Summa Theologica: Prima Pars: Question 1: Article 1

One of my goals is to improve my comprehensive understanding of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. In order to satisfy this desire, I am currently reading the Summa Theologica and trying to summarize each section. One of the best ways to understand is to articulate insights into one’s own words. This requires the mind to process, interpret, assimilate the insights available in the data, and express the concepts in familiar vocabulary. I will provide my personal summaries of this foundational theological work as a wade through the text in my free time.

One of the beautiful things about the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas is the consistency of his systematic theology. Each part of this work interrelates to the whole constructing a holistic worldview. One of the main dangers of splitting up the Summa Theologica into many different posts over a long period of time is that I fragment the cohesiveness of this work in the process. Nevertheless, I think this is a feat worth struggling to accomplish.

To those few or non-existent readers that may stumble upon these entries, realize that I am an amateur in these matters. I do this out of love of God and my spiritual father, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor. I cannot ignore competing philosophical systems and worldviews that have developed since the time of Aquinas. These actually create the case for why we need to translate Aquinas into the modern context. Therefore, my summaries may also try to address possible modern objections that I have experienced in my own thought and against the Thomistic tradition. If I fail in some grave or obvious way, I hope that I will humbly accept the correction of others.

Prima Pars (First Part)
Sacred Doctrine
Question 1: The nature and extent of Sacred Doctrine
Article 1: Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Philosophy seeks to understand reality by using practical and speculative reason to interpret the evidence available through the senses. On one hand, it would seem that philosophical science contains all possible knowledge. Many people rule out the possibility of theological knowledge in principle because such knowledge does not to lend itself to be justified according to rational reflection on sense data. Namely, sacred doctrine as theology refers to knowledge directly revealed by God and this type of knowledge is beyond the physical world and grasp of reason.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle identified a type of divine science, which the power of reason encompasses. Using experiences of causality and motion Aristotle concluded that a prime mover or uncaused cause accounted for the temporal sequence of events. At best this type of divine science identifies some kind of impersonal deity but this does not begin describe the God of Christianity or refer to knowledge only known by a revelation from God.

Philosophy studies all that has existence, also known as being. It would seem that if God exists, philosophy would have to deal with God as a part of philosophic science thus making theology another branch of science subsumed under philosophy. However, the philosophic science can only deal with insights of natural reason and cannot take into account any truth beyond the immediate grasp of reason. Sacred doctrine is primarily concerned with what God has revealed to humanity and not merely the efforts of human reason alone. “All Scripture, inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (2 Timothy 3:16). If the truth of man’s end is beyond the grasp of reason then some other knowledge besides that of philosophic science must aid man in understanding this end.

It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason (ST; Prima Pars; Question 1; Article 1).

All things act towards a particular end. Similarly, humans are acting towards an end as well. Even though knowledge of this end exceeds the capacity of reason to grasp, humans must know this end in order to direct their activity towards it. Within this context some kind of knowledge revealed by God becomes necessary for salvation. Without divine revelation, humans have no possibility of knowing what they ought to do. In this way, sacred doctrine becomes very practical. It is important that all humans understand their proper end and divine revelation insures that errors do not occur by distortions of faulty reasoning. Sacred doctrine is for the sake of salvation. The discussion so far only speaks to the need of sacred doctrine and not its validity as a science.