Neilos and Nicholas Cabasilas

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I ran across this thread:
monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5314-Was-St-Nicholas-Cabasilas-Orthodox-or-heretic

In it the OP found some information that suggest Nicholas Cabasilas
A. Had some issues with Athonite Hesychasm
B. Converted to Roman Catholicism.

Are these claims substantiated?

Also is there any truth that his uncle Neilos Cabasilas commissioned translations of Aquinas’ works into Greek? What did the Late-Byzantine Church know about the Thomists and Scholastics?

 

[Mojo674]

Although I don’t have much time to research, from my understanding Nicholas Cabasilas ardently supported the Athonites and the Hesychastic movement while opposing union with Roman Catholicism. Therefore I would say that he probably didn’t become Roman due to the fact that he is also not considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, even though most Easterners revere him and consider him a saint due to tradition and taking an Orthodox viewpoint. By taking a quick looksy I would say that you should follow what the 3rd poster says of “don’t believe you everything you read on the internet,” then the poster later puts up “do you have any reputable sources to back your information.” Personally from the quick take I took his sources are clearly outdated, wrong, or taken from a Roman perspective to try to say that he actually ‘loved union’ and even ‘converted.’ Just because a person incorporates an idea by Aquinas does not make him Roman nor does that mean that Cabasilas took a totally different approach on the suspected idea. For instance just look at the differences in Eastern and Western theology/spirituality, although they share an idea they might also be depicted or understood through concepts that are light years away from the other sides approach. Even then they both don’t always come to the same conclusion either.

 

[Hesychios]

I have read the ‘Commentary on the Divine Liturgy’ by Nicholas Cabasilas, and although this was years ago I recall that it was harshly critical of the Latin church practices in one section. From that alone I would never have imagined the possibility that he may have converted in his lifetime.

Of course, I have read almost the same harsh level of criticism from Catholics themselves in the Traditional Catholicism section, so I guess one cannot assume too much.

But considering the fact that his books (in translation and in Greek) are still in circulation hundreds of years after his death (and sold in Orthodox bookstalls and websites) and this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing, I would say that it must be a case of mistaken identity, or a mistake of some other sort.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

St Nicholas Cabasilas’ liturgical work, although accepted as completely Orthodox by the East, was praised loudly by Roman Catholic theologians as “solid.”

What is particularly fascinating about his perspective is the emphasis he places on the “Heart of Christ.” And so much so that St Vladimir’s Seminary felt obliged to do an exegesis of this aspect of his work to counterdistinguish it from the “devotioni to the Sacred Heart of Jesus” in the West.

There is nothing but great patristic “stuff” in his work!

When John Wesley was once preaching, a person in the crowd heard him place emphasis on fasting and alms-giving (i.e. “works”). At this he cried out, “Why, the man is a papist!!”

There was a Jesuit in the crowd at the time, and he immediately spoke up and said, “He is not. Although I wish he were . . .”

The same can be said of Cabasilas. “He was not” a Roman Catholic, although there were those who undoubtedly “wished he were.”

His father did have the works of Aquinas published - but Aquinas was popular in Greek Orthodoxy and there were those who even privately venerated “Blessed Thomas” and tried to explain his stand on the Filioque as something owed to his personal circumstances of where he was born . . .

I don’t know why Roman Catholics and Orthodox aren’t united by now. There is much in both traditions that is equally ridiculous!

Sorry . . .

Alex

 

[Cecilianus]

I remember seeing St. Nicholas Cabasilas’ Life in Christ quoted by John Paul II - I think it was his Letter to Artists - though this was alongside quotes from contemporary Orthodox writers. It’s been three years so my memory might not be infallible on that, but it struck me at the time as a confirmation of his acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church (as worthy of being read, if not as a canonized saint).

There is a lot of information elsewhere on these forums and the internet about the translation of the works of St. Thomas into Greek, both by stauch anti-unionist (Gennadios Scholarios) and by unionists (Demetrios Kydones). In short, the Greeks were very familiar with him, and their views on him did not necessarily follow anti-unionist or pro-unionist lines. This continued past the fall of the Byzantine Empire among later Byzantine theologians, like Nicolaos Boulgaris who very frequently quotes “the Schoolmen” (always St. Thomas) in his Divine and Sacred Catechism, or Explanation of the Divine Liturgy.