Why is this the case?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrossofChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrossofChrist

Guest
Why are almost all online Catholic apologists that engage in philosophical debates Thomistic? I mean, when’s the last time you ran into a Suarezian? I mean, yeah, I can understand why there wouldn’t be too many that are appealing to a Thomist-type transcendentalism like Rahner or someone, they haven’t been around for too long. But Scotists? Where are they?



:confused:
 
Why are almost all online Catholic apologists that engage in philosophical debates Thomistic? I mean, when’s the last time you ran into a Suarezian? I mean, yeah, I can understand why there wouldn’t be too many that are appealing to a Thomist-type transcendentalism like Rahner or someone, they haven’t been around for too long. But Scotists? Where are they?



:confused:
Because St. Thomas Aquinas has common sense. 👍
 
Why are almost all online Catholic apologists that engage in philosophical debates Thomistic? I mean, when’s the last time you ran into a Suarezian? I mean, yeah, I can understand why there wouldn’t be too many that are appealing to a Thomist-type transcendentalism like Rahner or someone, they haven’t been around for too long. But Scotists? Where are they?



:confused:
The Catholic Church has popularized St. Thomas way more than any other scholastic philosopher. The popular literature out there also focuses more on St. Thomas.

As far as their ideas go, I am not too familiar with Suarez. If I am not mistaken, he has some novel ideas of his own but builds off or accepts a lot of what Aquinas says. Take away Aquinas and would we still have a Suarez?

And as for Scotists, well, their concept of being is wrong.
And didn’t Suarez deny the real distinction between essence and existence? In that case his concept of being is also wrong.
 
And didn’t Suarez deny the real distinction between essence and existence? In that case his concept of being is also wrong.
I believe he thought there was a conceptual difference between the two. But because he denies a real distinction he gets criticized by Garrigou-Lagrange as “naturalizing the supernatural”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top