Valid analogy?

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

I have been trying to figure out what is the essential difference between Eastern and Western theology, and an idea came to me when I read a comment on Eastern and Western sacred art. My idea is as follows:

Art expresses the way we view the world around us (or at least should do so). Western sacred art tends to be more realistic. We (I am a RC) have statues (which are 3D) and also our paintings and drawings tend to (or at least used to, before “modern art” tendencies started creeping in) represent people and events as they actually were. For example, a painting of a saint will try to represent him/her as faithfully as possible, so we may know what they looked like. Eastern art, on the other hand, is more symbolic/mystical. I take the example of icons, since it’s the only one I know. If you look at the icons of various saints, physically they are hardly indistinguishable. Yet in icons everything has a meaning: the colors, the posture of those depicted, etc. As I read somewhere, icons try to convey supernatural truths more than represent physical reality.

So, the conclusion I have come to is that, using this analogy based on art, that Western theology focuses more on the physical reality of Christ - of the Word incarnate, dwelling amongst us, as one of us - while Eastern Theology focuses more on the mystical Christ - the one that can be “experienced”, not just known rationally.

Is this a valid (though maybe over-simplified) understanding of the differences in theology?

 

[malphono]

The short answer is, yes, that’s more-or-less right.

Mor Ephraim (S Ephrem the Syrian) said at some point (and please don’t ask me for chapter-and-verse: I don’t remember exactly where this is from – I think it was in a madrosho but it could be elsewhere in his writings), something to the effect of (I’m paraphrasing here, obviously) “woe to him him who is tainted with the poison of Greek philosophy.”

The Orient (I’m not an expert in things Byzantine, so I won’t comment on the East, although I believe it’s theologically similar, irrespective of the “Greek connection”) focuses more on the Mystical. The famous words lex orandi, lex credendi are very true in the Orient.

 

[Allyson]

I have been trying to figure out what is the essential difference between Eastern and Western theology, and an idea came to me when I read a comment on Eastern and Western sacred art. My idea is as follows:

Art expresses the way we view the world around us (or at least should do so). Western sacred art tends to be more realistic. We (I am a RC) have statues (which are 3D) and also our paintings and drawings tend to (or at least used to, before “modern art” tendencies started creeping in) represent people and events as they actually were. For example, a painting of a saint will try to represent him/her as faithfully as possible, so we may know what they looked like. Eastern art, on the other hand, is more symbolic/mystical. I take the example of icons, since it’s the only one I know. If you look at the icons of various saints, physically they are hardly indistinguishable. Yet in icons everything has a meaning: the colors, the posture of those depicted, etc. As I read somewhere, icons try to convey supernatural truths more than represent physical reality.

So, the conclusion I have come to is that, using this analogy based on art, that Western theology focuses more on the physical reality of Christ - of the Word incarnate, dwelling amongst us, as one of us - while Eastern Theology focuses more on the mystical Christ - the one that can be “experienced”, not just known rationally.

Is this a valid (though maybe over-simplified) understanding of the differences in theology?

If you read Cardinal Schoerborn’s book “God’s Human Face” you will have a very good historical account of the iconoclast controversy and the origin of icons. The crux of the controversy was that Icons really do depict the actual person, otherwise they could not contain the mystical. Part of the debate was centered around the humanity of Christ. Did god really become man? Could you really circumscribe (make a picture of) who God is? The answer was yes, God could really be depicted, because he really became man. He really did dwell among us. This is the narrative theme of the book.

Real depiction does not require 3-D or photo perfect realism. It is an artistic style. An interesting historical note that I learned from this book. The icons have a historical ancestor in the Egyptian practice of painting a portrait of the deceased. I do not exactly remember the term, but I think it was something like “death mask.” Nor, do I remember everything about how it was used. I do not have the book out at the moment.

I know that there are other good books out there too. I read this on in an undergraduate Christology class, in my first semeester of theology ever, and found it to be easy to read. A few years later - at the same school - there were graduate students complaining about how hard it was to read, but trust me it’s not!

I hope I did not burst your bubble too much, where your art analogy is concerned. On the other hand, I think that it is true that Eastern Theological system tends to leave mysteries as mysteries and paradoxes as paradoxes and let sleeping dogs lie. The mystery is to be embraced rather than dissected. Your conclusion may still have validity. I would have to study more on both sides to come down one way or another.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[Cluny]

If you look at the icons of various saints, physically they are hardly indistinguishable.

Oh, that’s not true at all.

St. Peter looks quite different from St. Paul in traditional iconography.

And there are icons of recently glorified Orthodox saints which are quite distinct from others–yet when compared with photographs are clearly recognizable.

St. Elizbeth the New Martyr, St. John of San Francisco, St. Tikhon of Moscow, and Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim Rose come to mind.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

If you look at the icons of various saints, physically they are hardly indistinguishable.

