Part I Chapter II §3: The Passibility of Christ's Human Nature

§3: The Passibility of Christ’s Human Nature

SECTION 3 THE PASSIBILITY OF CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE i. Heretical Teachings and the Church. — The term “passibility” (capacity for suffering), when applied to our Divine Saviour, means bodily infirmity to a degree involving the possibility of death (defectus corporis), and in addition thereto, those psychical affections which are technically called passiones,1 by Aristotle and St. Thomas. It is necessary to assume such physical defects and psychical affections in Christ in order to safeguard His human nature and the genuineness of the atonement. In other words, the passibility of Christ is a necessary postulate of His Passion. a) To deny our Lord’s liability to suffering and death, or the immeasurable richness of His soul-life while on earth, would be tantamount to asserting that Christ merely bore the semblance of a man and that His human actions were apparitional, — just what the Docetists asserted. On the other side we have Monophysitism, the doctrine of one composite nature in Christ, which logically l * Propriissime dicuntur pas- stent et cetera, quae ad naturam stones animae affectiones appetitns hominis pertinent* {S* TheoL, 3a, sensitivi, quae in Christ 0 fuerunt, qu. 15, art. 4.) 72 leads to the heretical assumption of ” Theopaschitism ” — a worthy pendant to Patripassianism,2 — and to the equally heretical theory that Christ was absolutely incapable of suffering. Towards the close of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century, a Monophysitic sect under the leadership of Julian of Halicarnassus 8 and Gajanus,4 maintained that the body of Christ was incorruptible even before the Resurrection, or, more precisely, that it was not subject to decay (0opa). These sectaries “were named by their opponents Aphthartodoceta, i. e., teachers of the incorruptibility of the body of Christ, or Phantasiastce, i. e., teachers of a merely phenomenal body of Christ.” 5 Julian was at least consistent, but his opponent Severus, Monophysite Bishop of Antioch (512), contradicted his own fundamental assumption when He admitted the orthodox doctrine that Christ before His Resurrection shared in all the bodily sufferings and infirmities of human nature. The Severians were therefore called 6apTo\drpai or corrupticola. b) Meanwhile, at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431), the Church had laid it down as an article of faith that “the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and that He is ‘the first-born from the dead’ [Col. I, 18], as He is life and life-giver inasmuch as He is God.” 6 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Verbum possum came et crucifixum Trinity, pp. 117 sq. came et mortem came gustasse, 8 About A. D. 476. factumque primogenitum ex mor4 A. D. 536. tuts, secundum quod vita est et 5 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, vivificator ut Deus, anathema sit.* p. 533. Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri6 5» quis non confitetur, Dei dion, n. 124. Carefully distinguishing between passibility and passion the Decretum pro Iacobitis of Eugene IV, adopted by the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, defined : ” Deus et homo, Dei FUius et hominis filius, … itnmortalis et aetemus ex natura divinitatis, passibilis et temporalis ex conditione assumptae humanitatis. Firmiter credit [Ecclesia], … Dei Filium in assumpta humanitate ex Virgine vere natum, vere passum, vere mortuum et sepultum — God and man, Son of God and son of man, … immortal and eternal by virtue of [His] Divinity, capable of suffering and temporal by virtue of [His] assumed manhood. The Church firmly believes … that the Son of God in [His] assumed humanity was truly born of the Virgin; that He truly suffered, died, and was buried.,, 7 Though these and other ecclesiastical definitions professedly deal only with our Saviour’s liability to suffering and death, they plainly include, at least by implication, the psychical affections which are the common lot of all men, and which necessarily accompany suffering and death. It is impossible to conceive of a genuine human soul devoid of spiritual and sensitive affections, or even of actual bodily suffering, without a corresponding affliction of the soul. 2. The Passibility of Christ’s Human Nature Demonstrated from Divine Revelation.— The heretical doctrine that Christ was incapable of suffering is manifestly repugnant to Holy Scripture and Tradition. a) One need but open the Gospels at almost any page to be convinced that, in His human na7Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 708. ture, Christ was subject both to the ordinary infirmities of the body and the human affections of the soul. The story of His life confirms and completes the prophetic picture of the ” man of sorrows ” painted by Isaias.8 He ” was hungry 99 9 and ” thirsted.” 10 He was ” wearied ” 11 and fell ” asleep.” 12 He shed His blood and died. On many occasions He manifested distinctly human emotions. Standing before the tomb of His friend Lazarus, for example, He * groaned in the spirit and troubled himself … and … wept. 18 Finding in the temple ” them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money,” He, who was ordinarily so meek, became inflamed with holy anger and drove them out with a scourge.14 His eyes rested with tender regard on the pious youth who was able to say that he had observed the commandments of God from his boyhood.15 He rejoiced 16 and sorrowed,17 He marvelled 18 and was oppressed with fear and heaviness.19 St. Paul explains the reason for all this in Heb. II, 16 sq. : ” Nusquatn enim angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit; unde debuit per omnia fratribus similari20 ut misericors fieret et fidelis pontifex ad Deum, ut repropitiaret delicta populi21 — For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels : but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. Wherefore it behooved him in all things 8 Is. LIII, 3 sqq. 16 John XI, 15. 9 Matth. IV, 2. 17 Matth. XXVI, 37 sq. 10 John XIX, 28. 18 Matth. VIII, 10. 11 John IV, 6. 19 Mark XIV, 33: * Et coepit 12 Matth. VIII, 24. paver e et taedere ttK$aiipcia$at 13 John XI, 33 sqq. Kal dSrifjLorelv).* 14 John II, 15. 20 /card w&yra rots dde\

to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people.” b) The Patristic teaching on this point agrees with that of Sacred Scripture in every detail, except that the Fathers formally exclude from the human nature of Christ all physical and moral defects, which Holy Scripture does rather by implication. a) St. Ambrose says that Christ must have felt and acted like a man because He possessed a human nature : ” Unde valde eos err are res indie at, qui carnem hominis a Christo aiunt esse susceptam, affectum [autem] tiegant, … qui hominem ex hotnine tollunt, quum homo sine affectu hominis esse non possit” 22 St. Leo the Great points out that the hypostatic Union of the two natures in Christ postulates the co-existence of contrary properties : * Impassibilis Deus non dedignatus est esse homo passibilis, et immortaiis mortis legibus subiacere* 28 P) The only dissenting voice is that of St. Hilary (d. 366), who in his principal work, De Trinitate, written for the purpose of defining and scientifically establishing the Christological teaching of the Church against Arianism,24 seems to have taught that Jesus was absolutely insensible to pain and suffering. St. Hilary was accused of heresy by Claudianus Mamertus (d. about 22 In Ps.t 61, n. 5. tate] is a sustained and intensely 28 Serm., 22, c. 2. Cfr. St. Au- enthusiastic plea for the faith of gustine, De Civit. Dei, XIV, 9, 3. the Church. In the domain of early 24 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- ecclesiastical literature it is certainly trology, pp. 404 sq. The entire the most imposing of all the works work [Hilary’s treatise De Trini- written against Arianism. THE TEACHING OF ST. HILARY 77 474), 25 and the charge was repeated by Berengar and Baronius. Erasmus did not scruple to reckon Hilary among the Docetae, and a recent writer, Dom Lawrence Janssens, O.S.B., who has subjected the text to careful scrutiny, arrives at practically the same conclusion.2* The vast majority of Catholic divines, however, headed by Peter Lombard,27 defend St. Hilary against the charge of heresy and interpret his writings in accordance with the orthodox teaching of the Church. There is a third group of theologians, chief among them William of Paris and Petavius,28 who hold that St. Hilary’s original teaching, in his work De Trinitate, was false, but that he tacitly retracted it in his Commentary on the Psalms. The objections to St. Hilary’s teaching seem to us to rest on hermeneutical rather than dogmatic grounds. The supposition that he retracted his previous teaching in his Commentary on the Psalms is altogether gratuitous. It will be far juster to interpret the ambiguous phrases in his work De Trinitate in the light of certain perfectly orthodox expressions which occur in the Tractates super Psalmos. Had Hilary believed that the human nature of Christ was absolutely insensible to pain and suffering, he would surely not have written: ” Hunc igitur ita a Deo percussum persecuti sunt, super dolorem vulnerum dolorem persecutionis huius addentes; pro nobis enim secundum Prophetam dolet” 29 25 ” Nihil doloris Christum in pas- His example was followed by St. sione sensisse,” was the way in Bona venture (in h. /.), St. Thomas which he formulated Hilary’s teach- Aquinas (in h. /.), the Maurist Couing. (De Statu Animae, II, 9.) stent (Opp. S. Hilarii, Praef., sect. 2«” Mentem S. Hilarii ab Aph- 4, f 3, n. 98 sqq.), and lately Stenthartodocetarum excessu non tanto- trup (Christologia, I, thes. 56). pere distare.” (Christologia, p. 552, 28 Cfr. De Incarn., X, 5. Friburgi 1901.) 29 In Ps., 68, n. 23. Cfr. In Ps., 27 Liber Sent., Ill, dist. 15 sq. 53, n. 4-7; 54, n. 6. 78 DUAUTY IX UNITY How, then, are we to interpret the incriminated passages in the treatise De Trinitatef Let us examine the text. It reads as follows (X, tl 13) : “Homo lesus Christus, unigenitus Deus, per camem et Verbum ut hominis Alius ita et Dei Filius, hominem verum secundum similitudinem nostri hominis, non deficiens a se Deo sumpsit; in quo quamvis ictus incideret aut vulnus descenderet out nodi concurrerent aut suspensio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec impetum passionis, non tamen dolor em passionis inferrent… . Passus quidem est Dominus Iesus, dum coeditur, … dum moritur; sed in corpus Domini irruens passio nec non fuit passio nec tamen naturam passionis exseruit, dum … virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit… . Caro ilia, id est panis ille de coelis est; et homo ille de Deo est, habens ad patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed naturam non habens ad dolendum. Naturae enim propriae ac suae corpus illud est, quod in coelestem gloriam conformatur in monte, quod attactu suo fugat febres, quod de sputo suo format oculos.” The orthodoxy of these equivocal and awkward phrases has been defended on a twofold plea. Some have contended that St. Hilary, in speaking of ” Christ,” meant the ” Person of Christ,” i. e., the Divine Logos, and that, consequently, in referring to the ” nature of Christ ” he had in mind the ” nature of the Logos,” i. e., Christ’s Divinity, which in matter of fact can be subject neither to ” dolor passionis” nor fe sensus poenae” Others have attempted to solve the difficulty by pointing out that St. Hilary’s controversial attitude against the Arians led him to insist on the Divinity of Christ so Vigorously as to accentuate unduly the a-priori excellence ^f His humanity and its special prerogatives over orTHE TEACHING OF ST. HILARY 79 dinary human nature.80 According to the first theory, the passage : ” Virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae excepit” would convey the perfectly orthodox meaning : * Virtus divina corporis [i. e., Verbum existens in corpore] sine sensu poenae fuit* The phrase * naturam non habens ad dolendum* would likewise be unexceptionable if natura were taken in the sense of natura divina. With regard to the second theory we may remark : St. Hilary undoubtedly teaches that there is an important difference between the sacred humanity of Christ and the ordinary human nature common to all men by virtue of their descent from Adam. He holds that the human nature of our Lord was different from, and superior to, ordinary human nature, and he attributes this difference to Christ’s miraculous generation ” from the Holy Ghost and the Virgin.” 81 While he fully admits the reality and passibility of Christ’s manhood, St. Hilary asserts the existence of a threefold essential difference between the Godman and all other human beings, viz.: (1) It was impossible for Christ to be overcome by bodily pain, (2) He was under no obligation to suffer, and (3) His suffering did not partake of the nature of punishment.82 In the light of these considerations it cannot be truthfully asserted that St. Hilary sacrificed the dogma of the passibility to his exalted conception of the majesty of the Godman. We must, however, admit that he did not succeed in finding the right via media between the doc80 This peculiarity can be traced tortus] removere a Christo dolorem, also in his other writings. sed tria quae sunt circa dolorem: 81 De Trinit., X, 15, 18. 1. dominium doloris, … 2. meri82 Cfr. St. Thomas, Commentum turn doloris, … 3. necessitatem in Quatuor Libros Sent., Ill, dist. doloris … Et secundum hoc soils’. ” Solutio Magistri consistit in vuntur tria diflicilia, quae in verbis hoc, quod simpliciter noluit IS. Hi- eius videntur esse.’* 8o DUALITY IN UNITY trine of the Arians on the one hand and that of the Aphthartodocete on the other, and that he failed to give due emphasis to the Scriptural and ecclesiastical teaching with regard to the nature and extent of our Lord’s capacity for suffering. Thus, while he certainly erred, he may be said to have erred on a minor point. He had before him the ideal Christ, as He might have appeared among men, in the full consciousness of His divine dignity and without any obligation to suffer. The historic Christ of the Gospels, whose Divinity he was called upon to defend against powerful and sagacious foes, St. Hilary manifestly overrated. His theory may be briefly stated thus: The entire life and suffering of our Lord was a continued miracle. It was as if the suppressed energy of the Divine Logos were constantly seeking an outlet. The passibility which duty and necessity imposed on Jesus Christ became actual passion only by dint of His unceasing consent. His capacity for suffering was abnormal, unnatural, miraculous. The normal condition of His sacred humanity manifested itself when he walked upon the waters, when he penetrated locked doors, when He was transfigured on Mount Tabor, and so forth.88 This sublime conception of Christ led St. Hilary to lose sight of the soteriological character of His mission. The Incarnation of the Son of God was dictated by practical reasons and required for its consummation a painful atonement which involved His death on the cross. The passibility of Christ must, therefore, be held to be wholly natural and spontaneous. A supernatural or artificial passibility, based upon an unbroken chain of miracles, could not have accomplished the purposes of the Redemption. 88 Cfr. St. Hilary, De Trinit., X, 23, 35. Bardenhewer can scarcely be accused of undue severity when he says that the teaching of St. Hilary “makes a very sharp turn around the headland of Docetism.,, 84 3. The Limitations of Christ’s Passibility. — In view of the express teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Church, Catholic theologians circumscribe the dogma of Christ’s passibility with certain well-defined limitations, by excluding from His human nature all those defects of body and soul which would have been unbecoming to a Godman. They draw a sharp distinction between passiones univer ‘sales sive irreprehensibiles,** i. e., defects which flow from human nature as such, and passiones particulares sive reprehensibiles™ which are due to particular or accidental causes. Passiones universales are, for instance, hunger and thirst, fatigue and worry, pain and mortality, joy and sorrow, fear and disgust, hope and love. The passiones or defectus particulares are partly of the body, such as malformation, deafness, blindness, leprosy, and consumption; and partly of the soul, such as feeblemindedness, idiocy, revengefulness, and concupiscence.87 84 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrol- defectus sunt, qui … causantur in ogy, p. 410. Cfr. A. Beck, Die aliquibus hominibus ex quibusdam Trinitatslehre des hi. Hilarius von particularibus causis, sicut lepra et Poitiers, Mainz 1903; Idem, Kirch- morbus caducus et alia huiusmodi, lie he Studien und Quellen, pp. 82 qui quidem defectus quandoque causqq., Amberg 1903. santur ex culpa hominis, puta ex in85 ir&Oy ddidjSXqra. ordinato victu, quandoque autem ex w&$7) di&fiXijTa, • defectu virtutis formativae: quorum 87 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5*. Theol., 3a, neutrum convenit Christo, quia et qu. 14, art. 4 : * Quidam autem caro eius de Spiritu S. concepta 8a DUALITY IN UNITY As the body of Christ was exempt from all so-called natural defects, so His soul must have been immune from those psychic defects which arise from, or have any connection with, sin. That is to say, our Divine Redeemer was not only absolutely exempt from every sinful affection, such as concupiscence, excessive anger, etc.; but He was at all times completely master of His soul. No unfree motus primo-primi, not to speak of other soul-affections, were able to surprise or overpower Him. St. Jerome expresses this truth in a phrase which has become technical: The soul of Christ knew no passiones (vdOrf in the strict sense of the term) but only irpoirddtuu, pro passiones. 88 Since, however, the term passio in the writings of the Fathers is sometimes applied to the Godman, its use cannot be said to be objectionable.89 The Scriptural and Patristic texts already given40 leave no doubt that Christ actually assumed the ordinary defects and affections of human nature. Regarding the diseases and weaknesses of the body in particular, St. Thomas gives three reasons why it was proper that the Saviour should share them. The first is that He came into the world to make satisfaction for the sins of men ; the second, that without these defects there would have been room to doubt the genuinity of His human nature ; and the third, in order to give us an example of pawl … et ipse nihil inordinotum in regimine vitae suae exercuit.* at Cfr. St. Jerome, In Matth., 5, j8: *Inter w&Oot t wpordSeiav, i, e. inter passionem et propassionem, hoc interest, quod passio reputatur in vitiunu In Matth., 26, ^^^^37: * Ne passio in animo illius do^Itomoretur, per propassionem coepit ^Mrittori; aliud est enim contri”i’ ft aliud incipere contristari.” (Cfr. St Thorn., S. Theol., 3a, qu. 15, art. 7, ad 1). 89 Cfr. De Lugo, De Incarn., disp. 22, sect. 1, sub fin. St. John of Damascus, e. g., says: ” Christum omnes naturales et minime reprehensibiles passiones hominis assumpsisse.” (De Fide Orth., Ill, ao.) 40 Supra, pp. 74 sqq. !

tience.” 41 In fallen man these defects are punishments for sin. Not so in Christ, who was absolutely free from guilt. This truth is technically expressed in the phrase : ” He assumed poenalitates which involved no guilt.” 4. A Famous Theological Controversy. — The foregoing explanation will enable the student to form a correct opinion regarding the merits of the famous controversy which arose during the lifetime of St. Bernard of Clairvaux between the Premonstratensian Abbot Philip of Harvengt 42 and a certain Canon named John. John correctly defined the passibility of our Divine Saviour as spontaneous and natural, though voluntarily assumed, whereas Philip, on what he believed to be the authority of St. Hilary,48 held that impassibility was the normal condition of the Godman, and His actual surrender to weakness and suffering must be explained by a series of miracles. It was in fasting for a period of forty days, in walking upon the waters, and by other similar miracles, according to Philip’s theory, that Christ manifested His normal nature; the hunger He is reported to have felt after His fast,44 and His ordinary dependence upon the law of gravitation were wholly abnormal and miraculous phenomena. But this theory is opposed to the plain words of St. Paul 45 and 41 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 14, art. 1. 3a, col. 187 sq., Innsbruck 1906. 42(4-1183). He is also called Cfr. also Berliere, Philippe de HarPhilippus Bonae Spei, from his ab- vengt, Bruges 1892. bey of Bonne Esperance in the 48 Cfr. supra, pp. 76 sqq. Hennegau. For a short sketch of 44 Cfr. Matth. IV, 2 : ” postea his life and a list of his writings esuriit.” see Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius 45 Cfr. Heb. II, 17; IV, 15. Theologiae Catholicae, vol. II, ed. to the express teaching of the Church and the Fathers.46 That these natural defects were voluntarily assumed did not make them unreal or unnatural, because their assumption was coincident with the moment of Christ’s voluntary Incarnation,47 which implied His passion, and consequently also passibility for the sublime purpose of the atonement.48 Readings : — St. Thomas, 5”. Theol., 3a, qu. 14, 15. — G. Patiss, S. J., Das Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas, Ratisbon 1883. — J. Rappenhdner, Die Korperleiden und Gemiitsbewegungen Christi, Dtisseldorf 1878. — Fr. Schmid, Quaestiones Selectae ex Theologia Dogmatica, qu. 6, Paderborn 1891.— G. A. Miiller, Die leibliche Gestalt Jesu Christi, Graz 1909. 46 Cfr. St Athanasius, De Incarn. Verbi (Migne, P. G„ XXV, 13a): * Pro corporis proprietote esurivit, St. Augustine, De Pecc, Mer. et Rem., II, 29 : ” Inasmuch as in Him there was the likeness of sinful flesh, He willed to pass through the changes of the various stages of life, beginning even with infancy, so that it would seem as if that flesh of His might have arrived at death by the gradual approach of old age, if He had not been killed when a young man.” Hence the conciliar phrase: ” Passibilis ex condition* assumptae humonitotis.* 4T Cfr. Heb. X, 5 sqq. 48 Cfr. Phil. II, 7: * Semetipsum exinanivit, … et habitu inventus ut homo — Christ … emptied himself, … being made in the likeness of men.” On the Aphthartodocetae consult J. P. Junglas, Leontins von By sons, pp. 100 sqq., Paderborn 1908.