Chapter VIII. The characteristics of beatitude (q. 4)

Division of the Question, It has two parts. In the first four articles we deal with delight and love as consequences of the beatific vision. In the following four, we deal with the extension of this beatitude, to the body, to external goods, to the society of friends.

ART, 1. IS DELIGHT A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF BEATITUDE?

Yes, because the will necessarily finds joy in the possession of good. “Beatitude is joy in the truth,” in the possession of reality. We must clearly distinguish the essence of beatitude from its concomitants and consequences, just as the essence of the mystical state must be distinguished from its accidental phenomena (e.g., ecstasy or ligature).

ART. 2. THE CHIEF ELEMENT IN BEATITUDE

Conclusion. Vision is more important than joy. Vision is the cause, joy is the effect, and stands higher than effect. Again, the will finds joy in an operation because of the goodness of that operation. Goodness is not pursued for the sake of joy and rest, but vice versa, since otherwise the very act of the will would be its own goal or purpose. Joy cannot be the first object of the will, just as the act of sight cannot be the first visible object of sight.

Objections Analyzed

1. Joy is operative perfection, and perfection stands higher than the thing perfected. Answer. Joy is operative perfection, 108 i.e., a perfection which follows operation. “Joy follows perfect operation, as beauty follows youth.” Here lies the error of the hedonists and sensualists, who reduce good in itself to good that is merely delightful.

2. Animals, since they do not know the good as such, desire operations merely as delightful. Is, then, their activity not rightly ordained by God? Answer. God, the Author of nature, who knows most perfectly good-in-itself, adds joy to activity in order to draw creatures to right operations. ‘““The hen gathers her chickens under her wing,” and thus unconsciously does what is good in itself, whereas a woman, who defends her children under similar circumstances, does consciously what is good in itself.

3. Charity seeks God for His own sake, even though joy is a necessary consequence. Thus we refute the Quietists and Kant, who wish to exclude from pure love the desire of all reward. Joy, fruition, is no goal to which God is subordinated, but can nevertheless be legitimately desired, as a consequence inseparable from God and the vision of God.

ART. 3. DOES BEATITUDE INCLUDE COMPREHENSION?

Conclusion. Beatitude includes comprehension, not in the sense of comprehensive vision, but in the sense, that the blessed are called comprehensors, since they cling to God inseparably. Vision corresponds to faith, comprehension to hope, and fruition to charity. Comprehension belongs to the will, is a relation resulting in the will from the vision.

The beatific vision itself cannot be comprehensive, because the light of glory, being a created and finite thing, cannot produce an infinite comprehension. We see God entire, but not entirely, just as, to illustrate, a man may know an entire proposition (subject, predicate, and verb) without knowing it totally, without profound penetration into its full meaning.

ART. 4. RECTITUDE OF WILL IS INCLUDED IN BEATITUDE, BOTH ANTECEDENTLY AND CONSEQUENTLY

Authority. “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.” + “Pursue peace and holiness, without which no one shall see God.” ?

Rectitude as prerequired. To reach its goal, an agent must be properly orientated toward that goal, as matter is toward form. Now rectitude of will implies proper orientation toward man’s last goal.

Rectitude as consequence. Ultimate beatitude consists in the vision of the divine essence. Now the will of him who sees the essence of God necessarily possesses rectitude, i.e., it loves whatever it loves in relation to God, and finds it impossible to sin.

Here we are opposed by Scotus, who holds that even beatific love is not necessary but free, at least in its exercise, and that the blessed are not impeccable intrinsically, namely, by the vision of God, but only extrinsically, since God continues perpetually to rectify their will. This view is founded on voluntarism, which says that the will in itself is higher than the intellect. In virtue of this principle, Scotus holds that the Father and Son freely breathe forth the Holy Spirit. Does Scotus not see that, under this view, the Holy Ghost would not necessarily be God?

Let us look at the efficacy of the Thomistic argument, and the solution of Scotistic objections. St. Thomas: The essence of goodness is related to those who see God in the same way as good-in-general is related to wayfarers. As wayfarers cannot turn away from the idea of good, so those who see God cannot turn away from the essence of God. Further, since God contains in Himself the whole reality of good in a much more excellent way than it is contained in the abstract knowledge of good, the will is necessitated by an object outside of which nothing is desirable. But while this vision removes the¹ possibility of sinning, it does not take away liberty in relation to particular goods. A blessed soul may turn from one friend to another. Christ on earth, enjoying the beatific vision, though He could not sin, could still freely choose His apostles: “Not you have chosen me, but I have chosen you.”

