Etienne Gilson The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy
"We are reminded in the first place of all those vehement protests made by the Augustinians of all ages against the paganization of Christianity by Thomism....the mediaeval Augustinians were beforehand with them in denying that Thomism is faithful to the Christian tradition."
Yet, John Paul the Great reminds us Fides et Ratio
It should be clear in the light of these reflections why the Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas' thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies. This has not been in order to take a position on properly philosophical questions nor to demand adherence to particular theses. The Magisterium's intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.
*I do appreciate the ares of agreement we have. As to the disagreements or different ways of undertanding the same issues I have to say I have learned a ton from reading you and the celebrated Mr. K
There is a very strong school of thought within Orthodoxy that it was St. Augustine's speculative theological writings themselves that hellenized Western Christianity, primarily through his use of neo-Platonic dialectical paradigms in an attempt to describe the inner workings of the Holy Trinity.
This school of thought essentially views the dogmatic history of Orthodox Christianity as being the constant struggle to maintain the continuity of Hebrew thought (albeit expressed in Greek vocabulary) against inroads of pagan philosophy of one kind or another.
Christian thought is reasonable, but is fundamentally based on revelation and the language in which the Church received revelation. The Thomistic enterprise is one that inverts the normal patristic order of doing theology, which starts with revelation and moves on to a Church living out that revelation in the Holy Spirit. Through observation and experience in the life in Christ, the implications of that revelation continue to grow. By these lights, the canons of the church, for instance, are not laws which can be broken and which demand punishment -- they are the Church detailing actions that take one farther from God, and that destroy one's soul. They are a road-map, not a rule-book. It is difficult to articulate the Orthodox approach, which is not rationalistic or scholastic -- but which is not one that is unreasonable or irrational, either. I noted that in Fr. Neuhaus' article, he has this quote from Schmemann, who admits that he really isn't formulating it to his satisfaction:
Put simply: the Orthodox man begins with the ‘end,’ with the experience, the breakthrough, the very reality of God, the Kingdom, Life—and only afterwards does he clarify it, but in relation to the experience he has had. The Western man rationally arrives at and evokes the ‘end’ from a series of premises. The Orthodox often expresses that ‘end’ quite poorly in theology. For the Westerner, the end somehow disappears, is diluted in elaborate constructions.
How 'bout that? I quoted Schmemann approvingly! See what a bad influence you are? :-)