[III.q.54.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at the same time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ's body was with another at the same time in the same place: since He entered among the disciples \"the doors being shut,\" as is related in John 20:26. Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod definitio consanguinitatis, quam quidam ponunt, sit incompetens, scilicet: « Consanguinitas est vinculum ab eodem stipite descendentium carnali propagatione contractum. » Omnes enim homines ab eodem stipite carnali propagatione descendunt, scilicet ab Adam. Si ergo recta esset prædicta definitio consanguinitatis: omnes homines essent ad invicem consanguinei, quod falsum est.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.arg.2] Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder's sight unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ's body \"vanished out of the sight\" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is related in Luke 24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, vinculum non potest esse nisi aliquorum ad invicem convenientium, quia vinculum unit. Sed eorum qui descendunt ab uno stipite, non est major convenientia ad invicem, quam aliorum hominum: cum conveniant specie, et different numero; sicut et alii homines. Ergo consanguinitas non est aliquod vinculum.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.arg.3] Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But Christ's body appeared before the disciples \"in another shape,\" as is evident from Mark 16:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not possess a true body after His Resurrection.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, carnalis propagatio secundum Philosophum, lib. II De gener. animal., cap. xix, fit de superfluo alimenti. Sed tale superfluum magis habet convenientiam cum rebus comestis, cum qui bus in substantia convenit, quam cum eo qui comedit. Cum ergo non nascatur aliquod vinculum consanguinitatis ejus qui ex semine nascitur ad res comestas, nec ad generantem ex carnali propagatione nascetur aliquod propinquitatis vinculum.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.sc] It is written (Luke 24:37) that when Christ appeared to His disciples \"they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit,\" as if He had not a true but an imaginary body: but to remove their fears He presently added: \"Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.\" Consequently, He had not an imaginary but a true body.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.co] As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that Christ's body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His Resurrection would not have been true, but apparent.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod secundum Philosophum in VIII Ethicor., cap. xi et xii, « omnis amicitia aliqua communicatione consistit. » Et quia amicitia ligatio, sive unio quædam est, ideo communicatione, quæ est amicitiae causa, « vinculum » dicitur. Et ideo secundum quamlibet communicationem denominantur aliqui quasi colligati ad invicem; sicut dicuntur « concives » qui habent politicam communicationem ad invicem, et « commilitones, » qui conveniunt in militari negotio; et eodem modo illi qui conveniunt in naturali communicatione, dicuntur « consanguinei. « Et ideo in prædicta definitione ponitur, quasi consanguinitatis genus « vinculum » » quasi subjectum, « personæ descendentes ab uno stipite, » quarum est hujusmodi vinculum; quasi principium, « carnalis propagatio. »
\n[III.q.54.a.1.ad.1] Christ's body after His Resurrection, not by miracle but from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut, thus existing with another body in the same place. But whether a glorified body can have this from some hidden property, so as to be with another body at the same time in the same place, will be discussed later (XP, 83, 4) when the common resurrection will be dealt with. For the present let it suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body, but by virtue of the Godhead united to it, that this body, although a true one, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut. Accordingly Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some men argue in this fashion: \"If it were a body; if what rose from the sepulchre were what hung upon the tree, how could it enter through closed doors?\" And he answers: \"If you understand how, it is no miracle: where reason fails, faith abounds.\" And (Tract. cxxi super Joan.) he says: \"Closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a Body wherein was the Godhead; for truly He could enter in by doors not open, in whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate.\" And Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of Easter (xxvi in Evang.).
\n[III.q.54.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod virtus activa non recipitur secundum eamdem perfectionem in instrumento, secundum quam est in principali agente. Et quia omne motum movens est instrumentum, inde est quod virtus primi motoris in aliquo genere per multa media deducta tandem deficit, et pervenit ad aliquid quod est motum, et non movens. Virtus autem generantis movet non solum quantum ad id quod est speciei, sed etiam quantum ad id quod est individui, ratione cujus filius assimilatur patri etiam in accidentalibus, et non solum in natura speciei. Nec tamen ista individualis virtus patris ita perfecte in filio est, sicut erat in patre; et adhuc in nepote minus, et sic deinceps debilitatur. Et inde est quod virtus illa quando deficit, ut ultra procedi non possit. Et quia consanguinitas est, in quantum multi communicant in tali virtute ex uno in multos per propagationem deducta, paulatim se consanguinitas dirimit: ut Isidorus dicit, lib. IX Etym., c. vi, §29, col. 363, t. 3. Et ideo non oportet accipere stipitem remotum in definitione consanguinitatis, sed propinquum, cujus virtus adhuc maneat in illis qui exeo propagantur.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.ad.2] As stated above (Question 53, Article 3), Christ rose to the immortal life of glory. But such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is spiritual, i.e. subject to the spirit, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 15:44). Now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit, it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject to the will of the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is due to the action of the visible object upon the sight, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima ii). Consequently, whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes, and not to be seen when he does not wish it. Moreover Christ had this not only from the condition of His glorified body, but also from the power of His Godhead, by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed Bartholomew, that \"if he wished he could be seen, and not be seen if he did not wish it\" [Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii, 2]. Christ, then, is said to have vanished from the eyes of the disciples, not as though He were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements; but because He ceased, of His own will, to be seen by them, either while He was present or while He was departing by the gift of agility.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod jam patet ex dictis, quod non solum conveniunt consanguinei, in natura speciei, sed etiam in virtute propria ipsius individu ex uno in multos traducta; ex qua contingit quando quod filius assimilatur non solum patri, sed avo, vel remotis parentibus, ut dicitur lib. XVIII De animal., cap. 111. Adtertium dicendum, quod convenientia magis attenditur secundum formam, secundum quam aliquid est actu, quam secundum materiam, secundum quam est in potentia. Quod patet in hoc quod carbo magis convenit cum igne quam cum arbore, unde abscissum est lignum. Et similiter alimentum jam conversum in substantiam aliti per virtutem nutritivam, magis convenit cum ipso nutrito quam cum illa re unde sumptum est nutrimentum. Ratio autem procederet secundum opinionem illorum qui dicebant quod tota natura rei est materia, et quod formæ omnes sunt accidentia, quod falsum est.
\n[III.q.54.a.1.ad.3] As Severianus [Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lxxxii] says in a sermon for Easter: \"Let no one suppose that Christ changed His features at the Resurrection.\" This is to be understood of the outline of His members; since there was nothing out of keeping or deformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, that had to be righted at the Resurrection. Nevertheless He received the glory of clarity in the Resurrection: accordingly the same writer adds: \"but the semblance is changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it becomes immortal; so that it acquired the glory of countenance, without losing the substance of the countenance.\" Yet He did not come to those disciples in glorified appearance; but, as it lay in His power for His body to be seen or not, so it was within His power to present to the eyes of the beholders His form either glorified or not glorified, or partly glorified and partly not, or in any fashion whatsoever. Still it requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.arg.1] It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to Matthew 13:43: \"Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.\" But shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.arg.2] Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He Himself says in Luke 24:39: \"Handle, and see.\" Now Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi) that \"what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled.\" Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, illud secundum quod divi-ditur aliquid commune, non potest poni in definitione communis. Sed descensus ponitur in definitione prædicta consanguinitatis. Consanguinitas ergo non potest dividi per lineam ascendentium, descendentium et transversalium.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.arg.3] Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, definitio lineæ est quod sit inter duo puncta. Sed duo puncta non faciunt nisi unum gradum. Ergo una linea habet tantum unum gradum, et ita eadem ratione videtur quod non debeat fieri divisio consanguinitatis per lineas et gradus.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.sc] The Apostle says (Philippians 3:21): \"He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.2.co] Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: \"It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory.\" Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): \"Now is My soul troubled,\" which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: \"Father, glorify Thy name,\" whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod consanguinitas, ut dictum fuit, est quædam propinquitas in naturali communica-tione fundata secundum actum generationis, qua natura propagatur. Unde, secundum Philosophum, in VIII Ethicor., cap. xii, ista communicatio est triplex, una secundum habitudinem principii ad principiatum, et hæc est consanguinitas patris ad filium: unde dicit quod «parentes diligunt filios ut sui ipsorum aliquid existentes; » alia est secundum habitudinem principiati ad principium, et hæc est filii ad patrem: unde dicit quod «filii diligunt parentes ut ab illis existentes; » tertia est secundum habitudinem eorum quæ sunt ab uno principio ad invicem, sicut «fratres dicuntur ex eisdem nasci, » ut ipse ibidem dicit. Et quia puncti motus lineam facit, et per propagationem quod-modo pater descendit in filium, ideo secundum tres dictas habitudines tres lineæ consanguinitatis sumuntur, scilicet «linea descendentium» secundum habitudinem; «linea ascendentium» secundum secundam; «linea transversalis» secundum tertiam. Sed quia propagationis motus non quiescit in uno ter-mino, sed ultra progreditur, ideo contingit quod patris est accipere patrem, et filii filium, et sic deinceps: et secundum hos diversos progressus diversi gradus in una linea inveniuntur. Et quia gradus cujuslibet rei est pars aliqua illius rei, gradus propinquitatis non potest esse ubi non est propinquitas. Et ideo identitas et nimia distantia gradum consanguinitatis tollunt: quia nullus est sibi ipsi propinquus, sicut nec sibi similis: et propter hoc nulla persona per seipsam facit aliquem gradum sed comparata alicui personæ gradum facit ad ipsam. Sed tamen diversa est ratio computandi gradus in diversis lineis. Gradus enim consanguinitatis in linea ascendentium et descendentium contrahitur ex hoc quod una persona ex alia propagatur, eorum inter quos gradus consideratur. Et ideo secundum computationem canonicam et legalem, persona quæ primo in progressu propagationis occurrit, vel ascendendo, vel descendendo, distat ab aliquo, puta a Petro, in primo gradu, ut pater, et filius; quæ autem secundo utrinque occurrit, distat in secundo gradu, ut avus, et nepos, et sic deinceps. Sed consanguinitas quæ est eorum qui sunt in linea transversali, contrahitur non ex hoc quod unus eorum ex alio propagatur, sed quia uterque propagatur ex uno; et ideo debet gradus consanguinitatis in hac linea computari per comparisonem ad unum principium, ex quo propagatur. Sed secundum hoc est diversa computatio canonica, et legalis: quia legalis computatio attendit descensum a communi radice ex utraque parte; sed canonica tantum ex altera, ex illa scilicet ex qua major numerus graduum invenitur. Unde secundum legalem computationem frater et soror, vel duo fratres, attinent sibi in secundo gradu, quia uterque a radice communi distat per unum gradum, et similiter filii duorum fratrum distant a se invicem in quarto. Sed secundum computationem canonicam duo fratres attinent sibi in primo gradu, quia neuter eorum distat a radice communi nisi per unum gradum; sed filius unius fratrum distat ab altero fratre in secundo gradu, quia tantum distant a communi radice. Et ideo secundum computationem canonicam, quanto gradu distat quis ab aliquo gradu superiori, tanto distat a quolibet descendentium ab ipso, et nunquam minus; quia «propter quod unumquodque» tale, et illud magis. » Unde etsi alii descendentes a communi principio conveniunt cum aliquo ratione principii communis, non possunt propinquiores esse descendenti ex alia parte quam sit primum principium ei propinquum. Aliquando tamen plus distat aliquis ab aliquo descendente a communi principio, quam distet ipse a principio, quia ille forte plus distat a communi principio quam ipse; et secundum remotiorem distantiam oportet consanguinitatem computari.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.ad.1] Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod objectio illa procedit ex falsis. Consanguinitas enim non est collectio, sed relatio quædam aliquarum personarum ad invicem quarum collectio lineam consanguinitatis facit.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.ad.2] We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (XP, 82, 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): \"God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption.\" And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): \"Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod descensus communiter sumptus attenditur secundum quamlibet consanguinitatis lineam, quia carnalis propagatio, ex qua vinculum consanguinitatis trahitur, descensus quidam est, sed descensus talis, scilicet a persona, cujus consanguinitas quæritur, lineam descendentium facit.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.ad.3] As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): \"After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power.\" For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: \"The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power.\" Hence after the Resurrection He ate, \"not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body.\" Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food.
\n[III.q.54.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod linea dupliciter accipi potest: aliquando proprie pro ipsa dimensione, quæ est prima species quantitatis continuæ: et sic linea recta continet tantum duo puncta in actu, quæ terminant ipsam, sed in potentia infinita quorum quolibet signato in actu, linea dividitur, et fiunt duæ lineæ; aliquando vero linea sumitur pro his quæ linealiter disponuntur, et secundum hoc assignatur in numeris linea et figura, prout unitas post unitatem ponitur in aliquo numero; et sic quælibet unitas adjuncta gradum facit in tali linea: et similiter est de linea consanguinitatis: unde una linea continet plures gradus.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire. For flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ seems not to have had both, for it is written (1 Corinthians 15:50): \"Flesh and blood can not possess the kingdom of God.\" But Christ rose in the glory of the kingdom of God. Therefore it seems that He did not have flesh and blood.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod consanguinitas de jure naturali non impediat matrimonium. Nulla enim mulier potest esse propinquior viro quam Eva fuit Adæ, de qua dixit, Gen., 11, 23: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. Sed Eva fuit matrimonio conjuncta Adæ. Ergo consanguinitas nulla, quantum est de lege naturæ, matrimonium impedit.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.arg.2] Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if Christ had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, from which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then, that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly. Therefore Christ did not have flesh and blood.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, lex naturalis eadem est apud omnes. Sed apud barbaras nationes nulla persona conjuncta consanguinitate a matrimonio excluditur. Ergo consanguinitas, quantum est de lege naturæ, matrimonium non impedit.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.arg.3] Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to heaven. But some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches. Therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, jus naturale est « quod natura omnia animalia docuit, » ut dicitur in principio Digestorum, l. I, ff. De just. et jure. Sed animalia bruta etiam cum matre coeunt. Ergo non est de lege naturæ quod aliqua persona a matrimonio propter consanguinitatem repellatur.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.sc] our Lord said (Luke 24:39) while addressing His disciples after the Resurrection: \"A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.3.sc] Sed contra, illud quod impedit bonum prolis, etiam matrimonium impedit secundum legem naturæ. Sed consanguinitas impedit bonum prolis: quia, ut in Littera IV, dist. xL, ex verbis Gregorii, in Regist., lib. XI, epist. Lxiv ad interrog. vi, col. 4189, t. 3, habetur, « experimento didicimus, ex tali conjugio sobolem non posse succrescere. » Ergo consanguinitas secundum legem naturæ matrimonium impedit. Præterea, illud quod habet natura humana in prima sui conditione, est de lege naturæ. Sed a prima sui conditione hoc habuit humana natura quod pater et mater a matrimonio excludentur: quod patet per hoc quod dicitur, Gen., ii, 24: Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem; quod non potest intelligi quantum ad cohabitationem, et sic oportet quod intelligatur quantum ad matrimonii conjunctionem. Ergo consanguinitas impedit matrimonium secundum legem naturæ.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.co] As stated above (Article 2), Christ's body in the Resurrection was \"of the same nature, but differed in glory.\" Accordingly, whatever goes with the nature of a human body, was entirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear that flesh, bones, blood, and other such things, are of the very nature of the human body. Consequently, all these things were in Christ's body when He rose again; and this also integrally, without any diminution; otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection, if whatever was lost by death had not been restored. Hence our Lord assured His faithful ones by saying (Matthew 10:30): \"The very hairs of your head are all numbered\": and (Luke 21:18): \"A hair of your head shall not perish.\"
\nBut to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of Eutyches, Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that \"our body in that glory of the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle than wind and air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled Him were confirmed, brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled in Him\" [St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this in the same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the Resurrection, according to Romans 6:9: \"Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more.\" Accordingly, the very man who had said these things, himself retracted them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of another nature in His conception, a heavenly one for instance, as Valentine asserted, it is much more unbecoming for Him at His Resurrection to resume a body of another nature, because in His Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting life, the body which in His conception He had assumed to a mortal life.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in matrimonio illud contra legem naturæ esse dicitur, per quod matrimonium redditur incompetens respectu finis ad quem est ordinatum. Finis autem matrimonii per se et primo est bonum prolis: quod quidem per aliquam consanguinitatem, scilicet inter patrem et filiam, vel filium et matrem, impeditur non quidem ut totali-ter tollatur, quia filia ex semine patris potest prolem suscipere, et simul cum patre nutrire, et instruere, in quibus bonum prolis consistit; sed ut non convenienti modo fiat. Inordinatum enim est quod filia patri per matrimonium jungatur in sociam causa generandæ prolis et educandæ, quam oportet per omnia patri esse subjectam, velut ex eo procedentem. Et ideo de lege naturali est ut pater et mater a matrimonio repellantur: et magis etiam mater quam pater, quia magis reverentiæ, quæ debetur parentibus, derogatur si filius matrem, quam si pater filiam ducat in uxorem; cum uxor viro aliqualiter debat esse subjecta. Sed finis matrimonii secundarius per se est concupiscentiæ repressio, qui deperiret, si quæ-libet consanguinea posset in matrimonium duci, quia magnus concupiscentiæ aditus præberetur, nisi inter illas personas quas oportet in eadem domo conversari, esset carnalis copula interdicta. Et ideo lex divina non solum patrem et matrem excludit a matrimonio, sed etiam alias conjunctas personas, quas oportet simul conversari, et quæ debent invicem altera alterius pudicitiam custodire. Et hanc causam assignat divina lex dicens, Levit., xviii: Ne reveles turpitudinem, talis vel talis, quia turpitudo tua est. Sed per accidens finis matrimonii est confoederatio hominum, et amicitiæ multiplicatio; dum homo ad consanguineos uxoris, sicut ad suos, se habet. Et ideo hic multiplicationi amicitiæ præjudicium fieret si aliquis sanguine conjunctam uxorem duceret, quæ ex hoc nova amicitia per matrimonium nulli accrescerit. Et ideo secundum leges humanas et statuta Ecclesiæ, plures consanguinitatis gradus sunt a matrimonio separati. Sic ergo ex dictis patet quod consanguinitas quantum ad aliquas personas impedit matrimonium de jure naturali, quantum ad aliquas de jure divino, et quantum ad aliquas de jure per homines instituto.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.ad.1] Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, as Gregory says [St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56, or else for the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur. Carn.), \"there will be neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh and blood.\" Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Luke 24:39: \"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.\" But flesh, if understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is straightway added in the words of the Apostle: \"Neither shall corruption possess incorruption.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Eva, quamvis ex Adam prodiit, non tamen fuit filia Adæ, quia non prodiit ex eo per modum illum quo vir natus est generare sibi similem in specie, sed operatione divina, quia, ita potuisset ex costa Adæ fieri unus equus, sicut facta est Eva. Et ideo non est tanta naturalis convenientia Evæ et Adam sicut filiae ad patrem; nec Adam est naturale principium Evæ, sicut pater filiæ.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.ad.2] As Augustine says in the same book: \"Perchance by reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the blood was\" in the body of Christ when He rose, \"why not the rheum?\" that is, the phlegm; \"why not also the yellow gall?\" that is, the gall proper; \"and why not the black gall?\" that is, the bile, \"with which four humors the body is tempered, as medical science bears witness. But whatever anyone may add, let him take heed not to add corruption, lest he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith; because Divine power is equal to taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and tractable body, while allowing others to remain, so that there be no defilement,\" i.e. of corruption, \"though the features be there; motion without weariness, the power to eat, without need of food.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum. quod non procedit ex lege naturali quod aliqui barbari parentibus carnaliter commisceantur, sed ex concupiscentiæ ardore, qui legem naturæ in eis offuscavit.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.ad.3] All the blood which flowed from Christ's body, belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again with His body: and the same reason holds good for all the particles which belong to the truth and integrity of human nature. But the blood preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from Christ's side, but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of Christ.
\n[III.q.54.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod conjunctio maris et feminæ dicitur esse de jure naturali, quia natura hoc animalia docuit; sed hanc conjunctionem diversa animalia diversimode docuit secundum diversas eorum conditiones. Commixtio autem carnalis ad parentes derogat reverentiae quæ eis debetur. Sicut enim parentibus indidit natura sollicitudinem filiis providendi; ita indidit reverentiam filiis ad parentes. Nulli autem generi animalium indidit sollicitudinem filiorum, aut reverentiam parentum in omne tempus, nisi homini; aliis autem animalibus plus, et minus, secundum quod magis vel minus necessarii sunt vel filii parentibus, vel parentes filiis. Unde etiam in quibusdam animalibus abhorret filius cognoscere matrem carnaliter, quamdiu manet apud ipsum cognitio matris, et reverentia quædam ad ipsam, ut recitat Philosophus in IX De animalibus, cap. xlvii, de camelo et equo. Et quia omnes honesti mores animalium in hominibus congregati sunt naturaliter, et perfectius quam in aliis, propter hoc homo naturaliter abhorret cognoscere carnaliter non solum matrem, sed etiam filiam, quod est adhuc minus contra naturam, ut dictum est. Et iterum in aliis animalibus ex propagatione carnis non contrahitur consanguinitas, sicut in hominibus, ut dictum est. Et ideo non est similis ratio.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen with its scars. For it is written (1 Corinthians 15:52): \"The dead shall rise incorrupt.\" But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ, the author of the resurrection, to rise again with scars.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod consanguinitatis gradus matrimonium impedientes non potuerint taxari ab Ecclesia usque ad quartum gradum, quia Matth., xix, 6, dicitur: Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. Sed illos qui conjunguntur infra quartum consanguinitatis gradum, Deus conjunxit; non enim divina lege eorum conjunctio prohibetur. Ergo nec debent humano statuto separari.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.arg.2] Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above (Article 3). But open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since they interfere with the continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in Christ's body; although the traces of the wounds might remain, which would satisfy the beholder; thus it was that Thomas believed, to whom it was said: \"Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed\" (John 20:29).
\n[III.q.54.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, matrimonium est sacramentum sicut et baptismus. Sed non posset ex statuto Ecclesiae fieri quod ille qui ad baptismum accedit, non acciperet characterem baptismalem, si ex jure divino ejus capax sit. Ergo nec Ecclesiae statutum facere potest quod matrimonium non sit inter illos qui per jus divinum matrimonialiter conjungi non prohibentur.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.arg.3] Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that \"some things are truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did not have from nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars, in order to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that rose again.\" Now when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore it seems that when the disciples were assured of the Resurrection, He bore the scars no longer. But it ill became the unchangeableness of His glory that He should assume anything which was not to remain in Him for ever. Consequently, it seems that He ought not at His Resurrection to have resumed a body with scars.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, jus positivum non potest ea quæ sunt naturalia, removere, vel ampliare. Sed consanguinitas est naturale vinculum, quod, quantum est de se, natum est matrimonium impedire. Ergo Ecclesia non potest aliquo statuto facere quod aliqui possint matrimonialiter conjungi, vel non conjungi; sicut non potest facere quod sint consanguinei vel non consanguinei.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.sc] Our Lord said to Thomas (John 20:27): \"Put in thy finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into My side, and be not faithless but believing.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit discipulis, Lucæ, x, 16: Qui vos audit me audit. Ergo præceptum Ecclesiae habet firmitatem, sicut præceptum Dei. Sed Ecclesia quandoque prohibuit, et quandoque concessit aliquos gradus quos lex vetus non prohibuit. Ergo illi gradus matrimonium impediunt. Præterea, sicut olim matrimonia gentilium dispensabantur per leges civiles, ita nunc per statuta Ecclesiae. Sed olim lex civilis determinabat gradus consanguinitatis qui matrimonium impediunt, et qui non. Ergo et modo potest hoc fieri per Ecclesiae statutum.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.co] It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, \"but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory.\" Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): \"Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body.\" Secondly, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to \"the faith in His Resurrection\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Thirdly, \"that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Fourthly, \"that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Lastly, \"that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): \"Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.'\"
\n[III.q.54.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod secundum diversa tempora inventur consanguinitas secundum gradus diversos matrimonium impedisse. In principio enim humani generis solus pater et mater a matrimonio repellebantur eo quod tunc temporis erat paucitas hominum; et sic oportebat propagationi humani generis maximam curam impendere; unde non erant remo-vendæ nisi illæ personæ quæ matrimonio incompetentes erant, etiam quantum ad finem matrimonii principalem, qui est bonum prolis, ut dictum est. Postmodum multiplicato genere humano, per legem Moysi plures personæ sunt exceptæ, quæ jam concupiscentiae reprimere incipie-bant. Unde ut dicit Rabbi Moyses, lib. III, Dux errant., cap. L, a med., omnes illæ personæ exceptæ sunt a matrimonio quæ in una familia cohabitare solent, quia si inter eas licite carnalis copula esse posset, maximum incentivum libidini præstaretur. Sed alias consanguinitatis gradus lex vetus permisit, imo quodammodo præcepit, ut scilicet de cognatione sua unusquisque uxorem acciperet, ne successionum confusio esset, quia tunc temporis cultus divinus per successionem generis propagabatur. Sed postmodum in lege nova, quæ est lex spiritus et amoris, plures gradus consanguinitatis sunt prohibiti, quia jam per spiritualem gratiam, non per carnis originem, cultus Dei derivatur et multiplicatur: unde oportet ut homines etiam magis a carnalibus retrahantur, spiritualibus vacantes, et ut amor amplius diffundatur. Et ideo antiquitus usque ad remotiores gradus consanguinitatis matrimonium impediebatur, ut ad plures per consanguinitatem et affinitatem naturalis amicitia promanaret; et rationabiliter usque ad septimum gradum: tum quia ultra hoc non de facili remanebat communis radicis memoria; tum quia septiformi Spiritus sancti gratiae congruebat. Sed postmodum circa hæc ultima tempora restrictum est Ecclesiae interdictum usque ad quartum gradum, quia ultra inutile et periculosum erat gradus consanguinitatis prohibere. Inutile quidem, quia ad remotiores consanguineos quasi nullum fædus majoris amicitiae quam ad extraneos habebatur, charitate in multorum cordibus frigescente. Periculosum autem erat, quia concupiscentia et negligentia prævalente, tam numerosam consanguineorum multitudinem homines non satis observabant; et sic laqueus damnationis multis injiebatur ex remotiorum graduum prohibione. Satis etiam convenienter usque ad quartum gradum dicta prohibitio est restricta, tum quia usque ad quartam generationem homines vivere consueverunt, ut sic non possit consanguinitatis memoria aboleri: unde Deus in tertiam et quartam generationem peccata parentum se visitaturum in filiis comminatur, Exodi, xx, tum quia in qualibet generatione nova mixtio sanguinis, cujus identitas consanguinitatem facit, fit cum sanguine alieno; et quantum miscetur alteri, tantum receditur a primo. Et quia elementa sunt quatuor, quorum quodlibet tanto facilius est miscibile, quanto est magis subtilile, ideo in prima commixtione vanescit sanguinis identitas, quantum ad primum elementum quod est subtilissimum; in secunda quantum ad secundum; in tertia quantum ad tertium; in quarta quantum ad quartum; et sic convenienter post quartam generationem potest reiterari carnalis conjunctio.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.ad.1] The scars that remained in Christ's body belong neither to corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory, inasmuch as they are the trophies of His power; and a special comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut Deus non conjungit illos qui conjunguntur contra divinum præceptum, ita nec conjungit illos qui conjunguntur contra Ecclesiæ præceptum, quod habet eamdem obligandi efficaciam quam habet divinum præceptum.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.ad.2] Although those openings of the wounds break the continuity of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory compensates for all this, so that the body is not less entire, but more perfected. Thomas, however, not only saw, but handled the wounds, because as Pope Leo [Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. clxii] says: \"It sufficed for his personal faith for him to have seen what he saw; but it was on our behalf that he touched what he beheld.\"
\n[III.q.54.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod matrimonium non tantum est sacramentum, sed etiam est in officium; et ideo magis subjacet ordinationi ministrorum Ecclesiæ quam baptismus, qui est sacramentum tantum; quia sicut contractus et officia humana determinantur legibus humanis, ita contractus et officia spiritualia lege Ecclesiæ.
\n[III.q.54.a.4.ad.3] Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain on His body, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for other reasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always remain on His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resurr. Carn.): \"I believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was when He ascended into heaven.\" And Gregory (Moral. xiv) says that \"if aught could be changed in Christ's body after His Resurrection, contrary to Paul's truthful teaching, then the Lord after His Resurrection returned to death; and what fool would dare to say this, save he that denies the true resurrection of the flesh?\" Accordingly, it is evident that the scars which Christ showed on His body after His Resurrection, have never since been removed from His body.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n[III.q.54.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis consanguinitatis vinculum sit naturale, tamen non est naturale quod consanguinitas carnalem copulam impediat, nisi secundum aliquem gradum, ut dictum est. Et ideo Ecclesia suo statuto non facit quod aliqui sint, vel non sint consanguinei, quia secundum omne tempusæqualiter consanguinei remanent; sed facit quod carnalis copula sit licita, vel illicita, secundum diversa tempora in diversis gradibus consanguinitatis.
\n