Pope Francis on decadent/bankrupt forms of Thomism

[Linusthe2nd]

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

I am quite edified you bothered to read it. However it does not condemn the philosophy of St. Thomas. And I must say, the Pope did not mention any authors. He has become the master of the dangling modifier, we don’t know exactly who he means. However, his personal opinions on such matters are no better than anyone else’s. " Degustibus non disputandum est, " as the saying goes. He has his personal style, that’s all.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

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

Yes, that’s exactly how I understood his position, and it is true. I have nothing against Thomas (in fact, I quite enjoy reading him, especially his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius), but there are a number of “Dogmatic Thomists” around, who, perhaps, may run into the danger of being a little to sure of themselves.

One doesn’'t study theology to gain answers, but rather to find out new questions. Such an approach seems consistent with Christian humility, and true reverence for the mysteries.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

" You are new here. Indeed he includes Thomas’ distinction between essense and existence. However, he says the existence involved is God’s own act of existence, that it is that which gives creatrues their existence and that they have no act of existence of their own. Search out the thread called, " How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing? You will see it is quite involved and take a look at some of my later posts, you will see that no Catholic can hold his positions. My post # 867 from that thread will give you an idea of what he has proposed ( I have just noticed he has been banned, so someone is watching.)

" The O.P. has put forward a number of propositions which cannot be held by Catholics.

1. God cannot create an " act of existing " which is not His Own Act of Existing
2. God cannot create an " act of existing " ex nihilo.
3. We exist, ontologically, in the mind of God.
4. The universe exists, ontologicallly, in the mind of God.
5. God’s " Act of Existing " is the " act of existing " of creatures.
6. God is the only Esse
7. There are no created esses that are separate and distinct from God’s own Esse.
   8, That God creates Essences by sharing with them His Own Esse
8. To excape the odium of an heresy akin to Pantheism because of point # 8, he says that Essence is distinct from Esse. And so God’s Esse is not a part of the created Essence. He fails to see that this has left him in the realm of Prue Ideas, that the world is nothing but a collection of Forms without real substance, a world of non-being, because for a being to exist, it must have its own Esse. But under his philosophy, this is impossible.

• It is possible that I have overlooked other errors.

** It should be noted that Thomas Aquinas teaches that essence and esse are distinct, yet esse is the most important principle of a substance, it is most interior to it and is that whereby an essence becomes a being or substance. It composes with the form and the matter, if any, to make one substance, one being.

*** St Thomas, contrary to what the O.P. says, teaches that God creates entire substances in His act of creation, and the first of His created effect, interior to the substance, is the substance’s very own act of existence, which is limited by the form or nature of each particualr substance. And further, Thomas teaches that we must hold on Faith, that God has created the universe ex nihilo in time.

He futher teaches that God, though operating most intimately in His creation. is absolutely transcendent to it and does not mix with it in any ontological way. This is also the teaching of the Church.

**** All the arguments against his positions have been given by myself, Utunumsint, Hicetnunc, and Prodigal Son, and Polytropos earlier in this thread. You can read them for yoursef, they are St. Thomas’ own arguments."

Linus2nd

---

Last edited by Linusthe2nd; Aug 24, '13 at

---

P.S. That was only part of my post.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

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.”*

What he says about “decadent Thomism” has nothing to do with Thomism as such being “carved-in-stone.” He calls the time of Thomas Aquinas one of “brilliance” and “genius” which “the church must recover…in order to develop and deepen the church’s teaching.” There is little to suggest that decadent Thomism is decadent because it is old. He speaks of “decadent Thomist commentaries,” which it would seem, based on what he says, were decadent because they did not do Thomism justice.

All of that is not to say that every answer can be found in Thomism. But I find it implausible that, in these words, the pope was implying that Thomism’s “brilliance” and “genius” are no longer relevant. His issue seems to be bad interpretations of Thomism. Specifically, which interpretations those are, we don’t know.

 

[Origen52]

I am quite edified you bothered to read it. However it does not condemn the philosophy of St. Thomas. And I must say, the Pope did not mention any authors. He has become the master of the dangling modifier, we don’t know exactly who he means. However, his personal opinions on such matters are no better than anyone else’s. " Degustibus non disputandum est, " as the saying goes. He has his personal style, that’s all.

Linus2nd

Beautifully said. :clapping:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

uch:uch:uch:

Linus2nd

 

[opus101]

He has become the master of the dangling modifier, we don’t know exactly who he means.

Linus2nd

:extrahappy:

 

[LongingSoul]

When we refer to something as ‘decadent’ or ‘bankrupt’, it generally means misinterpreting a general good, to serve personal ends selfishly. In the West we value the idea of ‘freedom’ but it can be mis-applied in a selfishly decadent and bankrupt way. We value human dignity or humanism, but things like abortion and euthanasia, apply it selfishly and pridefully. Any ‘good’ can be misappropriated to a selfish, self-serving end, even Thomism. I’m beginning to like Pope Francis I think. He seems quite a canny dear old bloke.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

He didn’t condemn “decadent Thomists” but condemned decadent commentaries. Notice that he did not condemn people but condemned ideas. The Church is always careful not to condemn people, groups of people or even other ecclesial bodies but often condemns false ideas.

***“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. ***

I’m far from a philosopher but it seems pretty straight forward to me. The word decadent means luxuriously self-indulgent. When anything exists for its own sake it becomes self-indulgent. When commentaries on Thomas exist for their own sake and forget real, live people made in the image of God it becomes self indulgent.

Its no different than Dan Rather at the end of his career when half of his news stories were about the news media itself, or endless rock bands and rap stars who sing only about themselves. Its no different than the Broadway play about the making of Broadway play - all the critics and industry insiders ooh and aah over it but it folds in three months because it is turned in on itself. They have all forgotten the audience.

We defend Thomas because not because of Thomas but because Thomas points real people to God.

-Tim-

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Timothy

I’m far from a philosopher but it seems pretty straight forward to me. The word decadent means luxuriously self-indulgent. When anything exists for its own sake it becomes self-indulgent. When commentaries on Thomas exist for their own sake and forget real, live people made in the image of God it becomes self indulgent. **

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where (and by whom) were these commentaries written that supposedly “forget real live people made in the image of God”?

 

[triumphguy]

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?

That is a shameful misrepresentation of Cardinal Balthasar’s theology. You’ve obviously never read his work.

At Balthasar’s funeral, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) said, speaking of Balthasar’s work in general, “What the pope (John Paul II) intended to express by this mark of distinction [elevation to the cardinalate], and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.”[15] wiki

http://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/403_Rah-Ratz.jpeg

Ratzinger, Rahner and Balthasar having a chat.

 

[mytruepower2]

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:

That’s funny. To me, the phrase;

But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think.

…seems to imply that most people today are just too badly contaminated(/dim) in their thought processes to be trusted to authentically interpret the words of the angelic doctor.

I could go on, but I think this alone proves that these words are easily misinterpreted, as at least one of us has misinterpreted them.

 

[inocente]

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.

He never said anything about repudiating any teaching of the Church, nor about Thomasim being decadent, nor about “decadent Jesuits”. What on earth are you talking about?

He is the Bishop of Rome, not some American politician drooling out simplistic sound bites on Fox. What he said was clear enough if you read what he actually said and try to understand what he actually said. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

 

[inocente]

I am quite edified you bothered to read it. However it does not condemn the philosophy of St. Thomas. And I must say, the Pope did not mention any authors. He has become the master of the dangling modifier, we don’t know exactly who he means. However, his personal opinions on such matters are no better than anyone else’s. " Degustibus non disputandum est, " as the saying goes. He has his personal style, that’s all.

Linus2nd

I guess members of those schools of Thomasm which the Pope considers decadent would like to suggest that the successor to Peter is either ramblingly incoherent or else saying something very subtle and convoluted.

But he was crystal clear, even this Baptist understood him.

 

[inocente]

Yes, that’s exactly how I understood his position, and it is true. I have nothing against Thomas (in fact, I quite enjoy reading him, especially his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius), but there are a number of “Dogmatic Thomists” around, who, perhaps, may run into the danger of being a little to sure of themselves.

One doesn’'t study theology to gain answers, but rather to find out new questions. Such an approach seems consistent with Christian humility, and true reverence for the mysteries.

Good, at least some of us understood.

Although I’m not Catholic, and as the non-decadent Thomists need a rallying point on CAF, methinks you just volunteered.

 

[inocente]

That’s funny. To me, the phrase;

…seems to imply that most people today are just too badly contaminated(/dim) in their thought processes to be trusted to authentically interpret the words of the angelic doctor.

I could go on, but I think this alone proves that these words are easily misinterpreted, as at least one of us has misinterpreted them.

