Tertia Pars
19. Aquinas on the Incarnation (ST III q.6 a.2–3): Spirit, Soul and Body, and Why Christ's Soul Did Not Exist Before His Flesh
Class of 2009-01-08
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/019-aquinas-on-the-incarnation-st-iii-q-6-a-2-3-spirit-soul-and/

[0:00] 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 to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Really, pray for us. And help us to understand what you've written, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. After class, I'm always reading with somebody else that I have something that kind of interests me, you know.

[0:27] And last night I was talking to these two guys that come to my house on Wednesday night. We're going through the chapter and the categories there and the four kinds of opposites, right? And then they turn into bed. There's going to be a couple scenes from Macbeth, and the scenes where, of course, the discovery of the death of the murder of King the King, right? And the guy comes out and says he's dead.

[0:49] He says, "I wish you would contradict yourself and say he's not dead, right? " But it's kind of funny because we're just talking about about the opposition of contradiction, various things about it.

[1:01] Just a couple little things here in the spiritual relations of of Saint Teresa of Avila. On the Tuesday following Ascension Day, I spent some time in prayer. After communicating in a state of distress because I was so distracted as to be incapable of concentration, so I complained of our miserable nature to the Lord. Then my soul began to kindle with fire, and I seemed to have the clearest realization of the presence of the Most Holy Trinity, an intellectual vision.

[1:41] Through which, any sort of picture or figure, the truth of a kind that even my stupidity could understand, my soul learned how God is three and one.

[1:54] And thus it seemed to me all three persons were speaking, and were distinctly present within my soul. So they really are distinct, huh? These three persons. They told me that from that day onward I should find myself better in three respects, for each of the three persons was granting me a favor. One would give me charity, one joy in suffering, and one a consciousness of that charity with an enkindled soul.

[2:27] I now realize the meaning of these words spoken by the Lord, that the three divine persons will be with the soul that is in grace.

[2:43] Another little passage when I was mentioning on Saint Augustine's Day, right? I suppose it's sort of obvious which divine person would be giving which gift. I don't really specified it, but, but anyway.

[3:00] Actually, they have the same power. Anyway, Same thing the same thing on Saint Augustine's day, I had just communicated when I was enabled to learn and almost to see in what way I cannot tell, unless it was by intellect by an intellectual vision which passed quickly. How the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity, whom I bear engraven on my soul, are one.

[3:34] This truth I was enabled to learn by means of so remarkable a picture and so clear a light that it has worked upon me very differently than if I had merely known it by faith. Since that time, I have been unable to think of any one of the three divine persons without realizing that they are three, so that today, when I was considering how they are all one, the Son alone had taken human flesh.

[4:03] The Lord showed me how, though one, they are distinct. These are wonders which make the soul desire afresh to escape from the shackles of the body, which impede the fruition of them. For though an understanding of them seems not to be far, not not to be for our low estate, there remains to the soul after the momentary passage of the vision a benefit incomparably greater than any that can come from many years of meditation.

[4:35] Yet the soul cannot understand how. It's what they call spiritual relations. It's in the this divine with the life, you know. But these are things I guess she gave to her confessors and so on, various accounts of her, you know, visions and so.

[5:02] Now, one other text here from Thessalonians five. Seemed kind of appropriate for these first two articles that we had here. Okay. And may the God of peace sanctify you complete, huh?

[6:12] And entire of you, the pneuma, the spirit, and the psuche the soul, and the body. Huh? Let me just read the one the English translation is here. I pray God that your whole spirit, and the Greek word is pneuma, and soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. What do those three mean there? The spirit, the soul, and the what? Body be preserved blameless, right?

[6:51] Well, and Thomas explains it. Pneuma refers to the higher part of the soul, the part that has got the understanding and the will in it, huh?

[7:03] And therefore, is the parts of the soul or the powers of the soul that aren't in the body, and that's called the pneuma, right? Okay, or the soul insofar as it has those powers. So it's your your understanding and your will, you know, perfected by faith and hope and charity and so on. Okay. And then the soul, Thomas understands there, as Aristotle tells us, the soul is the substantial form of the body.

[7:27] It's the first act of an actual body. This refers to even our emotions, which are in the body, right? That they might be what rectified, right? Huh? And then the body, and of course, therefore corresponds to the, you know, when Christ says, you know, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Instead of saying flesh, he says soul, because the soul is the act of the body, and therefore, or fitting that is the powers that it has in the body.

[7:58] And of course, the body is what you do with your body, right? Kind of the, you know, what you use your body for, right? But but the order there, I thought, was kind of interesting. The spirit, pneuma, psuche, the soul, and then the body, right? It seemed to be a little reminded me a little bit of this, right? This happened up in in one of the daily masses there, you know, this reading.

[8:18] I was kind of struck by it because the first article here is whether he assumes what flesh by means of the soul, right? And then does he assume the soul by means of the spirit, right? So he has the same the same order that he has that Saint Paul has in this text here, right? Okay. That's a little little tidbit there, huh? A little Christmas gift.

[8:47] Delayed until this January. Okay. So we're up to the second article, I guess. We're going to start the one. Okay. And I noticed too, you know, that like you know, we had the feast of the first martyr there, right? And of course, he he speaks about giving up his what. Spirit, and I think I remember rightly Christ on the cross. You know, uses the word spirit rather than soul.

[9:11] You know, you could say soul, right? He's laying down his soul, right? But is there some precision why you might say receive my spirit rather than my soul?

[9:23] Because your soul leaves your body. The powers that the soul has only what enact in the body, you no longer have those powers enact. Although the root of them is still in your soul, right? But you don't actually have the power to digest food anymore, right? You don't have any actually the power to walk around. But you do have those powers that, enable us to call the soul a spirit.

[9:54] You do have understanding and what will. So, in a sense, it's your spirit. You are what. Turning into the hands of God, right? Rather than your soul, although you could say your soul, right? But I think there's kind of precision in Christ saying, you know, receive my spirit, and and Stephen there, he was the first martyr, right? He used the word pneuma. Okay. That's related to, I think, when Saint Paul speaks in another place of the literal translation renders it the, I think it's in Romans or something.

[10:27] The animal man doesn't understand this. but the spiritual man? That's usually how they. Yeah. They usually translate as the natural man and the spiritual man. But he's using animalis homo, which is the psuche for soul, which is related to the body. The other one is pneumaticos, which is the spirit. I'm supposed to come back too in the in the mass there, you know, at conspiritu tuo, right?

[10:51] So. So are we. So, in a sense, you're saying, you know, especially with your what, you're understanding your will, right? Since he's got to be in your understanding of will first, right? And then there can be something going over and you know overflowing to the the body, right, or to the emotions, even, right? But that's a result of the.

[11:16] So it seems that the Son of God did not assume the soul by means of the what? Spirit. For the same thing does not fall as a in between a medium, right? Between itself and something else, right? But the spirit, or the mens, is another word, huh? Is not other in essence. Question six, article two. Okay. Question six, article two. That's correct. Very beginning. Yes. Okay. Okay.

[11:53] But the spirit or the mind is not other in essence from the soul itself, right? As has been said in the first part, right? So you wouldn't say that I have a soul and I have a spirit. As if these are two different things in me, right?

[12:15] And so the objection is saying, well, then how can there be something in between the two? But didn't Saint Paul speak of a sword that goes between the spirit and the? Yeah. I suppose that's the dark night of the soul, too. Part of that.

[12:31] Therefore, the Son of God did not assume the soul by means of the or as a middle, right, ground, the spirit, right? Because nothing is between itself. What's in between is always in between two different things.

[12:47] Moreover, that by means of which some there is an assuming seems to be more able to be assumed, huh? But the spirit or the minds now again mens if you translate it in English is mind it seems you know not correct right but they use the word mens not just for what the power or faculty but for the the rational part of the soul right the soul and its rational part but the spirit si mens is not more able to be assumed than the soul which appears from this that the angelic spirits are not what able to be assumed right so the objection saying that he assumes the soul by means of the spirit then the spirit is more assumable than the soul and therefore

[13:41] why didn't he assume angels right therefore it seems that the son of god would not assume the soul by means of the what spirit

[13:54] moreover what comes after is assumed by the first yeah yeah but the soul names the very what essence which is before naturally the power of it which is its mind Well I was referring to that when I talked about the word mens right

