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.