Tertia Pars
57. The Priesthood of Christ, Part 2: A Priest for Others, a Priest Forever, and the Order of Melchizedek (Articles 4-6)
Class of 2009-11-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/057-the-priesthood-of-christ-part-2-a-priest-for-others-a-priest/

[0:00] Article four. Here is it. To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the effect of the priesthood of Christ not only pertains to others but also to himself. Right.

[0:23] Because to the office of the priest, it belongs to pray for the people. According to that of the second Maccabees, the priests do prayer when they consummate the what sacrifice, huh? So the prayers are prayers and things. But Christ not only prayed for others but also for himself, as is said above, and as expressly said in Hebrews five, that in the days of his flesh, right,

[1:03] um, he offered what prayers, supplications to the one who was able to what save him from death. Sent these prayers with strong clamor, right, and tears.

[1:22] Therefore, the priesthood of Christ was had not only in others the effect of it, but also in himself. Moreover, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice in his passion. But through his passion, he not only merited for others but also for himself. Right, so he merited his his glory, his resurrection. So, therefore, the sacrifice. I mean, the priesthood of Christ not only had an effect upon others but also in himself.

[2:05] Moreover, the priesthood of the old law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the old law not only for others but also for himself offered sacrifice. For he said in Leviticus chapter sixteen that the priest entered the holy place that he might pray for himself and for his house and for the whole assembly of the sons of Israel. Therefore, also the priesthood of Christ not only in others but in himself had an effect.

[2:42] Said even more so of our priesthood, right? But against this is what is read in the Synod of Ephesus. If someone says that Christ for himself offered a offering, right? And not more for us only, for he did not need sacrifice; he did not know sin, anathema sit. Notice again there. You see, in that text, there you see the importance of what we need sacrifice for sin.

[3:19] That's kind of the first thing that comes to mind, right? Okay. So I mean, what you have in mind at first is that you offer sacrifice first of all for sins. Christ didn't have any sins, so why would he offer sacrifice for himself?

[3:52] Okay. I answer. It should be said that has been said. A priest is constituted or established as a middle between God and the what people.

[4:11] But he needs a go-between, a middle to God, who through himself is not able to approach God. And such a one is subject, right, to what priest who is

[4:36] partaking of the effect of of the priesthood, right? But this does not belong to Christ, for the apostle says he accedes to himself, right? He approaches to himself to God, right? Always living to intercede for us, and therefore it does not belong to Christ to receive in himself the effect of his what priesthood,

[5:06] but rather to communicate it to others. For the first agent in any genus is so flowing out that is not receiving in that genus, as the sun illuminates but is not what enlightened, and the fire heats but is not what made hot.

[5:32] But Christ is the fountain of the whole priesthood. Huh? That's a nice expression. Yeah. Ah, for the law, legal priesthood, the old thing was a figure of it, right? But the priest of the new law operates in his what person? in persona Christi, he operates in his person, according to that of Second Corinthians. For I also, but I have what given? If I have given something for you, I have done so in the person of what Christ.

[6:13] And therefore, it does not belong to Christ to receive the effect of what priesthood, huh? That passage is usually translated as the presence of Christ, which the early, I guess, whatever can be said of the Greek in the New Testament, but it was often used by Protestants to do away with that expression which pertains to Catholic priesthood. They want this and puts all the priestly stuff. Now, what about the first argument, which is saying that he prayed for himself, and doesn't this belong to the priest to pray and so on?

[6:49] Right? Thomas now sees distinction here. He's always looking for distinctions. This guy. To the first, therefore, it should be said that prayer, although it does belong to priests, right, is not, however, their what private office, right? For it belongs to each one, right, both for himself and for others to pray. According to that of James, chapter five, pray for each other that we might be what saved, huh?

[7:31] And thus it could be said that the prayer by which Christ prayed for himself was not an act of his what priesthood. And sometimes we speak even of the priesthood of the faithful, you know, of the layperson, you know, and and and we think of prayer and things of that sort of things that he does, right? But maybe priesthood in the strict sense, right, is not constituted by prayer specifically.

[8:03] But then Thomas seems to reject this thing. But this response seems to be excluded through this, huh? That the apostle in Hebrews chapter five, when he said, "You a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek," right? He then adds, "Who in the days of his flesh, prayers, etc." Right? He offered prayers. And thus it seems that the prayer by which Christ prayed pertained to his what priesthood, huh?

[8:42] And therefore, it ought to be said, and that other priests partake of the effect of his priesthood, not in so far as they are priests, but in so far as they are what sinners, huh? As will be said below.

[9:04] But Christ, speaking simply, did not have sin, right? He had nevertheless the likeness of sin in the flesh, in so far as he had the what flesh that a sinner deserved, right? He was not the sinner, and therefore it ought not to be said simply that he partake or partook of the effect of the priesthood, right? But secundum quid, to wit, according to the what?

[9:40] Yeah. So he took on, in a sense, sinful flesh in the sense that there was a similitude of sin in his flesh without sin, right? Okay. Whence it is specifically, who is able to make someone what?"save from from death, huh? Yeah.

[10:04] He offered prayer and sacrifice to the one who was able to save him. Yeah. So in a qualified way, then, that is. Can you explain that a little bit more?

[10:24] How do the intentions? Well, he's saying, simply speaking, those partake of the effect of his priesthood who have sins to be what? Yeah. Christ had no sins to be expiated, right? Sure. But but yeah, but but he had the the the flesh that was subject to death, right? And therefore he what? Overcame that, yeah. He merited resurrection, so on, right? Glorification because of his things. So, in some qualified sense, he he's partaking of that.

[10:56] How did this? I didn't quite get the distinction. The first part, you know, when he gave that, and then it seemed like he was gonna, or he says it seems like this is excluded. He cites Hebrews, but then as we go along, it kind of sounds like he was going back to that first.

[11:13] Yeah, it doesn't altogether resolve that. I don't think here, but yeah, okay. But he he does seem to say though that prayer is not peculiar to the priest in the way that it is to offer sacrifice, right? Yeah.

[11:36] So so the laymen cannot offer the sacrifice of the mass, huh? Of course, the right woman cannot. But but the laymen can pray as well as the priest, right? So it's not really what constitutes. This was curious. I mean, it's striking to me always. Doesn't mean the layman can't offer sacrifice at all, but not like. Yeah, so my understanding is the layman does offer sacrifice. Well, this is first.

[12:06] Yeah, what's what's curious? Well, that's what he says in Article Two. Is I wrote it down because it's striking. Everything which is offered to God for this that the spirit of man is born into God is able to be called a sacrifice. And I think of that in terms of Fatima, because the angel, among other things, the angel said to the children, "Make whatever you do a sacrifice."

[12:23] Said that to children. And not only that, but it's very striking when Lucia was asked by somebody, if you remember, Francisco saw the vision, but he couldn't hear, so he depended on he kind of guessed a lot of the conversation, at least half of it, because he could hear Lucia, but he couldn't hear the Blessed Mother. So somebody asked Lucia, "Did the Blessed Mother tell you to pray for sinners?"

[12:43] And Lucia said, "No." And of course, in her simplicity, that's the only answer she gave. Francisco grabbed her. and said, You just told a lie. Didn't she tell us to pray for sinners?" And she said, "No. She has told us to pray for an end of the war, but for sinners, she told us to offer sacrifice." And I thought, well, that's not the prayer. Sacrifice might say they share in something, but sacrifice is something more than prayer.

[13:05] It's more than just a prayer. See, my understanding is that the layman at Mass really is supposed to offer. Yeah. But he can't confect the sacrifice. He can't make it present. He doesn't offer it in the same way. He doesn't make it present. Yeah. But he's supposed to be, because offering is a kind of action. Yeah. It's not. It's not so much a petition. You don't just accept this word, but he's actually supposed to offer it.

[13:27] Yeah, he they partake of the offering, but they don't offer it the same way because they insert well. Well, the thing Augustine says though about the invisible sacrifice, right?

[13:39] That that the layman could partake in, yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Divine Mercy Chaplet you say we offer you the body. Yeah yeah. Yeah, and that's the other prayer that the angel taught the children. So, when did Christ actually institute the priesthood? From his supper. Yeah, he said, do this in memory of me, right? Yeah. That's kind of what makes one to be a priest that you can offer that.

[14:02] The mass, yeah. So the others, I guess, just as the priest derives his priesthood from Christ, then in another way, the faithful derived their priesthood But but the priest also has the power the power to hear sins. I mean, you know, to judge them. So that's in view of preparing people for the Eucharist. So I mean, that's kind of the principal thing then, the Mass and Eucharist.

[14:28] Yeah. I guess that's kind of a twofold application of the merits of the sacrifice. At the mass, and then also in the confessional, and anointing other sacraments.

[14:41] Yeah. But I was always struck by that. I'm a fan of it. For sinners, we're not supposed to just just pray. We do an office act that's something more than just, you know, forgive them or something. But even if someone says it does belong to the priest to instruct the laity, we say, well, yes, but in view of preparing them for the mass and and the communion.

[15:11] Okay. Now the second objection here. He merited in his passion not only for others but for himself, right? Okay. To the second, it should be said that in the offering of of the sacrifice, right, of the priest, two things can be considered. One is the sacrifice offered, right, and the devotion of the one what offering him. I remember rightly there in the in the text on the virtue of religion, right?

[15:51] Huh? The fundamental act of religion is what. Devotion, yeah, and then you have things like prayer and sacrifice and so on, you know. Now, the proper effect of the priesthood is that which follows from the sacrifice itself. Christ, however, achieved through his passion, not as it were from the what strength of the sacrifice that is offered by way of satisfaction, right? But from his what devotion, by which he sustained in humility, right, the passion according to what charity.

[16:44] It's kind of interesting, you know. I was reading that article, of Thomas, where he's talking about um, connection between miracles and faith, right? And

[16:59] it's through faith that you kind of merit miracles, right? That's why Christ is not working miracles someplace because they have no faith. And Thomas says, "Objections say, 'Well, don't we merit through charity? ' Right? Well, charity is kind of the universal principle of merit, right? But then, through some other virtue, you and it's informed by charity, you merit this particular thing, right? So, blessed are the poor in spirit; they shall inherit, you know.

[17:28] And so, I used to wonder about that in the in the Magnificat, right? My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior, because His regard the lowliness of His handmaid. So, well, why the lowliness of His handmaid? Her humility. Why not her her love, her charity? Isn't that a greater thing in Mary, her charity than humility. See, but her humility, informed by her charity, merits what exaltation?

[17:56] Because he humbles himself to be exalted, right? It's the proper effect of that. Well, it's kind of interesting in this respect that you have what charity, which is the universal principle of merit, and then the humility, right? Okay, so it's the humility of his passion that merits the glorification, right? By particular cause, but the universal cause is charity.

[18:24] Now, what about this last argument here from the Old Testament? Here, right, where the the priest in the Old Testament was offering sacrifice for himself, right, as well as.

[18:37] He says to the third, should be said that the figure is not able to equal the truth. Whence the priest, the figurative priest of the old law, was not able to attain to the perfection. To this perfection, that he did not himself need a what satisfying sacrifice, but Christ did not need such a thing, right? Whence there's not the same reason about both, and this is what the apostle says.

[19:13] Again, from the book Hebrews, that the law constituted men, right, as priests having infirmity Well the, sermo autem uh this oath swearing word, I guess, Yeah The word of the oath, which is after the law,

[19:37] is a son perfect in eternity. You just had had the November fourth. They had the feast of Charles Borromeo And you, you, you. You know, sometimes I'd say, "Why should we read more about these guys?" on the Catholic thing. On on page to page What a What a life! I mean Did you read! did you read Pius X has a letter on some centenary, of his It's beautiful. Oh, Pius X yeah Pius X does.

[20:06] It's on the banner. I forget the title. of it but He's really He's really impressive, this guy Borromeo. And of course, he knew Saint Philip Neri too, huh? But it's kind of, I guess, at one time he's talking about how Borromeo is setting up a kind of a kind of an order of this priesthood, a parish priest or what it was, and so on. And he thought there should be, you know, a vow of poverty in there, you know, which is a necessary part.

[20:29] Philip Neri thought no. And so Philip Neri says, "Let's go and ask friar So and So, this humble friar, who I guess is later on, you know, kind of a student. He says there shouldn't be that vow in there. So he made what humble friar said Yeah, yeah. But that's what I remember reading in the life of Saint Peter Canisius, who's contemporary, or shortly after Borromeo, yeah.

[20:56] And somebody was asking him, because he had communication with Charles Borromeo at some point, and Borromeo was going to try to mediate something with, you know, with all the the bishops and the princes, and it was all mixed up all the time and French and everything. And, um, Canisius said, "I hope they don't send Borromeo. " He says he's a very holy man, a little, a little tough, a little too rough for most people, you know.

[21:20] A little too. I forget the word. He's a little too harsh. He's kind of scared. He struggles with the powerful. He really means something.

[21:36] Okay. Now, does the priesthood of Christ remain forever? To the fifth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems the priesthood of Christ does not remain forever, eternal,

[21:56] because as has been said, those alone need the what effect of the priesthood who have the infirmity of sin, which is able to be expiated through the sacrifice of the what priest.

[22:15] But this will not be in eternity or forever, because in the saints there is no what. Yeah. According to that of Isaiah chapter sixty, all my people are what just.

[22:36] And the infirmity of the sinners is not able to be expiated, right? Because in hell there is no redemption. Abandon all hope, you enter here.

[22:50] Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not forever. That's a good argument, right? Hmm. Moreover, the priesthood of Christ is most of all made manifest in his passion and death, right? When through his own blood, right, he entered into the holy of holies, right, as is said in Hebrew chapter nine. But the passion and death of Christ will not be forever, for he said in Romans six, Christ rising from the dead no longer dies, huh?

[23:23] No longer subject to death. Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not forever. Huh. Moreover, Christ is priest not according as he is God, but according as he is a man. But Christ, sometime was not man in the what three days of his death. Therefore, the priesthood of Christ is not forever, right?

[23:52] But against all this is what is said in Psalm 109. You are priest forever. Well, what's Thomas going to do with this now? The answer. It should be said that in the office of priesthood two things are able to be considered. One is the offering of the sacrifice, right. The second is in the consummation sacrifice. Which consists in this that those for whom the sacrifice is offered.

[24:31] Achieve or arrive at the end of the sacrifice, huh? Now the end of the sacrifice that Christ offered was not any temporal goods. But eternal ones. Because through his which what eternal goods which we obtain through his death right. Hence it is said in Hebrews nine that Christ is the.

[25:00] Not the high priest of the good things to come Yeah, the future good yeah. By reason of which Christ's priesthood is said to be eternal right. In this consummation the sacrifice of Christ, is prefigured, in this that the, legal high priest, once in the year right. With the blood of the, goat and the vitulus, entered into the sancta sanctorum as is said in Levite chapter sixteen.

[25:39] Although nevertheless the what, goat and the vitulus were not, sacrificed in the, holy of holies right. But outside. Likewise Christ into the holy of holies that is into heaven itself right entered right. And prepared a way for us of entering, through the power of his blood, which he shed for us on earth. huh?

[26:12] There won't be any sacrifices in heaven I guess huh. There won't be sacrifices. huh? Now what about the first objection there right. To the first therefore it should be said that the saints who are in the, fatherland, do not need furthermore to be what expiated, to the priesthood of Christ huh. But already being expiated right. They need to be what. Consummated, to Christ himself, from whom, their glory depends huh.

[27:01] As is said in Apocalypse chapter twenty one, that the clarity of God, enlightens them enlightens. That place the city of the saints, and its lamb its lantern is the lamb. Now

[27:29] to the second, it should be said, that although the passion and death of Christ. Should not be what, repeated huh. Nevertheless the power of that what. Victim remains forever, because as is said in Hebrews chapter ten, by one offering he perfected those what sanctified forever. Through which also is clear the response to the what? There it

[28:08] is. The unity of this offering is figured in the law through this that once in the year the lawful high priest with solemn offering of blood entered into the holy places. But the figure falls short of the truth in that that offering or that sacrifice or that victim did not have an eternal power, and therefore yearly those victims were what? Yeah.

[29:04] So he says, "By what Thomas in this or not?" I've never seen him continue the argument. It's like he divided the body of the article with those three replies. No, I've never seen him put an end. He already, you know, replied the three. Oh, yeah. You mean that? Yeah. I think he's explaining part of his answer. Is that what it is? Looks like because he mentioned that same passage almost word for word in the corpus.

[29:34] Wow. But it's like he's explaining something about. I got to think about that a little bit more. You know, it's kind of interesting what he says there, but some might say, "Well,

[30:05] the end of the sacrifice is something eternal, right?" And he says, "By reason of this, the priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal, right? Because the end of it, huh?" The argument from authority here is stronger with me. If teach you something and you know it, huh? Then I still your teacher. Huh?

[30:57] So I'd teach a course there you know there, you know. I would take the required courses, you know, and I get my A and so on. And after I got out the course, I'd go back and sit on the course again. And finally, the professor says, "You shouldn't come anymore." Says, "you don't think I'm going to say."

[31:19] So, you know, assuming that's true, he has nothing more to teach me, at least in this course, right? Which he's giving to freshmen or sophomores or something like that. Well, what are you going to say? Is is he anymore my teacher now see

[31:41] or is Monsignor Dionne anymore anymore my teacher? I mean, the the effect of his teaching is is is in me, and that you know. And uh uh but is he still my teacher. I call him my teacher? but I mean, but is he still my teacher, really. What do you think? Well, I guess he's not

[32:10] teaching me anything new. that you have, by virtue of the knowledge, that he gave you, that's I would sort of indicate that when he says, you know, the disciple should be like his teacher. In a certain way, when he becomes like his teacher, his teacher's teacher. So it takes on even more known here. You know, Victor Burke was still my father,

[32:36] but he's not generating me. But but he still remains my father. So you know, your father is the one who generated you, right? There's more than that, but basically. Uh, and so the effect of his generating you remains right with you. Um,

[33:11] now, I suddenly hesitate to say, "he's no longer my father." Why should be also true about the? You know, is this like the priesthood of Christ, right? You're raising two

[33:28] that the sacrifice continues. Well, is it the sacrifice or is it the the effect of the sacrifice, right? That's what I think that's the sense of it Yeah, yeah, He's talking about in heaven, right? In heaven you won't even be saying mass right? The duration of the sacrifice. But the effect of it Yeah, yeah. So I'm saying, you know, in that sense, is Monsignor Dionne still my teacher, or De Koninck, or somebody, you know, or Kasurik, for that matter, you know?

[34:01] Or Sister Consequence. Yeah, Sister Aquinas there, yeah, Um. Definitely saying that you know, Victor Berke is still my father, right now. He's still those little ones, the grandfather, you know. But.

[34:46] Okay. Let's go ahead. The last article here, which is also taken from the authority of 109 here, the Psalm 109. To the sixth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the priesthood of Christ was not according to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain of the whole priesthood. That nice phrase we looked at before, as the worthy chief priest.

[35:13] But that which is chief or principal does not follow the order of others, but others follow the order of him. Therefore, Christ ought not to be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. Who's he to be setting the pace for for Christ?

[35:37] Well, obviously, you know, Thomas will be looking for distinction before he tries to reply to that. Okay, I mean, it does say so. This Psalm 109, you know, it's applied to Christ, right? Our priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech I think it's another kind of figure. I will see. We'll see. We'll see what the master says. Moreover, the priesthood of the old law was nearer

[36:09] the priesthood of Christ than the priesthood that was before the law, right? Maccusadak is before the law, right? For the sacraments, the more expressly signify Christ as they become what closer Christ, as is clear from those things which were said in the second part.

[36:40] Therefore, the priesthood of Christ ought to be more denominated according to the legal priesthood than according to the priesthood of Melchisedech, who was before the law.

[36:58] Moreover, Hebrews chapter seven, it is said that he is the King of what peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, nor having a beginning of his days, nor an end of his life,

[37:18] which belong only to the Son of God. Therefore, he ought not to be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, as of someone else, but according to the order of his own himself.

[37:37] But now the strongest argument theology is the argument from what? Yeah. So here it comes. Said contra is what said in Psalm 109. You are priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech That solves. that end of discussion Scripture has. Scripture has spoken. Yeah.

[38:00] Yeah. I answer. It should be said that as has been said above, the legal priesthood was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. Not, however, as equaling its what truth, but much falling short from it,

[38:25] because the legal priesthood did not cleanse what sins, and then also because it was not eternal, as the priesthood of what Christ. So it's not as powerful, and it's not as long lasting, right?

[38:46] But the excellence of the priesthood of Christ, in comparison to the what Levitical priesthood, was figured in the priesthood of Melchisedech, who got from Abraham right. Tithes. Tithes, yeah. Dichimas.

[39:12] In whose what loins right was decimated in some way the what legal priesthood right and therefore he says the priesthood of Christ is said to be according to the order of Melchisedech an account of the what excellence of the true priesthood to the figurative priesthood of the what law.

[39:46] Try to show me some more excellent figures of priesthood. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that Christ is not said to be according to the order of Melchisedech as if a more chief priest, right? But as what simply as prefiguring the excellence of the priesthood of Christ to the priesthood of the Levites, huh?

[40:16] So in that passage, I guess in Scripture, Melchisedech is said to have no beginning, no end, right? He's given no genealogy. yeah, yeah. So he's he's like the eternal, right, of the Christ priesthood, among other things.

[40:33] Ah, the second argument was saying, "What isn't the priesthood of the old law closer to Christ than therefore? To the second, it should be said that in the priesthood of Christ, two things are able to be considered. One is the offering of Christ Himself, right, and the what partaking of it, right.

[40:59] Now, as regards the offering itself, more expressly was figured the priesthood of Christ, the legal priesthood, right, through the effusion or the the pouring out of blood, right. Then the priesthood of Melchisedech, in which blood was not poured out, huh? But as regards the partaking of the sacrament sacrifice and its effect, in which especially is to be noted the excellence of the priesthood of Christ in comparison to the legal priesthood, is more expressly prefigured through the priesthood of what Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, right.

[41:49] Signifying, as Augustine says, the ecclesiastical unity, which the the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ constitutes. So you've heard this said, you know. They speak of the hardness of the grain, and then you rub it up, and then you what give it the water baptism, and then you heat it with charity, and then make it into a loaf. Then that's the unity, right? Okay.

[42:20] Whence also what in the new law the true sacrifice of Christ is communicated to the faithful under the what species of bread and what wine. They stopped giving it under wine now in the church now to the laity because of the uh swine flow. yeah oh really yeah came in the bishop the order so yeah she started coming here doctor we receive by intention so we receive both species by intention yeah so until the season passes anyway I guess we never not just

[43:03] shake hands you know do the peace greeting which is okay with me but I forgot myself today turned around there's always this old woman in front of us that's almost an ideal and and I just forgot it she said you forgot I was supposed to do that The priests would be telling them to do this yeah yeah but the priest goes over and gets that stuff to put your hand to kill the germs they do that really yeah before they've been doing that for some time I suppose the priest do most of that in Canada it was customary to have it on the altar and that ministered before the distribution of communion oh really oh gee well.

[43:46] It's the modern world. It's no good for viruses, right? Yeah, that's somebody pointed out. It feels more than bacteria, but it's no virus. So what good is it gonna do anybody? You got the flow. You got the flow. You're gonna give it to everybody too. That's what we see here. All these catalogs like an ornate dispenser. Yeah. Yeah. The church catalog. Little chair. Or no, we have

[44:19] a little leper with a bell, you know, unclean. Now, to the third, it should be said that Melchisedech is said to be without father and without mother, right? And without genealogy, and that he does not have a beginning of his days nor an end of his days. Not because he didn't have these things, right? But because in script sacred scripture, these things are not read about him, right?

[44:51] And to this, as the apostle there says, he is likened to what? Who on earth is without a father? And in heaven, without a mother, and without genealogy, according to what Isaiah said, who can narrate his generation?

[45:14] And who, according to divinity, had neither beginning nor end of his days? So Thomas faced with Psalm 109 must defend both the eternity of Christ's priesthood, right? And it being according to the order of Melchisedech against all objectors and potential heretics.