The Philosophy of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrypticWritings
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrypticWritings

Guest
The (Traditional) philosophy of the Church has always been (primarily) Thomistic; that is, based upon the philosophical principles of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Recently, I have heard much about the philosophy called Phenomenology being used in recent times, even in the church.
I am familiar with both of them, and have heard/read very good and reasonable arguments as to why the Church does/should remain loyal to Thomism. I am still “new” to philosophy and while my personal opinon won’t matter, I do understand that Thomism should remain the “philosophy of the Catholic Church” and never be pushed aside (God Willing).
However, I wanted to try and understand better why there has been such a push for Phenomenology since the years right before and after the 1960’s up untill recent times within the church.
Also, I wouldn’t mind hearing other (traditional minded) Catholics opinions and expertise on this subject. Again, while I am a advocate of Thomism, I do understand that Phenomenology, like any school of philosophy, can assist us in our ways of reasoning and remain open minded. However, it seems prudent to remain Thomistic.
Thanks!
JMJ
 
I don’t know too much about it. I know St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) combined phenomenology with Thomism. This is essentially what Pope John Paul II did as well.

St. Teresa had been a student of Edmund Husserl, one of the foremost phenomonologists. What his brand of phenomonology is concerned with is the nature of experience and consciousness.

What Thomism is concerned with is the independent truth of something apart from experience. Putting them together is an attempt to explain how individuals experience that independent truth in the attempt to best bring that truth to individuals who have not yet experienced it.

I hope that helps!
 
As an aside, it was Pope Leo XIII that really brought back Thomism to the heart of the Church, as it had been neglected for a while before him. He wrote a most excellent encyclical on philosophy in general, and Thomism specifically called Aeterni Patris which I highly recommend reading.

In general, I think this little passage sums up the Catholic position on philosphy:
  1. While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind, We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences.
 
Newbie2 said:
The Church does not officially “endorse” any particular philosophy, although she does make use of some more than others. Interesting reading on this matter would be Fides et Ratio (John Paul II):

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

🙂
Click to expand...
That encyclical does have a great section on Thomism and how it makes truth objective–something that is rather than something that seems to be.

As far as officially endorsing a philosophy, while Thomism is not held up as the only valid approach, it is definitely given a ringing endorsement by various Popes.
 
Genesis315 said:
As an aside, it was Pope Leo XIII that really brought back Thomism to the heart of the Church, as it had been neglected for a while before him. He wrote a most excellent encyclical on philosophy in general, and Thomism specifically called Aeterni Patris which I highly recommend reading.

In general, I think this little passage sums up the Catholic position on philosphy:
  1. While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind, We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences.
Click to expand...
I will look at that encyclical from Pope Leo XII, thanks!

Is there much indication that other philosophies have been used much such as existentialism?

I started wondering about this long ago when I heard statements from some who claimed only Thomism should be used.
While I would think yes, it should always remain the *main *philosophy, it makes sense also to have other philosophies to aid in understandings of truth and relate to different cultures although some are dangerous, there are certain ones that are adaptable and complimentary. Truth is so great that it would be wrong to limit our understanding and I think some radical types are perhaps overly close minded?
 
CrypticWritings said:
The (Traditional) philosophy of the Church has always been (primarily) Thomistic; that is, based upon the philosophical principles of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
I am a lousy historian, but my recollection is that he died in 1274; that would mean that for less than half of the Church’s existence, Thomistic philosophy (or Scholasticism) has been the philosophy of the Church. Now if you had said Aristotelian philosophy, I might have agreed that it has had the most influence.
CrypticWritings said:
Recently, I have heard much about the philosophy called Phenomenology being used in recent times, even in the church.
I am familiar with both of them, and have heard/read very good and reasonable arguments as to why the Church does/should remain loyal to Thomism. I am still “new” to philosophy and while my personal opinon won’t matter, I do understand that Thomism should remain the “philosophy of the Catholic Church” and never be pushed aside (God Willing).
Click to expand...
In some reading I was doing recently, it was noted that neo-Scholsticism was part of the problem the Church was having in years prior to Vatican 2. Part of the ruckus was a group of theologians who ended up on the “least favored” list because they attempted to work past the difficulties. In short, the neo-Scholastics approach was, instead of assisting the Church in issues of Modernism, almost acting to make it easier for Mondernism to spread. Hans Urs von Balthizar (excuse my spelling) was one of those; and while he was later “redeemed” from the list, he did not come up with an adequate approach. Much damage was done in the process within intellectual circles which were true to the Magisterium while not Scholastically based.
CrypticWritings said:
However, I wanted to try and understand better why there has been such a push for Phenomenology since the years right before and after the 1960’s up untill recent times within the church.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that those who have the most difficulty with John Paul 2’s thought (including but not limited to Theology of the Body) are neo-Scholastics.

Every school of philosophy has its purpose (and not all of them do well). It is dangerous to presume that any one school has “the handle” on life and truth. Part of the reason that Phenomenology and Personalism (the other branch that JP2 worked in) have risen is that they explain reality and truth in a very different way, from a very different point of view. Scholasticism is great at categories and sub categories, and breaking down an issue into its finest details. For example, it can parse marriage quite well.

However, people don’t live in categories; they live in experience. Talking to people about Natural Law is a quick way to see the whites of their eyeballs as they pass out from sheer boredom. It may send shivers up the spine of a neo Scholastic, but it leaves the average person in the street wondering how much more their bladder can take before they get a potty break. From personal experience, I would suggest that is not a particularly good way to convey an understanding of truth - and Truth.

Phenomenology and Personalism get down to where we tick. People get it. People might understand intellectually the point of Natural Law about marriage, and they might not. They do get how Natual Law plays out in human existence, and that is not by categories.
 
Well Thomistic Philosophy became the “Gold Standard” for the Church it is true, but not until some time after Thomas’ death around 1000 AD plus. There have always been other forms of Philosophy used by Church people and Thomism has waxed and waned and waxed again with time. It seems to me that to use only a single philosophical system is like using a hammer to drive both screws and nails.
 
otjm said:
I am a lousy historian, but my recollection is that he died in 1274; that would mean that for less than half of the Church’s existence, Thomistic philosophy (or Scholasticism) has been the philosophy of the Church. Now if you had said Aristotelian philosophy, I might have agreed that it has had the most influence.
Click to expand...
Good point! I was thinking Aristotle before I wrote my reply but forgot to add him in.

I agree with most of what you said in the rest of your post and I like to see the different philosophies but I like also that there is a sort of standard that is the “gold standard” as the last poster mentioned.
I am one of those that likes mostly Thomism but also phenomenology/personalism and I’ve read some of both.
I must admit though, that I’ve had a difficult time with the phenomenology because it is perhaps not as “direct” if that would be the write word. But, it is a newer school of thought as far as I know and has not had much time to “mature”.

I myself, while I agree with a maority of the “traditionalists” (I hate having to state classifications), there were some who told me that the church was in error for neglecting Thomism…I thought that was a little odd, but I wondered if they are just being so close minded over any and all change toward understanding Truth, because they are really that afraid the church is changing? I don’t know, it was killing me because I didn’t know much about philosophy and I had nothing to say but shrug my shoulders and remain uncertain. I suppose this knowledge will come in handy then. 😛
 
rwoehmke said:
Well Thomistic Philosophy became the “Gold Standard” for the Church it is true, but not until some time after Thomas’ death around 1000 AD plus. There have always been other forms of Philosophy used by Church people and Thomism has waxed and waned and waxed again with time. It seems to me that to use only a single philosophical system is like using a hammer to drive both screws and nails.
Click to expand...
Good point!..well taken…😉
 
CrypticWritings said:
I am one of those that likes mostly Thomism but also phenomenology/personalism and I’ve read some of both.
I must admit though, that I’ve had a difficult time with the phenomenology because it is perhaps not as “direct” if that would be the write word. But, it is a newer school of thought as far as I know and has not had much time to “mature”.
Click to expand...
Each has its purpose, and the purpose of philosophy should be to find the truth and explain it is a way that illuminates the truth for others. The danger with a Scholastic approach as a gold standard is that it ony approaches truth through categorizing everything, and can easily lead to the presumption that if some other system does not also categorize, that it is suspect.

From what I am seeing of the results of the spread of the Theology of the Body, Phenomenology is having a much wider impact on deeply serious issues “where people live”; that is, where they make their decisions. It is better at explaining why a law is the law, as it goes through a more experiential approach.

In short: you can talk all day about Natural Law as to why one should not put their hand on a hot stove. We might all agree intellectually with the results, if we could follow the arguement (some can’t); but an experiential based discussion is apt to make it a lot more clear a lot more quickly (and neither requires one to stick one’s hand on the stove).

Before you take the advice of traditionalists on the matter - or anyone else for that matter - find out the real “why” of their postion. That is not always easy to do, but it gets down to examining their prejudices.
 
I think the Church endorsed Thomism as a philosophical approach over and against the modernism rampant in the day.

It did not mean to endorse, say, Thomism against other valid forms of philosophy-- for instance, it did not mean to side with St. Thomas against St. Bonaventure, for instance, or against Bl. Duns Scotus. The Church would never endorse such specific philosophical approaches.

Nor, I think, did it mean to side with Thomism against any other valid form or approach to philosophy-- hence JPII’s assertion that the Church is not committed to any philosophy.

-Rob
 
I think everyone is forgetting one lung of the Church. The East has never had a scholastic philosopher like Thomas. I’m not incredibly well versed in Eastern thought, but I know it isn’t scholasticism.

However, the Western Church has done more than simply endorse Thomas, the Summa has the weight of Canon Law (per Trent).

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Thursday1 said:
I think everyone is forgetting one lung of the Church. The East has never had a scholastic philosopher like Thomas. I’m not incredibly well versed in Eastern thought, but I know it isn’t scholasticism.

However, the Western Church has done more than simply endorse Thomas, the Summa has the weight of Canon Law (per Trent).

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
What is the dominant philosophy of the Eastern church?
It is too bad the Western lung is not more knowledgable of the Eastern Lung. 😦
 
Thursday1 said:
However, the Western Church has done more than simply endorse Thomas, the Summa has the weight of Canon Law (per Trent).
Click to expand...
I had never heard that before. I’d like to read up on that–can you point me in the right direction?
 
Genesis315 said:
I had never heard that before. I’d like to read up on that–can you point me in the right direction?
Click to expand...
The Summa was the only book other than Sacred Scripture placed on the Altar during the Council of Trent. The Catechism of Trent was pretty much just the Summa. I can’t find an exact quotation for you, but the Summa has been used a binding law in several councils.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
CrypticWritings said:
The (Traditional) philosophy of the Church has always been (primarily) Thomistic; that is, based upon the philosophical principles of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
That’s a rather odd statement, since I assume that you believe the Catholic Church was in existence prior to the 1200s. Actually, the primary philosophy of the western Church prior to Aquinas was Augustinian, and before him there was no primary philosphy, excpet perhaps Christian Hellenism. Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top