The epochal turning point of the medieval Church's teaching
The entrance of Aristotle in Paris in the 13th century
In the 13th century, at the University of Paris, Dominican theologians, having learned from Muslim philosophers in Spain about Aristotle's philosophy, obtained the Church's approval to replace Plato with Aristotle in the interpretation of Scripture, which until then had been based on the works of the Holy Fathers.
Patrology began in Greece and later spread to Rome. The Fathers had at their disposal both Plato and Aristotle for the interpretation of revealed knowledge. However, they considered Plato more suitable than Aristotle. They believed that Plato had a more religious spirit, was more sensitive to mysticism and charity, more respectful of asceticism, and that his conception of God, humanity, and knowledge was nobler. On the other hand, they saw Aristotle as a rough empiricist who supported the eternity of the world, denied the immortality of the soul, regarded humans as animals, and advocated earthly happiness.
[A similar accusation was made by some Protestant thinkers in the last century, such as Heidegger, Bultmann, and Tillich. God, the Being, for the Stoic tradition - according to these thinkers - is an object of human knowledge different by degree - and not by nature - from otherworldly entities and phenomena.
God, transcendence, theodicy, divine holiness, and creation, as a voluntary historical act, would all be categories conceived with an objectifying, reifying, naturalistic, Stoic-Aristotelian, causal-efficient, techno-morphic language, presupposing the movement of a substance - a principle, an absolute - towards another contingent substance, which it then reproduces. Thus, introducing another plane, an otherness towards which God by an efficient move would direct his intention: a divine plan, a ratio, a principle reduplicated, reified to another level. And this level would be a cosmological, empirical, necessary, and analytic one. Therefore, according to this approach, God is a reality, an agent, alongside the others, external, localized in space, extrinsic, beyond or above the conditioned, the current. (In a word, the world.)
In short, this conception would make the encounter - the relationship between God and the world, between God and man - impossible, unfit for modern man.
( cf.: E.S. Lodovici, God and the World, relation, cause, space in St. Augustin, Ed. Studium, Rome, 1979, p.1-2)
Further, the Author of this doctoral thesis affirms that the transcendence of God in Middle Platonism, in Gnosticism, is paradoxically connected to Aristotle, and not to Plato, precisely because of the radicality with which it is understood, as pure transcendence, separated from immanent, and thus inclined to be understood in a spatial sense. Indeed, it seems difficult (for the Author, (Ed.)) to dispute that it is precisely the excessive use of negative theology that pushes the representation of God to take on an objectivist-deistic style on the one hand and a kinetic-efficient style on the other.
(Cf. E.S. Lodovici, o.c., note 18, p. 129)]
Although they had noticed some errors in Plato, such as his dualism between the truth grasped by the intellect and the questionable nature perceived by the senses, the origin of evil in matter rather than spirit, the error of the preexistence of the soul fallen into the prison of the body, and consequently the doctrine of salvation not as the resurrection of the body but as liberation from the body, they also recognized elements of spirituality in Plato. For example, his famous Platonic eros and the value of the ideal, which even surpassed Aristotelianism and have remained forever present in Christian spirituality.
On the other hand, Muslim philosophers such as Al-Farabi, Al-Kindi, and Avicenna, who encountered Aristotle's works from Greece in Persia, Egypt, and Spain, which the Greek Fathers had overlooked, realized the greater usefulness of Aristotelian anthropology, ethics, and metaphysics in interpreting the doctrine of the Quran compared to that of Plato.
These philosophers, while maintaining their Islamic faith, understood that reverence and respect for the words and commands of Allah, the creator of reason and free will, do not exclude but presuppose that they are embraced and understood by human reason and put into practice freely and responsibly.
[ Faith and reason were allies, in fact, in all classical medieval philosophy, whether Islamic or Jewish or Christian. cf. Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 41]
Therefore, they discovered in Aristotle a spirit respectful of reality and a powerful reasoner, and they realized the great advantage of using his logical, cosmological, anthropological, ethical, and metaphysical doctrines to understand the meaning of the Quranic revelation. Other philosophers, such as Al-Ghazali and Avicenna, preferred Plato.
But how did Muslims come to know about Aristotle? The origin of this – who could have ever imagined it? These are the mysteries of Providence! – lies precisely in the fact that Justinian closed the School of Athens in 529. As a result, its director, Damascius, along with other sages, emigrated to Persia, where Emperor Khosrow welcomed them warmly because he was an admirer of Greek philosophy.
As a result, when Muslims arrived in Persia in the 7th century, they became aware of Greek philosophy, and among them were wise individuals who had a good idea of using Aristotle to interpret the God of the Quran, just as the Church Fathers had used Plato to interpret the biblical God.
However, Averroes, with his materialistic interpretation, did not contribute favorably to Aristotle's reputation in Paris. This led to extreme distrust from conservative theologians in Paris, such as Peter Lombard, the Augustinians, and the Victorines, when they learned that the Dominicans were interested in Aristotle. They fiercely opposed Aristotle's entry into the University of Paris, accusing the Dominicans of being philo-pagans, as if the beloved Plato they adored had not also been a pagan.
Pope Gregory IX, for his part, banned the teaching of Aristotle in 1231. However, he hoped that his ideas would undergo an appropriate critical examination, which could not be achieved at the time. Later, Pope Alexander IV, better informed by St. Albertus Magnus of the possibility that Thomas could undertake such an operation, urged the Chancellor of the University of Paris in a letter to grant Thomas the licentia docendi, which happened in the same year. Thus, Thomas, who had already begun teaching in 1252, was called to Paris by the Master of the Order, Cardinal Hugo de Saint-Cher, and was confirmed in his work program [1].
He thus realized the project that Pope Gregory IX had already hoped for, and in a few years, he elaborated that masterpiece of critical acumen, never before attempted, which constitutes the commentary on all the works of Aristotle, by the desires of Gregory IX.
Thomas thus laid new philosophical foundations for the interpretation of the Word of God suitable for the subsequent Magisterium of the Church, better than the Platonic ones previously used, without despising the best of Plato. Thomas also commented on works of Platonic inspiration, such as Proclus' "Liber de Causis" and Dionysius the Areopagite's "De divinis nominibus."
The Church in the 13th century approved the shift made by St. Thomas in the use of philosophy for the interpretation of revealed doctrine.
For this reason, appropriately, Pope Paul VI, in the letter "Lumen Ecclesiae" addressed in 1974 to Father Vincent de Couesnongle, Master of the Dominican Order, highlights how Thomas, although giving preference to Aristotle, did not forget at all the Platonic heritage, which revives transfigured in St. Augustine. Thomas drew important philosophical notions from Plato, such as the idea of knowledge by affinity, which Plato discusses in the "Seventh Letter," and which Thomas calls "cognitio per modum inclinationis" or "propter connaturalitatem," a form of affective knowledge that Thomas uses to explain mystical contemplation, the effect of the (Holy Spirit’s) gift of wisdom.
The approval of St. Thomas' thought by the Church gave rise to an epochal turning point, which, like all truly great innovative movements, did not constitute a rupture or cancellation of the heritage of the Fathers culminating in St. Augustine, but the perennial substance of patristic thought, purified from the defects of Platonism, passed into Thomistic thought, which employs Aristotelian thought, also purified from errors, and whose gaps Thomas filled.
Since then, the Magisterium of the Church has never ceased to draw, preferentially among all the Doctors, from the thought of Aquinas, and has recommended it many times over the past eight centuries as “scholastic and speculative theology’s Prince,” until the Second Vatican Council, as well as until St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II.
It must also be noted that Thomas held the highest esteem for Augustine among all the Fathers (of the Church) and Doctors. Justly, Maritain observed that Thomas is the best of all Augustine's disciples [2], the one who best understands his deep intentions, excuses him for his weaknesses and frees him from interpretations that give rise to idealism, dualism, and Platonic distrust of sensory knowledge.
For this reason, with the arrival of St. Thomas, the Church has never diminished her esteem for Augustine. If she decreed Thomas as the Prince of scholastic and speculative theology, she has always considered and still considers Augustine, the "Doctor Gratiae," as the summit of the Fathers, the Prince of Shepherds, and a concrete guide to Christian perfection and holiness, according to his famous exclamation that sums up his fervent spirituality: "O aeterna Veritas! O cara Aeternitas! O vera Caritas!"[3]:
O eternal Truth! O beloved Eternity! O true Charity!
And all the great Christian mystics, from St. Gregory of Nyssa to Dionysius the Areopagite, from St. Bernard to William of Saint-Thierry, from Ruusbroec to St. Bonaventure, from Blessed Angela of Foligno to St. Catherine of Siena, from Blessed Henry Suso to John Tauler, from St. John of the Cross to St. Teresa of Avila, from St. Francis de Sales to St. Thérèse of Lisieux, are more disciples of Augustine than of Thomas, even though Aquinas is unsurpassed in the theoretical explanation of the essence, purposes, effects, and causes of mystical contemplation, which he keeps safeguarded from all sentimentalism, emotionalism, and hedonism.
The Thomistic turn of the Magisterium of the Church has favored a clarification of Christian spirituality that is more humanly sound and more in line with biblical spirituality. The earthly dimension achieved through Aristotelian realism has proven to be more genuinely earthly than Epicureanism, and the Aristotelian heaven has proven to be more celestial than the abstract Platonic heaven. Meanwhile, the asceticism derived from Aristotle, without losing any of its necessary rigor, has shed the Platonic dualism and opened up to the perspective of resurrection.
This humanistic spirituality, or "humanism of the Incarnation," to put it in Maritain's words, has developed over the centuries from Humanism and the Renaissance
[Ed.: In this strand of devoted humanism, we can mainly include, among others, St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Philip Neri and St. J.H. Newman, St. Francis de Sales, and St. John Bosco along with St. Louis Orione]
to reach a pinnacle never before attained with the spirituality of the Second Vatican Council. Although Thomas is not explicitly present in the scholastic language of the Council of Trent or Vatican I, his presence as a hidden ferment, that “ thomisme vivant”(living Thomism) [5], spoken of by Maritain, can be discerned without difficulty. It serves as a criterion for discernment and assimilation of the values of modern thought—a grand and exemplary work that Maritain himself accomplished throughout his 70 years of philosophical and theological production.
Indeed, no greater or more penetrating theoretical and speculative genius has arisen than Aquinas. His principles, central theses, and method are so perfect that Pope Leo XIII, in Aeterni Patris, goes so far as to say that one cannot imagine a better-founded, more comprehensive, unified, coherent, orderly, and complete rational philosophical system than that of St. Thomas so much so that several of his theological theses have been dogmatized.
To suggest that Karl Rahner could replace Thomas in his service to the Magisterium, as some do, is simply distressing and ridiculous. It disqualifies the critical judgment of those who support such a thesis because the foundations of Rahner's thought are heretical and contrary to sound reason.
On the contrary, even the post-conciliar Popes, up to Pope Francis, whom the modernists would like to see influenced by Luther, have never praised Rahner. On the contrary, when touching on topics where Rahner is mistaken, they refute him without even mentioning his name, simply teaching the truth. Conversely, in their official documents, they continue to cite St. Thomas. While St. John Paul II may have had sympathy for Blessed Duns Scotus, Benedict for St. Bonaventure, and Pope Francis for Romano Guardini, none of them have ever cited their thoughts if they conflicted with those of St. Thomas.
Attempts to return to Plato
The innovation carried out by Thomas, which began to replace Aristotle with Plato in the interpretation of revealed truth, provoked strong opposition, misunderstandings, and even scandal among many in Paris, especially among the Franciscans, Augustinians, Cistercians, and the secular clergy. Until then, Saint Augustine had been considered the prince of theologians, so they rightly perceived that wanting to replace Aristotle with Plato, whom Augustine greatly admired, could only be seen as a lack of respect towards Augustine.
