St. Thomas’s proemium to the Summa theologiae gives the form and purpose of his thought, and it serves as a good summary of subsequent thomism and even scholasticism in general:
We have considered that students in this doctrine [theology] have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers.
Endeavouring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by God’s help, to set forth whatever is included in this sacred doctrine as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.
So does St. Thomas want his Summa to replace previous books, or does he want it to be a road map and brief summary of other texts? At first glance, it seems he wants to get rid of the practice of giving students source texts and give them only the Summa, but St. Thomas only tells us that beginners are put off by the many opinions they encounter- he doesn’t tell us if it’s simply part of being a beginner of theology to have already struggled with a good deal of confusing and diverse opinions. It’s difficult to overstate the difference the difference between wanting to replace the many books of diverse and confusing opinions and wanting to be a guide to them: in the latter way of seeing the Summa, St. Thomas is addressing himself to already formed Aristotelians and Augustinians and is giving them a summary, clarification, and way to understand the Posterior Analytics, Physics, City of God, Dispute against the Manicheans, etc. On the former view, he is addressing a college freshman whose never read theology before, and he wants them to forgo the difficult chore of sweating through difficult, repetitive, and polemical texts. On the former view, Scholasticism should come before a study of the Fathers and the Greeks, if not replace them altogether; on the latter view, scholasticism should come after a several years formation in Scripture, the Greeks, and the Fathers.
It seems clear to me that St. Thomas means the Summa to be taken as a guide that comes after a multitude of opinions that one has already struggled with- St. Thomas would never imagine that someone would study his book before they had even made a thorough study of Scripture, and there is a good deal of multiplication of arguments and polemical explications in Scripture.
One of the very sound critiques of the manual tradition in thomism is that they seemed to take the thomistic spirit of simplifying a multitude of arguments to mean that a manual should replace the multitude of difficult, conflicting, and polemical sources. Oddly enough, the manuals even seemed to replace the Summa itself! The information given in the manuals, however, requires years of reading to understand. One can’t understand the synthesis of Grenier or Gredt or Gerrigou-Lagrange without a few years of reading Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and eventually St. Thomas. Paradoxically, the manuals should be understood in the light of St. Thomas, not St. Thomas in the light of the manuals!
Breier Scheetz said,
July 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm
What is it assumed the prologue is referring to source texts? I think it very improbable St. Thomas is referring to Aristotle or the Fathers, but rather instead to some overwrought forgotten works of some of his scholastic predecesors, or just to bad classroom texts in Orvieto generally. He’s presenting a masterful Summa as opposed to previous insufficient Summas and Commentaries on the Sentences.
To your larger point however, I quite agree! The study of Sacred Doctrine presupposes a rigorous intellectual and spiritual foundation.
As for the tradition of Thomisitc commentators, a commentary, or subsequent treatise, naturally presupposes the primacy of the text commented upon.
As for later theological works, I’d shy away from the pejorative of “manuals.” I think most of the theological “manuals” available now are absolutely excellent summaries of doctrine, and also encompass great advances in theology made since the time of the Angelic doctor. All the one’s I’ve seen are copiously annotated and call you back to the source texts. I have in mind Tanquerey, Sacra Theologiae Summa, Diekamp, Billuart, etc. These things are more than simple textbooks, they’re sublime reference works! While I’d be nice for everyone to read the collected works of all the Doctors of the Church, some compromise has to be made to meet realities of teaching theology practically in a classroom. Moreover such works serve as useful summaries that are helpful for study.
Even a summary of a summary like “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ott is supremely useful.
But of course, these aids should never supplant the fontes!
Breier Scheetz said,
July 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I might also add that, ironically, one finds more positive theology (Scripture, and Patristics) in many manuals that one finds in a scholastic work. It’s a different focus than a more speculative work like the Summa. Compare St. Thomas’s Summa with St. Robert Bellarmine’s Controversies. I think one could learn an amazing amount of theological truth from the latter, but perhaps lacking some of the profundity afforded by the former.
James Chastek said,
July 9, 2009 at 6:57 pm
The critique cannot be limited to the textbooks of his day. St. Thomas is writing to rectify problems that arose from not following the scientific exposition of the subject of theology, or which arose from treating theology merely as it arose in the context of a disputation (for example, in the treatment of a book of nature or metaphysics.) This applies to Aristotle and the Fathers. Again, scholasticism didn’t arise to deal with problems in textbooks, but real problems in theological and philosophical authorities.
(I’ll admit that my claim isn’t as straightforward as I’d like it to be. It’s hard to see St. Thomas describing the Fathers or Aristotle in the language of the proemium.)
I have read many of the manuals (I limit the term to the Leonine revival texts between Vatican I+ II). I like them a good deal, but they should never have been given to students. Assuming little or no theological formation, a student is six years away from being able to profit from a manual (like Grenier, Gredt, Filion). There are exceptions to be made here (some students simply like the manual style) but as a rule, if a program insisted that students begin with a manual, or even if with St. Thomas or any scholastic author, it will distort scholasticism and lead to a backlash that will make everything worse than it was before (this backlash will come anyway, to any form of thomism, but it will be far more deadly if we teach from manuals.)
I agree that there is far more fidelity to sources in Scholastic manuals than in any other form of theological discourse.
Peeping Thomist said,
July 10, 2009 at 8:52 am
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/defending-truth
Of interest around these parts, I would imagine…