The Infinity of God (A Simple Summa)
August 29th, 2008 by Dim BulbPlease Vote For This Post at Pickafig
ST IA, Q. 7, 1 God is Infinite because His Immensity is not bounded by matter. The Divine Being is not contained in anything, but He is His own Self-Existence, and hence He is Infinite and Perfect. ST Ia, 7, 2 There is nothing absolutely infinite but God, although relatively it may be so. With regard to infinity as applied to matter, it is evident that everything in existence must have some form; thus its matter is determined by form and cannot be infinite, properly speaking; but in so far as matter remains in potentiality to an infinitude of forms, it is accounted relatively infinite. If we speak of infinity as applied to form, it is evident that those forms which are actually united to matter are finite; but the created forms independent of matter, as the opinion is regarding the angels, these would be relatively infinite as not limited by matter; but, however, because they are limited by a determinate nature, they cannot be, [properly speaking, infinite; and, therefore, God alone is absolutely infinite.
ST Ia, 7, 3 No natural body can be infinite in magnitude, because every natural body has a determinate substantial form to which belong fixed accidents; hence a body has a determinate quantity of more or less, which makes it impossible for it to be infinite. The same is evident if we consider motion. Every body has some movement, whereas an infinite body could have none; neither straight, for nothing can so move except outside its own place, which could not exist at all were it infinite; nor circular, because such a movement requires that one part be transferred to the place hitherto occupied by another part, and this could not be in an infinite circular body, for the lines radiating from the center become more distant from each other as they are more and more drawn out; if, therefore, a body were infinite, such lines would become infinitely distant from each other, and one could never get near the other.
ST Ia, 7, 4 It is likewise impossible for an infinite multitude to exist. A multitude exists according to some kind of multitude, and kind exists according the species of numbers; and no species of number is infinite, for number is multitude cannot be, either directly or accidentally. There can be, however, an infinite multitude in potentially, because increase of multitude follows upon division of multitude, and the more a thing is divided the greater will be the result in number. The infinity of being is thus found in potentiality, by the division of that which is continuous; and a like idea of infinity is also found in the addition of multitude.
From Walter Farrell’s Companion of the Summa:
No limits are to be placed on the goodness of God, as no limits are to be assigned to any other divine attribute. How can you have a fence with nothing, absolutely nothing, on the other side of it? What is there of reality, that God will not have, to mark the spot where the fence must begin? Limitation is essentially a declaration of potentialities achieved or potentialities capable of achievement; without potentiality limitation is a contradiction in terms. And there can be no potentiality in God, for potentiality is a declaration of dependence. God has not received existence within the limits of a human, an animal or an angelic nature; He has not received at all, He is. The idea of reception is the idea of change, of potentiality actualized, of perfection within limits–something that our proof for His existence forced us to exclude from God. He is infinite, and He alone; for He alone is first, receiving from no one, giving to all. (Source)
Posted in Compendium of the Summa, Quotes, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, Uncategorized |
August 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Hey Dim,
I haven’t read the Cafeteria is Closed in about 6 months (don’t think the author is very Catholic). I tried to go there just now and I got an ‘invitation only’ warning.
?
Is my computer screwy, or is the Cafeteria really closed?
August 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
The Cafeteria, which was never really closed, is gone; and good riddance to it. It appears that the host can change his religious, moral, and political views as casually as I change my socks.
When he switched to the new blog it was open to all. When Gerald-who is now advocating for gay marriage-attempted to pass off the Story of Sodom as being about hospitality, I corrected him in a respectful manner, noting that a host of sins, including the one he was trying to sidestep, were involved. One of his “new readers” responded with a series of curses, and expressed his desire to see me gang raped. I hope the new blog has gone to invitation only because of the increasingly degenerate nature of the comments there (it was coming from both sides of the issue, by the way). I fear however, that because he was having a hard time supporting his new found moral views, sometimes engaging in distortions of quotations from the likes of Pope Benedict, St Augustine, and St Thomas, that his invitation only policy is due to a less honorable motive.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Wow!
CAn’t say I didn’t see it coming, though. I rarely read him because he seemed like a Republican and not a Catholic. I mean, I’ll be voting Republican this Fall, but I never confuse that with Catholicism.
I’ve got a brother with similarly compromised views. You know, he gets his theology out of the Republican party, not the Catechism.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I agree. Republican and Democrat cloaked Catholics seem to me to often be self-deceived. Some Catho-Republicans, not liking or accepting certain points of social justice, generally tend to simply ignore or downplay them. Some Catho-Democrats on the other hand, are down twist and distort, often blatantly, aspects of Catholic social justice to fit their political paradigm.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Speaking of Catholi-Demos, if you want to have fun (or drive yourself insane) go to Vox Nova. It has some of the most ridiculous Marxist-Catholicism around. Just pure University gas.
(Well, actually there is diversity, but the liberal element is just unbelievabnly exasperating, and some even speak to priests with total disrespect. Grrrrrr!)
August 30th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I loathe Vox Nova and the drama queen posting done by some there.
I think the last time I commented there was around the time Charlton Heston died. Some of the more distasteful elements who post over there were mocking him, this troubled me, not because of Heston’s politics, but because trashing the dead seems to me to be especially childish.
I criticized them and suddenly found myself confronted by Politcraticus who was not one of the mockers. He took a shot at me and then did what he often does when he crosses swords with someone in his combox: he bravely shut down the comments.
He then posted on the death of a famed Moral Theologian he said he admired. I attempted to bring up the subject of mocking the dead in that combox and Poli claimed to be offended. Had it not been late, and had I not been off my game due to insomnia, I’d have written something like this: How dare I deal with an issue of morality on the occasion of a Moral Theologians death! The next thing you know, I’ll be talking about the virtue of chastity on the memorial of a consecrated virgin.
If you want to see just how intellectually and morally arbitrary Poli is, just read the comments on that post (see link below). Notice how in this combox made sacrosanct by his fiat, he trashes me on several occasions in responding to people who were supporting me. By this time I’d gone to bed and so was unable to respond. Poli once again got in the last word and closed the combox.
Only Poli’s opponents are subject to his rules, he and his sycophants have free reign.
I’d rather flay the skin off my own back than read a Vox Nova post.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/07/rumor-servais-pinckaers-op-pa sses/