You seem to think that merely thumping your chest wins an argument. In the din of the drumbeat of your fists, you seem to have missed the irony that your quibble over the word “wisdom” as opposed to the word “truth” in the passage from St. Thomas speaks directly to the question at issue—one that you fail to understand.
Let me draw it out for you. In this text (and other parallel texts) St. Thomas is considering whether the angels are composed of matter and form. He argues (contra others such as the Franciscans who held that the angels have “spiritual” matter) that, while they do have potency (insofar as their essence is not their esse), they do not have matter. Unless, that is, you mean by “matter,” any potency whatever--though this is an equivocal use of the term “matter.” “Fine, call it matter,” says St. Thomas, “for wisdom (i.e. the highest science of truth) is not concerned merely with words, but with the proper understanding of the realities behind them.”
In the days of St. Thomas, when his adversaries were other Catholics, he did not have to contend with the assertions of Modernists and their wholesale denial of everything spiritual. Maybe you didn't know that, Todd K. The discussion of matter and potency is not the topic of Fr. Themann's screed. He is talking about prudential decisions and the morality of human acts.
Different category of philosophy.
Maybe your hobby is mixing apples and oranges, but this is not a produce juggling act.
You'll have to go to one of Fr. Themann's classrooms for that, apparently -- or, is that where you go the idea in the first place?
St. Thomas speaks this way often. This is, it seems to me, the same idea that Fr. Themann is expressing (he got it from St. Thomas) when he says that truth is concerned, not so much with the “words,” but with the thoughts or ideas that they are meant to express.
Once again, those are your words,
not the Angelic Doctor's.
You say: “There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.”
Please share with us these “number of reasons” why St. Thomas did not speak this way and the “even more reasons why he would never have.”
Dear Todd K,
In your vain attempt to defend the indefensible, you are trying to drag out writings from 700 years ago that refer to things being discussed at that time, that is, philosophical points of spiritual matter and temporal matter, that of angels and of men. Fr. Themann is talking about no such thing, in case you didn't notice.
When St. Thomas is speaking of angels it is not comparable to when Fr. Themann is speaking about our reactions today, to the way modern philosophers have denied the relevance of matter and form wholesale -- something that was unheard of
in the days of St. Thomas.
St. Thomas did not have to cope for 10 minutes with hecklers denying to his face the fact of knowledge in the mind. Or, can you find some quotes of his that address such matters, so you can prove me wrong?
You have to understand philosophia perennis
(a.k.a. Thomistic philosophy) before you can apply what St. Thomas said to present situations. We have other members here on CI who enjoy yanking articles out of the Summa in hopes to bolster their own erroneous interpretations of Church teachings.
It's certainly looking like the "philosophy" work going on in Winona is all about how to MISAPPLY the principles and intricate beauty of the thinking of St. Thomas so as to scramble the doctrine and confuse the harmonious threads of logic, so as to serve a HIGHER PURPOSE, let's say, normalization with Modernism! Yeah! That's the ticket!!
If Menzingen says it's a good idea, then HEY, who are we to question authority? "The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations!"
-- Can you find where St. Thomas said that, too, Todd K?
So if you somehow enjoy feeling smug and sneaky (like your mentors have taught you?) it's not going to work here. Sorry for the shocker.
Produce the place where you find St. Thomas saying anything like this: "...for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words."
Or, is the reason you are eager to change the subject because you are unable to find anything like that?
I expect the latter is the case.