Topic: Latin vs. Eastern/Oriental Theology

[Melodist]

Latin theology is the western theological tradition, traditionally based on the western fathers writing in the latin language. Eastern theology is the eastern theological tradition, traditionally based in the eastern fathers writing in the greek language. Due to cultural/language differences, the two traditions have formed distinct ways of expressing their theology.

If that's the case then I'm not sure how much I would agree that the distinction is valid, or at least is still valid. There seems to be a lot of cross-pollination to me.

Since the schism, "latin" has also come to include the Roman Catholic continuation of latin theology developed while apart from Orthodoxy.

Yea, I know what you mean as far as that goes. What I'm not sure I agree about is the idea that there are these two monolithic edifices, one of which is 'Latin Theology' and one of which is 'Eastern Theology', and that we can discuss the history of theology accurately in that way.

Let's use the filioque as an example. The latin procedit does not equal the greek ekporeusis. The entire controversy surrounding it hinges on the false understanding that they do. The theology expressed in latin writings is fine, it does not belong in the creed.

[Alcuin]

That's a point of explicit doctrinal disagreement, which I was asking about earlier.

[James Joseph]

...how do you account for the Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus When he was Baptised by John? would not the Holy Spirit already be present with Jesus if he spirates From him as well?

Anyone more learned than I please correct My views from the orthodox perspective if i am wrong please

Part of the question, about the holy Spirit descending upon the man Jesus, here appears very similiar to that of the Theodotian sect, from around the year 190A.D. condemned by Pope Saint Victor the Martyr.

Forgive me for noticing it. As it happens, I am currently wrapped-up writing about some of the early sects.

Maybe we should discuss the mistakes of some of the early theologians we all can agree are in the wrong; so that, we can all remind ourselves what is certaintly wrong rather than vague.

[Peter J]

Latin theology is the western theological tradition, traditionally based on the western fathers writing in the latin language. Eastern theology is the eastern theological tradition, traditionally based in the eastern fathers writing in the greek language. Due to cultural/language differences, the two traditions have formed distinct ways of expressing their theology.

If that's the case then I'm not sure how much I would agree that the distinction is valid, or at least is still valid. There seems to be a lot of cross-pollination to me.

Since the schism, "latin" has also come to include the Roman Catholic continuation of latin theology developed while apart from Orthodoxy.

Yea, I know what you mean as far as that goes. What I'm not sure I agree about is the idea that there are these two monolithic edifices, one of which is 'Latin Theology' and one of which is 'Eastern Theology', and that we can discuss the history of theology accurately in that way.

Let's use the filioque as an example. The latin procedit does not equal the greek ekporeusis. The entire controversy surrounding it hinges on the false understanding that they do. The theology expressed in latin writings is fine, it does not belong in the creed.

That's a point of explicit doctrinal disagreement, which I was asking about earlier.

No it isn't.

[Peter J]

We then come to the "Filioque" itself.  If the Holy Spirit descends from the "Father and The Son" the Holy Spirit becomes less of an equal with the Father and The Son.  If all of the Persons of the Holy Trinity are of the same essence, but each has different functions; the Original Nicean Creed minus the "Filioque" is correct and the Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach error.

John Lee

To me, this argument has always seems just as illogical as the reverse argument, namely that the Filioque is necessary in order to avoid Arianism. (I also don't know why you said "descends" rather than "proceeds", but I'll leave that aside.)

[Peter J]

What's 'Latin' theology? What's 'Eastern' theology?

Good question. There seems to be an increasing trend to speak of Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, on the one hand, and Latin Catholics on the other hand. I'm not sure what to make of this.  

P.S. I guess another way you could put it is that people are tending to see Eastern Catholicism not so much as the eastern-wing-of-Catholicism, but rather as the Catholic wing of the-Christian-East.

[Adela]

What's 'Latin' theology? What's 'Eastern' theology?

Good question. There seems to be an increasing trend to speak of Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, on the one hand, and Latin Catholics on the other hand. I'm not sure what to make of this. 

Possibly the difference is with Augustinian viewpoints on original sin and how this changes some viewpoints of God's relationship with mankind.  (I'm wondering if  the practice of self-flagellation of the middle ages came about because of this Augustinian viewpoint and how this relates to any Eastern Christian practices of self-denial, etc.)  Another difference is the Latin focus on certain very famous Roman Catholic saints and their visions and practices without a balance of early pre-schism saints.   

To give due credit to the Roman Catholic side, there seems to be a large focus of the religious orders on active service (hospitals, teachers,  etc.).  There are contemplative orders, but many orders  go out to nurse and care for the very poor and very ill.

[Papist]

Man, I really wish that I could delete some of my rudeness from these old threads.

[theistgal]

Lol, Papist! Well, I wish I could delete some of my antiChristian rants from the Internet from when I was an atheist but they're there forever.  Just another reminder to think before you post. :-)

[Peter J]

Nice to see you here, theistgal.

when I was an atheist

You used to be an atheist? I don't I ever knew that (although I guess I should have suspected it from your screenname ).

[theistgal]

Nice to see you here, theistgal.

when I was an atheist

You used to be an atheist? I don't I ever knew that (although I guess I should have suspected it from your screenname ).

Yep, I was the infamous "atheistgal" of yore. 

[Cyrillic]

Nice to see you here, theistgal.

when I was an atheist

You used to be an atheist? I don't I ever knew that (although I guess I should have suspected it from your screenname ).

Yep, I was the infamous "atheistgal" of yore. 

What made you convert if I may ask?

[theistgal]

Nice to see you here, theistgal.

when I was an atheist

You used to be an atheist? I don't I ever knew that (although I guess I should have suspected it from your screenname ).

Yep, I was the infamous "atheistgal" of yore. 

What made you convert if I may ask?

The grace of God, and His long-suffering patience, not to mention His wonderful sense of humor, is about all I can come up with.

I have actually gone back and forth between atheism and theism since my college days and it's not over; it's never really over till death.

But in recent I've learned to see my latent theism as a chronic illness, and treat it as such. When it starts cropping up in my life, rather than try to suppress it and thus let it fester, I just say to God, "Hey Lord, I think I'm going to have to be an atheist for a while again," and He replies, "OK kiddo, let me know when you're ready to come back."

And I always come back, because ultimately atheism = NOTHINGNESS and the closer I get to the end of my life, the more difficult that is to accept.

[Cyrillic]

Great to meet someone who came from atheism as well.

[theistgal]

Great to meet someone who came from atheism as well.

I thought you looked familiar!   

[Cyrillic]

Great to meet someone who came from atheism as well.

I thought you looked familiar!   

Aye, we former atheists all look alike 

[theistgal]

[Peter J]

Cyrillic and theistgal,

Do you mean atheism literally (as distinct from agnosticism)?

[Cyrillic]

Cyrillic and theistgal,

Do you mean atheism literally (as distinct from agnosticism)?

In the sense that I knew for sure that there was no afterlife and that the universe and the world came into being by accident/any other way that could be fully rationally explained, the miracles in the Bible didn't happen and that the existence of God is very unlikely. Then again, I was never catechised.

[Peter J]

Just checking.

[Peter J]

Side question: did you see the thread on this forum, in which someone claimed that agnosticism doesn't even exist?

[Cyrillic]

Side question: did you see the thread on this forum, in which someone claimed that agnosticism doesn't even exist?

Real agnosticism doesn't exist IMO. Most agnostics are just hipster atheists.

[theistgal]

Side question: did you see the thread on this forum, in which someone claimed that agnosticism doesn't even exist?

Real agnosticism doesn't exist IMO. Most agnostics are just hipster atheists.

Maybe, but agnosticism is a venerable term, which to me conjures up images of people like Mark Twain or Robert Ingersoll. I'd much rather be perceived as an "agnostic" than one of those mean, nasty "atheists". (Er, that's a joke, atheists! I don't think you're really mean and nasty! Don't tase me bro!  ).

[Peter J]

Side question: did you see the thread on this forum, in which someone claimed that agnosticism doesn't even exist?

Real agnosticism doesn't exist IMO. Most agnostics are just hipster atheists.

Hmm ... well, I guess that's not as extreme as the other poster who was saying that agnosticism is absolutely impossible.

[Pharaoh714]

[/quote]
The Holy Spirit was descending on Christ as man to anoint him as messiah.
[/quote]


St Cyrils 12 Anathemas, Anathema #3

"If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.


Also Keep in mind the Apostles received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost through Christ.

John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2
Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

[ialmisry]

The Holy Spirit was descending on Christ as man to anoint him as messiah.

St Cyrils 12 Anathemas, Anathema #3

"If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.


Also Keep in mind the Apostles received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost through Christ.

John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2
Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Pope St. Cyril speaks of the Holy Spirit descending on Christ to anoint Him as Messiah in his "On the Unity of Christ" in several places.

Btw, the OP might find something for its case on the Miaphysite Christology blogspot:
http://miaphysitism.blogspot.com/2012/11/severus-ibn-al-muqaffa-i-on.html

[frjohnmorris]

m is.
[/quote]
The Father is distinguished in that he is the peron in the Trinity that has no source, who begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The Son is the person in the Trinity who is begotten by the Father and, along with the Father as a single princple, spirates the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the person who does not beget nor spirate, but proceeds from both the Father and the son.
[/quote]

From what i've read and as stated in the nicene creed, it states, And I believe in the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father. It does not mention the Son. While you state, that the Holy Spirit Spirates from both the Father and Son.


If this is so, how do you account for the Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus When he was Baptised by John? would not the Holy Spirit already be present with Jesus if he spirates From him as well?

Anyone more learned than I please correct My views from the orthodox perspective if i am wrong please
[/quote]
The Holy Spirit was descending on Christ as man to anoint him as messiah.
[/quote]

Do you realize how Nestorian that sounds. The human and divine nature of Christ were "without separation."
The correct Biblical teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds, that is originates from the Father and is sent by the Son. St. John 15:26. Some of the Fathers express this as "through the Son." The original Greek text of the creed uses the word, "ἐκπορευόμενον" which means to proceed from one source. Even Rome recognizes this and never adds the words "and the Son" when the Creed is recited in Greek. St. John 15:26 also uses the word "ἐκπορευόμενον". However, the Latin word translated proceeds "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator. Thus it can be used to mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, which is what the Latins argued at Florence.
However, the text as approved by the Ecumenical Councils was the Greek text. Therefore any translation into Latin should be an accurate translation of the original Greek text with its original meaning. Even the Popes refused to add the filioque to the Creed until 1014 and then under pressure from the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, who used the "filioque" to accuse the Eastern Empire of heresy to strengthen their claim to be the legitimate heirs of the Roman Empire instead of the Emperor in Constantinople. No one, not even the Bishop of Rome has the authority to change a decision of an Ecumenical Council.

Fr. John W. Morris

[frjohnmorris]

You haven't defined the Holy Spirit. THAT's where the semi-Sabellianism is.

The Father is distinguished in that he is the peron in the Trinity that has no source, who begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The Son is the person in the Trinity who is begotten by the Father and, along with the Father as a single princple, spirates the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the person who does not beget nor spirate, but proceeds from both the Father and the son.

There is only one verse in the entire Bible that refers to the procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26. "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" Nothing could be more specific than that. The teaching of the Holy Scriptures is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. One can also state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but one cannot say that the Holy Spirit proceeds, that is originates, from the Father and the Son and be faithful to the original meaning of the Creed as written and approved by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. The original Greek text of the Creed is very specific. The word translated proceeds, "ἐκπορευόμενον" means to proceed as from one source. However, the Latin word translated proceed, "procedit" can mean proceeds through a mediator.  Thus the Latin text of the Creed with the filioque is not necessarily heretical. However, even Rome recognizes that one cannot add the words, "and the Son" to the original Greek text of the Creed. Since the original text of the Creed was the Greek version any translation of the Creed should convey the meaning of the original Greek text.
The addition of the filioque clause was political. After the founding of the Holy Roman Empire with the unauthorized crowning of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800, Charlemagne and his successors claimed to be the rightful Roman Emperors. They used the "filioque" as a means to charge the Emperors in Constantinople with heresy because the Byzantine rulers rightfully objected to this unauthorized addition to the Creed. At first even the Popes rejected this addition arguing that the Pope lacked the authority to change the Creed written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. In 810 Pope Leo III went so far as to have two large silver plates engraved with the Creed in Latin and Greek without the "filioque" and hung in St. Peter's to emphasize the point that no one had the authority to change the Creed written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. However, in 1014, the "filioque" was first used in Rome at the coronation of Henry II as Emperor by Pope Benedict VIII. Benedict's assumption of the papal office had been challenged by another claimant, Antipope Gregory VI. Henry intervened on behalf of Benedict, so because he owed his papacy to the German monarch, he gave into his request to include the "filioque" in the Creed in Rome.
Ironically in 1054, Cardinal Humbert who began the Western schism when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople accused the Patriarch of taking the "filioque" out of the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

[Altar Server]

Ironically in 1054, Cardinal Humbert who began the Western schism when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople accused the Patriarch of taking the "filioque" out of the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

That's actually rather humorous and sad that a cardinal didn't know church history well enough to know the truth

[Romaios]

Ironically in 1054, Cardinal Humbert who began the Western schism when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople accused the Patriarch of taking the "filioque" out of the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

That's actually rather humorous and sad that a cardinal didn't know church history well enough to know the truth

It wasn't just him - all the West thought the same from the Carolingians until about Thomas of Aquino and probably the Council of Florence. Bernard of Clairvaux also believed the Greeks had taken filioque out of the Creed. It was a matter of Latin tradition...

