www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Cataphatic and Apophatic

I've been thinking a bit recently on the cataphatic approach to theology and the apophatic approach. It seems that much of the differences between the Byzantine and Roman outlook on God and theology in general can be traced back to this, seemingly quite divergent, approaches to the subject.

I guess I'm not sure what I want out of this thread, other than knowledgeable persons' opinions on the differences, pros and cons, etc. of cataphatic and apophatic theology and how these approaches relate to the Roman and Byzantine traditions.

Not holding my breath that this thread is going to be very popular, but any replies would be nice.

Alexis

Cataphatic theology in the West is always undergirded by apophatic theology ("We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not", St. Thomas Aquinas), but the West does tend to speak in cataphatic terms once the understanding of apophatic thought is assured.

I'm not sure that it's such a wide divergence as it's sometimes made out to be. Both sides speak in both cataphatic and apophatic language, and apophasis is always the underlying principle. In the Divine Liturgy we speak in cataphatic terms about God, and we always speak of God's Love and Mercy, despite those being cataphatic terms; we don't say "unlove" or "unmercy", even though we inherently understand, or are supposed to understand, that what we mean by Love and Mercy don't reach the Divine meanings of such terms, which are beyond our comprehension.

Others will have different opinions, but having studied and walked in both worlds I see it more as a difference of emphasis than as anything substantial.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty has always a very equilibrated position! Sincerily, I don't like to go on reading about those tendencious differences between East and West...

Thank you.

Neither do I like to hear on and on about the differences, at least when it's brought up for the sake of arguments or superiority. Obviously there are differences, they are quite plain to see when you walk into the churches of various traditions, or hear the prayers and Liturgies, but I've yet to find a difference that truly cuts to the root of what it means to be truly Apostolic.

The differences keep us healthy and alive, and all derive from our common Apostolic heritage. We're lucky to have such diverse, but True expression of the one Faith; God is Infinite, so differsity in commonality is the only way to come close to expressing the Divine Life in human terms.

P.S. Phillipe, a while back you posted a thread regarding an article that had troubled you. Specifically you were concerned about it being said in the article that Melkites (and Byzantines in general) don't/shouldn't pray for salvation since it's already attained. Well, today we had a memorial service for the dead, and left and right we pray for their salvation, that God will take them to Heaven, that their many sins may be forgiven, ect.

I was thinking: would we pray so strongly for what we are already so certain of? As Sayedna Cyril said in this years Easter message, hope is not the same as expectation. We hope, but we do not expect Salvation and Resurrection. The process of Salvation has certainly already begun in our souls, but we are not so foolish as to think it is assured; we can always turn ourselves away from it.

Peace and God bless!

I think that Western theology tends to treat apophaticism as a footnote before moving on knowing God through normal life, intellection and sacraments.

I think Eastern theology tends to treat cataphaticism as a springboard to knowing God through mystical experiences, mystical techniques and reflections on those.

They are two different sides of the same coin, of knowing. One is exterior focussed; the other is interior focussed; and both are reaching for (or, receiving) transcendance in Christ. On a good day. ;-)

-- John