Nice tribute. I like Thomas, and that's partly because I like Aristotle. :-) Every time I consult Thomas, I find him helpful. I am not one to say he would have sided with Luther - I think he would have seen through the growing Nominalism, but I don't know him well enough to say. I liked Bp. Barron's book, btw.
Also thank you for catching my blunders. I've updated it. I posted late at night and clearly didn't read it close enough before hitting the publish button. I've been trolling too much on X. : D
Thanks. Attending a Dominican parish and reading some of the prayers and hymns that St. Thomas wrote definitely makes the idea of him being Protestant, especially a Protestant of any variation today, seem extremely unlikely. I actually just reached out to Dr. Ed Feser about a good biography on St. Thomas, and he recommended this one: https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Aquinas-Historical-Theological-Environmental/dp/0809153866/ref=sr_1_1?sr=8-1
This might be a good time to consider 1 Thess 4:13-18. Just what was our Lord trying to communicate in that message? Remember that the Muslims had Socrates long before the Europeans. So, what impact did Greek philosophers have on Muslim clerics and how was St. Thomas Aquinas different? Aquinas most certainly is an interesting read. What was Aquinas seeking when he found Socrates? We all are seeking something. Are we listening to those who said most certainly Jesus was trained in Greek philosophy before he started his Galilean ministry? And, of course, ya got to love those who insist that Jesus was having sex with Mary Magdalen. There’s all sorts of stuff out there. So. Are we seeking like Paul to know Christ, Phil. 3:10? Are we living for Christ alone, Phil 1:21? Are we taking advantage of that amazing privilege described in Hebrews 10 to go into the very presence of the King of kings? Just what are we seeking and how does the philosophy of others impact us? Aquinas was deeply impacted by Socrates, if what I have read is accurate, and it changed him. However, he did finish as one who is totally committed to Jesus. This idea that he would have become a Protestant if he had lived after the Reformation is a lot of fun to read, but, people, get serious. Anyhow – what fun.
These are thought provoking questions, and I'm not sure I can answer all of them. But just a few things. We must remember that "Greek Philosophy" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as "Greek Philosophy", properly speaking; there are Greek Philosophers, but they vary significantly in their systems of thought. Aristotelianism is not Platonism and Heraclitus is not Parmenides. Their systems of thought are mutually exclusive despite some overlap in terminology. Philosophy also is not merely speculation, but discovering the principles by which all other sciences, including theology, operate. In the same way Creation points to God, Philosophy leads to Theology.
On the topic of Muslims and Greek Philosophy: Greek philosophy had the same effect on Islamic Theology that it did on Christian Theology: it sparked a debate between the relationship between God's word and man's word. Both groups ended up having a complicated history with it. The debates that were sparked were Free will vs Predestination. Some Islamic thinkers saw the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato as an attempt to undermine God and the Quran. Similarly, today many fundamentalist Christians believe that Philosophy only gets in the way of True Christian faith. If we we cast off our "intellectual desires", that's when we will really know Christ, or so they say. We should all be glad that Christianity did not take this approach but rather sought to integrate their understanding of the world (philosophy) with their understanding of God (theology); they did not keep them separate as many American denominations have tried to do today. In Christianity, philosophy and theology are integrated. Christianity saw them as two sides of the same reality. Islam saw them as forces opposed to each other, with some exceptions. For example, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) saw them as more related than others, but still kept them at arms length.
Regarding the presence of Christ as mentioned in Hebrews 10. Catholics claim to have the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus in their parishes and adoration chapels in the form of the Eucharist. Reading this passage and the "trampling of the blood" reminds me of a story of a young girl in China who inspired Bishop Fulton Sheen to take his adoration of Christ in the Eucharist more seriously. Her church was raided by communists in the middle of Mass and the Communist soldiers dumped the Eucharistic hosts on the ground and trampled them as they forced the Christians out of the church and locked the priests within it. This girl, about 13 at the time, would sneak into the parish where the hosts were on the ground. She would kneel down and worship Christ, then she would kneel down and consume one of the hosts. After doing this for a time, the guards heard a noise and found her there. They beat her so severely she later died of her injuries. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then she was truly committed to Christ. If Christ is not truly present, then we Catholics are to be most pitied, because she died for no reason.
This doctrine makes us more culpable for how we live this truth out. In the same way many saw merely the man Jesus, many Christians today see merely bread and wine. As Christ says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Catholics have more, and its clear from the lives of their Saints that God did indeed expect more of them." We Catholics should recognize that if we are going to claim we are The Church, that this passage from Luke applies to us more than Protestants.
Nice tribute. I like Thomas, and that's partly because I like Aristotle. :-) Every time I consult Thomas, I find him helpful. I am not one to say he would have sided with Luther - I think he would have seen through the growing Nominalism, but I don't know him well enough to say. I liked Bp. Barron's book, btw.
Also thank you for catching my blunders. I've updated it. I posted late at night and clearly didn't read it close enough before hitting the publish button. I've been trolling too much on X. : D
The time change doesn't help!!!
Thanks. Attending a Dominican parish and reading some of the prayers and hymns that St. Thomas wrote definitely makes the idea of him being Protestant, especially a Protestant of any variation today, seem extremely unlikely. I actually just reached out to Dr. Ed Feser about a good biography on St. Thomas, and he recommended this one: https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Aquinas-Historical-Theological-Environmental/dp/0809153866/ref=sr_1_1?sr=8-1
I thoroughly enjoyed Chesterton's book on Thomas - but then...hey...it's Chesterton. :-)
Follow up: and - having checked the amazon link to the other book - it's cheaper!!! :-)
Yes, I am going to start with Chesterton. I’ve also asked our Dominicans for any recommendations as well.
This might be a good time to consider 1 Thess 4:13-18. Just what was our Lord trying to communicate in that message? Remember that the Muslims had Socrates long before the Europeans. So, what impact did Greek philosophers have on Muslim clerics and how was St. Thomas Aquinas different? Aquinas most certainly is an interesting read. What was Aquinas seeking when he found Socrates? We all are seeking something. Are we listening to those who said most certainly Jesus was trained in Greek philosophy before he started his Galilean ministry? And, of course, ya got to love those who insist that Jesus was having sex with Mary Magdalen. There’s all sorts of stuff out there. So. Are we seeking like Paul to know Christ, Phil. 3:10? Are we living for Christ alone, Phil 1:21? Are we taking advantage of that amazing privilege described in Hebrews 10 to go into the very presence of the King of kings? Just what are we seeking and how does the philosophy of others impact us? Aquinas was deeply impacted by Socrates, if what I have read is accurate, and it changed him. However, he did finish as one who is totally committed to Jesus. This idea that he would have become a Protestant if he had lived after the Reformation is a lot of fun to read, but, people, get serious. Anyhow – what fun.
These are thought provoking questions, and I'm not sure I can answer all of them. But just a few things. We must remember that "Greek Philosophy" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as "Greek Philosophy", properly speaking; there are Greek Philosophers, but they vary significantly in their systems of thought. Aristotelianism is not Platonism and Heraclitus is not Parmenides. Their systems of thought are mutually exclusive despite some overlap in terminology. Philosophy also is not merely speculation, but discovering the principles by which all other sciences, including theology, operate. In the same way Creation points to God, Philosophy leads to Theology.
On the topic of Muslims and Greek Philosophy: Greek philosophy had the same effect on Islamic Theology that it did on Christian Theology: it sparked a debate between the relationship between God's word and man's word. Both groups ended up having a complicated history with it. The debates that were sparked were Free will vs Predestination. Some Islamic thinkers saw the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato as an attempt to undermine God and the Quran. Similarly, today many fundamentalist Christians believe that Philosophy only gets in the way of True Christian faith. If we we cast off our "intellectual desires", that's when we will really know Christ, or so they say. We should all be glad that Christianity did not take this approach but rather sought to integrate their understanding of the world (philosophy) with their understanding of God (theology); they did not keep them separate as many American denominations have tried to do today. In Christianity, philosophy and theology are integrated. Christianity saw them as two sides of the same reality. Islam saw them as forces opposed to each other, with some exceptions. For example, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) saw them as more related than others, but still kept them at arms length.
Regarding the presence of Christ as mentioned in Hebrews 10. Catholics claim to have the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus in their parishes and adoration chapels in the form of the Eucharist. Reading this passage and the "trampling of the blood" reminds me of a story of a young girl in China who inspired Bishop Fulton Sheen to take his adoration of Christ in the Eucharist more seriously. Her church was raided by communists in the middle of Mass and the Communist soldiers dumped the Eucharistic hosts on the ground and trampled them as they forced the Christians out of the church and locked the priests within it. This girl, about 13 at the time, would sneak into the parish where the hosts were on the ground. She would kneel down and worship Christ, then she would kneel down and consume one of the hosts. After doing this for a time, the guards heard a noise and found her there. They beat her so severely she later died of her injuries. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then she was truly committed to Christ. If Christ is not truly present, then we Catholics are to be most pitied, because she died for no reason.
This doctrine makes us more culpable for how we live this truth out. In the same way many saw merely the man Jesus, many Christians today see merely bread and wine. As Christ says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Catholics have more, and its clear from the lives of their Saints that God did indeed expect more of them." We Catholics should recognize that if we are going to claim we are The Church, that this passage from Luke applies to us more than Protestants.