AN OBJECTION. - Someone might
come up with the Gospel text: “Not my will, but thine, be done”, and “Not as I
will, but as Thou wilt” to object that there was no need of any theological
conclusion, in the proper sense of the term, to define the dogma of the two
wills in Christ. We must here note three things:
First, the Church Fathers differ
in their interpretation of these texts. The term will can be taken in
three different senses: (a) the rational or free will (voluntas rationis)·,
(b) a necessary or natural tendency (voluntas naturae)·, (c) the sensory
inclination or appetite (volunas sensualitatis). If it is true that many
of the Fathers have understood these texts in the first sense, it is no less
true that others have interpreted them in the second and third senses. St.
Thomas himself employs the three interpretations. The interpretation commonly
given to these texts seems obvious to us because we know beforehand that Our
Lord was a perfect man. Without such previous knowledge this
intepretation would not have any rigorously demonstrative value.
Secondly, whatever be the meaning
of these texts (even if all three should be admitted), it is beyond doubt that
the councils, the popes, and many theologians of the first rank expressly
attest - as we have seen - that the dogma of the two wills of Christ has been
defined by the Church because it was deduced from another fundamental dogma,
viz. the dogma of the two perfect natures. To any true Thomist it is obvious
that this dogma has been deduced through a conclusion in the proper sense of
the term.
Thirdly, - and principally, - the
Church has defined not only that there are two wills in Christ, but also that
there are in him two operations, two intellects, and even two knowledges. Now,
the latter cannot be formally seen in the text “Not my will, but thine, be
done” nor in any other Gospel text; it can be seen only by way of a strict
conclusion from the dogma perfect man. Thus St. Thomas: “Nothing natural
was wanting in Christ who assumed the whole [integral or perfect]
nature, as has been said above. And therefore the position of those who deny
that there existed in Christ two knowledges or two wisdoms was condemned
in the sixth Synod.” “Thus inasmuch as from the fact that someone
asserts one single action in Christ, it follows that there is in him one
single nature and one single will, therefore this position was condemned
as heretical in the sixth Synod. ”
Thus it is unquestionable that
reasoning, including the reasoning made up of a premise of faith and a premise
of reason, has always been the human instrument employed by the Church under
the Holy Spirit’s guidance, to come to know and to define the dogma of the two
wills, two intellects, two knowledges, and two operations in Jesus Christ. (Francisco
Marín-Sola, The Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma [trans. Antonio
T. Piñon; Manila, Philippines: Santo Tomas University Press, 1988], 369-71)
