Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Thomist 64 (2000): 565-80 FOR INSERTING A NEW QUESTION (26A) IN THE PRIMA PARS FREDERICK E. CROWE Lonergan Research Institute Toronto, Ontario, Canada lust over fifty years ago Bernard Lonergan finished his series of articles on "The Concept of Verbum in the Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas."1 Though his general thesis has made an pact on Thomist studies and been recognized in the wider academic world,2 there are still many particular points to study and many implications of the main thesis to explore. The present article explores the meaning and implications of an intriguing statement Lonergan makes in the concluding pages of his study: "Thus, the Augustinian psychological analogy makes trinitarian theology a prolongation ofnatural theology, a deeper insight into what God is."3 I interpret this deeper insight as the discovery of a new divine attribute, and I will argue that discussion of this new divine attribute belongs between questions 26 and 27 of the Prima pars, where it functions as a new and unifying transition from the questions on God as one to the questions on God as three, so that 1 Theological Studies 1946-49, published in book form as Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967; 2d ed., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997); henceforth Verbum, with page references to the 1997 edition. 2 For example, Anthony Kenny, Aquinas (London: Oxford University Press, 1980), 83: "The best book in English about Aquinas's philosophy of mind is Bernard Lonergan's Verbum." 3 Verbum, 215. Lonergan really meant this point to be taken seriously, for a little later on the same page he repeats it: "the psychological analogy truly gives a deeper insight into what God is." 565 566 FREDERICK E. CROWE questions 2 to 43, instead ofbeing two treatises (God as one, God as three) can be seen as one treatise on God, with no jump to a new consideration at question 27. To mark this proposal, I would insert a new question between the present question 26 and the present question 27, tentatively calling it question 26A. I will first show the opening Thomas leaves for an insertion here, then set forth the relevant human perfection uncovered by Lonergan, transfer it in the usual way of analogy to a divine attribute, and conclude with brief reflections on repercussions this proposal may have on our doctrine of God. I. THE ORDER OF THE PRIMA PARS The grand sweep of Thomas's master plan for his Summa Theologiae has been a fertile field for Thomist exegesis.4 The rationale of this division is of the highest interest to Thomists but it has no immediate reference to our present question. Within the Prima pars itself there is an introductory question on sacra doctrina, after which Thomas unfolds his plan, laid out according to the intention of this sacra doctrina, namely, "to discuss [our] knowledge of God, and not only as he is in himself, but also as he is the cause of [created] things and their final end."5 The treatise on God "as he is in himself" covers questions 2 to 43, and that on God as principle ofcreation the rest of the Prima pars. Once more the rationale of this division has no immediate reference to our topic. Within the treatise on God "as he is in himself" we come to a division and order that is highly relevant to our topic. Thomas 4 It is not part of my commitment to study the literature on this, but I may mention by way of example the justifiably famous analysis proposed by M.-D. Chenu; he saw the whole Summa under the heading of an "emanation et •.. retour ... la la pars et la Ila Pars sont entre elles comme exitus et .•. reditus ... deux branches de la courbe qui, partant de Dieu, ramene tout alui," with the third part figuring as the means God chose for that return. M.-D. Chenu, Introduction al'etude de saint Thomas d.Aquin, 1d ed. (Montreal: Institut d'Etudes Medievales; Paris: J. Vrin, 1954) 266; see also ibid., 260-64 and 266-73, which are devoted to "La construction de la...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".