St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is one of the theological giants in the history of Christian theology. Assimilating much of what came before him and providing insights to generations of theologians after him, Thomas's work is truly enduring. His magnum opus, the Summa Theologica, is one of the greatest theological achievements of all time.
 | ||
| Thomas Aquinas in Stained Glass CC image by Thomas Gun on Flickr via Wikipedia |
The method of the Angelic Doctor was to read widely and to assimilate everything which was good and useful into his theology. Not only did his research lead him to draw extensively from the Fathers of the Church (Eastern and Western alike) as well as contemporary theologians, but he also made use of the writings of thinkers from other religions. The most famous non-Christian source in Thomas's work is Aristotle, whom Thomas called the Philosopher. In addition to engaging with Greek philosophy, Thomas also made use of the writings of Jews and Muslims. The radical nature of his utilization of other sources is illustrated by the ire it drew from Stephen Tempier, the bishop of Paris, who seemingly aimed some of his condemnations of 1277 at Thomas's writings.
By contrast, Thomists and neo-Thomists often restrict their study to the writings of Thomas and commentators on Thomas. When they do go outside of their purview, it is usually to critique other theologians in light of Thomas's theology. Even when their interaction with other theologians is favorable, they most certainly do not engage with Jewish and Muslim thinkers as Thomas did. To be fair, Thomism has produced great fruit in the Church. I am merely suggesting that Thomists ought to imitate Thomas more closely in his method.
St. Thomas is indeed a theological master to be emulated, but theologians must be willing to follow the essence of his theological method. Of course, the scholastic method would be out of place in today's theological literature - scholasticism is accidental to the essence of his method, which was to analyze many theological sources and synthesize a multitude of insights into one coherent system.
For Thomas, no one was the master except for Jesus Christ. For us too, no one should be the master except for Jesus Christ. What this means is that even though we recognize Thomas as a master, we should not hold his theology to be the insurmountable peak of theology. This would be an unhealthy disposition leading to theological stultification. Authentic Thomism is characterized by adherence to the method of Thomas, a method constituted by moving beyond what has come before and engaging in dialogue with secular philosophers and with those of other religious tenets while remaining uncompromising regarding the truths of the Faith and the saving message of God's love to the world in Jesus Christ.
For Thomas, no one was the master except for Jesus Christ. For us too, no one should be the master except for Jesus Christ. What this means is that even though we recognize Thomas as a master, we should not hold his theology to be the insurmountable peak of theology. This would be an unhealthy disposition leading to theological stultification. Authentic Thomism is characterized by adherence to the method of Thomas, a method constituted by moving beyond what has come before and engaging in dialogue with secular philosophers and with those of other religious tenets while remaining uncompromising regarding the truths of the Faith and the saving message of God's love to the world in Jesus Christ.
Paragraph 5:
ReplyDelete(Hmm...that 'sounds' alright, only to the degree that old errors do not come under the name of new ones or at least such errors have failed to evolve into a new idiom; otherwise,) I think, Scholasticism is a healthy mathod and therefore a legitimate and natural method of Thomism.
-Rene L
Rene,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. What I meant by "scholasticism" is the typically medieval method of asking a question, presenting objections, giving one's own thoughts on the question and replying to the objections. If anyone attempted to publish anything like the Summa today, it would not get accepted by the editors. Modern publishers expect written thoughts to flow rather than to be analyzed into little bits. In other words, the style of scholasticism is not in vogue.
The analytic nature of theology, however, is something that can never be abandoned. To the extent that scholasticism exemplified this analytic nature of theological investigations, it was intrinsic to the method of Thomas. When I said that scholasticism was accidental to Thomas's method, I meant that he could have written about the same topics just as well if he had not relied on scholasticism and had used another style instead. But St. Thomas, like everyone else, was a product of his time.