Greek Philosophy - Basis of Catholicism?

[Al_Moritz]

Al

As I said before, many attributes of God can be understood from natural reason, without divine revelation. Ask St. Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic Church emphatically affirms that the existence of God can be recognized by natural reason, so be careful with claiming that all we know of God solely comes from direct divine revelation.

Be careful about reading into what I say something I did not say. I said Plato and Aristotle did not produce much philosophy that helps our Christian theology, which was vibrant and hugely productive long before Augustine heard of Plato or Aquinas heard of Aristotle.

But Aquinas who has been greatly influenced by Aristotle (in a way, he has ‘christianized’ Aristotle’s ideas), has been greatly influential on the Catholic Church. From Wikipedia, under Aquinas:

“In his encyclical of 4 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII stated that Thomas’s theology was a definitive exposition of Catholic doctrine. Thus, he directed the clergy to take the teachings of Thomas as the basis of their theological positions. Leo XIII also decreed that all Catholic seminaries and universities must teach Thomas’s doctrines, and where Thomas did not speak on a topic, the teachers were “urged to teach conclusions that were reconcilable with his thinking.” In 1880, Saint Thomas Aquinas was declared patron of all Catholic educational establishments.”

From Wikipedia, under Thomism:

"Thomism is the philosophical school that arose as a legacy of the work and thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, philosopher, theologian, and Doctor of the Church. In philosophy, his commentaries on Aristotle are his most lasting contribution. In theology, his Summa Theologica was one of the most influential documents in medieval theology and continues to be studied today in theology and philosophy classes. In the encyclical Doctoris Angelici, Pope St. Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood scientifically without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Thomas’s major thesis:

The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.[1]

The Second Vatican Council described Thomas’s system as the “Perennial Philosophy.”[2]"

I did not say reason by itself cannot understand certain things about God, or that reason cannot be used to bring others to God. I doubt very much that Plato and Aristotle brought you to God.

If they did, what were the great passages of inspiration that made you a convert?

Have you even read the links of my story? I never deconverted, but the argument from the Unmoved Mover helped me keeping my faith during a critical time. I am almost certain I would have lost it without philosophy.

I also think that reason can wrongly be used to bring us away from God, especially when it is used by others to deceive us, or by us to deceive ourselves. This is how I became an atheist in my youth, reading too much Bertrand Russell and such. I’m not sure it was reason that brought be back … certainly not the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle.

It was need that brought me back … more than anything else.

For me it was intellectual conviction that kept me in the Catholic Church, not a need (again, read my links). I have never even had a personal spiritual experience of God, even though I would like to have one. God has given me rationality, and if He wants to guide me through that, I am satisfied. God gives everyone their own individual way of finding Him, be it through experiences, rationality or need. Nobody should think that their own way is the only one that matters – to themselves, yes, but not to everybody. God is much greater than any of us and our own individual stories of relationship with Him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al
**
For me it was intellectual conviction that kept me in the Catholic Church, not a need (again, read my links). I have never even had a personal spiritual experience of God, even though I would like to have one. God has given me rationality, and if He wants to guide me through that, I am satisfied. God gives everyone their own individual way of finding Him, be it through experiences, rationality or need. Nobody should think that their own way is the only one that matters – to themselves, yes, but not to everybody. God is much greater than any of us and our own individual stories of relationship with Him. **

I will pray for your awakening to greater experiences than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I will pray for your awakening to greater experiences than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.

Thanks, but perhaps you can pray for more important things, like the conversion of the atheists that post on this board. As for myself, I hope to see God in heaven – then I do not need philosophy anymore, and it will be a much greater experience of God than any experience of Him than anyone can have on Earth.

 

[Abba]

I agree with all of this, **but the Holy Spirit can also use guidance **through the understanding of God from philosophy. God does not always lead through extraordinary means, but also through the ordinary means of natural human reason.

( Bold is mine. How is it that the Holy Spirit can use guidance?).

I agree that we can come to know certain things about God through reason and also through perception (See Paul - Romans). But, these things that we can come to know are already there to be grasp and as such already revealed. It is not that we can come to know God in spite of God.

One important point that I am trying to make here, and I do not think that I have succeeded in part because I have been posting in a rush (I have demands on my time) is the following. Let me put it this way:

Michael Angelo carved out the David, so the David is there already and covered with something. Philosophers expose the David they did not carve it. It’s already there. Notice the word ‘exposition’ in your quote of the Pope.

Now, notice what the OP is presenting:

“It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?”

I think there is a problem of clarity due to the vocabulary we are using. I am trying to say here that the Church did not develop her doctrine based on philosophical deductions. So, the doctrines of the Church are not up for grab as seems to be understood by the OP. Well, the Church took from Plato and Aristotle, why not take from Asian philosophy or the spirituality of the Indians of Canada? It does not work that way. The Church did not take it’s wisdom from Greek philosophy and does not go around looking for wisdom to adopt as doctrines.

 

[JDaniel]

I myself am pretty uncomfortably attuned to the fact that Christians tend to latch onto a mere term and make it the all - as though you were an associate of Satan or something.

Well, I’ll one-up that one. I think “trickster” should be an honorary title. This is because God is the Ultimate Trickster. No one can Deceive as good as Him.

Kismet:

You do realize (I hope) that that does not deserve a reply here?

God bless,
jd

 

[Abba]

Kismet:

You do realize (I hope) that that does not deserve a reply here?

God bless,
jd

Thank you. I was offended by that myself. But, I thought to reply later and question how Kismet has come to that understanding.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

**Thanks, but perhaps you can pray for more important things, like the conversion of the atheists that post on this board. **

That I am already doing … every day!

 

[hyo]

For a direct, authoritative answer to this question, you can read Pope Benedict’s “Regensburg address”. (vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html) The Pope makes the case that it was not an accident that Greek philosophy preceded Christianity; in fact, he urges us to restore these ancient connections. The historical process of separating the faith from Greek philosophy he calls “dehellenization”. It consisted of a number of steps, from the reformation to modern liberalization. He is proposing a return to these connections in Greek philosophy. As to whether philosophies in other traditions can be useful, I think it’s pretty clear that they haven’t been; but, importantly, since the Church proposes unchangeable teachings to us, any philosophical tradition which does not accept at least the objectivity of truth and our capacity to know that truth will not be very helpful, I would imagine, whereas Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle, especially) begin there.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hyo

**He is proposing a return to these connections in Greek philosophy. As to whether philosophies in other traditions can be useful, I think it’s pretty clear that they haven’t been; but, importantly, since the Church proposes unchangeable teachings to us, any philosophical tradition which does not accept at least the objectivity of truth and our capacity to know that truth will not be very helpful, I would imagine, whereas Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle, especially) begin there. **

The Church has never needed Plato or Aristotle to assure it of the objectivity of truth. That has been done by Jesus Christ.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6

 

[Trishie]

Prayers, Bruce, that you find God’s way, God’s inspirations, and that your people do. May God bless your people in every way that He knows best for your flourishing and faith]

 

[Al_Moritz]

For a direct, authoritative answer to this question, you can read Pope Benedict’s “Regensburg address”. (vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html) The Pope makes the case that it was not an accident that Greek philosophy preceded Christianity; in fact, he urges us to restore these ancient connections. The historical process of separating the faith from Greek philosophy he calls “dehellenization”. It consisted of a number of steps, from the reformation to modern liberalization. He is proposing a return to these connections in Greek philosophy. As to whether philosophies in other traditions can be useful, I think it’s pretty clear that they haven’t been; but, importantly, since the Church proposes unchangeable teachings to us, any philosophical tradition which does not accept at least the objectivity of truth and our capacity to know that truth will not be very helpful, I would imagine, whereas Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle, especially) begin there.

Welcome to this forum! You introduced yourself with a big splash of a great post. It is a welcome antidote to the anti-intellectual undercurrents in the present discussion.

What a speech by the Pope that you linked to. Everyone should read that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al
**
Welcome to this forum! You introduced yourself with a big splash of a great post. It is a welcome antidote to the anti-intellectual undercurrents in the present discussion.**

Just drop the smarmy remarks!

