JPII's "Fides et Ratio" genuinely Thomist?

[Geremia]

I read here that Pope John Paul II’s 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio ushered Thomistic philosophy into the third millennium, but, contrary to, e.g., Pope Paul VI—who said in Lumen ecclesiæ 29.:

…] to be a faithful disciple of St. Thomas today, it is not enough to want to do in our time and with the means available today that which he did in his. Contenting oneself with imitating him, like walking on a parallel street without nothing to draw from him, one would with difficulty arrive at a positive result or, at least, offer to the Church and to the world that contribution of wisdom which they need. One cannot, in fact, speak of true and fecund loyalty if one does not receive, almost from his own hands, his principles which also illuminate the most important problems of philosophy and to the better understanding of the faith in these our times and, similarly, the fundamental notions of his system and his ideas-force. Only so, the thought of the Angelic Doctor, confronted always with new contributions of profane science, will meet—through a sort of mutual osmosis—a new, thriving, lively development. [my translation of the Italian]

—Pope John Paul II writes in Fides et Ratio:

1. It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The Magisterium’s intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.

Why does Pope John Paul II seem to think we should just emulate St. Thomas’s method and not adopt his entire philosophy? His method is, after all, just that of Aristotle, e.g., the logic of the Prior Analytics. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical definitely seems less Thomist than, e.g., Pope Leo XIII’s Æterni Patris encyclical, or not? Thanks

 

[Brainfreeze91]

JPII doesn’t want us to disregard Thomist Philosophy, he’s just pointing out that instead of focusing more on what St. Thomas came up with we should focus on how he came up with it. It helps to bring up the image of faith and reason being the two wings of a bird, where both are needed to rise higher. The doctrines and philosophies themselves are not the wings, though they are closely related to them, since they are like an end result of the reasoning faculty. And “Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth”, since he had very strong wings of faith and reason and was able to reach very high heights. And anyway, if you follow St. Thomas’s method you should arrive close to his philosophy.

The way I see it we aren’t seeking to conform to a specific existing philosophy but to find THE philosophy, and this is more easily done if we build our own reasoning ability to more thoroughly understand the philosophies of those that came before us.
However immensely important Thomist philosophy is (since I believe it comes closest to the truth) the method is still more important (since it helps our understanding of his philosophy and of the unnamed true philosophy).

PS: A good example I thought of is with science. In class we learn a lot of science, but we also learn the scientific method and how to conduct experiments, so that we can discover even more science and fully understand the science already there.

 

[geekborj]

JPII doesn’t want us to disregard Thomist Philosophy, he’s just pointing out that instead of focusing more on what St. Thomas came up with we should focus on how he came up with it. It helps to bring up the image of faith and reason being the two wings of a bird, where both are needed to rise higher. The doctrines and philosophies themselves are not the wings, though they are closely related to them, since they are like an end result of the reasoning faculty. And “Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth”, since he had very strong wings of faith and reason and was able to reach very high heights. And anyway, if you follow St. Thomas’s method you should arrive close to his philosophy.

The way I see it we aren’t seeking to conform to a specific existing philosophy but to find THE philosophy, and this is more easily done if we build our own reasoning ability to more thoroughly understand the philosophies of those that came before us.
However immensely important Thomist philosophy is (since I believe it comes closest to the truth) the method is still more important (since it helps our understanding of his philosophy and of the unnamed true philosophy).

PS: A good example I thought of is with science. In class we learn a lot of science, but we also learn the scientific method and how to conduct experiments, so that we can discover even more science and fully understand the science already there.

Indeed.

Science is not about the physical universe but actually about the process of understanding the physical universe. Theology is not about the metaphysical universe but actually about the process of understanding the “other” aspect of life.

 

[opusaug]

That part of Holy Father’s statement is just a gentle reminder that not everything is within the infallibility of the Magisterium to declare as Truth. Is that idea not genuinely Thomist?

 

[tallyfranciscan]

PS: A good example I thought of is with science. In class we learn a lot of science, but we also learn the scientific method and how to conduct experiments, so that we can discover even more science and fully understand the science already there.

This is an excellent example! By understanding the scientific method one can apply this methodology to anything from ecological research to biomolecular chemistry. Similarly by stressing Thomistic methodology one can seek truth within any number of topics using this sound philosophical approach.

 

[Geremia]

PS: A good example I thought of is with science. In class we learn a lot of science, but we also learn the scientific method and how to conduct experiments, so that we can discover even more science and fully understand the science already there.

This is an excellent example! By understanding the scientific method one can apply this methodology to anything from ecological research to biomolecular chemistry. Similarly by stressing Thomistic methodology one can seek truth within any number of topics using this sound philosophical approach.

The sentence I do not understand is where Pope John Paul II says: “This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses.” My question is: Why not? Why, then, should St. Thomas be our guide and not just, e.g., Aristotle? St. Thomas does “take a position,” e.g., he contradicts some of what Aristotle thought—e.g., that humans are animals first before becoming human; that matter is eternal, etc.—and he does adhere “to particular theses,” e.g., those of Revelation and reason.

That part of Holy Father’s statement is just a gentle reminder that not everything is within the infallibility of the Magisterium to declare as Truth. Is that idea not genuinely Thomist?

Good point

 

[Geremia]

PS: A good example I thought of is with science. In class we learn a lot of science, but we also learn the scientific method and how to conduct experiments, so that we can discover even more science and fully understand the science already there.

This is an excellent example! By understanding the scientific method one can apply this methodology to anything from ecological research to biomolecular chemistry. Similarly by stressing Thomistic methodology one can seek truth within any number of topics using this sound philosophical approach.

The sentence I do not understand is where Pope John Paul II says: “This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses.” My question is: Why not? Why, then, should St. Thomas be our guide and not just, e.g., Aristotle? St. Thomas does “take a position,” e.g., he contradicts some of what Aristotle thought—e.g., that humans are animals first before becoming human; that matter is eternal, etc.—and he does adhere “to particular theses,” e.g., those of Revelation and logic.

That part of Holy Father’s statement is just a gentle reminder that not everything is within the infallibility of the Magisterium to declare as Truth. Is that idea not genuinely Thomist?

Good point

 

[tallyfranciscan]

The sentence I do not understand is where Pope John Paul II says: “This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses.”

Hi Geremia, I’m just reading through Fides et ratio for the first time now. Can you please point me to where Pope John Paul II says this? Thanks!

 

[tallyfranciscan]

Never mind, I just found that quote in paragraph 78. I haven’t read all the way through the encyclical to get to that point yet though (I’m still on paragraph 8). So at this point I’m not clear why he made that comment either. After just a cursory review of paragraph 78, I wonder if JPII is trying to guide the reader to see that even if positions of the Magisterium have been further developed since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, the underlying Thomistic approach to seeking the truth is still the model that we need to follow (particularly in contrast to the modern relativist approach to seeking truth).

 

[Geremia]

Hi Geremia, I’m just reading through Fides et ratio for the first time now. Can you please point me to where Pope John Paul II says this? Thanks!

It is section 78 here under "Different Stances in Philosophy, which is another point: Why does it seem he advocates a sort of philosophical pluralism when the Church has already deemed St. Thomas’s the truest?

 

[Geremia]

I wonder if JPII is trying to guide the reader to see that even if positions of the Magisterium have been further developed since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, the underlying Thomistic approach to seeking the truth is still the model that we need to follow (particularly in contrast to the modern relativist approach to seeking truth).

That’s a good point, but how can “the modern relativist approach” even seek a truth if it assumes there is none, i.e., no absolute one?

 

[Geremia]

“This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses.”

This is another reason we all should learn Latin. This sentence says, from the Latin Fides et Ratio:

Nihil intererat philosophicas quasdam quaestiones complecti, neque imperare peculiares opinationes ut tenerentur.

I think it sheds light on what the English translator meant by “theses” (opinationes). It could be more like “opinions.” But I still do not understand why Pope John Paul II says we should not “take a position on properly philosophical questions.” But what is a “properly philosophical” question? Is there really a hard-line distinction between, e.g., philosophy and modern physics?

 

[opusaug]

But I still do not understand why Pope John Paul II says we should not “take a position on properly philosophical questions.” But what is a “properly philosophical” question? Is there really a hard-line distinction between, e.g., philosophy and modern physics?

First off, I haven’t yet read the whole thing, and secondly I don’t read Latin, so I’m two strikes behind you there. But (maybe because I just finished reading Purtill’s Reason to Believe) I still think the English you’ve quoted seems to speak for itself - the Holy Father is making the distinction between philosophical questions and theological questions. He even begins the section you’re referring to by saying:

First, there is a philosophy completely independent of the Gospel’s Revelation: this is the stance adopted by philosophy as it took shape in history before the birth of the Redeemer and later in regions as yet untouched by the Gospel. (emphasis in original)

Here and in the later section you have a problem with, he’s waving a big sign that says, “If I’m going to discuss this, I need to put some things into context with the greater philosophy of religion, which is beyond the boundaries of the Magisterium, which is in turn firmly inside the boundaries of theology. Don’t get philosophical questions mixed up with theological ones.” And that seems to be exactly where you’re stuck.

The Church is (close to!) 100% behind Thomistic theology (“the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies”, my emphasis), but cannot state with infallibility preference for one philosophical concept over another (“This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses,” again, my emphasis).

Does all that make sense?

 

[otjm]

It may help to remember that John Paul 2 was also well grounded in Personalism and Phenomenology as well as Scholatic and Neo Scholastic Philosophy.

 

[Geremia]

Phenomenology

I think Pope John Paul II would be opposed to phenomenalism—cf. 82.Fides et Ratio

 

[Betterave]

The sentence I do not understand is where Pope John Paul II says: “This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses.” My question is: Why not? Why, then, should St. Thomas be our guide and not just, e.g., Aristotle? St. Thomas does “take a position,” e.g., he contradicts some of what Aristotle thought—e.g., that humans are animals first before becoming human; that matter is eternal, etc.—and he does adhere “to particular theses,” e.g., those of Revelation and logic.Good point

The clue to your question here should be the title: Fides et ratio. Aristotle didn’t have the problem of reconciling natural reason with divine revelation. Thomas is widely admired for having embraced the comprehensive project of Aristotelian science without thinking that it was either/or when it came to truths of the faith. One could adhere to the faith while critically embracing the genuine insights of natural reason (i.e., ‘science,’ in its ever-changing state). Truth is one, for Thomas, and true faith doesn’t contradict true reason. Aristotle never faced such an issue.

A very nice paper some may be interested in (by Gyula Klima, a pretty smart guy):

fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/ANCILLA.HTM

 

[Betterave]

I read here that Pope John Paul II’s 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio ushered Thomistic philosophy into the third millennium, but, contrary to, e.g., Pope Paul VI—who said in Lumen ecclesiæ 29.:—Pope John Paul II writes in Fides et Ratio:Why does Pope John Paul II seem to think we should just emulate St. Thomas’s method and not adopt his entire philosophy? His method is, after all, just that of Aristotle, e.g., the logic of the Prior Analytics. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical definitely seems less Thomist than, e.g., Pope Leo XIII’s Æterni Patris encyclical, or not? Thanks

Also wanted to point out that you’re making a prejudicial supposition about what ‘true Thomism’ is. Slavish imitation of doctrine is only Thomist if that is compatible with the genuine spirit of St. Thomas.

As an analogy think of someone who wants to be like Christ, so instead of seeking to be close to the Father and to bear witness to His love, she moves to Nazareth, becomes a carpenter, and hangs out with fishermen.

 

[Geremia]

Actually, one thing that helped me understand this was why St. Thomas says scientia is a habitus, not a body of knowledge.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Something that has yet to be pointed out in this thread is that there has been a danger since the publishing of Aeterni Patris, that Catholics treat Aquinas as if he had all the answers.

Part of what I think the Holy Father was getting at was the hubris of some Thomistic thinkers who thought his philosophy was the end all be all and that philosophical inquiry ended with him.

Now, I say this as a genuine Thomist educated in his philosophy, but it flies in the face of Thomistic spirit to claim that philosophical investigation ended with St. Thomas.

Alasdair MacIntyre, in one of his recent books (cannot recall the name right now), states that questions in Thomas’ Summa are phrased in such a way as to always remain open to criticism and inquiry. I think this is the spirit of Thomism and the spirit of human existence in general – we are seekers of knowledge that have an infinite being as the object of our knowledge – thus inquiry will never end until the answers are God given in beatitude.

In short, pope’s have a very wide intellectual audience, and completely embracing one philosophical school could have serious political as well as intellectual consequences.

That said, I for one have completely embraced Thomistic thought, but I don’t have to please a wide audience, just my own intellectual curiousity.

 

[Geremia]

Something that has yet to be pointed out in this thread is that there has been a danger since the publishing of Aeterni Patris, that Catholics treat Aquinas as if he had all the answers.

I think Aeterni Patris and Fides et Ratio are not contradictory. They both say that Thomism is a “way of doing philosophy,” not a philosophy itself. Aeterni Patris never defines a standalone philosophy; it intends “thomisticizing” to be an instrument for theology.

Part of what I think the Holy Father was getting at was the hubris of some Thomistic thinkers who thought his philosophy was the end all be all and that philosophical inquiry ended with him.

That it was a closed system?

Now, I say this as a genuine Thomist educated in his philosophy, but it flies in the face of Thomistic spirit to claim that philosophical investigation ended with St. Thomas.

What Thomists claim that?

Alasdair MacIntyre, in one of his recent books (cannot recall the name right now), states that questions in Thomas’ Summa are phrased in such a way as to always remain open to criticism and inquiry.

A living Thomism

I think this is the spirit of Thomism and the spirit of human existence in general – we are seekers of knowledge that have an infinite being as the object of our knowledge – thus inquiry will never end until the answers are God given in beatitude.

Yes, St. Thomas himself recognized all his writings were merely straw compared to the vision of God he had at the end of his life.

In short, pope’s have a very wide intellectual audience, and completely embracing one philosophical school could have serious political as well as intellectual consequences.

Sure, there’s some amount in truth in many different philosophies.

That said, I for one have completely embraced Thomistic thought, but I don’t have to please a wide audience, just my own intellectual curiousity.

I don’t think it’s about pleasing people. The popes definitely agree St. Thomas’s philosophy is the truest yet and best able to help one on one’s journey to the mind of God, but that doesn’t mean it’s complete.

Some books I’ve checked out related to this have really opened me up to the various facets of Thomism:

• McCool, Gerald A. 1989. [Nineteenth-century scholasticism the search for a unitary method (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45731812). New York: Fordham University Press. netlibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=16384.
• McCool, Gerald A. 1992. [From unity to pluralism the internal evolution of Thomism (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44965501). New York: Fordham University Press. netlibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=16383.
• Knasas, John F. X. 1994. [Thomistic papers. VI (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/31373186). Houston, Tex: Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas.