Friends,

Please take the time to read these articles from Thomas Aquinas even if you have difficulty understanding them.  The biggest difficulty about some of them is the terminology he uses.  What he writes is clear so long as you understand the terminology.  

There are two books I recommend in order to help in understanding him.  The first is:

Light of Faith, The Compendium Of Theology, by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Sophia Institute Press)

The second is:

A Tour of The Summa by Msgr. Paul J. Glenn (Tan)

Also sometimes it is easier to read the the first objection, then the response to the first objection, then, the second objection followed by the response to the second object saving the ON THE CONTRARY and I ANSWER THAT for last, rather than reading it in chronological order.

It should be encouraging to know that in the future this articles will not be so difficult as the most recent ones.  You can always get something from each of the articles even if you have not mastered his terminology yet, New Advent helps to do this by highlighting some of the words in his articles that you can click and look up the definition, some of which are rather extensive.
 
In the following article, Whether all the powers of the soul are in the soul as their subject?,
 
At the very least you can learn that, no all the powers of the soul are not in the soul as their subject.  The quickest and easiest way to understand the point he is trying to get across in the article is to read ON THE CONTRARY and I ANSWER THAT and if you are in a hurry that is all you have to read to get to the point of the article.

For instance, On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Somno et Vigilia i) that "sensation belongs neither to the soul, nor to the body, but to the composite." Therefore the sensitive power is in "the composite" as its subject. Therefore the soul alone is not the subject of all the powers.

That is the meat of what he is trying to say in the article.  So to summarize, do not break your brain trying to understand the parts where you do not understand some of the terminology he uses but read through it undistractedly.  Reading the Objection then the Response to that Objection, rather than reading all the objections first, then the ON THE CONTRARY, then the I ANSWER THAT, then the response to the objections help you get a fuller understanding of the reasoning behind the ON THE CONTRARY and I ANSWER THAT, which again are the meat of the point he is making in the article.  

When you get the time, buy and read the books I recommend and go to the Summa on New Advent and click on the words highlighted in blue and look up their definitions so as to give yourself a better chance to understand what he is talking about.  Lastly read through it without straining your brain too hard and let stick what sticks.  Eventually more and more will stick to your memory and his terminology will become more and more easy to understand.  

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1077.htm#article1

Whether all the powers of the soul are in the soul as their subject?

(1)Objection 1. It would seem that all the powers of the soul are in the soul as their subject. For as the powers of the body are to the body; so are the powers of the soul to the soul. But the body is the subject of the corporeal powers. Therefore the soul is the subject of the powers of the soul.

(3)Objection 2. Further, the operations of the powers of the soul are attributed to the body by reason of the soul; because, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 2), "The soul is that by which we sense and understand primarily." But the natural principles of the operations of the soul are the powers. Therefore the powers are primarily in the soul.

(5)Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 7,24) that the soul senses certain things, not through the body, in fact, without the body, as fear and such like; and some things through the body. But if the sensitive powers were not in the soul alone as their subject, the soul could not sense anything without the body. Therefore the soul is the subject of the sensitive powers; and for a similar reason, of all the other powers.

(7)On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Somno et Vigilia i) that "sensation belongs neither to the soul, nor to the body, but to the composite." Therefore the sensitive power is in "the composite" as its subject. Therefore the soul alone is not the subject of all the powers.

(8)I answer that, The subject of operative power is that which is able to operate, for every accident denominates its proper subject. Now the same is that which is able to operate, and that which does operate. Wherefore the "subject of power" is of necessity "the subject of operation," as again the Philosopher says in the beginning of De Somno et Vigilia. Now, it is clear from what we have said above (75, 2,3; 76, 1, ad 1), that some operations of the soul are performed without a corporeal organ, as understanding and will. Hence the powers of these operations are in the soul as their subject. But some operations of the soul are performed by means of corporeal organs; as sight by the eye, and hearing by the ear. And so it is with all the other operations of the nutritive and sensitive parts. Therefore the powers which are the principles of these operations have their subject in the composite, and not in the soul alone.

(2)Reply to Objection 1. All the powers are said to belong to the soul, not as their subject, but as their principle; because it is by the soul that the composite has the power to perform such operations.

(4)Reply to Objection 2. All such powers are primarily in the soul, as compared to the composite; not as in their subject, but as in their principle.

(6)Reply to Objection 3. Plato's opinion was that sensation is an operation proper to the soul, just as understanding is. Now in many things relating to Philosophy Augustine makes use of the opinions of Plato, not asserting them as true, but relating them. However, as far as the present question is concerned, when it is said that the soul senses some things with the body, and some without the body, this can be taken in two ways.

Firstly, the words "with the body or without the body" may determine the act of sense in its mode of proceeding from the sentient. Thus the soul senses nothing without the body, because the action of sensation cannot proceed from the soul except by a corporeal organ.

Secondly, they may be understood as determining the act of sense on the part of the object sensed. Thus the soul senses some things with the body, that is, things existing in the body, as when it feels a wound or something of that sort; while it senses some things without the body, that is, which do not exist in the body, but only in the apprehension of the soul, as when it feels sad or joyful on hearing something.

---
Understanding Thomas gives you the capacity to become as Catholic, intellectually speaking, as is humanly possible in this life.  It helps you think and approach problems and moral issues the Catholic way.  The Summa, in a manner of speaking, IS the best and fullest way to comprehend the reasoning behind the doctrines of the Church.

 

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Understanding Thomas gives you the capacity to become as Catholic, intellectually speaking, as is humanly possible in this life.  It helps you think and approach problems and moral issues the Catholic way.  The Summa, in a manner of speaking, IS the best and fullest way to comprehend the reasoning behind the doctrines of the Church.

You are right - and it is the loss of this as the central part of seminary education that has led to the terrible priests who lack Catholicity these days.  Thankfully St Thomas still holds pride of place in SSPX seminaries.  When Bishop Fellay or the other Bishops and priests of the SSPX talk, you can recognize the Thomistic formation they have had.

If what you say is true than this is good.  But to the extent that the SSPX and their off-shoots act monopolistic (if you publically disagree with us you are in the streets Priests and banned from the Sacraments laity) is bad.  

It seems many have this attitude that it is either us or the NO and we know you don't want them so you have to do it our way (even if our way contridicts what was our way before) and even if we go back an forth on the issues depending upon or political program of the day.  Even if we contradict Ratzinger's theology one day and become mute the next when he is elected you have to take our party line, if you disagree with it publically your out!