Tertia Pars
Lecture 63: Christ's Eternal Priesthood and Divine Adoption

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

To the fifth, one goes forward thus. It seems the priesthood of Christ does not remain forever and eternal. Because, as has been said, those alone need the effect of the priesthood who have the infirmity of sin, which is able to be expiated through the sacrifice of the priest. But this will not be in eternity or forever, because in the saints there is no what? According to that of Isaiah chapter 60, all my people are what? Just. And the infirmity of the sinners is not able to be expiated, right? Because in hell there is no redemption. Abandon all hope, even to hear it. Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not forever. That's a good argument, right? Moreover, the priesthood of Christ is most of all made manifest in his passion and death, right? When through his own blood, right, he entered into the Holy of Holies, right? As is said in Hebrew chapter 9. But the passion and death of Christ will not be forever. For it is said in Romans 6, Christ, rising from the dead, no longer dies, huh? No longer dies, huh? Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not forever. Moreover, Christ is priest, not according as he is God, but according as he is a man. But Christ sometime was not man in the, what, three days of his death, huh? Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not forever, right? But against all this is what is said in Psalm 109. You are priest forever. Well, it's time to do it with this now. The answer should be said that in the office of priesthood, two things are able to be considered. One is the offering of the sacrifice, right? The second is in the consummation sacrifice, which consists in this, that those for whom the sacrifice is offered achieve or arrive at the end of the sacrifice, huh? Now, the end of the sacrifice that Christ offered was not any temporal goods, but eternal ones. Because through his, which, what, eternal goods, which we obtain through his death, right? Once it is said in Hebrews 9 that Christ is the, not the system type priest. Yeah, the future goods, yeah. By reason of which Christ's priesthood is said to be eternal, right? And this consummation, the sacrifice of Christ, is prefigured in this, that the legal high priest, once in a year, right, with the blood of the goat and the fiddle, entered into the sancta sanctorum, as is said in Levite chapter 16. Although, nevertheless, the, what, goat and the fiddle were not sacrificed in the Holy of Holies, right? But outside, huh? Likewise, Christ into the Holy of Holies, that is into heaven itself, right? Entered, right? And prepared a way for us of entering through the power of his blood, which he shed for us on earth, huh? There won't be any sacrifices in heaven, I guess, huh? There won't be sacrifices, huh? Now, what about the first objection there, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the saints who are in the fatherland do not need, furthermore, to be, what, expiated to the priesthood of Christ, huh? But already, being expiated, right, they need to be, what, consummated to Christ himself from whom their glory depends, huh? As it's said in Apocalypse chapter 21, that the clarity of God enlightens them, enlightens that place, the city of the saints, and its lamb, its lantern is the lamb. Now, to the second, huh? It should be said that although the passion and death of Christ should not be, what, repeated, huh? Nevertheless, the power of that, what, victim, remains forever, huh? Because, as is said in Hebrews chapter 10, by one offering, he perfected those, what, sanctified forever, through which also is clear the response to the, what, theory, huh? The unity of this offering is figured in the law, through this, that once in the year, the lawful high priest with solemn offering of blood entered into the holy places. But the figure, if I'll assure the truth, in that, that offering, or that sacrifice, or that victim, did not have an eternal power, and therefore, yearly, those victims were, what? Yeah. So, you see, that's by what Thomas said in this, or not? It's like the body of the article, the three replies, you know, we've never seen him put an end. He already, you know, replied it through the end. Oh, yeah, you mean that, yeah. I think he's explaining the part of his answer. Is that what it is? It looks like it. He mentioned that same passage, almost, where it's the word of the father. I've got to think about that a little bit more, you know, it's kind of interesting what he says there, but some might say, well, the end of the sacrifice is something eternal, right? And he says, for the reason of this, the priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal, right? Because of the end of it, huh? Because of me. The argument of authority here is stronger with me. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. If I teach you something, and you know it, huh? Then I still your teacher? So I'll teach a concert there, you know, I would take the required courses, you know, and I'd get my A, and so on. And after I got out of the course, I'd go back and sit on the course again. And finally, considering he says, you shouldn't come any more, he says, you don't think I'm going to say. So, you know, assuming that's true, there's nothing more to teach me, at least in this course, right, which he's giving to freshmen or sophomores or something like that. Well, what are you going to say? Is he any more my teacher now, see? Or is Monsignor Dianne even more my teacher? I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say I mean, the effect of his teaching is in me, you know, and is he still my teacher? I call him my teacher, but is he still my teacher, really? I knew that you have, by virtue of the knowledge of the age, I would indicate that when he says, you know, the disciple should be like his teacher, in a certain way, when he becomes like his teacher, it's his teacher's teacher. So it takes something even more known here, because we know Victor Burke was still my father, but he's not generating me, but he still remains my father. So, you know, your father is the one who generated you, right? I'll give you some more on that, but it's basically, and so, the effect of his generating you remains, right, with you, and I shouldn't hesitate to say he's no longer my father. Why should it be also true about the, you know, is this like the priesthood of Christ, right? To the sacrifice continue? Well, is it the sacrifice, or is it the effect of the sacrifice, right? That's what I think that's the sense of it. Yeah, yeah. He's talking about in heaven, right? In heaven, you won't even be saying mass, right? The declaration of sacrifice. But the effect of it. Yeah, yeah. So I'm saying, you know, in that sense, is Monsignor Dion still my teacher, or a deconic or somebody, you know, or a historic for that matter, you know? My sister comes out. Yeah. Sister kindness there, yeah, kind of. Definitely would say that, you know, Victor Burke is still my father, right, you know? He's still those little ones with their grandfather, you know? But, okay, let's go ahead. The last article here, which is also taken from the authority of 109 here, the psalm 109. To the sixth one goes forward thus, it seems that the priesthood of Christ was not according to the order of Melchizedek, for Christ is the fountain of the whole priesthood, that nice phrase we looked at before, as the worthy chief priest. But that which is chief or principal does not follow the order of others, but others follow the order of him. Therefore, Christ ought not to be called a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Who's he to be setting the pace for Christ? Obviously, you know, Thomas will be looking for a distinction before he tries to reply to that. I mean, it does say so in Psalm 109, you know, it's applied to Christ, right? Our priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. We'll see, we'll see, we'll see what the master says. Moreover, the priesthood of the old law was nearer the priesthood of Christ than the priesthood that was before the law, right? Melchizedek is before the law, right? For the sacraments, the more expressly signify Christ as they become what? It goes to Christ, as is clear from those things which were said in the second part. Therefore, the priesthood of Christ ought to be more denominated according to the legal priesthood than according to the priesthood of Melchizedek, who was before the law. Moreover, Hebrews chapter 7, it is said that he is the king of what? Peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, nor having a beginning of his days, nor an end of his life, which belong only to the Son of God. Therefore, he ought not to be called a priest according to Melchizedek, as of someone else, but according to the order of himself. Melchizedek should be called an order of Jesus Christ. Yeah. But now, the strongest argument in theology is the argument from what? Yeah. So here it comes. Oh, sure. It said, contra, is what's said in Psalm 109. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. That solves it. End of discussion. Scripture has spoken. I answer, it should be said, that as has been said above, the legal priesthood was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. Not, however, as equaling its, what, truth, but much falling short from it. Because the legal priesthood did not cleanse, what, sins. And then also because it was not eternal. As the priesthood of, what, Christ, huh? So it's not as powerful and it's not as long-lasting, right? But the excellence of the priesthood of Christ in comparison to the, what, Levitical priesthood was figured in the priesthood of Melchizedek, who got from Abraham, right? In whose, what, loins, right? Was decimated in some way. The, what, legal priesthood, right? And therefore, he says, the priesthood of Christ is said to be, according to the order of Melchizedek, an account of the, what, excellence of the true priesthood to the figurative priesthood of the, what, law. Figurative priesthood. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ is not said to be, according to the order of Melchizedek, as if a more chief priest, right? But as, what, simply as prefiguring the excellence of the priesthood of Christ to the priesthood of the Levites, huh? So in that passage, I guess, in Scripture, Melchizedek is said to have no beginning, no end, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he's like the eternal, right? Of the Christ priesthood, one of the things. The second argument was saying, what, isn't the priesthood of the old law closer to Christ than ever? To the second, it should be said that in the priesthood of Christ, two things are able to be considered. One is the offering of Christ himself, right? And the, what, partaking of it, right? Now, as he guards the offering itself. Well, more expressly was figured the priesthood of Christ, the legal priesthood, right? Through the effusion, or the pouring out of blood, right? Then the priesthood of the Chesed Act, in which blood was not poured out, huh? But as regards the partaking of the sacrifice and its effect, in which especially is to be noted the excellence of the priesthood of Christ, in comparison to the legal priesthood, is more expressly prefigured through the priesthood of, what? Chesed Act, who offered bread and wine, right? Chesed Act, signifying, as Augustine says, the ecclesiastical unity, which the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ constitutes, huh? So you've heard this said, you know, they speak of the hardness of the grain, and then you rub it up, and then you give it the water of baptism, and then you eat it with charity, and then you make it into a loaf, and then it has its unity, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Whence also, what? In the new law, the true sacrifice of Christ is communicated to the faithful under the, what, species of bread and, what, wine. They stopped giving it under wine now in the church now to the laity because of the... Swank rule? Yeah. Oh, really? Yeah. Came with a bishop in the order, so... Oh, yeah. She started coming here, Dr. Wilk. Yeah. We received by intention, so we received both pieces of wine. Yeah. So I just said, until the season passes in you, I guess. Well, you're not supposed to shake hands, you know, do a piece of reading, or it's just okay with me, but... Yeah. I forgot what it's all today. There's always this little woman in front of us that's almost an ideal, and I just forgot her hands. I always said, you forgot. I was supposed to do that. Yeah. The priest would tell him to do this. Yeah. The priest goes over and gets that stuff to put in your hand to kill the germs. They do that. Really? Yeah. He'd been doing that for some time. He goes to the priest, too. He was a red, too. In Canada, it was customary to have it on all the ministry before the ministry. Oh, really? Oh, gee. Well, it's the modern world. But it's no good for viruses, right? Yeah. That's the necessary point. Yeah. It kills the bacteria, but it isn't the viruses. So what good is it going to do? You've got the flow. You've got the flow. You're going to give it to everybody, too. That's what we see here on these catalogs, like an ordinate dispenser. You've got the natural catalogs, like an ordinate dispenser, but you've got the natural catalogs, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser. Narrate his generation, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser, like an ordinate dispenser. name of the father and the son of the holy spirit amen thank you my god thank you guardian angels thank you thomas aquinas god our enlightenment guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds order and gloom in their images and allows us to consider more quickly saint thomas aquinas angelic doctor help us to understand all that you have written you may recall these five questions that we're concerned with now they were divided here back in the beginning of question 20 right just look at the primate beginning question 20 here then one ought to consider about those things which belong to christ in comparison to the father of which some are said of him according to the relation of him to the father that he is subject to him that he prayed to him and that he ministered to him in his priesthood but some are said or are able to be said according to the relation of the father to him as if the father adopted him right and the father what predestined him right and then he enumerates the five questions then 20 21 22 23 24 first therefore when i consider about the subjection of christ to the father secondly about his prayer third about his priesthood right those are the ones we finished last time and fourth now about the adoption which we'll be taking up today and maybe the fifth one redestination and notice if you had just that last sentence they'd say well thomas is dividing into five right but those who've been trained in the rule of two or three right realize that he first in the beginning of this premium he gives a division into what two of these right comparison of the son to the father so to speak or the father to the son and then the first of those is subdivided into three and the second into two so he follows the rule of two or three so we don't let him get away with you know so let's look down question 23 about adoption then we're not to consider whether adoption belongs to christ and about this four things are asked first whether it belongs to god to adopt sons secondly whether this belongs to only god the father that's god interesting that is put in there third whether it is proper of men to be adopted into what sons of god and then finally whether christ is able to be called an adopted son so it's not uh fourth article you get down to christ in particular right so but i think these other things are worth seeing and necessary to understand before we try to answer the question four there so the the first one goes forward thus it seems that it does not belong to god to adopt sons for no one adopts except what an extraneous person in his son according as the jurors says that's the canon lawyers but no person is extraneous to god who is the creator of all right saint uh francis he can call his brother brother brother this sister this therefore it seems that it does not belong to god to adopt it's like we're all we're already his children right we're already more adoption seems to be brought in or introduced on account of the defect of what natural sonship but in god there is found a natural what sonship as he's had the first i guess he refers to the son of god right and therefore it does not belong to god to adopt sons he's already got a son there however to this someone who's adopted he might succeed in the inheritance of the one adopting him but in the heredity of god it doesn't seem anyone can succeed because he himself never kicks the bucket right therefore does not belong to god to adopt but against all this is what is said in ephesians chapter 1 the fifth verse he predestined us for adoption as sons of god but the predestination of god is not what he reached therefore god adopts some for himself as sons huh now thomas is going to reply to this i answer it should be said that some man adopts someone for himself as a son insofar as from his goodness the goodness i guess of the one adopting right he admits him to partaking of his what inheritance but god is of infinite what goodness from which it happens that he admits creatures to a partaking of his what goods and most of all or especially the