Why is St. Thomas concerned with proving that sacred doctrine is a science? Jason has already noted that we are not discussing the natural sciences; actually, the word that is used is "scientia" which means "knowledge". Sacred doctrine is something we can know, it is not merely a matter of opinion or a series of rules thought up in order to flesh out a religion. By affirming that theology is a science, St. Thomas ensures that it's principals can be known, argued, debated, and declared true. It is in this way that authority can be given to St. Athanasius over Arius; St. Francis de Sales over John Calvin; and Evangelium Vitae over the Prosperity Gospel.
I will continue to think about this over a bowl of Old Toby and Monday Night Football.
Quis Illum?
Jim
A daily slog by a few Catholic men through the Summa.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Q1A2: St. Thomas uses the "science" in a new way for me. Obviously he is using the word in a different way than I do with respect to "biology" or "chemistry". Also, I wonder if I am correctly viewing "sacred doctrine" as "theology".
Q1A3: A further analysis concerning whether sacred doctrine is a single science (as opposed to a family of sciences?). Here I think we see the influence of Aristotle in the distinction between material and formal objects.
Q1A4: St. Thomas says that sacred doctrine is not a practical science but rather a speculative science. I see is point, but I cannot help but wonder what is the practical science that follows. Ethics?
Q1A3: A further analysis concerning whether sacred doctrine is a single science (as opposed to a family of sciences?). Here I think we see the influence of Aristotle in the distinction between material and formal objects.
Q1A4: St. Thomas says that sacred doctrine is not a practical science but rather a speculative science. I see is point, but I cannot help but wonder what is the practical science that follows. Ethics?
Sunday, September 29, 2013
A happy and blessed Michaelmas to all. I want to take this opportunity to welcome everyone who has been invited to contribute through this slog through St. Thomas' Summa. Why a slog? Well, aside from the obvious resemblance with the neologism "blog", calling this a slog is a healthy reminder that this will be a long hard process that will hopefully affect each of us. I must admit that another reason is that I shy away from the word "journey" due to its correlation with flannel banners and '70s hymns in my mind. As most of you know, my inspiration for this was my reading on the relatively new Jewish tradition of the "daf yomi" (for more info: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/108518/a-talmudic-journey-begins). I immediately thought that the closest we Catholics have to the Talmud is St. Thomas' magnum opus. For those of you who come across this endeavor, feel free to comment. Keep it civil and be warned that though we are a group of men who prefer the word "reverent" to its opposite (I will never understand how "irreverent" became a term of praise), we employ irony and attempt rapier-like thrusts of wit, even if the end result more often resembles a rusty claymore.
When I was in law school and the inevitable defense of the methods and traditions of American legal education were used to counter the real or perceived complaints of students and younger faculty about the non-utilitarian nature of such an education, one of my favorite defenses was that law school was not only designed to teach us the law, but rather to teach us how to think like a lawyer. I set out to read the Summa all the way through so that I could think like a Thomist. More on that another day, however, it is interesting that our Holy Father gave an interview for publication in various Jesuit organs in which he criticized the decadent neo-Thomism of the mid-twentieth century. Of course the secular press failed to mention that this criticism occurred directly after a fulsome praise of the genius of St. Thomas himself. So, in the spirit of the best of Vatican II (and in line with one of my heroes, Henri de Lubac), lets do some ressourcement.
As a consequence of the introduction above, today's entry will be somewhat larger than the average, but that is to be expected. I will set out with the aim of doing at least one article per day, but usually more, an entire question if possible. I calculated that it would take until February of 2015 if we were to do one question per day, I hesitate to calculate how long it would take if we were to do one article per day. On the other hand, a cycle of daf yomi (I will not even try to make a Hebrew plural) takes roughly seven years.
Question 1 Article 1 asks the appropriate question with which to begin: What's the point? Why do we study theology (broadly defined)? In a sense it is the inverse of the question posed by Origen (or was it Tertullian): what has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Aquinas asks if theology is a waste of time since we already have philosophy. In our current age of doubt (in contrast to what we like to think of St. Thomas' age of faith), this is a great question to ask. As I come to this question from the perspective of faith, the answer seems obvious. On the other had, I imagine that Ambrose and Augustine would remind us that many people of faith (though not the Faith) implicitly or explicitly believe that man can ascend to the heavens by reason alone, without need of revelation. Pelagius, anyone? Modern liberal Christianity shares this perspective. As will often be the case, I assume, St. Thomas gets me on board by invoking one of my original favorites, the book of Ecclesiastes.
Tomorrow, articles 2-4.
Vale,
JR
When I was in law school and the inevitable defense of the methods and traditions of American legal education were used to counter the real or perceived complaints of students and younger faculty about the non-utilitarian nature of such an education, one of my favorite defenses was that law school was not only designed to teach us the law, but rather to teach us how to think like a lawyer. I set out to read the Summa all the way through so that I could think like a Thomist. More on that another day, however, it is interesting that our Holy Father gave an interview for publication in various Jesuit organs in which he criticized the decadent neo-Thomism of the mid-twentieth century. Of course the secular press failed to mention that this criticism occurred directly after a fulsome praise of the genius of St. Thomas himself. So, in the spirit of the best of Vatican II (and in line with one of my heroes, Henri de Lubac), lets do some ressourcement.
As a consequence of the introduction above, today's entry will be somewhat larger than the average, but that is to be expected. I will set out with the aim of doing at least one article per day, but usually more, an entire question if possible. I calculated that it would take until February of 2015 if we were to do one question per day, I hesitate to calculate how long it would take if we were to do one article per day. On the other hand, a cycle of daf yomi (I will not even try to make a Hebrew plural) takes roughly seven years.
Question 1 Article 1 asks the appropriate question with which to begin: What's the point? Why do we study theology (broadly defined)? In a sense it is the inverse of the question posed by Origen (or was it Tertullian): what has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Aquinas asks if theology is a waste of time since we already have philosophy. In our current age of doubt (in contrast to what we like to think of St. Thomas' age of faith), this is a great question to ask. As I come to this question from the perspective of faith, the answer seems obvious. On the other had, I imagine that Ambrose and Augustine would remind us that many people of faith (though not the Faith) implicitly or explicitly believe that man can ascend to the heavens by reason alone, without need of revelation. Pelagius, anyone? Modern liberal Christianity shares this perspective. As will often be the case, I assume, St. Thomas gets me on board by invoking one of my original favorites, the book of Ecclesiastes.
Tomorrow, articles 2-4.
Vale,
JR
Monday, September 23, 2013
Starting the Slog
Substantive posting will begin on Michaelmas with Question 1 Article 1. I will be using the new Opera Omnia edition published by the Aquinas Institute, but I imagine that all reputable English editions should work. I cannot promise that we will not get into occasional explication of the original Latin. In the mean time, I point you to Our Lady's University which has a translation in process online: http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/TOC.htm
Vale,
JR
Vale,
JR
Friday, September 20, 2013
Test Post
Welcome, ye merry Catholic men of a particular Chesty persuasion, to the Summa Slog. If you have no idea what this is, it's likely because you've not been invited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)