Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part I/Q89

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q88 Q90



Latin English
Iª q. 89 The knowledge of the separated soul
Iª q. 89 pr. Deinde considerandum est de cognitione animae separatae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum anima separata a corpore possit intelligere. Secundo, utrum intelligat substantias separatas. Tertio, utrum intelligat omnia naturalia. Quarto, utrum cognoscat singularia. Quinto, utrum habitus scientiae hic acquisitae remaneat in anima separata. Sexto, utrum possit uti habitu scientiae hic acquisitae. Septimo, utrum distantia localis impediat cognitionem animae separatae. Octavo, utrum animae separatae a corporibus cognoscant ea quae hic aguntur.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata nihil omnino intelligere possit. Dicit enim philosophus, in I de anima, quod intelligere corrumpitur, interius quodam corrupto. Sed omnia interiora hominis corrumpuntur per mortem. Ergo et ipsum intelligere corrumpitur. Objection 1. It would seem that the soul separated from the body can understand nothing at all. For the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4) that "the understanding is corrupted together with its interior principle." But by death all human interior principles are corrupted. Therefore also the intellect itself is corrupted.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, anima humana impeditur ab intelligendo per ligamentum sensus, et perturbata imaginatione, sicut supra dictum est. Sed morte totaliter sensus et imaginatio corrumpuntur, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo anima post mortem nihil intelligit. Objection 2. Further, the human soul is hindered from understanding when the senses are tied, and by a distracted imagination, as explained above (84, 7,8). But death destroys the senses and imagination, as we have shown above (77, 8). Therefore after death the soul understands nothing.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, si anima separata intelligit, oportet quod per aliquas species intelligat. Sed non intelligit per species innatas, quia a principio est sicut tabula in qua nihil est scriptum. Neque per species quas abstrahat a rebus, quia non habet organa sensus et imaginationis, quibus mediantibus species intelligibiles abstrahuntur a rebus. Neque etiam per species prius abstractas, et in anima conservatas, quia sic anima pueri nihil intelligeret post mortem. Neque etiam per species intelligibiles divinitus influxas, haec enim cognitio non esset naturalis, de qua nunc agitur, sed gratiae. Ergo anima separata a corpore nihil intelligit. Objection 3. Further, if the separated soul can understand, this must be by means of some species. But it does not understand by means of innate species, because it has none such; being at first "like a tablet on which nothing is written": nor does it understand by species abstracted from things, for it does not then possess organs of sense and imagination which are necessary for the abstraction of species: nor does it understand by means of species, formerly abstracted and retained in the soul; for if that were so, a child's soul would have no means of understanding at all: nor does it understand by means of intelligible species divinely infused, for such knowledge would not be natural, such as we treat of now, but the effect of grace. Therefore the soul apart from the body understands nothing.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in I de anima, quod si non est aliqua operationum animae propria, non contingit ipsam separari. Contingit autem ipsam separari. Ergo habet aliquam operationem propriam; et maxime eam quae est intelligere. Intelligit ergo sine corpore existens. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Anima i, 1), "If the soul had no proper operation, it could not be separated from the body." But the soul is separated from the body; therefore it has a proper operation and above all, that which consists in intelligence. Therefore the soul can understand when it is apart from the body.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ista quaestio difficultatem habet ex hoc quod anima, quandiu est corpori coniuncta, non potest aliquid intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata, ut per experimentum patet. Si autem hoc non est ex natura animae, sed per accidens hoc convenit ei ex eo quod corpori alligatur, sicut Platonici posuerunt, de facili quaestio solvi posset. Nam remoto impedimento corporis, rediret anima ad suam naturam, ut intelligeret intelligibilia simpliciter, non convertendo se ad phantasmata, sicut est de aliis substantiis separatis. Sed secundum hoc, non esset anima corpori unita propter melius animae, si peius intelligeret corpori unita quam separata; sed hoc esset solum propter melius corporis, quod est irrationabile, cum materia sit propter formam, et non e converso. Si autem ponamus quod anima ex sua natura habeat ut intelligat convertendo se ad phantasmata, cum natura animae per mortem corporis non mutetur, videtur quod anima naturaliter nihil possit intelligere, cum non sint ei praesto phantasmata ad quae convertatur. Et ideo ad hanc difficultatem tollendam, considerandum est quod, cum nihil operetur nisi inquantum est actu, modus operandi uniuscuiusque rei sequitur modum essendi ipsius. Habet autem anima alium modum essendi cum unitur corpori, et cum fuerit a corpore separata, manente tamen eadem animae natura; non ita quod uniri corpori sit ei accidentale, sed per rationem suae naturae corpori unitur; sicut nec levis natura mutatur cum est in loco proprio, quod est ei naturale, et cum est extra proprium locum, quod est ei praeter naturam. Animae igitur secundum illum modum essendi quo corpori est unita, competit modus intelligendi per conversionem ad phantasmata corporum, quae in corporeis organis sunt, cum autem fuerit a corpore separata, competit ei modus intelligendi per conversionem ad ea quae sunt intelligibilia simpliciter, sicut et aliis substantiis separatis. Unde modus intelligendi per conversionem ad phantasmata est animae naturalis, sicut et corpori uniri, sed esse separatum a corpore est praeter rationem suae naturae, et similiter intelligere sine conversione ad phantasmata est ei praeter naturam. Et ideo ad hoc unitur corpori, ut sit et operetur secundum naturam suam. Sed hoc rursus habet dubitationem. Cum enim natura semper ordinetur ad id quod melius est; est autem melior modus intelligendi per conversionem ad intelligibilia simpliciter, quam per conversionem ad phantasmata, debuit sic a Deo institui animae natura, ut modus intelligendi nobilior ei esset naturalis, et non indigeret corpori propter hoc uniri. Considerandum est igitur quod, etsi intelligere per conversionem ad superiora sit simpliciter nobilius quam intelligere per conversionem ad phantasmata; tamen ille modus intelligendi, prout erat possibilis animae, erat imperfectior. Quod sic patet. In omnibus enim substantiis intellectualibus invenitur virtus intellectiva per influentiam divini luminis. Quod quidem in primo principio est unum et simplex; et quanto magis creaturae intellectuales distant a primo principio, tanto magis dividitur illud lumen et diversificatur, sicut accidit in lineis a centro egredientibus. Et inde est quod Deus per unam suam essentiam omnia intelligit; superiores autem intellectualium substantiarum, etsi per plures formas intelligant, tamen intelligunt per pauciores, et magis universales, et virtuosiores ad comprehensionem rerum, propter efficaciam virtutis intellectivae quae est in eis; in inferioribus autem sunt formae plures, et minus universales, et minus efficaces ad comprehensionem rerum, inquantum deficiunt a virtute intellectiva superiorum. Si ergo inferiores substantiae haberent formas in illa universalitate in qua habent superiores, quia non sunt tantae efficaciae in intelligendo, non acciperent per eas perfectam cognitionem de rebus, sed in quadam communitate et confusione. Quod aliqualiter apparet in hominibus, nam qui sunt debilioris intellectus, per universales conceptiones magis intelligentium non accipiunt perfectam cognitionem, nisi eis singula in speciali explicentur. Manifestum est autem inter substantias intellectuales, secundum naturae ordinem, infimas esse animas humanas. Hoc autem perfectio universi exigebat, ut diversi gradus in rebus essent. Si igitur animae humanae sic essent institutae a Deo ut intelligerent per modum qui competit substantiis separatis, non haberent cognitionem perfectam, sed confusam in communi. Ad hoc ergo quod perfectam et propriam cognitionem de rebus habere possent, sic naturaliter sunt institutae ut corporibus uniantur, et sic ab ipsis rebus sensibilibus propriam de eis cognitionem accipiant; sicut homines rudes ad scientiam induci non possunt nisi per sensibilia exempla. Sic ergo patet quod propter melius animae est ut corpori uniatur, et intelligat per conversionem ad phantasmata; et tamen esse potest separata, et alium modum intelligendi habere. I answer that, The difficulty in solving this question arises from the fact that the soul united to the body can understand only by turning to the phantasms, as experience shows. Did this not proceed from the soul's very nature, but accidentally through its being bound up with the body, as the Platonists said, the difficulty would vanish; for in that case when the body was once removed, the soul would at once return to its own nature, and would understand intelligible things simply, without turning to the phantasms, as is exemplified in the case of other separate substances. In that case, however, the union of soul and body would not be for the soul's good, for evidently it would understand worse in the body than out of it; but for the good of the body, which would be unreasonable, since matter exists on account of the form, and not the form for the sake of matter. But if we admit that the nature of the soul requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, it will seem, since death does not change its nature, that it can then naturally understand nothing; as the phantasms are wanting to which it may turn. To solve this difficulty we must consider that as nothing acts except so far as it is actual, the mode of action in every agent follows from its mode of existence. Now the soul has one mode of being when in the body, and another when apart from it, its nature remaining always the same; but this does not mean that its union with the body is an accidental thing, for, on the contrary, such union belongs to its very nature, just as the nature of a light object is not changed, when it is in its proper place, which is natural to it, and outside its proper place, which is beside its nature. The soul, therefore, when united to the body, consistently with that mode of existence, has a mode of understanding, by turning to corporeal phantasms, which are in corporeal organs; but when it is separated from the body, it has a mode of understanding, by turning to simply intelligible objects, as is proper to other separate substances. Hence it is as natural for the soul to understand by turning to the phantasms as it is for it to be joined to the body; but to be separated from the body is not in accordance with its nature, and likewise to understand without turning to the phantasms is not natural to it; and hence it is united to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation suitable to its nature. But here again a difficulty arises. For since nature is always ordered to what is best, and since it is better to understand by turning to simply intelligible objects than by turning to the phantasms; God should have ordered the soul's nature so that the nobler way of understanding would have been natural to it, and it would not have needed the body for that purpose. In order to resolve this difficulty we must consider that while it is true that it is nobler in itself to understand by turning to something higher than to understand by turning to phantasms, nevertheless such a mode of understanding was not so perfect as regards what was possible to the soul. This will appear if we consider that every intellectual substance possesses intellective power by the influence of the Divine light, which is one and simple in its first principle, and the farther off intellectual creatures are from the first principle so much the more is the light divided and diversified, as is the case with lines radiating from the centre of a circle. Hence it is that God by His one Essence understands all things; while the superior intellectual substances understand by means of a number of species, which nevertheless are fewer and more universal and bestow a deeper comprehension of things, because of the efficaciousness of the intellectual power of such natures: whereas the inferior intellectual natures possess a greater number of species, which are less universal, and bestow a lower degree of comprehension, in proportion as they recede from the intellectual power of the higher natures. If, therefore, the inferior substances received species in the same degree of universality as the superior substances, since they are not so strong in understanding, the knowledge which they would derive through them would be imperfect, and of a general and confused nature. We can see this to a certain extent in man, for those who are of weaker intellect fail to acquire perfect knowledge through the universal conceptions of those who have a better understanding, unless things are explained to them singly and in detail. Now it is clear that in the natural order human souls hold the lowest place among intellectual substances. But the perfection of the universe required various grades of being. If, therefore, God had willed souls to understand in the same way as separate substances, it would follow that human knowledge, so far from being perfect, would be confused and general. Therefore to make it possible for human souls to possess perfect and proper knowledge, they were so made that their nature required them to be joined to bodies, and thus to receive the proper and adequate knowledge of sensible things from the sensible things themselves; thus we see in the case of uneducated men that they have to be taught by sensible examples. It is clear then that it was for the soul's good that it was united to a body, and that it understands by turning to the phantasms. Nevertheless it is possible for it to exist apart from the body, and also to understand in another way.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si diligenter verba philosophi discutiantur, philosophus hoc dixit ex quadam suppositione prius facta, scilicet quod intelligere sit quidam motus coniuncti, sicut et sentire, nondum enim differentiam ostenderat inter intellectum et sensum. Vel potest dici quod loquitur de illo modo intelligendi qui est per conversionem ad phantasmata. Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher's words carefully examined will show that he said this on the previous supposition that understanding is a movement of body and soul as united, just as sensation is, for he had not as yet explained the difference between intellect and sense. We may also say that he is referring to the way of understanding by turning to phantasms.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 ad 2 De quo etiam procedit secunda ratio. This is also the meaning of the second objection.
Iª q. 89 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod anima separata non intelligit per species innatas; nec per species quas tunc abstrahit; nec solum per species conservatas, ut obiectio probat, sed per species ex influentia divini luminis participatas, quarum anima fit particeps sicut et aliae substantiae separatae, quamvis inferiori modo. Unde tam cito cessante conversione ad corpus, ad superiora convertitur. Nec tamen propter hoc cognitio non est naturalis, quia Deus est auctor non solum influentiae gratuiti luminis, sed etiam naturalis. Reply to Objection 3. The separated soul does not understand by way of innate species, nor by species abstracted then, nor only by species retained, and this the objection proves; but the soul in that state understands by means of participated species arising from the influence of the Divine light, shared by the soul as by other separate substances; though in a lesser degree. Hence as soon as it ceases to act by turning to corporeal (phantasms), the soul turns at once to the superior things; nor is this way of knowledge unnatural, for God is the author of the influx of both of the light of grace and of the light of nature.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata non intelligat substantias separatas. Perfectior enim est anima corpori coniuncta, quam a corpore separata, cum anima sit naturaliter pars humanae naturae; quaelibet autem pars perfectior est in suo toto. Sed anima coniuncta corpori non intelligit substantias separatas, ut supra habitum est. Ergo multo minus cum fuerit a corpore separata. Objection 1. It would seem that the separated soul does not understand separate substances. For the soul is more perfect when joined to the body than when existing apart from it, being an essential part of human nature; and every part of a whole is more perfect when it exists in that whole. But the soul in the body does not understand separate substances as shown above (88, 1). Therefore much less is it able to do so when apart from the body.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne quod cognoscitur, vel cognoscitur per sui praesentiam, vel per suam speciem. Sed substantiae separatae non possunt cognosci ab anima per suam praesentiam, quia nihil illabitur animae nisi solus Deus. Neque etiam per aliquas species quas anima ab Angelo abstrahere possit, quia Angelus simplicior est quam anima. Ergo nullo modo anima separata potest cognoscere substantias separatas. Objection 2. Further, whatever is known is known either by its presence or by its species. But separate substances cannot be known to the soul by their presence, for God alone can enter into the soul; nor by means of species abstracted by the soul from an angel, for an angel is more simple than a soul. Therefore the separated soul cannot at all understand separate substances.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, quidam philosophi posuerunt in cognitione separatarum substantiarum consistere ultimam hominis felicitatem. Si ergo anima separata potest intelligere substantias separatas, ex sola sua separatione consequitur felicitatem. Quod est inconveniens. Objection 3. Further, some philosophers said that the ultimate happiness of man consists in the knowledge of separate substances. If, therefore, the separated soul can understand separate substances, its happiness would be secured by its separation alone; which cannot be reasonably be said.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod animae separatae cognoscunt alias animas separatas; sicut dives in Inferno positus vidit Lazarum et Abraham, Luc. XVI. Ergo vident etiam et Daemones et Angelos animae separatae. On the contrary, Souls apart from the body know other separated souls; as we see in the case of the rich man in hell, who saw Lazarus and Abraham (Luke 16:23). Therefore separated souls see the devils and the angels.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in IX de Trin., mens nostra cognitionem rerum incorporearum per seipsam accipit, idest cognoscendo seipsam, sicut supra dictum est. Per hoc ergo quod anima separata cognoscit seipsam, accipere possumus qualiter cognoscit alias substantias separatas. Dictum est autem quod quandiu anima corpori est unita, intelligit convertendo se ad phantasmata. Et ideo nec seipsam potest intelligere nisi inquantum fit actu intelligens per speciem a phantasmatibus abstractam, sic enim per actum suum intelligit seipsam, ut supra dictum est. Sed cum fuerit a corpore separata, intelliget non convertendo se ad phantasmata, sed ad ea quae sunt secundum se intelligibilia, unde seipsam per seipsam intelliget. Est autem commune omni substantiae separatae quod intelligat id quod est supra se, et id quod est infra se, per modum suae substantiae, sic enim intelligitur aliquid secundum quod est in intelligente; est autem aliquid in altero per modum eius in quo est. Modus autem substantiae animae separatae est infra modum substantiae angelicae, sed est conformis modo aliarum animarum separatarum. Et ideo de aliis animabus separatis perfectam cognitionem habet; de Angelis autem imperfectam et deficientem, loquendo de cognitione naturali animae separatae. De cognitione autem gloriae est alia ratio. I answer that, Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 3), "our mind acquires the knowledge of incorporeal things by itself"--i.e. by knowing itself (88, 1, ad 1). Therefore from the knowledge which the separated soul has of itself, we can judge how it knows other separate things. Now it was said above (1), that as long as it is united to the body the soul understands by turning to phantasms, and therefore it does not understand itself save through becoming actually intelligent by means of ideas abstracted from phantasms; for thus it understands itself through its own act, as shown above (87, 1). When, however, it is separated from the body, it understands no longer by turning to phantasms, but by turning to simply intelligible objects; hence in that state it understands itself through itself. Now, every separate substance "understands what is above itself and what is below itself, according to the mode of its substance" (De Causis viii): for a thing is understood according as it is in the one who understands; while one thing is in another according to the nature of that in which it is. And the mode of existence of a separated soul is inferior to that of an angel, but is the same as that of other separated souls. Therefore the soul apart from the body has perfect knowledge of other separated souls, but it has an imperfect and defective knowledge of the angels so far as its natural knowledge is concerned. But the knowledge of glory is otherwise.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod anima separata est quidem imperfectior, si consideretur natura qua communicat cum natura corporis, sed tamen quodammodo est liberior ad intelligendum, inquantum per gravedinem et occupationem corporis a puritate intelligentiae impeditur. Reply to Objection 1. The separated soul is, indeed, less perfect considering its nature in which it communicates with the nature of the body: but it has a greater freedom of intelligence, since the weight and care of the body is a clog upon the clearness of its intelligence in the present life.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod anima separata intelligit Angelos per similitudines divinitus impressas. Quae tamen deficiunt a perfecta repraesentatione eorum, propter hoc quod animae natura est inferior quam Angeli. Reply to Objection 2. The separated soul understands the angels by means of divinely impressed ideas; which, however, fail to give perfect knowledge of them, forasmuch as the nature of the soul is inferior to that of an angel.
Iª q. 89 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in cognitione substantiarum separatarum non quarumcumque, consistit ultima hominis felicitas, sed solius Dei, qui non potest videri nisi per gratiam. In cognitione vero aliarum substantiarum separatarum est magna felicitas, etsi non ultima, si tamen perfecte intelligantur. Sed anima separata naturali cognitione non perfecte eas intelligit, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. Man's ultimate happiness consists not in the knowledge of any separate substances; but in the knowledge of God, Who is seen only by grace. The knowledge of other separate substances if perfectly understood gives great happiness--not final and ultimate happiness. But the separated soul does not understand them perfectly, as was shown above in this article.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata omnia naturalia cognoscat. In substantiis enim separatis sunt rationes omnium rerum naturalium. Sed animae separatae cognoscunt substantias separatas. Ergo cognoscunt omnia naturalia. Objection 1. It would seem that the separated soul knows all natural things. For the types of all natural things exist in separate substances. Therefore, as separated souls know separate substances, they also know all natural things.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, qui intelligit magis intelligibile, multo magis potest intelligere minus intelligibile. Sed anima separata intelligit substantias separatas, quae sunt maxima intelligibilium. Ergo multo magis potest intelligere omnia naturalia, quae sunt minus intelligibilia. Objection 2. Further, whoever understands the greater intelligible, will be able much more to understand the lesser intelligible. But the separated soul understands immaterial substances, which are in the highest degree of intelligibility. Therefore much more can it understand all natural things which are in a lower degree of intelligibility.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 s. c. 1 Sed contra, in Daemonibus magis viget naturalis cognitio quam in anima separata. Sed Daemones non omnia naturalia cognoscunt; sed multa addiscunt per longi temporis experientiam, ut Isidorus dicit. Ergo neque animae separatae omnia naturalia cognoscunt. On the contrary, The devils have greater natural knowledge than the separated soul; yet they do not know all natural things, but have to learn many things by long experience, as Isidore says (De Summo Bono i). Therefore neither can the separated soul know all natural things.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 s. c. 2 Praeterea, si anima statim cum est separata, omnia naturalia cognosceret, frustra homines studerent ad rerum scientiam capessendam. Hoc autem est inconveniens. Non ergo anima separata omnia naturalia cognoscit. missing
Iª q. 89 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, anima separata intelligit per species quas recipit ex influentia divini luminis, sicut et Angeli, sed tamen, quia natura animae est infra naturam Angeli, cui iste modus cognoscendi est connaturalis, anima separata per huiusmodi species non accipit perfectam rerum cognitionem, sed quasi in communi et confusam. Sicut igitur se habent Angeli ad perfectam cognitionem rerum naturalium per huiusmodi species, ita animae separatae ad imperfectam et confusam. Angeli autem per huiusmodi species cognoscunt cognitione perfecta omnia naturalia, quia omnia quae Deus fecit in propriis naturis, fecit in intelligentia angelica, ut dicit Augustinus, super Gen. ad Litt. Unde et animae separatae de omnibus naturalibus cognitionem habent, non certam et propriam, sed communem et confusam. I answer that, As stated above (1), the separated soul, like the angels, understands by means of species, received from the influence of the Divine light. Nevertheless, as the soul by nature is inferior to an angel, to whom this kind of knowledge is natural, the soul apart from the body through such species does not receive perfect knowledge, but only a general and confused kind of knowledge. Separated souls, therefore, have the same relation through such species to imperfect and confused knowledge of natural things as the angels have to the perfect knowledge thereof. Now angels through such species know all natural things perfectly; because all that God has produced in the respective natures of natural things has been produced by Him in the angelic intelligence, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8). Hence it follows that separated souls know all natural things not with a certain and proper knowledge, but in a general and confused manner.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nec ipse Angelus per suam substantiam cognoscit omnia naturalia, sed per species quasdam, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non propter hoc sequitur quod anima cognoscat omnia naturalia, quia cognoscit quoquo modo substantiam separatam. Reply to Objection 1. Even an angel does not understand all natural things through his substance, but through certain species, as stated above (87, 1). So it does not follow that the soul knows all natural things because it knows separate substances after a fashion.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut anima separata non perfecte intelligit substantias separatas ita nec omnia naturalia perfecte cognoscit, sed sub quadam confusione, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. As the soul separated from the body does not perfectly understand separate substances, so neither does it know all natural things perfectly; but it knows them confusedly, as above explained in this article.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Isidorus loquitur de cognitione futurorum; quae nec Angeli nec Daemones nec animae separatae cognoscunt, nisi vel in suis causis, vel per revelationem divinam. Nos autem loquimur de cognitione naturalium. Reply to Objection 3. Isidore speaks of the knowledge of the future which neither angels, nor demons, nor separated souls, know except so far as future things pre-exist in their causes or are known by Divine revelation. But we are here treating of the knowledge of natural things.
Iª q. 89 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod cognitio quae acquiritur hic per studium, est propria et perfecta; illa autem est confusa. Unde non sequitur quod studium addiscendi sit frustra. Reply to Objection 4. Knowledge acquired here by study is proper and perfect; the knowledge of which we speak is confused. Hence it does not follow that to study in order to learn is useless.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima separata non cognoscat singularia. Nulla enim potentia cognoscitiva remanet in anima separata nisi intellectus, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed intellectus non est cognoscitivus singularium, ut supra habitum est. Ergo anima separata singularia non cognoscit. Objection 1. It would seem that the separated soul does not know singulars. For no cognitive power besides the intellect remains in the separated soul, as is clear from what has been said above (77, 8). But the intellect cannot know singulars, as we have shown (86, 1). Therefore the separated soul cannot know singulars.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, magis est determinata cognitio qua cognoscitur aliquid in singulari, quam illa qua cognoscitur aliquid in universali. Sed anima separata non habet determinatam cognitionem de speciebus rerum naturalium. Multo igitur minus cognoscit singularia. Objection 2. Further, the knowledge of the singular is more determinate than knowledge of the universal. But the separated soul has no determinate knowledge of the species of natural things, therefore much less can it know singulars.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, si cognoscit singularia, et non per sensum, pari ratione omnia singularia cognosceret. Sed non cognoscit omnia singularia. Ergo nulla cognoscit. Objection 3. Further, if it knew the singulars, yet not by sense, for the same reason it would know all singulars. But it does not know all singulars. Therefore it knows none.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dives in Inferno positus dixit, habeo quinque fratres, ut habetur Luc. XVI. On the contrary, The rich man in hell said: "I have five brethren" (Luke 16:28).
Iª q. 89 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod animae separatae aliqua singularia cognoscunt, sed non omnia, etiam quae sunt praesentia. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod duplex est modus intelligendi. Unus per abstractionem a phantasmatibus, et secundum istum modum singularia per intellectum cognosci non possunt directe, sed indirecte, sicut supra dictum est. Alius modus intelligendi est per influentiam specierum a Deo, et per istum modum intellectus potest singularia cognoscere. Sicut enim ipse Deus per suam essentiam, inquantum est causa universalium et individualium principiorum, cognoscit omnia et universalia et singularia, ut supra dictum est; ita substantiae separatae per species, quae sunt quaedam participatae similitudines illius divinae essentiae, possunt singularia cognoscere. In hoc tamen est differentia inter Angelos et animas separatas, quia Angeli per huiusmodi species habent perfectam et propriam cognitionem de rebus, animae vero separatae confusam. Unde Angeli, propter efficaciam sui intellectus per huiusmodi species non solum naturas rerum in speciali cognoscere possunt, sed etiam singularia sub speciebus contenta. Animae vero separatae non possunt cognoscere per huiusmodi species nisi solum singularia illa ad quae quodammodo determinantur, vel per praecedentem cognitionem, vel per aliquam affectionem, vel per naturalem habitudinem, vel per divinam ordinationem, quia omne quod recipitur in aliquo, determinatur in eo secundum modum recipientis. I answer that, Separated souls know some singulars, but not all, not even all present singulars. To understand this, we must consider that there is a twofold way of knowing things, one by means of abstraction from phantasms, and in this way singulars cannot be directly known by the intellect, but only indirectly, as stated above (86, 1). The other way of understanding is by the infusion of species by God, and in that way it is possible for the intellect to know singulars. For as God knows all things, universal and singular, by His Essence, as the cause of universal and individual principles (14, 2), so likewise separate substances can know singulars by species which are a kind of participated similitude of the Divine Essence. There is a difference, however, between angels and separated souls in the fact that through these species the angels have a perfect and proper knowledge of things; whereas separated have only a confused knowledge. Hence the angels, by reason of their perfect intellect, through these species, know not only the specific natures of things, but also the singulars contained in those species; whereas separated souls by these species know only those singulars to which they are determined by former knowledge in this life, or by some affection, or by natural aptitude, or by the disposition of the Divine order; because whatever is received into anything is conditioned according to the mode of the recipient.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectus per viam abstractionis non est cognoscitivus singularium. Sic autem anima separata non intelligit, sed sicut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. The intellect does not know the singular by way of abstraction; neither does the separated soul know it thus; but as explained above.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ad illarum rerum species vel individua cognitio animae separatae determinatur, ad quae anima separata habet aliquam determinatam habitudinem, sicut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. The knowledge of the separated soul is confined to those species or individuals to which the soul has some kind of determinate relation, as we have said.
Iª q. 89 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod anima separata non se habet aequaliter ad omnia singularia, sed ad quaedam habet aliquam habitudinem quam non habet ad alia. Et ideo non est aequalis ratio ut omnia singularia cognoscat. Reply to Objection 3. The separated soul has not the same relation to all singulars, but one relation to some, and another to others. Therefore there is not the same reason why it should know all singulars.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habitus scientiae hic acquisitae non remaneat in anima separata. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XIII, scientia destruetur. Objection 1. It would seem that the habit of knowledge acquired in this life does not remain in the soul separated from the body: for the Apostle says: "Knowledge shall be destroyed" (1 Corinthians 13:8).
Iª q. 89 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, quidam minus boni in hoc mundo scientia pollent, aliis magis bonis carentibus scientia. Si ergo habitus scientiae permaneret etiam post mortem in anima, sequeretur quod aliqui minus boni etiam in futuro statu essent potiores aliquibus magis bonis. Quod videtur inconveniens. Objection 2. Further, some in this world who are less good enjoy knowledge denied to others who are better. If, therefore, the habit of knowledge remained in the soul after death, it would follow that some who are less good would, even in the future life, excel some who are better; which seems unreasonable.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, animae separatae habebunt scientiam per influentiam divini luminis. Si igitur scientia hic acquisita in anima separata remaneat, sequetur quod duae erunt formae unius speciei in eodem subiecto. Quod est impossibile. Objection 3. Further, separated souls will possess knowledge by influence of the Divine light. Supposing, therefore, that knowledge here acquired remained in the separated soul, it would follow that two forms of the same species would co-exist in the same subject which cannot be.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in libro Praedicament., quod habitus est qualitas difficile mobilis; sed ab aegritudine, vel ab aliquo huiusmodi, quandoque corrumpitur scientia. Sed nulla est ita fortis immutatio in hac vita, sicut immutatio quae est per mortem. Ergo videtur quod habitus scientiae per mortem corrumpatur. Objection 4. Further, the Philosopher says (Praedic. vi, 4,5), that "a habit is a quality hard to remove: yet sometimes knowledge is destroyed by sickness or the like." But in this life there is no change so thorough as death. Therefore it seems that the habit of knowledge is destroyed by death.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, in epistola ad Paulinum, discamus in terris, quorum scientia nobis perseveret in caelo. On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. liii, ad Paulinum), "Let us learn on earth that kind of knowledge which will remain with us in heaven."
Iª q. 89 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt habitum scientiae non esse in ipso intellectu, sed in viribus sensitivis, scilicet imaginativa, cogitativa et memorativa; et quod species intelligibiles non conservantur in intellectu possibili. Et si haec opinio vera esset, sequeretur quod, destructo corpore, totaliter habitus scientiae hic acquisitae destrueretur. Sed quia scientia est in intellectu, qui est locus specierum, ut dicitur in III de anima; oportet quod habitus scientiae hic acquisitae partim sit in praedictis viribus sensitivis, et partim in ipso intellectu. Et hoc potest considerari ex ipsis actibus ex quibus habitus scientiae acquiritur, nam habitus sunt similes actibus ex quibus acquiruntur, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Actus autem intellectus ex quibus in praesenti vita scientia acquiritur, sunt per conversionem intellectus ad phantasmata, quae sunt in praedictis viribus sensitivis. Unde per tales actus et ipsi intellectui possibili acquiritur facultas quaedam ad considerandum per species susceptas; et in praedictis inferioribus viribus acquiritur quaedam habilitas ut facilius per conversionem ad ipsas intellectus possit intelligibilia speculari. Sed sicut actus intellectus principaliter quidem et formaliter est in ipso intellectu, materialiter autem et dispositive in inferioribus viribus, idem etiam dicendum est de habitu. Quantum ergo ad id quod aliquis praesentis scientiae habet in inferioribus viribus, non remanebit in anima separata, sed quantum ad id quod habet in ipso intellectu, necesse est ut remaneat. Quia, ut dicitur in libro de longitudine et brevitate vitae, dupliciter corrumpitur aliqua forma, uno modo, per se, quando corrumpitur a suo contrario, ut calidum a frigido; alio modo, per accidens, scilicet per corruptionem subiecti. Manifestum est autem quod per corruptionem subiecti, scientia quae est in intellectu humano, corrumpi non potest, cum intellectus sit incorruptibilis, ut supra ostensum est. Similiter etiam nec per contrarium corrumpi possunt species intelligibiles quae sunt in intellectu possibili, quia intentioni intelligibili nihil est contrarium; et praecipue quantum ad simplicem intelligentiam, qua intelligitur quod quid est. Sed quantum ad operationem qua intellectus componit et dividit, vel etiam ratiocinatur, sic invenitur contrarietas in intellectu, secundum quod falsum in propositione vel in argumentatione est contrarium vero. Et hoc modo interdum scientia corrumpitur per contrarium, dum scilicet aliquis per falsam argumentationem abducitur a scientia veritatis. Et ideo philosophus, in libro praedicto, ponit duos modos quibus scientia per se corrumpitur, scilicet oblivionem, ex parte memorativae, et deceptionem, ex parte argumentationis falsae. Sed hoc non habet locum in anima separata. Unde dicendum est quod habitus scientiae, secundum quod est in intellectu manet in anima separata. I answer that, Some say that the habit of knowledge resides not in the intellect itself, but in the sensitive powers, namely, the imaginative, cogitative, and memorative, and that the intelligible species are not kept in the passive intellect. If this were true, it would follow that when the body is destroyed by death, knowledge here acquired would also be entirely destroyed. But, since knowledge resides in the intellect, which is "the abode of species," as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4), the habit of knowledge here acquired must be partly in the aforesaid sensitive powers and partly in the intellect. This can be seen by considering the very actions from which knowledge arises. For "habits are like the actions whereby they are acquired" (Ethic. ii, 1). Now the actions of the intellect, by which knowledge is here acquired, are performed by the mind turning to the phantasms in the aforesaid sensitive powers. Hence through such acts the passive intellect acquires a certain facility in considering the species received: and the aforesaid sensitive powers acquire a certain aptitude in seconding the action of the intellect when it turns to them to consider the intelligible object. But as the intellectual act resides chiefly and formally in the intellect itself, whilst it resides materially and dispositively in the inferior powers, the same distinction is to be applied to habit. Knowledge, therefore, acquired in the present life does not remain in the separated soul, as regards what belongs to the sensitive powers; but as regards what belongs to the intellect itself, it must remain; because, as the Philosopher says (De Long. et Brev. Vitae ii), a form may be corrupted in two ways; first, directly, when corrupted by its contrary, as heat, by cold; and secondly, indirectly, when its subject is corrupted. Now it is evident that human knowledge is not corrupted through corruption of the subject, for the intellect is an incorruptible faculty, as above stated (79, 2, ad 2). Neither can the intelligible species in the passive intellect be corrupted by their contrary; for there is no contrary to intelligible "intentions," above all as regards simple intelligence of "what a thing is." But contrariety may exist in the intellect as regards mental composition and division, or also reasoning; so far as what is false in statement or argument is contrary to truth. And thus knowledge may be corrupted by its contrary when a false argument seduces anyone from the knowledge of truth. For this reason the Philosopher in the above work mentions two ways in which knowledge is corrupted directly: namely, "forgetfulness" on the part of the memorative power, and "deception" on the part of a false argument. But these have no place in the separated soul. Therefore we must conclude that the habit of knowledge, so far as it is in the intellect, remains in the separated soul.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus non loquitur ibi de scientia quantum ad habitum, sed quantum ad cognitionis actum. Unde ad huius probationem inducit, nunc cognosco ex parte. Reply to Objection 1. The Apostle is not speaking of knowledge as a habit, but as to the act of knowing; and hence he says, in proof of the assertion quoted, "Now, I know in part."
Iª q. 89 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut secundum staturam corporis aliquis minus bonus erit maior aliquo magis bono; ita nihil prohibet aliquem minus bonum habere aliquem scientiae habitum in futuro, quem non habet aliquis magis bonus. Sed tamen hoc quasi nullius momenti est in comparatione ad alias praerogativas quas meliores habebunt. Reply to Objection 2. As a less good man may exceed a better man in bodily stature, so the same kind of man may have a habit of knowledge in the future life which a better man may not have. Such knowledge, however, cannot be compared with the other prerogatives enjoyed by the better man.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod utraque scientia non est unius rationis. Unde nullum inconveniens sequitur. Reply to Objection 3. These two kinds of knowledge are not of the same species, so there is no impossibility.
Iª q. 89 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de corruptione scientiae quantum ad id quod habet ex parte sensitivarum virium. Reply to Objection 4. This objection considers the corruption of knowledge on the part of the sensitive powers.
Iª q. 89 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus scientiae hic acquisitae non maneat in anima separata. Dicit enim philosophus, in I de anima, quod corrupto corpore, anima neque reminiscitur neque amat. Sed considerare ea quae prius aliquis novit, est reminisci. Ergo anima separata non potest habere actum scientiae quam hic acquisivit. Objection 1. It would seem that the act of knowledge here acquired does not remain in the separated soul. For the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), that when the body is corrupted, "the soul neither remembers nor loves." But to consider what is previously known is an act of memory. Therefore the separated soul cannot retain an act of knowledge here acquired.
Iª q. 89 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, species intelligibiles non erunt potentiores in anima separata quam sint in anima corpori unita. Sed per species intelligibiles non possumus modo intelligere, nisi convertendo nos super phantasmata, sicut supra habitum est. Ergo nec anima separata hoc poterit. Et ita nullo modo per species intelligibiles hic acquisitas anima separata intelligere poterit. Objection 2. Further, intelligible species cannot have greater power in the separated soul than they have in the soul united to the body. But in this life we cannot understand by intelligible species without turning to phantasms, as shown above (84, 7). Therefore the separated soul cannot do so, and thus it cannot understand at all by intelligible species acquired in this life.
Iª q. 89 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod habitus similes actus reddunt actibus per quos acquiruntur. Sed habitus scientiae hic acquiritur per actus intellectus convertentis se supra phantasmata. Ergo non potest alios actus reddere. Sed tales actus non competunt animae separatae. Ergo anima separata non habebit aliquem actum scientiae hic acquisitae. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1), that "habits produce acts similar to those whereby they are acquired." But the habit of knowledge is acquired here by acts of the intellect turning to phantasms: therefore it cannot produce any other acts. These acts, however, are not adapted to the separated soul. Therefore the soul in the state of separation cannot produce any act of knowledge acquired in this life.
Iª q. 89 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Luc. XVI, dicitur ad divitem in Inferno positum, recordare quia recepisti bona in vita tua. On the contrary, It was said to Dives in hell (Luke 16:25): "Remember thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime."
Iª q. 89 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in actu est duo considerare, scilicet speciem actus, et modum ipsius. Et species quidem actus consideratur ex obiecto in quod actus cognoscitivae virtutis dirigitur per speciem, quae est obiecti similitudo, sed modus actus pensatur ex virtute agentis. Sicut quod aliquis videat lapidem, contingit ex specie lapidis quae est in oculo, sed quod acute videat, contingit ex virtute visiva oculi. Cum igitur species intelligibiles maneant in anima separata, sicut dictum est; status autem animae separatae non sit idem sicut modo est, sequitur quod secundum species intelligibiles hic acquisitas, anima separata intelligere possit quae prius intellexit; non tamen eodem modo, scilicet per conversionem ad phantasmata, sed per modum convenientem animae separatae. Et ita manet quidem in anima separata actus scientiae hic acquisitae, sed non secundum eundem modum. I answer that, Action offers two things for our consideration--its species and its mode. Its species comes from the object, whereto the faculty of knowledge is directed by the (intelligible) species, which is the object's similitude; whereas the mode is gathered from the power of the agent. Thus that a person see a stone is due to the species of the stone in his eye; but that he see it clearly, is due to the eye's visual power. Therefore as the intelligible species remain in the separated soul, as stated above (5), and since the state of the separated soul is not the same as it is in this life, it follows that through the intelligible species acquired in this life the soul apart from the body can understand what it understood formerly, but in a different way; not by turning to phantasms, but by a mode suited to a soul existing apart from the body. Thus the act of knowledge here acquired remains in the separated soul, but in a different way.
Iª q. 89 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de reminiscentia, secundum quod memoria pertinet ad partem sensitivam, non autem secundum quod memoria est quodammodo in intellectu, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher speaks of remembrance, according as memory belongs to the sensitive part, but not as belonging in a way to the intellect, as explained above (79, 6).
Iª q. 89 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod diversus modus intelligendi non provenit ex diversa virtute specierum, sed ex diverso statu animae intelligentis. Reply to Objection 2. The different mode of intelligence is produced by the different state of the intelligent soul; not by diversity of species.
Iª q. 89 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod actus per quos acquiritur habitus, sunt similes actibus quos habitus causant, quantum ad speciem actus, non autem quantum ad modum agendi. Nam operari iusta, sed non iuste, idest delectabiliter, causat habitum iustitiae politicae, per quem delectabiliter operamur. Reply to Objection 3. The acts which produce a habit are like the acts caused by that habit, in species, but not in mode. For example, to do just things, but not justly, that is, pleasurably, causes the habit of political justice, whereby we act pleasurably. (Cf. Aristotle, Ethic. v, 8: Magn. Moral. i, 34).
Iª q. 89 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod distantia localis impediat cognitionem animae separatae. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda, quod animae mortuorum ibi sunt, ubi ea quae hic fiunt scire non possunt. Sciunt autem ea quae apud eos aguntur. Ergo distantia localis impedit cognitionem animae separatae. Objection 1. It would seem that local distance impedes the separated soul's knowledge. For Augustine says (De Cura pro Mort. xiii), that "the souls of the dead are where they cannot know what is done here." But they know what is done among themselves. Therefore local distance impedes the knowledge in the separated soul.
Iª q. 89 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de divinatione Daemonum, quod Daemones, propter celeritatem motus, aliqua nobis ignota denuntiant. Sed agilitas motus ad hoc nihil faceret, si distantia localis cognitionem Daemonis non impediret. Multo igitur magis distantia localis impedit cognitionem animae separatae, quae est inferior secundum naturam quam Daemon. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Divin. Daemon. iii), that "the demon's rapidity of movement enables them to tell things unknown to us." But agility of movement would be useless in that respect unless their knowledge was impeded by local distance; which, therefore, is a much greater hindrance to the knowledge of the separated soul, whose nature is inferior to the demon's.
Iª q. 89 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut distat aliquis secundum locum, ita secundum tempus sed distantia temporis impedit cognitionem animae separatae, non enim cognoscunt futura. Ergo videtur quod etiam distantia secundum locum animae separatae cognitionem impediat. Objection 3. Further, as there is distance of place, so is there distance of time. But distance of time impedes knowledge in the separated soul, for the soul is ignorant of the future. Therefore it seems that distance of place also impedes its knowledge.
Iª q. 89 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. XVI, quod dives cum esset in tormentis, elevans oculos suos, vidit Abraham a longe. Ergo distantia localis non impedit animae separatae cognitionem. On the contrary, It is written (Luke 16:23), that Dives, "lifting up his eyes when he was in torment, saw Abraham afar off." Therefore local distance does not impede knowledge in the separated soul.
Iª q. 89 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt quod anima separata cognosceret singularia abstrahendo a sensibilibus. Quod si esset verum, posset dici quod distantia localis impediret animae separatae cognitionem, requireretur enim quod vel sensibilia agerent in animam separatam, vel anima separata in sensibilia; et quantum ad utrumque, requireretur distantia determinata. Sed praedicta positio est impossibilis, quia abstractio specierum a sensibilibus fit mediantibus sensibus et aliis potentiis sensitivis, quae in anima separata actu non manent. Intelligit autem anima separata singularia per influxum specierum ex divino lumine, quod quidem lumen aequaliter se habet ad propinquum et distans. Unde distantia localis nullo modo impedit animae separatae cognitionem. I answer that, Some have held that the separated soul knows the singular by abstraction from the sensible. If that were so, it might be that local distance would impede its knowledge; for either the sensible would need to act upon the soul, or the soul upon the sensible, and in either case a determinate distance would be necessary. This is, however, impossible because abstraction of the species from the sensible is done through the senses and other sensible faculties which do not remain actually in the soul apart from the body. But the soul when separated understands singulars by species derived from the Divine light, which is indifferent to what is near or distant. Hence knowledge in the separated soul is not hindered by local distance.
Iª q. 89 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus non dicit quod propter hoc quod ibi sunt animae mortuorum, ea quae hic sunt videre non possunt, ut localis distantia huius ignorantiae causa esse credatur, sed hoc potest propter aliquid aliud contingere, ut infra dicetur. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine says that the souls of the departed cannot see what is done here, not because they are 'there,' as if impeded by local distance; but for some other cause, as we shall explain (8).
Iª q. 89 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur secundum opinionem illam qua aliqui posuerunt quod Daemones habent corpora naturaliter sibi unita, secundum quam positionem, etiam potentias sensitivas habere possunt, ad quarum cognitionem requiritur determinata distantia. Et hanc opinionem etiam in eodem libro Augustinus expresse tangit, licet eam magis recitando quam asserendo tangere videatur, ut patet per ea quae dicit XXI libro de Civ. Dei. Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks there in accordance with the opinion that demons have bodies naturally united to them, and so have sensitive powers, which require local distance. In the same book he expressly sets down this opinion, though apparently rather by way of narration than of assertion, as we may gather from De Civ. Dei xxi, 10.
Iª q. 89 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod futura, quae distant secundum tempus, non sunt entia in actu. Unde in seipsis non sunt cognoscibilia, quia sicut deficit aliquid ab entitate, ita deficit a cognoscibilitate. Sed ea quae sunt distantia secundum locum, sunt entia in actu, et secundum se cognoscibilia. Unde non est eadem ratio de distantia locali, et de distantia temporis. Reply to Objection 3. The future, which is distant in time, does not actually exist, and therefore is not knowable in itself, because so far as a thing falls short of being, so far does it fall short of being knowable. But what is locally distant exists actually, and is knowable in itself. Hence we cannot argue from distance of time to distance of place.
Iª q. 89 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod animae separatae cognoscant ea quae hic aguntur. Nisi enim ea cognoscerent, de eis curam non haberent. Sed habent curam de his quae hic aguntur; secundum illud Luc. XVI, habeo quinque fratres, ut testificetur illis, ne et ipsi veniant in hunc locum tormentorum. Ergo animae separatae cognoscunt ea quae hic aguntur. Objection 1. It would seem that separated souls know what takes place on earth; for otherwise they would have no care for it, as they have, according to what Dives said (Luke 16:27-28), "I have five brethren . . . he may testify unto them, lest they also come into the place of torments." Therefore separated souls know what passes on earth.
Iª q. 89 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, frequenter mortui vivis apparent, vel dormientibus vel vigilantibus, et eos admonent de iis quae hic aguntur; sicut Samuel apparuit Sauli, ut habetur I Reg. XXVIII. Sed hoc non esset si ea quae hic sunt non cognoscerent. Ergo ea quae hic aguntur cognoscunt. Objection 2. Further, the dead often appear to the living, asleep or awake, and tell them of what takes place there; as Samuel appeared to Saul (1 Samuel 28:11). But this could not be unless they knew what takes place here. Therefore they know what takes place on earth.
Iª q. 89 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, animae separatae cognoscunt ea quae apud eas aguntur. Si ergo quae apud nos aguntur non cognoscerent, impediretur earum cognitio per localem distantiam. Quod supra negatum est. Objection 3. Further, separated souls know what happens among themselves. If, therefore, they do not know what takes place among us, it must be by reason of local distance; which has been shown to be false (7).
Iª q. 89 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Iob XIV, sive fuerint filii eius nobiles, sive ignobiles, non intelliget. On the contrary, It is written (Job 14:21): "He will not understand whether his children come to honor or dishonor."
Iª q. 89 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum naturalem cognitionem, de qua nunc hic agitur, animae mortuorum nesciunt quae hic aguntur. Et huius ratio ex dictis accipi potest. Quia anima separata cognoscit singularia per hoc quod quodammodo determinata est ad illa, vel per vestigium alicuius praecedentis cognitionis seu affectionis, vel per ordinationem divinam. Animae autem mortuorum, secundum ordinationem divinam, et secundum modum essendi, segregatae sunt a conversatione viventium, et coniunctae conversationi spiritualium substantiarum quae sunt a corpore separatae. Unde ea quae apud nos aguntur ignorant. Et hanc rationem assignat Gregorius in XII Moralium, dicens, mortui vita in carne viventium post eos, qualiter disponatur, nesciunt, quia vita spiritus longe est a vita carnis; et sicut corporea atque incorporea diversa sunt genere, ita sunt distincta cognitione. Et hoc etiam Augustinus videtur tangere in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda, dicens quod animae mortuorum rebus viventium non intersunt. Sed quantum ad animas beatorum, videtur esse differentia inter Gregorium et Augustinum. Nam Gregorius ibidem subdit, quod tamen de animabus sanctis sentiendum non est, quia quae intus omnipotentis Dei claritatem vident, nullo modo credendum est quod sit foris aliquid quod ignorent. Augustinus vero, in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda, expresse dicit quod nesciunt mortui, etiam sancti, quid agant vivi et eorum filii, ut habetur in Glossa, super illud, Abraham nescivit nos, Isaiae LXIII. Quod quidem confirmat per hoc quod a matre sua non visitabatur, nec in tristitiis consolabatur, sicut quando vivebat; nec est probabile ut sit facta vita feliciore crudelior. Et per hoc quod dominus promisit Iosiae regi quod prius moreretur ne videret mala quae erant populo superventura, ut habetur IV Reg. XXII. Sed Augustinus hoc dubitando dicit, unde praemittit, ut volet, accipiat quisque quod dicam. Gregorius autem assertive, quod patet per hoc quod dicit, nullo modo credendum est. Magis tamen videtur, secundum sententiam Gregorii, quod animae sanctorum Deum videntes, omnia praesentia quae hic aguntur cognoscant. Sunt enim Angelis aequales, de quibus etiam Augustinus asserit quod ea quae apud vivos aguntur non ignorant. Sed quia sanctorum animae sunt perfectissime iustitiae divinae coniunctae, nec tristantur, nec rebus viventium se ingerunt, nisi secundum quod iustitiae divinae dispositio exigit. I answer that, By natural knowledge, of which we are treating now, the souls of the dead do not know what passes on earth. This follows from what has been laid down (4), since the separated soul has knowledge of singulars, by being in a way determined to them, either by some vestige of previous knowledge or affection, or by the Divine order. Now the souls departed are in a state of separation from the living, both by Divine order and by their mode of existence, whilst they are joined to the world of incorporeal spiritual substances; and hence they are ignorant of what goes on among us. Whereof Gregory gives the reason thus: "The dead do not know how the living act, for the life of the spirit is far from the life of the flesh; and so, as corporeal things differ from incorporeal in genus, so they are distinct in knowledge" (Moral. xii). Augustine seems to say the same (De Cura pro Mort. xiii), when he asserts that, "the souls of the dead have no concern in the affairs of the living." Gregory and Augustine, however, seem to be divided in opinion as regards the souls of the blessed in heaven, for Gregory continues the passage above quoted: "The case of the holy souls is different, for since they see the light of Almighty God, we cannot believe that external things are unknown to them." But Augustine (De Cura pro Mort. xiii) expressly says: "The dead, even the saints do not know what is done by the living or by their own children," as a gloss quotes on the text, "Abraham hath not known us" (Isaiah 63:16). He confirms this opinion by saying that he was not visited, nor consoled in sorrow by his mother, as when she was alive; and he could not think it possible that she was less kind when in a happier state; and again by the fact that the Lord promised to king Josias that he should die, lest he should see his people's afflictions (2 Kings 22:20). Yet Augustine says this in doubt; and premises, "Let every one take, as he pleases, what I say." Gregory, on the other hand, is positive, since he says, "We cannot believe." His opinion, indeed, seems to be the more probable one--that the souls of the blessed who see God do know all that passes here. For they are equal to the angels, of whom Augustine says that they know what happens among those living on earth. But as the souls of the blessed are most perfectly united to Divine justice, they do not suffer from sorrow, nor do they interfere in mundane affairs, except in accordance with Divine justice.
Iª q. 89 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod animae mortuorum possunt habere curam de rebus viventium, etiam si ignorent eorum statum; sicut nos curam habemus de mortuis, eis suffragia impendendo, quamvis eorum statum ignoremus. Possunt etiam facta viventium non per seipsos cognoscere, sed vel per animas eorum qui hinc ad eos accedunt; vel per Angelos seu Daemones; vel etiam spiritu Dei revelante, sicut Augustinus in eodem libro dicit. Reply to Objection 1. The souls of the departed may care for the living, even if ignorant of their state; just as we care for the dead by pouring forth prayer on their behalf, though we are ignorant of their state. Moreover, the affairs of the living can be made known to them not immediately, but the souls who pass hence thither, or by angels and demons, or even by "the revelation of the Holy Ghost," as Augustine says in the same book.
Iª q. 89 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc quod mortui viventibus apparent qualitercumque, vel contingit per specialem Dei dispensationem, ut animae mortuorum rebus viventium intersint, et est inter divina miracula computandum. Vel huiusmodi apparitiones fiunt per operationes Angelorum bonorum vel malorum, etiam ignorantibus mortuis, sicut etiam vivi ignorantes aliis viventibus apparent in somnis, ut Augustinus dicit in libro praedicto. Unde et de Samuele dici potest quod ipse apparuit per revelationem divinam; secundum hoc quod dicitur Eccli. XLVI, quod dormivit, et notum fecit regi finem vitae suae. Vel illa apparitio fuit procurata per Daemones, si tamen Ecclesiastici auctoritas non recipiatur, propter hoc quod inter canonicas Scripturas apud Hebraeos non habetur. Reply to Objection 2. That the dead appear to the living in any way whatever is either by the special dispensation of God; in order that the souls of the dead may interfere in affairs of the living--and this is to be accounted as miraculous. Or else such apparitions occur through the instrumentality of bad or good angels, without the knowledge of the departed; as may likewise happen when the living appear, without their own knowledge, to others living, as Augustine says in the same book. And so it may be said of Samuel that he appeared through Divine revelation; according to Ecclus. 46:23, "he slept, and told the king the end of his life." Or, again, this apparition was procured by the demons; unless, indeed, the authority of Ecclesiasticus be set aside through not being received by the Jews as canonical Scripture.
Iª q. 89 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ignorantia huiusmodi non contingit ex locali distantia, sed propter causam praedictam. Reply to Objection 3. This kind of ignorance does not proceed from the obstacle of local distance, but from the cause mentioned above.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools