Question XI: Whether hope remains in the blessed

D. Bonav. book 3, dist. 31, question 2. D. Thom. 1. 2. question 18, article 2.

The first opinion is that the habit of hope remains in the blessed: So Suarez disp. 1. sect. 8. Hurtado disp. 108. sect. 4. Poncius disp. 31. quaest. 4. Vulpes disp. 51. art. 1. Coninck disp. 19. dub. 10. Amicus disp. 22. Caspensis disp. 2. sect. 9. Arriaga disp. 26. sect. 4. Mastrius book 3. disp. 6. quaest. 18. who nevertheless says it does not remain under the denomination of hope. This was the opinion of Scotus book 3, dist. 31. §. Viso de fide, et spe, at the end. These concede that Hope remains even as to some act.

The second opinion is that the habit of Hope does not remain in the fatherland. So D. Bonaventure and D. Thomas and all the Thomists here, and it seems that of Scotus book 3, dist. 31, single question, where Lychetus, Tartaretus, Arretinus, and the other ancients agree. The Moderns nearly all agree, as gathered by Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 1. dub. 2. although some concede some act of hope in the blessed, as Suarez book 3, part T. 3. quaest. 7. art. 4. and de Spe disp. 1. sect. 8. Others give it to the blessed souls in relation to the resurrection, as Vasquez book 3, disp. 44. cap. 22.

I assert with this opinion that in the blessed hope does not remain.

It is proved first by D. Bonaventure. When the object is removed, the habit is removed; but from the blessed the object of hope is removed: Therefore. The minor is proved from Rom. 8, Hope that is seen is not hope: for what does a man see, why doth he hope for it? Therefore since the Blessed necessarily see God, they cannot hope.

Mastrius answers first, with Bassolio disp. 31, single question, art. 2. that it is per accidens that the object of hope is present or absent.

But D. Paulus is altogether amazed that anyone should want to hope for things he possesses.

Mastrius answers second, that Hope in the blessed has no act more known as desire, from which Hope is denominated; although they have an act of delight and joy, produced from hope.

But I have already shown quaest. 3. that there is no delight in the object of hope; for delight is about an object present, and thus the first response of Caspensis is blunted.

Caspensis answers second, that the blessed can have desire even for the beatitude of others.

But hope is only of good things, nor only of future things, and pertaining to the one who is said to bear the hope of them, as D. Augustine says in Enchir. cap. 8. cited by Caspensis sect. 3. Therefore to desire beatitude for another, as it is a good, is not an act of Hope; but of Charity, as Vasquez holds too book 3, disp. 45. cap. 2. and Caspens. there. It is confirmed; for by Hope the mind is roused to overcome the difficulties that stand in the way of attaining the good hoped for; but this affection cannot be had with respect to the beatitude of another, as Turrianus observes disput. 60. dub. 4.

You will say that the beatitude of another can be desired insofar as it redounds to an accidental beatitude for us.

It is answered first, that the object of Hope is still not had, which is God, as to be arduously attained by the blessed, as I said quaest. 3. and as the Seraphic Doctor observes ad 3. Hence accidental beatitude does not suffice for Hope, which is a Theological virtue, attaining God immediately.

It is proved second from this by D. Bonaventure. Hope is the expectation of our future beatitude, as the Gloss says on Rom. 5. But beatitude in the fatherland is present; Therefore.

It is proved third from 1 Cor. 13, Faith, hope, Charity, these three remain: but the greater of these is charity, where the Gloss: Charity, when Faith and Hope depart, shall remain increased. It is concluded, moreover, that it is greater for that very reason, that it alone is said never to fall away.

Mastrius and Caspensis respond that the Apostle does not say that Hope falls away, but only faith, prophecy, and tongues; or that it is evacuated as to its principal act, which is to hope.

On the contrary, because the Apostle says: But when that which is perfect shall come, that which is in part shall be done away, because, as the Seraphic Doctor urges, it is intrinsic to the notion of the object of hope that it be future, and that the soul rise toward it, so as to overcome difficulties.

