tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post4642485565827701544..comments2023-11-29T18:53:19.500+00:00Comments on Reading The Summa: Question 1 - What is TheologyGregory the Eremitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-53486064034878780102016-05-06T16:12:28.192+01:002016-05-06T16:12:28.192+01:00Thank you for this blog, I am finding it extremely...Thank you for this blog, I am finding it extremely useful whilst revising for my 1st year Theology exams Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-26722949216760784392014-08-23T14:55:26.443+01:002014-08-23T14:55:26.443+01:00I think you are very correct to question St. Thoma...I think you are very correct to question St. Thomas on that account. The revelations of God in scripture (or elsewhere for that matter) are "constructed" as we received them, I mean, none of us can actually watch Our Lord walk on water, we read about it in scripture. Scripture is a literary work. I am actually more inclined to see the analogy to Plato's Dialogues than to Hesiod, although your point is clear; all three works of literature are, after all, appropriate for "poetical" analysis.<br /><br />Don't we experience the revelation of God as beautiful. Thomas writes movingly elsewhere of a work of art; should not the Gospels, for example, be appreciated as examples of Clarity, Luminosity, and Harmony?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-9764182253266130562011-03-13T07:55:28.774+00:002011-03-13T07:55:28.774+00:00Hi Matthew,
The issue of where the poetic science...Hi Matthew,<br /><br />The issue of where the poetic sciences fit in St Thomas's understanding of the division of the sciences is something that I need to fix when I revise this question summary. I've given Aristotle's division of the sciences and then forgotten to mention that Thomas sees it slightly differently!<br /><br />In Aristotle's scheme, the poetic sciences are characterized to a certain extent by being productive - productive of all forms of expressive art. This leads Thomas to classify the poetic sciences as a subcategory of practical philosophy. Hence, Thomas is not ruling out the contribution of the poetics in this question. Elsewhere, Thomas writes of all the sciences being relevant to sacra doctrina. <br /><br />A topic that often seems to get forgotten in the consideration of Thomas's theology is that of how we may know of God by connatural knowledge (basically, all the non-propositional knowledge that we have). I'm sure someone's written the definitive study of it, but I haven't found it yet!Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-7992430474584340412011-03-09T20:39:12.635+00:002011-03-09T20:39:12.635+00:00Any reason he neglects to consider "poetical ...Any reason he neglects to consider "poetical science" as a possibility for theology?<br /><br />It's not an obviously stupid idea to think that that's where theology belongs, and it's likely that Aristotle would have considered much of what would be analogous to theology in his own day (something like Hesiod's work) poetical.Matthew M Perrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-43015924789266970842010-11-12T07:35:39.367+00:002010-11-12T07:35:39.367+00:00Concerning sacra doctrina and theology, I just cam...Concerning sacra doctrina and theology, I just came upon this quote from Gilles Emery OP that might be of interest:<br /><br />http://www.thesacredpage.com/2010/10/emery-on-biblical-methodology-of.htmlGregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-2120592450073021132010-11-09T12:44:01.709+00:002010-11-09T12:44:01.709+00:00Again I wish to thank you for your presentation of...Again I wish to thank you for your presentation of the questions in the Summa, and for opening this up for discussion.<br /><br />I wish to add one comment about the ninth article, which you summarize as regarding the use of metaphors in theology. In this article, St. Thomas seems to be expanding the use of his term "sacra doctrina" from Christian theology to Sacred Scriptures. I do not actually know of instances outside of Scriptures where such metaphors are used, but perhaps you do.<br /><br />Then the last article proceeds from this one, adding that also as metaphors/symbols can represent something other than the actual words, so God can use that which is represented in the metaphor as a symbol for something even beyond. Thus, the name Moses can represent an historical individual, who then represents a type/figure of Christ who leads his people from slavery of sin. And, Egypt as representing a geographical area of northeast Africa itself becomes a symbol for sin.<br /><br />Thank you and God bless.<br /><br />-m.e.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-31153451445160847382010-10-29T12:20:04.757+01:002010-10-29T12:20:04.757+01:00Dear Gregory,
Thank you for your prompt response!...Dear Gregory,<br /><br />Thank you for your prompt response! I'm afraid I have been much slower, being caught up in my research and often without internet access in the meantime. Then, when I finally did formulate a response, one mis-hit key made it disappear!<br /><br />I appreciate your comments and your references. In particular, as you referred to the Thomist in '74, I would like to counter that with a response by O'Brien in Thomist 41 (1977), "'Sacra Doctrina' revisted, the Context of Medieval Education". <br />Also, you are surely familiar with Thomas Gilby's monumental translation with notes and appendices, which I am finding very helpful with my work.<br /><br />Faith is a form of certainty, and our faith in God's revelation of Himself assures us of the truth of the principles of sacra doctrina. But this term covers more than just the human science, as you cited for me, but also God's knowledge of Himself, and also all His public revelation--the Scriptures. Thus we have the last two articles on Scriptures included in this question.<br /><br />But, in terms of the human science aspect of sacra doctrina, how can we know about God? We certainly cannot know His essence. What we can know seems to be through His effects--His creatures as caused by Him and (at least in the case of man) destined to return to Him as final end. From natural theology as the highest form of metaphysics we can already see something of God in this respect, working back from effect to cause. With revelation, by faith, we can understand more--and this becomes sacra doctrina as opposed to theology of the philosophers.<br /><br />Now I really must get back to my paper. I think I'll post back after I've presented on Wednesday.<br /><br />God bless! Thanks again for your help!mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04773549180821366354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-76265503416465550342010-10-25T09:19:14.047+01:002010-10-25T09:19:14.047+01:00Dear Me,
A little bit late, surely, but I have ju...Dear Me,<br /><br /><i>A little bit late, surely, but I have just come across your blog, and am preparing a presentation on this question for a philosophy class. </i><br /><br />We’re hoping that this blog (or the website that we’re planning to replace it with) will be around for a few years and will provide a resource for anyone approaching the summa at anytime. So lateness is not a privation! Good luck with your presentation.<br /><br /><i>It seems to me that "sacra doctrina" encompasses rather more than our idea of theology.</i><br /><br />This is a good point and one that we’ll address when we do the revision of this entry. In one sense the identification of “sacra doctrina” with theology is obviously true as it could simply be taken as a definition of (Christian) theology. In another sense, it is obviously false; the proof of this being simply to look at the practice of modern theology! There are other senses as well, of course. To indicate the confusion that can surround this point, I note that Davies, in his “The Thought of Thomas Aquinas” (page 11, n. 33), writes that “Readers of Aquinas frequently translate ‘sacra doctrina’ as ‘theology’. This is highly misleading”. Then in his edition of the opening of the summa (“Summa Theologiae, Questions on God”), the very first footnote for question 1 identifies sacra doctrina with “Christian theology”! Davies’ article in New Blackfriars 71 (1990) “Is sacra Doctrina Theology?” and Weisheipl’s “The meaning of Sacra Doctrina” in the Thomist 38 (1974) may provide some enlightenment!<br /><br /><i>And the infallibility of this science seems to come rather from the science God has of Himself than from the infallibility of the Church.</i><br /><br />I think your first observation is correct: Aquinas himself says “…whereas sacred doctrine derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled”. The point I’m trying to make in the “Difficulties” section above is that, having said this, Aquinas avoids the question of <i>our</i> certainty of this certain knowledge (i.e. an epistemological question rather than ontological). That is, our knowledge of divine things is derived from reason and revelation, but the interpretation of the sources of revelation is itself a human operation. Surely, in order for our certainty to reach the heights implied by Aquinas, we have to have supernatural guidance in the reception of revelation. I suggest the infallibility of the Church as being a vehicle for this, but one must also admit the gift of grace to the individual as well, I guess.<br /><br /><i>Also, as Thomas explains, we creatures relate to God in that He is presented as our Cause and our End. So we relate to Him as effect.</i><br /><br />I’m feeling a bit dense this morning; could you unpack this a bit for me? <br /><br />Many thanks for your comments!Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-21713827134368198752010-10-24T20:37:27.066+01:002010-10-24T20:37:27.066+01:00A little bit late, surely, but I have just come ac...A little bit late, surely, but I have just come across your blog, and am preparing a presentation on this question for a philosophy class. It seems to me that "sacra doctrina" encompasses rather more than our idea of theology. And the infallibility of this science seems to come rather from the science God has of Himself than from the infallibility of the Church. <br /><br />Also, as Thomas explains, we creatures relate to God in that He is presented as our Cause and our End. So we relate to Him as effect.mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04773549180821366354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-83034420243702784132009-11-05T09:32:22.892+00:002009-11-05T09:32:22.892+00:00Aquinas addresses this question directly in book 2...Aquinas addresses this question directly in book 2, chapters 2 & 3 of the summa contra gentiles. <br /><br />Aquinas’s position on this is appears to be that a defective understanding of creation will result in a defective understanding of God. For example, if we don’t realize that God is continuously the source of being for all created things then we may be tempted to indulge in a model of God as having created and then having left creation to get on with it. We might be tempted towards a dualism that identifies a creator demiurge and utterly remote supreme God. <br /><br />Also, Aquinas’s epistemology is firmly rooted in creation. We know God through reason (as St Paul tells us) and we know God through revelation and these sources of knowledge do not contradict each other. What we can know through reason comes to us through creation and even what we know through revelation is given to us as created beings. Therefore we cannot escape a consideration of creation in our consideration of God.<br /><br />Further, one might also note that God has done some pretty remarkable things for a deity! He has both deigned to create and He has deigned to become incarnate for our benefit. It would seem that not to inquire into what He has created and into what His relationship is to this creation would be to give an incomplete account. Similarly, to understand the incarnation one must surely enquire into the nature of the humanity that He has assumed.Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-62541063921887631232009-11-02T19:05:24.382+00:002009-11-02T19:05:24.382+00:00A delightful move, turning the question around on ...A delightful move, turning the question around on me!<br /><br />I do have questions, though they are not as pointed as questions should be if they are actually to be asked. One arises with the observation that the name of the discipline, theology, would have it that its subject is the divine being. Taking things one step further, because strictly speaking the subject of a science should be taken formaliter: it seems to me that theology should be the science of the divine precisely qua divine. But this does not quite seem to be the case for Thomas.<br /><br />Thomas says in Q. I, art. 3 ad 1, “sacra doctrina non determinat de Deo et de creaturis ex aequo, sed de Deo principaliter et de creaturis secundum quod referentur ad Deum, ut principium vel finem.” I’d like to know how creatures are so related to God that they are included within the scope of theology even though they are not divine. A comparison with the science of metaphysics might help to make my point clear. I understand the science of metaphysics to be that of “being qua being” and therefore also of the principles and properties of being qua being. If we assume that God is the first efficient cause of being qua being, and thus a principle of the subject of metaphysics, I can see how God is so related to the subject of metaphysics that God must be included within the scope of that science.<br /><br />Is there anything analogous in the case of theology? A fuller characterization of theology than the one above would have it as the science of the divine and therefore also of the principles and properties of the divine. How do non-divine beings and realities fit in here? They are not the divine and they are neither principles nor properties of the divine.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547302679904413077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-2827189931032999172009-11-01T07:43:12.739+00:002009-11-01T07:43:12.739+00:00Thanks for the prompting, Richard! May I turn your...Thanks for the prompting, Richard! May I turn your question around on you? Are there any aspects of the answer that Aquinas gives in Q1 that you find especially fitting or especially troubling? Has he left anything important out?Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-89957566605261364662009-10-27T16:58:15.575+00:002009-10-27T16:58:15.575+00:00So, then, what is theology? What is its (formal) s...So, then, what is theology? What is its (formal) subject?<br /><br />What, if any, misconceptions are common?<br /><br />(Just, if it's my place, to prompt the online discussion.)Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547302679904413077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-77060029720641265892009-10-24T11:24:59.775+01:002009-10-24T11:24:59.775+01:00Hi Richard,
That's fine with us, welcome on b...Hi Richard,<br /><br />That's fine with us, welcome on board!Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-66028131681377142322009-10-23T20:06:11.707+01:002009-10-23T20:06:11.707+01:00The aim is wonderful. The commute from just outsid...The aim is wonderful. The commute from just outside of Boston, Massachusetts, would be daunting. I'd be interested in reading with you if you and others would occasionally post on your blog.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547302679904413077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-90814075893803273072009-10-20T20:45:32.050+01:002009-10-20T20:45:32.050+01:00Hi Richard,
We meet every third Friday of the mon...Hi Richard,<br /><br />We meet every third Friday of the month at English Martyr's Church in Dalton Terrace, York, UK. We're supported in our efforts by the English Dominican Province - with talks here in York and by remote support when we get stuck! We've only just started, so it's a bit premature to talk of a "reading plan"...but the aim is to read through the summa...Gregory the Eremitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652447286252910371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129086278343859186.post-41238003055664709502009-10-20T17:29:26.949+01:002009-10-20T17:29:26.949+01:00Would you tell me more about the reading group wen...Would you tell me more about the reading group wending its weary way through the Summa and its reading plan?Richard E. Hennesseyhttp://www.gnosisandnoesis.netnoreply@blogger.com