Talk:Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange

}}

Silly Bias (bordering on mental illness) This is an Encyclopaedia, not Hagiography
"...among Thomists of the scholastic tradition, is generally thought to be the greatest Catholic Thomist of the 20th century." Where is your source for this nonsense? The marginally corrective sentence that follows notwithstanding, this kind of fawning, crawling, woefully inaccurate nonsense has no place in an Encyclopaedia article. We get it; the author of this hagiography thinks this quasi-Thomist puritan was some kind of super-stultifier of free thought (and that what Catholicism apparently needs: someone who will stop free debate of the kind Thomas Aquinas was involved in for decades at the University of Paris), but this indefensible propaganda has no place in an article in an actual Encyclopaedia.

Now this is replaced with: "considered by some to be the greatest Catholic Thomist of the 20th century" This is still unforgivable in an Encyclopaedia article. "By some"? By whom? (Why not cut to the chase and just say "I reckon he's the greatest..." Is there a single real philosopher who thinks this guy was anything other than an anti-rationalist bigot who was opposed to freedom of thought? This "greatest Catholic Thomist of the 20th century" phrase, however it is dressed up to make it less offensive to the facts, MUST be removed!


 * agreed, needs to be sourced. sort of like signing your posts and trying to be relevant.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Place of death
French wikipedia says he died in Rome, and here it says he died at the Vatican; since they are in two completely different (although neighbouring) countries, can anyone give the right details? Safebreaker (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Removed 'scholastic philosopher' tag, as he is neo-scholastic. I'm trying to restrict scholastic to the period between 12th and 14th centuries. Possibly including 'second scholastics' like Suarez and Biel, since they have no separate category. There should be a neo-scholastic tag. Dbuckner 12:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "the greatest Catholic theologian... of the 20th century" --- sounds a bit subjective to me!
 * It does. "the greatest Thomist of the 20th century", on the other hand (which was criticized above) is very probably an objective fact, at least you don't hear anything to the contrary.2001:A61:20B5:AC01:39AA:C38B:9F:93F0 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Grace / Lulu
The lulu link for Grace does not work and, searching lulu itself, I did not find the title there. Any objection to deleting? theloavesandthevicious (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

JPII
I took out the expansion on the quote. It is both irrelevant and misleading.

(1) This article is about Garrigou, and Garrigou did think that Wojtyla was not very bright. This is not a place to get into a defense of Wojtyla, or an expansion of what kind of thinker he was. He has his own page for that.

(2) It is at least misleading to try to tie Wojtyla to Thomism based on Fides et ratio. So, I guess in Wikipedia terms, the problem is insufficient support. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of His First Name
It's spelled Réginald, with an accent aigu.

208.87.248.162 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://educationaltheoria.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/garrigou-teacher-thomism.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)