Comments for Was Aquinas a Proto-Protestant? at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 21 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sun, 26 May 2013 02:05:52 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-15130 Nice exposition of Aquinas' doctrine of justification and its relation to Trent. However, as a Protestant who has benefited from the Angelic Doctor, I do not find his teachings on justification compelling (but neither would I call myself a Thomist). Having said that, I wonder how accurate the picture here painted is regarding his Protestant admirers. I know of none who would refer to Aquinas as a "proto-Protestant" (particularly in regards to the doctrine of justification). John Gerstner's statement is considered bizarre, and hardly represents a widespread view. - j Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:56:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-10647 What of Romans 11:6? It would seem that this verse poses an obstacle to the view of grace and works that you present. - Grace Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:27:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5470 While I am not claiming inerrancy for Thomas, I do not think your interpretation of him necessarily entails that he thought of the Pope as having an authority greater than or equal to the Scriptures, but that (in his view) it derived from the Scriptures i.e. the words of Christ. Therefore the Church confirms the faith taught in the Scriptures rather than establishes it in its own power. He does not think that 'revelations' have been granted to the church independent of the Scriptures.(ST 1a, 1, 8, ad 2) Furthermore, doesn't it beg the question to say that Catholics should only follow those statements of the Church which are 'pronounced as necessary and true' as how do we know these statements are 'necessary and true' if other statements are not? The only possible test is there consistency with Scripture. - Alan Darley Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:49:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5455 Alan Darling, Just to clarify again Catholics do not need to follow the opinions of the Doctors of the Church in every regard but only in that which the Church has pronounced as necessary and true doctrine (through the Magisterium of the Church). St. Thomas affirms this. - Steven Reyes Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:54:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5454 Alan Darling, Similarly if you read more of Contra Errores Graecorum you will see that my interpretation of St. Thomas regarding the authority of the Church to properly interpret Scripture as opposed to the Protestant version of Sola Scriptura is correct. Consider the following sections from Part 2 Chapter 36 That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.” Lib. 98, 49-51 (not found). Close And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” Lib. 104, 1-7, from Maximus, Epistola Romae scripta (PG 91, 137 D). Close Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.” As you see here the manner of the true sense of Scripture and Sacred Doctrine is derived from the authority of the Church under the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. Similarly, one cannot interpret Sacred Scripture apart: Part 2 Chapter 38 That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” Lib. 98, 44-48 (not found). Close And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” Being Christian means being united to His Church as joined to the Pope. For St. Thomas the Church is guided by Christ and can never be abandon. If one finds himself against the Church on a matter of Scripture then that individual has read Scripture incorrectly, because if the Church has defined something as doctrine that is not in accord with the Scriptures then in essence one would have to leave the Church (however to do this would be to leave the Pope and thus leave Christ, according to St. Thomas) or better understand how Scripture fits with the doctrine. I hope this helps to understand what St. Thomas means when he states as to whether Doctors of the Church should be followed. As with St. Athanasius he only means they should not be followed to the letter but in the spirit and correct fallible doctors where they err. He knows one can interpret Scripture fallibly and so though he states that our trust lies in Scripture, he understands that our perception of the right teaching of Scripture lies in communion with the Church and with the Roman Pontiff. As such we can develop our understanding of doctrine according to natural reason, but we cannot disregard the authority of the Church in what she has defined as being truth, though we can articulate its meaning. The Sacred Doctrine of the Church for St. Thomas will always be in accord with Sacred Scripture otherwise we would have to leave the Church and thus leave Christ because according to him there is no salvation outside of communion with the Church and the Roman Pontiff. I hope this helps. - Steven Reyes Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:41:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5451 I have not studied Aquinas on justification so I found this article stimulating and challenging and I will research it further. I do believe Aquinas was a 'proto-protestant' however in his attitude to Scripture. Unlike later Roman catholic teaching, Aquinas nowhere ascribes a higher authority to the Fathers, to philosophers or to oral tradition. On the contrary, he writes that compared to the ‘incontrovertible proof’ of the canonical scriptures, even doctors of the church only possess ‘probable’ authority: “For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.” (ST 1a, 1, 8, ad 2) An important example of this principle is found in Contra Errores Graecorum where Aquinas is countering what he calls the ‘absolutely false’ view that the Council of Nicea “enjoys greater authority than the letter of the Old Testament.” (Contra Errores Graecorum,Part 1,ch 32) Aquinas suggests that the statements of the Council do not carry authority of themselves, but only derivatively through bringing out the true meaning of the authoritative scriptures.He agrees with Augustine who wrote: “Only those books of Scripture which are canonical have I learned to hold in such honour as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them.” ST 1a, 1, 8, ad 2 There is also continuity between Aquinas' teaching on the literal sense of Scripture (ST 1a, q.1 a.10, ad 3) and the later emphasis of John Wyclif (De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae Vol 1: ed Rudolph Beddensieg, (London, Trubner and Co, 1907), ch 4, p.73 and previously with Nicholas de Lyra who became known as the ‘plain and useful doctor’ for his emphasis on the literal sense.In language reminisicent of Aquinas, De Lyra writes of the ‘foundation’ sense which must be first grasped and then built upon by the moral or spiritual sense. ( See Herman Hailperin,, Rashi and the Christian Scholars, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963, p.142). Although imperfect and at times inconsistent, Aquinas’ development of the literal sense unwittingly produced a competing hermeneutic to that of neo-Platonists like Pseudo-Dionysius which, combined with the later translation of the Bible for the masses, unlocked the doors for later Reformers to champion the democratisation of the knowledge of God. - Alan Darley Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:28:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5450 Looks like an interesting article. I clicked the PDF version so I could read it on the bus. The PDF software leaves much to be desired (my Admin. Assistant friend would have a fit if she saw it). I hope others who choose that version do not begin to think that is the new way to format...anything. I'm looking forward to reading the article though. Happy Advent! - SusanWho Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:07:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5447 Ismael: Many early protestants, especially Calvin, appealed heavily to the Fathers, especially Augustine. Look at Calvin's Institutes, especially the citations index. He cites Augustine frequently, and far more than any other authority, except Scripture. The difference between Calvin and Aquinas (in my opinion) is that Calvin, writing polemic, consistently cites the parts of Augustine that already agree with his school of thought, while Aquinas is truly interested in Augustine's full counsel. (Caveat lector: I was confirmed in a calvinist church, but lost my calvinism completely after comparing Augustine himself with Calvin's uses of Augustine.) - John Rose Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:32:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5446 This essay is an excellent word in the long conversation about grace and work. The message to ponder is Augustine's, as quoted by Thomas in the this essay: ‘God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us...' There is a typographical error which blunts the point of this sentence: ‘... since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, beings by operating that they may will.' [Now corrected, Ed.] Of course "beings" should be "begins" (or "initiates"), to complete the lovely Augustinian parallel with "perfects". - John Rose Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5445 Glenn, the difference between St. Thomas' view of Predestination and Calvin's view of destination is that humans maintain actual free will to refuse grace within the model of St. Thomas, and it is by co-operation with grace that we can say yes to God who prepares our wills by His grace. Thus for St. Thomas eternal damnation is on the basis of man's demerits and not the actual act of God. God allows our damnation to occur but He does not will it. God wills all men to be saved in that God gives sufficient grace for all men to be saved, but our free will does not co-operate from time to time. Calvin's assertion is that God absolutely predestines us to Heaven or Hell regardless of our merits and demerits. St. Thomas' view of predestination is that we attain Heaven by grace and merit, it is gift and reward. I don't think St. Thomas can in any way be a proto-Protestant because of his views on Law and how we must follow the Divine Law and the natural Law in order to get to Heaven. By nature we were made to follow the Old Law and the New Law, and by grace we can do this. His views on Law are totally contrary to any Protestant way of thinking. It's a silly question about the orthodoxy of St. Thomas. St. Thomas falls so closely in line with St. Augustine on so many different lines of theology, especially considering how man must still follow the commandments of God, lest man be punished by God for his transgressions. - Steven Reyes Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:57:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5444 I am an evangelical Protestant who admires Aquinas, particularly his views on predestination. (See Question 23 in the Summa on Predestination.) He seems to take Romans 9 quite literally. (What do you have that you haven't received?) I am having trouble distinguishing his views from Calvin's since Aquinas identifies God as First Cause of everything good. - Glenn Gilbert Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:44:23 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5441 I fail to see how Thomas could be seen to be a 'proto-protestant', but perhaps because I am not nor I ever was an evangelical Christian... Wouldn't the all the citations of Church Fathers and even non Christian philosophers (like Aristotle) somewhat distance him from the 'sola scriptura' corner-stone of evengelical Christianity? Also his ideas of the eucharist are widely rejected by most protestants (eg ST III, Q. LXXV-LXXVI). The same goes for baptism for some eveangelicals (ST III, Q. LXIX, a.6). An evangelical also would find quite probblematic some notions about Merit Aquinas makes (ST I-I, Q. CXIV) Perhaps it's same 'creativity' that some protestants use that Augustine was a proto-protestant... - Ismael Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:20:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5439 J writes: "I do not attribute such faults to Prof. Beckwith's essay, but I do fear the use made of such essays on the more popular level, where nuances tend to fall off the horse as apolegetical combatants rush headlong into battle." I absolutely agree. In fact, the purpose of my larger project on this matter is to show that how some Protestants read Thomas is the result of the Angelic Doctor's lack of a Reformation foil. And yet, his views on justification are nearly identical to Trent's and the Catechism's. I have a 10,000-word academic paper making this point, which i hope will be published soon in an academic journal - Francis J. Beckwith Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:07:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5438 "justification is as much about getting heaven into us as it is about getting us into heaven." I've used this line many times. Guess it's not as original a thought as I supposed. It is, nonetheless, a wonderful thought. Thanks for your commentary on this. I hadn't seen much Thomistic thought on the matter. - Micah Murphy Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:06:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5437 I wouldn't quite say that in Aquinas it is that the will is also BOUND by its tendency to aim at the good. (Although perhaps Aquinas puts it in just that way somewhere; who knows.) I would say that it is the will's natural orientation to the good, which is what God causes when He creates it, in conjunction with the faculty of understanding as its form that ENABLES the will to be free in its choices. (Incidentally, Descartes says in the 4th meditation that it is really only in the indifference of the will that he can make sense of the idea of his mind having any likeness to God, not in anything having to do with intellect). So it can be said that God causes not just the will's choices but the actual FREE character of those choices; causes them to BE free in other words. And seeing that God already enables the will in its nature to be free, one might be able to glimpse how grace both heals and further strengthens that enabling in works freely chosen, which makes God the grand enabler of both justification and sanctification. - Br. Reggie Thu, 09 Dec 2010 09:20:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5436 Kevin: Nice insight. I think it's clear that the absence of formal and final causes leaves one with only efficient and material ones. Hence, you need a place to fit "the will," which becomes a sort of Cartesian ad hoc ghost. This is why all the problems arise. Frank - Francis J. Beckwith Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:31:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5435 I think it's important to see Aquinas in light of the way Evangelical Protestants struggle with the tension between John Calvin and Luis Molina. We know Calvin's view well enough, but as people like William Lane Craig, "open" theists, and the Biola crowd will tell you, Molina has a much stronger appeal, given their modern libertarian instincts. As far as I can tell, though, the will does not aim at the good at all for Molina. (He was, after all, a Renaissance guy, so human will was free like Machiavelli's Prince is free.) That, of course, tends to spook some Evangelicals, who then rediscover their Reform background (usually in seminary) and swing back to Calvin. What they're all missing, though, is the way Thomas holds neither of those views: he's all about a will that is at once free in its choices, but ALSO bound by its tendency to aim at the good. I think this explains the difficulty that Evangelical-Protestants have with the concept of "works." They hear "works" and think it means laboring toward salvation. But if you look at it the way Thomas Aquinas did, you realize that works really just the way to receive the salvation we're already given. - Kevin Walker Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:44:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5434 One missing piece in this essay is the Tridentine doctrine that one can refuse grace. The doctrine of predestination is crucial to the debate. One also has to recall that in the Reformation the doctrine of justification did not originally appear so difficult to resolve as we often think. At Regensburg thelogians from both sides of the debate had reached some substantial agreement, but their efforts went for nought largely because of agitation against the whole project in Rome. Admittedly, the colloquy would probably have fallen apart anyway over the Eucharist, actually the hottest topic in 16th Century discussion. In assessing the disaster of the 16th Century, Catholics, cradle or recent, need to bear in mind also that the Reformers seldom encountered the nuanced position of Thomas in the 16th Century debates, facing far more often the less than compelling arguments of Eck, Sadoleto and the Refutation of the Augusburg Confession. The duty of working toward greater unity (Remember Ut unum sint?) demands careful speech and avoidance of polemical simplifications or flourishes, and those virtues were often sorely lacking in 16th Century debates. I do not attribute such faults to Prof. Beckwith's essay, but I do fear the use made of such essays on the more popular level, where nuances tend to fall off the horse as apolegetical combatants rush headlong into battle. - J. Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:34:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5433 Great article. Very important topic. Beyond the specific question of justification, I've lately interacted with Protestants who want to "appropriate" all kinds of Catholic teachings on natural law, efficacy of sacraments, the importance of tradition and a greater emphasis on liturgy. They say that this is a return to the "original" or "true" project of the Reformers (i.e. the Protestant heresiarchs) which has been subsequently distorted by anabaptists and other misguided Protestant sects. It seems to me that while on the one hand it is true that Calvin and Luther would probably not much resemble the stereotypical modern "Evangelical," there are obviously tremendous problems with their project. It is interesting to see them try to work around or explain away many statements and actions of the Reformers (e.g. Luther throwing almost all of Aristolte out of the Heidelberg curriculum). Above all, the lie is given when you engage them on the metaphysics which undelie their purported advocacy of the natural law. As one might expect, the "love" that Dr. Beckwith descibes ends with any talk of authority or apostolic succession. I myself think there is a spectrum of possible motives for these folks. At best, it is love. Somewhere in the middle it is simply the recognition of the good of the Cathiolic teaching and a desire, ending in incoherency, to have it all ("We believe in the efficacy of the Sacraments but also in Faith Alone"). Somewhat more sinister: it is an attempt (about the roots of which we will not speculate) to undermine the Catholic Church by creating confusion through obsuring her uniqueness and singularity. - An Observer Thu, 09 Dec 2010 05:10:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html#comment-5432 Thomas Aquinas was “the fountain and foundation of all heresy, error, and the obliteration of the gospel (as his books prove)” -- Martin Luther in 1524. - John Thu, 09 Dec 2010 03:18:44 +0100