This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please note that this article is bsed on the references "Summa Contra Gentiles" and "Summa Thologia" by St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as the Bible ~~ A E Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This article in its present form is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is nothing but a string of quotations of very little encyclopediaencyclopedic value. (See WP:NPS and WP:N.) An article on the views of Thomas Aquinas on the sacraments is of value to Wikipedia, but this article in its present form is not. This article needs to be either cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia standards or deleted. —BradV 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
BradV: You are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is wrong. Many have read this article and made changes or contributions. This article is the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, as he wrote them in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica. Are you suggesting that we should take his actual words and rewrite them into something else? That hardly makes any sense. Oh, and by the way, your use of the word "encyclopedia" is incorrect. It is "encyclodepic", not ""encyclopedia". What are you, a high school student? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Friend Brad: Pointing out that your suggestions are worthy of a high school student is hardly a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. Don't play that "you're attacking me personally" game. For your information, I am a medical doctor and an attorney. I don't attack people personally. If the subject is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, and the original author's words are available, what is the point in re-writing them? Read the original, and you will see that this is a summary, and does not include the entire text. So far as I know, there is no copyright violation here. If you want to make suggestions about how to improve this article, please do so. A E Francis (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC) A. E. Francis
Francis, you have attacked me personally. You called my opinions "wrong" and called me a high school student. I can overlook that easily enough, but you do not seem willing to listen to my advice. I simply made a comment on the quality of the article (which was not directed at you), regarding its encyclopedic value and notability. For the third time, I will include a link to WP:NPS. Please do not feel obliged to clean up the article yourself, and do not take my comments on the article personally (see WP:OWN). If you feel we cannot resolve this here, perhaps we can request a WP:RFC on this topic. —BradV 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Brad, you are delusional. I have not attacked you personally. Your assertion of such is ridiculous. I have not called you a high school student. But your ideas are wrong and your suggestion is worthy of a high school student. You have suggested that this article be re-written using words other than those of the original author. This is based on your reading of some vague template descrption. This is a topic which doesn't lend itself to that particular restriction. But you have offered no suggestions on how to improve the article. So your position is worthy of a high school student. If you want to make this a matter of defending your "honor" and proving me wrong, go ahead and delete this article. Then you will have proved yourself right and me wrong. This is the whole problem of wikipedia. We have articles about "Where Playboy Bunnies were Born" or "Paris Hilton". Yet an article about Aquinas' justification of the Sacraments is deemed not worthy to be included. Yes, your ideas are wrong and you are functioning on the level of a high school student. This is not "my" article. If you will review the history, you will see that several have contributed to it. I can tell you one thing: Roving editors like you are particularly discouraging. I can guarantee you, I will never add a thing to Wikipedia again. Thanks for making this a really great, intellectual site. Good job, man! Don't worry. I'll be telling of your efforts on all the blogs I write on. Unlike wiki, they like what I write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Now four years later this article still fails to meet Wikipedia quality standards. It reads like a blog in support of Aquinas and not like an informative about he and the sacraments. Suggest major revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad you could make it back to be hypercritical and totally non-constructive after a four year absence. A E Francis (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
An article on Thomistic doctrine of the sacraments would be a nice thing, but this is just a catena of Thomistic citations. As such, it's not encyclopedic, and it's had plenty of time to get that way. Can we either have an encyclopedia article, or do something more helpful? Tb (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I added some tags, which User:A E Francis contests, specifically, the references and original research tags. The references tag is because the statements are not referenced. References are not just the names of entire books, but page numbers and such. Likewise, this and the original research tags are addressed to clauses in the article like this: "The following is condensed from..." This is a sign that OR is going on. Why is this the right condensation? The interpretation of Aquinas is a huge industry, and we are given nothing here about why this is the right interpretation. The point is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which must quote secondary sources. But the article only quotes primary sources. That's nice to do, but it's not an adequate substitute, and makes the result original research (the selection of quotes and the interpretation of them) and unreferenced. Tb (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've removed all tags except the cleanup one, because there is more than enough citation. This is an impressive collection - condensation - about Aquinas' work. It does however need spacing out, and to conform to WP:STYLE before it's really readable. I think that BradV above was very stupid to be so critical. One of the big problems some Wiki-editors have is to be critical, but not constructive: and it's always the ones who actually write very little themselves. The article certainly needs more work (and yes, perhaps more specific references), but I expect that was going to happen had people not interfered with tags and the like. Everyone should keep in mind that there was nothing here before and now there is something. If anyone thinks something is worse than nothing they are not smart. Wikidea 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- An academic fallacy has spread onto Wikipedia of late, that it is tertiary. Because it allows original research and debate, however, it can rise into the secondary, and to criticise that is to devalue the original work, indeed to become dogmatic, which breaches the most fundamental principal of the Wikipedia, Ignore All Rules. The does not mean that it should repeat the primary source, in other words to become plagiaristic: but it is equally clear that history is in general the victor's version, and that it is often nationally chauvinistic - an example I quoted in a European discussion paper adopted as a basis for a revised European history in production between the French and Germans cites the absence from French history of the Battle of Agincourt, which was important for the French in that it removed the dead-wood from the aristocracy, leading to important military innovations such as the adoption of artillery which put them at the forefront of European power, and of the Battle of Bouvines in British history, which marked the apogee of British influence in Europe.
The role of this article should be to précis Aquinas' thoelogy. The sources used are in general Catholic, which does infringe NPOV, and so it should at some point be re-edited to remove dogma and expand cultural parallels. That does not completely invalidate the description, and to that end the placarding of the introduction is excessive, which is why I'm winnowing them to the objective.
Of late, Wikipedia has developed a habit of criticism rather than constructive writing. The following set demonstrate how the critics want to have their cake and eat it, as the flyers occupying half the top page are internally contradictory - I have therefore reduced them to the objective.
This article or section may have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror.
Aquinas builds on Augustine's idea that a sacrament is "the visible sign of the invisible grace". He replies to this question by stating that "a sacrament is a kind of sign". A sacrament is a sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy and signifies our sanctification. In which three things may be considered: (1) The very cause of our sanctification which is Christ's passion. (2) The form of our sanctification, which is grace and the virtues. (3) The ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life.
Question 61: The necessity of the Sacraments for salvation
Yes they are
Question 62: The sacraments' principal effect, which is grace