OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 03:02:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios  (Read 13163 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #135 on: July 21, 2011, 08:58:07 AM »

I don't know much about Thomism but I like to hear something new and Fripod is certainly the least shrill person on this topic.

The most sensible thing I've heard all day...
Of course. Acts 17:21.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 21, 2011, 08:59:04 AM »


It is ironic, Father, that you would defend the Cathari.  As I said before...I think you've been hiding your Orange among the Green!!

Well, it was you who introduced the Cathari into this thread and I wrote something about them for your sake.   If you like we could talk about the horrendous acts of the Jesuit Inquisition in Kerala and  Goa.  Then you can accuse me of hiding my Hindu sympathies and Oriental Orthodox sympathies. laugh

You do manage to make the exception into the rule and you have still not offered any of the logic of Aquinas that would necessarily result in such travesty of the justice of both man and God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Inquisition acting in the Indian state of Goa and the rest of the Portuguese empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] The Goan Inquisition is considered a blot on the history of Roman Catholic Christianity in India both by Christians and non-Christians alike. Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed in person; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penanced, but the fate of many of the Inquisition's victims is unknown.[2]

The Inquisition was established to punish relapsed New Christians – Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants – who were now suspected of practicing their ancestral religion in secret.[2]

In Goa, the Inquisition also turned its attention to Indian converts from Hinduism or Islam who were thought to have returned to their original ways. In addition, the Inquisition prosecuted non-converts who broke prohibitions against the observance of Hindu or Muslim rites or interfered with Portuguese attempts to convert non-Christians to Catholicism.[2]

While its ostensible aim was to preserve the Catholic faith, the Inquisition was used against Indian Catholics and Hindus as an instrument of social control, as well as a method of confiscating victims' property and enriching the Inquisitors.[3]

Most of the Goa Inquisition's records were destroyed after its abolition in 1812, and it is thus impossible to know the exact number of the Inquisition's victims.[2]
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: July 21, 2011, 08:59:23 AM »

Please, Fr Ambrose and Mary, take it elsewhere, you have already played this game many times -- there is no need for another action replay in this thread.


I wish to remain on topic, speaking of the pernicious impact of the thomistic method on the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as regards the treatment of religious dissidents.  Also pointing out that this quite egregious example indicates how Christian doctrine may be warped in more subtle and less obvious ways by the use of thomistic methodology.   This renders it unfit as a tool for the interpretation of Christian revelation.

Unfortunately where I go Mary is sure to follow and she has brought in other elements quite disconnected from any concerns about Thomism.  
Logged
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #138 on: July 21, 2011, 09:03:41 AM »

It seems, just from your excerpt, that Aquinas does assUme that a forced confession is unto salvation.

Sigh... Let me repeat myself once again...

...please, let's not interpret Aquinas' statement in such a crude sense.

I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.

Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,939


"My god is greater."


« Reply #139 on: July 21, 2011, 09:08:49 AM »

It seems, just from your excerpt, that Aquinas does assUme that a forced confession is unto salvation.

Sigh... Let me repeat myself once again...

...please, let's not interpret Aquinas' statement in such a crude sense.

I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


Strawmen and red herrings are unfortunately standard fare here. I think you've made your points as well as you could.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: July 21, 2011, 09:28:51 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #141 on: July 21, 2011, 09:42:34 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #142 on: July 21, 2011, 09:43:29 AM »

Please, Fr Ambrose and Mary, take it elsewhere, you have already played this game many times -- there is no need for another action replay in this thread.


I wish to remain on topic, speaking of the pernicious impact of the thomistic method on the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as regards the treatment of religious dissidents.  Also pointing out that this quite egregious example indicates how Christian doctrine may be warped in more subtle and less obvious ways by the use of thomistic methodology.   This renders it unfit as a tool for the interpretation of Christian revelation.

Unfortunately where I go Mary is sure to follow and she has brought in other elements quite disconnected from any concerns about Thomism.  

And vice versa, it seems to me.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #143 on: July 21, 2011, 09:58:12 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

I don't find this distinction between first offenders and second offenders worthy of much note.  Two strikes and you burn!  Is this concession to repentant first offenders found in the teachings of Christ?   You really think it is in order to kill a man who falls into the same sin twice?  Or only Thomists believe that?

Wonder if we should put to death those who commit adultery more than once.  Their impact on the moral level of society is atrocious and all those good wives whom they ruin and drag into their mortal sin!   Ditto I suppose for those engaging in the moral depravity of homosexuality and abortion.  Both are major assualts on society and religion.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 10:01:41 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #144 on: July 21, 2011, 09:59:36 AM »

Please, Fr Ambrose and Mary, take it elsewhere, you have already played this game many times -- there is no need for another action replay in this thread.


I wish to remain on topic, speaking of the pernicious impact of the thomistic method on the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as regards the treatment of religious dissidents.  Also pointing out that this quite egregious example indicates how Christian doctrine may be warped in more subtle and less obvious ways by the use of thomistic methodology.   This renders it unfit as a tool for the interpretation of Christian revelation.

Unfortunately where I go Mary is sure to follow and she has brought in other elements quite disconnected from any concerns about Thomism.  

And vice versa, it seems to me.

I have not noticed that.  Unless I am already involved in a discussion I tend to steer clear.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 10:01:09 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #145 on: July 21, 2011, 10:07:20 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

I don't find this distinction between first offenders and second offenders worthy of much note.  Two strikes and you burn!  Is this concession to repentant first offenders found in the teachings of Christ?   You really think it is in order to kill a man who falls into the same sin twice?  Or only Thomists believe that?

Wonder if we should put to death those who commit adultery more than once.  Their impact on the moral level of society is atrocious and all those good wives whom they ruin and drag into their mortal sin!   Ditto I suppose for those engaging in the moral depravity of homosexuality and abortion.  Both are major assualts on society and religion.

You might remember that in the days of the Angelic Doctor, heretics were violent people who not only sinned but also organized violent actions against Catholics and the Catholic Church.  The name "heretic" was not given lightly...at least not in the systematic and precise way that St. Thomas used it...and a "heretic" so called was not a benign soul.

That is not to say that there were not excesses:  But the number of people executed by the Catholic Inquisition pales when placed against secular executions which were far more complex and common.

And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #146 on: July 21, 2011, 10:17:09 AM »


You might remember that in the days of the Angelic Doctor, heretics were violent people who not only sinned but also organized violent actions against Catholics and the Catholic Church. 


I'm sure some of us would appreciate historical evidence of the violence of religious dissidents in Italy, Spain and Portugal.   Reports of their violent campaigns against Catholic clergy and Catholic churches?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #147 on: July 21, 2011, 10:20:24 AM »

It seems, just from your excerpt, that Aquinas does assUme that a forced confession is unto salvation.

Sigh... Let me repeat myself once again...

...please, let's not interpret Aquinas' statement in such a crude sense.

I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.

You can repeat yourself (as you have, as you admit) all you like.  It is not going to change things.

All this hairsplitting on material versus formal heretic and other such nonsense is the only context in which, as your excerpt from Aquinas shows, it is assUmed that a formal, forced confession need only to appear sincere.  Why else would it count over a heretic (and that, according to Aquinas, includes us Orthodox) who had the integrity to reveal his true beliefs again, and what end does killing him do, cutting off the means of repentence?

So many in the twilight of the Empire fell under the spell of an ascendent West: Scholasticism provided the context of all that was rejected at Lyons, Florence, Jerusalem, Iasi/Jassy, etc.  

So, who continued Scholarios' "Thomism"?  Where did the school go in Orthodoxy?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #148 on: July 21, 2011, 10:27:21 AM »

I don't know much about Thomism but I like to hear something new and Fripod is certainly the least shrill person on this topic.

The most sensible thing I've heard all day...
Of course. Acts 17:21.

//:=| approves of these internets. Nice, you two!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #149 on: July 21, 2011, 10:27:39 AM »


And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?

I gave the Summa references in an earlier message.  Did you not look them up?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.


On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #150 on: July 21, 2011, 10:28:27 AM »

This thread is really becoming a quote mine.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #151 on: July 21, 2011, 10:29:31 AM »

This thread is really becoming a quote mine.
The type that blow up?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #152 on: July 21, 2011, 10:33:59 AM »

Now, I am not an apologist for murder --

Nothing but good can only follow an intro like that. This thread has really upped the quality of rhetoric around here within threads which are going to go nowhere. Fripod, thanks for giving Isa an entertaining foil. 
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: July 21, 2011, 10:36:47 AM »


You might remember that in the days of the Angelic Doctor, heretics were violent people who not only sinned but also organized violent actions against Catholics and the Catholic Church. 


I'm sure some of us would appreciate historical evidence of the violence of religious dissidents in Italy, Spain and Portugal.   Reports of their violent campaigns against Catholic clergy and Catholic churches?


There's some good new Scholarship on the Bogomils in Italy...south and north if I remember correctly.  Don't have the book at hand.  Spain is an even more interesting story that never ended till the 20th century.
Logged

Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #154 on: July 21, 2011, 10:40:00 AM »

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

First of all, there is Peter J's excellent point: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37982.msg604874.html#msg604874

You ascribe to Aquinas an unacceptable degree of malice, and an almost diabolical fanaticism, but it is clear that there is much more going on here than first meets the eye. I think you have simply given a rather superficial reading of Aquinas' views, and consequently you have misrepresented him, when you ought to consider the matter from his perspective first. It is easy to misunderstand where he is coming from when you treat him as if he shared the same basic assumptions as you do -- again, he does not, and you must take this into account before pronouncing judgment, lest you condemn a straw man.

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

I think you fail to understand the nature of Aquinas' methodology -- in other words, you view everything he writes through tinted spectacles, and so you do not see clearly where exactly Aquinas has, on our view, gone wrong. You wrote:

I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people

in addition to:

I wish to remain on topic, speaking of the pernicious impact of the thomistic method on the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as regards the treatment of religious dissidents.  Also pointing out that this quite egregious example indicates how Christian doctrine may be warped in more subtle and less obvious ways by the use of thomistic methodology.   This renders it unfit as a tool for the interpretation of Christian revelation.

As I said before, you needn't accept all of Aquinas' conclusions in order to adopt philosophical Thomism as a system. There are two ways in which one may reject his conclusions in this case. One can show either a) that one of the premises is false, or b) that the conclusion doesn't follow upon his premises.

Since you yourself have mentioned somewhere the "inexorable" nature of Aquinas' logic, you will probably have difficulty trying to accomplish b). But logic proceeds according to a certain method, beginning with a set of premises, and moving through an ordered progression of steps toward the conclusion. Now, it should be obvious that if you do not share Aquinas' theological premises concerning the nature of sin, justice, repentance etc. -- and as an Orthodox Christian it is clear that you do not -- then you need not accept his conclusion. Therefore it by no means follows that his method is somehow inherently dangerous, or leads to atrocities. The method by itself is just a logical framework and doesn't lead anywhere -- again, we must not be confused on this point.

