Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 12:21): "Whatever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad." And the reason of this the Stoics asserted to be that no one is saddened save by the loss of his goods. Now the just man esteems only justice and virtue as his goods, and these he cannot lose; otherwise the just man would be subject to fortune if he was saddened by the loss of the goods fortune has given him. But Christ was most just, according to Jer. 23:6: "This is the name that they shall call Him: The Lord, our just one." Therefore there was no sorrow in Him.

Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 13,14) that all sorrow is "evil, and to be shunned." But in Christ there was no evil to be shunned. Therefore there was no sorrow in Christ.

Objection 4: Furthermore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6): "Sorrow regards the things we suffer unwillingly." But Christ suffered nothing against His will, for it is written (Is. 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will." Hence there was no sorrow in Christ.

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mt. 26:38): "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." And Ambrose says (De Trin. ii.) that "as a man He had sorrow; for He bore my sorrow. I call it sorrow, fearlessly, since I preach the cross."

I answer that, As was said above (Article 5, ad 3), by Divine dispensation the joy of contemplation remained in Christ's mind so as not to overflow into the sensitive powers, and thereby shut out sensible pain. Now even as sensible pain is in the sensitive appetite, so also is sorrow. But there is a difference of motive or object; for the object and motive of pain is hurt perceived by the sense of touch, as when anyone is wounded; but the object and motive of sorrow is anything hurtful or evil interiorly, apprehended by the reason or the imagination, as was said in the 1.2, Question 35, Articles 2,7, as when anyone grieves over the loss of grace or money. Now Christ's soul could apprehend things as hurtful either to Himself, as His passion and death---or to others, as the sin of His disciples, or of the Jews that killed Him. And hence, as there could be true pain in Christ, so too could there be true sorrow; otherwise, indeed, than in us, in the three ways above stated (Article 4), when we were speaking of the passions of Christ's soul in general.

Reply to Objection 1: Sorrow was not in Christ, as a perfect passion; yet it was inchoatively in Him as a "propassion." Hence it is written (Mt. 26:37): "He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad." For "it is one thing to be sorrowful and another to grow sorrowful," as Jerome says, on this text.

Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8), "for the three passions"---desire, joy, and fear---the Stoics held three {eupatheias} i.e. good passions, in the soul of the wise man, viz. for desire, will---for joy, delight---for fear, caution. But as regards sorrow, they denied it could be in the soul of the wise man, for sorrow regards evil already present, and they thought that no evil could befall a wise man; and for this reason, because they believed that only the virtuous is good, since it makes men good, and that nothing is evil, except what is sinful, whereby men become wicked. Now although what is virtuous is man's chief good, and what is sinful is man's chief evil, since these pertain to reason which is supreme in man, yet there are certain secondary goods of man, which pertain to the body, or to the exterior things that minister to the body. And hence in the soul of the wise man there may be sorrow in the sensitive appetite by his apprehending these evils; without this sorrow disturbing the reason. And in this way are we to understand that "whatsoever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad," because his reason is troubled by no misfortune. And thus Christ's sorrow was a propassion, and not a passion.

Reply to Objection 3: All sorrow is an evil of punishment; but it is not always an evil of fault, except only when it proceeds from an inordinate affection. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9): "Whenever these affections follow reason, and are caused when and where needed, who will dare to call them diseases or vicious passions?"

Reply to Objection 4: There is no reason why a thing may not of itself be contrary to the will, and yet be willed by reason of the end, to which it is ordained, as bitter medicine is not of itself desired, but only as it is ordained to health. And thus Christ's death and passion were of themselves involuntary, and caused sorrow, although they were voluntary as ordained to the end, which is the redemption of the human race.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in christo non fuerit tristitia.

Dicitur enim de christo, Isaiae XLII, non erit tristis neque turbulentus.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Proverb. XII dicitur, non contristabit iustum quidquid ei acciderit.

Et huius rationem stoici assignabant, quia nullus tristatur nisi de amissione bonorum suorum, iustus autem non reputat bona sua nisi iustitiam et virtutem, quas non potest amittere.

Alioquin, subiaceret iustus fortunae, si pro amissione bonorum fortunae tristaretur. Sed christus fuit maxime iustus, secundum illud Ierem. XXIII.

Hoc est nomen quod vocabunt eum, dominus iustus noster.

Ergo in eo non fuit tristitia.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in VII ethic., quod omnis tristitia est malum et fugiendum.

Sed nullum malum vel fugiendum fuit in christo.

Ergo in christo non fuit tristitia.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIV de CIV. Dei, tristitia est de his quae nobis nolentibus accidunt.

Sed nihil passus est christus contra suam voluntatem, dicitur enim Isaiae LIII, oblatus est quia ipse voluit.

Ergo in christo non fuit tristitia.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicit dominus, Matth. XXVI, tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem.

Et Ambrosius dicit, II de Trin., ut homo, tristitiam habuit, suscepit enim tristitiam meam.

Confidenter tristitiam nomino, qui crucem praedico.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, delectatio divinae contemplationis ita per dispensationem divinae virtutis retinebatur in mente christi quod non derivabatur ad vires sensitivas, ut per hoc dolor sensibilis excluderetur. Sicut autem dolor sensibilis est in appetitu sensitivo, ita et tristitia, sed est differentia secundum motivum, sive obiectum. Nam obiectum et motivum doloris est laesio sensu tactus percepta, sicut cum aliquis vulneratur. Obiectum autem et motivum tristitiae est nocivum seu malum interius apprehensum, sive per rationem sive per imaginationem, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, sicut cum aliquis tristatur de amissione gratiae vel pecuniae.

Potuit autem anima christi interius apprehendere aliquid ut nocivum, et quantum ad se, sicut passio et mors eius fuit, et quantum ad alios, sicut peccatum discipulorum, vel etiam Iudaeorum occidentium ipsum. Et ideo, sicut in christo potuit esse verus dolor, ita in eo potuit esse vera tristitia, alio tamen modo quam in nobis est, secundum illa tria quae sunt assignata supra, cum communiter de christi passione loqueremur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod tristitia removetur a christo secundum passionem perfectam, fuit tamen in eo initiata, secundum propassionem.

Unde dicitur Matth. XXVI, coepit contristari et moestus esse.

Aliud enim est contristari, aliud incipere contristari, ut Hieronymus ibidem dicit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIV de CIV. Dei, pro tribus perturbationibus, scilicet cupiditate, laetitia et timore, stoici tres eupathias, idest bonas passiones, in anima sapientis posuerunt, scilicet pro cupiditate voluntatem, pro laetitia gaudium, pro metu cautionem. Sed pro tristitia negaverunt aliquid posse esse in animo sapientis, quia tristitia est de malo quod iam accidit; nullum autem malum aestimant posse accidere sapienti.

Et hoc ideo est quia non credebant aliquid esse bonum nisi honestum, quod homines bonos facit; nec aliquid esse malum nisi inhonestum, per quod homines mali fiunt.

Quamvis autem honestum sit principale hominis bonum, et inhonestum principale hominis malum, quia haec pertinent ad ipsam rationem, quae est principalis in homine; sunt tamen quaedam secundaria hominis bona, quae pertinent ad ipsum corpus, vel ad exteriores res corpori deservientes. Et secundum hoc, potest in animo sapientis esse tristitia, quantum ad appetitum sensitivum, secundum apprehensionem huiusmodi malorum, non tamen ita quod ista tristitia perturbet rationem.

Et secundum hoc etiam intelligitur quod non contristabit iustum quidquid ei acciderit, quia scilicet ex nullo accidente eius ratio perturbatur.

Et secundum hoc tristitia fuit in christo, secundum propassionem, non secundum passionem.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod omnis tristitia est malum poenae, non tamen semper est malum culpae, sed solum quando ex inordinato affectu procedit.

Unde Augustinus dicit, XIV de CIV. Dei, cum rectam rationem sequantur istae affectiones, et quando et ubi oportet adhibentur, quis eas tunc morbidas aut vitiosas passiones audeat dicere?

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod nihil prohibet aliquid esse contrarium voluntati secundum se quod tamen est volitum ratione finis ad quem ordinatur, sicut medicina amara non est secundum se volita, sed solum secundum quod ordinatur ad sanitatem. Et hoc modo mors christi et eius passio fuit, secundum se considerata, involuntaria et tristitiam causans, licet fuerit voluntaria in ordine ad finem, qui est redemptio humani generis.