The Eastern Churches and St. Thomas Aquinas
(02-10-2012, 12:13 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, I don't think St. Thomas is responsible of course, but it does seem that Protestantism and secular humanism are in some measure a result of developments within late scholasticism. Look at Bl. Duns Scotus and William Ockham. Of course, why these later schoolmen went down this path is another question.

Lumping Blessed John in with Ockham is to make the same mistake that the Easterners do by conflating St. Thomas with John Calvin.  They are about that similar.  But yeah, Protestantism is the the result of a cancerous Scholasticism.  But as the old saying goes, abusus non tollit usum.
Reply
(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: A) that is ignorant and a statement that can only be made in bad faith or by one who does not understand st Thomas

Well it most certainly is not bad faith and I never claimed to understand St Thomas. I was simply answering the OP.

(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: B) the nationalisation of the orthodox churches is a result of separation from Rome.


There were national Churches long before the Schism. The Church has been organized along political boundaries from time immemorial. Perhaps you should brush up on your Church history my friend.  :)


(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: C) the obsession with small t traditions and the stagnant theology is for the same reason

I have to say I agree in some way with Su, eastern orthodox theology is stagnant because of the very nature of eastern orthodox faith and so of course they are 'jealous' of someone like St Thomas

Says the traditionalist Catholic without a whiff of irony. I have to say statements like this illustrate for me a fascinating aspect of traditional Catholicism. You believe that we are "stagnant" (whatever that means), and that doctrine "develops" over time. You do this all while criticizing the Catholic Church's development at Vatican II. Would that your Church had been more stagnant!

It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. If you are going to start the freight train of developing doctrine you shouldn't be surprised if it develops in a way you don't agree with. What makes one development legitimate and another illegitimate? It appears all Catholics agree that development of doctrine occurs, the disagreement is in which century the development should stop.

The whole thing makes me wonder. Do Catholics criticize us as stagnant out of envy? After all, we have managed to maintain (without a Pope) for all these centuries, while you have lost so much of what you hold dear, most likely to never be regained. I could understand why someone in that position might lash out.
Reply
(02-10-2012, 11:43 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: A) that is ignorant and a statement that can only be made in bad faith or by one who does not understand st Thomas

Well it most certainly is not bad faith and I never claimed to understand St Thomas. I was simply answering the OP.

(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: B) the nationalisation of the orthodox churches is a result of separation from Rome.


There were national Churches long before the Schism. The Church has been organized along political boundaries from time immemorial. Perhaps you should brush up on your Church history my friend.  :)


(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: C) the obsession with small t traditions and the stagnant theology is for the same reason

I have to say I agree in some way with Su, eastern orthodox theology is stagnant because of the very nature of eastern orthodox faith and so of course they are 'jealous' of someone like St Thomas

Says the traditionalist Catholic without a whiff of irony. I have to say statements like this illustrate for me a fascinating aspect of traditional Catholicism. You believe that we are "stagnant" (whatever that means), and that doctrine "develops" over time. You do this all while criticizing the Catholic Church's development at Vatican II. Would that your Church had been more stagnant!

It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. If you are going to start the freight train of developing doctrine you shouldn't be surprised if it develops in a way you don't agree with. What makes one development legitimate and another illegitimate? It appears all Catholics agree that development of doctrine occurs, the disagreement is in which century the development should stop.

The whole thing makes me wonder. Do Catholics criticize us as stagnant out of envy? After all, we have managed to maintain (without a Pope) for all these centuries, while you have lost so much of what you hold dear, most likely to never be regained. I could understand why someone in that position might lash out.

