|
[190] Cf. Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chaps. 40, 49f.
[191] See infra, chap. 5, art. 8.
[192] See infra, chap. 6, art. 1.
[193] Cf. Contra Gentes Bk. IV, chap. 40, for other
objections
[194] Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col.
1463-73
[195] John 3:16
[196] Ibid.
[197] Summa theol., Ia, q. 5, a. 4, ad 2
[198] Div. nom., Bk. IV.
[199] Summa theol., Ia, q. 5, a. 4, ad 2
[200] Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 1, a. 4, ad 1. See also Ia,
q. 19, a. 2; Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 30, no.
3; chap. 45, no. 1
[201] Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 11
[202] Denz., no. 1783
[203] They said that God was obliged not by a physical but a moral
necessity to create the best possible world which finds its ultimate
perfection in the Incarnation, thus making this latter morally
necessary. This is contrary to the gratuity of this greatest gift
[204] Summa theol., Ia, q. 19, a. 3.
[205] Ibid., Ia, q. 6, a. 1, 2.
[206] Ibid., IIIa, q. 1, a. 1, c.
[207] Com. in IIIam, q. 1, a. 1.
[208] Ibid., q. 1, a. 1, no. 6. The author remarks that
what Cajetan says here is more forcible than what he said previously on
this point. Cf. in Iam, q. 19, a. 3.
[209] Summa theol., Ia, q. 23, a. 5, ad 5
[210] See q. 1, a. 2.
[211] I Cor. 3:22f.
[212] Summa theol., Ia, q. 25, a. 6, ad 1.
[213] Cf. Monsabre, Conference 34
[214] Denz., no. 607
[215] De natura et gratia, no. 5.
[216] Summa, Ia, q. 64, a. 2.
[217] Cur Deus homo, Bk. I, chap. 4.
[218] Ibid., Bk. II, chaps. 5, 17.
[219] Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " cols.
1474-82.
[220] Com. in IIIam., q. 1, a. 2.
[221] De agone christiano, chap. 11. See also De Trinitate,
Bk. XIII, chap. 10.
[222] Summa, IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, § 1
[223] Ibid., IIIa, q. 46, a. 2, ad 3.
[224] John 6:47.
[225] Ibid., 8:18
[226] Ibid., 14:6.
[227] Ibid., 17:8.
[228] Ibid., 4:41f.
[229] Ibid., 1:16f.
[230] I John 1:1f.
[231] Heb. 1:1f.
[232] Ibid., 2:2f.
[233] De civ. Dei, Bk. XL, chap. 2.
[234] John 8:14.
[235] Matt. 11:28; 10:37.
[236] Luke 2:34
[237] Matt. 11:6.
[238] Sermon 53, Vol. 38.
[239] John 7:46.
[240] Matt. 11:28
[241] Ibid., 9:6.
[242] Col. 1:26f.
[243] I Tim. 1:1.
[244] Rom. 8:31f
[245] Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, c.
[246] Ps. 113:1
[247] John 3:16
[248] Ibid., 15:9
[249] Ibid., 15:13
[250] I John 4:9f.
[251] Ibid., 4:19
[252] Rom. 5:8f.
[253] Titus 2:11f. See also 2:4
[254] John 8:46.
[255] I Cor. 15:10.
[256] Cf. ad 3.
[257] Ibid., ad 2
[258] Denz., no. 3034
[259] Epistle, March 22, 1918
[260] Council of Cologne, 1860.
[261] Enchir., chap. 108
[262] Sermo I, De nativitate
[263] Encycl., Miserentissimus Redemptor
[264] Cf. ad. 2
[265] Cf. Salmant., De incar., disp. I
[266] De veritate, q. 28, a. 2
[267] See Billuart, De peccatis, dist. VIII, a. 5.
[268] Cf. IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2
[269] De veritate, q. 28, a. 2. See also Dict. theol.
cath., art. "Incarnation, " col 1478-82
[270] As philosophers say: an absolute denial, since it is of a
malignant nature, entirely destroys or excludes. For this reason,
negative universal propositions are very dangerous, for a single
example to the contrary suffices to show their falsity. Such
propositions are totally exclusive.
[271] Summa theol., la, q. 3, prologue
[272] Ibid., Ia, q. 12, a. 8
[273] Ibid., IIIa, q. 48, a. 2
[274] De peccatis, dist. VIII, a. 5
[275] Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2
[276] Ibid., IIIa, q. 48, a. 2
[277] Cf. especially St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses III, vi
12, also St. Basil, Com. in Ps. 48, no. 4. See also
Petavius, Bk. II, no. 12 (beginning).
[278] St. Thomas, loc. cit.
[279] Ibid., Ia, q. 19, a. 5
[280] See III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3. Also Com. in
Tim., chap. 1, lect. 4
[281] See Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col
1482-1506
[282] Cf. Com. in III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3.
[283] De Trinit., Bk. XIII chap. 17
[284] Com. in III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3.
[285] Com. in I Tim., chap. 1, lect. 4
[286] If it is a question of things in nature already produced, it is
possible for us from things naturally knowable to know that God freely
willed to create them
[287] Wisd. 9:13
[288] Luke 5:31f.
[289] Ibid., 19:10
[290] I Tim. 1:15.
[291] Gal. 4:4f.
[292] John 3:16.
[293] Ibid., 1:29. See also Rom. 3:22; I John
1:7; 2:12:3:5, 4:10.
[294] Cf. Isa. 61:1; Dan. 9:24 Zach. 3:9.
[295] Cf F. Ceuppens, O.P. (Theol. biblica, De
incarnatione, pp. 6-
29) whose conclusion is: "The motive of the Incarnation,
according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, is the redemption of
the human race, and no other motive is given in the pages of Sacred
Literature."
[296] Denz., no. 54. Someone wrote recently: "No
Scholastic, as far as we know, would be so imprudent as to quote this
text of the Creed on this disputed point." On the contrary, appeal
to this text is made by the Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, and
many others.
[297] Ibid. no. 371
[298] Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, nos.
406-15. Adv. haer., chap. 14; cf. Rouet de Journel,
op. cit., no. 254.
[299] De Trinitate, dial. 5 (about middle).
[300] Adv. Arianos, Oratio 2, no. 56; Rouet de Journel,
op. cit., no. 765
[301] Oratio 30, no. 2. see also Rouet de Journel, op.
cit., no. 991
[302] Homily 5, in Epist. ad Hebraeos; Journel, no. 1218
[303] Enchiridion, no. 108; Journel, no. 1218
[304] Com. in Tim., 1:15; cf. Dict. theol. cath., art.
"Incarnation, " col. 1489-91, in which we find a collection
of patristic texts which testify that the Incarnation is for the
redemption of the human race. See also Petavius, De incarnatione,
Bk. II, chap. 9.
[305] Col. 1:15f.
[306] Cf. Billot, De incarnatione, thesis 3; A. Michel,
Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col.
1500-1506. Father Chrysostom, O.F.M., wrote an
article entitled: "Is the redemption the motive of the
incarnation?" On page 5 he asserts, and several Scotists agree
with him, that according to Scotus there is neither a proximate end
nor a proximate motive for the Incarnation; for God willed it because
of His own excellence, as being the greatest manifestation of His
goodness.
We reply to this by saying that, nevertheless, in Sacred Scripture
not only the ultimate and most common end of God's works is assigned
for the Incarnation, but also its proximate and special end, which is
our redemption. At least the texts of Scripture seem to state clearly
that the redemption is the principal and proximate motive, and hence
the indispensable condition of the Incarnation.
[307] Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 3.
[308] Ibid., Ia, q. 19, a. 6, ad 1.
[309] Suarez argues that the Incarnation was willed for two ultimate
ends, namely, because of its excellence and for the redemption of the
human race.
In refutation of Suarez, cf. Gonet (Clypeus, De incarnatione,
disp. V, par. 3), who says: "The same effect cannot proceed
from two causes that are each totally efficient and adequate; otherwise
the effect would and would not depend on each cause for the same
reason; but there is the same reason for each of the totally final and
adequate causes." Hence the two above-mentioned ends are not
coordinated, as Suarez would have it, but they are subordinated to
each other, in such manner that the redemption of the human race is the
proximate reason of the Incarnation.
Moreover, this opinion posits, like that of Scotus, mutability and
imperfection in God. God, who foresees everything from all
eternity, had foreseen and permitted from all eternity Adam's sin,
and therefore does not begin to have another motive for His willing,
but He persists immutably in the motive once chosen.
Finally, in the opinions of both Suarez and Scotus, the first
decree abstracting from the condition of passible flesh cannot be
efficacious, because the efficacious decree is directed to the object
right at the moment to be produced, as it truly will be in time.
Hence the Thomists, in opposition to Scotus and Suarez, admit only
one efficacious decree of the Incarnation, willed by God in
manifestation of His goodness by way of mercy for the redemption of
man.
[310] De Trinitate, Bk. XIII, chap. 17.
[311] Summa theol., IIIa, q 24, a. 1
[312] Ibid., Ia, q. 23, a. 5
[313] Ibid
[314] Com. in IIIam, q. 1, a. 3, no 6
[315] Ibid.. no. 7.
[316] Summa theol.. IIIa, a. 7, q. 3.
[317] See St. Thomas, Com. in Sent., d. 41, q. 1, a.
4.
[318] Rom. 8:28
[319] Com. in Summam, IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, no. 7.
[320] Ibid., no. 9.
[321] Ibid.
[322] Ibid.
[323] Ibid., no. 10.
[324] See his Com. in III Sent., d. 7, q. 3. Cf. also
Father Chrysostom's "Le motif de l'Incarnation, " in the
Etudes franciscaines, 1913; also "La Redemption este-elle le
motif de l'Incarnation, " in La France franciscaine, 1931,
p. 10.
[325] Com. in Summam, IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, no. 5.
[326] Ibid., no. 10
[327] God permits the elect to fall into sin, as in Peter's case,
for the sole reason of causing them to be more humble. Thus "to them
that love God[unto the end] all things work together unto good"
(Rom. 8:28), and Augustine adds "even sins."
[328] Loc. cit., nos. 9 and l0.
[329] Ibid., no. 10
[330] Ibid., no. 9
[331] La Redemption est-elle le motif de l'Incarnation?, pp.
24 and 50
[332] Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2.
[333] The exact words of St. Thomas in this third article are:
"Unde cum in Sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato
primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur, incarnationis opus
ordinatum esse a Deo in remedium contra peccatum." (Tr.)
[334] Ps. 6:3.
[335] Ibid., 24:16.
[336] Ibid., 30:10
[337] Com. in Summam, IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2.
[338] Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2.
[339] Ibid., a. 4.
[340] Com. in Joann., 14:12; see also St. Thomas, op.
cit., Ia IIae, q. 113, a. 9.
[341] Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 30. a. 4. See also
Ia, q. 21, a. 4
[342] Ibid., IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2, 4.
[343] Collect for Tenth Sunday after Pentecost
[344] This thesis was developed by the author in the periodical
Angelicum, 1930, pp. 289f., under the title: "Mercy was
the motive of the Incarnation."
[345] Summa theol, Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 2.
[346] Ibid., ad 1
[347] Com in IIa IIae q. 17, a. 5, no. 6.
[348] If certain Thomists of more recent times say that the
Incarnation is subordinated to the redemption, they use the word
subordination in a broad sense; for the eminent cause cannot be
subordinated to its effect in the strict sense, but in some way it is
ordained to produce it; otherwise divine omnipotence would be
subordinated to creatures which it produced.
[349] Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 188, a. 6.
[350] I Cor. 3:23
[351] Cf. ad 3; also Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 1.
[352] Com. in lam, q. 22, a. 2, ad 2 and a. 4.
[353] These two possible worlds, the second of which God chose by one
sole efficacious decree in all its component parts, may be illustrated
by the following schema.
Innocent world to be preserved in its innocence: preservation of
original justice = Christ not the Redemeer
Sinful world to be redeemed: Original justice with permission of
original sin = reparation to be made = Christ the Redeemer.
Cf. E. Hugon, Le mystere de l'Incarnation, p. 75; also
Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col. 1504.
[354] Summa theol., Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 1.
[355] Rom. 5:20
[356] Blessing of paschal candle
[357] P.L., XXXVI, 539
[358] For example, that a certain man die, indeed, from a disease
right at the moment when in the state of grace, and that he should have
the grace of final perseverance, this depends on supernatural
predestination; similarly, the end of the world, in the material
sense, will come when the number of the elect is completed. Therefore
it cannot be said that God willed the natural order and its events
independent of the order of grace, and this latter independently of the
order of the hypostatic union; but by one decree He willed this
present world and its three orders.
[359] See God, His existence, II, 54
[360] John 3 16.
[361] I Cor. 1:27f. For this same reason, frequently in the
supernatural order God by an inequality of graces compensates for the
inequality of natural conditions; for this is what is meant when it is
said in the beatitudes, as recorded in the Gospels: "Blessed are
the pure in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; blessed are
the meek; blessed are they that mourn; blessed are they that suffer
persecution for justice' sake" (Matt. 5:3f.; Luke
6:20f.). Therefore we must not say: (1) God willed the
natural order with its events; (2) the supernatural order; (3)
the hypostatic union. But He first had in mind the present world as
possible with all its subordinated parts and by a single decree chose it
in preference to other equally possible worlds.
[362] Le Sauveur et son amour pour nous, p. 136f.
[363] Summa theol., Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 1.
[364] Luke 9:23.
[365] But this view of the Christian life completely harmonizes with
that held by St. Francis of Assisi and St. Bonaventure. Scotus
seems to take a somewhat different view of the Christian life,
however, in his thesis on the motive of the Incarnation.
[366] Summa theol., IIIa. q. 62, a. 2.
[367] John 12:24f.
[368] Luke 24:26.
[369] Rom. 8:17.
[370] Cf P. Roschini, Mariologia, II, 40f.
[371] Ibid
[372] See Angelicum, January, 1942, pp. 97-103:
"Ancora intorno alla ragione primaria dell'esistenza di Cristo."
[373] Com. in Ep. ad Tim. They are two very different questions,
just as these two are: (1) Would this building remain intact if
this column were removed? (2) If the architect had not willed this
particular column in the building, what would he have ordered in its
place for the permanence of the structure?
[374] For a complete examination of this problem in answer to recent
objections, cf. the article "De motivo incarnationis, " pp.
7-45, in the Acta Acad. Romanae S. Thomae, 1945.
[375] John 1:29
[376] Nestle's critical edition of St. John's Greek text has ten
hamartian tou kosmou (Gr.)
[377] Rom. 5:15f. These words are quoted from the Vulgate,
which differs somewhat from the text as given by St. Thomas in this
article.
[378] Cf. the Sixth Council of Toledo, and the Council of
Trent, Sess. VI, chap. 2; Denz., no. 794
[379] If there had been no original sin, then a number of persons
would not have needed redemption, because they would have remained in
the state of grace, in fact, of innocence; but in the others there
would have been actual or personal sin, which is not transmitted except
by example or by a sort of heredity. It must be noted that St.
Thomas says in this fourth article: "It is certain that Christ came
into this world... also to take away all sins that are subsequently
added to original sin; not that all are taken away, and this is from
men's fault, inasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ..., but
because He offered what was sufficient for blotting out all sins."
[380] Gal. 4:4.
[381] Ibid
[382] Hab. 3:2. This text is quoted by St. Thomas in the
counterargument of this article
|
|
