Christ and Spirituality in St. Thomas Aquinas: A New Book by Fr. Torrell

Thanks to The Catholic University of America Press and translator, Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P., a fascinating new collection of essays by noted Aquinas scholar, Fr. Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., is now available in English.  This is the second volume in the new Thomistic Ressourcement Series.

The essays in the volume treat diverse aspects of Aquinas’ theology, including: theology and sanctity, friendship, charity, prayer and Aquinas’ spirituality, configuration to Christ, the priesthood, and preaching.  Throughout the text Fr. Torrell carefully underscores the deep and pervasive union of faith, spirituality, and scientific rigor in Aquinas’ approach to theology.

Digital edition of the works of Albert the Great

The Albertus Magnus Institute in Bonn (Germany), responsible for the critical edition of Saint Albert the Great, has now prepared a digital edition of the 28 volumes which since 1951 have appeared. Here you can download the English-German flyer with detailed information on the use of this digital edition. Free access to a trial version is available here.

As a complement to this ‘Editio digitalis’ the ‘Alberti Magni e-corpus’ has been available for some time, which focuses on the volumes not yet critically edited and where one can download both the Borgnet and the Jammy editions.

Comment

Jörgen Vijgen

DR. JÖRGEN VIJGEN holds academic appointments in Medieval and Thomistic Philosophy at several institutions in the Netherlands. His dissertation, “The status of Eucharistic accidents ‘sine subiecto’: An Historical Trajectory up to Thomas Aquinas and selected reactions,” was written under the direction of Fr. Walter Senner, O.P. at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome, Italy and published in 2013 by Akademie Verlag (now De Gruyter) in Berlin, Germany.

La ciencia tomista Publishes General Index That Covers a Century

The legendary journal of Spanish Thomism, La ciencia tomista, has published a comprehensive index for its now-100 year run. Wow. The issue’s Presentation can be found here.

Are you sure that in your lit-search you covered everything?

'Author' and 'Authority' in Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian Theology

Fr. John Baptist Ku receiving the Dissertation Prize from Dr. Roger Nutt (photo by Forrest Wallace)On Friday, October 28th, Fr. John Baptist Ku of the Dominican House of Studies delivered the annual Aquinas Lecture at Ave Maria University to a standing room only crowd.  The Aquinas Lecture is delivered each year by the recipient of the Aquinas Center’s Dissertation Prize.  Fr Ku’s lecutre, “God the Father in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas,” presented the central contribution of his dissertation on Aquinas’ theology of God the Father.  Below is a series of texts from Aquinas’ opera provided by Fr. Ku that highlight the unique way that Aquinas uses the terms “author” and “authority” in his theology of the inner Triune life of God. 

We are deeply grateful to Fr. Ku for his fine lecture and the generouos amount of time that he spent with our faculty and students during his visit to Ave Maria.

 

  1.  “Author” and “Authority”

A.1.    Among the divine persons, only the Father is the author

But the word “author” adds to the meaning of a principle that it is not from another; and therefore the Father alone is said to be an author, although the Son too is called a principle notionally.[1]

[Eternity] has in its meaning as well the absence of a principle, and in this way it accords with the property of the Father that is fitting to him insofar as he is an author or not from a principle, namely innascibility.[2]

Christ wanted to use prayer to the Father in order to give us an example of praying and to show that the Father is the author from whom he proceeds eternally according to divine nature and from whom according to human nature he possesses every good that he has.[3]

Although the Word is without beginning in time, nevertheless he is not without a principle or author, for he was with God as his author.[4]

The aforesaid Doctors confirm that the Son is the author of the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius says in his Letter to Serapio: “The Apostle attributes what the Spirit works and accomplishes in him, to the Son as his author—as the Son attributes those works he himself does, to God the Father as his author.” But the authority of one divine person with respect to another is only insofar as one is from the other eternally.[5]

When Peter of Tarentaise says that “it does not follow that because the Father is the author both mediately and immediately, therefore he is more truly author—rather it follows that he is the author in another way,” if he takes this absolutely, it is indeed false. If he takes this relatively then in one way it is true and in another way it is false: because the relation by which the Son is a principle of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son. Hence as far as this relation is concerned, the way of relating is the same, but the relation by which the Son is from the Father is proper to him. In this way, it can be said that the Son is the author of the Holy Spirit in a different way than the Father is, insofar as the Son has this from another, but the Father does not. And similarly it can be said of all things which belong to the Father and the Son, because everything that the Son has is from the Father but the Father has them from no one.[6]

When Hilary says that the Holy Spirit is “from the Father and the Son as authors,” it should be explained that the substantive stands for the adjective.[7]

The Father is the “author of the procession by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”[8]

Among the Latins, it is not customary to call the Father the cause of the Son or the Holy Spirit, but only the principle or author.[9]

A.2.    With respect to the economy, all the divine persons are the “author”

Paul brings in as witnesses God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ… . And therefore he brings in the author of life who gives life to all things. But he speaks of God, who is the whole Trinity, who is the author of life.[10] 

Moreover, Paul shows who the author of these goods [grace and peace] is, adding “from God the Father, etc.” And these two goods can be distinguished in two ways because when he says “from God the Father,” it can be understood as the whole Trinity. For although the person of the Father is said to be the Father of Christ by nature, nevertheless the whole Trinity is our Father by creation and governance… . Therefore the goods come from God our Father, that is, from the whole Trinity… .

Likewise when he says “from God our Father,” the person of the Father alone can be understood; and although the whole Trinity is our Father, as has been said, nevertheless the person of the Father is our Father by appropriation.[11]

The cause and authority of the goods [grace and peace] is God the Father as author, insofar as he is God.[12]

Christ indeed wanted to suffer what he suffered, for that time, but he nevertheless wanted the glory of the body, which he did not yet have, to follow the passion. This glory he expected from the Father as the author. And therefore it is fitting that he asked him for it.[13]

Therefore adoption, though common to the whole Trinity, is nevertheless appropriated to the Father as the author, to the Son as the exemplar, and to the Holy Spirit as the one imprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar.[14]

The man Christ paid the price of our redemption immediately, but by the command of the Father as the primordial author.[15]

“At that time, Jesus responded: ‘I thank you, Father … .’” In the passage above [11:21-24], the Lord rebukes the infidelity of the crowds. Now he gives thanks for the faith of the disciples and other believers. And first he gives thanks to the Father as the author. Second, he shows that he has the same power when he says: “all things have been given to me by my Father.”[16]

In saying ‘he sent me,’ Christ indicates that the Father is the author of the Incarnation.[17]

It is fitting to the Son to be the “author of this sanctification.”[18]

The sacrifice of the New Law, that is, the Eucharist, contains Christ himself, who is the author of sanctification.[19]

But Christ’s soul is moved by God through grace, not only so that he will come to the glory of eternal life, but also so that he will lead others to it, insofar as he is the head of the Church and the author of human salvation … .[20]

It was fitting that the Father should send the author of salvation, namely the Son … to lead many sons to glory through himself.[21]

And thus “grace” is in the nominative case. Now, Christ is called “grace” because he is the author of grace.[22]

And when he says “who gave himself, etc.,” it is as if he says, therefore Christ is the author of grace and peace … .[23]

Not that peace is a God, as those pagans used to say, but that Christ is called the God of peace because he is the giver and lover of peace. Jn 14:27: “My peace I give to you,” etc. 1 Cor 14:33: “He is not a God of conflict but of peace.” Rom 5:5: “The love of God has been poured in our hearts,” etc. He is also the author of peace… .[24]

The author and giver of spiritual food is Christ.[25]

And who is the author? Certainly, the Holy Spirit. “For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.”[26]

So, it was fitting that even the invisible missions of the divine persons be manifested by visible creatures. Nevertheless the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifested differently. For it belongs to the Holy Spirit, insofar as he proceeds as Love, to be the gift of sanctification; but it belongs to the Son, insofar he is the principle of the Holy Spirit, to be the author of this sanctification. And therefore the Son was sent visibly as the author of sanctification but the Holy Spirit as the sign of sanctification.[27]

The Holy Spirit is the author of prophecy (ST II-II, q. 172, a. 6, ad 1, De Veritate, q. 12, a. 10, obj. 7: prophetiae auctor), of Scripture (De Potentia, q.  4, a. 1, corp., Quodlibet VII, q. 6, a. 1, ad 5, Quodlibeta 7, q. 6, a. 3, corp., In Isaiam, lec. 1, In Psalmos, Prologue and part 44, #1: auctor divinae Scripturae), of law (In II ad Cor., ch. 3, lec. 3: auctor legis), of life (In Ioan., ch. 6, lec. 4, In ad Gal., ch. 6, lec. 2: auctor vitae), of gifts (Super I Cor. 12:11: actor donorum), of graces (CT I, ch. 219, Super I ad Cor. xi-xvi, ch. 12, lec. 1, Super I Cor. 12:4: gratiarum auctor), of perfect human action (ST III, q. 41, a. 2, ad 2: perfecti operis auctor), and of Christ’s conception and birth (In Matt. 1 l:4: generationis actorem; actor conceptionis).[28]

 

B.1. Among the divine persons, the Father and the Son have authority

For the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father mutually. Nevertheless, the Father does not generate the Son and the Son the Father mutually. And this is what Dionysius adds, that “the Father alone is the supersubstantial source of deity”—as in a source, authority is understood, or a principle not from a principle.[29] 

The Father has “first authority.”[30]

Four points … show that the authority of spiration is in the Father. First, because the Holy Spirit is said to proceed principally from the Father. Second, because he is said to proceed properly from him … . Third, because the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father through the Son … . Fourth, because sometimes only the Father is named in the procession of the Holy Spirit … .[31]

The Holy Spirit is said to be principally from the Father because the authority of spiration is in the Father, from whom even the Son has spirative power.[32]

In every mission, there must be an authority of someone over him who is sent. Now among the divine persons there is only authority according to origin; and therefore it is not fitting to a divine person to be sent unless he is from another, with respect to whom authority over the former can be specified. And therefore the Holy Spirit and the Son are said to be sent but not the Father or the Trinity itself.[33]

And in this way, the Holy Spirit is given only by the Father and the Son insofar as they have authority over him, not indeed of dominion but of origin because he proceeds from both.[34]

But the sender has an authority over the one sent. Therefore it is necessary to say that the Son has an authority with respect to the Holy Spirit… . But the Holy Spirit did not assume a created nature according to which he could be said to be sent by the Son, or according to which the Son could be said to have authority with respect to him. Therefore, it is conceded that the Son has authority over the Holy Spirit with respect to the eternal person.[35]

Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be said to be the Son’s insofar as the Holy Spirit is a divine person. Thus, either he is said to be his absolutely, or he is said to be his as his Spirit. If absolutely, then there must be some authority of the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit… . And the same follows if the Holy Spirit is said to be the Son’s as his Spirit, because “Spirit,” insofar as it is a personal name, implies a relation of origin to the one spirating, as “Son” does to the one generating.[36]

For if all things that are the Father’s are also the Son’s, it is necessary that the Father’s authority, according to which he is the principle of the Holy Spirit, also be the Son’s. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit receives what is the Father’s from the Father, so he receives what is the Son’s from the Son.[37]

Macedonius “denied the Son’s authority of spirating a divine person when he said that the Holy Spirit was a creature.”[38] 

 

B.2.    With respect to the economy, all the divine persons have authority

 

Moreover the cause and authority of the goods [grace and peace] is God the Father as author, insofar as he is God, and the whole Trinity, which is called the God of all things through creation.[39] 

The work of the conception is indeed common to the whole Trinity; nevertheless it is attributed in some way to individual persons. For authority is attributed to the Father with respect to the person of the Son, who assumed [human nature] to himself through this kind of conception. And this assumption of the flesh is attributed to the Son, but the formation of the body that was assumed by the Son is attributed to the Holy Spirit.[40]

Therefore the authority of judging is attributed to the Father insofar as he is the principle of the Son, but the essence itself of the judgment is attributed to the Son who is the Art and Wisdom of the Father. That is, as the Father made all things through his Son, insofar as he is his Art, so also he judges all things through his Son, insofar as he is his Wisdom and Truth.[41]

Therefore, the Son alone will appear, who alone has an assumed nature. Therefore, he alone judges, who alone will appear to all, but nevertheless [he judges] by the authority of the Father.[42]

Jesus’ judiciary authority leads them to believe the Christ; and therefore he adds, “I have much to say and judge about you,” as if to say, “I have the authority to judge you.”[43]

“To be seated with” or “he sits with” can be referred to Christ insofar as he is God; and he thus sits with [the Father] because he has the same authority of judging that the Father has but is distinct in person.[44]

The visible mission [of the Holy Spirit] was made to Christ in baptism under the appearance of a dove, which is a fertile animal, to show in Christ the authority of giving of grace … .[45]

Consequently, when he says, “which [food] the Son of man will give you,” he indicates the giver of the spiritual food. First, he indicates the author of this food; second, he manifests whence he has the authority of feeding.[46]

“I desire” [in Jn 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am”] … indicates authority if we refer this to Christ’s divine will, which is the same as the will of the Father; for by his will he justifies and saves men … . If we refer this to Christ’s human will, it indicates merit, for Christ’s human will merits our salvation.[47]

For they were sent by Christ as if bearing his own authority and lot. Jn 20:21: “As the Father has sent me, so also I send you,” that is, with the fullness of authority.[48]

“He who receives him” whom I send, “receives me,” whose authority is in them; and “he who receives me,” receives the Father, whose authority is in me.[49]

Because the Son does these works by his own authority, but he who believes in him does them by asking [the Son].”[50]

Because the Son receives equality from the Father and not conversely, therefore the Son is equaled to the Father and not conversely.[51]

It is not “an insult to the only-begotten God that the Father is the innascible God to him … because he is the only-begotten of the Father, and through generation he receives the whole nature of the Father.” [52]


[1] I Sent., d. 29, q. 1, a. 1, corp.: “Sed nomen auctoris addit super rationem principii hoc quod est non esse ab aliquo; et ideo solus Pater auctor dicitur, quamvis etiam Filius principium dicatur notionaliter.”

[2] I Sent., d. 31, q. 2, a. 1, corp.: “[Aeternitas] Habet etiam in ratione sua privationem principii, et in hoc convenit cum proprietate Patris, quae competit sibi secundum quod est auctor, vel non de principio, scilicet innascibilitate.” 

[3] ST III, q. 21, a. 3, corp.: “Christus ad hoc uti voluit oratione ad Patrem, ut nobis daret exemplum orandi; et ut ostenderet Patrem suum esse auctorem a quo et aeternaliter processit secundum divinam naturam, et secundum humanam naturam ab eo habet quidquid boni habet.”

[4] In Ioan. 1:1 (lec. 1, no. 48): “Licet Verbum careat initio durationis, non tamen caret principio vel auctore: erat enim apud Deum, ut apud auctorem.”

[5] CEG II, ch. 23: “‘Quod Filius est auctor Spiritus Sancti.’ Habetur etiam a praedictis doctoribus quod Filius sit auctor Spiritus Sancti. Dicit enim Athanasius in Epistola ad Serapionem ‘Apostolus quae in eo operatur Spiritus et efficit Filio auctori eius attribuit, sicut et Filius quae ipse facit opera suo auctori Deo Patri attribuit.’ Auctoritas autem in divinis personis unius ad alteram non est nisi secundum quod aeternaliter una est ab alia; est ergo Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter a Filio.”

[6] Resp. de 108 art., q. 27: “Quod vero XXVII proponitur, ‘Non sequitur quod sit magis auctor sed alio modo auctor, quia et mediate et immediate,’ si modum absolutum intelligit, falsum est. Si autem intelligat modum relatiuum, quantum ad aliquid uerum est, et quantum ad aliquid falsum: quia relatio qua Filius est principium Spiritus Sancti, est communis Patri et Filio, unde quantum ad hanc, idem est modus relatiuus; sed relatio qua Filius est a Patre propria est ei. Secundum hunc modum potest dici, quod Filius alio modo est auctor Spiritus Sancti quam Pater; in quantum Filius hoc habet ab alio, non autem Pater. Et similiter potest dici de omnibus que conueniunt Patri et Filio, quia omnia Filius habet a Patre, et Pater a nullo.”

[7] ST I, q. 36, a. 4, ad 7: “Quod vero Hilarius dicit, quod Spiritus Sanctus est a Patre et Filio auctoribus, exponendum est quod ponitur substantivum pro adiectivo.”

[8] I Sent., d. 12, divisio textus: “‘Inde est etiam quod veritas ostendens Patrem esse auctorem processionis qua procedit Spiritus sanctus a Filio.’”

[9] CEG I, ch. 1: “Apud Latinos autem non est consuetum quod Pater dicatur causa Filii vel Spiritus Sancti, sed solum principium vel auctor.”

[10] In I ad Tim. 6:14 (lec. 2, no. 261): “Testes inducit Deum Patrem, et Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum… . et ideo inducit auctorem vitae, qui vivificat omnia. Dicit autem Deo, qui est tota Trinitas, qui est auctor vitae.”

[11] In II ad Cor. 1:2 (lec. 1, nos. 9-10): “Quis autem sit auctor horum bonorum ostendit, subdens a Deo Patre, etc. Et haec duo possunt dupliciter distingui, quia cum dicit a Deo Patre, potest intelligi pro tota Trinitate. Nam, licet persona Patris dicatur pater Christi per naturam, tamen tota Trinitas est pater noster per creationem et gubernationem… . A Deo ergo patre nostro, id est a tota Trinitate proveniunt bona… . Item cum dicit a Deo Patre nostro, potest intelligi persona Patris solum; et, licet tota Trinitas sit pater noster, ut dictum est, tamen persona Patris est pater noster per appropriationem.”

[12] In ad Gal. 1:3 (lec. 1, no. 13): “Causa autem et auctoritas bonorum est Deus Pater tamquam auctor, inquantum Deus, et tota Trinitas, quae dicitur Deus omnium per creationem.”

[13] ST III, q. 21, a. 3, ad 2: “Christus volebat quidem pati illa quae patiebatur, pro tempore illo: sed nihilominus volebat ut, post passionem, gloriam corporis consequeretur, quam nondum habebat. Quam quidem gloriam expectabat a Patre sicut ab auctore. Et ideo convenienter ab eo ipsam petebat.”

[14] ST III, q. 23, a. 2, ad 3: “Et ideo adoptatio, licet sit communis toti Trinitati, appropriatur tamen Patri ut auctori, Filio ut exemplari, Spiritui Sancto ut imprimenti in nobis huius similitudinem exemplaris.”

[15] ST III, q. 48, a. 5, ad 2: “pretium redemptionis nostrae homo Christus solvit immediate: sed de mandato Patris sicut primordialis auctoris.”

[16] In Matt. 11:25 (lec. 3, no. 955): “‘In illo tempore respondens Iesus dixit: Confiteor tibi, Pater’ etc.’ Supra Dominus redarguerat infidelitatem turbarum; nunc gratias agit de fide discipulorum et aliorum credentium. Et primo reddit gratias Patri tamquam auctori; secundo ostendit eamdem potestatem se habere, ibi ‘Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo.’”

[17] In Ioan. 7:29 (lec. 3, no. 1065): “Per hoc vero quod dicit ‘Ipse me misit,’ insinuat Patrem auctorem incarnationis.”

[18] ST I, q. 43, a. 7, corp.: “Filio … competit esse sanctificationis huius Auctorem.” The same appellation for the Son appears in ad 4.

[19] ST I-II, q. 101, a. 4, ad 2: “Ad secundum dicendum quod sacrificium novae legis, idest Eucharistia, continet ipsum Christum, qui est sanctificationis auctor.”

[20] ST I-II, q. 114, a. 6, corp.: “Sed anima Christi mota est a Deo per gratiam non solum ut ipse perveniret ad gloriam vitae aeternae, sed etiam ut alios in eam adduceret, inquantum est caput Ecclesiae et Auctor salutis humanae.”

[21] In ad Heb. 2:10 (lec. 3, no. 128): “Decebat ergo quod Pater auctorem salutis mitteret, scilicet Filium, ut expositum est, qui multos filios adduxerat per ipsum in gloriam.”

[22] In ad Heb. 2:9 (lec. 3, no. 124): “Et sic gratia est nominativi casus. Dicitur autem Christus gratia, quia auctor est gratiae.”

[23] In ad Gal. 1:4 (lec. 1, no. 14): “Et quantum ad hoc dicit ‘qui dedit semetipsum,’ etc., quasi dicat: Ideo Christus est auctor gratiae et pacis.”

[24] In II ad Cor. 13:11 (lec. 3, no. 540): “Non quod pax sit unus Deus, sicut illi dicebant, sed ideo Christus dicitur Deus pacis, quia est dator pacis et amator. Io. xiv, 27: ‘Pacem meam do vobis,’ etc. I Cor. xiv, 33: ‘Non est Deus dissensionis, sed pacis.’ Rom. v, 5: ‘Charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris,’ etc. Ipse etiam est auctor pacis.”

[25] In Ioan. 6:27 (lec. 3, no. 897): “Auctor autem et dator cibi spiritualis est Christus.”

[26] In Matt.10:20 (lec. 2, no. 849): “Et quis est auctor? Certe Spiritus sanctus. ‘Non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus Patris vestri qui loquitur in vobis.’”

[27] ST I, q. 43, a. 7, corp.: “ita conveniens fuit ut etiam invisibiles missiones divinarum Personarum secundum aliquas visibiles creaturas manifestarentur. Aliter tamen Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Nam Spiritui Sancto, inquantum procedit ut Amor, competit esse sanctificationis donum: Filio autem, inquantum est Spiritus Sancti principium, competit esse sanctificationis huius Auctorem. Et ideo Filius visibiliter missus est tanquam sanctificationis Auctor: sed Spiritus Sanctus tanquam sanctificationis indicium.”

[28] (blank placeholder).

[29] In Dionysii de Div. Nom., ch. 2, lec. 2 (no. 155): “Mutuo enim Pater est in Filio et Filius in Patre, non tamen mutuo Pater generat Filium et Filius Patrem; et hoc est quod subdit quod solus Pater est fons supersubstantialis Deitatis, ut in fonte, auctoritas intelligatur sive principium non de principio.”

[30] I Sent., d. 15, q. 2, a. 1, ad 3: “prima auctoritas.”

[31] I Sent., d. 12, divisio textus: “quatuor … ostendunt auctoritatem spirationis in Patre. Primo per hoc quod dicitur Spiritus sanctus a Patre principaliter procedere. Secundo ex hoc quod dicitur proprie procedere de ipso … . Tertio per hoc quod dicitur Spiritus sanctus esse a Patre per Filium … . Quarto per hoc quod in processione Spiritus sancti aliquando solus Pater nominatur.”

[32] I Sent., d. 12, q. un., a. 2, ad 3: “Ad tertium dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur esse principaliter a Patre, quia in Patre est auctoritas spirationis, a quo etiam habet Filius virtutem spirativam.”

[33] I Sent., d. 15, q. 2, a. 1, corp.: “Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est [d. 1, q. 1, a. 1], in omni missione oportet quod ponatur aliqua auctoritas alicujus ad ipsum missum. In divinis autem personis non est auctoritas nisi secundum originem; et ideo nulli personae divinae convenit mitti, nisi ei quae est ab alio, respectu cujus potest in alio designari auctoritas; et ideo Spiritus sanctus et Filius dicuntur mitti, et non Pater vel Trinitas ipsa.”

[34] In ad Gal. 3:5 (lec. 2, no. 127): “et hoc modo Spiritus Sanctus datur a solo Patre et Filio secundum quod eius auctoritatem habent, non quidem dominii sed originis, quia ab utroque procedit.”

[35] SCG IV, ch. 24 (p. 90, col. 2, line 11; no. 3607): “Mittens autem auctoritatem aliquam habet in missum. Oportet igitur dicere quod Filius habeat aliquam auctoritatem respectu Spiritus Sancti… . Spiritus autem Sanctus non assumpsit naturam creatam, ut secundum eam possit dici missus a Filio, vel Filius habere auctoritatem respectu ipsius. Relinquitur igitur quod respectu personae aeternae Filius super Spiritum Sanctum auctoritatem habeat.”

[36] De Potentia, q. 10, a. 4, corp.: “Oportet ergo quod dicatur esse Spiritus sanctus Filii, in quantum est divina persona. Aut ergo dicitur esse absolute eius, aut dicitur esse eius ut spiritus eius. Si autem absolute, tunc oportet quod sit aliqua auctoritas Filii respectu Spiritus sancti… . Et idem sequitur, si dicatur Spiritus sanctus esse Filii ut spiritus eius; quia Spiritus, secundum quod est nomen personale, importat relationem originis ad spirantem, sicut Filius ad generantem.”

[37] SCG IV, ch. 24 (p. 91, col. 1, line 8; no. 3608): “si enim omnia quae Patris sunt et Filii sunt, oportet quod auctoritas Patris, secundum quam est principium Spiritus Sancti, sit et Filii. Sicut ergo Spiritus Sanctus accipit de eo quod est Patris a Patre, ita accipit de eo quod est Filii a Filio.” CEG II, ch. 3: “Si enim omnia quae sunt Patris sunt etiam Filii, oportet quod auctoritas Patris secundum quam est principium Spiritus Sancti sit etiam Filii; sicut ergo Spiritus Sanctus accipit de eo quod est Patris a Patre, ita accipit de eo quod est Filii a Filio.”

[38] CEG II, Prol.: “dum Spiritum Sanctum creaturam esse dixit, Filio subtraxit auctoritatem spirandi divinam personam.”

[39] In ad Gal. 1:3 (lec. 1, no. 13): “Causa autem et auctoritas bonorum est Deus Pater tamquam auctor, inquantum Deus, et tota Trinitas, quae dicitur Deus omnium per creationem.”

[40] ST III, q. 32, a. 1, ad 1: “opus conceptionis commune quidem est toti Trinitati, secundum tamen modum aliquem attribuitur singulis Personis. Nam Patri attribuitur auctoritas respectu personae Filii, qui per huiusmodi conceptionem sibi assumpsit; Filio autem attribuitur ipsa carnis assumptio; sed Spiritui Sancto attribuitur formatio corporis quod assumitur a Filio.”

[41] ST III, q. 59, a. 1, ad 2: “Sic igitur auctoritas iudicandi attribuitur Patri inquantum est principium Filii; sed ipsa ratio iudicii attribuitur Filio, qui est ars et sapientia Patris: ut scilicet, sicut Pater fecit omnia per Filium suum inquantum est ars eius, ita etiam iudicat omnia per Filium suum inquantum est sapientia et veritas eius.”

[42] In Ioan. 5:22 (lec. 4, no. 763): “Apparebit ergo solus Filius, qui solus habet naturam assumptam. Ipse ergo solus iudicat, qui solus omnibus apparebit; sed tamen auctoritate Patris.”

[43] In Ioan. 8:26 (lec. 3, no. 1185): “inducit eos ad credendum Christo iudiciaria eius auctoritas; et ideo subdit ‘Multa habeo de vobis loqui et iudicare’; quasi dicat: Habeo auctoritatem vos iudicandi.”

[44] In ad Heb. 8:1 (lec. 1, no. 381): “Hoc autem quod dicitur consedere, vel consedet, potest referri ad Christum, secundum quod est Deus; et sic consedet quia habet eamdem auctoritatem iudicandi, quam habet Pater, sed distinctus est in persona.”

[45] ST I, q. 43, a. 7, ad 6: “Facta autem est missio visibilis ad Christum, in baptismo quidem sub specie columbae, quod est animal fecundum, ad ostendendum in Christo auctoritatem donandi gratiam … .”

[46] In Ioan. 6:27 (lec. 3, no. 897): “Consequenter cum dicit ‘Quem Filius hominis dabit vobis,’ ponit spiritualis cibi datorem: et primo ponit auctorem huius cibi; secundo manifestat unde habeat auctoritatem cibandi.”

[47] In Ioan. 17:24 (lec. 6, no. 2254): “cum dicit ‘Volo’: quod potest designare auctoritatem, vel meritum. Auctoritatem quidem si intelligamus de voluntate eius inquantum est Deus, quae est eadem cum voluntate Patris: nam sua voluntate homines iustificat et salvat … . Meritum autem designat, si intelligamus de voluntate eius inquantum est homo, quae est meritoria salutis nostrae.”

[48] In ad Rom. 1:5 (lec. 4, no. 61): “Sunt enim a Christo missi quasi eius auctoritatem et vicem gerentes, Io. xx, 21: ‘Sicut misit me Pater et ego mitto vos,’ id est cum plenitudine auctoritatis.” Cf. also In ad Rom. 1:1 (lec. 1, no. 22): “Apostolus enim idem est quod missus, secundum illud Io. xx, 21: ‘Sicut misit me Pater et ego mitto vos,’ scilicet ex eadem dilectione et cum eadem auctoritate.”

[49] In Ioan. 13:20 (lec. 3, no. 1794): “‘qui accipit eum’ quem ego mitto, ‘accipit me,’ cuius auctoritas est in eis; et ‘qui me accipit,’ accipit Patrem, cuius auctoritas est in me.”

[50] In Ioan. 14:13 (lec. 3, no. 1904): “quia Filius facit ipsa opera auctoritate propria, sed qui credit in eum, facit ipsa cum interpellatione.”

[51] I Sent., d. 31, expositio textus: “et quia Filius accipit aequalitatem a Patre et non e converso, ideo Filius coaequatur Patri et non e converso.” Thomas repeats this in ST I, q. 42, a. 1, ad 3: “Quia igitur Filius accipit a Patre unde est aequalis ei, et non e converso, propter hoc dicimus quod Filius coaequatur Patri, et non e converso.”

[52] I Sent., d. 5, expositio textus: “‘Numquid unigenito Deo contumelia est Patrem sibi innascibilem Deum esse?’ … Sed non sequitur: quia ipse est unigenitus Patris, et per generationem totam naturam Patris accepit.”

Aquinas in a Bottle: An Interview with Donny Sebastiani Jr., Part 1

The Sebastiani family has been making and selling wine in California for over one hundred years. The latest incarnation of the family business, Don Sebastiani and Sons, was launched in 2001 as an international wine negociant. Several years ago the company introduced the “Aquinas” label of Napa Valley wines. Thinking that our readers might be interested in knowing more about the Aquinas line, last month we spoke with Donny Sebastiani, Jr., who is the executive director of Don Sebastiani and Sons.  We are publishing the interview in two parts. The first part is below. The second part will appear next week.

***

Thomistica.net: How long has your family been in the wine business?

Donny Sebastiani: We have been, as a group, as clan, making wine for a little more than a hundred years, at least in California. My great grandfather, Samuele Sebastiani emigrated from Italy, came to New York, and eventually made his way to Sonoma, where he began making wine, which he sold to his neighbors. This was right around 1904 and that is when we think of the Sebastiani winery as beginning. He ran the winery and got involved in a lot of other things too; he was a pretty entrepreneurial guy. He was deep in the real estate around the city of Sonoma. He was a very successful guy even during the Depression. He did on a local scale what Roosevelt was doing on a national scale with make-work projects. He was heavy in cash and put people to work building the local grocery store, skating rink, hotel, and so on. Even when I was a kid back in the 1980s the Sebastiani name was all over the city. There was the Sebastiani Hotel, the Sebastiani Apartments, the Sebastiani Theater, etc.

But to follow the trail of the winery – when my great grandfather died in the mid-1940s my grandfather August Sebastiani took over the operation. At that time they were mostly making wine for other wineries to bottle. My grandfather continued that business but expanded it and started bottling other people’s wine and eventually began bottling wine with the Sebastiani label.

My grandfather passed in 1980 and my Uncle Sam ran the business for five or six years, my dad ran it for fifteen years, and my aunt ran it for five or six years after that. When my dad took it over it was about a two million case winery and he grew it to an eight million case operation in fifteen years. He purchased a couple of wineries out in the Central Valley for popularly priced lower-end wine but then, in 2001, sold them to Constellation, the second biggest wine company in the US. In 2008 Sebastiani Vineyards and Winery was sold to Bill Foley.

After the sale of the Central Valley assets in 2001 we started Don Sebastiani and Sons, which is the company that we have today.

Thomistica.net: Did you always want to be in the wine business or did you have other career ideas at some point?

Donny Sebastiani: When I was eighteen or nineteen years old I was more worried about what was for dinner and what the Giants were doing that night. That’s as deep as I got. I was never a “big picture” guy and I’m still kind of not. But I think that I’m a very competitive guy and a goal-oriented guy. But I was never like those people who you read about, you know, rich businessmen or professional athletes, who make contracts with themselves – “I will do this….”

I guess that I always deep down supposed that I would be working for the family company; it’s a great opportunity, it’s a lot of fun, I mean, c’mon it’s the wine business. There are a lot of businesses that are a lot of fun to be in. I could be the general manager of the 49ers or something. There aren’t many things that I’m qualified to do besides run a wine business. But it’s something I love. Had I gone into investment banking or if I was a general contractor, my friends probably would have said, “Why did you do that? Your family owns a winery. What are you doing?”

Thomistica.net: What do you like best about your work?

Donny Sebastiani: Working for my family I’m able to keep a good work/life balance. Working investment banker hours, I don’t know that I would be able to live the way that I want to. Working for my family affords me a more flexible schedule. But also I try to promote that sort of culture at the company. You know, if someone has to go home and pick up their kid or something like that, I try to make that possible. It’s not a 9 to 5 world anymore. People are checking their email at night, they’re on their i-Phones, they’re waiting in line at the airport and checking their Twitter account to see what’s going on. Some of that may be just the way the world is but it’s also the company my dad has always tried to run and it’s also something I try to foster. That’s probably the thing that I’m the most proud of, creating that type of environment. My kids know my name and I go to school with them twice a week. I’m pretty lucky to be able to do that.

A better answer to your question about what I like best about my work might be the blockbuster cabernets that we make but the reality is that you could go to work for someone who makes blockbuster cabernets and not have that work/life balance and I don’t know that I would want that sort of job.

Thomistica.net: Your family produces wines under several labels. Smoking Loon and Pepperwood Grove are probably the most widely known and the most widely available. But I think our readers will be most interested in your Aquinas wines. Whose idea was this line? Why “Aquinas”?

Donny Sebastiani: Brand brainstorming, ideation, whatever you want to call it, is kind of fuzzy. It’s usually not a linear progression: “First we did this, then we decided this.” The idea for the trademark itself – I think I came up with it, but if somebody showed me some videotape of a meeting room where someone else came up with the idea, I would believe it because it might have happened.

As for the specifics of it, it’s tough finding a trademark in general and the wine business is no exception. You are limited by what you can use and you look internally for inspiration. And our faith, our Catholic faith, is important to us. That’s where the inspiration for the name came from.

Wine has a significant place in Catholicism. You see people making and drinking wine in the Old Testament and New Testament. You see Jesus and his disciples drinking wine.

With the “Aquinas” label we saw a natural opportunity to have something with a bit of a Catholic aspect to it. Obviously we want to market ourselves to a wide consumer base, so you don’t want to beat people over the head with a big picture of a crucifix on the label. But the Aquinas wines are still a clear, less than subtle reference to our faith. It was a natural, obvious choice. We have people of all different denominations that sell it. But they get it and they enjoy selling it.

There is also the fact that education was important for Aquinas and it is important for our family too. We have done a lot to support education locally. We helped to start The Presentation School in Sonoma and my mother is president of the board there.

***

In Part 2 of this interview next week Donny will talk about the different varietals bottled under the Aquinas label and about his personal favorite. You can learn more about the Aquinas wines on the label’s page at the Don Sebastiani and Sons website.

***

UPDATE 11/20/2011: I just found out that Mark also posted on Aquinas wines back in 2006. Great minds…

A Thomist Bishop for Switzerland

On November 4th, 2011, Pope Benedict XVI announced that Dominican philosopher and theologian, Fr. Charles Morerod, will be the new bishop of the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg.  The Episcopal Consecration will take place on December 11th in Switzerland.

Here is a short summary of his many publications and ecclesial appointments:

Bishop-elect Morerod entered the Dominican Order in 1983 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1988 in the city of Geneva, of his native country Switzerland. He holds the degrees of licientiate in philosophy and theology and a doctorate in theology from University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and holds a doctorate in philosophy from the Institut Catholique in Toulouse, France.

He is the author of some eight books, and has published over 100 hundred scholarly articles or chapters in books that have been published in at least five different languages. His first book, Cajetan et Luther en 1518 (1994), makes a substantial contribution to ecumenical studies and the Cajetan scholarship. Two of his books have been translated into English and published by Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University: Ecumenism and Philosophy: Philosophical Questions for a Renewal of Dialogue (2006) and The Church and the Human Quest for Truth (2008).

Bishop-elect Morerod holds several posts to which he has been either elected or appointed.  Since 2001 he has been a member of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), and since 2005 he has been a member of The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches; in 2008 he was appointed to the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas; Bishop-elect Morerod is a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and in 2009 he was appointed Secretary General of the International Theological Commission; In September of 2009 Fr. Morerod was elected Rector of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, where he has taught since 1996 and held, prior to his election as Rector, the positions of Vice-Dean of the Theology Department, and Dean of Philosophy.

Last, and most likely least, Bishop-elect Morerod was my teacher and dissertation director.

 

 

Endowed Chair in Philosophy at Ohio Dominican University

Ohio Dominican University is seeking to fill its first endowed chair, in philosophy:

OHIO DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OH. Ohio Dominican invites applications from preeminent scholars for the Sr. Ruth Caspar, O.P. Chair in Philosophy, the University’s first endowed chair, beginning Fall 2012. Candidates must demonstrate a willingness to support the Catholic and Dominican tradition of the University, a record of teaching excellence and distinguished scholarship. Area of specialization open with a preferred emphasis on global or interdisciplinary issues. The successful candidate will be appointed as a full professor with salary and exact balance of duties negotiable. The University particularly encourages applications from women and underrepresented minority candidates. Review of applications will begin December 15. Applications should be submitted to casparchair@ohiodominican.edu.

The position description can also be found here and here. More information can be found here.

Mandonnet-Moos edition of Sentences commentary on-line

Thomas’s commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences is online in searchable PDF format (thanks to the SIEPM site for this information), which you can download via the following four links: 

  1. In I Sent. (PDF)
  2. In II Sent. (PDF)
  3. In III Sent. (PDF)
  4. In IV Sent. (PDF)

This is the edition attempted—never fully completed, alas (bk 4 goes only up to distinction 22)—by Pierre Madonnet and Fabien Moos (Paris: 1927-1947). Still, getting this edition for one’s personal library was the pearl of great price when I was in graduate school in the 1980’s.

Note: the file sizes are daunting (~50 MB each).

2011 Aquinas Lecture at Ave Maria University

Annual Aquinas Lecture this Friday: God the Father in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas

Fr. John Baptist Ku, O.P., of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., will deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture at 12:00pm on Friday 10/28 in the Henkels Academic Building, room 1012.  The Aquinas Lecture is sponsored by the Aquinas Center for Theological Renewal of Ave Maria University.  The lecture title is “God the Father in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.” The Aquinas Lecture is free of charge and open to the public.

Fr. Ku is the 2010 recipient of the Aquinas Center’s Dissertation Prize.  His dissertation, “God the Father in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas,” was directed by Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P., at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.  The Aquinas Lecture is delivered each year by the recipient of the Dissertation Prize. 

 

 

Aquinas on the epistemology of authority

Aquinas believes that human reason and good argumentation can get us pretty far. But he is also aware of their limits, as many recent commentators have emphasized. These limits are both natural and the result of sin. Thus, he thinks that grace and the cultivation of intellectual and moral virtue are important in the pursuit of knowledge; they can help us to overcome some (but only some) of these limits. You might say that, on Aquinas’s view, reason as it exists concretely is at its best not when it is “pure reason” but “impure reason.”

The topic of this post has to do with one aspect of “impure reason” in Aquinas. I would like to reflect briefly on the role that authority plays in Aquinas’s epistemology. All Aquinas scholars are familiar with his treatment of this matter in ST, I, 1, 8. The question here is whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argumentation. The following objection is raised:

If [sacred doctrine]  is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), “faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience.” Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Aquinas replies to this objection thus:

This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: “Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). 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 Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: “As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring” (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): “Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.”

How might we think about the epistemic value that authority has for Aquinas? What does the above discussion tell us? Here is how Fr. Copleston understands the lesson Aquinas is teaching us here:

Aquinas was the last man to think that philosophical problems can be settled by appeal to great names. “Argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest” (ST, 1a, 1, 8 ad 2). In other words, an argument in favor of a given philosophical or scientific position is the weakest sort of argument when it rests simply on the prestige attaching to the name of an eminent philosopher or scientist. What counts is the intrinsic value of the argument, not the reputation of someone who has sponsored it in the past (Aquinas, 23).

And this is where Fr. Copleston leaves the question. This isn’t a bad reading of Aquinas’s text but, or so I would suggest, there is much more to be said, including some important qualifications to be made.

While Aquinas does say that the argument from authority is the weakest with respect to human reason, it is not weak simply. When it is based on the authority of divine revelation it is the strongest. And let us not forget that Aquinas dignifies sacra doctrina with the title scientia — we are not in the realm of opinion but are dealing with real knowledge. Furthermore, sacra doctrina is the most noble of the sciences and is wisdom beyond all human wisdom.

What is more, as Aquinas notes in his reply, sacra doctrina also makes use of the authority of doctors of the Church and the philosophers. Of course, appealing to them only gets us to the level of probability, but were Aquinas suspicious of the epistemic value of authority and only willing to allow an exception for revelation, we would not expect him to expand the possibilities of legitimate appeal to authority in the field of theology.

But if we put aside the importance that authority has in the science of sacra doctrina and return to its place in the context of human reason, I think we should be careful to observe that in ST, I, 1, 8, ad 2 Aquinas does not dismiss arguments from authority in this context. He says merely that they are the “weakest” of arguments. It is a commonplace in logic that appeals to authority only become fallacious when they are appeals to an illegitimate authority; appeals to legitimate authority are often quite reasonable even if it is rare that they definitively settle a dispute.

Aquinas is aware of and accepts such legitimate appeals to authority in the context of human reason. Not only is this obvious from what he says in the above passage from the Summa but in the De Veritate he suggests that it is reasonable for believers to assent to the truth of what God tells them “since even in dialectical matters there is an argument from authority” (14, 2, ad 9).

But Aquinas is willing to say something stronger than this about the positive role that authority plays in the pursuit of knowledge. Consider these remarks from ST, II-II, 4, 8, ad 2:

Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing. But if the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses our capacity for understanding [i.e., because of his qualifications, authority on a subject matter], then hearing is more certain than sight. So, one with little knowledge is more certain about what he hears from a man of great knowledge, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason [Sicut aliquis parvae scientiae magis certificatur de eo quod audit ab aliquo scientissimo quam de eo quod sibi secundum suam rationem videtur.].

This is a striking passage. There are situations, Aquinas thinks, in which I should place more trust in what I am told by another than what I can understand by my own reason. The comparison is probably unfair and anachronistic, but it seems that we are quite far from Descartes’s precept about not taking anything to be true save what I perceive clearly and distinctly with my mind, not to mention Kant’s conception of Aufklärung as daring to think for oneself.

And consider these lines from De Veritate, 14, 10:

To obtain eternal life it is necessary to have faith in those things which are beyond the grasp of reason. We can understand this from what follows. For a thing is brought from imperfection to perfection only through the activity of something perfect. Nor does the imperfect thing at once in the very beginning fully receive the action of that which is perfect; at first it receives it imperfectly and, later, more perfectly. And it continues in this way until it reaches perfection. This is evident in all physical things, which acquire a perfection gradually.

We see the same thing in human works, especially in the learning process. For in the beginning a man has incomplete knowledge, and, if he is to reach the perfection of science, needs an instructor to bring him to that perfection. Nor could the teacher do this unless he himself had full knowledge of the science, that is unless he understood the intelligible principles of the things which form the subject matter of the science. At the outset of his teaching, however, he does not explain to his pupil the intelligible principles of the things to be known which he intends to teach, because then, at the very beginning, the pupil would [have to] know the science perfectly. Instead, the teacher proposes some things, the principles of which the pupil does not understand when first taught, but will know later when he has made some progress in the science. For this reason it is said that the learner must believe. And he could not acquire mastery of the science in any other way unless he accepted without proof those things which he is taught at first and the arguments for which he cannot then understand.

Of course, Aquinas’s discussion of the teacher and the student and the acquisition of a science is made in the context of trying to explain the necessity of faith for attaining eternal life. But obviously Aquinas thinks that his example has to do with what is actually the case in education. I cannot acquire knowledge unless at the beginning I accept some, perhaps many, things on the teacher’s authority. (We don’t need to think of this literally as a teacher with students in a classroom. Books, traditions, can also be the relevant authorities.) This would seem to tell us, then, that in Aquinas’s mind authority does not only have an occasional or marginal function in the pursuit of knowledge but an indispensable function.

Remaining in the sphere of the sciences developed by human reason, we cannot neglect to mention Aquinas’s well-known discussion in ST, I, 1, 2 about certain lower disciplines receiving their principles not from the direct apprehension of these principles by the intellect but from higher disciplines.

Some of the foregoing observations of Aquinas, once we reflect on them, might in the end appear rather pedestrian. Who would deny that authority functions epistemically in the way that he says that it does? I have to admit that I do think that there is something very pedestrian about Aquinas’s comments. And yet we should ask ourselves whether we usually think of Aquinas as holding that authority has a positive part to play not only in sacred doctrine but also in the other sciences. And we might also ask whether Aquinas’s position on authority’s epistemic role jibes well with the view that thinkers like Descartes and Kant take of authority.

Plainly there is much more to be said about all of this but I will have to continue this inquiry another time.

***

UPDATE: I developed this post into a paper that I gave at the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas conference in Houston Oct. 19, 2013. Interested readers can find it here.