St. Thomas' Glorious Theocentrism:
All due honor to St. Dionysius, the famous convert of Athens and disciple of St. Paul, but St. Thomas purifies and sets in order the teaching of St. Dionysius on the Divine names.
I am not saying that St. Dionysius was wrong (far be it from me!), but, his usage of terms betrays that he did not set theological science in relation to its formal object, i.e., God under the intimate aspect of His Deity. Rather, in synthesizing, unfortunately, he ordered his doctrine in respect to the creature, rather than, as St. Thomas, ordering all things in relation to God (n.b., as I said before, this is linguistic and methodological...far be it from me to accuse him of error!)
One walks away from St. Dionysius with a sense of the poverty of creatures in relation of God.
One would think that this is a virtue in a theologian, right? No. This does not proceed after the order of things, but merely considers things from the perspective of the creature.
Rather, when one reads St. Thomas' treatment (c.f., *Prima pars,* Q. 4, A. 3),* he comes away with a profound sense of the greatness of God in relation to creatures.
St. Thomas, rather than saying that God is "above goodness," would say that creatures are "below goodness." Of course, "goodness" means two things in each of those predications (the first "goodness" as the goodness known from creatures, the second "goodness" as present in God), thus not bringing about any formal contradiction, YET one comes away from these statements with a radically different "sense."
The reader encounters a true theocentrism in the thought of St. Thomas...we judge all things in reference to God. This leads him to judge that "[perfections] belong properly to God, and more properly than they belong to creatures, and are applied primarily to Him." (ST.I.Q13.A3.C)
Yet, for those who prefer to keep the Dionysian manner of speech, creatures are the primary reference.
This is why St. Thomas is the best.
All due honor to St. Dionysius, the famous convert of Athens and disciple of St. Paul, but St. Thomas purifies and sets in order the teaching of St. Dionysius on the Divine names.
I am not saying that St. Dionysius was wrong (far be it from me!), but, his usage of terms betrays that he did not set theological science in relation to its formal object, i.e., God under the intimate aspect of His Deity. Rather, in synthesizing, unfortunately, he ordered his doctrine in respect to the creature, rather than, as St. Thomas, ordering all things in relation to God (n.b., as I said before, this is linguistic and methodological...far be it from me to accuse him of error!)
One walks away from St. Dionysius with a sense of the poverty of creatures in relation of God.
One would think that this is a virtue in a theologian, right? No. This does not proceed after the order of things, but merely considers things from the perspective of the creature.
Rather, when one reads St. Thomas' treatment (c.f., *Prima pars,* Q. 4, A. 3),* he comes away with a profound sense of the greatness of God in relation to creatures.
St. Thomas, rather than saying that God is "above goodness," would say that creatures are "below goodness." Of course, "goodness" means two things in each of those predications (the first "goodness" as the goodness known from creatures, the second "goodness" as present in God), thus not bringing about any formal contradiction, YET one comes away from these statements with a radically different "sense."
The reader encounters a true theocentrism in the thought of St. Thomas...we judge all things in reference to God. This leads him to judge that "[perfections] belong properly to God, and more properly than they belong to creatures, and are applied primarily to Him." (ST.I.Q13.A3.C)
Yet, for those who prefer to keep the Dionysian manner of speech, creatures are the primary reference.
This is why St. Thomas is the best.