www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "East vs. West" is Inaccurate

The Fathers of the first seven councils could indeed make it happen, East and West.

It is absolutely possible to embrace one truth from a different aspect, different place of origin. St. Augustine put it well in his maxim "unity in essentials...but charity in all things". Like the Fathers of VII, and our late Holy Father JPII, we need to revitalize that spirit.

For the Latins, VII was a Council, with all of the Bishops present, headed by the Holy Father. One can quibble over "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic", but those distinctions are not that significant. It was a council, and it happened.

This Pope has made it clear he wants to carry out the authentic reform of the Council as well as his predecessor. I personally think a much greater crisis would have happened in the Church in those years. There is no confusion with the guy in the Tiara.

Liturgically (and I am a strong supporter of the Latin Mass), the experimentation was happening a century before VII. The laicization "craze" was already in full swing in the 1950s. Low Mass was the norm in nearly every parish.

Every pre-VII catechism tells us that the Holy Spirit is operative at Councils. There are far more RCs now than at the opening of the first session of VII Council. It is not for me to judge the "quality" or "heart" of those Catholics.

I agree with Matt - and Soloviev, Newman, Leo XIII, and JPII. Regarding Palamas - he is included in Greek Catholic calendars and is taught (thank God) regularly now in seminary programs.

I agree with Soloviev that the greatest misfortune to befall mankind was the separation of Eastern and Western Christianity. "Two lungs" is still the best analogy I have yet heard - although in truth we are not there yet, at least from the Eastern lung.
DD

Hi Matt! Thanks for the response.

"I haven't read that book so I won't comment on it."

It's a really interesting book, worth the read.

"Perhaps you could list some theological expressions in Eastern Orthodoxy that Rome finds objectionable? "

I don't believe I said anything about The Latin church objecting to Eastern theology. The differences betwen East and West to some extent are (hmm the right word...) intellectual or personality? From my readings, and few discussions with Eastern and Western Priests, what I have seen is that the East is more tolerant of ambiguity, and does not feel the need to define everything in concrete terms. Of course the frustration for a Westerner might be when the Easterners say: "well ultimately its beyond our understanding as humans. It is a mystery."

Whereas the West needs to define things exactly, and the church of Rome is the final arbiter of these definitions. There is no room for discussion or disagreement. That is the one point Freeman discusses in detail. That the Roman Church in an attempt to consolidate its power over western communities had to set itself as the sole voice of authority. And what drives it, it seems to me is this western need for concreteness.

Now I have no idea what exactly Rome would accept the East believing but always had the impression that the docrine of original sin (which is not in the Eastern theology) as well as the immaculate conception (which because there is no original sin, there is no need for Theotokos to be immaculately conceived in Eastern Theology) were considered part of the "true Faith" (Which by the way was what was stated earlier in this thread, not "the truth" whether West or East.) not to mention the filioque...which gets to an essential disagreement of the nature of each part of the Trinity.

But when you say that Rome accepts differences of opinion on these theological matters, I don't see that in the statements coming out of Rome. When the Pope asserts that the Latin Church is the only true mother church that does not seem like a very tolerant of differences of opinion kind of statement. Well its hard not to get annoyed, at a minimum, as an Orthodox christian by a statement like that. And it certainly does not recognize the relationship that Rome had with Constantinople.


"I doubt that Rome would make the East change anything should communion be restored. Of course the Orthodox don't generally feel this way"

We don't feel that way, because the history of the Roman church has not be one of tolerance and indeed the Popes have continued to assert their supremacy and the centralization of church political power in Rome.

"life being better under Rome because you can respect both Eastern and Western traditions."

Well anyone can respect both traditions, I just don't see what is inherent to Rome that would make it seemingly more tolerant...

This more than anything else has opened me to the east. I think, or experience, that this concretizing is in a practical way contrary to the Gospel. I understand it is not intended to stifle but never-the-less, it does. It is almost like an extreme excercise in rationalization of the spiritual. Of course this has limits.

"Rationalization of the Spiritual"

Yes. I think you put your finger on it. That is the Western intellectual approach. And its one found not just in the Roman church but in the protestant churches as well.

orthodox don't really see much distinction between Roman and Protestant. In some ways I think the Roman Catholics need to have a rapprochement with the Protestant churches first before they can reunite with the Orthodox.

on the other hand something I was reading recently was saying that for a rapprochement between East and West catholics the basis would be to look to history to look to the theologians who were writing before the schism, and the saints that were from before the schism. These are the common heritage of both churches.

