Is It Possible To A Catholic And Against Aristotelianism?

[The Hierophant]

Hi all. I am a convert to Catholicism who took RCIA and have an extensive background in philosophy. I knew that Catholicism was enmeshed with Aristotlean philosophy, but I always thought that was sort of a historical accident; it wasn't doctrine, at any rate, so I pressed on.

 

Now, however, I am rethinking that. I am not sure if one can be an educated, philosophically informed Catholic and not be an Aristotelian.  Aristotle, through Thomas, has been so resolutely supported by the Church that Aristotelianism seems like a de facto doctrine of the Church.  Indeed, it is perhaps more important than even some official doctrines at times, it seems.  Now I am no Aristotelian:  I am a cross between Platonist and modern, with little Aristotle inbetween.  There is simply no way I could ever be an Aristotelian for reasons that I think are perfectly rational and probably will not get into.  The question here isn't whether Aristotelianism is right:  the question is whether one can be an earnest Catholic and not and Aristotelian, indeed, having antipathy toward Aristotelianism.  Input appreciated.

[Nihil Obstat]

Are there any doctrines that a rejection of Aristotle forces you to reject in turn? If not, I say you are doing ok.

[arfink]

Hi all. I am a convert to Catholicism who took RCIA and have an extensive background in philosophy. I knew that Catholicism was enmeshed with Aristotlean philosophy, but I always thought that was sort of a historical accident; it wasn't doctrine, at any rate, so I pressed on.

 

Now, however, I am rethinking that. I am not sure if one can be an educated, philosophically informed Catholic and not be an Aristotelian.  Aristotle, through Thomas, has been so resolutely supported by the Church that Aristotelianism seems like a de facto doctrine of the Church.  Indeed, it is perhaps more important than even some official doctrines at times, it seems.  Now I am no Aristotelian:  I am a cross between Platonist and modern, with little Aristotle inbetween.  There is simply no way I could ever be an Aristotelian for reasons that I think are perfectly rational and probably will not get into.  The question here isn't whether Aristotelianism is right:  the question is whether one can be an earnest Catholic and not and Aristotelian, indeed, having antipathy toward Aristotelianism.  Input appreciated.

 

As a fellow philosopher, I think the answer is "probably yes." It might be hard to believe, but the philosophy which the Catholic church uses to defend doctrine is not in itself a doctrine. Over the years many explanations have been given in order to explain various doctrines, and because of St. Thomas Aquinas, it so happens that some of the most favorite arguments given in support of the Catholic view of human and divine nature are from him and by extension, from Aristotelianism. However, if you check out the East, they have a totally different system of philosophy to back up the same doctrines. So, you don't have to chuck the doctrine along with Aristotle, but you would then be on your own (or with the East) for finding a way of explaining why you believe what you believe.

[Dr_Asik]

Some dogmas of the Catholic Church are expressed in Aristotelian terms, for example transsubstantiation is defined in terms of the Aristotelian notions of substance and accident. In the 19th century, the Catholic Church also gave a priviledged status to Aquinas' theology which is heavily based on Aristotle.

 

I think this shouldn't be taken as a statement that there's no truth outside scholastic metaphysics, and I think it's a crucial exercise for us today to try to reconcile Catholic doctrine with today's questions and modes of thinking, just like Thomas Aquinas did in his times. Whether or not Aquinas was right in his conclusions, he didn't answer every question that would be asked after him. It's our duty to pursue his legacy; how much does that entail embracing his ideas, I don't know.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Dorian]

Absolutely. I'm Catholic and definitely not an Aristotelian. The way I look at it is that St Thomas and other theologians were trying to explain the faith in light of the prevailing philosophical worldview at the time. They're explaining dogma through a particular philosophical system: you have to accept the dogma, not necessarily the Aristotelian language used to explain it.

 

Take the dogma of the real presence. The idea of the substance changing while the accidents remain the same is heavily Aristotelian, and the Church has in the past explained it according to that philosophy, but for over 1000 years before the word transubstantiation had even been used Catholics believed that in the Mass the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. You'll also find many Catholic Churches (Eastern Churches) who don't explain it that way and take a very different view on these issues.

 

It's the same with arguments for God's existence. Arguing from gradations of being doesn't really work anymore, because no one has any idea what you're on about, and today arguing from the order inherent in the universe or the human desire for morality and transcendence is probably going to connect with more people. 

[The Hierophant]

Transubstantiation is actually a good example of what I'm worried about.  If the dogma of the Real Presence really requires me to believe that there are substances, there are accidents, and that substances can alter while accidents remain - well, that just sounds like Aristotelianism!  It involves specifically Aristotelian notions of universals (accidents).  Now if it were just that I had accept the Real Presence, that'd be one thing; I could even accept that one way of spelling out the Real Presence is transubstantiation, at least if Aristotelian metaphysics is right; but it's really hard to see how one could literally believe in transubstantiation without being an Aristotelian.  The question is:  is the Real Presence alone the dogma, or is the specific language of transubstantiation part of the dogma? This isn't the only case, of course, but this probably the most dramatic one I can think of.

[Credo in Deum]

Maybe I'm just simple, but I think you're making something complicated when it doesn't have to be. Aristotle does not own truths, for the Truth is Jesus Christ. Accepting one thing he said does not automatically mean you have to accept everything he has ever said.