Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

Overview of Lublin Thomism (The Lublin School of Christian Philosophy) 🔗 [1/3] “Lublin Thomism” was born at the Catholic University of Lublin after the Second World War when Poland lost her independence. Stalin installed a puppet government that implemented the agenda and served the interests of the Russian Communists. However, Poland had been traditionaly a very Catholic country and the Catholic Church was still very strong. The opposition towards communism was based upon our identification with the Catholicism. Even though we Poles had lost much of our property and independence on the economic or political level, our spirit was free, and we still pursued and recognized the truth. It happened that the Catholic University of Lublin was the only private university over the iron curtain; all other universities were subject to the Marxist ideology. Both the Germans and the Russians tried to eliminate the entire Polish intelligentsia, in incidents such as the massacre of Polish officers by the Russians in Katyń. Some very young professors, who survived the war, like J. Kalinowski, M.A. Krąpiec, S. Swieżawski, S. Kamiński, M. Kurdziałek, and later K. Wojtyła (later Pope John Paul II), came to conclusion that they must demonstrate the errors in the Marxist conception of man. A wrong conception of man leads to Totalitarianism. Their task was not merely to show the errors in a Marxist Philosophy of Man, but to discover and show the true image of man. This was a philosophical task, but also had far-reaching political consequences. This is how ”Lublin Thomism” emerged.The Department of Philosophy was opened at the Catholic University of Lublin in 1946. The professors and students there have studied and written works in almost all the fields of Philosophy: Metaphysics, Philosophy of Man, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Law, Epistemology, Ethics, Philosophy of Art and Beauty, Philosophy of Culture, Methodology of Philosophy etc. Most of the work was done by Fr. Mieczysław Albert Krąpiec and his pupils. We try to follow the path of classical realistic philosophy. In our approach, the understanding of being as existing lies at the bottom of all philosophical investigation. The approach of St. Thomas Aquinas provides a reliable guide in our investigations. While the writings of St. Thomas himself provide us with a fresh and direct philosophical approach to the major questions of philosophy, the same cannot be said about the tradition that grew from his works. We must distinguish between the actual thought of St. Thomas as found in his works, and “Thomism”, which is the collective works of many generations of scholars who have commented upon the thought of St. Thomas. Unfortunately, much of traditional Thomism has distorted the thought of St. Thomas in the area of philosophy. St. Thomas presents a philosophy based on existence, which we may call “existentialism” (but we must avoid any confusion with the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre in this regard). Much of what is called Thomism is a kind of Essentialism. Essentialism lays the stress upon concepts rather than real existence, and takes its starting point in logic rather than in existence. The phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and his disciples is well-known in Poland, where many notable philosophers are in one way or another disciples of Husserl. Perhaps the best known of the Polish phenomenologists is Roman Ingarden, but there are many others. The Lublin Thomists are well acquainted with Phenomenology, and draw upon their insights and methods, but we should not exaggerate the influence of Phenomenology upon „Lublin Thomism”. We think that phenomenology is useful on the level of description, but Phenomenology is not a proper starting point for Metaphysics. Metaphysics is the first philosophical discipline, and all other branches of philosophy are simply applied Metaphysics. Metaphysics is the philosophy of being, and it is essential that the metaphysician should grasp being as existing. 🔗[2/3] 🔗[3/3]

Is the Catholic Church opposed to deportations as such? No, deportations of immigrants as such are not contrary to Catholic social teaching. They are licit rights of sovereign states. The issue is complex and includes several key principles: States have the right and duty to control their borders and deport illegal immigrants or those who pose a threat to public safety (CCC 2241, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis). The Church criticises deportations only when they violate the principle of non-refoulement, separate families without grave reason, or are carried out in an inhumane or discriminatory manner. Conducting deportations is a legitimate function and a right of a sovereign state. Illegal immigration poses a harm and a threat to sovereign states. 1996 Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees: “Illegal migration should be prevented and controlled through appropriate international cooperation and national legislation that must be applied with necessary firmness, yet always with respect for human dignity.” “States have the right and duty to regulate migratory flows.” When can deportation be morally questionable? -When it violates the principle of non-refoulement (not returning people to a country where they face persecution, torture or death), -when they break up families (e.g. deportation of parents leaving behind children who are citizens), -when they are carried out in an unjust, inhumane, cruel manner - the policy of "deterrence" at the cost of human lives.

Does John Paul II, citing Gaudium et Spes (§ 27), regards deportation as an intrinsically evil act? (in response to: 🔗) No, Gaudium et Spes § 27 does not equate administrative deportation with intrinsically evil acts. The text condemns: crimes against human life (murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) and separately crimes against human dignity such as arbitrary deportations, slavery, prostitution, degrading working conditions, etc. The Council condemed inhumane, totalitarian-style deportations (Stalinist deportations, Nazi expulsions, ethnic cleansing, violent population displacements). Legal, administrative deportation of persons illegally present in the country is not the evil spoken of in GS 27. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, bishops such as Gądecki or Zadarko, etc. have repeatedly confirmed that ordinary deportations carried out in accordance with the law are fully licit. The Social teaching has repeatedly affirmed the right of nations to security and protection of the borders, including with the use of force if necessary. The text was written in the context of international peace and Cold War arms race (“peace cannot be ensured solely by the balance of military power”). Every attempt to use § 80 or §27 against border walls or regular administrative deportations is an abuse of the text, not confirmed either in the text itself or in any official interpretation of the Church. The state has the right and duty to justly regulate the exercise of human rights, including the right to migrate. The political authority has the duty to protect the common good of society. As an example that is different to that of the USA, Gaudium et Spes is used in Polish Catholic discourse in favour of the right to deport (especially in the context of the ongoing Polish-Belarusian border migration crisis), not against it (provided it is done humanely). The crisis on the eastern border (Lukashenko's so-called "hybrid war") caused a wave of illegal attempts to cross the border by migrants from the Middle East and Africa, which led to the construction of a wall, a state of emergency and mass push-backs (deportations). The Church in Poland balanced between the right to protection and the call for humanitarianism, but GS served primarily to defend state policy against criticism (e.g. from Amnesty International or the HFHR, which accused Poland of human rights violations.

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Arians of the Fourth Century" Part15:  Chapter IV. Synods during the reign of Constantius;  Eusebians The situation after the death of Arius The death of Arius (ca. 336) did not end the activities of his followers. They had already disregarded him as a reformer and their doctrinal authority, and after the Council of Nicaea, they rejected his most explicit theses. The movement's main leaders were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who transformed Arianism into its milder form, semi-Arianism (semi-Arianism was a theological current that rejected the full divinity of Christ, considering Him to be similar (homoiousios) but not identical (homoousios) with the Father in essence). From then on, their method of combating orthodoxy became intrigue, slander, and manipulation at local synods, rather than openly teaching error. From 328 to 350, they controlled much of the Eastern Empire, removing bishops under the guise of legal ecclesiastical processes. Newman emphasizes that their doctrinal indecision and constant change of symbols of faith was not an accident, but resulted from an inner aversion to the mystery of God. Spiritual Analysis of the "Euzebians" Newman notes that worldly man rebels against the mysteries of faith because he desires to understand everything through reason and subordinate reality to himself. The dogma of Christ's divinity, which demands recognition of the limits of human reason and obedience to Revelation, was particularly unbearable for the Eusebians. Thus, they differed not so much in the details of the doctrine as in their very attitude toward the mystery: they did not want to adore, but to analyze the Scriptures; they did not want to believe, but to explain in human terms. In this sense, they were spiritually related to the "learned Greeks" about whom St. Paul wrote. Newman, somewhat facetiously, observes that Christians become more fervent and passionate in theological discussions the more mysterious the truths they discuss. He sees nothing shameful in this, however; on the contrary, he believes that precisely what surpasses us and remains incompletely understood most deeply moves the heart and ignites love. A believer desires to know and honor what he loves, and therefore gratefully considers even those aspects of revelation that are difficult or incomprehensible, for in them is revealed both the greatness of God and a source of humility and consolation for the soul. The Eusebians hated what exceeded their reason. Their heresy, therefore, had moral roots and was the result of pride and spiritual coldness, not merely intellectual error. The main representatives of the Eusebian faction : 1. Acacius of Caesarea A disciple and successor of Eusebius of Caesarea. A man of immense erudition, but utterly unprincipled. Initially a semi-Arian, he advocated the doctrine that the Son is "like" (homoios) to the Father, but not consubstantial. He later converted to extreme anomeism (pure and radical Arianism; the teaching that the Son is "unlike" the Father), and finally, to please Emperor Jovian, he signed the Nicene Creed. 2. George of Laodicea A former priest of Alexandria, he was removed by Bishop Alexander for supporting Arius. He was known for his moral licentiousness and instability. After a brief period of ostensible affiliation with the Semi-Arians, he died an Anomaean. 3. Leontius of Antioch Very cunning, seemingly gentle and diplomatic, he maintained a veneer of unity with Catholics, avoiding clear declarations in prayers and symbols. Publicly, he sought to pass for orthodox, while secretly promoting heretics. It was he who ordained Aetius, the future founder of extreme anomeism, as a deacon. 🔗p.2 🔗p.3

Newman portrays this doctrine as an elaborate edifice of empty words that, under the weight of its own subtlety, collapses, leaving only contradictory statements without real content. Newman emphasizes, however that semi-Arians were often men of high moral character. Many of them led ascetic, zealous, and blameless lives. St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, the staunchest defenders of orthodoxy, both treated them with a certain respect. St. Athanasius referred to them explicitly as "brothers," distinguishing between doctrinal error and intention and attitude. St. Hilary saw in them men whose lives and customs contrasted with the moral mediocrity and courtly opportunism of the pure Arians. Newman presents a whole series of figures who, despite their theological errors, were saints, or at least remarkably virtuous. Basil of Ancyra appears as a bishop of immense erudition and ascetic austerity; Eleusius of Cyzicus as a man of unwavering integrity; Eustathius of Sebaste as a tireless defender of moral purity. Even more poignant is the image of Marcus of Arethusa, whose heroic martyrdom under Julian the Apostate is described with a rhetorical force almost reminiscent of the classics. This semi-Arian bishop, who was capable of destroying pagan temples under Constantius and suffering for his faith under Julian, emerges as a violent yet uncompromising man, ready to die in agony rather than pay a single coin for the reconstruction of a pagan place of worship. Among the Semiarians, we also find figures whom the Church venerates today as saints: St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Eusebius of Samosata. Newman demonstrates that holiness of life and objective imperfections in the formulation of doctrine can sometimes be separated, and that the Church, in the long run, can distinguish between what was an error of the tongue and what was an error of the heart. Despite all these positives, the Semi-Arians eventually became a burden to the Arians themselves, especially when, after Constans's death, the entire West was opened to the Arianist court politicians. It was then that Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, introduced a new theological strategy: he postulated that creeds be formulated exclusively in literally biblical terms, avoiding all philosophical concepts, especially the word "substance." This was a clever way to return to pure Arianism while maintaining a semblance of fidelity to Scripture. The new creed thus stated only that the Son was "like" the Father, but did not specify in what way he was like, nor whether this meant a similarity of nature. This was a dogmatic veil intended to conceal the real difference in substance while simultaneously allowing the emperor and his advisors to claim that they did not reject the literal language of the Bible. Around 350, Arianism was no longer a single heresy. It resembled a large family that had long been in conflict, but whose members suddenly split into three directions: 1. Semiarians - rigorous, ethical, ascetic, defending the "similarity of substance". 2. Homojans - opportunistic, politically adroit, using the language of Scripture without theology. 3. Anomoians - radical disciples of Arius, who claimed that the Son was "unlike" the Father. All these groups began to fight among themselves, competing for the emperor's favor, for bishoprics, and for synods. During this time, the Church, and especially Athanasius and his followers,experienced violent persecution.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Arians of the Fourth Century" Part 14: Chapter IV. Synods during the reign of Constantius ; Semiarians After the Council of Sardica (ca. 343), deep tensions emerged within the Church between East and West. There was no fundamental difference in faith and doctrine between the majority of the bishops of the East and West. Rather, it was political circumstances, manipulation, and a lack of prudence on the part of a significant portion of the clergy that led to the split. The Eusebians, an influential Arian party familiar with court politics and capable of imposing their own narrative, were able to exploit the passivity of many orthodox bishops. Many of them, especially in the East, did not attend the Council of Sardica: some out of fear of reprisals, others out of convenience or a lack of responsibility. In this way, the voice of the Eastern Church was placed in the hands of people whom the orthodox themselves, in other circumstances, condemned as uncatholic. A false, orchestrated rift was created. As a consequence of this situation, the seminarian movement came to the fore: a group of clergy who had previously remained in the shadow of the Eusebians, and whose doctrine fell somewhere between orthodoxy and Arianism. The seminarians held a view seemingly close to the teachings of the Church, which made them dangerous opponents, especially for the West, less skilled in recognizing the subtle distinctions of Greek theology. According to Newman, the origins of semi-Arianism are almost ironic. The Eusebians, masters of ambiguous formulas and theological evasions, created various creeds not to express any real doctrine but to avoid accepting the Nicene homoousios and to appease Western opinion. It was a tactic, a play on words. However, they did not foresee that some of their own disciples took these formulas deadly seriously and began to build a theological system upon them. And thus, from the Eusebians' opportunism, a new form of heresy was born, sophisticated and seemingly profound, yet at the same time rife with internal contradictions. The most telling example of this attitude was the Emperor Constantius himself. Constantius was a man of an unstable, hypersensitive nature, prone to intellectual restlessness. He seemed always on the verge of orthodoxy, but he could never quite accept it; he always harbored some subtle reservation about it, some philosophical "but." At the same time, he was full of pride and a tendency toward tyranny, which caused him to change his position as rapidly as he fell into new doubts. He was capable of exiling his former associates simply because they no longer corresponded to his new theological subtleties. Moreover, what distinguished him was his ability to persecute almost all sides of a dispute and never found peace in any doctrine except the one that was true: homoousios. Semiarian doctrine The most important concept for the Semiarians was homoiousios, "similar in substance." It was an alternative to the Nicene homoousios ("consubstantial"), which raised two kinds of concerns among them: first, Sabellianism (if "substance" means "individual being," then homoousios suggests that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis), and second, material equality (if "substance" means a nature common to many beings, this might suggest that the Godhead is a common nature, like a species). These "fears" of the semiarians were not errors in the sense of heresy, but rather symptoms of mental insecurity: a failure to distinguish between the language of philosophy and the language of theology. In practice, however, their own formulations were far more contradictory than those they feared. The semiarians said that the Son was begotten of the substance of the Father, but not consubstantial with that substance; that he was eternal in the sense of being born "outside of time," but not eternal in the absolute sense; that he was truly the Son, but not fully God like the Father; that he was a perfect image, but not equal. 🔗continued

The Byzantine Rite - A Short History (1992) Robert F. Taft, S.J. #liturgy