Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
“HABITU INVENTUS UT HOMO’ 193 phantasmata or mental images, as is the case with the human soul ordinarily. Thomas answers (ad 2m and ad 3m) that although the soul of Christ has the same nature as ours, his understanding was at the level to which human understanding will attain, not here on earth, but in the state of total comprehension or beatitude. Nevertheless, he could also understand through mental images, and used his senses according to the needs of sensitive life common to human nature.38 Question 14, concerned with corporeal defects assumed by the Son of God, asks in the first article whether the Son of God should have assumed human nature with corporeal defects. In his reply, Thomas shows that the assumption of the corporeal defects of human nature served the threefold purpose of making satisfaction for sin by bearing the penalties of sin, of strengthening faith in the true humanity of the Redeemer, and of presenting us with an example of patience in suffering. With regard to the second point, Thomas indicates that Christ, in assuming veritable human nature, assumed the human nature know to us, including the defects, lest he should seem, as the Manichaeans held, to be a mere incorporeal phantasm. Philippians 2,7 is cited in support of this presentation, with the conversion of doubting Thomas (John 20,26) adduced as an example of faith in Christ’s divinity that was brought abort by recognition of his real and vulnerable humanity.39 After the discussion of human passions in Christ, Thomas turns to the consequence of the union of God and man in Christ. Q. 16, the first in this section, is concerned with matters appropriate to the esse and fieri of Christ. Art 1 asks whether the statement Deus est homo is true. The sed contra uses Philippians 2,6-7 to prove that it is, indeed, a valid statement, and the response explains how it is to be understood. Christ, as true God and true man, is the suppositum of both divine and human natures, so that “the term man may be predicated of the term God 38 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 11, a. 2, p.2498 ab: “2. Anima Christi est eiusdem naturae cum animabus nostri, alioquin ipse non esset eiusdem speciei no- biscum, contra id quod Apostolus dicit, Philipp. 2,7... Sed anima nostra non potest intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata... Resp.: Dicendum quod Christus in statu ante passionem fuit simul viator et com- prehensor...” 39 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 14, a. 1, p. 2512b: “Resp.: ...Et ideo, ut dicitur Philipp. 2,7, ’exinanivit semetipsum, formán servi accipiens, ut similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo.’ Unde et beatus Thomas per aspectum vulnerum est ad fidem revocatus, ut dicitur Joann. 22,26”.
