Philosophy: Is Aquinas Overrated?

[Ghosty]

Further, I actually use the ST as a devotional sometimes–it is so wonderfully calming, since Aquinas’s personality comes across so well in it: serene, free of heat and anger, completely confident in the power of truth to overcome error.

YAY! I’m NOT the only one to do this!

I keep the Summa with me in my bookbag wherever I go, and most nights I read portions of it for about an hour before I sleep. Not because I think Aquinas has all the answers, but as a devotional just as you said.

One of the things that I think happens too often with people studying Aquinas is that they do so looking for answers, rather than to engage a fellow seeker. Aquinas doesn’t present a list of answers, he presents a way of thinking clearly and subtley, even when he gets a few things wrong because of an absence of consideration or information. It’s for this reason that I also prefer the Summa Theologica to any of his other works (which are also all quite good); in the Summa he presents most beautifully his way of intellectually approaching the Truth, and in reading it carefully, devotionally, I truly think we can become saner and more intelligent people. The fact that he’s so brilliantly and articulately correct on most points is really just a side benefit, IMO.

This is also why I consider G.K. Chesterton’s book on St. Thomas Aquinas to be the best study of the man, and perhaps even the best introduction to his philosophy and theology. My understanding of the Summa really took off after I read G.K. Chesterton’s biography of Aquinas, because it gave me insight into the subtlety of Aquinas’ mind, and his practical simplicity. I realized that I had been trying to approach Aquinas as a giant of an intellectual, rather than as a simple man Graced with Wisdom beyond his natural due. Once I realized how much Aquinas engages matters in the simplest possible way, as opposed to bringing in mountains of presuppositions as we typically find in philosophy, I found his writings much more powerful and persuasive. Aquinas never used complex theoretical constructs when the common understanding of how a hammer works would do (a trap that many modern philosophers and theologians sadly fall in to). At the same time, however, he never reduced the magnificence of Divine, or even natural, operation to mere level of a hammer on an anvil (as so many empircists so often do).

For Aquinas, these things are like God because the world is a reflection of God, and everything we have must come from God. This doesn’t reduce God to our level, but it does point out that we’re not so far removed that we’re not experiencing God in every single action that occurs. For Aquinas, every single object, and every single action, points us to God; the trick is in just thinking clearly and simply enough to see it. That is the beauty of his work; his conclusions are simply icing on the cake.

And yes, I am pursuing entering the Dominican Order, so either I’m biased, or I’m just very, very sold on Aquinas

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ahimsa]

Ok. Name 10 places Catholicism and Aquinas disagree. Do it without thinking or using any resources. Just the first ten things that come to mind. Don’t take more than 15 seconds. Then do the same for Augustine.

Ten might be a bit much, but one will do: Aquinas denied the immaculate conception.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Rusty Reno has an interesting article in the last *First Things *criticizing the great Catholic theologians of the 20th century (such as Lonergan and de Lubac and von Balthasar) for taking the neo-Thomist synthesis apart without having anything similar to put in its place.

I can’t link to First Things. I get an error message. Does anyone have a good link? Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Okay–my 5-second critiques: I read Heidegger’s Being and Time. Way too much effort for the very slight reward.

How would you have written it? :bounce:

cpayne:

Kant: I agree with Vaclav–like him or not (like swimming in quicksand), his thought is essential to understand anything after him.

Yeah, that’s the thing. Philosophers are like Lays potato chips. Can’t have just one.

cpayne:

Hegel: My shamefaced admission: I don’t remember ever actually reading anything by Hegel. (Ani Ibi’s scowl might be deepening a bit.)

Ani’s not scowling. Ani’s just organizing her bookmarks and getting a running leap at catching up on her reading. That’s naked fear on her face, not scowling.

:crying:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This is also why I consider G.K. Chesterton’s book on St. Thomas Aquinas to be the best study of the man, and perhaps even the best introduction to his philosophy and theology.

G. K. Chesterton: St Thomas Aquinas

 

[Vaclav]

An additional reason to heartily dislike
Augustine - apart from the fact that he abandoned
the woman who bore him a son, and then they
made him a bishop! Now there’s! a paragon
of virtue and thoughtfulness - who I would run a mile in tight shoes to sit at the feet of and “take instruction.”

In fairness, Saint Augustine never claimed to be a “paragon of virtue” before Christ found him. Indeed, in The Confessions he is more than willing to tell you that he was an abhorrent sinner.

From an historical view I’d make the claim that Augustine was more important to the development of Christianity than Thomas Aquinas. Remember that when Aquinas was writing and teaching, Catholicism was on a firm foundation (apart from the Schism) and the dualists.

When Augustine was writing and teaching Catholicism was under a constant attack and the Truth faced very real difficulties, Arianism, for example came very close to success under the Vandals in North Africa (Augustine actually died while his city was surrounded by Vandals).

Saint Augustine helped to develop many of the concepts we know today and defend them against many of the early heresies.

I’d challenge the idea that he was unworthy to take instruction from due to his past with the question of whether or not you would have listened to:

Paul? Who persecuted Christians before his vision on the road to Damascus.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

reen12:

An *additional *reason to heartily dislike Augustine - apart from the fact that he abandoned the woman who bore him a son, and then they
made him a bishop! Now there’s! a paragon
of virtue and thoughtfulness - who I would run a mile in tight shoes to sit at the feet of and “take instruction.”

Ad hominem.

reen12:

I will now patiently search out the thoughts of
Aquinas on the topic -

No doubt…

reen12:

Well, Thos. Aquinas doesn’t get a pass on this, either. Apparently, according to Thomas, these little souls will enjoy natural happiness but the Beatific vision? Uh uh. The whole Limbo business is just a sorry episode in Church history, with both! Augustine and Aquinas near the head of the parade.

Red herring.

 

[Contarini]

Link please.

I didn’t link to it because I assumed it wasn’t available online yet. As it happens, it is available to subscribers only. You can link to the current issue here, but to read any of the articles (Reno’s is called “Theology after the Revolution”) you have to be a subscriber to the print edition.

It’s interesting that Reno doesn’t criticize Rahner for his unorthodox deviations from Thomism, even Neo-Thomism. After all, Rahner was a student of Heidegger - literally. That is where I normally see the major criticisms of Rahner’s works. Instead he takes him on for the influence he had on Vatican-II? If anything I have the opposite criticism.

I’m not sure what you mean by this last sentence. Do you mean that he had a good influence in spite of his errors? I’m not sure why you conclude from what I said that Reno thinks Rahner’s theology was wholly orthodox. He doesn’t go into it much (because the subject of the article is the effect of these midcentury theologians on post-Vatican-II theology), but his point was that Rahner’s theology was the most deeply flawed of the lot, and that’s why it was unfortunate that he was the only one to provide a theoretical/philosophical structure that could replace Neo-Thomism.

I also disagree with Reno on de Lubac and Balthasar. From what I have read from both, neither pose a threat to Neo-Thomism. It is true that they are not nearly as concerned with philosophy (in the writings I’ve reviewed) as Rahner. Well, I guess I’ll just have to read the article.

Yes, that would be a good idea. Reno says that they attacked Neo-Thomism with devastating effect. I don’t think he thinks that their theology is necessarily incompatible with it–on the contrary, his point appears to be that their valuable contributions only make sense in the framework of traditional Thomism. But he thinks they didn’t realize how fragile the framework was. They intended to attack the overly rigid, unimaginative, ossified aspects of Neo-Thomism, and they brought the whole structure down without having anything to put in its place. I get the impression that he doesn’t really think there’s any way they could have been expected to foresee the effect of their work–rather, I believe he’s calling Catholic theologians to return to traditional sources (including the dread Neo-Thomists such as Garrigou-Lagrange, etc.) in order to provide the framework in which the contributions of the “new theology” an be appreciated.

But please do read the article when you get the chance. I’m sure I’m not doing it justice!

Edwin

 

[reen12]

One needs to keep their eye on the prize.

A statement may be both! an ad hominem
as well as of substantial value, in ferreting out the
house number - in terms of the real “character”
of an individual. The fact that Augustine dumped
the woman he had a child by is a fact.

Characterizing this statement of fact, in this
instance, as an “ad hominem” - is a lovely,
but misapplied dodge - for I inadvertently introduced
Augustine, mistaking his statements for those
of Aquinas. So this cannot be an ad hominen in
this instance, for the “topic” is Aquinas, not
Augustine. It’s interesting, however, to see this
misplaced characterization Ad hominen! A useful tool.
That’s an ad hominen.! Doesn’t apply in this
instance, but keep it ready to hand, for it’s a
dandy dodge when confronted by odious fact. And as
to the fact! that he abandoned this woman before he “found Jesus” …

…one would have thought that “finding Jesus”
would have made Augustine even more aware
of his continuing injustice to this woman.
But, then, we’re talking a bishop’s ring here,
and how inconvenient to have this lady in
the same diocese. Tuck her away someplace
safe, so that she does not constitute a
continuing embarasssment, huh?

Gimme that ol’ time religion.

reen12

 

[reen12]

And, BTW, one can confess theft, for instance,
and be forgiven - but restitution is required,
n’est-ce pas? One can beat one’s breast for
an eternity - yet to continue to act in an unjust
manner makes one’s “contrition” suspect.
Augustine: “Oh, I’m so sorrrry.”

Well, just how sorry are you, Gus baby?
You’ve still got the woman deep-sixed
and they’re meauring your finger for a
bishop’s ring. Hmmmm. He used her, in
point of fact and then bye bye, baby.
It’s been nice, knowin’ ya.

I do love the contrite of heart.

And all this! from one of our leading lights
and a Doctor of the Church to boot.

And…speaking of “boots”…ol’ Augustine
booted this babe outta his! life, and fast.
And any attempt that would have been made
on her part to get Gus to live up to his
responsiblity to her would have been a
bootless effort.

“I need to speak to Gus.”

“I’m sorry. He’s at prayer.”

Times change, but human nature
does not.

reen12

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lily,

To show that Aquinas is not OVERRATED you also need to show that his actual abilities and talents MERIT this high opinion people had of him.

First, I have to prove that** I** am rated above a whole slew of saints and popes.

Verbum

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Contarini:

I didn’t link to it because I assumed it wasn’t available online yet.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote relevant parts and paraphrase other relevant parts, so that the rest of us can follow you. Thank you.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote relevant parts and paraphrase other relevant parts, so that the rest of us can follow you. Thank you.

Or you could just find yourself a print copy. If every time I refer to an article I have to give a summary of it, discussion is going to be very difficult. I wasn’t basing anything much on the article, and I decline to spend the time required to do what you request. Sorry!

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Contarini:

Or you could just find yourself a print copy.

I could.

Contarini:

If every time I refer to an article I have to give a summary of it, discussion is going to be very difficult.

No need for testiness and exaggeration, Edwin.

Discussion is open to all who happen on the thread. Some folks need more explanation than others. When you make references and claims, then the rest of us have to be able to understand them.

If you archly refuse to participate in the process of establishing common understanding, then you are expecting us to accept your point of view on its own authority.

And that is unreasonable!

Contarini:

I wasn’t basing anything much on the article, and I decline to spend the time required to do what you request. Sorry!

Duly noted, Edwin. Duly noted.

 

[cpayne]

Philosophy: Is Aquinas Overrated?

Yes.

Here’s the Angelic Doctor on the topic of Limbo

“Chapter” 35

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Fortunately, the man put down his quill pen, or
whatever he was using to scribe these immortal
words, at age 48. He suddenly realized that all
that he had written was as straw.

Now *there *was a precient thought, Thomas.

All I can think of is the waste of all of that
parchment, made with loving hands.
I mean, writing materials were hard to come
by in his day. His time would have been better
spent writing some more lovely hymns. They
take less parchment.

reen12

The link I get is to Augustine, not Aquinas. Am I misreading the link?

 

[cpayne]

The link I get is to Augustine, not Aquinas. Am I misreading the link?

Sorry–I see this has already been addressed. Please ignore.

 

[reen12]

I made an error, and posted a link to Augustine,
thinking it was Aquinas. I did find a reference to Aquinas’
thought on the subject online.

please see:* Reply - Objection 1 -** near the very*
bottom of the webpage.

sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1997/November/St%20Thomas%20on%20the%20Limbo%20of%20Children.htm

reen12

 

[Vaclav]

And, BTW, one can confess theft, for instance,
and be forgiven - but restitution is required,
n’est-ce pas? One can beat one’s breast for
an eternity - yet to continue to act in an unjust
manner makes one’s “contrition” suspect.
Augustine: “Oh, I’m so sorrrry.”

Well, just how sorry are you, Gus baby?
You’ve still got the woman deep-sixed
and they’re meauring your finger for a
bishop’s ring. Hmmmm. He used her, in
point of fact and then bye bye, baby.
It’s been nice, knowin’ ya.

I do love the contrite of heart.

And all this! from one of our leading lights
and a Doctor of the Church to boot.

And…speaking of “boots”…ol’ Augustine
booted this babe outta his! life, and fast.
And any attempt that would have been made
on her part to get Gus to live up to his
responsiblity to her would have been a
bootless effort.

“I need to speak to Gus.”

“I’m sorry. He’s at prayer.”

Times change, but human nature
does not.

Apologies, apparently it is reen12 who will judge the dead. Now tell us how Paul was a real horse’s ***.

 

[reen12]

I suppose my thought on St. Thomas Aquinas is
that someone would have eventually “done” what
Aquinas did, and Thomas brought great powers of
intellect to his work. Yet even Aquinas, at the very end
of his life, knew that what he had written was as
straw.

For to know and love God is a simple thing, in a way.
This is why so many of the saints had childlike hearts.

And I often wonder if Jesus meant those of childlike heart
[no matter how brilliant the mind] when He said both

Let the little children come unto Me, for of such is
My Kingdom.

You must become as these little hearts are, in order
to know My Father.

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit, if it turned out that
Aquinas had a childlike heart, despite his vast
intellectual capabilites. These are not, of necessity,
disjoint sets. In a sense, God rewarded Thomas for
his devoted work by letting him know God in a way
that God may not be apprehended by intellect alone.
For God is most vested in that which is in the heart.

And children are single-hearted, not capable yet of
the duplicity that adults seem to occassionly thrive on.

Blessed are the single of heart, for they shall see God.

I think that Thomas was single hearted in his love of God.

reen12

 

[Contarini]

Ani,

I don’t know why you are pushing this. If I was making some big argument on the basis of the article, I’d be happy to do what you suggest. But I wasn’t. It’s just not worth it from my perspective.

Sorry for getting testy about it!

Edwin