Creation as Relation: An Existential Consideration

Abstract: Aquinas argues that the relation established by the act of creation is mixed, with the creature enjoying a real relation ( relatio realis )—possessing both the relational mode of being and its relational notion ( esse et ratio relationis )—while the Creator accommodates only a corresponding relation of reason ( relatio rationis )—possessing the relational notion ( ratio relationis ) without any relational mode of being ( esse relationis ). This position is frequently the source of misunderstanding, for theologians, both natural and revealed, and for ordinary persons of biblical faith. By clarifying Aquinas’s position, I show how such disquiet flows from a twofold interconnected failure: lack of appreciation for Aquinas’s conception of relation as a categorial mode of being; and inadequate consideration of the compelling theological reasons he has for holding such an ostensibly disconcerting position. By way of response, I argue that the position of Aquinas possesses a balanced tension that is necessary to secure the crucial duality of divine transcendence and divine immanence, while concomitantly safeguarding the corresponding radicality of creaturely dependence upon the Creator. Finally, I conclude by noting several existential implications of Aquinas’s position, all of which are centered around the unmediated presence of the Creator to the creature, and the correlative unmediated dependence of the creature upon the Creator.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1353/tho.2025.a971421
Primary Topic
Theology and Philosophy of Evil
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Creation as Relation: An Existential Consideration

Robert K. McNamara
The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review
Theology and Philosophy of Evil
article

Creation as Relation: An Existential Consideration

Robert K. McNamara
article en

Abstract

Abstract: Aquinas argues that the relation established by the act of creation is mixed, with the creature enjoying a real relation ( relatio realis )—possessing both the relational mode of being and its relational notion ( esse et ratio relationis )—while the Creator accommodates only a corresponding relation of reason ( relatio rationis )—possessing the relational notion ( ratio relationis ) without any relational mode of being ( esse relationis ). This position is frequently the source of misunderstanding, for theologians, both natural and revealed, and for ordinary persons of biblical faith. By clarifying Aquinas’s position, I show how such disquiet flows from a twofold interconnected failure: lack of appreciation for Aquinas’s conception of relation as a categorial mode of being; and inadequate consideration of the compelling theological reasons he has for holding such an ostensibly disconcerting position. By way of response, I argue that the position of Aquinas possesses a balanced tension that is necessary to secure the crucial duality of divine transcendence and divine immanence, while concomitantly safeguarding the corresponding radicality of creaturely dependence upon the Creator. Finally, I conclude by noting several existential implications of Aquinas’s position, all of which are centered around the unmediated presence of the Creator to the creature, and the correlative unmediated dependence of the creature upon the Creator.

The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly ReviewVol. 89(4)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Theology and Philosophy of Evil
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.