If we are so limited by our reason and intellect, why....?

[laocmo]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Everyone has an opinion. They do not all merit equal weight for a position. Look to

historically trusted sources for information and grow.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

:tiphat::clapping::bowdown2:

Glory be to the Father, and to The Son and to The Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

[o_mlly]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity.

Right reason will lead us to the truth. However, even right reason cannot reach the truths known only through Divine Revelation but nor can right reason deny those truths.

If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

There is a difference in degree between Aquinas and the early church fathers. The early church fathers were more proximate to those who knew Christ and who told them His teachings. There is a categorical difference between the Angelic doctor and the Magisterium. Aquinas was not infallible.

 

[GEddie]

It is true that some Catholics, many of them philosopher wannabes, have a propensity to misuse Thomas Aquinas as a “nuclear option”: simply say his name and everybody else must shut up.

That is not how we are to use our minds. Argument from authority is not a valid technique.

We are to use our own head to think things out. However, in the Faith, we were not alive at the time when relevant events took place. And recourse to the works of others who were here before can save us hundreds of years that we simply do not have.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Widlast]

A great part of wisdom is “knowing what you know” and “knowing what you cannot know”.

 

[Dorothy]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

When Acquinas made that statement that all of his writings were like so much straw, it was after he had a profound experience of the Presence of the Lord in his spirit.

That doesn’t mean that his theological writings are not important. His writings aid in clarifying a lot of things.

 

[Vivian42]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

What?! Limited by reason and intellect? That’s exactly what raises us above other animals! If angels (and God for that matter) have a superior intellect…that’s another story. But since they don’t usually intervene (good) , we can’t really realize their potential , so we shouldn’t put ourselves down. Maybe we’re capable of something too

 

[JuanFlorencio]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

Yes, and Thomas was above that straw, and he was able to jump from there to other heights. He had strong legs, and that amount of straw was enough for him. But my legs are weaker than his; and so, I would have told him: “But Thomas, don’t you see the weakness of my legs?; I need you to accumulate a little bit more of your straw for me”.

Have you tasted that straw, Iaocmo?

 

[inocente]

Yes, and Thomas was above that straw, and he was able to jump from there to other heights. He had strong legs, and that amount of straw was enough for him. But my legs are weaker than his; and so, I would have told him: “But Thomas, don’t you see the weakness of my legs?; I need you to accumulate a little bit more of your straw for me”.

By straw I thought he was referring to Philippians 3 - “But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.”

All together now - youtube.com/watch?v=oxpPIa-BskY

 

[laocmo]

No one answered the original question. As usual with questions asked of this group, the answers drift so far away from the original topic that the questioner has trouble remembering the question. You wanna try again?

“When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today.”

 

[davidv]

No one answered the original question. As usual with questions asked of this group, the answers drift so far away from the original topic that the questioner has trouble remembering the question. You wanna try again?

“When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today.”

1. For the early Church fathers who were members of the Magisterium and where teaching the whole church, they were not “just as human and limited as we are”. Why? Because if they were members of the Magisterium and in union with the Pope, they were protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.
2. For those who were not part of the Magisterium, their wisdom and insights are still valuable in understanding Church teaching.

 

[laocmo]

1. For the early Church fathers who were members of the Magisterium and where teaching the whole church, they were not “just as human and limited as we are”. Why? Because if they were members of the Magisterium and in union with the Pope, they were protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.
2. For those who were not part of the Magisterium, their wisdom and insights are still valuable in understanding Church teaching.

Thank you David for a clear answer. It would seem to depend on how strongly one believes in the power of the Magisterium and of those members not being “just as human and limited as we are” .That of course depends on how strongly we believe Jesus’ promise that he would protect His Church from error by making those early Christians free from error in their thinking.and writing. That of course begs the question, why did He let the Cathars and other heretics go their own erroneous way? Why did he not guide them to the correct path of thinking as He did the true Catholic Christians.

 

[davidv]

Thank you David for a clear answer. It would seem to depend on how strongly one believes in the power of the Magisterium and of those members not being “just as human and limited as we are” .That of course depends on how strongly we believe Jesus’ promise that he would protect His Church from error by making those early Christians free from error in their thinking.and writing.

Reality does not depend on your or my belief. So the protection of the Magisterium from teaching error is independent of what we believe.

That of course begs the question, why did He let the Cathars and other heretics go their own erroneous way?

What individuals do does not change the error free teaching of the Church.

Why did he not guide them to the correct path of thinking as He did the true Catholic Christians.

The protection is for the Church, not individuals. As they do now, individuals can, and do, stray from obedience to the Truth.

 

[Dorothy]

No one answered the original question. As usual with questions asked of this group, the answers drift so far away from the original topic that the questioner has trouble remembering the question. You wanna try again?

“When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today.”

Acquinas contributed much wisdom to the Church, and is considered a Doctor of the Church.

Because after he had a deep mystical experience of the Lord he said that everything he wrote was straw, does not mean we should throw out that “straw”.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No one answered the original question. As usual with questions asked of this group, the answers drift so far away from the original topic that the questioner has trouble remembering the question. You wanna try again?

