That’s possible. This isn’t my area of expretise. However, I have no doubt that MODERN EO polemics like to exaggerate differences where there are none. I wonder when Thomism became anathema among the EO. Or perhaps polemical EO’xy is simply not representative of true EO’xy.
That’s cool!My son wants some “funny faces” on this post:
I for one completely agree with that priest. “Thomism” as written by St. Thomas Aquinas (if it can really be called Thomism at all, since really he was more of a pan-Patristic theologian who used Aristotlean terminology) was actually heavily influenced by Eastern Fathers, perhaps moreso than any other Latin theologian in history.The priest at the first UGCC I went to was a Dominican. He is an American with a Ukrainian surname. He says that Thomism is closer to Byzantine theology than the later Thomists made Thomism out to be.
My son wants some “funny faces” on this post:
Hi Ghosty,I for one completely agree with that priest. “Thomism” as written by St. Thomas Aquinas (if it can really be called Thomism at all, since really he was more of a pan-Patristic theologian who used Aristotlean terminology) was actually heavily influenced by Eastern Fathers, perhaps moreso than any other Latin theologian in history.
Later Thomists turned his writings into a systematic thing, and approached questions from a much different angle than St. Thomas himself (he was big on contemplative prayer and meditation, and could be considered a mystic with a knack for utilizing philosophical and scientific terminology to express mystical reality).
That being said, I also think Mardukm’s point has merit. Thomism, and Scholasticism in general, was a big hitter in Eastern Orthodox theology until the Neo-Palamite movement of the past century or so.
Personally I have no problems rectifying to the two theological approaches, and I find them much easier to reconcile than most other Latin approaches and Eastern Orthodoxy (many great Eastern Orthodox theologians felt the same way, which is why the Summa was translated into Greek after the big breach post-Council of Florence.
Now I should read the article!
Peace and God bless!
The article actually has some great examples. I think another one that immediately comes to mind is the Confession of Dositheus at the Council of Jerusalem. It was certainly scholastic and considered a benchmark of Orthodoxy at the time, but strangely lost much of its lustre among modern EO’xy. The anti-Thomist movement seems to be a rather late development within EO’xy. It seems polemicists want to rewrite the history of EO’xy for their own gain. As I stated earlier, I have to wonder if polemical EO’xy is actually representative of true and historic EO’xy.
I second Mardukm’s recommendation to check out the article, which I just finished. It gives a handful of examples, such as the one I mentioned before of Aquinas’ works being translated into Greek by the Patriarch of Constantinople, post-Florence. It also gives examples of various Athonite theologians utilizing Aquinas in their arguments against Muslims and pagans.
Interesting. Very interesting to me since I am likely to go Eastern and I most definately a Thomist - at least on predestination.
When looking closely, I have noticed that “Thomist”, "Scholastic, and “Latin” all get used pretty interchangeably - without real reference to their original meanings - in most polemic lit I have read. One would think every “Latin” is a “Scholastic”… but even what THAT would mean…? Honestly, as far as I can gather, it is ultimately just shorthand for most writers who are meaning to say “Those lousy Catholics”… Call someone a “scholastic” long enough, see what happens.
Interesting article. I tend to agree with the points of it, especially that Aquinas actually serves as a bridge between East and West. His reliance on Greek Fathers, almost the detriment of the Latin Fathers, is very obvious for those of us who study the Summas directly.