Latin ignorance of Greek and the Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DL82

Guest
One of the claims that is often made in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is that the reason for the different wording in the creed is due to differences in Latin and Greek grammar, which the Latin Church in particular didn’t understand due to the ignorance of Greek in the West at the time.

Certainly it is true that the 11th century (and the 3 or 4 preceding ones) were a ‘dark age’ for learning in the West. At the same time, as I understand it, Byzantium continued to flourish.

Which made me wonder about a deeper issue, and one which maybe nobody here can answer. If the West fell into complete ignorance of Greek after the death of Boethius, what help, if any, did the Greek Church offer to remedy this situation? Surely the idea that the First among the Patriarchs was unable to read the Bible in its original language, unable to access much of the writings of the early Church fathers, the philosophers, or the language of 3 of the other Patriarchs would be concerning to them?

To take a modern analogy, even though the USA and China are in many ways rivals on the world stage, if President Obama had to admit that there was nobody left in America who could read Chinese, I’m pretty sure President Hu would send some teachers over as a matter of goodwill. The risk of misunderstandings otherwise would just be too high.

I just wonder what support was available to support the dialogue which took place between East and West in those difficult days in the past. It’s not intended as a criticism of anyone, I am just curious about it, as I have never seen the question addressed before.
 
The Schism wasn’t about just the Filioque. It was a major sticking point which really stems from Rome’s claim to supreme authority. The East insists that Rome has no power to alter the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. Rome says she can. Even today there are Orthodox theologians who agree that the Filioque is not heretical if understood from the Latin perspective. But that doesn’t solve the issue of Rome unilaterally deciding to alter the Creed without the approval of the other Churches.
 
fames said:
As mardukm said, the EO made this claim against the Filoque just in the last centuries.
Click to expand...
And in the centuries before that, we obediently inserted the filioque into our creed? Surely since we recognized the authority of Rome to do so, we should have followed suit.
 
Don’t know how the OP led to an immediate reference to the Filioque, other than popularity of the subject matter. I took it that the OP was suggesting that a lack of language skills in the West, particularly with Greek, contributed to the Great Schism. The Filioque was not a translation issue.

BTW - not sure why this would be an Eastern Catholicism topic.
 
Cavaradossi said:
And in the centuries before that, we obediently inserted the filioque into our creed? Surely since we recognized the authority of Rome to do so, we should have followed suit.
Click to expand...
Maybe you thought it was heterodox?
 
fames said:
Maybe you thought it was heterodox?
Click to expand...
And we still do think. The main reason why some Orthodox theologians are open to it now with qualification is because Roman Catholic theologians have largely moved away from the medieval model of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit. For example, I often see Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) misconstrued as being an Orthodox proponent for the Filioque, but that is not the case. He is only saying that if Roman Catholics believe in the Filioque as being equivalent to saying the Spirit progresses essentially from the Son (which I must point out is not the same as saying that the Spirit receives the divine nature from the Son), or manifests eternally through the Son, but does not share in the free, personal causality of the Father (this phrasing, I must point out, is rather unique to Metropolitan John, I have not seen other Orthodox writers speak of causality in this fashion), then it could be conceived of as bring consistent with Orthodox theology. In this case, the softening of the Orthodox stance seems to have come about because of a shift of contemporary Roman Catholic theology towards Orthodox thought, not really because of one within Orthodox thought itself.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The main reason why some Orthodox theologians are open to it now with qualification is because Roman Catholic theologians have largely moved away from the medieval model of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Has the Church come far enough in your opinion?
CCC248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Click to expand...
 
Note from Moderator:

Please return to the thread topic. Those interested in discussing the filioque may start a new thread. As a reminder, I’ve quoted the thread topics below.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
DL82 said:
Which made me wonder about a deeper issue, and one which maybe nobody here can answer. If the West fell into complete ignorance of Greek after the death of Boethius, what help, if any, did the Greek Church offer to remedy this situation? Surely the idea that the First among the Patriarchs was unable to read the Bible in its original language, unable to access much of the writings of the early Church fathers, the philosophers, or the language of 3 of the other Patriarchs would be concerning to them?

I just wonder what support was available to support the dialogue which took place between East and West in those difficult days in the past. It’s not intended as a criticism of anyone, I am just curious about it, as I have never seen the question addressed before.
Click to expand...
 
Cavaradossi said:
And we still do think. The main reason why some Orthodox theologians are open to it now with qualification is because Roman Catholic theologians have largely moved away from the medieval model of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit. For example, I often see Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) misconstrued as being an Orthodox proponent for the Filioque, but that is not the case. He is only saying that if Roman Catholics believe in the Filioque as being equivalent to saying the Spirit progresses essentially from the Son (which I must point out is not the same as saying that the Spirit receives the divine nature from the Son), or manifests eternally through the Son, but does not share in the free, personal causality of the Father (this phrasing, I must point out, is rather unique to Metropolitan John, I have not seen other Orthodox writers speak of causality in this fashion), then it could be conceived of as bring consistent with Orthodox theology. In this case, the softening of the Orthodox stance seems to have come about because of a shift of contemporary Roman Catholic theology towards Orthodox thought, not really because of one within Orthodox thought itself.
Click to expand...
Due to the Mod’s direction, I replied to Cavaradossi’s post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=715066

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top