The Time St. Thomas Aquinas Was Excommunicated
Catholic Answers | 1 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqx3fOpj0t0
2:48 I'm very familiar with the condemnations of 1276 or 1277 (I'm not in doubt on when they were issued just noting that back then New Year was AFTER Laetare Sunday, not before Epiphany).
I would say, not one single of the condemned propositions as it stands drags any Thomistic tenet down with it. THE closest call, so to speak is individuation of angels.
St. Thomas considered angels couldn't be individuated otherwise than by a difference of differentia specifica, since they had no matter.
While I think it is obvious Bishop Tempier disagreed, he didn't condemn that. He condemned the proposition that God couldn't individuate angels in any other way.
So, the syllabus errorum was valid for all of Paris Diocese and especially Paris University. But it was reissued to be valid for all of the Ecclesiastic province of England as well.
So, chapter VII:16 = original version 81.
Quod, quia intelligentie non habent materiam, deus non posset plures eiusdem speciei facere.
St. Thomas never said "God couldn't" and Tempier never condemned "angels couldn't be" at least, as I can see, if it is interpreted as about angels as they are "in our world" and in this theory immaterial.
I do not think any other issue involved even a real tension between St. Thomas and Bishop Tempier. However, he was arguably under some kind of suspicion, and he was cleared by another bishop Stephen of Paris, Stephen III (Tempier was Stephen II). It was not a condemnation in person and a lifting of excommunication, it was a suspicion and a clearing. Note that the clearing from Paris preceded the canonisation in Rome.
8:04 BISHOP!
Paris became an Archdiocese in the time of Lewis XIV! There were three bishop of the Gondi family and the third was archbishop.
10:52 Not comparable.
The abandoned view on the Immaculate Conception was the one by St. Augustine.
By St. Thomas' time, it was a longstanding but not universal tradition.
The condemned propositions came from an influx of ideas from impure sources, so, there would be no similar excuse.
H o w e v e r ... as far as I know from my reading of St. Thomas and as far as I could see from transscribing the chapter divided (English) version of Tempier's condemnations, there was never any direct conflict. You can find all 219 divided in chapters VI to XXII (it would seem the first five chapters were intro and possibly named suspects).
The book from which I copied this (where the English / chapter divided version is an appendix) is by David Piché, and in context with it or quoted in it I found:
Cependant, un retournement de perspective n'allait pas manquer de se produire. Redoutant cette dérive fidéiste qui s'était amorcée suite à l'intervention de Tempier, le pape Jean XXII allait réhabiliter la doctrine thomiste par la canonisation, en 1323, de Thomas d'Aquin, suivie, deux années plus tard, de la levée, par Etienne Bourret, de tout interdit que cette doctrine avait pu encourir de par la condamnation de 1277, comme il a été dit ci-dessus.
L’"averroïsme latin", la condamnation de 1277 et Jean Pic de la Mirandole (1463-1494), par Louis Valcke, en Laval théologique et philosophique, vol. 56, n° 1, 2000, p. 127-150.
I disagree on "fideism" or the motive of John XXII, but I agree that the doctrine was in Paris under suspicion of falling foul of the condemnations, and the lifting was of "any prohibition his doctrine could have incurred by the condemnation of 1277.
Perhaps my ear is a bit too modern, but it doesn't sound like even his doctrine was nominatim prohibited, but what is certain is that no lifting of excommunications is mentioned. In other words, Brother Thomas from Sicily was not excommunicated even after his death.
I'm glad you mentioned the Narnia clause. Prop. condempn. 34 or I:9.
There is a real problem about Narnia, as far as the bodily presence of the Word of God is concerned. A parallel incarnation is not covered by condemning Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere. Jesus, in His human body present under the accidents of the body of a talking lion would obviously be fine, but this contradicts what is actually said in HHB, the conversation between Aslan and Bree.
Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html
No comments:
Post a Comment