|
State of the question. Is Christ's grace as head of the Church
really distinct from His personal habitual grace, or are the two
graces identical?
It seems that they are not the same, for the following reasons.
|
1) The actual or personal sin of Adam differs from original sin
which He transmitted to posterity. Therefore the personal grace of
Christ the new Adam is not the same as His grace of headship.
2) These graces are distinct inasmuch as they are ordained to
different acts, for Christ's personal grace is ordained for His
sanctification, whereas His capital grace is for the sanctification of
others.
3) Theologians usually distinguish between three kinds of graces in
Christ: the grace of union, the individual grace of the man, and the
capital grace.
|
|
Conclusion. Christ's personal habitual grace and His capital grace
are essentially the same, though there is a mental distinction between
them.
Very many theologians accept this conclusion, though Vasquez and
certain others teach that Christ's capital grace and His grace of
union are really the same.
Scriptural proof. The Evangelist says: "of His fullness we all
have received."[1083] Hence Christ is our head inasmuch as He
had the fullness of personal habitual grace. Hence there is no real
distinction between Christ's habitual grace and His capital grace;
at least, the text quoted above implies that these two graces are
really identical.
Theological proof. There is no difference between the act whereby
anything is in act and whereby it acts, and the agent must be nobler
than the patient. But Christ as man is constituted supernaturally in
act by the personal habitual grace which He received in the highest
degree. Therefore Christ as man bestowed this same grace on others,
namely, on those members whose head He is.
The major is evident, for it is founded on the principle that
everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in act. Thus what is hot
heats according to the heat whereby it is hot. For the agent acts,
inasmuch as it determines, and the manner of its determination is in
accordance with its own determination.
The minor was explained above: for personal habitual grace
intrinsically and physically informs Christ, as man. Thus this grace
is the operative principle whereby He radically operates
supernaturally, performing acts that are infinitely meritorious and
satisfactory. The principium quo of these operations is habitual grace
as it connotes the grace of union, or as it connotes the principium
quod, or the person of the Word, from whom these works derive their
infinite value.[1084]
Therefore this same habitual grace is called capital, inasmuch as by
it Christ can bestow on the members of the Church grace and
justification, that is, by exerting a moral influence on them by means
of His infinitely meritorious and satisfactory works. It is precisely
this influence that constitutes Him their head, although He also
exerts a physically instrumental influence on them. Christ, the head
of the faithful of the Old Testament, could not exert a physically
instrumental influence on them, but only a moral influence by His
merit and satisfaction, since they lived before His coming.
St. Thomas often speaks of this physically instrumental causality of
Christ's human nature, inasmuch as it is the instrument united with
the divine nature, whereas the sacraments are separate
instruments.[1085] As one who blows a trumpet emits the sound by
this instrument, so God can cause grace by Christ's human nature;
so also our soul makes use of vocal chords as the instrument of speech.
Moreover, it must be observed that, although Christ's body,
inasmuch as it is in heaven as in a place, is locally distant from
ours, the higher part of Christ's soul and of our soul are not of
themselves localized, nor is Christ's mind locally distant from our
mind, which is influenced by His mind, inasmuch as it is the
instrument of His divine nature.[1086]
As regards moral causality by way of merit, it is not necessary that
the moral cause already exist for it to exert its influence, since the
moral cause operates inasmuch as it is known, and can be known as
coming into existence. Thus God conferred grace on the faithful of
the Old Testament because of Christ's future merits.
The solution of the objections confirms the conclusion.
Reply to first objection. We must distinguish in Adam between his
personal sin and original sin that had its origin in him, which is a
sin of the nature, "because in him the person, by turning away from
God, corrupted the nature; and by means of this corruption the sin of
the first man is transmitted to posterity.... Now grace is not
vouchsafed us by means of human nature, but solely by the personal
action of Christ Himself. Hence we must not distinguish a twofold
grace in Christ, one corresponding to the nature, the other to the
person." This means, as Cajetan observes, that "grace is not
communicated to us by the action of the nature, or by communicating the
nature as Adam would have communicated it, not corrupted, to his
children, if he had not sinned, but by Christ's personal action, by
which He merited for us and of His own will bestowed grace on
us."[1087]
Reply to second objection. The eminence of Christ's personal
habitual grace is the reason for the justification of others.
Reply to third objection. "The personal and the capital grace agree
in the essence of the habit"; they are the same habit inasmuch as
their more proximate purpose is for the performance of some meritorious
act. On the contrary, the direct purpose of the grace of union is not
for the eliciting of a meritorious act, and it is not a habit but, as
stated above, "the grace of union is the personal being that is given
gratis by God to the human nature in the person of the
Word."[1088]
Objection. But for Vasquez the capital grace and the grace of union
are identical because, so he says, the infinite value of Christ's
merits is derived from this grace of union.
Reply. That the value of Christ's merits is derived remotely from
the grace of union as from the principium quod[1089] that is
connotated, this I concede; that it is derived proximately as from
the operative principium quo, this I deny, although charity is the
immediate principle of merit. It pertains to the notion of capital
grace, however, for it to be the root, instrumentally, of those
merits because the head of the Church as such exerts at least a moral
influence on the members by His meritorious works.
But I insist. If Christ did not have habitual grace, He would,
nevertheless, still be our head; for habitual grace is not absolutely
necessary so as to enable Him to elicit meritorious acts. Therefore
Christ is not the head because of habitual grace.
Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: If Christ did not have
habitual grace, He would still be our head because of His divine
personality, this I deny, for His personality does not constitute
Him the operative principle of merit; because of the transient help
given by it, this I concede. But then Christ would not be the
connatural operative principle of merit.
Again I insist. Grace that is ordained for the sanctification of
others is not grace gratum faciens, but grace gratis data. Therefore
Christ's capital grace that is ordained for our sanctification is not
identical with His personal habitual grace.
Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: Grace that is primarily
ordained for the sanctification of others is not gratia gratum faciens,
this I concede; grace that is only secondarily so ordained is not
such, this I deny. Thus the gift of wisdom is included in
sanctifying grace, although its secondary purpose is for the direction
of souls, which means that it is for the benefit of others. Such was
Christ's habitual grace.
|
|
