Concerned Questions about Aquinas

[awatkins69]

I think Saint Thomas likes Bad Brains and the Dead Kennedys better.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

stephenhicks.org/tag/st-thomas-aquinas/
This is where I got the Nietzsche reference, an essay about slave morality. Down by Aquinas’s picture it said Nietzsche quoted Aquinas. I haven’t read Genealogy of Morals. Hitchens mentioned Aquinas’s levitation and referred to something like “the old Christian view of those in heaven relishing in the sufferings of the damned”, so not necessarily Aquinas.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I think Saint Thomas likes Bad Brains and the Dead Kennedys better.

well I think St. Augustine liked The Ramones and The Clash!!

 

[awatkins69]

^ lol

stephenhicks.org/tag/st-thomas-aquinas/
This is where I got the Nietzsche reference, an essay about slave morality. Down by Aquinas’s picture it said Nietzsche quoted Aquinas. I haven’t read Genealogy of Morals. Hitchens mentioned Aquinas’s levitation and referred to something like “the old Christian view of those in heaven relishing in the sufferings of the damned”, so not necessarily Aquinas.

I see.Yeah, I think that, yet again, Nietzsche has no idea what he’s talking about, and completely misunderstood Saint Thomas.

 

[Roy5]

Aquinas and heretics

 Aquinas stated that heretics are guilty of "intellectual pride" and "exaggerated reliance on one's own insight" - the customary accusations against dissenters here on CAF.

  To find his statement re executing heretics check DMT SS Q11 A3 Body Para 1/2 and 2/2. Or, google Aquinas - heretics,

 

[Roy5]

Oops!

That, of course, should have read SMT instead of DMT. Sorry. Haste.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Aquinas and heretics

 Aquinas stated that heretics are guilty of "intellectual pride" and "exaggerated reliance on one's own insight" - the customary accusations against dissenters here on CAF.

  To find his statement re executing heretics check DMT SS Q11 A3 Body Para 1/2 and 2/2. Or, google Aquinas - heretics,

To be fair, I admire Aquinas’s consistency. He never spoke so against those who believed differently, but only against formal heretics, those who once believed on the Catholic Faith, and chose to break away, who “chose”.

Now, this means that I, someone who chose differently than Rome, would likely be seen by Aquinas and his disciples as a heretic. Indeed, in his very consistent view, I’d be more dangerous than a murderer, because a murderer only harms bodies, I risk harming souls.

On the last note, in this day and age, I wouldn’t be surprised if Aquinas would have himself left Rome, and taken a softer tone to many things.

I’m certainly thankful this State doesn’t burn people for heresy, an act that is decidedly against the will of the Holy Spirit, and is the worst sort of evil. Burning at the stake has destroyed, I’m sure, many more souls than it has cured. May Christ have mercy on those who, because of this scandal in history, have turned away from His True Church.

 

[Betterave]

To be fair, I admire Aquinas’s consistency. He never spoke so against those who believed differently, but only against formal heretics, those who once believed on the Catholic Faith, and chose to break away, who “chose”.

Now, this means that I, someone who chose differently than Rome, would likely be seen by Aquinas and his disciples as a heretic. Indeed, in his very consistent view, I’d be more dangerous than a murderer, because a murderer only harms bodies, I risk harming souls.

And obviously you’re quite certain this isn’t the case. But Thomas is not wrong simply because you feel that way.

On the last note, in this day and age, I wouldn’t be surprised if Aquinas would have himself left Rome, and taken a softer tone to many things.

I believe St. Thomas actually did leave Rome, several times, and spent much of his life away from the city.

I’m certainly thankful this State doesn’t burn people for heresy, an act that is decidedly against the will of the Holy Spirit, and is the worst sort of evil. Burning at the stake has destroyed, I’m sure, many more souls than it has cured. May Christ have mercy on those who, because of this scandal in history, have turned away from His True Church.

You’re sure, but of course your assurance may well not be grounded in fact.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

You’re sure, but of course your assurance may well not be grounded in fact.

You think burning people at the stake might have been good for established Christianity? I don’t see how. Though, maybe, I should be careful how I ask this question.

 

[Betterave]

You think burning people at the stake might have been good for established Christianity? I don’t see how. Though, maybe, I should be careful how I ask this question.

Yes. For the fairly obvious reasons that we can find in Aquinas. You admire them for their consistency, right?.. but then what is it that you can’t see? (Of course we should always try to be careful about how we ask questions. )

But your question seems to perhaps be inviting a general historical assessment, beyond just stating the obvious principles - is that what you’re after? (That’s a big task!)

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Yes. For the fairly obvious reasons that we can find in Aquinas. You admire them for their consistency, right?.. but then what is it that you can’t see? (Of course we should always try to be careful about how we ask questions. )

They are consistent. Consistently wrong. But consistent.

I seek not argument, now, but understanding. This is such an alien concept to me, much like sharia law and circumcision of women in my mind.

Would you seek ever to bring back the State practice of burning formal heretics at the stake? How would you join this with the current law of the land (I’m in America, so things may be different)?

But your question seems to perhaps be inviting a general historical assessment, beyond just stating the obvious principles - is that what you’re after? (That’s a big task!)

An historical assessment would be interesting, and it would be a big task, beyond the scope of forums. It would make a good book. I have no doubt as to the conclusion. To conclude the opposite is so far from my culture as to be incomprehensible to me.

 

[awatkins69]

We should not burn people. Nor did Aquinas exactly endorse it. Rather, he said that it is not contrary to the natural law, and that if we execute thieves, then isn’t heresy a worse crime? First of all, we don’t execute thieves anymore. Secondly, we don’t necessarily have to execute heretics. It’s perfectly permissible, for the good of the state and its people, to be religiously tolerant.

 

[Roy5]

AWATKINS69

Hm! Do I detect, perhaps, a bit of justification for executing heretics in bygone times? It sounds a little as though you think the burning of heretics at an earlier time may have been okay, but today it’s not that practical.

Executing heretics at any time and in any place is contrary to the very heart of the message of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. Sadly, some radical Muslims still embrace this sort of punishment. I believe that Muslims who convert to some other faith may be killed in some Islamic nations even today. Sounds like they agree in principle with Aquinas.  

 By the way, this position of Aquinas doesn't take from his brilliance in many respects. However, when I ran across this in the Summa, as well as some other statements he made that have been outdated by modern science, my reverence for him took a serious blow. Like so many church fathers, philosophers, doctors and saints of the past they did not have the knowledge that we possess today. They should be forgiven, but also not given more authority than they deserve.

 

[Betterave]

They are consistent. Consistently wrong. But consistent.

I seek not argument, now, but understanding. This is such an alien concept to me, much like sharia law and circumcision of women in my mind.
QUOTE]

Wait a minute, Paul: earlier you said you admired Aquinas for his consistency. What did you mean by that? You admired his being consistently wrong?? (Please (all), let’s not turn this into a mere polemic where we ignore principles and reason and self-righteously judge others according to our own sensibilities - if you genuinely seek understanding, please refer to the text and explain yourself.)

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Wait a minute, Paul: earlier you said you admired Aquinas for his consistency. What did you mean by that?

For the case of burning heretics, I admire that, given his premises, his conclusion follows. All the consequences of his premises, even the ones I think are rather terrible, he honors. He doesn’t simply accept the premises while rejecting the conclusions he doesn’t like.

I think he’s wrong in this case, but I admire his intellectual honesty. I admire his consistency.

As for his position on hell, though (that there is physical torment, and that people in heaven are aware of it), I don’t think it’s really his, but simply the position of a friend of his.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

By the way, this position of Aquinas doesn’t take from his brilliance in many respects. However, when I ran across this in the Summa, as well as some other statements he made that have been outdated by modern science, my reverence for him took a serious blow. Like so many church fathers, philosophers, doctors and saints of the past they did not have the knowledge that we possess today. They should be forgiven, but also not given more authority than they deserve.

I completely agree. I think it was said most succinctly by another poster, “We should not burn people.” (Awatkins)

 

[Betterave]

For the case of burning heretics, I admire that, given his premises, his conclusion follows. All the consequences of his premises, even the ones I think are rather terrible, he honors. He doesn’t simply accept the premises while rejecting the conclusions he doesn’t like.

I think he’s wrong in this case, but I admire his intellectual honesty. I admire his consistency.

As for his position on hell, though (that there is physical torment, and that people in heaven are aware of it), I don’t think it’s really his, but simply the position of a friend of his.

Okay, but this doesn’t help us to *understand *much. Could you perhaps identify the premise that you disagree with? Or do you simply *admire *consistency (in others), without *advocating *it (and cultivating it in yourself)?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Okay, but this doesn’t help us to *understand *much. Could you perhaps identify the premise that you disagree with? Or do you simply *admire *consistency (in others), without *advocating *it (and cultivating it in yourself)?

Snide enough? I can see the curl in your lip when you mouth the end of this.

I think I’ll put you on that “ignore” list these forums have.

 

[awatkins69]

AWATKINS69

Hm! Do I detect, perhaps, a bit of justification for executing heretics in bygone times? It sounds a little as though you think the burning of heretics at an earlier time may have been okay, but today it’s not that practical.

Executing heretics at any time and in any place is contrary to the very heart of the message of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. Sadly, some radical Muslims still embrace this sort of punishment. I believe that Muslims who convert to some other faith may be killed in some Islamic nations even today. Sounds like they agree in principle with Aquinas.  

 By the way, this position of Aquinas doesn't take from his brilliance in many respects. However, when I ran across this in the Summa, as well as some other statements he made that have been outdated by modern science, my reverence for him took a serious blow. Like so many church fathers, philosophers, doctors and saints of the past they did not have the knowledge that we possess today. They should be forgiven, but also not given more authority than they deserve.

First of all, I do not think it is directly contrary to the natural law or the Spirit. If execution of a murderer is not, then neither is the execution of those who spread malicious and damnable lies. Moses was arguably the first inquisitor. Now, this sounds appalling, and burning another human being alive should seem repugnant to us. However, this is not a popularity contest, and in principle they weren’t technically wrong. Aquinas explains why.

With that said, I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. I commented: “We should not burn people.” I absolutely hate the thought of it, and I don’t think we should ever do it. It’s tragic, and I don’t want to see my neighbors in such terrible suffering and pain. Just like I don’t think we should execute thieves, or even murderers. But I’m not going to say it’s directly contrary to the natural law, because it’s not.

 

[Betterave]

Snide enough? I can see the curl in your lip when you mouth the end of this.

I think I’ll put you on that “ignore” list these forums have.

No Paul, this is the closest there is to a snide-smilie: (so far as I know!)
The purpose of is to indicate friendliness, good-will. I’m sorry you can’t accept that and that you feel the need to submit to these emotional red herrings in your thought process when your claims are intellectually challenged.

to awatkins, post 59:
If St. Thomas’ views here are “the worst sort of evil,” then so are the views of many of the inspired writers of Holy Scripture. And that’s just what many people who aren’t interested in understanding the notion of historical context believe.