I have some misgivings about this because can not someone be considered a modernist in a sense if he holds to any of the criteria that constitutes modernism? Even if not all of the criteria laid out by St. Pius X?
Riverrun makes a distinction between phenomenology that is aggressively atheistic and phenomenology that is indifferent, i.e. of John Paul II. Can we make any proper use of phenomenology though? Or any modern philosophy at all?
QuoteCan we make any proper use of phenomenology though? Or any modern philosophy at all?
As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., wrote in Essence & Topicality of Thomism
QuoteAs we showed elsewhere,51 Thomism has a great assimilative power (we do not say "adaptive"). It accepts all that is positive and demonstrable in other conceptions, but it rejects what they unduly deny. So, it is as a superior synthesis beyond the systems opposed to themselves; beyond the evolutionism of Heraclitus or of the immobilism of Parmenides, with its doctrine of being divided into potentiality and actuality. It is also beyond mechanism and dynamism with its doctrine of matter and form of bodies; beyond psychological determinism and liberalism, as it admits that free choice is always directed by the last practical judgment, but it itself accepting that it be the last. It is also above pantheism that absorbs God into the world and that which absorbs the world into God; for the same reason, it is, with its doctrine of divine motion, beyond the occasionalism that suppresses secondary causes and beyond the Molinism that removes the secondary cause from the divine premotion.
51. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=3033), trans. Patrick Cummins (St. Louis, Mo.: Herder, 1950), chap. 54, "Article Two: The Assimilative Power Of Thomism."