> Looking to find a way to reunite the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church...Thomas's work for Pope Urban IV concerning the Greeks, Contra errores graecorum, was to be presented.
> On his way to the Council, riding on a donkey along the Appian Way, he struck his head on the branch of a fallen tree and became seriously ill again.
> He was then quickly escorted to Monte Cassino to convalesce.After resting for a while, he set out again, but stopped at the Cistercian Fossanova Abbey after again falling ill. The monks nursed him for several days, and as he received his last rites he prayed: "I receive Thee, ransom of my soul. For love of Thee have I studied and kept vigil, toiled, preached and taught...." He died on 7 March 1274 while giving commentary on the Song of Songs.
What did God mean by this? What would Aquinas have said against the Eastern Orthodox?
as a platonist/augustinian and a member of the orthodox church, does anyone have a non-meme argument for why anyone should switch to Catholicism? except for the fact that Catholics have more lavish Cathedrals and that Catholocism is the religion of Western Europe, I don't see any plusses. The Western European thing makes me want to be a Catholic, but I just can't get into it. Orthodoxy Anglicanism and Lutheranism all seem better
Brandon Kelly
Because you should only join a religion based on if it's true. The Catholic Church is undisputed in it being the succession of the Throne of Peter (even Orthos admit this). A quick read of the gospel will show that Jesus intended for His Church to have a leader (ie Pope) and that Peter needed a succession for said leadership.
Jace Walker
I don't know how true it is but I heard that before his accident he had a major epiphany and was apparently was going to start working on something he claimed was going to outshine the Summa. I figure God had to take him out because the world wasn't ready for it.
Brody Ross
The fact that he said the Summa was "straw" to him seems like maybe he went more apophatic/eastern but then he still apparently worked on a text that would defend Catholicism against Orthodoxy.
But isn't the rock of Peter just his admission that Jesus is God, after first denying him? It seems like being Catholic is at least 50% defending Catholicism against its obvious mistakes (colonialism, pederasty). I just don't really find that in Orthodoxy. You can just BEE a Christian. The Orthodox have a leader(s) but it's not centralized. They don't change their traditions or have many feuds so I don't see why they would need to centralize it like having a Papacy.
Evan Ortiz
He has a book called On the Errors of the Greeks. I suppose you could read it to find out.
Christian Green
>you just don't find it in Orthodoxy It's like you've never heard of Serbs or Russians
Benjamin Hernandez
Many things which sound well enough in Greek do not perhaps, sound well in Latin. Hence, Latins and Greeks professing the same faith do so using different words. For among the Greeks it is said, correctly, and in a Catholic way, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostases. But with the Latins it does not sound right to say that there are three substantiae, even though on a purely verbal basis the term hypostasis in Greek means the same as the term substantia in Latin. The fact is, substantia in Latin is more frequently used to signify essence. And both we and the Greeks hold that in God there is but one essence. So where the Greeks speak of three hypostases, we Latins speak of three personae, as Augustine in the seventh book on the Trinity also teaches. And, doubtless, there are many similar instances. It is, therefore, the task of the good translator, when translating material dealing with the Catholic faith, to preserve the meaning, but to adapt the mode of expression so that it is in harmony with the idiom of the language into which he is translating. For obviously, when anything spoken in a literary fashion in Latin is explained in common parlance, the explanation will be inept if it is simply word for word. All the more so, when anything expressed in one language is translated merely word for word into another, it will be no surprise if perplexity concerning the meaning of the original sometimes occurs.
So it's just a defense of the filioque?
Parker Evans
>A quick read of the gospel wew lad
also thats really open for debate and theres evidence that... a large portion of church fathers didnt even believe that. also try explaining away sedevacantists (who seem more loyal to the church than actual church loyalists) and the dramatic shifts your church has made (typically to keep up with the reforms of cadet branches) many times throughout history despite its claim to authority being 'muh unbroken tradition'.
Ayden Nelson
And? Some Serbs and Russians endorsed the state...that's somehow comparable to Catholicism's excesses and abuses? Orthodoxy isn't centralized so it's literally not a problem for all the dozens of other churches.
