|
State of the question. This article concerns priority of time. The
purpose of this article, as stated in the first and second
difficulties, is that, according to the teaching of the ancient
philosophers, in the conception of other men, living flesh is found in
possession of vegetative life, and already of the sensitive life,
before the rational soul, which is created by God, comes to it.
Thus in the first two objections of this article, disposition of the
matter precedes the coming of the form, and in human beings, the body
is conceived before the rational soul comes to it.
But, on the other hand, as we stated in the first article, it is
evident, concerning the condemnation of Origen's teaching, that the
Word assumed simultaneously the flesh and soul of Christ, for flesh
is not human before the soul comes to it.
This question presupposes another, namely, whether Christ's flesh
was conceived or formed, at least in accordance with its remote natural
dispositions, before it was united with the rational soul. The
solution of the present article depends on this query, but this point
concerns the question of Christ's conception, and is therefore
explained farther on.[776]
In the passage quoted above, St. Thomas shows that it is against
the faith to say that Christ's flesh was first conceived, and
afterward was animated and assumed by the Word. This is evident from
what the Church has declared against Origen and against
Photinus.[777]
Reply. Christ's flesh ought not to have been assumed before the
soul.
Authoritative proof. St. John Damascene says: "At the same time
the Word of God was made flesh, and flesh was united to a rational
and intellectual soul."[778] This means to say that Christ's
flesh was conceived, animated, and assumed simultaneously. This is
what the Church declares against Origen and against
Photinus.[779]
Theological proof. It is expressed briefly in the last line of the
argumentative part of the article. Flesh is not strictly human before
it receives the rational soul. But the Word assumed only strictly
human flesh. Therefore flesh ought not to have been assumed before the
soul.
This is well explained in the body of the article. For human flesh is
assumable by the Word according to the order it has to the rational
soul. But it has not (at least this immediate) order, before the
rational soul comes to it; because the moment that the matter is
ultimately disposed for the form, it also receives the form. The
whole article must be read.[780]
But how is the difficulty that is presented in the first objection to
be solved. It states that our bodies are conceived before they are
animated by the rational soul. St. Thomas admits this statement as
at least probable in fact, inasmuch as the body first has the
vegetative life, then the sensitive life, before it is ultimately
disposed for the rational soul, which is created by God
instantaneously from nothing, and is not educed from matter.
St. Thomas replies to the first objection of this article, saying
that it is certainly so with us, remarking that "before the coming of
the human soul, there is no human flesh," but there is in the body a
previous but not ultimate disposition for human flesh. He goes on to
say: "In the conception of Christ, the Holy Ghost, who is an
agent of infinite might, disposed the matter and brought it to its
perfection at the same time." Likewise, he says farther on:
"Christ's body, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was
perfectly disposed instantaneously. Wherefore at once and in the first
instant it received a perfect form, that is, the rational
soul."[781] Farther on he says: "Christ's conception must be
said to be entirely miraculous (on the part of the active power), and
in a qualified manner natural (on the part of the matter contributed by
the mother)."[782]
Thus in the miraculous conversion of water into wine at Cana, the
matter of water (without any previous dispositions) is disposed to
receive the form of wine. So also, in the operational order, the
conversion of St. Paul was instantaneous; similarly the
sanctification of the Blessed Virgin Mary took place at the very
moment of her conception, inasmuch as, when her soul was created, it
instantaneously received a plenitude of grace, and was preserved from
original sin through the merits of Christ. So too, in the natural
order, men of great genius solve problems, but, at times, they do
not sufficiently prepare their pupils to understand their teaching,
which is then understood in a wrong sense, and thus these pupils fall
into error.
Different from Christ's conception, St. Thomas does not admit
that the rational soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary was created at the
moment of her conception, for he distinguishes between this moment and
the moment after the animation of her flesh. In this he distinguishes
between the virginal conception of Christ and that of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, which was not miraculous, inasmuch as her conception
was not virginal, but natural; for she was born in a natural way from
a father and mother. St. Thomas asks whether the Blessed Virgin
Mary was sanctified before animation, which is distinct from the
passive conception of the body. But complete passive conception of the
body, inasmuch as it is distinct from the beginning of this
conception, took place in the Blessed Virgin at the same time as
animation, which is the usual procedure in human beings.[783]
Reply to third objection. The conception, animation, and assumption
of Christ's body were instantaneous. But by priority of nature the
body was preserved by the Word as a being, before its animation,
because the body is first a being, and then a body.
Nevertheless, as regards the personal union, Christ's body was, in
accordance with nature, first united with the soul, before it was
united with the Word, because it is from its union with the soul that
it is capable of being united with the Word in person; especially
since a person, as such, is found only in the rational nature. So it
was that during the three days in which our Lord's body was separated
from the soul, the Word was not united personally but only
subsistentially with Christ's corpse. The entire reply to the third
objection should be read.
A question that deserves special attention is: When is the rational
soul created? Does this take place at the moment of conception or
afterward? Father Gredt says: "The ancient philosophers taught
that, first of all, ... the merely vegetative soul that is
imperfect and transitory would be educed, and this soul by a process of
evolution would become corrupt and would be substituted by another that
is imperfect, the sensitive soul, which also becomes corrupt, and
forty days after conception the rational soul would finally be created
and infused into the body." "Nevertheless," says Father Gredt,
"it is better to say with modern philosophers that from the very
beginning the germinal cells are united, and there is present a special
organization and proximate disposition for the infusion of the rational
soul, which is therefore created and infused by God, without the
intervention of any other soul.[784]
On the contrary, Father Barbado, O. P., says: "It is not
our purpose to decide this question that is so much disputed among
Scholastics. However, we must point out that experience shows the
foundation for this traditional view, which the ancient philosophers
took from embryology, is strongly supported by present-day
investigations.... For the egg, in the segmentation process and
the follicles in the blastodermic process do not possess actually but
only potentially the future organization, and it is only much later
that the organs come to perfection."[785]
Moreover, after death or the separation of the rational soul from the
body, facts seem to attest that for some time the vegetative soul
remains, since the hair and nails still grow. If such be the case
after the separation of the rational soul from the body, why not before
the creation of the soul?
|
|
