birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church asrnan inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man,rnand is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdomrnamong men. He wrote most especially as a commentatorrnof Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old andrnNew Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions ofrnboth Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in hisrnbooks, almost all of which we have studied, both the fewrnwhich were translated by others into the Greek language,rnand their Latin originals, some of which we ourselvesrnhave translated into our own tongue…. In all the aforesaidrnareas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreterrnand synthesizer in those matters in which hisrnchurch agrees with ours. In those things wherein thatrnchurch and he differ from us—they are few in number—rnnamely on the procession of the Holy Spirit and the divinernessence and energies, in these not only do we obser’rne the dogma of our fatherland, but we have evenrnfought for it in many books. Our zeal even to the sheddingrnof blood for our dogmas is evident to all men, bothrnfriends and enemies, and the whole world is filled withrnthe books we have produced against those who denyrnthem. Glory be to God in all things!rnIn a later summary of the Prima secundae of the Summa Theologiae,rncompleted while in retirement at Serres, Gennadiosrnsums up his attitude toward the Angelic Doctor:rnWould O excellent Thomas that you had not been bornrnin the West. Then you would not have needed to defendrnthe deviations of the church there . . . you would havernbeen as perfect in theology as you are in ethics.rnGennadios’s Thomism is not a sort oihapax legomenon (singlernoccurrence) in Orthodox thought. We are not dealing herernwith the idiosyncrasy of one thinker. He represents a longstandingrnlate Byzantine tradition of admiration and judiciousrnuse of Aquinas’s works by theologians and apostles of the firstrnrank. The emperor John VI Joasaph Kantakuzenos was the imperialrnvindicator of the doctrine of Palainas (the controversyrnmost indicative, for the Orthodox, of the cleavage between Orthodoxrnand Latin thought). The emperor ended his days as arnmonk of the Charsianeites monaster)’, which Gennadios was tornenter almost a century later. As emperor, he had sponsored therntranslation of Thomas’s Summa contra gentiles by DemetriosrnKydones, and he used this very translation to refute the latinizingrndoctrine of Demetrios’s own brother Prochoros, who was alsorna Thomist. Both the latinophron and the Palamite zealot appealedrnto the teaching of Aquinas. Gennadios’s two teachersrn(also monks of the moirastery of Gharsianeites), Joseph Bryenniosrnand Makarios Makres, whom the Orthodox venerate asrnblessed, used the writings of St. Thomas in their dialogue treatisesrnagainst the Muslims, takirrg arguments verbatim, but withoutrnattribution, from the Summa contra gentiles in defense ofrnthe Incarnation and of consecrated virginity. Bryennios, anrnanti-unionist missionar}’ in Crete, and Makres were the mostrnvigorous of opponents to union with Rome. In 1964, when thernmonks of Athos made a proclamation against the ecumenismrnof Patriarch Athenagoras, they used the words of Bryennios, thernaccomplished latinist and admirer and student of St. ThomasrnAquinas, as the peroration of their ardent declaration againstrnuniatism:rnWe will never renoimce you, beloved Orthodox}’! Wernwill never betray you O Reverence of the Fathers! Wernwill never abandon you Mother Piety! In you we werernborn, in you do we live, in you we shall repose. And ifrnthe times demand we will die a thousand times for you.rnThe Christian use of Aristotie, the use of demonstrative argumentationrnin theolog)’, was practically identical withrnOrthodox Byzantine theology even (or rather, especially) asrnpracticed by the mystics. When St. Mark of Ephesus reminiscesrnin his deathbed speech to Gennadios—the very one inrnwhich he confers on him the onus of leading the fight agairrstrnthe union of Florence—and nostalgically reminds him of therndays when he taught him about the different uses of modalrnpropositions in argumentation, he is fully in the line of St. MaximosrnConfessor and St. Gregory Palamas, with the Kabasilasrnbrothers. Patriarch Photios, St. John Damascene, and thernwhole of Orthodox tradition. Aquinas was recognized as eminentiyrncompatible with this tradition, its use of authorit)’ andrnlogical discourse, and so there was every reason for even thosernmost jealous of doctrinal purit)’ to make use of him.rnAnother set of facts illustrates this point dramatically. At thernend of Byzantine history, there was a fierce polemic in whichrnboth Orthodox zealots and imiate Roman converts were alliedrnand fervent participants. The Platonic doctrine of GemistosrnPlethon, whom Cosimo de Medici had invited to speak in hisrncircle during the time of the council of Florence (and at whichrnconference Gennadios assisted), called for a restoration of paganism.rnThe Thomists among the Greeks, both uniate and Orthodox,rnattacked what they perceived to be a conspiracy to subvertrnChristendom by attacking Aristotelian philosophy.rnGennadios wrote copiously against the profane Hellenism ofrnPlethon and dedicated his works in defense of Aristotie to hisrnteacher, Mark of Ephesus. After the fall of Constantinople, thernimiate George Trapezountios hoped to convert Mehmet II tornChristianity and Aristotelianism, and thus see the restored Romanrnemperor use his power to crush the Platonic conspiracy.rnIn a discourse presented to the sultan while on a mission fromrnPius II, Trapezountios recommends that he consult Gennadiosrnon these points as a learned and reliable guide.rnSo why is the difference between the Latin scholastic traditionrnand the Eastern Orthodox tradition seen today as irreducible,rnand precisely on account of their Latin-ness or Eastern-rnness? Why is it that contemporary Orthodox thinkers asrndiverse as Meyendorff and Gavarnos insist that the best of Orthodoxrntradition is inherentiy unscholastic and Platonic? I willrnoffer only one of several possible reasons, but the one which isrnthe most dangerous to the faith and practice of Catholics andrnOrthodox alike, namely, the adoption of an anti-scholasticismrninspired not by Platonism but by modern ideologies, which imprisonrnthe faith in their categories.rnThe world, whether working in the Church or outside it, isrninspired by the “philosophies of suspicion” (as Pope John PaulrnII calls them) and wants to reduce the faith to some contingentrnfact of history determined by irreducible elements of race, language,rnpolitical or economic forces —in other words to one ideologyrnamong others —not capable of fulfilling the doctrinalrnstairdard of St. Vincent of Lerins quod semper, quod ubique,rnquod ah omnibus, or of the First Vatican Council that the dogmasrnof the faith are held in ever)’ age in eodem sensu et significatu.rnFor if there is a Byzantine outiook or a Latin one whichrndetermines dogma itself, if there is any human criterion whichrn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn