|
State of the question. It seems on the one hand that Christ was
not, because He was a voluntary victim, and because His soul,
united to His divine nature of which it was its instrument, could
preserve His body from suffering, just as He did afterward to several
martyrs. But, on the other hand, the Word assumed a passible body,
which is under the natural necessity of dying and enduring other
sufferings of a similar nature. Thus the saying that man is by nature
mortal, and this necessity is physical. How then must this difficulty
be solved?
Reply. St. Thomas says that as regards the assumed nature these
defects were necessary, but as regards Christ's divine will and His
deliberate human will these defects were objectively voluntary.
The first part of this conclusion is evident, namely, as regards the
assumed nature, these defects were necessary, as it is necessary for a
body composed of contraries to be dissolved. Thus every man is by
nature mortal. And since the Word came in passible flesh for our
salvation, He did not assume a body exempt from suffering, this
exemption being a privilege bestowed upon Adam's body in the state of
innocence. Hence St. Paul says: "God sent His own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh."[1302] Hence Christ's death through
the blows inflicted upon His body followed as a natural consequence,
and was in no way, as in us, the consequence of original sin.
Likewise in the Blessed Virgin Mary death followed as a natural
consequence because she was conceived in passible flesh, and this death
was not the result of original sin, from which she was preserved.
The second part of this conclusion is also apparent, namely, as
regards Christ's divine will, and His deliberate human will, these
sufferings were objectively voluntary. For indeed, by these two
wills, He voluntarily accepted them, and He could have prevented
them, if He had so willed, namely, if it had been the will of His
Father. Thus the Blessed Virgin accepted her death in the natural
order that she might be associated with the sacrifice of Christ for our
salvation.
The reply of the following article completes this doctrine. What has
been said shows clearly the most beautiful parallelism prevailing
between Christ the Redeemer, and Mary the immaculate
co-Redemptress.
|
|
