tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post2016929585965860066..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Thomism and the MagisteriumLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-90188963910024984562021-06-06T11:14:37.472-04:002021-06-06T11:14:37.472-04:00thanks for the encouragment and the interesting re...thanks for the encouragment and the interesting remarks!Garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12250522280700157165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-63667813376184947662021-05-26T15:44:08.673-04:002021-05-26T15:44:08.673-04:00Lee,
Love your blog. Here is a comment to get yo...Lee,<br /><br />Love your blog. Here is a comment to get your attention.<br /><br />“Led Zeppelin? I don’t need to hear the music,” The Clash’s Paul Simonon once reportedly said. “All I have to do is look at one of their album covers and I feel like throwing up.”<br /><br />Just change it to:<br /><br />"Thomas Aquinas? I do not need to read his works. All I have to do is see another cite to his works and I feel like throwing up."<br /><br />With the successful equation of Thomism with Catholic orthodoxy, Thomists in the ascendance these days. However, all too many Thomists are distinct from St. Thomas Aquinas, their teacher, in that Thomas was a font of charity and humility, while all too many Thomists have been uncharitably judgmental and full of pride. This may seem a sweeping judgment in of itself, but let us note first the words of A Carmelite, before their order was overwhelmed by Thomism, the words of Bl. Baptist of Mantua (1447-1516):<br /><br />"Yet these Thomists are unmindful of both Apostle and reason and want to all to adopt the thought of Thomas and in such manner that they prefer their own [Thomas Aquinas] for nearly all groups of religious orders, even those by far more ancient, just as for our [Carmelite and the hermits of St. Augustine. In such a way they strive to prefer Thomas over howsoever many are the body of doctors who flourished from the beginning of the Church, the fact of which manifest a lack of probity and prudence. First they bring Thomas forward as they please, but only allowing that [other teachers] speak according to their own mind. They don't permit a peep from other teachers, they impose silence, they make judgments disdainfully on other teachers from their juridicial benches and will only hear the testimony of Thomas and regard all other witnesses to be insignificant perjurers. They regard Thomas to have arrived at the absolute culmination of doctrines in every genus of dogma. They place him in the supreme rank of nature, and call him the very men as of knowledge among men, Why do they spit with cocked eyebrow upon the other teachers as if they were bereft of nature and Grace?" From B. Baptist's Opus Aurem.<br /><br />Scotus is one of this "other doctor" among others that Bl. Baptist is referring to. This may seem harsh, and some of your fair readers will cry foul, but then I point the following:<br /><br />1.) At the time of the 14th and 15th century before the Council of Florence the Orthodox Greeks knew the Dominican Order not as the Order of Preachers of St Dominic, but as "the Society of Thomas."<br /><br />2.) That St. John Capistrano, OFM was accused of heresy by the Dominicans for propagating the devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus and they demanded he be burned at the stake<br /><br />3. That Bl. James of the Marches was accused of heresy by a Dominican Inquisitor for not agreeing with Thomas's opinion on the nature of Christ's blood that fell from the cross.<br /><br />4. That in front of the Greek Orthodox delegation at the Council of Basel, the Dominicans asked that the Franciscan order be condemned en mass for their belief in the Immaculate Conception.<br /><br />Now, I have seen contemporary Thomists refer to Thomas as a supporter of the Immaculate Conception and even the Primacy of Christ. But, this dishonest approach flies in the face of Dominican/Thomist history - that the Thomists used St. Thomas as a whip to attack those who upheld the Immaculate Conception. <br /><br />Think about this in terms of Ven. Mary of Agreda. Lookign at Chapter Six of Book One of the Mystical City of God. Here God the Father defends the Primacy of Christ. Throughout the books Mary is presented as the Immaculate Conception and as Co-Redemptrix. This espousal of Scotistic thought angered the Dominicans, as to them it it meant that God might support the concept of the Immaculate Conception, or worse, God could be a Scotist (that last bit of phraseology belongs to Professor Trent Pomplun). Since that time in the 17th century, the Thomists have joined with the Jansenists and the anti-Marianists to oppose this work.<br /><br />Keep up the good work!<br />James Ignatius McAuleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16170178446627560622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-20995152780931302902017-09-15T15:13:37.315-04:002017-09-15T15:13:37.315-04:00The real issue is whether one can read and underst...The real issue is whether one can read and understand the Thomist theses and still in good conscience and good standing with the Church think that the Scotist ones are true. This the Thomists will never permit or allow.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-17559637288769585342017-08-09T18:47:37.088-04:002017-08-09T18:47:37.088-04:00MediaevalNed,
"In the first—that of 1253-125...MediaevalNed,<br /><br />"In the first—that of 1253-1254, the beginning of his theological career—he supports the privilege, probably because of the liturgical tradition which favored it, as well as because of his pious admiration for the perfect holiness of the Mother of God. It is in this period that he wrote (I Sent., d. 44, q. I, a. 3, ad 3): “Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.” This text states therefore that Mary was so pure as to be exempt from all original and actual sin."<br /><br /><br />"During the second period St. Thomas, seeing better the difficulties in the question—for the theologians of his time held that Mary was immaculate independently of Christ’s merits—hesitated, and refused to commit himself. He, of course, held that all men without exception are redeemed by one Saviour. (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, 19; Gal. 3:22; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:6). Hence we find him proposing the question thus in IIIa, q. 27, a. 2: Was the Blessed Virgin sanctified in the conception of her body before its animation? for, according to him and many other theologians, the conception of the body was to be distinguished from the animation, or creation of the soul. This latter (called today the consummated passive conception) was thought to be about a month later in time than the initial conception."<br /><br /><br />"In the final period of his career, when writing the Exposito super salutatione angelica—which is certainly authentic—in 1272 or 1273, St. Thomas expressed himself thus: “For she (the Blessed Virgin) was most pure in the matter of fault (quantum ad culpam) and incurred neither original nor mortal nor venial sin.”"<br /><br />These are the three periods in St Thomas's life which Fr. Garrigou Lagrange distinguishes. So the trouble St. Thomas had nothing to do with the 24 thesis but about the problem of Redemption and when the soul was infused into the body (this is due to the ensoulment theory held back then). So you're comparing apples and oranges. <br /><br />I would also add as Fr. Lagrange observes that St. Thomas "did not distinguish sufficiently the debt from actually incurring the stain." But on another note, St Thomas was not alone in this problem as St Bonaventure says, "The stain of original sin is removed, but its aftermath remains, with which we must contend for the rest of our earthly lives, because this concupiscence is not eliminated in anyone by the ordinary means of grace. I say this because of the Blessed Virgin, in whom that concupiscence was extinguished by virtue of a singular grace when she conceived the Son of God." Now if he believed she was conceived without original sin then he wouldn't have said she had concupiscence. Thus St Bonaventure did not believe or had trouble with the Immaculate Conception.<br />And no, the 24 thesis are not dogma. However, as countless theologians and popes have stated (for instance read <a href="http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/d-The%20Authority%20of%20St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas.pdf" rel="nofollow">this</a>) and as Geremia mentioned St. Pius X's 'Doctoris Angelici,' they are not to be just simply ignored or abandoned.José F. Apolinarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01938043808633896036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-70273422734483447382016-02-12T15:22:01.711-05:002016-02-12T15:22:01.711-05:00Pope Pius IX contradicted Thomism when he declared...Pope Pius IX contradicted Thomism when he declared the Immaculate Conception a Catholic Dogma in 1854. Aquinas famously opposed this teaching, and Duns Scotus's arguments [with no small help from the 17th century Irish Scotists Luke Wadding and Aodh Mac Aingil (Hugo Cavellus)] were used in the establishment of this teaching as Catholic Doctrine. (Also, surely SOME Pope must have realised that matter is a non-starter as the principle of individuation! i.e., it is logically possible that there be more than one angel per species, therefore God could make two angels within a single species. And this is equivalent to: "God does not need matter as a medium to achieve multiplicity within a species, pace Aristotle.) Why anyone (let alone a Catholic) would insist on the 24 Theses being held on faith (which is after all what they're insisting on) is totally beyond me! MediaevalNednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-86719985269036370832016-02-02T13:31:55.281-05:002016-02-02T13:31:55.281-05:00See this.See <a href="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/07/any-ideas-on-how-to-reconcile-these-two.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-23909992501116877092016-02-02T13:21:54.276-05:002016-02-02T13:21:54.276-05:00And what true Pope has contradicted Thomism?And what true Pope has contradicted Thomism?Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-83777555411705959972016-02-02T13:03:51.810-05:002016-02-02T13:03:51.810-05:00Since the magisterium has, on the general Thomist ...Since the magisterium has, on the general Thomist view, enjoined Thomism on the faithful so that other scholastic doctors need not be read because they are wrong in every point in which they differ from Thomas, but the magisterium has also said that Thomism is not imposed on the faithful, we have a contradiction. Therefore, we are subject to whatever the whim of the reigning pontiff happens to be, since all of this turns out to be mere policy given the contradiction.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-40900832460229155572016-01-30T12:09:52.231-05:002016-01-30T12:09:52.231-05:00Well, that's embarrassing. I meant "Fides...Well, that's embarrassing. I meant "Fides et Ratio", not "Veritatis Splendor"...oi.Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-66453205707922357462016-01-30T12:09:13.330-05:002016-01-30T12:09:13.330-05:00Well, that's embarrassing. I meant "Fides...Well, that's embarrassing. I meant "Fides et Ratio", not "Veritatis Splendor"...oi.Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-40610178569308505252016-01-29T15:11:52.477-05:002016-01-29T15:11:52.477-05:00Oh my. I meant "Fides et Ratio", and not...Oh my. I meant "Fides et Ratio", and not "Veritatis Splendor"...oi.Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-90044907833086967422016-01-29T15:08:27.363-05:002016-01-29T15:08:27.363-05:00Seems like it didn't, so...
Geremia,
Good po...Seems like it didn't, so...<br /><br />Geremia,<br /><br />Good point. So then, we have Veritatis Splendor - which, as we all know, was an encyclical:<br /><br />"49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth."<br /><br />and:<br /><br />"51. This discernment, however, should not be seen as primarily negative, as if the Magisterium intended to abolish or limit any possible mediation. On the contrary, the Magisterium's interventions are intended above all to prompt, promote and encourage philosophical enquiry. Besides, philosophers are the first to understand the need for self-criticism, the correction of errors and the extension of the too restricted terms in which their thinking has been framed. In particular, it is necessary to keep in mind the unity of truth, even if its formulations are shaped by history and produced by human reason wounded and weakened by sin. This is why no historical form of philosophy can legitimately claim to embrace the totality of truth, nor to be the complete explanation of the human being, of the world and of the human being's relationship with God."<br /><br />Now, apparently, the 24 Thomistic theses distinguish Thomism, or the philosophy of St. Thomas, from that of other Schoolmen. Keeping in mind that section of Humani Generis you quoted, it would seem that the Church does not, and has not, imposed the 24 Thomistic theses...Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-86812974755405029482016-01-29T15:07:33.271-05:002016-01-29T15:07:33.271-05:00Not sure if my other comment went through. If so, ...Not sure if my other comment went through. If so, I meant Fides et Ratio, and not Veritatis Splendor...Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-74480352263033750352016-01-29T15:05:32.495-05:002016-01-29T15:05:32.495-05:00Geremia,
Good point. So then, we have Veritatis S...Geremia,<br /><br />Good point. So then, we have Veritatis Splendor - which, as we all know, was an encyclical:<br /><br />"49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth."<br /><br />and:<br /><br />"51. This discernment, however, should not be seen as primarily negative, as if the Magisterium intended to abolish or limit any possible mediation. On the contrary, the Magisterium's interventions are intended above all to prompt, promote and encourage philosophical enquiry. Besides, philosophers are the first to understand the need for self-criticism, the correction of errors and the extension of the too restricted terms in which their thinking has been framed. In particular, it is necessary to keep in mind the unity of truth, even if its formulations are shaped by history and produced by human reason wounded and weakened by sin. This is why no historical form of philosophy can legitimately claim to embrace the totality of truth, nor to be the complete explanation of the human being, of the world and of the human being's relationship with God."<br /><br />Now, apparently, the 24 Thomistic theses distinguish Thomism, or the philosophy of St. Thomas, from that of other Schoolmen. Keeping in mind that section of Humani Generis you quoted, it would seem that the Church does not, and has not, imposed the 24 Thomistic theses...Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-21841922216573714142016-01-28T18:34:14.180-05:002016-01-28T18:34:14.180-05:00Although encyclicals are only infallible where the...Although encyclicals are only infallible where they reiterate previously defined dogma, that does not mean "<i>that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.</i>" (Pope Pius XII, encyclical <a href="https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Humani Generis</i></a>).Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-33991911210706428482016-01-28T16:42:28.199-05:002016-01-28T16:42:28.199-05:00Also, maybe to Alan up there: Clearly, not everyth...Also, maybe to Alan up there: Clearly, not everything said by a supreme pontiff in every encyclical was, or is, infallible. Traditionalists, I think, wouldn't argue about this with respect to the writings of the current Pope...Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-7085584608030318092016-01-28T16:20:41.419-05:002016-01-28T16:20:41.419-05:00Lee,
As maybe some sort of (tangential) contribut...Lee,<br /><br />As maybe some sort of (tangential) contribution to this discussion, I provide below a link to a post I just wrote on Aquinas' position on man's (and any intellectual creature's) final end in light of Humani Generis - the thing would be a bit long, I think, to post in a combox. Now, I'm not sure if this is kosher - whether it would violate spam-rules and all; if so, I'll just send it to you (Lee) to see what you make of the issue, if you don't mind.<br /><br />https://totheowl.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/does-aquinas-understanding-of-mans-final-end-run-afoul-of-the-condemnations-of-humani-generis/<br /><br />If I'm right, I think this may serve as some sort of small contribution to continued efforts at toppling Thomist Triumphalism.Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-47420556552390312272015-06-09T20:06:37.704-04:002015-06-09T20:06:37.704-04:00I have nothing to add to this remarkable conversat...I have nothing to add to this remarkable conversation except my immense appreciation of Credo in unum Deum's response to Aelianus, in which he calls Aelianus "Dude." Fantastic! My day instantly got better!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00085776987186842349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-8374281237146087982014-11-01T00:01:33.735-04:002014-11-01T00:01:33.735-04:00That quote comes from the encyclical Pascendi §45....That quote comes from the <b>encyclical</b> <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Pascendi</i></a> §45.Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-20110261555707394122014-10-30T13:53:39.786-04:002014-10-30T13:53:39.786-04:00But that very document has been abrogated, so in f...But that very document has been abrogated, so in fact it is not unwise.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-50552436755628588292014-10-29T10:41:19.463-04:002014-10-29T10:41:19.463-04:00You could, but it's unwise, because, as Pope S...You could, but it's unwise, because, as Pope St. Pius X said, one "cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment." (<a href="http://scholastic.us.to/24Thomisticpart1.htm" rel="nofollow">source</a>).Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-43768738159679719982014-10-27T14:00:40.722-04:002014-10-27T14:00:40.722-04:00How then do you explain "Veritatis splendor&q...How then do you explain "Veritatis splendor" n. 29?<br /><br />"Certainly the Church's Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one. Nevertheless, in order to 'reverently preserve and faithfully expound' the word of God, the Magisterium has the duty to state that some trends of theological thinking and certain philosophical affirmations are incompatible with revealed truth"<br /><br />From this the church's relation to philosophy seems to be largely negative, proscribing theses when they go off the rails, rather than affirming propositions that are to be held. So one could follow any ancient, medieval, or modern thinker as long as their theories haven't been censured, or implicity censured in the censures of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-32267779160734264042014-10-19T19:31:06.560-04:002014-10-19T19:31:06.560-04:001. The magisterial prescriptions generally recomme...<i>1. The magisterial prescriptions generally recommend Aquinas as a model, but do not prescribe particular doctrines as to be held.</i><br /><br />You can't have one without the other. From Pope St. Pius X's <i>motu proprio</i> <a href="https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/doctoris.htm" rel="nofollow"><i>Doctoris Angelici</i></a> (cf. <a href="http://scholastic.us.to/24Thomisticpart1.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>):<br /><br /><i>Now because the word We used in the text of that letter [<i>Sacrorum Antistitum</i>] recommending the philosophy of Aquinas was 'particularly,' and not 'exclusively,' certain persons persuaded themselves that they were acting in conformity to Our Will or at any rate not actively opposing it, in adopting indiscriminately and adhering to the philosophical opinions of any other Doctor of the School, even though such opinions were contrary to the principles of St. Thomas. They were greatly deceived. In recommending St. Thomas to Our subjects as supreme guide in the Scholastic philosophy, it goes without saying that Our intention was to be understood as referring above all to those principles upon which that philosophy is based as its foundation. For just as the opinion of certain ancients is to be rejected which maintains that it makes no difference to the truth of the Faith what any man thinks about the nature of creation, provided his opinions on the nature of God be sound, because error with regard to the nature of creation begets a false knowledge of God; so the principles of philosophy laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and inviolably observed, because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as is most congruent with the Faith (</i>Contra Gentiles<i>, II, 2, 3); of refuting all the errors of all the ages, and of enabling man to distinguish clearly what things are to be attributed to God and to God alone (</i>ibid<i>., iii; and </i>Sum. Theol<i>., 1, xii, 4: and liv, 1). They also marvellously illustrate the diversity and analogy between God and His works, a diversity and analogy admirably expressed by the Fourth Lateran Council as follows: "The resemblance between the Creator and the creature is such that their still greater dissimilarity cannot fail to be observed" (</i>Decretalis<i> iii, </i>Damnamus ergo<i>, etc. Cf. St. Thomas, </i>Quaest, disp. De Scientia Dei<i>, a. 11). --For the rest, the principles of St. Thomas, considered generally and as a whole, contain nothing but what the most eminent philosophers and doctors of the Church have discovered after prolonged reflection and discussion in regard to the particular reasons determining human knowledge, the nature of God and creation, the moral order and the ultimate end to be pursued in life.</i><br /><br /><br /><i>let's assume the opposite: Thomism is universally binding on every catholic, down to its particular theses. What might follow?<br />1. Philosophy is destroyed and we are left with fideism.</i><br /><br />The law of non-contradiction, for example, is not demonstrable (cf. <a href="https://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=7840932&postcount=2" rel="nofollow">this</a>), yet our acceptance of it could hardly be called fideism. The same could be said about the <a href="http://scholastic.us.to/24Thomisticpart2.htm" rel="nofollow">24 Thomistic Theses</a>.<br /><br /><i>2. Theology becomes mere commentary on Aquinas through the adjudication of the Thomistic commentary tradition.</i><br /><br />So? St. Thomas laid a solid foundation, and commentaries build upon it.<br /><br /><i>3. Papal interventions will be required to dogmatically establish the interpretations of Thomistic texts (if the real distinction between essence and existence is a Thomistic thesis it is dogmatic; but some thomists have denied that Aquinas holds that essence and existence are really distinct; ergo we need authoritative interpretations of Aquinas' texts.</i><br /><br />Many of St. Thomas's doctrines made it into the final canons of the Council of Trent, at which the <i>Summa</i> and Holy Scriptures were placed side-by-side on the altar.Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-9987923258663487722013-04-08T11:27:56.067-04:002013-04-08T11:27:56.067-04:00I would be interested in reading this, if you can ...I would be interested in reading this, if you can find it Curmedgeon.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-89994189666431590932013-04-06T09:28:36.023-04:002013-04-06T09:28:36.023-04:00I think I remember reading in I. M. Bocheński that...I think I remember reading in I. M. Bocheński that many different philosophical positions were compatible with Catholicism.Curmudgeonnoreply@blogger.com