Tertia Pars
Lecture 6: Suitability of the Incarnation and Its Timing

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

The reason why in high school, the boys and the girls really have separate instruction, you know, they're kind of answering with the mute of the other one. But Thomas will often point out how there are some good things, like the patience of the martyrs, and not possible without something bad, right? So some very great good things. And even the death of our Lord on the cross, you know, he undertook this, what, out of love for us, right? And this is not too possible without this Judas and the rest of them. So, it's not impossible that some evil might be the occasion for God to bring out something bad. Yeah, yeah. That's kind of interesting, huh, that God probably would not have become man, right? If man did not fall, right? So the greatest thing that he made, is that I can assume a tanticentia, the greatest thing that God made, the Word was made flesh, that's the greatest making there ever was. Making would not have taken place without the fall of man. Excuse me. So the third objection is saying that what, man is kind of owed this, right? Or God has to give us this, because this is the thing which we're capable. But Thomas distinguishes those two capacities. God says, you won't get the best of me, huh? I do something even greater, because you've done this, huh? See, he's an unusual God, you know? Yeah. It's like me saying to somebody, you know, because you offended me, I'm going to do something even better for you than I would have done if you had not offended me. I don't know, is there some example of that in more strictly human? I learned, I learned, in the Sermon of Mine, it says, if somebody takes your cloak, give them your cloak as well. Yeah, yeah. It's like, in the Psalms, it says it, it's Psalm 68, when it says, that which I stole not, that's what I paid. So we're just kind of like saying, if you steal from me, I'll make the restitution for you. That's God's way. Markets will bail you out. That's great one. Yeah, that's great. With somebody else's money, yeah. Now, the fourth arm is from predestination, of course, that's reasonably solved, huh? To the fourth, it should be said that predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of, what? Future things. And therefore, since God predestined the salvation of some man to be fulfilled through the prayer of others, so also he predestined the work of incarnation as a remedy of, what? Now, the fifth one here. Nothing prevents, huh? Something to be, some effect to be revealed to someone, to whom the cause is, what? Not revealed, huh? Therefore, to the first man could be revealed something of the mist of the incarnation without his being, what? Prescient. Of his own fault. Yeah, of his own fault. For not everyone who knows the effect knows the cause, and even a philosopher knows that. We're always asking the question, why, you know, and don't often know why this is so, huh? Now, given that it's in terms of sin, huh, that he came, now the next question arises then, right? To the fourth. Yeah, I'm sorry, just go back, check on this in general about this last one. In some way, he's leaving it open, and he says, because he says it's possible, but he says as far as Scripture goes, Scripture seems to be pointing us to the fact, to give us the answer. But, in a way, it's still just kind of, just not definitely known, or whatever. How would we... Well, Thomas is a little modest there in his reply, right? Yeah. But he's saying that if something is not owed to us, right, but is given to us, right, then we have to more rely upon why this is given to us in the words of Scripture, right? And Scripture always seems to speak as if he became man because of, what, the sin of that man. That was a point when I had a course in Christology, that was a point when I was challenged by my professor. He brought up some of the Christological hymns in St. Paul, where St. Paul seems to be revealing that Christ has a role in creation apart from redemption, that he has this role as the firstborn of all creatures. I thought it was a pretty good argument, but I mean, St. Thomas knew that Scripture, too. So, but, you know, in other words, it seems to me that there are parts of Scripture that kind of hint at the fact that Christ may be fulfilling a role in creation that he would have fulfilled anyway apart from sin. St. Paul has things to say about Christ. I don't know if Thomas is denying that there's something brought out to the incarnation besides redemption of man, right? I mean, he'll talk like how the union of human nature to God, in a sense, is bringing everything back to God, right? You see? And it's interesting, in these psalms, you know, where you're praising God, usually you go to the angels first, then you go to the material world below us, and then man is last, right? And you see that in a lot of these, in the psalms, and also in the praise of the three guys, children, and the thing. And Thomas will follow that order here, and assume, you know, he takes up, he takes up the creatures, he takes up the angels first, then kind of the gross material world, and then last of all, man, right? And so, and of course, the Greeks saw something like this, and they said, man is, what, a little cosmos, right? Yeah. So he has the thing. So the sooner appropriate is that man's nature be, what, joined to God, because, in a sense, the whole creation is being joined to him, if man is kind of a man. But I mean, that's, but would that reason be enough for him to become man? It could. He could do it just for that reason, if he wanted to, right? Thomas is not denying that. This really depends upon the divine will. Which is revealed in Scripture. And we know that, you know, from Scripture, we can't really reason this out from, from reason alone, right? Or from the nature of God, right? What he's saying, because he, what he says is, he says, it seems we should give assent more to this. Right. Because I think probably the evidence of Scripture is more, if this is more, which he, I don't, he's not excluding the other, but he's just saying that it seems more reasonable to assent to this based on it. I think that also depends on what Adam's state would have been, how he would have lived his life if he wouldn't have sinned. Would we need all these 13 things? Could he have had directly corresponded with God in his natural state at some point? I think somebody said that Pope John Paul II wrote about that. I don't remember what it worked, but that Adam would have eventually progressed into the intuitive vision, just living, at least like the way it was meant. He wouldn't have to die or anything like that, see? But even the Creed, you know, it sort of says, you know, for us men and for our, what, salvation. It's sort of been some sin, I guess. That's what I actually might have meant when he spoke of the tradition of the Church. Oh, okay. Because it's like the Creed. But all of that, it seems to me, is talking about giving the fact of the fall. So, of course, Adam did fall, so now that's where Scripture is coming from and the tradition is coming from. But not necessarily, it's not saying it couldn't have been otherwise. Yeah, Thomas would say God could have become man-eared without that. But his will seems to have been because of the sin. As far as the judgment of the words of Scripture, you know. Okay. To the fourth one proceeds thus. Seems that God chiefly was made flesh for the remedy of, what, actual sins, than for the remedy of, what, original sin, huh? For the more grave a sin is, the more it is opposed to human salvation, on account of which God was made, what, flesh, right? But actual sin is more grave than original sin, for the minima, the least punishment is due to original sin, huh? As Augustine says, against Julian. Therefore, chiefly, the incarnation of Christ was ordered to the deleting of actual, what, sins. So actual sin is divided into, what, venial sin and moral sin, right? But then, original sin is a different kind of sin, huh? It's more peccatum naturi, as they say. But to the original sin is not, oh, the penishment of sense, right? But only the loss of the, what, vision, right? The quididamni, as in the second book is had. But Christ came for the satisfaction of sins by undergoing, what? Suffering of the cross. Suffering of the senses on the cross. Not, however, the punishment of, what? Yeah, of losing the vision, right? Because he had no loss of the divine vision or the enjoyment. Therefore, he chiefly came to delete the, what, actual sin and the original sin. That's a pretty good argument. Moreover, Christendom says in the second book on the compunction of the heart, that this is the affection of a faithful servant, huh? That the benefits of his Lord, which are commonly given to all, he regards as being, what, given to him alone, right? As if they, what, about himself alone, Paul's speaking, huh? Thus writes the Galatians, he loved me and handed himself over for me, right? So if another man died for you, like sometimes one man does die for another man, right? You'd be pretty, you know, grateful towards this one man, right? That's why he should have died in Christ, right? He died just for me. But our own sins are, what, actual. The original is a common sin, huh? Therefore, we ought to have this affection that we estimate him chiefly to a common account of, what? Actual sins, right? Then he came more for me, for my actual sins. But against this is what is said, John 1.29. Behold, behold, the Lamb of God, behold, who takes away the sins of the world. These are the common ones, huh? I answer it should be said that it is certain that Christ came into this world, not only to delete that sin that was, what, carried down originally to the prosperity of Adam, but also to the deletion of all sins, which afterwards were added. Not that all are deleted, right? Because there's an account of the defect of men that they do not adhere to Christ, huh? According to that of John 3.19, the light came into the world, and men loved the darkness more than the light then. But because he exhibited what was enough for the deletion of all sins, huh? Whence it is said in Romans 5, not as the defect, shall we say, so was the gift, right? But judgment from one in condemnation, grace from, what? Many sins into justification. Now, to that chiefly, to deletion of that sin, chiefly Christ came when that sin was, what? Greater, huh? But something is said to be greater in two ways, huh? Thomas always sees the distinctions that we don't see, huh? In one way, intensively, as that is greater whiteness, which is more, what? Intense whiteness, huh? And in this way, actual sin is more than original sin, because it has more of the reason of the voluntary, as has been said in the second time. In other way, something is said to be more extensively, as that is said to be greater whiteness, which is on a greater, what? Surface. And in this way, original sin, through this was infected, what, the whole human race, right? Okay? In that sense, it is greater than any actual sin, which is private to one person, right? And as he guards this, Christ chiefly came to taking away, what? Sin. And he quotes the philosopher. Insofar as the good of the nation is more divine than the good of one. As is said in the one ethicorum, right? Superiority of the common good there. Aristotle says in the ethics there that it's lovable to achieve happiness for one man, huh? You help your friend or your son or somebody, you know, to be happy, that's lovable, he says. But it's more divine, he says, huh? To make a city happy, huh? And, of course, God is concerned with the good of the whole universe, right? Which we cannot be, right? But when we're concerned with the good of the whole city, then we're more like God than when we're concerned with just the good of one man, our friend or our son or something of that sort, huh? So he kind of defends the common good, huh? Now, the first objection, he says, to that, to the first one, therefore, it should be said that that reason proceeds about the, what? Intensive magnitude of the sin, huh? The second objection was saying, what about Christ, huh? Then he undergo suffering of the senses, right? To the second, it should be said that the original sin in the future retribution is not, oh, the pain of what sense, huh? Because the pains that we sensibly undergo in this life as hunger, thirst, death, and things of this sort proceed from, what? Original sin. And therefore, Christ, that he might fully satisfy original sin, wished to, what? Suffer sensible pain as death and other things of this sort that he might, what? Yeah. Consume them, right? So the second argument was arguing that the sensible pain is what we get for the actual sin in the next world, right? Therefore, he must have been chiefly doing that. And Thomas said, well, no, these sensible pains are also a result of original sin, and Christ trying to remove original sin undergoes the punishment that follows original sin, right? So then they're going to the punishment that we undergo because of original sin, which is hunger, thirst. And ignorance, too, yeah. Okay, he didn't think, right? He couldn't, yeah. And he's going to bring that out, probably in the third injection here now. He's talking about how we've got to make this personal, right? Say, hey, I know a guy died for me, huh? Gee whiz. Who was that guy? To third, it should be said that as Chrysostom there brings him in, those words the Apostle said, not as if wishing to diminish, right, the most ample and the gifts of Christ diffused through the earth. Okay, man. Okay, man. Okay, man. But that for what? All, he what? Yeah, himself, he only, how does it have Knox in there in your translation, in his translation? The Apostle says, the Apostle used these words not as if wishing to diminish Christ's gifts, and for as they are, in spreading throughout the whole world, but that he might account himself below the occasion of them. He indicated himself as the harm, the cause of the harm. For what is it if to others he what? Bestowed them, right? When those things are given you are so what? Whole and perfect, right? As if to no other one from these was anything given, huh? I got so many presents for him, I mean, I can aware of the fact that other people got presents too. From this, therefore, that someone ought to regard these benefits as to be made for himself, right? He ought not to estimate that they are not given to what? Others, huh? And therefore, it did not exclude, but that chiefly he came to abolish the sin of the whole, what? Nature, and the sin of one person. But that common sin was thus perfectly cured in each one as if it was, what? Cured in one alone. And moreover, on account of the union of charity, the whole that was given to all, each one ought to ascribe to himself, right? So what you do for my friend, I consider done for me, right? Christ says too, right? We're most imitative in that respect, huh? The next two articles are going to be about whether he should have, what? Come earlier. But he should have stayed around long, huh? We've got time for it, go on, or? Five? It's pretty short, article five. To the fifth one proceeds thus. It seems that it was suitable for God to be, what? Flesh from the beginning of the human, what? Race, huh? For the work of the Incarnation proceeds from the immensity of the divine charity or love. As St. Paul says in Ephesians 2, God who is rich in mercy, huh? On account of the exceeding love by which he loves us, exceeding charity. When we were, what? Dead in sins, he, what? Revived us in Christ, huh? But charity does not delay to come to the friend undergoing necessity. According to that of Proverbs 3, 28. Don't say to your friend, go and come back. Tomorrow I give to you, and you can give immediately. Therefore, God should not have deferred the work of Incarnation, but immediately from the beginning to the Incarnation he should have come to the help. I mean, that's a pretty convincing argument. It's a pretty convincing argument. Yeah. It's usually scripture against God now, right? The devil can quote scripture. Yeah. Yeah. That's pretty, pretty serious stuff here. Thomas is involved in, huh? What are you waiting for? Moreover, 1 Timothy 1, Christ came in this world to make sinners saved, right? That kind of confirms it. That's the reason for us coming, right? But many would have been saved if from the beginning of the human race, God was made, what? Incarnate, huh? For many, the ignorant of God are perished in their sin in diverse ages, huh? Therefore, it is more suitable that from the beginning of the human race, God was incarnate, huh? Those guys didn't have the sacraments, didn't have the scripture, oh my gosh. I don't know how he's going to get out of this one. Moreover, the work of grace is not less ordered than the work of nature. But nature takes its origin from the perfect, as Boethius says in the book on the consolation of philosophy. Therefore, the work of grace ought to be from the beginning perfect. But in the work of the incarnation is considered the perfection of grace. According to that, that the word was made flesh and then later is joined, full of grace and what? In the truth. Therefore, Christ from the beginning of the human race ought to have been made incarnate, huh? Now, against all this is what is said in Galatians 4, verse 4, that when came the fullness of time, God sent his own son made from a woman. Where the gloss says, and this one here is in my text here identified as being from Ambrose, huh? That the fullness of time is what was for limited or defined, huh? By God the Father when he would send his son, huh? But God, by his wisdom, defines all things, huh? Therefore, in a most suitable time, God was made flesh. And thus, it was not suitable that from the beginning of the human race, God was, what? Makes flesh. Well, it was puzzling when I first remember reading this article a few years ago. Very, very puzzling. You know, why did he delay, right? He gives basically the reasons he gives in the Summa Concentilis 2. I answer it should be said that the work of the incarnation is chiefly ordered to the reparation of human nature through the abolition of sin. It is manifest that it was not suitable from the beginning of the human race, before sin, for God to be incarnate, huh? For one does not give medicine except to the infirm. That's just talking now about before Adam and sin, right? Whence the Lord says, Matthew 9, there is no need for the well of the medicine of the doctor, but to those having themselves badly. It's in bad health. For I have not come to call the just, what, what? Sinners, right? But also, immediately after sin, it was not, what, suitable for God to become flesh. First, on account of the condition of human sin, which came from, what? Pride. A man sinned through pride. Whence in that way was man to be liberated, that growing humble, he recognizes himself to need a, what? Liberator, right? Whence on that of Galatians 3, ordered through the angels in the hand to the mediator, the gloss says, this was done with great counsel, that after the fall of man, huh? Not immediately was the son of God sent, huh? For God first left man in the, what? In his free will, right? In the natural law, that thus he might know, what? What? The powers of his, what? Nature. Where, when he failed, he might receive the law, right? Which being given, sickness still was strong, right? Not of the law, but by the vice of nature. That thus, having known his infirmity, he would clamor, right? Shout for the medicine, the medical doctor, and would seek the, yeah. What's he talking about, the extent of what? The pride of man, right? And Thomas will talk about the time where man is kind of left to himself entirely, right? And there he doesn't even know what's good to do, right? And then, the time under the law, where he... What? What? Knows what is good, but doesn't do it. And then he sees another defect in himself, right? And now he's ready, right, to both receive truth and, what, grace from Christ, right? Because he realizes he's inadequate to knowing the truth adequately without Christ. And without grace, even if he knew the truth, he wouldn't be able to do it. That's quite an impediment, you might say, pride, right? But you have to, in a sense, realize your need before you can accept the doctor, right? Today, of course, the consciousness of the need, the consciousness of the existence of sin, has been sort of disappearing. Yeah, yeah. I don't think you need it, you know. I remember my friend Jim Fransack getting in the hospital or something. And he says to me, Berkwist, he says, don't worry if you know enough to go to the hospital and you have this, he says. If you have this, he says, you'll want to go to the hospital. That's what the old joke about the Irishman goes to the doctor's office. He's sitting there in the waiting room. And the fellow sits there and says, boy, I hope the doctor finds something wrong with me. Why would you say that? Well, I need to feel this bad and be healthy. And if you make that to those two of the reasons given in the Summa Theologiae, the suitability of the thing, in terms of humility, right? The two arguments that Thomas had in the Summa Theologiae. Secondly, on account of the order of going forward in goodness, according as this is from the imperfect to the perfect, where the Apostle says in the first epistle of the Corinthians, not before what is spiritual, but what is what? Animal. Then what is spiritual? First, the man of earth, earthly. Secondly, the man of heaven, heavenly, right? So in a sense, he's saying this is the nature of man, to be brought from an imperfect stage to a perfect stage. And then third, on account of the dignity or worth of the incarnate word. Because on that of Galatians 4, when came the fullness of time, the gloss says, this is Augustine, I guess, my, I think that's, when a greater, what, judge comes, than the, what, series of the heralds and so on, right? A longer one ought to proceed, right? Now, given the, given the excellence of Christ coming, that would be all kinds of, what, foretelling of his coming, right? People coming ahead and so on, right? You know, when the president comes in to give the State of the Union, right? A person, there's a guy that comes in, you know, when you see that on, you know, TV, I guess, huh? Where the, the, the, the guy comes in, elses, you know, before the, the Union walks in, right? So. If it's early, it should be all these people coming before Christ, huh? You do that for our Namas Master. I insist on it. Now, those three reasons are given in Summa Congentiles, huh? But this fourth one is, is, is given here. Lest the fervor of faith by the length of time go tepid, huh? This is a very frightening thing here. Because around the end of the world, the charity of many will, what? Yeah, this is a reference to Matthew 24, 12. And Luke 18, verse 8. When the Son of Man comes, do you think you will find faith upon the earth, right? But this is why I don't understand what, what does this have to do with this question? It seems like it would fit in the other one about the, uh, the name, because isn't this the one, um, saying that he should have come? Well, if he, it come at the very beginning, then this prolixity of time would have led to this tepidness even sooner than it did, yeah. Oh, oh, because he, it, it came, oh, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, good. Those, those, those, those two passages are kind of, you know, make us think, you know, Antichrist, you know, the other side of this thing, huh? The people's faith and charity will grow weak, you know. Okay. I thought of it more with this other article, 6, saying that if he waits too long, it's going to be too late. It's just a big ice cream. No, no. But, you know, I mean, they, they'll speak of the act of the apostles and something like that, and the Church was more fervent in those days, right? Yeah. And, and, and maybe in the Middle Ages they're more fervent in some way, maybe, than we are, you know, and, and, uh, we seem to be getting very cold and, uh... Certainly, and that's what, I know, St. Bonhametri talks about, why it took him so long to come the first time. Yeah. But he said that there was, sort of like, if you know something's coming, Mm-hmm. And it's put off a little more and more, if you're, if you're interested in the coming, it'll make your desire and fervor increase and grow. Yeah. That which, which you see in the Old Testament prophets, I think. Now, the first objection was saying, you know, you don't hesitate to come, right? But the first, therefore, it should be said, huh? That charity does not defer to come to the aid of the friend, but observing the, what, opportunity of conditions and the condition of the person's son. I remember one time when Monsignor Dion was talking there about the, uh, proficiencies of, uh, St. Augustine, right? And St. Augustine's mother goes to the bishop, right? And wants the bishop to talk to Augustine, right? Straighten the guy out. And the bishop says, not yet. Not yet, see? That's not a lack of charity, right? But he realized that, uh, Augustine's not yet, what, teachable, yeah, yeah, okay? For if the doctor, right, from the beginning of the medicine, of the sickness, gave medicine to the infirmary, he would, what? Yeah. Or he'd more harm than aid, right? And therefore, also, the Lord did not immediately give the remedy of the Incarnation to the human race, lest they, what, condemn it, hold it in contempt from pride, right? If before, they did not know his own, what? Yeah. Now, Augustine even talks about people falling into sins of the flesh, right, huh? Which, more manifest to a fall, right? And, you know, he spoke of some proud nuns or something, you know, proud, uh, proud celibate. Um, it would be to advantage to fall into sins of the flesh, right? Because it might cure them of their, what, pride, you know? So that's, it's a very difficult thing to, um, root out. St. Bernard says that if the Blessed Mother was a humble, it wouldn't matter if she was such a virgin, it seemed so pure. Oh. She was a humble. Maybe not. Again, the second objection, we'll say when more people have been saved, right? To the second, it should be said that Augustine responds to this in the book on the six questions of the pagans. Saying, huh? That then Christ wished to, what, appear to men and among them to, what, preach his