Date: 06 Oct 1997
From: Carmen Chimento
Date: 06 Oct 1997
9. It is no secret that Thomas appears to have had a vision of God during mass one day in which tears flowed profusely down his cheeks. It was after this "vision" that Aquinas ceased all writings and made the statement that "all that I have written seems as straw" which in those days meant "garbage". First, we must understand that God's truth comes from God, not from Socrates, not from Augustine, not from Jesus, not from Aquinas, not from Muhammad, not from Lao-tze, and certainly not from any other human beings such as myself. Therefore, if there is truth in Aquinas's writings, those truths are derived from God's revealing those truths to His creatures. These revealings of His truths to His creatures are called revelations, which Thomas indicated he received. Those persons who claim to have received revelations can be detected through their writings (by those who have received true revelations) as to whether or not they are true revelations. Those who have not seen God cannot know whether the revelations are true or false since they have no personal knowledge of God with which to compare. Thomas was able to compare the true revelations of God (with his own writings) to ascertain their truthfulness, and he acknowledged their falsity by his statement.
Just because I have seen God is not the only reason I am able to discern those of his writings that are true and those that are false. The light of reason given to us by God is sufficient alone to make those discernments, which you have alluded to in my book "Beyond the Universe". Having seen God is simply another basis for which to compare Thomas' writings, and this knowledge that I have is more or less similar to my traveling cross country with a road map versus someone else using instinct and reliances upon others and mechanical devices such as a compass. I will have a certain advantage, but it is not overwhelming since there are many other ways besides road maps to get from one place to another. But authentic road maps take a lot of the guessing out of it. Aquinas' writings therefore are for me, comparing his sketchy road map (his descriptions of God and His nature) which he drew up of his own knowledge, with a road map that is given to me by someone who designed the roads. My road map will be used to get me from point A to point B, and I can look at Thomas' road map to verify that his is either true or false in various sections. Now just because some sections may be false (he thought they were true when he drew them up), there is no reason to not use his road map to help design a new road map, especially if those sections that are shown to be true appear to be better depicted. The question addressed does correctly question the use of his map if it has been proven to be inaccurate, especially from his own words, when he claims that "all that I have written seems as straw". Thomas felt that all he had written seemed as straw because when one receives a vision of God, truth places light upon all falsity, and Thomas could easily assume that if all his writings were based on the trinity, for example, then all that follows would be as straw, especially if the vision he received was of God Himself. That is because he would have received a vision of infinite purity and light, and his writings did not reflect this, they reflected a confusing rationalization for the doctrine of trinity, so confusing that he himself said that the doctrine of the trinity cannot be proven. How can the most gifted theologian of the Catholic Church prove the existence of God in several ways, but for some reason, cannot prove the existence of a trinity? Would it not be fair to assume that being a servant of the Church, he subconsciously tried to fit the church's doctrines of a trinity and Christ's divinity into a formulation of his expositions that needed to be based upon already established church doctrines? What other reason is there for a man gifted with such forceful powers of reason to establish doctrines that defy the light of reason? To illustrate with one example. He was able to prove the existence of a Prime Cause, a cause that was never caused, and then states that not only one person, but three persons are the Prime Cause, defying all logic. Then he is able to prove that God is unity and indivisible, but then goes on to attempt to explain that there are three persons in God, defying his own definitions of the nature of God in that he is able to prove that there is no composition in God.
So one can use truths as expressed by some person, but one need not use untruths expressed by the same person. We can follow Christ's exhortation to love God with our entire beings and our neighbor likewise, but we need not follow his exhortation to pluck out our eyes if they are a source of sin. One exhortation is an eternal truth while the other is simply an allegorical example of how to avoid the causes of sin.
That is my answer as to how I can refer to some of Aquinas' writings while refuting others.
To answer your second question, Thomas refused to leave the Church he loved and served for many years, even though, in my opinion from the facts recorded in history according to Fr. Weisheipl's book, he had been revealed knowledge that contradicted his writings and his beliefs. It is one thing to know the truth, it is quite another to act according to that truth when doing so means you must leave your church, your brother priests, and to be considered a heretic by those same people you not only served for so many years, but whom you also love dearly. It is a heart wrenching and almost self-destructive action to take. He must choose between God and his church. He chose his church. The similarity to my case is amazingly identical. I too had a revelation from God (He revealed His person to me), so I, too, had to choose between God and my church. Unlike Aquinas, I chose God and left my church as a student for the Catholic priesthood. Were I in Aquinas' shoes in that day and age, I too, may have chosen not to leave the Church and my brother priests. Only God knows whether I may have done the same.
To answer your final question, would I recommend others following my example? This answer belongs to those who must deal with the question. I would recommend always that they choose God above country, family, and church because in eternity, there is only God, nothing else. A person's soul is more important than country, family or church. Any country, family or church that is good, would want all individuals to follow God and His laws. The only ones who wouldn't want individuals to follow God are evil in themselves by virtue of this desire. Those who know God, and continue to preach and teach false doctrines, will spend an eternity somewhere other than in God's Home. My concern for them is that I do not know how they will be able to justify their actions before God and consequently, I fear that they do not know what how serious are the consequences to those who lead souls astray.
Matthew:18:6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!"
A million people, a hundred million people, a hundred billion people proclaiming a false doctrine does not make it a true doctrine. God's truth needs no one. It stands on its own - from - and to - all eternity. No one can eliminate it, no one can alter it, and only One Person owns it, from all eternity, and - to all eternity.
In the one true God,
Carmen