171. Faith and Hope in the Beatific Vision

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Nature and Definition of Faith #

• Faith is defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1)
• The imperfection of knowledge—specifically the absence of vision—pertains to the very definition of faith
• This essential imperfection distinguishes faith from accidental imperfections (like drunkenness), which can be removed while the substance remains
• Faith must be firm adherence to truth without intellectual vision
• Faith is more noble than science by reason of its object (God, the first truth) but less perfect in its mode of knowing

Three Ways Knowledge Can Be Imperfect #

1. On the side of the object: Morning knowledge vs. evening knowledge (Augustine’s distinction in angels)
   • Evening knowledge: knowledge of things according to their being in their own nature
   • Morning knowledge: knowledge of things according to their being in God (the Word)
2. On the side of the middle term: Probable vs. demonstrative reasoning
3. On the side of the subject: Opinion (conjectura) vs. science (scientia)

The Problem: Can Faith and Perfect Knowledge Coexist? #

• Thomas addresses whether imperfect knowledge (faith) can coexist with perfect knowledge (vision) in the same subject
• Perfect and imperfect knowledge cannot coexist regarding the same object in the same way
• However, they can coexist regarding different objects or in different respects
• This principle is grounded in the law of non-contradiction

The Distinction Between Guess, Belief, and Knowledge #

• A guess cannot become knowledge; it is replaced by knowledge
• Example: Police guessing a suspect is guilty, then discovering through DNA evidence another person is guilty
• The guess was not transformed into knowledge but rather replaced by it
• This applies to faith and vision: faith is not perfected into vision but replaced by it

Hope and the Future Good #

• Hope is defined as motion toward a future good not yet possessed
• In the beatific vision, there is no succession of time—only eternal present (“tota simul”)
• When the ultimate good (God) is fully possessed, there is no future good remaining to hope for
• Therefore, hope necessarily ceases in glory
• The blessed may have desires (e.g., for the resurrection of the body), but these are not properly “hope” since they are inevitable and not arduous

Fear in the Blessed #

• Servile fear (fear of punishment) cannot remain in glory—the blessed cannot sin
• Filial fear has two acts: reverence (which remains) and fear of separation (which ceases)
• Once the blessed see God face-to-face in eternity, there is no possibility of separation, so this fear cannot persist
• Fear and hope are not true contraries in the way that perfect and imperfect knowledge are

Why Charity Remains #

• Unlike faith and hope, charity is love (amor), and love’s definition includes no imperfection
• Love can exist whether the beloved is present or absent, seen or unseen
• The imperfection in earthly charity is accidental (per accidens), not essential
• When accidental impediments are removed in glory, charity remains the same in number but perfected
• Charity is the only theological virtue that is not evacuated but intensified in the beatific vision

Key Arguments #

Argument 1: The Essential Nature of Faith’s Imperfection #

• Premise: The definition of faith includes “conviction without vision”
• Premise: In the beatific vision, vision is achieved (God is seen face-to-face)
• Conclusion: Faith, by definition, cannot coexist with vision in the same subject
• This differs from temporary imperfections that do not affect the essence of a thing

Argument 2: The Principle of Contraries #

• Premise: Perfect and imperfect are contraries
• Premise: Vision (seeing God as He is) and faith (conviction without seeing) are opposed as perfection to imperfection
• Conclusion: Vision necessarily excludes faith; they cannot coexist regarding the same object

Argument 3: Hope Requires a Future Good #

• Premise: Hope is motion toward a future good not yet possessed
• Premise: In eternal life, the blessed possess God fully in the eternal present
• Premise: No future good remains to be hoped for
• Conclusion: Hope necessarily ceases in glory

Argument 4: The Accidental Nature of Charity’s Imperfection #

• Premise: Charity is defined simply as love
• Premise: Love’s definition includes no imperfection (it can exist present or absent)
• Premise: Earthly charity’s limitations are accidental, not essential
• Conclusion: When accidental impediments are removed, charity remains the same in number but perfected

Important Definitions #

Faith (Fides): “The substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). A theological virtue whose object is the first truth (God Himself). Defined by firm adherence without intellectual vision.

