D
DanAl
Guest
Gotcha
- Status
O
Origen52
Guest
Perhaps being educated in South America, Pope Francis missed the whole 20th century renewal of Thomism centred in France and led by Etienne Gilson and Jaques Maritain . He may also be confusing scholasticism, which is derived from Thomistic philosophy, and Thomism which is based on the writings and philosophical style of St. Thomas. A search through Wikipedia provides a very good understanding of the whole topic.
I was fortunate to have attended the University of St. Michael’s College, part of the University of Toronto, in the early 970s. Gilson, who helped found the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, gave yearly lectures there until shortly before he died in 1978. St. Mike’s had a separate school of philosophy then, and i was able to study under several of Gilson’s students. Thomism was certainly neither “decadent nor bankrupt” in Toronto. I’m surprised his holiness is not at least familiar with the writings of Maritain, who was a close friend and mentor of Pope Paul VI, and had a presence in Vatican II.
Let’s not forget that John XXIII, called Vatican II, but died in June, 1963, after the first session. Pope Paul could have stopped the council then, it was the influence of Thomists like Maritain who helped him continue with the council.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
I’m not precisely sure what he’s referring to, but in the 60s, there were all kinds of lousy textbooks floating around, quoting everything under the sun out of context, in much the same way they do now.
It sounds as though the pope is saying that there are false interpretations of Thomism, just as there are false interpretations of Augustine, or of the Bible, but he’s saying it in such a way that he seems to equate these fallacious claims with Thomism as a whole.
I’ve found this to be the case much too frequently with our current pontiff; that he says things in such a way that they can be easily misinterpreted to mean something horrible. I can only pray that he begins to realize that this is happening soon, and takes steps to correct it, either by no longer making off-the-cuff remarks, or by simply not making any public statements at all. To have a pope who operates largely through exercise of papal governance instead of becoming a media celebrity would, in my view, be an incredible improvement.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
**opus 101
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.**
Well, a great number of the commentaries on Thomas were written by Jesuits, so I don’t think there is any hint of ancient Jesuit/Dominican rivalry!
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
Thomas himself is quite good, every bit as worth studying as Scotus, Bonaventure, Lombard and Augustus. If you want to study Thomas (or anyone) with integrity, the first thing to do is to get rid of all ‘commentaries’ and secondary sources.
But ‘bankrupt Thomism’, refers, I suggest, to the whole neo-Thomist thing. Perhaps some people here are also (quite innocently) immersed in the whole problem.
But ‘bankrupt Thomism’, refers, I suggest, to the whole neo-Thomist thing. Perhaps some people here are also (quite innocently) immersed in the whole problem.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Qoeleth
Well, a great number of the commentaries on Thomas were written by Jesuits, so I don’t think there is any hint of ancient Jesuit/Dominican rivalry! **
wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6282
**But ‘bankrupt Thomism’, refers, I suggest, to the whole neo-Thomist thing. **
Jacques Maritain coined the “neo-Thomist” label and applied it to himself. Are you saying he was a bankrupt Thomist?
Perhaps we should not be assuming what Pope Francis meant by “bankrupt Thomists” until we hear his own explanation. Certainly Pope Leo XIII did not think Thomism was bankrupt. I do suspect what another poster offered may be true. Thomism in South America in the 1960s may have barely existed so far as we know; if it did, it may have been promoted by third rate theologians who could not hold their own against the despisers of Aquinas.
Well, a great number of the commentaries on Thomas were written by Jesuits, so I don’t think there is any hint of ancient Jesuit/Dominican rivalry! **
wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6282
**But ‘bankrupt Thomism’, refers, I suggest, to the whole neo-Thomist thing. **
Jacques Maritain coined the “neo-Thomist” label and applied it to himself. Are you saying he was a bankrupt Thomist?
Perhaps we should not be assuming what Pope Francis meant by “bankrupt Thomists” until we hear his own explanation. Certainly Pope Leo XIII did not think Thomism was bankrupt. I do suspect what another poster offered may be true. Thomism in South America in the 1960s may have barely existed so far as we know; if it did, it may have been promoted by third rate theologians who could not hold their own against the despisers of Aquinas.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
****But ‘bankrupt Thomism’, refers, I suggest, to the whole neo-Thomist thing. ****
Jacques Maritain coined the “neo-Thomist” label and applied it to himself. Are you saying he was a bankrupt Thomist?
Perhaps we should not be assuming what Pope Francis meant by “bankrupt Thomists” until we hear his own explanation. Certainly Pope Leo XIII did not think Thomism was bankrupt. I do suspect what another poster offered may be true. Thomism in South America in the 1960s may have barely existed so far as we know; if it did, it may have been promoted by third rate theologians who could not hold their own against the despisers of Aquinas.
