Ed Feser has recently come out with a good book on Aquinas, which notably includes a clear break-down of the Thomistic tradition(s). He summarizes on his blog. Notably missing in the linked are the Analytical Thomist-- they are described in his next post. It's important to be aware of these categories because some Thomism are conscious proponents of their suppositions. Long live Laval!

The "24 Theses" of Thomas Aquinas have always bothered me.

These theses, promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Studies in 1914 during the pontificate of Pius X have traditionally (of course, in a neo-traditional sense) been given as the central theses of the philosophical teaching of Aquinas, especially in the metaphysical realm.

I can of course not fault the intention of The Church: "We admonish professors to bear well in mind that they cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage". --Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

(Please excuse the non-linearity of the following. I am past my bedtime.)

What I don't yet understand (though I do not deny) is this statement:
"eas (dictis thesibus) plane continere sancti Doctoris principia et pronuntiata maiora"

Quite a statement. My question is, what is the value or importance of attempting to identify 'eas'? (Also how are assured are we to know that the above is right? And are we bound to believe them?)

A philosophical objection: Philosophy is of reason. Metaphysics is the most difficult and highest attainment of such acts of reason. Therefore it is unfitting most of all to assert metaphysical principles as statements and self-evident.

...I found this comment on a post on Thomistica.net: "Moreover, the tradition to express his thought by way of formulating principles and building on them like for instance Antonin Réginald (+ 1676) or more recently Norberto del Prado is an effective way to master Aquinas's thought and to receive an intellectual framework. Manuals like Gredt and others did precisely that."

My problem with this is that maxim-memorizing is that it neither follows the order of learning in coming-to-know a science, nor does it follow the order of being whereby those things known in science are intrinsically governed. Hence it seem to me memorizing metaphysical tenants would not be a "an effective way to master Aquinas's thought," but a sign of a lack of mastery-- especially if one were to think that by knowing the tenants one had mastered the thought of Thomas!! Therefore, it seems especially unfitting that the theses be promulgated amongst the "professors" which Pius X was above admonishing (who, by professing, claim at least some real mastery).

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.

So, if I need to be a manualist in order to be a Thomist, I am not a Thomist.

Your comments and clarification are most welcome.