reasonable creatures right which insofar as they are made to the image of god are also capable of the divine beatitude and blessedness which pleasantness consists in the enjoyment of god to which also god himself is blessed right and through himself what rich rich one huh interesting yeah insofar as he enjoys himself now this is called the what inheritance of someone that from which he himself is what rich wealthy and therefore insofar as god from his very goodness admits men to the inheritance of the attitude he is said to what adopt them that's interesting thomas using the word riches here the rich man who died is sometimes called divas but that's kind of the yeah the word for it yeah and therefore insofar okay um but this divine adoption has more than human that god makes a man that god makes a man what suitable for being adopted through the gift of grace right makes him idonium suitable right i'd already talked to him which he blessed him which he gave him to receiving or receiving right in the celestial inheritance but man does not make suitable the one whom he adopts right but rather someone already what suitable he chooses by what he chooses yeah adopting what's the old difference there between man and god in terms of love right our love is is aroused by the goodness we find another son but in god his love is the cause of the goodness in what he loves now what about man not being extraneous from god to the first therefore it should be said that man considered in his nature is not extraneous from god as regards the natural goods that he receives but he is nevertheless extraneous as regards the goods as regards the goods of what grace and glory you And according to this, he is what? Adopted him. So even in actual gifts, we can be said to be God's son in some way. And even the poet Homer, right, speaks of Zeus as the father of men and gods, right? So he speaks in his father, right? Well, if he's your father, he's adopted you in some sense, right? Did you ever say Paul says in Athenians, does he use that? He can poets refer you on the psalm. I can't remember. I'm about to bring a similarity between the two. There's something of the divine in you, I think he says. Now, the second objection. To the second it should be said that it belongs to man to act to supply his own, what? Need, huh? But not God, huh? To whom it belongs to act for the communication, for communicating the abundance of his, what? Of his perfection, right? Like Thomas here in the prayer before communion there. About thaijitas, huh? Okay. To benefit him. And therefore, just as by the act of creation, the divine goodness is communicated to all creatures according to a certain, what? Likeness, huh? So through the act of adoption is communicated the likeness of natural, what? Sonship to men according to that of Romans 8, 29 whom he, what? For new to become, what? Conformed to the image of his, what? Son, huh? That's a different sin, huh? So sometimes, you know, a man might not have any children, right? Or have no, what? A son, right? So he adopts someone that he, he says, what? Yeah. So there's a certain need there because he doesn't have a natural son. Well, he needed to, he needed to somebody, right? And, uh... But God doesn't have that problem, right? It's not a need, right? That he adopts us, huh? Okay, now what about this dying and so on? To the third, it should be said that spiritual goods are able at the same time to be possessed by many. Not, however, what? Corporal goods, okay? So if I come in here with a apple pie, I can't give the whole apple pie to each of you, but whatever I give to one of you, the other ones will not have, right? But if I come in here with my knowledge of the Pythagorean Theorem, I can teach the Pythagorean Theorem to all of you and each of you will walk away with... And the same piece. Same piece of Euclid, right? And therefore, because of that, no one is able to, what? Receive or get the bodily or material inheritance except by succeeding to the one dying, huh? But the spiritual inheritance at the same time, all, integral, the whole, right? Can proceed without any, what? Harm to the Father always will. Remember my brother, Richard, went there talking about he was experiencing class and so on and he's a student. Who partakes more of the knowledge of the teacher or the student? Of course, he included the teacher does more because he understands it better, right? But the poet doesn't have less for sharing his knowledge, right? He used to have fun with the early Greeks there, you know, for whom the only kind of change is change of place, right? So therefore, the only way that a man could teach would be to, what? Transport some of the knowledge of his head into the student's head in which case the professor would be, what? more and more ignorant the longer he was teaching. He'd be less and less valuable as a teacher. He'd be less and less because he has less left to communicate to his students. But that ain't so, I don't think. Yeah, right there. But then, let's tell us what he was on to say something. It's kind of a strange thing, huh? Although it can be said that God, what? Dies according as he is in us by faith that he might begin to be in us through, what? The vision of his own nature. Species, that's kind of a short for seeing God as he is, right? As the gloss says, his sons and heirs, huh? That's kind of it. I need to tell us that say that, huh? You know how we speak of someone as living on somebody because they're being remembered, right? Okay. So in a sense, by faith, God is living in us, right? So when he'd lose faith, when he'd come to see him face to face, then that way which was living in us he's no longer, but is alive in us, huh? We speak that way, right? We speak that way, don't we? So Thomas, makes you so good, huh? Kind of subtle guy this Thomas, huh? Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm