tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post8701771377763007026..comments2024-03-25T17:14:03.066-07:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Why we call him "The Angelic Doctor"Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-49288334092446413762016-07-17T04:26:56.510-07:002016-07-17T04:26:56.510-07:00Thanks to you Father. I was really wondering as to...Thanks to you Father. I was really wondering as to why St. Thomas Aquinas is called as the angelic doctor. Thanks for the understanding that you have given me. i am doing my theological studies, and i discover that we are very limited to grasp the so great Divine Knowledge in our small head. But it was not so with the angelic doctor. I really admire St. Thomas, specially his dedication to the work of God as no one else against the will of his family. I read the book on St. Thomas by Chesterton. Its really superb. I recommend this book to all thomas lovers. God love. GM ADVERTISEMENTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01995094897628663322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89237269199947683812016-04-17T09:40:11.831-07:002016-04-17T09:40:11.831-07:00I thought I was the only one who realizes how heav...I thought I was the only one who realizes how heavenly His writings are... <br /><br />So wonderful in theological content and language...<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935720840665908880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-46746257871752418292016-04-14T10:24:36.642-07:002016-04-14T10:24:36.642-07:00I have been reading a brief article on Thomas Aqui...I have been reading a brief article on Thomas Aquinas in Spanish and I wanted to know more deep about his title as Angelic Doctor and I found this blessed page. Thanks a lot for your comments, will enrich my knowledges about our catholic faith. From Nicaragua Alex Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05145937687605716565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25650346878625148892013-01-31T16:14:58.763-08:002013-01-31T16:14:58.763-08:00Great article Father. The only thing I would cauti...Great article Father. The only thing I would caution is to not place St .Thomas over and above the Thee Pillars of Truth within the Church: Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Even St. Thomas' great work must be read and understood in light of the above and in light of the doctrinal developments that have occured after his death. <br /><br />John.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-2759432127366609572013-01-30T18:48:46.347-08:002013-01-30T18:48:46.347-08:00@Nathaniel,
I apologize for jumping too quickly! Y...@Nathaniel,<br />I apologize for jumping too quickly! Yes, I agree with you that it would be very beneficial for us all to study the wealth of the monastic and mystic tradition! Indeed, what a blessing that you are studying St. Hildegard's writings (I myself would love to find more time of this as well!). <br /><br />One of the things I love about St Thomas (as a man and as a theologian) is that he was so well trained in the Benedictine tradition -- his discussion of humility according to St. Benedict is quite profound.<br />Also, I believe that this tradition greatly influenced some of his scriptural commentaries ... but I will have to leave that for another post!<br /><br />Peace to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68744627074427733062013-01-29T18:49:44.538-08:002013-01-29T18:49:44.538-08:00I apologize if I gave the impression that I was tr...I apologize if I gave the impression that I was trying to drive a wedge between scholasticism and patristics. Such was not my intention. The Angelic Doctor is, of course, of a mind with the Church and her Fathers, and his work provides both a wonderful guide to systematic theology and, as Fr. Erlenbusch points out, important advances in metaphysics (by synthesizing the Neoplatonic and the Aristotelian, guided always by the Word of God).<br /><br />What probably read as sour grapes on my part is the annoying tendency, especially among non-historical (e.g. systematic) theologians to consider St. Thomas a catch-all and end-all of medieval theology. For those of us who study the history of that millennium of the Church's pilgrimage on earth, St. Thomas is of course a highlight, but he is hardly the only luminary. As a scholar of <a href="http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/2012/09/DoctorViriditatisHildegardofBingenDoctoroftheChurchName.html" rel="nofollow">our newest, Visionary Doctor</a>, who lived a century before St. Thomas and experienced the divine and taught about it ways completely different from the scholastic, I find it occasionally tiresome that the wealth of monastic theology from the twelfth century or the riches of mystical theology from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries receive short schrift in comparison to the scholastics.<br /><br />Though I should be reminded (and humbled thereby) that this was written for the Angelic Doctor's feast day -- hardly an occasion not to honor him! St. Hildegard will have her day, too (in about eight months).Nathaniel M. Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01835009706332559978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-28508397258284766512013-01-29T17:58:06.042-08:002013-01-29T17:58:06.042-08:00Father, Bonaventure did not hold that the angels h...Father, Bonaventure did not hold that the angels had 'corporeal' or 'subtle' matter, but that they were pure spirits. Spiritual matter is not corporeal matter, but is simply a principle of potentiality. In fact, Bonaventure is being more truly Aristotelian here, for he thinks that every form has a corresponding matter, since matter and form are correlated with potency and actuality. The reason for the disagreement with St. Thomas is because of their differences on the principle of individuation: Aquinas holds that it is matter (since angels have no matter, therefore one angel per species), while Bonaventure thought it was both matter and form.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-19825846235427187012013-01-29T14:17:49.514-08:002013-01-29T14:17:49.514-08:00Father,
