Thomistic understanding of God's love

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas on pretty much all of his points, however his understanding of the nature of God’s love concerns me.

From reading Question 20 regarding God’s love in the Summa, it seems that St Thomas believes that God’s love is “willing good for others”.

Now is St Thomas saying this is the most basic and fundamental characteristic of love within God, or is this truly what God’s love is? It seems almost mechanistic and impersonal for God to have such a love, merely willing the good of others. Is there no profound feeling or passion on God’s part (or something analogous to it), or is that entirely incompatible with Thomisitic theology? Can love really be simplified to a mechanism of “willing the good of others”? What kind of relationship is that?

I’m probably misunderstanding it all, which is why I’m asking you all!

 

[grannymh]

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas on pretty much all of his points, however his understanding of the nature of God’s love concerns me.

From reading Question 20 regarding God’s love in the Summa, it seems that St Thomas believes that God’s love is “willing good for others”.

Now is St Thomas saying this is the most basic and fundamental characteristic of love within God, or is this truly what God’s love is? It seems almost mechanistic and impersonal for God to have such a love, merely willing the good of others. Is there no profound feeling or passion on God’s part (or something analogous to it), or is that entirely incompatible with Thomisitic theology? Can love really be simplified to a mechanism of “willing the good of others”? What kind of relationship is that?

I’m probably misunderstanding it all, which is why I’m asking you all!

“Willing good for others” in its highest form is sharing in God’s own life here on earth and after bodily death. I offer that God’s love for us is beyond human measurement.
(CCC, 356; CCC, 1730; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision page 867; John 3: 16)

Links to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Petaro]

Love is an act of the will. It does not require an emotional corollary. Just remember this when your wife asks you to take out the rubbish.
But God’s Will! That is a whole different thing. When He wills it happens!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas on pretty much all of his points, however his understanding of the nature of God’s love concerns me.

From reading Question 20 regarding God’s love in the Summa, it seems that St Thomas believes that God’s love is “willing good for others”.

Now is St Thomas saying this is the most basic and fundamental characteristic of love within God, or is this truly what God’s love is? It seems almost mechanistic and impersonal for God to have such a love, merely willing the good of others. Is there no profound feeling or passion on God’s part (or something analogous to it), or is that entirely incompatible with Thomisitic theology? Can love really be simplified to a mechanism of “willing the good of others”? What kind of relationship is that?

I’m probably misunderstanding it all, which is why I’m asking you all!

Recall that for Thomas, God IS your ultimate and final good. So God, for example, willing your good is God willing himself to you. Christ emptying himself to become man is representative of this love. It isn’t so much that something “impersonal” is happening, but that something far beyond and more complete than personal is.

 

[polytropos]

Now is St Thomas saying this is the most basic and fundamental characteristic of love within God, or is this truly what God’s love is? It seems almost mechanistic and impersonal for God to have such a love, merely willing the good of others. Is there no profound feeling or passion on God’s part (or something analogous to it), or is that entirely incompatible with Thomisitic theology? Can love really be simplified to a mechanism of “willing the good of others”? What kind of relationship is that?

God’s love is not a “profound feeling” or “passion” because then it would be an emotion. There would be a couple issues with God’s love being fundamentally emotive. First, emotion implies change, and God does not change. Second, emotions are not ends in themselves, while God has no ends to fulfill for himself. He wills our good purely for our own sake (for our lives can’t “improve” God in any way).

 

[grannymh]

God’s love is not a “profound feeling” or “passion” because then it would be an emotion. There would be a couple issues with God’s love being fundamentally emotive. First, emotion implies change, and God does not change. Second, emotions are not ends in themselves, while God has no ends to fulfill for himself. He wills our good purely for our own sake (for our lives can’t “improve” God in any way).

This reminds me of CCC, 356, 1703 & 1730.

And your “signature” quote also reminds me that I have one foot on a banana peel.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Thanks everyone for the answers, I think I can see why love is an act of the will primarily, and Peter Plato’s answer was great in it is indeed “God willing you to Himself”, as He is the ultimate and final good.

And yes I understand the problems with having ‘emotion’ in the human sense for God, polytropos, but I nevertheless thought there could be some sort of higher/unchanging sort of emotion/feeling that God could experience towards us?

 

[polytropos]

And yes I understand the problems with having ‘emotion’ in the human sense for God, polytropos, but I nevertheless thought there could be some sort of higher/unchanging sort of emotion/feeling that God could experience towards us?

Well, I agree that to say God’s love consists chiefly in willing our good sounds pretty sterile on its own, but I think that sense mainly stems from the fact that it is a proposition impersonally reporting our rather limited knowledge. It is an issue of analogy, not just of goodness but of will. By divine simplicity, God’s will is his being and his causality (while, for instance, when we will something, it is not necessarily causal). So there is something mysterious going on that is not all that easy to report philosophically. I think it might be misleading to call it “emotion,” but it’s something.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This reminds me of CCC, 356, 1703 & 1730.

And your “signature” quote also reminds me that I have one foot on a banana peel.

Yes, but the way Polytropos “does” philosophy, it is a very dignified and honourable burial.

 

[balto]

Well, I agree that to say God’s love consists chiefly in willing our good sounds pretty sterile on its own, but I think that sense mainly stems from the fact that it is a proposition impersonally reporting our rather limited knowledge. It is an issue of analogy, not just of goodness but of will. By divine simplicity, God’s will is his being and his causality (while, for instance, when we will something, it is not necessarily causal). So there is something mysterious going on that is not all that easy to report philosophically. I think it might be misleading to call it “emotion,” but it’s something.

I might be mistaken here, but maybe what you are alluding to is captured by the doctrine of the Trinity? Supposedly the Third Person is generated by the infinite love that is shared between the First and Second Persons all contained within the infinite nature of God. If that’s true then I guess we should consider ourselves privileged that this infinite love was extended to finite beings such as ourselves .

 

[balto]

And your “signature” quote also reminds me that I have one foot on a banana peel.

You’re not the only one who’s reminded of that . I’ve been learning a lot from all of you guys (you’re all more knowledgeable and sophisticated than I am, I’ve just been coming out of hiding more recently )

 

[polytropos]

I might be mistaken here, but maybe what you are alluding to is captured by the doctrine of the Trinity? Supposedly the Third Person is generated by the infinite love that is shared between the First and Second Persons all contained within the infinite nature of God. If that’s true then I guess we should consider ourselves privileged that this infinite love was extended to finite beings such as ourselves .

The Trinity certainly fleshes out the notion of God as love in a way that philosophy can’t touch. What I was referring to, though, was just the fact that it is hard for us to understand the magnitude and implications of God willing our good.

 

[fhansen]

I agree with St Thomas Aquinas on pretty much all of his points, however his understanding of the nature of God’s love concerns me.

From reading Question 20 regarding God’s love in the Summa, it seems that St Thomas believes that God’s love is “willing good for others”.

Now is St Thomas saying this is the most basic and fundamental characteristic of love within God, or is this truly what God’s love is? It seems almost mechanistic and impersonal for God to have such a love, merely willing the good of others. Is there no profound feeling or passion on God’s part (or something analogous to it), or is that entirely incompatible with Thomisitic theology? Can love really be simplified to a mechanism of “willing the good of others”? What kind of relationship is that?

I’m probably misunderstanding it all, which is why I’m asking you all!

IMO we need to elevate emotion back up to where it belongs. Yes, emotion is part and parcel of willing the good of another; they cannot be separated.