Preface and Introduction: The Structure of Christology

Preface and Introduction

PREFACE In treating of God as the Author of Nature and the Supernatural,1 we showed how the harmony of angelic as well as human nature was seriously disturbed by sin. For some reason not revealed to us the fallen angels were beyond redemption. St. Thomas thinks that, as they were pure spirits, once they had determined upon evil, their free will became unalterably fixed therein. Other divines hold that the fallen angels were unable to undo their choice because the decision they had made terminated the status viae. The human race immediately after the Fall was reinstated in grace by virtue of the Protevangelium, i. e., God’s solemn promise that the Second Person of the Trinity should redeem the sinful race and reconstitute it in the state of adoptive sonship. “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” 2 Intimately bound up with the mystery of the Incarnation is that of the Redemption. Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, Son of God, and Himself l Pohle-Preuss, God the Author 2 * Ubi autem abundavit delictum, •/ Nature and the Supernatural, superabundant gratia* Rom. V, St. Louis 191 2. 20. I 2 PREFACE true God,8 offered Himself up as a sacrifice (in His human nature), and gave adequate satisfaction for our sins by His agonizing death on the Cross. For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself by Christ, not imputing to them their sins. 4 In this dogmatic treatise on the Incarnation, we assume the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical fact, leaving it to Apologetics to refute such infidel objections as that the Gospel story is merely a legendary reflex of the Gilgamesh epic,5 etc. In regard to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption, Divine Revelation proposes to our belief two distinct series of truths. Those which concern the Person of the Redeemer form the ground-work of the dogmatic treatise called Christology; those which refer specifically to the Redemption are dealt with in Soteriology, to which we shall devote a separate volume. The Blessed Virgin Mary, as Deipara, is causally related both to the Incarnation and the Redemption, and must therefore be treated in connection with both. This gives us a separate treatise, called Mariology, which will form the sixth volume of the present series. 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine alttestamentlichen Patriarcheti-, Trinity, St. Louis, Mo., 19 12, pp. Propheten- und Befreiersage und der 49 sqq. neutestamentlichen Jesus-Sage, p. 4* Cor. V, 19. 1030, Strassburg 1906. Cfr. The 5 Sec P. Jensen, Das Gilgamesch- Catholic Fortnightly Review, Vol. Epos, Vol. I: Die Ursprunge der XVII (1910), Nos. 4 and 5.

INTRODUCTION I. In treating of the dogma of the Divine Trinity we based our exposition upon the “Athanasian Creed.” 1 According to this same ecclesiastical symbol we will also divide the treatise on Christology, treating ( i ) of Duality in Unity/’ 2 or the constitutive elements of Christ, and (2) of Unity in Duality/’ or the Hypostatic Union.8 The significant parallel between the two dogmatic treatises seems to point to an analogical relation between their respective subjects. Such a relation does indeed exist. Both treatises are concerned with transcendental mysteries which revolve about the concepts of ” Nature ” and ” Hypostasis,” and their mutual relations. It would not, however, be correct to conclude from this analogy that Christ, in respect of the relation of Nature to Person, is a perfect image of the Trinity. There is a very essential distinction. In the Blessed Trinity one Divine Nature subsists in three divine Hypostases (or Persons), who possess a real and identical nature in common; whereas in Christ two distinct and complete natures, one divine, the other human, subsist in one Hypostasis, i. e., the Divine Person of the Logos. Or, to put it somewhat differently, the Blessed 1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine 8 Unitas in dualitate, unto hypoTrinity, pp. s sqq. statica. 2 Dualitas in unit ate. 4 INTRODUCTION Trinity forms a real Trinity of Persons in an absolute Unity of Nature, whereas in Christ there is a duality of Natures in an absolute Unity of Person. This twofold element in the constitution of the Godman is clearly stated in the “Athanasian Creed”: “Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dontinus noster Iesus Christus Dei Filius, Deus et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus, et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus: perfectus Deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et humana came subsistens, aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus; 5 unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum, unus omnino non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae.” Anglice: ” For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man ; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds ; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man: yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance: but by unity of Person.” 6 iDuolitas in unitate. 191 1, n. 40. For brevity’s sake 6 Unit as in dualitate. we shall hereafter cite this work 6 Enchiridion Symbolorum, Defini- as Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiritionum et Declarationum de Rebus dion. Our translation of the AthaFidei et Morum Auctore Henrico nasian Creed is that of the EngDenzinger. Editio undecima, Emeu- lish Book of Common Prayer. We data et Aucta, quam paravit Clemens quote verbatim, literatim et puncBannwart, S. Friburgi Brisgoviae tatim from the Oxford edition of INTRODUCTION 5 2. Defining the essential constitution of man in our treatise on Dogmatic Anthropology 7 we answered two questions, viz.: (1) How many constitutive elements are there in man? and (2) How are these elements united? We ascertained by the light of Divine Revelation that there is in man a real duality in unity, in as much as he is composed of a material body essentially informed by a spiritual soul. Similarly, though not in precisely the same sense, we may ask: (1) What is the number of constitutive elements in Christ? and (2) How are these elements united? Revelation answers these two questions thus: (1) There are two constitutive elements in Christ, a divine nature and a human nature; and (2) these two natures are united hypostatically. The “Athanasian Creed” points out this analogy when it says : “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man : so God and Man is one Christ.” 8 According to Cardinal Franzelin the dogma of the Incarnation may be most effectively expounded from the following points of view : 9 ( 1 ) Who assumed human nature? (2) What did the Son of God assume? (3) 1834. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 8” Nam stent anima ratio nalis et Knowability, Essence, and Attri- caro unus est homo, ita Deus et butes, p. 318, note 6. homo unus est Christus” 7 See Pohle-Preuss, God the Au- 9 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo Inthor of Nature and the Supernat- carnato, thes. z, 4th ed., Rome 1910. ural, pp. 124 sqq. 6 INTRODUCTION How are Divinity and humanity united in Christ? (4) Why did the Son of God hypostatically assume a human nature? The answer to the first question (quis?) is: The Divine Logos. The answer to the second question (quid?) is : A real and genuine human nature. The answer to the third question (quomodo?) is : Godhead and manhood are hypostatically united in Christ. The answer to the fourth question (ad quid?) is: The Son of God assumed flesh in order to redeem the human race. Of these questions the first three alone belong to Christology proper ; the fourth finds its place in Soteriology. The division we have chosen coincides materially, though not formally, with that suggested by Cardinal Franzelin. The only difference is that we base our exposition on the ” Athanasian Creed.” Our reasons for so doing are purely didactic. The concept * duality in unity * contains the reply to the questions quis? and quid?, while the answer to quomodo? is supplied by the concept of * unity in duality. It may be objected that the so-called Athanasian Creed is not the work of St. Athanasius and lacks the authority of a primitive symbol. We reply that, though of Western origin and … composed (probably) during the fifth century in Southern Gaul, 10 this symbol is “an admirable resume of the doctrine of Athanasius. … In the West it was recited at Prime since the ninth century, was used by the clergy in giving popular instruction as a summary of Christian doctrine, and was held in particular esteem as a basis and criterion of ecclesiastical faith.”11 Dr. Kiinstle holds12 that the 10 Its authorship is variously at- ogy, p. 255, Freiburg and St. Louis tributed to Honoratus of Aries, 1906. Eusebius of Vercelli, and Vincent 12 Antipriscilliana, pp. 204 sqq., of Lerins. Freiburg 1905. 11 Bardenhewer-Shahan, PatrolINTRODUCTION 7 Athanasian Creed was written in Spain against Priscillianism, while H. Brewer 18 attributes it to St. Ambrose. We now enter upon the treatment of Christology according to the division already indicated, viz.: (i) Duality in Unity, or the Constitutive Elements of Christ, and (2) Unity in Duality, or the Hypostatic Union of the two Natures in Christ. General Readings : — Among the Fathers : Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi (Migne, P.G., XXV, 95 sqq., 938 sqq.).