Is West more embracing of East, or vice-versa?

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

They were obviously resisted by the others because the idea was simply too good (and the home Churches in the old country thoroughly enjoy that American financial patronage).

In some cases, the American parishes are dependent upon support from the Old Country.

I’m unaware of any. And I’ve read Orthodox communique that specifically mentions the loss of American financial support should American autocephaly be granted as a reason to withhold that deserved status.

Your “in some cases”, if it even exists, describes a tiny fraction of a fraction of American Orthodox Churches.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

Vonsalza:

They were obviously resisted by the others because the idea was simply too good (and the home Churches in the old country thoroughly enjoy that American financial patronage).

In some cases, the American parishes are dependent upon support from the Old Country.

I’m unaware of any. And I’ve read Orthodox communique that specifically mentions the loss of American financial support should American autocephaly be granted as a reason to withhold that deserved status.

Your “in some cases”, if it even exists, describes a tiny fraction of a fraction of American Orthodox Churches.

“In some cases” would be the Romanian Orthodox Church., which receives funding from the Romanian Government and the Church in Romania. Yes, a tiny fraction, but existing nonetheless.

 

[MP_Kid]

As an Eastern Catholic I would like to say the Western Catholic is more accepting than the Eastern Orthodox. I do not feel welcome as an Eastern Catholic when I go to an Orthodox Church. I’ve been to an Orthodox church a few times and the priest treated me like i was the devil. He bashed Catholicism and called the Eastern Catholic Church a fake church made up by the pope. As an Eastern Catholic I am accepted by the Western Catholic (Latin Rite) when I attend mass. Unfortunately too many Eastern Catholics blindly listen to idiots like that Orthodox priest. I call the Eastern Catholics that seem to hate Rome “pretend Orthodox.”

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

I think you may have come across one of those converts who unfortunately have brought a lot of their protestant Rome-bashing with them. I’ve found the cradle Orthodox to be much more welcoming and accepting…converts are hit and miss.

And yeah, I see that as well regarding the Eastern CAtholics who dislike Rome. I think the same thing about that…pseudo Orthodox…most eventually just become Orthodox.

 

[Divine3]

Wondering if the Latin church has influenced the Catholic Eastern church because we are the majority rite here in the USA. as well as in the Church. It is tragic when the orthodox eastern church bashes the Latin church or Eastern Catholics – unity will never happen if we can not dialogue and be civil to one another.

 

[Augustinian]

Wondering if the Latin church has influenced the Catholic Eastern church because we are the majority rite here in the USA. as well as in the Church

I think the influence goes both ways, but the majority definitely influences the minorities more than the reverse.

 

[StAugustine]

Having gone back and forth from Orthodox to Catholic it seems to me quite clear, when serious research is done, that the WEST has a much, much, MUCH better grasp on just WHAT the consensus of the Fathers in fact is.

For example, to imagine the fathers of a particular region to be the be all and end all of catholic orthodoxy (Such as the cappadocian fathers, or the syriac fathers) is assuredly NOT a patristic view. Rather, the consensus of all the fathers, east and west, is what the Church is bound to, and not just to a localized way of speaking or terminology, but the SENSE of what is being conveyed.

For that reason, I say the WEST appreciates the EAST far more than the East appreciates the west, because the west is legitimately Catholic- embracing the universal consensus of the fathers, whereas the east, notwithstanding its protestations to the contrary or the Russians’ additions of western saints to their calendar, simply treats the latin fathers very unseriously.

Some peoples Orthodoxy is nothing more than a contest in who is the most anti-Latin. This is a delusion.

 

[pacloc]

For example, to imagine the fathers of a particular region to be the be all and end all of catholic orthodoxy (Such as the cappadocian fathers, or the syriac fathers) is assuredly NOT a patristic view. Rather, the consensus of all the fathers, east and west, is what the Church is bound to, and not just to a localized way of speaking or terminology, but the SENSE of what is being conveyed.

This is nonsense. The RCC does not even attack the Orthodox’ theology or view of the Patristic teachings like you are doing here. The Eastern Catholics also would be offended at this glaringly false accusation since they claim to be Orthodox but choose communion with Rome over communion with the Orthodox Church. We use the Latin Fathers very heavily, such as Sts. Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Jerome, and others. They definitely are in the same mind of the Eastern Fathers.

 

[Wandile]

To be frank I have seen that EO maybe pay due diligence to the great latin fathers but even then it pales in comparison to the Greek fathers. I had one EO openly say he trusts the eastern fathers more. The majority are glossed over and treated as second rate fathers.

This is most blatantly evidenced when you see a filioque debate in which the latin fathers are shown in many places and unanimously to be teaching it. The general EO response is to ignore them and go back to saying it’s against the fathers and invented at the council of Toledo. This attitude was even present at the council of Florence which is why the latins switched to focusing on proving how the Greek fathers taught likewise.

Obviously these are generalizations and prone to inaccuracy however for the most part I think they are true.

The latin church can be found quoting and employing the writings and teachings of fathers from other traditions more than any other tradition and that is indisputable. It’s why the latins faired better at Florence in the debates. The Greeks knew next to nothing of the latin doctors whereas the latins were familiar with the Greek doctors.

 

[StAugustine]

And what about St. Isidore of Seville, Hilary of Potiers, Fulgentius, Caesarius of Arles, Prosper of Aquitaine, ALL of St. Gregory the Dialogist, to say nothing of the unanimous pre-schism consensus on Original sin, and the Latin Council of Orange?

No, your use of the Latin Fathers is the same as Photios in his Mystagogy. You, under pretext of piety, “Cover over their nakedness” when they “disagree” with the Greek Fathers as OPPOSED to seeking the consensus of both, not merely in a consensus of terminology but of the inner core of the doctrine.

In other words, for the Orthodox, if it’s Latin Consensus vs. Greek Consensus (false dichotomy), the Greeks win.

But St. Thomas Aquinas follows St. John of Damascus and relied on Dionysius the Areopagite in creating a magnum opus of Patristic Synthesis called the Summa Theologiae. He was not partial to his locale, but freely quotes the east and west and the east even more than the west.

 

[Rohzek]

Actually, sometimes the Fathers err. For example, Sts. Prosper and Fulgentius got the question of free will and divine grace wrong. Orthodox do not accept their position. However, we do accept the position of other Latin saints, such as Sts. Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, and Faustus of Riez. We do not doubt, or at least I don’t, the holiness of either Sts. Prosper or Fulgentius, however, they most certainly got this question wrong. Furthermore, the Orthodox are not obligated to revere what amounts to but a mere local council, which takes a position that we adamantly oppose. Furthermore, the Second Council of Orange was not widely revered or adhered to in the Latin West until centuries after the fact.

I would also like to say that Dionysius the Areopagite is properly called pseudo-Dionysius. The real Dionysius found in the Book of Acts never wrote anything, at least anything that has survived history. Nevertheless, having read a good bit of pseudo-Dionysius, there is still great wisdom contained in him.

Lastly, on the point that Orthodox do not appreciate Latin Church Fathers as much as Catholics appreciate Eastern Church Fathers, I’d have to say that I somewhat agree. Largely, I think that the prevalence of this bias within Orthodoxy stems from anti-Latin sentiment that festered due to the long and tragic history between the Eastern Roman Empire and the lands of the former Western Roman Empire. It also stems from the fact that Eastern Europe has, at least during modernity, never been as well-educated or well-resourced as Western Europe, at least in terms of its church institutions. The necessary resources to acquire Latin texts, to learn Latin, and to learn the prerequisite history necessary to understand the various Latin writings and traditions is by no means a cheap affair. All of these things being said, I want to stress that it is very important not to exaggerate the extent of anti-Latin bigotry within Orthodoxy and to acknowledge that we’ve come a long way.

 

[Wandile]

Actually, sometimes the Fathers err. For example, Sts. Prosper and Fulgentius got the question of free will and divine grace wrong. Orthodox do not accept their position. However, we do accept the position of other Latin saints, such as Sts. Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, and Faustus of Riez. We do not doubt, or at least I don’t, the holiness of either Sts. Prosper or Fulgentius, however, they most certainly got this question wrong. Furthermore, the Orthodox are not obligated to revere what amounts to but a mere local council, which takes a position that we adamantly oppose. Furthermore, the Second Council of Orange was not widely revered or adhered to in the Latin West until centuries after the fact.

Actually it was St John Cassian and St Vincent of Lerins who were wrong on this matter of free will and grace. They erred in advancing a semipelagian point of view that was refuted by all their contemporaries, in various treatsies’ and in councils. However, I guess you being EO makes sense why you would side with St John Cassian. However all are holy and saints worthy of reverence.

Anyway this isn’t the thread for this debate.

 

[StAugustine]

I firmly subscribe to the belief, on the basis of external and internal evidence, that St. Dionysius is the author of the works that bear his name. I defy those who call him pseudo to prove it without first assuming it.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Don’t think I could vote on this poll because, while I respect, love and have read a bit about the eastern churches I just don’t know enough from their point of view. I just hope and pray that one day we will be reunited again, the way Christ wanted us to be, but with respect for each others unique traditions.

 

[dochawk]

The Eastern Churches {our Brethren} choose to separate from the West {the RCC} in 1054 which history records as the Great Eastern Schism

This simply isn’t correct; see above.

1054 was the west unilaterally excommunicating the east. The schism was largely paid lip service at most until the 15th century Council of Florence.

Calling it an eastern choice in 1054 is demonstrably false (and very much not RCC teaching).

hawk

 

[StAugustine]

Actually neithe east or west excommunicated one another. Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Michael, and Patriarch Michael, Cardinal Humbert.

In fact the Roman Church was not excommunicated by name as such until 1583 by Patriarch Jeremias.

What needs to be determined is this- were the eastern Churches outside Constantinople RIGHT to side with Patriarch Michael, or wrong? Is there any record of the deliberation of the patriarchs of the 11th and 12th century? Why did Antioch and Jerusalem ultimately side with Constantinople?

 

[dochawk]

Actually neithe east or west excommunicated one another. Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Michael, and Patriarch Michael, Cardinal Humbert.

But the effect of a patriarchal excommunication of another patriarch is schism, as communion between churches is through their head.

hawk

 

[StAugustine]

I find that to be completely the case on the issue of created grace.

Most Orthodox actually believe that God creates “grace” that he gives people to have union with him.

In actuality the Latin teaching is that union with God is the infusion of Charity (an Uncreated energy), which effects in the heart of man an actual change in the QUALITY of the soul. The soul obtains as a QUALITY what God is by nature. That’s the meaning of accidental participation.

For example- Let’s pretend there’s a God of “green-ness” and “green-ness” is his nature. He looks down on a field of red grass and chooses to impart to some his own “green-ness.” Now in the field of red grass some the blades are green, and all those which are green have undergone an accidental and created change, a change to their own QUALITY but not their nature.

This is the Latin meaning of divinizarion. It is emphasized that the soul obtains a new quality because our good works must flow from US as our OWN, even though they originate in God, because otherwise what does it mean to reward the just? For what? For channeling God? Or for BEING different? The difference we obtain in union with Christ has to be on the level of being, therefore nature, therefore quality of nature, therefore accidental.

I’m curious, because it was never clear to me when I was Orthodox, how does the eastern conception of Theosis account for man retaining his humanity and not being absorbed into the divinity?

You will say energetic participation- ok,
But energies are verbs, not nouns, so it is a participation where God is working in you. Okay, to accomplish what? What is the work he is doing in you? And is it of a permanent or transient quality? If permanent, where is the permanence of the change located? In the heart of man, his nous? Ok, how is it changed? Does it obtain a new quality, like, a divine quality distinct from transformation into the divine nature, or does it go from damaged and fallen to active and enlivened by Christ?

You see what I mean? And in the end, how contradictory really is Latin Sanctification from Eastern Theosis? Is it a real difference, or a difference in emphasis?

These are the kinds of misunderstandings I am talking about.