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) [stmichaeltucson.org]

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.

The author of the material in question is a prominent Ukrainian Catholic theologian. It may be simplistic but I think it presents the view of many Eastern Catholics.

What I love about the Byzantine in terms of the Trinity is that there is an emphasis on their oneness. The first words of the priest at Divine Liturgy that is spoken with an audible voice is, "Blessed be the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and forever." I've never heard in the RC the Holy Spirit referred to as one with an office of a king. But in the East the emphasis is given on their oneness that what one has, the others also possess. In the RC the roles have been distinct. The Father does this, the Son does this, the Holy Spirit does this.

And I found that image to be offensive to trads.

Interesting comment, Constantine. Are you thinking that to be the case because it appears to ignore their view of what the Roman Mass should be like, etc - focusing on the Latin Church as it typically functioned (liturgically, architecturally, etc) in the post-VII era?

Many years,

Neil

I posted that at CAF and the trads went nuts. Yes, its about their perception on what the Roman Mass should be. They hate the part about the "meal", the versus populum, the modern architecture and modern music, especially the guitar is depicted. Anything that will set a trad off is in that poster except for CITH and female altar servers. But lets be fair and realistic, 9.5 of 10 RC parishes will fit what is described in that poster.

The problem with it from that perspective is that it places the legitimate traditions of the East along side the illegitimate practices and erroneous beliefs of the modern West, suggesting equivalency.

Well, we could put everybody's actual practices side-by-side, but the results would be so disheartening that visitors would flee in dismay.

I've seen this same brochure at St. Nicholas Cathedral (Ukrainian Catholic) in Chicago near the doorways.

When I asked at my parish about the difference they also gave me this flier. I was a tad disappointed.

I wouldn't say its illegitimate. Its what the Roman OF is doing today, for better or for worse. I think its a fair description and its accurate. The Metropolitan Sheptytsky Institute, which came out with the poster, did an excellent job in capturing an accurate picture of both Liturgies as they are today. Its not their place to say how it should be.

Agreed unfortunately CTG.

Often when talking about the contrasts with Roman Catholics I feel Byzantines try to find simplest explanations for things.

So often we refer to things as mysteries. As the mystical and unknowable workings of God. How does something happen? How does this or that occur? We simply cannot know for sure. So we affirm what is done. What is truth instead of attempting to conjecture and debate our conjectures. This is unfairly why I feel we are considered "more mystical" as some Romans have said.

An example is how Grace is defined. I asked several friends to tell me how they understand grace, and how it works in our life. Often the answers refer to grace in the abstract, and impersonal. But they nevertheless succeed in identifying what it does even if they aren't aware of the Greek understanding of theosis. It transfigures us.


Instead of qualifying Grace into categories, let us simply say it is the indwelling of the holy spirit in a person, and so long as they are attentative to its ministry in their heart, all their movements in life will be in accordance to plan of Father.

Hmm. "Creatures of grace" vs. "deification in Christ" in His uncreated energies.

This reference certainly doesn't fit the "100 words" criteria, in fact the contents are voluminous.

However, if you are interested in an "in depth" investigation of the Middle East Churches "sui iuris" plus the Latin Jerusalem Patriachate, this is a good place to check out the links.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/christians-in-mideast.shtml

There is no real difference.

St. Gregory Palamas (and others) have shown clearly otherwise...

Yes, and that is often repeated by those representing Orthodoxy as an "exotic other".

No, it isn't about an exotic other, but on Patristic and Traditional understandings of grace and our relationship with Christ. When there are "creatures of grace" saving us, Christ doesn't. When we are saved in the UNCREATED ENERGIES of the Holy Trinity and in Christ Jesus, Christ saves us. Thus, the two theological paradigms are polar opposites.

Hairsplitting.

Nominalism vs. active and christological redemption.

They're constructs built to describe something we can't describe or understand.

Both also are elements of "western" culture in the real sense.

Not quite. While nominalism is a rejection of Christ's work of Redemption and the Cross where creatures of grace act instead of Him. While the Patristic standard of salvation in the Uncreated Energies of Christ by God the Father in the Holy Spirit is an affirmation of a personal and christological redemption.

I just attended a Roman Catholic funeral and offer this observation which picks one aspect of difference in ritual:

In the Eastern Churches we refer to a person as "Your (God's) servant" or "Your handmaid." The RC ritual refers to the person as "our brother" or "our sister."

My impression is that the East stresses one's relationship with God; the post Vatican II rite stresses the parish community, being one body.

I can understand the Tradition for both examples. However, at the end of the funeral the priest incensed only the deceased person('s casket), and not the congregation. There is an inconsistency here.

Maybe someone can explain this "inconsistency." Perhaps it is only this priest or the Erie diocese which does this.

A (formerly) Roman mother's son,
Deacon Paul

First...Fr. Deacon I'm sorry for your loss which prompted you to attend a funeral in the first place...

Second...you have just expressed I believe a big difference which permeates itself throughout the 2 churches not just the funeral service...I want to be clear I'm not saying those RC's are terrible for doing it that way, it's just different...

Subdeacon Christopher

Thank you Subdeacon Christopher for your compassion. This particular funeral was an example of peace, rather than sadness; rejoicing that Olga was now in the Merciful Hands of our Savior.

Perhaps our RC brethern are more blessed with patience than us, for I lost my peace a tad during the Consecration. We respond instinctively and unprompted with our "Amen." Instead I had to wait for the organ to wind up with its intro, then finally the people were able to give their confirming response ("amen".

I hope its OK to resurrect slightly old threads...

The link for that flier is now: http://www.stmichaeltucson.org/site/About_Our_Faith_files/East-West%20posters.pdf

I agree with those trads, as I was until recently one of them, that the left-hand side represents a break in the Western tradition to a large extent.

My wife and I were last week at a pro-life Mass in Košice. I was really shocked by the saxaphone/caberet type music that was sort of used as a "transition" between different parts of the Mass, as well as the use of at least three other styles of music during Mass-- plain chant (in English!), organ backed "traditional" songs, guitar-pop songs.

Maybe there should be added an additional comparison:
Western liturgy: Not much taste or harmony.

I wonder to what extent the destruction of the Western Liturgy over the past 50 years influences Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical relations. If I were Orthodox, visiting many of the Roman Catholic Masses would re-affirm any bias I had that the Catholic Church had lost the true faith.

Andrew,

Doing so is stock in trade around here. If the search function was a tad more user friendly, it would happen that much more often.

Many years,

Neil