[14:23] because mens is usually taken by Augustine there and they'll say that the the image of God is in the mens right m e n s and that refers to the soul insofar as it has mind and understanding and will right it doesn't mean mens in the sense of mind just the mind understanding

[14:43] but often mens is used for just the what Sometimes. just for reason yeah I guess the word m e n s is supposed to be related to the word mensura the measure right so it's it's reason that measures things

[15:02] therefore it seems that the son of God would not assume the soul by means of the spirit or the mind as if assuming the soul by reason of one of its powers, right

[15:14] but here's this guy again here but against this is what Augustine says in the book on the Christian struggle right the unseen or the invisible and unchangeable truth itself right through the spirit the soul and through the soul took on the body

[15:39] so Thomas is repeating what Augustine has said right in these two articles huh. Chrysostom says, "We will not be upset if someone else has said what we're going to say." Same thing with Thomas. He seems to have inherited the intellect of all the Church Fathers, as the Cajetan says, right? Because he so reverenced them. huh

[16:15] I. Answer: It should be said that it has been said the Son of God is said to have assumed flesh by means of the soul, both on account of the order of what dignity, and also on account of the what suitability of assumption. Now, you cannot assume over into a body that doesn't have a soul, right? It's not a living body. Assume a chair or a table or something, right?

[16:44] Make any sense? Even a tree, but but both of these same things are found if we compare the understanding of this again is used for that the soul, as far as has these higher powers, which is called the what spirit, right? To the other parts of the what soul,

[17:11] for the soul is what not able to be assumed in a suitable way except by the fact that it is capable of God existing to His what image, which is according to the mind, which is called the spirit. So the image of God in our soul is in our what understanding and our will, right?

[17:42] Um, which is called the spirit, according to that of Ephesians four, be renewed, right, by the spirit of your what mind. There you have the you know the reason why those two words are associated in Latin, but a little bit harder when you translate it. I don't know if you have the Latin there, but renovamini spiritu mentis vestris, right? Okay.

[18:10] Likewise, the understanding among the other parts of the soul is superior and more worthy and more like God, and therefore, as Damascene says in the third book, that is united to the flesh by means of the what understanding the Word of God, huh? Word of God is united to the flesh through a middle, namely, the intellect or the intellectual part of man.

[18:40] For the intellectual part is the most what pure part of the soul, and God is what understanding, yeah. Okay, and I guess these are words of Damascene being quoted there huh Unto the first objection:

[19:11] If the intellectus is not other from the soul in its essence, right, is distinguished nevertheless from the other parts of the soul by reason of its what power, and according to this, belongs to it to be what to have the notion of the of a middle, right? Okay.

[19:41] So the soul is more worthy to be assumed than the body, right? And the body is suitable to be assumed only to the fact that it has a soul, right? And the soul is what

[19:55] able to be assumed or properly because it has what parts that. Can know and love God, right? And that's what we call the the soul, insofar as it has those powers. We call it the spirit, right? Okay. So it's and of course that's the most worthy part of us to be assumed by God, right?

[20:21] Now, what about the objection about the why not assumed then the angel, right? Who's very much a spirit, right? Okay. And he says, well, it's not because he's lacking dignity or worth, right? As if you know, man is something more worthwhile than an angel, right? But in account of the fact that his fall cannot be what repaired, right? Now, as you know, an angel is created; his mind is fully what formed, right?

[20:54] And so, when he chooses, he chooses forever. Why we, as our life and our experience and our emotions change, right? We flip back and forth, right? Just hopefully flipping the right direction.

[21:10] So, so in the scripture there, it compares our will to what the tree, right? And the tree falls, right? Or it falls, it stays, right? Yeah.

[21:26] Which is not, which cannot be said about the human spirit, as is clear from the things they said in the first part, when we realize how mutable our spirit is.

[21:39] Now, when we say that between the soul and the word of God, when you lay down as a middle intellectus, right? To quote the Latin, intellectus is not taken for the what?

[21:57] No, excuse me, the soul between which and the word of God is laid down as a middle intellectus. The word soul there is not taken for what? the essence of the soul Which is common to all the what Powers, But for the inferior powers, right? Which are common to every soul, at least to the animal soul, right? Okay. Aristotle takes up the soul and the De Anima there, right?

[22:28] He's going to investigate what the soul is, listening to what his predecessors said first, right? And they investigated the soul through two things: through sensation and through moving around. And therefore, they investigated the soul through what's common to every animal soul, right? So the understanding was too high to investigate at first, or it seemed to be a kind of sensation, right? Of course, even modern biologists think that the brain is the organ of thought, right?

[23:03] Of course, part of the brain, right? So it's still a bodily sense organ, right? And life in the plants is kind of what hidden, right? Okay. So

[23:17] that's a little bit that text to St. Paul, too, right? We use the word soul, right? See, so you should rectify your spirit, your soul, and your your body, right? Huh? Well, that means rectify your understanding and will first, right? Then rectify your emotions, and then rectify the actions that you perform through your body, right? And genuflecting not hitting your neighbor and so on. Is that sort, right?

[23:44] But there is an order, right? It corresponds the order in which Christ, or the Word, assumes what? Yeah, assumes the body through the soul, and the soul through the spirit. Yeah.

[24:03] Okay, so you all convinced now that this is the way Word of God should proceed, huh? Who was it, Apollinaris, one of those heretics who got in position of, you know, he had the word there, you know, substituting for our mind and our will, right? And then finally, it has some kind of a soul. So could it just be an animal soul, right? So you'd be assuming a body with only a what?

[24:36] Animal soul, right? A beast. You see? Yeah. Well, even without you know thinking, you know, as profound as Thomas is thinking about this, if you even ask the average Catholic, you know, it makes sense for God to you know take on the body of a dog or a cat or something, right? You kind of automatically say there is something wrong with that, right? Well, what's wrong with it?

[24:58] You know? See? Well, it would not be suitable to take on what a soul that didn't have a mind and a will to know and to love God, right? Okay. And he couldn't really love us, right? And direct us, and so on, be our teacher, right? You wouldn't have a dog for your teacher.

[25:30] That question came up once a long time ago. Just, you know, can God, could God, is it possible for Him to take the nature of a rock or a tree or something? And I suppose the one thing that occurred to me was that that's related to this. Was that well, if He did, it means if it's a what they call a hypostatic union, well, that nature doesn't have a person to assume, and so basically.

[25:59] We're not going to assume a person, though. Yeah, it won't. But it doesn't have a hypostasis. It's not a nature which is capable of being a hypostasis. A stone isn't the kind of nature that has it, or a tree or a dog or anything else. But the one of the quotes that you could sort of use as an objection was when our Lord says, "God can raise up sons of Abraham from these very stones."

[26:22] Well, the only thing I can think of was, "Well, if He did, then they wouldn't be stones anymore. Right? They'd be sons of Abraham. Adam was made from the clay, right, or something." Yeah. Now, third question:

[26:45] Whether the soul of Christ, right, was taken on by the Word before the what flesh, right? I guess there are some people who thought that he took on the soul first, and then later on he added a body to it, right?

[27:05] To the theory one proceeds thus: It seems that the soul of Christ before took was taken on by the Word, then his what flesh, right? As if there was a before in time, I guess, some of the some.

[27:23] For the Son of God took on flesh by means or by the middle of the soul. That is the first article we saw, right? But one comes to the middle before one comes to the extreme. Therefore, the Son of God first took on the soul, then the body, right?

[27:50] Moreover, the soul of Christ is more worthy than the angels, according to that of Psalm ninety-six. Adore him, all you his angels, right? But the angels were created from the beginning, as is had in the first. That was opinion, I guess, of some of the Church Fathers, right? But probably not the dominant opinion, as rejected by Thomas. Therefore, also the soul of Christ, huh, is among them, huh?

[28:38] Which was not created before it was what assumed, huh? For Augustine says, I mean Damascene says in the third book that never did the what soul nor the body of Christ have its own hypostasis, right? Apart from the hypostasis of the Word. Therefore, it seems that the soul was assumed

[29:08] before the flesh, right? Which was conceived in the what? Yeah. Moreover, John says, chapter one, verse fourteen: We have seen him full of grace and truth, right? And afterwards, in verse sixteen, we have all received of his what fullness, huh? That is all the faithful, whatever time, as Chrysostom expounds, right? But this would not be unless Christ had the fullness of grace and truth before all the saints who were from the beginning of the world.

[29:49] It's a genius argument, because the cause is not after the cause, huh? Since, therefore, the fullness of grace and truth was in the soul of Christ from his union to the what Word, according to that, we saw his glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

[30:18] Consequently, it seems that from the beginning of the world, the soul of Christ was assumed by the Word of God. That's pretty convincing, right?

[30:28] But against this is what Damascene says. So used to saying Augustine, I can't get out my head. But against is what Damascene says in the fourth book, not as some what lie, huh? Before the incarnation from the Virgin was the intellect or, the intellectual part of the soul, united to the Word of God, and from then he was called what Christ.

[31:00] And here we have the troublemaker Origin again. Sometimes Thomas is very rough and says Origin is the origin of Arius The Arius here isn't right.

[31:13] I answered should be, but nevertheless, in the golden chain, you, he'll quote you know explanations by Origin, so it's kind of interesting that he does that. Answered should be said that Origin laid down that all souls were created from the beginning, right? Even your soul and my soul, right? Among whom also he laid down that the soul of Christ was created.

[31:48] But this is what not fitting, right? If it be laid down that it was then created, but not what at once united to the Word, because it would follow that that soul would have some time, right, its own subsistence without the Word, right? And thus, when it was taken on by the Word, either there would not have been made a union in what subsistence or in hypostasis, you could say it too, I suppose, or the subsistence of the soul pre-existing would have been corrupted, right?

[32:28] Which is not appropriate, This would be corruption in the in his huh? But likewise, it is unsuitable if it be laid down that the soul was united from the beginning to the Word, and afterwards was made incarnate in the what, uterus of the Virgin, right? Because thus his soul would not seem to be of the same nature with ours, which are at the same time created when they are what poured into the bodies, right?

[33:06] Whence Leo Papa, this must be Leo the Great, huh? He's quite a interesting pope. Says in his epistle to Julian that he was not of another nature his flesh than us, right? Nor another way than in other men was the soul what we in the beginning, right?

[33:38] Now, of course, for we who've been studying the categories and know the five senses, right? You know, right? Four central senses and then the crowning sense, which is attached to the second sense. We know that there's many senses of order, right? And order according to time is only the first sense, right? But there are many orders according to what nature, right? Like Aristotle says, for example,

[34:13] when you sit down, the statement that you are sitting is true. Now, is there any time lag there? You sit down, and then gradually, statement you are sitting becomes true.

[34:30] No, they're simultaneous, right? Together, right? And yet, as you're sitting down, in some sense, before the truth of that statement, it's not before it in time, is it? But is it before it in some other sense? As some kind of dependence. Yeah, because it's the cause of that statement being true, right? Okay. I stand up, then the statement becomes false, right?

[35:03] But there's no time lag. I have to stand up and then stand for a while before it becomes false. See? So something can be before in nature, which is one thing to say, even when something is not before in what in time. Okay.

[35:25] Um. Is two ever never half a four? I think they're simultaneous, huh? Two and half a four, and again, but it's half a four because it's two. It's not two because it's half a four.

[35:46] So, to the first, therefore, it should be said that has been said above. The soul of Christ is said to be a what? Middle in union of the flesh to the Word, according to the order of what? Nature, right?

[36:05] But it's not necessary from this that it would be a middle in the order of time. The second objection, now. To second, it should be said that as Leo Papa, in the same epistle, right, says

[36:40] that the soul of Christ excelled not by the what otherness of genus, but by the what height of its power, right? For it is of the same genus with our souls, right?

[36:59] But it excels even the angels, according to the fullness of grace and what truth. But the way of the incarnation, the way of the coming flesh, corresponds to the soul according to the propriety of its what genus that is the soul, from which it has that since it is the form of a body, that it be created the same time that it is what poured into and united to the body, huh?

[37:38] And this does not belong to the angels who are substances altogether separated from what bodies, right? Now Thomas sometimes discusses that opinion, though that said the souls, the angels were created right before the material world, right, in time or you know in duration. And I don't know if he says that. I don't think he says that's radical, right? But he kind of rejects that opinion, you know, that position, right?

