Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Quotes: St. Madeleine Sophie Barat
St. Madeleine Sophie Barat 29th May 2009
Summa Theologica - Ascension Article 6
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Summa Theologica - Ascension Article 5
St. Mary Ann of Jesus of Paredes - 28th May 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Summa Theologica - Ascension Article 4
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the heavens, for it is written (Psalm 10:5): "The Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven." But what is in heaven is not above heaven. Therefore Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.
Objection 2. [This objection with its solution is omitted in the Leonine edition as not being in the original manuscript.]
Further, there is no place above the heavens, as is proved in De Coelo i. But every body must occupy a place. Therefore Christ's body did not ascend above all the heavens.
Objection 3. Further, two bodies cannot occupy the same place. Since, then, there is no passing from place to place except through the middle space, it seems that Christ could not have ascended above all the heavens unless heaven were divided; which is impossible.
Objection 4. Further, it is narrated (Acts 1:9) that "a cloud received Him out of their sight." But clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven. Consequently, Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.
Objection 5. Further, we believe that Christ will dwell for ever in the place whither He has ascended. But what is against nature cannot last for ever, because what is according to nature is more prevalent and of more frequent occurrence. Therefore, since it is contrary to nature for an earthly body to be above heaven, it seems that Christ's body did not ascend above heaven.
On the contrary, It is written (Ephesians 4:10): "He ascended above all the heavens that He might fill all things."
I answer that, The more fully anything corporeal shares in the Divine goodness, the higher its place in the corporeal order, which is order of place. Hence we see that the more formal bodies are naturally the higher, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv; De Coelo ii), since it is by its form that every body partakes of the Divine Essence, as is shown in Physics i. But through glory the body derives a greater share in the Divine goodness than any other natural body does through its natural form; while among other glorious bodies it is manifest that Christ's body shines with greater glory. Hence it was most fitting for it to be set above all bodies. Thus it is that on Ephesians 4:8: "Ascending on high," the gloss says: "in place and dignity."
Reply to Objection 1. God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though heaven contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him. Hence it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but for Him to be above all the heavens; according to Psalm 8:2: "For Thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens, O God!"
Reply to Objection 2. [Omitted in Leonine edition; see Objection 2] A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore bodies need in themselves to be in a place, in so far as they are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ's especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul. So there is nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ. So when Aristotle proves (De Coelo ii) that there is no body beyond heaven, this must be understood of bodies which are in a state of pure nature, as is seen from the proofs.
Reply to Objection 3. Although it is not of the nature of a body for it to be in the same place with another body, yet God can bring it about miraculously that a body be with another in the same place, as Christ did when He went forth from the Virgin's sealed womb, also when He entered among the disciples through closed doors, as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi). Therefore Christ's body can be in the same place with another body, not through some inherent property in the body, but through the assistance and operation of the Divine power.
Reply to Objection 4. That cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to the ascending Christ: but it appeared as a sign of the Godhead, just as God's glory appeared to Israel in a cloud over the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:32; Numbers 9:15).
Reply to Objection 5. A glorified body has the power to be in heaven or above heaven. not from its natural principles, but from the beatified soul, from which it derives its glory: and just as the upward motion of a glorified body is not violent, so neither is its rest violent: consequently, there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Catholic Education - Cardinal Arinze, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
I am Upset
St. Philip Neri - 26th May 2009
Biographical selection:
Phillip Neri (1515-1595) was born in Florence of a noble but impoverished family. He studied theology and philosophy and dedicated himself to apostolic works from his youth. Eventually he set aside his studies and founded a society to care for the sick and poor pilgrims in Rome.
He was ordained a priest in 1551, and founded the Congregation of the Oratory, the Oratorians, a group of priests dedicated to preaching and teaching. He was a great mystic, who received the gifts of prophecy and discernment of spirits. He could read the souls of penitents, and heard confessions by the hour. He was canonized some 25 years after his death along with St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis Xavier.
The religious crisis that took so many provinces from the Catholic Church deeply afflicted St. Phillip Neri. He suffered cruelly to see so many people being drowned in the waves of heresy. He attentively followed the maneuvers of Protestantism and planned a counter-attack against a Lutheran work of propaganda, the Magdeburg Centuries. This vast compilation was written to persuade readers that the Catholic Church had abandoned her early beliefs and practices. The multi-volume collection was filled with historical falsifications to “prove” its goal.
