Thomism

[JamesTheJust]

I once thought that to be a Doctor of the Church like St. Thomas, one had to be an intellectual, an academic type, well versed in philosophy, theology, etc, a kind of Albert Einstein of the religious world. Then I read the autobiography of St, Therese of Lisieux, who has been proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. The only thing this 24-year old kid ever wrote was her simple autobiography, and that was under obedience to her superior. Yet that work, written in everyday language, was considered of such great importance that she was declared a Doctor of the Church. A kid, she was not. If you have not read it, read it. I guarantee you will not find it difficult to wade through as you might Summa Theologica, yet it might just change your life. It is called “The Story of a Soul.”

Read St. Thomas, too; he has had a profound influence on the Church, and the shaping of its thought, but he’s not a quick read.

To be a Doctor, one simply has to be a good teacher (that’s what doctor means; it comes from the Latin root doct, which means teach, as in doctrine).

The Story of a Soul has taught a great many people.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Catholicism argued that the basic structure of the Thomistic theory of knowledge, and the Thomistic account of nature and grace provided a lasting solution to the list of problems that was bunched under the term Modernism. Problems and implications of a contrastive relationship between concept and fact, between authority and freedom, and between nature and grace pointed out that that standard formulations given by a Thomistic approach covertly depended on the very modern dualisms that the approach purported to overcome. These dualisms had a deep foundation in the field of philosophy from Descartes to Locke, Kant to Comte, Rousseau to Mill, and Schleiermacher to Hegel. The problems between nature and grace, in the Neo-Scholastic tradition, ended up in a metaphysically rigid dualistic account which seemed to confirm rather than overcome the modern suspicion that our everyday lives and concerns - that is, nature - have no intrinsic contact with or need for a life of grace. Instead of Neo-Scholasticism overcoming the dualities presented by the philosophies of the last century and a half or so, it absorbed that tendency into itself.

In many quarters, the Church itself perceived it was beleaguered, and not without justification. That, however, forced more and more a rigid atmosphere of conformity; as the problems with the neo scholastic approach became more obvious, the result was akin to lighting the fuse to a powder keg. The results have not been pretty.

Is your conclusion that Scholasticism in general is wrong because you feel that it is too dualistic? Sure, the understanding of grace needs to be developed, but don’t get rid of the entire system! To do that would be to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[otjm]

Is your conclusion that Scholasticism in general is wrong because you feel that it is too dualistic? Sure, the understanding of grace needs to be developed, but don’t get rid of the entire system! To do that would be to throw the baby out with the bath water.

No, I don’t believe that Scholasticism in general is wrong. I think a large part of the problem was that a number of people in the hierarchy, in a very understandable reaction to very serious problems at the time, over-reacted to anything and everything that did not fit into a narrow mold. There is a balance between allowing people to follow the exploratory mold and work with them when they may be off point, and shutting down anyone or posturing as if that is what will happen.

What happened was that the theologians who were challenging Neo Scholasticism ended up in the “effective” gun sights of at least part of the curia. And from all appearances, the theologians were right and the curia over reactive. The pressure cooker that resulted was that the theologians spent more time dealing with issue they should not have had to deal with, and little or no time working to try to correct the problems, or find a way to integrate their findings into neo scholasticism. From that, neo scholasticism got left in the dust. That is not to say that there are no practitioners. but most theologians today, having no scholastic background, also have little or no understanding of the criticisms.

I do not suggest getting rid of the system; by and large that has already been done, to no benefit I can see. Perhaps it can come back, and in doing so, look to the criticisms and change as it is needed.

And there is always the issue that it is not the only system, and in some circumstance, not the best one. Keep in mind that one of the most brilliant theologians today is an Augustinian.

 

[otjm]

I am not a philosopher, a Thomist, a neo-scholastic or anything very helpful to the topic so could you please break down this problem and its history for the layman who may not be familiar with and able to instantly draw connections between all the names and ideas in your post.

I tried googling some terms from your post and I was given a passage from Thomas Guarino’s Foundations of Systematic Theology. Discussing Balthasar and Barth on the relation of nature and grace, Guarino says that Catholic neo-scholasticism held to a division of nature and grace such that a purely natural order could be surgically extracted from the supernatural order. I was also given other sources that spoke similarly of an extreme nature-grace dualism in connection with Rahner, Balthasar and de Lubac in opposition. Is this the problem you are talking about? If so, Guarino says that this is contrary to the view throughout the majority of the Church’s duration, including Thomas Aquinas, so is this really an insurmountable issue, and, if so, why? Also, do you have any examples of problematic passages in neo-scholastic writers (I’m guessing this might include Garrigou-Lagrange)?

von Balthasar, Rahner, Lonergan, de Lubac, Chenu, and perhaps Congar were the movers and shakers. R.R. Reno has a very cogent analysis of the problems then and now.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

von Balthasar, Rahner, Lonergan, de Lubac, Chenu, and perhaps Congar were the movers and shakers. R.R. Reno has a very cogent analysis of the problems then and now.

Could you please tell us what his cogent analysis is called?

 

[otjm]

Could you please tell us what his cogent analysis is called?

Theology after the Revolution