Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles

[urbanii]

I recently finished an undergraduate course titled God and Philosophy. Though I had heard of the course's principle figure mentioned in popular discussion of theology and philsophy, I really had no idea who Thomas Aquinas was, what scholasticism is (other than the name from where we get the word school), or what Thomism is. I think a lot of my Christian friends (and even pastors) share my situation in this. After finishing the courses required readins on Aquinas, I have to admit I was completely blown away!

Understand that this is way too deep a topic to cover everything Thomas wrote and and discussed in his theology but I think it is extremely odd that such an intellectual figure is nearly never mentioned in Christian apologetics or theology. The selection of his works I read where

Summa Contra Gentiles (sumamtion of God's existence to the gentiles--non-christians)
sections from Summa Theologica (summation of Christian theology)
sections from De Potentia (On Power)

In my opinion anyone who read the Summa Contra Gentiles and truly was able to comprehend what Aquinas was writing would either except that there is a God (in the most general sense) or they would intentionally be denying their reason. Now I understand this is not how christianity works, but it seems to me that Aquinas could answer literally ANY objection an atheist would make about God. He is able to show the flawless reason behind literally every facet of his faith, though he does not go so far as to say that his faith is based on reason. Rather that faith (revelation/theology) and Reason (natural science/philosophy) are mutually benefitial and neither considered rightly contradicts the other.

I don't want to get too long winded, the crux of this thread is my opinion (now) that Aquinas is literally the greatest Christian Intellectual that I have ever come across, his knowledge of the scriptures is unimaginable in the way he quotes the bible for everything he discusses. Why do Christians now largely ignore him when doing theology/apologetics? He is easily the greatest reasource we have to confront a modern would which will not accept biblical quotes for apologetics of Christinity!

 

[Joe67]

urbani,

Aquinas has many active spiritual children who do not know their father or acknowledge his name, nevertheless his reproductions are alive and well and very active in the religio-political realm.

The beast of Revelation 13 that comes up out of the ground is the offspring of Aquinas' labors.

Joe

 

[urbanii]

joe67,

It is this kind of anti-intellectual, anti-rational spirit that has marginalized Christianity in the modern world. I am assuming you have never even tried to read a single page of Thomas Aquinas’s writings…

The fruit of his labors is the beast of Revelation? Are you perhaps implying that Thomas built the Catholic Church? That is a foolish argument historically speaking...But I will grant you that the Catholic Church has "rights" to Thomas's theology as one of their "sons" (he was a Dominican monk). But that is too the Catholic Church's credit, if they are the only Christian denomination that accepts his metaphysical/scholastic way of merging faith and reason into unimaginably high levels for the human intellect than that is sad for Protestantism...

Why is it that the more I learn the deeper sides of theology, the more I am pushed towards the Church of Rome? They can't really be the only Christian Church left who considers reason integral in faith!

 

[Cornelius]

Why is it that the more I learn the deeper sides of theology, the more I am pushed towards the Church of Rome? They can't really be the only Christian Church left who considers reason integral in faith!

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah:

 

[Joe67]

joe67,

It is this kind of anti-intellectual, anti-rational spirit that has marginalized Christianity in the modern world. I am assuming you have never even tried to read a single page of Thomas Aquinas’s writings…

The fruit of his labors is the beast of Revelation? Are you perhaps implying that Thomas built the Catholic Church? That is a foolish argument historically speaking...But I will grant you that the Catholic Church has "rights" to Thomas's theology as one of their "sons" (he was a Dominican monk). But that is too the Catholic Church's credit, if they are the only Christian denomination that accepts his metaphysical/scholastic way of merging faith and reason into unimaginably high levels for the human intellect than that is sad for Protestantism...

Why is it that the more I learn the deeper sides of theology, the more I am pushed towards the Church of Rome? They can't really be the only Christian Church left who considers reason integral in faith!

urbani,

This beast with two horns like a lamb is a beast to be admired. Even the disciple John admired the woman riding on the beast that the two horned beast promotes.

Just consider that through this beast's reasoning that an image could be given life and given speech and that through this reasoning that fire could be made to come down from heaven, similar to what lightning does.

I have admired this beast with much admiration and thereby the woman riding on the other beast. Then our Father gave to Jesus a reproof that he sent by his angel and warned me concerning this wonderment and admiration that was in me for this beautiful and desirable iniquity by which I might do much good, especially for the poor and hungry.

Joe

 

[urbanii]

Perhaps you could speak more clearly...its ok; you’re not going to offend me.

I am not Catholic, I am certainly not anti-Catholic, but I am not Catholic as of now. So this forum about Aquinas was directed at the fact the protestant theology seems to have rejected him entirely (he was, after all, pre-reformation...but that shouldn't be the only criterion for rejection).

If you are implying that Aquinas is connected to the beast because he fuses faith and reason, theology and philosophy (the revealed and the knowable) than that is ridiculous, and it is a non-Christian attitude.

I will leave you with this...perhaps one of the most poignant phrases of Aquinas, "Extra Ecclesium, Nulla Salus!"

 

[francisdesales]

This beast with two horns like a lamb is a beast to be admired. Even the disciple John admired the woman riding on the beast that the two horned beast promotes.

Yes, lots of people "admire" the beast, otherwise, she wouldn't be worthy of following. And the beast is the ways of the world, not the Church, since the ways of the world drag people from following God. Even the most avid anti-catholic must admit that the Church does not teach that people should abandon worship of God and Jesus Christ (unless they truly are living in an imaginary world of their own making).

I agree with Urbanii, many of my separated brothers should take more seriously the teachings of the Church regarding faith and reasoning. There is no reason to pit one against the other, since God is behind both.

Just consider that through this beast's reasoning that an image could be given life and given speech and that through this reasoning that fire could be made to come down from heaven, similar to what lightning does.

Not sure of your point - unless you have issues with OT Theophanies...

I have admired this beast with much admiration and thereby the woman riding on the other beast. Then our Father gave to Jesus a reproof that he sent by his angel and warned me concerning this wonderment and admiration that was in me for this beautiful and desirable iniquity by which I might do much good, especially for the poor and hungry.

If you think God warned you that the woman is the Church, you have been duped and it wasn't God telling you any such thing... The Church is the Bride of Christ. The harlot, the woman, is taken from vivid imagery of the Old Testament (like much of Revelation). Those with ears know that the "woman", the "harlot", are those who put aside the ways of God and follow their own evil heart's desires, the ways of the world that put aside God. The Church has never taught any such thing. Quite the opposite.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Perhaps you could speak more clearly...its ok; you’re not going to offend me.

I am not Catholic, I am certainly not anti-Catholic, but I am not Catholic as of now. So this forum about Aquinas was directed at the fact the protestant theology seems to have rejected him entirely (he was, after all, pre-reformation...but that shouldn't be the only criterion for rejection).

If you are implying that Aquinas is connected to the beast because he fuses faith and reason, theology and philosophy (the revealed and the knowable) than that is ridiculous, and it is a non-Christian attitude.

I will leave you with this...perhaps one of the most poignant phrases of Aquinas, "Extra Ecclesium, Nulla Salus!"

I think Protestantism dislikes Thomas and those that followed because Luther and his kin didn't care for intellectual musings of our faith. While Scholasticism was corrupted by some thinkers (as any philosophical viewpoint can be abused), one should not discard reason in seeking out God, since God has given us this very gift for the purpose of seeking Him out and improving our relationship with Him. Unfortunately, Luther and his kin ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater in many cases. There is much to be learned from the great thinkers of our faith, and that includes men that cross denominational lines, such as Edwards, Wesley, Thomas, and Augustine.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Why is it that the more I learn the deeper sides of theology, the more I am pushed towards the Church of Rome? They can't really be the only Christian Church left who considers reason integral in faith!

