Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
comparison summa/english/XP_i.html @ 64:11682db9b870
from auto-split
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| 63:4665e252e26e | 64:11682db9b870 |
|---|---|
| 1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="XP.i" class="div2"> | |
| 2 <a href="summa.XP.html"></a> | |
| 3 <a href="summa.XP.ii.html"></a> | |
| 4 <h2 id="XP.i-p0.1">EDITOR'S NOTE:</h2> | |
| 5 <p id="XP.i-p1"> After writing these few questions of the treatise on Penance, St. Thomas was called to the heavenly reward which he had merited | |
| 6 by writing so well of his Divine Master. The remainder of the Summa Theologica, known as the Supplement, was compiled probably | |
| 7 by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno, companion and friend of the Angelic Doctor, and was gathered from St. Thomas's commentary on the | |
| 8 Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard. This commentary was written in the years 1235-1253, while | |
| 9 St. Thomas was under thirty years of age. Everywhere it reveals the influence of him whom St. Thomas always called the | |
| 10 Master. But that influence was not to be always supreme. That the mind of the Angelic Doctor moved forward to positions which | |
| 11 directly contradicted the Master may be seen by any student of the Summa Theologica. The compiler of the Supplement was evidently | |
| 12 well acquainted with the commentary on the Sentences, which had been in circulation for some twenty years or more, but it | |
| 13 is | |
| 14 probable that he was badly acquainted with the Summa Theologica. This will be realized and must be borne in mind when | |
| 15 we read the Supplement, notably | |
| 16 <a id="XP.i-p1.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">TP, Q[62], A[1]</a>; also Q[43], A[3], ad 2 of the Supplement. | |
| 17 </p> | |
| 18 <a href="summa.XP.html"></a> | |
| 19 <a href="summa.XP.ii.html"></a> | |
| 20 ` | |
| 21 </div> |