Each “Article” has five structural parts.

First, the question is formulated in a yes or no format, as explained above, beginning with the
word “Whether” (Utrum). This means it is expressing a doubt or choice between the alternatives
of the format of a yes or no to conclude what is meant to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Second, St, Thomas lists a number of Objections (usually three) to the answer he will give. The
Objections are apparent proofs of this opposite answer, the other side to the debate. These
objections begin with the formula: “It seems that. . .” (Oportet).
These Objections must be arguments. These arguments must strongly against the idea of St.
Thomas Aquinas than those in St. Thomas himself. The Objections are to be taken seriously, as
apparent truth. Now the objections or the arguments must give an impression of being in a
certain way.
In simpler terms, before giving his own answer to the question Aquinas presents the answers that
others have given or answers that might be given to the question.
Third, St. Thomas indicates his own position with the formula “On the contrary. . .” (Sed contra).
The brief argument that follows the statement of his position here is usually an argument from
authority, i.e., from Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, or recognized wise men. The medievals
well knew their own maxim that “the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments”
(see S.T. I, i, 8, obj. 2). But they also believed in doing their homework and in learning from
their ancestors—two habits we would do well to cultivate today.
Here Aquinas presents another answer that someone has given or that might be given to the
question (Like from the previous author, from the Scripture, etc.) that is in opposition to the
answers given in the Objections.
The fourth part, “I answer that” (Respondeo dicens), is the body of the Article. Now Aquinas
offers his own answer to the question. Quite often, but not always, Aquinas will disagree with
the views expressed in the Objections. Also, quite often Aquinas seems to be in agreement with
the “On the contrary” even if he does not respond explicitly to it. However, he does not always
completely agree with the “On the contrary.”
Fifth and finally, each Objection must be addressed and answered-not merely by repeating an
argument to prove the opposite conclusion, for that has already been done in the body of the
Article, but by explaining where and how the Objection went wrong, i.e., by distinguishing the
truth from the falsity in the Objection. In other words, Aquinas responds directly to each of the
answers given in the Objections. Often Aquinas does not directly respond to the answer given in
the “On the contrary.” Aquinas will include not just one “On the Contrary” but a whole set of
Objections to the Contrary after the first set of Objections. In most cases he responds to all of
these Objections to the Contrary too.
That is one of the unsolved mysteries of Western thought. Surely both the Socratic and the
Thomistic methodological trees can still bear much good fruit. Perhaps what stands in the way is
our craze for originality and our proud refusal to be anyone’s apprentice. I for one would be very
happy to be Aquinas’ apprentice, or Socrates’
No one of these five steps can be omitted if we want to have good grounds for settling a
controverted question. As a seminarian of SMMRS, I too formulated a question too vague or
confuse that I want to vomit. But in time, I learned how to face it. St. Thomas Aquinas taught us
the very meaning of arguments in his Summa. If our question is vaguely or confusedly
formulated, our answer will be, too. If we do not consider opposing views, we spar without a
partner and paw the air. If we do not do our homework, we only skim the shallows of our selves.
If we do not prove our thesis, we are dogmatic, not critical. And if we do not understand and
refute our opponents, we are left with nagging uncertainty that we have missed something and
not really ended the contest. Like Socratic dialogue for Plato, this medieval method of
philosophizing was very fruitful in its own day—and then subsequently neglected, especially in
our day.