Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part III/Q22

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q21 Q23→



Latin English
IIIª q. 22 pr. Deinde considerandum est de sacerdotio Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum conveniat Christo esse sacerdotem. Secundo, de hostia huius sacerdotis. Tertio, de effectu huius sacerdotii. Quarto, utrum effectus sacerdotii eius pertineat ad ipsum, vel solum ad alios. Quinto, de aeternitate sacerdotii eius. Sexto, utrum debeat dici sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Question 22. The priesthood of Christ 1. Is it fitting that Christ should be a priest? 2. The victim offered by this priest 3. The effect of this priesthood 4. Does the effect of His priesthood pertain to Himself, or only to others? 5. The eternal duration of His priesthood 6. Should He be called "a priest according to the order of Melchisedech"?
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christo non conveniat esse sacerdotem. Sacerdos enim est minor Angelo, unde dicitur Zach. III, ostendit mihi Deus sacerdotem magnum stantem coram Angelo domini. Sed Christus est maior Angelis, secundum illud Heb. I, tanto melior Angelis effectus, quanto differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit. Ergo Christo non convenit esse sacerdotem. Objection 1. It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest. For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zechariah 3:1): "The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord." But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Hebrews 1:4: "Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name than they." Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should be a priest.
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ea quae fuerunt in veteri testamento, fuerunt figurae Christi, secundum illud Coloss. II, quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi. Sed Christus non traxit carnis originem ex sacerdotibus veteris legis, dicit enim apostolus, Heb. VII, manifestum est quod ex Iuda ortus sit dominus noster, in qua tribu nihil de sacerdotibus Moyses locutus est. Ergo Christo non convenit esse sacerdotem. Objection 2. Further, things which were in the Old Testament were figures of Christ, according to Colossians 2:17: "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." But Christ was not descended from the priests of the Old Law, for the Apostle says (Hebrews 7:14): "It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests." Therefore it is not fitting that Christ should be a priest.
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, in veteri lege, quae est figura Christi, non est idem legislator et sacerdos, unde dicit dominus ad Moysen, legislatorem, Exod. XXVIII, applica Aaron, fratrem tuum, ut sacerdotio fungatur mihi. Christus autem est lator novae legis, secundum illud Ierem. XXXI, dabo leges meas in cordibus eorum. Ergo Christo non convenit esse sacerdotem. Objection 3. Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the lawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said to Moses the lawgiver (Exodus 28:1): "Take unto thee Aaron, thy brother . . . that he [Vulgate: 'they'] may minister to Me in the priest's office." But Christ is the giver of the New Law, according to Jeremiah 31:33: "I will give My law in their bowels." Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should be a priest.
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. IV, habemus pontificem qui penetravit caelum, Iesum, filium Dei. On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 4:14): "We have [Vulgate: 'Having'] therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God."
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod proprium officium sacerdotis est esse mediatorem inter Deum et populum, inquantum scilicet divina populo tradit, unde sacerdos dicitur quasi sacra dans, secundum illud Malach. II, legem requirent ex ore eius, scilicet sacerdotis; et iterum inquantum preces populi Deo offert, et pro eorum peccatis Deo aliqualiter satisfacit; unde apostolus dicit, Heb. V, omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum, ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis. Hoc autem maxime convenit Christo. Nam per ipsum dona hominibus sunt collata, secundum illud II Pet. I, per quem, scilicet Christum, maxima et pretiosa nobis promissa donavit, ut per haec efficiamini divinae consortes naturae. Ipse etiam humanum genus Deo reconciliavit, secundum illud Coloss. I, in ipso, scilicet Christo, complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabitare, et per eum reconciliare omnia. Unde Christo maxime convenit esse sacerdotem. I answer that, The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator between God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine things on the people, wherefore "sacerdos" [priest] means a giver of sacred things [sacra dans, according to Malachi 2:7: "They shall seek the law at his," i.e. the priest's, "mouth"; and again, forasmuch as he offers up the people's prayers to God, and, in a manner, makes satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the Apostle says (Hebrews 5:1): "Every high-priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins." Now this is most befitting to Christ. For through Him are gifts bestowed on men, according to 2 Peter 1:4: "By Whom" (i.e. Christ) "He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature." Moreover, He reconciled the human race to God, according to Colossians 1:19-20: "In Him" (i.e. Christ) "it hath well pleased (the Father) that all fulness should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself." Therefore it is most fitting that Christ should be a priest.
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod potestas hierarchica convenit quidem Angelis, inquantum et ipsi sunt medii inter Deum et hominem, ut patet per Dionysium, in libro Cael. Hier., ita quod ipse sacerdos, inquantum est medius inter Deum et populum, Angeli nomen habet, secundum illud Malach. II, Angelus domini exercituum est. Christus autem maior Angelis fuit, non solum secundum divinitatem, sed etiam secundum humanitatem, inquantum habuit plenitudinem gratiae et gloriae. Unde etiam excellentiori modo hierarchicam seu sacerdotalem potestatem prae Angelis habuit, ita etiam quod ipsi Angeli fuerunt ministri sacerdotii eius, secundum illud Matth. IV, accesserunt Angeli et ministrabant ei. Secundum tamen passibilitatem, modico ab Angelis minoratus est, ut apostolus dicit, Heb. II. Et secundum hoc conformis fuit hominibus viatoribus in sacerdotio constitutis. Reply to Objection 1. Hierarchical power appertains to the angels, inasmuch as they also are between God and man, as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. ix), so that the priest himself, as being between God and man, is called an angel, according to Malachi 2:7: "He is the angel of the Lord of hosts." Now Christ was greater than the angels, not only in His Godhead, but also in His humanity, as having the fulness of grace and glory. Wherefore also He had the hierarchical or priestly power in a higher degree than the angels, so that even the angels were ministers of His priesthood, according to Matthew 4:11: "Angels came and ministered unto Him." But, in regard to His passibility, He "was made a little lower than the angels," as the Apostle says (Hebrews 2:9): and thus He was conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the priesthood.
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Damascenus, in III libro, quod in omnibus est simile, idem utique erit, et non exemplum. Quia igitur sacerdotium veteris legis erat figura sacerdotii Christi, noluit Christus nasci de stirpe figuralium sacerdotum, ut ostenderetur non esse omnino idem sacerdotium, sed differre sicut verum a figurali. Reply to Objection 2. As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): "What is like in every particular must be, of course, identical, and not a copy." Since, therefore, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, He did not wish to be born of the stock of the figurative priests, that it might be made clear that His priesthood is not quite the same as theirs, but differs therefrom as truth from figure.
IIIª q. 22 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, alii homines particulatim habent quasdam gratias, sed Christus, tanquam omnium caput, habet perfectionem omnium gratiarum. Et ideo, quantum ad alios pertinet, alius est legislator, et alius sacerdos, et alius rex, sed haec omnia concurrunt in Christo, tanquam in fonte omnium gratiarum. Unde dicitur Isaiae XXXIII, dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster, ipse veniet et salvabit nos. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (7, 7, ad 1), other men have certain graces distributed among them: but Christ, as being the Head of all, has the perfection of all graces. Wherefore, as to others, one is a lawgiver, another is a priest, another is a king; but all these concur in Christ, as the fount of all grace. Hence it is written (Isaiah 33:22): "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our law-giver, the Lord is our King: He will" come and "save us."
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ipse Christus non fuit simul sacerdos et hostia. Sacerdotis enim est hostiam occidere. Sed Christus non seipsum occidit. Ergo ipse non fuit simul sacerdos et hostia. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ Himself was not both priest and victim. For it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim. But Christ did not kill Himself. Therefore He was not both priest and victim.
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, sacerdotium Christi magis est simile sacerdotio Iudaeorum, quod erat a Deo institutum, quam sacerdotio gentilium, quo Daemones colebantur. In veteri autem lege nunquam homo in sacrificium offerebatur, quod maxime reprehenditur in sacrificiis gentilium, secundum illud Psalmi, effuderunt sanguinem innocentem filiorum suorum et filiarum suarum, quas sacrificaverunt sculptilibus Chanaan. Ergo in sacerdotio Christi non debuit esse ipse homo Christus hostia. Objection 2. Further, the priesthood of Christ has a greater similarity to the Jewish priesthood, instituted by God, than to the priesthood of the Gentiles, by which the demons were worshiped. Now in the old Law man was never offered up in sacrifice: whereas this was very much to be reprehended in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, according to Psalm 105:38: "They shed innocent blood; the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan." Therefore in Christ's priesthood the Man Christ should not have been the victim.
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis hostia, ex hoc quod Deo offertur, Deo sanctificatur. Sed ipsa Christi humanitas a principio fuit sanctificata et Deo coniuncta. Ergo non convenienter potest dici quod Christus, secundum quod homo, fuerit hostia. Objection 3. Further, every victim, through being offered to God, is consecrated to God. But the humanity of Christ was from the beginning consecrated and united to God. Therefore it cannot be said fittingly that Christ as man was a victim.
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Ephes. V, Christus dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 5:2): "Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim [Douay: 'sacrifice'] to God for an odor of sweetness."
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, in X de Civ. Dei, omne sacrificium visibile invisibilis sacrificii est sacramentum, idest sacrum signum. Est autem invisibile sacrificium quo homo spiritum suum offert Deo, secundum illud Psalmi; sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus. Et ideo omne illud quod Deo exhibetur ad hoc quod spiritus hominis feratur in Deum, potest dici sacrificium. Indiget igitur homo sacrificio propter tria. Uno quidem modo, ad remissionem peccati, per quod a Deo avertitur. Et ideo dicit apostolus, Heb. V, quod ad sacerdotem pertinet ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis. Secundo, ut homo in statu gratiae conservetur, semper Deo inhaerens, in quo eius pax et salus consistit. Unde et in veteri lege immolabatur hostia pacifica pro offerentium salute, ut habetur Levit. III. Tertio, ad hoc quod spiritus hominis perfecte Deo uniatur, quod maxime erit in gloria. Unde et in veteri lege offerebatur holocaustum, quasi totum incensum, ut dicitur Levit. I. Haec autem per humanitatem Christi nobis provenerunt. Nam primo quidem, nostra peccata deleta sunt, secundum illud Rom. IV, traditus est propter delicta nostra. Secundo, gratiam nos salvantem per ipsum accepimus, secundum illud Heb. V, factus est omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae. Tertio, per ipsum perfectionem gloriae adepti sumus, secundum illud Heb. X, habemus fiduciam per sanguinem eius in introitum sanctorum, scilicet in gloriam caelestem. Et ideo ipse Christus, inquantum homo, non solum fuit sacerdos, sed etiam hostia perfecta, simul existens hostia pro peccato, et hostia pacificorum, et holocaustum. I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5): "Every visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice." Now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers his spirit to God, according to Psalm 50:19: "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit." Wherefore, whatever is offered to God in order to raise man's spirit to Him, may be called a sacrifice. Now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for the remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God. Hence the Apostle says (Hebrews 5:1) that it appertains to the priest "to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." Secondly, that man may be preserved in a state of grace, by ever adhering to God, wherein his peace and salvation consist. Wherefore under the old Law the sacrifice of peace-offerings was offered up for the salvation of the offerers, as is prescribed in the third chapter of Leviticus. Thirdly, in order that the spirit of man be perfectly united to God: which will be most perfectly realized in glory. Hence, under the Old Law, the holocaust was offered, so called because the victim was wholly burnt, as we read in the first chapter of Leviticus. Now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. For, in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according to Romans 4:25: "Who was delivered up for our sins." Secondly, through Him we received the grace of salvation, according to Hebrews 5:9: "He became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." Thirdly, through Him we have acquired the perfection of glory, according to Hebrews 10:19: "We have [Vulgate: 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the Holies" (i.e. the heavenly glory) "through His Blood." Therefore Christ Himself, as man, was not only priest, but also a perfect victim, being at the same time victim for sin, victim for a peace-offering, and a holocaust.
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non se occidit, sed seipsum voluntarie morti exposuit, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, oblatus est quia ipse voluit. Et ideo dicitur seipsum obtulisse. Reply to Objection 1. Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own free-will He exposed Himself to death, according to Isaiah 53:7: "He was offered because it was His own will." Thus He is said to have offered Himself.
IIIª q. 22 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Christi hominis occisio potest ad duplicem voluntatem comparari. Uno modo, ad voluntatem occidentium. Et sic non habuit rationem hostiae, non enim dicuntur occisores Christi hostiam Deo obtulisse, sed graviter deliquisse. Et huius peccati similitudinem gerebant impia gentilium sacrificia, quibus homines idolis immolabant. Alio modo potest considerari occisio Christi per comparationem ad voluntatem patientis, qui voluntarie se obtulit passioni. Et ex hac parte habet rationem hostiae. In quo non convenit cum sacrificiis gentilium. Reply to Objection 2. The slaying of the Man Christ may be referred to a twofold will. First, to the will of those who slew Him: and in this respect He was not a victim: for the slayers of Christ are not accounted as offering a sacrifice to God, but as guilty of a great crime: a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of the Gentiles, in which they offered up men to idols. Secondly, the slaying of Christ may be considered in reference to the will of the Sufferer, Who freely offered Himself to suffering. In this respect He is a victim, and in this He differs from the sacrifices of the Gentiles. (The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original manuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above.--Ed.) [Some editions, however, give the following reply:
Reply to Objection 3. The fact that Christ's manhood was holy from its beginning does not prevent that same manhood, when it was offered to God in the Passion, being sanctified in a new way--namely, as a victim actually offered then. For it acquired then the actual holiness of a victim, from the charity which it had from the beginning, and from the grace of union sanctifying it absolutely.]
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus sacerdotii Christi non sit expiatio peccatorum. Solius enim Dei est peccata delere, secundum illud Isaiae XLIII, ego sum qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me. Sed Christus non est sacerdos secundum quod Deus, sed secundum quod homo. Ergo sacerdotium Christi non est expiativum peccatorum. Objection 1. It would seem that the effect of Christ's priesthood is not the expiation of sins. For it belongs to God alone to blot out sins, according to Isaiah 43:25: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake." But Christ is priest, not as God, but as man. Therefore the priesthood of Christ does not expiate sins.
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Heb. X, quod hostiae veteris testamenti non potuerunt perfectos facere, alioquin cessassent offerri, eo quod nullam haberent conscientiam peccati cultores sufficienter semel mundati; sed in ipsis commemoratio peccatorum per singulos annos fit. Sed similiter sub sacerdotio Christi fit commemoratio peccatorum, cum dicitur, dimitte nobis debita nostra, Matth. VI. Offertur etiam continue sacrificium in Ecclesia, unde ibidem dicitur, panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Ergo per sacerdotium Christi non expiantur peccata. Objection 2. Further, the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1-3) that the victims of the Old Testament could not "make" (the comers thereunto) "perfect: for then they would have ceased to be offered; because the worshipers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer; but in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year." But in like manner under the priesthood of Christ a commemoration of sins is made in the words: "Forgive us our trespasses" (Matthew 6:12). Moreover, the Sacrifice is offered continuously in the Church; wherefore again we say: "Give us this day our daily bread." Therefore sins are not expiated by the priesthood of Christ.
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, pro peccato in veteri lege maxime immolabatur hircus pro peccato principis, vel capra pro peccato alicuius de populo, vel vitulus pro peccato sacerdotis, ut patet Levit. IV. Sed Christus nulli horum comparatur, sed agno, secundum illud Ierem. XI ego quasi agnus mansuetus qui portatur ad victimam. Ergo videtur quod eius sacerdotium non sit expiativum peccatorum. Objection 3. Further, in the sin-offerings of the Old Law, a he-goat was mostly offered for the sin of a prince, a she-goat for the sin of some private individual, a calf for the sin of a priest, as we gather from Leviticus 4:3-28. But Christ is compared to none of these, but to the lamb, according to Jeremiah 11:19: "I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that His priesthood does not expiate sins.
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, Heb. IX, sanguis Christi, qui per spiritum sanctum seipsum obtulit immaculatum Deo, emundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis, ad serviendum Deo viventi. Opera autem mortua dicuntur peccata. Ergo sacerdotium Christi habet virtutem emundandi peccata. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Hebrews 9:14): "The blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God." But dead works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ has the power to cleanse from sins.
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ad perfectam peccatorum emundationem duo requiruntur, secundum quod duo sunt in peccato, scilicet macula culpae, et reatus poenae. Macula quidem culpae deletur per gratiam, qua cor peccatoris in Deum convertitur, reatus autem poenae totaliter tollitur per hoc quod homo Deo satisfacit. Utrumque autem horum efficit sacerdotium Christi. Nam virtute ipsius gratia nobis datur, qua corda nostra convertuntur ad Deum, secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quae est in Christo Iesu, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Ipse etiam pro nobis plenarie satisfecit, inquantum ipse languores nostros tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavit. Unde patet quod Christi sacerdotium habet vim plenam expiandi peccata. I answer that, Two things are required for the perfect cleansing from sins, corresponding to the two things comprised in sin--namely, the stain of sin and the debt of punishment. The stain of sin is, indeed, blotted out by grace, by which the sinner's heart is turned to God: whereas the debt of punishment is entirely removed by the satisfaction that man offers to God. Now the priesthood of Christ produces both these effects. For by its virtue grace is given to us, by which our hearts are turned to God, according to Romans 3:24-25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." Moreover, He satisfied for us fully, inasmuch as "He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows" (Isaiah 53:4). Wherefore it is clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to expiate sins.
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet Christus non fuerit sacerdos secundum quod Deus, sed secundum quod homo, unus tamen et idem fuit sacerdos et Deus. Unde in synodo Ephesina legitur, si quis pontificem nostrum et apostolum fieri dicit non ipsum ex Deo verbum, sed quasi alterum praeter ipsum specialiter hominem ex muliere, anathema sit. Et ideo, inquantum eius humanitas operabatur in virtute divinitatis, illud sacrificium erat efficacissimum ad delenda peccata. Propter quod Augustinus dicit, in IV de Trin., ut, quoniam quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio, cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur; idem ipse unus verusque mediator, per sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos Deo, unum cum illo maneret cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui offerebat, et quod offerebat. Reply to Objection 1. Although Christ was a priest, not as God, but as man, yet one and the same was both priest and God. Wherefore in the Council of Ephesus [Part III, ch. i, anath. 10] we read: "If anyone say that the very Word of God did not become our High-Priest and Apostle, when He became flesh and a man like us, but altogether another one, the man born of a woman, let him be anathema." Hence in so far as His human nature operated by virtue of the Divine, that sacrifice was most efficacious for the blotting out of sins. For this reason Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 14): "So that, since four things are to be observed in every sacrifice--to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered; the same one true Mediator reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, was one with Him to Whom it was offered, united in Himself those for whom He offered it, at the same time offered it Himself, and was Himself that which He offered."
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccata non commemorantur in nova lege propter inefficaciam sacerdotii Christi, quasi per ipsum non sufficienter expientur peccata, sed commemorantur quantum ad illos scilicet qui vel eius sacrificii nolunt esse participes, sicut sunt infideles, pro quorum peccatis oramus, ut convertantur; vel etiam quantum ad illos qui, post participationem huius sacrificii, ab eo deviant qualitercumque peccando. Sacrificium autem quod quotidie in Ecclesia offertur, non est aliud a sacrificio quod ipse Christus obtulit, sed eius commemoratio. Unde Augustinus dicit, in X de Civ. Dei, sacerdos ipse Christus offerens, ipse et oblatio, cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium. Reply to Objection 2. Sins are commemorated in the New Law, not on account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of Christ, as though sins were not sufficiently expiated by Him: but in regard to those who either are not willing to be participators in His sacrifice, such as unbelievers, for whose sins we pray that they be converted; or who, after taking part in this sacrifice, fall away from it by whatsoever kind of sin. The Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Church is not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, but is a commemoration thereof. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. De. x, 20): "Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the sacred token of which He wished to be the daily Sacrifice of the Church."
IIIª q. 22 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Origenes dicit, super Ioan., licet diversa animalia in lege offerrentur, quotidianum tamen sacrificium, quod offerebatur mane et vespere, erat agnus, ut habetur Num. XXVIII. Unde significabatur quod oblatio agni, idest Christi, esset sacrificium consummativum omnium aliorum. Et ideo Ioan. I dicitur, ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. Reply to Objection 3. As Origen says (Sup. Joan. i, 29), though various animals were offered up under the Old Law, yet the daily sacrifice, which was offered up morning and evening, was a lamb, as appears from Numbers 28:3-4. By which it was signified that the offering up of the true lamb, i.e. Christ, was the culminating sacrifice of all. Hence (John 1:29) it is said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins [Vulgate: 'sin'] of the world."
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus sacerdotii Christi non solum pertinuerit ad alios, sed etiam ad ipsum. Ad officium enim sacerdotis pertinet pro populo orare, secundum illud II Machab. I, orationem faciebant sacerdotes dum consummaretur sacrificium. Sed Christus non solum pro aliis oravit, sed etiam pro seipso, secundum quod supra dictum est, et sicut expresse dicitur, Heb. V, quod in diebus carnis suae preces supplicationesque ad eum qui possit illum salvum facere a morte, cum clamore valido et lacrimis obtulit. Ergo sacerdotium Christi habuit non solum in aliis, sed etiam in seipso effectum. Objection 1. It would seem that the effect of the priesthood of Christ pertained not only to others, but also to Himself. For it belongs to the priest's office to pray for the people, according to 2 Maccabees 1:23: "The priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming." Now Christ prayed not only for others, but also for Himself, as we have said above (Question 21, Article 3), and as expressly stated (Hebrews 5:7): "In the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears He offered [Vulgate: 'offering'] up prayers and supplications to Him that was able to save Him from death." Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in Himself.
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Christus obtulit seipsum sacrificium in sua passione. Sed per passionem suam non solum aliis meruit, sed etiam sibi, ut supra habitum est. Ergo sacerdotium Christi non solum habuit effectum in aliis, sed etiam in seipso. Objection 2. Further, in His passion Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice. But by His passion He merited, not only for others, but also for Himself, as stated above (19, 3,4). Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in Himself.
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sacerdotium veteris legis fuit figura sacerdotii Christi. Sed sacerdos veteris legis non solum pro aliis, sed etiam pro seipso sacrificium offerebat, dicitur enim Levit. XVI, quod pontifex ingreditur sanctuarium ut roget pro se, et pro domo sua, et pro universo coetu filiorum Israel. Ergo etiam sacerdotium Christi non solum in aliis, sed in seipso effectum habuit. Objection 3. Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the Old Law offered sacrifice not only for others, but also for himself: for it is written (Leviticus 16:17) that "the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for himself and his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel." Therefore the priesthood of Christ also had an effect not merely in others, but also in Himself.
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Ephesina synodo legitur, si quis dicit Christum pro se obtulisse oblationem, et non magis pro nobis solum (nec enim indiguit sacrificio qui peccatum nescit), anathema sit. Sed in sacrificio offerendo potissime sacerdotis consistit officium. Ergo sacerdotium Christi non habuit effectum in ipso Christo. On the contrary, We read in the acts of the Council of Ephesus [Part III, ch. i, anath. 10]: "If anyone say that Christ offered sacrifice for Himself, and not rather for us alone (for He Who knew not sin needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema." But the priest's office consists principally in offering sacrifice. Therefore the priesthood of Christ had no effect in Himself.
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, sacerdos constituitur medius inter Deum et populum. Ille autem indiget medio ad Deum qui per seipsum accedere ad Deum non potest, et talis sacerdotio subiicitur, effectum sacerdotii participans. Hoc autem Christo non competit, dicit enim apostolus, Heb. VII, accedens per seipsum ad Deum, semper vivens, ad interpellandum pro nobis. Et ideo Christo non competit effectum sacerdotii in se suscipere, sed potius ipsum aliis communicare. Primum enim agens in quolibet genere ita est influens quod non est recipiens in genere illo, sicut sol illuminat sed non illuminatur, et ignis calefacit sed non calefit. Christus autem est fons totius sacerdotii, nam sacerdos legalis erat figura ipsius; sacerdos autem novae legis in persona ipsius operatur, secundum illud II Cor. II, nam et ego, quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos, in persona Christi. Et ideo non competit Christo effectum sacerdotii suscipere. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), a priest is set between God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of himself cannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of Christ; for the Apostle says (Hebrews 7:25): "Coming of Himself to God, always living to make intercession for us [Vulgate: 'He is able to save for ever them that come to God by Him; always living,' etc.]." And therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the effect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it receives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive light; fire gives but does not receive heat. Now Christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in His person, according to 2 Corinthians 2:10: "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." Therefore it is not fitting that Christ should receive the effect of His priesthood.
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod oratio, etsi conveniat sacerdotibus, non tamen est eorum officio propria, cuilibet enim convenit et pro se et pro aliis orare, secundum illud Iac. ult., orate pro invicem, ut salvemini. Et sic posset dici quod oratio qua Christus pro se oravit, non erat actus sacerdotii eius. Sed haec responsio videtur excludi per hoc quod apostolus, Heb. V, cum dixisset, tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, subdit, qui in diebus carnis suae preces etc., ut supra, et ita videtur quod oratio qua Christus oravit, ad eius sacerdotium pertineat. Et ideo oportet dicere quod alii sacerdotes effectum sacerdotii sui participant, non inquantum sacerdotes, sed inquantum peccatores, ut infra dicetur. Christus autem, simpliciter loquendo, peccatum non habuit, habuit tamen similitudinem peccati in carne, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Et ideo non simpliciter dicendum est quod ipse effectum sacerdotii participaverit, sed secundum quid, scilicet secundum passibilitatem carnis. Unde signanter dicit, qui possit illum salvum facere a morte. Reply to Objection 1. Although prayer is befitting to priests, it is not their proper office, for it is befitting to everyone to pray both for himself and for others, according to James 5:16: "Pray for one another that you may be saved." And so we may say that the prayer by which Christ prayed for Himself was not an action of His priesthood. But this answer seems to be precluded by the Apostle, who, after saying (Hebrews 5:6), "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech," adds, "Who in the days of His flesh offering up payers," etc., as quoted above (Objection 1): so that it seems that the prayer which Christ offered pertained to His priesthood. We must therefore say that other priests partake in the effect of their priesthood, not as priests, but as sinners, as we shall state farther on (ad 3). But Christ had, simply speaking, no sin; though He had the "likeness of sin in the flesh [Vulg.,: 'sinful flesh'," as is written Romans 8:3. And, consequently, we must not say simply that He partook of the effect of His priesthood but with this qualification--in regard to the passibility of the flesh. Wherefore he adds pointedly, "that was able to save Him from death."
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in oblatione sacrificii cuiuscumque sacerdotis duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipsum sacrificium oblatum, et devotio offerentis. Proprius autem effectus sacerdotii est id quod sequitur ex ipso sacrificio. Christus autem consecutus est per suam passionem, non quasi ex vi sacrificii, quod offertur per modum satisfactionis, sed ex ipsa devotione qua, secundum caritatem, passionem humiliter sustinuit. Reply to Objection 2. Two things may be considered in the offering of a sacrifice by any priest--namely, the sacrifice itself which is offered, and the devotion of the offerer. Now the proper effect of priesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself. But Christ obtained a result from His passion, not as by virtue of the sacrifice, which is offered by way of satisfaction, but by the very devotion with which out of charity He humbly endured the passion.
IIIª q. 22 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod figura non potest adaequare veritatem. Unde sacerdos figuralis veteris legis non poterat ad hanc perfectionem attingere ut sacrificio satisfactorio non indigeret. Sed Christus non indiguit. Unde non est similis ratio de utroque. Et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, lex homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes, sermo autem iurisiurandi, qui post legem est, filium in aeternum perfectum. Reply to Objection 3. A figure cannot equal the reality, wherefore the figural priest of the Old Law could not attain to such perfection as not to need a sacrifice of satisfaction. But Christ did not stand in need of this. Consequently, there is no comparison between the two; and this is what the Apostle says (Hebrews 7:28): "The Law maketh men priests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the Law, the Son Who is perfected for evermore."
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacerdotium Christi non permaneat in aeternum. Quia, ut dictum est, illi soli effectu sacerdotii indigent qui habent infirmitatem peccati quae per sacerdotis sacrificium expiari potest. Sed hoc non erit in aeternum. Quia in sanctis nulla erit infirmitas, secundum illud Isaiae LX, populus tuus omnes iusti, peccatorum autem infirmitas inexpiabilis erit, quia in Inferno nulla est redemptio. Ergo sacerdotium Christi non est in aeternum. Objection 1. It would seem that the priesthood of Christ does not endure for ever. For as stated above (4, ad 1,3) those alone need the effect of the priesthood who have the weakness of sin, which can be expiated by the priest's sacrifice. But this will not be for ever. For in the Saints there will be no weakness, according to Isaiah 60:21: "Thy people shall be all just": while no expiation will be possible for the weakness of sin, since "there is no redemption in hell" (Office of the Dead, Resp. vii). Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever.
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, sacerdotium Christi maxime manifestatum est in eius passione et morte, quando per proprium sanguinem introivit in sancta, ut dicitur Heb. IX. Sed passio et mors Christi non erit in aeternum, ut dicitur Rom. VI, Christus resurgens a mortuis iam non moritur. Ergo sacerdotium Christi non est in aeternum. Objection 2. Further, the priesthood of Christ was made manifest most of all in His passion and death, when "by His own blood He entered into the Holies" (Hebrews 9:12). But the passion and death of Christ will not endure for ever, as stated Romans 6:9: "Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more." Therefore the priesthood of Christ will not endure for ever.
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, Christus est sacerdos non secundum quod Deus, sed secundum quod homo. Sed Christus quandoque non fuit homo scilicet in triduo mortis. Ergo sacerdotium Christi non est in aeternum. Objection 3. Further, Christ is a priest, not as God, but as man. But at one time Christ was not man, namely during the three days He lay dead. Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever.
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, tu es sacerdos in aeternum. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 109:4): "Thou art a priest for ever."
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in officio sacerdotis duo possunt considerari, primo quidem ipsa oblatio sacrificii; secundo, ipsa sacrificii consummatio, quae quidem consistit in hoc quod illi pro quibus sacrificium offertur finem sacrificii consequuntur. Finis autem sacrificii quod Christus obtulit, non fuerunt bona temporalia, sed aeterna, quae per eius mortem adipiscimur, unde dicitur, Heb. IX, quod Christus est assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum, ratione cuius Christi sacerdotium dicitur esse aeternum. Et haec quidem consummatio sacrificii Christi praefigurabatur in hoc ipso quod pontifex legalis semel in anno cum sanguine hirci et vituli intrabat in sancta sanctorum, ut dicitur Levit. XVI, cum tamen hircum et vitulum non immolaret in sancta sanctorum, sed extra. Similiter Christus in sancta sanctorum idest in ipsum caelum intravit et nobis viam paravit intrandi per virtutem sanguinis sui, quem pro nobis in terra effudit. I answer that, In the priestly office, we may consider two things: first, the offering of the sacrifice; secondly, the consummation of the sacrifice, consisting in this, that those for whom the sacrifice is offered, obtain the end of the sacrifice. Now the end of the sacrifice which Christ offered consisted not in temporal but in eternal good, which we obtain through His death, according to Hebrews 9:11: "Christ is [Vulgate: 'being come'] a high-priest of the good things to come"; for which reason the priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal. Now this consummation of Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed in this, that the high-priest of the Old Law, once a year, entered into the Holy of Holies with the blood of a he-goat and a calf, as laid down, Leviticus 16:11, and yet he offered up the he-goat and calf not within the Holy of Holies, but without. In like manner Christ entered into the Holy of Holies--that is, into heaven--and prepared the way for us, that we might enter by the virtue of His blood, which He shed for us on earth.
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sancti qui erunt in patria, non indigebunt ulterius expiari per sacerdotium Christi, sed, expiati iam, indigebunt consummari per ipsum Christum, a quo gloria eorum dependet, ut dicitur, Apoc. XXI, quod claritas Dei illuminat illam, scilicet civitatem sanctorum, et lucerna eius est agnus. Reply to Objection 1. The Saints who will be in heaven will not need any further expiation by the priesthood of Christ, but having expiated, they will need consummation through Christ Himself, on Whom their glory depends, as is written (Apocalypse 21:23): "The glory of God hath enlightened it"--that is, the city of the Saints--"and the Lamb is the lamp thereof."
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet passio et mors Christi de cetero non sit iteranda, tamen virtus illius hostiae permanet in aeternum, quia ut dicitur Heb. X, una oblatione consummavit in aeternum sanctificatos. Reply to Objection 2. Although Christ's passion and death are not to be repeated, yet the virtue of that Victim endures for ever, for, as it is written (Hebrews 10:14), "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
IIIª q. 22 a. 5 ad 3 Per quod etiam patet responsio ad tertium. Unitas autem huius oblationis figurabatur in lege per hoc quod semel in anno legalis pontifex cum solemni oblatione sanguinis intrabat in sancta, ut dicitur Levit. XVI. Sed deficiebat figura a veritate in hoc, quod illa hostia non habebat sempiternam virtutem, et ideo annuatim illae hostiae reiterabantur. Wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear. As to the unity of this sacrifice, it was foreshadowed in the Law in that, once a year, the high-priest of the Law entered into the Holies, with a solemn oblation of blood, as set down, Leviticus 16:11. But the figure fell short of the reality in this, that the victim had not an everlasting virtue, for which reason those sacrifices were renewed every year.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacerdotium Christi non fuerit secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Christus enim est fons totius sacerdotii tanquam principalis sacerdos. Sed illud quod est principale, non sequitur ordinem aliorum, sed alia sequuntur ordinem ipsius. Ergo Christus non debet dici sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not according to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood, as being the principal priest. Now that which is principal is not . secondary in regard to others, but others are secondary in its regard. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, sacerdotium veteris legis propinquius fuit sacerdotio Christi quam sacerdotium quod fuit ante legem. Sed sacramenta tanto expressius significabant Christum, quanto propinquiora fuerunt Christo, ut patet ex his quae in secunda parte dicta sunt. Ergo sacerdotium Christi magis debet denominari secundum sacerdotium legale quam secundum sacerdotium Melchisedech, quod fuit ante legem. Objection 2. Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin to Christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the Law. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly they signified Him; as is clear from what we have said in the II-II, 2, 7. Therefore the priesthood of Christ should be denominated after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the order of Melchisedech, which was before the Law.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, Heb. VII dicitur, quod est rex pacis; sine patre sine matre sine genealogia; neque initium dierum neque finem vitae habens, quae quidem conveniunt soli filio Dei. Ergo non debet dici Christus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech tanquam cuiusdam alterius, sed secundum ordinem sui ipsius. Objection 3. Further, it is written (Hebrews 7:2-3): "That is 'king of peace,' without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor ending of life": which can be referred only to the Son of God. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, as of some one else, but according to His own order.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 109:4): "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech."
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut, supra dictum est, legale sacerdotium fuit figura sacerdotii Christi, non quidem quasi adaequans veritatem, sed multum ab ea deficiens, tum quia sacerdotium legale non mundabat peccata; tum etiam quia non erat aeternum, sicut sacerdotium Christi. Ipsa autem excellentia sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum fuit figurata in sacerdotio Melchisedech, qui ab Abraham decimas sumpsit, in cuius lumbis decimatus est quodammodo ipse sacerdos legalis. Et ideo sacerdotium Christi dicitur esse secundum ordinem Melchisedech, propter excellentiam veri sacerdotii ad figurale sacerdotium legis. I answer that, As stated above (4, ad 3) the priesthood of the Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as adequately representing the reality, but as falling far short thereof: both because the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and because it was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed in the priesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham, in whose loins the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the priesthood of Christ is said to be "according to the order of Melchisedech," on account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural priesthood of the Law.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non dicitur esse secundum ordinem Melchisedech quasi principalioris sacerdotis, sed quasi praefigurantis excellentiam sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum. Reply to Objection 1. Christ is said to be according to the order of Melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest, but because he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in sacerdotio Christi duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipsa oblatio Christi, et participatio eius. Quantum autem ad ipsam oblationem, expressius figurabat sacerdotium Christi sacerdotium legale per sanguinis effusionem, quam sacerdotium Melchisedech in quo sanguis non effundebatur. Sed quantum ad participationem huius sacrificii et eius effectum, in quo praecipue attenditur excellentia sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium legale, expressius praefigurabatur per sacerdotium Melchisedech, qui offerebat panem et vinum, significantia, ut dicit Augustinus ecclesiasticam unitatem, quam constituit participatio sacrificii Christi. Unde etiam in nova lege verum Christi sacrificium communicatur fidelibus sub specie panis et vini. Reply to Objection 2. Two things may be considered in Christ's priesthood: namely, the offering made by Christ, and (our) partaking thereof. As to the actual offering, the priesthood of Christ was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the Law, by reason of the shedding of blood, than by the priesthood of Melchisedech in which there was no blood-shedding. But if we consider the participation of this sacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the Law principally consists, then the former was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, signifying, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) ecclesiastical unity, which is established by our taking part in the sacrifice of Christ [Cf. 79, 1]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of Christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine.
IIIª q. 22 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Melchisedech dictus est sine patre et sine matre et sine genealogia, et quod non habet initium dierum neque finem non quia ista non habuit, sed quia in Scriptura sacra ista de eo non leguntur. Et per hoc ipsum, ut apostolus ibidem dicit, assimilatus est filio Dei, qui in terris est sine patre, et in caelis sine matre et sine genealogia, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, generationem eius quis enarrabit? Et secundum divinitatem neque principium neque finem habet dierum. Reply to Objection 3. Melchisedech is described as "without father, without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither beginning of days nor ending of life," not as though he had not these things, but because these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy Scripture. And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same passage, he is "likened unto the Son of God," Who had no earthly father, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to Isaiah 53:8: "Who shall declare His generation?" and Who in His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of days.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_III/Q22&oldid=11328’