Hope (Spes): Motion toward a future good not yet possessed. Presupposes love and adds movement toward the beloved object. Requires an object that is both good and arduous (difficult to obtain).

Charity (Caritas): Love directed toward God and neighbor. Defined simply as love, which has no inherent imperfection. Can exist whether the object is present or absent, seen or unseen.

Science (Scientia): Certain knowledge through demonstrative reasoning. Distinguished from opinion (conjectura—guess) by firm adherence to one side of a contradiction with intellectual vision of the reason why.

Beatific Vision (Visio Beatifica): Direct, face-to-face knowledge of God as He is in Himself. Characterized by eternity (tota simul—all at once, with no before and after).

Eternity (Aeternitas): “The whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of interminable life” (Boethius). Characterized by the absence of succession; no before and after. The mode of existence of God and the blessed in glory.

Conjectura: Latin word for guess or conjecture. Opinion and suspicion are both conjectura because they take one side of a contradiction with fear of the opposite.

Tota Simul: Latin phrase meaning “all at once.” Describes eternity as having no succession or temporal sequence, contrasted with time which involves before and after.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Shrewsbury Murder Case #

• Police initially guessed the husband was the murderer based on suspicion
• Years later, DNA evidence identified another man (a delivery driver) as the actual killer
• The guess did not become knowledge; it was replaced by knowledge
• Illustrates that a guess cannot transform into knowledge—they are distinct acts of the mind

The Phone Call vs. Direct Seeing #

• If someone tells you on the phone they are sitting down, you may believe them, but you do not see that they are sitting
• Seeing produces believing, but belief without sight is imperfect knowledge
• The phrase “seeing is believing” is a loose way of speaking, not strictly true
• Illustrates the distinction between faith (belief) and vision (direct knowledge)

High and Normal Blood Pressure #

• If one knows what normal blood pressure is, one can simultaneously know what high blood pressure is
• Although one is better than the other, perfect and imperfect knowledge can coexist regarding different states of the same object
• Shows that perfect and imperfect knowledge are not always mutually exclusive

Knowledge of Ignorance #

• A teacher who has knowledge knows the student’s ignorance better than the student knows it
• The teacher’s perfect knowledge of the subject allows him to understand imperfect knowledge (ignorance) better
• Perfect and imperfect knowledge can coexist in the same subject regarding different respects

Euclid’s Geometry #

• A student first believes Euclid’s geometric theorems on the authority of the text
• As the student studies the demonstrations, he comes to know why the theorems must be true
• The belief based on authority is replaced by knowledge based on demonstration
• Einstein praised Euclid’s work: “If Euclid did not arouse your youthful enthusiasm, you were not born to be a scientist”
• Illustrates the replacement of faith (belief in authority) by science (demonstrative knowledge)

The Probable vs. Demonstrative Middle Term #

• One can know the same conclusion through two different middle terms
• Example: That the triangle has interior angles equal to two right angles
  • Through demonstrative middle term: Joshua demonstrates this on the blackboard with proof
  • Through probable middle term: Euclid says so, and Euclid has been used as a text for geometry since 300 B.C.
• Both yield knowledge of the same conclusion, but through different modes of reasoning

The Granddaughter and Wisdom #

• Berquist’s granddaughter Sophia embodied the joy (gaudium) that Thomas associates with the excellence of wisdom
• She had no tedium or boredom, only joy with her book
• Illustrates that higher knowledge and contemplation are characterized by joy and lack of tedium

Evening and Morning Knowledge in Angels #

• Evening knowledge: Angels know things according to their being in their own created nature (imperfect)
• Morning knowledge: Angels know things according to their being in God, in the Word (perfect)
• Genesis 1:5 structure: “evening and morning were the first day” (evening before morning)
• Augustine’s commentary associates evening with natural knowledge and morning with the vision that turns back to God

Notable Quotes #

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1 — the definition Thomas uses)

“In your light we shall see light.” (Psalm 35:10 — illustrating that God is both what we see and the form by which we see Him)

“When that which is perfect comes, that which is imperfect is evacuated.” (1 Corinthians 13:10 — Thomas’s scriptural basis for faith ceasing in glory)

“If Euclid did not arouse your youthful enthusiasm, you were not born to be a scientist.” (Einstein, quoted by Berquist on the importance of Euclidean geometry)

“A glimpse of someone we love is worth more than the leisurely view of somebody I don’t care about.” (Aristotle, Parts of Animals — illustrating that imperfect knowledge of something more noble can be better than perfect knowledge of something lesser)

“Rejoice in abundance, the fear of evil things being taken away.” (Proverbs 1:33 — on the removal of servile fear in glory)

Questions Addressed #

Question 1: Can Faith Remain After Death in Glory? #

Objection 1: Faith is more noble than science, and science remains after death; therefore faith should remain.

• Response: Faith is more noble by reason of its object (God Himself), but science has a more perfect mode of knowing. Vision is not repugnant to science but is repugnant to faith’s mode of knowing (which requires absence of vision).

Objection 2: Faith is the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), so it should remain.

• Response: Faith is the foundation in this life, but in glory, the very substance of God Himself becomes the foundation.

Objection 3: Imperfect knowledge can coexist with perfect knowledge, as evening knowledge and morning knowledge coexist in angels.

• Response: Perfect and imperfect knowledge cannot coexist regarding the same object in the same way. Faith and vision are opposed as imperfection to perfection regarding God.

Thomas’s Answer: The imperfection of knowledge—specifically not seeing—pertains to the very definition of faith. When vision is achieved, faith necessarily ceases. This is unlike accidental imperfections (like temporary drunkenness) that can be removed while the substance remains. Faith’s imperfection is essential, not accidental, so faith cannot persist into the beatific vision.

Question 2: Can Hope Remain After Death in Glory? #

Objection 1: Hope is more noble than moral virtues, and moral virtues remain; therefore hope should remain.

• Response: Moral virtues remain formally but not materially (they lack the matter—bodily passions—in which to be exercised). Hope cannot remain even formally because its definition includes motion toward a future good.

Objection 2: Fear remains (filial fear in the blessed), and fear is opposed to hope; therefore hope should remain.

• Response: Servile fear does not remain. Filial fear remains only in the act of reverence; the fear of separation ceases because separation becomes impossible. These are not true contraries in the way perfect possession is contrary to hope.

Objection 3: The blessed desire future goods (the resurrection of the body, greater glory); therefore hope remains.

• Response: These are desires, not properly hopes, because the goods are inevitable and not difficult to obtain (not arduous). Hope requires an object that is both good and difficult.

Thomas’s Answer: Hope is defined as motion toward a future good not yet possessed. In the beatific vision, the ultimate good (God) is fully possessed in eternal present (tota simul). There is no succession of time, no future good to hope for. Therefore, hope necessarily ceases.

Question 3: Why Does Charity Remain While Faith and Hope Do Not? #

The Central Distinction: The imperfection in faith and hope is essential—it pertains to their very definitions. The imperfection in earthly charity is accidental—it is circumstantial and removable.

• Faith’s essential imperfection: Defined as conviction without vision. When vision is achieved, the defining characteristic is destroyed.
• Hope’s essential imperfection: Defined as motion toward a future good not yet possessed. When the good is fully possessed, the defining characteristic is destroyed.
• Charity’s accidental imperfection: Defined simply as love. Love’s definition includes no imperfection. Earthly charity is limited by bodily weakness, earthly distractions, and incomplete knowledge of God, but these are accidental impediments, not part of charity’s definition.

Conclusion: When accidental impediments are removed in glory, charity remains the same in number but perfected and intensified. It is the only theological virtue that does not cease.