St. John Chrysostom was a profound thinker and had a marvelous understanding of humanity. He was a monk first and then became a bishop. And there's a wonderful new book out:
Women and Men in the Early Church, The Full Views of St. John Chrysostom by David C. Ford. I recently stumbled across this book because I was looking for research on St. Nonna (my namesake).

There is so much to say on this topic...

Nonna,

There is a lot to say about all this but I will be somewhat brief because multiple threads have been made to discuss the details of these issues.

1. You are the first Orthodox person who I've read who has said there is no original sin in Orthodox theology. What is usually said is that the Eastern Orthodox have a different conception of original sin (ie no stain, no transmitted guilt). Rome sees this as perfectly compatable with the statements about original sin in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don't believe Rome holds to what you think it does.

2. Rome believes there is no disagreement on the Trinity and that the East and West are confessing the same truth.

3. Statements by Ratzinger/Benedict regarding the East (from another thread):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, page 199]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patriarch Athenagoras himself spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope in Phanar: "Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, 'he who presides in love'" (Ingatius of Antioch, epistola Ad Romanos, PG 5, col. 801, prologue). It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church � and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the "primacy of jurisdiction" but confesses a primacy of "honor" and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pages 216-217]

Well anyone can respect both traditions, I just don't see what is inherent to Rome that would make it seemingly more tolerant...

Rome can be seen as more tolerant because it embraces East and West in a way that the East does not. You can be a Palamite and be in communion with Rome. Can you honestly tell me you can be a Thomist and be Eastern Orthodox? Probably not. That is what I am getting at.

And just one more note: if Roman Catholicism is so spiritually stifling then how did it produce such mystical saints as Catherine of Siena, Padre Pio, Francis of Assisi, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc, etc? Of all the arguments to use, this is one of the weakest in my opinion.

Matt

Quick reply to Matt on one or two points and I still have to digest the bulk of your post!

I misspoke. It's the idea of Original Guilt that is not part of orthodoxy. In my mind I was lumping the two together. The orthodox do not believe that Humanity inherited Adam's *guilt*, and believe that they still retain free will and can choose to imitate Adam or not.

Thus for one quick example -- and now I'm reading from Father Timothy Ware's book -- the Orthodox have never held that an unbaptised baby "because tainted with original guilt [is] consigned by the just God to the everlasting flames of hell" as is believed in the West.

It may be that others have had discussion on these points, but as a new member to the forum, it is wonderful to be part of a fresh discussion of these matters.

More later.

It is an obligation of all orthodox believers to wish union with Rome and West in a faithfull manner with orthodoxy, i.e christianity.


If necessary, we should unite as if one and live as if in schism with regard to jurisdictions.


Let us not be slow in removing from us that which, as a cause of division, was merely being greek or latin, byzantian or frankish, slavic vs latino-germanic front, greek glorious culture vs roman strict discipline.


What has caused us to divide along these lines is from devil, because Christ is neither greek nor latin, neither an easterner nor a westerner. Christ is above all culture, language and political interest.


As an orthodox, I do not find peace in condemning someone - who believes in Trinity, in God-Human Christ, crucified and resurrected Saviour, who venerates the Images, who asks devotionally the intercession of the mother of God and of the Saints, who is sustained spiritually by the belief and taking of Christ in Communion, who frequents all the sacraments common to us - simply because he is a latin!


And I agree with Matt, for example Padre Pio is a living example of sainthood in our modern time/era.

I respect him not only through his published biography which I have read, but also from the living stories, in which one of my friends, an italian guy from Neapoli was healed miraculously from certain death, after he drank acid from a bottle he thought of as water, and after his father, desperate for his only son, was merely thinking about Padre Pio for help, when he felt the presence smell of roses and a spiritual change from pesimism to optimism and, after going to hospital, learned that at that very moment the doctors saw a great change in his son health.

To say we must have reapproachment with protestants before we talk about unity with Orthodox is absured sure the western approach of roman catholics and reformation protestants are the same but their concuslions are so radically different even more so than the catholic and orthodox divide.
Anyways nobody speaks for protestnatism of which the 30 thousand denominations represents them.
They are not apostolic nor attended any church councils their ties with the church are more sectarian than schismatic. It would make sense to talk to fellow bishops and priest of the apostolic church than quarreling sectarains who are in division among themselves.
THe great Orthodox putdown is to join the catholic and protestant body together but reality tells us great respect was given to the west and specially the church and bishop of Rome before poltics got in the way naturally. Your prejudice gives you away my friend.

Tobit, those are good points. The first, absolutely first, prerequisite for productive "ecumenical dialogue" needs to be that which we all unquestionably share - Apostolic Succession, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.

Arising from this first condition, there is a minimum basis for effective "dialogue" as there is some commonality in Sacramental thinking. Priesthood and Eucharist are central concepts for us and need to stay that way. The Sacraments are our entry into eternity, means par excellence of theosis.

We cannot compromise on that, as neither can Orthodoxy, including Oriental Orthodoxy. That sort of leaves us out there together in the boat.

With Protestantism there is no agreement on a sacramental approach at all, some only recognize baptism (and even that sometimes by a non-Trinitarian, and thus questionable, formula). Leo XIII and Soloviev both recognized this, as have many others. What is the purpose of dialogue if the ultimate end result, Eucharistic communion, is not even recognized on a basic level by the other party as valid? Or even worse, as a heresy?

But historically it is proper to say that Protestantism did arise from within the Latin Church (no one doubts Luther and Henry VIII were originally Roman Catholic), and Orthodoxy, while affected by this indirectly through Protestant proselytization, did not endure the internal rifts of this scale.
DD

Obviously many Protestant groups are quite distant from the Catholics. However, the Vatican does carry out direct dialogue with various Protestant groups, and in many ways I would say is closer to those groups (Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran for instance) because of their shared western theological heritage. Both groups have also been affected by many of the same intellectual and social currents and that has shaped their world view.

In this country you can see in almost every Roman Catholic parish various ways in which Protestant thought and aesthetics have been incorporated.

Andrew

I think what Rilian mentions, especially with regard to aesthetics, may be part of the "indirect" external influence.

Cyril Lukaris' ill-fated attempts to integrate Calvinistic thought into Orthodoxy show Orthodoxy was not immune to this, either.

I think how close Catholics and Orthodox are relative to Protestantism can perhaps be answered with one question: Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ?

As Schmemann said so well, the Eucharist is "the" Sacrament of the Church. It is the starting point for any meaningful dialogue.
DD

The distance between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is far greater than most people want to admit, and the essay by Fr. Thomas Hopko, entitled Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time shows this clearly. Click the link below in order to read the document:

Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time [georgetown.edu]

Some of Fr. Hopko's criticisms are of minor importance, but the central criticism, which is centered upon the doctrine of the Trinity is the one that I believe Rilian is referring to when he speaks of Protestants being closer to Western Catholics than to the Orthodox. Protestants and Catholics share the same theological presuppositions when it comes to Triadology and Christology, while the Orthodox have a different experience of the divine founded upon the monarchy of the Father and of the priority of hypostasis over essence.

I do have to wonder what is meant by "Protestant" in the context of the conversation. Protestantism, as most of us know, is not monolithic. there are conservative Evangelicals, ouright radicals who deny virtually everything the Christian faith teaches about God, Christ, and other foundational topics, and a plethora of viewpoints in between.I still maintain that we of the East have much in common with Evangelicals as the latter seem to have a mystical element in their theology when it comes to Soteriology as it pertains to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual believer. else why are so many Evangelicals drawn to the East, besides the facts of historicity, worship, and authority. It is mainline Protestants who turn Roman, few of them come to us.I am thankful that Eastern Catholics can maintain our own respective theologies in the Catholic Church, otherwise we would have precious little in common with Orthodox bodies that parallel our own respective bodies, any converation would then be pointless and a general waste of time.
Much Love,
Jonn

John,

That is very interesting what you say about the Evangelicals. I confess I do not know much of the later arising Protestant groups nor of their history. I know more about Anglicanism, Calvinism (and the subsequent Presbyterianism) and Lutheranism .

But this whole discussion makes me think of a parable of Khomiakov's that Father Ware recounts. There was a master who had three students. He left them and in his absence, the eldest faithfully repeated what he had been taught changing nothing. The second student added to the teaching and the third took away from it. When the master returned and saw what each student had done he told the younger two to thank their eldest brother for preserving the truth he had passed on to them. Then he said to the eldest: thank your younger brothers because without them you would not have understood the truth I had entrusted to you.

Tobit you should not feel insulted that the Romans and the PRotestants look closely related from the perspective of the East. As Apotheoun writes: "Protestants and Catholics share the same theological presuppositions" -- the Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist doctrines were born out of the Western theological world.

Many Protestants believe in the real presence at varying levels. Look at what goes on at the Taize Community to see how the Catholic and Protestant celebrations can become intermingled.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I know very few Catholics who would be comfortable worshipping in an Orthodox temple. I know many, many who would probably feel pretty much at home in your average Lutheran or Methodist Church.

Like Apotheoun stated, I think there are many theological presuppositions shared by western theologians both Catholic and Protestant. I�m sure one could keep coming up with various other examples. The type of Biblical scholarship for instance taught (by Catholic professors) at the Catholic University I attended was essentially indistinguishable from the type of historical-critical methods used by liberal Protestants.

Andrew