|
|
|
| ![]() Website Color Key |
Matthew 26:64 is NOT a "Preterist Time Indicator" Pointing to AD70 "In short, the usage of "Apo Arti" in Matthew 26:64 [Apo ("from" - Strongs 575) and Arti ("now on" - Strong's 737)] is highly suggestive of the themes that have been previously offered at this blog ; that is, a series of revelatory recognitions of the power and glory of Jesus Christ's dominance by friend and foe alike. Though the typically pret-friendly Weymouth translation would like to make Jesus say "later on, you will see.." this is not really honest. I would rather say that it was simply a mistake, but I find it impossible to believe that neither Richard Francis Weymouth ("If this belief ever obtains general acceptance the earlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fully established. For it will then be seen that the book describes beforehand events which took place in 70 A.D.") nor Earnest Hampden-Cook (co-editor and author of "The Christ Has Come") were aware of how important (ironically) a futurist spin on this passage is to uphold their Preterist assumptions. However, not only is there no sense of futurity in this very emphatic Greek phrase, but rather we see quite the opposite.
|
|
Angelic Doctor and Prince of Scholastics | Born at Rocca Secca in the Kingdom of Naples, 1225/27 | Died at Fossa Nuova, 7 March, 1274 | Canonised by Pope John XXII 49 Years after Death "There is nothing on this earth more to be prized than true friendship." GOLDEN CHAIN | ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD | Intro | Loghlin's | Summa Theologica - Search | Being and Essence | Nature of Law | Summa Contra Gentiles | New Advent: Aquinas | Aquinas in English | More Links | Translation Project | More Links | CCEL | Maritaine | Murder | Development of Doctrine | Bibliography | Politics | Sola Scriptura | Merit | Papacy
(On
the
Significance of A.D. 70) (On Mark 13:2) (On Mark 13:9) (On
Resurrection Life) "Rm. 6:6, "that the body of sin may be destroyed," a gloss says: "The effect of Baptism is that the old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed, not as though the living flesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence with which it has been bespattered from its birth; but that it may not hurt him, when dead, though it was in him when he was born." Therefore for the same reason neither are the other penalties taken away by Baptism." (Source) "Whether the rewards assigned to the beatitudes refer to this life? Objection 1: It would seem that the rewards assigned to the beatitudes do not refer to this life. Because some are said to be happy because they hope for a reward, as stated above (Article [1]). Now the object of hope is future happiness. Therefore these rewards refer to the life to come. Objection 2: Further, certain punishments are set down in opposition to the beatitudes, Lk. 6:25, where we read: "Woe to you that are filled; for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh, for you shall mourn and weep." Now these punishments do not refer to this life, because frequently men are not punished in this life, according to Job 21:13: "They spend their days in wealth." Therefore neither do the rewards of the beatitudes refer to this life. Objection 3: Further, the kingdom of heaven which is set down as the
reward of poverty is the happiness of heaven, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
xix) [*Cf. De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 1]. Again, abundant fullness is not to
be had save in the life to come, according to Ps. 16:15: "I shall be filled
[Douay: 'satisfied'] when Thy glory shall appear." Again, it is only in the
future life that we shall see God, and that our Divine sonship will be made
manifest, according to 1 Jn. 3:2: "We are now the sons of God; and it hath
not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when He shall appear, we
shall be like to Him, because we shall see Him as He is." Therefore these
rewards refer to the future life. I answer that, Expounders of Holy Writ are not agreed in speaking of these rewards. For some, with Ambrose (Super Luc. v), hold that all these rewards refer to the life to come; while Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4) holds them to refer to the present life; and Chrysostom in his homilies (In Matth. xv) says that some refer to the future, and some to the present life. In order to make the matter clear we must take note that hope of future happiness may be in us for two reasons. First, by reason of our having a preparation for, or a disposition to future happiness; and this is by way of merit; secondly, by a kind of imperfect inchoation of future happiness in holy men, even in this life. For it is one thing to hope that the tree will bear fruit, when the leaves begin to appear, and another, when we see the first signs of the fruit. Accordingly, those things which are set down as merits in the beatitudes,
are a kind of preparation for, or disposition to happiness, either perfect
or inchoate: while those that are assigned as rewards, may be either perfect
happiness, so as to refer to the future life, or some beginning of
happiness, such as is found in those who have attained perfection, in which
case they refer to the present life. Because when a man begins to make
progress in the acts of the virtues and gifts, it is to be hoped that he
will arrive at perfection, both as a wayfarer, and as a citizen of the
heavenly kingdom. "
"Whether Christ should have been circumcised? Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been circumcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But circumcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity, as may be seen from Gn. 17. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circumcision should have ceased at once." ( Source)"I answer that, It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rm. 15:8): "I say that Christ . . . was minister of the circumcision," i.e. the apostle and preacher of the Jews, "for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." ( Source)(On
Hermeneutical Methods) "The scripture which is called 'The Old Testament' has a fourfold meaning, namely history, etiology, analogy and allegory." These four seem inconsistent with the aforementioned. Thus it does not seem fitting that the same passage of sacred scripture should be exposited according to the four aforementioned senses." (Source)
"Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?
Further, according to Mt. 12:25: "Every kingdom divided against itself
shall be made desolate": a saying which was verified in the Jewish people,
whose destruction was brought about by the division of the kingdom. But the
Law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the general well- being of
the people. Therefore it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided
under two kings: nor should this have been introduced even by Divine
authority; as we read of its being introduced by the authority of the
prophet Ahias the Silonite (3 Kgs. 11:29, seqq.). " Job 21:15, Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him? This can refer to the Jews who say that Christ is merely human, and not God; Jn 10:33, because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. And so the Jews, not believing that he was the one promised in the law, declare, There is no God, namely this one who is preaching to us. And on this account he said, The fool, for as the eyes of their mind are blind they did not want to accept the wisdom of God; Ps 81:5, They have not known nor understood. And Wis 2:21, for their own malice blinded them. Or perhaps the sinner is rebuked here." Daniel 13: "They have turned away their eyes, that they might not look unto heaven." And exactly this was done among the Jews when they said at John 11: "(if we let him alone so, all will believe in him); and the Romans will come and take away our place and nation." (Psalm 13) "The authority of the preaching: he thundered. Clouds, that is, the apostles, passed, from the Jews to the Nations: Job 37: Clouds spread his light, which go round about. Act 13: You must first speak the word of God; but because etc.. Hail causes much damage to fruits and flowers, and their preaching was like a hail of threatening." "Exod. 15: I will unsheath my sword, my hand will kill them. Allegorically it speaks of Christ, who pursues our enemies the Jews, and other sinners, punishing them bodily and spiritually." (Psalm 17) "Or may it be found in evil, that is may it be known: by your enemies, that is in the Jews in judgment, when they come to judgment - Luke 21: They will see the son of man coming etc. And may your right hand, that is your son, come upon, that is punish, all who hate you." "Or, they have turned away, because they want to inflict evil menacing them, on others. For a two-fold evil used to threaten the Jews, namely the evil of punishment: and this they tried to cast back upon Christ when they killed him so that they might not incur the might of the Romans. " (Psalm 20) "Psalm 9: He has humbled him in his own snare, he will turn back to himself and fall, when etc. In such a manner did this happen to the Jews, because they themselves handed Christ over to the gentiles, and afterwards they were handed over to the gentiles." (Psalm 34) "Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mt. 4:17), it is most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom. But the preaching of the Gospel of Christ may be understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the world even at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow---"and then shall the consummation come," refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which He was speaking literally." (cite: Here)
MYSTICISM AND ALLEGORY "Mystically speaking, however, by the ten strings of the psalterium is signified the law of God, which consists in ten commandments, and it is appropriate that it be touched with the hand, that is with good performance, and from above, because these commandments are to be satisfied according to the hope of eternal life, otherwise it would be touched from what is below." (Psalm 2) "Mystically, by tabernacle the holy Church is designated. Apocalypse 21: Behold the tabernacle of God is with men. This tabernacle, that is, the Church, was torn from the hands of the Philistines, that is, from demons. And what is said in this psalm pertains to the gifts of the Holy Ghost, through which this tabernacle is perfected. " (Psalm 28) "Love takes up where knowledge leaves off." (Theory: Non-Occurence of Prophecy) (Theory: New Covenant Insufficiency) From Summa Theologica: "Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches." "If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy." WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID John F. McCarthy The distinction between the literal and the spiritual senses of Sacred Scripture is analytical, even though spiritual realities are often the primary meaning of a text, because a certain interaction of faith and reason is implied in this division. The original meaning of words can be examined by unaided reason, as can the unfolding of visible happenings, but the spiritual meaning of words and events can be seen only by the light of faith. In Part I, Question I of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas points out that revealed teaching is necessary for man (article 1), that this teaching is a science based upon revealed truths that are visible under the light of faith (article 2), and that God is the subject of this science (article 7). Approaching, then, the distinction between the literal and the spiritual senses from an analytical point of view, I would say that the literal sense tends to be exclusively seen by the unaided human reason, while the spiritual sense is penetrated by theological reason aided by the light of faith. Where the text is speaking literally about spiritual realities, and above all about supernatural realities, the unaided reason can see the statement in a flattened and unmeaningful way, but it cannot "understand" the statement. Where the text contains spiritual meanings beneath the literal sense, the unaided reason can see these meanings at best in a flattened and unmeaningful way, while reason enlightened by faith can both see the spiritual meanings in a meaningful way and see the literal meaning in a more complete way - provided that it has the appropriate theological framework at its command. Looking, then, at sacred teaching as presented by the text of Sacred Scripture, and reasoning along the lines of St. Thomas, we can justifiably say that the inspired writings are necessary, not only because what is contained in them spiritually could not be figured out by man on his own, but also because the poor, fallen reason of man tends away from the spiritual truth and towards his own self-gratification. Men without grace do not want to know the spiritual truth and they endeavor to rub it out where it is written. But men possessed of faith and sanctifying grace will discover the truth and understand it. . . . St. Thomas answers affirmatively to the question "whether there ought to be distinguished four senses of Sacred Scripture,"34 basing his response upon the authority of St. Augustine of Hippo and of Venerable Bede. St. Augustine observed: "In all the holy books it is behooving to discern the eternal things to be seen there, the deeds that are there narrated, the future things that are predicted, the things that are commanded to be done."35 St. Thomas sees these four things to refer respectively to the anagogical, the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological senses of Sacred Scripture. St. Thomas also quotes Venerable Bede as saying: "There are four senses of Sacred Scripture: history, which narrates things done; allegory, in which one thing is understood from another; tropology (that is, moral discourse), in which the ordering of habits is treated; and anagogy, by which we are led upward to treat of highest and heavenly things."36 St. Thomas identifies the "historical sense" of Bede with the literal sense presented by the words themselves, and he makes an analytical division of the spiritual sense into allegory, tropology, and anagogy . . . . . . St. Thomas notes in the first place that things which actually happened can refer to Christ and his members as shadows of the truth, and this is what produces the allegorical sense, while other comparisons, being imaginary rather than real, whether in Sacred Scripture or in other literature, do not stand outside of the literal sense. Hence, the allegorical sense of Sacred Scripture is not imaginary and is not a genre of human inventiveness. . . . Finally, it might seem that, if these four senses were necessary for Sacred Scripture, each and every part of Sacred Scripture would have to have these four senses, but, as Augustine says in his commentary on Genesis, "in some parts the literal sense alone is to be sought." To this St. Thomas replies that various parts of Scripture have four, three, two, or only one of these senses. Thus, the literal events of the Old Testament can be expounded in the four senses. The things spoken literally of Christ as the Head of the New Testament Church can also be expounded according to the four senses, because the historical Body of Christ can be expounded allegorically of the Mystical Body of Christ, and tropologically of the acts of the faithful to be modelled after the example of Christ, and anagogically inasmuch as Christ is the way to glory that has been shown to us. The things spoken literally of the Church of the New Testament can be expounded in three senses, because they can also be expounded tropologically and anagogically, but not allegorically, except that things mentioned literally regarding the primitive Church may have allegorical meaning regarding the later Church of the New Testament. The things of moral import in the literal sense can be expounded only literally and allegorically. And, finally, the things spoken literally regarding the state of glory cannot be expounded in any other sense." (NEO-PATRISTIC EXEGESIS TO THE RESCUE) Stephen Loughlin From the Fall of 1252 to the Spring of 1259, Thomas taught at the Dominican house of studies in Paris. It was during this time that he lectured on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Between March 3 and June 17 of 1256, he was incepted as a master of theology, and was regent master in theology at Paris until 1259, during which time that he began his Summa contra gentiles. 1259 found Aquinas leaving Paris for Naples, where he stayed until the Fall of 1261 as head of the Dominican house of studies. From September of that same year to September of 1265, Aquinas was at Orvieto as a lector, where he completed the Summa contra gentiles. After a time at Rome in 1265 and Viterbo in 1267 (his great work, the Summa Theologiae was begun in 1266), he took up his second Parisian regency from January of 1269 to 1272. This was followed by his assignment to Naples in 1272 as regent of theology. His writing throughout contains a consistent construction and defense of his system, based on Aristotles', adapting Aristotle to the needs of the 13th century. December 6, 1273 saw the cessation of his writing, after a physical and mental breakdown from years of overwork. While going north to attend the Council of Lyon, Thomas injured his head, fell ill and died in the Cistercian abbey of Fossanova on March 7, 1274. " (cite: )
Andrew Sandlin
(2000) On how a woman is born to be a woman“Objection: It can be argued that woman should not have formed part of the world as it was initially created. For Aristotle says that a female is an occasioned male. But it would be wrong for something occasioned and [hence] deficient to be part of the initial creation. Therefore woman should not have been a part of that world.” (Thomas answers that the female is defective as a particular event; not as part of the general scheme of things). Summa Theologica, 1, qu. 92, art 1, ob. 1 Reply: “Vis-a-vis [seen as caused by] the natura particularis [i.e., the action of the male semen], a female is deficient and unintentionally caused. For the active power of the semen always seeks to produce a thing completely like itself, something male. So if a female is produced, this must be because the semen is weak or because the material [provided by the female parent] is unsuitable, or because of the action of some external factor such as the winds from the south which make the atmosphere humid. But vis-a-vis [seen as caused by] natura universalis [general Nature] the female is not accidentally caused but is intended by Nature for the work of generation. Now the intentions of Nature come from God, who is its author. This is why, when he created Nature, he made not only the male but also the female” Summa Theologica, 1, qu. 92, art 1, ad 1.
In procreation the man is active, the woman is passiveAs regards generation by coition, there are, in the present state of life, two things to be considered. One, which comes from nature, is the union of man and woman; for in every act of generation there is an active and a passive principle. Wherefore, since wherever there is distinction of sex, the active principle is male and the passive is female; the order of nature demands that for the purpose of generation there should be concurrence of male and female. The second thing to be observed is a certain deformity of excessive concupiscence, which in the state of innocence would not have existed, when the lower powers were entirely subject to reason. Summa Theologica, I qu. 98, art 1. The male seed has an active force from its male parentNow the more powerful an agent, the greater scope its action has: for instance, the hotter a body, the greater the distance to which its heat carries. Therefore bodies not endowed with life, which are the lowest in the order of nature, generate their like, not through some medium, but by themselves; thus fire by itself generates fire. But living bodies, as being more powerful, act so as to generate their like, both without and with a medium. Without a medium--in the work of nutrition, in which flesh generates flesh: with a medium--in the act of generation, because the semen of the animal or plant derives a certain active force from the soul of the generator, just as the instrument derives a certain motive power from the principal agent. And as it matters not whether we say that something is moved by the instrument or by the principal agent, so neither does it matter whether we say that the soul of the generated is caused by the soul of the generator, or by some seminal power derived therefrom. Summa Theologica II, q. 18, art. 1. The active force in the male seed also derives power from the heavenly bodiesThis active force which is in the semen, and which is derived from the soul of the generator, is, as it were, a certain movement of this soul itself: nor is it the soul or a part of the soul, save virtually; thus the form of a bed is not in the saw or the axe, but a certain movement towards that form. Consequently there is no need for this active force to have an actual organ; but it is based on the (vital) spirit in the semen which is frothy, as is attested by its whiteness. In which spirit, moreover, there is a certain heat derived from the power of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior bodies also act towards the production of the species as stated above (115, 3, ad 2). And since in this (vital) spirit the power of the soul is concurrent with the power of a heavenly body, it has been said that "man and the sun generate man." Summa Theologica II, q. 18, art. 1, ad 3. The male seed takes nourishment from the mother"In perfect animals, generated by coition, the active force is in the semen of the male, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter is provided by the female. . . . And after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principal parts of the thing generated, then it is that the sensitive soul of the offspring [=the foetus] begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth." (Summa Theologica II, q. 18, art. 1, ad 4.) In spite of their lower function, also the female sexual organs will remain at the Resurection"We must not suppose, what some have thought, that female sex has no place in the bodies of the risen Saints. For since resurrection means the reparation of the defects of nature, nothing of what makes for the perfection of nature will be withdrawn from the bodies of the risen. Now among other organs that belong to the integrity of the human body are those which minister to generation as well in male as in female. These organs therefore will rise again in both . . . Neither is the weakness of the female sex inconsistent with the perfection of the resurrection. Such weakness is no departure from nature, but is intended by nature. This natural differentiation will argue the thoroughgoing perfection of nature, and commend the divine wisdom that arranges creation in diversity of ranks and orders." (Summa contra Gentiles, IV, qu. 88.) (cite: womanpriests.org) "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power."
THOMAS AQUINAS ON HERMENEUTICS Article 10: Whether the same passage of holy scripture can have several senses.Thus we proceed to the tenth point. It seems that the same passage of holy scripture cannot have several senses, namely the historical or literal, the allegorical, the tropological or moral, and the anagogical. Multiple senses in scripture prepare the way for confusion and deception. They also compromise coherent reasoning. From several propositions there results, not an argument, but a collection of fallacies. Sacred scripture, however, should display the truth without any fallacy whatsoever. Thus there should not be several senses in the same passage. Furthermore, Augustine says, "The scripture which is called 'The Old Testament' has a fourfold meaning, namely history, etiology, analogy and allegory." These four seem inconsistent with the aforementioned. Thus it does not seem fitting that the same passage of sacred scripture should be exposited according to the four aforementioned senses. Furthermore, there is also a parabolic sense, which does not seem to be included among these four senses. But on the contrary Gregory says, "Sacred scripture transcends all other sciences in the manner of its expression, because in one and the same statement, while narrating an event, it proclaims a mystery." Response: It must be said that the author of sacred scripture is God, who has the power not only to use words in expressing himself - men can do that much - but of using things as well. Thus, since words signify something in any science, this science is special in that not only the words but the things signified by the words signify something. The primary signification, through which words signify things, is called the literal or historical sense. That
signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. This spiritual sense is itself divided in a threefold way. Paul says, "The Old Law is a figure of the New Law" (Heb. 7:19), and the New Law is, as Dionysius says, "a figure of the glory to come." Moreover, in the New Law the things that are done are signs of what we ourselves should do. Thus, insofar as things in the Old Law signify things in the New Law, we have the allegorical sense. Insofar as things done by Christ or by those who prefigure Christ are signs of what we ourselves should do, we have the moral sense. Insofar as they signify what is involved in eternal glory, we have the anagogical sense. Because the literal sense is what the author intends, and because the author of sacred scripture is God who contains all things within his understanding, there is nothing impossible about even the literal sense containing several meanings, as Augustine suggests. To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that manifold senses do not lead to equivocation or to any other type of ambiguity, for, as was just said, theses senses are not multiplied in such a way that a single word signifies several things, but rather because the things signified by these words can be signs of still other things. Thus no confusion follows from the reading of sacred scripture, for all other senses are founded on the literal sense. From it alone arguments can be drawn, and not from what is said allegorically, as Augustine explains in his letter against Vincent the Donatist. Nor does this fact detract in any way from sacred scripture, for nothing necessary to the faith is said in a spiritual sense which is not explicitly stated in the literal sense elsewhere. To the second argument it must be said that these three things - history, etiology and analogy - belong to a single literal sense. It is history when, as Augustine explains, something is straightforwardly reported. It is etiology when the cause of that thing is explained, as when God explains why Moses permitted the repudiation of wives, namely because of the hardness of their hearts. It is analogy when the truth of one scripture is shown to be consistent with the truth of another. Among the four, allegory alone stands for the spiritual senses. In the same way, Hugh of St. Victor includes the anagogical sense under the allegorical and enumerates only three senses: The historical, allegorical and tropological. To the third it must be said that the parabolic sense is included under the literal, for words can signify something properly and something else figuratively. In the latter case, the literal sense is not the figure of speech itself but the thing figured by it. For example, when scripture refers to the arm of God, the literal sense is not that God has a physical limb, but that he has what that limb signifies, namely the power to do things. Thus it is clear that no falsehood can ever underlie the literal sense of sacred scripture." (Source)
SHIP OF FOOLS ON AQUINAS The theologian who trashed his theology THERE IS little scope for overstating the extreme cleverness of Thomas Aquinas. 'Very clever', for example, would in fact be more like an understatement. His books are quite incomprehensible to most mortals. Fortunately, there are many books written to explain Thomas's books. Unfortunately, anyone who understands Thomas immediately becomes incomprehensible as well, so they don't get us very far.Not a likely passenger on the Ship of Fools, you might think. He's considered one of the greatest thinkers in history, by people who know about thinking. His influence on Christian ideas has been immeasurable. And he invented the limerick – although it has to be said that his own efforts weren't terribly funny. He was entirely obsessed with deep and clever thinking. Ecclesiastical dignitaries and fellow brain-boxes would travel across the world to compare notes or tap his thoughts, only to find they couldn't get a word out of him, because he was too engrossed in mulling things over. His greatest work of all was Summary of Theology, a big title for the biggest book you've ever seen (and if you've seen it you'll probably have seen some other pretty big books as well). In this he ties up all those little nagging questions about who is God, what is everything else, the meaning of life, and whether the Risen Christ had phlegm. By St Nicholas's Day 1273, he was 49 and had been writing the book for eight years, with no end in sight. That day, he sat in his cell and wrote the words: 'The parts of penitence, because they are actions, have these last two relationships of power and order in time, but no order of position...' He laid down his quill and went out to Mass. When he came back, he looked even more distracted and overawed than normal. The monks asked him if he was all right, and he murmered, 'I've met God.' Thomas continued in this state for a worryingly long time. In the end they suggested he go back to his cell and get on with that book they were eagerly awaiting the next volume of. 'Oh no,' he said. 'I've met God. That's just a big pile of straw.' And sure enough, he didn't write another word of theology for the rest of his life. (Although, admittedly, that wasn't especially long, because he died in a freak donkey-riding accident the following year.) (Source) MISCELLANEOUS Thomas Aquinas on Sexual Pleasure "A key to understanding the sexual ethics of Thomas Aquinas is his position that spouses sin whenever their purpose in having intercourse is the pleasure of it. The pleasure itself, Thomas declares, is not sinful, but necessary, natural and good. Nevertheless, it cannot be rational man's intended end. Other sense pleasures can be, inasmuch as they are pleasures of knowing something, e.g., a beautiful color. Sexual pleasure is a pleasure of knowing, too, but the kind of knowing is so minimal and negligible that it is not worthy of being an end intended by rational man. In modern critical dialogue one can ask: Is Thomas' ethical thinking radically handicapped by a model of knowledge that is valid, but unrealistically exclusive?" (John Giles Milhaven , Source) SEVEN DEADLY SINSJohn Cassian: (8 sins) gluttony, fornication,avarice, anger, dejection, sloth, vainglory and pride. Gregory the Great: pride, envy, anger, dejection, avarice, gluttony and lust. (Source: Encyclopedia of Religion. Ferm.) TITLES Doctor Angelicus
REPRESENTATION Chalice
PATRONAGE Academics
Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com Be sure to include the article name. They will be posted shortly upon receipt |
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |