Works › Commentary on the Apocalypse of Blessed John
Volume 38 · pp. 571–572
Chapter V: doubtful questions
A marker with ≈ is an approximate page boundary, placed by measure of the text; the page photographs remain the authority. In the paired views, clicking a page marker brings that page into view.
Hic sunt dubitabilia.
Primo, super illo verbo V. 4: « Et ego flebam multum. » Quaeritur, Cum jam quando Joannes ista cernebat, iste liber per mysterium nativitatis, passionis, et resurrectionis, etc., fuisset revelatus, quare se dicit flevisse quia non inveniebatur quis esset dignus aperire?
Responsio secundum Haymonem et Glossam. Sciendum, quod non ex persona sua beatus Joannes, sed ex persona Patrum Veteris Testamenti flevit: quia flebant desiderantes adventum Filii Dei in mundum: in quorum persona Psalmista, Psal. XLI, 4, dicit: Fuerunt mihi lacrymae meae panes. Quasi dicat: Ploro propter dilationem adventus Dei mei in carnem.
Sed ulterius quaeritur juxta hoc, Quare non dicit, quod Angelus fortis fleret qui magna voce praedicabat, et Patres Veteris Testamenti significabat?
Responsio. Hoc factum est ad signandum, quod eadem est unitas Ecclesiae in Novo et Veteri Testamento. Cantic. VI, 8: Una est columba mea. Et ideo Joannes, qui erat persona Novi Testamenti, in persona antiquorum Patrum se flere dicebat.
Secundo, super illo verbo V. 6: « Et vidi... Agnum stantem tamquam occisum, » quaeritur, Quare prius vocat eum leonem, modo vocat eum agnum?
Responsio. Leo dicitur propter victoriam, agnus vero propter victimam: leo quia diabolum vicit, agnus quia seipsum offerens mundum redemit. Ubi ergo ponitur consolatio Joannis flentis, describitur victoria per quam habet potestatem Librum aperire et solvere signacula ejus: ubi vero accipit Librum, quia hoc per passionem meruit, vocatur agnus. Item, leo fuit per potentiam majestatis, agnus vero per mansuetudinem humilitatis: et leo malos puniendo, agnus vero eosdem tolerando.
Tertio, super illo verbo V. 11: « Et audivi vocem Angelorum, » quaeritur. Quae sit illa vox, aut sensibilis, aut intelligibilis? Et videtur quod sensibilis. Dionysius in libro de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia: « Illuminationis excellentiam sensibiliter dicendo, tamquam vox aquarum reboant: Benedicta gloria Domini 1: » ergo vox Angelorum fuit sensibilis. Contra: Damascenus: « Lumina intellectualia, id est, Angeli, sine voce prolata tradentia sunt sibi invicem et consilia et intelligentia 2: » ergo vox eorum non est sensibilis.
Here there are doubtful questions.
First, on that word V. 4: “And I was weeping much.” It is asked: Since already, when John was seeing these things, this book had been revealed through the mystery of the nativity, passion, and resurrection, etc., why does he say that he wept because no one was being found who was worthy to open it?
Response according to Haymo and the Gloss. It must be known that blessed John wept not from his own person, but from the person of the Fathers of the Old Testament, because they wept while desiring the coming of the Son of God into the world; in their person the Psalmist says, Psalm XLI, 4: My tears have been breads to me. As if he were saying: I weep because of the delay of the coming of my God into flesh.
But further it is asked according to this: Why does he not say that the strong Angel wept, who was proclaiming with a great voice and signified the Fathers of the Old Testament?
Response. This was done to signify that the unity of the Church is the same in the New and Old Testament. Canticle VI, 8: One is my dove. And therefore John, who was a person of the New Testament, said that he wept in the person of the ancient Fathers.
Second, on that word V. 6: “And I saw... a Lamb standing as though slain,” it is asked: Why before does he call him a lion, but now calls him a lamb?
Response. He is called lion because of victory, but lamb because of victimhood: lion because he conquered the devil, lamb because by offering himself he redeemed the world. Therefore where the consolation of John weeping is set down, there is described the victory through which he has the power to open the Book and loose its seals; but where he receives the Book, because he merited this through the passion, he is called lamb. Likewise, he was a lion through the power of majesty, but a lamb through the meekness of humility; and a lion by punishing the wicked, but a lamb by tolerating those same ones.
Third, on that word V. 11: “And I heard the voice of Angels,” it is asked what that voice is, whether sensible or intelligible. And it seems that it is sensible. Dionysius in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy says: “Speaking sensibly of the excellence of illumination, like a voice of waters they resound: Blessed is the glory of the Lord 1.” Therefore the voice of Angels was sensible. On the contrary: Damascene says: “Intellectual lights, that is, Angels, without a voice uttered, hand on to one another both counsels and understanding 2.” Therefore their voice is not sensible.
Responsio. Vox Angelorum sensibilis non est, sed intelligibilis. Cum enim non accipiant notitiam rei alicujus mediante aliquo sensibili, non manifestant suam voluntatem aliqua voce sensibili. Unde laus eorum non est laus vocalis. Unde Gregorius: « Vox Angelorum in laude conditoris est ipsa admiratio intimae contemplationis. » Et quia hanc admirationem Joannes intellexit, ideo dicitur audisse vocem, id est, intellexisse.
Ad illud quod dicit Dionysius, dicendum quod non dicit Angelos loqui sensibiliter, nisi sensu interiori: quia omnia interiora eorum sentiunt illam illuminationem et dilectionem quam a Deo accipiunt.
Quarto, super illo verbo V. 12: « Dignus est Agnus, qui occisus est, accipere virtutem. » Glossa, id est, immunitatem a peccato. Contra: Non accipit illam quia passus est et merito Passionis, sed ex unione Verbi.
Responsio. Ipse quoad se semper habuit immunitatem peccati, sed nobis accepit merito Passionis: quia ex Passione habuerunt efficaciam contra peccata sacramenta, et praecipue baptismus. Vel sic: Ex unione habuit immunitatem a peccato secundum rei veritatem, sed merito Passionis quantum ad manifestationem et evidentiam.
Quinto quaeritur, Cum supra, V. 6: dictum sit: « Vidi Agnum tamquam occisum, » hic dicit: « Dignus est Agnus, qui occisus est, » quare differenter hoc dicatur?
Responsio. Quod dicitur hic occisus, exprimit veritatem rei. Quod dicitur supra tamquam occisus, excludit in morte detentionem. Psal. XV, 10: Non dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
Ultimo, super illo verbo V. 13: « Sedenti in throno et Agno, benedictio, et honor, etc., » quaeritur, Cum praedicta, scilicet, virtutem et fortitudinem habuerint Angeli ab initio mundi antequam Filius incarnaretur, cum secundum humanitatem dicatur agnus, videtur quod agno non debent talia attribui.
Responsio. Agno attribuitur in quantum est Deus, non in quantum est homo: vel quia per ipsum reparata est ruina Angelorum. Ad Ephes. I, 10: Instaurare omnia in Christo, quae in caelis et quae in terra sunt, in ipso.
Response. The voice of Angels is not sensible, but intelligible. For since they do not receive knowledge of any reality through the mediation of something sensible, they do not manifest their will by any sensible voice. Hence their praise is not vocal praise. Hence Gregory says: “The voice of Angels in praise of the creator is the very admiration of inward contemplation.” And because John understood this admiration, therefore he is said to have heard a voice, that is, to have understood.
To what Dionysius says, one must say that he does not say that Angels speak sensibly except by an interior sense, because all their interior things sense that illumination and love which they receive from God.
Fourth, on that word V. 12: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power.” The Gloss says: that is, immunity from sin. On the contrary: He does not receive that because he suffered and by the merit of the Passion, but from the union of the Word.
Response. With respect to himself he always had immunity from sin, but he received it for us by the merit of the Passion, because from the Passion the sacraments, and especially baptism, had efficacy against sins. Or thus: From the union he had immunity from sin according to the truth of the reality, but by the merit of the Passion with respect to manifestation and evidence.
Fifth it is asked: Since above, V. 6, it was said: “I saw a Lamb as though slain,” here he says: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain”; why is this said differently?
Response. That it is said here “slain” expresses the truth of the reality. That it is said above “as though slain” excludes detention in death. Psalm XV, 10: You will not give your holy one to see corruption.
Last, on that word V. 13: “To the one sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, etc.,” it is asked: Since the things mentioned before, namely power and strength, Angels had from the beginning of the world before the Son was incarnate, while according to humanity he is called lamb, it seems that such things ought not be attributed to the lamb.
Response. It is attributed to the Lamb insofar as he is God, not insofar as he is man; or because through him the ruin of the Angels was repaired. To the Ephesians I, 10: To restore all things in Christ, the things that are in heaven and the things that are on earth, in him.
If a page does not appear, its photograph has not been uploaded yet.