Thomas understood this very well, and because he was a great admirer of Augustine when he had to address certain questionable doctrines in the field of epistemology, anthropology, or ethics, he proceeded with great caution, striving to give benevolent interpretations. However, initially, this was not enough to avoid opposition and even some local ecclesiastical condemnations, such as that of Stephen (Etienne) Tempier, the Archbishop of Paris, and his confrere Robert Kilwardby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, after Thomas' death. But in due course, Thomas, supported by his Dominican brethren, was approved by Pope Gregory IX.
However, not all theologians accepted the Thomistic reform. It remained and remains to this day a stumbling block and a source of scandal for many who refuse to abandon Plato's errors and accept the corrections of Aristotle.
The Church has always been magnanimous in tolerating this defect, especially if the theologian is a saint, as was the case with Saint Anselm, Saint Bonaventure, Blessed Duns Scotus, and Blessed Antonio Rosmini. But when Plato's errors demonstrated their dangerousness, the Church did not hesitate to condemn them, as was the case with Abelard, Eckhart, Wycliffe, Luther, Baius, Descartes, Molinos, Jansenius, Fénelon, Kant, German pantheism of the 19th century, ontologists, the supernaturalists of the «théologie nouvelle» (new theology) of the last century, and the modernists.
It is true, however, that the Church has also intervened to condemn errors that could be attributed to Aristotle, such as the empiricism of William of Ockham, the materialism of Bernardino Telesio, Renaissance anthropocentrism, the false psychology of Pomponazzi, the sensism of Campanella, the cosmo-centrism of Giordano Bruno, the atheistic materialism of Marx, Masonic naturalism,
[ Ed.: and moral relativism, the issue may be the single most crucial issue of our time, the most practical issue, since it makes the greatest difference to our lives, and that’s the clue touchstone of liberal democracies and Masonic lodges.
"The real problem is relativism and the dictatorship of relativism, a Benedict XVI’s concept which, however, Pope Francis has also made his own, about which he talked in his first meeting with the diplomatic corps, connecting it back to the forms of "spiritual poverty", mentioned so often in his speeches.
So, the problem is the penetration, at every level, of the dictatorship of relativism which, in the end, is truly the problem of the penetration of the Masonic mentality of our time."
cfr. Massimo Introvigne, Il problema delle origini e le origini del problema Massoneria,
Nothing more radically distinguishes our culture (the modern West) from all others in human history, including the pre-modern West as well as contemporary non-Western cultures, whether Islamic, communist, or "primitive". Most of our culture's intellectual leaders find the moral absolutisms of all these other cultures not only false but also dangerous, while these other cultures, in turn, find our relativism and skepticism of their moral certainties not only false but also dangerous—like a giant without a conscience.
CFR. Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.13 ],
the evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin. Some of these authors, such as Ockham, Pomponazzi, and Marx, openly declared themselves admirers of Aristotle. And Thomas himself does not fail to correct Aristotle's errors in cosmology, anthropology, ethics, and theology.
Particularly significant among these attempts to rebel against Thomistic Aristotelianism was that of Luther, in the name of an extreme Augustinianism, curiously contaminated by the empiricist and voluntarist individualism of Ockham. If we call reactionary movements those that, in the name of a surpassed past, oppose what is more advanced or, in the name of good, oppose what is better, it must be said that the movement sparked by Luther was more of a reactionary movement than a reform.
The same can be said for the so-called "modern philosophy" of Descartes, who, by replacing his cogito with the epistemological and metaphysical realism of Aristotle, not only returned to Platonic idealism but worsened it. In Plato, at least the Idea is an objective external reality, whereas in Descartes, it is an a priori idea of the mind. Thus, God, instead of being an objectively demonstrated external reality based on sensory experience, becomes, as Kant would explicitly state, nothing more than an "Idea of Reason," paving the way for Hegel's pantheistic idealism.
However, in the history of Thomism, it cannot be denied that there has been an excessive weight of Aristotelianism, which has ended up hindering rather than promoting a proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture. A remarkable witness to this is the famous episode of the trial of Galileo. Maritain rightly notes that Aristotle himself, followed by Thomas, on the one hand, demonstrates the possibility of physics as a science against Platonic doxa, but on the other hand, emphasizes that one of the tasks of physics is sozein ta phainomena, (to "save the appearances,") that is when it is not possible to provide apodictic proof, at least formulate a revisable hypothetical explanation that takes into account the objectivity of the tested experiencing phenomenon.
Neither Galileo nor his judges were capable of relativizing their respective opinions. The judges should have understood that the famous "sun standing still" should not be taken literally but only as a figure of speech to express the prolongation of the battle until late at night, as otherwise, it would be an absurd miracle. Galileo, on his part, should not have insisted on his opinion, which he had not proven. He would have done well to heed the advice of Cardinal Bellarmine, to present it as a mere hypothesis without the pretense of refuting the truthfulness of the biblical account. Consequently, a fetishistic concept of biblical inerrancy influenced by the authority of Aristotle blinded Galileo's judges, while Galileo himself appeared presumptuous in affirming as certain that which he could not demonstrate as certain [6].
[“The reason for the blunders of both - Cardinal Giacomo Biffi would say - is that one is unable to read, being insufficiently informed, the expressive ways proper to that time, to that Middle Eastern milieu. An evident case of literary anachronism is configured, of reading a text of the time with a contemporary, European interpretative key. Some literary technical clarifications are necessary for a correct exegesis.”]
The Program of Pope Francis
Some fervent and cunning flatterers of Pope Francis, false friends and disloyal collaborators, whitewashed tombs, ambitious opportunists, have proclaimed him a "revolutionary Pope," a "Pope unlike any seen before," not the Vicar of Christ but the vicar of the people of God, of the "popular Iglesia." They have praised him as the author of an "epochal change" and a regeneration of the Church from the depths, unlike anything that has ever happened in the entire history of the Church—a new and unprecedented Church, a hierarchical Church replaced by a fraternity, being replaced by becoming, appearance replacing essence, slogan replacing dogma, difference replacing contradiction, sense replacing intellect, opinion replacing science, flattery replacing reasoning, pastoral care replacing doctrine, praxis not being an application but the source of theory, communion being replaced by conformism, freedom replacing obedience, equivocation replacing univocity, charity replacing truth, meekness replacing fortitude, cunning replacing prudence, word replacing concept, idle chatter replacing conversation, monologue replacing dialogue, parrot replacing apostle, mastication replacing mysticism, ecology replacing theology, pleasure replacing duty, mercy replacing justice, socialism replacing social concerns, connivance replacing indulgence, duplicity replacing simplicity, love replacing law, the singular replacing the universal, the concrete replacing the abstract, the profane replacing the sacred, the earth replacing heaven, the flesh replacing the spirit, and man replacing God.
Amid this chaos, with false friends who despise him, open enemies who hate him, and apparent enemies who love him, along with a mass of indifferent individuals absorbed in their narrow interests, scarcely aware of what is happening, Pope Francis calmly steers Peter’s boat amidst the turbulent waves. Despite understandable uncertainties or occasional lapses, under the assault of the devil, he governs with firmness and prudence, assisted by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. The waters may enter the boat, and it may seem on the verge of sinking. Jesus is in the boat, but He sleeps. For now, He deems that there is no need to intervene.
But what is Francis doing? What is his program? Is it what his flatterers suppose or desire? Not by any means. Replace Rahner with St. Thomas? Far from it. So, what is his program? After eight (to be updated to the current publication (Ed.)) years, it is clear: it is a Thomistic program. Yes, dear modernist and Lefebvrian friends who believe you are leading the Church. Are you surprised? Do you think I'm deluded? Well, that's precisely how it is.
And on what basis do I make this claim, which doesn't occur to any of the self-proclaimed (religious, Ed.) experts of the right or the left?
