Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part III/Q54

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q53 Q55→



Latin English
IIIª q. 54 pr. Deinde considerandum est de qualitate Christi resurgentis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum post resurrectionem Christus habuerit verum corpus. Secundo, utrum resurrexit cum corporis integritate. Tertio, utrum corpus eius fuerit gloriosum. Quarto, de eius cicatricibus in corpore apparentibus. Question 54. The quality of Christ rising again 1. Did Christ have a true body after His Resurrection? 2. Did He rise with His complete body? 3. Was His a glorified body? 4. The scars which showed in His body
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus post resurrectionem non habuerit verum corpus. Verum enim corpus non potest simul esse cum alio corpore in eodem loco. Sed corpus Christi post resurrectionem fuit simul cum alio corpore in eodem loco, intravit enim ad discipulos ianuis clausis, ut dicitur Ioan. XX. Ergo videtur quod Christus post resurrectionem non habuerit verum corpus. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at the same time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ's body was with another at the same time in the same place: since He entered among the disciples "the doors being shut," as is related in John 20:26. Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, verum corpus non evanescit ab aspectu intuentium, nisi forte corrumpatur. Sed corpus Christi evanuit ab oculis discipulorum eum intuentium, ut dicitur Luc. ult. Ergo videtur quod Christus post resurrectionem non habuerit verum corpus. Objection 2. Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder's sight unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ's body "vanished out of the sight" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is related in Luke 24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, cuiuslibet veri corporis est determinata figura. Sed corpus Christi apparuit discipulis in alia effigie, ut patet Marci ult. Ergo videtur quod Christus post resurrectionem non habuerit verum corpus humanum. Objection 3. Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But Christ's body appeared before the disciples "in another shape," as is evident from Mark 16:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not possess a true body after His Resurrection.
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. ult., quod Christo discipulis apparente, conturbati et conterriti, existimabant se spiritum videre, scilicet ac si non haberet verum corpus, sed phantasticum. Ad quod removendum, ipse postea subdit, palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Non ergo habuit corpus phantasticum, sed verum. On the contrary, It is written (Luke 24:37) that when Christ appeared to His disciples "they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit," as if He had not a true but an imaginary body: but to remove their fears He presently added: "Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Consequently, He had not an imaginary but a true body.
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, illud resurgere dicitur quod cecidit. Corpus autem Christi per mortem cecidit, inquantum scilicet fuit ab eo anima separata, quae erat eius formalis perfectio. Unde oportuit, ad hoc quod esset vera Christi resurrectio, ut idem corpus Christi iterato eidem animae uniretur. Et quia veritas naturae corporis est ex forma, consequens est quod corpus Christi post resurrectionem et verum corpus fuerit, et eiusdem naturae cuius fuerat prius. Si autem eius corpus fuisset phantasticum, non fuisset vera resurrectio, sed apparens. I answer that, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that Christ's body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His Resurrection would not have been true, but apparent.
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corpus Christi post resurrectionem, non ex miraculo, sed ex conditione gloriae, sicut quidam dicunt, clausis ianuis ad discipulos introivit, simul cum alio corpore in eodem loco existens. Sed utrum hoc facere possit corpus gloriosum ex aliqua proprietate sibi indita, ut simul cum alio corpore in eodem loco existat, inferius discutietur, ubi agetur de resurrectione communi. Nunc autem, quantum ad propositum sufficit, dicendum est quod non ex natura corporis, sed potius ex virtute divinitatis unitae, illud corpus ad discipulos, licet verum esset, ianuis clausis introivit. Unde Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone paschali, quod quidam sic disputant, si corpus erat, si hoc surrexit de sepulcro quod pependit in ligno, quomodo per ostia clausa intrare potuit? Et respondet, si comprehendis modum, non est miraculum. Ubi deficit ratio, ibi est fidei aedificatio. Et super Ioan., dicit, moli corporis ubi divinitas erat, ostia clausa non obstiterunt, ille quippe non eis apertis intrare potuit, quo nascente virginitas matris inviolata permansit. Et idem dicit Gregorius, in quadam homilia de octava Paschae. Reply to Objection 1. Christ's body after His Resurrection, not by miracle but from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut, thus existing with another body in the same place. But whether a glorified body can have this from some hidden property, so as to be with another body at the same time in the same place, will be discussed later (XP, 83, 4) when the common resurrection will be dealt with. For the present let it suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body, but by virtue of the Godhead united to it, that this body, although a true one, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut. Accordingly Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some men argue in this fashion: "If it were a body; if what rose from the sepulchre were what hung upon the tree, how could it enter through closed doors?" And he answers: "If you understand how, it is no miracle: where reason fails, faith abounds." And (Tract. cxxi super Joan.) he says: "Closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a Body wherein was the Godhead; for truly He could enter in by doors not open, in whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate." And Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of Easter (xxvi in Evang.).
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Christus resurrexit ad immortalem gloriae vitam. Haec est autem dispositio corporis gloriosi, ut sit spirituale, idest subiectum spiritui, ut apostolus dicit, I Cor. XV. Ad hoc autem quod sit omnino corpus subiectum spiritui, requiritur quod omnis actio corporis subdatur spiritus voluntati. Quod autem aliquid videatur, fit per actionem visibilis in visum, ut patet per philosophum, in II de anima. Et ideo quicumque habet corpus glorificatum, in potestate sua habet videri quando vult, et, quando non vult, non videri. Hoc tamen Christus habuit non solum ex conditione corporis gloriosi, sed etiam ex virtute divinitatis, per quam fieri potest ut etiam corpora non gloriosa miraculose non videantur; sicut praestitum fuit miraculose beato Bartholomaeo, ut, si vellet, videretur, non autem videretur si non vellet. Dicitur ergo quod Christus ab oculis discipulorum evanuit, non quia corrumperetur aut resolveretur in aliqua invisibilia, sed quia sua voluntate desiit ab eis videri, vel eo praesente, vel etiam eo abscedente per dotem agilitatis. Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 53, Article 3), Christ rose to the immortal life of glory. But such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is spiritual, i.e. subject to the spirit, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 15:44). Now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit, it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject to the will of the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is due to the action of the visible object upon the sight, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima ii). Consequently, whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes, and not to be seen when he does not wish it. Moreover Christ had this not only from the condition of His glorified body, but also from the power of His Godhead, by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed Bartholomew, that "if he wished he could be seen, and not be seen if he did not wish it" [Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii, 2]. Christ, then, is said to have vanished from the eyes of the disciples, not as though He were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements; but because He ceased, of His own will, to be seen by them, either while He was present or while He was departing by the gift of agility.
IIIª q. 54 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Severianus dicit in sermone paschali, nemo putet Christum sua resurrectione sui vultus effigiem commutasse. Quod est intelligendum quantum ad lineamenta membrorum, quia nihil inordinatum et deforme fuerat in corpore Christi, per spiritum sanctum concepto, quod in resurrectione corrigendum esset. Accepit tamen in resurrectione gloriam claritatis. Unde idem subdit, sed mutatur effigies dum efficitur ex mortali immortalis, ut hoc sit acquisivisse vultus gloriam, non vultus substantiam perdidisse. Nec tamen illis discipulis in specie gloriosa apparuit, sed, sicut in potestate eius erat ut corpus suum videretur vel non videretur, ita in potestate eius erat ut ex eius aspectu formaretur in oculis intuentium vel forma gloriosa, vel non gloriosa, aut etiam commixta, vel qualitercumque se habens. Modica tamen differentia sufficit ad hoc quod aliquis videatur in aliena effigie apparere. Reply to Objection 3. As Severianus [Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lxxxii] says in a sermon for Easter: "Let no one suppose that Christ changed His features at the Resurrection." This is to be understood of the outline of His members; since there was nothing out of keeping or deformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, that had to be righted at the Resurrection. Nevertheless He received the glory of clarity in the Resurrection: accordingly the same writer adds: "but the semblance is changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it becomes immortal; so that it acquired the glory of countenance, without losing the substance of the countenance." Yet He did not come to those disciples in glorified appearance; but, as it lay in His power for His body to be seen or not, so it was within His power to present to the eyes of the beholders His form either glorified or not glorified, or partly glorified and partly not, or in any fashion whatsoever. Still it requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape.
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi non resurrexerit gloriosum. Corpora enim gloriosa sunt fulgentia, secundum illud Matth. XIII, fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno patris eorum. Sed corpora fulgida videntur secundum rationem lucis, non autem secundum rationem coloris. Cum ergo corpus Christi visum fuerit sub coloris specie, sicut et prius videbatur, videtur quod non fuerit gloriosum. Objection 1. It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to Matthew 13:43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus gloriosum est incorruptibile. Sed corpus Christi non videtur fuisse incorruptibile. Fuit enim palpabile, sicut ipse dicit, Luc. ult., palpate et videte. Dicit autem Gregorius, in quadam homilia, quod corrumpi necesse est quod palpatur, et palpari non potest quod non corrumpitur. Non ergo corpus Christi fuit gloriosum. Objection 2. Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He Himself says in Luke 24:39: "Handle, and see." Now Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled." Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified.
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, corpus gloriosum non est animale, sed spirituale, ut patet I Cor. XV. Sed corpus Christi videtur animale fuisse post resurrectionem, quia cum discipulis manducavit et bibit, ut legitur Luc. ult., et Ioan. ult. Ergo videtur quod corpus Christi non fuerit gloriosum. Objection 3. Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified.
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Philipp. III, reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Philippians 3:21): "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod corpus Christi in resurrectione fuit gloriosum. Et hoc apparet triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia resurrectio Christi fuit exemplar et causa nostrae resurrectionis, ut habetur I Cor. XV. Sancti autem in resurrectione habebunt corpora gloriosa, sicut dicitur ibidem, seminatur in ignobilitate, surget in gloria. Unde, cum causa sit potior causato et exemplar exemplato, multo magis corpus Christi resurgentis fuit gloriosum. Secundo, quia per humilitatem passionis meruit gloriam resurrectionis. Unde et ipse dicebat, nunc anima mea turbata est, quod pertinet ad passionem, et postea subdit, pater, clarifica nomen tuum, in quo petit gloriam resurrectionis. Tertio quia, sicut supra habitum est, anima Christi a principio suae conceptionis fuit gloriosa per fruitionem divinitatis perfectam. Est autem dispensative factum, sicut supra dictum est, ut ab anima gloria non redundaret in corpus, ad hoc quod mysterium nostrae redemptionis sua passione impleret. Et ideo, peracto hoc mysterio passionis et mortis Christi, anima Christi statim in corpus, in resurrectione resumptum, suam gloriam derivavit. Et ita factum est corpus illud gloriosum. I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omne quod recipitur in aliquo, recipitur in eo secundum modum recipientis. Quia igitur gloria corporis derivatur ab anima, ut Augustinus dicit in epistola ad Dioscorum, fulgor seu claritas corporis gloriosi est secundum colorem humano corpori naturalem, sicut vitrum diversimode coloratum recipit splendorem ex illustratione solis secundum modum sui coloris. Sicut autem in potestate hominis glorificati est ut corpus eius videatur vel non videatur, sicut dictum est; ita in potestate eius est quod claritas eius videatur vel non videatur. Unde potest in suo colore sine aliqua claritate videri. Et hoc modo Christus discipulis post resurrectionem suam apparuit. Reply to Objection 1. Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod corpus aliquod dicitur esse palpabile, non solum ratione resistentiae, sed ratione spissitudinis suae. Ad rarum autem et spissum sequuntur grave et leve, calidum et frigidum, et alia huiusmodi contraria, quae sunt principia corruptionis corporum elementarium. Unde corpus quod est palpabile humano tactu, est naturaliter corruptibile. Si autem sit aliquod corpus resistens tactui quod non sit dispositum secundum praedictas qualitates, quae sunt propria obiecta tactus humani, sicut est corpus caeleste, tale corpus non potest dici palpabile. Corpus autem Christi vere post resurrectionem fuit ex elementis compositum, habens in se tangibiles qualitates, secundum quod requirit natura corporis humani, et ideo naturaliter erat palpabile. Et si nihil aliud habuisset supra corporis humani naturam, fuisset etiam corruptibile. Habuit autem aliquid aliud quod ipsum incorruptibile reddidit, non quidem naturam caelestis corporis, ut quidam dicunt, de quo infra magis inquiretur; sed gloriam redundantem ab anima beata; quia, ut Augustinus dicit, ad Dioscorum, tam potenti natura Deus fecit animam ut ex eius plenissima beatitudine redundet in corpus plenitudo sanitatis, idest incorruptionis vigor. Et ideo, sicut dicit Gregorius, ibidem, ostenditur corpus Christi post resurrectionem fuisse eiusdem naturae, sed alterius gloriae. Reply to Objection 2. We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (XP, 82, 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection."
IIIª q. 54 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Civ. Dei, salvator noster, post resurrectionem, iam quidem in spirituali carne, sed tamen vera, cibum ac potum cum discipulis sumpsit, non alimentorum indigentia, sed ea qua hoc poterat potestate. Ut enim Beda dicit, super Luc., aliter absorbet aquam terra sitiens, aliter solis radius calens, illa indigentia, iste potentia. Manducavit ergo post resurrectionem, non quasi cibo indigens, sed ut eo modo naturam corporis resurgentis adstrueret. Et propter hoc, non sequitur quod fuerit eius corpus animale, quod est indigens cibo. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power." Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food.
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi non resurrexerit integrum. Sunt enim de integritate humani corporis caro et sanguis. Quae Christus non videtur habuisse, dicitur enim I Cor. XV, caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt. Christus autem resurrexit in gloria regni Dei. Ergo videtur quod non habuerit carnem et sanguinem. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire. For flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ seems not to have had both, for it is written (1 Corinthians 15:50): "Flesh and blood can not possess the kingdom of God." But Christ rose in the glory of the kingdom of God. Therefore it seems that He did not have flesh and blood.
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, sanguis est unus de quatuor humoribus. Si ergo Christus habuit sanguinem, pari ratione habuit alios humores, ex quibus causatur corruptio in corporibus animalium. Sic ergo sequeretur quod corpus Christi fuerit corruptibile. Quod est inconveniens. Non igitur habuit carnem et sanguinem. Objection 2. Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if Christ had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, from which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then, that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly. Therefore Christ did not have flesh and blood.
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, corpus Christi quod resurrexit, in caelum ascendit. Sed aliquid de sanguine eius in quibusdam Ecclesiis reservatur pro reliquiis. Non ergo resurrexit Christi corpus cum integritate omnium suarum partium. Objection 3. Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to heaven. But some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches. Therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts.
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Luc. ult., post resurrectionem discipulis loquens, spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. On the contrary, our Lord said (Luke 24:39) while addressing His disciples after the Resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have."
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, corpus Christi in resurrectione fuit eiusdem naturae, sed alterius gloriae. Unde quidquid ad naturam corporis humani pertinet, totum fuit in corpore Christi resurgentis. Manifestum est autem quod ad naturam corporis humani pertinent carnes et ossa et sanguis, et alia huiusmodi. Et ideo omnia ista in corpore Christi resurgentis fuerunt. Et etiam integraliter, absque omni diminutione, alioquin non fuisset perfecta resurrectio, si non fuisset redintegratum quidquid per mortem ceciderat. Unde et dominus fidelibus suis promittit dicens, Matth. X, vestri autem et capilli capitis omnes numerati sunt. Et Luc. XXI dicitur, capillus de capite vestro non peribit. Dicere autem quod corpus Christi carnem et ossa non habuerit, et alias huiusmodi partes humano corpori naturales, pertinet ad errorem Eutychii, Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopi, qui dicebat quod corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria erit impalpabile, et ventis aereque subtilius; et quod dominus, post confirmata corda discipulorum palpantium, omne illud quod in eo palpari potuit, in subtilitatem aliquam redegit. Quod ibidem improbat Gregorius, quia corpus Christi post resurrectionem immutatum non fuit, secundum illud Rom. VI, Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur. Unde et ille quae dixerat, in morte retractavit. Si enim inconveniens est ut Christus alterius naturae corpus in sua conceptione acciperet, puta caeleste, sicut Valentinus asseruit; multo magis inconveniens est quod in resurrectione alterius naturae corpus reassumpserit, quia corpus in resurrectione resumpsit ad vitam immortalem, quod in conceptione acceperat ad vitam mortalem. I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), Christ's body in the Resurrection was "of the same nature, but differed in glory." Accordingly, whatever goes with the nature of a human body, was entirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear that flesh, bones, blood, and other such things, are of the very nature of the human body. Consequently, all these things were in Christ's body when He rose again; and this also integrally, without any diminution; otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection, if whatever was lost by death had not been restored. Hence our Lord assured His faithful ones by saying (Matthew 10:30): "The very hairs of your head are all numbered": and (Luke 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish." But to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of Eutyches, Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that "our body in that glory of the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle than wind and air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled Him were confirmed, brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled in Him" [St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this in the same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the Resurrection, according to Romans 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more." Accordingly, the very man who had said these things, himself retracted them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of another nature in His conception, a heavenly one for instance, as Valentine asserted, it is much more unbecoming for Him at His Resurrection to resume a body of another nature, because in His Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting life, the body which in His conception He had assumed to a mortal life.
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caro et sanguis ibi non accipitur pro natura carnis et sanguinis, sed vel pro culpa carnis et sanguinis, sicut Gregorius dicit, in XIV Moral.; vel pro corruptione carnis et sanguinis, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, ad Consentium, de resurrectione carnis, non ibi erit corruptio et mortalitas carnis et sanguinis. Caro ergo secundum substantiam possidet regnum Dei, secundum quod dictum est, spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Caro autem cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur, non possidebit. Unde continuo additum est in verbis apostoli, neque corruptio incorruptelam. Reply to Objection 1. Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, as Gregory says [St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56, or else for the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur. Carn.), "there will be neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh and blood." Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Luke 24:39: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." But flesh, if understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is straightway added in the words of the Apostle: "Neither shall corruption possess incorruption."
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in eodem libro, fortassis, accepta occasione sanguinis, urgebit nos molestior persecutor, et dicet, si sanguis in corpore Christi resurgentis fuit, cur non et pituita, idest phlegma; cur non et fel flavum, idest cholera, et fel nigrum, idest melancholia; quibus quatuor humoribus naturam carnis temperari etiam medicinae disciplina testatur? Sed, quodlibet quisque addat, corruptionem addere caveat, ne suae fidei sanitatem castitatemque corrumpat. Valet enim divina potentia de ista visibili atque tractabili natura corporum, quibusdam manentibus, auferre quas voluerit qualitates, ut absit labes, scilicet corruptionis, adsit effigies; adsit motio, absit fatigatio; adsit vescendi potestas, absit esuriendi necessitas. Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says in the same book: "Perchance by reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the blood was" in the body of Christ when He rose, "why not the rheum?" that is, the phlegm; "why not also the yellow gall?" that is, the gall proper; "and why not the black gall?" that is, the bile, "with which four humors the body is tempered, as medical science bears witness. But whatever anyone may add, let him take heed not to add corruption, lest he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith; because Divine power is equal to taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and tractable body, while allowing others to remain, so that there be no defilement," i.e. of corruption, "though the features be there; motion without weariness, the power to eat, without need of food."
IIIª q. 54 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod totus sanguis qui de corpore Christi fluxit, cum ad veritatem humanae naturae pertineat, in Christi corpore resurrexit. Et eadem ratio est de omnibus particulis ad veritatem et integritatem humanae naturae pertinentibus. Sanguis autem ille qui in quibusdam Ecclesiis pro reliquiis observatur, non fluxit de latere Christi, sed miraculose dicitur effluxisse de quadam imagine Christi percussa. Reply to Objection 3. All the blood which flowed from Christ's body, belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again with His body: and the same reason holds good for all the particles which belong to the truth and integrity of human nature. But the blood preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from Christ's side, but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of Christ.
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi cum cicatricibus resurgere non debuerit. Dicitur enim I Cor. XV, quod mortui resurgent incorrupti. Sed cicatrices et vulnera ad quandam corruptionem pertinent et defectum. Non ergo fuit conveniens ut Christus, qui resurrectionis auctor est, cum cicatricibus resurgeret. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen with its scars. For it is written (1 Corinthians 15:52): "The dead shall rise incorrupt." But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ, the author of the resurrection, to rise again with scars.
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus Christi integrum resurrexit, sicut dictum est. Sed aperturae vulnerum contrariantur integritati corporis, quia per eas discontinuatur corpus. Non ergo videtur fuisse conveniens quod in Christi corpore aperturae vulnerum remanerent, etsi remanerent ibi quaedam vulnerum insignia, quae sufficiebant ad aspectum, ad quem Thomas credidit, cui dictum est, quia vidisti me, Thoma, credidisti. Objection 2. Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above (Article 3). But open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since they interfere with the continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in Christ's body; although the traces of the wounds might remain, which would satisfy the beholder; thus it was that Thomas believed, to whom it was said: "Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed" (John 20:29).
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, quod post resurrectionem de Christo dicuntur quaedam vere quidem, non autem secundum naturam, sed secundum dispensationem, ad certificandum quod ipsum quod passum est corpus resurrexit, ut cicatrices. Cessante autem causa, cessat effectus. Ergo videtur quod, certificatis discipulis de sua resurrectione, cicatrices ulterius non habuit. Sed non conveniebat immutabilitati gloriae quod aliquid assumeret quod in eo perpetuo non remaneret. Videtur ergo quod non debuerit corpus cum cicatricibus in resurrectione resumere. Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "some things are truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did not have from nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars, in order to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that rose again." Now when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore it seems that when the disciples were assured of the Resurrection, He bore the scars no longer. But it ill became the unchangeableness of His glory that He should assume anything which was not to remain in Him for ever. Consequently, it seems that He ought not at His Resurrection to have resumed a body with scars.
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit Thomae, Ioan. XX, infer digitum tuum huc, et vide manus meas, et affer manum tuam et mitte in latus meum. On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (John 20:27): "Put in thy finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into My side, and be not faithless but believing."
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit animam Christi in resurrectione corpus cum cicatricibus resumere. Primo quidem, propter gloriam ipsius Christi. Dicit enim Beda, super Luc., quod non ex impotentia curandi cicatrices servavit, sed ut in perpetuum victoriae suae circumferat triumphum. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in XXII de Civ. Dei, quod fortassis in illo regno in corporibus martyrum videbimus vulnerum cicatrices quae pro Christi nomine pertulerunt, non enim deformitas in eis, sed dignitas erit; et quaedam, quamvis in corpore, non corporis, sed virtutis pulchritudo fulgebit. Secundo, ad confirmandum corda discipulorum circa fidem suae resurrectionis. Tertio, ut patri, pro nobis supplicans, quale genus mortis pro homine pertulerit, semper ostendat. Quarto, ut sua morte redemptis quam misericorditer sint adiuti, propositis eiusdem mortis indiciis, insinuet. Postremo, ut in iudicio quam iuste damnentur, ibidem annuntiet. Unde, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de symbolo, sciebat Christus quare cicatrices in suo corpore servaret. Sicut enim demonstravit Thomae non credenti nisi tangeret et videret, ita etiam inimicis vulnera demonstraturus est sua, ut convincens eos veritas dicat, ecce hominem quem crucifixistis. Videtis vulnera quae infixistis. Agnoscitis latus quod pupugistis. Quoniam per vos, et propter vos apertum est, nec tamen intrare voluistis. I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory." Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body." Secondly, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Thirdly, "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Fourthly, "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.'"
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cicatrices illae quae in corpore Christi permanserunt, non pertinent ad corruptionem vel defectum, sed ad maiorem cumulum gloriae, inquantum sunt quaedam virtutis insignia. Et in illis locis vulnerum quidam specialis decor apparebit. Reply to Objection 1. The scars that remained in Christ's body belong neither to corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory, inasmuch as they are the trophies of His power; and a special comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds.
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa apertura vulnerum, quamvis sit cum quadam solutione continuitatis, totum tamen hoc recompensatur per maiorem decorem gloriae, ut corpus non sit minus integrum, sed magis perfectum. Thomas autem non solum vidit, sed etiam vulnera tetigit, quia, ut dicit Leo Papa, suffecit sibi ad fidem propriam vidisse quod viderat; sed nobis operatus est ut tangeret quem videbat. Reply to Objection 2. Although those openings of the wounds break the continuity of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory compensates for all this, so that the body is not less entire, but more perfected. Thomas, however, not only saw, but handled the wounds, because as Pope Leo [Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. clxii] says: "It sufficed for his personal faith for him to have seen what he saw; but it was on our behalf that he touched what he beheld."
IIIª q. 54 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus in suo corpore voluit cicatrices vulnerum remanere, non solum ad certificandum discipulorum fidem, sed etiam propter alias rationes. Ex quibus apparet quod semper in eius corpore cicatrices illae remanebunt. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, ad Consentium de resurrectione carnis, domini corpus in caelo esse credo ut erat quando ascendit in caelum. Et Gregorius, XIV Moral., dicit quod, si quid in corpore Christi post resurrectionem potuit immutari, contra veridicam Pauli sententiam, post resurrectionem dominus rediit in mortem. Quod quis dicere vel stultus praesumat, nisi qui veram carnis resurrectionem denegat? Unde patet quod cicatrices quas Christus post resurrectionem in suo corpore ostendit, nunquam postmodum ab illo corpore sunt remotae. Reply to Objection 3. Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain on His body, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for other reasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always remain on His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resurr. Carn.): "I believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was when He ascended into heaven." And Gregory (Moral. xiv) says that "if aught could be changed in Christ's body after His Resurrection, contrary to Paul's truthful teaching, then the Lord after His Resurrection returned to death; and what fool would dare to say this, save he that denies the true resurrection of the flesh?" Accordingly, it is evident that the scars which Christ showed on His body after His Resurrection, have never since been removed from His body.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_III/Q54&oldid=11360’