Philosophy/ Theology can endanger your soul!

[Linusthe2nd]

Don’t doubt it. The one source of Truth in Faith and Morals is what the Catholic Church teaches. Anything you read or learn in Philosophy or Theology which is contrary to the teaching of the Church is false and is to be rejected.

Even in St. Thomas there are at least some things that are questionable and one in particular which is heresy if interpreted wrongly.

It has surfaced in several threads in this forum lately that some people are getting the idea that God is part of created things or that created things are part of God. This has occurred in those passages of St. Thomas ( and there are many througout his works ) where he says that created things " participate " or " share " in the existence or being of God. People are interpreting this incorrectly.

What he means is that because created beings each have existence, none possesses it perfectly. Each has only so much existence, therefore they are said to " share " in this common note or perfection. And because none of them possesses it perfectly none of them can have caused their own existence or the existence of some other being. So the source of their being must be Him who is Perfect Being, God. Which is true, but it does not mean that God gives created beings some of his existence. Rather, it means He gives them existence their own act of existence, just like he gives them every other perfection, including their matter ( if any ), and their form.

So God is not the being of any created substance and no created substance is a part of God. It is true that God is present in every atom of creation, He is fully present by His entire substance in all His creation ( and the Church teaches this ). But He is present as the cause of everything in them, as the one Who upholds their existence, as the one Who guides and directs them. He is not present so as to be a part of their existence or as a part of their substance. And while He is present in all things, He is at the same time absolutely transcendent to them.

Because people have been stumbing on this point, it really would be better if some people would not study philosophy. It is one thing not to understand something, it is quite another thing to spread the error around. That can endanger one’s own Faith and that of others.

Its a good thing to read a book or so in philosophy or theology but that doesn’t qualify one as an authority, it makes one know just enough to be really dangerous. One always has to judge the truth value of what one is reading against the constant teaching of the Church.

Linus2nd

 

[Pilosopo]

I agree with the statement, but would add…
Philosophy and theology can lead one to God.
And I would encourage one to learn as much as they can, to be open to reality, to use reason, to search their innermost thoughts and feelings, to look at experience and science, to take counsel from teachers, to listen to the wise and holy, to be critical and humble, and to pray for guidance and courage to know the truth and to embrace it.

The following quote is from our Catechism… vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/prologue.htm

6 While not being formally identified with them, catechesis is built on a certain number of elements of the Church’s pastoral mission which have a catechetical aspect, that prepare for catechesis, or spring from it. They are: the initial proclamation of the Gospel or missionary preaching to arouse faith; examination of the reasons for belief; experience of Christian living; celebration of the sacraments; integration into the ecclesial community; and apostolic and missionary witness.

 

[CAshtn16]

I believe that this is one of many reasons community-based activities are essential in the growth of a Catholic

It is all too easy, when isolated for someone to misinterpret things and be led astray by something read or heard, either on the internet or in book form.

Being in contact with other Catholics can help to correct erroneous teaching.

 

[empther]

Being in contact with other Catholics can help to correct erroneous teaching.

Read To Kill A Mockingbird.

This brilliantly written novel is about how the nine year old girl Scout is exposed to racial prejudiced attitudes by nearly everybody in town. It’s on nearly every page.
Will Scout grow up to be prejudiced too?

Of course, Harper Lee doesn’t explicitly say that’s what the book is about. She leaves it up to the reader to see it between the lines.
If you can’t see it, very likely you would have succumbed to prejudicial influences in Scout’s situation.

 

[utunumsint]

From Fides et Ratio:

Against the temptations of fideism, however, it was necessary to stress the unity of truth and thus the positive contribution which rational knowledge can and must make to faith’s knowledge: “Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth”…

Other modes of latent fideism appear in the scant consideration accorded to speculative theology, and in disdain for the classical philosophy from which the terms of both the understanding of faith and the actual formulation of dogma have been drawn. My revered Predecessor Pope Pius XII warned against such neglect of the philosophical tradition and against abandonment of the traditional terminology.77
56. In brief, there are signs of a widespread distrust of universal and absolute statements, especially among those who think that truth is born of consensus and not of a consonance between intellect and objective reality. In a world subdivided into so many specialized fields, it is not hard to see how difficult it can be to acknowledge the full and ultimate meaning of life which has traditionally been the goal of philosophy. Nonetheless, in the light of faith which finds in Jesus Christ this ultimate meaning,** I cannot but encourage philosophers—be they Christian or not—to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophizing.** The lesson of history in this millennium now drawing to a close shows that this is the path to follow: it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search. It is faith which stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and willingly to run risks so that it may attain whatever is beautiful, good and true. Faith thus becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason.

