Current Trends in Catholic Philosophy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAtheist

Guest
Hey folks,

Back opening up yet another thread - one that i probably don’t have much to contribute but wanted to know more about.

The last time anyone outside of your religion hears about Catholic philosophy, its usually in its Scholastic format and Thomas Aquinas is the figure we see…and then its like you folks disappeared off the face of the planet.

But i know that can’t be right. Beneath discussions of Hegel and Marx, of Kant and Heidegger, Locke and Rousseau, Derrida and Foucault, there must have been SOMETHING going on - its just that everyone wasn’t paying any attention.

So i guess part 1 of this is:

What happened when “Old Scholasiticism” hit the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe?

and 2 - Where did that all lead to? What are the current trends in catholic philosophy?
 
After the Enlightenment, Christianity attempted to retrieve the medieval synthesis of scholasticism in order to deal with the severe challenges posed by this movement. This neo-scholasticism emerged after 1840 as a rigid and unimaginative simplification of the rich diversity of medieval theologies.

Karl Rahner, trained in neo-scholastic theology & was dismayed at the inadequacy of the neo-scholastic theologies of grace and Incarnation which prevented the formulation of a viable and intelligible doctrine of the Trinity connected with Christian faith, practice and spirituality.

There has been plenty going on in Catholic thinking; have you never heard of Bernard Lonergan or Karol Wojtyła? Richard Swinburne?
 
Perhaps the web site of the American Catholic Philosophical Association will help: acpaweb.org/ Check out the link to their quarterly journal.
 
And this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Story

In the past centuries atheism for many turned into the most sensible point of of view there was around. But these days it is losing ground in rationality and scientific data. While the new view on the cosmos is fun, exiting, an epiphany all over.
 
I’m not sure if Theology of the Body is the kind of philosophy you’re looking for, but it is fairly recent in that JP2 formulated it over a period of many years. It is just starting to be appreciated by the general public.

Theology of the Body for Beginners, by Christopher West is a very short and readable explanation, and to me, mind-blowing in a good way.

I highly recommend reading it.
 
Re: Post 1 which asked

“What happened when “Old Scholasiticism” hit the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe?”

Newton as in Isaac and the falling apple? Mmmmm

Not so according to the internet pundit, it is when Scholasticism met Sally and the modern physics crowd, that it became obsolete.

Actually, Thomistic philosophy regarding the Catholic Eucharist survived the wall of the mechanical universe and it is far from being obsolete.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
TheAtheist said:
Hey folks,

Back opening up yet another thread - one that i probably don’t have much to contribute but wanted to know more about.

The last time anyone outside of your religion hears about Catholic philosophy, its usually in its Scholastic format and Thomas Aquinas is the figure we see…and then its like you folks disappeared off the face of the planet.

But i know that can’t be right. Beneath discussions of Hegel and Marx, of Kant and Heidegger, Locke and Rousseau, Derrida and Foucault, there must have been SOMETHING going on - its just that everyone wasn’t paying any attention.

So i guess part 1 of this is:

What happened when “Old Scholasiticism” hit the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe?

and 2 - Where did that all lead to? What are the current trends in catholic philosophy?
Click to expand...
Well, I think probably the most important Catholic theologian of our time is Karl Rahner, who has already been mentioned in this thread. Another important, albeit, controversial theologian is Hans Kung. I have read Kung but not Rahner and he is pretty intriguing. I think scholasticism continued to be taught in Catholic seminaries into the early 20th century, when it started to become obsolete.
 
Speaking of most important theologians, I saw this in a website on The Great Story:

“1959, TEILHARD DE CHARDIN is published, posthumously, thus presenting to the world a view of evolution that is spiritual, uplifting, and congruent with his Christian faith. (Thomas Berry refers to Teilhard as, “the most significant theologian since St. Paul.”)”

thegreatstory.org/timeline3.html

earth-community.org/
 
Thank you all for your responses.

:sigh: I have a lot of reading to do. 😉

I would like to ask of you all a question. From my initial readings, there seems to be some sort of errr, “theological tension” between Karl Rahner’s positions and that of the current Pope.

Could anyone explicate on this?
 
TheAtheist said:
Hey folks,

Back opening up yet another thread - one that i probably don’t have much to contribute but wanted to know more about.

The last time anyone outside of your religion hears about Catholic philosophy, its usually in its Scholastic format and Thomas Aquinas is the figure we see…and then its like you folks disappeared off the face of the planet.

But i know that can’t be right. Beneath discussions of Hegel and Marx, of Kant and Heidegger, Locke and Rousseau, Derrida and Foucault, there must have been SOMETHING going on - its just that everyone wasn’t paying any attention.

So i guess part 1 of this is:

What happened when “Old Scholasiticism” hit the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe?

and 2 - Where did that all lead to? What are the current trends in catholic philosophy?
Click to expand...
 
