www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Bishop vs. "Catholic" Politician

In defense of my friend LatinTrad - I don't think he meant to imply that "all Easterners" are opposed to Aquinas.

However, SOME EC's do seem to actively dislike any philosophy, devotion or motion picture originating out of the West. And since this is the Internet, those voices do tend to drown out the more reasonable folks in the center. That's the nature of chat groups.

It's good to be reminded that most EC's don't march in lockstep - neither do most RC's.

Dear Trad Lat,

One, two, three . . .ten!

O.K., how come you don't like me going after you, but you are silent when the Administrator takes a go at you?

Is it because you think I'm a pushover?

Appearances can be deceiving, Friend!

And my attitude is also affected when I go to episcopal consecrations and the RC Cardinal, a former theology professor and one who otherwise should know better, keeps referring to us as a "Rite."

Again, someone for whom Vatican II happened to other people . . .

You should just know that we Ukies are very Latinized, like you in some respects!

Some of us are downright more papal than the Pope himself!

How many times do you guys commemorate the Pope during the Mass? Once?

We do it four times. There are some of us who would do it more times but, alas, those pesky liturgical rubrics. . .

But I feel complimented that you consider my post to be hurtful and not the Administrator's.

That shows great respect that you have for me.

Thank you, Friend!

Alex

AMDG
Actually, I had not seen the last post by the Administrator.

See my "Sorry" thread.

L-t

I'M SORRY, ADMIN--FORGOT TO LEAVE OUT THE AMDG

Dear Theist Doll,

I really don't think Trad Lat needs an advocate here!

I don't pick just any sparring partner - I choose the very best.

And that is Trad Lat!

What I'm doing is giving him Byzantine Shock Treatment (BST) to really hurry his Eastern education along . . .

So far, it's working, wouldn't you say?

Trad Lat also has the benefit of getting a direct insight into what it means to be picked on as a minority in a majority context.

In other words, hands on exposure to what EC's have had to put up with from you guys for years!

(How are you today, otherwise?)

Alex

I am doing just fine, thanks! Just got a new "glamour photo" taken (see my profile!). It turned out so well I'm feeling extra kind and compassionate towards all my fellow men and womenfolks (Latin or otherwise!)

Dear LatinTrad:

I went through this gauntlet once, nay more than once, manned on either side by Ruthenians and Ukrainians. :p

Everything went "well;" as you can see I'm still here. I have become even a Ukie-wannabe; supporting their "Kyivan Patriarchate" and all!

To be singled out by the Admin and Alex the Great is an "honor" unto itself. So, stay put and don't you worry. Steve and Memo, and now Theist Doll, are standing by.

AmdG
(I am the original, you HEAR!!!)

Dear Amigo Amado,

You are a better man than I, then!

But you always were . . .

Alex

Dear Theist Doll,

God bless you always!

Alex

Same to you, Alex - just remember, be nice to my "buds", 'cause I'm always lurking in the corner, ready to rush to their defense!

Posted by Administrator:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT wrote:
Nevertheless, St. Thomas Aquinas developed the relationship between Faith and Reason to an exquisite degree, giving us all a leg up in answering many questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Should this be important to Eastern Christians? Why? Are you suggesting that we abandon the Eastern Christian way of doing theology because you have a personal preference for Aquinas? Would it not be better to learn the Eastern Christian way of doing theology and approaching questions of faith and reason before condemning it? I studied Aquinas in college and his approach just does not make sense for Eastern Christians. "

Dear Administrator,

There are Western Christians who would take your statement even further and assert that Acquinas's approach just does not make sense for Western Christians, too!

Steve

Maybe the problem is that we're treating it as if it is - or should be - a "one size fits all" approach.

St. Thomas Aquinas (who, by the way, is one of my favorite saints, not for his philosophy but because he was a chubby guy, and I like chubby guys ) labored very hard on his theological work, and yet near the end of his life, he is said to have had a mystical vision which made him describe his previous work as a "theology of straw."

Here's my own personal opinion: at certain times, in certain places and for certain people, St. T.A.'s approach can be, and has been, very valuable, helpful and worthwhile. For others, it has not.

St. T.A.'s work was and is something which all Christians ought to be proud of. This was a guy who devoted his entire life to trying to understand God, and trying to 'splain it to the rest of us. He would be the first one to say that he didn't get everything right!

So - if you study it, and find that it helps you, great! Praise God and apply it to your own life. If you study it and find that it doesn't help you, great! Praise God, and move on. My chubby St. T.A. would be the first to tell you that ...

Dear Administrator,
I would like very much if you could elaborate on this point, summarizing your understanding of his approach, and why it does not make sense for Eastern Christians.

"Scholasticism" is the frequent butt of little disparaging remarks on this forum. I've wondered and asked why in various contexts, here, before, but never got any response. (I'm very fond of the angels on the head of a pin question; I don't think we'd be having an on-line discussion were it never asked.) On some occasions, I've suspected a hint of anti-intellectual or post-modernist sentiment. But I didn't study Aquinas or the Schoolmen, so I'm in the dark, looking ofr illumination.


Say it ain't so! (and wasn't that Olga's spelling, anyway?)

It isn't exactly the Scholastics per se that are the cause for concern from us Byzantines, but rather the historical development after them.

The Byzantine world had neither Scholasticism, nor the Enlightenment, nor the Reformation to contend with in the way these shook the West. In Byzantine minds when the study of theology became divorced from a liturgical framework and basis, as happened after the Scholastics, bad things started to happen. Viewed with Byzantine eyes the Enlightenment couldn't occur philosophically without Scholasticism.

And is the Enlightenment considered an intrinsically bad development in Byzantine eyes?