Summa Theologica

Has anyone actually read the entire thing? I have read some large portions, mostly on the nature of God and the Trinity as well as on moral law but I've never really have read through it. To me, it's more like a theological encyclopedia rather than an actual work that ones should spend their time reading all the way through.

That's because it's a series of questions with answers to them for pastoral and theological purposes that would come up for people. I don't understand why it's more memed then Contra Gentiles, which is actually a single work meaning to explain the Christian faith from start to finish.

Read an abridgement. I think there's one called "A Summa of The Summa".

So it's basically the catechism but with argumentation?
Why has it been taken as a work of philosophy rather than theology then?
Does his theology have any relevance in modern Catholic or Orthodox theology?

Aquinas, like all medieval theologians was a theologian-philosopher. They are intertwined. Aquinas is the most important thinker in Christian history alongside Augustine, he's impossible to skip. As for the Orthodox, they barely even have an intellectual tradition and certainly don't have systematic theology on par with Aquinas.
Catechism is a book which simply writes down beliefs of the Catholic Church, which Aquinas didn't do. It's specific questions that were open at the time or needed further strengthening.

there is a concise summa, made by aquinas himself. about 400 pages long

see

this

Why don't people read Contra Gentiles, I don't understand.

Because it doesn't have arguments for the existence of God and is focused on arguments for why Christianity is true and Islam,Judaism and Paganism is false.

Ie for the same reason people read the Confessions more than the City of God

Plus Aquinas has no literary value as a writer even if he is right

well for one, aquinas subjugates philosophy under theology, where philosophy is completed by theology. this is quite a radical move in his part that will serve as the catalyst for the modern revolt in philosophy

I strongly advise against reading Aquinas (or any other scholastic, although Aquinas is the most damaging since Rome suppported him) unless it's for secular interest. He almost single-handedly redefined theology from being probed by God, to probing God. He also caused a change in the understanding of reason (logos) to mean dianoia, a major foundation of humanism.

no because i dont like aristotle so why would i like this guy

im a plato/augustine man

Augustine's Platonist speculations are the worst thing about him next to his proto Calvinism. Great spiritual writer though

>Aquinas most important besides Augustine
I don't unerstand why people say this so much. Without Aquinas we wouldn't have had Empiricism, but without Anselm we wouldn't have had both Descartes and Spinoza.

>I strongly advise against reading Aquinas (or any other scholastic, although Aquinas is the most damaging since Rome suppported him) unless it's for secular interest. He almost single-handedly redefined theology from being probed by God, to probing God. He also caused a change in the understanding of reason (logos) to mean dianoia, a major foundation of humanism.
I don't know what this is supposed to entail, or what perspective you're coming from. What's the quick rundown? Hell, provide the whole shebang if it's something especially dangerous.

Humanism is even worse than Protestantism and pretty much the antithesis of Catholic religion.

Trips of the Lord's blessing.

>but without Anselm we wouldn't have had both Descartes and Spinoza.
>thinking either of those philosophers are good

user, this is a Catholic thread.

Okay, why? Sorry but I'm a religion pleb.

Descartes was catholic user.

His philosophy sure as hell isn't.

wat. his best works would all be masterpieces if it weren't for the parts where he's sucking on gods nipples

Aquinas redefined Western approach to God as an academic inquiry, as opposed to a mystical encounter. How he was so fond of the Areopagite in light of this, is beyond me.

And Spinoza was cancer. And Descartes's most profound contribution is his alebraic formulation of geometry, which obviously has little to do with Anselm. Anselm reinterpreting Christ's death as ransoming us from God, instead from the devil (reflecting the typology of God ransoming the Hebrews from Pharaoh), completely ruined Western soteriology and paved the way for the Reformation's idea that Christ's Passion (His Resurrection not seen as having salvific value) makes repentence obsolete.

Is the English translation being sold on amazon for like $200 worth it, or does a lot get lost in translation? My Latin is currently very poor. Should I just wait to improve it before tackling the Summa?

I think you're confusing Aquinas with the scholastics who came after him and didn't have his touch. Aquinas very much believed in mystical union with God. He wrote one of the great mystical hymns of the Church, after all.

>Aquinas is the most damaging since Rome supported him
From now on, your posts are classified as weak bait.

I'm not talking about what he personally believed in doctrinally, I'm talking about the consequences of his discursive approach and him being held up as God's gift to theology by Rome. Although many of his conclusions are also erroneous

I'm contrasting him with Abelard and Ockham, who both got their shit pushed in by Rome, and therefore didn't contaminate theology quite as much as Aquinas, who was so touted he became virtually a new Bible