The Catholic University oe America Second Series (105) The Prayer of Christ According to the Teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF SACRED THEOLOGY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY BY REVEREND M. VIANNEY WOLFER, O.C.S.O. The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D. C. 1958 NIHIL OBSTAT: Pascal P. Parente, S.T.D. Censor Deputatus W ashington, D. C.. October 8, 1957 IMPRIMATUR: A. Floersh, D.D. Archbishop of Louisville Louisville, Ky., October 11, 1957 * John 3D Copyright 1958 The Catholic University of America Press, Inc. Murray ano Heister. Inc. Washington, d. C. Printed by Times and News Publishing Co. Gettysburg, Pa.. U. S. A. preface: The reader is hereby reminded that this manuscript is only an abstract of a dissertation. The complete copy was presented to the Faculty of the School of Sacred Theology of the Catholic University of America. Copies of the entire dissertation may be found in the John K. Mullen Library of the University. The Author TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER J Introduction ___ . .__ .. . —- ------------------------------------- Summary of First Chapter Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Nature of Prayer ----- ------ --------------------------Summary of Second Chapter Was It Possible for Christ to Pray? -------------------Summary of Third Chapter Was Prayer Necessary in the Life of Christ? Summary of Fourth Chapter The Nature and Characteristics of Christ’s Prayer Chapter V The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer -------------------------Summary of Sixth Chapter Christ’s Prayer in Heaven---------------------------------Bibliography ----------------- --------------------------------------------------- vii INTRODUCTION One of the dominant notes of the whole theological system of St. Thomas Aquinas is God’s universal causality. In the matter of efficacious grace it is God whose influence remains primary from the omnipotent hand down to the sacred precincts of the human will. In divine providence, God not only preserves every­ thing in existence, but looks in a very personal way after even the least functions of our soul and body. In fact, as part of this providence, God deigned to make use of us, and of all creatures, as helpers in realizing His designs. According to St. Thomas, the divine order, by which the infinitely wise God directs all things to His own honor and glory, must be preserved at all costs. The great chain must be kept fast, from God down to the least creature, and from the creature back to the Almighty Cre­ ator. Not one link may be left out. St. Thomas considers prayer as a secondary cause, of which God decreed to make use, in executing His plan of providence. It is one of the links binding the causal chain. As far as God is concerned, it is not necessary in the sense that He is bound to make use of it. Absolutely speaking, God could do everything without any help of secondary agents. Still we can see His great wisdom, and to this wisdom He owes it to use our humble petitions in carrying out His divine plans. The prayers of our Savior appear in this same light to the Angelic Doctor, except that their influence in comparison to that of other secondary agents, is far more powerful and far more universal. St. Thomas looks upon Christ’s prayers as the most necessary links in the divine dispensation, next to the infinite merits of the sacrifice of Calvary. From the prayers He said here on earth, God, from all eternity decreed that numberless graces and blessings be showered upon the first Apostles and Disciples ; and by those that He is offering today in heaven the precious fruits of the redemption are being applied to all souls, drawing them on to their eternal reward. As a basis for the fittingness of these prayers of our Savior, ix X Introduction the Angelic Doctor points to His eternal generation from the Father, a truth which Christ wanted to impress upon us. As a basis for their unfailing efficacy he sees nothing else than the humble subjection of Christ to His heavenly Father. This gave rise to that perfect conformity of the human with the divine will, which St. Thomas considers the all important factor in the hearing and answering of prayers. Thus, while giving us a picture of Christ’s High-priesthood and Mediatorship of which offices prayer is a function, St. Thomas brings out in much bolder relief the picture of Christ in relation to His Father. Fie shows us Christ at prayer as a natural Son of God, and at the same time as an obedient subject of a kind and loving Father. St. Thomas did not treat this subject of Christ’s prayer at great length. But even in the short treatise we cannot but admire the spirit of dependence upon the fonts of Divine Revelation. In this, as in other matters of theology, the Angelic Doctor leans heavily on Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Fathers. That, to him, meant more than all else. Although a giant in powers of reason, he humbly recognized that in matters pertaining to God, the human faculty is utterly frail and deficient. SUMMARY OF FIRST CHAPTER Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Nature of Prayer In his theological treatises St. Thomas Aquinas considers prayer in its strict sense as a petition. He defines it as an asking God for things we need, or making known our wants to God for the purpose of having Him relieve them. According to St. Thomas, prayer is an act of the practical intellect, proceeding from the intellect at a command of the will. It is considered a part of the virture of religion flowing from charity. Prayer has a definite place in Divine Providence. It is not something useless, as some arc led to believe, but is a secondary cause which God ordained from all eternity to produce certain effects in the lives of men. It does not change God, who is im­ mutable, but is rather an instrument which He uses to carry out His wonderful plans. Prayer is always a sign of our submission and dependence. In granting our petitions God looks to the dispositions and needs of our souls as well as to those of the souls for whom we pray. Prayer that is humble, trusting and persevering, in which we ask for ourselves things helpful and necessary for salvation, is infallibly efficacious in virtue of Christ’s promise: “All things whatever you ask for in prayer, believing, you shall receive” (Matt. 21 ;22). A prayer of this kind can only be the expression of a soul which is perfectly resigned to God’s will. In such con­ formity to the divine will St. Thomas secs the root of a prayer’s efficacy. 1 SUMMARY OF SECOND CHAPTER Was It Possible for Christ to Pray? St. Thomas teaches that Christ prayed not as God but as man. that is, through His human nature. Prayer was made possible to Him precisely by the fact that the nature He assumed contained essentially all that our human nature contains. All the require­ ments needed to make a real prayer were found in Christ. Ide had an intellect and a will which operated in a perfectly human way. Pie, as man, was truly inferior to his Father, hence capable of addressing petitions to Him. He was capable of legitimately directing these petitions towards the needs of our souls or the needs of His own body, the latter of which He had willing!) assumed. The fact that in His one and same person were present both omnipotence and omniscience did not prevent Him from praying, principally because the humanity always remained distinct from the divinity. Nor did the power of working certain miracles, and the great knowledge which resided in Christ’s humanity form a hindrance to His praying. The power in question was not strict and full omnipotence. The plenitude of knowledge, far from being a hindrance, was an aid to His prayer, for by it He could see more clearly the Father’s will and knew exactly the objects for which He wanted to pray. Certainly there was not a moment of Christ’s life as man in which His mind was not raised to God who was immediately present to Him in the beatific vision. But even this, declares the Angelic Doctor, did not prevent His holy soul from possessing those movements or impulses required to make known His desires to God, for the movements in His case were not from potency to act, but movements of a faculty already in the highest act, and hence movements implying not the least imperfection. 2 SUMMARY OF THIRD CHAPTER Was Prayer Necessary in the Life of Christ? St. Thomas speaks of Christ’s prayer as necessary for our salvation and our instruction. According to his principles we could hardly speak of any absolute necessity of prayer in Christ our Lord except where creation was involved. This requires full and strict omnipotence, a power which was entirely beyond the reach of Christ’s humanity as it is beyond the power of all crea­ tures. The necessity which St. Thomas would predicate of Christ, then, would be no more than a hypothetical one, dependent upon the decree of God which from all eternity had determined that the Savior of mankind humble Himself before the Divine Majesty of the Father and ask Him in prayer for certain things both for Himself and for fallen mankind. The weakness and inferiority of the human nature voluntarily assumed by Christ was the funda­ mental reason for His need of prayer—fundamental in the sense that it was a condition without which prayer would have been impossible for Him. According to the mind of St. Thomas, we can also see in Christ’s prayer a certain added necessity by reason of His special consecration as priest, mediator, and head of the kingdom of God. Regarding miracles, St. Thomas teaches that in the human nature of Christ, as instrument of the Word, there resided a special divine power of working miracles for purposes of the in­ carnation and redemption. Consequently, even though Sacred Scripture tells us that Christ prayed before some of His miracles, St. Thomas would hardly suppose for this more than a hypothetical necessity based on God’s preordination, excepting once again the cases involving creation. However, St. Thomas speaks more of the fittingness of Christ’s prayer than of its necessity. This fittingness he bases principally on our need of instruction in the meaning and reality of the incarnation, and our need of seeing in Christ a perfect example of humble, persevering and confident prayer. 3 SUMMARY OF FOURTH CHAPTER The Nature and Characteristics of Christ's Prayer In general outline., Christ’s prayers, according to St, Thomas, were the same as ours. They flowed from the action of a perfect human intellect and a perfect human will. But deeper still in the soul of our Savior there were holy desires rooted in His burning zeal for our salvation and His Father’s glory. These holy desires were made known to the Father by means of the great charity that permeated His whole being; and their utterance was prayer. It was Christ the Divine Person who prayed; but His prayer came only through the human nature, for only by that nature was He inferior to the Father. St. Thomas sees perfection in Christ’s prayers because of Elis great humility, by which He willingly made Himself a subject and inferior of the Father, because of the perfect conformity of His will with God’s, and because of the perfect dispositions of all kinds that existed in His holy soul which was at all times in the immediate presence of the Godhead. Christ’s prayers differed from ours in this, that they were supplications of One who had been officially constituted as our Mediator, Priest and Redeemer. This gave Him a special right to intercede for us. As to the objects of His prayers, St. Thomas says that Christ truly prayed for Himself at times. In these prayers He asked for those things not yet in His possession and pertaining to the glory of His body and the inferior parts of His soul. In the last analysis, however, all His prayers in some way or other redounded to our instruction and salvation. For this reason the Angelic Doctor insists that not the least selfishness can be predicated of Christ in this matter of praying for Himself. According to the principles laid down by St. Thomas, the prayers of Christ ascended to the Blessed Trinity as a whole, for the act of prayer is always from creature to Creator. But our Savior addressed His prayers to the Father to show that He was Summary of Fourth Chapter 5 the natural Son of the Father and that He lived constantly in intimate