www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latin vs. Byzantine Theology

Well, it appears that the eastern churches always struggled with these issues but at the same time the Churches of the east struggled with a great deal of heresy concerning the Trinity during the first five centuries. Its a strange paradox. But my point is the this, when the East was finally sundered from the west, it became what is the Eastern Orthodox Church is today. When that happened, it appears that the Eastern Orthodox Church, in reaction against the West's ability to continue to develop amd define dogma, the Eastern Orthodox developed an undue attachment to all things old. Thus, when the west knelt during the Eucharistic Prayers, the East condemned it as heresy and an obstical to reuinion. Such utra-traditionalism appears absurd. Kneeling or not kneeling has nothing to do with divine revelation. It was a disciplinary cannon of the early counils, not a dogmatic one. when the west pointed out that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the East called it heresy. Why? It never contradicts revelation and the Fathers often talked about how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, which is another way of saying that he comes from the Son too. But the East could not accept this development that was simply using a different word to clarify what the Fathers meant. The East appears to me more akin to the Arians who opposed the word homo ousion because it was a novel word not found in the scriptures or the Fathers. Such is the ossification of the east. For this reason, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not appear to be like the early Church, in that they cannot accept the idea of the development of doctrine. Now, this does not mean that I can accept that the Catholic Church is the true Church either. If it teaches contradictory dogmas, then I cannot accept it either. I just don't know where I sit right now.

ummm. I never accused you of not being Catholic. Hmmmm. If what you said above is true then there is no true Church. I don't know what to say but the more time I spend on this forum the more I am starting to believe that the Church no longer exists anywhere and if that Is true, I may be losing my faith. i don't know what to do.

The term �ecumenical� applies at different levels and has different shades of meaning depending on how it is applied. Pope Paul VI differentiated between the Seven Ecumenical Councils (which he put in a very much respected higher qualitative category than anything later) and what he called the �Ecumenical Councils in the West�.

The issue here is not one of accepting or rejecting something that, for example, was defined at Trent. The issue here is that the various local Churches are each alive. Each gives a witness that compliments and completes the rest. Greeks don�t have to use Latin formula (theological recipes) and Latins don�t have to use Greek formula. A Greek might read about an Ecumenical Council in Rome to settle an argument over the recipe for tomato sauce. He might even look at the final recipe and say: �Yes, that is quite good.� But there is nothing wrong with the recipe he has been using for a thousand years so there is no need for him to make any changes. Apply the example to theology. A Byzantine who sees the Council of Trent might examine it and appreciate the theology. But the issues that were resolved at Trent were never problems in the Byzantine part of the Church, so while he would acknowledge the declarations of Trent as true and legitimate there is no need for him to do anything else. The Council does not affect him.

Or, to use a non-food example, the Italian government convenes a council to address the need for new words in the official Italian dictionary (to keep up with all the new uses of Latin terminology in this computer era). The Greeks see a report in the newspaper of this Ecumenical Council and say: �Yes, that makes sense.� But the Greeks don�t chuck the Greek language to replace it with Italian. They stick with Greek. Yes, it could be that some Italians might think that the Italian way is better and might want the Greeks to issue a formal statement that they are required to accept the new Italian words and spellings. But the Church does not ask this of the Greeks.

ISTM that you might be considering the Latin Church to be the measuring stick by which the entire Catholic Church is judged. This is very common among Latin Catholics (and understandable since they are the biggest). But this is not accurate. One read of the Church�s documents on the Eastern Churches (from Vatican II to John Paul II) will put things into a proper Catholic context.

God bless!

Admin

Dear LatinCat,

I have been following your posts and I have to make some observations and recommendations here before this goes any further. What ThiestGal stated in another thread was true, that your posts have mirrored how most ultra-traditional Catholics have posted and tried to prove that East is less Catholic than its Roman counterparts and have lead attacks upon the eastern Churches. You also mentioned that you are going through a crisis in faith. That should be addressed in consultation with your parish priest and or spiritual father/director rather than seeking the advice of strangers on an internet discussion forum.

Your profile shows that you are a teacher, and as a teacher you should know that before presenting any points, one should be well versed on any points that one is presenting. When I was teaching, this was paramount, because if I did not know the material in evidently I would be called to task on it. Several posters have taken you task so far with stating that what you have posted are not the legitimate teachings of either the Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox Churches or for that matter misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church. Instead of addressing these points you have chosen to continue with your litany of how you perceive the theology of the church. I would strongly recommend that you ask for what is actually taught and believed other than give your spin to it.

By posting that that the east can not cope with development, or making statements as you did about the filioque shows a lack of understanding regarding theology its development and history. Many of your statements can be perceived by many as attacks whether intentional or unintentional towards the Eastern Churches. Instead of making statements, especially if you are confused about the faith, I would strongly suggest that you read what the Catholic Church teaches through the various documents and encyclicals that have been published in the last thirty years. Add to that reading list, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will maybe have a clearer idea of the Catholic Church�s teachings and beliefs. Then I would ask questions and hopefully through that a discussion can be had that will further refine your understanding of the topic.

Again, I would strongly start with your parish priest along with reading coupled with prayer and hopefully whatever spiritual crisis you are experiencing may be resolved soon.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator/Moderator

You can view it that way if you wish. I suppose the same could be said about the western church becoming the Roman Catholic Church of today with the Pope as head of state after being sundered from the East. I see Orthodoxy in a continuum back to the apostles myself.

Again, you can maintain this view if it suits you. In the disputes between East and West there were substantive issues being argued, but in the overall atmosphere of hostility that existed at the time minor ones came in to play as well (azymes for instance in my opinion). I�m sure you could find examples of the West going to bat on more trivial issues as well though. I think it is also false to suppose that the East suddenly began to simply cling to the past without further defining its own doctrine.

All I can say is if you find the �ultra-traditionalism� of Orthodoxy to be absurd, then I don�t think we have much to discuss.

The objections to the Filioque were and are theological and canonical, not even taking in to account the way it was �implemented� in the West. The East may simply appear to be nay-sayers or akin to Arians to you, but that would not surprise me as it would fit in to your general view of Orthodoxy.

So Orthodoxy may simply be ossified as you say (and I�m fairly crusty at time myself). I would suggest you look around at the writings of Orthodox theologians in the 20th century and up to today to double check your assumptions. You also assume that what is now called development of doctrine is something that is consistent with the church of the first millennium. Many people would probably disagree with you and would probably point out that how the church defines its doctrine to be consistent with the past does not necessarily entail the idea of the development of doctrine as described in scholastic thought.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Personally, I find characterizations of "ossification" et alia to be offensive and I wish posters wouldn't resort to that kind of language - that strongly suggests that the necessary study of the Eastern tradition is incomplete (there I go with my condescension again - this forum always helps me uncover my buried vices, one by one!).

Traditional Latin Catholics today can be said to be promoting "ossification" as well and so on.

One may also say that the Latin Church has been "developing" so much in terms of its positions on faith and worship that it has "improved things worse."

The term "development of doctrine" might likewise suggest "movement away from" the core etc.

The role of the Councils and of the teaching authority of the Church is to define the faith "believed everywhere by everyone from the beginning" and proclaim it.

It would be wrong and ahistorical to suggest that Orthodoxy has not had and still has its theological and liturgical developments based on various influences.

Orthodoxy has its own definition of what the West calls "purgatory," its own understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, of Eucharistic theology, Mariology, Eschatology etc.

By rejecting the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation, Orthodoxy or Eastern Catholics do not, at the same time, reject that the bread and wine become the Most Holy Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ!

By rejecting the Immaculate Conception, Eastern Christians reject the Augustinian a priori's concerning Original Sin that lie at its foundation.

By rejecting purgatory, Eastern Christians reject what they perceive to be a form of "spiritual accountancy" - the Christian East prays for the dead with a zeal that I find lacking in the Catholic West.

Anyway, I don't want to overdo my condescension . . .

Alex

Of course people can look at these things in a different way. Of course, they would simply bbe wrong. Any way, look, it can be spinned however you want but the early councils were all about development. The very early Church did not have a very good understanding of the Trinity. Then the councils came and defined the Trinity in a much more detailed manner and then the Church understood it better. That's development, no matter how you anyone spins it. But of course that is irrelevant because I am not trying to prove to anyone that the Catholic Church is the true Church. I simply am looking for answers about where the true Church is. In the course of my search, some one asked me why I don't believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church, and my discussion of development of doctrine explains why. I have no intention of converting any Eastern Orthodox Christians; I am simply articulating my position.

I hope you understand that I was not using the term "ossified" with regard to the Eastern Catholic Churches, but only the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I did not intend it as an insult either. It was simply a term that I felt best expressed the current state of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Understood. I can only say that until you consider that docrtine is defined in ways other than what is called "development of doctrine" in the Western church, there isn't much to discuss.

Andrew

LatinCat,

As a Catholic...I'm ashamed to know that you, among other bigoted Catholics, concede that the Orthodox Church isn't a True Church.

That is not true.

The Orthodox Church along with the Catholic Church maintains true Apostolic Succession, True Sacraments, True Priesthood and we came from the same roots. So therefore, because of all that, the Orthodox is indeed a TRUE Church.

If you don't stop saying that the Orthodox Church isn't true Church, I will have to ask the moderator to give you a loooong talk.

What I am saying is not in the spirit of "ecumencism" but rather it's a matter of FACT.

Thank you,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear LatinCat,

You come across as an intelligent, well-read and articulate person who commits 100% once you are convinced of something - and that is excellent. We must all strive to be like that, I believe.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit Who will guide us in response to our prayer life and constant seeking of Him.

That is nothing new. But it is something I've come to appreciate anew in my later years.

Cheers,

Alex

Dear Dundas,

Please calm down . . .

LatinCat has said he is here to reflect on what answers we can give to his questions.

What he feels about Orthodoxy is also what many Orthodox feel about Catholics.

LatinCat is seeking after an uncompromising vision of the True Church.

And he rejects any relativistic notions that ecumenically-minded people often entertain.

Just as we "pull punches" when Orthodox refer to us as "uniates" etc., can't we cut him some slack and simply carry on a conversation to share, inform and consider?

Do you remember when I came on this board? (How old are you . . . ?)

Well, I considered the Administrator's vision of an American EC Church to be, well, unworkable.

Now I teach religion classes in English . . .

Do you see how you've made me admit that in public again?

I have to have a drink of cold water . . .

Alex

WOW! I am not quite sure how to respond to this. But I will do my best. Look, it is not my view that the Eastern Orthodox Church is THE CHURCH. Am I allowed to have that view? This does not mean that I am sure that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH either. I am not biggoted, I am just searching for truth. Please understand that nothing I have said a personal attack against yourself or anyone else on these forums. I am just searching for answers.

Thank you for your kind comments. And, I completely agree with the idea of praying and seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance. I often forget that it is He and not my research that will provide the final answers and guidance in my quest.

LatinCat,

You may want to read the document Communionis Notio [vatican.va] , which was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because it states quite clearly that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches (See Communionis Notio, no. 17), and that the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church becomes present in them when they celebrate the Eucharist.