Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "prayer is the asking for becoming things from God." But since Christ could do all things, it does not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. Therefore it does not seem fitting that Christ should pray.

Objection 2: Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for certain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise tomorrow. Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in prayer.

Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that "prayer is the raising up of the mind to God." Now Christ's mind needed no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.

On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 6:12): "And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God."

I answer that, As was said in the 2.2, Question 83, Articles 1,2, prayer is the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If, therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps. 134:6: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done." But because the Divine and the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will of itself is not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power, hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will.

Reply to Objection 1: Christ as God and not as man was able to carry out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above (Question 13, Article 1). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the Father; hence He says (Jn. 11:42): "Because of the people who stand about I have said it" (i.e. the words of the prayer) "that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He did not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be unknown." Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose says (on Lk. 6:12): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the Author of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of virtue by His example." Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, if need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher."

Reply to Objection 2: Amongst the other things which He knew would happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for these He not unbecomingly besought God.

Reply to Objection 3: To rise is nothing more than to move towards what is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii, 7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect, and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision." Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, i.e. something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always raised up to God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christo non competat orare.

Nam, sicut dicit Damascenus, oratio est petitio decentium a deo.

Sed, cum christus omnia facere posset, non videtur ei convenire quod aliquid ab aliquo peteret. Ergo videtur quod christo non conveniat orare.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, non oportet orando petere illud quod aliquis scit pro certo esse futurum, sicut non oramus quod sol oriatur cras. Neque etiam est conveniens quod aliquis orando petat quod scit nullo modo esse futurum. Sed christus sciebat circa omnia quid esset futurum. Ergo non conveniebat ei aliquid orando petere.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod oratio est ascensus intellectus in deum.

Sed intellectus christi non indigebat ascensione in deum, quia semper intellectus eius erat deo coniunctus, non solum secundum unionem hypostasis, sed etiam secundum fruitionem beatitudinis.

Ergo christo non conveniebat orare.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. VI, factum est in illis diebus, exiit in montem orare, et erat pernoctans in oratione dei.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est in secunda parte, oratio est quaedam explicatio propriae voluntatis apud deum, ut eam impleat. Si igitur in christo esset una tantum voluntas, scilicet divina, nullo modo sibi competeret orare, quia voluntas divina per seipsam est effectiva eorum quae vult, secundum illud Psalmi, omnia quaecumque voluit dominus fecit.

Sed quia in christo est alia voluntas divina et alia humana; et voluntas humana non est per seipsam efficax ad implendum ea quae vult, nisi per virtutem divinam, inde est quod christo, secundum quod est homo et humanam voluntatem habens, competit orare.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod christus poterat perficere omnia quae volebat secundum quod deus, non autem secundum quod homo, quia, secundum quod homo, non habuit omnipotentiam, ut supra habitum est.

Nihilominus tamen, idem ipse deus existens et homo, voluit ad patrem orationem porrigere, non quasi ipse esset impotens, sed propter nostram instructionem. Primo quidem, ut ostenderet se esse a patre.

Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. XI, propter populum qui circumstat dixi, scilicet verba orationis, ut credant quia tu me misisti.

Unde Hilarius, in X de Trin., dicit, non prece eguit, nobis oravit, ne filius ignoraretur.

Secundo, ut nobis exemplum daret.

Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., noli insidiatrices aperire aures, ut putes filium dei quasi infirmum rogare, ut impetret quod implere non possit.

Potestatis enim auctor, obedientiae magister, ad praecepta virtutis suo nos informat exemplo.

Unde et Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., poterat dominus in forma servi, si hoc opus esset, orare silentio. Sed ita se patri voluit exhibere precatorem, ut meminisset nostrum se esse doctorem.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, inter alia quae christus scivit futura, scivit quaedam esse fienda propter suam orationem. Et huiusmodi non inconvenienter a deo petiit.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ascensio nihil est aliud quam motus in id quod est sursum.

Motus autem, ut dicitur in III de anima, dupliciter dicitur.

Uno modo, proprie, secundum quod importat exitum de potentia in actum, prout est actus imperfecti.

Et sic ascendere competit ei quod est potentia sursum et non actu.

Et hoc modo, ut Damascenus dicit, in III libro, intellectus humanus christi non eget ascensione in deum, cum sit semper deo unitus et secundum esse personale, et secundum beatam contemplationem.

Alio modo dicitur motus actus perfecti, idest existentis in actu, sicut intelligere et sentire dicuntur quidam motus. Et hoc modo intellectus christi semper ascendit in deum, quia semper contemplatur ipsum ut supra se existentem.