Pope Francis on decadent/bankrupt forms of Thomism

[Charlemagne_III]

But I think you got the gist of Pope Francis’s intended meaning here. Now if we could just find that list of Decadent Thomists.

Yes, Francis likes to stir the pot.

Now if he would just give us a spoonful to taste!

He certainly could not be talking about Jacques Maritain or Etienne Gilson who would have been the Thomists studied when he was in seminary…

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes, Francis likes to stir the pot.

Now if he would just give us a spoonful to taste!

He certainly could not be talking about Jacques Maritain or Etienne Gilson who would have been the Thomists studied when he was in seminary…

I have no evidence, but I highly doubt he would’ve studied them in the seminary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have no evidence, but I highly doubt he would’ve studied them in the seminary.

I doubt that as well because they were certainly not decadent Thomists.

Then who? He would have been in seminary in the 1950s when Gilson and Maritain were at the peak of their influence in Catholic circles. Why would the seminaries have been teaching decadent Thomists, unless he was in a Jesuit seminary and the Jesuits were teaching faulty notions of Thomism?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I doubt that as well because they were certainly not decadent Thomists.

Then who? He would have been in seminary in the 1950s when Gilson and Maritain were at the peak of their influence in Catholic circles. Why would the seminaries have been teaching decadent Thomists, unless he was in a Jesuit seminary and the Jesuits were teaching faulty notions of Thomism?

I would guess those Thomists that had a tendency toward rationalism. Which would make sense based on his comments about those who “have all the answers” and those who want an “exaggerated doctrinal security”. I don’t know a lot about Gilson and Maritain, but I believe both were among the “existential Thomists”. Wasn’t Gilson friends with de Lubac?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know a lot about Gilson and Maritain, but I believe both were among the “existential Thomists”. Wasn’t Gilson friends with de Lubac?

I don’t know about Gilson and de Lubac. Maritain I know was what is called a neo-Thomist, one who not only knows a lot about Thomas, but who applies Thomistic principles to modern issues in philosophy. I tend to think of Gilson as more a historian of Thomism than a neo-Thomist. Both were excellent thinkers. I corresponded with Maritain when I was very young, back in the late 50s and early 60s. He was a kindly man who encouraged my budding interest in philosophy, and he seemed rather pleased with my appreciation of his works on the philosophy of art.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I don’t know about Gilson and de Lubac. Maritain I know was what is called a neo-Thomist, one who not only knows a lot about Thomas, but who applies Thomistic principles to modern issues in philosophy. I tend to think of Gilson as more a historian of Thomism than a neo-Thomist. Both were excellent thinkers. I corresponded with Maritain when I was very young, back in the late 50s and early 60s. He was a kindly man who encouraged my budding interest in philosophy, and he seemed rather pleased with my appreciation of his works on the philosophy of art.

Fides et Ratio 58-59:

1. The positive results of the papal summons are well known. Studies of the thought of Saint Thomas and other Scholastic writers received new impetus. Historical studies flourished, resulting in a rediscovery of the riches of Medieval thought, which until then had been largely unknown; and there emerged new Thomistic schools. With the use of historical method, knowledge of the works of Saint Thomas increased greatly, and many scholars had courage enough to introduce the Thomistic tradition into the philosophical and theological discussions of the day. The most influential Catholic theologians of the present century, to whose thinking and research the Second Vatican Council was much indebted, were products of this revival of Thomistic philosophy. Throughout the twentieth century, the Church has been served by a powerful array of thinkers formed in the school of the Angelic Doctor.
2. Yet the Thomistic and neo-Thomistic revival was not the only sign of a resurgence of philosophical thought in culture of Christian inspiration. Earlier still, and parallel to Pope Leo’s call, there had emerged a number of Catholic philosophers who, adopting more recent currents of thought and according to a specific method, produced philosophical works of great influence and lasting value. Some devised syntheses so remarkable that they stood comparison with the great systems of idealism. Others established the epistemological foundations for a new consideration of faith in the light of a renewed understanding of moral consciousness; others again produced a philosophy which, starting with an analysis of immanence, opened the way to the transcendent; and there were finally those who sought to combine the demands of faith with the perspective of phenomenological method. From different quarters, then, modes of philosophical speculation have continued to emerge and have sought to keep alive the great tradition of Christian thought which unites faith and reason.

I would think Francis is talking more about views of God’s activity being foreign to us, “extrinsicism”. Something the Social Compendium briefly addresses: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Creatures%20in%20the%20image%20of%20God

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know about Gilson and de Lubac. Maritain I know was what is called a neo-Thomist, one who not only knows a lot about Thomas, but who applies Thomistic principles to modern issues in philosophy. I tend to think of Gilson as more a historian of Thomism than a neo-Thomist. Both were excellent thinkers. I corresponded with Maritain when I was very young, back in the late 50s and early 60s. He was a kindly man who encouraged my budding interest in philosophy, and he seemed rather pleased with my appreciation of his works on the philosophy of art.

I doubt that either Gilson or Maritain would be on the Pop’s list of decadent philosophers, nor do I think it was anyone from the Louvain school. I suspect that it was some popular in South America and who knows who these might be. I think there are some Spanish " Thomists " who might be regarded as decadent. I know there is one I wouldn’t care for but I don’t think he was very popular in the U.S.

Pax
Linus2nd