Saint Thomas Aquinas excommunicated after death?
#11
(02-03-2015, 01:29 AM)richgr Wrote: Only living, baptized faithful may be excommunicated—therefore, it is impossible that St. Thomas was excommunicated after death.

It seems that wasn't always true. Constantinople II (553) anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Pope Honorius I was anathematized four decades after his death at Constantinople III (681). I've always wondered what the purpose in these posthumous anathemas were; it seems sufficient to me to condemn the heresies, but who am I to question the Fathers ultimately?
Reply
#12
(02-03-2015, 08:36 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(02-03-2015, 01:29 AM)richgr Wrote: Only living, baptized faithful may be excommunicated—therefore, it is impossible that St. Thomas was excommunicated after death.

It seems that wasn't always true. Constantinople II (553) anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Pope Honorius I was anathematized four decades after his death at Constantinople III (681). I've always wondered what the purpose in these posthumous anathemas were; it seems sufficient to me to condemn the heresies, but who am I to question the Fathers ultimately?

Constantinople II:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
Reply
#13
This is just silly. But you already knew that. One thing that has not been mentioned is the way in which scholastic theology was bashed in its infancy by contemporaries. There was a real tension between the schoolmen and monastic modes of thought. The monasteries were powerhouses of thought, and spirituality. Monastic theology was based on patristic writings and scripture read in specific ways with a strong ascetic and mystical bent. It was based on a kind of spiritual exegesis on texts and their language was steeped in the liturgy and scripture. they had little patience for highly speculative questions. I don't have time to get into it and that is a gross oversimplification. I just wanted to point out that even St. Bernard of Clairvaux was no friend to the schoolmen and ranted against them calling them collectively "scrutinizers of majesty". And as someone else pointed out the friars were newcomers taking over the world of the universities. They were also disliked by some diocesan clergy etc. because of fears that they would usurp territory and pastoral work reserved to their authority. But st. Thomas aquinas is probably the closest thing we have in the west to someone we could simply call "the theologian" and everybody would know who we were talking about. His thought was the basis of western theology for many many centuries. His ideas are the antidote to the poison spreading on the winds these days.
Reply
#14
(02-03-2015, 08:36 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(02-03-2015, 01:29 AM)richgr Wrote: Only living, baptized faithful may be excommunicated—therefore, it is impossible that St. Thomas was excommunicated after death.

It seems that wasn't always true. Constantinople II (553) anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Pope Honorius I was anathematized four decades after his death at Constantinople III (681). I've always wondered what the purpose in these posthumous anathemas were; it seems sufficient to me to condemn the heresies, but who am I to question the Fathers ultimately?
That's good to know.

I don't have competence here, but I suspect by the time of Aquinas, the differences between anathema and excommunication would have been further developed in their legal definitions. I know that the two have been distinguished in both East and West. If my guess about the development of the legal distinctions is true (and again, I'm totally guessing here), then the Fathers weren't doing something pointless since to them both anathema and excommunication would have meant basically the same and signified the denunciation of heresy.
Reply
#15
(02-03-2015, 10:32 PM)richgr Wrote:
(02-03-2015, 08:36 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(02-03-2015, 01:29 AM)richgr Wrote: Only living, baptized faithful may be excommunicated—therefore, it is impossible that St. Thomas was excommunicated after death.

It seems that wasn't always true. Constantinople II (553) anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Pope Honorius I was anathematized four decades after his death at Constantinople III (681). I've always wondered what the purpose in these posthumous anathemas were; it seems sufficient to me to condemn the heresies, but who am I to question the Fathers ultimately?
That's good to know.

I don't have competence here, but I suspect by the time of Aquinas, the differences between anathema and excommunication would have been further developed in their legal definitions. I know that the two have been distinguished in both East and West. If my guess about the development of the legal distinctions is true (and again, I'm totally guessing here), then the Fathers weren't doing something pointless since to them both anathema and excommunication would have meant basically the same and signified the denunciation of heresy.

It just strikes me as odd that they specifically condemn both the writings and the person. Probably just the custom of a different age.
Reply
#16
(02-04-2015, 01:04 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: It just strikes me as odd that they specifically condemn both the writings and the person. Probably just the custom of a different age.

It's the same species of utter condemnation as the pre-Christian concept of damnatio memoriae. 

It is silly to do it when a person is dead and can't answer for themselves much as trial in absentia.
Reply
#17
(02-04-2015, 05:27 PM)Uxi Wrote:
(02-04-2015, 01:04 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: It just strikes me as odd that they specifically condemn both the writings and the person. Probably just the custom of a different age.

It's the same species of utter condemnation as the pre-Christian concept of damnatio memoriae. 

It is silly to do it when a person is dead and can't answer for themselves much as trial in absentia.

Like the Cadaver Synod.

N.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)