|
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is due to Christ. For
an aureole is due to virginity, martyrdom, and teaching. Now these
three were pre-eminently in Christ. Therefore an aureole is
especially due to Him.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is most perfect in human things must
ne especially ascribed to Christ. Now an aureole is due as the reward
of most excellent merits. Therefore it is also due to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg.) that
"virginity bears a likeness to God." Therefore the exemplar of
virginity is in God. Therefore it would seem that an aureole is due
to Christ even as God.
On the contrary, An aureole is described as "joy in being conformed
to Christ." Now no one is conformed or likened to himself, as the
Philosopher says (Metaph., lib. ix, 3). Therefore an aureole
is not due to Christ.
Further, Christ's reward was never increased. Now Christ had no
aureole from the moment of His conception, since then He had never
fought. Therefore He never had an aureole afterwards.
I answer that, There are two opinions on this point. For some say
that Christ has an aureole in its strict sense, seeing that in Him
there is both conflict and victory, and consequently a crown in its
proper acceptation. But if we consider the question carefully,
although the notion of aurea or crown is becoming to Christ, the
notion of aureole is not. For from the very fact that aureole is a
diminutive term it follows that it denotes something possessed by
participation and not in its fulness. Wherefore an aureole is becoming
to those who participate in the perfect victory by imitating Him in
Whom the fulness of perfect victory is realized. And therefore,
since in Christ the notion of victory is found chiefly and fully, for
by His victory others are made victors---as shown by the words of
Jn. 16:33, "Have confidence, I have overcome the world,"
and Apoc. 5:5, "Behold the lion of the tribe of Juda . . .
hath prevailed"---it is not becoming for Christ to have an
aureole, but to have something from which all aureoles are derived.
Hence it is written (Apoc. 3:21): "To him that shall
overcome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne, as I also have
overcome, and am set down in My Father's throne." Therefore we
must say with others that although there is nothing of the nature of an
aureole in Christ, there is nevertheless something more excellent than
any aureole.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ was most truly virgin, martyr, and
doctor; yet the corresponding accidental reward in Christ is a
negligible quantity in comparison with the greatness of His essential
reward. Hence He has not an aureole in its proper sense.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the aureole is due to a most perfect
work, yet with regard to us, so far as it is a diminutive term, it
denotes the participation of a perfection derived from one in whom that
perfection is found in its fulness. Accordingly it implies a certain
inferiority, and thus it is not found in Christ in Whom is the
fulness of every perfection.
Reply to Objection 3: Although in some way virginity has its
exemplar in God, that exemplar is not homogeneous. For the
incorruption of God, which virginity imitates is not in God in the
same way as in a virgin.
|
|