Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that in the present state of life the contemplative life can reach to the vision of the Divine essence. For, as stated in Gn. 32:30, Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved." Now the vision of God's face is the vision of the Divine essence. Therefore it would seem that in the present life one may come, by means of contemplation, to see God in His essence.

Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37) that "contemplative men withdraw within themselves in order to explore spiritual things, nor do they ever carry with them the shadows of things corporeal, or if these follow them they prudently drive them away: but being desirous of seeing the incomprehensible light, they suppress all the images of their limited comprehension, and through longing to reach what is above them, they overcome that which they are." Now man is not hindered from seeing the Divine essence, which is the incomprehensible light, save by the necessity of turning to corporeal phantasms. Therefore it would seem that the contemplation of the present life can extend to the vision of the incomprehensible light in its essence.

Objection 3: Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 35): "All creatures are small to the soul that sees its Creator: wherefore when the man of God," the blessed Benedict, to wit, "saw a fiery globe in the tower and angels returning to heaven, without doubt he could only see such things by the light of God." Now the blessed Benedict was still in this life. Therefore the contemplation of the present life can extend to the vision of the essence of God.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "As long as we live in this mortal flesh, no one reaches such a height of contemplation as to fix the eyes of his mind on the ray itself of incomprehensible light."

I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27), "no one seeing God lives this mortal life wherein the bodily senses have their play: and unless in some way he depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his body, or by withdrawing from his carnal senses, he is not caught up into that vision." This has been carefully discussed above (Question 175, Articles 4,5), where we spoke of rapture, and in the 1, Question 12, Article 2, where we treated of the vision of God.

Accordingly we must state that one may be in this life in two ways. First, with regard to act, that is to say by actually making use of the bodily senses, and thus contemplation in the present life can nowise attain to the vision of God's essence. Secondly, one may be in this life potentially and not with regard to act, that is to say, when the soul is united to the mortal body as its form, yet so as to make use neither of the bodily senses, nor even of the imagination, as happens in rapture; and in this way the contemplation of the present life can attain to the vision of the Divine essence. Consequently the highest degree of contemplation in the present life is that which Paul had in rapture, whereby he was in a middle state between the present life and the life to come.

Reply to Objection 1: As Dionysius says (Ep. i ad Caium. Monach.), "if anyone seeing God, understood what he saw, he saw not God Himself, but something belonging to God." And Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "By no means is God seen now in His glory; but the soul sees something of lower degree, and is thereby refreshed so that afterwards it may attain to the glory of vision." Accordingly the words of Jacob, "I saw God face to face" do not imply that he saw God's essence, but that he saw some shape , imaginary of course, wherein God spoke to him. Or, "since we know a man by his face, by the face of God he signified his knowledge of Him," according to a gloss of Gregory on the same passage.

Reply to Objection 2: In the present state of life human contemplation is impossible without phantasms, because it is connatural to man to see the intelligible species in the phantasms, as the Philosopher states (De Anima iii, 7). Yet intellectual knowledge does not consist in the phantasms themselves, but in our contemplating in them the purity of the intelligible truth: and this not only in natural knowledge, but also in that which we obtain by revelation. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that "the Divine glory shows us the angelic hierarchies under certain symbolic figures, and by its power we are brought back to the single ray of light," i.e. to the simple knowledge of the intelligible truth. It is in this sense that we must understand the statement of Gregory that "contemplatives do not carry along with them the shadows of things corporeal," since their contemplation is not fixed on them, but on the consideration of the intelligible truth.

Reply to Objection 3: By these words Gregory does not imply that the blessed Benedict, in that vision, saw God in His essence, but he wishes to show that because "all creatures are small to him that sees God," it follows that all things can easily be seen through the enlightenment of the Divine light. Wherefore he adds: "For however little he may see of the Creator's light, all created things become petty to him."

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod vita contemplativa, secundum statum huius vitae, possit pertingere ad visionem divinae essentiae.

Quia, ut habetur Gen. XXXII, Iacob dixit, vidi deum facie ad faciem, et salva facta est anima mea.

Sed visio faciei est visio divinae essentiae.

Ergo videtur quod aliquis per contemplationem in praesenti vita possit se extendere ad videndum deum per essentiam.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in VI Moral., quod viri contemplativi ad semetipsos introrsus redeunt, in eo quod spiritualia rimantur, et nequaquam secum rerum corporalium umbras trahunt, vel fortasse tractas manu discretionis abigunt, sed incircumscriptum lumen videre cupientes, cunctas circumscriptionis suae imagines deprimunt, et in eo quod super se contingere appetunt, vincunt quod sunt.

Sed homo non impeditur a visione divinae essentiae, quae est lumen incircumscriptum, nisi per hoc quod necesse habet intendere corporalibus phantasmatibus. Ergo videtur quod contemplatio praesentis vitae potest se extendere ad videndum incircumscriptum lumen per essentiam.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Gregorius, in II dialog., dicit, animae videnti creatorem angusta est omnis creatura.

Vir ergo dei, scilicet beatus benedictus, qui in turri globum igneum, Angelos quoque ad caelos redeuntes videbat, haec procul dubio cernere non nisi in dei lumine poterat.

Sed beatus benedictus adhuc praesenti vita vivebat. Ergo contemplatio praesentis vitae potest se extendere ad videndam dei essentiam.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., quandiu in hac mortali carne vivitur, nullus ita in contemplationis virtute proficit ut in ipso incircumscripti luminis radio mentis oculos infigat.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. Ad litt., nemo videns deum vivit ista vita qua mortaliter vivitur in istis sensibus corporis, sed nisi ab hac vita quisque quodammodo moriatur, sive omnino exiens de corpore sive alienatus a carnalibus sensibus, in illam non subvehitur visionem.

Quae supra diligentius pertractata sunt, ubi dictum est de raptu; et in primo, ubi actum est de dei visione.

Sic igitur dicendum est quod in hac vita potest esse aliquis dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum actum, inquantum scilicet actualiter utitur sensibus corporis. Et sic nullo modo contemplatio praesentis vitae potest pertingere ad videndum dei essentiam.

Alio modo potest esse aliquis in hac vita potentialiter, et non secundum actum, inquantum scilicet anima eius est corpori mortali coniuncta ut forma, ita tamen quod non utatur corporis sensibus, aut etiam imaginatione, sicut accidit in raptu. Et sic potest contemplatio huius vitae pertingere ad visionem divinae essentiae. Unde supremus gradus contemplationis praesentis vitae est qualem habuit Paulus in raptu, secundum quem fuit medio modo se habens inter statum praesentis vitae et futurae.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dionysius, in epistola ad caium monachum, dicit, si aliquis videns deum intellexit quod vidit, non ipsum vidit, sed aliquid eorum quae sunt eius.

Et Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., quod nequaquam omnipotens deus iam in sua claritate conspicitur, sed quiddam sub illa speculatur anima, unde recta proficiat, et post ad visionis eius gloriam pertingat.

Per hoc ergo quod Iacob dixit, vidi deum facie ad faciem, non est intelligendum quod dei essentiam viderit, sed quod formam, scilicet imaginariam, vidit in qua deus locutus est ei. Vel, quia per faciem quemlibet agnoscimus, cognitionem dei faciem eius vocavit, sicut Glossa Gregorii ibidem dicit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod contemplatio humana, secundum statum praesentis vitae, non potest esse absque phantasmatibus, quia connaturale est homini ut species intelligibiles in phantasmatibus videat, sicut philosophus dicit, in III de anima.

Sed tamen intellectualis cognitio non sistit in ipsis phantasmatibus, sed in eis contemplatur puritatem intelligibilis veritatis. Et hoc non solum in cognitione naturali, sed etiam in eis quae per revelationem cognoscimus, dicit enim dionysius, I cap. Cael. Hier., quod Angelorum hierarchias manifestat nobis divina claritas in quibusdam symbolis figuratis; ex cuius virtute restituimur in simplum radium, idest in simplicem cognitionem intelligibilis veritatis.

Et sic intelligendum est quod Gregorius dicit, quod contemplantes corporalium rerum umbras non secum trahunt, quia videlicet in eis non sistit eorum contemplatio, sed potius in consideratione intelligibilis veritatis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ex verbis illis Gregorii non datur intelligi quod beatus benedictus deum in illa visione per essentiam viderit, sed vult ostendere quod, quia videnti creatorem angusta est omnis creatura, consequens est quod per illustrationem divini luminis de facili possint quaecumque videri.

Unde subdit, quamlibet enim parum de luce creatoris aspexerit, breve ei fit omne quod creatum est.