It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 9:00 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
 The Authority of St. Thomas 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post The Authority of St. Thomas
From another thread. This discussion deserves its own thread.

Cristian, everybody should read the book posted by Julian on the Authority of St. Thomas and take note especially of the requirement prescribed by numerous Popes and incorporated in Canon law that St. Thomas is to be followed in every opinion. The modern mind rebels against this idea, and the traditional Catholic mind seems to find it just as difficult to accept. It is as though the main tendency of the time were a dangerous elevation of St. Thomas which would render theological work a mere exegesis of the Angelic Doctor, when in fact the main tendency of the entire modern era has been one of independence and pride, of which a significant feature has been the depreciation of St. Thomas.

I'm not accusing you of this, of course, just reminding you of why you should choose one opinion over another, in cases where you see no serious degree of implicit evidence for one over the other.

Let me highlight one aspect of this which I think makes St. Thomas's position implicitly more probable and compelling. His position maintains Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator and Restorer of human nature, at the centre of soteriology which is His absolute place. Another way of seeing this same truth is that because it requires actual knowledge of supernatural revelation, it is a bulwark in favour of the supernatural.

Those who don't follow St. Thomas may well reply that God can do anything and that if He saves men without explicit belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ then this only shows more clearly His power, but I reply that we are not to hold what God might do but what He has done. This is one of those doctrines which is necessarily a question of fact, that is, it is a question of what God has actually revealed. In such a case we are seeking to discover if the truth has been revealed and taught by the Church and if so, what that teaching is. The best way to do this is to consult St. Thomas, and that is why the Church has legislated that he is to be followed in every opinion.

Sorry for the lecture! :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Re:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I don´t even have an opinion on this subject although I tend to think that the "liberal" view is correct :)


Cristian, everybody should read the book posted by Julian on the Authority of St. Thomas and take note especially of the requirement prescribed by numerous Popes and incorporated in Canon law that St. Thomas is to be followed in every opinion..


Yes, I should read it.

Quote:
The modern mind rebels against this idea, and the traditional Catholic mind seems to find it just as difficult to accept. It is as though the main tendency of the time were a dangerous elevation of St. Thomas which would render theological work a mere exegesis of the Angelic Doctor, when in fact the main tendency of the entire modern era has been one of independence and pride, of which a significant feature has been the depreciation of St. Thomas.

I'm not accusing you of this, of course, just reminding you of why you should choose one opinion over another, in cases where you see no serious degree of implicit evidence for one over the other.


I see your point John. I remember though I´ve read Salaverri on his treatise on the Church an scholion "De auctoritate Sancti Thomae Aquinatis" and he concludes that it is not the mind of the Church to bind to follow Saint Thomas in every opinion, that a just freedom of the science of theology is even recommended in those very documents in which the Church approved St. Thomas (Aeterni Patris, even Pius XI (DZ 2192)and Pius XII: Solemnis conventus, Animus Noster). I remember it shocked me a little bit when I first read it, several years ago. I think you still may be Thomist and in complete agreement with the mind of the Church and depart from some of his opinions. I wouldn´t dare to say Billot was not Thomist, as Garrigou does :)

When I said I preferred the "liberal" opinion I did it because it is taught by authors like Billot and Marin Solá. But as I said, I tend to think that, but this is something I´ve not studied to get a conclusion.

Quote:
Sorry for the lecture! :)


Pas de probleme! :)

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:44 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Catholic Church and Salvation reprinted
Dear Cristian,

It would be interesting to see exactly how that just freedom of theology is defined in the papal documents. For mine, I am only following the text of Canon Law and the various papal documents I have read, along with those quoted in the book Julian very kindly provided to us. These all say explicitly that the doctrine of St. Thomas is to be followed, not just his principles and methods.

On the other side of the argument, of course, we know that the same popes approved works in which the authors departed from the doctrine of St. Thomas in some points.

Btw, I now recall at least one point that Jim Larrabee was referring to when he described some of Garrigou-Lagrange's opinions as "liberal." Garrigou held that a man may be saved who does not believe in the Trinity. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Catholic Church and Salvation reprinted
John Lane wrote:
Dear Cristian,

It would be interesting to see exactly how that just freedom of theology is defined in the papal documents.


I´ll try to post them tomorrow :)

Quote:
For mine, I am only following the text of Canon Law and the various papal documents I have read, along with those quoted in the book Julian very kindly provided to us. These all say explicitly that the doctrine of St. Thomas is to be followed, not just his principles and methods.


I understand. Salaverri quotes Fr. Ramirez in that scholion though.

Quote:
Btw, I now recall at least one point that Jim Larrabee was referring to when he described some of Garrigou-Lagrange's opinions as "liberal." Garrigou held that a man may be saved who does not believe in the Trinity. :)


LOL

As an aside I don´t follow Saint Thomas either regarding the motive of the Incarnation :) I read a very interesting lecture saying that the question "whether God would have Incarnated if Adam wouldn´t have sinned" is a casus irrealis! Extremely interesting IMO. The author says that the whole question debated between dominicans and franciscan was wrongly set out.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding let me be clear plase... I LOVE St Thomas!

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:04 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Catholic Church and Salvation reprinted
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I´ll try to post them tomorrow :)


Please do, Cristian. I haven't seen Salaverri.

What we need to do, I think you'll agree, is to think with the Church. In this matter several points are already clear.

1. St. Thomas is unique. He is the Common or Universal Teacher. Nobody has his status.
2 His doctrine has been "consecrated" or "canonised" to use two expressions of popes. Several popes have said that he never erred, that his doctrine has no shadow of error, that his doctrine is absolutely perfect. They also indicate that his perfection in doctrine was miraculous, a special dispensation of Providence for the Church.
3. Numerous popes have insisted that his doctrine be maintained by all institutes of learning. This was incorporated in the Code.

What remains to be clarified are the conditions under which it is permissible (and wise) to depart from St. Thomas on any specific conclusion. That is, to what degree is the just freedom of theology permitted to make exception to the principles enshrined in the law of the Church?

Also, I think it important in considering this to distinguish the legal (and therefore including the moral) from the reasonable position. Legally and morally, it may well be perfectly unobjectionable for Garrigou, for example, to have departed from St. Thomas on several opinions. However that does not mean that his example was a perfect one for others (i.e. specifically, me, for example) and more importantly, it does not mean that the non-Thomistic opinion thereby gains extrinsic authority. I say this because extrinsic authority rests on a twofold basis, one the strength and perfection of the natural faculties of the authority - in this case the unique Prince of Philosophers and Theologians, a thinker and scholar absolutely without peer - and the approval (implicit or explicit) of the Church. Under the latter head, how could the mere toleration by the Church of an exception to her general law (i.e. when she tolerates a specific departure from St. Thomas) be taken as adding her positive approval of that new opinion? I do not see that it can.

For these reasons I therefore say that the default position on any doctrinal point is that of St. Thomas. I also think that any departure from St. Thomas by any theologian at all is no reason, in itself, for other thinkers to consider taking the same step on that doctrinal point. Finally, I say that no matter what the authority of the theologian who departs from St. Thomas, the new opinion gains no extrinsic authority from his support for it. Liberty does not equal authority.

For these reasons I am unmoved by the fact that Billot, for example, differs with St. Thomas on this or that point. I'm happy to read his arguments, and I think we can gain from them, obviously, but in the end the decision to give them sufficient weight to overwhelm St. Thomas won't be made. If I think his or another theologian's arguments are more cogent and compelling than those of St. Thomas, I will conclude that this is because my own mind is defective or insufficiently educated.

And I wonder, assuming that this attitude is correct, whether it might not be the best antidote to the modern evils in philosophy and theology, and lead to a new golden age in doctrine, natural and supernatural.

Quote:
In order to avoid any misunderstanding let me be clear plase... I LOVE St Thomas!

That's a start. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
Ok here it is.

One thing though. I just made a sort of resume of Salaverri, skipping some texts and trying to translate it if not very literal at least trying to keep the sense. Sorry for the mistakes :)

Salaverri, De Ecclesia Christi.

Quote:
871. The authority of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

872. We talk here about his authority in Theology … which is absolutely unique and major, in general, than that of any other theologian.

1) The Internal authority of Saint Thomas in theology is in fact the highest (then he quotes Aeterni Patris).

873. 2) The External authority of Saint Thomas in theology is also the highest (it follows again Aeterni Patris).

874. 3) finally the canonical, so to speak, authority of Saint Thomas is also major than that of any other theologian. By canonical authority we mean that which corresponds to him because of the explicit approval the Pontiffs usually gave to his authority above that of any other theologian.

1° Before Vatican Council:

a) In general several Popes praised his doctrine; the quotes may be seen in Aeterni Patris.
b) Specifically, John XXII in the consistory before the canonization (year 1318).
c) More specifically, St. Pius V declared him Doctor of the universal Church (year 1567).

875. 2° After Vatican Council he got a singular and very special approval:

a) Aeterni Patris “Among the scholastic doctors, the teacher and prince of all, by far shines St. Thomas…”

876. b) St. Pius X, in his Motu Proprio “Doctoris Angelici”, ordered that in Italy the Summa be the text used for teaching in universities, colleges, seminaries, etc. (later on Pius XI in Studiorum ducem extended this to the whole world).
c) Benedict XV: Canon 1366.2

877. d) Pius XI, Studiorum ducem: “...we think he shouldn´t be called just Angelicum doctor but also Common or universal doctor of the Church, whose doctrine… the Church made hers. (Then Salaverri quotes Deus scientiarum).

878. e) Finally Pius XII praised him in his allocution Solemnis conventus and in Humani Generis.

879. 4) Regarding the authority of Saint Thomas, we may therefore conclude with Schultes OP:

I) No teaching of Saint Thomas, because of being his, should be had as de fide.
II) The doctrine of Saint Thomas is not theologice certa.
III) The doctrine of Saint Thomas in things belonging to faith and moral may and has to be accepted as safe, with simple approval, leaving even the opposite teaching of other school and doctor.

880. 5) De Groot OP rightly defined the kind of authority due to Saint Thomas´ doctrine saying: “The Roman Pontiffs recommend (commendant) the thomistic teaching above other schools as a safe and direct way in order to get the truth”. Rightly we may apply the same thing that it was said by Benedict XV when he approved the 24 thomistic theses: “be they proposed as safe directive norms” and confirmed later in a letter sent to the Jesuit Superior Wlod. Ledóchowski: “We believe you said rightly that it is enough for someone to embrace the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor as safe in order to give some directive norms and not that everybody be bound to accept them” (not sure about the translation, so here it is the original: “Recte Nos te sensisse arbitramur, quum eos putasti Angelico Doctori satis adhaerere, qui universas de Thomae doctrina theses perinde proponendas censeant, ac tutas ad dirigendum normas, nullo scilicet omnium amplectendarum thesium imposito officio”).

881. 6) a fair freedom and an honest emulation is desired and recommended (Iusta libertas et honesta aemulatio optandae et commendandae sunt).
“…some Catholics believed that Thomism was prescribed by the Church in such a way as to exclude and at least implicitly reproved any other Catholic system. This exaggerated interpretation has no reason and in vain tried to restrain an honest emulation of the schools, a fair freedom of investigation, and their consequences which is an excellent progress of the science, against the mind of Leo XIII who clearly states in the very encyclical Aeterni Patris: “While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind” and after exhorting everybody to look for the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, he adds: “The wisdom of St. Thomas, We say; for if anything is taken up with too great subtlety by the Scholastic doctors, or too carelessly stated-if there be anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age, or, in a word, improbable in whatever way-it does not enter Our mind to propose that for imitation to Our age.

882. Pius XI: DZ 2192 Naturally among lovers of St. Thomas, such as all the sons of the Church who are concerned with the highest studies should be, We desire that there exist that honorable rivalry with just freedom from which studies make progress, but no detraction which is not favorable to truth and which serves only to break the bonds of charity. Therefore, let whatever is prescribed * in the Code of Canon Law be sacred to each one of them, that "the professors may carry on the study of rational * philosophy and of theology and the instruction of their students in these disciplines according to the method, doctrines, and principles of the Angelic Doctor, and may hold them sacred," and that all so conduct themselves according to this norm as to be truly able to call him that master. "But let not some exact from others anything more than this which the Church the mistress and mother of all demands of all; for in those matters about which there is wont to be varied opinions among teachers of higher distinction among our Catholic schools no one is to be prevented from following the opinion which seems to him the more probable."

The same freedom and emulation defended Pius XII, saying: “We may Ours the admonitions of Our predecessors by which they wished to protect the progress of science and a legitimate freedom in the studies… freely discussing those things upon which the good commentators of the Angelic Doctor used to dispute… The emulation to seek and propagate the truth is not suppressed by the commendation of the doctrine of Saint Thomas, but rather it is excited and safely directed”. (Sollemnis Conventus AAS, 31 p. 247) and in another allocution recommending a fair freedom he says: “Regarding your studies and apostolate you shouldn´t mix the catholic doctrine and the natural truths related to it and accepted by all Catholics neither with the efforts made by the scholars to explain them, nor with the proper elements and peculiar reasons by which are differentiated the diverse philosophical and theological schools in the Catholic Church… none of these systems constitute a door to enter the Church and much less it is licit to say that it be the only one… in this way your famous authors and teachers joined wonderfully both a constant fidelity to the Angelic Doctor and the freedom so estimable for the investigations of the doctrines, freedom that Our Predecessors Leo XIII and those who followed him, wanted to be kept intact.
Therefore, be licit to each professor, inside the limits pointed out above and that cannot be crossed, to adhere to any of the schools accepted in the Church; but with this condition: that he clearly distinguishes the truth that all are bound to embrace, from the peculiar elements of every school…” (Animus Noster, AAS, 45, pag. 684-687).

883. 7) The doctrine of St. Thomas was very specially approved by the Church and therefore it enjoys a very special authority as a safe way to get the truth. Nevertheless: A) Not every one of his teachings should be regarded as being sanctioned by the Church as true ones. B) In the same way it cannot be said that the teaching of any other theologian approved by the Church, although contrary to St Thomas, is regarded as false or rejected by the Church. C) The other non-thomist systems cannot be hold as “non safe ways” to reach truth. D) Even the fair freedom of science and the honest emulation of theologians, which the Church recommends and wishes positively, means at least implicitly, the recommendation prescribed for all that all Catholic systems be cultivated and favored, freely and with emulation.


Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
The same may be said, IMO, about the exegesis of the Scriptures.

Leaving aside the fact that some authors such as a Lapide departs from St Thomas several times, we have the following statement of Pius XII in Divino Afflante:


Quote:
46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved, not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.
47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.
48. This true liberty of the children of God, which adheres faithfully to the teaching of the Church and accepts and uses gratefully the contributions of profane science, this liberty, upheld and sustained in every way by the confidence of all, is the condition and source of all lasting fruit and of all solid progress in Catholic doctrine, as Our Predecessor of happy memory Leo XIII rightly observes, when he says: "unless harmony of mind be maintained and principle safeguarded, no progress can be expected in this matter from the varied studies of many.



Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:21 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
Dear Cristian,

Thank you very much. You've done a huge amount of work!

Last night I read the remainder of The Authority of St Thomas Aquinas, which I hadn't completed. I am very glad to have this material from Salaverri because it makes more clear and precise what the various popes have said, quoted by Ramirez.

It is very interesting to see here the distinction employed by Franzelin between safety (securitas) and truth. I think my opinion was erroneous in taking too literally the term "doctrine" as employed by the popes. They certainly say that the system and individual opinions of St. Thomas are the safest course, so staying with St. Thomas in everything is the safest way to learn. They also recommend all of Thomas as more probable, I think we can say. But they are not prescribing each opinion on disputed matters.

I can't see that my practice needs to change, but I do think that it is going too far to say that the Church only tolerates other systems and opinions, in the legal sense. We might say that she has set up a presumption in favour of the truth and safety of everything that St. Thomas has written. Like any presumption this can and may be overturned by good evidence in specific cases, but of course the burden of proof is on he who would overturn it.

What do you think?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
John Lane wrote:
Dear Cristian,

Thank you very much. You've done a huge amount of work!


You are welcome! :) It is my pleasure!

Quote:
It is very interesting to see here the distinction employed by Franzelin between safety (securitas) and truth. I think my opinion was erroneous in taking too literally the term "doctrine" as employed by the popes. They certainly say that the system and individual opinions of St. Thomas are the safest course, so staying with St. Thomas in everything is the safest way to learn. They also recommend all of Thomas as more probable, I think we can say. But they are not prescribing each opinion on disputed matters.

I can't see that my practice needs to change, but I do think that it is going too far to say that the Church only tolerates other systems and opinions, in the legal sense. We might say that she has set up a presumption in favour of the truth and safety of everything that St. Thomas has written. Like any presumption this can and may be overturned by good evidence in specific cases, but of course the burden of proof is on he who would overturn it.

What do you think?


It seems very fine to me :) I agree!

Cristian

PS: I just see this whole passage and even the whole treatise of Salaverri translated into Spanish!

http://aciesordinata.wordpress.com/2009 ... da-rede-i/

http://www.mercaba.org/TEOLOGIA/STE/igl ... CLESIA.htm

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
John Lane wrote:
Cristian, everybody should read the book posted by Julian on the Authority of St. Thomas and take note especially of the requirement prescribed by numerous Popes and incorporated in Canon law that St. Thomas is to be followed in every opinion.
This is basically what P. Lumbreras, O.P.'s introduction to the 24 Thomistic Theses, which quotes many papal documents, says.

I can just hear a Modernist retorting: "But, what about the Immaculate Conception? St. Thomas got that wrong! What about capital punishment? Surely, our modern Masonic Declaration of the Rights of Man era has moved on from the barbarism of executing heretics!"

John Lane wrote:
The modern mind rebels against this idea, and the traditional Catholic mind seems to find it just as difficult to accept.
For "neo-con Catholics", yes
John Lane wrote:
It is as though the main tendency of the time were a dangerous elevation of St. Thomas which would render theological work a mere exegesis of the Angelic Doctor, when in fact the main tendency of the entire modern era has been one of independence and pride, of which a significant feature has been the depreciation of St. Thomas.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: The Catholic Church and Salvation reprinted
John Lane wrote:
It would be interesting to see exactly how that just freedom of theology is defined in the papal documents. For mine, I am only following the text of Canon Law and the various papal documents I have read, along with those quoted in the book Julian very kindly provided to us. These all say explicitly that the doctrine of St. Thomas is to be followed, not just his principles and methods.
This is why I think John Paul II's Fides et Ratio advocates for philosophical pluralism and not for Thomism as Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Æterni Patris did. Fides et Ratio says (my emphasis):
Quote:
78. It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas' thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The Magisterium's intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.
"It is therefore clear why Modernists are so amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas." (Studiorem Ducem).

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:19 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
Geremia wrote:
For "neo-con Catholics", yes...


That's an interesting article, thank you. However Ripperger speaks only for Indulters when he describes "traditionalists." SSPX and sedevacantist traditionalists differ fundamentally from Indult attendees in their principles and outlook.

Fr. Ripperger writes:
Quote:
Neo-conservatives have fallen into this way of thinking i.e. the only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current magisterium. Traditionalists, as a general rule, tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about some aspects of current magisterial teachings which seem to contradict the previous magisterium (e.g. the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current magisterium as their norm but Scripture(41), intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neo-conservatives i.e. their perspectives regarding the role of ecclesiastical tradition and how the current magisterium relates to it.

His charasterisation of neo-catholics is spot on. I have made a similar point many times. It can be understood as the abandonment of faith as such, and its replacement by obedience. The objective content of faith (i.e. faith's objects) being lost, the faith becomes whatever Rome says it is this week. And this is why you never hear accusations of "heresy" within the New Chuch; what you always hear are accusations of "dissent" and also "schism." But "heresy" is a meaningless term in that milieu.

However Fr. Ripperger doesn't understand the traditionalist outside his own semi-Novus milieu. The SSPX, whatever it might publish about the magisterium of the post-conciliar church, absolutely ignores its teachings. It gives them no weight whatsoever. This is manifest. Obviously this is even clearer in the case of sedevacantists. The SSPX doesn't even trust Rome's own marriage tribunal, the Rota, and cheerfully reviews cases in its own private quasi-tribunal which have already been decided by the Rota.

The SSPX is essentially sedevacantist. See this thread for relevant quotes illustrating this reality: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=8521

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:58 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
Btw, another interesting aspect of Ripperger's article is how clearly inferior he is as philosopher and theologian to the men of the SSPX or of course pre-V2 authorities. I felt sorry for him as I read his work, repeatedly wishing I could engage him in a chat and explain some of the things he is obviously confused about. He is especially benighted about the deposit of faith and the truths related to it, the role and operation of the magisterium, and related truths. And he's clearly in error on the scope of infallibility, stating clearly that "discipline" can be erroneous when in fact it is protected by doctrinal infallibility. He has very little clue about the nature of canon law, which is mostly divine law. It is obvious that he thinks it is mostly human positive law. But of course the '83 Code is human positive law, and he thinks that's the law of the Catholic Church. Where to begin?

There's certainly no hope from Indult quarters.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
John Lane wrote:
The SSPX doesn't even trust Rome's own marriage tribunal, the Rota, and cheerfully reviews cases in its own private quasi-tribunal which have already been decided by the Rota.
I've never heard that before, but I don't doubt it. You know of any articles on this? Thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Last edited by Alan Aversa on Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
John Lane wrote:
Where to begin?
I started a new thread here if you'd be interesting in elaborating. Thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
John Lane wrote:
The SSPX is essentially sedevacantist. See this thread for relevant quotes illustrating this reality: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=8521
Wow, thanks for the excellent Lefebvre quotes

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Re:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I see your point John. I remember though I´ve read Salaverri on his treatise on the Church an scholion "De auctoritate Sancti Thomae Aquinatis" and he concludes that it is not the mind of the Church to bind to follow Saint Thomas in every opinion, that a just freedom of the science of theology is even recommended in those very documents in which the Church approved St. Thomas (Aeterni Patris, even Pius XI (DZ 2192)and Pius XII: Solemnis conventus, Animus Noster). I remember it shocked me a little bit when I first read it, several years ago. I think you still may be Thomist and in complete agreement with the mind of the Church and depart from some of his opinions. I wouldn´t dare to say Billot was not Thomist, as Garrigou does :)
This seems to go against Pope St. Pius X, who wrote in Doctoris Angelici:
Quote:
Since We have said (in the Motu Proprio 'Sacrorum Antistitum') that Aquinas' philosophy was chiefly to be followed, and We did not say solely, some thought to comply with, or at least not to oppose Our will in taking the philosophy of any of the Scholastic Doctors indiscriminately, even when such a philosophy was in repugnance to the principles of St. Thomas. But these their mind has greatly deceived. It is quite evident that when We set St. Thomas up as the leader of scholastic philosophy, We have wished this to be understood especially of his principles, upon which such a philosophy is established. Because as we must reject that old opinion which held as irrelevant for the faith what anyone thinks about creatures, if he thinks rightly about God—since an error on the nature of creatures originates false knowledge of God—so we must keep reverently and inviolately St. Thomas' principles on philosophy, from which flows such a doctrine on creatures as is in harmony with faith; by which all errors of all ages are refuted; by which we are made aware of those attributes which must be given to God and to nothing else but Himself; and by which both the diversity and the analogy between God and creatures is skillfully illustrated... Neither sane reason will neglect, nor religion will allow that such a wonderful richness of science—which he received from his predecessors and with his almost angelic genius he himself ameliorated, increased and used to prepare, illustrate and defend the sacred doctrine for human minds—suffer any loss. Particularly, for if the Catholic truth be destitute of this valuable help, in vain would anyone seek help from that philosophy whose principles are common with, or not opposed to Materialism, Monism, Pantheism, Socialism and Modernism... Consequently We have already instructed all teachers of philosophy and sacred theology that to deviate a single step from St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, would not be without great detriment. Now furthermore We say that those who have perversely interpreted or absolutely despised the principles and chief propositions of St. Thomas' philosophy, those not only do not follow St. Thomas, but wander also widely from him.
Quote:
If We or any of Our Predecessors have ever approved the doctrine of some other author or saint, even as to recommend and ordain its divulgation and defense, it is easily understood that the same is to be approved, inasmuch as it is consonant with the principles of St. Thomas, or at least not opposed to them.
(Quoted in P. Lumbreras, O.P.'s introduction to the 24 Thomistic Theses.)

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:33 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
Geremia wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The SSPX doesn't even trust Rome's own marriage tribunal, the Rota, and cheerfully reviews cases in its own private quasi-tribunal which have already been decided by the Rota.
I've never heard that before, but I don't doubt it. You know of any articles on this? Thanks


Yes, Fr. Ricossa wrote one or more on it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Re:
Geremia wrote:
This seems to go against Pope St. Pius X, ...

I don't agree. I think the distinction between philosophy and theology is relevant to understanding this. But it isn't easy, because the popes are stridently urging all to follow St. Thomas, recommending him, at the same time as giving a law to be followed in Catholic schools. In the latter they have greater freedom to impose, whereas outside of that sphere they are bound not to impose purely philosophical truths except insofar as these impinge on the faith itself. In her own schools, of course, the Church can indeed impose one sole philosphy if she wishes. But can she demand that all priests (and/or laymen) hold to St. Thomas's philosophy even when not teaching others? I don't think so.

In any case, she is (paradoxically) clearly more concerned to ensure that the metaphysical truths of Thomas are rigorously maintained than she is to ensure that all of his theological doctrines are held. The whole question is complex, but it is aided by keeping separate the two fields, philosophy and theology, which you will recall Ramirez does in his treatment.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Re:
John Lane wrote:
Geremia wrote:
This seems to go against Pope St. Pius X, ...

I don't agree. I think the distinction between philosophy and theology is relevant to understanding this.
Hence Fides et Ratio (esp. section 78.) may indeed be just as pro-Thomism as Æterni Patris.
John Lane wrote:
But it isn't easy, because the popes are stridently urging all to follow St. Thomas, recommending him, at the same time as giving a law to be followed in Catholic schools. In the latter they have greater freedom to impose, whereas outside of that sphere they are bound not to impose purely philosophical truths except insofar as these impinge on the faith itself. In her own schools, of course, the Church can indeed impose one sole philosphy if she wishes. But can she demand that all priests (and/or laymen) hold to St. Thomas's philosophy even when not teaching others? I don't think so.

In any case, she is (paradoxically) clearly more concerned to ensure that the metaphysical truths of Thomas are rigorously maintained than she is to ensure that all of his theological doctrines are held. The whole question is complex, but it is aided by keeping separate the two fields, philosophy and theology, which you will recall Ramirez does in his treatment.
Yes, I can't wait to start Fr. Ramírez's book.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: The Authority of St. Thomas
John Lane wrote:
Geremia wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The SSPX doesn't even trust Rome's own marriage tribunal, the Rota, and cheerfully reviews cases in its own private quasi-tribunal which have already been decided by the Rota.
I've never heard that before, but I don't doubt it. You know of any articles on this? Thanks


Yes, Fr. Ricossa wrote one or more on it.
Thanks for the reference

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Re:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Pius XII: Solemnis conventus, Animus Noster
I haven't heard of Solemnis conventus. What about Singulari sane animi (Sept. 16, 1960)? I just discovered Animus Noster (AAS 45 (1953): 682-90) today. Apparently it is the first to say that Thomism applies not just to seminaries or sacred theology programs at Catholic universities but to all Catholic schools.

Also, I never knew that a Vatican II preparatory commission planned a 20-page document reaffirming St. Thomas's authority. I wonder if that document exists anywhere? Perhaps it's in Acta et documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.