Greek Philosophy - Basis of Catholicism?

[trickster]

Originally Posted by Trishie

He has acknowledged that. He has a deep concern relating to his Aboriginal culture and Catholicism, a natural desire to reconcile them. He knows I do sympathise though I argue with him. On-line, so I'm no betraying secrets! Even so, this time I might have been gentler. I regret he's off-line so can't see that comment. Not wishing to hurt him personally. I studied logic when taking philosophy, and when some trace of it appears...logic and even pseudo-logic has a sharp edge. I shouldn't allow it to submerge compassion even rarely.

Like I said in a response elsewhere, please no need for worries! I am happy that you stated it the way you did, as I didn't realize that it came out as a logic or philosophical; if a =b and b= c then b =c ? or was that a =b? Trust me you will have a blast at trying to understand my logic, wasn't the greatest of my subjects in school!

So I hope that I have clarified my question a bit better...and in fact your authentic talk and challenges I appreciate, I learn from and I think that I am getting better at trying to say what I think...so do carry on Trishie!

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

[Kismetji]

Originally Posted by trickster

Hi Kismetji. Yeah "trickster" as a handle has proven more problematic than I had thought it would....you see I am American Indian (we say Aboriginal Canadian) and the trickster archetype is often associated with transformation. Transformation to me is also conversion and life - long conversion. Example of trickster figures include coyotes and ravens...that is what the handle wanted to innocently portray.

However, people have been very uncomfortable with it because in many other cultures (i.e. Norse, Celitic), it is not such an innocent or well meaning archetype and I was not aware of that.

I myself am pretty uncomfortably attuned to the fact that Christians tend to latch onto a mere term and make it the all - as though you were an associate of Satan or something.

Well, I'll one-up that one. I think "trickster" should be an honorary title. This is because God is the Ultimate Trickster. No one can Deceive as good as Him.

[Trishie]

Thank you, Bruce. There is something rather nice but also amusing about your patience with me. Every now and then I get in a blow and you forgive me.
I'm not much in the mood for arguing right now, Bruce...because I understand the desire you have expressed in various ways since you came here, and because I have a strong sense of symbolism and links myself. While my ancestors long ago dealt with what you are struggling with in various ways, (in this thread, more obliquely), and if they struggled to relinquish what did not comply with Christianity, all traces of that are lost... And here in Australia we have our own indigenous Australians who are now respectfully acknowledged when Parliament sits, and in public events, and in parish bulletins.There is a respect that wasn't always there for these ancient people who have inhabited this land for 30,000 to 40,000 years, no one is quite sure.

However in your expanded explanation I don't see much to argue with at this time.

So, no sparring this evening. This instead
Someone else can take up the thread.

By the way, my discomfort with "Trickster" wasn't nearly as erudite as the one you suggest, just its similarity with trickery, a trickster, one who tricks, deceives. But I know that's not your meaning. Anyway why would someone with a serious concern or agenda use a name that might undermine his authenticity? I'm accustomed to it now.

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

Augie - Plato

Aqui - Aristotle

See "Scholasticism"

Yes, in broad lines this is correct. Plato and Aristotle, not Socrates and Aristotle.

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by Trishie

However in this particular thread, in my view he comes close to stating as fact and as a premise to argue from, that which undermines the divine origins of Christianity. In my view he has not proved that Socrates and Aristotle share the origins of the church and development of doctrine. Therefore to argue from that base is not acceptable. He may be more learned than we are? Than I am, but as an ordinary Catholic I can't accept that premise without doubt.

You should inform yourself better and be more 'learned' indeed. Divine inspiration and use of classical philsophical sources do not exclude one another.

[Trishie]

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

You should inform yourself better and be more 'learned' indeed. Divine inspiration and use of classical philsophical sources do not exclude one another.

I think you'll find we got past that. And we all should be "more learned", about many things In any case it wasn't as simple as that.

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by Trishie

And we all should be "more learned", about many things

Yes, we all should be.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by trickster

It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?

Greek philosophy didn't really come to play a significant role in Christan thought until the time of Aquinas or a little earlier. By then the basic doctrines were already hammered out. But Aquinas and others saw in that philosophy a reflection of the Christian God because the Christian God was understood to be one who created and acted out of order and reason, unlike the gods of, say, the pagan religions. With faith and reason as his guides he recognized the common ground between the teachings of Aristotle and those of Christianity and sought to synthesize them, using reason to help understand, clarify, and undergird the tenets of the faith.

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by fhansen

Greek philosophy didn't really come to play a significant role in Christan thought until the time of Aquinas or a little earlier. By then the basic doctrines were already hammered out. But Aquinas and others saw in that philosophy a reflection of the Christian God because the Christian God was understood to be one who created and acted out of order and reason, unlike the gods of, say, the pagan religions. With faith and reason as his guides he recognized the common ground between the teachings of Aristotle and those of Christianity and sought to synthesize them, using reason to help understand, clarify, and undergird the tenets of the faith.

This is not quite true. The dogma of God's immutability, for example, can be squarely traced back to St. Augustine who was influenced by Neo-Platonism:

God's anger implies no perturbation of the divine mind. It is simply the divine judgment passing sentence on sin. And when God "thinks and then has second thoughts" this merely means that changeable realities come into relation with his immutable reason. For God cannot "repent" as human beings repent, of what he has done, since in regard to everything his judgment is fixed as his foreknowledge is clear ... But it is only by the use of such human expressions that Scripture can make its many kinds of readers whom it wants to help to feel, as it were, at home. Only thus can Scripture frighten the proud and arouse the slothful, provoke inquiries and provide food for the convinced. This is possible only when Scripture gets right down to the level of the lowliest readers.

(St. Augustine, City of God, 15:25)

(This passage should also serve as a warning against a literal reading of the Bible; Augustine himself points out elsewhere that also the Genesis story is not to be taken literally [that was more than a millenium before the scientific revolution.])

See:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/...utability.html

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

This is not quite true. The dogma of God's immutability, for example, can be squarely traced back to St. Augustine who was influenced by Neo-Platonism:

Yes, I bypassed a few centuries there. My main point was that Christianity doesn't depend on Greek philosophy for its doctrines, rather it recognizes the way it compliments and can be utilized to understand the faith.

[Abba]

Originally Posted by trickster

It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?

This is incorrect. False premise as Trishie noted. The Christian Fathers did not withdraw theories and understandings from Greek philosophy which the Church later adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is a serious misunderstanding. The Church Fathers expressed the authentic Traditions of the Church via philosophical understanding. The Church did not adopt dogmas based on philosophical deduction which it later presented to the Holy Spirit. I mean, really.

The knowledge of the immutability of God comes to us as revealed by God Himself. It is in the Bible. We did not come to adopt this as dogma based on deduction. Thank you.

I agree with the original positions of JHansen and Trishie. What I fail to understand is why they changed positions.

[Abba]

Christ established His Church.

The Catholic Church is founded in Christ - not philosophy.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church. The Church does not guide the Holy Spirit.

The Pope does not have thousands of theologians/philosophers working arduously to come up with some deduction to propose to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not need our help.

It is God who reveals Himself and gives knowledge of Himself when He determines according to His Divine Wisdom in general and, in particular to who he wants and when he wants.

I can be the greatest genius that has ever lived but I cannot discover an attribute or anything about God unless God reveals it. I cannot come to know God in spite of God.

I mean, the picture in my mind of 300 monks in a monastery applying their intellectual prowess to discover something about God is absurd.

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by Abba

Christ established His Church.

The Catholic Church is founded in Christ - not philosophy.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church. The Church does not guide the Holy Spirit.

The Pope does not have thousands of theologians/philosophers working arduously to come up with some deduction to propose to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not need our help.

It is God who reveals Himself and gives knowledge of Himself when He determines according to His Divine Wisdom in general and, in particular to who he wants and when he wants.

I agree with all of this, but the Holy Spirit can also use guidance through the understanding of God from philosophy. God does not always lead through extraordinary means, but also through the ordinary means of natural human reason.

I can be the greatest genius that has ever lived but I cannot discover an attribute or anything about God unless God reveals it.

This is not true. St. Thomas Aquinas has affirmed that many attributes of God can be known through natural reason, such as His infinity, immutability, eternity, goodness, simplicity etc. He affirmed on the other hand that the Holy Trinity, for example, is only knowable through divine revelation, as is of course the divinity of Christ.

I cannot come to know God in spite of God.

Of course not, but God's revelation does not work against natural reason either.

I mean, the picture in my mind of 300 monks in a monastery applying their intellectual prowess to discover something about God is absurd.

It's not absurd, see above. But again, of course only through divine revelation can we know God fully -- as much as this possible in our earthly life.

[Charlemagne II]

Abba

Your basic point is right.

As to morals and what we need to know about God and our human destiny, it's all there in the Bible and in the teachings of the Church. If we had never drawn upon Greek philosophy to flesh things out, we would still have all the essentials from Christ, preserved for us intact by Holy Mother Church. If Augustine had never drawn from Plato, and Aquinas had never drawn from Aristotle, the Catholic Church would still be a beacon of wisdom for the world.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Abba

Your basic point is right.

As to morals and what we need to know about God and our human destiny, it's all there in the Bible and in the teachings of the Church. If we had never drawn upon Greek philosophy to flesh things out, we would still have all the essentials from Christ, preserved for us intact by Holy Mother Church. If Augustine had never drawn from Plato, and Aquinas had never drawn from Aristotle, the Catholic Church would still be a beacon of wisdom for the world.

Yes, and I like what Al is getting at, too, though. God doesn't want us to turn off our brains, developing an anti-intellectual viewpoint like some fundamentalists seem to have. He knew that Catholic thinkers would dovetail philosophy/reason with our faith and that we could not only support but also more completely define and explain doctrines by the use of reason. After all, our faith, while supernatural, is nonetheless reasonable as well. It could also be argued that the timing of Jesus' advent was due in part to the fact that, by then, mankind had arrived at a kind of faith in God using reason alone-we wouldn't have to be backtracking and playing catch-up in that department.