|
State of the question. The third part of this question begins here.
After the consideration of the grace of the virtues and of the gifts
and of the graces gratis datae in Christ, St. Thomas treats of the
fullness of grace. He asks whether Christ was simply full of grace,
both intensively and extensively.
This article and those that follow are therefore concerned with the
perfection of Christ's grace.
Conclusion. Christ had fullness of grace, both intensively, that
is, as regards its perfection, and extensively, that is, as regards
the various effects it can produce.
Scriptural proof. The Evangelist says: "We saw His glory...
full of grace and truth.... And of His fullness we have all
received, and grace for grace."[929] Likewise St. John the
Baptist testified concerning Christ, and the Evangelist says; "He
whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God; for God does not
give to Him the spirit by measure. The Father loveth the Son, and
He hath given all things into His hand."[930]
The Fathers of the Church have often explained these texts by showing
that Christ, who is most full of grace, had every kind of
holiness.[931]
Theological proof. It is simply discursive and explanatory,
explaining the above quoted text.[932]
This proof may be reduced to the following syllogism.
Fullness of grace is of two kinds, namely, intensive and extensive.
But Christ had each kind. Therefore Christ had absolutely or
completely fullness of grace.
Major. It is thus explained. There is intensive fullness of any
quality in a being, for instance, of whiteness, when the being has as
much of this quality as it can naturally have. Thus it appears that a
lily has the highest possible degree of whiteness; so also snow.
Hence intensive fullness is estimated from the degree and radication of
any quality in the subject. But extensive fullness of any quality is
estimated from the relation to the various effects that any operative
principle is capable of producing; for example, the irrational animal
has not extensive fullness of life, because it has not intellectual
life, but only the vegetative life and sensitive life.
Minor. Its parts are proved. Christ had intensive fullness of
grace, that is, in the highest degree that it can be had, for two
reasons.
|
1) Because His soul, which was united to God by the most exalted
of all possible unions, which is the hypostatic union, received the
greatest influx of grace, just as the air that is nearer to the fire is
warmer and more luminous.
2) Because grace was given to Christ, as the head, from which it
was to be poured out upon all others; just as in this world nothing is
brighter than the sun, which illumines all other things. Hence the
Evangelist quotes Jesus as saying: "I am come to cast fire on the
earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?"[933] The
reference is to fire that purifies, illumines, and kindles
spiritually.
|
|
From these proofs it is apparent that intensive fullness of any quality
is estimated from its intrinsic perfection inasmuch as it is pure and
free from all imperfection. Thus snow is perfectly white; it has
whiteness in all its intensity or purity, containing no element that is
not white.
If there is reference to some operative habit, since this habit
determines the faculty to operate, it is all the more perfect
intensively, the more it determines the faculty with reference to the
formal object of the operation to be elicited, that is, it actuates
the faculty and is radicated in it. There is something similar in the
case of habitual grace, which is an entitative habit, which is
received in the essence of the soul, and is radically operative,
inasmuch as the virtues are derived from it, just as the faculties are
derived from the essence of the soul. Thus intensive fullness of
habitual grace is estimated from its intrinsic perfection free from all
imperfection, and its radication in the soul, which it especially
determines radically to operate most holily free from all imperfection.
This intensive fullness of grace would apply to Christ even if His
soul were ordered solely to the performance of acts of the love of
God.
Likewise Christ had extensive fullness of grace, which is estimated
from its relation to the various effects it can produce.
The reason is that, as St. Thomas says: "Christ had grace for
all its operations and effects, and this because it was bestowed on
Him, as upon a universal principle in the genus of such as have
grace... just as the sun is the universal cause of
generation."[934]
This twofold fullness, intensive and extensive, is called absolute on
the part of the grace itself, which by God's ordinary power cannot be
received in a more perfect manner. It is not merely relatively perfect
or according to the exigencies of the state or dignity of the subject.
In fact, this most exalted dignity of head and redeemer of the human
race demands absolute fullness of grace.
Doubt. Is this plenitude of grace more perfect intensively than
extensively?
Reply. It is the common opinion among theologians that intensive
plenitude is the more perfect, just as quality is to be preferred to
quantity, although positivism is inclined to the contrary view; for
indeed intensive plenitude is immediately estimated from the intrinsic
perfection of the quality, and is the foundation of extensive
plenitude. This is especially evident in knowledge, for its intensive
plenitude results from the deeper penetration of its first notions and
principles, whereas its extensive plenitude, both habitual and
actual, is estimated according to the number of conclusions that are
deduced from the principles. There are certain physicists who know all
the conclusions of their own science in its actual state of
development, and who have read all the books of any importance
belonging to this science. This does not mean, however, that they
have penetrated more deeply into the principles of this science; for
the scientific habit is not yet, perhaps, established in their
intellect as a sort of second nature. On the contrary, another
physicist knows more from on high the principles of this particular
science, and their subordination to the other sciences, even though he
may have forgotten certain conclusions. The perfection of a science is
not estimated according to the number of its conclusions, for although
science may make use of many subordinated ideas, it is a simple quality
that perfects the intellect in its relation to some formal object and to
certain first principles, which virtually contain all the conclusions
of this particular science.
Thus there is a great difference between Aristotle and the author of a
textbook on peripatetic philosophy. Although the author of such a
textbook may perhaps succeed in giving to this science new conclusions,
yet he has not the genius of Aristotle, nor could he be the author of
such works as the Organon, Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics of
the Stagirite. There is also a similar difference between St.
Thomas and his commentators, although the latter may succeed in giving
to the science new conclusions.
Likewise those historians Who Write a critical estimate of the life
of Napoleon have a more extensive knowledge perhaps than the
ambassadors and soldiers of his time, but they generally do not
penetrate so intensively and vividly into the mind of such a genius as
Napoleon.
Similarly those historians who insist on giving us a critical
evaluation of the Gospels, certainly have a less intensive knowledge
of Christ's preaching than the apostles had who heard Him. Thus
St. John the Evangelist had a better knowledge of Christ's
teaching than a theologian would have who would know all the condemned
propositions contained in Denzinger's Enchiridion.
Therefore, a fortiori, there was in Christ intensive plenitude of
habitual grace and hence of the virtues and gifts.
|
|
