The Eastern Churches and St. Thomas Aquinas
(02-09-2012, 06:27 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 06:25 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 06:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 06:21 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 04:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 06:07 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Let us be clear, in order for me to have committed sin, you would have to show that my statement was unreasonable and therefore rash. You cannot do that because my saying that melkite had professed a heresy was entirely reasonable given both his wording and hid demonstrated attitude of contempt for so called Latin theology and St Thomas.

Your continued insistence on an apology is therefore nothing but stubbornness, I suggest rather than spending your time falsely accusing others of sin you read some moral theology.

It was not reasonable, in that Melkite was not saying what you thought he said, and even if he was there was no call to be a fucking asshole about it.

I won't insist on an apology.  You have made your stubborn insistence on being uncharitable and rude more than clear.

Oh please  :eyeroll: get over yourself

Again: physician, heal thyself.  :LOL:

:eyeroll:

So you can take calling other people names without cause, but don't like being called on your crap?  :eyeroll: :LOL:

Any chance I could get in that english?  :LOL:
Reply
Guys,

I think it's time to stop, this is getting awfully similar to schoolyard fights. There's no agreement possible for the time being so move on. Let's not derail the topic any further.
Reply
(02-09-2012, 05:12 PM)su Wrote: This thread was about the possible jealousy of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.


It has nothing to do with jealousy. Frankly the problem is, true or not,  he is seen as the proto-Calvinist and the father of Western Scholasticism. That is why he is not held in esteem by the Christian East. I have no doubt he was a holy man but to us the fruits look suspicious.
Reply
(02-09-2012, 06:44 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 05:12 PM)su Wrote: This thread was about the possible jealousy of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.


It has nothing to do with jealousy. Frankly the problem is, true or not,  he is seen as the proto-Calvinist and the father of Western Scholasticism. That is why he is not held in esteem by the Christian East. I have no doubt he was a holy man but to us the fruits look suspicious.

Given that it is a foreign style that is Scholasticism, this is understandable, particularly when idiots come into the discussion and start throwing around accusations of heresy without even understanding the gap.  Scholasticism itself can itself be an amazing tool, and I personally know several Easterners who have embraced this method, but in the wrong hands it becomes a problem, particularly when no thought is given to how the other side is reacting or understanding.  Hence, we get tone-deaf fools accusing others falsely of being heretics.
Reply
"Proto-Calvinist"?

That's absurd.
Reply
(02-09-2012, 07:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: "Proto-Calvinist"?

That's absurd.

Many Calvinists I know actually like St. Thomas and cite him as a predecessor of Calvin, so it is not as ridiculous as you might think, though it is false.  Calvin had a very scholastic mindset, just look at the Institutes of the Christian religion.  During the Reformation, Calvinism made a big putsch into the East, and had to be repelled by the Eastern Churches with vigor.  From what I have read, most of the time when an Easterner says "Augustine of Hippo said X", they mean "John Calvin said X" whether they realize it or not.  I think the formative encounter with Calvinism really is part of what makes Easterners suspicious of Scholastic method, along with the Nominalist Barlaam who was passing off an Ockhamite scheme as Thomism.  This negative history does have to be taken into account when dealing with the East.  Scholasticism is foreign to them, and Calvin and Aquinas do look somewhat alike if you are not familiar with them.
Reply
Indeed, the Eastern reaction to Calvinistic Scholasticism was so allergic, they had to convene the Synod of Jerusalem to confront it: http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/10...calvinism/
Reply
(02-09-2012, 07:41 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Indeed, the Eastern reaction to Calvinistic Scholasticism was so allergic, they had to convene the Synod of Jerusalem to confront it: http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/10...calvinism/

The Synod of Jerusalem was convened to counteract the influence of Constantinople's patriarch Cyril Lucaris who strove for a reform of the Eastern Orthodox Church along Protestant and Calvinist lines.
Reply
(02-09-2012, 07:52 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 07:41 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Indeed, the Eastern reaction to Calvinistic Scholasticism was so allergic, they had to convene the Synod of Jerusalem to confront it: http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/10...calvinism/

The Synod of Jerusalem was convened to counteract the influence of Constantinople's patriarch Cyril Lucaris who strove for a reform of the Eastern Orthodox Church along Protestant and Calvinist lines.


That's not entirely accurate. It's widely believed that the works attributed to Saint Cyril Lucaris were actually compiled and published by Calvinist scholars who St Cyril had conversed with and who condensed and purposefully misconstrued the true orthodox beliefs of the patriarch. 
Reply
(02-09-2012, 08:05 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 07:52 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 07:41 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Indeed, the Eastern reaction to Calvinistic Scholasticism was so allergic, they had to convene the Synod of Jerusalem to confront it: http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/10...calvinism/

The Synod of Jerusalem was convened to counteract the influence of Constantinople's patriarch Cyril Lucaris who strove for a reform of the Eastern Orthodox Church along Protestant and Calvinist lines.


That's not entirely accurate. It's widely believed that the works attributed to Saint Cyril Lucaris were actually compiled and published by Calvinist scholars who St Cyril had conversed with and who condensed and purposefully misconstrued the true orthodox beliefs of the patriarch.

I wasn't aware Lucaris was considered a saint by the Orthodox Church, especially concerning the controversy around his name. Is his sainthood universally recognised within the Orthodox world? In any case, your view is just one side of the coin: there are other Orthodox who agree with most historians and accept that Lucaris was an advocate of Calvinism
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)