In Summa of the Summa, the thoughts of the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas are edited and explained for beginners. It is a summarized (and then summarized again) debate that begins in God and proceeds onto man and ends with God. It is considered an exitus-redditus, an exit from and return to God (15). It attempts to explain God in His one essence, which is categorized in three ideas: whether He exists, how He exists, and how He operates. Summa of the Summa also explains His three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The debate of God’s creation of man as well as man itself is present within the text. Finally, Summa ends with man’s return to God through Christ. There is a lot of material covered throughout the book, and it would be an ill-conceived idea to write on all of it. So the purpose of this essay is to discuss the first “question” presented: The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine.
Before one can discuss the nature and extent of sacred doctrine, it must be defined. Sacred doctrine is theology according to Aquinas (35). “Scripture is its data, or material cause. God’s act of revealing Himself is the source, or efficient cause, of its data” (35). The final end or cause is ultimately the truth about God and salvation through this truth (35).
Aquinas states that we “first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine.” There are ten points of inquiry that are discussed: 1) Whether it is necessary? 2) Whether it is a science? 3) Whether it is one or many? 4) Whether it is speculative or practical? 5) How it is compared with other sciences? 6) Whether it is the same as wisdom? 7) Whether God is its subject-matter? 8) Whether it is a matter of argument? 9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes? 10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?
In the first article, the question is posed whether any other doctrine is required besides philosophy? The first objection that Aquinas presents to this case states that “besides philosophical science,” there is no need of further knowledge. Seek not the things that are too high for thee (Sir. 3:22). This simply means that we should not seek to know anything that is “above reason” (35). The second objections says that knowledge can only be concerned with things that are in existence; “but everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science - even God Himself” (36). Aquinas includes 2 Tim. 3:16 as part of the debate: All Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. “It is useful that besides philosophical science there should be other knowledge” inspired by God (36). Finally, Aquinas poses his side of the argument. He states that it is necessary for “man’s salvation” that there is knowledge revealed only by God; this is knowledge revealed through revelation, not through philosophical science built up by human reason (36). Therefore, the answer to the first article is that there is doctrine required other than philosophy (37).
The second article asks whether sacred doctrine is a science? Summa of the Summa does not include any objections. He states that sacred doctrine is a science. But, we must “bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences” (37). Aquinas argues that there is a “natural light of intelligence” that includes geometry, arithmetic, and “the like” (38) and there are principles that come from a “higher science” (38). Using the idea of two sciences, Aquinas comes to the conclusion that sacred doctrine is a science because it “proceeds from principles” established by a higher science, namely the science of God (38).
It is in the third article that this question arises: whether sacred doctrine is one science? Just as in the second article in the Summa of the Summa, there are no objections. Aquinas states that sacred doctrine is one science. “Because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science” (38). This allows Aquinas to come to the conclusion that sacred doctrine is one science.
Is sacred doctrine a practical science? This is the question posed in the fourth article. The first objection that Aquinas presents considers sacred doctrine a practical science because sacred doctrine is ordained to action in James 1:22: Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only (39). The next objection Aquinas uses simply states that sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law; because law implies a moral science, sacred doctrine is considered a practical science (39). However, according to authority (which can either be from Scripture, Fathers of the Church, or recognized wise men), practical science is concerned with human operations (39). But, since sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, it is a speculative science. Aquinas’s argument states sacred doctrine includes both speculative and practical sciences (39). God knows both Himself and His works, and through revelation, man is given the “perfect knowledge of God” (39). This is the answer “sufficient” to the objections.
The fifth article questions whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences? Both objections used in this summary of the summary believe that sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences. This is because other sciences have principles that cannot be doubted (40) or because sacred doctrine depends upon the philosophical sciences (40). Authority states that other sciences are “called the handmaidens of this one” (41). Proverbs 9:3 is used for reference: Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower (41). Aquinas argues that because other sciences derive their basis from human reason sacred doctrine is actually the more nobler science. Divine knowledge can never be misled while human reason can err. The purpose of sacred doctrine is eternal bliss; “to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed” (41). “This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences” in order to make its teaching clearer (42). Therefore, sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences.
The sixth article asks whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom? Once again, Summa of the Summa presents no objections but heads straight into Aquinas’s argument. “This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely” (43). The architect is thought to be more wise than the laborers. “Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end: Wisdom is prudence to a man (Prov 10:23)” (43). The man who considers God the highest cause of the whole universe is called wise. Because sacred doctrine views God as the highest cause it is “especially called wisdom” (43).
The seventh article asks a simple question: is God the object of this science? There are no objections present, and the text heads straight into Aquinas’s answer. “. . . in sacred science all things are treated of under the aspect of God; either because they are God Himself; or because they refer to God as their beginning and end” (43). Aquinas simply states that God is the object of sacred doctrine.
Is sacred doctrine a matter of argument? This is the question in the eighth article. The objection given states that “if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason” (44). According to this objection, proof from authority is the weakest form of proof; but if it is proof from reason “faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience”(44). This just means that you cannot believe in something by faith if you have proved it by human reasoning. Therefore, according to this objection, sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument. But Aquinas states that there is no science or set of science that can prove everything because every proof has some starting point it presupposes as its data (44). “However, it it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them” (44). Because sacred science does not have a science above itself it can dispute “one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation” (45). But, if one attempts to argue with someone who does not believe in anything of divine revelation, there is no point in “proving the articles of faith by reasoning” (45). Think of this concept in terms of dealing with an atheist. Because atheists do not believe in the Bible or its teaching, one wouldn’t start with the Bible for their argument. Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these probable arguments (47).
The ninth article asks whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors? No objections are given, and Aquinas states that it is “befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things” (47). Because human knowledge comes from sense, it is fitting that spiritual truth is taught under the likeness of material things. This allows even the simplest of minds to be able to grasp the concepts put forward by Scripture (48). Aquinas agrees that Holy Scripture can and should use metaphors.
Finally, the tenth article asks whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses? Can words have both literal and symbolic meanings throughout Scripture? The objection given argues that Holy Writ should be able to state the truth without fallacy; “therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word” (48). Authority simply says Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery (49). Aquinas states that because the author of Scripture is God Himself, He can use a word to convey both a literal and anagogical sense (49). The concept of having more than one sense attached to a word does not take away from the literal sense.“Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the sense are founded on one - the literal - from which alone can any argument be drawn.” Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture will actually perish on account of this.
And thus, the first “question” presented in Summa of the Summa has been tackled. The ten points of inquiry were discussed (hopefully in a way the reader can understand), and Aquinas’s purpose was made clear. The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine has been realized and investigated. There are many other questions that Aquinas answers, but for the sake of simplicity, only the first was dealt with. Any curiosity in the other points he makes should be taken up with Summa of the Summa itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment