Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Tertia Pars·Q58. Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father
Source context
- Theme
- Christ's session at the right hand of the Father as cosmic-hierarchical elevation after the Resurrection
Steiner
- GA 87, 1902-03-22Steiner identifies the motif of ascending to sit at the Father's right hand as the Christian transformation of an earlier pagan mystery-formula, marking the new form the mystery-impulse takes in Christianity.
- GA 69c, 1911-10-04Steiner cites a medieval master's expression — that Christ as brother has by his own power passed beyond all angelic choirs and sits at the right hand of the Father — affirming this as a spiritually correct characterisation of Christ's post-resurrection cosmic station.
- GA 34Steiner repeats approvingly the same formulation — Christ ascending by his own power above the angelic hierarchies to sit at the right hand of the Father — as evidence of genuine spiritual insight in mystical Christianity.
- GA 7Steiner quotes Meister Eckhart's statement about Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father as an example of medieval mystical theology correctly grasping Christ's elevation within the hierarchical order.
Cross-tradition
- Jewish apocalyptic (Psalm 110)The session formula originates in Psalm 110:1 ('Sit at my right hand'), which Jewish apocalyptic tradition applied to an enthroned messianic figure; Aquinas's Thomistic exegesis transforms this royal-enthronement image into a statement about the hypostatic union and Christ's judicial authority.
- Neoplatonic hierarchical cosmologyThe structural parallel in Neoplatonism is the return of the soul or divine principle to its highest source (epistrophē) and its abiding there; cross-tradition congruence is visible in the shared motif of the exalted principle occupying the summit of the hierarchical emanation.
Q58. Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father
Article 1
[III.q.58.a.1.arg.1] It would seem unfitting that Christ should sit at the right hand of God the Father. For right and left are differences of bodily position. But nothing corporeal can be applied to God, since "God is a spirit," as we read in John 4:24. Therefore it seems that Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.
[III.q.58.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod frigiditas matrimonium contrahendum non impediat. Copula enim carnalis non est de essentia matrimonii, quia perfectiora sunt matrimonia hominum pari voto continentium. Sed frigiditas nihil tollit de matrimonio nisi carnalem copulam. Ergo non est impedimentum dirimens matrimonium contractum.
[III.q.58.a.1.arg.2] Further, if anyone sits at another's right hand, then the latter is seated on his left. Consequently, if Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, it follows that the Father is seated on the left of the Son; which is unseemly.
[III.q.58.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut nimia frigiditas impedit carnalem copulam, ita nimia caliditas, quæ hominem exsiccat. Sed caliditas non ponitur matrimonii impedimentum. Ergo nec frigiditas debet poni.
[III.q.58.a.1.arg.3] Further, sitting and standing savor of opposition. But Stephen (Acts 7:55) said: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Therefore it seems that Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.
[III.q.58.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, omnes senes sunt frigidi. Sed senes possunt matrimonium contrahere. Ergo frigiditas non impedit matrimonium.
[III.q.58.a.1.sc] It is written in the last chapter of Mark (16:19): "The Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God."
[III.q.58.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur extra De frigidis et maleficiatis, cap. « Quod sedem: » « Sicut puer qui non potest redere debitum, non est aptus conjugio, sic et qui impotentes sunt, minime apti ad contrahenda matrimonia reputantur. » Tales autem sunt frigidi. Ergo, etc. Præterea, nullus potest se obligare ad imposibile. Sed in matrimonio homo se obligat ad carnalem copulam, quia ad hoc dat alteri sui corporis potestatem. Ergo frigidus, quia non potest carnaliter copulari, non potest matrimonium contrahere.
[III.q.58.a.1.co] The word "sitting" may have a twofold meaning; namely, "abiding" as in Luke 24:49: "Sit [Douay: 'Stay'] you in the city": and royal or judiciary "power," as in Proverbs 20:8: "The king, that sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look." Now in either sense it belongs to Christ to sit at the Father's right hand. First of all inasmuch as He abides eternally unchangeable in the Father's bliss, which is termed His right hand, according to Psalm 15:11: "At Thy right hand are delights even to the end." Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): "'Sitteth at the right hand of the Father': To sit means to dwell, just as we say of any man: 'He sat in that country for three years': Believe, then, that Christ dwells so at the right hand of the Father: for He is happy, and the Father's right hand is the name for His bliss." Secondly, Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father inasmuch as He reigns together with the Father, and has judiciary power from Him; just as he who sits at the king's right hand helps him in ruling and judging. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression 'right hand,' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, that He might come to judge, who before had come to be judged."
[III.q.58.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in matrimonio est contractus quidam, quo unus alteri obligatur ad debitum carnale solvendum; unde sicut in aliis contractibus non est conveniens obligatio, si aliquis se obliget ad hoc quod non potest dare vel facere, ita non est conveniens matrimonii contractus, si fiat ab aliquo qui debitum carnale solvere non possit; et hoc impedimentum vocatur « impotentia coeundi » nomine generali, quæ quidem potest esse vel ex causa intrinseca et naturali, vel ex causa extrinseca et accidentali, sicut per maleficium, de qua post dicitur. Si autem sit ex causa naturali, hoc potest esse dupliciter, quia vel est temporalis, cui potest subveniri remedio medicinæ, vel processu ætatis, et tunc non solvit matrimonium; vel est perpetua, et tunc solvit matrimonium, ita quod ille ex parte cujus allegatur impedimentnm, perpetuo maneat absque spe conjugii, alius nubat cui vult, in Domino, I Cor., v11, 39. Ad hoc autem cognoscendum utrum sit impedimentum perpetuum vel non perpetuum, Ecclesia tempus determinatum adhibuit, in quo hujus rei potest esse experimentum, scilicet triennium. Quod si post triennium in quo fideliter ex utraque parte dederunt operam copulæ carnali implendæ, inveniatur matrimonium non esse consumatum, judicio Ecclesiae dissolvitur. Et tamen in hoc quandoque Ecclesia errat, quia per triennium quandoque non sufficienter experiri potest perpetuitas impotentiæ. Unde Ecclesia si se deceptam inventiat, per hoc quod ille in quo erat impedimentum inventur carnalem copulam cum alia vel cum eadem perfecisse, reintegrat matrimonium pracedens, et dirimit secundum, quamvis de ejus licentia sit factum.
[III.q.58.a.1.ad.1] As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "We do not speak of the Father's right hand as of a place, for how can a place be designated by His right hand, who Himself is beyond all place? Right and left belong to things definable by limit. But we style, as the Father's right hand, the glory and honor of the Godhead."
[III.q.58.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvis actus carnalis copulæ non sit de essentia matrimonii, tamen potentia ad actum est de ejus essentia, quia per matrimonium datur utrique conjugum potestas in corpus alterius respectu carnalis copulæ.
[III.q.58.a.1.ad.2] The argument holds good if sitting at the right hand be taken corporeally. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): "If we accept it in a carnal sense that Christ sits at the Father's right hand, then the Father will be on the left. But there"--that is, in eternal bliss, "it is all right hand, since no misery is there."
[III.q.58.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod caliditas superflua vix potest esse impedimentum perpetuum. Si tamen inveniretur quod per triennium impediret carnalem copulam, judicaretur perpetuum. Tamen quia frigiditas magis et frequentius impedit, tollit enim non solum commixtionem seminum, sed etiam vigorem membrorum, quo fit conjunctio corporum; ideo frigiditas magis hic ponitur impedimentum quam caliditas, cum omnis defectus naturalis ad frigiditatem reducatur.
[III.q.58.a.1.ad.3] As Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension (Hom. xxix in Evang.), "it is the judge's place to sit, while to stand is the place of the combatant or helper. Consequently, Stephen in his toil of combat saw Him standing whom He had as his helper. But Mark describes Him as seated after the Ascension, because after the glory of His Ascension He will at the end be seen as judge."
[III.q.58.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod senes quamvis quandoque non habent caliditatem sufficientem ad generandum, tamen habent caliditatem sufficientem ad carnalem copulam. Et ideo conceditur eis matrimonium, secundum quod est in remedium, quamvis non competat eis secundum quod est in officium naturæ.
Article 2
[III.q.58.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as God to sit at the right hand of the Father. For, as God, Christ is the Father's right hand. But it does not appear to be the same thing to be the right hand of anyone and to sit on his right hand. Therefore, as God, Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.
[III.q.58.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod maleficium non possit matrimonium impedire. Hujusmodi enim maleficia fiunt operatione dæmonum. Sed dæmones non habent potestatem ad impediendum matrimonii actum, magis quam corporales alios actus, quos impedire non possunt; quia sic totum mundum perimerent, si comestionem et gressum, et alia hujusmodi impedirent. Ergo per maleficia non potest impediri matrimonium.
[III.q.58.a.2.arg.2] Further, in the last chapter of Mark (16:19) it is said that "the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." But it was not as God that Christ was taken up to heaven. Therefore neither does He, as God, sit at the right hand of God.
