Why be an Eastern Catholic and not an Orthodox Christian?

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I gotta say I’m not really understanding some of the distinctions being made in this thread. God’s “fingerprints” are somehow something removed from God? Faith and theology are separate? I think I need to lay down for a while.

 

[Ghosty]

Mickey: Metropolitan Vlachos, respected or not, does not give a definition of Scholasticism that has any value. He is being polemical only, and I asked for non-polemical examples.

As for my statement about fingerprints of God, that has nothing to do with approaching God, but rather seeing how the world itself bears witness tothe Creator. We ourselves bear the Divine Image in our nature, and all creation can be seen through reason to be the handiwork of God. This notion is entirely Scriptural and Patristic; Scholasticism simply tries to express this Truth in an orderly way, following in the footsteps of St. John of Damascus who wrote the first “summa”. Have you read his work and his logical, natural argument for God? It is a critical piece of Eastern theology that should eradicate any notion that rational setting forth of logical, natural arguments for theological truths is anathema to orthodoxy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Yeah, I gotta say I’m not really understanding some of the distinctions being made in this thread. God’s “fingerprints” are somehow something removed from God? Faith and theology are separate? I think I need to lay down for a while.

When you touch something you leave a fingerprint. The print isn’t you, but it is a sign of you and it bears witness to you in its own way. If you see a fingerprint you know someone was there, and you know something, however slight, about their actions. You don’t come to know them by looking at their fingerprints, but you can know of them, and maybe even a bit about them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Metropolitan Vlachos, respected or not, does not give a definition of Scholasticism that has any value. He is being polemical only

I am sorry Ghosty, but I do not believe he is being “polemical” (a word that is thrown around too often to dismiss valid statements). I believe his statements are accurate.

As for my statement about fingerprints of God, that has nothing to do with approaching God

Sure it does. For the human mind to know the “fingerprint” of God would indicate approaching God in a particular way.

Scholasticism simply tries to express this Truth in an orderly way,

What is wrong with the Scriptural and Patristic way? Is it not orderly?

It is a critical piece of Eastern theology that should eradicate any notion that rational setting forth of logical, natural arguments for theological truths is anathema to orthodoxy.

Who has such a notion? I am simply questioning the aristotelian/scholastic tendencies of the Thomistic mindset.

Is it accurate to say that Aquinas understands God in Aristotelian fashion by arguing that God is understood by the intellect rather than the senses.

 

[Mickey]

When you touch something you leave a fingerprint. The print isn’t you

If you leave a bit of DNA behind—it is.

 

[Mickey]

I think I need to lay down for a while.

Ditto!

 

[Joel_PF]

To all members who dislike “scholasticism”: when you believe in something, and that something is important to you, do you care to know more about it, and to know better the reasons you may have for having that belief?

If you do, then reason matters for you, and scholasticism is vindicated. If you don’t, if you prefer to accept something because it feels good, or because it has been authoritatively asserted, or because that belief comes wrapped in beautiful and moving ritual, then “scholasticism” (make no mistake: this means simply the use of reason; anything else will be true of some scholastics and not of others) isn’t for you. And the pursuit of truth is also not for you.

For all talk of purifying the “nous” and deriding reason, I think for many that may only cloud their own unquestioned wishful thinking and feelings, which can, and indeed do happen, in all kinds of different religions. It is indeed the very objection raised by early protestants against the Church.

 

[Joel_PF]

What is wrong with the Scriptural and Patristic way? Is it not orderly?

Were the Fathers infallible? And were they in unanimous agreement over all issues? Over most issues?

Who has such a notion? I am simply questioning the aristotelian/scholastic tendencies of the Thomistic mindset.

Are you aware of the neo-platonic influence of much patristic writings? What is wrong with having an influence, provided it leads to the truth?

Is it accurate to say that Aquinas understands God in Aristotelian fashion by arguing that God is understood by the intellect rather than the senses.

By your wording, of course it is true. The senses do not understand anything; they experience. Can God be experienced? Of course. In a limited way. Can He be understood? Also yes, to a limited extent. Know this, however: mere bookish learning doesn’t make one understand or know God; that’s what Aquinas said.
On the other hand, an anti-rational attachment to feelings and senses is also not a good path to Him.

 

[Mickey]

Were the Fathers infallible?

That is irrelevant.

What is wrong with having an influence, provided it leads to the truth?

