St. Thomas, priority constraints

[Metatron1]

St. Thomas has a very pronounced and complex hierarchy of authorities and principles that manifestly determines, to an extent, how he frames his argument on points that are subject to opinion. So it’s always interesting when he more or less totally goes off on is own.

For example, St. Thomas examines three notions that had been held regarding “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Summa; II-II Q. XIV A. 1).

He doesn’t indicate his preference, but it can be inferred pretty easily. Stunningly, he seems to favor the explanation given by Richard of St. Victor (1110-1173), to one endorsed by an overwhelming confluence of authorities, including Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Chrysostom.

Augustine’s view is, of course, more figurative and universal, and he stands alone. But sometimes St. Thomas seems to allow Augustine to contend with an opinion almost universally held by the other doctors. An example of this is Creation: St. Thomas appears to like Augustine’s formulation wherein Creation was not measured by priority of time, but only priority of nature, and each creation was created potentially and not actually, in its turn. (Incidentally, this accords remarkably well with the evolution of species.)

On this question, however, St. Thomas, while not making a judgment, does state that in Augustine’s explanation, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is neither a generically not specifically distinct sin. And the next article clearly presents it as a special sin.

I just thought this was interesting because St. Thomas has fairly rigorous priority constraints. After Holy Writ and the judgments and enactments of the Church, he obviously gives priority to Aristotle and Augustine (in which order, I dare not venture an opinion but rather leave the question to those more learned and qualified than myself). After that…Pseudo-Dionysius? (bizarrely); Nemesius? It’s tough to say but I’d love to hear what people think.

 

[Richca]

I think St Thomas sought the truth of things or favored a certain opinion whether his own or from another that was more reasonable in a certain sense whoever might have said it. I don’t see him as having ‘absolute’ priority constraints except as you mention Sacred Scripture which is the word of God and the teaching of the Church. Augustine had great influence among the scholastic theologians understandably so, one just has to read Augustine’s works. Aquinas saw Aristotle as the pre-eminent philosopher among the Ancient Greek philosophers using the natural light of reason.

Among the three opinions or meanings Aquinas says have been given to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, he favors the one given by the Master (btw, this is Peter Lombard not Richard of St Victor although maybe Richard of St Victor held the same opinion) without denying that the other two interpretations can’t be held according to a certain meaning.

Concerning creation or the interpretation of the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3, two principle interpretations had been handed down in the Church’s Tradition to the scholastics as Aquinas says, namely, the Ambrosian from St Ambrose which we could also include the one from St Basil here too, and the Augustinian. The Ambrosian/Basilian was the majority interpretation. I recall in one of this works, probably an earlier work of his, that St Thomas remarks that he favored the Augustinian interpretation because he thought it was susceptible to less attacks from infidels or unbelievers. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas presents both interpretations in his treatise on the six days of creation without explicitly for the most part preferring one over the other. However, in Pt. I, Q. 74, art. 2, “Whether All These Days are One Day?”, Aquinas answers in the negative seemingly to prefer here the Ambrosian/Basilian interpretation in which there were seven literal days or a passage of time from the work of one day to the next which seems to better fit in with Aquinas dividing the work of creation into the work of creation, the work of distinction, and the work of adornment which he says here in the replies to the objections to the above article did not all take place at once.