How to Study a Historical

Theologian: Thomas Aquinas

Introduction

 Every „how” is preceded by „why”

 The status of Aquinas as a theologian in the Catholic Church
 Leo XIII – Aeterni patris (1879) – Aquinas as a model for theologians
 Positive
 brilliant mind
 orthodox theology
 systematic exposition
 Negative
 reading Aquinas is like reading the Bible – given enough texts quoted, one could „prove” just about
anything
 The problem of authority
Introduction

 Main issue
 What should we as theologians take as a model as we read Aquinas?
 contents or method?
 What was Leo XIII having in mind by proposing Aquinas as the model?

 Solution
 Going back to Aquinas’s work
The Issue of Method

 Disputatio
 Form
 (Typically) Three objections
 Statement of the position
 Explanation/Argument
 Reply to objections
The Issue of Method

 Methodological presuppositions of the form

1. Dialogue as a fundamental method of arriving at truth
“Anyone who considers dialogue, disputation, debate, to be a fundamental method for arriving at truth must
already have concluded and stated that arriving at truth is an affair that calls for more power than the
autarchic individual possesses.”

2. The mode of listening and the mode of speaking

“No one was permitted to answer directly to the interlocutor’s objection; rather, he must first repeat the
opposing objection in his own words, thus explicitly making sure that he fully understood what his opponent
had in mind.”
The Issue of Method

 Methodological presuppositions of the form

3. Address the question asked, not the question you imagined
“There is always something right and truthful in his words; and although this something may be minimal, the
refutation must begin there if it is to be convincing.”

4. Respect the interlocutor

“We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have
laboured in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”
The Issue of Method

 Methodological presuppositions of the form

5. Being open to correction and striving for clarification (use of language)
“The interlocutor in a disputation declares, by his very participation, his willingness to take a position and
answer for it.”

6. “Loci theologici”
“Neither the philosopher nor the theologian can presume to exclude any available information on the subject
at hand.”

7. Finding ways to deal with the degenerative symptoms of theology

“systematisation, phantasticality, dogmatism and bigotry”
The Issue of Method

 Methodological presuppositions of the form

1. Dialogue as a fundamental method of arriving at truth
2. The mode of listening and the mode of speaking
3. Address the question asked, not the question you imagined
4. Respect the interlocutor
5. Being open to correction and striving for clarification (use of language)
6. “Loci theologici”
7. Finding ways to deal with the degenerative symptoms of theology
Reactions of Students

 Contents or method?
 Aquinas is still interesting due to the eternal wisdom that he was able to achieve, which still has a delve to say
to our current world.
 While claiming that the transmitting the doctrines of Thomas as a system of propositions is reductionism,
doesn’t Pieper also then argue against the truth value of conclusions derived out of his disputatio method?
 I believe that while I agree with one of his ideas that there needs to be greater engagement between philosophy
and theology in a way that they can both affect, constitute and better each other, I also feel he underplays this
idea by his preference for theology clearly espoused in the third paragraph on page 11 (pdf). Irrespective of
that, the manner with which Pieper ‘models’ the disputatio - a philosophical method for theological ends, to
speak on the relationship between philosophy and theology suggesting that philosophical methods can
intervene and even innnovate theological endeavours is commendable.
 Finally, with Aquinas having the last response in the argumentation, it carries the implication that his final word
contains the “truth.”
 As part of their necessary coordination, philosophy must avoid the theology the risk of ideologization that
awaits it when, in its human pole, it is interested in the hermeneutics of the word of God.
Reactions of Students

 What is (theological) truth in relation to method?

 However, as Pieper states, “theology, for the sake of its own health, needs the resistance of science and
philosophy”[3] as it seeks a coherent reasonability inside the human context which is not closable inside a
degenerated theological speech.
 However, the method of disputation also removes much sense that St Thomas is laying himself open to correction.
[…] The claim that the adversary is seen by St Thomas as a fellow truth-seeker is sometimes hard to believe.
 To justify the Church view, Thomas makes distinctions that are rather shallow and superficial.
 Texts presented by Thomas in favour of his opponent and his own argument are tainted by the proof-texting
tendencies.
 There is in it [i.e., disputatio] a kind of ethical aspect to research.
 interdisciplinary character of theological research
 conflicts between sciences and theology
 Thomas disputatio consists of humility, listening, and mutual respect. These characters make us to understand that the
truth is communal rather than personal and autocratic.
Reactions of Students

 Can Aquinas’s method of disputation be used/applied today?

 There are several reasons why Thomas can learn from a more Narrative approach in any debate. [importance of
listening/Aquinas failed to do that]
 The suggestion that the spirit of disputatio as found in Thomas’s work can positively inform and impact the
dialogues in the contemporary culture is to be appreciated.
 While I agree that the disputatio is a formidable method to bring clarity to conceptually understanding and
clarifying one's own philosophical/theological positions, I think it requires a ‘system’ (not necessarily a closed
one) in which it begins with certain axiomatic principles that then becomes deployed in the demonstration of the
validity or invalidity of the ‘opponent’s’ position. Having found that axiomatic principles might not be a given, I
am unsure if the disputatio could lead to higher forms of clarity when there is ambiguity in human knowledge
and language. […] I think the disputatio favours kataphatic theological positions as opposed to apophatic
theological positions. It can be an effective method in conducting theological debates but for the mode of doing
theology itself I think a more constructivist framework for contemporary times can have greater efficacy.
 I believe that it is still valid in the theology or any science.
 I find that theology today is too often afraid to make any positive/cataphatic claims, presumably because of the
deconstructive wave that philosophers like Derrida and Foucault have caused.