Fides et Ratio vs. Studiorum Ducem

[LouisIX]

I agree with you completely on this one, Geremia.  JPII is not the only one subject to this critique, but Benedict as well.  While his version of Augustinianism perhaps lends itself better to Thomism, Thomism did not appear for him to be the natural development and maturation of Augustine, but something which could sit side-by-side with it.

Admittedly, I do not know enough about Ratzinger's theology to say much more, but this is how it appears to me.

[Geremia]

A good discussion/debate here:

http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2013/01/thomism-and-magisterium.html

Interesting comments there
thanks

Here's what I commented:

1. The magisterial prescriptions generally recommend Aquinas as a model, but do not prescribe particular doctrines as to be held.

You can't have one without the other. From Pope St. Pius X's motu proprio Doctoris Angelici (cf. this):

Now because the word We used in the text of that letter [Sacrorum Antistitum] recommending the philosophy of Aquinas was 'particularly,' and not 'exclusively,' certain persons persuaded themselves that they were acting in conformity to Our Will or at any rate not actively opposing it, in adopting indiscriminately and adhering to the philosophical opinions of any other Doctor of the School, even though such opinions were contrary to the principles of St. Thomas. They were greatly deceived. In recommending St. Thomas to Our subjects as supreme guide in the Scholastic philosophy, it goes without saying that Our intention was to be understood as referring above all to those principles upon which that philosophy is based as its foundation. For just as the opinion of certain ancients is to be rejected which maintains that it makes no difference to the truth of the Faith what any man thinks about the nature of creation, provided his opinions on the nature of God be sound, because error with regard to the nature of creation begets a false knowledge of God; so the principles of philosophy laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and inviolably observed, because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as is most congruent with the Faith (Contra Gentiles, II, 2, 3); of refuting all the errors of all the ages, and of enabling man to distinguish clearly what things are to be attributed to God and to God alone (ibid., iii; and Sum. Theol., 1, xii, 4: and liv, 1). They also marvellously illustrate the diversity and analogy between God and His works, a diversity and analogy admirably expressed by the Fourth Lateran Council as follows: "The resemblance between the Creator and the creature is such that their still greater dissimilarity cannot fail to be observed" (Decretalis iii, Damnamus ergo, etc. Cf. St. Thomas, Quaest, disp. De Scientia Dei, a. 11). --For the rest, the principles of St. Thomas, considered generally and as a whole, contain nothing but what the most eminent philosophers and doctors of the Church have discovered after prolonged reflection and discussion in regard to the particular reasons determining human knowledge, the nature of God and creation, the moral order and the ultimate end to be pursued in life.


let's assume the opposite: Thomism is universally binding on every catholic, down to its particular theses.  What might follow?
1. Philosophy is destroyed and we are left with fideism.

The law of non-contradiction, for example, is not demonstrable (cf. this), yet our acceptance of it could hardly be called fideism. The same could be said about the 24 Thomistic Theses.

2. Theology becomes mere commentary on Aquinas through the adjudication of the Thomistic commentary tradition.

So? St. Thomas laid a solid foundation, and commentaries build upon it.

3. Papal interventions will be required to dogmatically establish the interpretations of Thomistic texts (if the real distinction between essence and existence is a Thomistic thesis it is dogmatic; but some thomists have denied that Aquinas holds that essence and existence are really distinct; ergo we need authoritative interpretations of Aquinas' texts.

Many of St. Thomas's doctrines made it into the final canons of the Council of Trent, at which the Summa and Holy Scriptures were placed side-by-side on the altar.

[BigMelvin]

To come back on point....

I looked up the Fides et Ratio quote.

Geremia (no offense) left out this little ... tidbit!

JPII says this:

CHAPTER V
THE MAGISTERIUM'S INTERVENTIONS IN PHILOSOPHICAL MATTERS

The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth

49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others.(54)

Reference/footnote 54 reads thus:
(54) Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950): AAS 42 (1950), 566.

But then Humani Generis says this:

31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]

Now, admittedly, I have not read the entirety of either Humani Generis nor Fides et Ratio yet, but...  how could JPII glean "The Church has no official philosophy," when the Church "demands priests be instructed 'according to the method, doctrine, and principles'" of Aquinas???

O.o

the same document (HG) in articles 15,16 denies in advance the very principle that animates Vatican II, that the teaching of the Church is to be recast according to the methods of contemporary philosophy. Good Pope John had some cajones.

[Francisco Suárez]

Looks like a massive contradiction, one that sets JPII and Leo13, among others, against each other.

Don't worry, it all makes sense within the hermeneutic of continuity!

[Geremia]

And there's also this from Veritatis Splendor §29:

Certainly the Church's Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one. Nevertheless, in order to "reverently preserve and faithfully expound" the word of God, the Magisterium has the duty to state that some trends of theological thinking and certain philosophical affirmations are incompatible with revealed truth.