What do you think?
Rate this book
Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology
Two years before he died, St. Thomas Aquinas probably the greatest teacher the Church has ever known was asked by his assistant, Brother Reginald, to write a simple summary of the Faith of the Catholic Church for those who lacked the time or the stamina to tackle his massive Summa Theologica.
In response, the great saint quickly set down in language that non-scholars can understand his peerless insights into the major topics of theology: the Trinity, Divine Providence, the Incarnation of Christ, the Last Judgment, and much more.
Here, then, is not only St. Thomas's concise statement of the key elements of his thought, but a handy reference source for the essential truths of the Catholic Faith.
St. Thomas will show you:
Why faith is reasonable, not blind Why evil can never be as powerful as good
Solid arguments for Christ's Resurrection
Powerful arguments for God's existence
Why angels are necessary in creation
How Adam's sin differed from Eve's
Why Jesus descended into Hell
Why we must suffer for Adam's sin
Why the truths that you can know only through Revelation are nevertheless rational
Startling details about God's forgiveness
How a soul's damnation can be compatible with God's goodness
What Christians should think about fate and chance
What life after resurrection will be like
Three ways in which God is in all things
Eternal life: what it is; how to understand it
How you can know God through reason
Why God became man
Why God allows evil
How Jesus grew in wisdom
How Christ can have existed for all eternity and yet be God s Son
The Beatific Vision: what it really is
Why God's knowledge of the future doesn't deny man's free will
How the Holy Trinity is three distinct Persons, yet one God
Much more that will help you know and love God with greater understanding!
In response, the great saint quickly set down in language that non-scholars can understand his peerless insights into the major topics of theology: the Trinity, Divine Providence, the Incarnation of Christ, the Last Judgment, and much more.
Here, then, is not only St. Thomas's concise statement of the key elements of his thought, but a handy reference source for the essential truths of the Catholic Faith.
St. Thomas will show you:
Why faith is reasonable, not blind Why evil can never be as powerful as good
Solid arguments for Christ's Resurrection
Powerful arguments for God's existence
Why angels are necessary in creation
How Adam's sin differed from Eve's
Why Jesus descended into Hell
Why we must suffer for Adam's sin
Why the truths that you can know only through Revelation are nevertheless rational
Startling details about God's forgiveness
How a soul's damnation can be compatible with God's goodness
What Christians should think about fate and chance
What life after resurrection will be like
Three ways in which God is in all things
Eternal life: what it is; how to understand it
How you can know God through reason
Why God became man
Why God allows evil
How Jesus grew in wisdom
How Christ can have existed for all eternity and yet be God s Son
The Beatific Vision: what it really is
Why God's knowledge of the future doesn't deny man's free will
How the Holy Trinity is three distinct Persons, yet one God
Much more that will help you know and love God with greater understanding!
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1273
180 people are currently reading
1886 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,674 books1,171 followersPhilosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the
Summa contra gentiles
(1259-1264) and the
Summa theologiae
or theologica (1266-1273).
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
February 15, 2018
Even as a Reformed Protestant, most of this was fantastic. Aquinas is grossly under read in the modern Reformed church.
December 5, 2022
Aquinas is really good, in spite of what reformed theobros say on Twitter.
February 10, 2016
I read this as part of a project to familiarize myself with some of the fundamental works of medieval literature and scholarship. I was not disappointed. While the unabridged Summa is rather daunting unless you know precisely which chapters to seek out, this Shorter Summa is eminently approachable, both as a student of history, and, I think, as a student of theology or ordinary Christian. I actually use my notes from this work as a short-form guide to the unabridged Summa, reminding me where to look for various topics.
Aquinas' work is monumental and yet to be surpassed, because it came at the culmination of scholasticism and before the Papal schism and Protestant reformation that tore the Church apart and shaped the thoughts of later theologians. While in late life, St. Thomas is said to have in some way rejected his own scholarly approach to his faith in favor of some true experience of the divine (Martin Luther would have been thrilled), the work still stands as one of the best expositions of Catholic doctrine for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of theology.
Aquinas' work is monumental and yet to be surpassed, because it came at the culmination of scholasticism and before the Papal schism and Protestant reformation that tore the Church apart and shaped the thoughts of later theologians. While in late life, St. Thomas is said to have in some way rejected his own scholarly approach to his faith in favor of some true experience of the divine (Martin Luther would have been thrilled), the work still stands as one of the best expositions of Catholic doctrine for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of theology.
November 26, 2025
Whoever thought it was a good idea to change the name of this work from “Compendium Theologiae” to “Shorter Summa” was an idiot.
Devotional warmth with intellectual richness. The cutoff at the end before we get to Charity is brutal. I know your books might seem like straw to YOU, St Thomas, after your heavenly vision, but the rest of us could low key have used some finished straw.
Devotional warmth with intellectual richness. The cutoff at the end before we get to Charity is brutal. I know your books might seem like straw to YOU, St Thomas, after your heavenly vision, but the rest of us could low key have used some finished straw.
March 21, 2022
Four stars so I don’t get called a papist.
“The divine good pleasure [giving us the kingdom] is efficacious to implement everything that it disposes.”
“The divine good pleasure [giving us the kingdom] is efficacious to implement everything that it disposes.”
July 2, 2020
Not so much a review...more of a reflection on what this book has meant to me. I can’t help but wonder what a celibate friar, 753 years my senior, would think of holding the hand of a modern, middle-aged, married woman like me. The more I’ve gotten to “know” Aquinas, the more I think it would have blessed him to know that his ideas are still bearing lasting fruit, leading people to seek their true end in God alone. Here are just a few of the areas Aquinas’ Compendium of Theology has gotten me chewing on over the last few months:
* Optimism about the physical creation that has allowed me to celebrate being both a spiritual and a physical being.
* That evil is not as “strong” as I once thought. It cannot even exist without good. It’s parasitic. It is simply a bend, a twist, a kink in the good. That’s what makes it so believable...at its root is something good and worthwhile. Evil is the deprivation of some good, some perfection, that something ought to have.
* That I can love God with my mind. Don’t ask me why that’s surprising! Scripture tells us to love God with all our heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Aquinas sure loved God with all his mind. His logic is impeccable. He saw our intellect as playing a key role in our advance toward the beatific vision, our ultimate end, beholding God as He truly is. Knowledge is a big part of that journey for Aquinas. What a gift we’ve been given as finite beings, to have this potentially infinite intellect. I mean, it’s not really infinite, but IF we could live long enough, we would never stop learning. That makes eternity sound exciting to me. I also think of Aquinas when it says to love God with all our strength. He was a big, strong man! Before folks knew the depth and height of the thoughts he was thinking behind his quiet, rather shy and aloof exterior, he actually acquired the nickname “The Dumb Ox.” He might have well deserved the name “ox,” but his classmates could not have been further from the truth in calling him “dumb.”
* The delicate balance between my sensitive appetite and my rational appetite. We have a natural, God-given appetite for things that we take in through our body’s senses. We also have a rational appetite that operates through reason and intellect - our will, for example. It desires order, and when it’s working properly, keeps our sensitive appetites from running wild on us. Trouble is, when we overindulge our sensitive appetite, it weakens our will to the point where our will gets pinned down. We’ve created a monster that keeps us trapped in our sin. Thank God He is able to touch our will, to incline our will to love God and begin us moving in that direction again. But it is far from easy! Taming this sensuous beast is hard and sometimes heartbreaking work! It enlists the rational appetite to its service, stealing it away from God. As long as our will is submissive to God, He grants us the light of His wisdom, but as that begins to grow dark, we are turned farther and farther from the divine goodness. Only God’s Grace can bring us back. Soooo much to say on this topic!
I feel like this initial read through was just a skimming, barely touching the surface. I think there are depths to be mined here in every reading and always something to apply to real life as I learn and grow and the struggles and challenges I face change. The short chapters are a wonderful addition to a morning quiet time, giving lots to reflect on throughout the day. Obviously, some of his ideas and doctrine don’t translate perfectly from the Middle Ages to my post-modern environment and Protestant background, but I have found a kindred spirit in Aquinas and am thankful to God for bringing him across my path when He did.
* Optimism about the physical creation that has allowed me to celebrate being both a spiritual and a physical being.
* That evil is not as “strong” as I once thought. It cannot even exist without good. It’s parasitic. It is simply a bend, a twist, a kink in the good. That’s what makes it so believable...at its root is something good and worthwhile. Evil is the deprivation of some good, some perfection, that something ought to have.
* That I can love God with my mind. Don’t ask me why that’s surprising! Scripture tells us to love God with all our heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Aquinas sure loved God with all his mind. His logic is impeccable. He saw our intellect as playing a key role in our advance toward the beatific vision, our ultimate end, beholding God as He truly is. Knowledge is a big part of that journey for Aquinas. What a gift we’ve been given as finite beings, to have this potentially infinite intellect. I mean, it’s not really infinite, but IF we could live long enough, we would never stop learning. That makes eternity sound exciting to me. I also think of Aquinas when it says to love God with all our strength. He was a big, strong man! Before folks knew the depth and height of the thoughts he was thinking behind his quiet, rather shy and aloof exterior, he actually acquired the nickname “The Dumb Ox.” He might have well deserved the name “ox,” but his classmates could not have been further from the truth in calling him “dumb.”
* The delicate balance between my sensitive appetite and my rational appetite. We have a natural, God-given appetite for things that we take in through our body’s senses. We also have a rational appetite that operates through reason and intellect - our will, for example. It desires order, and when it’s working properly, keeps our sensitive appetites from running wild on us. Trouble is, when we overindulge our sensitive appetite, it weakens our will to the point where our will gets pinned down. We’ve created a monster that keeps us trapped in our sin. Thank God He is able to touch our will, to incline our will to love God and begin us moving in that direction again. But it is far from easy! Taming this sensuous beast is hard and sometimes heartbreaking work! It enlists the rational appetite to its service, stealing it away from God. As long as our will is submissive to God, He grants us the light of His wisdom, but as that begins to grow dark, we are turned farther and farther from the divine goodness. Only God’s Grace can bring us back. Soooo much to say on this topic!
I feel like this initial read through was just a skimming, barely touching the surface. I think there are depths to be mined here in every reading and always something to apply to real life as I learn and grow and the struggles and challenges I face change. The short chapters are a wonderful addition to a morning quiet time, giving lots to reflect on throughout the day. Obviously, some of his ideas and doctrine don’t translate perfectly from the Middle Ages to my post-modern environment and Protestant background, but I have found a kindred spirit in Aquinas and am thankful to God for bringing him across my path when He did.
August 27, 2024
St. Thomas Aquinas sets out here to summarize his own theological work with the aim of increased accessibility, rather than to systematize all of theology (a task already set in motion by the full-length Summa). It is perhaps a theological index more than it is a systematic theology, in part because it is incomplete. Aquinas intended to teach the three Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love, and reached only faith in its entirety and a brief beginning to the section on hope before breaking off, his work cut short by his death. The structure of the work might then render its purpose primarily referential, but if it’s mostly a collection of concise entries on doctrine, it’s a strong and beautiful one, and this is consistently true for the reader on either side of the Reformation. I found Aquinas’s scholasticism much more challenging than his Catholicism; this is a deeply Aristotelian theology, excellent but difficult. It is helpful that he repeats his main concepts enough that one can mostly follow even with a limited foundation in ancient metaphysics and medieval philosophy.
Even at its most dense and detail-laden, and in its incomplete form, this book expands a discernible narrative of the functioning of things, in origin and nature and destination. Aquinas’s theology is one of order, in which all things are subject to God, the “first cause,” and ordered toward their end. The “end” for humanity is the beatific vision — the beholding of God. Our lives and loves, in the “whole of our present life” which is “a time of wayfaring,” must be properly ordered toward the will of God. We are attended in this by grace — grace that gets us from changeability to immutability, from alienation to beholding, belonging, becoming. The final few entries, in which Aquinas discusses the kingdom of God, read to me almost like a benediction, although he never intended them as the ending. The kingdom of God is attainable, he assures us, and we ought to hope for it, and it is “perfect happiness, for it contains all good in changeless abundance.” A glorious exposition of goodness, on the whole. I am glad to have spent my summer with Aquinas!
Even at its most dense and detail-laden, and in its incomplete form, this book expands a discernible narrative of the functioning of things, in origin and nature and destination. Aquinas’s theology is one of order, in which all things are subject to God, the “first cause,” and ordered toward their end. The “end” for humanity is the beatific vision — the beholding of God. Our lives and loves, in the “whole of our present life” which is “a time of wayfaring,” must be properly ordered toward the will of God. We are attended in this by grace — grace that gets us from changeability to immutability, from alienation to beholding, belonging, becoming. The final few entries, in which Aquinas discusses the kingdom of God, read to me almost like a benediction, although he never intended them as the ending. The kingdom of God is attainable, he assures us, and we ought to hope for it, and it is “perfect happiness, for it contains all good in changeless abundance.” A glorious exposition of goodness, on the whole. I am glad to have spent my summer with Aquinas!
November 29, 2017
**true rating 4.5 (I'm sure that the ratings will only go up the more times I read it)
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, is most known for his magisterial magnum opus: Summa Theologiae (ST). But what about Compendium of Theology (CT)? Rarely mentioned. CT is arguably the least known and least studied of Aquinas texts, which is, really, unfortunate. Sure, CT is an incomplete work, abruptly ending mid-sentence, but its condensed content and simplicity are just praiseworthy. CT was planned to be a three-part work (modeled after faith, hope, and charity) as a manual for non-academics. But Aquinas' unforeseen death quickly halted CT's progress: he barely started on part II, Hope, and did not even get to part III, Charity. Thus, an overwhelming percentage of CT is on faith, the contents of Christian doctrine. Part I can be broken down into two unequal halves: (1) Doctrine of God, §3-184, and (2) Christology, §185-246. Each can be further divided into subcategories.
It is undeniable that the Doctor Angelicus lived and breathed during a very different cultural and intellectual environment than, say, California 2017. Aquinas' High Scholasticism might be perceived as a sore and a bore. For example, ST's prompt, initial answers, elaboration, possible objections, and counterarguments format could easily dissuade today's readers to read any further. Might I then offer CT as the ideal place to start? CT is one of Aquinas latest works, therefore one of his most mature. Plus, CT does not have ST's format.
Caveat Lector: This is the only Aquinas text I have actually finished in its entirety. I have read here and there from ST, and it is one of my theological dreams to finish it, but that thing is seriously massive.
cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, is most known for his magisterial magnum opus: Summa Theologiae (ST). But what about Compendium of Theology (CT)? Rarely mentioned. CT is arguably the least known and least studied of Aquinas texts, which is, really, unfortunate. Sure, CT is an incomplete work, abruptly ending mid-sentence, but its condensed content and simplicity are just praiseworthy. CT was planned to be a three-part work (modeled after faith, hope, and charity) as a manual for non-academics. But Aquinas' unforeseen death quickly halted CT's progress: he barely started on part II, Hope, and did not even get to part III, Charity. Thus, an overwhelming percentage of CT is on faith, the contents of Christian doctrine. Part I can be broken down into two unequal halves: (1) Doctrine of God, §3-184, and (2) Christology, §185-246. Each can be further divided into subcategories.
It is undeniable that the Doctor Angelicus lived and breathed during a very different cultural and intellectual environment than, say, California 2017. Aquinas' High Scholasticism might be perceived as a sore and a bore. For example, ST's prompt, initial answers, elaboration, possible objections, and counterarguments format could easily dissuade today's readers to read any further. Might I then offer CT as the ideal place to start? CT is one of Aquinas latest works, therefore one of his most mature. Plus, CT does not have ST's format.
