Thomas Aquinas' works with English and original Latin presented in parallel(aquinas.cc)
aquinas.cc
Thomas Aquinas' works with English and original Latin presented in parallel
https://aquinas.cc
96 comments
Shameless plug for my own Chinese-learning program, Pingtype. It does word-by-word translation as well. Here's a direct link to one example dataset (Bible)
https://pingtype.github.io/bible.html
https://pingtype.github.io/bible.html
This is really cool; thank you! It was a bit hard at first to understand what was going on (and that the page was still loading), but after find the docs at https://pingtype.github.io/docs/docs.html I understand better, and it seems really impressive and useful. And it's really (pleasantly) surprising that the translation happens offline in the browser, after loading so little data (the font is bigger).
Sefaria - Jewish texts (Bible, Midrashim, Mishna, Talmud, etc.). Example of a side-by-side layout:
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1?lang=bi&aliyot=0
[deleted]
I found this curation of lectures https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/ (they are on apple podcast as well) very helpful to understand the thought of Aquinas. It's not like a typical course but collection of talks on aspects of Thomistic philosophy.
Excellent. My Latin is crap these days, and if I had to read the original it would take an hour to get through a page with a dictionary open, but it's great to have the Latin right there if something in the English raises an eyebrow.
It would be absolutely incredible to have a resource like The Latin Library (https://thelatinlibrary.com) with parallel translations.
Perseus Digital Library has a quite a few, in Greek as well.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Pe...
https://scaife.perseus.org/library/
This translation looks good from a quick scan. Reasonably faithful to the text of Aquinas without being unduly contorted to track the Latin structure. A nice effort!
This is something I've wanted for so long! Amazing! Most sites hosting works such as those of St. Thomas Aquinas are often lacking, this looks great!
This is a working system used to produce https://aquinasinstitute.org/operaomnia/ - you can sometimes see changes made in real-time if you’re observant.
https://alpheios.net/
Is an open source project for making alignments like this. Great for learning and close inspection.
Is an open source project for making alignments like this. Great for learning and close inspection.
This reminds be of the "No Fear" series of classics which really helped me get into Shakespeare. What I usually do with stuff like this is read the original, read the translated/simplified version, and then finally read the original text again. I find that this method really helps both reinforce the meaning as well as appreciate the beauty of the original language.
St Thomas was a man of prayer and a Galaxy Brain!
I’m prepared to go ahead and grant him Universe Brain status. ;)
I wish this existed for every philosopher. This is marvelous and an example of what I love about the Internet!
This is a great resource but please for the love of Tommy, use modern English.
"Because the Teacher of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners, according to the Apostle:"
I'm not looking for: "lol, don't preach to the choir rofl. The Big Guy says so." but it's 2020ish and not 1950.
I know exactly where that language style (in the translation) comes from and it needs to go away. If I find the word "thou" later, I will go (slightly) postal. OK my left eye will twitch a bit.
"Because the Teacher of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners, according to the Apostle:"
I'm not looking for: "lol, don't preach to the choir rofl. The Big Guy says so." but it's 2020ish and not 1950.
I know exactly where that language style (in the translation) comes from and it needs to go away. If I find the word "thou" later, I will go (slightly) postal. OK my left eye will twitch a bit.
Translations are not made every day; one has to pick from what is available (and in the public domain at that, for a website like this), and the translation used here is evidently the one published in 1922 in 21 volumes as being by "Fathers of the English Dominican Province" but actually by one person, Father Laurence Shapcote (1864–1947). (Via the article linked from https://thomistica.net/news/2011/9/13/the-shapcote-translati...)
> In 1910 the Province decided to have the Summa translated. Fr Laurence brought out the first volumes before he left England, but the bulk of the work was done in South Africa. In addition he also translated the Summa Contra Gentes (4 volumes, 1923 –1929), and the Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia (3 volumes, 1932–34). This translation of the Summa is ‘literal’. […] In a way, for students who have no Latin, the Shapcote translation gives a better idea, more of the feel, of the original, even though it does not make conversation with St Thomas so easy.
> Laurence Shapcote never wrote anything: there is no way of telling what his own ‘Thomism’ was. It is a century since he started work. He did not respond to suggestions that he should unmask his anonymity. Readers who are thankful for this literal translation would surely be all the more grateful if they knew that it was done by Laurence Shapcote alone, in very austere conditions, on the Rand and in Natal, doggedly translating his way through the major works of St Thomas.
But your comment is intriguing; I'm mostly struck by the idea that the style of 1950s is so much different from that of 2020s. (For reference, 1950 was the year of publication of Asimov's "I, Robot" collection of stories published earlier, or C. S. Lewis's "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"; Greene's The Third Man and Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four were published the previous year.) In what sense is the sentence fragment you quoted not modern English? You gave an example of what you're not looking for; could you also give an example of how you would rewrite it?
And what does this have to do with "thou", which went out of use in the 17th century? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thou&oldid=102516...) A translation into standard English wouldn't have used "thou" even in 1950 (and this 1922 translation doesn't either, except in literal quotes from the King James Bible).
(Of course, neither of us is using the technical meaning of "modern English" which includes Shakespeare too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_English&ol... .)
> In 1910 the Province decided to have the Summa translated. Fr Laurence brought out the first volumes before he left England, but the bulk of the work was done in South Africa. In addition he also translated the Summa Contra Gentes (4 volumes, 1923 –1929), and the Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia (3 volumes, 1932–34). This translation of the Summa is ‘literal’. […] In a way, for students who have no Latin, the Shapcote translation gives a better idea, more of the feel, of the original, even though it does not make conversation with St Thomas so easy.
> Laurence Shapcote never wrote anything: there is no way of telling what his own ‘Thomism’ was. It is a century since he started work. He did not respond to suggestions that he should unmask his anonymity. Readers who are thankful for this literal translation would surely be all the more grateful if they knew that it was done by Laurence Shapcote alone, in very austere conditions, on the Rand and in Natal, doggedly translating his way through the major works of St Thomas.
But your comment is intriguing; I'm mostly struck by the idea that the style of 1950s is so much different from that of 2020s. (For reference, 1950 was the year of publication of Asimov's "I, Robot" collection of stories published earlier, or C. S. Lewis's "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"; Greene's The Third Man and Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four were published the previous year.) In what sense is the sentence fragment you quoted not modern English? You gave an example of what you're not looking for; could you also give an example of how you would rewrite it?
And what does this have to do with "thou", which went out of use in the 17th century? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thou&oldid=102516...) A translation into standard English wouldn't have used "thou" even in 1950 (and this 1922 translation doesn't either, except in literal quotes from the King James Bible).
(Of course, neither of us is using the technical meaning of "modern English" which includes Shakespeare too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_English&ol... .)
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for spending quite a lot of time responding to me.
> But your comment is intriguing; I'm mostly struck by the idea that the style of 1950s is so much different from that of 2020s.
I threw the 1950s into my comment because that is post WW2 and pre me - I'm 50 ie off of 1970 and onwards. I perhaps didn't think it through too much. I am a Brit wot went through the private school system in general apart from the six or seven schools in West Germany, London and Manchester before age eight. My upbringing was loosely observant Church of England.
The CofE Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal etc was full of thee and thou and was modernised to you and you around those decades. You still hear "for Thine is the Kingdom" in the Lord's Prayer even today.
Thine, thee and thou (your, you and you) are still in use. You also see what looks like Ye or ye but the letter that looks like Yy is really the letter thorn so ye is really thee.
Shake the spear wrote during the time of the great vowel shift in English which seems to have taken about 300 years. Spelling in his time was pretty random and looks more like hints and indications, rather than "correct". My home town of Yeovil has over sixty documented spellings since around 400CE. A lot of them are seen in those 300 years. I would put Shakey into a different brand of English because I doubt that he and I could have conversed. My mum could make herself completely unintelligible by falling back to her girlhood Devonian dialect from the 40s/50s.
Language is way more interesting and diverse than a WP page can possibly describe. I do love WP - its a cracking project and I've written quite a lot of WM (M not P - I'm a nerd not a clever bloke) pages. However it does fall short sometimes due to some small minded editors who squat on their pages and refuse to allow changes.
Language scholarship used to need a bit of a kicking but I think that is quietly happening over the last 20-30 years. I'm not an expert in any way but I do see signs of broadmindedness and proper scholarship in some of the books I read that have a language component. That said, you then get threads like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27721748 . Search for the terms Chinese and Sanscrit for the exciting bits (or the bits where you quietly close the door and wander off.) There are some decent ideas and comments in there but they are really hard to find.
Sadly, aggressive nationalism is rearing its ugly head in no small way. I'm a Brit and well aware of my nation's past. It seems like everyone wants to piss off the rest of the world a la the worst excesses of the British Empire. My forebears () invented the word jingoism and it is quite awful seeing others not learning the lessons of our past.
Whoops, sorry. Back in the room ... 8)
() I should point out that my documented ancestors include people who identified with all four UK nations and the male line runs back to Germany (Hanover) in around 1750 where the trail runs cold.
> But your comment is intriguing; I'm mostly struck by the idea that the style of 1950s is so much different from that of 2020s.
I threw the 1950s into my comment because that is post WW2 and pre me - I'm 50 ie off of 1970 and onwards. I perhaps didn't think it through too much. I am a Brit wot went through the private school system in general apart from the six or seven schools in West Germany, London and Manchester before age eight. My upbringing was loosely observant Church of England.
The CofE Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal etc was full of thee and thou and was modernised to you and you around those decades. You still hear "for Thine is the Kingdom" in the Lord's Prayer even today.
Thine, thee and thou (your, you and you) are still in use. You also see what looks like Ye or ye but the letter that looks like Yy is really the letter thorn so ye is really thee.
Shake the spear wrote during the time of the great vowel shift in English which seems to have taken about 300 years. Spelling in his time was pretty random and looks more like hints and indications, rather than "correct". My home town of Yeovil has over sixty documented spellings since around 400CE. A lot of them are seen in those 300 years. I would put Shakey into a different brand of English because I doubt that he and I could have conversed. My mum could make herself completely unintelligible by falling back to her girlhood Devonian dialect from the 40s/50s.
Language is way more interesting and diverse than a WP page can possibly describe. I do love WP - its a cracking project and I've written quite a lot of WM (M not P - I'm a nerd not a clever bloke) pages. However it does fall short sometimes due to some small minded editors who squat on their pages and refuse to allow changes.
Language scholarship used to need a bit of a kicking but I think that is quietly happening over the last 20-30 years. I'm not an expert in any way but I do see signs of broadmindedness and proper scholarship in some of the books I read that have a language component. That said, you then get threads like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27721748 . Search for the terms Chinese and Sanscrit for the exciting bits (or the bits where you quietly close the door and wander off.) There are some decent ideas and comments in there but they are really hard to find.
Sadly, aggressive nationalism is rearing its ugly head in no small way. I'm a Brit and well aware of my nation's past. It seems like everyone wants to piss off the rest of the world a la the worst excesses of the British Empire. My forebears () invented the word jingoism and it is quite awful seeing others not learning the lessons of our past.
Whoops, sorry. Back in the room ... 8)
() I should point out that my documented ancestors include people who identified with all four UK nations and the male line runs back to Germany (Hanover) in around 1750 where the trail runs cold.
I like Aquinas, especially for his silly attempts to justify Aristotle's particular choice of categories, which eventually led to Occam proposing his razor... but why is this popular now?
He is much more satisfying to read than modern philosophers.
Because his philosophy is true.
Virtually nobody thinks that, so you're going to have to justify why you do.
Wait is the English a translation or did he write them in both languages? I’m guessing the former since the English seems too modern (and writing both versions would be a lot of work).
It's a translation. It was originally written in Latin.
cf. 般諾波羅心經 which is, in fact, thought to have been first composed in Chinese, and later to be translated to Sanskrit. Also Aquinas was a 13th c Italian who ended up in Paris, so not altogether unreasonable that he did write in England, in English, given his conventionalized first name. I only say this to safeguard against comments along the lines that were my first impulse.
If Aquinas knew any English, it would have been more like Chaucer’s. It’s unlikely he would have had any reason to write books in English.
Yeah that was one (of many) indicators the English wasn't an original from Aquinas. I was just confused because normally a translation will be marked as such, with the translator's name.
It has been said that the quickest way to get a question answered online is to prominently post the wrong answer. I feel like this was Aquinas's role in the development of western philosophy.
I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
It is a joke based on Aquinas' style of answering questions. He begins with a handful of "objections" that take the opposite position to the one he eventually lands on. To take a random example, "Whether a man is bound to give thanks to every benefactor?" (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q106.A3)
> It is a joke based on Aquinas' style of answering questions.
This wasn't particular to Aquinas, but fairly common among Scholastics:
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/41999/what-is-th...
In some ways you're trying to steel man (as opposed to straw man) the opposing arguments. It was a reflection of the oral debating style used in universities at the time.
This wasn't particular to Aquinas, but fairly common among Scholastics:
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/41999/what-is-th...
In some ways you're trying to steel man (as opposed to straw man) the opposing arguments. It was a reflection of the oral debating style used in universities at the time.
Strange that that answer doesn't include the fact that they were heavily influenced by Aristotle (who had just been rediscovered by Europeans) who explicitely recommended doing this.
My reading of the joke was that it wasn't about Aquinas's question/answers/objections/resolution style, but just suggesting that Aquinas got a lot of things wrong but got them wrong very clearly, making him a useful person to argue against in order to develop better answers to his questions.
I read it that way. He was so methodical and echaustive (as well as orthodox in many ways) that he became the perfect starting point to rebel against.
Not OP, but from what I understand Aquinas seems to have had a fixed lens he allowed himself to view the world through and seemingly based the fundamentals of his philosophy on. Not even Aristotle could be properly studied without a Christian lens.
He's generally viewed as a net positive since Christiandom ruled the western world and Aquinas reconciled some Aristotelian and Neoplatonic views with the Catholic Church ("Nothing comes from nothing", "cause and effect", etc) But to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans lining up to be burned in the good lord's holy fires—even though they figured the same thing about the way things appear to work.
He's generally viewed as a net positive since Christiandom ruled the western world and Aquinas reconciled some Aristotelian and Neoplatonic views with the Catholic Church ("Nothing comes from nothing", "cause and effect", etc) But to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans lining up to be burned in the good lord's holy fires—even though they figured the same thing about the way things appear to work.
> a fixed lens he allowed himself to view the world through
That's true of any philosopher.
> to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans
Ahistorical nonsense.
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/1...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsf13g
That's true of any philosopher.
> to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans
Ahistorical nonsense.
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/1...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsf13g
Specifically, I'd add that Aquinas had enormous regard for Aristotle and the pagan philosophers, to the point that he referred to Aristotle with the honorific "the Philosopher".
I'd be wary of misinterpreting endearment as honorific.
Morally, he couldn't exalt a Pagan. He only brought himself to say that they essentially "weren't all bad", and beautifully illustrated. He was right, of course, about them—but ultimately he looked down upon them from a moral and ethical standpoint.
Morally, he couldn't exalt a Pagan. He only brought himself to say that they essentially "weren't all bad", and beautifully illustrated. He was right, of course, about them—but ultimately he looked down upon them from a moral and ethical standpoint.
Aquinas acknowledged heavy philosophical debts to Maimonides and Averroes while critiquing them in particulars. And as for the theology, I don't see how you get "looked down on" from: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q10. To say that Aquinas "looked down on" pagans seems like an almost maximally uncharitable summary of the man's actual views. Where are you seeing this?
The Medieval church's philosophy was called Neoplatonism, after Plato, a 'pagan'. IIRC, they would have loved to have Aristotle's works too, and they were finally discovered in the time of Aquinas.
Common cosmological and philosophical threads run through all religions, but some tenets of Neoplatonism and related Hermetic mystical foundations made their way into Catholicism through two means: early Christian cults and sects before an organized central church ruled on all tenets, and later through Augustine and Aquinas saying "these guys aren't so bad, they figured out why we know there's a god at all and now we can prove it".
Neoplatonism well predates the church. It's beautiful, though.
Neoplatonism well predates the church. It's beautiful, though.
The Name of the Rose is a great read, that to me summarises the relationship nicely.
It's a fundamental tenet of the Catholic belief system. If you're not Catholic christian, then you're Pagan, and it follows if you're not adhering to Catholic Christianity then you are doomed.
Not Christianity in all its forms, sure, but Catholicism absolutely.
Just because Aquinas questioned if "pagans" could be virtuous in spite of their beliefs, does not mean he didn't believe they were destined for exclusion from God. He might have written more positively about them than his counterparts and colleagues in the church, but he was looking down his nose at them.
I don't consider adherents to a dogma reaching out in "charity" to be a relationship of equitable footing. It reminds me of that old English nonsense of "noble savages". Just because they called them "noble"...
edit:
Happy to remove my personal opinions.
I'm not making up these perspectives; this is dogma according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/paganism. And it's literally in the abstract of the first paper linked to.
Aquinas, as a function of his adherence to that dogma, presumed all Pagans to be doomed as a function of their not adhering to the same dogma. He considered them possibly capable of virtue, but morally inferior.
Not Christianity in all its forms, sure, but Catholicism absolutely.
Just because Aquinas questioned if "pagans" could be virtuous in spite of their beliefs, does not mean he didn't believe they were destined for exclusion from God. He might have written more positively about them than his counterparts and colleagues in the church, but he was looking down his nose at them.
I don't consider adherents to a dogma reaching out in "charity" to be a relationship of equitable footing. It reminds me of that old English nonsense of "noble savages". Just because they called them "noble"...
edit:
Happy to remove my personal opinions.
I'm not making up these perspectives; this is dogma according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/paganism. And it's literally in the abstract of the first paper linked to.
Aquinas, as a function of his adherence to that dogma, presumed all Pagans to be doomed as a function of their not adhering to the same dogma. He considered them possibly capable of virtue, but morally inferior.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents [1], and certainly not on religious flamewar tangents, which this is.
There are plenty of interesting things to discuss about Aquinas in his historical context. The last thing we need is to replace that with generic (and therefore tedious, and eventually nasty) arguments about "dogma" and (god help us) "the errors of modern Christianity".
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
There are plenty of interesting things to discuss about Aquinas in his historical context. The last thing we need is to replace that with generic (and therefore tedious, and eventually nasty) arguments about "dogma" and (god help us) "the errors of modern Christianity".
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
I understand why he comes across that way, but as a Catholic myself, he's correct in his assertion that the church still holds the doctrine 'extra Ecclesiam nulla salus' (Outside the church there is no salvation) and that most Catholics of Aquinas's time would have believed an even strong version. This is not flame-baiting. It's a statement of Catholic doctrine that's been written on extensively for many years. IMO, he's just providing a factual background for Aquinas' worldview that anyone -- Catholic or otherwise -- can use to interpret his philosophy however they want.
I don't think this is flamebaiting personally, but maybe I have thick skin.
The only thing he's 'wrong' about is that not every non-Catholic is considered a pagan. Some are schismatics or heretics. Again, that's not my opinion or his/her opinion. That's just a statement of what the church publicly proclaims to believe about non-catholics.
I don't think this is flamebaiting personally, but maybe I have thick skin.
The only thing he's 'wrong' about is that not every non-Catholic is considered a pagan. Some are schismatics or heretics. Again, that's not my opinion or his/her opinion. That's just a statement of what the church publicly proclaims to believe about non-catholics.
There's no reason why a correct statement can't be flamebait. Frequently they are.
The problem here isn't that the GP posted opinion rather than fact, or something like that; it's that the comment was a dramatic swerve into generic flamewar territory. More explanation if it helps: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
The problem here isn't that the GP posted opinion rather than fact, or something like that; it's that the comment was a dramatic swerve into generic flamewar territory. More explanation if it helps: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
Thank you. You read me correctly. To be fair to dang, my original comment had my personal opinion on dogma laced into it. I removed that portion.
I hadn't felt I was launching into any arguments even with my opinion laced in, but it may also be that I don't tend to be patient with my wording. So what seems only matter-of-fact to me may come across more cold-hearted to others than I intended.
Either way, I appreciate your insightful additions. You'll probably be more helpful on this subject already than I've been.
I hadn't felt I was launching into any arguments even with my opinion laced in, but it may also be that I don't tend to be patient with my wording. So what seems only matter-of-fact to me may come across more cold-hearted to others than I intended.
Either way, I appreciate your insightful additions. You'll probably be more helpful on this subject already than I've been.
Dang, nothing I said was to instigate a flame war about religion. I think my comment history should speak for itself, there.
I was defending my statement on Aquinas, and so I had to draw out the conclusion. I think that's fair.
I never directed any remark at anyone's beliefs, so I think this is all heavy-handed, but just the same I removed the offending opinions and tuned my comment to suit HN's mode.
I was defending my statement on Aquinas, and so I had to draw out the conclusion. I think that's fair.
I never directed any remark at anyone's beliefs, so I think this is all heavy-handed, but just the same I removed the offending opinions and tuned my comment to suit HN's mode.
I believe you about your intention, but we have to go by effects, not intent [1]. What you posted was certainly a swerve into generic religious territory and the sort of thing that, based on experience, is likely to turn into a religious flamewar.
The more important point here is that it's best to avoid generic tangents [2], especially on classic flamewar topics.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
The more important point here is that it's best to avoid generic tangents [2], especially on classic flamewar topics.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
>"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
>846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
>848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
[1] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
>846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
>848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
[1] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
> If you're not Catholic christian, then you're Pagan
Pagan is only one category of unbeliever. There are also:
1. Heretics (bad Catholics and all Protestants)
2. Schismatics (the Eastern Orthodox and splinter groups)
3. Infidels (Muslims and anyone else who acknowledges the Abrahamic God but denies Christ)
4. Jews (for having been God's chosen people and having denied the Messiah), see #3
5. Heathens ("spiritual but not religious")
6. Atheists
> if you're not adhering to Catholic Christianity then you are doomed
Strive to enter by the narrow gate.
Pagan is only one category of unbeliever. There are also:
1. Heretics (bad Catholics and all Protestants)
2. Schismatics (the Eastern Orthodox and splinter groups)
3. Infidels (Muslims and anyone else who acknowledges the Abrahamic God but denies Christ)
4. Jews (for having been God's chosen people and having denied the Messiah), see #3
5. Heathens ("spiritual but not religious")
6. Atheists
> if you're not adhering to Catholic Christianity then you are doomed
Strive to enter by the narrow gate.
I'm just pulling the usage from the Catholic Encylopedia, via Catholic Answers so that I can't be accused of misconstruing anything: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/paganism
That's a reasonable source. My list was what I could recall from the Baltimore Catechism. I went to find a link, and it looks like I missed a few.
Q 1170: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson30.htm
Q 1170: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson30.htm
I think you're hierarchy is fine, but keep in mind the Baltimore catechism is not an 'official' church document issued by Rome.
As something issued by all bishops in the USA, it did at one time have official status in dioceses within the United States.
But it's not a place to cite 'official' Catholic teaching, because it's not a universal Church document the way a church council, a vatican statement, or the writings of one of the church doctors would be.
It's best to cite a source that the Baltimore Catechism would have used as the authoritative source.
As something issued by all bishops in the USA, it did at one time have official status in dioceses within the United States.
But it's not a place to cite 'official' Catholic teaching, because it's not a universal Church document the way a church council, a vatican statement, or the writings of one of the church doctors would be.
It's best to cite a source that the Baltimore Catechism would have used as the authoritative source.
The source you cited below doesn't mention other religions by name, nor does it have a special category for one of them.
>Aquinas reconciled some Aristotelian and Neoplatonic views with the Catholic Church
I wonder if you might be mistaking Aquinas for Augustine? Augustine introduced huge amounts of Neoplatonism into Christianity very early---little more than a century after the original Neoplatonist, Plotinus himself. It's also worth noting that Plotinus was a disciple of the mysterious Ammonius Saccas, one of whose other disciples was none other than Origen, a very influential early Christian writer (albeit later considered a heretic).
I wonder if you might be mistaking Aquinas for Augustine? Augustine introduced huge amounts of Neoplatonism into Christianity very early---little more than a century after the original Neoplatonist, Plotinus himself. It's also worth noting that Plotinus was a disciple of the mysterious Ammonius Saccas, one of whose other disciples was none other than Origen, a very influential early Christian writer (albeit later considered a heretic).
It's fair to say Augustine did more reconciling with Neoplatonism. Aquinas did some. I think Aquinas was more wary of relying too heavily upon a philosophy that he saw as incomplete. Even "the philosopher" could not provide a comprehensive framework for Christian philosophy. When Neoplatonism was useful, he would take parts here and there, but he was under no illusion that Neoplatonism provided a sufficient framework for understanding the world. The early Italian renaissance philosophers were far more taken with Plato and the Neoplatonists. Marsilio Ficino, for example, probably went too far trying to reconcile parts that were (arguably) fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
My understanding, which was never great and is imperfectly recalled:
Augustine was the foundation of Neoplatonism in the Medieval church, which was it's guiding philosophy (to some great extent) for centuries.
The works of Aristotle were lost to them. They knew of Aristotle but didn't have his writings. Around the time of Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle's works were rediscovered, having been preserved in the Muslim world. Aquinas' great task was reconciling them with the existing church.
Augustine was the foundation of Neoplatonism in the Medieval church, which was it's guiding philosophy (to some great extent) for centuries.
The works of Aristotle were lost to them. They knew of Aristotle but didn't have his writings. Around the time of Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle's works were rediscovered, having been preserved in the Muslim world. Aquinas' great task was reconciling them with the existing church.
Augustine does explicitly reference Aristotle's "Categories" in his Confessions, I believe. Not sure what other material of Aristotle's was available to Augustine, I'm not a scholar on the subject. Of course, even to us today, many of Aristotle's works are STILL lost, so...
He wrote a lot about a variety of Big Topics in philosophy and theology, often getting things quite wrong, sometimes subtly, sometimes... less subtly. This has prompted much commentary, refutation, and further development toward better arguments.
trasz(4)
[deleted]
This is incredible! Great work!
Wonderful!
Doesn't work for me on FF on windows 10.
There is no index on the left, the scrollbar thumb doesn't work, and when you scroll down with the arrow keys, it goes only a few paragraphs before stopping.
There is no index on the left, the scrollbar thumb doesn't work, and when you scroll down with the arrow keys, it goes only a few paragraphs before stopping.
Listing the ones I know (in no particular order, just a list I had collected a while ago):
- Physical (print) books: Loeb Classical Library (Greek and Latin) https://www.loebclassics.com/, Clay Sanskrit Library (Sanskrit) http://www.claysanskritlibrary.org/volumes_current.php, Murty Classical Library of India (various languages) https://murtylibrary.com/volumes.php.
- Perseus Hopper (Greek and Latin), https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
- Chinese Text Project (https://ctext.org/)
- https://nodictionaries.com/ (Latin)
- http://pseudw.herokuapp.com/iliad/books/1?start=500&end=589&... = https://github.com/nkallen/pseudw/ (Greek: The Iliad)
- http://alpheios.net/ (Latin, Greek)
- quran.com / legacy.quran.com / corpus.quran.com (The Quran: Arabic)
- Dickinson College Commentaries (Latin) e.g. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/tacitus-agricola/1
- "e-readers" under http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl/ (Sanskrit)
- Gita Supersite (Sanskrit) e.g. https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&fiel...
- https://greenmesg.org/stotras/lakshmi/sri_suktam.php etc (Sanskrit)
- No Fear Shakespeare (https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/)
- https://github.com/tasuki/side-by-side e.g. https://enchiridion.tasuki.org https://ttc.tasuki.org/
- This one (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Pr.3)
Of these, http://alpheios.net/ and https://github.com/tasuki/side-by-side are ones that allow you to build your own webpages / present your own texts. Are there more?