Posted on 05/13/2005 8:59:21 AM PDT by NYer
"Yup, I actually know him as St. John Chrysostom (wihout the -os)."
An unfortunate Anglicization of a beautiful Greek name.
I wonder how they pronounce his name in Latin. What did you think of my little anecdote on him?
Nope, Serb. Croats are just Roman Catholic Serbs. :)
LOL. They do speak the same language. It's just written in different alphabets.
"What did you think of my little anecdote on him?"
Well, since he's my patron saint and I celebrate my nameday on his feast day, I'd say you should seek his intercesstion everyday.
>>>> Chrysostom <<<<
>> An unfortunate Anglicization of a beautiful Greek name. <<
The Mouth of Christ?
Golden Mouth
You're right, Pyro; Our Lady certainly helped my Tiber-crossing. It gets my vinegar up when I see "catholics" ignore her, minimize her, and disrespect her. I was still Anglican when the light bulb went on for me about her and I was in love with her - so to speak about two and a half years before I became Catholic.
It looks that way.
They did believe and picked successors .. all the way up to the present.
It looks that way.
>> Golden Mouth <<
Quite an appropriate name for St. John of the Cross, no?
St. John of the Cross is a completely different fellow, a Spanish Dominican from the 17th Century; contemporary of St. Teresa of Avila.
Call it whatever you want... those types just show up to display their ignorance at a loud volume. My brother was one of those until he got himself permanently banned, it's vastly annoying.
oops.
Do I feel like an idiot.
I have a son named "John" (we call him "Jack", tho). Kid has more namedays than he knows what to do with ... unofficially, he's named after St. John Fisher, and his brother is named after St. Thomas More, but I think his favorite St. John is the Baptist.
Kolokotronis replied: Patristic/Scholastic, East/West; different strokes etc. Remember though that +Chrysostomos is a Father of the Church and one of the Three Great Hierarchs
It's a mistake to label everything Western "scholastic" and to imply that it is somehow in opposition to Patristic mentalities. Francis de Sales, if anything, comes out of the humanist recovery of the Latin (and Greek) patristic world. His spirituality is anything but scholastic. Even at the periods when Scholasticism dominated in Latin West (13th-14thc, 18th-early 20thc), patristic-oriented theology continued among the contemplative monastic orders (Carthusians, for example). Moreover, there are scholastics and there are scholastics, and the earlier Scholastics (up to Thomas Aquinas, perhaps) have more in common with the patristic period than with the worst of the rationalizing neo-scholastics of the modern era. That era is over and gone, a patristic renewal has dominated much of the 20thc and it produced first JPII and now Benedict XVI, both of whom were trained within the big bad old neo-scholastic tradition but rose out of it with a genuine patristic renewal. So even the Scholastics can be read in harmony, not at odds with, the patristic world. And the rereading was carried out by secular priests, contemplative monastics, mendicant scholastics, Jesuits (Chenu, de Lubac, von Balthasar, Leclercq etc.) representing the full spectrum of the Western, Latin theological tradition as it had developed in the modern era.
Instead of pitting "scholastic" against "patristic" (or worse, which I don't know if you intended) using the former for the West as a whole and the latter for the East as a whole, it would be helpful to understand the West better if one realized that Scholasticism represented an effort to apply the patristic reading of Scripture to the socio-economic, political and philosophical questions that had arisen in the Latin West (and did not emerge in the same way in the Greek East), just as the Fathers themeselves were attempting to apply the heritage transmitted to them from the Apostles in the Scriptures to the Greek and Latin philosophical and socio-political issues of their day.
Scholasticism did this relatively well in the 12th-13thc, but ran into difficulties as the West entered a socio-political-philosophical crisis in the 15th-16thc: rise of nationalism and absolutist kingship, rise of nominalist conceptualism, rise of neo-Augustinian determinism etc. It took several centuries to recover from the body blow dealt by the combined assault of nationalism, absolutism, religious division accentuated by nationalism and absolutism in the religious wars of the 1500s and 1600s, leading out of disgust with the religious wars to the arid rationalism of the Enlightenment and the unfettered nationalism of the 1700s and 1800s. It took a long time to respond to all that, but when the response came, intellectually, it came from those who were trained in scholasticism but employed the patristic heritage to rise above it (Maritain, for instance, in socio-political matters; Chenu, Lubac, Leclercq and others in theological and philosophical and spirituality aspects).
Spanish Carmelite of the 16thc would be closer.
D:
You're relatively new here so I'll excuse your apparent looking for the worst in what I wrote. Most of the Romans here will tell you that I am hardly anti-Roman Catholic and am tied with Agrarian in the role of Orthodox cheerleader for +Benedict XVI. On the other hand, like many of the Latins here, I don't pretend that there are not differences in the way the East and the West "do" theology, traditionally, though the end spot is almost always the same place or that our doctrinal difference, few though they may be, are of no consequence. I feel that's just being fair to each other and to ourselves, especially in the face of the heterodox. As for +Francis, I have absolutely no idea what his theology was. I know he wasn't a Father of the Church, but have no problem with what he did. Its simply different from what we usually do.
No, but he is a Doctor of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.