More "Forms" Questions

[fakename]

user "Sean1i0":

. Now, certainly the encyclical was very complimentary of Thomism (which I tend to be philosophically), but it did not (and, in fact, cannot as John Paul II says in Fides et Ratio) force the faithful to hold the 24 Thomistic theses, i.e. a philosophical position.

I just assumed that the Church made people hold philosophical ideas not as philosophical ideas (as if the magisterium taught philosophy) but as good ideas (ideas that are virtuous to hold).

Isn’t that what it does with Thomism and if not, then why not for surely the Church can teach Something if it is moral. But if thomism is moral then it can be taught, no?

 

[sean1i0]

Well, the magisterium can encourage the faithful to take recourse to a certain writer’s thoughts and can certainly affirm that something is not contradictory to the deposit of faith. But the Church is the custodian of the deposit of faith and her job is to articulate that deposit of faith faithfully for all of Christ’s followers to be able to perceive it. Ultimately, this always transcends any philosophical expression of the deposit of faith, [partly] because philosophical expressions are time and culture conditioned and the deposit of faith is for all times and peoples. Now, as for what you asked about it being moral, yes, church authorities can teach anything that is moral, but the magisterium itself cannot teach a particular philosophical expression of her sacred deposit of faith in the same way that she can affirm a truth as dogma even if it is moral. Remember, that even statements of dogma are subject to being conditioned by the times in which they were written and, as such, holy mother Church has made it clear that it is not those historically conditioned messages that are truth, but what they were intended to convey by the Council fathers (or pope) who defined them. So, even more so for something which is not strictly within the deposit of faith, but yet an interpretation of it. What the magisterium can and (thankfully for us) does do quite frequently is to warn the faithful if a particular expression/interpretation of the deposit of faith (usually a philosophy) is incompatible with Truth. (Again, Fides et Ratio is quite enlightening on this point.)

 

[fakename]

Well, the magisterium can encourage the faithful to take recourse to a certain writer’s thoughts and can certainly affirm that something is not contradictory to the deposit of faith. But the Church is the custodian of the deposit of faith and her job is to articulate that deposit of faith faithfully for all of Christ’s followers to be able to perceive it. Ultimately, this always transcends any philosophical expression of the deposit of faith, [partly] because philosophical expressions are time and culture conditioned and the deposit of faith is for all times and peoples. Now, as for what you asked about it being moral, yes, church authorities can teach anything that is moral, but the magisterium itself cannot teach a particular philosophical expression of her sacred deposit of faith in the same way that she can affirm a truth as dogma even if it is moral. Remember, that even statements of dogma are subject to being conditioned by the times in which they were written and, as such, holy mother Church has made it clear that it is not those historically conditioned messages that are truth, but what they were intended to convey by the Council fathers (or pope) who defined them. So, even more so for something which is not strictly within the deposit of faith, but yet an interpretation of it. What the magisterium can and (thankfully for us) does do quite frequently is to warn the faithful if a particular expression/interpretation of the deposit of faith (usually a philosophy) is incompatible with Truth. (Again, Fides et Ratio is quite enlightening on this point.)

so the Church can tell us that a particular philosophy is good to hold, even though it is possible that there might be a better one or one that is better worded?