Does Peter Lombard still get read in seminary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAtheist

Guest
Quick, easy, question.

Hmm - might as well expand on this then.

Putting Aquinas and Augustine aside - which figures from Early and Medieval Christianity still get put on the “Must Read” list?
 
:BUMP:

Or - is it really just Augustine and Aquinas (and by extension Plato and Aristotle) and those who have commented on Augustine and Aquinas that comprise the backbone of Catholic theology?
 
I think that Augustine And Aquinas are more popular, since they have made the biggest impact for various reasons.

However. Their is Bonaventure.
 
I never really understood how he played into all of this.

Once, a very very very long time ago - i read an article regarding the importance of Bonaventure’s place in Catholic theology and his importance to the current heir to the Papal throne.

His theology seems Augustinian, but i read a strange bit of eschatological business influenced by a monk by the name of Joachim of Fiore. Never knew exactly what to make of it.
 
Boethius, the Consolation of Philosophy, still gets read a lot. Also John Duns Scotus, Eriugena, Erasmus perhaps. I don’t know about seminaries, though.
 
Perhaps William of Ockham? Ockham and Scotus are known as being in opposition to Aquinas on some key points.
 
Hmm, makes you wonder though:

Who were Augustine and Aquinas reading? The Church Fathers of the Orthodox Tradition?
 
Augustine was influenced a lot by Neo-Platonists, especially Plotinus (who was non-Christian). Aquinas quotes a lot from Aristotle, of course, the Neo-Platonists, Augustine, Lombard, and the early Fathers. He also likes Moses Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher from about a century before him. (Sometimes called the Jewish Aquinas.)
 
So i take it then that with the exclusion of Plato and Aristotle, folks just skip to Augustine and Aquinas without engaging the others on their own?

I mean “the Neo-Platonists” and “the Early Church Fathers” must comprise a lot of people.

If i recall correctly, most of the Neo-Platonists were themselves Pagans correct?
 
Well, the ECFs still get read a lot. A complete set of their works is available from Christian Book Distributors (cbd.com, I think–37 or 38 volumes. I am trying to make it through one volume per year, which will keep me busy for a while). Boethius still gets read a lot. Eriugena, not hardly at all, I would guess; Lombard, not hardly at all (if he does get read, it’s probably for the sake of Aquinas’s Commentary, which is being translated online). Out of the Neo-Platonists, probably the only one who gets read with any frequency would be Plotinus, and there again probably for his influence on Augustine (which was pretty huge). John Duns Scotus and Ockham still get read a lot, but they came after the two you mentioned, so usually they are read as reactions against Aquinas.
 
Interestingly, Scotus is influential enough to have his own branch of philosophy named after him: as followers of Aquinas are called Thomists, followers of Scotus are called Scotists.

Once a year, representatives from both groups strip naked in secret wilderness locations and fight to the death.

Well, at least the first paragraph is true.
 
cpayne said:
Interestingly, Scotus is influential enough to have his own branch of philosophy named after him: as followers of Aquinas are called Thomists, followers of Scotus are called Scotists.
Click to expand...
No. 🙂 I was just serious about this part. The other was—well----not true. 😊
 
Well, Thomas Aquinas still gets read a lot, of course, and philosophers who think like Thomas are called Thomists. John Duns Scotus still gets read a lot, and his followers are called Scotists. That part is accurate.

The part about stripping naked and fighting to the death was just a dumb joke. Sorry.
 
cpayne said:
Well, Thomas Aquinas still gets read a lot, of course, and philosophers who think like Thomas are called Thomists. John Duns Scotus still gets read a lot, and his followers are called Scotists. That part is accurate.

The part about stripping naked and fighting to the death was just a dumb joke. Sorry.
Click to expand...
The joke was certainly risky; and so you get 10 out of 10 for trying. I would say it was a good attempt at being humorous. We have to see the funny side of life, otherwise we would go crazy. I must admit that i thought you were being serious at first. But i see now what you was trying to do. You were trying to make people laugh and it backfired. It always happens to me:(. The problem is, how we visualize things in our heads never turns out to be how we want it in reality. I have said some funny things in my wonderful world of imagination, that has had my sides splitting. But when i try to express it to the real world, something goes wrong because people don’t understand the contextual basis for why i personally found it funny in the first place. Its difficult expressing comedy:shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top