Concerned Questions about Aquinas

[Curious_Hobbit]

Hey guys, I’ve been reading St. Thomas and I love his work. His format of raising objections and refuting those objections with precise detail is absolutely incredible! However, I’ve come across 2 strange issues while reading him and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on these things.

First, somewhere he states that in order for the people in heaven to better enjoy heaven they will be able to see the sufferings of the damned.

“Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damn” (sorry I don’t have the citation)

This just seems a little strange to me and I was wondering what you all thought?

Secondly, I have heard people say that Aquinas had the ability to levitate. Atheist Author Christopher Hitchens mentioned it before and here is a quote from Chesterton:

“His experiences included well-attested cases of levitation in ecstasy; and the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, comforting him with the welcome news that he would never be a Bishop”

Can anyone shed some light on these 2 issues? I love St. Thomas, but wonder about these 2 things.

Thanks!

 

[JohnDamian]

His format of raising objections and refuting those objections with precise detail is absolutely incredible!

That is just Propositional Scholasticism; that along with Commentative Scholasticism and Quodlibetal Questioning formed the form most medieval universities functioned on.

Aquinas particular Summa Theologia was based in part upon the foundation laid out by Alexander of Hales Summa Frateris.

Secondly; Aquinas is not an infallible teacher of the Church; even though he is (and should be) held in very high regard as a strong academic. He has been known to be wrong on occasions (the Immaculate Conception is one example). So if you are worried or somehow doubtful of Aquinas it does not mean you doubt the Church’s teaching necessarily.

Aquinas’ claim in this example appears to be rather odd - it does not follow that a condition is perfected by the experiences of it’s contraries or context.

Aquinas never claimed to levitate; although some people attributed this to him.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

“Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damn” (sorry I don’t have the citation)

The citation is Q. 94 of the Supplement to the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas Aquinas did not write this. One of his companions, Fr. Reginald of Piperno did, based on his notes.

The man who wrote this was good, but he wasn’t the Angelic Doctor. He was wrong, I think, on this issue. He definitely diverged about marriage, since he held that divorce was possible in the case of adultery. There are also sections of that Supplement that are bizarre, and are often attributed to St. Thomas, even by scholars who should know better, as a means to discredit him.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hey guys, I’ve been reading St. Thomas and I love his work. His format of raising objections and refuting those objections with precise detail is absolutely incredible! However, I’ve come across 2 strange issues while reading him and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on these things.

First, somewhere he states that in order for the people in heaven to better enjoy heaven they will be able to see the sufferings of the damned.

“Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damn” (sorry I don’t have the citation)

This just seems a little strange to me and I was wondering what you all thought?

Here is your citation.

The relations of the saints towards the damned

Calvin made a similar statement. The idea was that the punishment of the damned somehow glorifies the justice of God and that the believer should rejoice in that. It all flows from Augustine and Anselm and the legalistic, and increasingly humanistic way the Catholic Church began to look at faith and how we interact with God. The entire Catholic system, from Purgatory to indulgences to mortal vs venial sins to even Papal Infallibility all flow from the same thought processes.

Of course my response to that idea is that it’s a sick perversion of God’s love and if God does not take pleasure in the death of the sinner neither should we. I’ll give you a quote from a famous modern Orthodox saint on the subject. St Silouan the Athonite was engaged in a conversation with a hermit who…

*…declared with evident satisfaction,

‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’

Obviously upset, the Staretz said,

‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire — would you feel happpy?

‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.

The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:

‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’*

Secondly, I have heard people say that Aquinas had the ability to levitate. Atheist Author Christopher Hitchens mentioned it before and here is a quote from Chesterton:

“His experiences included well-attested cases of levitation in ecstasy; and the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, comforting him with the welcome news that he would never be a Bishop”

Can anyone shed some light on these 2 issues? I love St. Thomas, but wonder about these 2 things.

Thanks!

What’s so strange about levitation? The Greek hesychast have been known to levitate. Even St Seraphim of Sarov was known to levitate. What is your concern about that?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Roy5]

I read much of and about St. Thomas Aquinas years ago, especially while writing an undergraduate thesis on “Democratic Elements in the Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas.” He certainly was a brilliant and methodical scholar.

However, I ran across enough material that alienated me so that I came away from the project not all that admiring of many of his views.

For example, he opposed the church killing heretics. However, he wanted the church to turn heretics over to the civil authorities who then would execute them! How is that compatible with valid Christianity - or, of course, with any version of democracy?

 Yes, so many saints are said to have levitated, which I also find a major problem. And not all saints going back years. St. Padre Pio, canonized not so long ago, is said to have levitated as well as bilocated. Sorry, but such tales seem to me to be pious superstitions, pure and simple.  I understand why the faithful may have believed them centuries ago, before our modern knowledge, when witches were being burned, diseases were caused by demons, and the sun revolved around the earth. But today!?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Yes, so many saints are said to have levitated, which I also find a major problem. And not all saints going back years. St. Padre Pio, canonized not so long ago, is said to have levitated as well as bilocated. Sorry, but such tales seem to me to be pious superstitions, pure and simple. I understand why the faithful may have believed them centuries ago, before our modern knowledge, when witches were being burned, diseases were caused by demons, and the sun revolved around the earth. But today!?

Based on what evidence do you think they are pious superstition?

 

[Apollos]

For example, he opposed the church killing heretics. However, he wanted the church to turn heretics over to the civil authorities who then would execute them! How is that compatible with valid Christianity - or, of course, with any version of democracy?

I noticed you showed no familiarity with his reasons for his opinions. I wondered why, until I read your next paragraph when you basically said the medievals were stupid.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It is within the realm of the possible and the probable that philosophy and theology work. The magisterium has the final say as it is the magisterium that is guided by the Holy Spirit. I don’t think St. Thomas was wrong concerning the Immaculate Conception as he did not state it was impossible but from what was known at the time that it was more probable that She was justified after conception. It seems that because of the attacks on the doctrine of Original Sin at the time, that Pope Pius IX was inspired to release “Ineffabilis Deus” and for it to be confirmed by the Blessed Virgin a few years later. The source of truth is God, we merely participate in it.

Leo XIII declared that Thomism is the preeminent philosophy of the Church but that doesn’t make everything Thomas wrote infallible but it is probable that He is correct in this based on those principles we do know from Scripture and from philosophical and theological first principles.

In the Gospel of St. Luke the parable of the rich man and Lazarus

[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. [23] And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: [24] And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. [25] And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented. [26] And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.

In the great chaos between them they could still converse. It is probable that we too will see those separated from God in the life of Grace and that part of their torment will be to see the results of Divine Mercy, the Glory of the Just.

In the simplicity of God (I, I, Q3) all attributes unite such as Divine Mercy and Divine Justice while still remaining distinct. This we shall experience in heaven and is probable that we would see all that lead up to the rejection of God by the damned.

This Divine Justice rejected by them and the resulting acceptance of their separation from God may be part of the Infinite Majesty of God we contemplate in the Beatific Vision. Far from rejoicing in their agony, we would be purely rejoicing in God’s Justice, which is also united in God with His Holiness, Goodness, Mercy, etc. as He is also the source of these.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

The citation is Q. 94 of the Supplement to the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas Aquinas did not write this. One of his companions, Fr. Reginald of Piperno did, based on his notes.

The man who wrote this was good, but he wasn’t the Angelic Doctor. He was wrong, I think, on this issue. He definitely diverged about marriage, since he held that divorce was possible in the case of adultery. There are also sections of that Supplement that are bizarre, and are often attributed to St. Thomas, even by scholars who should know better, as a means to discredit him.

I’ve heard the same about Fr. Reginald Piperno although I heard that it was only “possible” that Piperno wrote it, not certain. I guess I just want to feel justified in disregarding the quote all together.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I’ve heard the same about Fr. Reginald Piperno although I heard that it was only “possible” that Piperno wrote it, not certain. I guess I just want to feel justified in disregarding the quote all together.

Even if St. Thomas Aquinas did write something similar to the quote above (we know he didn’t write this exactly), you can still reject it. Aquinas isn’t infallible. He’s been wrong before.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Even if St. Thomas Aquinas did write something similar to the quote above (we know he didn’t write this exactly), you can still reject it. Aquinas isn’t infallible. He’s been wrong before.

Oh yes I understand that Aquinas is not infallible, I just didn’t like having to attribute such a gruesome quote to him. I’ve read a book on St.Thomas’s Politics & Ethics by Paul E. Sigmund and right now I’m reading a small summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft. I wish young modern minds read Aquinas as much as they read Nietzsche!

