Question about the soul

[itsjustdave1988]

newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm ?

Is the philosophy of Aquinas considered a primary source for dogma, or is it just supplemental?

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is “theology”, not philosophy. While he at times makes reference to the prevalent philosophical views of his day to support his theological discourse, he also makes reference to the testimony of the Sacred Tradition of the early fathers and Sacred Scripture, which is definitly beyond a strict philosophical method. The source of dogma is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Theology is by its very nature, speculative, not binding. The official teaching of the magisterium (teaching office) of the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in communion with him present doctrine or “certain teaching” (sententia certa) and dogma (divine revelation) which must be held or believed as being part of the Catholic Faith (de fide definita, de fide catholicus). Both doctrine and dogma are binding, that is, requires the assent of all the Catholic faithful.

St. Thomas Aquinas is one of only 33 Catholics officially declared a “Doctor” of the Catholic Church. It is a pretty short list of saints considering the near 2000-yr history of the Catholic Church, so his speculative theology is considered pretty trustworthy. Theology helps to further explain that which is binding (doctrine and dogma), but only the doctrine and dogma is binding, not the theological explanation. I’m probably using too many technical Catholic terms, but I want to be accurate in describing St. Thomas’ works as among the most trustworthy Catholic “commentaries” on doctrine and dogma, not doctrine or dogma per se.

While the pope’s have not made St. Thomas’ theology binding in nature, they have commented upon its trustworthiness. Here’s what the popes have stated regarding St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology…

**John Paul II: **
"St. Thomas provides for us “a model of the right way to do theology.” (Fides et Ratio, 43)
Paul VI:
“[St. Thomas’] works are the main foundation on which all Christian teaching in the Church, then and now, can firmly rest and safely grow.” (Paul VI, Lumen Ecclesiae, 13)
*St. Pius X: **
“The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church” Doctoris Angelici, 29 Jun 1914)
Innocent VI:
“[St. Thomas Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” [Sermo de S. Thoma., cited by Leo XII, Aeterni Patris, 21)

 

[mellestad]

So are people like Aquinas just explaining the reasons for doctrine/dogma, or are they responsible for creating them?

I guess I don’t understand how things like the Catechism are formulated, it sounds a bit circular…official stuff is by some sort of vote, right? The upper people in the Church have to agree on it? Is the assumption that those things are all divinely inspired, or do they debate theology and eventually come to a consensus opinion and that opinion is made official?

 

[davidv]

So are people like Aquinas just explaining the reasons for doctrine/dogma, or are they responsible for creating them?

I guess I don’t understand how things like the Catechism are formulated, it sounds a bit circular…official stuff is by some sort of vote, right? The upper people in the Church have to agree on it? Is the assumption that those things are all divinely inspired, or do they debate theology and eventually come to a consensus opinion and that opinion is made official?

The dogmas of the Church are never created, they were revealed to the Apostles by God. The Church is not a democracy. Its leaders are responsible for protecting the Deposit of Faith (dogma) and teaching it to all who will listen.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So are people like Aquinas just explaining the reasons for doctrine/dogma, or are they responsible for creating them?

God is responsible for the creation of dogma.

Dogma = divinely revealed truth, proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful

Doctrine = certain teachings (sometimes includes “dogma”, but in other contexts means teachings which are “certain” but less than the infallible certainty of dogma).

Theology = liturally, the “science of God”, investigates the contents of belief (dogma & doctrine) by means of reason enlightened by faith.

God’s revelation is in two forms: natural and supernatural.

Natural revelation = we can know some things about God from the things he has created.

Supernatural revelation = Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition

The Catechism, promulgated by the Pope, is a summary of the teaching of the Catholic Church throughout the world, and throughout the history of the Church. The source of this teaching is dogma, which came from God through the apostles of the first century.

We disagree with some liberal Protestant forms of Christianity which suggest that “new revelations” serve to increase the universal deposit of Chrisitan faith. St. Pius X condemned the proposition that “the Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles.” [Denzinger, *Enchiridion Symbolorum, 2021]. While most Protestant agree on this point, some liberal Protestants have not.

Nonetheless, there is a legitimate sense in which dogma does develop. According to Catholic teaching, “in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress.” (Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *introduction). In other words, just because we have all the “matter” or “stuff” of the deposit of faith delivered to us by the apostles of the first century, doesn’t mean that we perfectly understand and/or express that “stuff.” The Church continues to prayerfully contemplate dogma, so as to more fully understand it and express it in terms which can be understood today.

“To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned.” (Ott, ibid.).

According to St. Augustine:

For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question moved by an adversary becomes the occasion of learning.” (City of God, II, 1)

The Church never ceases to investigate the deposit of Catholic faith (dogma and doctrine), so as to more accuratley understand and proclaim the faith in language and situations which continuously change, because the contemporary world we live it tends to continuously change the way it views God, man, and the world. This investigation into dogma and doctrine is called “theology.”

