Summarizing the Summas, or, The Simplicity of Saint Thomas Aquinas
Oct 8th, 2009 | By Andrew Preslar | Category: Blog PostsThe words “Thomas Aquinas” and “summa,” when they spark recognition, are apt also to produce rather visceral reactions. This is quite incongruous with the modus operandi of St. Thomas’ Summa theologica and Summa contra gentiles themselves. But there it is. It seems that his meticulous and dispassionate style often has something to do with the more than (or less than) intellectual reactions to these works. It is quite easy to let famous names be just that, and to develop a prejudice pro or con. It is easier still to let difficult things alone. St. Thomas is both famous and difficult. He is also, in a very real sense, uncomplicated. I want to offer a glimpse of the simplicity of St. Thomas, by way of some short reflections followed by a summary of the Summas.
.
St. Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. He is further marked for distinction by Pope Leo XIII, who wrote that “[Thomas Aquinas] is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith.” (Aeterni Patris, 17.) Admittedly, the Angelic Doctor has fallen upon hard times. Fergus Kerr’s sometimes snarky epitome, Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), could have been appropriately subtitled “The Escape from Thomism.” I think that this is very unfortunate. It is surely no coincidence that departure from “the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith” has been accompanied by a veritable onslaught upon that faith from within the ranks of Catholic academia. But I am not here concerned to defend Catholicism. Suffice to say that I love St. Thomas. I love his work. In times of dire spiritual need he has proven to be a friend and a Christian brother. So there is a hint as to what are my visceral reactions and such.
I have sometimes been befuddled by the very table of contents to the Summas. What in the world are they about? These things are not exactly arranged like my Evangelical textbooks in systematic theology. If you are like me, not over-burdened with background in ancient and medieval theology and philosophy, the Summas can be a bit much. If you have been reared on Evangelical or some form of existentialist theology, the long bits about acts, habits, virtues, and vices might seem to constitute a dull, misplaced, and potentially disastrous slide from theology (especially soteriology) into ethics. It seems like the only distinctively Christian part comes at the end of both works, and is there marred (in Protestant eyes) by sacramentalism. Well, I cannot speak to all that. I can give you my take on the Summas, which is based upon admittedly scattered (though repeated) readings, together with the little work put into compiling the Index. Here it is, in a nutshell:
1. There is a God.
2. Human beings want to be happy.
3. The second fact has everything to do with the first.
I told you that we would be keeping it simple. But herein lies a clue to the seemingly disproportionate space spent on human psychology (in an older sense of the word, which includes ethics and what we call “epistemology”) in the Summas. Thomas is not concerned with abstractions. He is concerned with real and practical things. Now, few realities are as practical to us humans as the facts that there are such things as human beings and these desire happiness. St. Thomas, like everybody else, knows that people want to be happy. But he also wants to know:
1. Why is there such a thing as man, who desires happiness?
2. What sort of thing is man, and in what does his happiness consist?
3. What hope is there for man to find happiness?
The first question leads St. Thomas to consider the existence, nature, and acts of God. The second question leads him to consider human psychology. The third question leads him to Christ, who is fully God and fully human. Both Summas cover roughly the same ground: God, creation, angels, man, law and grace, Incarnation, sacraments, last things. The main difference between them is that the Summa theologica was written for beginners in the study of theology (see the prologue) while the Summa contra gentiles is a sort of apologetics manual with an emphasis on religious epistemology. You will notice that the Summa theologica features more analysis of habits, virtues (both cardinal and theological) and vices than does the Summa contra gentiles. The latter work has more of an eschatological and epistemological emphasis, focusing on final causality and the Beatific Vision (cf. Summa contra gentiles, Book 3, Chapters 51–63).
You might wonder, as I have, why there are no major sections in the Summas dedicated to Scripture (bibliology) and the Church (ecclesiology). This is how I see it: For St. Thomas, the Church, with her Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, her Magisterium and Rule of Prayer, in sum, her Deposit of Faith, is not primarily an object of speculation. Rather, the Catholic Church is the lens by which St. Thomas sees. Aquinas is the most dogmatic of theologians operating in the simplest faith. This can be appreciated by perusing his unblushing appeals to authority by way of providing premises for his own arguments. But Aquinas is not simple-minded. His mental make-up prompts him to ask fundamental questions in a most thorough way. That is to say, St. Thomas was a philosopher as well as a theologian.
Most people are not philosophers. Many theologians are not philosophers. Some of these have not had the opportunity to become so, others are not so made. In either case, no worries. But some men are philosophers, by nature and training, and this is just to say that they think about fundamental things in a particularly thorough way. By “thorough” I do not mean “pagan” or “unbiblical” or “buttered toast.” I mean thorough, and that is perfectly compatible with the Bible and Christianity and breakfast foods. Thomas is thorough in his consideration of things. That makes him kind of difficult for the rest of us, which is our problem, not his. This problem is susceptible of a simple, though time-consuming, solution. Tolle, lege.
Of course, not everyone is called to study St. Thomas, nor is anyone required to be a Thomist. Although, to take up a theme that Neal Judisch has recently explored in another connection, it could be that those who reject Thomism never really understood Thomas. For those who want to understand him, at least a little bit, the thing to do is read his stuff. The Summa theologica and the Summa contra gentiles are the best places to start reading. Both works are available online in English translation (links below).
The best way to start reading the Summas is probably to have some idea of what you are getting into. And the best way to get that idea is to read some kind of introductory work. I like this book. (It is heavy with primary texts and explanatory footnotes.) There are other good introductions to Aquinas. Try to find one that does not focus over-much on philosophy. Understandably, this is what philosophers tend to do. But if you can find a theologian who has written something along this line, or a philosopher who knows something about theology, go with that. Be warned: St. Thomas, and most Thomists, will not sweep you off your feet with literary style. Thomism is, in this respect, much less interesting than, for example, the chronicles of B. Wooster and his man, Jeeves, or the poetry of W.B. Yeats. I mean, deeply inferior–neither win, place, nor show. But there are other goods than being swept away with Wodehousian prose, or “The Grey Rock.” Understanding is one such good. Aquinas is a master in that realm. Like any good master, he knows the limits of his own understanding, and is humble enough, desirous enough, to receive what he has simply been told.
St. Thomas was a Christian theologian and a mystic, which is really not far from saying the same thing. People sometimes oppose his published works to his mystical vision. But these are not at odds. The latter is simply greater than the former, as the Beatific Vision is itself greater than theological accounts of the Beatific Vision. I can understand why Thomas would put down his pen, but I cannot sympathize with those opponents of St. Thomas who will not pick up his writings.
ANALYTICAL INDEX OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA AND SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES
The Summa theologica is comprised of three main parts, the second being subdivided into two parts and a supplement being appended to the third part.
.
Sacred Doctrine (1)
God (2–43)
God’s Existence (2)
God’s Perfections (3–26)
Trinity (27–43)
Creation (44–102)
Angels (50–64)
Six Days (65–74)
Man (75–102)
Divine Government (103–119)
Effects in Creation (103–106)
Angelic Order (107–114)
Corporeal Creatures / Man (115-119)
.
First Part of the Second Part (QQ. 1–114)
Human Acts (1–48)
Happiness (1–5)
Voluntary and Involuntary Acts (6–48)
Habits (49–89)
Habits (49–54)
Virtues (55–67)
Gifts (68–70)
Vices (71–89)
Law (90–108)
Kinds of Law (90–97)
Old Law (98–105)
New Law (106–108)
Grace (109–114)
Necessity (109)
Nature, Cause, Effects (110–113)
Merit (114)
.
Second Part of the Second Part (QQ. 1–189)
Theological Virtues (1–46)
Faith (1–16)
Hope (17–22)
Charity (23–46)
Cardinal Virtues (47–170)
Prudence (47–56)
Justice (57–122)
Fortitude (123–140)
Temperance (141–170)
Peculiar Gifts and States of Life (171–189)
Gratuitous Graces (171–178)
Active and Contemplative Life (179–182)
Various States of Life (183–189)
.
Third Part (QQ. 1–90)
Incarnation (1–59)
Fitness (1)
Mode of Union (2–26)
Blessed Virgin (27–30)
Conception (31–34)
Life (35–45)
Passion (46–52)
Resurrection (53–56)
Ascension (57–59)
Sacraments (60–90)
General (60–65)
Baptism (66–71)
Confirmation (72)
Eucharist (73–83)
Penance (84–90)
.
Supplement to the Third Part (QQ. 1–99)
Sacraments, cont. (1–68)
Penance, cont. (1–28)
Unction (29–33)
Order (34–40)
Matrimony (41–68)
Last Things (69–99)
Intermediate State (69–74)
Resurrection (75–87)
Judgment (88–90)
Heaven and Hell (91–99)
The Summa contra gentiles is divided into four books, the third book being subdivided into two parts.
Faith and Reason (1–12)
Existence of God (13)
Properties of God (14–102)
Book Two: Creation (Ch. 1–101)
God and Creation (1–45)
Intellectual Substance (46–55)
Intellectual Substance and Body (56–90)
Separate Substances (91–101)
Book Three: Providence (Ch. 1–83)
God the End of All (1–63)
Final Causality (1)
Teleology and Act (2–3)
Evil and Act (4–15)
God and Act (16–25)
Human Happiness (26–44)
Knowledge of Separate Substances (45–50)
The Beatific Vision (51–63)
God the Governor of All (64–163)
Divine Providence (64–76)
Providence and Secondary Causes (77–82)
Hierarchy of Causes (83)
Book Three: Providence (Ch. 84–163)
Causal Relations and Human Acts (84–113)
God’s Law and Human Ends (114–146)
God’s Grace and Human Happiness (147–163)
Book Four: Salvation (Ch. 1–97)
Divine Revelation and Human Happiness (1)
Divine Generation (2–14)
Holy Spirit (15–25)
Trinity (26)
Incarnation (27–55)
Sacraments (56–78)
Last Things and Human Ends (79–97)
I would definitely check out a couple of works by Fr. Brian Davies (a Dominican Priest at Fordham University in the Philosophy Dept.):
The Thought of Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas (Continuum Compact)
Of course, if you’re in NYC, sitting in on one of his classes is an absolutely enlightening experience.
As someone who has not been formally trained in philosophy but finds herself married to a philosopher, I have found the writings of Walter Farrell,O.P. to be extremely helpful. The first link below is a wonderful work that is almost devotional in nature and is very easy to read and understand. The second link is Fr. Farrells’s 4 volume summary that is now completely online for download.
I should clarify that I am also not very computer savvy :)
Here are the links:
My Way of Life: The Summa Simplified for Everyone
A Companion to the Summa
Sean,
Thanks for the links.
Of course, if you’re in NYC, sitting in on one of his classes is an absolutely enlightening experience.
I take it that you are so situated?
Carol,
Thanks for the references. I will look at Farrell. You mentioned a couple of links, but I do not see them.
Ah, they were sitting on the dashboard waiting for approval. Any comment with links has to be specifically approved by an administrator, I think. Thank you.
I took the liberty, as with Sean’s links, to change the text of the web address into the title of the work referenced, while maintaining the exact links that you both submitted. This makes it easier for folks to see what they are linking to. Hope that you don’t mind.
Dear Andrew,
Thanks for this great post! When you mentioned Aquinas’ ecclesiastical views, I remembered his CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM (Against the errors of the greeks). In chapters 33 through 38 of that work, Aquinas discusses his views on the nature of the papacy (jurisdiction, necessity of being subject to the papacy for salvation, etc). Another source for his views on the papacy would be his actions in response to various papal requests.
Here’s the link to his “Against the errors of the greeks”:
http://www.op-stjoseph.org/Students/study/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
I’ve heard that Presbyterians sometimes view Aquinas as a Calvinist before Calvin. Surely they are referring to interpretations of some his theological views about predestination, not of his views on Church authority, right? In light of Aquinas’ seemingly clear views on the papacy, I would assume so at least. Does anyone know what the Presbyterians do with his non-Presbyterian ecclesiology?
Sincerely,
K. Doran
K. Doran,
Thanks. Thanks especially for the link. I have always wanted to read that particular work.
Sometime in the 1990s, the late John Gerstner wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal to the effect that “Thomas Aquinas was a Protestant.” I do not think that many people bought into the notion. A follow-up piece, citing much evidence to the contrary, was published (I cannot remember the author’s name) in a subsequent issue of WTJ.
I attended a “Thomistic” Evangelical Seminary. We ignored St. Thomas’s ecclesiology. There was an occasional shake of the head over his occasional outburst of unmistakable papistry. But, we supposed, he was in this respect a product of his times. Where else could he have gone to church?
Does anyone know what the Presbyterians do with his non-Presbyterian ecclesiology?
Book Four of Calvin’s Institutes gives some answer to the question. To be sure, it seems that Calvin usually had St. Thomas in mind when wrote (in other connections) of the “more sober” among the sophists. Gerstner was of the opinion that St. Thomas, had he been around in the 16th century, would have put his oar in with the Protestants and shoved off from the Barque. If so, I wonder why he did not take up the cause when he was on point?
As to predestination, providence, Calvinism and Thomism: I can recommend some stuff ready to hand, here and here.
In the Thomism in general category, I can recommend these books:
The Aquinas Catechism: A Simple Explanation of the Catholic Faith by the Church’s Greatest Theologian
by Thomas Aquinas
Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
ISBN-10: 1928832105
ISBN-13: 978-1928832102
The retail list price for this book is $17.95 – a good deal at the list price, and available through internet booksellers at a discount.
Amazon lists 22 books by Etienne Gilson, several specially dealing with Thomism. I have found this book helpful:
Elements of Christian Philosophy
“A master philosopher and historian illuminates the key ideas which form the foundation of the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas” by Etienne Henry Gilson, Member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas
This is the editorial review from Amazon.com:
“[A] textbook in Thomistic metaphysics… It was prepared for those who read St. Thomas on theological topics without having had training in his metaphysical distinctions. It follows the sequence of the Summa in taking up these `elements’: the nature of Christian doctrine (philosophy and theology), God, the transcendentals, causation, and man (knowledge, will and society. – Christian Century
This two volume work is available from TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford Illinois:
The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Prelude of the Eternal Life, by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O. P (The summary of a course in ascetical and mystical theology given for over twenty years at the Angelicum in Rome.
From the flyleaf: “Fr. Reginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P (1877-1964) was one of the great Catholic Theologians of the 20th century and during his life was undoubtably the greatest living Dominican theologian. … A thoroughgoing Thomist in the classic Dominican tradition, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange had both a deep appreciation for the enduring vitality of St. Thomas Aquinas’s work and a real understanding of the spiritual needs of his own time. Having steeped himself in Thomistic principles, he thought through virtually ever aspect of the Faith in light of these principles, producing over 500 books and articles …
The entire content of The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Prelude of the Eternal Life can be found online here: http://www.christianperfection.info/default.htm
The above is linked to this website: http://www.thesumma.info/index.php
The Summa and other matters … dedicated to the legacy of St. Thomas Aquinas
This site is dedicated to the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. In particular, the site aims to offer online the commentaries on the Summa written by Pere Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
It’s out of print and hard to find, but I’ve seen some excellent Thomists recommend Sertillanges, “Foundations of Thomistic Philosophy.” I just started reading it in our “Catholic Philosophy Group.” (And if any Catholic is interested in learning more about Thomism, you can let us know if you want to be part of that group.)
Tim,
Good call. This gives me the chance to make it clear that by recommending a theologically-oriented introduction to the Summas I was not denying the importance of understanding where Thomas is coming from philosophically. This is essential for profitable reading of the Summas.
Oh and a re-shout out to K. Doran for the Contra Errores Graecorum link. It led me to the site with the most extensive online library of Aquinas’ works in English translation [yes!] that I have yet found:
Thomas Aquinas’ Works in English
A huge thank you to Joseph Kenny, O.P., for making these writings available in electronic format (in some cases he has even supplied translations for parts of a work).
Hello mateo.
Thanks for the references. According to Fegus Kerr (Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians), the regime of Garrigou-Lagrange had a lot to do with putting modern Catholics off their St. Thomas. His notion of intellectual formation for seminarians at one time ruled supreme, and things were rather too high and dry for a lot of young intellectuals in an evolutionary age; eventually, historicism and existentialism beat out Thomism. By “Thomism,” I mean moderate realism, which is a living philosophy, not a dead letter. Too often, apparently, Thomism was presented according to the letter–something to be learned by rote.
Here are some more links to Garrigou-Lagrange’s theological works, including a commentary on the Summa Theologica:
Select Works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Prominent among the highly readable, though quite challenging, Thomists of the Twentieth-Century stand Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain. These men were Thomists in the best sense, knowing that it is living philosophy. Gilson’s brand of “existential” Thomism has been particularly formative in my own (still very undeveloped) intellectual life. Three of his philosophical works on the history of philosophy stand out in my mind. Here they are in ascending order of difficulty:
God and Philosophy
The Unity of Philosophical Experience
Being and Some Philosophers
Each book tackles the question of why philosophers have tended to botch, and then give up (and then return to) metaphysics. The difficulty comes down to a category mistake. Gilson argues that the first thing in reality, even more primary than being (that which is), is fundamentally an act of existence (that act which makes something real, as opposed to merely ideal) and cannot be conceptualized. Existence is not a property among other properties. It lies altogether beyond our intellectual capacity in that sense. Kant recognized this and gave metaphysics the boot. Gilson recognized this and and stated that metaphysics depends upon our ability to affirm the act of existence, not through conceptualization, but by means of an intellectual judgment. In theology proper, this distinction is expressed thusly: We cannot say what God is (e.g., God is x), but we can say that God is. Our acts of predication concerning God (e.g., God is infinite) are fundamentally concerned to state what God is not (e.g., circumscribed). This does not, however, render God-talk equivocal. In affirming that God is (in fact, in knowing that anything is) the intellect is aware of (even if in an inchoate way) something that it cannot comprehend or conceptualize: an unlimited act of existence.
Andrew Preslar:
This is from Wikipedia’s article on Fr. Reginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.:
That snarky comment from Wikipedia reminds me of this scene from Amadeus:
John Janaro writes in his brief biography of Father William G. Most that Fr. Most wrestled with the writings of Garrigou-Lagrange on the issue of grace and predestination :
I am hoping that someone at CTC will write a “lead article” (or series of articles) on the topic of predestination. Personally, I would like to see the theses of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s book Predestination and Fr. William G. Most’s book Grace Predestination & Salvific Will God: New Answers To Old Questions compared to Calvin’s ideas about predestination.
As long as I am making a wish list of articles from CTC, I would also like to see a “blog entry article” that comments on this article by Fr. Most about the “Thomism” of Garrigou-Lagrange on the issue of predestination:
Andrew Preslar:
It seems to me that you must understand and appreciate Etienne Gilson’s book Thomas Realism & the Critique of Knowledge. I bought that book, but soon realized that I was floundering in deep waters. Perhaps someday you can write a blog entry article commenting on the topic that you have raised here. I really appreciate the ability of the writers at CTC to bring these kinds of topics down to earth.
God bless CTC and their good work!
Hello mateo.
Never read that book. Gilson was a marvel. A couple ‘a posts on predestination would seem appropriate at some point, no? Some of the scheduled articles will deal with the topic. It is very difficult, and I hope not to be the one to give it a go. We have trained philosophers here (praise God). They can have it.
Andrew,
Thanks for the response. I used to be so situated. I’m doing my PhD at Fordham (now on the dissertation end and living in Chicago), so I was fortunate to be able to take an Anselm and Aquinas course from Fr. Davies and sit in on his Intro to Aquinas course.