OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 11:31:48 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 12993 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 #90 on: July 20, 2011, 08:59:21 AM »


It may even help reveal the sometimes vicious and, frankly, irrational hostility towards Aquinas against which I have been protesting.

Why should Aquinas draw such ire from us, when they do not?

Aquinas was possessed of that cold and vicious fanaticism which enabled him to provide theological justification for murdering members of the human race.  SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and Para 2/2.

One may point all one wants to the conditions of his day and age and say he was excused because he was a victim of his culture and times but that is unacceptable.  He had before him in the Gospels which he read at Mass every day the unchanging teachings of the God-Man Jesus Christ which utterly condemn what Aquinas approved.  He laid the theological basis for the justification of the torture and murder of thousands of people.  The various Inquisitions, Spanish, Portuguese, Roman, operated in accord with Aquinas' theology. To see him as an enlightened thinker is as absurd as seeing the Nazi formulators of Aryanism as enlightened thinkers or to excuse them by their environment and indoctrination.  They were Nazi eugenicists.  Aquinas was a despicable example of a Christian eugenicist.  If we have any charity in our hearts let us pray for his salvation from hell.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Aquinas is a Nazi...

yea...and you know what is said about the Irish...


 angel angel angel angel
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #91 on: July 20, 2011, 09:06:28 AM »


It may even help reveal the sometimes vicious and, frankly, irrational hostility towards Aquinas against which I have been protesting.

Why should Aquinas draw such ire from us, when they do not?

Aquinas was possessed of that cold and vicious fanaticism which enabled him to provide theological justification for murdering members of the human race.  SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and Para 2/2.

One may point all one wants to the conditions of his day and age and say he was excused because he was a victim of his culture and times but that is unacceptable.  He had before him in the Gospels which he read at Mass every day the unchanging teachings of the God-Man Jesus Christ which utterly condemn what Aquinas approved.  He laid the theological basis for the justification of the torture and murder of thousands of people.  The various Inquisitions, Spanish, Portuguese, Roman, operated in accord with Aquinas' theology. To see him as an enlightened thinker is as absurd as seeing the Nazi formulators of Aryanism as enlightened thinkers or to excuse them by their environment and indoctrination.  They were Nazi eugenicists.  Aquinas was a despicable example of a Christian eugenicist.  If we have any charity in our hearts let us pray for his salvation from hell.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Aquinas is a Nazi...

yea...and you know what is said about the Irish...


 angel angel angel angel

I've not studied the events in detail, but it is my understanding that the inquisitions, for example the Spanish Inquisitions, are completely twisted with lies and half truths in popular history.

Perhaps this could be defended by someone who has more concrete knowledge.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #92 on: July 20, 2011, 09:08:50 AM »

Have the teachings of Duns Scotus, Barlaam, etc. tried to attach themselves to the Church like a barnacle, to spread like a cancer?

An interesting question. I do think a case could be made that Nominalism did spread like a cancer throughout the Church, both in the West and in the East, in the wake of the Italian Renaissance.

Quote
Scholastism had already knocked down the everlasting boundaries the Fathers had set up by the 15th century. Florence only made that plain and clear, e.g. the Scholastic invention of Purgatory being swallowed as dogma.  Btw, as for your assertion, take a look at some of the EO criticism of OO condemned as non-Orthodox thinkers. And we are in far, far more agreement with them than with Aquinas' followers.

Last I checked, Oriental Orthodoxy was an ecclesial body in schism with the Eastern Orthodox communion on the grounds of disagreements over matters of sacred dogma.

Philosophical Thomism, on the other hand, is not a church, and does not at all presuppose theological conclusions inimical to Orthodoxy, and has been taught and propagated by staunchly Orthodox Byzantine theologians and apostles of the first rank and shown to be perfectly compatible with an approach to philosophy that was already characteristically Byzantine.

To be Oriental Orthodox, one must believe what they believe. To accept Thomism as a system, on the other hand, one need not sacrifice nor change any article of belief whatsoever -- certainly Gennadios, Bryennios, Kabasilas et al. felt no need to do so.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 09:10:15 AM by Fripod » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: July 20, 2011, 09:13:51 AM »


It may even help reveal the sometimes vicious and, frankly, irrational hostility towards Aquinas against which I have been protesting.

Why should Aquinas draw such ire from us, when they do not?

Aquinas was possessed of that cold and vicious fanaticism which enabled him to provide theological justification for murdering members of the human race.  SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and Para 2/2.

One may point all one wants to the conditions of his day and age and say he was excused because he was a victim of his culture and times but that is unacceptable.  He had before him in the Gospels which he read at Mass every day the unchanging teachings of the God-Man Jesus Christ which utterly condemn what Aquinas approved.  He laid the theological basis for the justification of the torture and murder of thousands of people.  The various Inquisitions, Spanish, Portuguese, Roman, operated in accord with Aquinas' theology. To see him as an enlightened thinker is as absurd as seeing the Nazi formulators of Aryanism as enlightened thinkers or to excuse them by their environment and indoctrination.  They were Nazi eugenicists.  Aquinas was a despicable example of a Christian eugenicist.  If we have any charity in our hearts let us pray for his salvation from hell.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Aquinas is a Nazi...

yea...and you know what is said about the Irish...


 angel angel angel angel

I've not studied the events in detail, but it is my understanding that the inquisitions, for example the Spanish Inquisitions, are completely twisted with lies and half truths in popular history.

Perhaps this could be defended by someone who has more concrete knowledge.

There are several good histories that have gone a long way toward exposing the distortions. 

Most people for example see the Cathari as poor innocent victims of the insane Catholic Church and nothing could be further from the truth.  More good histories of that period are coming out all the time and undoing the popular myths concerning this heresy imported, again, from the east to the west.

When I have time I may start a thread just to make a few recommendations.

In the meantime I feel safe to say that Orthodox history would have read very differently had they not exported their heretics to the west.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #94 on: July 20, 2011, 09:24:06 AM »

I've not studied the events in detail, but it is my understanding that the inquisitions, for example the Spanish Inquisitions, are completely twisted with lies and half truths in popular history.

Perhaps this could be defended by someone who has more concrete knowledge.

Perhaps it would be useful, if in pursuit of more concrete knowledge, to examine the sections of the Summa which I referenced a couple of messages back.  The theological justification for the murder of humans is laid out by Aquinas the spiritual eugenicist quite cogently and explicitly. 

Without elaborating too much, this provides an example of the grievous error of Aquinas' approach to theology and why scholasticism is unworkable in a Christian context.   Applying his logic he is able to arrive at a position which is quite opposed to the Gospel and posits a great evil as a benefit to Christ and society.  If the thomistic thought process leads to such flagrant error, imagine how much more it must lead to less detectable theological error.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 20, 2011, 09:26:51 AM »

Yes, I am aware of Bradshaw's work. You are obviously more knowledgeable in this matter than I am so I am sure that you would have seen the colloquium held at the IOCS on Aristotle: East and West (http://distancelearning.iocs.cam.ac.uk/videos/index.php?page=videos&groupid=1&videoid=1). In all honesty, much as I admire him, I don't think Dr Bradshaw was able adequately to respond to the objections of his interlocutor, Prof. John Milbank. One commentator on their discussion has written the following -- I find myself mostly in agreement with him:

Quote
"If you don't have time to watch the film, consider the following: The title of his book is theologically oriented. After Dr. Bradshaw was "hammered" in the discussion, his reply to several objections was a.) professing that he's not a theologian and so was ignorant of several important controversies and figures with regard to the very topics he was attempting to influence b.) He openly admitted that he had probably some major holes in not reading all pertinent authors c.) amazingly, he pronounced his ignorance about Duns Scotus. If you know this controversy well...this is inexcusable! The outstanding philosopher-theologian Gennadius Scholarios (Patriarch of Const. and appointed Successor of Mark Eugenicus/Ephesus) professed to have reconciled Palamas with Scotistic theology (brilliantly!). John Romanides ripped (see his website) poor Meyendorff for not understanding Scotus (among other Latins), not unlike Bradshaw. I was horrified that the good Doctor was "shocked" to see that there were parallels in Scotus' metaphysics and Gregory's. It was a bloodbath. To select but one more point, our Good Doctor suggested a form of divine-human relation which explicitly meant that God should be determined in his actions by contingent human beings in relation to him. His opponent then reduced him to a pile of ash (for that and his errors on Aquinas)."

Quote
With that in mind -- and that should address a HUGE lacuna in your statement -- you have to read up on Gennadios's life. He was not a churchman or theologian until late in life. He was a philosophy professor. So, the first 40 or 50 years of his interest in Aquinas had nothing at all to do with Orthodox theology. Gennadios was simply translating Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle, which themselves are exercises in philosophy, not theology. Later on, Gennadios translated sections of Aquinas' theological manuals into Greek, but did so with the heavy hand of an editor, removing everything he deemed unOrthodox. In other words, you really need to make a strong and proper distinction between Gennadios's relationship to (a) Aquinas as a philosopher and (b) Aquinas as a theologian. This undercuts a lot of the hay Barbour (and you) seem to be making.

I hear you, but surely it can't all be as simple as saying "come back in 4 years with a degree in church history and historical theology and then we'll talk."

Yes, I freely admit there are many things I don't know -- even important things. I may be young, and not as widely read as some, but I know injustice when I see it, and believe me, the way most Orthodox treat Aquinas and his philosophy is a prime example. In the face of such outrageous calumnies I am not simply going to roll over and accept whatever aspersions the "catholic consciousness" (read: popular opinion) of the Church feels like throwing his way, depending on how chauvinistic they feel on any given day. I strongly believe that Aquinas deserves a fair hearing, not merely off-hand dismissal.

As Fr Seraphim Rose once wrote, someone who believes in something so passionately that he will "cut your head off," so to speak, actually reveals his weakness -- he needs to convince you his of opinion in order to prove to himself that he really believes in it.

Such unthinking triumphalism just makes me angry. As I said before, I know injustice when I see it -- and I will not stand for it.

