The Second Vatican Council:

[MC Just]

what's troubling me is the fact that, we have 2000 years of catholic tradition, not just 40, to act that way is to say the Holy Roman Catholic church was founded at the second vatican council.

[Apotheoun]

If the Second Vatican Council is viewed in isolation from the overall Tradition of the Church, then of course theological problems will arise; but if the Council is properly integrated into the life of the Church as an expression of the apostolic Tradition, then there is no problem.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2005, 09:17 AM']My personal views about the theological speculations of Aquinas and Augustine are irrelevant.  My point is simply that one does not have to subscribe to a particular school of thought in order to be Catholic.  Rather, one must simply accept the entire patrimony of the Church as it is revealed in the word of God and in the conciliar tradition.
[right][snapback]714267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LoL, yes, I know. I'm sorry, I was just teasing about the funner of differences between the East and the West.

[MC Just]

and personally i think the article is pretty clear and does not need interpreting.

[Didacus]

Can someone explain to me in simple terms the difference between a Thomist and a neo-Thomist? What in heaven's name is the prefix 'neo' suppose to mean?




Ane please, keep with the simple terms. I am a very.... very simple man.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 6 2005, 08:15 PM']
I do, however, disagree that we go to an extreme. She is making it sound as if this is the norm. It most certainly is not. I am not saying that it doesn't happen. I have witnessed it, first hand. However, I would say that the majority of parish Masses are not this extreme that she promotes.
[right][snapback]713801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

my experience has been different. For most of my life, in most of my diocese (admittedly, Richmond) most of the masses I have attended have been exactly like she said. I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard the words "Hell" or "One True Church". In fact, I just heard "One true Church" for the first time two weeks ago, in the context of, "If you don't believe that the Catholic Church is the One true Church, then you should not stay and work to change it to your views."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:49 AM']LoL, yes, I know.  I'm sorry, I was just teasing about the funner of differences between the East and the West.
[right][snapback]714468[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
:

[Cam42]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:01 PM']Can someone explain to me in simple terms the difference between a Thomist and a neo-Thomist?  What in heaven's name is the prefix 'neo' suppose to mean?
Ane please, keep with the simple terms.  I am a very.... very simple man.
[right][snapback]714480[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have more or less described it already, but I will repost it for you.....

Neo-Thomism is not about removing any Catholicity of the teaching of Aquinas, but rather approaching it in a way that is consistent with times in which we live. It is an invigorated way of teaching the truth of Aquinas.

Neo-Thomism is not a move toward Fr. Curran, et al., but rather a move away. It is a way to argue against their position and authentically teach the philosophy and theology of Aquinas.

[quote name='Alice von Hildebrand'] recall that in the late Sixties, a nun who had felt the “liberating influence” of Vatican II proclaimed loudly that “Thomism is dead.” The dear sister had fallen in love with “contemporary thought,” making no distinction whatever between positive contributions and outspoken aberrations. Moreover, to declare a philosophy produced by a gigantic mind and a great saint “dead” is a risky assertion to make. Truth remains truth, and whatever is true in St. Thomas’s works cannot possibly die. Clearly the sister followed the Zeitgeist, a spirit that was prevalent in the wake of Vatican II. Anything that was new was welcome and “refreshing.” An ossified Thomism — so unfaithful to St. Thomas — was to be rejected. But to make a hero of Sartre is another matter.[/quote]

That quote is the point of neo-Thomism. It is the argument against the Zeitgeist. It is the argument against the sister. It is the argument again the "ossified" Thomism.

[quote name='Gaudium et Spes no. 4']The Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in light of the Gospel.[/quote]

If neo-Thomism is taught in conjunction with authentic classical Thomism (not the ossified version, which was prevalent in the pre-conciliar Church of the 1930's-1950's), then it is invaluable.


I would suggest that if this interests you, you should look to the works of Dr. Germain Grisez. Most of his stuff in on amazon.com.

[Cam42]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:01 PM']my experience has been different.  For most of my life, in most of my diocese (admittedly, Richmond) most of the masses I have attended have been exactly like she said.  I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard the words "Hell" or "One True Church".  In fact, I just heard "One true Church" for the first time two weeks ago, in the context of, "If you don't believe that the Catholic Church is the One true Church, then you should not stay and work to change it to your views."
[right][snapback]714481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Toledo,

The issue is that you have not been outside the diocese of Richmond much (admittedly). It is known that there are "pockets of trouble" all over the world, but there have been "pockets of trouble" since the beginning of the Church.

Richmond may (or may not) be an extreme, however, I would say that for the most part, the US is not what Dr. von Hildebrand describes. She was making a point.

Also, your post proves my point. The universal Church is not extreme. There may be an issue here or there, but the vast majority is not that way.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:37 PM']I have more or less described it already, but I will repost it for you.....

Neo-Thomism is not about removing any Catholicity of the teaching of Aquinas, but rather approaching it in a way that is consistent with times in which we live. It is an invigorated way of teaching the truth of Aquinas.

Neo-Thomism is not a move toward Fr. Curran, et al., but rather a move away. It is a way to argue against their position and authentically teach the philosophy and theology of Aquinas.
[snip][right][snapback]714553[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So Thomism is simply teaching the writtings of Thomas Aquinas as they where taugt in their original time, and neo-Thomism is simply trying to teach the same doctrine, essentially unchanged, but within a world view of modern times?

If this is accurate I fail to see the necessity of such a distinction, or am I being to simple minded here? Isn't it a natural thing to read anything from past writtings and attempting to consolidate or adapt it to one's 'modern' understanding of things? (without changing the meaning or doctrine one reads of course) Like using a car for an example rather than a horse, yet the example's doctrine remains the same.

If that is what 'neo' prefix stands for, I really don't see what the big deal is all about. I must be missing a point or a piece of the puzzle somewhere.

and thanks for your reply Cam

[Cam42]

Didacus,

Neo-Thomism is a twentieth-century movement (encouraged by Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris in 1879) that attempts to defend the philosophical and theological doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in a contemporary context. Prominent neo-Thomists include Gilson, Maritain, and Lonergan.

The main proponent of the neo-Thomistic movement was a teacher of mine in grad school. His name is Dr. Germain Grisez. The neo-Thomistic movement is attributed to him.

He brought the thoughts of Pieper, von Hildebrand (both), Maritain, John Paul II, et. al, together. Grisez argues that there are several intrinsic goods that it is reasonable for humans to pursue. These include life, authenticity and knowledge. Grisez argues for the gravity of human choice, insofar as persons, by their free choices constitute their moral identities, the one aspect of life which people truly own.

This is at the heart of neo-Thomism.

Neo-Thomism is a twentieth century revival of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. Thomism had been the dominant philosophy undergirding Roman Catholic theology from the fifteenth century. Under the pace setting interpretations of such thinkers as Cajetan in the early sixteenth century a complex system which spoke to the needs of both theology and contemporary philosophical questions developed.

[quote name='Jacques Maritain']The neo-Scholastic programme includes, in the next place, the adaptation of medieval principles and doctrines to our present intellectual needs. Complete immobility is no less incompatible with progress than out-and-out relativism. Vita in motu. To make Scholasticism rigid and stationary would be fatal to it. The doctrines revived by the new movement are like an inherited fortune; to refuse it would be folly, but to manage it without regard to actual conditions would be worse. With Dr. Ehrhard one may say: "Aquinas should be our beacon, not our boundary" ("Der Katholicismus und das zwanzigste Jahrh. im Lichte der Kirchlichen Entwicklung der Neuzeit", Stuttgart, 1902, 252). We have now to pass in review the various factors in the situation and to see in what respect the new Scholasticism differs from the old and how far it adapts itself to our age.[/quote]

Recommended Reading: Gerald A. McCool, The Neo-Thomists (Marquette, 1996); The Future of Thomism: The Maritain Sequence, ed. by Deal W. Hudson, Dennis William Moran, and Donald Arthur Gallagher (Notre Dame, 1992); Conflict and Community: New Studies in Thomistic Thought, ed. by Michael B. Lukens (Peter Lang, 1993); W. Norris Clarke, The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics (Notre Dame, 2001); and John F. X. Knasas, The Preface to Thomistic Metaphysics: A Contribution to the Neo-Thomist Debate on the State of Metaphysics (Peter Lang, 1991).

[Cam42]

[quote]If this is accurate I fail to see the necessity of such a distinction, or am I being to simple minded here? Isn't it a natural thing to read anything from past writtings and attempting to consolidate or adapt it to one's 'modern' understanding of things?[/quote]

The distinction is simple. Thomistic thought had become "ossified," or caloused according to Dr. von Hildebrand. She rightly asserts that the classical view of Thomism had been diluted and distorted over time. It is the view of the neo-Thomists that there should be a return to the authentic Catholicity of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas.

I hope this helps....if you need more explaination, please ask....I am trying not to get too techincal and I may be less than clear on my posting.

[Didacus]

Needless to say you're giving me more than I cna handle for now Cam, but your psots do clear things up quite a bit. I take comfort in reminding myself that 'nhot-knowing' is in no way wrong, but 'not-trying-to-learn' is just unnaceptable ignorance. Give me a few days to catch all this up, and we'll see what other questions I can come up with.




I keep getting the feeling you might pm me with a pop quiz at any time.