— * Cyril of Alexandria (Migne, P.G., LXXV, LXXVI).— Leontius, Adv. Nest, et Eutych. (Migne, P.G., LXXXVI, 1267 sqq.).— Maximus Confessor (Migne, P.G., XC, XCI).— The teaching of these writers is summarized by St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxy I III (Migne, P.G., XCIV).— On the teaching of Theodoret see A. Bertram, Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis Doctrina Christologica, Hildesheim 1883. — On the doctrine of St. Cyril, cfr. A. Rehrmann, Die Christologie des hi. Cyrillus von Alexandrien, Hildesheim 1902. The student may also consult with profit St. Augustine’s Enchiridion (Migne, P.L., XC; English translation by J. F. Shaw, in Vol. IX of The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 3rd ed., Edinburgh 1892) ; St. Ambrose, De Incarnat. Dominicae Sacram. (Migne, P.L., XVI, 703 sqq.), and Fulgentius, De Incarnatione Filii Dei (Migne, P.L., LXV). Among the Schoolmen : * St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 126 (summarized in Freddi-Sullivan, Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate, Considerations Gathered from the Works of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Louis 1904) ; Contr. Gent., IV, 27 sqq. (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 359 sqq., London 1905).— Billuart, De Incarnatione, t. V, ed. Lequette. — Salmanticenses, De Incarn., Vols. 13-16, ed. Paris. 1870 sq.— Suarez, De Incarn., Lugd. 1592.— * Bellarmine, De Christo, t. I, ed. Vives, Paris 1870.— *De Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnationis, t. II, III, ed. Vives, Paris 1890-92. — Gregory of Valentia, De Incarn. Divini Verbi, Venice 1600. — * Ysambert, De Mysterio Incarnationis, Paris 1639. — Wirceburgenses (Holtzclau, S. J.), 13 Das sogenannte Athanasianische Glaubensbekenntnis ein Werk des hi. Ambrosius, Paderborn 1909. 8 INTRODUCTION De Incarn. Verbi, Vol. VI, ed. Paris. 1879. — Legrand, Tract, de Incarn. Verbi Divini (Migne, Cursus Compl., t. IX, Paris i860). — Fr. I. Bertieri, De Verbo Dei Incarnato, Vindob. 1773. Among later theological writers: Bautz, Einig, B. Jungmann, Heinrich, Hurter, Simar, van Noort, in their respective textbooks.— Also * Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, ed. 4, Romae 1910. — *F. A. Stentrup, De Verbo Incarnato, I: Christ ologia, 2 vols., Oeniponte 1882. — *L. Billot, De Verbo Incarnato, ed. 4, Romae 1904. — Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. IV, ed. 3, Friburgi 1909.— G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol, Vol. Ill, Paris 1896.— L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, I: Christologia, Friburgi 1901. — C. v. Schazler, Das Dogma von der Menschwerdung Gottes, Freiburg 1870. — Oswald, Die Erlosung in Christo Jesu, 2 vols., 2nd ed., Paderborn 1887. — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vols. II and III, Freiburg 1878 sq. (summarized in Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben fs “Dogmatik,” Vol. II, pp. 45 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1901). — Idem, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 3d ed., Freiburg 1912. — H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Bampton Lectures) London, Oxford, and Cambridge 1867. — E. C. Minjard, UHomme-Dieu, 2 vols., Paris 1898-99. — I. Souben, Le Verbe Income , Paris 1902. — E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910.— Cfr. also W. Drum, art. ” Incarnation ” in Vol. VII of the Catholic Encyclopedia. On the history of the dogma, consult * Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vols. I and II, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1892-95.— * J. Bach, Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters vom christologischen Standpunkte, 2 vols., Vienna 1873-75. — H. Kihn, Patrologie, 2 vols., Paderborn 1904-08. — J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I. English ed., St. Louis 191 1. Against Modernism: M. Lepin, S. S., Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Engl, tr., Philadelphia 1910. — M. E. Mangenot, Christologie, Commentaire des Propositions XXVII-XXXVIII du Decret du Saint-Office ” Lamentabili;’ Paris 1910. On the Christological teaching of St. Paul, cfr. F. Prat, S. J., La TMologie de Saint Paul, Vol. II, pp. 165-243, Paris 1912. PART I DUALITY IN UNITY, OR THE CONSTITUTIVE ELEMENTS OF CHRIST Jesus Christ is true God; more specifically, He is the Son of God, or Logos, and consequently the Second Person of the Divine Trinity. As Son of the Virgin-Mother Mary He is also true man. We therefore divide the first part of this volume into two Chapters: (i) The Divinity of Christ, and (2) His Humanity.