Tertia Pars
53. Replies on the Theandric Operation, Christ's Human Operations, and Christ's Merit for Himself and for Us (ST III q.19 a.1-4)
Class of 2009-10-22
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/053-replies-on-the-theandric-operation-christs-human-operations/

[0:00] To the first, therefore, it should be said that Dionysius places in Christ a doing that is what theandricum, huh? That is some of the reality of God, right?

[0:17] Or divinum humanum, right? Human divine one. But not to some confusion of the doings, right? Or confusion of the powers of what both natures, right?

[0:34] But to this, that the divine is divine operation uses his what? Yeah. That's one reason. And secondly, the human operation partakes of the what power of the divine operation, right? Whence, as he himself says in a certain what epistle, Dicaetus says down there.

[1:05] Above man, he does those things which are man. That's because he partakes, I suppose, of the power, right? Which shows the Virgin, supernaturally what conceiving, right?

[1:27] And the water, sustaining his feet, right? The weight of his feet, yeah. Walked upon them. It is manifest that to conceive is of human nature, right? Likewise to walk, but both of these were in Christ supernaturally, right?

[1:51] And likewise, divine things operated humanly, as when he what healed the leper by touching him, right? Once in the same epistle he adds, "But God being made a man, there was a new doing of God and man. "

[2:22] But that he understands there to be two operations in Christ, one of the divine nature and the other human, is clear from those things which he says in the second chapter of the divine names. When he says that these which pertain to the human operation, the Father and the Holy Spirit communicate in these for no reason, but in no way. And as someone was to say, according to their what their will being pleased with them, right?

[2:55] Their most indignant and merciful will. In so far as the Father and the Holy Spirit, from their mercy, wished Christ to do and to undergo human things.

[3:13] And every sublime and ineffable operation of God, which He did, is. It's done for our sake, right? Yeah. Unchangeable in that He is God and Word of God. Thus, therefore, it is clear that other is the human doing in which the Father and the Holy Spirit do not what communicate, except according to their accepting it in their mercy. And other is the operation insofar as He is the Word of God, in which the Father and the Holy Spirit what?

[3:56] Yeah. Look, interesting because they have the same, they have the same power, right? Okay. So what what Christ does is God, and in some sense the Father and Holy Spirit also do, right? But what He does is. As man, they don't do, don't approve it. They ratify it. They affirm it. Okay.

[4:24] Now the second one about the instrument or tool. To the second, it should be said that tool is said something said to be a tool. From this, that it is moved by the chief agent, right? So sometimes they define a tool as a moved mover, right?

[4:44] Which nevertheless, apart from this, is able to have its own doing according to its own what form, as has been said about fire. Thus, the action of the instrument or tool, in so far as it is a tool, is not other from the doing of the chief what agent. Um. But it is able to have another operation in so far as it is a certain thing. Thus, therefore, the operation which is of the human nature in Christ, in so far as it is a tool of the divinity, is not other from the doing of what the divinity.

[5:30] For there is not another salvation, by which the humanity of Christ saves, and his divinity. But he has, but human nature has nevertheless in Christ, in so far as it is a certain nature, right? A certain what own operation, apart from the divine, right? Got thirsty there and so.

[6:03] Instantly, when I'm thinking about salvation, I get thinking about the magnificat, right? And says, my soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Saviour. So she calls God her Saviour, right? Now you know how in the Gospel of Matthew, right? The angel says you'll call him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins. So you say, well, well then wasn't Mary saved from her sins by Christ, right?

[6:37] You might say you know because of the magnificat itself. But yet the church teaches us right that Mary's without sin. Ah, both original and actual, right? So why does she say he's my Saviour when he didn't save her from her sins?

[6:58] Was because he what? Yeah, yeah. And so in the declaration there, the the immaculate conception is it? Um, it says in the very official text for the. Defining of the mystery, right? That in view of her of Christ's passions, right? She was preserved from it, right? And that's when she was saved from it, right? In the way that you know, you pray the one from Saint Teresa of Jesus, right?

[7:29] Where the one who runs ahead and removes a stone from the path, you saves you from what? Yeah, yeah. It's kind of interesting. I never thought about that exactly. You could argue from the from the yeah that she must have been saved from sin in some way by Christ, right? But not in the way that other riches are. To the

[8:08] third, it should be said that to do is of the subsisting what hypostasis, right? But according to some Form in nature, right? Huh? From which the doing receives its what species, huh? And therefore, from the diversity of forms or natures, not using those kind of convertible here in this text, there is a diverse what species of doings. But from the unity of the hypostases, there is a unity in number as regards what the operation of the species.

[8:53] Just as fire has two operations differing in species, to enlighten and to heat, according to the difference between light and heat. And nevertheless, there is one in number. The illumining, illumination by the fire once illuminating, right?

[9:17] And likewise, in Christ, it is necessary that there be two operations differing in species according to his two natures. But each what of the operations is one in number in Christ, done once, just as one walking and one what? Yeah.

[9:39] Am I understanding this, and you're understanding this, is not the same, right? Even at the same time, we both understand at the same time. Still, two understandings. Right.

[9:54] Now, the fourth objection may be: Why, if there's one essay, isn't there one doing? To the fourth, it should be said that to be and to do is of the person by the nature, but not in the same way. Ali dear, Ali dear, huh? For to be belongs to the very what constitution, you might say, the person. And thus, in so far as what?

[10:27] Yeah, yeah. So that's not so bad. My example, the point there is it now. Go back to first meeting the point there, right? You heard me, put the two lines in the board, right? Draw them to the same point, right?

[10:41] And because the unity of the person requires the unity of what? Complete and personal. Being right. But operation is an effect of the person, according to some form or what nature. So, since he's saying that to be belongs to the person in himself, right? Right. To do something belongs to the person through some nature. So he has two natures. However, that happens, the miracle of miracles, as he calls it, in the potentia Whence he says the plurality of operations does not prejudice the unity that is personal.

[11:25] And now the fifth objection. What was that? Okay. To the fifth, it should be said that other is the proper thing done of the divine operation and of the human operation, Christ. Just as what is done, the proper doing of the divine operation is the healing of the leper, right? But the proper operation of human nature is the contact, the touching him.

[12:03] But they run together, both operations to one thing done, according as the one nature acts in communion with the other. Need a break? Don't you think after that? Two. Whether there are in Christ many human doings, right? Strange, strange Let's see. To the second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that in Christ there are many human doings. Oh, that's what I thought it would be.

[12:36] For Christ, in so far as he's a man, communicates, or has in common with the plants, the nourishing nature, right? With the animals, the sensing nature, right? With the angels, the understanding nature, just as other men. But other is the doing of a plant in so far as it's a plant, and the other of an animal in so far as an animal. Therefore, Christ, in so far as he's a man, has many what doings?

[13:11] Is a plant, an animal, and a man. I don't know. Moreover, powers and habits are distinguished by their acts. But in the soul of Christ, there are many powers and many habits. Therefore, there are diverse operations. Of course, there are. Who would deny that? It gets strange, this guy sometimes. I know. Moreover, tools ought to be proportioned to operations. But the body, the human body, has diverse members, differing according to form.

[13:43] It's an organic body, a body composed of tools. Therefore, they are accommodated to diverse operations. Therefore, there are in Christ many operations according to human nature. Who could deny that?

[14:00] But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. Operation follows nature. But in Christ is only one human nature, and therefore in Christ there is only one human operation. As you know, on the definition of reason, right? The ability for large discourse, looking before and after. I've pointed out the ability for large discourse includes the ability for small discourse, right? And the ability to look before and after includes the ability to look for distinctions.

[14:39] I think there's some need here for a distinction, isn't there? I'm looking for a distinction. Looking for Thomas to make a distinction, huh? No, it's R2.

[14:53] I answer. It should be said that because man is that which he is, right? By reason, that doing is said to be simply without qualification human, which goes forward from reason through the what will, which is the desire of reason, huh?

[15:20] If there is some doing in man which does not proceed from reason and will, it is not simpliciter right, a human operation, right? This reminds me of the distinctions they make at the beginning of ethics, where they say that the subject of ethics is operatio humana, right, human doings, right? But that means the ones that proceed from what reason and will. So my digesting my food is not something we're going to consider in in ethics, to speak of, right?

[15:53] Because not operatio humana, not proceeding from my reason, my will. Okay. So a doing, or operation in man that does not go forward from reason and will is not simply without qualification a human doing, right? But it belongs to man according to some part, nevertheless, of what human nature. Sometimes, according to the very nature of the bodily element, has to be borne down. That's why it's hard to hard to walk up stairs.

[16:30] That's why I got this stress test. I get pressure in my chest or something, or got our breath more going up uphill than downhill, right? Okay, that's because I got this bodily element in there, right? Too much earth in me.

[16:49] Sometimes, according to the power of the living soul, as to what nourish and to grow, right? Sometimes, according to the sensing part, as to see and hear, to imagine and to remember, and to what Have sense desire, right? And to be angry and so on. Among which doings there is a difference, and this again is a distinction that's made in the ethics. For the operations of the sensing soul are in some way obedient to reason, and therefore they are in some way reasonable and human, in so far as they obey reason.

[17:33] So you can say Mozart's music and the music of the 18th century is more human, right, and rational than the music of the Romantic period, right? Neo-core, the so-called music of our time.

[17:48] Remember my cousin Donald was in the Navy four years, and I'd go crazy with that thing you hear all the time. And then one day he was in Chicago and he had a chance to go to a symphony orchestra, you know. Oh, what a relief, you know. You know, he's overwhelmed, you know, and I think it was Wagner and so on, but he was just overwhelmed, you know, after hearing nothing about this junk you know.

[18:11] Of course, I know guys who are in the army, and they allow them to play the little radios and all night long, you know. So you get that stuff. You hear it all night long. It just goes through your head like it just. No wonder they used this to break down people, you know.

[18:31] But the operations which follow upon the what living soul, or even the nature of the bodily right element, are not subject at all to reason.

[18:45] So I can't, you know, accustom my the earth in my body to go up a little bit rather than down all the time, right? Whence, in no way, are they rational, nor human simply, but only according to some part of human nature, right? Okay, so this is distinctions that you've at the beginning of ethics, right? Oh, now I know what the guy's doing. Okay, open the door to ethics.

[19:15] It has been said over above that when the lower agent acts through its own form, then there is another doing of the lower agent and the higher one. But when the lower agent does not act except according as it is moved by the higher agent, right, then there is the same doing of the higher agent and the lower. So when you're chopping down one of these trees on your property here, if you do that, you and the axe are doing the same same operation, right?

[19:54] Think so. If therefore, in some pure man, right, who is pure man, other is the doing of the what element and of the living soul from the operation of the will, which is properly human. Likewise, the operation of the sensing soul, in so far as it is what not moved by reason,

[20:26] but in so far as it is moved by reason, there is the same doing of the sensing part and the rational part. Now, of the rational soul, there is one doing if we pay attention to the beginning of the operation, which is the reason or the will, but is diversified according to regard to diverse objects. Which some which diversity some call a diversity of the things done, right?

[21:00] But more of the operations, judging the unity of the operation, so only from the part of the what operating principle. Thus, now it is asked about the unity or the plurality of the operations in Christ. If, therefore, in some pure man there is only one operation which is properly human, thus, therefore, in a pure man, right, there is only one operation which is called properly human, right.

[21:38] Apart from which, nevertheless, there are in a pure man some other operations which are not properly what human. But in the man Jesus Christ, there was no motion of the sensitive part, which was not ordered by what reason. For those natural operations and bodily ones, in some way pertain to his will, in so far as what pertain to his will, that his flesh did thus or suffered thus, right, the things which are proper to it, as has been said. No one takes away my life.

[22:19] Mm hmm I tell myself, and therefore much more is the undoing in Christ than in any other man, right? Well, you and I were going to offer me directions, at the, same time. That's like, I guess, the closest thing to that, apart from Blessed Mother, would be Adam and Eve and their natural integrity. Yeah. That's what gives rise to what. The point that always kind of interests me is there was no, there could be no venial sin in paradise.

[22:54] Only mortal sin. Yeah. So the first, it should be said, then, that the operation of the sensitive part and the nutritive part is not properly human, right? Nevertheless, in Christ, these operations were more human than in what? Others, right? To

[23:25] the second, it should be said that powers and habits are diversified in comparison to their objects, and therefore the diversity of operations in this way corresponds to what? Diverse powers and habits as corresponds to diverse objects. Now, such a diversity of operations we do not intend to exclude from the humanity of Christ. Well, thank God. Just as that which is according to another time, right? Meaning that he does something today he didn't do yesterday, right?

[24:00] But only that which is according to the first active principle. Okay, Thomas. Redeem yourself over there. Time for another article, I guess. Whether the human action of Christ was able to be what?

[24:23] Meritorious, right? That was meritorious for him. To the third, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the human action of Christ was not able to be meritorious for himself. I guess he.

[24:44] For Christ before death was a comprehensor. That is to say, he saw God face to face. Right. His human nature, just as it is now, but for one who sees God face to face, he does not what merit.

[25:03] For the charity of the one who comprehends pertains to the reward of beatitude. Now. Because according to it is to be noted, enjoyment, right? Whence it does not seem to be a source of meriting, since the same is not merit and reward.

[25:31] So your loving God in heaven will be your reward or part of your reward, right? Seeing Him and loving Him, right? Therefore, Christ before His passion did not merit, just as neither now does He merit. Of course, according to the body, it was not a.

[25:58] Moreover, no one merits that which is owed to him, right? But from this that Christ is the Son of God by nature, there is owed to Him eternal what inheritance, huh?

[26:16] Which other men merit through their good what works? Therefore, Christ it was not able to merit something for Himself, because He was from the beginning the Son of God. So if God in His divine nature can't merit.

[26:44] He's without merit. We self-condemn these days. We have to record. Come up at your call. Devil's advocate. Whoever whoever has that which is chief or principal does not properly merit that which follows from it. But Christ had the glory of the soul, from which, according to the common order, there follows the glory of the body, right? Augustine says in the Epistle to Dioscorus. But in Christ, by dispensation, it was done that the glory of the soul would not, but come down to the body.

[27:37] They let it flow down in the Transfiguration. Transfiguration, yeah. Therefore, Christ did not merit the glory of the body. Naturally follows from this the glory that He had in the soul. That's a good argument, huh? Moreover, the manifestation of the excellence of Christ is not the good of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him, right? Whence, as reward, is promised to those Christ that He will be manifested to them.

[28:10] According to that of John fourteen, if someone loves me, you will be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and I will make known myself to him. Therefore, Christ did not merit the manifestation of such.

[28:29] It seems to pray for that, doesn't he? In the yeah, yeah, the the end of what the seventeenth chapter is of John. But against this is what the apostle says in Philippians two eight to nine. He was made obedient, usque ad mortem up to death, as far as that, on account of which God has what exalted him. He merited, therefore, by obeying his own what exaltation, and thus he merited something for himself.

[29:24] Thomas says, "I answer: It should be said that to have some good through oneself, right, is more noble than to have it through what another." The man who discovers the truth by himself, right, is more noble than the man who learns it from another, right?

[29:51] For always, the cause which is per se through itself is potior or more potent than that which is through another, as is said in the eighth book of Natural Hearing, Book of Physics.

[30:10] But this someone is said to have to himself, of which he is for himself in some way the cause. Now the first cause of all our good, by authority, is is God, and in this way no creature has anything of good to himself. According to that of one Corinthians four verse seven, what do you have that you have not received?

[30:44] But one can, in a secondary way, be a cause to himself of having some good, in so far as in this he cooperates with what God.

[30:59] And thus, that which someone has through his own merit, he has in some way, right. Through himself, right? Whence that is had more nobly, more nobly, that is had through merit than that which is had without merit. It's interesting, huh? It's more noble to merit a raise, huh? Than to be given a raise without merit, huh? Peace prize.

