www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reflections on the Separation of Western and Eastern Christendom

Ah yes, Ss. Maximus, Gregory and John were all so famous for cutting up renowned texts into seemingly contradictory sententiae, and then using philological analysis and rational dialectic in order to reconcile them.

The article was not written by an Antiochian Bishop. Metropolitan Isaiah is the Greek Orthodox Bishop of Denver under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He probably wrote on the issue, because we have several Western Rite parishes in Colorado.
I do not really think that leavened vs unleavened bread for the Divine Liturgy played any significant role in the schism. The West used unleavened bread for centuries before the schism. I may be wrong and can on speak for myself, but I believe that if Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are able to resolve the real issues like the role of the Pope and the filioque that divide us, we can compromise on this issue and recognize that the kind of bread that is used for the Eucharist is not worth a schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

I am quite certain that Sts. Maximos, Gregory and John are not considered scholastics by most students of church history. In fact, most church historians see the acceptance of St. Gregory Palamas as a rejection by the East of Scholasticism. Barlaaam, St. Gregory's chief critic was a follower of Thomas Aquinas.

Fr. John W. Morris

A scholastic is simply a scholar who derives his ideas from the analysis and reconciliation of texts. The Latins did not invent that concept--the Greeks did, and they were very good at it. Maximos, Gregory and John are indeed "scholastic" theologians of the first order. Sorry to rain on your parade, but go talk to some Orthodox scholars who will confirm what I have said.

See, e.g., this abstract of Orthodox Readings of Aquinas [google.com] by Orthodox theologian Marcus Plested.

Note:


See also this summary, from the chapter on Gregory Palamas and the Latin West:

Historians define Scholasticism as a specific theological movement in medieval Western Catholicism. The word comes from "The School Men" because it was centered around medieval universities especially Paris. It began with the rediscovery of Aristotle by the West from Arabic language texts of Aristotle's works found during the reconquest of Spain, and was an effort to reconcile the new found knowledge with Christian theology. The most important Scholastic was Thomas Aquinas. The major method was dialectic reasoning.
The Eastern Orthodox Church never embraced Western Scholasticism, because from an Eastern point of view it places too much faith in human reason. Instead, the East championed a more mystical and less rational theology that emphasized the inability of the human mind to comprehend the mysteries of God. St. Gregory Palamas is the prime example of Eastern mystical theology.

Fr. John W. Morris

It should be obvious that any comparison between Aquinas and Palamas or between any Eastern Orthodox and any Roman Catholic theologian will produce more commonalities than differences, because there are more commonalities than differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Both Churches share 1,000 years of unity. I personally believe that even what seem to be the most glaring differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are really different ways to express the same belief. That is why open and honest discussions between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics like this are so important. We have an opportunity today to bridge the differences between us that did not exist in the past because of modern methods of communication and because we live and work together. We are not separated by language and distance like we were in 1054. The greatest tragedy in Christian history was that an Ecumenical Council was not held in 1055 that got the 5 Patriarchs and the best theologians in East and West together in the same place with the time to discuss and resolve their differences instead of allowing the schism to grow and fester.

Fr. John W. Morris

Bless Father,

Amen!


Or that the Patriarch Michael and the Papal Legate Cardinal Humbert were both very hot headed. If only cooler heads were in charge, perhaps this all could have been avoided.

I believe that the filioque issues has been resolved, thanks to the North American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. If now the Patriarchs and Popes would adopt it.

The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue? [scoba.us]

That is a very good statement on the issue and shows that the issue is more linguistic than theological. The Greek word "ekporeuesthai" is much more specific than the Latin word, "procedere." The Greek word means to proceed as from a single original source, while the Latin word can mean to proceed as through a mediator. Thus the explanation given by the Latins at Florence that the filioque means through the Son, is well within accepted Eastern theology. Therefore, it would be incorrect for Eastern Orthodox to argue that the filioque is heretical since Greek Fathers also wrote of the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son. However, since the original text of the Creed as written and accepted by the 7 Ecumenical Councils is the Greek text, I believe that any translation into Latin or any other language should strive to be as faithful as possible to the original Greek text accepted by the united Church.
I also believe that no one including the Pope has the authority to change the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, I believe that the phrase should be eliminated by Western translations of the Creed.
One historical precedent not mentioned in the document was the request of the Latin representatives that the East recognize the authority of the Pope to issue definitive declarations on doctrine binding on the entire Church at the anti-Photian council of 869. Patriarch Ignatius and the Eastern delegates refused to accept this request, arguing that such authority belonged only to an agreement of all 5 Patriarchs, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that time the Popes agreed that they lacked the authority to change the wording of the Creed and thus refused to add the filioque to the Creed in Rome until 1014. Thus like so many issues that divide us the issues that must be resolved to achieve unity is agreement on the authority of the Pope. Both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree that Rome has primacy, but we disagree on what that means. However, progress has been made on this issue since Vatican II moved away from Vatican I and affirmed the collegiality of the episcopate. This concept opens the possibility of agreement with the Pope playing the role of Primate and presiding officer over the college of Bishops, but lacking the authority to unilaterally make decisions with authority outside of his own Western Patriarchate. Another document produced by Eastern Orthodox Catholic dialogue is an appeal to the 39th Canon of the Holy Apostles:
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do
those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will
be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

The sentence, " But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all..." provides the basis for a compromise which recognizes the primacy of Rome, but requires Rome to secure the "consent of all" for any decision binding on the whole Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

That is a very broad definition of scholasticism. It frankly makes about as much sense to call St. Maximus the Confessor or St. Gregory Palamas a scholastic as it does to call St. John of Damascus or Thomas Aquinas a systematic theologian. In some primitive and nascent sense of the terms, sure, it could be true in both cases, but in the common sense of those two terms, both assertions would be a stretch.

Church historians have a much more specific definition of Scholasticism that applies only to a medieval movement represented by Anslm, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas. Historians have a tendency to label certain movements during church history with specific titles like Scholasticism. An article on Scholasticism can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm

Fr. John W. Morris