Tertia Pars
106. Aquinas on the Passion of Christ (ST III, Q.48, aa.1–3): Merit, Satisfaction and Sacrifice
Class of 2010-10-07
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/106-aquinas-on-the-passion-of-christ-st-iii-q-48-aa-1-3-merit/

[0:00] In The name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand all that you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:32] So is Thomas using his reason, as Shakespeare defines, use of reason? So. Is he looking before and after, right? Yeah. Yeah. So in the previous question, he looked before, right, the passion of Christ, at the efficient, at the causes of it, right, and now he's looking at the what? After the effects, right? He divides this, as he says in the beginning of the forty eight, the proemium and the proemium about the way of affecting what it's going to affect, and secondly about the effect itself.

[1:12] So these these two questions. So about the first, he says six things are asked. First, whether the passion of Christ caused our salvation by way of merit,

[1:30] Secondly, whether by way of what satisfaction? Third, whether by way of sacrifice. Fourth, whether by way of what redemption? Right. And attached to that, whether to be the redeemer is proper to what Christ? Isn't that John Paul II's first encyclical? Redeemer of man. Yeah. At the beginning of words. And then finally, whether he caused the effect of our salvation by way of the efficient cause? Okay. Now what the heck is all this?

[2:16] And just before we go into the first article, just look at the thing at the end here in question forty-eight, article six, the reply to the third objection.

[2:33] The third objection is saying, "Well, if it's through this that he caused it, then he can't have caused it through that in that way, right? " And just look at the reply to the third objection. To the third, it ought to be said that the passion of Christ, according as it is compared to his divinity,

[2:56] acted per modum efficientiae. That's the last thing of the five he's going to be saying, right? In so far as it is compared to the will, the human will now, because the will of the soul of Christ, right? It acted by way of what merit, huh? According as it is considered in the very flesh of Christ, as opposed to his soul and its will, it acted by way of satisfaction, huh?

[3:30] In so far as through it we are liberated from the what? Guilt, punishment, I guess. Yeah, they're obligated to punishment, right? By way of redemption, in so far as we are liberated from the slavehood, the slavery of what guilt, huh? And then by way of what sacrifice, in so far as through it we are reconciled to what God? Well, that doesn't explain everything, but it shows you how thorough Thomas is in looking at every aspect of this most important uh passion.

[4:11] So to the first, then let's go to Article One. To the first, then one proceeds thus: It seems that the passion of Christ was did not cause our salvation by way of merit, huh?

[4:26] For he says the principles of passions are not enough. unless someone else is conflicting it, right? For no one merits or is praised except through that of which he himself is the what beginning or source.

[4:49] Therefore, the passion of Christ did nothing, right? By way of merit, huh? Moreover, Christ from the beginning of his conception merited both for himself and for us, as has been said before. But it is superfluous, huh, to again merit that which what? The other life merit. Yeah. Therefore, Christ through his passion did not merit our salvation, huh?

[5:27] Moreover, the root of merit is charity, and but the charity of Christ was not did not grow right, was not more augmented in the passion than before.

[5:46] Therefore, he did not more merit our salvation by suffering than he did before. His charity is just as great, right? His charity was as great as when he died on the cross. Okay.

[6:06] But against this is what is said upon that of Philippians two, chapter nine, on account of which God what exalted him, etc. And then Augustine says the humility of the what passion, the merit of his clarity, right now. For clarity is the what reward of humility.

[6:34] But he is clarified not only in himself but also in his what members, huh, in the faithfuls, as he himself says, John seventeen. Therefore, it seems that he merited the salvation of his what faithful.

[6:54] Now Thomas answers in the body of the article. He brings out a distinction that is very important. I answer: It should be said that as has been said before, that to Christ is as given grace, not only as a singular or individual person, right, but also in so far as he is the very head of the church, huh? That from it there might what overflow, we might say, to the members, huh, of his mystical body.

[7:26] And therefore the works of Christ in this way have themselves both to himself and to his what members, huh? Just as have themselves the works of another man constituted in grace to himself, right? Okay.

