|
State of the question. The particular purpose of this article is to
inquire why Christ was sinless, in fact, why He was morally perfect
Reply. Christ in no way assumed the defect of sin, either original
or actual. This doctrine is of faith and manifestly has its foundation
in Sacred Scripture.
Scriptural proof. That Christ was without original sin is evident
from the following words of the Evangelist: "'The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow
thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God."[1309] This means that Christ did
not descend from Adam by the natural process of seminal propagation.
He was conceived miraculously by the Holy Ghost. Moreover, from
the moment of His conception, as stated above, He was full of grace
and enjoyed the beatific vision, both of which are incompatible with
original sin.
As regards actual sin, there is the testimony of Christ Himself,
when He said to His enemies: "Which of you shall convince Me of
sin?"[1310] Similarly St. John the Baptist says: "Behold
the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the
world."[1311] Likewise St. Peter says: "Who did no
sin."[1312] St. Paul also says: "For it was fitting that
we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled,
separated from sinners."[1313]
There are several definitions of the Church that affirm the
sinlessness of Christ.[1314] Moreover, the Church has
declared that Christ was impeccable (and not merely sinless) even
before His resurrection,[1315] and that He did not need
purification.[1316] This last declaration is directed against
the Jansenists, who said that the Blessed Virgin Mary was in need
of purification at the time of her purification, and that her Son
contracted this stain from his mother, as the Mosaic law
says.[1317]
Theological proof. Christ assumed our defects that He might satisfy
for us, and that He might prove the truth of His human nature, and
be for us an example of virtue.[1318] But sin instead of being
conducive to this threefold end was a hindrance to it. Therefore
Christ did not assume the defect of sin.
Sin is more of a hindrance to satisfaction, and it does not prove the
truth of human nature, since it is contrary to reason; and it is not
an example of virtue, since it is contrary to it. This proof receives
its confirmation from the solution of the objections of this article.
Reply to first objection. St. Thomas explains how the words of the
psalmist, "O God, my God, look upon me; why hast Thou forsaken
me. Far from my salvation are the words of my sins,"[1319] are
said of the person of Christ. He also shows with St. John
Damascene and St. Augustine that certain things are said of Christ
in our person, namely, those things that nowise befit Him, inasmuch
as "Christ and His Church are taken as one person."[1320]
And in this sense Christ, speaking in the person of His members,
says: "Far from my salvation are the words of my sins,"[1321]
not that there were any sins in the Head. Such is the meaning of this
particular Messianic psalm, the first words of which Christ uttered
on the cross.
Reply to second objection. It explains how Christ was in Adam and
how He is of the "seed of David."[1322] Christ, says St.
Augustine, was in Adam "according to bodily substance"[1323]
but not according to seminal virtue, that is, by way of natural
generation. He did not receive the human nature actively from Adam
but materially, and from the Holy Ghost actively. Thus He "was of
the seed of David"[1324] only materially, but not formally and
actively. But if He accepted circumcision, which was a remedy for
sin, He did so not as in need of it, but that He might give us an
example of humility.[1325]
Moreover, even though Christ had descended from Adam according to
seminal propagation, He could not have contracted original sin, since
this was incompatible with the grace of union and the fullness of
inamissible habitual grace and by reason of the beatific vision, all of
which adorned His soul from the moment of His conception. Thus the
Blessed Virgin, although she descended from Adam according to
seminal propagation, was preserved from original sin.
Reply to fourth objection. St. Thomas here explains the meaning of
the words: "Him who knew no sin, God hath made sin for
us";[1326] which means that God made Him a victim of sin, as
the prophet says: "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us
all."[1327] Thus Christ willingly bore the punishment for
sin.[1328]
Calvin[1329] objected that Christ in dying gave vent to
feelings, if not of desperation, at least to words of such a nature
when He said: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me?"[1330] and in the Garden He prayed inordinately,
saying: "My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from
Me."[1331]
Reply. Concerning these words uttered by our Lord in the Garden of
Gethsemane it is generally agreed that they are an expression of His
sensible will and are conditional, but that they are not an expression
of His rational and absolute will. They manifest, as will be stated
in the next question in treating of Christ's sadness, that He
completely gave Himself up to grief, even extreme sadness, so as to
make His sacrifice perfect and more meritorious.
The first quotation is not the utterance of one who is in despair, but
it is the expression of one who experiences the greatest of grief. In
fact, the words, "O God, My God, look upon Me; why hast Thou
forsaken Me?"[1332] constitute the first verse of one of the
Messianic psalms. The end of this psalm, however, is a most
beautiful expression of complete confidence in God, in spite of all
adversities. Finally, immediately after these words, Christ says on
the cross: "It is consummated.... Father, into Thy hands I
commend My spirit."[1333] These final words are an expression
of perfect confidence and love. Last of all, certainly how can He
despair who has already acquired the beatific vision and who by His
sacrifice gives eternal life to others?
First doubt. Was Christ not only sinless but impeccable already
before His resurrection?
Reply. The Second Council of Constantinople affirms and declares
this against Theodore of Mopsuestia.[1334] All theologians
hold that at least according to the ordinary operation of divine law
Christ was impeccable for three reasons; namely, because of the
hypostatic union, the beatific vision, and the fullness of His
inamissible habitual grace.[1335]
The Scotists, however, admit that, if God by His absolute power
were to take away from Christ His habitual grace and the beatific
vision, then He would be peccable.
But the common opinion of Thomists and other theologians is that
Christ as man, precisely by virtue of the grace of union, even
independently of the fullness of habitual grace and the beatific
vision, was absolutely incapable of sinning, whether such sin left the
union intact or destroyed it. The principal reason is that otherwise
sin would redound upon the Word itself, inasmuch as elicited actions
are referred to the suppositum, because the principle that elicits the
actions is the suppositum. Thus, as will be more clearly explained
farther on,[1336] the meritorious actions of Christ are of
intrinsically infinite value because of the suppositum or divine person
of the Word, and they are theandric. Thus it is absolutely
impossible for the Word incarnate to sin.[1337]
The Thomists and other theologians generally assign three causes for
Christ's absolute impeccability. These are: (1) the grace of
union; (2) fullness of inadmissible habitual grace by reason of its
connection with the grace of union; (3) the beatific vision by which
even the rest of the blessed are confirmed in good, and are no more
capable of sinning, or turning away from God clearly seen, or ceasing
from the act of loving God, because this act is indeed spontaneous;
but it is not a free act, since it transcends liberty, inasmuch as
concerning God clearly seen and to be loved above all things, there is
no longer indifference either of judgment or of will, and concerning
particular goods the blessed are free, to be sure, but they are
incapable of sinning; in other words, they are free to do only what is
good. St. Thomas says: "The will of him who sees the essence of
God, of necessity loves whatever he loves in subordination to
God."[1338] Moreover, Christ always received efficacious
grace by which de facto the will does not commit sin.[1339]
We shall see farther on[1340] that it is indeed extremely
difficult to reconcile impeccability and free will in Christ, for
without this freedom He would not have merited for us. We shall say
here that Christ's impeccable liberty is the most pure image of
God's impeccable liberty, and that the command of dying for us,
given by the Father to Christ, takes away moral liberty but not
psychological liberty, since it is given, like every command, for the
free fulfillment of the act; for a command that would destroy
psychological freedom in the fulfillment of the act, would destroy the
very nature of the command.
Second doubt. Could there have been moral imperfection in Christ,
such as less fervent acts of charity, and less promptitude in the
observance of God's counsels?
Reply. The answer is that there could have been no moral
imperfection. This question has been the subject of special
investigation by the Salmanticenses who, in their commentary on this
article, distinguish between imperfection and venial sin.[1341]
For venial sin is absolutely an evil; although it is not a turning
away from the final end, it is a morally evil deordination with
reference to what pertains to the end. Moral imperfection, however,
is not absolutely an evil, because it is not a privation of good that
is strictly owing to one, for there is no obligation that we set before
ourselves the greatest morally possible generosity as the ideal in our
actions, except when anyone has made a vow to do what appears to be
more perfect for such a person at the moment.
But imperfection is a lesser good. Thus a less fervent act of charity
is not so great a good as a fervent act, but it is not an evil. In
fact, in this less fervent act of charity, its diminished fervor or
imperfection in the formal sense is indeed not a good thing, but it is
not an evil, because it is not a privation of good that is strictly
owing to anyone, because, as has been said, there is no obligation to
set before ourselves the greatest morally possible generosity as the
ideal in our actions each time we act. This imperfection is not good,
it being a denial of greater perfection, rather than a privation in the
strict sense. Thus, in some way, the fact that God does not
preserve a creature in moral good, which means the permission by God
to commit sin, is not a good thing, yet it is not an evil, not even
an evil to which a punishment is attached. On the contrary, the
refusal of efficacious grace by God is a punishment that presupposes
sin or at least the beginning of the first sin.
Thus, even though moral imperfection is distinct from venial sin,
there could have been no such imperfection in Christ because if we
exclude God, no greater perfection could have been given to anyone
than to Christ. Christ's acts of charity never diminished in fervor
or were less in intensity or perfection as befitted the Word incarnate
and He had the infused virtue of charity in the highest degree,
according to the ordinary dispensation of God's power.
Expressed more briefly, there was never an occasion when Christ's
human will was not so prompt in observing the divine counsels, in
following the inspirations of grace given by way of counsel, and this
is also commonly admitted concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Salmanticenses,[1342] after proving that there could have
been no transgression of the divine counsels in Christ, show clearly
what is the foundation for the distinction between venial sin and
imperfection. Concerning the distinction between a slight venial sin
and imperfection, it must be observed that a few theologians do indeed
call that an imperfection which is truly a venial sin, but these two
are in themselves just as distinct as the difference between what is
absolutely evil and that which is a less good. And this distinction is
evident not only in the abstract but also in the concrete, especially
in the lives of Christ and His Blessed Mother, who never were
remiss in following the divine counsels.[1343]
|
|