[III.q.58.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, opus Dei est fortius quam opus diaboli. Sed maleficium est opus diaboli. Ergo non potest impedire matrimonium, quod est opus Dei.
[III.q.58.a.2.arg.3] Further, Christ as God is the equal of the Father and of the Holy Ghost. Consequently, if Christ sits as God at the right hand of the Father, with equal reason the Holy Ghost sits at the right hand of the Father and of the Son, and the Father Himself on the right hand of the Son; which no one is found to say.
[III.q.58.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, nullum impedimentum dirimit contractum matrimonium, nisi sit perpetuum. Sed maleficium non potest esse impedimentum perpetuum, quia cum diabolus non habeat potestatem nisi super peccatores, expulso peccato, toletur maleficium, vel etiam per aliud maleficium, vel per exorcismos Ecclesiæ, qui sunt ordinati ad reprimendam vim dæmonum. Ergo maleficium non potest impedire matrimonium.
[III.q.58.a.2.sc] Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that "what we style as the Father's right hand, is the glory and honor of the Godhead, wherein the Son of God existed before ages as God and as consubstantial with the Father."
[III.q.58.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur in Decret., XXXIII, quæst. 1,cap. iv, col. 1508: » Si per sortiarias vel maleficas; » et infra: « Si sanari non potuerint, separari vale-bunt. » Præterea, potestas dæmonum est major et in IV, D. xxxiv, a. Ⅲ: « unius viri. » quam potestas hominis; Job, xli, 24: Non est potestas * super terram quæ comparetur ei qui factus est ut nullum timeret. Sed opere humano potest aliquis fieri impotens ad carnalem copulam, per ali-quam potestatem vel castraturam; et ex hoc matrimonium impeditur. Ergo multo fortius virtute dæmonis hoc fieri potest.
[III.q.58.a.2.co] As may be gathered from what has been said (1) three things can be understood under the expression "right hand." First of all, as Damascene takes it, "the glory of the Godhead": secondly, according to Augustine "the beatitude of the Father": thirdly, according to the same authority, "judiciary power." Now as we observed (1) "sitting denotes" either abiding, or royal or judiciary dignity. Hence, to sit on the right hand of the Father is nothing else than to share in the glory of the Godhead with the Father, and to possess beatitude and judiciary power, and that unchangeably and royally. But this belongs to the Son as God. Hence it is manifest that Christ as God sits at the right hand of the Father; yet so that this preposition "at," which is a transitive one, implies merely personal distinction and order of origin, but not degree of nature or dignity, for there is no such thing in the Divine Persons, as was shown in I, 42, 3,4.
[III.q.58.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt quod maleficium nihil aliud erat in mundo nisi in aestimatione hominum, qui effectus naturales, quorum causæ sunt occultæ, maleficiis imputabant. Sed hoc est contra auctoritatem sanctorum, qui dicunt quod dæmones habent potestatem supra corpora et supra imaginationem hominum, quando a Deo permittuntur. Unde per eos malefici aliqua signa facere possunt. Procedit autem hæc opinio ex radice infidelitatis sive incredulitatis, quia non credunt esse dæmones, nisi in aestimatione vulgi tantum, ut terrores quos sibi facit homo ex sua aestimatione, imputet dæmoni, et quia etiam ex imaginatione vehementi aliquæ figuræ apparentin sensu tales quales homo cogitat, et tunc creduntur dæmones videri. Sed hæc vera fides repudiat, per quam angelos de cælo cecidisse, et dæmones esse credimus, et ex subtilitate suæ naturæ multa posse quæ nos non possumus; et illi qui eos ad faciendum talia inducunt, maleficii vocantur. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod per maleficia præstari potest impedimentum carnali copulæ; sed nullum tale est perpetuum: unde non dirimit matrimonium contractum, et dicunt jura esse revocata quæ hoc dicebant. Sed hoc est contra experimentum et contra nova jura quæ cum antiquis concordant. Et ideo distinguendum est, quia impotentia coeundi ex maleficio aut est perpetua, et tunc matrimonium dirimit; aut non est perpetua, et tunc non dirimit. Et ad hoc experiendum eodem modo Ecclesia tempus triennii præfixit, sicut et de frigiditate dictum est. Tamen hæc differentia est inter maleficium et frigiditatem, quia qui propter frigiditatem est impotens, ita est impotens ad unam sicut ad aliam: et ideo quando matrimonium dirimitur, non datur licentia ei ut conjungatur alteri; sed maleficio homo potest esse impotens ad unam, et non ad aliam, et ideo quando judicio Ecclesia matrimonium dirimitur, utrique datur licentia ut alteram copulam quærat.
[III.q.58.a.2.ad.1] The Son of God is called the Father's "right hand" by appropriation, just as He is called the "Power" of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24). But "right hand of the Father," in its three meanings given above, is something common to the three Persons.
[III.q.58.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quia corruptio peccati prima, per quam homo factus est servus diaboli, in nos per actum generativæ potentiæ devenit, ideo maleficii potestas permittitur diabolo a Deo in hoc actu magis quam in aliis; sicut in serpentibus magis ostenditur virtus maleficiorum quam in animalibus aliis, ut dicitur in Genesi, cap. 111, quia per serpentem diabolus mulierem tentavit.
[III.q.58.a.2.ad.2] Christ as man is exalted to Divine honor; and this is signified in the aforesaid sitting; nevertheless such honor belongs to Him as God, not through any assumption, but through His origin from eternity.
[III.q.58.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod opus Dei potest opere diaboli impediri divina permissione: non quod diabolus sit Deo fortior, ut per violentiam opera ejus destruat.
[III.q.58.a.2.ad.3] In no way can it be said that the Father is seated at the right hand of the Son or of the Holy Ghost; because the Son and the Holy Ghost derive their origin from the Father, and not conversely. The Holy Ghost, however, can be said properly to sit at the right hand of the Father or of the Son, in the aforesaid sense, although by a kind of appropriation it is attributed to the Son, to whom equality is appropriated; thus Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i) that "in the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Ghost the connection of unity with equality."
[III.q.58.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod maleficium quoddam est ita perpetuum quod non potest habere remedium humanum, quamvis Deus posset remedium præstare, dæmonem cogendo, vel etiam dæmon desistendo; non enim semper oportet ut id quod per maleficium factum est, possit per maleficium aliud destrui, ut ipsi maleficii confitentur, et etiamsi posset per maleficium remedium adhiberi, nihilominus potetuum reputaretur, quia nullo modo debet aliquis dæmonis auxilium per maleficium invocare. Similiter non oportet quod si per peccatum aliquod diabolo data est potestas in aliquem quod cessante peccato, cesset potestas, quia pœna interdum remanet, culpa transeunte. Similiter etiam exorcismi Ecclesiae non valent ad reprimendum dæmones semper quantum ad omnes molestias corporales, judicio divino hoc exigente; semper tamen valent contra illas infestationes dæmonum contra quas principaliter instituti sunt.
Article 3
[III.q.58.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to sit at the right hand of the Father, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "What we call the Father's right hand is the glory and honor of the Godhead." But the glory and honor of the Godhead do not belong to Christ as man. Consequently, it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the right hand of the Father.
[III.q.58.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod furia non impediat matrimonium. Matrimonium enim spirituale, quod in baptismo contrahitur, dignius est quam carnale. Sed furiosi possunt baptizari. Ergo et matrimonium contrahere.
[III.q.58.a.3.arg.2] Further, to sit on the ruler's right hand seems to exclude subjection, because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning with him. But Christ as man is "subject unto" the Father, as is said in 1 Corinthians 15:28. Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the Father's right hand.
[III.q.58.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, frigiditas impedit matrimonium, inquantum impedit carnalem copulam, quæ non impeditur per furiam. Ergo nec matrimonium.
[III.q.58.a.3.arg.3] Further, on Romans 8:34: "Who is at the right hand of God," the gloss adds: "that is, equal to the Father in that honor, whereby God is the Father: or, on the right hand of the Father, that is, in the mightier gifts of God." And on Hebrews 1:3: "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high," the gloss adds, "that is, in equality with the Father over all things, both in place and dignity." But equality with God does not belong to Christ as man; for in this respect Christ Himself says (John 14:28): "The Father is greater than I." Consequently, it appears unseemly for Christ as man to sit on the Father's right hand.
[III.q.58.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, matrimonium non dirimitur nisi per aliquod impedimentum perpetuum. Sed de furia non potest sciri utrum sit impedimentum perpetuum. Ergo non dirimit matrimonium.
[III.q.58.a.3.sc] Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression 'right hand' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, that He might come as judge, who before had come to be judged."
[III.q.58.a.3.sc] Sed contra, plus tollit usum rationis furia quam error. Sed error impedit matrimonium. Ergo et furia. Præterea, furiosi non sunt idonei ad aliquem contractum faciendum. Sed matrimonium est contractus quidam. Ergo, etc.
[III.q.58.a.3.co] As stated above (Article 2), by the expression "right hand" is understood either the glory of His Godhead, or His eternal beatitude, or His judicial and royal power. Now this preposition "at" signifies a kind of approach to the right hand; thus denoting something in common, and yet with a distinction, as already observed (De Symb. ii). And this can be in three ways: first of all, by something common in nature, and a distinction in person; and thus Christ as the Son of God, sits at the right hand of the Father, because He has the same Nature as the Father: hence these things belong to the Son essentially, just as to the Father; and this is to be in equality with the Father. Secondly, according to the grace of union, which, on the contrary, implies distinction of nature, and unity of person. According to this, Christ as man is the Son of God, and consequently sits at the Father's right hand; yet so that the expression "as" does not denote condition of nature, but unity of suppositum, as explained above (16, 10,11). Thirdly, the said approach can be understood according to habitual grace, which is more fully in Christ than in all other creatures, so much so that human nature in Christ is more blessed than all other creatures, and possesses over all other creatures royal and judiciary power.
So, then, if "as" denote condition of nature, then Christ, as God, sits "at the Father's right hand," that is, "in equality with the Father"; but as man, He sits "at the right hand of the Father," that is, "in the Father's mightier gifts beyond all other creatures," that is to say, "in greater beatitude," and "exercising judiciary power." But if "as" denote unity of person, thus again as man, He sits at the Father's right hand "as to equality of honor," inasmuch as with the same honor we venerate the Son of God with His assumed nature, as was said above (Question 25, Article 1).
[III.q.58.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod furia aut præcedit matrimonium, aut sequitur. Si sequitur, nullo modo dirimit ipsum: si autem præcedit, tunc aut furiosus habet lucida intervalla, aut non. Si habet, tunc quamvis dum est in illo intervallo, non sit tutum quod matrimonium contrahat, quia nesciret prolem educare; tamen si contrahit, est matrimonium. Si autem non habet, vel si quando non habet contrahit, tunc quia non potest esse consensus, ubi deest rationis usus, non erit verum matrimonium.
[III.q.58.a.3.ad.1] Christ's humanity according to the conditions of His nature has not the glory or honor of the Godhead, which it has nevertheless by reason of the Person with whom it is united. Hence Damascene adds in the passage quoted: "In which," that is, in the glory of the Godhead, "the Son of God existing before ages, as God and consubstantial with the Father, sits in His conglorified flesh; for, under one adoration the one hypostasis, together with His flesh, is adored by every creature."
[III.q.58.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod usus rationis non exigitur ad baptismum 1, quasi causa ipsius, sicut exigitur ad matrimonium. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Tamen de baptismo furiosorum dictum est supra. Ad secunduum dicendum, quod furia impedit matrimonium ratione suæ causæ, quæ est consensus, quamvis non ratione actus, ut frigiditas. Sed tamen Magister IV, dist. xxxiv, de ea determinat simul cum frigiditate, quia utrumque est quidam naturæ defectus.
[III.q.58.a.3.ad.2] Christ as man is subject to the Father, if "as" denote the condition of nature: in which respect it does not belong to Him as man to sit at the Father's right hand, by reason of their mutual equality. But it does thus belong to Him to sit at the right hand of the Father, according as is thereby denoted the excellence of beatitude and His judiciary power over every creature.
[III.q.58.a.3.ad.3] It does not belong to Christ's human nature to be in equality with the Father, but only to the Person who assumed it; but it does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in God's mightier gifts, in so far as it implies exaltation above other creatures.
[III.q.58.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod momentaneum impedimentum quod causam matrimonii, scilicet consensus, impedit, matrimonium totaliter tollit; sed impedimentum quod impedit actum, oportet esse perpetuum ad hoc quod matrimonium tollat.
Article 4
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, because the Apostle says (Ephesians 2:4-6): "God . . . hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through Christ Jesus." But to be raised up is not proper to Christ. Therefore for like reason neither is it proper to Him to sit "on the right hand" of God "on high" (Hebrews 1:3).
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod incestus quo quis cognoscit sororem uxoris suæ, matrimonium non dirimat, quia mulier non debet puniri pro peccato viri. Sed puniretur, si matrimonium solveretur. Ergo, etc.
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.2] Further, as Augustine says (De Symb. i): "For Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, is to dwell in His beatitude." But many more share in this. Therefore it does not appear to be proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father.
