If the soul is a "substance-less form," how can the saints pray for us?

[catholic1seeks]

I’m no expert in Thomism. I can appreciate his insights into God, especially with regards to essence and existence being one in God. And he’s practically one of the most brilliant theologians ever. But I do think we make the mistake of canonizing (in a sense) Thomas Aquinas as THE Catholic perspective.

I’m also not very familiar with its history, but wasn’t Thomism hardly even taught – until the last few hundred years (18th century on)? I believe a certain Pope in the last few hundred years kinda made Aquinas an official response to modern errors of the day.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes @catholic1seeks all true.

Thomism was predominantly a Dominican phenomenon before the Jesuits adopted it circa. 16th-17th century and the philosophy wouldn’t become the keystone of Catholic apologetics until Pope Leo XIII’s 1879 encyclical Aeterni Patris, when it was “revived”.

Theological disputation between the Augustinians (primarily the Franciscans) and the Catholic Aristotelians (primarily the Dominican Thomists) was a central feature throughout the Middle Ages. Which is to say, Thomism was by no means “standard” for Catholicism in the medieval and early modern periods.

Actually, in 1282 the Franciscan order officially forbade Franciscans to read the Summa theologiae without corrections. At this point “there emerges in the Franciscan Order a general opposition to the philosophy and influence of Aquinas” (Kent 1995, 45), as one prominent scholar notes. So it was certainly not, at this time, the recipient of universal approval.

Thomism was again partly de-emphasized at the Second Vatican Council, when it was eclipsed by a return to the Church Fathers. Theologians ranging from Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Pope Benedict XVI all adhered to the Augustinian interpretation and revived the thought of Church Fathers like St. Maximus the Confessor, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Origen of Alexandria among many others.

Since then, we have seen attempts made to move towards a more inclusive approach, incorporating Eastern Catholic theological approaches which never encountered scholasticism in any form (Pope St. John Paul II was especially emphatic about this).

More recently, Pope Benedict XVI (as mentioned above) was at times critical of elements of Thomism: he expressed a clear preference for the Franciscan-Augustinian tradition.

However, Thomism still seems to dominate the popular theological discourse and apologetics - where it has become a de facto synonym for “orthodoxy” (often with the hint of a knee jerk reaction), no doubt because it is very useful in a variety of ways. But the monopoly it has in this area can be stifling as well, or at least I certainly find it to be so.

This is evidenced by the poor reception I received on another thread when I perhaps became a little too zealous in my criticism of Aristotle and his usefulness (or lack thereof) in the contemporary context post-Scientific Revolution.

What’s refreshing is that the Church canonized both St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas, ultimately declaring them Doctors of the Church, despite the fact that they took very different philosophical turns. So we have legitimate choice there within clearly defined parameters set by dogmatic truth.

 

[KindredSoul]

I’m no expert in Thomism. I can appreciate his insights into God, especially with regards to essence and existence being one in God. And he’s practically one of the most brilliant theologians ever. But I do think we make the mistake of canonizing (in a sense) Thomas Aquinas as THE Catholic perspective.

I can agree with that. Something I think is wise is to be intimately familiar with required Church Dogma and with the dynamics of logic/reason BEFORE reading Philosophers, especially (though not exclusively) great Catholic Philosophers. Often, we are sympathetic and biased toward the first well-stacked and well-argued position we encounter, so if we had encountered that position before knowing all the facts to which it appeals, we can come to the automatic conclusion that those facts necessarily mean that, when often the truth is that there are other possibilities, and the great thinker’s assertions were often his (perhaps well-reasoned) conclusions, not infallibly exclusive proclamations that only heresy or flawed logic would disagree with.

If one encounters the admittedly impressive brilliance of an Aquinas or some other great thinker before one’s orthodox faith and sense of reason is matured and adequately informed, it’s easy to be biased toward conflating those admittedly brilliant conclusions with utterly self-evident and irrefutable truths even though Catholics are under no compulsion to grant them such status. Basically, whoever makes the first good impression often enough “wins” and, while there IS no guaranteed way to avoid such biased blind spots, one might at least better guard against them by having had a mature and informed faith and sense of reason before reading the philosopher in question, so that one can at least have greater confidence that the philosopher’s ideas truly did seem compelling in context, rather than just making the first best impression so that now the individual scrambles to make everything fit with that big thinker’s assertions.

In short, it must never be taken for granted that a philosopher’s thoughts (even a great Catholic thinker like Aquinas) WILL be true/correct, and one has no Catholic obligation to “make” things fit within a Thomistic framework, nor that of any other Philosopher. If it doesn’t seem to fit, one needn’t feel pressure to make it fit: One can simply disagree with the philosopher “in this case” (pending a different understanding of his words that may or may not become evident later) and move on.

 

[Vouthon]

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1644.html

There is the problem of conflicts between St. Thomas and other sainted doctors of the Church. St. Thomas thought that it is impossible to demonstrate rationally the beginning of the world in time; St. Bonaventure disagreed sharply, saying, that it is altogether possible to demonstrate it and that he in fact succeeded in demonstrating it. St. Thomas and Blessed Duns Scotus had some fundamentally different ideas about human willing and its object.

Any philosophy developed by Christians, even if developed by thinkers of the stature of St. Augustine, St. Thomas or St. Bonaventure, always shows itself to be “treasure in earthen vessels.” That is, for all the treasures of truth and wisdom to be found in such philosophy, there is always also in it no lack of historical conditioning, unclarified concepts, missing distinctions, doubtful inferences, regrettable lapses, etc. One should not venerate any Christian philosophy, not even the Thomistic philosophy, in such a way as to overlook, or to repress, this inevitably earthen side of it. Otherwise, one ends up canonizing all the historical contingencies and deficiencies of that philosophy.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Vouthon and others: So if we say Thomism/Thomistic tradition is one prominent school of Catholic theological thought, what are some others? And could you please describe maybe a few distinct characteristics of these thoughts?

Like can I get more specific than “Eastern?” Also, what would followers of St. Bonaventure’s thought be known as?

But also, I don’t want to be all down on Aquinas. And I never meant to be so. He talked about a lot of things – not just the soul. And I think how he describes natural law and human virtue to be satisfying.

 

[KindredSoul]

But also, I don’t want to be all down on Aquinas. And I never meant to be so.

At least as far as I’m concerned, no worries. You didn’t come across that way. He was brilliant, just not infallible. He himself said all he had written was as straw, so clearly he himself did not “canonize” his own work, brilliant though it definitely was, as infallible or as having a monopoly over all possible alternatives.

 

[Vouthon]

Of course, St. Thomas was a genius who made an innumerable dearth of contributions to Catholic thought and his Aristotelian synthesis has proved highly influential. We all must be eternally grateful to the Angelic Doctor.

Nobody should “be all down on” him, as you say. And I’m certainly not trying to do that, rather I simply aim to remind everyone that we should heed the warning made by Pope St. JPII: the Church has not and never will “canonize” any one particular philosophy, no matter how great or influential.

There are a plethora of alternatives, nonetheless. But this is obviously a complicated topic, so I can only skim the surface here. (I mean, really skim the surface.)

The most obvious beginning point would be the Catholic Platonic and Neo-Platonic tradition. Augustine, Bonaventure, and many great Catholic philosophers had a Platonic philosophical bent. Many of the early Church Fathers were very Platonist in their philosophical underpinnings. Origen is probably the most prominent Christian Platonist.

All of Greek Christian thought (which became Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox theology) was heavily influenced by Platonism. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, Psuedo-Dionysius, Saint Boethius and many other major figures were all Platonists.

Platonism and Neo-Platonism was the most popular philosophy in the Early Church, alongside Stoicism. St. Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy, for instance, was the most important and influential work of philosophy throughout the Middle Ages. And it is thoroughly Platonic:

On the Consolation of Philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* To acquire a taste for it is almost to become naturalised in the Middle Ages — C. S. Lewis[7]

From the Carolingian epoch to the end of the Middle Ages and beyond it was one of the most popular and influential philosophical works, read by statesmen, poets, and historians, as well as of philosophers and theologians…The book is heavily influenced by Plato and his dialogues (as was Boethius himself).[9] Its popularity can in part be explained by its Neoplatonic and Christian ethical messages, although current scholarly research is still far from clear exactly why and how the work became so vastly popular in the Middle Ages.

In the Latin West, this is best typified by that titan, St. Augustine of Hippo (who also made many ground-breaking contributions to philosophy in his own right that departed from Platonic ideas but nevertheless developed the tradition):

Saint Augustine | Biography, Philosophy, Major Works, & Facts

Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430 and one of the Latin Fathers of the Church.

www.britannica.com

Augustine’s adaptation of classical thought to Christian teaching created a theological system of great power and lasting influence. His numerous written works, the most important of which are Confessions (c. 400) and The City of God (c. 413–426), shaped the practice of biblical exegesis and helped lay the foundation for much of medieval and modern Christian thought…

Intellectually, Augustine represents the most influential adaptation of the ancient Platonic tradition with Christian ideas that ever occurred in the Latin Christian world.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Scotism, which followed Augustinianism but with key differences (namely incorporating some Aristotelian ideas), is named after its founder the Franciscan Blessed John Duns Scotus. It was another influential school in medieval Catholicism:

Scotism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scotism is the name given to the philosophical and theological system or school named after Blessed John Duns Scotus. The word comes from the name of its originator, whose Opus Oxoniense was one of the most important documents in medieval philosophy and Roman Catholic theology, defining what would later be declared the Dogma of the Immaculate conception by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854.[1][2]

_Scotus found the ground already cleared for the conflict with the followers of Aquinas. He made very free use of Aristotelianism, but in its employment exercised sharp criticism, and in important points adhered to the teaching of the Older Franciscan School – especially with regard to the plurality of forms or of souls, the spiritual matter of the angels and of souls, etc., wherein he energetically combatted Aquinas. _

The difference between Thomism and Scotism could be expressed by saying that, while both derive from Arabic Neoplatonized Aristotelianism, Thomism is closer to the orthodox Aristotelianism of Maimonides, Averroes and Avicenna, while Scotism reflects the Platonizing tendency going back through Avicebron, the Brethren of Purity, the Liber de Causis and Proclus to Plotinus.

_ The Council of Trent defined as dogma a series of doctrines especially emphasized by the Scotists (e.g. freedom of the will, free co-operation with grace, etc…)._

Scotism exercised an influence on the development of philosophy and theology; its importance is not, as is often asserted, purely negative – i.e. it does not consist only in the fact that it exercised a criticism on Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic school.

When I refer to ‘Eastern’, I am firstly and primarily talking about the fourth-seventh century synthesis of the Patristics (i.e. Cappadocians) with pagan philosophy, primarily Platonism and Stoicism, which became normative in the Eastern Catholic traditions, in tandem with a pronounced emphasis upon the mystical dimension of the faith, especially in the works of the so-called Neptic Fathers as collated in the Philokalia. There is resistance to calling these figures ‘philosophers’ in the Latin West, namely because our approach is so different.

 

[IWantGod]

I would like to think that Aquinas perfected Aristotle’s work as a philosopher, rather than just Christianized it. His esse and essence distinction is important.

 

[fisherman_carl]

This is helpful, but I still wonder what it means for there to be “incorporeal aspects” or “spiritual operations” and yet not a spiritual substance. What is it that DOES the “spiritual operations”?

The Intellect is seen as a power of the soul given to us directly by God, and therefore not something inherited from our parents. The soul is described as the substantial form of a living body, which in humans subsists after death.

You might want to check out this.

Edward Feser: What is a soul?

And then to get an idea of how complex answering your question is check out this.

Some questions on the soul, Part III

In some recent posts I’ve been answering readers’ questions about the Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) understanding of the soul. One more fo...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

And remember just because you don’t fully understand something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

If you really want to understand this better read Feser’s book ‘Aquinas’, which I have, but its been awhile since I looked at it.

One thing he does in the book is point out how hylemorphism does a better job of explaining modern neurology than does Cartesian dualism. If Cartesian dualism were true then when someone gets brain damage why does it effect their thinking at all? If the mind’s thinking is a wholly separate process from the brain then should it be affected by the brain when it is damaged. This is just one problem that Feser goes into with Cartesian dualism in his book.