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah:

Unfortunately, to most of my separated brothers, "reasoning" means prooftexting Sacred Scriptures... All other lines of thoughts are not worthy of discussion.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Why is it that the more I learn the deeper sides of theology, the more I am pushed towards the Church of Rome? They can't really be the only Christian Church left who considers reason integral in faith!

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah:

Unfortunately, to most of my separated brothers, "reasoning" means prooftexting Sacred Scriptures... All other lines of thoughts are not worthy of discussion.

Regards

Oh that would be me Dear francis, cannot understand why I have something against things like idolatry and human worship and the traditions of men, and things that I cannot find in the Bible. So we are kind of unreconcilable on this. He wants to do it, because its so old it cannot be wrong (Old things are not wrong, they must be right, because they are old and have many, many people that agree that its right, so that again proves its correct)

I can't see that. I also am strangely not interesting in mixing what I believe with what men believe, no matter how many of them believe it, or how old they are, or how long their mistake has survived.

I also do not have the trust in men, that he has. I really do not share that with him in a big, big way. I guess, I have reached an age, where human nature has become clear to me, even when human nature has the best intentions.
So here is my reasoning

I cannot for the life of me, bring myself to consider anything that is not Biblical (claiming something is Biblical and it being so, is obviously two different things) Plus I cannot submit to men who break all the Christian principles and call it Christianity. Nor can I be expected to do so. Scripturally I am not even required to pretend I am part of it in any way. (which I am not )

That said, to be fair, I am also not a protestant . I do not adhere to what they preach. They have also taken the Word and added their own doctrines to it and they too get angry when they are told they are wrong. The many denominations somehow does not communicate this fact to them. I also have no understanding why people defend a denomination, like it is their salvation.

The work of Thomas Aquinas originated out of the need of the Christians of that day, to have a tool to reach certain people or "infidels" .Although this point is debatable, it has merit. The other name for his writings is: "The Book on the Truth of the Catholic faith against the Errors of the Infidels."

By the time it was necessary to write this, the church had already lost its power and they were heavily in need of a tool , other than that which the early church had, which they had somehow lost. Most Christians are in the same boat today and are manifesting this problem in one way or another.

Almost two hundred years after Thomas come Pope Sixtus IV as a good example of the hopeless men that ruled over the so called Church. Christianity was truly in the dark and was still sliding down into more and more darkness as time went on.Pope Clement VII followed in that line too. Popes lived in debauchery and wealth. They left Christianity and included politics and war into their agendas. Nepotism was the order of the day, because great wealth followed positions in the powerless church.

Writings like that of Thomas were crutches in the powerless "church". It needed them, because they had nothing else. They lost the Word along the way and with it went the supernatural power of the Christian.

History is well documented .............so I am not going to repeat it in one post

 

[Adullam]

How reasoning are they that defend sin against others and God Himself. Does a good tree produce bad fruit? That is Jesus' reasoning, btw. Is anybody listening?

Both Catholic and protestant churches have killed, burned, tortured, and maimed in the name of their ecclesiastical god...and the hidden sins are far worse!!

Why knowingly be a part of that? Where is the reasoning there? Should these terrible manisfestations of human rule be defended. Certainly not!

A true Christian does join nor form human organizations. A follower of Christ...(here's one for the reasoning one) .......follows Christ. Not men!

Where 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name...there is Christ. You will not find Jesus forcing His way into the history books. No, men do that. Men take the attention away from God onto themselves. So the unreasoning seek a popular expression of what is now become churchianity and say...we are following Christ THROUGH the rebellion of man's ecclesiology.

Are there any reasonable men left?

 

[francisdesales]

Dear francis, cannot understand why I have something against things like idolatry and human worship and the traditions of men, and things that I cannot find in the Bible.

Like sola scriptura???

So we are kind of unreconcilable on this. He wants to do it, because its so old it cannot be wrong (Old things are not wrong, they must be right, because they are old and have many, many people that agree that its right, so that again proves its correct)

Some wisdom transcends time. If you took some time to stop worshiping your "sacred" opinions, you'd discover the wisdom of the saints who came before us.

