chapter ii st. thomas aquinas’s concept of ipsum esse ... · chapter ii st. thomas aquinas’s...

Chapter II St. Thomas Aquinas’s Metaphysical Concept of Ipsum Esse Subsistens

Chapter II

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Concept of Ipsum Esse Subsistens

Dei igitur essentia est suum esse.

St. Thomas Aquinas1

Delving into St. Thomas’s centre of thinking, i.e., his metaphysical concept of God

as Ipsum Esse Subsistens,2 the present chapter is simply divided into three parts. Part I

functions as a short introduction. Afterwards, part II deals succinctly with the definitive

meaning, characteristic and development of St. Thomas’s theocentric concept of being.

Finally, part III focuses on the ultimate meaning and reality, as well as the current

challenge as regards such a scholastic concept of God by the Common Doctor.

1. Introduction

This chapter attempts to investigate briefly St. Thomas’s metaphysical concept of

God as IES, in the particular sense that there is no real distinction between being (i.e.,

esse, existence, or act of existing) and essence in God. 3 In the words of Stefan

Swiezawski, “God is the only being [ens] in which the union of potential and realization,

the composition of essence and existence, disappears. This composition is not needed

here because God is existence [esse] itself.”4 Here, we are at the very heart of St.

Thomas’s metaphysical thinking. As we shall see, IES, i.e., Subsistent Being Itself,

Self-Subsistent Existence,5 or Subsistent Act of Existing or Existence Itself,6 may be

1 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate Catholicae Fidei Contra Gentiles [Summa Contra Gentiles], in: Opera Omnia, Tomus V (Parmae: Typis Petri Fiaccadori, 1855), Lib.I, Cap.XXII. 2 Cf. Ralph McInery, Aquinas (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2004), pp. 89-92. 3 Cf. Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. A translation of the sixth and final edition of Gilson's chef d'oeuvre by Laurence K. Shook and Armand A. Maurer (Ontario, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002 [1919, 1922, 1927, 1942, 1944, 1965 in French]), p. 94. 4 Cf. Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, trans. Theresa Sandok, OSM (New York and Paris: Peter Lang, 1995), pp. 46-47. It appears that “potential” in this statement made by Swiezawski here means “potency” and, at the same time, “realization” connotes “act.” Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Potentia Dei, q.7, a.2, ad.1: “Ergo esse Dei est ejus substantia.” To avoid confusion, the Latin equivalents of ‘being’ [ens] and ‘existence’ [esse] in this important quotation are bracketed. 5 St. Thomas Aquinas also says: “Deus sit ipsum esse subsistens.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.4. a.2; cf. Ibid., 1, q.3, a. 4; Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, pp. 44-46.

22


looked upon as the very key which can lead us through the whole of St. Thomas’s

onto-theological philosophy7 or theology8.

Referring to St. Thomas’s concept of Ipsum Esse Subsistens, Jacques Maritain

(1882-1973) succinctly commented, “in saying ‘Subsistent Being itself,’ namely that ‘in

Him there is no real distinction between essence and existence [esse],’ the metaphysician

designates, without seeing it, the sacred abyss which makes the angels tremble with love

and awe.”9 Indeed, this equation that God’s Essence equates to His Esse (Existence or

Act of Existing), or God’s Esse being the same as His Essence, is, metaphorically

speaking, “like a formula in chemistry which would set off an immense explosion.”10 On

the other hand, for those who do not seem to understand ---- in concept and experience

---- this scholastic expression of IES as regards His Esse and Essence, even the most

sympathetic treatment of it cannot wholly justify such a mediaeval articulation.11 Such a

lack of understanding may explain why so many people today, including even a vast

number of Christians, are no longer taking Subsistent Being Itself seriously.

Nevertheless, should the Thomistic concept of IES possess such a profound URAM

and incredible consequence for us as noted by Maritain, it becomes imperative that, for

the benefits of many today and tomorrow, this metaphysical concept and consequence are

to be duly explored. As it is, that is precisely what this chapter is aiming to explore, at

least as an initial endeavour. We will, therefore, first attempt to handle tersely the very

meaning, characteristics and philosophical development of Thomistic metaphysics in

light of some historical background. Afterwards, we will deal with the URAM and the

immense challenge for us today with respect to such a metaphysical concept of the

6 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 50. 7 Vincent Shen (沈清松) succinctly states that the metaphysics of St. Thomas is a superb model of onto- theology. Cf. 沈清松：《物理之後：形上學的發展》二版，臺北市：牛頓出版股份有限公司，民國八

十年，頁 158。 8 Thomistic philosophy or theology may be viewed as a Christian philosophy in the Gilsonian sense. Cf. footnote 114 in Chapter I. 9 Jacques Maritain, Distinguish to Unite, or The Degrees of Knowledge. Newly translated from the fourth French edition under the supervision of Gerald B. Phelan (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), p. 230. Following Maritain, the author will use Him for Subsistent Being Itself or God henceforth. 10 Fergus Kerr, O.P., After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), p. 73. 11 Cf. Ibid.

23


Angelic Doctor.

2. Meaning, Characteristics and Development of the Thomistic Metaphysics

Philosophy, literally, is “the love of wisdom.”12 This love of wisdom may also be

understood as the continuous pursuit of the knowledge of human reason with respect to

the URAM of (a) what really exists in the totality of reality, and (b) the existence and

purpose of the human being in the world. 13 Philosophy, therefore, is inextricably

metaphysical. At the core of Western philosophy,14 metaphysics may be divided into (a)

general metaphysics and (b) special metaphysics.

On the one hand, as in the case of general metaphysics, metaphysics may be defined

as ontology. Such a general study focuses on the general, universal study of the esse (act

of existence) of beings (entia, plural of ens), as well as their attributes and principles in

general.15 On the other hand, as in the case of special metaphysics, metaphysics may be

defined as the special study of the esse of beings (as well as their attributes and principles

of beings) according to three main classifications, i.e., cosmology, psychology (i.e.,

philosophical anthropology) and theodicy (i.e., natural theology).16

In fact, Western philosophy is viewed by Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) as

essentially metaphysical.17 If what really exists is symbolized by the existence of ‘the

Uncreated Being’ and ‘created beings’ in the totality of reality, traditional metaphysics as

12 Johannes B. Lotz, “Philosophy,” in: Philosophical Dictionary, in: Walter Brugger (editor of the original German edition), Philosophical Dictionary. Translated and edited by Kenneth Baker (Spokane, Washington: Gonzaga University Press, 1974), p. 307; cf. 布魯格編著，項退結編譯：《西洋哲學辭典》，

增訂二版，台北市：華香園出版社，民國八十八年，頁 409。 13 According to Lotz, “Philosophy means literally the love of wisdom. The name itself indicates that man can never perfectly possess a comprehensive understanding of all that is meant by wisdom but continually and ardently strives for it. With regards to what it does, philosophy is that knowledge of human reason which penetrates to the ultimate foundations of things; and it is concerned with all reality, but especially with the existence and purpose of man.” Ibid. 14 Cf. 沈清松：《物理之後：形上學的發展》，頁 13。 15 Cf. Ibid., p. 25. 16 Cf. Ibid., p. 21. 17 Cf. Thomas Langan, The Meaning of Heidegger. A critical study of an existentialist phenomenology (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1966 [1959]), pp. 8-9.

24


a whole has been seeking after the URAM as regards the esse of the Uncreated Being and

created beings. On the one hand, the Uncreated Being may be identified as the Divine

Being,18 the Supreme Being, the Eternal One, or the URAM of URAMs pertaining to all

created beings. Thus, IES, the Christian God of St. Thomas, may also be identified as the

Uncreated Being Itself, existing, to begin with, in the eternal, uncreated or transcendent

realm. On the other hand, “created beings” may be viewed as a plural term or symbol

representing all created things (or existents) existing in the temporal, created and

immanent realm.19 By all appearances, the Uncreated Being and created beings are

inseparable in the traditional pursuit of metaphysical knowledge.

On reflection, the history of Western philosophy can be divided into three general

periods, i.e., the Ancient Greek Period, the Mediaeval Christian Period, and the Modern-

Postmodern Period.20 At the same time, the whole of Western philosophy may be

summarily characterized in terms of the Uncreated Being and created beings. In such a

frame of mind, the Ancient Greek Period would seem to be rather explorative. It may be

represented by Thales (c.636-c.546 B.C.), Anaximander (c.611-c.547 B.C.), Anaximenes

(c.586-c.525 B.C.), Pythagoras (c.582-c.507 B.C.), Xenophanes (c.560–c.478 B.C.),

Parmenides (b. c.515 B.C.), Empedocles (c.495-c.435 B.C.), Socrates (469-399 B.C.),

Plato (c.427-347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), etc. By and large, this ancient period

seems to be seeking for a metaphysics of the Uncreated Being and created beings without

a definitive, consistent knowledge or supernatural faith in the ultimate, eternal Uncreated

18 One may compare, for example, the Uncreated Divine Being with the first division of nature in the totality of reality according to Joannes Scotus Eriugena. “The first is the division into what creates and is not created; the second into what is created and creates; the third, into what is created and does not create; the fourth, into what neither creates nor is created.” Johannes Scotus Eriugena (John the Scot), Periphyseon: On the division of nature (Indianapolis, Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1976), p. 2. 19 Further, one may compare the created beings to the third division of Eriugena. Cf. ibid. The second and the fourth are not applicable here. At least, they do not interfere with our twofold division of what really exists in the totality of reality. 20 This threefold division is based on the author’s observation of the varying threefold divisions worked out or followed by several quotable authors, with respect to the history of Western philosophy. For example, Bertrand Russell’s threefold division in his work History of Western Philosophy is depicted in terms of the Ancient Philosophy, the Catholic Philosophy, and the Modern Philosophy. Cf. Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967 [1946]), pp. 1ff. But this book does not include what has happened in the 20th century and so on. Furthermore, Richard Tarnas in his work The Passion of the Western Mind describes the history of Western philosophy in terms of the Greek world view, the Christian world view, and the Modern world view. Cf. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993[1991]), pp.1ff.

25


Divine Being.

Simultaneously, the Mediaeval Christian Period may be viewed as quite affirmative.

This age is represented possibly by St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), St. Augustine of

Hippo (354-430 A.D.), Boethius (c.475-525), Johannes Scotus Eriugena (c.800-c.877

A.D.), St. Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109), Peter Abelard (1079-c.1142), St. Thomas

Aquinas (c.1225-1274), Meister Eckhart (c.1260-1328), St. Gregory Palamas (c.1296-

1359), St. Bonaventura (c.1217-1274), John Wycliffe (1320-1384), etc. In general, this

period covering the Middle Ages seems to seek after a metaphysics of the Uncreated

Being and created beings grounded upon the sure foundation of faith in the Supreme

Being as revealed in the Christian Bible. Fundamentally, such a way of thinking tends to

be theocentric, i.e., focused on God the Uncreated Divine Being or the Subsistent Being

Itself. Although the Mediaeval Age has been viewed by many today as the so-called Dark

Ages, it might have to be reconceived as the Glorious Ages insofar as its brilliant

achievements in philosophy, theology, religion, spirituality, arts and literature, etc., are

concerned.21

Finally, the Modern-Postmodern Period appears to be looking for an increasingly

pluralistic metaphysics based on its knowledge of created beings alone. This period is

represented more or less by René Descartes (1596-1650), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),

David Hume (1711-1716), Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), Karl Marx (1818-1883),

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Edmund Husserl

(1859-1938), John Dewey (1859-1952), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Bertrand

Russell (1872-1970), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980),

Michel Foucault (1926-1984), Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Jürgen Habermas

(1929- ), etc.

21 According to the perceptive insights of Thomé H. Fang (方東美) ,「過去有許歷史家回顧中世紀，往

往要安上一個不好聽的名詞，叫做 dark ages (黑暗時代) ，其實是非常冤枉，因為中世紀不論在宗教，

藝術或文學上面，都有許多很高的精神，那是個光明時代！但是代人拿近代的偏見，看不出那個時

代的光明，才反倒誤稱那個時代叫做黑暗時代。」方東美先生主講，郭文夫校記並註：〈中國哲學對

未來世界的影響〉，《現代學苑》或《哲學與文化月刊：革新號第一期》，第十一卷，第三期 (民國六

十三年三月)，頁 3。

26


Grounded upon the human rational perception and intuitive conception of created

beings in the created realm, the current age has definitively left behind the sure

metaphysical foundation or supernatural faith in the traditional Christian concept of God

the Uncreated Divine Being.22 Philosophically speaking, this search is tilted towards

special metaphysics, rather than general metaphysics. It is by and large materialistically

and anthropologically focused, rather than spiritually and theologically centred.

Comparing the present age (at least until recently) with the Mediaeval Christian Period,

perhaps the current Modern-Postmodern Period should be redescribed as the Dark Ages,

philosophically, theologically, spiritually and artistically, etc., except for a few brilliant

thinkers whose thoughts may have been universally recognized. 23 Notably, the

materialistic mentality of this period seems to have been spread around the whole global

village.24

In varying degrees, it is, inter alia, in light of this metaphysical framework as regards

the history of Western philosophy (or metaphysics) that the following meaning,

characteristics and development of Thomistic metaphysics are to be explored.

2.1 Meaning of Thomistic Metaphysics

It appears that there are at least three definitive meanings or approaches with which St.

Thomas treats his theocentric metaphysics, i.e., as first philosophy, the study of being as

being, and the study of the natural principles of theology or divine science.25

22 Cf. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, pp. 395-410. 23 Thomé H. Fang observes: 「依我看來，假使將來歷史家回顧十九世紀末廿世紀初年的我們這一

時代，要蒙上一個『黑暗時代』的名字，我想處在我們這一代的許多人將要感到『百口莫辯』！因

為在今天這時代，不只是宗教的精神衰退、哲學的智慧衰退，連藝術的精神也衰退，幾乎都到達一

種不可理解的程度。尤其是我們回過來就哲學這一方面講起來，近五十年以來，就哲學而言，除了

少數傑出的哲人以外，整個世界可說是哲學的低潮。假使在這麼一種情形之下，我們研究哲學的人

還要誇張說我們這個時代的哲學可以影響未來，這是大言不慚！」方東美先生主講，郭文夫校記並

註：〈中國哲學對未來世界的影響〉，頁 3。 Cf. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, an abridged edition by Helmut Werner, English abridged edition prepared by Arthur helps, translated by Charles Francis Atkinson (New York: The Modern Library, 1962), pp. 1ff. 24 Cf. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, pp. 37, 39-40. 25 Cf. H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics. Trans. John A. Otto (St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder Book Co., 1967), p. 2.

27


2.11 Thomistic Metaphysics as the First Philosophy

In contrast with other sciences which seek to explore exclusively the more immediate

principles and causes of things,26 St. Thomas’s God-centred metaphysics studies what is

first in the order of reality, i.e., existence (esse) and in particular Ipsum Esse Subsistens.27

As the First Cause or Principle of the totality of reality, IES is expressed also in terms of

the Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Ordering

Mind,28 etc.

One may say that, unlike the metaphysical search in both the Ancient Greek Period

and the Modern-Postmodern Period, the scholastic ontology or general metaphysics

established by St. Thomas consists in nothing other than the unfolding of the God

question (Gottesproblem).29 Through delving into the mystery of the esse of created

beings, one begins to understand better or deeper the mystery of Ipsum Esse Subsistens in

the end. As IES, God is Esse (Existence) Itself, of Itself subsistent.30 Consequently, IES

contains within Himself the whole perfection of esse, from Whom all other things or

beings not only derive their esse, but also find the URAM of their very esse in the Esse or

Essence of IES.31

2.12 Thomistic Metaphysics as the Study of Being as Being

Although St. Thomas, following Aristotle’s definition of metaphysics,32 approaches

metaphysics as the general study of being as being, as well as the essential attributes of

being, it leads us analogically to the knowledge of the Supreme Uncreated Being, i.e., 26 Cf. Ibid. 27 Cf. J. B. Lotz, “Metaphysics,” in: Philosophical Dictionary, p. 248. 28 Cf. Peter Kreeft, Summa of the Summa (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1900), p. 65, footnote 20. 29 Cf. Johannes Heinrichs, “Ontologie,” in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Band XXV, hrsg. G. Müller (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), p. 245. Quoting Johannes B. Lotz, Heinrichs writes: “… für scholastisch-katholisch orientierte Autoren Ontologie ‘nichts anderes als das unentfaltete Gottesproblem darstellt.’” Ibid. 30 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 4, a. 2. 31 Cf. Ibid.; Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969 [1941]), p. 143; James V. McGlynn, S.J., and Sr. Paul Mary Farley, R.S.M., A Metaphysics of Being and God (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, etc., 1966) p. 219; Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, pp. 46-49. 32 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, pp. 196-201.

28


God.33 According to traditional scholasticism, ontology or general metaphysics34 is the

general study of the existence (i.e., esse or Being) of beings (or existents) which

“considers all existents [beings] under the aspect of universal existence [esse] and so it

investigates the essence, properties and laws of existences as such”.35

Unlike each and every other science which considers only a portion of being as

regards its esse, St. Thomas embraces all beings as well as their esse in general. In his

metaphysics of an existence common to all and unique to each, Aquinas, like Augustine,

saw man and all other beings as potentially, or even radically, existing ‘toward God’ (ad

Deum), the Supreme Being.36 The genius of St. Thomas in his study of being as being

consists in that he can relate the most common essence, nature or attributes of beings to

those of the Divine Being, the Mysterium Tremendum, i.e., God as the Tremendous

Mystery.

2.13 Thomistic Metaphysics as the Study of the Natural Principles of Theology

It appears that St. Thomas approaches metaphysics as the study of the natural

principles of theology or divine science “in which divine things are considered not so

much as the subject of the science but as the principles of its subject, and such is that

theology which the philosophers sought after and which by another name is called

metaphysics”.37 Based on his Aristotelian metaphysics, he can turn what he observes

from the everyday world into the natural principles of theology or divine science. In other 33 Apparently, Aristotle focused his metaphysical study on essence, rather than on esse (Being). It was St. Thomas who re-focused metaphysics as the study of esse (Being) of beings. Cf. 沈清松：《物理之後/ 形上

學的發展》，頁 26-27. 34 “Brought into common use by Christian Wolff (1679-1754), ‘ontology’ is often synonymous with ‘metaphysics’.” Gerald O’Collins, S.J., and Edward G. Farrugia , S.J., A Concise Dictionary of Theology (New York/ Mahah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1991), p. 163. More specifically, at least according to the Wolffian tradition, metaphysics may be divided into general metaphysics and special metaphysics. General metaphysics is often called ontology, and special metaphysics is divided into (1) cosmology which studies the material world, (2) rational psychology or philosophical anthropology which studies the soul or the human being, and (3) theodicy or natural theology which studies God in the natural realm. Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Metaphysics,” in: Philosophical Dictionary, p. 249; 沈清松：《物理之後：形上學的發展》，頁 21。 35 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Metaphysics,” in: Philosophical Dictionary, p. 247. 36 Cf. Mary T. Clark, ed., An Aquinas Reader (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), p. 2. 37 Cf. James F. Anderson, An Introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), p. 104.

29


words, St. Thomas is able to see God and His divine essence, principles or attributes

through all created beings and their created essence, principles or attributes. In turn, up to

a point, the natural essence, principles or attributes found in the created world can be

used to describe even those of the Uncreated God as well as His uncreated essence,

principles or attributes.38

In short, St. Thomas has transformed metaphysics, making it become the study of the

natural principles of theology or divine science. To St. Thomas, metaphysics (or

metaphysical science) is not an end itself, but it has become the means to theology or

divine science. Metaphysics and God are, therefore, inseparable to the Angelic Doctor.39

Ultimately, one may find God in one’s pursuit of this traditional Christian metaphysics.

At the same time, one may also find metaphysics or metaphysical principles in the pursuit

of divine science or divine principles. For example, in one’s theological pursuit of God as

the Alpha and Omega of all creation, one may also see the Alpha and Omega as the First

Cause and Final Cause of all that exists metaphysically in the realm of created beings.

As the whole of Thomistic metaphysics, intellectually speaking, is geared towards the

supreme knowledge of God as its final end,40 it is clear that, “for St. Thomas metaphysics

is primarily and principally about God.”41 James F. Anderson elaborates:42

Now these are the very things of which divine science treats…, to wit, separated substances and the principles common to all beings. Hence it is evident that its consideration is pre-eminently intellectual. So too it follows that divine science confers principles upon all other sciences, inasmuch as intellectual consideration is, in the order of reason, the principle on whose account divine science is called “first philosophy.” And yet this science is learned after physics, inasmuch as intellectual considerations is the terminus of the rational. Wherefore divine science is called ‘metaphysics,’ as though one were to say ‘trans-physics,’ because it arises by way of resolution after physics.

In brief, one may say that the metaphysics of St. Thomas is the analogical study of

38 Throughout this study, ‘uncreated’ and ‘Uncreated’ are used interchangeably according to the natural flow or special nuance of the specific name, phrase or sentence, etc. in the context. 39 Cf. Ralph McInerny, Aquinas, pp. 86-89. 40 Cf. Ibid., p. 111. 41 James F. Anderson, An Introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, pp. vii-viii. 42 Ibid., p. 111.

30


being (ens) as being (ens). It is built upon the general principles of how a universal being

(ens) as a universal being (ens) functions, works or relates to one another universally in

the physical world. The general principles employed by St. Thomas include, for example,

cause and effect, essence and act of existence, being (ens) and its essential attributes,

form and matter, potency and act, the one and the many, necessity and contingency, the

division of being (ens) into the finite and the infinite, etc.

Further, Thomistic metaphysics may be regarded as the general study of the Being

(esse) of beings conducted in the trans-physical approach, in the widest sense of the term

“physical,” i.e., “the real, the actual, the effective in contrast to the merely imagined, the

conceptual, the intentional, the abstract.”43 Therefore, Thomistic metaphysics may confer

these general principles, to a certain extent, upon all other sciences in the order of reason

in this so-called “first philosophy.”44

At the same time, such an approach to reality can lead us metaphysically to the

knowledge of God, the eternal Subsistent Being Itself (i.e., IES) in terms of such a study

of the Being (esse) of beings. Influenced by St. Augustine, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, St.

Albert the Great (c.1193-1280) and William of Auvergne (c.1190-c.1249), etc., St.

Thomas’s metaphysical conception and articulation of IES consists principally in his

metaphysical study with respect to Aristotle’s philosophical principles. In varying degrees,

the Arabian commentators of Aristotle’s works such as Averroës (1126-1198) and in

particular Avicenna (980-1037) also have a certain significant impact on St. Thomas’s

metaphysics of Subsistent Being Itself.45

The following section would give us a better idea or more comprehensive explanation

as regards the extensive Aristotelian characteristics of the Thomistic metaphysics.

43 Cf. Walter Brugger, “physical,” in: Philosophical Dictionary, p. 309. 44 “Metaphysics is a common science inasmuch as it considers being as common to all that is or can be, but is not general if this term is taken to imply that its subject (being) and its principles are generic, and therefore univocal, universals.” James F. Anderson, An Introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), p. vii. 45 Cf. Étienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), pp. 235-246.

31


2.2 Characteristics of Thomistic Metaphysics

First, as a study of being as being, the Thomistic metaphysics is a theory of every

being (ens) (or everything as being) in the totality of reality, following Aristotle’s

all-embracing approach. After defining metaphysics as “a science which investigates

being as being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature,”46

Aristotle carefully added what follows. In order not to confuse metaphysics and the other

branches of human knowledge, he says: “Now this is not the same as any of the so-called

special sciences; for none of these others deals generally with being as being. They cut

off a part of being and investigate the attributes of this part.”47

Considering all things at the same time in terms of ens, being (ens) is, therefore, “the

widest and most fundamental concept in the thought of St. Thomas.”48 As there is nothing

prior to being (ens) by which it can be defined, being (ens) seems to defy definition.49

Having esse, being (ens), i.e., that which is, does not need to be really actual,50 e.g., an

unreal, imaginative being like a four-wing flying horse existing as such only in our

imaginative mind; yet it exists as an imaginative concept nonetheless. Being (ens),

therefore, is wider even than reality, as an analogical concept of the concrete subject of

esse, the very opposite of nihil, non-ens or nothingness.51

There is no doubt that what constitutes the very root (or ground) in the metaphysics of

St. Thomas is “being” (ens) from which “issues every ramification of his metaphysical

thought.”52 St. Thomas says: “What the intellect first conceives, on the ground that it is

the most known object, is being; and to being it reduces all its conceptions.”53 Although

46 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Γ, 1, 1003 a 21-25 in: Aristotle Selections. Ed. By W. D. Ross (New York: Scribner, 1927), p. 53; Étienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, Second Edition (Toronto, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1952), p. 1. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, p. 196. 47 Ibid. 48 Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 342. 49 Cf. Ibid., pp. 342-343. 50 CF. Ibid., p. 342. 51 Cf. Ibid., pp. 342-343. 52 H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics, p. 35. 53 Ibid. In Latin, it is: “Illud autem quod primo intellectus concipit quasi notissimum et in quo omnes conceptiones resolvit est ens.” St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q.1, a.1.

32


“[e]verything is reality, whether actual or possible, falls under being, hence under the

concept of being,”54 this study of being, nevertheless, leads us to the Uncreated Being or

the Subsistent Being Itself, i.e., God.

This is apparently the very brilliance of St. Thomas’s approach to metaphysics. The

starting point may be being (ens) in the most universal or broadest sense,55 but the end or

summit is God, i.e., Subsistent Being Itself. “The whole philosophy of being stems on the

recognition that in God there is identity of essence and existence; whence it is that he is

fullness of being, fullness in which all other beings but participate.”56 Indeed, there may

be countless finite beings, but there is only one Infinite Being in which all finite beings

partake. This Infinite Being is called Ipsum Esse Subsistens. What follows are other

characteristics in St. Thomas’s metaphysics which is predominantly Aristotelian.

2.21 Approaching All Beings in Terms of Analogy

An analogy of being (ens) is fundamentally a knowledge of being or beings

applicable to all beings through comparing one being with one another. If our very first

spontaneous affirmation of life is the existence of being (ens), then our next spontaneous

affirmation of life is the pluralism of beings when we begin to compare one particular

being with another.57 In fact, St. Thomas’s philosophy or metaphysics of being (ens) is

basically analogical knowledge through comparison.58

According to Johannes B. Lotz (1903-1992), “Analogy comes from the Greek

analogon which means the proportion or likeness that exists between two or more things.

By this is meant primarily an analogy of knowledge which grasps one existent according

to its relationship to some other. Thus the existence of an existent is manifested by

54 H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics, p. 45. 55 The affirmation of being is built on at least two principles, i.e., the principle of non-contradiction, and the principle of identity. Cf. Ibid., pp. 109-117. 56 Ibid., pp. 232-233. 57 Mieczyslaw Albert Krapiec, O.P., Metaphysics: An Outline of the History of Being, p. 448. 58 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, IV, n. 534; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.13, a.5, ad 1.

33


comparison with some other existent or at least made clear.”59 There are, then, two

situations when analogy is un-called-for: “Without similarity there is absolutely no

possibility of a comparison; without difference the comparison presents merely a

repetition of the same thing with no new information. Therefore analogous knowledge is

rooted in the analogy of existence by reason of which two or more existents are at the

same time similar and different in their existence.”60

Here, two basic types of analogy deserve our consideration. The first is the analogy of

attribution in which “the analogous common element is assigned to the second analogate

in dependence on the first one.”61 For example, God is said to be existing as the primary

analogate in perfect existence; the creature is said to be existing as the secondary

analogate in imperfect existence, since in itself the creature really does exist, but only in

absolute dependence on God.62 This analogy is immensely important in the philosophy of

St. Thomas as he talks about creatures in imperfect esse and essence. Yet, creatures or

created beings, in particular human beings, are called to partake in the perfect Esse or

Essence of the perfect Uncreated Being (i.e., IES).63

Analogizing on the similarity and difference between two or more existents, the

second type of analogy is complementary and equally important as the first in our

endeavours. It is called the analogy of proportionality as it is “based on the affirmation

that each of the analogates possesses a relation in which all at the same time agree and

disagree.”64 “Thus, both God and creatures are related to existence in its essential reality,

but in essentially different ways, God necessarily, the creature contingently.”65 “Thanks

to such an analogy, the cognitive apprehension of the totality of beings of the most

diverse structures, in terms of both species and individuals, becomes possible.” 66

Through the descriptive use of transcendentals like unity, truth, and goodness, every

59 J.B. Lotz, “Analogy,” in: Walter Brugger, Philosophical Dictionary, p. 11. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 Cf. Ibid., p. 12. 63 J.B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14. W. MacDonald, ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), pp. 238-241. 64 J.B. Lotz, “Analogy,” in: Walter Brugger, Philosophical Dictionary, p. 12. 65 Ibid. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q.2, a.11, ad 5. 66 Mieczyslaw Albert Krapiec, O.P., Metaphysics: An Outline of the History of Being, p. 474.

34


concrete being, according to Aristotle and St, Thomas,67 becomes analogical and “that

the set of all beings --- the cosmos --- constitutes an analogical unity.”68

As a whole, the use of the analogy of being (analogia entis) with respect to the

question of God is pre-eminently necessary.69 For example, although the Uncreated

Being and created beings, i.e., the Creator and the creatures, are infinitely different, what

we call goodness in beings can be said to pre-exist in the Uncreated Being and in an

immensely higher way analogically.70 Lotz sums it up cogently: “Insofar as it says

agreement and similarity, it overcomes a complete separation of God and the world, in

this respect it makes some knowledge of God possible in contrast to all forms of

agnosticism. Insofar as it also says difference, it excludes the pantheistic identification of

God and the world; in this respect it prevents man from acquiring an exhaustive

understanding of God.”71 Through the use of analogy, St. Thomas is able to depict the

metaphysics of the Uncreated Being and created beings in his perennial philosophy which

is essentially Christian.

2.22 Conceiving all Beings in Terms of Form and Matter It appears that St. Thomas conceives all beings or things in terms of form and matter

too. In contrast to form, “[w]hatever matter is, it is in potency.”72 According to St.

Thomas, form “is a concept of great variety and fecundity, and generally signifies

actuality in contrast to the potentiality of matter, or determination of quality or kind in

contrast to the indeterminacy of matter.”73 Analogically, God may, therefore, be called

Pure Subsistent Form, as compared to all creatures.74 However, it is must be carefully

67 Cf. Ibid., pp. 472-473. 68 Ibid., p. 474. 69 Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler. Theological Dictionary (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), p. 18. 70 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.13, a.2: Cf. Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas., p. 113. 71 J.B. Lotz, “Analogy,” in: Walter Brugger, Philosophical Dictionary, p. 12. 72 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1, q.17, a.2. 73 Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 409. 74 Cf. Bernard Wuellner, S.J., A Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, pp. 108-109; Armand Maurer, C.S.B., “Form and Essence in the Philosophy of St. Thomas,” in: Mediaeval Studies, XIII (1951), pp. 165-176.

35


made clear that God cannot be composed of matter and form, since matter is in potency

and that God is Pure Act without any potency.75 It is true that some beings, such as the

angels and human souls, are called forms which exist independently of matter. But they

are not pure forms, i.e., forms which have no potency.

According to the thinking of St. Thomas, every agent acts by its form and that the

manner in which an agent has its form is the manner in which it is an agent. Whatever is

primarily and essentially an agent must, therefore, be primarily and essentially form.76

“Now God is the first agent, since He is the first efficient cause. He is therefore of His

essence a form; and not composed of matter and form.”77 Once again, we witness here

how St. Thomas can address God analogically, using the common principles of sensible

substances, i.e., matter and form.78

However, it must be pointed out here that addressing God as a Formal Cause, a

form-giving Pure Subsistent Form, without the composition of matter, may appear to

many today as a rather vague and abstract concept about God. It is true that such a

mediaeval depiction of God may have appeared sound and concrete to many in the

Mediaeval Christian Period, including various scholars well trained in scholastic

philosophy and theology. But this may not be so to many today at the beginning of the

third millennium. Apparently, this is a foremost reason inter alia why Ipsum Esse

Subsistens has to be re-addressed, refigured or re-figurated by virtue of a language,

mentality or framework which is appropriate to that of many today.

2.23 Treating All Created Beings as Participants in God’s Fullness of Esse

As one gradually grows in awareness in regards to the pluralism or diversity of beings,

one may begin to discover the existence of a real hierarchy of beings, as St. Thomas

75 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.3, a.2. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, III, pp. 554-558.

36


believes that some are fuller beings than others.79 Apparently, between the two poles, i.e.,

God the Uncreated Being (Who is IES) and non-esse (i.e., nothingness), there exists a

hierarchy of beings, each possessing, enjoying, or being deprived of a certain degree of

fullness of Being (esse). Without question, according to the metaphysics of St. Thomas,

the most reliable, perfect, and time-tested paradigm with respect to the fullness of Being

is that which is ultimately measured according to God's infinite, omnipresent, and

everlasting Fullness of Being (Esse), the Essence of Whom is describable, analogically,

in terms of the various metaphysical properties of being (ens).

Employing what any person may observe in daily life as regards potency and its act

or actualization, St. Thomas applies it to his conception of God as the Uncreated Being

who has fulfilled all His potency or potentialities. As it is, “in God, there is no

potency.”80 In all finite creatures, there is composition between act (i.e., act of existence)

and potency, but in God who has perfectly and infinitely actualized all His potency, there

is only act. Hence, the divine properties or transcendentals of being such as divine unity,

truth, goodness and beauty, etc., become necessarily one's perfect standard in measuring

one's fullness of Being (esse) in the hierarchy of beings.

“Existence (esse) is what God is and what all creatures share in (cf. Summa

theologiae 1.45.5), and causal participation is how Thomas understands the analogical

relationship between divine existence and creaturely existence.”81 The genius of St.

Thomas here consists in that he can integrate, at the same time, the concept of

participation originated from Plato and the notion of causality derived from Aristotle.82

79 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.44, a.1. 80 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1, q.18, a.2. The English translation here is taken from Saint Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Summa Contra Gentiles. Book One: God. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes by Anton G. Pegis (Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1956), p. 103. 81 Francis J. Caponi, “Karl Rahner and the Metaphysics of Participation,” in: The Thomist, vol. 67, no. 33, July 2003, p. 377. 82 Cf. Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940), pp. 74, 86, 148, and 157. As regards Plato’s concept of ideas and our participation in them, Gilson notes: “According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the ideas are in God as the forms to the likeness of which all things are made… The idea appears when God knows His essence as the principle of creatures which would be His possible participations… [E]ach creature is a certain mode of participation in, and likeness to, the divine essence.” Ibid., p. 157. As regards to Aristotle’s notion of causality, Gilson writes: “There is therefore a first mover not itself moved by any other; and this is God. At first sight nothing could be more purely Greek

37


Ultimately caused by Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the esse of all creatures participate without

exception in His Esse. Subsequently, creatures are seen as forming a hierarchy of beings

from the highest created being to the least of all creation participating in various levels of

God's Fullness of Esse, illustratable in terms of the divine transcendental unity, truth,

beauty and goodness, etc.

2.24 Depicting All Beings in terms of Transcendentals

It is important to note that, behind all philosophical thought, especially in the

traditional Latin West, the moving force is the concept of being (ens).83 Apart from

“being” itself, the traditional metaphysician of the West also examines the nature,

properties, or attributes which necessarily accompany “being” and thus are found with

every “being.” Since such notions transcend the categories and species of Aristotle,

scholastic philosophers refer to them as transcendentals.84 Further, transcending all

particularities in the order of being, transcendentals belong to every thing or being (ens)

whatsoever as the most common determinants of all things or properties of all beings.85

Although St. Thomas never used the term “transcendental” as such in his writings, the

“transcendentals” or “transcendental concepts” such as unity, truth, goodness and beauty

themselves were quite familiar to him and are inseparable from his notion of God as Esse

or Ipsum Esse Subsistens.86

In other words, according to Johannes B. Lotz (1903-1992), “[t]he transcendental

properties referred to as transcendental necessarily accompany being; being manifests

itself in them and reveals what it actually is.”87 Similarly, in the analogical sense, the

transcendental properties or attributes of God as IES have been expressed in terms of the

transcendentals of being by scholastic thinkers. Just as any created being (ens) is never

than such an argumentation: a universe in movement… [H]ave we not here a complete picture of Aristotle’s world, and do we not know, moreover, that the proof is taken from Aristotle?” Ibid., p. 74. 83 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p. 238. 84 Cf. Ibid. 85 Cf. Ibid., p. 240. 86 Étienne Gilson, Elements of Christian Philosophy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1960), p. 137. 87 Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14. p. 240.

38


found without its transcendental properties, the Uncreated Being is never found without

the infinite fullness of uncreated unity, truth and goodness, etc. “This ultimately implies

that subsistent being is also subsistent unity, truth, and goodness.”88 To be sure, “God is

not good or wise because He causes goodness or wisdom; rather, God causes goodness

and wisdom because He himself is good and wise.”89 By the same token, one may say

that IES causes unity, truth, and goodness, etc., because IES as such is subsistent unity,

truth, and goodness, etc.

Indeed, the establishment of the number and order of the transcendentals for being

(ens) has always been a concern of philosophers. Even for the same philosopher, the

number and order may vary from one stage of intellectual development to another. For

example, at one point St. Thomas lists five properties as accompanying being, i.e., thing,

unity, otherness, truth, and goodness.90 Yet, in some texts he mentions only three

properties of being, i.e., unity, truth, and goodness.91 We will return to this point later.

2.25 Defining All Beings in Terms of Esse and Essence

St. Thomas defines every being (ens) in the totality of reality in terms of its esse (act

of being or existence) and essence (essentia).92 Without question, Thomistic metaphysics

is “a doctrine of the primacy of the act of existing [esse],”93 an existential ontology, in

which being (ens) is defined in function of its act of existing (esse).94 Ultimately, esse,

88 Ibid. 89 Étienne Gilson, Elements of Christian Philosophy, p. 140. 90 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q.1, a.1; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Nat. Gen., q.2; Consult Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.14, p. 239. 91 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q.21, a.1-3; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Potentia, 9.7 ad 6; St. Thomas Aquinas, In L. Sent. (Scriptum super libros Sententiarum), d. 8, q.1, a.3; Consult Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” p. 239. Due to the limit of space here in this sub-section, the concept of transcendentals is to be further dealt with later on in the chapter. 92 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, pp. 50-54. According to Roy J. Deferrari, essentia (Latin) can the following meanings: “essentia, ae, f., (1) essence, as distinct from existence, being, that whereby, whether it be a substance or an accident, it is what it is, (2) being, that which has an essence. Essentia, forma, natura, quidditas, quod quid est, quod quid erat esse, species, and substantia, all refer to the same thing but under different aspects…. For St. Thomas, essence abstracts from existence; the only essentially existent being is God. Hence existence is related to essence as actuality to potentiality.” Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 358. 93 Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, p. 171. 94 Cf. Ibid., p. 158.

39


the act of existing, is “at the root of reality. It is therefore the principle of the principles of

reality.”95 Absolutely first, a being (ens) is a being (ens) only if it first has esse, the act of

existing.96 “That which first falls under the intellect’s grasp is being (ens). Thus the

intellect necessarily attributes being to everything it apprehends. Being [ens] means

that-which-is, or exists (esse habens).”97 In natural reality, being (ens) is the existing

thing (id quod habet esse) which possesses both esse (the act of existing) and essence

distinctly or separately. Every created being (ens) is, therefore, complex or composite, in

which esse and essence are distinct or separate from each other.98

Subsequently, it defines the Uncreated Subsistent Being Itself in terms of Its Esse and

Essence which are indistinct from each other, since God is Pure Being in whom no

potency is left. Every created being, whether spiritual or material, is a composition of

essence and existence.99 Clearly, there is no composition in God100 not only as regards

His act and potency, but also with respect to His Esse and Essence.101 As we know, the

God of St. Thomas is Pure Existence or Being (Esse) who is also called Actus Purus, i.e.,

God is Pure (Absolute or Infinite) Actualization (Realization or Fulfillment) insofar as the

potentiality of His Esse or Essence is concerned.

“God is the source of existence , the source of all contingently (tenuously, partially,

minimally) existing things.”102 Although all beings are defined in terms of esse and

essence, it is clear that St. Thomas gives preeminence to esse. Étienne Gilson says:

“Since a thing includes both its quiddity and its existence (esse: to be), truth is more

grounded on the existence (esse) of the thing than on its quiddity itself. For, indeed, the

noun ens (being) is derived from esse (to be) so that the adequation in which truth

consists is achieved by a kind of assimilation of the intellect to the existence (esse) of the

95 Ibid., p. 159. 96 Cf. Ibid. 97 James F. Anderson, An Introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 21. 98 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 26, note 1. 99 Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, p. 39. 100 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt.I, q.3, a.2, a.3, and a.4. 101 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1, q.22, a.1. 102 Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, p. 43.

40


thing, through the very operation whereby it accepts it such as it is.”103

All in all, Thomistic metaphysics is preeminently existential in the sense that it is

primarily grounded upon both the created esse of things and the uncreated Esse of God.

Apparently, as esse is related to essence as act to potency, essence as a whole abstracts

from esse.104 One may say that the esse and essence of all things are ultimately caused by

the Esse of God in Whom Esse and Essence as indistinguishable. As created beings

partake more and more in God’s very Esse Who is Ipsum Esse Subsistens, they would

begin to participate increasingly in His Essence. This seems to be the raison d’être as

regards the esse of all created beings, i.e., increasing participation in the Esse or Essence

of the Uncreated Subsistent Being Itself according to the degree of fullness determined

by God.

2.26 Relating to all Beings in Terms of Cause and Effect

It appears that St. Thomas also approaches all beings in terms of causality. “Being has

a dynamic as well as a static aspect; it not only is, but is active, a principle of activity: in

a word, cause.”105 To St. Thomas, a cause is “that on which a thing depends for its being

and its becoming”.106 As “being which is not of itself, is of another,”107 St. Thomas

writes:108

Though the relation to its cause is not part of the definition of a thing caused, still it follows as a result of what belongs to its nature. For, from the fact that a thing is being by participation, it follows that it is caused. Hence such a being cannot be without being caused, just as man cannot be without having the faculty of laughing. But, since to be caused does not enter into the essence of being as such, therefore is it possible for us to find a being uncaused.

103 Étienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, p.188. 104 Cf. Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 358. 105 H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics, p. 215. 106 Ibid., p. 218. According to St. Thomas Aquinas in In octo libros Physicorum expositon, Lect. 1, no. 10: “Causae autem dicuntur ex quibus res dependent secundum esse vel fieri.” St. Thomas Aquinas, In octo libros Physicorum expositon. Editio A. M. Pirotta. Naples: M. D’Auria, 1953, Lect. 1, no. 10. 107 H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics, p. 228. 108 Ibid. This quote is taken from St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 44, a.1, ad. 1.

41


Apparently, St. Thomas identifies the eternal Subsistent Being Itself as the ultimate

Root, Ground or Cause of all causes in all creation in terms of his five ways (quinque

viae), i.e., five “reasoned ways which open out the prospect of the world caused by

God.” 109 In other words, St. Thomas portrays God in virtue of five distinct

starting-points,110 i.e., the Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause, Necessary Being, Most Perfect

Being, and Ordering Mind.111 Being Actus Purus, IES in all these five portrayals has

eternally actualized all Its potency, possessing an infinite plenitude of Its Esse or Essence

to share with creation. Every created being in the process of IES ad extra is, therefore, a

being by participation (ens per participationem), 112 caused to exist ultimately by

Subsistent Being Itself as the Unmoved Mover or the Uncaused Cause as regards all

things or beings in the created realm.

Accordingly, each created being may be viewed as a participant in movement or

evolution first moved by the Prime Mover, the First Cause of all creation. At the same

time, the First Cause is also the Efficient Cause, the Uncaused Cause. “All created things

are secondary causes; God alone is a first cause, the cause of all causes.”113 Compared to

all creatures, it must be stated here that IES is the Necessary Being. “This source of all

existence must be a necessary existence in order to impart unnecessary existence, which

must be a self-subsistent existence in order to impart non-self-subsistent existence....”114

Moreover, being the Most Perfect Being, Subsistent Being Itself may also be viewed

as the Formal Cause who reaches out to share His perfections with all creation, according

to the image of such a Formal Cause all creation is created or to be transformed.

Simultaneously, we may also see this Formal Cause as the Ordering Mind of all creation

who directs the course of the whole creation according to His Esse or Essence, spiritually,

109 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Vol. 1, The Existence of God, Part One: Questions 1-13. Ed. Thomas Gilby, O.P., General Editor (Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1969), p. 262. 110 Cf. Ibid. However distinct these five starting-points are, they tend to overlap each other in varying degrees. 111 Cf. Peter Kreeft, Summa of the Summa, p. 65, footnote 20; 沈清松：《物理之後/ 形上學的發展》，頁 154-157。 112 Cf. Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 343. 113 Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, p. 73. 114 Ibid., p. 43.

42


intellectually and morally, etc.

2.27 Connecting all Beings in Terms of Substance and Accidents Further on, St. Thomas approaches all beings in terms of substance and accidents. On

the one hand, following largely Aristotle’s inductive experiential observation of things, St.

Thomas, studies the universal modes of all beings or things in terms of transcendentals.

On the other, he embarks upon the particular modes of things and beings in general in

terms of the ten predicaments or categories of being. These universal modes “are really

distinct from each other and do not necessarily follow on being simply because it is

being.”115 We cannot, therefore, say that these ten categories are convertible with

being.116 As a whole, these ten categories of being “divide first of all into substance and

accident, substance denoting being which exists in itself, and accident being which can

only exist in another.”117 Accordingly, there are nine distinct modes of accident, i.e.,

quantity, quality, relation, action, passion, place, position, time and possession.

Although St. Thomas mentions substance and accidents as regards created beings or

things, he turns his attention quickly to God as some being, thing or substance in which

no accident is present.118 St. Thomas reasons as follows: “Because a subject is compared

to its accidents as potentiality to actuality; for a subject is some sense made actual by its

accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown [Q. 2, A. 3]… Hence it

does not follow that there are accidents in God as there are in us.”119

As a word derived from sub-stare, i.e., to stand under, “substance” serves as the

subject of that which is under the appearances or accidents.120 To be more correct,

substance should be defined “as that which is equipped (aptum) to exist in itself and not

115 H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics, p. 153. 116 Cf. Ibid. 117 Ibid. 118 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, VII, n. 1380, p. 461. 119 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.3, a.6. 120 Cf. H. D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, IV. Metaphysics, p. 159.

43


in another as inhering in a subject.”121 Clarifying how substance may be referred

self-causatively to God, i.e., Subsistent Being Itself, H. D. Gardeil, O.P., explains

succinctly below:122

Substance is sometimes spoken of as “self-being” or “being by itself” (per se ens), and “perseity” or self-beingness as its formal constitutive. This terminology is acceptably provided that the “by itself” be not taken in the causative sense. Strictly speaking, the only ens per se, being that exists by itself, is God. Substance is “by itself” only in the sense that it has everything its needs to receive existence. To receive existence, however, is to have it not in virtue of (or by) oneself but in virtue of another. We must not, then, read the full force of the word into “perseity” of substance; the logical outcome would be pantheistic monism, an eventuality well exemplified in Spinoza.

In the final analysis, being (ens) may have the following threefold meaning: 1) Being

is understood as accident, i.e., that which is from another (ab alio). 2) Being is

understood as substance, i.e., that which is in itself, by itself (in se, per se). 3) Being is

understood as God, i.e., that which is of Himself (a se).123 In other words, God is not

some caused accident or caused substance in Himself or by Himself. God is some Being,

Substance, or Thing (Ens) which exists all by Himself as the eternal Uncaused Being, i.e.,

Subsistent Being Itself. Calling God “the first of the simple substances,”124 St. Thomas is

someone who can analogically define or describe the supreme uncreated God in terms of

ordinary created substances and accidents found in daily life.

2.28 Distinguishing all Beings in Terms of the Division of Being Being (ens) is spoken of by St. Thomas in many ways in which the Divine Being is

distinguished from non-Divine being: the Uncreated Being from created being, the

Infinite Being from finite being, Subsistent Being Itself from being which is not, the

Necessary Being from contingent being, the Simple Being from composite being, the

121 Ibid., p. 160. In scholastic idiom, “quod aptum est esse in se et non in alio tamquam in subjecto inhaesionis.” Ibid. 122 Ibid., pp. 160-161. 123 Cf. Ibid., p. 161, footnote 4. 124 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 29.

44


Unparticipated Being from participated being,125 etc.126 In this way, although St. Thomas

approaches all beings in terms of the division of being, he can easily distinguish God

from creatures using such a metaphysical approach. Indeed, being Subsistent Being Itself,

God is also defined as the Divine Being, Uncreated Being, Infinite Being, Necessary

Being, Simple Being, and Unparticipated Being, etc., in this brief summary.

