Ubiquitous Pompon

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...

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...