Bellarmine Forums
http://strobertbellarmine.net/

Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1655
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Alan Aversa [ Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas

from Alec Vidler's excellent A Variety of Catholic Modernists:

Laberthonnière to von Hügel (1 April 1924), pp. 85-6:
{The Catholic Encyclopedia says Laberthonnière was "a severe critic of Church authority and of Scholastic philosophy (but not of St. Thomas Aquinas)".}
Laberthonnière to von Hügel (1 April 1924) wrote:
I was astonished (he wrote) to find St. Thomas figuring among those to whom you express your spiritual gratitude…To me—I say it to you in all simplicity—he appears to stand doctrinally for a radical anti-Christianity. In place of the Gospel's God of love he put an egocentric God. In the final reckoning he accepts predestination in its most brutal form. His metaphysic justifies the Inquisition and slavery. In a word he is the theologian par excellence of theocracy. For him the Church consists essentially in the ecclesiastical organization regarded as a <i>domination</i> that is to be exercised under the direction and to the advantage of the theologians…I have found that Buchez had a way of characterizing him that seems to me perfectly just. In St. Thomas, says Buchez, all the questions are asked in Christian language, but all the answers are given with a pagan meaning. And in fact—and this is what in the end irritates me against him most—he jealously retains the letter of the Christian tradition, but always in discarding its spirit…


Mignot to Loisy, 3 January 1896 (p. 98):
Mignot to Loisy (3 January 1896) wrote:
All the evidence shows that Our Lord's knowledge which was not infinite had a limit. Why want to ascribe to Our Lord a knowledge which he declared he did not have? He knew at least as well as the theologians what to believe about the extent of his knowledge. But we are always up against the same system of a priorisme, the "inferential theology".


Mignot to Hébert (19 March 1886):
Mignot to Hébert (19 March 1886) wrote:
How right you are to see only words in the scholastic metaphysic! They are a prioristes…They invent a definition out of nothing, then they finish by believing in its objective truth…


Mignot to von Hügel (27 February 1898):
Mignot to von Hügel (27 February 1898) wrote:
I really do not understand the general craze for the scholasticism of St. Thomas. It is absurd! What can philosophical arguments and affirmations that are a priori or often wrongly deduced have to do with purely critical and historical inquiries?

Author:  Admin [ Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas

It's shocking, isn't it? These are men without faith in Our Lord's divinity, or in Revelation. St. Thomas is just an accidental victim in these assertions.

The thought that immediately occurs to me is you could put those statements on Fisheaters or Suscipe or Angelqueen and attribute them to Bergoglio or Ratzinger, to whom they belong equally well, and they'd begin challenging you to prove that they are heretical... What dogma do they directly deny? Where's the open admission by these men that they won't be taught by the Church? Nothing to see here, move along... !!!

Author:  Alan Aversa [ Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas

John Lane wrote:
The thought that immediately occurs to me is you could put those statements on Fisheaters or Suscipe or Angelqueen and attribute them to Bergoglio or Ratzinger, to whom they belong equally well, and they'd begin challenging you to prove that they are heretical... What dogma do they directly deny? Where's the open admission by these men that they won't be taught by the Church? Nothing to see here, move along... !!!
I should've done that! I posted them there, but I could've left out the attributions, interspersed some Ratzinger quotes, and made the readers guess which quotes belong to whom.

Author:  Alan Aversa [ Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas

What's interesting is that there is a common thread all the way back from these "paleo-Modernists" to today's neo-Modernists, for example:
Ratzinger's «Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977» p. 44 wrote:
I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made. … [Arnold Wilmsen] presented us with a rigid, neo-scholastic Thomism that was simply too far afield from my own questions.
(source)
Discussing the Vatican II draft "On The Sources of Revelation" (translated here), which Ratzinger harshly criticized (Ratzinger Reader pp. 258 ff.), he says:
Ratzinger's «Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977» p. 118-9 wrote:
It is true that the [council] documents bore only weak traces of the biblical and patristic renewal of the last decades, so that they gave an impression of rigidity and narrowness through their excessive dependency on scholastic theology. … By "sources of revelation", what was meant was Scripture and tradition; their relationship to one another and to the Magisterium had been dealt with solidly in the forms of post-Tridentine scholasticism according to the custom of the textbooks then in use. In the meantime, the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation had made itself at home in Catholic theology.
(source)

Author:  Admin [ Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas

Alan Aversa wrote:
What's interesting is that there is a common thread all the way back from these "paleo-Modernists" to today's neo-Modernists, for example:


Yes, and once one has absorbed the doctrine of Pascendi and read a few bits and pieces from the original Modernists, the reality that Rahner, de Lubac, Congar, Ratzinger, and the rest were simply Modernists stands out as an undeniable reality. Same fundamental ideas, same sly and prideful approach, same contempt for tradition, same phraseology; even the same dogmas are aimed at destruction by these characters - that is, the most purely supernatural ones. For those are the ones that most totally rest upon faith - the divinity of Christ and His miracles, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Real Presence, purgatory, the eternity of hell, etc.

Author:  Alan Aversa [ Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Paleo-Modernists disparaging St. Thomas Aquinas

John Lane wrote:
even the same dogmas are aimed at destruction by these characters - that is, the most purely supernatural ones. For those are the ones that most totally rest upon faith - the divinity of Christ and His miracles, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Real Presence, purgatory, the eternity of hell, etc.
or the Assumption
The end of the paragraph from where the second Ratzinger quote above comes says that
Ratzinger's «Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977» p. 119 wrote:
This impasse [between "post-Tridentine scholasticism" and the "historical-critical method"] is indeed what had made the dispute on the dogma of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven so difficult and insoluble.
So, the solution? Throw out "post-Tridentine scholasticism"!

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/