MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY

THEOLOGY 4390: STUDIES IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

INSTRUCTOR: REVEREND ROBERT J. DORAN, S.J., PhD

DE COGNITIONE ESSENTIAE DEI: VISIO BEATIFICA

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
JARED M. SUTSKO

MILWAUKEE, WI
December 10, 2015
I. INTRODUCTION

In the sciences of Philosophy and Theology, the topic of knowledge of God is

discussed thoroughly. Both agree that there can be knowledge of God, the former under the light
of natural reason, the latter under Divine Revelation. However, in this present life, neither
provides us with complete and full knowledge of God, that is, His essence. This knowledge may
be fulfilled only in Heaven, which the Church calls the Beatific Vision.
Our work will focus on the Beatific Vision, especially on how God is known to the
blessed. Firstly, we will discuss that the ultima causa of man is the Supreme Good, namely God.
Secondly, we will treat of the knowledge man can have of God in this present life, subdividing
this knowledge under the media of (a) natural reason and (b) supernatural faith. Thirdly and
finally, we will provide Scriptural testimony and Decretals of the Church to prove the (a)
existence of Heaven and (b) what it entails. Our work follows a Thomistic framework,
rigorously applying his texts to explicate our reasoning. Further, we will also employ Sacred
Scripture and Sacred Tradition, providing positive theology to explain our topic.
II. GOD AS MANS LAST END
We hold that only in the Beatific Vision, that is, mans eternity, can only provide him with
essential knowledge of God. However, we must first establish, through reason, whether man has
a last end at all. Hence, this section will attempt to prove this. Therefore we will divide this
section into two parts: (a) establishing that man has a last end and (b) explaining why knowledge
of the essence God is this last end.

A. MANS LAST END: ITS EXISTENCE

In nature, beings act with purpose. The plant uses1 photosynthesis to sustain itself, the
dog drinks from the water bowl to nourish itself, and man writes a paper to obtain a good grade
for his class. This example is exemplified by the principle every agent acts for an end.2 This
notion of purpose is crucial for understanding human acts. Humans know their purpose as it is
a purpose, which differs from animals and plants. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, the eminent
Thomist of the 20th century wonderfully explains this. He writes, All agents act for a purpose:
some by knowing purpose as purpose (intelligence uncreated [i.e. God] and intelligence created
[i.e. angels and man]), some by knowing the thing which is purpose (animals); some without
knowing (plants and nonliving bodies).3 Hence, it is clear that mans acts are designated by
purpose.
Thus, man clearly acts to accomplish a goal. The aforementioned example can be expounded
upon. A man writes a paper (act) so as to earn a solid mark for his class (purpose/goal). This
example can be further explicated to show why man desires a high score for his paper, such as, to
graduate with honors. We could even further belabor this, but it would lead to redundancy. The
point is, that with all the subsequent purposes man has for his acts, these goals cannot rise unto
infinity. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, if purpose continued unto infinity, it would
contradict the Principles of Efficient and Final Causality.4 The Doctor Angelicus writes, citing
Aristotle, It is impossible that moving causes proceed unto infinity, because there would be no
first mover, whom, if removed, nothing would be able to move, since nothing moves unless if be

1 Uses is to be understood analogously.

2 Cf. Aristotle, Physics, II, 8, in The Works of Aristotle, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, ed. W.D. Ross (Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1930); cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 2, Quod omne agens agit propter
finem. Hereafter abbreviated SCG. All translations are ours, unless specified.
3 Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Beatitude: A Commentary on St. Thomas Theological Summa, Ia IIae, qq. 1-54,
trans. Patrick Cummins (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), 41.
4 Garrigou- Lagrange explains this more fully. He holds that the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes
(subordinated per se, not per accidens), is a simply corollary from both Principles. Cf. ibid., 47-48.

moved by the first mover.5 Secondly, if purpose extends unto infinity, the twofold order of ends
(i.e. intention and execution) would be nonexistent. Without this order, man would be unable to
act, as nothing would move his appetite to act. Further, there would be no final cause, no
terminus of action.6 Therefore, there must be a final end, enumerated to one.7
B. GOD: MANS LAST END
Now that we have established that man has a last end, we must now determine what this end is.
When man wills something, that is, acts, he wills what is apprehended as good.8 Hence, why
mans last end must be good. Further, this last end, being goodness, is called beatitude.
The question still remains as to what good this beatitude is. Plainly speaking, God Himself is
mans last end. God, as the Creator of all things, wills all things to Himself. Aquinas explains,
Order in ends follows the order of agents: for as the supreme agent [i.e. God] moves all
secondary agents, it is clear that all ends of secondary agents are ordered to the end of the
supreme agent: for whatever the supreme agent does, he does for the sake of an end.9 This is in
complete harmony with regards to the will of man. Man, in this life, wills many created goods,
however, they do not satisfy him completely. Scripture affirms this in Mark 8:36, For what
5 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 1, a. 4, resp. Quod non est possibile in causis moventibus procedere
in infinitum, quia iam non esset primum movens, quo substracto alia movere non possunt, cum non moveant nisi per
hoc quod moventur a primo movente. Hereafter abbreviated ST.
6 Cf. ibid. Id enim quod est primum in ordine intentionis est quasi principium movens appetitum, unde, subtracto
principio, appetitus a nullo moveretur. Id autem quod est principium in executione, est unde incipit operatio, unde,
isto principio subtracto, nullus inciperet aliquid operari. Principium autem intentionis est ultimus finis, principium
autem executionis est primum eorum quae sunt ad finem. Sic ergo ex neutra parte possibile est in infinitum
procedere, quia si non esset ultimus finis, nihil appeteretur, nec aliqua actio terminaretur, nec etiam quiesceret
intentio agentis; si autem non esset primum in his quae sunt ad finem, nullus inciperet aliquid operari, nec
terminaretur consilium, sed in infinitum procederet.
7 Articles 5-8 of q. 1 deal with the question of whether there are many last ends in man? Aquinas responds in the
negative, however, for the scope of our work, we cannot treat of these remaining articles.
8 Cf. ST. I-II, q. 8, a. 2, resp. Ad hoc igitur quod voluntas in aliquid tendat, non requiritur quod sit bonum in rei
veritate, sed quod apprehendatur in ratione boni. Et propter hoc Philosophus dicit, in II Physic., quod finis est
bonum, vel apparens bonum. Cf. also SCG, III, 26.
9 SCG, III, 17, 7. Ad ordinem agentium sequitur ordo in finibus: nam sicut supremum agens movet omnia secunda
agentia, ita ad finem supremi agentis oportet quod ordinentur omnes fines secundorum agentium: quidquid enim agit
supremum agens, agit propter finem suum.

does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?10 Therefore, mans final end
must be something that is not only good, but that it fulfills this desire for beatitude, a complete
happiness.
This notion that God is mans last end is, still, vague. One may ask, What does this entail, that
God is our last end? What it entails is that man knows God, this is what constitutes his
beatitude. For, Even the minimum knowledge of God would serve such a creature far better as
an ultimate end than a perfect knowledge of lesser intelligible beings.11 But this knowledge
cannot be a simple knowledge, that is, knowing God exists. It must be knowledge of the Divine
Essence. This is evident from an examination of mans rational soul. His soul has two powers:
the intellect and the will. Above, we briefly stated the object of the will is the good. The proper
object of the intellect, however, is that which is, that is, the essence of a thing.12 The will,
however, cannot constitute our beatitude with God, our final end, because when man achieves his
end, the will is fully delighted by resting in this end, hence, man would not will what it already
has.13 Therefore, beatitude consists in man knowing Gods essence, which is affirmed by Christ
in John 17:3, This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only, true, and one God.14 This
eternal life is called the Beatific Vision.
We must now proceed to the topic of knowledge of God. If we are to know God in eternal life,
how does this differ from our knowledge of Him in this present life? Further, if we have
knowledge of God in this life, how would our last end be knowledge of Him whom we already
know?
10 English translations of the Bible are taken from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
11 William OConnor, Natural Beatitude and the Future Life, in Theological Studies 11, no. 2 (1950), 224.
12 ST, I-II, q. 3, a. 8, resp. Obiectum autem intellectus est quod quid est, idest, essentia rei.
13 Cf. ibid., q. 3, a. 4, resp. Voluntas enim fertur in finem et absentem, cum ipsum desiderat; et praesentem, cum
in ipso requiescens delectatur.
14 Our translation. Haec est vita aeterna: ut cognoscant te, solum Deum verum

III. KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

The Church affirms that God can be known, not only through faith, but by natural reason.
The First Vatican Council states, Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the principle
and end of all things, can certainly be known by the natural light of human reason from created
things.15 Thus, in some way, we may acquire knowledge of God. Therefore, we must discuss
this in two ways: firstly, the natural knowledge we may have of God and secondly, God known to
us through faith. Through these distinctions, we can arrive more closely, as to what the Beatific
Vision entails.
A. NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
Man can certainly have knowledge of God through the use of his natural reason. This is clearly
evidenced in Aquinass quinque viae, wherein he proves Gods existence from motion, causality,
necessity, gradation, and teleology. Nevertheless, the Doctor holds that man knows God, in this
life, through two ways16: the via remotionis and analogia.
Through use of our reason, man cannot acquire as to what God is, that is, His quiddity. For, We
are ignorant of God because Gods infinite reality and perfection surpass and exceed every
conception of our intellect.17 However, this does not exclude that we may know what He is not.
This is known as the via remotionis or the via negativa, speaking of God negatively. Through
this method, man distinguishes God from all other things. For example, man sees that things in
this world are mutable, therefore, he can reason that the First Cause, God, would be immutable.
15 First Vatican Council, Session III, Dei Filius, cap. 2 De Revelatione (24 April 1870), in Heinrich Denzinger,
Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, eds. Robert Fastiggi and Anne
Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press: 2012), 601; DZ 3004. Eadem sancta mater Ecclesia tenet et docet,
Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali humae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse.
Subsequent abbreviations will be labeled as DZ with the number following it. The Council also issues an anathema
to those who deny this cf. DZ 3026. Si quis dixerit, Deum unum et verum, creatorem et Dominum nostrum, per ea,
quae facta sunt, naturali rationis humanae lumine certo cognosci non posse: anathema sit.
16 Certainly, Aquinas argues for other possible ways of knowing God, but these are two of his most important.
17 Gregory P. Rocca, Aquinas on God-Talk: Hovering over the Abyss, in Theological Studies 54, no. 4 (1993),
645.

Though this cannot lead us to a complete and perfect knowledge of God, it still brings us to a
greater knowledge of Him.18
Secondly, man knows God through analogy. In Thomistic thought, analogy is one of the most
crucial doctrines. Wuellner defines analogy as, any imperfect likeness between two or more
beings that are compared with each other.19 We can only speak of God through analogy, that is,
whence describing Him. For there are two other likeness than can be used when comparing
two or more objects: univocity and equivocity. However, neither would fit mans relation to
God. For example, when we speak of God and man being wise, we would not use the term
wise univocally. If it is used univocally, it would imply that God and man have the same
wisdom, which would equate man with God, an absurdity. Further, if it were used equivocally, it
would destroy the relation that the First Cause has with His effects.20 Therefore, when we say
that God is wise and man is wise, it is done as an imperfect likeness, for man does indeed
participate in wisdom, but is not Wisdom itself.21 Thus, even though it is imperfect, we may still
know God.
B. SUPERNATURAL FAITH
Undoubtedly, there are truths, in this, that we cannot know only by natural reason. Our human
intellect cannot rise above its own power and, hence, cannot obtain higher truths. However,
18 Cf. SCG, I, 14, 3. Sed quia in consideratione substantiae divinae non possumus accipere quid, quasi genus; nec
distinctionem eius ab aliis rebus per affirmativas differentias accipere possumus, oportet eam accipere per
differentias negativas. Sicut autem in affirmativis differentiis una aliam contrahit, et magis ad completam
designationem rei appropinquat secundum quod a pluribus differre facit; ita una differentia negativa per aliam
contrahitur, quae a pluribus differre facit. Sicut, si dicamus Deum non esse accidens, per hoc ab omnibus
accidentibus distinguitur; deinde si addamus ipsum non esse corpus, distinguemus ipsum etiam ab aliquibus
substantiis; et sic per ordinem ab omni eo quod est praeter ipsum, per negationes huiusmodi distinguetur; et tunc de
substantia eius erit propria consideratio cum cognoscetur ut ab omnibus distinctus. Non tamen erit perfecta: quia non
cognoscetur quid in se sit.
19 Bernard Wuellner, Analogy, in Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy (Fitzwilliam: Loreto Publications, 2012),
6.
20 Speaking of God analogically, instead of univocally and equivocally is fully expounded upon in ST, I, q. 13, a.
5, resp.
21 Cf. ST, I, q. 13, a. 5, resp. The respendeo is extremely lengthy, therefore, we will not reproduce it here.

through the gift of faith, we may attain such truths. Aquinas writes, It is necessary that [some]
truth[s] be proposed to men for believing, so that they may have a higher knowledge about God.
Only then do we truly know God when we believe Him to be above all things is man able to
think about Him: to the extent that the divine substance exceeds the natural knowledge of
God.22
The classic example of the distinction between faith and natural reason, in relation to God, is the
distinction between knowing that knowing God is one and that God is both one and three. This
is indeed the summum mysterium of the Christian faith, that God is Three Persons subsisting in
one Divine Essence. However, our reason cannot rise to the level of knowing God as Three
Persons.23 Therefore, only through faith can we know God as Triune, as well as other aspects of
the faith.24
C. SOLUTION TO REMAINING DIFFICULTIES
Nevertheless, man still is unable to see the Divine Essence in this life. Aquinas argues this in
two ways. Firstly, nothing can directly reveal Gods essence, as we know Him only from the
effects He causes. Secondly, man, as a corporeal being, cannot obtain direct knowledge of a
spiritual beings essence. For, the mode of knowing follows the nature of the thing knowing.25
This is evidenced in Scripture when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:12, For now we see
[Him] in a mirror dimly Because beatitude consists in knowledge of God, completely and
22 SCG, I, 5, 3. Est etiam necessarium huiusmodi veritatem ad credendum hominibus proponi ad Dei cognitionem
veriorem habendam. Tunc enim solum Deum vere cognoscimus quando ipsum esse credimus supra omne id quod de
Deo cogitari ab homine possibile est: eo quod naturalem hominis cognitionem divina substantia excedit, ut supra
ostensum est. Aquinass usage of credendum shows the clear distinction between faith and reason. Through
reason, we do not believe, per se, but faith is believing itself.
23 Cf. ST, I, q. 32, a. 1, resp. Aquinas states that those who hold that the Trinity can be known by natural reason
derogate from the faith. Qui autem probare nititur Trinitatem personarum naturali ratione, fidei dupliciter
derogate. Cf. also Herbert McCabe, Aquinas on the Trinity, New Blackfriars 80 (June 1999): 268.
24 That is, the Incarnation, the Immaculate Conception, etc. Though this sub-section is rather short, it is still
important to distinguish natural knowledge vs. supernatural knowledge of God. As it will hinge upon sections below.
25 ST, I, q. 12, a. 11, resp. Modus cognitionis sequitur modum naturae rei cognoscentis.

fully, this life does not offer this. Therefore, since God is our last end, we must then inquire how
we are to know Him, as He is. This is certainly possible, as it occurs in what the Church calls the
Beatific Vision, reminiscent of 1 John 3:2, For we shall see him as he is.26
III. THE BEATIFIC VISION
Before providing an analysis of the Beatific Vision, it is necessary to utilize the fontes
revelationis to explicate what it is. The reason for this is that the Church, being the pillar and
bulwark of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), has divine authority to safeguard truth. All religions have
different aspects of what the Beatific Vision/Heaven/Paradise/etc. is. Therefore, we must look to
the Church for firm guidance and assurance as to what we may expect in the next life, with God
as our last end. After this, we will elaborate on the Churchs doctrine, utilizing theological
analysis to do so.
A. THE CHURCH ON THE BEATIFIC VISION27
While we do not intend to scribe an exhaustive, apologetic account of the existence of Heaven, it
would be beneficial to examine certain statements from the written (Sacred Scripture) as well as
oral (Sacred Tradition) sources of Revelation.
Scripture is filled with verses that describe the Beatific Vision. In the Old Testament, the
Psalmist writes, Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fullness of joy, in
thy right hand are pleasures for evermore (16:11). Further, the Prophet Daniel explains, But
the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever
and ever (7:18). Thus, from these verses, we can deduce that Heaven is (1) a place of full joy
and (2) everlasting.

26 Videbimus eum sicuti est.

27 Most of this section repeats what is used in Garrigou-Lagranges work Life Everlasting. Garrigou has a whole
chapter dedicated to the existence of the Beatific Vision, derived from the statements of the Church. Cf. Reginald
Garrigou-Lagrange, Life Everlasting, trans. Patrick Cummins (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952), 205-215.

The New Testament describes the Beatific Vision with much more detail, as the Apostles
would have learned much about it from Christ. Garrigou notes, In the New Testament we read
of the kingdom of heaven, where those who have a pure heart will see God, and will resemble
the angels who see the face of My [Christs] Father.28 One must note this notion of seeing
God. The blessed have direct vision of God, a key concept that we will return to below. St.
Paul also describes Heaven in 1 Corinthians 13:12, which we noted above: For now we see
[Him] in a mirror dimly, but then face to face Again, this harps upon the concept of vision.
The doctrine of the Beatific Vision reaches its height in Pope Benedict XIIs Apostolic
Constitution Benedictus Deus. While we could certainly quote from other sources of Tradition29,
Benedicts document will surely suffice. In this, he writes, The souls of the faithful departed
have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no
creatural mediation in the nature of the object of sight, but immediately30 From this, we
conclude that the blessed (1) see God and (2) see Him face to face. Thus, we proceed into our
analysis of the Beatific Vision.
B. THE BEATIFIC VISION: QUID SIT
Though we have belabored definitions on the Beatific Vision, it is beneficial to provide a clearcut summary of what it is. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as, The immediate
knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy Heaven. It is called

28 Ibid., 207. Garrigou cites the following verses: Mt: 5:3, 8, 12; 16:27; 12:30; 18:10, 43; 25:24; Mk 12:25; Lk
16:22-25; 19:12-27. John 14:2 also applies to Christs preaching on Heaven.
29 Such as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Et exspectovitam venturi saeculi DZ 150. N.B. one must
recall the controversy of John XXII, Benedicts predecessor, who held, as a private theologian, that the blessed do
not immediately attain the Beatific Vision, only after the Last Judgment. Hence, Benedict clearly desired to remove
any errors concerning the Beatific Vision, hence the reason for the Constitution.
30 DZ 1000. Animae sanctorum omnium viderunt et vident divinam essentiam visione intuitiva et etiam
faciali, nulla mediante creatura in ratione obiecti visi se habente, sed divina essentia immediate.

vision to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain
in the present life.31
Hence, the Beatific Vision is an intuitive and immediate vision of God. Though vision has
been emphasized greatly in the above sections, it still remains vague. Vision often carries the
connotation of simply seeing something, wherein knowledge plays no role. Nevertheless,
vision is indeed equated with knowledge. Wuellner scribes, [It is] knowledge of the existent as
immediately present to the knower.32 Thus, this vision of God is immediate. Above, we have
spoken of ways which man knows God in the present life. However, they are done through
media, that is, through reason and faith, which do not provide an immediate knowledge, as the
soul is incapable of reaching the divine essence.
This also raises an objection, how does the soul know Gods essence in the afterlife, whence he
is unable to during his earthly life? This is explained through the notion of the lumen gloriae.
God provides an illumination to man that equips him with the ability to see Him, as He is. The
lumen gloriae serves two purposes: (1) giving the intellect the disposition to see God as well as
(2) strengthening it. Garrigou comments on the disposition of the lumen: Our intellective
potency, which of itself cannot use an intelligible form to see God, nor can the intellect receive
the form of God without elevation, it out to be proportioned to. And this is the function of the
light of glory [lumen gloriae], for the mode of disposition.33 But while the intellect may have

31 Edward Pace, Beatific Vision, in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1907), at NewAdvent, www.newadvent.org.
32 Wuellner, Vision, 134.
33 Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, De Deo Uno: Commentarium in Primam Partem S. Thomae (Torino: Casa
Editrice Marietti, 1950), 292. Potentia enim nostra intellectiva, quae ex seipsa non potest uti hac forma intelligibili
ad videndum Deum, nec potest ex seipsa eam recipere absque elevatione, debet ei proportionari. Et haec functio
luminis gloriae ad modum dispositionis.

10

the potency to receive the vision of God, it does not necessarily have the strength to do so.
Nevertheless, Aquinas teaches that, while the lumen disposes the intellect, it also strengthens it.34
Thus, with the lumen gloriae, man arrives at this complete and full knowledge of God. But
nevertheless, though we See Him as He is, man still does not know God comprehensively.
Garrigou-Lagrange beautifully explains this, This vision, though it is intuitive and without
medium, is still not comprehensive. God alone can know Himself to the full extent of His
knowableness but none [know God] as profoundly as God knows Himself, all the He is, all
the He can do, and all that He will do.35 Hence, even though man may see God without medium,
His glory and essence may never be comprehended by any other than Himself, attesting to His
infinite wonder and awe.
IV. CONCLUSION
In our work, we attempted to treat of the knowledge of Gods essence. We began with the thesis
that man is unable to know this essence, until it be acquired as His last end. Therefore, we took
to three sections to explain this. We firstly explained that God is mans last end, relying on St.
Thomas Aquinas to do so. Secondly, we discussed knowledge of God in the present life,
dividing it into natural and supernatural knowledge, through reason and faith. However, both of
these failed to show our goal: knowledge of the Divine Essence. Therefore, we moved into our
last section, demonstrating that this knowledge can only be had in the Beatific Vision. Yet,
though essential knowledge would be acquired in Heaven, it still would not be a comprehensive
knowledge, as only God, through His Greatness, can know Himself as Himself, a testament to
his own majesty and glory.

34 Cf. Michael M. Waddell, Aquinas on the Light of Glory, Tpicos 40 (2011): 117. The function of the lumen
gloriae in Thomass teaching is to strengthen the created intellect so that it can be elevated above its natural capacity
and know the divine essence directly, making beatitude possible.
35 Garrigou-Lagrange, Life Everlasting, 225.

11

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aristotle. Physics. In The Works of Aristotle, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, ed. W.D. Ross.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.
Denzinger, Heinrich. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et
Morum, eds. Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius Press,
2012.
Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. Beatitude: A Commentary on St. Thomas Theological Summa, Ia
IIae qq. 1-54, trans. Patrick Cummins. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955.
___________. De Deo Uno: Commentarium in Primam Partem S. Thomae. Torino: Casa
Editrice Marietti, 1950.
___________. Life Everlasting, trans. Patrick Cummins. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952.
McCabe, Herbert. Aquinas on the Trinity. New Blackfriars 80 (June 1999): 268-283.
OConnor, William. Natural Beatitude and the Future Life. Theological Studies 11, no. 2
(1950): 221-239.
Pace, Edward. Beatific Vision. In The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2. New York: Robert
Appleton Company, 1907. At NewAdvent, www.newadvent.org.
Rocca, Gregory P. Aquinas on God-Talk: Hovering over the Abyss. Theological Studies 54, no.
4 (1993): 641-661.
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Contra Gentiles. At CorpusThomisticum,
www.corpusthomisticum.org.
___________. Summa Theologiae. At CorpusThomsticum, www.corpusthomisticum.org.
Waddell, Michael M. Aquinas on the Light of Glory. Tpicos 40 (2011): 117.
Wuellner, Bernard. Analogy. In Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy. Fitzwilliam: Loreto
Publications, 2012.
___________. Vision. In Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy. Fitzwilliam: Loreto
Publications, 2012.

13