A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I’ve been thinking about the Eastern and Western Churches in a general way and I thought I’d share my thoughts and find out how wrong you all think I am. Obviously I’m painting in broad-brush here and ignoring important complications like the great diversity of Eastern traditions. My apologies if the whole thing seems idiotic to Eastern Catholics.
It seems to me that one of the most fundamental things that distinguish East from West is that the East is more stable across the centuries while the West more changeable. In particular the East generally seeks to maintain not only the essence of the Apostolic Faith (as all Catholic [Orthodox] Christians must) but also the theological and catechetical presentation of that faith and the liturgical living of it, all from the First Millennium. All these elements are seen as intertwined with each other and as something to be preserved intact till the Second Coming. The West meanwhile, though not lacking this general sense of tradition entirely, still separates doctrine, theology, and discipline to a greater degree and feels free to experiment with and develop them. To this experimental Western mind authority, especially Papal authority, provides the safeguard for orthodoxy more than grassroots fidelity to what was always believed before.
Maybe the differences between East and West have roots that go back to Apostolic times. Certainly the differences widened with the Western near abandonment of the Greek language in favor of Latin, leading to less theological cross-pollination. The controversy between Pelagius and Augustine for instance had a profound and permanent affect on the West while hardly touching the East. Then of course came the fall of the Western Empire and the rapid and complex changes Western Europe then went through. Meanwhile the East was mostly stable under the Byzantine Empire or, increasingly, was keeping the faith under Muslim domination- conditions more conducive, perhaps, to theological and liturgical stability.
Whatever the causes of the differences, we have been encouraged in recent decades to view them as much as possible as complimentary rather than contradictory approaches to the Faith. It seems to me that both approaches have their own benefits and their own dangers.
The West is, or at least has the potential to be, more adaptable to new cultural conditions and more able to grow in understanding and holiness in an authentically progressive way. On the other hand this very dynamism means it is always seething with controversy, and always in danger of driving off a doctrinal or pastoral cliff (heresy or disastrous new Church policies). Because of this danger we see how providential it is that the Papacy is based in the West. On the one hand it provides a safety against real heresy or at least a standard by which to identify it, and it can act as a mediator in disputes that fall short of heresy (e.g., the Molinist-Thomist debate). On the other hand sometimes it is a Pope who wants to experiment, and then his experiments are mostly limited to the already more fluid and adaptable West.
The East, because of its holistic and frankly conservative approach to orthodoxy, has been able to maintain orthodoxy and orthopraxy remarkably well over the centuries and now millennia. This consistency has made the Eastern Christianity more self-sufficient than the West in some ways; certainly there is not the same need for constant Papal intervention to correct new excesses or encourage new reforms. Indeed, the stability and self-sufficiency of the East is such that this kind of intervention will almost invariably cause negative disruptions. With the Eastern approach there is in theory a danger of stagnation, of becoming a dusty ecclesiastical museum, but it is my impression that through its own beauty and profound spirituality this has mostly been avoided. What has not always been avoided is an exaggerated inflexibility and self-sufficiency which causes the Christian to reject Papal authority, new ecumenical councils, or newly proclaimed dogmas entirely. Finally, when developments do happen in the East the past can be re-interpreted or re-imagined so as to include the more recent development; for instance I believe this happened to some extent in the Middle Ages regarding Hesychasm and related theology, and in the 20th century regarding Eucharistic ecclesiology. It should be noted that this last kind of mistake has been even more common in the West (because there have been more innovations to justify in the West) and that in both cases what is needed is an honest and realistic approach to historical developments.
In an ideal Church, I think, the West would keep boldly going where no theologian or liturgist has gone before, but not without constantly looking back to both its own past and to the East (which look increasingly like each other as the West continues to diverge) to avoid committing excesses or forgetting the important lessons of the Fathers. The East would not have a need to similarly look to the West to avoid unhealthy novelties, but would not be so closed off as to fail to accept (and then teach in a more Eastern way) whatever new dogmas have been bindingly taught to the whole Church.
