No, Thomas was not the opposite of apophatic. Not sure where you picked that up from, but it's incorrect.<quoted text>Clay The last many many posts were all on theology. I talked about abuse long ago in terms of the hierarchy needed to change, so why are you using that. I guess even theological, historical and philosophical arguments get met with "you don't want the truth"
" you are picking on the church" "you are prejudice". Regina by the way Thomas was opposite of apophatic. If you guys cant run legitimately with the big dogs, just be yourselves and speak from the heart.None of you have ventured far out of the Catholic bubble of info.
From Question 3 of the Summa: Since we cannot know concerning God what He is, but what He is not, we cannot consider about God in what way He is, but rather in what way He is not. First therefor it is to be considered in what way He is not; secondly in what way He is known by us; thirdly, in what way He is named
St. Thomas's approach is therefore apophatic. But there is an element lost on those who overemphasize this. St. Thomas, following the Fathers, particularly St. John Damascene, lays out a threefold manner in which we speak of God and apply
words to Him.
The "big dogs"? LOl...okay, Herme, whatever you say.