30:20 - Aquinas illuminated by Avicenna - one form and one substance per person. 33:00 - Aquinas vs Plato - soul and body are one substance, personhood. 36:00 - How the intellectual soul stands between soul and body 38:19 - the unity of the human person in one substantial form. 53:13 - What the opponents of Thomistic unicity believed. 104:00 - the rational soul is the substantial form of the human being.
I believe that modern philosophy is a primary form of human substance abuse and contributes to human identity crisis. By abusing our freedom in denying our rational souls we become like inertia. Our identity lies within God's Trinitarian life but both God as well as the natures He created are fundamentally denied from Machiavelli on. The key is to understand that which is to radical and evil to be true but is effectively so ie.. modern philosophy with that which is to Good to be true but is true, which is God become man in Christ, which is Catholicism. The city of Cain continues with modernity which is always wandering and building. A proper way to retrieve Aquinas is to properly understand and face this long eclipse of man's nature and form.
Wow! I can only imagine the family gatherings! I took his metaphysics class when I was a philosophy major at CUA. Is it true the dog came back to life after being hit by the ford model t car? I remember him fondly clearing his throat, and telling the class that dogs don't go to heaven as they don't have souls...even Fido. :)
I am not sure how well known Fr. Wippel is compared to say, Dr. Kreeft, who has over a thousand views. We would be happy if you would spread the word through your own email and/or Facebook accounts.
With all due respect, his philosophical apostolate, if you will, is impeded sadly by his incomparable hubris and his refusal to respect anyone with talent and sharing the same space with others who see and understand the philosophical knowledge and wisdom given from God.
Now that I have meditated on his deeply elite, hierarchical nature, he has only shown a deep covetousness instead of Charity and rewarding others for having discovered that Reason leads to God and not punish that like he did me for not being indoctrinated and giving up reason just to follow the Scholastic way which is reasonable without a brainwashing, hamstringing, and shamefully proud and abusive hierarch like Monsignor John F. Wippel who must be censured openly for this very reason. Like St. Paul to St. Peter, I have withstood him, despite his rank, to the face.
The talk starts at 17:00, after an astonishingly unnecessary 15 minute introduction. If this video were edited to 25 minutes it would have a hundred times more views. And where is the option to watch at a faster speaking rate?
I left a very poignant message here a few days ago addressing the poor pedagogy of the man above and his school and breed of Scholasticism. Unbelievable how my most powerful message was censored and censured here. The Church does improve but ignorance and vicious covetousness of control always gets in the way of true improvement. Did St. Martha Video do this?
SIXTEEN years after Aristotle's death Thomas Aquinas used his ancient views about a split between ideal (god) and practice to 'prove' the existence of the Catholic 'God'. This way Aquinas influenced whole western cultural reality. Have a look at: paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/aquinas-thomas-profile.html
It took decades to beat the co-dependency he placed me in person. Now it is beaten. God bless but also guide you, Monsignor Wippel. I do not need ecclesiastical approval to figure out or articulate the Truth.
It is not known by many but for those of us who unfortunately do know him, Monsignor Wippel covets his knowledge of philosophy so much that he would go so far as to hamstring and humiliate your natural intellect to protect his superiority and uphold an unreasonably rigid way of dealing with philosophy, and then CONTROL your mind to only think along the lines of rules instead of using sense and understanding to understand rules. Even worse though, as I said, is this sad and pathetic jealousy he has to try to break and control your natural intellect and shake of its natural understanding to make you follow a system ... BLINDLY ... instead of using the intellect that has created that system and settle some personal score that he has against anyone using it. I think that "personal score" is against the mere freedom of using a well-cultivated intellect to point out things intelligently without his breed of Scholasticism and control. More importantly, is that he must before he meets the Lord, surrender this covetousness of an intellect that can discern without any structure or control of people like himself so that it can live, choose, and work as it should without being threatened personally. If you can articulate the Truth without his Maritainian/Gilsonian system of Thomism, i.e. using the terms and rules for describing one should be supported and celebrated not punished and forced to renounce all common sense. He is a terror that has to be OUTED no matter his fame or particular capacity at being a Scholastic namely a Thomistic one. He is no benign man at all. Not all! That nameless and slavish paradigm he practices will never share the Truth as we should with each other, and will not do any good for anyone's soul. I do not have to be in the upper hierarchy of the Church to have the ability and knowledge to philosophize. He might be a great scholar but he has shown only unreasonable stricture, abusive tyranny and control to protect his pride from being hurt by people with intellectual talent. I speak on my behalf and also on the behalf of others unjustly offset by him. God bless him, but also in the Name of the Lord, whom he represents first and not St. Thomas Aquinas, he must be called out on his personal and pedogogical misgivings and wrongdoings to all those whom he has humiliated in the name of his psychopathology and pathocracy. It is no wonder that he is absolutely unpopular in Catholic circles as opposed to Peter Kreeft and others. God bless him so!
Matt Mayuiers Again, thank you! I appreciate you reading through my criticisms of Monsignor Wippel and his covetous and unreasonable behavior towards me. Sorry I write at length, but it is my way of explaining myself; otherwise I have no means to defend my position; so, bear with me as you have. My issue is with Monsignor Wippel’s personal pedagogy and his PARTICULAR take on Thomism which comes from Maritain, Gilson, and Van Steenburghen all modernists in some fashion. For Wippel and his ilk you follow the template without thinking and just follow the rules they present instead of understand and let resound and make sense in your heart and mind what Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas say. What they say automatically makes sense and a good mind sees and understands without having to follow it by wrote like he wants instead of conscientiously getting the picture. The way I saw everyone teach and learn Scholasticism at Catholic University was by wrote instead seeing that it made sense. It was like they did not understand it and just followed the rules without seeing how it all is natural and that it has to be understood. That is a very fine point but that is my main issue with the way Thomism is expressed by Wippel, i.e. a system to be followed without seeing how fluid it is and how natural it is without having to merely imitate teachings without having understood. Imagine people doing the Aristotelian walk and talk without having it make sense. That is all I see. We don’t have to be Thomists or Aristotelians but see the Truth in what is said instead of live our lives like a robot that receives a material programming with no conscience and just does it. That is what I see in the Scholastic formation at CUA, and it is ridiculous. You articulate the Truth in your own terms but articulate the Truth nonetheless. Wippel despises this and tries to break your mind to just spout out the system instead of think without having to be indoctrinated or brainwashed like he shows himself to be. I know you have the read the big four, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St.Thomas Aquinas, Angelic, not Modernist not Neo-Scholastic, Doctor, and they make their point without you having memorize or even to publicly mimic it like all the overscrupulous sheep that treat Classical philosophy like a script instead let it resound naturally. Hopefully I am clear here. Faith and Reason are united. Faith is a grace, gift, and theological virtue whose effect in reality are seen through miracles and our Sacraments in the Church and thus has to be explained through Reason. I believe and know there is connection between these two realms.
Monsignor John F. Wippel, I am truly liberated from your immoral will to control me so as to create a hapless disciple to pick on and mentally abuse and am no free to truly philosophize in the true Catholic and Scholastic way instead of having my will and intellect controlled by you. God bless you!
I’ve known him for 47 years. Please get yourself some counseling. Your obsession with bringing him down is not healthy. I’ve talked to many of his students.
@@kathiewippel7551 That is what you want to see. I have done myself the favor by telling the truth about him and his support for a dying movement trying to be modern. Now that I understand him I am doing a good work by calling him out on his psychological problem of brainwashing and controlling his victims to obey him. HE NEEDS THE COUNSELING before he meets God.
@@kathiewippel7551 Also, no one would condemn such a man if he had not done anything wrong. However, he has had a habit of being beyond pedantic without any scruple or regard for the people he deals with in the ways I have described. Your knowledge of him is remarkably different and comfortable to the man I know. So your familial bond with him has blinded you to who he is underneath that erudition. He must be called out and shamed for his blind narcissism; and you calling me insane for his personality problems only shows a blind subjectivity and bias. God bless you! It looks like your whole family needs therapy from confirmation bias and plain provincial bigotry.
@@kathiewippel7551 Did I ever tell you that Monsignor Wippel had a problem with the way St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his manuscripts? Monsignor Wippel said it looked like chicken scratches. Big deal! He also said that St. Thomas Aquinas should not have written about the angels to talk about invisible being and should have found a more natural subject to speak of. I think all those are unjust criticisms of a modernist trying to make modernism holy.
@@kathiewippel7551 Do yourself a favor. Mention me to him and ask what happened. Also ask what he did. I will CERTAINLY give you an account of what happened from my perspective, if you ever get the chance to judge correctly.
God love this man! Despite his Scholastic appearance and talk, he is a complete positivist underneath and discourages any natural God-given thinking. For him you read the text book and you live your life according to that instead of thinking and living according to nature which Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas aptly describe because of reasoning and not just regurgitating what the previous greats mentioned like thoughtless copy cats. If you ever take his course at Catholic University of America you will find at times his view is right on the dot, and other times he can be very morbid with a dry, unfunny sarcasm and of course the bookish, horrid, and nightmarish Aristotelian formality he puts out and spouts out. He is a Catholic monsignor and I pray for him, but he is controlling and discouraging if you get to know him. God love him 77x7 times, and God grant him what he deserves!
Michael Navarro You dislike the work of Wippel because you don't like historical Thomism but instead want to interpret Aquinas according to your own ideas and preferences instead of interpreting him according to his original meaning and in his original context. The historical Thomism of Wippel is a breath of fresh air from the deceptions and errors of Gilson and Maritain. I was a student under Wippel at CUA and took several courses in metaphysics under his direction. I have read his works and agree with 98% percent of his conclusions because they are documented from Aquinas' own writings and in chronological order according to the philosophical order that Aquinas explained belonged to philosophy in Summa Contra Gentiles. What you call morbid and dry is in fact SCIENCE. This is the science of philosophical physics and metaphysics according to the mind of Saint Thomas Aquinas. You are not a Thomist but an anti-Thomist. You simply do not have the scientific temperament to be a Thomist philosopher. You should probably pick up poetry or fiction instead. Aquinas was not a humanist. He was a scholastic and in fact the most intellectualist of the scholastics!
Eric Brown This reply will be done in complete Charity. I will do no less. It is amazing how people follow Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas like robots. When I was calling him and others like him "morbid" is that they take the natural reasoning in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and make it like a manual instead of relating to it as natural reason. Understand? You can love Monsignor Wippel all you want. I find his application and sadly other Thomists an inept copy of something natural that we all have and can recognize without being codependent on Aristotle or that great saint and doctor St. Thomas Aquinas who was more likely using his natural reasoning like we all can to reach the Truth. You don't copy the system they created but you live it and above realize the truth they are relating without having some textbook tell you how to stand up straight and lift up your leg. This you can agree with. There is NO way anyone can interpret Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas in their own way ... ahem, not even yours truly. How can you? And how can you accuse me of interpreting it in my own way with its clarity? Eric Brown, my only problem with Scholasticism is that it has been sadly purported to be some kind of custom to copy, imitate, mimic, instead of understand that it is a reflection of reality you can understand fluidly without any initiation rigidly formal as they teach you in CUA. Ya know? All apologies if my just and justified criticism of the practice of Scholasticism and how it affects you unnaturally has not been clear. Live life as reasonably as they do instead of turn yourselves into carbon copies that repeat and even copy what they do without using your mind to understand. I'm sure you have that capacity, but with the way they teach Thomism and Scholasticism in general people load principle after principle without relating it to reality; so I can only say I feel deep pity. So! Will you think and reason, or will you staple their teachings to your head unnaturally? You don't see it in reality; you just follow. Something tells me you understand what I say. Deus et tibi et omnibus apud Scholam Philosophiae benedicat. And for what it is worth ... Deus animas mentesque illuminet. Amen.
Michael Navarro Your remarks are absurd and you are rambling on like a drunken modernist! You simply are not interested in historical and scientific truth with all of its clarity as presented by Aristotle and Aquinas. Aristotle and Aquinas provide the historical and logical foundations for organic progress in philosophical and theological science. You need to read Pope Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris and Pope Pius XI's Studiorem Ducem and that will help you come to appreciate the beauty of scientific truth in philosophy and theology. You attack what you are ignorant of. Have you read these two papal documents? I think not.
Eric Brown I knew this would happen! I hit a nerve. However, I have no wounds to lick here or have any reason to concede anything to you. I won't reiterate what I have said if you have understood anything about what I was saying. Ahem, Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris is excellent and makes perfect sense to soul. I think an encyclical like that would upset the modernist faculty of CUA's Philosophy School because at its heart such an encyclical is saying that we can relate to the truths taught through Classical philosophy namely the Angelic Doctor, right? It is not just the principles but the reality they describe that makes it true. The way you learn it is just nod your head and accept it, like I said without having earned your understanding of it through reason or even experience; and furthermore, you copy it and wear it like a suit, not as if it is in reality like it is. Nothing modernist here! I have not attacked Aristotle or that great saint, St. Thomas of Aquin, but I have solidly slammed the stupidity in which many nonsensical copycat Schoolmen nowadays live it ... without reason. I will not respond further. Anything else said in addition here will be the stone thrown by someone else and will be a useless fight. I never shoot parting shots. And God bless you!
The problem I have has never been about what Scholasticism teaches only about HOW it is taught. Many people especially who enter into the CUA school of philosophy follow instead of see the reason that they can relate to in the Classical teachings of Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas. In a way you can say that those students are not to blame because well for one reason that is the way it is taught at CUA. Monsignor Wippel and others control you and indoctrinate instead of having a person see the reasonable value in it for himself. So which is better brainwashing or understanding with your rational mind what the good and truth that Aristotle and St. Thomas of Aquin offer? I see the same brainwashed, numb-skulls who use the system as a theoretical, mathematical crutch instead of seeing the point of what the greats are saying. They teach you a way to think not knowing or ignoring that this is the natural way to think with or without instruction. A person can see reality and truth without having to have any debilitating indoctrination of something that is already God-given common sense. I cannot take back the statement I made about Monsignor Wippel and anyone else like him. I must speak out. To know him in person would only fall into his clutches so he can shape you the way he likes scrupulous or not, i.e. just have you follow Aristotelian doctrine like it was something to be remembered and processed instead of it being an articulate reminder of how your mind works. I had the misfortune of dealing with him once, and yes it was very hard to forgive. Many years ago, in November 1999, I gave a reasonably simple paper topic and he did not like it and asked me to talk to him in his office. It was about Parmenides notion of monism and the basic errors within it. He inexplicably got angry at my confidence and tried to supercede it with an angry, offended off-hand knowledge of the topic as if to say to me that it was not my business to undertake such a topic despite its obvious, overall simplicity. A good mind could pick out the points with a moderate amount of challenge. Something like this does not invoke any hierarchical wrath in the least, but with him it did for no good reason. I will leave the implications with God and justice with the Good Lord for this man. God love him and that department many times over!
If he ever gets control of you, he will chastise your natural reasoning ability unjustly and program you to use his positivistic Scholasticism as a set of rules that are merely ingrained and not learned from using your head i.e. intellect. That is what my only problem with him is and that should be made known because he has done that to others. Other than that he can have his titles and his knowledge, the latter being well read and erudite most of all. I thank God because, well, I have beaten this and I want him to know it.
Again, Thomism and even Reverend Monsignor Wippel's knowledge and lecturing ability are both good, but there is an underlying philosophy that Monsignor Wippel still follows: marry Thomism with modernism especially the modernistic sciences of the age. He went to the University of Louvain of all places that has basically infected the very clear and natural Thomism and made it an arbitrary system without the use of accessing it using your natural reason, and thus making it a system to use without consulting your senses which sadly many sciences are treated today. People should talk to the Monsignor and see who he really is and what he believes. I pray for him every day, but he is rather authoritarian and surprisingly uncharitable to others either by ineptitude or just meanness. I am glad I am out of Catholic University and out of the influence of that specific school of philosophy no matter if it has this stamp of Thomism on it. A sane, reasoning, and discerning mind is foremost instead of having to surrender your mind and just follow the principles which are all interestingly enough reasonable unto themselves but you are not allowed to see and feel how it reasonable. That is how it is received by so many sheep and useful idiots in the Church that become even more shill-like to the dictates of so many of these authoritarian types who teach badly by such an authoritarianism. People copy instead of get an inspiration to reflect naturally on what is said and also extrapolate in a contextual way. It could be done so simply. The way Thomism is taught is sadly a pastoral error. No one needs to control anyone's mind to have them see what Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas are teaching or to discipline or hamstring their mind to follow those but simply have them see the reason and goodness behind each principle they teach if there is ... of course, there is ... but we have to relate to it which is very simple to follow and virtually instantaneous and then from there be able to reflect and see how it is real and see its relation to reality. That can be done with this, but mediocrity and stupidity can and does reign in the Kingdom and the Body much to our detriment.
Again, he is a proponent of teaching philosophy, like so many at CUA, according to obedience and even mind control and not through sense or even reason. With his ilk you have to remember his rules instead of showing the rules in reality. I trust Scholasticism in general but brutal and most notably inept authoritarianism like he has shown me only proves bad teaching and leadership in Mother Church which is rampant and unchecked. Please read my other numerous posts on his teaching and his misgivings as a teacher and a priest. Now I am free from his grasp and control. He has hamstrung so many intelligent minds to just force them to accept an inept system and think according to it instead of encouraging them to think in Good and Truth as they are for God and Nature. He will have to try once more to make his evil more complete which it cannot now. God bless the Reverend Monsignor, but his and the vices of Modernist Scholasticism that he teaches must be exposed.
Sadly too he is driven by his ego after so many accolades and his tendency to gaslight every brilliant mind and force them to follow very unnatural rules to learn his way of thinking about Scholasticism.
Again, aside from his virtuous scholarship, this is actually a vicious and troubled man who tries to remove and discourage natural reasoning which can be developed to see what good Scholasticism is saying. His abuse needs to be brought to light. In Nomine Domini. Amen.
@@JHarder1000 I am calling out a severe personality problem that Monsignor John F Wippel has that unfortunately good and reasonable Catholic young men have come across like myself. He does everything to hamstring that with a unnatural approach to his style of Scholasticism.
@@JHarder1000, I know for one thing he has gone into fanatic mode in his teaching method by his brainwash method that clears out any common sense which you are supposed to use when you read Aristotle. His method is mere memorization of a system and follow it with no sense but obedience. This has not served the Church.
This man attempted to brainwash me in November 1999 for attempting to show I could understand Classical philosophy using only critical thinking. We can learn without abusive control. He is a closeted narcissist.
30:20 - Aquinas illuminated by Avicenna - one form and one substance per person.
33:00 - Aquinas vs Plato - soul and body are one substance, personhood.
36:00 - How the intellectual soul stands between soul and body
38:19 - the unity of the human person in one substantial form.
53:13 - What the opponents of Thomistic unicity believed.
104:00 - the rational soul is the substantial form of the human being.
pawbard thankyou.
I'm happy you got value from them!
I believe that modern philosophy is a primary form of human substance abuse and contributes to human identity crisis. By abusing our freedom in denying our rational souls we become like inertia. Our identity lies within God's Trinitarian life but both God as well as the natures He created are fundamentally denied from Machiavelli on. The key is to understand that which is to radical and evil to be true but is effectively so ie.. modern philosophy with that which is to Good to be true but is true, which is God become man in Christ, which is Catholicism.
The city of Cain continues with modernity which is always wandering and building.
A proper way to retrieve Aquinas is to properly understand and face this long eclipse of man's nature and form.
Wippel starts at 15:35
How does this brilliant lecture only have a few dozen views?
elendiel Word is slowly getting out. Yes, he is probably the expert on Aquinas.
All in all, Requiescat Reverendissimus Ioannes F. Wippel in Pace Domini. Amen. He is in the arms and the judgement of God now.
How I miss his Fido examples...
Monsignor Wippel is my Uncle. His Fido story is a family favorite.
Wow! I can only imagine the family gatherings! I took his metaphysics class when I was a philosophy major at CUA. Is it true the dog came back to life after being hit by the ford model t car? I remember him fondly clearing his throat, and telling the class that dogs don't go to heaven as they don't have souls...even Fido. :)
The story is true. Did he ever mention the other dog Rover??
kathie wippel I only vaguely remember Rover...
I am not sure how well known Fr. Wippel is compared to say, Dr. Kreeft, who has over a thousand views. We would be happy if you would spread the word through your own email and/or Facebook accounts.
With all due respect, his philosophical apostolate, if you will, is impeded sadly by his incomparable hubris and his refusal to respect anyone with talent and sharing the same space with others who see and understand the philosophical knowledge and wisdom given from God.
Now that I have meditated on his deeply elite, hierarchical nature, he has only shown a deep covetousness instead of Charity and rewarding others for having discovered that Reason leads to God and not punish that like he did me for not being indoctrinated and giving up reason just to follow the Scholastic way which is reasonable without a brainwashing, hamstringing, and shamefully proud and abusive hierarch like Monsignor John F. Wippel who must be censured openly for this very reason. Like St. Paul to St. Peter, I have withstood him, despite his rank, to the face.
Odd that this appears on my feed 8 days after his death
The talk starts at 17:00, after an astonishingly unnecessary 15 minute introduction. If this video were edited to 25 minutes it would have a hundred times more views. And where is the option to watch at a faster speaking rate?
I left a very poignant message here a few days ago addressing the poor pedagogy of the man above and his school and breed of Scholasticism. Unbelievable how my most powerful message was censored and censured here. The Church does improve but ignorance and vicious covetousness of control always gets in the way of true improvement. Did St. Martha Video do this?
SIXTEEN years after Aristotle's death Thomas Aquinas used his ancient views about a split between ideal (god) and practice to 'prove' the existence of the Catholic 'God'.
This way Aquinas influenced whole western cultural reality.
Have a look at: paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/aquinas-thomas-profile.html
Comment for traction.
It took decades to beat the co-dependency he placed me in person. Now it is beaten. God bless but also guide you, Monsignor Wippel. I do not need ecclesiastical approval to figure out or articulate the Truth.
It is not known by many but for those of us who unfortunately do know him, Monsignor Wippel covets his knowledge of philosophy so much that he would go so far as to hamstring and humiliate your natural intellect to protect his superiority and uphold an unreasonably rigid way of dealing with philosophy, and then CONTROL your mind to only think along the lines of rules instead of using sense and understanding to understand rules. Even worse though, as I said, is this sad and pathetic jealousy he has to try to break and control your natural intellect and shake of its natural understanding to make you follow a system ... BLINDLY ... instead of using the intellect that has created that system and settle some personal score that he has against anyone using it. I think that "personal score" is against the mere freedom of using a well-cultivated intellect to point out things intelligently without his breed of Scholasticism and control. More importantly, is that he must before he meets the Lord, surrender this covetousness of an intellect that can discern without any structure or control of people like himself so that it can live, choose, and work as it should without being threatened personally. If you can articulate the Truth without his Maritainian/Gilsonian system of Thomism, i.e. using the terms and rules for describing one should be supported and celebrated not punished and forced to renounce all common sense. He is a terror that has to be OUTED no matter his fame or particular capacity at being a Scholastic namely a Thomistic one. He is no benign man at all. Not all! That nameless and slavish paradigm he practices will never share the Truth as we should with each other, and will not do any good for anyone's soul. I do not have to be in the upper hierarchy of the Church to have the ability and knowledge to philosophize. He might be a great scholar but he has shown only unreasonable stricture, abusive tyranny and control to protect his pride from being hurt by people with intellectual talent. I speak on my behalf and also on the behalf of others unjustly offset by him. God bless him, but also in the Name of the Lord, whom he represents first and not St. Thomas Aquinas, he must be called out on his personal and pedogogical misgivings and wrongdoings to all those whom he has humiliated in the name of his psychopathology and pathocracy. It is no wonder that he is absolutely unpopular in Catholic circles as opposed to Peter Kreeft and others. God bless him so!
Matt Mayuiers, figure this out. I don’t answer to you.
Matt Mayuiers, read what I have written.
@@matthewmayuiers, tibi gratias! I thank you for your being patient. I will reply to you!
Matt Mayuiers Again, thank you! I appreciate you reading through my criticisms of Monsignor Wippel and his covetous and unreasonable behavior towards me. Sorry I write at length, but it is my way of explaining myself; otherwise I have no means to defend my position; so, bear with me as you have. My issue is with Monsignor Wippel’s personal pedagogy and his PARTICULAR take on Thomism which comes from Maritain, Gilson, and Van Steenburghen all modernists in some fashion. For Wippel and his ilk you follow the template without thinking and just follow the rules they present instead of understand and let resound and make sense in your heart and mind what Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas say. What they say automatically makes sense and a good mind sees and understands without having to follow it by wrote like he wants instead of conscientiously getting the picture. The way I saw everyone teach and learn Scholasticism at Catholic University was by wrote instead seeing that it made sense. It was like they did not understand it and just followed the rules without seeing how it all is natural and that it has to be understood. That is a very fine point but that is my main issue with the way Thomism is expressed by Wippel, i.e. a system to be followed without seeing how fluid it is and how natural it is without having to merely imitate teachings without having understood. Imagine people doing the Aristotelian walk and talk without having it make sense. That is all I see. We don’t have to be Thomists or Aristotelians but see the Truth in what is said instead of live our lives like a robot that receives a material programming with no conscience and just does it. That is what I see in the Scholastic formation at CUA, and it is ridiculous. You articulate the Truth in your own terms but articulate the Truth nonetheless. Wippel despises this and tries to break your mind to just spout out the system instead of think without having to be indoctrinated or brainwashed like he shows himself to be. I know you have the read the big four, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St.Thomas Aquinas, Angelic, not Modernist not Neo-Scholastic, Doctor, and they make their point without you having memorize or even to publicly mimic it like all the overscrupulous sheep that treat Classical philosophy like a script instead let it resound naturally. Hopefully I am clear here. Faith and Reason are united. Faith is a grace, gift, and theological virtue whose effect in reality are seen through miracles and our Sacraments in the Church and thus has to be explained through Reason. I believe and know there is connection between these two realms.
Monsignor John F. Wippel, I am truly liberated from your immoral will to control me so as to create a hapless disciple to pick on and mentally abuse and am no free to truly philosophize in the true Catholic and Scholastic way instead of having my will and intellect controlled by you. God bless you!
I’ve known him for 47 years. Please get yourself some counseling. Your obsession with bringing him down is not healthy. I’ve talked to many of his students.
@@kathiewippel7551 That is what you want to see. I have done myself the favor by telling the truth about him and his support for a dying movement trying to be modern. Now that I understand him I am doing a good work by calling him out on his psychological problem of brainwashing and controlling his victims to obey him. HE NEEDS THE COUNSELING before he meets God.
@@kathiewippel7551 Also, no one would condemn such a man if he had not done anything wrong. However, he has had a habit of being beyond pedantic without any scruple or regard for the people he deals with in the ways I have described. Your knowledge of him is remarkably different and comfortable to the man I know. So your familial bond with him has blinded you to who he is underneath that erudition. He must be called out and shamed for his blind narcissism; and you calling me insane for his personality problems only shows a blind subjectivity and bias. God bless you! It looks like your whole family needs therapy from confirmation bias and plain provincial bigotry.
@@kathiewippel7551 Did I ever tell you that Monsignor Wippel had a problem with the way St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his manuscripts? Monsignor Wippel said it looked like chicken scratches. Big deal! He also said that St. Thomas Aquinas should not have written about the angels to talk about invisible being and should have found a more natural subject to speak of. I think all those are unjust criticisms of a modernist trying to make modernism holy.
@@kathiewippel7551 Do yourself a favor. Mention me to him and ask what happened. Also ask what he did. I will CERTAINLY give you an account of what happened from my perspective, if you ever get the chance to judge correctly.
God love this man! Despite his Scholastic appearance and talk, he is a complete positivist underneath and discourages any natural God-given thinking. For him you read the text book and you live your life according to that instead of thinking and living according to nature which Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas aptly describe because of reasoning and not just regurgitating what the previous greats mentioned like thoughtless copy cats. If you ever take his course at Catholic University of America you will find at times his view is right on the dot, and other times he can be very morbid with a dry, unfunny sarcasm and of course the bookish, horrid, and nightmarish Aristotelian formality he puts out and spouts out. He is a Catholic monsignor and I pray for him, but he is controlling and discouraging if you get to know him. God love him 77x7 times, and God grant him what he deserves!
Michael Navarro You dislike the work of Wippel because you don't like historical Thomism but instead want to interpret Aquinas according to your own ideas and preferences instead of interpreting him according to his original meaning and in his original context. The historical Thomism of Wippel is a breath of fresh air from the deceptions and errors of Gilson and Maritain. I was a student under Wippel at CUA and took several courses in metaphysics under his direction. I have read his works and agree with 98% percent of his conclusions because they are documented from Aquinas' own writings and in chronological order according to the philosophical order that Aquinas explained belonged to philosophy in Summa Contra Gentiles. What you call morbid and dry is in fact SCIENCE. This is the science of philosophical physics and metaphysics according to the mind of Saint Thomas Aquinas. You are not a Thomist but an anti-Thomist. You simply do not have the scientific temperament to be a Thomist philosopher. You should probably pick up poetry or fiction instead. Aquinas was not a humanist. He was a scholastic and in fact the most intellectualist of the scholastics!
Eric Brown This reply will be done in complete Charity. I will do no less. It is amazing how people follow Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas like robots. When I was calling him and others like him "morbid" is that they take the natural reasoning in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and make it like a manual instead of relating to it as natural reason. Understand? You can love Monsignor Wippel all you want. I find his application and sadly other Thomists an inept copy of something natural that we all have and can recognize without being codependent on Aristotle or that great saint and doctor St. Thomas Aquinas who was more likely using his natural reasoning like we all can to reach the Truth. You don't copy the system they created but you live it and above realize the truth they are relating without having some textbook tell you how to stand up straight and lift up your leg. This you can agree with. There is NO way anyone can interpret Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas in their own way ... ahem, not even yours truly. How can you? And how can you accuse me of interpreting it in my own way with its clarity? Eric Brown, my only problem with Scholasticism is that it has been sadly purported to be some kind of custom to copy, imitate, mimic, instead of understand that it is a reflection of reality you can understand fluidly without any initiation rigidly formal as they teach you in CUA. Ya know? All apologies if my just and justified criticism of the practice of Scholasticism and how it affects you unnaturally has not been clear. Live life as reasonably as they do instead of turn yourselves into carbon copies that repeat and even copy what they do without using your mind to understand. I'm sure you have that capacity, but with the way they teach Thomism and Scholasticism in general people load principle after principle without relating it to reality; so I can only say I feel deep pity. So! Will you think and reason, or will you staple their teachings to your head unnaturally? You don't see it in reality; you just follow. Something tells me you understand what I say. Deus et tibi et omnibus apud Scholam Philosophiae benedicat. And for what it is worth ... Deus animas mentesque illuminet. Amen.
Michael Navarro Your remarks are absurd and you are rambling on like a drunken modernist! You simply are not interested in historical and scientific truth with all of its clarity as presented by Aristotle and Aquinas. Aristotle and Aquinas provide the historical and logical foundations for organic progress in philosophical and theological science. You need to read Pope Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris and Pope Pius XI's Studiorem Ducem and that will help you come to appreciate the beauty of scientific truth in philosophy and theology. You attack what you are ignorant of. Have you read these two papal documents? I think not.
Eric Brown I knew this would happen! I hit a nerve. However, I have no wounds to lick here or have any reason to concede anything to you. I won't reiterate what I have said if you have understood anything about what I was saying. Ahem, Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris is excellent and makes perfect sense to soul. I think an encyclical like that would upset the modernist faculty of CUA's Philosophy School because at its heart such an encyclical is saying that we can relate to the truths taught through Classical philosophy namely the Angelic Doctor, right? It is not just the principles but the reality they describe that makes it true. The way you learn it is just nod your head and accept it, like I said without having earned your understanding of it through reason or even experience; and furthermore, you copy it and wear it like a suit, not as if it is in reality like it is. Nothing modernist here! I have not attacked Aristotle or that great saint, St. Thomas of Aquin, but I have solidly slammed the stupidity in which many nonsensical copycat Schoolmen nowadays live it ... without reason. I will not respond further. Anything else said in addition here will be the stone thrown by someone else and will be a useless fight. I never shoot parting shots. And God bless you!
The problem I have has never been about what Scholasticism teaches only about HOW it is taught. Many people especially who enter into the CUA school of philosophy follow instead of see the reason that they can relate to in the Classical teachings of Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas. In a way you can say that those students are not to blame because well for one reason that is the way it is taught at CUA. Monsignor Wippel and others control you and indoctrinate instead of having a person see the reasonable value in it for himself. So which is better brainwashing or understanding with your rational mind what the good and truth that Aristotle and St. Thomas of Aquin offer? I see the same brainwashed, numb-skulls who use the system as a theoretical, mathematical crutch instead of seeing the point of what the greats are saying. They teach you a way to think not knowing or ignoring that this is the natural way to think with or without instruction. A person can see reality and truth without having to have any debilitating indoctrination of something that is already God-given common sense. I cannot take back the statement I made about Monsignor Wippel and anyone else like him. I must speak out. To know him in person would only fall into his clutches so he can shape you the way he likes scrupulous or not, i.e. just have you follow Aristotelian doctrine like it was something to be remembered and processed instead of it being an articulate reminder of how your mind works. I had the misfortune of dealing with him once, and yes it was very hard to forgive. Many years ago, in November 1999, I gave a reasonably simple paper topic and he did not like it and asked me to talk to him in his office. It was about Parmenides notion of monism and the basic errors within it. He inexplicably got angry at my confidence and tried to supercede it with an angry, offended off-hand knowledge of the topic as if to say to me that it was not my business to undertake such a topic despite its obvious, overall simplicity. A good mind could pick out the points with a moderate amount of challenge. Something like this does not invoke any hierarchical wrath in the least, but with him it did for no good reason. I will leave the implications with God and justice with the Good Lord for this man. God love him and that department many times over!
If he ever gets control of you, he will chastise your natural reasoning ability unjustly and program you to use his positivistic Scholasticism as a set of rules that are merely ingrained and not learned from using your head i.e. intellect. That is what my only problem with him is and that should be made known because he has done that to others. Other than that he can have his titles and his knowledge, the latter being well read and erudite most of all. I thank God because, well, I have beaten this and I want him to know it.
Again, Thomism and even Reverend Monsignor Wippel's knowledge and lecturing ability are both good, but there is an underlying philosophy that Monsignor Wippel still follows: marry Thomism with modernism especially the modernistic sciences of the age. He went to the University of Louvain of all places that has basically infected the very clear and natural Thomism and made it an arbitrary system without the use of accessing it using your natural reason, and thus making it a system to use without consulting your senses which sadly many sciences are treated today. People should talk to the Monsignor and see who he really is and what he believes. I pray for him every day, but he is rather authoritarian and surprisingly uncharitable to others either by ineptitude or just meanness. I am glad I am out of Catholic University and out of the influence of that specific school of philosophy no matter if it has this stamp of Thomism on it. A sane, reasoning, and discerning mind is foremost instead of having to surrender your mind and just follow the principles which are all interestingly enough reasonable unto themselves but you are not allowed to see and feel how it reasonable. That is how it is received by so many sheep and useful idiots in the Church that become even more shill-like to the dictates of so many of these authoritarian types who teach badly by such an authoritarianism. People copy instead of get an inspiration to reflect naturally on what is said and also extrapolate in a contextual way. It could be done so simply. The way Thomism is taught is sadly a pastoral error. No one needs to control anyone's mind to have them see what Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas are teaching or to discipline or hamstring their mind to follow those but simply have them see the reason and goodness behind each principle they teach if there is ... of course, there is ... but we have to relate to it which is very simple to follow and virtually instantaneous and then from there be able to reflect and see how it is real and see its relation to reality. That can be done with this, but mediocrity and stupidity can and does reign in the Kingdom and the Body much to our detriment.
Again, he is a proponent of teaching philosophy, like so many at CUA, according to obedience and even mind control and not through sense or even reason. With his ilk you have to remember his rules instead of showing the rules in reality. I trust Scholasticism in general but brutal and most notably inept authoritarianism like he has shown me only proves bad teaching and leadership in Mother Church which is rampant and unchecked. Please read my other numerous posts on his teaching and his misgivings as a teacher and a priest. Now I am free from his grasp and control. He has hamstrung so many intelligent minds to just force them to accept an inept system and think according to it instead of encouraging them to think in Good and Truth as they are for God and Nature. He will have to try once more to make his evil more complete which it cannot now. God bless the Reverend Monsignor, but his and the vices of Modernist Scholasticism that he teaches must be exposed.
Sadly too he is driven by his ego after so many accolades and his tendency to gaslight every brilliant mind and force them to follow very unnatural rules to learn his way of thinking about Scholasticism.
Again, aside from his virtuous scholarship, this is actually a vicious and troubled man who tries to remove and discourage natural reasoning which can be developed to see what good Scholasticism is saying. His abuse needs to be brought to light. In Nomine Domini. Amen.
WTF?!
@@JHarder1000 I am calling out a severe personality problem that Monsignor John F Wippel has that unfortunately good and reasonable Catholic young men have come across like myself. He does everything to hamstring that with a unnatural approach to his style of Scholasticism.
@@mythologic Sorry to hear that.
@@JHarder1000 You have to know he is actually a very bad man.
@@JHarder1000, I know for one thing he has gone into fanatic mode in his teaching method by his brainwash method that clears out any common sense which you are supposed to use when you read Aristotle. His method is mere memorization of a system and follow it with no sense but obedience. This has not served the Church.
This man attempted to brainwash me in November 1999 for attempting to show I could understand Classical philosophy using only critical thinking. We can learn without abusive control. He is a closeted narcissist.