Those who are to be judged would see the judge, right? But both the good and the bad will be judged, right? It remains therefore that in judgment, the form of the servant will be shown both to the good and the bad. But the form of God will be served or be served. Kept. Kept for the good, yeah. So you can't see Christ in his divine nature, because then you'll be blessed, right? The bad. So he can't judge you and be seen by the bad in his divine nature, therefore it must be seen in his human nature. Yeah. That's said often by Thomas, you know? The second objection there, and the second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? It says, doesn't he raise the bodies by... The second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? The second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? The second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? The second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? The second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? The second point is going to correspond to that objection, right? Divine nature. What about truth? To the first, therefore, it should be said that judgment pertains to truth as to the rule of judgment, right? But to the man who is imbued with truth, it pertains according as he is one in some way with truth itself, as it were a certain law and a certain what? Living justice, right? Whence Augustine there introduces what is said in 1 Corinthians 2, that the spiritual one judges all, right? Now the soul of Christ, before that of other creatures, was more united to truth and was more what filled with that, huh? According to that of John 1, we saw him full of grace and what of truth. And according to this, it most of all pertains to the soul of Christ to, I don't know, judge all, right? So he's judging by truth, which is originally the divine substance, right? But he partakes of this truth. He's full of grace and of truth. So therefore, he can judge as we should judge by the truth. Our judges are not full of truth. This is very, very, very. Yeah, when we say the trinity of sin. In God, his wisdom and his justice are the same thing, not in all judges. To second it should be said that of God alone is it by his partaking of him to make these souls, what? Blessed, right, huh? But to bring men to beatitude insofar as he is the head and the author of their salvation it prolongs to what? Christ, right, huh? According to that of Hebrews 2 who brings many sons into glory, right, huh? The author of their salvation through his, what? Passion and suffering. Completed, right, or consummated. Now what about knowing the secrets of hearts and so on? To the third it should be said that to know the secrets of hearts and to judge per se belongs to God alone but from the, what? Reflux of divinity to the soul of Christ, huh? It belongs to him also to know and to judge the hidden things of the heart. It says and said above when we tweeted of the knowledge of what? Christ. And therefore it is said Romans 2 in that day when God would judge the hidden things of men through Jesus Christ. You know, speaking of the other day when you pray to Mary she must, what? Have quite a good knowledge, huh? In other words she has a bit of vision now, right? But in a bit of vision she must know each one of us, huh? Otherwise she could hardly be in a position to, what? Respond to all of our, what? Prayers, right? I think St. Alphonsus quoted from some theologian I can't remember which one of them who said how the Blessed Mother by being the mother of Christ she received a kind of he didn't use the word judicial but what's like a power of discretion over, you might say what the things we need so she could sort of tell him what to do in certain things Yeah, yeah. in part of the term and that's what often often, especially the Protestants I often say well, you know God trusted himself to live I think you can trust yourself Don't worry He trusted A lot of times people have a particular saint that they're attached to you know maybe that saint therefore will be aware of the fact that they're asking them to deceive for them, right? But everybody asks the Virgin to deceive for them so she must know all of us, huh? I don't know I don't know I don't know Did Christ merit to obtain this judicial power? To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ did not, from merit, obtain the judicial power, right? The judicial power follows upon the kingly dignity, royal dignity, according to that of Proverbs 20. The king who sits in the seat of judgment, the son of judgment, dissipates every evil by his grasp, by his sword. But the royal dignity Christ obtained without merit, for it belonged to him from this that he is the only begotten of God, according to that of Luke 1, that the Lord God will give him the seat of David, his father, and he will rule in the house of Jacob forever. Therefore, Christ did not obtain the judicial power from, what, merit, huh? There's something like that in Psalm 109, too, right, where it seems to be this day I begotten you, right? It seems like he's a king because of his divine generation, right? But he's not a priest by a divine generation. God can't be a priest, I don't think. In his divine nature, he can't be. Moreover, the judicial power belongs to Christ insofar as he is our head. But the grace of the head does not belong to Christ for merit, but it falls upon the personal union of the divine in human nature. According to that, we saw his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. And from his fullness we have all received, which pertains to the, what, notion of head, right? Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have, from merit, judicial power. In fact, saying that he didn't, or no, it's not only from merit, right? In other words, if he had not merited it, he would still have the power. Make me more one reason. We'll see what the Master says. Moreover, the Apostle says that the spiritual one judges all, that man is made spiritual by grace, which is not for merit, because otherwise there would not be grace, as is said in Romans 11. Therefore, it seems that the judicial power does not belong neither to Christ nor to others for merit, but from grace alone. Against, this is what is said in Job, chapter 36. Your cause, as it were, of someone, what? In this. Yeah, is judged, huh? In judgment and cause, you will, what? You see, you see. And Augustine says in the book on the words of the Lord, that the judge will sit, who sits under, what? He will, what, condemn those guilty, right? Who was himself made falsely, what? Guilt, huh? I answer it should be said that nothing prevents one and the same to be owed someone from diverse causes. Just as the glory of the body, rising, was owed to Christ not only in account of the, what, agreement of his divinity in account of the glory of his soul, but also from the merit of the humility of his, what, passion, right? And likewise, it should be said that judicial power belongs to the man Christ, both on account of the, what? Well, I'm not both, I didn't want that. On account of the divine person, right? On account of the dignity of person, and on account of the fullness of habitual grace, right? And nevertheless, also for merit, okay? He obtained it according to the justice of God, right, huh? That the judge would be the one who, what? For the justice of God fought and conquered, and who was unjustly, what, judged, huh? When he himself says, Apocalypse 3, I have conquered and I sit in the throne, or on the throne of my father, but on the throne is understood the judicial power. According to that, it's Psalm 9, one who sits upon the throne and, what, judges justice on him. So he seems to be answering the objection in that way, right? That the same thing can come for more than one reason, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that ratio proceeds about the judicial power according as it is owed to Christ from his union to the word of God, right? To the second, that reason proceeds from the part of the, what, grace of the head. To the third, it should be said that that reason proceeds from the part of the, what, habitual grace, which is perfected on the soul of Christ. But to the fact that in these ways is owed to Christ, the judicial power, is not excluded, but it could be owed to him also from Mary. Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right? Now, what is this next? To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that to Christ does not pertain to judicial power as regards, what? All human things, huh? For, as is said in Luke 12, when someone from the crowd said, say to my brother, you divide with me the heredity. He responds, man, who has constituted me a judge or a divider over you, huh? He does not, therefore, have judgment about all human things, huh? So in this glovel there among the grandchildren, he's supposed to come down and decide that? Moreover, no one has judgment except over those things which are subject to him. But Christ does not yet see all to be subject, right? Therefore, it seems that Christ does not have over all human things judgment, right? That's what it says in that Psalm 109, too. It says in my right hand, don't I carry on these footstools? Not a whole substitute yet. Augustine says, chapter 20 of the city of God, that to the divine judgment pertains this, that sometimes the, what, good are afflicted in this world, and sometimes they, what, prosper. And likewise, the same too happen to the bad, right? But this was true also before the incarnation of Christ. Therefore, not all judgments of God about human affairs pertain to the judicial power of Christ, huh? But against this is what is said in John, chapter 5, that the Father gave all, only, and did she unto the Son. Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that if we speak of Christ according to his divine nature, huh? It is manifest that all judgment of the Father pertains to the Son. For just as the Son, the Father, made all things by his word, right? So he judges all things by his, what, word, right? If, however, we speak of Christ according to his human nature, thus also it is manifest that all human things are subject to his, what, judgment, huh? He's going to give three reasons here, huh? And this is manifest first if we consider the relation of the soul of Christ to the word of God, huh? For if the spiritual one judges all things, huh? It's omnia again there, right? As is said, 1 Corinthians 2, insofar as his mind adheres to the word of God, the spiritual man, right? Vultomaj is much more, right, huh? The soul of Christ, huh? Which is full of the truth of the word of God, has judgment over all, right? That's a nice argument, right? The spiritual one judges all, that's what it says. Well, he is, before it's the early, huh? No spiritual, therefore he obviously is going to judge all, right? Even his soul, right? Secondly, this appears also from the merit of his death, huh? Because, as is said, Romans 14, in this Christ died and rose, that he might, what, have dominion over the living and the dead, huh? And therefore, over all, he has judgment. An account of which the apostle there has, that all will stand before the tribunal of Christ, huh? And Daniel 7, who gives to him, what? Power and honor and kingdom, and all people, tribes, and tongues serve him, huh? Third, it appears from the comparison of human things to the end of human salvation. Because to whoever is considered, committed, the chief is committed also the, what, accessory, huh? But all human things are ordered to the end of beatitude, which is eternal salvation, to which men are admitted, or also cast out or repelled by the judgment of Christ. And therefore, it's manifest that to the, what, judicial power of Christ pertains all human things, huh? All idle words, isn't it? All the idle words I had in my life. Now, what about the subjection of Christ there from Luke 12? Well, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the judicial power follows the, what, royal power, royal dignity, huh? But Christ, although he was, what, constituted king by God, huh? Not, however, living on the earth, right, did he wish to administer temporally his, what, his earthly kingdom. When he himself says, my kingdom is not of this, what, world, huh? And likewise, he did not wish to exert his judicial power over temporal things. The one who had come to, what, transfer men over to, what, divine things, as Ambrose there says, huh? Well did he decline earthly things who descend in account of, what, divine things. Nor did he, what, deem to be judged, right, of disputes, huh? And the arbiter faculties who had the judgment of living and the dead and the judgment of their, what, their merits, huh? What about being subject to everything to God? The second should be said that to Christ all things are subject as regards his power, the power which he took or got from the Father overall, according to that of Matthew 28. He has given to me all power in heaven and on earth. But not, however, are all subject to him as regards the carrying out of his power, which will be in the future when his will will be fulfilled as regards all, by saving some and by punishing some, huh? To the third, it should be said that before the incarnation, right, these judgments were exercised by Christ insofar as he is the word of God, huh? Of whose power he was made partaker, uh, his soul by incarnation, right, huh? And his soul was personally, what, united to that, huh? So in his human nature, then, he was not inflicting those punishments at that time, right? Because human nature didn't exist at that time. That was a little qualification there, right? Okay.