relation with and perfecti)·’ subject to Him. By reason of the fact that the death of Christ on Calvary was the supreme redemptive act, to which all other acts of Christ were ordained and in which all others were consummated and received their value, the prayers of Christ took their force from and saw their completion in the death on the cross. CHAPTER V The Efficacy 1. of Christ’s Prayer PRINCIPAL· EFFECTS OF PRAYER St. Thomas speaks of a threefold effect of prayer. The first is the spiritual consolation that God grants to certain of His worthy suppliants. This effect plainly bears no essential connection with prayer, and for that reason is an unimportant consideration in this dissertation. The other two effects are merit and impétra­ tion, both of them essential to the efficacy of prayer.' Every prayer is ordained to a twofold end ; the first, eternal life, the second, the object which is asked of Almighty God. “Erom this double end,” says St. Thomas, “prayer takes its two­ fold efficacy.”1 2 If we analyze these two operations we see that one refers more properly to God, though it has a certain de­ pendence upon man’s dispositions ; the other pertains more directly to man inasfar as it depends upon his charity. The Angelic Doctor teaches that the degree of merit depends upon the theological virtue of charity in the soul of the one meriting.3 The greater the charity, the more merit one has. Con­ sequently whenever we perform good works, and our soul is at the same time filled with the virtue of charity, we merit a share of eternal life, to be given us at God’s good pleasure. Our act of prayer being a good work, is therefore a meritorious act, giving us a right to a reward from God, as do all good works. And the more charity there is in the soul the greater the reward God will give. Indeed, we have a right to expect the reward, not because we deserve it, but because God has promised it.4 The other effect, impétration, depends more properly upon God Himself. This, as St. Thomas says, belongs to the order of 1 Sum. Theol. Ila, Ilae, Q. 83, Art. 13, Corp, and Art. 15. 2 De Sent. Book 4, Dist. XV, Q. 4, Art. 7, Questiunc. 3, Sol. 3 De Sent. Book 4, Dist. XV, Q- 4, Art. 7, Questiunc. 2, Sol.; Sum. Theol. Ila, Ilae, Q. 83, Art. 15, Corp. «Cf. Mark 9;40—I Jn. 2;25—Rom. 2;6-7. 6 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer mercy, whereas merit belongs to the order of justice.3* 5Impétration is the proper effect of prayer, because it, more than merit, is in accord with the reason for prayer, since prayer is a petition or a manifestation of one’s request.6 Now the obtaining of a request is the main reason for prayer since that is the very purpose of supplication. Furthermore, the position of a suppliant is that of a beggar, whose appeal is not to justice, but to mercy. On this account, we say that impétration is an effect more proper to prayer, more closely allied to it than merit. 2. DISPOSITION’S REQUIRED FOR IMPETRATION God, “Whose tender mercy is over all His works’’ (Ps. 144. Vs. 9), is always ready' to come to the aid of hl is creatures. But often it happens that the creature himself places an obstacle to the reception of his request, cither by asking in an improper manner, or by praying for something harmful to his soul. In such a case God will not ami cannot grant the request. St. Thomas says that there are four conditions whose presence renders the obtain­ ing of a request absolutely infallible. These conditions are the following: first, the prayer must be said with devotion; secondly, with perseverance; thirdly, it must be for one’s self; fourthly, it must be for the good of one’s soul.7 If these conditions are 5 De Sent. Book 4, Dist. XV, Q. 4, Art. 7, Questiunc. 2, Sol. “Sum. Theol. Ha Ilae, Q. 83, Art. 13, Corp. 7 St. Thomas mentions these in his commentaries on parts of Sacred Scripture. (1) In De Sent. Book 4, Dist. 15, Q. 4, Art. 7, he gives the four conditions mentioned above ; devotion, for one’s self, with perseverance, and for salvation. (2) In his commentary on Psalm 26, vs. 8, he says a prayer must be from the heart, that is, “Anxious,” directed towards God, and as­ siduous. (3) In his commentary on Psalm 4, vs. 2, he says a prayer must have a crying (clamor), justice, and must be said in such a way that the whole is attributed to God. (4) In explaining the sixth chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, verse 18, he says, a prayer must be perfect, humble (not presumptuous), persevering, devout, vigilant, instant, and charitable. (5) In a commentary on Psalm 38, verse 14, he says, for a commendable prayer there must be the raising of the mind to God, perseverance and tears. (6) In a commentary on Psalm 3, verse 5, he says, that attention, righteous­ ness, and devotion go to make a prayer commendable. (7) Commenting on the Epistle to the Colossians, chapter 4, verse 2, he says, a commendable prayer must be assiduous, grateful (with thanks) and vigilant. In the same The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer 8 present, the prayer will be conformed to God’s designs and the person worthy of receiving his request. God, however, is the one and only judge of these conditions, for Ide alone can search the hearts of men, and Ide alone knows what is favorable and what is harmful to souls. If, therefore, God judges that the prayer of a suppliant is in perfect accord with Id is will, Ide will grant the petition. In such a case- the prayer is said to be efficacious. 3. RELATION OF MERIT AND IMPETRATION The power of meriting and the power of obtaining the favor, although closely related to one another, are in some respects in­ dependent one of another. Accordingly it is possible for a prayer to be efficacious from one point of view and inefficacious from another. For example, a sinner cannot merit eternal life nor an increase of it, because the virtue of charity is lacking in his soul: and yet he may obtain his request. On the other hand, a person in whose soul the virtue of charity resides may offer a most per­ fect prayer, asking God for something altogether legitimate. Yet God may know that the granting of the request would work detri­ ment to the soul, and so would not and could not grant it. Such a prayer would be efficacious as far as the power of meriting is concerned, but inefficacious as to the power of impétration. It must, however, be maintained that the just man, since he is en­ dowed with charity which gives him a right to a reward, is more likely to obtain his request, because merit itself provides a founda­ tion for obtaining favors from God.8* commentary on chapter 1, verse 9, he says, a commendable prayer is timely (said at the proper time, as soon as necessary), continual and multiple. (8) Commenting on the first epistle to Timothy, Chapter 2, verse 8, he says, a prayer must be assiduous, pure and tranquil. He also enumerates circumstances that make a prayer worthy of being heard.—Commenting on Psalm 19, verse 2, he states, the goodness of God, prayers of the Saints, and one’s own merit. Commenting on Psalm 17, verse 42, he states, the right intention. Commenting on Psalm 37, verse 16, he states, obedience, patience, and praying for enemies. Quoted in “Mystica Theologia Divi Thomae” by Vallgornera, Editio quarta, Tom 1, Marietti—1924, Disp. V. Q. 2, Art. 3-6, Page 184 ss. 3 De Sent. Book 4, Dist. 15, Q. 4, Art. 7, Questiunc. 3, Sol. The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 4. 9 EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S PRAYERS Having considered the efficacy of prayer in general, the next consideration will be that of St. Thomas s treatment of the effi­ cacy of Christ’s prayer. According to the above distinction the efficacy of Christ's prayer will be treated first from the point of view of merit, and then from the point of view of impétration. By the power of meriting in a general sense we mean a certam right to a reward promised by God to those who do good works with the proper intention. Christ made the promise: “Whoever gives a cup of water to drink in My name, because you are Christ’s, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward" (Mark 9;4O). Every work of a person, whose soul is adorned with sanctifying grace and the virtue of charity, merits a reward in God’s sight.9 It is not that the work by its very nature claims a recompense from God; but the work is deserving of a reward primarily and principally because God has promised it, and only secondarily because of the dignity attached to the work through the charity of the person performing it. Christ our Lord, as St. Thomas teaches, was capable of meriting in strictest justice both for Himself and for men, whose immortal souls were entrusted to His care. For Himself He could merit only those things not yet in His possession, such as the glorifica­ tion of His body, His ascension into heaven, and things pertaining to His external excellence.10 For mankind He could merit recon­ ciliation to God and those graces necessary for salvation.11 But the point to be insisted upon here is merely that Christ’s works had the power of meriting.12 Every act He performed, just like every human act of a person in the state of grace, called for some reward from God, for, as faith teaches, Christ’s soul was filled with grace13 from the first moment of His life on earth, and on that very account, charity was always present to give His works ’Sum. Theol. Ia Hae, Q. 114, Art. 2. “Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 19, Art. 3, Corp. 11 Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 19, Art. 4; De Sent. Book 3, Dist. 18, Art. 6, Questiuncula 1, Sol. “The Council of Trent defined that, “Christ is the meritorious cause of our salvation,” D. B. 681. 13 Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 7, Art. 9. 10 The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer the dignity required for meriting in God’s sight. Furthermore, the presence of the Godhead in Christ lent an added dignity to His works, so that, unlike those of the ordinary Christian, they were of infinite value. Christ’s human nature was united to the divine in the person of the Word. Although nature had operations proper to itself, still there was no operation at all, not even such seemingly in­ different acts as walking and sleeping that was not colored by divinity, so to speak, through the Hypostatic Union ; for, although the nature is the remote principle of actions, it is the person who performs them.11 In Christ the human nature was merely an instrument of the divine. From this it follows that all the acts of Christ, even those proper to His human nature, as the act of prayer, were acts of the Godman, proceeding immediately from the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. They were therefore divine and of an infinite value in God’s sight. Such is the teaching of St. Thomas reflecting the doctrine of the church and the teaching of tradition.11 In his work on the mystery of the re­ demption Father Hugon explains this very clearly and concisely : The human operations of the Redeemer, finite in the order of being, in their physical reality, receive in themselves and intrinsically, an infinite dignity in the moral order on the sole score that they are the property of the Divine Person. One understands then that these acts are in­ exhaustible. Let us revert to our principle “actions belong to the person” ; all the actions, merits, and satisfaction, are the works of a Divine Person, who subsists and acts in a human nature. Consequently their value is that of a God operating through the medium of humanity.—The value of the acts of a Divine Person, acting through “ “La nature est ce d’ou procède l’acte, le mérite, la satisfaction ; la personne est ce qui agit, mérite et satisfait.” Le Mystère de la Rédemption, Ed. Hugon, O.P., pp. 91-92. “Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 19, Art. 1 ad 2, “Sic igitur actio instrumenti, ίηquantum est instrumentum non est alia ab actione principalis agentis ;—sic igitur operatio quae est humanae naturae in Christo, inquantum est in­ strumentum Divinitatis non est alia ab operatione Divinitatis, ad 3. Et similiter in Christo oportet quod sint duae operationes specie differentes secundum ejus duas naturas, quaelibet tamen operationum est una numero in Christo simul facta sicut una ambulatio et una sanatio.” The Efficacy oj Christ’s Prayer 11 humanity, is limited in the physical order, because of the created faculties which produce the operations; it is in­ finite in the moral order because of the uncreated (Di­ vine) Person who makes His own the works of both natures.10 5. OBJECT OF THE MERIT OF CHRISTAS PRAYER The direct object of all merit is life eternal. Under the indirect object fall the means of obtaining that life eternal; namely, the spiritual means such as grace and the virtues, and the material means or things that in some way or other help us arrive at our eternal goal.* 17 In general, this was also the object of the merit of Christ’s prayer. Essentially it must have been the same, for all merit must have reference to God either directly or indirectly, because charity, the foundation of meritorious works, is directly concerned with God, Who alone is our eternal reward.18 There are, however, several differences to be noted in the object of our Savior's merit. Christ alread)’· possessed eternal life in the beatific vision of His Father, and so could not merit it, for Himself.19 He did, however, merit eternal life and all the helps necessary to attain it for fallen mankind. It might be objected that He did merit for Himself His resur­ rection, the glory of His ascension, veneration by the faithful and the spread of His kingdom here on earth, because it was for these things that He prayed.20 It is true that Christ prayed for them and thereby merited them for Himself, for that is the common teaching of Theologians. Still even these things were all, in a way, for the eternal happiness of others, as St. Thomas points out : The very glory which Christ asked for in prayer, per­ tained to the eternal salvation of others according to St. Paul’s words (Rom. 4;25), “He rose again for our justi­ fication” ; and therefore even that prayer which He said for Himself was in a certain sense for others.21 “Le Mystère de la Redemption, Ed. Hugon, O.P., pp. 91-92. 17 Sum. Theol. Ia Ilae, Q. 114. “ Sum. Theol. Ia Hae, Q. 114, A. 4. “Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 34, Art. 4. 30 Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 21, Art. 4. 21 Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 21, Art. 3 ad 3. h 12 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer While He truly merited these things for Himself, yet they were means to lead men to salvation. Another difference that might be marked in the object of Christ’s merit is that He always merited directly and with strictest right the very thing for which He prayed, as He Himself said in praying before the tomb of Lazarus : “Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast heard Me. Yet I knew that Thou always hearest Me” (Jn. 11; 41-42). The reason for this is that Christ knew and willed only what pertained to salvation, and therefore the things he asked in prayer were always for salvation. In human merit however, the right to a reward is never as strict as Christ’s, and furthermore, that right becomes less strict the farther the object of request is removed from our salvation. The power of our merit therefore is much less strict and more in­ direct than Christ’s, owing to the imperfect dispositions that characterize human prayer. Father Friethoff makes this observa­ tion in his book, De Alma Socia Christi Mediatoris, in speaking of Christ’s prayer as compared to that of the just: The just merited to be heard; Christ, however, did not merit to be heard—“For I knew that Thou always hear­ est Me’’ (Jn. 11;42) ; but Christ merited the object itself for which He prayed.22 About the dispositions of Christ’s soul there can be no doubt. The fullness of grace therein prevented His soul from being wanting in any respect whatsoever. Divine charity, the foundation of this power of meriting, filled it to overflowing, and, from this charity His prayer proceeded. Besides, He knew exactly what was bene­ ficial both to Himself and to the souls of men. If the efificacy of meriting depends upon the degree of charity in the soul, as St. Thomas points out,23 then there was nothing at all that could conceivably have stood between the infinite charity whence Christ’s act of prayer sprung and the object to which it was immediately 22 Op. cit. P. 214. 23 Sum. Theol. Ila Ilae, Q. 83, Art. 15. “Oratio autem sicut et quilibet alius actus virtutis habet efficaciam merendi in quantum procedit ex radice charitatis.” Sum. Theol. Ha Hae, Q. 83, Art. 11. “Quanto sunt Deo conjuntiores, tanto eorum orationes sunt magis efficaces.” The Efficacy oj Christ’s Prayer 13 referred. This certain, direct, and unswerving character of Christ’s power of meriting in prayer, held just as well when He prayed for others as when He prayed for Himself. The reason is this: in asking favors for others, His infinite knowledge was the infallible guide. By divine foreknowledge He could see into the souls of others for whom He prayed ; and only for those whom He knew had no impediment to God’s grace, did He direct His prayers with His absolute and efficacious will. Therefore, like a piercing shaft, our Lord’s prayers went directly to their end. 6. POWER OP IMPETRATION The second of the two principal effects of prayer as defined by St. Thomas, is the power of impétration, or the power of ob­ taining the favor that is asked of God.21 This effect is more proper to prayer than that of meriting, as is evident from its very nature; for prayer is essentially the asking of a favor, to which is inseparably united the idea of obtaining the thing for which we ask. It is the end and reason for our asking, and is what we ordinarily think of when speaking of prayer. Although the power of mer­ iting eternal life is just as truly part of the prayer’s efficacy as impétration, still the object we desire, while it must ultimately be ordained to eternal life, is generally a means to it and hence is closer to us in our present state than our ultimate end is. It is this power of impétration that St. Thomas has in mind when he treats the question of the efficacy of Christ’s prayers. At the very outset of his article in the Summa Theologica he ex­ plains what he means by the term exaudire : “One’s prayer is said to be heard (exauditur) when one’s will is fulfilled.”25 As described by St. Thomas, the efficacy of prayer as regards its impetratory power depends not so much upon man as upon God, for it is He who grants or refuses our request.20 We manifest our " ^SumGTheol. Ha Hae, Q. 83, Art. 13 and 15. 25 Sum. Theol. Ill Q. 21, Art. 4. “Tunc ergo alicujus orantis exauditur oratio quando ejus voluntas adimpletur.” 20 De Sent. IV, Dist. 15, Q. 4, Art. 7, Questiunc. 4, Sol. “Impetratio importat ordinem misericordiae vel liberalitatis ex parte donantis ; et ideo meritum ex seipso habet unde perveniatur ad praemium ; sed oratio im­ petrare volentis non habet ex seipsa unde impetret, sed ex proposito vel liberalitate dantis.” 14 The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer will to Him, and it lies with Him to grant or withhold the desired favor. By reason of the fact that God, in His eternal decree has seen fit to condition His granting of our requests upon dispositions of our soul, there is a notable difference between the power of impétration of Christ’s prayers and that of ours. This difference must be taken into account for a clearer understanding of the great efficacy of Christ’s prayers. The p rayers of Christ, besides proceeding from a soul whose powers of knowledge and love pierced every particle of being to tvhich the prayer in every respect extended, rested solidly on a strict right of the God-man before His heavenly Father. In other words, our Lord had a right in rigorous justice to be heard by the Father, and more directly still, had a strict right to everything for which He asked. Father Friethoff, O.P., points this out in the book of his that was cited above. Our merit, as he shows, is truly based on justice, but ultimately rests on God’s promise; whereas Christ’s merit is based on justice in its strictest sense, for in the Hypostatic Union, there was a perfect equality between Father and Son. Christ, therefore, had a strict right not only to what He merited, but even to whatever He asked for in prayer.27 In His prayers, merit and impétration could not be separated from one another, for both were concerned with one and the same ob­ ject, namely, the eternal salvation of souls.28 Furthermore, there is no question of Christ’s merit resting on God’s promise as ours does ultimately; but Christ merited from His own personal dignity as Son of God. We, however, merit because we are adopted sons through grace, whereas Christ merited because He is the natural Son of God from all eternity. As a result of this, when Christ prayed, He merited the very object for which He prayed. The 27 De Alma Socia Christi Mediatoris, pp. 69-71. 28 J. Margreth, “Das Gebetsleben Jesu Christi des Sohnes Gottes,” page 279. “Zum Rechtstitel der Sohnschaft kommt also der Rechtstitel des Lohnes hinzu. Dieses Verhaltnis von Arbeit und Lohn, welches beim Verdienste wesentlich ist, kommt bet der blossen Impétration gar nicht im Betracht. Hier wird der Ausdruck des Willens rein in sich eben als Willensausdruck betrachtet, nicht aber als Leistung und Arbeit. Doch sind, wie schon gesagt, im irdischen Gebet Christi Impétration und Verdienst nicht von einander zu trennen. Beide reichen gleich weit und gehen auf dasselbe.” The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 15 point, then, is that the efficacy of His prayers rested on the same title of right as His merit. And thus the power of merit and the power of impétration in Him rested on one and the same founda­ tion In our prayers, the merit rests on a right acquired only through God’s promise, and the impétration depends upon God’s mercy. We, too, merit the object of our prayers in a certain sense, in as far as it agrees with out ultimate end,29 but never with the strict right as Christ did. His prayers did not depend upon God’s mercy for obtaining their object. He knew His Father’s will, and He knew infallibly that He would grant His request. He knew also that the Father desired Him to pray for it in order to instruct men and give them a good example. The act of impétration terminates in God’s act of granting the petition. Its source is in the desire of the one who prays, as St. Thomas suggests in defining prayer as the “manifestation of one’s will before God in order that He might fulfill it.”30* In Christ, every expression of His sacred will was both meritorious and impetratory ; the latter, because of its very nature as the foundation of a request, the former because of the Hypostatic Union and the fullness of grace. In us, on the contrary, the expression of our will in itself has no more than an impetratory value. Its meritorious value comes in only through something else, namely, sanctifying grace, which is the foundation of merit.33 “Cf. Sum. Theol. Ila Hae, Q. 83, Art. 15. “Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 21, Art. 1. “Father Margreth points this out in his book on Christ’s prayer already cited, page 280; “hierin zeigt sich ein grosser Unterschied zwischen dem Gebete Christi und dem Gebete blosser Menchen. Bei diesen beziehen sich sogar regelmâssig, weil ihre Impétration sich nicht auf einen Rechtstitel stützt, Verdienst und Impétration im Gebete auf verschiedene Gegenstande.— So fallen selbst denn, wenn das Gebet auf das geht, was eigentümlicher Gegenstand menschlichen Verdienstes ist, Gebet und Verdienst nicht zusammen. Noch klarer ist dies, wenn ich für Andere bete; in diesem Faile erstreckt sich die impetratorische Wirkung ganz auf den andern, die meritorische ganz auf mich. Bei Christus, dagegen, fâllt beide zusammen. Der letzte Grund davon liegt eben darin, dass bei Christus, dem Sohn Gottes, jeder Ausdruck seines Willens an sich verdienstlich, also wesentlich meritorisch ist, bei uns dagegen, der Willensausdruck an und für sich, selbst wenn er ernst gemeint ist, bloss impetratorisch ist und erst durch etwas 16 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer 7. EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S PRAYERS STATED IN SACRED SCRIPTURE Having spoken of the manner in which Christ’s prayers have their efficacy, let us now turn to the inspired writings to see whether the Holy Spirit speaks in any way about the efficacy of these prayers. The most direct reference of Sacred Scripture is found in the words of Christ Himself. When He was brought to the tomb of Lazarus, and was about to restore life to the body of His friend. He raised His eyes to heaven and prayed to His Father: Father I give Thee thanks that Thou hast heard Me. Yet I knew that Thou always hearest Me; but because of the people who stand round, 1 spoke, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. When He had said this, He cried with a loud voice: “Lazarus, come forth.’’ And at once he who had been dead came forth (Jn. 11 ; 41-44). Our Lord in this incident taught us both by word and example that His prayers were infallibly efficacious before His Father in heaven. Lie Himself said openly that His Father always hears Him. In the garden of Gethsemani He again pointed to the unfailing efficacy of His prayers. It was after the threefold prayer to His Father. The Roman soldiers had already come and taken FTim captive. St. Peter, seeing what had happened, suddenly drew his sword and, striking the servant of the High Priest, cut off his ear. Our Lord turning to Peter said : Put back thy sword into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or dost thou suppose that I cannot entreat My Father, and He will even now furnish Me with more than twelve legions of Angels ? How then are the Scriptures to be fulfilled that thus it must happen (Matt. 26; 52-54)? anderes (durch die heiligmachende Gnade, durch welche er als Bitte eines Kindes Gottes erscheint, und die begleitende Tugendakte) meritorisch wird. Das Gebet eines Siinders, dem diese Bedingung fehlt, ist darurn impetratorisch, nicht aber meritorisch im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes.—Der Willensausdruck der Gdttlichen Person Christi ist aber stets streng meri­ torisch.” The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer 17 By this rather sharp rebuke to St. Peter, Jesus wanted to impress upon him first of all His absolute obedience to the Father’s com­ mand of suffering the death of the cross. But then He also wanted to teach St. Peter that if He had not known that His death was decreed by the Father, and if He had prayed for help from Him, His prayer would have been immediately and infallibly efficacious, and there would have come legions of Angels to His assistance.32 In other words, Christ teaches us by His own words here, that His prayers are heard and answered ; that they have the power of obtaining whatever He asked in them. What is more, from Christ’s manner of speaking, in a reproachful tone, He supposed that St. Peter should have known this, and realized that such a thing lay in the power of the Son of God if He chose to make use of it. There is another direct reference to the efficacy of Christ’s prayers. It is found in St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews where he speaks of the priesthood of Jesus. For Jesus, in the days of His earthly life, with a loud cry and tears, offered up prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His reverent submission (Hebr. 5; 7). This is the text which St. Thomas chooses from Sacred Scripture to prove that when Christ prayed, His prayer was always heard and answered. As to indirect references to this matter, we have the following : Our Lord was speaking one day to His disciples about the efficacy of prayer in general ; and Fie said : Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek and you shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it shall be opened. Or what man is there among you, who, if his son asks him for a loaf will hand him a stone; or if he asks for a fish, will hand him a ser­ pent? Therefore, if you, evil as you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him (Matt. 7 ; 7-11) ! 32 Cf. Maldonatus in Matt. chap. 26, pp. 425, #53. 18 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer We might say that in this passage the Evangelist wanted to convey two ideas ; first, the efficacy of worthy prayers, and secondly, the readiness of God to answer those prayers. Regarding the first part, Christ included all men in His state­ ment, as He did in similar statements about the efficacy of worthy prayers, especially in His last words with the Apostles.33 Now if it is true for all men, how infallibly true this must have been in the case of Christ’s own prayers ! St. Thomas himself makes use of the parallel text from St. John, in the second of his Sed Contra arguments in his commentary on the Third Book of Sentences. He says : Christ’s prayer was not less efficacious than the prayers of the Saints. But to the Saints Christ Himself orders, “Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full’’ (Jn. 16,24). Therefore, He Himself also received what He asked for.34 Furthermore, when our prayers are not answered by God, it is ordinarily because of some fault or imperfection on our part, or because the object of our prayer is not conducive to our salva­ tion. St. James reminds his disciples: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it upon your passions’’ (James 4 ;3). These are the only obstacles that could withhold God’s graces, and, obviously none of them could interfere with the ef­ ficacy of Christ's prayer. In the second part of the above text, Our Lord compares earthly fathers to the heavenly Father, man to God, wickedness to goodness, as Maldonatus says,35 so as to argue from the lesser to the greater. An earthly father, even though he is a sinner, willingly hears his children’s prayers, and bestows gifts upon them, some­ times even without their asking. If an earthly father does such a thing, how much more can we not expect from our heavenly Father, who knows His children’s prayers and needs infinitely bet­ ter than the earthly father, and who is infinitely more inclined to 33 Cf. Luke 11; 5-8, Matt. 21; 22, Matt. 18; 19, Jn. 14; 13-14, Jn. 15; 7, Jn. 16; 23-24. 81 De Sent. Ill, Dist. 17, Art 3, Questiunc. 4. 35 Comment. in Matt, page 111. The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer 19 show mercy? And how much more still can we not expect from Him if we humble ourselves and ask Him; for He Himself told us to ask, and He Himself promised to grant our requests. Then, making the further step to our Savior’s prayers, if the Father is so eager and ready to grant the prayers of His adopted sons, how great must be the efficacy of the prayers of His natural Son, Jesus Christ! If our Lord could assure His disciples of a hearing before the heavenly throne, how certain He Himself must have been that every prayer of His would be heard and answered! In the above passage, therefore, we can see at least an indirect allusion to Christ’s prayers. When Christ was transfigured on Mount Tabor, amid the mani­ festations of His glory, the Father’s voice was heard saying: ‘‘This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him” (Matt. 17 ;5). According to Maldonatus, we are to understand this word “hear” in the sense of “obey.”;!(i The Father, therefore, tells us to be obedient to Christ, to fulfill all His wishes and com­ mands in our regard, for He is our Head. If the Father demands obedience to the voice of Him in whom He is well pleased, will He not Himself harken to that voice when it cries to Him in prayer ? St. Paul uses God’s own words to David of old as referring to Christ : “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (II Kings, 7;14, Quoted in St. Paul to Hebr. 1 ;5). This is a testimony, though indirect, of the Father Himself, telling us that the prayers of His Son are acceptable in His sight and are always granted. We refer once again to the incident of Christ’s raising Lazarus from the dead. Even before He had pronounced that direct testi­ mony to the efficacy of His prayers as cited above, Martha, the sister of Lazarus spoke out clearly her confidence in the strength and infallible efficacy of her Master’s prayers. When, therefore, Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet Him. But Mary remained at home. Martha, therefore, said to Jesus: “Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever Thou shalt ask of God, God will give it to Thee” (Jn. 11 ; 20-22). ”Cf. Comment, p. 231. The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 20 In the Old Testament, there are numerous passages in which the Holy Ghost testifies to the efficacy of prayers of the just in God’s sight. In the Book of Exodus we read: And Moses besought the Lord His God saying: “Why, O Lord, is Thy indignation enkindled against Thy people whom Thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand ? Let Thy anger cease, and be appeased upon the wickedness of Thy people”—And the Lord was appeased from doing the evil which He had spoken against the people (Exodus 32; 9, 12 and 14). The Psalmist says : The eyes of the Lord are upon the just; and His ears unto their prayers—The just cried, and the Lord heard them; and delivered them out of all their troubles (Ps. 33, vs. 16-18). He will do the will of them that fear Him; and He will hear their prayers and save them (Ps. 144, vs. 19). In the Book of Proverbs we read : The Lord is far from the wicked ; and He will hear the prayers of the just (Prov. 15;29). In Isaias God speaks : My elect shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth in trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their posterity with them. And it shall come to pass that before they call I will hear; as they are yet speak­ ing, I will hear (Isaias 65;24). These texts give sufficient proof that God looks favorably upon the cries of the just. If He is so ready to grant the requests of those who love Hiro, how could He turn a deaf ear to the earnest petitions of His Only-Begotten Son? 8. THE PROBLEM AS THEOLOGIANS SAW IT; WERE CHRISTS PRAYERS ALWAYS HEARD? This question of the efficacy of Christ’s prayers has given rise to discussion ever since it was first proposed by the early The Efficacy o/ Christ’s Prayer 21 • Scholastics. The Fathers, of course, never treated the matter as a special question. They spoke of it simply in passing, espe­ cially in their explanations of the Sacred Scriptures where the Evangelists speak of our Lord at prayer, or where St. Paul treats of His priestly functions. The texts of St. Paul, with the ex­ ception of one (Hebr. 5;7), refer to Christ's prayer in heaven, of which we shall speak later. The three principal places which form the basis of the Fathers’ comments are the following': the prayer at the tomb of Lazarus, the prayer in the garden of Gethsemani, and the prayers said while on the cross. Because of the peculiar nature of these prayers, they have not only attracted the attention of the Fathers, but likewise provoked most of the discussion on this matter among Theologians. These prayers will be considered separately in their turn. St. Thomas asks the question whether the prayer of Christ was always heard. He answers in the affirmative; not, however, without a distinction, basing his response upon the words of divine revelation as spoken by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews (Chap. 5, vs. 7). For Jesus, in the days of His earthly life, with a loud cry and tears, offered up prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His reverent submission. St. Thomas uses this text of Sacred Scripture as his entire Sed Contra argument in the Summa Theologica (HI, Q. 21, Art. 4) and as the first of the arguments in his commentary on the Third Book of Sentences (Dist. 17, Art. 3, Questiunc. 4). In the Catena AureOj where St. Thomas gives bis exposition of St. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, he comments on this text in the following manner : It must be said that Christ, in everything which He really wished to be accomplished, was actually heard.27 In the commentary on the Sentences he also adduces two other scriptural citations to prove his assertion. The one is that of31 31 Ad. Hebr. 5 ;7. “Dicendum est, quod Christus in omnibus quae voluit fieri, fuit exauditus.” Cf. Opusculum 11, Cap. 233 (Edit. Romana). 22 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer St. John (chapter 16, verse 24) wherein Christ gave His disciples the command, “Ask and you shall receive,” whereby St. Thomas shows, as was mentioned above, that the prayers of Christ will be hardly less efficacious than those of His Apostles ; wherefore if they obtain what they ask, a fortiori does Christ Himself. The second is the words of Christ at the tomb of Lazarus, also cited above: “I knew that Thou always hearest Me” (Jn. 11 ;42). These three places in Sacred Scripture, therefore, form the foundation for the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on the question. 9. CONFORMITY OF HUMAN WILL WITH DIVINE- BASIS OF ARGUMENT In the body of the pertinent article in the Summa, St. Thomas explains his position on the matter. The theological reason upon which he bases the entire response is the absolute conformity of Christ’s human will in all things with the will of His Father, ac­ cording to His own words, “Not My will but Thine be done” (Luke 22;42), and, “I seek not My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (Jn. 5 ;30), and also, “I do always the things that are pleasing to Him” (Jn. 8;29). Thus does our Lord Himself give us the starting point for our conclusions. He made known to us very clearly that His will conformed at all times and in all matters to the Holy Will of His Father. This means, as the Angelic Doctor explains, that according to His absolute will guided by pure reason, Christ never willed anything except that which He knew His Father willed.38 Because of this perfect con­ formity of will, every prayer of Christ, proceeding from such a perfect human faculty, was infallibly heard and granted ; for the hearing and answering of a prayer, as is stated at the outset of the article, means the fulfilling of the desire expressed by the will.39 The conclusion, therefore, is that every desire of Christ, mani­ fested in prayer, which proceeded from His absolute will guided by reason, was in absolute conformity with the desires of the divine will, and for this reason perfectly fulfilled.88 88 Sum. Theol. Ill, Q. 21, Art. 4, Corp. “Secundum autem voluntatem rationis, Christus nihil aliud voluit nisi quod scivit Deum velle; et ideo omnis absoluta voluntas Christi etiam humana fuit impleta, quia fuit Dei conformis.” “Sum. Theol. loc. cit. “Et per consequens omnis ejus oratio fuit exaudita.” The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer 23 We can draw another argument from the teaching of the Angelic Doctor in his commentary on the fourth book of Sen­ tences (Dist. 45, Quest. 3, Art. 1 Solution). In this article he teaches that the prayers of the Saints in heaven on our behalf arc always heard, and are efficacious to obtain whatever they ask ; for the Saints know exactly what God wills in our regard, and they will nothing but what they know to be Ills will. Now if this is true of the Saints, a fortiori must the same have been true of our Savior here on earth. He, in His mortal life, just like the Saints in their immortal existence, saw the face of God. and knew, therefore, even more perfectly than the Saints (for He was their Head) what was God’s holy will.4041 * In order to understand fully the force of St. Thomas’s argu­ ment, it is necessary to consider more pointedly his teaching on the conformity of wills in Christ. It should, however, be noted here that St. Thomas considers this matter basic in the theology of prayer. It is the unity of the will of the person praying with the holy will of God that makes a prayer pleasing in God’s sight. The unity of wills is likewise the strongest appeal to God’s mercy in granting requests, as our Lord Himself teaches. In the “Our Father” He prays, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done” (Matt. 6;10) ; and during His agony in the garden, “Not as .1 will, but as Thou wiliest”(Matt. 26;42). Throughout the entire treatise on prayer, St. Thomas insists on conformity with the divine wall as a necessary disposition of soul in the one praying. He does not use the term “resignation,” but in the final analysis it is exactly that. The will of God in our regard can be none other than salvation, and sanctification which leads thereto, as St. Paul says : “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (I Thess. 4;3) ; and, “God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto sanctification” (1 Thess. 4;7). God cannot grant anything that will not lead to the soul’s sanctification. Hence St. Thomas says that our prayers must be directed to some­ thing good for our soul (ad salutem), for it is only then that they are conformable to God’s will.44 40 Cf. also Sum. Theol. Supplement, Quest. 72, Article 3. 41 Cf. Sum. Theol. Ila Hae, Q. 83, .Art. 5, ad. 2—Art. 11, ad. 2 and Art. 15, ad. 2. NOTE: The following are the words of St. Thomas given in response to an objection made against the asking of God for determinate 24 i j i ' i' ' 1 Γ i 1 I ! We cannot lose sight of the other dispositions of soul which were mentioned previously, such as humility, confidence, and per­ severance, but the most important of all is submission to God's designs, for it points to a oneness of our will with His. Since the designs of God are generally hidden from us, we do not always know exactly what is, and what is not, good for our souls. Here is where our perfect resignation comes into play. We must be ready to accept what He sends us. Christ knew exactly what was and what was not for the salvation of those for whom He prayed. That is wh)'- His prayers were always efficacious. This same thought is expressed in the present article under discussion : The prayers of others are fulfilled according to this, namely, that their wills are conformable to the will of God, as it is written in Sacred Scripture (Rom. 8;27), “And He who searches the hearts, knows what the spirit desires, i.e. (what He makes the Saints desire), that He pleads for the saints according to God, i.e., according to their conformity to the divine will.42 ' Ü ’ b ■i fi t· 1 j 1 j Christ’s infallible knowledge of His Father’s will extended not only to Himself, but to every other creature. Herein we see the , ? The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 1! j J I , , j f > J 5 , 1 j *1 i h !· favors. From the tenor of the objection, the statement of the difficulty at hand, and the very nature of the answer, we can gather St. Thomas’ sentiment. He states the objection thus: “Whoever asks something determinate of another, bends, so to speak, the will of that person to do what he himself wants.” This is the major proposition. And it is true except in the cases where one asks something which he knows the superior wants to give him, as is the case between us and God, for God wants us to ask for things leading to our salvation. Proceeding then with the minor; he says, “But, we should not tend to this, namely, that God wills what we will, but rather that we should will what He wills, as is said in a marginal note of St. Augustine’s commentary on Psalm 32 (Exsultate justi in Domino).” This proposition is also true. But then the conclusion is drawn, “Therefore we ought not ask from God anything determinate in prayer.” Now this is false__ for it does not follow from the premises. It is true that we should not try to bend God’s will to fit ours, nor can we—but—as St. Thomas points out in his response, when we ask in the right wray, namely, for things pertaining to our salvation, we are asking for what God wants. Implicitly at least, there is resignation to His will, and therefore we are really bending our will to fit in with God’s. 12 Sum. Theol. HI, Q. 21, Art 4. The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer foundation of that perfect conformity, for He willed only what He knew His Father willed. 10. TRADITIONAL TEACHING OE THE CHGRC11 It has always been the solemn teaching of the Church ever since the early centuries, that Christ had two wills, one human and one divine, distinct from one another, yet not at all contrary one to another. The human will gave no resistance, nor was it reluctant to obey the divine; but it was rather subject to the divine, omnipotent will. This was solemnly proposed in the Third Council of Constantinople, against the false teaching of the Monothelite Heretics, who held that there was only one will in Christ, and that, a divine one.'13 St. Thomas gives a summary of this traditional doctrine of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, in the eighteenth question of the third part of the Summa Theologica. In the first article he shows that there were two perfect wills in Christ, by reason of the fact that besides His Divine Nature, there was also the perfect human nature He assumed. In the second and third articles he shows how it follows, then, that besides movements of the human nature as such, Christ had certain movements of the lower ap­ petites, some of which seemed to come from the will, and some of which actually came from the will, but all of which were obedient to the supreme command of the rational faculty. In TD.B. 291. “Et duas naturales voluntates in eo, et duas naturales opera­ tiones indivise, inconvertibiliter, inseparabiliter, inconfuse, secundum Sanc­ torum Patrum doctrinam adaeque praedicamus ; et duas naturales voluntates non contrarias absit, juxta quod impii asseruerunt haeretici, sed sequentem ejus humanam voluntatem et non resistentem vel reluctantem, sed potius et subjectam divinae ejus atque omnipotenti voluntati.’’ NOTE: Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople was the leader of this sect. Among his immediate followers were Cyrus, Bishop of Phasidia and Alexandria successively, Pyrrhus of Constantinople, and Macharius of Antioch. They taught that the Verbum according to the divine nature was the immediate principle of all operations in Christ, to the exclusion of all operation on part of the human nature. As a result, according to them there was only one power and one operation, hence, only one volition and one will, which was divine. All acts, therefore, in Christ, were elicited by the divinitv. The humanity was no more than something passive and inert. 26 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer order to preserve the perfection due to the human nature, it follows that Christ must also have had a free will with perfect human liberty, as Isaias said of Him : “He shall eat butter and honey, that He may know to refuse evil and to choose the good (Isaias 7;15) (Scd Contra—Article 4). Then, in the two final articles, St. Thomas shows very beautifully how Christs will w;w always in perfect conformity with the will of His bather, and that not even the least contrariety could be found between the two; and this despite the fact that from several of Christs prayers there might seem to have been some slight variance. St. Thomas bases his response to the question whether every prayer of Christ was heard, upon the doctrine expounded in these articles. This doctrine in turn, depends upon his teaching about the nature of the human will. According to St. Thomas, every perfect human nature contains a will of the sense appetite and a will of reason. The will of the sense appetite, in the strict sense of the term, is not the rational faculty, nor even part of it; but it is the sense appetite. We call it a will only in the sense that it participates in the liberty and righteousness of the rational faculty by being obedient to its command. It is really nothing more than a movement of the lower sense appetite towards something which natural instinct sees as good, or away from something apprehended as harmful.*43 44* The will of reason, or the rational will, is the will in the proper sense of the term, the faculty which, aided by the intellect, seeks the good. There is only one such faculty in every human nature ; but there are different acts, and hence various aspects under which we can view that faculty in operation. On this ac­ count we can speak of it as the will of reason and the will of nature.’·' St. John Damascene uses the term boulesis for the first, and thelesis for the second.46 The will of nature has as its object, the good, or, at least, the apparent good, and, considering it in itself, without relation to anything else, chooses it and finds “Cf. De Sent. Ill, Dist. 17, Art. 1, Questiunc. 2, Sol. Cf. Sum. Theol III, Q. 18, Art. 2, corp. 43 De Sent. Ill, Dist. 17, Questiunc 3, Sol., Art. 1. “In II lib. (c. 22; G. 94, 943), Cited in De Sent. ΙΠ, Dist. 17, Art. 1, Questiunc, 3 #1. m The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer 27 satisfaction in its possession, unless reason ordains it to some­ thing higher. The will of reason, though it has the same object, considers it not in itself, but in relation to some further good which ultimately amounts to the supreme good, God Himself. It does not rest in its first object as the will of nature docs, but goes from one to another, always from good to better, incapable of satisfying itself till it reaches its ultimate end, the perfect good­ ness of God Himself.47 St. Thomas says that the rational will as reason corresponds with the consequent will of God, because it accepts its object only after consideration of all the circumstances, as well as all the relations it bears to other things ; while the rational will as nature corresponds with the antecedent will of God. because it takes its object independently of such considerations.'8 As regards the object willed, St. Thomas says that we speak of a thing as being willed absolutely (simply), when it is deliberatelychosen by the will as reason ; or as being willed secundum quid when it is chosen because of a certain circumstance. This latter implies an act that would be placed if that circumstance were not present. It is usually called a velleity (which means a very weak will act), and can proceed either from the rational will as nature, or from the sense appetite. The velleity is the imperfect act of will, while that proceeding from deliberation is the perfect act. 11. IN WHAT SENSE WERE CHRISTAS PRAYERS ALWAYS HEARD? With the above terminology in mind, let us see with what type of will St. Thomas maintains that Christ prayed when His prayers were efficacious. In his article on this question he first proposes as a possibility, the will of the sense appetite together with the rational will as nature. He excludes these two at once from further consideration, because by acts such as proceed from them, we do not will a thing absolutely or in the perfect way, but we rather will it secundum quid, i.e., only in the event that reason does not urge us on to a ame will as the P'ather ; while inasmuch as lie is man. He manifests the natural will of mankind. For it is this that naturally seeks escape from death.7,5 And St. John Chrysostom says : He does not say: “Father if Thou wiliest” as though not knowing whether it pleased the Father or not—since therefore, that which was about to take place was almost incredible, first He sent the prophets to announce it, then He Himself coming clothed in the flesh, that He might not be thought to be a phantom,—permitted His flesh to sustain the natural defects, to hunger, to thirst, to sleep, to labor, to be affected and to be troubled ; for this reason also, He recoiled iti the face of death, showing us His true humanity.70 It is this common view of the Fathers that St. Thomas adopted as His own.77 With the mention of these early Fathers, it might be well to consider one of the reflections of St. Augustine on the words “if «P.G. 10, p. 1590. 73 De Fide Orth. Bk. 3, cap. 24—P.G. 94, p. 1091. 7,1 P.G. 51, p. 31 ss ; also P.G. 58, p. 747. 77 Besides those quoted above, St. Thomas also mentions others who taught the traditional interpretation. Among these are St. Ambrose, Origen, St. Augustine, who are mentioned in the Summa Theologica. In other com­ mentaries he mentions St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Athanasius, St. Bede and St. Leo the Great. (Commentary of the Gospels.) 38 The Efficacy of Christ's Prayer it is possible” (Mark 14;35; Matt. 16;39). Do not these words, at first hearing seem to imply that our Lord was doubtful about the divine omnipotence? St. Augustine says absolutely “no.” “Christ did not say,” he remarks, “ ‘if the Father is able to do it’ (si faccrc posset), but ‘if it could be done’ (si fieri posset),'·'—and certainly everything that the Father wills can be done. Christ say> “if it could be done” to be meant in such a sense as though He had said “if He, the Father, should will it.” Then St. Augustine warns us not to look upon this as a limitation of the Father’s power ; for the same Christ, in the same breath prayed : “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee” (Mark 14 ;36). Christ, therefore, knew that it was possible for His Father to remove the cup of suffering if such had been His holy will.78 There is, however, a further difficulty. If we take these words, as St. Augustine says, in the softened tone “if it so pleased Him,” or “if He should will it,” does it not then seem that Christ was at least ignorant of the will of His Father? St. John Chrysostom answers: “He does not say Si vis (if Thou wiliest) as though He w'ere ignorant of whether it was pleasing to the Father or not . . . for He alone knew the Father perfectly as St. John says (10;15) ‘Even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father.’ but He says it to show the reality of His human nature.”79 It may be asked further whether this prayer in the garden possibly manifested weakness in Christ our Lord in as far as He wanted to escape the suffering. True, it showed His human nature with its natural defects, which He willingly assumed; but the fiat makes it clear that reason was in perfect conformity with God’s will. The heretic Arius had accused Christ of such weakness. St. 78 Augustine Comment, in Mark 14—Quoted in Catena Aurea P.L. 34. p. 1165. Medina cites this same difficulty in commenting on the fourth article of St. Thomas, concluding in like manner that there was no room for hesi­ tation or doubt on part of our Savior as to the power of His Father. TOChrys. Comment, in Luke 21—Catena Aurea, Cap. 22, #11. Medina says that Christ uttered the words in question (si vis) to give us a form of proposing our will to God in prayer; also to show us that we should ask for temporal goods not absolutely, but conditionally. (Same commentary on St. Thomas Sum. Theol. Art. 4) St. Dionysius of Alex, says: “The ‘si vis’ was a sign of subjection and docility of our Savior, not a sign of ignorance or doubt.” P.G. 10, p. 1590. The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 39 Hilary, however, inveighed most vehemently against any such idea, maintaining that there was absolutely no sign of weakness in Christ He speaks of Arius in the following terms: But perhaps He (Christ) may be thought to have feared to the extent that He prayed that the cup might be re­ moved from Him. “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this cup from Me” (Mark 14;36). To take the narrowest ground of argument, might you not have refuted for yourself this dull impiety by your own reading of the words, “Put up thy sword into its sheath; the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall T not drink it” (Jn. 18,11) ? Plow could fear induce Him to pray for the removal of that which in bl is zeal for the divine plan He was hastening to fulfill? To say He shrank from the suffering He desired is not consistent. You grant that He suffered willingly. Would it not be more reverent to confess that you had mis­ understood this passage, than to rush with blasphemous and headlong folly to the assertion that He prayed to escape suffering, though you allow that He suffered willingly ?S(> In this passage St. Hilary referred to the entire prayer of our Savior as perfectly ordained by reason to the higher ends. 15. EXEGETES OF SACREO SCRIPTURE Among the noteworthy exegetes of Sacred Scripture, just as among the Fathers, the common interpretation of this prayer of Christ in the garden seems to be substantially the same as that recorded by St. Thomas. They attribute the cry of nature for re­ lease from suffering to a lower will, and the cry of resignation to the higher and perfect will. Maldonatus asks whether Christ in the first part of the prayer didn’t really will something contrary to the divine will, and there­ by commit sin? It would seem so, for St. Augustine defines sin as a “word, a deed, or a desire against the will of God.”si But then the author explains, that even we do not sin every time we will 60 De Trinitate Bk. X, Cap. 30, P.L. 10, p. 368-369. “St. Aug. 1- 22, contra Faustum, c. 27. 1 40 The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer something contrary to God’s will, but only when we will, say, or do something that is against God’s will perfectly known to us and perceived by us. We do not sin when we pray that our parents live long, and remain in good health, even though God might will that they die soon ; for God's will is not known to us. Christ, however, knew God’s will perfectly. Still we cannot accuse Him of sin: for sometimes even we will something' against God’s known will with­ out sin. For example, if one’s father is dead, one does not sin by wishing that he were alive, although such a wish is manifestly against God’s will. Now, somewhat in the same way, Christ's prayer for the removal of the chalice, even though He knew it was of precept, was not sinful, for, says Maldonatus, “this will by which He shrank from death, was not the full and perfect will, but as theologians say, the conditional.”82 Cornelius a Lapidé explains Christ’s words in a still dearer way, using practically the same terminology7 as St. Thomas. Com­ menting on the words found in St. Matthew (26;39) he says: Absolutely this was possible (that the cup be removed), but it was impossible according to God’s decree that man was to be redeemed by Christ’s death. Christ knew this, and therefore did not wish for it absolutely, and asks for nothing contrary to His own and the Father’s will. But He merely exercises His natural shrinking from death, His ineffectual and conditioned will, and yet freely submitted himself to the contrary will of God, that He should die.83 I. : ! ' [ 1 [ i I t i ;ί. ' ι ϊι I i ! J fl j j > i j i| < I I 82 Maldonatus Comment, in Matt. cap. 26, vs. 39, p. 418. 83 Comment, in Matt. pp. 208-209. Shortly after the above words, the renowned commentator makes the following note : Though the human will was in itself one, yet in its power and action it was twofold, the one natural, with which it shrank from death ; the other rational and free, with which He subjected Himself to the will of God.—And accordingly, the natural will of Christ was conditional and of no avail, because it wished to escape death only under the condition that it pleased God. But His rational will was absolute and effectual, because He embraced death for the same reason that God willed it, that is, for man’s redemption. But the natural will of Christ seemed materially contrary to the divine will. But by the rule of subordination it was conformable to it, as suffering itself to be guided by the rational will, and thus by the divine will ; and on the other hand the will of God, as well as the rational will of Christ, wishes on deliberate and just The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 16. 41 THEOLOGIANS On this matter of the prayer of Christ in the garden, theo­ logians are practically of the same opinion as St. Thomas. They treat the matter from the standpoint of the two wills in our Savior, and practically all of them are agreed on the necessity of a dis­ tinction between the rational will as reason and the rational will as nature. Since such is the common opinion, we need speak only of those few who might cast new light on the question in one way or other. St. Bonaventure maintains that we cannot call the first part of Christ’s prayer purely of reason, nor can we attribute it en­ tirely to the sense appetite. It is partly of one and partly of the other. The movement of the lower appetite, he claims, was the material of the prayer, while the ordination by reason was the form which gave it the character of a prayer in the real sense. In the last analysis, Christ prayed more for us than for Himself. St. Bonaventure, therefore, stresses the part played by reason.81 Vasquez admits only one kind of prayer in Christ, that coming from His absolute and efficacious will. The others, which we spoke of as prayers in a broad sense, he does not admit as prayers at all. According to him they are nothing more than the simple proposing of inefficacious desires. To be prayer, he says, they must be useful to some extent in obtaining their request. In applying this teach­ ing to the prayer in the garden, he does not differ substantially from other theologians. For he says that Christ did not ask for the removal of the chalice absolutely, but only in as far as the will of the Father would not have stood in the way. He makes it clear that the last part of the prayer, the fiat, was the important element, which served to unify and complete it as a prayer.s·’ grounds that His natural will should express this natural fear of death. In both aspects, therefore, was the will of Christ in all respects conformable to the divine. Christ here teaches us, as a moral duty, that our sole remedy in affliction is submission to the divine will, and that in every temptation we must betake ourselves to the aid of God, who alone can free us from them, or strengthen us under them, if we submit ourselves humbly, reverently and lovingly to His will. 84 Comment, in III Sent. Dist. 17, Art. 2, Q. 3. 80 Cf. Vasquez, Comment. Disp. 82, cap. 3. 42 The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer Suarez draws the same conclusion as the rest of the theologians, but stresses very emphatically the point that all the lower move­ ments of the sense appetite in Christ, were perfectly dominated by the perfect will of reason, and thus ordained to higher ends such as our instruction, our salvation, and ultimately God’s honor and glory.80 It seems to be quite clear from the foregoing citations, that if there is any difference at all in interpretation of this prayer among theologians, it is for the most part only a difference of words or terminology, not a radical difference in solution. Several of the theologians themselves admit this.8' However, no matter what kind the solution be, it would be foolish to say that part of the prayer that proceeded from Christ's sacred lips was useless, as the Hussite and Trinitarian Heretics would have us conclude.*88 Of course such must be our conclusion if we take the first part of Christ’s prayer, and contemplate it independently both of the sec­ ond part and of all ordination by reason. But it was not intended by Christ to be that way. His prayer was not finished until He had added, “Not as I will, but as Thou wiliest.” In the light of this, then, we see how reason directed the first part of the prayer to higher ends of our spiritual good. We are not warranted in saying that Christ uttered any of these words in vain. 17. Christ's prayer on the cross In the second objection of this fourth article in the Summa, St. Thomas speaks of the prayer that Jesus breathed for His ex­ ecutioners as He hung on the cross of Calvary. Like the prayer in the garden, this one has also been much discussed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. It does not seem necessary, however, to examine it as closely as the last, for the difficulty at least in “Comment. Disp. 38, Sect. 2, Treating Quest. 18, Art. 6 of Summa. OT Cf. Suarez ; Salmanticenses, loc. cit. 88 The Hussites maintained that prayer is of no avail at all, because everything happens out of necessity. The Trinitarians held that we should not pray for a thing which God never willed, or a thing which He willed should never or nowhere come to pass. The conclusions of these heretics as to Christ’s prayer is evident. To them it was absolutely in vain. (Quoted in Cajetan’s commentary—III, Q. 21, Art. 4, Note.) The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 43 part will be found to lie precisely in the matter of Christ’s two­ fold will. Hence with practically the same principles as were given above, we can offer a solution to the objection raised. This much, however, we should bear in mind, that in all these matters per­ taining to the Incarnation and the influence of Christ’s divinity on His humanity and His humanity on His divinity, we come eventually to a mystery, which by the holy wisdom of God will remain veiled to us until we shall sec Him face to face. The prayer under discussion is expressed in the following­ words of our Savior: ‘‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing” ( Luke 23 ;34). The difficulty about the prayer is this: Christ prayed that those men that put Him on the cross be forgiven. We know that, as a matter of fact, they were not all for­ given, for the terrible punishment predicted by Christ (Luke 21 ; 6-24) came upon many of them at least, while they were still hardened in their sin. It seems, therefore, that the heavenly Father did not hear and answer this prayer of His Son, and consequently that we are not warranted in concluding that Christ obtained everything He asked for in prayer. Such is the difficulty as St. Thomas saw it. St. Thomas gives his solution to the difficulty in the following way. He says simply that Christ did not pray in the strict sense for all His executioners, but only for those who were from all eternity predestined by the will of God for eternal life. We must, therefore, understand Christ’s words in no other sense than that in which He Himself wished them to be understood.89 In the commentary on the third Book of Sentences, he says that Christ prayed for all His executioners and willed all to be saved by His rational will as nature, because it is this will that goes out to its object in itself not considering its relation to anything else. This, he says is just like the antecedent will in God; but in so willing, one is not said to will simply and absolutely. With 89 Sum. Theol. loc. cit. Art. 4, ad 2. “Dicendum est quod Dominus non oravit pro omnibus crucifixoribus, neque etiam pro omnibus que erant credituri in eum ; sed pro his solum qui erant predestinati ut per ipsum vitam consequerentur aeternam.” St. Thomas commenting on the epistle to the Hebrews, 5 ;7, says in passing : “Itexn nolebat quod ignosceretur omnibus, sed illis tantum qui crediderunt. Et multi postea conversi sunt.” 44 The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer the rational will as reason, however, Christ did not pray for, nor did He will the salvation of all, because this will goes out to its object considering all circumstances and all relations to other things. This is like God’s consequent will, and by this will Christ was said to will simply and absolutely. Every prayer that proceeded from it was heard, and was absolutely efficacious.90*With this will He prayed only for the predestined. These words of St. Thomas at first seem to run counter to God’s infinite goodness and sanctity. But there is nothing at all against faith. In fact, it is precisely the Church’s doctrine. We must understand the position of the Church on predestination, and the terms which St. Thomas used to explain it. Christ’s human will was in perfect conformity with His divine will, even in regard to the very objects willed, whenever He willed simply and absolutely. Furthermore He knew exactly what the will of His Father was. Therefore He directed His prayers only to those ends which His Father had ordained. The difficulty, accord­ ingly, concerns the divine will. Why did God not will that all those who took part in Christ’s crucifixion be pardoned and spared for eternity? It is the same as the question: Why does not God will absolutely that all men be saved? This is the mystery of pre­ destination. The only answer that we can give is, that God by His consequent will predestined some to enjoy eternal happiness, and others not, for reasons of His own. Further we cannot go. St. Thomas, however, attempts to clarify the matter a little by making a distinction between God’s will act according to the objects which He wills. He says that God wills some things accord­ ing to an absolute consideration of their good or evil, whereas other things He wills considering them with all their peculiar 90 De Sent. Ill, Dist. 17, Art. 3, Sol. 4 ad 2. “Voluntas rationis ut natura est de eo quod habet in se bonitatem non considerato ejus ordine ad aliud. Unde talis voluntas in (Christo) fuit de salute omnium hominum, sicut voluntas antecedens in Deo; sed secundum hanc non simpliciter et absolute dicitur aliquid velle.—Sed voluntas ut ratio est de eo quod habet bonitatem etiam in ordine ad aliud. Et secundum hanc voluntatem non volebat Christus omnes salvari, sicut nec Deus voluntate consequente ; et secundum hanc dicitur aliquis simpliciter et absolute velle. Et ideo oratio Christi quae fuit secundum hanc voluntatem fuit exaudita ; non autem quae fuit secundum primam.” The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 45 circumstances.91 The first he calls the antecedent will, the second the consequent will. This latter corresponds to the absolute and simple willing of a thing, the former, to the willing of it secundum quid or conditionally. St. Thomas says that by His antecedent will, God wills all men to be saved, in much the same way as a righteous judge wills to set free all those brought to him for trial (because they are men like himself and he naturally sympathizes with them) ; but still by His consequent will He wills that those only be saved whom He by His eternal decrees has predestined to be saved, just as the judge wills to liberate only those who arc found innocent.92 The salvific will of Christ is expressed by St. Paul in his firstletter to Timothy (2;4) : “Who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This is an expression of His antecedent will; for by His consequent will He does not will that all be saved, but only those whom the Father had predestined for salvation. And indeed, Christ Himself said: “I pray for them; not for the world do I pray, but for those whom Thou hast given Me, because they are Thine” (Jn. 17 ;9). The Church has always taught that, though Christ wills all men to be saved, all are not actually predestined to eternal life. In the condemnation of the errors of Gottschalk and the Predestinationists, Pope Leo IV solemnly declared that the “Omnipotent God wills that all men without exception be saved, although all are not saved. That some, however, are saved is a gift of the One saving, but that some are lost, is the merit of those who are lost. Futhermore, the Church expresses her mind on the salvific will of Christ by teaching that He died not only for those who are pre­ destined to eternal life (D.B. 1096 & 1382), nor alone for the*93 ” Cf. Sum. Theol. I, Q. 19. 03 Sum. Theol. I, Q. 19, Art. 6: “Deus antecedenter vult omnem hominem salvari ; sed consequenter vult quosdam damnari, secundum exigentiam suae justitiae." NOTE: St. Thomas took this solution from St. John Damascene-— De Fide Otho. Lib. 11, cap. 29—P.G. 94, p. 970. 93 D.B. 318 ; “Deus omnipotens omnes homines sine exceptione vuit salvos fieri (1 Tim. 2-4), licet non omnes salventur. Quod autem quidem salvantur, Salvantis est donum ; quod autem quidam pereunt, pereuntium est meritum.”— This same was also taught in the 6th Session of the Council of Trent, cap. 2—D.B. 794. Ί he Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 46 faithful (1294), but for all men, even though all might not re­ ceive the benefits of the redemption (D.B. 319, 322 ss., 717b, 795, 1362, 1380). The same principles hold in the case of Christ's prayer for ihose who nailed Him to the cross. Knowing the Father’s will, and knowing those whom He had predestined, Christ willed with a consequent and efficacious will, that only those who were predes­ tined be pardoned and finally saved. The manifestation of this will before the Father in heaven was His prayer, and it was absolutely efficacious. The words heard from the cross for all the executioners, however, were an expression of His antecedent will only, and in that far were conditional. And yet, like the prayer in the garden, these words were ordained by the absolute will to the higher purposes of our salvation and ultimately God’s honor and glory. Tn this way the expression came to the throne of God as a perfect prayer, for to the Father it was only the absolute will that ap­ peared ; while in the hearing of those who stood beneath the cross, it was a simple cry of His conditional and antecedent will. 18. CHRIST S PRAYER FORTHOSE WHO WERE TO BELIEVE IN HIM The same solution holds also for the third objection proposed by the Angelic Doctor. In this one he cites the prayer uttered by Jesus at the Last Supper : Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in Me; that all may*· be one, even as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee ; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me (Jn. 17;20-21). These words proceeded not from His consequent will, but from His antecedent will ; for we know that all are not “one in Christ,” not even today. Still before the throne of God the Father, it was a prayer in most perfect form, not of the antecedent, but of the con­ sequent will whereby Christ really prayed only for those whom He knew were predestined to eternal life. One might object and say that herein lies a deception. Such is not the case. Christ prayed in this way not without reason; for The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 47 as was already pointed out, He wanted to teach us by His example the way of salvation. Besides, He really did will that all be saved, and He obtained for each and every person sufficient grace for salvation. But He left them all freedom of will to use or reject it. Taking all this into consideration, His will in the last analysis could not but pray that what God had determined from all eternity be accomplished in them. In commenting on this prayer of Christ, St. John Chrysostom said that Christ uttered the prayer conditionally, i.e., supposing the words “if they repent.” By this he teaches that Christ prayed in conformity to the will of the Father. Those who repented werc those predestined to eternal life, and for them alone did Christ pray with His absolute will. This supposes that Christ by His ante­ cedent will, i.e., without that supposed condition of repentance, sincerely willed and prayed that all the executioners be forgiven.91 The same Father teaches the distinction of wills much more clearly in his homily on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. In commenting- on the words: “He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ, as His sons according to the purpose of His will” ( 1 ;5), he says that here St. Paul speaks of the real will and desire of God, the second will (voluntas secunda), or as we said, the consequent will. By this will God predestined some for heaven. There is also the other will which St. Chrysostom calls the “first will,” by which God wills that even those who have sinned perish not. This is what we called the antecedent will.95 In another homily on the Gospel he says : How, therefore, are not all saved, if He wills all to be saved? Because the wills of all men do not follow His will—but He does not inflict force on anyone.flt> In speaking of the prayer of Our Lord for those who were to believe in Him, St. Augustine says that Christ prayed for all whom He redeemed, whether those already in the flesh, or those to come in the future. St. Augustine clearly refers to the antecedent “ Ci. Catena Aurea, St. Thom., in Luc. cap. 23, vs. 34. Cf. Enchr. Patris. 1202. “Cf. Enchr. Patris. 1211. 48 The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer will by which God willed all to be saved.97 In this place he does not mention the consequent will ; and, yet, considering his teaching in other places, it is undoubtedly his opinion that from this will proceeded Christ’s absolute and efficacious prayer. In a sermon on St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15 ;22), he says: In Christ all will be made to live. Since so many will be punished with eternal death, it is said “in Christ etc.” for the reason that whoever receives eternal life, will receive it only through Christ. Thus the words “God wills all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2;4) since He wills that so many be not actually saved, have been said with the meaning that those saved, are not saved unless He wills it.98 The fact, therefore, that some of Christ’s executioners were not saved, and not all men came to believe in Him, according to St. Augustine, was because the Father had not willed them to be. Christ, then, who knew His Father’s will, prayed with His absolute will, that this will be accomplished. Theologians do not give as much consideration to the second and third objections as they did to the first one about Christ’s prayer in the garden. The reason is that all three solutions hinge on the same distinction of wills. Again, they do not differ sub­ stantially in giving their responses. Cajetan points out that the word “all” in Christ’s prayer did not mean “all” in the universal sense, but in the sense that He prayed with an efficacious prayer for “all those to whom the Father had willed to give that special grace.”98 St. Bonaventure remarks that, while the prayer of Christ came from His absolute will and was only for the predestined, neverthe­ less, the actual words He uttered were spoken not precisely to be m Ergo illa oratione pro omnibus quos redemit, sive tunc in carne viventes, sive postea futuros, Redemptor noster oravit (Jn. 17;20 Catena Aurea). P.L. 35, p. 1919. “Sicut autem ex eo quod Patrem pro suis omnibus rogavit, hoc fieri voluit ut omnes unum sint ita ex hoc etiam suo beneficio quod ait, ‘claritatem quam dedisti mihi, dedi eis,’ id fieri voluit” (tract. 110). P.L. 35, p. 1922. “Cf. Enchr. Patrist. 1457. “Comment. St. Thom. Ill, Q. 21, Art. 4 ad 2 and 3. The Efficacy of Christ’s Prayer 49 heard and granted by God, but rather for our instruction. This latter St. Bonaventure refers to as the “will of devotion’’ (voluntas pietatis).100101 Sylvius confirms the traditional view by various scriptural texts; e.g., by the prayer found in St. John 17;20: “Not for the world do I pray, etc.,’’ by the words of St. Paul to Timothy ( 1 Tim. 2;19) “The Lord knows who are His,” and by the words of St. Peter found in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2;22 ss) ; “You (men of Israel) have crucified Jesus of Nazareth.” Shortly after which words, the men were converted and baptized (Acts 2 ;3741) m Father Schwalm, O.P., in his book Le Christ d’après St. Thomas d Aquin, classifies these prayers of Christ for His disciples into those that were entirely efficacious, and those that were effica­ cious only in part. The former obtained their effect absolutely, but the latter were conditioned in some way or other, and, while not obtaining full effect, they always obtained sufficient graces for the salvation of those persons. Thus the prayer on the cross was efficacious only for those who were actually saved, namely, the predestined. This solution does not differ from that of St. Thomas.102 Father Margreth insists that Christ’s prayer on the cross can­ not be understood to have been prayed independently of the consideration of man’s freedom of will, and his freedom to ac­ cept or reject God’s grace.103 19. PRAYER OF THE MESSIANIC PSALM There is one more prayer considered by St. Thomas ; namely, the words of Psalm 21, verse 3 : “O My God, I shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear.” This Psalm, according to scriptural exegetes, speaks directly about the coming Messiah, whose suffer­ ings the Psalmist sees in prophetic vision. Hence, the words of the Psalm are put into the mouth of Christ Himself, as if He Him­ self had said them. The verse quoted, therefore, becomes a prayerSent. Comment. Ill, Dist. 17, Art. 2, Q. 2, ad 3, 4, and 5. 101 Comment, in Summa III, Q. 21, Art. 4 ad 2, 3, and 4. 1,aOp. Cit. page 466 ss. Xί same work translated by Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1950). Herrmann, J., Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 2, De Incarnatione, Roma, 1897. Henno, Franciscus, Theologia Dogmatica et Scholastica, De Incarnatione Verbi Divini, Douae, 1711. Hugon, Eduardus, O.P., Le Mystère de la Rédemption, 2me Édit. Par. 1916. —----- , Le Mystère de l'incarnation, Paris, 1913. Hurter, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae, De Verbo Incarnato, Editio Sexta, Brugges, 1888. James, Rev., O.F.M.Cap., The Person of Jesus, Newman Press, West­ minster, Maryland, 1946. Janssens, Laurentius, O.S.B., Tractatus de Deo Homine, Tom. 4 and 5, Freiburg i.b., Herder, 1901. Joannes a St. Thoma, Cursus Theologicus, De Incarnatione, Tom. 7 and 8, Paris, Vivès, 1886. Journel, Rouet De, S.J., Enchiridion Patristicum, Edition 8 and 9, Freiburg i.b., Herder, 1932. Jungmann, Bernardus, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, De Verbo In­ carnato, Pustet, Ratisbonne, 1872. Knabenbauer, Jos., S.J., Commentarius in Quatuor Evang., in Cursus Sacrae Scripturae (Cornely, Knabenbauer, de Hummelauer), Paris, Lithielleux, 1893. Lepin, Marius, Rev., L’Idée du Sacrifice de la Messe, Paris, 1926. Lessius, Leonard, S.J., Opuscula, De Perfectionibus Divinis, Lib. XIV, Antwerp, 1626. Limborch, Phillip, Theologia Christiana, Editio 5, Tractatus Posthumus, Amsterdam, 1730. Lombardus, Petrus, Libri Quatuor Sententiarum, Tom. 1, Edited by Migne, Paris, 1853. Maldonatus, Joannes, S.J., Commentarii in Quatuor Evang., Edited by Conrad Martin, Tom. 2, Edition 2, Mainz, 1854; Tom. 1, Edit. 3, 1862. Margreth, Jacob, S.T.D., Ph.D., Das Gebetsleben Jesu Christi des Sohnes Gottes, Münster, i.w. 1902. Marmion, Columba, Christ the Ideal of the Priest, translated by Dom Matthew Dillon, B. Herder Book Co., 1952. Bibliography 63 McGarry, Wm. J-, S.J., S.T.D., S.S.L., Unto the End, Christ's Discourse on Love, America Press, N. Y., 1941. McNabb, Vincent, O.P., Faith and Prayer, Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1953. Medina, Bart., Expositio in Tertiam Partem Sti. Thomae, λ'εηίοε, 1690. Meynard, Traité de la Vie Intérieure, or, Petite Somme de Théologie Ascét., Vol. I, Paris, 1923. Migne, J. P., Editor, Cursus Completus Theologiae, Paris, 1841, Disscr. X De Variis Christi Titulis et Officiis, by Le Grand. -------- , Cursus Completus Sacrae Scripturae, Paris, 1862. -------- , Cursus Completus Patrologiae Lat. et Graec., Paris. Nicolas, Marie Jos., O.P., Article in La Vie Spirituelle—Supplément L’Intercession de la Vierge, Torn. 58, March, 1939, Paris, 1939— pp. 129-166. Pegues, Thomas, O.P., Commentaire Française Littéral de la Somme Théol., Vol. 15, Le Rédempteur—Paris, 1933. Perrone, Joannes, S.J., Praelectiones Theologicae, Vol. 4, Roma, 1836. Petavius, Dionysius, S.J., Dogmata Theologica, Tom. 6, De Incarnatione Verbi, Paris, 1867. Pohle, Joseph, Lehrbuch, der Dogmatik, Tom. 2, Paderborn, 1903. Ragusa, Joseph, S.J., Commentarii ac Disputationes in Tertiam Partem Sancti Thomae, Lyons, 1665. Raynaudius, Theophilus, S.J., Opera Omnia, Christus Deus Homo, Tom. 1, Lyons, 1665. Raynerius De Pisis, O.P., Panthcologia, Pars Prima, Lyons, 1665. Ripalda, Joan. Martinez De, S.J., De Ente Supernatural! Tom. 4, Roma, 1871. Salmanticenses, Collegii, Cursus Theologicus, Tom. 16, De Incarnatione, Paris, 1881. Satolli, Franciscus, Praelectiones in Sum. Theol. Divi Thomae, De Incar­ natione, Roma, 1888. Schwalm, O.P., Le Christ d’après St. Thomas d’Aquin, Notes gathered by Menne, O.P., 8th Edition, Paris, 1910. Sertillanges, La Prière, Paris, 1917. Scotus, Joannes Duns, O.F.M., Opera Omnia, Paris, 1894. --------- , Comment, in Sum. Sti. Thomae, Roma, 1903. Simar, Dr. Hub. Theophil, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, Freiburg i.b., 1887. Suarez, Franciscus, S.J., Opera Omnia, Tom. 18, Paris, Vives, 1866. Sylvius, Franciscus, Comment, in Tertiam Partem Sancti Thomae, Tom. 4, Venice, 1726—Also Douai Edit. 1622. Tanner, Adam, S.J., Theologia Scholastica, Tom. 4, De Incarnatione, In­ golstadt, 1627. Tanquery, Adolphe, The Spiritual Life, translated by Branderis, Phila­ delphia, 1938. Terrien, S.J., La Mère de Dieu et La Mère dés Hommes, Édit. 6, Paris, Lithielleux, 1933. 64 Bibliography Thomas Aquinas, St., Summa Theologica, Summa Contra Gentiles, Ques­ tiones Disputatae, Marietti, Turin, 1932. --------- , Catena Aurea in Quatuor Evang., Marietti, Turin, 1938. --------- , Comment, in Omnes St. Pauli Epistolas, Marietti, Turin, 1929. --------- , Opuscula Selecta, Paris, Lethielleux, Tom. 1, 1881. --------- , Scriptum Super Sententiarum Libros, Vol. 1 and 2 Edited by Mandonnet, O.P., Paris, 1929—Vol. 3 Edited by Moos, O.P., Paris. 1933. --------- , Commentum in Quatuor Libros Sent. Petri Lombardi, Vol. 2, Lib. 3 and 4, Parmae, 1858. ------—, Compendium of Theology, translated by Cyril Vollert, S.J., S.T.D., B. Herder Book Co., 1952. Thomassinus, Ludovicus, Dogmata Theologica, Tom. 4, Editio nova, Paris, Vives, 1868. Toletus, Franciscus, S.J., Enarratio in Summam Theol, Sti. Thomae, Part. 3, Roma, 1870. Tournely, Honoratus, Praelectiones Theologicae, De Incarnatione, Toni. 4, Venice, 1755. Vallgornera, Thomas, O.P., Mystica Theologia Divi Thomae, Edit. 4, compiled by J. J. Berthier, O.P., Turin, 1924. Vasquez, Gabriel, S.J., Comment, et Disputationes in Tertiam Partem Sancti Thomae, Tom. 1, Ingolstadt, 1610. Wiggers, Joannes, S.T.D., Commentaria in Tertiam Partem Sum. Theol. Divi Thomae, De Verbo Incarnato, Editio 4, Louvain, 1689. Ysambertus, Nicolaus, Disputationes in Tertiam Partem Sti. Thomae, De Mysterio Incarnationis, Paris, 1639. Zubizaretta, Valentinus, Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica, Editio Altera, Correcta—Bilbao, 1925.