The Eastern Churches and St. Thomas Aquinas
(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:

Messages In This Thread
Re: The Eastern Churches and St. Thomas Aquinas - by Parmandur - 02-11-2012, 03:36 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)