Why Modernists hate scholasticism? Part Two

Thus, incorrect to say that scholasticism is a product of the West and intellectual import, derived from Europe. Scholasticism – a certain style of thinking, control and custody of mind over the spirit that emerged in the era of secularization of church property and ozemleniya human consciousness, heavily weighted in favor of analytical thinking, a change in mentality, a shift from synthetic, learn to sing whole perception, and to fractional differential. Scholasticism is the substitution of contemplation reasoning, intuitive vision of the spiritual world – deductive-inductive method of cognition. At the same heart as the center of spiritual life and gnosis is giving way to reason and sanity trying to strengthen the periphery of consciousness – the border zone to the enemy, breaking from the outside, did not take to the capital. The modernists deliberately confuse cause and effect. They scholasticism, as the cause of spiritual omirschvleniya. This superficiality.

Scholasticism was the result of secularization, the change of the vectors of knowledge, in some sense a reaction against the very secularization and the desire to oppose it rational barrier. It was a kind of “ohranitelstvom” of unrestrained Reformation. Scholasticism not antipode patristic writings, as the modernists want to present it as a forced move from the contemplative to a systematic theology, built on a fixed structure and a given plan. Scholasticism was inspired by the decline in the spiritual level of the Christians, their omirschvleniem and toning down the religious intuitions. Although Western scholasticism had its predecessor Byzantine scholasticism, but the process of secularization took place in the West so rapidly that a few centuries ahead of the East. Therefore, the West has collected considerable material for the construction of the scholastic system is already up to the time when the East in the face of aggressive secularism also had to build a wall of scholasticism, as the ancient empires were building the border wall by invasion of barbarian tribes. But scholasticism on

East went in a different way than in the West. Eastern Scholasticism was mainly systematic accumulated by centuries of material, construction of schemes for a better awareness, perception and memory. It differed from the western scholasticism more careful and correct use of philosophical language, whereas the western scholasticism began to use logic and Aristotle’s categories in relation to the metaphysical world. On this he wrote St. Maxim the Greek: “They (the Latins) do not believe the dogma, if not check them through the syllogisms of Aristotle. Scholasticism does not deny patrologists, want to present it as modernists, but rather is an iron frame for theology, based on patrology to theological knowledge could withstand the pressure of rationalistic criticism, which was later adopted Protestantism in devastating form. In Europe, Biblical criticism has turned into a kind of frenzy of reason, lasted for several centuries, and the Reform – the destruction of monasteries and the destruction of the altars. Therefore, we largely have to be thankful for scholasticism that did not follow the path of revolutionary Protestantism. Currently, when humanity is in a state of unprecedented spiritual and moral decay, can not be artificial, as it were, by order restore the spirit, mentality and lifestyle of Christians patristic period. Initially, in the era of the patriarchs

Revelation was transmitted orally from generation to generation. Then there came a time when it became necessary written fixation – Record of Revelation in order to save it literally in the integrity and purity. The process of secularization continued. It was reflected in that of the cognitive powers of man became more and more reason to stand out, and religious feelings and intuition, as a special gnosis became progressively dull. Then had to seek to preserve the purity of Orthodox faith rational guidance – Construction of theological systems, with the inevitable schematization. Then there was the need to address casual questions posed in the face of faith wavering mind. Loss of the ability of contemplation and synthetic thinking in much of the Christians created a vacuum, which took scholasticism.


Narbeh Aslan