Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?

❌ Objection 1 : It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should be transfigured. For it is not fitting for a true body to be changed into various shapes [figuras], but only for an imaginary body. Now Christ's body was not imaginary, but real, as stated above (Question [5], Article [1]). Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured.

❌ Objection 2 : Further, figure is in the fourth species of quality, whereas clarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality. Therefore Christ's assuming clarity should not be called a transfiguration.

❌ Objection 3 : Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state farther on (XP, Question [82]), viz. impassibility, agility, subtlety, and clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have consisted in an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts.