Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[jam070406]

Just by the text you quoted I can see that you are completely misreading him.
No, he doesn’t write that.

What he writes is that a higher education was difficult to get for Christians in that period, and many went west to further their educations. Thus it was a time of *the infiltration of western thought! *So if there was any period when scholasticism would have taken hold, it would have been at that time more than any other - during the Mulsim occupations when so many Greeks were traveling west.

Reread your own typing and see.

This was a cross-current to what would be the norm in eastern Christianity, a firm grasp of Patristics and a resistance to philosophically based innovations in theology. Infact, we do see this as a time of faltering, when some western innovations were borrowed into eastern Orthodoxy and had to be repudiated later. There was no time since the tenth century as that period under the Muslims when Orthodox were so open to western ideas, it even resulted in schism.

Scholasticism was well known in the east long before the Turks arrived. The city was conquered in 1451AD, the mid fifteenth century.

Scholasticism became a dominant factor in western thought (and a prime reason for Patristics to decline in the west) from about the late ninth century into the fourteenth or fifteeth century. So that’s a good 500 year period when scholasticism reigned supreme in the west and there was open and free commerce between the Roman empire and western Europe. There is even clear evidence that such great luminaries as Saint Gregory Palamas read Aquinas. But reading western thought and adopting it for oneself are two different things.

The Scholastic method was rejected as a tool for formulating theology long before the Muslims conquered, and to this day for the same reasons, and not only by Orthodox, but by a significant proportion of Greek Catholics as well … even up to the present day (which one can learn just by following some of the discussions in the EC section of CAF).

So then, when there is a shunning of scholasticism, it is not connected with the Muslims.

I disagree. I’ve heard scholars say that Islam did have an influence on Eastern thought. Especially in the idea of an inscrutable God. Especially when the Patriarch of Constantinople could be deposed at the whim of Muslim rulers.

 

[Hesychios]

I disagree. I’ve heard scholars say that Islam did have an influence on Eastern thought. Especially in the idea of an inscrutable God. Especially when the Patriarch of Constantinople could be deposed at the whim of Muslim rulers.

Would you like to provide a reference?

You could also address my points individually, I am interested to read your comments.

I think that some people would love to blame the ways of Orthodoxy on “the Muslims” for their own reasons - it is such a convenient notion. But the fact is long before the time the Muslims conquered Constantinople these ideas had already been set, not all of Orthodoxy was under Muslim control at any time in history and even eastern Catholics today share the Orthodox position on scholasticism as a source of doctrine.

The fact is (this may be hard for Catholics to grasp), the patriarch is not a source of dogma or doctrine. He can’t change the way the church thinks. He is a custodian, like so many others in the church, we are all custodians of the faith.

 

[jam070406]

Would you like to provide a reference?

You could also address my points individually, I am interested to read your comments.

I think that some people would love to blame the ways of Orthodoxy on “the Muslims” for their own reasons - it is such a convenient notion. But the fact is long before the time the Muslims conquered Constantinople these ideas had already been set, not all of Orthodoxy was under Muslim control at any time in history and even eastern Catholics today share the Orthodox position on scholasticism as a source of doctrine.

The fact is (this may be hard for Catholics to grasp), the patriarch is not a source of dogma or doctrine. He can’t change the way the church thinks. He is a custodian, like so many others in the church, we are all custodians of the faith.

I can’t, sorry. Don’t have time. Maybe you can provide references.
But I am a bit baffled at the claim that the East was well aware of scholastics and yet the claim by many Orthodox is that Augustines ideas were unkown and unheard of in the East??

 

[Hesychios]

I can’t, sorry. Don’t have time. Maybe you can provide references.
But I am a bit baffled at the claim that the East was well aware of scholastics and yet the claim by many Orthodox is that Augustines ideas were unkown and unheard of in the East??

Augustine was not a part of the Scholastic movement. He was a seminal thinker though, so his influence can be seen and traced in later western theologians.

