Critique of John Paul II's Personalism & Defense of Thomism
#41
(10-25-2012, 02:18 PM)Walty Wrote: What is lacking in Thomism?  Why does it need Personalism at all?  How can an inherently relativistic philosophy be reconciled with Catholicism?

Do you think that theological and philosophy thought has ceased in the Church, and we are simply just to quote St Thomas and the neo-Thomists till the end of time? I think Kreeft makes the case that the subjective needs a bit of bolstering in St Thomas.


To be more specific, we all know that Persomalism specializes in the first half of
each of the following 10 dualities or polarities and is unfortunately usually suspicious of
the second half, which is the speciality of Thomism, and which we know is
indispensable:
--the concrete vs. the abstract
--the individual vs. the universal
--phenomenological description vs. causal explanation
--relation vs. substance
--experience vs. reason
--becoming vs. being
--epistemology vs. metaphysics
--psychology vs. ethics
--anthropology vs. theology
--the subjective vs. the objective
We know that any philosophy that treats the second half of any of these pairs with
disdain, suspicion, forgetfulness, or rej ection is radically incomplete. What we are less
sure of is, first, whether any philosophy that treats the first half of these pairs negatively
or neglects that half is also radically incomplete, and secondly, if so, whether Thomism
has been guilty of that neglect, and thirdly, if so, whether that neglect can be ended on the
basis of Thomistic principles themselves, thus completing Thomism from within. That is
my main question in this investigation.
Reply
#42
(10-25-2012, 02:20 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:18 PM)Walty Wrote: What is lacking in Thomism?  Why does it need Personalism at all?  How can an inherently relativistic philosophy be reconciled with Catholicism?

Do you think that theological and philosophy thought has ceased in the Church, and we are simply just to quote St Thomas and the neo-Thomists till the end of time? I think Kreeft makes the case that the subjective needs a bit of bolstering in St Thomas.

I've never said that theological and philosophical thought have ceased, but it's clear that Thomas has been christened and accepted by the Church.  There is still a lot of work to be done on all sorts of questions and issues, but Thomism is the theological framework of the Church.

We should continue to use Thomism and mine revelation with it, but we don't need alternative approaches when the framework that we have is obviously the correct one.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

It's not that Thomism has been found wanting.  It's that people get bored with a system if it's more than a century or two old.  They want to get creative and interesting.  I'm sorry, but there's no need. 
Reply
#43
(10-25-2012, 02:26 PM)Walty Wrote: I've never said that theological and philosophical thought have ceased, but it's clear that Thomas has been christened and accepted by the Church.  There is still a lot of work to be done on all sorts of questions and issues, but Thomism is the theological framework of the Church.

We should continue to use Thomism and mine revelation with it, but we don't need alternative approaches when the framework that we have is obviously the correct one.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

It's not that Thomism has been found wanting.  It's that people get bored with a system if it's more than a century or two old.  They want to get creative and interesting.  I'm sorry, but there's no need. 

It depends which Thomism too. There's Thomas himself. Then there are the scholastics. And the neo-scholastics/neo-Thomists. I love the Thomism presented in my book, "Nature, Knowledge and God: An Introduction To Thomistic Philosophy", by Brother Benignus. But even in there there are a few places in which the Brother admits that there are problems. He manfully destroys the most destructive modern philosophies that pretended to topple Thomas, but I can see there is a lot of room for expansion, and also for improvement in formulations. Some Neo-Thomsists too come off as too abstract, and seem to have little relation to the very personal tone of the Bible and many venerable Church writers, or even the style of St Thomas. Too neat and tidy when things really are not that neat and tidy.
Reply
#44
(10-25-2012, 02:43 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:26 PM)Walty Wrote: I've never said that theological and philosophical thought have ceased, but it's clear that Thomas has been christened and accepted by the Church.  There is still a lot of work to be done on all sorts of questions and issues, but Thomism is the theological framework of the Church.

We should continue to use Thomism and mine revelation with it, but we don't need alternative approaches when the framework that we have is obviously the correct one.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

It's not that Thomism has been found wanting.  It's that people get bored with a system if it's more than a century or two old.  They want to get creative and interesting.  I'm sorry, but there's no need. 

It depends which Thomism too. There's Thomas himself. Then there are the scholastics. And the neo-scholastics/neo-Thomists. I love the Thomism presented in my book, "Nature, Knowledge and God: An Introduction To Thomistic Philosophy", by Brother Benignus. But even in there there are a few places in which the Brother admits that there are problems. He manfully destroys the most destructive modern philosophies that pretended to topple Thomas, but I can see there is a lot of room for expansion, and also for improvement in formulations. Some Neo-Thomsist too come off as too abstract, and see to have little relation to the very personal tone of the Bible and many venerable Church writers, or even the style of St Thomas. Too neat and tidy when things really are not that neat and tidy.

1) Thomas was a Scholastic.

2) Neo-Thomism is a derogatory name given by the predecessors of the Nouvelle movement.  It's a misnomer that implies that the Thomism of the 19th and early 20th centuries is at odds with or different than the theology of St. Thomas (which, if Leo XIII and the Code of Canon Law are to be trusted, it is not).
Reply
#45
(10-25-2012, 02:46 PM)Walty Wrote: 1) Thomas was a Scholastic.

2) Neo-Thomism is a derogatory name given by the predecessors of the Nouvelle movement.  It's a misnomer that implies that the Thomism of the 19th and early 20th centuries is at odds with or different than the theology of St. Thomas (which, if Leo XIII and the Code of Canon Law are to be trusted, it is not).

Not all scholasticism was the same, and there were disagreements. And neo-scholasticism/Thomasism are accepted names, even if they started as derogatory.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm
Reply
#46
NYC Wrote:But the dignity of being created in the imago Dei, or the dignity of the seal of baptism, we can never lose, I thought.

This is correct.  But the grave defect in this philosophy, making it in my opinion the biggest threat to the Catholic Faith, is the preaching of a FALSE dignity in man.  Therefore, because Jesus was Incarnate, ALL individual men now have this new dignity.  It ignores faith and baptism, as well as charity.  It carries undertones of Protestantism (ignoring the requirement for Charity) and Marxism (leading to false utopias, e.g. Liberation Theology).  It also lends itself to Universalism.  It is a poison in the Church.

The Catholic teaching is that all men, in their natural state, are damned by Justice (Original Sin and actual sin).  Jesus satisfies this Justice through His Merciful passion.  However, this is not the end of the story.  Jesus substitutes His own Justice, which He called His light yoke.  This is the requirement for Baptism, Faith, and Charity.  Man can be under either system of Justice.  So even someone who is in the state of Sanctifying Grace can't really be held to hold a special dignity.  In reality, it is the Divine life in him, through the Grace of Jesus Christ.

This teaching is ignored by this philosophy.

edit:
Quote: or the dignity of the seal of baptism, we can never lose, I thought.
  I have never read anything where JP II makes the dignity of man contingent upon baptism.  This is one of his grave defects.
Reply
#47
(10-25-2012, 03:04 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:46 PM)Walty Wrote: 1) Thomas was a Scholastic.

2) Neo-Thomism is a derogatory name given by the predecessors of the Nouvelle movement.  It's a misnomer that implies that the Thomism of the 19th and early 20th centuries is at odds with or different than the theology of St. Thomas (which, if Leo XIII and the Code of Canon Law are to be trusted, it is not).

Not all scholasticism was the same, and there were disagreements. And neo-scholasticism/Thomasism are accepted names, even if they started as derogatory.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm

1) Of course not all Scholasticism is the same.  I wasn't implying that.

2) It depends upon what you mean by "accepted".  I know theologians working today who reject the titles.  They're sometimes used for historical ease, but when it comes to theological classification, the term is meaningless.
Reply
#48
(10-25-2012, 02:19 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:10 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: While I don't personally oppose it, I believe most of the Fathers did reject the death penalty.

"Most" is a pretty big claim.  I'd be interested to hear some proof for that.  But at any rate, the Fathers are not one in the same with the Magisterium.

Sure, but an unbalanced and absolutist obsession with the magisterium, to the neglect of tradition, is what led to our current problems in the first place. In the end, Patristic consensus is more important than the opinion of some random ordinary of Rome.
Reply
#49
(10-25-2012, 03:20 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:19 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 02:10 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: While I don't personally oppose it, I believe most of the Fathers did reject the death penalty.

"Most" is a pretty big claim.  I'd be interested to hear some proof for that.  But at any rate, the Fathers are not one in the same with the Magisterium.

Sure, but an unbalanced and absolutist obsession with the magisterium, to the neglect of tradition, is what led to our current problems in the first place. In the end, Patristic consensus is more important than the opinion of some random ordinary of Rome.

But I'm not talking about a random ordinary.  I'm talking about the teaching authority of the Church.  Ironically enough, you're the one who is bringing up particular individuals.

The Patristics are vitally important, don't get me wrong, but they make up only a portion of the teaching authority of the Church and cannot be placed above it.  If that's an "absolutist obsession" then so be it.  If we're not to be obsessed with the Church what should we be obsessed with, CP?

If the authority is legitimate what else is there but to have an "obsession"?  If it speaks on behalf of Christ is anything less than an "obsession" good enough? 

Your devotion to moderation is amusing, but as a folk singer once sang, "Moderation itself can be a kind of an extreme."
Reply
#50
Or what Goldwater said.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)