www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West East and West: Different Religions?

It sometimes seems that because the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church differ so much with regard to dogma that we profess two different faiths. Do you think that we really two different religions claiming to be in communion with one another? I am especially interested in the opinions of Eastern Catholics whose faith is identical or nearly identical to the Eastern Orthodox.

We do not differ on a single iota of dogma, i.e. things which we all believe together as Catholic Christians. However, our theology is quite different, and we find different ways of expressing the SAME holy and orthodox Faith.

Alexis

I am certainly not trying to sound polemical. Just trying to sort some things out. There are Eastern Catholics, even Patriarchs, who deny the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, the filioque as dogmatic truth, etc. The Latin Church teaches that these are infallible truths that cannot be denied except under the pain of mortal sin.

At the risk of being imprudent and suffering the ire of many on this board (all of whom I respect but many of whom I disagree with), it doesn't matter whether or not there are Catholics who deny these beliefs. Indulgences, purgatory, and the Filioque are one thing, in my opinion, and we express the same truth in different ways, as I said. Take "purgatory" for example. The only thing the Catholic Church "dogmatically" teaches about it is that it is a place where sins are somehow done away with before a soul enters Heaven, and that prayers are efficacious for these souls. That's it. The rest is non-dogmatic speculation ("theologoumena") on the part of both East and West.

Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception are slightly more complicated, I think.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether there are Eastern Catholic, patriarchs or not, who've denied Catholic beliefs. There are also Roman Catholics who deny these truths of the Faith, from cardinals on down. No big difference there.

Alexis

We must not forget that the so-called 'Oriental Churches' differ from both the Western Churches (Roman Catholic and Rum Orthodox) in their expression of the Faith.

We should also remember that indulgences as understood by most people is muddled.

And on the Immaculate Conception, would most people agree that the Augustinian West uses a term that does not strictly go against Eastern Orthodox teaching, but is unnecessary based on a difference in the understanding of original sin?

As a forum we seem to keep spinning on the same issues with no marked accord as new people come in and ask the same questions over and over again.

Alexis,

Good point. And I would add that were we to take an inventory of potentially disputes points of theology and spirituality, we would need to distinguish between those items that really are a matter of controversy and those items that are not.

Joe

Is it me or was not the filioque issue resolved to the satisfaction of all Catholics at the Councils of Florence & Lyons?

You really don't want to go there...not on this Forum!

Alexis

Dear Friends,

The point is that when we have different theological traditions, we have different points of departure and perspectives.

East and West above said that EC's and EC Patriarchs "deny" the Immaculate Conception etc.

But IF the Latin West continued to understand Original Sin as the East has always understood it, then would the Latin Church even needed to declare the Immaculate Conception dogma? Not at all.

IF the Latin Church's Trinitarian/Triadological tradition was the same as that of the East, would it have needed to make a point regarding the inclusion of the Filioque? Not at all.

If the Latin Church's eschatology were the same as that of the East, would it have felt the need to posit a "purgatory" with indulgences, the treasury of merits etc.? Again, no.

And if the Latin Church maintained the same Eucharistic theology with respect to the Church as the East does - the role of the Petrine Minister would be less defined in terms of jurisdictional character and infallibility.

Florence actually developed an alternative LATIN view of the Filioque (passive Spiration from the Son, "Through the Son" - with the proviso that the Filioque's inclusion was unnecessary for the "Greeks"). The Greeks at Florence, it should be remembered, were under orders from their emperor to achieve church unity as a precondition for military support against the Turkish threat (which proved more than just a threat).

The Union of Florence was a capitulation of the Greeks to Latin demands, albeit dressed in "Eastern format," which did nothing to resolve the longstanding issues dividing East and West.

Eastern Catholics became Latinized in time, theologically and liturgically, but it can be argued that the Latinization occurred the moment the various acts of union with Rome were signed by the various Eastern Church parties.

And even if we EC's went "back" to the terms of the original "unias" that united us with Rome, we would still profess a Latinized Triadology et al.

At best, we may hope to maintain the fullness of the Eastern liturgical tradition (not a small feat given various conditions in various Particular Churches as we see even here). But without the concomitant Easternization of our theology, we remain what the Orthodox have always said we were - "Latins with outward Eastern forms."

Those EC's or "Orthodox in communion with Rome" who have studied the matter in depth and who, today, profess the fullness of Orthodox faith with respect to, well, everything, and who define their relationshiop with Rome as one of "communion," have yet to have their position acknowledged as legitimate by either their Church authorities or by Rome.

Archbishop Zoghby came closest in his public declaration to the above - and if Rome's reaction to him is any indication, "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" where those who profess this identity are "in all things Orthodox and are in communion with Rome" remains the personal commitment and even "experiment" of specific EC individuals, hierarchs and parishes.

Alex

Alex,

We Latins are proud of our theology and ecclesiology. It is just as much a part of Catholic patrimony as is Byzantine ecclesiology and theology. Are you denying us our right to prize and value our traditions as they have developed? They are not somehow inferior to the Byzantine perspective. Pope John Paul II exhorted us to "breathe with both lungs." Dumping all over our Western theological patrimony as the Holy Spirit has seen fit to develop it seems uncharitable, if not a little arrogant as well.

It's not a one-way street.

Alexis

Dearest Alexis,

At no time have I denied the Latin Church anything or levelled the charge of inferiority etc. And I hope I'm not uncharitable or arrogant, but only others can make that interpretation.

The question here, as I understand it, is about the differences between East and West. I simply tried to contrast the Latin vs the Byzantine viewpoints in history.

Both have different approaches - to point them out does not mean to downplay one or the other.

The RC tradition developed a view of Original Sin that seemed to later "require" the Immaculate Conception. Kallistos Ware said, in his "Orthodox Way," that if he accepted the "stain of Original Sin," then he, too, would want an Immaculate Conception to exempt the Mother of God from it.

That is simply pointing out the differences without judging any tradition.

Another poster suggested that EC's denied the Immaculate Conception etc. thereby implying that it is WE who are deficient by "Catholic" (read "Latin") standards.

That is also what prompted me to write response, even though my left hand has a needle in it and doing so causes me pain . . . sniff . . .

So don't be too quick to impute motive . . . do you have Ukrainian in your background?

Alex

It is my understanding that the filioque was inserted mainly to combat Arianism in Spain. The Visigoths, who had taken over much of the Iberian peninsula (not to mention Gaul), had adopted Arianism and forced it upon the Latins.


I do not know much about other Eastern Catholics, but the Ukrainians do call the feast the Immaculate Conception (rather than the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy Theotokos). However it is on the Eastern date--December 9.

Dear Byzantophile,

Yes, but then why did the West insist on keeping it in and then insist that the East acknowledge and accept the (Western) theology that was behind it? Clearly, the inclusion of the Filioque went beyond any local perceived need to combat Arianism (and Arianism was defeated in the East and without ever touching the issue of the Filioque).

In the UGCC, Patriarch Josef Slipyj returned the name of this feast as "The Conception of St Anne" and some calendars include the "Immaculate Conception" in brackets following it.

This is one of those Latinizations that crept in and that we are called upon, as Eastern Catholics, to correct, as Patriarch Josef the Hieroconfessor certainly did. (Also, many Ukrainian Catholic parishes in the US celebrated this feast on the Latin feast for whatever reason and have now returned to Dec. 9th)

Alex

Because this was decided at the Fourth Lateran Council, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, which are considered and �cumenical councils.

As usual I defer to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913:

Thus, it is seen as something already believed in the ealy church.

The modern UGC Prayer-book, published by the Basilians, that I recently bought at the UGCC Cathedral here still has it listed as "The Immaculate Conception". As well, the local parish near me calls the feast such. In addition, the UGCC' Cathedral here in Philadelphia (built in the 1960s) is "The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception".

Sadly, I think the reason was to conform to the Latin date. It has been the custom, in the past, of Latin Catholics in this country (just as in Roman Catholic countries) to take off from work in order to celebrate the holiday. Perhaps it was felt that the feast could more properly be observed if the date was moved.