New Book: John of St. Thomas, The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Cluny Media, 2016)

New Book: John of St. Thomas, The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Cluny Media, 2016)

John of St. Thomas, O.P., The Gifts of the Holy Spirit, with an introduction by Cajetan Cuddy, O.P. (Tacoma, WA: Cluny Media, 2016), xiv + 403pp.

To my joy and amazement, Cluny Media just recently reprinted a translation of a section of John of St. Thomas' Cursus Theologicus, dedicated to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. The translation by Dominic Hughes, O.P., was originally published in 1951 by Sheed & Ward under the title, The Gifts of the Holy Ghost.  But it had been long out of print and hard to find.  It is now available from the Cluny Media website for the affordable price of $24.95.  I have been working on a review of this book to submit it for publication in a scholarly journal.  Before I do so I would like to share with you some of my thoughts in draft form.

John of St. Thomas (1589-1644) is not only an exceptionally faithful commentator of St. Thomas' Summa; his Cursus Theologicus is also historically monumental insofar as it is in itself an original Thomistic synthesis, a theological masterpiece in its own right that goes beyond merely commenting on the text of St. Thomas.  For example, whereas St. Thomas treats of the Gifts in many different questions spread throughout the Secunda Pars (Ia-IIae, qq. 68-70; IIa-IIae, qq. 8-9, 19, 45, 52, 121, and 139), John of St. Thomas gathers together the entire discussion of the Gifts into a single Disputatio.  In a sense, the Cursus is the first of the theological manuals, that is, the predecessor to the many Thomistic treatises ad mentem Sancti Thomae of later centuries.  It is historically a turning point between the earlier commentatorial tradition and the later manualist tradition. 

Hughes’ English translation does tone down a bit the scholastic format of the Latin original.  'Articles' are translated into 'chapters', and the questions that John asks in each are rendered as statements or headings. Thus the original scholastic sense of a quest for an answer to a question is lost a bit in translation.  Also lost in translation is John’s constant and explicit reference to the logical structure of the arguments to which he is replying: expressions such as ad primam, major probatur, minor constat, contra est, are either missing, or glossed over in such a way that their logical precision is lost; for instance, ad minorem is paraphrased as "in response to the latter part of this argument."  But these tendencies seem to be almost inescapable among mid-20th century English translations of scholastic works; compare, for example, Garrigou-Lagrange's Beatitude, translated by Patrick Cummins, O.S.B., with Garrigou's original De beatitudine.  For a purist such as myself, this toning-down of the scholastic method is obviously a drawback.  But the relatively free-flowing English text of these translations is designed to appeal to a non-expert audience, and thus opens up a masterpiece from the heart of the Thomistic tradition to a wider readership.  This is surely something positive in its own way (perhaps a mixed blessing of sorts) and, realistically, it is necessitated by the financial imperative of selling more books.  If you want to be a strict 'purist', read the Latin text itself.  For, as the Italians say: "traduttore, traditore."  That said, Hughes' translation includes, over and above the original, very helpful outlines at the beginning of each of his chapters (articles), which are a great aid to the careful student of John’s text.  

            One minor aspect in the reprint that I do find entirely unnecessary and in a way regrettable is the change in title, and together with it the "minor editorial revisions to the original text, including the changing of ‘Holy Ghost’ to ‘Holy Spirit’ throughout."  Not that it is theologically erroneous to say 'Holy Spirit' instead of 'Holy Ghost'. Rather, I just think that the deliberate suppression of traditional Catholic expressions such as this one tends to promote a disconnect with tradition in subsequent generations of Catholics.  This suppression furthers yet a little more the linguistic distance between us and our ancestors in the faith.  It is not so much an issue of preserving a tiny feature of our Catholic language; rather what is at stake is promoting continuity between generations of Catholics.  English-speaking Catholics need to become more familiar with the faith, writings, and modes of expression of their forefathers, not less.  That said, the consistent replacement of the expression ‘Holy Ghost’ throughout the book was to me personally at most only a bit distracting, and did not detract from the sheer joy of holding and reading John of St. Thomas’s commentary on St. Thomas in translation.

         The reprint also includes a brand new introduction by Fr. Cajetan Cuddy, O.P., which aims to show to the average reader the relevance of John of St. Thomas’ work on the Holy Ghost.  Fr. Cuddy here offers a brief apologia of the Thomistic Commentatorial Tradition.  He argues that "truth did not die with Saint Thomas Aquinas in 1274" (p. v), and that this tradition is "a living tradition" because the men who represent it received the "essential first principles of doctrinal purity and cultural engagement from Saint Thomas" and then went on "expeditions through the cultural and intellectual jungles of their own periods" (pp. v-vi).  And John of St. Thomas, whom his contemporaries called ‘another Thomas’, excels among Thomists in that he had a "unique ability to adjudicate difficult questions amidst great confusion without deviating from the truth.  Speculative complexity did not deter or suffocate this Iberian priest" (p. vii).  The translator's introduction to the 1951 edition, also contained in the reprint, includes a rather valuable "historical introduction" to John of St. Thomas, which will prove very helpful to readers seeking to deepen their understanding of the life, work, and times of this great Thomist.

        All in all, Fr. Cajetan Cuddy and Cluny Media have done a great service to English-speaking readers of Thomism and Theology in general by making available again this gem of the Thomistic tradition in translation.  The volume is a great joy to have and to study. I sure hope to see more volumes of this kind in years to come. 

Be sure to look also at Cluny Media's other Thomistic titles, such as Brennan's Thomistic Psychology, as well as several other volumes published in their Thomistic Institute Series.

Deely on the Value of the Thought of John of St. Thomas, OP (Jean Poinsot)

Deely on the Value of the Thought of John of St. Thomas, OP (Jean Poinsot)

"The standard histories of philosophy over the whole of the 20th century have tacitly agreed to give the impression that nothing of value or interest happened in the Latin tradition after the death of William of Ockham."

Link to Deely's "Introductory Remarks on the Value of Poinsot's Work to Philosophy Today."


Old editions of John of St. Thomas' works can be obtained on PDF through ITOPL.

Who are the Traditional Thomists?

Who are the Traditional Thomists?

From Garrigou-Lagrange, OP - Reality (available from ITOPL).

Chapter 3: The Thomistic Commentators

We deal here with those commentators only who belong to the Thomistic school properly so called. We do not include eclectic commentators, who indeed borrow largely from Thomas, but seek to unite him with Duns Scotus, refuting at times one by the other, at the risk of nearly always oscillating between the two, without ever taking a definite stand.

In the history of commentators we may distinguish three periods. During the first period we find defensiones against the various adversaries of Thomistic doctrine. In the second period commentaries appear properly so called. They comment the Summa theologiae. They comment, article by article, in the methods we may call classical, followed generally before the Council of Trent. In the third period, after the Council, in order to meet a new fashion of opposition, the commentators generally no longer follow the letter of the Summa article by article, but write disputationes on the problems debated in their own times. Each of the three methods has its own raison d'etre. The Thomistic synthesis has thus been studied from varied viewpoints, by contrast with other theological systems. Let us see this process at work in each of these periods.

The first Thomists appear at the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth. They defend St. Thomas against certain Augustinians of the ancient school, against the Nominalists and the Scotists. We must note in particular the works of Herve de Nedellec against Henry of Ghent; of Thomas Sutton against Scotus, of Durandus of Aurillac against Durandus of Saint-Pourcain and against the first Nominalists.

Next, in the same period, come works on a larger scale. Here we find John Capreolus, [89] whose Defensiones [90] earned him the title princeps thomistarum. Capreolus follows the order of the Lombard Sentences, but continually compares the commentaries of Thomas on that work with texts of the Summa theologiae and of the Disputed Questions. He writes against the Nominalists and the Scotists. Similar works were written in Hungary by Peter Niger, [91] in Spain by Diego of Deza, [92] the protector of Christopher Columbus. With the introduction of the Summa as textbook, explicit commentaries on the Summa theologiae began to appear. First in the field was Cajetan (Thomas de Vio). His commentary [93] is looked upon as the classic interpretation of St. Thomas. Then followed Conrad Kollin, [94] Sylvester de Ferraris, [95] and Francis of Vittoria. [96] Vittoria's work remained long in manuscript and was lately published. [97] A second work of Vittoria, Relectiones theologicae, was likewise recently published. [98].

Numerous Thomists took part in the preparatory work for the Council of Trent. Noted among these are Bartholomew of Carranza, Dominic Soto, Melchior Cano, Peter de Soto. The Council [99] itself, in its decrees on the mode of preparation for justification, reproduces the substance of an article by St. Thomas. [100] Further, in the following chapter on the causes of justification, the Council again reproduces the teaching of the saint. [101] When on April 11 1567, four years after the end of the Council, Thomas of Aquin was declared doctor of the Church, Pius V, [102] in commending the saint's doctrine as destruction of all heresies since the thirteenth century, concluded with these words: "As clearly appeared recently in the sacred decrees of the Council of Trent." [103].

After the Council of Trent, the commentators, as a rule, write Disputationes. Dominic Banez, an exception, explains still article by article. The chief names in this period are Bartholomew of Medina, [104] and Dominic Banez. [105] We must also mention Thomas of Lemos 1629): Diego Alvarez (1635): John of St. Thomas (1644): Peter of Godoy (1677). All these were Spaniards. In Italy we find Vincent Gotti (1742): Daniel Concina (1756): Vincent Patuzzi (1762): Salvatore Roselli (1785). In France, Jean Nicolai (1663): Vincent Contenson (1674): Vincent Baron (1674): John Baptist Gonet (1681): A. Goudin (1695): Antonin Massoulie (1706): Hyacinth Serry (1738). In Belgium, Charles Rene Billuart (1751). Among the Carmelites we mention: the Complutenses, Cursus philosophicus, [106] and the Salmanticenses, Cursus theologicus. [107].

Let us here note the method and importance of the greatest among these commentators. Capreolus [108] correlates, as we saw above, the Summa and the Disputed Questions with the Sententiae of the Lombard. Answering the Nominalists and the Scotists, he sets in relief the continuity of the saint's thought.

Sylvester de Ferraris shows that the content of the Contra Gentes is in harmony with the higher simplicity of the Summa theologiae. He is especially valuable on certain great questions: the natural desire to see God [109]: the infallibility of the decrees of providence; [110] the immutability in good and in evil of the soul after death, from the first moment of its separation from the body. [111] Sylvester's commentary is reprinted in the Leonine edition of the Summa contra Gentes.

Cajetan comments on the Summa theologiae article by article, shows their interconnection, sets in relief the force of each proof, disengages the probative medium. Then he examines at length the objections of his adversaries, particularly those of Durandus and Scotus. His virtuosity as a logician is in the service of intuition. Cajetan's sense of mystery is great. Instances will occur later on when he speaks of the pre-eminence of the Deity. Cajetan is likewise the great defender of the distinction between essence and existence. [112] His commentary on the Summa theologiae was reprinted in the Leonine edition. [113].

Dominic Banez is a careful commentator, profound, sober, with great powers, logical and metaphysical. Attempts have been made to turn him into the founder of a new theological school. But, in reality, his doctrine does not differ from that of St. Thomas. What he adds are but more precise terms, to exclude false interpretations. His formulas do not exaggerate the saint's doctrine. Even such terms as "predefinition" and "predetermination" had been employed by Aquinas in explaining the divine decrees. [114] A Thomist may prefer the more simple and sober terms which St. Thomas ordinarily employs, but on condition that he understands them well and excludes those false interpretations which Banez had to exclude. [115].

John of St. Thomas wrote a very valuable Cursus philosophicus thomisticus. [116] Subsequent authors of philosophic manuals, E. Hugon, O. P.: J. Gredt, O. S. B.: X. Maquart, rest largely on him. J. Maritain likewise finds in them much inspiration. In John's theological work, Cursus theologicus, [117] we find disputationes on the great questions debated at his time. He compares the teaching of St. Thomas with that of others, especially with that of Suarez, of Vasquez, of Molina. John is an intuitionist, even a contemplative, rather than a dialectician. At the risk of diffusiveness, he returns often to the same idea, to sound its depths and irradiations. He may sound repetitious, but this continual recourse to the same principles, to these high leitmotifs, serves well to lift the penetrating spirit to the heights of doctrine. John insists repeatedly on the following doctrines: analogy of being, real distinction between essence and existence, obediential potency, divine liberty, intrinsic efficaciousness of divine decrees and of grace, specification of habits and acts by their formal object, the essential supernaturalness of infused virtue, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and infused contemplation. John should be studied also on the following questions: the personality of Christ, Christ's grace of union, Christ's habitual grace, the causality of the sacraments, the transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass.

In their methods the Carmelites of Salamanca, the Salmanticenses, resemble John of St. Thomas. They first give, in summary, the letter of the article, then add disputationes and dubia on controverted questions, discussing opposed views in detail. Some of these dubia on secondary questions may seem superfluous. But he who consults the Salmanticenses on fundamental questions must recognize in them great theologians, in general very loyal to the teaching of St. Thomas. You may test this statement in the following list of subjects: the divine attributes, the natural desire to see God, the obediential potency, the absolute supernaturalness of the beatific vision, the intrinsic efficaciousness of divine decrees and of grace, the essential supernaturalness of infused virtues, particularly of the theological virtues, the personality of Christ, His liberty, the value, intrinsically infinite, of His merits and satisfaction, the causality of the sacraments, the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass.

Gonet, who recapitulates the best of his predecessors, but also, on many questions, does original work, is marked by great clarity. So likewise is Cardinal Gotti, who gives a wider attention to positive theology. Billuart, more briefly than Gonet, gives a substantial summary of the great commentators. He is generally quite faithful to Thomas, often quoting in full the saint's own words.

While we do not cite in detail the works of contemporary Thomists, we must mention N. del Prado's two works: De veritate fundamentali philosophiae christianae, [118] and De Gratia et libero arbitrio. [119] He closely follows Banez. Further, A. Gardeil's three works: La credibilite et l'apologetique, [120] Le donne revele et la theologie, [121] and La structure de l'ame et l'experience mystique. [122] Inspired chiefly by John of St. Thomas, his work is still personal and original.

Among those who contributed to the resurgence of Thomistic study, before and after Leo XIII, we must mention eight names: Sanseverino, Kleutgen, S. J.: Cornoldi, S. J.: Cardinal Zigliara, O. P.: Buonpensiere, O. P.: L. Billot, S. J.: G. Mattiussi, S. J.: and Cardinal Mercier.


NOTES:

89. Died 1444

90. Latest edition, Tours, 1900-1908

91. Died 1481

92. Died 1523

93. Written 1507-22

94. On the Ia IIae, Cologne, 1512

95. On the Cont. Gent.: Venice, 1534

96. On the IIa IIae. He died in 1546

97. At Salamanca, 1932-35

98. At Madrid, 1933-35

99. Sess. VI, chap. 6.

100. IIIa, q. 85, a. 5.

101. Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 4; IIa IIae, q. 24, a. 3.

102. Et liquido nuper in sacris concilii Tridentini decretis apparuit.

103. Bull. ord. praed.: V, 155.

104. On the Ia IIae, Salamanca, 1577, and on the IIIa, Salamanca, 1578.

105. On the Ia, Salamanca, 1584-88 (recently reprinted, Valencia, 1934); on the IIa IIae, Salamanca, 1584-94; and on the IIIa (still in manuscript).

106. Published 1640-42

107. Published 1631, 1637, 1641 (new ed.: Paris, 1871).

108. Defensiones (latest edition, Tours, 1900-1908).

109. Bk. III, chap. 51.

110. Ibid.: chap. 94.

111. Bk IV, chap. 95. Note here some differences between him and Cajetan.

112. De entia et essentia; De analogia nominum. Noteworthy too are his opuscula on the sacrifice of the Mass.

113. Rome, 1888-1906.

114. De divinis nominibus, chap. 5, lect. 3. Quodl. XII, a. 3, 4: Commentary on St. John's Gospel (2: 4; 7: 30; 13: 1; 17: 1)

115. Cf. Dict. theol. cath.: s. v. Banez.

116. Re-edited at Paris, 1883; and recently again, by Beatus Reiser, O. S. B.: Turin, 1930-37.

117. Re-edited at Paris, 1883-86. The Benedictines of Solesmes are now again re-editing the work.

118. Fribourg, 1911.

119. Fribourg, three volumes, 1907.

120. 1908 and 1912.

121. 1910.

122. Two volumes, 1927.

Louis Bouyer: Enemy of Traditional Theology

Louis Bouyer: Enemy of Traditional Theology

Fr. Louis Bouyer, Neo-Modernist, not-quite-ex-Lutheran, Conciliar Peritus, unleashes his neo-modernist hogwash and tells Garrigou-Lagrange, Sertillanges, John of St Thomas, and the rest of the tradition of Scholastic Thomists what St Thomas really taught about God and Revelation.

Taken from Bouyer's The Invisible Father: Approaches to the Mystery of the Divinity, pp. 248-257, with comments by Don Paco in red.

Neo-Thomist Equivocations on Thomism

Let us take as an example one of the most venerable productions of the last Thomist, or rather, Neo-Thomist renaissance {note that the term 'neo-Thomist' is a pejorative one}: the long and great book of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, Dieu, son existence et sa nature [God: His Existence and His Nature].  In it, the theological teaching of St Thomas is analyzed, carefully taken to pieces and put together again, with a clarity and a fidelity most deserving of praise.  Yet few readers, putting down the book, will have escaped the impression that in it the God of the Bible and the Gospel has been reduced to a caput mortuum [dead head] of frozen abstractions.  And yet its author undoubtedly exemplified in his time that rare combination of theologian and eminent man of the spirit, and it was his constant concern to develop spirituality and theology in tandem.  How then, we must ask, could such a theologian have produced a summa about God frankly so overwhelmingly boring and, more especially, the speculative ramifications of which (practically) never contribute to a genuine enrichment of thought?  {Typical Neo-Modernist critique of everything traditional: "it is boring."  Cf. Von Balthasar, Raising the Bastions.  This is quite telling of their motives and of their unworthiness as theologians or even as churchmen.}

E. Gilson, with such Thomists in mind, was perfectly right in saying that one can’t see the forest for the trees, and that this is an inevitable result of their systematic effort to separate what is philosophical from their master’s theology, so as to reorganize and rebuild it, purportedly, according to its own innate exigencies.  It is at the very least surprising that disciples, beyond the Angelic Doctor, of Aristotle himself should have forgotten that order is of being.  Instead, they imposed an order on Thomas’ thought which was not his own, and thereby turned it into something quite different from his, even if (which is supposing a good deal, given such manipulating) the individual pieces were fully respected.  {Note that the neo-modernist finds Gilson to be on his side.}

It was not in fact by chance that St Thomas never separately systematized his philosophy {never mind about his commentaries on Aristotle!  They don’t count because they do not represent St Thomas’ philosophy, only Aristotle’s...} that he never detached it from Christian theology but always developed it within the latter.  However purely rational philosophical developments should be and remain, for St Thomas it was quite certain that they did not thereby become independent of the situation of the thinker producing them.  If the one philosophizing is a Christian, this will have an effect on his thought, even if, while philosophizing, he uses nothing but rational concepts and procedures accessible, at least in principle, to any and every man even unenlightened by revelation.  {Agreed, but St Thomas's philosophy can be found in his Commentaries on Aristotle exactly in that way: in a non-theological context.  Only there, in fact, does it follow its own properly rational principles.  The philosophy contained in the Summa is formally theology, and only materially philosophical.  This is something that Gilson and his followers are willingly blind to.}

The result is that when John of St Thomas, the first to do this, transformed Thomism by developing philosophy independently of and prior to the theology dealing with the Christian revelation, he inevitably created a different philosophy and a different theology, however careful he was to use nothing but elements taken straight from his master.  Even when he is scrupulously precise in repeating St Thomas’ words and key phrases, they no longer say the same thing.  {Bouyer, on the other hand, can't even use St Thomas' words themselves, because they would prove that he is in error.}

That this is true of “John of St Thomist” theology, {note the audacious ad hominem, a mockery of traditional Thomistic theology} right from its very beginning, is revealed by that theologian’s understanding of what, following St Thomas, he calls a “theological conclusion.”  According to him it is possible, even while adhering to a strict application of syllogistic reasoning, to have two kinds of theological conclusions—one flowing from two revealed premises, the other from one revealed and one philosophical premise.  And this latter kind by its very nature will widen the field, if not precisely of revelation as such, at least of the knowledge we can draw from it.  This may appear at first sight to be a quite innocuous and legitimate development of St Thomas’ idea of a theological conclusion.  In fact, it transforms it to the point of being unrecognizable.  The whole meaning of theological endeavor is at a stroke radically altered, and at the same time even our very conception of revelation.

For St Thomas there are not and cannot be theological conclusions which are not already comprised within revelation.  A theological conclusion is and can only be a revealed doctrinal affirmation of which one has established the logical relationship it has with other doctrinal affirmations of the same species.  The whole of theology moves within faith and so within revelation.  To suppose that it can evade it in order to increase its scope (!) is no longer to understand anything about revelation itself, {thus, pretty much all of post-Tridentine theology, which is founded on this doctrine, is unable to understand revelation} as if theology could ever flatter itself of having gone so far beyond revelation as to be able to complete it.

This in fact supposes that, according to John of St Thomas and those who have followed him, revelation is nothing but an accumulation of externally juxtaposed propositions, to which one can further add philosophical propositions, thus aspiring to enrich revelation by philosophico-theological hybrids.  It is of course this which purportedly justifies the separation of philosophy and of the theology concerned with the revealed datum, and the reconstruction of the first prior to the second, with, consequently, the naive expectation of “developing” the objects of revelation by artificially inseminating them with external philosophical propositions.  {Bouyer, you are disgusting.}  But at this point one is miles away from genuinely Thomist views of theology as the science of God, having its whole basis on his word.  One has in the first place lost sight of St Thomas’ strong sense of revelation as the communication of a single mystery {barf!} that of God himself, an organically coherent mystery {double barf!} which speculation can attempt to inventory, to analyze and synthesize but never exhaust, and even less indulge in the grotesque pretension of adding something to it to complete and develop it {Apparently, Bouyer never read the first question of the Summa: “Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason ... as extrinsic and probable arguments...” ST I.1.8 ad 2}.

Traveling on such a road—and this has been the mentality, more or less of Baroque Thomism, not to mention modern Neo-Thomism—one inevitably comes to prolong this now bloodless religious philosophy into a correspondingly depreciative theology of revelation.  Such a theology ceases to be able to vivify by the vision of faith, and at the same time refine and reform our merely human concepts, and it increasingly tends to yield to the disastrous policy of clearing out the Word of God of everything that cannot be circumscribed by or reduced to pre-formed concepts constructed without reference to the Word.

It is therefore not surprising if such so-called Thomism gives the impression that the philosophico-theological thought of St Thomas is nothing but a gigantic and futile exercise in tautology which, while claiming to explain and develop the statements of the faith, in fact eviscerates and disjoins them.  And it is worth emphasizing that if this can happen in the case of so distinguished a mind and so worthy a  man of the spirit as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, then how much worse it will be when this kind of philosophy and theology is taken up by some college rector whose chief concern is to bring out the “errors” of his colleagues, and either has no interior life or never dreams (quite rightly!) of nourishing it on his theology!

The Existential Character of Authentic Thomism

Once we have become aware of all of this, and drawn the moral, we are in a position to rediscover St Thomas’ God.  He is not simply that first unmoved mover of the universe, blithely indifferent to it, even disdainfully ignorant of its existence, and who in any case is only capable of referring everything outside and within himself to a hideous egoism or egotism expanded to infinite dimensions.  Such was Laberthonnière’s accusation.  The first thing we must realize is what E. Gilson exposed in a history of the Neo-Thomists, far more devastating than anything Laberthonnière ever wrote {Note: Gilson's critique of traditional Thomism is more devastating than that of a declared enemy of Thomism}, and without making the latter’s mistake of believing the Neo-Thomists when they claimed to be unfolding their master.  This is the fundamental misunderstanding which travesties the whole of Thomism from top to bottom and in particular St Thomas’ theology: that of transposing his thought from the most radical existentialism there has ever been to a deadly essentialism {as always, the critics of 'essentialist Thomism' never define either 'essentialism' or 'existentialism'; instead, you are expected to 'feel' what those terms mean}.  How could the God whose essence is to be precisely “Pure Act,” the very act of existing without any limitation, possibly be summed up by concepts?  {Here you are expected to 'feel' that essentialism has to do with ascribing attributes, or 'concepts', to God...  Ooh, those evil Thomists!}

But to realize, in the deepest sense, the significance of this starting-point, one must see St Thomas’ Metaphysics, not as simple, superficially modified Aristotelianism, but as what E. Gilson, fifty years ago, was so bold as to call “the metaphysics of Exodus,” without himself immediately grasping every consequence of that insight [The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, vol. 1, London, 1950, p. 51].  {So even Gilson was not as bright a Thomist as Bouyer!}

In other words, the point of anchorage and the spring-board for this whole metaphysic is the mysterious saying of the burning bush: “I am who am.”  This must not be hastily translated in the way that St Augustine did in his Soliloquies, still wrapped up as he was in the cocoon of his Neo-platonism: “I am the beinng who is always and forever.”  This is to stay with a platonizing essentialism, even though its contours have been practically pushed out of sight.  {Read: Augustine was moronic 'essentialist' who did not understand God.}  The phrase must be taken as St Thomas took it with a rigor no previous Christian thinker had approached: “I am what I am; I am the only one who can define the infinite, ever actual fullness of his existence.” {Note that this is Bouyer’s own amateurish expression, not St Thomas’.  And it falls desperately short of the Gilsonian existentialism which it tries to convey.  A better rendering would be: "I am he whose essence is to exist."}  This is what St Thomas meant practically every time he spoke of Ipsum Esse.

Yet at the same time one must emphasize the point so few recognize, namely, how laughably illusory {traditional Thomism is laughable now} are all those well-intentioned attempts to introduce more logic into St Thomas {Are you implying, Bouyer, that St Thomas cannot be improved or given more logical rigor?  Are you denying that philosophical and theological thought should develop?}.  We see Sertillanges, for instance, disarmingly doing his open best to expurge from St Thomas’ system any platonic left-overs, especially the theory of ideas...

The facile acceptance, then, of the commonly-used method of exposition introduced a discordance into Thomist theology.  To this we must add the congenital weakness of any theology which allows itself to turn, at least apparently, into a collection of questions, however ingeniously arranged.  {The scholastic method is bad?  Sorry, but I got the opposite impression from Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XII, etc., etc.}  It will inevitably come to treat the Word of God or revelation, as it will be called, as a stack of juxtaposed propositions which it will be the whole task of theology to put in logical order.  Experience has shown ad nauseam the effect of such an arrangement on pupils, if not on the master himself.  Docility to it has the disastrous result of dissipating the mystery of God and our freely-given association with his life, or at least of concealing it under a spider’s web of abstractions.  First, these last are superimposed upon the harmonious play of imaged expressions found in the Word of God.  Then, and soon, they replace them in fact, if not in principle...  {Of course, Bouyer could not leave out his Protestant residue: traditional Thomism is no good because it is un-biblical.}

The Early Modern Theory of Heat: "Calor ut Octo"? Historians, Please Help!

The Early Modern Theory of Heat: "Calor ut Octo"? Historians, Please Help!

As many of you know, I'm working on an English translation of Edouard Hugon's Cursus Philosophiae Thomisticae ("Thomistic  Philosophy Course"). I'm enjoying it immensely and I'm learning lots. But there is one passage with which I'm struggling; in particular, it's the expression "calor ut octo," which appears in a quote taken from John of St. Thomas, which is giving me trouble.  I have been able to figure out so far that it has to do with early-modern theories of the degrees of heat. I've consulted a number of reference works and experts on Thomistic thought, but I have nowhere found an explanation of this theory.  Doing a word study over some of the early modern Scholastics has led me to realize that each degree of heat is defined by some qualitative difference in the hot object (for example, if something is ignited, it is in the eight degree, but if it is just as warm as an animal's body, it is only in the first degree), and not by some quantitative difference (e.g., so many joules of kinetic energy, as we measure it today).  I have also come to the conclusion that "calor ut octo" should be translated as "heat in the eight degree."  Nonetheless, my curiosity has been aroused and I would like to learn more about the theory behind it.  So I'm throwing it out in the open hoping that some sage will illumine me, or at least that people who might have some knowledge  (or guess) on the topic can give me their two cents.

Here's the context of the expression "calor ut octo."  Speaking of the last disposition (ultima dispositio) that is required to be present in a subject for something new to be generated, Hugon points out that:

[...] Ultima dispositio procedit effective a forma genita et in novo composito recipitur, disponit tamen ad formam illam; unde posterior est forma in genere causae efficientis, prior vero in genere causae dispositivae et materialis.

Probatur. Accidentia sunt effective ab illa forma cujus sunt passiones et a qua dependent in esse. Atqui "ultima dispositio, v.g., calor ut octo, est accidens connexum cum forma ignis, ab illaque dependens in esse tanquam propria passio in ejus radice contenta, sicut clare videmus quod ignis genitus habet calorem ut octo tanquam proprietatem" (Joannes a S. Thoma, De generatione, q. I, art. VII).  Ergo ultima dispositio procedit effective a forma genita, et consequenter in novo composito suscipitur.

Here's what I have so far:

The last disposition proceeds from the generated form as from an efficient cause and is received in the new composite, but it is a disposition for that form; hence, the form is posterior in the genus of efficient cause, but it is prior in the genus of dispositive and material cause.

Proof. Accidents are proceed, as from an efficient cause, from the form of which they are passions and on which they depend in being (esse). But “the last disposition, e.g., heat in the eight degree is an accident connected with the form of fire, and is dependent upon that form in being (esse) as a proper passion contained in its root, as we clearly see that generated fire has heat in the eight degree as a property” (John of St Thomas, De generatione, q. I, art. VII).  Therefore, the last disposition proceeds effectively from the generated form, and consequently, it is received in the new composite.

Further, I did a word study of "gradus caloris" and "calor* ut" in a few early modern Scholastic authors, and I've found some interesting points:

-John of St. Thomas (1589-1644), author of the quote above, mentions in passing that:

(a) "calor ut octo includes many degrees," presumably all the other seven degrees. (Cursus philosophicus t. III, L. 4, C. 2: Sicut quia ad ignem requiritur calor ut octo tota illa dispositio per modum unius comparatur ad informationem formae ignis, licet calor ut octo plures gradus includat).

(b) "calor ut octo is in itself divisible but it is received indivisibly by the form of fire" (Ibid.: ... calor ut octo divisibilis est in se, et modo indivisibili respicitur a forma ignis).

(c) He also gives us an interesting explanation of how calor ut octo is transferred from an external object to our flesh and to our nerves.  (Cursus philosophicus t. III, L. 9, C. 7: "etiam calor ut octo potest sentiri, non solum qui est in ipso igne, sed qui communicatur carni antequam nervo. Communicatur autem carni comburendo illam, et sic cum incipit comburi, incipit quoque diffundi species caloris ut octo ad sensum et fit acerrimus dolor. Ut enim species transeat ad nervum, non requiritur, quod alteratio fiat in ipsomet nervo, sed sufficit, quod in ipsa carne ei coniuncta. In corporibus autem damnatis ignis applicatus carni sine alteratione physica et combustione speciem  caloris ut octo immittet in nervum, et praesertim quia ignis ille, ut diximus, etiam intra corpus ingredietur per poros.")

-The Salmanticenses (17th Century) imply that "calor ut octo" is the degree of heat needed for something to ignite (Cursus theologicus, T. 5, Tract. XIV, Q. 109).

-Cornelius a Lapide, SJ (1567-1637), the great biblical commentator, states that "all theologians hold with [St. Augustine], that the act or perfect contrition which includes the entire surrender of the heart to God, precedes, but at once brings with it justification and forgiveness of sin as its final result, in the same way as a certain amount of heat (calor ut octo) applied to wood, as a result produces actual fire in that wood."

-Francisco Suarez, SJ (1548-1617) is perhaps the most prolific on the subject:

(a) He states that calor ut octo is incompatible with water. (Disputatio XLV, Sectio II: "Et similiter calor ut octo videtur contrarius formae substantiali aquae, quam proinde expellit.")

(b) He speaks of different degrees of heat: calor ut unum, calor ut duo, calor ut tria, etc., calor usque ad quartum gradum, etc. (Ibid.: "Tertia ratio est quia, si tota forma mutaretur in intensione, impossibile esset alterationem esse continuam, quod infra probabimus esse falsum. Sequela patet, nam supponamus esse in subiecto calorem ut unum et intendi usque ad quartum gradum; si ergo calor ille, quando fit ut duo, amittitur omnino, et alius ut duo totus introducitur, et rursus, ut ille calor ut duo fiat ut tria, debet ipse expelli et alius perfectior introduci, interrogo quantum temporis duret in subiecto calor ut duo. Si enim duravit per aliquod tempus, ergo toto illo tempore cessavit alteratio, neque ultra processit, et ita non est continua intensio. Si vero duravit solum per instans, procedet ulterius argumentum ad gradum tertium; tunc enim impossibile est calorem ut tria durare tantum per instans, quia non dantur duo instantia immediata, et ideo necesse est quod duret per aliquod tempus intermedium inter duo instantia inceptionis et desitionis, in quo tempore non procedet intensio; nam, si procederet, iam corrumperet calorem ut tria ex dicta hypothesi; ergo impossibile est intensionem esse continuam, si in illa fit commutatio totius formae.)

(c) He questions the general view that the different degrees of heat are distinct qualities.  (Disputatio XLVI, Sectio I: [...] Et confirmatur ac explicatur; nam, si calor ut unum est qualitas indivisibilis, et similiter calor ut duo est etiam indivisibilis qualitas distincta a priori et perfectior illa eamque expellens a tali subiecto, et sic de caeteris gradibus, interrogo rursus an inter calorem ut unum et ut duo sit alia qualitas media perfectior quam calor ut unum et minus perfecta quam ut duo; idemque interrogandum erit in singulis gradibus, scilicet, an inter calorem ut duo et ut tria detur aliquod aliud medium, etc. Si enim non dantur aliae qualitates mediae, sed immediate fit transitus a prima qualitate, quae dicitur ut unum, ad secundam ut duo, et ab hac ad tertiam, et sic de aliis, evidens est alterationem non esse continuam, sed fieri quasi per tot saltus seu mutationes indivisibiles quot dicuntur esse gradus qualitatis, quia, cum omnes illae qualitates indivisibiles sint, ex natura rei indivisibiliter fiunt in eodem subiecto, et ideo fieri non possunt nisi per mutationes intrinsece indivisibiles, ex quibus non potest componi continua successio. Si autem inter qualitates primi et secundi gradus datur qualitas media, quaeram rursus an inter calorem ut unum et illam mediam qualitatem detur alia qualitas media [...]. Tertio sequitur ex dicta sententia, calorem, verbi gratia, ut unum, sicut potest facere plures calores ut unum in diversis subiectis, ita in uno et eodem posse; et consequenter non solum posse facere aequalem calorem, sed etiam intensiorem se. Sequela pases, quia illi calores sunt eiusdem omnino rationis, et diversitas subiectorum accidentaria est agenti, dummodo in uno et eodem sit capacitas. Dices non sufficere capacitatem sine privatione et dissimilitudine passi ad agens. Postquam vero calidum ut unum fecit unum gradum caloris in passo, iam illud est simile agenti et non habet privationem talis caloris et ideo pati non potest ab illo agente. Sed hoc non satisfacit, quia passum illud habet privationem alterius gradus, alias a nullo agente posset illum recipere; ergo ex hac parte non impeditur actio.Dissimilitudo autem inter agens et patiens ideo necessaria est quia, si passum habet totam formam similem formae agentis, non potest aliam omnino similem recipere; si autem hoc posset, nulla esset ratio aut fundamentum cur illa conditio esset necessaria. Ergo in praesenti, si idem subiectum est capax plurium graduum caloris omnino similium, etiamsi unum habeat, et in illo iam sit simile agenti, non est cur illa similitudo ulteriorem actionem impediat; nam, quatenus alio simili gradu caret, est sufficienter dissimile ut illum possit recipere. Atque ita fit ut calidum ut unum possit efficere calorem ut duo, et consequenter ut octo, si aliunde non sit maior resistentia passi. Fit etiam consequenter ut duo calida ut unum possint se invicem augere in caloreetiam usque ad ignitionem quae consequitur ad calorem ut octo. Immo etiam sequitur quod idem calor ut unum possit ex vi solius caloris se intendere usque ad duos et tres et quoscumque gradus, ut patet applicando argumentum factum. Nam quod suppositum aut pars eius agat in se, non erit impedimentum, si aliunde supponitur (ut revera illa sententia supponit) idem subiectum secundum idem posse simul esse in actu formali respectu unius gradus et in potentia etiam formali ad alium gradum omnino similem.)

Any input would be appreciated!

366th Anniversary of the Death of John of St. Thomas

366th Anniversary of the Death of John of St. Thomas

John of St. Thomas, OP on the Division, Order, and Necessity of Logic
From John of St. Thomas, OP - Outlines of Formal Logic, pp. 26-7 (available through ITOPL):

(Click images to enlarge.)

Birthday of John of St. Thomas, OP (1589-1644)

Birthday of John of St. Thomas, OP (1589-1644)

From Garrigou-Lagrange, OP - Reality, Ch. 3: "The Thomistic Commentators"*:

John of St. Thomas wrote a very valuable Cursus philosophicus thomisticus* [116]. Subsequent authors of philosophic manuals, E. Hugon, OP*, J. Gredt, OSB*, and X. Maquart, rest largely on him. J. Maritain likewise finds in them much inspiration. In John's theological work, Cursus theologicus, [117] we find disputationes on the great questions debated at his time. He compares the teaching of St. Thomas with that of others, especially with that of Suarez, of Vasquez, of Molina. John is an intuitionist, even a contemplative, rather than a dialectician. At the risk of diffusiveness, he returns often to the same idea, to sound its depths and irradiations. He may sound repetitious, but this continual recourse to the same principles, to these high leitmotifs, serves well to lift the penetrating spirit to the heights of doctrine. John insists repeatedly on the following doctrines: analogy of being, real distinction between essence and existence, obediential potency, divine liberty, intrinsic efficaciousness of divine decrees and of grace, specification of habits and acts by their formal object, the essential supernaturalness of infused virtue, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and infused contemplation. John should be studied also on the following questions: the personality of Christ, Christ's grace of union, Christ's habitual grace, the causality of the sacraments, the transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass.

Notes:
116. Re-edited at Paris, 1883; and recently again, by Beatus Reiser, O. S. B.: Turin, 1930-37.*
117. Re-edited at Paris, 1883-86. The Benedictines of Solesmes are now again re-editing the work.


*Available through the Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library (ITOPL).