Quaestio 57 Question 57 De ascensione Christi The Ascension of Christ Deinde considerandum est de ascensione Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. We have now to consider Christ’s Ascension: concerning which there are six points of inquiry: Primo, utrum fuerit conveniens Christum ascendere. (1) Whether it belonged for Christ to ascend into heaven? Secundo, secundum quam naturam conveniat sibi ascensio. (2) According to which nature did it become Him to ascend? Tertio, utrum propria virtute ascenderit. (3) Whether He ascended by His own power? Quarto, utrum ascenderit super omnes caelos corporeos. (4) Whether He ascended above all the corporeal heavens? Quinto, utrum ascenderit super omnes spirituales creaturas. (5) Whether He ascended above all spiritual creatures? Sexto, de effectu ascensionis. (6) Of the effect of the Ascension. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum fuerit conveniens Christum ascendere Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum ascendere. Dicit enim philosophus, in II de caelo, quod illa quae optimo modo se habent, possident suum bonum sine motu. Sed Christus optime se habuit, quia et secundum naturam divinam est summum bonum; et secundum humanam naturam est summe glorificatus. Ergo suum bonum habet sine motu. Sed ascensio est quidam motus. Ergo non fuit conveniens quod Christus ascenderet. Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven. For the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii) that things which are in a state of perfection possess their good without movement. But Christ was in a state of perfection, since He is the Sovereign Good in respect of His Divine Nature, and sovereignly glorified in respect of His human nature. Consequently, He has His good without movement. But ascension is movement. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to ascend. Praeterea, omne quod movetur, movetur propter aliquid melius. Sed Christo non fuit melius esse in caelo quam in terra, nihil enim accrevit sibi per hoc quod fuit in caelo, neque quantum ad animam neque quantum ad corpus. Ergo videtur quod Christus non debuit in caelum ascendere. Obj. 2: Further, whatever is moved, is moved on account of something better. But it was no better thing for Christ to be in heaven than upon earth, because He gained nothing either in soul or in body by being in heaven. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have ascended into heaven. Praeterea, filius Dei humanam naturam assumpsit ad nostram salutem. Sed magis fuisset salutare hominibus quod semper conversaretur nobiscum in terris, ut ipse dixit discipulis suis, Luc. XVII, venient dies quando desideretis videre unum diem filii hominis, et non videbitis. Videtur ergo quod non fuerit conveniens Christum ascendere in caelum. Obj. 3: Further, the Son of God took human flesh for our salvation. But it would have been more beneficial for men if He had tarried always with us upon earth; thus He said to His disciples (Luke 17:22): The days will come when you shall desire to see one day of the Son of man; and you shall not see it. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to have ascended into heaven. Praeterea, sicut Gregorius dicit, in XIV Moral., corpus Christi in nullo mutatum fuit post resurrectionem. Sed non immediate post resurrectionem ascendit in caelum, quia ipse dicit post resurrectionem, Ioan. XX, nondum ascendi ad patrem meum. Ergo videtur quod nec post quadraginta dies ascendere debuerit. Obj. 4: Further, as Gregory says (Moral. xiv), Christ’s body was in no way changed after the Resurrection. But He did not ascend into heaven immediately after rising again, for He said after the Resurrection (John 20:17): I am not yet ascended to My Father. Therefore it seems that neither should He have ascended after forty days. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. XX, ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum. On the contrary, Are the words of our Lord (John 20:17): I ascend to My Father and to your Father. Respondeo dicendum quod locus debet esse proportionatus locato. Christus autem per resurrectionem vitam immortalem et incorruptibilem inchoavit. Locus autem in quo nos habitamus, est locus generationis et corruptionis, sed locus caelestis est locus incorruptionis. Et ideo non fuit conveniens quod Christus post resurrectionem remaneret in terris, sed conveniens fuit quod ascenderet in caelum. I answer that, The place ought to be in keeping with what is contained therein. Now by His Resurrection Christ entered upon an immortal and incorruptible life. But whereas our dwelling-place is one of generation and corruption, the heavenly place is one of incorruption. And consequently it was not fitting that Christ should remain upon earth after the Resurrection; but it was fitting that He should ascend to heaven. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud optime se habens quod sine motu possidet suum bonum, est Deus, qui est omnino immutabilis, secundum illud Malach. III, ego dominus, et non mutor. Quaelibet autem creatura est aliquo modo mutabilis, ut patet per Augustinum, VIII super Gen. ad Litt. Et quia natura assumpta a filio Dei remansit creata, ut patet ex his quae supra dicta sunt, non est inconveniens si ei aliquis motus attribuatur. Reply Obj. 1: That which is best and possesses its good without movement is God Himself, because He is utterly unchangeable, according to Malachi 3:6: I am the Lord, and I change not. But every creature is changeable in some respect, as is evident from Augustine (Gen ad lit. viii). And since the nature assumed by the Son of God remained a creature, as is clear from what was said above (Q. 2, A. 7; Q. 16, AA. 8, 10; Q. 20, A. 1), it is not unbecoming if some movement be attributed to it. Ad secundum dicendum quod per hoc quod Christus ascendit in caelum, nihil ei accrevit quantum ad ea quae sunt de essentia gloriae, sive secundum corpus sive secundum animam, tamen accrevit ei aliquid quantum ad loci decentiam, quod est ad bene esse gloriae. Non quod corpori eius aliquid aut perfectionis aut conservationis acquireretur ex corpore caelesti, sed solummodo propter quandam decentiam. Hoc autem aliquo modo pertinebat ad eius gloriam. Et de hac decentia gaudium quoddam habuit, non quidem quod tunc de novo de hoc gaudere inciperet quando in caelum ascendit; sed quia novo modo de hoc gavisus est, sicut de re impleta. Unde super illud Psalmi, delectationes in dextera tua usque in finem, dicit Glossa, delectatio et laetitia erit mihi in consessu tuo humanis obtutibus subtracto. Reply Obj. 2: By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His essential glory either in body or in soul: nevertheless He did acquire something as to the fittingness of place, which pertains to the well-being of glory: not that His body acquired anything from a heavenly body by way of perfection or preservation; but merely out of a certain fittingness. Now this in a measure belonged to His glory; and He had a certain kind of joy from such fittingness, not indeed that He then began to derive joy from it when He ascended into heaven, but that He rejoiced thereat in a new way, as at a thing completed. Hence, on Ps. 15:11: At Thy right hand are delights even unto the end, the gloss says: I shall delight in sitting nigh to Thee, when I shall be taken away from the sight of men. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet praesentia corporalis Christi fuerit subtracta fidelibus per ascensionem, praesentia tamen divinitatis ipsius semper adest fidelibus, secundum quod ipse dicit, Matth. ult., ecce, ego vobiscum sunt omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Qui enim ascendit in caelos, non deserit adoptatos, ut Leo Papa dicit. Sed ipsa ascensio Christi in caelum, qua corporalem suam praesentiam nobis subtraxit, magis fuit utilis nobis quam praesentia corporalis fuisset. Reply Obj. 3: Although Christ’s bodily presence was withdrawn from the faithful by the Ascension, still the presence of His Godhead is ever with the faithful, as He Himself says (Matt 28:20): Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. For, by ascending into heaven He did not abandon those whom He adopted, as Pope Leo says (De Resurrec., Serm. ii). But Christ’s Ascension into heaven, whereby He withdrew His bodily presence from us, was more profitable for us than His bodily presence would have been. Primo quidem, propter fidei augmentum, quae est de non visis. Unde ipse dominus dicit Ioan. XVI, quod Spiritus Sanctus adveniens arguet mundum de iustitia, scilicet eorum qui credunt, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., ipsa quippe fidelium comparatio infidelium est vituperatio. Unde subdit, quia ad patrem vado, et iam non videbitis me, beati enim qui non vident, et credunt. Erit itaque nostra iustitia de qua mundus arguitur, quoniam in me, quem non videbitis, credetis. First of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things unseen. Hence our Lord said (John 26) that the Holy Spirit shall come and convince the world . . . of justice, that is, of the justice of those that believe, as Augustine says (Tract. xcv super Joan.): For even to put the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the unbeliever to shame; wherefore he goes on to say (10): ‘Because I go to the Father; and you shall see Me no longer’—For ‘blessed are they that see not, yet believe.’ Hence it is of our justice that the world is reproved: because ‘you will believe in Me whom you shall not see.’ Secundo, ad spei sublevationem. Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. XIV, si abiero et praeparavero vobis locum, iterum veniam, et accipiam vos ad meipsum, ut ubi ego sum, et vos sitis. Per hoc enim quod Christus humanam naturam assumptam in caelo collocavit, dedit nobis spem illuc perveniendi, quia ubi fuerit corpus, illuc congregabuntur et aquilae, ut dicitur Matth. XXIV. Unde et Mich. II dicitur, ascendit pandens iter ante eos. Second, to uplift our hope: hence He says (John 14:3): If I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to Myself; that where I am, you also may be. For by placing in heaven the human nature which He assumed, Christ gave us the hope of going thither; since wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together, as is written in Matt. 24:28. Hence it is written likewise (Mic 2:13): He shall go up that shall open the way before them. Tertio, ad erigendum caritatis affectum in caelestia. Unde dicit apostolus, Coloss. III, quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi Christus est in dextera Dei sedens, quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae super terram. Ut enim dicitur Matth. VI, ubi est thesaurus tuus, ibi est et cor tuum. Et quia Spiritus Sanctus est amor nos in caelestia rapiens, ideo dominus dicit discipulis, Ioan. XVI, expedit vobis ut ego vadam. Si enim non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos, si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos. Quod exponens Augustinus, super Ioan., dicit, non potestis capere spiritum quandiu secundum carnem nosse persistitis Christum. Christo autem discedente corporaliter, non solum Spiritus Sanctus, sed et pater et filius illis affuit spiritualiter. Third, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly things. Hence the Apostle says (Col 3:1, 2): Seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth: for as is said (Matt 6:21): Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also. And since the Holy Spirit is love drawing us up to heavenly things, therefore our Lord said to His disciples (John 16:7): It is expedient to you that I go; for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. On which words Augustine says (Tract. xciv super Joan.): Ye cannot receive the Spirit, so long as ye persist in knowing Christ according to the flesh. But when Christ withdrew in body, not only the Holy Spirit, but both Father and Son were present with them spiritually. Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet Christo resurgenti in vitam immortalem congrueret locus caelestis, tamen ascensionem distulit, ut veritas resurrectionis comprobaretur. Unde dicitur Act. I, quod post passionem suam praebuit seipsum vivum discipulis in multis argumentis per dies quadraginta. Ubi dicit Glossa quaedam quod, quia quadraginta horas mortuus fuerat, quadraginta diebus se vivere confirmat. Vel per quadraginta dies tempus praesentis saeculi, quo Christus in Ecclesia conversatur, potest intelligi, secundum quod homo constat ex quatuor elementis, et eruditur contra transgressionem Decalogi. Reply Obj. 4: Although a heavenly place befitted Christ when He rose to immortal life, nevertheless He delayed the Ascension in order to confirm the truth of His Resurrection. Hence it is written (Acts 1:3), that He showed Himself alive after His Passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them: upon which the gloss says that because He was dead for forty hours, during forty days He established the fact of His being alive again. Or the forty days may be understood as a figure of this world, wherein Christ dwells in His Church: inasmuch as man is made out of the four elements, and is cautioned not to transgress the Decalogue. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum ascendere in caelum conveniat Christo secundum naturam divinam Whether Christ’s Ascension into heaven belonged to him according to his divine nature? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ascendere in caelum conveniat Christo secundum naturam divinam. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, ascendit Deus in iubilatione; et Deut. XXXIII, ascensor caeli auxiliator tuus. Sed ista dicuntur de Deo etiam ante Christi incarnationem. Ergo Christo convenit ascendere in caelum secundum quod Deus. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His Divine Nature. For, it is written (Ps 46:6): God is ascended with jubilee: and (Deut 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. Praeterea, eiusdem est ascendere in caelum cuius est descendere de caelo, secundum illud Ioan. III, nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui de caelo descendit; et Ephes. IV, qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit. Sed Christus descendit de caelo, non secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus, non enim humana eius natura ante in caelo fuerat, sed divina. Ergo videtur quod Christus ascendit in caelum secundum quod Deus. Obj. 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 Eph. 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. Praeterea, Christus sua ascensione ascendit ad patrem. Sed ad patris aequalitatem non pervenit secundum quod homo, sic enim dicit, maior me est, ut habetur Ioan. XIV. Ergo videtur quod Christus ascendit secundum quod Deus. Obj. 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. Sed contra est quod, Ephes. IV, super illud, quod autem ascendit, quid est nisi quia descendit, dicit Glossa, constat quod secundum humanitatem Christus descendit et ascendit. On the contrary, on Eph. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod ly secundum quod duo potest notare, scilicet conditionem ascendentis, et causam ascensionis. Et si quidem designet conditionem ascendentis, tunc ascendere non potest convenire Christo secundum conditionem divinae naturae. Tum quia nihil est deitate altius, quo possit ascendere. Tum etiam quia ascensio est motus localis, qui divinae naturae non competit, quae est immobilis et inlocalis. Sed per hunc modum ascensio competit Christo secundum humanam naturam, quae continetur loco, et motui subiici potest. Unde sub hoc sensu poterimus dicere quod Christus ascendit in caelum secundum quod homo, non secundum quod Deus. 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. Si vero ly secundum quod designet causam ascensionis, cum etiam Christus ex virtute divinitatis in caelum ascenderit, non autem ex virtute humanae naturae, dicendum erit quod Christus ascendit in caelum, non secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus. Unde Augustinus dicit, in sermone de ascensione, de nostro fuit quod filius Dei pependit in cruce, de suo quod ascendit. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritates illae prophetice dicuntur de Deo secundum quod erat incarnandus. Potest tamen dici quod ascendere, etsi non proprie conveniat divinae naturae, potest tamen ei metaphorice convenire, prout scilicet dicitur in corde hominis ascendere, quando cor hominis se subiicit et humiliat Deo. Et eodem modo metaphorice dicitur ascendere respectu cuiuslibet creaturae, ex eo quod eam subiicit sibi. Reply Obj. 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. Ps. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod ipse idem est qui ascendit et qui descendit. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de symbolo, quis est qui descendit? Deus homo. Quis est qui ascendit? Idem ipse Deus homo. Descensus tamen duplex attribuitur Christo. Unus quidem, quo dicitur descendisse de caelo. Qui quidem attribuitur Deo homini secundum quod Deus. Non enim est iste descensus intelligendus secundum motum localem, sed secundum exinanitionem, qua, cum in forma Dei esset, servi formam suscepit. Sicut enim dicitur exinanitus, non ex eo quod suam plenitudinem amitteret, sed ex eo quod nostram parvitatem suscepit; ita dicitur descendisse de caelo, non quia caelum deseruerit, sed quia naturam terrenam assumpsit in unitatem personae. Reply Obj. 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 the form of God He took the form of a servant. For just as He is said to be emptied, not by losing His fullness, 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. Alius autem est descensus quo descendit in inferiores partes terrae, ut dicitur Ephes. IV. Qui quidem est descensus localis. Unde competit Christo secundum conditionem humanae naturae. And there is another descent whereby He descended into the lower regions of the earth, as is written Eph. 4:9; and this is local descent: hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of human nature. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus dicitur ad patrem ascendere, inquantum ascendit ad consessum paternae dexterae. Quod quidem convenit Christo aliqualiter secundum divinam naturam, aliqualiter autem secundum humanam, ut infra dicetur. Reply Obj. 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 (Q. 58, A. 3).