OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 11:14:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Summa Theologica  (Read 1235 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
anicius.boetius
Mr.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: January 06, 2007, 07:34:27 PM »

Dear All,

I'm reading now the Summa Theologiaca, of St. Thomas Aquinas. I now that a lot of things in her texts are hetherodox, like his theory about eucharisty and his proofs of the existence of God.

But some things not seem so hetherodox, like his theorys about the creation, law, the state of the soul of Adam, the human acts and etc.

The Summa Theologica:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

II Part:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3.htm

III Part:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5.htm


Its propper to one orthodox study some things in the Summa, like these who not seem or not are hetherodox?
Reply with Quotation
« Last Edit: January 06, 2007, 07:34:50 PM by anicius.boetius » Logged

Rafael R. Daher
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,571



« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2007, 07:46:45 PM »

I don't think the proofs for the existence of God are heterodox, though perhaps considered unnecessary or unwanted by some Orthodox. Here's a quote:

Quote
"The so-called logical evidence for the existence of God is: the cosmological, theological, psychological, historical, ethical proofs, and many more, which, through the passing of time have been formulated into philosophical rationalism. They cannot, in the Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, have a value of real evidence because they are based on the principles of the relative, limited, sinful minds and senses of humanity. To the Church and the Revelation, the truth about the existence of God is an illogical and irrational hypothesis, which has the need of proof with the basis of logical reasoning, the truth which God has revealed to us, and is therefore the unquestionable, true evidence. As a divine and given reality, this truth is not dependent on proof and arguments from rational functions of the mind. The logical proof proves God so much more than it hides him." - Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, p. 202

Fwiw, if you haven't seen it yet, there was a thread on Aquinas last year that you might find interesting. Sorry that I can't add more, I've never read that work by him.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2007, 07:47:06 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2007, 02:30:03 PM »

The common proofs of the existence of God are not heterodox. Richard Swinburne, the foremost living philosopher of religion, is Orthodox and routinely defends Orthodox belief through argumentation.
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2007, 03:04:28 PM »

The so-called proofs of God's existence are not heteredox, they're simply not "proofs" in the proper sense of the term. The first and foremost reason for this is that God does not exist; He is huper-ousios. I think this is what Justin Popovic has in mind in the quotation given by Asteriktos. This understanding may be complemented by Bishop Kallistos Ware's take on the matter in his The Orthodox Way; notice in particular how he draws a distinction between "pointers" and "evidence".
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2007, 07:30:46 PM »

Dear All,

I'm reading now the Summa Theologiaca, of St. Thomas Aquinas. I now that a lot of things in her texts are hetherodox, like his theory about eucharisty and his proofs of the existence of God.


What is meant above by "theory about eucharisty?"  I am not very knowledgable concerning St. Thomas, so I am sure this is very elementary, but I am curious about what this is referring to.

Patrick
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2007, 07:44:38 PM »

What is meant above by "theory about eucharisty?"  I am not very knowledgable concerning St. Thomas, so I am sure this is very elementary, but I am curious about what this is referring to.

Presumably the argument about how exactly the Body and Blood of Christ relate to the bread and wine.
Logged
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2007, 10:30:04 PM »

Presumably the argument about how exactly the Body and Blood of Christ relate to the bread and wine.

Is his view of that a particular bone of contention for the East?  Wouldn't have thought that would rank that high on the scale of complaints, if you know what I mean.

Patrick
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.051 seconds with 33 queries.