Quoran Questions on St Thomas and Other Medieval

I

What did Thomas Aquinas write?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Short answer : LOTS.

Longer answer : most famously, Summa Theologica, and Adoro Te Devote.

Nearly as well known, Summa contra Gentes.

Quite a few Quodlibetical questions and answers (he would have been a great quoran if alive now), quite a few comments on works by others who lived earlier, both about half the Books in the Bible and most works by Aristotle AND the Sentences of Peter Lombard.

The last parts of the Summa Theologica were collected after his death from appropriate portions of Sentence commentary, but with disposition borrowed from the parts of the Summa Theologica he did write.

He also wrote answers against particular errors, most notably Averroist ones. De Unitate Intellectus contra Averroes.

Jennifer Formichelli

His great work is the Summa Theologica, that is, the sum of all our knowledge of theology, of the word of God. He drew heavily on Aristotle's philosophy & essentially integrated his Ethics into Christisn thought, bridging the classical and Christian worlds of thought. He is the great thinker behind the poetry of Dante.

Ton Krekels

"Tommaso d'Aquino, OP (1225 – 7 March 1274), also known as Thomas Aquinas (/əˈkwaɪnəs/), was an Italian dominican friar and Catholic priest who was an immensely influential philosopher, theologian andjurist in the tradition of scholasticism, within which he is also known as the "Doctor Angelicus" and "Doctor Com-munis". He is heralded as the most influential Western medieval legal scholar and theologist. The name "Aquinas" identifies his ancestral origins in the county of Aquino (in the present-day Lazio region), an area where his family held land until 1137."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

II

Did Thomas Aquinas believe in God? If so, what were his beliefs?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If St Thomas Aquinas believed in God?

Despite rumours to the contrary, YES.

Why are there rumours to the contrary?

Well, the Summa Theologica has a disposition where a question is asked and a wrong answer, sometimes two wrong answers is/are given before the right answer.

That means that one article (Q2, A3) stars with the question “does God exist?” and the next words are “it would seem that God does not exist”.

Impatient and dishonest readers have from this concluded or made others conclude that St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in God.

What were his beliefs?

Strictly theistic ones, denying pantheism, materialism, atheism, polytheism and so forth in his conclusions from Q2 to Q26.

See also his even more explicit refutation of Averroistic pantheism in “De Unitate Intellectus adversus Averroistas”.

Strictly Trinitarian ones, which he details in QQ27 - 43.

This Trinitarianism strictly Filioquist, as per Q37.

I am sorry, I can’t edit my answer, but the citations are incomplete.

All the ones I have given shall be completed by the additional information of this being in Part I or Prima Pars.

The other parts (Prima Secundae, Secunda Secundae, Tertia) have other content on those question numbers!

Anthony Zarrella

Absolutely. Thomas Aquinas was probably the most prominent Christian theologian of all time (though I imagine some Protestants would give Augustine the edge), and is a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism.

His beliefs were those of fully-orthodox Catholicism. Giving a full explanation would take whole books (... like his Summa Theologica, for instance...), but look up the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the 1200s (doctrines, not mere informal beliefs), and that covers what St. Thomas's beliefs were.

Alison Bennett

Since he went to so much trouble to prove the existence of God, I think you can conclude that yes, he did.

Five Ways to Prove that God exists — The Arguments

Pete Ashly

This raises some interesting questions, whether the god he spent all his energy on was the same god he died with.

What could St Thomas Aquinas have seen in his mystical experience?
https://www.quora.com/What-could-St-Thomas-Aquinas-have-seen-in-his-mystical-experience

Alison Bennett

Thank you for this! I was not aware of his end of life thoughts. Totally fascinating. I only studied Aquinas as part of a very broad Religious Studies class in college and never explored the end of his life. I think doubt, even serious doubt, doesn't necessarily mean he stopped believing. I mean, I am not a religious person at all, but I am always interested. Deeply religious and intellectual people are so much more interesting than people whose religious devotion is only taught and not explored. I am glad that you knew about this and shared your knowledge.

Pete Ashly

It's said during the dark night of the soul some move from belief in god to realization whatever that means

III

What was Thomas Aquinas's life like?

A curious childhood. He wanted to know “what is God?”

Obviously, the question “who is God” was already answered, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A youth fighting a noble family trying to force him away from his vocation.

A life as a student where his talent searched obscurity, until someone else’s wrong answer made him impatient to correct it.

A life as a “monk” (technically friars aren’t monks) and priest in which he certainly wrote very much and seeing from what he wrote searched to be as just and decent as possible in hearing confessions. And did that with genius.

A death probably from metabolism troubles, while (as always after becoming Dominican) obeying to his death the orders of his superiors, and a last confession after which his father confessor revealed that his soul was as pure as that of a four year old boy.

And between that a hidden life in which he had extasies and visions, and hid them as best he could.

IV

How did Thomas Aquinas die?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As a Catholic and receiving the sacraments.

As a friar and on his way, homeless, and finally, as a writer and speaker, called as an expert.

Chandler Simmons

"Called to attend the Second Council of Lyons, [Aquinas] apparently hit his head against a low-lying tree branch while on the journey, and sustained a serious injury. He was taken to the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova, where he was nursed by the monks, but died on March 7, 1274."

Edward Feser, Aquinas, p. 6

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was wrong on metabolism troubles then.

V

What was Thomas Aquinas right about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nearly everything.

It is more easy to enumerate what he was wrong about, and it seems at some moment at least he had some scruple against the Immaculate Conception, thinking the Blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified immediately at conception, but needed to wait exactly one instant (probably shorter than one second).

I don’t think the Church has pronounced him wrong on any other thing.

Gwydion Madawc Williams

He split the Natural and the Supernatural. This allowed people to think about science without worrying about God.

Mostly still believing in God, until the 18th century, but with God effectively "kicked upstairs", honoured but denied a serious role.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He didn’t split them.

He didn’t allow people to think about science without worrying about God.

VI

Did Dante Alighieri ever meet Thomas Aquinas?

wasn't Dante inspired by the Summa Theologica?

Olivier Garamfalvi

It is unlikely, as Dante Alighieri would have been approximately nine years old when Thomas Aquinas died in 1274.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dante very certainly knew lots of the content of Summa, whether from that book or because it was general culture (to which that book is our best access, perhaps not Dante’s), I don’t know.

That they met on Earth is improbable; Olivier Garamfalvi noted Dante was nine years old when St Thomas died, and Dante was from Florence and I don’t think St Thomas went there.

That they met in Heaven I hope.

VII

How did Dante Alighieri get his start as an author? How popular was he in his own time?

[Note how I misread the name first ...]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As he was a friar and writing on order of his superiors, it was NOT a question of finding an editor.

He was probably fairly popular, since he was also a speaker. Recently TAN Books published a series of Catechetical sermons he held, which are preserved in the Latin of his secretary, while he held them in French or Italian, depending on where he held them, which I don’t know.

They are sermons on the Creed, the Commandments, the Pater and the Ave. He made some other sermons too of same type, not included in that catechism (that would include one on the seven sacraments, I presume).

Sorry, misread Thomas Aquinas for Dante Allighieri.

Now, Dante was writing love poetry in Vita Nuova - always tends to be popular and his was good - and he was also a political partisan. Meaning he had support from fellow … actually not Ghibellines, at first, but one of two divisions of Guelfs.

ALSO he was a noble and a cavalry man.

VIII

What cities have the most medieval (1000 - 1500 AD) monuments that still survive?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will not give specific cities.

I will give a principle.

• It must have existed in Middle Ages.
• It must not have been completely destroyed in later part or after them.
• It must not have been rebuilt extensively by people ashamed of Middle Ages.

Malmö is out, because it’s from Renaissance. In Middle Ages it was just barely a fishing village.

Cologne is out, it was most of it destroyed in 1945.

Stockholm, excepting the part known as Gamla Stan is out, because of extensive rebuilding in more modern styles. Though most churches are medieval.

That said, most churches from Middle Ages were destroyed at Reformation in countries like Sweden, Denmark or England.

Malmö has a castle built from stones of torn down Churches and was Denmark back then. Sigtuna, which was already Swedish and has not ever been anything else, had 20 Churches of which only the Dominican St Mary’s Church survived, while others were torn down. I suppose the same thing happened in England.

Rome has probably more from Renaissance and Baroque than from Middle Ages.

Anonymous

Cairo has to have one of the largest concentration of Medieval buildings. This site lists a few of them.

15 Top Tourist Attractions in Cairo & Easy Day Trips | PlanetWare

I've visited and the contrast with Downtown (built in the 1800’s and modelled on Paris) is amazing. Cairo is not a pretty city (it's too crowded and dirty) but the amount of history is awe-inspiring.

Goran Forssell

in France and Italy there is plenty of them. Some in Great Britain and in Spain.

San Gimignano Italy

Toledo Spain

Carcassonne France

Castle Combe GB

Visby Sweden

[Visby - obviously!]

John Bartram

My local city - Canterbury city walls (medieval atop Roman):

England has many such historic sites, including cities.

London, of course - Tower of London viewed from the River Thames.:

Last year, I had a lovely holiday here:

View from the tower of St Mary's church, Rye, East Sussex, southern England. The white-painted building is the Methodist church. The Ypres Tower in the centre-left marks the cliff-edge which defines the citadel. Below the cliff, roofs of buildings beside the River Tillingham can be seen, with yacht masts beyond. The river joins the River Rother and winds across Romney Marshes to the English Channel:

Ypres frontage: The main street:

We lost quite a bit of our architectural heritage in WW2 due to the infamous Baedeker Blitz, but much remains.

IX

Few achievements in the medieval period are so astounding which we could not crack. Did they have entirely a different set of knowledge which is lost?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In glass windows, miniature paintings and versification - and some genres of music - I agree the results are astounding.

For glass paintings and miniature, there may be colour pigments we have lost the art of making.

Versification, we can learn again anytime, thanks to the results serving as examples.

Alberto Yagos

I suppose the question goes for “lost” secrets like Damascus steel which we now produce manyfolds better.

With some medieval technologies we are only surprised with the results they reached with the poor resources and knowledge they had.

And the usual explanation is exaggeration and exceptional raw materials (like in the case of Damascis steel or Roman concrete).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“with the poor resources and knowledge they had.”

Oh?

Alberto Yagos

Yes, compared with now.

I know there was science, I know they made a lot of discoveries. But compared to what we have learned in the last 100 years is poor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not so sure what we have now isn’t rather marginal to the ordinary uses of things for human life.

Edit : have now and didn’t have then, that is.

X

Are there any films set during the migration period or early medieval period from the perspective of the Germanic tribes?

There are so many films about the Roman Empire but I've never really seen anything from the perspective of the Germans. Even Charlemagne, who is a well known historical figure, seems to be absent from any major film.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How about Die Nibelungen?

Die Nibelungen (1966/1967 film) - Wikipedia

Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?

: Quidlibet : Bergoglio’s Revolution: Six Key Points
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/21/bergoglios-revolution-all-according-to-plan/

I do not think Father Cekada quoted Bergoglio wrongly. This quote is ultimately from Bergoglio, via an interview in July last year, via the blog of Father Cekada.

"The Church is taking a very close look at pastoral initiatives for marriage. My predecessor in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Quarracino always used to say: ‘I consider half of today’s marriages to be invalid because people get married without realizing it means forever. They do it out of social convenience, etc…’ The issue of invalidity needs to be looked into as well.”

This reminds me of a Bible passage. Protestants have often misused it to protest against celibacy. Here we have a real issue.

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy : Chapter 4 : [1] Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, [3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. [4] For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: [5] For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Challoner comment:

[3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats: He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.

Let us also get to Haydock Comment:

Haydock Comment [same book/chapter] : Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, &c. Here says St. Chrysostom[1]* are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, &c. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life; or when the Church forbids persons to eat flesh in Lent, or on fasting-days, unless their health require it. We hold that marriage in itself is not only honourable, but a sacrament of divine institution. We believe and profess that the same only true God is the author of all creatures which are good of themselves; that all eatables are to be eaten with thanksgiving, and none of them to be rejected, as coming from the author of evil. When we condemn priests for marrying, it is for breaking their vows and promises made to God of living unmarried, and of leading a more perfect life; we condemn them with the Scripture, which teaches us that vows made are to be kept; with St. Paul, who in the next chap. (ver. 12) teaches us, that they who break such vows incur their damnation. When the Church, which we are commanded to obey, enjoins abstinence from flesh, or puts a restraint as to the times of eating on days of humiliation and fasting, it is by way of self-denial and mortification: so that it is not the meats, but the transgression of the precept, that on such occasions defiles the consciences of the transgressors. "You will object, (says St. Chrysostom) that we hinder persons from marrying; God forbid," &c. St. Augustine, (lib. 30. contra Faustum. chap. vi.) "You see (says he) the great difference in abstaining from meats for mortification sake, and as if God was not the author of them." We may observe that God, in the law of Moses, prohibited swine's flesh and many other eatables; and that even the apostles, in the Council of Jerusalem, forbad the Christians, (at least about Antioch) to eat at that time blood and things strangled; not that they were bad of themselves, as the Manicheans pretended. (Witham)

St. Paul here speaks of the Gnostics and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat, because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle: whereas the Church of God so far from condemning marriage, holds it to be a holy sacrament, and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever, in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kinds of diet proper for days of fasting and penance. (Challoner)

We may see in the earliest ages[centuries] of Christianity, that some of the most infamous and impure heretics that ever went out of the Church, condemned all marriage as unlawful, at the same time allowing the most unheard of abominations: men without religion, without faith, without modesty, without honour. See St. Clement of Alexandria, lib. 3. Strom.

Ver. 5. It is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer. That is, praying that they may not, by the abuse we make of them, be an occasion to us of sinning and offending God. (Witham)

The use of all kinds of meat is in itself good; but if it were not, it would become sanctified by the prayer which we usually pronounce over it, and by the word of Christ, who has declared that not that which enters the mouth defiles a man. (Calmet)

Seeing this comment, shall we say I was wrong to think of this passage in the context?

But the fullfledged Gnostic is rare. One version of it is certain versions of radical feminism, calling marriage a trap for women. It is pretty undiluted. A diluted version would be to call not all marriages wrong, but half of them. And that is what Bergoglio praised Quarracino for doing.

Is there anything Gnostic in either beyond agreeing with Gnostics, in the case of radical feminists about all marriages and in the case of Quarracino and Bergoglio about half of them?

I think there is. Either way, whether marriage is most usually a way in which men oppress women (as the feminists say at their most radical moments) or whether marriage is (as the other set clames) half of the time something one was not sufficiently consenting to, one thinks of marriage as a state for which man is inept. Or therefore as a state inept for man.

Not as something cocreated with man, and to be relinquished only for a higher calling (which may involve more suffering and for which one needs more maturity).

That is also the problem with when "the Church" raised the age of marital consent from the 14 / 12 limit to the new 16 / 14 limit. It implies the Church had in some cases been two years wrong about who was apt for marital consent or whom marriage was apt for. Which the Church - the real one of two thousand years and its predecessor in the Hebrew nation reaching back beyond Patriarchs to Adam - obviously has not been. Not on a Christian view, at any rate.

But since the old 14 / 12 limit implied that God was giving sufficient maturity if not in each case at least in cases ranging around the age of puberty of the person, so the newer age limit implies this is not so. And Quarracino / Bergoglio are even flouting what the newer age limit (16 / 14) granted God as regards confidence in His creature, especially if sanctified with the grace received through the Sacraments.

It is so much closer to agreeing with Krauss and Dawkins that if God constructed us, he did so with errors. Which is one way of being a Neognostic.

Indeed, if tomorrow Atheism as such was regarded as so untenable as it is, Krauss and Dawkins might perhaps be Neognostics rather than Christians. This does not mean that everyone would or that one must cease fire against Atheism, intellectually speaking.

But it does mean a Christian believing God created us for happiness in this life and the life to come ought not to compromise as much with Krauss and Dawkins and similar people as I think Quarracino and Bergoglio are hre doing. Perhaps these two do not believe that either.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
19 / V / 2014

* Footnote from Haydock Comment: [1] Ver. 3. St. Chrysostom, Greek: om. ib. ou koluomen, me genoioto. St. Jerome, (lib. 1. contra Jovinian. tom. 4. p. 156) Si nupserit Virgo, non peccavit....non illa Virgo, quæ se semel Dei cultui dedicavit; harum enim si qua nupserit, habebit damnationem. See St. Augustine (lib. 30. contra Faust. chap. vi.) both as to marriage and meats.

To David Palm

1) Phil Plait and Atheist Prejudice, 2) David Palm as a Canonist, 3) To David Palm

"I think that it is safe to say that the number of modern geocentrists who came to that view first by examining the scientific evidence is vanishingly small; I wonder whether even one such individual exists. Geocentrists do not normally start with scientific evidence."

Here Comes the Sun
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/here-comes-the-sun-intro/

Not normally ... whether I am normal or not, "normally" is not a description of my life.

I had the Geocentrism of St Thomas Aquinas in mind since studying Summma and Summa (in Contra Gentes I think it is directly mentioned as part of what is called Prima Via in STh I Q2 A3), and debated the Distant Starlight argument against a young earth.

I also read a book on astronomy from 1980. Only c. 10,000 stars showed any parallax. 200 stars showed proper movement (identified as such) greater than greatest parallax.

And at night there was a moment when senses and ideas went blank dark and I formulated an idea, the details of which came flooding after. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR HELIOCENTRISM, since the physical one is offset by angelic movers (as per Aquinas) and the optical one is NOT an uniform parallax at all.

If Virgo were twice as big in spring than just before or after it vanishes in autumn to be covered by the sun, and if Pisces were twice as large in autumn as just before and after they are covered by the sun in spring, and so on for all constellations, then we would have a shell of fix stars with a clearly parallactic motion, which would be better to ascribe to earth.

But the evidence we do have is instead either compatible with stars being at very far and then again comparatively near distances (Alec is presupposing the distances are known when arguing against Geocentrism, but they can only be known if parallax is clearly parallax), and with stars showing therefore very diverse parallax this really being such, or equally compatible with stars "showing parallax" being specially moved by angelic movers, probably in sympathy with the angel of the Sun.

Aquinas could not rule that out, because he was a Christian. How about you and Schönborn?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Vigilia Paschali
19-IV-2014