teaching or doctrine when he, what, when and where he knew he would be, what, believe in him, right? For in those time, times and in those places, such men in his teaching knew, uh, to be such, not all, but many in his, what, yeah, who neither in him, the dead being raised, would wish to, what, believe, right? But Augustine reproving this response, right, says in the book about perseverance. We are never able to say that the Tyrians or the Sidonians, such powers having been done among them, right? would not have wished to, what, believe. Christ seems to say the opposite, right? If these same signs had worked in there, they would have repented, right? Or they would not have believed if they had been done. Since the Lord himself attests to the fact that if they were done, they would have done the penance of the humility, right? If in them had been done, what? Those signs of the power zone. Then, as it were, solving this, the Apostle says, is not of the one wishing or willing nor the one running, but of the, what? God having mercy. Those whom he, what, foresaw. If among them, these things were done, right? They would believe by the miracles. To whom he wished to, what, aid? Others he did not come to the aid of. About whom in his predestination, in a hidden way, but justly he judged otherwise. Thus, his mercy in these who are liberated, and his truth or justice in those who are punished, without doubt we believe, right? That's very hard to, people to accept, you know? When we were first reading these things, and it would have been Augustine, because my cousin Dali had two volumes of the books of Augustine, and I'd go over to the cousin's house, and I'd read these things about Augustine, you know? So it's straightening out my thinking, you know, but it's really kind of, it's a hard teaching, you know? It's a hard teaching, you know? But, you know, why do some people have better parents, right? And guide them on life better, you know? Why are some people getting better parents, or better brothers, or something, or better teachers, or something? That's right. Other people, you know, just had bad friends, bad parents, bad this, bad that. You know? You shouldn't be too curious to try to assign the reasons for these things, right? But both the mercy and the justice of God will be seen in these things, more or less in this life, but in the future of life more so. Okay, now the old distinction of the ninth book of wisdom. To the third it should be said that the perfect is before the imperfect in diverse things, right? In time and nature. It's necessary that the perfect be that to which, that which brings other things to perfection, right? But in one and the same thing, the imperfect is before in time, although it is after in nature. Thus, therefore, the imperfection of human nature in duration precedes the, what? The eternal perfection of God precedes that, right? But there follows it the, what? Consulate perfection of man in union to God. So that's the thing Aristotle talks about in the ninth book of wisdom, right? That ability is before act and the thing that goes from ability to act, but simply speaking act is before, because something goes from ability to act, the reason is something already in act, so people get mixed up in that all the time, so those who think that matter is the beginning of all things, making the mistake of what? Simply and not simply, right? Because ability is before act in some way, and they think that simply speaking must be frisked. That's the second kind of mistake outside of what? Speech. Very common mistake, yeah. They only think about how the egg is before the chicken, and not how the chicken is. Yeah. Aristotle answers the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, right? He does or he doesn't? He does. Of course he does, brother. He answers. But he didn't talk for a second, like you're saying they actually addressed that for two good questions. No, no, no, no. It might be interesting if they had that phrase back then. But since you're asking, it's supposed to have a question you ask which came first, the chicken or the egg, right? Yeah, yeah. He's still a novice. Some people have better brethren than others. Did I erase that? I don't know what to use. You have them. You're out of your own. Put it on. Why me? It's curious that he begins here from the suitability of the incarnation, right? And the other work, other summa, the ends of that. I mean, there the emphasis is upon, this is the greatest thing God has made, right? And here it's the emphasis upon, what, getting back to God is the, what? The end, yeah. Yeah. I mean, in both summas, as you were putting out before, you consider God himself, God is the maker, and God is the end, right? But in the summa theologiae, the incarnation is under God is the end, right? In the summa conti gentiles, he's taken up under God is the maker. The word was made flesh. That's the greatest making here. So there's a little difference in where they're considered, even though they do talk about some of the same thing, right? And maybe that has something to do with why he begins was with the suitability of this, because that's tied up at the end, eh? In the other one, he talks about, was he made a man, first of all? How was he made a man? And then why was he made a man? Mm-hmm.