Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 43

Reply Obj. 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an object of veneration, as stated above (AA. 4, 5). But the Blessed Virgin is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no comparison.

_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 6]

Whether Any Kind of Wors.h.i.+p Is Due to the Relics of the Saints?

Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be wors.h.i.+ped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error. But to wors.h.i.+p the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men.

Therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored.

Obj. 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them.

Obj. 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it.

Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be wors.h.i.+ped.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be wors.h.i.+ped in all sincerity": and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius."

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature." It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of G.o.d, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of G.o.d, and our intercessors.

Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: princ.i.p.ally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence G.o.d Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence.

Reply Obj. 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they wors.h.i.+p with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen." To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"--that is to say, with the wors.h.i.+p of _latria._ "But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [*The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek _martys_ is 'a witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master." Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the wors.h.i.+p of _latria_ to dead men.

Reply Obj. 2: We wors.h.i.+p that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys G.o.d; and for G.o.d's sake, whose ministers the saints were.

Reply Obj. 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by ident.i.ty of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form.

_______________________

QUESTION 26

OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF G.o.d AND MAN (In Two Articles)

We have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of G.o.d and man, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of G.o.d and man?

(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 1]

Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Mediator of G.o.d and Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Mediator of G.o.d and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be mediators between G.o.d and man, according to Deut. 5:5: "I was the mediator and stood between G.o.d [Vulg.: 'the Lord'] and you at that time." But it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet.

Neither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and bad, cannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between G.o.d and man is fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It is also fitting to the bad angels--that is, the demons: for they have something in common with G.o.d--namely, _immortality;_ and something they have in common with men--namely, _pa.s.sibility of soul_ and consequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 13, 15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator of G.o.d and man.

Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech one of those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy Ghost, as it is written (Rom. 8:26), "asketh" G.o.d "for us with unspeakable groanings." Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between G.o.d and man. Therefore this is not proper to Christ.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Tim. 2:5): "There is ... one Mediator of G.o.d and man, the man Christ Jesus."

_I answer that,_ Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are united in the mean (_medio_). Now to unite men to G.o.d perfectively belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to G.o.d, according to 2 Cor. 5:19: "G.o.d was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." And, consequently, Christ alone is the perfect Mediator of G.o.d and men, inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to G.o.d. Hence the Apostle, after saying, "Mediator of G.o.d and man, the man Christ Jesus," added: "Who gave Himself a redemption for all."

However, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in some respect, between G.o.d and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in uniting men to G.o.d, dispositively or ministerially.

Reply Obj. 1: The prophets and priests of the Old Law were called mediators between G.o.d and man, dispositively and ministerially: inasmuch as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect Mediator of G.o.d and men. As to the priests of the New Law, they may be called mediators of G.o.d and men, inasmuch as they are the ministers of the true Mediator by administering, in His stead, the saving sacraments to men.

Reply Obj. 2: The good angels, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 13), cannot rightly be called mediators between G.o.d and men. "For since, in common with G.o.d, they have both beat.i.tude and immortality, and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man, how much rather are they not aloof from men and akin to G.o.d, than established between them?" Dionysius, however, says that they do occupy a middle place, because, in the order of nature, they are established below G.o.d and above man. Moreover, they fulfill the office of mediator, not indeed princ.i.p.ally and perfectively, but ministerially and dispositively: whence (Matt. 4:11) it is said that "angels came and ministered unto Him"--namely, Christ. As to the demons, it is true that they have immortality in common with G.o.d, and unhappiness in common with men. "Hence for this purpose does the immortal and unhappy demon intervene, in order that he may hinder men from pa.s.sing to a happy immortality," and may allure them to an unhappy immortality. Whence he is like "an evil mediator, who separates friends" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xv].

But Christ had beat.i.tude in common with G.o.d, mortality in common with men. Hence "for this purpose did He intervene, that having fulfilled the span of His mortality, He might from dead men make immortal--which He showed in Himself by rising again; and that He might confer beat.i.tude on those who were deprived of it--for which reason He never forsook us." Wherefore He is "the good Mediator, Who reconciles enemies" (De Civ. Dei xv).

Reply Obj. 3: Since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to G.o.d, He cannot be said to be between, or a Mediator of, G.o.d and men: but Christ alone, Who, though equal to the Father in His G.o.dhead, yet is less than the Father in His human nature, as stated above (Q. 20, A. 1). Hence on Gal. 3:20, "Christ is a Mediator [Vulg.: 'Now a mediator is not of one, but G.o.d is one']," the gloss says: "Not the Father nor the Holy Ghost." The Holy Ghost, however, is said "to ask for us," because He makes us ask.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 2]

Whether Christ, as Man, Is the Mediator of G.o.d and Men?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not, as man, the Mediator of G.o.d and men. For Augustine says (Contra Felic. x): "One is the Person of Christ: lest there be not one Christ, not one substance; lest, the office of Mediator being denied, He be called the Son either of G.o.d alone, or merely the Son of a man." But He is the Son of G.o.d and man, not as man, but as at the same time G.o.d and man.

Therefore neither should we say that, as man alone, He is Mediator of G.o.d and man.

Obj. 2: Further, just as Christ, as G.o.d, has a common nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost; so, as man, He has a common nature with men. But for the reason that, as G.o.d, He has the same nature as the Father and the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called Mediator, as G.o.d: for on 1 Tim. 2:5, "Mediator of G.o.d and man," a gloss says: "As the Word, He is not a Mediator, because He is equal to G.o.d, and G.o.d 'with G.o.d,'

and at the same time one G.o.d." Therefore neither, as man, can He be called Mediator, on account of His having the same nature as men.

Obj. 3: Further, Christ is called Mediator, inasmuch as He reconciled us to G.o.d: and this He did by taking away sin, which separated us from G.o.d. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not as man, but as G.o.d. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, not as man, but as G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 15): "Not because He is the Word, is Christ Mediator, since He Who is supremely immortal and supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals; but He is Mediator, as man."

_I answer that,_ We may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he is a mean; secondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the nature of a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by communicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither of these can be applied to Christ as G.o.d, but only as man. For, as G.o.d, He does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost in nature and power of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything that the Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others something belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as though it were belonging to others than Himself. But both can be applied to Him as man. Because, as man, He is distant both from G.o.d, by nature, and from man by dignity of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to Him, as man, to unite men to G.o.d, by communicating to men both precepts and gifts, and by offering satisfaction and prayers to G.o.d for men. And therefore He is most truly called Mediator, as man.

Reply Obj. 1: If we take the Divine Nature from Christ, we consequently take from Him the singular fulness of grace, which belongs to Him as the Only-begotten of the Father, as it is written (John 1:14). From which fulness it resulted that He was established over all men, and approached nearer to G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 2: Christ, as G.o.d, is in all things equal to the Father.

But even in the human nature He is above all men. Therefore, as man, He can be Mediator, but not as G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 3: Although it belongs to Christ as G.o.d to take away sin authoritatively, yet it belongs to Him, as man, to satisfy for the sin of the human race. And in this sense He is called the Mediator of G.o.d and men.

_______________________

ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE)

The privilege of the Virgin-Mother of G.o.d and the supreme prerogative of her Son may be seen from the following diagram:

THE LAW AND COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN.

[The following content was presented in the form of a three-column table in the original.]

[COLUMN 1] UNDER THE LAW.