[7:51] Now it is manifest, however, that whoever is constituted in grace suffers on account of what justice, and from this he merits for himself, right, salvation, huh? According to that of Matthew chapter five verse ten, blessed are those who suffer persecution on account of justice. Whence Christ not only through his own passion merited for himself, right, but also he merited salvation, huh, for all of his what members, huh?

[8:32] That's in so far as he's the head of the church, huh? I suppose some theologians would say, well, now does Mary have something like this too, a little bit?

[8:47] Now to the first objection, saying, "Hey, the passion has its source in the persecutors," right? He says to the first: It should be said that passion, as such, has its source, right, on the outside, from. The outside, but according as someone voluntarily what Endures it. endures it, right? It has its what principle from the inside, right?

[9:19] So when your suffering comes to you, you know you say, "Well, why did that nail do that to me?" You know, but if you voluntarily sustain it, you can merit, huh?

[9:36] Why this disease strike me down or something? You know, all right, this sort of thing. Now, what about Christ meriting from the beginning of his what incarnation?

[9:52] He says to second should be said that Christ from the beginning of his own conception merited for. us. He seems like admitting the the the force of the objection. But from our side, huh? On our side, there are certain impediments, right? By which we are impeded to what? Obtaining the effect of the foresaid what? Merits, huh? Whence to remove those impediments, it is necessary for Christ to what?

[10:33] Suffer, huh? Now, what about having any greater what effect here? To the theory, it should be said that the passion of Christ had some effect, which the preceding merits did not have, huh? Not an account of greater charity, from which he did this, huh?

[11:03] Was was it Mother Teresa's always talking about you know doing little things, great love, right? So Christ did everything, you know, He was working in the wood shop there, I guess, with Joseph, with as much charity, right? So he says, not on account of their being greater charity, but on account of the what? The genus, huh? The kind of work it was, which was suitable to such an effect.

[11:32] This is clear from the reasons above brought in for the suitability of the passion of what? Christ. So subtle things are. Now the second article is whether the passion of Christ causes our salvation by way of satisfaction.

[11:59] This we saw in another reply to Odd Three, right? Is more on the side of the what? The body. To the second one proceeds thus: It seems that the passion of Christ did not cause our salvation by way of satisfaction.

[12:20] For the same person, it seems to belong to satisfy who sinned, huh? Just as is clear in the other parts of penance, right? Huh? For it belongs the same one to what? To be contrite against. Contrite, yeah, and to confess who sinned, right? But Christ did not sin, right? According to that of One Peter Two, who did not do sin, right? Admit sin. Therefore, he did not satisfy by his own what?

[12:55] Passion, huh? Moreover, no one um is satisfied through a greater offense, right? But maxima, we saw this in the last question. A great offense, a great crime, was perpetrated in the passion of Christ, because they most gravely sinned who killed him, as has been said above. Therefore, it seems that through the passion of Christ, God could not be what satisfied him.

[13:35] Moreover, satisfaction implies a certain equality with the what guilt, right? Since it is an act of justice. But the passion of Christ does not seem to be equal to all the sins of the human race, huh? Because Christ did not suffer according to his divinity, which is incapable of suffering, right? But according to his flesh, but according to his flesh, according to that of one Peter four, Christ therefore suffered in the flesh, huh?

[14:10] But the soul in which there is sin is more what potent, more excellent than the flesh. Therefore, Christ by his passion did not what satisfy for our sins. So convinced of that, huh? Temporarily.

[14:40] But against this is what is said from his person in Psalm sixty-eight, huh? What I did not what take or steal, I guess. I paid back. I paid back, huh? But he does not resolve, he might say, who perfectly did not what satisfy. Therefore, it seems that Christ in suffering satisfied perfectly for our sins, huh?

[15:12] He says, "I answer. It should be said that he properly satisfies who satisfies for an offense who shows to what the one offended, right? What is equally equal or more, right? He loves than what he offends in the offense that he hates, huh? But Christ, he says, in suffering from charity and obedience, huh?

[15:41] Exhibited more or something greater to God, right? Then requires the what? Paying back. Back of the whole offense of the human race, huh? And why is this so? He says, first. On account of the magnitude of the charity from which he what suffered,

[16:06] second, in account of the dignity or worth of his life, right, which he laid down for satisfaction, which was a life of both God and what man,

[16:21] and third, in account of the general character of the passion and the magnitude of the pain assumed, right, it was greater right than that of anybody else's pain, and therefore the passion of Christ is not only sufficient, huh, but also a superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the human race, huh, according to that of one John two, that he is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for those of the what whole world, right.

[17:06] So in the in the we call it the inquisitive indulgences, right, that the stations of the cross have what attached to them a plenary indulgence if with the other usual conditions, right, that are required, it's appropriate.

[17:27] Now, what about Christ not being the one who sinned, right? Why should he satisfy for us? How can he? He says, "To the first, therefore, it should be said that the head and its members are, as we are, one mystical person, right? Huh? And didn't the Pius XII say that the mystical body of Christ is perhaps the most profound statement of what the Church is? Again, fully capture the the the mystery of the Church with one of these things, but this is maybe the best, right?

[18:03] And therefore, the satisfaction satisfaction of Christ pertains to all the faithful as to his own what members, huh? In so far also as two men are one in what charity, huh? One is able to satisfy for the other, right? I guess you've been the famous examples of this where they punish the wrong guy, and then when they discovered he had not what was not the man who was guilty, and they're going to punish the real man, and he says, "Let my punishment serve for him, right?

[18:40] " And they actually let the other guy go. It's kind of marvelous, marvelous example of human one man undergoing for another man, right? You call what was that in like United States or ancient Roman? Yeah, I heard the story, you know. Even as little I heard, you know, this this had happened more than once, I guess. Oh, Macmillan, Colby. Yeah. Be volunteer to take that. Yeah. Yeah.

[19:03] There is not over a similar reason about confession and contrition, right? Huh? Because satisfaction consists in the exterior act, right? To which one can take what instruments, right? Among whom are what numbered, even what friends, huh?

[19:35] So didn't Teresa and. Some saints like this, you know, become a a actual suffering, you know, for others, you know, they would take on for them, huh? Uh I forgot what the title was not a martyr saint, but it was something. another title they had What? Victim soul. Victim soul, yeah. They actually. asked Yeah, she made it so victim to divine mercy. I think she said. Yeah.

[19:59] Yeah. Something like that. There's a number of saints who did that. I mean, kind of kind of explicit thing, you know. Stephen playing for Paul, right? Yeah, yeah. Because they they look at his as being efficacious, right, for his conversion, right? Yeah, like one of the characters. I can't remember his name, but he was president. but who was the one that Waugh wrote the life of? The Jesuit got stretched.

[20:40] Campion. Campion, Campion, when they threw his innards into the boiling water, one of the bystanders, there was watching rather impartially with the whole thing, and it dropped from the water, landed on his coat, instant conversion, and then he was later martyred. Oh. He, I think, he went to Europe, became a Jesuit, came back, was martyred. But he said it was instantaneous conversion, just one drop of water.

[21:06] The bowels of mercy. So it's very important, you know, the Greek proverb, you know, "Friend is another self," right? Ho philos estin heteros autos You know, it has the little quotes in the Greek. But a friend is another self, right? Or sometimes Shakespeare calls a friend a a second self, right? I mean,

[21:44] that's very very serious. That if this is another self or a second self, then it can satisfy for the original self, right? It's a kind of an amazing thing.

[22:04] Across the the five virgins, the five foolish virgins, and the five said, "Why not? Maybe there won't be enough for both of us." So you're going by. So, yeah. Yeah. Catherine of Siena has an interpretation of that in one of her letters. Oh. Who? Catherine of Siena, has an interpretation of that in one of her letters. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The second one was saying, "Hey, what about the wickedness of those crucifying them?

[22:54] How come this? So he says to the second, "It should be said." That greater was the charity of Christ. Christ's suffering than the malice of those what crucifying them. and therefore more Christ was able to satisfy by his passion than the crucifixers

[23:17] were able to offend, right? Yeah, it's kind of amazing thing, right? And to such an extent was the passion of Christ sufficient and superabundant, and that it could even satisfy for the sins of those crucifying him, right? So we, you know, there are people who are already beating their hearts right there after his death, you know, but maybe, you know, even some of those who were more leaders, you know, were

[23:51] saved by Christ there later on. Now the third thing is saying, well, the flesh is less than the soul, dignity, but you're beginning about the union of these things. To third, therefore, it should be said that the dignity or worth of the flesh of Christ should not be estimated only according to the nature of flesh, but according to the person assuming that flesh, right? In so far as it was in fact the flesh of what of God, and from this it has in a certain way infinite what dignity, right?

[24:35] Say anima Christi, but corpus Christi, salvum me right, yeah. But so far as it's the flesh of God, right? God's body, huh? So notice the difference between those first two, like was said in that reply to the third objection, right? One is looking more at the what soul of Christ and his will, right? And this looking at the what the body, huh? Suffers, but

[25:24] okay. Now, whether the passion of Christ operated by way of what a sacrifice, huh? And to the third one proceeds thus, it seems that the passion of Christ did not what work for work in the way of a what a sacrifice.

[25:45] For he says, truth ought to correspond to the figure, but in the sacrifices of the old law, which were figures of Christ, never was human flesh offered up. Got to go down to the Aztecs or something. Yeah. Nay,

[26:05] rather, he said. Nay, rather, these sacrifices were what held something. Nay, rather, they were they were well contrary to God's law. Yeah. According to that, is Psalm one o five? They shed the blood of innocent blood, right? The blood of their own sons and daughters, huh? Which they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan. Therefore, it seems that the passion of Christ is not able to be called a what Sacrifice, huh?

[26:45] Moreover, Augustine says in the tenth book of the City of God that the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is a sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice.

[26:59] But the passion of Christ is not a sign, but more what is signified through other signs. Therefore, it seems that the passion of Christ was not a what Sacrifice.

[27:14] Moreover, whoever offers up a sacrifice does something sacred, huh? As the very name itself, sacrifices, got sacra sacred and facere in there, huh? Shows, huh? But those who killed Christ did not what. Do something sacred. Yeah. But they perpetrated a great what evil, right? Therefore, the passion of Christ was more what evil deed than sacrifice, huh? Was it Agamemnon there who offers up his daughter to get the yeah get the.

[27:53] uh fleet going, you know. Get the winds going and so on. Yeah, you know what happens to him when he comes back with this his wife and the yeah.

[28:09] But against all this is what the apostle says, huh? That's what figurative speech is that when he says the apostle with a capital A. So Peter and Paul are called apostles. The apostles by antonomasia. The princes of the apostles is John Paul II used to call them. He handed himself over for us a what an offering and a host to God in an odor of what Sweetness, huh?

[28:47] Now, I answer Thomas says, huh? That a sacrifice is properly said to be something done or made in honor owed to God properly, right? To what? Yeah, to placate him in a sense. Almost done.

[29:12] And he says, therefore, Augustine says in the tenth book about the city of God. A true sacrifice is every work done that we might adhere to God in a holy what society, huh? Related to that end, of the good by which we are able to be truly what blessed, huh?

[29:39] Christ, however, as is added there, offered himself up in passion for us, huh? And this work, which that he voluntarily assumed this passion or sustained it, was most acceptable to God, right, huh? In so far as it was coming from what Charity. charity, right? Whence it is manifest that the passion of Christ was a true what sacrifice.

[30:15] And therefore, as he afterwards says in the same what book, huh? This is Augustine, I guess, huh? Of this true sacrifice, huh? Many and various were the signs sacrifices of the what ancient Yeah.

[30:36] When this one sacrifice was figured through many, right, huh? As it were, by many words, one thing is said, right, huh? That without boredom, right? Is much commended, right?

[30:55] And since four things are considered in every sacrifice, as Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity, to wit, the one to which is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered, right? Huh? He himself, who is the one and true what mediator, through this sacrifice of peace, reconciled us to what God.

[31:26] He remained one with the one to whom it is offered, one in himself he made for whom he offered it, one he himself who offered it, and what is offered? Huh?

[31:41] That's not redundant now. He's he's the so he's not the one who was offered, right? He's the one who was offered up, The one who did the offering. He's the one who was offered up, and since the one for whom it is, there's the same body. yeah.

[32:01] What about the subjection? Huh? The truth got to correspond to figure. Well, in some way it has to, he says, huh? But not necessarily towards all things, huh? Because it is necessary that truth exceeds the what figure, huh? And therefore, suitably, the figure of this sacrifice, huh? By which the flesh of Christ is offered up for us, was the flesh not of what men, but of other animals, but signifying the flesh of what Christ, huh?

[32:38] Which is the most perfect sacrifice, huh? First, because from this that it is the what flesh of human nature, right? It is suitably offered up for men, right? And is taken by them under the what sacrament? So this is a reference to the Eucharist, huh? Secondly, because from this that it was able to suffer and was mortal, it was apt for what. immolation. Yeah. And third, because from this that it was without sin, it was efficacious to cleansing the sins, huh?

[33:25] And fourth, because from this that it was the flesh of the one offering it up, it was acceptable to God in account of the charity of the one offering up his own what flesh. What

[33:45] they say, you know, you know, to have a sacrifice, there has to be something consumed or destroyed, huh? And remember, years ago, reading in the Salamanca, you know, the monks there, and talking about what a sacrifice is, and how it was essential to the mass that at least the priests consume part of the, you know, the bread and the wine, right? Because there has to be some kind of a consumption, right, of the thing, as the idea that you're giving a sacrifice to God.

[34:24] Of course, you see, obviously, the Holocaust and all of these things, there's something being consumed, and that's the most holy word; it's entirely consumed, right? But that says nothing about in the body article St. Augustine's definition there in the first one. It doesn't seem to say anything about that

[34:44] aspect of consuming or offering. Because it just says every work which is done. Yeah, but even so, if you offer something to. God like that. Well, like like take the vows, which is a very good example of that. Then, in a sense, you're giving up. You're losing your own will, in a sense, right? Because you're going to obey, right? The will of the of the abbot or something.

[35:11] huh? Would it be in the sense of when he has that, so that you might adhere to God? Maybe that's that's the end or purpose of it. Yeah, yeah. Because later on he says at the end of that that last article that to reconcile to God, right? Yeah, that's right. Yeah. I think I see another place in the Thomas where where sacrifice is very much set up though with the fact that there's been sin, right?

[35:40] And and you need to make sacrifice to God to get reconciled to Him, right? Okay. I've got a second objection. That is, you know, it's that quote from Augustine we we didn't do the the end of the first one. Okay. That was second paragraph. Once Augustine says in the fourth book of Trinity, what is what so fittingly right taken by men or assumed by men that is offered for them, right?

[36:24] The human flesh. And what is so apt to be what destroyed in a sense, huh, immolated, than mortal flesh, right? And what so clean, right, for cleansing the vices of mortals, then what is without the contagion of what Carnal concupiscence, that flesh that was born in the uterus and from the virginal womb. And what can be so gratefully offered and received than the flesh of that sacrifice, the body affected of what of our priest, um.

[37:16] Augustine can see a mouthful, can't he? To second, it should be said that Augustine there speaks of the what. Figurative sacrifices. And nevertheless, the passion of Christ, although it is something signified through all the figurative sacrifice. It is nevertheless a sign of something that should be observed by us, right? According to that of one Peter four, Christ having suffered in the flesh, right, and you are armed by the same what thought?

[38:13] Because he who suffered in the flesh, that we might. He ceased from sin. Yeah. That not only the what desires of man, right? Right. But the will of God? Hmm. What remains is in the flesh. How does it say?

[38:39] Yeah, give a translation. Suffered in the flesh, has ceased from sins, that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of man, but according to the will of God. Oh, okay. Yeah, that makes more sense. To third,

[39:03] it should be said that the passion of Christ on the side of those killing him was a what bad deed, huh? But on the part of the one who was suffering from charity, it was a sacrifice, huh? Whence the sacrifice Christ himself is said to what offer up, not those who killed him, right?