|
Objection 1: It would seem that in the blessed there is hope. For
Christ was a perfect comprehensor from the first moment of His
conception. Now He had hope, since, according to a gloss, the
words of Ps. 30:2, "In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped," are
said in His person. Therefore in the blessed there can be hope.
Objection 2: Further, even as the obtaining of happiness is an
arduous good, so is its continuation. Now, before they obtain
happiness, men hope to obtain it. Therefore, after they have
obtained it, they can hope to continue in its possession.
Objection 3: Further, by the virtue of hope, a man can hope for
happiness, not only for himself, but also for others, as stated above
(Question 17, Article 3). But the blessed who are in heaven
hope for the happiness of others, else they would not pray for them.
Therefore there can be hope in them.
Objection 4: Further, the happiness of the saints implies not only
glory of the soul but also glory of the body. Now the souls of the
saints in heaven, look yet for the glory of their bodies (Apoc.
6:10; Augustine, Gen. ad lit. xii, 35). Therefore in the
blessed there can be hope.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 8:24): "What a man
seeth, why doth he hope for?" Now the blessed enjoy the sight of
God. Therefore hope has no place in them.
I answer that, If what gives a thing its species be removed, the
species is destroyed, and that thing cannot remain the same; just as
when a natural body loses its form, it does not remain the same
specifically. Now hope takes its species from its principal object,
even as the other virtues do, as was shown above (Question 17,
Articles 5,6; FS, Question 54, Article 2): and its
principal object is eternal happiness as being possible to obtain by the
assistance of God, as stated above (Question 17, Article 2).
Since then the arduous possible good cannot be an object of hope except
in so far as it is something future, it follows that when happiness is
no longer future, but present, it is incompatible with the virtue of
hope. Consequently hope, like faith, is voided in heaven, and
neither of them can be in the blessed.
Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ was a comprehensor and
therefore blessed as to the enjoyment of God, nevertheless He was,
at the same time, a wayfarer, as regards the passibility of nature,
to which He was still subject. Hence it was possible for Him to hope
for the glory of impassibility and immortality, yet not so as to the
virtue of hope, the principal object of which is not the glory of the
body but the enjoyment of God.
Reply to Objection 2: The happiness of the saints is called eternal
life, because through enjoying God they become partakers, as it
were, of God's eternity which surpasses all time: so that the
continuation of happiness does not differ in respect of present, past
and future. Hence the blessed do not hope for the continuation of
their happiness (for as regards this there is no future), but are in
actual possession thereof.
Reply to Objection 3: So long as the virtue of hope lasts, it is
by the same hope that one hopes for one's own happiness, and for that
of others. But when hope is voided in the blessed, whereby they hoped
for their own happiness, they hope for the happiness of others indeed,
yet not by the virtue of hope, but rather by the love of charity.
Even so, he that has Divine charity, by that same charity loves his
neighbor, without having the virtue of charity, but by some other
love.
Reply to Objection 4: Since hope is a theological virtue having
God for its object, its principal object is the glory of the soul,
which consists in the enjoyment of God, and not the glory of the
body. Moreover, although the glory of the body is something arduous
in comparison with human nature, yet it is not so for one who has the
glory of the soul; both because the glory of the body is a very small
thing as compared with the glory of the soul, and because one who has
the glory of the soul has already the sufficient cause of the glory of
the body.
|
|