What do you think?
Rate this book
Orthodox Readings of Aquinas
This book is the first exploration of the remarkable odyssey of Thomas Aquinas in the Orthodox Christian world, from the Byzantine to the modern era. Aquinas was received with astonishing enthusiasm across the Byzantine theological spectrum. By contrast, modern Orthodox readings of Aquinas have been resoundingly negative, routinely presenting Aquinas as the archetype of as a specifically Western form of theology against which the Orthodox East must set its face. Basing itself primarily on a close study of the Byzantine reception of Thomas, this study rejects such hackneyed dichotomies, arguing instead for a properly catholic or universal construal of Orthodoxy - one in which Thomas might once again find a place. In its probing of the East-West dichotomy, this book questions the widespread juxtaposition of Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas as archetypes of opposing Greek and Latin theological traditions. The long period between the Fall of Constantinople and the Russian
Revolution, conventionally written off as an era of sterility and malformation for Orthodox theology, is also viewed with a fresh perspective. Study of the reception of Thomas in this period reveals a theological sophistication and a generosity of vision that is rarely accounted for. In short, this is a book which radically re-thinks the history of Orthodox theology through the prism of the fascinating and largely untold story of Orthodox engagement with Aquinas.
Revolution, conventionally written off as an era of sterility and malformation for Orthodox theology, is also viewed with a fresh perspective. Study of the reception of Thomas in this period reveals a theological sophistication and a generosity of vision that is rarely accounted for. In short, this is a book which radically re-thinks the history of Orthodox theology through the prism of the fascinating and largely untold story of Orthodox engagement with Aquinas.
290 pages, Hardcover
First published October 17, 2012
3 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 8, 2018
[Editor's note: These were my cliffnotes taken for a solicited book review for 'The Thomist' or ACPQ when it was newly released in 2012. Thus the anachronisms in the review: it's 7 years old.]
A counterblast to the clash of civilizations approach to 'geotheology' or 'geotheolitics': pretty good historical job of burying modern "neo-Orthodox neo-Palamism" of the vehemently anti-Western and strongly anti-logical variety*, especially of the sort espoused by the vehemently anti-Western, "Clash of Civilizations" Christos Giannaras, John Romanides, and to a (varying, but generally much, inverse to the amount of irrationality and adversariality they espouse) lesser extent, Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff, is done excellently in the newly-released "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas" by Marcus Plested (author of "The Macarian Legacy") - be warned, the book is very expensive. I bought it, being a Thomist, and a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy (the Greek Orthodox Church: largely due to the influence of the ideas of such men as John Romanides and, especially, Christos Giannaras), and got much more (and less, in the sense of an Orthodox exposition of Thomism) than I bargained for.
*Plested does an excellent job of showing the Barlaamite pedigree of the anti-rationalism/anti-logicalism taken up by later self-styled disciples of Palamas: thus, "neo-Orthodox neo-Palamites", or "Barlaamite Palamites", or "Barlaamites who accept the essence-energies distinction", all three phrases of my own devising, and which are never used by the irenic author.
Note that men such as Gennadios II Scholarios, Demetrios Kydones, Emperor John Kantakuzene, and, for moderns, Georges Florovsky are in general highly praised in the book. Lossky and Meyendorff are treated fairly, and the author believes many of their works to be necessary reading, especially "Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends... etc."; John Romanides is mentioned not much outside of the footnotes (which are copious), but comes in for some well-deserved scathing criticism. When I finished the book, I could not tell if I had read a study by an Orthodox lamenting the current ascendance of anti-logical currents in his tradition and the pursuant ossification of it, or a (possibly Eastern) Catholic with very deep sympathies with Orthodoxy. Even Seraphim Rose's book, "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church", comes in for an honourable mention.
In the book, Plested destroys:
1) In his words, "the hackneyed east-west dichotomy" that pits the personalist east against the essentialist west, and the myth of scholasticism as the arch-enemy of all true Orthodoxy (he does this by showing that a distinctly "Byzantine Scholasticism" was fully-formed and fully-Orthodox by the time of John of Damascus, who wrote the great Byzantine Scholastic treatise, "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith") and which sees the Christian East and Christian West as two completely different, completely alien subjects, turning a geographical divide in to a theological one.
