Thomism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyrilSebastian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a Catholic system of thinking that encompasses almost all fields: from theology, to soteriology, to justice. Many prominent theologians are Thomists, and Thomism was the driving force behind the development of Scholasticism.
 
CruceSignati said:
The most brilliant thing since sliced bread.
Click to expand...
LOL! Though, I’m pretty sure Thomism came first. 🙂

St Pius X has some nice words about what Vatican II called “The Perennial Philosophy”:
The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
clem456 said:
If you do a search of the forum on Thomism you will get some good discussion, especially from the poster JReducation. It is good perspective.
Click to expand...
If he/she wants to know what Thomism is, I think it would be best to go to New Advent, or a Thomist, rather than JReducation. Its pretty difficult to talk Thomism with a non-Thomist. This is not meant to sound blunt, but just realistic. Thanks.
perhaps the blogs of Edward Feser or iteadthomam would be of interest. The former is a contemporary Thomist philosopher who has written about St Thomas strictly from a philosophical perspective in his Aquinas, and The Last Superstition. On his blog he is concerned to apply Thomism to contemporary philosophical debates, particularly around philosophy of mind. Iteadthomam is a blog for the restoration of the Scholastic tradition of the Church, but would perhaps be a little dense for someone with no experience of St Thomas. I like also New Theological Movement, which writes on St Thomas among others…
but perhaps New Advent would be a good starting point.
Thanks
 
JamesTheJust said:
It’s a Catholic system of thinking that encompasses almost all fields: from theology, to soteriology, to justice. Many prominent theologians are Thomists, and Thomism was the driving force behind the development of Scholasticism.
Click to expand...
Actually, prior to Vatican 2 by at least one if not two generations previous to it, many theologians were neo-thomistic. That started to break down when neo Thomism was shown to have some of the problems internally to which it was supposedly in opposition. Some of those who challenged it were suppressed by the Church, and at least some of them were rehabilitated later.

A significant problem arose from that, in that the challengers, while doing a great service, failed to supply any cohesive methodology. This left us with a subsequent vacuum as those who followed the critics did not have something to hand on to the next generation, which is the current group of theologians. Too often those we have now know there were great disputes, but have no framework in which to view them, and Thomism and neo Thomism have largely been relegated to the dustbin with not much to replace it.

Thomism and neo Thomism come from the philosophical methodology of St. Thomas, which he used as the underlying process of his theological structure. And one can go back from St Thomas to Aristotle if one wants to understand the very basic outline.

A Thomistic approach to theology is a very classical approach, but it is not the only methodology of approaching theological issues. John Paul 2’s Theology of the Body was done through humanism and phenomenology, which may be why it has caught on in some quarters, as it is closer to how a lay person might think and respond. And when it came out, there were some theologians, trained in a neo Thomistic process, who had some serious problems with it, because it was not presented in the classical fashion or process.

And Benedict 16, rather than a Thomist or neo Thomist, is more of an Augustinian.
 
otjm said:
Actually, prior to Vatican 2 by at least one if not two generations previous to it, many theologians were neo-thomistic. That started to break down when neo Thomism was shown to have some of the problems internally to which it was supposedly in opposition. Some of those who challenged it were suppressed by the Church, and at least some of them were rehabilitated later.
Click to expand...
Yes, before Vatican II, Thomistic Scholasticism was the Catholic methodology, promulgated heavily by Leo XIII, St Pius X, and their successors. Vatican II sort of “opened it up” in that it encouraged other methodologies. However, many took this to mean that we should abandon Thomism, and Scholasticism in general, which is tragic. I hope for a “Scholastic Revival” sometime soon.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Yes, before Vatican II, Thomistic Scholasticism was the Catholic methodology, promulgated heavily by Leo XIII, St Pius X, and their successors. Vatican II sort of “opened it up” in that it encouraged other methodologies. However, many took this to mean that we should abandon Thomism, and Scholasticism in general, which is tragic. I hope for a “Scholastic Revival” sometime soon.
Click to expand...
Monastic theology pre-existed thomistic scholasticism by 1000 years. I see the “opening up” as you put it as a partial return to the Church’s monastic roots.

Pope Benedict XVI gave a general audience on the topic of monastic vs scholastic theology. It is short and worth reading. ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16ChrstChrch94.htm

Both scholastic and monastic theologies are valid theological models. Not everyone is a scholastic. Many of the beautiful doctrines of our Church are the result of monastic theology rooted in the prayerful reading and meditation upon the written word of God - lectio.

And Thomas was not the driving force behind scholasticism. Thomas himself would have studied The Sentences by Peter Lombard which was written 100 years earlier. Thomas wrote a commentary on The Sentences. It was the de-facto standard of scholastic theology prior to St. Thomas’ work.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Monastic theology pre-existed thomistic scholasticism by 1000 years. I see the “opening up” as you put it as a partial return to the Church’s monastic roots.

Pope Benedict XVI gave a general audience on the topic of monastic vs scholastic theology. It is short and worth reading. ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16ChrstChrch94.htm

Both scholastic and monastic theologies are valid theological models. Not everyone is a scholastic. Many of the beautiful doctrines of our Church are the result of monastic theology rooted in the prayerful reading and meditation upon the written word of God - lectio.
Click to expand...
Oh- most definitely. I didn’t mean to say that monasticism has no place in the Church, in fact, it’s one of the foundations of Catholic spirituality, as you say. But an equally important organ of thought is Scholasticism, which flourished beautifully from the High Middle Ages to the modern age, when it seems to have neglected, leaving holes in the shape of such Doctors as St Thomas Aquinas and St Anselm of Canterbury in the Catholic spiritual edifice.

Thanks for the link! I’ll check it out. 👍
 
JamesTheJust said:
Yes, before Vatican II, Thomistic Scholasticism was the Catholic methodology, promulgated heavily by Leo XIII, St Pius X, and their successors. Vatican II sort of “opened it up” in that it encouraged other methodologies. However, many took this to mean that we should abandon Thomism, and Scholasticism in general, which is tragic. I hope for a “Scholastic Revival” sometime soon.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, the work of “opening things up” occurred in the decades before Vatican 2; the problem as I noted was that while neo Thomism had valid criticisms, no one stepped into the gap to provide a solid foundation upon which to either resolve the problems, or replace the process.

As to bringing back neo Thomism, unless the issues which were pointed out are addressed, we go back simply to the problems already pointed out. That is not to say that neo Thomism cannot find a way through; but unless those who may be enthusiastic about its resurgence are also willing to work on the problems, it will not solve a lot.
 
otjm said:
As to bringing back neo Thomism, unless the issues which were pointed out are addressed, we go back simply to the problems already pointed out. That is not to say that neo Thomism cannot find a way through; but unless those who may be enthusiastic about its resurgence are also willing to work on the problems, it will not solve a lot.
Click to expand...
To what sort of problems are you referring?
 
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.
 
JamesTheJust said:
To what sort of problems are you referring?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)?
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
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)?
Click to expand...
Here is an explation of grace as analyzed by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, he shows and explains the divisions of grace and differing opinions.
ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm#49

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top