The issue with Augustine was quite different. He didn’t know Greek (or at least was not fluent) and his writings, which would have been translations, were not popular in the east.

He wasn’t unknown, he just had very little influence there compared to his influence in the west.

There was a lot of commerce between the east and the west, and books would go where the buyers were willing to pay.

In the west there was a more limited collection of exclusively Latin authors and Augustine was a very prolific writer. The study of Greek was declining in the west and the demand for works in latin was rising. In the east there was an abundance of exclusively Greek writings and Augustine’s works in translation were just not in very great demand, competing as they were with so many other authors.

His ideas were not well known, and from among those who read him there were enough other opinions circulating that his reading audience was not so readily inclined to agree with him, he remained a marginal influence there.

It is only to the ‘man on the street’ that these writings can be said to be quite unknown, since most people were illiterate. If the intellectuals were not discussing Augustine’s ideas in public no one else should have been much aware of them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Hesychios; Iam a bit surprised by your comment that the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox view "scholasticism as a source of doctrine?

Why would you incorrectly label “scholasticism” as a source of doctrine? since the Catholic Church has always viewed “scholasticism” as form of learning discipline, never a source of “doctrine”? How do you come to such a false idea that scholasticism is a source of doctrine?

St. Thomas Aquinas raised the scientific reasoning of the scholastic learning discipline from his Summa Theologia. St. Augustine introduced his classical method of logic by applying a form of scholasticism to the knowledge of God.

From St. Thomas Aquinas, this learning discipline (scholasticism) revolutionized morality in placing weight on the individual to judge for themselves, and that all people are different and required different disciplines in pursuit of virtue.

St. Bonaventure introduced another learning discipline in Catholicism, which placed a balance on the learning discipline of scholasticism in intellectualism by placing “Love and Devotion” as opposed to knowledge and science.

So does the Orthodox view St. Bonaventure’s learning disciplines as a source of doctrine? because these teaching disciplines are never a source of doctrine as you appear to mistaken them.

Because there are many more learning disciplines in the Catholic Church other than Scholasticism. Yet these all balance one another whenever they do not contradict the Apostolic faith.

In fact St. Thoma’s learning disciplines from scholasticism, are applied today by courtroom “trial” attorneys to discover “TRUTH” from their trials.

When do you ever find “Scholasticism” reaching to a status of doctrine or a source of doctrine that contradicts the apostolic faith?

Hesychios;7687561] But the fact is long before the time the Muslims conquered Constantinople these ideas had already been set, not all of Orthodoxy was under Muslim control at any time in history and even eastern Catholics today share the Orthodox position on scholasticism as a source of doctrine.

Catholics don’t find it hard to grasp that the Patriarch is never a source of dogma or doctrine, because the office of Patriarch is only ecclesial, it is never an office instituted by God. Only the office of bishop, priest, deacon and Popes (Peter’s chair) are divinely instituted. All Apostolic successors are guardians of the Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you

The fact is (this may be hard for Catholics to grasp), the patriarch is not a source of dogma or doctrine. He can’t change the way the church thinks. He is a custodian, like so many others in the church, we are all custodians of the faith.

 

[Shiranui117]

I stand correct! That said, it still clearly lists him as second to the pope. So “New Rome,” in the context of Constantinople does not mean that he replaces or supplants the papacy. My underlying point (while poorly made) still stands. The Orthodox can’t claim the papacy as their own, but only a number two spot. Given that the model of Church Christ established had a clear head (Peter), this means that the Orthodox are an unwitting witness to the authenticity of Catholicism.

Not entirely. I don’t see any basis for universal Papal jurisdiction anywhere in the early Church. Even when the Pope steps in to correct heretical Sees, the same prerogative is the right and duty of any other bishop or Patriarch.

