|
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ could not
understand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms, because,
as is stated De Anima iii, 18,31,39, phantasms are compared
to man's intellective soul as colors to sight. But Christ's power
of seeing could not become actual save by turning to colors. Therefore
His intellective soul could understand nothing except by turning to
phantasms.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's soul is of the same nature as
ours. otherwise He would not be of the same species as we, contrary
to what the Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) " . . . being made in
the likeness of men." But our soul cannot understand except by
turning to phantasms. Hence, neither can Christ's soul otherwise
understand.
Objection 3: Further, senses are given to man to help his
intellect. Hence, if the soul of Christ could understand without
turning to phantasms, which arise in the senses, it would follow that
in the soul of Christ the senses were useless, which is not fitting.
Therefore it seems that the soul of Christ can only understand by
turning to phantasms.
On the contrary, The soul of Christ knew certain things which could
not be known by the senses, viz. separate substances. Therefore it
could understand without turning to phantasms.
I answer that, In the state before His Passion Christ was at the
same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as will be more clearly shown
(Question 15, Article 10). Especially had He the conditions
of a wayfarer on the part of the body, which was passible; but the
conditions of a comprehensor He had chiefly on the part of the soul.
Now this is the condition of the soul of a comprehensor, viz. that it
is nowise subject to its body, or dependent upon it, but wholly
dominates it. Hence after the resurrection glory will flow from the
soul to the body. But the soul of man on earth needs to turn to
phantasms, because it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject
to and dependent upon it. And hence the blessed both before and after
the resurrection can understand without turning to phantasms. And this
must be said of the soul of Christ, which had fully the capabilities
of a comprehensor.
Reply to Objection 1: This likeness which the Philosopher asserts
is not with regard to everything. For it is manifest that the end of
the power of seeing is to know colors; but the end of the intellective
power is not to know phantasms, but to know intelligible species,
which it apprehends from and in phantasms, according to the state of
the present life. Therefore there is a likeness in respect of what
both powers regard, but not in respect of that in which the condition
of both powers is terminated. Now nothing prevents a thing in
different states from reaching its end by different ways: albeit there
is never but one proper end of a thing. Hence, although the sight
knows nothing without color; nevertheless in a certain state the
intellect can know without phantasms, but not without intelligible
species.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the soul of Christ was of the same
nature as our souls, yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in
fact, but only in hope, i.e. the state of comprehension.
Reply to Objection 3: Although the soul of Christ could understand
without turning to phantasms, yet it could also understand by turning
to phantasms. Hence the senses were not useless in it; especially as
the senses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge,
but for the need of animal life.
|
|