Summa Theologica

[anicius.boetius]

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

[Asteriktos]

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:

"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.

[CRCulver]

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.

[EkhristosAnesti]

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".

[cothrige]

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

[CRCulver]

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.

[cothrige]

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

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Summa Theologica