This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Not to speak ill of the dead, but there is an irony about Ralph McInerney's passing being noted on THIS blogsite. I mean, to say no more, his repeated dumping on, turning on, and (IMHO) misrepresentation of Gilson and De Lubac in their battles against the forces who gave us this awful, crippling "two-story" theology that us so bedeviled us. Thank God (literally) that the current Pope and his immediate predecessor both GOT IT!
The previous comment seems to not take into the goodness of McInerny's critique in its approach- that Dr.Ralph McInerny was constantly turning on and misrepresenting Gilson and DeLubac seems to be a false characterization of his critique of aspects of their work. And it seems wrong to suggest that McInerny was contributing to a wrong view of nature in contradistinction to the two recent Popes. His work and criticisms of Cardinal De Lubac and Etienne Gilson suggest that the whole understanding of nature in St. Thomas Aquinas'work and that of theology and doctor's of the church as a whole is more subtle than one would at first surmise at looking into the texts and at the Magisterial pronouncements that appear to have some inconsistency at times. McInerny was the first to try to come in defense of the Catholic magisterium, Popes as well as with the long tradition of theologians and doctors and saints of the church.
In offering a critical examination of some weaknesses in Gilson and DeLubac's work in some writings such as Preambula Fidei, at times McInerny seems to present the critical evaluation of sections of DeLubac without praising DeLubac's work in other areas, and similarly does so of Gilson, leaving out where they do show promise, yet McInerny also had appreciation for them and for new studies of theology in patristics and in other theoloians of the church with the effort to establish a correspondence of scholasticism and theology as a whole from other periods and from other theologians. He has written more of Etienne Gilson and in some place describes him as a great person for the revival of medieval philosophy and studies of Thomas Aquinas and the history of philosophy and reason and faith. While McInerny writes critically of DeLubac and Gilson in some places,it seems that it is in part because of the attacks of DeLubac and Gilson against Cajetan, John of St. Thomas and Garrigou LaGrange and thier misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of some of the philosophical work of Thomas Aquinas and of the tradition of the church in the magisterium in these matters. He criticises that H. De Lubac sides with Gilson in attacking St. Cajetan making undeniably good arguments against some of the accusations against Cajetan. McInerny did well to identify the weak points in DeLubac and he did this as a defense against DeLubac's attacks and this work can serve for a better evaluation of DeLubac and the theology of nature and grace.
It seems that if we take McInerny's approach with natural theology and reappropriate Thomistic interpretations such as that of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas and other Thomists of the Thomistic revival, it more carefully will benefit the appropriation of some of the work of DeLubac and that of so-called 'new theology'.
2 comments:
Not to speak ill of the dead, but there is an irony about Ralph McInerney's passing being noted on THIS blogsite. I mean, to say no more, his repeated dumping on, turning on, and (IMHO) misrepresentation of Gilson and De Lubac in their battles against the forces who gave us this awful, crippling "two-story" theology that us so bedeviled us. Thank God (literally) that the current Pope and his immediate predecessor both GOT IT!
The previous comment seems to not take into the goodness of McInerny's critique in its approach- that Dr.Ralph McInerny was constantly turning on and misrepresenting Gilson and DeLubac seems to be a false characterization of his critique of aspects of their work. And it seems wrong to suggest that McInerny was contributing to a wrong view of nature in contradistinction to the two recent Popes. His work and criticisms of Cardinal De Lubac and Etienne Gilson suggest that the whole understanding of nature in St. Thomas Aquinas'work and that of theology and doctor's of the church as a whole is more subtle than one would at first surmise at looking into the texts and at the Magisterial pronouncements that appear to have some inconsistency at times. McInerny was the first to try to come in defense of the Catholic magisterium, Popes as well as with the long tradition of theologians and doctors and saints of the church.
In offering a critical examination of some weaknesses in Gilson and DeLubac's work in some writings such as Preambula Fidei, at times McInerny seems to present the critical evaluation of sections of DeLubac without praising DeLubac's work in other areas, and similarly does so of Gilson, leaving out where they do show promise, yet McInerny also had appreciation for them and for new studies of theology in patristics and in other theoloians of the church with the effort to establish a correspondence of scholasticism and theology as a whole from other periods and from other theologians. He has written more of Etienne Gilson and in some place describes him as a great person for the revival of medieval philosophy and studies of Thomas Aquinas and the history of philosophy and reason and faith. While McInerny writes critically of DeLubac and Gilson in some places,it seems that it is in part because of the attacks of DeLubac and Gilson against Cajetan, John of St. Thomas and Garrigou LaGrange and thier misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of some of the philosophical work of Thomas Aquinas and of the tradition of the church in the magisterium in these matters. He criticises that H. De Lubac sides with Gilson in attacking St. Cajetan making undeniably good arguments against some of the accusations against Cajetan. McInerny did well to identify the weak points in DeLubac and he did this as a defense against DeLubac's attacks and this work can serve for a better evaluation of DeLubac and the theology of nature and grace.
It seems that if we take McInerny's approach with natural theology and reappropriate Thomistic interpretations such as that of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas and other Thomists of the Thomistic revival, it more carefully will benefit the appropriation of some of the work of DeLubac and that of so-called 'new theology'.
Post a Comment