103. Immanent and Transitive Operations; The Nature of Power

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Two Kinds of Operations #

Immanent Operations (remaining in the agent)

• Operations whose perfection belongs to the agent performing them
• Examples: understanding, willing, sensing, loving, seeing
• Perfect the knower/lover/seer, not the object known/loved/seen
• These operations continue into eternal life and constitute beatitude
• Example: Viewing Titian’s painting perfects the eye; understanding a geometric theorem perfects the intellect

Transitive Operations (going out to an external effect)

• Operations whose perfection belongs to the thing made, not the maker
• Examples: making, teaching, building, cooking
• The maker is only accidentally perfected through these operations
• Example: A teacher is perfected by teaching only accidentally; the student is properly perfected
• Example: Making a chair perfects the chair, not the carpenter
• These operations cease with this life and do not constitute beatitude

Theological Implication: Beatitude consists in immanent operations (knowing and loving God) rather than transitive ones (even creating the world). This explains why our Lord told Martha and Mary that Mary “chose the better part”—contemplation (immanent) is superior to action (transitive).

The Problem of Terminology: Power, Ability, and Potency #

Greek dunamis and Latin potentia have two meanings:

1. Active sense (primary meaning): The ability to act upon another; to move, transform, or cause change
2. Passive sense (secondary meaning, referring back to the first): The ability to be acted upon; to undergo, to be affected

The English Translation Problem:

• English “power” remains stuck in the active sense only
• English “ability” is more flexible and can accommodate both senses
• Examples of both senses in English: “Cassius Clay has the ability to knock out his opponent” (active); “Berkwist has the ability to be knocked out” (passive)
• Another example: “The pianist has the ability to play the piano beautifully” (active); “The piano has the ability to be played” (passive)

Berquist’s solution: Adopt “ability” as the primary English translation, while using “power” to signal when the active sense is specifically intended. This preserves the linguistic flexibility of the original philosophical vocabulary.

Active Power (Potentia Activa) in God #

Definition: The ability to act upon another; to cause effect and change

Key principles:

• Active power is NOT opposed to actuality, but FOUNDED in it
• “Each thing acts according as it is in act” (Aristotelian principle)
• The more actual something is, the more power it has (fire heats because it is actually hot)
• God, being pure actuality, must possess active power in the highest degree
• Divine active power is necessary and must be affirmed of God

Why it must be in God:

• God is pure act and simply perfect, lacking nothing
• The definition of active power (to be the beginning of acting on another) most properly belongs to God
• To deny God active power would reduce God to something less perfect than creatures that clearly act
• As Scripture says (Psalm 88): “Domine, potenzes” (O Lord, you are powerful)

Passive Power (Potentia Passiva) in God #

Definition: The ability to be acted upon; to undergo change or receive perfection

Why it is absolutely absent from God:

• Passive potency implies the capacity to be perfected or changed
• It implies composition between what is actual and what is merely potential
• It contradicts God’s absolute simplicity and perfection
• God cannot undergo any change, transformation, or reception of perfection
• To possess passive potency would mean God is not absolutely complete and perfect

Critical distinction: The objection that “first matter is pure passive potency and God is pure act, so God cannot have power” commits an equivocation by confusing active and passive potency. These are not opposites; rather, passive potency is divided against act, while active power is founded in and inseparable from act.

The Resolution of Apparent Contradictions #

Problem 1: If God is pure act, how can He have power (potentia)?

• Solution: Distinguish active from passive potency. Active power is founded in actuality and not opposed to it. Only passive potency is opposed to act.

Problem 2: If act is better than ability (per Aristotle), and all that is in God is God, then how can God have ability without something better than God existing in Him?

• Solution: Aristotle’s principle applies only when act and ability are really distinct (as in creatures). In God, the divine essence, which is infinite act, is identical with the divine power. The distinction exists only in our mode of understanding, not in God’s being.

Problem 3: If ability is defined as “the beginning of operation,” and God’s operation is His essence, and God’s essence has no beginning, then how can God have ability?

• Solution: In creatures, potency is the beginning of both operation and effect. In God, power is properly the beginning of the external effect, not the beginning of the divine operation (which is the divine essence itself). The notion of power is “saved” in God insofar as He is the beginning of external effects, not insofar as He is the beginning of His own operation.

Important qualification: The distinction between power and operation exists in our understanding (secundum modum intelligendi) but not in the divine reality itself. The divine essence can be understood under the notion of action, power, nature, and supposite, but these are not real distinctions in God.

Key Arguments #

First Objection: Power is Opposed to Act #

Objection: First matter is pure passive potency and completely lacks actuality. God is pure act. Therefore, God cannot have power/potency, as these are opposed to act.

Response:

• Do not confuse active and passive potency
• Only passive potency is opposed to act
• Active power is founded in actuality, not opposed to it
• The first objection commits the error of David of Dinant, who stupidly held God to be first matter
• First matter is infinitely far from God; even a rock would be closer to the truth

Second Objection: Act is Better Than Ability #

Objection: According to Aristotle (Book IX of Metaphysics), act is better than ability, for ability exists for the sake of act. God is the most perfect being. Nothing better than God exists in God. Therefore, ability cannot be in God.

Response:

• Aristotle’s principle holds only when act and ability are really distinct (as in creatures)
• In God, there is no real distinction between His power and His operation
• The divine essence itself—which is infinite act—is the divine power
• God’s being is not other from His essence; His operation is not other from His being
• Therefore, there is nothing in God that is more perfect than His power
• The distinction between power and operation exists only in our mode of understanding (secundum modum intelligendi)

Third Objection: Power Implies Imperfection #

Objection: Power is defined as the beginning of operation. But the operation of God is His very essence. The essence of God has no beginning. Therefore, the definition of power does not apply to God.

Response:

• In creatures, potency is the beginning not only of operation but also of effect
• In God, power should be understood primarily as the beginning of the external effect, not as the beginning of the divine operation
• The notion of divine power is preserved insofar as God is the beginning (cause) of all things He creates
• Only the first meaning of power (beginning of operation) is excluded from God; the second meaning (beginning of effect) is affirmed
• This qualification does not introduce imperfection into God, but rather distinguishes how we must speak of divine power relative to created effects

Important Definitions #

Potentia/Power (Greek: dunamis; Latin: potentia)

• In creatures: A principle that is both the beginning of action and the beginning of effect; implies composition with actuality
• In God: The beginning of all external effects; identified with the divine essence; no real composition with actuality, only a distinction in our understanding

Active Power (Potentia Activa)

• The ability or capacity to act upon another thing; to cause motion, change, or effect
• Founded in actuality: the more actual a thing is, the greater its active power
• In God: Must be affirmed as infinite and perfect

Passive Power (Potentia Passiva)

• The ability or capacity to be acted upon; to undergo change or receive perfection from an external agent
• Divided against actuality: implies unrealized potential
• In God: Must be entirely denied as contrary to His absolute perfection and simplicity

Secundum modum intelligendi (according to the mode of understanding)

• A distinction that exists in our understanding but not in reality
• Applied to God: The distinction between power and operation, between nature and supposite, etc., exists only in our way of understanding God, not in God’s actual being
• Important for maintaining both the affirmation of divine attributes and the doctrine of divine simplicity

Examples & Illustrations #

The Teacher and Student #

• A teacher is perfected by teaching only accidentally (by learning the subject better through repetition)
• The student is properly perfected by being taught
• To the extent the teacher is ignorant of what he teaches, he is not truly teaching
• The teacher’s accidental self-perfection does not belong to teaching as such

The Pianist and Piano #

• The great pianist (Gieseking) has the active ability to play Mozart beautifully
• The piano has the passive ability to be played (responsive keys, not sticking)
• These are two different senses of “ability”
• The piano’s ability to be played refers back to and depends upon the pianist’s ability to play
• The pianist cannot play a table—the table lacks the proper passive potency to be played

The Boxer Example #

• Cassius Clay has the active ability to knock out his opponent
• His opponent (Berkwist) has the passive ability to be knocked out (is breakable, beatable, bustable)
• These represent the two senses of ability
• Yet they are not unrelated: the opponent’s ability to be knocked out presupposes the opponent’s active ability to knock

The Cook and Vegetables #

• The cook has the active ability to prepare a meal
• The vegetables have the passive ability to be cut, cooked, and transformed
• The vegetables’ passivity (capacity to undergo change) refers back to the cook’s active ability
• This illustrates how passive and active potency relate

The Geometric Mean Proportional (Euclid, Book VI) #

• Question: Given two lines A (longer) and C (shorter), can we always find a line B such that A:B = B:C?
• Construction: Place A and C end-to-end to form a single line. Construct a semicircle on this line. At the point where A and C meet, draw a perpendicular to the semicircle. This perpendicular is the mean proportional B.
• Philosophical significance: Understanding this beautiful theorem perfects the intellect of the one who contemplates it; it does not perfect the theorem itself
• Illustrates how immanent operations (understanding) differ from transitive operations (making): the perfection of understanding remains in the understander
• Demonstrates that seeing beauty in created things is a perfection of the soul, not of the external thing

Martha and Mary #

• Martha represents transitive activity (serving, doing practical works)
• Mary represents immanent activity (sitting at the feet of Christ, listening, contemplating)
• Our Lord affirmed Mary’s choice as “the better part”
• Reason: Practical activity will cease with this life, but contemplative activity continues to be perfected eternally
• Therefore, beatitude (perfect happiness) consists in immanent operations, not transitive ones

Notable Quotes #

“Making as such is a perfecting of the thing made.”

• Establishes the fundamental nature of transitive operations: their perfection belongs to the external effect, not the agent

“Each thing acts according as it is in act.”

• Aristotelian principle that underlies the explanation of active power: actuality is the source and foundation of all causative activity

“The more actual something is, the more power it has.”

• Corollary to the above: increases in actuality increase causal power

“Active power is not divided against act, but it is founded in it.”

• Key resolution: distinguishes active from passive potency to show why God, as pure act, must possess infinite active power

“Whatever is in God is God himself.”

• Expression of divine simplicity: no composition between God and His attributes or operations

“The distinction between power and operation exists only in our understanding, not in God’s being.”

• Explains how divine power can be affirmed without implying composition in God

Questions Addressed #

Does power (potentia) exist in God? #

Answer: Yes, active power must be affirmed of God in the highest degree; passive power must be entirely denied.

Reasoning:

• Active power (the ability to act upon another) is founded in actuality, not opposed to it
• God is pure actuality and therefore must possess active power infinitely
• Passive power (ability to be acted upon) implies the capacity to be perfected, which contradicts God’s absolute perfection
• Only creatures, which are composed of act and passive potency, lack the perfection that God possesses
• To deny active power to God would make Him less perfect than creatures that clearly act

How should active and passive potency be distinguished in relation to actuality? #

Answer:

• Passive potency IS divided against actuality (act and passive potency are opposed)
• Active power IS NOT divided against actuality, but is FOUNDED in it
• Example: Fire is actually hot; therefore it has the active power to heat. The more perfectly hot it is, the more power it has to heat other things.
• In God: God is pure act (infinitely perfect), and therefore possesses infinite active power

How does one resolve the apparent contradiction: Aristotle says act is better than ability, yet we affirm that God has power? #

Answer:

• Aristotle’s statement holds only when act and ability are really distinct (as in creatures)
• In God, there is no real distinction between His power and His act
• The divine essence (infinite act) is identical with divine power
• What appears to be a distinction in God is only a distinction in our mode of understanding
• Therefore, nothing in God can be more perfect than His power; the power is God Himself

What does it mean to say power is “the beginning of effect” in God? #

Answer:

• In creatures, potency is both the beginning of operation (internal) and the beginning of effect (external)
• In God, power is the beginning of external effects (all creatures) but NOT the beginning of God’s operation (which is the divine essence itself)
• This preserves the notion of divine power while maintaining that God’s operation is His essence, which has no beginning
• The divine essence can be understood under different notions (power, nature, supposite, action) according to how our intellect apprehends the divine reality

Connections to Broader Thomistic Framework #

To the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity #

• The affirmation of divine power without admitting composition between God and His power illustrates how divine simplicity is maintained
• Even though we distinguish power conceptually, there is no real distinction in God
• “Whatever is in God is God himself”

To the Act/Potency Distinction #

• The distinction between active and passive potency clarifies how God, as pure act, differs fundamentally from creatures
• God has no passive potency (no unrealized potential); God is completely actual
• God has infinite active power as the proper manifestation of His infinite actuality

To the Nature of Causality #

• Active power is the foundation of causality: things cause because of what they actually are
• God’s infinite actuality makes Him the cause of all created being
• Creatures derive their power from God, who is pure power in the sense of infinite actuality