|
State of the question. There is some difficulty, for the Psalmist,
speaking in the person of Christ, says: "In Thee, O Lord, have
I hoped."[887] Moreover, Christ awaited or hoped for the
glorification of His body and the building up of His mystical body.
Conclusion. St. Thomas, with whom the majority of theologians
agree, maintains that Christ did not have the virtue of hope but had a
certain act of hope or rather of desire concerning things He did not
yet possess.
Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: "What a man seeth, why doth he
hope for?"[888] But Christ did not have faith, as was said
above,[889] because from the beginning (of the hypostatic union)
He enjoyed the vision of the divine essence. Therefore, too, He
did not have the virtue of hope.
Theological proof. The reason for this proof is taken from the formal
or primary object of hope, for hope, considered as a theological
virtue, has God Himself as its primary object, whose fruition is
expected. But Christ from the beginning of His conception had the
complete fruition of the divine essence, as will be stated farther
on.[890] Therefore He did not have the theological virtue of
hope.
The principle of the preceding article applies equally here, namely,
a virtue cannot be in a subject to whom its primary act is derogatory.
However, at the end of the argumentative part of this article, St.
Thomas admits that Christ had a certain act of hope or rather of
desire as regards some things, so that He could expect the
glorification of His body and the building up of the Church. Thus
the Psalmist, speaking in the person of Christ, says: "In Thee,
O Lord, have I hoped."[891] But these things do not
constitute the primary object of the theological virtue of hope, and
thus it remains true that Christ did not have this theological virtue
of hope.
Therefore of all intellectual creatures, the hope of the Blessed
Virgin Mary was the most sublime especially on Mount Calvary, when
all the apostles, with the exception of St. John, did not have the
courage to witness the death of Christ. Hence it is said of her:
"Grant that I may carry the cross of Christ."[892]
First doubt. To what virtue must we attribute this act of desire in
Christ for the glorification of His body and the building up of the
Church?
Reply. This act must be attributed to the virtue of charity, as its
secondary act, whereby Christ loved Himself and the Church, for
God's sake, as the Evangelist says: "Greater love than this no
man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."[893]
Thus the love of concupiscence by which we desire eternal life for the
glory of God, is attributed to us as a secondary act of charity.
Second doubt. Was there penance as a virtue in Christ?
Reply. There was no penance, as a virtue, in Christ, because it
implies in the strict sense sorrow for one's own sins. But Christ
was impeccable, as will be explained farther on. The Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office forbade such invocations as:
"Heart of Jesus, penitent for us, Jesus penitent, Jesus penitent
for us."[894]
The truth of this reply is clearly established since it agrees with the
generally accepted teaching of St. Thomas, which declares that
penance is a special virtue that is distinct not only from the virtue of
religion, but also from the virtue of vindictive justice and of all the
other virtues.[895]
Thus the primary and specific act of penance is sorrow for one's own
sins with the motive of amendment, and the intention of performing
salutary acts in satisfaction for one's past offenses.
But a virtue cannot be in a subject to whom its primary act is
intrinsically repugnant. But the act of penance is intrinsically
repugnant to Christ's human nature, because it was united to the
Word.[896] But Christ had a perfect detestation for sin
inasmuch as it is an offense against God, arising from the intensity
of His love for God offended and for souls that are dead to God
through mortal sin.
|
|
