[Wallace T.]

I used Summa Theologica because it is the work of one person, as were the writings of Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy. The problem with citing the decisions of church councils or the statements of the Popes speaking ex cathedra, even though held as infallible in Catholicism, is that these writings were composed over many centuries by many people, not unlike the Bible itself. Aquinas never claimed direct inspiration, but based his conclusions on Scripture, natural law, and centuries of Catholic tradition, rather than the supposed direct revelation of God to a 19th Century American woman. The intellectual merit of Aquinas' writings has been acknowledged by many non-Catholics, including Ayn Rand and James Joyce (former Catholic who became an agnostic). However, the Catholic Church has long held Aquinas' writings in the highest esteem, although never elevating it to the position of infallibility. Its place of honor was evidenced by the Council of Trent, the catechism of which was derived from Summa Theologica, and the writings of such Popes as Leo XIII and Pius X. In that sense, Summa Theologica may be seen as having parallels with the works of Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy in terms of its influence.

[dangus]

>> In that sense, Summa Theologica may be seen as having parallels with the works of Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy in terms of its influence. <<

Well, I’ll let it slide that that’s like saying George Washington may be seen as having parallels with the works of a local Sandanista block organizer. :^D