Aquinas, Sacraments & Wormholes

[Del]

Del, one thing about the Summa that really amazed my reading group was how on earth did Thomas write this? It was all done by dictation and keeping track of all the citations alone probably would have taken a super computer, but they didn't have super computers back then. How did Thomas remember all that stuff?
It's amazing.

Others have noticed this.... Even before we crack open the analysis and conclusions of Thomas, the sheer genius that it took to organize his four-volume presentation, article-by-article, is something marvelous of itself.

In the days before computers, professors writing treatises would put ideas onto individual note cards. Then stack, order, organize, and re-organize them in file boxes until they formed an outline of the work they wanted to write. Then think, write, type, and edit.

To comprehend what Thomas accomplished -- just to organize his texts -- with little more than prayer and a quill... is astonishing.

[Del]

I've read through the Summa a few times - mostly in those dim and misty days of my late teens and early twenties. Hit it up about once every five years after that, though I'm going on a good decade by now. I love St Thomas's thought, his expression is just so dry and formulaic. He misses the influence of the poetry of the theologians he draws from and reduces everything to cold statistical calculation.

And in this he is much like his master Aristotle- Aristotle was great at creating systems, but he never reaches the poetry and drama of Plato. Aristotle can write Poetics but he cannot create - or recreate - Plato for us as Plato could Socrates. And Aquinas can distill (Pseudo-) St Denys- but his writing never conveys the heights of seeing the seven heavens that St Denys does.

I say "he misses the influence" and "his writings" because it is quite clear that St Thomas did indeed see the poetry of his predecessors and know the heights of St Denys. And when he knew those heights he could say no more, because he lacked the poetry to express himself.

There are times - believe it or not - when I want to read to a manual for fun. But having read the manual, I tend to return to it more often when I need it than for the mere curiosity of knowing. Like- I can spend a day looking over the schematics for on old Tandy 1000 for the fun of it, but after that unless I have an old Tandy 1000 in front of me and a hankering to get it back on it's feet, I'll just watch Tron.

Just to bring this all back around to the original question- Hovannes, I think you'll see some confirmation of your hypothesis in this thread over here: viewtopic.php?t=469

I cannot deny some possible Thomistic influence in my Orthodox understanding of Sacraments

Have you had the joy of reading Boethius and his Consolation of Philosophy?

There is a jolly debate to be had.... was Boethius the last of the Early Church Fathers? Or the first of the Scholastics? (I argue for the Scolastics.)

But this is a beautiful poetic work, and fun to read. It distills the ethical wisdom of Plato and Aristotle, viewed through a Christian lens, and quite fun and easy to read.

This is congenial for modern American Protestants to read and enjoy, and they would probably get the most benefit from it. But Apostolic Christians get to enjoy the obvious reading that "Lady Philosophy" is a Marian literary figure, more obvious than Tolkien's Galadriel.

C.S. Lewis once commented that (until a generation or so before Lewis's time) any man who considered himself 'educated' was very familiar with Boethius's Consolation and loved it.

The Consolation was written in 523 AD. No one reading it could ever be so ignorant as to disparate the "Dark Ages" as being a time of superstition and ignorance and despair. We are the dark ones. We should be so lucky as to have best-sellers like that in our age.



P.S. It's a good idea to read GK Chesterton, too.

[mcommini]

+JMJ+

Speaking as one who also affirms that the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial, so I'm not trying to defend that position, how does one make jive the idea of being both here and there (ie at the cross) with our Lord commanding us to "do this in remembrance of me". That is to say, how do we remember, as we're commanded, if we are truly present?

It would seem 'being truly present' would by it's very nature discount remembering. Remembering seems to be the very thing one would do when not present, but it's the very thing we're told to do.

But what if "Remember" meant … like … Re-Member? As in the opposite of Dis-Member. To put all the pieces of the Body together in one place, where the Eagles gather?

English is super cool like that.

But...anamnēsin is the word here and it doesn't work that way.

I do think we happen to participate with that reality, that the benefits of that reality are accessed by way of the 'do this' bit, and yet to describe it as an encounter of the 'going back in time' historical event seems to de-emphasize the exact thing our Lord told us to do.

I do appreciate the wormhole explanation, and I do believe in we are participating in the event (not again as new, but always as ever now) and yet it must be more than a wormhole through space and time to enter another space time, because the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Maybe it's less a time tear and more like accessing a river whose source sprung at a certain place and time. To drink from that water is to participate with the source and does not do away with remembering. I've already thought of some ways this doesn't quite work as a thorough analogy, but I think it's able to hold some of the tension of participation and remembrance.

And to piggy back on Del's response about Pharisaic Judaism- the English language puns actually work really well because they do indeed convey the idea that the Greek wordanamnesis was used to interpret the Hebrew as it was understood in the Second Jewish Temple period and it really does go back to the Passover remembrances as they had been practiced by the Israelites since time beyond historical (non-biblical) record. And there are ties to Greek Platonism and how it viewed anamnesis- the Septuagint translators working out of Alexandria had access to the finest Greek thought of the period and Philo was part of their lineage.

As I alluded to in the thread on Ordinances, all of our English words that begin with "re-" pretty much apply to this Second Temple/Neo-Platonic view of anamnesis. In the Orthodox liturgy this is expressed in the ever-occurring word on our feasts "Today". "Today the Virgin gives birth to the Transcendent One, and the earth offers a cave to the Unapproachable One!" (Kontakion for Christmas) "Today Thou hast appeared to the universe, and Thy light, O Lord, has shone on us, who with understanding praise Thee: Thou hast come and revealed Thyself, O Light Unapproachable!" (Kontakion of Theophany) "Today is the beginning of our salvation, the revelation of the eternal mystery! The Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin as Gabriel announces the coming of Grace. (Troparion of the Annunciation). When "Today" isn't used the feast is always spoken of in the present tense - which I know is preserved in the West when all say together "Christ is risen."

The Sacraments are always an invitation to participate in the life of Christ in the here and now. The Eucharist is our regular invitation to feast on that sacrifice slain on Calvary, yet also before the foundation of the world- none of us, Catholic nor Orthodox, have ever held that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is sacrificing Christ anew. What we are doing is approaching the new Passover of Calvary in that time and place that transcends all time and space and partaking of the Body and Blood of He who said "My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55)

Which, note (and apologies- from here on grew from a parenthetical that got out of hand): St John has no Supper narrative. He goes straight from the washing of the feet to Judas Iscariot receiving a piece of bread in the "who will betray you" scene. Instead of including the Eucharist in his Last Supper, St John spends the entirety of the much earlier John chapter 6 really hammering home the theology of the Eucharist. Given how his entire first chapter is devoted almost entirely to debunking proto-Gnostics and their denial of an actual physical Incarnation of God, I wonder what he is trying to get across in his almost chapter long digression on Christ and His Body being Food?

And I have no authoritative backing at hand, but I find it highly suggestive that the one element of the Last Supper that St John includes is Judas eating of the bread. We know that by the time St Peter wrote his Epistles that he knew of St Paul's writings (II Peter 3:15-16). And we know that St John was highly familiar with many of the Asian churches St Paul founded, especially Ephesus, at around the same time St Peter would have been writing (Revelations... just, Revelations, guys) and this was most likely prior to the writing of the Gospel of St John. We can be fairly confident that St John was more than familiar with the epistles of St Paul- and it is highly probable that at the time he wrote his Gospel that St Paul's collected letters were already being read alongside Hebrew scripture in the liturgy of the time, especially in the Asian churches St John was ministering to in his later life. All that is to say- the only part of the Last Supper narrative St John recounts is Judas receiving the bread. Now read I Corinthians 11:27.

[mcommini]

I've read through the Summa a few times - mostly in those dim and misty days of my late teens and early twenties. Hit it up about once every five years after that, though I'm going on a good decade by now. I love St Thomas's thought, his expression is just so dry and formulaic. He misses the influence of the poetry of the theologians he draws from and reduces everything to cold statistical calculation.

And in this he is much like his master Aristotle- Aristotle was great at creating systems, but he never reaches the poetry and drama of Plato. Aristotle can write Poetics but he cannot create - or recreate - Plato for us as Plato could Socrates. And Aquinas can distill (Pseudo-) St Denys- but his writing never conveys the heights of seeing the seven heavens that St Denys does.

I say "he misses the influence" and "his writings" because it is quite clear that St Thomas did indeed see the poetry of his predecessors and know the heights of St Denys. And when he knew those heights he could say no more, because he lacked the poetry to express himself.

There are times - believe it or not - when I want to read to a manual for fun. But having read the manual, I tend to return to it more often when I need it than for the mere curiosity of knowing. Like- I can spend a day looking over the schematics for on old Tandy 1000 for the fun of it, but after that unless I have an old Tandy 1000 in front of me and a hankering to get it back on it's feet, I'll just watch Tron.

Just to bring this all back around to the original question- Hovannes, I think you'll see some confirmation of your hypothesis in this thread over here: viewtopic.php?t=469

I cannot deny some possible Thomistic influence in my Orthodox understanding of Sacraments

Have you had the joy of reading Boethius and his Consolation of Philosophy?

There is a jolly debate to be had.... was Boethius the last of the Early Church Fathers? Or the first of the Scholastics? (I argue for the Scolastics.)

But this is a beautiful poetic work, and fun to read. It distills the ethical wisdom of Plato and Aristotle, viewed through a Christian lens, and quite fun and easy to read.

This is congenial for modern American Protestants to read and enjoy, and they would probably get the most benefit from it. But Apostolic Christians get to enjoy the obvious reading that "Lady Philosophy" is a Marian literary figure, more obvious than Tolkien's Galadriel.

C.S. Lewis once commented that (until a generation or so before Lewis's time) any man who considered himself 'educated' was very familiar with Boethius's Consolation and loved it.

The Consolation was written in 523 AD. No one reading it could ever be so ignorant as to disparate the "Dark Ages" as being a time of superstition and ignorance and despair. We are the dark ones. We should be so lucky as to have best-sellers like that in our age.



P.S. It's a good idea to read GK Chesterton, too.

I have not gotten around to Boethius yet. I need to - but he's part of that list of influences I really haven't dived into yet as much as I'd like (like the cycles of Roland and Charlemagne. I could talk your ear off about Arthur any day, but Orlando not so much). My one point of contact with him is really Lewis's The Discarded Image.

I'd push the Scholastics off a bit further, though. I'd argue that St John of Damascus was the first - really his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith was the Christian framework St Thomas would base the Summa on. Scholasticism wants a system, and St John of Damascus gave us that system.

P.S. Del, the number of times I have referenced, quoted, or mentioned I'm currently reading a Chesterton book across threads and .net/.org sites is ridiculous. Chesterton is not just a good idea- he's vital to understanding absolutely anything on the Progressive/Conservative debates of today. To once again tie the thread back together, I actually wrapped up reading his biography of St Thomas Aquinas about two weeks ago.

[Del]

I've read through the Summa a few times - mostly in those dim and misty days of my late teens and early twenties. Hit it up about once every five years after that, though I'm going on a good decade by now. I love St Thomas's thought, his expression is just so dry and formulaic. He misses the influence of the poetry of the theologians he draws from and reduces everything to cold statistical calculation.

And in this he is much like his master Aristotle- Aristotle was great at creating systems, but he never reaches the poetry and drama of Plato. Aristotle can write Poetics but he cannot create - or recreate - Plato for us as Plato could Socrates. And Aquinas can distill (Pseudo-) St Denys- but his writing never conveys the heights of seeing the seven heavens that St Denys does.

I say "he misses the influence" and "his writings" because it is quite clear that St Thomas did indeed see the poetry of his predecessors and know the heights of St Denys. And when he knew those heights he could say no more, because he lacked the poetry to express himself.

There are times - believe it or not - when I want to read to a manual for fun. But having read the manual, I tend to return to it more often when I need it than for the mere curiosity of knowing. Like- I can spend a day looking over the schematics for on old Tandy 1000 for the fun of it, but after that unless I have an old Tandy 1000 in front of me and a hankering to get it back on it's feet, I'll just watch Tron.

Just to bring this all back around to the original question- Hovannes, I think you'll see some confirmation of your hypothesis in this thread over here: viewtopic.php?t=469

I cannot deny some possible Thomistic influence in my Orthodox understanding of Sacraments

Have you had the joy of reading Boethius and his Consolation of Philosophy?

There is a jolly debate to be had.... was Boethius the last of the Early Church Fathers? Or the first of the Scholastics? (I argue for the Scolastics.)

But this is a beautiful poetic work, and fun to read. It distills the ethical wisdom of Plato and Aristotle, viewed through a Christian lens, and quite fun and easy to read.

This is congenial for modern American Protestants to read and enjoy, and they would probably get the most benefit from it. But Apostolic Christians get to enjoy the obvious reading that "Lady Philosophy" is a Marian literary figure, more obvious than Tolkien's Galadriel.

C.S. Lewis once commented that (until a generation or so before Lewis's time) any man who considered himself 'educated' was very familiar with Boethius's Consolation and loved it.

The Consolation was written in 523 AD. No one reading it could ever be so ignorant as to disparate the "Dark Ages" as being a time of superstition and ignorance and despair. We are the dark ones. We should be so lucky as to have best-sellers like that in our age.



P.S. It's a good idea to read GK Chesterton, too.

I have not gotten around to Boethius yet. I need to - but he's part of that list of influences I really haven't dived into yet as much as I'd like (like the cycles of Roland and Charlemagne. I could talk your ear off about Arthur any day, but Orlando not so much). My one point of contact with him is really Lewis's The Discarded Image.

I'd push the Scholastics off a bit further, though. I'd argue that St John of Damascus was the first - really his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith was the Christian framework St Thomas would base the Summa on. Scholasticism wants a system, and St John of Damascus gave us that system.

P.S. Del, the number of times I have referenced, quoted, or mentioned I'm currently reading a Chesterton book across threads and .net/.org sites is ridiculous. Chesterton is not just a good idea- he's vital to understanding absolutely anything on the Progressive/Conservative debates of today. To once again tie the thread back together, I actually wrapped up reading his biography of St Thomas Aquinas about two weeks ago.

The Consolation is short, fun, and easy to read. And like Chesterton, Boethius makes you feel smart. Smarter than I deserve.

The astounding thing is that Boethius fell from being lord chancellor to the Emperor down to awaiting execution in a cell. Exactly like St. Thomas More under Henry VIII. And it was while he was waiting in his cell that he wrote his Consolation.

Boethius lived at a time much like our own.... It looked like Rome was still a glorious empire, but it was dead and stupid inside. The Emperor was a barbarian. No one was able to teach Boethius's children Greek. Seeing this, Boethius translated Plato into Latin so that Plato would not be lost. He was working on Aristotle when he died, which is why much of Aristotle was lost to us for 700 years. Boethius devised the classical education system (trivium and quadrivium), and wrote textbooks that were still in popular use well into the Middle Ages.

Oh heck.... just read his wikipedia entry. Boethius is as foundational to Western civilization as Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, the Bible, and the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethius

Do not hesitate to read Boethius. Move him to the top of your list. You will be glad you did.

[Biff]

Have you had the joy of reading Boethius and his Consolation of Philosophy?

There is a jolly debate to be had.... was Boethius the last of the Early Church Fathers? Or the first of the Scholastics? (I argue for the Scolastics.)

But this is a beautiful poetic work, and fun to read. It distills the ethical wisdom of Plato and Aristotle, viewed through a Christian lens, and quite fun and easy to read.

This is congenial for modern American Protestants to read and enjoy, and they would probably get the most benefit from it. But Apostolic Christians get to enjoy the obvious reading that "Lady Philosophy" is a Marian literary figure, more obvious than Tolkien's Galadriel.

C.S. Lewis once commented that (until a generation or so before Lewis's time) any man who considered himself 'educated' was very familiar with Boethius's Consolation and loved it.

The Consolation was written in 523 AD. No one reading it could ever be so ignorant as to disparate the "Dark Ages" as being a time of superstition and ignorance and despair. We are the dark ones. We should be so lucky as to have best-sellers like that in our age.



P.S. It's a good idea to read GK Chesterton, too.

I have not gotten around to Boethius yet. I need to - but he's part of that list of influences I really haven't dived into yet as much as I'd like (like the cycles of Roland and Charlemagne. I could talk your ear off about Arthur any day, but Orlando not so much). My one point of contact with him is really Lewis's The Discarded Image.

I'd push the Scholastics off a bit further, though. I'd argue that St John of Damascus was the first - really his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith was the Christian framework St Thomas would base the Summa on. Scholasticism wants a system, and St John of Damascus gave us that system.

P.S. Del, the number of times I have referenced, quoted, or mentioned I'm currently reading a Chesterton book across threads and .net/.org sites is ridiculous. Chesterton is not just a good idea- he's vital to understanding absolutely anything on the Progressive/Conservative debates of today. To once again tie the thread back together, I actually wrapped up reading his biography of St Thomas Aquinas about two weeks ago.

The Constipation is short, fun...

No it's not.

[Del]

The Constipation is short, fun...

No it's not.

Your quote vortex bug ruined your joke, Biff.

[Biff]

The Constipation is short, fun...

No it's not.

Your quote vortex bug ruined your joke, Biff.

Well crap.


How's that for a pun?

[mcommini]

No it's not.

Your quote vortex bug ruined your joke, Biff.

Well crap.


How's that for a pun?

It feels a little forced.

[Biff]

Your quote vortex bug ruined your joke, Biff.

Well crap.


How's that for a pun?

It feels a little forced.