Yes, you are right. I was hasty to assume that he was referring to ‘neo-Thomism’ in general, and probably speaking from my own prejudices. And, of course, the fact that Francis might not have got much of it of particular courses could come down to individual teachers, textbooks, etc.
O
Origen52
Guest
I hope this is not irreverent, but I agree with your last statement.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Origen
I hope this is not irreverent, but I agree with your last statement. **
So do I. There is a PR problem going on at the Vatican that needs to be fixed pronto.
I hope this is not irreverent, but I agree with your last statement. **
So do I. There is a PR problem going on at the Vatican that needs to be fixed pronto.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
My intention was to be reverent, and also make the point I felt needed to be made.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
I very much agree as well.
A
anthonymarie
Guest
And yet somehow they manage!
If the term “decadent” were to be applied to any branch of Catholic theology you’d think Teilhard and such “Theology Fiction” would be a pretty good place to start.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**anthony
If the term “decadent” were to be applied to any branch of Catholic theology you’d think Teilhard and such “Theology Fiction” would be a pretty good place to start.**
I agree. The fact that Julian Huxley liked Chardin should have made the Jesuits a trifle nervous.
.
If the term “decadent” were to be applied to any branch of Catholic theology you’d think Teilhard and such “Theology Fiction” would be a pretty good place to start.**
I agree. The fact that Julian Huxley liked Chardin should have made the Jesuits a trifle nervous.
.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Don’t encourage him, he has been trying to prove it for many months, perhaps years. No philosopher I know of holds this view and he refuses to provide one. So I think we may conclude he may be someone who leans toward Mormanism or Seventh Day Adventism and is trying to provide a philosophical bases for their faith. Or perhaps he is a neo-pantheist.
Linus2nd
O
Origen52
Guest
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that any of us who are a bit confused are motivated by anything other than genuine confusion.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
And you have just agreed to heresy. Neither we nor any part of creation participates in the " actuality of God. " If we participated in the actuality of God that would make us God. Jesus Christ participated in the actuality of God and He was God.Gotcha
You have been warned, don’t fall for the junk philosophy this guy is dishing out. He brings it up on practically thread he participates in. He must get lots of laughs out of the number of Catholics he gets to fall for it.
Linus2nd
O
Origen52
Guest
“Decadent Thomism” is not a term used in philosophical study. The school of thought referred to is scholasticism, which is not a philosophy as such, but more a way of constructing philosophical arguments. It is a form of logic based on dialectical reasoning. It is actually quite a mentally challenging exercise to construct a dialectical argument. Unfortunately the exercise itself began to be more important than the issues examined. That led to it being seen as a meaningless waste of time. The standard derision of scholasticism is, “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
I
inocente
Guest
He seemed crystal clear to me. He wants to move away from the carved-in-stone approach of some Thomists, he likens it to an enchantment, to clinging to old ways which seem safe even as they become ever less relevant:
*“Humans are in search of themselves, and, of course, in this search they can also make mistakes. The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, 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. In thinking of the human being, therefore, the church should strive for genius and not for decadence.
“When does a formulation of thought cease to be valid? When it loses sight of the human or even when it is afraid of the human or deluded about itself. The deceived thought can be depicted as Ulysses encountering the song of the Siren, or as Tannhäuser in an orgy surrounded by satyrs and bacchantes, or as Parsifal, in the second act of Wagner’s opera, in the palace of Klingsor. The thinking of the church must recover genius and better understand how human beings understand themselves today, in order to develop and deepen the church’s teaching.”
“Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists *- -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”
“Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”*
americamagazine.org/pope-interview
huffingtonpost.com/quora/is-the-pope-right-that-th_b_3973587.html
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
Pope Francis has not repudiated any teaching of the Church. I hope you don’t think he has!
Thomism per se is not decadent. It is as alive as ever and has many brilliant defenders.
Again, we shall have to wait for Francis to clarify what he meant by “decadent Thomists.”
By the way, he didn’t say anything about decadent Jesuits. Their number may well be legion.
Pope Francis has not repudiated any teaching of the Church. I hope you don’t think he has!
Thomism per se is not decadent. It is as alive as ever and has many brilliant defenders.
Again, we shall have to wait for Francis to clarify what he meant by “decadent Thomists.”
By the way, he didn’t say anything about decadent Jesuits. Their number may well be legion.
D
DanAl
Guest
I just read it quickly, I din’t agree or disagreed.I thought , initially , that he was talking about the Thomistic distinction between existence and essence in creatures.
- Status