I also am strangely not interesting in mixing what I believe with what men believe, no matter how many of them believe it, or how old they are, or how long their mistake has survived.

You are a man/woman, so this is an assinine argument.

Your arguments are from "God", everyone else's are from "man"... Nothing like self-worship and religious righteousness, right?

I also do not have the trust in men, that he has. I really do not share that with him in a big, big way.

Yet you trust that "those" men have given you the unadultered word of Sacred Scriptures??? I find it interesting that people trust that God would protect a Bible while abandoning the Church that Jesus specifically promised to protect and that He would not protect the very same community that wrote it...

Is Christianity a religion of the Bible and its worship, or about Jesus Christ and worship of HIM? If the former, you have indeed left the realm of Christianity, for the doxology of Christianity is the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God = meaning, Jesus is God. Christianity is not about a book, nor even about being nice to other people. It is about an historical person Who is recognized, by Christians, as being God incarnate.

I cannot for the life of me, bring myself to consider anything that is not Biblical (claiming something is Biblical and it being so, is obviously two different things)

Typical anti-intellectuallism attempting to wear the mask of false piety. In reality, the only thing you consider is your own personal interpretations of Scriptures as you bow to the "god" of your OWN reasoning. We see that reflected in your very arguments.

The work of Thomas Aquinas originated out of the need of the Christians of that day, to have a tool to reach certain people or "infidels" .Although this point is debatable, it has merit. The other name for his writings is: "The Book on the Truth of the Catholic faith against the Errors of the Infidels."

By the time it was necessary to write this, the church had already lost its power and they were heavily in need of a tool , other than that which the early church had, which they had somehow lost. Most Christians are in the same boat today and are manifesting this problem in one way or another.

How sad. You continue to know little of history within the context of the events themselves. Aquinas was addressing the Muslim primarily. Islam called for an intellectual and reasoned response to the thread of Islam against the faith, and not only on the battlefield of the Holy Lands.

But I apologize, you have already demonstrated that the only "human" reasoning you admire is your own, if we can call that "human reasoning", since "Cornelius" makes divine claims for "Himself".

What is further interesting is that the Bible, itself, is a tool. Our faith is based upon Jesus Christ. The bible AIDS us in that endeavor, it doesn't replace it.

History is well documented .............so I am not going to repeat it in one post

We have seen your versions of history and they are found wanting.

 

[francisdesales]

How reasoning are they that defend sin against others and God Himself. Does a good tree produce bad fruit? That is Jesus' reasoning, btw. Is anybody listening?

No one is defending the missteps of Christians throughout history. We are well-aware of our checkered past, our Judas Iscariots. We know there are problems with the entire human race, whether they are in the Church or not. And yet, God CONTINUES to love us. Fortunately, we don't have to be perfect to be loved by our Divine Creator.

Unfortunately, you go to the opposite extreme. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater. You appear to think that organizations are the cause of all problems of men - which, ironically, elevates men INDIVIDUALLY to godlike beings. Fortunately, our Loving Father is not as judgmental as you appear to be. One has the feeling that YOU would rain down lightening bolts upon men because they were not perfect (as you claim to be).

"Oh, if only Christians were as holy as I was..."

No, you haven't burned anyone at the stake, tortured, etc... Nor are you in the position to do so, YET. But one only can cringe at your attitude, which seems to me that IF you WERE in some power, you would close the doors of Christian churches throughout in the name of "progress".

How interesting that secular humanism shares the same goals as yourself, yet shrouded in false piety.

Power corrupts, but it is a false slippery slope argument that states "ALL power corrupts EVERYONE". If so, you must think Jesus was pretty daft to place men in charge of the spiritual welfare of other people... Simply put, you cannot argue with the fact that Christ left particular men in charge of other men - men given authority and responsibility for the spiritual well-being of others.

I suppose this comes from being a product of OUR society, where independence is treasured and men are told they don't need anyone. In the religious realm, all ya need is your bible... That's where all of this "church of one" business comes from.

Modernism cloaked in false piety.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we NEVER see any such teachings in Sacred Scriptures?

Both Catholic and protestant churches have killed, burned, tortured, and maimed in the name of their ecclesiastical god...and the hidden sins are far worse!!

What did Jesus say about the mote in the eye, again??? Are you perfect?
Can you cite Scriptures that tell us that Jesus preached that Judaism should be torn asunder because of "ecclesiastical" issues?

Why knowingly be a part of that? Where is the reasoning there? Should these terrible manisfestations of human rule be defended. Certainly not!

You should also continue sailing out of this great country and leaving, since IT also has participated in its shares of overzealous justice, murder, etc., all in the name of the flag and freedom...

Before we close this great country down, let's reconsider...

The hypocritical attitude is not what we are commanded to partake in. Jesus tells the apostles to heed the pharisees, but don't act as they do. Jesus didn't tell the apostles that they should stop being Jews because their ancestors slaughtered thousands of Edomites, Jesubites, etc...

A true Christian does join nor form human organizations.

Where does the Bible say anything so silly?

A follower of Christ...(here's one for the reasoning one) .......follows Christ. Not men!

we follow Christ by obeying Him and following those whom God places in our path. Part of His command is to love others and give submission to those whom God has placed over us. Whether it is at work, our parents, our government, whatever, we are bound by the Law of God to obey reasonable commands. We believe God works through these men and that we learn humility and obedience by our submission.

Of course, in today's world, that is heresy, since it is all about "ME"... HOW DARE SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT TO DO... "oh, I know, I can ignore everyone but myself and pretend I am really following Jesus". Baloney.

Your's is the perfect theology for worshiping yourself. Claim some direct link to God and so every little whim and thought you have is now from God Himself. Thus, you can disguise "following myself" with "following Christ".

Where 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name...there is Christ.

Read the context of Matthew 18 and you will not find your point of view there. Jesus HIMSELF says TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH. Where would someone go TO take it to the Church, if there was no ecclesiastical locale?

You will not find Jesus forcing His way into the history books.

I would think you are mistaken, Jesus Christ "forced" His way into the History of Man, once God became one of us...

Men take the attention away from God onto themselves. So the unreasoning seek a popular expression of what is now become churchianity and say...we are following Christ THROUGH the rebellion of man's ecclesiology.

Or, "I am following Christ THROUGH my OWN expresssion"... Men are folly, only I know better...



Sure, whatever. Call it what you will, pure and simple, it is just doing your own thing and pretending God is behind it...

Are there any reasonable men left?

[/quote]

Yes, those humble enough to see through this charade of worshiping the self and placing our trust in Jesus Christ within His Body, the Church.

 

[Cornelius]

Like sola scriptura???

Sorry , I forgot that is like Kryptonite to you.

Some wisdom transcends time. If you took some time to stop worshiping your "sacred" opinions, you'd discover the wisdom of the saints who came before us.

We have all we need written down for us in the Word of God. Those are my sacred opinions.

You are a man/woman, so this is an assinine argument.

The Bible is not man's opinion.

Your arguments are from "God", everyone else's are from "man"... Nothing like self-worship and religious righteousness, right?

If my arguments are from the Word, then they are from God. I am sorry that this is upsetting to you.

Yet you trust that "those" men have given you the unadultered word of Sacred Scriptures??? I find it interesting that people trust that God would protect a Bible while abandoning the Church that Jesus specifically promised to protect and that He would not protect the very same community that wrote it...

The church has never been abandoned. The Scriptures too has always been protected.

Is Christianity a religion of the Bible and its worship, or about Jesus Christ and worship of HIM? If the former, you have indeed left the realm of Christianity, for the doxology of Christianity is the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God = meaning, Jesus is God. Christianity is not about a book, nor even about being nice to other people. It is about an historical person Who is recognized, by Christians, as being God incarnate.

The Word is God Have you forgotten John 1 ? Let me quote it for you: Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

But I suspect that you think there is another 'Word" . Tell us where this other "Word" is that we must follow. What did they teach you?

Typical anti-intellectuallism attempting to wear the mask of false piety. In reality, the only thing you consider is your own personal interpretations of Scriptures as you bow to the "god" of your OWN reasoning. We see that reflected in your very arguments.

I bless you

How sad. You continue to know little of history within the context of the events themselves. Aquinas was addressing the Muslim primarily. Islam called for an intellectual and reasoned response to the thread of Islam against the faith, and not only on the battlefield of the Holy Lands.

But I apologize, you have already demonstrated that the only "human" reasoning you admire is your own, if we can call that "human reasoning", since "Cornelius" makes divine claims for "Himself".

I am really not taking offense at your words I just mention it, so that you can sleep easy and with a clear conscious . I understand your anger.

What is further interesting is that the Bible, itself, is a tool. Our faith is based upon Jesus Christ. The bible AIDS us in that endeavor, it doesn't replace it.

Where do I begin ??? Just for a start, you are telling me that your faith is only based on a historical figure ? Are you serious? Do you think that is it? Is that what they are teaching you?

Are they really telling you the Bible is "a tool" ? I would seriously think about leaving them if I were you.

We have seen your versions of history and they are found wanting

Yes, therefor we all have Google. Praise God.

 

[francisdesales]

Like sola scriptura???

Sorry , I forgot that is like Kryptonite to you.

Krypotonite? More like a joke that goes right over your head... :biglol

I just find it ironic how you hold to a self-defeating mantra and don't even realize it... I guess I prefer a religious background that does not collapse under scrutiny.

We have all we need written down for us in the Word of God. Those are my sacred opinions.

Where is that "sacred opinions" backed by the Word of God???

Here we go again - too bad you have learned nothing from our last conversation on this topic. Still haven't a clue that this is all an invention of man.

You are a man/woman, so this is an assinine argument.

The Bible is not man's opinion.

Your interpretation of the Word of God is from man, making your argument worthless.

Your arguments are from "God", everyone else's are from "man"... Nothing like self-worship and religious righteousness, right?

If my arguments are from the Word, then they are from God. I am sorry that this is upsetting to you.

Your arguments are one of many interpretations. That they are not cohesive means they are not from God.

The church has never been abandoned. The Scriptures too has always been protected.

Well, then that's good enough for me. The Church protects the Scriptures.

The Word is God Have you forgotten John 1 ?

The Word of God is Jesus. The Bible is not Jesus. Thus, when we say "The Bible is the Word of God", that definition is not all-inclusive. When we look to the bible, then, we do not have the ENTIRE Word of God!

I had hoped you would realize this on your own...

But I apologize, you have already demonstrated that the only "human" reasoning you admire is your own, if we can call that "human reasoning", since "Cornelius" makes divine claims for "Himself".

I am really not taking offense at your words I just mention it, so that you can sleep easy and with a clear conscious . I understand your anger.

Yes, I can understand why you don't deny it...

Trust me, these conversations have nothing to do with my sleep. I type them very early in the day, and I don't even think about them afterwards. I have other things on my mind then how Cornelius worships himself... Not unusual in today's society... :P

What is further interesting is that the Bible, itself, is a tool. Our faith is based upon Jesus Christ. The bible AIDS us in that endeavor, it doesn't replace it.

Where do I begin ??? Just for a start, you are telling me that your faith is only based on a historical figure? Are you serious? Do you think that is it? Is that what they are teaching you?

Where exactly do I state that "my faith is based "ONLY" upon an historical figure??? Yet again, you have a difficult time following a conversation with someone you disagree with. Perhaps you should let me speak my own point of view, rather than you fill it in for me?

Are they really telling you the Bible is "a tool" ? I would seriously think about leaving them if I were you.

I don't worship the bible, it is a book. I worship the Triune God. Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus Christ, not falling in love with paper and bindings and the false idols of your personal interpretations. The Bible tells me about God, although not exclusively. I can learn about God through other means than Sacred Scriptures.

We have seen your versions of history and they are found wanting

Yes, therefor we all have Google. Praise God.

It hasn't helped you much, has it...

Let me know when you have something worthwhile to say about Summa Contra Gentiles... Before you criticize it because of who wrote it, perhaps you should actually read it or a summary of it.

 

[Cornelius]

I have no intention of taking this further . Bless you.

 

[urbanii]

Wow a lot can go on in a day! This was never really meant to become a Catholic v Protestant (or non-denominational/Christian/ whatever you want to call yourself) debate. But let me interject as someone searching for a Church these days.

I started this thread because I came across the writings of Thomas Aquinas, in particular the Summa Contra Gentiles. I find this work incredibly fascinating, and I love the way Thomas uses Faith and Reason as two facets of the same truth. I would like to quote something at length from the SCG and I want to know if the Catholic Church is the only Church that holds this to be true. (Which I know it does, because I have also read John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio).

"The gifts of grace are added to nature in such a manner that they do not remove it but perfect it. So it is with the light of faith that is infused in us gratuitously: it does not destroy the light of natural knowledge with which we are by nature endowed. Now, although the natural light of the human mind does not suffice for the manifestation of the things that are made manifest by faith, yet it is impossible that what is divinely taught to us by faith be contrary to the things with which we are endowed by nature. For one or the other would then have to be false, and since both come from God, God would be to us an author of falsehood, which is impossible. Rather, the situation is this. Since within the imperfect there is a certain limitation of what is perfect, though an incomplete one, in what is known through natural knowledge there is a certain likeness of what is taught to us by faith...Now just as Sacred Teaching is founded on the light of faith, so philosophy is founded on the natural light of reason. It is therefore impossible that what belongs to philosophy be contrary to what belongs to faith; it rather falls short of it…Thus therefore, in Sacred Teaching we can use philosophy in a threefold way. First, we can use it to demonstrate the preambles of faith…Second, we can use philosophy to make known through certain likenesses what belongs to faith…Third we can use philosophy to oppose what is said against faith, either by showing that these things are false, or that they are not necessary.â€Â
THIS ABOVE STATEMENT is what I would like future comments to be about in regards to Thomas because this is the crux of his work in theology. I truly believe that this is the most intellectual and reasonable way to understand the connection between faith and reason. I am very attracted to this notion.

And here is why:
In my going through various denominations and non-denominational church groups, bible studies, etc. I have found so many different arguments made from Scripture that I have come to realize the absurdity of the idea that the Scriptures themselves are enough to sustain a Christian. I have heard too many arguments based not on Reason, but based on ping pong with bible quotes. This seems counterproductive. For me the Bible represents God’s Revelation to man, most of which man could not achieve on his own reasoning alone. Thus it is infinitely important to a Christian, as Thomas says above, it provides the truth that reason alone cannot attain. BUT it must be used in conjunction with natural reason in order to get the full picture (both of which come from GOD)! Thus a Church endowed with the capacity to interpret and teach TRUTH without fear of error seems to the most logical thing for Christ to have instituted.

Perhaps this means I should be a Catholic. I don’t know at this point.

Lastly, I would like to correct a few things above. I received two bachelor’s degrees last year from Marian University in Indianapolis, one in philosophy and one in European History. I am currently working on my graduate degree in European History from the University of Notre Dame. Thus I can say with some authority that Cornelius was quite wrong in his attempt to represent the historical situation of Thomas. He was not called upon to save a dyeing Church. He wrote at the height of what is considered to be the golden age of Christendom! St. Louis was the king of France for God’s sake; Europe didn’t get anymore Catholic than Thomas’s era. I think you should reconsider you analysis of his historical context.

 

[Cornelius]

Perhaps this means I should be a Catholic. I don’t know at this point.

Lastly, I would like to correct a few things above. I received two bachelor’s degrees last year from Marian University in Indianapolis, one in philosophy and one in European History. I am currently working on my graduate degree in European History from the University of Notre Dame. Thus I can say with some authority that Cornelius was quite wrong in his attempt to represent the historical situation of Thomas. He was not called upon to save a dyeing Church. He wrote at the height of what is considered to be the golden age of Christendom! St. Louis was the king of France for God’s sake; Europe didn’t get anymore Catholic than Thomas’s era. I think you should reconsider you analysis of his historical context.

Perhaps you should become a Catholic, because if you, through your studies have missed the meaning of the word church, then I do not know what to tell you. At this stage you can basically join anything you want, it would be the same.The Catholics will welcome you with open arms, I promise you.

As for the "golden age" of the church, well all I can say is that what they are teaching you is obviously from a human point of view and has not real teaching from the spiritual side. Golden age, from a human point maybe, but a spiritual desert. No gifts operating from the Holy Spirit, a waste land spiritually. The church at that stage had already begun the down road into apostasy. I agree, from the outside, it looks great. You must admit it still looks great today . All that marble and wealth. Great traditions that will have you staring in wonder for years to come. Very pious people.So if you are just looking for a denomination, there you go! You found it. But do not say you are looking for the church.

So my view will not be reflected in your studies at Marian University in Indianapolis you have to go sit alone somewhere with you Bible and then ask the Lord to show you what His heart is. Ask Him to show you the church as He sees it. Then wait and listen.

Or, you can join the Catholic Church. After all they say they are THE Church and we all know they cannot be wrong, the Pope is infallible .

Cornelius

 

[urbanii]

no matter how you practice your Christianity you are a member of a denomination. Even if you are a denomination masquerading around as non-denominational. Each of these little churches represents its own denomination individually. The pastor is the Pope. Or, perhaps most pathetically of all, you are a denomination of one, yourself. In which case you are the Pope. Non-Catholic Christians seem very proud of the fact that they are not Papist, yet they all have Popes in their own little tiny world.

I sincerely hope the Church is not some abstract notion of one person and their bible. That is depressing and I believe it goes against Christ's description of His Church (a city set on a hill cannot be hidden).

Finally, if you don't believe that the lives of St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Bonaventure, St. Louis, St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, etc etc etc are indications of vibrant Christianity than I don't know what is. And they were all around in this era. The Church may have been at the height of her earthly power, and there was corruption, but she was producing some of the most outstanding Christians since the apostolic age...thus it was a golden age for Christendom, and for Christian Saints.

Now perhaps you would like to comment on the quote from the Summa, I am very interested in your take on it Cornelius.

 

[Cornelius]

no matter how you practice your Christianity you are a member of a denomination.

See ? You cannot learn everything in Marian University in Indianapolis.

Even if you are a denomination masquerading around as non-denominational. Each of these little churches represents its own denomination individually. The pastor is the Pope. Or, perhaps most pathetically of all, you are a denomination of one, yourself. In which case you are the Pope. Non-Catholic Christians seem very proud of the fact that they are not Papist, yet they all have Popes in their own little tiny world.

If you get to know me better, you will see that I am not a Protestant with a little pope.

I sincerely hope the Church is not some abstract notion of one person and their bible. That is depressing and I believe it goes against Christ's description of His Church (a city set on a hill cannot be hidden).

I agree with you. The true church is not ONE person and their Bible.

Finally, if you don't believe that the lives of St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Bonaventure, St. Louis, St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, etc etc etc are indications of vibrant Christianity than I don't know what is. And they were all around in this era.

It would depend on what you call vibrant. I am convinced that there has been real Christians, all through the ages. Even in the CC.

The Church may have been at the height of her earthly power,

Nothing has changed around the earthly (worldly ) part.

and there was corruption, but she was producing some of the most outstanding Christians since the apostolic age...thus it was a golden age for Christendom, and for Christian Saints.

Again it would depend on one's expectation of "golden" . The "Golden girls" was not exactly the picture that popped into the minds of most people when they first heard the title. The only golden era was in the beginning.

Now perhaps you would like to comment on the quote from the Summa, I am very interested in your take on it Cornelius.

I am traveling as of today , but I must be honest, my main interest and reason for posting is not to dissect the teaching of people like Thomas. With respect, I do not want to spend my time on it.

Cornelius