I was reading Richard M. Weaver's "Ideas Have Consequences" and came across this interesting passage:

The way was prepared for the criteria of comfort and mediocrity when the Middle Ages abandoned the ethic of Plato for that of Aristotle. The latter's doctrine of rational prudence compelled him to declare in the Politics that the state is best ruled by the middle class. For him, the virtuous life was an avoidance of extremes, a middle course between contraries considered harmful. Such doctrine leaves out of account the possibility that there are some virtues which do not become defective through increase, that virtues like courage and generosity may be pursued to an end at which man effaces himself. Naturally the idea of self-effacement will be absent from any philosophy which prescribes for a prosperous worldly career.

Here the conception of Plato - expressed certainly, too, by Christianity - of pursuing virtue until worldly consequence becomes a matter of indifference, stands in contrast. Aristotle remains a kind of natural historian of the virtues, observing and recording them as he observed techniques of the drama, but no thinking of a spiritual ideal. A life accommodated to this world and shunning the painful experiences which extremes, including those of virtue, entail was what he proposed for his son Nicomachus.

One could anticipate that this theory would recommend itself to the Renaissance gentlemen and later to the bourgeoisie when their turn came. In Thomism, based as it is on Aristotle, even the Catholic Church turned away from the asceticism and the rigorous morality of the patristic fathers to accept a degree of pragmatic acquiescence to the world. The difference has prompted someone to say that, whereas Plato built the cathedrals of England, Aristotle built the manor houses.

Another contemporary source that puts Plato above Aristotle is this "Ultra Realist" FAQ written by Charles A. Coulombe, a Catholic, where he promotes the idea that it was the acceptance of Aristotelianism that lead to the decay of Christian civilization, that the Platonic idea of the reality of universals made people see the Church as a real spiritual that was above them and not just as a conglomeration of churches, and so on. He doesn't criticize St. Thomas Aquinas so much, but more the trend towards Aristotelianism as a step in the direction of materialism as opposed to spiritualism, which would result in the Protestant and Liberal revolutions.

Read that here,

http://charlescoulombe.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/ultra-realism-faq.html

On the other hand, one James Larson, an advocate of St. Thomas above all theologians, tries to pin Plato as the father of Gnosticism in the West in this article:

Platonism: The Foundation Stone of Western Gnosticism

Western Christianity (Catholicism), possessing as it does an Infallible Magisterium and the Papacy, provided a much greater resistance to Gnostic principles. It will be my purpose here, however, to prove that we are now in a stranglehold of Gnostic spirituality which far outstrips any which existed in the early centuries of the Church.

We could in fact run a sort of imaginary line down through the history of the Catholic Church (we will not here be dealing with Protestantism) separating Gnostic-tainted philosophy, theology, and spirituality from that which is truly Catholic. What this largely entails since the 13th century is a choice between Platonism and Thomism. But even before Thomas, this distinction between a spirituality which reaches upwards in imitation of Christ, as contrasted with that which seeks an illumination from within or below, is often starkly evident.
The History of Western Gnosticism is more complex than that of the East. It entails the unraveling down through the centuries of three fundamental intellectual aberrations, all of which are to be found in Plato.

The first of these consists in what is commonly called Platonic Idealism. The word "Idealism” is singularly appropriate since it denotes the fact that Plato taught that the Ideas of things are more real than the existing things themselves.

These Ideas exist ultimately in pure Forms which are completely separate from phenomena, but from which (somehow) the illusory shadow-land of our phenomenological world is derived. The penultimate Form is the Good, which is also the One from which all the other Forms are derived. In Plato’s Idealism we are therefore again confronted with the first principle of Gnosticism: the existence of an Absolute, completely separate and untouched by the world. There is no real explanation given by Plato for the decay away from the Ideal world (all men were once there – Plato definitely believed in the pre-existence of the human soul in complete union with this Ideal world) into the shadow-world of phenomena. Although there is some reference in Timaeus to the demiurge and to created gods, this is usually not considered something that can be taken seriously in Plato’s philosophy. We are left in other words with the same basic dilemma as exists in all forms of Gnosticism: how to account for a “decayed” world of finitude and phenomena somehow coming forth from an Absolute which is Infinitely perfect.

The second Gnostic principle integral to Plato’s philosophy is that Gnosis or “salvation” is not accomplished through receiving truth and grace from above, but is rather a Dialectical Process –an evolutionary process of uncovering that which is within. At this point we move from Plato’s metaphysics to his epistemology. The entire thrust of the Dialogues is upon revealing the dialectical process by which man is enabled to ascend from the delusional world of phenomena to the real world of Ideas. This obviously entails an ascent of gnosis.

As already mentioned, Plato believed that all men pre-existed in the real world of pure Forms or Ideas. Plato’s concept of gnosis is therefore established in the principle that all real knowledge is recollection (a process of “return”). The “ascent” to Gnosis is, consequently, a descent into remembering what man knew before he suffered a fall away into entrapment in a body and into the world of phenomena. This “recollection” is realized through a dialectical growth in knowledge ascending through four different levels: 1) the illusory world of phenomena; 2) knowledge of the physical sciences; 3) knowledge of mathematics; 4) all of this “dialectic” culminating in the final stage which is constituted as an intuitive, contemplative knowledge of the Pure Forms or Ideas.

In The Republic, Plato details the social engineering necessary in order that this evolutionary and hierarchical structure of gnosis might be reflected in an orderly society. All children are to be taken away from their parents in infancy and raised by the State. Depending upon abilities revealed in childhood, they are to be permanently assigned to one of the three classes , corresponding to the threefold structure of the human soul – rational, “spirited”, and appetitive. Even the elite – those who are born with the highest rational qualities to achieve such gnosis in this life – must be taken away from their homes in infancy and rigorously trained and elevated in knowledge through the four stages, this process hopefully culminating in true contemplation of the Ideas at about the age of 60, at which time they become worthy of the position of “philosopher-kings”. The vast majority of men never ascend above the first stage in this life, and of course those in stages 2 and 3 also do not reach true gnosis. Plato therefore believed in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation). In the Dialogue of Phaedo, Socrates even speculates that a villain in this life might come back as a wolf, or that a good citizen who never learned philosophy, but yet lived a disciplined life, might return as a bee, an ant, or a human being. The entire process to human fulfillment is thus to be seen as deeply embedded in evolutionary thinking concerning the ultimate destiny of the human soul.

The third principle, intimately tied to the second and providing the dynamic which leads to this dialectical, evolutionary growth in gnosis, is that of dialogue. All of Plato’s philosophical works come to us in the form of Dialogues. The Socratic Dialogue is maieutical. This term describes a teaching method based on the principal that truth and salvation is not something which is received from above, but rather must be born from something that is within man. The term is derived from the Greek word for obstetric. Truth is a birth accompanied by labor.

The essence of the Socratic method is therefore a dialectical dialogue in which opposing views are discussed on a specific issue in order to engage in a process of critical thinking which gives birth to a synthesis, which is constituted by an intuitive, contemplative gnosis of the Truth already existing within man. Presumably, all of this culminates in Gnosis of the One (the Good), this effecting the final Gnosis and liberation of the human soul.

It is characteristic of most Thomists that they see only Platonic Idealism, and not also the other two Platonic principles which I have mentioned above, as constituting the source of Gnostic thinking present in Catholic thought down through the centuries. This eviscerates our understanding of the depths of destruction inherent in Platonic thought, obscures our ability to perceive the three distinct expressions of Platonic Gnosticism as they present themselves in individual thinkers and movements, and undermines our ability to penetrate to the historical depths of our present crisis. As we shall see, it is in fact the merging of these three foundational aberrations in Catholic thought which culminates in Modernism, and the coming to fruition of Gnosticism in the West. This, in turn, is preparing the way for a merging of Catholic Gnosticism with that of the Eastern Orthodox, a union which, I believe, will facilitate the coming of Antichrist.

The teacher and associate of Fr. Feeney, Brother Francis Maluf, had this to say about Plato:

Socrates was the teacher of Plato, who was the teacher of Aristotle. All we know
about Socrates' philosophy comes to us through the writings of Plato. Plato was a
very inspiring thinker who almost serves as a kind of Christopher Columbus for the
realm of ideas. He lifted the human mind to that realm. Unfortunately, he is also the
father of all philosophic fallacies and errors. One can take almost every modern
philosophy that is wrong — from nαzιsm to Communism — and trace it back to
Plato. Aristotle sat as his disciple for twelve years, being very excited about the
things he said and the way he said them. But he always had a mind that was
dedicated to saying the truth and saying it even if it were to offend or contradict
others, even his teacher. Eventually, Aristotle separated himself from the school of
Plato.

. . .

We also learned in cosmology that reality ultimately must reside in individual
substances. That is very important. Plato was fascinated by ideas. To him the idea
of a bird was tremendous. Plato taught us that by philosophy one can know that
birds live and die, while some universal bird continues to go on. He made this the
prime interest in his philosophy. On this point Aristotle disagreed with him
completely. The only reality is that little sparrow, and when it dies there could be
another sparrow, but the reality of the universal sparrow exists only in individual
substances. On that issue we Catholics thoroughly agree with Aristotle. We are not
Platonists. There is a place and a tremendous importance for ideas, but we leave
them where they belong. The kind of reality that belongs to ideas, their status as
beings, is very important in scholastic philosophy, but must wait to be discussed in
the course on epistemology

. . .

All philosophy is always haunted by the personalities of Plato and Aristotle. It was
Plato who discovered the importance of ideas. (When we say "ideas" we mean
"universals".) The fact that there are ideas in the mind presupposes that spiritual
activity we call abstraction. Plato exaggerated the reality of ideas. He said, in
essense, "the idea of sand is much more important than these little grains here and
there, because these can be destroyed and will disappear, but that idea is always
there." He thought the same thing about man. Frank and Joe are just individuals,
but man — the universal, man — is the most important thing. In the Summa
Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas names one of his treatises De Homine — "About
Man." Who is that man? Is it Frank? Is it Joe? The answer is yes. Though Frank
and Joe may not have even been alive when he was writing, St. Thomas included
them. He was talking about a nature: anybody who ever had that nature, or will
ever have it.

Any discussion of universals must include Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle’s point of
disagreement with Plato is the dividing line for separating good philosophy from
bad philosophy. To Plato, the only real things are the permanent, eternal ideas.
Plato was like the Christopher Columbus of the realm of ideas. The whole world
after him has a realization of the power of ideas it would never have had if that man
had not lived Aristotle, his student, kept seeing the holes in his system and finally separated
from Plato. He then set out to start right from the beginning and establish some
foundations for truth. There is a pathetic passage from Aristotle’s writings in which
he says, paraphrased: "It’s very painful for me to be contradicting a man whom I so
much love and admire. But our dedication to the truth should transcend our loyalty
to any human person." He then proceeded to criticize his master. And the first thing
he said was, "The things that really are, are the individual substances." The
important thing is not man in general, but this man and that man; not the idea of
sparrows, but the sparrow that I see flying over there. Ideas are real, but their
reality comes from the individual substances. After Aristotle affirmed that truth, no
seeker of wisdom (no man who rejoices in the truth) will ever deny it. It was the first
maxim, the first principle for the great thinkers of the ages of Faith. Every one of
them accepted it. Aristotle comes much closer than any other pagan to our
wisdom, which is incarnational, which looks to the concrete and does not fly too
quickly to the ideas.

On the one hand, St. Thomas leaned more towards Aristotle, and on the other, St. Bonaventure leaned more towards Plato.

Does anyone have an opinion on this, or better sources that go over the conflict?

I don't like aristotle(the mentor of alexander the great - who is the GOAT antichrist) or aquinas(although albert is really the name to echo).  I think that they are walls blocking routes to restoration.  They represent a turning point in the church.  And, we shouldn't be surprised to find the enemies of the church(Jєωs, who "constantly" ape God) manifesting at that same time a new teacher/teaching.  Their flagship rabbi is Moses Maimonides, and everything official in current orthodox judaism sources back to him. And, he dates back to the same time as our St. Albert(I won't suffer the title "great", that is also applied to JP2).  Judaism apes catholicism, so it only makes sense that there would be a change there.  And, there was/is.  

As for plato and aristotle in relation to socrates, public revelation ended with the last apostle.  Keeping with that line of thinking, if socrates is the golden ticket, then plato is our guy.  Aristotle in that sense has no claim to socrates.

I personally cannot even read most thomistic thought.  It has an essence and style to it that my catholic sense rejects.  When I think of Aquinas, I think of words fr. pfieffer once ecstatically spoke.  He said something like this - "With the compass and the square, you can build the great pyramids.  And, with aquinas, you can do likewise; you can do everything".

The saying is very telling.  And, let us not forget the vision aquinas himself had shortly before he died.  He saw all his writings as hay.  This same vision was accompanied by an audible voice commending him for such "whithered" works.  

I don't get the idea, actually. You are looping together Fr Pfeiffer, St Thomas, Freemasons, and Aristotle in some deeply vague way that you claim is "very telling," simply because of a metaphorical reference to basic yet versatile layout tools. Please be more explicit.

Is there something wrong with natural analogies?

For he is like the refiner's fire, and like the fuller's herb.

Whether Fr. Pfeiffer's expression was deficient, or you twisted his meaning, it doesn't tell us about the value of Thomism itself. And there your so-called Catholic sense, really your uninformed opinion, of a theological system you "can't even read," sets itself against the mind of the Church, expressed for instance in several encyclicals of Leo XIII.

Another excellent link, McFiggly.  Thank you.
http://charlescoulombe.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/ultra-realism-faq.html

The problem with that article, PerEvangelicaDicta, is that its claims are so bold and provocative and it lacks the sources to support them. His notion that Thomism (or, rather, the shift of emphasis from Plato to Aristotle in general) contributed to decline of Christendom somewhat contradicts what we've heard from the popes and the theologians upholding St. Thomas as the highest of the Doctors of the Church. Maybe I should try and get in touch with Mr. Coulombe and see if he has any reading matter to recommend on this subject.

It is odd to find in his list of Famous Ultra-Realists "and/or" Christian Neo-Platonists, names such as Eckhart, Paracelsus, Campanella, von Baader, Soloviev, and Tomberg. His choice of list title makes their inclusion perhaps not incorrect technically, but still sadly reminds one that Coulombe was a contributor to the periodical Gnosis and author of such articles as 'The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism.' Has he ever renounced those associations and beliefs?

Graham, I honestly do not know whether or not Mr. Coulombe renounced the associations or beliefs to which you refer. To be honest, I don't really know the exact nature of these associations or his beliefs, although naturally he professes to be an orthodox Catholic. It does seem, however, that he has fondness for those "hermeticists" or "occultists" or "cabalists". I'm not fond of any of those names you mention either.

You might be interested in these articles if you haven't read them already

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1458990/replies?c=345

http://archives.leforumcatholique.org/consulte/message.php?arch=2&num=35002
He seems to imply in this article that his interest in these matters is some kind of reaction to the materialism of the age, i.e. he is interested in magic and the "spiritual" because the age denies the existence of these things.

Q: 14) What is your fascination with haunted and spooky places? Again, are you not inviting the weak of faith—or those of no faith—to become absorbed in things that trap the soul in the dark and satanic, leading them away from the practice of virtue and from a commitment to personal sanctity?

A: It is not a "fascination with haunted and spooky places" as such, any more than Sir Shane Leslie or Dom Alois Wiesenger, O. Cist., were fascinated—or, for that matter (not that I am in any way comparable) St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine, who dealt with such topics. Rather, as you may have noticed, we live in a rather materialistic and unbelieving era. It is a sad testimony to the nature of the human condition that the unbelieving often require a brush with the spiritual dark to realize that there is more in creation than the physical. You will recall that Fr. Malachi Martin did not begin to believe until he had the daylights scared out of him at an exorcism.


Q: 15) Why, therefore, have you written a book on "haunted and spooky" public places in the United States?

A: For three reasons. First, because it allows me in the afterword to talk about Purgatory to an entirely secular audience; second, because it allows me to deal with some interesting phenomena, which, honestly examined, must force the materialist to question his non-belief; third, because my agent made the deal with the publisher and I have received an advance. Again, this is how I make my living. Obviously, were I able to make as much money writing strictly on Catholic topics, I would do so. But I cannot.

Q: 16) You wrote five articles and four book reviews for Gnosis Magazine before its demise in 1999. One of those articles, published in 1990, compared the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to magic and stated that neo-Platonism, magic, alchemy, astrology, and Kabbalism are integral components of orthodox Catholicism." Why did you write for a magazine dedicated to a fundamental Christian heresy, Gnosticism?

A: You will pardon my impertinence, but I will ask you a question. Have you read the article in its entirety (to say nothing of the rest of my work in that magazine)? My point was that all of these things arose from the same philosophical milieu (i.e., Platonic Ultrarealism) and so made the same cosmological assumptions, as did the writings of the Church Fathers and the first formulations of our Faith. As for why I wrote for Gnosis, there were two reasons: 1) I saw it as a chance to write about the Faith to a putatively hostile audience, in hopes of reaching well-intentioned souls in ways they would understand; and 2) As a writer, I was happy to ply my trade, being paid while evangelizing. Of course, "Gnosis" began to be attacked for Catholic proselytizing. In 1993, one Michael Hoffman II, enraged by supposed "unpatriotic sentiments" in an article I wrote for the "Angelus," went on a campaign to "reveal" my past as a writer of "occult articles for Satanic magazines" or whatever, which has continued until today. This has been most annoying. But since I know of at least one conversion due to my "Gnosis" writings, I consider the annoyance worth it.


Q: 17) Do you stand by your statements that neo-Platonism, magic, alchemy, astrology, and Kabbalism are integral components of orthodox Catholicism?

A: See above.


Q: 18) Do you stand by your statements about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ("for if the Mass is not magical, then what is?) made in that 1990 article in Gnosis Magazine?

A: The Medieval Scholastic definition of magic was the accomplishment of ends out of all proportion to means -- whether those means were natural, angelic, or diabolic. The point that I was trying to make to an audience who consider magic to be a good thing is that the Mass is -- in the Medieval sense -- the most "magical" thing there is; the bringing forth, not of Angels or demons, but of God Himself, really and truly present, on the altar. Before that tremendous reality, all lesser rituals pale. The whole end of the article was to show folk interested in such things that all they think they can arrive at via the Occult -- communication with the Divine -- is actually to be found in Catholicism and her Sacraments.

Another pertinent excerpt from that article:

Q: 24) Do you still embrace "Christian Hermeticism"?

A: What do you mean by that? If you mean do I still embrace Platonic Ultrarealism/Augustinianism/Lullism, etc., the answer is yes. If you have some other meaning in mind, tell me, and I'll answer.