The Catechism summarizes the common teaching of the Church, based upon the dogma received in the first century, as continuously contemplated upon by the Church for the past 2000 years. It does so by faithfully passing on what the Church herself has received. In doing so, the Church respects the teaching tradition which was handed on from apostolic times to the present. This is why the Catechism quotes past saints, like St. Thomas Aquinas, to show the continuity of this same teaching throughout every century since the advent of Christ.

For a excellent explanation of this, see here:
Catholic Encyclopedia - Tradition and Living Magisterium

 

[mellestad]

Thanks for the link, Dave.

OK, I guess I should have used, “interpret” instead of “create”, I understand why that would ruffle feathers.

OK, so let me see if I get this now.

1: Some things are deposited directly into the minds of church leaders and then dispersed by them to the rest of the Church.
2: Some things are figured out systematically by using rational processes to build on the things learned by direct deposit.

My question though, is obviously there is an intermediary step between #1 and the release of something like the Catechism, otherwise the Catechism wouldn’t need to be written, it would just need to be translated directly from primary sources.

Or am I mistaken, would the idea be that the Catechism is merely a direct translation from primary sources?​

I guess my main confusion is, when reading the Catechism, there aren’t many references. It is written as though the individual idea stands on its own. Obviously there was a process that took place between someone getting the idea (divinely inspired, naturally) and it being considered good enough to become dogma/doctrine. The reference to Aquinas is good, but to me that seems to point to a heavy use of the above #2, since he is a theologian. So, once someone like Aquinas mulls over an idea and decides what it means (divinely inspired?) how does everyone else decide they are correct?

What I’m interested in is what would the lay-person do if they were interested in the evolution of these ideas and how they made it into their current place/form. Or again, am I wrong, and the idea is there was no evolution, the Catechism is direct deposit and so there isn’t anything to study?

In general, when I ask why, I’m pointed to the Catechism. When I ask why again, it gets very murky and I get different answers, so I’m trying to figure out how I can ask “why” more than once on my own.

I think I’m rambling now, lol.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for the link, Dave.

OK, I guess I should have used, “interpret” instead of “create”, I understand why that would ruffle feathers.

OK, so let me see if I get this now.

1: Some things are deposited directly into the minds of church leaders and then dispersed by them to the rest of the Church.
2: Some things are figured out systematically by using rational processes to build on the things learned by direct deposit.

My question though, is obviously there is an intermediary step between #1 and the release of something like the Catechism, otherwise the Catechism wouldn’t need to be written, it would just need to be translated directly from primary sources.

Or am I mistaken, would the idea be that the Catechism is merely a direct translation from primary sources?​

I guess my main confusion is, when reading the Catechism, there aren’t many references. It is written as though the individual idea stands on its own. Obviously there was a process that took place between someone getting the idea (divinely inspired, naturally) and it being considered good enough to become dogma/doctrine. The reference to Aquinas is good, but to me that seems to point to a heavy use of the above #2, since he is a theologian. So, once someone like Aquinas mulls over an idea and decides what it means (divinely inspired?) how does everyone else decide they are correct?

What I’m interested in is what would the lay-person do if they were interested in the evolution of these ideas and how they made it into their current place/form. Or again, am I wrong, and the idea is there was no evolution, the Catechism is direct deposit and so there isn’t anything to study?

In general, when I ask why, I’m pointed to the Catechism. When I ask why again, it gets very murky and I get different answers, so I’m trying to figure out how I can ask “why” more than once on my own.

I think I’m rambling now, lol.

Re highlight above. How did you come to this conclusion. I picked the first citation for the term “soul” and found these references on just one page of the CCC. How is this “not many references”?

218 Gen 1:27.
219 GS 12 § 3.
220 GS 24 § 3.
221 St. Catherine of Siena, Dialogue 4,13 “On Divine Providence”: LH, Sunday, week 19, OR.
222 Cf. GS 12 § 1; 24 § 3; 39 § 1.
223 St. John Chrysostom, In Gen. Sermo 2,1: PG 54,587D-588A.
224 GS 22 § 1.
225 St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 117: PL 52,520-521.
226 Acts 17:26; cf. Tob 8:6.
227 Pius XII, Enc. Summi Pontificatus 3; cf. NA 1.
228 Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus 3.
229 Gen 2:7.
230 Cf. Mt 16:25-26; Jn 15:13; Acts 2:41.
231 Cf. Mt 10:28; 26:38; Jn 12:27; 2 Macc 6:30.
232 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45.
233 GS 14 § 1; cf. Dan 3:57-80.
234 Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902.
235 Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, CPG § 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440.
236 1 Thess 5:23.
237 Cf. Council of Constantinople IV (870): DS 657.
238 Cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius: DS 3005; GS 22 § 5; Humani Generis: DS 3891.
239 Cf. Jer 31:33; Deut 6:5; 29:3; Isa 29:13; Ezek 36:26; Mt 6:21; Lk 8:15; Rom 5:5.
240 Cf. Gen 2:7,22.
241 Cf. Isa 49:14-15; 66:13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19.
242 Gen 2:18.
243 Gen 2:19-20.
244 Gen 2:23.
245 Gen 2:24.
246 Gen 1:28.
247 Cf. GS 50 § 1.
248 Gen 1:28.
249 Wis 11:24.
250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.
251 Cf. LG 2.
252 Cf. Gen 2:17; 3:16,19.
253 Cf. Gen 2:25.
254 Cf. 1 Jn 2:16.
255 Cf. Gen 2:8.
256 Gen 2:15; cf. 3:17-19

It seems to me that as a starting point for lay research would be the references cited in the CCC for a particular topic. The next point would be papel documents on this topic.

At some point point the results of this research must get murky because we are dealing with a subject, that in human terms, has no boundaries, in either depth or breath.

 

[mellestad]

Ah, I didn’t see how the indexing system worked until I dug around a bit.

OK, so those are the primary sources for the material, cool.

I know it can’t get past a certain level of granularity because of the way the belief structure works. Thats all I wanted. Thanks for your help!

 

[davidv]

Ah, I didn’t see how the indexing system worked until I dug around a bit.

OK, so those are the primary sources for the material, cool.

I know it can’t get past a certain level of granularity because of the way the belief structure works. Thats all I wanted. Thanks for your help!

Glad to be of help.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…My question though, is obviously there is an intermediary step between #1 and the release of something like the Catechism, otherwise the Catechism wouldn’t need to be written, it would just need to be translated directly from primary sources.

The article I linked to above explains this process in greater detail, describing how the magisterium exercises its authority. The magisterium is a teaching authority which was given by Jesus Christ directly to the college of apostles with St. Peter as the head of the apostolic college. St. Peter and the Apostles handed on that same authority to teach to the college of bishops with Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome, as the head of the apostolic college.

The magisterium teaches through these bishops in communion with the Pope of Rome, and it is only this teaching which is offical Catholic teaching. The magisterial teaching is described in two forms: (1) ordinary magisterium (day to day teachings of the college of bishops) and (2) extraordinary magisterium, that is, through definitive decree by the pope or through what is called an Ecumenical Council. It is through the exercise of magisterial authority, both ordinary and extraordinary, that we receive dogma and doctrine. This is a living authority vested in the current college of bishops with the pope as the head of the college. They are the only legitamite authority to judge what is and is not Catholic dogma and doctrine.

An Ecumenical Council is a gathering of bishops from throughout the world whose decrees and canons have been ratified by the Pope of Rome. There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Church. See here: Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - 21 Ecumenical Councils

The decrees of the Roman Pontiff are promulgated in what is called the *Acta Apostolica Sedis *(Acts of the Apostolic See). This is a huge amount of documentation, stored in the Vatican archives. A guy named Henry Denzinger put together a “handbook” or summary of these teachings called Enchiridion Symbolorum, and it has been translated into English and is available in a text called *The Sources of Catholic Dogma. *While it is no where near as comprehensive as the documents of the Vatican archives, it is a handy reference for theologians, and is also cited by the Catechism.

The Catechism cites many references (see here: Index of Footnotes) , most importantly Sacred Scripture, but also referencing the teachings of these Ecumencial Councils, as well as decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, the teachings of the early church fathers, the doctors of the Church and other saints throughout history.

…there aren’t many references.

There are gobs of footnotes. Nevertheless, since the Catechism itself is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, it was promulgated to the universal Church and published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. It is “official” papal teaching and is an exercise of the magisterium in its own right.

The process that took place before writing the Catechism is described by the article I linked to above.

What I’m interested in is what would the lay-person do if they were interested in the evolution of these ideas and how they made it into their current place/form.

They would get a Master’s in Dogmatic Theology. That’s would I’d like to do. If that’s too much, I would recommend that they actually read the Bible (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition). Next I would recommend they actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to include the footnote references (see Companion). You would be surprised how many Catholics do not have a clue what the Bible and the Catechism teaches. After that, if they still wanted to learn in even greater detail why the Cathechism teaches what it teaches, then I recommend a book by Dr. Ludwig Ott called *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *which describes in excellent detail the dogma and doctrines of the Church, their sources in Scripture, Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, papal decrees and early Church fathers. I also recommend Henry Denzinger’s *Enchiridion Symbolorum. It’s translation in English is available as The Sources of Catholic Dogma. And if they are interested in what the early Church fathers taught in their own words, I recommend William A. Jurgen’s 3-volume set called, Faith of the Early Fathers. *Both Denzinger’s and Jurgen’s texts have excellence systematic index which describe what the Church teaches, and references it to the source documents.

 

[mellestad]

Great stuff, thanks Dave!