|
The second part of this treatise on the Incarnation by St. Thomas
concerns "what Christ did and suffered."[1679] It is
explained from question twenty-seven to question fifty-nine, but it
is too long a treatise for each question and its articles to be
explained. We shall have to discuss what is more important. Thus we
shall discuss the mystery of Redemption, and afterward there will be a
compendium on Mariology.[1680]
The student must read carefully what St. Thomas wrote about
Christ's conception, about the mother who conceived, the mode of
conception, the perfection of the offspring concerned, the birth of
Christ, His manifestation, circumcision, and baptism, as also His
manner of conversing with others, His temptations in the desert, His
doctrine and miracles.[1681] Those questions must especially be
read in which it is shown that the three persons of the Trinity
cooperated in the conception of Christ's body, though it is
attributed by appropriation to the Holy Ghost.[1682] But
nowise must Christ be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, or even of
the entire Trinity. At the first moment of conception, Christ's
body was animated by a rational soul and was assumed by the Word.
Likewise at the first moment of conception Christ was sanctified by
grace, had the use of free will, and merited; in fact, from the
first moment He was a perfect comprehensor. Birth is properly
attributed to the person, as to the subject, and not to the nature,
and so the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. In Christ
there are two births, one is eternal, the other is temporal, but
there are not two real sonships. In Christ there is only one real
sonship, namely, His eternal sonship from the Father, the other is
a logical and temporal relation as regards the Mother, for every
relation that is predicated of God in time, is only a logical
relation. However, there is a real relation of the Mother to Him,
who is really the Son of Mary.[1683]
State of the question on Redemption. We already discussed in the
first part of this treatise the necessity of Redemption,[1684]
and we said that redemption by a divine person who became incarnate is
hypothetically necessary, after original sin, posited that God freely
willed to exact adequate reparation whereas He could have freely
condoned the offense or even accepted inadequate reparation.
We must now consider the nature of Redemption, in what it consists,
how it was accomplished by Christ's passion, and the ways by which
our Lord's passion caused our salvation.
The adequate concept of redemption. As Father E. Hugon observes:
"Sometimes redemption is taken in the strict sense for liberation from
the slavery of sin and the devil; but sometimes it refers to the entire
supernatural economy whereby Christ, our Head, taking our place,
offers to God adequate reparation for the offense and at the same time
a perfect sacrifice; He liberates us from the captivity of sin and He
renews in us the supernatural blessings, lost by the Fall, giving
them back to us. Redemption essentially implies... the payment of
the price required for the adequate reparation of the offense, which is
called satisfaction. Wherefore satisfaction is the primary and
fundamental concept in the dogma of redemption. But Christ acts in
our name, and hence His satisfaction is called vicarious, inasmuch as
He not only suffers for our sins, but takes our place. In other
respects this satisfaction is made in a certain laborious manner, by
means of a true immolation, which is most pleasing to God, and for
this reason it is also a sacrifice. Moreover, there is reparation for
the offense, and God is satisfied, in consequence of this, and
placated by the sacrifice offered to Him, so that we are made free,
and supernatural blessings are restored to us or we are reinstated in
grace. Therefore the following divers notions concur in the adequate
analysis of redemption, namely, satisfaction which presupposes merit
and sacrifice, that may be considered the constituent elements; then
liberation and restoration, which may be called the consequences or
effects."[1685]
That this was actually the concept of redemption held by St. Thomas
is evident from what he wrote,[1686] when discussing the various
aspects of this mystery.
But some in reading this forty-eighth question understand satisfaction
in a quasi-univocal sense, as being a juridical payment of debt,
which among men can be without any love of charity toward the other,
and hence they say that this depreciates the sublimity of this mystery
of redemption, which is essentially a mystery of love.
But if we answer by saying that in the order of grace, and especially
in the hypostatic order, the payment of the debt must be understood not
univocally but analogically in the metaphorical sense, then they
understand by this, analogically in the metaphorical sense, as when we
say by figure of speech that God is angry. Thus the payment of the
debt is no longer retained in the strict sense of the term.
On the contrary, St. Thomas understands satisfaction in the
analogical though strict sense of the term, and not merely in the
metaphorical sense, as when being, life, liberty, love, mercy,
even vindictive justice but not anger, are attributed to God
analogically and in the strict sense. Among men there may indeed be a
legal payment of a debt that is true satisfaction, without the love of
charity toward the other. But if we speak of the satisfaction offered
by Christ for us, then we speak analogically, but still in the strict
sense of satisfaction by the payment of the price offered because of
His supreme love of charity toward God and toward us even because of
His theandric love that is of infinite value.
Wherefore St. Thomas thus defines satisfaction: "He properly
atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves
equally or even more than he detested the offense."[1687] But
Christ offered for us His most precious blood by a theandric act of
love, which God loves more than He hates all sins and crimes taken
together. We shall see that the essence of redemption, inasmuch as it
is properly a mystery of love, consists in this theandric love, which
is both meritorious and satisfactory. Other aspects of this mystery
are subordinated to this supreme love, just as the virtues of
religion, penance, justice, obedience, and fortitude are
subordinated to the virtue of charity.[1688] It is, indeed,
true to say with St. Paul: "You are bought with a great
price,"[1689] but this price is the infinite value of the love
of Christ suffering for us.
Hence St. Thomas,[1690] starting from this theandric love,
speaks of merit, which belongs to charity, namely, of Christ's
merit as our head, before he discusses satisfaction, which presupposes
merit.[1691]
Since redemption is the work of the Word incarnate, in its
explanation we must proceed in the descending order from the Word
incarnate to the remission of sin, rather than in the ascending order
from sin to our liberation and justification. Here we must observe
what St. Thomas says in his treatise on justification, where he
writes: "Because the infusion of grace and the remission of sin
regard God who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of
grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on
the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the
order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of
justifying grace."[1692]
What predominates in the mystery of redemption as in the conversion of
St. Mary Magdalen or of St. Paul, is the Redeemer's love.
Hence the conception of this mystery must be rather spiritual than
juridical, even when it is strictly a question of satisfaction.
Similarly in the general concept of merit with reference to God, it
must be noted that the notion of merit is analogical, that is, it is
called analogical in divine things in comparison with merit in human
things. Therefore we must not stress too much the right to a reward,
but we must insist more on either the condignness or the congruity and
fittingness as regards the divine rewards, inasmuch as merit proceeds
from infused charity, and this results from God's uncreated charity.
Thus we preserve intact the sublimity of divine things and especially
of this mystery.
Errors. In this matter, as frequently happens, there were errors by
defect as well as by excess.
In the first centuries, the Subordinationists, the Arians, the
Nestorians, from the very fact that they denied the divinity of
Christ, also rejected the infinite value of redemption. The Docetae
denied the reality of the Passion. The Pelagians, who do not admit
the reality of original sin, consequently perverted the concept of
redemption.
On the contrary, the Protestants of earlier times said that Christ,
taking upon Himself our sins, was hateful to God the Father, cursed
by Him and, as a real sinner, truly suffered the torments of the
damned.
Finally, in opposition to the above heretics, in the sixteenth
century, the Socinians, just as before them Abelard had said,
contended that Christ redeemed us only in the broad sense of the term
and metaphorically, namely, by preaching and example, not at all by
paying the penalty that is due to our sins; but He submitted to death
so as to give us an example of fortitude. If that were so, then
Christ would neither have satisfied for our sins nor merited for us
grace and glory. This concept of redemption scarcely differs from
rationalism, which denies the order of grace and glory, and therefore
the hypostatic order. So say the liberal Protestants[1693] and
the Modernists,[1694] who admitted only a moral redemption,
declaring that the doctrine of Christ's sacrificial death is not
Evangelical, but originated with St. Paul.[1695]
Doctrine of the Church. The Church never ex professo solemnly
defined what is the revealed teaching on redemption. The schema of its
definition was prepared in the Vatican Council, as we shall at once
declare. It was equivalently contained beforehand: (1) in the
Nicene Creed, which says: "Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven.... And became man.... He was crucified
for us under Pontius Pilate";[1696] (2) in the Council of
Ephesus, which states that Christ "offered... Himself an
oblation for us";[1697] (3) in the Council of Toledo,
which declares that Christ "alone was made sin for us, that is,
sacrifice for our sins';[1698] (4) also in the Fourth
Lateran Council;[1699] (5) and in the Council of
Florence;[1700] (6) in the Council of Trent, where we
read: "Who [Christ], when we were enemies, for the exceeding
charity by which He loved us merited justification for us by His most
holy passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us
unto God the Father."[1701]
Moreover, the Church condemned Abelard as a heretic, because he
denied that "Christ assumed flesh so that He might free us from the
devil's yoke."[1702] The Socinians, too, were condemned as
heretics, because they denied that "Christ endured a most bitter
death on the cross so that He might redeem us from sin and eternal
death and reconcile us with the Father by restoring to us the right to
eternal life."[1703] Finally, Pius X rejected this
proposition of the Modernists, that "the doctrine of Christ's
sacrificial death is not Evangelical, but merely the teaching of St.
Paul."[1704]
The Vatican Council intended to define this question and had already
formulated this canon: "If anyone does not confess that God the
Word suffering and dying in the flesh, could have satisfied for our
sins or truly and properly did satisfy for them, let him be
anathema."
In fact, from the various documents on this subject, Denzinger
deduces the following proposition: "Christ, the Redeemer,
satisfied for the sins of the whole world, and this satisfaction is of
infinite value and superabundant."[1705]
The various aspects of redemption. Were there different theories
among Catholics concerning the mystery of redemption? In recent times
certain persons distinguish between: (1) the theory of expiation,
or of substitution, which speaks especially of the guilt of undergoing
punishment, and they bring forward many texts from the Old
Testament; its over emphasis leads to the theory of the earlier
Protestants concerning penal compensation; (2) the theory of
satisfaction, which is more sublime and richer, especially as
explained by St. Thomas; (3) the theory of reparation, which
seeks to perfect the preceding theory, insisting more on this, that it
is "not the death, but the will of the person dying that placated
[the Father], " as St. Bernard says;[1706] (4)
finally, others stress more the Father's love for us ("God so
loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son")[1707]
and Christ's love "even unto death."[1708]
Truly, these four theories are more the different aspects of the
mystery of redemption, and we shall see that St. Thomas admitted
these different aspects, subordinating the first three to the last, in
that the mystery of redemption is especially a mystery of love. Many
times he says that Christ suffered for us;[1709] he speaks of
satisfaction,[1710] of reparation,[1711] but he always
affirms that the foundation of their validity is in Christ's theandric
love, which is the source of all His merits. St. Thomas says:
"But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to
God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human
race."[1712]
Finally, at the beginning of this question on redemption, we must
recall what St. Thomas had already taught when he said: "Mercy and
truth are necessarily found in all God's works.... Now the work
of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy, and is founded
thereon.... We must come to something that depends only on the
goodness of the divine will.... So in every work of God, viewed
at its primary source, there appears mercy. In all that follows, the
power of mercy remains and works indeed with even greater
force."[1713] Thus God purely of His goodness created us,
elevated us to the order of grace which is the seed of glory, and gave
us the Redeemer.
It is from the uncreated love of divine goodness that mercy proceeds,
inasmuch as good is self-diffusive, and then comes justice by reason
of which the supreme Good has a right to be loved above all things.
But first of all, the divine good is self-diffusive in creation, in
raising us to the supernatural order, and finally in God's free
decree to restore this order to us by means of the Word incarnate.
So as to proceed methodically in this second part, we shall see what
Scripture and tradition have to say on this subject, and we shall also
consult the teaching of St. Thomas as expounded in questions 46 to
48.
|
|
