Hey, Byzantines

[Jack4]

On 10/25/2016 at 10:03 PM, Gabriela said:

"..... in their emphasis on (affective/experiential) spirituality over (cerebral) theology......"

"......experiential religion and rationalist legalism......."

Frankly speaking, the Logical West vs Symbolic East (fuelled by ignorance of Latin spirituality and a never-ending quest for weaknesses and deficiencies in the Western tradition, etc. ) is not a useful distinction, or sometimes even a true distinction. This has been hinted in the truly majestic CDF document Dominus Iesus. 

Such a distinction does not do any justice to the rich tradition of mysticism and spirituality in your Church (re: Augustine, John of the Cross,Teresa of Avila, Garrigou-Lagrage, Faustina, Gemma Galgani,  Thérèse of Lisieux, Margaret Mary Alacoque, Louis de Montfort, Alphonse Ligouri, Padre Pio, .......... This list never ends. I would even add St. Thomas Aquinas; if you don't agree, read his Adoro te devote); let alone the theological wealth of the Easts. 

Here's a help: You were searching for the word "Scholasticism" to describe Latin theology. If you ever thought that it was "cerebral" and "rational", think again. Aquinas would be the first to tell you it's not so. And when I say "first", I mean Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 1, Article 1 ("It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason.")

FWIW, Aquinas, the greatest Western theologian, references a few Eastern theologians in his Summa. An obvious example from the Syriac tradition would be Mar Yohannan ("Damascene"). 

[Jack4]

And yes, @Gabriela , I do not intend any disrespect or arrogance in any of my posts. Quite to the contrary, I am happy that you are taking an interest in the Eastern Churches.  Vatican II has said, "The laity, too, should be taught as part of its catechetical education about rites and their rules."  Feel free to ask further questions. 

 

[Gabriela]

16 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Frankly speaking, the Logical West vs Symbolic East (fuelled by ignorance of Latin spirituality and a never-ending quest for weaknesses and deficiencies in the Western tradition, etc. ) is not a useful distinction, or sometimes even a true distinction. This has been hinted in the truly majestic CDF document Dominus Iesus. 

Such a distinction does not do any justice to the rich tradition of mysticism and spirituality in your Church (re: Augustine, John of the Cross,Teresa of Avila, Garrigou-Lagrage, Faustina, Gemma Galgani,  Thérèse of Lisieux, Margaret Mary Alacoque, Louis de Montfort, Alphonse Ligouri, Padre Pio, .......... This list never ends. I would even add St. Thomas Aquinas; if you don't agree, read his Adoro te devote); let alone the theological wealth of the Easts. 

Here's a help: You were searching for the word "Scholasticism" to describe Latin theology. If you ever thought that it was "cerebral" and "rational", think again. Aquinas would be the first to tell you it's not so. And when I say "first", I mean Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 1, Article 1 ("It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason.")

FWIW, Aquinas, the greatest Western theologian, references a few Eastern theologians in his Summa. An obvious example from the Syriac tradition would be Mar Yohannan ("Damascene"). 

No, Scholasticism isn't quite what I'm describing. I had an independent study with a theologian and he expressed this, too: There's a certain deductive legalism in the Roman rite that you don't see in the East. I'm sure he could express it better, but I see it in an emphasis on canon law and what we can infer from bla bla bla on the one hand, versus a simple emphasis on the individual's faith and religious experience on the other hand. Yes, both exist in all the rites, of course. You can find individuals or books or whatnot in both that emphasize both. But in the lived experience of the "average" lay Catholic as s/he encounters the rites "on the ground", if you will, just going to Mass and hanging out with co-religionists and celebrating the liturgical feasts of the year and praying and all that, there seems to be a definite difference in emphasis.

Would you agree with that?

Edited October 31, 2016 by Gabriela

[Anastasia13]

I've heard the emphasis differences over in approach explained by the languages in which both developed: Latin was the language of the old Roman legal system and Greek of philosophy. IMO, language and patterns of thought used in explaining ancient Christian thought and developing the expressions of faith therein would likely have had at least some influence from the language and the broader culture of them.

[Jack4]

11 hours ago, Gabriela said:

... in the lived experience of the "average" lay Catholic as s/he encounters the rites "on the ground", if you will, just going to Mass and hanging out with co-religionists and celebrating the liturgical feasts of the year and praying and all that, there seems to be a definite difference in emphasis.

Would you agree with that?

A certain difference, yes. Nonetheless, I am an Eastern Catholic myself (if you haven't found out already), going to Mass and hanging out with co-religionists and celebrating the liturgical feasts of the year and praying and all that, and I don't feel all that affective spirituality.

In theology, there is a certain difference : The West (generally) seems to give importance to reason, and the Easts (generally) give more importance to revealed truth as the base premise of sorts.