Ten reasons I am not a Thomist

Me: “My name is Mark, and I am not a Thomist.”

Others at the meeting: “Hi, Mark.”

Yes, I *do* hide behind the Summa!At moments I am sorely tempted to despair when I realize how much work one must do to master Saint Thomas’s teaching. Twice this past semester at Marquette University I was on a board of examiners for what we call our “doctoral qualifying exams”—usually called “comps” (for ‘comprehensive exams’)—when I realized I simply didn’t know some things that Thomas himself would have known cold, and would have assumed that most of his readers would have known, too. One of my fellow-examiners is an expert in the teaching of St. Augustine, while another is a cracker-jack reader of the Old Testament. In one instance we were talking about Augustine’s teaching on some point or other when I realized I didn’t know what book of Augustine I’d have to consult in order to track the teaching down (De doctrina christiana? De trinitate? I dunno!), and in the other I realized that I couldn’t rattle off the minor prophets if I had to.

After the exam we were sitting around just chatting, when I told my colleagues I had an announcement to make. “I am not a Thomist,” I said. “That’s too bad for us,” a colleague responded, “because that’s why we hired you!” An explanation was in order. I told them that I didn’t feel that I could really consider myself a full student of Thomas’s teaching until I had a reasonable mastery of some basic texts and skills. And so, until I acquire them, I can’t be a Thomist.

So here is a list of ten things I haven’t done yet, that I need to do. What do you think?

I am not a Thomist because:

1. I have not yet read all of the writings of Augustine, cover-to-cover.
2. I have not yet read all of the Bible (in the vulgata), cover-to-cover.
3. I have not yet read the Metaphysics, cover-to-cover.
4. I have not yet read Gratian’s Decretum, cover-to-cover (but I have read Raymond of Peñafort; does that count?).
5. Yeesh! I haven’t read Lombard, cover-to-cover (big feelings of inadequacy!).
6. I don’t know the medieval or Dominican liturgy very well at all.
7. I don’t really know the doctrine of St. Albert.
8. I haven’t memorized Isidore’s Etymologies.
9. I remember reading through Damascene’s De fide orthodoxa, but I’ve forgotten what it says!
10. I haven’t read through the whole Corpus Dionysiacum, or Maimonides’s Guide for the Perplexed, or…..ugh.

Are you a not-Thomist, too? If so, let me know why (by discussing it, or by leaving a comment).

Comments

[David Mendez]

Maybe you need a nice fresh serving of Thomist Tacos for the Soul :) I know what you mean. I wonder sometimes with my blog how much of this stuff is there to read. Sometimes (quoting one of my profs) I wish i were in the matrix and can "load" a program and learn anything about it instantly. Can you imagine that? "load the commentary on the sentences...." and poof there it is.

Anyway, I feel your pain and all I can say is that although we might not know Thomas in comprehension we can in apprehension. I enjoy your posts BTW.

[Jeremy Holmes]

I know exactly what you mean. I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

Aside from my native inability--I am a terribly slow reader--it seems to me that what keeps us from being true Thomists is our desire to be super-scholars. The angelic doctor did not have a dozen journals and a flood of monographs to keep abreast of; no one thought ill of him if all his citations were of men long dead and out of date; he was under no pressure to demonstrate his awareness of scholarship in the Americas. There was a standard body of knowledge that all sought by reading and re-reading the age-old texts that had proven themselves good enough. Of course, he probably did keep up with controversies around, what Prof. Albert was doing with Aristotle, etc., but in his day the noteworthy and new was not so overwhelming as today.

All of this leaves aside entirely the fact that he watched no TV, read no magazines or newspapers, had no kids, and had someone to cook his meals. I'm sure that all helped.

But I keep going back to that medieval model of learning. I'm fascinated--can't keep my mind off of it. What would happen if I...dare I say it? What would happen if I set aside some of my drive to "make it" in the realm of academia and took the time to soak myself in the same waters that inundated the medieval mind? What would happen if I read the great masters not speedily, for footnotes, but slowly and with reverence?

Whoops, gotta go--my kids are getting into something, and I've got some academic stuff due tomorrow.

But I'm trying. Spent my morning devotional time with Augustine's commentary on the Psalms.

[Jörgen Vijgen]

Interesting point of view; on the other hand, using these criteria, the only Thomist would be Thomas Aquinas himself! One could argue perhaps that in a way a lot of his scholars knew precisely this, i.e. one life is too short to read what he has read and written. I think we can learn from the tradition of the "Concordantiae", "Tabulae" and "Abbreviationes". Moreover, the tradition to express his thought by way of formulating principles and building on them like for instance Antonin Réginald (+ 1676) or more recently Norberto del Prado is an effective way to master Aquinas's thought and to receive an intellectual framework. Manuals like Gredt and others did precisely that.

[Brendan Sammon]

I would second Mr. Vijgen. I would also add that nowhere did Thomas ever lament, "I am not truly Aristotelian or Platonic...for I cannot read Greek well enough to read everytheing they read..." or "Alas, I cannot be Averroistic or Avicennian, for I have such limited knowledge of the Arabian region...." or some such thing. Indeed, it seems to me that the Medievals and the Patristics knew of no such categories. Our contemporary urge to wave a banner, I think, is the rotting residue of modern foundationalism. Thus, I too am not a Thomist because, although I love reading Thomas's work more than the work of any other (save Scripture, of course), 'Thomist' only serves only to limit the variety of voices that beckon. As theologians/philosophers, should we not aspire only to be servants of the Church? Let the fearful flee to their camps, and let those who truly wish to honor the spirit of St. Thomas jump the categorical fences and explore ever new terrain. Sure, we may end up alone and outside every camp, but is it not here where Thomas (and Christ) live most fully?

[F C Bauerschmidt]

>>>using these criteria, the only Thomist would be Thomas Aquinas himself<<<

Actually, not even Thomas would make the grade, since he had not read all of the works of Augustine cover-to-cover.