In the Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, St. Thomas distinguishes two broad

categories of beings, as he says: “There are two kinds of beings: beings of reason and real

beings.”127 He elaborates further: “The expression being of reason is applied properly to

those notions which reason derives from the objects it considers, for example, the notions

of genus, species and the like, which are not found in reality but are a natural result of the

consideration of reason. And this kind of being, i.e., being of reason, constitutes the

proper subject of logic.”128 Thus, under the consideration of reason, two kinds of study

can be distinguished, i.e., logic and philosophy. While logic deals with beings of reason

or logical beings considered in terms of probable premises, philosophy deals with real

being or being-of-nature in reality.129

Under the category of real being, God is treated by St. Thomas as the Divine Being,

Infinite Being, Being-from-Himself, Ens a Se, Being-by-Nature, Unparticipated Being,

Necessary Being, Simple Being and Absolute Being, in contrast with non-divine being

which is also called finite being, created being, being-from-another, ens ab alio,

being-by-effect, participated being, contingent being, composite being and relative

being.130 At the same time, God is the Complete Being who has actualized all His

potentiality, in Whom there is no potency left. Analogically, as Actus Purus or Pure Act,

this Complete Being is contrasted with incomplete being who is being in potency. As

125 John F. Wippel, The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From finite being to Uncreated Being, pp. 590-591. 126 Cf. Bernard Wuellner, S.J., A Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Second Edition (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 32-33. 127 St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, IV, n. 574, p. 212. 128 Ibid. 129 Cf. Ibid. 130 Bernard Wuellner, S.J., A Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Second Edition, pp. 32-33.

45


Ipsum Esse Subsistens, God is Being in act or Perfect Act-of-Existence.131

In conclusion, while Aristotle approaches metaphysics as a science studying a) being

qua being, b) God or theology, and c) first causes, St. Thomas is able to put some order

into these three dimensions or areas.132 Intellectually, the Common Doctor is able to

make use of the study of being qua being and the first causes of being as a means to reach

the end of all finite beings, i.e., the Infinite Being or IES, etc. Apparently, the human

natural desire for knowledge tends to a definite end which, however, can be none other

than the highest thing knowable, which is God.133

“This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God” (Jn 17:3). Both

Aristotle and St. Thomas seem to agree fully with this judgment when they ascertain that

man’s ultimate happiness is speculative as regards the highest object of speculation.134

However, the metaphysics of St. Thomas, much more than that of Aristotle, can lead us

ultimately to the study of Subsistent Being Itself as a sure divine science, as well as an

immense source of speculative fulfillment or happiness. In this day and age, it is critical

to note that, without an assured knowledge of the Uncreated Being, the human being

appears to have increasingly resembled a meaningless speck drifting in the universe.135

In other words, without the Uncreated Being, the human being seems to be living in

constant ignorance of his future,136 respecting what really exists out there in the universe.

He (or she) is like a creature being “thrown into a finite existence bounded at each end by

nothingness.”137 Among others, what he (or she) really needs is an assured knowledge of

the real existence or co-existence of the eternal, infinite Uncreated Being, i.e., the

everlasting, immutable Esse Itself. In this way, the whole esse of his (or her) finite and

contingent being can surely cling to the Uncaused Cause, the Final Cause, the Necessary

131 Cf. Ibid. 132 Cf. Étienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, pp. 154-155. 133 James F. Anderson, An Introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 117. 134 Cf. Ibid. 135 Cf. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, p. 388. 136 Cf. Ibid., p. 389. 137 Ibid.

46


Being, the Perfect Being, as well as the Ordering Mind, etc.138

Anyway, before we delve into such a discussion, let us explore briefly how St.

Thomas has developed his Aristotelian metaphysics as regards such an infinite Being.

2.3 St. Thomas’s Development of his Metaphysics of Esse and Essence It is clear that St. Thomas has not written a Summa Metaphysicae. Apparently, the

metaphysical system which we inherit from him is largely detected and taken from his

writings posthumously. As this study is dealing with St. Thomas’s concept of IES in

Whom there is no distinction between the divine Esse and Essence, what follows may

give us a better picture with respect to the development of St. Thomas’s metaphysics of

esse and essence pertaining to Subsistent Being Itself. Accordingly, we limit this section

to two guiding questions. First, how did St. Thomas develop this scholastic concept of

God (i.e., IES)? Secondly, in this development did he mention the practical side of this

metaphysical concept, i.e., how it is possible for us in participating in the Esse or Essence

of IES in our spiritual life, even cosmically or transcosmically? Let us elaborate a bit

further the second question below.

W. Norris Clark (1915- ) states: “The crown of the entire Thomistic vision of the

universe is the notion of God as infinitely perfect pure Plenitude of Existence, ultimate

Source and Goal of all other being.”139 Seemingly, this scholastic notion of God “receives

its philosophical meaning as the keystone of a universal participation structure, in which

all finite beings participate the basic common perfection of the universe, existence as

intensive act, in diverse limited degrees, according to the modes of their respective

essences, all deriving from a single ultimate infinite Source, which possesses the

perfection of existence in pure unlimited, unparticipated plenitude.”140 In other words,

the omnipresent Esse or Essence of IES ----- in Whom there is no distinction between His

138 Cf. Peter Kreeft, Summa of the Summa, p. 65, footnote 20. 139 W. Norris Clarke, S.J., Explorations in Metaphysics: Being-God-Person (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), p. 24. 140 Ibid.

47


Esse and Essence ----- resembles vividly a dynamic, radiant, omnipresent and uncreated

Diamond (or Jade) Mine,141 awaiting our participation everywhere.

Hence, in our second guiding question, we would like to know if St. Thomas has

recommended to us such a possible participation in the all-present IES everywhere.

Obviously, the consequence is immense, in particular to the present generation of this

rather Godless or IES-less Modern-Postmodern Period, in which the URAM of the

Uncreated Being (or IES) has been rationalistically de-mythologized as a whole.142

2.31 The Metaphysics of Aristotle Christianized by St. Thomas

Upon reflection on the Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics by St. Thomas,

presumably written between 1266 and 1272, or even before 1265,143 it is clear that

Aristotle’s metaphysics has had a great impact on the metaphysical thought structure of

St. Thomas who often honours the former as “the Philosopher.”144 Besides ‘being,’

‘existence’ and ‘essence,’ most of the fundamental terms employed in St. Thomas’s first

philosophy seem to have been taken from the Philosopher’s metaphysics. Examples are

‘substance,’ ‘matter,’ ‘form,’ ‘the prime mover,’ ‘act,’ ‘potency,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘attributes of

being,’ etc. As regards the scope of metaphysics, St. Thomas notes at the beginning of

Book VI that “first philosophy is universally common to all.”145

Alan of Lille, the twelfth-century poet and theologian, said: “Authority has a wax

nose --- it can be turned in different directions.”146 Accordingly, Aristotle defines

metaphysics as “a science which investigates being as being and the attributes which

belong to this in virtue of its own nature.”147 However, as Summa Contra Gentiles and

141 One may argue that ‘jade’ is a better metaphor for traditional Chinese people. However, since this study is written both for Chinese and Western readers alike, ‘diamond’ would be more appropriate here. 142 Cf. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, pp. 351-354 and 442, etc. 143 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, p.xiv. 144 Cf. Jacques Maritain, An Introduction to Philosophy, trans. E. I. Watkin (New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc., 1933), p. 8. It reads: “[T]he philosophy of Aristotle, as revived and enriched by St. Thomas and his school, may rightly be called the Christian philosophy.” 145 Ibid., p. 403. 146 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 10. 147 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Γ, I, 1003 a 21-25 in Aristotle Selections, ed. by W. D. Ross (New York: Scribner, 1927), p. 53.

48


Summa Theologiae generally reveal to us, St. Thomas has turned the scope of the study

of being as being into a predominantly Christian one, serving as the sure foundation of

his very faith and Church. For another example, the God of Aristotle is one of the causes

of all things only, but St. Thomas gives it a distinctively new turn and makes IES the

cause of all that is.148

In the following, the main objective is to present a few signposts as regards St.

Thomas’s Christian development of the metaphysics of esse and essence, limited largely

to three of his important works, i.e., On Being and Essence (De Ente), Quaestiones

Disputatae de Veritate, and Summa Theologiae.

2.32 Esse and Essence in On Being and Essence

As we find out, ‘being’ (ens), ‘esse’ and ‘essence’ are three key terms to which St.

Thomas had already attached paramount importance when he wrote On Being and

Essence during his first years of teaching in the University of Paris, before he received

his degree of Master.149 Apparently, these are three foundational concepts which would

conduct St. Thomas’s systematic thinking throughout his life, i.e., influencing, ushering,

directing and driving his unique way of thinking towards maturity. Referring to On Being

and Essence, Armand Maurer cogently observed: “In this short treatise he was laying

down the program of a revolution in metaphysics, the full significance of which could be

measured only when he had written his two masterpieces, the Summa Contra Gentiles

and the Summa Theologiae.”150 Below is Maurer’s helpful summary with respect to the

contents of this short treatise, i.e., On Being and Essence:151

In the introduction the author gives a brief survey of his subject matter. He indicates that he is going to explain: (1) what the terms being and essence mean; (2) how being and essence are found in different things; (3) how they are related to the logical concepts of genus, species and difference. Thus, his

148 Étienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, second edition (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972), p. 156. 149 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 7. 150 Ibid., p. 8. 151 Ibid., p. 11.

49


inquiry is not only metaphysical; it is also logical, inasmuch as it is concerned with the way the human intellect conceives the essences of things within the framework of its own concept of genus, species and difference.

As a whole, it is true that On Being and Essence is only a booklet dealing

metaphysically and logically with the terms ‘being’ (ens) and ‘essence,’ how they are

found in different things, and how they are related to the concepts of genus, species and

difference. However, in five significant senses, this short treatise has in retrospect

become a revolutionary milestone not only in the works of the author, but also in the

historical thinking of the Catholic Church and the West at large.

First of all, On Being and Essence would help to establish eventually the theology of

the Catholic Church in terms of the scholastic sense of being (ens), esse and essence. As

we know, St. Thomas is one of the most renowned revolutionary thinkers on being, esse

and essence in the history of Western thinking.152 Without doubt, his enduring impact

may still be felt today at the beginning of the third millennium in the Catholic Church,

although it may have temporarily subsided after Vatican II.

Secondly, following the teaching of Aristotle, it appears that, On Being and Essence is

the first momentous book written by St. Thomas. Among others, this work has helped

establish ens (being), esse (existence) and essentia (essence) possibly as the three most

important terms in his mediaeval scholasticism, with respect to IES in particular. By

virtue of these three terms, each being (ens) in the totality of reality can be

metaphysically and logically defined,153 either as a simple or a composite substance. For

example, in every ens or being, there is a real distinction between esse and essence, but

such a distinction is not found in Subsistent Being Itself as the Uncaused Ens or Being.

Thirdly, On Being and Essence appears to have first construed the ingenious formula

152 Cf. Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, pp. 153-174. 153 Cf. 李震：〈多瑪斯哲學中「存在」的意義和重要性〉，《哲學與文化》，第卅一卷第三期，2004.03,

頁 17。

50


mentioned in historical record, defining God as “the first of the simple substances,”154 in

the sense that the Essence of this Being (Ens), God, is His very Act of Existing (Esse).155

In other words, God possesses all perfections in His pure and simple Act of Existing.156

As a simple substance, there is in God no composition of esse and essence (essentia), of

form and matter, of substance and accident, or of genus and difference. On the other hand,

there is composition in varying degrees of the categories above (i.e., esse and essence,

etc.) in all created beings.

Fourthly, this short treatise seems to have also established God as a real substance in

terms of the philosophy of being, esse and essence. From chapters II to VI, St. Thomas

attempts to come to grips with essence in simple substances, composite substances,

different beings and accidents, as well as relating essence to genus, species and difference.

At the same time, he tries to relate God’s Essence to common essence. As said before,157

God in Essence is everything which everything really is in essence, except that God is

infinitely and indescribably more, in both via positiva and via negativa.158 In other words,

in terms of the metaphysical analogy of being (ens) and essence, St. Thomas has related

the reality of God to the reality and essence of every being (ens) in the real world. Gilson

comments, “It has often been said that his [Thomas’s] conception of the real and of being

dominates his metaphysics, consequently the whole of his philosophy. Nothing could be

more exact.”159 Although St. Thomas is open to via negativa, he seems to limit his focus

largely within via positiva for practical purposes.

Fifthly, through On Being and Essence, St. Thomas has launched a metaphysical

revolution, turning the traditional metaphysician’s interest from form and essence to esse,

the act of existing. Maurer in his work On Being and Essence sums up ---- as a comment 154 St. Thomas Aquinas, Being and Essence, p. 29. 155 Cf. Ibid., p. 50. 156 Cf. Ibid., p. 51. 157 Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, p. 64. 158 Prof. Vincent Shen states: 「聖多瑪斯認為神的完美可分三層言之：一是肯定的，二是否定的，

三是優越的。肯定層次指吾人以及萬物所具之完美，神皆有之。否定層次指吾人以及萬物所具之完

美，皆非神之完美。優越層次指神之完美優越於吾人及萬物之完美。」Cf. 沈清松：《物理之後/ 形

上學的發展》，頁 157。 159 Étienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 29; cf. Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, pp. 153-154.

51


---- concisely the very gist of such a revolution as follows:160

That revolution can be summed up briefly as a turning of the metaphysician’s interest from form and essence, where it has lingered for so many centuries, to the act of existing. For the Greeks, an explanation in terms of essence or nature was always considered the last word of the philosopher. The supreme act of being and the ultimate principle of intelligibility in a thing was thought to be a form. It was a decisive moment in the history of metaphysics when philosophers became aware of the specific problems which attach to existence as distinct from essence. Before St. Thomas, important progress had been made in this direction by such thinkers as the Arabian Avicenna and William of Auvergne. But it appears that the Angelic Doctor was the first to recognize the primacy of the act of existing over essence, and, as a recent historian has said, “to translate all the problems concerning being from the language of essences into that of existences.”161

It is clear that in On Being and Essence, St. Thomas has begun to establish the

primacy of the act of existing (esse) over essence, translating the fundamental problems

concerning being from the languages of essences into that of existences. More

importantly, he has also started to apply such a metaphysical turn in his philosophy or

theology of God, equating God’s Esse with God’s Essence. However, we have to

acknowledge that St. Thomas does not seem to begin telling us its practical side yet, i.e.,

how it is really possible for us to activate or participate in such a theological formula of

God everywhere. Differently expressed, it appears that he has not revealed to us the way

or means to set off God’s omnipresent Esse or Essence into an immense spiritual

explosion for our daily participation. We may have to wait for more maturity, perhaps at

the next milestone in our exploration.

2.33 Esse and Essence in De Veritate

Before discussing or arguing in terms of the two guiding questions of this section as

regards St. Thomas’s development of the theoretical and the practical side of God’s

160 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 9. 161 Here Armand Maurer is quoting Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992 [1941]), p. 67. Gilson says therein of St. Thomas: “…a decisive metaphysical progress or, rather, a true metaphysical revolution was achieved when somebody began to translate all the problems concerning being from the language of essences into that of existences.” Ibid.

52


Esse/Essence,162 it is vital that a brief description is given of De Veritate. This work was

composed approximately between 1256 and 1259 during the first three years of his

teaching at Paris. 163 Known as Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, i.e., Disputed

Questions on Truth, De Veritate, or simply Truth, this masterpiece to Gilson is “no less

indispensable than the two Summas, for the person who wishes to penetrate to the very

depths of the thought of St. Thomas.”164 Preceded by the major work, the Commentary

on Peter Lombard’s Sentences (1254-1256), and by several small works, notably Being

and Essence and The Principles of Nature, Truth is an early, but by no means immature

work.165 During the short life of St. Thomas as a teacher, over 500 of the disputed

questions were handled by him publicly at the university forum. In addition to the 253 on

truth, there are 83 on the power of God, 101 on evil, 21 on the soul, 36 on virtues, 5 on

the Incarnate Word, and 11 on spiritual creatures.166

However, as found in the English translations, all these 253 disputed questions have

been traditionally divided into 29 general themes as follows: 167 Truth, God’s Knowledge,

Ideas, The Divine Word, Providence, Predestination, The Book of Life, The Knowledge

of Angels, The Communication of Angelic Knowledge, The Mind, The Teacher, Prophecy,

Rapture, Faith, Higher and Lower Reason; Synderesis, Conscience, The Knowledge of

the First Man in the State of Innocence, Knowledge of the Soul after Death, The

Knowledge of Christ, Good, The Tendency to Good and the Will, God’s Will, Free

Choice, Sensuality, The Passion of the Soul, Grace, The Justification of Sinners, and The

Grace of Christ.168

162 This special depiction, i.e., God’s Esse/Essence, seems to be quite fitting, as God’s Esse is His Essence, and vice versa, according to St. Thomas. 163 Cf. M.-D. Chenu, O.P., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, translated with authorized corrections and bibliographical additions by A.-M. Landry, O.P. and D. Hughes, O.P. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1964), p. 281. 164 Étienne Gilson, La Philosophy au moyen-âge (Paris: 1947), pp. 527-528. This translated quotation is found in St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, vol. 1. Trans. Robert W. Mulligan, S.J. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952), p. xxvi. 165 St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, vol. 1. Trans. Robert W. Mulligan, S.J., p. xix. 166 Cf. Ibid., p. xv. 167 Cf. Ibid., pp. ix-xii; St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, vol. 2. Trans. James V. McGlynn, S.J. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), pp. vii-xi; and St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, vols. 3. Trans. Robert W. Schmidt, S.J. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1954), pp. ix-xiii. 168 At the same time, these 253 disputed questions or 29 general themes have been re-classified into the following 14 common themes: 1. Metaphysics of the Transcendentals — Truth and the Good; 2. God’s

53


According to Prof. Venon J. Bourke (1907- ?) of St. Louis University, one may

divide all the 29 questions in Truth into two major divisions. “The first part (questions

1-20, inclusive) begins with the nature of transcendental truth and proceeds to discuss the

various types of knowledge. This is the section which gives the work its traditional name,

De Veritate.”169 Moreover, “[t]he second part starts with the study of transcendental

goodness and goes on to problems of appetition, grace, and justification.”170 All in all,

what follows is our observation as regards the second guiding question, i.e., whether or

not St. Thomas has developed any clue beyond On Being and Essence with respect to the

activation of God’s Esse and therefore God’s Essence or perfections in and around us. As

we know, such an answer has immense consequence for the benefit of many, perhaps

even of all created beings.

First, in comparison with On Being and Essence, we must acknowledge the great

advancement of Truth by St. Thomas. Obviously, the former deals mainly with the

foundational metaphysical and logical aspects of being and essence, in an attempt to find

essence in all simple and composite substances. Although St. Thomas in his first short

treatise does mention the ingenious formula about God “whose essence is His very act of

existing [Esse],”171 he has not progressed much further than such an initial un-elaborated

concept. However, as seen above, Truth treats varying aspects of God in greater details

and depth, such as the divine essence, transcendentals, knowledge, and providence.

Besides, Truth also deals with various other elements of the Christian faith. In this

intellectual breakthrough, St. Thomas has substantially baptized philosophy into the

Christian Church.

Secondly, compared to the metaphysical approach of On Being and Essence, Truth

Knowledge — Divine Ideas and the Verbum Dei; 3. Providence and Predestination; 4. Angelic Knowledge; 5. Human Knowledge — Nature and Functions of the Mind; 6. Human Teaching and Learning; 7. Supernatural Knowledge — Prophecy, Rapture, Faith; 8. Higher and Lower Reason; 9. Practical Knowledge — Synderesis and Conscience; 10. Man’s Knowledge — Before the Fall, after Death; 11. Soul of Christ — Knowledge and Grace; 12. Will in Man and in God — Free Choice; 13. Sensuality and the Passion; 14. Grace and Justification. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, vol. 1, Trans. Robert W. Mulligan, S.J., pp. xxiv-xxvi. 169 Ibid., p. xxiv. 170 Ibid. 171 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 50.

54


makes another advance. Noticeably, there are two coherent metaphysical approaches, i.e.,

an upward and a downward trend.172 In the upward metaphysics one adopts the strictly

philosophical point of view. From the being of experience one progresses to the being

that is God, as St. Thomas does in his first treatise and in Commentary on Aristotle’s

Metaphysics. In the downward metaphysics, one takes on the philosophical theological

approach, a more synthetic task. Accordingly, God stands at the beginning of inquiry and

created beings are elucidated throughout as participants of God's perfections,173 as St.

Thomas does in Truth, however unsystematic it is.

Thirdly, compared to On Being and Essence, the use of the analogy of being and

essence with respect to IES is much more well developed in Truth,. For example,

although the Creator and the creatures are infinitely different, what we call truth and

goodness in creatures can be said to pre-exist in the Creator and in an immensely higher

way analogically.174 Accordingly, St. Thomas addresses God as the First Truth and every

truth in the essence of creatures is from God.175 At the same time, he calls God the First

Goodness, and every creature in essence is good by the First Goodness.176 Lotz sums up

here the Thomistic use of the analogy of being and essence: “Insofar as it says agreement

and similarity, it overcomes a complete separation of God and the world, in this respect it

makes some knowledge of God possible in contrast to all forms of agnosticism. Insofar as

it also says difference, it excludes the pantheistic identification of God and the world; in

this respect it prevents man from acquiring an exhaustive understanding of God.”177

Through the use of analogy, the Common Doctor has, therefore, proffered us a sound

description of the Uncreated Being and created beings.

Fourthly, unlike On Being and Essence, Truth has gone far beyond the ordinary

realm of formal metaphysics and delved into many aspects of salvation history, such as

the Trinity of Persons in God, divine ideas, God’s Word, predestination, the Fall, human

172 Cf. H. D. Gardeil, Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. IV. Metaphysics, p. 32. 173 Ibid. 174 Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, p. 113. 175 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q. 1, a. viii. 176 Cf. Ibid., q. 21, a. iv. 177 Johannes B. Lotz, “Analogy,” in: Philosophical Dictionary, p. 12.

55


sensuality and passions, reason and conscience, as noted. Indeed, as the disputed

questions presented to him as a master of theology indicate, St. Thomas has to deal even

with the justification of sinners and the grace of Christ.

At this moment, one may still be asking whether or not the master of theology has

dealt with the activation of God’s omnipresent Esse and therefore His omnipresent

Essence or perfections in and around us, for the blessing of created beings everywhere.

What follows is our brief conclusion as regards Truth (i.e., as the fifth item of our

observation).

Fifthly, insofar as the activation of God’s omnipresent Esse and hence God’s

omnipresent Essence for the profit of all creation is concerned, St. Thomas, as seen above,

has indeed provided us with all the necessary ingredients in Truth. Taking all the 29

general themes together, despite that they consist of 253 disputed questions put forward

to St. Thomas randomly over several years without an overall topic, one may still detect a

certain focus or tendency. As a whole, one may say that Truth tends to show us about the

Holy Trinity, who as IES, desires to communicate Himself and share His Being (Esse)

and Essence (transcendentals or perfections) with all created beings, in particular with

human beings. However, with our given free will, we have sinned in our sensuality and

lower (natural) reason. Nonetheless, such a process of God’s self-sharing continues on

through the justification and grace of Christ. Still possible, therefore, are faith, higher

(supernatural) reason, the Book of Life, as well as a conscience towards Subsistent Being

Itself who is Unity, Truth and Goodness Itself.

Nevertheless, in order to help set off God’s Uncreated Diamond Mine everywhere in

creation, what is needed perhaps is a better explanation on the part of St. Thomas as

regards the formula. Hopefully, one can find it in the next developmental milestone with

respect to St. Thomas’s philosophy of esse and essence.

2.34 Development of Esse and Essence in Summa Theologiae

56


It may shock the reader to discover two things about Summa Theologiae. First, it was

designed for beginners in theology. Secondly, St. Thomas did not complete it due to a

profound mystical experience or infused contemplation during which he uttered:

“Everything which I have written seems like straw to me compared to what I have seen

and what has been revealed to me.”178 Together with the Supplement written later by Fra

Rainaldo da Piperno, another Dominican friar and friend of the Angelic Doctor, Summa

Theologiae is divided into three parts. Part I, which has 119 major thematic questions, is

subdivided into (a) the one God (questions 2-26); (b) the Most Holy Trinity (questions

27-43); and (c) God's creatures (questions 44-119). Part II, with its 303 major questions,

is subdivided into (a) the general aspects of man's journey to God (114 questions); and (b)

the particular aspects (189 questions) which include the theological virtues, the cardinal

virtues, and graces gratuitously given, etc. Part III, with its 248 major questions, is

subdivided into (a) Christ's Incarnation (69 questions); (b) Christ's Seven Sacraments

(158 questions); and (c) the Resurrection and the Four Last Things (34 questions).179

Let us take note that St. Thomas, after having written the major question 90 in Part

III on Penance, received the divine illumination during Mass and died shortly afterwards

in 1274.180 The remainder of Summa Theologica known as the Supplement with its 99

major questions was compiled probably by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno.181 Moreover, three

more thematic questions on Purgatory were inserted between questions 70 and 71 of the

Supplement.182 Altogether, the present form of Summa Theologiae has 614 thematic

questions and each question is elaborated by several articles. Accordingly, each article

begins with a disputable or determining minor question, followed by the exposition of

that question in the pro and con, and then answered by St. Thomas with an assertive

178 John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas: An essay on overcoming metaphysics, p. 253. Accordingly, the original Latin text is: “Omnia quae scripsi, videntur mihi paleae respectu eorum, quae vidi et revelata sunt mihi.” Roger Bede Vaughn, O.S.B., The Life and Labours of St, Thomas of Aquin, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1872), Vol. II, pp. 917-918. 179 Cf. W. A. Wallace; and J. A. Weisheipl, “Thomas Aquinas,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14. W. McDonald, ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), p. 112. 180 Cf. Ibid., pp. 108-109. 181 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, complete English edition in five volumes. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Westminister, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981), p. 2561. 182 Cf. Ibid., pp. 3002-3011.

57


solution.183 Indeed, the answer contains “whatever must be stated in order that the doubt

raised by the question be dispelled”.184

All in all, below is our observation as regards our guiding question, i.e., whether St.

Thomas has developed any further explanation beyond Truth as regards the activation of

God’s Esse and therefore God’s Essence everywhere in and around us. In this way, the

uncreated transcosmic Diamond Mine might be properly exploded, explored, or activated

for the advantage of all creation.

First, compared to On Being and Essence and Truth, Summa Theologiae (1265

-1272) is, without doubt, the best of St. Thomas’s scholarly works, philosophically,

theologically and systematically. Its circular structural outline surpasses even Summa

Contra Gentiles (1259-1264), although the latter is much easier to read.185 Peter Kreeft

comments cogently with respect to its God-centred exitus-redditus infra-cycle:186

The structural outline of the Summa Theologica is a mirror of the structural outline of reality. It begins in God, Who is “in the beginning”. It then proceeds to the act of creation and a consideration of creatures, centering on man, who alone is created in the image of God. Then it moves to man’s return to God through his life of moral and religious choice, and culminates in the way or means to that end: Christ and His Church. Thus the overall scheme of the Summa, like that of the universe, is an exitus-redditus, an exit from and a return to God, Who is both Alpha and Omega. God is the ontological heart that pumps the blood of being through the arteries of creation into the body of the universe, which wears a human face, and receives it back through the veins of man’s life of love and will. The structure of the Summa, and of the universe, is dynamic. It is not like information in a library, but like blood in a body.

183 Cf. M. –D. Chenu, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, pp. 93-96. 184 Ibid., p. 95. 185 Summa Contra Gentiles, as a Christian version of Aristotelianism, is written clearly and succinctly as a classic manual of Christian doctrine for the missionaries in Spain, in defense of the Catholic faith against the Arabian Aristotelianism which was in command, then, of the high intellectual culture of the Moslem world (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One, pp. 21-23). Infrastructurally, Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four books. Book I deals with God and His perfections or attributes, Book II with God as the origin of creatures, Book III with God as the end of creatures, and Book IV with God in our salvation, including the seven sacraments. One may, therefore, say that Summa Contra Gentiles is much easier to read than Summa Theologiae. As a deep meditation on truth, it is the work of a wise man. St. Thomas said this of himself: “And so, in the name of divine mercy, I have the confidence to embark upon the work of a wise man.” Ibid., p. 18. 186 Peter Kreeft, A Summa of the Summa, p. 15.

58


Here, on the one hand, we must give apposite acknowledgements to St. Thomas for

showing us, in the highest possible form of scholastic scholarship, the ultimate beginning

and end of our journey in life in an exit-return cycle. Accordingly, this cycle is centred on

IES, the Alpha as well as the Esse and Omega of all created beings, i.e., the Beginning,

the Continuation (or Sustenance) and the End of the whole contingent creation. In spite of

the dry, meticulous and cataphatic expression, he has clearly indicated to us the means

towards God, i.e., through the channels such as Christ, His justification, grace, Church,

sacraments, as well as the practice of prayer, virtues, and synderesis (i.e., the natural

habitual knowledge of the basic principles of the natural law)187, etc.

On the other hand, we must state boldly here our concern that it does not appear that

St. Thomas, with all due respect, has sufficiently succeeded in explaining to his

generation ---- as well as to us today ---- the URAM of the formula in which God’s Esse

is His Essence (and vice versa), including the ways as regards its omnipresent activation.

This may perhaps be due to his early death at the age of 49 (c. 1225-1274). At the same

time, it may perhaps due to the profound infused contemplation given to him with respect

to the Supreme Being (or IES) at the end of his life. Afterwards, as we know, St. Thomas

consciously regarded all his writings as “straw” and ordered them to be burned. He was

simply unable to continue writing, leaving, hence, Summa Theologiae unfinished. As

many may have begun to surmise the nature of his illumined contemplation, the author

would like to do a brief analysis of it later in the next section.

3. URAM and Challenge of St. Thomas’s Metaphysics of Ipsum Esse Subsistens

To begin with, there is a need to further clarify two Thomistic key terms, namely,

“esse” (i.e., existence, or better: act of existing, or act of being) and “ens” (i.e., being),

since they have both been oftentimes translated as “being” in English. 188 In this

187 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.79, a.12; Bernard Wuellner, S.J., A Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Second Edition (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1966), p. 300; Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 1025. 188 Cf. Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, p. 154.

59


clarification, it is hoped that the term “essence”189 (or essentia in Latin, meaning nature,

substance, what-ness, what it is, etc.)190 would also come to a better light.

As we know, sometimes esse is translated as "Be-ing or Being" and ens as "being".

Maurer notes cogently, “The word esse, which is here rendered act of existing, cannot be

adequately translated into English. It is the to be of a thing, its supreme dynamic energy

or actuality. According to St. Thomas, esse is other than essence.”191 And, therefore, “to

translate esse by a noun is to reify it and to conceive it as if it were a substance or abstract

essence. Esse, however, is a verb, and it designates, not an essence or substance, but the

act which is the to be of the substance.”192 Indeed, insofar as St. Thomas is concerned,

“esse is what is most central in the existing thing. It is at once the metaphysical core of

the thing’s being and the ultimate reason for its intelligibility.”193

In terms of ens, esse and essence, etc., we will first deal with the URAM of St.

Thomas’s metaphysics of Ipsum Esse Subsistens in the following section, before we

discuss the challenge of this Thomistic metaphysics in the next. In the third section, we

will explore the so-called ‘spirituality of no-empty space,’ a spiritual challenge

necessarily grounded on and implied by St. Thomas’s metaphysics of Ens a se (i.e., IES)

in which there is no distinction between the divine Esse and Essence.

3.1 URAM of St. Thomas’s Metaphysics of Ipsum Esse Subsistens

In this section, we will first handle the fundamental relationship among ens, esse and

essence as regards the URAM of IES in St. Thomas’s theocentric metaphysics, before we

deal with the transcendentals (or transcendent characteristics) of essence found in both

Ens a se (i.e., IES) and every created ens.

189 It is important that we do not distinguish between essence and substance in God. Gilson notes: “God is not composed of matter and form. Therefore in him there cannot be any distinction between essence on the one hand and substance and nature on the other…” Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, pp. 89ff. He concludes “[W]e must, with Aquinas, go beyond the identification of God’s substance with his essence and affirm the identity of his essence with his act of existing.” Ibid., p. 93. 190 Cf. Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 358. 191 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 28, footnote 12. 192 Ibid., pp. 28-29, footnote 12. 193 Ibid., p. 29, footnote 12.

60


3.11 The Fundamental Relationship among Ens, Esse and Essence

In a way, the fundamental relationship between ens, esse and essence may sum up the

whole of Thomistic metaphysics of IES. Let us elaborate it in two steps. First, on the

metaphysical-natural plane, St. Thomas’s God-centred metaphysics, as we know, is

dominated by his notion of reality and being [ens].194 But above all, such a Thomistic

metaphysics is a doctrine primarily of esse.195 In St. Thomas’s ontology of esse, ens is

defined in terms of esse in the sense that the esse of every ens necessarily participates in

the Esse of Ens a se (i.e., IES), at least at an absolute minimum level. Otherwise, no such

esse ------ and therefore no such an ens also ------ is truly possible. As mentioned, esse is

at the ultimate root or principle of the principles of all reality.196 Absolutely speaking, an

ens is an ens only if it first possesses esse, the act of existing. In all created reality, ens is

the existing thing which possesses both esse and essence separately. Every created ens is,

therefore, complex or composite, in which esse and essence are distinct from each

other.197

Based on the above metaphysical-natural plane, St. Thomas then builds up his

metaphysical-theological concept of God as a simple, non-composite Being (Ens), in

whom God’s Esse (Act of Existing) and Essence are indistinct from one another. On this

ontological-theological plane, one may say that the whole Thomistic metaphysics is about

(a) God as Pure Act (Actus Purus) in whom His Essence and Esse are one, and (b) God's

self-communication or sharing of Himself with created beings (entia, i.e., plural of ens).

In fact, “act (perfection) and potency (possibility) are two basic modalities of being,

because all being undergoes change, passing from one state to another. Pure Act signifies

absolute, eternal, unlimited perfection, thus excluding all potency.”198

Differently expressed, to St. Thomas, IES is the Absolute, Infinite Being (Ens)

possessing and enjoying the infinite fullness of Esse or Act of Existing. Accordingly, IES

has all the possible positive possibilities (potencies, potentials, or potentialities) as

194 Cf. Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, p. 153. 195 Ibid., p. 171. 196 Cf. Ibid., p. 159. 197 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, p. 26, note 1. 198 Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler. Theological Dictionary. Cornelius Ernst, O.P., ed., Richard Strachan, trans. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), p. 12.

61


regards His Essence infinitely realized, perfectly fulfilled or actuated, to the extent that

His Esse is necessarily one with His Essence, and vice versa. Thus, the whole history of

creation, and later salvation, is simply the history of God's self-communicating or sharing

with created beings (entia) the infinite fullness of His Esse/Essence. In other words, IES

has been enjoying the infinite, perfect, highest possible level of existence in all eternity

and, subsequently (but not necessarily so), desires to share His very Esse or Essence with

all created beings, i.e., as a gift of participation in God’s perfections.199 Representing the

mature thinking of St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles (written during 1259-1264)200

and especially Summa Theologiae (1266-1273), 201 for example, are largely two

systematic elaborations of this unmistakable reality.

3.12 God and the Metaphysical Transcendentals

Metaphysically, transcendentals are all-encompassing concepts used analogically to

describe the characteristics of all real beings (entia) in the totality of reality, both created

and uncreated, at the same time. In varying degrees, each real being (ens) ----- as opposed

to a being (ens) of reason202 ----- possesses, therefore, certain transcendentals which are

common to all other real beings in the world.

In the words of Lotz, “Transcendentals is the name given to those attributes which

flow immediately and necessarily from the nature of existence [esse] and therefore

accompany it inseparably in all its manifestations.”203 Just as esse itself, transcendentals 199 Apparently, the traditional doctrine as regards our participation in God’s perfections has immensely affected the thinking of St. Thomas. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, “to be the image of God means to possess all the divine perfections, but whereas they are found in God essentially and as something of his own, we possess the same perfections as a gift by participation.” David L. Balás, S.O.Cist., Man’s Participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa (Romae: 〈I.B.C.〉Libreria Herder, 1966), p. 142. 200 Despite the fact that Summa Contra Gentiles has been translated into English as On the Truth of the Catholic Faith (cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, Books One - Four. Trans. Anton C. Pegis and others [Garden City, New York, 1955-1957]), this “Summa is an apologetic theology: Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium, as many manuscripts entitle it”. M.-D. Chenu, O.P., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, p. 292. Accordingly, St. Thomas composed this work at the request of his Master-General of the Preachers who was haunted by the presence of the Moors on Spanish soil and the hope of converting Islam. Cf. Ibid., p. 289. However, Chenu cautions us to see in Summa Contra Gentiles a work of contemplation of truth, without minimizing its merging of missionary and doctrinal concerns. Cf. Ibid., p. 295. 201 Cf. Peter Kreeft, Summa of Summa, pp. 14-15. 202 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, IV, n. 574, p. 212. 203 Johannes B. Lotz, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 426.

62


transcend all the limited orders of existence.204 They are not limited to any area of

existents or beings in particular, showing forth, therefore, “the inner self-revelation of

existence which develops and manifests its nature in them.”205 In other words, “the

transcendental properties referred to as transcendental necessarily accompany being;

being manifests itself in them and reveals what it actually is.”206 Similarly, in the

analogical sense, the transcendental properties or attributes of God as the Uncreated

Being or IES have been expressed in terms of the transcendentals of being by scholastic

thinkers.

Just as Subsistent Being Itself or IES is permeated with His uncreated transcendental

properties, any created being can be characterized in terms of its created transcendental

nature, i.e., in terms of unity, truth, and goodness, etc. However, the difference is that IES

if so infinitely filled with such transcendental properties that He may also be depicted as

Subsistent Unity, Truth, and Goodness Itself, etc.207 As largely indicated before, IES is

not one, true and good, etc., because He causes unity, truth and goodness, etc.; rather, IES

causes unity, truth and goodness, etc., because He Himself is Subsisting or Everlasting

Unity, Truth and Goodness Itself.208 Therefore, to varying extents, all existing beings or

things in their esse necessarily partake, in some way, in the transcendentals of IES, i.e.,

unity, truth, and goodness, etc.

Historically, the setting up of the required number and order of the transcendentals for

being (ens) has always been a great interest and challenge for varying intellectuals.209

Even for the same thinker, the number and order may differ from one phase of intellectual

progress to another. At one point, for instance, the Common Doctor lists five essential

properties of ens. At some other instances, he regards only three as truly essential.210

Obviously, St. Thomas does not include beauty (pulchrum) in these enumerations.

However, in other texts, the Angelic Doctor does see beauty as closely related to

204 Cf. Ibid. 205 Ibid. 206 Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p. 240. 207 Cf. Ibid. 208 Cf. Étienne Gilson, Elements of Christian Philosophy, p. 140. 209 For example, recently an intellectual sees ‘creative power’ as a new transcendental. Cf. Robert E. Wood, “Potentiality, Creativity, and Relationality: Creative power as a ‘new’ transcendental,” in: The Review of Metaphysics 59 (December 2005), pp. 379-401. 210 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” p. 239.

63


goodness (bonum) or as a synthesis of truth (verum) and goodness (bonum).211 Due to the

limitations of this study, the author would only elaborate three transcendentals, i.e., unity,

truth and goodness, relating beauty more or less to goodness, as St. Thomas does above. 3.13 Ipsum Esse Subsistens (God) as Subsistent Unity Itself At the least, God as Subsistent Unity Itself has three meanings. First, in the numerical

sense, there is only one and only one IES (God) in the totality of reality. Secondly, as a

transcendental, unum or one “does not add anything to ‘being’: it is only the negation of

division, for one means undivided being.”212 In this sense, “unum et ens convertuntur.”213

Accordingly, One and IES are interconvertible. In other words, the One God is the

Subsistent Act of Existing Itself. Thirdly, opposed to composition, unum signifies the

pure simplicity of Subsistent Act of Existing Itself. 214 In Lotz’s expression: “The

simplicity of God is absolutely perfect. His simplicity excludes all those forms of

composition that even every finite spirit is subject to; in particular, in God essence and

existence, substance and life are absolutely identified.”215 Unlike an existent being, God

is existence itself in person ---- He is subsisting existence or Existence (Esse).216 In

contrast with the Infinite Pure Act (Actus Purus) Itself, the finite mixed or composed

existence of all creation --- in which essence and existence are distinct --- consists only of

varying created beings participating in Subsistent Act of Existence Itself.

Apparently, “[f]or St. Thomas, essence abstracts from existence; the only essentially

existent being is God. Hence existence is related to essence as actuality to

potentiality.”217 One may say that, unlike the potentiality in any created being, there is no

longer any potentiality left in God. God is the perfect Act or Actuality of anything truly

positive and possible. As one grows in awareness as regards the pluralism or diversity of

211 Ibid. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Pt.I, q.5, a.4: “Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and consequently, goodness is praised as beauty.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt.I, q.5, a.4. 212 Étienne Gilson, Elements of Christian Philosophy, p. 145. 213 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.11, a.1. 214 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Simplicity,” in: Walter Brugger, Philosophical Dictionary, p. 370. 215 Ibid., p. 371. 216 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “God,” in: Walter Brugger, Philosophical Dictionary, p. 155. 217 Roy J. Deferrari, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 358.

64


beings in life, one may begin to discover the existence of a real hierarchy of beings, as St.

Thomas states that some are fuller beings than others.218 Apparently, between the two

poles, i.e., God the Uncreated Being (IES) and non-being (non-esse or nothingness), there

exists a hierarchy of beings, each possessing, enjoying, or being lack of a certain degree

of fullness of esse, taking IES (the perfect fullness of esse) as the ultimate yardstick.

What exactly, then, is this fullness of esse? Gilson succinctly comments, “If God is

Being [Esse], He is not only total being: totum esse. He is more especially true being:

verum esse, and that means that everything else is only partial being, hardly deserves the

name of being at all.”219 In other words, the question above may be put this way: “What,

exactly, should be the most appropriate standard of measurement in respect to one’s

fullness of esse?” It appears that, Thomistically speaking, the most reliable, perfect and

time-tested standard is what is ultimately measured against God’s infinite, omnipresent

and everlasting Fullness of Being or Esse/Essence. As mentioned, God is the Subsistent

Act of Existence Itself in whom all potentialities of esse are eternally actualized or

actuated, to such an extent that His Esse becomes identical to His Essence, and vice

versa.

Fundamentally, we are addressing two kinds of existence or esse here, the perfect and

the imperfect. All imperfect esse, existence or existent beings merely participate in the

perfect existence (esse) of Ipsum Esse Subsistens. So infinitely perfect is IES’s level of

existence (esse) that IES is called Existence (Esse) Itself or Pure Act. Indeed, existence

(esse) is what IES is and what all creatures share in.220 “Causal participation is how

Thomas understands the analogical relationship between divine existence and creaturely

existence.”221 Unum et Ens convertuntur means that God as the infinite and perfect Ens

(Being) has so infinitely actualized all His attributes or perfections in His Essence that He

is identical with any one of them. In fact, all the transcendentals used to describe God

(IES) are “inseparably bound up with one another in the sense that they include and

218 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.44, a.1. 219 Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, p. 64. 220 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.45, a.5. 221 Francis J. Caponi, “Karl Rahner and the Metaphysics of Participation,” in: The Thomist, vol. 67, no. 3, July 2003, p. 377.

65


interpenetrate each other”222 in God’s very Essence, indescribably so.

In other words, each of the transcendentals is so infinitely actualized that we can call

God Subsistent Unity Itself, Subsistent Truth Itself and Subsistent Goodness Itself, etc.

However, we can never call a finite being unity itself, truth itself or goodness itself, for

the simple reason that the unity (between esse and essence), truth or goodness, etc., in

any finite being is not infinite or perfect. In this sense, any unity, truth or goodness, etc.,

that we find in creation is necessarily a pale reflection of the unity, truth and goodness,

etc., in IES. In the succinct expression of Gilson:223

For Thomas, God is superesse because he is eminently being: Esse pure and

simple, taken in its infinity and perfection… God’s esse, it is true, still remains unknowable to us; but no longer is our knowledge of things a knowledge of something that God is not. We can now truly say of everything that is, that God is also it, and even that he is it preeminently; that the name rightly belongs to him before it belongs to his creature.

In other words, although all of the perfections of God as Esse are described in terms

of the few transcendentals, God in His Essence is any genuine positive value or reality

that we may identify in life. For example, God is love, happiness, peace, greatness,

friendliness, beauty, wealth, etc., except that God is infinitely more in His mysterious,

indeed infinite and indescribable Essence.224 God, after all, is the absolute Source,

Perfection and Standard of all these positive values or realities. God’s very Esse (or Act

of Existing) equates to God’s very Essence necessarily implies that where God is, there is

God’s infinite Essence. As God is omnipresent in the totality of reality, being “present to

everything in all conceivable ways of being present,”225 God’s infinite perfections are

thus present everywhere, spreading, filling and permeating the whole of existence, as the

Efficient, Formal and Final Cause of all esse.

222 Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” p. 240. 223 Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, pp. 150-151. 224 Cf. Stefan Swiezawski, St. Thomas Revisited, pp. 51-57. 225 Étienne Gilson, Thomism: The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, p. 104.

66


3.14 Ipsum Esse Subsistens (God) as Subsistent Truth and Goodness Itself

Briefly, we will deal only with two more transcendentals in this sub-section, i.e.,

God as truth and goodness. Instantly, one may ask if these three transcendentals (unity,

truth and goodness) referring to God as Subsistent Act of Existing Itself would be

sufficient to describe all of God’s perfections or attributes. As we know, God as

Subsistent Unity Itself means inter alia (among others) that, insofar as God is concerned,

God’s Esse is His Essence, and vice versa, in simplicity. God, then, is Pure Act in the

sense that all the positive potentialities in God are infinitely fulfilled or actualized. If it is

so, God is living in the perfect or the highest possible level of existence. Evidently, to

describe God as Subsistent Unity Itself enjoying such a divine simplicity is not a limited

aspect of being, but, like other attributes of God, is rather as all-encompassing as being

itself, and consequently transcendental.226 Cataphatically speaking, nothing about God

seems more positive and perfect as a way of description.

However, according to St. Thomas, there are at least two other equally

transcendental and all-encompassing ways to describe God as the ideal perfect model in

whom all the potencies in God are completely realized. One is according to the human

intellect or knowledge, and another is according to the human orexis or desire. In the

expression of the Angelic Doctor:227

As good has the nature of what is desirable, so truth is related to knowledge. Now everything, in as far as it has being, so far is it knowable…. And therefore, as good is convertible with being, so is the true. But as good adds to being the notion of desirable, so the true adds relation to the intellect.

As we know, according to the scholastic tradition, the human faculties are classified

fundamentally as: (a) cognitive, which is related to knowledge or truth; and (b) appetitive,

as related to orexis or desire.228 In the cognitive sense, to call God Subsistent Truth Itself

simply means at least what follows.

226 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p. 241. 227 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 16, a. 3. 228 Jordan Aumann, O.P., Spiritual Theology (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1980), p. 97.

67


First, “Intelligere Dei est suum esse,”229 i.e., God’s act of intellect is His act of

existing, or vice versa. In other words, God’s act of intellect is inseparable from and

indeed is the same as His esse. As God is IES, God is also eternal Act of Intellect, eternal

Self-Consciousness or subsisting Self-Thinking Act of Esse.230

Secondly, as subsisting Act of Intellect, all genuine ontological truth and

epistemological truth are ultimately derived from God. “No other being except God is

intelligibility (intelligibility is the act of being), and no other being except God is

intellection (intellection is an act of knowing). Intelligibility is ontological truth;

intellection is epistemological truth.”231

Thirdly, as the only subsisting Self-Thinking Act of Intellect in eternity and in the

totality of reality, “God alone is identically and unlimitedly ontological truth and

epistemological truth. Other beings besides God are ontologically true or have

ontological truth, and in their cognition have epistemological truth.”232 God, therefore, is

the Subsistent Truth Itself. No truth, then, is so independent per se that it does not

presuppose and depend on the eternal, necessary Subsistent Truth Itself.233

Fourthly, living in the infinite, perfect level of existence as subsisting Self-Thinking

Act of Esse, God is not only the perfect Efficient, Formal and Final Cause of esse. Ipsum

Esse Subsistens is also the only perfect Efficient, Formal and Final Cause with respect to

any act of truth in being and truth in knowing. Succinctly expressed, as far as our

cognitive faculty is concerned, God (i.e., IES) may, then, be described as the eternal

229 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1, c.45, n.7. 230 Cf. F. P. O’Farrell, “Truth in Ontology,” in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p. 333. 231 Ibid. According to T. C. O’Brien, “St. Thomas has one brief statement of the terms in which he dis- cusses truth in being and truth in knowing. “Truth is defined in terms of conformity between a mind and a reality (being)” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.16, a.2). (1) Truth in being (‘ontological’ truth) is the conformity of a being to the exemplar idea on which it depends. All of being is true in that it matches the divine intelligence, its cause…. (2) Truth in knowing or truth as known [‘epistemological’ truth] is the knowing conformity of mind to being… The ultimate measure, criterion, is the ‘truth in being’ of the existent on which the judgment centers. The radical criterion of truth in knowing is truth in being.” T. C. O’Brien, “Truth,” in: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, vol. O-Z. Eds. P. K. Meagher, T. C. O’Brien, and C. M. Aherne (Washington, D.C.: Corpus Publications, 1979), p. 3577. 232 Ibid. 233 Ibid.

68


Subsistent Truth per se as regards our thinking or consciousness.

On the other hand, in the appetitive sense, to call God Subsistent Goodness Itself

means at least the following. First, “Bonum convertitur cum ente,”234 i.e., goodness (or

good) and being are convertible to each other, and differ only in idea. However, God as

Goodness Itself presents the aspect of desirableness, which God as Being (Esse) Itself

does not present.235 So far as God is concerned, it is evident that Goodness is not a

limited aspect of Being (Esse), but rather is as all-encompassing as Being Itself, and

consequently transcendental.236 To participate in God as Being Itself is, therefore, the

same as to participate in God as Goodness Itself.

Secondly, as goodness is what we all desire, IES being also Subsistent Goodness

Itself simply means that God, living in the highest possible level of existence, is the

perfect or most desirable Standard in any ultimate actualization of any true potency in life.

In fact, one may say that God is forever Absolute Goodness Itself who does not possess

goodness by acquisition. Neither has God received the goodness according to His

participation in some higher goodness. Rather, God is Subsistent or Everlasting Goodness

Itself by His own eternal unchanging nature and immutable origin.237

Thirdly, “Bonum est diffusivum sui,”238 i.e., goodness is self-diffusing. “For good is

attributed to God… inasmuch as all desired perfections flow from Him as from the first

cause.”239 One may even identify the goodness or nature of God the Supreme Good as

eternally the total sum of all possible genuine perfections in the totality of reality.

“Everything is therefore called good from God’s goodness, as from the first exemplar,

efficient, and final principle of all goodness. Nevertheless, everything is called good by

reason of the likeness of God’s goodness inhering in it… And so of all things there is one

234 St. Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 21, a. 1. 235 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.5, a.1. 236 Cf. Johannes B. Lotz, “Transcendentals,” p. 241. 237 Cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa’s description of God in Contra Eunomium I 276: I, p.107, 4-10: 45, 336, in: David L. Bilás, Man’s Participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Romae: 〈I.B.C.〉Libreria Herder, 1966, p. 56. 238 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.5, a.4. 239 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt.I, q.6, a.2.

69


Goodness, and yet many goodnesses.”240 Differently said, all goodnesses are reflections

of IES as Everlasting Goodness Itself.

Fourthly, as God is not only the Efficient and Formal Cause, but is also the Final

Cause of all goodness. The only destiny of all created beings, therefore, is to partake

more and more in the goodness of Subsistent Goodness Itself which has been inviting us

ceaselessly to participate in Its omnipresent goodness or perfections. Any portrayal of our

destiny less than such a participation is, then, defective and unacceptable, insofar as the

infinite goodness of Subsistent Goodness Itself is concerned.

In general, the three transcendentals of God are just three different ways to depict

the same awesome reality about God as regards His Act of Existence (Esse) or Essence,

i.e., in terms of unity, truth and goodness. In fact, God the perfect Being (Ens or Ens a se)

has been expressed by St. Thomas in terms of these three paradigmatic modules, i.e.,

“unum et ens convertuntur,”241 “verum et ens convertuntur,”242 or “bonum convertitur

cum ente.”243 In other words, Unity, Truth, Goodness, Ens (i.e., Being or God) are simply

convertible or inter-convertible among one another.

Insofar as the formula about God’s Esse being the same as God’s Essence is

concerned, countless perfections or attributes about God can, therefore, be subsumed

under these three simple, all-encompassing transcendentals. For example, the potency of

becoming forever loving, holy, generous, peaceful, joyful, happy, powerful,

knowledgeable, skillful, rich, beautiful, young and long-living, etc., in God Himself is so

infinitely actualized that we may simply call God infinite Love, Holiness, Generosity,

Peace, Joy, Happiness, Power, Knowledge, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Wealth, Beauty,

Youthfulness and Eternity Itself, etc.

In other words, as the Uncreated Source and Cause of all authentic truth and

240 James F. Anderson, An Introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), p. 87. 241 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.11, a.1. 242 Cf. Ibid., Pt.I, q.16, a.3. 243 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q.21, a.1.

70


goodness, God is also the One whom each created being would (a) in his or her sound

intellect necessarily proclaim as the Verum or the Subsistent Truth Itself, and (b) in his or

her genuine desire acknowledge as the Bonum or the Subsistent Goodness Itself. At the

same time, all potency or potencies are perfectly actuated in both God’s Esse and Essence

without distinction that God ----- in His infinite simplicity ----- is also the Subsistent

Unity Itself.

3.2 The Challenge of God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens Today In this sub-section, the challenge of God as IES will first be presented as a real

problem, then as an authentic blessing, and finally as a great challenge to this generation.

3.21 The Problem of Ipsum Esse Subsistens for Us Today

Upon a closer reflection, as God is Infinite Existence Itself (IES), it necessarily

follows that finite existence itself is being sustained, permeated, enveloped and filled

everywhere through and through by God’s Esse and (or) Essence. Succinctly expressed,

we may say that “finite existence participates in Pure Existence, finite becoming in

Absolute Being, Limited activity in Infinite Life, time in Eternity, secondary causality in

Primary Causality. Beings exist from their First Cause and tend toward their First Cause,

for an existence received is an existence from being [esse] and from God, and every

tendency is a tendency toward being [esse] and toward God.”244 Succinctly, the esse of

the finite can only derive from, depend on and find its URAM in the infinite Esse Itself.

As mentioned, God is Subsistent Unity, Truth, and Goodness Itself in His Essence

with all possible positive perfections infinitely actualized in His uncreated Esse.

Therefore, the whole of created existence itself, including every created existent being, is

thus sustained, permeated, enveloped and filled through and through by all of God’s

Esse/Essence. Simultaneously, God’s divine perfections include His infinite love,

holiness, generosity, peace, joy, happiness, power, knowledge, richness, beauty and

eternity, etc. However, this is precisely where the real problem comes for many today, i.e., 244 James V. McGlynn and Sr. Paul Mary Farley, A Metaphysics of Being and God, p. 219.

71


the very truth that God’s omnipresent Esse is the same as His omnipresent perfections is

being questioned as an empty, idealistic theory.

As we look around, it does not really take a thoughtful thinker to realize that life itself

has neither been sustained by nor filled with all these metaphysical “niceties.” In reality,

life in general seems to have been permeated by the very contradictions or lack of

fulfillment as regards the “niceties” aforementioned. To varying extents, the real world is

filled with all kinds of imperfection such as violence, immorality, misunderstanding,

conflict, sadness, weakness, ignorance, poverty, despair, deterioration, sickness,

depression and death, etc.. The conclusion which countless people, Christians or not,

have drawn is oftentimes that, if God really exists, the formula that God’s omnipresent

Esse is the same as His omnipresent Essence seems to belong to the other world. The

crux of the problem is that this formula cannot be really experienced in reality. However

profound and original a contribution made by St. Thomas, this mediaeval doctrine

appears to many as indefensible against the charge of its pure abstraction and empty

promise.245 On the contrary, according to Maritain, this awesome formula is one which

would set off an amazing explosion.246 Due to this contradiction, what is needed is

further clarification.

3.22 The Wonderful Consequence of Ipsum Esse Subsistens for Us Today

“In the created world everything is made to a likeness of what is in God.” 247 As all

creation or existence is created as an image of IES, what, then, does this immense

explosion mean? Analogically, as mentioned, the very uncreated omnipresence of IES is

like an uncreated Diamond Mine hidden deeply everywhere in creation. For the

fulfillment of the URAM of all created beings, i.e., beings created in the image of the

Formal Cause and Final Cause (of all creation) destined to be constantly looking for

God’s Esse or Essence in one way or the other, this uncreated omnipresent Diamond Lode

245 Cf. Fergus Kerr, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism, p. 73. 246 Cf. Ibid. 247 St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Power of God (Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei), Third Book, Trans. The English Dominican Fathers (Westminister, Maryland, 1952), p. 90; cf. Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.50, a.3.

72


would really need to be set off.

Simply put, this immense explosion, spiritual by nature, would simply consist in the

wonderful realization in which God’s all-permeating Esse or Essence is being activated,

participated or experienced by more and more individuals. Subsequently, resembling the

Esse of their Creator, the esse of countless individuals and communities would be filled

with God’s perfections or Essence. In this way, being sustained and enabled by Subsistent

Act of Existence Itself, they would begin to participate in the divine Esse as never before.

Emulating the Esse of IES, the whole of their esse would be filled with God’s Essence

describable in terms of divine transcendentals, or love, happiness, peace, holiness,

generosity, power, knowledge, wisdom, beauty and even eternity, etc.

Indeed, to activate this formula in which God’s Esse equates to His Essence simply

means to activate God’s omnipresent Esse in and around us. Hence, God’s omnipresent

Essence would be also activated more and more everywhere within and beyond us, for

the immense blessing of countless individual beings, families, communities, cultures,

societies, nations, etc., even the whole creation. Briefly summed up, to activate this

formula is to participate in God’s Esse/Essence. Universally applied, the consequence

would be like setting off an immense explosion, dynamically exposing or activating the

hidden omnipresent Esse or Essence of IES. At the same time, God’s omnipresent

Essence or perfections would be vibrantly released everywhere inside and outside of us,

beyond our wildest imaginations.

Immediately, one may ask, how can it be really possible? Why it is that so many

people are still so unhappy today? Having identified God as “happiness,”248 does St.

Thomas reveal to us any clue as regards the means for God’s Esse/Essence to be

participated or experienced? Does St. Thomas tell us how to explore such an immense

treasure? Having revealed to us that the formula that God’s Act of Existence equates to

His Essence, has St. Thomas developed further as regards the setting off or participation

248 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt.I-II, q.3, a.1, in which it reads: “God is happiness by His Essence; for He is happy not by acquisition or participation of something else, but by His Essence. On the other hand, men are happy, as Boethius says (loc. cit.), by participation.”

73


in this transcosmic hidden treasure?

3.23 The Challenge of Ipsum Esse Subsistens Today

Once again, as aforementioned, we must give proper credits to the Common Doctor

for the cataphatic articulation of his innovative metaphysics of esse, in particular the

scholastic concept of IES. However, we must, at the same time, reiterate respectfully that

he has not explained sufficiently or explicitly to his generation ----- as well as to us today

----- the URAM of the formula in which God’s Esse is His Essence, including the

mysticism or spirituality as regards our participation in God’s Esse or Essence.

As Maritain informs us, human beings have a fourfold wisdom as regards our

knowledge of God249, i.e., (1) Metaphysical wisdom: Knowing God as the First Cause, it

is some metaphysical insight which we gain through and beyond creatures, by the natural

light of reason; (2) Theological wisdom: “It is an elucidation of revealed data by faith

vitally linked with reason, advancing in step with reason and arming itself with

philosophy;” 250 (3) Mystical wisdom: Above theological wisdom, “there is infused

wisdom which is also called mystical theology and which consists in knowing the

essentially supernatural object of faith and theology --- Deity as such --- according to a

mode that is suprahuman and supernatural. It is a matter of knowing God by experience

in the silence of every creature and of any representation, in accordance with a manner of

knowing, itself proportioned to the object known, insofar as that is possible here below.

Faith all by itself does not suffice for that; it must be rendered perfect in its mode of

operating by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, by the gift of understanding, and, above all, by

the gift of wisdom. That is mystical experience; it belongs to the supernatural order;”251

(4) Beatific vision: “By an intuitive vision of the Divine Essence, the beatified creature

will receive --- with no shadow of pantheism --- infinitely more than the most daring

pantheism can dream of: the infinitely transcendent God Himself, not that wretched

idol-God mingled with the being of things and emerging through our efforts, which

249 Cf. Jacques Maritain, Distinguish to Unite, or The Degrees of Knowledge, p. 253. 250 Cf. Ibid., p. 252. 251 Ibid., p. 253.

74


pantheism and the philosophy of becoming imagine, but the true God who is eternally

self-sufficient and eternally blessed in the Trinity of Persons. By vision, the creature

becomes the true God Himself, not in the order of substance, but in the order of that

immaterial union which constitutes the intellectual act.”252

Analyzing in terms of Maritain’s fourfold wisdom, it appears that what St. Thomas

was granted by God to see is a profoundly deep mystical vision which may even be a

foretaste of the beatific vision. This vision is neither metaphysical wisdom nor

theological wisdom, since they are exactly what the Summa consists of. Simple mystical

theology, however apophatic and difficult to express clearly and completely, can, up to a

point, be transmitted in some imperfect human mode. However, as the creature

apparently is granted a foretaste of the beatific vision, it is indescribably difficult or

impossible for any human being on earth, now and ever, to express such a vision. Having

seen IES or God in a vision which defies all human expression, St. Thomas simply could

not continue writing as he compared this vision to his previous mundane theology. This

may explain why St. Thomas did not finish Summa Theologiae, after having been given

such a profound out-of-this-world vision.

One, thus, has to distinguish that there are at least four distinct levels of wisdom, i.e.,

metaphysical, theological, mystical and beatific. Thinking in line with John A. Caputo,

we are convinced that it is a big mistake to blend together the metaphysics of St. Thomas

with the rationalist systems of modern metaphysics which tends to rationally dismiss the

essentially transcendent, theological and mystical dimensions of wisdom.253 Hence, it is

necessary to continue beyond where St. Thomas stops metaphysically and theologically,

and moves religiously or spiritually towards the mystical dimension. It is really unwise

“to remain only on the level of what Thomas has explicitly said and to pay no heed to

what is unsaid.”254 “For in Thomas’s exclamation to Reginald, “Raynalde, Raynalde, non

252 Ibid., p. 255. 253 Cf. John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas: An essay on overcoming metaphysics (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), p. 284. 254 Ibid.

75


possum,” there lies the highest possibility in St. Thomas’ thought.”255

Caputo concludes, “Behind the discursive arguments, the conceptual distinctions,

the whole impressive display of ratio which is found in St. Thomas, there lies hidden an

experience of Being. Behind the sober and cool-headed account of God and the soul and

the world, there lies a profound, if implicit, mysticism. In the end, St. Thomas is properly

understood only by converting the coin of his metaphysical theory into its religious and

alethiological equivalent.” 256 However inferior simple mystical knowledge is, as

compared to a profound mystical or beatific vision, it is still possible, to some extent, for

human language.

Apparently, having been immensely affected for centuries by anti-supernatural

scientism, materialism, rationalism, hedonism, humanitarianism, industrialism and

de-mythologization, etc., there has never been a time in the history of Christianity in

which an abundance of sound Christian mysticism is more needed. Did Karl Rahner

(1904-1984) not state prophetically that the future Christian will either be a mystic or will

cease being one?257 Since St. Thomas will still be a perennial philosopher or theologian

of the Catholic Church par excellence, it is extremely important, therefore, that we

upgrade our reading or interpretation of St. Thomas’s writings, in particular his concept

of God. In other words, we should not just treat IES purely as a formal scholastic concept

within the mediaeval metaphysical and theological realms. Instead, in terms of mystical

wisdom and modern knowledge, etc., we should also seek to refigure or re-interpret258

the formula mentioned which, unfortunately, had to be encased in a scholastic, highly

philosophical expression.259

In fact, St. Thomas “was held by his contemporaries to be a man endowed with

255 Ibid. 256 Ibid., p. 283. 257 Cf. Karl Rahner, “The Spirituality of the Church in the Future,” in: Theological Investigations XX. Trans. Edward Quinn (New York: The Crossroad Publication Company, 1981), p. 149. 258 Cf. P. Ricoeur, “[Chapter] 3 Time and Narrative: Threefold Mimesis”, in: Time and Narrative, Vol. 1. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 52-87; 沈清松：〈呂格爾的三層再現論及其檢討〉，《呂

格爾》，臺北市：東大圖書公司，2000，頁 109-160。 259 Cf. W. Norris Clarke, S.J., Explorations in Metaphysics: Being-God-Person, p. 1.

76


contemplative gifts, with religious and mystical grace, and not merely with theological

intelligence.”260 In spite of being a mystic himself, St. Thomas, nevertheless, had to serve

dutifully as a master of scholasticism, offering his thinking, teaching and writing in a

cataphatic or un-mystical form. As we know, “truth exceeds its expression”261 constantly

and that “discourse always lags behind what one wants or has to say.”262 We must,

therefore, learn to hear or re-hear in his scholastic concept of esse the intensely Christian

experience of Ipsum Esse Subsistens, i.e., the inner truth as regards the possible mystical

experience of IES’s mysterious omnipresence in the soul, the Church, the world and the

whole of creation, etc. In other words, we must learn to think or re-think of God as that

fullness of presence in the Esse and Essence of IES intimately present to the esse of all

things.263 St. Thomas notes: 264

Therefore as long as a thing has being [esse], God must be present to it, according to its mode of being [esse]. But being [esse] is innermost in each thing and most fundamental inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing… Hence, it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.

Apparently, the Esse of the Uncreated Being and the esse of all created beings

cannot be separated for all eternity. In the true positive sense, more pertinent research and

study are, thus, needed to re-introduce to the present generation IES as the all-present

God who does not cease permeating all creatures innermostly. Such an exploration should

include inter alia any mystical, wholistic and creative thinking relevant to the modern or

postmodern scientific, sociological, psychological and cultural way of thinking. As

Teilhard suggests, the God most fitting for us today must be as vast and mysterious as the

universe, as immediate and all-embracing as life, and in some way linked to the effort of

the global family. A God who makes the world less mysterious, smaller or less important

260 John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas: An essay of overcoming metaphysics, p. 255; cf. Vincent McNabb, O.P., “The Mysticism of St. Thomas Aquinas,” in: St. Thomas Aquinas. Being papers read at the celebration of the sixth centenary of the canonization of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1925), pp. 89-109. 261 A. J. Godzieba, “Hermeneutics,” in: New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Second Edition, vol. 6, p. 786. 262 Jean Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics, trans. Joel Weinsheimer (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), p. xiv. 263 Cf. Ibid. 264 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt.I, q.8, a.1.

77


will never become the God to whom the world would kneel.265

Hopefully, this vast and mysterious model of God, among others, would be used to

make St. Thomas’s metaphysical concept of IES more suitable and exciting to many

living today.266

3.3 URAM of a Participation Metaphysics and Spirituality of IES

As we know, there is always a significant gap between one’s theory and experience.

However, this gap may be bridged in terms of their mutual complementarity. In the case

with IES, it seems that one’s cognitive grasp of the metaphysical dimension of Subsistent

Being Itself represents, in a real way, only one’s accruement of this mediaeval theory as a

theory. In order to make such a theoretical construct sustainable, what is needed is a

certain spiritual experience of it in one’s esse. Our metaphysical knowledge of IES,

therefore, needs to be sustained or complemented by our spiritual experience or

spirituality of Subsistent Being Itself. Otherwise, our metaphysical understanding of IES

remains to a large extent incomplete, unsatisfied or unfulfilled in our existence. A certain

spirituality of such a highly metaphysical expression of God (i.e., IES) is, thus, much

needed today.

3.31 Need for a Participation Metaphysics and Spirituality of God’s Esse/Essence

Apparently, there are at least four principal reasons why there is a universal need,

challenge, or call today for a participation metaphysics and spirituality of Ipsum Esse

Subsistens in Whom there is no distinction between Esse and Essence. First, as

mentioned, the esse of the entire creation has been superabundantly permeated by the

uncreated omnipresence of IES. Such an omnipresent uncreated Diamond Lode has been

265 Cf. P. Teilhard de Chardin, The Heart of Matter, p. 212. 266 Apparently, St. Thomas’s metaphysical conception of the omnipresent Ipsum Esse Subsistens was influenced by St. Augustine’s metaphysical concept of God as the supreme all-present Being Itself. Cf. John Cheng, “St. Augustine’s Concept of God as the All-Present Being for the Present Generation,” in: Fu Jen Religious Studies, no, 12 (2005 Winter), pp. 195-242. As regards the presentation of Subsistent Being Itself to the present generation, it is important, inter alia, to understand St. Thomas also in terms of St. Augustine.

78


awaiting our free participation. Apparently, the consequence of setting this participation

spirituality in motion is like setting off an immense explosion or release for our plentiful

participation as regards the divine, omnipresent Esse or perfections of IES.

Secondly, metaphysically and spiritually speaking, countless of us are presently living

in the Modern-Postmodern Period of created beings without the Uncreated Being, i.e.,

without a clear knowledge and understanding of IES or God. Indeed, any more ignoring

or putting off our participation as created beings in the Uncreated Being Itself would only

further put our existence in jeopardy, reducing our being increasingly towards

nothingness. As pointed out, this Uncreated Being is none other than the First Cause, the

Final Cause, the Necessary Being, the Most Perfect Being and the Ordering Mind of all

esse Who is at the same time also Subsistent Unity, Truth, Beauty and Goodness Itself. It

is true that we all have already participated in the Esse of Subsistent Being Itself;

otherwise, we would not possess our own esse. But the uneasy truth is that many have

done so only at a minimum survival level without their full consciousness.

Thirdly, we are all created and destined, above all, to participate in the omnipresence

of the Esse and Essence of IES, the URAM of all our URAMs. Such a letting loose of

God’s omnipresence which enables us to partake freely in His Esse or Essence would

only help us fully fulfill our raison d’être. Metaphysically and spiritually, it seems that

many in the world today are not aware of the fact that they have not even begun to live

according to what they are truly created or destined to.

Fourthly, as aforementioned, it appears that St. Thomas has not fully developed a

metaphysics and spirituality of IES as regards our participation in Its Esse or Essence. As

God is the All permeating all, the Esse permeating all esse, it is of preeminent importance,

therefore, for the all-permeating and all-embracing metaphysics and spirituality of IES to

be further developed and re-introduced to us. For lack of a term, we will call such a

‘metaphysics and spirituality’ as ‘that’ of no-empty space, all-in-All or All-in-all.

In other words, this all-in-All ‘metaphysics and spirituality’ is concerned about the

79


whole esse of creation existing ceaselessly in God’s omnipresence, panentheistically.

Metaphorically, this ‘metaphysics and spirituality’ sees creation as a small life organism

living within the boundless Pacific Ocean. At the same time, this small life organism is

permeated by the esse and essence of the Ocean. Here, ‘all’ (representing all creation) is

being permeated unceasingly by the entire ‘All’ (representing the all-present

Esse/Essence of its Creator), to such extent that there is simply no empty space left.

As we know, the world belongs to those who understand it and know how to deal

with it. Hence, the omnipresent world of the Esse/Essence of the Subsistent Being Itself

would belong to us, if we seek to understand it in terms of an appropriate ‘metaphysics’

and learn how to deal with it through a proper ‘spirituality’. This, then, is the general

purpose or goal of articulating such a no-empty-space or all-in-All ‘metaphysics and

spirituality’.

3.32 Challenge in Renewing Traditional Metaphysics and Spirituality

Evidently, the whole universe everywhere is infinitely permeated by the uncreated yet

concrete omnipresence of IES. Hence, we can ascertain that every person, family,

community, society, nation, etc., is without exception saturated by God’s immense

perfections, so much so that there is absolutely no physical empty space left behind.

However, the present tragedy is overt. Inasmuch as the Creator’s perfections have been

eagerly waiting everywhere for our active, satisfying participation since the beginning of

creation, not many seem to have consciously noticed such an omnipresent Diamond Mine

Lode.

It is true that countless people throughout the ages may have participated in these

divine omnipresent perfections without knowing it. Nonetheless, it is truer to say that

without an appropriate metaphysics and spirituality, no fuller personal and communal

activation or participation in God’s Esse or Essence is possible. Apparently, many of us

seem to have been suffering from the deprivation of a proper knowledge as regards God’s

omnipresence and His omnipresent perfections. For lack of a terminology, perhaps we

80


can call this mentality which generally deprives us from partaking in the omnipresent

divine perfections ‘a flawed metaphysics and spirituality of empty space.’

By way of omission, such a flawed metaphysics and spirituality seem to forget to

show us explicitly that there is no physical empty space blocking us from the all-present

God and His omnipresent perfections. Although we are presented with wonderful

concepts about God and His characteristics, somehow we are not encouraged to explore

and experience God and His perfections present concretely everywhere in the world. If

many would only know exactly where God and His perfections are located for our sure

satisfactory experience, they would have certainly rushed there in a great hurry.

Simultaneously, as God and His perfections seem to exist distinctly only in the world

beyond, many have given up such a hope and indulged themselves subsequently in

self-destructive pleasures. Many also think that they would need to pass away first

corporally, before any real personal taste of encountering God and His out-of-this-world

perfections would become possible.

On the other hand, metaphysically and spiritually, many today seem to have been

misled by conceptualism, atheism, materialism, hedonism, egotism, naturalism, scientism,

nihilism and de-mythologizing, etc. As a consequence, they conduct their lives largely

according to what can be sensibly or tangibly verified. They believe that religious

concepts like IES and His Esse/Essence are empty and impractical to daily reality.

Discouraged from going beyond the sensible realm and penetrating the external surface

of things, they simply choose to demythologize or explain away the omnipresent,

suprasensible God and His perfections.

3.33 Linking Participation Metaphysics and Spirituality to Mysticism

Caused or created by Ipsum Esse Subsistents, our esse is meant to participate

increasingly in the Esse or Essence of the Subsistent Being Itself. Interpreting it in terms

of Maritain’s progressive fourfold wisdom, human beings are called not only to share in

God’s Esse/Essence cognitively in metaphysical and theological understanding, but also

81


spiritually in mysticism (indeed even in the eternal beatific vision in Heaven). It is,

therefore, necessary to link or integrate such a participation metaphysics and spirituality

with mysticism. In other words, it is indispensable for IES to be re-approached or

re-thought further in terms of mysticism and prayer (which is inseparably linked with

mysticism).267 In brief, we need to become wise not only in metaphysics and theology,

but also in mysticism towards Subsistent Being Itself. Otherwise, we would, as Maritain

would agree, never be able to understand and participate fully on earth in the

all-penetrating presence of IES mysteriously present in and around us.

Indeed, for too long a period, many Christians have learned to appreciate only the

active cognitive approach towards God. Doing the best in their active life, they have

largely become a people of activism in the created realm, completely forgetful about the

possibility of experiencing mystically the all-permeating, all-embracing presence of IES.

Apparently, the suprasensible supernatural God and His unmistakable perfections can

only be intimately and profoundly experienced mystically in prayer or prayerful action,

within one’s soul, spirit or heart of gold. Experientially, it is, therefore, vital that we learn

about prayer, prayerful action and, in particular, prayerful contemplation, without which

no intimate personal experience (up to a point, of course) of IES is truly possible. St.

Thomas states beautifully, “Those who are more adapted to the active life can prepare

themselves for the contemplative by the practice of the active life, while none the less,

those who are more adapted to the contemplative life can take upon themselves the works

of the active life, so as to become yet more apt for contemplation.”268

Moreover, in the current ecumenical era,269 inter-religious and inter-spiritual dialogue

with other major world religions should also be encouraged with respect to what is

common to our confessional traditions, grounds and practices, etc., especially in the area

267 It will be explained later in this work. 268 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, q.183, a.4. The above quotation is also found in: Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (New York, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970), p. 298. 269 Cf. Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith dialogue & global responsibility (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987), pp. 1ff.

82


of contemplative prayer.270 In fact, Christians who have been brought up traditionally

without a firm foundation in mysticism should learn to be open to others, both

intra-religiously and inter-religiously. In other words, Christians today should be open to

both their own mystical tradition, as well as the mysticism in other world religions.271 As

regards the exciting, much-needed activation or participation in the omnipresent Esse and

Essence of IES, the renewal of traditional Christian faith should be characteristic of that

of a mystic’s “unshakable faith in the supremacy of knowledge, invincible optimism,

ethical universalism and religious tolerance.”272

Finally, morally speaking, it seems that for a long time many Christians have been

taught ascetically in terms of obligation and virtue ethics, etc. As a consequence, it seems

that many have been encouraged to follow, among others, the Ten Commandments, the

cardinal virtues, social justice, the canon laws of the Church,and other ecclesiastical law

enforcement. It may be time for us to approach ethics also in terms of Ipsum Esse

Subsistens, mystically. Indeed, it is in contemplating and participating deeply in the

omnipresent Esse and perfections of God who is Subsistent Unity, Truth, Beauty and

Goodness Itself, etc., everywhere that we would find it easy, even exciting, joyful and

fulfilling, to be truly good, moral or ethical. In order to become good Christians, not only

do we need to become ascetical. Indeed, we also need to become truly mystical, sharing

or participating profusely in the omnipresent mysterious Esse/Essence of Subsistent

Being Itself. In this way, we would become truly good, happily so, to our heart’s content.

4. Concluding Remarks

With respect to St. Thomas’s scholastic concept of IES in Whom the divine Esse and

Essence are one and the same thing, we have discovered that this metaphysical equation

is an awesome spiritual formula which would bring forth an immense spiritual

270 Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Christian Meditation (Sherbrooke, Quebec: Éditions Paulines, 1990), Chapter I, paragraph 1 and Chapter V, paragraph 16. 271 Cf. Wayne Teasdale, The Mystic Heart: Discovering a universal spirituality in the world’s religions (Novato, CA: New World Library, 2001), pp. 235-250. 272 Bansi L. Chakoo, Aldous Huxley and Eastern Wisdom (Atlantic Highland, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1981), p. 291.

83


explosion.273 Further, as only God really and actually is (or exists) for all eternity, the

esse of every created thing or being in all creation exists necessarily by participation in

God’s Esse.274 Since there is no composition in this simple God Who pervades all

creation, the future of all created esse consists in participating increasingly in His

omnipresent Esse or Essence (nature or perfections).

As God is the all-penetrating divine nature,275 the crucial key of our participation

consists in His omnipresence ad extra, as well as in our cooperative activation of this

divine omnipresence. Apparently, if more and more individuals could respond to IES ad

extra in this global village, the massive repercussion would increasingly set off an

immense spiritual renewal for all of us. Without precedent, the whole humanity would be

affected not only spiritually or religiously, but also psychologically, socially, emotionally,

culturally, philosophically and politically, etc., in the way we live as a big human family.

To be sure, in order to practice effectively this Thomistic formula and bring forth its

incredible potentiality aforementioned by Maritain, we would need to go further where St.

Thomas stops. Differently expressed, we need to develop a relevant participation

metaphysics and spirituality of IES for this generation. As Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

cogently reminds us, metaphysicians in the West may make excellent theoretical

statements about the nature of man and universe, but they do not offer us any practical

way to experience or test the truth of those statements.276 In other words, for the benefit

of many, the traditional Thomistic metaphysics of IES needs to be re-figurated,

transformed or developed further into a participation metaphysics and spirituality.

Therefore, many would be aspired to a participation mentality and a personal mystical

experience as regards the Esse or Essence of IES.

273 Cf. Jacques Maritain, Distinguish to Unite, or The Degrees of Knowledge, p. 230. 274 Cf. Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity & Christian life (Chicago, IL, HarperCollins, 1993), p. 150. 275 Cf. Ibid., p. 151. 276 Cf. Aldous Huxley, Island (London: New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962), p. 74; cf. Bansi L. Chakoo, Aldous Huxley and Eastern Wisdom (Atlantic Highland, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1981), p. 290.

84


85

One may argue that St. Thomas has already implied such a possibility. If it is so, our

challenge would be to bring out explicitly what is implied by the Common Doctor.

Purportedly, as St. Thomas’s metaphysical conception of IES is encased in a mediaeval

framework, there is a need to re-figure it in terms of a metaphysical framework which is

more concrete, dynamic and relational. In this “era of dialogue and heightened awareness

of the other,”277 it is our hope that such a framework would be found in the Guanzi Si

Pian’s metaphysics of qi. This vital exploration, then, is our task in the next chapter.278

Properly conducted, the author is convinced that it is possible for a real broadening in

religious vision as well as a genuine deepening in spiritual transformation to be generated

through an encounter between the truths of Christianity and the truths of non-Christian

religions.279 Whether or not such a religious vision and spiritual transformation would

take place in the current encounter between Christianity and the Huang-Lao Daoism in

this work, i.e., in the comparison between St. Thomas’s concept of IES and the concept of

qi in the Guanzi Si Pian, the answer should be known by the end of the present study.

277 Jim Fodor and Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt, Aquinas in Dialogue: Thomas for the twenty-first century, p. vi. 278 The following prophetic statement made by Bansi L. Chakoo may be correct, as he prophesied: “Probably, the Eastern way of thinking may lead the modern anxious and doubtrodden West to spiritual regeneration.” Bansi L. Chakoo, Aldous Huxley and Eastern Wisdom, p. 290. If there has been such a fact as the spiritual decline of the West portrayed by Oswald Spengler, then Chakoo’s prophecy must be taken seriously. Arthur Helps observes cogently: “On one point Spengler is very definite. The polarity between the pull of the visible and the invisible worlds is more important than other tensions…. When the Roman Empire fell it bequeathed Christianity to the world. Western Europe offers science and its child, technology. Nevertheless, Spengler perceives that the balance will swing and the invisible will regain the hold over the Western world that it has lost since the Middle Ages.” Arthur Helps, “Oswald Spengler,” in: Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, An abridged edition by Helmut Werner, English abridged edition by Arthur Helps, translated by Charles Francis Atkinson (New York: The Modern Library, 1962), p. xiv. 279 Cf. James L. Fredericks, Faith among Faiths: Christian theology and non-Christian religions (New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1999), p. 179.

chapter ii st. thomas aquinas’s concept of ipsum esse ... · chapter ii st. thomas aquinas’s...

Documents