Dear Father Angelo,
This morning, during his Sunday homily, the celebrating priest stated that there are no quotations from Sacred Scripture in the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas.
According to him, this is because the author favored philosophy over the Word of God, unlike St. Bonaventure.
When questioned afterwards, he reiterated that the text of the Summa contains no Scriptural citations whatsoever, arguing that this reflects an excessive “philosophizing”– so to speak – of the Christian faith.
What are your thoughts on this?
The Priest’s answer
Dear,
1. The statement made by that priest is entirely groundless. In all probability, he has never even held the Summa Theologiae in his hands. Right in the very first line of the Prologue to the Summa Theologiae, there is an immediate biblical quotation, which reads as follows: “as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food” (1 Cor 3:1–2). Furthermore, upon turning the page, one can immediately spot various citations in the first article of the first question: out of five total citations, four are from Sacred Scripture—specifically, two from Sirach, one from Isaiah, and one from the Second Letter to Timothy.
2. To understand the place of Sacred Scripture within theology, it is useful to recall what kind of science theology is. Now, St. Thomas notes that according to the ancients, three distinct modes of doing science can be identified, depending on the degree of abstraction the mind performs in relation to reality:
At the first degree of abstraction belong those sciences that study reality in its material mutability. Aristotle calls them ta physika (physics/natural sciences), and includes within them history, cosmology, psychology, geography… This mode of science inquires into how reality manifests itself.
At the second degree belong those sciences that study reality exclusively from the perspective of quantity. Mathematics comprises two components: arithmetic and geometry. It inquires into the how much of things. Although it stands higher than the first mode of science, spiritual realities elude mathematics because they lack quantity. Therefore, one cannot arrive at the knowledge of God’s existence through mathematics.
At the third degree belong those sciences that abstract from all accidents in order to know reality solely in its substantiality. They ask what being is, and what its origin and end are. In a word, they inquire into the why of things. Thus, we have ontology, natural theology, ethics… and these are traced back to metaphysics, which is defined as cognitio certa per altissimas causas (the firmness of knowledge through the highest causes).
3. Now, according to St Thomas, Theology or Sacra Doctrina does not belong to any of these modes of doing science, because it receives its principles from the very science of God. Thus, he captures the status of Theology by resorting to the concept of a “subalternate science” (scientia subalternata), noting that certain sciences have their specific object within one degree of abstraction, while the light under which they consider it belongs to another.
For example: music has its object in the audible or sound (the first degree of abstraction), but this is considered using arithmetic criteria. It is therefore a science subalternate to mathematics. Likewise, figurative art or perspective has color as its object (the first degree of abstraction), but the lumen sub quo—the light under which it is viewed—lies within the second degree (geometry).
Analogously, Theology is a science subalternate to the science of God, because it considers divine realities in the light of what God has revealed concerning Himself. Therefore, the very foundation of theology is Divine Revelation, which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
4. Because it receives its principles from God, one understands why it possesses its own specific method, and why the theologian must proceed with the utmost docility, first and foremost toward Divine Revelation, and subsequently toward the Magisterium of the Church, which serves as the guardian and guaranteed interpreter of that Revelation.
This way of proceeding “is especially based upon arguments from authority” (I, 1, 8, ad 2), and “inasmuch as its principles […]
we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made.
Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest.” (Ib.).
5. Likewise, he asserts that Revelation was made to the apostles and prophets, who orally communicated the Tradition, and who transmitted through the Scriptures. Indeed, St. Thomas writes: “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.” (Ib., ad 2).
6. It must be noted that the Summa Theologiae deals with a wide variety of subjects, always in reference to God. The very diversity of these various topics explains why citations from Sacred Scripture are not always present in the same abundance throughout.
7. In conclusion, I would like to share what Father Marcolino Daffara wrote illustrating the sources of theology that are fundamental for drawing the principles of this divine science: “These sources are: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which hold absolute authority in theology; and the Doctors or Fathers of the Church, who possess great significance as interpreters of Sacred Scripture and witnesses to Tradition. Decisive authority in interpreting Sacred Scripture and Tradition belongs to the ecumenical councils of the Church, the Roman Pontiffs, and the common teaching of the Church, whose organs are the bishops and theologians” (La Somma teologica [ESD ed.], I, pp. 62–63, translation from note 3).
With this, I have addressed everything regarding what you happened to hear and what you rightly countered with confidence.
I bless you.
Father Angelo
Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian
