I’m having trouble opening the link. I’m a little surprised that the Fatima apparitions would be considered as imaginative visions, with three kids all seeing the same apparition. I would think most of the Marian apparitions would be corporeal visions. Though I reserve the right to not know what I’m talking about.With regard to Fatima, Venerable John Paul II wrote about it, describing it as an imaginative vision. See more here: Message of Fatima
St. Thomas is certainly The Philosopher. I’ve read bits and pieces of the Summa, so I can’t argue in principle. However, I took another look at the part concerning whether intellectual knowledge is derived from the senses. From the parts I read, he argues his case upholding it against certain objections that would come from various philosophers including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Avicenna . . . Yet, as mentioned on various threads, Aquinas considered what he wrote as “straw” when he received a vision (intellectual???) from God that poured knowlege of heavenly things into his soul.I agree that the degree of certainty with which we can understand what happens in our soul is only as good as the reasoning processes illumined by faith. St. Thomas’ explanations are an example of “speculative theology.”
Certainly true, that last sentence. And, yes, Aquinas goes about his work detailing and refuting those who came before him. (Like I mentioned above, I only have cursory knowledge of his writings). However, it seems St. Augustine made a relevant point about the origin of knowledge:What I like about St. Thomas is his method. He is guided by authority, which ought to be the sovereign guide of every theologian. His understanding comes from reasoning upon the centuries of thinkers who came before him, holding Scripture and Tradition as the highest authority. I think the understanding he offers is congruent with Scripture and Tradition, as well as the philosophy of his day. Modern philosophy appears lost in sophistry compared to the perennial philosophy of St. Thomas.
It would seem that intellectual knowledge is not derived from sensible things. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 9) that “we cannot expect to learn the fulness of truth from the senses of the body.” This he proves in two ways.
First, because “whatever the bodily senses reach, is continually being changed; and what is never the same cannot be perceived.”
(Article 6).Secondly, because, “whatever we perceive by the body, even when not present to the senses, may be present to the imagination, as when we are asleep or angry: yet we cannot discern by the senses, whether what we perceive be the sensible object or the deceptive image thereof. Now nothing can be perceived which cannot be distinguished from its counterfeit.” And so he concludes that we cannot expect to learn the truth from the senses. But intellectual knowledge apprehends the truth. Therefore intellectual knowledge cannot be conveyed by the senses.
I haven’t located the part about “Gratuitous Graces” yet, but I’ll look for it.I don’t think the separated soul necessarily knows all individual things in heaven and earth, but instead knows to the extent established by Divine order. St. Thomas describes this example as well in his Summa, giving his explanation of how the operation of the intellect necessarily changes after the soul separates from the body. Summa Theologica I, questions 75-102 is where he describes the nature of man and his soul, q. 89 is where he speaks of knowledge in the separated human soul. It is only later in his Summa, IIb q. 171-178 where he speaks of “Gratuitous Graces” Divinely bestowed to certain men and women (e.g. prophets), and q. 173 is where he describes his understanding of how the intellect works when it receives such Divinely imparted knowledge. He concludes that some but not all Divinely bestowed knowledge requires “abstraction” from sense-image, but goes on to state that for all such knowledge, “the perfect judgment of the intellect is effected by its turning to sensible objects, which are the first principles of our knowledge, as stated in I, 84, 6.” In other words, St. Thomas explicitly joins his understanding of Divinely bestowed knowledge (IIb, 173) with his previously asserted understanding of the nature of man and his soul (I, 84). In this earthly life, sense-image is used no matter how the knowledge was gained, sometimes through abstraction, but always during the intellectual judgment of the knowledge received.
Here is what Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis, 561 (taken from the Cathechism):Could St. Thomas be wrong? Sure. But I’ve not seen an argument as to why St. Thomas is necessarily wrong. Again, this is theology, not doctrine. It makes sense and is congruent with Christian doctrine. Perhaps there’s a substantially different explanation which also makes sense and is congruent with doctrine. If there is, I’m not familiar with it.
(Although this doesn’t deal with intellectual visions per se, reading St. Thomas’ thoughts helps to clarify his thinking on reasoning, which as you said is “speculative theology.”“For the truth that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truth, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.” (“The Knowledge of God According to the Church”)
Yes, and many people have offered their interpretation about what he meant. I think whatever he experienced, it was a humbling experience. I think what he was saying was this: “eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9)…Yet, as mentioned on various threads, Aquinas considered what he wrote as “straw” when he received a vision (intellectual???) from God that poured knowlege of heavenly things into his soul.
In heaven after our death…but before the Resurrection of the Body and the new heavens and new earth…our soul will be in an “unnatural state”Now, that’s a “Hard Problem” aye Mister Chalmers?
But seriously, how is an intellectual vision presented to the intellect directly without anything “seen” with the mind’s eye? Though as I understand it that is also how the Beatific Vision works. So if qualia are “evidence” of a nonmaterial element of consciousness, it sounds like that nonmaterial element will be useless in the life of heaven.
just rambling here but I think there’s a point in all this