Pope Francis on decadent/bankrupt forms of Thomism

  • Thread starter Thread starter opus101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

opus101

Guest
I’m not an expert by any means in the field of Thomism, and was wondering what the Holy Father was referring to in the interview (under the section “Human Self-Understanding”) when he said:

“…we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the Age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism.”

What school of Thomism was represented in the textbooks that he would have studied about 50ish years ago?
 
opus101 said:
I’m not an expert by any means in the field of Thomism, and was wondering what the Holy Father was referring to in the interview (under the section “Human Self-Understanding”) when he said:

“…we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the Age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism.”

What school of Thomism was represented in the textbooks that he would have studied about 50ish years ago?
Click to expand...
He was referring to the period of around the 16th century to the 18th century. And I’m not acquainted with what exactly was going on then. However, Thomism has engoied a revival beginning with the late 18th century which has carried on to our day. But one can still find true echos of Thomism which are not genuine. But I’m no expert on that either. It is always to study Thomas yourself and judge for yourself as to the reliable authors are.

And of course Thomas wasn’t right on everything, which I’m sure he would agree with. After all Philosophy is a speculative science. It was intended as an aid to Theology, not as offering de fide answers, that is the job of the Church.

Linus2nd.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
He was referring to the period of around the 16th century to the 18th century. And I’m not acquainted with what exactly was going on then. However, Thomism has engoied a revival beginning with the late 18th century which has carried on to our day. But one can still find true echos of Thomism which are not genuine. But I’m no expert on that either. It is always to study Thomas yourself and judge for yourself as to the reliable authors are.

And of course Thomas wasn’t right on everything, which I’m sure he would agree with. After all Philosophy is a speculative science. It was intended as an aid to Theology, not as offering de fide answers, that is the job of the Church.

Linus2nd.
Click to expand...
This is the personal opinion of the pope. 16th century and 18th century thomism is quite in tune with catholic teachings even if they don’t take on board everything old thomy says. He might refering the19th century and recent thomism that can be quite radical , controversial and even heretical, they often distort Aquinas to enlist him in supporting their radical agenda. Hans Urs Von Balthasar and karl rahner readily come to mind.

The former calls the catholic church a whore (and wrote a whole book on It) and he rahner came close to accept universalism that, while not heretical, can be harmful to people that actually believe in it. Hey, if all will be saved, I don’t have to worry about final impenitence, right?
 
DanAl said:
This is the personal opinion of the pope. 16th century and 18th century thomism is quite in tune with catholic teachings even if they don’t take on board everything old thomy says. He might refering the19th century and recent thomism that can be quite radical , controversial and even heretical, they often distort Aquinas to enlist him in supporting their radical agenda. Hans Urs Von Balthasar and karl rahner readily come to mind.

The former calls the catholic church a whore (and wrote a whole book on It) and he rahner came close to accept universalism that, while not heretical, can be harmful to people that actually believe in it. Hey, if all will be saved, I don’t have to worry about final impenitence, right?
Click to expand...
So this is his opinion? Whew. I’m still confused as to when the pontiff speaks is it opinion or infallible.
 
He might be talking about all the moral casuistry and manuals that strain at gnats like a Pharisee. One excerpt I read said it was a sin to look at an animal’s genitals. They got anal around the 20th century.
 
WoundedIcon said:
One excerpt I read said it was a sin to look at an animal’s genitals
Click to expand...
That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course if you’re lusting or having impure thoughts, well “Thou shall not lie with any beast to defile yourself…”
 
Well, Saurez is the obvious one who comes to mind.

But there are reams and reams of commentaries on Thomas, dogmatic theology textbooks framed around the Summa. They tend to be written in very easy Latin. If you go to the dogmatic theology of any seminary library you should find them.

The major weakness is treating Aquinas as a ‘second Bible’.
 
Qoeleth said:
Well, Saurez is the obvious one who comes to mind.

But there are reams and reams of commentaries on Thomas, dogmatic theology textbooks framed around the Summa. They tend to be written in very easy Latin. If you go to the dogmatic theology of any seminary library you should find them.

The major weakness is treating Aquinas as a ‘second Bible’.
Click to expand...
Maybe he did not mean Suarez, since his work is work is orthodox and non-heretical. And if he had Suarez, Cardinal Cajetan, Luis molicna and other baroque thinker in mind, so what? It is personal opinion. I am so used to how Duns Scotus leads to atheism or Ockahm is the precursor of the antichrist that is not worth paying attention to anymore.
 
DanAl said:
Maybe he did not mean Suarez, since his work is work is orthodox and non-heretical. And if he had Suarez, Cardinal Cajetan, Luis molicna and other baroque thinker in mind, so what? It is personal opinion. I am so used to how Duns Scotus leads to atheism or Ockahm is the precursor of the antichrist that is not worth paying attention to anymore.
Click to expand...
Decadent Thomism is not heretical or unorthodox- just intellectually bankrupt. It was the standard fodder for seminarians for many years. Its chief symptom is a treatment of the Summa as if it provides a definitive answer to every theological question, when in fact it is only a textbook (albeit a good and important one) for seminarians.

The chief weakness with relying on Thomas too much now is that it fails to include the developments in philosophy more broadly.

Quare putas Beatus Joannis Scotus ducit ad atheismen? Non video ego ipse. Forsitan scisne opera Subtilis Doctoris melior quam me? Esto memor est declaratus esse Beatus. Qui sumus dubiare vocem Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae?

Si cogitationes Scoti sunt magis congruentes cum cogitatione modernis mundi, quare non similiter is datur usum majorem?
 
DanAl said:
This is the personal opinion of the pope. 16th century and 18th century thomism is quite in tune with catholic teachings even if they don’t take on board everything old thomy says. He might refering the19th century and recent thomism that can be quite radical , controversial and even heretical, they often distort Aquinas to enlist him in supporting their radical agenda. Hans Urs Von Balthasar and karl rahner readily come to mind.

The former calls the catholic church a whore (and wrote a whole book on It) and he rahner came close to accept universalism that, while not heretical, can be harmful to people that actually believe in it. Hey, if all will be saved, I don’t have to worry about final impenitence, right?
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the men you mention and don’t plan to. I really don’t know what the Pope meant.

Linus2nd
 
Qoeleth said:
Decadent Thomism is not heretical or unorthodox- just intellectually bankrupt. It was the standard fodder for seminarians for many years. Its chief symptom is a treatment of the Summa as if it provides a definitive answer to every theological question, when in fact it is only a textbook (albeit a good and important one) for seminarians.

The chief weakness with relying on Thomas too much now is that it fails to include the developments in philosophy more broadly.

Quare putas Beatus Joannis Scotus ducit ad atheismen? Non video ego ipse. Forsitan scisne opera Subtilis Doctoris melior quam me? Esto memor est declaratus esse Beatus. Qui sumus dubiare vocem Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae?

Si cogitationes Scoti sunt magis congruentes cum cogitatione modernis mundi, quare non similiter is datur usum majorem?
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about Scotus. I doubt if he was one of the men the Pope was talking about.

So, are you suggestion we burn all the books in seminary libraries? Or should the seminaries submit their book lists for approval? To whom?

Linus2nd
 
I think the Holy Father’s personal preferences (note I do not say prejudices) may be shining through here. It is revealing that he says:
Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism.
Click to expand...
This may explain a preference for theologians like Henri de Lubac to Aquinas (just my opinion). If during his formation as a seminarian, the Holy Father was unable to derive edification from Thomism for reasons which were not his fault, he is unlikely to talk passionately about Thomism now. But I don’t think this can be read into as a criticism of Thomism in general.
 
Part of the problem with that decadent Thomism is that it divorces Thomas from patristics. He really follows the Greek fathers a lot, yet thanks to jacked up forms of Thomism, the “Greeks” can’t see that.
 
**opus 101

What school of Thomism was represented in the textbooks that he would have studied about 50ish years ago? **

It’s difficult to say, really. It would depend on the faculty he studied under. Two of the eminent Thomists still living and nearing the end of their careers when Francis was a seminarian were the French Neo-Thomists Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson. They certainly were not bankrupt Thomists.

There is another issue to consider. Francis was taught by the Jesuits. They don’t seem to be on the same philosophical page with the Dominicans, and Thomas was a Dominican. Possibly Francis’ professors were hostile to Aquinas and words like “bankrupt Thomism” might trip easily from their tongues. 🤷

I cannot think of a bankrupt Thomist living and prominent in the 1960s, though I think Thomism was in serious trouble in the late 1800s until Pope Leo XIII jump started it again.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**opus 101

What school of Thomism was represented in the textbooks that he would have studied about 50ish years ago? **

It’s difficult to say, really. It would depend on the faculty he studied under. Two of the eminent Thomists still living and nearing the end of their careers when Francis was a seminarian were the French Neo-Thomists Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson. They certainly were not bankrupt Thomists.

There is another issue to consider. Francis was taught by the Jesuits. They don’t seem to be on the same philosophical page with the Dominicans, and Thomas was a Dominican. Possibly Francis’ professors were hostile to Aquinas and words like “bankrupt Thomism” might trip easily from their tongues. 🤷

I cannot think of a bankrupt Thomist living and prominent in the 1960s, though I think Thomism was in serious trouble in the late 1800s until Pope Leo XIII jump started it again.
Click to expand...
Great points, although it’s worth noting that in a Jesuit Seminary back then (probably still if truth be known) they are unlikely to have promoted anyone like Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson or Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange because the way they spoke out against the likes of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I think the term New Theology was even a term coined by Garrigou-Lagrange and was intended to be derogatory. Many Jesuits still promote Teilhard - they recently had a conference in Rome: Interpreting Teilhard for Today (or something to that effect) and refuse to see his writings at odds to Church teaching whereas many good Thomists do.

For this reason I think they probably had a set of boring textbooks written by a low-profile Jesuit or the likes.
 
Decadent thomism revolves around the belief that the act of existence is something that can be created…
 
**Linux

It is significant that no one has attempted to justify this absurd hypothesis. Silence implies assent - or impotence… **

That is the first sentence of a rather long paragraph that should follow. 😃
 
**anthony

Many Jesuits still promote Teilhard - they recently had a conference in Rome: Interpreting Teilhard for Today (or something to that effect) and refuse to see his writings at odds to Church teaching whereas many good Thomists do.**

Chardin was a curious blend of biological science and poetry. It is hard to take him seriously.

It is even more difficult to understand what he is talking about. That leaves a lot of latitude in how he is to be interpreted. The Jesuits, I have noticed, really do like latitude. It allows them to be as liberal as they like. It would be truly interesting to get to know why the Jesuits have the reputation (and have had it at least since the days of Pascal) of being the most liberal Order in the Church.
 
DanAl said:
Can you unpack the above? I don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
How can God create more of what he essentially is (The Act Of Existence/the Antithesis of nothing). He can create what he is essentially not, such as the essence of a horse or a human being. But these things are not the “act of existence” itself, and that is why they do not exist necessarily. If a horse was identical to the act of its existence, a horse would exist necessarily; however “horseness” or “treeness” is something in addition to existence, it is subject to it and is therefore not the act of existing itself. Things like human beings participate in the actuality of God and that participation is limited by the kinds of natures they have and the absolute distinction between their nature and the act of existence itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top