WeOrthodox
EN UA

All Roads Lead To Constantinople: Thomism, Aquinas and the Church Fathers

All Roads Lead To Constantinople: Thomism, Aquinas and the Church Fathers

The post consists of a short caption, 'All Roads Lead To Constantinople', followed by hashtags naming Thomism, Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers and Orthodoxy. No further text, argument or source material accompanies the caption, so the post itself offers only the slogan and the topics it points to. The phrase suggests a line of thought connecting Western scholastic theology, represented by Thomas Aquinas and the Thomist tradition, with the Orthodox East and the Church Fathers, with Constantinople standing as the focal point.

Because the original post contains no body text, no claims can be attributed to its author beyond the caption and the choice of tags. Readers opening the thread will find the four tagged subjects: the theological system associated with Aquinas, the saint himself, the patristic writers of the early Church, and Orthodox Christianity.

The discussion that the tags imply would concern how these areas relate to one another, but the post does not state any position on that question. Anyone interested in the relationship between Latin scholasticism and Orthodox tradition, or in how the Fathers are read on both sides, will find here a prompt built around a single phrase and four topics rather than a developed argument.

Main points

  • The caption reads 'All Roads Lead To Constantinople'.
  • Hashtags name Thomism, Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers and Orthodoxy.
  • The post contains no body text beyond the caption and tags.
  • Constantinople is presented as the point toward which the tagged topics lead.
  • No argument or position is stated in the original post.
14 opinions in the discussion 5 participants, 11 replies to each other The opinion with the most support theres a good debate/discussion on youtube between a scholar and a dominican priest thats really pretty good. palamism "wins" in that discussion imo but its worth the watch and will dispel some strawmen about thomism. remember: attacking strawmen does not… Read the discussion
23 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 14

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#1705

    theres a good debate/discussion on youtube between a scholar and a dominican priest thats really pretty good. palamism "wins" in that discussion imo but its worth the watch and will dispel some strawmen about thomism. remember: attacking strawmen does not help our position and i wish people would learn their opponents material honestly before crusading online

    • opinion#1708

      I Don't Strawman anything in this post, name me one Strawman I did

    • opinion#1709

      oh i wasnt saying you were sorry. that was just an aside comment.

  • opinion#1706

    i think palamism wins the day but i dont completely dismiss thomism as wrong. but even when i was catholic i was more of the scotus persuasion

    • opinion#1710

      iirc the thomist position is not that the grace in the sacrament is created, but that when it interacts with you, a created being, it becomes a created effect. basically what a palamist would call "synergy", a thomist would call that synergy, a "created" effect. which, imo, would lead to a either a nestorian view of the incarnation, or a monophysite one, depending. i think the uncreated energies doctrine is just a better explanation that avoids these errors

  • opinion#1707

    Where does Scripture or the pre-Palamite Fathers say the instrument must itself be uncreated? Aquinas doesn't say created grace is the whole story. For him, created grace is an effect that disposes us to receive the Trinity, who actually indwells the soul (ST I, q. 43, a. 3). He also speaks of deification as real "participation in the divine nature" (I-II, q. 112, a. 1). The sacraments are instrumental causes, with God as principal cause. And your own ST III q. 62 quote says exactly that. Arius denied the Son's consubstantiality with the Father. Aquinas affirms it fully. Calling a created effect of God's action "Arian" is an analogy, not an argument. And I have troubles accepting that analogy. The Oriental Orthodox hold theosis through Athanasius and Cyril ("God became man so that we might become god") without Palamas's essence-energies framework. That shows the Fathers' teaching on deification doesn't logically require it. Palamism's authority also rests on the Byzantine councils of the 1340s-50s, which the Copts don't receive.

    • opinion#1711

      you're Mistaken " Created Grace " isn't just an analogy neither me arguing against it was analogical rather I showed from Thomas Aquinas himself say s

    • opinion#1712

      Thomas Aquinas himself says Sacramental in the Eucharist and he also says in the very post I posted that Created Grace is not God himself you just busted yourself

    • opinion#1713

      Agreed that Aquinas uses the term literally. My point was about the Arian comparison. Aquinas distinguishes created grace (the effect) from the uncreated gift (the Holy Spirit indwelling), and he affirms Real Presence. So where do the Fathers before Palamas say the instrument itself must be uncreated? That's the premise I'm asking about.

    • opinion#1714

      if you use the Term Created and affirm that created Grace is not God himself and you say that which is participated is not Uncreated you're falling into Arianism we can hop on a call and I am willing to explain this to you

    • opinion#1715

      Thanks for the offer. I'd rather keep this in writing so I can check sources properly. I'm still learning, which is why I asked for the pre-Palamite Fathers who say the means of participation must itself be uncreated. If you can post those, I'll read them and respond.

    • opinion#1716

      Okay Read my Post I quote The Three Hierarchs of Orthodoxy saying this

    • opinion#1717

      you are correct that thomism affirms Gods essence in the eucharist, ie. not created. the person arguing against it affirms this is the latin position in his slides actually. thomist position is uncreated (God) + created (you) = new creation. and the reason thomas says His essence is in operations is to say that our interaction with God is not mediated by anything created. my problem with the thomistic model moreso lies in the fact that Gods essence is immutable, but His energies (or operations as aquinas calls them) are mutable. the essence-energies distinction reconciles this tension better imo.

    • opinion#1718

      Thanks. The quote you posted is Palamas, not a pre-Palamite Father. Where you cite the three Fathers are not actually citations from a work they collectively wrote but it reads more like a summary of their position which you think they had. And I would disagree with that. . Athanasius (On the Incarnation 54) teaches deification without your premise, and where he argues that creatures can't deify (Against the Arians II.70), he's defending the Son and Spirit's divinity, which Aquinas affirms. Can you show where a Father says the effect of grace in us must itself be uncreated?