Is Aquinas too Shallow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
I’m wondering.

I think something can have qualities that reach behind or above his model of the universe, that the Summa was not meant to be the end but only a step, and the church stopped instead of proceeding.

After all, Aquinas himself didn’t finish it - yet so much has been built on and around his work, but I know of little that has gone deeper than his work in Catholic thought.

Why?
 
What do you mean by “deeper”? There has been plenty of development since his time. Also, it is a scholastic theological work. Read the mystics if you want “deeper”. 🙂
 
I have to admit that I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. The Church certainly didn’t “stop” with the Summa in any sense, nor was it used as the “end all” of spiritual writing. It’s a work that synthesizes the best philosophy with the best theology. Since Aquinas’ time countless people have moved in different directions and/or tried to build on it, some with greater success than others.

All that said, however, I’m still not quite sure what you mean by “shallow”, or what you mean by the Church moving beyond it.

Peace and God bless!
 
Also as a Thomist myself I am insulted. Insulted because you seem to think that the Summa was the peak of the work of Thomas. Rather the Summa was commissioned as a primer textbook for novices (first year religious). His real more complex stuff can be found in his commentary on John (of which there is no parallel) the Catena Aurea his other Summas and commentary on the Sentences and most especially his lectures while teaching at the University.

Well I’m not really insulted I just always laugh when people think that the Summa Theologica is his Magnum Opus when it is the chicken scratch in comparison to many of his other works.

BTW Genesis … Thomas was a mystic also.
 
mosher said:
BTW Genesis … Thomas was a mystic also.
Click to expand...
This is true, but his writings fall more into the scholastic category. They aren’t really in the same genre as those of saints like Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and the like.
 
mosher said:
Also as a Thomist myself I am insulted. Insulted because you seem to think that the Summa was the peak of the work of Thomas. Rather the Summa was commissioned as a primer textbook for novices (first year religious). His real more complex stuff can be found in his commentary on John (of which there is no parallel) the Catena Aurea his other Summas and commentary on the Sentences and most especially his lectures while teaching at the University.

Well I’m not really insulted I just always laugh when people think that the Summa Theologica is his Magnum Opus when it is the chicken scratch in comparison to many of his other works.

BTW Genesis … Thomas was a mystic also.
Click to expand...
Pardon my ignorance. I thought the Summa was the summation of all Catholic thought and was the only thing he wrote. Is his commentary on John and his other stuff available in English?
 
mosher said:
Also as a Thomist myself I am insulted. Insulted because you seem to think that the Summa was the peak of the work of Thomas. Rather the Summa was commissioned as a primer textbook for novices (first year religious). His real more complex stuff can be found in his commentary on John (of which there is no parallel) the Catena Aurea his other Summas and commentary on the Sentences and most especially his lectures while teaching at the University.

Well I’m not really insulted I just always laugh when people think that the Summa Theologica is his Magnum Opus when it is the chicken scratch in comparison to many of his other works.

BTW Genesis … Thomas was a mystic also.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, in my ignorance I kind of thought it was his magnus opus. However, I am still very ignorant in this area.
 
They aren’t really in the same genre as those of saints like Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and the like.
Click to expand...
Well, both of the above followed Scholastic, specifically Thomistic theology, especially St. John of the Cross (I’m so glad I read the Summa before trying to tackle the Ascent of Mount Carmel - Dark Night 😃 ).

Aquinas’ mystical writings are more akin to theirs than many might realize, with the Summa Theologica merely providing the language and framework for a much deeper exploration of the Faith, as played out perhaps most famously by the aforementioned Saints/Doctors of the Church.

Here’s a link to various collections of Thomas’ work in English and Latin. Unfortunately I don’t know of any online copies of his Biblical commentaries in English, though they do exist in Latin.

Peace and God bless!
 
I thought the Summa was the summation of all Catholic thought and was the only thing he wrote.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas was actually one of the most prolific philosophical writers ever. The authorized Leonine edition of his Complete Works (“omnia opera”) in Latin is over 50 volumes and still having more added even after a century of work. It is worth several thousand dollars for a library to have…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_Thomas_Aquinas
 
Chesster said:
Here are some of his commentaries.

Here is his Commentary on the book of Job.

Here is his Commentary on the Psalms.

I highly recommend the Catena Aurea and the Commentary on the Gospel of St. John both in English.

Yes I love Aquinas.
Click to expand...
Wow! Thanks for the links! I’ve been looking for these works online and in English FOR EVER! It’s my understanding that his Commentary on the Psalms has never been published in English, but here we have online translations available!

Awesome!

God bless!
 
Perhaps it’s possible to argue, with some measure of sanity and truthfulness, that the Reformation can be read as a dispute between differing interpretations of Aquinas - a dispute in which only one party still reads Aquinas, and that sparingly.

The reconciliation of the church with itself may require revisiting those ancient battlefields and picking up the pieces from where we left off, as if anyone is still interested.
 
Truthstalker said:
Perhaps it’s possible to argue, with some measure of sanity and truthfulness, that the Reformation can be read as a dispute between differing interpretations of Aquinas - a dispute in which only one party still reads Aquinas, and that sparingly.
Click to expand...
Well, to a certain extent this is true, but most because St. Thomas Aquinas utterly demolishes 90% of Protestant views in the Summa Theologica. I’m sure that is one reason that it was held in such high accord at the Council of Trent. If the Reformers had been more familiar and understanding of Aquinas’ arguments, they may have more easily seen the flaws in their own.

Of course, I don’t know how well read in Aquinas individual Reformers were, so it’s pure speculation.

Peace and God bless!
 
I read where Aquinas was granted a vision … a mystical vision of God and after the vision commented that based on what I have seen all my works are straw.

One of the greatest philospophical writers in human history knew that he had only barely scratched the surface of what God is. I think Aquinas would say he only wrote a good preface.
 
ncgolf said:
I read where Aquinas was granted a vision … a mystical vision of God and after the vision commented that based on what I have seen all my works are straw.

One of the greatest philospophical writers in human history knew that he had only barely scratched the surface of what God is. I think Aquinas would say he only wrote a good preface.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Even when he was writing the Summa I’m sure he would have stressed it (and did in the work itself, in fact). After his ecstatic vision of God, however, he was personally aware of just how transcendent direct knowledge of the Divine is, and how even our greatest minds are merely groping in the dark even with the Revelation of Scripture. Luckily, it is a vision we can all experience in Heaven 👍

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top