Jaarboek Thomas Instituut 1995 - Thomas Instituut te Utrecht

THEOLOGY OF PROVOCATIVE RECEPTIVITY 23
Those alternatives are either neo-scholastic approaches that neglect the
theological character of the texts or approaches that insufficiently
recognise the type of theology Aquinas presents. In his own reading
De Grijs stresses again and again the theological character of Thomas'
texts and shows this by calling attention to the importance of Scripture
in Thomas' works, to the change philosophical concepts undergo when
used by Thomas, to his discriminative use of language in divinis,
In a review of a French translation of the Summa Theologiae
De Grijs notes the neo-scholastic background of introductions and
translation. He shows how philosophy (the philosophie chrétienne)
more than theology influences this edition. With regard to the
"vocabulaire de la Somme Théologique" provided by M.J. Nicolas, he
remarks that these 85 key-terms are strictly philosophically treated and
that hardly any attention is paid to the fact that these terms, when used
in a theological context undergo a change of meaning (41, p. 423).
With regard to the introduction to I-II, qq. 1-5 on the beatitudes, he
makes a few critical points, which are characteristic and typical of his
critique and of his own reading and they are all related to the
theological character of what Thomas does e , First, De Grijs remarks, it
is insufficiently clear that for Aquinas deus is no other than the Triune
God and that Thomas right from the beginning is concerned with
revelation. The impression the introduction gives is that Thomas in
these quaestiones moves from the domain of philosophy or
metaphysics to that of revelation, from questions central to human
existence, happiness to beatitude. De Grijs does not explicitly mention
it here, but the distinction between the treatises de Deo Uno and de
Deo Trino combined with the distinction between reason and revelation
of philosophy or natural theology and theology proper is typical for
the modern, especially neo-scholastic approach. Although these
distinctions can be explained in view of modem philosophy, they can
not be found in Aquinas. Secondly, he remarks that although Aquinas
is not always strict in his terminology, he does clearly distinguish
between happiness and beatitude, the relation to God being the
decisive point of difference. Thirdly, he notices that insufficiently is
indicated that in the course of Thomas' analysis the content of the
terms beatitudo, finis ultimus, finis is not completely uncovered: God
as finis ultimus, as the object of contemplation which is the beatitude,
remains unfathomable. Significantly De Grijs refers for this point back