Oh, that’s not true at all.

St. Peter looks quite different from St. Paul in traditional iconography.

And there are icons of recently glorified Orthodox saints which are quite distinct from others–yet when compared with photographs are clearly recognizable.

St. Elizbeth the New Martyr, St. John of San Francisco, St. Tikhon of Moscow, and Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim Rose come to mind.

I admit that was a very gross simplification. I was trying to convey that, in relation to Western art, Eastern icons tend not to be too focused on representing so much the person, but the mysteries behind them. Obviously they are not totally divorced from their subject.

 

[jimmy]

If you read Cardinal Schoerborn’s book “God’s Human Face” you will have a very good historical account of the iconoclast controversy and the origin of icons. The crux of the controversy was that Icons really do depict the actual person, otherwise they could not contain the mystical. Part of the debate was centered around the humanity of Christ. Did god really become man? Could you really circumscribe (make a picture of) who God is? The answer was yes, God could really be depicted, because he really became man. He really did dwell among us. This is the narrative theme of the book.

Real depiction does not require 3-D or photo perfect realism. It is an artistic style. An interesting historical note that I learned from this book. The icons have a historical ancestor in the Egyptian practice of painting a portrait of the deceased. I do not exactly remember the term, but I think it was something like “death mask.” Nor, do I remember everything about how it was used. I do not have the book out at the moment.

I know that there are other good books out there too. I read this on in an undergraduate Christology class, in my first semeester of theology ever, and found it to be easy to read. A few years later - at the same school - there were graduate students complaining about how hard it was to read, but trust me it’s not!

God Bless,
Rosemary

God’s Human Face is an excellent book. I read it for Christology as well.

I think that the difference between east and west can be explained by their epistemologies. The east tends to view God as absolutely transendent (beyond all knowing and ‘unknowing’) and at the same time recognizes that God has revealed Himself. Our knowledge of God comes through God’s self revelation, ultimately through the revelation found in Christ and communion with the energies/Grace of God. Theology is expressed through mystery. The west on the other hand speaks of knowledge both through faith and reason. You can come to knowledge of God through the use of natural reason. The statement of Vatican I comes to mind that God can be known with certainty through the use of the natural reason, except that it can only be known by a few and it will most likely be mixed with error. The revelation through Christ clears up these errors and reveals things about God that couldn’t be known through natural reason, like the Trinity. So the west has a far more analytical approach to the faith.

It can also be explained through the difference in the understanding of Christology (atleast between the Byzantines and the west). The Byzantines tend to be far more Alexandrian than the west, which tends to lean more toward the Antiochene theology. The western theology can be depicted by the Tome of Leo which was read at Chalcedon. The Byzantines accept the Tome but it is interpreted more in light of Cyril’s theology. The Byzantine theology interprets Chalcedon in light of later theologians like Leontius of Byzantium and St. Maximus the Confessor. As far as I can see, the Christological dogmas are the key to all dogmas. Theosis, the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, ecclesiology and etc. can be explained through the difference in the interpretation of Christology.

 

[Allyson]

I admit that was a very gross simplification. I was trying to convey that, in relation to Western art, Eastern icons tend not to be too focused on representing so much the person, but the mysteries behind them. Obviously they are not totally divorced from their subject.

Another random thought. Icons do not just represent a person or the mysteries; they RE-present the person, and the mysteries are truly present in them, just as the person himself is really and truly present.

It is hard to express that in writing. Sound is so much better.

 

[Snerticus]

THIS Cardinal Schoerborn?

 

[Allyson]

THIS Cardinal Schoerborn?

This Book. Overall, while I am not a fan of modernist masses - thinking less than not nothing of them - I do not know anything about the incident in the video.

I recommended a book that I have read cover to cover and find to be a more than decent read. My few thoughts on what could be better about it can easily be remedied by reading an Eastern author on the Christology and the Theology of Icons. The historical study of the Cardinal’s book however, is an interesting and educating read. Overall, I do not think that he does a bad job though.

This is off topic, so if you want to continue a conversation, you are very welcome to PM me.

 

[Allyson]

This Book. Overall, while I am not a fan of modernist masses - thinking less than not nothing of them - I do not know anything about the incident in the video.

I recommended a book that I have read cover to cover and find to be a more than decent read. My few thoughts on what could be better about it can easily be remedied by reading an Eastern author on the Christology and the Theology of Icons. The historical study of the Cardinal’s book however, is an interesting and educating read. Overall, I do not think that he does a bad job though.

This is off topic, so if you want to continue a conversation, you are very welcome to PM me.

I would add that I like the history presented in the book. I do find that some of the Cardinal’s interpretation of the Eastern Fathers represents a western reading. You should also read Eastern sources on Icons…