172. Faith, Hope, and Charity in the Beatific Vision

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Question: Do Theological Virtues Remain in Glory? #

Thomas addresses whether faith, hope, and charity persist after the soul achieves the beatific vision. This requires careful analysis of each virtue’s essential definition and how glory perfects or contradicts that definition.

Faith Cannot Remain in Glory #

The Problem:

• Faith is defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1)
• Lack of vision is essential to faith’s definition, not merely an accidental impediment
• In glory, one sees God face-to-face, contradicting the defining characteristic of faith

The Principle: When an imperfection belongs to the essential definition (ratio) of a thing, that thing cannot remain when the opposite perfection is achieved. The imperfection is not per accidens (accidental) but per se (essential).

The Analogy: Just as an odd number cannot become even (their definitions are contradictory), faith cannot coexist with beatific vision. You do not perfect faith into vision; faith is replaced by vision.

The Objection and Response: One might object that knowledge remains from faith—the object (God) is still known. But Berquist (following Thomas) clarifies: faith and vision remain in the same genus (knowledge) but not in the same species or number. When the enigma is removed and clarity comes, the knowledge changes in kind.

Hope Cannot Remain in Glory #

The Definition of Hope: Hope is desire for a future arduous good—something good but difficult to obtain.

Why Hope Ceases:

• When the object of hope (God) is possessed in glory, it is no longer future
• Glory is characterized by eternity (tota simul—all at once), not succession
• Hope requires futurity and the possibility of non-attainment; glory eliminates both
• Hope is compared to motion toward rest; motion ceases when rest is achieved

The Distinction from Faith: Unlike faith, hope is not essentially defined by imperfection regarding the object itself, but by the object being future. When futurity is removed, hope’s defining characteristic vanishes.

On “Desire” in Glory: There remains a kind of perpetual desire for God in glory, but this is not hope in the strict sense because:

• The object is already possessed (not future)
• There is no possibility of non-attainment (no arduousness)
• This desire is more properly called perpetual joy or appreciation

Charity Uniquely Remains and Grows #

Why Charity Differs:

• Charity (love) is not defined by any imperfection
• Love can exist regarding both present goods (God in glory) and absent goods (God unseen in this life)
• The object of charity remains the same; only the mode of knowing (and thus loving) changes

Growth in Charity:

• Vision is a cause of love; the more perfectly something is known, the more perfectly it is loved
• Charity grows in intensity and perfection as the beatific vision infinitely reveals God’s goodness
• The same charity in number can be perfected, just as the same man is perfected through growth or whiteness through intensity

The Key Distinction: Imperfection that is per accidens (accidental—not part of the definition) can be removed while the substance remains. Imperfection that is per se (essential—part of the definition) cannot be removed without destroying the thing itself.

• In faith and hope, imperfection is per se
• In charity, imperfection is per accidens

Scripture’s Witness: “Charity never falls away” (1 Corinthians 13:8); charity surpasses all other virtues even in this life.

Key Arguments #

The Genus-Difference Analysis #

Berquist spends considerable time on a subtle metaphysical point: the relationship between genus and difference is like the relationship between matter and form.

The Analogy:

• Just as matter can receive different forms while remaining the same matter (clay can be molded into different shapes)
• The genus can be said to receive different differences

The Critical Limitation: However, this analogy is not perfect. When a difference is removed from a genus:

• The substance of the genus does not remain in the same number
• Example: Remove whiteness (difference) from color (genus); the color does not remain white—it has become a different color (e.g., black)
• This is because the genre is not related to difference as matter is to form in material things

Application to Faith: When the “enigma” (lack of vision) is removed from faith, what remains is knowledge in the genus only. The same knowledge in number does not persist because the enigma was not merely accidental but constitutive of faith’s species.

The Slippery Nature of Likeness #

Berquist invokes Plato’s observation (from the Sophist) that likeness is “the most slippery thing”—hard to grasp precisely.

Why This Matters: When comparing things (like genus-difference and matter-form), one must see both the likenesses and the differences. Deception arises when one sees the likeness but misses the crucial difference:

• Artificial flowers deceive because they look like real flowers (likeness) but lack the nature of real flowers (difference)
• A piece of tin made to look like spilled ink deceives because it resembles ink (likeness) but is not ink (difference)

Thomas’s Skill: Thomas demonstrates the ability to see where things are alike (in genus, knowledge) and where they are not alike (in retaining the same substance in number). This careful discrimination prevents deception.

The Imperfection Principle #

A crucial logical principle appears throughout:

Formulation: If something’s imperfection is essential to its definition, that thing cannot remain when the opposite perfection is achieved. If the imperfection is accidental (not part of the definition), the thing can remain perfected.

Examples:

• Guess (coniectura): By definition, guessing involves uncertainty. When knowledge replaces a guess, the guess does not become knowledge—it is superseded by knowledge. Yet both are in the genus of knowledge.
• Faith: Conviction of unseen things is part of its definition. Vision contradicts and replaces faith.
• Hope: Desire for a future good is part of its definition. Possession contradicts hope.
• Charity: Love has no imperfection in its definition—it can love present or absent goods equally. Therefore, it can remain and grow.

Important Definitions #

Faith (fides): The substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Essentially characterized by lack of vision.

Hope (spes): Desire for a future arduous good—a good that is both desirable and difficult to obtain.

Charity (caritas): Love of God and neighbor. Not essentially defined by any imperfection; can exist regarding both present and absent goods.

Beatific Vision (visio beatifica): Direct, face-to-face vision of God as He is; the ultimate end of human existence and the state of glory.

Genus (genus): The broader category that remains when differences are removed. In the predicables: man is a species; animal is a genus.

Difference (differentia): That which distinguishes one species from another within a genus. In man: animal (genus) + rational (difference).

Per Accidens: Accidental; not essential to the definition of a thing.

Per Se: Essential; belonging to the definition of a thing.

Enigma (aenigma): In the context of faith, the obscure, indirect manner of knowing divine truth through signs and symbols rather than face-to-face vision.

Via: This present life of pilgrimage; the state of journeying toward God.

Patria (the Fatherland): The state of glory; heaven, where one dwells with God.

Tota Simul (all at once): The characteristic of eternity—perfect possession of all at once, without succession. Contrasts with the successive, changing nature of temporal existence.

Examples & Illustrations #

On Faith Replaced by Vision #

The Contradiction: Faith (conviction of unseen things) and vision (seeing as they are) are contradictory states. One cannot have both simultaneously regarding the same object.

The Guess vs. Knowledge: One might guess correctly who committed a murder. But when DNA evidence proves the identity, the guess does not become knowledge; knowledge replaces the guess. Both involved cognition of the murderer’s identity, but they are fundamentally different kinds of knowledge.

On Hope Ceasing #

The Hunger and Thirst: Berquist uses the example of bodily hunger. Eventually, one does not want more food; one becomes satiated. But one will never become satiated with God because:

• God is infinite and cannot be fully comprehended
• Therefore, one is never “bored” with God
• Yet this perpetual desire for God is not hope because God is already possessed and is not future

The Poor Movie: Aristotle notes that when a play is poor, people eat more popcorn—they distract themselves from boredom. In heaven, there will be no such distraction needed because God’s infinite perfection cannot bore. (Berquist humorously notes that in modern theaters, people eat popcorn regardless—but the principle holds.)

The Navy and Spam: Berquist’s cousin in the Navy was served nothing but spam for extended periods. Eventually, people stop eating it—they become tired of it, disgusted. But with God, this will never happen because God is infinitely inexhaustible.

On Charity’s Persistence #

The Unseen Beloved: One can already love someone unseen—through description, through promise, through reputation. When one finally sees the beloved, the love may grow and deepen, but it remains the same love of the same person. This illustrates how charity can persist while the mode of knowing (and thus the perfection of loving) changes.

The Promised Meal: One anticipates a well-prepared meal promised by a skilled chef. One already loves it (based on the promise). When one finally tastes it, the love may grow, but it is love of the same meal. Similarly, in glory, it is love of the same God, but infinitely more perfect because God is now known face-to-face.

The Teacher and Student: A student first believes the teacher (Euclid’s geometry); then studies the demonstration; then understands it necessarily. The object remains the same (the mathematical truth), but the mode of knowing perfects from belief to understanding to certain knowledge. So too, the object of charity (God) remains the same, but the mode of loving infinitely perfects in glory.

On Genus and Difference #

The Clay and Shapes: When one molds clay from a sphere to a cube, the clay (matter) remains the same in number, but the shape (form) changes. This illustrates how matter can receive different forms.

The Virtue and Vice: When one loses a vice and acquires the opposite virtue, one does not retain the habit of the vice while losing its badness. This would make no sense. Instead, one acquires a new habit. This shows that the genus-difference relationship is not like the matter-form relationship—you cannot have the genus remain while the difference changes.

Whiteness and Color: If you remove the difference that makes something white (whiteness), the genus (color) does not remain white. It becomes a different color entirely. The substance of the color does not remain the same in number.

Questions Addressed #

Q: Can faith remain in glory? #

A: No. Faith is essentially defined as conviction of unseen things. When one sees God face-to-face in the beatific vision, the defining characteristic of faith (lack of vision) is contradicted. Faith is not perfected into a higher form; it is replaced by direct vision. What remains is knowledge in the same genus but not the same species or number.

Q: Can hope remain in glory? #

A: No. Hope is defined as desire for a future arduous good. When the object of hope (God) is possessed in glory, it is no longer future. Moreover, glory is characterized by eternity (tota simul), which excludes the succession necessary for hope. Hope’s defining characteristic (futurity) is removed, so hope itself cannot remain.

Q: Why does charity uniquely remain and grow? #

A: Because charity is not defined by any imperfection. Charity is love, and love can exist regarding both present and absent goods. The object of charity (God) remains the same, but the mode of knowing (and thus loving) infinitely perfects through the beatific vision. Vision is a cause of love—the more perfectly God is known, the more perfectly He is loved.

Q: How can the same charity “in number” remain when everything about the soul’s condition changes? #

A: Because imperfection that is accidental (per accidens) to charity’s definition can be removed while charity itself remains perfected. In this life, charity is imperfect due to the limitations of human knowledge and will. In glory, these limitations are removed, but charity itself—the love of God—remains the same habit in number, now perfected.

Q: If faith and hope cease, does the soul lose knowledge of these virtues in heaven? #

A: The soul retains knowledge of what faith and hope were, and understands their necessity in this life. But the virtues themselves, as operative habits that move one to act, cease. In glory, the soul no longer needs to believe or to hope; it sees and possesses. The loss is not a deprivation but a fulfillment—like losing the need for a ladder once you’ve reached the roof.

Notable Quotes #

“Charity never falls away” (Caritas nunquam excidit) — St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:8

Berquist emphasizes this passage as scriptural confirmation that charity, unlike faith and hope, uniquely persists in glory.

“The substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” — Hebrews 11:1, defining faith

This definition is the linchpin of the argument that faith cannot coexist with the beatific vision.

“Likeness is the most slippery thing” — Plato, Sophist

Berquist uses this to explain why careful discrimination is necessary when comparing genre to difference, or matter to form—one must see both the likeness and the crucial differences.