What do you think?
Rate this book
A Summa of the Summa
St. Thomas Aquinas Peter Kreeft Saint Thomas Aquinas is universally recognized as one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. His writings combine the two fundamental ideals of philosophical writing: clarity and profundity. He is a master of metaphysics and technical terminology, yet so full of both theoretical and practical wisdom. He is the master of common sense. His major work, the Summa Theologica, is timeless, but particularly important today because of his synthesis of faith and reason, revelation and philosophy, and the Biblical and the classical Greco-Roman heritages. This unique book combines selected essential philosophical passages from Thomas' Summa with footnotes and explanations by Kreeft, a popular Thomist teacher and writer. Kreeft selected those passages from Thomas that are intrinsically important, non-technical enough to be intelligible to modern readers, and most likely to be used in a class or by independent readers who want to study the Summa on their own. Kreeft's detailed footnotes explain difficult or technical passages and call attention to points of particular significance for the modern reader. This book is the most intelligent, clear, and useful access to Saint Thomas in print. Includes a glossary and an index. "This book differs from all other books on Saint Thomas because it gives the words of Thomas himself, not a modern summary, but pared down to essentials, and with footnotes which do what a professor in a class would do." - Peter Kreeft
539 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1990
258 people are currently reading
2970 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,533 books1,106 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
June 29, 2020
QUESTION 1. Of the Summa Theologica
ARTICLE 1. Whether One Should Read the Summa Theologica?
Objection 1. The Summa Theologica was written over 700 years ago (1265-1274). Thus, whatever philosophy is contained in this book is long outdated. Further, the state of scientific knowledge was much less advanced at that time then now, so it is impossible that there can be found any insight into the nature of things. Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 2. St. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian philosopher and theologian. But as proved by modern science and subsequent philosophy, religion is false (cf. Richard Dawkins). Furthermore, religion is now known to cause social evils and injustices, including the intolerance and bigotry that thrives in the present day. Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 3. St. Thomas Aquinas is now considered the culmination of Medieval scholastic philosophy. But this school of philosophy is now known to have stifled free intellectual inquiry for hundreds of years, impeding intellectual progress (cf. the case of Galileo). Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 4. The purpose of Aquinas’s philosophy was to combine the doctrines of Aristotle with those of the Catholic church. But this means that he had no original doctrines, and merely adopted them from elsewhere. Yet the purpose of philosophy is to follow one’s own reason. Thus it is less noble to merely synthesize the thoughts of others. As Bertrand Russell says (Hist. of West. Phil.), The findings of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that [Aquinas] deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times. Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 5. It is admittedly not impossible that Aquinas did have some beneficial and original ideas. But since he has been so influential, it is reasonable to suppose that whatever worthwhile ideas he had, have been long absorbed by subsequent writers. Thus, one need not read Aquinas to encounter his ideas. Therefore, avoid this book.
On the contrary, The Summa Theologica is one of the most impressive and influential books in the Western cannon. Therefore, one should read the Summa Theologica.
I answer that, One may read a great book for many reasons. The first is purely historical. Often, great classics provide incredible windows into the past, as they summarize and perfect a line of intellectual progress, thereby constituting a capstone to a scholarly tradition. For example, the mathematician Euclid borrowed frequently from his predecessors, as did the astronomer Ptolemy; but their works were so perfect and comprehensive that they instantly made all of their predecessors obsolete. Thus did St. Thomas Aquinas with his predecessors. Therefore, by reading his comprehensive summary, one learns not only of his philosophy, but the philosophy of an age.
The second reason to read a great book is for its quality. Even if the doctrines contained therein are now believed or known to be false, the great skill of the author makes it still worthwhile to read their work. The beautifully adorned calendars of the Middle Ages—although they are far surpassed by modern modes of reckoning—might still be perused with pleasure, for the consummate craftsmanship and delicate care that went into their making; and for the same reason might one read Aquinas.
The third reason to read a great book is to expand one’s worldview. Narrow is the span of human life, and brief is the hour in which we are born, grow old, and pass away. Thus, without conscious effort, we will experience but a sliver of the ways people have thought and lived. This is why travel is so often advised as a path to intellectual growth. But in travel, we may only go to places contemporary in time. Thus, to travel to different ages, one must do so through reading. Further, when traveling, one encounters different customs and cultures; but one does not necessarily encounter different intellectual traditions. Therefore, to experience an intellectual tradition much different from that of the current day, one must read great classics of the past.
Reply Obj. 1. Some types of knowledge quickly grow obsolete, such as that of empirical science. Other veins of enquiry maintain their relevance for a long while. Thus, the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, in the fields of ethics, politics, and logic, still exert an influence on the present day. But it was in these topics that Aquinas most often wrote about. Therefore, much of his philosophy is still relevant and alive. Further, even if all of Aquinas’s conclusions are false, it is still worthwhile to read his arguments. As it is by hearing the counterarguments that one finds the reasons for one’s own beliefs. As Milton says, A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
Reply Obj. 2. Although many of the dogmas believed by many Christians have been thrown into doubt, the question of the existence of God still remains open (cf. the debate about “fine tuning”). Further, one must judge an individual by his own merits, not by the merits of the group to which he belongs. Therefore, it is wrong to hold Aquinas accountable for others who have committed crimes and wrongs in the name of religion.
Reply Obj. 3. It is no more Aquinas’s fault that his intellectual school stifled free enquiry, than it is the fault of Ptolemy that Galileo was persecuted for disagreeing with him. A thinker is not responsible for those who cleave dogmatically to their doctrines, especially if the thinker, like Aquinas, emphasized the use of reason and the importance of free choice.
Reply Obj. 4. It is indeed true that much of Aquinas’s project consists in synthesizing the doctrines of Aristotle and the Catholic faith. In this, he can perhaps be justly said to be less original and less true to the spirit of philosophy. However, to dismiss him for such a reason is unfair. First, Aquinas was a theologian, and not a philosopher. To judge him by the standards used to judge philosophers today would therefore be to apply the wrong criterion, as it was not his goal to follow his reason wherever it led. Second, no thinker is wholly original. Even Descartes, in trying to break free from scholasticism, used scholastic arguments in his Meditations. Every thinker owes intellectual debts to their forebears; as the great Newton said, If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Additionally, an original doctrine may result from the combination of two pre-existing doctrines. The positions of Aristotle, being typically opposed to those of Plato, are often at odds with the tenor of Catholic doctrines. For example, Aristotle’s ethics emphasizes earthly happiness, by the use of moderation; the goal is not to be morally right, but to live a good life. This is superficially quite opposite to the idea that one must be morally right, even if it leads to unhappiness, so as to enter heaven in the hereafter. Therefore, it requires considerable intellectual ingenuity to harmonize these two positions. Further, the final doctrine is quite different from the two component doctrines.
Reply Obj. 5. It is indeed true that one may learn of Aquinas’s doctrines from later writers. But as anyone who has ever played a game of telephone can attest, the content of a message can be distorted through transmission. Besides, Aquinas was a thinker of extremely high caliber, and so it is unlikely that any later thinkers could argue his positions as powerfully as he could.
QUESTION 2. Of this edition.
ARTICLE 1. Whether one should read this edition of this book?
Objection 1. The original Summa Theologica consists of five volumes, totaling over 3,000 pages. This edition is heavily abridged, consisting of one volume, of slightly over 500 pages. But one should always read the unabridged edition, so as not to miss any important points. Therefore, avoid this edition.
Objection 2. Further, the editor, Peter Kreeft, is extremely biased towards Aquinas. For example, in the glossary of this book, Kreeft defines “nominalism" as the theory that universal terms like “justice” or “man” are only names, not real essences; it is perhaps the more pervasive and destructive error in modern philosophy. Clearly, this sort of comment is inappropriate for a glossary. Therefore, avoid this edition.
Objection 3. Further, Kreeft’s footnotes are often distracting, seldom helpful, and are generally self-indulgent. Most of his explanations of Aquinas’s points do not explain them any more clearly than the text itself. And his frequent adulatory interjections (generally of the form, “Note how wonderful and wise this argument is!”) add nothing to the reading experience. Also, an inexperienced reader might mistakenly get the impression that Kreeft’s opinions of other philosophers, such as his frequent swipes at Kant and Hume, represent the received opinion. In general, Kreeft is such a talkative, opinionated, and unhelpful commentator, that he might as well be Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire. Therefore, avoid this edition.
On the contrary, This edition is fine for nonscholarly purposes, such as if you want to get some experience with Aquinas without having to read five whole volumes.
I answer that, Very often, abridgments can improve a reading experience of an old text. Many things which were of great importance in the past are merely distracting now. Also, authors are seldom good judges of the quality of their work; the only true judge is posterity. And abridgments often cut away everything that didn’t last, leaving only what posterity has judged valuable. Further, the urge to read everything written by an author is the product of a narrow purism, which treats books as inviolable objects. Books are not ends in themselves, to be read for their own sake; rather, books are the means to a richer life and to greater enlightenment. Therefore one need only read what will be rewarding, and not run one’s eyes over everything merely for the sake of completion. And besides, many who would never read the unabridged version of a book might read the abridged version; and it is in general better to read some of a great book, than none of it. And lastly, if you enjoy the abridged version, nothing prevents you from reading the unabridged version afterwards. Abridgments allow one to test the waters before jumping in.
Reply Obj. 1. If you would like to read all 3,000 pages, be my guest. But from what I could tell, Kreeft actually did a good job in selecting the most influential and relevant sections. I did not come across a single part of the book that I thought was unnecessary.
Reply Obj. 2. In general, it is better to learn a doctrine from an adherent rather than a detractor, as one should learn the merits of an argument before searching for its defects. Therefore, it is no bad thing that Kreeft is a follower of Aquinas.
Reply Obj. 3. One can always do as I did, and skip over most of the footnotes. They are easily ignored.
ARTICLE 1. Whether One Should Read the Summa Theologica?
Objection 1. The Summa Theologica was written over 700 years ago (1265-1274). Thus, whatever philosophy is contained in this book is long outdated. Further, the state of scientific knowledge was much less advanced at that time then now, so it is impossible that there can be found any insight into the nature of things. Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 2. St. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian philosopher and theologian. But as proved by modern science and subsequent philosophy, religion is false (cf. Richard Dawkins). Furthermore, religion is now known to cause social evils and injustices, including the intolerance and bigotry that thrives in the present day. Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 3. St. Thomas Aquinas is now considered the culmination of Medieval scholastic philosophy. But this school of philosophy is now known to have stifled free intellectual inquiry for hundreds of years, impeding intellectual progress (cf. the case of Galileo). Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 4. The purpose of Aquinas’s philosophy was to combine the doctrines of Aristotle with those of the Catholic church. But this means that he had no original doctrines, and merely adopted them from elsewhere. Yet the purpose of philosophy is to follow one’s own reason. Thus it is less noble to merely synthesize the thoughts of others. As Bertrand Russell says (Hist. of West. Phil.), The findings of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that [Aquinas] deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times. Therefore, avoid this book.
Objection 5. It is admittedly not impossible that Aquinas did have some beneficial and original ideas. But since he has been so influential, it is reasonable to suppose that whatever worthwhile ideas he had, have been long absorbed by subsequent writers. Thus, one need not read Aquinas to encounter his ideas. Therefore, avoid this book.
On the contrary, The Summa Theologica is one of the most impressive and influential books in the Western cannon. Therefore, one should read the Summa Theologica.
I answer that, One may read a great book for many reasons. The first is purely historical. Often, great classics provide incredible windows into the past, as they summarize and perfect a line of intellectual progress, thereby constituting a capstone to a scholarly tradition. For example, the mathematician Euclid borrowed frequently from his predecessors, as did the astronomer Ptolemy; but their works were so perfect and comprehensive that they instantly made all of their predecessors obsolete. Thus did St. Thomas Aquinas with his predecessors. Therefore, by reading his comprehensive summary, one learns not only of his philosophy, but the philosophy of an age.
The second reason to read a great book is for its quality. Even if the doctrines contained therein are now believed or known to be false, the great skill of the author makes it still worthwhile to read their work. The beautifully adorned calendars of the Middle Ages—although they are far surpassed by modern modes of reckoning—might still be perused with pleasure, for the consummate craftsmanship and delicate care that went into their making; and for the same reason might one read Aquinas.
The third reason to read a great book is to expand one’s worldview. Narrow is the span of human life, and brief is the hour in which we are born, grow old, and pass away. Thus, without conscious effort, we will experience but a sliver of the ways people have thought and lived. This is why travel is so often advised as a path to intellectual growth. But in travel, we may only go to places contemporary in time. Thus, to travel to different ages, one must do so through reading. Further, when traveling, one encounters different customs and cultures; but one does not necessarily encounter different intellectual traditions. Therefore, to experience an intellectual tradition much different from that of the current day, one must read great classics of the past.
Reply Obj. 1. Some types of knowledge quickly grow obsolete, such as that of empirical science. Other veins of enquiry maintain their relevance for a long while. Thus, the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, in the fields of ethics, politics, and logic, still exert an influence on the present day. But it was in these topics that Aquinas most often wrote about. Therefore, much of his philosophy is still relevant and alive. Further, even if all of Aquinas’s conclusions are false, it is still worthwhile to read his arguments. As it is by hearing the counterarguments that one finds the reasons for one’s own beliefs. As Milton says, A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
Reply Obj. 2. Although many of the dogmas believed by many Christians have been thrown into doubt, the question of the existence of God still remains open (cf. the debate about “fine tuning”). Further, one must judge an individual by his own merits, not by the merits of the group to which he belongs. Therefore, it is wrong to hold Aquinas accountable for others who have committed crimes and wrongs in the name of religion.
