Сообщения

On the disthomism of Doc Angelic of feserismisnotthomism.wordpress infamy, part II

*...a brief comeback from the long hiatus, hopefully to be developed* As Doc Angelic's comments on Dr. Feser's blog indicate, it is the treatment of the 2nd question Doc turns to on his blog by the latter that provoked Doc to attack. Quoting the author of the comment (most probably himself), Doc writes: From an unanswered comment on Edward Feser’s blog: ” In the Modern Biology and Original Sin post on this blog we read that the “…penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right or strict need for in the first place”… “The penalty was the loss of the supernatural gifts they had been given and that their descendants would have been given, and a fall back into their merely natural state, with all its limitations”… “This is the situation Adam, Eve, and their descendants would have been in had God left the human race in its purely natural state ”. However nowhere does St. Thomas
26 комментариев
Далее...

An indicatively rash (and therefore disthomist) reading by Doc Angelic of feserismisnotthomism infamy

The disthomist critic of Dr. Feser mentioned above once again demonstrated the uncharitable modus operandi concerning Dr. Feser's positions. In a recent update, he writes: On 18/8/18 in the comments section on his blog article An Open Appeal to the Cardinals of the Church, Dr. Feser made a statement which was quickly deleted. Denying the claim by a reader that his position on the death penalty was inconsistent with his lack of position on Dignitatis Humanae and religious liberty he said that he merely did not have time to deal with the question and referred readers to authors like Pink, Stork and Fr. Harrison. However none of these authors argue that there is a fundamental problem with the position at Vatican II. Therefore his stance has nothing to do with “not having enough time”; his position on the two issues is indeed fundamentally different. Let's try to separate the probable facts from the assertions. The reader mentioned above apparently asserted an incons
Отправить комментарий
Далее...

UPDATE on the continued disthomism of Doc Angelic of feserismisnotthomism.wordpress infamy, part I

Given that the disthomist critic of Dr. Feser has updated this section of his ill-informed attack, some additional remarks seem to be in order. As our blog argues (meeting no substantial argument from Doc), the usage of "personal God" and its cognates on the part of the Church and St. Thomas is not "enthuasistic" in any sense serious enough to justify his wild speculations concerning Dr. Feser. Contrary to Doc Angelic's assertion, it has not  "been used from earliest times in the Church in definitions of the Faith and in the liturgy ". The usage seems to have increased with the necessity of countering errors connected to pantheism arising in force by the end of the 19th century, as is indicated in the sources quoted in the first post. But even then it's not so significant as to entail, absolutely, viewing the non-usage of the English term as seriously suspicious, "a declaration in itself" etc. A somewhat technical aspect demands att
Отправить комментарий
Далее...

On the disthomism of Doc Angelic of feserismisnotthomism.wordpress infamy, part I

The immediate reason for the coming about of this humble blog is its owner's desire to publicly refute the unjust and ill-informed allegations made by one "Doc Angelic" on the  blog titled "Feserism is not Thomism" . The judgement concerning the need to do this is based on at least two considerations: first, the utility of discussing this topic, both speculative and motivational (it is interesting enough to trick myself into finally acting on my long time desire to start a blog); second, the possibility that Doc Angelic's (at least implicit) claim of representing a notable number of Catholics and would-be Thomists might have some truth to it. Given the tragedy that has befallen our civilisation in terms of circulation of sound philosophy and its capacity to secure and sustain the latter's intelligibility for those subjected to it, it is indeed probable that certain misunderstandings of past wisdom do arise. For what it is worth, I can testify to that on
Отправить комментарий
Далее...