Combining two weeks into one, the lessons being so short.
1 Now, although Christ is said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin, one cannot for all that say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ in the human generation as the Virgin is His mother.
2 For the Holy Spirit did not produce the human nature of Christ out of His substance, but by His power alone operated for its production. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ in His human generation.
3 It would, furthermore, be productive of error to say that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit. Plainly, God’s Word has a distinct Person in that He is the Son of God the Father. If, then, He were in His human nature called the son of the Holy Spirit, one would have to understand Christ as being two sons, since the Word of God cannot be the son of the Holy Spirit. And thus, since the name of sonship belongs to a person and not to a nature, it would follow that in Christ there are two Persons. But this is foreign to the Catholic faith.
4 It would be unsuitable, also, to transfer the name and the authority of the Father to another. Yet this happens if the Holy Spirit is called the father of Christ.
1 It is clear, moreover, that, although the human nature assumed by the Word is a creature, it cannot, for all that, be said without qualification that Christ is a creature.
2 For to be created is to become something. Now, since becoming is terminated in being simply, a becoming is of that which has subsistent being, and it is a thing of this kind which is a complete individual in the genus of substance, which, indeed in an intellectual nature is called a person or even an hypostasis.
But one does not speak of forms and accidents and even parts becoming, unless relatively, since they have no subsistent being in themselves, but subsist in another; hence, when one becomes white, this is not called becoming simply, but relatively.
But in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person save that of God’s Word, and this person is uncreated, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, one cannot say without qualification: “Christ is a creature;” although one may say it with an addition, so as to say a creature “so far as man” or “in His human nature.”
3 Granted, however, that one does not, in the case of a subject which is an individual in the genus of substance, refer to that as becoming simply which belongs to it by reason of accidents or parts, but that one calls it becoming only relatively, one does predicate simply of the subject whatever follows naturally on the accidents or parts in their own intelligibility; for one calls a man “seeing” simply: this follows the eye; or “curly” because of his hair; or “visible” because of his color.
Thus, then, the things which follow properly on human nature can be asserted of Christ simply: that He is “man”; that He is “visible”; that He “walked,” and that sort of thing. But what is the person’s very own is not asserted of Christ by reason of His human nature, unless with some addition whether expressed or implied.