[31:41] It was just an act of mercy on the part of the Norwegians to give this. No justice, just mercy. Because, therefore, every perfection and nobility should be attributed to Christ, right?

[32:01] Consequently, it is that he, through merit, has that which others have through what merit. Unless it be such a thing whose lack. Would be more prejudicial to the worth of Christ, the dignity of Christ, and his perfection, than that it be what increased through merit.

[32:31] Whence neither grace, nor knowledge, nor the beatitude of the soul, nor the divinity itself, did he merit. So the man Christ didn't merit to be God, and he didn't merit the beatitude of the soul. He didn't merit the knowledge he had, nor the grace he had,

[33:02] because since merit is not except of that which is not yet had, right? It would be necessary that Christ, at some time or for some time, would have lacked these things, huh?

[33:19] Which, to lack, would diminish the dignity of Christ, which merit increases, right? But the glory of the body, or something other of this sort, is less than the what dignity of meriting, which pertains to the virtue of what charity. And therefore it should be said that Christ, the glory of the body, and those which things which pertain to his outside excellence, right? To wit, ascension and veneration, right?

[34:04] And others of these sort he had by merit. And thus it is clear that he was able to merit something, right? So sometimes you know we divide these articles of faith about Christ into the articles of what descent and the articles of ascent. So he lowered himself, becoming a man, right? And then dying on the cross, and even going down into hell, right? And Thomas says that by his death on the cross he merited his what resurrection, right, huh?

[34:47] And by his going down into hell he merits his what ascension, right? So he's touching upon that here, that the the merit of the body there and the exterior excellence, the ascensions on it.

[35:07] To some extent, you know, the second coming, you know, is merited by the first coming. First coming is a is a very humble coming, right? And there's no place for him to stay, and so on. Second coming will be very, very, very impressive.

[35:23] When it takes place, you know it's coming. You know it's coming. He said. When he came, there wasn't any from the stage. But he comes the next time. Not going to be any place for us to hide.

[35:38] Okay. To the first, therefore, that fruition, enjoyment, which is the act of what charity, right? Because you enjoy possessing what you love, right? So the more you love God, the more fruition there will be, right? Enjoyment of His possession, in heaven. The fruition, which is the act of charity, pertains to the glory of the soul, right? Which Christ did not what merit.

[36:15] And therefore, if through charity he merited something, huh? It would not follow that the same thing was merit and what reward, huh? Nevertheless, through charity.

[36:35] No, nevertheless, he did not through charity merit, in so far as it was a charity of a comprehender, right? When he saw God, but in so far as it was a charity, the one on the way because of his body. For he was at the same time viator on the road and a comprehensor. He had arrived.

[37:00] We were just on the road, in the sense they arrived, but he was at that time anyway, both on the road and arrived. Could say that could say he arrived and never had to go there, but.

[37:20] And therefore, because now he is not in any way a theator, huh? He is not in the state of what Meriting. He. Can't merit anything.

[37:32] To second, it should be said that Christ, according as he is God and the Son of God by nature, was owed what divine glory and dominion of all things, as the first and supreme Lord, right? Is princely power the day of your birth? Holy splendid for the days to do. Nevertheless, there was owed to him glory as to a blessed what man, which.

[38:12] With regard to something ought to be had without merit, right? And with regard to something with merit, I suppose the glory of the body, right?

[38:28] Now, what about this redundant thing? To the third, it should be said that the overflowing of glory from the soul to the body, right?

[38:41] Is from the divine ordering according to the suitability of human merit. That just as man merits through the act of the soul, which he exercises in the body, so he is remunerated by the glory of the soul, redounding to the what, body.

[39:05] And on account of this, not only the glory of the soul, but also the glory of the body falls under merit, according to that of Romans eight eleven. He will vivify our mortal bodies on account of the indwelling Spirit that is in us, and thus it was able to fall under the merit of Christ. How

[39:39] about this fourth thing? About this manifestation of the excellence of Christ is not the good of Christ Himself for those who know Him, right? To the fourth, it should be said that the making known of the excellence of Christ pertains to His good. I mean, pertains to the good of the one. Or excuse me, it pertains to His good according to the being that He has in the knowledge of others.

[40:08] Although chiefly it pertains to the good of those who know Him, according to the being that they have in themselves. But this refers to Christ in so far as they are His what members. Kind of convoluted that a little bit. To the fourth one proceeds thus: It seems that Christ could not merit for others, right? For it says in Ezekiel eighteen, verse twenty, the soul which has sinned, it itself will die, right?

[40:53] Therefore, for a like reason, the soul which merits, it itself will be what, remunerated? Therefore, it is not possible that Christ merit for others. We're in trouble, I guess. We see.

[41:12] Moreover, of the fullness of grace of Christ, all have what received, as is said in John chapter one. But other men, having the grace of Christ, are not able to merit for others. For it is said in Ezekiel chapter fourteen that if there were in the city Noah, Daniel, and Job, they would not what liberate the son and the daughter, right? But justice itself would liberate their what souls.

[41:46] Therefore, neither can Christ merit for us. Moreover, the merit which someone merits, I'm assuming the reward that someone merits, is owed according to justice is owed according to justice and not according to what grace, as is said in Romans four. If therefore Christ merited our salvation, it would follow that our salvation is not from the grace of Christ, but from justice, and that he acts unjustly with those whom he does not save, since the merit of Christ extends to all.

[42:27] I wonder if Thomas dictated standing up or sitting, or laying down. Well writing everybody Yeah. You see, you'd be dictating, you know, and then he kind of laid down and he thought of it and continued to dictate. I've often wondered when these thoughts came to him.

[42:55] But against this is what is said in Romans five eighteen, that through the what crime of one condemnation came in all men, right? Thus also through the justice of one justification of life came to all men. But the demerit of Adam, full order to the condemnation of others, therefore much more to the merit of Christ to others. It's hopeful thought

[43:26] here. Answer should be said that it has been said above, that in Christ not only was there grace, as in a what individual man, but also as in the head of the whole church, to which all are joined as the members of the body to the head, huh? From which there is constituted mystically one person.

[43:58] So Now this notion of the mystical body of Christ that the mystical body of Christ is probably the most profound statement of what the church is. Many things you've got to say about the church, I would say, but that's perhaps the most profound thing, mystical body of Christ. And those Thomas there in the prayer before communion, he asked that he might receive this body that came from Mary, right?

[44:24] In such a way that he might be incorporated and numbered among the members of the mystical body of Christ. And hence it is that the merit of Christ extends to others in so far as they are what his members. So if you're cut off from him, like the branch from the plant, you're not going to merit. You're not going to benefit from his merit, just as in one man the action of the head in some way pertains to all his members,

[45:02] because not only does it sense there for itself, but for all the what members, huh? Now to the first, therefore, it should be said that the sin of an individual person does not harm except what? Yeah. But the sin of Adam, who was constituted by God as the beginning of the whole nature, is derived to others through the propagation of the flesh. And likewise, the merit of Christ, who by God is constituted the head of all men as regards grace, extends to all his what members, huh?

[45:47] Okay. To the second, should be said that others take of the fullness of Christ, not the fountain of grace do they take from him, right? But a certain particular grace, right? And therefore, it's not necessary that other men are able to what? That they are able to merit for others, just as Christ, huh? Okay.

[46:26] Now, I mean, you exclude maybe Mary and some excellent saints from this, huh? We doesn't go into that right now at this point. Okay.

[46:41] To the third, it should be said that just as the sin of Adam is not derived to others except by bodily generation, so the merit of Christ is not derived to others except through a spiritual generation, which comes about in baptism, by which we are incorporated to Christ.

[47:07] According to that of Galatians three, all whatsoever of you have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ, huh? That's what Augustine told: put on Christ, take no more concern for the body, huh? And this is of grace, huh? That it be conceded to man to be regenerated in Christ, right? And thus the salvation of man is from grace, huh?

[47:38] Okay, so question twenty, huh?