How Could EO and the CC reunite?

[Marybeloved]

But this isn’t a doctrinal issue per se. It’s a matter of “economia”–it’s a pastoral approach.

Certainly there are big-picture theological assumptions behind the different approaches, as Cavaradossi has suggested. But paradoxically, I think that when you get to the scale he’s alluding too the issues are too big to be truly divisive. What I mean is that they are broad, general sets of assumptions about matters that are fundamentally mysterious.

I get the feeling that you’ve said something really important, but I honestly cannot tell what it is in this paragraph!

 

[Marybeloved]

We could also list many things in which your Church no longer follows the Fathers, but as a guest, I do not feel that I should participate in such savagery. All I will say is that your Church tends to view divine law as an end unto itself, whereas we view the commandments as being directed towards an end. Yet another difference which probably cannot be reconciled.

As long as we have their doctrines, I’m good. The difference you claim, with all due respect, is a false difference to be sure. First you have to show that your claim is not simply the usual Eastern (both Orthodox and Catholic) charicaturization and misunderstanding of Western theology rampart on the internet. I’m sure there are many absolutes in the moral theology that neither you nor any other Orthodox would claim could be bended or done away with by any Bishop via economia. Would you say that your church views the divine law in their regard as an end in itself? The Churches for ages viewed those I brought up in that same light. Plus the Divine law is the manifest will of God for us. Of course it’s end is our greatest good and God’s glory- Yet that’s why we maintain its precepts!

 

[Nicea325]

The issue is that the Filioque is not just seen as an unwanted addition, but an illegal and heretical addition for many, if not all, Orthodox who have an opinion on the matter.

Heretical in what sense? You are aware the West as the East had it shares of attacks by heretics-correct? I am no theologian,but I do believe scripture does state the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Christ?

 

[Nicea325]

I said certain explanations of the distinction do, they end up saying God has two parts, one less divine nature than the other. How do you get from that that I said that the distinction itself violates the simplicity? It does not matter what philosophical constructs one uses, Aristotelian or platonist. **That God is not made of parts **is simple enough a truth for me.

You are right! God is not made up of parts. Spirit has no parts because it does not occupy space. Human/tanget creatures have parts: Body parts. Our soul which is also a spirit consists of no tangible parts,thus does not occupy space. Our human spirits are at the bottom: God,angels and humans.

 

[Contarini]

I get the feeling that you’ve said something really important, but I honestly cannot tell what it is in this paragraph!

Well, it’s the other side of the point you and I have argued before–you got understandably frustrated at the time because I had trouble articulating specifically how the Eastern perspective is, in my view, superior to the Western one.

There are big, abstract, general differences in approach. But if you try to nail them down to something specific, you find that there’s actually more wiggle-room than you think.

So, for instance, you can say “the West is legalistic and the East is mystical.” But what does that mean?

Well, you look at indulgences and you say (“you” being not you but an Orthodox person or a sympathizer with Eastern theology such as myself), “this is a doctrine that can’t fit into the Eastern framework.” Then you look at something like JPII’s explanation of indulgences which does avoid purely legalistic language.

So while on the one hand I think Eastern criticisms have merit, I think that saying “these are just obviously incompatible points of view” is harder to establish on specific points than many Orthodox claim.

I’m not sure I’ve actually cleared anything up–it’s something I’m still struggling with myself (our earlier conversation helped move my thinking along in that regard, because you challenged my overly sweeping statements of preference for the East).

 

[Marybeloved]

Well, it’s the other side of the point you and I have argued before–you got understandably frustrated at the time because I had trouble articulating specifically how the Eastern perspective is, in my view, superior to the Western one.

There are big, abstract, general differences in approach. But if you try to nail them down to something specific, you find that there’s actually more wiggle-room than you think.

So, for instance, you can say “the West is legalistic and the East is mystical.” But what does that mean?

Well, you look at indulgences and you say (“you” being not you but an Orthodox person or a sympathizer with Eastern theology such as myself), “this is a doctrine that can’t fit into the Eastern framework.” Then you look at something like JPII’s explanation of indulgences which does avoid purely legalistic language.

So while on the one hand I think Eastern criticisms have merit, I think that saying “these are just obviously incompatible points of view” is harder to establish on specific points than many Orthodox claim.

I’m not sure I’ve actually cleared anything up–it’s something I’m still struggling with myself (our earlier conversation helped move my thinking along in that regard, because you challenged my overly sweeping statements of preference for the East).

Sigh… Perhaps one day I can actually get down to a real study of Eastern theology from scratch, away from its comparison with the West. Then perhaps I’ll finally be able to understand these general differences in approaches, emphasis, language that many people talk about here at CAF. Right now, I’m grounded in Latin thought and views and one often has to “translate” Eastern thought to me in my own “native” theological language for me to grasp it. That’s why I really like reading Ghosty’s posts on these controversial issues regarding inexplicable (to me) Eastern concepts, because he seems to be able to do this translation in both directions easily. Before I read a certain thread where he explained the difference in “essence” in Eastern and Western thought, I had made up my mind that the East had fallen into real heresy here, but who knew that even essence is defined differently between us?

I remember that conversation you’re referring to, not one of my proudest moments I admit- I actually asked the moderator to delete the more thoughtless posts between me and Constantine TG which he did thankfully. I think I’ll remain perplexed about these broad differences in approaches though, until I do this study of the East I’m threatening to do, as honestly as I did latin Catholicism. I admit that reason is very important to me- I don’t know if that’s Thomistic influence or just my own psychological wiring, but that’s where I am for better or worse.

 

[dzheremi]

You are right! God is not made up of parts. Spirit has no parts because it does not occupy space. Human/tanget creatures have parts: Body parts. Our soul which is also a spirit consists of no tangible parts,thus does not occupy space. Our human spirits are at the bottom: God,angels and humans.

The essence/energies distinction doesn’t say that there are “parts” to God, though. The distinction is between the essence and the acts in the world (“energies”), neither of which are separate parts. Think about it: When YOU do something (some act), it is not separate from your essence…after all, you are doing it. But your essence, at the same time, is more than any particular thing that you DO.

 

[jrtrent]

Right now, I’m grounded in Latin thought and views and one often has to “translate” Eastern thought to me in my own “native” theological language for me to grasp it.

Father Damick’s book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy was originally delivered as a series of talks that Ancient Faith Radio has available as downloadable podcasts. When I was visiting an Orthodox church a couple years ago, one of the members downloaded the whole series and copied them to a cd I could play in my car. There are only two that deal directly with Orthodox/Roman Catholic differences, but the two podcasts preceeding that, “Understanding the Terms” and “Essentials of Christian Doctrine,” make a great introduction. The page linked to below only shows the 10 most recent podcasts, so you need to hit “next” or choose display all in the drop-box to see the beginning of the series.
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy

 

[tomarin]

Sigh… Perhaps one day I can actually get down to a real study of Eastern theology from scratch, away from its comparison with the West.

(edited by Tomarin)

A good book to read which explains the Eastern theological first principles to a Western audience is “Light From the Christian East: an Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition” by James R. Payton.

 

[Marybeloved]

The essence/energies distinction doesn’t say that there are “parts” to God, though. The distinction is between the essence and the acts in the world (“energies”), neither of which are separate parts. Think about it: When YOU do something (some act), it is not separate from your essence…after all, you are doing it. But your essence, at the same time, is more than any particular thing that you DO.

Actually, the energies are eternal, they are not temporal, but if you define them using creation (the world) you already saying they are not God as God is never contingent on any creation. From what Orthodox say here at CAF, there’s energy from eternity and then there’s its temporal manifestation within creation.The definition of “energies” you’ve given would preclude it from being God because God is not contingent on the World and what he is is entirely separate from any creative act or any act that does not pertain strictly to the Divinity. That’s not the E.O understanding (They clearly say that the Divine energies are God).

The best way to translate this to a Western Catholic if my experience is at all representative is to say that this is the Eastern account of the transcendence and immanence (at once) of God. The West’s approach make this distinction wholly unneccessary from our approach to explain this transcendence and immanence all-at-once (of the Divinity) but the Eastern approach as many say, is different from the West so their explanations, accounts of it and necessary concepts will be different too.

 

[dzheremi]

Actually, the energies are eternal, they are not temporal, but if you define them using creation (the world) you already saying they are not God as God is never contingent on any creation.

No, I’m not. Rather that’s how the EO themselves have defined them (starting around 34 minutes; note Fr. Andrew’s explanation that even the word “energy” comes from a Greek word meaning “working in”). As near as I can tell (since such terminology is much less popular among the OO), the purpose of noting the acts as within creation is not to say that they are not eternal, but because it is by those energies (or “grace”, as Fr. Andrew points out, being an equivalent term) that we cooperate with God. If God’s energies were somehow not evident and functioning within creation, then how could we partake of them in the process of Theosis? We are, after all, created beings. God is not. Thus we cannot participate in the ESSENCE of God, but in His energies, definitely.

From what Orthodox say here at CAF, there’s energy from eternity and then there’s its temporal manifestation within creation.The definition of “energies” you’ve given would preclude it from being God because God is not contingent on the World and what he is is entirely separate from any creative act or any act that does not pertain strictly to the Divinity. That’s not the E.O understanding (They clearly say that the Divine energies are God).

Again, I’m not predicating the existence of the energies on creation, but saying rather that this is how we, His creation, experience them. We can and do receive grace, which is GOD, in this life. We do not cease to occupy physical bodies and physical space when receiving grace. None of this is to say that God in any way is dependent upon His creation. Rather, it is the other way around.

The best way to translate this to a Western Catholic

The Western/Roman Catholic Church doesn’t even make this distinction, so I don’t think it’s actually possible to do that.

 

[Contarini]

Sigh… Perhaps one day I can actually get down to a real study of Eastern theology from scratch, away from its comparison with the West.

A few recommendations for that day, whenever it comes:

Ware, Orthodox Church, for the basic overview (and/or Orthodox Way for a somewhat different approach);

Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, for a more in-depth account;

And Aidan Nichols for a sympathetic but critical Catholic approach. Light from the East is a survey of important Orthodox theologians and theological themes; Rome and the Eastern Churches is a historical analysis of the schism itself. Fr. Nichols is in my judgment extremely fair to the Orthodox, to the point that one of his remarks on the differences in liturgy in Rome and the Eastern Churches gave me a serious push toward Orthodoxy. But he also doesn’t pull any punches on the reasons why he thinks the Orthodox need to reunite with Rome.

That’s why I really like reading Ghosty’s posts on these controversial issues regarding inexplicable (to me) Eastern concepts, because he seems to be able to do this translation in both directions easily. Before I read a certain thread where he explained the difference in “essence” in Eastern and Western thought, I had made up my mind that the East had fallen into real heresy here, but who knew that even essence is defined differently between us?

I remember that conversation you’re referring to, not one of my proudest moments I admit- I actually asked the moderator to delete the more thoughtless posts between me and Constantine TG which he did thankfully. I think I’ll remain perplexed about these broad differences in approaches though, until I do this study of the East I’m threatening to do, as honestly as I did latin Catholicism. I admit that reason is very important to me- I don’t know if that’s Thomistic influence or just my own psychological wiring, but that’s where I am for better or worse.

Well, I have a certain acquaintance with both sides, but also know the Latin tradition better. One of the recurring tendencies in us Eastward-looking Westerners (one that I think you called me to account on in that conversation) is to project into the comparison of East and West all our own issues and struggles with Western theology. I’ve noticed this pattern for a long while, since I first encountered converts to Orthodoxy, and while I’ve become increasingly sympathetic with the tendency as I’ve become more frustrated with Western theology and more enamored of Eastern theology, I still try to guard against it.

One of the reasons I’m not Orthodox is that I had close encounters with a traditional Orthodox society (Romania) before I had much contact with Catholics. And I viewed the Orthodox initially through the eyes of my Romanian Protestant friends. So I’m less disposed to idealize Orthodoxy than some Westerners, much as I have come to love it. At the end of the day, tempted as I am to conclude this at times, I can’t quite accept the idea that the many problems and difficulties of Western Christianity are just due to wrong turns we’ve made, and that the East has no such intrinsic problems/difficulties.

And that’s one of the basic questions, I think, for a Protestant approaching either Catholicism or Orthodoxy: the flaws in both traditions on the “human” level are obvious, but are they (in one or both cases) due to some specific wrong turn that vitiates the tradition’s claims, or are they just due to human sinfulness?

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

The Western/Roman Catholic Church doesn’t even make this distinction, so I don’t think it’s actually possible to do that.

It is indeed possible, I’ve seen it done here quite elegantly before. I should know- From the moment I encountered it last year here at CAF I experienced a visceral, intuitive rejection of it, and when I tried to slowly articulate this experience, the reasons for my opposition to it became evident. Then later I understood that the term essence in the East is much more narrowly defined than in the West- To us it just means the Divine nature, not so simply with the East. Then what I had regarded as two “parts”, one less fully God than the other, being explained by the Easterns (which was the reason for my serious repulsion to the concept) was actually more like two modes of existing (for lack of a better term) of God, one that is utterly removed and beyond any creation, and one that’s more accessible to creation. Then it was no longer so heretical to me!

 

[Nicea325]

The essence/energies distinction doesn’t say that there are “parts” to God, though. The distinction is between the essence and the acts in the world (“energies”), neither of which are separate parts. Think about it: When YOU do something (some act), it is not separate from your essence…after all, you are doing it. But your essence, at the same time, is more than any particular thing that you DO.

Yes applicable to finite creatures…meaning us and all creation. How is it applicable to an Eternal God? God is binded to gravity?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes applicable to finite creatures…meaning us and all creation. How is it applicable to an Eternal God? God is binded to gravity?

Please listen to Fr. Andrew’s podcast (linked in my previous post). He is an Antiochian Orthodox (EO) priest, and he literally says “God has essence and energies; so do you”. This is something that’s applicable to human beings AND God. It is only a problem in your own mind, because you think that means saying God is “binded” or somehow restricted as His creation is. That’s not what it means.

 

[Peter_J]

But this often gets me thinking: what would need to happen for this reunification to happen?

I think we’d all like to hear “It’s no big deal, let’s just do it.” But maybe the first step is to stop expecting an easy answer.

 

[Taestron]

I think we’d all like to hear “It’s no big deal, let’s just do it.” But maybe the first step is to stop expecting an easy answer.

True but there is a big difference between “there are no easy answers” and “we shouldn’t even talk about it.” I was wondering what are some practical steps that we today can take to reunite the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

True but there is a big difference between “there are no easy answers” and “we shouldn’t even talk about it.” I was wondering what are some practical steps that we today can take to reunite the Church.

Perhaps Pope John Paul II was onto something when he asked ALL Latin Catholics to be familiar with the traditions of the East.

 

[Nine_Two]

True but there is a big difference between “there are no easy answers” and “we shouldn’t even talk about it.” I was wondering what are some practical steps that we today can take to reunite the Church.

Yes, learn about each other. Learn to appreciate the world from the view of the other.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

The “great schism” only involved one particular Church (Greek/Byzantine) of many Orthodox Churches. Arguably, the split between the Western Church and the Oriental Orthodox involved more Christians at the time it occurred, and thus could be considered an even “greater schism.”

I was under the impression that further truth could be defined according to the code of canon law.