Would it be okay if Church theoogy wasn't based on Aquinas but on someone more recent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sidetrack

Guest
I think I remember hearing once that Thomas Aquinas works are what the Church bases a ot of it’s philosophy on to this day.However I sort of feel a little bit that seeing as how this was someone from the Middle Ages al the works he did while good are…(I don’t know how to put this ‘~’)…a bit “incompete” for nowadays 🤷 ?.Why don’t we switch to having Church philosophy based on someone from the eary 1700’s and onwards?.Is it b/c there hasn’t reay been anyone who’s produced the same leve of significantly impacting stuff as Aquinas since?.
 
I’m no expert and his philosophical writings are way over my head but I believe that Karl Rahner tried doing that. Maybe someone more knowledgeble can expand on this.
 
Would it be okay if Church theoogy wasn’t based on Aquinas but on someone more recent ?
Simple answer:

Church theology is not based on Aquinas. It’s based on Scriptures.
 
I think I remember hearing once that Thomas Aquinas works are what the Church bases a ot of it’s philosophy on to this day.However I sort of feel a little bit that seeing as how this was someone from the Middle Ages al the works he did while good are…(I don’t know how to put this ‘~’)…a bit “incompete” for nowadays 🤷 ?.Why don’t we switch to having Church philosophy based on someone from the eary 1700’s and onwards?.Is it b/c there hasn’t reay been anyone who’s produced the same leve of significantly impacting stuff as Aquinas since?.
Believe you are confusing “Church Theology” with “Church Philosophy” the former as someone pointed out correctly, comes from the big T “Tradition” and “Scripture”
The latter does not exist.
The Church has had philosophers arguing for this or that method forever. No philosophical system is perfect, all have flaws. Philosophers have made contributions to our understanding of God and helped develop our Theology but…
What concepts do you believe that the Church should “modernize” ?
 
Simple answer:

Church theology is not based on Aquinas. It’s based on Scriptures.
Exactly.

The Church doesn’t base Her theology on any one saint – however brilliant he may be. Augustine and Aquinas come close. They did a great job of articulating a great many things, and the Church has adopted some of that language into the way She articulates Her teaching.

But the Church is not going to arbitrarily pick a philosopher/theologian at random and switching everything up just in the interest of “updating.”

The documents coming from the Magisterium are more important measuring sticks for Church teaching than any specific theologian.
 
As a small added note, the age of a philosophy does not have any affect on it’s relevance or correctness. The fact that we still use him for much philosophy discussion attests to the depth and importance of his philosophies. The concept that newer is better is horrifically flawed.
 
I think I remember hearing once that Thomas Aquinas works are what the Church bases a ot of it’s philosophy on to this day.However I sort of feel a little bit that seeing as how this was someone from the Middle Ages al the works he did while good are…(I don’t know how to put this ‘~’)…a bit “incompete” for nowadays 🤷 ?.Why don’t we switch to having Church philosophy based on someone from the eary 1700’s and onwards?.Is it b/c there hasn’t reay been anyone who’s produced the same leve of significantly impacting stuff as Aquinas since?.
How about just following Jesus Christ, He never goes out of style.
 
I think I remember hearing once that Thomas Aquinas works are what the Church bases a ot of it’s philosophy on to this day.However I sort of feel a little bit that seeing as how this was someone from the Middle Ages al the works he did while good are…(I don’t know how to put this ‘~’)…a bit “incompete” for nowadays 🤷 ?.Why don’t we switch to having Church philosophy based on someone from the eary 1700’s and onwards?.Is it b/c there hasn’t reay been anyone who’s produced the same leve of significantly impacting stuff as Aquinas since?.
I will leave it others to offer corrections on some of your premises. I have a question: what part of his works are incomplete?
 
Believe you are confusing “Church Theology” with “Church Philosophy” the former as someone pointed out correctly, comes from the big T “Tradition” and “Scripture”
The latter does not exist.
The Church has had philosophers arguing for this or that method forever. No philosophical system is perfect, all have flaws.
Certainly not of necessity; otherwise the pursuit of knowledge or understanding would always be a vanity and we could never make any progress.
Philosophers have made contributions to our understanding of God and helped develop our Theology but…
What concepts do you believe that the Church should “modernize” ?
Philosophy is just the love of wisdom. Holy Scipture teaches that wisdom is something real and definite and encourages us to pursue “her”: the Book of Proverbs, for example, is loaded with references to (lady) Wisdom. For example,

Prov. 4:1 Sons of mine, take a lesson from your father; a lesson that will make discerning men of you, will you but heed it. 2 A precious heirloom it is, the tradition I teach, not to be lightly bartered away. 3 Time was when I had a father of my own; and when I was but a boy, my mother’s darling, 4 in such words as these he would teach me: Ever be thy heart true to my bidding; if thrive thou wouldst, hold fast the charge I give thee. 5 Wisdom be thy quest, thy quest discernment still; thy father’s apt and faithful pupil, 6 keep her at thy side, thy guardian; cherish her, thy preserver. 7 Wisdom be thy chief thought, make discernment thine at all hazards; 8 her attainment exalts, her embrace ennobles thee; 9 a wreath of fresh graces she will give thee, a crown of glory, to overshadow thy brow.

But the Scripture presupposes revelation and knowledge of God/theology; notwithstanding, we are told by revelation to pursue wisdom. Now Catholics among Christians are above all noted for their philosophical endeavours and openess to the pursuit of philosophy: i.e. of wisdom. Therefore the Church has a philosophy and does so with Scriptural approval; otherwise, the Church would have failed to pursue wisdom in accordance with the command of revelation. However, this she has always done and is still doing. So the Church does not only have wisdom and a love of it (philosophy), but is ever teaching and cultivating it in her sons.

For Catholics, theology or revelation trumps any purely human effort to attain to wisdom or understanding if that alleged wisdom contradicts revelation, which is manifested in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Now if we understand philosophy as a synthesis of human knowledge and learning into a coherent system, then it certainly can at least grow and -so far as it grows- change; but it can never contradict theology or revelation. But as the Catechism teaches, “Faith seeks understanding.” That seeking of greater understanding (especially of God and Revelation) is and will be the Church’s philosophy.
 
We can’t change a hair on our heads, we are not the creator. Only the creator can change our souls. That is what it means.
…if we reach out and allow that change to happen, yes. That’s free will. Doing what Jesus commanded us to do is part of that process.

What’s your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top