My Big Discovery!

[Antonius_Lupus]

I told y’all that I would get back to y’all concerning my great conclusion to my problem with East vs. West. I wanted to share this with you because I feel it is a momentus discovery for me (thanks be to God).

As y’all already know, I had been going through a struggle between the Eastern and Western rites of the Church.

I think most of my problems came from the assertions of some anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox whom I was speaking to over the internet. They affirmed that Rome had marred the original Faith with their emphasis on simplicity, scholasticism, pragmatism, logic, and philosophy. They affirm that the True Faith is found almost totally in experience as opposed to Rome’s “intellectual faith.”

The Flaw in the Eastern Orthodox Position:
Part of coming to my conclusion came w/ the realization that the Eastern Orthodox position is flawed. First of all, the Eastern Orthodox (or EO’s) fail to realize that the Roman Church has BOTH scholastic and experiential expressions of the Faith. The mystics, Eucharistic adoration, the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross are just a few hallmarks of Roman experiential faith. For the EO’s to say that Rome’s emphasis on scholasticism takes away from Her emphasis on experience is based on ignorance of Catholicism. In reality, the Catholic Church has maintained a balance of scholasticism and experience in the Faith. The EO’s on the other hand have (since they split with Rome) lost virtually all traces of doctrinal scholasticism. They remain stagnant, trapped in some ways in the year 1054, when they fell into schism. The hunger for understanding the profundity of the Faith has somewhat gone down the drain.

My Arrival at the Conclusion:
I eventually came to my conclusion by a close study of the Eastern Catholic Churches. These Christians had something the EO’s did not have: a living Teaching Authority to spread and clarify the Faith. When the EO Church went into schism, they lost almost all sense of doctrinal catechesis (at least uniformly). This led to the EO’s overemphasis on Liturgy and ritual, at the expense of doctrine. Thus the EO’s became fragmented and confused because their was no shepherd to help keep unity of Faith amongst the sheep, which have now become national Churches.

On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox who reconciled with the Catholic Church (thus becoming Eastern Catholics) had the original balance restord. That is, the Eastern Catholics kept all of the beauty of their Orthodox counterparts, but they also received doctrinal Truth, which is the other side of the Christian equation.

Coming to this conclusion inevitably led me to ask myself “what are the differences?”

First of all, I concluded that both Eastern and Western Catholics have the SAME FAITH. Each Rite of the Church holds the fullness of God’s Divine Revelation.

However, the key to this is the recognition that the One Faith can be expressed in varied ways. For the Roman Church, the Apostolic Faith is expressed w/ philosophy, reason, and noble simplicity. The Eastern Catholic Churches on the other hand, express the Faith through mystery, child-like (i.e. unquestioning) faith, and elaborate ritualistic symbolism.

The Logical Method:
Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that I am eating a bowl of jello. The jello (in and of itself) is the substance I want to consume. However in order to consume the jello, I must use a spoon. Now, the important thing to remember is that the spoon is NOT the substance that I am trying to consume. RATHER the spoon is merely a tool that helps me to consume the jello.

This is similar to the different expressions of the Faith. Both Eastern and Western Catholics have the same “jello” (i.e. Deposit of Faith). HOWEVER, they don’t have the same “spoon.”

Thus the West “drinks” from the fountain of Christ’s Truth with reason, philosophy, and noble Roman simplicity.

The East “drinks” from the fountain of Christ with unquestioningly child-like Faith and elaborate rituals.

BOTH Churches are NOT receiving a different Faith, although to me it seemed as though they were at first.

No Both Churches are drinking from the same life-giving fountain.

They just drink in different ways.

Comments or critiques are welcome.

 

[Harpazo]

I agree with much of what you’re saying, such as the Orthodox seemingly are stuck in the 11th century. Be prepared to be ruthlessly attacked by those who strongly oppose (or even hate) all of the Catholic Communion and anything to do with the Pope of Rome. Just a fair warning…

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

You cannot be “stuck” in any century. Just as before the schism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, being in different environs, developed differently.

It is not fair to say that scholasticism is a necessary corollary of the Christian Faith; it isn’t. Nor is the mystic’s hungering for God any less profoundly deep as the scholastic’s.

I also disagree that the national churches result from lack of doctrinal “pastoring”, as you call it. Even before the schism, the East was comprised of the 4 ancient Patriarchates, but which divided (see Russia) into yet more as more and more peoples came to Orthodoxy/Catholicism.

Many of my brother Catholics seem to think that a bunch of “mere” bishops in the East became fed up with the Supreme Pontiff and Infallible Pope of Rome and thumbed their noses before him, denouncing his authority out of jealously, without realising that these men were Patriarchs, equals, and that they felt Rome’s newly-asserted supremacy to be arrogant and novel.

Things are never as simple as they seem.

BTW - The phrase “Solemn Pontifical High Mass and Benediction Before the Blessed Sacrament Exposed” hardly speaks, to me, of “noble simplicity”, which I would contend is a relatively recent trend of the Latin Church.

 

[Allyson]

Hello Antonius,

A few thoughts in response, you have begun a very interesting topic here.

I think most of my problems came from the assertions of some anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox whom I was speaking to over the internet. They affirmed that Rome had marred the original Faith with their emphasis on simplicity, scholasticism, pragmatism, logic, and philosophy. They affirm that the True Faith is found almost totally in experience as opposed to Rome’s “intellectual faith.”

In the West there is a much strong distinction expressed between the realms of theology and spirituality. Some are trying to bridge that gap, but in academia it is very apparent. In the East there is no or next to no distinction made between them except in name. To carry out the spiritual life as a Christian is to be a theologian, as I understand it.
I would speculate that some of what you are hearing from the EO side is a responce to what they may hear most often from the West, that is scholastic definitions without any accompanying representation of the spiritualties which exist in the West, specifically the multitudinous ones in the West of Europe.

The EO’s on the other hand have (since they split with Rome) lost virtually all traces of doctrinal scholasticism. They remain stagnant, trapped in some ways in the year 1054, when they fell into schism. The hunger for understanding the profundity of the Faith has somewhat gone down the drain.

I am sorry, but this is just a wrong conclusion to which you are no the only adherent. There has been much development in the East of theology and spirituality. Just because it did not follow the path of the West DOES NOT MEAN that it did not happen. Byzantium - specifically Constantinople - was a center of learning before and after the rise of Scholasticism in the West. Without the East there could have been no Scholasticism. They were one important element in the preservation of Classical Learning. St. Gregory Palamas of the 15th Century was a scholar at a young age, giving lectures on Aristotle at the royal court. He further elucidated (alternatively read ‘developed’) the teachings of St. Maximos the Confessor among others. I especially enjoy reading his 150 chapter on the Natural and Theological Sciences. One cannot read them and think that Orthodox Theology is stagnant after 1054 A.D! And this only represents EO theology.

This led to the EO’s overemphasis on Liturgy and ritual, at the expense of doctrine…

Again, you can’t have one without the other. The Liturgy is one place where doctrines are conveyed to the faithful. BTW, saying that there was an overemphasis on ritual rings very much like Protestant critiques of Catholicism (that are wrong of course because they miss the connection between theology, spirituality and the rituals we use to express it).

and now to the connecting thought that follows…

…Thus the EO’s became fragmented and confused because their was no shepherd to help keep unity of Faith amongst the sheep, which have now become national Churches.

Yes, I’d say that the Church has been split since about 1054 A.D., give or take… and we still are confused, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I have been reading about the first millennium Church and there were occasional Schisms all along, and these took councils to resolve. It will take another great council and a lot of understanding of the history and traditions to resolve this issue.

On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox who reconciled with the Catholic Church (thus becoming Eastern Catholics) had the original balance restord. That is, the Eastern Catholics kept all of the beauty of their Orthodox counterparts, but they also received doctrinal Truth, which is the other side of the Christian equation.

So they had no doctrinal truth before, I don’t think so. I am sorry, but this statement is just maddening (not in the angering sense, but it the ‘how do you not see the Apostolic faith already existing the the Orthodox Churches’ sense).

Okay, we all However, the key to this is the recognition that the One Faith can be expressed in varied ways. For the Roman Church, the Apostolic Faith is expressed w/ philosophy, reason, and noble simplicity. The Eastern Catholic Churches on the other hand, express the Faith through mystery, child-like (i.e. unquestioning) faith, and elaborate ritualistic symbolism.

We all need and have a bit of both! There is a very deeply expressed theology at the basis of the Eastern expression of faith, Catholic or otherwise. One thing that the some of the Eastern Catholic churches lost in part was a connection to the theology that grounds their spirituality, and there is a push to return to it.

(con’t)

 

[Allyson]

(con’t from previous)

However, the key to this is the recognition that the One Faith can be expressed in varied ways. For the Roman Church, the Apostolic Faith is expressed w/ philosophy, reason, and noble simplicity. The Eastern Catholic Churches on the other hand, express the Faith through mystery, child-like (i.e. unquestioning) faith, and elaborate ritualistic symbolism.

Thus the West “drinks” from the fountain of Christ’s Truth with reason, philosophy, and noble Roman simplicity.

The East “drinks” from the fountain of Christ with unquestioningly child-like Faith and elaborate rituals.

These statements are unfair to both sides. You can not have a Latin mass without involving “express[ing] the Faith through mystery, child-like … faith, and elaborate ritualistic symbolism.”. Have you been to many Eastern liturgies? I find them to be far more full of things to exercise your reason on than the Novus Ordo. (I cannot speak to the Old Rite of the latin Mass, but I suspect it is far more exciting to our reason too .) I removed unquestioning, because even children have questions. How else to give reasons to our faith?

I hope that this gives you more for your thoughts to chew on.
God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

I apologize for any typos I missed.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Many of my brother Catholics seem to think that a bunch of “mere” bishops in the East became fed up with the Supreme Pontiff and Infallible Pope of Rome and thumbed their noses before him, denouncing his authority out of jealously, without realising that these men were Patriarchs, equals, and that they felt Rome’s newly-asserted supremacy to be arrogant and novel.

Conversely some Catholics feel that the Charism of the Papacy goes being the man-mad distinctions and designation of Patriarchates. Patriarchates come and go, can be created, can be suppressed. However laudibile it is to be given the rank of a patriarch, we don’t view the Papacy as being “another perk of being a patriarch of Rome”.

There were still more styled Patriarch than Constantinople and the attendent Greek Sees under it in 1054.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Servus Pio XII,

Many of my brother Catholics seem to think that a bunch of “mere” bishops in the East became fed up with the Supreme Pontiff and Infallible Pope of Rome and thumbed their noses before him, denouncing his authority out of jealously, without realising that these men were Patriarchs, equals, and that they felt Rome’s newly-asserted supremacy to be arrogant and novel.

I have personally never seen it in this manner. A study of orthodox Catholic history demonstrates that there were always tensions. However, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, unity was always maintained.

In my personal view, the problem came during the time of Florence, when the lay people of the Eastern Orthodox Church sought to judge her bishops and depose them. This opened the way for an ecclesiology that is foreign to Catholic and patristic thought. It is today not uncommon to hear of EO Christians state that there is no such thing as a head bishop, or that the primacy of a head bishop (forget the Pope for a moment) is one of mere honor and not actual jurisdiction. This innovation has made it that much harder for reunion to occur. I know for a fact that the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oriental) would not accept the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox. The SOC regard the primacy of authority (not merely primacy of honor) of St. Peter as a matter of Faith (i.e., not just a canonical or disciplinary issue), a primacy of authority that has been handed down in the apostolic succession.

Thus, I do not blame the matter on intra-jurisdictional tension, but rather the innovative popular ecclesiology that the EO now possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Conversely some Catholics feel that the Charism of the Papacy goes being the man-mad distinctions and designation of Patriarchates. Patriarchates come and go, can be created, can be suppressed. However laudibile it is to be given the rank of a patriarch, we don’t view the Papacy as being “another perk of being a patriarch of Rome”.

There were still more styled Patriarch than Constantinople and the attendent Greek Sees under it in 1054.

I don’t know about this, brother. The Church of Rome, along with her Alexandrian brethren, from the beginning has sought to defend the DIVINE ESTABLISHMENT of the original three Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I don’t know about this, brother. The Church of Rome, along with her Alexandrian brethren, from the beginning has sought to defend the DIVINE ESTABLISHMENT of the original three Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Blessings,
Marduk

We can talk about this further… and also attempt to come to an understanding as to which sees of Alexandria and Antioch can be understood to be Divinely established.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t know about this, brother. The Church of Rome, along with her Alexandrian brethren, from the beginning has sought to defend the DIVINE ESTABLISHMENT of the original three Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is no such thing as a DIVINE ESTABLISHMENT of any See except Jerusalem, the original See, which I see you have omitted.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Servus Pio XII,

I have personally never seen it in this manner. A study of orthodox Catholic history demonstrates that there were always tensions. However, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, unity was always maintained.

In my personal view, the problem came during the time of Florence, when the lay people of the Eastern Orthodox Church sought to judge her bishops and depose them. This opened the way for an ecclesiology that is foreign to Catholic and patristic thought. It is today not uncommon to hear of EO Christians state that there is no such thing as a head bishop, or that the primacy of a head bishop (forget the Pope for a moment) is one of mere honor and not actual jurisdiction. This innovation has made it that much harder for reunion to occur. I know for a fact that the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oriental) would not accept the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox. The SOC regard the primacy of authority (not merely primacy of honor) of St. Peter as a matter of Faith (i.e., not just a canonical or disciplinary issue), a primacy of authority that has been handed down in the apostolic succession.

Thus, I do not blame the matter on intra-jurisdictional tension, but rather the innovative popular ecclesiology that the EO now possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

Funny how this popular ecclesiology is not derided, nay it’s celebrated, when, for instance, the issue is the reunion after the Acacian schism. Then forcing bishops is not a problem.

The SOC then has a problem, as Rome makes the same claims.

As for judging bishops and deposing them, no, we are not lemmings going over the cliff into heresy. Revalation 2:2.

Btw, the Orthodox Churches did not “become” national Churches. There were already. For instance, the Church of Cyprus was autocephalous since the time of the Apostles (something confirmed by Ecumenical Council), although part of the same political state as the patriarchates (yet it was never a patriarchate).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

There is no such thing as a DIVINE ESTABLISHMENT of any See except Jerusalem, the original See, which I see you have omitted.

I didn’t omit it. It is simply not mentioned in the Nicene Canon that is the basis of the Roman and Alexandrian belief in the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I didn’t omit it. It is simply not mentioned in the Nicene Canon that is the basis of the Roman and Alexandrian belief in the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, but it has it’s own canon (VII), right afterward:

Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia * should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

The elevation of Jerusalem to patriarchate status, i.e. by the power and authority of the Church (and not Christ directly) is a sign of the source of the authority and primacy of the pentarchy: eccelsiastical, not divine (except inasmuch as the Church’s authority is divinely derived).*

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Funny how this popular ecclesiology is not derided, nay it’s celebrated, when, for instance, the issue is the reunion after the Acacian schism. Then forcing bishops is not a problem.

I don’t understand your point here. The Acacian Schism was healed primarily because of conciliar action.

The SOC then has a problem, as Rome makes the same claims.

The similarity of the SOC and CC beliefs has made the matter a possible basis for reunion between the two.

As for judging bishops and deposing them, no, we are not lemmings going over the cliff into heresy.

Who said so?

Btw, the Orthodox Churches did not “become” national Churches. There were already. For instance, the Church of Cyprus was autocephalous since the time of the Apostles (something confirmed by Ecumenical Council), although part of the same political state as the patriarchates (yet it was never a patriarchate).

I don’t understand the relevance of this portion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Yes, but it has it’s own canon (VII), right afterward:

Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia * should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

The elevation of Jerusalem to patriarchate status, i.e. by the power and authority of the Church (and not Christ directly) is a sign of the source of the authority and primacy of the pentarchy: eccelsiastical, not divine (except inasmuch as the Church’s authority is divinely derived).*
We were talking about Patriarchates. I don’t see your point about bringing up Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not a Patriarchate at the time.

In any case, giving honor to Jerusalem simply repudiates the basis of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, for we see that according to the Nicene Canon, Sees gained their ecclesiastical standing by virtue of their RELIGIOUS significance, not their temporal, socio-political status.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Allyson]

Another thought I have to add to the fray. This one I had right be fore I went to sleep last night.

My Arrival at the Conclusion:
I eventually came to my conclusion by a close study of the Eastern Catholic Churches. These Christians had something the EO’s did not have: a living Teaching Authority to spread and clarify the Faith. When the EO Church went into schism, they lost almost all sense of doctrinal catechesis (at least uniformly). This led to the EO’s overemphasis on Liturgy and ritual, at the expense of doctrine. Thus the EO’s became fragmented and confused because their was no shepherd to help keep unity of Faith amongst the sheep, which have now become national Churches.

Let us not forget about the Protestant Reformation and the Counter Reformation. There was splintering in the West too, and that has not been resolved. To suggest that Eastern traditions of Liturgy lack a doctrinal reference is absurd! There can be no liturgy without doctrine, as I have perhaps already more or less indirectly indicated before.

To put some of my cards on the table. I believe that the “Catholic” (Apostolic See of the West, etc.) and “Orthodox” (Apostolic Sees of the East, etc.) Churches all really do possess the Apostolic Faith and that the Protestants are removed from it. Ultimately the issues are very complex, which makes discussing them difficult.

Another historical note. The idea that national churches are a more recent phenomenon is misleading. There has always been a diversity of liturgies and liturgical traditions within liturgies based on geographical locations and culture. Like the Abrosian Rite of Millan, the Gallican Rite, the Dominican Rite as belonging to the Dominican order. In the East there is even more difference in the diversity between multiple continents.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

We were talking about Patriarchates. I don’t see your point about bringing up Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not a Patriarchate at the time.

Exactly the point: the See with the best documented claim to being divinely established as a patriarchate, and it wasn’t.

In any case, giving honor to Jerusalem simply repudiates the basis of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, for we see that according to the Nicene Canon, Sees gained their ecclesiastical standing by virtue of their RELIGIOUS significance, not their temporal, socio-political status.

No, if you compare the territory Alexandria and Antioch etc. covered, it was coterminous with their status as capitals.

Rome’s status as a honorary capital (Milan had replaced it as the real capital in the West) was the same as its status in the Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BTW - The phrase “Solemn Pontifical High Mass and Benediction Before the Blessed Sacrament Exposed” hardly speaks, to me, of “noble simplicity”, which I would contend is a relatively recent trend of the Latin Church.

I am not exactly sure what is so hard to understand about the phrase you quoted. A

Solemn High Mass and Benediction of Before the Blessed Sacrament

is a Mass in which the Bishop of a Diocese presides over a Mass in which the Blessed Sacrament to be exposed to the Faithful. How else would we say it to describe to the Faithful what they are going to see at a particular Mass? “A Mass where the Bishop will preside over the Eucharist exposed” doesn’t seem to cut it. Languages vary, and especially when you are dealing with matters so important to people such as faith and morals, you need to get them precise so there is no confusion. It doesn’t take that long to learn about your Faith, and I applaud anyone who takes that step whether Western Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Catholic, or Protestant Christian.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I am not exactly sure what is so hard to understand about the phrase you quoted.

Did I ever say it was confusing? Sheesh, I know my liturgy better than that!

No, all I said was that it does not suggest the “noble Roman simplicity” which the OP said was hallmark of the Latin Church. I do not suggest that this complication is bad, only that you cannot simply say “the East is complicated, the West is ‘nobly simple’” and speak truly.

The Western Liturgy is just as elaborate and complex as the East, or at least it was until quite recently.