Question 20: Of Christ’s Subjection to the Father

A1 Whether we may say that Christ is subject to the Father?

Sed contra. Our Lord says in Jn. 14:28 "The Father is greater than I."
Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper to that nature.
Hn from its beginning has a 3fold subjection to God:
· In regard to the degree of goodness, since the Divine Nature is the very essence of
goodness whereas a created nature has a participation of the Divine goodness, thus hn
is subject to the Divine goodness.
· In regard to God's power, for hn, as every creature, is subject to the operation of the
Divine ordinance.
· Through its proper act, inasmuch as by its own will it obeys His command.
This triple subjection to God Christ attributes to Himself:
· In regard to degree of goodness, Mt. 19:17: "Why do you ask Me concerning good?
One is good, God."
By this our Lord gave us to understand that He Himself, in His hn, did not attain to
the greatness of Divine goodness. And therefore the Father is said to be greater than
Christ in His hn.
· In regard to God’s power, insofar as all that befell Christ is believed to have happened
by Divine appointment. Hence Dionysius says that Christ "is subject to the ordinance
of God the Father." And this is the subjection of subservience, whereby "every creature
serves God" (Judith 16:17)." In this way the Son of God in Phil. 2:7 is said to have
taken "the form of a servant."
· Through the proper act of the hn Christ is subject to the Father for He says in Jn. 8:29:
"I do always the things that please Him." This is the subjection to the Father, of
obedience unto death. Hence it is written in Phil. 2:8 that he became "obedient" to the
Father "unto death."
Obj 1: Everything subject to the Father is a creature, since, "in the Trinity there is no dependence
or subjection."
But we cannot say simply that Christ is a creature.
So we cannot say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father.
Ad 1: Just as we do not maintain that Christ is a creature simply, but only in His hn, whether we
add this qualification or not, so also we should maintain that Christ is subject to the Father not
simply but in His hn, even if this qualification be not added (but it is better to add it in order to
avoid the error of Arius, who held the Son to be less than the Father).
Obj 2: A thing is said to be subject to God when it is subservient/submissive to His dominion.
But we cannot attribute subservience to the hn of Christ; for Damascene says: "We
must bear in mind that we may not call it" (i.e. Christ's hn) "a servant; for the words
'subservience' and 'domination' are not names of the nature, but of relations, as the
words 'paternity' and 'filiation.'"
Hence Christ in His hn is not subject to God the Father.
Ad 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is based upon action and passion, inasmuch as it
belongs to a servant to be moved by the will of his master.

53
 To act is not attributed to the nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to
supposita and to singulars." Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that
whereby the person or hypostasis acts.
Hence, although the nature is not properly said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis
or person may be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature. – In
this way nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in hn.
Obj 3: 1 Cor. 15:28: "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself
shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him."
But, acc. to Heb. 2:8: "We see not as yet all things subject to Him."
Hence He is not yet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things to Him.
Ad 3: Acc. to Augustine, when Christ will bring the faithful, over whom He now reigns by faith,
to the beatific vision, then He will be totally subject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in
the members of His Mystical Body – by their full participation of the Godhead. Then all things,
too, will be fully subject to Christ by the final accomplishment of His will concerning them;
although even now all things are subject to Him as regards His power, according to Mt. 28:18:
"All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth."

Question 25: Of the Adoration of Christ

A1 Whether Christ’s humanity and Godhead are to be adored with the same adoration?

Yes, and the words of the Fifth Council of Constantinople confirm that: “If anyone say that
Christ is adored in two natures, so as to introduce two distinct adorations, and does not adore
God the Word made flesh with the one and the same adoration of as His flesh, as the Church
handed down from the beginning, anathema sit.

There are two things that should be considered in person that we honour:
1. The person himself - Properly speaking, says Thomas, we speak of honoring man
himself, not his parts, because honor is given to a subsistent thing in its entirety. We
could honor the parts, not for the sake of themselves, but because of the being that is
honored in them. In this way we can honor even the external things, an image, a vestment
and like.
2. The cause of his being honored - that means a certain excellence, and there are several
causes of honor - for example, in to honor someone in respect to his virtue, knowledge,
etc.

In Christ, there is one person so one person should be adored, but on the part of honor, we can
give him honor in different aspects. However, we should not say there should be more persons.

Obj1: Christ humanity and is not common to him and the Father. So they should not be equally
adored.
Ad1: In Trinity, three are honored, but the cause is one. In the mystery of Incarnation, there is
one honored given to Trinity and only one to Christ, but in different way.

Obj2: The action of divine nature is distinct from the action of human nature. Virtue
(honor) merits reward by action.

54
Ad2: Operation is not the object, but the motive of honor. That regards the cause of adoration not
two adorations.

Obj3:Christ’s human nature should be honored besides that veneration because of its excellence.
Ad3: There is some honor that belongs to his soul, but since his human nature is united to the
Person of the Word, that do not diminishes its dignity, but it increases it.

A2 Whether Christ’s humanity should be adored with the adoration of latria?

Latria - Reverence due to God on account of His Excellence, and it belongs to God only.
Dulia - belongs to species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel
in dignity, like certain excellent creatures.

Yes, we should adore Christ’s humanity with the adoration of latria because of unity in person,
as Damascene says in sed contra.

St. Thomas explains that adoration is due to the subsisting hypostasis, however we can adore
something non subsistent, that is in the person on account of which is that thing is honored. That
can be in two ways:

1. The humanity is the thing adored, and in adoring the flesh of Christ, we adore the
Incarnate Word of God. In this sense this adoration is latria.
2. The adoration of humanity can be taken as given by reason of its being perfect with every
gift of grace. In this sense the adoration is not of latria but of dulia.

Therefore, one and the same Person is adored with latria on account of his divinity, and with
dulia on the account of his perfect humanity.

Obj1, 2, 3: Latria belongs to God alone.

Ad: One cannot separate Christ as man from the Godhead, the adoration to Christ’s humanity is
given to him in respect of his Godhead, not humanity itself.

Question 26: Of Christ as Called the Mediator of God and Man

A1 Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?
Sed contra: “There is … one Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

Body: The office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates. To
unite men to God perfectly belongs to Christ because through His death men became reconciled
to God.

Objections:
 Priests and prophets seem to be the only true mediators of God (cf. Dt 5:5) and it is not
proper for Christ to be these. The priests and prophets of the Old Law were called
mediators dispositively and ministerially. Those of the New Law were mediators by
being ministers of Christ, the true Mediator. Christ is the one, true Mediator.

55
  What is fitting to angels cannot be said to be proper to Christ; and to be between God and
man is fitting to the angels, therefore not properly to Christ. The angels cannot rightly be
called to be mediators between God and men because they are more alike God than man
with their beatitude and immortality. But Christ had beatitude in common with God and
mortality in common with men.

A2 Whether Christ, as man, is the mediator of God and men?

Yes, he is, the words of Augustine confirm that.

Two things are necessary to be a mediator:

1. That he is a mean,
2. That he unites to others.

Both of these are applied to Christ as a man. As man he is different in nature from God, and
different by grace from man. He unites man to God, by giving them gifts.

Obj1: He is Son of God and son of man. Therefore he is mediator of God and man.
Ad1: We cannot take away from Him the singular fullness of grace, which belongs to him as to
only begotten son.

Obj2: As Christ has the common nature with God, and he cannot be called a mediator according
to gloss, so he should not be called mediator of men.
Ad2: He cannot be called mediator as God, but can as a man, because he is above all other men.

Obj3:Christ is called a mediator because he took away our sins. But he did that as God, not as
man.
Ad3:Although it belongs to Christ as God to take away sin authoritatively, yet it belongs to Him
as man to satisfy for the sin of the human race, and in this sense He is called the mediator of God
and men.

56