Caveat Lector: This is the only Aquinas text I have actually finished in its entirety. I have read here and there from ST, and it is one of my theological dreams to finish it, but that thing is seriously massive.
cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com
September 10, 2025
“But good in the highest degree is found in God, who is good essentially and the source of all goodness. And so it follows that the final perfection of human beings and their final good consists of adhering to God, as Ps. 73:8 says “ it is good for me to cling to God.”
December 15, 2025
This was by no means a bad book I just wasn’t smart enough to grasp most of it, I’ll keep it on my shelf and revisit it in the future
March 28, 2024
Aquinas’s summary of his Summa focuses on theological issues (Trinity, Christ, angels, etc) more than philosophical ones (action, law, virtue, etc).
January 9, 2024
My current hypothesis is that this is to Barth’s Church Dogmatics what his Dogmatics in Outline is. Quite enjoyable.
February 8, 2022
Excellent introduction to the theological work of Aquinas. Would be near perfect if it was not for the occasional doctrine that is too roman for my protestant tendencies to align with.
This translation is highly approachable and contains a helpful glossary of definitions in the back for those of us still learning Aristotelian terminology.
Read for Theo i and Theo ii with Dr. Matthew Barrett
This translation is highly approachable and contains a helpful glossary of definitions in the back for those of us still learning Aristotelian terminology.
Read for Theo i and Theo ii with Dr. Matthew Barrett
July 21, 2016
I have had this obsession with St. Thomas Aquinas. I've read many great books about him and books about his master work, the Summa Theologica. But this is the first one edition that is really helping me to understand. Rather than being a series of statements and counter statements, as the Summa is normally published, this simply states ideas. A few cautions. It's worth reading Mortimer Adler's "Aristotle for Everyone" before hand. Thomas used many of Aristotle's ideas for which he was criticized at the time for referring to pagan. (I bet they wouldn't have called that to Aristotle's face LOL). Besides, the Adler's book is very enjoyable especially, if you're like me, and had a fear of philosophical texts. As for the Summa, it's grand to read because here is one of the creates thinkers in human history explaining the nature of God. It is not an easy or breezy read. Just take your time. I'm sure I'll be rereading the Summa all my life. It's that amazing and that important.
January 20, 2026
THIS is what Neophytes ought to read if they are to approach scholasticism. This book was purposefully made for students. It's also very good at serving catechesis and spiritual contemplation about the doctrine of God, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the basics of Christian religion that is systematically explained.
If anyone were to get started on St. Thomas, they should begin with this and his "On the Rationality of Faith," as well as his commentaries on the Pater Noster & Ave Maria, to really understand not just the character or author of these writings, but the fruit of Christianity.
If anyone were to get started on St. Thomas, they should begin with this and his "On the Rationality of Faith," as well as his commentaries on the Pater Noster & Ave Maria, to really understand not just the character or author of these writings, but the fruit of Christianity.
April 23, 2013
St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most sanely rational of all scholars, left posterity the gift of his insight. For anyone interested in a reasonable defense of the faith, yet feels overwhelmed by the massive tome which is the SUMMA THEOLOGICA, St. Thomas provides this more concise version of his distillation of the Christian faith and Catholic doctrine.
August 3, 2023
I tried to read this a year ago, got side tracked, and now I finally finished it.
The eay the medievals thought of God is endlessly fascinating, and their committment to trying to understand God in the most minute details is something I appreciate greatly. Aquinas tests God as someone so infinite and complex that he can go on for pages about small details of who God is and what He is capable of. As this was written without our modern obsession with individualism, it is focused mostly on God and how we should relate to Him, rather then on us and our problems. I just really appreciate his approach to Theology, attempting to understand as much as possible. Quite in contrast to today, where we are quite happy to lean on our hearts and feelings.
And yet, not all is well. As much as I would love to give this 5 stars Aquinas seems to abandon all logic and rationality when discussing two topics: Mary and women.
When discussing Mary, he insists that she must have been completely sinless and was a perpetual virgin. When he then brings up the counter arguments from scripture he essentially says "yeah this sounds like it contradicts, but it doesn't. Why? Because." There is no rationale, he inserts a few Marian hymns and thinks that it's good enough, which it isn't since scripture is above tradition, but maybe I'm just too Protestant. It's okay for Mary to have had sex since sex isn't sin imcarnate, but that was the medieval view.
Aquinas also goes on something of a rant, explaining just how awful Eve is in 7 different ways, and gives a small paragraph to Adam's sin. Again, no logic, just "I hate Eve. Mary's the best, all other women are trash." I just...it wouldn't be as bad (it would still be bad) if he at least had a solid argument but its just the classic "men good, women bad. Why? Because."
Thankfully he does not discuss the matter much. It is a reminder that even the most intelligent have biases that cloud their judgement.
All in all, it's a difficult but good read. Its a bit sad that he didn't finish it, as it cuts off just as is about the get going on his second major theme.
I recommend this to anyone who enjoys theology and wants a challenging read.
The eay the medievals thought of God is endlessly fascinating, and their committment to trying to understand God in the most minute details is something I appreciate greatly. Aquinas tests God as someone so infinite and complex that he can go on for pages about small details of who God is and what He is capable of. As this was written without our modern obsession with individualism, it is focused mostly on God and how we should relate to Him, rather then on us and our problems. I just really appreciate his approach to Theology, attempting to understand as much as possible. Quite in contrast to today, where we are quite happy to lean on our hearts and feelings.
And yet, not all is well. As much as I would love to give this 5 stars Aquinas seems to abandon all logic and rationality when discussing two topics: Mary and women.
When discussing Mary, he insists that she must have been completely sinless and was a perpetual virgin. When he then brings up the counter arguments from scripture he essentially says "yeah this sounds like it contradicts, but it doesn't. Why? Because." There is no rationale, he inserts a few Marian hymns and thinks that it's good enough, which it isn't since scripture is above tradition, but maybe I'm just too Protestant. It's okay for Mary to have had sex since sex isn't sin imcarnate, but that was the medieval view.
Aquinas also goes on something of a rant, explaining just how awful Eve is in 7 different ways, and gives a small paragraph to Adam's sin. Again, no logic, just "I hate Eve. Mary's the best, all other women are trash." I just...it wouldn't be as bad (it would still be bad) if he at least had a solid argument but its just the classic "men good, women bad. Why? Because."
Thankfully he does not discuss the matter much. It is a reminder that even the most intelligent have biases that cloud their judgement.
All in all, it's a difficult but good read. Its a bit sad that he didn't finish it, as it cuts off just as is about the get going on his second major theme.
I recommend this to anyone who enjoys theology and wants a challenging read.
March 16, 2025
Shorter Summa covers a wide range of topics from salvation, the Trinity, God’s existence, the purpose of man, and many other topics that remain of great interest to Catholics, Protestants, and atheists. Of course, this book is written in defense of Catholic doctrine, so if you are a Catholic reader, you’ll either learn something new about our faith or simple read arguments that reinforce beliefs you have always held. However, the importance of the authors work isn’t just meant for Catholic readers. It’s meant for readers who struggle to decipher the world around them through physical intellect alone. The author shows that divine intellectual is a justifiable philosophical framework by which someone can view the world around them. The acknowledgment of Divine Providence through divine intellect doesn’t mean you are destined for an outcome you have no control over. The opposite is true, Divine Providence is the path you are meant to follow to eternal happiness and understanding. Every philosophical or moral framework is curated with the end goal of happiness and complete understanding of the world around you. The philosophical and moral framework the author lays out is no different. True happiness can only be found in the God who created you to seek said happiness. True knowledge can only be found in God who created you to seek knowledge and who is himself infinitely all knowing. Shorter Summa offers readers a path to God that ignites both your physical intellect and divine intellect with a final award of eternal happiness, understanding, and grace.
April 8, 2023
Basic mathematics of God’s Catholic church
March 29, 2025
Review title: Complex brilliance
Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, is recognized as one of the greatest theologians in Christian church history. He wrote the masterpiece Summa Theologica, or "The Sum of all Theology," but, at the request of his assistant, wrote a shorter summary for the laymen. This is what we now call the Shorter Summa.
Aquinas spent the last two years of his life working on the short version. but died leaving it unfinished, his last sentence "attainment of the kingdom is possible" (p. 366) perhaps the perfect summary of a saint's life. His planned organization into the three great virtues faith, hope, and charity was cut short early in the hope section, so the bulk of the Shorter Summa is a series of 256 positive statements of faith about God, the Trinity, and Jesus Christ. They are not written as apologetics to convince the reader of the characteristics of God, the Trinity, and Jesus, but as logical statements of fact, in dry philosophical language. This may be the shorter summary, but it isn't simple. It is however powerful in its truth and precision.
Look for example at statement #24, "God's simplicity is not contradicted by the multiplicity of names applied to Him" (p. 26). Having already proven that God is eternal, infinite, perfect, existent, and simple unity (not a composite of characteristics or parts like lower creatures like humans), Aquinas writes:
The Bible gives us many names for God, not because he is many different things but because he is perfect and so qualitatively beyond us that we can only express ourselves by describing him with a multitude of words! The Zechariah reference provided by Aquinas explains that when we see God in eternity we will understand him as that one great name and unity that he truly is.
God is not like us. He doesn't learn things or discover them through logical deduction. He knows and understands everything everywhere all at once (#8, p. 13--"His entire existence is simultaneous," outside of time), while we "understand in discursive fashion, proceeding from one truth to a knowledge of another. . . .we advance from the known to a knowledge of the unknown, or to that which previously we had not actually thought of." (p. 30). There is nothing unknown to God, or that he has not thought of.
Or that he has not created. "Since He is the first cause, as we showed above . . . God does not need matter as a prerequisite to His action. Therefore He has the power to bring things into existence from nothing or, in other words, to create." (p. 65). And He does it of his own free will (#96, p. 101); "the omnipotent God [is] not only Creator, but also Maker. For making is properly the action of an artificer who operates by his will."
And He created for a purpose (#100, p. 109). While the language and logic are tough sledding on many of these statements, Aquinas can use examples that clarify the logic. So God is both perfect and good, as it is His nature to be both: "We can use a more appropriate example to illustrate this: as it is impossible for a man not to be a man, so it is impossible for God not to be perfectly good." (#110, p. 123).
As he moved on to what he calls "Divine Providence", which is how God interacts with his creation, I read this: "the human soul cannot be subject, in its intellect or will, to any influence emanating from heavenly bodies" [which are created by God]. . . . God alone can touch the will." (#127, p. 142). So the good we see comes from God and the good we create is possible because of God. Like the multitude of colors and the variation in nature and the beauty of music it is not a mystery that God created it and loves good and beauty, the wonder for me is the why does God love those things?
Aquinas also proves that God continues to exist and govern in the world. Aquinas's God is not the deist First Mover who set the universe in motion and stood back to watch it spin. He is active in all things (#130, p. 146-147). And to answer the objection that while God may have universal knowledge He doesn't know the particulars in detail, Aquinas responds: God certainly does know "not only universals but also particulars," because he is both infinite and eternal and therefore "can know many things simultaneously." In fact He knows "not only all that is, but all that can be. . . . God actually contemplates all infinities." (p. 150). Parallel universes in quantum physics? Yeah, God knows about that.
Evil in the universe arises not from God, the perfect primary cause, but from "secondary causes," and yet serves a purpose: "If evil were completely eliminated from things, they would not be governed by Divine Providence . . . and this would be a greater defect than than the particular defects eradicated" (#142, p. 159). in fact, "the evil which arises is ordained to some good."
Man's logic and theology, even one so saintly as Aquinas, is imperfect and imperfectable, and there are some of his statements I don't agree with, specifically on purgatory. While Aquinas makes the logical argument for it within his system, purgatory is not justified by the words of Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. On the other hand, on the topic of Christ's Incarnation (starting with #202, p. 231) Aquinas uses his logic and theology to address the errors of other thinkers on the divine and human nature of Jesus. He summarizes the truth: "Christ had a real body of the same nature as ours, a true rational soul, and, together with these, perfect deity. These three substances are united in one person, but do not combine to form one nature." (p. 241). It is, Aquinas says later, "incomprehensible and indescribable . . . an exercise of God's infinite power . . . beyond human expression" (p. 246-247).
Then on the topic of the virgin birth of Jesus and his mother Mary, Aquinas again ties himself into logical and theological knots to make the claim that Mary was not only a virgin but sinless from her birth. He does not use the term "Immaculate Conception" which has a slightly different meaning and was not adopted as Catholic orthodoxy until 1854, as footnoted by the editor. And he makes the claim that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, never having sex with her husband Joseph and not giving birth to children by him, even though the Gospels specifically mention her children as brother and sisters of Jesus, and one of the epistles is written by James the brother of Jesus! Claiming these positions as scriptural requires convoluted and conjectural readings of the references he gives, violating the language of the texts, common sense readings of the texts, and Occam's law that the simplest explanation of the texts is likely to be the best explanation. While Aquinas himself in his writing and the publisher on the cover sometimes use the term Catholic with a capital C, remember that Aquinas was writing in the 12th century so that his use of the word is in its lower case definition of catholic as "universal" as the one established form of Christianity, and not as the name of the denomination of Catholicism as one of many denominations of Christianity. It will be 300 years after Aquinas that Martin Luther protests some of these catholic (universal) doctrines and Protestantism rejects them, repositioning the Roman Catholic church as one of several Christian denominations.
Completing the faith section with the matter-of-fact statement "And this should be enough on faith" (p. 329), Aquinas moves on to the hope section sadly truncated by his death. Addressing Prayer and hope (p. 334-336) he references scripture that tells us God already knows our needs so he identifies the purposes of prayer to reflect on our shortcomings, address them to God to be "rendered fit to receive the favor," and to make us "intimate with Him, inasmuch as our soul is raised up to God, converses with Him in spiritual affection, and adores him in spirit and truth."
After reading through the sometimes complex but often brilliant Shorter Summa, the ending is too sudden, and nearly a millennium later readers will still wonder what remained in Aquinas's mind and soul that didn't make it to his pen before he attained the kingdom. This isn't easy going but it is worthy of the reader's concentration and contemplation.
Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, is recognized as one of the greatest theologians in Christian church history. He wrote the masterpiece Summa Theologica, or "The Sum of all Theology," but, at the request of his assistant, wrote a shorter summary for the laymen. This is what we now call the Shorter Summa.
Aquinas spent the last two years of his life working on the short version. but died leaving it unfinished, his last sentence "attainment of the kingdom is possible" (p. 366) perhaps the perfect summary of a saint's life. His planned organization into the three great virtues faith, hope, and charity was cut short early in the hope section, so the bulk of the Shorter Summa is a series of 256 positive statements of faith about God, the Trinity, and Jesus Christ. They are not written as apologetics to convince the reader of the characteristics of God, the Trinity, and Jesus, but as logical statements of fact, in dry philosophical language. This may be the shorter summary, but it isn't simple. It is however powerful in its truth and precision.
Look for example at statement #24, "God's simplicity is not contradicted by the multiplicity of names applied to Him" (p. 26). Having already proven that God is eternal, infinite, perfect, existent, and simple unity (not a composite of characteristics or parts like lower creatures like humans), Aquinas writes:
Since we cannot name an object except as we understand it (for names are signs of things understood), we cannot give names to God except in terms of perfections perceived in other things that have their origin in Him. And since these perfections are multiple in such things, we must assign many names to God. If we saw His essence as it is in itself, a multiplicity of names would not be required; our idea of it would be simple, just as His essence is simple. This vision we hope for in the day of our glory; for, according to Zechariah 14:9, "In that day there shall be one Lord, and His name shall be one."