[ Ed.: or of the (secular) self-proclaimed experts into the universities and courts and governments and banking and Big Tech companies, or bio-prophets like Francis Crick, Jacques Monod, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins, as well as humanists and social scientists trumpeting the essential claims of race, gender, and ethnicity, redefining ourselves as biological, rather than cultural and moral beings. We are, in fact, in the process of redefining a post-human society. A society is then nothing but some men imposing their values on others—majorities on minorities, rulers on ruled, teachers on students, or media mind molders on the stupid, traditionalist masses. A Brave New World living under the gentle hand of humanitarianism rendered fully competent by genetic manipulation, psychoactive drugs, and high-tech amusements. Mankind has succeeded in eliminating disease, aggression, war, anxiety, suffering, guilt, envy, and grief, at the heavy price of homogenization, mediocrity, trivial pursuits, shallow attachments, debased tastes, and spurious contentment.
The Brave New World has achieved prosperity, community, stability, and near-universal contentment, only to be inhabited by creatures of human shape but stunted humanity. They consume, fornicate, and don’t read, write, think, love, or govern themselves. Art and science, virtue and religion, family and friendship are all passé. What matters most is bodily health and immediate gratification: “Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today.” No one aspires to anything higher. Brave New Man is so dehumanized that he does not even realize what has been lost. Motherhood and fatherhood are merely reproductive functions, completely severed from feelings and human relations.
Everything proceeds under the direction of an omnipotent, albeit benevolent, world state. Dehumanization does not require despotism or external control. Precisely because society delivers exactly what we most want – health, safety, comfort, plenty, pleasure, peace of mind, and length of day – we can reach the same humanly debased condition solely by free human choice. No need for World Controllers. Just give us the tech imperative, liberal democratic society, compassionate humanitarianism, moral pluralism, and free markets, and we take ourselves to an A. Huxley’s Brave New World all by ourselves – without even deliberately deciding to go. (Cf. Leon R. Kass, Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002, p.5)]
It doesn't occur to any journalist? I believe only a few Cardinals understand it. My claim is based on another equally unusual, surprising, and unrealistic assertion that I have already made: that the conciliar program itself is Thomistic, specifically Maritainian Thomism.
This undoubtedly means that, as has been said many times in the last 60 years, today we must do what Thomas did with Aristotle and Plato, but always in light of the principles of Aquinas: utilize all the positive aspects of various cultures and religions, all the progress in philosophy, theology, and even the Magisterium of the Church made after St. Thomas and all the values of modernity. We must do what Thomas did in his time and what he would do today: integrate all these values into the heritage of Catholic philosophy, theology, and culture to prepare new developments of the Magisterium of the Church. This should be done in conjunction with the inculturation of the Gospel message in the various cultures of the peoples to whom the Gospel must be communicated. After all, this is what Pius XII already proclaimed when he said, "It is an entire world that must be built, elevating it from the subhuman to the human, and from the human to the divine."
Yes, perhaps some are right: Francis should speak more about Jesus Christ, shed more light with the light of Christ, correcting the errors of Lutherans, modernists, do-gooders, Muslims, Freemasons, and Communists. Is he lacking courage? Does he want to please everyone? Does he fear the reactions? Does he fear martyrdom?
[or persecution and war by the anti-Christian third Rome’s power - according to the Blessed Elena Aiello’s (private) revelations? (Ed.)]
Does he fear not being heard? Does he fear losing admirers? Isn't this perhaps an attempt to disguise oneself and pretend to be what you are not? Isn't this trying to hide? Does it not assume the appearance of the enemy? And thus, doesn't this create confusion, ambiguity, and scandal? And doesn’t this confuse evangelization with the tricks of a conjurer? These are questions we cannot avoid asking. What should we say? Is it true prudence? Is there naivety?
Or perhaps it is the right path? Does it respond to a well-defined gradual plan, unclear to us but perhaps clear to him? Is it calculated and studied, as the Jesuits know how to accomplish perfectly? Does he know how to calculate the right moment? Is there true reliance on the Holy Spirit? Or is there perhaps too great a reliance on human prudence? Certainly, even the holiest Pope can make mistakes or sins and need to repent or be corrected by a good advisor, his confessor, or a prophet.
I believe I have stated the correct and certain key to understanding Francis’mindset. This is sufficient to comprehend and appreciate the substance of his pontificate. We cannot doubt this if, as Catholics, we have trust in the Pope not only as a Doctor of the Faith but also as a Pastor, that is, as the practical guide of the Church. While he cannot err in matters of faith, in pastoral matters, he can make mistakes or sin. Each of us has our own opinion, and it is up to God to render the final judgment.
Platonic theses corrected by Aristotle
1. Man is not a preexisting spirit that guides a body but rather a single personal substance composed of soul and body. Man is a rational animal, so the soul is not a separate spiritual substance from a corporeal substance but rather the substantial form of the body.
2. Knowledge is not the conceptual recollection of a global immediate and intuitive theological precognition, non-conceptual and original, lost due to a fall preceding the infusion of the soul into the body. Instead, it is an intellectual activity that, starting from the sensible experience of external corporeal realities, abstracts their universal essence from the concrete. By analogically applying the principle of causality, it is raised to the knowledge of the existence of the first cause and abstractly grasps the importance of human nature and its ultimate end. In doing so, it formulates the universal and immutable natural moral law.
3. The body itself and external material bodies are not sources of illusion and temptations to sin but rather sources of truth and means of virtue. They are, in themselves, real, good, and intelligible entities truly knowable through physics or experimental science. Physics is the starting point that allows the intellect, by abstraction from the physical material world, to elevate itself to the analogical knowledge of being as being, that is, of metaphysics.
4. Intellect is certainly superior to reason, but it is impossible to reach the intuition and contemplation of the ultimate end and supreme good without engaging in reasoning and applying the moral law to concrete cases through prudential reasoning. In both cases the syllogism or reasoning, governed by the laws of logic, is necessary.
5. The soul is indeed spiritual and immortal and capable of contemplating absolute truth. However, it attains happiness, freedom, and salvation not by freeing itself from the body but rather by exercising the virtues of temperance and fortitude, which, though guided by the soul, are subjected to the body.
6. Economic and political justice does not consist of the communal sharing of goods and women but rather in democracy, service to the common good, the social use of private property, and the building of the family community.
7. Male and female sexes are not consequences of the original fall from a state of pure spirituality but essential parts of human nature indispensable to its happiness.
8. Man's moral journey does not consist of returning to an original state of blessed union with God but rather of progressively exercising knowledge and virtue, starting from a state of total ignorance and the sole inclination towards virtue. Man does not return to what he was at the beginning but attains a greater good than what he possessed initially. He does not ascend to heaven after falling to earth but goes to heaven without ever having been there. And to ascend to heaven, he does not need to abandon the earth but rather make it heavenly.
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, April 4, 2021
Easter Sunday of the Resurrection.
Source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/la-svolta-epocale-del-magistero-della.html
[1] I took this news from the entry by THOMAS AQUINO of the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
[2] De la sagesse augustinienne, in Les degrés du savoir, Desclée de Brouwer, Bruges 1959, c.VII.
[3] THE ETERNAL TRUTH IN SAINT AUGUSTINE, I, Sacra Doctrina, 5, 1987, pp.590-611; THE ETERNAL TRUTH IN SAINT AUGUSTINE, II, Sacra Doctrina, 6, 1987, pp.665-687.
[4] See my book: “The Silence of the Word. The Mystics in Comparison”, ESD Editions, Bologna 2002.
[5] Cf Le thomisme vivant, in Sept leçons sur l'être et les principe premières de la raison spéculative, Téqui, Paris 1934, pp.5-6.
[6] All this drama is narrated and examined with excellent critical sense by Maritain in The Philosophy Natureure (Morcelliana, Brescia 1974), where the great philosopher takes the opportunity to distinguish the philosophy of nature, as an apodictic science introductory to metaphysics, from physics experimental as a science of physical phenomena, subject to the elaboration of hypothetical explanations, which can be revised or rejected by the emergence of new experiences or by the possibility of elaborating better theories for the explanation of the same phenomena.