Talk:Summa Theologica

message: First, while we can call the article whatever previous WPers have decided, we cannot tell people that "Summa Theologica" means "summary of theology"; that is false, and so I have rewritten the intro to state that.
:But... "Summa Theologica" means what it means.  It is false to ascribe a meaning that defies the true latin translation.  Every article in WP has context and is written as such.  "Summa Theologica" is the title of Thomas D'Aquino's work.  "Summa Theologica" means "summary of theology".  WP has an article "A Short History of Nearly Everything" in reference to Bryson's book and that small book is certainly not nearly a History of everything.  That is absurd!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.228 (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Two serious solecisms

message: I'm pretty sure Thomas cited Pseudo-Dionysus, not actual Dionysius the Areopagite as linked to in the summary, can someone explain/change it?
I have just a few questions?
How does reason play apart in Aquinas' philosophy?
Where do rational creatures and their ability to reason relate to faith
:This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article, not of Thomas's philosophy and theology in general. A quick Web search would probably reveal someone willing to answer your questions.
Question:  Though I'm not Orthodox Christian, out of fairness, I have to ask, shouldn't the statement about christian doctrine or tradition being held solely by the Catholic Church (before the Reformation) be amended to include the Orthodox Church?  Even the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.216.145 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous questions

message: I reverted the notable points and put a few citations showing the sources of the points. If you have further disputes I could put in citations for the rest of the points. The points chosen are simply some of the most distinctive points that a third party would find interesting about whats talked about in the summa. The counter argument that Thomas was only speaking about the underlying lust and not the action itself is that the word lust is used in a broader way here then normal english usage, and refers to the action as well. Obviously the word used in the enlgish translation -- lust -- can't just refer to the desire, for is there a distinct sexual desire for rape as opposed to for consenual sex? And besides, even the word "Rape" used in that article is different then normal english usage, as it also describes violence against the father in order to take away the daughter even for consensual sex. - 	—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.227.234.36 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I think you're right.  Many of these "notable points" almost have a point-of-view ring to them (e.g., "homosexuality may be worse than rape" etc.)...  Here's an idea for an alternative:  Rather than having a subjective list of notable points, we could have a decently thorough, balanced outline of the Summa.  Real notable points have to do with the whole, rather than with particulars. - David aukerman talk 12:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable points

message: I suppose that this must have been discussed, but every authoritative source I can find uses Summa Theologiae, including:
*Aquinas Summa Theologiae (3 vols, ed. Caramello)
*Arrington [ed.] A Companion to the Philosophers
*Dyson [ed.] Aquinas: Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)
*Evans Philosophy & Theology in the Middle Ages
*Goodin & Pettit [edd] Contemporary Political Philosophy
*Kenny [ed.] Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays
*King One Hundred Philosophers
*Kretzmann & Stump [edd] The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas
*McDermott [ed.] Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation
*Marenbon Later Medieval Philosophy (1150–1350)
*Strauss & Cropsey [edd.] History of Political Philosophy
In fact I've failed to find a single reputable source that calls it Summa Theologica.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My professor has told me that Theologiae is indeed more correct, but we have a text book which does use Theologica.  It is called Medieval Philosophy, it is the 4th edition, and is by Baird and Kaufmann.  So it is important to mention that some call it by this name.  -Yoink23 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I mean, Summa Theologica should be a redirect to Summa Theologiae. Andres 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  But User:Wau2 is apparently intent on having Aquinas' work at Summa Theologica and a disambiguation page at Summa Theologiae.  Do we need some kind of outside advice here?  David aukerman talk 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: There's an ongoing discussion right now on Talk:Beaver about the distinction that the Roman Catholic Church draws between meat and nonmeat for the purposes of the Ash Wednesday/Good Friday/Fridays during Lent prohibition.  It seems that there is some authority (based on a passage in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae) that animals that are regarded as principally aquatic (including fish, and presumably including beavers) are treated as nonmeat for this purpose, and it seems that there is some authority (see citations in the Beaver article and additional references in Talk:Beaver) that the Church continues to adhere to this distinction.  The notion that "the Church thinks that beavers are fish" seems too silly to some.  Come check out the discussion at Talk:Beaver.Spikebrennan 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church distinction between meat and nonmeat

message: Two horribly practical questions: 
*is there a definitive/good English translation?
*it's long, isn't it? (17MB as a text file) Njál 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few authors have translated short passages, but there are really only two translations of the whole Summa. The first, titled Summa Theologica, was made by the "Fathers of the English Dominican Province" (actually only one, Fr. Laurence Shapcote) in the 1940s. The Web versions at newadvent and ccel are reprints of this. The second, titled Summa theologiæ, was made by a team of English Dominican scholars under Thomas Gilby, O.P., c. 1964-69. IMHO, both are good; the Gilby version is a little freer. Grommel 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions 

message: I have studied a comparison of the current version to the version marked for cleanup from October 2005. I believe that it is far enough along to be taken off the cleanup list, and I will do so unless there are objections.
Pistolspete 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here.  There's still a lot of work to be done on this article, but it does look better than it used to. David aukerman talk 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Factum Est  Pistolspete 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked for Cleanup 

message: I'd like to add reference to the ST's defense of the doctrine that the damned soul goes immediately to Hell after death, but I don't know who Aquinas was arguing against. The Eastern Orthodox Church? Other Roman Catholics? Muslims? Anyone know? Jonathan Tweet 15:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this scholar , as late as the 14th century Pope John XXII tended to relegate all judgment to judgment day (i.e., deny particular judgment). Jonathan Tweet 17:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschatology 

message: The whole notable points section needs revision and credited sources. It has often been seen that people will erroneously take propositions made by Aquinas in his "objections" part of a question and quote it as Aquinas' own thought (e.g., "Women have no souls"). Each notable point should refer to a specific Summa Theologiae answer for a question. Otherwise, we have no way of verifying the claim.--Benz74 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  In fact, I wonder if the concept of a "notable points" section complies with Wikipedia:NPOV in the first place... who decides that a certain point is notable, anyway?  Someone with a particular agenda, perhaps?  Maybe the revision of this section should be very broad. David aukerman talk 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable points section redux 

message: I've noticed a distinct lack of any mention of the various responses to the Summa Theologica, in the form of rational disputes, or some of the various attempts of debunking (which should be objective of their success).  The article, as it is, is rather unbalanced.  I understand that it is not about Theology but about a very notable book on that matter. Surely the modern oppositional reception of the Summa Theologica deserves a mention.  Responses such as this should at least be acknowledged.
The article seems to accurately summarise the book, but it also gives impression that it is accepted to be correct by everyone.  Which is not the case. --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 08:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response (Balance?) 

message: Aquinas titled this work "Summa Theologiae"; the name "Summa Theologica" came about later.  I think the main title and usage should match the author's, with "Summa Theologica" as a redirect pointing to it.  Tb (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Aquinas left this work incomplete, but no mention of that is made in the article AFAICT, and the article describes the contents as if Aquinas had finished the Pars Tertia; he got through three sacraments, and said nothing about eschatology.  Tb (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completion 

message: Is it normal on Wikipedia to have retail links? This is the first link to goods on Amazon that I've encountered, and I find it rather off-putting. Would someone please inform whether this is a kosher Wikipedian practice? Morinus (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon 

message: Aquinas did not finish the work.  If memory serves, he died before the final section on the sacraments was finished.  I don't have the details handy, but that would be a good addition.  Overall, the article lacks a lot about the "metadata" of the work - its history, its use throughout history, the world at the time it was composed, Aquinas's assumptions about the readers, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.194.142 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Point Needs to be Added 

message: (X.Y.Z.T comment moved from top Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I commented it out, so that any editor that happenstance disagrees, can comment the statement back to life. (Take it easy, be happy!) Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added it and worked it around a bit - and I just noticed this is two years old. There needs to be more action on this talk page. At least as much as for Talk:Genesis creation narrative, which has an archive time of what, five days, and is constantly 400kB+ long! St John Chrysostom view/my bias 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: (not more mature version!!)

message: Not only is this whole (very long) section apparently copied verbatim from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (judging by the stilted prose), it seems to duplicate most (if not all) of the points above.  I know Schaff-Herzog is public domain, but we're still supposed to paraphrase.--Wi2g (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of key opinions rendered in the ''Summa'' (below the diagram)

message: The infobox currently lists the book as having been published in 1917.  That is, at best, highly misleading.  Unless someone can give a good reason for having that year there, it should be changed. Kevin Nelson (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Published in 1917?

message: The photograph captioned "Summa theologica, 1596" shows the title page of an index to the work -- "two copious indices", in fact. If I can figure out how, I'm going to add a picture of an early edition of the work itself. Wgrommel (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate photograph

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 01:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Summa Theologica →  – WP:COMMONNAME according to majority of sources from the past 26 years; compare Summa Theologica and Summa Theologiae on this Google NGram. Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 08:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
===25 November 2019: 21st century===
   The Google NGram makes available only a graph stopped at 2008, 11 years ago (was WP already born?). An alternative differential analysis, restricted to the 21st century, shows very different results: Summa Theologica vs. Summa Theologiae. It seems clear that the gap has increased well over 15%, perhaps up to +100%. --84.223.139.119 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia was established in 2001, and was only 7-years-old in 2008. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow: this is a comprehensive answer that captures the core of the problem. Thank you so much. --84.223.139.119 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 July 2016 

message: The Google NGram makes available only a graph stopped at 2008, 11 years ago (was WP already born?). An alternative differential analysis, restricted to the 21st century, shows very different results: Summa Theologica vs. Summa Theologiae. It seems clear that the gap has increased well over 15%, perhaps up to +100%. --84.223.139.119 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia was established in 2001, and was only 7-years-old in 2008. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow: this is a comprehensive answer that captures the core of the problem. Thank you so much. --84.223.139.119 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 25 November 2019: 21st century

message: I'm going to tag the "Key points" section as original research. Secondary sources are badly needed here, for two reasons: (a) to confirm that these bullet points accurately summarise the cited portions of the Summa (for instance, contrary to the third bullet, I don't see it stated in 1.3.4 that a non-existent object such as a mountain of gold possesses essence); and (b) to establish that these points are indeed "key" (eg. are Thomas' views on the ethics of lending really essential to an understanding of the work? And if so, why? Some sourced explanation is needed as to why these particular points have been singled out.) From earlier comments on this talk page, I get the impression that these points were chosen simply as those which struck Wikipedia editors as interesting. I don't know whether it's possible to turn this section into something encyclopedic, but hopefully the tag will spur someone to make the attempt. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research