To counter this fabrication St. Phillip wanted a complete work of erudition to be written on the History of the Church from the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ up to his own time. He ordered the work to be done by Cesar Baronius, an Oratorian who would succeed him as Superior of the Oratory in 1593 and made a Cardinal in 1596.
Baronius alleged that he was unworthy and lacked the competence for such a great work; but St. Phillip was inflexible and ordered him under religious obedience to undertake the project. He spent close to 30 years to write it (1588–1607), covering the time up to the 12th century. This collection was called Ecclesiastical Annals. It was completed after his death.
The heresy felt the blow. The errors of the anti-Catholic Magdeburg Centuries became evident as the work of Baronius eclipsed it. The Ecclesiastical Annals contributed powerfully to stem the growing tide of Protestantism in Europe. From Baronius' work the Catholic Church emerged as she had always been, as the pillar of truth.
Comments of Prof. Plinio:
St. Phillip Neri was a man with a universal Catholic sense. He was not just interested in realizing a personal work, which certainly was important – the foundation of the Congregation of the Oratory – but he had a general concern for the Catholic Church as a whole. He was personally offended by Protestants attacking the Church through a work that was meant to be monumental – the Magdeburg Centuries. Actually it was a monumental lie. The Protestants, as heretics who hated the Church, fabricated another history of the Church full of untruths and slanders, with the specific purpose of denigrating the good name of the Catholic Church and separating her from the faithful.
These Protestants were from the same family of souls as the Pharisees, who produced false witnesses to condemn the Lamb of God. Analogously, in the beginning of the Church, groups of Jews moved by hatred against her spread many apocrypha documents – false gospels or epistles attributed to the Apostles – in order to confuse Catholics and induce them toward heresies. Until today, from time to time, the discussion of the apocrypha documents resurfaces trying to sabotage the Gospels.
Also after Protestantism, and in its wake, some authors of the Encyclopedia spread countless lies regarding the past of the Church. This in many ways was continued by Michelet in the 19th century. Today, these revolutionary authors lost credibility and their lies are universally recognized in scholarly milieus, even though they still influence badly those who do not have access to good historical sources. So, it was and still is a rule of the enemies to falsify history in order to slander Holy Mother Church.
When St. Phillip Neri saw the evil results that the Centuries of Magdeburg was having by favoring the spread of Protestantism, he decided to counter-attack. He chose the only way possible which was to make a gigantic work of erudition. A work using the best documents dating from the very beginning of the Church up to his own time, that would present the incontestable reality of the facts. To do this work he chose one of his most capable disciples, Baronius. After some hesitations Baronius dedicated some 30 years of his life to this job and the result was the Ecclesiastical Annals, one of the most serious works of all times. The work of Baronius stands forever as a point of reference for any serious historical study. His work pulverized the supposed “scientific” work of the Protestants who were left completely discredited.
The root of this work was St. Phillip Neri's amplitude of vision, his love of the Church, and his counter-revolutionary zeal.
An analogous work was made by Fr. Cornelius a Lapide from the Society of Jesus. He received an order to study all the interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures that existed, analyze them, refute the wrong ones, explain the good ones and give the best sources for each of them. Again, it was a counter-revolutionary work to destroy the pseudo-scientific Protestant interpretations which were polluting the atmosphere of piety and studies in the 16th and 17th centuries. Fr. Cornelius a Lapide wrote his monumental Commentaries to the Sacred Scriptures encompassing all its books from Genesis to the Apocalypse. To this date it is one of the most – if not the most – complete ensemble of Exegesis that the Catholic Church has. It is an everlasting source of erudition and piety for historians, preachers, and faithful in general.
Let us ask the great counter-revolutionary St. Phillip Neri to give us conditions to imitate him, hurting the Revolution at its head so that it can be completely destroyed and the Reign of Mary be established over its ruins.
Summa Theologica Ascension Article 3
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not ascend by His own power, because it is written (Mark 16:19) that "the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven"; and (Acts 1:9) that, "while they looked on, He was raised up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." But what is taken up, and lifted up, appears to be moved by another. Consequently, it was not by His own power, but by another's that Christ was taken up into heaven.
