next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182
#61
(02-03-2012, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 10:29 AM)MiradoBlackWarrior Wrote: St. Thomas in the Summa asserts (with his predecessors) that the punishment from Adam's sin was not only death but absence of the beatific vision of heaven (both from the perspective of heaven and hell).  To not be in heaven, I would have to be guilty of some sin.  If I were an infant, with no sin, how would God justly punish me by sending me to limbo/dead/hell?

From both eastern and western thought, where does Elijah fit in the picture?

Really, that's funny, because the same people who love to quote Thomas Aquinas (St. Thomas was an apostle who preached in India) say that we can't just go to heaven, we have to do something to earn it, and God doesn't owe us heaven.  So which is it?  If we aren't owed heaven, then it's not a punishment if we don't go there.  If it's a punishment to not go there, then we deserve it as long as we don't accrue any demerits.

Consequently, this also shows the error of your thinking.  You have a preconceived notion that no heaven = punishment, therefore, if a baby doesn't go to heaven, they must be guilty of something to be punished.  No, babies are guilty of any sin, that's obvious.  Start from that point and then plot your theology rightly.

If I wrote "judge" instead of "punish", how would your response change? 

Keep in mind we were created IN heaven; the first creation was like the second coming will be, the heaven we look forward to.  So, since by our creation we were meant for heaven, to die and be absent of it (ANY vision of it) would of course be punishment.  God doesn't owe us heaven because God already gave it to man, and was rejected by one man and unto all men.  Is the baby owed an eternity in limbo/hell?  If he/she/it (trying to be p.c.) did not sin, then neither do they deserve absence of heaven, which would be punishment.

Nobody here is out to "get you."  I fell into the trap of ridiculing St. Thomas and scholasticism for a while based on eastern polemics.  If you haven't read the Summa, read it, it's a good read.  St. Thomas himself viewed it as straw.
Reply
#62
(02-04-2012, 11:32 AM)MiradoBlackWarrior Wrote:   If you haven't read the Summa, read it, it's a good read.  St. Thomas himself viewed it as straw.

In comparision with the mystical vision he had, at which point (if i remember correctly) he tried to burn all his works and someone had to save them from the fire  :O
Reply
#63
(02-04-2012, 11:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: In comparision with the mystical vision he had, at which point (if i remember correctly) he tried to burn all his works and someone had to save them from the fire  :O

KInd of makes you wonder why Latins put so much stock in it when its own author decided it was garbage after he saw Jesus face to face, doesn't it?  It's almost like going back to the old covenant after Jesus gave you the new to replace it.
Reply
#64
(02-04-2012, 11:32 AM)MiradoBlackWarrior Wrote: If I wrote "judge" instead of "punish", how would your response change? 

Keep in mind we were created IN heaven; the first creation was like the second coming will be, the heaven we look forward to.  So, since by our creation we were meant for heaven, to die and be absent of it (ANY vision of it) would of course be punishment.  God doesn't owe us heaven because God already gave it to man, and was rejected by one man and unto all men.  Is the baby owed an eternity in limbo/hell?  If he/she/it (trying to be p.c.) did not sin, then neither do they deserve absence of heaven, which would be punishment.

Nobody here is out to "get you."  I fell into the trap of ridiculing St. Thomas and scholasticism for a while based on eastern polemics.  If you haven't read the Summa, read it, it's a good read.  St. Thomas himself viewed it as straw.

I tend to agree with you on that.  But there are many trads here who will basically tell you you are a heretic for that.
Reply
#65
(02-04-2012, 11:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-04-2012, 11:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: In comparison with the mystical vision he had, at which point (if i remember correctly) he tried to burn all his works and someone had to save them from the fire  :O

Kind of makes you wonder why Latins put so much stock in it when its own author decided it was garbage after he saw Jesus face to face, doesn't it?  It's almost like going back to the old covenant after Jesus gave you the new to replace it.

I think you're drawing the wrong lesson from the story. St. Thomas realized that all of his life's work was nothing in comparison to the infinite majesty of God. His declaration tells us much more about heaven then it does his own work, because as any sensible person should know, nothing can compare with the infinite majesty of God. In my view it is essentially a lesson in humility. St. Thomas had worked his whole life to become essentially a peerless theologian and philosopher. Yet despite all of that he deemed his work as straw in comparison to heaven. If his work was straw, I can't even imagine what the work of my life would qualify as before the majesty of God. I guess my point is that if you walk away from that story thinking that it proves that St. Thomas' work was overrated you're completely missing the point (and making yourself look silly to boot.)

Edit to add-Your analogy doesn't work. Jesus gave us all the new covenant, so yes it would be foolish to go back to the old one because we all have access to the new. But he only gave that vision to St. Thomas. From where we stand on earth we don't have access to that vision. When everyone on fisheaters gets to heaven we'll have the liberty to disregard St. Thomas' straw, but until then let's just be happy we have his work and not condemn the finite work of men because it doesn't measure up well with the infinite.
Reply
#66
(02-05-2012, 12:09 AM)MeanGene Wrote:
(02-04-2012, 11:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-04-2012, 11:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: In comparison with the mystical vision he had, at which point (if i remember correctly) he tried to burn all his works and someone had to save them from the fire  :O

Kind of makes you wonder why Latins put so much stock in it when its own author decided it was garbage after he saw Jesus face to face, doesn't it?  It's almost like going back to the old covenant after Jesus gave you the new to replace it.

I think you're drawing the wrong lesson from the story. St. Thomas realized that all of his life's work was nothing in comparison to the infinite majesty of God. His declaration tells us much more about heaven then it does his own work, because as any sensible person should know, nothing can compare with the infinite majesty of God. In my view it is essentially a lesson in humility. St. Thomas had worked his whole life to become essentially a peerless theologian and philosopher. Yet despite all of that he deemed his work as straw in comparison to heaven. If his work was straw, I can't even imagine what the work of my life would qualify as before the majesty of God. I guess my point is that if you walk away from that story thinking that it proves that St. Thomas' work was overrated you're completely missing the point (and making yourself look silly to boot.)

Edit to add-Your analogy doesn't work. Jesus gave us all the new covenant, so yes it would be foolish to go back to the old one because we all have access to the new. But he only gave that vision to St. Thomas. From where we stand on earth we don't have access to that vision. When everyone on fisheaters gets to heaven we'll have the liberty to disregard St. Thomas' straw, but until then let's just be happy we have his work and not condemn the finite work of men because it doesn't measure up well with the infinite.

Well said! You saved me having to say it.
Reply
#67
(02-04-2012, 11:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-04-2012, 11:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: In comparision with the mystical vision he had, at which point (if i remember correctly) he tried to burn all his works and someone had to save them from the fire  :O

KInd of makes you wonder why Latins put so much stock in it when its own author decided it was garbage after he saw Jesus face to face, doesn't it?  It's almost like going back to the old covenant after Jesus gave you the new to replace it.

Because it's as good as it gets.  :grin:
Reply
#68
An observation on Easterners and Thomism. I am an Easterner and a Thomist. We may be rare as hen's teeth, but we do exist. Indeed, I was brought into Papal Obedience by an Eastern Thomist. It was St Thomas' misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Theotokos that kept me out of the Church. I actually had no problem with Papal Infallibility except insofar as I could not accept an infallible definition of a Dogma which, backed by the Angelic Doctor, I could not accept.

I found a little booklet, published probably in the late 50's or early 60's, entitled "Catholics and Orthodox--Can They Unite?" I came upon the chapter on the Immaculate Conception and, to my amazement, I read a quote from one of my great heroes, Georgios Scholarios, the Patriarch Gennadios II. Gennadios was the first Patriarch of Constantinople after The City fell to the infidel jihadists and he was also a prominent Aristotelian-Thomist, one of the few in Orthodoxy, which tends to be Platonist. He had translated the Summa Theologica into Greek and when he reached the section on the Immaculate Conception, he said, "Thomas was a wise man and indeed may be a Saint (he had been canonised in the West almost 200 years earlier), but on this point he was wrong!" To my amazement, I learned that the doctrine had first been developed in the Orthodox East, but as the West came to view it favourably, the East reacted against it. So, thanks to Gennadios, I ended up a Catholic!

So, my feelings on St Thomas may be a bit different than most other Easterners, Catholic or Orthodox.
Reply
#69
(02-05-2012, 03:57 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [Georgios Scholarios, the Patriarch Gennadios II] said, "Thomas was a wise man and indeed may be a Saint (he had been canonised in the West almost 200 years earlier), but on this point he was wrong!"

I have not read extensively on this particular issue (although I have read many an opinion about it  :LOL: ). Given that St. Thomas was very systematic in his approach, what was his theological argumentation for finding the Immaculate Conception untenable? 
Reply
#70
(02-04-2012, 11:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-04-2012, 11:49 AM)TrentCath Wrote: In comparision with the mystical vision he had, at which point (if i remember correctly) he tried to burn all his works and someone had to save them from the fire  :O

KInd of makes you wonder why Latins put so much stock in it when its own author decided it was garbage after he saw Jesus face to face, doesn't it?  It's almost like going back to the old covenant after Jesus gave you the new to replace it.

Oh please, you really do give a new meaning to the word 'Ignorant'

If that's the attitude most easterners took, its no wonder the schism lasted so long...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)