For example, in this case, you yourself have arrived at a certain conclusion, namely, that philosophical Thomism is unfit for use in interpreting Christian revelation, but your premise, that Thomism as a system has unacceptable implications, was in error. Therefore your conclusion is mistaken, and one need not accept it.

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

I think you attribute to Aquinas a kind of Nazi eugenicist ideology, which it should be abundantly clear that he did not in fact have. Moreover, the other Nazi connotations are simply not objective. It is surely a gross distortion to say that Aquinas thinks of heretics -- and remember I am speaking of only those who have shown that they are likely to fall away again, and thereby lose their immortal souls -- as being "life unworthy of life" (as if they were nothing more than worthless insects). If you will care to reread my more nuanced exposition of the passage in question, you will see that Aquinas clearly means well -- he has the salvation of their souls in mind. You may think that he is awfully, tragically mistaken in his conclusions regarding just how to go about achieving this, but his intention is not to be faulted in this case.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37982.msg604841.html#msg604841

Quote
Thank you for your attention and response.

I thank you also for being so civil, and taking the time to listen. You are one of the precious few who will.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #155 on: July 21, 2011, 10:43:19 AM »


That is not to say that there were not excesses:  But the number of people executed by the Catholic Inquisition pales when placed against secular executions which were far more complex and common.


Death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, who, in The Reformation (1957), cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808.

He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490.

Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gave a number of 8,800 people burned in the 18 years of Torquemada.

Matthew White, in reviewing these and other figures, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada [1].

R. J. Rummel describes similar figures as realistic, though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada. This number includes 125,000 asserted to have died in prison due to poor conditions, leaving 10,000 sentenced to death. (Death rates in medieval and early modern prisons were generally very high, thanks in part to inadequate sanitary conditions and a poor diet.)

There are no death toll figures available for the massacres of 1391, 1468 or 1473. These numbers will likely never be known.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060903192705AAZ0Dnd

and see

http://www.answers.com/topic/spanish-inquisition#Death_tolls
Logged
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #156 on: July 21, 2011, 10:45:13 AM »


And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?

I gave the Summa references in an earlier message.  Did you not look them up?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.


On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Fr Ambrose,

I am sorry, but Mary has asked you to explain in principle how Thomistic logic necessarily leads to murder. Just presenting excerpts does not constitute a reasoned demonstration.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #157 on: July 21, 2011, 10:51:42 AM »


And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?

I gave the Summa references in an earlier message.  Did you not look them up?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.


On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Fr Ambrose,

I am sorry, but Mary has asked you to explain in principle how Thomistic logic necessarily leads to murder. Just presenting excerpts does not constitute a reasoned demonstration.

He doesn't really pay attention to the substance of some of his more lurid accusations.  Shock value is intended to carry the day.

I think you've done a nice job with your part of this thread.  I don't think it is dead ended at all.

Is is possible to start a new thread on some particular aspect or teaching?  and follow that through for a while?

You do a great deal of good here.  I suspect your private mail bears that out.

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #158 on: July 21, 2011, 10:59:03 AM »


And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?

I gave the Summa references in an earlier message.  Did you not look them up?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.


On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Fr Ambrose,

I am sorry, but Mary has asked you to explain in principle how Thomistic logic necessarily leads to murder. Just presenting excerpts does not constitute a reasoned demonstration.

I am unaware of any other theologian who provided a theological justification for the torture and murder of religious dissidents, conducted almost exclusively by the members of his own Order.

I refuse to believe that the holy Dominicans who conducted the trials, organised the torture and later organised the burnings would have engaged in these vile acts unless they were quite persuaded that these acts were in fact holy acts sanctioned by God.   I do not know if anybody here is aware of any person other than Aquinas who would have satisfied the consciences of the Dominicans in this matter?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #159 on: July 21, 2011, 10:59:26 AM »

With respect to the accuracy of accounts of trials and death tolls there has been a great lot of historical debunking accumulating...the following being only one example:

http://draeconin.com/database/witchhunt.htm

400 In One Day: An Influential Forgery

Another, smaller breakthrough also profoundly altered our view of the early history of the Great Hunt. In 1972, two scholars independently discovered that a famous series of medieval witch trials never happened.

The forgery was Etienne Leon de Lamothe-Langon's Histoire de l'Inquisition en France, written in 1829. Lamothe-Langon described enormous witch trials which supposedly took place in southern France in the early 14th century. Run by the Inquisition of Toulouse and Carcasonne, these trials killed hundreds upon hundreds of people. The most famous was a craze where 400 women died in one day. No other French historian had noticed these trials.

In the early 20th century, the prominent historian Jacob Hansen included large sections of Lamothe-Langon's work in his compendium on medieval witchcraft. Later historians cited Hansen's cites, apparently without closely examining Lamothe-Langon's credentials. Non-academic writers cited the writers who cited Hansen, and thus Lamothe-Langon's dramatic French trials became a standard part of the popular view of the Great Hunt.

However, as more research was done, Lamothe-Langon's trials began to look odd to historians. No sources mentioned them, and they were completely different from all other 14th century trials. There were no other mass trials of this nature until 1428, no panics like this until the 16th century. Furthermore, the demonology in the trials was quite elaborate, with sabbats and pacts and enormous black masses. It was far more complex than the demonology of the Malleus Maleficarum (1486). Why would the Inquisition think up this elaborate demonology, and then apparently forget it for two hundred years?

Questions like these led Norman Cohn (Europe's Inner Demons and "Three Forgeries: Myths and Hoaxes of European Demonology II" in Encounter 44 (1975)) and Richard Kieckhefer (European Witch Trials) to investigate Lamothe-Langon's background. What they found was reasonably conclusive evidence that the great trials of the Histoire had never occurred.

First, Lamothe-Langon was a hack writer and known forger, not a historian. Early in his career he specialized in historical fiction, but he soon turned to more profitable horror novels, like The Head of Death, The Monastery of the Black Friars, and The Vampire (or, The Virgin of Hungary). Then, in 1829, he published the Histoire, supposedly a work of non-fiction. After its success Lamothe-Langon went on to write a series of "autobiographies" of various French notables, such as Cardinal Richeleau, Louis XVIII, and the Comtesse du Barry.

Second, none of Lamothe-Langon's sources could be found, and there was strong reason to suspect they never existed. Lamothe-Langon claimed he was using unpublished Inquisitorial records given to him by Bishop Hyacinthe Sermet -- Cohn found a letter from Sermet stating that there were no unpublished records. Lamothe-Langon had no training in paleography, the skill needed to translate the script and copious abbreviations used in medieval documents, and he was not posted in Toulouse long enough to do any serious research in its archives.

Third, under close examination a number of flaws appeared in his stories. He cited records written by seneschal Pierre de Voisins in 1275, but Voisins ceased being seneschal in 1254 and died not long after. The inquisitor who ran many of these trials was Pierre Guidonis (nephew of Bernard Gui from The Name of the Rose). But Guidonis wasn't an inquisitor at the time when the trials were held. Cohn and Kieckhefer published their findings in 1972. Since, then academics have avoided this forged material. Unfortunately by this point, Lamothe-Langon's lurid trials had entered into the mythology of witchcraft. While nobody cites Lamothe-Langon directly anymore, his fictions show up everywhere, including both Z Budapest's The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries and Raven Grimassi's The Wiccan Mysteries.

There's no simple way to weed out all of Lamothe-Langon's disinformation, but a few guidelines will help:
a) Use scholarly texts written after 1975. b) Beware of any trial set in Toulouse or Carcasonne. While these cities did have real cases, only the forged ones get cited regularly. c) Ignore any trial involving Anne-Marie de Georgel or Catherine Delort; they're forgeries. d) Ignore any trial that killed "400 women in one day". This never happened. e) Avoid Jules Michelet's Satanism and Witchcraft. Although he wrote a poetic and dramatic book, Michelet never found much historical evidence to support his theory that witchcraft was an anti-Catholic protest religion. What little bit there was came from the Lamothe-Langon forgeries. So when they were debunked, the last props for his book collapsed. f) The appendix of Richard Kieckhefer's European Witch Trials contains a list of all known trials that occurred between 1300 and 1500.
Logged

Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #160 on: July 21, 2011, 11:00:51 AM »

It seems, just from your excerpt, that Aquinas does assUme that a forced confession is unto salvation.

Sigh... Let me repeat myself once again...

...please, let's not interpret Aquinas' statement in such a crude sense.

I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.

You can repeat yourself (as you have, as you admit) all you like.  It is not going to change things.

All this hairsplitting on material versus formal heretic and other such nonsense is the only context in which, as your excerpt from Aquinas shows, it is assUmed that a formal, forced confession need only to appear sincere.
 

That is your assumption. It is not one Aquinas shares. You do not understand his doctrine of faith -- confession requires the cooperation of the human will with the Grace of God.

Quote
Why else would it count over a heretic (and that, according to Aquinas, includes us Orthodox) who had the integrity to reveal his true beliefs again

Aquinas does not number the Orthodox among those who have fallen away from the Roman Catholic faith, then returned, then fallen away again, and then returned once more.

Quote
and what end does killing him do, cutting off the means of repentence?

Read the passage again -- it makes it impossible for the 2nd time repentant heretic to fall away once more, and thus into damnation.

Quote
So many in the twilight of the Empire fell under the spell of an ascendent West: Scholasticism provided the context of all that was rejected at Lyons, Florence, Jerusalem, Iasi/Jassy, etc.  

One must distinguish between form and content.

Quote
So, who continued Scholarios' "Thomism"?  Where did the school go in Orthodoxy?

If you would care to open up The Byzantine Thomism of Genndios Scholarios, you may read a brief history of Scholarios' post mortem influence.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #161 on: July 21, 2011, 11:03:29 AM »


He doesn't really pay attention to the substance of some of his more lurid accusations.  Shock value is intended to carry the day.


I don't create the luridness - it is already there, contained in the vile acts of your Church and the history of the Dominican Order.

Shock value?  Agian, I do not create any shock value.   The historical record is quite shocking enough.  Nobody needs to add to it.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #162 on: July 21, 2011, 11:07:19 AM »


You might remember that in the days of the Angelic Doctor, heretics were violent people who not only sinned but also organized violent actions against Catholics and the Catholic Church. 


I'm sure some of us would appreciate historical evidence of the violence of religious dissidents in Italy, Spain and Portugal.   Reports of their violent campaigns against Catholic clergy and Catholic churches?


There's some good new Scholarship on the Bogomils in Italy...south and north if I remember correctly.  Don't have the book at hand.  Spain is an even more interesting story that never ended till the 20th century.
when the communists took over, or the fascists?

It seems the communicants of the Vatican where quite busy butchering each other in Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_in_the_Middle_Ages#The_end_of_the_Middle_Ages_.2811th-14th_centuries.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars

Suprising that they had time for the Bogomils.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #163 on: July 21, 2011, 11:08:23 AM »


And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?

I gave the Summa references in an earlier message.  Did you not look them up?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.


On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Fr Ambrose,

I am sorry, but Mary has asked you to explain in principle how Thomistic logic necessarily leads to murder. Just presenting excerpts does not constitute a reasoned demonstration.

I am unaware of any other theologian who provided a theological justification for the torture and murder of religious dissidents, conducted almost exclusively by the members of his own Order.

I refuse to believe that the holy Dominicans who conducted the trials, organised the torture and later organised the burnings would have engaged in these vile acts unless they were quite persuaded that these acts were in fact holy acts sanctioned by God.   I do not know if anybody here is aware of any person other than Aquinas who would have satisfied the consciences of the Dominicans in this matter?

Fr Ambrose,

You may not be aware of it, but there is an extensive tradition of commentaries on Aquinas' works in the Catholic Church, many of which depart from Aquinas' own teaching in important ways. There are many schools of Thomism -- even today there are at least 5 or 6 still competing for interpretive dominance. Gennadios Scholarios was very discerning in deciding to translate Armandus de Bellovisu -- an early commentator on Aquinas -- who wrote before a lot of these outside influences (from other forms of Scholasticism, as well as various non-Christian philosophies etc.) started to creep in.

EDIT: Hopefully this will help get this thread back on track, but I must say I don't have particularly high hopes...
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:11:16 AM by Fripod » Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #164 on: July 21, 2011, 11:10:55 AM »


He doesn't really pay attention to the substance of some of his more lurid accusations.  Shock value is intended to carry the day.


I don't create the luridness - it is already there, contained in the vile acts of your Church and the history of the Dominican Order.

Shock value?  Agian, I do not create any shock value.   The historical record is quite shocking enough.  Nobody needs to add to it.

Note in particular the contemporary texts and studies referenced.  There are historians getting to the truth of things more and more...even with the loss of data over the centuries.


How many people died from the Inquisition?

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_from_the_Inquisition#ixzz1SkjtRkEL


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_from_the_Inquisition

According to Henry Kamen's "The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision" it is very difficult to determine, because if people fled - which they usually did - the Inquisition would burn them in effigy, and make no distinction in their records between whether someone was burned in effigy or in reality. According to Kamen, at the height of the Inquistion, they executed a handful of people per year, and the State of Texas executes more people in a year than the Inquisition did in ten.
 
The number of people who died in the various inquistions across Europe is difficult to determine, but the number of victims can be numbered in the thousands, not the millions as a previous respondent stated. The entire populations of Europe would have been wiped out if inquisitors had killed in those numbers! Even though the Spanish Inquisition lasted for hundreds of years the Inquisition was held primarily in small areas in France, Spain and Italy.

For example, the Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people.

I suggest to read Edward Peter's Inquisition for the most up to date analysis of the topic, including the myths that have arisen surrounding the inquisitions.

Correction: The Spanish Inquisition was state ministry, not papal organization. Blaming Popes for deeds of Spanish Inquisition is incorrect. However kings of Spain used Dominicans (catholic order) as judges etc. because clergy (especially mentioned monks) were generally far more educated than ordinal people.

Brief Answer: Talking of 'the inquisition' probably refers to the whole thing i.e. 'retake' of land for christians and murderous rampage against heretics. It was started by Pope Lucius III when he issued a bull against heretics- and the violent measures against them. It is strongly thought by those who thoroughly study the inquisition that the death toll is indeed in the millions. Which is of course denied by Christian leaders and followers.

After some thought, I'm leaving the last two contributors' responses here to give those interested some idea of the flavor of the controversy. Firstly, it is correct to state that the Spanish Inquisition was a state ministry, but that doesn't remove it from the category of "inquisition." It was authorized by the papacy and thereafter used by monarchs on the Iberian peninsula beginning with Ferdinand and Isabella as the only institution at their disposal that operated across the boundaries of the twin crowns of Aragon and Castille. Many inquisitions functioned in conjunction with secular authorities, such as in 15th century Florence. And needless to say the Roman inquisition functioned under the direct management and control of the Pope, who WAS the secular (as well as spiritual) authority in the city of Rome and the Papal States. All of this simply goes toward explaining why it makes no sense to think of a single inquisition, rather than muliple inquisitions. Again, if you are truly interested in the subject, read Edward Peters or Richard Kieckhefer.

As for how many deaths may be attributed to the various inquisitorial bodies, I'm not certain who the previous contributor refers to when he states that "those who thoroughly study the inquisition" agree that the death toll was in the millions, but he or she is quite wrong on multiple levels. I am unaware of any modern historian who would accept such ridiculous numbers and it has nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian. Again, for a general treatment of the various inquisitions, read Edward Peters' Inquistions, and for a more specialized treatment turn to Richard Kieckhefer's Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany.

Finally, the previous contributor was correct in pointing to the papal bull of 1184, ab abolendam, which Pope Lucius III did indeed issue the year before his death, as the beginning of the papal inquisition, but episcopal inquisitions had existed prior to this, and indeed the first time heretics were burned was at Orleans in 1022. And again, even with the establishment of the papal inquisition, various judge legates, which is what individual inquisitors were, pursued their duties in differing ways and with differing agendas. In sum, there never was anything one code referred to as THE inquisition, simply various individual inquisitions.


Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #165 on: July 21, 2011, 11:13:53 AM »

It seems, just from your excerpt, that Aquinas does assUme that a forced confession is unto salvation.

Sigh... Let me repeat myself once again...

...please, let's not interpret Aquinas' statement in such a crude sense.

I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.

You can repeat yourself (as you have, as you admit) all you like.  It is not going to change things.

All this hairsplitting on material versus formal heretic and other such nonsense is the only context in which, as your excerpt from Aquinas shows, it is assUmed that a formal, forced confession need only to appear sincere.
 

That is your assumption. It is not one Aquinas shares. You do not understand his doctrine of faith -- confession requires the cooperation of the human will with the Grace of God.
and coerced confession, which is what he advocates, helps how?

Why else would it count over a heretic (and that, according to Aquinas, includes us Orthodox) who had the integrity to reveal his true beliefs again

Aquinas does not number the Orthodox among those who have fallen away from the Roman Catholic faith, then returned, then fallen away again, and then returned once more.
Care to quote him on that?

and what end does killing him do, cutting off the means of repentence?

Read the passage again -- it makes it impossible for the 2nd time repentant heretic to fall away once more, and thus into damnation.
So a second insincere repentance is the charm.

So many in the twilight of the Empire fell under the spell of an ascendent West: Scholasticism provided the context of all that was rejected at Lyons, Florence, Jerusalem, Iasi/Jassy, etc.  

One must distinguish between form and content.
Those of us who have learned from those who submitted to Florence via Brest-Lvov and Uzhhorod have seen the relationship of form and content in Latinization and its heresies.

So, who continued Scholarios' "Thomism"?  Where did the school go in Orthodoxy?

If you would care to open up The Byzantine Thomism of Genndios Scholarios, you may read a brief history of Scholarios' post mortem influence.
You assUme I haven't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #166 on: July 21, 2011, 11:17:38 AM »


With respect to the accuracy of accounts of trials and death tolls there has been a great lot of historical debunking accumulating...the following being only one example:

So what do we make of this?

We have the testimony of William of Puylaurens:   "Arnaud [a holy Cistercian abbot who was the commander of the Catholic troops]  wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."

A sad boast to hear from a monk!  Thank you, Aquinas, for making it possible for a monk to espouse such a position without any disturbance to his conscience, the outworking of Aquinas' teaching in the Summa!    

"The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens: The Albigensian Crusade and Its Aftermath", p128, William, M. D. Sibly, Boydell Press, 2003, ISBN 0851159257

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Massacre

How would you characterise the boast of the holy Cistercian abbot that he had killed 20,000 Cathars in one day?..

a.  as a preposterous lie by William of Puylaurens?

b.  a lie by Abbot Arnaud in order to impress the Pope?

c.  just a typical days work for the Cathar exterminators?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:24:30 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #167 on: July 21, 2011, 11:17:57 AM »


And you were to get us an outline of the Thomistic logic that necessitates murder...weren't you going to back up that bald assertion that the logic of Aquinas necessarily leads to murder... with fact?

I gave the Summa references in an earlier message.  Did you not look them up?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.


On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Fr Ambrose,

I am sorry, but Mary has asked you to explain in principle how Thomistic logic necessarily leads to murder. Just presenting excerpts does not constitute a reasoned demonstration.

I am unaware of any other theologian who provided a theological justification for the torture and murder of religious dissidents, conducted almost exclusively by the members of his own Order.

I refuse to believe that the holy Dominicans who conducted the trials, organised the torture and later organised the burnings would have engaged in these vile acts unless they were quite persuaded that these acts were in fact holy acts sanctioned by God.   I do not know if anybody here is aware of any person other than Aquinas who would have satisfied the consciences of the Dominicans in this matter?

Fr Ambrose,

You may not be aware of it, but there is an extensive tradition of commentaries on Aquinas' works in the Catholic Church, many of which depart from Aquinas' own teaching in important ways. There are many schools of Thomism -- even today there are at least 5 or 6 still competing for interpretive dominance. Gennadios Scholarios was very discerning in deciding to translate Armandus de Bellovisu -- an early commentator on Aquinas -- who wrote before a lot of these outside influences (from other forms of Scholasticism, as well as various non-Christian philosophies etc.) started to creep in.

EDIT: Hopefully this will help get this thread back on track, but I must say I don't have particularly high hopes...

A great deal of the Scholasticism after Aquinas were sorry attempts to "go beyond" Aquinas and to "correctly" understand Aquinas.  The 20th century is marked by a number of priests and monk/scholars who have begun the process of sorting through these various and variously bungled attempts at improving on the work of Aquinas.  

Henri de Lubac

Etienne Gilson

Bernard Lonergan

And also layman Jacques Maritan

There are others who have addressed the work of Aquinas but I find these four to have taken the lead and all four have written extensively from primary sources and with an eye to presenting Aquinas rather than re-presenting him.

A thousand and one pardons to Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. who not only has presented the Angelic Doctor in the 20th century, but has done so in the most appropriate context: the spiritual life.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:21:22 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #168 on: July 21, 2011, 11:20:21 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

I don't find this distinction between first offenders and second offenders worthy of much note.  Two strikes and you burn!  Is this concession to repentant first offenders found in the teachings of Christ?   You really think it is in order to kill a man who falls into the same sin twice?  Or only Thomists believe that?

I'm not at all sure that the "put second-time heretics to death after they repent a second time" idea is an acceptable one. I'm kind of waiting to see what Fripod has to say in its defense (now that we're all agree on what Aquinas said exactly).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #169 on: July 21, 2011, 11:25:00 AM »

A great deal of the Scholasticism after Aquinas were sorry attempts to "go beyond" Aquinas and to "correctly" understand Aquinas.  The 20th century is marked by a number of priests and monk/scholars who have begun the process of sorting through these various and variously bungled attempts at improving on the work of Aquinas.  

Henri de Lubac

Etienne Gilson

Bernard Lonergan

And also layman Jacques Maritan

There are others who have addressed the work of Aquinas but I find these four to have taken the lead and all four have written extensively from primary sources and with an eye to presenting Aquinas rather than re-presenting him.

Mary, all of these interpreters have departed in significant ways from the orthodox Thomism. The truest representative of authentically Thomist thought in the twentieth century would have to be Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who spearheaded the revival, but remained staunchly faithful to Aquinas' traditional metaphysics -- he saw no need to tinker with it. As you have written above, such attempts at "improvement" tend to be bungled anyway.

You can read a brief history of the various Thomistic schools here:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-ii.html
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: July 21, 2011, 11:29:27 AM »

A great deal of the Scholasticism after Aquinas were sorry attempts to "go beyond" Aquinas and to "correctly" understand Aquinas.  The 20th century is marked by a number of priests and monk/scholars who have begun the process of sorting through these various and variously bungled attempts at improving on the work of Aquinas. 

Henri de Lubac

Etienne Gilson

Bernard Lonergan

And also layman Jacques Maritan

There are others who have addressed the work of Aquinas but I find these four to have taken the lead and all four have written extensively from primary sources and with an eye to presenting Aquinas rather than re-presenting him.

Mary, all of these interpreters have departed in significant ways from the orthodox Thomism. The truest representative of authentically Thomist thought in the twentieth century would have to be Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who spearheaded the revival, but remained staunchly faithful to Aquinas' traditional metaphysics -- he saw no need to tinker with it. As you have written above, such attempts at "improvement" tend to be bungled anyway.

You can read a brief history of the various Thomistic schools here:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-ii.html

While you were typing I was revising.  In other words I added Le Grange and suggested that he was most appropriate in his presentation.

I don't see that any of the original four on my list have done nearly the damage to Aquinas that others have and de Lubac did in fact rescue Thomistic principles from the distortion of some of Cajetan's gloss.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:30:13 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #171 on: July 21, 2011, 11:40:42 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

I don't find this distinction between first offenders and second offenders worthy of much note.  Two strikes and you burn!  Is this concession to repentant first offenders found in the teachings of Christ?   You really think it is in order to kill a man who falls into the same sin twice?  Or only Thomists believe that?

I'm not at all sure that the "put second-time heretics to death after they repent a second time" idea is an acceptable one. I'm kind of waiting to see what Fripod has to say in its defense (now that we're all agree on what Aquinas said exactly).

Peter J,

I don't think it is the number of times one has fallen away into heresy per se that concerns Aquinas. It is the fact that they prove themselves inconstant in faith that is key here. Maybe Aquinas would argue something like this:

If man habitually turns away from God, then gradually he loses the power over his will to cooperate with God's Grace in conversion. Once this reaches a certain point, conversion is no longer possible for him, for his heart has been hardened -- we see this phenomenon in the Holy Scriptures (with Pharaoh, the Pharisees etc.). I think that what Aquinas is looking to do is to prevent the persistent heretic from reaching this point of no return. So in the end, Aquinas is earnestly trying to save their souls -- I think he really does mean well, even if we might consider him mistaken in how he goes about it.

I'm don't know if this is totally accurate, but I think it's a pretty good approximation of what Aquinas is trying to get at.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #172 on: July 21, 2011, 11:45:39 AM »

Once this reaches a certain point, conversion is no longer possible for him, for his heart has been hardened -- we see this phenomenon in the Holy Scriptures (with Pharaoh, the Pharisees etc.).

*cough* Just for fun, who hardened Pharoh's heart?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #173 on: July 21, 2011, 11:45:58 AM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

I don't find this distinction between first offenders and second offenders worthy of much note.  Two strikes and you burn!  Is this concession to repentant first offenders found in the teachings of Christ?   You really think it is in order to kill a man who falls into the same sin twice?  Or only Thomists believe that?

I'm not at all sure that the "put second-time heretics to death after they repent a second time" idea is an acceptable one. I'm kind of waiting to see what Fripod has to say in its defense (now that we're all agree on what Aquinas said exactly).

Peter J,

I don't think it is the number of times one has fallen away into heresy per se that concerns Aquinas. It is the fact that they prove themselves inconstant in faith that is key here. Maybe Aquinas would argue something like this:

If man habitually turns away from God, then gradually he loses the power over his will to cooperate with God's Grace in conversion. Once this reaches a certain point, conversion is no longer possible for him, for his heart has been hardened -- we see this phenomenon in the Holy Scriptures (with Pharaoh, the Pharisees etc.). I think that what Aquinas is looking to do is to prevent the persistent heretic from reaching this point of no return. So in the end, Aquinas is earnestly trying to save their souls -- I think he really does mean well, even if we might consider him mistaken in how he goes about it.

I'm don't know if this is totally accurate, but I think it's a pretty good approximation of what Aquinas is trying to get at.

I think Aquinas' support for killing heretics does not reflect Orthodoxy at all. The cold rationalization of torture and murder for the sake of saving souls is a product of a mindset utterly divorced from the Gospel. It reminds me of the scene from The Brothers Karamazov of a repentant criminal in Geneva being congratulated on his repentance, and still being led to execution, for, though he repented, he still has to pay.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #174 on: July 21, 2011, 11:47:19 AM »

Once this reaches a certain point, conversion is no longer possible for him, for his heart has been hardened -- we see this phenomenon in the Holy Scriptures (with Pharaoh, the Pharisees etc.).

*cough* Just for fun, who hardened Pharoh's heart?

Oh boy, here we go.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #175 on: July 21, 2011, 11:53:35 AM »

A great deal of the Scholasticism after Aquinas were sorry attempts to "go beyond" Aquinas and to "correctly" understand Aquinas.  The 20th century is marked by a number of priests and monk/scholars who have begun the process of sorting through these various and variously bungled attempts at improving on the work of Aquinas. 

Henri de Lubac

Etienne Gilson

Bernard Lonergan

And also layman Jacques Maritan

There are others who have addressed the work of Aquinas but I find these four to have taken the lead and all four have written extensively from primary sources and with an eye to presenting Aquinas rather than re-presenting him.

Mary, all of these interpreters have departed in significant ways from the orthodox Thomism. The truest representative of authentically Thomist thought in the twentieth century would have to be Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who spearheaded the revival, but remained staunchly faithful to Aquinas' traditional metaphysics -- he saw no need to tinker with it. As you have written above, such attempts at "improvement" tend to be bungled anyway.

You can read a brief history of the various Thomistic schools here:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-ii.html

While you were typing I was revising.  In other words I added Le Grange and suggested that he was most appropriate in his presentation.

I don't see that any of the original four on my list have done nearly the damage to Aquinas that others have and de Lubac did in fact rescue Thomistic principles from the distortion of some of Cajetan's gloss.

I agree, but they clearly did not teach a "strict observance Thomism" (especially not Maritain). De Lubac may have rescued some Thomistic principles, but he also introduced other ideas, such as that of paradox and "Christian Prometheanism," that seem difficult to reconcile with an Aristotelian philosophy of nature and Aquinas' political theory.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #176 on: July 21, 2011, 11:58:19 AM »

I think Aquinas' support for killing heretics does not reflect Orthodoxy at all. The cold rationalization of torture and murder for the sake of saving souls is a product of a mindset utterly divorced from the Gospel. It reminds me of the scene from The Brothers Karamazov of a repentant criminal in Geneva being congratulated on his repentance, and still being led to execution, for, though he repented, he still has to pay.

It is really a non-essential point of his teaching, as I have explained to Fr Ambrose already, since it follows from premises we do not share.

As Orthodox we are not required to accept it.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:59:26 AM by Fripod » Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #177 on: July 21, 2011, 12:00:51 PM »

Once this reaches a certain point, conversion is no longer possible for him, for his heart has been hardened -- we see this phenomenon in the Holy Scriptures (with Pharaoh, the Pharisees etc.).

*cough* Just for fun, who hardened Pharoh's heart?

Ohhhhhdarlin' boy!!  You are a man after my own heart!!  I knew it!...my favorite question of all times!!

As it has been revealed: GOD hardened Pharoah's heart...even as that heart was beginning to yield.  

So much for knowing the mind of God!  

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #178 on: July 21, 2011, 12:00:51 PM »


Now, I am not an apologist for murder -- I am not saying that I personally agree with Aquinas, but I am at least willing to consider his point of view without caricaturing it, even if only for the sake of argument -- and no, you needn't agree with him on this point, either, but please, take the time to try and understand exactly why he writes what he does, and don't attribute to him motives that he does not in fact have.


I would be interested in your views as to

1. How I have caricatured Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of religious dissidents

2.  In what ways I have failed to understand exactly what he writes

3.  What motives I am wrongly attributing to him.

Thank you for your attention and response.

As I understand it, you said

How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

but Aquinas said this, not about repentant heretics in general, but only about heretics who went through the process a second time, as it were, i.e. fell again and then repented again:

Quote
For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

I don't find this distinction between first offenders and second offenders worthy of much note.  Two strikes and you burn!  Is this concession to repentant first offenders found in the teachings of Christ?   You really think it is in order to kill a man who falls into the same sin twice?  Or only Thomists believe that?

I'm not at all sure that the "put second-time heretics to death after they repent a second time" idea is an acceptable one. I'm kind of waiting to see what Fripod has to say in its defense (now that we're all agree on what Aquinas said exactly).

Peter J,

I don't think it is the number of times one has fallen away into heresy per se that concerns Aquinas. It is the fact that they prove themselves inconstant in faith that is key here. Maybe Aquinas would argue something like this:

If man habitually turns away from God, then gradually he loses the power over his will to cooperate with God's Grace in conversion. Once this reaches a certain point, conversion is no longer possible for him, for his heart has been hardened -- we see this phenomenon in the Holy Scriptures (with Pharaoh, the Pharisees etc.). I think that what Aquinas is looking to do is to prevent the persistent heretic from reaching this point of no return. So in the end, Aquinas is earnestly trying to save their souls -- I think he really does mean well, even if we might consider him mistaken in how he goes about it.

I'm don't know if this is totally accurate, but I think it's a pretty good approximation of what Aquinas is trying to get at.

Sorry, Fripod, but this makes me want to vomit.  We saw the same reasoning at work with the murder of millions of people by the Communists.  First, they exterminated all those they judged to be incapable of liberation from the heresies of capitalism, private ownership and general bourgeois principles.

Then they took those they thought capable of being re-educated to live as Communists and placed them in camps.  Here they either learnt to believe in the Communist faith system or, like the first group, they too were killed.

You are describing the same principles at work which you ascribe to Aquinas and you are inviting us to accept them as excusable.  That is, in my estimation, sickening.


Logged
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #179 on: July 21, 2011, 12:02:38 PM »

DISCLAIMER:

I am no expert on Aquinas, and I may very well be mistaken with regard to some of the things I claim he taught.

DO NOT TAKE ME AS AN AUTHORITY. DO NOT DISMISS THOMISM MERELY ON MY ACCOUNT. TAKE EVERYTHING I SAY WITH A PINCH OF SALT.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Tags: Aquinas Thomas Aquinas scholasticism Gennadios Scholarios neo-platonism Plato Aristotle Mark of Ephesus 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.232 seconds with 72 queries.