Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the effect of the priesthood of Christ pertained not only to others, but also to Himself. For it belongs to the priest's office to pray for the people, according to 2 Macc. 1:23: "The priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming." Now Christ prayed not only for others, but also for Himself, as we have said above (Question 21, Article 3), and as expressly stated (Heb. 5:7): "In the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears He offered up prayers and supplications to Him that was able to save Him from death." Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in Himself.

Objection 2: Further, in His passion Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice. But by His passion He merited, not only for others, but also for Himself, as stated above (Question 19, Articles 3,4). Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in Himself.

Objection 3: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the Old Law offered sacrifice not only for others, but also for himself: for it is written (Lev. 16:17) that "the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for himself and his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel." Therefore the priesthood of Christ also had an effect not merely in others, but also in Himself.

On the contrary, We read in the acts of the Council of Ephesus : "If anyone say that Christ offered sacrifice for Himself, and not rather for us alone (for He Who knew not sin needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema." But the priest's office consists principally in offering sacrifice. Therefore the priesthood of Christ had no effect in Himself.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), a priest is set between God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of himself cannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of Christ; for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:25): "Coming of Himself to God, always living to make intercession for us ." And therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the effect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it receives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive light; fire gives but does not receive heat. Now Christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in His person, according to 2 Cor. 2:10: "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." Therefore it is not fitting that Christ should receive the effect of His priesthood.

Reply to Objection 1: Although prayer is befitting to priests, it is not their proper office, for it is befitting to everyone to pray both for himself and for others, according to James 5:16: "Pray for one another that you may be saved." And so we may say that the prayer by which Christ prayed for Himself was not an action of His priesthood. But this answer seems to be precluded by the Apostle, who, after saying (Heb. 5:6), "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech," adds, "Who in the days of His flesh offering up payers," etc., as quoted above (Objection 1 ): so that it seems that the prayer which Christ offered pertained to His priesthood. We must therefore say that other priests partake in the effect of their priesthood, not as priests, but as sinners, as we shall state farther on (ad 3). But Christ had, simply speaking, no sin; though He had the "likeness of sin in the flesh ," as is written Rm. 8:3. And, consequently, we must not say simply that He partook of the effect of His priesthood but with this qualification---in regard to the passibility of the flesh. Wherefore he adds pointedly, "that was able to save Him from death."

Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in the offering of a sacrifice by any priest---namely, the sacrifice itself which is offered, and the devotion of the offerer. Now the proper effect of priesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself. But Christ obtained a result from His passion, not as by virtue of the sacrifice, which is offered by way of satisfaction, but by the very devotion with which out of charity He humbly endured the passion.

Reply to Objection 3: A figure cannot equal the reality, wherefore the figural priest of the Old Law could not attain to such perfection as not to need a sacrifice of satisfaction. But Christ did not stand in need of this. Consequently, there is no comparison between the two; and this is what the Apostle says (Heb. 7:28): "The Law maketh men priests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the Law, the Son Who is perfected for evermore."

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus sacerdotii christi non solum pertinuerit ad alios, sed etiam ad ipsum. Ad officium enim sacerdotis pertinet pro populo orare, secundum illud II machab. I, orationem faciebant sacerdotes dum consummaretur sacrificium.

Sed christus non solum pro aliis oravit, sed etiam pro seipso, secundum quod supra dictum est, et sicut expresse dicitur, Heb. V, quod in diebus carnis suae preces supplicationesque ad eum qui possit illum salvum facere a morte, cum clamore valido et lacrimis obtulit.

Ergo sacerdotium christi habuit non solum in aliis, sed etiam in seipso effectum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, christus obtulit seipsum sacrificium in sua passione.

Sed per passionem suam non solum aliis meruit, sed etiam sibi, ut supra habitum est.

Ergo sacerdotium christi non solum habuit effectum in aliis, sed etiam in seipso.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sacerdotium veteris legis fuit figura sacerdotii christi. Sed sacerdos veteris legis non solum pro aliis, sed etiam pro seipso sacrificium offerebat, dicitur enim Levit. XVI, quod pontifex ingreditur sanctuarium ut roget pro se, et pro domo sua, et pro universo coetu filiorum Israel.

Ergo etiam sacerdotium christi non solum in aliis, sed in seipso effectum habuit.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod in ephesina synodo legitur, si quis dicit christum pro se obtulisse oblationem, et non magis pro nobis solum (nec enim indiguit sacrificio qui peccatum nescit), anathema sit.

Sed in sacrificio offerendo potissime sacerdotis consistit officium. Ergo sacerdotium christi non habuit effectum in ipso christo.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, sacerdos constituitur medius inter deum et populum. Ille autem indiget medio ad deum qui per seipsum accedere ad deum non potest, et talis sacerdotio subiicitur, effectum sacerdotii participans. Hoc autem christo non competit, dicit enim apostolus, Heb. VII, accedens per seipsum ad deum, semper vivens, ad interpellandum pro nobis.

Et ideo christo non competit effectum sacerdotii in se suscipere, sed potius ipsum aliis communicare. Primum enim agens in quolibet genere ita est influens quod non est recipiens in genere illo, sicut sol illuminat sed non illuminatur, et ignis calefacit sed non calefit. Christus autem est fons totius sacerdotii, nam sacerdos legalis erat figura ipsius; sacerdos autem novae legis in persona ipsius operatur, secundum illud II Cor. II, nam et ego, quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos, in persona christi.

Et ideo non competit christo effectum sacerdotii suscipere.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod oratio, etsi conveniat sacerdotibus, non tamen est eorum officio propria, cuilibet enim convenit et pro se et pro aliis orare, secundum illud Iac. Ult., orate pro invicem, ut salvemini.

Et sic posset dici quod oratio qua christus pro se oravit, non erat actus sacerdotii eius. Sed haec responsio videtur excludi per hoc quod apostolus, Heb. V, cum dixisset, tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem melchisedech, subdit, qui in diebus carnis suae preces etc., ut supra, et ita videtur quod oratio qua christus oravit, ad eius sacerdotium pertineat. Et ideo oportet dicere quod alii sacerdotes effectum sacerdotii sui participant, non inquantum sacerdotes, sed inquantum peccatores, ut infra dicetur.

Christus autem, simpliciter loquendo, peccatum non habuit, habuit tamen similitudinem peccati in carne, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Et ideo non simpliciter dicendum est quod ipse effectum sacerdotii participaverit, sed secundum quid, scilicet secundum passibilitatem carnis.

Unde signanter dicit, qui possit illum salvum facere a morte.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in oblatione sacrificii cuiuscumque sacerdotis duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipsum sacrificium oblatum, et devotio offerentis. Proprius autem effectus sacerdotii est id quod sequitur ex ipso sacrificio. Christus autem consecutus est per suam passionem, non quasi ex VI sacrificii, quod offertur per modum satisfactionis, sed ex ipsa devotione qua, secundum caritatem, passionem humiliter sustinuit.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod figura non potest adaequare veritatem.

Unde sacerdos figuralis veteris legis non poterat ad hanc perfectionem attingere ut sacrificio satisfactorio non indigeret.

Sed christus non indiguit. Unde non est similis ratio de utroque.

Et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, lex homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes, sermo autem iurisiurandi, qui post legem est, filium in aeternum perfectum.