difference in East and West -- really any that different?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EIF5A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EIF5A

Guest
From the various “East/West” comparisons in this forum, both sides come up with arguments that seem equally valid (to my questioning Protestant mind).

How much of it is due to semantics? How much of it is due to the two sides describing the same idea but just from a different angle or describing in greater/lesser detail one aspect of said idea?

Is there anything in the East that contradicts the West, and vice-versa, that is not just due to linguistic limitations? (e.g., “The sky is green – No, the sky is shining emerald” vs “The sky is green – No, the sky contains the brilliance of ruby”.)

I really hope “in Christ there is no east or west”. (OK, so different context…)
 
Alas, there are differences but not separate Heavens [Orthodox,Catholic,Protestant] 🙂
 
EIF5A said:
From the various “East/West” comparisons in this forum, both sides come up with arguments that seem equally valid (to my questioning Protestant mind).

How much of it is due to semantics? How much of it is due to the two sides describing the same idea but just from a different angle or describing in greater/lesser detail one aspect of said idea?

Is there anything in the East that contradicts the West, and vice-versa, that is not just due to linguistic limitations? (e.g., “The sky is green – No, the sky is shining emerald” vs “The sky is green – No, the sky contains the brilliance of ruby”.)

I really hope “in Christ there is no east or west”. (OK, so different context…)
Click to expand...
East and West = Left lung and Right lung of One Body. (Pope John Paul 2)

The only difference is that East do not recognise the universal Authority of the Papacy to include them! All else is a mishmash of polemics and semantics.

:cool:
 
EIF5A said:
From the various “East/West” comparisons in this forum, both sides come up with arguments that seem equally valid (to my questioning Protestant mind).

How much of it is due to semantics? How much of it is due to the two sides describing the same idea but just from a different angle or describing in greater/lesser detail one aspect of said idea?

Is there anything in the East that contradicts the West, and vice-versa, that is not just due to linguistic limitations? (e.g., “The sky is green – No, the sky is shining emerald” vs “The sky is green – No, the sky contains the brilliance of ruby”.)

I really hope “in Christ there is no east or west”. (OK, so different context…)
Click to expand...
The original split between East and West was partly due to the fact that after the 800’s the two started to drift apart linguistically. By the time of the Great Schism in 1054 it was very difficult for the two sides to communicate, since they lacked a common language. Which, of course, led to a number of misunderstandings.

Since that time many more differences have been added to the mix, some may be due to semantics but many are not.

For example - the East and the West both believe in the primacy of the Pope. But what they mean by “primacy” is different. In the East it is a primacy of honor, due to St Peter’s presence in Rome. In the West it is a primacy of power.

The filioque is another difference that may be mainly, although not entirely, due to semantics.

However, the understanding of what constitutes infallible Church doctrine is very different between East and West. The Eastern church does not accept the later Councils decisions about dogma. Although some of the dogmatic teachings that came later are believed by some Orthodox, they are a private matter open to personal interpretation. Some differences between Orthodox and Catholic Dogmas, for example some of the Marian doctrines, might be overcome by semantical study. But other differences, like the infallibility of the Pope, are not the result of different linguistics but are due to fundamental differences in theology.

I’m don’t really agree with them, but some Orthodox theologians actually consider the Catholic Church to be closer to the Protestant Church than to the Orthodox Church.

I do agree that both sides seem to present compelling arguments as to the correctness of their own beliefs.
 
elizaveta01 said:
The original split
between East and West was partly due to the fact that after the 800’s
the two started to drift apart linguistically. By the time of the Great
Schism in 1054 it was very difficult for the two sides to communicate,
since they lacked a common language. Which, of course, led to a number
of misunderstandings.

Since that time many more differences have been added to the mix, some
may be due to semantics but many are not.

For example - the East and the West both believe in the primacy of the
Pope. But what they mean by “primacy” is different. In the East it is a
primacy of honor, due to St Peter’s presence in Rome. In the West it
is a primacy of power.

The filioque is another difference that may be mainly, although not
entirely, due to semantics.

However, the understanding of what constitutes infallible Church
doctrine is very different between East and West. The Eastern church
does not accept the later Councils decisions about dogma. Although some
of the dogmatic teachings that came later are believed by some
Orthodox, they are a private matter open to personal interpretation.
Some differences between Orthodox and Catholic Dogmas, for example some
of the Marian doctrines, might be overcome by semantical study. But
other differences, like the infallibility of the Pope, are not the
result of different linguistics but are due to fundamental differences
in theology.

I’m don’t really agree with them, but some Orthodox theologians actually
consider the Catholic Church to be closer to the Protestant Church than
to the Orthodox Church.

I do agree that both sides seem to present compelling arguments as to
the correctness of their own beliefs.
Click to expand...
This is beautiful except the part about what some orthodox theologians think 😛
 
Some of the purported differences are due to semantics or are illusions based in ignorance and prejudice on both sides. For example, ideas that the East is more mystical, the West is more rational, or that either side is more “incarnational” are usually over-simplified at best and gross misunderstandings at worst.

Some of the more doctrinal differences are also misunderstandings. For instance the Eastern Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, are often under the impression that the Western idea of Original Sin is that personal guilt for Adam’s sin is passed down the generations, and that is emphatically not the case.

That said there are serious, substantial differences between Catholic and Orthodox. The authority of the Pope and of the ecumenical councils after the seventh are the most prominent issues. Also there are very substantial disagreements on sacramental theology, such as the concerning matrimony. The filioque continues to generate controversy, in spite of some theologians on both sides saying it ought to be a non-issue. The list could go on, even ignoring the issue of historical grudges and so forth.

Some Eastern Catholics are essentially Orthodox in communion with Rome, just as some Western Catholics are essentially Protestants in communion with Rome. For them the same issues apply. Other Eastern Catholics of course are on the same page with Western Catholics on all doctrinal matters and all that differs is language, emphasis, spiritualities, the sorts of theological disputes that the Church does in fact leave latitude on, and of course liturgy and other practices.
 
Deconi said:
East and West = Left lung and Right lung of One Body. (Pope John Paul 2)

The only difference is that East do not recognise the universal Authority of the Papacy to include them! All else is a mishmash of polemics and semantics.

:cool:
Click to expand...
I have been both Catholic and Orthodox in my life. Although it might not look like it from the outside, I can assure you that there are a lot more differences than that. Some are due to polemics and semantics, but many are not.

Also, only the Catholic Church accepts the “left lung, right lung” or “sister Churches” view of the East and West. The following is from the OCA website:

"While Roman Catholicism sees Orthodoxy as a “sister church”, Orthodoxy sees herself as the fullness of the Church, not the “other half” of the Church, as implied in the notion of a “sister church.”

I’m not saying that I agree with it, because basically I don’t. But it is the official Orthodox Church’s view on the matter.
 
So far everyone seems to be equating “the East” with Eastern Orthodox. Within the Catholic Church are other rites besides Roman, including Eastern. All share the same faith, including the dogmas of the pope’s infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Within the Catholic Church there is no contradiction between East and West; however, there are differences in emphasis and in how the same faith is expressed.

Is this what you had in mind, EIF5A, or were you wanting to talk about differences between Catholics and Orthodox?
 
Ad_Orientem said:
So far everyone seems to be equating “the East” with Eastern Orthodox. Within the Catholic Church are other rites besides Roman, including Eastern. All share the same faith, including the dogmas of the pope’s infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Within the Catholic Church there is no contradiction between East and West; however, there are differences in emphasis and in how the same faith is expressed.

Is this what you had in mind, EIF5A, or were you wanting to talk about differences between Catholics and Orthodox?
Click to expand...
For all other Christians, notably Orthodox, reconciliation on infallibly is the only issue that separates the Church
 
Ad_Orientem said:
So far everyone seems to be equating “the East” with Eastern Orthodox. Within the Catholic Church are other rites besides Roman, including Eastern. All share the same faith, including the dogmas of the pope’s infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Within the Catholic Church there is no contradiction between East and West; however, there are differences in emphasis and in how the same faith is expressed.

Is this what you had in mind, EIF5A, or were you wanting to talk about differences between Catholics and Orthodox?
Click to expand...
I meant Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and why they can’t seem to unite, be in communion, etc.
 
I suppose the west is more likely to be rationalistic than the east.
 
40.png
EIF5A:
Is there anything in the East that contradicts the West, and vice-versa, that is not just due to linguistic limitations?
Click to expand...
Contraception

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Nine_Two said:
No it isn’t. It is probably the biggest thing right now, but the schism predates infallibility.
Click to expand...
Well, of course our position is that the charism itself existed and the doctrine concerning it was implicit in the Pope’s role in the early Church, even though the term “Papal infallibility” was not coined until the Middle Ages, and the concept not defined as a dogma until 1870.
 
Nine_Two said:
No it isn’t. It is probably the biggest thing right now, but the schism predates infallibility.
Click to expand...
And maybe an argument that unity in the Western Church focus on Anglican/ Lutheran right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top