Hello everyone,

A friend in an advanced theology degree program asked me in an email about the "Byzantine" tradition, and one part of my answer included "what are the differences between Byzantine and Latin theology". I wrote the following (I thought the length was appropriate)



Obviously it's a gross generalization, but I'm wondering if anyone had any objections/other ideas for a necessarily short comparison.

Markos

1. Byzantine theology theology is contemplative and reflective, rather than analystical and descriptive.

2. Byzantine theology is holistic, rather than specialized.

3. Byzantine theology is apophatic rather than cataphatic.

4. Byzantine theology is fundamentally liturgical, rather than abstract.

Marcos,
I certainly appreciate your approach to the differences between Eastern/Byzantine and Latin theology. Discussing those differences in terms of historical development, I believe, sheds more light on the differences of emphasis than do the dichotomies that we tend to impose on the two approaches.

I have no idea what "Latin" theology means today. Does it mean scholasticism of St Thomas Aquinas? Does it mean the transcendental Thomism of Karl Rahner? Does it mean the biblical theology of Joseph Ratzinger? Does it mean the patristic theology of Yves Congar? Does it mean the mystical theology of St John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila? It means, of course, all of the above and so much more--so how is it possible to meaningfully compare "Latin" theology to anything else?

Latin theology would try to explain the difference in 100 words, while Byzantine would be satisfied that there's a difference?

Hahahahaha!!! Great answer! Although I would agree with the above post that Latin theology is so diversified that it really is impossible to express exactly what Latin theology is. This is why I appreciate Marcos' explanation based on historical trends and emphases and not on firmly set categories or poles.

Even within Scholasticism, are we talking about the Scholastic approach of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Bl. John Duns Scotus, etc.? People often think that Scholasticism was an attempt to rationalize the Faith. For many, such as the above, it wasn't so much an attempt to rationalize as to synthesize what had previously been taught through Scripture and the Fathers, and to demonstrate its reasonableness through Greek philosophy.

If we're talking about the Mystical theology of the West are we speaking of the approach of the great Carmelite mystics? What about Sts. Francis and Clare of Assisi, or St. Bonaventure? What about the mystical theology of Aquinas (yes, it does exist)? How about St. Francis deSales or St. Ignatius of Loyola?

Western/Latin theology is truly so diversified that it is really impossible to pin down. Again, one can only look at historical trends.

Differences between Byzantine Rite and the Roman Rite (PDF)

I have no idea what "Latin" theology means today.

Most forms of Western theology, whether Catholic or Protestant, share certain characteristics and assumptions. The principal differences are the West's definition of theology is extremely broad, yet its approach to theology is highly atomized. In addition, the West tends to treat theology as an academic discipline, and has a high degree of confidence in the ability of the human intellect to define the mysteries of God.

Whoa.

This is a grossly simplistic handout given to visitors. Don't expect it to have any real nuance.

Stuart,

I should have put in the liturgical part; one can get everything one needs to know about theology from the various Byzantine service books.

Herr Rolfes,

Thanks. I'm history minded, and I think talking about where things come from is the best way to compare in a case like this. Your point about 1200s scholasticism is quite on the mark - it's far more diverse (some would even say apophatic) than what some people try to make of it. But then in history, interpretation is often more important than the facts.

Father Kimel,

Your point is well taken; that is why I said "up until the 1900s" b/c, up until 1900-1940 or so one could probably deliver a "consensus" view on how Latin Catholicism was to be interpreted. My impression is that St. Theresa and other forms of "Carmelite" spirituality (as well as many other traditions of the Latin Church), while not necessarily ignored, was not presented in most general catechisms and theology textbooks. Since then things are all over the map. Even the current CCC in my view is far more diverse in sources and interpretation than other cathechisms from earlier in the century.

Finally, as far as the handout goes, it's good (and actually very nicely produced), but my problem is that it considers normative many abuses of post-1970 Roman Rite theory/practice.

What if were were living in the 1800? How would we describe the differences between Byzantine and Catholic theology?

What if we were living in 700? 900? 1100? 1500? 1900?

As you might guess I am suspicious of generalistic comparisions. We tend to forget our location in history. Not only is Latin theology more diverse at different points in history than often popularly presented, but so is Eastern Orthodox theology. One of the real problems we have here is that so much of second millennium Orthodox theology has never been translated into English. Christos Androutsos and Panagiotis Trembelas, e.g., were dominant figures in 20th century Greek theology, yet we English-speakers do not have access to their writings.

It's also available as a series of posters and I've seen it in that form more often than as a handout. While it is, indeed, simplistic, I think it's well-intended if one presumes that the idea is to afford a very brief overview to the visiting Latin. One has to give credit for the amount of information packed into it (even the little two line parentheticals at the bottom of each impart info on the Rites and Churches) - I've seen worse materials.

Many years,

Neil

This handout helped my wife and her family (Roman Catholics) understand the differences in the Liturgy when they visited an Eastern Church for the first time.