Scholaticism controversy in Eastern Orthodox and Islam

[Hail_Linus]

On a recent post RAWB listed scholasticism as an issue that separates the Eastern Orthodox from the Catholic Church.

I was unfamiliar with this and it was a bit of a shock to me. One reason for the shock is that this was also a serious controversy for Sunni Muslims (90% of Islam). Despite our theological differences, Muslims were once very impressive intellectually. There was a group of Sunnis that were called Mu’tazilites who used the Wisdom of Greek Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle in much the same way as Catholics. As a result, this school of Muslim thought produced brilliant engineers, architects, mathematicians, etc. in what is referred to as their Golden Age.

Unfortunately, the opposing school, of thought of the Ash’arites, believed that the scholasticism of the Mu’tazilites was blasphemous. The Ash’arites persecuted and destroyed the Mu’tazilites right out of existence for this blasphemy. As a result, the intellectual brilliance of ISlam ended and now the world has to try to reason with Ash’arite Sunni Muslims that are unwilling or unable to reason (in the sense that the truth of a matter can be ascertained through logical reasoning).

I have two questions:

1. Is the Eastern Orthodox opinion on scholasticism a dogma. I personally use scholasticism in my theological studies and the Catholic Church has no authority to tell me that I cannot use my reasoning abilities. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox Christians are forbidden from using reason to contemplate Christianity?
2. What are the differences between the Ash’arite prohibition of scholasticism and the Eastern Orthodox prohibition of Scholasticism?
3. If any Muslims have any thoughts on this matter I would love to hear them.

 

[Hesychios]

1. Is the Eastern Orthodox opinion on scholasticism a dogma.

According to Wikipedia …
The terms “scholastic” and “scholasticism” derive from the Latin word scholasticus (Greek: σχολαστικός),[3] which means “that [which] belongs to the school.” The “scholastics” were, roughly, “schoolmen.”

According to the Free Online dictionary Scholasticism is (or was) …
The dominant western Christian theological and philosophical school of the Middle Ages, based on the authority of the Latin Fathers and of Aristotle and his commentators.

Apparently, the scholastic era lasted from sometime in the 11th century until sometime in the 15th century. This was the first 500 years after the Gregorian Reformation of the Catholic church and the great schism, so the new rage of scholastic learning affected the west when it had first cut itself lose from the Orthodox church.

The Greeks were well aware of scholastic reasoning, and used it all the time. The Arabs had to get their knowledge from somewhere . They got it from the Greek Christians.

I think it should be remembered that the Greek east did not go through a dark ages when the west (primarily Italy, France, Germany and Britain) did. The Greeks, Syrians and Copts remained intellectually vibrant throughout that period. The Arabs occupied Syria and Mesopotamia and employed eastern Christians (not just Greeks, but many different eastern Christians) as educators, translators and government administrators.

There began a vigorous trade in Greek books, and Christians often translated these books into Arabic. Some of this material was carted all the way to Moorish Spain because the market for books there was excellent. Spain did not go through a ‘dark ages’ like the rest of Europe, the Mozarabic Christians tended to be as literate as any other population outside of western Europe. It was from Spain that a lot of this material reached Gaul and sparked the scholastic age.

This scholastic ‘movement’ in the west though was something a bit different. It sought to resolve apparent contradiction and conundrums in their religion by using classical philosophy. The Greeks (whom were classically trained even throughout the Christian era) were careful to avoid introducing secular/pagan philosophical ideas into religion. They understood them, but tried not to affect the faith through these methods.

The Faith is a precious thing, very fragile, it is a revelation of God.

Philosophy (love of wisdom) is very useful for worldly things, it is the seminal science, but not to be a source of religious doctrine. It comes from the workings of the human mind.

I personally use scholasticism in my theological studies and the Catholic Church has no authority to tell me that I cannot use my reasoning abilities. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox Christians are forbidden from using reason to contemplate Christianity?

Presumably you have read planty of commentary and argument from Orthodox Christians here on CAF. Do you find that they do not use reasoning abilities?

 

[dzheremi]

It doesn’t seem that scholasticism is controversial to Eastern/Oriental Christians. The key is as Hesychios has put it. It does not inform their theology or practice as it has the Western churches.

 

[Bluegoat]

It would probably be useful to say what is meant by scholasticism.

I don’t think it would be accurate to say that anti-scholasticism is a dogma.

As far as my understanding of the Islamic situation is, the fundamentalist reading that excludes philosophy really does pretty much exclude it. I don’t think this is true in the Eastern Church, which also has a philosophical tradition. Rather, it sees pure intellectualism as below a mystical or experiential understanding of God, as God is understood to ultimately be above philosophical categories. OTOH, it doesn’t give mysticism without reason free reign. It might be more accurate to say it would like to unite reason and experience, and that although reason is ultimately surpassed, it is taken up rather than excluded.

I think this is not outside the Western tradition myself. If you read the Itinerarium Mentis In Deum, which was a work contemporary with scholasticism, I think it very much has the same approach. Yet I don’t think it is outside of reason.

And I think it is important to remember too that even in the West, scholasticism had problems; we sometimes forget that because the Thomistic approach is currently very popular in Catholicism. But that hasn’t always been the case since the medieval period, and there was a real backlash in the Church against scholastic theology. It’s important to consider whether that is because it was claiming more than it should or had some kind of fundamental inadequacy or incompleteness.

 

[Bluegoat]

This scholastic ‘movement’ in the west though was something a bit different. It sought to resolve apparent contradiction and conundrums in their religion by using classical philosophy. The Greeks (whom were classically trained even throughout the Christian era) were careful to avoid introducing secular/pagan philosophical ideas into religion. They understood them, but tried not to affect the faith through these methods.

I have heard Orthodox Christians say this a number of times, and I am very skeptical. When I read Eastern Christian texts I see just as much pagan Greek influence as I do in the West. Sometimes it seems like a lot more.

 

[Hail_Linus]

According to Wikipedia …
This scholastic ‘movement’ in the west though was something a bit different. It sought to resolve apparent contradiction and conundrums in their religion by using classical philosophy. The Greeks (whom were classically trained even throughout the Christian era) were careful to avoid introducing secular/pagan philosophical ideas into religion. They understood them, but tried not to affect the faith through these methods.

This is where I am confused. Catholic also believe they have been careful to “avoid introducing secular/pagan philosophical ideas into religion.” (It appears the Mu’tazilites felt that way to.) Do you have any specific examples?

Philosophy (love of wisdom) is very useful for worldly things, it is the seminal science, but not to be a source of religious doctrine. It comes from the workings of the human mind.
Presumably you have read plenty of commentary and argument from Orthodox Christians here on CAF. Do you find that they do not use reasoning abilities?

You and your fellow Eastern Orthodox on the forum do use your reasoning abilities which is why I am confused. BTW my best friend since childhood is a Greek Orthodox and him and his family are just as scholastic as me when it comes to religion.

Perhaps the big difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Ash’arite Sunni Muslims is in your response. Meaning you say you do not use scholasticism in religion but you do in science. Unfortunately, the religion of the Ash’arite also includes science.

Finally, I returned to Christianity and specifically Catholicism through philosophical reasoning, as do many others such as the great G.K. Chesterton. Should we be considered heretics?

 

[Bluegoat]

Finally, I returned to Christianity and specifically Catholicism through philosophical reasoning, as do many others such as the great G.K. Chesterton. Should we be considered heretics?

Have you ever read The Confessions? I am guessing you would say yes.

If so, you may remember that Augustine was a Platonist before he was a Christian, and as a Platonist who understood God through philosophy, he had a mystic vision. In the vision he saw God as if he was in a far away place that Augustine couldn’t reach.

This is very much in line with what Plotinus said was to be expected as far as union with the one. It was only for philosophers; it demanded intellectual and a sort of physical training in good habits; it was temporary; it might be achieved a few times in a life; and it was temporary. Ultimately, we were trapped in physical flesh, seperate from God. Even after death, the spirit would eventually be reincarnated.

After he became a Christian, Augustine had another mystical vision, one he shared with his mother, who was by no means a philosopher. In it he saw the City of God and there was a road to take him there, and it was a place one could dwell eternally.

The problem is not using philosophy to come to God. It is trying to contain God with philosophy. Something Thomas himself lamented on his death-bed.

 

[Hail_Linus]

The problem is not using philosophy to come to God. It is trying to contain God with philosophy. Something Thomas himself lamented on his death-bed.

I can agree with this completely.

And Yes, I read confession during my under grad years. I am currently listening to an audio version of it by my favorite narrator Simon Vance.

 

[Bluegoat]

I can agree with this completely.

And Yes, I read confession during my under grad years. I am currently listening to an audio version of it by my favorite narrator Simon Vance.

Nice! THere is so much stuff available now for listening, I really need to find the MP3 player I bought ages ago.

