Appropriations to the Trinity, Hamlet on Discourse, the Priestly Vestments, and Objections Against the Ceremonial Observances

Orientation #

He refers back to something he said “last time” and on Tuesday night about appropriating faith, hope and charity to the persons of the Trinity, and to a lecture he used to give on the tenth category (clothing). The reading picks up mid-article at ad decimum and ends with the objections of the following article, which he says they will answer next. Neighbouring classes also treat Aquinas on the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law.

The class, in order #

1. Appropriation as discourse (“an example of what Shakespeare calls discourse”) #

• Discourse: coming to know the unknown through the known, or the less known through the more known; loosely, going from one thought to another.
• Plan of the Summa Contra Gentiles: first three books treat God, God as beginning of things, God as end of things, so far as reason as well as faith can reach them; the fourth treats the same three as knowable by faith only (Trinity, Incarnation).
• Hence appropriation takes something from the first, more-known group to manifest what is less known (the Trinity). Its ground: a likeness between something belonging to the divine nature — and therefore equally to all three persons — and what is proper to one person.

2. The three causalities appropriated (“God is a cause in three ways”) #

• End, mover/maker, exemplar.
• End to the Holy Spirit: He proceeds by way of love, love’s object is the good, and the good and the end are basically the same.
• Maker to the Father: hence the Creed, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” He stresses this does not mean the Father alone creates, nor more than the others — the power is the one divine nature — but is appropriate to Him as the beginning.
• Exemplar to the Son, who proceeds as the Word, where the model of what is made is had.

3. Faith, hope and charity appropriated (“come, Holy Spirit… kindle in them the fire”) #

• Charity to the Holy Spirit; again, not He alone, not He more.
• Faith to the Son. A student (Tuesday night) proposed faith to the Father, since faith is the beginning of the three. His answer: the object of faith is the first truth, and the Son is the light enlightening every man, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” — faith adheres to the Word.
• Hope to the Father, argued from the Our Father and from mercy: Pope Francis’s bull Misericordiae Vultus, “merciful like the Father” (Luke); the prodigal son, forgiven by his father, the parable resting on a likeness; Fatima and Sr. Faustina stressing God’s mercy. Hope relies on the almighty power and the mercy of God; hope differs from desire in that its object is a difficult good, so help is needed.
• Thomas’s prayer for forgiveness of sins: by sins of weakness one offends the Father (power appropriated), by sins of ignorance the Son, by sins of malice the Holy Spirit — therefore by one’s sins the whole Trinity; “a beautiful appropriation.”
• Aside: praying for a friend, one appeals to mercy, not to divine justice — “the last thing I want is somebody praying that Berquist gets his comeuppance.”

4. Hamlet as a single woven metaphor (“looking before and after”) #

• Point: Shakespeare repeats a metaphor in changed form across a play, and the parts fit together. First read a play as a play — plot, characters, words; only later does one see how wise he is (his student Diane Desertel: she does not say she enjoys Shakespeare, because there is so much to think about).
• Act IV gives the definition of reason: large discourse, looking before and after.
• Act I: “What beast that lacks discourse of reason would have mourned longer?” — touches discourse and reason, and looks before and after in two senses: in time (two months after the death; the funeral baked meats serving for the wedding) and in rank (the uncle’s inferiority to the first husband). In the closet scene he shames his mother with the picture of the first husband — again before and after; one is like Hyperion.
• The division of causes into nature and will: “nature cannot choose his origin” — of men born with a natural defect, not responsible for it. He praises the brevity with which he says that.
• Looking before and after implies seeing distinction, since nothing is before or after itself. Hamlet to Horatio: “as my dear soul was mistress of her choice, and could of men distinguish” — and then the reasons for the choice, “give me that man that is not passion’s slave”: the irascible man is slave of anger, the lustful of sense desire, the coward of fear.
• He notes also a beautiful understanding of the relation of custom to virtue and vice.

5. Why the priest must have no bodily defect (“into reverence for the divine worship”) #

• The law’s intention: lead men into reverence for divine worship, in two ways — excluding from worship everything contemptible, and adding everything pertaining to honorificentia, giving honor to God.
• If this is observed in tabernacle, temple, vessels and animals immolated, much more in the ministers. Hence: no stain or bodily defect, since such men are held in contempt; and not sparsim, at random, from any family, but by succession of a line, so they should be held more distinguished and noble.
• Aside on democracy: we admire the self-made man (his own father: no high school in town, made his own company). A student adds that Western socialism assumes the wealthy were born with silver spoons and the poor always downtrodden, whereas the American reality is upward mobility. He grants that in earlier days family origin counted, as in England.

6. The eight ornaments of the high priest (“and especially the high priest”) #

Given for reverence, with a special consecration; compare priestly vestments and the dressing-up of a bride, “to honor her.”

1. Linen vestment.
2. Hyacinth tunic, with bells at the hem by the feet.
3. The superhumerale (ephod), of hyacinth, purple, twice-dyed scarlet and twisted linen, covering shoulders and front, bound with a balteus/cingulum of gold and the same colors; on the shoulders two stones carved with the names of the sons of Israel.
4. The rationale, same material, square, on the breast, joined to the superhumerale, with twelve precious stones in four rows, again with the names of the sons of Israel — on the shoulders, as bearing the burden of the people; on the breast, as having them in his heart. In it God commanded doctrina et veritas to be laid. The Jews fabled that in it was a stone changing colors according to what was to befall the sons of Israel, and called that doctrine and truth.
5. A cingulum/belt of the four foregoing colors.
6. The tiara.
7. The golden plate hanging in front, with the name of the Lord — Thomas thinks of gold as greatest in its category.
8. Linen breeches covering the flesh of his shame, when approaching the sanctuary or altar.

• The lesser priests had four only: linen tunic, femoralia, balteus, tiara.
• Asides: children in his parish dress as saints on saints’ day, some as bishops, with mitres that stayed up; Virginia’s grandson Charlie dressed as St. Augustine, and Brother Paul, an Augustinian, got the picture. A student: the Byzantine rite crowns are even more grandiose.

7. The literal reason: the vestments as the world (“the disposition of the orbis terrarum”) #

The high priest confesses himself servant of the Creator of the world; Wisdom 18, “in the vestment of Aaron the whole world was described.”

• Linen breeches: earth, from which linen arises.
• The surrounding belt: the ocean running round the earth.
• Hyacinth tunic: by color, air; by its bells, thunder.
• Superhumerale, by its variety: the starry heaven; the two stones: the two hemispheres, or sun and moon.
• The twelve gems of the rationale: the twelve signs of the zodiac, placed on the breast because in heavenly things are the reasons of earthly things — Job 38, “dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?” He remarks that this shows the order comes from the heavens.
• Tiara: the empyrean heaven, where the angels are; the golden plate: God presiding over all.
• Aside on bells: Eastern censers with bells; his parish has resumed the bells at the consecration; a student recalls in Spain and Portugal a twenty-one-gun salute fired at the consecration, and for Corpus Christi.

8. The figurative reason: defects as vices, ornaments as virtues (“now I’m getting more freedom”) #

Defects signify sins the ministers ought to lack:

• blind — ignorance; lame — instability, inclining to diverse things; too small or too large or crooked-nosed — defect or excess of discretion, or something base, since discretion is signified by the nose, which discerns odors (hence “you sniff the wine”);
• broken in foot or hand — losing the power of acting well or proceeding in virtue;
• a swelling/hump in front or behind — perverse love of earthly things;
• lippus, bleary-eyed — carnal affection obscuring the mind, since it comes from a flux of humor (he recalls Heraclitus: the dry soul is wisest and best — “you’re all wet”);
• a white speck in the eye — presumption of candor and justice in one’s own thinking;
• scab, a putrefaction of the flesh (itch, mange); impetigo, which occupies the body without pain and takes away the body’s beauty, making the member stink — avarice;
• hernia or heaviness — the character of this turpitude in the heart, though not exercised in deed.

Ornaments signify virtues. Four things necessary to all ministers: chastity (breeches), purity of life (linen — a student notes the altar linens, and the linen shroud), moderation of discretion (cincture), rectitude of intention (tiara, covering the head). The high priest four more: memory of and contemplation of God (golden plate with God’s name in front); supporting the infirmities of the people (superhumerale, on the shoulders); having the people in his heart and viscera through solicitude of charity (rationale); celestial conversation through works of perfection (hyacinth tunic). The bells at its hem: the teaching of divine things, to be joined to the priest’s heavenly life. The pomegranates: unity of faith and concord of good morals, to which doctrine must be joined so that unity of faith and peace is not broken.

• On figurative reading he stresses: the same animal serves both ways — the lion is the lion of the tribe of Judah and also the devil going about seeking whom he may devour; fire is lust and also charity, the Holy Spirit’s kindled fire. “That’s why Dionysius says this kind of theology is not argumentative.”
• Aside: bells recall the court fool’s cap; papal vestments are simpler now; a student describes the bishop’s dalmatic under the chasuble at an ordination, and the Pontifical prescribing what he wears.

9. Article six: the objections against the reasonableness of the observances (“no reasonable cause of the ceremonial observances”) #

He reads the objections only, promising the causes next; notes the respondeo is shorter than the objections.

1. 1 Timothy: every creature of God is good and nothing to be rejected that is taken with thanksgiving — so unfittingly are unclean foods forbidden (Leviticus 11). Aside: the prodigal son fed the swine and longed to eat what they ate, perhaps forbidden them; Muslims and observant Jews do not eat pork; a student’s story of pig-fat rifle cartridges, with jokes about ISIS.
2. Animals are given as food just as herbs are (Genesis 9), yet the law calls no herb unclean, though some are harmful and poisonous — so no animal should be called unclean either. (Aside: surviving in the woods, knowing what to eat.)
3. If the matter from which a thing is generated is unclean, so is what is generated. Flesh is generated from blood, and not all flesh is forbidden — so blood, and fat generated from blood, should not be forbidden either. He remarks Thomas must have consulted rabbis for these opinions.
4. Matthew 10:28: fear not those who kill the body, for after death they can do nothing more — much less does it matter how the flesh of a killed animal is cooked. So “thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother’s milk” (Exodus 23) seems unreasonable. It signifies cruelty; Washington Irving’s story of frontiersmen luring a fawn with a call imitating its mother, which the old men thought truly cruel and would not allow.
5. What is first in men and animals, as more perfect, is commanded to be offered to God; yet on entering the land and planting fruit trees, the first growth is to be taken away as uncircumcised and unclean, not eaten.
6. Clothing is outside the body, so no garments should be forbidden — yet Leviticus 19 forbids a garment woven of two, Deuteronomy 22 forbids a woman to wear men’s clothing and a man women’s, and a garment of wool and linen. Jokes about cashmere and polyester and being “excommunicated.”
7. Memory of God’s commandments pertains to the heart, not the body — yet Deuteronomy 6 commands binding the precepts as a sign on the arm, writing them on the doorposts, and tassels at the garment’s corners with hyacinth threads.
8. 1 Corinthians: God has no care for oxen, and so none for other irrational animals — yet it is commanded not to take the mother bird with the young, not to muzzle the ox treading out the grain, and not to let beasts mate with another kind (no hybrids).
9. Among plants there is no discrimination of clean and unclean, so still less should their cultivation be discriminated — yet Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 22 forbid sowing the vineyard with another seed, and plowing with ox and ass together. (Joke about the gardener mixing things up; “good thing we have a New Covenant.”)
10. Inanimate things are most of all subject to man’s power, yet man is forbidden to take the silver and gold of which idols were made or anything found in idols’ houses.
11. Ridiculous also seems Deuteronomy 23, that one dig and cover with earth one’s egestiones. A student: it is hygiene.
12. Piety is most required in priests, and piety seems to require that one be buried by the funeral offices of his friends, for which Tobias is praised (Tobias 1); and sometimes piety requires taking a prostitute to wife, freeing her from sin and infamy — so these seem unfittingly forbidden priests. Aside: a Paris cardinal (Daniélou) found with a prostitute, revealed forty years later to have been giving her money to get her husband out of jail.

• Sed contra: Deuteronomy 18, “thou art otherwise instituted/instructed by the Lord thy God” — whence these observances were instituted by God for some special prerogative of this people, and so are not irrational or without cause.

His words #

• appropriation — taking what belongs to the divine nature, and so equally to all three persons, and assigning it to one for a likeness proper to that person; not exclusive, not “more.”
• discourse — coming to know the unknown through the known, or the less known through the more known.
• honorificentia — “making honor,” giving honor to God.
• sparsim — “at random,” not from any family indifferently.
• rationale — the square breastpiece with twelve stones, carrying doctrina et veritas.
• superhumerale — the shoulder-piece with two engraved stones.
• femoralia / breeches — linen covering “the flesh of his turpitude.”
• lippus — bleary-, watery- or inflamed-eyed.
• impetigo — a painless skin corruption that takes away the body’s beauty and makes the member stink.
• egestiones — what one is “eased of,” to be covered with earth.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 102, a. 5, ad decimum (priestly defects, eight ornaments, literal and figurative reasons) (inferred locus)
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 102, a. 6, objections and sed contra (inferred locus)
• Quoted within: Wisdom 18; Job 38; 1 Timothy; Genesis 9; Matthew 10:28; Exodus 23; Leviticus 11, 19; Deuteronomy 6, 18, 22, 23; 1 Corinthians; Tobias 1

Mentioned

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (plan of the four books); his prayer for forgiveness of sins
• Shakespeare, Hamlet (Act IV definition of reason; Act I; the closet scene)
• Pope Francis, Misericordiae Vultus; Luke, “be merciful as your Father is merciful”; parable of the prodigal son
• Dionysius, on symbolic theology not being argumentative
• Heraclitus, the dry soul is wisest and best
• Washington Irving, the fawn-call story

His questions #

• What is appropriation, and why is it a kind of discourse? It manifests the less known (Trinity) by the more known, what reason can reach.
• To whom do you appropriate end, maker, exemplar? End to the Holy Spirit (love’s object is the good), maker to the Father, exemplar to the Son as Word.
• To whom faith, hope, charity? Charity to the Spirit, faith to the Son (object of faith is the first truth), hope to the Father (power and mercy).
• Does the Father alone create, or more than the others? No — the power is the one divine nature; the appropriation is fitting, not exclusive.
• Does Hamlet touch his definition of reason elsewhere in the play? Yes — “discourse of reason,” before and after in time and in rank, and distinction (“could of men distinguish”).
• Why must the priest have no bodily defect? So nothing contemptible enter divine worship; figuratively, the defects signify vices he must lack.
• Why were the priest’s names of the tribes on shoulders and on breast? On shoulders, he bears their burden; on breast, he carries them in his heart.
• Can the same image signify both Christ and the devil? Yes — lion and fire both ways; hence this theology is not argumentative.
• Is there a reasonable cause for the Law’s observances about food, clothing, planting? Left open — only objections and the sed contra read; the answers come next.