Aristotle suggests that eudaimonia is the final end we all rightly seek.  Eudaimonia is the result of realizing our human nature.  When we achieve the end towards which we are naturally directed (full flowering of our human nature) we will be excellent and happy.  Utter fulfillment. 

 

See Aristotle’s Ethics

 

But Aquinas is critical of Aristotle on this point.

 

1.       What we really seek in not finite happiness, but rather infinite, indefinite happiness. (It's not like I want to be happy for the next five years and after that I don't care anymore.)   Close attention reveals that what I truly want is unending, unlimited ongoing happiness and fulfillment.  So Aristotle's worldly are not the true end we seek, not can his virtues cannot tell me how to achieve that, my true Summa Bonum.

 

2.       Further, Aquinas thought he could prove the existence of an all-powerful and all loving God.  And for those who do not come to believe this as a matter of philosophy there is also revelation.  Thus both philosophy and faith direct us to seek the happiness commensurate to God’s power and love.  (Infinite- just what we wanted)

 

The Baltimore Catechism:

 

Baltimore Catechism No. 1

LESSON FIRST: ON THE END OF MAN

 

1. Q. Who made the world?

A. God made the world.

 

2. Q. Who is God?

A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.

 

3. Q. What is man?

A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

 

6. Q. Why did God make you?

A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

 

3.       Thus for Aquinas, our true end (telos) is in the knowledge, service and love of God and to be united with him in the afterlife.

 

It is also worth mentioning that Aquinas accepts Aristotle’s definition of Man (i.e. Man is the Rational Animal)  Thus the only kind of eternal life man can have is as an animal/ body. 

 

Ah! But that is precisely the eternal life the Christianity promises.  And precisely what Christians are rightly to hope for, with God's help.  The eternal life promised by Christianity is NOT one as a disembodied spirit (Plotinus’ assent of the soul), but rather human existence as resurrected bodies, the same sort of existence Christ is understood to enjoy now.  Aquinas says “Anima mea non est ego.”  And that this was anticipated, in a way, by the Pagan philosopher Aristotle.[1]  Hence Philosophy shows the necessity of the resurrection of the body, just as promised by the Christian faith, for everlasting human life.

 

 

Augustine and Aquinas on Hope

 

·         Augustine of Hippo (Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis)

o   (November 13, 354 AD – August 28, 430 AD)

·         Christian Theologian and a "Father" of the Church

·         Both Catholic and Evangelical protestant traditions regard him as a formative authority

 

Distinguishes among:

 

1.       things to be enjoyed (make us blessed)

2.       things to be used (sustain us as we move toward blessedness)

3.       things to be enjoyed and used.

 

·         To enjoy something is to cling to it with love for its own sake. (Not unlike the concept of "Things of intrinsic value.")

 

·         To use something, however, is to employ it in obtaining that which you love, provided that it is worthy of love. (Not unlike "Things of Instrumental Value.")

 

·         An illicit use (directed at an improper goal) should be called rather a waste or an abuse.

 

But we must be careful to distinguish these and not to confuse them.

 

"If we enjoy (and cling to with love) those things which should be used, our course (to blessedness) will be impeded and sometimes deflected."

 

We are in danger, he says, of being:

 

“shackled by an inferior love”

 

Gives the metaphor of a traveler making his way home.

 

 “But if the amenities of the journey and the motion of the vehicles itself delighted us, and we were led to enjoy those things which we should use, we should not wish to end our journey quickly, and, entangled in a perverse sweetness, we should be alienated from our country, whose sweetness would make us, blessed.”

 

Mortal life must not become “wandering from God”

 

The (only) thing(s) which are to be (genuinely) enjoyed is/are God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a single Trinity, (a certain supreme thing common to all who enjoy it)

 

Augustine notes:

 

"Between temporal and eternal things there is this difference: a temporal thing is loved more before we have it, and it begins to grow worthless when we gain it, for it does not satisfy the soul, whose true and certain rest is eternity; but the eternal is more ardently loved when it is acquired than when it is merely desired.”

 

The end of the Law and of all the sacred Scriptures (The Christian Religion) is the love of a Being which is to be enjoyed.  This is not dissimilar to Plato cautioning us not the mistake the imitation of this world for the really of the Forms.  Further the only proper response to the Forms is love, and an ardent love at that.  For nothing less than they satisfies the soul for Plato.

 

Note further that one might add this is true of all things; they are to be only to be used and only to be used as a mean to God- (e.g. Art/Beauty)

 

Augustine on Hope:

 

The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love

 

But it is not only man's intellect which must be perfected with regard to his supernatural end (the Virtue that covers that it Faith), his will also must tend to that end, as a good possible of attainment. Now the virtue, by which the will is so perfected, is the theological virtue of hope. It is commonly defined as a Divinely infused virtue, by which we trust, with an unshaken confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to attain life everlasting.

 

So Hope is a virtue of the will.  It is what enables us to “tend towards our proper end.”

 

I see that it is necessary for me to make here an additional remark, that we are saved by hope. "But hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." Romans 8:24-25

 

St. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225 1274)

 

·         Influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle (384 322 B.C.), he modifies Plato's Influence on Christian thinkers.

·         Aristotle had spoken of virtues.

·         Aquinas “corrects” Aristotle's concept of Eudemonia

 

The influence of Plato on Augustine and the formation of early Christian doctrine is clear.  This influences together with the early Church’s rejection of Roman sensuality and lasciviousness, lead to an atmosphere very unfriendly to “the body.”  Plato had taught that we are NOT bodies essentially but rather we are spirits who for a time are embody.  What is really real is the immaterial (we might say, the heavenly) and that is what should occupy our attention.  The world of sense only serves us if is acts as a vehicle to getting at and to the immaterial realm.  (Recall Augustine’s metaphor of the journey.)  We must be careful not to let it become a source of intellectual distraction and error, or a source of moral temptation and sin.  Plato claimed our highest duty was the care of our immortal souls, and as immoral action weakens our souls, it is better to suffer an injustice than to do an injustice. 

 

We have seen that Augustine retains much of this.  Note how he counsels us not to “love” that which should merely be used.  Augustine, like Plato before him and the tradition of Neo-Platonism saw the body as the prison of the soul.  Our physical existence was a time for learning and working and it is unwise to dwell on the bodily, but rather to seek mastery over the body and ultimately discard it utterly at the point of death.

 

The fully body of scientific and philosophical works of Aristotle were unknown to Western Europe until Latin translations of Arabic scholars reintroduced Aristotelian philosophy to Western culture at the time of the Crusades.  They were commented on by St. Albert (1193/1206 – 1280) who recognize the value Aristotle’s teaching and methodology could have for Christian theology.  Albert’s great student St. Thomas Aquinas fully reconciles Aristotelian Philosophy with the already developed Neo-Platonist influenced Christian world view.  Some have suggested that by the late Middle Ages, the other-worldly Neo-Platonism which had reigned for nearly 1000 years, had become somewhat tired. 

 

The Theological Virtue: Hope

 

Three Theological Virtues are Faith Hope and Love

 

1 Corinthians 13

 

(Charity…)

 

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

God is the source and object of the faith, hope, and love.  According to Christianity, these are the Theological Virtues.  Unlike the “worldly virtues” of Aristotle, we will never be able fully to comprehend the habitual dispositions (virtues) that lead to us to God.

 

The dictionary definition of hope is something like this:

 

"the feeling that what is wanted can be had, or that events will turn out for the best."

 

But, while related to this, this is NOT what is meant by the spiritual disposition of Hope.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas define hope as

 

"...a future good, difficult but possible to attain...by means of the Divine assistance...on Whose help it leans" (ST II-II, 17.1).

 

"a movement or stretching forth of the appetite towards an arduous good."


One thinks of Robert Browning:

 

"Ah! But a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a Heaven for?" [2]

 

The "highest" good we hope for is not just everlasting happiness (in God’s presence) but the total realization of our true nature.  Not the (by comparison) puny eudemonia of Aristotle, but a happiness proportional to the greatness and goodness of an all-loving, all-powerful God, a happiness we cannot even imagine.

 

This is worth quite a stretch, indeed!

 

Further, Aquinas keeps the basic teleological structure of Aristotle.  Once we establish the Summa Bonum, all other things (decisions, values, etc.) fall into appropriate order.  We should not hope for anything other than this happiness.  Once we place our eternal happiness as the thing of intrinsic value holding up all the instrumental values, everything else should fall into place.

 

But of course, as will all habits, it will take time to develop.  Spiritual progress is marked as a greater and increasingly deeper realization that our life with God (evidenced by a deepening knowledge, love and service) is the best thing we can desire.  This is what will make us truly blessed (eu) in this world and the next.  To echo Augustine here, all other things are to be “used;” God alone is to be loved.

 

Hope (habit by which we long for our personal eternal salvation) may seem at first very self-interested, even to the point of selfishness.  But recall the Virtue of Charity requires loving God which necessarily leads to loving God’s creation.   This includes loving ourselves, of course, but also loving our neighbor. Therefore there is a social dimension to the virtue of Hope, whereby we long not only for our own salvation, but for that of others.

 

The Catholic Catechism teaches:

 

"Buoyed up by hope, [an individual] is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity" (1818).

 

Hope then is a gift not given just to enrich the individual who receives it. The virtue of Hope encourages us to embrace a selfless love that reaches out to all of God’s creatures.

 

The virtue of Hope can only exist in beings who have not yet achieved the goal they seek.   It is, thus, always concerned with something in the future.  Angels or souls already with God in heaven have no need of Hope, for they enjoy God’s eternal life as an ongoing reality. [3]

 

Similarly, the souls of the damned have no Hope for exactly to opposite reason.  Those condemned to Hell are aware of the fact that their punishment is everlasting.  Because they cannot escape this state to attain happiness of any sort, they have nothing to hope for.   Recall the inscription above the gates to hell in Dante’s Inferno:

 

“All hope abandon ye who enter here.”

 

We have all heard the expressions "to give up" or "to lose" hope.  In ordinary contexts this means to believe that some desired good thing is beyond our reach. Such a realization can be disappointing, but usually, after a time, we are able to leave behind the pain and disappointment.   But when we speak of the despair of the damned we see that the loss of theological Hope is a far more grievous matter.

 

The habit of Hope leads and encourages us to embrace this truth that we are not damned, not yet at least.  And that God’s fervent wish is for our eternal happiness, a happiness that He can provide.  No matter the state of our soul at the moment, our salvation is possible as all things are possible with God.

 

St. Thomas:

 

 "the true opinion of the intellect about God is that from Him comes salvation to mankind and pardon to sinners...." (II-II, 20.1).

 

Also, the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us:

 

"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful" (Heb. 10:23).

 

Still, we are weak and fallen and thus prone to sin and error.  Our God-given freedom will always allow us to reject this hope.  We may err with respect to hope in the ways that Aristotle cautioned us about. By missing the virtue of “Golden Mean.”

 

Vice: Too little hope

 

·         Imagining that God will not pardon us, even if we repent.

·         Believing that God does not turn sinners to Himself by means of grace.

 

Result: Sin of despair

 

Vice: Too much

 

·         Imagining that eternal life is a goal within one’s own unaided reach

·         Placing too little value on God’s justice, imagining God’s mercy to be so great that one need not repent for sins committed.

 

Result: Sin of Presumption

 

St. Paul offers an antidote to these temptations, encouraging us to surrender to:

 

"The Holy Spirit...He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs In hope of eternal life" (Titus, 3:6).

 

Each of these vices/sins are alike in that they result from a lack of moderation.  They jeopardize attaining the hoped for end, the summa bonum of a spiritual life.

 

Thus the virtue of Hope is what enables us to have the audacity to see life with God as a possible, though difficult to achieve, goal.   The Theological Virtues are the habits we use to attain eternal happiness. Hope is a very practical virtue, the disposition of wayfarers: individuals on a pilgrimage that will only end in heaven.

 

"[we] ought always to pray and not lose heart" (Lk 18:1).

 

This is an assurance that our Hope is not in vain. The heroes of hope, virtuous men and women of the Bible, stand as examples of what the life of hope looks like and what are acts of hope.  So too the saints.  Pope Pius XII, at the canonization of St. Maria Goretti suggested that her unwavering hope for paradise after having been fatally stabbed by her would-be rapists, was …  "(s)ustained by divine grace.

 

“Let those who are in the happy days of youth learn not to waste their energies on the transient empty pleasures of self-indulgence...Rather may they strive vigorously to form their character in the way of Christian living, hard and rough though the way may be.  For this perfection can indeed be attained through personal determination, helped by the grace of God, prayer and perseverance.”

 

In this the pontiff sums up the Theological Virtue of Hope:

 

1.       It is God’s gift

2.       Sustained by God’s love.

3.       It is a way of life

4.       Built on service and prayer

5.       Not always be easy to maintain virtuous hope (dangers of despair and presumption)

6.       Leads to an everlasting goal God will enable us to grasp.

 

Aquinas on Hope:

 

Articles 1-8

 

Article 1. Whether hope is a virtue?

 

Considers objections to the notion that hope is a virtue:

 

Objection 1. One can make ill use of hope, but man cannot make ill use of a virtue

 

Objection 2. Virtues do not result from merit, while hope, in part, results from merits.

 

Objection 3.  “Virtue is the disposition of a perfect thing," but nothing that hopes (longs for what it lacks and cannot provide) is perfect.

 

Therefore hope is not a virtue.

 

I answer that…

 

According to the Philosopher (Aristotle[4])

 

"the virtue of a thing is that which makes its subject good, and its work good likewise."

 

Now in all things measured and ruled, the good is that which attains its proper rule.  (i.e. for all things with prescribed end, the good among that are those which achieves the prescribed end.  Functional account of “good.”  If a thing has a known form or essence, then a good "think of its kind" is the one that realizes that form or essence fully.  Not my mom's Siamese Cat.)

 

"thus we say that a coat is good if it neither exceeds nor falls short of its proper measurement."

 

Human acts have a twofold measure;

 

1.       proximate and homogeneous (the reason for the actions)

2.       remote and excelling ( Summa Bonum- God)

 

The act of hope attains God.

 

The object of hope is a future good, difficult, but possible to obtain.

Now a thing is possible to us in two ways

 

1.       by ourselves

2.       by means of others

 

If we hope for anything as being possible to us by means of the Divine assistance, our hope attains God Himself, on Whose help it leans.

 

"It is therefore evident that hope is a virtue, since it causes a human act to be good and to attain its due rule."

 

(I.e. Hope is a virtue because if helps us get where we need to do.)

Reply to Objection 1

 

Man cannot make ill use of hope which attains God, as neither can he make ill use of moral virtue which attains to reason, because to attain thus is to make good use of virtue.

 

Nevertheless, the hope of which we speak now, is not a passion, but a habit of the mind.

 

Reply to Objection 2

 

The habit of hope, whereby we hope to obtain happiness, does not flow from our merits, but from grace alone.

 

Reply to Objection 3

 

He who hopes is indeed imperfect in relation to that which he hopes to obtain, but has not as yet; yet he is perfect, in so far as he already attains his proper rule, viz. God, on Whose help he leans.

 

Article 2. Whether eternal happiness is the proper object of hope?

 

Objection 1.

 

Man does not hope for that which surpasses the soul, but eternal happiness (the wonder of God/ beatific visions) surpasses the soul (The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 2:9) that it hath not "entered into the heart of man."

 

(You cannot hope for something you cannot understand.  But none of us can understand the happiness of being in the presence of God.  Therefore this cannot be something we hope for.)

 

Objection 2.

 

Prayer is an expression of hope, for it is written (Psalm 36:5): "Commit thy way to the Lord, and trust in Him, and He will do it."

 

But we pray for other things besides our salvation: for the goods, both temporal and spiritual, of the present life, and, as evidenced by the Lord's Prayer.

 

Objection 3.

 

The object of hope is something difficult. Now many things besides eternal happiness are difficult to man.

 

But…

 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Hebrews 6:19) that we have hope "which entereth in," i.e. maketh us to enter . . . "within the veil," i.e. into the happiness of heaven, according to the interpretation of a gloss on these words. Therefore the object of hope is eternal happiness.

 

I answer that…

 

The hope of which we speak now, attains God by leaning on His help in order to obtain the hoped for good.

 

Now an effect must be proportionate to its cause.

The good which we ought to hope for from God is the infinite good (proportional to Divine power)

It consists in the enjoyment of God Himself.

From Him for nothing less than Himself

 

Reply to Objection 1

 

Eternal happiness does not enter into the heart of man perfectly, but it is possible to be apprehended by a man imperfectly.

 

"Hence the Apostle says pointedly (Hebrews 6:19) that hope "enters in, even within the veil," because that which we hope for is as yet veiled, so to speak. "

 

Reply to Objection 2

 

Hope regards eternal happiness chiefly, and other things, for which we pray to God, it regards secondarily and as referred to eternal happiness.

 

Reply to Objection 3

 

Nothing else one might hope for would appear arduous, as compared with that hope

 

Article 3. Whether one man may hope for another's eternal happiness?

 

Objection 1.

 

It would seem that one may hope for another's eternal happiness.  The Apostle seems to do so

 

(Philippians 1:6): "Being confident of this very thing, that He Who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ."

 

Objection 2.

 

Further, whatever we ask of God, we hope to obtain from Him. But we ask God to bring others to eternal happiness, according to James 5:16: "Pray for one another that you may be saved." Therefore we can hope for another's eternal happiness.

 

Objection 3.

 

Further, hope and despair are about the same object. Now it is possible to despair of another's eternal happiness, else Augustine would have no reason for saying that we should not despair of anyone so long as he lives. Therefore one can also hope for another's eternal salvation.

 

But… Augustine also says that "hope is only of such things as belong to him who is supposed to hope for them."

 

I answer that…

 

We can hope for something in two ways:

 

1.       Absolutely: the object of hope is arduous and pertaining to the person who hopes.

2.       Through something else being presupposed: the object of hope can be something pertaining to someone else.

 

Love and hope differ in this:

 

Love denotes union between lover and beloved

Hope denotes a movement towards an arduous good.

 

Now union is of things that are distinct.

Hope is always towards its own term and regards directly one's own good

 

But if we presuppose the union of love with another, a man can hope for and desire something for another man, as for himself; and, accordingly, he can hope for another eternal's life, inasmuch as he is united to him by love, and just as it is the same virtue of charity whereby a man loves God, himself, and his neighbor, so too it is the same virtue of hope, whereby a man hopes for himself and for another.

 

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

 

Article 4. Whether a man can lawfully hope in man?

 

Objection 1.

 

Yes: Saints

 

Objection 2.

 

It is a vice to fail to trust one's bother and sisters.  Therefore is a virtue (one ought to) "Hope" and trust in others.

 

Objection 3.

 

Prayer is the expression of hope and it is proper to pray to saints.

 

On the contrary, It is written (Jeremiah 17:5): "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man."

 

I answer that…

 

Hope, as stated above regards two things:

 

1.       the good which it intends to obtain (final cause)

2.       the help by which that good is obtained. (efficient cause)

 

"Accordingly, just as it is not lawful to hope for any good save happiness, as one's last end, but only as something referred to final happiness, so too, it is unlawful to hope in any man, or any creature, as though it were the first cause of movement towards happiness.  It is, however, lawful to hope in a man or a creature as being the secondary and instrumental agent through whom one is helped to obtain any goods that are ordained to happiness. "

 

That is: it is proper to hope in men/ Saints that they are the instruments of God.

 

Article 5. Whether hope is a theological virtue?

 

Objection 1

 

It would seem that hope is not a theological virtue. For a theological virtue is one that has God for its object. Now hope has for its object not only God but also other goods which we hope to obtain from God. Therefore hope is not a theological virtue.

 

Objection 2

 

Further, a theological virtue is not a mean between two vices, as stated above (I-II, 64, 4). But hope is a mean between presumption and despair. Therefore hope is not a theological virtue.

 

Objection 3

 

Further, expectation belongs to longanimity which is a species of fortitude. Since, then, hope is a kind of expectation, it seems that hope is not a theological, but a moral virtue.

 

Objection 4

 

Further, the object of hope is something arduous. But it belongs to magnanimity, which is a moral virtue, to tend to the arduous. Therefore hope is a moral, and not a theological virtue.

 

But…

On the contrary, Hope is enumerated (1 Corinthians 13) together with faith and charity, which are theological virtues.

 

I answer that:

 

Since specific differences, by their very nature, divide a genus, in order to decide under what division we must place hope, we must observe whence it derives its character of virtue.

Now it has been stated above (Article 1) that hope has the character of virtue from the fact that it attains the supreme rule of human actions: and this it attains both as its first efficient cause, in as much as it leans on its assistance, and as its last final cause, in as much as it expects happiness in the enjoyment thereof. Hence it is evident that God is the principal object of hope, considered as a virtue. Since, then, the very idea of a theological virtue is one that has God for its object, as stated above (I-II, 62, 1), it is evident that hope is a theological virtue.

 

Reply to Objection 1

 

Whatever else hope expects to obtain, it hopes for it in reference to God as the last end, or as the first efficient cause, as stated above (Article 4).

 

Reply to Objection 2

 

In things measured and ruled the mean consists in the measure or rule being attained; if we go beyond the rule, there is excess, if we fall short of the rule, there is deficiency. But in the rule or measure itself there is no such thing as a mean or extremes. Now a moral virtue is concerned with things ruled by reason, and these things are its proper object; wherefore it is proper to it to follow the mean as regards its proper object. On the other hand, a theological virtue is concerned with the First Rule not ruled by another rule, and that Rule is its proper object. Wherefore it is not proper for a theological virtue, with regard to its proper object, to follow the mean, although this may happen to it accidentally with regard to something that is referred to its principal object. Thus faith can have no mean or extremes in the point of trusting to the First Truth, in which it is impossible to trust too much; whereas on the part of the things believed, it may have a mean and extremes; for instance one truth is a mean between two falsehoods. So too, hope has no mean or extremes, as regards its principal object, since it is impossible to trust too much in the Divine assistance; yet it may have a mean and extremes, as regards those things a man trusts to obtain, in so far as he either presumes above his capability, or despairs of things of which he is capable.

 

Reply to Objection 3

 

The expectation which is mentioned in the definition of hope does not imply delay, as does the expectation which belongs to longanimity. It implies a reference to the Divine assistance, whether that which we hope for be delayed or not.

 

Reply to Objection 4

 

Magnanimity tends to something arduous in the hope of obtaining something that is within one's power, wherefore its proper object is the doing of great things. On the other hand hope, as a theological virtue, regards something arduous, to be obtained by another's help, as stated above (Article 1).

 

Article 6. Whether hope is distinct from the other theological virtues?

 

Objection 1

 

It would seem that hope is not distinct from the other theological virtues. For habits are distinguished by their objects, as stated above (I-II, 54, 2). Now the object of hope is the same as of the other theological virtues. Therefore hope is not distinct from the other theological virtues.

 

Objection 2

 

Further, in the symbol of faith, whereby we make profession of faith, we say: "I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." Now expectation of future happiness belongs to hope, as stated above (Article 5). Therefore hope is not distinct from faith.

 

Objection 3

 

Further, by hope man tends to God. But this belongs properly to charity. Therefore hope is not distinct from charity.

 

On the contrary, There cannot be number without distinction.  Now hope is numbered with the other theological virtues: for Gregory says (Moral. i, 16) that the three virtues are faith, hope, and charity. Therefore hope is distinct from the theological virtues.

 

I answer that:

 

A virtue is said to be theological from having God for the object to which it adheres. Now one may adhere to a thing in two ways: first, for its own sake; secondly, because something else is attained thereby. Accordingly charity makes us adhere to God for His own sake, uniting our minds to God by the emotion of love.

 

On the other hand, hope and faith make man adhere to God as to a principle wherefrom certain things accrue to us. Now we derive from God both knowledge of truth and the attainment of perfect goodness. Accordingly faith makes us adhere to God, as the source whence we derive the knowledge of truth, since we believe that what God tells us is true: while hope makes us adhere to God, as the source whence we derive perfect goodness, i.e. in so far as, by hope, we trust to the Divine assistance for obtaining happiness.

 

Reply to Objection 1

 

God is the object of these virtues under different aspects, as stated above: and a different aspect of the object suffices for the distinction of habits, as stated above (I-II, 54, 2).

 

Reply to Objection 2

 

Expectation is mentioned in the symbol of faith, not as though it were the proper act of faith, but because the act of hope presupposes the act of faith, as we shall state further on (7). Hence an act of faith is expressed in the act of hope.

 

Reply to Objection 3

 

Hope makes us tend to God, as to a good to be obtained finally, and as to a helper strong to assist: whereas charity, properly speaking, makes us tend to God, by uniting our affections to Him, so that we live, not for ourselves, but for God.

 

Article 7. Whether hope precedes faith?

 

Objection 1

 

It would seem that hope precedes faith. Because a gloss on Psalm 36:3, "Trust in the Lord, and do good," says: "Hope is the entrance to faith and the beginning of salvation." But salvation is by faith whereby we are justified. Therefore hope precedes faith.

 

Objection 2

 

Further, that which is included in a definition should precede the thing defined and be more known. But hope is included in the definition of faith (Hebrews 11:1): "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for." Therefore hope precedes faith.

 

Objection 3

 

Further, hope precedes a meritorious act, for the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 9:10): "He that plougheth should plough in hope . . . to receive fruit." But the act of faith is meritorious. Therefore hope precedes faith.

 

On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 1:2): "Abraham begot Isaac," i.e. "Faith begot hope," according to a gloss.

 

I answer that:

 

Absolutely speaking, faith precedes hope. For the object of hope is a future good, arduous but possible to obtain. In order, therefore, that we may hope, it is necessary for the object of hope to be proposed to us as possible. Now the object of hope is, in one way, eternal happiness, and in another way, the Divine assistance, as explained above (2; 6, ad 3): and both of these are proposed to us by faith, whereby we come to know that we are able to obtain eternal life, and that for this purpose the Divine assistance is ready for us, according to Hebrews 11:6: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." Therefore it is evident that faith precedes hope.

 

Reply to Objection 1

 

As the same gloss observes further on, "hope" is called "the entrance" to faith, i.e. of the thing believed, because by hope we enter in to see what we believe. Or we may reply that it is called the "entrance to faith," because thereby man begins to be established and perfected in faith.

 

Reply to Objection 2

 

The thing to be hoped for is included in the definition of faith, because the proper object of faith, is something not apparent in itself. Hence it was necessary to express it in a circumlocution by something resulting from faith.

 

Reply to Objection 3

 

Hope does not precede every meritorious act; but it suffices for it to accompany or follow it.

 

Article 8. Whether charity precedes hope?

 

Objection 1

 

It would seem that charity precedes hope. For Ambrose says on Luke 17:6, "If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed," etc.: "Charity flows from faith, and hope from charity." But faith precedes charity. Therefore charity precedes hope.

 

Objection 2

 

Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9) that "good emotions and affections proceed from love and holy charity." Now to hope, considered as an act of hope, is a good emotion of the soul. Therefore it flows from charity.

 

Objection 3

 

Further, the Master says (Sent. iii, D, 26) that hope proceeds from merits, which precede not only the thing hoped for, but also hope itself, which, in the order of nature, is preceded by charity. Therefore charity precedes hope.

 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:5): "The end of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, and a good conscience," i.e. "from hope," according to a gloss. Therefore hope precedes charity.

 

I answer that:

 

Order is twofold. One is the order of generation and of matter, in respect of which the imperfect precedes the perfect: the other is the order of perfection and form, in respect of which the perfect naturally precedes the imperfect.

 

On respect of the first order hope precedes charity: and this is clear from the fact that hope and all movements of the appetite flow from love, as stated above (I-II, 27, 4; I-II, 28, 6, ad 2; I-II, 40, 7) in the treatise on the passions.

 

Now there is a perfect, and an imperfect love. Perfect love is that whereby a man is loved in himself, as when someone wishes a person some good for his own sake; thus a man loves his friend. Imperfect love is that whereby a man love something, not for its own sake, but that he may obtain that good for himself; thus a man loves what he desires.

 

The first love of God pertains to charity, which adheres to God for His own sake; while hope pertains to the second love, since he that hopes, intends to obtain possession of something for himself.

 

Hence in the order of generation, hope precedes charity. For just as a man is led to love God, through fear of being punished by Him for his sins, as Augustine states (In primam canon. Joan. Tract. ix), so too, hope leads to charity, in as much as a man through hoping to be rewarded by God, is encouraged to love God and obey His commandments.  On the other hand, in the order of perfection charity naturally precedes hope, wherefore, with the advent of charity, hope is made more perfect, because we hope chiefly in our friends. It is in this sense that Ambrose states (Objection 1) that charity flows from hope: so that this suffices for the

 

Reply to the First Objection.

 

Reply to Objection 2

 

Hope and every movement of the appetite proceed from some kind of love, whereby the expected good is loved. But not every kind of hope proceeds from charity, but only the movement of living hope, viz. that whereby man hopes to obtain good from God, as from a friend.

 

Reply to Objection 3

 

The Master is speaking of living hope, which is naturally preceded by charity and the merits caused by charity.

 



[1] Well, actually no.  It is not clear at all the Aristotle thought there was a personal immortality.

[2] From the poem “Andrea del Sarto”

[3] Note that Hope eventually passes away when we achieve the object of our hope.  So too, Faith passes away when we see the object of our faith.  In the end, it is love that remains.

[4] Aristotle teaches that a Virtue is a habit that contributes to success.    Thus "spotting" while doing multiple turn is a virtue of dance.  Relaxing one's grip a bit when swinging a club is a virtue of golfing.  Carrying one's weight on the balls of one's feet is a virtue of playing basketball.