Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true sensible pain in Christ. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Since with Christ to die was life, what pain may He be supposed to have suffered in the mystery of His death, Who bestows life on such as die for Him?" And further on he says: "The Only-begotten assumed human nature, not ceasing to be God; and although blows struck Him and wounds were inflicted on Him, and scourges fell upon Him, and the cross lifted Him up, yet these wrought in deed the vehemence of the passion, but brought no pain; as a dart piercing the water." Hence there was no true pain in Christ.

Objection 2: Further, it would seem to be proper to flesh conceived in original sin, to be subject to the necessity of pain. But the flesh of Christ was not conceived in sin, but of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb. Therefore it lay under no necessity of suffering pain.

Objection 3: Further, the delight of the contemplation of Divine things dulls the sense of pain; hence the martyrs in their passions bore up more bravely by thinking of the Divine love. But Christ's soul was in the perfect enjoyment of contemplating God, Whom He saw in essence, as was said above (Question 9, Article 2). Therefore He could feel no pain.

On the contrary, It is written (Is. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows."

I answer that, As is plain from what has been said in the 1.2, Question 35, Article 7, for true bodily pain are required bodily hurt and the sense of hurt. Now Christ's body was able to be hurt, since it was passible and mortal, as above stated (Question 14, Articles 1,2); neither was the sense of hurt wanting to it, since Christ's soul possessed perfectly all natural powers. Therefore no one should doubt but that in Christ there was true pain.

Reply to Objection 1: In all these and similar words, Hilary does not intend to exclude the reality of the pain, but the necessity of it. Hence after the foregoing he adds: "Nor, when He thirsted, or hungered, or wept, was the Lord seen to drink, or eat, or grieve. But in order to prove the reality of the body, the body's customs were assumed, so that the custom of our body was atoned for by the custom of our nature. Or when He took drink or food, He acceded, not to the body's necessity, but to its custom." And he uses the word "necessity" in reference to the first cause of these defects, which is sin, as above stated (Question 14, Articles 1,3), so that Christ's flesh is said not to have lain under the necessity of these defects, in the sense that there was no sin in it. Hence he adds: "For He" (i.e. Christ) "had a body---one proper to His origin, which did not exist through the unholiness of our conception, but subsisted in the form of our body by the strength of His power." But as regards the proximate cause of these defects, which is composition of contraries, the flesh of Christ lay under the necessity of these defects, as was said above (Question 14, Article 2).

Reply to Objection 2: Flesh conceived in sin is subject to pain, not merely on account of the necessity of its natural principles, but from the necessity of the guilt of sin. Now this necessity was not in Christ; but only the necessity of natural principles.

Reply to Objection 3: As was said above (Question 14, Article 1, ad 2), by the power of the Godhead of Christ the beatitude was economically kept in the soul, so as not to overflow into the body, lest His passibility and mortality should be taken away; and for the same reason the delight of contemplation was so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the sensitive powers, lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in christo non fuerit verus dolor sensibilis.

Dicit enim Hilarius, in X de Trin., cum pro christo mori vita sit, quid ipse in mortis sacramento doluisse aestimandus est, qui pro se morientibus vitam rependit? et infra dicit, unigenitus deus hominem verum, non deficiens a se deo, sumpsit, in quo, quamvis aut ictus incideret, aut vulnus descenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec impetum passionis, non tamen dolorem inferrent.

Non igitur in christo fuit verus dolor.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, hoc proprium videtur esse carni in peccato conceptae, quod necessitati doloris subiaceat. Sed caro christi non est cum peccato concepta, sed ex spiritu sancto in utero virginali.

Non ergo subiacuit necessitati patiendi dolorem.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, delectatio contemplationis divinorum diminuit sensum doloris, unde et martyres in passionibus suis tolerabilius dolorem sustinuerunt ex consideratione divini amoris. Sed anima christi summe delectabatur in contemplatione dei, quem per essentiam videbat, ut supra dictum est.

Non ergo poterat sentire aliquem dolorem.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Isaiae LIII dicitur, vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut patet ex his quae in secunda parte dicta sunt, ad veritatem doloris sensibilis requiritur laesio corporis et sensus laesionis. Corpus autem christi laedi poterat, quia erat passibile et mortale, ut supra habitum est.

Nec defuit ei sensus laesionis, cum anima christi perfecte haberet omnes potentias naturales. Unde nulli dubium debet esse quin in christo fuerit verus dolor.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in omnibus illis verbis, et similibus Hilarius a carne christi non veritatem doloris, sed necessitatem excludere intendit.

Unde post praemissa verba subdit, neque enim, cum sitivit aut esurivit aut flevit, bibisse dominus aut manducasse aut doluisse monstratus est, sed ad demonstrandam corporis veritatem corporis consuetudo suscepta est, ita ut, naturae nostrae consuetudine, consuetudini sit corporis satisfactum. Vel, cum potum aut cibum accepit, non se necessitati corporis, sed consuetudini tribuit.

Et accepit necessitatem per comparationem ad causam primam horum defectuum, quae est peccatum, ut supra dictum est, ut scilicet ea ratione dicatur caro christi non subiacuisse necessitati horum defectuum, quia non fuit in ea peccatum.

Unde subdit, habuit enim, scilicet christus, corpus, sed originis suae proprium, neque ex vitiis humanae conceptionis existens, sed in formam corporis nostri, virtutis suae potestate, subsistens.

Quantum tamen ad causam propinquam horum defectuum, quae est compositio contrariorum, caro christi subiacuit necessitati horum defectuum, ut supra habitum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod caro in peccato concepta subiacet dolori non solum ex necessitate naturalium principiorum, sed etiam ex necessitate reatus peccati. Quae quidem necessitas in christo non fuit, sed solum necessitas naturalium principiorum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtute divinitatis christi dispensative sic beatitudo in anima continebatur quod non derivabatur ad corpus, ut eius passibilitas et mortalitas tolleretur. Et, eadem ratione, delectatio contemplationis sic continebatur in mente quod non derivabatur ad vires sensibiles, ut per hoc dolor sensibilis excluderetur.