What do you think Aquinas would opine ...Father,<br /> What do you think Aquinas would opine today on non delayed ensoulment thinking (none falling under infallibility) which has predominated for about three centuries now though delayed ensoulment lasted longer thus far historically?bill bannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737277581167437670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-26260377635643761632013-01-29T09:54:08.555-08:002013-01-29T09:54:08.555-08:00Indeed i have seen in st. Thomas a greatest theolo...Indeed i have seen in st. Thomas a greatest theologian of all times. I rejoice while i read the Summa. My love for theology and for God is enkindled by reading Thomas' works.<br /><br />And i also, like Thomas, want to understand God more deeply, because i want to love Him more deeply. Also i want to understand Him because i love Him(although very insufficiently) - whom you love, Him you want to know better.<br /><br />When i read st. Thomas i have a need for beatific vision. I want it. I want to be saved. I want to enjoy eternity, God.<br /><br /><br />And to all who love patristic theology and exalt it on the expense of scholasticism(by bashing scholasticism) i tell you this. Read st. Thomas. You all think there is some oposition between the Fathers and st. Thomas. There is none. In fact - Fathers are what st. Thomas is referring to most of the time to prove his point. Thinking that this... fluid pseudo-earlychurch spiritualistic doctrinal primitivism is somehow a priori "more right" than scholasticism, because scholastic theology got into detail is just plain wrong.Marko Ivančičevićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04579400863718513875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-24699650433728382672013-01-28T20:04:14.747-08:002013-01-28T20:04:14.747-08:00@Nathaniel,
While it is true that St. Thomas excel...@Nathaniel,<br />While it is true that St. Thomas excels all others in presenting a unified vision and synthesis of all theology up to his time ... I would insist that he was quite original in his thought as well.<br /><br />For example, you fail to recognize just how significant it was for the Angelic Thomas to claim that angels are pure spirits ... this claim could not be accounted for by any of the metaphysical systems before St. Thomas. Indeed, his great addition to philosophy is the claim that there is a real distinction between essence and existence -- and this is what allows him to claim that angels are pure spirits without being purely simple (and therefore gods).<br /><br />It was because St. Bonaventure did not have so advanced a metaphysical system that he thought angels to have a "subtle matter" as it were.<br /><br />As to your final snub against scholasticism as failing in "spiritual journey" ... that sounds more like an excuse for intellectual sloth than an authentic mystical ascent.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40144657930902453702013-01-28T09:35:34.115-08:002013-01-28T09:35:34.115-08:00Several of the supposedly "unique" Thomi...Several of the supposedly "unique" Thomistic additions to our theology of the angels were in fact quite commonplace in theology before the Doctor turned his pen to them. For example, the angelic choirs and hierarchies and Lucifer's place within (and then without) them, are rooted in patristic teaching and are common throughout the Middle Ages. Likewise, the idea that angels are purely spiritual beings without bodies, and that "angel" is a ministry (<i>angelos</i> was the common Greek word for "messenger" for centuries before Christ was even born) is patristic, not scholastic, in origin. We do ourselves a disservice when we condense all of theology into Thomas's hands, for we thereby dismiss the important contributions made by theologians before and after him, and run the risk of confusing scholasticism with all of theology.<br /><br />As great as the Common Doctor was, his contributions to the Church were often not in originality but in clarity and organization. The Summa gathers in one (very big) place what before might have been scattered amongst dozens or hundreds of more specific treatises. Furthermore, its scholastic style of cut-and-paste often elides or obscures important points about divine knowledge that are contained in other (especially patristic and mystical) texts, where the rhetorical and spiritual journey of the entire text contains its own teaching that transcends any particular sentence or paragraph. Theology is not just about content--it's also about spiritual pilgrimage.Nathaniel M. Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01835009706332559978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-65259802091544746152013-01-28T00:38:20.636-08:002013-01-28T00:38:20.636-08:00St. Thomas Aquinas and his great work "Summa ...St. Thomas Aquinas and his great work "Summa Theologica" has greatly helped me understand our beautiful Catholic faith.<br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas, ora pro nobisClinton R.noreply@blogger.com