He’s your leader, not mine, and it might be worth you guys giving him some respect rather than sarcasm. After all:

CCC 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

 

[1AugustSon7]

_
**Re: Pope Francis on decadent/bankrupt forms of Thomism **​

Aristotle, Metaphysics,

…dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher, for sophistic is Wisdom which exists only in semblance, and dialecticians embrace all things in their dialectic, and being is common to all things; but evidently their dialectic embraces these subjects because these are proper to philosophy. - For sophistic and dialectic turn on the same class of things as philosophy, but this differs from dialectic in the nature of the faculty required and from sophistic in respect of the purpose of the philosophic life. Dialectic is merely critical where philosophy claims to know, and sophistic is what appears to be philosophy but is not.

Moreover, both theology and philosophy -but theology especially- are supposed to be productive of something (in the soul at least). Philosophy should produce and increase genuine wisdom; and theology, similarly, should lead to enlightenment and greater knowledge of God. When this isn’t happening -even if the cause of it be uncertain- there is notwithstanding - and this with certainty - something wrong.

The Prophet Isaiah:

Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: my Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes.

“And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; and break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will lay it waste; it shall not be pruned or dug, but there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; for righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.

Saint Thomas’s doctrine is no less susceptible to being merely parroted, misinterpreted and misrepresented than any other great thinker’s: we know it ought to produce “good fruit” and we also know that the Saint himself explicitly entrusted his doctrine to the interpretation and judgement of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

Therefore we ought to trust the Pope in this regard - it is after all his right to make such judgements as Pope and, as has been said, Saint Thomas himself entrusted his doctrine to the Church’s Magisterium; that is, in a certain respect, to Pope Francis.

Our Lord:

Matt 7:15 Be on your guard against false prophets, men who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but are ravenous wolves within. 16 You will know them by the fruit they yield. Can grapes be plucked from briers, or figs from thistles? 17 So, indeed, any sound tree will bear good fruit, while any tree that is withered will bear fruit that is worthless; 18 that worthless fruit should come from a sound tree, or good fruit from a withered tree, is impossible. 19 Any tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. 20 I say therefore, it is by their fruit that you will know them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**inocente

He is the Bishop of Rome, not some American politician drooling out simplistic sound bites on Fox. **

Talk about simplistic sound bites!

What he said was clear enough if you read what he actually said and try to understand what he actually said. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Clear enough? Then you tell me which Thomists he was referring to. When you get to that, tell me why those Thomist commentaries were decadent.

You see, you not only don’t know what Pope Francis was talking about. You don’t even know what you are talking about!

 

[polytropos]

I guess members of those schools of Thomasm which the Pope considers decadent would like to suggest that the successor to Peter is either ramblingly incoherent or else saying something very subtle and convoluted.

But he was crystal clear, even this Baptist understood him.

Except your interpretation of Francis’s words is thoroughly incoherent. As has occurred more than a few times with Francis, those eager to read their own preferences (say, a disdain for people who still take Thomism seriously) into his words quote him and simultaneously misinterpret the quotes.

You mention “those schools of Thomasm which the Pope considers decadent,” but the Pope did not mention any specific schools. You inserted your own belief that it is a “carved-in-stone approach” to Thomism that the Pope find decadent, but in the sections you quoted, there is nothing to support that. He calls the age of Thomas Aquinas one of “brilliance” and “genius,” saying, “we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries.” Why would the Pope call something “brilliant” and “genius” if he thought that it was becoming “ever less relevant” (to use your words)? The Catholic Church is not exactly an institution that looks back on its traditions and says, “Well, those are nice, brilliant even, but irrelevant.”

So why don’t you take your own advice:

What he said was clear enough if you read what he actually said and try to understand what he actually said. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

 

[Qoeleth]

Good, at least some of us understood.

Although I’m not Catholic, and as the non-decadent Thomists need a rallying point on CAF, methinks you just volunteered.

Well, I think my small knowledge and experience hardly equips me for that. But I get the impression that many of these neo-Thomist might coming from a perspective of youthful enthusiasm, rather than considered judgment. It seems like some don’t know much Latin, which presumably means they are relative neophytes to the world of Catholic theology. We all must start somewhere, and it is one of the ironies of life that self-assurance is often in inverse proportion to knowledge. In fact, Thomas himself is far from ‘dogmatic’ in setting forth his findings- rather he is ‘probabilistic’.

Here are some authors of what could be characterized as decadant Thomistic textbooks- Vincenzio Gotti, Franciscus Kenrick, Christiano Pesch (SJ), Franscicus Schouppe (SJ), Ad. Tanquerey, Francis Diekamp, J.M. Herve, etc. There is nothing unorthodox about them at all, but they treat theological questions like mathematical problems, where a definite answer can be given with confidence.