Modern theology vs. Modernist theology and traditionalists
It depends on how much there is in modern philosophy that can be saved and christianized; my guess is that there's not much, given that so many principles of many modern (16th century-present) philosophers are in contradiction to Scholastic philosophy.  There are widely different theories on knowledge, the nature of man, etc., and so I find it hard to believe that they can be easily reconciled.
Reply
(06-27-2011, 08:23 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: It depends on how much there is in modern philosophy that can be saved and christianized; my guess is that there's not much, given that so many principles of many modern (16th century-present) philosophers are in contradiction to Scholastic philosophy.  There are widely different theories on knowledge, the nature of man, etc., and so I find it hard to believe that they can be easily reconciled.

I've read plenty of personalism that isn't contrary to the Faith.

Those things that are, or at least highly suspect, are not necessary to personalism.

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether it's contrary to "Scholastic philosophy," all that matters is what is truth. Scholastic philosophy generated some consensus and some disagreement.

Thomas was wrong on some points. Yes, even the Angelic Doctor. Right on more than all of us here would be in a hundred lives, but to say we cannot christianize SYSTEMS is just wrong.
Reply
"This is something I've been thinking about trying to articulate for quite some time. I'm sure I'll fail but hopefully some more eloquent than myself can step in, or if I'm wrong you can explain why."

This first sentence of yours was so modest...
Reply
Throughout her history, the Magisterium (on 17 March 1916) has declared just one philosophical system to be a "safe norm for intellectual guidance:" the chief philosophical doctrines of St. Thomas (Denz-Schon. 3601-3624).  Now, it is true that Pope Benedict XV "said that he did not intend to impose the twenty-four theses as compelling internal assent, but as the doctrine preferred by the Church" (Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, ch. 55).  On the other hand, the capital theses 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" (Pope St. Pius X, Doctoris Angelici, 29 June 1914).

http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/doctoris.htm (Pope St. Pius X's Doctoris Angelici)

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/cath...homast.htm (The 24 Thomistic theses in English)

http://www.catho.org/9.php?d=byr#dsu (The 24 Thomistic theses in Denzinger-Schonmetzer)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm#55 (Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's, Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought online)

As I mentioned early on in the thread, I'm no expert in philosophy.  If personalism has something of value to offer the Church, then that's great, so long as it doesn't contradict what's already been established.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)