Tag Archives: Philosophy

Biblical Exegesis: Primarily a philosophical discussion or historical?

11 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 22 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Bourdon_Sebastien-Moses_and_the_Burning_Bush

Pope Benedict XVI explained in his 1988 Erasmus lectures, “The debate about modern exegesis is not at its core a debate among historians, but among philosophers”. (Matthew J. Ramage, Jesus Interpreted, 9).

Is the discussion of the Holy Scriptures primarily a philosophical debate of those who claim there is a God and those who do not?

The statement appears to be correct on the surface; however, the difficulty with this particular assertion is that it is a false dichotomy when it comes to the interpretation of what is true and what actually happened as it is described in the written word. In attempting to determine what is true, the historian–both secular and religious–deals with the axiological value judgment of the truth just as much as any philosopher would when it comes to scriptural exegesis and the matter of what is the truth.

Make sure to pre-order my new book: The Birth of God in Historical Context: An Examination of the Infancy Narrative of Jesus Christ: 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-birth-of-god-in-history-phillip-hadden/1134980944?ean=9781078744492

 

St. Bonaventure’s The Soul’s Journey into God: Prologue, A Commentary.

21 Monday Oct 2019

Posted by in Commentaries

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

saint-bonaventure

Traditional Catholic theology is marked by its preference for Manualist Thomistic thought perhaps best represented under the lens of the pre-conciliar theologian, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Naturally, after the Vatican II council, the dominate theological thought has been the Nouvelle théologie—a counter to Aeterni Patris and Neo-Scholasticism of the 19thCentury. The post here will not get into detail about the conflict between the two movements, but it’s important to understand that the shift and development of Neo-Scholasticism was a response to the Enlightenment dominated by skepticism with the introduction of Hume’s, Cartesian, and Kantian philosophical schools of thought. These particular schools of thought turned epistemology on its head and developed a “philosophy [that] turned inward…our understanding of the world…rather than coming to a knowledge of the object through the senses led to further regression of epistemology”[1]

The Papal encyclical Aeterni Patris wriiten by “Pope Leo XIII explained the importance of returning to the Classical model of thinking, “And here it is well to note that our philosophy can only by the grosses injustice be accused of being opposed to the advance and development of natural science. From when the Scholastics, following the opinion of the holy Fathers, always held in anthropology that the human intelligence is only led to knowledge of things without body and matter by things sensible.”[2][3]

In recent years, the Dominican House of Studies in Washington D.C. influence is growing in the younger Catholic academic circles. In some respect, they still hold on to the post-conciliar thought of the Nouvelle théologie of Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s Semi-Universalism and Henri De Lubac’s immanence of God being inherent in Man’s supernatural desire for Him; however, the development of the particular theology dominating these popular mainstream circles is the Nouvelle Theologie with a sprinkling of Thomism into a new development in the 20th and 21st centuries. The best popular representation of these positions is Bishop Robert Barron.

I have been naturally attracted to Augustinian thought rather than Thomistic thought. There’s something, perhaps, appealing to the notion of forms existing metaphysically in their own nature and that there’s an innate recognition of these things in the world. I’ve been musing over the idea of beauty; its role in axiological argument, and preferences being shaped by one’s capability to recognize the beautiful. Of course, I’m currently studying theology in a Thomistic setting where a tension grows by questioning of the said school of thought. In recent months, reflecting on what has been going on during the Amazonian synod in Rome, and being influenced by Neo-Scholasticism setting but still having a love for Augustinian thought, I’ve begun to read St. Bonaventure.

The words of St. Bonaventure are composed with the beauty and beating heart of Augustine and Divine Illumination and framed the Aristotelean thought of clarity. Pope Benedict XVI has experienced his preference for St. Bonaventure but being a proponent of the Nouvelle théologie I am surprised when reading St. Bonaventure that although he is Augustinian in his thought he is still very Aristotelean. At the moment, many are concerned of the allegations of paganism in Rome and the worship of nature and idols. By reading St. Bonaventure’s The Soul’s Journey, St. Bonaventure makes an appeal toward recognizing the vestiges from God’s creation to elevate the person toward God. St. Bonaventure recognizes that it’s the senses that moves the person toward God but being created in the likeness of God there’s light within us (awareness) that precedes the senses gaining knowledge. During my own studies of Thomism, I have thought that the idea that all knowledge coming from the senses is ultimately true, but yet, at the very basic foundation there is consciousness. Is this the same as Cartesian Cogito Ergo Sum? No. Descartes thought is one that is turned inward toward the I am of self; whereas, St. Bonaventure’s is turned toward recognition of the great I AM:

 In the beginning

I call upon the First Beginning,

from whom

all illuminations descend

as from the Father of Lights,

from whom

comes every good and every perfect gift.[4]

The journey for St. Bonaventure is a six step journey in the image of the Seraph that gave St. Francis the stigmata to rest in the presence of God on the seventh day. Bonaventure writes, “There is no other path but through the burning love of the Crucified, a love which so transformed Paul into Christ when he was carried up to the third heaven(2 Cor. 12:2) that he could say: With Christ I am nailed to the cross. I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me(Gal. 2:20). This love also so absorbed the soul of Francis that his spirit shone through his flesh when for two years before his death he carried in his body the sacred stigmata of the passion.[5]

There is no immanence within the thought of St. Bonaventure, the journey toward God is one that always goes through Christ Jesus, he prays:

First, therefore, I invite the reader

to the groans of prayer

through Christ crucified,

through whose blood

we are cleansed from the filth of vice—

so that he not believe

that reading is sufficient without unction,

speculation without devotion,

investigation without wonder,

observation without joy,

work without piety,

knowledge without love,

understanding without humility,

endeavor without divine grace,

reflection as a mirror without divinely inspired wisdom.

To those, therefore, predisposed by divine grace,

the humble and the pious,

the contrite and the devout,

those anointed with the oil of gladness,

the lovers of divine wisdom, and

those inflamed with a desire for it,

to those wishing to give themselves

to glorifying, wondering at and even savoring God,

I propose the following considerations,

suggesting that the mirror presented by the external world

is of little or no value

unless the mirror of our soul

has been cleaned and polished.

Therefore, man of God,

first exercise yourself in remorse of conscience

before you raise your eyes

to the rays of Wisdom reflected in its mirrors,

lest perhaps from gazing upon these rays

you fall into a deeper pit of darkness.[6]

Thus, after St. Bonaventure’s Prologue, he begins the journey by the recognition of God with the rejection of the Albigensian heresy that rejected the good of creation, St. Bonaventure points towards the good of the creature as a ladder that will lead the soul to rest in God.

 

 

 

[1]Phillip, The Affirmation of Real Objective Metaphysical Objects in Catholic Thought, unpublished paper, Holy Apostles College and Seminary, 2019.

[2]Aeterni Patris (August 4, 1879) | LEO XIII. Accessed March 17, 2019. http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html.

[3]Phillip, The Affirmation of Real Objective Metaphysical Objects in Catholic Thought

[4]Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God; The Tree of Life; The Life of St. Francis, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Ewert Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 53.

[5]Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God; The Tree of Life; The Life of St. Francis, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Ewert Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 54–55.

[6]Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God; The Tree of Life; The Life of St. Francis, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Ewert Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 55–56.

Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas and Divine Illumination

31 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg

I have been attempting to rehabilitate St. Anselm’s the ontological argument for God. However, no matter how hard I try my own understanding of discovering knowledge is similar to Aquinas’ that it begins with the senses and the recognition of the world. The issue that I’ve developed is that I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle in regards to universals/forms like beauty and truth. Therefore, my ontological argument has more or less become an epistemological argument for God which is Augustinian in nature and tied to Augustine’s theory of knowledge of Divine Illumination.

I’ve been reading a bit on Divine Illumination and Aquinas’ Aristotelian Agent Intellect synthesis into his first principle of knowledge. And not surprisingly, it appears that there are those who claim that Aquinas makes a strict separation from Augustine in regards to Divine Illumination. However, it’s not a settled debate and Peter Kreeft argues in the Summa of the Summa that Aquinas is more Platonic/Augustinian in his understanding than Aristotelian, albeit many Thomist would disagree with his sentiment–I’ve personally asked one. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that what Thomas does is merely move the understanding of Divine Illumination to the material sensory of understanding. For instance, two different husbands may look at their respective spouses and believe their own is more beautiful than the other. Some would argue this indicates that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, what appears to be innate from the two husbands is beauty itself. Sure, it’s their senses that tell them what is beautiful, nonetheless, it is not their senses that is the source for understanding the concept of beauty itself. If this is true, then, it would render that not all knowledge is gained through the senses.

The more I think about this interpretation of knowledge with Aquinas’ synthesis on the sense revealing knowledge, the more I agree with it in accord to Augustine’s philosophy of Divine Illumination in regards to Romans chapter 1 and 2 which speak about knowing God “is manifest in them” and the “law written in our hearts,” I firmly agree with Augustine that we’re in possession of certain knowledge by God; however, we’re only moved to discovering by interactions with creation as attributed by Aquinas emphasis on Participation. So, when we judge beauty, for instance, the concept of the beautiful is divinely instilled by God; however, it is through our experience with a sunrise, a mountain, the ocean, or our loved ones that stir the understanding of the beautiful.

Upon doing more reading on the topic, I find this to be very similar to Bonaventure’s assessment. Perhaps, I need to read more Bonaventure. Naturally, the above is just a short examination of my current work. I am at the moment writing a more detailed treatise on the subject of illumination.

 

Fade to Black: An Evil of Individualism

04 Friday May 2018

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Jameshetfieldwien07_1.jpgphoto by Flowkey

As I reflect back at my youth at times when I didn’t necessarily take my faith seriously, Art that I once enjoyed in my youth—and still may enjoy—that isn’t necessarily Christian, or tasteful for that matter, I am having to rectify with my serious reflection on how it applies to me and my Catholic faith today.  

I was born in the mid-eighties, so, naturally, the nineties dominated the formation of my childhood. To be honest, in my youth—ages 10 to 15—I wasn’t really a music fan. In seventh grade, I had been introduced to Metallica by a friend and I was intrigued by some of the bands more melodic tunes such as “Fade to Black, “Nothing Else Matters,” The Unforgiven,” The Unforgiven 2” etc. Now, looking back as a mature man who is heading the natural course towards an old man, I believe that my fascination with the melodies and lyrics of these songs was the lyricist’s poetry ordered toward what Christians call “Original Sin.”

Examining the lyrics to “Fade to Black:”

Life, it seems, will fade away

Drifting further every day

Getting lost within myself

Nothing matters, no one else

I have lost the will to live

Simply nothing more to give

There is nothing more for me

Need the end to set me free

…

Emptiness is filling me

To the point of agony

Growing darkness taking dawn

I was me, but now he’s gone

No one but me can save myself, but it’s too late

Now I can’t think, think why I should even try.

Pretty Dark for a child not even able to drive. However, it’s real human emotion, it’s an experience with the dark voids of human nature that finds its source in Original Sin. Of course, some may stumble across my words and be puzzled at the expression of ‘Original Sin.’ GK Chesterton once quipped that the most striking evidence for Christianity was to view the evil in the world—cause by Original Sin. Furthermore, I once read an article about GK Chesterton that I reported asked him about what was wrong with the world to which he replied, ‘I am.” There has been a lot of great achievements in our collective human history from the idea of individual freedom;  however, the idea breeds the idea of individualism in which the only thing matters is my ‘rights’ to do as I please, so to hell with anyone else. In a way, with the rise of individualism, modernity has created a cultural selfishness that becomes the antithesis of culture itself. In a culture merely rooted in “I am,” we have lost the ability to see another individual sitting beside us. 

