Aristotle in Aquinas’s theology

282 Pages·2015·1.66 MB·English

by  Emery

’
ARISTOTLE IN AQUINAS S THEOLOGY

’
Aristotle in Aquinas s
Theology
Editedby
GILLES EMERY, OP,
and
MATTHEW LEVERING
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
#OxfordUniversityPress2015
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2015
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015940445
ISBN 978–0–19–874963–9
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
’
Editors Preface
ThisworkinvestigatestheroleofAristotelianconcepts,principles,andthemes
in Thomas Aquinas’s theology. The ten chapters are intended to provide an
introductiontothesignificanceofAquinas’stheologicalreceptionofAristotle
in certain major loci: the Trinity, the angels, soul and body, the Mosaic law,
grace, charity, justice, contemplation and action, Christ, and the sacraments.
Some of these chapters focus on the Summa theologiae, while others range
more widely in Aquinas’s corpus. Aristotelian concepts, of course, appear
throughout Aquinas’s theology. Jean-Pierre Torrell has pointed out that “the
presence and influence of Aristotle in Thomas’s writings no longer have to
be shown....Thomas retained so many important elements of Aristotle’s
thought that they cannot be numbered.”1 On the one hand, for quite some
time, it has above all been the influence of Aristotle on Aquinas’s philosophy
that has been the center of attention. Thomas O’Meara states, “Often the
approach to Thomas Aquinas during the neo-Thomist revival from 1850 to
1960wastodescribeaphilosophy.Duringthattimefarmorebookstreatedhis
philosophy than his theology....A search through a library catalogue or a
perusal of a bibliography of articles on Aquinas written prior to Vatican II
yieldsmorematerialonthemetaphysicsofanunmovedmoverortheabstract
descriptionofphilosophicalvirtuesthanonsalvationbyJesusortheroleofa
sacrament.”2 On the other hand, perhaps in reaction to philosophical neo-
Thomism, or perhaps because this Aristotelian influence appears no longer
necessarytodemonstrate,theroleofAristotleinAquinas’stheologypresently
receiveslesstheologicalattentionthandoesAquinas’suseofotherauthorities,
especially in domains outside of theologicalethics—somuch so that in some
theological circles the influence of Aristotle upon Aquinas’s theology is no
longerwellunderstood.
WhenAquinasdescribeshisuseof“authorities”intheSummatheologiae,he
states that sacra doctrina accepts “the authority of philosophers in those ques-
tionsinwhichtheywereabletoknowthetruthbynaturalreason.”3Hecarefully
adds, however, that sacra doctrina “makes use of these authorities as extrinsic
and probable arguments,” by contrast to the proper and incontrovertible
1 Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP, Aquinas’s Summa: Background, Structure, and Reception, trans.
Benedict M. Guevin (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005),
pp.76–7.
2 Thomas F. O’Meara, OP, Thomas Aquinas Theologian (Notre Dame, IN: University of
NotreDamePress,1997),pp.xi–xii.
3 STI,q.1,a.8,ad2.Englishtranslationfrom:ThomasAquinas,SummaTheologiae,trans.
FathersoftheEnglishDominicanProvince,vol.1(Westminster,MD:ChristianClassics,1981).
vi Editors’Preface
“authority of the canonical Scriptures” and the proper but only probable
authority of the Fathers.4 His vision and practice of theology firmly avoid
rationalism.Inthislight,TorrellaptlypresentsAquinasasa“spiritualmaster”
and a “mystic”: “The figure who at times seems to be known only for his
philosophy is also first and foremost a theologian, a commentator on Sacred
Scripture, an attentive student of the Fathers of the Church, and a man
concerned about the spiritual and pastoral repercussions of his teaching.”5
Aquinasisindeed“firstandforemostatheologian.”AsRobertBarronwrites:
“WhenoneinterpretsThomasasarationalistphilosopherortheologian,one
missestheburningheartofeverythinghewrote.Aquinaswasasaintdeeplyin
lovewithJesusChrist,andtheimageofChristpervadestheentireedificethat
is his philosophical, theological, and scriptural work. Above all, Thomas
Aquinas was a consummate spiritual master, holding up the icon of the
Wordmadefleshandinvitingothersintoitstransformativepower.”6
NotleastbecauseofthesuccessofTorrell’smasterfulwork,scholarstoday
tend to focus on the biblical, patristic, and liturgical sources of Aquinas’s
theology,aswellasonAquinas’sdebtstoPlatonicinsightssuchasparticipa-
tion.7Butforthis very reason, Aquinas’stheologicaluse of Aristotle requires
4 STI,q.1,a.8,ad2.SeeM.-D.Chenu’sclassicdiscussionofAquinas’suseof“auctoritates”in
Marie-DominiqueChenu,OP,TowardUnderstandingSaintThomas,trans.AlbertM.Landry
andDominicHughes(Chicago:HenryRegnery,1964),ch.4.
5 Jean-PierreTorrell,OP,SaintThomasAquinas,vol.2,SpiritualMaster,trans.RobertRoyal
(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2003),p.vii.SeealsoJean-Pierre
Torrell, OP, Christ and Spirituality in St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Bernhard Blankenhorn
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011); Paul D. Murray, OP,
AquinasatPrayer:TheBible,MysticismandPoetry(London:Bloomsbury,2013).
6 RobertBarron,ThomasAquinas:SpiritualMaster(NewYork:Crossroad,1996),p.13.
7 Among many excellent studies, see Thomas F. Ryan, Thomas Aquinas as Reader of the
Psalms(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2000);AntoineGuggenheim,Jésus
Christ,grandprêtredel’ancienneetdelanouvelleAlliance:Étudethéologiqueetherméneutique
du commentaire de saint Thomas d’Aquin sur l’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Parole et Silence,
2004);ThomasG.Weinandy,O.F.M.Cap.,DanielA.Keating,andJohnP.Yocum,eds.,Aquinas
on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005);
Matthew Levering and Michael Dauphinais, eds., Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012); Paweł Klimczak, OP,
ChristusMagister:LeChristMaîtredanslescommentairesévangéliquesdesaintThomasd’Aquin
(Fribourg: Academic Press, 2014); Fran O’Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of
Aquinas (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Rudi A. te Velde, Participation and Substantiality in Thomas
Aquinas (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Gregory T. Doolan, Aquinas on the Divine Ideas as Exemplar
Causes(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2008);MichaelDauphinais,
Barry David, and Matthew Levering, eds., Aquinas the Augustinian (Washington, DC: The
CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2007).Recentworksinmoraltheologyandphilosophy
havecontinuedtoexploreAquinas’sdebttoAristotle:seeforinstanceMaryM.Keys,Aquinas,
Aristotle,andthePromiseoftheCommonGood(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006);
Nicholas E. Lombardo, OP, The Logic ofDesire: Aquinas on Emotion(Washington, DC: The
CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2011);DanielMcInerny,TheDifficultGood:AThomistic
Approach to Moral Conflict and Human Happiness (New York: Fordham University Press,
2006); Fabrizio Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, trans. Mark
Henninger(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2013).
Editors’Preface vii
renewedattention,lestthestudyofAquinas’stheologybecomeone-sided.Our
work,therefore,highlightsthesignificanceofAristotleinAquinas’stheology.
Readers will encounter here the great Aristotelian themes, such as act and
potency, God as pure act, substance and accidents, power and generation,
changeandmotion,fourfoldcausality,formandmatter,hylomorphicanthro-
pology, the structure of intellection, the relationship between knowledge and
will, happiness and friendship, habits and virtues, contemplation and action,
politics and justice, the best form of government, private property, and the
commongood.
Somegeneralbackgroundtoourtopicwillbehelpful,sinceAquinas’suseof
Aristotle should not be viewed in isolation from the whole of Christian
theology. This is especially so in an introductory work such as the present
volume,whosetheologicalaudiencecanbeassumedtopossesswidelydiffer-
ingdegreesoffamiliaritywithAristotle’sreceptioninChristiantheologyover
the centuries. It is no secret, of course, that strong critiques of Aristotle have
been commonplace in the history of theology. For example, Gregory of
Nazianzus, though benefiting from Aristotle’s philosophy in some ways,
nonethelesscondemnedAristotle’s“meanconceptionofProvidence,hisarti-
ficialsystem,hismortalviewofthesoul,andthehuman-centerednatureofhis
teaching.”8 Likewise, Augustine complained that his reading of Aristotle’s
Categories led him to think of God as simply another substance.9 And in the
thirteenthcenturyalone,theCatholicChurch’shierarchywarnedagainstthe
theologicaluseofAristotlein1215,1228,1231,1245,1263,1270,and1277.10
During the Renaissance and Reformation period, Aristotle often came
under particularly strong attack. Thus, in his Letter to Martin Dorp (1514),
Desiderius Erasmus criticized “modern theology” as “so contaminated with
Aristotle, with trifling ideas thought up by men, even with secular laws, that
I hardly see how it can preserve the true savor of Christ, who is pure and
uncontaminated.”11Erasmuswentontoaskrhetorically:“Whatconnectionis
there,Iaskyou,betweenChristandAristotle?orbetweensophisticalquibbles
andthemysteriesofeternalwisdom?Wherewilltheselabyrinthsofquestions
8 GregoryofNazianzus,Oration27,inGregoryofNazianzus,OnGodandChrist:TheFive
TheologicalOrationsandTwoLetterstoCledonius,trans.FrederickWilliamsandLionelWick-
ham(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’sSeminaryPress,2002),p.33.GregoryequallycriticizesPlato
forhisdoctrineofideasandhishypothesisthatsoulsarecyclicallyreincarnated.
9 Augustine,ConfessionsIV,XVI;trans.HenryChadwick(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,
1991),pp.69–70.
10 UlrichG.Leinsle,IntroductiontoScholasticTheology,trans.MichaelJ.Miller(Washington,
DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2010),pp.138–41and144–7.SeealsoRobert
Pasnau, “The Latin Aristotle,” in The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle, edited by Christopher
Shields(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),pp.665–89.
11 DesideriusErasmus,“Erasmus’LettertoMartinDorp(1514),”inThePraiseofFolly,trans.
ClarenceH.Miller(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1979),pp.139–74,at155.
viii Editors’Preface
get us?”12 A few years later, Martin Luther rejected (as he put it) “the
Thomistic—thatis,theAristotelianchurch.”13Inthecourseofarguingagainst
transubstantiation, Luther observed that “Aristotle speaks of subject and
accidents so very differently from St. Thomas that it seems to me this great
man[St.Thomas]istobepitiednotonlyforattemptingtodrawhisopinions
inmattersoffaithfromAristotle,butalsoforattemptingtobasethemupona
man whom he did not understand, thus building an unfortunate superstruc-
tureuponanunfortunatefoundation.”14
More recently, but along quite similar lines, Karl Barth affirmed that “the
ChristianChurchcertainlydoesnotnumberAristotleamongitsancestors.”15
TheRussianOrthodoxtheologianSergiusBulgakov,forhispart,warnedthat
“within the limits of Aristotle’s categories, there can be no man in general;
human nature exists only in particular individuals (that is precisely why the
heresyoftritheismgrewoutofthesoilofAristotelianism).”16And,voicinga
representative postmodern viewpoint, the contemporary philosopher Gianni
Vattimohasrejected“theattributesfoundinAristotle’spureactorinParme-
nides’sBeing,whichstandradicallyopposedtotheideaofBeingasacreation
ofafreeandlovingGod.”17
Asonewouldexpect,however,defendersoftheroleofAristotleintheology
have not been lacking. Indeed, the depth and breadth of theological indebt-
edness to Aristotle over the centuries can easily go unappreciated today,
even by scholars who recognize Aristotle’s significance for Aquinas. Richard
Rubensteinpointsoutthatformanycenturies,Aristotlewasutterlycentralin
a wide variety of fields of study for Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scholars.
Duringthemedievalperiod,“onecouldnotbeginadiscussionofmetaphysics,
naturalscience,logic,theology,ethics,aesthetics,orpoliticswithoutreferring
12 Erasmus,“Erasmus’LettertoMartinDorp,”p.155.
13 Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in Martin Luther’s Basic
Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989),
pp.267–313,at285.SeeDenisR.Janz,LutheronThomasAquinas:TheAngelicDoctorinthe
Thought of the Reformer (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1989); Otto H. Pesch, Martin Luther,
Thomas von Aquin und die reformatorische Kritik an der Scholastik: Zur Geschichte und
WirkungsgeschichteeinesMißverständnissesmitweltgeschichtlichenFolgen(Hamburg:Joachim
Jungius-GesellschaftderWissenschaften,1994).
14 Luther,“TheBabylonianCaptivity,”p.285.
15 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, trans.
GeoffreyW.Bromiley,2nded.(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1975),p.11.SeealsoThomasJoseph
White,OP,“Introduction:ThomasAquinasandKarlBarth,AnUnofficialCatholic–Protestant
Dialogue,” in Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: An Unofficial Catholic–Protestant Dialogue,
edited by Bruce L. McCormack and Thomas Joseph White (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2013),pp.1–39.
16 Sergius Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2008),p.67.
17 GianniVattimo,AfterChristianity,trans.LucaD’Isanto(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
Press,2002),p.120.
Editors’Preface ix
to Aristotle’s views and dealing respectfully with them.”18 Depending on the
Latintranslationsthatweregraduallymadeavailabletothem,19allhigh-and
late-medieval Christian theologians in the West were in dialogue with Aris-
totle and with Muslim interpreters of Aristotle such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
andIbnRushd(Averroes).20
In the Christian East, among the many Eastern Fathers who could be
named, Basil the Great’s Against Eunomius exhibits the fruitful influence of
Aristotle’s Categories and other works—as does John of Damascus’s well-
knownPhilosophical Chapters,whichdrawsheavilyupontheeclecticAristo-
telianism of Nemesius of Emesa.21Indeed, Marcus Plested has demonstrated
Aquinas’s“continuityandaffinitywithalongtraditionofByzantinescholas-
ticism going back to the Christological debates of the fifth century and
recapitulated in John of Damascus.”22 The Byzantine scholasticism that
Plested traces through the nineteenth century, a scholasticism that (at least
with respect to the place given to Aristotelian philosophy) included Gregory
Palamas, finds a parallel not only in the long tradition of Catholic scholasti-
cismbutalsointhecenturiesofLutheranandReformedscholasticism,ledby
figuressuchasFrancisTurretin.
18 Richard E. Rubenstein, Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Redis-
coveredAncientWisdomandIlluminatedtheDarkAges(NewYork:Harcourt,2003),p.283.
19 Theseries“AristotelesLatinus”(medievaltranslationsoftheworksofAristotle),partofthe
“CorpusPhilosophorumMediiAevi,”isofthegreatesthelpinthisregard.Theproject,stillin
progress,startedin1930,withthefirstvolumebeingpublishedin1951.Itiscurrentlysupervised
and supported bythe International Union ofAcademies. For instance, thanks to“Aristoteles
Latinus,”MartaBorgowasabletodemonstratethatAquinas’scommentaryonthefirstbookof
the Sentences makes use of no less than four different translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics:
MartaBorgo,“LaMétaphysiqued’AristotedansleCommentairedeThomasd’AquinauIerlivre
des Sentences de Pierre Lombard: Quelques exemples significatifs,” RSPhTh 91 (2007):
pp.651–92.
20 See,forexample,MarilynMcCordAdams,SomeLaterMedievalTheoriesoftheEucharist:
ThomasAquinas,GilesofRome,DunsScotus,andWilliamOckham(Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press, 2010); Russell L. Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). While critical of Aristotle in certain
respects—largely the very respects identified by Gregory of Nazianzus—the great medieval
MuslimtheologianandlegalscholarAl-GhazalilikewisedrewuponAristotle,asdidmedieval
JewishtheologiansandlegalscholarssuchasMaimonides,Gersonides,andSaadiahGaon.
21 SeeAndrewRadde-Gallwitz,BasilofCaesarea,GregoryofNyssa,andtheTransformationof
DivineSimplicity(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009);AndrewLouth,StJohnDamascene:
TraditionandOriginalityinByzantineTheology(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).
22 MarcusPlested,OrthodoxReadingsofAquinas(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),
p.223.Foracontrastingperspective,seeDavidBradshaw,AristotleEastandWest:Metaphysics
and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Bradshaw
holds that the bigger problem is Augustine: “Clearly the gulf separating Augustine from the
eastern tradition is immense. It encompasses such basic issues as the nature of being, the
simplicity of God, the intelligibility of God, and the final goal of human existence. What is
perhapsmostremarkableisthattheAugustinianpresuppositionswehavesketchedcouldcome
todominatethethoughtoftheWest,whilehavingvirtuallynoinfluenceintheEast,andyetfor
almostathousandyearsneithersiderecognizedwhathadhappened”(p.229).