I apologize pre-emptively if any of this strikes anyone as wrong or insulting. These are just my vague impressions as a Latin Catholic, and my purpose in posting here is more than half in order to benefit from different perspectives on the same subject.
It seems to me that one of the most fundamental things that distinguish East from West is that the East is more stable across the centuries while the West more changeable. In particular the East generally seeks to maintain not only the essence of the Apostolic Faith (as all Catholic [Orthodox] Christians must) but also the theological and catechetical presentation of that faith and the liturgical living of it, all from the First Millennium. All these elements are seen as intertwined with each other and as something to be preserved intact till the Second Coming. The West meanwhile, though not lacking this general sense of tradition entirely, still separates doctrine, theology, and discipline to a greater degree and feels free to experiment with and develop them. To this experimental Western mind authority, especially Papal authority, provides the safeguard for orthodoxy more than grassroots fidelity to what was always believed before.
Maybe the differences between East and West have roots that go back to Apostolic times. Certainly the differences widened with the Western near abandonment of the Greek language in favor of Latin, leading to less theological cross-pollination. The controversy between Pelagius and Augustine for instance had a profound and permanent affect on the West while hardly touching the East. Then of course came the fall of the Western Empire and the rapid and complex changes Western Europe then went through. Meanwhile the East was mostly stable under the Byzantine Empire or, increasingly, was keeping the faith under Muslim domination- conditions more conducive, perhaps, to theological and liturgical stability.
Whatever the causes of the differences, we have been encouraged in recent decades to view them as much as possible as complimentary rather than contradictory approaches to the Faith. It seems to me that both approaches have their own benefits and their own dangers.
The West is, or at least has the potential to be, more adaptable to new cultural conditions and more able to grow in understanding and holiness in an authentically progressive way. On the other hand this very dynamism means it is always seething with controversy, and always in danger of driving off a doctrinal or pastoral cliff (heresy or disastrous new Church policies). Because of this danger we see how providential it is that the Papacy is based in the West. On the one hand it provides a safety against real heresy or at least a standard by which to identify it, and it can act as a mediator in disputes that fall short of heresy (e.g., the Molinist-Thomist debate). On the other hand sometimes it is a Pope who wants to experiment, and then his experiments are mostly limited to the already more fluid and adaptable West.
The East, because of its holistic and frankly conservative approach to orthodoxy, has been able to maintain orthodoxy and orthopraxy remarkably well over the centuries and now millennia. This consistency has made the Eastern Christianity more self-sufficient than the West in some ways; certainly there is not the same need for constant Papal intervention to correct new excesses or encourage new reforms. Indeed, the stability and self-sufficiency of the East is such that this kind of intervention will almost invariably cause negative disruptions. With the Eastern approach there is in theory a danger of stagnation, of becoming a dusty ecclesiastical museum, but it is my impression that through its own beauty and profound spirituality this has mostly been avoided. What has not always been avoided is an exaggerated inflexibility and self-sufficiency which causes the Christian to reject Papal authority, new ecumenical councils, or newly proclaimed dogmas entirely. Finally, when developments do happen in the East the past can be re-interpreted or re-imagined so as to include the more recent development; for instance I believe this happened to some extent in the Middle Ages regarding Hesychasm and related theology, and in the 20th century regarding Eucharistic ecclesiology. It should be noted that this last kind of mistake has been even more common in the West (because there have been more innovations to justify in the West) and that in both cases what is needed is an honest and realistic approach to historical developments.
In an ideal Church, I think, the West would keep boldly going where no theologian or liturgist has gone before, but not without constantly looking back to both its own past and to the East (which look increasingly like each other as the West continues to diverge) to avoid committing excesses or forgetting the important lessons of the Fathers. The East would not have a need to similarly look to the West to avoid unhealthy novelties, but would not be so closed off as to fail to accept (and then teach in a more Eastern way) whatever new dogmas have been bindingly taught to the whole Church.
I apologize pre-emptively if any of this strikes anyone as wrong or insulting. These are just my vague impressions as a Latin Catholic, and my purpose in posting here is more than half in order to benefit from different perspectives on the same subject.