I do not believe that Dr. Bradshaw has simply dismissed Aquinas.  In fact, contrary to what Dr. Milbank says in his talk, I think that Dr. Bradshaw treated Aquinas quite fairly in his book, and that he proved his point that Aquinas is more an Aristotelian philosopher than a Christian theologian.  Now I watched the video at the link you provided, a video I had actually seen some time ago (bad audio and all), and I remain unconvinced by Dr. Milbank's criticisms of Dr. Bradshaw's position, because he seems to dismiss the essence / energy distinction even though it is clearly present in the Cappadocians (and even in Clement of Alexandria nearly two centuries before them as an essence / dynamis distinction - see "Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Apophaticism").  It is pretty evident from his lecture that Dr. Milbank mistakes a real distinction for a real division in God, which is not what the Eastern Fathers (including Palamas) ever asserted.  The real distinction, without a separation, in God between essence and energy is what makes theosis real, rather than being simply volitional as in Scholastic philosophy.

Now to address a couple of Dr. Milbank's criticisms, I found it odd that very early in his talk he attacked (for lack of a better word) Dr. Bradshaw for not writing a book that covers every possible theologian in the West, when the book itself was clearly set out as a study of the concept of energy beginning with certain Christian and pagan authors from the middle of the first millennium leading into the thought of Aquinas and Palamas.  Does Dr. Bradshaw talk about Scotus in his book?  No, because Scotus' philosophical theology was not a part of his study.  Now, anyone who thinks that leaving out a certain person or group of persons from a study means that they can dismiss the findings of the study in question is - frankly - a fool.  After all, no study written can be exhaustive, i.e., no book can cover every possible person and every possible theory that has arisen in history.  An author has to set a limit, and that is what Dr. Bradshaw did.  That said, perhaps Dr. Milbank should re-read the opening of Dr. Bradshaw's book in order clarify the actual focus of the study. 

Two other points in regard to Dr. Milbank's criticisms: at one point he criticizes Dr. Bradshaw for not focusing upon what we do not know about possible connections between the East and the West in the first millennium on issues related to divine simplicity, divine operations, etc., which seems like a very odd criticism indeed; and then Dr. Milbank makes a rather bold claim that Palamas' distinction between essence and energy makes the Trinity unnecessary, which reveals to me quite clearly that he has not grasped what St. Gregory means by the essence / energy distinction.  Now, as far as the first point is concerned, a book about what we do not know historically speaking is impossible to write, besides once you have written such a book you would have to know what we supposedly do not know about the hidden connections between the Eastern and Western Fathers.  And as far as the second point is concerned, the energies are the personal activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and so I do not see how anyone can call them "impersonal" or "abstract."  I would recommend, that is, if you want to have a better understanding of the so-called Palamite distinction, getting a copy of Fr. M. Edmund Hussey’s doctoral dissertation entitled "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas," because it covers the information that is woefully lacking in Dr. Milbank's own talk.  Whether intentional or not Dr. Milbank has sadly misrepresented the Palamite distinction, and that is something that I find despicable, but also a rather common Western chauvinistic approach, and one could even call it a type of off-hand dismissal of the Eastern theological tradition, and of course that kind of triumphalism makes me angry.  I am sure you can understand that feeling.  Cheesy

One final point, if you want to read a couple of excellent essays that deal with the Scholastic misreading of Pseudo-Dionysios I would recommend getting a hold of Dr. John D. Jones' treatises entitled, "Manifesting Beyond-being Being (hyperousios ousia): The Divine Essence-Energies Distinction for Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite," and "Misreading the Divine Names as a Science: A Scholastic Framework for Reading the Divine Names of Pseudo-Dionysios," because both of these essays detail the problems with the Latin reading of Pseudo-Dionysios and its failure to really grasp the apophatic nature of his theology.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 09:28:39 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 20, 2011, 09:36:55 AM »

As far as Gennadios Scholarios is concerned, I do not have a problem with the idea that he agreed with St. Thomas on philosophical questions, after all Scholarios was an Aristotelian philosopher in his own right.  But when it came to theology, Scholarios was Orthodox, and rejected much of what St. Thomas taught in connection with the Trinity (e.g., the filioque) and other mysteries of the faith.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #97 on: July 20, 2011, 09:42:53 AM »

Here is a link to my brief review - as inadequate as it is - of Fr. Hussey's dissertation:

BOOK REVIEW: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #98 on: July 20, 2011, 09:45:26 AM »

As far as Gennadios Scholarios is concerned, I do not have a problem with the idea that he agreed with St. Thomas on philosophical questions, after all Scholarios was an Aristotelian philosopher in his own right.  But when it came to theology, Scholarios was Orthodox, and rejected much of what St. Thomas taught in connection with the Trinity (e.g., the filioque) and other mysteries of the faith.

It is interesting, though, that Scholarios did actually understand the Palamite distinction in terms of Aquinas' general metaphysics, as rooted in the relationship between essence and existence. (see pp. 85ff. of The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios for details).
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 #99 on: July 20, 2011, 09:45:47 AM »

Most people for example see the Cathari as poor innocent victims of the insane Catholic Church and nothing could be further from the truth.  