Others who disagree with you may be just as intellectual, and just as respectful of philosophy, as you apparently think you are.

The simple truth of the matter is that Christ does not depend on Plato or Aristotle to round out Christian theology. That is all that is being said. If you disagree with that simple statement, come right out and explain why Christianity would be incomplete without Plato and Aristotle when it was getting along just fine before Augustine met Plato and Aquinas met Aristotle.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al
**
Welcome to this forum! You introduced yourself with a big splash of a great post. It is a welcome antidote to the anti-intellectual undercurrents in the present discussion.**

Just drop the smarmy remarks!

Others who disagree with you may be just as intellectual, and just as respectful of philosophy, as you apparently think you are.

The simple truth of the matter is that Christ does not depend on Plato or Aristotle to round out Christian theology. That is all that is being said. If you disagree with that simple statement, come right out and explain why Christianity would be incomplete without Plato and Aristotle when it was getting along just fine before Augustine met Plato and Aquinas met Aristotle.

Have you read the Pope’s speech that Hyo linked to?

 

[trickster]

Wow, a lot has been put on this thread since I last looked at it…I won’t pretend to have read it all at this moment…but I do intend to take some time later this week and review it.

Here is where I was going when I initiated this thread. I think that Greek philosophy made sense as a tool for the Holy Spirit and Catholic thinkers and theologians of the early church to develop ways of understanding in greater depth the teachings of the church. The teachings of the church stand uniquely on their own with or without greek philosophy as a tool to explain those teachings; those teachings were Hebrew if anything. Christianity was born in to a Greco-Roman world and while the language of the empire of Jesus time was Latin, its philosophy and culture was - I believe hellenistic - so naturally the conversation between hellenistic culture-philosophy and Christians trying to find ways to inculturate the gospel into the greek and roman empire made sense.

However, the Christian message pulling into service the “philosophy of the empire” of the day is a process, a process that used greek and roman cultural understanding to explain the gospel to the romans and greeks AND to help Christians look at the teachings from views and lenses that the greek and roman culture may have offered Christians in deepening their faith.

Since the time of Augustine, we seem to think that theological development is frozen in time and that is nor ever ws the case…I believe that we can continue to benefit from the cultural and philosophical thinking of new cultures and how they can uniquely in their own ways enhance and deepen our understanding of the Christian message.

Benedict I believe talked about the problem with Vatican II as he saw it; if I can summarize it right, the pope argued that there were two forces at work with respect to interpretation of the work of Vatican II; (1) those forces and changes that honour the continuity of church teaching and tradition and (2) those forces that introduce change almost ‘for change’s sake"…the pope favoured the first force … Vatican II … assigning contemporary meaning in a way that enhances the continuity of Jesus’ teaching, the tradition of the church and the relevance of our faith in 2011.

So, I believe that we can introduce indigenous spirituality, world view and culture into a conversation with Christiantiy in a way that a) honours, respects and does not try to change indigenous spirituality while b) connecting indigenous dynamics to church teaching in a manner that supports the “continuity of catholic teaching” so that aboriginal Canadians and Native Americans can feel that they (we) are a part of this global church. having the freedom to honour Jesus with titles that are honourable within our traditions, (i.e. sundance chief), etc. Our “mass” might look different but it would be a mass in the fullest sense and dignity of the word…and the “venacular” will be our own native language. That “mass” and indigenous Catholicism will simply be a form that allows us to be fully ourselves in our expression of our faith in Jesus and membership in his church.

So that is kind of where my thinking was going when I originally posted this thread.

 

[trickster]

Prayers, Bruce, that you find God’s way, God’s inspirations, and that your people do. May God bless your people in every way that He knows best for your flourishing and faith]

Thanks Trishie…I haven’t had a chance to read all the postings here…“life” kinds of happens between the periods in my day that allow me to browse whats happening in Catholic Answers…your comment is a very kind and appreciated sentiment.

Bruce Ferguson

 

[Abba]

Have you read the Pope’s speech that Hyo linked to?

Your ‘check’ is an illusion - but, keep an eye on your queen - you may lose her.