Objection 2. Further, Christ's was an earthly body, like to ours. But it is contrary to the nature of an earthly body to be borne upwards. Moreover, what is moved contrary to its nature is nowise moved by its own power. Therefore Christ did not ascend to heaven by His own power.
Objection 3. Further, Christ's own power is Divine. But this motion does not seem to have been Divine, because, whereas the Divine power is infinite, such motion would be instantaneous; consequently, He would not have been uplifted to heaven "while" the disciples "looked on," as is stated in Acts 1:9. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not ascend to heaven by His own power.
On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 63:1): "This beautiful one in his robe, walking in the greatness of his strength." Also Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension (xxix): "It is to be noted that we read of Elias having ascended in a chariot, that it might be shown that one who was mere man needed another's help. But we do not read of our Saviour being lifted up either in a chariot or by angels, because He who had made all things was taken up above all things by His own power."
I answer that, There is a twofold nature in Christ, to wit, the Divine and the human. Hence His own power can be accepted according to both. Likewise a twofold power can be accepted regarding His human nature: one is natural, flowing from the principles of nature; and it is quite evident that Christ did not ascend into heaven by such power as this. The other is the power of glory, which is in Christ's human nature; and it was according to this that He ascended to heaven.
Now there are some who endeavor to assign the cause of this power to the nature of the fifth essence. This, as they say, is light, which they make out to be of the composition of the human body, and by which they contend that contrary elements are reconciled; so that in the state of this mortality, elemental nature is predominant in human bodies: so that, according to the nature of this predominating element the human body is borne downwards by its own power: but in the condition of glory the heavenly nature will predominate, by whose tendency and power Christ's body and the bodies of the saints are lifted up to heaven. But we have already treated of this opinion in I, 76, 7, and shall deal with it more fully in treating of the general resurrection (XP, 84, 1).
Setting this opinion aside, others assign as the cause of this power the glorified soul itself, from whose overflow the body will be glorified, as Augustine writes to Dioscorus (Ep. cxviii). For the glorified body will be so submissive to the glorified soul, that, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii), "wheresoever the spirit listeth, thither the body will be on the instant; nor will the spirit desire anything unbecoming to the soul or the body." Now it is befitting the glorified and immortal body for it to be in a heavenly place, as stated above (Article 1). Consequently, Christ's body ascended into heaven by the power of His soul willing it. But as the body is made glorious by participation with the soul, even so, as Augustine says (Tract. xxiii in Joan.), "the soul is beatified by participating in God." Consequently, the Divine power is the first source of the ascent into heaven. Therefore Christ ascended into heaven by His own power, first of all by His Divine power, and secondly by the power of His glorified soul moving His body at will.
Reply to Objection 1. As Christ is said to have risen by His own power, though He was raised to life by the power of the Father, since the Father's power is the same as the Son's; so also Christ ascended into heaven by His own power, and yet was raised up and taken up to heaven by the Father.
Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that Christ did not ascend into heaven by His own power, i.e. that which is natural to human nature: yet He did ascend by His own power, i.e. His Divine power, as well as by His own power, i.e. the power of His beatified soul. And although to mount upwards is contrary to the nature of a human body in its present condition, in which the body is not entirely dominated by the soul, still it will not be unnatural or forced in a glorified body, whose entire nature is utterly under the control of the spirit.
Reply to Objection 3. Although the Divine power be infinite, and operate infinitely, so far as the worker is concerned, still the effect thereof is received in things according to their capacity, and as God disposes. Now a body is incapable of being moved locally in an instant, because it must be commensurate with space, according to the division of whichtime is reckoned, as is proved in Physics vi. Consequently, it is not necessary for a body moved by God to be moved instantaneously, but with such speed as God disposes.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Investirue Issue - Church History
The monk Hildebrand, who had already become a great power in the Church was elected as pope. He chose the name of Gregory VII, and under that name he became even more powerful than he had been as Hildebrand. Between him and Henry IV a bitter struggle for supremacy began.
Two years after his inauguration Gregory issued a decree declaring that henceforth bishops should not be chosen by the emperor nor by any lay person, but that the investiture should be entirely in the hands of the Church. Now emperor after emperor had tried to strengthen the clergy in order to curb the power of the nobles. And to do this emperor after emperor had given them lands to hold in fief, until at length a great part of the soil of Germany was in their hands. If, then, the pope alone had power to appoint bishops, all these lands would pass into his control, and the imperial authority would be seriously lessened.
Henry was at this time only twenty-five. He was passionate and ill-balanced, and little calculated to cope with a pope of overweening pride and terrible severity. He was in no mood to yield up any of his authority, and he deposed the pope. For had not his father elected and deposed popes as he would. But Gregory was no German pope, ready to bow to the commands of a German king. Instead of being cowed by this show of imperial power, he replied to it by excommunicating Henry and threatening to depose him if he remained impenitent.
Never before had a pope dared to use such arrogance towards an emperor, and had Henry been surrounded by faithful vassals, had he ruled over a united people, the thunders of the pope might have fallen harmless upon him; but because of that dream of world dominion Germany was not united. There was little German loyalty to a ruler who claimed the world as his dominion. Every prince of the Empire was constantly seeking an opportunity to become an independent ruler. Now many saw their opportunity, for the pope had set them free from their allegiance, and Henry found his empire filled with rebellion and his authority vanishing into thin air.
Henry soon saw that only by submitting to the pope could he regain his authority over his rebellious subjects, and he made up his mind to submit at once. It was no repentance for his deed which urged him to this, but merely political necessity. In midwinter he crossed the Alps, and after incredible hardships reached Canossa, where the haughty pope awaited him. There, one bitter winter morning, while the snow lay on the ground, the proud emperor appeared before the castle gates of the still prouder pope. Clad in the garb of a penitent, with head and feet bare, he humbly knocked, begging admission. But the door remained closed. A second and a third day passed, and still Henry stood without the gates, waiting the pleasure of the stern old man within.
At length Gregory relented. The penitent king was admitted to his presence, and received absolution. Thus did the inexorable priest uphold before the eyes of all Christendom the papal right to judge kings. Thus did he make good his claim to loose and to bind in earthly as in heavenly Matters, "to give and to take away empires, kingdoms, princedoms, and the possessions of all men." Without striking a blow, without even having an army behind him, this little, grey-haired priest had conquered "the lord of the world."
But the pope, had made an implacable enemy of Henry, and as soon as he felt himself strong enough he defied the pope anew. Again he was excommunicated, and again he replied by deposing the pope. This time he set up an anti-pope and marching to Rome beseiged Gregory there.
After a siege of three years Henry entered the city and received the imperial crown at the hands of his own pope, Clement III. Gregory's day was over, and he fled to Salerno. There he died, but even in death he did not forgive the recreant emperor, and he died leaving his enemy still under the ban of the Church.
Rebellion and civil war filled Henry's last days, and at length, deposed, betrayed, and beggared, he died. But the pope's curse followed him even beyond the grave, and not until five years later was the ban removed and the bones of Henry IV laid to rest in consecrated ground.
Concordat of Worms
Gregory VII was dead, Henry IV was dead, but the struggle over the investiture continued. For succeeding popes clung to the great powers Gregory had claimed, succeeding emperors resisted them. Henry V succeeded his father, Henry IV. He had rebelled against his father during his lifetime, and now the new pope, Paschal II, hoped to find in him an obedient servant; but he was mistaken, and the struggle continued. At length, however, at the Concordat of Worms, Calixtus II being now pope, an agreement was come to. It was agreed that the pope should have the right to investiture with ring and crozier, but that bishops should be chosen with the consent of the emperor, and that they should do homage to him for their fiefs in the same way as laymen.
Thus the struggle of fifty years ended. The pope was, in the main, victorious, for although he had not been able to make good all his claims, he had won much prestige, whereas the emperor had lost much. But although the question of investiture might be settled, the rivalry between pope and emperor, each claiming to rule the world, continued as before. More and more the popes strove to make good their claim to be not only the chief priests but the chief princes of Christendom. But it is not uninteresting to note the difference in the treatment meted out by them to Henry of Germany and William of England.
In England the king was supreme in Church and state. There the people alone could give or take away the crown, there the king made and unmade bishops without reference to the pope. But in the hope of making England a fief of the Church the pope, Alexander II, blessed the enterprise of William of Normandy when he set forth to conquer the kingdom from Harold the Saxon. William, however, pious Churchman as he was, having conquered England, meant to rule there as sole master. Gregory VII also meant to rule there as elsewhere, and after some preliminary skirmishes in which William yielded nothing, he sent a messenger to demand from the king of England an oath probably of fealty, together with the assurance that Peter's Pence should be more punctually paid.
William's reply was very short, very decisive. Bluntly he refused to own himself the pope's man. The kings of England who had gone before him had never sworn fealty to the pope; neither would he. As to Peter's Pence, from ancient times it had been paid, and he would continue to pay it. What was lawfully due to the pope the pope should have. The respect due to the chief priest of Christendom he should also have, and nothing more. The right of investiture, over which pope and emperor quarrelled so fiercely, was never even mentioned, and whatever wrath Gregory may have felt at William's refusal of fealty, no thunders of the Church were launched at the recreant king. This was partly, doubtless, because Gregory was otherwise [100] occupied. His arch-enemy the emperor was again defiant, and had enthroned an anti-pope, and Gregory, gathering his forces to combat him, had little leisure to fight the king of England.
But if the popes were unsuccessful in pressing their claims in England, in Germany they were more successful. During the reign of Lothaire the Saxon, who followed Henry V as ruler of Germany, their power increased. For Lothaire was weakly fearful of arousing the pope's wrath, and he even went so far as to acknowledge the pope as his overlord, in respect of some Italian lands, of which he might have claimed possession outright.
The Dictatus Papae - Pope St. Gregory VII
The Dictates of the Pope
1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5. That the pope may depose the absent.
6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That this is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
Pope St. Gregory VII - 25th May 2009
Today is the feast of pope St Gregory the VII, let us read what Dr. Plino has to teach us about this Pope.
Biographical selection:
St. Gregory VII, Pope and Confessor. By his teachings and action he affirmed and defended the rights of the Pope over the Church, and of the spiritual over the temporal sphere. He was an example of intransigence, courage, and confidence in the supernatural.
Comments of Prof. Plinio:
It’s a pity that I didn’t remember to bring here a document attributed to St. Gregory VII that is attacked by all the progressivist theologians. It is called Dictatus Papae (1090), which means the The Dictates of the Pope. It is a kind of summary he dictated of the theses he wanted to uphold. Among those theses, one of the most beautiful and habitually shunned regards the relation between the Pope and the Emperor as head of the temporal sphere.
The Emperor at the time, Henry IV, was intervening in Church matters in order to direct her through the control of the election of the Bishops. St. Gregory VII fought against this. He wanted to smash this pretension of the imperial government and humiliate it, and in fact he did so.
The Dictatus Papae shows his thinking on the relations that should exist between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. He affirmed that the Papal Monarchy is a universal monarchy in spiritual matters. In temporal matters the Papal Monarchy should decisively influence the Empire, even without governing it directly. The temporal power should be the sword of the Pope, at his service to protect the Holy Catholic Church, defend the Faith, and persecute its enemies. The temporal power should govern its subjects independently according to natural law, but the Papacy should watch over how this is done. There would be two different and independent powers.
Which one would be the highest power? At the top is the Pope, and at his left, one step down is the Emperor, and below the Emperor, all the Kings and sovereigns of the temporal sphere. Also below the Pope and to his right is the entire Catholic Hierarchy in the spiritual sphere. In synthesis, everything relies upon the Pope. This was St. Gregory VII’s conception of the two powers.
We might ask St. Gregory VII on his feast day to intercede for the world so we might again have this conception of the spiritual and temporal orders. On the day when this again becomes the general view, it will be the dawn of the Reign of Mary. The reverse is also true: on the day that the dawn of the Reign of Mary will arrive, this vision will be born with it.
Let us pray to St. Gregory VII to move God to bring back his sublime vision on earth, because without it nothing can find the right path.
Summa Theologica - Ascension Article 2
Article 2. Whether Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His Divine Nature?
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His Divine Nature. For, it is written (Psalm 46:6): "God is ascended with jubilee": and (Deuteronomy 33:26): "He that is mounted upon the heaven is thy helper." But these words were spoken of God even before Christ's Incarnation. Therefore it belongs to Christ to ascend into heaven as God.
Objection 2. Further, it belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven as to descend from heaven, according to John 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven": and Ephesians 4:10: "He that descended is the same also that ascended." But Christ came down from heaven not as man, but as God: because previously His Nature in heaven was not human, but Divine. Therefore it seems that Christ ascended into heaven as God.
Objection 3. Further, by His Ascension Christ ascended to the Father. But it was not as man that He rose to equality with the Father; for in this respect He says: "He is greater than I," as is said in John 14:28. Therefore it seems that Christ ascended as God.
On the contrary, on Ephesians 4:10: "That He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended," a gloss says: "It is clear that He descended and ascended according to His humanity."
I answer that, The expression "according to" can denote two things; the condition of the one who ascends, and the cause of his ascension. When taken to express the condition of the one ascending, the Ascension in no wise belongs to Christ according to the condition of His Divine Nature; both because there is nothing higher than the Divine Nature to which He can ascend; and because ascension is local motion, a thing not in keeping with the Divine Nature, which is immovable and outside all place. Yet the Ascension is in keeping with Christ according to His human nature, which is limited by place, and can be the subject of motion. In this sense, then, we can say that Christ ascended into heaven as man, but not as God.
But if the phrase "according to" denote the cause of the Ascension, since Christ ascended into heaven in virtue of His Godhead, and not in virtue of His human nature, then it must be said that Christ ascended into heaven not as man, but as God. Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Ascension: "It was our doing that the Son of man hung upon the cross; but it was His own doing that He ascended."
Reply to Objection 1. These utterances were spoken prophetically of God who was one day to become incarnate. Still it can be said that although to ascend does not belong to the Divine Nature properly, yet it can metaphorically; as, for instance, it is said "to ascend in the heart of man" (cf. Psalm 83:6), when his heart submits and humbles itself before God: and in the same way God is said to ascend metaphorically with regard to every creature, since He subjects it to Himself.
Reply to Objection 2. He who ascended is the same as He who descended. For Augustine says (De Symb. iv): "Who is it that descends? The God-Man. Who is it that ascends? The self-same God-Man." Nevertheless a twofold descent is attributed to Christ; one, whereby He is said to have descended from heaven, which is attributed to the God-Man according as He is God: for He is not to be understood as having descended by any local movement, but as having "emptied Himself," since "when He was in theform of God He took the form of a servant." For just as He is said to be emptied, not by losing His fulness, but because He took our littleness upon Himself, so likewise He is said to have descended from heaven, not that He deserted heaven, but because He assumed human nature in unity of person.
And there is another descent whereby He descended "into the lower regions of the earth," as is written Ephesians 4:9; and this is local descent: hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of human nature.
Reply to Objection 3. Christ is said to ascend to the Father, inasmuch as He ascends to sit on the right hand of the Father; and this is befitting Christ in a measure according to His Divine Nature, and in a measure according to His human nature, as will be said later (58, 3)
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Ascension of Our Lord - Summa Theologica
Ascension - From The Baltimore Catechism
101. When did Christ ascend into heaven?
Christ ascended, body and soul, into heaven on Ascension Day, forty days after His Resurrection.
102. Why did Christ remain on earth forty days after His Resurrection?
Christ remained on earth forty days after His Resurrection to prove that He had truly risen from the dead and to complete the instruction of the apostles.
(a) Saint Paul tells us that Christ, after His Resurrection, appeared frequently to the apostles and to many others.
(b) Christ ascended into heaven from Mount Olivet, a hill outside Jerusalem.
103. What do we mean when we say that Christ sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty?
When we say that Christ sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, we mean that Our Lord as God is equal to the Father, and that as man He shares above all the saints in the glory of His Father and exercises for all eternity the supreme authority of a king over all creatures.
(a) Even as man, Christ of Himself has dominion over all creation. His Kingship rests on the fact that His human nature is immediately united to the divine Person of the Son of God, and on the fact that He redeemed all men with His precious blood.
(b) On earth Christ exercises His kingly authority in spiritual matters through His Church. His Kingship extends also over temporal and civil matters.