Why is so much of church teaching based on Aristotle and Plato?

[eternalrest]

Jesus lived 300 years after Aristotle and Plato. He mentioned neither of these two people in any of his teaching. Neither did any of his disciples or anyone in the entire New Testament except to critique the opinions of he Greeks as compared to the teachings of the Church. Yet, much of later Catholic teaching is founded on the ideas of these two men.

Why? Who would know the answer to this question of why we found teachings on Aristotle and Plato? Is there a relevant theology course? How would Catholicism have been different if based on Confucius instead of Aristotle and Plato?

1 Corinthians 1:23

For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,n 23but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,o 24but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Jesus lived 300 years after Aristotle and Plato. He mentioned neither of these two people in any of his teaching.

True, but that doesn’t say anything.

Neither did any of his disciples or anyone in the entire New Testament except to critique the opinions of he Greeks as compared to the teachings of the Church.

The word Greek was in the time of the early Christians equal to the word pagan.

Read the Gospel of John, especially the first part, in which Christ is called the Logos, a word that referred to what the Greek philosophers called the Logos.

Yet, much of later Catholic teaching is founded on the ideas of these two men.

Phrased in the language of the philosophers, yes. Three hypostaseis, one ousia, homoousios etc. John the Apostle heavily borrows from Aristotle and Plato.

Why? Who would know the answer to this question of why we found teachings on Aristotle and Plato? Is there a relevant theology course? How would Catholicism have been different if based on Confucius instead of Aristotle and Plato?

It is only expressed in the words and languages of the philosophers. That’s because Christianity originated in a Greek-speaking world and was adopted by Greek philosophers like St. Justin Martyr and Origen of Alexandria.

Not only that, the seven ecumenical councils were held in the Greek Empire in the Greek language. Not in China during the Han-dynasty.

And no, I don’t think Catholicism would be much different without Aristotle and Plato. The Oriental Churches, like the Copts and the Assyrians, didn’t use the philosophers as much and in many things they’re the same as Catholicism.

 

[TheDoors]

Funny how ethics, morality and theology tend to line up in places that take a serious study of divinity.

 

[eternalrest]

John the Apostle heavily borrows from Aristotle and Plato.

How so?

 

[Joe_5859]

Yet, much of later Catholic teaching is founded on the ideas of these two men.

All Catholic teaching is founded on Jesus.

As with many things, Christians took the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and “christianized” them. Their philosophy aided in articulating certain theological issues, but it is not their foundation.

 

[eternalrest]

All Catholic teaching is founded on Jesus.

As with many things, Christians took the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and “christianized” them. Their philosophy aided in articulating certain theological issues, but it is not their foundation.

What does it mean to “Christianize” another philosopher’s philosophy? Is it also possible to “Christianize” Confucius in the same way?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

What does it mean to “Christianize” another philosopher’s philosophy? Is it also possible to “Christianize” Confucius in the same way?

Yes, of course. Very much so. Only ancestor worship would have to go.

How so?

See John 1:1

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ **λόγος **ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

En archei èn ho Logos, kai ho **Logos **èn pròs ton Theon, kai Theos èn ho Logos.

In the beginning was the Word: and the **Word **was with God: and the **Word **was God.

In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium, the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the universe. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. Philo, an hellenic Jew who lived around the time of Christ, also said that the Logos was God’s instrument in the creation of the universe. The Stoics got much of their ideas about the Logos from Plato. And there you see, John the Apostle using Greek philosophy to explain Christianity.

Btw, this should be moved elsewhere. It doens’t belong in this subforum.

 

[Joe_5859]

What does it mean to “Christianize” another philosopher’s philosophy? Is it also possible to “Christianize” Confucius in the same way?

To “christianize” something is to take something that was once devoid of any explicit Christian overtones, and then affirm and lift up those elements that are consisten with Catholic teaching and use them for Christian purposes.

So when Aristotle articulates philosophical ideas about substance and essence, the Church can come along and say that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father in order to clairfy the doctrine of the Trinity.

Think of philosophy as a tool. Tools aren’t always and only used for the purpose laid out by their inventor. A good tool is a good tool.

 

[eternalrest]

Yes, of course. Very much so. Only ancestor worship would have to go.

See John 1:1

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ **λόγος **ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

En archei èn ho Logos, kai ho **Logos **èn pròs ton Theon, kai Theos èn ho Logos.

In the beginning was the Word: and the **Word **was with God: and the **Word **was God.

In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium, the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the universe. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. Philo, an hellenic Jew who lived around the time of Christ, also said that the Logos was God’s instrument in the creation of the universe. The Stoics got much of their ideas about the Logos from Plato. And there you see, John the Apostle using Greek philosophy to explain Christianity.

Btw, this should be moved elsewhere. It doens’t belong in this subforum.

It is relevant because much of Church moral theology is based on Scholasticism; thus, the question arises - why should something that “the Philosopher” says be taken as relevant to a discussion of the inspired teaching of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Another question - is there any reason why the Gospel authors were Greek or Jesus came in a Hellenic Greek context that was previously foretold or prophesyied in the Old Testament or any reason based on merit?

 

[JimG]

Aristotle and Plato were philosophers. Philosophy is a way of trying to understand reality. I don’t think that it would have been possible to Christianize them had they not first had some correct insights into the nature of reality.

A philosopher, for example, who began with the proposition “nothing is knowable,” could hardly be of use to Christianity, which starts with the proposition that reality is knowable, and that divine revelation builds upon what we already know through our natural intellect.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

It is relevant because much of Church moral theology is based on Scholasticism; thus, the question arises - why should something that “the Philosopher” says be taken as relevant to a discussion of the inspired teaching of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

If “the philosopher” has something useful to say, why not listen to him? Besides, Aquinas’ used multiple arguments to prove his points. Some from Scripture, some from the Fathers and some from philosophers like Aristotle.

Another question - is there any reason why the Gospel authors were Greek or Jesus came in a Hellenic Greek context that was previously foretold or prophesyied in the Old Testament or any reason based on merit?

Yes. Alexander the Great conquered the East 300 years before Christ and many Greek kingdoms, like the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom, were established there. These were later conquered by the Romans, but a great part of the intellectual population in the East continued speaking Greek as a second language. Greek was the English of that day, the lingua franca.

I for one speak Dutch as my first language, English is my second language. If I want people to read and understand something in an international context, like this forum, I use English and not Dutch. It would be useless to answer you in Dutch, now wouldn’t it?
For the same reason the apostles and evangelists used Greek instead of Aramaic, which was their first language. It really is that simple.

 

[davidv]

It is relevant because much of Church moral theology is based on Scholasticism; thus, the question arises - why should something that “the Philosopher” says be taken as relevant to a discussion of the inspired teaching of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Another question - is there any reason why the Gospel authors were Greek or Jesus came in a Hellenic Greek context that was previously foretold or prophesyied in the Old Testament or any reason based on merit?

Note bold above. This is the crux of your problem. This is a false assumption. The Church’s moral theology is based on Truth and Divine Law.

 

[Contarini]

What does it mean to “Christianize” another philosopher’s philosophy? Is it also possible to “Christianize” Confucius in the same way?

Sure. Why not?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, of course. Very much so. Only ancestor worship would have to go.

And the Jesuits made a case even for that. . . .

Clarification: of course the argument was that it wasn’t worship but just a particular cultural form of honoring your parents (living or dead).

Edwin

 

[sw85]

Jesus lived 300 years after Aristotle and Plato. He mentioned neither of these two people in any of his teaching. Neither did any of his disciples or anyone in the entire New Testament except to critique the opinions of he Greeks as compared to the teachings of the Church. Yet, much of later Catholic teaching is founded on the ideas of these two men.

Why? Who would know the answer to this question of why we found teachings on Aristotle and Plato? Is there a relevant theology course? How would Catholicism have been different if based on Confucius instead of Aristotle and Plato?

1 Corinthians 1:23

Were Plato and Aristotle any less God’s subjects? Is God so weak that He cannot work even through those who do not believe in Him (though probably solely out of ignorance)?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Were Plato and Aristotle any less God’s subjects? Is God so weak that He cannot work even through those who do not believe in Him (though probably solely out of ignorance)?

It seems to me that at least Plato believed in some sort of monotheism, since he says the forms, and especially the form of the Good, is created by ho Theos - God (singular).

 

[eternalrest]

Note bold above. This is the crux of your problem. This is a false assumption. The Church’s moral theology is based on Truth and Divine Law.

Some of the theology is not based on truth or divine law but can be traced back to these very human philosophers. This is why people such as Justice Judge Noonan write books such as the “The Church that Can and Cannot Change”. Many changes have occurred in the Church moral theology over the years; not all of Church teaching is infalliable.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Some of the theology is not based on truth or divine law but can be traced back to these very human philosophers.

Such as?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Some of the theology is not based on truth or divine law but can be traced back to these very human philosophers. This is why people such as Justice Judge Noonan write books such as the “The Church that Can and Cannot Change”. Many changes have occurred in the Church moral theology over the years; not all of Church teaching is infalliable.

With respect, you’re making statements of ‘fact’ but you are not giving concrete examples. “Justice Judge Noonan’s” books are not authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching.

You’re giving the opinion of someone (you, and possibly taking it from Judge Noonan) and presenting it as ‘fact’.

Change does not mean ‘complete 180’ although certainly a 180 degree change is a change.

Suppose I say, “The Church is necessary for salvation”. That is a Truth.
Suppose my understanding DEEPENS so that I then am led by the Holy Spirit to understand that all people, not simply baptized Catholics, or even baptized nonCatholic Christians, are somehow ‘part’ of The Church.

THAT is a change but not a 180 change in that I am not teaching First the “The Church is necessary for salvation” and second "The Church is NOT necessary for salvation.’

The CHANGE is in the understanding of WHO is a part of the Church. The Church STILL remains necessary for salvation. The original teaching remains. I have not CHANGED that teaching. I have deepened my understanding of who is part of the Church, but the Church STILL remains necessary for salvation.

And that has nothing to do with Plato, Aristotle, even Confucius.

I still think you need to make a case, with your own explanation and giving reliable SOURCES showing exactly how the Catechism has completely ‘180’ changed and how the ‘original Jesus teaching’ has been ‘superseded’ by Aristotelianism’. . .

And I don’t you’ll be able to do so, frankly,.

 

[eternalrest]

With respect, you’re making statements of ‘fact’ but you are not giving concrete examples. “Justice Judge Noonan’s” books are not authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching.

There is no statement from the Church that these teachings of Aristotle and Plato ARE part of moral law, is there? No, these statements have not been declared infalliable.

Here is one change that Pope John Paul II just apologized for: ST THOMAS AQUINAS "Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher. Now “the Philosopher” is Aristotle.

I still think you need to make a case, with your own explanation and giving reliable SOURCES showing exactly how the Catechism has completely ‘180’ changed and how the ‘original Jesus teaching’ has been ‘superseded’ by Aristotelianism’. . .

There is no need for me to repeat what is in Judge Noonan’s book. He covers four examples of change, the first being slavery.