Did Saint Thomas Aquinas know more about God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter howmanymakecommunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

howmanymakecommunity

Guest
Or any of the Doctors of the Church, for that matter. Can they, through their use of right reason, be said to know more about God than the rest of us? Isn’t our knowledge of God by revelation and experience (both of which only passively received by us?) What I mean is, don’t we all by grace have the same access to God by experience (with the exception of revelation?) I’m thinking of the Aquinas’ of the world as being able to articulate their experience of grace better than the rest of us–but I wouldn’t call that articulation greater knowledge of God.

Follow up question: if they don’t know more about God, then why should I bother with them?
 
Last edited:
Did you know that wifi range is always inversely proportional to the max data limit of your router? Prob not. Its not an experiental truth easily discovered…but by reason it inevitably flows from lesser experiential truths you and I may never have the education or intelligence to unpack.

Why would religion be any different. “New” knowledge by reason is an unpacking of faith/revelation and provides fresh experience and cause to love God more surely?
 
Last edited:
Maybe my mistake is in blurring the distinction between knowledge and experience. I don’t know why I want to do that (on the face of it this seems like just an absurd category mistake) ; nonetheless, it just feels natural to say that I know my father, for example, just as well as I would if I were less capable of explaining the details.
 
Last edited:
Let’s assume that every person has the same access to knowledge of God. Some people clearly choose to make use of that access more than others. The person who spends decades contemplating God will have a deeper knowledge of him than a person who ignores God during the same period of time.
 
You discover God by deepening your relationship with him. So I know more about my best friend than I do about a passing acquaintance. And I know more about a passing acquaintance than I do about a total stranger.

But God is so beyond all of us, we could never comprehend him entirely. We can only get glimpses of him, and make deductions/draw conclusions based on logic and experience.

One thing you might try doing is read Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila (one of the 36 Doctors of the Church, and one of four female Doctors). The part where you understand what she’s saying shows that you know about God as much as she did. The part where it gets too abstract is where she’s had experiences of God that you can’t relate to. That’s not to say you have no capacity to experience God in the same way that she did---- but it’s work, and you need to work at developing that relationship if you want to get further into it. There’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to match her-- just like there’s no guarantee anyone will ever become a stigmatic, or an ecstatic, or a prophet, or a miracle-worker, or a soul-reader, or anything (which are all characteristics of people who have reached that seventh mansion)-- but I don’t think God would ever be displeased when you work hard to be the best “You” that he created you to be and get as close to that seventh mansion as possible. And like most things, it’s more about the journey through life than any destination you may arrive at in life-- you get to discover more about yourself and your relationship with God on your way through the first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth mansions.
 
howmanymakecommunity said:
it just feels natural to say that I know my father, for example, just as well as I would if I were less capable of explaining the details.
Click to expand...
Isnt it also natural to say your mother knows your father better than you? How can that be if your hypothesis is correct?
 
I think reading Aquinas is valuable. If the foundational assumptions he starts with are true, he brilliantly develops ideas about God that follow from those.

I agree with Black Friar, but I know about computer chips. I know a good deal about how the 1 and 0 pass through a microprocessor so that you can get text that I write. If it was important to you learning about this would give you much more knowledge than the experiential knowledge you possess because you have written and read posts on the Internet.

However, while I value theology and better understanding about God, I think it is important to remember what Aquinas said about ALL of his writing. The writing that is so valued by thousands of Thomist was called “straw” by Aquinas. Aquinas had an experience of God. When he was done with this he said his writings were as “straw” when compared to God and he refused to write more or clarify. I would tend to agree with this idea. The more we can enter into a relationship with God, the more we can experience God directly, the better informed we will be about God. One of the values of theology is you can share understanding and truth with others, but what is MORE important is the things that we experience with God that we cannot fully share because they are part of our interpersonal relationship with Him.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
TOmNossor said:
The writing that is so valued by thousands of Thomists was called “straw” by Aquinas. Aquinas had an experience of God. When he was done with this he said his writings were as “straw”.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to study the uses of straw in his day. Soaking up water from the house’s mud floors and doing the same in the barns and stables were two principal uses, Stuffing mattresses another. Pretty much reserved for these kinds of things. He knew that, and his saying the writings were as straw points to either their inaccuracy or their worthlessness in terms of truth. If he was truly happy with his efforts, he could have said they were useful to teach us about God at our level of understanding, but in no way described the glory of the true God. No one who as he did, spent a lifetime writing his material, could just completely abandon it and go wait to die. He must have really believed all he wrote was nonsense, not just inadequate.
 
Straw is very useful, but the point is that it is like nothing in comparison to the true glory and mystery of God.

But to answer the question, if you use and are filled with right reason and know of God, then yes, I suppose he did.

We too could be great saints and use right reason to come to understand God greater.
 
Knowledge of God is granted through grace. People who have more grace generally know more about God. And no, not everyone is given the same access to knowledge of God - for this knowledge is not just intellectual facts that we learn from the Bible or Church teaching, but it is a true intimacy with God’s self, which only comes through consistent prayer and meditation.

Thomas Aquinas was a great saint, and he was granted extraordinary gifts and graces. So I would say yes, he did know a great deal more about God than you, or the people on this forum, or most of the people in the world, in fact.
 
“‘Happy the man whom You instruct, O Lord, whom by Your law teach, giving him rest from evil days (Ps 94:12,13)’ Your ministers often speak to me on Your behalf, and I enjoy reading the many books that tell me of You. But if at the same time You did not let me hear Your voice as well, what impression would these others make on me? What they tell me is true and moves me, but if Your grace does not accompany their words, the truth is not inscribed in my soul and does not penetrate my heart.” ( Imitation of Mary; 2, 29)
 
On his death bed, after an ecstasy, he called his writing “straw” and asked that they be burned.
 
clarkgamble1 said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
The writing that is so valued by thousands of Thomists was called “straw” by Aquinas. Aquinas had an experience of God. When he was done with this he said his writings were as “straw”.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to study the uses of straw in his day. Soaking up water from the house’s mud floors and doing the same in the barns and stables were two principal uses, Stuffing mattresses another. Pretty much reserved for these kinds of things. He knew that, and his saying the writings were as straw points to either their inaccuracy or their worthlessness in terms of truth. If he was truly happy with his efforts, he could have said they were useful to teach us about God at our level of understanding, but in no way described the glory of the true God. No one who as he did, spent a lifetime writing his material, could just completely abandon it and go wait to die. He must have really believed all he wrote was nonsense, not just inadequate.
Click to expand...
I am not a Thomist and I am sympathetic to your assessment. Most importantly, I am a passiblist and thus I reject the position Aquinas espouses in this area and consider much that derived from it poison fruit.
That being said the view held by those closest to him was that whatever God communicated to Aquinas at that time did not mean that his work was anything other than extraordinary. The Thomist view of this event is that as compared to God, any work of human hands regardless of how brilliant (or true from God’s perspective even) would be as straw.

Thomas would repeat the “straw” comment 3 times of which we have record, but we have no record that your view or the view of the Thomist are embraced by Aquinas. To me the multiple witnesses and the repeating of the “straw” comment swamps other reports and it is important that Aquinas didn’t elaborate. I think it quite possible he could not untangle what was tangled. But, I do not think it fair to say that it is impossible that Aquinas only meant that God was so AWESOME that words cannot compare.

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
On his death bed, after an ecstasy, he called his writing “straw” and asked that they be burned.
Click to expand...
I would not say Aquinas was on his death bed.
The ecstasy happened after saying mass. The first report of the comment indicates it happened shortly after this. Aquinas went to visit his sister soon after this and reportedly said the “straw” comment again to her.
The ecstasy was in the Fall, in March of the next year, Aquinas died while heading to the Council of Lyons.
This was not a death bed utterance that Aquinas could not have elaborated upon if he chose.
Some believe he had a stroke and this explains the lack of writing, but those around him just reported that he was more frequently in some type of trance state. In fact, the Atheist embrace the stroke idea consistently in that they think the ecstasy was just stroke too. I believe the ecstasy happened and I believe Aquinas spent about 6 months between life and death with plenty of lucid moments (and likely a good amount of “trance” states that involved him communicated with the other side). Stroke or not, he continued to interact with folks and planned to attend the Council of Lyons (not because he was well, but because he was faithful to the Pope’s request that he come). He died on his journey.
So, I would not call this a death bed utterance.

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Indeed. I use the term “deathbed” rather loosely and liberally in referring to quotes made just before death. I don’t require that the decedent actually have been positioned on that particular piece of furniture at the moment of expiration.

I suppose, since he was in a carriage at the time we could say he died in his “car.” Technically, that could make him a highway fatality. Hopefully, this did not cause any rubber-necking delays on the thru-way for people on the way for the council. But, I think saying that he died on his “deathbed” is a little more dignified than saying he died in his car. Don’t you agree?
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
Indeed. I use the term “deathbed” rather loosely and liberally in referring to quotes made just before death. I don’t require that the decedent actually have been positioned on that particular piece of furniture at the moment of expiration.

I suppose, since he was in a carriage at the time we could say he died in his “car.” Technically, that could make him a highway fatality. Hopefully, this did not cause any rubber-necking delays on the thru-way for people on the way for the council. But, I think saying that he died on his “deathbed” is a little more dignified than saying he died in his car. Don’t you agree?
Click to expand...
Grin!!!
I agree that “deathbed” statements do not have to be in a bed. And truth be told, he paused in his journey at least once at the behest of Reginald of Piperno and may have been paused in an actual bed when he died (I either never knew of cannot remember).

I think you should say he died on an errand from God! What could be more dignified than that. Of course I hope we all die will attempting to do God’s work.

I only suggest that in the debate about what “straw” means, it is of some importance to note that he likely made his “straw” comment three or more times over the space of days AND he lived for 6 months after the initial experience. I however do not think this affixes an unimpeachable definition to “straw” in any case.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
There could have been a sense of pride that St Thomas Aquinas was unconscious of that the ecstasy made him aware of. I would also think the pride was a consequence of the natural talent to do the work. A Grace before death if it happened near the time of his passing. I doubt it was because the work he did was useless to the Church but that doing it well scandalized his soul. The remedy was a taste of the beatific vision and remind himself it was straw in comparison…
 
Last edited:
Hello again.
While looking for information on another question I was having, I came across this:
Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:


It is wonderful and I think it relates to your question. My first response pointed to the superiority of a loving and interpersonal relationship with God as compared to the deep thoughts ABOUT God Aquinas spent most of his life having and cataloging.
My interpersonal relationship with God has NEVER involved Him telling me about sins that do not besiege me. Without authoritative teaching and long fought for reasoning guided by folks like Rabbi Sacks’ talk at the Vatican, I would think the prescription against homosexuality in the Bible was a cultural artifact (just like woman wearing hats in church). So, it is possible that my voice could have been for total unconditional acceptance in the name of love.
If the Catholics in the pews and the priests and bishops who are immersed in the pastoral concerns associated with loving their flock, do not embrace Faith and Reason (and faith and reason), there is a huge danger the truth will be sidelined in order to “love.” Ultimately such “love” is not love as love must include truth.
Aquinas did not neglect reason (or love) and should be applauded for this.
Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top