In the many philosophy classes that I had to take at a Jesuit university that I attended, Aristotle/Thomas Aquinas did not bring me to place of intellectual faith in God. Doubt would invariably resurface. Later, when I redefined faith as unconditional trust in God, Christianity became alive and practical for me. The intellectual tradition failed me. My Catholic teachers did not offer me any more than the intellectual even though there is more than only the intellectual in Catholic doctrine.
Would you say that your Catholic Teachers were also good witnesses to the faith, apart from their teaching? Were you able to intuit from their approach a genuine love for Christ? To me an "intellectual tradition" does not exist apart from a personal relationship with God. If that wasn't there, it wasn't the intellectual tradition on display. And that would be disappointing.
They were good witnesses to the faith that was taught just prior to Vatican II; but it was a faith that did not dispel my doubts. I intuit that they diligently taught me what they knew, but I was not taught a relationship with God as I now understand it. At about thirty years old, I found the instruction for it in Scripture when I was curious if Christianity had any teaching on arriving at inner peace. It did.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Since I did not yet "exist" prior to the council, I cannot really speak to how it was taught then. But I do think it would be wrong for anyone to assume that prior to the council no one had a personal relationship with God including those in the intellectual tradition. But I can certainly see why, if the Thomistic Tradition was taught as a form of rationalism, it would by that example be seen that way. Faith, as Pope Benedict suggests is the whole person, not just an exercise of the mind. But its important to note that there are many ways by which we can experience communion with God, and not all are called to the same experience. Some experience the same wisdom in a book, as they do in serving the poor. I believe it was St. Bonaventure, when asked about the source of Wisdom for his theology, he responded by pointing towards an image of the Crucifix.
I know liberalism in the church has "failed me" but not because of it when it is true (i.e. God is lavish in His blessings), but only where it was not true and not loving. To me, the only thing that can fail us, is where Christ is not really present. in what we say and do.
There are many ways that Divine Revelation is transmitted to people. I received it by inquiring directly into Scripture. Others may receive it by later writings that accurately present it, or by people that they encounter. There are and have always been people who have or have had a personal relationship with God, whether we know them or not. Our own relationship with God should not be moved by how others respond to God’s calling, or how many of them there are. When Elijah thought that he was the only one left that was faithful to God, God told him that He had reserved for Himself 7000 others who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
I think that there is a lot more about God (YHWH) vs. God in the Bible than we realize.
The things that seem random may be taking place on this level. For example, the plagues in Egypt: I have never, in prayer, reading, or study, been able to find any rhyme or reason to them. Our church talked about them this summer, and said that each of the plagues showed YHWH's control and superiority over an Egyptian deity. Aha.
Just today, I read a Substack about "Trump as Trickster" (https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/trickster-trumps). "Wait a minute," I said to myself. Today's gospel was a classic Trickster God story. Really, most of the Gospel of Luke is a Trickster God story. It is all about Him taking on the authorities, beating them at their own game, and walking through them when they are ready to throw Him off a cliff. And then He lets the authorities capture him, try Him, and kill Him; then he rises from the dead to set the people free.
Except, usually the Trickster God does not win (at least in the Native American tellings).
And what about the three other gospels? No one has ever given me a good explanation about why they are the way that they are. Well, they seem like three more archetypal god stories.
John = Jesus as the Creator God
Matthew = Jesus as the fulfiller of prophecy and reinterpreter of the Law
Mark = Jesus as the God who walked the earth as a man (his follower Peter's stories about life with Jesus)
I was recently watching a movie called "Nefarious" and it was interesting to hear that type of "trickster" language from the demon possessing one of the characters. The demons cry out, "Have you come here to destroy us?" It's always interesting to examine the "fallen" way to approach God. There certainly is an element of Suprise with God, and even experiencing being "duped by God" as the prophet says. But none of that can be properly understood without first giving the benefit of the doubt to God's own goodness. Its in the context of His goodness that we can understand, unlike the demons, that God does not come to destroy or make us into slaves, but rather comes to give us happiness, joy and the type of freedom that really matters.
In the many philosophy classes that I had to take at a Jesuit university that I attended, Aristotle/Thomas Aquinas did not bring me to place of intellectual faith in God. Doubt would invariably resurface. Later, when I redefined faith as unconditional trust in God, Christianity became alive and practical for me. The intellectual tradition failed me. My Catholic teachers did not offer me any more than the intellectual even though there is more than only the intellectual in Catholic doctrine.
Would you say that your Catholic Teachers were also good witnesses to the faith, apart from their teaching? Were you able to intuit from their approach a genuine love for Christ? To me an "intellectual tradition" does not exist apart from a personal relationship with God. If that wasn't there, it wasn't the intellectual tradition on display. And that would be disappointing.
They were good witnesses to the faith that was taught just prior to Vatican II; but it was a faith that did not dispel my doubts. I intuit that they diligently taught me what they knew, but I was not taught a relationship with God as I now understand it. At about thirty years old, I found the instruction for it in Scripture when I was curious if Christianity had any teaching on arriving at inner peace. It did.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Since I did not yet "exist" prior to the council, I cannot really speak to how it was taught then. But I do think it would be wrong for anyone to assume that prior to the council no one had a personal relationship with God including those in the intellectual tradition. But I can certainly see why, if the Thomistic Tradition was taught as a form of rationalism, it would by that example be seen that way. Faith, as Pope Benedict suggests is the whole person, not just an exercise of the mind. But its important to note that there are many ways by which we can experience communion with God, and not all are called to the same experience. Some experience the same wisdom in a book, as they do in serving the poor. I believe it was St. Bonaventure, when asked about the source of Wisdom for his theology, he responded by pointing towards an image of the Crucifix.
I know liberalism in the church has "failed me" but not because of it when it is true (i.e. God is lavish in His blessings), but only where it was not true and not loving. To me, the only thing that can fail us, is where Christ is not really present. in what we say and do.
There are many ways that Divine Revelation is transmitted to people. I received it by inquiring directly into Scripture. Others may receive it by later writings that accurately present it, or by people that they encounter. There are and have always been people who have or have had a personal relationship with God, whether we know them or not. Our own relationship with God should not be moved by how others respond to God’s calling, or how many of them there are. When Elijah thought that he was the only one left that was faithful to God, God told him that He had reserved for Himself 7000 others who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
I think that there is a lot more about God (YHWH) vs. God in the Bible than we realize.
The things that seem random may be taking place on this level. For example, the plagues in Egypt: I have never, in prayer, reading, or study, been able to find any rhyme or reason to them. Our church talked about them this summer, and said that each of the plagues showed YHWH's control and superiority over an Egyptian deity. Aha.
Just today, I read a Substack about "Trump as Trickster" (https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/trickster-trumps). "Wait a minute," I said to myself. Today's gospel was a classic Trickster God story. Really, most of the Gospel of Luke is a Trickster God story. It is all about Him taking on the authorities, beating them at their own game, and walking through them when they are ready to throw Him off a cliff. And then He lets the authorities capture him, try Him, and kill Him; then he rises from the dead to set the people free.
Except, usually the Trickster God does not win (at least in the Native American tellings).
And what about the three other gospels? No one has ever given me a good explanation about why they are the way that they are. Well, they seem like three more archetypal god stories.
John = Jesus as the Creator God
Matthew = Jesus as the fulfiller of prophecy and reinterpreter of the Law
Mark = Jesus as the God who walked the earth as a man (his follower Peter's stories about life with Jesus)
Thoughts?
I was recently watching a movie called "Nefarious" and it was interesting to hear that type of "trickster" language from the demon possessing one of the characters. The demons cry out, "Have you come here to destroy us?" It's always interesting to examine the "fallen" way to approach God. There certainly is an element of Suprise with God, and even experiencing being "duped by God" as the prophet says. But none of that can be properly understood without first giving the benefit of the doubt to God's own goodness. Its in the context of His goodness that we can understand, unlike the demons, that God does not come to destroy or make us into slaves, but rather comes to give us happiness, joy and the type of freedom that really matters.
You referenced the Aquinas Institute. Is this the same as the Thomistic Institute. They have a number of podcasts on YouTube.
Hey George, good to hear from you - hope all is going well in London!
I did mean the "Thomistic Institute" - thanks for highlighting that error. I am definitely drawing attention to the podcasts on Youtube!