Has anyone read this? Is it good?
Summa theologica
Brody Miller
Other urls found in this thread:
Aaron Mitchell
Oh no user that's for reference. It would be like you reading a phone book.
James Clark
>Is it good?
Oh yeah.
Logan Stewart
Enough with this meme.
>it is very common for the Summa Theologiae to be required or strongly urged reading, in whole or in part, for all those seeking ordination to the diaconate or priesthood, or to professed male or female religious life, or for laypersons studying philosophy and theology at the collegiate level
Xavier Roberts
What if I told you the Catena Aurea was better?
Carson Rodriguez
I own a copy of exactly that, and I've been through and understood most of the first volume. It's shit. t. atheist
Evan Young
I've read it all twice and can't scarcely remember any of it.
Eli Williams
Those Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton books are pure kino.
Lucas Cruz
You look based
Aaron Brooks
Holy Bible, an actual seminarian!
Grayson Ortiz
>I've been through and understood most of the first volume.
>It's shit. t. atheist
Every time.
Ethan Torres
A guy with a bunch of jesus books does not a seminarian make. Theology-vanity posting is a thing on Yea Forums. See: the idiots who post their guns with rosaries and presumably impressive encyclopediae of this-Testament and That-Gospel. Ironically, the posting of such images is the acme of homosexuality, natural to the Catholic and ostensibly hateful to the true Christian, who of course the Catholic is not.
Benjamin Gray
Were'd you get those leather-bounds
Tyler Sanchez
>. Ironically, the posting of such images is the acme of homosexuality, natural to the Catholic and ostensibly hateful to the true Christian, who of course the Catholic is not.
This is one of the most impressive small pieces of writing that I have seen here in 4channel. Simply amazing.
But yeah, I will take that into account. Visual rhetoric is surely a powerful thing.
Eli Howard
Do you have Karl Barth too
Kayden Powell
Jose Nguyen
Based.
Protestantism > orthodoxy > catholicism
Wyatt Anderson
I read his Shorter Summa
Jeremiah Bennett
>De Gaulle
big yikes!
Jordan Price
t. Hater of jews and peasants
Aiden Morales
Aquinas's work, including his five proofs, were written for a Catholic audience. If you do not believe in God, or deny aspects of the Catholic dogma, then then the assumptions it makes will likely be unacceptable to you. If you do not accept the assumptions, then at the very least it is beneficial when attempting to understand the history of western thought. To answer , it is extremely thorough and well structured, but its consistency can only be measured in light of his overall aim, which is difficult to pin down.
Evan Cox
Yup.
Alexander Mitchell
>t. mad he doesn't have any yous.
Catholics can be flawed, too, user. Declaring anyone who is enthusiastic about religious reading a homosexual is peak brainlet.
>which is difficult to pin down.
Nope. It is a work of Christian apologetics. He wrote it as a reference for clergy, to help them especially in their pastoral role. Notice that often he will answer a question with "It must be said that: ..." Those are instructions for the priest on what the right answer is and how to give it.