Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Pars·Q52. The angels in relation to place
Source context
- Theme
- angelic relation to place: circumscriptive versus definitive presence
Steiner
- GA 270, 1924-05-17Steiner locates the third hierarchy, including angels, in a region accessed through concentrated thinking, implying that angelic beings inhabit a sphere definable by cognitive orientation rather than physical extension.
- GA 46, 46-03-43Steiner describes angels as assuming fine ethereal-physical form in the vicinity of specific cosmic bodies (moon, Jupiter), indicating that angelic presence is indexed to cosmic regions rather than bounded spatial positions.
Cross-tradition
- Neoplatonism (Pseudo-Dionysius, De Coelesti Hierarchia)Pseudo-Dionysius holds that celestial intelligences are not confined to place as material bodies are, but relate to place through the exercise of their powers — a structural parallel to Aquinas's distinction between circumscriptive and definitive location.
- Islamic Kalam (Ash'ari theology)Ash'ari theologians debated whether angels occupy spatial locations or merely act at spatial locations, generating a distinction structurally congruent with Aquinas's definitive-versus-circumscriptive presence.
Q52. The angels in relation to place
Article 1
[I.q.52.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that an angel is not in a place. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "The common opinion of the learned is that things incorporeal are not in a place." And again, Aristotle observes (Phys. iv, text 48,57) that "it is not everything existing which is in a place, but only a movable body." But an angel is not a body, as was shown above (Article 50). Therefore an angel is not in a place.
[I.q.52.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod angelus non sit in loco. Dicit enim Boetius, in lib. De hebd., col. 1314, t. 2: « Communis animi conceptio apud sapientes est incorporalia in loco non esse; » et Aristoteles, in IV Phys., dicit, text. 48 et 57, quod « non omne quod est, est in loco, sed mobile corpus. » Sed angelus non est corpus, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo angelus non est in loco.
[I.q.52.a.1.arg.2] Further, place is a "quantity having position." But everything which is in a place has some position. Now to have a position cannot benefit an angel, since his substance is devoid of quantity, the proper difference of which is to have a position. Therefore an angel is not in a place.
[I.q.52.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, locus est quantitas positionem habens. Omne ergo quod est in loco, habet aliquem situm. Sed habere situm non potest convenire angelo, cum substantia sua sit immunis a quantitate cujus propria differentia est positionem habere. Ergo angelus non est in loco.
[I.q.52.a.1.arg.3] Further, to be in a place is to be measured and to be contained by such place, as is evident from the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text 14,119). But an angel can neither be measured nor contained by a place, because the container is more formal than the contained; as air with regard to water (Phys. iv, text 35,49). Therefore an angel is not in a place.
[I.q.52.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, esse in loco est mensurari loco et contineri a loco, ut patet per Philosophum in IV Physic., text. 44 et 419. Sed angelus non potest mensurari neque contineri a loco: quia continens est formalius contento, sicut aer aqua, ut dicitur in IV Phys., text. 35 et 49. Ergo angelus non est in loco.
[I.q.52.a.1.sc] It is said in the Collect [Prayer at Compline, Dominican Breviary]: "Let Thy holy angels who dwell herein, keep us in peace."
[I.q.52.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod in Collecta dicitur: « Angeli tui sancti habitent in ea, qui nos in pace custodiant. »
[I.q.52.a.1.co] It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. 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, 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.
Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity. 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.
And hereby we have the answers to the objections.
[I.q.52.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod angelo convenit esse in loco; æquivoce tamen dicitur non esse. » Ita codd. Alcan. et Camer. cum Nicolaï; edit. Rom. et Patav.: « Omne autem. » Modus quæritur quo angelus in corpore assumpto motum producit? Scotistæ in angelis potentiam executivam ponunt, Thomistæ non ponunt. angelus esse in loco, et corpus. Corpus enim est in loco per hoc quod applicatur loco secundum contactum dimensivæ quantitatis; quæ quidem in angelis non est, sed est in eis quantitas virtualis. Per applicationem igitur virtutis angelicæ ad aliquem locum qualitercumque dicitur angelus esse in loco corporeo. Et secundum hoc patet quod non oportet dicere quod angelus commensuretur loco, vel quod habeat situm in continuo; hoc enim convenit corpori locato, prout est quantum quantitate dimensiva. Similiter etiam non oportet propter hoc, quod contineatur a loco; nam substantia incorporea sua virtute contingens rem corpoream continet ipsam, et non continetur ab ea; anima enim est in corpore ut continens, et non ut contenta; et similiter angelus dicitur esse in loco corporeo non ut contentum sed ut continens aliquo modo. Et per hoc patet responsio ad objecta.
Article 3
[I.q.52.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that several angels can be at the same time in the same place. For several bodies cannot be at the same time in the same place, because they fill the place. But the angels do not fill a place, because only a body fills a place, so that it be not empty, as appears from the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text 52,58). Therefore several angels can be in the one place.
[I.q.52.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod plures angeli possint simul esse in eodem loco. Plura enim corpora non possunt esse simul in eodem loco, quia replent locum. Sed angeli non replent locum, quia solum corpus replet locum, ut non sit vacuum, ut patet per Philosophum in IV Physic., text. 52 et 58. Ergo plures angeli possunt esse in uno loco. Ita Nicolai.: « Licet non sit continuum. » Sed in codd., edit. Rom. et Patav.: « Licet sit continuum. » Objectiones enim de loco continuo procedunt, qui locus secundum suas partes considerari potest ut plura loca. Edit. Rom. et Patav.: « in loco. » Quæritur an in loco punctuali, vel in puncto, angelus sit vel esse possit? Juxta Bonaventuram, Scotum, et Scotorellum, verius quod non, etsi circa hoc variæ sint opiniones. — Per applicationem suæ virtutis, secundum suam tamen substantiam, angelum in loco esse S.
[I.q.52.a.3.arg.2] Further, there is a greater difference between an angel and a body than there is between two angels. But an angel and a body are at the one time in the one place: because there is no place which is not filled with a sensible body, as we find proved in Phys. iv, text. 58. Much more, then, can two angels be in the same place.
[I.q.52.a.3.arg.3] Further, the soul is in every part of the body, according to Augustine (De Trin. vi). But demons, although they do not obsess souls, do obsess bodies occasionally; and thus the soul and the demon are at the one time in the same place; and consequently for the same reason all other spiritual substances.
[I.q.52.a.3.sc] There are not two souls in the same body. Therefore for a like reason there are not two angels in the same place.
[I.q.52.a.3.co] There are not two angels in the same place. The reason of this is because it is impossible for two complete causes to be the causes immediately of one and the same thing. This is evident in every class of causes: for there is one proximate form of one thing, and there is one proximate mover, although there may be several remote movers. Nor can it be objected that several individuals may row a boat, since no one of them is a perfect mover, because no one man's strength is sufficient for moving the boat; while all together are as one mover, in so far as their united strengths all combine in producing the one movement. Hence, since the angel is said to be in one place by the fact that his power touches the place immediately by way of a perfect container, as was said (1), there can be but one angel in one place.
[I.q.52.a.3.ad.1] Several angels are not hindered from being in the same place because of their filling the place; but for another reason, as has been said.
[I.q.52.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod plures angelos esse in uno loco non impeditur propter impletionem loci, sed propter aliam causam, ut dictum est.
[I.q.52.a.3.ad.2] An angel and a body are not in a place in the same way; hence the conclusion does not follow.
[I.q.52.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod angelus et corpus non eodem modo sunt in loco. Unde ratio non sequitur.
[I.q.52.a.3.ad.3] Not even a demon and a soul are compared to a body according to the same relation of causality; since the soul is its form, while the demon is not. Hence the inference does not follow.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[I.q.52.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod nec etiam dæmon et anima comparantur ad corpus secundum eamdem habitudinem causæ, cum anima sit forma, non autem dæmon. Unde ratio non sequitur.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-pars/q052.json