2. q.87: how it understands itself and things contained in itself
3. q.88: how it understands immaterial substances, which are above it.
2. q.89: how it understands when separated therefrom
2. [the acts of the soul in regard to the appetitive power, which is covered in the second part of this work, which is the consideration of moral matters]
2. q.21: of the consequences of human actions by reason of their goodness and malice or what results from the good or evil of a human act, as merit or demerit, sin and guilt
2. qq.22-48: those acts which are common to man and the other animals, the passions
1. q.58: of the difference between them and intellectual virtues
2. qq.59-60: of their distinction one from another, in respect of their proper matter, and since those moral virtues which are about the passions differ according to the difference of passions, we must consider:
many modernists had attempted to undermine various aspects
cf. propositions condemned by Pius X that attempted to discredit the traditional teachings of the church
Lamentabili sane
Scripture has taught this
the Church has taught this
from the earliest days
G-L: we’ll look at the possibility of the Incarnation
the modernist heresies
meaning of Incarnation
G-L: “act of becoming man”
(d) Incarnation: union of the human nature with the Divine in the Person of the Word
this is essentially supernatural
can our human reason see this as possible, or must we take it merely by faith?
yes, reason can see it as possible
this is at the supernatural level
(d) supernatural: no necessary evident connection with things of the natural order
unaided human reason (without the light of faith) can show that objections against the Incarnation are either:
false
unnecessary
e.g., “an alien is never pink”, but that’s not a real objection
but it can not be proved by reason
a.1: whether it is fitting that God should become Incarnate
sed contra
argument from St. Paul
argument
(d) fittingness: in accord with something’s nature
God’s nature is essential goodness
it belongs to goodness to diffuse itself to others
that is (per G-L): an aptitude or propensity to communicate itself, not a necessity to communicate itself
if it’s necessary, God has no choice
contra neo-Platonism (?), things come from God and return to God
the diffusion of goodness is free and gratuitous
the Incarnation is the highest level of the communication of God’s goodness
because it is a participation of himself in person
why didn’t he join himself with other types of natures, rather than just human nature?
pantheism: a mixing of the natures, destroying the distinction of the natures
human nature could not have been elevated any higher than the hypostatic union
ad 1um
God himself was in no way changed by the Incarnation
relation between God and humans
there is a real relation of union of Christ’s humanity to the Word
but not of the Word to the assumed humanity
G-L: the Word does not possess human nature in the substantive sense like a substance receiving a form;
a form is less perfect than the whole
e.g.
the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is not more perfect when it is understood by me
the Beatific Vision is not made more perfect by ...
G-L: the Word posesses the human nature personally and terminatively, insofar as the Word is the intrinsic terminus, terminating and perfecting the humanity, e.g., visual faculty terminated in object seen
as an object seen terminates the visual faculty
ad 2um
it’s not fitting to human nature to be united to God
but it is fitting that God is united to human nature: by reason of his goodness
a.2: whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the word of God should become incarnate? yes, in a way
corpus
two ideas of necessity
1. the end can not be obtained without something (strict necessity)
2. the end can be obtained better and more conveniently
a. furtherance of the good
i. faith is made more certain by believing that God Incarnate is speaking rather than mere man
cf. Jn 8:14
cf. Jn 7:46
ii. hope is strengthened; our redemption is achieved in a sensible way
iii. charity is enkindled by seeing the love of God in the Incarnation, especially in the Passion
iv. example of Christ himself in well-doing
v. our full participation in the Divinity is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity
St. Augustine: “God was made man that man might be made God”
b. bringing us away from evil
i. Christ defeats the devil through human nature, we are led to despise the devil even though we only have a human nature
man is taught not to prefer (or fear) the devil because Christ defeats the
ii. we are taught the greatness of our dignity and not to stain it by sin
iii. presumption is taken away because we see that we are saved by Christ, and not by our own actions
iv. Christ’s example of humilty can withdraw us from pride
v. it helps free man from the attractiveness of sin
e.g. contemplating the Passion
1um: nothing is added to God by the Incarnation
he could have redeemed us in other ways
ad 1um: St. Thomas agrees, but points out that this refers to the first necessity, not the second
2um: man could satisfy for sin
ad 2um: satisfaction can be understood in two ways
1. condign
payment that is equal
this is impossible for man to make up
theandric
acts of the God-Man
acts done by the sacred humanity of Christ
our Lord can give this condign satisfaction
this is more fitting
Durandus of St. Pourcain, O.P. (1275-1332)
not the 13th C. William Durandus
a creature adorned with a great amount of grace could attone for sin
not the common teaching of theologians
Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor
“no created power could suffice to expiate the crimes of men”
seems to contradict Durandus and his followers
2. congruant
a partial payment that is accepted by the creditor as satisfaction
a.3: whether God would have become incarnate if man had not sinned? no, it seems not
corpus
opinion of yes
St. Albert the Great
Alexander of Hales
(Franciscan, teacher of St. Bonaventure and “father of the Franciscan School”)
1180-1245
Bl. Duns Scotus
Scotist position: unconditional or absolute predestination of the Incarnation
if he hadn’t come to save sinners, he wouldn’t have come in passible flesh, or as a physician to save souls
sources
Col 1:15 ff: Christ, “who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature”
response of Thomists: perhaps Christ refers to the Word, the second person of the Trinity
or that Our Lord is above all creatures
this passage doesn’t talk about motive
in their position, reason for the Incarnation:
1. the predestination of anyone to glory precedes by nature on the the part of the object the foreknowledge of any sin whatsoever and this includes Christ
Thomists’ reply: yes, in the order of final cause (i.e., the glory of God), but not in the order of disposing cause
the human race to be redeemed stands in relation to the Incarnation in the order of material cause to be perfected (disposing cause)
the human race is not the end for whose sake the Incarnation is decreed, but the end to whom it is beneficial
2. God first wills the end, then things more immediate to the end
so: God first wills to give glory to Christ
glory of the predestined is subordinated to the glory of Christ
3. the glory (and redemption) of the souls of men is not so great a good as the glory of Christ’s soul
therefore redemption is not seen as the sole reason for why God predestined Christ’s soul to glory
Thomists: God willed the greater glory of Christ’s soul in connection with the glory of men
he didn’t need to do so, but he chose to do so
4. it’s not likely that a less good (redemption of men) is the only reason for such a greater good (glory of Christ)
Thomists: many great things depend on lesser ones
cf. Thomist position: conditioned predestination of the Incarnation
supporting sources
everywhere in Scripture, it seems that the reason of the Incarnation is because of the sin of Adam
I Tim 1:15 “Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners”
Luke 5:31: “I can not to call the just but sinners to penance”
Luke 19:10: “the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost”
John 3:16: “for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever might believe in him..."
also in the liturgy
“O felix culpa” in the Exsultet
originally by St. Augustine
another text: If man had not of sinned, the Son of Man would not have come
also in the Church Fathers
Gregory Nazianzen
etc.
motive of the Incarnation
formally the motive of mercy
“Jesus”
meaning of the name: “God saves”
Scotists: it isn’t likely that a greater good was subject to the lower good
summary of the Scotist position (from the Thomist perspective):
both sides agree on this: God can’t will that the higher order be subjected to the lower order
but Thomists assert: but God can’t will the higher for the lower as the perfective and ultimate end, but he can will the higher for the lower as the end that is to be perfected or repaired from a motive of mercy
mercy is the greatest of virtues in God (IIa-IIae, q.30, a.4)
St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure agree, in opposition to their teachers
a.4: whether God became incarnate to take away actual sin rather than to take away original sin?
he came for both
a.5: whether it is fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race?
sed contra
Gal.4:4: God came “in the fullness of time"
corpus
not fitting right after the fall, for three reasons:
1. because the chief sin is pride; the wait would humble man
2. an order from imperfection to perfection
a. natural
b. Mosaic law
c. new law
3. more fitting for his dignity that his coming be announced
4. its best not to wait too long or else faith should cool by the length of time
a.6: whether it is fitting that God should become incarnate at the end of the human race?
corpus
1.
fervor of faith would cool (see previous article)
knowledge of God and morality in general would decrease
2. it’s not fitting ofr the efficient cause of the perfection of the human race to be put off until near the end of time
3. it’s fitting not only to have faith in some future thing, but also to have faith in something present and past
q.2: the hypostatic union: virtually contains the entire treatise on the the Incarnation
a.1: whether the union of the Incarnate Word took place in the nature?
in other words, did the union result in one nature?
this is against monophysitism
sed contra (supplied by Fr. Lawrence):
Is.9:6: “a child is born to us…his name shall be called…God the mighty”
Phil. 2:6: form of God and form of a servant
the fathers: St. Athenasius, St. Ephrem, Tertullian
corpus
essense or quidditas of the species
three ways it could happen, if the union took place in one nature:
1. two perfect things that remain such which is called a composition
this is only a relative and accidental unity
it’s a composition
like two stones coming together
2. two perfect things that become a third, which become changed
can’t work because the divine nature is immutable
3. two imperfect things that have neither been changed nor mixed (e.g. body and soul of man)
this would mean that the divine nature would be less perfect than the resulting composition
a.2: whether the union of the incarnate word took place in the person?
background on definitions
1. suppositum
hypostasis vs. suppositum
same thing, but under different aspects
a whole that has the nature as its formal part to perfect it
suppositum: “that which is”
nature: “that by which a thing is such as it is”
cf. Summa Theologiea, Ia, q.29
2. person
“a suppositum having a rational nature”
a descriptive definition, not a strict definition
applied to Christ
one suppositum: the divine person
the human nature needs a suppositum
ad 3um: how can it be that the human nature in Christ did not have its own person?
not every individual substance is a person (even including rational substances)
for an individual rational substance to be a person, it must exist by itself
so Boethius’ definition of person is not complete
St. Thomas is adding the note that it must exist by itself
Later Thomists: a person is an entirely incommunicable individual substance of a rational nature
other errors
Anton Günther (Austrian, 1783-1863)
his teachings on the Trinity and … were condemned by Bl. Pius IX (D.1655)
Bl. Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855)
not a Thomast
the will constitutes human personality by which everyone is responsible for and master of oneself
tried to avoid Nestorianism
in the specific case of our Lord, his will was so rapt by the Holy Spirit that it gave up completely to its human control of the Word
G-L: but a person’s will is an inseperable accident of …?; therefore, this rapture of Rosmini is nothing more than a moral union, meaning there are two persons
Thomists say: ontological personality is what is real
i.e., no such thing as psychological personality, phenomenal personality, etc.
Scholastic concepts of personality (see p. 145 in G-L)
two major differences
those admitting real distinctions between distinctions and what exists
Thomists differ in the details, but this is the Scholastic view
those denying real distinctions
Suarez (mode): personality a substantial mode that presupposes the existence of the substance and renders it incommunicable
makes the ultimate foundation of personality a mode
but he makes no real distinction between...
Bl. Duns Scotus (negative): it is something negative (the negation of the hypostatic union)
personality is not being assumed by a higher principle
a.1: whether in the soul of Christ there was any habitual grace? YES
respondeo
three reasons to suppose habitual grace in Christ
1. on account of the union with union of His soul with the Word, the Author of Grace
the nearer a recipient is to an inflowing cause, the more it partakes of its influence
2. on account of the dignity of Christ’s soul whose operations were to attain so closely to God by knowledge and love
the operations can only be elicited connaturally by habitual grace
Fr. G-L:
3. on account of Christ’s role as mediator of God and man, it behooved him to have grace which would flow upon others
ad 1um:
the human soul is not essentially Divine, so it behooves it to become Divine by habitual grace
ad 3um:
though an instrument, it is animated by a rational soul
another objection:
if Christ had habitual grace, he would be an adopted Son of God
reply: adopted sonship is not the primary effect of habitual grace (the primary effect is deification of the soul)
a.2: whether in Christ there were virtues? YES
respondeo
the more perfect a principle is, the more it impresses its effects (infused virutes stem from habitual grace in a proportionate degree)
some virtues
are only necessary for some defect
since he did not have any defects, he did not have these virtues
but all other virtues he possessed in perfection
what about the acquired virtues?
generally, they say yes
Christ had the acquired moral virtues since without the extrinsic facility to do acts of virtue, it seems he wouldn't be morally perfect
but these might have been infused
Constantinople II: “he was not subjected to the passions, nor did he become better by the repitition of virtuous acts” (D. 224)
not unprecedented since Adam and Eve seem to have had them infused also (Adam was temperate, it seems)
St. Thomas: “our Lord advanced in wisdom and grace not by an actual increase of the habits, but becasue as he advanced in age he perfeormed more perfect works”
a.3: whether in Christ there was faith? NO
ad 1um: faith implies a defect
a.4: whether in Christ there was hope? NO
a.5: whether in Christ were the gifts? YES
a.6: whether in Christ was the gift of fear? YES
a.7: whether the gratuitous gifts were in Christ? YES
obj. 1: if he has the fullness of grace, why does he need other graces?
sed contra
Christ had all the gratuitous graces in their fullness
a.8: whether in Christ there was the gift of prophecy?
obj.: prophecy implies a certain obscurity of knowledge
things were distant from himself as wayfarer, not as a comprehensor
a.9: whether in Christ there was the fullness of grace?
a.10: whether the fullness of grace is proper to Christ? YES
obj: others are full of grace
our Lady
Acts 6:8: St. Stephen
Eph. 3:19
a.11: whether the grace of Christ is infinite? NO
a.12: whether the grace of Christ could increase? NO
ad 1um
With Christ the proper measure of grace (that is, habitual grace, a finite natural quantity) was determined by Divine Wisdom and it would be repugnant for it to increase.
ad 2um
Divine power could make the habitual grace of Christ better, but ...
Absolutely speaking, Divine power could have made habitual grace of Christ could have made it greater, but not inasmuch as it is ordained to its proper end—the incarnation, as decreed by the Divine wisdom.
ad 3um
(Luke 2:52: Christ increased in grace and wisdom, etc.)
Christ did not increase in the habits of wisdom and grace, but rather in the effects. Our Lord did more perfect works, and he exercised the virtues that he possessed in a more perfect way.
a.13: whether habitual grace of Christ followed after the union? YES
a.1: whether Christ is the head of the Church? YES, as man
ad 1um
Christ gives grace authoritatively as God; instrumentally as man
by the power of his Divinity, Christ’s actions were beneficial, causing grace in us both meritoriously and efficiently
a.2: whether Christ is the head of men as to their bodies or only as to their souls? YES
a.3: whether Christ is the head of all men? YES
ad 3um: the ancient fathers had the same faith and charity as us, ergo they can be counted as members of the Church
but how can they experience the grace from Christ especially as man, since they lived before him?
Fr. G-L:
our Lord merited the grace of salvation even for the just in the Old Testament
Christ was the moral meritorious cause of grace for the ancient Fathers
on account of Christ’s future merits, God bestowed grace on them
after our Lord’s incarnation, our Lord not only morally influences us but physically influences us
moral influence vs. physical influence
physical is not material matter
“physis” - nature
not physical as opposed to spiritual, but physical as nature, which is acted upon
physical: an actual change in the nature of the thing
efficiently causal
it has an intrinsic effect
moral
only an extrinsic effect
for us (after the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ): we are both morally influenced by Christ—we receive grace dependent upon his past merits—and we are physically influenced since the living Christ is the instrumental cause of grace
what about Adam and Eve before the Fall?
they were in the state of grace before the Fall
how did they get that grace?
Scotists and other say that Christ is the head of all of the pre-destined
most Thomists say that Christ as man was not the head of Adam and Eve in the state of innocence
of course, Christ as God was head of Adam and Eve
St. Thomas (in De Veritate, q.29, a.4, ad 3um):
Christ was Head of the Church as man after sin (the Fall)
text from De Veritate
"If we assume the opinion that Christ would not have become incarnate if man had not sinned, then before the sin Christ would have been the head of the Church in His divine nature alone, but since the sin He must be the head of the Church in His human nature as well. For by sin human nature has been wounded and immersed in sensible things so that it is no longer sufficiently suited to the invisible government of the Word. For this reason medicine had to be applied to the wound through Christ’s humanity, through which He made atonement. He also had to assume a visible nature in order that man might be recalled to invisible things through a visible exercise of government.”
a.4: whether Christ is head of the angels? YES
a.5: whether the habitual grace of Christ is essentially the same has his capital grace?
a.6: whether it is proper to Christ to be head of the Church?
1. q.14: the defects of the body assumed by the Word
a.1: whether the Son of God in human nature ought to have assumed defects of body?
objections
knowledge, virtue was perfect
he enjoyed the Beatific vision; thereby the soul is glorified
bodily defects are caused by sin
sed contra
Heb. 2:18: “For in that, where he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able also to succor them that are tempted.”
body
three reasons why it is fitting for Christ to have bodily defects
1. Christ came to satisfy for the sin of the human race, but one satisfies for another’s sin by taking the punishment upon himself
2. to promote belief in the incarnation (human nature is experienced by men as passible in body and soul)
3. to show us an example of patience by valiantly beaaring up against human passibility and defects
ad 1um
It behooved Christ’s soul to be perfect in knowledge and virtue in order to be efficacious in satisfying since the principle of satisfaction is in the soul, but it behooved his body to be passible so that the matter of satisfaction was not lacking
ad 2um
It is true that glory naturall flows from the soul to the body but this is subject to the will of the Godhead—Christ prevented glory from flowing to his body
ad 3um
Christ was completely sinless, but he endured bodily defects for our sake
Is. 53:5: he was wounded for our iniquities
a.2: whether Christ was of necessity subject to these defects?
a.3: whether Christ contracted these defects? NO
ad 1um
a.4: whether Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men?
ad 1um: (obj: Christ prayed the 21st Psalm, which mentions “my sins”)
no, these were the sins of the Mystical Body
ad 4um: (obj: “God hath made sin for us”)
this does not mean God made Christ sinful, but that Christ was a victim and sacrifice for sin
the best example of penance is to voluntarily bear the punishment for others’ sins than of having penance for his own sins
Calvin thought Christ despaired of sin while on the cross when he prayed “Deus meus, Deus meus, (why hast though abandoned me)”
a. the psalm ends in hope
b. even if we consider only these words, they can be understood to express the grief of Christ’s sensible appetites—not despair (an expression of our Lord’s sensible and conditional will, not of his rational and absolute will)
a.2: whether there was fomes of sin in Christ?
a.3: whether in Christ there was ignorance?
a.4: whether Christ’s soul was passible?
a.5: whether there was sensible pain in Christ?
a.6: whether there was sorrow in Christ?
a.7: whether there was fear in Christ?
a.8: whether was wonder in Christ?
a.9: whether there was anger in Christ?
a.10: whether Christ was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor?
a.1: whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation? (necessity in general) YES (condition-state-prone)
a.2: whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man? NO
a.3: whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ? YES
a.4: whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came? YES (but only until glory)
q.62: the sacraments principal effect, which is grace
a.1: whether the sacraments are the cause of grace? YES, intrinsically
a.2: whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts? YES (a certain spiritual regeneration by which a man dies to sin and becomes a member of Christ)
a.3: whether the sacraments of the new law contain grace? YES
a.4: whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace? YES
a.5: whether the sacraments of the new law derive their power from Christ’s passion?*** YES
a.6: whether the sacraments of the old law caused grace? NO
q.63: the other effect of the sacraments, which is a character
a.1: whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul? YES
a.2: whether a character is a spiritual power? YES IT IS A POWER
a.3: whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ? YES
a.4: whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul? YES (in the powers, but not in the essence)
a.5: whether a character can be blotted out from the soul? NO
a.6: whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the new law? NOT ALL
a.1: whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect?
a.2: whether the sacraments are instituded by God alone? YES
sed contra
God alone can institute
ad 1um
the essential parts of the sacrament are instituted by Christ himself, who is God and man
though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor 11:34), the rest I will set in order when I come
a.3: whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect? NO (but his power of ministry in chief consists in this: Passion-name-institute-effect)
a.4: whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which he had in the sacraments? YES
a.5: whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers? YES
a.6: whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments? YES
a.7: whether angels can administer sacraments? YES
a.8: whether the minister’s intention is required for the validity of a sacrament? YES
a.9: whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament? NO
a.10: whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister? NO
a.1: whether all sins are taken away by baptism? YES
a.2: whether man is freed by baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin? YES
a.3: whether baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life? NO
aa.4-8: what baptism adds
a.4: habits: whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by baptism? YES
a.5: acts: whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of baptism, to wit—incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness? YES
a.6: whether children receive grace and virtue in baptism? YES
a.7: whether the effect of baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom? YES
a.8: whether baptism has an equal effect in all? YES
aa.9-10: fictio, or insincerity
a.9: whether insincerity (fictio) hinders the effect of baptism? YES
a.10: whether baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases? YES
