Aquinas on Christ's Beatific Knowledge (ST III q.10 a.1–2): The Soul of Christ Does Not Comprehend God but Knows All Things in the Word

Orientation #

He says nothing explicit about last time; he opens by placing question 10 in the division of Christ’s knowledge already made (“as I divided it into two”) and refers back to the first part for the impossibility of comprehending the infinite. The class ends at the reply to the third objection of article 2, with “should we take a little break before we go on?”. The previous class finished question 9 (infused and acquired knowledge) and the next continues question 10, articles 3 and 4.

The class, in order #

1. Benedict XV on Dominic and Thomas (“the true lights of the world”) #

Opening reading, before the text: he has been reading the encyclicals of Benedict XV, among them the one on St. Ephrem of Syria (which makes him a universal doctor of the Church; Latin title something like Principi Apostolorum Petro) and one on St. Dominic, from which he reads two paragraphs as “relevant for our thing here.”

• Paragraph 2: Dominic, “the Lord’s man,” an invincible champion of the faith; the Order of Preachers (hence “OP”) the stout defense of the Roman Church; Honorius III’s words in approving the order, “the future champions of the faith and the true lights of the world” — “beautiful expression.”
• Paragraph 7: “the very wisdom of God seemed to speak to the Dominicans” (he flags this as “a strong phrase”); Hyacinth of Poland (went to Russia, Scandinavia), Peter Martyr, Vincent Ferrer; “miracles of genius and erudition”: Albert the Great, Raymond of Peñafort (famous for canon law, but he likes him for being Master General about three years and getting Thomas to write the Summa Contra Gentiles, “my favorite book”), and Thomas Aquinas, “in whom especially God deigned to enlighten His Church”; the order “acquired new lustre when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own.”
• “Master and patron of Catholic schools”: magister, not master as opposed to slave. We call the Lombard “the Master” by antonomasia, “but really Thomas should be called the Magister” — “so we’re going to go back to the magisteria now.”

2. Question 10 in the division of Christ’s knowledge (“following the rule of two or three”) #

Point: the treatment keeps to the rule of dividing into two or three, and the threefold division of Christ’s human knowledge is a real distinction, unlike the twofold distinction in God’s knowledge.

• Christ’s knowledge divided into two: as God and as man — this exhausts the subject. His knowledge as God cannot really be divided; the distinction between scientia visionis (things past, present, future) and scientia simplicis intelligentiae (what God could have done but did not) is a distinction of reason on the side of the things known, not two real knowledges in God. A student asks about this two; he repeats: “not two different knowledges in God.”
• Human knowledge divided into three: beatific vision in his human nature, infused knowledge, knowledge acquired by experience — “three really different things,” the subject of these three questions.
• The larger division: the things co-assumed, i.e. the good things assumed (grace, knowledge, power) vs. the defects assumed (mortal flesh and so on).
• He takes blessed knowledge first: appropriate in the order of theology, since everything is referred to God and this is the closest of the three to God.
• The four articles: whether Christ comprehended the Word or divine essence; whether he knew all things in the Word; whether the soul of Christ knew an infinity of things in the Word; whether he saw the Word more clearly than any other creature, even the seraphim.

3. Article 1: does the soul of Christ comprehend the divine essence? (“the uncreated remains uncreated”) #

Point: no; the infinite cannot be comprehended by the finite, and the union does not change this. Objections as he reads them:

1. Isidore: the Trinity is known to itself alone and to the man taken on; so that man shares the Trinity’s proper knowledge, which is comprehension. (“So why does Isidore put those two together if they’re not both comprehension?”)
2. To be united to God in personal being is greater than in vision; Damascene (book 3): the whole divinity is united to human nature in one person; so much more is the whole divine nature seen.
3. Augustine, On the Trinity: what belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to the Son of Man by grace; comprehending the essence belongs to the Son by nature. Sed contra: Augustine, Eighty-three Questions — what comprehends is limited to itself; the divine essence exceeds Christ’s soul infinitely. (“So, what do you guys think?”) Response:
4. The union of natures in the person leaves the property of each nature unmixed: in the Trinity a real distinction of persons, in the Incarnation a real distinction of natures; Damascene: the uncreated remains uncreated, the created within the limits of the creature.
5. No creature can comprehend the divine essence (first part): the infinite cannot be comprehended by the finite. To comprehend = to know the essence as much as it is knowable.
6. So the soul of Christ “in no way” comprehends the essence — “that’s putting him in his place.” The creature too must be put in his place, not like Faust thinking what is in some way infinite is simply infinite. Replies:

• Ad 1: the man taken on is numbered with the Trinity not by reason of comprehension but of a most excellent knowledge above other creatures.
• Ad 2: not even in the union according to personal being does the human nature comprehend the Word; the whole divinity was united, but its whole excellence was not circumscribed (“had a line drawn around it”) by human nature. Augustine, epistle to Volusianus: Christian teaching does not hold God so poured into flesh that he deserted the care of governing the universe or transferred it to that little body (corpuscula). Likewise the soul sees the whole essence but does not comprehend, because it does not see it totally — not as perfectly as it is visible.
• His gloss on “whole but not totally”: God has no parts, so it is not seeing one part and not another. Thomas’s comparison: one who knows a statement by demonstration and one who holds it on a probable argument both know the whole statement, subject and predicate, but the second does not know it as much as it is knowable — the Pythagorean theorem accepted “because Euclid says so” (“the TAC class”) vs. demonstrated at the board. Likewise a principle from which many things follow: the better mind sees more consequences; both know the whole, one knows it more. So Christ sees the whole essence but not as much as it is knowable; whether he sees it more clearly than other creatures comes in another article.
• Student: could someone then say Christ in a certain sense did not know he was God? No, that does not follow: he knows the Trinity, knows himself and his divinity — “that’s me as God, but not me as man.” Another student reformulates the worry (not knowing “with a comprehensor’s knowledge”); he repeats: he knows God and the Trinity, but not as much as they are knowable; only God knows that. Parallel with love: no one can love God as much as he is lovable, or praise him as much as he is worthy (Francis de Sales: the praise of God is ultimately to himself; “the glory I had with you before the creation of the world”). Student: does that mean in a sense we don’t love God? No: we love God, but the creature can never have infinite love; God accepts less than he is lovable, but expects the bishop to love him more than me — according to your state of life, a certain love to arrive at “by the time you kick the bucket,” kept for eternity. Student: every individual loves God in a unique way, a collective love? Yes, but a drop in the bucket compared to his — “no ratio.” Summa Contra Gentiles: other things equal, one loves oneself more than others; applied to God, God enjoys himself even more than we enjoy him.
• Ad 3: Augustine’s word is about the grace of union: what is said of the Son of God according to his divine nature is said of the Son of Man on account of the identity of suppositum; so the Son of Man is a comprehensor of the divine essence, not according to his soul but according to his divine nature — as the Son of Man is also called Creator. His example of accidental predication: this geometer is a grandfather and this grandfather a geometer, both true of the same person, but he is not a grandfather through his geometry; so with God and man in one person, one transfers what is said of one to the other without its being said according to the same nature. Hence in the Gospel they are angry because he makes himself equal to God — which he is, in his divine nature, not in his human.
• Aside: still more amazing, Mary is Mother of God; non-Catholics must understand what is meant (Nestorius’s refusal of that title); probably her greatest title, greater than Mother of the Church.

4. Article 2: does the soul of Christ know all things in the Word? (“the word omnia can be taken in two ways”) #

Point: yes, for “all” taken properly; not for “all” taken to include what lies in the divine power alone. Objections as read:

1. Mark 13: of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels nor the Son, but the Father.
2. The more perfectly one knows a principle, the more things one knows in it; God sees his essence more perfectly than Christ’s soul; so he knows more in the Word.
3. Quantity of knowledge is measured by the quantity of things known; if Christ’s soul knew all the Word knows, created knowledge would equal uncreated. Sed contra: Apocalypse 5:12, the Lamb who was slain is worthy to receive divinity and science; the gloss: knowledge of all things. Aside from the Golden Chain, read that morning: on “Behold the Lamb of God,” a father remarks that great things said of God do not always draw people, a humble thing does — the disciples follow him. Response:
4. “All” properly = all things that in any way are, were or will be, whether done, said or thought, in any time. In this sense the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word.
5. Every created intellect knows in the Word not all things simply, but more the more perfectly it sees the Word; enough for a blessed intellect to know in the Word what pertains to it — as Dominic (mentioned by Kara earlier) must know the state of the whole Dominican order, if not the Jesuits (“doesn’t want to know about them”).
6. To Christ’s dignity all things pertain, since all are subject to him: he is constituted judge of all because he is the Son of Man (John 5:27); so his soul knows all that exists in any time, and the thoughts of men, whom he judges (John 2: he knew what was in man).
7. “All” more largely = also all that is in power but never brought to act. Some of these are only in the divine power; not all of these does Christ’s soul know in the Word, for that would be to comprehend the divine power, which is the divine essence — a power is known by knowledge of what it is capable of. Others are in the power of creatures; all of these he knows, since he comprehends in the Word the essence of every creature and so its power. His example: had your parents married other people, Christ would know what would have resulted — the children and grandchildren that would have been.
8. Summary in his terms: Christ’s soul knows everything God knows by scientia visionis, not everything God knows by scientia simplicis intelligentiae. This, he says, may answer the earlier student question: knowing what creatures are capable of, he knows himself as united with God; he knows all in some time but not all possible creatures.

• Asides: Shakespeare’s “don’t let my ear be a stranger to your thoughts” — we know others’ thoughts through words; we are usually ignorant of them, which is probably good (“I’m glad God only knows that stuff”; the congregation’s thoughts on the sermon); in confession you open your mind because a judgment must be made.

5. Ad 1: “neither the Son knows” (“he does not make this to be known”) #

Point: the text means the Son does not reveal the day, not that he is ignorant of it.

• Arius and Eunomius took it of the Son’s divine knowledge (which they held less than the Father’s); they placed no soul in Christ, the (false) divinity standing in place of the soul. This cannot stand: through the Word all things were made, including all times, and nothing made through him is unknown to him.
• He is said not to know the day because he does not make it known: asked by the apostles (Acts 1) he did not wish to reveal it. A contrario, Genesis 22 “now I know that you fear God” = now I have made this known (at the sacrifice of Isaac). The Father is said to know in that he gives this knowledge to the Son; so “except the Father” implies the Son knows, in his human nature too — Chrysostom: if the man Christ knows how each is to be judged, the greater thing, much more the time of judgment, the lesser.
• Other explanations: Origen, of Christ according to his body the Church, which is ignorant of the time; some, of the adopted, not natural, Son. He thinks these less likely than the first.
• Student: so did he hide it from himself so as not to lie? No: saying he did not know means he is not in a position to reveal it — the Catechism’s interpretation too. Like saying “Father Abbot is not here right now” when he is in his room: not a lie, meaning not available.
• Such difficult ways of speaking show that scripture cannot stand without the Church and the tradition; the heretic runs with them. Student: Thomas gives several interpretations, some more reasonable, with mystery remaining. Yes — for Augustine and Thomas the letter can have more than one sense. His examples: “eternal life is to know you … and him whom you sent,” which Thomas takes sometimes of the Trinity, sometimes of Christ’s divinity and humanity; “I am the way, the truth and the life,” in the old catechisms Christ as king, priest and prophet (the anointed one; commandments, creed, sacraments), but in context Thomas usually takes “the way” of the human nature (the prologue of this third part: Christ who as man is the road) and the other two of the divine.
• Ephrem: don’t be sad you cannot break scripture all down; be glad you can return to the fountain. Ephrem wanted to be “a man of one book,” the Bible — the saying attributed to Thomas on the Dominican side, Ephrem “in a very good way.”

6. Ad 2: knowledge of vision and of simple understanding (“God more perfectly knows His own essence”) #

Point: God knows more things than Christ’s soul because he comprehends his essence.

• God comprehends his essence, hence knows not only what is in act in some time (science of vision — past, present, future all present to his eternal now) but all he can make (per simplicem intelligentiam). The phrases were already among theologians, not Thomas’s invention; it is a distinction of reason by the things known, God’s knowledge being one and simple.
• Christ’s soul knows all God knows by the knowledge of vision, not all he knows by simple intelligence; so God knows more.
• Kasurik’s joke about the old radio programme reenacting past events (“You will be there”): the past made present, like the science of vision — unlike our reading history or guessing the future.
• Student: not a put-down, not a lack, since Christ’s soul has all a soul could have. Yes: he knows all that pertains to his dignity as Son of Man and judge; he will not judge the people who never were, are or will be.

7. Ad 3: number vs. clarity (“the clarity of the knowledge”) #

Point: quantity of knowledge is measured not only by the number of things known but by clarity.

• His example: one might know the square more clearly than one knows the soul.
• Christ’s knowledge in the Word equals God’s science of vision in the number of things known, but God’s knowledge infinitely exceeds it in clarity: the uncreated light of the divine understanding infinitely exceeds any created light received in Christ’s soul, both in the way of knowing and (going back to simple intelligence) in the number of things known. This does not mean Christ has our confusion, seeing “darkly.”
• A student mentions Thomas’s communion prayer as pushing this clarity; he lets it pass and calls a break.

His words #

• rule of two or three: Thomas’s habit of dividing a subject into two or three members
• scientia visionis / scientia simplicis intelligentiae: God’s knowledge of what is in some time vs. of what he could make; a distinction of reason, not two knowledges
• the good things co-assumed vs. the defects assumed: the larger division this question belongs to
• comprehend: to know a thing as much as it is knowable
• “had a line drawn around it”: circumscripta
• corpuscula: the “little body” in Augustine’s letter
• whole but not totally: seeing the whole essence without seeing it as perfectly as it is visible
• identity of suppositum: the individual substance, the person, ground of transferring predicates between natures
• omnia properly / more largely: all in any time vs. all in power, even never actual
• science of vision: past, present, future present to God’s eternal now
• magister: Thomas as “the Master,” rather than the Lombard

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 10, prologue; a. 1 entire; a. 2 through ad 3
• Benedict XV, encyclical on St. Dominic, paragraphs 2 and 7 Mentioned
• Benedict XV, encyclical on St. Ephrem (Principi Apostolorum Petro, as he gives it)
• Isidore (as in obj. 1); Damascene, book 3; Augustine, On the Trinity; Eighty-three Questions; epistle to Volusianus
• Mark 13; Apocalypse 5:12 and gloss; John 5:27; John 2; Acts 1; Genesis 22; John 17 “eternal life” (inferred locus); “I am the way, the truth and the life”
• Chrysostom, Origen (on Mark 13); Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius
• Summa Contra Gentiles (loving oneself more than others); Summa Theologiae I (infinite not comprehended by finite); prologue of the third part (Christ as man the road)
• Catena aurea (“golden chain”) on “Behold the Lamb of God”; Catechism of the Catholic Church on Mark 13
• Francis de Sales; Shakespeare (“ear a stranger to your thoughts”); Euclid / Pythagorean theorem; Faust

His questions #

• Why does Isidore number the man taken on with the Trinity if not both comprehension? By reason of a most excellent knowledge above other creatures, not comprehension.
• Does it follow that Christ in some sense didn’t know he was God? No: he knows the Trinity and himself, “that’s me as God, but not me as man”; he just doesn’t know it as much as it is knowable.
• Does it mean we don’t really love God? No: we love him, but no creature can love him as much as he is lovable.
• How can the Son of Man be called comprehensor, or Creator? By identity of suppositum, according to the divine nature, not the soul — as a geometer can be a grandfather.
• Did Christ hide the day of judgment from himself so as not to lie? No: “I don’t know” means “I am not in a position to reveal it,” as in Genesis 22 “now I know” means “now I have made known.”
• Is it a put-down or a lack that God knows more things than Christ’s soul? No: Christ’s soul knows all that pertains to his dignity as judge; he will not judge those who never were.
• How does God’s knowledge exceed Christ’s when the things known are equal in number? In clarity: the uncreated light infinitely exceeds the created light received in Christ’s soul.