|
[1373] Denz., no. 40. Athanasian Creed
[1374] Ibid., no. 54; Council of Nicaea. See also Denz.
nos. 118f.; Council of Ephesus, can. 6.
[1375] cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, 3.
[1376] This entire article I should be read
[1377] See Father Billot's opinion, pp. 153-60 (De
Christo Salvatore).
[1379] cf. IIIa, q. 2
[1380] John 8:58.
[1381] cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 6.
[1382] Ibid., q. 2, a. 2, 6
[1383] Ibid., q. 17, a. 2, ad 1
[1384] This article must be read carefully, and Cajetan's
commentary on it.
[1385] It must be observed that Christ, although He has two
distinct natures, is essentially one, not indeed in nature, but in
suppositum or person, that per se subsists (in the third mode of per
se predication). See Aristotle's Post. Anal., Bk. I,
chap. 4, lect. 10 of St. Thomas: On the four modes of per se
(essential) predication.
[1386] The person of the Word incarnate is really distinct from His
human nature, just as there is a real distinction between the whole and
its part; for before any consideration of our mind, the whole is not
its part. This distinction is real and inadequate between created
essence and being (existence).
[1387] The entire answer to this fourth objection should be read
[1388] John 8:58
[1389] Several are mistaken in thinking that subsistence is the
abstract term that corresponds to what in the concrete subsists;
whereas it corresponds to what in the concrete is the suppositum.
Confusion is removed by substituting for "subsistence" the equivalent
word "personality, " because it is evident that person is the
correlative concrete to it. and not to subsist.
[1390] Quaest. disp. de unione Verbi, a. 4, ad. 1.
[1391] Grabmann says the composition of this disputed question
occurred between the years 1260-68; Mandonnet assigns it to the
year 1268. Thus both maintain that it was written before the third
part of the Summa theologica (1271-73). However, Father
Peltzer, S.J., Father Synave, O.P. (Bulletin Thomiste,
1926), and Glorieux maintain that this disputed question was
completed later. Yet the Compendium of theology appeared still
later, and it contains the same doctrine as the Commentary of St.
Thomas on the Book of the Sentences, and what is found in his Summa
theol., and he says nothing in these works about secondary being.
cf. Heris, O.P., Le Verbe incarne, 1931, pp.
291-93, 329
[1392] Quaest. disp. de unioni Verbi, a. 4, ad 1
[1393] cf. IIIa, q. 17, a. 2
[1394] Ibid., q. 2, a. 2, 6
|
|