There is no doubt that some Catholic commentators see the Cathari as very wicked wicked people and fully deserving of the tortures which Catholics inflicted upon them.  I seem to recall one incident when they gouged out the eyes of hundreds of them.  

And 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
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 09:48:56 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2011, 09:49:49 AM »

As far as Gennadios Scholarios is concerned, I do not have a problem with the idea that he agreed with St. Thomas on philosophical questions, after all Scholarios was an Aristotelian philosopher in his own right.  But when it came to theology, Scholarios was Orthodox, and rejected much of what St. Thomas taught in connection with the Trinity (e.g., the filioque) and other mysteries of the faith.

It is interesting, though, that Scholarios did actually understand the Palamite distinction in terms of Aquinas' general metaphysics, as rooted in the relationship between essence and existence. (see pp. 85ff. of The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios for details).
Interesting to an academic perhaps, but not to the faithful.  And by the way, I do not buy into Fr. Barbour's take on Scholarios.  In fact, if you read the text on the procession of the Spirit that Scholarios drafted at the Council of Florence, which was sadly rejected by the Latins who wanted the total capitulation of the East to their Scholastic position on the Trinity, you will see that he is far from a Thomist, while being a close follower of Gregory of Cyprus.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 09:53:29 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2011, 10:23:23 AM »

As far as Gennadios Scholarios is concerned, I do not have a problem with the idea that he agreed with St. Thomas on philosophical questions, after all Scholarios was an Aristotelian philosopher in his own right.  But when it came to theology, Scholarios was Orthodox, and rejected much of what St. Thomas taught in connection with the Trinity (e.g., the filioque) and other mysteries of the faith.

It is interesting, though, that Scholarios did actually understand the Palamite distinction in terms of Aquinas' general metaphysics, as rooted in the relationship between essence and existence. (see pp. 85ff. of The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios for details).
Interesting to an academic perhaps, but not to the faithful.  And by the way, I do not buy into Fr. Barbour's take on Scholarios.  In fact, if you read the text on the procession of the Spirit that Scholarios drafted at the Council of Florence, which was sadly rejected by the Latins who wanted the total capitulation of the East to their Scholastic position on the Trinity, you will see that he is far from a Thomist, while being a close follower of Gregory of Cyprus.

If by that you mean Scholarios rejected Aquinas' filioquism, then yes, he was not a Thomist in the sense that he did not accept all of Aquinas' theological conclusions. Barbour writes as much: "True, they might reject St. Thomas teaching on some point or other as incompatible with Orthodoxy but Thomism as a system in no way struck them as inimical to their Byzantine outlook" (p. 34)

I think it would be quite difficult to maintain, though, that Gennadios was "not a Thomist," given the praise he lavishes upon Aquinas in his summaries of Aquinas' theological works, and the fact that he translated and set forth as his own teaching Armandus de Bellovisu's commentary on the De Ente et Essentia almost without comment.

Scholarios was far more faithful to the fundamental tenets of Aquinas' thought than even the Dominicans of the time (!), who had started to doubt the value of their own tradition in the face of the revival of Greek Patristic studies in the West (p. 103n). If Gennadios was more of a "Thomist" than the Thomists themselves, and yet is not to be identified as such, then I don't see how anyone could be classified as a Thomist other than Aquinas himself. But this is clearly ridiculous.
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: 37,380



« Reply #102 on: July 20, 2011, 10:31:17 AM »

Have the teachings of Duns Scotus, Barlaam, etc. tried to attach themselves to the Church like a barnacle, to spread like a cancer?

An interesting question. I do think a case could be made that Nominalism did spread like a cancer throughout the Church, both in the West and in the East, in the wake of the Italian Renaissance.
with all the hissing at Nominalism, you sure all this "righteous indignation" at the Orthodox rejection of Thomism isn't projection?
Quote
Scholastism had already knocked down the everlasting boundaries the Fathers had set up by the 15th century. Florence only made that plain and clear, e.g. the Scholastic invention of Purgatory being swallowed as dogma.  Btw, as for your assertion, take a look at some of the EO criticism of OO condemned as non-Orthodox thinkers. And we are in far, far more agreement with them than with Aquinas' followers.
Last I checked, Oriental Orthodoxy was an ecclesial body in schism with the Eastern Orthodox communion on the grounds of disagreements over matters of sacred dogma.
Check again. Oriental Orthodoxy is Churches seperated from Eastern Orthodox Churches because of historical differences.  EO Churches and OO Churches have recognized each other's Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Eucharist and Marriage, something not true between the Eastern Orthodox and any other "ecclesial bodies."

Last I checked, and checked again, the Vatican in the 15th century was an ecclesial body not only in schism but out of communion with the Orthodox Communion of the Catholic Church because of heresies denounced by EP Gennadius Scholarios, amongst others, over matters of sacred dogma.

Philosophical Thomism, on the other hand, is not a church,
no, but it is an ecclesiastical community, i.e. the Vatican.

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.

and has been taught and propagated by staunchly Orthodox Byzantine theologians and apostles of the first rank and shown to be perfectly compatible with an approach to philosophy that was already characteristically Byzantine.
"Byzantine" is something that exists only in the Latin Vatican.

Pefectably compatible once adapted and corrected.  btw, your master begs the question on a lot of his assertions being passed off as conclusions about the Romaic theologians adapting it.

"Apostles of the first rank" who would that be?

To be Oriental Orthodox, one must believe what they believe.
yes, Orthodoxy.

To accept Thomism as a system, on the other hand, one need not sacrifice nor change any article of belief whatsoever
the history of the "eastern churches in union with" the Vatican shows otherwise.


 -- certainly Gennadios, Bryennios, Kabasilas et al. felt no need to do so.
instead they changed Thomism to conform with 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
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #103 on: July 20, 2011, 11:18:56 AM »

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.

How can you not understand this?

Quote
To accept Thomism as a system, on the other hand, one need not sacrifice nor change any article of belief whatsoever
the history of the "eastern churches in union with" the Vatican shows otherwise.

You have yet to show that this statement is in principle mistaken. Pointing to accidental circumstances of history is simply not good enough.

Quote
Pefectably compatible once adapted and corrected.

 -- certainly Gennadios, Bryennios, Kabasilas et al. felt no need to do so.
instead they changed Thomism to conform with Orthodoxy.

But this is exactly my point! They did not accept all of Aquinas' theological conclusions, but they did adopt his general metaphysics.

Again, where exactly is the problem here?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #104 on: July 20, 2011, 11:28:00 AM »

Most people for example see the Cathari as poor innocent victims of the insane Catholic Church and nothing could be further from the truth.  

There is no doubt that some Catholic commentators see the Cathari as very wicked wicked people and fully deserving of the tortures which Catholics inflicted upon them.  I seem to recall one incident when they gouged out the eyes of hundreds of them.  

And 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

I think, perhaps, Aquinas was just working with what was already in the nascent Roman Catholic Church from its beginnings in the Gregorian Reformation. Consider that the First and subsequent Crusades were war billed as the equivalent of prayer and penance, something altogether unprecedented.
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.
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: 37,380



« Reply #105 on: July 20, 2011, 11:46:48 AM »

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.

How can you not understand this?
I understand quite fine:your Thomist philosophical framework is a theoretical construct rarified from its actual practice, where the distinction between revealed theology and the "angelic doctor" is blurrred, if it exists at all.  Hence your dogmatic statement "Philosophical Thomism is simply the most complete and defensible among them."
To accept Thomism as a system, on the other hand, one need not sacrifice nor change any article of belief whatsoever
the history of the "eastern churches in union with" the Vatican shows otherwise.

You have yet to show that this statement is in principle mistaken. Pointing to accidental circumstances of history is simply not good enough.
I have no interest in counting angels on pinheads, something scholastic pinheads do not tire of.

"by their fruit shall ye know them." Principles in the abstract do not trump reality in the world.  That Aquinas created his system to prop up the errors of the Vatican-and I seem to recall Aquinas rather obsessed with the idea of the end for which something exists-questions the prime motivation-mover, if you please-moving Thomism, and to which end.

Pefectably compatible once adapted and corrected.

 -- certainly Gennadios, Bryennios, Kabasilas et al. felt no need to do so.
instead they changed Thomism to conform with Orthodoxy.

But this is exactly my point! They did not accept all of Aquinas' theological conclusions, but they did adopt his general metaphysics.[/quote]
Aristotle was the source of those general metaphysics, that Aquinas targeted to the Vatican's end.  It ended badly.

Again, where exactly is the problem here?
Introducing a Occidental uniatism.  We've already eaten the fruit of that poison tree.
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 #106 on: July 20, 2011, 12:42:51 PM »

You have yet to show that this statement is in principle mistaken. Pointing to accidental circumstances of history is simply not good enough.
I have no interest in counting angels on pinheads, something scholastic pinheads do not tire of.

If by "counting angels on pinheads" you mean "engaging in rational discourse with a view to discovering the truth of the matter in question, where said truth is intrinsically knowable through such means," and if in glibly dismissing the former you reject the substance and value of the latter, then I am afraid our conversation is at an end, for you have ruled out the very precondition and hence possibility of further discussion -- yes, even "in principle."

And I am so glad that you have chosen to end our brief acquaintance with that delightful ad hominem.

I wish you all the best. God Bless.
Logged

In Te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternam.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #107 on: July 20, 2011, 01:09:30 PM »

I suppose this is all a good example of what theological idiots we have all become (as a priest put it to me), barking like mad dogs over this-ism and neo-that, while forgetting the fundamental truths of our faith, which don't rely on human philosophy. Instead of relying on modern academic theologians, who prize originality above truth, we should rely on theological works from a time when absolute dogmatic fidelity was considered the benchmark for good theological writing, not novelty or conformity to the latest academic fad. "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Fr Michael Pomazansky is a good place to start for beginners.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #108 on: July 20, 2011, 01:30:17 PM »

And I am so glad that you have chosen to end our brief acquaintance with that delightful ad hominem.

I get tired of people using italics for "fancy" loan words which have become part and parcel of the English language.

Do you go to eat at a restaurant?

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #109 on: July 20, 2011, 01:36:31 PM »

And I am so glad that you have chosen to end our brief acquaintance with that delightful ad hominem.

I get tired of people using italics for "fancy" loan words which have become part and parcel of the English language.

Do you go to eat at a restaurant?



I prefer cafés and bistros.
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.
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: 37,380



« Reply #110 on: July 20, 2011, 02:05:30 PM »

You have yet to show that this statement is in principle mistaken. Pointing to accidental circumstances of history is simply not good enough.
I have no interest in counting angels on pinheads, something scholastic pinheads do not tire of.

If by "counting angels on pinheads" you mean "engaging in rational discourse with a view to discovering the truth of the matter in question, where said truth is intrinsically knowable through such means,"
no, I mean "engaging in syllogisms to fill in an alleged lacuna in questions, the truth of which, does not matter, where said "truths" are intrinsically connected with speculation beyond the means and Truth God and the Fathers have given us."

and if in glibly dismissing the former you reject the substance and value of the latter,
yes, I reject the substance of engaging in needless speculation in irrelevant questions.  B.S. sessions (which have no place in the "guard[ing] what has been entrusted to [us]. I Timothy 6 ), of course being excepted.

20 Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 for by professing it some have missed the mark [i.e. sinned] as regards the Faith.  I Tim. 6.  14 guard the Truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.  II Tim. 1.

then I am afraid our conversation is at an end, for you have ruled out the very precondition and hence possibility of further discussion -- yes, even "in principle."
Then in principle it never began, because in principle I stand with Fr. Romanides with rejecting handmaiden philosophy displacing her mistress relevation in the affections of the Orthodox Faithful.
And I am so glad that you have chosen to end our brief acquaintance with that delightful ad hominem.
I haven't ended anything, not having soiled my sandals with the dust of scholasticism to shake it off.
I wish you all the best. God Bless.
God guide you.
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 #111 on: July 20, 2011, 04:33:45 PM »

You have yet to show that this statement is in principle mistaken. Pointing to accidental circumstances of history is simply not good enough.
I have no interest in counting angels on pinheads, something scholastic pinheads do not tire of.

If by "counting angels on pinheads" you mean "engaging in rational discourse with a view to discovering the truth of the matter in question, where said truth is intrinsically knowable through such means," and if in glibly dismissing the former you reject the substance and value of the latter, then I am afraid our conversation is at an end, for you have ruled out the very precondition and hence possibility of further discussion -- yes, even "in principle."

And I am so glad that you have chosen to end our brief acquaintance with that delightful ad hominem.

I wish you all the best. God Bless.

I'll sum this up.


Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #112 on: July 20, 2011, 05:33:15 PM »

You have yet to show that this statement is in principle mistaken. Pointing to accidental circumstances of history is simply not good enough.
I have no interest in counting angels on pinheads, something scholastic pinheads do not tire of.

If by "counting angels on pinheads" you mean "engaging in rational discourse with a view to discovering the truth of the matter in question, where said truth is intrinsically knowable through such means," and if in glibly dismissing the former you reject the substance and value of the latter, then I am afraid our conversation is at an end, for you have ruled out the very precondition and hence possibility of further discussion -- yes, even "in principle."

And I am so glad that you have chosen to end our brief acquaintance with that delightful ad hominem.

I wish you all the best. God Bless.

I'll sum this up.




I'm not paying you to sing. You just used up today's bathroom break!
- Glermo
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #113 on: July 20, 2011, 06:21:14 PM »

There's wheat and chaff in virtually every theological treatise, school of thought, popular opinion, etc. etc. etc., no matter East or West, saint or not.

Methinks there was a certain wisdom to the Desert Fathers' propensity to distribute things "Anonymously" so that everything could be judged on its own individual merits, without being viewed through prisms, prejudices, etc.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,580



« Reply #114 on: July 21, 2011, 12:39:06 AM »

That St. Gregory of Thessalonica, Pat. Gennadios, etc. were theological and philosophical empiricists is undeniable.   That they stood against Platonizing heresies of the Church is undeniable.   And certainly the platonic sophistries that have crept their way back into the Church are lamentable, and moreover, tragic.  That the above mentioned would philosophically stand with Aristotle rather than with Plato on numerous philosophical issues is undeniable.  However, all that being said, I am not sure what the point of this thread is.   That Aquinas was philosophically Aristotelian does not mean that he was theologically sound.  Many atheists are (neo) Aristotelian empiricists and are not theologically sound.   No one denies that reason has its place.  However, revelation has primacy and it is this, the revelation of the Spirit who leads the Church into all truth, that is the primary driver of the Church and its Holy Faith.  This Faith is not an Aristotelian faith, but rather a Spirit-revealed Apostolic Faith delivered once for all and handed down in the sacred paradosis in the Church by the same Spirit.   That Scholarios would agree with Aquinas on more things than they would disagree about is not a surprise.   But when the things disagreed about are matters, not of philosophy, but of paradosis, these things are no small matter.   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.   
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #115 on: July 21, 2011, 12:49:58 AM »

 And certainly the platonic sophistries that have crept their way back into the Church are lamentable, and moreover, tragic. 

Examples?
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.
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #116 on: July 21, 2011, 02:53:45 AM »

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.
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 #117 on: July 21, 2011, 05:32:29 AM »

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.

 

I realise that none of you are taking me seriously when I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people -justification for an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

Thomism can lead, step by logical step, to the incorporation of perverse principles in the very heart of Christianity.

By contrast, the application of the principles of the Christian Gospel can never lead to such perversions and certainly never to their "canonisation"  as a legitimate part of the Christian kerygma.

So there is a sharp dichotomy between philosophical Thomism and Christian revelation and the former ought to be roundly rejected as a means of interpretation of the latter.
Logged
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #118 on: July 21, 2011, 06:31:15 AM »

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.

 

I realise that none of you are taking me seriously when I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people -justification for an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

Thomism can lead, step by logical step, to the incorporation of perverse principles in the very heart of Christianity.

By contrast, the application of the principles of the Christian Gospel can never lead to such perversions and certainly never to their "canonisation"  as a legitimate part of the Christian kerygma.

So there is a sharp dichotomy between philosophical Thomism and Christian revelation and the former ought to be roundly rejected as a means of interpretation of the latter.

Again, I hear you, but I don't think it is as bad as all that.

After all, saying that heretics "deserve to die," is not at all the same as saying "you may murder them at will."

Evidently Gennadios Scholarios himself, given that he wrote in his summary of the Prima secundae of the Summa Theologiae: “Would O excellent Thomas that you had not been born in the West. Then you would not have needed to defend the deviations of the church there…you would have been as perfect in theology as you are in ethics,” if indeed he shared your concerns, saw the problem as something accidental rather than substantial to Aquinas' thought.

Scholarios clearly esteemed Aquinas' ethics very highly indeed, which should at least give us pause for thought.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: July 21, 2011, 07:28:20 AM »

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.

 

I realise that none of you are taking me seriously when I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people -justification for an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

Thomism can lead, step by logical step, to the incorporation of perverse principles in the very heart of Christianity.


This is nothing but scare mongering and for someone who hates the scare-mongering of purgation and hell as much as you do, yes...I find your raving to be absolutely silly.

Offer the logic if you are so absolutely certain of your position.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: July 21, 2011, 07:55:46 AM »

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.

 

I realise that none of you are taking me seriously when I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people -justification for an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

Thomism can lead, step by logical step, to the incorporation of perverse principles in the very heart of Christianity.


This is nothing but scare mongering and for someone who hates the scare-mongering of purgation and hell as much as you do, yes...I find your raving to be absolutely silly.

Offer the logic if you are so absolutely certain of your position.


The logic is quite transparent..... Thomas did not find it said in the New Testament by either Christ or Saint Paul: " Thou shalt not suffer a heretic to live but thou shalt deliver him to death in the fires.  Take care though that you torture him soundly beforehand so that perchance he may repent and be saved.  But even if he repent thou must still give him to the fire."   How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

None of this perversion of what Christ taught can be derived from the teachings of Christ or the Apostles or the Fathers.  It is part of the madness resulting from adopting thomistic thinking and its inexorable logic.  

In the centuries that followed the Dominicans were able to torture and kill, or have killed, thousands of people.  They could do this with a clear conscience because the "Angelic" Doctor had already provided them with a theological basis for it.  Spiritual eugenics, the elimination of religious dissidents, had been established in Roman Catholic theology.  Has this teaching in the Summa been repudiated or is it in abeyance and simply awaiting new political circumstances?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 07:58:05 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: July 21, 2011, 08:03:38 AM »

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.

 

I realise that none of you are taking me seriously when I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people -justification for an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

Thomism can lead, step by logical step, to the incorporation of perverse principles in the very heart of Christianity.


This is nothing but scare mongering and for someone who hates the scare-mongering of purgation and hell as much as you do, yes...I find your raving to be absolutely silly.

Offer the logic if you are so absolutely certain of your position.


The logic is quite transparent..... Thomas did not find it said in the New Testament by either Christ or Saint Paul: " Thou shalt not suffer a heretic to live but thou shalt deliver him to death in the fires.  Take care though that you torture him soundly beforehand so that perchance he may repent and be saved.  But even if he repent thou must still give him to the fire."   How many know that Aquinas ordered that even repentant heretics must be killed!  Don't believe me?  Read the Summa.

None of this perversion of what Christ taught can be derived from the teachings of Christ or the Apostles or the Fathers.  It is part of the madness resulting from adopting thomistic thinking and its inexorable logic.  

In the centuries that followed the Dominicans were able to torture and kill, or have killed, thousands of people.  They could do this with a clear conscience because the "Angelic" Doctor had already provided them with a theological basis for it.  Spiritual eugenics, the elimination of religious dissidents, had been established in Roman Catholic theology.  Has this teaching in the Summa been repudiated or is it in abeyance and simply awaiting new political circumstances?

No Father.  We don't need one more assertion of your hyperbole.  I want the logic that follows through to the necessary result of murder!!....

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.

What you are doing here with your Ambrose Horror Picture Show is like judging any bloody period in history against the parlor games of the Victorians.  C'mon man...you cannot possibly be that ORANGE...can you?
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: July 21, 2011, 08:22:55 AM »

[
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.

So it will be easy for you to provide references to the historical actions of the religious dissidents (in Spain and Italy, in Portugal and Portuguese India) and their organised persecution of Roman Catholics?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #123 on: July 21, 2011, 08:31:11 AM »


No Father.  We don't need one more assertion of your hyperbole.


Hyperbole?   We have the Cistercian abbot Arnaud boasting to Pope Innocent III has his troops had killed 20,000 Cathars, men, women and children, in a single day.  See message 99.

The boast that hundreds of Cathars had been blinded by having their eyes gouged out.

The boast that 7,000 of them had been killed outside their church.

If only this were hyperbole! 

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #124 on: July 21, 2011, 08:34:43 AM »

And this is all because of scholasticism? Hmm that's a stretch.
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.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #125 on: July 21, 2011, 08:37:49 AM »

[
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.

So it will be easy for you to provide references to the historical actions of the religious dissidents (in Spain and Italy, in Portugal and Portuguese India) and their organised persecution of Roman Catholics?

 laugh laugh laugh

I might be able to document the "disorganized" destabilization and destruction of life and property on the part of some...however there's a great deal on the Cathari and they were indeed organized.

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!!
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 08:39:54 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #126 on: July 21, 2011, 08:38:50 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.

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.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 08:48:15 AM by Fripod » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #127 on: July 21, 2011, 08:44:29 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.


Sorry.  I lost sight of the fact that this was your original thread here.  So I will leave you to reason with the always reasonable monk Ambrose.

M.
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: 37,380



« Reply #128 on: July 21, 2011, 08:47:38 AM »

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.

 

I realise that none of you are taking me seriously when I speak of the thomistic method as leading to such atrocities as theological justification for the murder of other people -justification for an horrific programme of applied spiritual eugenics, the extermination of those determined by Aquinas to be unfit to live.

Thomism can lead, step by logical step, to the incorporation of perverse principles in the very heart of Christianity.

By contrast, the application of the principles of the Christian Gospel can never lead to such perversions and certainly never to their "canonisation"  as a legitimate part of the Christian kerygma.

So there is a sharp dichotomy between philosophical Thomism and Christian revelation and the former ought to be roundly rejected as a means of interpretation of the latter.

Again, I hear you, but I don't think it is as bad as all that.

After all, saying that heretics "deserve to die," is not at all the same as saying "you may murder them at will."

Evidently Gennadios Scholarios himself, given that he wrote in his summary of the Prima secundae of the Summa Theologiae: “Would O excellent Thomas that you had not been born in the West. Then you would not have needed to defend the deviations of the church there…you would have been as perfect in theology as you are in ethics,” if indeed he shared your concerns, saw the problem as something accidental rather than substantial to Aquinas' thought.

Scholarios clearly esteemed Aquinas' ethics very highly indeed, which should at least give us pause for thought.
Sholarios is not a pillar of Orthodoxy, not a Saint Photios, not a Saint John of Damascus, not a Pope St. Cyril, not a Pope St. Athanasius.  Not even a St. Mark of Ephesus nor a St. Gregory Palamas, whom you also claim for Thomism.  Therefore you citing him as an authority is all out of proportion, in order to resuscitate the last gasps of the Scholatic spirit in Orthodoxy-to what end, to reduce the Catholic Church to a mere "eastern lung"?

You constantly down play that whatever the Orthodox got from the Scholastics had to be revised: at the Synod of Iasi, Jassy, for instance, St. Peter Movila's "Orthodox Confession" was not accepted in its Latin (literally) original, but in the Greek revision.

You give no reason why an "Orthodox Thomism" should be revived, rather than letting it breath its last.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #129 on: July 21, 2011, 08:49:29 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.
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.
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #130 on: July 21, 2011, 08:50:26 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...
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 #131 on: July 21, 2011, 08:51:17 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
Logged
Fripod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 60



« Reply #132 on: July 21, 2011, 08:53:31 AM »

You give no reason why an "Orthodox Thomism" should be revived, rather than letting it breath its last.

All in good time, my friend. Believe me, there is reason plenty enough, for those who have ears to hear.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 08:55:14 AM 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: 37,380



« Reply #133 on: July 21, 2011, 08:55:25 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.

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.
Another demonstration of the poison fruit of the Scholastic methods.

Such methods twist the Fall into a juridical syllogism. But the Bible doesn't tell us that God said "eat the fruit and I will execute you." He says "eat the fruit and you will die."

It seems, just from your excerpt, that Aquinas does assUme that a forced confession is unto salvation.  The Gospel teaches otherwise: He does not command the Apostles to confess His divinty, He asks "Who do you say I am?"
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: 37,380



« Reply #134 on: July 21, 2011, 08:56:12 AM »

You give no reason why an "Orthodox Thomism" should be revived, rather than letting it breath its last.

All in good time, my friend. Believe me, there is reason plenty enough, for those who have ears to hear.
so the Sirens sang...
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
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 0.206 seconds with 72 queries.