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, plus peccat qui propriam consanguineam cognoscit, quam qui cognoscit consanguineam uxoris. Sed primum peccatum non impedit matrimonium. Ergo nec secundum.
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.3] Further, Christ Himself says (Apocalypse 3:21): "To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with My Father in His throne." But it is by sitting on His Father's throne that Christ is seated at His right hand. Therefore others who overcome likewise, sit at the Father's right hand.
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si in pœnam peccati hoc infligitur, videtur, etiamsi mortua uxore cum alia contrahat incestuosus, quod separari debeant, quod non est verum.
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.4] Further, the Lord says (Matthew 20:23): "To sit on My right or left hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by My Father." But no purpose would be served by saying this, unless it was prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the right hand is not proper to Christ.
[III.q.58.a.4.arg.4] 4. Præterea, hoc etiam impedimentum non connumeratur inter alia supra enumerata. Ergo non dirimit matrimonium contractum.
[III.q.58.a.4.sc] It is written (Hebrews 1:13): "To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, i.e. 'in My mightier gifts,'" or "'as my equal in the Godhead'"? [The comment is from the gloss of Peter Lombard] as if to answer: "To none." But angels are higher than other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to anyone save Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.
[III.q.58.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quia per hoc quod cognoscit sororem uxoris, contrahitur affinitas ad uxorem. Sed affinitas dirimit matrimonium contractum. Ergo et incestus prædictus. Præterea, in quo quis peccat, in hoc punitur, Sap., xi, 17. Sed talis peccat contra matrimonium. Ergo debet puniri per hoc quod matrimonio privetur.
[III.q.58.a.4.co] As stated above (Article 3), Christ is said to sit at the Father's right hand inasmuch as He is on equality with the Father in respect of His Divine Nature, while in respect of His humanity, He excels all creatures in the possession of Divine gifts. But each of these belongs exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no one else, angel or man, but to Christ alone, to sit at the right hand of the Father.
[III.q.58.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod si aliquis cognoscit sororem, aut aliam consanguineam uxoris suæ ante matrimonium contractum, etiam post sponsalia, debet matrimonium separari ratione affinitatis contractæ. Si autem post matrimonium contractum et consummatum, non debet totaliter matrimonium separari; sed vir amittit jus petendi debitum nec potest sine peccato petere; sed tamen debet reddere petenti, quia uxor non debet puniri de peccato viri. Sed post mortem uxoris debet omnino manere absque spe conjugii, nisi cum eo dispensetur propter fragilitatem suam, cum timetur de illicito coitu. Si tamen præter dispensationem contrahat, peccat, contra statutum Ecclesiæ faciens; non tamen propter hoc matrimonium est separandum. Et per hoc patet solutio ad objecta, quia incestus ponitur matrimonii impedimentum, non tam ratione culpæ, quam ratione affinitatis quam causat; et ideo etiam non annumeratur aliis impedimentis: sed in impedimento affinitatis includitur.
[III.q.58.a.4.ad.1] Since Christ is our Head, then what was bestowed on Christ is bestowed on us through Him. And on this account, since He is already raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak, "raised us up together with Him," still we ourselves are not raised up yet, but are to be raised up, according to Romans 8:11: "He who raised up Jesus from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies": and after the same manner of speech the Apostle adds that "He has made us to sit together with Him, in the heavenly places"; namely, for the very reason that Christ our Head sits there.
[III.q.58.a.4.ad.2] Since the right hand is the Divine beatitude, then "to sit on the right hand" does not mean simply to be in beatitude, but to possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power, as a property and part of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone, and to no other creature. Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is placed on God's right hand; hence it is written (Matthew 25:33): "He shall set the sheep on His right hand."
[III.q.58.a.4.ad.3] By the "throne" is meant the judiciary power which Christ has from the Father: and in this sense He is said "to sit in the Father's throne." But other saints have it from Christ; and in this respect they are said "to sit on Christ's throne"; according to Matthew 19:28: "You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
[III.q.58.a.4.ad.4] As Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.), "that place," to wit, sitting at the right hand, "is closed not only to all men, but likewise to angels: for, Paul declares it to be the prerogative of Christ, saying: 'To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit on My right hand?'" Our Lord therefore "replied not as though some were going to sit there one day, but condescending to the supplication of the questioners; since more than others they sought this one thing alone, to stand nigh to Him." Still it can be said that the sons of Zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing His judiciary power; hence they did not ask to sit on the Father's right hand or left, but on Christ's.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/tertia-pars/q058.json