Reply to Objection 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own
sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and
now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.
sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and
now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.
Summa Theologica
For
it is written in the chapters of Cyril [*Council of Ephesus, Part I,
ch. 26]: "If anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be adored
besides the Divine Word, as though these were distinct persons; and
does not rather honor the Emmanuel with one single adoration, inasmuch
as the Word was made flesh; let him be anathema. "
Reply to Objection 1: In the Trinity there are three Who are honored,
but only one cause of honor. In the mystery of the Incarnation it is
the reverse: and therefore only one honor is given to the Trinity and
only one to Christ, but in a different way.
Reply to Objection 2: Operation is not the object but the motive of
honor. And therefore there being two operations in Christ proves, not
two adorations, but two causes of adoration.
Reply to Objection 3: If the soul of Christ were not united to the Word
of God, it would be the principal thing in that Man. Wherefore honor
would be due to it principally, since man is that which is principal in
him [*Cf. Ethic. ix, 8]. But since Christ's soul is united to a Person
of greater dignity, to that Person is honor principally due to Whom
Christ's soul is united. Nor is the dignity of Christ's soul hereby
diminished, but rather increased, as stated above ([4118]Q[2], A[2], ad
2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's humanity should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored with
the adoration of "latria. " For on the words of Ps. 98:5, "Adore His
foot-stool for it is holy," a gloss says: "The flesh assumed by the
Word of God is rightly adored by us: for no one partakes spiritually of
His flesh unless he first adore it; but not indeed with the adoration
called 'latria,' which is due to the Creator alone. " Now the flesh is
part of the humanity. Therefore Christ's humanity is not to be adored
with the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 2: Further, the worship of "latria" is not to be given to any
creature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that they
"worshiped and served the creature," as it is written (Rom. 1:25). But
Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be adored with
the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 3: Further, the adoration of "latria" is due to God in
recognition of His supreme dominion, according to Dt. 6:13: "Thou shalt
adore [Vulg. : 'fear'; cf. Mat. 4:10] the Lord thy God, and shalt serve
Him only. " But Christ as man is less than the Father. Therefore His
humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria. "
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "On account of
the incarnation of the Divine Word, we adore the flesh of Christ not
for its own sake, but because the Word of God is united thereto in
person. " And on Ps. 98:5, "Adore His foot-stool," a gloss says: "He who
adores the body of Christ, regards not the earth, but rather Him whose
foot-stool it is, in Whose honor he adores the foot-stool. " But the
incarnate Word is adored with the adoration of "latria. " Therefore also
His body or His humanity.
I answer that, As stated above [4119](A[1]) adoration is due to the
subsisting hypostasis: yet the reason for honoring may be something
non-subsistent, on account of which the person, in whom it is, is
honored. And so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood in
two ways. First, so that the humanity is the thing adored: and thus to
adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the incarnate
Word of God: just as to adore a King's robe is nothing else than to
adore a robed King. And in this sense the adoration of Christ's
humanity is the adoration of "latria. " Secondly, the adoration of
Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being
perfected with every gift of grace. And so in this sense the adoration
of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of "latria" but of "dulia. "
So that one and the same Person of Christ is adored with "latria" on
account of His Divinity, and with "dulia" on account of His perfect
humanity.
Nor is this unfitting. For the honor of "latria" is due to God the
Father Himself on account of His Godhead; and the honor of "dulia" on
account of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore on
Ps. 7:1, "O Lord my God, in Thee have I hoped," a gloss says: "Lord of
all by power, to Whom 'dulia' is due: God of all by creation, to Whom
'latria' is due. "
Reply to Objection 1: That gloss is not to be understood as though the
flesh of Christ were adored separately from its Godhead: for this could
happen only, if there were one hypostasis of God, and another of man.
But since, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "If by a subtle
distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood, it cannot
be adored because it is a creature"---that is, with adoration of
"latria. " And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of God, it
should be adored with the adoration of "dulia"; not any kind of
"dulia," such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher
adoration, which is called "hyperdulia. "
Hence appear the answers to the second and third objections. Because
the adoration of "latria" is not given to Christ's humanity in respect
of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by
reason of which Christ is not less than the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's image should not be adored
with the adoration of "latria. " For it is written (Ex. 20:4): "Thou
shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of
anything. " But no adoration should be given against the commandment of
God. Therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration
of "latria. "
Objection 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works
of the Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). But the Gentiles are
reproached principally for that "they changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man,"
as is written (Rom. 1:23). Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored
with the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of "latria" is due by
reason of His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of
"latria" is not due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on
the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material
image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself.
Objection 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the
Divine worship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle (1
Cor. 11:23) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the
Church, says: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you. " But Scripture does not lay down anything concerning the
adoration of images. Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with
the adoration of "latria. "
On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as
saying: "The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype," i. e.
the exemplar. But the exemplar itself---namely, Christ---is to be
adored with the adoration of "latria"; therefore also His image.
I answer that, As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there
is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards
the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so
far as it is the image of something else. And between these movements
there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved
towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement
towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the
image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the
thing. Thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to
Christ's image, as a thing---for instance, carved or painted wood:
because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follow
therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is
an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's
image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the
adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with
the adoration of "latria. "
Reply to Objection 1: This commandment does not forbid the making of
any graven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of
adoration, wherefore it is added: "Thou shalt not adore them nor serve
them. " And because, as stated above, the movement towards the image is
the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration thereof is
forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is.
Wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to
adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of
venerating their own gods, i. e. the demons, and so it is premised:
"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. " But no corporeal image
could be raised to the true God Himself, since He is incorporeal;
because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "It is the
highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is Divine. "
But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can be adored in
His corporeal image.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common
with the "unfruitful works" of the Gentiles, but not with their useful
works. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the
unfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the Gentiles
used to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there
was something Divine therein, on account of the answers which the
demons used to give in them, and on account of other such like
wonderful effects. Secondly on account of the things of which they were
images; for they set up images to certain creatures, to whom in these
images they gave the veneration of "latria. " Whereas we give the
adoration of "latria" to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for
the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is,
as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Reverence is due to the rational creature for its
own sake. Consequently, if the adoration of "latria" were shown to the
rational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion of
error---namely, lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the
man, as a thing, and not be carried on to God, Whose image he is. This
cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible
material.
Reply to Objection 4: The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the
Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they
did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance
with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time
went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): "Stand fast; and
hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word"---that is
by word of mouth---"or by our epistle"---that is by word put into
writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image.
Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ,
which is in Rome.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's cross should be worshipped with the adoration of "latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's cross should not be worshiped
with the adoration of "latria. " For no dutiful son honors that which
dishonors his father, as the scourge with which he was scourged, or the
gibbet on which he was hanged; rather does he abhor it. Now Christ
underwent the most shameful death on the cross; according to Wis. 2:20:
"Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death. " Therefore we should not
venerate the cross but rather we should abhor it.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration
of "latria," inasmuch as it is united to the Son of God in Person. But
this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore Christ's cross should not
be worshiped with the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 3: Further, as Christ's cross was the instrument of His
passion and death, so were also many other things, for instance, the
nails, the crown, the lance; yet to these we do not show the worship of
"latria. " It seems, therefore, that Christ's cross should not be
worshiped with the adoration of "latria. "
On the contrary, We show the worship of "latria" to that in which we
place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope in Christ's cross,
for the Church sings:
"Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside,
That cheers the solemn passion-tide:
Give to the just increase of grace,
Give to each contrite sinner peace. "
[*Hymn Vexilla Regis: translation of Father Aylward, O. P. ]
Therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of
"latria. "
I answer that, As stated above [4120](A[3]), honor or reverence is due
to a rational creature only; while to an insensible creature, no honor
or reverence is due save by reason of a rational nature. And this in
two ways. First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature: secondly,
inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In the first way
men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the second way, his robe.
And both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to
the king.
If, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was
crucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways---namely, in one
way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended
thereon; in the other way, from its contact with the limbs of Christ,
and from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it
is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of
"latria. " And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to
it, as to the Crucified Himself. But if we speak of the effigy of
Christ's cross in any other material whatever---for instance, in stone
or wood, silver or gold---thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's
image, which we worship with the adoration of "latria," as stated above
[4121](A[3]).
Reply to Objection 1: If in Christ's cross we consider the point of
view and intention of those who did not believe in Him, it will appear
as His shame: but if we consider its effect, which is our salvation, it
will appear as endowed with Divine power, by which it triumphed over
the enemy, according to Col. 2:14,15: "He hath taken the same out of
the way, fastening it to the cross, and despoiling the principalities
and powers, He hath exposed them confidently, in open show, triumphing
over them in Himself. " Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:18): "The
Word of the cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness; but to
them that are saved---that is, to us---it is the power of God. "
Reply to Objection 2: Although Christ's cross was not united to the
Word of God in Person, yet it was united to Him in some other way, viz.
by representation and contact. And for this sole reason reverence is
shown to it.
Reply to Objection 3: By reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we
worship not only the cross, but all that belongs to Christ. Wherefore
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 11): "The precious wood, as having
been sanctified by the contact of His holy body and blood, should be
meetly worshiped; as also His nails, His lance, and His sacred
dwelling-places, such as the manger, the cave and so forth. " Yet these
very things do not represent Christ's image as the cross does, which is
called "the Sign of the Son of Man" that "will appear in heaven," as it
is written (Mat. 24:30). Wherefore the angel said to the women (Mk.
16:6): "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, Who was crucified": he said not
"pierced," but "crucified. " For this reason we worship the image of
Christ's cross in any material, but not the image of the nails or of
any such thing.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Mother of God should be worshipped with the adoration of
"latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God is to be worshiped
with the adoration of "latria. " For it seems that the same honor is due
to the king's mother as to the king: whence it is written (3 Kings
2:19) that "a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on His
right hand. " Moreover, Augustine [*Sermon on the Assumption, work of an
anonymous author] says: "It is right that the throne of God, the
resting-place of the Lord of Heaven, the abode of Christ, should be
there where He is Himself. " But Christ is worshiped with the adoration
of "latria. " Therefore His Mother also should be.
Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "The honor
of the Mother reflects on the Son. " But the Son is worshiped with the
adoration of "latria. " Therefore the Mother also.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's Mother is more akin to Him than the
cross. But the cross is worshiped with the adoration of "latria. "
Therefore also His Mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration.
On the contrary, The Mother of God is a mere creature. Therefore the
worship of "latria" is not due to her.
I answer that, Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a
creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though
insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own
sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its
own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere
rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed
Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due
to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other
creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say
that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia. "
Reply to Objection 1: The honor due to the king's mother is not equal
to the honor which is due to the king: but is somewhat like it, by
reason of a certain excellence on her part. This is what is meant by
the authorities quoted.
Reply to Objection 2: The honor given to the Mother reflects on her
Son, because the Mother is to be honored for her Son's sake. But not in
the same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar:
because the image itself, considered as a thing, is not to be venerated
in any way at all.
Reply to Objection 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an object
of veneration, as stated above ([4122]AA[4],5). But the Blessed Virgin
is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no comparison.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints?
Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be
worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of
error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the
error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore the relics
of the saints are not to be honored.
Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible.
But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to
venerate them.
Objection 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a
living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it.
Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be
worshiped.
On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that
the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs,
as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity":
and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not
accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius. "
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's
coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished
by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are
the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately
and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's
very nature. " It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection
for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only
his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his
clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to
the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends
of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to
honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their
bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and
operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ
by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors
such relics by working miracles at their presence.
Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words
are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as
follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext
of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust
in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen. " To him Jerome replies
(Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the
martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"---that is
to say, with the worship of "latria. " "But we honor the martyrs'
relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [*The
original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i. e. the Greek {martys} is 'a
witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them
may reflect on their Master. " Consequently, by honoring the martyrs'
relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the
worship of "latria" to dead men.
Reply to Objection 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own
sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and
now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.
Reply to Objection 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with
that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of
form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is
destined to be reunited to its form.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN (TWO ARTICLES)
We have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of God and
man, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?
(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the
Mediator of God and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be
mediators between God and man, according to Dt. 5:5: "I was the
mediator and stood between God [Vulg. : 'the Lord'] and you at that
time. " But it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet.
Neither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator.
Objection 2: Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and
bad, cannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between God and
man is fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It
is also fitting to the bad angels---that is, the demons: for they have
something in common with God---namely, "immortality"; and something
they have in common with men---namely, "passibility of soul" and
consequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei ix, 13,15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator
of God and man.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech
one of those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy
Ghost, as it is written (Rom. 8:26), "asketh" God "for us with
unspeakable groanings. " Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between
God and man. Therefore this is not proper to Christ.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Tim. 2:5): "There is . . . one
Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus. "
I answer that, Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to join
together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are
united in the mean [medio]. Now to unite men to God perfectively
belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to God, according to
2 Cor. 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. " And,
consequently, Christ alone is the perfect Mediator of God and men,
inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. Hence
the Apostle, after saying, "Mediator of God and man, the man Christ
Jesus," added: "Who gave Himself a redemption for all. "
However, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in
some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in
uniting men to God, dispositively or ministerially.
Reply to Objection 1: The prophets and priests of the Old Law were
called mediators between God and man, dispositively and ministerially:
inasmuch as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect
Mediator of God and men. As to the priests of the New Law, they may be
called mediators of God and men, inasmuch as they are the ministers of
the true Mediator by administering, in His stead, the saving sacraments
to men.
Reply to Objection 2: The good angels, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
ix, 13), cannot rightly be called mediators between God and men. "For
since, in common with God, they have both beatitude and immortality,
and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man, how
much rather are they not aloof from men and akin to God, than
established between them? " Dionysius, however, says that they do occupy
a middle place, because, in the order of nature, they are established
below God and above man. Moreover, they fulfill the office of mediator,
not indeed principally and
perfectively, but ministerially and dispositively: whence (Mat. 4:11)
it is said that "angels came and ministered unto Him"---namely, Christ.
As to the demons, it is true that they have immortality in common with
God, and unhappiness in common with men. "Hence for this purpose does
the immortal and unhappy demon intervene, in order that he may hinder
men from passing to a happy immortality," and may allure them to an
unhappy immortality. Whence he is like "an evil mediator, who separates
friends" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xv].
But Christ had beatitude in common with God, mortality in common with
men. Hence "for this purpose did He intervene, that having fulfilled
the span of His mortality, He might from dead men make immortal---which
He showed in Himself by rising again; and that He might confer
beatitude on those who were deprived of it---for which reason He never
forsook us. " Wherefore He is "the good Mediator, Who reconciles
enemies" (De Civ. Dei xv).
Reply to Objection 3: Since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to
God, He cannot be said to be between, or a Mediator of, God and men:
but Christ alone, Who, though equal to the Father in His Godhead, yet
is less than the Father in His human nature, as stated above
([4123]Q[20], A[1]). Hence on Gal. 3:20, "Christ is a Mediator [Vulg. :
'Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one']," the gloss says: "Not
the Father nor the Holy Ghost. " The Holy Ghost, however, is said "to
ask for us," because He makes us ask.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ, is the Mediator of God and men?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not, as man, the Mediator of
God and men. For Augustine says (Contra Felic. x): "One is the Person
of Christ: lest there be not one Christ, not one substance; lest, the
office of Mediator being denied, He be called the Son either of God
alone, or merely the Son of a man. " But He is the Son of God and man,
not as man, but as at the same time God and man. Therefore neither
should we say that, as man alone, He is Mediator of God and man.
Objection 2: Further, just as Christ, as God, has a common nature with
the Father and the Holy Ghost; so, as man, He has a common nature with
men. But for the reason that, as God, He has the same nature as the
Father and the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called Mediator, as God: for on
1 Tim. 2:5, "Mediator of God and man," a gloss says: "As the Word, He
is not a Mediator, because He is equal to God, and God 'with God,' and
at the same time one God. " Therefore neither, as man, can He be called
Mediator, on account of His having the same nature as men.
Objection 3: Further, Christ is called Mediator, inasmuch as He
reconciled us to God: and this He did by taking away sin, which
separated us from God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not as
man, but as God. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, not as man, but as
God.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 15): "Not because He
is the Word, is Christ Mediator, since He Who is supremely immortal and
supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals; but He is Mediator, as
man. "
I answer that, We may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he
is a mean; secondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the nature of
a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by
communicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither of
these can be applied to Christ as God, but only as man. For, as God, He
does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost in nature and power
of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything that the
Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others something
belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as though it were belonging
to others than Himself. But both can be applied to Him as man. Because,
as man, He is distant both from God, by nature, and from man by dignity
of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to Him, as man, to unite men
to God, by communicating to men both precepts and gifts, and by
offering satisfaction and prayers to God for men. And therefore He is
most truly called Mediator, as man.
Reply to Objection 1: If we take the Divine Nature from Christ, we
consequently take from Him the singular fulness of grace, which belongs
to Him as the Only-begotten of the Father, as it is written (Jn. 1:14).
From which fulness it resulted that He was established over all men,
and approached nearer to God.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ, as God, is in all things equal to the
Father. But even in the human nature He is above all men. Therefore, as
man, He can be Mediator, but not as God.
Reply to Objection 3: Although it belongs to Christ as God to take away
sin authoritatively, yet it belongs to Him, as man, to satisfy for the
sin of the human race. And in this sense He is called the Mediator of
God and men.
ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE)
The privilege of the Virgin-Mother of God and the supreme prerogative
of her Son may be seen from the following diagram:
THE LAW AND THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN UNDER THE LAW . . . . . all
descendants from Adam . . . . . spring from Adam materially and
seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under the guilty, but) under the
effects of original sin . . . . . the stricken body dispositively
causes the soul to contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . all
contract both debt and stain . . . . . all need a Redeemer to destroy
the stain contracted PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION . . . . . the Blessed Virgin . . . . . springs
from Adam materially and seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under
the guilt, but) under the effects of original sin . . . . . the
stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul to contract the
guilt of original sin . . . . . the soul at the moment of union with
the body was prevented by the infusion of grace from contracting sin .
. . . . Mary contracted the debt, but not the stain . . . . . Mary
needed a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain WHOLLY
EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION . . . . . Our Blessed Lord .
. . . . springs from Adam materially, not seminally ([4124]Q[31], A[1])
. . . . . His body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin
. . . . . the body being entirely free, could not transmit the stain to
His soul . . . . . no preventive grace needed . . . . . Jesus Christ
contracted neither debt nor stain . . . . . Jesus Christ is not
redeemed, but the Redeemer
It will thus be seen how accurately St. Thomas speaks of the "flesh" or
body of our Blessed Lady. For it should be remembered that, according
to St. Thomas, the human body is animated in succession by (1) a
vegetative, (2) a sensitive, and (3) a rational soul. Hence his
assertion that "the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in
original sin" ([4125]Q[14], A[3], ad 1) means that the body of the
Blessed Virgin, being descended from Adam both materially and
seminally, contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal
generation, and are the results of the privation of original justice
([4126]Q[69], A[4], ad 3). Before animation, therefore the body of the
Blessed Virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin,
because privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject of
grace, viz. the rational soul. Nevertheless, before animation the body
of the Blessed Virgin, being seminally descended from Adam, was such
that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of original
sin to the rational soul at the very first instant of animation, unless
the grace of the Redeemer intervened and sanctified her soul "in that
self-same instant," thus redeeming her and preventing her from
contracting the guilt of original sin.
Why, then, does St. Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin was not
sanctified before animation, therefore she could be sanctified only
after animation?
Such a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of
Nature: "a thing must be before it is such [prius est esse quam esse
tale]"; and therefore the soul must be, before it is sanctified. But if
St. Thomas held for a posteriority of time, no matter how short, we ask
how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the argument, since
it might be neither before nor after, but in the very instant of,
animation.
it is written in the chapters of Cyril [*Council of Ephesus, Part I,
ch. 26]: "If anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be adored
besides the Divine Word, as though these were distinct persons; and
does not rather honor the Emmanuel with one single adoration, inasmuch
as the Word was made flesh; let him be anathema. "
Reply to Objection 1: In the Trinity there are three Who are honored,
but only one cause of honor. In the mystery of the Incarnation it is
the reverse: and therefore only one honor is given to the Trinity and
only one to Christ, but in a different way.
Reply to Objection 2: Operation is not the object but the motive of
honor. And therefore there being two operations in Christ proves, not
two adorations, but two causes of adoration.
Reply to Objection 3: If the soul of Christ were not united to the Word
of God, it would be the principal thing in that Man. Wherefore honor
would be due to it principally, since man is that which is principal in
him [*Cf. Ethic. ix, 8]. But since Christ's soul is united to a Person
of greater dignity, to that Person is honor principally due to Whom
Christ's soul is united. Nor is the dignity of Christ's soul hereby
diminished, but rather increased, as stated above ([4118]Q[2], A[2], ad
2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's humanity should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored with
the adoration of "latria. " For on the words of Ps. 98:5, "Adore His
foot-stool for it is holy," a gloss says: "The flesh assumed by the
Word of God is rightly adored by us: for no one partakes spiritually of
His flesh unless he first adore it; but not indeed with the adoration
called 'latria,' which is due to the Creator alone. " Now the flesh is
part of the humanity. Therefore Christ's humanity is not to be adored
with the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 2: Further, the worship of "latria" is not to be given to any
creature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that they
"worshiped and served the creature," as it is written (Rom. 1:25). But
Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be adored with
the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 3: Further, the adoration of "latria" is due to God in
recognition of His supreme dominion, according to Dt. 6:13: "Thou shalt
adore [Vulg. : 'fear'; cf. Mat. 4:10] the Lord thy God, and shalt serve
Him only. " But Christ as man is less than the Father. Therefore His
humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria. "
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "On account of
the incarnation of the Divine Word, we adore the flesh of Christ not
for its own sake, but because the Word of God is united thereto in
person. " And on Ps. 98:5, "Adore His foot-stool," a gloss says: "He who
adores the body of Christ, regards not the earth, but rather Him whose
foot-stool it is, in Whose honor he adores the foot-stool. " But the
incarnate Word is adored with the adoration of "latria. " Therefore also
His body or His humanity.
I answer that, As stated above [4119](A[1]) adoration is due to the
subsisting hypostasis: yet the reason for honoring may be something
non-subsistent, on account of which the person, in whom it is, is
honored. And so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood in
two ways. First, so that the humanity is the thing adored: and thus to
adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the incarnate
Word of God: just as to adore a King's robe is nothing else than to
adore a robed King. And in this sense the adoration of Christ's
humanity is the adoration of "latria. " Secondly, the adoration of
Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being
perfected with every gift of grace. And so in this sense the adoration
of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of "latria" but of "dulia. "
So that one and the same Person of Christ is adored with "latria" on
account of His Divinity, and with "dulia" on account of His perfect
humanity.
Nor is this unfitting. For the honor of "latria" is due to God the
Father Himself on account of His Godhead; and the honor of "dulia" on
account of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore on
Ps. 7:1, "O Lord my God, in Thee have I hoped," a gloss says: "Lord of
all by power, to Whom 'dulia' is due: God of all by creation, to Whom
'latria' is due. "
Reply to Objection 1: That gloss is not to be understood as though the
flesh of Christ were adored separately from its Godhead: for this could
happen only, if there were one hypostasis of God, and another of man.
But since, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "If by a subtle
distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood, it cannot
be adored because it is a creature"---that is, with adoration of
"latria. " And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of God, it
should be adored with the adoration of "dulia"; not any kind of
"dulia," such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher
adoration, which is called "hyperdulia. "
Hence appear the answers to the second and third objections. Because
the adoration of "latria" is not given to Christ's humanity in respect
of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by
reason of which Christ is not less than the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's image should not be adored
with the adoration of "latria. " For it is written (Ex. 20:4): "Thou
shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of
anything. " But no adoration should be given against the commandment of
God. Therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration
of "latria. "
Objection 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works
of the Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). But the Gentiles are
reproached principally for that "they changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man,"
as is written (Rom. 1:23). Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored
with the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of "latria" is due by
reason of His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of
"latria" is not due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on
the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material
image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself.
Objection 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the
Divine worship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle (1
Cor. 11:23) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the
Church, says: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you. " But Scripture does not lay down anything concerning the
adoration of images. Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with
the adoration of "latria. "
On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as
saying: "The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype," i. e.
the exemplar. But the exemplar itself---namely, Christ---is to be
adored with the adoration of "latria"; therefore also His image.
I answer that, As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there
is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards
the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so
far as it is the image of something else. And between these movements
there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved
towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement
towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the
image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the
thing. Thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to
Christ's image, as a thing---for instance, carved or painted wood:
because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follow
therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is
an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's
image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the
adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with
the adoration of "latria. "
Reply to Objection 1: This commandment does not forbid the making of
any graven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of
adoration, wherefore it is added: "Thou shalt not adore them nor serve
them. " And because, as stated above, the movement towards the image is
the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration thereof is
forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is.
Wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to
adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of
venerating their own gods, i. e. the demons, and so it is premised:
"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. " But no corporeal image
could be raised to the true God Himself, since He is incorporeal;
because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "It is the
highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is Divine. "
But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can be adored in
His corporeal image.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common
with the "unfruitful works" of the Gentiles, but not with their useful
works. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the
unfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the Gentiles
used to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there
was something Divine therein, on account of the answers which the
demons used to give in them, and on account of other such like
wonderful effects. Secondly on account of the things of which they were
images; for they set up images to certain creatures, to whom in these
images they gave the veneration of "latria. " Whereas we give the
adoration of "latria" to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for
the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is,
as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Reverence is due to the rational creature for its
own sake. Consequently, if the adoration of "latria" were shown to the
rational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion of
error---namely, lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the
man, as a thing, and not be carried on to God, Whose image he is. This
cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible
material.
Reply to Objection 4: The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the
Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they
did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance
with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time
went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): "Stand fast; and
hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word"---that is
by word of mouth---"or by our epistle"---that is by word put into
writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image.
Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ,
which is in Rome.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's cross should be worshipped with the adoration of "latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's cross should not be worshiped
with the adoration of "latria. " For no dutiful son honors that which
dishonors his father, as the scourge with which he was scourged, or the
gibbet on which he was hanged; rather does he abhor it. Now Christ
underwent the most shameful death on the cross; according to Wis. 2:20:
"Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death. " Therefore we should not
venerate the cross but rather we should abhor it.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration
of "latria," inasmuch as it is united to the Son of God in Person. But
this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore Christ's cross should not
be worshiped with the adoration of "latria. "
Objection 3: Further, as Christ's cross was the instrument of His
passion and death, so were also many other things, for instance, the
nails, the crown, the lance; yet to these we do not show the worship of
"latria. " It seems, therefore, that Christ's cross should not be
worshiped with the adoration of "latria. "
On the contrary, We show the worship of "latria" to that in which we
place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope in Christ's cross,
for the Church sings:
"Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside,
That cheers the solemn passion-tide:
Give to the just increase of grace,
Give to each contrite sinner peace. "
[*Hymn Vexilla Regis: translation of Father Aylward, O. P. ]
Therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of
"latria. "
I answer that, As stated above [4120](A[3]), honor or reverence is due
to a rational creature only; while to an insensible creature, no honor
or reverence is due save by reason of a rational nature. And this in
two ways. First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature: secondly,
inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In the first way
men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the second way, his robe.
And both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to
the king.
If, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was
crucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways---namely, in one
way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended
thereon; in the other way, from its contact with the limbs of Christ,
and from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it
is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of
"latria. " And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to
it, as to the Crucified Himself. But if we speak of the effigy of
Christ's cross in any other material whatever---for instance, in stone
or wood, silver or gold---thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's
image, which we worship with the adoration of "latria," as stated above
[4121](A[3]).
Reply to Objection 1: If in Christ's cross we consider the point of
view and intention of those who did not believe in Him, it will appear
as His shame: but if we consider its effect, which is our salvation, it
will appear as endowed with Divine power, by which it triumphed over
the enemy, according to Col. 2:14,15: "He hath taken the same out of
the way, fastening it to the cross, and despoiling the principalities
and powers, He hath exposed them confidently, in open show, triumphing
over them in Himself. " Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:18): "The
Word of the cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness; but to
them that are saved---that is, to us---it is the power of God. "
Reply to Objection 2: Although Christ's cross was not united to the
Word of God in Person, yet it was united to Him in some other way, viz.
by representation and contact. And for this sole reason reverence is
shown to it.
Reply to Objection 3: By reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we
worship not only the cross, but all that belongs to Christ. Wherefore
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 11): "The precious wood, as having
been sanctified by the contact of His holy body and blood, should be
meetly worshiped; as also His nails, His lance, and His sacred
dwelling-places, such as the manger, the cave and so forth. " Yet these
very things do not represent Christ's image as the cross does, which is
called "the Sign of the Son of Man" that "will appear in heaven," as it
is written (Mat. 24:30). Wherefore the angel said to the women (Mk.
16:6): "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, Who was crucified": he said not
"pierced," but "crucified. " For this reason we worship the image of
Christ's cross in any material, but not the image of the nails or of
any such thing.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Mother of God should be worshipped with the adoration of
"latria"?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God is to be worshiped
with the adoration of "latria. " For it seems that the same honor is due
to the king's mother as to the king: whence it is written (3 Kings
2:19) that "a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on His
right hand. " Moreover, Augustine [*Sermon on the Assumption, work of an
anonymous author] says: "It is right that the throne of God, the
resting-place of the Lord of Heaven, the abode of Christ, should be
there where He is Himself. " But Christ is worshiped with the adoration
of "latria. " Therefore His Mother also should be.
Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "The honor
of the Mother reflects on the Son. " But the Son is worshiped with the
adoration of "latria. " Therefore the Mother also.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's Mother is more akin to Him than the
cross. But the cross is worshiped with the adoration of "latria. "
Therefore also His Mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration.
On the contrary, The Mother of God is a mere creature. Therefore the
worship of "latria" is not due to her.
I answer that, Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a
creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though
insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own
sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its
own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere
rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed
Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due
to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other
creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say
that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia. "
Reply to Objection 1: The honor due to the king's mother is not equal
to the honor which is due to the king: but is somewhat like it, by
reason of a certain excellence on her part. This is what is meant by
the authorities quoted.
Reply to Objection 2: The honor given to the Mother reflects on her
Son, because the Mother is to be honored for her Son's sake. But not in
the same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar:
because the image itself, considered as a thing, is not to be venerated
in any way at all.
Reply to Objection 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an object
of veneration, as stated above ([4122]AA[4],5). But the Blessed Virgin
is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no comparison.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints?
Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be
worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of
error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the
error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore the relics
of the saints are not to be honored.
Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible.
But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to
venerate them.
Objection 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a
living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it.
Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be
worshiped.
On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that
the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs,
as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity":
and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not
accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius. "
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's
coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished
by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are
the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately
and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's
very nature. " It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection
for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only
his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his
clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to
the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends
of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to
honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their
bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and
operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ
by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors
such relics by working miracles at their presence.
Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words
are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as
follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext
of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust
in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen. " To him Jerome replies
(Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the
martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"---that is
to say, with the worship of "latria. " "But we honor the martyrs'
relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [*The
original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i. e. the Greek {martys} is 'a
witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them
may reflect on their Master. " Consequently, by honoring the martyrs'
relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the
worship of "latria" to dead men.
Reply to Objection 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own
sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and
now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.
Reply to Objection 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with
that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of
form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is
destined to be reunited to its form.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN (TWO ARTICLES)
We have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of God and
man, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?
(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the
Mediator of God and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be
mediators between God and man, according to Dt. 5:5: "I was the
mediator and stood between God [Vulg. : 'the Lord'] and you at that
time. " But it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet.
Neither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator.
Objection 2: Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and
bad, cannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between God and
man is fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It
is also fitting to the bad angels---that is, the demons: for they have
something in common with God---namely, "immortality"; and something
they have in common with men---namely, "passibility of soul" and
consequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei ix, 13,15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator
of God and man.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech
one of those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy
Ghost, as it is written (Rom. 8:26), "asketh" God "for us with
unspeakable groanings. " Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between
God and man. Therefore this is not proper to Christ.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Tim. 2:5): "There is . . . one
Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus. "
I answer that, Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to join
together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are
united in the mean [medio]. Now to unite men to God perfectively
belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to God, according to
2 Cor. 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. " And,
consequently, Christ alone is the perfect Mediator of God and men,
inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. Hence
the Apostle, after saying, "Mediator of God and man, the man Christ
Jesus," added: "Who gave Himself a redemption for all. "
However, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in
some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in
uniting men to God, dispositively or ministerially.
Reply to Objection 1: The prophets and priests of the Old Law were
called mediators between God and man, dispositively and ministerially:
inasmuch as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect
Mediator of God and men. As to the priests of the New Law, they may be
called mediators of God and men, inasmuch as they are the ministers of
the true Mediator by administering, in His stead, the saving sacraments
to men.
Reply to Objection 2: The good angels, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
ix, 13), cannot rightly be called mediators between God and men. "For
since, in common with God, they have both beatitude and immortality,
and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man, how
much rather are they not aloof from men and akin to God, than
established between them? " Dionysius, however, says that they do occupy
a middle place, because, in the order of nature, they are established
below God and above man. Moreover, they fulfill the office of mediator,
not indeed principally and
perfectively, but ministerially and dispositively: whence (Mat. 4:11)
it is said that "angels came and ministered unto Him"---namely, Christ.
As to the demons, it is true that they have immortality in common with
God, and unhappiness in common with men. "Hence for this purpose does
the immortal and unhappy demon intervene, in order that he may hinder
men from passing to a happy immortality," and may allure them to an
unhappy immortality. Whence he is like "an evil mediator, who separates
friends" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xv].
But Christ had beatitude in common with God, mortality in common with
men. Hence "for this purpose did He intervene, that having fulfilled
the span of His mortality, He might from dead men make immortal---which
He showed in Himself by rising again; and that He might confer
beatitude on those who were deprived of it---for which reason He never
forsook us. " Wherefore He is "the good Mediator, Who reconciles
enemies" (De Civ. Dei xv).
Reply to Objection 3: Since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to
God, He cannot be said to be between, or a Mediator of, God and men:
but Christ alone, Who, though equal to the Father in His Godhead, yet
is less than the Father in His human nature, as stated above
([4123]Q[20], A[1]). Hence on Gal. 3:20, "Christ is a Mediator [Vulg. :
'Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one']," the gloss says: "Not
the Father nor the Holy Ghost. " The Holy Ghost, however, is said "to
ask for us," because He makes us ask.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ, is the Mediator of God and men?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not, as man, the Mediator of
God and men. For Augustine says (Contra Felic. x): "One is the Person
of Christ: lest there be not one Christ, not one substance; lest, the
office of Mediator being denied, He be called the Son either of God
alone, or merely the Son of a man. " But He is the Son of God and man,
not as man, but as at the same time God and man. Therefore neither
should we say that, as man alone, He is Mediator of God and man.
Objection 2: Further, just as Christ, as God, has a common nature with
the Father and the Holy Ghost; so, as man, He has a common nature with
men. But for the reason that, as God, He has the same nature as the
Father and the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called Mediator, as God: for on
1 Tim. 2:5, "Mediator of God and man," a gloss says: "As the Word, He
is not a Mediator, because He is equal to God, and God 'with God,' and
at the same time one God. " Therefore neither, as man, can He be called
Mediator, on account of His having the same nature as men.
Objection 3: Further, Christ is called Mediator, inasmuch as He
reconciled us to God: and this He did by taking away sin, which
separated us from God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not as
man, but as God. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, not as man, but as
God.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 15): "Not because He
is the Word, is Christ Mediator, since He Who is supremely immortal and
supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals; but He is Mediator, as
man. "
I answer that, We may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he
is a mean; secondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the nature of
a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by
communicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither of
these can be applied to Christ as God, but only as man. For, as God, He
does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost in nature and power
of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything that the
Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others something
belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as though it were belonging
to others than Himself. But both can be applied to Him as man. Because,
as man, He is distant both from God, by nature, and from man by dignity
of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to Him, as man, to unite men
to God, by communicating to men both precepts and gifts, and by
offering satisfaction and prayers to God for men. And therefore He is
most truly called Mediator, as man.
Reply to Objection 1: If we take the Divine Nature from Christ, we
consequently take from Him the singular fulness of grace, which belongs
to Him as the Only-begotten of the Father, as it is written (Jn. 1:14).
From which fulness it resulted that He was established over all men,
and approached nearer to God.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ, as God, is in all things equal to the
Father. But even in the human nature He is above all men. Therefore, as
man, He can be Mediator, but not as God.
Reply to Objection 3: Although it belongs to Christ as God to take away
sin authoritatively, yet it belongs to Him, as man, to satisfy for the
sin of the human race. And in this sense He is called the Mediator of
God and men.
ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE)
The privilege of the Virgin-Mother of God and the supreme prerogative
of her Son may be seen from the following diagram:
THE LAW AND THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN UNDER THE LAW . . . . . all
descendants from Adam . . . . . spring from Adam materially and
seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under the guilty, but) under the
effects of original sin . . . . . the stricken body dispositively
causes the soul to contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . all
contract both debt and stain . . . . . all need a Redeemer to destroy
the stain contracted PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION . . . . . the Blessed Virgin . . . . . springs
from Adam materially and seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under
the guilt, but) under the effects of original sin . . . . . the
stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul to contract the
guilt of original sin . . . . . the soul at the moment of union with
the body was prevented by the infusion of grace from contracting sin .
. . . . Mary contracted the debt, but not the stain . . . . . Mary
needed a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain WHOLLY
EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION . . . . . Our Blessed Lord .
. . . . springs from Adam materially, not seminally ([4124]Q[31], A[1])
. . . . . His body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin
. . . . . the body being entirely free, could not transmit the stain to
His soul . . . . . no preventive grace needed . . . . . Jesus Christ
contracted neither debt nor stain . . . . . Jesus Christ is not
redeemed, but the Redeemer
It will thus be seen how accurately St. Thomas speaks of the "flesh" or
body of our Blessed Lady. For it should be remembered that, according
to St. Thomas, the human body is animated in succession by (1) a
vegetative, (2) a sensitive, and (3) a rational soul. Hence his
assertion that "the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in
original sin" ([4125]Q[14], A[3], ad 1) means that the body of the
Blessed Virgin, being descended from Adam both materially and
seminally, contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal
generation, and are the results of the privation of original justice
([4126]Q[69], A[4], ad 3). Before animation, therefore the body of the
Blessed Virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin,
because privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject of
grace, viz. the rational soul. Nevertheless, before animation the body
of the Blessed Virgin, being seminally descended from Adam, was such
that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of original
sin to the rational soul at the very first instant of animation, unless
the grace of the Redeemer intervened and sanctified her soul "in that
self-same instant," thus redeeming her and preventing her from
contracting the guilt of original sin.
Why, then, does St. Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin was not
sanctified before animation, therefore she could be sanctified only
after animation?
Such a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of
Nature: "a thing must be before it is such [prius est esse quam esse
tale]"; and therefore the soul must be, before it is sanctified. But if
St. Thomas held for a posteriority of time, no matter how short, we ask
how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the argument, since
it might be neither before nor after, but in the very instant of,
animation.