Reply Obj. 3. It is no more Aquinas’s fault that his intellectual school stifled free enquiry, than it is the fault of Ptolemy that Galileo was persecuted for disagreeing with him. A thinker is not responsible for those who cleave dogmatically to their doctrines, especially if the thinker, like Aquinas, emphasized the use of reason and the importance of free choice.
Reply Obj. 4. It is indeed true that much of Aquinas’s project consists in synthesizing the doctrines of Aristotle and the Catholic faith. In this, he can perhaps be justly said to be less original and less true to the spirit of philosophy. However, to dismiss him for such a reason is unfair. First, Aquinas was a theologian, and not a philosopher. To judge him by the standards used to judge philosophers today would therefore be to apply the wrong criterion, as it was not his goal to follow his reason wherever it led. Second, no thinker is wholly original. Even Descartes, in trying to break free from scholasticism, used scholastic arguments in his Meditations. Every thinker owes intellectual debts to their forebears; as the great Newton said, If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Additionally, an original doctrine may result from the combination of two pre-existing doctrines. The positions of Aristotle, being typically opposed to those of Plato, are often at odds with the tenor of Catholic doctrines. For example, Aristotle’s ethics emphasizes earthly happiness, by the use of moderation; the goal is not to be morally right, but to live a good life. This is superficially quite opposite to the idea that one must be morally right, even if it leads to unhappiness, so as to enter heaven in the hereafter. Therefore, it requires considerable intellectual ingenuity to harmonize these two positions. Further, the final doctrine is quite different from the two component doctrines.
Reply Obj. 5. It is indeed true that one may learn of Aquinas’s doctrines from later writers. But as anyone who has ever played a game of telephone can attest, the content of a message can be distorted through transmission. Besides, Aquinas was a thinker of extremely high caliber, and so it is unlikely that any later thinkers could argue his positions as powerfully as he could.
QUESTION 2. Of this edition.
ARTICLE 1. Whether one should read this edition of this book?
Objection 1. The original Summa Theologica consists of five volumes, totaling over 3,000 pages. This edition is heavily abridged, consisting of one volume, of slightly over 500 pages. But one should always read the unabridged edition, so as not to miss any important points. Therefore, avoid this edition.
Objection 2. Further, the editor, Peter Kreeft, is extremely biased towards Aquinas. For example, in the glossary of this book, Kreeft defines “nominalism" as the theory that universal terms like “justice” or “man” are only names, not real essences; it is perhaps the more pervasive and destructive error in modern philosophy. Clearly, this sort of comment is inappropriate for a glossary. Therefore, avoid this edition.
Objection 3. Further, Kreeft’s footnotes are often distracting, seldom helpful, and are generally self-indulgent. Most of his explanations of Aquinas’s points do not explain them any more clearly than the text itself. And his frequent adulatory interjections (generally of the form, “Note how wonderful and wise this argument is!”) add nothing to the reading experience. Also, an inexperienced reader might mistakenly get the impression that Kreeft’s opinions of other philosophers, such as his frequent swipes at Kant and Hume, represent the received opinion. In general, Kreeft is such a talkative, opinionated, and unhelpful commentator, that he might as well be Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire. Therefore, avoid this edition.
On the contrary, This edition is fine for nonscholarly purposes, such as if you want to get some experience with Aquinas without having to read five whole volumes.
I answer that, Very often, abridgments can improve a reading experience of an old text. Many things which were of great importance in the past are merely distracting now. Also, authors are seldom good judges of the quality of their work; the only true judge is posterity. And abridgments often cut away everything that didn’t last, leaving only what posterity has judged valuable. Further, the urge to read everything written by an author is the product of a narrow purism, which treats books as inviolable objects. Books are not ends in themselves, to be read for their own sake; rather, books are the means to a richer life and to greater enlightenment. Therefore one need only read what will be rewarding, and not run one’s eyes over everything merely for the sake of completion. And besides, many who would never read the unabridged version of a book might read the abridged version; and it is in general better to read some of a great book, than none of it. And lastly, if you enjoy the abridged version, nothing prevents you from reading the unabridged version afterwards. Abridgments allow one to test the waters before jumping in.
Reply Obj. 1. If you would like to read all 3,000 pages, be my guest. But from what I could tell, Kreeft actually did a good job in selecting the most influential and relevant sections. I did not come across a single part of the book that I thought was unnecessary.
Reply Obj. 2. In general, it is better to learn a doctrine from an adherent rather than a detractor, as one should learn the merits of an argument before searching for its defects. Therefore, it is no bad thing that Kreeft is a follower of Aquinas.
Reply Obj. 3. One can always do as I did, and skip over most of the footnotes. They are easily ignored.
April 29, 2018
A Summa of the Summa of St Thomas Aquinas
By Peter Kreeft
Peter Kreeft provides with this work a readable summary of the extensive ‘Summa Theologica’.
The original text in ancient language by Aquinas needs the footnotes provided by Kreeft to make it reasonably comprehensible.
And even so, it remains a challenge.
St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) in his Theological analysis, the questions raised are divided into six main chapters.
I will quote a few lines of the ones that attracted my attention:
1. The Sacred Doctrine.
-It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be the knowledge revealed by God, besides philosophical and rational theology built up by man.
-The sacred doctrine is a science. It is speculative rather than practical; it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts.
2. Proofs for the existence of God. (a few illustrative examples)
-Motion: Since nothing can move itself, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, the source of all motion.
-Design: design can be caused only by an intelligent Designer, mindless nature cannot design itself or come about by chance.
-Time: Time must have a beginning, (the Big Bang, fifteen to twenty billion years ago) the act of creation presupposes a Creator.
-Existential: If there is no God, life is ultimately meaningless.
-Historical from Jesus: If God is unreal, Jesus has died on the cross for nothing.
3. The Nature of God.
-God is not a body. God is a spirit. Only children and pagans who cannot think abstractly think that God is a body. God is the first mover and is Himself not moved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a Body.
-God is in all things.
-Everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. In a particular case, we add that a man who is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is good; that he lives an evil.
4. Cosmology. Creation and Providence
-By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist.
-Whether there is only one world? St Thomas replies: The very order of things shows the unity of the world. Those only can assert that many worlds exist who do not acknowledge any ordaining wisdom, but rather believe in chance, as Democritus, who said that this world, besides an infinite number of other worlds, was made from casual concourse of atoms……!
For the same reason it might be said that if He had made two worlds, it would be better if He had made three; and so on to infinity…!
-Whether the world is governed by One? St Thomas replies: The multitude is better governed by one than by several. Therefore the best form of government must be by One.
(The footnotes reverse this statement: St Thomas is not making a political statement here. In fact, he thinks the best political regime is the "mixed regime" of a democratic constitutional monarchy)
5. Anthropology. Body and Soul.
-For St Thomas, the soul is both a substance and a form. As a substance, it can exist of itself without the body. As the form of the body, it is the very life of the body.
-Whether the soul was produced by creation? St Thomas replies: The rational soul can be made only by creation. Nb. Parents generate their children’s bodies, but not their souls.
6. Epistemology and Psychology.
-Whether one person can understand the same thing better than another can? St Thomas replies The better disposition of the body, the better the soul allotted to it. Some men have bodies of better disposition; their souls have greater power of understanding; wherefore it is said (De Anima ii.9) that it is to be observed that those who have soft flesh are of apt mind.
-Whether our intellect can know the infinite? St Thomas replies: Now in material things the infinite does not exist actually, but only potentially. Therefore infinity is potentially in our mind through it’s considering successively one thing after another.
-Whether God is the first object known to the human mind? St Thomas replies: Since the human mind in the present state of life cannot understand even immaterial substances (angels), much less can it understand the essence of uncreated substance. Hence it must simply be said that God is not the first object of our knowledge.
-Whether the image of God is in man? St Thomas replies: There is in man a likeness to God; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect.
7. Ethics.
The question of the Summum bonum, the greatest good, the final end, meaning and purpose of life.
St Thomas replies: (here the headlines only)
-It is impossible for man’s happiness to consist in wealth.
-It is impossible for happiness to consist in honor.
-Man's happiness cannot consist of human fame and glory.
-It is impossible for happiness to consist in power.
-It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in the goods of the body or pleasure.
Whether some good of the souls constitutes man’s happiness?
-We must say that happiness is something belonging to the soul, but that which constitutes happiness is outside the soul.
Whether one can be happy in this life?
-A certain participation of Happiness can be had in this life, but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life.
-Of the Theological Virtues. Man is perfected by virtue, for those actions whereby he is directed to happiness. It is the oldest truism of this world: if you are good, you will be happy.
-On theological virtues: The Apostle says: Now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three.
The theological virtues direct man to supernatural happiness.
-Wisdom and charity are the two greatest virtues.
-All acts of virtue are prescribed by natural law; since each one’s reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously.
I wanted to read this book to complete my previous readings and knowledge, and I am not disappointed.
Even when I was often bothered by the extreme meticulous method of going into endless detail on every subject, when I thought one phrase would do, it is drawn out into three pages.
Next to the Bible, it gives the broadest possible outlook on Christian religion.
I would not recommend this book to readers who read for entertainment.
But it is a must-read for anyone interested in Theological Philosophy.
By Peter Kreeft
Peter Kreeft provides with this work a readable summary of the extensive ‘Summa Theologica’.
The original text in ancient language by Aquinas needs the footnotes provided by Kreeft to make it reasonably comprehensible.
And even so, it remains a challenge.
St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) in his Theological analysis, the questions raised are divided into six main chapters.
I will quote a few lines of the ones that attracted my attention:
1. The Sacred Doctrine.
-It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be the knowledge revealed by God, besides philosophical and rational theology built up by man.
-The sacred doctrine is a science. It is speculative rather than practical; it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts.
2. Proofs for the existence of God. (a few illustrative examples)
-Motion: Since nothing can move itself, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, the source of all motion.
-Design: design can be caused only by an intelligent Designer, mindless nature cannot design itself or come about by chance.
-Time: Time must have a beginning, (the Big Bang, fifteen to twenty billion years ago) the act of creation presupposes a Creator.
-Existential: If there is no God, life is ultimately meaningless.
-Historical from Jesus: If God is unreal, Jesus has died on the cross for nothing.
3. The Nature of God.
-God is not a body. God is a spirit. Only children and pagans who cannot think abstractly think that God is a body. God is the first mover and is Himself not moved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a Body.
-God is in all things.
-Everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. In a particular case, we add that a man who is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is good; that he lives an evil.
4. Cosmology. Creation and Providence
-By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist.
-Whether there is only one world? St Thomas replies: The very order of things shows the unity of the world. Those only can assert that many worlds exist who do not acknowledge any ordaining wisdom, but rather believe in chance, as Democritus, who said that this world, besides an infinite number of other worlds, was made from casual concourse of atoms……!
For the same reason it might be said that if He had made two worlds, it would be better if He had made three; and so on to infinity…!
-Whether the world is governed by One? St Thomas replies: The multitude is better governed by one than by several. Therefore the best form of government must be by One.
(The footnotes reverse this statement: St Thomas is not making a political statement here. In fact, he thinks the best political regime is the "mixed regime" of a democratic constitutional monarchy)
5. Anthropology. Body and Soul.
-For St Thomas, the soul is both a substance and a form. As a substance, it can exist of itself without the body. As the form of the body, it is the very life of the body.
-Whether the soul was produced by creation? St Thomas replies: The rational soul can be made only by creation. Nb. Parents generate their children’s bodies, but not their souls.
6. Epistemology and Psychology.
-Whether one person can understand the same thing better than another can? St Thomas replies The better disposition of the body, the better the soul allotted to it. Some men have bodies of better disposition; their souls have greater power of understanding; wherefore it is said (De Anima ii.9) that it is to be observed that those who have soft flesh are of apt mind.
-Whether our intellect can know the infinite? St Thomas replies: Now in material things the infinite does not exist actually, but only potentially. Therefore infinity is potentially in our mind through it’s considering successively one thing after another.
-Whether God is the first object known to the human mind? St Thomas replies: Since the human mind in the present state of life cannot understand even immaterial substances (angels), much less can it understand the essence of uncreated substance. Hence it must simply be said that God is not the first object of our knowledge.
-Whether the image of God is in man? St Thomas replies: There is in man a likeness to God; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect.
7. Ethics.
The question of the Summum bonum, the greatest good, the final end, meaning and purpose of life.
St Thomas replies: (here the headlines only)
-It is impossible for man’s happiness to consist in wealth.
-It is impossible for happiness to consist in honor.
-Man's happiness cannot consist of human fame and glory.
-It is impossible for happiness to consist in power.
-It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in the goods of the body or pleasure.
Whether some good of the souls constitutes man’s happiness?
-We must say that happiness is something belonging to the soul, but that which constitutes happiness is outside the soul.
Whether one can be happy in this life?
-A certain participation of Happiness can be had in this life, but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life.
-Of the Theological Virtues. Man is perfected by virtue, for those actions whereby he is directed to happiness. It is the oldest truism of this world: if you are good, you will be happy.
-On theological virtues: The Apostle says: Now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three.
The theological virtues direct man to supernatural happiness.
-Wisdom and charity are the two greatest virtues.
-All acts of virtue are prescribed by natural law; since each one’s reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously.
I wanted to read this book to complete my previous readings and knowledge, and I am not disappointed.
Even when I was often bothered by the extreme meticulous method of going into endless detail on every subject, when I thought one phrase would do, it is drawn out into three pages.
Next to the Bible, it gives the broadest possible outlook on Christian religion.
I would not recommend this book to readers who read for entertainment.
But it is a must-read for anyone interested in Theological Philosophy.
October 19, 2018
I may never be theologically or intellectually ready to tackle the full masterpiece that is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (since, after all, it's 5 volumes, around 3,000 pages total, in a fairly dense 12th Century writing style), but happily Peter Kreeft came to my rescue with this 532 page
"Summa of the Summa".