To deny that doctrine develops is insane, because clearly it does.  Ever read the orthodox Ante-Nicene Fathers on the Trinity, or the Canon of the New Testament?  That's a trip, let me tell you.  The question never has been whether doctrine develops, but how.  There is legitimate development, such as the word "Trinity," and illegitimate development, like the Iconoclasts.  The standard always has been Quod Semper, Quod Ubique, Quod ab Omnibus (that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all), but this must be understood in a way that allows the Anti-Nicene Fathers to be read in light of Nicene doctrine, which developed.  If you haven't already, you ought to read John Henry Newman on this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35110/351...5110-h.htm
Reply
Yes, doctrinal development isn't an addition or change to the doctrine. It never goes back on what it said. The development is an explication of the doctrine that is always incorparable in each preceding doctrinal statement, minus the subsequent clarification. These clarifications are in response to attacks on the teaching. In this way, doctrinal development is an unpacking of the dogma by laying out all of the meanings that could be contained therein and then condemning what it is not and affirming what it is. If this new affirmation is then attacked, it is then further unpacked to condemn the new false interpretation and to affirm even more specifically what is meant. Doctrinal developments parse the doctrine and specify in exactly which sense the dogma is to be understood; it doesn't add on additional meanings to the dogma or change the way in which they are to be understood.

A really simplified example of a doctrinal development might be something like this: "Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. He is transubstantially present as opposed to consubstantially present." Such a clarification is not a repudiation of the original doctrinal statement; it is simply a clarification of it by telling us in what exact sense Christ is metaphysically (truly) present in the Eucharist. It is possible that some new heresy could attack transubstantiation, at which point the Church would respond by specifying in exactly which sense a transubstantial presence is to be understood (though, I can't imagine this particular challenge happening today; I think it's as specific as it is going to get).

A really simplified example of a doctrinal mutation might be something like this: "You have heard it said that salvation is only possible in the Church. But now it is understood that salvation is only possible through the Church." 'Through' doesn't mean 'in.' 'Through' (in this particular context) means that something can exist outside the boundaries but can be affected by what is within those boundaries. In this later example, there is a contradiction involved, because 'through' expands the bounderies set by 'in.' Such a contradiction must be rejected. It is not a development.

A legitimate doctrinal development might be: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed" (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi). This doesn't break down the restictions set by the boundaries of the preposition "in"; rather, it tells us exactly where that boundary is--that is, who is "in" (who are the members) and who is "out" (who are the non-members). 
Reply
(02-10-2012, 11:43 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: A) that is ignorant and a statement that can only be made in bad faith or by one who does not understand st Thomas

Well it most certainly is not bad faith and I never claimed to understand St Thomas. I was simply answering the OP.

(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: B) the nationalisation of the orthodox churches is a result of separation from Rome.


There were national Churches long before the Schism. The Church has been organized along political boundaries from time immemorial. Perhaps you should brush up on your Church history my friend.  :)


(02-10-2012, 06:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: C) the obsession with small t traditions and the stagnant theology is for the same reason

I have to say I agree in some way with Su, eastern orthodox theology is stagnant because of the very nature of eastern orthodox faith and so of course they are 'jealous' of someone like St Thomas

Says the traditionalist Catholic without a whiff of irony. I have to say statements like this illustrate for me a fascinating aspect of traditional Catholicism. You believe that we are "stagnant" (whatever that means), and that doctrine "develops" over time. You do this all while criticizing the Catholic Church's development at Vatican II. Would that your Church had been more stagnant!

It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. If you are going to start the freight train of developing doctrine you shouldn't be surprised if it develops in a way you don't agree with. What makes one development legitimate and another illegitimate? It appears all Catholics agree that development of doctrine occurs, the disagreement is in which century the development should stop.

The whole thing makes me wonder. Do Catholics criticize us as stagnant out of envy? After all, we have managed to maintain (without a Pope) for all these centuries, while you have lost so much of what you hold dear, most likely to never be regained. I could understand why someone in that position might lash out.

Please don't be coy you and I both know that having a church split on national lines is not healthy, in fact the obsession with national churches was declared a heresy by the orthodox church itself, in the 19th century I believe, surely you know about this? And no one denies there were national or provincial synods, what is denied is that churches were set up on the basis of nationality not region and these churches then further fragmented amongst themselves.

That doctrine develops is beyond question, the additions to the creeds and indeed the very fact there are different creeds proves this. The same with the greater clarity and teachings brought about after ecumenical councils. The issue is whether the development is legitimate or not, illegitimate development is nothing but a perversion, Vatican 2 is a good example of this. The best explanation on the matter is provided by Bl cardinal Newman.

