OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 08:33:56 PM *
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 12767 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #180 on: July 21, 2011, 12:03:44 PM »


Sorry, Fripod, but this makes me want to vomit. 


You poor thing.  Grab a bib or a bucket!!

Heretics were not nice folks, Father.  They were called heretics because they were destructive.

Of course we know that Orthodoxy loved all of her enemies and put them up in palatial residences and waited on them hand and foot.... angel angel angel
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #181 on: July 21, 2011, 12:07:45 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!  



Let the Platonic Orthodox apologists deal with that. I love the contortions it puts people through.

I really do think it is an important question or rather how one answers it is important.

I've heard some OK apologies for explaining away God's involvement, but they are never really satisfying.

The Living God just doesn't jive with Plato at times. Usually he doesn't.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #182 on: July 21, 2011, 12:09:42 PM »

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.

Actually I take that as a goes-without-saying.  No one after Thomas can teach what you might accept as a "strict observance".    Only the Angelic Doctor can know his own mind and the sheer magnitude of his coverage demands that we are bound to have need to interpret the interpretations and definitions.

That is all right though.  We can identify those in the middle ages who really went off the rails and those in the 20th century who tried to the best of their ability to get some part of those mis-steps back on track.

That's all I was indicatin'

It's too hot to move around here and I am trying to figure out the best time to get on the road to go visit mother in the hospital.

That's why I am sitting here in front of my only fan...shootin' the breeze with you all.   Cheesy
Logged

Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #183 on: July 21, 2011, 12:10:54 PM »

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.

I am not inviting anyone to accept them as excusable -- or even accept them at all. As I have said many times, it is a contingent feature of his thought. It does not follow upon his theological method in any way, shape, or form. It does not follow from first and intrinsic principles. It depends on assumptions that Orthodox do not share.

Just in case I haven't made myself clear:

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.

Did anyone even read this post?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 12:12:37 PM by Fripod » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #184 on: July 21, 2011, 12:18:04 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!  



Let the Platonic Orthodox apologists deal with that. I love the contortions it puts people through.

I really do think it is an important question or rather how one answers it is important.

I've heard some OK apologies for explaining away God's involvement, but they are never really satisfying.

The Living God just doesn't jive with Plato at times. Usually he doesn't.

It tells us something very important about the reprobate.  One might deduce that any "softening" of Pharoh's heart might well have been treacherous. 

I have always believed that there are times when, for His own purposes, God withholds grace.  Job's story tells us that God will not actively promote or do what is evil.  That would be a direct contradiction of His Divinity, but to hold back grace is nothing more than tossing Adam and Eve out of the Garden...or hardening Pharoh's heart.

Now my dear Madre Teresa of Avila tells me that God NEVER withholds grace, the grace of salvation, and we do not know that Pharoh was not saved, do we?    We do know that because God hardened Pharoh's heart that he suffered deeply...

And so I am again tempted to think of redemptive suffering...

And slowly but surely the God that I recognize begins to emerge from the story...shining forth an image of original justice...

But I must say it is very hot and that might influence any possible insight... Smiley

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #185 on: July 21, 2011, 12:26:21 PM »

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.

I am not inviting anyone to accept them as excusable -- or even accept them at all. As I have said many times, it is a contingent feature of his thought. It does not follow upon his theological method in any way, shape, or form. It does not follow from first and intrinsic principles. It depends on assumptions that Orthodox do not share.

Just in case I haven't made myself clear:

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.

Did anyone even read this post?

No reasoning matters once Father has latched on to the killing field...nothing at all matters.  He will allow for no rhetorical devices, no imperfect analogs, no mitigating circumstances whatsoever to deter him from his goal of painting the most blood-thirsty image of the western Church that he can paint.

I have a very pithy response to that kind of brinkmanship that I deliver to him silently and long distance with a disarming smile!!

M.
Logged

88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #186 on: July 21, 2011, 12:54:52 PM »

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.

Did anyone even read this post?
[/quote]

I think my point is, why should we have to accept it? Our theology is full, it is the fullness of the truth, in need of no correction, clarification, etc...
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #187 on: July 21, 2011, 12:59:47 PM »


You are not only lost in terms of systematics but you are historically lost.  Heretics in those days did not simply or merely speak heresy but they murdered in their own right and tried to destroy Catholics and the Catholic Church.


I've racked my brains and I've searched the net but cannot find evidence that your religious dissidents engaged in any persecution and murder in the areas where the Catholic Inquisition was tormenting them, Spain, Portugal, Italy.

Would it be a forlorn hope to ask you for evidence?
Logged
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #188 on: July 21, 2011, 01:19:36 PM »

I think my point is, why should we have to accept it?

Well, no one has to accept it. But I think it is well worthwhile considering, and deserving of careful attention. Remember, I did include in the original post the following from Gennadios Scholarios (which was kind of the original point of this thread, before it got sidetracked):

"[Aquinas] is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours."

Quote
Our theology is full, it is the fullness of the truth, in need of no correction, clarification, etc...

Yes, but was it not also the fullness of truth during the Arian controversy, during the Nestorian controversy, during the Monothelite controversy, during the Hesychast controversy etc.? Yet the faith still needed to be expounded, explained, and defended, and, like it or not, philosophy has been bound up as an integral part of this ever since the homoousian, and even before that, all the way back to the Logos.

Therefore it is important that the relationship between revealed truth and its dogmatic exposition by means of philosophy receive very careful consideration. I am simply in agreement with Patriarch Gennadios on this matter, that's all. There is no compulsion involved.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #189 on: July 21, 2011, 01:34:33 PM »

I think my point is, why should we have to accept it?

Well, no one has to accept it. But I think it is well worthwhile considering, and deserving of careful attention. Remember, I did include in the original post the following from Gennadios Scholarios (which was kind of the original point of this thread, before it got sidetracked):

"[Aquinas] is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours."

Quote
Our theology is full, it is the fullness of the truth, in need of no correction, clarification, etc...

Yes, but was it not also the fullness of truth during the Arian controversy, during the Nestorian controversy, during the Monothelite controversy, during the Hesychast controversy etc.? Yet the faith still needed to be expounded, explained, and defended, and, like it or not, philosophy has been bound up as an integral part of this ever since the homoousian, and even before that, all the way back to the Logos.

Therefore it is important that the relationship between revealed truth and its dogmatic exposition by means of philosophy receive very careful consideration. I am simply in agreement with Patriarch Gennadios on this matter, that's all. There is no compulsion involved.

Its always been the fullness of the truth, no matter what controversy has arisen. The only reason its needed to be "expounded" was because corruptions arose that distorted the truth. We hold the exact same faith as handed down from Christ to his Apostles. It is completely unchanged, no differences and perfect.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #190 on: July 21, 2011, 01:42:16 PM »

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.

I am not inviting anyone to accept them as excusable -- or even accept them at all. As I have said many times, it is a contingent feature of his thought. It does not follow upon his theological method in any way, shape, or form. It does not follow from first and intrinsic principles. It depends on assumptions that Orthodox do not share.

Just in case I haven't made myself clear:

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.

Did anyone even read this post?

I hope you're sitting down Fripod, because I did read it.

Actually, the issue you bring up here is an issue with respect to many people, not just Aquinas. For example, many people who study Martin Luther in depth have to ask themselves: Should I simply disregard the portions of Luther's writings that unacceptably anti-semitic? Or do I believe that Luther's anti-semitism makes him an unworthy subject of study, period, and therefore write him off completely? Or do I adopt some sort of middle-ground approach?

(I'm not trying to convince you that your approach is wrong; just pointing out that this is a more common issue than you might think.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #191 on: July 21, 2011, 01:53:06 PM »

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
"Orthodox Thomism"

I thought it was just a "system," not an orthodoxy.  Or so you would have us believe.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #192 on: July 21, 2011, 01:56:21 PM »


You are not only lost in terms of systematics but you are historically lost.  Heretics in those days did not simply or merely speak heresy but they murdered in their own right and tried to destroy Catholics and the Catholic Church.


I've racked my brains and I've searched the net but cannot find evidence that your religious dissidents engaged in any persecution and murder in the areas where the Catholic Inquisition was tormenting them, Spain, Portugal, Italy.
They were allied, Father, with those Albigensians and Huguenots that were persecuting and murdering the 19th century countryside of the French Pyranees until Bernadette scared them off, as EM told us a while back.
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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #193 on: July 21, 2011, 01:59:07 PM »

Actually, the issue you bring up here is an issue with respect to many people, not just Aquinas. For example, many people who study Martin Luther in depth have to ask themselves: Should I simply disregard the portions of Luther's writings that unacceptably anti-semitic? Or do I believe that Luther's anti-semitism makes him an unworthy subject of study, period, and therefore write him off completely? Or do I adopt some sort of middle-ground approach?

Really anyone who is serious about studying anything, those questions are of little import.

The real question would be, if you care about the issue of antisemitism in Luther's writings, do his ideas regarding Jews inform and are informed by his corpus in general, and if so, how? Further questions would obviously arise, but certainly anyone who truly studies something is not put off by some aspect of it, no matter if they find it distasteful, but attempts to understand it.

To disregard his antisemitic writing as if they don't count among his work at all would be folly.

We should follow St. Augustine's path in understanding and concentrate ourselves more on the "dark passages" we come across.

It irks that some Orthodox balk at calling Augustine a Saint.  

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #194 on: July 21, 2011, 02:00:23 PM »


Sorry, Fripod, but this makes me want to vomit. 


You poor thing.  Grab a bib or a bucket!!

Heretics were not nice folks, Father.  They were called heretics because they were destructive.

Of course we know that Orthodoxy loved all of her enemies and put them up in palatial residences and waited on them hand and foot.... angel angel angel
Actually, yes.

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #195 on: July 21, 2011, 02:05:30 PM »

I think my point is, why should we have to accept it?

Well, no one has to accept it. But I think it is well worthwhile considering, and deserving of careful attention. Remember, I did include in the original post the following from Gennadios Scholarios (which was kind of the original point of this thread, before it got sidetracked):

"[Aquinas] is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours."

Quote
Our theology is full, it is the fullness of the truth, in need of no correction, clarification, etc...

Yes, but was it not also the fullness of truth during the Arian controversy, during the Nestorian controversy, during the Monothelite controversy, during the Hesychast controversy etc.? Yet the faith still needed to be expounded, explained, and defended, and, like it or not, philosophy has been bound up as an integral part of this ever since the homoousian, and even before that, all the way back to the Logos.

Therefore it is important that the relationship between revealed truth and its dogmatic exposition by means of philosophy receive very careful consideration. I am simply in agreement with Patriarch Gennadios on this matter, that's all. There is no compulsion involved.
Yeah, that's what they claim about Florence.

You just slipped, and refered to "orthodox Thomism."  When you start talking about "orthodoxy," you're not talking about just "means" anymore, and have moved into conclusions, aims and givens.
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 #196 on: July 21, 2011, 02:06:52 PM »

Actually, the issue you bring up here is an issue with respect to many people, not just Aquinas. For example, many people who study Martin Luther in depth have to ask themselves: Should I simply disregard the portions of Luther's writings that unacceptably anti-semitic? Or do I believe that Luther's anti-semitism makes him an unworthy subject of study, period, and therefore write him off completely? Or do I adopt some sort of middle-ground approach?

(I'm not trying to convince you that your approach is wrong; just pointing out that this is a more common issue than you might think.)

Orthonorm is right, it depends whether or not Luther's anti-semitism was an integral part of his thought, or whether it was just "tacked on," so to speak. In the latter case, it is clear that one could safely ignore it without compromising the integrity of his thought, but if the former, then we could not reject it without also rejecting everything else that he taught.

This is what I have been saying about Aquinas. What is most valuable is not so much his theological conclusions (as worthy as most of them are) as his method and general metaphysics. You cannot reject the metaphysics and method without rejecting his whole corpus of writings, for it grounds them all, but you can reject certain of his conclusions, without having to write him off altogether.

I hate to bring in the scholastic jargon here, but I think it is crucial that we are all clear on the distinction between substantial and accidental form. Only a change in substantial form involves a change in essence. Therefore it is clear that that which does not belong to the substantial form of Thomism can be changed without bringing about a corresponding change in essence, but only a change in accidental form.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #197 on: July 21, 2011, 02:14:17 PM »

Actually, the issue you bring up here is an issue with respect to many people, not just Aquinas. For example, many people who study Martin Luther in depth have to ask themselves: Should I simply disregard the portions of Luther's writings that unacceptably anti-semitic? Or do I believe that Luther's anti-semitism makes him an unworthy subject of study, period, and therefore write him off completely? Or do I adopt some sort of middle-ground approach?

(I'm not trying to convince you that your approach is wrong; just pointing out that this is a more common issue than you might think.)

Orthonorm is right, it depends whether or not Luther's anti-semitism was an integral part of his thought, or whether it was just "tacked on," so to speak. In the latter case, it is clear that one could safely ignore it without compromising the integrity of his thought, but if the former, then we could not reject it without also rejecting everything else that he taught.

This is what I have been saying about Aquinas. What is most valuable is not so much his theological conclusions (as worthy as most of them are) as his method and general metaphysics. You cannot reject the metaphysics and method without rejecting his whole corpus of writings, for it grounds them all, but you can reject certain of his conclusions, without having to write him off altogether.

I hate to bring in the scholastic jargon here, but I think it is crucial that we are all clear on the distinction between substantial and accidental form. Only a change in substantial form involves a change in essence. Therefore it is clear that that which does not belong to the substantial form of Thomism can be changed without bringing about a corresponding change in essence, but only a change in accidental form.
You mean like transubstantiation, something else we don't believe in but was imagined by the Scholastics.  EM just went over that:
No, just more of the Catholic Church refusing the Vatican's recasting of Orthodox teaching.  Pat. Dositheos, and the Catholic Church with him, were just saying loud and clear to both the Protestants and those at Trent, a pox on both your houses, we don't believe as you do.

The Catholic Church teaches that there cannot be the essence of two things occupying precisely the same time and space...
The Catholic Church teaches the Hypostatic Union.  No wonder the Vatican just signed communion agreements with the Nestorians.

To say otherwise is bad philosophy, bad science and even worse theology.
If you want to persist in the arrogance of your Scholastics, don't expect us to follow you down that broad road through that wide gate.  For what happens when a handmaiden takes her place alongside her mistress, as the Scholastics did with philosophy and theology, consult the story of Hagar and Sarah.

If Pat. Dositheos didn't get that...It's ok by me.... Smiley
It's OK by the Catholic Church too, hence the Synod of Jerusalem.
Another reason why we shouldn't embrace Thomism.
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 #198 on: July 21, 2011, 02:16:21 PM »

I think my point is, why should we have to accept it?

Well, no one has to accept it. But I think it is well worthwhile considering, and deserving of careful attention. Remember, I did include in the original post the following from Gennadios Scholarios (which was kind of the original point of this thread, before it got sidetracked):

"[Aquinas] is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours."

Quote
Our theology is full, it is the fullness of the truth, in need of no correction, clarification, etc...

Yes, but was it not also the fullness of truth during the Arian controversy, during the Nestorian controversy, during the Monothelite controversy, during the Hesychast controversy etc.? Yet the faith still needed to be expounded, explained, and defended, and, like it or not, philosophy has been bound up as an integral part of this ever since the homoousian, and even before that, all the way back to the Logos.

Therefore it is important that the relationship between revealed truth and its dogmatic exposition by means of philosophy receive very careful consideration. I am simply in agreement with Patriarch Gennadios on this matter, that's all. There is no compulsion involved.
Yeah, that's what they claim about Florence.

You just slipped, and refered to "orthodox Thomism."  When you start talking about "orthodoxy," you're not talking about just "means" anymore, and have moved into conclusions, aims and givens.

Means presupposes certain givens. One cannot have a system of knowledge without first and intrinsic principles. Even a body of raw facts needs to be somehow organised, or else it is simply unintelligible.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #199 on: July 21, 2011, 02:17:54 PM »

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
"Orthodox Thomism"

I thought it was just a "system," not an orthodoxy.  Or so you would have us believe.

 Huh

You have a problem with him talking about "orthodox Thomism"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #200 on: July 21, 2011, 02:20:11 PM »

Means presupposes certain givens. One cannot have a system of knowledge without first and intrinsic principles. Even a body of raw facts needs to be somehow organised, or else it is simply unintelligible.

This is where Thomism fails.

EDIT: Not to detract from his genius, but he is a man of first principles, thus his weakness.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 02:21:34 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #201 on: July 21, 2011, 02:27:36 PM »

I enjoy some the bantering back and forth. Fripod at least seems to offer content that a certain other Thomist fanboi can't and he is clever.

But Thomism is just a non-starter for anyone with any engagement with serious contemporary ontological inquiry.

If the RC wanted to get "innovative" and remain in the Middle Ages they could at least give more heed to Duns Scotus.

This is why the East is looking toward the Continent for her ontological roots as she develops real theologians to answer the problems posed by our times.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #202 on: July 21, 2011, 02:41:42 PM »

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
"Orthodox Thomism"

I thought it was just a "system," not an orthodoxy.  Or so you would have us believe.

 Huh

You have a problem with him talking about "orthodox Thomism"?
Quite the contrary.  I have problems with him claiming there is no competing claims involved between Orthodoxy and Thomism.
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 #203 on: July 21, 2011, 03:02:37 PM »

I enjoy some the bantering back and forth. Fripod at least seems to offer content that a certain other Thomist fanboi can't and he is clever.

But Thomism is just a non-starter for anyone with any engagement with serious contemporary ontological inquiry.

Actually, the Aristotelian philosophy of nature is making something of a comeback in contemporary analytic philosophy. See, for example, David Oderberg's Real Essentialism.

http://www.amazon.com/Essentialism-Routledge-Studies-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/041587212X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273279&sr=1-1

Thomistic ontology has also been successfully reconciled with the findings of quantum physics, no mean feat, and a testament to its enduring relevance:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/1597310077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273119&sr=1-1

Quote
If the RC wanted to get "innovative" and remain in the Middle Ages they could at least give more heed to Duns Scotus.

This is why the East is looking toward the Continent for her ontological roots as she develops real theologians to answer the problems posed by our times.

You mean problems such as the plethora of competing moral theories within modern philosophy -- not to mention the gaping chasm that has opened up within Western society at large over the grounds and content of morality -- due to the abandonment of a teleological conception of human life and of nature in general? If you're seeking a solution to that problem in Continental philosophy, I think you will find yourself sorely disappointed.

The East already has ontological roots, and they are squarely Aristotelian.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 03:06:28 PM by Fripod » Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #204 on: July 21, 2011, 04:35:18 PM »

I enjoy some the bantering back and forth. Fripod at least seems to offer content that a certain other Thomist fanboi can't and he is clever.

But Thomism is just a non-starter for anyone with any engagement with serious contemporary ontological inquiry.

Actually, the Aristotelian philosophy of nature is making something of a comeback in contemporary analytic philosophy. See, for example, David Oderberg's Real Essentialism.
http://www.amazon.com/Essentialism-Routledge-Studies-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/041587212X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273279&sr=1-1

Thomistic ontology has also been successfully reconciled with the findings of quantum physics, no mean feat, and a testament to its enduring relevance:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/1597310077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273119&sr=1-1
LOL. So they align a theory with another theory, and call it reality.

Quote
If the RC wanted to get "innovative" and remain in the Middle Ages they could at least give more heed to Duns Scotus.

This is why the East is looking toward the Continent for her ontological roots as she develops real theologians to answer the problems posed by our times.

You mean problems such as the plethora of competing moral theories within modern philosophy -- not to mention the gaping chasm that has opened up within Western society at large over the grounds and content of morality -- due to the abandonment of a teleological conception of human life and of nature in general? If you're seeking a solution to that problem in Continental philosophy, I think you will find yourself sorely disappointed.
Nazis and Communists have teleological conceptions of human life, but I wouldn't recommend them.

The East already has ontological roots, and they are squarely Aristotelian.
The Orthodox East has gone beyond Aristotle, and those East of us (Hindus, Chinese, etc.) never had him.
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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #205 on: July 21, 2011, 04:51:44 PM »

I enjoy some the bantering back and forth. Fripod at least seems to offer content that a certain other Thomist fanboi can't and he is clever.

But Thomism is just a non-starter for anyone with any engagement with serious contemporary ontological inquiry.

Actually, the Aristotelian philosophy of nature is making something of a comeback in contemporary analytic philosophy. See, for example, David Oderberg's Real Essentialism.

http://www.amazon.com/Essentialism-Routledge-Studies-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/041587212X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273279&sr=1-1

Thomistic ontology has also been successfully reconciled with the findings of quantum physics, no mean feat, and a testament to its enduring relevance:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/1597310077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273119&sr=1-1

Quote
If the RC wanted to get "innovative" and remain in the Middle Ages they could at least give more heed to Duns Scotus.

This is why the East is looking toward the Continent for her ontological roots as she develops real theologians to answer the problems posed by our times.

You mean problems such as the plethora of competing moral theories within modern philosophy -- not to mention the gaping chasm that has opened up within Western society at large over the grounds and content of morality -- due to the abandonment of a teleological conception of human life and of nature in general? If you're seeking a solution to that problem in Continental philosophy, I think you will find yourself sorely disappointed.

The East already has ontological roots, and they are squarely Aristotelian.

This is the reaction of someone getting out of their depth.

Stay with Thomism as dead as it is. You do seem to have a grasp of it and an academic interest in how it is related to and could relate to other lines and threads of Orthodox theology. It sounds like a great project for academia.

Not so much for those with blood in their veins.

BTW, in the future don't embarrass yourself by mentioning quantum physics, you'll be barking your ideas between the tarot reader and dancing Wu Li master soon.

But when it comes to contemporary Continental thought, your patently absurd and hysterical reductions show you neither have the experience nor appreciation to properly discuss it.

You could have just said: I don't know really what you are talking about, I would like to keep on this subject for now.

Nor are you aware of the engagement of Orthodox thinkers with exactly such thought to perhaps overcome the often overly (neo)Platonic ontology of EO. Not that Aristotle doesn't play a role, but you must have missed a few classes, because Plato reigns supreme. You RCs are stuck with Aristotle and seem happy to continue to worship at the absolute epitome of his understanding of the divine, the Unmoved Mover, no matter whatever Scriptural and Patristic obstacles get in your way.

I'll let you get back to what you know about.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 04:52:42 PM by orthonorm » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #206 on: July 21, 2011, 05:11:19 PM »

I enjoy some the bantering back and forth. Fripod at least seems to offer content that a certain other Thomist fanboi can't and he is clever.

But Thomism is just a non-starter for anyone with any engagement with serious contemporary ontological inquiry.

Actually, the Aristotelian philosophy of nature is making something of a comeback in contemporary analytic philosophy. See, for example, David Oderberg's Real Essentialism.

http://www.amazon.com/Essentialism-Routledge-Studies-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/041587212X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273279&sr=1-1

Thomistic ontology has also been successfully reconciled with the findings of quantum physics, no mean feat, and a testament to its enduring relevance:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/1597310077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311273119&sr=1-1

Quote
If the RC wanted to get "innovative" and remain in the Middle Ages they could at least give more heed to Duns Scotus.

This is why the East is looking toward the Continent for her ontological roots as she develops real theologians to answer the problems posed by our times.

You mean problems such as the plethora of competing moral theories within modern philosophy -- not to mention the gaping chasm that has opened up within Western society at large over the grounds and content of morality -- due to the abandonment of a teleological conception of human life and of nature in general? If you're seeking a solution to that problem in Continental philosophy, I think you will find yourself sorely disappointed.

The East already has ontological roots, and they are squarely Aristotelian.

This is the reaction of someone getting out of their depth.

Stay with Thomism as dead as it is. You do seem to have a grasp of it and an academic interest in how it is related to and could relate to other lines and threads of Orthodox theology. It sounds like a great project for academia.

Not so much for those with blood in their veins.

BTW, in the future don't embarrass yourself by mentioning quantum physics, you'll be barking your ideas between the tarot reader and dancing Wu Li master soon.

But when it comes to contemporary Continental thought, your patently absurd and hysterical reductions show you neither have the experience nor appreciation to properly discuss it.

You could have just said: I don't know really what you are talking about, I would like to keep on this subject for now.

Nor are you aware of the engagement of Orthodox thinkers with exactly such thought to perhaps overcome the often overly (neo)Platonic ontology of EO. Not that Aristotle doesn't play a role, but you must have missed a few classes, because Plato reigns supreme. You RCs are stuck with Aristotle and seem happy to continue to worship at the absolute epitome of his understanding of the divine, the Unmoved Mover, no matter whatever Scriptural and Patristic obstacles get in your way.

I'll let you get back to what you know about.



Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who informs some of our best Continental Catholics...but does not seem to fully satisfy their needs... laugh

Before you start slashing you should know more about Catholic teachers and writers of the 20th century who appreciate St. Thomas but are not slaves to his system or bound by the scope of his theological work.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 05:14:42 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #207 on: July 21, 2011, 05:14:15 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #208 on: July 21, 2011, 05:20:21 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.

Ya... Cheesy...bad boy!  But you know the sharks are out in force so why draw blood where it is not really necessary?

Also...Our man Fri-day is Orthodox...no?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 05:22:07 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #209 on: July 21, 2011, 06:05:59 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.

Ya... Cheesy...bad boy!  But you know the sharks are out in force so why draw blood where it is not really necessary?

Also...Our man Fri-day is Orthodox...no?

Cryptopapist, obviously.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #210 on: July 21, 2011, 06:08:42 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.

Ya... Cheesy...bad boy!  But you know the sharks are out in force so why draw blood where it is not really necessary?

Also...Our man Fri-day is Orthodox...no?

Cryptopapist, obviously.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I am going to work like the dickens behind the scenes to keep him Orthodox.  Ya'll need him!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #211 on: July 21, 2011, 06:44:04 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.

Ya... Cheesy...bad boy!  But you know the sharks are out in force so why draw blood where it is not really necessary?

Also...Our man Fri-day is Orthodox...no?

Cryptopapist, obviously.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I am going to work like the dickens behind the scenes to keep him Orthodox.  Ya'll need him!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #212 on: July 21, 2011, 07:19:46 PM »

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I am going to work like the dickens behind the scenes to keep him Orthodox.  Ya'll need him!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Ironic that you chose the Greeks.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #213 on: July 21, 2011, 07:25:25 PM »

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I am going to work like the dickens behind the scenes to keep him Orthodox.  Ya'll need him!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Ironic that you chose the Greeks.
Yes, isn't it?
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
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #214 on: July 21, 2011, 07:39:21 PM »

Aquinas was born in 1225, after the Albigensian Crusade. Therefore, he can't be blamed for anything that happened during that time.


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?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #215 on: July 21, 2011, 07:41:01 PM »

Aquinas was born in 1225, after the Albigensian Crusade. Therefore, he can't be blamed for anything that happened during that time.

Shhh. Making sense is not allowed.  Wink
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #216 on: July 21, 2011, 08:01:25 PM »


Aquinas was born in 1225, after the Albigensian Crusade. Therefore, he can't be blamed for anything that happened during that time.

I wonder why Mary introduced the Cathars into an Aquinas thread?  Causing confusion again!   laugh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #217 on: July 21, 2011, 08:35:39 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.

Ya... Cheesy...bad boy!  But you know the sharks are out in force so why draw blood where it is not really necessary?

Also...Our man Fri-day is Orthodox...no?

Cryptopapist, obviously.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I am going to work like the dickens behind the scenes to keep him Orthodox.  Ya'll need him!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Who?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #218 on: July 21, 2011, 08:38:04 PM »

Hey!!  I would love particulars from someone who is so well schooled?

Also I don't know that you should take your razor out until you can indicate without doubt that Catholic theology is fully satisfied by the teachings of St. Thomas who inform some of our best Continental Catholics... laugh

No time for nuance when a chance for internet polemics opens up.

Ya... Cheesy...bad boy!  But you know the sharks are out in force so why draw blood where it is not really necessary?

Also...Our man Fri-day is Orthodox...no?

Cryptopapist, obviously.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I am going to work like the dickens behind the scenes to keep him Orthodox.  Ya'll need him!!

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Who?
The OP.
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 #219 on: July 21, 2011, 09:38:10 PM »

This is the reaction of someone getting out of their depth.

Stay with Thomism as dead as it is. You do seem to have a grasp of it and an academic interest in how it is related to and could relate to other lines and threads of Orthodox theology. It sounds like a great project for academia.

Not so much for those with blood in their veins.

Why the religious vitalism, here? Whether Thomism is "dead" in the eyes of the world is irrelevant. Yes, Orthodoxy is about Life -- after all, our Lord became incarnate so that we might have Life, and have it abundantly -- but that is not the same as keeping blood warm. Truth does not have to be "new," or "exciting," it just has to be true.

Quote
BTW, in the future don't embarrass yourself by mentioning quantum physics, you'll be barking your ideas between the tarot reader and dancing Wu Li master soon.

You said that "Thomism is just a non-starter for anyone with any engagement with serious contemporary ontological inquiry." Engagement with the findings of the physical sciences is something that is unavoidable in said inquiry. I am simply questioning your assertion that Aristotelian Thomism is somehow incapable of this, as I believe it to be mistaken.

Quote
You could have just said: I don't know really what you are talking about, I would like to keep on this subject for now.

Nor are you aware of the engagement of Orthodox thinkers with exactly such thought to perhaps overcome the often overly (neo)Platonic ontology of EO. Not that Aristotle doesn't play a role, but you must have missed a few classes, because Plato reigns supreme.

But that was whole the point of this thread! It was to challenge these popular ideas that the best of Orthodoxy is and has always been inherently Platonic and unscholastic. If there are already non-Platonic elements in our own history, then surely we should look there first, before turning elsewhere to modern secular philosophy.

Quote
You RCs are stuck with Aristotle and seem happy to continue to worship at the absolute epitome of his understanding of the divine, the Unmoved Mover, no matter whatever Scriptural and Patristic obstacles get in your way.

I'll let you get back to what you know about.

Now who's painting with broad brush strokes?
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #220 on: July 21, 2011, 09:48:54 PM »

This is the reaction of someone getting out of their depth.

Stay with Thomism as dead as it is. You do seem to have a grasp of it and an academic interest in how it is related to and could relate to other lines and threads of Orthodox theology. It sounds like a great project for academia.

Not so much for those with blood in their veins.

Why the religious vitalism, here? Whether Thomism is "dead" in the eyes of the world is irrelevant. Yes, Orthodoxy is about Life -- after all, our Lord became incarnate so that we might have Life, and have it abundantly -- but that is not the same as keeping blood warm. Truth does not have to be "new," or "exciting," it just has to be true.
If I may be so bold, orthonorm wasn't talking about Aquinas being deceased. Dead in a more fundamental way.

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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #221 on: July 21, 2011, 10:02:01 PM »

I am not sure what the point of this thread is.   That Aquinas was philosophically Aristotelian does not mean that he was theologically sound.

The point of the thread is -- or at least, was supposed to be -- to discuss the possibility of today utilising the framework of Aquinas' general metaphysics to expound, explain, and defend the Orthodox Christian faith in the tradition of Gennadios, Bryennios, Kabasilas et al. None of these thinkers accepted all of Aquinas' theological conclusions, in fact, they used his thought precisely to defend Orthodox doctrine against the unionists, muslims, and humanists. Their acceptance of Thomism as a system is not evidence of Latin influence, but is rather testimony to the broad continuity of Aquinas' thought with an approach to philosophy and theology that was already characteristically Byzantine, and that had been practiced since at least the 9th century.

Quote
Also, Orthodox writers, when speaking about the mind of the Church, are not dismissing anything.  The truth is that "We have the mind of Christ."   It is the mind of Christ that the Church has, not the mind of Aristotle, not the mind of Aquinas, and not the mind of any patriarch.  It is the mind of Christ, which is affirmed and perpetually reinforced in the rule of prayer of God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The mind of Christ cannot be invoked to justify human ideological prejudices. Philosophical Thomism deserves a fair hearing, and is worthy of serious consideration, even if it is ultimately to be rejected on some points -- ever since the backlash against Aristotelianism in general that occurred in the 19th century Slavophile and Hellenic Nationalist movements it has been repeatedly shouted down without any serious philosophical argumentation whatsoever. In other words, because Thomism is of "Latin" origin, it has simply been assumed to be totally irreconcilable with Orthodox dogma -- guilt by association.

Surely philosophical Thomism remains eminently defensible as a live option for Orthodox thinkers today, as it was in Gennadios Scholarios' time.

I think you have to take what Fr. Ambrose and Isa said more seriously.   To say that we need to revive Thomism to save Palamitism is like saying that a farmer needs to go out and capture a fox and bring it into the yard in order to protect the chickens when he release them because they are so valuable.  

Look, there is no doubt that theological empiricism of the Palamite type took a hit in the 19th century and we still feel it today.  But I don't see why we need to drag Aristotle or Aquinas out of their graves to save something they didn't believe in.   Bringing in Thomism is opening a window where fresh air and flies come in all at the same time.  We need the fresh air, the legitimate heritage of Orthodoxy derived from the Fathers.  
 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #222 on: July 21, 2011, 10:25:45 PM »

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.

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

I believe you, but please, let's not interpret Aquinas' statement in such a crude sense.

If you read what he actually writes, it is as follows:

"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."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article4

Notice that Aquinas writes that they "are not delivered from the pain of death" precisely because they "prove [themselves] to be inconstant in faith." It may help to make a comparison here. Why did God impose the sentence of death on Adam after his transgression? Is it not so that evil might not be immortal? Is it not so that Adam might repent of his sin, and thereby rightly dispose himself to accept the gift of salvation offered by our Lord Jesus Christ?

Now, if a man dies truly repentant, our Lord has promised to grant him eternal life. Therefore, the difference for Aquinas is between granting the penitent heretic, who has proved himself likely to fall away from faith again, the opportunity to die in the grace of God and in the peace of the Church, and thereby to attain to the assurance of his salvation, or, by allowing him to fall back into heresy, to possibly let him give himself over to everlasting destruction. Tell me, which of these two would you rather be -- the man who loses his life in this world, but gains it superabundantly in Heaven? Or the one who lives out his days upon the earth, but after his death will perish in unquenchable fire? I think we all know the answer to this question.

In other words, it is analogous to the difference between Adam and Lucifer. Both were sentenced to death as a result of their sin, but the difference is that while Lucifer cannot be restored because for him repentance is no longer possible, Adam on the other hand, though he did not escape the sentence himself, nevertheless saved his soul through turning to God in penitence.

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.
Well stated. While Aquinas may have been in the wrong on matters such as this by our modern standards, we need to undstand that everyone, to some degree, is a product of their time. This does not mean that we should suggest that these people have nefarious motives. C.S. Lewis discusses the fact that people where once burned to death as witches.
The error was not that people who might be casting spells, cursing others, controling their minds, and working for Satan deserve the death penalty. If anyone does, it would be such persons. The error was in believing that there was such thing as these witches in Medieval Europe.
Similarly, we don't need to jump on the sophomoric "let's hate Aquinas" band wagon". For Aquinas, the most important thing in the world is the Salvation of the human person. Nothing worse can happen to a person than for that person to go to hell. Thus, in the case of heretics, the death penalty is a very real possibility because it can lead to the eternal damnation of the the soul. If the heretic is leading others into soul-killing heresy, then there is nothing worse a person can do. If there is nothing worse that a person can do, then for Aquians, the death penalty seems appropriate. Similarly, I agree that Thomas' motives may further be found exactly where Fripod places them.
Now, I am not saying that I agree with Aquinas on this matter. In fact, I think that Aquinas is wrong. However, his motives are not about murder, and I don't think that there is any reason to suggest that Aquinas was a blood thirsty murderer. Keep in mind that when Aquinas made his final confession, his confessor left the confessional weeping and crying, "The sins of a child, the sins of a child."
What is more, I doubt that anyone would deny that there are some EO Saints that have done and said some things that EOs are less than proud of.

Fripod, Great Post!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #223 on: July 21, 2011, 10:25:46 PM »

The question is if they adopted his system or if the points of agreement in methodology and content actually predated their encounter with Aquinas. The argument and evidence seem to be pushing for the latter, despite the rhetoric.

It does look as though Gennadios Scholarios also adopted Aquinas famous distinction between Essence and Existence (and even used it to defend the Palamite distinction!), a point which could not have predated Aquinas, given that (as far as I know) he was the originator of that doctrine. At the very least it could not be found in Aristotle. (see p. 55ff. "The Palamite Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios")
Wonder what Papist has to say about "Aquinas['] famous distinction between Essence and Existence."

In any case, that it cannot be found in Aristotle is irrelevant, as St. Gregory Palamas got it, despite what the Scholastics say, from the Fathers (Cappadocians, Alexandrian, (Pseudo-)Dionysius, etc.).
This shouldn't be surprising, since Gennadios accepted Aquinas general metaphysics as set forth in the De Ente et Essentia almost without comment.
Metaphysics, whether Aristotle's, Plato's, Aquinas', whoever, is not the basis of Orthodox dogma.
The Essence/Existence distinction in created beings and their identity in God are fundamental to Thomistic metaphysics, as well as the Latin understanding fo the transcendece of God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #224 on: July 21, 2011, 10:25:46 PM »

and does not at all presuppose theological conclusions inimical to Orthodoxy,

As proclaimed by Aquinas himself, or the Vatican?
http://vaxxine.com/hyoomik/aquinas/theses.eht

Much of the Latinizations required by the fine print of the union "agreements" come from Aquinas, the IC being a singular exception.

Thomistic metaphysics is not dogma - it is not an article of revealed theology. It is a philosophical framework within which to expound and defend the Christian faith. There are other frameworks. Philosophical Thomism is simply the most complete and defensible among them. Therefore, one can adopt said metaphysics without changing any article of dogma.

Exactly, just as is Platonism, neo-Platonism, fideism, mondern scientism, etc. Each is an attempt to rationally explain our experience of reality, not a source of divine revelation. It just so happens that Thomism works best at justifying a realist/common sense view of reality and being.
Now one of the problems that ant-thomist EOs run into here is the fact that revelation is understood through human language or logos and thus, is always understood through our world view. Thus, to attack Thomists for having a world view through which they communicate divine revelation, it to attack any world view through which anyone communicates the truths of the faith, including the Byzantine/Greek world view. Thus, the attack on thomism is really an attack on God's ability to communicate his revelation to human beings with world views.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 0.209 seconds with 72 queries.