THOMAS AQUINAS CONCEPT OF ANGELIC BEINGS.
Introduction
Have you ever
imagined if there is anything (substance) that exists outside or beyond this
nature (made up of motion that exists in time and space)? If there is/are, what
would it/they be called? Separated substance(s)? If separated, why the term
and, what is the nature of such a thing? If these things in question exist outside
of nature, it therefore implies that
they would not be confined and restricted by space, time, motion, and place,
etc. which are the attributes of things that exist in nature. But if these
separated substances are like explained above, how will/can the human mind come
to know of/about its existence?
Since man in his
quest for knowledge, as Thomas Aquinas said, proceeds from the known to the
unknown, from natural things to metaphysical beings, it therefore makes it
tenable to posit some truth about the separated substances. Truth presented in
human language which though is imperfect (for our matter limits us) but is not
false.
God and angels are
examples of such a being (separated substances). They are ‘qualified’ with the
adjective ‘separated’ because the complementarity of body and soul is only
among material creatures.[1]
Thus, Aquinas maintained that God as a being cannot be subjected to this
natural principles, likewise the angels who are pure spiritual beings. According
to him, angels are the intermediate beings
necessary to account for the gap between an infinite, pure spiritual being
(God) and material beings.
Consequently, to
explore and expose Thomas Aquinas’ Quaestiones (Question 3; Article 1), which
deals on the question on “Whether an angel depends on a corporeal place
according to its essence or is it in a corporeal place according to its action
only?” we shall do the following. Firstly, we shall look at the meaning of
Place and Essence (i.e. essence qua essence) as related to the Operation of an
angel. Besides, the application of some metaphysical views in line with the
given terms will certainly aid us to better understand this paper. Secondly, we
shall attempt to answer the question ‘who or what is an angel.’ And in doing
this it shall help us to clarify whether an angel by its nature would need a
corporeal place. Thirdly, we shall raise some erroneous views that have been
held by some people regarding the nature and operation of an angel.
PLACE
After treating
what is pertaining intrinsically to motion, the Philosopher now turns to what
is extrinsically connected with mobile things. The first is place, which is the
measure of mobile things (connected with place is concept of space or void) and
then time, which is the measure of motion itself.
We must also distinguish between
primary place, which is our immediate surroundings, and common place which is
the large area where we happen to be (e.g. town, country, and continent, etc.).[2]
Aristotle
concludes that place is the immobile surface of that which “primarily” contains
a body. The word “primarily” designates proper place (the nearest immobile
place; the nearest place, if in a vessel) and exclude common place. Place is
also in some way immobile. That is how a place differs from a vessel, because a
vessel can be moved, but a place cannot. One may ask what gives stability to
place? Natural place and rest is determined by gravitational force. It could be
said that the universe as a whole is not in a place, since there is no outer
containing body. Place is the boundary of the containing body, while the
contained body is what is apt to be moved in respect to place. Place is not the
same as space, although it might be seen to be, since space is thought of as
absolute dimensions that do not change whatever bodies happen to fill it.
Worthy to note that place is not
matter, although place receives the different things it contains in a way
resembling the way matter receives different forms. Everything in space has a
place, although it can move from that place to another. The place contains what
is in place while remaining distinct from it.
Thus Aristotle defines place as
………………………………………… and further concludes by specifically positing that its only
material things that are said to be or occupy a place by their essence. This is
because of their material existence, which is comprised of extension and
magnitude; these as earlier stated must be in contact with the place occupied.
ESSENCE
Here, essence
refers to the form of a thing; it is the basic nature of a being. For instance
in God, the essence and the existence are the same (identical), because the
nature of God is the same with his actualized nature.[3] It
has also been asserted above that the angels are pure spiritual beings without
matter. Matter, as is seen in nature, is that which individualizes. Thus, if an
angel does not possess matter, how then will one be differentiated from
another? Matter as already said is the principle of individualization in material
(corporeal) substance, but in the case of separated substances as we shall
later see in this work would be their operation.[4]
Now let’s know what this concept ‘operation’ means with regard to an angel and
by extension its essence.
OPERATION
What
is operation?
Given the fact that Place is the
boundary of the containing body, while the contained body is what is apt to be
moved in respect to place and that Essence refers to substance of a thing or
the basic nature of a being, it could be asserted therefore since the angels
are believed to be pure spiritual beings; that an angel depends on a corporeal
place according to its action only and not by its essence. This further holds
that an angel has the power (virtus)
to operate in time only because it is in its nature to do so. That is why St
Thomas conscientiously opines that an angel is in a place by the contact of its
power.
Thomas Aquinas
adds that it is befitting for an angel to be in a place; yet an angel
and a body are said to be in a place in quite different senses. A body is said
to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to
the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels,
Aquinas says, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be
in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever
to any place.
Consequently, to
aid the comprehension of the subject matter in question, let’s take a look at
some commonly misunderstood views held about angels with relation to their
essence and operation. To achieve this, we would engage some of the erroneous
views by way of clarification, and then present in brief how angels are related to body and place using
Aquinas’ response.
Erroneous
views
1- One
view about the angels is that, they cannot be in a place. Reasons given to this
is that, angels are incorporeal.[5]
By the term incorporeal we mean,
‘something which exists without a (material) body’. This view might seem
somewhat logical, since a place as observed by Aristotle is extrinsic to what
it contains[6];
since motion is that which is intrinsic to a thing. Thus, (Aristotle has it that) a place is only
contained by a movable body, since there are other things which exist that are
immovable. It follows that, since an angel is not a body; it cannot possibly be
in a place.
Aquinas in trying to address this
problem says that the above is correct with regards to material beings; since
they exist in a place because of their matter, extension and magnitude. But, it
is also befitting for an angel to be in a place[7]
and rightly so. For an angel on the other hand could be said to be in a place
by its action, just as a material being is said to be in place by its contact.
Consequently, one has to do with contact and the other by its power, and yet
they are said to be both in a place.
However, a corporeal substance is
virtually contained in the place with which it comes into contact. But, an
incorporeal substance (angel) is not contained by the place; for the soul is in
the body as containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is
said to be in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as
somehow containing it.”[8]
This angel does by its virtual power.
2- Another
erroneous view springs from the second view above; for people held the view
that if an angel were in a place only through action, it would then follow that
many angels would exist together in one place. Thus meaning that ‘several
angels could be said to be at the same time in the same place?’
According to (Q52 Art.2 Pt. 1),
things that are incorporeal contain the things they come in contact with by way
of exercising of the power. If an angel is said to have contained a place, it
will be impossible for another angel to contain the same place. For, “it is
impossible for two causes to be the causes immediately of one and the same
thing.”[9] If the operation of an angel is seen in the
same light as a body occupying a place, and having learned from Aristotle that,
the place of a body is not different from the body itself[10],
we can go forward to conclude with Aquinas that, there can be just one angel
operating in a place. For an angel is said to be in a place by “any form of
union by which its power unites with a body: (which could be) by presiding,
containing, or any other way[11]”
More so, to further clarify the above
topic explained so far, we shall be looking more closely at Aquinas’ view
regarding angel in relation to place and body.
Angel
in Relation to a Body
The angels, seen
in the light of spiritual substance whole and entire, cannot be said to have
bodies united to them, as is seen in the case of men having souls united
naturally to their bodies. However, the
angels can take on bodies, as the scripture reveals. For instance, Abraham was
privileged to meet Angels on the road; Tobias was accompanied on a long journey
by the Archangel Raphael; angel Gabriel appeared to Mary; a host of angels sang
glory to God at the birth of Christ. It is certain that for men to have seen
these angels, they necessarily possessed bodies[12].
However, bodies
possessed by angels are not true human bodies. For, human bodies are informed
only by human soul. The bodies assumed
by angels are not in the same sense as matter to form, because angels by their
nature are substantially complete. Since, if both were to be the same, angels
would be limited in space and time. And thus cannot pass through a medium at
will; but this as we have demonstrated is erroneous. So, it would suffice to
say that an angel assumes a body for its visible representation or its angelic
qualities.[13]
For, it belongs primarily to an angel to move the body in which it is united
(not in the same sense as human moves objects) by mere willing it.
Nature, as we know,
makes available every substance that is necessary and required in the
composition of a human body. The human body as a product of nature is,
principally, therefore, a composition from matter. So, the question where
exactly do the angels get the bodies they assume would arise? As earlier
stated, an angel through its mere willing could acquire body with which it
enters instantaneously into time and space. For an angel is higher than
material beings (in existence) and thus have power over matter. By ipso facto, it can, if it wills, gather
material elements, making out of them both colour and shape; thus forming the
kind of body it most desire.
In addition, it is
pertinent to note that these (the) bodies of angels do not exercise vital
functions since they are not living bodies. They have no sensitive life. This
is so because they are not informed by a sensitive soul. And bodies of such are
devoid of sight, hearing, speech, nor do they walk in a proper sense. However,
they are able to act in the same manner as bodies informed by sensitive soul,
this is possible through the angelic power. The angels can cause the bodies
they assume to make sounds in the air like human voices, or make them move in
the manner of a sensitive body walking.
Angels
in relation to a place
From the above, it
suffices to state categorically that angels being spiritual in essence cannot
be in place as bodies are. Bodies are said to be in place circumscriptively, which
means that, they can only be in contact by reason of their quantity, with a
surrounding surface which could be said contain them. Since the angels are
without bodies or quantity, it is not possible for them to be in place the same
way as sensitive bodies. Angels can only be said to be in place by way of
definition that is definitively[14].
In clarifying terms, we could say that, an angel is in that place where he
operates. He is in a particular place rather than another because he exercises
his power over a particular body that is, one body at a time. Because an angel
is located by its operation on a particular body at a place, it cannot be in
another place at the same time. Although, the power of an angel can be applied
to different material object simultaneously, he is not said to be in several
places at once. An angel may operate in two different cities at the same time,
but this for the angel cannot be considered to be two distinct places. This is
so because an angel is not contained by the material places in which he
operates.[15]
When an angel is
in a place by the application of his power, it automatically implies the
exclusion of other angels from that place. Several angels cannot be said to
operate in a particular place at the same time producing the same effect, for
two complete causes cannot be the immediate causes of the same thing.
Nevertheless, more than one angel can be in a particular place, but they will
and must produce different effect to operate in a place[16].
Conclusion
From the above
discussions so far, we have been able to explain in detail the relation of
angels to bodies and place; Thereby rooted out some erroneous and misleading
opinions as regards this subject. And we came to realize that angels can be in
a place by their function which is usually through their virtual power, and
also that two angels cannot be in a place together at the same time performing
the same function.
However, an angel
is not in a place in a circumscribed fashion, since he is not measured by the
place, but definitively, because he is in a place in such a manner that he is
not in another. Thus in accordance with Thomas Aquinas’ postulations, it would
suffice to posit that there is no need saying that an angel can be deemed
commensurate with a place (which it occupies by its virtual powers). Or that an
angel occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located
material body which is endowed with dimensive quantity only. In similar fashion
it is not necessary on this account for the angel to be contained by a place;
because an incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it
comes into contact, and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body as
containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is said to be
in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as somehow
containing it.[17] Since an angel is not corporeal or
composed of matter- which has the attributes of magnitude, and extension, it is
therefore said to be or depend on a corporeal place by actions only; and not by
essence.
Bibliography
Kenny Joseph Kenny, Philosophy of Nature
Anih, Humphrey U. Introducing Philosophy to a Lay-Mind, Enugu:
Black Belt Konzult Ltd., 2008.
Summa
Theologica: Q. 3; A. 1.
WHETHER
AN ANGEL DEPENDS ON A CORPOREAL PLACE ACCORDING TO ITS ESSENCE OR IS IT IN A
CORPOREAL PLACE ACCORDING TO ITS ACTION ONLY?
Sub-heading:
Place and Essence with regard to the Action or Operation of an angel.
[1]
Aristotle had earlier taught that a being is made up of matter and form under
his theory of hylemorphism. Aquinas
built on this by postulating that everything has both matter and form; body and
spirit; the material and immaterial natures. A man is made up of matter (body)
and form (soul/spirit). These two qualities of a thing are inseparably
complementary. One cannot be taken with the other in isolation. In man for
instance – that will be “no man” if either is missing. With regard to the
absence of matter we would have an angel, but to that of rationality it would
be a beast.
[2] Cf. Joseph Kenny, Philosophy of Nature/
www.dhspriory.org/thomas/NATURE07.ht
[3] Cf. Humphrey Uchenna
Ani, Introducing Philosophy to a Lay-Mind
(Enugu: Black Belt Konzult Ltd., 2008), p. 57.
[6] Cf. Fr. Kenny,
philosophy of nature, p33
[7] Cf. summa theological
(Q. 52, Art. 1 Pt. 1)
[8] Cf. summa theological
(Q. 52, Art. 1 Pt. 1)
[10] Cf. Fr. Kenny,
philosophy of nature, p33
[12] Cf. Murphy et al, God
and His Creation (Iowa: The Priory Press, 1958), p.364
[13] Cf. Murphy et al, God
and His Creation (Iowa: The Priory Press, 1958), p.364
[16] Cf. Murphy et al, God
and His Creation (Iowa: The Priory Press, 1958), p365
Comments
Post a Comment