tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post1924674297783723017..comments2023-11-29T18:53:19.500+00:00Comments on Reading The Summa: Question 52 - Angels and SpaceGregory the Eremitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-26294720287490129782012-01-31T08:49:34.744+00:002012-01-31T08:49:34.744+00:00Well, the key here is “a manner that cannot be ful...Well, the key here is “a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us”! The underlying question that Aquinas is addressing here (Suppl. q69.a1) concerns what heaven and hell are: for example, are they places is the sense known to us on earth? Or are they purely “spiritual” modes of being? If we just address the issue of heaven, the tricky thing is that it’s got lots of spiritual things in it (angels, the souls of the blessed, for example) but it also contains Mary, body & soul. Furthermore, after the general resurrection, there will be a lot more body/soul composites there as well. <br /><br />Since purely spiritual beings are not “in place” in the same sense that material things are “in place” there would seem to be a fundamental incongruity between having both spiritual substances and material substances present in heaven in the same mode of presence. Aquinas’s solution here is to claim that although spiritual substances are not present “in place” in the same way that material bodies are, there is still some notion of “congruity” between material places and spiritual “places”. So, by analogy, we can say that heaven is a sort of “place” where it makes sense to say that things can be “in” heaven, but we must be careful not to push the analogy with material places too far.Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-34631604322936946142012-01-31T00:39:06.815+00:002012-01-31T00:39:06.815+00:00I appreciate this discussion. I have only recentl...I appreciate this discussion. I have only recently begun thinking about how a spiritual substance can be in a "place". I've only read a little bit of St. Thomas on this point, but I do plan to look into it further. <br /><br />I recently wrote an article on heaven, and used the following quote from St. Thomas. This quote deals with the Empyrean heaven, which is the "third heaven" St. Paul speaks of. It was this quote that got me thinking about the subject:<br /><br />“The empyrean heaven is a corporeal place, and yet as soon as it was made it was filled with the holy angels, as Bede says. Since then, angels, even as separated souls, are incorporeal, it would seem that some place should also be assigned to receive separated souls. Further, this appears from Gregory's statement (Dial. iv) that souls after death are conveyed to various corporeal places. ... Therefore after death souls have certain places for their reception. … And though after death souls have no bodies assigned to them … nevertheless certain corporeal places are appointed to them…”. <br /><br />Then, in answering an objection in the same article, he wrote the following: “Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us”. <br /><br />Any thoughts on the above quote?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-88933871913856147202012-01-30T10:19:44.829+00:002012-01-30T10:19:44.829+00:00I think that one might attempt to put together a t...I think that one might attempt to put together a theory of angelic position (and motion) along the lines that you are suggesting. But in order to do so, you’ll have to develop the metaphysical machinery that ensures that the theory is internally coherent (i.e. doesn’t contradict itself) and externally systematic (i.e. fits in with the rest of metaphysics).<br /><br />Aquinas takes the line that he does here (and in the next question when he is dealing with the motion of angels) because he considers that the notions of “place” and “motion” are derived from our sense data. When we talk about “place” (and when later philosophers talk about “space”) we derive our concepts about it from material bodies. As soon as you start considering things that are not composites of matter and form (like God and angels), you have to explain what it means for such a thing to be “in place”. For most things of our experience, matter seems to be the thing that gives form determination to be a particular individual substance, “in place”. If you have a determinate subsistent form without matter, you’ve got to give an account of how such a thing can be “in place”. Aquinas chooses to give an account of angelic position by latching on to what little we are told about them in the sources of revelation; their power acts in the place when they appear to us. The big advantage of this approach is that it is coherent and systematic in the senses I have indicated above.<br /><br />If an angel is “in place” by its act of existence, and if it undergoes “motion” by a new act of existence at another point, it’s not clear to me that you have the same angel at the two different points! To fix this up, it would seem to me that you have to tell me more about what you mean by “act of existence” – is it the same as Aquinas’s use, for example? BTW, in the next question Aquinas will argue that the motion of an angel can be continuous, but can also be discontinuous.<br /><br />The problem with using bilocation as an example is that it is a poorly understood phenomenon. There’s been some useful discussion of it on the “New Theological Movement” blog recently, if you’d like to look that up. It’s not clear, for example, if the two “presences” of someone bilocating are of the same mode. Perhaps (and this is entirely speculative) the one bilocating is materially present in one location and present “in power” at the second location (a bit like an angel).Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-28725488040340733362012-01-29T11:57:33.393+00:002012-01-29T11:57:33.393+00:00Regarding in what way the act of existing would sp...Regarding in what way the act of existing would specify where the angel is: Could we say that an angle can simble "be" in a particular location? For example, when the angel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Mother at the Annunciation, could we not say his substantial form was indeed located in the Holy House, in some ways similar to how our soul, although spiritual, is located within our body at the present time? <br /><br />Regarding movement, could we not say that "movement" for an angle is not necessarily traveling from one point to another, but rather existing in one point, and then existing in another, without having to travel "through" anything?<br /><br />For example, St. Gabriel could have been in the Embyrean Heaven, and then immediately be in the Holy House. Is it necessary for a spiritual substance to travel through a medium? Can they "move" as we know movement, or also simply change locations at the blink of an eye? I wonder if these two distinctions are both possible for a spiritual substance?<br /><br /><br />Consider bi-location. For example Ven. Mary of Agreda would bi-locate from her convent to the regions now known as east Texas in order to catechise the pagan Indians. Did her soul travel from Spain to east Texas, as through a medium, or was it placed there instantly? It seems like it was the latter. Yet after it was placed there, she was able to move as we know movement.<br /><br />I wonder if a similar distinction (being transported to one place instantly, and also being able to move as we know it) is possible for angels?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-77399041847057394592012-01-29T07:52:59.042+00:002012-01-29T07:52:59.042+00:00The immediate thought that strikes me about this i...The immediate thought that strikes me about this idea is that it seems too restrictive. <br /><br />In what way would the act of existing specify "where" the angel is? How would an angel move? (i.e. wouldn't the act of existing root the angel to one spot?)Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-52994323013309633992012-01-28T19:45:28.725+00:002012-01-28T19:45:28.725+00:00I've been doing some thinking on this question...I've been doing some thinking on this question (how can angles be in a place), and had the following thought: If existing as such is an act (as opposed to potency) could the angel be in a "place" by his "act" of existing? <br /><br />Rather than saying an angel is in a place by his power, or potential power, why not say he is in a place by his act of existence?<br /><br />Any thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com