It is proved fourth by the Seraphic Doctor. As Faith is related to what is not seen, so Hope to what is not possessed; but faith is necessarily done away when clear vision supervenes: Therefore also hope, when the attainment, or the most certain stretching toward it, supervenes.

Mastrius answers num. 481. by denying the parity, because faith can exercise no act in the fatherland; for all its acts denote an imperfection repugnant to the state of the fatherland; but not so hope, which has its imperfection, the absence of its object, in desire alone, but has other acts. So Maracius answers too disp. 34. sect. 3.

But Paul Rom. 5. denies that Hope is there where its object is possessed, which is God seen, the beatific object present; toward attaining and awaiting which hope raises the soul; But the blessed, since they already possess God, cannot await in desire what is absent and arduous.

Mastrius answers num. 479. that Hope then has no act of desire, but of tension and possession.

I am simply amazed that he says this: for the same virtue cannot be borne toward an object under notions of substance opposites.¹ But Hope, since it walks together with Faith as to the absence of the object, as is said Hebr. 11. Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not; I do not see how it can have an act of tension and possession of the beatific object. ¹ Editor's note: the print/OCR reads 'sub ratione substantiae literer opposita'; 'literer' is not a Latin form and the OCR layer gave no witness; rendered as 'literaliter opposita' (opposite in substance, literally), with 'opposites' plural by sense.

He answers second, with Arriaga, that neither the act of justice of rendering to each his own, nor that of fortitude for overcoming difficulties, is found in the blessed; and yet these habits remain, because they can have an act of complacency and joy about their proper object.

But even in the fatherland the blessed render to each his own, to God the honor of latria, and to the blessed the service due them; whereas the habit of Fortitude directly conflicts with the state of the blessed, as D. Bonaventure says dist. 26. quaest. 3. at the very end.

You will object first. In Sap. 3 it is said: Their hope full of immortality. The Gloss postills: It is itself effectual. If you say that Hope is there taken for the thing hoped for; on the contrary I prove it of the very act of hoping; for Christ was blessed, and yet had Hope, as the Gloss says on that Ps. 30, In thee, O Lord, have I hoped.

The Seraphic Doctor answers that Christ had hope not in himself, but in his members; in himself, however, he had a certain expectation of some spiritual benefit, which nevertheless is not hope, because it did not look to God as the object to be enjoyed immediately. Then neither was the glory of his body itself arduous for Christ, as Coninck thinks disp. 17. dub. 11. because it follows naturally from the glory of the soul, as Mastrius notes num. 470. although it was to be acquired through the cross under the title of merit.

You will OBJECT second. Where there is desire, there can be Hope; but in the Blessed there is the highest desire without end, as is said 1 Peter 1, Into which the Angels desire to look: Therefore. It is confirmed; for they can desire the continuation of their beatitude.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS that the desire of acquiring goes with Hope: but the desire of continuing a good that cannot be lost in no way goes with hope; because there is not there an expectation, or tending, toward an absent good. Therefore in the fatherland there is desire, in that he calls it ineffable delight and unendingness, never sated, but always with the highest delight. Wherefore vainly do some argue from the volition of the continuation of beatitude that there is hope in the blessed; for, as Mastrius candidly confesses num. 472. the continuation of beatitude is not arduous for the Blessed, but on the contrary easy and necessarily unfailing. By this reasoning he also confesses that Arduous is the formal reason of the object of hope, with which posited, Hope is posited; and with it lacking, removed. The Seraphic Doctor answers the same dub. 5. of the text.

You will OBJECT third with Vulpes, Morando, Caspensis, and others: The Blessed hope for and expect the future resurrection of bodies.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS that this argument errs in two ways. First, because the beatitude of bodies is not arduous for the Saints of the fatherland. But Hope is of the supreme good as arduous.

You will SAY with Amicus that it is arduous because excellent.

On the CONTRARY, because this is not what is arduous for hope, as I said quaest. 3.; otherwise the object would be the same for charity too; for its object is most excellent, as Mastrius notes num. 455. and 470.

SECOND the argument errs, because the act of expecting the resurrection does not look to the Theological virtue, because the resurrection of the body is not an uncreated good, which is the object of the Theological virtue; nay, it is not even necessary for attaining that good, as Arriaga loc. cit. and Mastrius num. 471. rightly observe too.

Amicus INSTANCES num. 20. that there is some participation of the uncreated good, inasmuch as with the beatitude of the soul it beatifies the whole man.

But these are pure words; for the beatitude of the soul is not intensified in relation to God immediately.

You will OBJECT fourth: The habits of opposites are opposite; but in the damned there is despair: Therefore in the blessed there is Hope.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS that it is not similar, because despair makes for the culmination of evil, and therefore ought to be in the damned; But hope denotes a defect of complement in the good, that is, the absence of that supreme good; hence it cannot be in the blessed, in whom all good things absolutely complete in every measure are heaped up.

You will OBJECT fifth. It is an act of hope to trust in the Lord; But the blessed trust in him: Therefore.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS that there is not in the blessed the confidence of Hope, which is with stretching, panting, and rising toward the arduous; but the confidence of the love of friendship in fruition.

You will OBJECT sixth. To hope pertains the certainty of beatitude; but this will be in glory: Therefore. Then the blessed expect beatitude as to succeeding times, for those who already have beatitude today do not yet have it tomorrow. And therefore in Apoc. 6. it was said to them that they should wait.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS that there is not there an expectation of a new good, or of an arduous one, but of a possession eternally unlosable, not to be acquired; nor is there there found a certainty of promise alone; but of tension and fruition, which is not of Hope.

You will OBJECT seventh. Because hope has some acts not repugnant to the fatherland, as to delight in, to rejoice in an infinite and agreeable good, which is the formal object of Hope. This is the Achilles of Scotus loc. cit. and of Mastrius num. 473.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS in the body that the formal object of hope is the good of glory, as arduous and absent, as the Apostle says loc. cit. and that to delight in that good already acquired looks not to hope, but to charity; otherwise faith also ought to remain; for the blessed soul delights in the good believed on the way, and is beatified in it; for beatitude is joy concerning the truth, as D. Augustine says.

But WHY is the act by which I will for myself future beatitude not Charity, but Hope: The reason is, because, although I will it for myself, nevertheless the object is God, as beatifying, toward whom the ultimate act is ordered. Mastrius indicates this mode at the end, to the mind also of Cardinal de Lugo disp. 3. de Poenit. sect. 2. num. 41. But the beatitude desired is ultimately referred to God; otherwise it would be an inordinate appetite. Hence one good is constituted, although several goods are named in the definition of beatitude, whereby it is said: Hope is the virtue by which eternal goods are awaited; as the Seraphic Doctor explains dub. 1. litt. dist. 26. and Mastrius num. 487. The Seraphic Doctor indeed observes dub. 2. that the expectation of an absent good is of the notion of Hope. Moreover, expectation can materially denote rest, as when I sit awaiting a companion, yet it denotes a motion of the mind. The same he teaches in book 1, dist. 17. p. 1. quaest. 2. ad 3. Then dub. 3. the Seraphic Doctor explains how you are to understand the saying of Paul: What does a man see, why doth he hope? Hence hope is of invisible things; yet it is not confused with faith; for Faith is of things not seen as such; but Hope of things not seen insofar as they are not possessed.

He EXPLAINS dub. 4. that Hope cannot be of a present good, because of this there is Joy, which is an affection distinct from Hope, according to all the wise.

In the FIFTH doubt he treats this our question, and concludes that neither did Christ on the way have Hope, because he was not borne toward the beatific God as to be obtained, because the blessed enjoy the Supreme good, which is the object of Hope, and the beatific. Then, because Hope leans on Faith, which it has annexed; but Faith is essentially obscure knowledge. Such knowledge is removed by vision, and consequently, faith being done away, he does away with Hope.