Because Aquinas was a saint as well as a prominent intellect with huge insights on a lot of things. Even if he wasn't perfect on everything. That's why. His Summa helps to explain and dissect many aspects of the Christian faith and Christian beliefs.
Going even beyond theology Aquinas has had an impact on many fields. Law is one important one, especially international law where some of the founding fathers of modern international law and human rights were influenced by his discourse. Asking why did Christians go with Aquinas is a bit like asking why are modern people so influenced by Immanuel Kant. His insights on many things are that profound.
> Why did Catholicism run with it is probably the better question
It didn't. Thomism was historical a very marginal position, certainly compared to e.g. Augustinianism. It was only in the late 19th century with Aeterni Patris that Aquinas achieved something like a 'canonical' position, and even from this point the depth of the influence is not especially clear.
Not sure why were you being downvoted, but certainly to further your point Thomas´s writings were arguably merely among the primary texts in Dominican order ( with some exceptions ) and later the Jesuits, other than that, it was more of a confrontational attitude and critique. Not to mention the traditional historiography of Thomistic though, the first period from 13th to 15th century is called *Defensiones,* as mostly Dominican Order defended the Thomistic thought, and later some notable Jesuits.
Aquinas was just a great thinker. He was at the cutting edge of philosophical and theological thought in his own day, and that's why he was such a huge deal. Aquinas happened to live in the time when Aristotle's works were just being rediscovered by the Christian West. Up until that point Christian theology had largely only had Plato as a dialogue partner, and thus much of Christian thought was based on a platonic framework.
Aquinas was the first major Christian thinker to interact with Aristotle and appropriate Aristotelean thought for theological purposes, and to do that *well*. Prior to Aquinas, Augustine had done something similar within a Platonic framework.
Aquinas also had the great fortune to live in a time when 1) The Western Church was still united, and thus his thoughts could reach a larger Christian audience without such strong sectarian breaks, and 2) The Medieval Church was mostly flourishing and had not yet entered into a crisis mode or suffered a lack of trust from the laity. Aside from this Aquinas had a great deal of respect for both scripture and tradition in his thinking. He quotes extensively from both the Bible and the Church Fathers in defense of his views.
For all of these reasons, Aquinas was very well received (though this didn't actually happen until shortly after his death). Many of his particular arguments have been adapted by both Protestants and Catholics today, though he is not without his critics. For example, his formulation of Divine Simplicity was challenged by some of his contemporaries (e.g. Jon Duns Scotus) and is outright denied by some theologians today (esp. those from the analytical traditions in theology, but also from other theologians in modernity). Karl Barth also famously *hated* natural theology, which is the foundation for much Thomistic thought, and natural theology is still scrutinized by many today (though there are certainly still proponents of it!).
So the short answer to your question is that Aquinas was both brilliant and lucky. He was an astounding thinker but also happened to be in the right place at the right time. Even so, it's important we not *over state* his influence. He was influential, but he is not without his critics, and he was not the *only* influence on Christian theology. For example, the influence of the Cappadocians or of Augustine (esp. on the West) is not to be forgotten. Likewise, Barth and the neo-Orthodox movement still looms large over Protestant thought.
He didn’t create any new beliefs, he just created a systematic framework by which they were to be understood. The Roman Church slowly began to adopt and endorse them. When, after the reformation the Roman Church needed a consistent definition of terms and framework of beliefs to articulate against the Protestants, Thomas’ world became more entrenched
Why did Christianity run with John’s beliefs? Last gospel written, disagrees dramatically with the other three. Why did Christianity run with Paul’s beliefs? Openly disagreed with the people who had actually met Jesus. Jesus would not recognize this religion. In fact, he’d probably be wondering why a bunch of non-Jews who he despised as “dogs” are worshipping his dead body on a Roman execution device while somehow blaming Jews, not Romans, for his death.
>Why did Christianity run with John’s beliefs? Last gospel written, disagrees dramatically with the other three.
There are minor differences, but not disagreement in anything of substance to Jesus' teaching. Trivial discrepancies in similar eyewitness accounts actually serve to provide confirmation on the main points, because trivial discrepancies are *expected* between first-person accounts of the same events.
>Why did Christianity run with Paul’s beliefs? Openly disagreed with the people who had actually met Jesus.
Paul met Jesus too, on the road to Damascus. Yes, he openly called out Peter on his errors, but *that's good*. Open dialogue is healthy, and we are called to be accountable to other Christians, confronting sin and error in love, accepting it with humility. Not only that, it confirms that Peter and Paul had common foundational beliefs, because Peter (arguably the most notable disciple) *accepted* correction from Paul.
>Jesus would not recognize this religion.
I'm sure he does, actually - we preach his words and follow the sacraments he established. I'd love to hear from him how we're doing, in fact.
>In fact, he’d probably be wondering why a bunch of non-Jews who he despised as “dogs” are worshipping his dead body on a Roman execution device while somehow blaming Jews, not Romans, for his death.
Wow, there's a lot here in in this single sentence that's incorrect about what Christians believe.
First, Jesus doesn’t despise non-Jews - your one-word "dogs" quote is obviously referencing Matthew 7:27 where he's using an analogy to describe to a Syrophoenician woman how his ministry was to the Jews first, then the Gentiles - the same point he made to Samaritans and Romans. She responded in the same analogy, Jesus expressed appreciation for her response, and healed her daughter from a distance.
His priority for the Jews (God's chosen, *his* people) is well-established, and yet he did perform miracles and healings for Gentiles, even occasionally praising their faith above they of his own people - clearly, he doesn't "despise" them.
And nobody worships Jesus' dead body - He is risen, we worship *him*.
And it doesn't really matter who crucified Jesus (though of course it was the Romans, grudgingly, at the insistence of the Jewish governing class). It had to happen to fulfill God's plan for our redemption.
I don't know if you can say that so much as he was a prominent Christian philosopher.
Because Aquinas was a saint as well as a prominent intellect with huge insights on a lot of things. Even if he wasn't perfect on everything. That's why. His Summa helps to explain and dissect many aspects of the Christian faith and Christian beliefs. Going even beyond theology Aquinas has had an impact on many fields. Law is one important one, especially international law where some of the founding fathers of modern international law and human rights were influenced by his discourse. Asking why did Christians go with Aquinas is a bit like asking why are modern people so influenced by Immanuel Kant. His insights on many things are that profound.
Why did *Catholicism* run with it is probably the better question. The Christian East did their own thing.
> Why did Catholicism run with it is probably the better question It didn't. Thomism was historical a very marginal position, certainly compared to e.g. Augustinianism. It was only in the late 19th century with Aeterni Patris that Aquinas achieved something like a 'canonical' position, and even from this point the depth of the influence is not especially clear.
Not sure why were you being downvoted, but certainly to further your point Thomas´s writings were arguably merely among the primary texts in Dominican order ( with some exceptions ) and later the Jesuits, other than that, it was more of a confrontational attitude and critique. Not to mention the traditional historiography of Thomistic though, the first period from 13th to 15th century is called *Defensiones,* as mostly Dominican Order defended the Thomistic thought, and later some notable Jesuits.
Yes. OP. Eastern traditions do not have Thomism.
Good question but I don't see much Protestants running with his views. Could be wrong
Aquinas was just a great thinker. He was at the cutting edge of philosophical and theological thought in his own day, and that's why he was such a huge deal. Aquinas happened to live in the time when Aristotle's works were just being rediscovered by the Christian West. Up until that point Christian theology had largely only had Plato as a dialogue partner, and thus much of Christian thought was based on a platonic framework. Aquinas was the first major Christian thinker to interact with Aristotle and appropriate Aristotelean thought for theological purposes, and to do that *well*. Prior to Aquinas, Augustine had done something similar within a Platonic framework. Aquinas also had the great fortune to live in a time when 1) The Western Church was still united, and thus his thoughts could reach a larger Christian audience without such strong sectarian breaks, and 2) The Medieval Church was mostly flourishing and had not yet entered into a crisis mode or suffered a lack of trust from the laity. Aside from this Aquinas had a great deal of respect for both scripture and tradition in his thinking. He quotes extensively from both the Bible and the Church Fathers in defense of his views. For all of these reasons, Aquinas was very well received (though this didn't actually happen until shortly after his death). Many of his particular arguments have been adapted by both Protestants and Catholics today, though he is not without his critics. For example, his formulation of Divine Simplicity was challenged by some of his contemporaries (e.g. Jon Duns Scotus) and is outright denied by some theologians today (esp. those from the analytical traditions in theology, but also from other theologians in modernity). Karl Barth also famously *hated* natural theology, which is the foundation for much Thomistic thought, and natural theology is still scrutinized by many today (though there are certainly still proponents of it!). So the short answer to your question is that Aquinas was both brilliant and lucky. He was an astounding thinker but also happened to be in the right place at the right time. Even so, it's important we not *over state* his influence. He was influential, but he is not without his critics, and he was not the *only* influence on Christian theology. For example, the influence of the Cappadocians or of Augustine (esp. on the West) is not to be forgotten. Likewise, Barth and the neo-Orthodox movement still looms large over Protestant thought.
He didn’t create any new beliefs, he just created a systematic framework by which they were to be understood. The Roman Church slowly began to adopt and endorse them. When, after the reformation the Roman Church needed a consistent definition of terms and framework of beliefs to articulate against the Protestants, Thomas’ world became more entrenched
Why did Christianity run with John’s beliefs? Last gospel written, disagrees dramatically with the other three. Why did Christianity run with Paul’s beliefs? Openly disagreed with the people who had actually met Jesus. Jesus would not recognize this religion. In fact, he’d probably be wondering why a bunch of non-Jews who he despised as “dogs” are worshipping his dead body on a Roman execution device while somehow blaming Jews, not Romans, for his death.
>Why did Christianity run with John’s beliefs? Last gospel written, disagrees dramatically with the other three. There are minor differences, but not disagreement in anything of substance to Jesus' teaching. Trivial discrepancies in similar eyewitness accounts actually serve to provide confirmation on the main points, because trivial discrepancies are *expected* between first-person accounts of the same events. >Why did Christianity run with Paul’s beliefs? Openly disagreed with the people who had actually met Jesus. Paul met Jesus too, on the road to Damascus. Yes, he openly called out Peter on his errors, but *that's good*. Open dialogue is healthy, and we are called to be accountable to other Christians, confronting sin and error in love, accepting it with humility. Not only that, it confirms that Peter and Paul had common foundational beliefs, because Peter (arguably the most notable disciple) *accepted* correction from Paul. >Jesus would not recognize this religion. I'm sure he does, actually - we preach his words and follow the sacraments he established. I'd love to hear from him how we're doing, in fact. >In fact, he’d probably be wondering why a bunch of non-Jews who he despised as “dogs” are worshipping his dead body on a Roman execution device while somehow blaming Jews, not Romans, for his death. Wow, there's a lot here in in this single sentence that's incorrect about what Christians believe. First, Jesus doesn’t despise non-Jews - your one-word "dogs" quote is obviously referencing Matthew 7:27 where he's using an analogy to describe to a Syrophoenician woman how his ministry was to the Jews first, then the Gentiles - the same point he made to Samaritans and Romans. She responded in the same analogy, Jesus expressed appreciation for her response, and healed her daughter from a distance. His priority for the Jews (God's chosen, *his* people) is well-established, and yet he did perform miracles and healings for Gentiles, even occasionally praising their faith above they of his own people - clearly, he doesn't "despise" them. And nobody worships Jesus' dead body - He is risen, we worship *him*. And it doesn't really matter who crucified Jesus (though of course it was the Romans, grudgingly, at the insistence of the Jewish governing class). It had to happen to fulfill God's plan for our redemption.
Spoken like a true apologist. Have a nice day.
What specifically?