"Aquinas' Reception of Albert the Great's Account of the Virtue of Religion"

"Aquinas' Reception of Albert the Great's Account of the Virtue of Religion"

Sts. Albert and Thomas
by Alonso Antonio Villamor (1661-1729)

Today I'd like to share with you, in the video below, something I'm currently working on.  As part of my ongoing project on the philosophical account of religious worship in St. Thomas and his sources (which derives from my doctoral dissertation), I wrote the following paper titled "Aquinas' Reception of Albert the Great's Account of the Virtue of Religion." It was delivered at the 2015 Aquinas and the 'Arabs' Fall North American Workshop, which was held at Universidad Panamericana in Mexico City, October 2015.  For work-related reasons I was unable to attend the conference physically, so I presented it remotely, via video.  You can download a hard copy of the paper from Academia.edu.  It is not-yet published, so I would appreciate your feedback, so I can polish it up and send it to a journal for publication.

NB: It is not a lecture or discussion but an academic paper, which I read in its entirety for an expert audience.  Please do not expect a flashy presentation with engaging voice inflections or even a catchy PowerPoint or images at all.  The audience consisted primarily of philosophy professors and scholars, who mostly work in the field of the history of medieval philosophy; and this is the style in which we present our work in scholarly conferences. However, the paper is, I think, greatly relevant to a non-expert, traditional Catholic audience.  It will be of special interest to those who wish to acquire a more solid, profound, and coherent philosophical (and indirectly theological) understanding of the nature of Catholic liturgy, and of divine worship in general.  Given that the paper seeks to elucidate the Angelic Doctor's teachings on the matter, particularly as compared to that of another great Doctor of the Church, St. Albert the Great.

Abstract: Recent studies have focused on diverse aspects of Aquinas’ philosophical account of natural religion. Few, however, have delved into Aquinas’ use of his sources, especially his more immediate predecessors, in dealing with this topic. This paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard by showing how Albert, his teacher, addressed these questions and prepared the way for Aquinas’ more sophisticated account. The paper aims to shed light on some of the decisions that Aquinas had to make when faced with Albert’s account of latria. Aquinas seems to think that Albert’s arguments settle some issues; but surprisingly he often disagrees with Albert and offers alternative approaches. In particular, we see that for Thomas, Albert settled definitively the question on how religio or latria is to be entirely categorized under the virtue of justice, following the authority of Cicero, and not under the theological virtues, as earlier predecessors had suggested in light of Augustine’s teachings—an issue that has important ramifications for the very possibility of a philosophical account of religious worship. But we also see how, for example, in Aquinas’ mind Albert does not quite offer a satisfactory account of the range of action of the virtue of religion: whereas for Albert there are many virtuous acts that are entirely outside of the virtue of latria, for Aquinas any act of a moral virtue can become also a ‘commanded’ act of the virtue of religio. Ultimately, the paper highlights both the originality of Aquinas’ account of religion and his debt to his master Albert on this issue.

Download a hard copy of the paper and handout (among other things) from my Academia.edu page.

Ite ad Thomam's 10th Anniversary; Or Apologia Pro Absentia Mea

Ite ad Thomam's 10th Anniversary; Or Apologia Pro Absentia Mea

Dear faithful readers,

This coming month, Ite ad Thomam turns 10 years old!  Hurray!  But perhaps more obviously, Ite ad Thomam has also been mostly dormant for the last four years, or since around 2012.  I would like to take the occasion of our 10th Anniversary to offer an apologia for my relative absence, together with a renewed resolution to continue the blog, announcing a change of focus in the content of future posts.

Apologia Pro Absentia Mea.  While in philosophy graduate school at Marquette University, I decided to take up medieval philosophy as my area of specialty for an obvious reason: my love of St. Thomas, which grew out of my love for the Church and for truth.  But within medieval philosophy, Divine Providence led me to great mentors at Marquette who among other projects led a research group called "Aquinas and the 'Arabs'", which as the name suggests focused on the relationship between St. Thomas Aquinas and his Arabic predecessors (Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, etc.).  During this time I was able to appreciate St. Thomas' thought under a new, historical light, and it gave me the opportunity to compare the insights of so-called 'historical' Thomist with more traditional Thomists like Cajetan, Hugon, Garrigou-Lagrange, and others.  Moreover, in grad school I had the leisure, intellectual curiosity, and freedom to do research outside of these areas, and to venture into traditional Catholic issues to my heart's content.  I even did an MA in Theology 'on the side', because I felt that since St. Thomas was a theologian by profession, he cannot be understood fully from an exclusively philosophical perspective.

That rich exchange of ideas filled my head and my heart and I had to find a way to communicate them, following the Dominican motto, contemplata tradere aliis ('to hand down the fruits of contemplation to others').  I knew that later, as a scholar, I would be able to do this, but at the moment I was not yet ripe enough to publish my ideas in academic journals.  Yet I felt that some things had to be said then, so that is how the blog came to be in 2005.  The basic idea of the blog was to share my research on issues that could be of interest to traditional Catholics.  

In 2009 my life started to change.  That year I finished my Ph.D. in medieval philosophy in May, and in July I moved with my family of 6 to Guadalajara, Mexico, to take a job as assistant professor at Universidad Panamericana (UP), a university affiliated with Opus Dei.  Taking that job in Mexico has proved to be the second-best decision of my life, the first being having married my lovely wife.  My first three years or so there (2009-2012) were spent in relative leisure, learning to be a professional philosopher and building my CV with publications and other research activities.  For the first time in my life my income was respectable, and I was able to rely on a stable paycheck and fringe benefits.  My growing family was experiencing relative stability for the first time.  From 2005 to 2012 the blog had plenty of posts on traditional Catholicism and Thomism and generated a significant readership.

But by 2012 my research and publications were significant enough that I was granted membership in Mexico's National Research System (SNI).  This means receiving a significant stipend so long as a publication quota is met; the quota involves choosing a rather narrow line of research and to publish in prestigious academic journals on that line of research.  In addition to increasing my income, being a member of SNI also opened doors in the world of academia.  I now travel internationally once or twice a year to conferences on medieval philosophy to present my research papers and receive feedback from other experts in the field (expenses paid by UP).  This feedback has been of great help in preparing papers for publication.  My chosen line of research, given my heavy involvement with the aforementioned research group, could be summarized as "Aquinas and Medieval Arabic Philosophy of Religion."  Yet this narrowing down of my focus meant that what would be in my mind most of the time, with few exceptions, would be less and less related to the general themes of Ite ad Thomam.

Almost at the same time as I made it into SNI, I was asked by the higher-ups at UP to take on the duties of chair of the Humanities Department for a short period of time.  This was an amazing opportunity that I gladly took up.  My teaching duties were reduced so that I could continue my research trajectory and still handle the administrative burden.  From 2012 to 2014, I was successfully publishing in academic journals, meeting my research quotas, and at the same time doing (in my opinion) a respectable job as department chair, so I was promoted to Associate Professor.  All of this of course meant not only a higher salary and a greater sense of committment to UP, but also that my time was very limited and blogging would just have to be put on hold.  This was even more so the case as my family, by God's grace, kept growing. 

Yet despite my professional success, during all those years in Mexico my family, especially my wife, had not adjusted well to the culture there.  In 2014 my wife started to push very seriously for us to move back to the US.  She was badly missing her family and her home state, Oregon, with its beauty, its comforts, its great healthcare, and its people.  By that time we had a family of 8, and all the kids were rooting for her.  So I caved in and in May we moved back, without a clear idea of what I would be doing for a living in Oregon.  

After months of not having a job in the US, through the intercession of Our Lady and many other saints, I was able to work it out with UP to continue to work as a research professor there without any teaching duties, so that I could live away from the campus.  So as of right now I live in Oregon and continue as research professor at UP.  I can continue researching and publishing from here, as opposed to having to live there in Guadalajara, so long as I meet my research quotas and remain a member of SNI.  (If I drop out of SNI I might have to move back.)  Additionally, I may, and do, travel down to the Guadalajara and Mexico City campuses to teach intensive courses on an as-needed basis.  And that's what I've spent doing the last year: adjusting to our new life in Oregon and continuing to work on my research (in addition to having our seventh baby and putting two of my children through major surgeries, but that's another story.)  Point is, Ite ad Thomam had to be put on pause.

So that's what I've been up to, and that's why the blog has been mostly dormant since 2012.  My academic life has changed too much (plus it was just way too busy) for me to be posting frequently on traditional Catholic issues.  Also, I have too much pressure now as a scholar to produce a certain kind of publication in a research area that has only an indirect relationship with traditional Catholic issues.  So I just don't spend the majority of my time thinking about traddy issues anymore, like I used to in grad school and in my early years as an assistant professor.  And, besides, in my years studying those issues, through authors like Garrigou-Lagrange I was able to find answers to most of those preoccupations, at least to my satifaction.  Frankly, my study of providence and predestination was the key to them all, since it led me to "cast my cares upon the Lord," and that gives me the serenity to focus on other philosophical and theological problems that were on Aquinas' mind but which are less explored in the secondary literature (such as the nature of religious worship and sanctity), which provides me with the opportunity to do a bit more significant, or even groundbreaking research.

New Resolution.  I am still a traditional Catholic; I have not deserted the faith (may God grant me final perseverance!).  In fact lately I have dedicated some time to traditional Catholic projects of a more practical nature for my area, such as this one.  I also participate in traddy conferences like this one.  And I do still remain committed to promoting traditional Catholic thought through Ite ad Thomam.

But if I am going to continue posting, if I am going to continue contemplata aliis tradere, I have to share what is in my mind, and what is in my mind is what I research, and my life as a traditional Catholic professor of philosophy.  So after taking some time to think about it, I've decided to change the focus of Ite ad Thomam provisionally, in an experimental fashion.

Change of Focus.  I secretly envy my wife's blog because her posts are so simple, and yet so elegant and beautiful.  Whereas my blog posts so far have required lots of thinking, she has been able just to blog about her life, the way it comes at her.  She doesn't have to think much about it; she just takes a few pictures of the kids here and there, or of her garden, or her fitness progress, and tells the story behind it.  (To do justice to her, she often shares very insightful reflections about what she posts.)   Still, I don't see why a trad professor can't do the same with his own life as a professional.  There aren't that many traditional Catholic professors actually employed at universities nowadays, and from that very select minority, I can't think of many who blog about it.

In fact, in the 10 years that I've run the blog I have received a massive number of emails from young aspiring scholars (grad students, seminarians, young scholars, etc.) who want advice regarding the profession.  Not only where to study or what to study, but how to build their CV's, how to prepare for interviews, where to publish, what line of research to go into... a lot of what I do for Ite ad Thomam is help others deal with this odd profession.  I believe it may be of interest to at least some readers to share with them my life as a traditional Catholic who is trying to be a successful professional (actually, a saint) in academia.

So let's give it a try.  In the next months I am going to change the focus of the blog a bit, give it a more practical tone, so as to reflect what is really going on in my mind.  I will post about my current research, about the my conference travels (I have lots of pictures of Europe!), about my teaching, and whatever other academic topic comes to mind.  I will try to post frequently, hopefully about once a week, and the posts will often follow a stream-of-consciousnees style, like this one.  There will probably be an occasional heavy, academic, theoretical article on some philosophical or theological issue, but it will be related to my current research, and not necessarily to a traditional Catholic issue.  Given that my research has occasionally stumbles upon a traddy issue, like the issue of handing the death penalty to heretics, I'll post on that, too, at some point.  But most posts won't be that relevant to trad issues, and some will quite frankly seem somewhat bland.  But one thing is for sure; it will all relates back to St. Thomas somehow, and insofar as St. Thomas is the doctor communis, the Doctor of Doctors of the Church, it will hopefully be of interest to traditional Catholics.  Please leave your feedback in the comments section.

Sancte Thoma, ora pro nobis!

Dr. Francisco Romero
(aka, Don Paco)

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!