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

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by sw85

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]

Originally Posted by davidv

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]

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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]

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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]

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo

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.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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.

Indeed, not everything Aquinas says is infallible.

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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.

Was it ever more than the private opinion of men like Aquinas and Aristotle? Remember, slavery in the 18th and 19th century is radically different from slavery in the 4th century BC.

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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.

What was there to be changed? In the Middle Ages the Church actively opposed slavery. There was very little slavery in Medieval Europe thanks to the RCC, compare that to where Islam or Orthodoxy ruled. There they had slaves.

[Tantum ergo]

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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.



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.

So, what you are doing is presenting Judge Noonan's statements as fact,.

[eternalrest]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Was it ever more than the private opinion of men like Aquinas and Aristotle? Remember, slavery in the 18th and 19th century is radically different from slavery in the 4th century BC.

If it was only their "private opinion", then why did the Pope apologize for the Church as a whole? Their private teaching was used by the American bishops in the 1860s to oppose the end of slavery as well as by Catholic countries to engage in the slave trade prior to the 1860s. This is why the question of separating between truth/divine Revelation and personal opinion is important!

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by eternalrest

If it was only their "private opinion", then why did the Pope apologize for the Church as a whole? Their private teaching was used by the American bishops in the 1860s to oppose the end of slavery as well as by Catholic countries to engage in the slave trade prior to the 1860s. This is why the question of separating between truth/divine Revelation and personal opinion is important!

Not meaning to be offensive, but Pope JPII apologised for pretty much anything under the sun.

And again, all divine revelation is truth but not all truth is divine revelation.

[eternalrest]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Not meaning to be offensive, but Pope JPII apologised for pretty much anything under the sun.

There are many things he didn't apologize for. Unless some statement is given that this was accidental, let's take it that he meant what he was saying.

[davidv]

Originally Posted by eternalrest

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.

Do you have any evidence for any of these statements?

Why should I give Justice Judge Noonan any credibility in this matter?