[jo kus]

You underestimate the degree to which not merely ordinary clergy, but Orthodox laity, take and took theology seriously, and the degree to which there had been serious engagement with Western ideas in the centuries leading up to Florence.

I believe you overestimate the ability of the Eastern laity to get their hands on Western theological tracts in 1200 and make the distinction between East and West. I think you are forgeting that there was a language barrier between East and West that shouldn't be overlooked. Did the average lay person in Slovakia speak Latin???!!! Hardly.

The Hesychast controversy is a good example of this - as no one stepped up from the East to say that the prime defender of Scholasticism, Barlaam, was not accurately explaining what Thomas Aquinas taught. Not surprisingly, the East were able to exploit Barlaam's lack of exposition and advance Gregory Palamas' ideas and concepts.

IF there were so many knowledgeable Easterners on Western theology, Scholasticism wouldn't have been so poorly represented.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"Barlaam, was not accurately explaining what Thomas Aquinas taught."

Neither did the scholastics.

[Kolokotronis]

"Barlaam, was not accurately explaining what Thomas Aquinas taught."

Neither did the scholastics.