Popes in theological conflict with each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
Pius X in *Pascendi *wrote:

**All this, Venerable Brethren, is in formal opposition to the teachings of Our predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: “In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, *not to scrutinize the depths *of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.”

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”**

The Catechism of Trent says about transubstantiation:** “how it takes place we must not curiously inquire”**

Did not Aquinas do all this? He did not always agree with the Fathers, and tried to push reason as far as he could in these understandings…
 
thinkandmull said:
Pius X in *Pascendi *wrote:

**All this, Venerable Brethren, is in formal opposition to the teachings of Our predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: “In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, *not to scrutinize the depths ***of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.”

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”

The Catechism of Trent says about transubstantiation:** “how it takes place we must not curiously inquire”**

Did not Aquinas do all this?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. I think St. Thomas Aquinas followed the Fathers very closely, and I do not think his discussion of Transubstantiation involved “curious inquiry.” Can you give a specific example of where you think he did one of those?
[He] tried to push reason as far as he could in these understandings.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s not what the Magisterium condemned in the passages you quoted. Those passages don’t say not to push reason to its max. They say not to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers and not to curiously inquire into the “how” of Transubstantiation. Even at its maximum, true reason doesn’t do either of those things. Anyway, that’s how I understand it.
 
Aquinas went way further than the Fathers in trying to explain the Eucharest and other things. The Popes said “not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God” and about transubstantiation: “how it takes place we must not curiously inquire”. What example would **you **give of these two?
 
thinkandmull said:
Aquinas went way further than the Fathers in trying to explain the Eucharest and other things.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of something he said that the Fathers did not?
The Popes said “not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God” and about transubstantiation: “how it takes place we must not curiously inquire”. What example would **you **give of these two?
Click to expand...
If a philosopher claimed to understand the Trinity, or if he claimed that he could explain how transubstantiation takes place, I would say he is curiously inquiring into the matter and scrutinizing the depths of the mysteries of God.
 
thinkandmull said:
Aquinas went way further than the Fathers in trying to explain the Eucharest and other things. The Popes said “not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God” and about transubstantiation: “how it takes place we must not curiously inquire”. What example would **you **give of these two?
Click to expand...
Hi Thinkandmull!

St. Thomas says that all we can say rationally about God is a negative theology. This means that we don’t know God’s essence, but we know what it is not.

Concerning the Eucharist, his use of Aristotelian terminology has the purpose of showing that there is no contradiction between reason and faith, but he didn’t intend to “explain” rationally any mystery. Do you know the Tantum Ergo (an Eucharistic hymn that St. Thomas composed)?

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
I know the hymn, but that is beside the point I think Aquinas “claimed that he could explain how transubstantiation takes place”. What about it did he not understand? The Catechism of Trent says “According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It defies the powers of conception”. I’m not disagreeing with Aquinas, but wondering how Popes support of him is consistent.

Aquinas disagreed with Augustine on Limbo. He went against Augustine’s teaching that sinfulness strictly speaking was passed on by original sin, which seems to be forbidden by Pius X’s quote from Pope Gregory
 
thinkandmull said:
I know the hymn, but that is beside the point I think Aquinas “claimed that he could explain how transubstantiation takes place”.
Click to expand...
What words of Aquinas says this?
What about it did he not understand? The Catechism of Trent says “According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It defies the powers of conception”. I’m not disagreeing with Aquinas, but wondering how Popes support of him is consistent.

Aquinas disagreed with Augustine on Limbo. He went against Augustine’s teaching that sinfulness strictly speaking was passed on by original sin, which seems to be forbidden by Pius X’s quote from Pope Gregory
Click to expand...
 
thinkandmull said:
I know the hymn, but that is beside the point I think Aquinas “claimed that he could explain how transubstantiation takes place”. What about it did he not understand? The Catechism of Trent says “According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It defies the powers of conception”. I’m not disagreeing with Aquinas, but wondering how Popes support of him is consistent.

Aquinas disagreed with Augustine on Limbo. He went against Augustine’s teaching that sinfulness strictly speaking was passed on by original sin, which seems to be forbidden by Pius X’s quote from Pope Gregory
Click to expand...
Could you please do this and let me know your results?: in every argument where St. Thomas is trying to explain how transubstantiation takes place, eliminate any direct or indirect reference to the Sacred Scriptures, and any reference to church authorities, and let me know what is left. The residue could be philosophical, but let’s see if it is demonstrative.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
thinkandmull said:
I think Aquinas “claimed that he could explain how transubstantiation takes place”. What about it did he not understand?
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between saying " X changes into Y" and saying “This is how X changes into Y.” Except for statements like “by a miracle,” or “by the action of the Holy Spirit,” I do not think St. Thomas tried to explain how the change of substance happens, he just tried to say that it happens. And that isn’t going beyond the Fathers or inquiring into the how, not if I’m reading him correctly. Does that make sense?
Aquinas disagreed with Augustine on Limbo. He went against Augustine’s teaching that sinfulness strictly speaking was passed on by original sin, which seems to be forbidden by Pius X’s quote from Pope Gregory
Click to expand...
The current Catechism, if I understand it correctly, says that original sin is called sin only by analogy, because it is not actual sin. I think St. Augustine is the basis of this distinction: "[W]e call sin not only what is properly called sin because it is committed from free will and in full knowledge, but even that which must follow from the punishment of sin. Thus we speak of nature in one way when we refer to man’s nature as he was first created, faultless in his own class; and we speak of it in another way when we refer to the nature into which, as a result of the penalty of condemnation, we were born mortal, ignorant, and enslaved by the flesh. Of this the Apostle says, ‘We also were by nature the children of wrath, as were the others.’ " [On Free Choice of the Will, III.xix pp. 129-130] I don’t think St. Thomas said anything different than that.

Re: limbo, IIRC St. Augustine said that he thought unbaptized infants go to a part of hell where they are punished only with the lightest punishment possible. I think this was the basis of St. Thomas’s speculations about limbo. IIRC, St. Thomas agreed with St. Augustine, gave the name “limbo” to that part of hell, and said that the lightest punishment possible is to be deprived of supernatural beatitude while being filled with every natural happiness. I don’t think that’s incompatible with what St. Augustine said. Anyway, that’s what I think. What do you think?
 
dmar198 said:
I think there is a difference between saying " X changes into Y" and saying “This is how X changes into Y.” Except for statements like “by a miracle,” or “by the action of the Holy Spirit,” I do not think St. Thomas tried to explain how the change of substance happens, he just tried to say that it happens. And that isn’t going beyond the Fathers or inquiring into the how, not if I’m reading him correctly. Does that make sense? The current Catechism, if I understand it correctly, says that original sin is called sin only by analogy, because it is not actual sin. I think St. Augustine is the basis of this distinction: "[W]e call sin not only what is properly called sin because it is committed from free will and in full knowledge, but even that which must follow from the punishment of sin. Thus we speak of nature in one way when we refer to man’s nature as he was first created, faultless in his own class; and we speak of it in another way when we refer to the nature into which, as a result of the penalty of condemnation, we were born mortal, ignorant, and enslaved by the flesh. Of this the Apostle says, ‘We also were by nature the children of wrath, as were the others.’ " [On Free Choice of the Will, III.xix pp. 129-130] I don’t think St. Thomas said anything different than that.

Re: limbo, IIRC St. Augustine said that he thought unbaptized infants go to a part of hell where they are punished only with the lightest punishment possible. I think this was the basis of St. Thomas’s speculations about limbo. IIRC, St. Thomas agreed with St. Augustine, gave the name “limbo” to that part of hell, and said that the lightest punishment possible is to be deprived of supernatural beatitude while being filled with every natural happiness. I don’t think that’s incompatible with what St. Augustine said. Anyway, that’s what I think. What do you think?
Click to expand...
A minor clarification is in order, even if is off topic. Original sin was an actual sin for Adam. It is not a actual sin for us today.
 
Augustine believe the infants are tormented with fire; Aquinas spoke of natural bliss. Also search my thread “WHAT is original sin”, last posts. The Catechism is right that its not sin in the sense that its mortal or venial, but the Catechism is incomplete because it IS a state of **sin **properly speaking. Augustine believed that, which is why he said infants are justly punished with fire. Aquinas believed God would be lenient with the infants and allow natural bliss. But what I’m wondering about it why Gregory IX objected to people disagreeing with the Fathers. They are not infallible, and in fact the Church has never officially said which writers were part of that group. If Aquinas can disagree with Augustine on infants being burned (although mildly), why not on other issues? Where do we draw the line? And how could applying reason to revelation as far as it can go not be to “scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humble” which Pius X and IX say is wrong?
 
Pope Benedict XV wrote that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See **no longer permit **a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all times.”

If this were true than there would be no Dogma of the Immaculate Conception: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be** derogatory to the dignity of Christ**, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all.”
 
thinkandmull said:
Pope Benedict XV wrote that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See **no longer permit **a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all times.”

If this were true than there would be no Dogma of the Immaculate Conception: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be** derogatory to the dignity of Christ**, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all.”
Click to expand...
It was a difficult case to St. Thomas, right, Thinkandmull? Just imagine, as he himself said, the Holy Scripture says nothing about it. On the other hand, there was the dogmatic principle that Jesus is our universal Savior. He then concludes: Jesus must be Mary’s Savior too. I am very fond of St. Thomas as a theologian. He was so prudent! I definitely have a lot to learn from him. You?
 
Ye, well when I read Aquinas, I find a torrent of argument. Certainly there are gems, but often I’m all “not definite proof” “based on assumptions” and stuff like that. Duns Scotus came up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception with his reason
 
thinkandmull said:
Ye, well when I read Aquinas, I find a torrent of argument. Certainly there are gems, but often I’m all “not definite proof” “based on assumptions” and stuff like that. Duns Scotus came up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception with his reason
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Doctor subtilis was another giant.

Good night
JuanFlorencio
 
thinkandmull said:
Pope Benedict XV wrote that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See **no longer permit **a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all times.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think the quote implies that we have to agree with every sentence that St. Thomas says.

Additionally, it is my understanding that the Fathers are collectively infallible, even though they are not individually infallible. Perhaps, when the pope said that we must not depart from the Fathers, he meant that we must not depart from them collectively, not individually. Does that make sense?
 
The problem is the Church has never said which of the ancient writers are Church Fathers. Which among them have even been canonized by the Pope?
 
thinkandmull said:
The problem is the Church has never said which of the ancient writers are Church Fathers. Which among them have even been canonized by the Pope?
Click to expand...
I doubt that any have been canonized, except maybe one or two. I don’t think the modern rite of canonization existed until at least the 900s.

But I think we can still know which ones are saints because they are traditionally called saints in Catholic literature. The early Christians who were saints and who left writings about the faith – those are the ones who I think we’re supposed to count as Church Fathers.
 
thinkandmull said:
The problem is the Church has never said which of the ancient writers are Church Fathers. Which among them have even been canonized by the Pope?
Click to expand...
Thinkandmull, you can go to this page: “newadvent.org” and you will find there the writings of many of the Church Fathers. You can find there the whole Summa Theologiae, which, as you know, has been highly commended by many popes. Study it passionately, and I am sure that once you complete the study of it your perspective will have changed so dramatically that you will know what to do next. It is just a matter of becoming used to it.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top