Dissertation Ruminations, Pt. III
Summa Theologiae IIIa q. 10, a. 2; Excerpt from Chapter I on St. Thomas’ Treatment of the Beatific Vision in Christ
I have been asked to publish some of my dissertation on the beatific vision in Christ as the principle of the vision of the elect and subsequent deification. I will post pieces of it over time for those interested in my research. I have done very little to clean this up from its original submission and have not added further explanations. This is just offered for the interest of the few who may find it edifying. I reserve the right to publish the entirety of the text at a future date, in which case, this series may need to come down.
Article 2
The second article in this question asks whether the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word. Again, Thomas presents three objections to this question. The first objection cites the Gospel of Mark against this thesis. The Gospel reads, “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”1 It should be immediately apparent to the reader why this scripture passage would be cited here. This passage apparently attributes ignorance to Christ, and thus the objector can say, “Therefore, He does not know all things in the Word.”2 This scripture passage is referencing the end of the world and the final judgment. Christ, Himself, is saying that the Son does not even know when these things will happen. At face value, the objection seems to be correct.
The second objection is very simple. It focuses on the knowledge of God being above the knowledge of any created being. Essentially, God knows Himself perfectly, which is far above what the soul of Christ knows; therefore, the Word knows more than the soul of Christ.
The third objection builds upon the second. “Further, the extent depends on the number of things known. If, therefore, the soul of Christ knew in the Word all that the Word knows, it would follow that the knowledge of the soul of Christ would equal the Divine knowledge.”3 According to the nature of God, He must be omniscient.4 The objector is applying this truth to the knowledge in the soul of Christ in the Word. If Christ knows all things in the Word and the Word, who is God, knows all things, that means that “the created would equal the uncreated, which is impossible.”5
In the Sed contra, Aquinas considers an argument that contains the reply he made to article four of Question 20 of De veritate, by quoting the Gloss ordinaria commenting on the Book of the Apocalypse, “The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive… divinity and wisdom, a gloss says, i.e., the knowledge of all things.”6 I have already explained this text above by looking at a parallel text in Philippians 2, and so I will not add anything to that particular explanation. It should be noted, however, that the lifting of this text by Thomas from the response on the corresponding article of De veritate certainly shows the continuity between the texts.
Thomas moves on to the Respondeo section by making a distinction as to what is meant in Revelation 5:12 by all things. This distinction is explored in the response to the aforementioned text in De veritate; however, I believe that Thomas explains it more succinctly, and so, it is worth revisiting here. The first way that all things can be taken is very specific. Thomas says, “… to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time.”7 These are things that have existed, currently exist, or are going to exist, and all that is to be applied to them. Thomas goes on to say, “For every created intellect knows in the Word, not all simply, but so many more things the more perfectly it sees the Word. Yet no beatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to itself.”8 There are essentially two realities being cited here by Thomas. The first is that every created intellect that attains the beatific vision knows more the more perfectly it sees the Word. Thomas addresses this in Question 12 of the Prima pars. He says, “Of those who see the essence of God, one sees Him more perfectly than another… The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the created intellect naturally, but is given to it by the light of glory…”9 Each person who attains the vision of God receives from Him, i.e., from the light of glory, the extent to which the beatified soul can participate. This gives the intellect what Thomas refers to as “deiformity.” Thomas goes on to identify that which gives each particular beatified soul their participation in the light of glory, “… and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory who has more charity.”10 It is the virtue of charity that determines the level of participation that the beatified soul has. The level of participation correlates to the perfection to which they come to know all things in the Word. In Christ, we find the most perfect virtue of charity.11 Since that is the case, he would then have the most perfect vision of the Word that was possible for a human intellect; therefore, He knows more than anyone in the Word.
The second reality that Thomas is asserting about Christ is the fact that all created intellects know everything that pertains to themselves in the Word. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains, “No beatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to itself. But to Christ all things belong, inasmuch as all things are subject to Him, as the head of the Church, the end of the universe, the Lord of heaven and earth, the judge of the living and the dead.”12 Here, we find the essence of what all things means pertaining to Christ. The whole person of Christ, that is, in His divinity and humanity, is all of these things that Garrigou-Lagrange says that He is. All is subject to Him, and so all pertains to Him. When applied to this definition of all things, Christ would, in fact, know all things in the Word, since it is through the Word that all things came to be.13
The second way that all things can be taken is an important limitation that must be applied to the human soul of Christ. Thomas says, “Second, all things may be taken widely, as extending not merely to such things as are in act at some time, but even to such things as are in potentiality, and never have been, nor ever will be reduced to act.”14 This is another explanation that was explored in Thomas’ reply in De Veritate. There are certain things that lie in God’s potential to do but have never and will never come to be; that is, there is potential that will never be brought to act. These things lie in the infinity of God and thus cannot be known by any human soul, including Christ, because “this would be to comprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine Essence.”15 No human soul, not even the human soul of Christ in its perfection, can know the Divine Essence in its infinitude.
To finish this article, I want to return to the first objection and the consideration of ignorance being applied to Christ in the Gospel of Mark. A rebuttal to this is that Christ knew of the day within His divine knowledge but not within His human knowledge. Thomas says that this is wrong, as argued in the present article. Christ knew all things that pertained to Him, and the end of time pertains to Him; therefore, the day would have been known in His humanity as well. Thomas gives three answers to this question. The first is not found in ignorance but in an unwillingness to reveal the day, “He is said, therefore, not to know the day and the hour of the judgment, for that He does not make it known, since on being asked by the apostles, He was unwilling to reveal it.”16 Thomas believes that Christ knows the day and the hour both in His divine knowledge and human knowledge, but He is unwilling to reveal it to anyone. Thomas supports this by citing St. John Chrysostom, “if it is given to Christ as man to know how to judge—which is greater—much more is given Him to know the less, viz., the time of judgment.”17 The second interpretation Thomas gives is found within the writings of Origen. Thomas says, “Origen, however, expounds it of His body, which is the Church, which is ignorant of this time.”18 This is simply taking the Ecclesiology of St. Paul19 and applying it to the words of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ, and so He can and does identify the Church as Himself. In this case, the Church would be ignorant of the day. The final reason Thomas gives is, “Lastly, some say this is to be understood of the adoptive, and not the natural Son of God.”20 Thomas gives no commentary on this, and I believe that to be telling. This does not seem a very likely interpretation. Garrigou-Lagrange tackles this objection in his commentary, citing Pope Gregory the Great’s letter Sicut aqua to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria.21 Garrigou-Lagrange concludes:
In accordance with this doctrine thus explicitly formulated by Pope St. Gregory the Great, the common teaching of theologians will always be that Christ knew the day of judgment in His human nature, but not by reason of His human nature, which means that He did not know it by the natural light of the created intellect. Thus, the angels, too, know this day only if they are supernaturally enlightened.22
Garrigou, following St. Gregory, points to the idea that the light of human reason was not able to know the time of the second coming according to its own abilities. This is grounded in the reality that the day of the second coming is something known only to God according to His divine plan. He will say, though, and the final line indicates this, that Christ was not ignorant of it altogether, but His humanity had to be “supernaturally enlightened.” This can be attributed to the beatific vision.
Mark 13:32.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
See ST Ia q. 14, a. 1. Thomas says that “In God there exists the most perfect knowledge.” This means that there is no lacking in His knowledge.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2. This comes from Rev. 5:12.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2. Garrigou-Lagrange comments on this, “In fact, Christ’s soul seems to have not only habitual knowledge but also actual knowledge of all these things, like the perfect theologian who not only could at will successfully contemplate all theological conclusions, but who could simultaneously and actually contemplate all of them.” Christ the Lord, 371.
ST Ia q. 12, a. 6. The Ecumenical Council at Florence (1431-1449) defines this, “The souls of those who… are received immediately into heaven and see clearly God himself, one and three, as he is, though some more perfectly than others, according to the diversity of merit.” Den. 1305. Emphasis is mine. Further, Canon 32 of the Canons on Justification from The Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) reads, “In anyone says that the good works of the justified man are the gifts of God in such a way that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself; or that by the good works he performs through the grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ (of whom he is a living member), the justified man does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and (provided he dies in the state of grace) the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase or glory, let him be anathema.” Den. 1582. Emphasis is mine.
ST Ia q. 12, a. 6.
Cf. ST IIIa q. 7, a. 2. Here, Thomas says that in Christ was found that since the grace in Christ was perfect, flowing out from it is every virtue in its perfection. This will have an important effect on whether Christ has faith or hope. This will be explored more thoroughly in chapter four.
Christ the Savior, 371.
Cf. John 1:3.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2. Cited here is St. John Chrysostom Hom. lxxvii in Matt. See Schaff, Philip, ed., Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Vol. 10. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888).
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2. Cited here is Origen in Matt. Tract. xxx., See Menzies, Allan, ed., The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV. Vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897).
Cf. Rom. 12:4-5 and Eph. 4 and 5.
ST IIIa q. 10, a. 2.
Cf. Den. 474-476.
Christ the Savior, 347.