The Summa Theologica - Christology, with Dr. Michael Novak - On Campus, St. Leo University

For my final paper for Christology, I have chosen to read parts of St. Thomas Aquinas' Shorta Summa, a Concise Version of His Summa Theologica, then utilize it to 5 topics from it in his actual Summa Theologica, and use scholarly sources to back up my reasoning of his 'high christology' view of Jesus Christ. From creation to nothing, Christ' death and bodily resurrection, his glorified and beatific vision we will see the divinity of Christ within the Trinity. And from Christ's incarnation and then Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection we will see the humanity of Christ. Ontologically we can logically see from Aquinas’ standpoint the divinity and humanity of Christ in this discourse on the Son of God who was in the beginning with God, died for all humanity, glorified, and conceived without sin so that we might have redemption through his crucifixion and the soteriology of obedience of Jesus humbling self to die on the cross for all.  

The book claims in short that Aquinas claims that, "Anything that exists in any way must necessarily have its origin from God. In all things that are arranged in orderly fashion, , we find universally that what is first and most perfect in any order is the cause of whatever follows in that order" (Herder 63). Aquinas goes on further stating in his answer to the objections of such cause of all things created by God are:

Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation. Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation of being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, Who possesses being most perfectly. (Aquinas Question 44)

Scripture states by St. Paul that, "For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be glory forever" (Rom. 11:36 NABRE). As our Creator from Genesis we all know, the book says, "God does not need matter as a prerequisite to His action. Therefore He has the power to bring things into existence from nothing or,  in other words, to create. This is why the Catholic Faith professes that He is the Creator" (Ritter 65). On the other spectrum of God's existence, one scholar has critiqued another theologian's teleological view of the existence of God in Briefly: Aquinas’ Summa Theologica: God, Part 1 & 2, David Mills Daniel.

Daniel Gallagher states:

For instance, in the summary of the self-evidence of God’s existence, it is asserted that ‘ “God exists” is not self-evident because, as God is his own existence, subject and predicate are the same’ (vol. 1, p. 51). However, as explained on page 16 of the same volume, it is precisely on account of the identity of subject and predicate that God’s existence is self-evident – though in itself and not to us. (Gallagher 587)

In a binary parallel of this topic, the non-synoptic Gospel to Genesis, John says, Jesus was with him in the beginning of Creation. John begins with his Gospel pronouncing in the prologue:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has overcome it. (John 1:1-5)

Thus we see the Majesty and Divinity of God as the Creator and Jesus alongside the Father as Son of God in the beginning of time without a doubt, according to Aquinas' and the Bible. Jesus and God are co-heirs of being the First Being, then Adam, the first creation as a human. 

Christ death and bodily resurrection is the next topic I would like to discuss from the book’s standpoint, then looking at Aquina’s actual words and comparing it with scripture and some scholarly sources. The book talks of the perfection of Christ’ death and resurrection as a reunion of him being perfect in all of his ways. “The first perfect perfection of anything requires that it being perfect in its nature, and final perfection consists in attainment of the last end. In order, therefore, that the human soul may be brought to complete perfection with regard to its end, it must be perfect in its nature” (Ritter 169). This claim of the divinity of Jesus Christ was questioned not only by his opposition and the Pharisees and Roman government which in the end crucified him for claiming that He is the Son of God, but also murmured about by the Jewish community and even not understood by his own disciples. The miracles, healings, and signs weren’t enough for them to understand his relationship to The Father, it took his death and resurrection. The soul and the body of each man or woman that believes in Christ reunites with him and each other.

But why did Jesus or any man have to die? Without going back to much further on the necessity of man to die because of the natural law of death of sin in man and what Adam and Eve did to cause such consequences by eating from the tree, I’d like to highlight another quote from the book. According to Ritter:

…if we regard the nature of the body, death is natural. But if we regard the nature of the soul and the disposition with which the human body was supernaturally endowed in the beginning for the sake of the soul, death is per acidens contrary to nature, in as much as union with the body is natural for the soul. (Ritter 171)

Of the death of Christ, Aquinas goes further in explanation of the meaning and reasoning of man’s death and the adhering connection to Christ’s death in order that we might live:

Death is said to be "in becoming" when anyone from natural or enforced suffering is tending towards death: and in this way it is the same thing to speak of Christ's death as of His Passion: so that in this sense Christ's death is the cause of our salvation, according to what has been already said of the Passion (Q[48]). But death is considered in fact, inasmuch as the separation of soul and body has already taken place: and it is in this sense that we are now speaking of Christ's death. In this way Christ's death cannot be the cause of our salvation by way of merit, but only by way of causality, that is to say, inasmuch as the Godhead was not separated from Christ's flesh by death; and therefore, whatever befell Christ's flesh, even when the soul was departed, was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united. (Aquinas) 

Therefore the salvation of humankind’s soul is directly connected to the imparting of Christ being crucified and dying on the cross for our fleshly sins, past, present, and future, so that we may too may experience ‘by way of merit’ ‘salvation in virtue of the Godhead united’. 

In the topic of resurrection to new life, the book talks briefly of what Aquinas’s logical reasoning of what happens to the soul and body. Ritter states of Aquinas:

However, mortality is not overcome by taking away man’s proper matter. For the soul will not resume a celestial or ethereal body, as was mentioned above; it will resume a human body made up of contrary elements. Incorruptibility will come as an effect of divine power, whereby the soul will gain dominion over the body to the point that the body cannot corrupt. For a thing continues in being as long as form has dominion over matter. (Ritter 177)

This concept of glorification is God’s indomitable love in Christ for us as St. Paul says in Romans, “For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30). This proclamation gives us a hope as disciples of Christ to be conformed to God’s will intellectually and wholly unto eternity as Aquinas saw it so that we may attain this glorification through Christ’ divine act of sacrifice. 

We see proof of all humans attaining this glorified body in the beatific vision. In the Beatitudes, we see the concept of being “blessed” to the disciples and the multitudes. It includes everyone, despite the woes of holding onto possessions and not giving to the poor. The book states of Aquinas:

Therefore the will of him who beholds some particular good need not rest content with its possession but may search farther afield beyond its orbit. But God, who is universal good and very goodness itself, is not lacking in any good that may be sought elsewhere, as was shown above. And so those who enjoy the vision of God’s essence cannot turn their will from Him, but must rather desire all things in subordination to Him” (Ritter 187). 

This then goes to question how St. Thomas Aquinas answered the objection of Christ knew all things in the Beatific Vision he receieved from God unto the multitudes as the Son of God. Aquinas answers:

When it is inquired whether Christ knows all things in the Word, "all things" may be taken in two ways: First, properly, to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time. And in this way it must be said that the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word. For every created intellect knows in the Word, not all simply, but so many more things the more perfectly it sees the Word. Yet no beatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to itself. Now to Christ and to His dignity all things to some extent belong, inasmuch as all things are subject to Him. Moreover, He has been appointed Judge of all by God, "because He is the Son of Man," as is said Jn. 5:27; and therefore the soul of Christ knows in the Word all things existing in whatever time, and the thoughts of men, of which He is the Judge, so that what is said of Him (Jn. 2:25), "For He knew what was in man," can be understood not merely of the Divine knowledge, but also of His soul's knowledge, which it had in the Word. Secondly, "all things" may be taken widely, as extending not merely to such things as are in act at some time, but even to such things as are in potentiality, and never have been nor ever will be reduced to act. Now some of these are in the Divine power alone, and not all of these does the soul of Christ know in the Word. For this would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to comprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine Essence. For every power is known from the knowledge of all it can do. Some, however, are not only in the power of God, but also in the power of the creature; and all of these the soul of Christ knows in the Word; for it comprehends in the Word the essence of every creature, and, consequently, its power and virtue, and all things that are in the power of the creature. (Aquinas) 

Christ knew all things in the Word from the Father and in every intellect perfectly. He saw it plainly for He was and is, the Son of God and Man, and as human himself was able to divinely know the Word to be able to show that essence to his disciples and to the Jews and to the world by the power of God. He is of the Divine Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God in three Personhoods. 

However, how could he both human and divine? Is this not a contradiction so many scholars and scientists, apologists, and atheists or agnostics have debated since the beginning? On whether it was fitting for God to be Incarnate of the God, Aquinas argues in 3 objections:

Reply to Objection 1: The mystery of the Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself. But it is fitting that a creature which by nature is mutable, should not always be in one way. And therefore, as the creature began to be, although it had not been before, so likewise, not having been previously united to God in Person, it was afterwards united to Him.

Reply to Objection 2: To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was above its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason of His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for man's salvation.

Reply to Objection 3: Every mode of being wherein any creature whatsoever differs from the Creator has been established by God's wisdom, and is ordained to God's goodness. For God, Who is uncreated, immutable, and incorporeal, produced mutable and corporeal creatures for His own goodness. And so also the evil of punishment was established by God's justice for God's glory. But evil of fault is committed by withdrawing from the art of the Divine wisdom and from the order of the Divine goodness. And therefore it could be fitting to God to assume a nature created, mutable, corporeal, and subject to penalty, but it did not become Him to assume the evil of fault.

In an article by Roger Nutt, we see more of Aquinas’ explanation with Nutt’s injection of theories:

“The Person of the Son,” Aquinas reasons, “Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, because the word of the craftsman . . . is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him.” This likeness, however, is not participated by the Word, even in the hypostatic union. (Nutt 998)

Aquinas goes further in explanation proposing importantly that:

By the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin. (Nutt 998) 

This lengthy debate over whether or not Jesus Christ as man was Incarnate of God is proven by Aquinas’ own reasoning and craftsmanship of wording and logic to propose the eternal likeness of God in Jesus Christ and by His actions and purpose of becoming human for the glory of God without being of sin, though human and the 2^nd person of the Trinity.

The redemptive factor of Christ being human and dying for us crucified to a cross for all the expiation of our sins shows that he took upon him, all the sins of our whole world. The book states:

To save us, consequently, Christ was not content merely to make our passibliity His portion, but He willed actually to suffer that He might satisfy for our sins. He endured for us those sufferings which we deserved to suffer in consequence of the sin of our first parent. Of these the chief is death, to which all other human sufferings are ordered as to their final term. “For the wages of sin is death,” as the Apostle says in Romans 6:23. (Ritter 289)

In Aquinas’ objections as to whether it be fitting that Christ should die, Aquinas emphatically summarizes almost the whole Bible on the reason behind Christ’ death for humankind leading to the reasoning and his resurrection and ours. Aquinas’ emphasizes:

On the contrary, It is written, (Jn. 11:50): "It is expedient that one man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish not": which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist testifies.

I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die the death." Now it is a fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, that by dying He might atone for us, according to 1 Pet. 3:18: "Christ also died once for our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed. For, as Eusebius says (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom." Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it is written (Heb. 2:14, 15) that He communicated "to flesh and blood, that through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the likeness of sin---that is, to its penalty---He might set us the example of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (Rom. 6:10): "For in that He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God: so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God." Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby He overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the dead. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:12): "If Christ be preached that He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection from the dead?"

Christ death cannot be minimalized by the ignorant of such truths. Without his death, there would be no Church, no hope, no faith, and no life beyond this world or hope of heave and resurrection afterwards. His death atones for our sins, just as in the old testament priests atoned for the sins of the Israelites through animal sacrifices. His example of us dying to sin spiritually coincides with His partaking of our sins on account of the whole world. Barnes states that:

For Aquinas, fittingness is the modal category best suited to presenting the Incarnation and the Passion as reasonable, because it indicates the logic, wisdom, and beauty of God's providential plan without implying any constraint, though Thomas does admit that in some sense the Incarnation and the Passion were necessary for human salvation. Aquinas's emphasis on fittingness corresponds with his treatment of satisfaction as one of the many ways Christ's Passion causes salvation. (Barnes 659)

Without Christ’s death, we deserve death for our sins as our sins were outweighed by God’s grace. Through Jesus Christ’ atoning sacrifice for us, we may have life and pardon by God. 

Finally, I would like to highlight the soteriology of obedience of Jesus’ Christ death on the cross for all of humankind and Aquinas’s scientific salvation history through the death of Christ humility. In an article by Mark Armitage, he says of Aquinas’ theology:

From this it follows that, since Christ was exalted in virtue of the fact that he humbled himself, we should know that, if we humble ourselves, we too shall be exalted as long as we humble ourselves in obedience to the divine will.30 In the Summa Aquinas shows how Christ merited his own exaltation by humbling himself.31 He explains that “when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due,” and that “likewise, when any man through his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have, he deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will.” In his passion “Christ humbled [humiliavit] himself beneath his dignity,” and so by the “lowliness” (humilitas) of his passion merited exaltatio.What Christ merits for himself he merits also on behalf of the members of his mystical body, so Christ’s humilitas merits gloria not only for himself but for all the faithful ( Jn 17:10).32 Christ’s humble obedience can be understood not only as merit but also as sacrifice. (Armitage 510)

Christ lowered himself to that of a slave, though he had the divine will to ask his Father to ‘take this cup from him’ if he willed, but obediently was led to the cross and suffered death, a death so insurmountably horrible and painful that he felt the weight of the whole world. This was a death, that we deserved as sinners, but by His grace we merit through faith to have the Son of God, the Son of Man, to be faithful to us as our Savior, Lord, King, and God. 

From nothing God was in this world with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit so that we may have life and enjoy it abundantly. And us as men have that ability to be with true followers of the Kingdom of God through Jesus’ beatific vision of heaven for all. Though many contest that he need not be the actual 2^nd person of the Incarnate Trinity of God, Jesus was, and he came to this earth to expiate the sins of all mankind by being a whole servant to God, humbling himself on the cross for the forgiveness of sins in a way that no one could. As a man, and as God, Jesus made no mistake in his unfailing love for us as God stayed the same through the ages and chose himself as the sacrifice so that we may have eternal life with him in heaven and no penalty of death, through the cross of Jesus Christ and His Passion. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armitage, Mark. "Obedient unto Death, Even Death on a Cross: Christ’s Obedience in the

Soteriology of St.Thomas Aquinas." Nova et Vetera 8.3 (2010): 510. EBSCO eBook

Collection. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=12cbeef-25a1-42b4-89e9-8b0b748623cd%40sessionmgr4002&vid=27&hid=4206>. 

“Aquinas Shorter Summa”; "Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology." Summa

Theologica. Trans. Joseph E. Ritter. St. Louis: Sophia Institute, 2002. N. pag. Rpt. In

Summa Theologica. By St. Thomas Aquinas. N.p., 1274. N. pag. Print. 

Aquinas, Thomas. "St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica." www.sacred-texts.com. The

Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1947. Web. 20 Apr. 2016. <http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/>. 

Barnes, Carl. "Necessary, Fitting, or Possible: The Shape of Scholastic Christology." Nova et

Vetera 10.3 (2012): 657-88. Ebsco. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

<http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=12cbaeef-25a1-42b4-89e9-8b0b748623cd%40sessionmgr4002&vid=21&hid=4206>.

Gallagher, Daniel B. "Briefly: Aquinas’ Summa Theologica: God, Part 1 & 2." Briefly: Aquinas’

Summa Theologica: God, Part 1 & 2, David Mills Daniel, (2006): n. pag. EBSCO eBook Collection. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

<http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=5c48d895-edab-48da-858a-24c60d111a32%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4212>. SCM Press, ISBN-13: 978-0-334-04035-4, ISBN-10: 0-334-04035-3; ISBN-13: 978-0-334-04090-3, ISBN-10:0-334-04090-6 

Holy Bible. Ed. Hartdegen J. Stephen. Wichita: Saint Jerome, 2011. Print. New American Bible

Rev. Vers. 

Nutt, Roger. "On Analogy, the Incarnation, and the Sacraments of the Church: Considerations

from the Tertia pars of the Summa theologiae." Nova et Vetera 12.No. 3 (2014): 989

1004. EBSCO eBook Collection. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

<http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=4acbb55f-8e59-49ab-9a93-75417b620a7c%40sessionmgr115&hid=128>.