What do the Eastern Othodox mean when they reject scholasticism?

[Papist]

But of course Saint Gregory Palamas had a lapse of judgement when he was old, and near death. 

Or perhaps the nearness of death brought him to repentance.

Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.

Papist retracted his statement in this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.html

chris

[Papist]

Not just my strength of conviction, but the Church's.

And,...nowhere do I recall our Lord in scripture referencing 'logic' or 'reason' as the basis of Salvation or curing miracles - only Faith.

Faith is a function of the intellect, not the emotions, not an assumption. It is putting trust where trust is due. Again, as you know, I disagree with you as to which Church is the Church. May God bless.

[Αριστοκλής]

Faith is a function of the intellect, not the emotions, not an assumption. It is putting trust where trust is due. Again, as you know, I disagree with you as to which Church is the Church. May God bless.

So, what? You would posit, logically, that the greater the intellect, the greater the faith?

[Papist]

So, what? You would posit, logically, that the greater the intellect, the greater the faith?

Of course not. I am not denying that the theological gift of Faith is a supernatural Gift. However, grace does perfect nature, and thus, in a way, the gift of faith improves and perfects our natural intellect. The deeper our faith becomes the more our intellect will seek out answers to the questions of faith. Faith seeks understanding.

[sdcheung]

Or perhaps the nearness of death brought him to repentance.

don't think so...
maybe senility and alzheimerish symptoms.

I also heard some whacked out "catholic" claims that Saint John Damascene also approved of Filioque and the catholic "doctrine" of the theotokos bleh..if he did, I ain't naming my kid after this John.

Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.

Papist retracted his statement in this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.html

chris

[Αριστοκλής]

don't think so...
maybe senility and alzheimerish symptoms.

Offered in the finest TomS tradition!

[sdcheung]

Offered in the finest TomS tradition!

I thank you for that compliment kind sir.

[Papist]

don't think so...
maybe senility and alzheimerish symptoms.

I also heard some whacked out "catholic" claims that Saint John Damascene also approved of Filioque and the catholic "doctrine" of the theotokos bleh..if he did, I ain't naming my kid after this John.

Right, cuz anyone who does not agree with YOU personally is just stupid or senile. I suggest a more charitable tone.

Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.

Papist retracted his statement in this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.html

chris

[sdcheung]

Right, cuz anyone who does not agree with YOU personally is just stupid or senile. I suggest a more charitable tone.

No, someone who doesn''t agree with the Orthodox Catholic Church, The Church of the 7 councils and the one True Church. is stupid and senile.

[Papist]

No, someone who doesn''t agree with the Orthodox Catholic Church, The Church of the 7 councils and the one True Church. is stupid and senile.

Wow. I would NOT accuse you of being stupid or senile just because you are outside of the True Catholic Church! I would simply state that you are mistaken. Goodness. I cannot understand your hostility.

[Αριστοκλής]

Wow. I would NOT accuse you of being stupid or senile just because you are outside of the True Catholic Church! I would simply state that you are mistaken. Goodness. I cannot understand your hostility.

I like you, Papist, but you might be getting close to breaking forum rules with the above. You are in our house now.

[Papist]

I like you, Papist, but you might be getting close to breaking forum rules with the above. You are in our house now.

Which rule? Please in inform me so that I do not make that mistake.

[sdcheung]

I like you, Papist, but you might be getting close to breaking forum rules with the above. You are in our house now.

Mistaken about my salvation? I think not. I know where I am, because I chose her, or rather the Church chose me.

[Papist]

Mistaken about my salvation? I think not. I know where I am, because I chose her, or rather the Church chose me.

This discussion is pointless and I choose to end it now. I think you are mistaken about which Church is the true Chruch. You think I am mistaken about which Church is the truch Church. We disagree. Can we leave it at that?

[pensateomnia]

I have read that Gregory Palamas repented at the end of his life, support the doctrine of the filoque and supported union with Rome.

Absolute rubbish.

Any Roman Catholic who puts such an emphasis on reason, logic and intellect should not repeat bizarre claims that fly in the face of historical evidence, scholarly opinion -- even the teaching of one's own Church!! -- on the basis that one has "read" such a claim (Who made this claim? Where? In what peer-reviewed journal? Based on what evidence?).

Quite an interesting standard of proof, no? I suppose that I should join the Da Vinci Code fan club and start spreading the real truth. After all, I once read that...

Actually that is a modernist position, the position that all is subjective, the position that is creatind a philosophy today that there is no such thing as truth.

  Ummmmmmmmm....the position you are describing is not a modernist one. In fact, much of your argument in this post is rather in agreement with many major tenets of modernist philosophy and science.

Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.

Papist retracted his statement in this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.html

chris

[sdcheung]

This discussion is pointless and I choose to end it now. I think you are mistaken about which Church is the true Chruch. You think I am mistaken about which Church is the truch Church. We disagree. Can we leave it at that?

yeah go ahead, cut and run.

[Papist]

Absolute rubbish.

Any Roman Catholic who puts such an emphasis on reason, logic and intellect should not repeat bizarre claims that fly in the face of historical evidence, scholarly opinion -- even the teaching of one's own Church!! -- on the basis that one has "read" such a claim (Who made this claim? Where? In what peer-reviewed journal? Based on what evidence?).

Quite an interesting standard of proof, no? I suppose that I should join the Da Vinci Code fan club and start spreading the real truth. After all, I once read that...

  Ummmmmmmmm....the position you are describing is not a modernist one. In fact, much of your argument in this post is rather in agreement with many major tenets of modernist philosophy and science.

Actually no. Modernism posits that you cannot know what is really true in the end. Modernism teaches that there is no proof for truth and, that being the case, no person can know any truth with certainty. The conclusion of modernism: each person's personal truth is compatible with any other person's personal truth and thus there is no objective truth.
As for the Da Vinci code, it is not based on scholarship or objective evidence. In a sense, Dan Brown, the author, accepts all of his heretical ideas based on blind faith.

[Papist]

yeah go ahead, cut and run.

Many blessings in Christ.

[Αριστοκλής]

yeah go ahead, cut and run.

Come on, Φοτι, give him a break! 

He's Roman Catholic and can't help it 

[Papist]

To clarify, I am quite happy to continue the disscusion concering epistomology. But I will not continue the tit for tat with a forum member who chooses to be hostile and uncharitable. I am happy to have a sober and intelligent conversation with any other.

[sdcheung]

Come on, Φοτι, give him a break! 

He's Roman Catholic and can't help it 

i guess your right. But, I have the Sword (of truth ) out, I can't just sheath it without making a slice, My sword wants blood. ...It's a japanese sword (of truth)

[Αριστοκλής]

Sober? Oh great...

[pensateomnia]

As for the Da Vinci code, it is not based on scholarship or objective evidence.

Ummm...that's the point. Neither is your equally unsubstantiated claim about St. Gregory Palamas.

I'll deal with the other stuff later. I have to run.

Briefly: Do you mean to imply that one must adopt a certain philosophical system (say, Aristotle over Plato or Descartes or Kant) in order to properly understand the intellect, without which one cannot arrive at proper theology (since faith itself is an act of said intellect)?

Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.

Papist retracted his statement in this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.html

chris

[Panagiotis]

I need some ouzo to clarify the RCC stance sometims, so-
LOL

Panagiotis

[Anastasios]

Which rule? Please in inform me so that I do not make that mistake.

By saying we are not the true Catholic Church, which is of course what we believe we are. However, I understand that you are speaking from your POV which is implied, and that you are saying you would not call someone else senile or what not as an analogy, so no we are not going to do anything about it.

Anastasios
Admin

[Papist]

Come on, Φοτι, give him a break! 

He's Roman Catholic and can't help it 

Yeah, I guess because I am Roman Catholic, I am just stupid. You know, I thought you guys on this forum were more charitable than this.

[Papist]

Ummm...that's the point. Neither is your equally unsubstantiated claim about St. Gregory Palamas.

I'll deal with the other stuff later. I have to run.

Briefly: Do you mean to imply that one must adopt a certain philosophical system (say, Aristotle over Plato or Descartes or Kant) in order to properly understand the intellect, without which one cannot arrive at proper theology (since faith itself is an act of said intellect)?

What I said about Gregory Palamas was that I READ that he repented towards the end of his life. If you some way refute this, I would have problem with it. As for philosophical system, realism, the philosophy of Aquinas and Aristotle is not a system. It is reality.

Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.

Papist retracted his statement in this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.html

chris

[Papist]

i guess your right. But, I have the Sword (of truth ) out, I can't just sheath it without making a slice, My sword wants blood. ...It's a japanese sword (of truth)

Do you remember that Jesus says to put up your sword? He said this to St. Peter on Holy Thursday. Christ wants us to love one another and to be concerned about eachother's souls. If you really believe that the Eastern Orthodox Churches compose the true Church, then I would think you would hope that I would convert. However, you method of discussion does not illustrate that you care either way what happens to me or my soul. I would suggest expressing more love in our common Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[dantxny]

Both of y'all, please refrain from name calling.  There was a good discussion here and if you wish to continue it that is fine, but please be respectful of each other.  However, this thread has disentgrated and I feel that it is best to keep it locked.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: What do the Eastern Othodox mean when they reject scholasticism?