This morning, the second Sunday after Pentecost, our first reading in the Revised Common Lectionary (Proper 7, Year C) is from 1 Kings 19—the famous passage where Elijah stands on the mountaintop in the midst of a mighty storm, an earthquake, and a raging fire—yet only experiences God after all these deeds of power pass and he hears "a sound of sheer silence" (or "a still, small voice", depending on your translation).
As it happens, a priest friend of mine is taking two weeks off, and so I am "supplying" for her; I will be leading worship at her church this morning, and I am preaching on this reading. So I can only regard your post on Wittgenstein's wrestling with the limits of language and his discovery of God's presence in a silence beyond thought as a serendipitous act of the Spirit!
Here is the penultimate paragraph of that sermon, if you will indulge me:
"So I think when we show up at church, we might want to ask ourselves that question God posed to Elijah on the mountaintop: “what am I doing here?” What am I looking for? What am I expecting? What kind of God do I seek—and is that God who speaks in sheer silence, who suffers on the Cross? And if I discover that I am expecting a God other than the one we find in the quiet, crucified Christ, well, I might need to recalibrate my expectations."
Feel free to send me a copy in chat or by email. I'd like to read it. I also would like still to talk or chat on zoom or whatever. I've been terribly busy trying to deal with some passions I waited far too long to check and focus more on being present for my family. Now it seems like things are coming back together, and I'll have more time.
Well I think it was more than with Thomism. Especially at the time—pre-Vatican II—there was an emphatic focus on baroque thomism as an answer to modernity which goes well beyond Aquinas himself trying to define everything without recourse to earlier fathers to balance it out. My point there was really that at the time for him to convert he would have had to accept a very specific and highly defined understanding of everything with little space or room for an apophatic attitude or approach to theology. I’m not aware of him specifically saying anything about thomism but he he wasn’t able to essentially accept everything tout de court as they expected. I believe he even applied at one point to become a novice but either way, it wasn’t to be. I think I’ve seen you’ve written from a thomism perspective as a critique or counter to modernity. I actually think there’s profit to it, but Thomas seems to bound to Aristotle for me. I’m eastern Orthodox and appreciate a more apophatic attitude or approach to theology. Maximus in my mind offers a much more balanced and inspiring vision of everything than Thomas, but Thomas was limited in his access to much that Maximus had ready access to. Either way I was presuming possibly a bit much, but that was what I meant. For me at least, baroque thomism or two tier thomism, is a far cry from Thomas own work and seems to disregard Thomas own acknowledgment of the limits of the analogia entis. Anyway, hope that helps. I’m looking forward to reading some of your earlier posts and I wrote a post which argues for the need to return to final causes and teleology. The critique of formal and more importantly final causes with Galileo and Descartes along with Ockhams dismissal of universals explain our current vacuous understanding of nature and the world. The article is: https://nasmith.substack.com/p/rediscovering-meaning-through-the?r=32csd0
Yea idk people keep telling me Thomas was this cut and dry rationalist, but I just don't see that as a fan of his work. Maybe there was a baroque period as you say but idk. St maximus' theology also pretty much completely synthesis with Thomas, but Thomas is more comprehensive. There's minor differences, but I'd say their cosmology is the same with maybe different emphasis. Great article though! I've been meaning to learn about Wittgenstein. I have a friend who really like him.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” That statement stunned me, when I came to it as an undergraduate reading the Tractatus: not even Plato or Augustine was so humble. Time I went and re-read Philosophical Investigations, maybe. - Vaguely thinking of Wittgenstein in the light of the Gospel and letters of John….
It stunned me as well. In my mind its far more reverent toward God than many idolatrous notions people develop where they end up never letting God appear on his own terms but only according to their narrow concepts of him.
This morning, the second Sunday after Pentecost, our first reading in the Revised Common Lectionary (Proper 7, Year C) is from 1 Kings 19—the famous passage where Elijah stands on the mountaintop in the midst of a mighty storm, an earthquake, and a raging fire—yet only experiences God after all these deeds of power pass and he hears "a sound of sheer silence" (or "a still, small voice", depending on your translation).
As it happens, a priest friend of mine is taking two weeks off, and so I am "supplying" for her; I will be leading worship at her church this morning, and I am preaching on this reading. So I can only regard your post on Wittgenstein's wrestling with the limits of language and his discovery of God's presence in a silence beyond thought as a serendipitous act of the Spirit!
Here is the penultimate paragraph of that sermon, if you will indulge me:
"So I think when we show up at church, we might want to ask ourselves that question God posed to Elijah on the mountaintop: “what am I doing here?” What am I looking for? What am I expecting? What kind of God do I seek—and is that God who speaks in sheer silence, who suffers on the Cross? And if I discover that I am expecting a God other than the one we find in the quiet, crucified Christ, well, I might need to recalibrate my expectations."
Feel free to send me a copy in chat or by email. I'd like to read it. I also would like still to talk or chat on zoom or whatever. I've been terribly busy trying to deal with some passions I waited far too long to check and focus more on being present for my family. Now it seems like things are coming back together, and I'll have more time.
yes, I'm definitely available to chat. Just let me know when things settle fully and you know your schedule.
👍
What were his problems with thomism?
Well I think it was more than with Thomism. Especially at the time—pre-Vatican II—there was an emphatic focus on baroque thomism as an answer to modernity which goes well beyond Aquinas himself trying to define everything without recourse to earlier fathers to balance it out. My point there was really that at the time for him to convert he would have had to accept a very specific and highly defined understanding of everything with little space or room for an apophatic attitude or approach to theology. I’m not aware of him specifically saying anything about thomism but he he wasn’t able to essentially accept everything tout de court as they expected. I believe he even applied at one point to become a novice but either way, it wasn’t to be. I think I’ve seen you’ve written from a thomism perspective as a critique or counter to modernity. I actually think there’s profit to it, but Thomas seems to bound to Aristotle for me. I’m eastern Orthodox and appreciate a more apophatic attitude or approach to theology. Maximus in my mind offers a much more balanced and inspiring vision of everything than Thomas, but Thomas was limited in his access to much that Maximus had ready access to. Either way I was presuming possibly a bit much, but that was what I meant. For me at least, baroque thomism or two tier thomism, is a far cry from Thomas own work and seems to disregard Thomas own acknowledgment of the limits of the analogia entis. Anyway, hope that helps. I’m looking forward to reading some of your earlier posts and I wrote a post which argues for the need to return to final causes and teleology. The critique of formal and more importantly final causes with Galileo and Descartes along with Ockhams dismissal of universals explain our current vacuous understanding of nature and the world. The article is: https://nasmith.substack.com/p/rediscovering-meaning-through-the?r=32csd0
Yea idk people keep telling me Thomas was this cut and dry rationalist, but I just don't see that as a fan of his work. Maybe there was a baroque period as you say but idk. St maximus' theology also pretty much completely synthesis with Thomas, but Thomas is more comprehensive. There's minor differences, but I'd say their cosmology is the same with maybe different emphasis. Great article though! I've been meaning to learn about Wittgenstein. I have a friend who really like him.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” That statement stunned me, when I came to it as an undergraduate reading the Tractatus: not even Plato or Augustine was so humble. Time I went and re-read Philosophical Investigations, maybe. - Vaguely thinking of Wittgenstein in the light of the Gospel and letters of John….
It stunned me as well. In my mind its far more reverent toward God than many idolatrous notions people develop where they end up never letting God appear on his own terms but only according to their narrow concepts of him.