www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Could Greek be the theological language of the Latin Church?

I believe that if Greek was the theological language of all Churches we would more likely have unity between the Churches and overcome theological disagreements.

Does anyone believe this makes sense?

I recognize it is probably ridiculous for me to comtemplate this idea, however the early Roman Church appeared to use Koine Greek not Latin, this was a time of significant unity.
My idea started with a comment which user Zenovia made a few months ago, I quote:
I also was influenced by an article I read about St. Augustine on the Greek Archdiocese's site:


http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

on the subject of Greek;
I took two years of koine (NT) Greek at a Baptist seminary, I take my Greek NT (and my Hebrew/Aramaic OT) to worship with me. if Greek does not become the language of the Romans, it sure has become the language of conservative Evangelicals as far as a theological language is concerned (most mainline Protestants do not require Greek in their seminaries any more). so, if the Latins do not do Greek yet (however, I do know a Latin Priest who DID take Greek in his Roman seminary as an elective), then it will serve as the language of the Evangelicals. just sit tight and wait. Greek will prevail.
Much Love,
Jonn

No. There were a lot of disagreements between the early Greek-speaking Christians before Nicea. Every time an Ecumenical Council was held there followed more arguments and more schisms.

Eddie

So you are suggesting no clarification of the faith because it may cause schism? Last time I checked the Catholic Church is still ONE.

Remember, Greek is the language that gave us physis meaning "person" and physis meaning "nature", among other theological confusions. I don't think Greek is any more or less prone to theological problems than any other language (and we should also remember that things like the filioque arose within the Greek language as well, though obviously the term filioque is Latin).

While it might be nice to have a single theological language, it won't give us a single theological framework, as that has never existed in the Church (just look at the confrontations between the Alexandrian and Antiochian Schools in the Early Church, both of which used Greek). What's more, the writings of many great Saints and theologians do not exist in Greek (at least not originally), and can't be properly translated into Greek, so we'd be throwing away a lot of great treasures if we converted to a single language.

The best solution is to simply take each theological school and language on its own merit and not try to translate it directly into another. This means that Latins must take Byzantine theology for what it is, and Byzantines must take Latin theology for what it is, and listen to the explainations of eachother with an open heart and open mind. That is the only way to resolve any theological conflict, whether it means that agreement is reached or a clear line in the sand is drawn. Just because we use different languages and systems doesn't mean we HAVE to talk past eachother, it just means we have to be more careful when we do engage in dialogue.

I think St. Maximos the Confessor set the best example for this when dealing with the filioque question, and his is the model we should all follow IMO.

Peace and God bless!

Demetrios Kydones in the 14th century translated extensive works of Augustine and Aquinas into Greek from their original Latin and he eventually converted to Catholicism himself.

I wouldn't think language in and of itself is a barrier.

Regards,
Robster

Dear Christoforos,

You stated the following:

Greek is more flexible and theological dogmas can be more defined and expressed in Greek. As for Greek being the source of the Latin language, I don't know what he means. Both languages are Arian language, as most European languages, (with the exception of the Basque language in Spain, Hungarian and Finland...or so I think), and as such have a common ancestor. Greek and Latin though, are more closely related to each another than to Gallic or German.




He is right to a certain extent. Languages are how we think, and it is the differences in the thoughts within the two Churches that caused the misunderstanding. Neither can really be blamed, since both languages and thoughts have their assets. If not in theology and the full expression of doctrine as it is in the East, then in the projection of the love and charity the Western Church is able to give throughout the world. Without the structural capacity of a Latin based Western world, we would not have the great Christian charitable institutions that now exist, not only in the world, but also in our country.


Is this to mean that the RCC has not been able to fight off heresies? I believe the Filioque came about in order to fight the Arian heresy...which led to Mohammedism. I have to assume from the events that occurred, that the Eastern Church was not able to fight the Islamic heresy.

That the RCC was not precise in it's dogma's, is quite a good thing...at least as far as unity is concerned. That the Latin language is not precise, should make it quite easy to transfer and interpret the dogma's into the more articulate and defined Greek. There is therefore no reason now for anyone to state that one Church must be right and the other wrong. All one has to do is define the Catholic dogma's into the more expressive Greek. So in that sense, it would be fair to say, our Lord's Love, is not capable of leading either part of His Church, into error.

God Bless,

Zenovia

The terms physis (normally translated as "nature" in English) and hypostasis (normally translated as "subsistence" in English) are not inherently confused in the Greek language; instead, the confusion of these theological terms was caused by a historical error of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who quoted a text (i.e., Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkomene) that he thought had been written by St. Athanasios, but which had really been written by the heretic Apollinarios.

Apollinarios used the phrase quoted above in order to deny the full reality of Christ's human nature, but -- of course -- St. Cyril, who believed that Christ became true man (body and soul) -- only used the phrase to indicate that the union between God and man in the incarnate Logos was real. That said, later Chalcedonian theology will associate the words physis and ousia (i.e., following the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers), because physis refers primarily to the powers of a being, and not to its concrete existence.

None of the terms used in Greek Triadology (i.e., physis, ousia, hypostasis, or prosopon) are viewed as exact synonyms by the Eastern Fathers; in fact, they all have distinct nuances of meaning, but some of the words have been more closely linked to each other in traditional usage.

Hmm . . . I dunno. I know Latin and classical/koine Greek pretty well, and I would say that the generalizations here offered about the differences between Greek and Latin are dubious at best. One language is not more or less precise than the other, or more or less suited for theological writing. The fact that there is a difference in language at all seems to be a more important factor than the comparative merits of the two languages. So, there is some truth to the notion that the linguistic divide was an important contributor to the schism, both in its origins and in its pertinacity, but this is not because one language is less suited for theology than the other--it is simply because they are different, and linguistic differences can never be perfectly bridged.

-latintrad

I think its a matter of realizing that the original concepts -- the foundations of our faith -- came to us primarily in Greek. The New Testament was originally a Greek text, and that can't be disputed. If we don't at least have the ability to go back and look at the original language in order to come to a full understanding -- well, the possibly of heresy is much, much greater.

No. I never "suggested" that. i simply "stated" that divisions DID occur after every council.

is the Catholic Church really one? The last time I checked it was still separate from its Eastern "lung". Maybe this was an oversight?

Eddie

I would respectfully submit, Eddie, that the Catholic Church is indeed one and always so, regardless of what regrettable divisions have occurred in Christendom.

Dominus Iesus (2000) authoritatively states that Catholics are to affirm the full unicity and unity of the Church and "that the unicity and the unity of the Church � like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity � will never be lacking." If one reviews Church teaching documents prior to Second Vatican Council, one finds the same concept repeated, with even more forceful and stark language.

Best to all,
Robster

The Orthodox refer to themselves as Catholic too. how can both be one if both are separate?

Does unity imply uniformity?

Eddie

Okay, forgive my historical ignorance on this issue, but I am curious about the link between the particular Arian heresy and Islam's origins? Because Augustine, who's Trinitarian theology is the primary source of Latin thought on the Filioque, was dead before Mohammed lived. Mohammed was not a Christian and so was not particulary interested in speacifically Christian theological issues. He was a pagan, and Belloc has written that he was politically motivated to use a Christian like religion to create political unity. Additionally, historically Islam dis not conquer by rational arguement, but by arms. They had footholds in Spain and Portugal for centries.

This may be off topic for the thread, but I am emminently curious. Even if there is a direct link, I don't think the East failed to fight off Muslims because they couldn't fight Arianism in an African form.

Thank you and God Bless.

Rose

Rose:

While Augustine's Trinitarian theology is of vital importance to the western teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the filioque was first inserted into the creed in Spain, some time after the death of Augustine. The reason was to combat lingering Arianism-but not Islam. Many of the various Gothic peoples first heard the Gospel not from Orthodox/Catholic Christians, but from Arians. Arianism remained among many of the Gothic peoples in Gaul and Spain for several centuries. Charlemagne would also give this practice of reciting the filioque a further boost by requiring it some time after its use first arose in Spain. As for the Arian heresy giving rise to Islam-I don't know. I think that's a complex question. However, very early on, there were Christians (including John of Damascus) who saw Islam as another manifestation of the Arian heresy. Given the fact that Mohammad acknowledged the Gospels (although he believed that they had been corrupted by Christians) and believed in the Virgin Birth of Christ, his sinlessness, and had a very high regard for Mary, but denied the divinity of Christ, it's easy to see how Christians saw Mohammad as one more in a long line of Arians. I hope this is helpful

Ryan