Aquinas on the Passion of Christ (ST III, Q.48, aa.1–3): Merit, Satisfaction and Sacrifice

Orientation #

He opens by placing this question against the preceding one: in the previous question Thomas “looked before” — at the efficient causes of the Passion — and now he “looks after,” at its effects (prev. lecture). He quotes Shakespeare’s definition of the use of reason as “looking before and after.”

The neighbouring classes likewise work article by article through the Tertia Pars on the Passion of Christ.

The class, in order #

1. Opening prayer and the division of the question (“about the way of affecting”) #

Prayer to God, the guardian angels and Thomas Aquinas. The proemium divides: first the way in which the Passion effected what it effected, second the effect itself — two questions. Six things are asked in the first: whether the Passion caused our salvation by way of (1) merit, (2) satisfaction, (3) sacrifice, (4) redemption, (5) whether to be Redeemer is proper to Christ, (6) by way of efficient cause. A student notes that Redemptor Hominis was John Paul II’s first encyclical.

2. Jumping ahead to a. 6 ad 3 for the whole scheme (“look at the reply to the third objection”) #

He reads the last reply of the question as a summary of all five modes, each assigned to an aspect of Christ:

• compared to his divinity — per modum efficientiae (efficiency);
• compared to his human will (the will of Christ’s soul) — by way of merit;
• considered in the very flesh of Christ — by way of satisfaction;
• insofar as through it we are freed from the obligation to punishment — by way of redemption [he hesitates over guilt/punishment here];
• insofar as through it we are reconciled to God — by way of sacrifice. His comment: it doesn’t explain everything, but “it shows you how thorough Thomas is in looking at every aspect of this most important passion.”

3. Article 1, objections and sed contra (“no one merits… except through that of which he himself is the beginning”) #

Objections that the Passion did not cause salvation by way of merit:

1. A passion’s principle is outside, from another inflicting it; but no one merits or is praised except through what he himself is the source of.
2. Christ merited for himself and for us from the beginning of his conception; to merit again what is already merited is superfluous.
3. The root of merit is charity, and Christ’s charity was no greater in the Passion than before — it was as great as when he died on the cross — so he did not merit more by suffering.

Sed contra: on Philippians 2:9 (“on account of which God exalted him”), Augustine: the humility of the Passion merited clarity, for clarity is the reward of humility; and he is clarified not only in himself but in his members, the faithful (John 17).

4. Article 1 corpus: grace given to Christ as head (“not only as a singular or individual person”) #

The distinction he calls “very important”: grace was given to Christ not only as an individual person but as head of the Church, so that it might overflow to the members of his mystical body. Hence his works are related both to himself and to his members, as the works of any man in grace are to himself. But anyone in grace who suffers for justice merits salvation for himself (Matthew 5:10, “blessed are those who suffer persecution on account of justice”). Therefore Christ by his Passion merited not only for himself but for all his members — as head of the Church.

• Aside: “I suppose some theologians would say, well, does Mary have something like this too, a little bit?”

5. Article 1, the three replies (“according as someone voluntarily endures it”) #

1. Passion as such has its principle from outside; but insofar as one voluntarily sustains it, it has its principle from within, and so can be meritorious. His example: when suffering comes you ask “why did that nail do that to me?” or “why did this disease strike me down?” — but voluntarily borne, it merits.
2. He grants the force of the objection: Christ did merit from the beginning of his conception, but on our side there are impediments preventing us from obtaining the effect of those merits; to remove them the Passion was necessary.
3. The Passion had an effect the preceding merits did not — not from greater charity but from the genus of the work, suitable to such an effect (as shown by the earlier reasons for the fittingness of the Passion). He ties this to Mother Teresa on doing little things with great love: Christ worked in the wood shop with Joseph with as much charity. “So subtle things are.”

6. Article 2, objections and sed contra (“it seems to belong to satisfy who sinned”) #

Satisfaction, he notes, lies more on the side of the body (per a. 6 ad 3). Objections:

1. It belongs to the same person to satisfy as to sin — as in the other parts of penance, contrition and confession belong to the sinner. But Christ did not sin (1 Peter 2, “who did not do sin”).
2. No one satisfies through a greater offence; but a most grave crime was perpetrated in the Passion, since those who killed him sinned most gravely (as shown in the last question).
3. Satisfaction implies an equality with the guilt, being an act of justice. But Christ suffered not in his impassible divinity but in the flesh (1 Peter 4), and the soul, in which sin is, is more excellent than the flesh.

Sed contra: Psalm 68 in Christ’s person — “what I did not take, I paid back.”

7. Article 2 corpus: superabundant satisfaction (“shows to the one offended what he loves equally or more”) #

He who properly satisfies shows the offended party something he loves as much as or more than he hated the offence. Christ, suffering from charity and obedience, exhibited to God something greater than the whole offence of the human race required, for three reasons:

1. the magnitude of the charity from which he suffered;
2. the dignity of the life he laid down, a life of both God and man;
3. the general character of the Passion and the magnitude of the pain assumed, greater than anyone else’s. Hence his satisfaction is not only sufficient but superabundant (1 John 2: a propitiation “not for ours only, but for those of the whole world”). Aside: hence the indulgences — the Stations of the Cross have a plenary indulgence attached under the usual conditions.

8. Article 2, replies, and the digression on one man satisfying for another (“the head and its members are one mystical person”) #

1. Head and members are as one mystical person, so Christ’s satisfaction pertains to all the faithful as his members; and insofar as two men are one in charity, one can satisfy for another. Satisfaction, unlike confession and contrition, consists in an exterior act, for which one may take instruments — among which friends are numbered. Illustrations offered by him and the students: the man who offered to bear the punishment of the guilty man and was allowed to; “Maximilian Kolbe” volunteering to take another’s place; victim souls (a saint made herself a victim to divine mercy); Stephen praying for Paul; Edmund Campion, whose innards were thrown into boiling water and a drop landed on a bystander’s coat — instant conversion, and he later became a Jesuit and was himself martyred. He grounds it on the Greek proverb ho philos estin heteros autos, “a friend is another self” (Shakespeare: “a second self”): if a friend is another self, he can satisfy for the original self. A student raises the five wise and five foolish virgins (“maybe there won’t be enough for both of us”); another notes Catherine of Siena interprets that in one of her letters.
2. Christ’s charity in suffering was greater than the malice of those crucifying him, so he could satisfy more than they could offend — so far that his Passion could satisfy even for the sins of his crucifiers. Aside: some already beating their breasts after his death; perhaps even some of the leaders were saved later.
3. The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated by the nature of flesh but by the person assuming it: it is the flesh of God, and so has in a certain way infinite dignity. He recalls the Anima Christi ("Corpus Christi, salva me").

9. Article 3, objections and sed contra (“truth ought to correspond to the figure”) #

1. Truth must correspond to figure, but in the sacrifices of the old law human flesh was never offered; rather such sacrifices were contrary to God’s law (Psalm 105: they shed innocent blood, of their own sons and daughters, sacrificed to the idols of Canaan). Aside: “got to go down to the Aztecs.”
2. Augustine, City of God X: a visible sacrifice is a sacrament, i.e. a sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. But the Passion is not a sign; it is what is signified by other signs.
3. Whoever offers a sacrifice does something sacred — the name itself, sacra + facere, shows it. But Christ’s killers did not do something sacred; they perpetrated a great evil.

Aside: Agamemnon offering his daughter to get the winds and the fleet going — “you know what happens to him when he comes back.”

Sed contra: “the apostle” — he remarks on the figure of speech, the Apostle by antonomasia, Paul; John Paul II called Peter and Paul the princes of the apostles — “he handed himself over for us, an offering and a host to God in an odour of sweetness.”

10. Article 3 corpus: the true sacrifice (“every work done that we might adhere to God”) #

A sacrifice is properly something done in honour owed to God, to placate him. Augustine, City of God X: a true sacrifice is every work done that we may adhere to God in a holy society, referred to that end of the good by which we can be truly blessed. Christ offered himself in the Passion; this work, voluntarily assumed and coming from charity, was most acceptable to God — hence a true sacrifice. Augustine again: of this one true sacrifice the ancient sacrifices were many and various signs, one thing said by many words, so that it might be much commended without boredom. Four things are considered in every sacrifice (Augustine, De Trinitate IV): to whom it is offered, by whom, what is offered, for whom. Christ the one true mediator remained one with the one to whom it is offered, made one those for whom he offered, and was himself both the one offering and the thing offered. He stresses this is not redundant: he is both offerer and offered.

11. Article 3, replies, and the question about consumption (“there has to be something consumed”) #

1. Truth must exceed the figure, so the figure need not correspond in all things: fittingly the figure of this sacrifice was the flesh of animals, not men, signifying Christ’s flesh, which is the most perfect sacrifice — (i) as flesh of human nature, fittingly offered for men and taken by them in the sacrament [a reference to the Eucharist]; (ii) as passible and mortal, apt for immolation; (iii) as without sin, efficacious for cleansing sin; (iv) as the flesh of the one offering, acceptable to God from his charity in offering his own flesh. He then reads the parallel Augustine passage (De Trinitate IV) on what is so fittingly assumed, so apt to be immolated, so clean — flesh without the contagion of carnal concupiscence, born of the virginal womb — “Augustine can see a mouthful, can’t he?”

Digression: he recalls reading in the Salmanticenses that a sacrifice requires something consumed or destroyed, and that it is essential to the Mass that the priest at least consume part of the bread and wine; a holocaust is entirely consumed. A student objects that Augustine’s definition in the corpus (“every work which is done”) says nothing of consuming. His answer: even so, in offering to God something is given up — religious vows are a good example, where you lose your own will by obeying. Another student suggests the point lies in “that we may adhere to God,” the end or purpose; he agrees, noting that the last article ends with reconciliation to God. A student adds that elsewhere in Thomas sacrifice is bound up with there having been sin and the need to be reconciled.

2. Augustine was speaking of the figurative sacrifices. The Passion, though signified by all of them, is itself a sign of something to be observed by us (1 Peter 4). A student supplies the full translation: “Christ having suffered in the flesh… he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins, that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men but according to the will of God.” “Oh, okay. Yeah, that makes more sense.”
3. On the side of those killing him the Passion was an evil deed; on the part of the one suffering from charity it was a sacrifice. Hence Christ himself is said to offer the sacrifice, not those who killed him.

His words #

• “Looking before and after” — Shakespeare’s definition of the use of reason, applied to Thomas’s order of questions (causes, then effects).
• “Per modum efficientiae” — by way of efficiency, the mode belonging to the Passion as compared to Christ’s divinity.
• “Overflow” — how grace in Christ as head reaches the members of his mystical body [ed.: redundantia].
• “Genus of the work” — the kind of work the Passion was, not a greater charity, explains its added effect.
• “Superabundant satisfaction” — more than sufficient for the sins of the whole world.
• “One mystical person” — head and members, the ground for one satisfying for another.
• “Victim soul” — the title (supplied by a student) for saints who took on suffering for others.
• Ho philos estin heteros autos — “a friend is another self”; Shakespeare’s “second self.”
• “By antonomasia” — how “the Apostle” names Paul.
• “Immolation” — being destroyed/consumed, for which mortal passible flesh is apt.

Texts #

Read in class

• Summa Theologiae III, q. 48, proemium (the six articles)
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 48, a. 6 ad 3 (the five modes)
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 48, a. 1 (objections, sed contra, corpus, three replies)
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 48, a. 2 (objections, sed contra, corpus, three replies)
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 48, a. 3 (objections, sed contra, corpus, three replies)
• Augustine, De Civitate Dei X (visible sacrifice a sign; definition of true sacrifice; the many figures)
• Augustine, De Trinitate IV (the four things in every sacrifice; the passage on assumed, immolated, clean flesh)
• Philippians 2:9 with Augustine’s gloss; Matthew 5:10; 1 Peter 2; 1 Peter 4; 1 John 2; Psalm 68; Psalm 105

Mentioned

• John 17 (clarified in his members)
• John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis
• Pius XII on the mystical body
• Anima Christi ("Corpus Christi, salva me")
• The Salmanticenses on what a sacrifice requires
• Catherine of Siena, a letter interpreting the wise and foolish virgins
• Evelyn Waugh’s life of Edmund Campion

His questions #

• Is Thomas “looking before and after” here? Yes: the previous question treated the causes of the Passion, this one its effects.
• Whether the Passion caused our salvation by way of merit? Yes — grace was given Christ as head of the Church, so his meritorious suffering for justice merits salvation for all his members.
• But Christ merited from the beginning of his conception; why is the Passion needed? Because on our side there were impediments to obtaining that merit’s effect, and the Passion removes them.
• Did the Passion merit more because of greater charity? No — not from greater charity but from the genus of the work, suitable to such an effect.
• Whether the Passion caused our salvation by way of satisfaction? Yes, and superabundantly: from the magnitude of his charity, the dignity of his God-and-man life, and the extent of his pain.
• How can Christ satisfy when he did not sin? Head and members are one mystical person, and men one in charity can satisfy for each other, since satisfaction is an exterior act for which one may use instruments, even friends.
• Doesn’t the crime of the crucifiers block satisfaction? No — Christ’s charity was greater than their malice, so his Passion could satisfy even for their sins.
• Whether the Passion operated by way of sacrifice? Yes: a work voluntarily assumed from charity, most acceptable to God, in which Christ is both the one offering and the thing offered.
• (Student) Augustine’s definition says nothing about something being consumed — is consumption essential? He grants the difficulty; his answer is that in any offering something is given up (as vows give up one’s own will), and that the point lies in the end, adhering to and being reconciled to God.