Honorius wasn’t condemned for anything he said or did, but for his cowardice. The Holy Spirit doesn’t promise that the Catholic Church won’t have wimpy popes who pay the eternal consequences for it. He promises that She won’t be lead into error.

Is there a difference between being condemned for action and being condemned for inaction? The point is, Pope Honorius was condemned with the same measure as other people who were held at heretics at the time. Being condemned as a heretic is being condemned as a heretic, whether being heretical in action or not condemning heresy and allowing it to spread.

None of those councils are recognized throughout Orthodoxy. A great number of Orthodox recognize the first seven only as infallible, and there’s no Church Body *capable *of even saying how many infallible Councils there are. The fact that the 2013 Pan-Orthodox Council is being hyped as the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx) shows that there’s nothing past the seven. Besides that, Pan-Orthodox Councils, despite their names, are not Ecumenical, which is why the “Eighth” is in quotations in that link.

Just because they’re not considered ecumenical doesn’t mean they didn’t solve problems that occurred. They are considered councils that resolved issues and clarified the Orthodox faith, just the same as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Whether or not the adjective “ecumenical” is applied seems irrelevant to me.

To your related question, papal infallibility and Conciliar infallibility are the two forms that the Holy Spirit works in an infallible manner (see Matthew 16:17-19 and Matthew 18:17-18 for a clear example of the parallelism with the bind/loosening). Orthodoxy has neither, and to my knowledge, claims neither.

Orthodoxy preserves conciliar infallibility, and has never had any need for “papal infallibility.” At least we can tell when conciliar infallibility is being used! Opinions go all over the place for which documents are protected by Papal infallibility and which aren’t. The entire mess just leads to confusion. How do we even know if the IC and the Assumption were infallibly-declared?

Then don’t misunderstand the doctrine.

Granted. But it’s still debatable if adding the Filioque in the first place violates the Second Ecumenical Council…

I pray that this is resolved, of course. Despite focusing here on the disagreements we have, my heart goes out to the Orthodox in a special way.

Amen. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So you took the mud that a poster threw and threw it back…hmmmm. So if you use mud already used by someone else, it’s not mudslinging…

I was not “mudslinging”, I was using the same language he used to prove a point. Of course I know the various Catholic Churches are not denominations. They are in fact organized in an almost identical fashion to the Orthodox Church with individual primates and self governing synods. The Catholic Church even has areas with overlapping ethnic jurisdictions just like we do. My point is that it is no more appropriate to call the various Orthodox jurisdictions denominations that it is to call the various Catholic jurisdictions denominations.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. The Early Fathers were mostly pagan before their baptisms/conversions. They used pagan thinking/philosophy to understand Christology, soteriology, and theology in general. I see nothing wrong with that at all. Augustine used his neo-platonic and manichean as well as rhetorical backgrounds as a means to not only understand Christianity but explain it.

Scholasticism is so often used almost as a vulgar word in here. Aristotle and Plato and the rest of the boys influenced Christianity in big ways without even knowing it. The Eastern Fathers grew up in a Hellenistic world highly-affected by Aristotle and company and it is just a reality that it has always helped us comprehend the mysteries of our Church. I see no problem with things like transubstantiation or terms like species and substance. I don’t have a problem with Aquinas’s great analysis of the five proofs of God or the metaphysics inspired by Aristotle that Aquinas appreciated. In fact, Aquinas was an intellectual titan and a real credit to the Church. I am honest enough to say that I don’t read Aquinas much because a) I lose my attention while reading him, he’s too deep for simple ole me and b) it doesn’t interest me enough because it’s just too laborious to read and I don’t have the patience! LOL

Hello Hesychios; Iam a bit surprised by your comment that the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox view "scholasticism as a source of doctrine?

Why would you incorrectly label “scholasticism” as a source of doctrine? since the Catholic Church has always viewed “scholasticism” as form of learning discipline, never a source of “doctrine”? How do you come to such a false idea that scholasticism is a source of doctrine?

St. Thomas Aquinas raised the scientific reasoning of the scholastic learning discipline from his Summa Theologia. St. Augustine introduced his classical method of logic by applying a form of scholasticism to the knowledge of God.

From St. Thomas Aquinas, this learning discipline (scholasticism) revolutionized morality in placing weight on the individual to judge for themselves, and that all people are different and required different disciplines in pursuit of virtue.

St. Bonaventure introduced another learning discipline in Catholicism, which placed a balance on the learning discipline of scholasticism in intellectualism by placing “Love and Devotion” as opposed to knowledge and science.

So does the Orthodox view St. Bonaventure’s learning disciplines as a source of doctrine? because these teaching disciplines are never a source of doctrine as you appear to mistaken them.

Because there are many more learning disciplines in the Catholic Church other than Scholasticism. Yet these all balance one another whenever they do not contradict the Apostolic faith.

In fact St. Thoma’s learning disciplines from scholasticism, are applied today by courtroom “trial” attorneys to discover “TRUTH” from their trials.

When do you ever find “Scholasticism” reaching to a status of doctrine or a source of doctrine that contradicts the apostolic faith?

Catholics don’t find it hard to grasp that the Patriarch is never a source of dogma or doctrine, because the office of Patriarch is only ecclesial, it is never an office instituted by God. Only the office of bishop, priest, deacon and Popes (Peter’s chair) are divinely instituted. All Apostolic successors are guardians of the Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you

 

[Shiranui117]

Catholics don’t find it hard to grasp that the Patriarch is never a source of dogma or doctrine, because the office of Patriarch is only ecclesial, it is never an office instituted by God. Only the office of bishop, priest, deacon and Popes (Peter’s chair) are divinely instituted. All Apostolic successors are guardians of the Apostolic faith.

The Pope counts as a separate office from that of a bishop? I’ve never heard of that before! Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[steve_b]

Hesychios,

:
Originally Posted by jam070406 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I disagree. I’ve heard scholars say that Islam did have an influence on Eastern thought. Especially in the idea of an inscrutable God. Especially when the Patriarch of Constantinople could be deposed at the whim of Muslim rulers.

Would you like to provide a reference?

From Bp Ware’s book “Orthodox Church” (link I provided), you’ll find this quote on the 1st page when you activate the link.

This issue of the patriarch was a result of the Millet system

:

Each new Patriarch required a berat from the Sultan before he could assume office, and for this document he was obliged to pay heavily. The Patriarch recovered his expenses from the episcopate, by exacting a fee from each bishop before instituting him in his diocese; the bishops in turn taxed the parish clergy, and the clergy
taxed their flocks. What was once said of the Papacy was certainly true of the Ecumenical Patriarchate under the Turks: everything was for sale. When there were several candidates for the Patriarchal throne, the Turks virtually sold it to
the highest bidder; and they were quick to see that it was in their financial interests to change the Patriarch as frequently as possible, so as to multiply occasions for selling the berat. Patriarchs were removed and reinstated with kaleidoscopic rapidity. .Out of 159 Patriarchs who have held office between the fifteenth and the twentieth century, the Turks have on 105 occasions driven Patriarchs from their throne; there have been 27 abdications, often involuntary; 6 Patriarchs have suffered violent deaths by hanging, poisoning, or drowning; and only 21 have died natural deaths while in office. (B. J. Kidd, The Churches of Eastern Christendom, London, 1927, p. 304). The same man sometimes held office on four or five different occasions, and there were usually several ex-Patriarchs watching restively in exile for a chance to return to the throne. The extreme insecurity of the Patriarch naturally gave rise to continual intrigues among the Metropolitans of the Holy Synod who hoped to succeed him, and the leaders of the Church were usually separated into bitterly hostile parties.

Hesychios:

I think that some people would love to blame the ways of Orthodoxy on “the Muslims” for their own reasons - it is such a convenient notion. But the fact is long before the time the Muslims conquered Constantinople these ideas had already been set, not all of Orthodoxy was under Muslim control at any time in history and even eastern Catholics today share the Orthodox position on scholasticism as a source of doctrine.

The fact is (this may be hard for Catholics to grasp), the patriarch is not a source of dogma or doctrine. He can’t change the way the church thinks. He is a custodian, like so many others in the church, we are all custodians of the faith.

If he (the patriarch) is just a custodian,

• why then was the patriarchate for sale?
• If the position is no big deal, why was it so important for Constantinople to be equal to the chair of Peter, Rome?
• If he’s just a custodian to you then I can see why you wouldn’t have any authority.

And THAT’s The problem I see with EO. No one is in charge in EO, because everone thinks they are in charge. Do you also think of your individual bishop as just a custodian also?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, the two are one, because the apostolic successor of Peter the bishop of Rome possesses the Keys of heaven with the authority to bind and loose divinely given to him singularly from Jesus himself while he walked the earth, Matthew 16: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

No other apostolic successor was given the keys to the kingdom of God singularly other than Peter.

As far as office, the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Rome, in matters pertaining to feeding, teaching the whole flock of Jesus (see John 21:15-17), the apostolic successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome sits on the chair of Peter, and speaks from the authority of Peter given to him with the keys and the authority to bind and loose from Jesus. Without Peter you have no Catholic “universal” Church.

I hope that helps your confusion.

The Pope counts as a separate office from that of a bishop? I’ve never heard of that before! Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios,

From Bp Ware’s book “Orthodox Church” (link I provided), you’ll find this quote on the 1st page when you activate the link.

I know that, that’s not what I wanted the reference to.

If he (the patriarch) is just a custodian, why then was the patriarchate for sale?

You just answered it, the millet system, which was a political office created by the Turks.

If the position is no big deal, why was it so important for Constantinople to be equal to the chair of Peter, Rome? I’m nt following you.

That’s a different subject. But all bishops are equal, Metropolitans and Patriarchs chair synods of bishops.

Why is it so important not to admit that?

The problem I see here is that there is no one in charge in EO, because everone thinks they are in charge.

In your dreams.

Christ is in charge.

Do you also think of your individual bishop as just a custodian also?

We are all custodians of the Faith - no one is excused from this duty.

If my bishop suggested a new dogma, I would adocate he step down. That’s my responsibility. Oddly enough, it works.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks gurneyhalleck, your comment has opened new doors for me, I forgot how the early Eastern side of Catholicism was so rich in Greek philosphies and thought, that took the monastics to such great heights in mysticism.

It is no wonder the patriarchs from the East could not phantom the thought of the Western Latin’s ever developing and maturing into such great heights as they did from their pagan Greek culture to wit such as Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas in reaching deeper into the mysteries of God, when their Greek philosophical understandings became stagnant and object to anyone reaching farther into the mysteries revealed by God, especially when heaven confirmed them in the west with signs and wonders from heaven.

Your commentary has great logic and reason to be applied on such debates such as “development of doctrine” is not change, but a greater and deeper understanding of the mysteries of God, not that, they attempt to define or exhaust a mystery of God, but these great minds from both East and West has helped us grow in better understanding of God in our lives in every age and ages to come.

Peace be with you, BTW, good to see you back again:thumbsup:

Agreed. The Early Fathers were mostly pagan before their baptisms/conversions. They used pagan thinking/philosophy to understand Christology, soteriology, and theology in general. I see nothing wrong with that at all. Augustine used his neo-platonic and manichean as well as rhetorical backgrounds as a means to not only understand Christianity but explain it.

Scholasticism is so often used almost as a vulgar word in here. Aristotle and Plato and the rest of the boys influenced Christianity in big ways without even knowing it. The Eastern Fathers grew up in a Hellenistic world highly-affected by Aristotle and company and it is just a reality that it has always helped us comprehend the mysteries of our Church. I see no problem with things like transubstantiation or terms like species and substance. I don’t have a problem with Aquinas’s great analysis of the five proofs of God or the metaphysics inspired by Aristotle that Aquinas appreciated. In fact, Aquinas was an intellectual titan and a real credit to the Church. I am honest enough to say that I don’t read Aquinas much because a) I lose my attention while reading him, he’s too deep for simple ole me and b) it doesn’t interest me enough because it’s just too laborious to read and I don’t have the patience! LOL

 

[Nicea325]

:

Technically, every Archdiocese is a separate Church.

Yes just like every Jack- in -Box is a separate franchise,yet still under coporate headquaters.

 

[Shiranui117]

No, the two are one, because the apostolic successor of Peter the bishop of Rome possesses the Keys of heaven with the authority to bind and loose divinely given to him singularly from Jesus himself while he walked the earth, Matthew 16: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

No other apostolic successor was given the keys to the kingdom of God singularly other than Peter.

As far as office, the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Rome, in matters pertaining to feeding, teaching the whole flock of Jesus (see John 21:15-17), the apostolic successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome sits on the chair of Peter, and speaks from the authority of Peter given to him with the keys and the authority to bind and loose from Jesus. Without Peter you have no Catholic “universal” Church.

I hope that helps your confusion.

What about John 20:19-23, where Jesus says that the rest of the Apostles have the same authority? All the Apostles received this authority, and therefore all the rest of the bishops have the same authority to bind and loose, forgive and retain, as what Christ gave to Peter. Otherwise, the Pope would be the only valid bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch also said, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) So it seems that St. Ignatius of Antioch based the Catholic Church on Christ, not on Peter. Paul seems to make a similar conclusion. In addition, 44 Fathers believed that Peter’s confession of who Christ was is the Rock, not necessarily Peter himself. I’ll need to find the source of that; I know I had it before.

 

[Nicea325]

A great number of RC parishes still do not offer the Precious Blood to the laity. Thats a fact. The beard thing, there is a good reason why one side has it, and the other doesn’t. It just calls for respect of tradition.

False. It is not a fact. Precious Blood not being offered at the Mass or a specific Mass is not the same as stating it is DENIED. Big difference. Show me a document stating the Precious Blood is to be denied to faithful?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL…but Jack the white-faced creepy-headed guy isn’t in charge! LOL

:

Yes just like every Jack- in -Box is a separate franchise,yet still under coporate headquaters.

 

[Nicea325]

What about John 20:19-23, where Jesus says that the rest of the Apostles have the same authority? All the Apostles received this authority, and therefore all the rest of the bishops have the same authority to bind and loose, forgive and retain, as what Christ gave to Peter. Otherwise, the Pope would be the only valid bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch also said, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) So it seems that St. Ignatius of Antioch based the Catholic Church on Christ, not on Peter. Paul seems to make a similar conclusion. In addition, 44 Fathers believed that Peter’s confession of who Christ was is the Rock, not necessarily Peter himself. I’ll need to find the source of that; I know I had it before.

And the RCC has never taught the Church is based on Peter,but on Christ because he alone founded the church. But what you forgot to mention is ONLY Peter alone received the keys.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At my parish we have some Masses where both species of the Eucharist are given. We also have several Masses where only the wafers are consecrated for the people and the priest reserves the consecrated Blood of Christ for himself and the deacons, etc. If one wants both, go to that Mass. If one is ok with the body and blood contained in the consecrated wafer Eucharist, then go to that Mass. That’s what I say. As you stated, I don’t know of any parishes or dioceses that don’t offer both?

False. It is not a fact. Precious Blood not being offered at the Mass or a specific Mass is not the same as stating it is DENIED. Big difference. Show me a document stating the Precious Blood is to be denied to faithful?

 

[Nicea325]

LOL…but Jack the white-faced creepy-headed guy isn’t in charge! LOL