 

[awatkins69]

Hey guys, I’ve been reading St. Thomas and I love his work. His format of raising objections and refuting those objections with precise detail is absolutely incredible! However, I’ve come across 2 strange issues while reading him and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on these things.

First, somewhere he states that in order for the people in heaven to better enjoy heaven they will be able to see the sufferings of the damned.

“Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damn” (sorry I don’t have the citation)

This just seems a little strange to me and I was wondering what you all thought?

Secondly, I have heard people say that Aquinas had the ability to levitate. Atheist Author Christopher Hitchens mentioned it before and here is a quote from Chesterton:

“His experiences included well-attested cases of levitation in ecstasy; and the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, comforting him with the welcome news that he would never be a Bishop”

Can anyone shed some light on these 2 issues? I love St. Thomas, but wonder about these 2 things.

Thanks!

Well, the first thing, it is not some kind of sick psychopathic pleasure. In order to be in heaven, we must love God, and love him above all else. Now, if you love someone that much, you will conform to their will. So if someone offends the one you love so much, then you will be contented to know that they’ve received justice. Imagine if someone came and slowly and cruelly slaughtered a member of your family, and even enjoyed doing it, without any sorrow afterward. Wouldn’t you feel contented that they received their justice? So, if we love God even more than our families, if He is infinite in majesty, if He even became man to die for that person who offended them, and the only thing God did to that person was love them, shouldn’t we be more contented in knowing that they’ve received justice?

Here’s a quote from Saint Catherine’s Dialogues, while in a state of ecstasy, speaking to the Father. It deals with the total love above all else that one must have for God, and the state of the blessed in heaven: “They are conformed so entirely to My will, that they cannot desire except what I desire, because their free-will is bound in the bond of love, in such a way that, time failing them, and, dying in a state of grace, they cannot sin any more. And their will is so united with Mine, that a father or a mother seeing their son, or a son seeing his father or his mother in Hell, do not trouble themselves, and even are contented to see them punished as My enemies.” I suggest you read the “Dialogue on Discretion” from the “Dialogues of Saint Catherine of Siena”, since even this passage taken out of context may sound strange.

As for the levitation, yes, it is a miracle attributed to Saint Thomas. It is attributed to many saints including Sts. Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, John Bosco, Alphonsus Liguori, Martin de Porres, Theresa of Avila, and Catherine of Siena as well. It’s not simply “pious superstition”. If God can halt the sun for Joshua, He can make someone levitate a few feet.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Well, the first thing is not some kind of sick psychopathic pleasure. In order to be in heaven, we must love God, and love him above all else. Now, if you love someone that much, you will conform to their will. So if someone offends the one you love so much, then you will be contented to know that they’ve received justice. Imagine if someone came and slowly and cruelly slaughtered a member of your family, and even enjoyed doing it, without any sorrow afterward. Wouldn’t you feel contented that they received their justice?

Yes, but after seeing him roasting over a fire (the same Supplements say that the fires of hell are physical fires), for a few minutes, I’d be done with it. After a few hours of that, I’d be sick of it entirely. I’d probably be yelling at God “why don’t you do something?!?”.

This may be why I have a non-traditional view on Hell. Definitely, I don’t agree with the physical fire, or those in heaven being able to see those in hell.

 

[awatkins69]

Those who never cease to love sin never cease to be punished. If you don’t want to go to hell, love God above sin, and love your neighbor as yourself. But it is not going to go away by us not believing in it.

If you disagree with Saint Thomas, that hell is eternal suffering, then you disagree with Our Lord: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

“It is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.”

 

[Roy5]

Apollo - Post #7

I, of course, did not say that people of the medieval era were stupid. Probably their brains were as good as ours. The problem is that much of the 'knowledge' of that time was based on false information. For example, that the sun revolved around the earth.

Any scholar of the medieval age is well aware that there were many superstitions that have since been dismissed because we know better. It was easy to believe before we knew that germs caused disease that it was punishment from God or the result of demons or the work of Satan or whatever. Certainly we would view most of such ideas as superstitions today.

 I have read the Church Fathers - many of them, even heretics like Origen (a favorite of mine) - and while they were brilliant for their time, when most people could neither read or write, their works contain many superstitions based mainly on ignorance of science. With limited telescopes and no microscopes they believed all manner of things about our 'three-tiered universe' and much else that modern discoveries have led us to dismiss as simply false.

There needs to be a certain respect for the wisdom of ancient times, but some good Christians, Catholics and Orthodox in particular, admire the past too much. We should borrow from it in many respects, but be ready to toss aside what is no longer found to be true or relevant to our current world. Otherwise the Church drives away more and more people who find it impossible to believe the unbelievable. 

 God bless his children of every (and no) creed, every color, and every country. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Betterave]

Apollo - Post #7

I, of course, did not say that people of the medieval era were stupid. Probably their brains were as good as ours. The problem is that much of the 'knowledge' of that time was based on false information. For example, that the sun revolved around the earth.

Actually, it is not “false information” to say that the sun revolves around the earth. If we take the earth as our frame of reference (and there is no reason not to do so in many cases), then the sun does revolve around the earth.

Any scholar of the medieval age is well aware that there were many superstitions that have since been dismissed because we know better. It was easy to believe before we knew that germs caused disease that it was punishment from God or the result of demons or the work of Satan or whatever. Certainly we would view most of such ideas as superstitions today.

 I have read the Church Fathers - many of them, even heretics like Origen (a favorite of mine) - and while they were brilliant for their time, when most people could neither read or write, their works contain many superstitions based mainly on ignorance of science. With limited telescopes and no microscopes they believed all manner of things about our 'three-tiered universe' and much else that modern discoveries have led us to dismiss as simply false.

There needs to be a certain respect for the wisdom of ancient times, but some good Christians, Catholics and Orthodox in particular, admire the past too much. We should borrow from it in many respects, but be ready to toss aside what is no longer found to be true or relevant to our current world. Otherwise the Church drives away more and more people who find it impossible to believe the unbelievable.

 God bless his children of every (and no) creed, every color, and every country. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

So basically you argue: There were many medieval superstitions (just as many modern ones, mind you!); therefore levitation is a medieval superstition (although apparently it continues to rear its head in the modern world!).

That clearly does not follow, Roy.

 

[Betterave]

People tend to forget that our cringing in the face of justice/failure to see it as justice is a symptom of our fallen condition. They forget that the blessed in heaven will necessarily be freed from such debilities. If they can see the suffering of the damned, how could they feel any kind of false pity leading to rebellion against God? Their eyes will have been opened and they will see God’s justice. They will have no inclination whatsoever to rebel against the demands of justice, to yell “stop, God!”

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

If you disagree with Saint Thomas, that hell is eternal suffering, then you disagree with Our Lord: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

“It is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.”

I see the fire is everlasting, the worm is everlasting, but not that time there has to be everlasting. For some it may be, but by their choice. I cannot believe that anyone is ever unwillingly in Hell.

This is off the topic of the thread. If someone wants to hear more about this, PM me. Otherwise, let’s get back to the question at hand.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Actually, it is not “false information” to say that the sun revolves around the earth. If we take the earth as our frame of reference (and there is no reason not to do so in many cases), then the sun does revolve around the earth.

I disagree. If we take the Earth as our frame of reference, then the sun SEEMS to revolve around the Earth. But what seems to be isn’t necessarily so. Perception does not equal reality. (Though some would argue that it does, I guess. I don’t think so.) Modern science clearly tells us that what looks to be true from our perspective is in fact false, and that the Earth revolves around the sun.

 

[sidbrown]

Hey guys, I’ve been reading St. Thomas and I love his work. His format of raising objections and refuting those objections with precise detail is absolutely incredible! However, I’ve come across 2 strange issues while reading him and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on these things.

First, somewhere he states that in order for the people in heaven to better enjoy heaven they will be able to see the sufferings of the damned.

“Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damn” (sorry I don’t have the citation)

This just seems a little strange to me and I was wondering what you all thought?

Secondly, I have heard people say that Aquinas had the ability to levitate. Atheist Author Christopher Hitchens mentioned it before and here is a quote from Chesterton:

“His experiences included well-attested cases of levitation in ecstasy; and the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, comforting him with the welcome news that he would never be a Bishop”

Can anyone shed some light on these 2 issues? I love St. Thomas, but wonder about these 2 things.

Thanks!

I don’t think it is a good idea to take joy from the sufferings of others.