Aquinas on Nature and Grace - Fairweather

Back when I was in school, when we Protestants wanted to know a little more about what the medieval background for the Reformation, we were went to the W/JKP Library of Christian Classics which had a few volumes of original sources with introductions. One of those volumes was on Thomas, who after a somewhat rocky start, became the standard theologian of the Roman Catholic Church.

To my surprise, this volume was on CCEL. Yes, the full Summa is available in Logos, but having an alternate translation of a work can sometimes be helpful. In addition, having a shorter work will give some people a place to start.

I have tagged this with the Summa datatype, generally down to the article level. The first few articles go to the next level, but since most links that I have seen are only to the article, I saved myself some work. I have also created a fair number of links, both to pop around the text, as well as to some older works Thomas cites. Of course, more could be added, but I felt that it is useful where it is.

I have not included the indexes at the end of the work. I figure Logos is creates its own indexes... Big Smile

SDG

Ken McGuire

Find more posts tagged with

Files

Comments

Robert M. Warren

Kenneth:

Thanks again for your work!

Milford Charles Murray

To my surprise, this volume was on CCEL. Yes, the full Summa is available in Logos, but having an alternate translation of a work can sometimes be helpful. In addition, having a shorter work will give some people a place to start.

Peace, Ken! Blessings to you and your loved ones for the New Year! .... another year of Grace! *smile*

I'm pleased indeed for your post and this particular "sharing"! I do have the full Summa as a Logos resource but appreciate an alternate translation for an important work. This work became important to me on Christmas morning when my oldest GrandBoy, in Grade 10, presented me with a carefully-chosen Christmas Present - a splendid and bound version of The Divine Comedy which I also have as a Logos resource as part of my The Harvard Classics series.

Wow! What a chance to study with my GrandBoy! *smile* It will be truly "in-depth," and Deo Volente we will have many, many tangential discussions. It's my understanding that Dante adored Aquinas and ...... that Luther had great and terrible problems over against "The Grace of God!" in Aquinas. (Frankly, on this point I don't have the slightest clue as to what I'm talking about!!!) *smile*

I guess I and my Luke will have to decide for ourselves as we study! *smile* Thank you, Ken, for helping to make this time together with my beloved a significant part of our eternal relationship!

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446152#Comment_446152

Luther didn't really have anything good to say about Thomas, it is true. But it is debatable how well he really KNEW Thomas.

While Thomas was the standard theologian of Rome for much the time since the Reformation, he was NOT when Luther went to school. He instead studied Ockham and Biel, and their criticisms of Thomas. In addition, there was ecclesiastical politics involved. Thomas was a Dominican, and was studied by Dominicans. Tetzel was a Dominican as well...

I want to say it was Heiko Oberman who observed that there have been three ways of understanding Thomas. Luther ran into the way the nominalists read him and the way people like Tetzel read him. But in his formative years he was not really exposed to the way that became the standard way of understanding him - namely the most Augustinian way possible.

In many respects we Lutherans still read Thomas as saying things quite different that Rome does, which is one of the problems with Lutheran and Roman Catholics talking about the faith together. We manage to read the same words very differently... As one ex-Lutheran Roman Catholic observed (I think it was Robert Wilken) Lutherans have got to realize that Lutheranism is a first of all a reaction against medieval nominalism that Rome has since distanced itself from.

That said, I have problems when figures like Dante make such big distinctions between types of sin - as if all sin does not lead to death... But I am sure that a competent Roman Catholic could have a very different interpretation.

SDG

Ken McGuire

DavidS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446167#Comment_446167

Thanks! [:)]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/446167#Comment_446167

I want to say it was Heiko Oberman who observed that there have been three ways of understanding Thomas. Luther ran into the way the nominalists read him and the way people like Tetzel read him. But in his formative years he was not really exposed to the way that became the standard way of understanding him - namely the most Augustinian way possible.

In many respects we Lutherans still read Thomas as saying things quite different that Rome does, which is one of the problems with Lutheran and Roman Catholics talking about the faith together. We manage to read the same words very differently... As one ex-Lutheran Roman Catholic observed (I think it was Robert Wilken) Lutherans have got to realize that Lutheranism is a first of all a reaction against medieval nominalism that Rome has since distanced itself from.

That said, I have problems when figures like Dante make such big distinctions between types of sin - as if all sin does not lead to death... But I am sure that a competent Roman Catholic could have a very different interpretation.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Peace, Ken! *smile* Thank you so very kindly for your very excellent thoughts! The many hours I will be spending with my GrandBoy will be a great challenge for me; and I'm sure they will also be very rewarding! You have been truly helpful ...............

fgh

Thanks.