Is St. Thomas' Summa "Official" Church Teaching?

[Fidelis]

Continued from the thread found at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15084#post205941

I freely admit that some of the more esoteric points of this are unknown to me. But I would have thought that the Summa enjoys the approval of the ordinary and universal Magisterium even though it has not received, as far as I know, the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium. But since the Summa has not been challenged one would assume that there is no need to seek the approval of the extraordinary Magisterium?

Again, the fact that a work is often quoted or is greatly esteemed has no bearing on whether that work as a whole can be called official Catholic teaching. Only if the Pope with or without the bishops proclaim it (extraordinary magisterium) or the Church has always taught it (ordinary magisterium) can it be called Church teaching.

 

[jmm08]

St. Thomas is not only a saint but also a Doctor of the Church.

See catholic.org/saints/doctors.php

This is a very special title accorded by the Church to certain saints. This title indicates that the writings and preachings of such a person are useful to Christians “in any age of the Church.” Such men and women are also particularly known for the depth of understanding and the orthodoxy of their theological teachings. While the writings of the Doctors are often considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean they are infallible, but it does mean that they contributed significantly to the formulation of Christian teaching in at least one area.

I’m going to my 2nd RCIA class tonight.

 

[Maccabees]

Fidelis is right although the Summa is a brilliant piece of work and Aquinas is a Doctor of the church and it is profitable for reading it is not inspired like the Bible nor does it carry the weight of the magisterium. Aquinas while many of his opinions have been adopted by the church some have never been adopted and some that were adopted have been subsequently dropped. Aquinas we must remember was limited to confines of the middle ages. He was probably the most brilliant man of his time but I suspect he would have been more brilliant today as his resources with the modern age of the internet and such would have been unlimited. In fact we have works of the chuch fathers, greek philosophy that Aquinas did not have during his time.

For example Aquinas did not beleive in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. (He was real close he beleived she lived a sinless life and was freed from the stain of sin while in the womb of St. Anne) that did not stop the church from overuling him when it camd time to dogmatized this beleif held by many others.

His theology is still running through the church to this day his natural law theories and his just war theories completed what Augustine kick started and the church goes with his teachings on those subjects to this day. Also his teachings on the sacraments are what the churches refer to in modern catholicism as he crystalized in theological terms what the fathers had always taught.

Wow that nasty thread you referred to is a classic case of ignorance of how the church operate the Magesterium and Popes declare teaching not theologians no matter how brilliant they may be. Coming from an Orthodox this is supriseing I suspect he is a recent convert to Orthodoxy who is still learning how the church works. Many eastern fathers and bishops disagreed with the ecunmeicla councils they participated in yet the Councils declaration ruled above them. Individuals are just that individulas when they teach apart from the magesterium of the church which speaks though the councils headed by the bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome who is the head.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fidelis:

Continued from the thread found at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15084#post205941

Again, the fact that a work is often quoted or is greatly esteemed has no bearing on whether that work as a whole can be called official Catholic teaching. Only if the Pope with or without the bishops proclaim it (extraordinary magisterium) or the Church has always taught it (ordinary magisterium) can it be called Church teaching.

Another contributor to the thread from which this originates has shown that Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the necessity of exterminating heretics was given infallible endorsement at the Lateran Council IV (12th Ecumenical Council) which was ratified by Pope Innocent III. So this teaching of the Summa on heretics is also Church teaching.

Please see Message 52 at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=205941#post205941

 

[Maccabees]

Answer from Radio Replies First Volume by fathers Rumble and Carty.

Q. St. Thomas taught that heretics should be put to death.

A. .He had in mind such men as had been Catholics, and who labored to destroy the faith of other Catholics after their own lapse from the Church. And even then he puts the question speculatively. And he was quite logical. He argued that one who unjustly takes his life neighbor’s life by murder deserves death at the hands of the state. But he who destroys the faith of another robs him, not of his temporal life, but of his eternal life, which is far worse. The state, therefore, which is bound to safeguard the complete well-being of its citizens, would be justified in putting such a man to death, removing him permanently from among men to whom he can do so much damage. Speculatively, then St. Thomas says that such a penalty would not be excessive. In practice **he does not say this should be done. **And even if it were to be done, he writes that the church whose mission is one of mercy must do all she can to win such a man from his sinful dispositions and destructive campaign, in order to save both his temporal and spiritual life if possible.

Fr. Ambrose.

Another contributor to the thread from which this originates has shown that Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the necessity of exterminating heretics was given infallible endorsement at the Lateran Council IV (12th Ecumenical Council) which was ratified by Pope Innocent III. So this teaching of the Summa on heretics is also Church teaching.

---

Well theLateran Council does not say the death penalty should be done.

It endorses excommunication by the church and the temporal punishment is to be left up to the states.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Well theLateran Council does not say the death penalty should be done.

It endorses excommunication by the church and the temporal punishment is to be left up to the states.

The Lateran Council (the 12th Ecumenical Council) mandates that the secular rulers must carry out the execution following the Church’s sentence of heresy. Failure to execute the heretic will bring down upon the secular ruler the Church’s excommunication, his removal from his throne or authority and the confiscation of his lands.

What choice did that leave the local King or Prince? He was obliged to execute the heretics as instructed by the Church or he would be deprived of his throne and his lands.

ON INSURING SECULAR AUTHORITIES EXTERMINATE HERETICS
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

ON SEIZING THE TERRITORY OF UNRESPONSIVE SECULAR RULERS
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

The full canons here:

www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/lateran4.html

 

[Maccabees]

Fr Ambrose:

What choice did that leave the local King or Prince? He was obliged to execute the heretics as instructed by the Church or he would be deprived of his throne and his lands.

Where does it say execute? It does not say that.
It says (canon 3) "Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice,"
That due justice could be handed it out in any number of ways it does not necessarily include the punishment of death. The main theme here is to get these people out of the public square “let them be abandoned” that could include seclusion many catholic countires did not choose to execute heretics. However, some did, it was up to the secular authorites as to the punishment deemed appropriate. IT was for the Church to decide as to whether a man’s teachings were heretical; while the punishment was left to the state.

CANON 18

SUMMARY Clerics may neither pronounce nor execute a sentence of death. Nor may they act as judges in extreme criminal cases, or take part in matters connected with judicial tests and ordeals.

*Text. *No cleric may pronounce a sentence of death, or execute such a sentence, or be present at its execution. If anyone in consequence of this prohibition *(hujusmodi occasions statuti) *should presume to inflict damage on churches or injury on ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. Nor may any cleric write or dictate letters destined for the execution of such a sentence. Wherefore, in the chanceries of the princes let this matter be committed to laymen and not to clerics. Neither may a cleric act as judge in the case of the Rotarrii, archers, or other men of this kind devoted to the shedding of blood. No subdeacon, deacon, or priest shall practice that part of surgery involving burning and cutting. Neither shall anyone in judicial tests or ordeals by hot or cold water or hot iron bestow any blessing; the earlier prohibitions in regard to dueling remain in force.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Where does it say execute? It does not say that.

“Secular authorities…ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.”

"But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province.** If he refuses** to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. "

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Answer from Radio Replies First Volume by fathers Rumble and Carty.

Q. St. Thomas taught that heretics should be put to death.

A… Speculatively, then St. Thomas says that such a penalty would not be excessive. In practice **he does not say this should be done. **.

Father Rumble! That is a real blast from the past! I wonder how many here are old enough to remember his broadcasts? All the same it is kind of obvious that Fr Rumble has not actually gone “ad fontes” and checked what Aquinas did in fact teach… Aquinas is pro-active about the necessity of putting heretics to death.

"With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

"But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death."

Aquinas.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and 2/2

 

[Fidelis]

Fr Ambrose:

Father Rumble! That is a real blast from the past! I wonder how many here are old enough to remember his broadcasts? All the same it is kind of obvious that Fr Rumble has not actually gone “ad fontes” and checked what Aquinas did in fact teach… Aquinas is pro-active about the necessity of putting heretics to death.

"With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

"But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death."

Aquinas.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and 2/2

You are going full circle back to Aquinas who’s writings we have already established do not speak for the Church in an official capacity.

As to the Lateran Council pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, it has also been correctly pointed out that extermination does not neccessarily equate to execution. We must not try to impose a modern understanding of this word, which we would associate with what the Orkin man does to termites. According to Websters New College dictionary, in fact, the word exterminate comes from the Latin exterminare, which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). So the logical meaning of extermination in this case is, not to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. Big difference.

 

[Maccabees]

Fr. Ambrose

Father Rumble! That is a real blast from the past! I wonder how many here are old enough to remember his broadcasts?

Yeah like going back to Aquinas and the lateran councils 800-900 years ago is not digging into the past!
Are the Eastern bishops still following orders by the Roman Emperor that are contrary to faith?
I think many things have changed since those times. In both East and West the seperation of the church from temporal affiairs is better for all those invloved. Sure many abuses occured in the church. The church is made of sinners. All we can do is admit faults of past church members and hope and pray not to make the mistake again. We have to go forward with our faith at some point and save the souls of the present and the future including our own, our faimily, our friends. While learning from the past is profitable dwelling on the past is a waste as we have to much work to do in the present. Why do I get the impression some Orthodox do a lot of dwelling on the past?

 

[jegow]

Well, I have read all the posts, wow, pretty intense. St. Thomas is a great theologian; there is no doubt about that. He was even subject to error like all of us are now. Even though his writings may not be 101% perfect, he has been used in many church documents as well as many contemporary writers in the Church. I have been studying bits and pieces of his works for three and a half years and I can say that his writings can really help to put reality in perspective.

Is Thomas the only person I read, no, and I don’t think anyone should just read him. Also, I don’t think that if he said something questionable that he should be totally ignored either. We should really take in and accept all the good that he has to offer. That’s just my thought.

:ehh: jegow :ehh:

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Yeah like going back to Aquinas and the lateran councils 800-900 years ago is not digging into the past!

I suppose the difference is that Lateran Council IV (the 12th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church) is infallible in its teaching and as such it still has irrevocable force and authority in the 21st century.

Why do I get the impression some Orthodox do a lot of dwelling on the past?

Oh that pesky past Those old and mouldy words of the Lord… 2000 years old? Those ancient Councils which clarified for us our basic understanding of the Trinity and who Jesus Christ really is and the Holy Spirit - most of those are way back in the past, from 1200 to 1700 years…

…but let’s not dwell on them too much

Maccabees (isn’t that one of those ancient names?), what you will find is that the Orthodox are much more conscious of the Church’s past than Roman Catholics. They have a seriously wholistic approach to the Church’s life, What happened within the Church in the 4th century is just as important as what happened in the 20th. To the Orthodox mind the Church’s history and existence is encapsulated into a “now” moment. It is part of what gives apostolic tradition its immediacy and its vibrant power. The Church is one, not only geographically across the world but also in terms of temporality, back through all times and generations.

 

[Maccabees]

Oh yeah like the catholic church was not part of those councils give me a break and get off your high horse.The Orthodox and Catholic traditions are equally ancient and apostolic. OF course catholics take ecunemical councils seriously we still have them the faith is not frozen in time.

Look I respect the Orthodox church and her apostolic traditions.
I don’t have a bone to pick with your faith as you seem to have with us. Why the inferiority complex? Are you a convert from Protestantism?

Cradle Orthodox who I have met don’t have the venom of the recent convert. Has Rome made mistakes in her relations with others. Sure she has and its important to learn from our mistakes but I am to busy with my life trying to live my faith in the present to nitpick every mistake of a mideveil theologian intolernace of heresy. Look blast away at the catholic church like the Orthodox Jack Chick all you want but it won’t change the past. We as apostolic churches need to reconcilliate at the very least. Here’s a newsflash the excoummnications have been lifted ok? Both the heads of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church have made overt overatures of healing and forgiveness. We should follow their lead. We have real evil in the world right now and should be more focussed on battling the common evil we both face than to go around in circles about Saint Thomas mistakes.
Peace be with You and Goodnight!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Here’s a newsflash the excoummnications have been lifted ok? Both the heads of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church have made overt overatures of healing and forgiveness.

Another newsflash!

The Patriarch of Constantinople is NOT the head of the Orthodox Church. His “spiritual brief” extends to 3,000 Greeks in Istanbul and around 5,000,000 Greeks in the Americas, Western Europe and Australia.

The Patriarchs of the other Orthodox Churches, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, Sofia, Bucherest, etc., etc. have not agreed with what Patriarch Athenogoras and Pope Paul did in lifting the Anathemas.

This is one of the reasons that it has not proceeded to intercommunion between the Constantinople Patriarch and the Roman Pope -something we would have expected after the Anathemas were lifted. But the other Orthodox Churches (of which there are about 20 in the 21st century) did not agree with the lifting of the Anathemas and Constantinople has not ventured into intercommunion with the Pope.

As for facing a common enemy…? Yes, you are right and we should be working on this. I think that we are in some ways. Pope and Patriarchs have made submissions to the EU about the importance of Christianity in Europe.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Are you a convert from Protestantism?

No. It is kind of odd that until I became a priest at age 32 (I am now knocking on 59) I had not been inside a Protestant church.

But as a priest in a country where we have only a small number of Orthodox churches I have borrowed Protestant churches (Anglican) to do weddings and funerals in cities and towns with no Orthodox church.

 

[Maccabees]

20 differnet Orthodox churches with no one spirutal head, all of these churches disagreeing with each other and speaking for themselves.
Which of the 20 is your church? Is it somehow better than the other 19? Greeks tell me their church is best, Copts the same, Russians the same. Why this opinion that one Orthodox church is better than teh another.
No wonder talks on reconcilliation are sloooow! We don’t who to talk to.

 

[Maccabees]

Married or single priest?

Why married or why single and what is most common among Orthodox priest these days?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

20 differnet Orthodox churches with no one spirutal head, all of these churches disagreeing with each other and speaking for themselves.

It was noted in one of the threads that there are no disagreements within Orthodoxy at all about doctrine. They are united 100% on that. Areas of disagreement are ones which are external to our faith. The primary disagreement these days is: how do we relate to the modern ecumenical movement? This is where the Constantinople Patriarch’s action falls. The doctrinal implications (after all, it should have led to communion between Rome and Constantinople) have been ignored and it has been treated as a simple act of goodwill.

Which of the 20 is your church?

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

Is it somehow better than the other 19?

No.

Greeks tell me their church is best, Copts the same, Russians the same. Why this opinion that one Orthodox church is better than teh another.

Ignore it! Childish prattle! You’ll hear Irish Catholics vaunting their Church as better than Dutch Catholics because the Dutch are too liberal and lacking in respect for Rome. But it doesn’t mean much apart from national rivalry, the same as football fans. Mind you, Russians have the bext church music and best icons :yup:

No wonder talks on reconcilliation are sloooow! We don’t who to talk to.

What I think will happen is this… in a few hundred years the Orthodox will look at the Church of Rome and they will say: “Hey, look what’s been happening. Ever since Vatican II they’ve been moving their faith closer and closer to the ancient faith. We can’t see any differences. It’s probably time to seriously investigate if we are able to enter into communion with the Church of Rome.” So the Orthodox will then take another few centuries to convene a pan-Orthodox Council and if all goes well the schism with the Church of Rome will be brought to an end.

Have you seen this little article?

**An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper: **
**‘The Orthodox Church does not really exist.’
**
orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

 

[Maccabees]

I think the aricle reflects a common misconception (mine included) that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has a similar role in the East as a mini=pope. I think this misconception had us reaching out to the Patriarchate of Constantinople instead of the whole Orthodox community. Live and learn.

Reconcilliation ultimately comes from the Holy Spirit working in the church. Not of men’s minds and intellect apart from the holy spirit.