Christ is the influence. Christ is the truth.

The senses do not understand anything; they experience. Can God be experienced? Of course.

A true theologian experiences God.

mere bookish learning doesn’t make one understand or know God; that’s what Aquinas said.

Yes. I believe near the end of his life he referred to his “Summa” as “straw”.

 

[Mickey]

For all talk of purifying the “nous” and deriding reason, I think for many that may only cloud their own unquestioned wishful thinking and feelings

Huh?

 

[Ghosty]

I am sorry Ghosty, but I do not believe he is being “polemical” (a word that is thrown around too often to dismiss valid statements). I believe his statements are accurate.

His statements have nothing to do with Scholasticism. Show me one Scholastic theologian who held any of the views he calls “scholastic”. He confuses propositions with methodology, and yet even the propositions he mentions weren’t held by any theologians who followed the Scholastic methodology.

Sure it does. For the human mind to know the “fingerprint” of God would indicate approaching God in a particular way.

It is simply approaching God’s effects. This much is attested to by St. Paul when he says that all creation testifies to God.

What is wrong with the Scriptural and Patristic way? Is it not orderly?

There’s nothing wrong with those approaches (though Scholasticism is indeed Scriptural in that it is fully subordinated to Scriptural revelation), but they are not orderly at all. The Fathers in particular were prone to meandering arguments, repetition, and convoluted language that often led to apparent self-contradiction (hence the differing understandings of St. Cyril that came out of the Council of Chalcedon, for example).

Who has such a notion? I am simply questioning the aristotelian/scholastic tendencies of the Thomistic mindset.

You did it seems, when you cited the article from OrthodoxInfo which said that the Fathers deny natural and metaphysical categories. St. John of Damascus very clearly spoke of natural knowledge of God’s existence.

Is it accurate to say that Aquinas understands God in Aristotelian fashion by arguing that God is understood by the intellect rather than the senses.

This really has nothing to do with Aristotle, as it’s a foundation of all Christian theology that God is beyond sensation. This was one of St. Gregory Palamas’ key refutations of Barlaam, as a matter of fact, when Barlaam tried to accuse the Hesychasts of “seeing the Light of God with their eyes”.

As a matter of fact, Aquinas rejects the Aristotelean definition of God (as would any Christian theologian).

Peace and God bless!

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Blessed feast of the Holy Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ–to everyone!

Amen. Blessings to you.

Enjoy the feast!

 

[JesusforMadrid]

It’s actually growing, though. ROCOR received about 20 or so clergy (if I remember correctly) and their parishes alone from various groups last winter and there have been several so far this year --and we’re only half way through the year. Orthodoxy itself is fairly small in the US, but that is changing, too, by God’s grace and bountiful mercy, of course.

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes it is, and growing in Europe as well.

Glory to the Father, to the Son and to Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Modern EO’xy utilizes the Essence/Energy distinction to condemn the teachings of Latin Catholicism. Can you point out where the 7 Ecumenical Councils dogmatized the Essence/Energy distinction? So how can you say EO haven’t declared any new dogma? Conversely, if they haven’t declared new dogma, how can many EO have the hubris to use the Essence/Energy distinction to condemn Latin teachings?

Blessings,
Marduk

You would need to provide some specific examples for me.

However, I hardly think that dogma declared by an Ecumenical Council is the only instrument to condemn bad theology. Have all conceivable heretical teachings been denounced
dogmatically, even by RC councils?

You are asking for a standard which the RC church does not require.

I do find it refreshing that the Orthodox Church is not hung up on dogmatising that what the Father have not considered essential or have spoken in consensus.

 

[Addai]

You would need to provide some specific examples for me.

However, I hardly think that dogma declared by an Ecumenical Council is the only instrument to condemn bad theology. Have all conceivable heretical teachings been denounced
dogmatically, even by RC councils?

You are asking for a standard which the RC church does not require.

I do find it refreshing that the Orthodox Church is not hung up on dogmatising that what the Father have not considered essential or have spoken in consensus.

I don’t think that is what he is doing, but alluding to problems of internal consistency.

1. A common POV among many EO is that only ecumenical counsels can make decisions on dogma that are binding in the sense of universal and infallible.

2)You have Palamite Essence and Energy distinctions used to judge things like the Filiquoe and declare them heretical, even though the Palamite theology was not formerly received in an Ecumenical counsel nor an Ecumencial counsel formerly made against the Filiqioque by the EO.

1. It is also common to deny theological development among the EO. Even sometimes literally saying they don’t believe in it, and quoting definitions of Holy Tradition etc. and cite Ecumenical counsels as the chief mechanism for dogma etc. (Even though it can be demonstrated that there is some theological development that takes place over time unofficially and this does not come via ecumenical counsel etc.)

 

[Bluegoat]

It’s actually growing, though. ROCOR received about 20 or so clergy (if I remember correctly) and their parishes alone from various groups last winter and there have been several so far this year --and we’re only half way through the year. Orthodoxy itself is fairly small in the US, but that is changing, too, by God’s grace and bountiful mercy, of course.

In Christ,
Andrew

I keep hoping my Anglican parish will miraculously decide to become Western Rite Orthodox, and then I can stop worrying about whether I can stay where I am.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I gotta say I’m not really understanding some of the distinctions being made in this thread. God’s “fingerprints” are somehow something removed from God? Faith and theology are separate? I think I need to lay down for a while.

Well, do you think that it is not possible to come to some knowledge of God through contemplation of creation? Does creation point to God in some way? Or do we posit a kind of dualism (surely not!)

I don’t think the idea is that faith and theology are separate, at all. Rather, science, reason, and theology are taken up into faith, and areunderpinned by faith as well. The starting point of the scholastics is perhaps best understood in relation to the Augustinian method, which was in finding God to look inward, into the microcosm that is the human soul. But the scholastics, inspired by Aristotle, said that creation itself was also a revelation of God, and that by starting with creation we could gain understanding even of Divine things. None of this, however, is apart from God’s Grace.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not sure how to answer any of your questions, Bluegoat, especially since the post you’re replying to is all about how I have no idea what’s going on around here. A while ago I asked a question about what good any of this does if it doesn’t actually provide us with a way to actually worship God (or something similar; I can’t remember exactly). I don’t mean this in a snotty way, but frankly I don’t care what points to God (or the fingerprints of God or whatever) if there’s a much more direct route to take that cuts out all the philosophizing about God and instead helps us to be with God. It’s not that I don’t care about where evil comes from (but solving that is not as important as abstaining from evil), or the procession of the Holy Spirit (but arguing over that isn’t as important as worship), or any of the other things that brilliant Catholic and Orthodox thinkers have taught about over the centuries. It’s just that this is at some other level beyond the work of prayer, fasting, and repentance, and aren’t really necessary for worship. If you are the type of person whose spiritual life is really enriched by engaging in all kinds of dialectics about God, then by all means do that. I just don’t see the point of setting up these metaphysical categories. That’s not worshiping God, that’s not prayer, and that’s not fasting. That’s philosophy for philosophy’s sake. It makes me uncomfortable, but that’s just me.

I don’t have anything to say about God in nature or whatever. Here, enjoy this hymn from the Coptic midnight praises. There are a lot of passages about nature in it, and it isn’t a confusing/pointless abstraction, so you won’t find me complaining about it! :thumbsup:

 

[Madaglan]

The problem here is that none of these things actually involve Scholasticism. Scholasticism is simply the belief that reason, subjected to Divine Revelation and purified by Grace, can express certain truths in an orderly and objective way, as opposed to merely arguing from authority and emotional persuasion. Moreover it is a methodology, not a collection of doctrines.

…

Peace and God bless!

I remember in a previous thread you mentioned St. John of Damascus as a Scholastic. Although he is more orderly in his presentation than other Orthodox Fathers, he does not strike me as a Scholastic. There are other Fathers who come to mind who utilize logos along with ethos and pathos in their argumentations, yet they do not strike me as Scholastic. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, for example, in his Against Heresies, writes with precision and order, yet his work does not quote from the philosophers as though they were an authority, and he does not employ the dialectic of medieval Scholasticism. There are other Orthodox writers and saints, of the modern era, who utilize logos along with ethos and pathos in their argumentations, without being Scholastic, in my understanding of the term.

Regarding “Scholasticism”, the early Scholastics (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) were more “down to earth”, but later Scholastics convoluted theology to the extreme. The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to adopt this common view as well:

Much has been said both in praise and in blame of Scholastic terminology in philosophy and theology. It is rather generally acknowledged that whatever precision there is in the modern languages of Western Europe is due largely to the dialectic disquisitions of the Scholastics. On the other hand, ridicule has been poured on the stiffness, the awkwardness, and the barbarity of the Scholastic style. In an impartial study of the question, it should be remembered that the Scholastics of the thirteenth century—and it was not they but their successors who were guilty of the grossest sins of style—were confronted with a terminological problem unique in the history of thought.

newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm

On the 14th century Scholastic, William of Occkham, the CE has to say:

His effort to simplify Scholasticism was no doubt well-intentioned, and the fact that simplification was the fashion in those days would seem to indicate that a reform was needed. The over-refined subtleties of discussion among the Scholastics themselves, the multiplication of “formalities” by the followers of Scotus, the undue importance attached by some of the Thomists to their interpretation of the intentional species, and the introduction of the abstruse system of terminology which exceeded the bounds of good taste and moderation–all these indicated that the period of decay of Scholasticism had set in. On the other hand, it must be said that, while his purpose may have been the best, and while his effort was directed towards correcting an abuse that really existed, Ockham carried his process of simplification too far, and sacrificed much that was essential in Scholasticism while trying to rid Scholasticism of faults which were incidental.

newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam lived and debated during this time of Scholastic decay. It does not seem far-fetched to me for one to consider this decayed “Scholasticism” as the Scholasticism which Orthodox (along with many sober-minded Latin Catholics) have in mind and have been particularly critical–although unlike Latin Catholics these Orthodox would tend to see Aquinas and other “orthodox” Catholic Scholastics as of the same mould, if not of the same exact views, as the other Scholastics.

 

[Ghosty]

I remember in a previous thread you mentioned St. John of Damascus as a Scholastic. I’m still half-way through his Exposition. It strikes me as more orderly than some more recent Orthodox works, though when I read his work, I am reminded of the precision and organization of another great Father, St. Irenaeus of Lyons. There are other Orthodox writers and saints of the modern era who utilize logos along with ethos and pathos in their argumentations, without being Scholastic.

I’m using Scholastic in the sense of relying on reason and worldly experience to highlight Divine Truths, and setting them forth in an ordered, systematic fashion. That is the fundamental definition of Scholasticism. St. John of Damascus is very much a “proto-Scholastic” in this sense, especially since his work set the model for future Scholastic works like St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

I’m certain that there are modern Eastern Orthodox writers who utilize this same method, but I’m not personally familiar with them. This method was heavily used in Eastern Orthodoxy until the past century or so, in fact, but today it is often derided as a “Latinism” for some strange reason.

Regarding “Scholasticism”, the early Scholastics (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) were more “down to earth”, but later Scholastics convoluted theology to the extreme.

This is true, but those later Scholastics had little to no influence on what we call Scholasticism today. Their works are not read, and were not used to define any major theological points. When Scholasticism is spoken of today it refers to the work of Aquinas first and foremost, since it was his work that was highlighted and elevated in the Latin Church, especially with the Council of Trent.

St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam lived and debated during this time of Scholastic decay. It does not seem far-fetched to me for one to consider this decayed “Scholasticism” as the Scholasticism of which Orthodox (along with many sober-minded Latin Catholics) have in mind and have been particularly critical–although unlike orthodox Latin Catholics these Orthodox would tend to see Aquinas and other “orthodox” Catholic Scholastics as of the same mould, if not of the same exact views, as the other Scholastics.

It’s a possibility, but since Barlaam’s works no longer exist it’s impossible to say. His arguments as cited by St. Gregory Palamas, however, don’t reflect decadent Scholasticism IMO. The style seems much more like Palamas’, in fact, just arguing from a different perspective.

As a side note it’s hard to know what Barlaam was really espousing, aside from the fact that he did not believe that the “Divine Light” that the Hesychasts claimed to see was in fact Divinity. I tend to agree with Barlaam on that point, given my own experience with pagan Transcendental Meditation (which has a method of repetitious prayer and self-emptying that is very much like Hesychasm) and the sensation of light that accompanies any kind of meditation in that style. I tend to take the traditional Orthodox depiction of Barlaamism at face value, however, not because it is certainly what he believed, but because it’s what Eastern Orthodoxy defined against, and it’s therefore relevant to understanding the Byzantine theological tradition, much the way that understanding the heresy of Monophysitism doesn’t mean that the “Monophysites” actually ever believed it.

Peace and God Bless!