The work of Thomas Aquinas, although somewhat insignificant in his time, is arguably one of the most studied, discussed, and revered of the medieval period. As Plantinga, Thompson, and Lundberg argue, "of all theologians, it is undoubtedly the shadow of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) that looms most over medieval Latin theology." Numerous in the Middle Ages, Thomist works have since acquired great esteem, valued as the perfect manifestation of reason used for the defense of the faith within a systematized theology. This dynamic between faith and reason is what underpins the entire theology of Thomas Aquinas; absolute priority is given to faith, with reason simply acting as a tool to expound the truths of faith graciously granted to us through revelation. Theology is a quest for understanding through faith, but the tool of reason used to achieve such understanding should never be deployed so arrogantly as to undermine the truths of faith. In this essay I will aim to examine in more detail Aquinas' position on the correct relationship between faith and reason and, subsequently, assess how this understanding fits into Thomistic theology of the sacraments and, more particularly , of the Eucharist. Aquinas' Eucharistic work is perhaps one of his most lasting contributions to theology; indeed, as Davies writes, "he is often considered the Catholic Church's eucharistic theologian par excellence..." [2] I will seek to support the argument that Aquinas's eucharistic theology acts as a microcosmic manifestation of his theological method; faith and tradition provide the theological truths that Aquinas then expounds using reasoned argument - not to prove or give credence to his faith beliefs - but simply to defend and understand them on a level beyond of simple acceptance and ascension towards certain propositions. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Throughout his career, Aquinas, like most prominent academic theologians, was involved in the debate over the proper use of philosophy, particularly Aristotle, in the universities. It is because of his desire to reject the adoption of radical Aristotelianism that Aquinas offers a systematic explanation of the relationship between faith and reason, ultimately granting the latter the position of handmaiden to the former. The term “servant,” however, has connotations of subordination, which seems contrary to Aquinas’s understanding of the two disciplines; as Sigmund writes, "for Thomas Aquinas...the belief that faith and reason were both valid and divinely legitimized sources of human knowledge meant that neither should be seen as dominating the other . » [3] Both divinely inspired, it is impossible for the other to be the disciplines of reason and faith must contradict each other and, consequently, one cannot exist as subordinate to the other, simply equal and complementary. As Thomas Aquinas writes, because what human reason is naturally endowed with is clearly the most true; so much so that it is impossible for us to consider such truths as false. Nor is it permissible to believe as false what we hold by faith, since it is confirmed in such a clearly divine way. Since therefore only the false is opposed to the true, as is clear from an examination of their definitions, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be opposed to the principles that human reason naturally knows.[4] That said, however,according to Thomas Aquinas, reason cannot function alone to determine the highest theological truth. The highest truths concerning God can only be revealed by God himself and cannot be discerned by reason and deduction from nature; as Plantinga, Thompson, and Lundberg write, "truths such as the triune nature of God or creation ex nihilo could only be known through faith's dependence on grace...reason is capable of a lot, but it must be supplemented by faith. »[5] Niederbacher offers a neat formula for what Aquinas would consider propositions of faith or "credible" propositions, those which "belong to the object of faith and which are believed on the authority of God ". '[6] 'A proposition p is a credible proposition if and only if i) p is true ii) p is revealed by God; iii) p is accepted because p is revealed by God; iv) p presents truths about God and created things to the extent that they are necessary and sufficient to direct the lives of human beings toward their ultimate end. “[7] These propositions can, obviously, be accepted because they are revealed, and not because we reason them. However, the highest principles of the faith, although they cannot be demonstrated by human beings, can be defended using reasoned argument. So, Aquinas asserts, we must be able to show that these principles of faith are not impossible, that they are not impossible. contradict what is obvious or demonstrable, that the vanquished can be vanquished, that conclusions can be drawn from principles deductively. »[8] Thomas Aquinas believes in some of the most fundamental theological truths, such as that of the existence of God. be rationally demonstrable; when discussing our assent to the precepts of the Decalogue, for example, he does not refer to divine revelation to explain our knowledge of the content of natural law but argues that it is therefore obvious that since moral precepts concern issues that concern good morals; and since good morals are those which are in agreement with reason; and since also every judgment of human reason must necessarily derive in one way or another from natural reason; it follows, necessarily, that all moral precepts belong to the law of nature.[9] Reason is not to be resisted since, as Cross says, "God's giving reason to human beings is a necessary consequence of his creation of human beings: being rational is part of what it means to be human." »[10] It is, however, limited. Aquinas's understanding of sacramental theology in general is not something he reasons toward, but something he inherits as truth of faith from the Christian tradition. The sacraments derive from Christ's death on the cross since it is in the flesh that he offers, and that humans receive grace. From the pierced side of Christ flow blood and water, the Eucharist and baptism; Thomas Aquinas writes that "in Romans 5:14: 'After the likeness of Adam's transgression,' etc., the gloss says: 'From the side of Christ sleeping on the cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the 'Church. » Therefore, it seems that the sacraments derive their power from the Passion of Christ. »[11] Faith, for Aquinas, should have implications for how Christians behave; it is by participating in the sacraments that Christians live a life turned towards God and a life lived in Christ. They serve the dual function of offering sanctification and simultaneously acting as a form of worship. It seems, however, that the sacramental theology of Thomas Aquinas isexposed through the use of reason. For example, he emphasizes the dual nature of the sacraments as both signs and causes of grace; as Torrell and Guevin observe, "Thomas's definition of the sacrament... brings together both meaning and effectiveness in a single formula: 'the sign of a sacred reality which acts to sanctify man.' » [12] The sacraments are signs which represent sanctification. that they provoke, “symbols which make real what they symbolize”.[13] Aquinas is also able to assert that the sacraments are causes of grace insofar as the materials used are those that God uses to grant grace, these are “instrumental causes.” »[14] Thomas Aquinas makes a distinction between this kind of “instrumental cause” and what he calls “principal causes” of grace. He maintains that the latter “produces its effect by virtue of its form”; God thus produces grace as the main cause. The sacraments, however, serve as instrumental causes of grace in that they produce grace "solely by virtue of the impulse imparted to them by the principal agent...it is by divine institution that they are conferred upon us in the precise aim of provoking grace in and through them. »[15] The instrumental parts of the sacraments are numerous; as Jordan notes, "the same instrumental power is found in the very different elements of a sacrament – ​​in its verbal formulas, its prescribed actions, its material." Finally, the instrumental effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the effectiveness of Christ's humanity, itself an instrument of his divinity. »[16] Thomas Aquinas also reasons that the sacraments are necessary for human beings; his reasons are threefold. First, he starts from the idea that, since “it is characteristic of divine Providence that it provides for each being in a way corresponding to its particular functioning”[17], he starts from the idea that men are aided by the sacraments in a way that is appropriate to the human way of accessing knowledge - through physical things. His second, related reason holds that humans, “if confronted with pure and unadulterated spiritual realities, their minds, absorbed as they are in physical things, would be incapable of accepting them. »[18] Finally, he argues that the sacraments make worship easier for us since they involve the continuation of our relationship with the physical; as Davies says, “according to Thomas Aquinas, the sacraments are amusing.”[19] In his sacramental theology, as a whole, the dynamic between reason and faith that Aquinas established becomes manifest; he accepts the necessity and value of the sacraments in faith, and accepts the method of administering the sacraments derived from tradition; he does, however, use reason to explain the mechanism behind the sacraments and to examine the intricacies of sacramental theology. It is, however, in his treatment of the Eucharist that we can most clearly see the dialectic between reason and faith. The Eucharist is, as Davies notes, “the supreme sacrament”[20] for Thomas Aquinas (hence his recommendation of communion); it is the sacrament towards which all others are directed, the culmination of the Christian life, the believer brought to unity with Christ, "all the benefits involved in the Incarnation... are transposed into the Eucharist ". its recipients sharing the passion, the Eucharist is also a mechanism by which sins are forgiven. For this to happen, Christ must be truly present in the sacramental bread; Thomas Aquinas is categorical on this point: “Christ is sacramentally contained in the Eucharist”[22], “the real body of Christ and his blood are in this sacrament”[23], “thereality of this sacrament requires that the very body of Christ exists in it. »[24] The presence of Christ is present in the most direct and imminent sense, hence the scope of the Eucharist; as Walsh writes, "from the point of view of the recipient, the Eucharist provides a connection with Christ himself, in the full reality of his being, while the other sacraments provide a fleeting and functional contact with Christ. Christ received in the Eucharist is Christ in the fullness of his priesthood and in the fullness of his glory. argument, but only by faith. As Davies notes, “belief in the literal or non-symbolic Eucharistic presence of Christ is not, for him, something based on what we might regard as proof or demonstration. According to him, this is something that the Christian faith implies. »[26] Indeed, Thomas Aquinas affirms that “the presence of the true body and true blood of Christ in this sacrament cannot be detected by the senses, nor by the understanding, but by faith alone, which rests on divine authority. »[27] The real presence of Christ is implied in Scripture through the correct (i.e. literal, not symbolic) interpretation of the statement "this is my body". For Thomas d' Aquinas, we must take these words as they are written since they are the words of Christ and therefore must be true. Although the presence of Christ in the bread is a belief nourished by faith, Aquinas' famous doctrine of transubstantiation represents his belief in the ability of reason to expound the principles of faith. It affirms transubstantiation as the absolute mechanism by which Christ comes to be present in the sacramental bread and wine; “take away transubstantiation,” Kenny writes, “...and you take away presence. »[28] Thomas Aquinas explains transubstantiation as follows: the whole substance of the bread is transformed into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of the blood of Christ. It is therefore not a question of a formal conversion, but of a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it may be called "transubstantiation".[29] Aquinas adopts the Aristotelian language of substance and accidents to explain how Christ's body is consumed at the Eucharist, but the taste, smell, and sensation of the bread remains. Although in traditional philosophy, accidents are usually discussed in terms of their connection to a subject, Aquinas argues that accidents have natures adapted to exist in a substance"[30] but, in the Eucharist, accidents bread and wine are somehow maintained. independent of their respective substances. Cross argues that Aquinas uses two somewhat inconsistent strategies to defend this view, arguing first that the separate accidents "acquired individual esse in the substance of bread and wine"[31] but, when they are separated from this substance, are maintained by God. Kenny offers the useful analogy of the smell of onion lingering after the onion is gone or the footprint of a boot in the snow remaining after someone has walked. In the same way, the accidents of bread are real and persist but, substantially, Christ is present and not the bread. The second strategy identified by Cross is that "so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained, accidents of this kind had no esse...on the contrary, their substance had esse through them... after the consecration, the accidents which remain have esse”. .'[32]Aquinas' doctrine of transubstantiation is argued through a series of arguments; the doctrine emerges from his reasoning from propositions that he holds, 2014), 114