|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not at once a wayfarer
and a comprehensor. For it belongs to a wayfarer to be moving toward
the end of beatitude, and to a comprehensor it belongs to be resting in
the end. Now to be moving towards the end and to be resting in the end
cannot belong to the same. Therefore Christ could not be at once
wayfarer and comprehensor.
Objection 2: Further, to tend to beatitude, or to obtain it, does
not pertain to man's body, but to his soul; hence Augustine says
(Ep. ad Dios. cxviii) that "upon the inferior nature, which is
the body, there overflows, not indeed the beatitude which belongs to
such as enjoy and understand, the fulness of health, i.e. the vigor
of incorruption." Now although Christ had a passible body, He
fully enjoyed God in His mind. Therefore Christ was not a wayfarer
but a comprehensor.
Objection 3: Further, the Saints, whose souls are in heaven and
whose bodies are in the tomb, enjoy beatitude in their souls, although
their bodies are subject to death, yet they are called not wayfarers,
but only comprehensors. Hence, with equal reason, would it seem that
Christ was a pure comprehensor and nowise a wayfarer, since His mind
enjoyed God although His body was mortal.
On the contrary, It is written (Jer. 14:8): "Why wilt
Thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man turning in
to lodge?"
I answer that, A man is called a wayfarer from tending to beatitude,
and a comprehensor from having already obtained beatitude, according to
1 Cor. 9:24: "So run that you may comprehend "; and Phil.
3:12: "I follow after, if by any means I may comprehend ".
Now man's perfect beatitude consists in both soul and body, as stated
in the FS, Question 4, Article 6. In the soul, as regards
what is proper to it, inasmuch as the mind sees and enjoys God; in
the body, inasmuch as the body "will rise spiritual in power and glory
and incorruption," as is written 1 Cor. 15:42. Now before
His passion Christ's mind saw God fully, and thus He had beatitude
as far as it regards what is proper to the soul; but beatitude was
wanting with regard to all else, since His soul was passible, and
His body both passible and mortal, as is clear from the above
(Article 4; Question 14, Articles 1,2). Hence He was at
once comprehensor, inasmuch as He had the beatitude proper to the
soul, and at the same time wayfarer, inasmuch as He was tending to
beatitude, as regards what was wanting to His beatitude.
Reply to Objection 1: It is impossible to be moving towards the end
and resting in the end, in the same respect; but there is nothing
against this under a different respect---as when a man is at once
acquainted with what he already knows, and yet is a learner with regard
to what he does not know.
Reply to Objection 2: Beatitude principally and properly belongs to
the soul with regard to the mind, yet secondarily and, so to say,
instrumentally, bodily goods are required for beatitude; thus the
Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8), that exterior goods minister
"organically" to beatitude.
Reply to Objection 3: There is no parity between the soul of a
saint and of Christ, for two reasons: first, because the souls of
saints are not passible, as Christ's soul was; secondly, because
their bodies do nothing by which they tend to beatitude, as Christ by
His bodily sufferings tended to beatitude as regards the glory of His
body.
|
|