Sorry for shouting.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From Fides et Ratio:

Sorry for shouting.

God bless,
Ut

The point was that for some people, poorly trained, or who lack intellectual balance or facility in these areas, there exists a real danger. Of course we should encourage intelligent and psychologically well balanced people, who are also strong in their faith, to study philosophy and theology. ( Didn’t realize you were shouting )

P.S. I read it too.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

The point was that for some people, poorly trained, or who lack intellectual balance or facility in these areas, there exists a real danger. Of course we should encourage intelligent and psychologically well balanced people, who are also strong in their faith, to study philosophy and theology. ( Didn’t realize you were shouting )

P.S. I read it too.

Linus2nd

Good points Linus2nd. I suppose this is a call to humility on those who aspire to philosophical knowledge. An attitude that is very important to cultivate in all fields.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good points Linus2nd. I suppose this is a call to humility on those who aspire to philosophical knowledge. An attitude that is very important to cultivate in all fields.

God bless,
Ut

No, it is just a warning that one can become so attached to ones own ability, that one can fall into error and hardly know it. As the example I gave shows. It is an example from this forum. The point to keep in mind is that no matter how clever or intelligent we think we are, our intelligence ( or that of a " thinker " we admire " ), is not the source of our salvation, we are saved by Christ through the obedience of Faith to the teachings of the Church.

Linus2nd

 

[Pilosopo]

Another warning, while we can all be fired up about following Christ, and to follow the Bible, what Christ says, what the Bible says, have all to be interpreted, taught and learned.
As Catholics, there is a sense of surrendering final and authoritative interpretation to the Magisterium. Still, it is not as though we are robots; that is, that we can simply disregard our own respective intellect and will. In fact I think our calling is to do the opposite, to learn about faith, so as to grow in knowledge and love.
I think this is a warning, because it can be all too easy to make the claim that this or that is for God, or for Christ, when unfortunately, at best, it actually comes from our limited understanding of God or of Christ.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Pursuit of the truth is blessed by God, especially when done and animated by the Faith. Our world desperately needs more philosophically minded people - both Catholic and (perhaps even especially) non-Catholic. We would not be dealing with SSM and Peeping Tom Bills for the ‘Transegendered’ amongst a litany of other things if the human spirit were more generally encouraged (e.g. in education formation) to seek the Truth and if society broadly, but educators and leaders especially, acknowledged its objective reality and attainability by human reason.

The error you have noted that can arise from arm-chair philosphy is one easily exposed by i) other philosophers and ii) by the Faith (or faithful, lay or clergy) itself: it’s like warning people not to read the Bible because they might become millenialarists or Protestants. Such a belief is problematic especially because the Scriptures themselves do not actually point to or lead to such conclusion by their force (it comes close to claiming that the Scriptures themselves lead to heresy!): in fact they point to and lead to the one true Faith, which is why the Church recommends their liberal use, consideration and study by believer and unbeliever alike; otherwise you risk effectively saying that holy Scripture is a roadblock or hazard to Faith which, obviously, is the exact opposite of what it, perforce, actually is. The Church is, so to speak, innoculated against many heresies and philosophy tends likewise to be innoculated against blatant errors or fallacies known to it from history, even if imperfectly.

In short, the benefits vastly outweigh the hazards. We need a broader (certainly not even lesser, or even more impoverished ) belief - as Pope John Paul II’s above quoted encyclical shows - in the power of human reason to attain the Truth, and encouragement thereto.

My dear brother Linus: for all the hazards of philosophy, notwithstanding philosophy does of its nature always tend to a training of the mind to be more disciplined, scrupulous, reflective, thoughtful: to not believe everything too easily but at the same time to believe that greater clarity or understanding can certainly be had by the mind: i.e., that we can attain to truth by using our national powers. Even a passing reading shows that the world is not so easily reducible to, e.g., scientism and that there is still much we do not understand while yet affirming that we do, notiwthstanding, understand much.

In other words, I do fear your fear of philosophy might be the greater of the two evils as it could only encourage even less philosophizing, much to the detriment of both faith and reason; but perhaps of the well-being of secular society especially. Philosophy is very like to faith: it is something that you wrestle and constantly struggle with to churn out, so to speak, fruit: in this character is gained from perseverance among other goods. From being a student of philosophy a person can easily perceive why religious Faith is such a struggle but, notwithstanding, one that should not be abandoned. We learn this even in school: it is better to stay than drop-out; and it is better even to at least show-up than not show-up at all, etc.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pursuit of the truth is blessed by God, especially when done and animated by the Faith. Our world desperately needs more philosophically minded people - both Catholic and (perhaps even especially) non-Catholic. We would not be dealing with SSM and Peeping Tom Bills for the ‘Transegendered’ amongst a litany of other things if the human spirit were more generally encouraged (e.g. in education formation) to seek the Truth and if society broadly, but educators and leaders especially, acknowledged its objective reality and attainability by human reason.

The error you have noted that can arise from arm-chair philosphy is one easily exposed by i) other philosophers and ii) by the Faith (or faithful, lay or clergy) itself: it’s like warning people not to read the Bible because they might become millenialarists or Protestants. Such a belief is problematic especially because the Scriptures themselves do not actually point to or lead to such conclusion by their force (it comes close to claiming that the Scriptures themselves lead to heresy!): in fact they point to and lead to the one true Faith, which is why the Church recommends their liberal use, consideration and study by believer and unbeliever alike; otherwise you risk effectively saying that holy Scripture is a roadblock or hazard to Faith which, obviously, is the exact opposite of what it, perforce, actually is. The Church is, so to speak, innoculated against many heresies and philosophy tends likewise to be innoculated against blatant errors or fallacies known to it from history, even if imperfectly.

In short, the benefits vastly outweigh the hazards. We need a broader (certainly not even lesser, or even more impoverished ) belief - as Pope John Paul II’s above quoted encyclical shows - in the power of human reason to attain the Truth, and encouragement thereto.

My dear brother Linus: for all the hazards of philosophy, notwithstanding philosophy does of its nature always tend to a training of the mind to be more disciplined, scrupulous, reflective, thoughtful: to not believe everything too easily but at the same time to believe that greater clarity or understanding can certainly be had by the mind: i.e., that we can attain to truth by using our national powers. Even a passing reading shows that the world is not so easily reducible to, e.g., scientism and that there is still much we do not understand while yet affirming that we do, notiwthstanding, understand much.

In other words, I do fear your fear of philosophy might be the greater of the two evils as it could only encourage even less philosophizing, much to the detriment of both faith and reason; but perhaps of the well-being of secular society especially. Philosophy is very like to faith: it is something that you wrestle and constantly struggle with to churn out, so to speak, fruit: in this character is gained from perseverance among other goods. From being a student of philosophy a person can easily perceive why religious Faith is such a struggle but, notwithstanding, one that should not be abandoned. We learn this even in school: it is better to stay than drop-out; and it is better even to at least show-up than not show-up at all, etc.

I think you are reading too much and too little in what I said. I don’t exclude much of what you said. But I am saying, and Thomas himself has much the same thought, is that we must always be guided by what the Church teaches. Some in this forum have forgotten that. Therefore they have fallen into error.

Linus2nd

 

[Pilosopo]

In other words, I do fear your fear of philosophy might be the greater of the two evils as it could only encourage even less philosophizing, much to the detriment of both faith and reason; but perhaps of the well-being of secular society especially. Philosophy is very like to faith: it is something that you wrestle and constantly struggle with to churn out, so to speak, fruit: in this character is gained from perseverance among other goods. From being a student of philosophy a person can easily perceive why religious Faith is such a struggle but, notwithstanding, one that should not be abandoned. We learn this even in school: it is better to stay than drop-out; and it is better even to at least show-up than not show-up at all, etc.

Loved the way … okay — I liked — they way you concluded this. Thanks.
Just show-up… like that.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Don’t doubt it. The one source of Truth in Faith and Morals is what the Catholic Church teaches. Anything you read or learn in Philosophy or Theology which is contrary to the teaching of the Church is false and is to be rejected.

Even in St. Thomas there are at least some things that are questionable and one in particular which is heresy if interpreted wrongly.

It has surfaced in several threads in this forum lately that some people are getting the idea that God is part of created things or that created things are part of God. This has occurred in those passages of St. Thomas ( and there are many througout his works ) where he says that created things " participate " or " share " in the existence or being of God. People are interpreting this incorrectly.

What he means is that because created beings each have existence, none possesses it perfectly. Each has only so much existence, therefore they are said to " share " in this common note or perfection. And because none of them possesses it perfectly none of them can have caused their own existence or the existence of some other being. So the source of their being must be Him who is Perfect Being, God. Which is true, but it does not mean that God gives created beings some of his existence. Rather, it means He gives them existence their own act of existence, just like he gives them every other perfection, including their matter ( if any ), and their form.

So God is not the being of any created substance and no created substance is a part of God. It is true that God is present in every atom of creation, He is fully present by His entire substance in all His creation ( and the Church teaches this ). But He is present as the cause of everything in them, as the one Who upholds their existence, as the one Who guides and directs them. He is not present so as to be a part of their existence or as a part of their substance. And while He is present in all things, He is at the same time absolutely transcendent to them.

Because people have been stumbing on this point, it really would be better if some people would not study philosophy. It is one thing not to understand something, it is quite another thing to spread the error around. That can endanger one’s own Faith and that of others.

Its a good thing to read a book or so in philosophy or theology but that doesn’t qualify one as an authority, it makes one know just enough to be really dangerous. One always has to judge the truth value of what one is reading against the constant teaching of the Church.

Reading things that are false or go against Church teaching is not bad in and of itself. It is only bad if you start to adopt these things into your own life.

I read a great deal of items on many different subjects. Some agree with my faith and some do not. However, I do not shy away from any topic. I would much rather know what other people are thinking than to remain ignorant. How are we to evangelize people if we do not understand their beliefs. So the answer is not to not read philosophy or anything else, but rather to read it and think about it in light of your beliefs.
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

CatholicGeek1:
I understand what you are saying but take a look at this new thread ( it is only one example ) : " How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing? " It perfectly illustrates the danger.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Feldwebel]

"Don’t doubt it. The one source of Truth in Faith and Morals is what the Catholic Church teaches. Anything you read or learn in Philosophy or Theology which is contrary to the teaching of the Church is false and is to be rejected.

"Even in St. Thomas there are at least some things that are questionable and one in particular which is heresy if interpreted wrongly.

Linus2nd

RESPONSE:

So the Church has to believed even when it teaches things contrary to logic and reason and even it’s own theology, is that what you are saying?

The Wikipedia summarized this conflict nicely.

1.Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2.Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without evidence or reason, or even in conflict with evidence and reason.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

To give a example, if mathematics, a subdivision of logic, a part of philosophy, claims that 2 + 2 = 4, but the church were to claim that 2 +2 = 5, is the Faithful Catholic expected to believe that 2 + 2 =5 (As a matter of faith)?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

RESPONSE:

So the Church has to believed even when it teaches things contrary to logic and reason and even it’s own theology, is that what you are saying?

The Church teaches nothing contrary to reason. The Church has no particular " Theology. "
Certainly there are and have been thousands of Catholic philosophers. The Church endorces none of them carte blanche. So your comments here are mysterious. I don’t know what you are saying or what you are referring to.

The Wikipedia summarized this conflict nicely.

1.Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2.Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without evidence or reason, or even in conflict with evidence and reason.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

To give a example, if mathematics, a subdivision of logic, a part of philosophy, claims that 2 + 2 = 4, but the church were to claim that 2 +2 = 5, is the Faithful Catholic expected to believe that 2 + 2 =5 (As a matter of faith)?

Come now! I think you just want to be argumentative. Christainity is not engaged in " Fideism. " Christianity has no argument with reason at all. See " Fides et Ratio " by John Paul ll or the current Encyclical " Lumen Fidei " by Pope Francis.

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html

Next?