The Bible gives us many names for God, not because he is many different things but because he is perfect and so qualitatively beyond us that we can only express ourselves by describing him with a multitude of words! The Zechariah reference provided by Aquinas explains that when we see God in eternity we will understand him as that one great name and unity that he truly is.
God is not like us. He doesn't learn things or discover them through logical deduction. He knows and understands everything everywhere all at once (#8, p. 13--"His entire existence is simultaneous," outside of time), while we "understand in discursive fashion, proceeding from one truth to a knowledge of another. . . .we advance from the known to a knowledge of the unknown, or to that which previously we had not actually thought of." (p. 30). There is nothing unknown to God, or that he has not thought of.
Or that he has not created. "Since He is the first cause, as we showed above . . . God does not need matter as a prerequisite to His action. Therefore He has the power to bring things into existence from nothing or, in other words, to create." (p. 65). And He does it of his own free will (#96, p. 101); "the omnipotent God [is] not only Creator, but also Maker. For making is properly the action of an artificer who operates by his will."
And He created for a purpose (#100, p. 109). While the language and logic are tough sledding on many of these statements, Aquinas can use examples that clarify the logic. So God is both perfect and good, as it is His nature to be both: "We can use a more appropriate example to illustrate this: as it is impossible for a man not to be a man, so it is impossible for God not to be perfectly good." (#110, p. 123).
As he moved on to what he calls "Divine Providence", which is how God interacts with his creation, I read this: "the human soul cannot be subject, in its intellect or will, to any influence emanating from heavenly bodies" [which are created by God]. . . . God alone can touch the will." (#127, p. 142). So the good we see comes from God and the good we create is possible because of God. Like the multitude of colors and the variation in nature and the beauty of music it is not a mystery that God created it and loves good and beauty, the wonder for me is the why does God love those things?
Aquinas also proves that God continues to exist and govern in the world. Aquinas's God is not the deist First Mover who set the universe in motion and stood back to watch it spin. He is active in all things (#130, p. 146-147). And to answer the objection that while God may have universal knowledge He doesn't know the particulars in detail, Aquinas responds: God certainly does know "not only universals but also particulars," because he is both infinite and eternal and therefore "can know many things simultaneously." In fact He knows "not only all that is, but all that can be. . . . God actually contemplates all infinities." (p. 150). Parallel universes in quantum physics? Yeah, God knows about that.
Evil in the universe arises not from God, the perfect primary cause, but from "secondary causes," and yet serves a purpose: "If evil were completely eliminated from things, they would not be governed by Divine Providence . . . and this would be a greater defect than than the particular defects eradicated" (#142, p. 159). in fact, "the evil which arises is ordained to some good."
Man's logic and theology, even one so saintly as Aquinas, is imperfect and imperfectable, and there are some of his statements I don't agree with, specifically on purgatory. While Aquinas makes the logical argument for it within his system, purgatory is not justified by the words of Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. On the other hand, on the topic of Christ's Incarnation (starting with #202, p. 231) Aquinas uses his logic and theology to address the errors of other thinkers on the divine and human nature of Jesus. He summarizes the truth: "Christ had a real body of the same nature as ours, a true rational soul, and, together with these, perfect deity. These three substances are united in one person, but do not combine to form one nature." (p. 241). It is, Aquinas says later, "incomprehensible and indescribable . . . an exercise of God's infinite power . . . beyond human expression" (p. 246-247).
Then on the topic of the virgin birth of Jesus and his mother Mary, Aquinas again ties himself into logical and theological knots to make the claim that Mary was not only a virgin but sinless from her birth. He does not use the term "Immaculate Conception" which has a slightly different meaning and was not adopted as Catholic orthodoxy until 1854, as footnoted by the editor. And he makes the claim that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, never having sex with her husband Joseph and not giving birth to children by him, even though the Gospels specifically mention her children as brother and sisters of Jesus, and one of the epistles is written by James the brother of Jesus! Claiming these positions as scriptural requires convoluted and conjectural readings of the references he gives, violating the language of the texts, common sense readings of the texts, and Occam's law that the simplest explanation of the texts is likely to be the best explanation. While Aquinas himself in his writing and the publisher on the cover sometimes use the term Catholic with a capital C, remember that Aquinas was writing in the 12th century so that his use of the word is in its lower case definition of catholic as "universal" as the one established form of Christianity, and not as the name of the denomination of Catholicism as one of many denominations of Christianity. It will be 300 years after Aquinas that Martin Luther protests some of these catholic (universal) doctrines and Protestantism rejects them, repositioning the Roman Catholic church as one of several Christian denominations.
Completing the faith section with the matter-of-fact statement "And this should be enough on faith" (p. 329), Aquinas moves on to the hope section sadly truncated by his death. Addressing Prayer and hope (p. 334-336) he references scripture that tells us God already knows our needs so he identifies the purposes of prayer to reflect on our shortcomings, address them to God to be "rendered fit to receive the favor," and to make us "intimate with Him, inasmuch as our soul is raised up to God, converses with Him in spiritual affection, and adores him in spirit and truth."
After reading through the sometimes complex but often brilliant Shorter Summa, the ending is too sudden, and nearly a millennium later readers will still wonder what remained in Aquinas's mind and soul that didn't make it to his pen before he attained the kingdom. This isn't easy going but it is worthy of the reader's concentration and contemplation.
February 24, 2023
A great introduction to the thought of Thomas Aquinas. The Compendium is a summarized (and uncompleted) exposition of his Summa Theologica. Instead of the dialectical Scholastic method of the Summa, you get a small chapters written as a syllogistic argument to answer each question. Very succinct and straightforward in presenting his answers.
Thomas divides the work into three sections: Faith, Hope, and Charity. It ends, however, at Hope, which was left unfinished. Faith consists of expositions on the Trinity and the Humanity of Christ while Hope center on virtues following from the Lord's Prayer and the true happiness of the Christian.
As Thomas describes it "faith, by which you may know the truth...hope, by which your intention may be focused on the proper end... charity, by which your affection may be completely ordered." (page 18)
This is an excellent introduction to Thomas' theology and should be considered a starting point for studying Aquinas.
4/5 Great introduction and reference
Thomas divides the work into three sections: Faith, Hope, and Charity. It ends, however, at Hope, which was left unfinished. Faith consists of expositions on the Trinity and the Humanity of Christ while Hope center on virtues following from the Lord's Prayer and the true happiness of the Christian.
As Thomas describes it "faith, by which you may know the truth...hope, by which your intention may be focused on the proper end... charity, by which your affection may be completely ordered." (page 18)
This is an excellent introduction to Thomas' theology and should be considered a starting point for studying Aquinas.
4/5 Great introduction and reference
February 10, 2018
Good doctrine of God stuff. Really fascinating insights with regards to Aristotelian categories. Of course this leads to some really wonky stuff coupled with accumulated build-up of equally wonky church tradition stuff. But on the creedal stuff, good.
I should also add that he brings up some really interesting anthropological questions with regards to man soul-body stuff. For Aquinas, man attains to immaterial truth by means of the senses, because the intellect abstracts the immaterial universal form from the particular thing. I actually don't think this is wrong, but it would do the church good to really think through this biblically and theologically, not primarily Aristotelianly.
I should also add that he brings up some really interesting anthropological questions with regards to man soul-body stuff. For Aquinas, man attains to immaterial truth by means of the senses, because the intellect abstracts the immaterial universal form from the particular thing. I actually don't think this is wrong, but it would do the church good to really think through this biblically and theologically, not primarily Aristotelianly.
Currently reading
February 26, 2008Aggghhh! Really tough stuff. Twists your brain into a pretzel, but very interesting.
Want to read
January 7, 2010Included in the "Spiritual Classics" section of Fr. John McCloskey's 100-book Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan.
August 3, 2011
too deep to read at once. Doubt if i ever will. Good reference book.
February 6, 2026
Aquinas was a fascinating figure. Called a towering intellect of the Middle Ages. Part of the argument that the Middle Ages was not the Dark Ages. His work was the primary inspiration for Dante's Divine Comedy.
He chose the life of a saint and gave up the easy life he inherited. His family planned for him to become a bishop, but he followed the path of a poor monk, forsaking his position right off the bat. Instead of living like a prince, he lived like an ascetic. A well-fed one. It was said they had to cut a crescent out of the table to accommodate him. Though he only ate one meal a day so he could not be accused of gluttony.
Reading his works allows you to grow to know God's nature. Though his concepts can be difficult, especially as they are contained in the knotty Summa Theologica. This shorter book around 10% the length, was far more digestible. Instead of offering seemingly endless arguments and counter-arguments, he presents his views in a clear manner. This is a condensation of his magnum opus, but while reading the Summa, it can be difficult to ascertain what his actual standpoint is, since he buries it in rhetoric or considers every side of a debate from every possible angle. In short, instead of the incredibly dry, almost arid reading experience one might encounter otherwise, with this volume you can more easily recall his well-known postulates.
Of God's nature: He's infinite, goodness, eternal, immutable, indwelling in everything in the universe, not physically, but metaphysically. Aquinas goes on at length defining what God is and why and how he exists. Atheists I have heard don't often present such arguments against God, whom one might nowadays define as 'unprovable' - they tend to explain why specific traditions should not exist or run counter to Enlightenment values. A better understanding of Aquinas can lead to deep thought on the subject, much as a careful study of any major philosopher can better define one's conception of the universe.
Why was Aquinas called 'the Dumb Ox?'
He was not interested in impressing people. Many say he did not speak as well as he wrote, but it seems more like he was not interested in arguing with people. Rather, he dictated to his four scribes simultaneously, and created vast works of theology without revision, seemingly drawing from a well of primordial understanding.
His models were Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius. It is said that he baptized Aristotle, whom he deemed 'the philosopher."
In this work you will find his proofs for God's existence and agency. God is the first cause (Aristotle) and final cause. He is the prime mover.
Searching for the meaning of life involves tackling this consciousness of one's relation to God. Like many other saints, he saw God as the ultimate source of happiness. Through various examples, he demonstrates that happiness is not found in wealth, power, fame, worldly things, wisdom, pleasure. His approach reminded me of Epictetus.
Aquinas is one of the most systematic philosophers. Unlike the Germans, he did not often occlude his notions in momentous abstractions, though he does delve into metaphysics. His analysis of existing proofs and arguments can be just as entertaining as when he puts forth new solutions. Through logical refutation, he is able to answer any objection. One might claim that his method lacks empiricism because his simple logic is sound, in that it is just logic, untestable. Nonetheless, his works produce theological implications and applications on a scale unmatched in the realm of theology.
Most scholars will agree that his work dwarfs all other authors of philosophy besides Aristotle.
He wrote around 30,000 pages in the thirteenth century, when writing was not profitable. When asked what gift he was most thankful for, he replied, "that I have immediately understood everything I have read."
His Summa Theologica is not approachable and over 3000 pages. It's a slog, but it rewards careful study - not that I've studied it yet. It provides not only a summation of theological demonstrations but a methodology for logical exploration of what is knowable.
Is God responsible for evil?
According to Aquinas, Indirectly, by permitting it to exist. It's permitted in order to allow free will. But it also constitutes a greater plan. He invests people with potentialities so that they might commit good or evil. This take has been pushed by more modern apologists.
A world with free will is better than one without it, I'm sure we can agree. A world with free will allows for morality.
Of interest is also his hierarchy of plants, animals, humans, angels, God. The descriptions of the levels of being are reminiscent of the breakdown offered by Augustine.
Is this the best of all possible worlds as Leibniz believed to the amusement of Voltaire?
No. You can always add more good to the world. If something can be added it is not perfect and not the best of all possible worlds. A perfect world wouldn't be subject to change. God thinks and loves, God does not change. Doing those two things doesn't require him to change. God knows innately. His knowing is the force of creation (of His Speaking). He is outside time. All past and future are present to Him.
Aquinas has seemingly probed all facets of life and approached the limits of reason. The Catholic church lapped up his doctrine and ran with it for centuries.
As a person, he was considered uncompromising. He would often leave the room when something other than theology was being discussed. His patience was only for one pursuit. And yet his powers in that one arena were unequaled. Until, one day he had a vision and he stopped writing. When asked why he said, "everything I have written appears as straw."
He died at age 49. One wonders if he had simply said all he had wished to say.
He chose the life of a saint and gave up the easy life he inherited. His family planned for him to become a bishop, but he followed the path of a poor monk, forsaking his position right off the bat. Instead of living like a prince, he lived like an ascetic. A well-fed one. It was said they had to cut a crescent out of the table to accommodate him. Though he only ate one meal a day so he could not be accused of gluttony.
Reading his works allows you to grow to know God's nature. Though his concepts can be difficult, especially as they are contained in the knotty Summa Theologica. This shorter book around 10% the length, was far more digestible. Instead of offering seemingly endless arguments and counter-arguments, he presents his views in a clear manner. This is a condensation of his magnum opus, but while reading the Summa, it can be difficult to ascertain what his actual standpoint is, since he buries it in rhetoric or considers every side of a debate from every possible angle. In short, instead of the incredibly dry, almost arid reading experience one might encounter otherwise, with this volume you can more easily recall his well-known postulates.
Of God's nature: He's infinite, goodness, eternal, immutable, indwelling in everything in the universe, not physically, but metaphysically. Aquinas goes on at length defining what God is and why and how he exists. Atheists I have heard don't often present such arguments against God, whom one might nowadays define as 'unprovable' - they tend to explain why specific traditions should not exist or run counter to Enlightenment values. A better understanding of Aquinas can lead to deep thought on the subject, much as a careful study of any major philosopher can better define one's conception of the universe.
Why was Aquinas called 'the Dumb Ox?'
He was not interested in impressing people. Many say he did not speak as well as he wrote, but it seems more like he was not interested in arguing with people. Rather, he dictated to his four scribes simultaneously, and created vast works of theology without revision, seemingly drawing from a well of primordial understanding.
His models were Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius. It is said that he baptized Aristotle, whom he deemed 'the philosopher."
In this work you will find his proofs for God's existence and agency. God is the first cause (Aristotle) and final cause. He is the prime mover.
Searching for the meaning of life involves tackling this consciousness of one's relation to God. Like many other saints, he saw God as the ultimate source of happiness. Through various examples, he demonstrates that happiness is not found in wealth, power, fame, worldly things, wisdom, pleasure. His approach reminded me of Epictetus.
Aquinas is one of the most systematic philosophers. Unlike the Germans, he did not often occlude his notions in momentous abstractions, though he does delve into metaphysics. His analysis of existing proofs and arguments can be just as entertaining as when he puts forth new solutions. Through logical refutation, he is able to answer any objection. One might claim that his method lacks empiricism because his simple logic is sound, in that it is just logic, untestable. Nonetheless, his works produce theological implications and applications on a scale unmatched in the realm of theology.
Most scholars will agree that his work dwarfs all other authors of philosophy besides Aristotle.
He wrote around 30,000 pages in the thirteenth century, when writing was not profitable. When asked what gift he was most thankful for, he replied, "that I have immediately understood everything I have read."
His Summa Theologica is not approachable and over 3000 pages. It's a slog, but it rewards careful study - not that I've studied it yet. It provides not only a summation of theological demonstrations but a methodology for logical exploration of what is knowable.