It's the kind of title that draws confused stares if you read it while dining alone in a restaurant, but this book was a richer feast than anything on the menu. Editor Peter Kreeft has basically assembled what are, in his view, some key sections from the Summa, and arranged them by topic. So you get the actual text of the Summa, with the very helpful addition of Kreeft's annotations; sort of like a private workshop, with Peter Kreeft as your well-qualified tutor.
Even in this "brief" version, the Summa demands careful, slow, and thoughtful reading. It is a philosophical master class, with the brilliance of Aquinas' intellect and theological insight set forth in the format of a Medieval formal logical argument (think "1st Article, Objection 1, Objection 2, Reply to Objection 1, Reply to Objection 2", etc.). Much like finding yourself in the middle of a honors debate team tournament, but well worth the effort.
If you've ever been curious about the Summa, and needed a simpler avenue of entry than tackling the full work, this would be a good recommendation. Kreeft has done a fine job with this, and his copious footnotes are filled with clarity, wisdom, much insight, and just the right touch of humor now and then. It's a bit like mountain-climbing, the Summa -- there are some steep passages, but the view and journey are worth it!
"Summa of the Summa".
It's the kind of title that draws confused stares if you read it while dining alone in a restaurant, but this book was a richer feast than anything on the menu. Editor Peter Kreeft has basically assembled what are, in his view, some key sections from the Summa, and arranged them by topic. So you get the actual text of the Summa, with the very helpful addition of Kreeft's annotations; sort of like a private workshop, with Peter Kreeft as your well-qualified tutor.
Even in this "brief" version, the Summa demands careful, slow, and thoughtful reading. It is a philosophical master class, with the brilliance of Aquinas' intellect and theological insight set forth in the format of a Medieval formal logical argument (think "1st Article, Objection 1, Objection 2, Reply to Objection 1, Reply to Objection 2", etc.). Much like finding yourself in the middle of a honors debate team tournament, but well worth the effort.
If you've ever been curious about the Summa, and needed a simpler avenue of entry than tackling the full work, this would be a good recommendation. Kreeft has done a fine job with this, and his copious footnotes are filled with clarity, wisdom, much insight, and just the right touch of humor now and then. It's a bit like mountain-climbing, the Summa -- there are some steep passages, but the view and journey are worth it!
February 28, 2016
Kreeft did an okay job, given his aims. Usually when people give an abridgment or a summary of a major thinker, they cut out all of the necessary passages and/or highlight the abridger's pet doctrines. Kreeft does a good job in avoiding that (though he is not entirely flawless as I will try to demonstrate).
Kreeft's method is to devote 75% of the page to essential passages from St Thomas. Kreeft's footnotes provide a running commentary.
Pros: Kreeft does a good and brief summary of medieval thought and gives a glossary of essential terms that must be mastered if one is to understand medieval philosophy. Many of Kreeft's footnotes are priceless and one could easily teach a course on medieval philosophy and/or apologetics using this book.
Cons: Kreeft doesn't fully understand Calvinism. Yes, there are hyper-Calvinists to whom Kreeft's comments apply. (As a Calvinist I agreed with St Thomas on "Free Will."). Also, Kreeft did not interact with Henri Cardinal de Lubac on "Natural and the Supernatural." Given that this is a screaming debate in Thomist circles whose waves are still be felt (ala John Milbank), this omission is rather curious.
Kreeft's method is to devote 75% of the page to essential passages from St Thomas. Kreeft's footnotes provide a running commentary.
Pros: Kreeft does a good and brief summary of medieval thought and gives a glossary of essential terms that must be mastered if one is to understand medieval philosophy. Many of Kreeft's footnotes are priceless and one could easily teach a course on medieval philosophy and/or apologetics using this book.
Cons: Kreeft doesn't fully understand Calvinism. Yes, there are hyper-Calvinists to whom Kreeft's comments apply. (As a Calvinist I agreed with St Thomas on "Free Will."). Also, Kreeft did not interact with Henri Cardinal de Lubac on "Natural and the Supernatural." Given that this is a screaming debate in Thomist circles whose waves are still be felt (ala John Milbank), this omission is rather curious.
August 31, 2012
Finally made it through this book I have owned for probably 20 years. Thomas is difficult for us moderns to understand. I read several books about Thomism that explained the terms and definitions which made it possible to get through this book. The best one being Aquinas: a Beginners Guide by Edward Feser. Still, it is satisfying to read Thomas's own words and understand them with the help of Kreeft's excellent footnotes.
December 7, 2011
This is a very important book. I found it extremely challenging to read. The Summa was written over 700 years ago, in Latin, so the English form reprinted here in Kreeft's book is a word for word translation of a bygone philosophical style of writing. The Summa is also written in a precise formula, broken down into Books, Questions, Articles, Objections, A Contrarian summary, A detailed answer, and refutations to each objection. There is no deviation from this format, but the philosophy constantly pokes through. You can trace a direct line in philosophical truth from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas, and Aquinas underpins nearly every main Church teaching on morality today. Kreeft does a great service here in just presenting large chunks of the Summa as is, and then annotating the text with his comments, observations, and further explanations in footnotes. If you read only the footnotes, you would still have a great course in philosophy. The Summa is 3,000+ pages, and this book is 532, so there was a lot of material left out, and the front half of the book is loaded with small philosophical building blocks that tediously build upon each other and take a long time to amount to any recognizeable teachings. But when the teachings come, they are built on a rock solid foundation and are irrefutable (although they are refuted today in the way most people just ignore them). I guess I'm reviewing two works, the Summa and Kreeft's notes on the Summa. The greatness of the sampling of the Summa presented in this book is difficult to overstate. The Summa is everywhere in Church teaching, it is a polished lens through which to read the Bible to ascertain its meaning. But Kreeft's additions are great too, funny, helpful, and concise. This is challenging stuff, and I doubt that as much 1% of it sunk into my head, but it's well worth the read.
August 16, 2022
This was a great selection of Aquinas’ magisterial Summa Theologica. I read a few of the full articles that were majorly cut down by Kreeft, and his selections were always to the core of the question and answer. Kreeft’s footnotes were also very helpful and explanatory, but there were a few straw-mans of Protestants, especially of Calvin(ism). That and a number of punctuation mistakes were the only things I minded.
April 12, 2023
I really appreciate what Aquinas did with this book, but man was it hard to read. I need an Aquinas for Dummies book 😅. Probably won't reread this.
February 5, 2024
This book is brilliant. Dr Kreeft’s annotations really do help but St Thomas is remarkably clear and concrete in even the more abstract parts of his summa.
Don’t be daunted by the thought of Thomistic philosophy and don’t be daunted by reading about it directly from St Thomas, you will not regret it.
I will definitely be reading this over and over again as there is so much meaning packed into each article. Truly amazing.
Don’t be daunted by the thought of Thomistic philosophy and don’t be daunted by reading about it directly from St Thomas, you will not regret it.
I will definitely be reading this over and over again as there is so much meaning packed into each article. Truly amazing.
October 1, 2018
I've always liked the idea of reading Aquinas but seriously, the Summa Theologica is like a million pages long. Still, he's one of the most influential minds in history. So I've read secondary works and summaries and such. When I discovered this book, I thought it was perfect - someone had summarized the Summa!
It is pretty good. Know in advance, this summary omits pretty much all the theology. In this, it is essentially a philosophy textbook. Perhaps it was designed for use in philosophy class. So we jump right from God to will and morals and ethics. Any discussion special revelation or the trinity or salvation or church is gone. I think had I known that I still would have read it. But I'd have liked to read Thomas on those subjects too (unless there is another Summa of the Summa that goes into these points?).
Along with that, this book is still pretty deep. Like I said, it is designed for an undergrad philosophy class. In this it is quite good. I enjoyed getting a better understanding of Aquinas in his own words. Part of Aquinas is the tediousness, the medieval scholastic style. Though this is edited, it keeps enough of that style to give you a flavor for how Aquinas wrote.
Overall then, this is a good book for any interested in theology and philosophy as well as church history. I do still wonder if there is a book like this one, perhaps that edits Aquinas a little more heavily and includes his thoughts on theology. Perhaps my 3 starts, and not 4, is a hint of bitterness that I thought I was getting that sort of book.
At the same time, I read this as part of my "spiritual masters" reading where I read Christian classics. When I say this is philosophy, its still medieval philosophy. God appears on nearly every page! So if you like reading spiritual classics, this is a good one to read a few pages each morning especially as the chapters are very short!
It is pretty good. Know in advance, this summary omits pretty much all the theology. In this, it is essentially a philosophy textbook. Perhaps it was designed for use in philosophy class. So we jump right from God to will and morals and ethics. Any discussion special revelation or the trinity or salvation or church is gone. I think had I known that I still would have read it. But I'd have liked to read Thomas on those subjects too (unless there is another Summa of the Summa that goes into these points?).
Along with that, this book is still pretty deep. Like I said, it is designed for an undergrad philosophy class. In this it is quite good. I enjoyed getting a better understanding of Aquinas in his own words. Part of Aquinas is the tediousness, the medieval scholastic style. Though this is edited, it keeps enough of that style to give you a flavor for how Aquinas wrote.
Overall then, this is a good book for any interested in theology and philosophy as well as church history. I do still wonder if there is a book like this one, perhaps that edits Aquinas a little more heavily and includes his thoughts on theology. Perhaps my 3 starts, and not 4, is a hint of bitterness that I thought I was getting that sort of book.
At the same time, I read this as part of my "spiritual masters" reading where I read Christian classics. When I say this is philosophy, its still medieval philosophy. God appears on nearly every page! So if you like reading spiritual classics, this is a good one to read a few pages each morning especially as the chapters are very short!
July 24, 2010
An arduous read. This book is a summery of Aquinas's Trilogy of Theology and is certainly not a light read. It's a suitable attempt to bring the academic work of Aquinas down to the laymen. It's full of questions that Aquinas attempts to answer. Some questions I found interesting like "Whether the Will of God is changeable" or "Whether God wills evils" and not so interesting questions like "Whether the soul is composed of matter and form" or "Whether the Will is a higher power than the intellect." Now these questions were very important in the day but maybe a bit dry for the average reader. I would say that half of the book was interesting but I could have done without about a full third of the topics offered in this 532 page tome. I would not have picked this book to read on my own but I had to read it as part of a theology discussion group at a local pub. That helped make it more enjoyable.
April 18, 2013
I wish I was smarter because this book had so much more wisdom than I was able to handle.
April 22, 2013
I read a portion of this book as a reference for a philosophy project, and I ended up reading the rest of the book too! A deeply insightful guide into St. Thomas Aquinas' masterpiece.
March 6, 2023
An accessible introduction to the summa theologica.
Read
May 13, 2019Worth reading, even too quickly.
June 12, 2019
Magnificent. I still don't think Kreeft understands Calvinism.
Read
June 7, 2024Seemed like the best option for logging reading excerpts from the Summa for 16 weeks.
Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Catholic church and second only Augustine in being cited within the CCC, had a far more radical life than his institutional status would have you think. The Dominican Order, founded just 20 years before his birth, were radicals, religious extremists of their day who swore oaths of poverty, mendicants as they traveled and preached. Famously his parents kidnapped him to prevent Aquinas from joining their order, the rich family having previously hoped he would take over the Benedictine monastery that controlled large swaths of land. Radical also is how his theology "baptized Aristotle" within a church that previous expressed itself off of a Neoplatonic philosophical foundation. Aristotle had been unavailable in the Western church for centuries, lost in the Dark Ages but preserved in the Islamic Golden Age. Translations from these works and Ibn Rushd's commentaries on them is how Aquinas learned Aristotle, as well as through his mentor Albus the Great. Often cited within the pages of the Summa is also the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, along with the myriad of Christian sources. Aquinas was condemned by several bishops within his lifetime and again within 3 years of his death, and yet 50 years later he's canonized as a saint and features in glory in the Divine Comedy.
Aquinas's theology is not just influential with the Council of Trent's "Catholic" tradition, but also within the Reformed tradition, his influence is obvious from Calvin, Vermigili, Bullinger, all the way to modernity. That the Reformed tradition disagrees with him on a number of points is obvious, but so too does the Catholic church and modern Thomists, as his interpretation of Aristotle's anthropology leads to denials of the Immaculate Conception and delayed ensoulment until around 40 days after conception, among many other disagreements. There are times where he seemingly goes against his own principles in application in order to affirm the common wisdom of the powers that be of his age, whether it's burning the heretics or thinking prostitution is necessary for the maintenance of the fabric of society. And as a general rule, having celibates drive theology for 1500 years led to some strange places.
I came across the Catherine project, which is free, through someone I follow on twitter and I decided to try it out. I applied for classes on Gilgamesh, Plato, and this, and I got the email back for this. We did a 2 hour weekly zoom call to discuss the reading for the week. Since I do not have an institutional commitment to agree or disagree with Aquinas on any given subject, it was at times entertaining to see others that do have those commitments struggle with some of those I previously mentioned. But with that said, I want to be clear that I really do think engaging with and thinking with Aquinas was productive. Both because there is a lot of great stuff to learn, and to become familiar with a system of language of terms, and watch that build out and apply itself to different concepts in a systematic way.
Growing up Protestant you often hear a caricature of Catholic beliefs, and while Catholics don't explicitly tie themselves to a set a metaphysical definitions as dogma, some of the caricaturizing of doctrines such as transubstantiation sounds much different when you learn about just what Aquinas means by Substance and Accidents and such (though I still don't agree with the doctrine for other issues). I loved the way hylomorphic dualism, which applied to the body what makes you a human being, is not just your soul (the Form of the body) driving a meaningless husk, but embodiment being an essential part of being human, which aligns with a doctrine of the Resurrection. That Neoplatonic theology led at times to various gnostic heresies with a lower view of embodiment and the material world, may be a mistake in not recognizing how the (Stoic, Platonic) philosophies once viewed the Pneuma as in some way material, but that is not how it was thought of in the middle ages, comparable to how modern conceptions of the soul in our post Cartesian world hardly resembles how the "Anima" was thought of then. But yes building up the basics, actuality vs potentiality, being, essence ≅ nature ≅ form, form + matter = noun, agents and actuality, for some reason the translations using suppositum instead of hypostasis (though I guess i would rather see essence than ousia), and on and on. It was nice to read through the classical theism definitions more closes, and then the 5 ways were fine though I'm generally annoyed how they're used in the mostly fake field of modern apologetics. I would disagree with him pretty intermittently with Aquinas and probably most strongly on some of his understanding of the purpose of the Jewish Ritual Purity system, and generally a lot of his Old Law / New Law language. But what do you expect for Medieval supersessionism I suppose. I liked his Doctrine of (Eternal, Human, Natural, Divine) Law overall, though again his applications were sometimes insane.
That Aquinas misapplied his own principles in the few examples he gave is a bit of a testament to the difficulty in fallen humans recognizing what is prescribed by Natural Law, and why I maintain a suspicion of it, though not perhaps to quite the extremity of a Kierkegaard or a Barth. "Nature is fundamentally good" is a true but confusing statement in a world with a fallen, deformed nature, and it can be hard to see how the modern world can attest to our our ability to distinguish those unfallen aspects, to the effect of increased knowledge of nature properly, increasing moral behavior. Also this is a funny criticism of Aristotle/Aquinas https://x.com/duns_sc0tus/status/1608...
Learned a lot in the class and I enjoyed it.
[First part]
Week 1: Prologue, Question 1; Question 2
Week 2: Question 3, Articles 1—4; Question 4
Week 3: Question 6, Articles 1—2; Question 7, Article 1; Question 8, Articles 1, 3; Question 9, Article 1; Question 11, Articles 3, 4
Week 4: Question 12, Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 11–13; Question 13, Articles 1–5, 11–12
Week 5: Question 15; Question 16
[First part of the second part]
Week 6: Question 27; Question 28, Articles 1-3; Question 29, 1, 3, 4;
Week 7: Question 30; Question 31
Week 8: Question 55, Question 56; Question 57; Question 71
Week 9: Question 90; Question 91, Articles 1–5; Question 93, Articles 1–3
Week 10: Question 93, Articles 5, 6; Question 94; Question 95, Articles 1, 2; Question 96, Articles 2–6
Week 11: Question 97, Articles 1–3; Question 100, Articles 1–3, 9, 10, 12; Question 106
Week 12: Question 108; Question 109
[Second part of the second part]
Week 13: Question 1, Question 2
Week 14: Question 10
Week 15: Question 23
[Third part]
Week 16: Question 1
Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Catholic church and second only Augustine in being cited within the CCC, had a far more radical life than his institutional status would have you think. The Dominican Order, founded just 20 years before his birth, were radicals, religious extremists of their day who swore oaths of poverty, mendicants as they traveled and preached. Famously his parents kidnapped him to prevent Aquinas from joining their order, the rich family having previously hoped he would take over the Benedictine monastery that controlled large swaths of land. Radical also is how his theology "baptized Aristotle" within a church that previous expressed itself off of a Neoplatonic philosophical foundation. Aristotle had been unavailable in the Western church for centuries, lost in the Dark Ages but preserved in the Islamic Golden Age. Translations from these works and Ibn Rushd's commentaries on them is how Aquinas learned Aristotle, as well as through his mentor Albus the Great. Often cited within the pages of the Summa is also the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, along with the myriad of Christian sources. Aquinas was condemned by several bishops within his lifetime and again within 3 years of his death, and yet 50 years later he's canonized as a saint and features in glory in the Divine Comedy.
Aquinas's theology is not just influential with the Council of Trent's "Catholic" tradition, but also within the Reformed tradition, his influence is obvious from Calvin, Vermigili, Bullinger, all the way to modernity. That the Reformed tradition disagrees with him on a number of points is obvious, but so too does the Catholic church and modern Thomists, as his interpretation of Aristotle's anthropology leads to denials of the Immaculate Conception and delayed ensoulment until around 40 days after conception, among many other disagreements. There are times where he seemingly goes against his own principles in application in order to affirm the common wisdom of the powers that be of his age, whether it's burning the heretics or thinking prostitution is necessary for the maintenance of the fabric of society. And as a general rule, having celibates drive theology for 1500 years led to some strange places.
I came across the Catherine project, which is free, through someone I follow on twitter and I decided to try it out. I applied for classes on Gilgamesh, Plato, and this, and I got the email back for this. We did a 2 hour weekly zoom call to discuss the reading for the week. Since I do not have an institutional commitment to agree or disagree with Aquinas on any given subject, it was at times entertaining to see others that do have those commitments struggle with some of those I previously mentioned. But with that said, I want to be clear that I really do think engaging with and thinking with Aquinas was productive. Both because there is a lot of great stuff to learn, and to become familiar with a system of language of terms, and watch that build out and apply itself to different concepts in a systematic way.
Growing up Protestant you often hear a caricature of Catholic beliefs, and while Catholics don't explicitly tie themselves to a set a metaphysical definitions as dogma, some of the caricaturizing of doctrines such as transubstantiation sounds much different when you learn about just what Aquinas means by Substance and Accidents and such (though I still don't agree with the doctrine for other issues). I loved the way hylomorphic dualism, which applied to the body what makes you a human being, is not just your soul (the Form of the body) driving a meaningless husk, but embodiment being an essential part of being human, which aligns with a doctrine of the Resurrection. That Neoplatonic theology led at times to various gnostic heresies with a lower view of embodiment and the material world, may be a mistake in not recognizing how the (Stoic, Platonic) philosophies once viewed the Pneuma as in some way material, but that is not how it was thought of in the middle ages, comparable to how modern conceptions of the soul in our post Cartesian world hardly resembles how the "Anima" was thought of then. But yes building up the basics, actuality vs potentiality, being, essence ≅ nature ≅ form, form + matter = noun, agents and actuality, for some reason the translations using suppositum instead of hypostasis (though I guess i would rather see essence than ousia), and on and on. It was nice to read through the classical theism definitions more closes, and then the 5 ways were fine though I'm generally annoyed how they're used in the mostly fake field of modern apologetics. I would disagree with him pretty intermittently with Aquinas and probably most strongly on some of his understanding of the purpose of the Jewish Ritual Purity system, and generally a lot of his Old Law / New Law language. But what do you expect for Medieval supersessionism I suppose. I liked his Doctrine of (Eternal, Human, Natural, Divine) Law overall, though again his applications were sometimes insane.
That Aquinas misapplied his own principles in the few examples he gave is a bit of a testament to the difficulty in fallen humans recognizing what is prescribed by Natural Law, and why I maintain a suspicion of it, though not perhaps to quite the extremity of a Kierkegaard or a Barth. "Nature is fundamentally good" is a true but confusing statement in a world with a fallen, deformed nature, and it can be hard to see how the modern world can attest to our our ability to distinguish those unfallen aspects, to the effect of increased knowledge of nature properly, increasing moral behavior. Also this is a funny criticism of Aristotle/Aquinas https://x.com/duns_sc0tus/status/1608...