2) The Patristic basis for Palamism (unconsciously, let it be known) - by, for example, reading a "true" Palamite essence-energies distinction back in to St Gregory of Nyssa through eisegesis - as he makes it obvious to the reader, even if not to himself, that there was a major shift in what "Orthodoxy" meant during the Palamite controversies, and that "Orthodoxy" was redefined - to an extent comparable to that which liberals would use Vatican II to redefine Catholicism - after the Tome of 1351 (not to be confused with the Tome of Leo). So much for "lack of development of doctrine" in Orthodoxy: the definition of "Orthodoxy" changed overnight, and the essence-energies distinction was a complete innovation, with no Apostolic, Scriptural, or Patristic basis.
3) That Palamas was anti-logical and anti-Western: he himself used logic in a subservient role to revelation, much as St Thomas Aquinas and St John Damascene and the Fathers used it, carefully and critically engaged Western theology, and was not, nor was his theology inherently anti-Latin; that he was also open to using apodictic syllogisms in support of the faith and of his propositions.
4) That Barlaamism and Palamism are completely opposed, and elements of one have never been synthesized with the other. Plested demonstrates that the anti-Westernism, anti-rationalism, and anti-philosophical stance of Barlaam of Calabria was wedded to the doctrines of Palamas by some of his disciples, and virtually all of his disciples in the modern (post-1821) era of Orthodox thought. Barlaam was extremely anti-Latin and anti-logical, believing that logic was absolutely useless and admitting no truck between Athens and Jerusalem. This, in the later Palamites (to be distinguished from Palamism as Thomist is from Thomas Aquinas), is what gave rise to the fell marriage of Palamite mysticism and rabid anti-rationalism and anti-logicalism: the Palamites took Palamas' view on essence and energies, and coupled it with Barlaam's hatred of logic, reason, and the West, leading to the "neo-Palamites", such as John Romanides, are better described as "Barlaamites who accept the essence-energies distinction" than true inheritors of Palamas, due to their disregard for Palamas' use of logic and critical and discerning engagement with Western theology, and their adoption of Barlaam's vehemently anti-rational and anti-Western stance, which is not authentically Palamite in origin.
5) That a "dialectic theology of Orthodoxy", defining Orthodoxy by what it is not - not Latin, not rational, not logical, not Thomist, not essentialist - has caused immense damage to Orthodoxy and is leading it to further ossification and irrelevance. Examples of this are in the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption - long part of Orthodox piety - as soon as Rome declares either a dogma, many Orthodox theologians react and denounce them as heresies, no matter how many Orthodox have held them before, merely because "Orthodoxy is not Latin", which has become a primary definition, to everyone's detriment. The same happened with "transubstantiation" (metousiosis): it has been dropped and denounced as Latin heresy in favor of a mystery-mongering approach, even though anti-Uniate Orthodox of unimpeachable Orthodoxy have held it, complete with the Aristotelian underpinnings, merely because the Latin Church holds it.
6) That Thomas Aquinas was an anti-Byzantine: he is painted as an apophatic theologian in large measure, who made more use of distinctly Eastern Fathers, such as Dionysius the Areopagite, than many Byzantines did, and who was received well by many Byzantines, both Palamites and anti-Palamites, during the Byzantine era: it was with the "modern Orthodoxy" or "neo-Orthodoxy" beginning after the Greek War of Independence that massive anti-Westernism for the sake of anti-Westernism and anti-logicalism as logic is incompatible with mysticism, that Thomas was completely rejected; that this is leading, to an fossilized, irrelevant, and progressively Quietist/Pietist faith, where reason is denounced for the sake of denouncing reason, mystery-mongering (in the worst sense of the term) increases in prevalence, and subjectivism reigns supreme, as only "religious experience" matters (much as in Pentecostal Protestantism).
Another thread throughout the book is the reception of the concept of transubstantiation by Orthodox; very positive (achieving canonical status in the Confession of Peter Moghila at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, contra the errors of the Calvinist Patriarch Cyril Lukaris and his Confession), to today's overwhelmingly-negative response. Florovsky's notion of "pseudomorphosis" is critiqued, and assumed incorrect, but is not actually refuted. Some historical demonstrations are given against it, as exceptions to the rule, one may say.
I have touched only a few points of interest in a remarkably wide-ranging, irenic, coherent, cogently-argued, though regrettably short (~220pp) study. Many topics are dealt with through the lens, or, better, leitmotif, of "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas", much as a Catechism deals with the entirety of Christianity, doctrine and dogma, through the leitmotif - often in excess of 500pp of small print and large pages - of the Apostle's or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds, or the Lord's Prayer.
Please read this book. Get it from the library if you can not afford it. It is short and easy to read. it is excellent for anyone interested in this subject, of Western and Eastern Christianity. It is not polemical; it is not ecumenical (in the sense of seeking a non-existent doctrinal unity or glossing over differences, or seeking the immediate reconciliation of two different traditions): it is solidly historical. I can not sing its praises enough; it may be a game-changer, and, I believe, has established Plested as a pre-eminent authority in this sphere. For those who appreciate this work, the doctoral thesis of Joost van Rossum, "Palamism and Church Tradition" (available from ProQuest) is also recommended.
A counterblast to the clash of civilizations approach to 'geotheology' or 'geotheolitics': pretty good historical job of burying modern "neo-Orthodox neo-Palamism" of the vehemently anti-Western and strongly anti-logical variety*, especially of the sort espoused by the vehemently anti-Western, "Clash of Civilizations" Christos Giannaras, John Romanides, and to a (varying, but generally much, inverse to the amount of irrationality and adversariality they espouse) lesser extent, Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff, is done excellently in the newly-released "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas" by Marcus Plested (author of "The Macarian Legacy") - be warned, the book is very expensive. I bought it, being a Thomist, and a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy (the Greek Orthodox Church: largely due to the influence of the ideas of such men as John Romanides and, especially, Christos Giannaras), and got much more (and less, in the sense of an Orthodox exposition of Thomism) than I bargained for.
*Plested does an excellent job of showing the Barlaamite pedigree of the anti-rationalism/anti-logicalism taken up by later self-styled disciples of Palamas: thus, "neo-Orthodox neo-Palamites", or "Barlaamite Palamites", or "Barlaamites who accept the essence-energies distinction", all three phrases of my own devising, and which are never used by the irenic author.
Note that men such as Gennadios II Scholarios, Demetrios Kydones, Emperor John Kantakuzene, and, for moderns, Georges Florovsky are in general highly praised in the book. Lossky and Meyendorff are treated fairly, and the author believes many of their works to be necessary reading, especially "Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends... etc."; John Romanides is mentioned not much outside of the footnotes (which are copious), but comes in for some well-deserved scathing criticism. When I finished the book, I could not tell if I had read a study by an Orthodox lamenting the current ascendance of anti-logical currents in his tradition and the pursuant ossification of it, or a (possibly Eastern) Catholic with very deep sympathies with Orthodoxy. Even Seraphim Rose's book, "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church", comes in for an honourable mention.
In the book, Plested destroys:
1) In his words, "the hackneyed east-west dichotomy" that pits the personalist east against the essentialist west, and the myth of scholasticism as the arch-enemy of all true Orthodoxy (he does this by showing that a distinctly "Byzantine Scholasticism" was fully-formed and fully-Orthodox by the time of John of Damascus, who wrote the great Byzantine Scholastic treatise, "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith") and which sees the Christian East and Christian West as two completely different, completely alien subjects, turning a geographical divide in to a theological one.
2) The Patristic basis for Palamism (unconsciously, let it be known) - by, for example, reading a "true" Palamite essence-energies distinction back in to St Gregory of Nyssa through eisegesis - as he makes it obvious to the reader, even if not to himself, that there was a major shift in what "Orthodoxy" meant during the Palamite controversies, and that "Orthodoxy" was redefined - to an extent comparable to that which liberals would use Vatican II to redefine Catholicism - after the Tome of 1351 (not to be confused with the Tome of Leo). So much for "lack of development of doctrine" in Orthodoxy: the definition of "Orthodoxy" changed overnight, and the essence-energies distinction was a complete innovation, with no Apostolic, Scriptural, or Patristic basis.
3) That Palamas was anti-logical and anti-Western: he himself used logic in a subservient role to revelation, much as St Thomas Aquinas and St John Damascene and the Fathers used it, carefully and critically engaged Western theology, and was not, nor was his theology inherently anti-Latin; that he was also open to using apodictic syllogisms in support of the faith and of his propositions.