Is God responsible for evil?
According to Aquinas, Indirectly, by permitting it to exist. It's permitted in order to allow free will. But it also constitutes a greater plan. He invests people with potentialities so that they might commit good or evil. This take has been pushed by more modern apologists.
A world with free will is better than one without it, I'm sure we can agree. A world with free will allows for morality.
Of interest is also his hierarchy of plants, animals, humans, angels, God. The descriptions of the levels of being are reminiscent of the breakdown offered by Augustine.
Is this the best of all possible worlds as Leibniz believed to the amusement of Voltaire?
No. You can always add more good to the world. If something can be added it is not perfect and not the best of all possible worlds. A perfect world wouldn't be subject to change. God thinks and loves, God does not change. Doing those two things doesn't require him to change. God knows innately. His knowing is the force of creation (of His Speaking). He is outside time. All past and future are present to Him.
Aquinas has seemingly probed all facets of life and approached the limits of reason. The Catholic church lapped up his doctrine and ran with it for centuries.
As a person, he was considered uncompromising. He would often leave the room when something other than theology was being discussed. His patience was only for one pursuit. And yet his powers in that one arena were unequaled. Until, one day he had a vision and he stopped writing. When asked why he said, "everything I have written appears as straw."
He died at age 49. One wonders if he had simply said all he had wished to say.
March 7, 2026
This is a review of the Blinkist summary of the book. But it doesn’t seem to be a summary of the whole of Summa Theologica: merely a couple of philosophical concepts. (Maybe important concepts but it seems to be very limited). I’ll have to do more research to find out what I’m missing here.
The following extracts attempt to capture, Aquinas’s ideas about “grace” and the “trinity”. Actually, the authors DO say that they have just focused on the concept of "grace" ....out of all the many volumes published by Aquinas.
“We often consider philosophical logic and religious faith as two distinct realms. While one is rooted in reason and analysis, the other is grounded in belief and acceptance. But what if we combined the two? That’s what Thomas Aquinas did in his monumental work, the Summa Theologica–the “Summary of Theology”. He took a closer look at theological concepts, using logic.
Under the lens of Aquinas’s philosophy, the understanding of grace transcends this ordinary terminology and becomes an intricate theological concept.
In his Summa, Aquinas defines grace as a free, unmerited favour from God. It impacts human free will, guiding individuals towards a moral life.....But Aquinas dissects the notion of grace further, identifying several categories: sanctifying grace, actual grace, and the graces of the Holy Spirit.
• Sanctifying grace, as per Aquinas’s interpretation, is the inherent grace that heals human nature and gives persons a share in the divine life.
• Actual grace, on the other hand, is a divine push or encouragement. It might be a sudden inspiration to do good or avoid evil, acting as an aid to human free will.
• Finally, the graces of the Holy Spirit are described as gifts which lead human beings to divine wisdom and understanding.
Each type of grace has a dedicated role in guiding the individual on their spiritual journey.
Take another case: the Holy Trinity–a cornerstone of Christian belief. It is often seen as a mystery, a concept accepted on faith rather than understanding. However, Aquinas refused to leave it at that. Instead, he formulated logical arguments to elucidate this divine composition.
Accepting that God is intelligent and has a will, he theorized that God is self-reflective, conscious of his own divine essence. From this self-consciousness, Aquinas proposed the manifestation of the Word or the Son, through which God understands Himself. As God loves Himself, there arises the Holy Spirit, the divine affection.
This logical exploration gives a rational structure to a previously enigmatic, faith-based notion. So, by merging logic and faith, Aquinas establishes a fresh perspective, making theology more accessible and comprehensive”
What’s my take on it? Well it seems to me, that like most theologians: Aquinas is making most of it up as he goes along. For example, the idea that God is intelligent and has a will. These are foundational assumptions. But one could also make the assumption that god does not have a super intelligence in the way that we understand intelligence. We couod also postulate that God does not have a will in the way that we understand it. For example, he might be bound by cosmic or supernatural boundaries or “laws of nature” that are outside God’s will or control. So if you question the foundations, the logical superstructure erected on these shaky foundations is also going to be very shaky and probably not true.
Yes, he was trying to make sense of a very messy bunch of beliefs....and yes, he had a huge impact on Christianity. But so did Paul (the Apostle....though he never even met Jesus...so a bit rich to call him an Apostle). Basically, Paul made up his own theology along the same lines as Aquinas. Assuming that this MUST have been what Jesus meant or what God intended....and therefore....all the other stuff followed:...Jesus’ divinity, the resurrection, transubstantiation, the bodily assumption into heaven etc., etc. All made up as he went along...... or made up by his followers.
So interesting ideas and I give credit to Aquina’s imagination and ingenuity to trying to bring come sort of coherence into confusing ideas. Was he successful? Not for me. But I give the book four stars.
The following extracts attempt to capture, Aquinas’s ideas about “grace” and the “trinity”. Actually, the authors DO say that they have just focused on the concept of "grace" ....out of all the many volumes published by Aquinas.
“We often consider philosophical logic and religious faith as two distinct realms. While one is rooted in reason and analysis, the other is grounded in belief and acceptance. But what if we combined the two? That’s what Thomas Aquinas did in his monumental work, the Summa Theologica–the “Summary of Theology”. He took a closer look at theological concepts, using logic.
Under the lens of Aquinas’s philosophy, the understanding of grace transcends this ordinary terminology and becomes an intricate theological concept.
In his Summa, Aquinas defines grace as a free, unmerited favour from God. It impacts human free will, guiding individuals towards a moral life.....But Aquinas dissects the notion of grace further, identifying several categories: sanctifying grace, actual grace, and the graces of the Holy Spirit.
• Sanctifying grace, as per Aquinas’s interpretation, is the inherent grace that heals human nature and gives persons a share in the divine life.
• Actual grace, on the other hand, is a divine push or encouragement. It might be a sudden inspiration to do good or avoid evil, acting as an aid to human free will.
• Finally, the graces of the Holy Spirit are described as gifts which lead human beings to divine wisdom and understanding.
Each type of grace has a dedicated role in guiding the individual on their spiritual journey.
Take another case: the Holy Trinity–a cornerstone of Christian belief. It is often seen as a mystery, a concept accepted on faith rather than understanding. However, Aquinas refused to leave it at that. Instead, he formulated logical arguments to elucidate this divine composition.
Accepting that God is intelligent and has a will, he theorized that God is self-reflective, conscious of his own divine essence. From this self-consciousness, Aquinas proposed the manifestation of the Word or the Son, through which God understands Himself. As God loves Himself, there arises the Holy Spirit, the divine affection.
This logical exploration gives a rational structure to a previously enigmatic, faith-based notion. So, by merging logic and faith, Aquinas establishes a fresh perspective, making theology more accessible and comprehensive”
What’s my take on it? Well it seems to me, that like most theologians: Aquinas is making most of it up as he goes along. For example, the idea that God is intelligent and has a will. These are foundational assumptions. But one could also make the assumption that god does not have a super intelligence in the way that we understand intelligence. We couod also postulate that God does not have a will in the way that we understand it. For example, he might be bound by cosmic or supernatural boundaries or “laws of nature” that are outside God’s will or control. So if you question the foundations, the logical superstructure erected on these shaky foundations is also going to be very shaky and probably not true.
Yes, he was trying to make sense of a very messy bunch of beliefs....and yes, he had a huge impact on Christianity. But so did Paul (the Apostle....though he never even met Jesus...so a bit rich to call him an Apostle). Basically, Paul made up his own theology along the same lines as Aquinas. Assuming that this MUST have been what Jesus meant or what God intended....and therefore....all the other stuff followed:...Jesus’ divinity, the resurrection, transubstantiation, the bodily assumption into heaven etc., etc. All made up as he went along...... or made up by his followers.
So interesting ideas and I give credit to Aquina’s imagination and ingenuity to trying to bring come sort of coherence into confusing ideas. Was he successful? Not for me. But I give the book four stars.
December 11, 2025
A more sophisticated reader than I will be able to appreciate this work without subscribing to it. There’s something aesthetically pleasing about ambitious, totalizing philosophical systems. Here is one of the great system builders in the Western tradition, and it honestly felt underwhelming to me. Perhaps unfair, since I didn’t read the full Summa Theologica with its much more robust argumentation, but who has time for 3000 pages of scholastic argumentation? Maybe I have internalized too many criticisms from reading selections of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, but this felt too easy to poke holes into. I’m not going to put my scholastic hat on and enter the arena fully, but I’ll explain the major issues I ran into while stress testing his system.
First of all, as coherent as the whole system is, it feels like he doesn’t take his conclusions seriously enough (or downplays them selectively). One major issue is the problem of analogy. Anything we ascribe to God is only a proportional descriptor, since according to Aquinas we cannot apply creaturely concepts to God accurately. God’s love, mercy, and similar predicates are human terms applied to God imperfectly. This alone puts us in very limited epistemic territory and greatly restricts the extent to which creaturely reasoning can be carried over into divine matters.
The next area of concern involves divine simplicity. This is a radical idea that is not taken seriously enough in its implications. Because all divine attributes are identical in reality, distinct descriptive predicates collapse into a single undifferentiated reality, leaving very little conceptual content for theological analysis. Aquinas admits that any distinction among the persons of the Trinity is purely relational and essentially analogical. Yet the same author then describes the Holy Spirit as performing distinct causal roles in time (such as assisting in the Incarnation) or details how different attributes interact with distinct Trinitarian persons. This creates a tension between his metaphysical reduction of distinctions and his doctrinal need to differentiate personal operations. If we take his conclusions seriously, much of the theological content becomes trivial or speculative, since we are operating outside the domain where creaturely concepts function reliably.
He is building this system between competing restraints. He is juggling Aristotle and Christian orthodoxy. Aquinas rejects rival Christologies on rational grounds that rely on distinctions he elsewhere admits cannot map directly onto God. But when orthodoxy meets the same explanatory limits, such as how Christ’s two complete natures do not divide his personhood, he appeals to mystery. It is an inconsistent application of reason that feels transparently motivated by contradictory boundaries. I think this is the major source of my annoyance, rather than just philosophical disagreement. He clearly knows these tensions, tries to defend them with heroic effort, but holds them to much less scrutiny than the heterodox ideas in his crosshairs.
Overall, Aquinas is still a titan of philosophy and played the role of a foundational builder, giving a large canvas for future thinkers to paint onto. I still tip my hat to Aquinas’ genius, but you won’t catch me visiting the full Summa anytime soon.
First of all, as coherent as the whole system is, it feels like he doesn’t take his conclusions seriously enough (or downplays them selectively). One major issue is the problem of analogy. Anything we ascribe to God is only a proportional descriptor, since according to Aquinas we cannot apply creaturely concepts to God accurately. God’s love, mercy, and similar predicates are human terms applied to God imperfectly. This alone puts us in very limited epistemic territory and greatly restricts the extent to which creaturely reasoning can be carried over into divine matters.
The next area of concern involves divine simplicity. This is a radical idea that is not taken seriously enough in its implications. Because all divine attributes are identical in reality, distinct descriptive predicates collapse into a single undifferentiated reality, leaving very little conceptual content for theological analysis. Aquinas admits that any distinction among the persons of the Trinity is purely relational and essentially analogical. Yet the same author then describes the Holy Spirit as performing distinct causal roles in time (such as assisting in the Incarnation) or details how different attributes interact with distinct Trinitarian persons. This creates a tension between his metaphysical reduction of distinctions and his doctrinal need to differentiate personal operations. If we take his conclusions seriously, much of the theological content becomes trivial or speculative, since we are operating outside the domain where creaturely concepts function reliably.
He is building this system between competing restraints. He is juggling Aristotle and Christian orthodoxy. Aquinas rejects rival Christologies on rational grounds that rely on distinctions he elsewhere admits cannot map directly onto God. But when orthodoxy meets the same explanatory limits, such as how Christ’s two complete natures do not divide his personhood, he appeals to mystery. It is an inconsistent application of reason that feels transparently motivated by contradictory boundaries. I think this is the major source of my annoyance, rather than just philosophical disagreement. He clearly knows these tensions, tries to defend them with heroic effort, but holds them to much less scrutiny than the heterodox ideas in his crosshairs.
Overall, Aquinas is still a titan of philosophy and played the role of a foundational builder, giving a large canvas for future thinkers to paint onto. I still tip my hat to Aquinas’ genius, but you won’t catch me visiting the full Summa anytime soon.
February 13, 2025
Espetacular esforço de organização racional da teologia cristã de uma Igreja que completava seu primeiro milênio de existência não muito antes. Partindo do começo, descrevendo o conceito de First Mover, e crescendo a partir da metafísica, Tomás de Aquino consegue de maneira extremamente habilidosa amarrar todos os fundamentos da fé cristã de seu tempo, e estabelecer o que seria o piso dogmático e teológico da Igreja Católica pelos séculos seguintes e até hoje.
Como um leigo, não quis encarar a versão completa da Summa, que teria tomado vários meses. No lugar, li essa versão concisa, compilada pelo próprio Tomás a pedido de um pupilo. Imagino que os pontos levantados sejam os mesmos, mas que na versão original sejam mais profundamente explicados e submetidos a um rigor formal da sua lógica e articulação de conceitos. Ainda assim, considero que a versão concisa foi de muito bom tamanho para o escopo do meu projeto. Fui devidamente introduzido a São Tomás e agora tenho uma boa noção de sua importância.
A experiência da leitura se iniciou perfeita, com uma argumentação que considerei excelente para a descrição da necessidade da existência de Deus. Depois, São Tomás gradualmente se move de uma articulação de conceitos filosóficos para uma apologética dos hábitos católicos de seu tempo. Inverte assim a lógica necessária para qualquer filósofo de se guiar pela razão rumo à verdade, não por uma "verdade" pré concebida através de uma racionalização sempre enviesada. Fui, portanto, gostando menos do livro conforme ele foi avançando. Mas isso não estragou a experiência, de forma alguma.
Um colosso (literalmente) da História da Filosofia, Literatura, Teologia e do Cristianismo. Leitura obrigatória pra quem se interessa por esses temas e recomendável mesmo pra quem não se interessa.
Como um leigo, não quis encarar a versão completa da Summa, que teria tomado vários meses. No lugar, li essa versão concisa, compilada pelo próprio Tomás a pedido de um pupilo. Imagino que os pontos levantados sejam os mesmos, mas que na versão original sejam mais profundamente explicados e submetidos a um rigor formal da sua lógica e articulação de conceitos. Ainda assim, considero que a versão concisa foi de muito bom tamanho para o escopo do meu projeto. Fui devidamente introduzido a São Tomás e agora tenho uma boa noção de sua importância.
A experiência da leitura se iniciou perfeita, com uma argumentação que considerei excelente para a descrição da necessidade da existência de Deus. Depois, São Tomás gradualmente se move de uma articulação de conceitos filosóficos para uma apologética dos hábitos católicos de seu tempo. Inverte assim a lógica necessária para qualquer filósofo de se guiar pela razão rumo à verdade, não por uma "verdade" pré concebida através de uma racionalização sempre enviesada. Fui, portanto, gostando menos do livro conforme ele foi avançando. Mas isso não estragou a experiência, de forma alguma.
Um colosso (literalmente) da História da Filosofia, Literatura, Teologia e do Cristianismo. Leitura obrigatória pra quem se interessa por esses temas e recomendável mesmo pra quem não se interessa.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews