|
Reply. It is of faith that Christ is one (unus).
This conclusion is evident from the condemnation of Nestorianism,
that admitted two persons in Christ; for the masculine form "unus"
signifies a person. Hence, the Church has defined that "Christ is
not two, but one."[1373] And again: "I believe in one Lord
Jesus Christ."[1374] Likewise it can and must be said that
Christ is one in the neuter form. The reason is that there is one
person and one suppositum in Christ.
Some erroneously said, however, that there is one person but two
supposita in Christ, and therefore they maintained Christ is one in
person, but that He is not one being, because there are in Him two
supposita. But it is false to assert that there are two supposita in
Christ.[1375] There is in Christ only one center of
attribution, which is expressed by the personal pronoun
I.[1376]
Fifth objection. The three divine persons are declared one in being
on account of their one nature; therefore there must be two beings in
Christ because of the two natures.
Reply to fifth objection. I deny the consequence, for the difference
here is that, since God is His Godhead, in the mystery of the most
Holy Trinity the Godhead is predicated even in the abstract of the
three persons; hence it may be said simply that the three persons are
one. But in the mystery of the Incarnation, both natures are not
predicated in the abstract of Christ. For Christ is not His
humanity, this latter constituting a certain part of Him, and the
part is not predicated of the whole. Therefore it follows that it
cannot be said simply that Christ is two.
Doubt. Can it be said that Christ is both His divine nature and
His human nature?
Reply. This proposition is not true in the strict and formal sense,
because the term "Christ" includes more than is signified by both the
divine and human natures, for it includes the note of person. But it
must be said that Christ is a person that has both the divine nature
and the human nature. Therefore Christ is one and He is also one
being.
|
|
