|
This means: Ought Christ to have assumed flesh and blood, rather
than a heavenly body?
Reply. The answer is in the affirmative, and it is of faith against
the Valentinians, who said that Christ assumed a celestial body and
passed through the Blessed Virgin, as water flows through a
channel.[728]
Scriptural proof. In the New Testament we read: "A spirit hath
not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have."[729] St. Paul
says of Jesus: "He was made to Him[Father] of the seed of
David, according to the flesh."[730] And again: "God sent
His Son, made of a woman."[731] In Christ's genealogy, it
is said of Him: "Son of David, son of Abraham."[732] The
angel says to Mary: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and
shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name
Jesus."[733] St. Joseph is also declared to be "the husband
of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."[734]
All these texts would not be true if Christ had come down from heaven
with a celestial body, and had merely passed through the Blessed
Virgin, as through a channel.
Theological proof. 1. If Christ had not assumed our nature, then
He would not be truly man, since flesh and bones are required for a
nature to be truly human. 2. Also Christ would not have been really
hungry, or have suffered and died, as recorded in the Gospels. 3.
He would have told a lie in presenting Himself to men as having a body
of flesh. If St. Paul says that "the first man was of the earth,
earthly: the second man from heaven, heavenly,"[735] this means
that Christ's body was formed from the womb of the Blessed Virgin
Mary by a heavenly power, namely, by the Holy Ghost.[736]
Reply to second objection. Christ came in passible flesh, "that He
might carry through the work of our redemption." Hence Christ's
death was not the result of original sin, but the consequence of a
nature conceived in passible flesh, and this consequence He offered in
submission for our redemption.[737] He submitted to the penalty
of death not for Himself, but for our sake.
That the Word came, however, in passible and mortal flesh, rather
than in impassible flesh, presupposes Adam's sin, although in
Christ death was not the result of original sin, which He did not
contract. The same must be said of the Blessed Virgin, who was
preserved from original sin.
Reply to third objection. It pertains to the greatest glory of God
that He raised a most weak and earthly body to such sublimity. It was
mercy that moved God to unite the highest with the lowest for our
salvation. St. Thomas has treated this question more fully in
another work.[738]
Doubt. Was Christ's blood hypostatically united with the Word?
This question is of no slight importance, because it concerns the
precious blood of Jesus Christ that was shed in His passion and that
is offered daily in the Mass.
This doubt was formerly the subject of much dispute. Durandus denied
that the Word hypostatically united with Himself the natural blood.
Alphonsus Tostatus (Abulensis),[739] Richard,[740] and
several Franciscan theologians were of the same opinion. St. Thomas
took the affirmative view both here and in his commentary on the
resurrection of Christ.[741] The Thomists, Cajetan and
Capreolus, and almost all theologians are in agreement with St.
Thomas on this point. Since this question gave rise to bitter
contention between the Franciscans and Dominicans, the latter
defending the doctrine of St. Thomas, Pius II (1464) issued
a decree[742] putting an end to these disputes, until it was
defined what must be believed. Later on, however, as Suarez
observes, the Franciscan view was eliminated from their schools of
theology, as being neither pious nor safe teaching.
There are three proofs for this affirmative view, which is the one
most commonly held.[743]
Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: "Therefore because the
children[i. e., men] are partakers of flesh and blood[i. e.,
are composed of flesh and blood], He Himself[Christ] in like
manner hath been partaker of the same."[744]
This same teaching is confirmed in other passages of Sacred
Scripture, in which our redemption is attributed to the blood of
Christ, His Son, as in the following text: "The blood of
Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin."[745]
Authoritative proof. The Council of Trent, in its discussion on
the Holy Eucharist, affirms the natural union of the body and blood
of Christ in these words: "The body itself is under the species of
bread, and the blood is under the species of wine, and the soul under
both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitance,
whereby the parts of Christ our Lord... are united
together."[746] Therefore the blood is a part of Christ.
Similarly Clement VI affirmed that the blood of Christ was united
with the Word, saying: "The innocent and immaculate lamb is known
to have shed His blood, a single drop of which, on account of its
union with the Word, would have sufficed[for our
redemption].[747]
Theological proof. Blood is a necessary part of the human body
because it is required for its life and for the nutrition of its various
parts, as also for the natural process of combustion by which natural
heat is generated.
Hence theologians maintain that there will be blood in glorified
bodies, inasmuch as this pertains to the integrity of the
body.[748]
Confirmation of proof. From the definition of the Church on the
Holy Eucharist.
If the Word did not assume hypostatically the blood, then the Word
is not by concomitance under the species of wine. For that is by
concomitance in the sacrament which is united really and substantially
with the primary term of the consecration and conversion. But, if the
Word did not assume hypostatically the blood, the Word is not really
and substantially united with the blood, which is the primary term in
the consecration of the chalice. Therefore, in this case, the Word
would not be by concomitance present under the species of wine, which
is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent.
Objection. Those holding the opposite opinion have said that blood is
not animated, and is not actually a part of the body. The Thomists
contradict this assertion, remarking that the blood is a fluid that
contributes to the nutrition of the other parts of the body.
Again the opponents object, saying: What the Word once assumed,
remained always united with Him. But He severed His union with the
blood.
Reply. In answer to this, we say with St. Thomas:[749] I
deny the minor; for the blood of Christ, just as His corpse,
although it was no longer animated, remained hypostatically united with
the Word during the triduum of death because it had to be
reassumed.[750] And if, during the triduum of death, there had
been the consecration of the wine in the chalice, the divinity would
have been present by concomitance under the species of wine, as the
Council of Trent declares.[751] This cannot be said of
Christ's blood that was shed at the circumcision, because it was not
intended to be reassumed.
It must be observed that when St. Thomas says: "All the blood
which flowed from Christ's body, belonging as it does to the
integrity of human nature, rose again with His body,"[752] this
must be understood of all the blood shed in a moral sense, but not of
absolutely all the blood in a physical sense. As Pius II says, it
is not contrary to faith for one to assert that a portion of the blood
that was shed by Christ on the cross, or at the crowning of thorns,
was not reassumed; but then this portion of blood, if it was not
reassumed, was not hypostatically united with the Word, because,
just as in the case of the blood shed at the circumcision, this blood
was not indeed intended to be reassumed in the resurrection for the
integrity of Christ's body. What has been said suffices, in our
days, for the solution of this doubt that was formerly disputed.
|
|