If one looks at the lyrics presented by this particular Metallica song, one will notice a whole lot of “I” and “myself” in each passage. In fact, the lyricist declares “No one but me can save myself, but it’s too late.” The Christian perspective will perhaps see some of the symptoms of what is ailing this particular person. The person has turned inward towards himself as stated “getting lost within myself.” Remember in Exodus 3, God expresses his very nature as his name “I AM.” In many ways, modernity’s stress on individualism has always been rooted in the human distortion of “I am” in  “The Fall” of Genesis 3—Genesis 3 and Exodus 3 coincidence? Now, of course, this doesn’t reflect fault in the lyricists, as others around him could have alienated him to where he believes “he” is his only source of salvation. Indeed, as Christians, we need to reflect on our duty to see those who are marginalized and approach them with the Gospel.

Christians must also see from this loss of will that any sort of “self-centering” methods promoted by other Christians is also not in accord with orthodox Christianity as it focuses not on outward search for the Incarnation of Christ who is the way, but rather instead of an inward removal from the physical world into a more gnostic spirituality. Christianity by its very nature brings hope to those who desperately are searching for their restless hearts to be at rest. Pope St. John Paul II June 29th, 1978 wrote extensively in his diary about Christian community and the right order toward Christ:

“As for Christian existence, it begins with Jesus Christ, who Himself constitutes a ‘communion.’ First and foremost, he alone is the unity of God and man, having in Himself full grace, that is, full power to reconcile man with God.” (In God’s Hands pg. 134) 

We must reach out to our neighbors, it’s not our duty to serve as judge to whether those who look to be in need will abuse charity, as for many this is an excuse not to help. It begins with “Hello” and a shaking of hands. It begins by seeing a homeless person walking over to them asking them their name. It begins with seeing people as people rather than an identity of culture, race, sexual preference, gender ideology, etc. Do these things, where an object of the faith, and if they ask, “What cause you to stop by?” You say: “Jesus Christ.” 

With No Free Will; An Incorruptible God Must Be The Agent of Corruption.

15 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by in Blogging, Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

911d54436ef5c8e21ea5ac859c2efa10.jpg

One aspect of folks that I value is the ability to allow free dialogue, even if it doesn’t seem important, may hinder one’s argument, or a point that tends to lead in a different direction. Of course, I value this because I value the exploring of ideas to reveal truth.

Perfect Chaos is a blog run by Steven Colborne, who believes in God, maybe even the Christian God, but doesn’t believe in Free Will basically because God is in charge of everything existence. Steven posted again today about The Free Will Problem. Naturally, there are analogies that can be given to show when one is in charge they can allow free will etc. However, as I’ve continued to exhibit through Catholic thought, there is ample philosophical evidence within Catholicism that indicates a lack of free will is more or less rubbish.

In this particular blog of Steven’s I gave Augustine’s answer to Steven’s assertions that Free Will doesn’t exist, please refer to his post as well as his essay that he gives a link to in the post. I answered that in accordance with Catholic tradition that Steven fails to properly refute Augustinian Theodicy. More or less Steven doesn’t even address it, which of course the comment is a critique that Steven could use to finely tune his own thoughts on the matter–even for his own side of the argument. Unfortunately, Steven deleted my comment, so I present it here to you, reconstructed. 

Augustine’s point is rested in the Confessions Book 7:

Augustine explains his view of Free Will: ” I was absolutely certain when I willed a thing or refused to will it that it was I alone who willed or refused to will. Already I was beginning to see that therein lay the cause of my sin. I saw that what I did against my will was something done to me, rather than something I actually did. I concluded that it was not my fault, but my punishment.”

Augustine explains earlier in Book 7 how this relates to God in a fashion the resembles Anselm’s ontological argument: ”

There has never has been, nor will there be, a soul able to conceive anything better than you, who are the supreme and best good. But since it is of the utmost truth and certainty that the incorruptible is preferable to the corruptible, even as I already preferred it to be, I could now attain in thought to a being better than yourself, my God, if you were not incorruptible. Therefore, where I perceived that the incorruptible must be preferred to the corruptible, there ought I to seek you. There too, ought I to observe where itself is, that is, whence comes that corruption, by which your substance can in no way be violated. For absolutely no corruption defiles our God.”

The glaring problem in a Christian argument against Free Will, or for that matter the argument for God is that for God to be God, He must be a perfect being. Naturally, this fits into Aquinas’ model in the Summa Theologica:

“Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.”

So, as I challenged Steven, for God to be perfect, He must be without corruption or He simply wouldn’t be God. If there is no Free Will, then God would have to be responsible for evil, one would have to assert and defend those evils such as theft, rape, death, any violence, natural disasters would need to be part of God’s perfection and not corruptions in the world to argue that Free Will doesn’t exist because God would be responsible for all of these actions and they could not take away from His perfection.

Sadly, again, Steven deleted my comment which was simply a good nature criticism that I had seen lacking in his essay. As my second response was also deleted after I noticed he deleted my initial comment, I decided to bring my critique to the general readership of the blogosphere.

Is Enlightenment Philosophy Moral?

08 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by in Church/State, Commentaries

≈ 28 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Enlightenment-Catholic-Meme.jpg

An issue that I have with my American Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ is a beam that I use to have in my own eye. Those in favor of originalism of the United States Constitution, Enlightenment philosophers, and the natural law have created idols out of them. The founding documents, the men who created them, and the supposed “rights” which out of the Enlightenment has promoted the ideology of self-idolization in the form of ‘Individualism’. Of course, one can make the argument that relativism was birthed from the Protestant Reformation, given a pedestal during the Enlightenment, and now has led to secular atheism of Western Civilization as it’s logical conclusion. No doubt, some friends here will certainly disagree, but the statement must be stated regardless.

We could certainly look to Locke’s anti-Catholicism or Paine’s flirtation with Atheism or pantheism at best, but instead, let’s look at Rousseau for the moment. This “enlightened” philosopher I’ve heard said by academics to be the most influential critic of Christianity at the time, who promoted the misguided philosophy of individualism. Rousseau’s basic argument in regards to religion was that one could have “spiritualism without religion,” and it’s an argument that is constantly being put forth in our current times. However, a parish priest by the name of Nicholas Bergier challenged Rousseau by writing a book titled “Deism Refuted by Itself.” In the Book Fr. Bergier made clear that Enlightenment philosophers do not believe in a Biblical God but in an impersonal “nature”–hence pantheism. In the book, Fr. Bergier articulates that man cannot have just a private relationship with God outside of Government or the community in which they live because of God and later’s Christ’s covenant with mankind.

In the 13th century, of course, before the Enlightenment, St. Thomas Aquinas challenges proto-enlightenment philosophers thoughts by arguably originating the concepts of “natural law theory.” The problem with Enlightenment philosophers is that they look at government, natural law, and justice as a negative principle. They rightly judge that we cannot take away from our neighbors right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness without paying the penalty of the law. However, Christ exclaimed not a negative principle of justice, but a positive one”

Mt. 22:36-40 NABRE

36 “Teacher,[a] which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him,[b] “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it:[c] You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 [d]The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

In this regard, according to Aquinas, Justice and the law–must be fully connected with Charity. The issue with Enlightenment philosophy is that it is a philosophy of individualism that does not view Charity as a necessity but rather an option, which can promote self-idolization as it seeks nothing more but to keep people from hurting others but fails to promote help for our neighbors. What Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica, Q 90, Second Article, “Consequently the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness. ”

Furthermore, Aquinas writes, “Since then every man is a part of the state, it is impossible that a man be good, unless he be well proportionate to the common good…Consequently the common good of the state cannot flourish unless the citizens be virtuous. (Q 92 Obj 3.)