How do you think Eastern vs. Western Catholics approach their faith?

[Silyosha]

In the east beauty plays a central role. Spirituality is a pursuit of beauty. The object is divine beauty, and we try to imitate, and make our own, the beauty of the virtues. Beauty is central to the liturgy and everything else in the east. The pursuit of beauty is natural to every man and it drives man toward his end.

In the west law plays a larger role. ‘This is what we have done, and this is what needs to be done.’ Sin is like breaking the law, whereas in the east it is more like a distortion of our nature or a sickness.

This is very informative. I definately see what you mean about sin being like breaking the law in the west. I never thought the perspective would be different in the east, but isn’t that what this thread is for, to learn?
I agree with your statement about beauty; I think beauty and the desire to do the good and the godly is a natural thing to us, except for our sin.
Speaking of which, what is the EC view on things like original sin and the Immaculate Conception? I mean, I know they’re eastern CATHOLIC churches, but seeing as the ECs are Orthodox in communion with Rome, does this at all change the sentiment towards these ideas? Is there a different attitude towards them, or anything like that, due to the views of the Orthodox on those matters? Is there less focus on them, or pretty much the same?

 

[ConstantineTG]

True, true…I suppose it’s kind of similar to using Old Church Slavonic in eastern European churches? I’m not well versed at all on that particular language or how widely it’s used, but if it is widely used, is it kind of the same idea?

Note that Church Slavonic is a translation from the Greek. Also the Slav languages today would have evolved from Slavonic, such as Ukrainian. So its not a totally foreign language. It would be similar to French, Spanish and Italian which evolved from Latin. But you can’t ask a Chinese or Indian person to have the same appreciation with Latin which is totally foreign to them.

 

[Cecilianus]

Speaking of which, what is the EC view on things like original sin and the Immaculate Conception? I mean, I know they’re eastern CATHOLIC churches, but seeing as the ECs are Orthodox in communion with Rome, does this at all change the sentiment towards these ideas? Is there a different attitude towards them, or anything like that, due to the views of the Orthodox on those matters? Is there less focus on them, or pretty much the same?

Different EC’s will have different views of Original Sin (and the Immaculate Conception, the disagreement over which follows straight from the disagreement over Original Sin). I personally have no problem with the Roman expression of the doctrine, and I disagree with the Eastern view as expressed by Protopresbyter Romanides in The Ancestral Sin. I would like to think the two as being different expressions of the same doctrine, however - but I don’t think one can quite say that.

Basically, in the East there is a perception that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Original Sin is inherited guilt. I don’t think that’s a correct presentation of the Western view. Instead of guilt, the East teaches that what is inherited is death - a statement which is problematic because no distinction is made between physical death and spiritual death. It is said that in order for Mary to be human enough to transfer humanity in her Son, we cannot separate her from the rest of humanity by such a singular privilege, and therefore Mary though spotless and without any stain of sin must have also been necessarily subject to the law of death. (This I find problematic because I hold the Western view that since death is a consequence of sin, there is no spiritual reason for either Mary or Christ to need to die - Mary rather chose to die in order to unite herself to her Son.)

And so I disagree with the East as to whether Mary needed to die. Most Catholics agree that she did die before her Assumption; the Orthodox problem with the Catholic dogma of the Assumption is that it does not condemn as heresy the idea that she was raised without dying first.

In order to explain how the Theotokos could be sinless without being absolutely separated from the rest of humanity, Eastern theology (following St. Gregory Palamas) speaks of a “progressive gracing” of the ancestors of Our Lord, which really is actually a much stronger statement of the Immaculate Conception than we even see in the West.

(Although this idea is kind of found in the West, too - although St. Joseph was certainly not an ancestor of the Theotokos, I’ve heard him referred to as being without sin hence the title “St. Joseph the Just”, and everyone certainly acknowledges the true deep holiness of Sts. Joachim and Anne. It just wouldn’t be right for Mary to have been raised by sinners.)

 

[Cecilianus]

My view on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception is probably less common among people who self-identify as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, however.

Whenever an Orthodox asks me how I can believe in the Immaculate Conception, I just start saying,

“It is truly proper to glorify you, who have born God, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who without spot gave birth to God the Word, truly the Theotokos we magnify.”

If that’s not the Immaculate Conception, then I don’t know what is.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“It is truly proper to glorify you, who have born God, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who without spot gave birth to God the Word, truly the Theotokos we magnify.”

Now you made me sing :thumbsup:

 

[Silyosha]

I agree. The two opinions and definitions of the same dogma do really seem to be different expressions of the same issue…but essentially they say most of the same things (very, very essentially). The western Church does believe sin=death; I suppose the problem arises, as you said, because of the western Churches’ never having condemned the idea of the BVM’s being assumed before death. If the Church were to concretely condemn this, would the Orthodox/ECs be more inclined to accept it?
The idea of “progressive gracing”…I’ve never heard of that before. It’s very interesting. Is the idea that the entire lineage of Our Lord was blessed in some way or other and the BVM ultimately, through her having been conceived immaculately? Just trying to reiterate. I’m not sure what I think of that…Certainly intruiging and plausible, though. I’ll research it further. I wonder if that belief can appropriately and correctly be held by western Catholics?
Defined as a hereditary stain, original sin in the eyes of the western Church refers to, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Adams’ first sin, which caused sin in us”. Here is a list of the affects of original sin in the Western view.

**1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain. **I’ll have to go over the Catechism and get more information…
It’s my understanding that the BVM could be free of sin without being completely seperate from humanity simply by God’s grace. As it has been said, she was saved from sin by God, but in a different manner that other humans–rather than being “saved from the pit”, she was saved before she ever “fell in”. That analogy always helped be understand the IC.

 

[Silyosha]

Now you made me sing :thumbsup:

Is this a hymn?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this a hymn?

Yes, the Theotokion. Its part of the Divine Liturgy on most days. It may be replaced during Feast Days such as today.

 

[jimmy]

Is this a hymn?

Yes, it is a hymn in the Byzantine liturgy.

 

[Silyosha]

I just listened to it. Stunningly beautiful.
( A side note: While I was watching a video in which the Theotokion was being sung in the mass, I noticed again something I’ve seen before…the eastern priests seem to swing the incense a lot more erratically and randomly, as well as faster, than the western priests. Nothing wrong with that, just something I noticed. Silly…)

 

[jimmy]

This is very informative. I definately see what you mean about sin being like breaking the law in the west. I never thought the perspective would be different in the east, but isn’t that what this thread is for, to learn?
I agree with your statement about beauty; I think beauty and the desire to do the good and the godly is a natural thing to us, except for our sin.
Speaking of which, what is the EC view on things like original sin and the Immaculate Conception? I mean, I know they’re eastern CATHOLIC churches, but seeing as the ECs are Orthodox in communion with Rome, does this at all change the sentiment towards these ideas? Is there a different attitude towards them, or anything like that, due to the views of the Orthodox on those matters? Is there less focus on them, or pretty much the same?

The result of the fall was death, corruption and passibility. These are all natural to man, and through deification man puts on the divine attributes of immortality, incorruptibility and impassibility. From this perspective, to speak of the immaculate conception defeats the whole purpose of the incarnation. It leads to the conclusion that Mary, and Christ as well, were conceived immortal, incorruptible, and impassible. This sounds like an extreme monophysitism called aphthartodocetism (Jullian of Halicarnasus was a proponent), which declared that Christ only participated in our nature as much as he willed. So he consciously willed to hunger, and to thirst, and to feel pain. It isn’t included in the incarnation. The same consequence is the result of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived without the above attributes, and consequently so was Christ. So the only way Christ died was by actually choosing to submit to death.

 

[Silyosha]

The result of the fall was death, corruption and passibility. These are all natural to man, and through deification man puts on the divine attributes of immortality, incorruptibility and impassibility. From this perspective, to speak of the immaculate conception defeats the whole purpose of the incarnation. It leads to the conclusion that Mary, and Christ as well, were conceived immortal, incorruptible, and impassible. This sounds like an extreme monophysitism called aphthartodocetism (Jullian of Halicarnasus was a proponent), which declared that Christ only participated in our nature as much as he willed. So he consciously willed to hunger, and to thirst, and to feel pain. It isn’t included in the incarnation. The same consequence is the result of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived without the above attributes, and consequently so was Christ. So the only way Christ died was by actually choosing to submit to death.

Great summary. This would be useful in explaining to Protestants and other Christians who don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception why we believe in it. Very conlusive and to the point.

 

[Cecilianus]

I just listened to it. Stunningly beautiful.
( A side note: While I was watching a video in which the Theotokion was being sung in the mass, I noticed again something I’ve seen before…the eastern priests seem to swing the incense a lot more erratically and randomly, as well as faster, than the western priests. Nothing wrong with that, just something I noticed. Silly…)

It’s neither erratic nor random, just a little more complicated. I’m not quite sure what the pattern is, but I think it’s the same at every Liturgy.

 

[Silyosha]

Then it’s deliberate? I never knew…I wonder what the significance is?

 

[Aramis]

True, true…I suppose it’s kind of similar to using Old Church Slavonic in eastern European churches? I’m not well versed at all on that particular language or how widely it’s used, but if it is widely used, is it kind of the same idea?

No, in the Eastern Churches, it’s not. Church Slavonic was an economia… rather than have literally hundreds of ethnic variations in spelling and wording, a synthetic hybrid of several closely related dialects, Old Church Slavonic, was used. It’s still close enough to be understood when spoken by most slavic languages’ speakers.

The irony is that the extensive use of Church Slavonic has kept linguistic drift amongst the slavic lands to a minimum.

In the Roman Church in several dioceses, however, Church Slavonic was used in place of Latin. Dalmatia and a couple of neighbors. In these dioceses, the Roman Liturgy was used, but translated into Church Slavonic, to be used in place of Latin, as Latin was unintelligible… at the time it was granted, most western educated persons learned Latin; in the Slavic lands, Church Slavonic, not Latin, was the educated man’s literary tongue.

 

[TheHarpMaker]

I love Gregorian Chant - more so in fact than either prostopinije (Ruthenian) or znamenny (Russian). My favorite is the Greek plainchant which employs an ison (eternity note or drone - the “tenor” in 13th-century Latin “ars antiqua”) beneath long exuberant melismas. Greek chant has a very plaintive, Eastern feel to it due to the microtonal modal system. Most Catholic churches don’t have many or any ethnic Greeks in them, so you don’t hear it very often - my Ruthenian parish at college used to have a pastor who was an Athonite schemamonk who translated to Catholicism and who knew the chants, and he would on rare occasion sing them for my enjoyment and that of one other friend of mine at the parish who liked them. If they were any more beautiful I would die and go to Heaven from sheer joy.youtube.com/watch?v=-BpBgU-gUMA

And the single most beautiful chant I ever heard was the Words of Institution sung in Aramaic at a Maronite church. Some Melkite chants (like one chant used for the apostikhon for Vespers on Thursday night) are also indescribably beautiful.

i think i heard that one

 

[jimkhong]

Am I late to this thread?

One way Western Catholicism differs from Eastern Orthodoxy is that Western Catholicism tends (note the word: there will always be exceptions and there are no absolutes here) to be juridical in these types of matters - meaning that doctrines are defined to answer every question, every situation and every exception. So, Western Catholicism has a unitary body of doctrines which everyone can use irrespective of their culture and situation but it does get very complicated & can be legalistic in language.

Eastern Orthodoxy have a very simple statement of faith and leaves it to the Holy Spirit to inform the individual Christian based on his/her culture, understanding and situation. From Western Catholic perspective, this is frustratingly vague and open to misinterpretation & abuse.

In short, at the risk of oversimplification: to understand Catholic doctrines, you need to read Catholic catechism. To understand Orthodox doctrines, you need faith.