|
State of the question. About the end of the eighth century
Archbishop Elipandus of Toledo, and Bishop Felix of Urgel,
Adoptionists, taught that Christ as man is the adopted son of God.
And more probably, whatever Vasquez says, they defended this thesis
in the Nestorian sense, namely, by positing two persons in Christ.
They were condemned as heretics in the Council of Frankfort
(794) under Pope Hadrian I.[1604]
But Durandus and Scotus were unaware of the acts of the Frankfort
council, which for a long time remained unknown because of the
astuteness of the heretics. These theologians said: The unity of the
person being preserved intact, Christ as man is the adopted Son of
God, inasmuch as He received habitual grace by which we are adopted
sons.
Is this opinion of Scotus and Durandus already condemned by the
Council of Frankfort, the acts of which were unknown to these
theologians? The answer is that the Council of Frankfort excludes
even this opinion, for it says: "Adopted, if indeed this means that
Jesus Christ is not the natural Son of God." This council also
says: "The unity of person eliminates the insult of adoption."
St. Thomas in the counterargument to this article also quotes St.
Ambrose as against this opinion.
Theological proof. The argumentative part of this article refutes the
adoptive sonship of Christ as follows:
Sonship properly belongs not to the nature, but to the person, and
He who is already the natural Son cannot be called the adopted son,
because He is not a stranger to His Father according to His nature.
Thus a man cannot adopt a boy who is already his son. But Christ is
the natural Son of God. Therefore Christ cannot be called the
adopted son.
In explanation of this proof, it must be observed that:
|
1) Adoption cannot apply to the humanity of Christ, both because the
humanity is not a person, and only a person can be adopted, and
because, on account of the hypostatic union, it already is entitled to
the inheritance of God, which is the beatific vision.
2) It must be noted that Christ as man is already in the formal
sense the natural Son of God, inasmuch as the Word who subsists in
the human nature is the natural Son of God, for by assuming the human
nature Christ did not lose His divine natural sonship.
|
|
The solution of the objections confirms this answer.
Reply to first objection. If it is said that "carnal humility was
adopted by the Word', ; the expression is metaphorical for "was
assumed"; for adoption properly belongs only to the person, not to
the nature, or to a part of the nature.
Reply to second objection. "Christ, by the grace of union, is the
natural Son, whereas a Christian by habitual grace is an adopted
son. Habitual grace in Christ does not make one who was not a son to
be an adopted son, but is a certain effect of filiation in the soul of
Christ."
Adopted sonship is not the formal and primary effect of habitual
grace, but only the secondary effect; hence habitual grace can be in
the soul without the former. It is present in Christ's soul as a
participation of the divine nature rendering Christ more pleasing to
God, and it enables Him in a special manner to merit continually by
infused charity and the other virtues, of which habitual grace is the
source.
Reply to third objection. We may say that Christ according to His
human nature is a creature, and is subject to God; but we cannot say
that He is the adopted Son of God, because sonship is not said of
the nature but only of the person; for we do not say the humanity of
Christ is the Son of God.
Corollary. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the first adopted daughter
of God.
|
|
