tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post7225746871236936994..comments2023-04-17T07:26:06.116-05:00Comments on Gratia Super Naturam: In what sense I am not a Thomist, a work in progressVincentiushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-76648863048379203432009-06-07T19:24:20.245-05:002009-06-07T19:24:20.245-05:00I don't know if anyone will look at this post,...I don't know if anyone will look at this post, since it is so far down now, but I thought I would give it a try.<br />Mr. Henry brings up a good point. Perhaps we can find some sort of middle ground between the strict manualist tradition and an indepth reading of St. Thomas. Perhaps something like St. Thomas' Compendium of Theology would be more appropriate for most people, or something Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-54939677237971042382009-05-03T12:18:00.000-05:002009-05-03T12:18:00.000-05:00"I've grown to really dislike the manual tradition..."I've grown to really dislike the manual tradition because it seems to destroy the order which Thomas proceeds from himself (and therefore something quite central to the thought of Thomas). If it's a concession, it's conceding too much."<br /><br />You might be right about this, but it is hard to see that everyone who should learn the basics of St. Thomas should do it by reading St. Thomas. I Mr. Henrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-72157668086919298152009-04-01T10:09:00.000-05:002009-04-01T10:09:00.000-05:00I appreciate the research gentlemen. It is helpful...I appreciate the research gentlemen. It is helpful to see the source of these theses to fully appreciate their proper use and how they might be abused. I might be imposing on what has been said, but it seems the the statements by FE and Vince fit in nicely with the position I was attempting to hold regarding the theses.Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-30635824552729025962009-04-01T08:02:00.000-05:002009-04-01T08:02:00.000-05:00* And by "FA's summary", of course I mean "Frater ...* And by "FA's summary", of course I mean "Frater Edmund's summary".Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-59477289081022498872009-04-01T07:59:00.000-05:002009-04-01T07:59:00.000-05:00I find support for FA's summary of the historical ...I find support for FA's summary of the historical situation in Pope St. Pius X's great Motu Proprio, <I>Doctoris Angelici</I>. He first summarizes the actions he had already taken:<BR/><BR/><I>No true Catholic has ever ventured to call in question the opinion of the Angelic Doctor that: The regulation of studies is the special concern of the authority of the Holy See by which the universal Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-83768028030351828662009-04-01T03:35:00.000-05:002009-04-01T03:35:00.000-05:00It seems to me that the Sacred Congregation of Stu...It seems to me that the Sacred Congregation of Studies was led up the garden by a rather common trick; they were forced to answer the wrong question. I imagine the dialogue as going something like this:<BR/><BR/>Various Popes say: “Ite ad Thomam! The luminous doctrine of the angelic doctor is the remedy to the errors of the age.”<BR/><BR/>At which point Catholic theologians are supposed to say, “Pater Edmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227184831077044432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-49094349900155997802009-03-31T18:18:00.000-05:002009-03-31T18:18:00.000-05:00I still think that you are taking the manuals far ...I still think that you are taking the manuals far too seriously. <BR/>The reason I conjectured that they are the common opinion of the wise is that the were thus promulgated. It is not as though the holy father put these theses together himself. They were put together by scholars whom he thought worthy, or who were recommended to him. You may have very serious disagreements with them, but that Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-57236376244514488012009-03-31T15:44:00.000-05:002009-03-31T15:44:00.000-05:00I deleted my previous comment b/c of some egregiou...I deleted my previous comment b/c of some egregious grammar mistakes. <BR/><BR/>"He would use them as good philosopher would, that is as an example of the common opinion of the wise. So also he could use the manuals, not as a substitute for traversing the rigorous paths of philosophy, but perhaps as something to return to as an example of common opinion on a matter that is troubling him."<BR/><BRho matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517673094022137600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-24185700517587871652009-03-31T11:47:00.000-05:002009-03-31T11:47:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.ho matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517673094022137600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-78886064126540322502009-03-31T11:09:00.000-05:002009-03-31T11:09:00.000-05:00As you seem to be pointing at Ho Mathetes, Thomist...As you seem to be pointing at Ho Mathetes, Thomist can be said in many ways; some of which seem to be opposed to the very spirit of St. Thomas. This seems to be the case here. It seems abundantly evident that memorizing theses which are purported to be in St. Thomas' thought does not make one a Thomist. However, I wonder how many people actually have done that. If people have done so, then they Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.com