As for jealously no, concern and pity, yes though it has to be said I feel much the same for many NO catholics today. But no stagnation is not something to be jealous of.
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.

What has nothing to do with jealousy? This thread? This thread, as I wrote, is specifically about the possible jealousy.

And while I do not proclaim jealousy to be the root cause, I think it probably is. It is because of his comprehensive, well written, and well known and studied Latin works that people in the East may find reason to take issues. The fruits are a mindless association based on superficial aspects. I do not think there is any cause and effect and I think the fruits of his works are of the most holy.
Reply
(02-09-2012, 06:25 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 06:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Pray tell me what is more unreasonable stating someone said something heretical when all the facts suggested it or going on 4 pages and then swearing because someone won't do what you think they should?

There was no such suggestion from facts.  You went off half-cocked and called another Catholic a heretic without cause.  That's fucking bullshit.  And if you don't like the technical descriptive language, I'm sorry for having offended your delicate sensibilities.  Strain away at that gnat, boy.  :P
Are we back to cursing again? Just when I thought I could start hanging out here.

Anyway, this is a topic that really interests me and pains me as well.  As a new convert, it is disheartening for me especially to read about how some Eastern Catholics view Papal Supremacy, which seem to reduce the Pope to nothing more than the head of the Latin Church, with some minor say over the Eastern Churches. It is very confusing.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 11:07 AM)Illumina Wrote: Anyway, this is a topic that really interests me and pains me as well.  As a new convert, it is disheartening for me especially to read about how some Eastern Catholics view Papal Supremacy, which seem to reduce the Pope to nothing more than the head of the Latin Church, with some minor say over the Eastern Churches. It is very confusing.

Try to think of it like this:  the Pope has the authority to do whatever he wants administratively.  If he wants a certain bishop to be elected to a particular diocese, no one can stop him.  But what he has the right to do is not always the prudent thing to do.  It is the custom in the East, and also was in the West until Vatican 1 I think, for bishops to be elected by the bishops of their neighboring dioceses, and then the newly elected bishops sends notification of his election to the Pope.  It usually is not prudent for the Pope to step in and do what other bishops can do on their own.  The Pope has greater administrative authority, but sacramentally he is on an equal footing with every other bishop.  The Pope is both father AND first among equals - the two aren't necessarily incompatible.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 01:49 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 11:07 AM)Illumina Wrote: Anyway, this is a topic that really interests me and pains me as well.  As a new convert, it is disheartening for me especially to read about how some Eastern Catholics view Papal Supremacy, which seem to reduce the Pope to nothing more than the head of the Latin Church, with some minor say over the Eastern Churches. It is very confusing.

Try to think of it like this:  the Pope has the authority to do whatever he wants administratively.  If he wants a certain bishop to be elected to a particular diocese, no one can stop him.  But what he has the right to do is not always the prudent thing to do.  It is the custom in the East, and also was in the West until Vatican 1 I think, for bishops to be elected by the bishops of their neighboring dioceses, and then the newly elected bishops sends notification of his election to the Pope.  It usually is not prudent for the Pope to step in and do what other bishops can do on their own.  The Pope has greater administrative authority, but sacramentally he is on an equal footing with every other bishop.  The Pope is both father AND first among equals - the two aren't necessarily incompatible.

It makes sense to me.  Obviously the papal system of direct appointment of bishops has led to horrific appointments in many places.  Especially for the East, but in general everywhere, I'd be fine with the bishops being chosen locally, provided the right of the pope to directly intervene when the bishop is seriously problematic is preserved.  By problematic I suppose I mean heretic, or morally reprobate.

Reply
(02-11-2012, 02:22 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: It makes sense to me.  Obviously the papal system of direct appointment of bishops has led to horrific appointments in many places.  Especially for the East, but in general everywhere, I'd be fine with the bishops being chosen locally, provided the right of the pope to directly intervene when the bishop is seriously problematic is preserved.  By problematic I suppose I mean heretic, or morally reprobate.

Exactly, and that's why the Pope needs to have that authority.  Synodal agreements are all well and good, but as history shows with previous heresies, occasionally a synod will be at an impasse, and in that sitaution, an executive decision is required.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)