Dist. 44, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 44
Articulus III. Qualia futura sint corpora resurgentium.
Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur, qualia erunt corpora resurgentium. Et de hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de qualitate quantum ad electos. Secundo vero, quantum ad reprobos.
Quaestio I. Utrum corpora electorum resurgant cum deformitatibus.
Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum corpora electorum resurgant cum deformitatibus. Et quod non, videtur.
1. Augustinus, de Civitate Dei vigesimo secundo4: «Aberit a corporibus electorum omnis deformitas, omnis infirmitas omnisque tarditas»: ergo si haec pertinent ad deformitates, et carebunt his; patet etc.
2. Item, nihil resurget in electis, quod non sit de decore naturae; quia, ut dicit Augustinus5, «a corporibus electorum vitia detrahentur, et natura servabitur»; sed deformitates non sunt de natura, ergo etc. Probatio minoris: super illud ad Ephesios secundo: Eramus natura filii irae; Glossa: «Natura vere ac proprie dicitur, qualis sine vitio fuit in primis parentibus»: ergo cum deformitates in ea non fuerint, patet etc.
3. Item, generans transmittit in prolem omne illud, quod est de veritate naturae suae, quando generat sine errore, pro eo quod per naturam generans generat sibi simile6; sed generans, habens deformitatem, sine errore naturae generat non habentem deformitatem: ergo deformitas non est in eo de veritate suae naturae: ergo si hoc solum resurget in electis, quod est de veritate naturae, deformitates non resurgent in eis.
4. Item, Anselmus in libro de Veritate7 dicit, quod «veritas est rectitudo sola mente perceptibilis»: ergo quod non est de rectitudine naturae non est de veritate naturae; sed deformitas non est de naturae rectitudine, ergo non est de veritate naturae: ergo non resurget in electis.
Contra: 1. Caro contracta a generantibus est de veritate humanae naturae; sed gibbositas et aliae multae deformitates possunt a generantibus contrahi: ergo sunt de veritate humanae naturae. Sed omne tale resurget in electis: ergo etc.
2. Item, de veritate humanae naturae sunt membra non tantum officialia, verum etiam consimilia; sed in huiusmodi deformitatibus est aliquid de substantia membri consimilis, sicut patet, quia8 in p. 915 gibbo est aliquid de carnis substantia: ergo est aliquid de veritate humanae naturae: ergo etc.
3. Item, quia anima meruit in corpore, et in corpore debet remunerari, et hoc, quia corpus est sibi coniunctum: si ergo anima viri iusti meruit in deformitatibus et per deformitates, quas humiliter toleravit: ergo debet in eis remunerari.
4. Item, cicatrices, quae sunt inductae in Martyribus a violentia, manent in gloria in signum meriti et triumphi: ergo pari ratione deformitates, quae sunt a natura, in quibus meruit anima nostra.
Conclusio. In corporibus electorum nulla resurget deformitas, resurget tamen alicuius deformitatis materia.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod deformitates quaedam sunt qualitativae, sicut illae quae veniunt ex malo et inordinato situ membrorum1. Quaedam sunt quantitativae, sicut quando quis habet nimis magnum caput, vel nimis magna membra, ita quod aliis sunt improportionalia, vel habet gibbositates, vel talia, in quibus est aliquid de carnis substantia. Si de primis loquamur, quia non sunt de veritate humanae naturae, immo per errorem omnino contingunt; dicendum, quod in electis nullo modo resurgent. Si de secundis loquamur, quia aliquid est ibi substantiae, aliquid vitiositatis, quod est substantiae resurget, quod est vitiositatis auferetur; hoc est dicere, quod illius membri materia per alia membra diffundetur quantum ad superfluitatem2, ita quod non aliquid peribit, et tamen totum per omnia reducetur ad proportionem. Et sic patet, quod in electis nulla resurget deformitas, resurget tamen alicuius deformitatis materia. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, quod non resurgent.
Ad 1 et 2. Concedendae nihilominus sunt duae ad oppositum inductae, quod illud quod est de substantia deformitatis, resurget, tamen sub ratione pulcritudinis.
Ad 3. Ad quod obiicitur, quod per deformitates merentur viri iusti; dicendum, quod per aliquid mereri est dupliciter: aut quod habet imperfectionem secundum statum meriti, non tamen secundum suam formam et naturam; aut quod habet imperfectionem secundum suam naturam, sicut patet, quod meretur per caritatem, cui inest imperfectio solum ratione status, et meretur per fidem, cui inest imperfectio ratione formae. In primo remuneramur per eius perfectionem; in secundo remuneramur per eius evacuationem, quia non est nata fides stare cum perfectione completa3. Per hunc modum in corporalibus oportet intelligi; unde cum corpus humanum statui perfectionis non repugnet quantum ad naturam, sed quantum ad statum; deformitas vero quantum ad propriam suam rationem repugnat perfectioni; hinc est, quod corpus debet resurgere et resumi, deformitas vero minime.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de cicatricibus, dicendum, quod aut cicatrices non resurgent aut, si resurgant, ita facient ad decorem et gloriam animae, quod non minuent pulcritudinem corporis, quia frequenter talia signa reddunt corpus magis decorum. Quoniam igitur cicatrix potest carere turpitudine, sed deformitas semper deformat; ideo non sic competit deformitas corporibus electorum, ut cicatrix.
I. De corporibus glorificatis electorum eorumque dotibus multa docentur infra d. 49. p. II, quae a pluribus Lombardi commentatoribus in hac dist. (a S. Thom. q. 2.) tractantur, ubi etiam haec I. quaestio passim tangitur, sed a S. Thoma praecipue hic q. I. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1-4, a Scoto, hic q. I. n. 15. 16. Specialiter de eadem quaestione agunt: B. Albert., hic a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 6. — Durand. de hac, et seq. quaest. hic q. 3.
II. Quaestionem 2. aliter solvit cum B. Alberto S. Thomas (hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 86. a. 1.). Nam prima opinione, quam sequitur S. Bonav., improbata, prosequitur: «Alii rationabilius dicunt, quod auctor, qui naturam condidit, in resurrectione naturam corporis integre reparabit»; et hoc docet non tantum quoad deformitatem, quae ex defectu vel mutilatione alicuius membri resultat, sed etiam de ea quae oritur «ex indebita partium dispositione, vel indebita quantitate vel qualitate vel situ» etc. Hoc tamen non intelligit de defectibus, «qui ex naturalibus principiis in humano corpore naturaliter consequuntur». Durand. et Estius (hic § 10.) consentiunt Bonaventurae. De 2. quaestione praeter cit.: B. Albert., hic a. 33. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 6.
---
Article III. What the bodies of those rising again will be like.
Next, as to the third article, it is asked what the bodies of those rising again will be like. And concerning this two questions are asked. First it is asked about their quality with respect to the elect. Second, with respect to the reprobate.
Question I. Whether the bodies of the elect rise again with deformities.
As to the first, then, it is asked whether the bodies of the elect rise again with deformities. And that they do not, it seems.
1. Augustine, On the City of God, book twenty-two4: "From the bodies of the elect there will be absent every deformity, every infirmity, and all slowness": therefore if these pertain to deformities, they too will lack them; it is evident, etc.
2. Likewise, nothing will rise again in the elect that is not of the comeliness of nature; for, as Augustine says5, "from the bodies of the elect the vices will be taken away, and nature will be preserved"; but deformities are not of nature, therefore etc. Proof of the minor: on that passage to the Ephesians, chapter two: We were by nature children of wrath; the Gloss: "Nature is said truly and properly [to be] such as it was without fault in the first parents": therefore since deformities were not in it, it is evident, etc.
3. Likewise, the begetter transmits into the offspring everything that is of the truth of its own nature, when it begets without error, inasmuch as by nature the begetter begets what is like itself6; but a begetter having a deformity, without error of nature begets one not having the deformity: therefore the deformity is not in it as of the truth of its own nature: therefore if only that will rise again in the elect which is of the truth of nature, deformities will not rise again in them.
4. Likewise, Anselm in the book On Truth7 says that "truth is a rectitude perceptible by the mind alone": therefore what is not of the rectitude of nature is not of the truth of nature; but deformity is not of the rectitude of nature, therefore it is not of the truth of nature: therefore it will not rise again in the elect.
On the contrary: 1. Flesh contracted from the begetters is of the truth of human nature; but a hunched back and many other deformities can be contracted from the begetters: therefore they are of the truth of human nature. But every such thing will rise again in the elect: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, of the truth of human nature there are members not only functional but also homogeneous [consimilia]; but in deformities of this kind there is something of the substance of a homogeneous member, as is evident, since8 in p. 915 a hump there is something of the substance of the flesh: therefore there is something of the truth of human nature: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, since the soul merited in the body, it ought also to be rewarded in the body, and this because the body is joined to it: if therefore the soul of a just man merited in deformities and through the deformities which it humbly bore: therefore it ought to be rewarded in them.
4. Likewise, the scars which were inflicted on the Martyrs by violence remain in glory as a sign of merit and triumph: therefore by parity of reasoning the deformities which are from nature, in which our soul merited [remain likewise].
Conclusion. In the bodies of the elect no deformity will rise again, yet the matter of some deformity will rise again.
I respond: It must be said that some deformities are qualitative, such as those which come from a bad and disordered position of the members1. Some are quantitative, as when someone has too large a head, or too large members, so that they are out of proportion to the others, or has humps, or such things in which there is something of the substance of the flesh. If we speak of the first, since they are not of the truth of human nature, but rather come about wholly through error, it must be said that they will in no way rise again in the elect. If we speak of the second, since there is there something of substance, something of viciousness, what is of substance will rise again, what is of viciousness will be taken away; that is to say, that the matter of that member will be diffused through the other members with respect to the superfluity2, so that nothing will perish, and yet the whole will be reduced throughout to proportion. And thus it is evident that in the elect no deformity will rise again, yet the matter of some deformity will rise again. — And thus the arguments showing that they will not rise again are to be conceded.
To 1 and 2. The two [arguments] brought for the opposite are nonetheless to be conceded, [namely] that what is of the substance of the deformity will rise again, yet under the aspect of beauty.
To 3. To that which is objected, that just men merit through deformities, it must be said that to merit through something is twofold: either [something] that has imperfection according to the state of merit, yet not according to its own form and nature; or [something] that has imperfection according to its own nature, as is evident, since one merits through charity, in which imperfection inheres only by reason of state, and merits through faith, in which imperfection inheres by reason of form. In the first we are rewarded through its perfection; in the second we are rewarded through its emptying-out, since faith is not apt to stand together with completed perfection3. In this way it must be understood in bodily things; whence, since the human body is not repugnant to the state of perfection with respect to nature, but with respect to state, whereas deformity, with respect to its own proper character, is repugnant to perfection; hence it is that the body ought to rise again and be resumed, but deformity by no means.
To 4. To that which is objected concerning scars, it must be said that either the scars will not rise again, or, if they do rise again, they will so contribute to the comeliness and glory of the soul that they will not diminish the beauty of the body, since often such marks render the body more comely. Since, therefore, a scar can be without ugliness, but a deformity always deforms, therefore deformity does not befit the bodies of the elect in the way a scar does.
I. Concerning the glorified bodies of the elect and their dowries much is taught below at d. 49, p. II, matters which are treated by many commentators on the Lombard in this distinction (by St. Thomas at q. 2), where also this first question is touched on here and there, but by St. Thomas chiefly here at q. I, a. 3, little-questions 1–4, by Scotus, here at q. I, nn. 15, 16. Treating specially of the same question are: Bl. Albert, here a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 4, little-question I. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 6. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 3.
II. The second question St. Thomas, with Bl. Albert, solves otherwise (here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 1; Supplement q. 86, a. 1). For, the first opinion, which St. Bonaventure follows, having been disapproved, he proceeds: "Others more reasonably say that the Author who founded nature will in the resurrection wholly repair the nature of the body"; and this he teaches not only as regards the deformity which results from the defect or mutilation of some member, but also concerning that which arises "from an undue disposition of the parts, or undue quantity or quality or position," etc. This, however, he does not understand of the defects "which follow naturally from natural principles in the human body." Durandus and Estius (here § 10) agree with Bonaventure. On the second question, besides those cited: Bl. Albert, here a. 33. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., little-question 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit., a. 6.
---
- 4Cap. 20. n. 3. — Pro infirmitas plures codd. informitas.[City of God XXII] c. 20, n. 3. — For infirmitas ("infirmity") several codices [read] informitas.
- 5Libr. XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 17. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Eph. 2, 3, et Glossa, quam exhibent Petr. Lombard. et Lyranus ut ordinariam, est secundum August., I. Retract. 10. n. 3, ubi pro fuit in primis parentibus legitur primitus condita est. — Subinde pro in ea cod. F in eis.Book XXII of the City of God, c. 17. — The following scriptural passage is Eph. 2:3, and the Gloss, which Peter Lombard and Lyra present as the ordinary [gloss], is according to Augustine, Retractations I, 10, n. 3, where for fuit in primis parentibus ("was in the first parents") is read primitus condita est ("was first created"). — Then for in ea ("in it") cod. F [reads] in eis ("in them").
- 6Cfr. supra pag. 847, nota 7. et pag. 860, nota 3. — Paulo ante voci errore cod. aa addit naturae.Cf. above p. 847, note 7, and p. 860, note 3. — Shortly before, to the word errore ("error") cod. aa adds naturae ("of nature").
- 7Cap. 11.[Anselm, On Truth] chapter 11.
- 8Cum codd. FLY supplevimus quia, codd. N aa quod.With codices F, L, Y we have supplied quia ("since"); codices N, aa [read] quod.
- 1Cod. aa subiungit: sicut oculum habere in fronte, et huiusmodi.Cod. aa adds: as to have an eye in the forehead, and the like.
- 2Cod. aa prosequitur: ut ex illa materia superfluitatis cetera, quae reparari indigent, reparentur, ita etc. Superius pro resurgent communior lectio codd. resurgunt.Cod. aa continues: so that from that matter of superfluity the rest, which need to be repaired, may be repaired, thus etc. Above, for resurgent the more common reading of the codices [is] resurgunt.
- 3Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 3. q. 1. — Superius pro meretur Vat. bis meremur; econtra cod. Z bis remuneratur pro remuneramur. Vocibus eius perfectionem cod. F interserit completionem et. In fine solut. pro resumi codd. R S restitui.Cf. III Sent. d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 and a. 3, q. 1. — Above, for meretur ("he merits") the Vatican [ed.] twice [reads] meremur ("we merit"); on the contrary cod. Z twice [reads] remuneratur for remuneramur. Into the words eius perfectionem cod. F inserts completionem et. At the end of the solution, for resumi ("to be resumed") codices R, S [read] restitui ("to be restored").