John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio says:

Quote from: §49

Suam ipsius philosophiam non exhibet Ecclesia, neque quamlibet praelegit peculiarem philosophiam aliarum damno.

The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others.

Yet Pope Pius XI's encyclical Studiorum Ducem says:

Quote from: §11

Nos vero haec tanta divinissimo ingenuo tributa praeconia sic probamus ut non modo Angelicuм, sed etiam Communem seu universalem Ecclesiae Doctorem appellandum putemus Thomam, cuius doctrinam, ut quam plurimis in omni genere litterarum monumentis testata est, suam Ecclesia feeerit.

We consider that Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the Common or Universal Doctor of the Church; for the Church has adopted his philosophy for her own, as innumerable docuмents of every kind attest.

How is this not a direct contradiction?

The former sure actively lobbied for that "Modernist feel good" Anti-Thomistic Phenomenology stench.

Interesting observation, never thought of that myself. Repackaged Kabbalah, I need to re-read it many of the Conciliar teachings do come from the Kabbalah and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (most especially the instrinsic dignity of the human person). Which many are using in that apostate Sin-od as the fundamental basis, for the acceptance of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ as having an intrinsic value for the Church as a result of their objective moral disorder. Notice how that concept is very much, the same thing as the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN.

The Vatican II gnostic sect, certainly has very deep roots and you will be surprised where many of its pagan teachings come from.

Fides et Ratio is a completely anti-Thomist encyclical, it is completely wicked because it purports to show "favor" to Thomism and at the same time destroying it. Thus it qualifies on the true definition of evil, because it lacks the good it should have and on top of that destroys the little good it does have by turning it into wicked doctrines.

Interesting observation, never thought of that myself. Repackaged Kabbalah, I need to re-read it many of the Conciliar teachings do come from the Kabbalah and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (most especially the instrinsic dignity of the human person). Which many are using in that apostate Sin-od as the fundamental basis, for the acceptance of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ as having an intrinsic value for the Church as a result of their objective moral disorder.

This is illustrated by Forte's response to Voris's press conference question.

I guess that it pays to read the whole thing before passing judgment:

The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas

43. A quite special place in this long development belongs to Saint Thomas, not only because of what he taught but also because of the dialogue which he undertook with the Arab and Jєωιѕн thought of his time. In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the treasures of ancient philosophy, and more particularly of Aristotle, Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony which exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God, he argued; hence there can be no contradiction between them.(44)

More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy's proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation. Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment,(45) so faith builds upon and perfects reason. Illumined by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much of the supernatural character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance of its reasonableness; indeed he was able to plumb the depths and explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith is in a sense an “exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased in assenting to the contents of faith, which are in any case attained by way of free and informed choice.(46)

This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology. In this connection, I would recall what my Predecessor, the Servant of God Paul VI, wrote on the occasion of the seventh centenary of the death of the Angelic Doctor: “Without doubt, Thomas possessed supremely the courage of the truth, a freedom of spirit in confronting new problems, the intellectual honesty of those who allow Christianity to be contaminated neither by secular philosophy nor by a prejudiced rejection of it. He passed therefore into the history of Christian thought as a pioneer of the new path of philosophy and universal culture. The key point and almost the kernel of the solution which, with all the brilliance of his prophetic intuition, he gave to the new encounter of faith and reason was a reconciliation between the secularity of the world and the radicality of the Gospel, thus avoiding the unnatural tendency to negate the world and its values while at the same time keeping faith with the supreme and inexorable demands of the supernatural order”.(47)

44. Another of the great insights of Saint Thomas was his perception of the role of the Holy Spirit in the process by which knowledge matures into wisdom. From the first pages of his Summa Theologiae,(48) Aquinas was keen to show the primacy of the wisdom which is the gift of the Holy Spirit and which opens the way to a knowledge of divine realities. His theology allows us to understand what is distinctive of wisdom in its close link with faith and knowledge of the divine. This wisdom comes to know by way of connaturality; it presupposes faith and eventually formulates its right judgement on the basis of the truth of faith itself: “The wisdom named among the gifts of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the wisdom found among the intellectual virtues. This second wisdom is acquired through study, but the first 'comes from on high', as Saint James puts it. This also distinguishes it from faith, since faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgement according to divine truth”.(49)

Yet the priority accorded this wisdom does not lead the Angelic Doctor to overlook the presence of two other complementary forms of wisdom—philosophical wisdom, which is based upon the capacity of the intellect, for all its natural limitations, to explore reality, and theological wisdom, which is based upon Revelation and which explores the contents of faith, entering the very mystery of God.

Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit” (omne verum a quocuмque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) (50) Saint Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality. In him, the Church's Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence”.(51) Rightly, then, he may be called an “apostle of the truth”.(52) Looking unreservedly to truth, the realism of Thomas could recognize the objectivity of truth and produce not merely a philosophy of “what seems to be” but a philosophy of “what is”.

The Church's interest in philosophy

57. Yet the Magisterium does more than point out the misperceptions and the mistakes of philosophical theories. With no less concern it has sought to stress the basic principles of a genuine renewal of philosophical enquiry, indicating as well particular paths to be taken. In this regard, Pope Leo XIII with his Encyclical Letter Æterni Patris took a step of historic importance for the life of the Church, since it remains to this day the one papal docuмent of such authority devoted entirely to philosophy. The great Pope revisited and developed the First Vatican Council's teaching on the relationship between faith and reason, showing how philosophical thinking contributes in fundamental ways to faith and theological learning.(78) More than a century later, many of the insights of his Encyclical Letter have lost none of their interest from either a practical or pedagogical point of view—most particularly, his insistence upon the incomparable value of the philosophy of Saint Thomas. A renewed insistence upon the thought of the Angelic Doctor seemed to Pope Leo XIII the best way to recover the practice of a philosophy consonant with the demands of faith. “Just when Saint Thomas distinguishes perfectly between faith and reason”, the Pope writes, “he unites them in bonds of mutual friendship, conceding to each its specific rights and to each its specific dignity”.(79)

78. It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas' thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The Magisterium's intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.

And, the "offending" paragraph:

49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others.(54) The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth.

Yet history shows that philosophy—especially modern philosophy—has taken wrong turns and fallen into error. It is neither the task nor the competence of the Magisterium to intervene in order to make good the lacunas of deficient philosophical discourse. Rather, it is the Magisterium's duty to respond clearly and strongly when controversial philosophical opinions threaten right understanding of what has been revealed, and when false and partial theories which sow the seed of serious error, confusing the pure and simple faith of the People of God, begin to spread more widely.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

So, perhaps, John Paul II was referring to philosophy as a secular pursuit as opposed to a purely theological one.

A good discussion/debate here:

http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2013/01/thomism-and-magisterium.html

Quote

So, perhaps, John Paul II was referring to philosophy as a secular pursuit as opposed to a purely theological one

I found that, after reading the encyclical, ThomisticPhilospher's explanation is quite clear.  

ThomisticPhilosopher said:

Quote

Fides et Ratio is a completely anti-Thomist encyclical, it is completely wicked because it purports to show "favor" to Thomism and at the same time destroying it. Thus it qualifies on the true definition of evil, because it lacks the good it should have and on top of that destroys the little good it does have by turning it into wicked doctrines.

I lost some of my notes of my recent readings of Fides et Ratio. If not I would gladly share it with everyone.

I found a better way to annotate and highlight quicker. So once I learn it real well, I will be able to give much better output of my in-depth notes on the anti-Popes encyclicals. I am using Vim text editing with some plugins, and it is super efficient for editing/highlighting etc... Also once you learn how to use the proper search syntax, its crazy awesome.

One thing I regret is not having kept more studiously my notes over time. I am doing something at the moment to remedy that, but Fides et Ratio is generally one of his "best" encyclicals objetively speaking. All the other ones are usually so heretical its difficult to pin-point all the places.

I remember listening to Mr. Gruner talking to another priest, about a book he wrote on the thought of John Paul II. At the time it was only in German and some other European languages. Would be interested to see if it has been translated, but I think this is an older priest (maybe not even a priest), but this was written by a very traditional sound old school reading of the anti-Popes. Wojtyla is so hard, because he simply wrote wayyyy too much and it is usually just a bunch of fluff.

Quote

This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology.

Quote

his insistence upon the incomparable value of the philosophy of Saint Thomas.

Quote

78. It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas' thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies.

He downplays St. Thomas. St. Thomas doesn't just teach us the methodology of doing philosophy (which Modernists don't even adopt anyways…), but also the very principles and content of the theology. Paul VI was more Thomist than John Paul II when he wrote to the Dominican prior general saying:

[...] to be a faithful disciple of St. Thomas today, it is not enough to want to do in our time and with the means available today that which he did in his. Contenting oneself with imitating him, like walking on a parallel street without anything to draw from him, one would with difficulty arrive at a positive result or, at least, offer to the Church and to the world that contribution of wisdom which they need. One cannot, in fact, speak of true and fecund loyalty if one does not receive, almost from his own hands, his principles which also illuminate the most important problems of philosophy and, to be more precise, to understand better the faith in these our times and, similarly, the fundamental notions of his system and the force of his ideas. Only so, the thought of the Angelic Doctor, confronted always with new contributions of profane science, will meet—through a sort of mutual osmosis—a new, thriving, lively development.
—1974 letter Lumen ecclesiæ 29. [my translation]