tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post1095700533099527815..comments2024-02-19T22:24:48.553-06:00Comments on Ite ad Thomam Institute: Why Cajetan's Interpretation of Aquinas's Doctrine of Analogy is Not WrongUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-16368992421569666632011-01-11T23:51:21.204-06:002011-01-11T23:51:21.204-06:00I'd be interested in a more updated review of ...I'd be interested in a more updated review of this book.<br /><br />I've recently just studied analogy in Dr Austin Woodbury's Ontology (surely Garrigou's greatest student and possibly greater than Garrigou himself).Aquinas3000https://www.blogger.com/profile/10548841985385293614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-10359142701849201652010-10-26T20:50:36.277-05:002010-10-26T20:50:36.277-05:00Just came across this interesting post, and I can&...Just came across this interesting post, and I can't resist the opportunity to plug my book: THE SEMANTICS OF ANALOGY: REREADING CAJETAN'S DE NOMINUM ANALOGIA<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Semantics-Analogy-Rereading-Cajetans-Analogia/dp/026803091X<br /><br />It is, in a sense, a defense of Cajetan's "interpretation" of "Aquinas's doctrine of analogy", but itJosh Hochschildnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-32695595652776740832010-10-08T10:59:00.309-05:002010-10-08T10:59:00.309-05:00PS. What the Society of Scholastics website says ...PS. What the Society of Scholastics website says with regards to philosophy is equally applicable to theology.Don Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13921692353515274589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-86406991809081829372010-10-08T10:57:11.902-05:002010-10-08T10:57:11.902-05:00From the Society of Scholastics website:
"Re...From the Society of Scholastics website:<br /><br />"Recognizing that we are far removed from the mind of Master Thomas, when a point of contention arises regarding his meaning, one must first and foremost seek its resolution in the consensus of the philosophers of the continuous line of Scholastic Thomists who are recognized as faithfully and intentionally adhering to Thomas’s doctrine. Don Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13921692353515274589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-66946246194445394912010-10-07T23:44:44.729-05:002010-10-07T23:44:44.729-05:00What would you say is the tradition you wish to pr...What would you say is the tradition you wish to promote, in a few sentences? This is not meant to be a confrontational question in a negative sense - I am interested to hear what is the gist of Catholic theological work from your perspective.Kinganoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-43952559550995127092010-10-07T06:49:29.052-05:002010-10-07T06:49:29.052-05:00The fact that Cajetan was wrong on one point is no...The fact that Cajetan was wrong on one point is not sufficient to scorn him.<br /><br />In approaching Cajetan (or Aquinas or any other classical commentator) one must understand that the classical commentator is not a 'historical scholar' of the contemporary sort. The classical commentator does not usually aim at sheer reproduction of the thought of the person whose text he is Don Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13921692353515274589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504461.post-80482403863975389512010-10-06T15:02:40.300-05:002010-10-06T15:02:40.300-05:00Hello! I'm a a graduate student in dogmatic t...Hello! I'm a a graduate student in dogmatic theology from Chicago. I just wanted to leave a quick note and say that Cajetan was clearly wrong on the will as the locus of the capacity for God -Aquinas most definitely never taught this. Perhaps that has something to do with the reason why he is often and definitely eliminated as a 'go to' commentator. I am not crossing him out Kinganoreply@blogger.com