B
Bluegoat
Guest
One of my university profs wrote a book on the topic; he suggests that Aquinas was very influenced by Proclus too.
- Status
J
Joel_PF
Guest
As I said, no-one in the West (no orthodox writer at least) has ever said that union with God is achieved by “more reasoning and accumulation of knowledge through the senses”. That is a false caricature created by modern EOs. Look at the Fathers of the Church; they were perhaps more prone to intellectual and abstract reasoning than the scholastics of the Middle Ages. All the trinitarian and christological dogmas were only settled after much intellectual discussion.
That’s the difference right there: a Catholic would never think of reason as snake venom; something in itself harmful but which may, on some occasions, be put to good use.
St. Thomas never denied that. He said precisely that in his Summas. His comment means that the best efforts of human reason, even when aided by Faith and grace, are not enough to comprehend the infinite reality of God.
Reason is a positive help to the ascetic struggle (which is itself not an end, but a means to the soul’s union with God); and the ascetic struggle a positive help to rational thought (which is also not an end in itself, but a means). The Orthodox East has lost this, and now tries to parade this loss as a mark of its spiritual superiority.
F
fons_vitae
Guest
I agree entirely. To the jaded modern, both the early Fathers and later Scholastics would be seen as wrangling about obscure philosophical subjects, regardless of whether their paradigm was Platonic or Aristotelian.
F
fons_vitae
Guest
A reasonable distinction, even if reason is apparently like snake venom to some people. :S
J
Joel_PF
Guest
I myself have no great love for scholasticism in itself. In fact, my appreciation for St. Thomas led me to see how he overcame the weaknesses of scholasticism. I imagine the same would hold true for St. Bonaventure, whose writings are very mystically inclined.
Scholasticism does have one big good side: it focuses on the arguments and the positions. Counter-arguments are given, the author tries to refute them, state his own position and show how it is in keeping with the tradition of the Church. A tradition which is, however, by no means univocal. After all, how did scholasticism begin in the first place? With Abelard’s (a man of genius, though often rash and proud) publication of Sic et Non, which showed how, on so many points, there were disagreements between the Church Fathers. From his day on, it has been impossible to speak of “The Fathers” as being of one opinion on everything. One always has to say which Fathers thought so, because there are probably others who disagreed. And their disagreements were, as we know, sometimes bitter (St. Jerome and St. Basil come to mind).
Now, scholasticism led itself to a loss of philosophical and theological insight in favor of mere intellectual structure and terminology. Aquinas did not suffer from this; he was always dealing with reality, using words even in a loose manner when necessary to better make his point clear and show people what he is trying to say. He did pay, perhaps, a somewhat excessive regard to the authority of Aristotle, but also disagreed with him on many occasions. This is similar, I’d say, to the respect payed by Christians to Neo-platonic thought in the early centuries of the Church. Once one gets past the different vocabulary and structure of his writings, they become an easy and enlightening read.
Scholasticism does have one big good side: it focuses on the arguments and the positions. Counter-arguments are given, the author tries to refute them, state his own position and show how it is in keeping with the tradition of the Church. A tradition which is, however, by no means univocal. After all, how did scholasticism begin in the first place? With Abelard’s (a man of genius, though often rash and proud) publication of Sic et Non, which showed how, on so many points, there were disagreements between the Church Fathers. From his day on, it has been impossible to speak of “The Fathers” as being of one opinion on everything. One always has to say which Fathers thought so, because there are probably others who disagreed. And their disagreements were, as we know, sometimes bitter (St. Jerome and St. Basil come to mind).
Now, scholasticism led itself to a loss of philosophical and theological insight in favor of mere intellectual structure and terminology. Aquinas did not suffer from this; he was always dealing with reality, using words even in a loose manner when necessary to better make his point clear and show people what he is trying to say. He did pay, perhaps, a somewhat excessive regard to the authority of Aristotle, but also disagreed with him on many occasions. This is similar, I’d say, to the respect payed by Christians to Neo-platonic thought in the early centuries of the Church. Once one gets past the different vocabulary and structure of his writings, they become an easy and enlightening read.
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
I don’t necessarily, he did, and the conversation never got that far. I really didn’t press him on it.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Madaglan,
Have you ever read any of the Catholic Church’s Magisterial teachings against modernist Rationalism? They present a very balanced, very patristic use of Reason in relation to Faith that fairly blows away anything the EO have come up with on the matter.
It is true that the West is more intellectual and rational than the East, but for any Eastern to claim that it uses Reason so differently from the West is pure triumphalistic baloney. I’ve never come across any solid examples from polemic Easterns to back up such claims. Really, it’s not that the West overuses Reason, but simply that the West’s use of Reason has led to a different theological phrenoma than the East’s own use of Reason.
Blessings,
Marduk
ISTM these are just empty platitudes. Can you give us some concrete examples of how the West is “rationalistic” whereas the East is not? How is the East’s use of Reason different from the West’s? Please help me understand. For example, from my own perspective as an Oriental, the Easterns can easily be accused of rationalizing away the Trinity with its Essence/Energy distinction. It seems to me the Latin principle of God as simple is much more apophatic than the Eastern treatment of the Trinity.
Have you ever read any of the Catholic Church’s Magisterial teachings against modernist Rationalism? They present a very balanced, very patristic use of Reason in relation to Faith that fairly blows away anything the EO have come up with on the matter.
It is true that the West is more intellectual and rational than the East, but for any Eastern to claim that it uses Reason so differently from the West is pure triumphalistic baloney. I’ve never come across any solid examples from polemic Easterns to back up such claims. Really, it’s not that the West overuses Reason, but simply that the West’s use of Reason has led to a different theological phrenoma than the East’s own use of Reason.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Great question. I think a fair consideration of your question will reveal that the East can’t really accuse the West of overintelllectualizing or overphilosophizing. The West is definitely more intellectual and more rational than the East, but accusing the West did “too much” of it really has no objective basis in fact. The fact is, the Western approach does fill a spiritual need for certain Christians, while the Eastern approach equally does the same. To claim that the West is wrong and the East is right, and vice-versa is just triumphalistic hogwash. There has been a good measure and constant Tradition of intellectualism in the East, just as there has been a good measure and constant Tradition of mysticism in the West, so it’s bogus for one side or the other to accuse the other of any error in this regard.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Western theology, however, has differentiated itself from Eastern Orthodox theology. Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character. In the West [after the Carolingian “Renaissance”], scholastic theology evolved, which is antithetical to the Orthodox Tradition. Western theology is based on rational thought whereas Orthodoxy is hesychastic. Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. Characteristic of such an approach is the saying of Anselm [Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109, one of the first after the Norman Conquest and destruction of the Old English Orthodox Church]: “I believe so as to understand.” The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by theoria* and experience the Revelation of God.
Scholastic theology reached its culminating point in the person of Thomas Aquinas, a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. He claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the Existence of God. Supernatural truths - such as the Triune God, the incarnation of the Logos, the resurrection of the bodies - cannot be proven philosophically, yet they cannot be disproven. Scholasticism linked theology very closely with philosophy, even more so with metaphysics. As a result, faith was altered and scholastic theology itself fell into complete disrepute when the “idol” of the West - metaphysics - collapsed. Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues.
The Holy Fathers teach that natural and metaphysical categories do not exist but speak rather of the created and uncreated. Never did the Holy Fathers accept Aristotle’s metaphysics. However, it is not my intent to expound further on this. Theologians of the West during the Middle Ages considered scholastic theology to be a further development of the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and from this point on, there begins the teaching of the Franks that scholastic theology is superior to that of the Holy Fathers. Consequently, Scholastics, who are occupied with reason, consider themselves superior to the Holy Fathers of the Church. They also believe that human knowledge, an offspring of reason, is loftier than Revelation and experience.
It is within this context that the conflict between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam should be viewed. Barlaam was essentially a scholastic theologian who attempted to pass on scholastic theology to the Orthodox East.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx
Scholastic theology reached its culminating point in the person of Thomas Aquinas, a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. He claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the Existence of God. Supernatural truths - such as the Triune God, the incarnation of the Logos, the resurrection of the bodies - cannot be proven philosophically, yet they cannot be disproven. Scholasticism linked theology very closely with philosophy, even more so with metaphysics. As a result, faith was altered and scholastic theology itself fell into complete disrepute when the “idol” of the West - metaphysics - collapsed. Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues.
The Holy Fathers teach that natural and metaphysical categories do not exist but speak rather of the created and uncreated. Never did the Holy Fathers accept Aristotle’s metaphysics. However, it is not my intent to expound further on this. Theologians of the West during the Middle Ages considered scholastic theology to be a further development of the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and from this point on, there begins the teaching of the Franks that scholastic theology is superior to that of the Holy Fathers. Consequently, Scholastics, who are occupied with reason, consider themselves superior to the Holy Fathers of the Church. They also believe that human knowledge, an offspring of reason, is loftier than Revelation and experience.
It is within this context that the conflict between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam should be viewed. Barlaam was essentially a scholastic theologian who attempted to pass on scholastic theology to the Orthodox East.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx
D
dcointin
Guest
Could you provide evidence of this assertion?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Mickey,
Thank you for presenting this here.
I only have a working knowledge of Scholasticism, but whoever wrote this is misrepresenting several things about Scholasticism, not to mention Catholicism (if one reads that link, it’s full of erroneous claims about Latin Catholic theology).
I hope someone more versed in Scholasticism will do us a favor and correct the errors of this caricature provided by brother Mickey. I’ll attempt a correction later if no others are forthcoming.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for presenting this here.
I only have a working knowledge of Scholasticism, but whoever wrote this is misrepresenting several things about Scholasticism, not to mention Catholicism (if one reads that link, it’s full of erroneous claims about Latin Catholic theology).
I hope someone more versed in Scholasticism will do us a favor and correct the errors of this caricature provided by brother Mickey. I’ll attempt a correction later if no others are forthcoming.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
LOL! I am sure you will try. I believe it is you that often provide caricatures with your odd theories of multiple petrine levels and such. I am more apt to listen to the explanation of the Metropolitan.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I’m not sure I really agree with all of this, particularly I find a tendency in general in the East to mis-characterize Anselm. And the East was very much influenced by neoplatonism, and the neoplattonists were Aristotelian as much as Platonist, so I don’t think we can say they did not incorporate Aristotle.
But I do think that part of the issue with the medieval Western Church was the tendency to think they were getting better, more in-depth, understandings of theological issues. Which is why they sought to dogmatize ideas like transubstantiation. It is one thing to talk about ideas in a new way and another to make particular definitions dogmatic.
I’m also not sure about whether it is entirely the case that the West became too dependent on intellectual Christianity. There have been a number of movements which were kind of anti-scholastic, and which posit faith as the only way to know God, as well as apophatic strains of thought, and mysticism. So while I think there has been a sort of imbalance, I’m not really sure why that has happened, and I can’t quite put my finger on it.
I wonder if it may be more the focus on having a particular “right” answer in the West, rather than on all members of he CHurch being part of the Tradition. Which relates to the polity of East vs West, and might tend to lead to a tendency to intemperance, whether it be intellectualism, or fundamentalism, or something else.
5
5Loaves
Guest
One can count on finding “extreme views” (as I have heard both Catholic and Orthodox refer to Orthodox Christian Information Center) there.
They do tend to present inaccurate understandings of Catholic teachings, has there ever been anything accurate about Catholics there… but then again I hear plenty of Catholics here and elsewhere who make equally odd and inaccurate different claims about Catholic teachings.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Mickey’s post on the development of scholasticism fairly well sums up my own experience.
Even in the West, there have been struggles against the spirit of rationalism (e.g. St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Cistercians versus Abelard and the schoolmen)
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Something that has concerned me about Orthodoxy is the reluctance toward development of ideas. For example, as Meghan pointed out, Anselm is frequently mischaracterized, but moreover, did Anselm create a new atonement viewpoint out of thin air? I go back and read some quotes from the Fathers, especially from Augustine, that sound substitutionary and related to God’s honor in the sacrifice. Anselm also appealed to Scripture, prayer, and reason. At what point do the Orthodox say things stay stagnant? Third Century? Fourth? Fifth? Eighth? At what point are things “set” theologically and with soteriology where we consider something innovative and a deviation from orthodox establishment? When is the establishment established? 
