I was just wondering if anyone here has read Summa Theologica, and if so, what you thought of it. Was it difficult reading? What did you take away from the experience of reading it? Would you recommend it to others? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
1 Like
I have not read the whole things, but have read some extensive sections and sometimes use it for reference.
Some parts can be difficult to understand if you don’t have some background knowledge. For example, what St. Thomas is saying in the Five Ways is a lot deeper than it would seem if you were only exposed to them as presented in the ST. Edward Feser has written about this.
The insights I have gained from the ST have benefitted me in many ways, including my preaching.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing that! I’m curious, when you say background knowledge, how much philosophy would you say is required? Would an introduction to Thomistic metaphysics be enough? What books would you recommend for background knowledge?
Also, I’m very interested in Edward Feser, I’m thinking particularly of his Five Proofs of the Existence of God. So would you say Summa in conjunction with Five Proofs would offer the depth you speak of in regard to the Five Ways?
I’m happy to hear that ST has benefited your preaching, can you give some other examples of how those insights have benefited you? Thanks. 
Thank you for discussing!
I have not read it. Recently I have been reading through the Early Church Councils. It kind of shows what the early Church was dealing with.
2 Likes
A basic knowledge of Thomistic metaphysics would be very helpful. I found Edward Feser’s book Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide to be an excellent introduction. It provided not only an introduction to causation, but also (with relation to the Five Ways) provides a great deal more detail, referring to other writings of Aquinas about these arguments for the existence of God.
I believe that the aforementioned book is now out of print. However, I have read about half of Feser’s Five Proofs for the Existence of God. These five proofs are not identical to Aquinas’ Five Ways. However, there is some overlap. So, I would say that it is a helpful text in appreciating Aquinas’ Five Ways.
I’m sure there are other books that I just don’t know that would be helpful.
With regard to the section of the ST on morality, I would suggest that Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics would serve as good background. I’m not saying you won’t be able to get something out of Aquinas without it (nor am I saying that Aquinas and Aristotle agree in every respect), but it could provide helpful background.
Personally, I have greatly appreciated what Aquinas has to say about the sacraments. His writings have given me a better sense of their purpose, their effects, and the reasonableness of our sacramental worship
1 Like
Thank you for that link, it looks really helpful! I definitely plan to check that out.
Thank you for the insights into Aquinas! Actually Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide is still in print, (if you want to pick up a new copy). I did get the sense that Feser’s Five Proofs went outside of simply the arguments Aquinas made, but it looks really helpful nonetheless. Something to keep the Atheists at bay.
I will definitely take note of what Aquinas has to say on the sacraments, thanks for the heads up!
I’m curious, since you’re a priest, what are your thoughts on teaching apologetics to the laity? I think most Christian leaders of all denominations fall far behind in giving evidence to their people. I’ve been to a lot of different churches, and it seems like no one wants to teach evidence for the truth of Christianity. I’d be interested in your thoughts on that, thanks. And thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me, I really appreciate your help! 
I have read the Shorter Summa (in its entirety) and sections of the Summa Theoligica. Some of his conclusions is why I don’t consider myself a Thomist.
Thanks for sharing that. I’ve heard that many in the Church have had objections to what Aquinas concluded about God. I would love it if you would share what in particular you find objectionable in his conclusions. Is it his concept of God, something else?
I am new to studying Aquinas, and I also plan to read his Shorter Summa. Thank you for sharing your views, I look forward to discussing with you.
The lynchpin for me is that his system of theology/philosophy led him to deny the Immaculate Conception. How reliable can it be to get a major Dogma of the Church wrong (I know it was not a defined dogma at the time)? There are some other things as well, but that is the big one.
2 Likes
I didn’t know that, thanks for informing me! I don’t think any philosophical/theological system is perfect, because how can we know everything about God from our own unaided reason? Think about it, would anyone seriously dare to say they’ve got God’s being all figured out? I think we have pointers to the truth about God’s being. We get a glimmer of an understanding from what logic and philosophy can guess at, but that’s all.
Still, I have great appreciation for the effort theologians and philosophers make. I believe it’s important, because without it, Atheists will say Christians don’t know what they’re talking about. They’ll say we’re ignorant, and that therefore, Christianity should not be believed in. And we can’t allow that.
