I was thinking earlier that this whole "East vs. West" battle really doesn't make any sense, at least from a Catholic perspective. I mean the Catholic Church embraces Thomists, Palamites, Augustinians, Molinists, etc. The Catholic Church is truly universal in its theology. From a Catholic viewpoint then the only thing to be worked out to end the schism is the role of the Papacy in the reunited church. This seems like one of the best reasons to be in communion with Rome. It accepts both western and eastern theology as valid expressions of the true faith.

The catholic church the last century has sought to reincorporate and redisover its Eastern Heritage and its tradition flowing from the Eastern Fathers to complete and balance the church. THe breathing with two lungs theory is very much in vouge in catholcism weather you are an eastern or western christian there is much to inrich oneself when you can appreciate the great westerns such as St Augustine and St Ambrose and the great Easterns such as St Basil and St Ceril after all they are fathers of the same church are they not despite theolgical differences what united them was greater than individual differences however it's much harder to come by in Eastern Circles theologians who openly embrace the theological contributions of westerners such as Augustine and Leo the Great when in actuality they influenced the eastern church greatly while never overshadoiwing thier unique eastern traditions and eastern perspectives. It is the Orthodox theologians I find that have a prejudice against things western.

Greetings from a new member of this forum!

Actually I think there are substantive differences between the East and the West. I was raised a native English speaker in the US but with a strong Slavic identity. Through my own reading to understand the East from its own point of view (rather than through the lens of Western culture) I came across an interesting book -- written by a Westerner in fact: The Closing of the Western Mind
by Charles Freeman.
He actually does an excellent job of describing the intellectual tradition of the Roman Christian West in contrast to that of the Byzantine Christian East.

To Tobit who writes "It is the Orthodox theologians I find that have a prejudice against things western."

You have to remember that it was the West that lost the ability to read and understand Greek. As the Roman empire dissolved and the church moved towards schism, the Latin speaking West was no longer reading the original Greek manuscripts. And for example, Augustine was using poor Latin translations. If the Orthodox have a prejudice as you describe, it might be based on that historical fact. Charles Freeman has an interesting map in his book that shows the language divide in the former Roman empire.

Dear Matt,

It is not that EC's are "Anti-Western!"

We are just trying to recover our own traditions after centuries of being told by RC's and by our own church leadership trained in RC seminaries that we are something other than who we were when our forefathers entered the respective unions with Rome.

We are "Anti-Latinization" from the perspective of our own Churches.

Alex

Here is what I think when I read something like this.

The embrace of Eastern theology, whatever that in reality means, is really no more than a half century old. One need not look too hard to find numerous writings, council proceedings, etc. to see that the Latin Church did not embrace the theology of the East for a long, long time. Even despite this “embrace”, it is clear that in some areas the two perspectives are not complementary and it is obvious that the Latin Church still does not accept some of the views of the East (and not just about the Papacy). It is also obvious this “opening” to the East has been accompanied by a bewildering array of other changes.

I don’t buy in to the two lungs idea as I usually hear it described. Truth is indeed universal, but the composition of truth is not geographic. Truth does not have to be 50% eastern and 50% western to be true. Truth can be 95% western and 5% eastern and be universally true, or vice versa. The barometer of truth is not where a dogmatic definition originated from but it is judged by the merits of the truth itself. To judge something as false or true just because it is eastern or western is wrong, no matter who is doing this.

Andrew

I agree strongly with Rilian on these points:

Good job, Rilian. There is no "eastern truth," or "western truth." Stuff is either true or it's not. And the "bewildering array of other changes," coming out of Vatican II has definitely made it harder for western clergy and laity to grapple with the question of the East at all. There has been so much confusion and so much else going on.

The West needs to stabilize itself if there is going to be a permanent solution to the East-West question.

LatinTrad

LT,

You are quite correct...the West(that is the Latin Rite) needs to stabilize and rediscover itself...for who wants to discuss anything with a group that projects problems of stability and identity.

Like that great CSI lyric "Who are you"

james

CSI lyric?

That was The Who. All the theme songs from all the CSI shows are by The Who. CSI Las Vegas is "Who Are You?" CSI Miami is "Won't Get Fooled Again." CSI New York is "Baba O'Reilly" (Sometimes incorrectly known as "Teenage Wasteland" which was what they were going to call "That 70s Show" but The Who wouldn't relax the copyright restrictions.)

Dr. Eric
Who before becoming a Doctor was in alot of bands and knows alot about "Classic Rock" :rolleyes:

Dear Andrew,

Sound points, but East vs West is really dealing with "Truth" only when Catholics and Orthodox or others are involved in the discussion!

When it comes to Catholics of various Particular Churches, the "East vs West" dynamic is quite different. We accept, for instance, that we are all truly Catholics, but disagree, quite substantially, on how we express our various Particular Catholic ecclesial cultures.

And for us, Catholic truth is always 100% Eastern because for EC's to accept Western formulations and traditions would be to betray our identity and heritage.

Alex

Dr Eric that is correct, but I did not want to date myself and many here are from a different generation...I do play pinball but not video...

Now back to our topic...

james

Nonna,
I haven't read that book so I won't comment on it. Perhaps you could list some theological expressions in Eastern Orthodoxy that Rome finds objectionable? It seems to me that the usual ones given (e.g. original sin, purgation, etc.) are seen as complimentary, or as a valid opinion, by Rome. Now the question of whether this has always been true historically is quite another matter, but as of today I doubt that Rome would make the East change anything should communion be restored. Of course the Orthodox don't generally feel this way which gets back to my original point about life being better under Rome because you can respect both Eastern and Western traditions.

Alex,
I don't think EC's are anti-western Neither are all Orthodox by the way. But I do think that many Eastern Orthodox would hold many western theological positions as incompatably with the true faith. Thus, if they are wrong about this, which I think they probably are, all the more reason to stay with Rome where you can breath with both lungs

Andrew,
I agree with some of those thoughts. Moreover, I agree that there are areas that are not complimentary. However, that is where it is fine to have different opinions about something that is not intrinsic to the faith. Are toll houses intrinsic to the Eastern Orthodox faith? Most people would say "No" (hopefully), thus it is something to be debated upon, just as there are some disagreements between Augustinians and Thomists, Palamites and Thomists, etc.

Although one may argue that the telonia are or are not fundamental articles of the faith, the fact remains they are a theologoumenon. It is very possible if a single patriarch called a synod and dogmaticlly defined this belief on his own it would sunder the church, because this belief is not universally held.

Things such as the nature of the Holy Trinity or whether one bishop holds monarchial rule over the whole church are fundamental articles of the faith. One could not hold opposing views on these.

Andrew

Dear Andrew you said:

"Things such as the nature of the Holy Trinity..."

I say:

I can't help but feel that whatever difference exists, is due to the limitations of the languages we use. Certainly, it hasn't hindered any saint from achieving sanctity...that is if they even knew that those differences existed. Besides, most saints were probably illiterate anyway.

You said:

"... or whether one bishop holds monarchial rule over the whole church are fundamental articles of the faith. One could not hold opposing views on these."

I say:

No bishop holds monarchial rule over any church. It is the way the Catholic people react to their Pope that gives one the impression of a monarch. I also say that our Lord knows what is best. If it was in the best interest of the West to have a more flexible Church, He would have seen to it that it would have been so. But He didn't, so I guess that at a certain time and place, (which of course continue's), the Pope will continue with his monarchial 'image'.

That image in due time will either change, or it will be adopted by others...whatever our Lord finds is in the best interest of 'His' Church...which is universal and all encompassing. The Church cannot be separated into East, West, North, South or what not as long as His universal 'truths' are held, kept and 'followed' by His people.

Zenovia

Zenovia, any wording surrounding something like the nature of God will always be inadequate when compared to the totality of the mystery. However, if we can't trust the definition, it shouldn't be defined. This is also not a language issue.

The Pope in Catholic belief holds monarchial powers over the whole church, East and West. Everyone in communion with him. These powers may not normally be exercised in a way that the word "monarchial" often conjures up images in our head, but the powers are there.

The church is not two lungs, or four lungs, or five lungs. It is one faith. Any one change to that faith, if of a certain nature, is enough to cause division.

Andrew