I recognize that excessive innovation is dangerous and can take our faith and piety off course into unecessary tributaries but I also know that trying to understand our journey better isn’t always a bad thing. In my observations of both parties, it seems sometimes that Catholics are far too quick to innovate, develop, and draw conclusions throwing in some circular reasoning. The Orthodox are very fixed in their ways and do not want to move past a certain point. In the end, the Catholic thinking has served them less than the Orthodox way has served them. With all the liturgical abuse and loss of piety and tradition in the Mass perhaps this is evidence that too much innovation and open-mindedness isn’t necessarily a good thing!
I recognize that excessive innovation is dangerous and can take our faith and piety off course into unecessary tributaries but I also know that trying to understand our journey better isn’t always a bad thing. In my observations of both parties, it seems sometimes that Catholics are far too quick to innovate, develop, and draw conclusions throwing in some circular reasoning. The Orthodox are very fixed in their ways and do not want to move past a certain point. In the end, the Catholic thinking has served them less than the Orthodox way has served them. With all the liturgical abuse and loss of piety and tradition in the Mass perhaps this is evidence that too much innovation and open-mindedness isn’t necessarily a good thing!
M
Mickey
Guest
I beg to disagree. I think they are quite accurate most of the time.
M
Mickey
Guest
Secular theology, which is a function of scholasticism, manifests itself in several ways today, too. I would like to point out a few.
One is the way we base the entire mode of theology on reason and thought. We think about the orthodox faith, we rationalize about the truths of faith or we simply form a history of theology. We have almost reached the point of viewing theology as a philosophy about God, ignoring the whole therapeutic method of our Church.
Another way of experiencing varlaamism and scholasticism is the fact that we have limited theology to esthetics. We have made it esthetics. We might write several books and undertake long analyses on orthodox art, study the schools of iconography, accept the great value of Byzantine art, while simultaneously treating with contempt and overlooking ascesis, the hesychastic method which is the foundation of every orthodox art. Purification, illumination, and divinization is the basis of all the Orthodox Church’s arts and acts and mysteries….
Overall, when our theology is not tied to the so-called hesychastic life, when it is not ascetic, then it is secular, it is scholastic theology, it is varlaamist theology – even if we seem to be fighting western theology and struggle to be orthodox.
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos
One is the way we base the entire mode of theology on reason and thought. We think about the orthodox faith, we rationalize about the truths of faith or we simply form a history of theology. We have almost reached the point of viewing theology as a philosophy about God, ignoring the whole therapeutic method of our Church.
Another way of experiencing varlaamism and scholasticism is the fact that we have limited theology to esthetics. We have made it esthetics. We might write several books and undertake long analyses on orthodox art, study the schools of iconography, accept the great value of Byzantine art, while simultaneously treating with contempt and overlooking ascesis, the hesychastic method which is the foundation of every orthodox art. Purification, illumination, and divinization is the basis of all the Orthodox Church’s arts and acts and mysteries….
Overall, when our theology is not tied to the so-called hesychastic life, when it is not ascetic, then it is secular, it is scholastic theology, it is varlaamist theology – even if we seem to be fighting western theology and struggle to be orthodox.
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos
D
dcointin
Guest
Why would you listen to an Orthodox theologian’s teachings about Catholicism, rather than a Catholic’s teaching about Catholicism? Would you advise a Catholic to learn about Orthodoxy by speaking to a Catholic theologian? In my experience most people in either church hold a biased and erroneous opinion about the other, which makes sense given the divisive history between them.LOL! I am sure you will try. I believe it is you that often provide caricatures with your odd theories of multiple petrine levels and such. I am more apt to listen to the explanation of the Metropolitan.
M
Mickey
Guest
I posted an Orthodox Metropolitan’s view of scholasticism and how it relates to Holy Orthodoxy. I agree with him. I have read “Catholic theologian” views on scholasticism and I am not convinced–even when I was Roman Catholic.
There is no need for you to become agitated.
- Status