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

Yes indeed, lex orandi. I suppose we should also then discuss the existence of the Western Rite, composed of many former Anglicans who have essentially kept their Western lex orandi and profess to be Orthodox.

Regarding Real Presence, I strongly doubt very few Protestants would actually admit to faith in that tenet. If so, they would be in direct contradiction to their own faith. Many converts to Orthodoxy and Catholicism have written about that being a central issue in their conversion lacking beforehand.

With the Western Rite amidst the Orthodox, and the Eastern Rites amongst the Catholics, again we are back to the Eucharist as the center characteristic of both.

Regarding your generalization of RCs, in fact most I have recommended to visit Orthodox churches actually have, and nearly all were not "uncomfortable" at all.
DD

Apotheun, if the differences in professed faith are as profound as you believe, how then do you justify being fully in communion with Rome ?
DD

This strikes me as being somewhat different than the topic at hand. It is true that the Anglicans present something of a conundrum since they don�t fit neatly in to the category of �Catholic� and �Protestant�. You can go in to some Anglican churches and they are quite bare and Protestant, others such as St. Clement�s here in Philadelphia at least in the externals are much more �catholic� than nearly any Roman Catholic Church in the country.

My impression of the Western Rite (the Anglicans) is they come from the high church end of the spectrum, not the low. They come from a similar background as the people who have gotten the Anglican use in the RCC.

Their lex orandi is very liturgical and formal.

The picture is mixed. Many Protestants certainly adhere to the Zwinglian view of communion simply as a memorial, nothing more. Many however, such as the Methodists and Lutherans, have varying degrees of belief in the real presence. What is truly disturbing is what has been reported from the other end. The Tablet published this a few years ago:

Article here [thetablet.co.uk] .

There will always be exceptions. I would stick by my statement that most Catholics who have grown up with the post Vatican II changes and the Novus Ordo would be much more comfortable and at home visiting a mainstream Protestant service than they would at an Orthodox liturgy.

Andrew

First Apotheoun: Thank you very much for the link to Father Hopko�s article, it gets at all the issues nicely.

Matthew: you assert in an earlier post that the Vatican sees Orthodox and Roman Theology as perfectly compatible. But that seems to trivialize the differences. ( it also assumes that only the Vatican�s opinion on all of this is what matters.) It�s as though you are saying the disagreement is merely over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, Rome says 100, Byzantium says a thousand. But the differences are substantial. Especially with regard to the corollaries to the basic doctrines. It matters very much to the mother of the still born child whether her child is consigned to Hell for all eternity or not.

But also the filioque. It�s effect is to downgrade the status of the Holy Spirit. I would venture to say (note here: I�m not a theologian, nor am I a Priest or the wife of a Priest, nor a nun. I�m only a very flawed Orthodox Christian who thinks much on these matters.)that in Orthodox thought there is a balance between the three parts of the Trinity and it is a balance that ;is profoundly upset by the filioque. If the differences between East and West are so trivial, then why shouldn�t Rome abandon the filioque. The heretical threat that prompted its *addition* to the creed has long since receeded.

You ask me �if Roman Catholicism is so spiritually stifling� how can one explain St. Francis etc. But you are putting words into my mouth that were not there. Please don�t do that or at least tell me where I may have unknowingly worded things in such a way to be unclear. I believe I never said RC was �spiritually stifling.� In fact I would merely point out that you left Hildegaard of Bingen and Josquin des Pres off your list and they should clearly be added to it.) I was talking about an intellectual difference between East and West, that is pervasive in their respective theologies. Rome and the Protestants can seek to rationalize spirituality while still having individuals among their midst who are highly spiritual and non-rational.

But the real clue is found when you talk about what Rome would or would not make the East do and what Rome would or would not allow as similar. That reveals the problem with the Western attitude toward reunification. You see, Rome is not entitled to make the East do anything. At most the RCC can only accept the differences that exist between the two. Then it comes down to a purely political matter: will the pope assert himself as the new vice-gerent of God? Or would he be willing to give up power to become merely the first among equals?

But Father Hopko does a much better job of exploring all these issues.

I fear that Apotheoun is correct that the distance between the RCc and OC is greater than the West wants to admit. It would seem the first step to reconciliation is acknowledging our differences, no?

But to go back to your initial statement "East vs. West is inaccurate" I can only once again point out, it was the West that forgot how to read and speak Greek. The West went through "the Dark Ages" There was no "dark ages" in the East, even with the fall of Constatinople under the Turks, they valued the learning of Byzantium and preserved the texts and allowed the culture to continue. It makes sense that the West would turn back to the East and rediscover all that it has to offer.
The East does see itself as the elder brother in that parable I mentioned earlier. But I would had that there is actually a fourth brother, one who did not learn from the master but from one of the younger brothers, and perhaps that fourth brother represents the more fringe Protestants like the Fundamentalist or Charismatic churches, and they too have helped us to understand the truth that the master imparted. ..

First, I want to emphasize that I posted the link to Fr. Hopko's remarks in order to show the complexity of the ecumenical situation between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, which is often papered over by Western Christians.

Second, I have admitted in the past that I am somewhat conflicted about the present situation between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches that are in communion with her, and that my views can be described as being in a state of flux. I remain in communion with the Pope, because I see primacy -- not supremacy -- as an element of tradition common to both the East and the West. That being said, I do think that there are problems in the way that this primacy is understood and lived in the Roman Church. Nevertheless, I do think that a solution can be worked out in connection with Papal primacy if both sides are willing to retrieve the tradition of the first millennium, which, as Met. Zizioulas has said, balances primacy and synodality.

Finally, I want to emphasize the fact that my concerns are focused primarily upon the differences in Triadology and Christology between East and West, and whether or not those differences are truly compatible. I admit that this is a question that I have not found a satisfactory answer to, at least at the present time, but I continue to pursue a solution to the problem with a charitable state of mind.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Todd, thanks for the frank reply. It is in a way a reflection of my own attempts as you to reconcile these issues. In the end, I firmly believe in Soloviev's analysis, that the greatest misfortune to befall mankind was the "Schism".

And I also agree with his analysis of East and West being like the two natures of Christ (the east dwelling on the divine, the west on the human) that must be united. He rightly identifies all of the theological excesses, both from the East and the West, because of this division. And like him, I see nothing inherently contradictory in being orthodox and recognizing the Petrine Ministry.

It often seems like reconciling opposites. But the Theotokos did that, and it is possible, through her and her Son. I have been looking at the issue of Christ as manifested in Eucharistic thought as the main similarity. But I overlooked something else also most important. The Theotokos. Her being the Mother of God, the Theotokos, like the Real Presence, you will not find professed by most, if not all, Protestants.

She brings us closer than perhaps many think.

Rilian, it is not at all different from the topic at hand. As you brought up the issue of the lex orandi, and differences between the RCS and Orthodox pertaining to the lex orandi, this is indeed quite pertinent to the discussion. Here you have a clearly Western lex orandi within Orthodoxy. "High" and "low" are really not that important in this case, as the objective fact remains a firmly Western lex orandi is there within Orthodoxy.

Regarding your assertion of Catholics questioning the Real Presence, which is certainly true, I could find many non-practicing Orthodox who also would question this (we could start with Michael Dukakis, for example). This is really as much a matter of modern secularism which has penetrated both.
DD

Arbanon,

Thank you for your post. Wise words I think. I especially appreciate your story of Padre Pio. These debates can become overly intellectual (how scholastic ) and we lose sight of reality I think.

Nonna,

First, that part about "spiritually stifling" was directed to familyman, not yourself. I should of made that clear. My apologies.

It matters very much to the mother of the still born child whether her child is consigned to Hell for all eternity or not.

It is not the position of the Catholic Church that unbaptized babies are consigned to Hell.

But also the filioque. It�s effect is to downgrade the status of the Holy Spirit.

As long as the Filioque is interpreted as originially intended there is nothing wrong with it. Do you agree with Maximux the Confessor's statements regardng it?

You see, Rome is not entitled to make the East do anything. At most the RCC can only accept the differences that exist between the two. Then it comes down to a purely political matter: will the pope assert himself as the new vice-gerent of God? Or would he be willing to give up power to become merely the first among equals?

I'm not suggesting the Pope can, or is entitled to, make the East do anything. I'm also fine with the terminology of "first among equals", and agree with Pope Benedict's statements previously posted. Of course the issue of how much power is entailed in a primacy of honor is still up for grabs, even within Orthodoxy itself.

But Father Hopko does a much better job of exploring all these issues.

I have to say I wasn't that impressed with the article.

It would seem the first step to reconciliation is acknowledging our differences, no?

The problem is we don't agree on where we are different. And I think a large problem is that Eastern Orthodox, in general, think that Rome holds to positions it doesn't actually adhere to.

Finally, I have an article as well that I think is worth reading. It is from First Things magazine in reference to a speech given by John Erickson from St. Vladamir's Seminary. Prof. Erickson, Kalisto Ware, and Orthodox of there stripe are the ones I most strongly connect with and if I ever became Orthodox I would follow in their footsteps.

East/West Reconciliation [firstthings.com]

Matt,
If I might be able to be as honest as I can about this I would say that it appears to me that Rome is tolerant on it's own terms. It's in no way conceding that it has overstepped it's rightful authority. If and until we can all(east and west) decide what 'first among equals' means then the whole thing seems patrinizing and a bit insincere.
I just read some of Meyendorff's Orthodoxy and Catholicity and he claims the original role of Peterine authority was iconic of each bishop. Each church had the fullness of Christ and was His body. It is holographic and complete in it's parts, not partial or material or needing more from another church. Our need for the other churches is a loving need- so to speak. He states that Rome indeed held primacy of honor but in the way that I would hold you in primacy of honor due to the obvious seniority of your character - not a power you would use over me. The west started to understand this respect of primacy (slowly but surely) in a different and political kind of way that was not the way it was meant. I was reading the History of the Christian Church by Walker and this is all very clear... kinda like watching a marraige start to crumble.
As for StCatherine and Padre Pio and St Francis- What can I say? God is still God. I'm not saying it's not possible only that I find it limiting in my struggle to be in Faith.
It is important to note that all three saints you mentioned had a very difficult time, i believe, with the catholic status quo.
Blessings.

Matt -- Thank you for the thoughtful reply (and replies). And for the link to the article. I'll read it.

You put it well Familyman. That was what I was struggling to say.

And some have stated here the basic starting point for reunion is the Eucharist (I think I've got that right). But it seems to me that one starting point is the Gospels themselves. That is what ties all four brothers (from the Master/Student parable I mentioned earlier) together, it seems to me.


Much of the rest of it seems to be a matter of politics and power. And as church authorities from all camps hash the political and power things out, I hope they do not forget that other common ground.

Matt,

This is an interesting question, because I do think that the Eastern Orthodox Churches hold to what St. Maximos the Confessor said about the filioque, but the real question is: Does the Roman Church still hold to St. Maximos' position?

Here is what St. Maximos said, "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence."

Now, here is what the Council of Florence said, ". . . the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

The Western Church at the Council of Florence taught that the Son, "just like the Father," is the cause of the "subsistent being" (i.e., of the hypostatic existence) of the Holy Spirit, but that is precisely what St. Maximos was saying that the West did not teach, for as he put it, "they (i.e., the Latins) have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession." So, who is right, and which position is truly authoritative in the Western Church? Until this is answered, how is it possible to say that the East and the West hold the same position on the procession of the Holy Spirit?

Hopefully these questions will be answered through an open and honest dialogue, but so far the majority of Western statements on the filioque simply reassert the idea that the Eastern and Western (as taken by Florence) positions are completely compatible, when clearly, they are very different.

You ask the question:

I will answer your question with another question: Does the West still teach what St. Maximos taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit?

Blessings to you,
Todd

Diak, a western expression of the faith can be completely Orthodox. The church existed as one for 1,000 years. The Western Rite is a tiny movement however.

What I�m talking about is more broad based. What I�m really saying is it is not off the mark to suggest the west reconcile itself before approaching the East, because they share so much, probably more than they do with Orthdoxy. When I say lex orandi, lex credendi, I mean just what it says. The way you worship reflects what you believe. Go in to your standard Roman Catholic parish and you will see this first hand. The parish in the town where I grew up had a completely bare interior, small stations, one small Crucifix, a tiny altar, a very pronounced table for the celebration of communion, modern music, people receiving in hand, etc. The worship and aesthetics were similar to the Methodist church down the street. Just look at churches like Holy Family [holyfamilyparish.org] which describes itself as an �Evangelical Church in the Roman Catholic Tradition� whatever that means. When you have things such as this it doesn�t surprise me to read articles like the one in the Tablet that show in some places there is widespread loss of belief in the real presence.

I hope that makes clearer what I was trying to say.

Not a great article in my perspective. I will say one thing that I find interesting. I cannot for the life of me figure out, given many of the criticisms I�ve read here and elsewhere of the Orthodox, why Catholics are drawn to Orthodox writers and theologians on the more liberal end of the spectrum.

Andrew

From Florence:

While I am somewhat uncomfortable with this, I am not yet convinced it is inherently heterodox nor overtly subordinationalist. St. Basil the Great, who documents the use of the form "through the Son" in On the Holy Spirit would seem to at least not be in opposition with much of what Florence has professed.
DD

Only if you misread St. Basil, who is referring to the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, and not to the later Latin understanding of the per filium as a hypostatic reality.

Ecce Jason and I covered much of this in an earlier thread on the filioque.

The decree of Florence was rejected by the Eastern Churches at the Synod of Constantinople in A.D. 1484; and moreover, the Florentine teaching falls under the condemnation of the earlier Blachernae Council (A.D. 1285), which explained the nature of the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, and which explicitly rejected any teaching that would involve making the Father and the Son a single principle of spiration in the existence of the Spirit, or which would make the Son a "cause" with the Father of the existence of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis.

Hi Apotheoun!

I was wondering --ever since you mentioned that evangelicals have converted to Orthodoxy because of their similar understanding of the Holy Spirit -- I have been thinking -- have you ever seen the movie: The Apostle with Robert Duvall?

I found it really excellent, especially the supplemental materials that were included on the DVD.