St. Gennadios Scholarios certainly was a Thomist, as were the celebrated anti-unionists Joseph Bryennios and Makarios Makres.
Let's not get carried away.
The following older thread provides excellent discussion concerning the supposed Thomism of St. Gennadios Scholarios.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37982.45.html
"Barbour's title, for example, is a hyperbolic statement of a truism. As he says, on p 39, "the element that unites Thomism and Byzantium is not dogma, but philosophy, a philosophy which is guided and suited to defend Christian faith." In other words, Byzantine theologians were "Thomists" because they read, enjoyed, and employed philosophical works on logic and reason. Well, of course they did -- and they did so well before Aquinas -- but that hardly makes them "Thomists" in any sense.
I do agree, though, that some modern Orthodox writers have created a false dichotomy between faith and reason, theology and philosophy."
"That's not being a "Thomist". That's showing an appreciation for what Aquinas got right. Not unlike how a lot of modern-day Orthodox in the West like C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton."
"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.
EDIT: Further questions involve the complexity of Gennadios' life and thought. Gennadios read and approved of Aquinas but also sided with Aquinas' arch-rivals on significant matters. He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also a famously strident anti-Westerner."
"I should qualify my second statement: He knew Latin and was versed in Latin theology but was also famously strident in his opposition to Rome and certain Roman doctrines.
In a lot of ways, he reminds me of St. Nikodemos the Athonite. Both Gennadios and Nikodemos took famous Roman Catholic writings and produced significantly edited translations of those writings for Greek Orthodox audiences.
Yes, it is significant that they use those writings as a starting point. Just as it is significant that they edit them."
"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."