You may want to read the Pope’s speech again - with an open mind. I have read this speech plenty of times.

It would be a strawman to pretent that our position is one that is against reason. This is not the case at all. Faith is not contrary to reason.

What I am trying to say here is that the Church’s mission is to bring the Gospel to all people and it does so by using the various languages of speech and through reason. Faith and reason do not appose each other. Recently, I was reading that the principle task of theologians to present the teachings of the Church in the intellectual arena and at the marketplace - in their present time. For example, in our modern time we have idealogies that are in conflict with the teachings of the Church (homosexuality, same-sex-marriages, etc…) the task of the theologian is to present the position of the Church with these conflicting idealogies.

Keep in mind, that what was happening back then when dehellenization was the thing, is that people felt that we were getting to far away from the Gospel. It was yet another reason for the Reformation, hence, Scripture only.

The basis of our Catholic faith is not philosophy but, as Charlemagne II noted - Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church uses reason and many tools to bring the Gospel to people but, *it already has *something that is bring and that is her objective.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your ‘check’ is an illusion - but, keep an eye on your queen - you may lose her.

Huh? what is my ‘check’ and who is my ‘queen’?

The basis of our Catholic faith is not philosophy but, as Charlemagne II noted - Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where did I deny this? Before you quickly retort, please read my posts again – carefully.

 

[hyo]

“Keep in mind, that what was happening back then when dehellenization was the thing, is that people felt that we were getting to far away from the Gospel. It was yet another reason for the Reformation, hence, Scripture only.”

If you’ve read the document many times carefully, you know that there are three stages to dehellenization, not two, and the third stage “is now in progress”, says our Pope. The third stage is the view which claims that “the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures.” The Pope’s response? “True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.”

So, there are aspects of our faith which have been unalterably changed (by addition… nothing of the faith of Christians prior to this encounter with Greek philosophy has been undone) in virtue of its hellenization. And remember, the Pope is calling for a reversal of this third stage in dehellenization-he wants us to return to these Greek roots.

It is no accident that the English-speaking Church is once more united in expressing their belief in the Son, who is “consubstantial with the Father”, a term whose very meaning, as we say it, depends upon Greek thought. So, too, obviously, for the doctrine of transubstantiation. Both these are parts of the very fabric of our faith.

One last point, though, especially directed to those who see a problem in saying that the message of the Gospel pre-supposed Greek philosophical thought. It is a false dichotomy to insist that this detracts from Christ as God or even the omnipotence of God. God chooses what manner He wills to reveal Himself to us. You may not think it appropriate for God to use the pagan Greeks as His instruments, but He (apparently, and in the mind of our Pope) did. First and foremost, it is in the Incarnation itself that God’s revelation is achieved. But that is not the whole of it, for Christ Himself taught (with words as well as by example) and even did theology (see Matthew 22: 31-32, Christ responds to the Sadduccees in a syllogism).

It doesn’t seem possible to insist that God could not (and did not) choose to have the pagan Greeks prepare the ground for our reception of the Gospel. Especially when Plato says: “If the soul is immortal, it demands our care not only for that part of time which we call life, but for all time; and indeed it would seem now (in this life, while it is yet today) that it will be extremely dangerous to neglect it. If death were a release from everything, it would be a boon for the wicked, because by dying they would be released not only from the body but also from their own wickedness together with the soul; but as it is, since the soul has emerged as something immortal, it can have no escape or security from evil except by becoming as good and wise as it possibly can.” Plato, Phaedo (107c,d) Aristotle says things more wonderful still.

 

[fhansen]

Reason is a universal “language”. So it’s not as if Greek philosophy was utilized solely as a means to appeal to people from a parochial perspective-rather it appeals to *all *since all people, at some point, need to be convinced that the object of their faith is one that is not unreasonable to believe in.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Reason is a universal “language”. So it’s not as if Greek philosophy was utilized solely as a means to appeal to people from a parochial perspective-rather it appeals to *all *since all people, at some point, need to be convinced that the object of their faith is one that is not unreasonable to believe in.

What about Confutionist logic, buddhist logic, black logic, hindhu logic?
the got tsunamied by the Greek Logic?