Linus2nd

 

[curlycool89]

Even in St. Thomas there are at least some things that are questionable and one in particular which is heresy if interpreted wrongly.

Especially Thomas’ embryology (in SCG II, ch 89 and ST I, q.76, a.3), which has been rejected by the Church as being just plain wrong (although his wrongness was based on the medical knowledge of the time, it is still wrong).

The Church teaches nothing contrary to reason. The Church has no particular " Theology. "
Certainly there are and have been thousands of Catholic philosophers. The Church endorces none of them carte blanche. So your comments here are mysterious. I don’t know what you are saying or what you are referring to.

Come now! I think you just want to be argumentative. Christainity is not engaged in " Fideism. " Christianity has no argument with reason at all. See " Fides et Ratio " by John Paul ll or the current Encyclical " Lumen Fidei " by Pope Francis.

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html

Next?

Linus2nd

You must be a Thomist.

For all the rational arguments there are, there is no doubt that faith is needed. You cannot give a person a set of logical premises that will force them to believe in God (as in deductive reasoning) as the only valid conclusion. You can make persuasive inductive arguments for the existence of God. Not the Ontological argument though (also called “defining something into existence”), teleological arguments are persuasive, although I’ve heard other possible explanations (leading to an either/or in term of inference to the best explanation), but cosmological-type arguments tend to be very persuasive (except for Stephen Hawking, which gives people someone to point at for an alternative explanation).

You have to always remember that faith is not something that we can cause, but it is a grace that comes from God*. You cannot get faith by thinking really hard about it. As with any grace, God offers it to a person who can either accept (cooperate) or reject it; God doesn’t override our free will which He gave us. We can prepare other people to a point where they are able to receive that grace of faith, but we cannot bestow it upon them. Kirkegaard was right, you cannot teach faith to someone (you can certainly teach someone about faith, but that is not the same thing as faith itself. It’s the difference between learning about love and being in love).

*Full disclosure of biases: I tend to lean towards an epistemological externalism, which really comes out here

 

[SoylentGreen]

From Fides et Ratio:

Sorry for shouting.

God bless,
Ut

Thanks for shouting!.

I like the point in boldface. I’ve tried to follow it: www.causalargument.com.

But this has not reached a wide audience, or even any audience … yet.

Reason is fully compatible with faith, and it can be used to defend faith, like a sword in the hand of a soldier. It equips a Christian with a necessary God given instrument. For those who see philosophy as the love of wisdom, which is what it means, there is no danger whatsoever in studying philosophy or theology; but I do agree with all the points made by the one who began this thread.

If it seems that I’m SHOUTING by posting the link to my argument, which presents a defense of my own theism, and faith, then I certainly extend my sincere apologies. Sorry if I made anyone spill their coffee.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for shouting!.

I like the point in boldface. I’ve tried to follow it: www.causalargument.com.

But this has not reached a wide audience, or even any audience … yet.

Reason is fully compatible with faith, and it can be used to defend faith, like a sword in the hand of a soldier. It equips a Christian with a necessary God given instrument. For those who see philosophy as the love of wisdom, which is what it means, there is no danger whatsoever in studying philosophy or theology; but I do agree with all the points made by the one who began this thread.

If it seems that I’m SHOUTING by posting the link to my argument, which presents a defense of my own theism, and faith, then I certainly extend my sincere apologies. Sorry if I made anyone spill their coffee.

I didn’t " spill " mine but you just have to make it shorter.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Church teaches nothing contrary to reason. The Church has no particular " Theology. "
Certainly there are and have been thousands of Catholic philosophers. The Church endorces none of them carte blanche. So your comments here are mysterious. I don’t know what you are saying or what you are referring to.

Come now! I think you just want to be argumentative. Christainity is not engaged in " Fideism. " Christianity has no argument with reason at all. See " Fides et Ratio " by John Paul ll or the current Encyclical " Lumen Fidei " by Pope Francis.

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html

Next?

Linus2nd

Yes, I am one of the more " traditional " Thomists, like Etienne Gilson. But we must admit, as you pointed out above, that even Thomas can make mistakes. But one also has to say that the ones he made were due more to his lack of present day scientific knowledge, not due to a failure in reasoning powers.

Linus2nd