Is Eastern Catholic theology and doctrine the same as in the Latin Right of the church if not what are some of the similarities and differences?

The doctrine certainly is the same, otherwise we would not be Catholic. The theology may have a different emphasis and expression, but it cannot lead to a different doctrine.

One example of the theological difference is that the East does not use the "filioque" (and the Son) in the Creed. This is not to say that the Latins are wrong for doing so, but it does provide a different and legitimate example of a different emphasis. For the theological reasons for this difference see the article on The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

I have no objection at all to saying flatly that the Latins ought not to use the Filioque - it was interpolated unilaterally and has a fratricidal effect.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge I agree with you completely

Yes, "it was interpolated unilaterally," and the historical circumstances are known and have been explained. The dogmatic issue is still sensitive (and properly so) but the Catholic Church professes the same basic and essential understanding of the dogma as the Orthodox. There are fine points where theological views and speculations may differ, but how much should churches (and their theologies) that acknowledge an apophatic approach to the mystery of the Trinity demand of those issues?

Clearly as a matter of protocol (not dogma) the Latin, Roman, West goofed; and at this point in time that has a "fratricidal effect" only if one party decides to make it so, where the issue is in reality no more than a convenient stick used at will by some Orthodox to periodically spank the Catholics. As well deserved (some may say) that the spanking may be, the issue should not be turned into a justification for continuing schism.

Clearly the filioque does not belong in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed because the creed as it was originally written is referring to the Holy Spirit's procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person, which comes only from the Father as the sole font of divinity.

Interestingly enough, the solution to this theological problem, which can be found in the Letter of St. Maximos to Marinus, was presented at the Council of Florence, but was sadly rejected by the West at that time. Nevertheless, if the West could come to accept what St. Maximos taught, i.e., that ". . . the Father is the only cause (aition) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by generation (gennesin) and the other by procession (ekporeusin)," [1] it follows that the two sides would then be able to make a common profession of faith in the Triune God. Now this solution would simply require that the West accept the difference between hypostatic origination, which comes only from the Father as sole cause within the Godhead and which safeguards the doctrine of the Father’s monarchy, and the manifestation of divine unity, which is revealed in the progression (proienai) of the energies of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. Moreover, this solution has the advantage of satisfying much of what the West wants to say in connection with the unity of the Godhead, while simultaneously protecting the monarchy of the Father as sole cause (aition) of the hypostatic existence (i.e., the subsistent being) of the Son and the Spirit.

[1] Letter of St. Maximos to Marinus, PG 91:136.

I think that if the western Church would simply change "and the Son" to "through the Son" the problem would be solved.

Joe

I disagree, because the term ekporeoumenon is used in the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and that term refers specifically to the Spirit's origin as person from the Father alone. The per filium applies only at the level of the divine energy, and not in connection with the Spirit's existential origin, and so its insertion into the creed would blur the distinction that must be made between the Spirit as person and the energies of the Spirit, which reveal and manifest the unity of the Holy Trinity.

Todd, you might be right about this and personally I think that the filioque should simply be removed from the Creed altogether. But it wouldn't hurt things if Rome explained more clearly what is meant by "through the Son."

Joe

It would be helpful if Rome would clarify its views on the filioque, but that really is not all that pertinent to the discussion at hand, because the creed as it was originally written is talking about the origin of the Spirit, and the Spirit receives His hypostatic existence (i.e., His ekporeusis) only from the Father.

Though the original received Latin and Greek texts differ slightly, the filioque is clearly a much later addition.


This is the accepted understanding but was this, in its fullness, the original understanding at the time?

To be noted also is that St. Maximos accepted the West's explanation.


Ah, the intrigues and vicissitudes of history, whatever they may have actually been.


Indeed, from Rome's 1995 Clarification



Personally I think that the concept of "energies" has weaker doctrinal and theological basis than the filioque.

Personally I think that your viewpoint is theologically untenable.


Below are some helpful texts that discuss the Eastern position on this issue:


Henny Fiska Hagg. Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Apophaticism. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.

Hussey, M. Edmund. The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Publishing, 1972.

George Maloney, S.J. A Theology of Uncreated Energies. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 1978.

John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979, pp. 91-94.

Aristeides Papadakis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.

Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232-238 and 379-408.

Pentecost, Scott F. Quest for the Divine Presence: Metaphysics of Participation and the Relation of Philosophy to Theology in St. Gregory Palamas’s Triads and One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1999.

Duncan Reid. Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.

A. Edward Siecienski. The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.

Thanks for the references for this interesting and potentially useful theologoumenon. Is there anywhere the Church in its liturgy professes the notion of Energies as put forth therein?

The doctrine of divine energies is set forth in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which is supposed to be chanted on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the Byzantine Churches.

P.S. - The Synodikon, which is perhaps the central dogmatic liturgical text within the Byzantine Tradition, also states explicitly that ". . . the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel," and that anyone who says otherwise "shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized."

Here is a link to a translation of the Synodikon:

Synodikon of Orthodoxy

Fr. Deacon Daniel