Open main menu

Talk:Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Holy who organized the Inquisition (ideology)Edit

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 modifiedEdit

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.

 Y 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 modifiedEdit

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}}).

 Y 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 formEdit

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016Edit

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 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)

Attention template editors!Edit

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)

More Precise Inline Citations RequiredEdit

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 modifiedEdit

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 modifiedEdit

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modifiedEdit

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

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

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)

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

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

Titles aren't italicized throughoutEdit

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)

Problems with POVEdit

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)

Return to "Thomas Aquinas" page.