Message from @LoJ
Discord ID: 451774143302729736
cathbol gang unite
Some Catholics claim that the Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church and Orthodox say the vice versa
where do you guys stand on that?
Do you know why they split?
It's FUCKING TINY compared to the Protestant reformation.
hang on a second
One reason,
was what type of bread should be used,
for communion.
._.
The other was the question of celibacy for priests.
In the Catholic Church, you have to be celibate.
In the Orthodox church, you can be married and have kids.
._.
also the difference between a platonist theology or aristotelician
ORthodoxs are platonicians where Catholics are Aristotelicians
that's why Orthodox rely on icons
and pictures so much
i mean the pope is an icon of catholicism i’d say
and they’re quite reliant on him
Catholics, as in referring to the ideology, are not Aristotelicians by any stretch of the imagination, Galileo's head rolled because the one and only Aristotelician ideal that the Catholic Church supported (all others were rejected) was the geocentric model and Galileo threatened that. The Church as a whole didn't apologize for doing this until 1996.
They are heavily reliant on dogma, not Aristotelician ideals.
Thomism dude
look it up
it's like the defining catholic ideology of the renaissance
it's litteraly the most aristotelician philosopher since aristotle
also Boece
Thomism led to the strengthening and rebranding of the Catholic church and Calvinism led to the strengthening and defining of the Protestant movement. A passage from Aquineas, "We do not perceive by an immediate intuition that God exists, nor do we prove it a priori. But we do prove it a posteriori, i.e., from the things that have been created, following an argument from the effects to the cause" paraphrased down to, "God exists because nothing here would be here without God." That is dogmatic
actually read the summa theologica
or the summa contra gentiles
it's about empirical analysis of god and his creation
it's obviously dogmatic but still aristotelician
dogmatism isn't contradictory to aristotle
i don't agree with it but it's dishonesty to reject it's aristotelician basis
coming from maimonid and averroes
"Empirical analysis of god and his creations", not the empirical analysis of EVERYTHING but just assuming that God created everything, Aristotle was the student of Plato whom in turn was the student of Socrates and they came to the general consensus that everything must be questioned and that there is nothing to be taken for granted.
that's also Aquinas's point
that we can get anything for granted because we are mere mortals
but it's an argument he's pushing with analysis
the whole introduction of the summa contra gentiles says it