Learned a lot in the class and I enjoyed it.
[First part]
Week 1: Prologue, Question 1; Question 2
Week 2: Question 3, Articles 1—4; Question 4
Week 3: Question 6, Articles 1—2; Question 7, Article 1; Question 8, Articles 1, 3; Question 9, Article 1; Question 11, Articles 3, 4
Week 4: Question 12, Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 11–13; Question 13, Articles 1–5, 11–12
Week 5: Question 15; Question 16
[First part of the second part]
Week 6: Question 27; Question 28, Articles 1-3; Question 29, 1, 3, 4;
Week 7: Question 30; Question 31
Week 8: Question 55, Question 56; Question 57; Question 71
Week 9: Question 90; Question 91, Articles 1–5; Question 93, Articles 1–3
Week 10: Question 93, Articles 5, 6; Question 94; Question 95, Articles 1, 2; Question 96, Articles 2–6
Week 11: Question 97, Articles 1–3; Question 100, Articles 1–3, 9, 10, 12; Question 106
Week 12: Question 108; Question 109
[Second part of the second part]
Week 13: Question 1, Question 2
Week 14: Question 10
Week 15: Question 23
[Third part]
Week 16: Question 1
March 4, 2019
Suddenly the ancient edifice collapsed, and European civilization lay in ruins. It began again when the Church healed the strife of factions with the mystic authority of the Word and brought men back from the battlefield to the settled life. The emperors passed, the popes remained. The legions marched no longer, but the monks and missionaries of the rising Faith created quietly a new order in which thought could grow once more. How long and dreary was that second adolescence of the conscious European mind! Even today we are so precariously established in enlightenment that we can yet feel, as if in memory, the fearful groping of those many years.
Another Aristotle came. St. Thomas of Aquin, a man who took the universe for his specialty, and flung a frail bridge of reason across the chasms between knowledge and belief. What Dante did to the hopes and fears of the Catholic Renaissance, Aquinas did for thought: unifying knowledge, interpreting it, and focusing it all upon the great problems of life and death. The world does not follow him now, preferring a doubting Thomas to a dogmatic one, but there was a time when every intellect honored the angelic doctor, and every philosophy took his gigantic summa as its premises. We may not love him as we love the rebels and martyrs of philosophy, but because of his modest supremacy in a great century, and his vast influence upon millions of mankind, we might make a place for him in our let me thought.
Another Aristotle came. St. Thomas of Aquin, a man who took the universe for his specialty, and flung a frail bridge of reason across the chasms between knowledge and belief. What Dante did to the hopes and fears of the Catholic Renaissance, Aquinas did for thought: unifying knowledge, interpreting it, and focusing it all upon the great problems of life and death. The world does not follow him now, preferring a doubting Thomas to a dogmatic one, but there was a time when every intellect honored the angelic doctor, and every philosophy took his gigantic summa as its premises. We may not love him as we love the rebels and martyrs of philosophy, but because of his modest supremacy in a great century, and his vast influence upon millions of mankind, we might make a place for him in our let me thought.
January 17, 2016
A summary of a summary sounds lazy, but it's still over 500 pages - hardly a condensed book.
Other than priests-in-training, almost nobody will read St. Thomas' original Summa Theologica at 3,500 pages. The reading isn't hard (it was intended for a "mass" audience in the 1200s), just voluminous. Peter Kreeft didn't attempt to actually summarize all of the original, but to excerpt and footnote the highlights.
Each excerpt is the full discussion of one of St. Thomas' questions about Catholic theology, such ethics, the nature of God, Epistemology, and creation. I can't fathom what was left out.
I see the importance of this book as a mass-market way to bring logic to the Catholic faith. It succeeds.
Other than priests-in-training, almost nobody will read St. Thomas' original Summa Theologica at 3,500 pages. The reading isn't hard (it was intended for a "mass" audience in the 1200s), just voluminous. Peter Kreeft didn't attempt to actually summarize all of the original, but to excerpt and footnote the highlights.
Each excerpt is the full discussion of one of St. Thomas' questions about Catholic theology, such ethics, the nature of God, Epistemology, and creation. I can't fathom what was left out.
I see the importance of this book as a mass-market way to bring logic to the Catholic faith. It succeeds.
December 28, 2016
Was forced to read this for an intro to Philosophy class, best homework I ever did. The passage is short, but if it resonates with you, it will, like it did with me completely change your views on religion and the idea of God. Even though it is nothing anyone would go out of their way to read unless they were on a Philosophy assignment or trying to sound smart, this along with Confucius's Analects are the pieces I recommend all to read. To this day reading this remains in my list of top 10 college experiences, and makes for an awesome debate or party story.
November 13, 2012
Book 71 2012 Reading Challenge- Peter Kreft teaches a course on Aquinas, and has written a variety of books on religion. Summa means summary, and this book is a summary of Aquinas' summary. Aquinas' work is 3000 pages long; this book a bit over 500. A large part of the book deals with the nature of God. Excellent footnotes. Interesting the book like Sheer Joy is presented in question/answer format. Both Aquinas' position and the opponents positions are presented. Skimmed.
December 18, 2009
Peter Kreetf's footnotes are we worth the cost of the book. He writes in the books introduction that part of the process of reading Aquinas is being a little confused at first and working though it. The only issue with this book is that it really only represents one part (first part of the second part) of the Thomist text.
January 16, 2015
Kreeft is an excellent guide to Saint Thomas. In order to read Thomas his aristotelianism and the changes he introduced into it must be understood. Many of the caricatures of the 5 ways for God's existence stem from a complete misreading of the metaphysical system of Thomism. Kreeft remedies many of these misunderstandings.
September 19, 2014
Kreeft's selections and notes are very helpful, and this is an accessible way to get at Thomas's work. I did lament the lack of explicitly theological material, but Kreeft's a philosopher, so it's to be expected.
September 29, 2016
The structure is refreshing and kind to the reader, which is needed since the subject matter is essentially difficult. While I admire Aquinas' thoroughness, I did not appreciate his apathetic response to the human experience.
Currently reading
September 17, 2007One of the most important theologians of the West...the techincal Aristotelian terms are a challenge for me, but there's a pleasure in finally breaking through to an understanding of his writing.
April 22, 2008
I find St Thomas's language quite dense at times but the sheer common sense of so much of what he writes is palpable.
December 4, 2009
I can tell that it is going to take a LONG time to get through this booK! But I also think it will be well worth the effort. I'm growing very fond of St. Thomas.
Want to read
January 2, 2009Per Rob's suggestion. Talking about this book made my mind feel exercised. I loved it! Hopefully I will love the book.
January 29, 2009
Very technical and one of the few offerings of kreeft I didn't enjoy, although it would make an excellent reference book
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews