Aquinas’s Theology of the Incarnation in Light of Lombard’s Subsistence Theory

The Thomist 65 (2001): 409-39 AQUINAS'S THEOLOGY OF THE INCARNATION IN LIGHT OF LOMBARD'S SUBSISTENCE THEORY MICHAEL B. RASCHKO Seattle University Seattle, Washington Therefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions, mentioned by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6), which holds one hypostasis of God and man, is not to be called an opinion, but an article of Catholic faith. So likewise the first opinion which holds two hypostases, and the third which holds an accidental union, are not to be styled opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in Councils.1 Here in the Tertia Pars of the Summa Theologiae Thomas gives his final judgment on the three opinions outlined by Peter Lombard on the mode of union in the Incarnation. Thomas condemns the first and the third as heresies and accepts the second not as an opinion but as the correct statement of the Catholic faith. As Walter Principe points out, Thomas and most of his contemporariesapproached the theology ofthe Incarnation through a dialogue with these three opinions, in which Lombard had summarized the work of early Scholasticism.2 Thomas's adoption of the second opinion, then, is key to his theology of the person of Christ and sets the tone for his discussions regarding the Incarnation. Thomas's statement is a product of both the development of his own thought and the history of the discussion of the Incarnation in Christian theology. This article will therefore 1 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 2, a. 6 (NewYork: Benziger Brothers, 1947). 2 Walter Principe, "St. Thomas on the Habitus-Theory of the Incarnation," St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274-1974, Commemorative Studies (foronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), 1:381. 409 410 MICHAEL B. RASCHKO discuss the history of the theological discussion of the issue as Thomas perceived it, his presentation of his theology of the Incarnation in the light of his acceptance of the second opinion, the development of his thought on the Incarnation in four of his works that deal with the issue (the Commentary on the Sentences, the Summa contra Gentiles, the Quaestio Disputata de Unione Verbi Incarnati, and the Summa Theologiae),3 and his discussion of certain issues having to do with the Incarnation in the light of his presentation of the second opinion. I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The history of the theology of the Incarnation as it is reflected in Thomas's writings may be divided into three parts: the boundaries established by the Fathers of the Church in their condemnations of various Christological heresies, the three opinions outlined by Lombard and the issues they raise, and the issues that arose in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. A) The Patristic Boundaries Thomas's clearest exposition of the boundaries set by the rejection of the Christological heresies of the patristicera is found in book IV of the Summa contra Gentiles. This part of his work is the fruit of the time he spent in Orvieto under the patronage of Urban IV. In Orvieto Thomas had the time and the bibliographical resources to become familiar with the early councils of the Church.4 When he presents this material in the Summa contra Gentiles he has the positions of ancient Greek and medieval Islamic thinkers in mind. Therefore, he follows something of the historical and genetic order of nine erroneous 3 Thomas Aquinas, OrdinisPraedicatorum Commentum in Quatuor Libras Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi (New York: Musurgia Publishers, 1948); Summa contra Gentiles, trans. Charles J. O'Neil (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975); Quaestio Disputatade Unione Verbi Incarnati, in Quaestiones Disputatae (Rome: Marietti, 1949), vol. 2, pp. 419-35; Summa Theologiae (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974). 4 Thomas F. O'Meara, O.P., Thomas Aquinas, Theologian (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 23. AQUINAS AND LOMBARD ON THE INCARNATION 411 positions whose condemnations set the boundaries for Christian reflection on the Incarnation. He refutes them not by quoting the decrees of the councils that condemned them (the non-Christians for whom the work is written would not find these convincing) but through Scripture and philosophical arguments. He is not trying to prove the Christian belief in the Incarnation...