Thursday, January 28, 2010

Aquinas, the Literal Sense of Scripture and Theology

Today is the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas--happy feast day! I just had to do a post celebrating one of my favorite saints.

St. Thomas' Significance

Throughout the ages, Thomas' work has consistently been held out as a model for Catholic theology. Consider some of the following quotes from various popes. I've added some italics.

Pope John Innocent VI, Serm. De. St. Thoma (c. 1352): “[Thomas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”

Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy), 17, 19(1879): “Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because ‘he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to inherited the intellect of all’ [cited in Pius XI, Stud. Ducem. #5]… he is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith. With his spirit at once humble and swift, his memory ready and tenacious, his life spotless throughout, a love of truth for its own sake, richly endowed with human and divine science, like the sun he heated the world with the warmth of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his teaching.

. . . Moreover, the Angelic Doctor… single-handed… victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put those to rout which might in aftertimes spring up.

Pope Leo XIII, Depuis le jour (On the Education of Clergy), VI, 100: “The book par excellence whence students can study Scholastic Theology with much profit is the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas… It is our wish, therefore, that professors be sure to explain to all their pupils its method, as well as the principle articles relating to Catholic faith.”

Pope St. Pius X, In praecipius to the Roman Academy, I, 124: “Indeed, those principles of wisdom useful for all time, which the holy Fathers and Doctors passed on to us, have been organized by no one more aptly than by Thomas, and no one has explained them more clearly.

Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem, 11 (1923): “. . . Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the Common or Universal Doctor of the Church…”

Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (1998), 78: “It should be clear… why the magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of St. Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies… The magisterium’s intention has always been to show how St. Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought.

St. Thomas as a Biblical Theologian and His View of the Literal Sense

While Thomas' importance is seldom disputed, what is often overlooked is the fact that for Thomas, the study of Theology was to be first and foremost a biblical exercise. An excellent overview can be found in Christopher Baglow, "Rediscovering St. Thomas Aquinas as Biblical Theologian," Letter & Spirit 1 (2005): 137-146. You can purchase the volume here (it is full of a number of other excellent articles, including one by my friend and co-blogger, Brant Pitre).

Baglow begins by pointing out that, as many scholars explain, for Thomas there is a "unity between sacred Scripture and sacred doctrine" (137). He goes on to cite Thomas Aquinas, who wrote, "Only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei)" (141).

Baglow highlights Thomas' treatment of Scripture in article ten of the first question of the Prima Pars of his famous Summa Theologica:
The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.
Expounding on this passage, Baglow writes:

"Thomas holds that only the literal sense of Scripture is available to theological argumentation. That is because he maintains that all the truths necessary for salvation--the only proper 'content' of doctrine and theology--are to be found in the literal sense of Scripture.

It is not that he denies the possibility or utility of the spiritual senses. Rather, he insists on an essential, foundational status for the literal sense. To be legitimate, all spiritual interpretation must be based on the literal sense. This rules out any allegorizing that does not first deal with the literal meaning of the text" (142).

Suffice it to say, this is probably not what most people expect Thomas to say. In fact, Thomas is positively shocking to many Christians who have never read him. In particular, I'd recommend his commentaries on biblical books to those interested in Scripture study. They are an absolute gold mine.

On this, the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, why not check them out?


Michael Pigg said...

Michael, thanks for the reference material. Aquinas is a gold mine.

Would you consider the below line from the link you gave to the Summa a good definition for "literal"?

Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.
I agree will everything posted, I just want to make sure that I am applying it correctly.

Also, is it correct to think that all Scripture is given to us for the sake of our salvation and not just those passages that deal with faith and morals?

For example, I am a "young-earth" kind of guy. The below link is a good summary of why I hold that belief. The primary reason for me in the link is if you throw out the literal, 6 24hr. days of creation, then you throw the salvation history out with it. You unintentionally throw the baby out with the bath water. There are too many Church teachings that stem from Genesis and are now being challenged, simply because the precedence has been set.

Should we allow modernists to shape the way we interpret scripture, leading us astray from how our Church Fathers understood the Divine Word of GOD?

Or am I the one gone astray?

Michael Pigg

Dim Bulb said...

There are many more of Aquinas' commentaries on Scripture available online. I posted links to them and many of his other works here:

Included in my list are the following links not found at the Ave Maria site: 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Lamentations,Philemon, Psalms. In addition I provide a link to a collection of his sermon notes which make abundant use of Scripture.

I also posted a second document with links to many articles and podcasts, some of which deal with Aquinas' use and views concerning Scripture.

Nick said...

It's always good to differentiate between the literal sense and the literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures. The Church made this aware in the document Communion & Stewardship, which you can read here:

Reginald, mt said...

Michael Pigg,
I think you might be misunderstanding something of St. Thomas' point.

The literal sense is not "that meaning which the author intends", neither the human author nor the divine author.

Rather, the literal sense is "that meaning which the words themselves signify". Obviously, this meaning is intended by God (but so is the spiritual sense).

So here is an example:

When Job says "My redeemer liveth", this means, according to the literal sense, that Christ will rise from the dead. The reason is that the word "redeemer" literally refers to Christ, Christ is the redeemer.

Here is an example of a spiritual interpretation: When the flood washes over the earth--this, according to the literal sense, means that a flood covered the earth. But according to the spiritual sense, the flood signifies baptism, by which sin is washed away.
This is because the word "flood" does not mean "baptism", but the event of a flood is a symbol for baptism.

Do you see the difference. For St. Thomas it is not about the intention of the author (God or man). It is about the meaning of words and the way things/events can point to other things/events.

I hope this helps.

Also, if you are interested in Thomistic Scripture Commentary, you should check out the blog: The New Theological Movement. They are commenting on the Sunday Gospel each week according to St. Thomas' theology.