TheAtheist said:
Thank you all for your responses.

:sigh: I have a lot of reading to do. 😉

I would like to ask of you all a question. From my initial readings, there seems to be some sort of errr, “theological tension” between Karl Rahner’s positions and that of the current Pope.

Could anyone explicate on this?
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about that. I do know, on the other hand, that there has been a great deal of disagreement between the current pope, and his predecessor, and the well known albeit controversial theologian Hans Kung.
 
Heidegger touches upon a question that is key to the malaise of modernity: the notion of subject-object distinction, and this while it increasingly more becomes clear and necessary to acknowledge that we as human species are part of and embedded in a larger Story. The same kind of thought - overcoming onesidedness - can be found in the philosophy of Nietzsche. Thomas Berry gives another approach to this.
 
A little more on the whole Benedict/Rahner modern Philosophy/Theology thing.
With these early intellectual influences, Ratzinger located himself within one broad stream of the theological renewal, the one that included figures like Henri de Lubac and Jean Daniélou, great advocates of the return to the sources (ressourcement). He showed little interest in another stream (represented by figures such as Marie-Dominique Chenu, Bernard Lonergan, Karl Rahner, and Edward Schillebeeckx) which, inspired by Aquinas, proposed and attempted a positive engagement with modern intellectual and cultural movements.
Click to expand...
Ratzinger said that “Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets.”
 
TheAtheist said:
Thank you all for your responses.

:sigh: I have a lot of reading to do. 😉

I would like to ask of you all a question. From my initial readings, there seems to be some sort of errr, “theological tension” between Karl Rahner’s positions and that of the current Pope.

Could anyone explicate on this?
Click to expand...
I think Ratzinger was quite progressive earlier in his career. I think Rahner is problematic and I know virtually nothing! His ideas have had a massive impact, for example; “The immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity and the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity”, but some of his stuff seems too controversial.For example, regarding his work on the Trinity (which is the bit I’m most familiar with) you can see why he wants to get away from the neo-scholasticism which did so much damage to the Church after the enlightenment, but he does tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.For example, I think that Rahner adds a new twist to the doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas; we are made in the image of the Trinity, but we are creatures of history, caught between two poles: origin and future, history and transcendence, invitation and acceptance, knowledge and love. We look to the past to receive a “project” which we must accept and grow towards the future; our transcendence, acceptance and love.

Although Rahner is very critical of Aquinas and Augustine, his project is the same as theirs, and it seems to me that St. Thomas is not as Modalistic as Rahner would have us believe. There is no doubt of Rahner’s contribution however, or of the fact that his ideas did rejuvenate study of the Trinity.
 
Catholic philosophical thinking seems to be running in several directions. The influence of Augustine and Aquinas is very powerful, and for understandable reasons Catholics are interested in medieval philosophy. There is also an interest on strands of Greek philosophy which influence Christian theological ideas in that time period. But there are also Catholics who are interested in analytical philosophy and its applications (the English Dominicans such as Brian Davies and Herbert McCabe were highly conversant in analytical philosophy) and also those who are interested in continental thought such as that of Heidegger. John Paul was also strongly influenced by the phenomenology of Husserl and Husserl also influenced Edith Stein, a doctor of the church. Also some Catholics were influenced by Indian and Asian philosophical thought.
 
TheAtheist said:
A little more on the whole Benedict/Rahner modern Philosophy/Theology thing.

Ratzinger said that “Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets.”
Click to expand...
Some background. Karl Rahner was a student of Martin Heidegger - literally. Btw, Heidegger was a Catholic from youth and towards the end of his life claimed that he had remained Catholic. Rahner utilized much of Heidegger’s existentialist thinking to form a “synthesis” of Thomistic and Existentialist philosophies. He also claimed that Philosophy and Theology must be done together to accomplish a coherent Christian world view.

There has been some tension (but never disrespect or hatred) between Rahner and Ratzinger. Quite simply, Ratzinger does not agree with much of Rahner’s philosophical/theological construct, which he sees as too much of a closed end system. Ratzinger is much more in the vein of people like Balthasar. On the political front Rahner was much more liberal, criticizing Ratzinger in a letter at one point for forbidding certain teachings to continue at the University of Munich. Rahner and Ratzinger remained friends to the best of my knowledge, and I have seen Ratzinger praise him as a brilliant theologian.

What can I say about Fr. Rahner’s writings? His Foundations of Christian Faith is one of the most astonishing yet elegant pieces of systematic philosophy/theology I have ever encountered. I do not agree with all of it, particularly certain parts about the role of the Catholic Church and the Sacraments. Nevertheless, he has influenced my thinking dramatically, even more than the neo-Thomists like Maritain, whose works I also greatly admire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top