Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream; YHAOS; metmom
so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said...

Certainly a pro-contraception liberal like you would be a good judge of what Aquinas really means. We see that not only have you recruited the Popes as support for Deism or materialistic atheism or whatever it is you're selling, now even Aquinas is on your side. Ho boy! We should believe your commentaries on Aquinas (and on the Popes) and all your commentaries on things Catholic for that matter, because you are so very credible.

Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower"

Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order...

The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

-Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part.


290 posted on 02/17/2009 7:05:48 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies ]


To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

I am not a liberal.

I am not an atheist.

I am not a Deist.

I am not “selling” anything.

I am pointing out that while science cannot and will not ever contradict what Scripture actually says, it certainly can make mince meat out of the silly interpretations that creationist zealots make of it.

For example, Prov 104:5, obviously doesn’t mean that the Earth does not move in relation to other celestial bodies. I do not deny scripture by saying the Earth moves, I deny the interpretation that Prov 104:5 means more than what it actually says.

Prov 104:5 HE set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.


291 posted on 02/17/2009 7:23:47 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson