Saint thomas aquinas's status within the rcc

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

tomarin

Guest
recently i read in bertrand russell’s overview of western philosophy (“a history of western philosophy”) that aquinas’s philosophy was the “official” philosophy of the catholic church and that professors in catholic universities were bound to teach only this school of thought.

the book was published in 1945 and i’m assuming things have changed since then. can anyone enlighten me as to whether catholic philosophers are still bound to endorse a particular form of philosophy and if so which one it is? if aquinas is no longer “official” how was he dethroned?
 
Russell’s history of philosophy is widely considered a joke of actual history, by philosophers. Many times he characterizes historical views widely off the mark. His criticism of these views is good, but since the views being criticized are mere straw men, it is irrelevant (much better is Fredrick Coppleston’s books - got me through my history of philosophy prelims). St. Thomas Aquinas’ views are popular in the Catholic Church, and among Catholic academics. However, there is certainly no Roman censure of other orthodox philosophical positions (like Augustinianism) that disagree with St. Thomas on various points.
 
tomarin said:
recently i read in bertrand russell’s overview of western philosophy (“a history of western philosophy”) that aquinas’s philosophy was the “official” philosophy of the catholic church and that professors in catholic universities were bound to teach only this school of thought.

the book was published in 1945 and i’m assuming things have changed since then. can anyone enlighten me as to whether catholic philosophers are still bound to endorse a particular form of philosophy and if so which one it is? if aquinas is no longer “official” how was he dethroned?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t true even in 1945. No one person is the “official” Catholic philosopher. What Russell was referring to was the papal encyclical (issued in 1879, if I’m remembering correctly) which ENCOURAGED the teaching of Thomistic philosophy within Catholic schools and other venues.

There is a grain of truth to it: If anyone would be considered the “official” CC philosopher, it would be Aquinas. However, no one is.
 
cpayne said:
There is a grain of truth to it: If anyone would be considered the “official” CC philosopher, it would be Aquinas. However, no one is.
Click to expand...
thanks for clearing that up; i’m not surprised that he bolloxed this up since i’ve since taken a look at “why i am not a christian” and can see the huge bias he has against christianity.
 
St. Thomas is definitely the top Catholic philosopher. And while the Church does give him that primacy, it should not be to the exclusion of whatever else is good.
 
tomarin said:
thanks for clearing that up; i’m not surprised that he bolloxed this up since i’ve since taken a look at “why i am not a christian” and can see the huge bias he has against christianity.
Click to expand...
My heart jumped when you said Bertrand Russell. A friend of mine lent me exactly the same book last winter. I took a gander inside, found many rather archly worded mischaracterizations and put it on my ‘to be returned’ shelf.

For me time is precious. I try not to throw away precious time reading things which are a detour from the Truth. Russell to me is one of those detours. I don’t mean to offend and hope I have not.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
My heart jumped when you said Bertrand Russell. A friend of mine lent me exactly the same book last winter. I took a gander inside, found many rather archly worded mischaracterizations and put it on my ‘to be returned’ shelf.

For me time is precious. I try not to throw away precious time reading things which are a detour from the Truth. Russell to me is one of those detours. I don’t mean to offend and hope I have not.
Click to expand...
i bought the book because i (mistakenly perhaps) respected russell’s intellect and wanted to hear what he had to say, if only to see if i had a ready response to his charges. if i have to read an apologia for atheism, i’d prefer him over dawkins or (gag) christopher hitchens.

most of his arguments aren’t terribly convincing and he engages in the strawman fallacy a number of times. also he seems incapable of imagining that christianity (or religion in general) can spring from anything other than fear.

there was one argument he made which i found arresting because it seems to present a paradox for the christian and because it takes direct aim at the reason i rethought theism and began to take religion seriously.

it goes like this (don’t read any further if you are the type of person who is wavering in their faith): if God is omnipotent and the creator of everything in the universe, then He must have created both good and evil. if He created good and evil then they must be the same to Him. if He didn’t create evil, only good, then good and evil must exist externally to god and therefore He is not omnipotent.

now i know that we conceive of God as the source of everything good and that therefore God cannot be the source of evil (evil is in fact the absence of God), yet we also think of Him as omnipotent. isn’t this a paradox? there must be some flaw in his reasoning but i haven’t located it yet.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
I did: free will.
Click to expand...
so the flaw lies in which premise, exactly? that god created good and evil? he didn’t create evil directly since evil is the absence of god? that way god is still the source of everything good (and also everything, period) without being the author of evil?

i guess that will do, although i still feel that a logician would be dissatisfied.
 
The problem of evil is one of the best philosophical arguments against God. Try reading CS Lewis, especially “The Problem of Pain”. As Ani Ibi said, the answer boils down to free will. God created creatures separate from Himself and empowered them with free will and the ability to sub-create. In order for free will to actually be free will, it must include the capacity to rebel against God (=evil). So God “created evil” in the indirect sense that he gave us (and the angels) the ability to pervert our gift of subcreation and invent all kinds of evil things if we wanted to. This was a necessary component of free will, but our present fallen situation didn’t have to come about. Satan and Adam made their choices; if you want to blame somebody for the existence of evil, look to them. Hope this helps. Pax tecum, Phil
 
Catholic schools do not have to teach Aquinas but seminaries have to teach from the scholastics primarily the doctor himself Thomas Aquinas.
 
I think Russell’s evaluation of Aquinas is somewhat biased by his own atheism and not reflective enough. Kenny gives a much more accurate assessment of Thomas and his importance, and even if you are not a believer, one has to admit Aquinas is one of the giants of medieval philosophy, and Western philosophy as a whole.
 
tomarin said:
i bought the book because i (mistakenly perhaps) respected russell’s intellect and wanted to hear what he had to say, if only to see if i had a ready response to his charges. if i have to read an apologia for atheism, i’d prefer him over dawkins or (gag) christopher hitchens.

most of his arguments aren’t terribly convincing and he engages in the strawman fallacy a number of times. also he seems incapable of imagining that christianity (or religion in general) can spring from anything other than fear.

there was one argument he made which i found arresting because it seems to present a paradox for the christian and because it takes direct aim at the reason i rethought theism and began to take religion seriously.

it goes like this (don’t read any further if you are the type of person who is wavering in their faith): if God is omnipotent and the creator of everything in the universe, then He must have created both good and evil. if He created good and evil then they must be the same to Him. if He didn’t create evil, only good, then good and evil must exist externally to god and therefore He is not omnipotent.

now i know that we conceive of God as the source of everything good and that therefore God cannot be the source of evil (evil is in fact the absence of God), yet we also think of Him as omnipotent. isn’t this a paradox? there must be some flaw in his reasoning but i haven’t located it yet.
Click to expand...
He is omnipotent, in that he could stop evil at this very moment. But he does not because he respects our free will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top