Disputed Questions on Truth (De Veritate)

 QUESTION ONE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 QUESTION TWO

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 QUESTION THREE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION FOUR

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION FIVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 QUESTION SIX

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 QUESTION SEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION EIGHT

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 ARTICLE XVI

 ARTICLE XVII

 QUESTION NINE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 REFERENCES

 QUESTION TEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 QUESTION ELEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 QUESTION TWELVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 QUESTION THIRTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION FOURTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 QUESTION FIFTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION SIXTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 QUESTION SEVENTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION EIGHTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION NINETEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 QUESTION TWENTY

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 REFERENCES

 QUESTION TEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 QUESTION ELEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 QUESTION TWELVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 QUESTION THIRTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION FOURTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 QUESTION FIFTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 QUESTION SIXTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 QUESTION SEVENTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 QUESTION EIGHTEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION NINETEEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 QUESTION TWENTY

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 QUESTION TWENTY-ONE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 QUESTION TWENTY-TWO

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 QUESTION TWENTY-THREE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 QUESTION TWENTY-FOUR

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 ARTICLE XI

 ARTICLE XII

 ARTICLE XIII

 ARTICLE XIV

 ARTICLE XV

 QUESTION TWENTY-FIVE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 QUESTION TWENTY-SIX

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 ARTICLE X

 QUESTION TWENTY-SEVEN

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 QUESTION TWENTY-EIGHT

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

 ARTICLE IX

 QUESTION TWENTY-NINE

 ARTICLE I

 ARTICLE II

 ARTICLE III

 ARTICLE IV

 ARTICLE V

 ARTICLE VI

 ARTICLE VII

 ARTICLE VIII

ARTICLE X

In the Tenth Article We Ask: DID THE PAIN OF THE PASSION WHICH WAS IN CHRIST'S HIGHER REASON PREVENT THE JOY OF FRUITION, AND CONVERSELY?

Difficulties:

It seems that it did, for

1. Blessedness is more properly in the soul than in the body. But the body cannot be said to be blessed and glorious while it is suffering, because impassibility belongs to the glory of the body. Then neither could there at the same time be the suffering of pain and the joy of blessed fruition in Christ's higher reason.

2. The Philosopher says that any pleasure drives out the sadness which is contrary to it, and if it is keen it drives out all sadness. But the pleasure with which higher reason in the soul of Christ enjoyed the divinity, was most keen. It therefore drove from Christ all sadness and pain.

3. Christ's higher reason was engaged in a more vivid contemplation than Paul in his rapture. But by the force of his contemplation Paul's soul was carried out of his body not only as regards the operation of reason but also as regards sense operations. Then Christ too did not experience any pain either in reason or in sense.

4. From a strong cause there comes a strong effect. Now the operation of the soul is the cause of bodily change; for example, when terrors or delights are represented in imagination, the body is made cold or hot. Consequently, since there was the keenest joy in Christ's soul as to His higher reason, it seems that even His body was changed by this joy; and so pain could not have been either in His body or in His higher reason under the aspect of its being united to the body.

5. The vision of God in His essence is more effective than the vision of God in a creature serving as a medium. But the vision by which Moses saw God in a creature resulted in his not suffering from hunger during his fast of forty days. With all the more reason, then, did the vision of God in His essence, which belonged to Christ in His higher reason, remove all bodily affliction. And so the conclusion is the same as before.

6. Whatever exists in the highest degree of anything but yet can fall off, does not admit of any admixture of the contrary. Thus the heat of fire, which stands at the highest degree of heat, does not admit of any admixture of cold, though that heat is exchangeable. But the joy of fruition was in Christ's higher reason in the highest degree and unchangeably. There was therefore no pain mixed with it.

7. Man is made blessed in both his soul and his body, and he lost both kinds of blessedness by sin. In Christ, however, human nature was re-established in blessedness of soul, which consists in the enjoyment of the divinity by higher reason. All the more, then, was it re-established in blessedness of body, which is something less; and consequently there was no pain in Him even as to His body, and so neither was there in higher reason in virtue of its union with the body.

8. Not only Christ's soul but also His flesh was united to the Word. But if His flesh were glorified through union with the Word, there could not be any pain in it. Therefore, since His higher reason is made blessed through union with the Word, there can be no pain in it.

9. According to Augustine joy and pain are in the soul essentially. But joy and pain are contraries. Since contraries cannot be in the same subject essentially, it therefore seems that the joy of fruition and the pain of the passion could not have been in the higher part of Christ's reason at the same time.

10. Pain follows from the apprehension of something harmful; joy, from the apprehension of something agreeable. But it is not possible to apprehend simultaneously something harmful and something agreeable, because according to the Philosopher it is possible to understand only one thing. Pain and joy could therefore not have been in Christ's higher reason at the same time.

11. In uncorrupted nature reason has more power over sensuality than sensuality has over reason in corrupted nature. But in corrupted nature sensuality draws reason along with it. All the more surely, then, in the case of Christ, in whom human nature was uncorrupted, does reason draw sensuality along with it. Thus sensuality shared in the joy of fruition which was in reason. From this it seems that the soul of Christ was altogether free from pain.

12. An infirmity contracted is greater than one assumed; and similarly union in person is stronger than union by grace. But in the three young men, whose infirmity was contracted, union with God by grace kept their bodies incapable of suffering injury from fire. All the more, then, in the case of Christ, who had only an assumed infirmity, did union with God in the person of the Word and fruition of Him keep His reason free from the pain of the passion.

13. The joy of fruition is in higher reason from its being turned to God, and the pain of suffering from its being turned to the body. But reason, being simple, cannot at the same time be turned to God and to the body, because when anything simple turns to something, it turns as a whole. In Christ's higher reason, then, there could not have been at the same time the joy of fruition and the pain of the passion.

14. It was said in answer that there was a twofold state in Christ, that of a wayfarer and that of a possessor, and that on the basis of these two states there could be in Him both the joy of fruition and the pain of the passion.--On the contrary, the duality of states in Christ neither removes the contrariety between joy and pain nor differentiates the subject of the joy and of the pain. Now contraries cannot be in the same subject. The duality of states in Christ therefore does not make it possible for pain and joy to be in Him as regards higher reason at the same time.

15. The states of a wayfarer and of a possessor are either contrary or not. If they are contrary, they cannot be in Christ at the same time. If, on the other hand, they are not contrary, seeing that contraries have contrary causes, it seems that the duality of states cannot be the cause by which the contraries, joy and pain, were in Christ at the same time.

16. When one power becomes intense in its act, another is withdrawn from its act. With all the more reason, then, when one power is intense in one act, is the very same power withdrawn from another act. But in higher reason there was intense joy. By this fact, then, it was altogether withdrawn from pain.

17. It was said that pain was material with reference to joy, and for this reason joy was not prevented by pain.--On the contrary, the pain was from the suffering of the body, the joy, from the vision of God. The pain of the passion was therefore not material with reference to the joy of fruition. Then pain and joy could not be in Christ's higher reason at the same time.

To the Contrary:

1'. There is a proportion among effects similar to that among their causes. But the union of Christ's soul with His body was the cause of pain, whereas its union with the divinity was the cause of joy. But these two unions do not preclude each other. Then neither do pain and joy preclude each other.

2'. At the same instant Christ was a true wayfarer and a true possessor. He therefore had the attributes of each. But it is proper to a possessor to rejoice intensely from the divine fruition, and of a wayfarer to feel bodily pains. Therefore in Christ there were at the same time the pain of the passion and the joy of fruition.

REPLY:

In Christ the two dispositions in question, the joy of fruition and the pain of the bodily passion, by no means precluded each other. For the clarification of this matter it should be borne in mind that, in conformity with the order of nature, because of the conjunction of the powers of the soul in one essence and of the soul and body in the one existence of the composite, the higher powers and the lower, and even the body and the soul, let flow from one to the other whatever superabounds in any one of them. And hence it is that because of the soul's apprehension the body is altered with regard to heat and cold, and sometimes even to the extent of health and sickness and even to death; for it does happen that a person meets with death from joy or sadness or love. For this reason too there occurs an overflow from the very glory of the soul into the body, glorifying it, as is made clear in the passage from Augustine cited above. And contrariwise the alteration of the body overflows into the soul. For a soul joined to a body imitates its make-up in point of insanity or docility and the like, as is said in the work Six Principles.

In the same way too there occurs an overflow from the higher powers into the lower, as when a passion in sense appetite follows upon an intense movement of the will, and the animal powers are withdrawn or barred from their acts by intense contemplation. And conversely there occurs an overflow from the lower powers into the higher, as when a man's reason is clouded because of the vehemence of passions in sense appetite, with the result that it judges as simply good that to which the man is moved by passion.

In Christ, however, the situation is quite different. Because of the divine power of the Word the order of nature was subject to His will. It was therefore possible that the above-mentioned overflow, whether from the soul into the body or vice versa, or from the higher powers into the lower or vice versa, should not take place; and the Word saw to this in order that the genuineness of His human nature in all its parts might be clearly proved and that the mystery of our reparation might be fittingly fulfilled in all respects. Damascene thus says: "He was moved in conformity with this nature, while the Word in the manner of a supervisor so willed and permitted, to suffer and to perform all works proper to it, in order that through its works the nature's genuineness might be believed."

It is therefore evident that, since there was the most complete joy in His higher reason in view of the fact that by its activity His soul was enjoying the possession of God, that joy remained in higher reason and did not flow out to the lower powers of the soul or to the body; otherwise there could not have been any pain or passion in Him. Accordingly too the effect of fruition did not reach to the essence of the soul as the form of the body or as the root of the lower powers. Had it done so it would have reached the body and the lower powers, as happens in the blessed after the resurrection. Conversely also the pain which was in the body itself from the injury of the body and in the essence of the soul as the form of the body and in the lower powers, was not able to reach to higher reason in so far as by its act it turns towards God, in such a way that this turning might thereby be hindered in the least degree.

It therefore remains that the pain itself attained higher reason as rooted in the essence of the soul and that the greatest joy was there inasmuch as reason was enjoying the possession of God by its act. Thus the joy belonged to higher reason directly, because by its proper act, whereas pain was there as if indirectly, because by reason of the essence of the soul in which it was grounded.

Answers to Difficulties:

1. Just as God is the good and the life of the soul, so the soul is the good and life of the body, but not contrariwise so that the body should be the good of the soul. Now the ability to suffer is a sort of barrier or harmful factor as regards the union of the soul with the body. Thus the body cannot be blessed in its own way while still able to suffer, having a barrier to participation in its own good. For this reason impassibility is a part of the glory of the body. The soul's blessedness, however, consists entirely in the enjoyment of its own good, which is God. Hence the soul which enjoys the possession of God is perfectly happy, even if it happens to be passible from the point of view of its being united to the body, as was the case in Christ.

2. The fact that keen joy drives out all sadness, even that which is not contrary, is due to the overflow of the powers upon one another (which did not take place in Christ), as has been explained.* In this way because of the intensity of St. Paul's contemplation his lower powers were withdrawn from their acts.

3. The answer is clear from that just given.

4. In the same way there results from the operation of the soul some change in the body. From this the answer to this difficulty is obvious.

5. In the same way also Moses suffered from thirst and hunger not at all or little, because of his contemplation of God even though in a creature serving as a medium. Thus the answer to this difficulty is clear.

6. In Christ there was no mingling of joy and pain. For joy was in His higher reason viewed under the aspect of its being the principle of its own act, for it was in this way that it enjoyed the possession of God. Pain, however, was not in it except in so far as the injuring of the body touched it as the act of the body through the essence in which it was rooted, yet in such a way that the act of higher reason was in no wise hampered. Thus there was pure joy and likewise pure pain, and both in the highest degree.

7. It happened by a sort of dispensation that glory of soul, though not that of body, was conferred upon Christ from the first moment of His conception, so that He was conformed to God by the glory of His soul while by the passibility of His body He was like us. Thus He was a fitting mediator between God and man, leading us to glory and offering His passion to God in our name in accordance with the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:10): "For it became him . . . who had brought many children into glory, to be perfected by his passion."

8. The soul of Christ was joined to the Word in two ways: (1) by the act of fruition, and this union made it blessed; (2) by union, and this did not furnish the reason for its blessedness but did account for its being the soul of God. Now if one were to suppose that the soul was assumed in a unity of person without fruition, it would not be blessed properly speaking, because not even God Himself is blessed except by the fact that He enjoys the possession of Himself. The body of Christ is therefore not glorious by reason of being assumed by the Son of God in a unity of person, but only because glory came down into it from the soul; but this was not the case before the passion, because it was not glorious then.

9. It is impossible for contraries to be in the same subject directly; yet it does happen that contrary movements are in the same subject in such a way that one of them belongs to it directly and the other indirectly, as when a person walking in a ship is borne in a direction contrary to that in which the ship is moving. So too in the higher reason of Christ's soul there was joy directly, because by its proper act, but pain indirectly, because through the suffering of the body.--It can also be said that that joy and that pain were not contraries since they were not about the same thing.

10. The intellect cannot understand many things at the same time by means of different species, but it can understand many things at once by means of one species or by understanding in any other way many as one. It is in this way that the intellect of Christ's soul and of any one of the blessed understands many things at once, since in seeing the divine essence it knows other things.

Yet granted that the soul of Christ could understand only one thing at a time, the possibility is not thereby removed of its understanding one thing and at the same time sensing something else with a bodily sense. And as a matter of fact from those two different objects of apprehension in Christ's soul there followed joy from the vision of God and the pain of the passion from the feeling of injury.

Granted further that it could not simultaneously understand one thing and sense or imagine another, nonetheless from that one object of understanding higher and lower appetite could be affected in different ways, so that the higher would rejoice and the lower fear or grieve, as happens in one who hopes to get health from some horrible remedy. For considered by reason as health-giving, the remedy begets joy in the will; but because of its horribleness it arouses fear in the lower appetite.

11. That argument proceeds on the assumption of the ordinary course of events. In Christ, however, it occurred by way of exception that there should not take place the overflow from one power into another.

12. The bodies of the three young men were not made impassible in the furnace; but by the divine power it was miraculously brought about that while remaining passible their bodies should not be injured by the fire, as it also could have happened by the divine power that neither Christ's soul nor His body should suffer anything. But why this was not done has been explained.*

13. The turning of a power towards something takes place by means of its act. Thus joy was in Christ's higher reason by means of it turning to God, to whom it was kept turned entirely, whereas pain was in His higher reason as a result of the inhesion or adherence by which it clung to the essence of the soul as its root.

14. The state of a wayfarer is a state of imperfection, whereas that of a possessor is a state of perfection. Christ therefore had the state of a wayfarer by reason of bearing a body capable of suffering, and likewise such a soul; but He had the state of a possessor by reason of perfectly enjoying the possession of God through the act of higher reason. This was possible in Christ because by the divine power the overflow from one to another was inhibited, as has been said.* This is the reason also why joy and sadness could be in Him simultaneously. It is accordingly said that these two feelings were in Him in accordance with His two states because His having two states and His simultaneously experiencing pain and joy came from the same cause.

15. Even though the states of a wayfarer and of a possessor are in a sense contrary, they could still be in Christ at the same time, not in the same respect but in different respects. For the state of a possessor was in Him according as He adhered to God by fruition in higher reason; and the state of a wayfarer, according as His soul was joined to a body capable of suffering and His higher reason joined to the soul itself by a sort of natural conjunction. As a result the state of a possessor has reference to the act of higher reason, and that of a wayfarer to His passible body and its consequent properties.

16. It was something special in Christ, for the reason already explained,* that however much one power was intensified in its act, another was not withdrawn from its act or in any way hampered.

The joy of higher reason was accordingly hindered neither by the pain which was in sense as a consequence of the act of sensing nor by the pain which was in higher reason itself, because that pain was not in it as a consequence of its act, but it attained it in some manner as a consequence of its being grounded in the essence of the soul.

17. Just as blessed knowledge is principally of the divine essence and secondarily of the things which are known in the divine essence, in the same way the affection and joy of the blessed is principally about God but secondarily about the things that have God as the reason why we rejoice over them. The pain of the passion can accordingly be in some sense material with reference to the joy of fruition, for that joy was principally over God and secondarily over the things which were pleasing to God; and so it was even over the pain in so far as it was acceptable to God as destined for the salvation of the human race.