tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post5122217392318666107..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Thomistic Meditations; Or, A Scotist Looks at Vatican IILee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-47941621495201760852023-01-04T06:36:38.365-05:002023-01-04T06:36:38.365-05:00Pax et Bonum,
How may I contact you?Pax et Bonum,<br /><br />How may I contact you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-57003627521322219722009-08-26T13:10:35.976-04:002009-08-26T13:10:35.976-04:00Gentlemen: If I might put forward a request, would...Gentlemen: If I might put forward a request, would you kindly format the font for this post in the same used in previous posts?<br /><br />For one, the preface is too tremendously large while the subsequent paragraphs are too tremendously small.<br /><br />If you could have both in their regular format, consistent with the font used in previous posts, that would be greatly appreciated.<br /><br />Glad to know though that you have returned to your regular posting.<br /><br />Much obligedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-9209485929130308732009-08-26T12:03:18.480-04:002009-08-26T12:03:18.480-04:00Michal and Brandon: I fully agree; I neglected thi...Michal and Brandon: I fully agree; I neglected this as I wrote in a hurry, suffering from the delusion I could whip something out in five minutes and start work on the dissertation.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-15178484796533418262009-08-25T23:38:43.593-04:002009-08-25T23:38:43.593-04:00Ha, I see Michael managed to slide in and make my ...Ha, I see Michael managed to slide in and make my entire second paragraph redundant. I was scooped!Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-86071440792780765632009-08-25T23:37:32.720-04:002009-08-25T23:37:32.720-04:00Unfortunately Catholics are not such distinctive B...Unfortunately Catholics are not such distinctive Bible readers that there's much of a (perceived) market for a Thomas Aquinas study bible. I sort of wish there were; then people who claim to read St. Thomas would actually read his scriptural commentaries.<br /><br />I agree with most of what you write in the post, although I would add that one reason for the temporary Thomist dominance was an advantage that Thomas has over every other scholastic (with the possible exception of Bonaventure): the sort of accessibility represented in the Summa. If you were trying to read scholastic theology after the collapse, the beginning-textbook character of the Summa was hard to beat as a place to dive in. (A similar sort of advantage has been the reason that Damascene has historically been so much more pervasive in the West than most of the other Eastern Fathers.) There's a reason why the return of scholastic thought began with Thomas. But that, of course, is still a historical contingency; it doesn't reflect anything about the relative merits of the thought itself (and certainly not on the relative merits of the thought of the Subtle Doctor or St. Bonaventure or anyone else).<br /><br />It's not actually uncommon at all for the Church to exercise its magisterium by deliberately avoiding making a decision and instead making both sides go to their separate corners until they recognize that the other side has something to contribute, regardless of what the Church tends to favor, or decides later. That's not surprising. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus are not sacred doctrine but teachers of it; and inexhaustible mysteries are inexhaustible, so there's always more to be said. But I think for scholastics it should be taken as a sort of admonition to <i>catch up</i> and do what they should have been doing all along. Time has moved on since any of the major scholastic doctors wrote; the collapse of scholasticism means that scholastics have had to catch up with addressing new issues and problems that did not exist before, or did not exist before in the precise form they currently have. There are new heresies that need to be fought, new philosophical ideas that need to be examined, and new interactions with the East (e.g., Palamism) and other religions (e.g., the philosophy of Mullah Sadra) that need to be explored, in exactly the same way Aquinas, Scotus, and others explored the ones they faced. It should be considered a call for Thomists who wish to be faithful to Thomas to be more like Thomas himself than like parrots on his shoulder, and ditto for Scotus and others. The Church doesn't need Thomism and Scotism; sacred doctrine is enough. It needs Thomases and Scotuses. And if scholasticism is to fulfill its promise, Scotists need to find a way to be faithful to Scotus that extends him, and Thomists need to find a way to be faithful to Aquinas that extends him, in the way that, for instance, both were faithful to their predecessors but extended them. It doesn't require relativism; it requires taking Aquinas more seriously than summae and Scotus more seriously than syllogisms, because what the Church has most commended in both is not their summae or syllogisms but the fact that these things came, as a sort of natural expression, from their love of Christ and His Church.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-52974062734685582102009-08-25T23:36:45.455-04:002009-08-25T23:36:45.455-04:00Scott,
It's funny that you mention CS Lewis, ...Scott,<br /><br />It's funny that you mention CS Lewis, since just this morning I was contemplating composing a scathing post against his "Letters to Malcolm", which I just read: perhaps his worst book. All his worst faults are on display, the Protestantism (as distinct from his "mere Christianity", in itself a figment), skepticism, Kantishness (it wouldn't be accurate to call him a Kantian since he doesn't have enough philosophy for that), Barfieldism, deference to what he very vaguely understands modern science to claim, etc. Every time he says "matter" I cringe. Anyway, the post will probably go unwritten.<br /><br />Faber:<br /><br />Your most eloquent post in a while. I take the opportunity here to repeat what I've said before, that the preference for Thomas was not <i>merely</i> due to political or historical accidents, but was grounded in real qualities which Thomas has more of than do the other scholastics. Not truth or insight. But it's undeniable that the Thomistic corpus forms a more complete cursus in philosophy and theology than almost any other doctor, and that this "system" is far more systematic, i.e. easier to consult, than that of other doctors. The Summa is just easier to use than the Sentences Commentaries, and in avoiding repetition, multiplication of questions, and longeurs, it fulfills the objectives set out in its preface. Add to this the undeniable usefulness of the series of Aristotelian and other commentaries and the Contra Gentiles. Most importantly, Thomas is nearly always clear, concise, and simple compared with many others, especially Scotus. He's just easier to understand. This doesn't make him any more right, but it's easy to see why he would be preferred for seminaries. Can you see undergraduates trying to read the Ordinatio as an intro. to theology textbook? Of course not.<br /><br />Sadly Thomas came to be exalted not simply for his pedagogical efficacy, but as the arbiter of all wisdom. Read because he's among the easiest of the scholastics, he was taken for generations as the deepest and most profound of thinkers, which is all very well if you're comparing him to Descartes and Hume, or even Aristotle. But then he became scholasticism incarnate, which is ridiculous. To mangle Chesterton a bit, Scotus was not read and found wanting; he was found difficult and left unread.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-61851234470089721152009-08-25T23:03:37.747-04:002009-08-25T23:03:37.747-04:00Wow. The love of Aquinas in the Catholic world is ...Wow. The love of Aquinas in the Catholic world is analogous to the love of CS Lewis among various protestants, as for example in the new 'CS Lewis study bible': http://www.asbury.edu/press/lewisbible09 . There isn't a Thomas Aquinas study bible, is there?Scott Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109057421298257236noreply@blogger.com