[38:07] And the reason for rejecting it is that bodies, lowly as they are, right, compared to angels, are an integral part of the universe, right? So God would not make the universe you know missing, missing parts, right? Okay. And then the angels are not really seen to be what part of the universe, right, or part of the same universe, kind of an afterthought, right? Of course, Origen thought that we were all created spirits in the beginning, and some of us turned towards God more or less, and some of us turned away from God more or less, right?

[38:45] And those who turned towards God became the angels, higher or lower, and those who turned away from God, you know, were put into bodies, and then bodies were created, right? But that's all nonsense, anyway. Well how did the fallen angels

[39:01] Well, he might have been, you know, attached to bodies too, like you know, air bodies or something, you know. I don't know all the details of the position. Yeah.

[39:15] Yeah. So Origin's got some odd positions, huh? Did you ever see the Pope's little留言板? Yeah, he kind kind kind of kinder, wasn't he? What was interesting because he talked about he always reflected on Origin as a warning for the theologian because he needs humility. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, who read his addresses of? I am. There's about sixteen of them on so sixteen at least sixteen of them on Saint Paul, and it's got kind of through reading them on on the Peter and there's a lot of emphasis there upon humility, right, in Saint Paul, right, some of the docs.

[40:12] Can't be too full of that. Okay, now what's his third objectionary? How could those who, if they were after or before Christ in time, how could they have received To the third, therefore, it should be said that of the fullness of Christ, all men have taken or received by the faith which they had in Him, right? For it is said in Romans, Epistle to Romans, chapter three, that the justice of God is through faith in Jesus Christ in all and over all who believe in Him, right?

[40:58] But just as we believe in Him as what made flesh, right? So the ancients, meaning the patriarchs and so on, and the prophets believed in Him as to be what born, right? Having the same spirit, we believe, as is said in Second Corinthians, huh?

[41:24] But faith had, but the faith which is in Christ has the power of justifying from the what proposal, yeah, for the grace of God, huh? According to that of Romans four five, to he who what? Yeah, but believing in the one who justifies impious, his faith is what regard as justice according to the proposal of the grace of God, right?

[41:58] Whence, because this proposal is eternal, right? Nothing prevents by the faith of Jesus Christ some to be justified before his soul was what. Yeah, yeah. That reminds me of the of the definition there of the immaculate conception, right? You look at the artificial text of that because it says in view of right Christ's death in the cross, huh? So there's some kind of what. Providence Yeah. Special Providence Yeah.

[42:35] But it reminds you a little bit of this, right? Then. She did not believe the angel who who came to her and so on, right? But even before that, right? Because she was ordered to that divine providence.

[42:55] That's interesting objection, though. Yeah. It's kind of like what is related. Anything anything related to prophecy would be sort of related to this. And there's that expression in the Apocalypse where Christ is referred to as the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world. Well, how could he be slain from the beginning of the world? Some commentary I don't remember what I read somewhere said when he was slain from the beginning of the world in figure.

[43:30] Sort of, they knew that this is a figure of something to come, and that's what our text for Friday, the midday, about the cross was figured in. Not only the ram, but it was figured in Isaac being offered up, but also in the ram because it was caught by its horns in the wood. So the wood itself that snatched that caught the ram that Abraham offered was a figure, and so all that would have been would have been somewhat somewhat prophetic on the normal level.

[44:02] And yet, you know, don't they say that the the prophets and and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and so on they didn't receive the beatific vision until after Christ died on the cross, and the descent into hell, right, is to give them, right, the vision, yeah, so that

[44:25] there is a certain fullness of grace, right, that comes after he's in fact died on the cross, right, even though there's grace received before that, right, by those who believe in the cross as to come, right.

[44:41] And even then, they haven't. They don't have their bodies yet. Resurrection, yeah. On the resurrection, yeah. Even Augustine says that we'll see God more fully in a way, more perfectly in a way, once our soul, our bodies are joined to our souls, because we'd be more perfectly than we were just a soul. It got interesting, though, being in the the immaterial world for a while, right? Just

[45:15] a change of pace. Okay.