Summa Theologica

[Anonymous No.9780931]

Has anyone actually read the entire thing? I have read some large portions, mostly on the nature of God and the Trinity as well as on moral law but I've never really have read through it. To me, it's more like a theological encyclopedia rather than an actual work that ones should spend their time reading all the way through.

[Anonymous No.9781051]

>>9780931
That's because it's a series of questions with answers to them for pastoral and theological purposes that would come up for people. I don't understand why it's more memed then Contra Gentiles, which is actually a single work meaning to explain the Christian faith from start to finish.

[Anonymous No.9781459]

Read an abridgement. I think there's one called "A Summa of The Summa".

[Anonymous No.9781506]

>>9781051
So it's basically the catechism but with argumentation?
Why has it been taken as a work of philosophy rather than theology then?
Does his theology have any relevance in modern Catholic or Orthodox theology?

[Anonymous No.9782134]

>>9781506
Aquinas, like all medieval theologians was a theologian-philosopher. They are intertwined. Aquinas is the most important thinker in Christian history alongside Augustine, he's impossible to skip. As for the Orthodox, they barely even have an intellectual tradition and certainly don't have systematic theology on par with Aquinas.
Catechism is a book which simply writes down beliefs of the Catholic Church, which Aquinas didn't do. It's specific questions that were open at the time or needed further strengthening.

[Anonymous No.9783019]

>>9781459
there is a concise summa, made by aquinas himself. about 400 pages long

[Anonymous No.9783080]

>>9780931
see
>>9783019

[Anonymous No.9784133]

>>9782134
this

[Anonymous No.9785239]

>>9783019
Why don't people read Contra Gentiles, I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.9785686]

>>9785239
Because it doesn't have arguments for the existence of God and is focused on arguments for why Christianity is true and Islam,Judaism and Paganism is false.

Ie for the same reason people read the Confessions more than the City of God

Plus Aquinas has no literary value as a writer even if he is right

[Anonymous No.9786313]

>>9781506
well for one, aquinas subjugates philosophy under theology, where philosophy is completed by theology. this is quite a radical move in his part that will serve as the catalyst for the modern revolt in philosophy

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.9786526]

I strongly advise against reading Aquinas (or any other scholastic, although Aquinas is the most damaging since Rome suppported him) unless it's for secular interest. He almost single-handedly redefined theology from being probed by God, to probing God. He also caused a change in the understanding of reason (logos) to mean dianoia, a major foundation of humanism.

[Anonymous No.9786554]

>>9780931
no because i dont like aristotle so why would i like this guy

im a plato/augustine man

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.9786595]

>>9786554
Augustine's Platonist speculations are the worst thing about him next to his proto Calvinism. Great spiritual writer though

[Anonymous No.9786642]

>>9782134
>Aquinas most important besides Augustine
I don't unerstand why people say this so much. Without Aquinas we wouldn't have had Empiricism, but without Anselm we wouldn't have had both Descartes and Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.9786656]

>>9786526
>I strongly advise against reading Aquinas (or any other scholastic, although Aquinas is the most damaging since Rome suppported him) unless it's for secular interest. He almost single-handedly redefined theology from being probed by God, to probing God. He also caused a change in the understanding of reason (logos) to mean dianoia, a major foundation of humanism.
I don't know what this is supposed to entail, or what perspective you're coming from. What's the quick rundown? Hell, provide the whole shebang if it's something especially dangerous.

[Anonymous No.9786777]

>>9786656
Humanism is even worse than Protestantism and pretty much the antithesis of Catholic religion.

[Anonymous No.9786792]

>>9786777
Trips of the Lord's blessing.

[Anonymous No.9786801]

>>9786642
>but without Anselm we wouldn't have had both Descartes and Spinoza.
>thinking either of those philosophers are good

Anon, this is a Catholic thread.

[Anonymous No.9786809]

>>9786777
Okay, why? Sorry but I'm a religion pleb.

[Anonymous No.9786821]

>>9786801
Descartes was catholic anon.

[Anonymous No.9786825]

>>9786821
His philosophy sure as hell isn't.

[Anonymous No.9786837]

>>9786825
wat. his best works would all be masterpieces if it weren't for the parts where he's sucking on gods nipples

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.9786844]

>>9786656
Aquinas redefined Western approach to God as an academic inquiry, as opposed to a mystical encounter. How he was so fond of the Areopagite in light of this, is beyond me.

>>9786642
And Spinoza was cancer. And Descartes's most profound contribution is his alebraic formulation of geometry, which obviously has little to do with Anselm. Anselm reinterpreting Christ's death as ransoming us from God, instead from the devil (reflecting the typology of God ransoming the Hebrews from Pharaoh), completely ruined Western soteriology and paved the way for the Reformation's idea that Christ's Passion (His Resurrection not seen as having salvific value) makes repentence obsolete.

[Anonymous No.9786846]

>>9780931
Is the English translation being sold on amazon for like $200 worth it, or does a lot get lost in translation? My Latin is currently very poor. Should I just wait to improve it before tackling the Summa?

[Anonymous No.9786892]

>>9786844
I think you're confusing Aquinas with the scholastics who came after him and didn't have his touch. Aquinas very much believed in mystical union with God. He wrote one of the great mystical hymns of the Church, after all.

[Anonymous No.9786907]

>>9786526
>Aquinas is the most damaging since Rome supported him
From now on, your posts are classified as weak bait.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.9787017]

>>9786892
I'm not talking about what he personally believed in doctrinally, I'm talking about the consequences of his discursive approach and him being held up as God's gift to theology by Rome. Although many of his conclusions are also erroneous

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.9787065]

>>9786907
I'm contrasting him with Abelard and Ockham, who both got their shit pushed in by Rome, and therefore didn't contaminate theology quite as much as Aquinas, who was so touted he became virtually a new Bible