CWR (via Pertinacious Papist)
I have yet to make my way through the book, though I have read certain sections (e.g. the one dealing with liturgical reform). At this point in time, I can't say that I would accept this traditionalist account uncritically, however much I might sympathize with the "conservative" Council Fathers, as an ultramontane ecclesiology is ntegral to such a traditionalist narrative.
Would it be possible to translate some of the doctrines put forward by members of the nouvelle theologie in the language of neo-scholasticism or neo-thomism (for example, regarding ecclesiology). Are we dealing primarily with the understanding of fundamental theological data, rather than conclusions from that data? (Let's set aside disputes about theological method, revelation, metaphysics, the relationship between theology and logic or the Thomistic understanding of the sciences. Of course, it might be said that these are precisely the bones of contention, that the differences in theology are more than a mere difference in writing styles.)
Did neo-Thomism fail because it wasn't Thomistic enough? It did not lead to a Thomistic ressourcement, a re-examination of the sources, with attention paid to the Church Fathers? Or was the sole problem that it was not accompanied by the necessary sort of intellectual preparation (a proper education in logic and understanding of the sciences). I do think that the neo-Thomism of the manuals was inadequate for ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox, but this was not the aim of the manuals. Nonetheless, would neo-Thomist theologians have been equipped for this job?
I note that Fr. P. Brannan, S.J., is one of the translators of de Mattei's book.
Loreto Publications
Related:
Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P, La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?
William Murphy, "Thomism and the Nouvelle Théologie: A Dialogue Renewed?" (pdf)
No comments:
Post a Comment