It is important for the laity to be equipped with apologetic arguments. I could say a lot about this, but I don’t want to stray too much from the topic of this post.
One of the reasons I use the thought of Aquinas (and other theologians) in my preaching is precisely to show that the Faith is not contrary to reason. We can reflect on our religion using reason that is enlightened by faith. What we believe and do as Christians holds together. And there are answers to questions people may have, even if they don’t know where to find the answers.
I agree, it’s very important for every person to know some reasons for why they believe what they do. The world accuses us of blind faith, they say we live in ignorance. And we’re helping them see us that way if we’re not prepared to defend what we believe. I like this verse:
2 Corinthians 10:4-5
We destroy arguments 5 and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 2 Co 10:4–5.
St. Aquinas made 2 very serious mistakes that bother me. 1. Early gestation unborn babies are vegetables and animals. I have heard all the explanations and excuses, and I don’t believe them so don’t try. 2, Aquinas said the conscience must always be followed even into intrinsic evil. This is horribly wrong and has been debunked by Evangelium Vitae and Veritas Splendor.
Thanks for sharing that! It sounds like you know more about Aquinas than I do, that’s for sure! I agree with you that abortion is never acceptable. And obviously we should never do anything evil knowingly. So as far as I can tell, you’re quite right.
Peace to all,
To me, Summa Theologica is trying to protray what has always been the Mind of God and is the fulfilled logical intelligence undefiled and unfailing in all cases through both natues, Spirit and life following logical incorruptible immortal pattern, “What would Jesus do in all cases of the fulfilled faith and morality of The Christ becoming again in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.”
To me, logical intelligence defiled is preexisting in three powers from creation becoming through transformation becoming again immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured One God in being through two natures, God and Temple in One Divine Spirit Body, One God in being.
To me the common denominator of all faith based systems of belief is the spirit and in Catholicism the spirit is The Holy Spirit Family of God delivered through three personal Gods in being preexisting making then Gods equal in the Powers of God, together One God in being conceived in the Flesh Jesus through The Christ becoming to earth New Arked from through for and in three powers from the spirit through the created souls of all mankind for both natures Spirit and Life, God and Temple becoming again in all One God in being.
Peace always,
Stephen
I found only volume III online, and it seemed to be responding to criticisms of his earlier writings. If so, without knowing what went before, I could not discern his ideas or those of his critics. I would be interested in reading from the beginning but not interested in buying it.
1 Like
The Summa Theologica, a comprehensive theological work by Saint Thomas Aquinas, is a systematic examination of Catholic doctrine, exploring God, creation, humanity, Christ, and the sacraments. It’s structured into three parts, with the first focusing on God and creation, the second on human morality, and the third on Christ. The Summa aims to reconcile faith with reason, providing logical arguments for theological truths.
Peace to all,
To me, Trough faith Summa addresses the truths and seen and reiterated from the early and until today throught the one whom sits on Moses’ seat. The Catholic Church is the infallible Authority on Earth as it is in Heaven through Both Natures, Spirit and life becoming again in One Body. God resurrects mankind logically in two natures and comprehension becomes clear through the OMNILogic never before clearly understood until the OMNILogicalGod, to me, to all, from the Power of the Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
Faithfully salvation is clear through the Faith of Abraham believing Jesus is God and everything The Christ taught on earth and in Heaven which we logically know cannot be written and placed in books because the words cannot be written so small that they cannot be read or the earth is just to small to hold all of the books that could be written in His truths. To me, literally, vision cannot be 20:20 to me until we logically “see” and rationalize, really think and understand the Mind of God.
TO me, Logically no one can explain static eternity becoming unfailing until we understand both natures becoming again. The spirit nature becoming again dynamically in the Body pulsing through His Passion incorruptibly transfigured in a body immortally transformed becoming again glorified and transfigured for all in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
OMNILogic literally transforms and gloritfies and transfigures understanding logically fulfilled intelligence, rationally. John 20:20 is the Jewish Pentecost and the instution of The Priesthood and of the Sacrament of Concession logically, to me. And all of the formulas through the Wondrous Mysteries of the Faith become through formulation Logically and clearly from perfect vision 20/20 through The OMNILogical God, for all, to me.
Peace always,
Stephen
Your theology is incorrect and is a heresy. Please stop for the sake of God.
Peace to all,
Thanks in advance, Chris, and I am only presenting logic, to me. I know that through the Moses Seat, what the Church says faithfully is legally binding faithfully and morally on earth as it is in Heaven, I am just discussing logic with respect to generalization through the Faith logically seeing what could be perceived as logical Trinity existence. If I may ask, what in all generalization do you see as in error, logically?
The question is from created becoming through transformed for becoming again glorified and transfigured in One God, what gender is the Holy Spirit. I know rationally and literally from the Mind of God and OMNILogically, to me, for all read on, Thanks, Stephen.
Romans 11:36 For Created From The Father, and through The God of Transformation Mary for The New Eve for him, Virgin Born Holy Spirit Family of God conceived in the God of Justice, Jesus becoming The Christ becoming incorruption from the Power of the Holy Spirit in all mankind are all things, To him, for all becoming again in One God and Holy Spirt Family in being be the glory forever! Amen.
Have you heard of the analogies of The Trinity presented by Tertullian and other Forefathers of The Trinity?
Excerpts from Enzo Paci, Phenomenological Diary »
Sunday, October 18, 2020
Water Analogies for the Trinity
"Hippolytus: The Logos comes from the Father as water from a fountain.
Tertullian: The Father is to the Logos as fountain is to river. One substance assumes two forms.
Lactantius: The Father is an overflowing fountain, the Son a stream flowing from it.
Zeno of Verona: Father and Son are two seas filled with the same water which, though two, are yet one.
It is better to accept mystery than to be taken in by pseudo-intelligibility.
How could there be a mundane model for the Absolutely Unique?
How could there be a mundane model for the Absolutely Unique?"
From excerpts of Enzo Paci, 2020"
The above inserts are quotes from, “Phenomenological Diary” and to me they all are missing logic and rationale in all cases and vague at best in illogical thinking and creating even more confusion, and I mean this in a good way, to all.
To me truthfully, logically if there is no Mother, but only a Father and A Son and a Holy Spirit person, and somehow non-gender is the Trinity then The Holy Spirit is not a Family of God in being and the Holy Spirit is a Person. To me this is unfair to believe.
To me The Holy Spirit is the Family of The One God, non-gender, rationally and logically because The Family of The One God in being in all mankind, all-gender through both natures all mankind glorified and transfigured becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, to me, OMNILogically One God.
And I am not judging, only generalizing logic. We know I am not preaching and I am only verifing the logical formulas of the Wondrous Mysteries of The Faith in the Catholic Church through real, literal, rational thinking for all to understand the Mind of God and how The Divine Powers of the Universe preexisting logically function becoming from the created souls of all mankind through the flesh, the Two Nature Body of The One God becoming again in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being from both natures, Spirit and Life manifesting through the Power of the Holy Spirit Family in One God for being in One Body.
Thanks, I am using logic, not theology. To me, My logic is not form oriented disciplines or finite earthly codes of formulas from failed creation and OMNILogicalGod is not from religious prospectus and only verifies the faith from the God of Abraham through Two Natures becoming again One Family from OMNILogic through the trusted and verified logical formulas of the Faith in the Christ logically becoming again through both natures, Spirit and life in One God in being.
To me, Theology is literally the study of Religious Beliefs, my logic is only in studying generalization, not preaching proselytizing, only generalization of the Study of Logic with respect to the Teachings of The Logic of the Faith from the feature/ benefit formulas of The Faith in The Christ becoming again One God logically, rationally and able for even a child to understand from literal truth for all to be able to see God, OMNILogically, to me.
To me, logically, this is perhaps the first step and easy for all to answer with one of two words through fallible choice becoming again undefiled, yes or no. The first OMNILogical step or logical infallible formulation becomes from “The Question,” Does one believe logically The Father and Creator is in Heaven and has been since creation was ever created was even created, making The Father logically God?
Peace always,
Stephen