Talk:Summa contra Gentiles

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Religion / Medieval High‑importance

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of religion
	Medieval philosophy

Untitled[edit]

Some references concerning the controversy over the nature and purpose of the work would be helpful.--Killerwasp 16:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about the ideas featured in Summa Contra Gentiles? I think they are interesting and insightful but not necisarily correct.

Zoe

This page is great. It is easy to understand and has interesting information on it.

Lucy 32

I agree with Zoe about the ideas not beng necisarily correct but being insightful. It is also interesting if you think about that point in time and what peoples views on religion and the universe were back then. I find the whole subject fascinating!

Emily 15

I wikified the page but i changed a few things when linking. Resurrection links to Resurrection of Jesus and Divine Truth links to Divine Word. If there are any complaints please note on this page what you change and I would encourage a cleanup until sources have been cited. freestylefrappe 20:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of the title in translation[edit]

One introduced to a book the reader will be naturally keen to learn it's tite. When speaking of a book written in latin, a language not many readers capabe to comprehend nowadays, it is the inclination of any reader to be informed on what the books title transates to. I could not find this information, therefore had to follow my own speculation: gentes or gentiles would roughly translate to pagans, non belivers, non christians. Contra in this case means "what can be used as a COUNTERargument" against their views and way of life, their beliefs. In other words the title would be: Arguments about christianity's truth/correctness for outsiders/non christians.

Now if the translation of the tite is indeed present in the article somewhere then, I apologise for being unattentive, yet I would still persist that the article should start with that. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The thing is, if you do not already understand the terms summa, contra and gentiles as used in these titles, a literal translation isn't going to clarify much. This is why the English translation is titled Contra Gentiles, with the sub-title of On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, i.e. translating the alternative title of Liber de veritate catholicae fidei) but leaving contra gentiles untranslated. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I found a published translation here: "Summary against the Pagans". Of course, summa pretty much means the opposite of summary, as in "the full extent of material" vs. "a condensed or abbreviated presentation of the most important points". Which is why we have this amusing "Summary of the Summa" section here. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Title" section[edit]

The "Title" section says that "contra Gentiles" comes from I.2, but the quotation doesn't seem to be relevant. I think the quotation was supposed to be this other passage from chap. 2:

In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles.

But I'm not sure, so I haven't changed the text. Thoughts? Wgrommel (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missionaries[edit]

Is the interpretation as an "aid for missionaries" common sense in the current research on Aquinas? Torrell's introductory chapter in the 2012 Oxford Handbook is much more cautious on this question and mentions "the most varied interpretations (philosophical, missional, ecumenical)". Should we leave the sentence in the article as it is or would it make more sense to follow Torrell's cautious line, what do the Aquinas experts here think?--Oudeístalk 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]