|
State of the question. The "fomes", of sin implies the inclination
of the sensual appetite to that which is contrary to right reason, as
in the case of excessive pleasure. Thus, the "fomes" of sin is an
inclination to sin, and when it actually inclines anyone to sin, it is
called "fomes" in the second act.
St. Thomas does not even ask whether there was in Christ the
"fomes" of sin in its second act, namely, an inordinate movement of
the sensitive appetite.
Reply. The negative answer to this query is already sufficiently
established from the first article. For the Word can and must prevent
these irregular motions of the sensible nature, and He prevents them
because He is under obligation to rule His assumed human nature, not
only as it is rational, but as it is sensitive. These irregular
motions of the sensitive nature not only were not in Christ, but could
not have been in Him, because He was impeccable. The Second
Council of Constantinople in canon ten declared: "If anyone defends
the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is
different in person from Christ who suffered from the passions of the
soul and the troublesome desires of the flesh, and who, gradually
getting away from this inferior state, improved His condition by
advancing in the performance of good works, ... let him be
anathema."[1344]
If Christ was tempted, however, St. Thomas explains farther
on,[1345] He was tempted without having to endure sin and moral
disgrace, consequences so derogatory to His sanctity.
Therefore, what theologians especially ask here, is whether the
inclination to sin in its first act was in Christ.
St. Thomas answers this question in the negative, meaning that there
neither was nor could have been such an inclination.
Scriptural proof. The angel said: "That which is conceived in
her, is of the Holy Ghost."[1346] But the Holy Ghost
excludes both sin and the inclination to sin, which is what is meant by
"fomes."
Theological proof. The moral virtues are in the sensitive appetite;
and the more perfect they are, the more they subject it to reason.
But these virtues were most perfect in Christ. Therefore there was
no fomes in Christ or inclination of the appetite to that which is
contrary to reason.[1347] This conclusion confirms the more
common opinion of the Thomists, namely, that Christ possessed
perfectly from the beginning not only the infused virtues, but also the
acquirable moral virtues that make man absolutely good, and not merely
good in a qualified sense, such as a good sculptor or carpenter.
Confirmation. The Word assumed all those human defects that can be
ordained for the satisfaction of sins. The fomes of sin, however,
cannot be ordained to this end, but, on the contrary, inclines to
sin. Thus it was neither in Adam in the state of innocence, nor in
the Blessed Virgin. But the grace of union is of a far higher order
than the grace of original justice, which latter excluded the fomes of
sin in Adam.
First objection. But if there was passibility of body in Christ and
hence pain and death, why not the fomes of sin?
Reply to first objection. There is no parity of argument here,
because the sensitive appetite must obey reason, whereas the vegetative
powers of the souls do not obey it. Hence, among the principal
consequences of original sin there are two that are deordinations,
namely, error and concupiscence, and neither of these was in either
Christ or the Blessed Virgin. There are two consequences,
however, that imply no moral deordination, namely, grief and death,
and these were both in Christ and in His Blessed Mother, not indeed
as consequences of original sin, but as properties of nature, inasmuch
as the Word assumed a passible flesh, and the Blessed Virgin was
conceived without original sin but in passible flesh. But that the
Word had to become incarnate in passible flesh, according to God's
decree, this indeed presupposes God's permission of original sin,
reparation for which was to be made by the redemptive Incarnation.
|
|
