← Back to Distinction 21

Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 21

Textus Latinus
p. 442

Articulus II. De effectu illius separationis.

Consequenter quaeritur de effectu illius separationis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum post instans separationis anima Christi impassibilis fuerit effecta. Secundo, utrum ex ipsa separatione caro fuerit mortua. Tertio quaeritur, utrum propter mortem carnis mors sit ipsi personae Verbi attribuenda.

Quaestio I. Utrum post instans separationis anima Christi impassibilis effecta sit.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum post instans separationis anima Christi impassibilis sit effecta. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Anima Christi non fuit passibilis nisi propter unionem sui ad corpusp442-1: ergo statim, dum fuit separata, amisit passibilitatem: ergo facta fuit impassibilis.

2. Item, nihil patitur nisi secundum ordinem naturae, sicut contrarium patitur a contrariop442-2; vel secundum ordinem divinae iustitiae, sicut peccator patitur ab aliquo afflictionem; vel secundum dispensationem divinae misericordiae, sicut Redemptor passus est pro sanando nostro morbo; sed nullo istorum modorum post separationem passio potuit inesse ipsi animae Christi — non enim habuit contrarium nec habuit peccatum, et consummatum erat nostrae redemptionis mysterium, sicut dicitur Ioannis decimo nonop442-3: Consummatum est — ergo nullo modo pati poterat: restat ergo, quod statim impassibilis est effecta.

3. Item, animae Sanctorum, quando non habent aliquem reatum, statim efficiuntur impassibiles: ergo si anima Christi multo velocius digna erat omni glorificatione quam omnis alia anima, videtur, quod statim impassibilis est effecta.

4. Item, nulla passio potuit esse in Christo, quae vacaret meritop442-4; sed anima Christi statim post separationem amisit potentiam sive statum merendi: ergo statim amisit potentiam patiendi: ergo statim facta est impassibilis.

Sed contra: 1. Sicut passibilitas inerat animae Christi praeter peccati debitum, ita et carnip442-5: ergo sicut velociter collata est impassibilitas animae, ita velociter debuit conferri ipsi corpori; sed impassibilitas non est collata ipsi corpori usque ad triduum, quo resurrexit: ergo similiter videtur quod nec animae ante tempus illud.

p. 443

2. Item, ponatur, quod anima iterum uniretur corpori illi secundum statum, in quo ipsum deseruit; tunc arguitur sic: si anima passibili corpori uniretur, esset passibilis; sed anima Christi poterat uniri illi corpori ante glorificationem, quia nihil eam impediebat: ergo adhuc poterat pati: non ergo erat impassibilis.

3. Item, nihil novum collatum est animae in ipso instanti separationis a corpore: ergo si prius non habebat impassibilitatem, videtur, quod nec tunc habuitp443-1 ante diem resurrectionis.

4. Item, anima, quae impassibilitatem habet, statim cum a corpore recedit, evolatp443-2; sed anima Christi non statim evolavit nec ascendit statim ad caelos, sed descendit ad inferos: ergo non statim post instans separationis facta est impassibilis.

Conclusio.

Valde probabile est, quod anima Christi statim post separationem a corpore fuerit facta impassibilis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ex certitudine auctoritatis non est nobis omnino determinatum, utrum anima Christi statim post separationem impassibilis fuerit effecta, sicut Magister tangit supra distinctione decima octavap443-3. Unde sine periculo fidei potest quis utrumque horum sentire, vel quod impassibilis effecta est statim post separationem, vel in ipsa corporis glorificatione. Verumtamen probabilitati rationis magis consonare videtur, quod statim post separationem habuerit impassibilitatem. Si enim non patiebatur anima Christi nisi dispensativep443-4 et propter nostram salutem; si iam non erat tempus et locus merendi, iam anima Christi non debebat nec poterat pati. — Unde non solum de anima Christi probabile est, quod statim post separationem a corpore facta sit impassibilis, sed etiam de qualibet anima viri sancti, in qua non reperitur reatus alicuius peccati. — Ideo rationes, quae ad partem istam sunt, satis rationabiliter possunt concedi.

Ad oppositorum solutionem: 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod corpus non statim impassibilitate fuit dotatum: dicendum, quod non est simile, duplici ex causa: primum quidem, quia anima propinquior erat gloriae quam caro; erat enim beata secundum aliquam sui partemp443-5; secundo vero, quia dilatio impassibilitatis in carne faciebat ad fidei nostrae confirmationem, videlicet ut ostenderetur Christus veraciter passus et mortuus fuisse; non sic dilatio impassibilitatis in anima: ideo magis dilata fuit impassibilitas corporis quam impassibilitas animae ex dispensatione divina.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima illa iterum uniri poterat corpori passibili; dicendum, quod quaedam animae separantur a corpore separatione definitiva sive finali, quaedam vero separantur a corpore ad tempus propter gloriae Dei manifestationem; sicut est in illis qui resuscitantur ad statum vitae praeteritae, sicut fuit in Lazarop443-6 et in aliis mirabiliter suscitatis. Quae primo modo separantur ingrediuntur novum statum; quae vero secundo modo separantur secundum divinam dispositionem adhuc a statu suo retardantur. Unde primae, nisi obstet reatus peccati, statim efficiuntur impassibiles nec unibiles sunt corpori passibili, quamvis secundae per divinum miraculum aliquando habeant coniungi. Et primo modo anima Christi separata fuit, quoniam Deus non decreveratp443-7, eam ulterius uniri carni passibili; et ideo positio illa nulla est. Non enim poterat carni passibili uniri, non quia aliquid creatum illud impediret, sed quia divina iustitia illud non permitteret.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil collatum est animae; dicendum, quod illud non constat, quamvis non legatur; nec etiamp443-8 cogit. Anima enim Christi per illud quod habebat ex sola separatione a carne passibili, iam caruit aptitudine patiendi, et ita reddita est impassibilis; nec oportet, propter hoc aliquid novi sibi conferri; satis enim sufficiebat, passionis et passibilitatis causam sibi auferri.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod animae, quae statim post separationem efficiuntur impassibiles, statim evolant; dicendum, quod illud veritatem habet nunc post Christi ascensionem, sed ante non habebat veritatem. Differebatur enim aliquarum animarum evolatio, scilicet sanctorum Patrum, propter primi peccati obligationemp443-9; animae vero Christi differebatur propter hominum eruditionem et nostrae fidei confirmationem et rectificationem et carnis propinquam glorificationem.

p. 444
Scholion

I. Magister supra d. XVIII. c. I. tetigit hanc quaestionem, sed non solvit. Commentatores multi ibi specialem ponunt quaestionem non (ut hic) de tempore, quando incepit haec impassibilitas, sed utrum Christus sibi impassibilitatem animae meruerit. Sed hic tantum in dubiis supra lit. aliqui, ut Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., cum nostro Doctore docent, quod anima Christi probabilius statim post separationem a corpore facta sit impassibilis. Suarez autem asserit, hanc doctrinam esse omnino certam.

II. Sequens (2.) quaestio ita exprimitur a Petr. a Tar.: utrum caro viveret per Deitatem sibi unitam. Quod autem ex unione Divinitatis ad carnem non resultet vita carnis, quamvis Divinitas sit essentialiter vita et causa vitae; manifestum est. « Vita enim est actus et perfectio naturae; Divinitas vero non unitur carni in unitate naturae » (ita Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 19. m. 2. ad ult.), sive Deus creaturis est fons vitae effective, non formaliter. De eadem quaestione praeter Alexandrum: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. I. quaestiunc. I. ad 3; S. III. q. 30. a. 2. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. ad 3.

III. Solutio 3. quaestionis et argumentorum ad oppos. procedit secundum regulas de communicatione idiomatum. Ea enim, « quae solum ad naturam pertinent, simpliciter et sine determinatione de Christo dici possunt » (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; cfr. supra a. I. q. 3, scholion). — Magister hic (c. 2.) docet: « Sane dici potest, quod mortuus est Deus et non mortuus »; haec verba explicantur hic dub. 3; quae interpretatio, brevius contracta, refertur etiam a Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. Praeter citatos de hac quaestione agunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the effect of that separation.

Next it is asked about the effect of that separation. And concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether after the instant of separation the soul of Christ was made impassible. Second, whether from that very separation the flesh was made dead. Third it is asked whether, on account of the death of the flesh, death is to be attributed to the very person of the Word.

Question I. Whether after the instant of separation the soul of Christ was made impassible.

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked whether after the instant of separation the soul of Christ was made impassible. And that it was, seems [to be the case].

1. The soul of Christ was not passible except on account of its union to the bodyp442-1: therefore at once, when it was separated, it lost passibility: therefore it was made impassible.

2. Likewise, nothing suffers except according to the order of nature, as a contrary suffers from a contraryp442-2; or according to the order of divine justice, as a sinner suffers affliction from someone; or according to the dispensation of divine mercy, as the Redeemer suffered for the healing of our disease; but in none of these ways could suffering be present in the soul of Christ after the separation — for it had no contrary, nor did it have sin, and the mystery of our redemption was consummated, as it is said in John, chapter nineteenp442-3: It is consummated — therefore in no way could it suffer: it remains, therefore, that it was at once made impassible.

3. Likewise, the souls of the Saints, when they have no guilt, are at once made impassible: therefore if the soul of Christ was much more swiftly worthy of all glorification than every other soul, it seems that it was at once made impassible.

4. Likewise, no suffering could be in Christ that was void of meritp442-4; but the soul of Christ at once after the separation lost the power or the state of meriting: therefore it at once lost the power of suffering: therefore it was at once made impassible.

On the contrary: 1. Just as passibility was in the soul of Christ apart from any debt of sin, so also in the fleshp442-5: therefore just as impassibility was swiftly conferred on the soul, so swiftly ought it to have been conferred on the body itself; but impassibility was not conferred on the body until the three days, in which he rose again: therefore likewise it seems that neither [was it conferred] on the soul before that time.

2. Likewise, let it be posited that the soul were again united to that body according to the state in which it deserted it; then it is argued thus: if the soul were united to a passible body, it would be passible; but the soul of Christ could be united to that body before glorification, because nothing impeded it: therefore it could still suffer: therefore it was not impassible.

3. Likewise, nothing new was conferred on the soul in the very instant of separation from the body: therefore if previously it did not have impassibility, it seems that neither did it then have itp443-1 before the day of resurrection.

4. Likewise, a soul that has impassibility, at once when it withdraws from the body, flies awayp443-2; but the soul of Christ did not at once fly away, nor did it at once ascend to the heavens, but it descended to the lower regions: therefore it was not at once after the instant of separation made impassible.

Conclusion.

It is highly probable that the soul of Christ was at once after the separation from the body made impassible.

I respond: It must be said that, from the certitude of authority, it is not entirely determined for us whether the soul of Christ was at once after the separation made impassible, as the Master touches upon above, in the eighteenth distinctionp443-3. Hence, without peril to faith, anyone may hold either of these, namely either that it was made impassible at once after the separation, or in the very glorification of the body. Nevertheless it seems more consonant with the probability of reason that it had impassibility at once after the separation. For if the soul of Christ did not suffer except dispensativelyp443-4 and for our salvation; if there was now no time and place for meriting, then now the soul of Christ neither ought nor was able to suffer. — Hence not only concerning the soul of Christ is it probable that it was at once after the separation from the body made impassible, but also concerning any soul of a holy man in which the guilt of no sin is found. — Therefore the reasons that are for this side can be quite reasonably conceded.

To the solution of the opposing arguments: 1. To that, then, which is objected on the contrary, that the body was not at once endowed with impassibility: it must be said that it is not alike, for a twofold cause: first indeed, because the soul was nearer to glory than the flesh; for it was blessed according to some part of itselfp443-5; second truly, because the delay of impassibility in the flesh served for the confirmation of our faith, namely so that it might be shown that Christ truly suffered and died; not so the delay of impassibility in the soul: therefore the impassibility of the body was more delayed than the impassibility of the soul, by divine dispensation.

2. To that which is objected, that that soul could again be united to a passible body; it must be said that certain souls are separated from the body by a definitive or final separation, while certain ones are separated from the body for a time on account of the manifestation of God's glory; as is the case in those who are raised again to the state of a past life, as was the case in Lazarusp443-6 and in others miraculously raised up. Those that are separated in the first way enter a new state; those that are separated in the second way are, according to the divine disposition, still held back from their state. Hence the first, unless the guilt of sin stands in the way, are at once made impassible and are not unible to a passible body, although the second sometimes have to be conjoined [to it] through a divine miracle. And in the first way the soul of Christ was separated, since God had not decreedp443-7 that it should be further united to passible flesh; and therefore that supposition is null. For it could not be united to passible flesh, not because anything created impeded it, but because divine justice would not permit it.

3. To that which is objected, that nothing was conferred on the soul; it must be said that this is not established, although it is not read; nor indeed does itp443-8 compel [the conclusion]. For the soul of Christ, through that which it had from the separation alone from passible flesh, already lacked the aptitude for suffering, and thus was rendered impassible; nor is it necessary, on account of this, that anything new be conferred on it; for it sufficed well enough that the cause of suffering and of passibility be taken away from it.

4. To that which is objected, that the souls which are at once after separation made impassible at once fly away; it must be said that this holds true now after Christ's ascension, but before it did not hold true. For the flying-away of certain souls, namely of the holy Fathers, was deferred on account of the obligation of the first sinp443-9; but for the soul of Christ it was deferred on account of the instruction of men and the confirmation and rectification of our faith and the near glorification of the flesh.

Scholion

I. The Master, above, in d. XVIII, c. I, touched on this question but did not resolve it. Many commentators there pose a special question not (as here) about the time, when this impassibility began, but whether Christ merited impassibility of soul for himself. But here only in the dubia upon the text above do some, like Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, together with our Doctor, teach that the soul of Christ was more probably made impassible at once after the separation from the body. Suárez, however, asserts that this doctrine is entirely certain.

II. The following (2nd) question is so expressed by Peter of Tarentaise: whether the flesh lived through the Deity united to it. But that from the union of the Divinity to the flesh there does not result the life of the flesh, although the Divinity is essentially life and the cause of life, is manifest. « For life is the act and perfection of nature; but the Divinity is not united to the flesh in unity of nature » (thus Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 19, m. 2, ad ult.), or [rather] God is to creatures the fount of life effectively, not formally. On the same question, besides Alexander: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. I, quaestiuncula I, ad 3; S. III, q. 30, a. 2, ad 3. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. I, quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, ad 3.

III. The solution of the 3rd question and of the arguments to the opposite proceeds according to the rules concerning the communication of idioms. For those things « which pertain to nature alone can be said of Christ simply and without determination » (St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; cf. above a. I, q. 3, scholion). — The Master here (c. 2) teaches: « It can rightly be said that God died and did not die »; these words are explained here in dubium 3; which interpretation, more briefly contracted, is reported also by Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. Besides those cited, on this question treat: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cfr. supra d. 16. a. I. q. I. ad 4, ubi etiam videsis de maiori arg. seq. — Mox pro passibilitatem Vat. perperam impassibilitatem.
    Cf. above d. 16, a. I, q. I, ad 4, where you may also see concerning the major [premise] of the following argument. — Shortly after, for passibilitatem the Vatican edition wrongly [reads] impassibilitatem.
  2. Vide Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 50. seqq. (c. 7.). — Post pauca pro peccator cod. G reus.
    See Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I, text 50 ff. (c. 7). — A little after, for peccator codex G [reads] reus.
  3. Vers. 30.
    Verse 30.
  4. Cfr. supra d. 18. a. I. q. 3.
    Cf. above d. 18, a. I, q. 3.
  5. Vide supra d. 16. a. I. q. 3. — Mox voci animae cod. U praefigit ipsi.
    See above d. 16, a. I, q. 3. — Shortly after, before the word animae codex U prefixes ipsi.
  6. Non pauci codd. habuerit.
    Not a few codices [read] habuerit.
  7. Sive venit in caelum. — Paulo inferius pro separationis, quam lectionem e codd. A K Y bb recepimus, alii codd. et edd. perperam resurrectionis.
    Or [rather] comes into heaven. — A little below, for separationis, which reading we have received from codices A K Y bb, other codices and editions wrongly [read] resurrectionis.
  8. Cap. I. Innocent. III, Serm. 20. de Temp. dicit: Puto, quod anima Christi mox, ut exivit a corpore, facta est impassibilis, cum illico fuerit ab omni causa passionis immunis; quoniam tunc nec alieno consortio nec ex delicto nec ex propria pati poterat natura, nisi forsitan illud videatur obsistere, quod sicut corpus et anima Christi simul incipiens passibilitati subesse, quoniam illud fuit corpus simul et formando animatum et animando formatum, ita et corpus et anima Christi simul impassibilitatem acceperunt, ut anima reddita corpori simul fuerit glorificata cum illo.
    Chap. I. Innocent III, Sermon 20 de Tempore, says: I think that the soul of Christ, as soon as it went out from the body, was made impassible, since it was at once immune from every cause of suffering; for then the nature could suffer neither from another's company nor from a transgression nor from itself, unless perhaps this seems to stand against it, that just as the body and soul of Christ together began to be subject to passibility — since that body was at once both animated in being formed and formed in being animated — so also the body and soul of Christ together received impassibility, so that the soul, restored to the body, was glorified together with it.
  9. Cod. U ex dispensatione, plures codd. dispensatione. In Vat. desideratur nisi ante dispensative. Mox pro si iam cod. R et iam. Paulo inferius post separationem cod. O subiicit animae.
    Codex U [reads] ex dispensatione, several codices dispensatione. In the Vatican edition nisi is wanting before dispensative. Shortly after, for si iam codex R [reads] et iam. A little below, after separationem codex O adds animae.
  10. Scilicet secundum partem superiorem. Cfr. supra d. 16. a. 2. q. 2.
    Namely according to the superior part. Cf. above d. 16, a. 2, q. 2.
  11. Ioan. 11, 4: Audiens autem Iesus (Lazarum infirmari) dixit eis: Infirmitas haec non est ad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei etc. — Paulo inferius pro dispositionem codd. N U dispensationem.
    John 11:4: But Jesus, hearing (that Lazarus was sick), said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, etc. — A little below, for dispositionem codices N U [read] dispensationem.
  12. Cod. U determinavit, edd. determinaverat. Subinde pro uniri codd. G I K L Z aa bb unire, et paulo post pro poterat quod habent codd. A K L aa bb in aliis potuerat.
    Codex U [reads] determinavit, the editions determinaverat. Thereupon for uniri codices G I K L Z aa bb [read] unire, and a little after, for poterat which codices A K L aa bb have, in others [it is] potuerat.
  13. Cod. U inserit ratio. In fine solut. pro causam sibi auferri, quod habent codd. F Z, edd. rationem (cod. S a secunda manu occasionem) sibi auferri; alii multi loco horum terminorum falso nihil habent; sed in codd. A K P Q U legitur sufficiebat, passiones et passibilitates sibi auferri.
    Codex U inserts ratio. At the end of the solution, for causam sibi auferri, which codices F Z have, the editions [read] rationem (codex S, by a second hand, occasionem) sibi auferri; many others in place of these terms falsely have nothing; but in codices A K P Q U it is read sufficiebat, passiones et passibilitates sibi auferri.
  14. Cfr. supra d. 18. a. 2. q. 3. — In initio solut. pro post separationem, quod habent codd. A K M O T, alii per separationem. Paulo post pro rectificationem cod. Z expresse rectitudinem; alii codd. sunt dubiae lectionis.
    Cf. above d. 18, a. 2, q. 3. — At the beginning of the solution, for post separationem, which codices A K M O T have, others [read] per separationem. A little after, for rectificationem codex Z expressly [reads] rectitudinem; other codices are of doubtful reading.
← Dist. 21, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 2→