So, to carry on from that particular thought, I think the Eastern Church would say the Latin Catholic Church has at times tried to do the second thing - contain God with philosophy. So, for example, insisting on the idea of transubstantiation (though not o much these days I think) or even building too much onto ideas like an economic view of the Atonement. So taking these ideas that are a kind of scientific explanation of a mystery, or taking what is a sort of metaphor for a mystery and going beyond what we know through Scripture or tradition to build doctrines.

 

[Hesychios]

Finally, I returned to Christianity and specifically Catholicism through philosophical reasoning, as do many others such as the great G.K. Chesterton. Should we be considered heretics?

No, not at all.

Everyone is entitled to opinions. But dogma must come from apostolic teaching. Otherwise we get what I call ‘derivative’ theology.

In other words, “if A = B and B + 1 = C then …” doesn’t really work with religion.

For instance, the great dispute over Transubstantiation. It is based upon Aristotle’s (and Plato’s) theory of Forms and Substances (which I realize you know all about, so I will leave it at that). Luther, I gather, may have believed in it too but either he or other Christians posited a theory of Consubstantiation, again, based upon the aforementioned theories of Form and Substances. Now there is a division.

Orthodox don’t go down that path. and if pressed might agree to either theory (or both), but in fact it is too limiting. Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist, because Jesus of Nazareth told us so.

We don’t need a theory.

 

[Bluegoat]

No, not at all.

Everyone is entitled to opinions. But dogma must come from apostolic teaching. Otherwise we get what I call ‘derivative’ theology.

In other words, “if A = B and B + 1 = C then …” doesn’t really work with religion.

For instance, the great dispute over Transubstantiation. It is based upon Aristotle’s (and Plato’s) theory of Forms and Substances (which I realize you know all about, so I will leave it at that). Luther, I gather, may have believed in it too but either he or other Christians posited a theory of Consubstantiation, again, based upon the aforementioned theories of Form and Substances. Now there is a division.

Orthodox don’t go down that path. and if pressed might agree to either theory (or both), but in fact it is too limiting. Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist, because Jesus of Nazareth told us so.

We don’t need a theory.

Just to add to this - when we know that the dogma, even if it comes straight from the words of Scripture, is only an imperfect translation of something that is above human language and understanding, it would be very unwise to assume that we can always deduce or extrapolate or dissect it into something that is also valid and meaningful. Like if you are doing math with figures that have been rounded, you know over time the answers will get more and more wrong.

 

[dvdjs]

According to Wikipedia …
… scholastic learning affected the west when it had first cut itself lose from the Orthodox church.

Most of what you have written on this post turns real thinking about epistemology on its head. But it’s even more fun to see the historical revisionism in the “cut itself loose” stuff.

 

[dvdjs]

But dogma must come from apostolic teaching. Otherwise we get what I call ‘derivative’ theology. In other words, “if A = B and B + 1 = C then …” doesn’t really work with religion.

Why would you think that? I think instead that the coherence of faith and reason is a salient feature of Christiantiy, certain one that differentiates us from other religions
pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-361.htm It is a mistake to think that this represents the exclusive or best approach theology, but out confidence in the rationality of God is revelation, and had been a crucial compnent in sorting out the authentic Apostolic tradition from, for example, the gnostic writings of the early Christian era.

For instance, the great dispute over Transubstantiation. It is based upon Aristotle’s (and Plato’s) theory of Forms and Substances (which I realize you know all about, so I will leave it at that). Luther, I gather, may have believed in it too but either he or other Christians posited a theory of Consubstantiation, again, based upon the aforementioned theories of Form and Substances. Now there is a division.

Orthodox don’t go down that path. and if pressed might agree to either theory (or both), but in fact it is too limiting. Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist, because Jesus of Nazareth told us so.

The issue, was the cognitive dissonance between the statement of faith, and what our senses register. The idea of transubstantiation uses to concept of Aristotle to affirms the revealed truth notwithstanding what we see and taste.

I am happy to believe that no orthodox ever asked, if is so, why do our senses apprehend bread and wine? But I suspect that this question was asked and discussed. As to the idea that the concept of transubstantiation is divisive: it not inherent to the approach; people are clever enough that all concepts can be debated and become divisive if that what they want.

It should be acknowledged that the schoolmen ignited the western intellectual tradition that built on the ideas of antiquity, while the Greeks were stunted during the dark ages of the Ottoman empire, and spread that tradition throughout the world.

What is the controversy?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Very impressive thread, thank you all, I have gained more understanding from the Orthodox point of view.

Upon these discussions no one really addressed the question that rarely gets asked?

Why? “Scholasticism”. Is it used to defeat heresy and heretics on their own terms? Because this discipline is never binding on believers. Is scholasticism used to help the intellectuals grasp or enter the simple gospel message, which from its simplicity leaves the intellectuals in the dust who may be lacking the simple faith from the simple minded person.

Could scholasticism graduate the intellectual mind into the mysteries of faith, which “faith” always supersede the intellectual.

Scholasticism never hinders the faith of the faithful who hold to the simple gospel message. Although scholasticism can be a helpful tool to help the handicapped intellectual lacking the simple faith of the gospel to begin the faith.

Peace be with you

 

[Contarini]

On a recent post RAWB listed scholasticism as an issue that separates the Eastern Orthodox from the Catholic Church.

I was unfamiliar with this and it was a bit of a shock to me. One reason for the shock is that this was also a serious controversy for Sunni Muslims (90% of Islam). Despite our theological differences, Muslims were once very impressive intellectually. There was a group of Sunnis that were called Mu’tazilites who used the Wisdom of Greek Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle in much the same way as Catholics. As a result, this school of Muslim thought produced brilliant engineers, architects, mathematicians, etc. in what is referred to as their Golden Age.

Unfortunately, the opposing school, of thought of the Ash’arites, believed that the scholasticism of the Mu’tazilites was blasphemous. The Ash’arites persecuted and destroyed the Mu’tazilites right out of existence for this blasphemy. As a result, the intellectual brilliance of ISlam ended and now the world has to try to reason with Ash’arite Sunni Muslims that are unwilling or unable to reason (in the sense that the truth of a matter can be ascertained through logical reasoning).

An interesting comparison. However, many of the greatest Islamic thinkers lived after the defeat of the Mu’tazilites, so I question your chronology. The decisive turn away from philosophy happened a bit later (often identified with Al-Ghazali), and even then I believe there continued to be interesting theologians (particularly in the area of Sufi mysticism) whose work simply isn’t well known in the West.

1. Is the Eastern Orthodox opinion on scholasticism a dogma. I personally use scholasticism in my theological studies and the Catholic Church has no authority to tell me that I cannot use my reasoning abilities. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox Christians are forbidden from using reason to contemplate Christianity?

It’s not a dogma. It’s a commonly held opinion. Some Orthodox theologians are more scholastic than others–the Greeks tend to be more so, and the Russians more likely to condemn scholasticism.

Also, I wouldn’t simply identify Western scholasticism with “using reason.” There are many ways to use reason. The great Byzantine theologians certainly used reason, as did the Fathers long before the rise of scholasticism. By and large, the Byzantines seem to me to be using reason more in the manner of the Fathers than the Western scholastics were. But of course it’s unfair to lump all the scholastics together–Bonaventure is not Aquinas and Aquinas is not Ockham! (I list those three in order of decreasing agreement with the Fathers in both method and substance.)

1. What are the differences between the Ash’arite prohibition of scholasticism and the Eastern Orthodox prohibition of Scholasticism?

This is a good question. I think that a better analogy might be between Orthodoxy and Sufism. The triumph of the Ash’aris may have ensured that Islamic philosophy would be unable to find a place within orthodox thought, but the triumph of orthodox thought after Al-Ghazali seems to have been largely due to the mainstreaming of Sufism. There’s a big difference between the Sufi emphasis on God’s ineffable nature and on the love of God and the non-Sufi Ash’ari emphasis on God’s raw power, and the Orthodox seem to me to be more in keeping with the former than the latter.

I love and admire Aquinas, but by and large I find the Fathers, the earlier scholastics like Bonaventure, and the Byzantine theologians to be preferable in their theological methodology. I think that the centrality of Aquinas in Western Catholicism is somewhat unfortunate–he should be seen as a brilliant philosophical theologian with important insights, but I don’t think that the ordinary theological structures of the tradition should be based on him, as they often have been.

In other words, the present reality in Catholicism is that when people think of traditional Catholicism, they think Aquinas, with either the Eastern or the Bonaventurean traditions as acceptable alternatives–I’d like to see that reversed.

The ressourcement movement certainly did a lot to restore a right balance in my opinion, and it helps that the current Pope is very much a product of that movement. Neither the present nor the previous Pope have been Thomists. And of course I’d much prefer Thomism to many of the other Western alternatives. A Thomism richly informed by the Fathers and the Eastern tradition is a marvellous thing, in my opinion–but the neo-Thomism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries still seems to shape what many people think of as traditional Catholicism, even if they are reacting against it!

Edwin

 

[manualman]

We don’t need a theory.

Yes, but this doesn’t seem consistent with the way the Church preserved and articulated doctrine BEFORE the East - West schism. Jesus spoke a lot about the Father, the Holy Spirit and himself. But it was principled reasoning that lead to the definitions of the Trinity we have today, not a formula given directly by Christ or the apostles themselves.

By the principles you say you espouse, shouldn’t we have refrained from all those arguments about begotten versus made and so forth?

 

[Contarini]

Yes, but this doesn’t seem consistent with the way the Church preserved and articulated doctrine BEFORE the East - West schism. Jesus spoke a lot about the Father, the Holy Spirit and himself. But it was principled reasoning that lead to the definitions of the Trinity we have today, not a formula given directly by Christ or the apostles themselves.

By the principles you say you espouse, shouldn’t we have refrained from all those arguments about begotten versus made and so forth?

Those definitions were articulated in the face of heresy. So, of course, was the Filioque initially. The proper course was for the West to go to the East and say, “hey guys, we have a local problem in Spain with some Arians–I know you don’t have that problem any more, but we still do, and we’ve come up with this phrase which we’d like to put in the Creed just to make it clear that Jesus is fully divine. We don’t see any problems with it–do you?”

The Universal Church does not need the Filioque to express the divinity of the Son. This is admitted by the Catholic Church in virtue of the fact that you don’t make Eastern Catholics use it. Why then do Western Christians still use the Filioque long after the local heresy it was originally designed to addressed has died out? Because Western Trinitarianism is theory-driven rather than apophatic. That’s the Eastern argument, and I think it holds water.

I’ve just finished reading Aquinas’s discussion of the Trinity in the Summa, and Aquinas exemplifies the Western approach as criticized by the East. His treatment is brilliant, but he tries to deduce Trinitarianism from certain logical principles, and in my opinion this just doesn’t work.

(Note: I know of course that Aquinas thought the Trinity was one of those things you needed revelation to know. But his general methodology leads him still to treat the Trinity as something that can be worked out symmetrically given certain principles.)

Edwin

 

[manualman]

But they WERE articulated. That’s my point (not how the filioque should have been handled, and you have a good point there). My reaction was to Michael’s (seeming)assertion that EO don’t believe there is a need to separate out good deductions from bad ones when the discernment is past the death of the last apostle. Seems to me that much of the argument and discernment about the way the doctrine of the Trinity was finalized occurred well after the apostolic period.

My question to him is “Is this ‘no theories’ approach consistent EO principle or only since the schism?” The history of Trinitarian doctrine seems (to my amatuer eyes) to imply the latter.

 

[JohnVIII]

Scholaticism, my second spiritual father taught me, will always be a part of who I am because I was born in the West and that is a part of the heritage of Westerners, but in matters of the faith I was instructed to never trust my own reasoning as this part of the mind is the most affected by the fall of Adam.

I use reasoning all the time on this forum about all sorts of spiritual and/or religious matters, but I do not consider any of what I say or think to be profitable to me spiritually until I am humbled by being corrected in my errors by my brethren.

 

[Nooj]

On a recent post RAWB listed scholasticism as an issue that separates the Eastern Orthodox from the Catholic Church.

I was unfamiliar with this and it was a bit of a shock to me. One reason for the shock is that this was also a serious controversy for Sunni Muslims (90% of Islam). Despite our theological differences, Muslims were once very impressive intellectually. There was a group of Sunnis that were called Mu’tazilites who used the Wisdom of Greek Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle in much the same way as Catholics. As a result, this school of Muslim thought produced brilliant engineers, architects, mathematicians, etc. in what is referred to as their Golden Age.

Unfortunately, the opposing school, of thought of the Ash’arites, believed that the scholasticism of the Mu’tazilites was blasphemous. The Ash’arites persecuted and destroyed the Mu’tazilites right out of existence for this blasphemy. As a result, the intellectual brilliance of ISlam ended and now the world has to try to reason with Ash’arite Sunni Muslims that are unwilling or unable to reason (in the sense that the truth of a matter can be ascertained through logical reasoning).

The wisdom of the Greeks also lead to such theological amalgations as the world being uncreated and eternal. Of course the ‘orthodox’ Islamic theologians called this heresy, wouldn’t you?