Is Sacred Doctrine Science, Summa Theologica, Pars Prima Article 2

[wussup]

I find myself agreeing more with the objections than with Aquinas’ line of reasoning. It seems to me he is trying to stretch the definition of ‘science’, or my understanding of ‘science’ in Aquinas’ time is not correct. Still, he does say, ‘There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic’, and later he links the faith with the aforementioned science on the basis of the Aquinas’ faith being the ultimate source of the very sciences ‘is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science’. I think it is the inherent murkiness of the ‘sacred doctrine’, what Aquinas called in article 1, ‘to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason’, the principle that Faith and the Supernatural, non-rational nature of the Revelation of God to man, that purposefully sets Faith in the True God outside (or even above) science.

 

[Katholish]

Divine Revelation provides us with certain truths. It seems the question here is whether or not reason can be applied to these truths to increase our knowledge by providing logical consequences of these truths or if it is not possible to apply reason to truths of revelation.

St. Thomas is taking it for granted that you can apply reason to revealed truths, and it is precisely this process which we call “theology”. (“natural theology” is a slightly different thing)

The fact of the matter is that revelation cannot be entirely seperated from reason, because reason is a necessary component in man’s ability to know. Revealed truths are not known by reason alone but reason is still involved in their acceptance.

If Theology is an organized body of knowledge which begins with certain first principles and then elaborates on them creating new propositions, then theology is indeed a science.

 

[wussup]

Divine Revelation provides us with certain truths. It seems the question here is whether or not reason can be applied to these truths to increase our knowledge by providing logical consequences of these truths or if it is not possible to apply reason to truths of revelation.

St. Thomas is taking it for granted that you can apply reason to revealed truths, and it is precisely this process which we call “theology”. (“natural theology” is a slightly different thing)

The fact of the matter is that revelation cannot be entirely separated from reason, because reason is a necessary component in man’s ability to know. Revealed truths are not known by reason alone but reason is still involved in their acceptance.

If Theology is an organized body of knowledge which begins with certain first principles and then elaborates on them creating new propositions, then theology is indeed a science.

I think that is precisely what St. Thomas figured. I think it is possible to apply reason to revealed truth, and I think it is the process of ‘applying reason to truth’ that he call this type of theology (Art 1. obj 2), what he calls ‘sacred doctrine’, as opposed to the theology as a part of philosophy.

I also think that reason can be applied to anything. I also feel that we are warned in the scripture not to do this because we can scratch our itching ears by reasoning out of Revealed Word, our own desires. Do you see a danger here? Calvin attempted a similar approach to St. Thomas in his, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Both scholarly works of incredible logic, yet at odds.

This is where I think the problems with Christianity always began. We are given a doctrine and then try to reason it on our own. While I think it is possible to apply reason to Revealed Word, I do not think the end result will be ‘true’. As St. Thomas discusses further on, he lays a ground work establishing multiplicity of meanings within scripture.

 

[Katholish]

I also think that reason can be applied to anything. I also feel that we are warned in the scripture not to do this because we can scratch our itching ears by reasoning out of Revealed Word, our own desires. Do you see a danger here? Calvin attempted a similar approach to St. Thomas in his, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Both scholarly works of incredible logic, yet at odds.

There is a danger of heresy and false theology if that is what you mean, but I do not believe that theology itself is inherently dangerous. In fact, it is absolutely inconceivable not to have it because quite frankly the Sacred Scriptures are not always abundently clear. Interpreting Scripture at all implies theology. For instance, is Jesus Christ God? The Scripture does not explicitly say this. Thus, some early Christians denied it, many other accepted it. It is a rather important point, but having an opinion at all implies some sort of theology and application of reason to the revealed truth. It is very clearly present implicitly in the revealed truth, but reason is required to make the implicit explicit (in all cases). Thus, you have the Arians crisis of the 4th Century and the First Ecumenical Council. *

As for Calvin, I would stress that theology has to done within the Living tradition of the Church and not in rebellion or opposition to the Church’s traditional understanding which is what Calvin did.

This is where I think the problems with Christianity always began. We are given a doctrine and then try to reason it on our own. While I think it is possible to apply reason to Revealed Word, I do not think the end result will be ‘true’. As St. Thomas discusses further on, he lays a ground work establishing multiplicity of meanings within scripture.

The different senses of Scripture are never contradictory though, so their truth is complimentary. He is not claiming one sense is true while another is false in any particular situation.*

 

[wussup]

Thus, you have the Arians crisis of the 4th Century and the First Ecumenical Council. *

It is LDS belief that the Ecumenical Councils were a joint work of men who sought the will of God and had to resort to supplicating themselves to temporal authority to reach a consensus of doctrine. I think it is fairly clear the LDS do not believe they succeeded as the RCC do. *

The different senses of Scripture are never contradictory though, so their truth is complimentary. He is not claiming one sense is true while another is false in any particular situation.

I think you and I are in agreement here. I did not mean to imply otherwise. Scripture does not contradict itself; nor is it vague to the point of deception. On the other hand, as St. Thomas quotes Dionysius, “We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils.” I also do not believe in the Kabbalah like approach to scriptural intergrity, though I do not deny God the power to do so if he wished. Kind of wishy-washy, ain’t it?

 

[wussup]

I have read and reread Article 2, IAT, several times. I now understand what he is saying. Ok, ok, he made a believer of me. I think for many this would be a hard thing. I think that if we follow St. Thomas’ conclusions to their logical ending as he says in Article 5, rto2, “Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens”. Does he say here that all other ‘natural’ sciences (chemistry, physics, math, etc…) are subsets of the Higher Science of Sacred Doctrine? Correct me if I am wrong. Am I thinking of this to literally?

Continuing the discussion from Summa Theologica, Pars Prima Article 1, St. Thomas seems to agree with me (hah!!), “*For our [1] faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations ([2] if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): “Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as [3] not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.” *”

Here we see him making a number of (to me) significant points:

1. Faith rest solely upon the Canonical Works, not on the…other doctors
2. He suggests that perhaps none of the non-canonical works are the revealed word (then again only a fool would suggest them totally without influence)
3. We should remain skeptical of the writings of even the most holy and learned

I think it important to reiterate that clearly some percentage of the work is revealed of God.

 

[Katholish]

Does he say here that all other ‘natural’ sciences (chemistry, physics, math, etc…) are subsets of the Higher Science of Sacred Doctrine?

No, he doesn’t mean to imply that.

1. Faith rest solely upon the Canonical Works, not on the…other doctors

Technically I believe this statement to be incorrect (and think Thomas would hold so as well).

When Thomas says: “For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books” I think the “who wrote…” clause modifies only “prophets” and not apostles as well. I think it would more correctly be rendered “to the apostles and those prophets who wrote the canonical books.” Thomas does not hold the position of Sola Scriptura but maintains that the unwritten apostolic preaching is also a source Divine Revelation.

Thanks for clarifying the position on the councils. I know that some Protestant groups maintain the early ones, but didn’t know where the LDS came down on the issue.

 

[wussup]

Referring back to “Does he say here that all other ‘natural’ sciences (chemistry, physics, math, etc…) are subsets of the Higher Science of Sacred Doctrine?”, what does the phrase following the coordinate conjunction ‘but’, 'makes use of them as of the lesser mean? Does RCC doctrine separate the ‘natural sciences’ from the ‘sacred science’ in such a way?

When Thomas says: “For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books” I think the “who wrote…” clause modifies only “prophets” and not apostles as well. I think it would more correctly be rendered “to the apostles and those prophets who wrote the canonical books.” Thomas does not hold the position of Sola Scriptura but maintains that the unwritten apostolic preaching is also a source Divine Revelation.

We also do not hold the position of Sola Scriptura, however, the canonical writings hold a different place in the realm than what you would term ‘apostolic preaching’. I had to read my own writing a several times to figure out what you were referencing, and realized I had poorly stated my point. My reference was not to point out the faith being in apostles and prophets (and should have said this rather than the ‘Canonical Works’ I did say), but rather that it ought not to be on ‘on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors’. When I wrote my statement I was not paying attention to the ‘canonical works’ because it was not what I was referencing internally. Do you think St. Thomas would take umbrage at reading his work with respectful skepticism?

As Question 1 continues, Art. 6, rto 2, states, “Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false”. The RCC has a history of declaring ‘other science’ false based on their private interpretation of the Word of God, and then being in the unfortunate position of having to reverse a decision. Galileo being perhaps the most famous example. We know it was private interpretation because of the many times the RCC has had to reverse itself. I think one of the lessons the LDS leadership has learned is it is best to keep quiet about such matters and let the doctrine of salvation be its own worth.

Art 6 ties in to the aforementioned art 5 to me by virtue of the relevance of ‘sacred science’ to ‘natural science’. What do you think the relationship is between the higher and the lesser sciences?

 

[sillyfrog]

Good question and thanks for sharing.http://www.photosnag.com/img/4713/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif