|
Objection 1: It would seem that there are two filiations in
Christ. For nativity is the cause of filiation. But in Christ
there are two nativities. Therefore in Christ there are also two
filiations.
Objection 2: Further, filiation, which is said of a man as being
the son of someone, his father or his mother, depends, in a way, on
him: because the very being of a relation consists "in being referred
to another"; wherefore if one of two relatives be destroyed, the
other is destroyed also. But the eternal filiation by which Christ is
the Son of God the Father depends not on His Mother, because
nothing eternal depends on what is temporal. Therefore Christ is not
His Mother's Son by temporal filiation. Either, therefore, He
is not her Son at all, which is in contradiction to what has been said
above (Articles 3,4), or He must needs be her Son by some other
temporal filiation. Therefore in Christ there are two filiations.
Objection 3: Further, one of two relatives enters the definition of
the other; hence it is clear that of two relatives, one is specified
from the other. But one and the same cannot be in diverse species.
Therefore it seems impossible that one and the same relation be
referred to extremes which are altogether diverse. But Christ is said
to be the Son of the Eternal Father and a temporal mother, who are
terms altogether diverse. Therefore it seems that Christ cannot, by
the same relation, be called the Son of the Father and of His
Mother Therefore in Christ there are two filiations.
On the contrary, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii),
things pertaining to the nature are multiple in Christ; but not those
things that pertain to the Person. But filiation belongs especially
to the Person, since it is a personal property, as appears from what
was said in the FP, Question 32, Article 3; FP, Question
40, Article 2. Therefore there is but one filiation in Christ.
I answer that, opinions differ on this question. For some,
considering only the cause of filiation, which is nativity, put two
filiations in Christ, just as there are two nativities. On the
contrary, others, considering only the subject of filiation, which is
the person or hypostasis, put only one filiation in Christ, just as
there is but one hypostasis or person. Because the unity or plurality
of a relation is considered in respect, not of its terms, but of its
cause or of its subject. For if it were considered in respect of its
terms, every man would of necessity have in himself two
filiations---one in reference to his father, and another in
reference to his mother. But if we consider the question aright, we
shall see that every man bears but one relation to both his father and
his mother, on account of the unity of the cause thereof. For man is
born by one birth of both father and mother: whence he bears but one
relation to both. The same is said of one master who teaches many
disciples the same doctrine, and of one lord who governs many subjects
by the same power. But if there be various causes specifically
diverse, it seems that in consequence the relations differ in species:
wherefore nothing hinders several such relations being in the same
subject. Thus if a man teach grammar to some and logic to others, his
teaching is of a different kind in one case and in the other; and
therefore one and the same man may have different relations as the
master of different disciples, or of the same disciples in regard to
diverse doctrines. Sometimes, however, it happens that a man bears a
relation to several in respect of various causes, but of the same
species: thus a father may have several sons by several acts of
generation. Wherefore the
paternity cannot differ specifically, since the acts of generation are
specifically the same. And because several forms of the same species
cannot at the same time be in the same subject, it is impossible for
several paternities to be in a man who is the father of several sons by
natural generation. But it would not be so were he the father of one
son by natural generation and of another by adoption.
Now, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same
nativity, of the Father from eternity, and of His Mother in time:
indeed, these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore, as to
this, we must say that there are various filiations, one temporal and
the other eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is
neither the nature nor part of the nature, but the person or hypostasis
alone; and since in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person than
the eternal, there can be no other filiation in Christ but that which
is in the eternal hypostasis. Now, every relation which is predicated
of God from time does not put something real in the eternal God, but
only something according to our way of thinking, as we have said in the
FP, Question 13, Article 7. Therefore the filiation by which
Christ is referred to His Mother cannot be a real relation, but only
a relation of reason.
Consequently each opinion is true to a certain extent. For if we
consider the adequate causes of filiation, we must needs say that there
are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if we
consider the subject of filiation, which can only be the eternal
suppositum, then no other than the eternal filiation in Christ is a
real relation. Nevertheless, He has the relation of Son in regard
to His Mother, because it is implied in the relation of motherhood to
Christ. Thus God is called Lord by a relation which is implied in
the real relation by which the creature is subject to God. And
although lordship is not a real relation in God, yet is He really
Lord through the real subjection of the creature to Him. In the same
way Christ is really the Son of the Virgin Mother through the real
relation of her motherhood to Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal
filiation in Christ if there were in Him a subject capable of such
filiation. But this cannot be; since the eternal suppositum cannot be
receptive of a temporal relation, as stated above. Nor can it be said
that it is receptive of temporal filiation by reason of the human
nature, just as it is receptive of the temporal nativity; because
human nature would need in some way to be the subject of filiation,
just as in a way it is the subject of nativity; for since an Ethiopian
is said to be white by reason of his teeth, it must be that his teeth
are the subject of whiteness. But human nature can nowise be the
subject of filiation, because this relation regards directly the
person.
Reply to Objection 2: Eternal filiation does not depend on a
temporal mother, but together with this eternal filiation we understand
a certain temporal relation dependent on the mother, in respect of
which relation Christ is called the Son of His Mother.
Reply to Objection 3: One and being are mutually consequent, as is
said Metaph. iv. Therefore, just as it happens that in one of the
extremes of a relation there is something real, whereas in the other
there is not something real, but merely a certain aspect, as the
Philosopher observes of knowledge and the thing known; so also it
happens that on the part of one extreme there is one relation, whereas
on the part of the other there are many. Thus in man on the part of
his parents there is a twofold relation, the one of paternity, the
other of motherhood, which are specifically diverse, inasmuch as the
father is the principle of generation in one way, and the mother in
another (whereas if many be the principle of one action and in the same
way---for instance, if many. together draw a ship along---there
would be one and the same relation in all of them); but on the part of
the child there is but one filiation in reality, though there be two in
aspect, corresponding to the two relations in the parents, as
considered by the intellect. And thus in one way there is only one
real filiation in Christ, which is in respect of the Eternal
Father: yet there is another temporal relation in regard to His
temporal mother.
|
|