Lectio 4 Lecture 4 Caritas remanet in caelo Charity remains in heaven ^13:12 Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate: tunc autem facie ad faciem. Nunc cognosco ex parte: tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum. [n. 800] ^13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. [n. 800] ^13:13 Nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas, tria haec: major autem horum est caritas. [n. 805] ^13:13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity. [n. 805] 799. Hic loquitur de visione, quae est cognitio Dei. Unde omnia praecedentia dona evacuanda, sunt intelligenda secundum quod ordinantur ad cognitionem Dei. 799. Here he speaks of the vision, which is knowledge of God. Hence, all the preceding gifts must be understood as destined to be eliminated inasmuch as they are directed to knowledge of God. Circa hoc duo facit. In regard to this he does two things: Primo enim probat id quod intendit in generali; first, he proves what he proposes in general; secundo in speciali de seipso, ibi nunc cognosco, et cetera. second, in detail about himself, at now I know in part. 800. Dicit ergo: dixi quod ex parte cognoscimus, quia nunc videmus per speculum in aenigmate, sed tunc, scilicet in patria videbimus facie ad faciem. 800. He says, therefore: I have said that we know imperfectly, because we see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then, namely, in heaven, we shall see face to face. Ubi primo considerandum est, quid sit videre per speculum in aenigmate; secundo quid sit videre facie ad faciem. The first consideration concerns what it is to see through a glass in a dark manner; the second concerns what it is to see face to face. Sciendum est ergo, quod sensibile aliquid potest tripliciter videri, scilicet aut per sui praesentiam in re vidente, sicut ipsa lux, quae praesens est oculo; aut per praesentiam suae similitudinis in sensu immediate derivatam ab ipsa re, sicut albedo quae est in pariete videtur, non existente ipsa albedine praesentialiter in oculo, sed eius similitudine, licet ipsa similitudo non videatur ab eo; aut per praesentiam similitudinis non immediate derivatae ab ipsa re, sed derivatae a similitudine rei in aliquid aliud, sicut cum videtur aliquis homo per speculum. Non enim similitudo hominis immediate est in oculo, sed similitudo hominis resultantis in speculo. It should be noted, therefore, that something sensible can be seen in three ways, namely, by its presence in the one seeing, as light itself, which is present in the eye, or by the presence of its likeness in the sense and immediately derived from the thing, as whiteness in a wall is seen, even though the whiteness does not exist in the eye, but its likeness (although the likeness is not seen by the eye); or by the presence of a likeness not immediately derived from the thing itself but from a likeness of the thing in something else, as when a man is seen through a mirror. For the likeness of the man is not immediately in the eye, but the likeness of the man reflected in a mirror. Per hunc ergo modum loquendo de visione Dei, dico quod naturali cognitione solus Deus videt seipsum: quia in Deo idem est sua essentia et suus intellectus. Et ideo sua essentia est praesens suo intellectui. Sed secundo modo forte angeli naturali cognitione Deum vident, inquantum similitudo divinae essentiae relucet immediate in eos. Tertio vero modo cognoscimus nos Deum in vita ista, inquantum invisibilia Dei per creaturas cognoscimus, ut dicitur Rom. I, 20. Et ita tota creatura est nobis sicut speculum quoddam: quia ex ordine, et bonitate, et magnitudine, quae in rebus a Deo causata sunt, venimus in cognitionem sapientiae, bonitatis et eminentiae divinae. Et haec cognitio dicitur visio in speculo. Therefore, speaking in this way about the vision of God, I say that by natural knowledge God alone sees himself; because in God essence and intellect are the same. Therefore, his essence is present to his intellect. But in a second way the angels perhaps see God by natural knowledge, inasmuch as a likeness of the divine essence immediately shines back on them. But in a third way we know God in this life, inasmuch as we know the invisible things of God through creatures, as it is said: and so all creation is a mirror for us (Rom 1:20); because from the order and goodness and multitude which are caused in things by God, we come to a knowledge of his power, goodness and eminence. And this knowledge is called seeing in a mirror. 801. Ulterius autem sciendum est, quod huiusmodi similitudo, quae est similitudinis in alio relucentis, est duplex: quia aliquando est clara et aperta, sicut illa quae est in speculo; aliquando obscura et occulta, et tunc illa visio dicitur aenigmatica, sicut cum dico: me mater genuit, et eadem gignitur ex me. Istud est per simile occultum. Et dicitur de glacie, quae gignitur ex aqua congelata, et aqua gignitur ex glacie resoluta. Sic ergo patet, quod visio per similitudinem similitudinis est in speculo per simile occultum in aenigmate, sed per simile clarum et apertum facit aliam speciem allegoricae visionis. 801. It should be further noted that a likeness of this sort, which is of a likeness gleaming back on someone else, is twofold: because sometimes it is clear and open, as that which appears in a mirror, sometimes it is obscure and secret, and then that vision is said to be enigmatic, as when I say: me a mother begot, and the same is born from me. That is secret by a simile. And it is said of ice, which is born from frozen water and the water is born from the melted ice. Thus, therefore, it is clear that vision through the likeness of a likeness is in a mirror, by a likeness hidden in an enigma, but a clear and open likeness makes another kind of allegorical vision. Inquantum ergo invisibilia Dei per creaturas cognoscimus, dicimur videre per speculum. Inquantum vero illa invisibilia sunt nobis occulta, videmus in aenigmate. Therefore, inasmuch as we know the invisible things of God through creatures, we are said to see through a mirror. Inasmuch as those invisible things are secrets to us, we see in an enigma. Vel aliter, videmus nunc per speculum, id est per rationem nostram, et tunc per, designat virtutem tantum. Quasi dicat videmus per speculum, id est virtute animae nostrae. Or another way, we see now through a glass, i.e., by our reason, and then through designates the power only. As if to say: we now see through a glass, i.e., by a power of our soul. 802. Circa secundum vero sciendum est, quod Deus, secundum quod Deus, non habet faciem, et ideo hoc, quod dicit, facie ad faciem, metaphorice dicitur. Cum enim videmus aliquid in speculo, non videmus ipsam rem, sed similitudinem eius; sed quando videmus aliquid secundum faciem, tunc videmus ipsam rem sicut est. Ideo nihil aliud vult dicere apostolus, cum dicit: videbimus in patria facie ad faciem, quam quod videbimus ipsam Dei essentiam. I Io. III, 2: videbimus eum sicuti est, et cetera. 802. In regard to the second it should be noted that God as God does not have a face, and therefore the expression face to face is metaphorical. For when we see something in a mirror, we do not see it, but its likeness; but when we see someone by face, then we see him as he is. Therefore, the Apostle wishes to say nothing else, when he says: in heaven we shall see face to face, then that we shall see the very essence of God: we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2). Sed contra est, quia Gen. XXXII, 30 dicitur: vidi Dominum facie ad faciem, et cetera. Sed constat, quod tunc non vidit essentiam Dei; ergo videre facie ad faciem, non est videre essentiam Dei. But opposed to this it is said: I have seen God face to face and yet my life is preserved (Gen 32:30). But it is evident that he did not at that time see the essence of God; therefore, to see face to face is not to see the essence of God. Responsio. Dicendum est quod illa visio fuit imaginaria; visio autem imaginaria est quidam gradus altior, scilicet videre illud quod apparet: in ipsa imagine in qua apparet et alius gradus infimus scilicet audire tantum verba. Unde Iacob, ut insinuaret excellentiam visionis imaginariae sibi ostensae, dicit vidi Dominum facie ad faciem, id est vidi Dominum imaginarie apparentem in sua imagine et non per essentiam suam. Sic enim non fuisset visio imaginaria. The answer is that that vision was imaginary; but an imaginary vision is of a higher degree, namely, seeing what appears: in the image in which he appears is another lowest grace, namely, only to hear words. Hence Jacob, to indicate the excellence of the imaginary vision showed to him says: I have seen the Lord face to face, i.e., I have seen the Lord through my imagination in his own image and not through his essence. For then it would not have been an imaginary vision. 803. Sed tamen quidam dicunt, quod in patria ipsa divina essentia videbitur per similitudinem creatam. 803. But still some say that in heaven the divine essence will be seen through a created likeness. Sed hoc est omnino falsum et impossibile, quia numquam potest aliquid per essentiam cognosci per similitudinem, quae non conveniat cum re illa in specie. Lapis enim non potest cognosci secundum illud quod est, nisi per speciem lapidis, quae est in anima. Nulla enim similitudo ducit in cognitionem essentiae alicuius rei, si differat a re illa secundum speciem, et multo minus si differt secundum genus. Non enim per speciem equi, vel albedinis potest cognosci essentia hominis, et multo minus essentia angeli. Multo ergo minus per aliquam speciem creatam, quaecumque sit illa, potest videri divina essentia, cum ab essentia divina plus distet quaecumque species creata in anima, quam species equi, vel albedinis ab essentia angeli. Unde ponere quod Deus videatur solum per similitudinem, seu per quamdam refulgentiam claritatis suae, est ponere divinam essentiam non videri. This, however, is entirely false and impossible, because something can never be known through its essence by a likeness, which does not agree with that thing in species. For a stone cannot be known as it is except through the stone’s species, which is in the soul. For no likeness leads to knowledge of a thing’s essence, if it differs from that according to species; and much less if they differ in genus. For the essence of a man, much less than the essence of an angel, cannot be known through the species of a horse or of whiteness. Much less, then, can the divine essence be seen through any created species, whatever it be, since any created species in the soul is more distant from the divine essence than the species of a horse or whiteness from the essence of an angel. Hence, to suppose that God is seen only by a likeness or through some brilliance of his clarity is to suppose that the divine essence is not seen. Et, praeterea, cum anima sit quaedam similitudo Dei, visio illa non magis esset specularis et aenigmatica, quae est in via, quam visio clara et aperta, quae repromittitur sanctis in gloria, et in qua erit beatitudo nostra. Unde Augustinus dicit hic in Glossa, quod visio Dei, quae est per similitudinem, pertinet ad visionem speculi et aenigmatis. Furthermore, since the soul is a certain likeness of God, that vision would not be more mirror-like or enigmatic, which it is in this life, than clear and open vision, which is promised to the saints in glory and in which will consist our beatitude. Hence Augustine says in a Gloss that a vision of God through a likeness pertains to a vision in a mirror and enigma. Sequeretur etiam quod beatitudo hominis ultima esset in alio, quam in ipso Deo, quod est alienum a fide. Naturale etiam hominis desiderium, quod est perveniendi ad primam rerum causam, et cognoscendi ipsam per seipsam, esset inane. It would also follow that man’s final beatitude would be in something other than God; which is alien to the faith. Even man’s natural desire, which is to arrive at the first cause of things and of knowing him in himself, would be in vain. 804. Sequitur nunc cognosco ex parte, et cetera. Hic, illud quod probavit in generali, probat in speciali de cognitione sui ipsius, dicens nunc, id est in praesenti vita, ego Paulus cognosco ex parte, id est obscure et imperfecte; tunc autem, scilicet in patria, cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum, id est: sicut Deus cognovit essentiam meam, ita Deum cognoscam per essentiam; ita quod sicut, non importat hic aequalitatem cognitionis, sed similitudinem tantum. 804. He continues: now I know in part. Here he proves in particular what he had proved in general about knowledge of himself, saying: now, i.e., in the present life, I, Paul, know in part, i.e., obscurely and imperfectly, but then, namely, in heaven, I shall know even as I am known. Just as God knows my essence, so I shall know God through his essence, so that the as does not imply equality of knowledge but only similarity. 805. Consequenter infert principalem conclusionem cum dicit nunc autem manent, et cetera. 805. Then he infers the principal conclusion, when he says: and now there remain. Causa autem quare non facit mentionem de omnibus donis, sed de istis tribus tantum est quia haec tria coniungunt Deo, alia autem non coniungunt Deo, nisi mediantibus istis; alia etiam dona sunt quaedam disponentia ad gignendum ista tria in cordibus hominum. Unde et solum ista tria, scilicet fides, spes et caritas, dicuntur virtutes theologicae, quia habent immediate Deum pro obiecto. But the reason he does not mention all the gifts but only three is that these three join to God; the others do not join to God, except through the mediation of those three; also the other gifts dispose for the birth of those three in the hearts of men. Hence, too, only those three, namely, faith, hope and charity, are called theological virtues, because they have God for their immediate object. 806. Sed cum dona sint ad perficiendum vel affectum vel intellectum, et caritas perficiat affectum, fides intellectum: non videtur quod spes sit necessaria, sed superflua. 806. But since the gifts exist for perfecting the affections or intellect, and charity perfects the affections, and faith the intellect, it does not seem that hope is necessary but superfluous. Ad hoc sciendum, quod amor est quaedam vis unitiva, et omnis amor in unione quadam consistit. Unde et secundum diversas uniones, diversae species amicitiae a Philosopho distinguuntur. The answer is that love is a unitive force and all love consists in some union. Hence according to the various unions, the various species of friendship are distinguished by the Philosopher. Nos autem habemus duplicem coniunctionem cum Deo. Una est quantum ad bona naturae, quae hic participamus ab ipso; alia quantum ad beatitudinem, inquantum nos hic sumus participes per gratiam supernae felicitatis, secundum quod hic est possibile, speramus etiam ad perfectam consecutionem illius aeternae beatitudinis pervenire et fieri cives caelestis Ierusalem. Et secundum primam communicationem ad Deum, est amicitia naturalis secundum quam unumquodque, secundum quod est, Deum ut causam primam et summum bonum appetit et desiderat, ut finem suum. Secundum vero communicationem secundam est amor caritatis, qua solum creatura intellectualis Deum diligit. Now we have a twofold union with God: one refers to the goods of nature, which we partake of here from him; the other refers to beatitude, inasmuch as through grace we partake here of heavenly felicity, as far as it is possible here. We also hope to arrive at the perfect attainment of that eternal beatitude and become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. According to the first communication with God there is a natural friendship, according to which each one, inasmuch as he is, seeks and desires as his end God as first cause and supreme being. According to the second communication there is the love of charity, by which only an intellectual creature loves God. Quia vero nihil potest amari nisi sit cognitum, ideo ad amorem caritatis exigitur primo cognitio Dei. Et quia hoc est supra naturam, primo exigitur fides, quae est non apparentium. Secundo ne homo deficiat, vel aberret, exigitur spes, per quam tendat in illum finem, sicut ad se pertinentem. Et de his tribus dicitur Eccli. II, 8: qui timetis Deum, credite in illum, quantum ad fidem; qui timetis Deum, sperate in illum, quantum ad spem; qui timetis Deum, diligite eum, quantum ad caritatem. But because nothing can be loved unless it is known, for the love of charity a knowledge of God is first required. And because this is above nature, there is required, first of all, faith which is concerned with things not seen. Second, in order that a man not fail or fall away, hope is required through which he tends to that end as pertaining to himself. Concerning these three it is said: you who fear the Lord, believe in him, as to faith; you who fear the Lord, hope in him, as to hope; you who fear the Lord, love him (Sir 2:8), as to charity. Ista ergo tria manent nunc, sed caritas maior est omnibus, propter ea quae dicta sunt supra. Therefore, these three remain now, but charity is greater than the others for the reasons indicated above. Caput 14 Chapter 14 Prophetia et Linguae Prophecy and Tongues Lectio 1 Lecture 1 Prophetia magis quam donam linguarum Prophecy greater than gift of tongues ^14:1 Sectamini caritatem, aemulamini spiritualia: magis autem ut prophetetis. [n. 807] ^14:1 Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy. [n. 807] ^14:2 Qui enim loquitur lingua, non hominibus loquitur, sed Deo: nemo enim audit. Spiritu autem loquitur mysteria. [n. 817] ^14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God: for no man hears. Yet by the Spirit he speaks mysteries. [n. 817]