A. "SEPARATE components" AND lOR" ANGELS"? it's fascinating to notice that, in an expressly theological treatise akin to the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas in general makes use of the time period "angel", rather than "separate substance"; whereas in works with a much less particular theological cause - e. g. the Summa contra gentiles and the De substantiis separatis 1 - he normally prefers the time period "separate substance". yet at any expense there's little question that the 2 phrases, "separate sub­ stance" and "angel" have a undeniable interchangeability and equivalence within the works of St. Thomas. In different phrases, "the separate substance" is comparable to "the angel, insofar as its life and attributes are knowable via human cause alone". And this has led Karl Barth 2 to cost that St. Thomas' angelology is essentially a philosophical presenta­ tion, with little relevance to theology. 1 we'd say that those works are "philosophical" insofar as arguments from cause are emphasised in them, instead of arguments from revelation or religion. even if, as Lescoe issues out (in the advent to his version of the De substantUs separatis, p. 8), the treatise on separate ingredients leads as much as theological subject-matter in Ch. 's XVII ff- particularly, an exposition of Catholic instructing as present in Sacred Scripture, the Fathers, and particularly Dionysius. And Chenu keeps that the Summa contra gentiles is largely a theological paintings, since it not just leads as much as theological subject-matter in Bk.