[frjohnmorris]

Ironically in 1054, Cardinal Humbert who began the Western schism when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople accused the Patriarch of taking the "filioque" out of the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

That's actually rather humorous and sad that a cardinal didn't know church history well enough to know the truth

It wasn't just him - all the West thought the same from the Carolingians until about Thomas of Aquino and probably the Council of Florence. Bernard of Clairvaux also believed the Greeks had taken filioque out of the Creed. It was a matter of Latin tradition...

The West still does not know Church history. The Roman Catholics steadfastly cling to their papalism although there is no way to reconcile the canons and proceedings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils with the 1st Vatican Council and the modern claims of Rome to infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

Fr. John W.  Morris

[wainscottbl]

Ironically in 1054, Cardinal Humbert who began the Western schism when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople accused the Patriarch of taking the "filioque" out of the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

That's actually rather humorous and sad that a cardinal didn't know church history well enough to know the truth

It wasn't just him - all the West thought the same from the Carolingians until about Thomas of Aquino and probably the Council of Florence. Bernard of Clairvaux also believed the Greeks had taken filioque out of the Creed. It was a matter of Latin tradition...

The West still does not know Church history. The Roman Catholics steadfastly cling to their papalism although there is no way to reconcile the canons and proceedings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils with the 1st Vatican Council and the modern claims of Rome to infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

Fr. John W.  Morris

I agree. One thing I like about the east is deeper knowledge of Church history. In traditional Catholicism let's say Church history starts in the Middle Ages with some trads and at around 1800-1950 it seems with more American/liberal trads. Their idea of traditionalism is Victorian/1950ish nonsense. And for the modern Church, conservatives tend to focus more on apologetics and only Church history for the sake of that. Liberals just focus on "social justice".

The Easterns really embrace it all. Even with Christ it's Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection and how it is all united as one good purpose for life. I think the West, for Catholics focuses on the Passion as understood in the Eucharist, which is good, but not so much the Resurrection as it's purpose of the Incarnation as its cause. I think this focus lead to the Calvinist obsession with Christ taking a beating to make up for our sins for an angry Father. Christmas is only important to Protestants of this sort so Christ could be born and grow up to take a beating. I think the Western rationalism is the cause of this in many ways, not allowing the mystical understanding which is found in the early Church rather than the Middle Ages where Scholasticism arose and gave all the mysteries of the Faith a sort of Aristotelian rationalism. For them you can't dare go against Aquinas after all and he pretty much seems to have put all the early Church Father behind him.

[frjohnmorris]

Ironically in 1054, Cardinal Humbert who began the Western schism when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople accused the Patriarch of taking the "filioque" out of the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

That's actually rather humorous and sad that a cardinal didn't know church history well enough to know the truth

It wasn't just him - all the West thought the same from the Carolingians until about Thomas of Aquino and probably the Council of Florence. Bernard of Clairvaux also believed the Greeks had taken filioque out of the Creed. It was a matter of Latin tradition...

The West still does not know Church history. The Roman Catholics steadfastly cling to their papalism although there is no way to reconcile the canons and proceedings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils with the 1st Vatican Council and the modern claims of Rome to infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

Fr. John W.  Morris

I agree. One thing I like about the east is deeper knowledge of Church history. In traditional Catholicism let's say Church history starts in the Middle Ages with some trads and at around 1800-1950 it seems with more American/liberal trads. Their idea of traditionalism is Victorian/1950ish nonsense. And for the modern Church, conservatives tend to focus more on apologetics and only Church history for the sake of that. Liberals just focus on "social justice".

The Easterns really embrace it all. Even with Christ it's Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection and how it is all united as one good purpose for life. I think the West, for Catholics focuses on the Passion as understood in the Eucharist, which is good, but not so much the Resurrection as it's purpose of the Incarnation as its cause. I think this focus lead to the Calvinist obsession with Christ taking a beating to make up for our sins for an angry Father. Christmas is only important to Protestants of this sort so Christ could be born and grow up to take a beating. I think the Western rationalism is the cause of this in many ways, not allowing the mystical understanding which is found in the early Church rather than the Middle Ages where Scholasticism arose and gave all the mysteries of the Faith a sort of Aristotelian rationalism. For them you can't dare go against Aquinas after all and he pretty much seems to have put all the early Church Father behind him.

The difference is that the East never lost Aristotle and therefore put him in his right place in philosophy and science. However, Aristotle was forgotten in the West until they found Arabic translations of Aristotle during the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. Because Aristotle was fad, theologians in the West made the terrible mistake of believing that it was necessary to reconcile Christian theology with Aristotle thereby taking Aristotle out of context and laying the foundation for the secularization of the West by relying on human reason in a vain effort to comprehend the mysteries of God with the limited human mind. Is it not ironic that the West first read Aristotle from translations from Arabic instead in the original Greek like the East?

Fr. John W. Morris