The Ecclesiastes Hypothesis

Progressivism about the future and nostalgia for the past are both coping mechanisms. The keep us from having to confront the horrible reality that things have always been this way, and they will always be this way.


  1. lee faber said,

    December 31, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    So, I don’t know if this is your game, but Thomas’ honor is being besmirched:

  2. January 1, 2010 at 10:42 am

    I put something up. The difficulty is that the second half of his post is missing (I suppose he wrote about it somewhere else) he has to pull out a few quotations about how the Church sees itself as a “rule of faith” in the same sense that Scripture is. (“Rule” can mean more than one thing: a King and his deputy can both rule, and each can be called the “sole rule” in different circumstances)

    At any rate I think we contemporary people have a very different sense than St. Thomas about what “literal and historical sense” means. This is not to say anyone is right or wrong yet, but it is a large and pretty difficult question.

    As I think over worst-case scenarios, I’m reminded that even we Thomists of the Strict Observance have some difficulties and questions with his understanding of how all things in the faith must be contained in Scripture according to the literal sense. Even allowing for a more expansive notion of “literal”, it is not obvious how one sees, say, the Doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother fitting into this.

%d bloggers like this: