|
Objection 1: It would seem that the clarity of the glorified body is
invisible to the non-glorified eye. For the visible object should be
proportionate to the sight. But a non-glorified eye is not
proportionate to see the clarity of glory, since this differs
generically from the clarity of nature. Therefore the clarity of the
glorified body will not be seen by a non-glorified eye.
Objection 2: Further, the clarity of the glorified body will be
greater than the clarity of the sun is now, since the clarity of the
sun also will then be greater than it is now, according to Is.
30:26, and the clarity of the glorified body will be much greater
still, for which reason the sun and the entire world will receive
greater clarity. Now a non-glorified eye is unable to gaze on the
very orb of the sun on account of the greatness of its clarity.
Therefore still less will it be able to gaze on the clarity of a
glorified body.
Objection 3: Further, a visible object that is opposite the eyes of
the seer must needs be seen, unless there be some lesion to the eye.
But the clarity of a glorified body that is opposite to non-glorified
eyes is not necessarily seen by them: which is evident in the case of
the disciples who saw our Lord's body after the resurrection, without
witnessing its clarity. Therefore this clarity will be invisible to a
non-glorified eye.
On the contrary, A gloss on Phil. 3:21, "Made like to the
body of His glory," says: "It will be like the clarity which He
had in the Transfiguration." Now this clarity was seen by the
non-glorified eyes of the disciples. Therefore the clarity of the
glorified body will be visible to non-glorified eyes also.
Further, the wicked will be tortured in the judgment by seeing the
glory of the just, according to Wis. 5:2. But they would not
fully see their glory unless they gazed on their clarity. Therefore,
etc.
I answer that, Some have asserted that the clarity of the glorified
body will not be visible to the non-glorified eye, except by a
miracle. But this is impossible, unless this clarity were so named
equivocally, because light by its essence has a natural tendency to
move the sight, and sight by its essence has a natural tendency to
perceive light, even as the true is in relation to the intellect, and
the good to the appetite. Wherefore if there were a sight altogether
incapable of perceiving a light, either this sight is so named
equivocally, or else this light is. This cannot be said in the point
at issue, because then nothing would be made known to us when we are
told that the glorified bodies will be lightsome: even so a person who
says that a dog [the dog star] is in the heavens conveys no knowledge
to one who knows no other dog than the animal. Hence we must say that
the clarity of a glorified body is naturally visible to the
non-glorified eye.
Reply to Objection 1: The clarity of glory will differ generically
from the clarity of nature, as to its cause, but not as to its
species. Hence just as the clarity of nature is, by reason of its
species, proportionate to the sight, so too will the clarity of glory
be.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as a glorified body is not passible to a
passion of nature but only to a passion of the soul [Question 82,
Article 1], so in virtue of its property of glory it acts only by
the action of the soul. Now intense clarity does not disturb the
sight, in so far as it acts by the action of the soul, for thus it
rather gives delight, but it disturbs it in so far as it acts by the
action of nature by heating and destroying the organ of sight, and by
scattering the spirits asunder. Hence, though the clarity of a
glorified body surpasses the clarity of the sun, it does not by its
nature disturb the sight but soothes it: wherefore this clarity is
compared to the jasper-stone (Apoc. 21:11).
Reply to Objection 3: The clarity of the glorified body results
from the merit of the will and therefore will be subject to the will,
so as to be seen or not seen according to its command. Therefore it
will be in the power of the glorified body to show forth its clarity or
to hide it: and this was the opinion of Praepositivus.
|
|