Aquinas!

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wittgenstein

Guest
First let me say that I agree with Aquinas 99% of the time. Especially when he said," Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures" and “Beware of the person of one book”.
However, I hate it (and find it evil) when he said," That the saints may enjoy their beautitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."
Aquinas was brilliant! But that last quote shows that he was only human and can say really stupid and evil things.
 
Part of the Beatific Vision is the ability to see everything, including Hell. He didn’t say that they were glad that the damned were damned.
 
devoutchristian said:
Part of the Beatific Vision is the ability to see everything, including Hell. He didn’t say that they were glad that the damned were damned.
Click to expand...
But he is saying that they are more spiritually fulfilled by seeing the damed in hell.
 
wittgenstein said:
First let me say that I agree with Aquinas 99% of the time. Especially when he said," Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures" and “Beware of the person of one book”.
However, I hate it (and find it evil) when he said," That the saints may enjoy their beautitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."
Aquinas was brilliant! But that last quote shows that he was only human and can say really stupid and evil things.
Click to expand...
Why, pray tell, is that stupid or evil? If he has said something theologically inconsistent, argue your case. If “stupid and evil” just means that you don’t like it, perhaps you need to dig a bit more deeply into his thought. If you know his thought well enough to agree with 99% of that, you would necessarily agree with the bits that lead up to him saying that–he’s a highly systematic thinker. So perhaps you should read through him again to make sure you know where he’s coming from. I’m not saying he’s beyond disagreement, as I take issue with some things that he says–but this isn’t just from patent dislike, but scholarly disagreement. I don’t see anything necessarily deficient or heretical in what is said by that quote; the only thing that I can glean from what might be “wrong” with it is that it’s not “nice.”

-ACEGC
 
wittgenstein said:
First let me say that I agree with Aquinas 99% of the time. Especially when he said," Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures" and “Beware of the person of one book”.
However, I hate it (and find it evil) when he said," That the saints may enjoy their beautitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."
Aquinas was brilliant! But that last quote shows that he was only human and can say really stupid and evil things.
Click to expand...
Thomas was noted for his holiness and humility but he was eminantly logical. Judging from human nature he observed that we never enjoy being alive so much as when we have recovered from an unpleasant illness or have just escaped death by a hair. We appreciate sight more after seeing the plight and hardships of those who are not sighted.

In the same way he judged that the elect in heaven would appreciate their state more knowing or being able to see that from which they have just escaped.

But I don’t think the blessed will have that kind of curiosity. And I don’t think they will need to make comparisons to enjoy Heaven to the fullest.

And I do not think the Blessed will be able to see the suffering in Hell. And I don’t even think they will have any such curiosity at all.

I think Thomas is wrong here. Hey, he was human after all. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Thomas was noted for his holiness and humility but he was eminantly logical. Judging from human nature he observed that we never enjoy being alive so much as when we have recovered from an unpleasant illness or have just escaped death by a hair. We appreciate sight more after seeing the plight and hardships of those who are not sighted.

In the same way he judged that the elect in heaven would appreciate their state more knowing or being able to see that from which they have just escaped.
Click to expand...
More than that, though: Aquinas is asserting that we know things better when we understand them in contrast to their opposites. I may know what ‘hot’ is, but if all I know is ‘hot’, then I don’t really understand it… unless I can see ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ side-by-side. It’s not so much the old “without knowing sadness, one cannot know happiness” meme, as it is that we understand better when we know the whole picture in its entirety.

Yet, Aquinas isn’t saying that the saints will enjoy their vision of hell, either. (He makes an interesting case about the related questions of ‘pity’ and ‘rejoicing in their sufferings’, too. These answers, on the surface, may likewise sound ‘mean’ to 21st century ears, but they’re eminantly logical.)

One other thought: Aquinas didn’t write that quote, strictly speaking. This quote is from the Supplement to the ST, written by an associate from other notes of Aquinas’ …
 
edward_george said:
Why, pray tell, is that stupid or evil? If he has said something theologically inconsistent, argue your case. If “stupid and evil” just means that you don’t like it, perhaps you need to dig a bit more deeply into his thought. If you know his thought well enough to agree with 99% of that, you would necessarily agree with the bits that lead up to him saying that–he’s a highly systematic thinker. So perhaps you should read through him again to make sure you know where he’s coming from. I’m not saying he’s beyond disagreement, as I take issue with some things that he says–but this isn’t just from patent dislike, but scholarly disagreement. I don’t see anything necessarily deficient or heretical in what is said by that quote; the only thing that I can glean from what might be “wrong” with it is that it’s not “nice.”

