Does St Thomas Aquinas still "hold up" today?

[Charlemagne_III]

I never heard of these " suspicions " before. According to the Introduction of the S.T., Part 1, Ques 1 Thomas fell ill on the way to the Council of Lyons and was taken to the Cistersian Abby at Fossanuova, not far from his home at Roccasecca and the Abbey of Monte Cassino, where he died peacefully a few days later.

Linus2nd

Yes, you have a point. I don’t think it can be proven conclusively, but neither can the poisoning of Bonaventure be proven conclusively.

According to one source I’ve read,

“In The Divine Comedy, Dante sees the glorified spirit of Aquinas in the Heaven of the Sun with the other great exemplars of religious wisdom.[44] Dante asserts that Aquinas died by poisoning, on the order of Charles of Anjou;[45] Villani (ix. 218) cites this belief, and the Anonimo Fiorentino describes the crime and its motive. But the historian Ludovico Antonio Muratori reproduces the account made by one of Aquinas’ friends, and this version of the story gives no hint of foul play.”

 

[animalis]

The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education in Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis (1970), n. 86: said “…]Uphold St Thomas Aquinas as one of the highest teachers of the Church”.

It is misleading to say that Thomas Aquinas was a spiritualist or realist. He was truly a universal thinker.

These are assertions that I present. I do not intent to argue in logical syllogism or present a dissertation. But I believe it was Pope John XXII who said centuries ago that from no figure in Christianity could you receive as much light as you could from what is presented by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is a true fool to disregard him and say to believe.

Moreover, before Benedict XVI became a Cardinal he presented in his Introduction to Christianity, that philosophy is a individualist meditation, while on the other hand with the adaptation of Sacred Theology their is a presentation of a “way”, a communion of thought. These are two different animals to gather light. His contemporary Hans Urs von Balthasar said both are needed to understand Divine Revelation as a science.

Again, in his Introduction to Christianity- we describe how at the point of discovery in the thought of Aquinas, truth was a matter of being, a divine idea. With the advent of the enlightenment there is a departure from Aquinas, the Church, and being - and this was superimposed in the universities as a birth of a historical approach “That is to say, all that we can truly know is what we have made ourselves.” This is insanity, in my poor opinion, but the pride of these philosophers who think they know more then Aquinas bought power with this superimposing position. Later came the thought of Carl Marx, that is to say that truth is pragmatic or what is workable and of the most utility. It seems to me that philosophy comes up with inventions, while Aquinas is the one of which that discovered the One God in his subjection.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, you have a point. I don’t think it can be proven conclusively, but neither can the poisoning of Bonaventure be proven conclusively.

According to one source I’ve read,

“In The Divine Comedy, Dante sees the glorified spirit of Aquinas in the Heaven of the Sun with the other great exemplars of religious wisdom.[44] Dante asserts that Aquinas died by poisoning, on the order of Charles of Anjou;[45] Villani (ix. 218) cites this belief, and the Anonimo Fiorentino describes the crime and its motive. But the historian Ludovico Antonio Muratori reproduces the account made by one of Aquinas’ friends, and this version of the story gives no hint of foul play.”

In other words just another Italian conspiracy theory. Mafia stuff.

Linus2nd