F
Faithdancer
Guest
In Part III, Question 14 Article 1 of the Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
"Should the Son of God have assumed in human nature defects of body?
Thomas then proceeds to answer in the affirmative, citing three reasons: First, by assuming the defects of the body in His human nature Christ took on full humanity, including human suffering and frailty. Second, through His fully corporeal Incarnation He proved that He was fully human; He did not take on a spirit or imaginary body. Finally, in His patient endurance of suffering and in His sacrifice He became the ultimate model for us; He could not have become such a model if He did not share completely in our humanity, including our corruptible fleshly bodies.
I think that in addition to the three reasons presented by St. Thomas the deep humanity of Christ, which included His assumption of the defects of the body which are integral to human nature, has had additional consequences which St. Thomas could perhaps not have foreseen. I’m referring to the vision of a Christ who is frequently preached by the Protestant evangelical groups as the “personal savior.” While some of the more fundamentalist denominations have co-opted this appellation for Christ as their own, as if Christ can only be a “personal” savior for those who believe in sola scriptura, or determinism, etc. the term can in another sense be considered a Roman Catholic view of Christ as well. For who is more personally our Savior than He is? In fact, of course, He is our only Savior, our only Intercessor with the Father. But without His assumption of a fully human body with all of its inherent defects, He couldn’t be quite so personal to us. In his humanity He achieves what He never could have had He remained the Word in Heaven, a remote deity that we could love and obey but never truly personally recognize and relate to as a fellow wayfarer. Instead He chose to become a credible Incarnation, an example of perfect dignity and courage in the face of suffering, and a sacrifice personally and palpably felt when we contemplate Him on the cross. We may differ with our separated brethren on the particulars of how Christ comes to be our “personal savior.“ For us as Catholics it is through the sacraments, in particular in the Eucharist that He is intensely personal to us. In fact, one might argue that Christ is more “personal” in the Eucharist than he is in the fleeting moment of ecstasy that characterizes the “born again” experience. He is certainly at least more frequently and consistently personal, for those who grasp that He is fully present in the host and in the wine.
"Should the Son of God have assumed in human nature defects of body?
Thomas then proceeds to answer in the affirmative, citing three reasons: First, by assuming the defects of the body in His human nature Christ took on full humanity, including human suffering and frailty. Second, through His fully corporeal Incarnation He proved that He was fully human; He did not take on a spirit or imaginary body. Finally, in His patient endurance of suffering and in His sacrifice He became the ultimate model for us; He could not have become such a model if He did not share completely in our humanity, including our corruptible fleshly bodies.
I think that in addition to the three reasons presented by St. Thomas the deep humanity of Christ, which included His assumption of the defects of the body which are integral to human nature, has had additional consequences which St. Thomas could perhaps not have foreseen. I’m referring to the vision of a Christ who is frequently preached by the Protestant evangelical groups as the “personal savior.” While some of the more fundamentalist denominations have co-opted this appellation for Christ as their own, as if Christ can only be a “personal” savior for those who believe in sola scriptura, or determinism, etc. the term can in another sense be considered a Roman Catholic view of Christ as well. For who is more personally our Savior than He is? In fact, of course, He is our only Savior, our only Intercessor with the Father. But without His assumption of a fully human body with all of its inherent defects, He couldn’t be quite so personal to us. In his humanity He achieves what He never could have had He remained the Word in Heaven, a remote deity that we could love and obey but never truly personally recognize and relate to as a fellow wayfarer. Instead He chose to become a credible Incarnation, an example of perfect dignity and courage in the face of suffering, and a sacrifice personally and palpably felt when we contemplate Him on the cross. We may differ with our separated brethren on the particulars of how Christ comes to be our “personal savior.“ For us as Catholics it is through the sacraments, in particular in the Eucharist that He is intensely personal to us. In fact, one might argue that Christ is more “personal” in the Eucharist than he is in the fleeting moment of ecstasy that characterizes the “born again” experience. He is certainly at least more frequently and consistently personal, for those who grasp that He is fully present in the host and in the wine.