-ACEGC
Click to expand...
Humans are not fulfilled by seeing the damned suffer, but rather they are fulfilled by the beatific vision which is God.

Aquinas’ statement seems to suggest that we are fulfilled by revenge; which to me suggests a simplistic and ignorant notion of moral fulfilment that is very human in nature.
 
Linux said:
Aquinas’ statement seems to suggest that we are fulfilled by revenge; which to me suggests a simplistic and ignorant notion of moral fulfilment that is very human in nature.
Click to expand...
LOL! Actually, that’s what ‘Aquinas’ is explicitly trying not to say!
A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy.
Click to expand...
So, inasmuch as it’s rejoicing in seeing others punished, that’s precisely what the saints in heaven will not do. However, having seen God’s divine justice, and knowing that this justice is good, they’ll rejoice in seeing that God’s justice has prevailed.

This is the exact opposite of the sort of schadenfreude that you’re asserting… 😉
 
Gorgias said:
LOL! Actually, that’s what ‘Aquinas’ is explicitly trying not to say!

So, inasmuch as it’s rejoicing in seeing others punished, that’s precisely what the saints in heaven will not do. However, having seen God’s divine justice, and knowing that this justice is good, they’ll rejoice in seeing that God’s justice has prevailed.

This is the exact opposite of the sort of schadenfreude that you’re asserting… 😉
Click to expand...
Okay I see what you are saying. So Aquinas is saying that the saints will rejoice because God is Just and not because people will suffer in hell.
 
Linux said:
Okay I see what you are saying. So Aquinas is saying that the saints will rejoice because God is Just and not because people will suffer in hell.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

(That’s why I would disagree with Wittgenstein with respect to what ‘Aquinas’ is saying: it’s not evil to suggest that, having seen the damned in Hell, the saints in Heaven would rejoice more – their rejoicing is directed toward God, not the damned.)
 
But why would seeing the damned suffer increase the saints beatitude?
 
wittgenstein said:
But why would seeing the damned suffer increase the saints beatitude?
Click to expand...
It’s about ‘knowledge’, not ‘experience’. Have you ever gone to a restaurant and couldn’t decide between two dishes? So, you choose one, and as luck would have it, a friend chooses the other. As the two of you eat your food, you really enjoy yours. You note, though, that your friend isn’t enjoying his dinner; it just isn’t good.

Your enjoyment of yours increases: it’s not that your food tastes any better – that is, your experience of your food doesn’t change. But, the knowledge that your dish is better than the alternative makes you more satisfied with your choice: that is, you enjoy it more, knowing more fully about the range of options and the good in what you’ve been presented with.
 
Gorgias said:
More than that, though: Aquinas is asserting that we know things better when we understand them in contrast to their opposites. I may know what ‘hot’ is, but if all I know is ‘hot’, then I don’t really understand it… unless I can see ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ side-by-side. It’s not so much the old “without knowing sadness, one cannot know happiness” meme, as it is that we understand better when we know the whole picture in its entirety.

Yet, Aquinas isn’t saying that the saints will enjoy their vision of hell, either. (He makes an interesting case about the related questions of ‘pity’ and ‘rejoicing in their sufferings’, too. These answers, on the surface, may likewise sound ‘mean’ to 21st century ears, but they’re eminantly logical.)

One other thought: Aquinas didn’t write that quote, strictly speaking. This quote is from the Supplement to the ST, written by an associate from other notes of Aquinas’ …
Click to expand...
Thank you for the info in the last paragraph. I hadn’t read where Thomas actually said that. Can you provide the actual source of the " Supplement? " I have the S.T. translated and commented upon by the Blackfriars of England. If it is there somewhere I would appreciate the exact location. Linus
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Thank you for the info in the last paragraph. I hadn’t read where Thomas actually said that. Can you provide the actual source of the " Supplement? " I have the S.T. translated and commented upon by the Blackfriars of England. If it is there somewhere I would appreciate the exact location. Linus
Click to expand...
Do you mean ‘can I find the Supplement on-line?’ Or do you mean ‘who actually compiled the Supplement?’
 
If we are allowed to see the sufferings of the damned it is not to delight in them, but to be delighted that we have escaped them.

If you saw a picture of an alcoholic’s liver, and then a picture of your own liver, you would not delight in the alcoholic’s liver, but you would delight in the health of your own liver and see what you had escaped by not being an alcoholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top