The Eastern Churches and St. Thomas Aquinas

[Melkite]

To Melkite's credit, I am impressed that he so zealously perseveres in the Catholic Faith despite the fact that the Church has such praise* for a doctor of the Church he finds so contemptible. Most, finding the Church's teachings no to their liking, would simply leave the Faith for something that appeals to their own personal tastes; but the fact that Melkite perseveres in the Catholic Faith despite his misgivings about St. Thomas (though, he must submit to the Church's authority in this matter) indicates that he is a Catholic not because of preference but because he knows it is the Truth. May God reward him for that!

Thank you, but it's nothing to be rewarded.  Where else am I supposed to go?  Even Orthodoxy, as appealing as it is, and even though regularly I question again whether it may be the true Church...it just isn't.  I know too much.  If it's not Catholicism, it's nothing.  Anything else, even atheism, even nihilism, just aren't possible to give assent to.  If it's not Catholicism, it truly is nothing.

[INPEFESS]

Asking that someone refrain from calling the theological thought of a saint (which God, Himself, praised) "bullshit" (or any such disrespect) is hardly saying that one is not permitted to criticize the saint. Going to such an extreme conclusion is indicative of an emotional reaction, which is exactly what this thread is trying to point out as dangerous.

Ok, whether you approve of my lack of respect for Aquinas or not, let's get the facts straight.  I called the idea bullshit before Vetus ever brought up that Aquinas held the belief.  So let's stop saying I was disrespecting Aquinas by calling it bullshit.  When I referred to the idea as bullshit, I wasn't aware Aquinas had any relation to it at the time, I was merely responding to the title.  Saying I was insulting Aquinas by my very first post on this thread when Aquinas hadn't even been brought up yet at this point is bearing false witness.  I don't expect Vetus to let "trivial" little facts like that get in the way of a sound thrashing and pro-Western tirade, but honestly, I thought YOU of all people were better than that.

That's why I put in parentheses "(or any such disrespect)." I was referring to the attitude that you have displayed in general over various threads, not necessarily on a specific thread. That was just a recent example that I used because, whether he had been mentioned in name or not, you knew exactly where the idea came from.

[INPEFESS]

To Melkite's credit, I am impressed that he so zealously perseveres in the Catholic Faith despite the fact that the Church has such praise* for a doctor of the Church he finds so contemptible. Most, finding the Church's teachings no to their liking, would simply leave the Faith for something that appeals to their own personal tastes; but the fact that Melkite perseveres in the Catholic Faith despite his misgivings about St. Thomas (though, he must submit to the Church's authority in this matter) indicates that he is a Catholic not because of preference but because he knows it is the Truth. May God reward him for that!

Thank you, but it's nothing to be rewarded.  Where else am I supposed to go?  Even Orthodoxy, as appealing as it is, and even though regularly I question again whether it may be the true Church...it just isn't.  I know too much.  If it's not Catholicism, it's nothing.  Anything else, even atheism, even nihilism, just aren't possible to give assent to.  If it's not Catholicism, it truly is nothing.

Yes, I feel exactly the same way. If I were not Catholic, I wouldn't be Orthodox, Protestant, or . . . I don't even think I could be Christian. What Christ taught (and what the Old Testament prophesied) is manifested only in the Catholic Church. If it is false, then so is the entire Christian religion.

[Parmandur]

I think members of the Eastern Churches are jealous of St. Thomas, a Latin writer.

It's not jealousy.  It's that his and St. Augustine's writings, *at least on the surface* are expressed in a way that an Easterner would naturally find troublesome.  We don't think from a scholastic point of view, period.  Naturally, someone who writes in a thoroughly scholastic manner, his writings will not be very comfortable or agreeable to someone who doesn't think in the same manner.  We're no more jealous of him then we think you are of St. John Chrysostom, which is, not at all.

Quite frankly, Westerners, in praising so highly Augustine and Aquinas, disdain every other father and theologian of the entire Church.  That is off-putting.  And several of you have said so yourself that this is what the Church does.  The Church has made Augustine's teaching on grace it's own.  The Church has made Aquinas' theology its own.  It's as if with one fell swoop the Latins have thrown out all the rest of Christian theology like yesterday's trash.  Even if Aquinas and Augustine are as great as you say, do you really wonder at why Easterners aren't eager to froth at the mouth over them when you pay no heed to our theological heavyweights?  I mean, seriously, in one breath you tell us that Augustine and Aquinas are far and away better than anything we've got, and that everything we have to offer in comparison is basically hopelessly inferior, and in the next breath, question why we don't give them any heed.  Even if they are the best, seriously, get over yourselves.  It's the same as any real world scenario.  If you spend all your time bragging about how awesome you are and how much better you do things than everyone else around you, are you surprised when you find yourself sitting alone at the lunch table every day?

St. Thomas read and was conversant with the Eastern Fathers, and agreed with them over St. Augustine more often than not.  They are not part of an exclusive "Latin club" that is separate from the Greek Fathers.  They were both theologians trying to pass on what they had received, often from the East.  St. Augustine learned at the foot of St. Ambrose, a Greek, and was inspired by St. Athanasius' writings to imitate St. Anthony the Great.  To praise the greatness of the Western Doctors is not to slight the Eastern Doctors.  All are one Church.

[Melkite]

That's why I put in parentheses "(or any such disrespect)." I was referring to the attitude that you have displayed in general over various threads, not necessarily on a specific thread. That was just a recent example that I used because, whether he had been mentioned in name or not, you knew exactly where the idea came from.

Not at the time I made the comment I didn't.  I didn't dislike the comment because I was aware Aquinas shared it.  I disliked it, then was made aware he shared it, and concluded he was wrong on that point if he believed something that rediculous.

[Su]

With his works, one can get answers.

[trollsmurf]The Immaculate Conception?[/trollsmurf]

 

But that is the beauty of it. When he is "wrong", he is usually actually right.

His "errors" are not errors as they are written. His arguments against the Immaculate Conception do not actually apply to the actual teaching as taught by the Church. He merely missed the idea that the moment of conception was the moment God preserved her from original sin. He was looking before conception and after conception.

Likewise, his error on ensoulment which seems to indicate he may support early term abortion is an error only to the extent he was unaware of the biology of human reproduction. His actual statement would fully support life beginning at conception. He was just unaware of the specifics of development and went by the classical idea that it was after 40 days. They had no idea how reproduction worked (I mean, if he were told it was a tiny "egg" which was fertilised in a fallopian tube usually 3-5 hours after intercourse, he would probably say "How was anyone here supposed to know that?"). They only had external observations of the process.

EDIT: This is not a misguided "He can do no wrong" attitude, but that his work is so rich and precise, it must be studied properly to know what is being stated.

[Su]

I've never seen anyone here revile and sneer at the Eastern Doctors of the Church. That would be unthinkable, especially for people who consider themselves traditional Catholics.

I not sure everyone on FE is aware that the Eastern Doctors belonged to a church of a different rite.

None of the Fathers of the Church belonged to any of the rites of the Church as they were knwon in the mid-20th century. St. Augustine's Mass was very different from the Tridentine Mass, and St. John Chrysostom celebrated a liturgy was very different from the one medieval Byzantines ascribed to him. 

What I mean is, when Latin Catholics aren't really sure what Eastern Catholics are, or that we even exist, it's not surprising that they also think the Eastern doctors were all worshiping in a TLM.  The fact that there isn't as much explicit reviling from West to East isn't as significant as Vetus is making it out to be.

That is true to a degree.

But it is the Eastern Catholic's fault you know.

They are fractured, they do not have written works like the Latin Church (hence, the suspicion you are jealous), and when asked, they don't really have much to offer.

I made a thread here a while back about Eastern Catholic practices that we should know. Very, very little was offered. For us to learn about the East, we have to search really, really hard. And often, it is lacking even then.

For the Latins, we get full manuals of theological teaching, many volumes of great works from every era, etc.

It seems that one must actually be a part of the Eastern Church to get anything from them.

[Su]

I think members of the Eastern Churches are jealous of St. Thomas, a Latin writer.

It's not jealousy.  It's that his and St. Augustine's writings, *at least on the surface* are expressed in a way that an Easterner would naturally find troublesome.  We don't think from a scholastic point of view, period.  Naturally, someone who writes in a thoroughly scholastic manner, his writings will not be very comfortable or agreeable to someone who doesn't think in the same manner.  We're no more jealous of him then we think you are of St. John Chrysostom, which is, not at all.

Quite frankly, Westerners, in praising so highly Augustine and Aquinas, disdain every other father and theologian of the entire Church.  That is off-putting.  And several of you have said so yourself that this is what the Church does.  The Church has made Augustine's teaching on grace it's own.  The Church has made Aquinas' theology its own.  It's as if with one fell swoop the Latins have thrown out all the rest of Christian theology like yesterday's trash.  Even if Aquinas and Augustine are as great as you say, do you really wonder at why Easterners aren't eager to froth at the mouth over them when you pay no heed to our theological heavyweights?  I mean, seriously, in one breath you tell us that Augustine and Aquinas are far and away better than anything we've got, and that everything we have to offer in comparison is basically hopelessly inferior, and in the next breath, question why we don't give them any heed.  Even if they are the best, seriously, get over yourselves.  It's the same as any real world scenario.  If you spend all your time bragging about how awesome you are and how much better you do things than everyone else around you, are you surprised when you find yourself sitting alone at the lunch table every day?

It is always about pride isn't it?

[Scriptorium]

I've heard a priest say that you know someone is outside of the Church, or flirting with it, because they disparage St Thomas. He then goes on to list off the amazing life and virtues of St Thomas. He was truly a great saint with a life that covers the whole field. I think both sides exhibit some misunderstanding. The East should love St Thomas because his work is based a lot on two people from the east, Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius. Reading his works is amazing. He just exudes Catholicism and love of Christ. And even a mystic can see this in his works. As for the West, I think we can be less exacting about the Roman way of everything being neat and tidy, with an air of superiority. St Thomas toward the end of his life began to be taken over by the divine vision, and eventually declared his work straw after a vision. He really was moving beyond his own work, so we need to also follow the same path by viewing his work as a means not an end. The path of scholasticism can formulate great truth, but it doesn't stop there. There really needs to be an opening up of theological understanding. Since this was St Thomas' method, quoting from saints and doctors no matter their lineage, then it is in accord with him.

[Melkite]

That is true to a degree.

But it is the Eastern Catholic's fault you know.

They are fractured, they do not have written works like the Latin Church (hence, the suspicion you are jealous), and when asked, they don't really have much to offer.

I made a thread here a while back about Eastern Catholic practices that we should know. Very, very little was offered. For us to learn about the East, we have to search really, really hard. And often, it is lacking even then.

For the Latins, we get full manuals of theological teaching, many volumes of great works from every era, etc.

It seems that one must actually be a part of the Eastern Church to get anything from them.

Well, it's not our fault that we didn't move over here in the same amounts as Western Christians did (well, it is the actual person's choice whether they moved here or stayed in Europe, but not the current generations fault of the amount of Eastern Catholics in North America).

It's not our fault that many Eastern Catholics in North America were forced with the choice to either become Latin or become Orthodox.  We don't usually publish manuals of theological teaching because we don't have the numbers here or the money to make it possible.  The Melkite Church has some limited theological works of its own over here, but not much.  The Orthodox are using the same things and doing the same things that we do, and often times, what they have needs no correction for us to use it.  Therefore, we just use what they have.  And those works are dismissed by the Latins because they're not coming from a Catholic source.

So, yes, it may be our fault that we don't spend money we don't have, but if it weren't for anti-Eastern bias a hundred years ago, a few million people in this country who are Orthodox would have still been Catholic, so you might have had more works to look at.

I also don't remember you ever starting a thread about that.  Unless you are Rosarium?