Judging by the first couple paragraphs, this is very well written. (I’ll be sure to finish it, and report back.)

Fun fact: Thomas Hutchinson is a pen name of Charles Coulombe.

Ah, I did not know that was a pen name. Thank you for sharing that.

The core logic and doctrine you expound upon here is no doubt solid as a rock. However, I cannot help but have an innate aversion to a theory which alleges that St. Thomas and his school concocted aberrant formulations that later served as the theological predicates for the heresy of “invincible ignorance”.

Given that Mr. Coulombe holds communion with the Novus Ordo sect, I believe I am within my rights to suspect that there may be an abstract theological distinction here that is beyond his state of grace to comprehend.

In pursuit of this suspicion, I did some quick research on the matter; and after a cursory scan of the Summa for all mentions of the relationship between “intellect” and “will”, I was able to discern rather quickly that St. Thomas’ teachings on the subject are quite nuanced; and although certainly beyond my ability to fully comprehend, I cannot help but view any attempt to distill his teaching down into a 4 word tweet, “intellect informs the will”, as a gross misrepresentation of St. Thomas.

To demonstrate the depth of nuance, take this citation:

“Now in things doubtful and uncertain the reason does not pronounce judgment, without previous inquiry: wherefore the reason must of necessity institute an inquiry before deciding on the objects of choice; and this inquiry is called ‘counsel’.

“When the acts of two powers are ordained to one another, in each of them there is something belonging to the other power: consequently each act can be denominated from either power. Now it is evident that the act of the reason giving direction as to the means, and the act of the will tending to these means according to the reason’s direction, are ordained to one another. Consequently there is to be found something of the reason, viz. order, in that act of the will, which is choice: and in counsel, which is an act of reason, something of the will—both as matter (since counsel is of what man wills to do)—and as motive (because it is from willing the end, that man is moved to take counsel in regard to the means). And therefore, just as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that choice ‘is intellect influenced by appetite,’ thus pointing out that both concur in the act of choosing; so Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that counsel is ‘appetite based on inquiry,’ so as to show that counsel belongs, in a way, both to the will, on whose behalf and by whose impulsion the inquiry is made, and to the reason that executes the inquiry.”

—Prima Secundæ, Q. 14, A. 1.

Here St. Thomas teaches both concepts simultaneously, namely that the will moves the intellect, and that the intellect moves the will; as both being “ordained to one another;” and that “the reason does not pronounce judgement without inquiry”, and this inquiry acts “on behalf of the will.”

Or, for a more apparent contradiction to Mr. Coulombe’s precarious thesis, take this citation:

“Nothing hinders one and the same thing from belonging, under different aspects, to different powers. Accordingly the vision of God, as vision, is an act of the intellect, but as a good and an end, is the object of the will. And as such is the fruition thereof: so that the intellect attains this end, as the executive power, but the will as the motive power, moving (the powers) towards the end and enjoying the end attained.”

—Prima Secundæ, Q. 11, A. 1.

That sounds an awful lot like “the will moving the intellect” to me.

In closing, and in opposition to the trending vogue, I believe that our default disposition toward the Angelic Doctor should always be one of humble deference; and we should refrain from thinking or speaking otherwise without first conducting investigation to see if his accuser’s allegations are justified. His Summa was placed on the altar all throughout the deliberations of Trent; and countless popes, saints, and doctors, have done none other than speak of him in the most august terms.

@GabriellaAnastasia This is exemplary. Well done, indeed.

Hey guys, I think the point of the article was missed, the article was not a bashing of st Thomas, nor did alex say that st Thomas taught this idea. He simply was saying that the popularization of St. Thomas in general not only in catholicism but throughout the secular world, continued a popularization of Aristotle and this emphasis on, the intellect moves first then the will.
This became unknowingly popular, and a foundational part of modern thinking. He mentioned st Thomas to show the history of this shift, that’s it. This shift happened unknowingly and not directly on St Thomas’s account but indirect, because St Thomas is highly revered by even secularists and st Thomas studied Aristotle. Aristotles writings had the seeds of this switch, namely the intellect informs the will. Again a subtle shift in the mindset. The article my husband wrote is not trying to say st Thomas directly taught this, but to show a very subtle shift that happened outside of St Thomas that created the foundation for certain heresies. The focus of the article is on these philosophies and how they related to salvation.

The author of the book Alex referenced is of little importance in my opinion, 1. Because his book was not on the index, it couldn’t have been due to the time it was written, and again the church was the one to say what you can and cannot read through the index, we cannot now take it upon ourselves to act in the churches place and say people are in mortal sin because they read a book you think they shouldn’t have or that you think would’ve been on the index. 2. Because the truth of these philosophies being switched is true As the scriptures sited affirms and history. And 3. Isn’t it possible the author could’ve just erred in good faith back then on the state of the church? People still are erring today on it, are they all reprobates? Was I a reprobate when I was in the NO? to call him a reprobate is extremely harsh and not much charity is shown with that kind of rash condemnation. Sounds very diamond-y IMO. Especially when his book is treating on why baptism of desire is false, which we all agree with. Which goes against many very learned saints, like St. Thomas. Are we denigrating the saints when we reject their beliefs and teachings on BOD and BOB?
I don’t know why you’d call Mr coulombe such harsh things, maybe I’m missing something about him?? I think if you are calling him a reprobate simply because he believed the Vatican 2 church was still the church, that is extremely rash and rude and void of proper Christian charity. It leaves no grace for these people who simply could’ve erred in good faith on a subject that is very confusing for many many people, even today. As far I know the book Alex read was pretty solid and thought provoking and affirms the dogmas. So to discredit it simply because the author was still in the Vatican 2 sect in this time of great confusion makes no sense to me, considering most of the content of the book is sound. Also to assert that Alex is relying on the author is also presumptuous, how would you know he’s relying on the author? In fact Alex is doing the exact thing you admitted is necessary to do. Which is to seek out the truth, just because my husband happened to agree with the logic the author put out does not mean he’s relying on him. You’re putting something on my husband that is not there.

We are called to use discernment. Testing everything we see hear or read against the church’s truth and teaching.

In order to evangelize we have to have basic knowledge of opposing sides and their philosophies and beliefs, which might involve reading their works from time to time. In order to try to convert Muslims people had to read the koran to dismantle it, is that mortal sin? Obviously not. In order to know the Novus Ordo is false we have to read their documents. Is that mortal sin? We weren’t given explicit permission!
No, because what is the spirit behind reading the book or the work? To figure out the truth? or to just be entertained and silently have false ideas creep into our minds? Again it’s the heart of the law not the letter, and we all have to use our discernment guided by the Holy Ghost (which is primarily and chiefly strengthened through the reception of the sacraments.)

Again the point of the article was the thought shift and how it fuels this thinking that “well they didn’t know! So they are excused.” The article above reaffirms, that all those of good will, will be lead to the truth, and cited relevant history along with it. I hope this helps.
When my husband has time he will respond. Please allow him proper Christian charity in any delays, he’s very busy.

@GabriellaAnastasia I did not say that St. Thomas’ philosophy led to invincible ignorance. With respect, perhaps you need to reread my article.

The fact remains that you reject multiple teachings of St. Thomas, we all must. I don’t believe you hold to delay Ensoulment either, correct me if I’m wrong, which is another idea he believed in.

We cannot have so much respect for any man, even a saint, that we refuse to accept that he erred when he did err.

And the main point of the article is that Aristotle’s over emphasis on reason was used to begin to alter the minds of men to accept invincible ignorance. Not that St. Thomas taught this or promoted this aspect of Aristotle. Obviously St. Thomas submitted his will to the Church, including admitting that Doctors can err and that we must follow the Church and not them when it comes down to it.

Do you believe it is sinful for a Catholic to point out that saints and doctors can and did err? Do you claim it is impossible that the over familiarity with Aristotle that ensured in the centuries following St. Thomas’ canonization led to an increased over emphasis on the intellect and reason of man?

@GabriellaAnastasia well you’re making personal attacks now

@GabriellaAnastasia I said maybe you needed to. Perhaps you should, because your analysis seems to indicate that you believe I accused St. Thomas of error when I never did. You also accused me of intellectual dishonesty. Charity would require you to issue a retraction of those things, but I have already forgiven you and do not require it of you.

Please take my advice and hold back your uncharitable accusations which people can now see is a flaw you seem to struggle with. The truth requires you to hold back any uncharitable accusations, and if you fail to see how what you did was uncharitable, then my advice is to pray for wisdom so you may see.

@GabriellaAnastasia Gabriella the same things can be said about you, you’re on my husband because you think he’s disparaging st Thomas, (when he’s not) yet you do the exact thing your upset at my husband about, in regards to the code of cannon law to support your beliefs. It’s all projection and you can’t even see it you seem blind on your own failings and hypocrisies and intent on everyone else’s perceived failings. You don’t see us pointing out every single one of your faults that you make apparent to us all. Especially in the way you do it. It’s not fruitful, what you’re doing here is not fruitful. There’s a way to go about discussing these things and the way you’re going about this is not the proper way. It’s judgmental and divisive. You are placing bad will on people when there is none, that is rash and divisive. You are not handling this in a God honoring or productive manor, but it seems you are above reproach and have an excuse for every uncharitable act you do, so I won’t even bother. I hope one day you’ll learn an appropriate way of having a fruitful discussion. Because this is far far from it.

@james I am not trying to implicate Scholasticism either. I will amend the article to be more clear. I will also dig more into showing the proof of Aristotle having some errors or other historical evidence to show the change in some men’s thinking.

I do value your feedback, and please accept my apologies for saying “virtue signaling”. That was rash and uncharitable. I do believe you wish to follow Pascendi.