Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Holy who organized the Inquisition (ideology)

Exists dispute.

Refs were approved (long time ago) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Treatment_of_heretics :

"Aquinas's position on heresy and heretics provided the doctrinal basis of the Inquisition. For Jews and Muslims, Aquinas argues for toleration, not only of their persons but also of their public rites.[134]" (and Summa)

Founder of the "doctrinal basis of the Inquisition" - very & very important thing in his biography. Such important information must be & on top - in some other form. See history. Port number 10 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You quote from our article "Aquinas's position on heresy and heretics provided the doctrinal basis of the Inquisition". But that sentence has no supporting ref. If I look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/ it doesn't even mention the inquisition William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If I am wrong, you can delete any mentions of the Inquisition in the article (when Thomas has relation). I will not be against. This text can be deleted, of course and including: "Aquinas's position on heresy and heretics provided the doctrinal basis of the Inquisition." Port number 10 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • William M. Connolley, why did you left this instead removal ("doctrinal basis of the Inquisition")? Port number 10 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Because I missed it. But you've removed it, so that's OK William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thomas Aquinas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Aquinas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //http:/www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/brianmullady/thomasaquinas.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead needs to be changed back to its original form

From

Tommaso d'Aquino, OP (1225 – 7 March 1274), also known as Saint Thomas Aquinas (/əˈkwaɪnəs/), is a Doctor of the Church.

back to

Tommaso d'Aquino, OP (1225 – 7 March 1274), also known as Saint Thomas Aquinas (/əˈkwaɪnəs/), was an Italian Dominican friar and Catholic priest who was an immensely influential philosopher, theologian and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism, within which he is also known as the "Doctor Angelicus" and "Doctor Communis".

What he actually was and *did* takes precedence over a single title he was granted two centuries after his death. And come on---introducing a dead man in the present tense? How has this lasted so long? 72.200.151.15 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

More Precise Inline Citations Required

Specifically for the section Modern influence, but a few others as well. This is a request for others to do the work, but also a note to myself to come back and go through the reference list to see what is usable. Noxiyu (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Aquinas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thomas Aquinas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

In the 'Philosophy' section of this entry, the last two sentences regarding Thomas's use of Pseudo-Dionysius are untrue. The sources cited are not reputable, nor are they even tangentially associated with any mainstream Catholic scholarship. No authentic reading of Thomas, whether Protestant or Catholic, can conclude that Thomas was heavily influenced by "concoctions" of Pseudo-Dionysius. Factually speaking, even if Thomas was heavily influenced by the hierarchical theology of Pseudo-Dionysius, very few if any scholars maintain that Pseudo-Dionysius was more influential in his thinking than Aristotle.

Furthermore, the source Peter Paul Fuchs is actually a pen name for an anti-Catholic pseudo-scholar. He dropped out of seminary years ago and uses that credential as a platform to write reviews contrary to the conclusions of authentic scholarship. 73.24.31.9 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


Seconded. The sentence which reads "Indeed, a number of Catholic sources contend that Thomas was influenced more by this concoction than any other source, including Aristotle.[77]" should be deleted altogether.

The "number" of "Catholic sources" is in fact *one* source, which is identified as the "Association of Masonic Arts." Not only is this a wholly polemical source (as the previous request explains), but if it is "Masonic" then *by definition* it is not a "Catholic" source.

Further, the sentence which reads "This source has arguably been assessed not as a communicator of tradition, but as a polemicist, who tried to alter Neo-Platonic tradition in a novel way for the Christian world that would make notions of complicated Divine Hierarchies more of an emphasis than notions of direct relationship with the figure of Christ as Mediator.[76]" should also be deleted.

Its source (a 2011 work by a woman named Rosemary A. Arthur) has exactly two other references easily located on the internet: another citation of the exact same passage linked to very nearly the same sentence in the Wiki article on Pseudo-Dionysius, and various links to the work itself. In other words, this thesis (that P-D was a polemicist and that he undermined the idea of Christ as mediator) is the personal opinion of a single scholar - and one who *appears* to have absolutely no other works to her name, and possibly even no academic credentials (no reference to her that I can find appends "PhD" or "Prof." or any such letters or honorifics to her name - though this is obviously not conclusive).

Moreover, this claim (even if supported) is largely irrelevant to the topic of Thomas Aquinas (especially once the subsequent sentence, suggesting that P-D was Aquinas's biggest influence, is properly excised).

NemesisDM4 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This article has not been Semi-Protected since 2 July 2016, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and that you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The last two sentences are not backed by reliable sources and undue. Those should be deleted. Ign christian (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Thomas Aquinas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"the worldly authorities have to execute persons whom the church has sentenced to death for heresy"

The church does not sentence to death. --Chilbaric (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed: Development of New Doctrine including a Belief in the Real Power of Witches

I added this section, following the discussion of heresy. Hope you like it. Aquinas scholars might be able to improve by adding citations directly from his work. I am coming from the Malleus direction. re "over one hundred times" -- I can count exactly how many if interested. It will take a minute because he is alternately cited as "St. Thomas" and often cited multiple times per page.

I think we can say that in the 18th c. the church returned to the Episcopi doctrine. In fact, this binary has become the essence of my understanding of the witch phobia: growing out against the Episcopi, but eventually falling back when the Episcopi was restored. Lewismr (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't like it at all. In fact, I have flagged it as dispute. I have added an extra section giving Aquinas' actual material, and noting that the mention of witchcraft was from material published after his death by others, not necessarily even by him in that form. I will also adjust the heading.
The material you added I have not changed, but I would like you (or someone) to severely rewrite it, because it has so many errors.
For a start, the idea that Aquinas attributed real power to witches that contradicted the canon Episcopi: but that cannon states that the wilder beliefs of witchcraft are "fantasms" and no such transformations occur, which Aquinas also states.
Secondly, the idea that Aquinas developed a new doctrine: surely, he is not responsible for what people did over 300 hundreds years after his death? Indeed, your quote from him on the "Commentary of the Pronouncements" (which was a mistake in the Malleus first edition for "Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard"): there he is amplifying what his predecessor Lombard said, not contradicting him and establishing a new doctrine.
Third, he is the most quoted author not just of the Malleus but almost every other book invoking theological justifications for the next 300 years: it would be odd if a book like the Malleus did not attempt to rope him in.
Fourth that Malleus transmits Aquinas' ideas, when in fact the Malleus was banned by the Inquisition at Cologne for being inconsistent with Catholic ideas.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Rick Jelliffe, this is the kind of robust debate that makes wikipedia seem a healthy development over uni-voiced "monographs" or solitary authored encyclopedia entries, though it also makes for a messy process, with the whole dang mess on display. Your main argument, as I understand it, seems not to be with me, or the secondary sources I provided, but with the 15th c. Dominican inquisitors who were most zealous in promoting the "reality" of witchcraft and most prominently (and influential, 29 printings between 1486-1700) being Heinrich Kramer whose Malleus Maleficarum cites Aquinas over 100 times, as mentioned. I don't think "everybody cited Aquinas" is a strong enough argument. In defending Aquinas, you might consider a further endeavor to "take back" his views from H. Kramer? Perhaps there's room in this article for a lead section on Malleus Maleficarum where you could (using published sources, of course) demonstrate the ways that Aquinas' views were more in line with the canon Episcopi and would not have agreed with Kramer or other 15th c. Dominicans inquisitors like Nicholas Jacquier.
One request I would have would be to try to provide, where appropriate, important Latin terms in brackets along with a translation. For example, you took away "witchcraft" and replaced it with the more positive sounding "magic". While magus can be found among the many synonyms, it does not seem to be frequently used by Dominicans inquisitors from 13th-16th centuries in discussing this issue.
You might also consider refuting Joseph Hansen's characterization (supportive of Kramer's interpretation of Aquinas) on the Latin passage he provides in footnote 1 page 183 of Zauberwahn with Aquinas' interesting use of the word "praestaegiis" -- a word also used in the 16th c. by Jean Calvin in discussing the same topic in the preface to his Institutes, and then used again soon after for the title of the famous book opposing witchcraft trials by Johann Weyer.

Lewismr (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Titles aren't italicized throughout

I noticed when searching for Summa Theologica that many instances of this title were not italicized. This probably holds true for other titles as well. Unfortunately I can't fix this myself at this time, so I'm leaving this note here in hopes someone with more agile hands can do something about it. Thanks in advance! —Geekdiva (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Attention template editors!

Please see Category talk:Biographical templates usable as a module#Adding new infobox templates. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: Answered in that location. Please consider my request below if you don't mind! —Geekdiva (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually

Actually, Russell produced an elaborate proof that 1+1=2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5B9A:E01:B918:4834:37D3:AE04 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

See the heading "Response to criticism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5B9A:E01:B918:4834:37D3:AE04 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

improving citation format and removing excessive end matter

Are there any objections to me 1) shortening inline citations to "surname, page" with a matching "references" section; and then substantially reducing the number of further reading and external link entries (which are currently spread over 3 or 4 sections?). Outriggr (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with POV

The section "Russell's criticism of Thomas as philosopher" is as much about refutations of Russell, as it is about Russell's views on Aquinas. It contains some pretty smarmy and irrelevant personal remarks from one authority, Anthony Kenny, which do not address the issue of Aquinas, and, as an ad hominem argument, does much to call into question his reputation. The section is argumentative rather than factual, and seems intended to prove that one critic of Aquinas was a fool. This needs to be revised. It should not be removed, but rather additional criticisms from Russell and others need to be added to achieve some sort of balanced presentation. --Vicedomino (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Making the section contain only criticisms would make it hilariously one-sided and problematic.RotarenegEmem (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the entirety of response or criticism of Thomas Aquinas is about Russell, makes the whole section "hilariously one-sided and problematic" in the first place. You are welcome to create Responses to Thomas Aquinas or Critiques of Thomas Aquinas and put all of the encyclopedic detail into it that you wish. It can't all be contained in a single biography page, for any historically important thinker. Outriggr (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Added to "Epistemology"

I quoted a book on what he would do when there was a conflict, that doesn't seem clear enough in the preceding part. Presumably, any observation or other secular or pagan authority was to be handled in the same way. This fits with his considering himself a religious theorist rather than a philosopher. David R. Ingham 22:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ransford Ingham (talk • contribs)

Bene scripsisti, Thoma, de me quam ergo mercedem accipies?

St Thomas Aquinas is believed to be one of the fewest people admitted to the vision of the resurrected holy body of Jesus Christ God a short time before his death. The episode is sourced by the Osservatore Romano of January 28, 2010.

It is a very famous aspect of the ending life of St Thomas. He was persuaded of the real presence of Jesus in the consacrated Eucharist firstly and mainly because he had a daily paranormal, truthful, personal and direct dialogue with God. After that sensible experience, he elaborated a doctrine trying to demonstrate what he had the priviledge to observe personally.Philosopher81sp (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Roger II?

"According to some authors, he was born in the castle of his father, Landulf of Aquino. He was born to the most powerful branch of the family, and Landulf of Aquino was a man of means. As a knight in the service of King Roger II, he held the title miles." - Roger II died in 1154, 71 years before Thomas was born. How was his father a knight in the service of Roger II? - Eroica (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I corrected this. Please see this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Psychology

Citations for final paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.212.151 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional anecdotes for the biography

The Commune of Aquino gives an account of the following biographical facts:

  • the prophecy of the monk -possibly, an angel- Bono to the mother of St Thomas she would have conceived a saint preacher;
  • an astonishing lightning when Thomas was still a child living his home. His sister died and he wasn't touched;
  • his father opposing to his priestly vocation. Thomas was jailed in the fortresses of Monte San Giovanni Campano and Roccasecca. His fa ily sent to him a charming whore, but he refuse to be induced in temptation. The anecdote says angels of God and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Angels, appeared to him and tied his waist with a cilice of chastity. He died being chaste;
  • his companions nicknamed him as the "mute steer" (Bue muto) when he replied about a theological matter to St Albertus the Great. The saint prophetized he would have caused many people to talk about him;
  • Thomas' request to be brought within the Fossanova Abbey because the Lord Jesus told Him he could talk with him for the last time.

All of them aren't yet referenced in the Wp article.Theologian81sp (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Theologian81sp I used to only know Aquinas for his supposed sardine miracle--think that's worth some mention too. The whole article definitely could use some cleanup and expansion--might get to it if I've the time but you can take first crack at it this year! Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Political Order

This article gives the impression that Aquinas was anti-slavery. Two of the sources referenced are a book by Paul Weithman, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, and a page on the St John's Seminary website that has extracts from his writings.

A non-Catholic resource would treat his views on slavery more critically. Not mentioned is the strong influence of Aristotle (particularly his views on "natural slavery") on Aquinas. Aquinas explicitly endorses slavery in his Commentary on the Politics, stating the following:

It is advantageous for slaves and masters, fit to be such by nature, that one be the master, and the other the slave. And so there can be friendship between them, since the association of both in what is advantageous for each is the essence of friendship

While it's important to understand any philosophical views in their historical context, when historical religious figures are given a pass on their acceptance of slavery, it obscures the role of religion in the justification and thus perpetuation of slavery. Dmkimble (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The relationship between Aquinas and Aristotle

So. Aquinas composed a commentary on Aristotle's 'Physics'. Doesn't that make him a physicist?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

No. And that seems like an exceedingly naïve thing to say. The modern discipline of physics is far removed from Aristotle's treatise and conception of it, as a cursory glance would tell you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to be a party-pooper but I went on the Wikipedia page of Aristotle's Physics and as far as the relationship between that tract and its significance to philosophy and science in the modern world, philosopher Martin Heidegger and Italian theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli are amenable to my position. Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, would agree with you.
Physics (Aristotle)#Significance to philosophy and science in the modern world
So I think we are at loggerheads. How do we reconcile this antinomy?
SpicyMemes123 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Aquinas and Marx

I see Labor theory of value was recently added to Category:Thomas_Aquinas. Would it be appropriate to add a comparison between Aquinas and Marx either here or in the just price article? Aquinas' critiques as oughts could be compared to Marx' is's. KetchupSalt (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Melinto Leutronio" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Melinto Leutronio and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 3 § Melinto Leutronio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Primary Image

An IP removed the altar piece image and replaced it with a work by Sandro Botticelli. Its a very good image and shows Aquinas well, but should it be replaced with the altar piece again for the sake of recognizability? I'd say so. This article seems to be heavily edited lately so I would like to get some consensus before restoring the altar image. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Essay-like

There is a tag "Essay-like" from Aug 2022 which, on a fresh read of the wording of the article as at Sept 2023, does not seem to make sense or apply. I am removing the tag (after removing some holdover phrases that might perhaps be what was in mind.) It needs a much better explanation of the problem, explicit in the Talk pages, in any case: just a tag by itself is not good enough.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Aquinas/Archive_3&oldid=1218264882"