Thoughts on Aquinas?

[k5rakitan]

I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ writings lately, and it’s a bit hard to follow in places. Who else has read Aquinas and what are your thoughts?

 

[Brendan]

I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ writings lately, and it’s a bit hard to follow in places. Who else has read Aquinas and what are your thoughts?

One of the most brilliant men who ever lived.

The key to Aquinas is understanding what his terms mean. I too had some difficulty, but then took a Moral Theology course at our local seminary. That covered a lot of Aristotlean\Thomistic terms, and made it much more easy to understand.

Barring that, I would recommend Dr. Peter Kreeft’s “Summa of the Summa”. It still uses the Thomistic language (actually quoting from the Summa), but gives a good ‘layman’s’ description of each. From there, you can pick up the terms.

 

[Nelka]

I like it.

He was extremely clever.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ writings lately, and it’s a bit hard to follow in places. Who else has read Aquinas and what are your thoughts?

Yes, he can be difficult, but not nearly as difficult as Aristotle. I would suggest you start with the Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft or the One Minute Aquinas by Kevin Vost. Then try Aquinas by Edward Feser. By then you should be able to get along in Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae good enough. It just takes a lot of time and thought.

Oh yes, don’t listen to others who may advise " branching out." That is the worst thing you can do as a beginner. Get Thomas down real good before you wander off into works by other philosophers - and there never would be a need to do that unless it was a class assignment or unless you decided to get an advanced degree in philosophy. Thomas is the solid core, stick with him.

Linus2nd

 

[Deana83]

Yes, he can be difficult, but not nearly as difficult as Aristotle. I would suggest you start with the Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft or the One Minute Aquinas by Kevin Vost. Then try Aquinas by Edward Feser. By then you should be able to get along in Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae good enough. It just takes a lot of time and thought.

Oh yes, don’t listen to others who may advise " branching out." That is the worst thing you can do as a beginner. Get Thomas down real good before you wander off into works by other philosophers - and there never would be a need to do that unless it was a class assignment or unless you decided to get an advanced degree in philosophy. Thomas is the solid core, stick with him.

Linus2nd

Yes, that’s what I did. I started delving into too many different philosophers at once and got confused, then bored, and now the books are collecting dust. I may check out “Summa of the Summa,” though, I heard it was a good one.

 

[polytropos]

Many of Aquinas’s writings (like Summa Theologica) presuppose knowledge of Aristotelian metaphysics. I’d second Linus’s suggestion of Aquinas by Feser. It is the most readable introduction I know of, and Feser has a good grasp for what aspects will seem strange to those unacquainted with Aquinas’s thought.

 

[Victor_Emerita]

St. Thomas is a tough one to be sure but have any on here delved into Kierkegaardian thoughts? I would dare say that although Lutheran. He is more relevant today that ever before. I am thinking in particular on The Concept of Anxiety and especially on The sickness unto f death. Both of which regard the Concept of Original Sin.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Much as I admire Aquinas, I think there are faults in his writing style that get in the way of appreciating him as fully as we might. I hate to invoke Martin Luther on this, but he referred to Aquinas as a “chatterbox.” This merits thinking about. Aquinas does sometimes get bogged down in interminable analysis of his subject. He also tends to be dry and humorless. But at other times he is quite readable. My favorite of his witings is Summa contra Gentiles, where the writing style is more relaxed, clear, and smooth flowing.

Yes, commentaries and interpretations of Aquinas, such as those by Feser, Kreeft, and Pieper, are most helpful. I was glad to read that Pieper also seemed to favor Summa contra Gentiles.

My 1/2 cent worth.

 

[Richca]

I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ writings lately, and it’s a bit hard to follow in places. Who else has read Aquinas and what are your thoughts?

St Thomas Aquinas is arguably the greatest theologian the Catholic Church has ever had. As other posters have said, the key to understanding at least some of his works is understanding Aristotolian concepts, terms and philosophy. Before I got somewhat of a grasp on the philosophical terms, reading his writings at times seemed dry to me and way over my head. Once, I got somewhat of a grasp on the Aristotolian/philosophical terms, I love reading his works especially the Summa Theologica and it is very fruitful for me. Aquinas thoroughly covers a subject matter from almost any angle a person can think of. He is also thoroughly Catholic and in agreement with Holy Scripture. I believe at least one pope has called him a single stalwart and bulwark of the Catholic faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

St Thomas Aquinas is arguably the greatest theologian the Catholic Church has ever had. As other posters have said, the key to understanding at least some of his works is understanding Aristotolian concepts, terms and philosophy. Before I got somewhat of a grasp on the philosophical terms, reading his writings at times seemed dry to me and way over my head. Once, I got somewhat of a grasp on the Aristotolian/philosophical terms, I love reading his works especially the Summa Theologica and it is very fruitful for me. Aquinas thoroughly covers a subject matter from almost any angle a person can think of. He is also thoroughly Catholic and in agreement with Holy Scripture. I believe at least one pope has called him a single stalwart and bulwark of the Catholic faith.

No doubt he is the greatest! Even over Augustine.

Yet he is not perfect, as when he advocated the burning of heretics.