4) That Barlaamism and Palamism are completely opposed, and elements of one have never been synthesized with the other. Plested demonstrates that the anti-Westernism, anti-rationalism, and anti-philosophical stance of Barlaam of Calabria was wedded to the doctrines of Palamas by some of his disciples, and virtually all of his disciples in the modern (post-1821) era of Orthodox thought. Barlaam was extremely anti-Latin and anti-logical, believing that logic was absolutely useless and admitting no truck between Athens and Jerusalem. This, in the later Palamites (to be distinguished from Palamism as Thomist is from Thomas Aquinas), is what gave rise to the fell marriage of Palamite mysticism and rabid anti-rationalism and anti-logicalism: the Palamites took Palamas' view on essence and energies, and coupled it with Barlaam's hatred of logic, reason, and the West, leading to the "neo-Palamites", such as John Romanides, are better described as "Barlaamites who accept the essence-energies distinction" than true inheritors of Palamas, due to their disregard for Palamas' use of logic and critical and discerning engagement with Western theology, and their adoption of Barlaam's vehemently anti-rational and anti-Western stance, which is not authentically Palamite in origin.
5) That a "dialectic theology of Orthodoxy", defining Orthodoxy by what it is not - not Latin, not rational, not logical, not Thomist, not essentialist - has caused immense damage to Orthodoxy and is leading it to further ossification and irrelevance. Examples of this are in the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption - long part of Orthodox piety - as soon as Rome declares either a dogma, many Orthodox theologians react and denounce them as heresies, no matter how many Orthodox have held them before, merely because "Orthodoxy is not Latin", which has become a primary definition, to everyone's detriment. The same happened with "transubstantiation" (metousiosis): it has been dropped and denounced as Latin heresy in favor of a mystery-mongering approach, even though anti-Uniate Orthodox of unimpeachable Orthodoxy have held it, complete with the Aristotelian underpinnings, merely because the Latin Church holds it.
6) That Thomas Aquinas was an anti-Byzantine: he is painted as an apophatic theologian in large measure, who made more use of distinctly Eastern Fathers, such as Dionysius the Areopagite, than many Byzantines did, and who was received well by many Byzantines, both Palamites and anti-Palamites, during the Byzantine era: it was with the "modern Orthodoxy" or "neo-Orthodoxy" beginning after the Greek War of Independence that massive anti-Westernism for the sake of anti-Westernism and anti-logicalism as logic is incompatible with mysticism, that Thomas was completely rejected; that this is leading, to an fossilized, irrelevant, and progressively Quietist/Pietist faith, where reason is denounced for the sake of denouncing reason, mystery-mongering (in the worst sense of the term) increases in prevalence, and subjectivism reigns supreme, as only "religious experience" matters (much as in Pentecostal Protestantism).
Another thread throughout the book is the reception of the concept of transubstantiation by Orthodox; very positive (achieving canonical status in the Confession of Peter Moghila at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, contra the errors of the Calvinist Patriarch Cyril Lukaris and his Confession), to today's overwhelmingly-negative response. Florovsky's notion of "pseudomorphosis" is critiqued, and assumed incorrect, but is not actually refuted. Some historical demonstrations are given against it, as exceptions to the rule, one may say.
I have touched only a few points of interest in a remarkably wide-ranging, irenic, coherent, cogently-argued, though regrettably short (~220pp) study. Many topics are dealt with through the lens, or, better, leitmotif, of "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas", much as a Catechism deals with the entirety of Christianity, doctrine and dogma, through the leitmotif - often in excess of 500pp of small print and large pages - of the Apostle's or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds, or the Lord's Prayer.
Please read this book. Get it from the library if you can not afford it. It is short and easy to read. it is excellent for anyone interested in this subject, of Western and Eastern Christianity. It is not polemical; it is not ecumenical (in the sense of seeking a non-existent doctrinal unity or glossing over differences, or seeking the immediate reconciliation of two different traditions): it is solidly historical. I can not sing its praises enough; it may be a game-changer, and, I believe, has established Plested as a pre-eminent authority in this sphere. For those who appreciate this work, the doctoral thesis of Joost van Rossum, "Palamism and Church Tradition" (available from ProQuest) is also recommended.
March 7, 2022
"The fact that the whole Slavophile worldview was conditioned by Western sources, whether the eternal opposites of Schlegel, the quasi-mystical conception of freedom and knowledge in Schelling, or the union-in-communion ecclesiology of Mohler, proved no impediment to a deeply anti-Western conceptualization of Orthodoxy. Indeed, Slavophile theology represents the emergence of something rather new; a dialectic construct of Orthodoxy. Naive appeals to a mythical Slavic past cannot obscure the fact that this is a theology of opposition; they simply identify Scholasticism with rationalism and present this as the defining feature of Western theology (and of the Western-leaning theology of the Russian theological academies) the only true Orthodox theology, for the Slavophiles, is anti-Scholastic and anti-rational, in short a species of anti-theism. Reacting to the rather decayed Scholasticism of nineteenth-century Russia, Slavophiles produce a simulacrum of Orthodox theology in which the age-old rational and Scholastic dimension is simply missing. Certainly they did a great service in reaffirming (if only in theory) the mystical, ascetic, and patristic inheritance of the Church, but they also left a great deal out." (p. 182)
April 3, 2013
This is a superb work in history the likes of which we very much need more of. Longer thoughts here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot...
And an interview with the author here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot...
And an interview with the author here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot...
February 10, 2013
This is a very helpful book that brings to light what for many is a somewhat hidden period of history, exploring Medieval attitudes of Eastern Christians toward Thomas Aquinas and 'scholasticism' in general. This takes up most of the book. The latter 1/3 ish part of the book he covers Orthodox attitudes towards Aquinas from the end of the Medieval period to the present - touching on modern theologians who are not so friendly to Thomas: Bulgakov, Soloviev, Florensky, Lossky, Romanides, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Lev Gillet and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware among others.
Plested's presentation of Eastern theologians who eagerly translated Aquinas into Greek is quite interesting. I admit I didn't know how fascinated the Christian East was with Aquinas in the Medieval period and how eager they were to introduce more Orthodox to the 'Angelic Doctor' as he is called in the West.
The discussion of Orthodox Readings of Aquinas is placed against the foil, more or less, of not so much Palamas as much as the legacy of his theology in those who followed him in subsequent generations. What the author seeks to bring out is that there were many admirers of Aquinas in the East - even some who adhered to Palamite theology. I think he does this successfully and clearly.
He also seeks to show that even those who criticize Aquinas for his 'scholasticism' themselves present their own teaching in methods taken from scholasticism. Plested holds that actually the scholastic method is an inheritance of the East that was embraced by the West via Saint John of Damascus. He makes a case as well that the 20th century neo-Palamite movement which made so much of the divisions between East and West are not entirely forthcoming or are not aware of their own methodological debt to Scholastic methods. In other words, one cannot pin the differences between East and West on Aquinas and HIS 'scholasticism'.
I was pleased, whatever Plested's ecumenical sensibilities, that he didn't gloss over legitimate differences between East and West, but but appears to be trying to show that the differences aren't quite as black and white as normally portrayed. In the final chapter he even goes so far as to say that Aquinas is in many respects more of a Byzantine theologian than an archetypically Western one. Again, though, he says this not glossing over legitimate differences between Aquinas' teaching on the essence and energies of God and its corresponding teachings of created grace and the vision of God as a vision of the divine essence among other things.
I could go on, but this is a very rewarding (primarily) historical and (secondarily) theological study from which those interested in East/West relations and the roots of the attitudes between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians about their respective theological differences will learn much, as well as those interested in Aquinas and his theological descendants and/or Palamas and his theological descendants.
I was initially skeptical of what Plested was seeking to do, but I learned much from his very rich and, in my opinion, fair presentation of Orthodox Readings in Aquinas.
Plested's presentation of Eastern theologians who eagerly translated Aquinas into Greek is quite interesting. I admit I didn't know how fascinated the Christian East was with Aquinas in the Medieval period and how eager they were to introduce more Orthodox to the 'Angelic Doctor' as he is called in the West.
The discussion of Orthodox Readings of Aquinas is placed against the foil, more or less, of not so much Palamas as much as the legacy of his theology in those who followed him in subsequent generations. What the author seeks to bring out is that there were many admirers of Aquinas in the East - even some who adhered to Palamite theology. I think he does this successfully and clearly.
He also seeks to show that even those who criticize Aquinas for his 'scholasticism' themselves present their own teaching in methods taken from scholasticism. Plested holds that actually the scholastic method is an inheritance of the East that was embraced by the West via Saint John of Damascus. He makes a case as well that the 20th century neo-Palamite movement which made so much of the divisions between East and West are not entirely forthcoming or are not aware of their own methodological debt to Scholastic methods. In other words, one cannot pin the differences between East and West on Aquinas and HIS 'scholasticism'.
I was pleased, whatever Plested's ecumenical sensibilities, that he didn't gloss over legitimate differences between East and West, but but appears to be trying to show that the differences aren't quite as black and white as normally portrayed. In the final chapter he even goes so far as to say that Aquinas is in many respects more of a Byzantine theologian than an archetypically Western one. Again, though, he says this not glossing over legitimate differences between Aquinas' teaching on the essence and energies of God and its corresponding teachings of created grace and the vision of God as a vision of the divine essence among other things.
I could go on, but this is a very rewarding (primarily) historical and (secondarily) theological study from which those interested in East/West relations and the roots of the attitudes between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians about their respective theological differences will learn much, as well as those interested in Aquinas and his theological descendants and/or Palamas and his theological descendants.
I was initially skeptical of what Plested was seeking to do, but I learned much from his very rich and, in my opinion, fair presentation of Orthodox Readings in Aquinas.
September 23, 2014
Много добре написана книга, която съчетава сериозна научна работа с яснота и четливост (съвсем не често съчетание).
Основната и по-широка идея на автора е, че доминиращата представа за методологичния подход към богословието на изтока и запада не само е силно преувеличена, а по същността си дълбоко невярна. Колкото и странно да е подобно твърдение от православен източник д-р Пластид се обосновава повече от добре. Той ясно показва, че макар да се е превърнала едва ли не в мръсна дума за съвременното православие схоластиката (определена като използване на разума в полза и подчинен на откровението и патристичното наследство - строго в този ред) има неизменно място в православната традиция и богословие. Тя може да се види в отци като Кирил Алкесандрийски и неговият христологичен противник Теодорет Кирски, Максим изповедник, в ясните, точни и философско чувствителни дефиниции на христологичните събори, в съставянето и нарастващата тежест на сборници с патристични цитати, които след това се използват по чисто юридически начин като авторитет по даден въпрос и т.н. Всичко това, разбира се, кулминира в Трилогията на Йоан Дамаскин, която е неотречим предшественик на схоластичното "западно" богословие."
На второ място, авторът защитата тезата си разглеждайки конкретно паламитсксия спор и опозицията изток-запад, която често се свързва с него. Оказва се не само, че много убедени паламити са много по-отворени за "западното богословие" и определят положително (макар и подчинено) място на разума в богословието, но и че точно обратното е характерно за техните непосредствени противници Варлаам, Акиндим и Григора.
Подобно е и положението по "оста" униати - анти-униати. Много убедени анти-униати оценяват и имат положително отношение към "западното" богословие без по никакъв начин да виждат някакво методологическо противопоставяме между своята собствена и западната традиция. Очевиден пример в това отношение е самият Марк Ефески.
Оказва се, че макар апофатиката и мистиката да са не само важна, но същностна част от източната богословска традиция те не я изчерпват сами по себе си. Систематизацията, точността на дефинициите и използването на разума и философията в полза на богословието са не по-малко характерни за християнския изток.
По-тясната идея на д-р Пластид е да покаже как това действа чрез отношението към Тома Аквински на изток от превода на Сума против езичниците до наши дни. Резултатите са интересни и учудващи - в някои отношения това, което днес се счита за завръщане към корените всъщност представлява отдалечаване от тях.
Като цяло много добро и балансирано в изследване, което обаче е твърде специализирано за повечето читатели.
Основната и по-широка идея на автора е, че доминиращата представа за методологичния подход към богословието на изтока и запада не само е силно преувеличена, а по същността си дълбоко невярна. Колкото и странно да е подобно твърдение от православен източник д-р Пластид се обосновава повече от добре. Той ясно показва, че макар да се е превърнала едва ли не в мръсна дума за съвременното православие схоластиката (определена като използване на разума в полза и подчинен на откровението и патристичното наследство - строго в този ред) има неизменно място в православната традиция и богословие. Тя може да се види в отци като Кирил Алкесандрийски и неговият христологичен противник Теодорет Кирски, Максим изповедник, в ясните, точни и философско чувствителни дефиниции на христологичните събори, в съставянето и нарастващата тежест на сборници с патристични цитати, които след това се използват по чисто юридически начин като авторитет по даден въпрос и т.н. Всичко това, разбира се, кулминира в Трилогията на Йоан Дамаскин, която е неотречим предшественик на схоластичното "западно" богословие."
На второ място, авторът защитата тезата си разглеждайки конкретно паламитсксия спор и опозицията изток-запад, която често се свързва с него. Оказва се не само, че много убедени паламити са много по-отворени за "западното богословие" и определят положително (макар и подчинено) място на разума в богословието, но и че точно обратното е характерно за техните непосредствени противници Варлаам, Акиндим и Григора.
Подобно е и положението по "оста" униати - анти-униати. Много убедени анти-униати оценяват и имат положително отношение към "западното" богословие без по никакъв начин да виждат някакво методологическо противопоставяме между своята собствена и западната традиция. Очевиден пример в това отношение е самият Марк Ефески.
Оказва се, че макар апофатиката и мистиката да са не само важна, но същностна част от източната богословска традиция те не я изчерпват сами по себе си. Систематизацията, точността на дефинициите и използването на разума и философията в полза на богословието са не по-малко характерни за християнския изток.
По-тясната идея на д-р Пластид е да покаже как това действа чрез отношението към Тома Аквински на изток от превода на Сума против езичниците до наши дни. Резултатите са интересни и учудващи - в някои отношения това, което днес се счита за завръщане към корените всъщност представлява отдалечаване от тях.
Като цяло много добро и балансирано в изследване, което обаче е твърде специализирано за повечето читатели.
Want to read
September 12, 2024Adam DeVille's interview with the author: https://easternchristianbooks.blogspo...
From Adam DeVille:
“I had a chance to read it before sending it out to an expert Thomist for review. It is a splendid book, and I very warmly encourage all who are interested in these matters to get a copy and appreciate the many riches of this detailed, well researched, and very cogently written study which overturns so much rubbish about 'Thomism' and 'scholasticism' that ignorant apologists for the East have often proffered without bestirring themselves to inquire into such tiresome matters as actual texts or historical facts. Equally, though, it overturns a lot of other rubbish about the glories of Palamism, and how Palamas is the counterpoint to that very bad man Aquinas. Both perspectives, as Plested shows, are uniquely creations of late modernity and not at all reflective of either figure or their near-contemporaries. Thomas was far more gracious towards, far more open to, and far more deeply immersed in, Greek thought, than he is usually given credit for, and much the same could be said about Palamas's immersion in Latin theology.
“This is, then, a wholly welcome book if for no other reason than it clears away a lot of the tiresome and tendentious detritus blocking the way towards a discussion of real and serious issues (e.g., the papacy) in the search for East-West rapprochement. We need to get past the bad, and often deliberate, historical distortions of each other in order to deal with reality. We are greatly indebted to Plested for helping us to do this with the one figure who (as I noted earlier), arguably more than any other (though Augustine and Anselm are close contenders), is often held up as being somehow the perfect exemplar of everything that is wrong with the West and everything that blocks unity with the East. What a weary roadshow that has become, and its complete demolition in Plested's hands is a greatly cheering development.”
https://easternchristianbooks.blogspo...
From Adam DeVille:
“I had a chance to read it before sending it out to an expert Thomist for review. It is a splendid book, and I very warmly encourage all who are interested in these matters to get a copy and appreciate the many riches of this detailed, well researched, and very cogently written study which overturns so much rubbish about 'Thomism' and 'scholasticism' that ignorant apologists for the East have often proffered without bestirring themselves to inquire into such tiresome matters as actual texts or historical facts. Equally, though, it overturns a lot of other rubbish about the glories of Palamism, and how Palamas is the counterpoint to that very bad man Aquinas. Both perspectives, as Plested shows, are uniquely creations of late modernity and not at all reflective of either figure or their near-contemporaries. Thomas was far more gracious towards, far more open to, and far more deeply immersed in, Greek thought, than he is usually given credit for, and much the same could be said about Palamas's immersion in Latin theology.
“This is, then, a wholly welcome book if for no other reason than it clears away a lot of the tiresome and tendentious detritus blocking the way towards a discussion of real and serious issues (e.g., the papacy) in the search for East-West rapprochement. We need to get past the bad, and often deliberate, historical distortions of each other in order to deal with reality. We are greatly indebted to Plested for helping us to do this with the one figure who (as I noted earlier), arguably more than any other (though Augustine and Anselm are close contenders), is often held up as being somehow the perfect exemplar of everything that is wrong with the West and everything that blocks unity with the East. What a weary roadshow that has become, and its complete demolition in Plested's hands is a greatly cheering development.”
https://easternchristianbooks.blogspo...
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews