Resurrection - Part Deux

Though the original question seemed disrespectful to the Messiah and Master, still for the sake of the larger more general parish readership, it might merit a slightly lengthier responsory:

Oxon Empiricism is something of a late runner at the Derby in recent times, but Christian Empiricism has had an unexpected reprise in recent times from some surprising fonts and sources. To begin with, Oxford has only just recovered from the former crown of philosophical schools there in Logical Positivism under Prof A J Ayer, but this new round of Oxon Empiricism is hoisted again on the flagpoles of philosophy by a young historian of ideas from Lampeter called Dr O’Loughlin - hereafter referred to as TOL - who himself corrects many modern Platonist co-religionists and theologians of late, including her ladyship Catherine Pickstock, by reminding them that actually speaking Aquinas was something of a Science loving Christian Empiricist. He believed in the overall victory of science because his chief mentor and master of the magister had been Albert the Great, something of an early zoologist. Aquinas does not deny the resurrection of Jesus, indeed he affirms it, and for him, it is a further proof of the truth of the Christian Messiah’s claims at the time, but also just as the crucifixion was the arc of Salvation, so also the resurrection is the font of the Redemption. So TOL affirms the critical importance of believing in the resurrection as classically understood by Aquinas, pointing to the 4 qualities of the resurrected body - resurrected at 21 in Aquinas. As far as sincere Christian theologians were concerned, Bp Jenkins was speaking ill of the dead, which is why his words were not received by the Catholic theologians of the time, since many of them follow the old adage of antiquity and medievalism - De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, never speak ill of the dead. Through TOL, Aquinas has had a re-launch in Oxon circles, so it is not surprising that the Empiricists are also re-launched. TOL is part of that affirmative action kind of theologian of his old college in Dublin at AHC, in the new tradition of a kind of BLM affirmative action campaign, but he tends to appease Oxon Empiricism rather than confront some of its evident misunderstandings of the Aquinas rationale and philosophy of epistemology. There is a reason why TOL affirms Aquinas and the science-based empiricism of Aquinas and that is to deal with the problems posed to Thomists by the epistemology of the Jesuit thinkers Lonergan and Rahner, Cartesian Platonists. That is why TOL does not confront the Oxon Empiricists. But it might yet be a sign of an eventual weakness in the All Hallows tradition, since Aquinas enjoys his own Selbstandigkeit. Even though my own kindness toward the woke theologians of my home town in Dublin forbids too stiff a pondering, we can conclude by saying - Bp Jenkins was never formally reprimanded by a church process against wayward theologians, but if he had been a bishop in the Catholic Church, the new additional canon at canon 752b might have been applied - totally new to the Code - where the Code is often cited as distinct from the actual Codex, and etiam he would have most avowedly and certainly been demanded in Rome for a bearish and bracing and bruising interview before a panel of stern, cold, icy, unsympathetic cardinals with not a sense of humour in sight or even within 500 miles, and then deprived of his diocese, to be retired for Lenten reflection thereafter, locked away in the gaol cells of the Regina Caeli detention centre for young political radicals for the foreseeable, since in the Roman Catholic Church, and we do say Roman advisedly, rank heresy is a serious high crime and baleful misdemeanour, and let us not forget that the Bp Jenkins interview was a public denial and doubt of a dogma to be believed with divine and catholic faith - that is the way the Roman Empire deals with waywards. No good-humoured Afternoon Teas on the lawns of Archbishop’s House Canterbury with cucumber sandwiches and the crusts taken off, there. The Anglicans are soft on their theologians.