2

What is the relationship and/or opposition between Aquinas' writings and Magisterium? That is, what can generally be said about using Aquinas to explain doctrine?

Or contrarily, does Aquinas stand in opposition to Magisterium such that his works cannot generally be used to explain or refine statements found in encyclicals?

This question: Are Catholics required to accept every article of Aquinas's «Summa Theologica»? does NOT answer my question. That question is about whether all parts of the Summa must be accepted (which is not quite but similar to "are all parts of the Summa magisterial?"). The answer was determined to be no and while the answers include substantial information around Aquinas', it doesn't answer what weight Aquinas has in relation to magisterial statements. i.e. In what case if any is the argument "that's substituting Aquinas for the Magisterium" reasonable or correct?

eques
  • 3,099
  • 11
  • 19
  • I don't want to mod-hammer close this question (and I didn't DV fwiw) but have you looked at https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50210/are-catholics-required-to-accept-every-article-of-aquinass-summa-theologica? I'm guessing a downvote is for lack of meat in the question – Peter Turner Oct 04 '21 at 13:42
  • That's not the same concept I'm getting at. That one is similar to "does Catholic magisterium include all of the Summa?" and I'm more asking "Does an opposition or concord exist between Aquinas and the Magisterium?" Namely because I've been accused of using Aquinas in place of the Magisterium. – eques Oct 04 '21 at 13:45
  • Asking about the concord or discord between Aquinas and the magisterium with regard to a particular doctrine would make this question better. Aquinas is in accord with the magisterium on most doctrines, but discordant on an important few. – jaredad7 Oct 04 '21 at 13:48
  • The answer to the other question would answer part of your question if it covered all the levels of obedience that Catholics need to or ought to or can pay to various sources of doctrine. At least someone could deduce where Aquinas stands in relation to the magisterium. – Peter Turner Oct 04 '21 at 13:50
  • @jaredad7 but the point is not about any particular doctrine. Specifically, I'm attempting to counter the general claim about "substituting Aquinas for Magisterium" which yes, could be a valid point for the points where he disagrees with Magisterium as established now, but is not necessarily a valid general point. – eques Oct 04 '21 at 13:55
  • @PeterTurner the answers to that question while they conclude not every article of the Summa must be accepted and provide a lot of ancillary information about critiques often used to dismiss Aquinas, doesn't really define to what extent Aquinas 's theological explanations can be used to support Magisterium – eques Oct 04 '21 at 13:59
  • 1
    @PeterTurner also eques: I have been meaning to ask a question similar to this, to confirm whether there is a certain hierarchy / priority. Example: is it right that when there is an explicit teaching in the Catechism / encyclical / church documents / other promulgated docs to all bishops then those take precedence? That Aquinas, being one of the Doctors, qualifies his writings to be consulted when those documents don't explicitly address an issue and when there's a conflict, the documents trump the Summa? Is that hierarchical usage the established practice of the Catholic Church? – GratefulDisciple Oct 04 '21 at 15:42
  • 1
    @GratefulDisciple this answer explains the hierarchy https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/54918/4 in relation to submission, but not in precedence for consultation. But, if you had to do a OG google page rank on recent encyclicals and documents it seems like they have really liked referencing Vatican II and Vatican I documents followed by other encyclicals less than 50 years old. Aquinas is referenced here WAY more than in anything I've ever read from the Vatican. – Peter Turner Oct 04 '21 at 15:57
  • @PeterTurner the ability to deduce is not tantamount to an answer. I can deduce the personhood of the Holy Spirit from Scripture, but that doesn't mean it's not meaningful to outline an explanation. Similarly I'm not looking for what parts of Aquinas are magisterial nor even what "rank" does Aquinas or the doctors have in comparison to magisterial, but more in what way to they complement or oppose each other? – eques Oct 04 '21 at 21:22
  • 1
    @eques in some cases, the magisterium points to Aquinas for support of a doctrine. In other cases, his points contradict the magisterial conclusions, so I don't think it makes sense to speak broadly of "replacing" the magisterium with Aquinas. There are many, many cases wherein Aquinas is cited in magisterial documents, probably second in frequency only to scripture. Unless you are discussing a particular doctrine where Aquinas and the magisterium are known to disagree, relying on Aquinas for your theological information is a safe bet. – jaredad7 Oct 05 '21 at 13:52
  • By the way, I flagged this for you and made a note that the linked answer clearly does not address your question. I'm not sure why the mods decided to tag it that way. – jaredad7 Oct 05 '21 at 14:09
  • @eques Geremia closed the question by virtue of his golden Catholic dupe-killer badge, I can unclose it, but I would appreciate acknowledging that there might be some overlap, we're not entirely wrong in saying you're just rephrasing the other question. Maybe you could make this question about scholasticism in general? I think that would be a more interesting question. Why would individual Bishops or a body of them consider Aquinas authoritative if they reject scholasticism in the first place? – Peter Turner Oct 05 '21 at 14:35
  • @PeterTurner I'm not asking about scholasticism in general that's also not what I'm getting at and surely there are already questions around that here too. I did update the question to include why that other question is not an exact duplicate – eques Oct 05 '21 at 14:37
  • OK, I gotcha, I might go ask that question about scholasticism. But what "part of Aquinas" are you talking about? The Summa? Some random thoughts he scribbled down in the margin of his breviary (if you'll excuse the anachronism)? Why would St. Thomas Aquinas be more authoritative than St. Alphonsus Ligouri or another doctor of the Church? – Peter Turner Oct 05 '21 at 14:42
  • @PeterTurner Aquinas more generally than the Summa (not as far as margin notes in his breviary) given that he also wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles, and various commentaries (on the Sentences, parts of Scripture, etc) which are also theologically deep and insightful. Comparing to other doctors would be an interesting but likely distinct question. Alphonsus for example was upheld by the Vatican to have quasi-infallibility when in comes to the confessional (or similar high remarks) – eques Oct 05 '21 at 14:50

1 Answers1

1

Generally, the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas are considered by the Catholic Church to be second only to those writings contained in the canon of Sacred Scripture. Given this, much attention ought to be paid to what he has written on every point of theology. His theological writing has guided the Church in the development of doctrine since the middle ages.

Where the Magisterium departs from Aquinas, we ought to assent to what the Magisterium says, as the Church, and not Aquinas, is guaranteed to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit, according to the words of Christ. However, we should try to understand why the Magisterium has departed from Aquinas whenever she does, as such an exercise can only assist us in growing in wisdom and understanding of the faith.

On matters for which the Magisterium has not made official pronouncements, it is safe to believe the same thing any Doctor of the Church has said, whether they are Aquinas or another Doctor. But, you are under no obligation to believe the same things as them unless the Church has said you must. Although you are under no obligation, if you will disagree with them, you ought to be able to explain why.

jaredad7
  • 3,692
  • 1
  • 14
  • 41