How does St. Thomas’ exegesis of a Pauline text on the Incarnation lead to the conclusion that joking is more often than not the best proof? Just read on, and when you laugh, you will know you have gotten the point.
I had heavily underlined a passage from the beginning of Hebrews in a couple of places in my Orthodox service books as relating to the Incarnation – which as you can see, Eucharist, the Food whereby God incarnates Himself in us - is crucially important to me! AND, in connection with my ongoing dialogue with Pope Benedict on this whole range of issues, it came to my attention that St. Thomas’ commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles, which, to my frustration, were not available to me in my university days – are now there for the taking on the internet! Cf. http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Commentaries.asp
When I delved in, I definitely hit pay-dirt!
Hb 2:11-18
11For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.” 13And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” 14Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. 16For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.
I will preface my quotes from St. Thomas by noting that he makes it clear in the Summa (which, for starters, is precisely a “summary”, hence not the saint’s most exhaustive treatment of the teachings included in it) that his tract on the Incarnation differs from that on The One God, De Deo Uno, in the Prima Pars, in that, since God could have saved us any way He chose, the Incarnation is not subject to the kind of probative reasoning we see in, for instance, the Five Ways of Proving God’s Existence. After concluding his masterful tract on the Incarnation, the saint notes that our reasoning in this regard progresses, not via apodictic arguments proceeding from axiomatic foundations – such as we find in De Deo Uno - but according to God’s freely chosen plan as He has revealed it to us. Had God chosen some other means to save us, he concludes, we would have found other reasons.
I will pause a moment on this point, on which I am really quite knowledgeable, since I did my Master’s thesis on the “way” of “proving” God’s existence which proceeds according to exemplary causality. My mentor at Georgetown, and others on my examining board for my thesis defense for the MA passed me (although with the caveat that I was “not recommended for continuation” at the doctoral level) only because despite their most assiduous efforts, they could not come up with any way to flunk me. Typical of their questions and my answers was the following:
“Mrs. Jones, you have done a commendable job of demonstrating the probative force of this proof within a Thomistic metaphysic. What would be its validity within another – say, a Spinozistic – metaphysic?” I replied, “If you will show me the validity of a Spinozistic metaphysic, I will demonstrate the probative force of the proof within it.”
Another examiner complained that he had to teach undergraduate students, and he found that they had no use for these obsolete medieval “proofs”. I told him that was a psychological, not a philosophical problem.
I found it very interesting when I discovered – and this after his repose – that Herbert had been invited to write an article precisely on St. Thomas’ “Five Ways of Proving the Existence of God” for the then brand-new Benziger edition of the Summa in English. His article turned out to be predictable, but I did not for that find it any less gratifying that he had taken precisely the same approach that I had: namely that the five ways were so many ways of appreciating the wonder of God’s existence from so many different aspects. Interestingly enough, in the 16 years I with my family lived with Herbert, no occasion ever arose for discussing either my previous scholastic efforts, or Herbert’s. For the record, in order that I have a topic that would satisfy the utterly inane requirements of contemporary post-graduate scholarship, my thesis was on whether or not the “way” I chose, which entailed exemplary causality, derived its “probative force” from this exemplary causality, or from (implicit) efficient causality. It should have been a non-issue, since the “Anselmian proof” also dubbed the “ontological proof”, besides being discernibly non-probative to even the untutored mind should have been sufficiently discredited ---- but if academia settled for just plain everyday common sense truth, such as we see operative in ordinary citizens like Herbert, myself, and Mikhail Khordokovsky, then how could grad schools keep their professors fed, housed, and tenured?
Let me now relate this important background to St. Paul and St. Thomas on the Incarnation. We pick up the commentary at the beginning of our text, v. 11:
“129. – Then (v. 11) he [St. Paul] proves what he had said. Here he does two things: first, he proves his conclusion on the part of the Father sanctifying; secondly, on the part of the Son sanctified (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his conclusion; secondly, he proves it by an authority (v. 11b).”
This proving the teaching set forth by an authority is precisely what the Church does in her services – which in Orthodoxy are still sung in their entirety. My good friend, Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev), Pat. Kiril’s right hand man, has forcefully noted that heresy has never been able to find any foot-hold in the eastern Church, inasmuch as the faithful sing all the services, which are nothing but the Holy Scriptures with the meditations on these by the saintly theologians and hymnographers of the Church throughout the ages, so those in the congregation would immediately take note If something went amiss.
In the Western tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Office for Corpus Christi is one of the most outstanding instances of such theological hymnology. Regrettably, however, the Catholic tradition being in such a depleted state, I never had occasion to be simply immersed through music in the mind-blowing, soul-soaring theological hymnology of St. Thomas – his office having been chosen and accepted by the Church herself, in a competition with – wasn’t it St. Bonaventure? The Catholic Church has as its disposal all the riches of the Faith and the pedagogical means of feeding its flock with them, but the services have been for generations hideously dumbed down, just for starters.
A post on the experience of the Georgian Church caught my eye in this regard. The Georgian Church is on a fast track to the insipidly watered down experience of Catholicism which has opened the Catholic Church to all these horrors we are witnessing – worse and worse every day. Here is the description of the plight of the Georgian Church:
Georgian authorities struggle against the Church giving church officials jeeps as presents
28 June 2010
Tbilisi, June 28, Interfax – Georgian authorities weaken the Church encouraging it materially, Gulbaat Rtskhiladze, D.Sc. (Political Science) and head of the Tbilisi Eurasia Institute, said.
"Acting authorities have found a simple and most effective way to struggle against Orthodoxy. They encourage the Church materially, giving it money from the budget, easing its tax burden, allotting land for church buildings, sometimes giving expensive jeeps to high church officials as presents," Rtskhiladze said in his interview to Interfax-Religion.
According to him, acting in this manner, Georgian authorities "give priority to Orthodoxy in the country thus putting society and the Church off guard."
At the same time, Rtskhiladze believes that as far as priority of Orthodox teaching is concerned, the authorities "almost don't do anything," but on the contrary favor "provocational raids" of various organizations "financed from the West."
"They want to limit Orthodoxy in Georgia to rituals, external effects, deprive it of real content and place in people's life," Rtskhiladze believes.
Continuing with St. Thomas’ commentary on the text from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews:
130. – He [St. Paul] says, therefore: For both he that sanctifies and they that are sanctified have one origin. But it should be noted that the Apostle had said three things above: first, that Christ is the cause of salvation, in which he shows that we depend on Him as on a Savior; secondly, he shows that the Father is the finisher of Christ by the merit of the Passion, so that in this, Christ depends on the Father; thirdly, that the Father brings us into glory, which also shows that we depend on God. Accordingly, the Apostle does three things here: first he shows that we depend on Christ, for the one sanctified depends on the sanctifier: ‘Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate’ (Heb. 13:12). Therefore, it has been well said that because He is the author and sanctifier, we depend on him; but He depends on the Father, from Whom He has power to sanctify; which is the second. But all, namely, He that sanctifies and we who are sanctified, have one origin, namely, of the Father; this is the third: ‘Heirs of God; co-heirs with Christ’ (Rom. 8:17).
131. – Then he proves these points with three authorities: first, that Christ, as the mediator and author of salvation, brings God’s gifts to us; hence, he says, that is why, namely, because He and we depend on the Father, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because all are of the same Father: ‘Have we not all one Father’ (Mal 2:10); ‘That he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29). Therefore, it is stated in Ps. 21 (v. 23): ‘I will declare your name to my brethren;’ ‘Go to my brethren’ (Jn. 20:17).
But note that he says, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because some born of an ignoble race are ashamed to recognize their brethren, if they are promoted: ‘The brethren of a poor man hate him’ (Pr. 19:7). But not Christ, for He says, I will proclaim your name to my brethren: ‘Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me’ (Jn. 17:6); ‘The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ (Jn. 1:18).
IMAGINE WHAT IT IS LIKE WHEN THESE PASSAGES IN SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ARE SUNG IN ALL THE CHURCHES, ALL YEAR LONG, IN THE SEASONS AND ON THE FEASTS TO WHICH THEY ARE APPLICABLE!!! I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT NOTHING CAN BETTER ENGRAVE THEM WITHIN THE CENTRE OF OUR PSYCHE.
IN FACT, I WOULD ASK HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT, WHO IS SO MUSICAL: WHY DON’T YOU PUT THIS SENSITIVITY AT THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH? I AM PERSONALLY TEMPTED TO VIEW SUCH DERELICTION OF DUTY ON THE PART OF THE PONTIFF HIMSELF ELECTED BY THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS TO BE THE CHIEF PASTOR OVER THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL AS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE – BUT FORTUNATELY FOR ALL CONCERNED, GOD HAS SAID “VENGEANCE IS MINE” AND HE KEEPS REMINDING ME OF THAT.
I think I have made my intended point about our having two natures being plentifully supported by all manner of Scripture, I have supplied the url for this commentary so anyone can read the rest at his/her leisure. As St. Thomas’ commentary demonstrates, any decent theologian will most fundamentally of all base him/herself on the authority of Holy Scripture.
But I would like to introduce another very potent and often overlooked probative “authority” – and that is humor!
We can prove the existence of God via efficient causality: an infinite series of moved movers is impossible; there must be a first mover, itself unmoved – right?
If some contrarians come along, there is no use arguing with them, because the basis is axiomatically self-evident. Better to tell the story about the old geezer who was holding forth that the earth sits on a rock which sits on another rock, etc., etc., etc., until someone comes along and asks what the last rock sits on. “There ain’t no last rock, they goes right down to the BOTTOM!” the old geezer splutters.
I end on this note because Herbert once opined that maybe one day a disciple of his would do a doctoral thesis on his use of humor --- because it was clear at that point, near the end of his sojourn on earth, that everybody liked to laugh and laugh at his jokes – but if he asked anybody what the point of the joke was ….. NOBODY ever knew! I’ll never write any thesis again, I’ve had my fill of that – but I’d like to vindicate Herbert at least to this extent.
I had heavily underlined a passage from the beginning of Hebrews in a couple of places in my Orthodox service books as relating to the Incarnation – which as you can see, Eucharist, the Food whereby God incarnates Himself in us - is crucially important to me! AND, in connection with my ongoing dialogue with Pope Benedict on this whole range of issues, it came to my attention that St. Thomas’ commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles, which, to my frustration, were not available to me in my university days – are now there for the taking on the internet! Cf. http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Commentaries.asp
When I delved in, I definitely hit pay-dirt!
Hb 2:11-18
11For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.” 13And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” 14Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. 16For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.
I will preface my quotes from St. Thomas by noting that he makes it clear in the Summa (which, for starters, is precisely a “summary”, hence not the saint’s most exhaustive treatment of the teachings included in it) that his tract on the Incarnation differs from that on The One God, De Deo Uno, in the Prima Pars, in that, since God could have saved us any way He chose, the Incarnation is not subject to the kind of probative reasoning we see in, for instance, the Five Ways of Proving God’s Existence. After concluding his masterful tract on the Incarnation, the saint notes that our reasoning in this regard progresses, not via apodictic arguments proceeding from axiomatic foundations – such as we find in De Deo Uno - but according to God’s freely chosen plan as He has revealed it to us. Had God chosen some other means to save us, he concludes, we would have found other reasons.
I will pause a moment on this point, on which I am really quite knowledgeable, since I did my Master’s thesis on the “way” of “proving” God’s existence which proceeds according to exemplary causality. My mentor at Georgetown, and others on my examining board for my thesis defense for the MA passed me (although with the caveat that I was “not recommended for continuation” at the doctoral level) only because despite their most assiduous efforts, they could not come up with any way to flunk me. Typical of their questions and my answers was the following:
“Mrs. Jones, you have done a commendable job of demonstrating the probative force of this proof within a Thomistic metaphysic. What would be its validity within another – say, a Spinozistic – metaphysic?” I replied, “If you will show me the validity of a Spinozistic metaphysic, I will demonstrate the probative force of the proof within it.”
Another examiner complained that he had to teach undergraduate students, and he found that they had no use for these obsolete medieval “proofs”. I told him that was a psychological, not a philosophical problem.
I found it very interesting when I discovered – and this after his repose – that Herbert had been invited to write an article precisely on St. Thomas’ “Five Ways of Proving the Existence of God” for the then brand-new Benziger edition of the Summa in English. His article turned out to be predictable, but I did not for that find it any less gratifying that he had taken precisely the same approach that I had: namely that the five ways were so many ways of appreciating the wonder of God’s existence from so many different aspects. Interestingly enough, in the 16 years I with my family lived with Herbert, no occasion ever arose for discussing either my previous scholastic efforts, or Herbert’s. For the record, in order that I have a topic that would satisfy the utterly inane requirements of contemporary post-graduate scholarship, my thesis was on whether or not the “way” I chose, which entailed exemplary causality, derived its “probative force” from this exemplary causality, or from (implicit) efficient causality. It should have been a non-issue, since the “Anselmian proof” also dubbed the “ontological proof”, besides being discernibly non-probative to even the untutored mind should have been sufficiently discredited ---- but if academia settled for just plain everyday common sense truth, such as we see operative in ordinary citizens like Herbert, myself, and Mikhail Khordokovsky, then how could grad schools keep their professors fed, housed, and tenured?
Let me now relate this important background to St. Paul and St. Thomas on the Incarnation. We pick up the commentary at the beginning of our text, v. 11:
“129. – Then (v. 11) he [St. Paul] proves what he had said. Here he does two things: first, he proves his conclusion on the part of the Father sanctifying; secondly, on the part of the Son sanctified (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his conclusion; secondly, he proves it by an authority (v. 11b).”
This proving the teaching set forth by an authority is precisely what the Church does in her services – which in Orthodoxy are still sung in their entirety. My good friend, Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev), Pat. Kiril’s right hand man, has forcefully noted that heresy has never been able to find any foot-hold in the eastern Church, inasmuch as the faithful sing all the services, which are nothing but the Holy Scriptures with the meditations on these by the saintly theologians and hymnographers of the Church throughout the ages, so those in the congregation would immediately take note If something went amiss.
In the Western tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Office for Corpus Christi is one of the most outstanding instances of such theological hymnology. Regrettably, however, the Catholic tradition being in such a depleted state, I never had occasion to be simply immersed through music in the mind-blowing, soul-soaring theological hymnology of St. Thomas – his office having been chosen and accepted by the Church herself, in a competition with – wasn’t it St. Bonaventure? The Catholic Church has as its disposal all the riches of the Faith and the pedagogical means of feeding its flock with them, but the services have been for generations hideously dumbed down, just for starters.
A post on the experience of the Georgian Church caught my eye in this regard. The Georgian Church is on a fast track to the insipidly watered down experience of Catholicism which has opened the Catholic Church to all these horrors we are witnessing – worse and worse every day. Here is the description of the plight of the Georgian Church:
Georgian authorities struggle against the Church giving church officials jeeps as presents
28 June 2010
Tbilisi, June 28, Interfax – Georgian authorities weaken the Church encouraging it materially, Gulbaat Rtskhiladze, D.Sc. (Political Science) and head of the Tbilisi Eurasia Institute, said.
"Acting authorities have found a simple and most effective way to struggle against Orthodoxy. They encourage the Church materially, giving it money from the budget, easing its tax burden, allotting land for church buildings, sometimes giving expensive jeeps to high church officials as presents," Rtskhiladze said in his interview to Interfax-Religion.
According to him, acting in this manner, Georgian authorities "give priority to Orthodoxy in the country thus putting society and the Church off guard."
At the same time, Rtskhiladze believes that as far as priority of Orthodox teaching is concerned, the authorities "almost don't do anything," but on the contrary favor "provocational raids" of various organizations "financed from the West."
"They want to limit Orthodoxy in Georgia to rituals, external effects, deprive it of real content and place in people's life," Rtskhiladze believes.
Continuing with St. Thomas’ commentary on the text from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews:
130. – He [St. Paul] says, therefore: For both he that sanctifies and they that are sanctified have one origin. But it should be noted that the Apostle had said three things above: first, that Christ is the cause of salvation, in which he shows that we depend on Him as on a Savior; secondly, he shows that the Father is the finisher of Christ by the merit of the Passion, so that in this, Christ depends on the Father; thirdly, that the Father brings us into glory, which also shows that we depend on God. Accordingly, the Apostle does three things here: first he shows that we depend on Christ, for the one sanctified depends on the sanctifier: ‘Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate’ (Heb. 13:12). Therefore, it has been well said that because He is the author and sanctifier, we depend on him; but He depends on the Father, from Whom He has power to sanctify; which is the second. But all, namely, He that sanctifies and we who are sanctified, have one origin, namely, of the Father; this is the third: ‘Heirs of God; co-heirs with Christ’ (Rom. 8:17).
131. – Then he proves these points with three authorities: first, that Christ, as the mediator and author of salvation, brings God’s gifts to us; hence, he says, that is why, namely, because He and we depend on the Father, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because all are of the same Father: ‘Have we not all one Father’ (Mal 2:10); ‘That he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29). Therefore, it is stated in Ps. 21 (v. 23): ‘I will declare your name to my brethren;’ ‘Go to my brethren’ (Jn. 20:17).
But note that he says, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because some born of an ignoble race are ashamed to recognize their brethren, if they are promoted: ‘The brethren of a poor man hate him’ (Pr. 19:7). But not Christ, for He says, I will proclaim your name to my brethren: ‘Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me’ (Jn. 17:6); ‘The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ (Jn. 1:18).
IMAGINE WHAT IT IS LIKE WHEN THESE PASSAGES IN SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ARE SUNG IN ALL THE CHURCHES, ALL YEAR LONG, IN THE SEASONS AND ON THE FEASTS TO WHICH THEY ARE APPLICABLE!!! I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT NOTHING CAN BETTER ENGRAVE THEM WITHIN THE CENTRE OF OUR PSYCHE.
IN FACT, I WOULD ASK HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT, WHO IS SO MUSICAL: WHY DON’T YOU PUT THIS SENSITIVITY AT THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH? I AM PERSONALLY TEMPTED TO VIEW SUCH DERELICTION OF DUTY ON THE PART OF THE PONTIFF HIMSELF ELECTED BY THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS TO BE THE CHIEF PASTOR OVER THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL AS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE – BUT FORTUNATELY FOR ALL CONCERNED, GOD HAS SAID “VENGEANCE IS MINE” AND HE KEEPS REMINDING ME OF THAT.
I think I have made my intended point about our having two natures being plentifully supported by all manner of Scripture, I have supplied the url for this commentary so anyone can read the rest at his/her leisure. As St. Thomas’ commentary demonstrates, any decent theologian will most fundamentally of all base him/herself on the authority of Holy Scripture.
But I would like to introduce another very potent and often overlooked probative “authority” – and that is humor!
We can prove the existence of God via efficient causality: an infinite series of moved movers is impossible; there must be a first mover, itself unmoved – right?
If some contrarians come along, there is no use arguing with them, because the basis is axiomatically self-evident. Better to tell the story about the old geezer who was holding forth that the earth sits on a rock which sits on another rock, etc., etc., etc., until someone comes along and asks what the last rock sits on. “There ain’t no last rock, they goes right down to the BOTTOM!” the old geezer splutters.
I end on this note because Herbert once opined that maybe one day a disciple of his would do a doctoral thesis on his use of humor --- because it was clear at that point, near the end of his sojourn on earth, that everybody liked to laugh and laugh at his jokes – but if he asked anybody what the point of the joke was ….. NOBODY ever knew! I’ll never write any thesis again, I’ve had my fill of that – but I’d like to vindicate Herbert at least to this extent.
