# Thomas Aquinas taught idolatry



## MichaelNZ (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't know how many of you have ever read any of Thomas Aquinas' _Summa Theologica_. It surprises me that Reformed folk actually study Aquinas when he was so much a Romanist.

Anyway, in his _Summa_, he expressly taught idolatry, even by Romish standards.

Apologetica Christiana - Christian Apologetics: Thomas Aquinas taught idolatry


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 1, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> It surprises me that Reformed folk actually study Aquinas when he was so much a Romanist.



People (Reformed and otherwise) "actually" study the works of Aquinas because the man was both brilliant and influential. His Romanism isn't studied (by Reformed folk) for purposes of emulation, but rather for understanding and to enable thoughtful interaction with "the other side."


----------



## Bruno De Lima Romano (Sep 1, 2014)

SolaScriptura said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > It surprises me that Reformed folk actually study Aquinas when he was so much a Romanist.
> ...



More on what Ben said: if Reformed folk read only Reformed folk, what you get is autophagy. We read only ourselves, we face no true criticism, no true conflict, we write only to prove what we already now, to hear what we want, and end up gnostic.

As soon as a Reformed desires to step out of the bounds to interact critically with different perspectives, Aquinas shows up as inevitable. I'm eager to read him, but haven't had a chance yet.

You see, great reformed writers like Turrettini and Rutherford had a very precise idea of what critics of their theology would say. How can we ignore that? That is why their work is so valuable. It shows Reformed theology not as something gnostic, floating above the realm of reality, but a real solid interpreation of what is true religion. It was _catholic_ in that sense, seeking to asnwer big objections, use common ground to reason, and to start from common starting points of any worthfull thought.


----------



## Justified (Sep 1, 2014)

Despite his Romanism, It's not like he has no value. In my limited reading, I've found him very useful on certain issues (e.g., analogical predication).


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 1, 2014)

Michael:

I agree with what Ben, Bruno, and Evan write above. 

So much could be said here, but I'll simply contribute this additional thought. Though we as Reformed properly disagree with Aquinas on the matters that you cite, and realize more keenly perhaps why we needed a Reformation when we read such, it is the case that Aquinas lived and wrote in the undivided church in the West (the division with the East had occurred in 1054). 

In other words, this was the church that, in a manner of speaking, we in the West were all part of at the time of Aquinas. Things like what you point out contributed to the perceived and growing need for Reformation, but we read Aquinas not only to see this, but also to understand the church of his time.

Were I alive then, I would, I assume, have been a part of the Western Church, of which Aquinas was a theologian (and in some trouble in his lifetime and especially at the end; there is some evidence that he ended up more Augustinian than he was when he wrote the _Summa_). The point is this: the Reformation had not occured, and this was the visible church that we had, such as it was, warts and all. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Sep 1, 2014)

His remark on how hope can be predicated of animals was a ray of light in a very dark time.


----------



## Bruno De Lima Romano (Sep 2, 2014)

Now, interesting enough to this post would be if someone could get though that link posted by the OP, with care, and argue that Aquinas did not teach idolatry on Romish standards. That would be a mind-blowing discussion.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 2, 2014)

py3ak said:


> His remark on how hope can be predicated of animals was a ray of light in a very dark time.



That's interesting. Do you have a link or reference for that, Ruben?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm a Baptist and I still read Calvin.

Heck, Augustine had serious ecclesiastical issues.

We take the good and discard the bad.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 2, 2014)

Sure, the section can be read here:

Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## earl40 (Sep 2, 2014)

py3ak said:


> Sure, the section can be read here:
> 
> Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library



Fido is in heaven.  Ruben this is a good way to show how an appetite has hope though I see it was ever so slight a ray of light.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Sep 2, 2014)

interesting discussion here related to this
The Immaculate Conception, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catholic Church


----------



## bookslover (Sep 2, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Were I alive then...



I'm trying to picture you in a toga, Alan...


----------



## MichaelNZ (Sep 12, 2014)

Yes, I can understand not only reading Reformed folk. Augustine has some great stuff on predestination. I suppose with Aquinas you sort of eat the meat and spit out the bones. 

But where do you draw the line? Do you find Reformed people studying later Romish theologians and clergy like Alphonsus de' Liguori (who wrote the blasphemous book _The Glories of Mary_) or Francis de Sales (who wrote _Introduction to the Devout Life_)? Is it only pre-Reformation theologians that Reformed people study, or is there some other line of demarcation?


----------



## Toasty (Sep 12, 2014)

There could be different reasons for studying Aquinas. Someone could be doing research in church history and wanting to find out what Aquinas taught in a particular area. This does not mean that he thinks that the works of Aquinas performs the functions of Scripture as mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Sep 12, 2014)

Interesting that Aquinas seemed to understand (at least in one instance) that to take the name of God in vain includes "giving the name of God to wood or stone"... Has any Roman Catholic (or Evangelical) ever seen what Aquinas said here? It seems helpful in opening up a basic exposition of "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing" and "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain":



> Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part >
> 
> Question 122. The precepts of justice
> 
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Yes, I can understand not only reading Reformed folk. Augustine has some great stuff on predestination. I suppose with Aquinas you sort of eat the meat and spit out the bones.
> 
> But where do you draw the line? Do you find Reformed people studying later Romish theologians and clergy like Alphonsus de' Liguori (who wrote the blasphemous book _The Glories of Mary_) or Francis de Sales (who wrote _Introduction to the Devout Life_)? Is it only pre-Reformation theologians that Reformed people study, or is there some other line of demarcation?



Aquinas (and his later interlocutors) provided the grammar for which later Reformed theology would work (including the guys who wrote the Confession). He is not optional. Of course, since I hate chain of being and analogy of being, I know where to draw the line on medieval theologians.


----------



## KMK (Sep 12, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Do you find Reformed people studying later Romish theologians and clergy like Alphonsus de' Liguori (who wrote the blasphemous book The Glories of Mary)



How do you know his book was blasphemous unless you have studied it?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2014)

KMK said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Do you find Reformed people studying later Romish theologians and clergy like Alphonsus de' Liguori (who wrote the blasphemous book The Glories of Mary)
> ...



Fair point, but it is blasphemous (if its argument and quotations are to be believed). It makes modern Mariolatry look tame.


----------

