Tertia Pars
Lecture 58: Operations and Merit in Christ

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

Two, whether there are in Christ many human doings, right? Strange, strange. Let's see. To the second one goes forward thus, it seems that in Christ there are many human doings. Oh, that's what I thought it would be. For Christ, insofar as he's a man, communicates, or has in common with the plants, the nourishing nature, right? With the animals, the sensing nature, right? With the angels, the understanding nature, just as other men. But other is the doing of a plant insofar as it's a plant, and the other of an animal insofar as an animal. Therefore, Christ, insofar as he's a man, has many, what, doings. Is it a plant, an animal, and a man? I don't know. Moreover, powers and habits are distinguished by their acts, but in the soul of Christ, there are many powers and many habits. Therefore, there are diverse operations. Of course there are. Who do you deny that? It gets strange, this guy, sometimes. Moreover, tools ought to be proportioned to operations. But the body, the human body, has diverse members, differing according to form. It's an organic body, a body composed of tools. Therefore, they are accommodated to diverse operations. Therefore, there are in Christ many operations according to human nature. Who could deny that? But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. Operation follows nature. But in Christ, there's only one human nature. Therefore, in Christ, there is only one human operation. As you know in the definition of reason, right? The ability for a large discourse, looking before and after. They pointed out the ability for a large discourse includes the ability for a small discourse, right? And the ability to look before and after includes the ability to look for distinctions. I think there's some needier for a distinction, isn't there? I'm looking for a distinction. I'm looking for Thomas to make a distinction, huh? No, it's part two point. I answer it should be said that because man is that which he is, right? By reason. That doing is said to be simply, without qualification, human, which goes forward from reason through the, what? Will. Which is the desired reason, huh? If there is some doing in man which does not proceed from reason and will, it is not simpliciter, right? A human operation, right? This reminds me of the distinctions they make at the beginning of ethics, huh? Where they say that the subject of ethics is operatio humana, right? Human doings, right? But that means the ones that proceed from, what? Reason and will. So my digesting my food is not something that I consider in ethics, to speak, right? It's not operatio humana. It's not proceeding from my reason and my will, okay? So a doing, an operation in man that does not go forward from reason and will is not simply without qualification a human doing, right? But it belongs to man according to some part, nevertheless, of what? Human nature. Sometimes according to the very nature of the bodily element as to be born down. That's why it's hard to walk upstairs. That's why I get this stress test. I get pressure in my chest or something or got a breath more going uphill than downhill, right? Okay? That's because I got this bodily element in there, right? Too much earth in me. Sometimes according to the power of the living soul as to, what? Nourish and to grow, right? Sometimes according to the sensing part as to see and hear, to imagine and to remember, and to, what? As sense desire, right? And to be angry and so on. Among which doings there is a difference. And this, again, is a distinction that is made in the ethics. For the operations of the sensing soul are in some way obedient to reason. And therefore, they are in some way reasonable and human, huh? Insofar as they obey reason, huh? So you can say Mozart's music and the music of the 18th century is more human, right, and rational than the music of the Romantic period, right? I think for it's the so-called music of our time. Remember my cousin Donald's in the Navy for four years. He'd go crazy with that thing you hear all the time. And then one day he was in Chicago and he had a chance to go to a symphony orchestra, you know. Oh! I was like, what a relief, you know. He's just overwhelmed, you know. I think it was Wagner and so on, but he was just overwhelmed after hearing nothing about this junk, you know. Of course, I know guys who are in the Army and they allow them to play the little radios all night long, you know. So you get that stuff. You hear it all night long. It just goes through your headlight. It's just no wonder they used to break down people, you know. But the operations which follow upon the, what, living soul, or even the nature of the bodily, right, element, are not subject at all to reason, huh? So I can't, you know, accustom the earth and my body to go up a little bit rather than down all the time, right? Whence in no way are they rational, nor human simply, but only according to some part of human nature, right? Okay, so this is distinctions that you've hit at the beginning of ethics, right? Oh, now I know what the guy's doing. Okay. Open the door to ethics. It has been said over above that when the lower agent acts through its own form, then there is another doing of the lower agent and the higher one. But when the lower agent does not act except according as it is moved by the higher agent, right, then there is the same doing of the higher agent and the, when you're chopping down one of these trees on your property here, if you do that, you and the axe are doing the same operation, right? I think so. If, therefore, in some pure man, right, well, it's purely a man, other is the doing of the, what, element and of the living soul from the operation of the will, which is properly human. Likewise, the operation of the sensing soul insofar as it is, what, not moved by reason. But, insofar as it is moved by reason, there is the same doing of the sensing part and the rational part. Now, of the rational soul, there is one doing if we pay attention to the beginning of the operation, which is the reason or the will. but is diversified according to regard to diverse objects, which diversity, some call a diversity of the things done, right? but more of the operations judging the unity of the operation so only from the part of the, what, operating principle. Thus, now it is asked about the unity or the parallel to the operations in Christ. If, therefore, in some pure man there is only one operation, which is properly human, thus, therefore, in a pure man, right, there is only one operation, which is called properly human, right, apart from which, nevertheless, there are in a pure man some other operations, which are not properly, what, human. But in the man, Jesus Christ, there was no motion of the sensitive part, which was not ordered by, what, reason. for those natural operations and bodily ones in some way pertain to his will insofar as, what, pertain to his will and that his flesh did thus or suffered thus, right, the things which are proper to it, as has been said. No one takes away my life, they tell me so. And therefore, much more is there one doing in Christ than in any other man, right? You and I have been off in many directions at the same time. That's like, I guess, the closest thing to that is the part of Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve. Yeah. That's what gives rise to what point at all is kind of interesting. There could be no being, no sin, in paradise. So the first, it should be said, then, that the operation of the sensitive part and the nutritive part is not properly human, right? Nevertheless, in Christ, these operations were more human than in what? Others, right? The second, it should be said that powers and habits are diversified in comparison to their objects. And therefore, the diversity of operations in this way corresponds to what? Diverse powers and habits as it corresponds to diverse objects. Now, such a diversity of operations, we do not intend to exclude from the humanity of Christ. Well, thank God. Just as that which is according to another time, right? Meaning that it does something today, it didn't do yesterday, right? But only that which is according to the first active principle. Okay, Thomas, you redeemed yourself over there. Another article, I guess. Whether the human action of Christ was able to be, what? Meritorious, right? Because it was meritorious for him. Anyway. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that the human action of Christ was not able to be meritorious for himself, I guess. For Christ, before death, was a comprehensor. That is to say, he saw God face to face, right? His human nature. Just as it is now. But for one who sees God face to face, he does not, what? Merit, huh? For the charity of the one who comprehends pertains to the reward of the attitude, huh? Because according to it is to be noted enjoyment, right? Once it does not seem to be a source of meriting, since the same is not merit and reward. So your loving God in heaven will be your reward, or part of your reward, right? Seeing him and loving him, right? Therefore, Christ, before his passion, did not merit. Just as neither now does he merit, huh? Of course, going to his body, he was not a... Moreover, no one merits that which is owed to him, right? But from this, that Christ is the Son of God by nature, there is owed to him eternal, what? Inheritance, huh? Which other men merit through their good, what? Works. Therefore, Christ, he was not able to merit something for himself, because he was, from the beginning, the Son of God. So if God in his divine nature can't merit, he's without merit. Self-denemble these days. We have it recorded. It'll come up after a call. The devil's advocate. Whoever has that which is chief, or principle, does not properly merit that which follows from it. But Christ had the glory of the soul, from which, according to the common order, there follows the glory of the body, right? As Augustine says in the Epistle to Dios Corus. But in Christ, by dispensation, it was done, that the glory of the soul would not but come down to the body. Though he let it flow down in the... Consegration. Consegration, yeah. Therefore, Christ did not merit the glory of the body. Naturally, he follows from this, the glory that he had in his soul. That's a good argument, huh? Moreover, the manifestation of the excellence of Christ is not the good of Christ himself, but of those who know him, right? Whence, as a reward, is promised to those, Christ, that he will be manifested to them, according to that of John 14. If someone loves me, you'll be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and I will make known myself to him. Therefore, Christ did not merit the manifestation of such... He seems to pray for that, doesn't he, in the... Yeah, in the... In the... What, the 17th chapter, I guess? Of John. But against this is what the Apostle says in Philippians 2, 8-9. He was made obedient, who squared mortem, not up to death. As far as that. On account of which, God has what? Well, exalted him. He merited, therefore, by obeying his own, what? Exaltation. And thus, he merited something for himself. Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that to have some good through oneself, right? Is more noble than to have it through, what? Another. The man who discovers the truth by himself, right? Is more noble than the man who learns it from another, right? For always, the cause which is, per se, through itself, is potioram, or potent, than that which is through another. As is said in the 8th book of natural hearing, the book of physics. But this, someone is said to have to himself, of which he is for himself in some way, the cause. Now, the first cause of all our good, by authority, is God. And in this way, no creature has anything of good to himself, according to that of 1 Corinthians 4, verse 7. And what do you have that you have not received? But one can, in a secondary way, be a cause to himself of having some good, insofar as in this he cooperates with, what? God. And thus, that which someone has through his own merit, he has in some way, right? Through himself, right? Whence that is had more nobly, more nobly, that is had through merit, than that which is had without merit. It's interesting, huh? It's more noble to merit, I raise, huh? Than to be given a raise without merit, huh? Yeah. It was just an act of mercy on the part of the Norwegians to give that. No justice. Because, therefore, every perfection and nobility should be attributed to Christ, right? Consequently, it is that he, through merit, has that which others have through what? Merit. Unless it be such a thing, whose lack, right? would be more prejudicial to the worth of Christ, the dignity of Christ and his perfection, than that it be, what, increased through merit. Whence neither grace, nor knowledge, nor the beatitude of the soul, nor the divinity itself did he merit. So the man Christ didn't merit to be God. He didn't merit the beatitude of the soul. He didn't merit the knowledge he had, nor the Greeks he had. Because since merit is not except of that which is not yet had, right, it would be necessary that Christ, at some time, or for some time, would have lacked these things. Which, to lack, would diminish the dignity of Christ, which merit increases, right? But the glory of the body, or something other of this sort, is less than the, what, dignity of meriting, which pertains to the virtue of, what, charity. And therefore, it should be said that Christ, the glory of the body, and those which, things which pertain to his outside excellence, right, to wit, ascension and veneration, right, and others of this sort he had by merit. And thus it is clear that he was able to merit something, right? So sometimes, you know, we divide these articles of faith about Christ into the articles of, what, descent, and the articles of ascent. So, he lord himself, becoming a man, right? And then dying on the cross, and even going down into hell, right? And Thomas says that by his death on the cross, he merited his, what, resurrection, right? And by his going down into hell, he merits his, what, ascension, right? He's touching upon that here. That the merit of the body there, and the exterior excellence, the ascension and so on. And to some extent, you know, the second coming, you know, it's very different by the first coming. The first coming is a very humble coming, right? And there's no place for him to stay, and so on. The second coming will be very, very impressive. When it takes place, you'll know it's coming. You know it's coming. When he came, there wasn't any place for him to stay. When he comes, the next time, there's not going to be any place for us to hide. Okay. To the first, therefore, that fruition, enjoyment, which is the act of what? Charity, right? Because you enjoy possessing what you love, right? So the more you love God, the more fruition there will be, right? Enjoyment of his possession of it. The fruition, which is the act of charity, pertains to the glory of the soul, right? Which Christ did not, what? Merit. And therefore, if through charity, he merited something, huh? It would not follow that the same thing was merit and, what? Reward, huh? Nevertheless, through charity, nevertheless, he did not, through charity, merit, insofar as it was a charity of a comprehender, right? One who saw God. But insofar as it was a charity to the one on the way because of his body. For he was, at the same time, theodore, on the road, and a comprehender. He had arrived. Okay? We were just on the road. And the saints, they've arrived. But he was, at that time, anyway, both on the road and he had arrived. You could say that. You could say he had arrived, he never had to go there, but anyway. And therefore, because now he is not in any way a viator, huh? He is not in the state of, what? Meriting. He can't merit anything. To second, it should be said that Christ, according as he is God and the Son of God by nature, was owed, what? Divine glory and dominion of all things as the first and supreme Lord, right? His princely power the day of your birth. Always splendidly for the days to do. Nevertheless, there was owed to him glory as to a blessed, what? Man. Which, with regard to something, ought to be had without merit, right? And, with regard to something with merit. That's what the glory of the body, right? Now, what about this redundant thing? To the third, it should be said that the overflowing of glory from the soul to the body, right? Is from the divine ordering, according to the suitability of human merit. That, just as man merits through the act of the soul, which he exercises in the body, so is remunerated by the glory of the soul redounding to the, what? Body. And, on account of this, not only the glory of the soul, but also the glory of the body falls under merit, according to that of Romans 8-11. He will vivify our mortal bodies on account of the indwelling spirit that is in us. And thus, it was able to fall under the merit of Christ. What about this fourth thing? What about this manifestation of the excellence of Christ is not the good of Christ himself for those who know him, right? To the fourth, it should be said that the making known of the excellence of Christ pertains to his good, I mean, pertains to the good of the one, or excuse me, pertains to his good, according to the being that he has in the knowledge of others. Although, chiefly, it pertains to the good of those who know him, according to the being that they have in themselves. But this refers to Christ insofar as they are his what? members. I'm going to have convoluted that a little bit. I can't solve it. Do you have time for one more here? To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ could not merit for others, right? For it says in Ezekiel 18, verse 20, the soul which has sinned, it itself will die, right? Therefore, for a like reason, the soul which merits, it itself will be what? Commuterated. Therefore, it is not possible that Christ merit for others, huh? Well, we're in trouble, I guess. We can see. Moreover, of the fullness of grace of Christ, all have what? Received, as is said in John chapter 1. But other men, having the grace of Christ, are not able to merit for others. For it is said in Ezekiel chapter 14, that if there were in the city Noah, Daniel, and Job, they would not what? liberate the son and the daughter, right? But justice itself would liberate their what? Souls. Therefore, neither can Christ merit for us. Moreover, the merit which someone merits, I mean, excuse me, the reward that someone merits, is owed according to justice is owed according to justice and not according to what? Grace, as is said in Romans 4. If therefore Christ merited our salvation, it would follow that our salvation is not from the grace of Christ, but from justice. And that he acts unjustly with those whom he does not save, since the merit of Christ extends to all. I wonder Thomas dictated to standing up or sitting, to laying down. Well, I didn't know everybody. Yeah. See, you'd be dictating, you know, and then he kind of laid down and he'd be exhausted and continued to dictate. I've often wondered when these thoughts came to him. But against this is what is said in Romans 5.18, that through the, what, crime of one, condemnation came in all men, right? Thus also through the justice of one, justification of life came to all men. But the demerit of Adam, full order to the condemnation of others, therefore much more to the merit of Christ to others. It's a hopeful thought here. I answer it should be said, that it has been said above, that in Christ not only was there grace, as in a, what, individual man, but also as in the head of the whole church, to which all are joined as the members of the body to the head, from which there is constituted mystically one person. So it didn't surprise it to us, so that the mystical body of Christ is probably the most profound statement of what the church is. Many things you've got to say about the church, I would say that that's perhaps the most profound thing, the mystical body of Christ. I know there's Thomas there in the Prairie for a Community, asked that he might receive this body that came from Mary, right? In such a way that he might be incorporated and numbered among the members of the mystical body of Christ. And hence it is that the merit of Christ extends to others insofar as they are, what? His members. So if you're cut off from him, like the branch from the plant, you're not going to merit, you're not going to benefit from his merit. Just as in one man, the action of the head in some way pertains to all his members. Because not only does it sense there for itself, but for all the members. Now to the first, therefore, it should be said that the sin of an individual person does not harm except what? But the sin of Adam, who was constituted by God as the beginning of the whole nature, is derived to others through the propagation of the flesh. And likewise, the merit of Christ, who by God is constituted the head of all men as regards grace, extends to all his members. The second should be said that others take of the fullness of Christ, not the fountain of grace do they take from him, right? But a certain particular grace, right? And therefore it's not necessary that other men are able to what? That they are able to merit for others just as Christ, huh? Okay. Now I mean, you exclude maybe Mary and some excellent saints from this, huh? Let me just go into that right now. To the third, it should be said that just as the sin of Adam is not derived to others except by bodily generation, so the merit of Christ is not derived to others except through a spiritual generation, which comes about in baptism, by which we are incorporated to what? Christ. According to that of Galatians 3, all whatsoever they were baptized in Christ have put on Christ, huh? That's what Gesson was told, put on Christ and take no more concern for the body, huh? And this is of grace, huh? That it be conceded to man to be regenerated in Christ, right? And thus the salvation of man is from grace, huh? Okay, so question 20, huh? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 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 correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Amen. Help us to understand all of your victory. Son, Holy Spirit, amen. So I was looking at Shakespeare's play there, All is Well That Ends Well, which of course is a mercy and forgiveness play. But there's one or two lines in there. It says, All is well that ends well. Still defines, and that's in the Latin word for end, still defines the, what, the crown. And then the second line is, it rhymes with that. Whatever the course, the end is the renown. So renown and crown there. Well, that's another, you saw it mentioning of crown, right? Right? Where crown is used, what, for the end, huh? All is well that ends well, right? Still the fiend, finds, F-I-N-E, but it's from the Latin word for end. The crown, right? And remember when I was talking about the senses, the word before, remember? Aristotle has in the categories. And he gives the four central senses of before first, right? Before in time, before in being, before in the discourse of reason, and before in goodness. And then he brings in another sense afterwards, right? That he finished and then he did it. And it's not fifth in order. And this is the sense in which the cause is before the effect, right? But it's most likely, what, second sense. Because just as the effect depends upon the cause, so what's after in being depends upon what is before in being. So they're similar, right? But I call that the crowning sense, right? Because it's kind of the end of what reason tries to do. It tries to know the reason why, right? For that, that it might know is so, right? It wants to eventually know why it is so, right? I was thinking of a good example of this. They ask our Lord there, you know, what is the greatest commandment? And this is about the law, right? The foundation of the whole law. Well, and you should love the Lord your God with your whole heart and so on. And then later on you had about the neighbor, but the first thing is to love God, right? And in some sense, that's more fundamental than loving your neighbor because you should love your neighbor because you love God, not love God because you love your neighbor. So the most fundamental law, you might say, is to love God from your whole heart and your whole soul and so on. But why, we know that's so now because Christ himself has said so. But why is that so? What's, you know? Because this is faith seeking what? Understanding why this is so, right? What's the middle term there to show that that's not only the greatest of the laws, but the foundation of all law, right? And, yeah, what is the reason? What's the middle term for that? What? Well, that's true. I'm looking at a little more precise than that. Yeah? Well, if you study in the Prima Secundae, if you study the Tweet of Sun Law, right, one of the first questions there is, what is law? And Thomas develops a definition of law. It has four parts, huh? It's an ordering by reason for the common good promulgated by who is authority, right? So in the very definition of law is that it's for the common good. Well, of course, God is the common good of the whole, what, universe, right? So to love the common good of the whole universe is the foundation of all law, if law is the ordering of, what, by reason for the sake of the common good, huh? Okay? So you've got to be firm in the common good, to which everything is ordered, in order to found the law. That's why I call that the crowning sense, right, huh? The mind does not rest with knowing that this is so, but wants to know why it is so, right? I was being challenged there this morning in the delicious question, it's just been taught, the potencia, and he's talking about the father and the son and the idea that the son is the thought, right, huh? Okay? And one of the objections is saying, well, we can know this by reason, because by reason we know that God understands and God thinks, right? And therefore, when we know that he has this thought, right? And Thomas says, well, we know that God understands, we know the way he does understand, huh? See? You've only a perfect understanding of that. And then he goes on, it's like an interesting, but just develop a little bit here. When you imagine something, you naturally form a, what, image of it, right? And when you think of something, you naturally form a, what, thought of it, right? It proceeds from your thinking of it, a thought of what you're thinking of. Just like when you imagine something, there is an image, right, formed. Well, if God thinks about himself, and he can know that by reason, God knows himself, right? Wouldn't there be, what, proceeding from God, a thought of himself, huh? Well, we don't really know that by natural reason, because you don't know that God's way of thinking is that much like ours, right? But Thomas says, and they apply that, he says, but you can conjecture, he says, which is a Latin word for you to guess, right? You can guess that God has a thought because he thinks as we think, and we don't think without forming a thought or having a thought of what we're thinking about, right? So, same thing for God, right? And Thomas is always very careful to deny that natural reason can arrive at the understanding of the Trinity, right? And that's, I guess, church doctrine, right? But it is interesting, he says, you know, you can conjecture, right? That maybe he's like us, you know? But it's a guess, right? And then we learn by faith that there is some likeness of that kind, right? Okay? So we're up to question 20 here in the Territia Paras, right? About which Christ said to Thomas, Bene schipsisti, Tama, right? You've written well about me, huh? I think that's quite an endorsement, right? You know? It has a little blurb on the back of your edition of Summa. Yeah. Well, I told you, when I went to College of St. Thomas there, and in the two front buildings, right, there's kind of an archway between the two, and then there's, you know, Stature of Thomas, and underneath it it has in stone, you know, Bene schipsisti, Tama, you know? Oh, okay. Okay. Look just back at the premium here, just so we don't get lost in the texture. Look at the premium to all this in question, what, 16, huh? In the premium at the beginning of question 16, Thomas says, Then one ought to consider about those things which follow upon union, huh? Okay, hypostatic union. Which is to talk about that hypostatic union up to this point, right? And first, as regards those things which belong to Christ, so he couldn't have said it by himself, right, huh? Secondly, about those things which belong to Christ in comparison to God the Father, right? Third, with regard to those things which belong to Christ as regards us, right? That's a division, I think, into three, huh? Okay. Okay, then he goes on to divide the part that we just got through the last class, right? About the first day, two-fold consideration occurs. About those things which belong to Christ according to being and becoming, and those things that belong to him by reason of, what? Unity, right? Okay. And then we get to 17 there, huh? So we're up to now the part that...