Tertia Pars
Lecture 41: Christ's Omnipotence and Bodily Defects

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

The article or not? Yeah, we do. Yeah, we do. One more here. It's undoubtedly at the end of this, I'll tear it soon, you have a little footnote here, huh? Adverte et chitanus, huh? Cajetan and paradise, point out here. That the author here corrects the way of speaking about the knowledge of the soul of Christ. Respect to all those things which come to be by God, huh? In the third book of the Sentences, Distinction 14, article, he calls practical knowledge, which here he proves not to be practical because it is not factiva. That's the end of this. Yeah, he speaks a little more formally here than he did in the, yeah. Okay. Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with respect to, what, changing creatures, right? To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with respect to the change of creatures, huh? For he himself says in Matthew, the last chapter there, verse 18, there's given to me all power in heaven and on earth. But by the name heaven and earth is understood all creature. This is clear when it says in Genesis 1, 1, in the beginning, God created heaven and earth. Therefore, it seems that the soul of Christ had power with respect to, what, changing creatures, huh? That sounds pretty convincing to me. Of course, maybe I should consider more carefully that. Moreover, the soul of Christ is more perfect than any creature. But each creature is able to be moved by some other creature. For as Augustine says in the third book of the Trinity, it's just as the more, what, gross and heavy bodies and the lower bodies are ruled by the more subtle, more potent ones in certain order, so all bodies are moved or ruled by the, what, rational spirit of life and the spirit of rational life, the, what, sinner, right? The pious and the just. But the soul of Christ moved even the supreme spirits, enlightening them, huh? As Dan Esha says in the seventh chapter of the celestial hierarchy. Therefore, it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence in respect to the change of creatures. Moreover, the soul of Christ had most fully the grace of miracles or of powers, just as the other graces. But every change of creature can pertain to the grace of miracles, since even miraculously the celestial bodies are changed in their order, as Dionysius proves in the epistle to Polycarpa. That's where he's supposed to talk about what is going on down in Egypt during the crucifixion? Maybe that one, I don't know. Therefore, the soul of Christ had omnipotence in respect to the change of creatures. But against this, that it belongs the same one to change creatures to whom it belongs to conserve them. But this is of God alone. For it's said in Hebrew 1.3, He carries all things by the power of His word, huh? By the word of His power. Therefore, only God has omnipotence in respect to the change of creatures. And therefore, it does not belong to the soul of Christ, huh? Now, here Thomas says we have need of a two-fold distinction, of which the first is on the side of the change of creatures, which is three-fold, huh? One which is natural, which comes about from its own agent according to the order of, what? Nature. Another is miraculous, huh? which comes about from a supernatural agent above the custom order and course of nature as the, what? Raising up of the dead. The third is according as every creature is, what? Equal to be returned to nothing. The second distinction is taken on the side of the soul of Christ, which can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature and power, whether that be natural or gratuitous. Another, insofar as the tool, right? Of the word of God personally joined him, right? You got those distinctions down your head. If, therefore, we speak of the soul of Christ according to its own nature and power, whether the natural or the gratuitous one, he has power for those for making those effects which are, what? Suitable to the soul. To wit, to governing the body and disposing human acts and also to illuminating or enlightening through the fullness of grace and science. All rational creatures falling away from that perfection through the way which is suitable to a rational creature. If, however, we speak of the soul of Christ according as it is a tool of the word, united to it, thus it has an instrumental power to all those changes, miraculous ones, right? Making all of them that are orderable to the, what? Into the incarnation which is to, what? Yeah, it sounds like one of the posts, doesn't it, huh? Whether in heaven or on earth, huh? But those changes of creatures according as they can be turned back to nothing corresponds to the creation of things insofar as they are produced, what? From nothing. And therefore, just as God alone is able to create, so he alone can, what? Produce creatures to nothing who alone considers them in being lest they fall into nothing. Thus, therefore, it should be said that the soul of Christ does not have omnipotence with respect to the, what? Changes of creatures. So he seems to be making a three-fold distinction there, doesn't he? There's some things that the soul of Christ doesn't have the power over at all. Some things that he has power as a tool of the word, right? and then finding some things that he has power as, yeah, the property of his own nature, right? So, what's his name? Dinesh will speak of these, what, powers that he has as a tool of his divinity, and they kind of run the two words you get the end of course, don't think of it, man and God together there, right? Now, the first objection was from the end of Matthew there, right? He's given to me every power, right? To the first therefore it should be said that as Jerome says, to him that power is given who a little before was, what, crucified and laid in the tomb, who afterwards rose, that is to Christ according as he is, what, man. Now, there he said to, what, to him all All power is given by a reason of the union, right? Through which it is made that as man he would be, what? Nepotent, huh? And although before the resurrection it was known to the angels, right? After the resurrection it was made known to all men, as Remigius says, huh? He's about the 8th century, isn't he, Remigius? I think he's a monk, huh? They have a quote from St. Thomas. Yeah, yeah. We just quote it in there. For then things are said to come about when they are, what? Made known. And therefore for the resurrection the Lord says that power is given to him in heaven and on earth. But the reason of it is what divinity seems to be saying here, right? But it was hidden to men until that time, huh? The second objection, huh? The soul of Christ is more perfect than any other creature. And one creature can change another creature, huh? To the second then it should be said that although every creature is changeable from another creature, apart from the highest angel, who nevertheless is able to be, what? Enlightened by the soul of Christ, huh? Not, however, is every change which can come about concerning the creature able to come about from a creature. But there are some changes that can come about by or from God alone, huh? Now whatever changes of creatures that are able to come about the creatures can also come about through the soul of Christ according as it is the tool of the, what? Word, huh? Not, however, according to his own nature and power. Because some of these changes do not pertain to the soul, nor as regards the, what? Neither as regards the order of nature, nor as regards the order of, what? Grace, huh? Now the third objection was taken from the, Christ having the excellence of these, gratia, gratis data. Third, it should be said that it has been said in the second part, the grace of powers or miracles is given to the soul of, what? Some saint. Not as his own power, right? But that to the divine power, miracles might, what? Come about. And this grace was most excellently given to the soul of Christ. That not only did he make miracles, but also he transferred this grace to others, huh? Whence it is said in Matthew chapter 10, that having called together the 12 disciples, he gave them power over unclean spirits, that he might cast them out, and that they might cure every sickness and weakness, huh? He says that in Matthew about that, the languor, the sickness of the body, and the impermanence of it. So we stopped there. Yeah. For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, drink from the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Amen. Help us to understand what it's you for today. I was reading the Catena Aurea there in John. You may be aware of the fact that both Augustine, St. Augustine and St. Thomas, say that there can be more than one sense of the letter in Scripture. And so I come to these words of Christ, I am the way, the truth, and the life. And usually the explanation I give is the one from Thomas, which fits the context, you know, where are you going and how can you get there, right? And so Thomas will say, well, as God, he's truth itself and life itself, and that's the end of the goal. As man is the way to himself as God, and therefore as man is the road. He quotes that at the beginning of the Tertia Parse, right? About Christ who, as man, is the via, the road, the way, attending to God. But as I say, I've seen those same words understood in other ways too. And so, I just remember, for example, in the container area, Thomas quotes theophylaxis. And he says, well, the way refers to the practical life, the active life, you could say. And truth, the contemplative life, right? Of course, life is what's common to these two, right? So I got thinking about these words, huh? And couldn't you tap these words of Christ there with the end of the Gospel of Matthew? He sends the apostles forward, right? And he says, make disciples or students of all nations. And that refers to what? Faith, right? Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And then teaching them whatever I commanded you, right? Okay, okay? Well, I thought a little bit of what the theophylaxis says there. He'd say, well, he says, I am the road. He's referring to that third part of what is at the end of Matthew. When he says truth, well, you want truth in the church, you go primarily to the creed. And so, that's the first part. Make disciples of all nations, huh? But if you want life, see, it seems the church would go most of all to the sacraments, right? And especially baptism and the Eucharist. But if you've got a moral sin, you might go to confession and get back some life and so on. So you think of life in terms of the sacraments, huh? So it fits those three, huh? You know, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church first came out, we had that, I forget his name now, but the Monsignor there from New York who's very much into it. I forget his name, but a very nice man. Michael Rand? Yeah, yeah. Did he just die? He might have, yeah. But he was there at Assumption, right? Oh. And so on. So I was there and I was in a group and had asked the questions. So I said, my usual business about three and four, right? Why don't they follow, you know, what Augustine does and then Cridion and Thomas and the Catechetical Instructions? Faith, Hope, and Charity. Why do you have these four instead of three, right? I thought about this before, anyway. I tried to do various things. So he thought for a while, and he says, I don't know. So I'm not even saying that. But here you could type the first three, the first three parts of the Catechism are exactly the order of the end of Matthew's Gospel, right? You have the Creed, right? The first part. Then you have the Sacrifice, the second part, liturgy. And the third part you have, what you call moral theology, you know, the end of man, what's virtuous, what's vicious, and so on. So you have exactly those three, which you could tie up with, I am the way, the truth, and the life, although the order's different, right? And then you might divide against those three the way prayer is given forth and last, right? Because you pray in order to, what? Believe, huh? I believe, help my unbelief, you know? And you pray in order to, like we do here, to understand better what you believe. And obviously you pray in preparation of the sacraments and after them and so on. And you obviously pray to get God's help to do his will. And so you could divide that fourth part against the other, what, three. But the distinction of the three, according to the end of Matthew's Gospel, right? But he's not here to talk with. He's not here to talk with you about money in your end. So, so, pass on. Let's see. Beautiful text in there. Beautiful text in Augustine there, you know, why there's no envy in heaven. Beautiful. In the container area. But in turn, it's primarily a perfection and charity, right? So I rejoice with the clarity that you see things, right? And you see it more clearly than me, right? You know? I rejoice in the clarity of your vision because I love you so much. And it's so different from this, you know, we're so used to envy, huh? I was reading the Catholic World Report there, you know, and I guess they're correcting this Jesuit again. What's his name? Hite? Oh, really? Yeah, yeah. He seems to be, on everything, he's got problems. But even the title of his book, you know, Jesus, Symbol of God. That sounds awfully fishy, right? But he was the head of the Catholic Theological Society at one time, huh? So you wonder what's going on out there sometimes. It's absurd. Yeah, yeah, precisely. It's a crazy section in San Francisco, Hite Ashbury. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I couldn't help but read this article and then seeing something about the drug thing there in Hite Ashbury. But anyway. Well, I guess we're up to Article 3 here, Question 13. Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to his own, what? Body, right, huh? To the third, one goes forward thus. It seems that the soul of Christ would have omnipotence with regard to his own, what? Body. For Damascene says in the third book that all natural things were for Christ, what? Voluntary things. For willing, he, what? Was hungry. Willing, he was, what? Thirsty, willing, he feared, willing, he died, right? But from this, God is said to be omnipotent, that everything he wants, he does, huh? Therefore, it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to the natural doings of his own, what? Body, huh? Moreover, in Christ, more perfectly was human nature than it was in Adam, in whom, according to original justice, that he had instead innocence, his body was entirely subject to his soul, so that nothing could happen in his body against the will of his soul. Therefore, much more did the soul of Christ have omnipotence and respect to his own body, huh? And third, moreover, to, or as a result of the imagining of the soul, naturally the body is, what, changed, huh? And the more, the more the soul is of strong imagination, as has been had in the first part, as we've spoken about. But the soul of Christ had the most perfect power, both as regards imagination and as the other powers. Therefore, the soul of Christ was omnipotent with respect to his own body. Can I tell you about that mountain in Wales? I was reading a little thing about Wales, and there are a lot of different legends about the mountains in Wales, you know, things where the evil spirits gathered to elect their leader and so on. But there's one mountain where, if you sleep on this mountain at nighttime, you'll wake up in one of three conditions. Either you'll be blind, or you'll be mad, or you'll be a poet. I was struck by that, right? Yeah, yeah. Because we speak of the lover as being, what, blind, because he works out his imagination rather than his senses. And Homer represents the poet as being blind. and the legend is that Homer himself was blind, but I don't think that necessarily meant that he really was blind, but because he's not the eyewitness of the Trojan War, but it's all in his, what, imagination. And then the madman, of course, is working out his imagination. So Shakespeare, you know, says in the middle of a summer night's dream, you know, the lunatic, the lover, and the poet are of imagination all compact, and he sees that likeness there. In my notes at home, I got from one of the novelists, which he says, strictly speaking, the novelist is mad, right? When he's writing and she's writing. So the imagination can actually, what, affect the, what? The body, you know? Like something horrible, you kind of almost shiver, right? But against this is what is said in Hebrew 2, verse 17, that he ought to be likened in all things to his, what, brothers, right? And especially in those things which belong to the condition of human nature. But to the condition of human nature it belongs that the well-being of the body and its nourishment and growth are not subject to the command of reason or the will, huh? What does Christ say about it? If you want to add a cubit, you know? You're a change. Yeah, you can't do it. Yeah, that was before hair color. Because natural things are subject only to God who is the, what? Author of nature, right? Therefore, neither should they be, what? Subject to in Christ and all his will, reason. Therefore, the soul of Christ is not omnipotent with respect to his own body. I answer it should be said, Thomas says. But this has been said. I've got a student who's, who's actually teaching down in Texas now, but he writes me, asks me philosophical questions, right? And he addressed me as Brother Thomas. Then he sent me another email saying, excuse himself for calling Brother Thomas, but it was kind of funny I had these two emails, you know, the same, the same question, you know, the first one was addressed to me as Brother Thomas. So I should make some joke about it. I mean, quite a compliment to be called Brother Thomas. It's always getting as Brother Thomas for me, so. I answer it should be said, this has been said, that the soul of Christ can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to its own, what? Power in nature. And in this way, just as he was not able to change outside bodies from the course and order of nature, so he was not able to, what? Change his own body from its natural disposition. because the soul, by its own nature, has a, what? Determined ratio to its own, what? Body. Thomas used the word proportional for what? Ratio, right? We'll forgive him for that. That's kind of common in modern speech. In another way, one can consider the soul of Christ according as it is a tool united to the word of God in person. And thus, to his power wholly is subject every disposition of his own body. Because the virtue of action is not properly attributed to the tool but to the chief, what? Agent, huh? So it's chiefly Michelangelo made the pituitas and not his hammer and chisel. They had something to do with it. So that such omnipotence is attributed more to the word of God than to the, what? Soul of Christ, huh? So that's a distinction that Brother Thomas sees, huh? What? No, no. I think it was, I might have been the guy, one of the guys, I might have been the guy in Rome. There's one guy right away from Rome, one guy right away from Texas. The kind of Texas has a student of one of my former students. I mean the son of one of my former students. Yeah. So it's kind of just a small role of the second year. Now the first objection was based on a text from Damascene, right? And to the first therefore it should be said, excuse the word will there, that the word of Damascene should be understood as regards the divine will of Christ, huh? So Christ had, what? Two wills, right? One in his human nature and one in his divine nature because as, for as he himself said in the foregoing chapter, right? He was permitted to the, what? Pleasing of the divine will that his, what? Flesh, suffer, and undergo things that were, what? Proctored, right? So as in Scripture speaks sometimes in the gospel there of Christ as disturbing himself, right? Let himself feel this anxiety about his coming death and so on. He beat the end. Yeah. That's kind of permission of his divine will. Now, the second objection is taken from the power that Adam had over his body, right? So Thomas is going to talk about that. And he says, this does not belong to original justice that Adam had in the state of the sense that the soul of man had the power of changing one's own body in any form whatsoever, right? But that he would be able to conserve it without, what? Harm. And this power Christ was also able to assume if he, what? Wanted to, But since there are three statuses of man, of innocence, of, what? Guilt, and of glory, just as it belongs to the state of glory that one takes on, what? Comprehension, another state of innocence, immunity from sin. So, in the state of guilt, one assumes the necessity of undergoing the penal things of this life, huh? And the third objection is taken from the power of the imagination. To the third, therefore, it should be said that the imagination, if it were, it would be strong. Naturally, the body obeys as regards, what? Some things, huh? For example, Don Salas tells us this thing, example, the guy walking on the stick, right? Falling off a limb or something, right? Or, or, or, placed on high, right? So it was right down the ground, you could do it, right? Without anything but up high, you'd probably fall off and you'd be scared. Because imagination is apt to be the beginning or source of change of place, huh? Locomotion, as is said in the third book about the soul. Likewise, as regards the alteration of the body according to heat and, what? Cold, huh? And other things falling upon that. In that, from the imagination, they're naturally apt to follow the passions of the soul according to which the heart is moved, huh? There's actually a connection between the poet and the imagination, right? And that's through the commotion of the spirits, the whole body is what? Altered, huh? Now, spirits there doesn't mean spirit as opposed to body, right? But the very fine things, I could say electricity and so on. First, I want Thomas to talk about that. But other dispositions of the body that do not have a natural order to imagination are not changed by imagination no matter how strong it might be. That's an example of the shape of the hand or the foot, right? Or something similar, right? Or something similar, Sometimes Thomas will argue, you know, he's talking about the understanding of the angels, that their understanding is above us, right? And therefore the understanding must be above the imagination. Because Aristotle points out in the third book about the soul, that we don't understand in this life, when our soul is in the body, right? Without turning to the, what, images, huh? Okay? So, when you think about what a man is, we imagine a man. When you think about what a triangle is, we imagine a triangle, right? And therefore it's hard to think about the soul or think about an angel or God, because you can't imagine these things. So we'll go on to Article 4 here. Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence in regard to the, what, carrying out of its own will, right? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the soul of Christ did not have omnipotence with respect to the, what, of its own will, yeah. No, like the carrying out, right? Forget that terrible word, execution. Carrying out the sentence, huh? For it is said in the Gospel of St. Mark, Chapter 7, that, what, having entered the house, huh? He wished no one to, what? No. But is not able to, what? Right. Therefore he is not able to carry out in all things the proposal of his will. Moreover, precept or command is a sign of the will, as is said in the first part. But the Lord commanded some things to be done, of which the contrary is what? Happened, huh? For it is said in Matthew 9, that he warned those, what, blind that have been enlightened by him, see that, what? Knows it. But they, going out, spread his fame through the whole land. That happened several times in the Gospel, right? I wonder whether he meant, really to be. None ergo, not therefore, in all things was he able to, what? Carry out the proposal of his own will. Moreover, that which one is able to do, one does not ask for from another. But the Lord asked from the Father in praying, that which he wished to come about. For it is said in Luke 6, that he went up into the mountain to pray, and he was, what, praying all for the night, huh? Therefore there cannot be carried out in all things the proposal of his, what, will. Against this is what Augustine says in the book of questions of the New and Old Testament, huh? These guys say with the scriptures, huh? It is impossible that the will of the Savior not be, what, fulfilled. Nor is it able for him to will something that he knows ought not to, what, come about. What's Thomas going to do with this now? He really gets himself into a lot of trouble, it seems to me. It's like some kids are always getting into trouble. Thomas is always getting into some difficulty that he's got to resolve. I answer it should be said that the soul of Christ is able or willed something in, what, two ways, right? In one way as being to, as to be fulfilled to himself, huh, they say. And thus it should be said that whatever he willed, he was, what, able to do. For it would not be suitable to his wisdom, that he wished something to do by himself that was not subject to his, what, will. Another way he willed something to be fulfilled by divine power as the, what, the suscitation of his own body. Another miraculous works of this sort, which he was not able to do by his own, what, power. But according as it was a tool of his, what, divinity, huh? I think the Tenoria, they speak of the body of Christ, right? Taking on the soul again after his death and resurrection. But insofar as it's a tool of the, what, divinity, yeah. Because sometimes it says he rose, sometimes it says he was raised. Yeah. But I mean, did the soul grab the body and take it to itself again? Or did the body, you know? Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. I don't know. I see another way of speaking, you know. Whichever took on whichever one, or both, or, uh, was a, as a tool of the divinity, huh? What? Both of the divinity. Yeah. That's a good move. This is, this is, this is an ambrosiaster. To the first, therefore, it should be says, as Augustine says in the book about the questions of the New and Old Testament, that what was done, one should say that Christ what willed them. It should be noted, however, that what in the end was done to the Gentiles, right, to whom there was not yet the time of, what, preaching to them. But further, not to receive those coming to the faith would be of, what, envy. From his own, therefore, he did not, what, preached, but he, what, did he saw? And thus it was done. Well, that's really obscure, huh, isn't it? Or it can be said that this will of Christ was not about that which was to be done through him, but about that which was to be done through others. Whence in the epistle of Agathon, which was received in the sixth, what, synod, I guess in my text it says the Council of Constantinople, number three. Therefore, the, what, maker of all things and the Redeemer, wishing to hide in the earth, he was not able, unless this to the, what, to his human will, right, it reduced to his human will, which in time he was, what, yeah. What is he talking about there? Is he saying that when Christ could not be seen by his enemies, this was done through his, what, divine power rather than through his own, what, human will? He couldn't hide it. But would his human will not be able to do this without being a tool of his divine will? Although I read, you know, the, in the next slide, he was, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the We're supposed to be able to hide from us if we want to, to be seen or not be seen by the side. But of course, the way they, on the road to Emmaus there, you know, they don't recognize him. And Mary Magdalene doesn't recognize him at first, right? What power does he make himself unrecognizable? So when the crowd wanted to throw him off the cliff, he always, he could elude. He could pass through them, yeah. Incredible. He makes himself invisible, right? You know, Sherlock Holmes would disguise himself, right? And go someplace and all of a sudden, you know, watch him, looking around for him. And all of a sudden, he realizes that. But it's a word that is really Sherlock Holmes. They're standing up and not getting away from him. They're standing down and not looking for him. And they holler over. Have you seen that? Here, he's an advenation. He says, I've only painted these not far away. I said, oh, they went to him. He went to him, right? You know, what about these people he cured that didn't obey his injunction to keep quiet about it? To the second it should be said. And that is, Gregory says in the 19th Book of Immorals, through this that the Lord commanded for them to be silent about his powers, huh? He gave an example to his servants following him, huh? That they, that they, what? Should desire to, what? Hide their own powers, right? And nevertheless, that others might profit from their example, right? He, what? I said, they'd be handed on or told about, even though unwillingly. Yeah. Thus, therefore, that precept, or command, designates the will of him by which he refused human glory, according to that of John 8. I do not seek my glory. He wished over absolutely, especially according to his divine will, and that the miracle done might be, what, published, on account of the utility or usefulness of this to others. So his divine will wished something, and his human will wished something else? You've got to be careful about that. Or maybe one is ordered to the other. Yeah, but the human will was wanting to, what, not be souped from glory, right? Well, he didn't, in his human will, he didn't necessarily wish that it had not been known, but that he didn't seek it for himself to look at the glory. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah. Yeah, I wanted to give this example to those who followed him, right? I've got to kind of carefully, I don't have the two wills and opposition here. Okay. The third, it should be said, that Christ prayed for those things which are to be done through his, what, divine power, right? And for those also which were to be done by his, what, human will. Because the power and operation of the soul of Christ depended upon God, who does in all willing and, what, perfecting, right? It is said in the Philippines, too. Without me, you can do nothing. This is what he says elsewhere. Now, there's a little break here between 13 and 14, so we need to take a little pause here right now, because now he's going to take up the, what, defects, right? Yeah.