Objection. Granting the necessity of specification, would there not still remain the liberty of exercise, so that the blessed soul, if it willed, could interrupt its act of loving God? Answer: No. In order to interrupt this act, the blessed soul would have to retain indifference of judgment, i.e., be able to see some shade of evil, either in the supreme good clearly seen, or in its act of loving that good. Now, neither in that object nor in that act can the blessed soul detect the slightest shade of evil, of tedium or weariness. Hence the blessed act of loving God, necessary both in nature and in exercise, is an act which necessarily transcends liberty, just as the love whereby God loves Himself transcends liberty. This truth is a proof from on high that man’s will has a boundless profundity, infinite in relation to its object, since created goods attract it only superficially, and thus it responds freely to their invitation, whereas God seen clearly attracts it invincibly.

Is there a parallel truth in natural beatitude? Would God, unseen, but known perfectly, be loved necessarily, say, by an angel? St, Thomas speaks as follows: “It is natural for the angel to turn with love towards God, the Author of his existence: but to turn towards God as the object of supernatural beatitude is a gift of grace coming from gratuitous love.” * It seems, then, that the angel’s natural love of God would be a necessary love, at least as regards specification; but it is not so clear that it is necessary as regards exercise.

Two Corollaries

1, The blessed are absolutely and intrinsically impeccable. It is of faith that at least extrinsic impeccability is necessary for beatitude. “That he might present to Himself a glorious 3 Ia, q.63, a.1, ad gum.

church, not having spot or wrinkle.” + These words are commonly understood of the Church triumphant. Again, “He regenerated us unto living hope, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, that cannot fade.” * Beatitude would not be beatitude if it could admit sin, and hence punishment.

Scotus did not doubt the existence of impeccability, but said that it came from without, namely, from the aid of God preserving the blessed soul from sin, as it preserved the Blessed Virgin Mary from sin on earth. Thomists, on the contrary, hold that the blessed are intrinsically impeccable, because of the vision of God and the necessary love that follows it. There can be no sin in the will, unless there be in the intellect a defective knowledge, a defective dictate, arising from error, ignorance, inconsideration. But the intellect which sees God clearly cannot be defective, for in God it sees everything that belongs to our perfection, and there is no interruption of this vision because it is eternal life. In a word, he who clearly sees the supreme good, here and now necessarily lovable, cannot turn away from it, cannot sin, otherwise he would not look on God as the supreme good.

2. We desire the vision of God, not only as the delightful reward of a virtuous life, as Kant objected, but as the possession of the highest good-in-itself.

The first series of Scotistic objections is against the necessity of exercise in regard to beatific love. The second series is against the intrinsic impeccability of the blessed.

First Series

1. No object moves the will as regards exercise. Answer: The object does not move the will to exercise without the mediation of the will itself, we grant. We likewise grant that, even under this mediation, the object, if finite, does not necessarily move the will. But we deny that the will can remain unmoved when faced with an infinite object.

Indifferent judgment can come from a twofold cause. First,

from the imperfections of our knowledge (as appears in those first motions which are indeliberate): secondly, from the perfection of our vision of the highest good which transcends the natural capacity of our will. Thus beatific love is not free. It transcends merit. But it is not forced, rather it is in the highest degree spontaneous and vital.

2. Augustine says: Will does not exist unless it is free.* Answer: From the truth that the will is free it does not follow that it is free in its every act, just as from the truth that our intellect is discursive it does not follow that it is discursive in its every act.

3- A necessary act cannot have degrees of intensity, because it proceeds from the entire capacity of the will. Answer: We must deny this statement. The natural motion of a falling stone increases in rapidity, the motion of brutes increases as they more vehemently desire their prey, and the same truth is seen in the indeliberate motions of the will. Similarly, beatific love, though it flows from the entire capacity of the will, can be more intense in one of the blessed than in another, by reason of a more intense degree of glory and charity. Nor can the blessed on a lower level desire a higher degree of glory and charity, because each is completely satiated with his own reward and predestination. A man who is less hungry eats less, but is equally satisfied.

4. But love in heaven is identical with love on earth, Answer: Yes, but to love on earth God appears under one viewpoint as good and on the other as the Lawgiver who forbids what pleases the sinner,

5. But toward beatitude in common the will retains, liberty of exercise. Answer: Toward explicit love of beatitude, yes; toward a virtual and implicit love, no. Here on earth when the will refrains from actual and explicit love of beatitude in favor of some other thought, it acts thus for its own good and thus implicitly for its own beatitude.

6. Christ’s love for God, being meritorious, was free, though it proceeded from the beatific vision.

6 Enchiridion, chap. 105.

Two answers. The first runs thus: Christ’s love of God as God was not free; but it was free as reason for loving creatures. Thus it is with God’s love of Himself: while this act is necessary, it is still freely exercised in relation to creatures. And as God, though free to create, is impeccable, so Christ was free in His love unto death for souls, yet simultaneously intrinsically impeccable by reason of His beatific vision and divine personality. Similarly, the blessed in heaven necessarily love God and freely love creatures: freely, we say, but impeccably, since they love creatures only in relation to God. But their love for creatures is not meritorious, because they are no longer in via, whereas Christ was simultaneously wayfarer and comprehensor. The second answer runs thus: As ruled by the beatific vision, Christ’s love of God was not free: but it was free as ruled by infused knowledge, which is an analogical cognition.

John of St. Thomas says that each of these views is probable.” The second view is simply an addition to the first view. Yet the first solution seems to be more profound. Loving God considered in Himself differs much from loving God as the reason for loving creatures. It is more difficult to love our neighbor, a Pharisee, say, for God’s sake than it is to love God Himself. In relation to creatures judgment remains suspended, the creature being lovable under one viewpoint, but not under another until the free will overcomes this indifference. But the free will of the blessed, profoundly rectified by the beatific vision, is confirmed in good. Hence it acts as it should, impeccably and freely, in such external services as are free. The necessity which remains is a necessity of precept, a necessity of infallibility and consequence, like that under efficacious grace, which does not destroy liberty but actualizes it.

7. Love that is free is more perfect than love that is necessary. Answer: Yes, if the necessity arises from imperfect cognition (as in sudden indeliberate acts); but no, if the necessity arises from perfect cognition of the highest good,

To explain. Liberty is a dominating indifference of the

will in relation to particular goods. But the will cannot have this dominating indifference in relation to God seen clearly. Beatific love, then, is necessary, and thus is higher than love which is free, and is not below liberty but above it. Further, necessary love precontains eminently the very foundation of liberty, because the will is free in relation to particular goods only by its necessary relation to universal good, which in reality is found in God alone. In illustration, take Aristotle’s word, that metaphysics is something useless, meaning that it is not below but above utility.

8. But God can let vision continue, and still hinder love, by suspending His own concursus. Answer: God could do this, considering His absolute power, just as He could annihilate all creatures. But from this it does not follow that beatific love is not a necessary characteristic that follows vision, And God’s wisdom will never allow Him to deny this concursus, just as it will not allow Him to annihilate the blessed in heaven, or to create a soul without its characteristics and faculties.

Second Series

Scotistic objections against the intrinsic impeccability of the saints.

1. The power of sinning is essential to created liberty. Answer: The power of sinning is the defectibility of liberty; it is not a characteristic of liberty as such. God is free, and yet impeccable.

2. Law is not imposed except on those who are capable of transgression. Answer: This we simply deny. On the blessed, law is imposed because they love to act in subjection to God.

3. Since liberty is related to contraries, the blessed are capable of nonfulfillment of law. Answer: Liberty is related to contraries in the divided sense, yes; i.e., it can chose one thing after another. But in the composite sense, no, because it cannot choose simultaneously two opposed courses. To explain, The soul cannot exercise simultaneously the beatific vision and nonfulfillment of the divine precept. But this does not mean that the blessed in heaven, or Christ on earth, can sin or transgress the precept. The soul that sees God can obey freely, but, even in the divided sense, cannot disobey, though it retains the capacity of nonobedience and nonfulfillment.

A parallel truth is that of man’s antecedent potency to resist efficacious grace, not in the sense that he can directly impede the efficacy of grace, but in this sense, that he retains the power not to do that to which he is determined by grace, because judgment remains indifferent, and God wills that what is done by grace be done freely. As a precept which would take away liberty would destroy its own nature, so efficacious grace, if it did not actualize but destroyed liberty, would destroy its own nature.

4. To be able to omit the act commanded is to be able to sin. Answer: To be able to omit the command by disobedience (the contrary of obedience) is to be able to sin, we grant. But to be able to omit the command by nonobedience (the negation of obedience) is to be able to sin, we deny.

There is a great difference between being able not to obey by negation, and being able to disobey, by a contrary act of commission, or by a privative act of omission. For example, if I am in no way subject to a certain superior, my nonobedience is not sinful. At the other extreme, the soul is most profoundly subject to God, retaining the power of nonobedience in things which do not attract invincibly. But when the thing is commanded, then, notwithstanding the command, the will remains free.

ART. 5. THE BODY, WHILE IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR PERFECT BEATITUDE, STILL SERVES TO INCREASE BEATITUDE

Authority. “Blessed are those who have died in the Lord.” $ “While we are in the body we are absent from the Lord.” °

“I am straitened on both sides, having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better, but to abide still in the flesh is needful for you.” 1 “By apostolic authority we define that all the blessed even before the resumption of their bodies . . . have seen and still see the divine essence by intuitive vision . . . and this before the general judgment, without intermission, and from then on into eternity.” ™ Some writers (Greeks, Armenians, Nestorians) thought that the face-to-face vision would be deferred until the resurrection. This question reappeared at the time of John XXII. While some authors say, not without foundation, that the pontiff hesitated regarding this question, it is nevertheless certain that he never defined his view ex cathedra.

Theological proof. Our intellect needs the body only because it needs the sense-images furnished by the imagination. Now the divine essence cannot be seen by means of senseimages. The principle here invoked is from reason, and the application is a truth of faith. Hence many Thomists hold that this theological conclusion could not be defined as dogma were it not revealed in equivalent terms in Scripture or tradition, in this instance by St. Paul.

Yet the body is required for the fullness of beatitude. Why? Because the soul is more perfect in its nature when it informs the body, which was created for the soul. The separated soul has “a desire to rule its body.” The body subserves the soul, since the soul is on the very lowest level of intelligence, to which corresponds the lowest level of intelligibility.

Difficulties Analyzed

1. The separated soul, being subsistent, can have a perfect operation, even though it does not have a perfect nature. But it is not a person, since person signifies complete nature.

2. The soul’s fruition overflows on the body. The separated soul remains individual: it is this soul, the soul of Peter rather than of Paul, by a transcendental relation to its own body.

3. The desire of the separated soul, while it rests in the possession of God objectively, is not totally at rest subjectively. Hence, when the body rises, the soul’s beatitude grows, not intensively, but extensively.

4. Some separated souls may see God more clearly than do the inferior angels, because, while they have an intellect naturally less keen, they have a greater light of glory.

ART. 6. IS BODILY PERFECTION NECESSARY FOR BEATITUDE?

Conclusion: Beatitude, in every way perfect, requires perfect disposition of body.

Authority: St. Paul enumerates the four gifts of the glorified body: 1. impassibility (“It is sown in corruption, it rises in incorruption”); 2. brightness (“It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory”); 3. agility (“It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power”); 4. subtility (“It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body’’).¥

Reason: These gifts are necessary: first, that the flesh no longer weigh down the soul and turn it away from contemplation; secondly, that the soul, the form of the body and its principle of life, may communicate to its body a share in its own beatitude.

Impassibility excludes corruption, passion, pain. Subtility enables the body to penetrate another body (Christ entering though the doors were closed). Agility renders the body capable of the swiftest motion (though not instantaneous). By brightness the body becomes luminous, like a crystal, revealing its wonderful organization.

Aureoles. This overflowing glory carries from the soul a special beauty into the body. This beauty, particularly as it appears in the glorified head, is an accidental glory, superadded to the essential glory, symbolized by the golden crown. This aureole, representing a special victory, is threefold: against the world, against the flesh, and against the devil. Those who conquered the world, wear the aureole of martyrs. Those whose teaching conquered the devil, wear the aureole of doctors.

ART. 7. ARE EXTERIOR GOODS NECESSARY FOR BEATITUDE?

For perfect beatitude external goods are in no wise required, since the body is no longer animal, but spiritual. Yet heaven, the empyrean, is a place of supremest beauty. Food and drink and riches are metaphors, to express spiritual goods: “Eat, O friends, drink, and be inebriated.” 13

ART. 8. IS THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS NECESSARY FOR BEATITUDE?

The society of friends is not necessary for perfect beatitude, since the soul possesses entire plenitude of perfection in God. Yet the society of friends adds an accidental and concomitant fullness, since the blessed see one another and rejoice in one another’s company.

Why does man need friends on earth? Not for the sake of utility, since he is sufficient unto himself. Nor for the sake of delight, because his own deeds give him supreme delight. But he needs friends in order to benefit them, to be inspired by them unto good, and to be aided by them in doing good. Virtuous friendship, as distinct from friendship founded on delight or utility, is based on good-in-itself. Higher still is that friendship which is supernatural, founded on God Himself. This friendship constitutes the Church triumphant, the home of perfect beatitude.

Footnotes

1. Matt. 5:8. 2 Heb. 12:14. ↩