And maybe she'll say "you're strawmanning me!" but if those aren't exactly those accusations they sure are quite close.
In general I've seen this happen, to Nick Fuentes for example, now whether you like the guy or not, people say "oh I disagree with him, he must be a fed" and it's like okay or did you ever stop to think that you just disagree?
Also yeah she linked this https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm which literally first explains pagan Neo-Platonism and then at the end of the article has a whole section called "Influence of Neoplatonism" explaining Christian Neo-Platonism.
So I don't know, I don't speak confidently on Taoism based on the first line of wikipedia because I don't know anything about it, I don't know why she did that.
And just the whole spiel on Thomism and Trent it's one of those things where there's so many weird priors and historical errors stated as fact you don't even know where to begin.
- Aquinas drew heavily on Neo-Platonism and constantly quotes Dionysius, Proclus (Liber de causis), Boethius and Augustine.
- Scholasticism is built on the fundations of Neo-Platonism
- The encyclicals on Aquinas are about reccomendations and legal mandates in seminary training at the time, they don't mean that the other philosophical traditions and approaches are illicit until the end of time.
- She does realize that a Catholic could exclusively read the works of Augustine and Jerome as spiritual reading his whole life and be perfectly holy and fine?
- Even after Trent and Aeterni Patris many religious orders and universities continued with their own non-thomistic philosophical traditions and the Holy See approved it and had no problem with it.
- The Trent thing is just like that is not what Trent was at all? We will follow the strategy and example of Trent even unto the year 8000? Trent was a dogmatic and disciplinary council responding to Protestantism, not a philosophical manifesto
In general I've seen this other times it reminds me of how people think that because some saints, popes and authors were very ultramontane and papalist that that's The Catholic PositionTM
Atually, when William George Ward said "I would like to have a papal bull every morning with my Times at breakfast." or when Pius X gave that one famous sermon about loving the Pope you gotta realize that was them and their time, you can be a saint and not be like that.
Of course Thomas is amazing I love him very much but don't mistake the very high praise from O.P. authors and a very specific period of Catholic culture as The Catholic PositionTM
No. St Thomas is considered to be the pinnacle of Catholic thinking, he isn't merely one theologian among others. He is officially considered among the best theologians in history. His work cannot be ignored today by serious theologians.
It has been decreed so in Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII.
Also, St Thomas is more an Aristotelian than a Platonist. He made a synthesis of previous neo-platonist theology and aristotelian philosophy.
Moreover, the teachings of Trent and valid councils are
for all eternity. You can't just ignore them and do as if they didn't exist. The Creed as an example was created during a Council.
You should go back to studying, you are saying a lot of idiocies.
Topic: Occult Subversion of Traditional Catholicism (Read 9458 times)