“When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today.”

I want to try.

It is true that people like St. Thomas Aquinas were limited as we are (though surely not as limited as you and me are). And people like him did reason out their faith, just as you are trying to do now (the difference being that he actually did it; so, he knew the business in which, apparently, you want to embark).

Obviously St. Thomas did not convert the Christian doctrine into an axiomatic rational system. After writing his works he still was a man of faith. He used the aristotelian philosophy to build an interpretation of the doctrine in which he, as a Christian, believed, making efforts to show that there were no contradictions between catholic beliefs and sound philosophical thinking. For him, there were two sources of truth: The Christian revelation and our human reason (because Thomas had no doubts about our capability of knowing some truth). He never pretended to eliminate the need of revelation through the exercise of our reason, converting dogma into a kind of set of theorems. Those truths that you are able to reach through the use of your intellectual faculties, you don’t need to “believe”. Those truths that are revealed to you, you don’t pretend to reach by yourself.

Now, though not an axiomatic system, Thomas’ theology is rational, in the sense that he uses argumentation. For that reason, you are not expected to put your faith in his arguments. Either you find them correct or not. Either you find them powerful or not. Either you find them a good framework for your life or not.

Why would it be convenient for someone to read St. Thomas’ works? Because he was a great mind. And if you are intelligent enough, you will be able to learn something from him. Put your reason to work, not your faith, if you read him.

 

[laocmo]

Because after he (Aquinas) had a deep mystical experience of the Lord he said that everything he wrote was straw, does not mean we should throw out that “straw”.

Why did he use the word straw, the use of such in the middle ages as already explained? He could have said words like insufficient, or not possible of completion by a human being, or some more gentle term. But straw? Straw had no real value back then except to stuff mattresses and soak up mud. I think he was admitting that all his speculations were mere fantasy and wishful thinking.

 

[Dorothy]

Why did he use the word straw, the use of such in the middle ages as already explained? He could have said words like insufficient, or not possible of completion by a human being, or some more gentle term. But straw? Straw had no real value back then except to stuff mattresses and soak up mud. I think he was admitting that all his speculations were mere fantasy and wishful thinking.

The Lord gifted Acquinas to make such a gift to the Church that clarified many things.

I see it that the straw soaks up mud in people’s minds and replaces it with reasonable thinking.

 

[carefullytread]

Why did he use the word straw, the use of such in the middle ages as already explained? He could have said words like insufficient, or not possible of completion by a human being, or some more gentle term. But straw? Straw had no real value back then except to stuff mattresses and soak up mud. I think he was admitting that all his speculations were mere fantasy and wishful thinking.

One thing to remember about the Church is that it teaches that it is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on issues of faith and morals. But it allows every person involved in the process of flushing out the Church’s doctrines to be wrong about everything except those things that actually make it into the doctrine.

So I think you have two ways of looks at the problem. If you take the orthodox Catholic view, then the things Aquinas said that made it into Church doctrine were true. Not everything he wrote has that status and Aquinas himself can be wrong about everything else, including his own opinion of his work.

The other way is to just see a human institution, which like all institutions, goes through phases and fads, has political battles, struggles between who is ‘one of us’ and who is the ‘other’ with beliefs that much be banished. In the humanist view, there’s really nothing surprising that at the end of the day, some people win the political battles and their beliefs win and the group has to enforce those beliefs in order to stay coherent. In this view, one of the reasons that Church is able to last so long is because it has a rigidly formed (though arbitrary) set of beliefs along with a political structure that prevents it from fragmenting the way that Protestantism has become a thousand different strains.

So you’re really left with the question of whether you believe the Holy Spirit guided the Church to avoid error. You see a history that is just men, fallible men, arguing with each other, saying lots of things that might be in error (look at all the Church Fathers who aren’t saints because they also taught what is now heresy, e.g. Origen, Tertullian), and then sometimes the Church proclaims some output of that process as doctrine.

I think to be a Catholic is to trust that the Holy Spirit guided that process.

 

[DCNBILL]

When today we try to reason out things about our faith, like God’s omnipotence, transubstantiation, free will, etc , we are told by various members of this group that we, being human, are profoundly limited by our reason and intellect, and that we greatly overestimate your own knowledge and the accumulated knowledge of humanity. If all this is true, then why are we expected to put any faith at all in the teaching of Aquinas, and the other early Church followers. They were just as human and limited as we are today. And, considering the arguments both against and in favor of their opinions in both the early church and now, why are they given special consideration as if they were something special? Even Aquinas eventually stopped writing, saying something like…All of my writings are as so much straw… And remember that in his time straw was used for soaking up the mud in stables and dirt floored houses.

As far as any subject goes there are always those that exceed others in understanding, Plato, Aage Bohr, Abdul Qadeer Khan, Albert Einstein, Alfred Nobel, Edwin Hubble, Max Planck, the list can go on and on, each one making a great contribution to their field.

In the case of Aquinas, while he did contribute quite a lot to Christian theology, came to the point where he understood the relationship between God and man, Creator and creature and had the humility to see that he was woefully unequipped to fully understand his Maker.