The following is taken from The Compendium of the Summa Theologiæ, a summary of the Summa authored by St Thomas himself. Sadly, the Saint died before he was able to finish the work. Previous posts on the compendium can be found here. The pertinent Question and Articles of the Summa which are treated in this post can be found here.
God can be named by us only from the analogy of creatures, not from what He is in Himself; but we name Him as He is known to us through creation by way of excellence, and by way of negation, that is, in an affirmative and negative sense. In this life we do not know the Essence of God as He is, and because we know Him as imperfectly represented by creatures, all such names are imperfect and are inadequate to express the Divine Substance. So when we say “God is good” the meaning is not, God is the Cause of good, or God is not bad; it means that what is called good in creatures pre-exists in God in a higher sense. For it does not follow that goodness is attributed to God because He is the Cause of goodness; rather, conversely, because He is Himself good He diffuses goodness in creatures, as St. Augustine says: “Inasmuch as He is good, we are.”
Some names are properly applied to God because of their meaning, and to Him first and more properly than to creatures, such as goodness, life, etc. These, indeed, are perfections existing in God in a more eminent manner than in creatures, but in respect of their mode of signification they cannot be, strictly speaking, applied to God, because such a mode is on a level with creatures, and such perfections are understood by us as they exist in creatures, and are named by us as they are thus understood. Although the names attributed to God signify one, still they signify it in a multiform and diverse aspect, and are, therefore, not synonymous; for perfections exist united and absolutely in God, whereas creatures can receive them only in a divided and multiform manner.
Nor are those terms which are applied to God and creatures used in the same sense, and the reason is because an effect which does not equal the force of the cause is a recipient of that, divided and manifold, which in the cause is simple and uniform. Thus in a man to be wise means something distinct from the essence of man. But neither are they used equivocally (i. e, in a wholly different sense) of God and creatures, for were that so, nothing could be known or inferred from creatures about God, contrary to that shown above; it is, therefore, by way of analogy, i. e. proportion, that the same terms are applied to God and to creatures, for there is a certain orderly relation of the creature to God, as He is the Principle and Cause in Whom pre-exist excellently all created perfections. This way stands between the two, pure equivocation and simple univocation; forasmuch as in analogy there is not one idea only, as in the univocal order, nor that entire difference which marks the equivocal order, since there is signified in it diversity of proportion in relation to the unit.
Names which are applied metaphorically to God are derived from creatures, and not from God, forasmuch as when they are spoken of God they only signify His likeness to certain creatures, as when we apply to God the name of “Lion” we signify that the strength of God shown in His works is like the lion’s strength in its sphere of action; while, on the contrary, what is signified by the name belongs first to God rather than to the creature, for perfections flow from God to creatures. When we consider the imposition of the name, however, we give it first to those we know first, to creatures.
Names also implying temporal relations to creatures are assigned to God, for although He is outside the order of the universe, all creatures being ordered to Him as their End, and not, conversely, He to them, they bear a relation to Him, while God has no relation to creatures, except as a notion, for God and creatures are not of the same order. Thus the names of “Lord,” “Redeemer,” and others like them, implying temporal relations, may be given to God.
The very name of “God” belongs to the Divine Nature as regards that to which it is given, but as regards that from which it is taken, it expresses effect or operation, being derived from the idea of universal Providence, for when we speak of God by this name we mean to express that He takes care of all. And as this name is used to signify the Divine Nature, which is not multiple, it cannot be communicated in reality, except only in the .opinion of those who assert there are many gods; yet still it is communicable, not in its full meaning, but according to some kind of likeness, as those are called gods who participate in the Divine Likeness, while if it were a name that signified not the Nature but the Personality of God, such a name would be wholly incommunicable. And this name of “God” is not applied to God univocally nor equivocally, that is in quite the same or quite a different sense, but analogically, by participation, and according to nature and notion: for when we name God by participation, we mean by the name “God” anything that has the likeness of the true God; and when we call an idol god, we mean something that men think is God: thus the meaning of the name has various aspects, though one is contained in the rest, from which we infer that it is used analogically. The name “He is” or “I am ” is most strictly applicable to God, for it signifies not form but His very Existence, and in God alone is His
Essence His own very Existence, and everything else is denominated by its form; whilst it is evident that the Essence of God cannot be understood by us in this life as it is in itself, and hence everything that is understood in any explicit way falls short of God as He is in Himself. Hence the more extended and less determined names are the more suitably applied to Him Who is the
Infinite ocean of substance and indetermined. Moreover, it is plain that because existence signifies the present, it is most properly said of God, Who knows neither past nor future. And further, because God in Himself is One and Simple, and we cannot see Him as He is, we understand Him according to different conceptions, for we cannot see Him as He is, but we understand Him in various ways that correspond, as we know, to one and the same. Hence the notional plurality in our minds represents the predicate and subject in that guise; nevertheless, unity is realized in the mind of composition.
Tuesday, August 9: Pope John Paul II’s Commentar/Meditation on Deut 32:1-12
Posted by Dim Bulb on August 6, 2011
1. “Then Moses pronounced the words of this song from beginning to end, for the whole assembly of Israel to hear” (Dt 31:30). This is how the canticle we have just heard begins. It is taken from the last pages of the Book of Deuteronomy, to be precise, from chapter 32. The Liturgy of Lauds took the first 12 verses, recognizing in them a joyful hymn to the Lord who lovingly protects and cares for his people amid the daylong dangers and difficulties. On examination the canticle is shown to be an ancient text, later than Moses, that is put on his lips to give it a solemn character. The liturgical canticle is placed at the root of the history of the people of Israel. On that prayerful page there is no lack of reference and links with a few of the psalms or the message of the prophets: hence it was a moving and intense expression of the faith of Israel.
2. Moses’ canticle is longer than the passage used in the office of Lauds, which is only the prelude. Some scholars think they can identify in the composition a literary gender that is technically defined with the Hebrew word “rîb”, namely, “quarrel”, “court litigation”. The image of God present in the Bible is not at all that of a dark being, an anonymous and brute energy, an incomprehensible fact.
Instead, he is a person who experiences sentiments, acts and reacts, loves and condemns, participates in the life of his creatures and is not indifferent to their actions. So, in our case, the Lord convokes a sort of trial, in the presence of witnesses, denounces the crimes of the accused people, exacts a punishment, but lets his verdict be permeated by infinite mercy. Let us now follow the traces of this event, even if only reflecting on the verses proposed by the liturgy.
3. First of all he mentions the cosmic spectator-witnesses: “Give ear, O heavens, … let the earth hearken …” (Dt 32:1). In this symbolic trial Moses acts almost as a public prosecutor. His word is effective and fruitful, like the prophetic word, expression of the divine word. Note the significant flow of the images that define it: They are signs taken from nature like rain, dew, showers, drizzle and the spraying of water that makes the earth green and covers it with grain stalks (cf. Dt 32:2).
The voice of Moses, prophet and interpreter of the divine word, announces the imminent appearance on the scene of the great judge, the Lord, whose most holy name he pronounces, exalting one of his many attributes. In fact, the Lord is called the Rock (Dt 32:4), a title that is repeated throughout our Canticle (cf. Dt 32:15, 18, 30, 31, 37), an image that exalts God’s stable and unchanging fidelity, so different from the instability and infidelity of the people. The topic is developed with a series of affirmations on divine justice: “how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways. A faithful God, without deceit, how just and upright he is” (Dt 32:4).
4. After the solemn presentation of the supreme Judge, who is also an injured party, the objective of the cantor is directed to the accused. In order to describe this, he takes recourse to an effective representation of God as father (cf. Dt 32:6). His much loved creatures are called his children, but, unfortunately, they are “degenerate children” (cf. Dt 32:5). In fact, we know that already in the Old Testament there is an idea of God as a solicitous father in his meetings with his children who often disappoint him (Ex 4:22; Dt 8:5; Ps 103:13; Sir 51:10; Isa 1:2; 63,16; Hos 11:1-4). Because of this, the denunciation is not cold but impassioned: “Is the Lord to be thus repaid by you, O stupid and foolish people? Has he not made and established you?” (Dt 32:6). Indeed, rebelling against an implacable sovereign is very different from revolting against a loving father.
In order to make concrete the gravity of the accusation and thus elicit a conversion that flows from the sincerity of the heart, Moses appeals to the memory: “Think back on the days of old, reflect on the years of age upon age” (Dt 32:7). In fact, biblical faith is a “memorial”, namely, a rediscovering of God’s eternal action spread over time; it is to make present and effective that salvation that the Lord has given and continues to offer man. Hence, the great sin of infidelity coincides with “forgetfulness”, which cancels the memory of the divine presence in us and in history.
5. The fundamental event that must not be forgotten is that of the crossing of the desert after the flight from Egypt, major topic of Deuteronomy and of the entire Pentateuch. So the terrible and dramatic journey in the Sinai desert is evoked, “a wasteland of howling desert” (cf. Dt 32:10), as described with an image of strong emotional impact. However, there God bends over his people with amazing tenderness and gentleness. The paternal symbol is intertwined with an allusion to the maternal symbol of the eagle: “He shielded them and cared for them, guarding them as the apple of his eye. As an eagle incites its nestlings forth by hovering over its brood. So he spread his wings to receive them and bore them up on his pinions” (Dt 32:10-11). Then the way of the desert steppe is transformed into a quiet and serene journey because of the protective mantle of divine love.
The canticle also refers to Sinai, where Israel became the Lord’s ally, his “portion” and “hereditary share”, namely, the most precious reality (cf. Dt 32:9; Ex 19:5). Thus the canticle of Moses becomes a collective examination of conscience, so that in the end the response to the divine benefits will no longer be sin but fidelity.
Share this:
Like this:
Posted in Bible, Catholic, Devotional Resources, Logic, Notes on the Lectionary, PAPAL COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, Quotes, Scripture | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, liturgy, Scripture | 1 Comment »