Tertia Pars
Lecture 17: Why the Son's Incarnation is Most Fitting

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

Now we get to the 8th article here, right? Which is what we went through all the other ones to get to, right? I believe these questions, like in Article 8, where they talk about whether something is convenient or appropriate, this is always based on the fact, well, this is actually how it is. So now we're looking back at the fact and showing the appropriateness of it. Yeah, yeah. As opposed to these other things. Yeah, yeah, given that we believe that the Son became man and not the Father, the Holy Spirit. And it wasn't impossible for the Father or the Holy Spirit to become man, right? So now we say, why was it suitable that the Son become man? Even though the others were possible, right? Yeah. See, it kind of makes this question more relevant, huh? Yeah, okay. I mean, if you say only the Son could have become man, you know, the Father and the Holy Spirit could not have become man, and then, well then, yeah, they say, well, that's the way it is, yeah. You know? It's like saying, why is two half of four? Why can't three, you know, or four, you know? Why is it more suitable that two be half of four than three or, you know, than three or five or something, right? Once you realize... You've come up with a long reason. So it's kind of appropriate that he ends up with this article right after those ones, right? To the eighth one proceeds thus. It does not seem that it is more suitable for the Son of God to be made flesh than the Father of the Holy Spirit, huh? For through the mystery of the Incarnation, men are brought to a true knowledge of God, huh? According to that of John, chapter 18, verse 37. This is talking to Pilate, right? For this was I born, and for this I came into the world, that I might give testimony to the truth, right? I mentioned before how Thomas quotes that at the beginning of the Summa Contra Gentiles. But from this, that the person of the Son of God is made incarnate, many were impeded from a true knowledge of God. Those things which I said of the Son, according to its human nature, referring to the very, what? Person of the Son, just as Arius, right? Who laid down an inequality of persons, on account of what is said in John 14, verse 28. The Father is greater than me, right? Of course, he's saying that according to his, what? Human nature, right? Which era would not have come about if the person of the Father was, what? Right, yeah. But no one would estimate the Father to be less than the Son, right? More therefore, so what does it seem that the person of the Father would become incarnate than the person of the Son? That's one possible reason, I don't know. Moreover, the effect of the Incarnation would seem to be a recreation in the way of human nature, according to that of Galatians 6, verse 15. In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor peputsium, right? They said, soothout, huh? What? Uncertainty. Yeah, uncircised, yeah. But a new creature, right? But the power of creating is appropriate to the Father, therefore it seems more befitting for the Father to become incarnate than the, what? Son, huh? So we see in the Creed, I believe in God, the Father, almighty creator of heaven and earth, right? So did we create us? I belong to the Father. This is creation is appropriated to him, right? Good argument. Moreover, Incarnation is ordered to the remission of sins, according to that of Matthew 1, verse 21. You will call his name Jesus, right? But he will make his people, he will save his people from their sins, huh? I guess that's what the word Jesus means, huh? Savior, it says. But the remission of sins attributed to the Holy Spirit, according to that of John, chapter 20. Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, are forgiven, and so on. Therefore, it is more congruent for the person of the Holy Spirit to be made flesh than the person of the Son. So he has two arguments for the Father, and one for the Holy Spirit, and one for the Son. So I'm really puzzled by this, aren't you? But again, this is what Damascene says in the third book, huh? In the mystery of the Incarnation is made known the wisdom and the power of God. The wisdom because he found a solution of a, what? Most difficult, right? Word. And most suitable, right? Solution. We saw, I love what we saw in the beginning of the treatise on the Incarnation, right? Those reasons we gave, you know, from the two Sumas. Okay, so his wisdom shows out there. His power because he made the victim, right? The victor. But the power and wisdom are appropriate to the Son, according to that of 1 Corinthians 1, Christ, the power and the wisdom of God. Therefore, it is suitable that the Son, the person of the Son, become incarnate. Now, Thomas says, what's I going to do to this? The answer should be said that it was most suitable for the Son, the person of the Son, to be incarnate, right? I'm going to give, what, three reasons here, three parts of the reason, right? First, on the side of the union itself, right? For it is suitable that those things which are alike be what? United, huh? Now, of the person of the Son, who is the Word of God, in one way, a common agreement with the whole of creation, right? Why? Because the thought of the artist, right? That is his concept or thought, is a likeness, which is the exemplar, of those things which are to be made by the artist. So, they say that the carpenter or the house builder, he first builds a house in his mind, and then he makes a house out there, like the house. So, there's kind of an agreement between what? Yeah, and what's out there. And so, between the thought of God, right, and these things out here, there's an agreement, right? Okay. Whence the verbo of God, the thought of God, right, which is his eternal, what, concept, huh? Is a likeness that is, what, an exemplar of the whole creation. And therefore, just as by partaking of this likeness, creatures are, what, instituted in their own species, but in a mobile way, right, huh? So, by the union of the word to creatures, not in a, what, yeah, participatory, but a personal one, right? It was suitable to repair creatures in order to the eternal and, what, unchangeable perfection. For the artist, through the form of his art, by which he constructs the artificial thing, if it collapses, right, he restores it, right? Okay. In another way, it has a, what, special agreement with human nature for the fact that the word is the concept of eternal wisdom for which all human, what, all the wisdom of men is derived, right, huh? And therefore, man, this, that he, what, goes forward in wisdom, which is his proper perfection in so far as he's a rational creature, that he partakes, what, of the word of God, just as the disciples instructed through this that he receives the word of the teacher. When this is said in Ecclesiastic 1, the fountain of wisdom, the word of God, and high is the fountain of, what, wisdom. And therefore, to the consummate perfection of man, it was suitable that the word of God be personally united to human nature, right? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, sometimes Thomas will refer to the fact that in Greek, the word of God is called what? Logos, right? Which in Greek is also the word for reason, right? So we get the word logic, right? So what is man? Well, man is the animal that has reason, right? And it's reason that really separates us from the beast. So the Aristarchians say in the 10th book of the Ethics that reason more than anything else is man, right? So in the very word Logos itself, it shows a certain affinity between what? The second person above the Trinity and what makes man to be man? Logos, right? This is another way of saying it here, but it's a similar thought, right? In regard to that first thing, you know, a lot of times, you know, they'll say that God has both what? Spiritual or immaterial creatures, the angels in the material world, right? And then man is kind of what? Yeah, uniting the two. And so like the Greeks said, he's a little cosmos, right? So it's kind of appropriate that God unite to himself man, because they're kind of uniting the whole of creation back to them, right? Material as well as the immaterial. But this, the way he says it here is a little different than I see him saying it elsewhere, right? Elsewhere, he'll just remark upon the fact that Logos shows a connection between the man and the, what? Second person, right? Man is man by Logos, and that very person is called Logos, right? Okay? Man is most human through his thoughts, in a way, right? And this is the thought of God, right? So one of the Persian fathers had something like that in his saying, God thought of man, so in terms of his thought being the exemplar of creation. So he said, God thought of man, had man in his mind, and then he created man, and man thought of God, and he had God in his mind. So he was reflecting the divinity just by thinking about the divinity. Secondly, one can take the reason of this agreement or congruence from the end or purpose of the union, which is the fulfillment or predestination of those who are preordained to celestial inheritance, which is not owed to anyone except to sons. According to that, Romans 8, verse 17, sons and heirs, right? And St. John speaks that way in his epistle there, he's going to talk about the vision, right? The sons of God, right? And therefore it was suitable that to the one who is the natural son, right, men partake a likeness of the sonhood by, what? Adoption, with the adopted sons of God. As the apostle says, whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his, what? Son, huh? So the second argument is taken more from the incarnate person being called, what? Son. The first one being called, what? Yeah. Interesting, I don't know if those are two names, huh? Now, the third reason, third, huh? One can take the reason of this congruence from the sin of the first turn. That's interesting, he's going to do this. Through which, by incarnation, a remedy is what? For the first man sinned by desiring knowledge. You will be as God, so I'm good and evil, right, remember? That's why you're tempted. It says, clear from the words of the serpent, promising to man knowledge of good and, what? Evil. Whence it is suitable that through the word of true wisdom, right, man would be, what? Led back to God, right? Who through a disordered desire of knowledge receded from God. It's very subtle, that last argument, right? That may be the most visible one, you think of the first two, you know. But, it's kind of interesting, huh? You know, when they go through the whole process, so, you know, why does it begin with Mary, right? And Mary's fiat, you know, being done, you know. And they say, well, man fell, he started with woman, right? And then it was, you know, consummated, you might say, with the man, right? You know, the revolt, huh? And so, in order to redeem us properly, he starts with a woman, and then comes to the man, right? The second Adam, right? And, but he starts, but Mary's kind of like, you know, the place of Eve, right? Well, here he has something like that, right? Because he's saying, how did they sin? By, you know, was it a sin of the flesh? Like, some people misunderstand that, right? Because the body was completely under the reason, the will, so long as the soul and the reason, the will were subject to God, right? So, how do you really, a, a, what? A spiritual sin, see? First sin is a spiritual sin, not like, for us, where it's kind of the reverse, you know. You know, it used to be kind of a common place of this religious life, you know, that you have to first overcome your, your sins of the flesh, right? And then you can start to be difficult ones. The spiritual sin, you know, the pride and all these other things, right, huh? But, if you haven't overcome your sins of the flesh, you better, it's been a long ways to go now, you know? You really haven't got to the main battlefield yet, huh? But, here's the reverse, again, from this disordered desire to know, huh? Yeah, that's, that's a, you know, let's talk about embryos and so on, you know, this desire to know, you know, but in a disordered way, you know? It kind of characterizes modern man, huh? Now, the first objection was saying, well, this leads, this rise to mistakes, right, huh? Because the father is more than me, and so on, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that there is nothing which, what, cannot be abused by human malice, huh? When even the goodness of God himself, right, the goodness itself of God is abused, huh? According to that Romans 2, 4, whether the, what, you contemn the riches of his goodness, right, huh? Whence, also, if the person of the father was incarnate, one could, from this, a man, take an occasion of some error, right, huh? That's accidental cause, occasion, by the way. As if the, what, the son would not suffice for repairing, what, human nature is all, you know? Yeah, that's got weak objection, in other words, to the truth, huh? The second, it should be said, that the first creation of things was made by the power of God the Father through the word, right? Whence the recreation through the word ought to be made by the, what, power of God the Father, so that the recreation would correspond to the, what, creation. According to that of 2 Corinthians 5, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to him. So things were made, right, by God through the word, right? So, in the beginning of John's gospel, right? So that would be, now the third objection was taken, that was more appropriate to the Holy Spirit. To the third, it should be said, that it's proper to the Holy Spirit, that he'd be the gift of the Father and the, what, Son. So the remission of sins comes about through the Holy Spirit, as through the, what, gift of God, huh? And therefore, it was more suitable for the justification of men, that the Son become incarnate, of whom the Holy Spirit is a, what, gift, huh? So in a sense, you can say that when he breathes upon the apostles and says, with sins you fell forgiven, they are forgiven, and so on. He's bestowing this, what, gift upon them, right, huh? Okay. The Holy Spirit is a gift of the, what, Son, huh? Maybe the Father, too, but of the Son, right? So put that in your pipe and smoke it, huh? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm saying, I mean, you say... In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds. Order and illumine our images and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, pray for us. And help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. I was reading about one of St. Teresa of Avila's confessors, who was a Dominican, but he's known for his brilliant lectures on the Summa. So, let's look at the premium here to question four. Then we ought to consider about the union on the side of what is assumed. About which first should be considered, about those things which are assumed by the Word of God. Secondly, about those things assumed with, which are both perfections and defects. Defects and ailments is from flesh subject to what? Death. Death and suffering and so on. But not, sin is not a defect he assumed. For the Son of God assumed human nature and its parts. Whence about this a threefold consideration occurs. First, first, as regards human nature itself. Secondly, as regards its parts. Third, as regards the order of assumption. And we'll see in that article or part which kind of order you're talking about. About the first, six things are asked. First, whether human nature was more able to be assumed by the Son of God than any other nature. Secondly, whether he assumed a person. You must know the answer to that already. Third, whether he assumed a man. I got very careful where you say that. Fourth, whether it was, what? Suitable that he assumed a human nature separated from, what? Singulars. I suppose he got universal human nature, huh? The form of man itself, huh? Whether it would be suitable for him to assume human nature in all individuals, huh? And six, whether it was suitable that he assumed human nature in some man generated from the, what? Stem of Adam, right? Again, he's very thrilled, this guy, huh? Of course, our Lord said to him for the cross, you know, being a schipsistic to him, all right? He talked about this, you know, is this worthy of you? You're rich and well, Thomas. That's, I'd be impressed about that myself if he said that to me. You have spoken well, Dwayne. Saying this thing to, he said, All these fears that make me deceived, you know. She hears the voice, have no fear, it is I. To the first one proceeds thus. It seems that human nature was not more able to be assumed by the Son of God, or more still be assumed, huh? Than any other, what, nature, right? For as Augustine says in his Epistle to Volusianum, In things, done with wonder, huh? The whole reason for the thing done is the power of the one, what, doing it. But the power of God making Incarnation, which is the work most wonderful, huh? As Thomas says, all the miracles are ordered as miracles. This is the miracle of what? It's miracles, yeah. But the power of God making Incarnation, which is a work most admirable, was not limited to one nature, since the power of God is, what, infinite. Therefore, human nature was not more able to be assumed by God, or still be assumed by God, than any other, what, creature, huh? Moreover, he says, likeness is a reason making for the, what, congruity, huh, the congruities, of the Incarnation of the Divine Person. But in the rational creature, there is found the likeness of the, what, image. And in the irrational creature, there is found the likeness of the footprint. Therefore, the irrational creature was able to be assumed just as the human nature, huh? In both cases, there's a likeness there, huh? But now he goes above man in the third objection, huh? Moreover, in the angelic nature, there is found a more expressed likeness of God than in human nature. They're more like God than we are. But Gregory says in his homily on the hundred sheep there, introducing that of Ezekiel, chapter 28, verse 12, you are the, what, sign, the seal of likeness. And it's found also in the angel's sin as in man, according to that of Job 4, 18. In his very angels, huh, was found depravity, huh? Therefore, the angelic nature was more assumable, it was as assumable as the, what, nature of man, huh? You might argue from the argument that even more so, right? It's even more like God, right? Moreover, since to God belongs the highest perfection, to that extent something is more like God as it is more, what, perfect. But the whole universe is more perfect than its parts, among which is the human nature. Therefore, the whole universe is more assumable than human nature, huh? I have to read Thomas, you've heard all these objections, however closely difficult they are. But against this is what is said in Proverbs, chapter 8, verse 31. From the mouth of generating wisdom, right? My delights are to be with the sons of men. And thus there seems to be a certain congruence of union of the Son of God to human nature. So Thomas says, I answer it should be said that something is said to be assumable as we're apt to be assumed by a, what, divine person. So assumptibidae is more, what, nothing possible so much as the fact that we're apt to be assumed. Which aptitude, he says, cannot be understood according to a, what, natural pass of, what, potency, huh, which does not extend itself to that which transcends the natural order. Which the union, the personal union of a creature to God transcends, huh? Whence remains that the assumable is said according to a certain, what, appropriateness to the foresaid, what, union, huh? Which congruence is to be noted according to two things in human nature. One, according to his dignity or work, and the other, in the necessity of this. According to his dignity, because human nature, insofar as it is reasonable and understanding, is, what, apt to touch in some way the word itself through its, what, operation. So, who made me, God made me, why did he make me to know and love him, right? To serve him in this world. By knowing and, what, loving himself. Well, he's going to the catechism, too, huh? Yeah. That was a pretty good answer in the catechism, huh? When somebody said, Chris, I think, the catechism, they said, there's nothing wrong with the answers in the catechism, they're very good. We didn't understand them too well, but I think it was not to talk the answers, but to try to understand them better, but at least seeking understanding. I was looking at the little catechisms of my grandchildren there, you know, Chris. All they do is say is that the Ministry of Trinity, you know, it's a mystery, right? They don't even tend to any explanation of it at all. That's where the child begins, huh? So he says, in a way, man is, what? Just considering his nature, is ordered to God and to be united with God by his, what, operation, by knowing and loving him, right? So already there's a certain, what, aptness for union there, huh? Because we're already, by our very nature, called to know and love God and to be joined with him, at least in that way, huh? Well, that's less than to be joined, of course, with his person, right? But none of these creatures that don't have understanding and will are apt to know and love God, huh, as such. Now, secondly, by necessity, huh? Because he needs preparation since he was, what, subject to original sin, huh? When Thomas, I've been reading just the compendium of theology there, and he starts to talk about the Incarnation, he always begins by talking about original sin, right? Now, man contracted this and so on. Now, he says, the two of these together, huh, belong to only, what, human nature. For to the irrational creature, to the beast and so on, there is lacking, right, the congruence of dignity, right? To the angelic nature, there is lacking the, what, congruity of the foresaid necessity. So, an angel chooses, he goes forever, huh, and completely in one direction. By man, so long as he's in this life, he's, what, he's changeable from virtue to vice, or vice to virtue, right, huh? So, if you put those two together, it remains that only human nature is, what? Assumed. It has to be assumed, huh? So, does that convince you, gentlemen? But, no. Now, the first objection is taken from the power of God, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that creatures are denominated such from what belongs to them according to their own what causes, not, however, from what belongs to them according to the first and universal causes. Just as we say that someone sick is incurable, not because he's not able to be cured by God, but because through the own principles of that subject, he's not able to be cured, huh? He doesn't have recoupative powers in himself, right? Thus, therefore, some creature is said to be not assumptable, not to subtract something from the divine power, but to show the condition of the creature who does not have for this any, what, aptitude, right? See the answer to the answer to that objection? He's not denying the power of God to assume something else, right? He's saying, let's look at what's in the creature, right? And see the reason why this creature is more assumable than that, huh? And man is more assumable because he's both able to attain God by his operation, and therefore already is more fitting to be united with God, right? Even in a higher way than by knowing and loving him, to be united to him as a person, right? In his personal, personhood, but also because of his, what, necessity, right? Those two things that are in him, okay? Just look at the power of God, you don't see the reason, huh? Now, to the second, talking about likeness here, huh? To the second, it should be said, the likeness of image is to be noted in human nature, according as he is capable of God, to wit, by attaining to him, by his own operation of knowing and what? Love. But the likeness of the footprint is to be noted only according to some representation existing in the creature from the divine, what? Pressure. Some likeness, right, to God, much more distinct. But what falls short from the lesser does not have suitability to that which is, what? Greater, huh? Just as the body that is not aptly perfected by a sensing soul, much less is aptly perfected by a, what? Understanding soul. Now, much greater and more perfect is the union to God according to personal being, huh? And that which is according to, what? Operation, right? Most of all, Thomas argued in the reverse way from the incarnation to the beatific vision, arguing from what? This gives us hope in the beatific vision? Because he unites us, human nature, to himself in an even greater way than our mind is joined to him in the beatific vision, okay? Now he's arguing in a sense of the reverse way in terms of the fact that we can be united to him in himself by operation of knowing and loving means that we're suitable to be united to him in the same person, huh? Over a creature that doesn't have operations that can attain to God in himself, huh? Those horses there in my doctor's place there, huh? They're nice animals, huh? They're nice animals. And therefore, the irrational creature, which falls short from the union to God through operation, right, can neither know God in himself nor love him, does not have suitability that it would be united to him according to what? And the third argument is saying, hey, the angel's even more so, right? To the third, it should be said that some say the angel is not able to be assumed because from the beginning of his creation, he was perfect in his, what? Personality. Since he does not undergo or is not subject to generation and corruption, huh? Whence he could not be assumed to the unity of the divine person unless his personality be, what? Destroyed, huh? Which is neither suitable to the incorruptibility of his nature, nor to the goodness of the one assuming, to whom it does not pertain that he corrupts something of perfection in the creature's assumed. But this does not seem to wholly exclude suitability of the assumption of the angelic nature. For God is able, in producing a new angelic nature, right, to join it in himself or to himself in the unity of his person, right? So that there's never, what? His own personality in the angel, huh? He would create, at the same time he created his divine, his human, his angelic nature, he would, what, draw it to his own, what, person, right? And thus nothing pre-existing there would be, what, prompted, right? But, as has been said, there would lack or be lacking congruity on the part of, what? Yeah. Because although the angelic nature in some things was subject to sin, his sin nevertheless is not able to be remedied, huh, as has been had in the first part, in the part that they don't only take up the angels, huh? You could also say, though, that each angel has got a different, what, nature, right? So if God assumed one angelic nature, that nature would not be found aside to him, right? Why, in man there are many, what, individuals like us of the same nature, right? So if he assumes this nature, he doesn't, what, deprive the rest of creation, right, from having that same, what, nature, huh? Thomas doesn't develop that argument here, but just simply argues from the fact that the angels could not be, what, redeemed, right? So there goes, uh...