So you have read all of Aquinas works then?
If you have only read florilegia, then yes, I would say that you cannot speak in about their beliefs in any kind of coherent fashion. Just look at the text that Aquinas wrote "Against the Greeks," he has no grasp of their actual teaching, and sadly for him many of his citations are now known to be spurious, which caused his views on the Greek Fathers to be even more distorted than they would have been otherwise.
Since I have only read some of what they say, then I cannot come to intelligent conclusions? I must read the entire corpus of their works in order to undestand them? Have you read the entire Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, On being and Essence, and all of Aquinas other works? And yet you reject his orthodox thinking? Did you do so unintelligently because you have not read it all? Have you read everything written by St. Augustine?
Sorry, but I am simply stating a fact. I have read whole treatises by these Fathers and you have admitted that you have not. How can you make any intelligent judgment when you are ignorant of what these Fathers have said?
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said: ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings. And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
where you didn't even understand term essence . . . Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist. That is laughable.
The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
I have never said that! Be that as it may, I have read Parts 1 and 3 of the Summa
(and some of the Supplement too), and his text Questiones Disputatae de Veritate
, and a couple of his homilies (on Galatians
), and Book IV of his Summa Contra Gentiles
, and I read all of these things back in the 1980s. I also read his treatise On Being and Essence
in the late 1990s when I was studying philosophy at SFSU, but I admit that I have not looked at any of Aquinas' writings in many years.
P.S. - I also read the section of the Summa
(from the first part of the second part) on Law, and probably other sections that I just do not remember at the moment.
P.P.S. - The first time I read anything by Aquinas was when I was around 13 years old, and I found a little green book which contained parts of the sections of the Summa
on the incarnation. I was still Methodist at the time.