The Eastern Churches and St. Thomas Aquinas

[Resurrexi]

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. 

[Melkite]

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.

[INPEFESS]

Yes, we must never forget the first great commandment of trad Catholicism:

1) Thou shalt never criticize Aquinas or Augustine......

It's not a commandment not to criticize simply to ask that one refrain from acting contemptuously toward a particular saint (or his/her writings).

What you have posted is a false dichotomy whereby the only options are: (1) speak contemtuously of the saint or (2) worship the saint.

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.

[Vetus Ordo]

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.  A significant portion of that lack of sneer as you describe it may be due to ignorance.  All that aside, saying Aquinas is by far the most important theologian the Church has ever known, and making his theology that of the Church. to the exclusion of every other, IS reviling and sneering at the Eastern fathers, even if you're not being overtly rude about it.

Your condescension is absolutely pathetic: the lack of sneer towards the Eastern Doctors is not due to ignorance - as if knowledge should beget scorn - but simply to decorum and respect, something you should know more about. Even if many fishies happen to ignore St. Basil's or St. John Chrysostom's work, they don't feel entitled to mock other saints they disagree with or whose mystical approaches they don't relate to. I'm not the biggest fan of Franciscan spirituality myself, for instance, but the last thing it would occur to me would be to label it "bullshit." This is just common sense and basic decorum, I don't know why I even have to explain such a simple concept to you! And suggesting that many here might ignore that the Eastern Fathers were Eastern Catholics is just plainly silly.

But I digress. Why on earth would anyone worthy of the name "Catholic" sneer at a Doctor of the Church? Think about that. Even if one personally disagrees with some of his conclusions, that's completely uncalled for. Can't you understand how arrogant, childish and unchristian that is? And yet, this seems to be standard modus operandi against Western Doctors for many of those calling themselves Eastern Catholics.

Finally, as for St. Thomas, please realise this once and for all: the Church herself has put him on that pedestal, not any of us here. We didn't invent anything. You seem to ignore this reality at every post you write. No-one is excluding the other Doctors of the Church, nor any other legitimate approaches to theology, but the Church herself has adopted Thomism as her own preferred theological language. Think about that as the son of the Church that you should be. It's as simple as that.

[City Smurf]

With his works, one can get answers.

[trollsmurf]The Immaculate Conception?[/trollsmurf]

 

[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!


* The Church has even mandated the study of the Angelic Doctor in Her own Code of Canon Law.

[INPEFESS]

With his works, one can get answers.

[trollsmurf]The Immaculate Conception?[/trollsmurf]

 

  That's funny provided that you don't succumb to the contagious idea that because he is fallible everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is an unhealthy attitude in traditional circles to cast off any teachings from the Angelic Doctor they don't like simply because he was wrong in his opinion about the Immaculate Conception. He has been found to be right in so much more, and Scholasticism was made the official school of the Church, yet this is almost completely ignored in light of the fact that he was once wrong. This is not a healthy attitude for any Catholic, especially a layperson.

[City Smurf]

That's funny provided that you don't succumb to the contagious idea that because he is fallible everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is an unhealthy attitude in traditional circles to cast off any teachings from the Angelic Doctor they don't like simply because he was wrong in his opinion about the Immaculate Conception. He has been found to be right in so much more, and Scholasticism was made the official school of the Church, yet this is almost completely ignored in light of the fact that he was once wrong. This is not a healthy attitude for any Catholic, especially a layperson.

He don't get me wrong.  I believe that Aquinas should be the standard for Catholics of the Latin tradition (and because of the Church's great respect for him, he shouldn't be taken lightly by the Eastern traditions).

I was just joking around  .

[INPEFESS]

That's funny provided that you don't succumb to the contagious idea that because he is fallible everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is an unhealthy attitude in traditional circles to cast off any teachings from the Angelic Doctor they don't like simply because he was wrong in his opinion about the Immaculate Conception. He has been found to be right in so much more, and Scholasticism was made the official school of the Church, yet this is almost completely ignored in light of the fact that he was once wrong. This is not a healthy attitude for any Catholic, especially a layperson.

He don't get me wrong.  I believe that Aquinas should be the standard for Catholics of the Latin tradition (and because of the Church's great respect for him, he shouldn't be taken lightly by the Eastern traditions).

I was just joking around  .

O.K., that's what I thought, but I was just making sure. I think we can both agree that we've seen that attitude, and I was just hoping you weren't legitimately trying to make that point under a guise of being silly. Unfortunately, too many Catholics do appeal to that very argument, and they're perfectly serious about it. Pax Christi tecum!

[Melkite]

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.