Re: Neo-Thomism—the dry, systematized Thomistic theology of the Latin manuals used for generations in seminaries—“supplied the means to refute the errors of modernity rather than to engage its challenge”.
Does "engag[ing] its challenge" mean conceding some of modern philosophy's false premises?
We need instruction, not "engagement" or "dialogue". When two parties have fundamentally different premises (as Thomism and modern philosophy do), "engagement" or "dialogue" is futile because it implicitly assumes the premises of both parties may be equally true. This talk of "engagement" or "dialogue" smacks of agnosticism/skepticism (cf. Pascendi §6).
1 comment:
In Di Noia, O.P.'s The Thomist 54 (1990) article "American Catholic Theology at Century’s End: Postconciliar, Postmodern, Post-Thomistic," he praises doctrinal novelties like the supposed right to religious freedom (Nostra Ætate), which contradicts, e.g., Bl. Pope Pius's IX's Syllabus or Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos.
Re: Neo-Thomism—the dry, systematized Thomistic theology of the Latin manuals used for generations in seminaries—“supplied the means to refute the errors of modernity rather than to engage its challenge”.
Does "engag[ing] its challenge" mean conceding some of modern philosophy's false premises?
We need instruction, not "engagement" or "dialogue". When two parties have fundamentally different premises (as Thomism and modern philosophy do), "engagement" or "dialogue" is futile because it implicitly assumes the premises of both parties may be equally true. This talk of "engagement" or "dialogue" smacks of agnosticism/skepticism (cf. Pascendi §6).
Post a Comment