Summa III, Q.33 aa.3–4 & Q.34 aa.1–2: Flesh Taken On as It Was Conceived, a Miraculous Conception, Christ's Holiness and Free Will from the First Instant

Orientation #

He picks up in the middle of q. 33, at article 3, and near the end says he will do “one more article” before stopping; he notes the next article (on Christ’s meriting) presupposes what a. 2 establishes. He also steps back to the prooemium of q. 27 “so we don’t be completely lost where we are.” The previous class treated q. 32 a. 4 and the opening articles of q. 33 on the instantaneous formation and animation of Christ’s body.

The class, in order #

1. Opening aside (“they never say … that God loves Himself”) #

A remark carried in from before: preachers keep saying God loves us unconditionally, but one never hears that God loves Himself. He returns to this at the end of segment 8.

2. q. 33 a. 3: was the flesh first conceived, then assumed? (“first conceived and afterwards assumed”) #

The three objections as he reads them:

1. What is not cannot be assumed; but Christ’s flesh begins to be through conception; so it was assumed after conception. (His gloss: you are assuming something that already is.)
2. The flesh is assumed mediante the rational soul; the soul comes at the end of conception; so the assumption is at the end, i.e. after conception.
3. In everything generated the imperfect precedes the perfect in time (Metaphysics IX); Christ’s body is generated; so its ultimate perfection, union to the Word, comes later.

Sed contra: “most firmly hold and in no way doubt that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin before it was taken on by the Word” — the book De fide ad Petrum, attributed to Augustine; his footnote says Fulgentius, and he notes “that’s not the Apostle Peter.”

Body: we properly say God was made man, not that man was made God, because God took to Himself (ad-sumere, “take to oneself”) what is of man, which did not pre-exist as per se subsisting. If the flesh had been conceived first, there would be a hypostasis apart from the hypostasis of the Word — “another Nestorian here” — against the notion of the incarnation, which is union in the hypostasis. Nor would it be suitable that the Word by assuming destroy a pre-existing hypostasis (his joke: “leave your prison… I’m taking over now”). Therefore it is against faith.

Replies: (1) If the flesh were formed successively rather than in an instant, either what was assumed was not yet flesh, or flesh existed before being assumed; but since conception was perfect in an instant, in that flesh at once it was being conceived and had been conceived — “the Word of God conceived by the receiving of flesh, and the flesh by the incarnation of the Word was conceived.” (2) Answered by the same: simul conceived and animated. (3) In the incarnation one considers not an ascent of something pre-existing up to the dignity of union (the error of Photinus) but a descent: “I have come down from heaven” (John 6).

Attached to reply 1, his Aristotelian gloss (Metaphysics IX): walking home is an imperfect operation — while you are walking home you have not walked home; understanding is perfect — when I understand the Pythagorean theorem, I have understood it. Because the power of the Holy Spirit is infinite, the conception is like a perfect operation; created generative power gives an imperfect, successive conception. Same with the boat: rowed or sailed to port you have not yet arrived, “you’re not safe yet.”

Asides: in Thomas’s work on the Creed, Christ on the cross teaches charity, patience, humility, obedience — exactly the four virtues, in that order, asked for in Thomas’s prayer after communion. And descendit de caelo: hence the six articles on Christ’s humanity are sometimes divided into three of descent and three of ascent (they can also be divided in three another way).

3. q. 33 a. 4: was the conception natural? (“simpliciter miraculous … secundum aliquid natural”) #

Objections: (1) Christ is the true and natural Son of Man as he is true and natural Son of God, so his conception was natural. (2) No creature produces a miraculous operation, and the conception is attributed to the Virgin, a pure creature. (3) For a transmutation to be natural it suffices that the passive principle be natural, and the passive principle on the mother’s side was natural.

Sed contra: Dionysius, Epistle to Caesarius the monk — “above man did Christ those things which are of man,” showing the Virgin conceiving supernaturally.

Body (with Ambrose, De incarnatione): much here is according to nature and much beyond it. On the side of the matter the mother supplies, the whole is natural; on the side of the active power (the Holy Spirit) the whole is miraculous. Since a thing is judged more by its form than its matter, and more by its agent than its patient, the conception is simpliciter miraculous and supernatural, secundum aliquid natural.

His parallels: the motion of the heavenly bodies — natural on the part of the bodies’ aptitude, voluntary on the part of the angels who move them. The wooden table — its matter natural, but it is artificial by its form and by its agent, and we call it artificial. Joke: that pulls the plug on “made with natural” advertising.

Replies: (1) Christ is the natural son of man because he has a true human nature, though he has it miraculously — like the blind man cured, who sees naturally by the visual power he has miraculously. (He compares the old women in Scripture who conceive.) (2) The conception is attributed to the Virgin not as active principle but because she ministers the matter and it was celebrated in her womb. (3) A natural passive principle suffices only when it is moved in the accustomed way by its own active principle, which is not the case here.

Aside: the psalm comparing Christ coming from the womb to the bridegroom from his chamber, running over the world.

4. Digression: simpliciter and secundum quid in the Meno (“mixing up simply and … in some way”) #

This distinction underlies the second fallacy outside of speech [ed.: secundum quid et simpliciter]. In the Meno, Meno objects that one cannot inquire into what one does not know — mixing up simply and in some way; and Socrates’ reply commits the same mistake, as Aristotle notes at the beginning of the Posterior Analytics. Meno overlooks that what you do not know you can know imperfectly: the researcher paid to find the cause of a disease knows in some way what he is looking for and where to look, but not simply, or his research would be over. Socrates’ slave boy: the boy first answers wrongly (that you double a square by doubling the side — which gives something four times as big); if you know the premises but never put them together you do not know the conclusion. Going through Euclid, a new theorem brings together things already known; you can know it from what you knew, but “to be able to know something is to know it. Not simply.” Otherwise we could abolish schools — “I already know French, German, Chinese,” learning a word at a time from fortune cookies.

5. Where we are: the prooemia (“so we don’t be completely lost where we are”) #

He reads q. 27’s prooemium: after the union and what follows it, one considers what the incarnate Son did and suffered, in four parts — (1) his entry into the world, (2) the course of his life (from q. 40), (3) his exit from this world (q. 46), (4) his exaltation after this life. He notes Thomas divides the Gospel of Matthew according to the first three of these four. Under the first: conception, nativity (q. 35), circumcision, baptism. Under conception: the mother conceiving, the mode of conception, and now the perfection of the offspring conceived — q. 34, with four articles: sanctified by grace in the first instant; use of free judgment; able to merit; fully a comprehensor.

6. q. 34 a. 1: sanctified in the first instant (“fullness of grace sanctifying His soul and His body”) #

Objections: (1) 1 Cor 15 — not first what is spiritual but what is animal; sanctifying grace is spiritual, so it comes after a space of time. (His gloss: we generate offspring, then nourish, then instruct.) (2) Sanctification seems to be from sin (1 Cor 6, “and this you were at some time… but you are sanctified”), and Christ had no sin. (3) As all things are made through the Word, so all who are sanctified are sanctified through the Word incarnate (Heb 2); but the Word through which all things are made is not self-made (Augustine, De Trinitate I); so Christ is not himself sanctified.

Sed contra: Luke 1, “what will be born from you will be called Son of God”; John 10, “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world.”

Body: the abundance of grace sanctifying Christ’s soul derives from the union with the Word — “we saw his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1). Since it was shown above that in the first instant of conception his body was animated and assumed by the Word, consequently in that first instant he had the fullness of sanctifying grace in his soul and his body — “Interesting, His body.”

Replies: (1) The Apostle’s order concerns those progressing to a spiritual state; in the incarnation what is considered is the descent of the divine fullness on human nature, not a progress of a pre-existing human nature (the heretics again); so in the man Christ there was perfect spirituality from the beginning. (2) Sanctificare = to be made holy; he notes English has no verb from “holy” — “made holy, I suppose you have to say.” Something comes to be not only from a contrary but from a negation or privation: white from black, and also from not-white. We are made holy from being sinners; Christ as man was made holy from not-holy only in a negative sense, not privative — privation is negation in a subject; there was never a time when he was a man and not holy, but there was a time when he was not a man. So he was made together a man and a holy man. Hence the angel: “what is born of you shall be holy”; Gregory (Moralia XVIII) — we, if made holy, are not born holy, being bound by corruptible nature; he alone is truly born holy who was not conceived of carnal conjunction. (3) The Father does not work through the Son as through a tool moved while moving, since the Word has the same power and operation; but Christ’s humanity is a tool of his divinity, and so is both sanctifying and sanctified. His gloss: a tool is a moved mover; the Athanasian Creed’s comparison of the union to soul and body must be understood not of the soul as form (the divinity is not the form of the body) but of the body as conjoined tool, like my hand — and great efficacy follows from that.

7. q. 34 a. 2: use of free judgment in the first instant (“operation is the second act”) #

Objections: (1) To be is before acting; the soul of Christ began to be in that first instant; so the operation of free judgment cannot be in it. (2) The use of free judgment is choice, and choice presupposes deliberation of counsel — “choice is the desire of what has been pre-counselled” (Ethics III). (3) Free judgment is a faculty of will and reason; the act of understanding presupposes an act of sense, which needs organs, not yet there.

Sed contra: Augustine, De Trinitate — as soon as the Word came into the womb, preserving the truth of each nature, he was made flesh and a perfect man; a perfect man has the use of free judgment.

Body: the human nature Christ assumed had its spiritual perfection at once, without progress; but the last perfection is not in power or habit but in operation — “operation is the second act” (De Anima II), the soul being the first act. So Christ in the first instant had that operation which can be had in an instant; such is the operation of will and understanding, perfected at once, “much more than bodily vision.” For intelligere, velle, sentire are not motion, the act of the imperfect perfected successively, but act of the perfect (De Anima III).

His gloss, back to Metaphysics IX: walking home — when you are walking home you have not walked home; when you have walked home you are no longer walking home; imperfect by its nature. Against this, understanding, willing, loving: “I’m loving my wife — have I loved her yet?” Yes. “When I’m understanding what a triangle is, have I understood it yet?” Yes. “Our grammar is made to fit motion rather than these perfect acts.” And seeing: “I see that painting over there — have I seen it yet?” Yes.

Replies: (1) To be is before to act by nature, not before in time; when the agent has perfect being it begins at once to act unless impeded — fire as soon as generated heats and enlightens; but heating is terminated through succession of time (it takes a while to cook the meat), while illuminating is perfected in an instant. Such an operation is the use of free will. His remark: even God in his divine nature has free will — so God always loved us, loved us before we were; a student adds: always from all eternity, but not unconditionally. (He repeats his wish that they would talk about God loving Himself.) (2) Simul, at the moment counsel is ended, there can be choice: those who need deliberation first have certitude about choosing at its end and then at once choose; counsel is presupposed to choice only because of investigation of the uncertain. Christ in the first instant had the fullness of justifying grace and so the fullness of known truth — “full of grace and truth” again — so, having certitude of all things, he could choose at once. (3) Christ’s intellect, by infused knowledge, could understand without turning to phantasms, so will and understanding could operate without sense. Yet sense operation was also possible in that first instant, above all touch, by which the offspring senses in the mother even before it obtains a rational soul in the order of generation (De generatione animalium); much more could Christ, having a rational soul and a formed, organized body in that instant, have the operation of touch.

8. Asides around a. 2 #

• On the sed contra: John Paul II’s letter Augustinum Hipponensem on Augustine, which he downloaded from the Vatican site; and John Paul’s first writing as pope, a letter on catechesis: “one of the most popular and sublime images of Christ the teacher is the crucifix” — popular and sublime, “which is why it belongs in classrooms.” He notes Thomas’s frequent “as Blessed Augustine says.”
• On choice: “these pro-choice people aren’t really in favour of concilium or deliberatio” — they don’t put the facts out, so they are not really in favour of choice. Long exchange about a Heisman-winning football player whose mother was told to abort him, and the pro-life message bought for a Super Bowl slot, protested by Planned Parenthood as divisive — “as if abortion didn’t divide somebody,” literally.
• Father Baumgartner (taught at St. Paul Seminary, also a law graduate) on the importance of Christ’s being able to merit from the moment of conception; and his remark on scholars’ “pretensions to learning — just jumping into print without anything to say, except a mistake.”
• On sense in the womb: the baby knows his mother’s voice before birth; the mother who watched a soap opera each afternoon, whose newborn fell asleep at its theme music; his sister and brother-in-law singing to the guitar over the unborn child.

His words #

• “taken on” / “taken up” — assumere; he glosses ad-sumere as “take to oneself.”
• “the ninth book of wisdom” [ed.: Metaphysics IX].
• “perfect operation” vs. “imperfect operation” — understanding vs. walking home; the imperfect is motion, actus imperfecti.
• “free judgment” [ed.: free will, liberum arbitrium]; he uses both.
• simpliciter / secundum quid (also “secundum aliquid”) — simply vs. in some way.
• “made holy” — his English for sanctificare, since no verb comes from “holy.”
• privation vs. negation — privation is “a negation in a subject.”
• “joined tool” [ed.: conjoined instrument] — the humanity of Christ, like my hand.
• “counsel”/“deliberation” — concilium, deliberatio, presupposed to choice.
• “second act” — operation, as against the soul as first act.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, ST III, q. 33, a. 3 (objections, sed contra, body, replies)
• ST III, q. 33, a. 4 (whole article)
• ST III, q. 27, prooemium; q. 34, prooemium
• ST III, q. 34, a. 1 and a. 2 (whole articles)
• Quoted within these: De fide ad Petrum (attributed to Augustine; footnote says Fulgentius); Dionysius, Epistle to Caesarius; Ambrose, De incarnatione; Augustine, De Trinitate I and the De Trinitate text of the sed contra; Gregory, Moralia XVIII; John 1 and 6; Luke 1; John 10; 1 Cor 15 and 6; Heb 2.

Mentioned

• Aristotle, Metaphysics IX; De Anima II–III; Nicomachean Ethics III; De generatione animalium; Posterior Analytics, beginning
• Plato, Meno
• Thomas, work on the Creed [ed.: Collationes in Symbolum Apostolorum]; his prayer after communion
• Thomas’s division of the Gospel of Matthew
• Athanasian Creed
• John Paul II, Augustinum Hipponensem; his letter on catechesis
• Daniel, on the Son of Man; a psalm on the bridegroom coming from his chamber

His questions #

• Was the flesh of Christ conceived before it was assumed? No — that would leave a hypostasis apart from the Word’s; it is against faith.
• When Christ is being conceived, has he been conceived? Yes — by the infinite power of the Holy Spirit the conception is a perfect operation, unlike walking home.
• Is this wooden table natural or artificial? Artificial — by its form and its agent, though its matter is natural; so too Christ’s conception is simply miraculous, naturally only secundum quid.
• Does the man cured of blindness see naturally? Yes, by a natural power that he has miraculously — as Christ is natural Son of Man by a nature miraculously had.
• Is being able to know something to know it? Only in some way, not simply — otherwise Meno is right and schools are useless.
• If 1 Cor 15 puts the animal before the spiritual, how was Christ sanctified in the first instant? That order belongs to those progressing; in the incarnation there is a descent of the divine fullness, so spirituality is perfect from the beginning.
• Was Christ made holy from something? From not-holy in a merely negative sense, never privatively — he was never a man who was not holy.
• Can there be choice without preceding deliberation? Yes, when there is no uncertainty to investigate; Christ had the fullness of truth known and could choose at once.
• Could Christ sense in the first instant, without organs? Yes — he could understand without phantasms by infused knowledge, and having a formed body could also have touch, which the unborn has even before the rational soul.
• Does God have free will, and did he always love us? Yes — he loved us before we were; a student adds, from all eternity but not unconditionally.