Comparing the Greeks and the Latins Methods of Practicing Faith - Term Paper Example

?Summary Comparing the Greeks and the Latins methods of practicing faith The Latins spoke of one substantia while the Greeks have three hypostases. Some of the preachers in 362 were challenged on what term they used and how they used it when in a particular culture. This resulted in the fact that different terminology led to a belief that we have orthodox thinking. Augustine believed that essence was more important than substance so he decided that one essence provided three substances in the Holy Trinity. Augustine used this to express the divine nature. Anselm decided that the Greeks and Latins were on the same page when it came time to discuss Trinitarian doctrines. Augustine stated that the Greeks believed in one essence and three substances while the Latin people believed in one essence or substance brings three persons. Augustine stated that the difference is only in the wording, however, Abelard believed that this difference was crucial in deciding how well the Greeks practiced their faith. Abelard stated that "hypostasis" was a dangerous word to Jerome. There had been a problem in the way that Greeks followed the doctrines on the Holy Spirit according to the non-Greek religious leaders. These non-Greek religious leaders felt it impossible that the Greeks were genuine when their vocabulary was inappropriate. They believed that the Greeks did not practice in the right way since the vocabulary they used tended to be so radically different, that it was impossible that they followed the right path. The non-Greek religious groups felt that this was only a vocabulary issue and that they did still believe in the Holy Spirit in the right way, however, it was too difficult to think that if there is a vocabulary error, there must also be a method in practicing faith error as well. During Anselm's time, it was believed that most of the doctrines were in agreement between the Latin people and the Greeks. Wording seemed to be the only problems encountered by Anselm's opinion of how the Greeks practiced. Thomas believed that the wording was incredibly different but the meanings were almost the same. The Greeks deny the procession of the Holy Spirit a Filio, however they concede it in its antecedent. This problem has lasted since the year 325 and it is now the fourteenth century. This dispute is quite strong still by the fourteenth century and no conclusions have yet been made about whether the Greeks and Latins can come to an agreement of how they practice their faith. Alexander Hales came up with his own opinion and his comments about how the Latins and Greeks differ are as follows: Augustine (Latin leader at the time) considered the inner structure of the spirit and therefore maintained that it was from the mens that the cogitatio or word proceeded and the latter was followed by the spiration of the affectus. The Damascene (Greek leader at the time), on the other hand, considered the external word so that the point of departure was the intellect, followed by the word, which emerged as a word with a breath, which was connected in an immediate way to the intellect. The spirit, then, was Spiritus Verbi, non a Verbo. Alexander believed that these were the opposing views between the Latins and the Greeks of how the word and the Holy Spirit were related. Bonaventure was a commentator and he came up with an interesting perspective about this controversial debate. The first part is the fact that both the Greeks and the Latins agreed on the aspects of faith in divine revelation found in the scriptures. The second part is concerning the fact that the Greeks and Latins differ in their viewpoints on categories and terminology. The third and final aspect is that of the teaching in a formula which led to the controversy in the first place. He actually figured out where the similarities and differences were and wrote them out to help clear this debate once and for all. The items they both agreed on are as follows: the scriptural basis of the procession and the spirit belongs to the son and is sent by the son. The Latins were believed to have the correct understanding of scripture because they took on a more spiritual approach where the Greeks use the intellect far more often. This led the Latins to have a much better understanding of the scripture according to religious leaders. The Greeks were less open because they had a limited understanding of what was in doctrine since they stopped at a certain point in their development. The Greeks could not see past the intellect which had a less deeper meaning than the spirit. The Greeks were jealous of the Latins and even made claims about excommunication and misinterpretation of scripture about them. The Greeks were a proud group who did not want to fully face the fact that the Latins were better than them in terms of how they wrote and their philosophies. The Latins had perfected their knowledge and this upset the Greeks tremendously. Damascene stated that the spirit does not come from the son, however he is known as the spirit of the son. Alexander tried reasoning to Damascene and Augustine so they could come to a mutual understanding. Alexander stated that the first of the above two statements is about how the inner life of God is dealt with and the second is regarding the relationship God has with his creatures. Duns Scotus was favourable towards Damascene and the Greeks as a whole and he stated that if a Greek and a Latin leader both were to debate about their approach to the scriptures and which one is better, they would come up with the conclusion that it is only their wording that differs and not the underlying message. He believed that all the preachers during this time (Greeks and Latins) had a good message and that there is more than one way to express a message without tarnishing or diminishing the message itself. Duns made a final statement defending the Greeks and it is the following: It should be understood in this debate that there are two articles which are of the substances of faith and these are discussed in the first book of Sentences. The first article is that there are only three persons and one God. The second is that these persons do not exist of themselves alone, but that one person produces another and that those two produce a third. We are not permitted to think differently about these two articles. It is, however, possible to think differently about whether the persons are constituted by relationships or by their mode of being, so long as we respect the articles mentioned above. It is permitted to discuss and to seek, because I am not bound by faith to any particular true assertion. Duns Scotus believed that having different approaches to faith is acceptable but Thomas Aquinas felt a firm no about his philosophy. According to Theologians of that time, the Greeks were considered to be in error and were labelled heretics. Important to note though, that today there is more flexibility in what is allowed as compared to that time. Attempts at and Suggestions for an Agreement A debate about whether the addition of the Filioque clause was justified in 1438. In this debate, the Greeks were anxious to protect the belief in the Father being the source of divinity where everything else followed. The Latins countered it by stating that the son aspires its faith from the father and they go on to say that the holy spirit proceeded from the two. It was decided that the hypostases was disrupted because it described the father as having something that the son did not have other than fatherhood when in actuality they are the same. Obviously, this concept was foreign to the Greeks. The Greeks believed this depersonalized the Triad. The Latins believed that the true saints were all Latin and that the holy spirit worked through them to make them the powerful saints that they are. In conclusion, the indefeasible deposit of Florence is twofold: on the one hand, the intention to recognize that the two formulae were compatible and equal is brought to a more relaxed position and on the other hand, that the Father being the reasoning that holds the previous statement to be true is something that can be agreed upon. Relationships and Discussions between Orthodox and Non-Roman Catholic Communions A. Orthodox and Old Catholics This part of the book describes those who left the Church and returned and those who are not part of the Church. Anglicans and Catholics came up with the following conclusions regarding doctrinal questions: 1. All of the standard beliefs of those who have practiced faith all throughout their lives must be practiced. 2. Any additions to the Filioque are not recognized by traditional Church rules. 3. All aspects of the Church teachings regarding the holy spirit are set by the Father and undivided. 4. Every concept involving more than one approach or philosophy of the Trinity will be rejected. The items we accept from Damascene in the early, undivided Church are as follows: 1. All aspects of the holy spirit comes from the Father only. 2. The holy spirit does not come from the son because the father is the main piece to it. 3. The holy spirit comes from the father through the son. 4. The holy spirit is the image of the son which in turn comes from the father. 5. The holy spirit is the father who is of the son but not coming from the son through word. 6. The holy spirit is the medium that connects the father to the son Bolotov distinguished between three levels of the doctrinal statements through seven different thesis. There are seven thesis and among these seven thesis, there are several important points to note which are summarized below. 1. The Russian Orthodox Church has the following dogma: the holy spirit proceeds from the father and is consubstantial with the father and the son. Any other aspect is regarded as theologoumena. 2. The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father to the Son is patristic and in Damascene's treatise, Orthodox Faith, it is stated that followers are bound to accord it. 3. Dia Tou Hulou must imply something otherwise violent distortions of the patristic texts takes place. 4. Little variation in the interpretation of the following statement must exist. The teaching of the Fathers of the Church of the Holy Spirit comes through the son which leads to the mystery of the Holy Spirit. The eternal relationship between Father and Son is known as the Holy Spirit's dwelling and this remains in the son. 5. The Holy Spirit is the third and the son is the second component of the Trinity. 6. This doctrine is not identical to the meaning defined by the doctrine ek tou Patros Ekporeuetai. 7. The holy spirit must then derive from the Father alone (ekporeutus). This thesis is not a dogma but rather a theologoumenon. ... 11. The formula ex Patre et Filio, as written by Augustine, is not exactly the same in terminology or its meaning to the Eastern Fathers. ... 13. The differences existing between the Western and Eastern Christians is not just in the words but in the Augustine ideas connected with it. 14. The Western Filoque has much more authority than the Eastern d'Hulou. ... 19. For God's unfathomable plan, no opposition was made by the East against Augustine. 20. Many Christians from the West lived preaching the Filoque until they died and they had connections to the Eastern Church. No objections were made on either side. 21. The Eastern Church honours the Fathers of the early Western Church like it does its own Fathers, therefore the West should be able to honour the opinions of those Fathers as holy. ... 26. The Filoque debate is not what caused any split in the Church. 27. The Filoque is merely a theological opinion and should not cause confusion among the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches. The decision to remove the Filoque clause in 1931 and 1932 had remained in part. In 1975, the Old Catholics decided to become Orthodox. B. Orthodox and Anglicans For a long time, Anglicans and Old Catholics wanted to become members of the Orthodox Churches. The have a deep sympathy for Eastern religion which extends into their past. The Filioque forms part of the Catholic inheritance and has been preserved in the Church of England and appears in several doctrinal texts. Progress is incredibly slow among the Churches. In recent conferences with Eastern Christians, Anglicans have once again decided to suppress the Filioque in the creed, ignoring the merits and demerits of its doctrinal content. Some Suggestions for Agreement Anyone familiar with the Eastern and Western religions knows there are differences in content in the terms ekporeuesthai (ekporeusis) and procedure (processio). This was not observed early enough creating problems. Ekporeuesthai refers to the importance of the Father. More than one Latin Catholic has noted the weakness in the Latin formula and has tried to remedy it. The bottom line is how can duo spirantes be expressed to form one spiration. Paul Henry believed that the Filioque should be replaced by the ex unione patris et Filii procedit doctrine because he believes that that is where the problems lie. This formula unfortunately does not represent the Father in the way that it should. Hilary of Poitiers stated during his exile to the East that it should be the same Holy Spirit whether it centres on the spirit of the son or the father. To summarize, Hilary believes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the son. Also that the fathers gifts to the son is everything or the true essence of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the confessor has to say that the Spirit receives its hypostatic being from the Father and has its consubstantial being from both the Father and the Son. Does this mean that the debate and controversy between the East and West is solved? The Latins would not think so. Is there a difference between hypostatic being and consubstantial being? In conclusion, the vocabulary must be perfected in order to resolve this matter between the East and the West. In ten centuries, this goal has not been established so it is safe to say that this is a goal that is not to be pursued. It is concluded that the expression of faith is different for both the East and the West. 1. The Latin vocabulary cannot articulate the true essence of how the Greeks convey their religious beliefs. Causa is not the same aitia. Each group does not look at the viewpoints of the other group so no conclusion can be based on cooperation. 2. The persons of the Trinity are established differently by both groups. The Greeks centre their beliefs on the Father while the Latins have more of a focus on the Father and Son's spiritual relationship. In conclusion, the Filioque formed the Western tradition and it was not regarded as an obstacle until the union was ended for other reasons. Should the Filioque be Suppressed in the Creed The Latins had an almost too simple solution to this question. Unfortunately, they were not aware of the full gravity of this question. Beginning early on at the Union at the Ferrara, the Greeks stated that they would accept the union. The Greeks would only accept if the Latins were in agreement to suppress the Filioque in the creed. This would create a unity of faith or at least attempt to. It is concluded that two different faiths may actually come to the same conclusion in their doctrines and their beliefs. The Greeks stated that when a doctrinal point is made, the council would formulate their own decision and in turn would not introduce it into the creed. The Greeks viewed the creed far differently than the Latins. In the Eastern Church, converts were expected to confirm their faith through the unchanging form of the creed. The Latins view of the creed was far more intellectual and more external. The viewpoint of the Church has a different idea of this debate and the Filioque creed. The one-sided introduction to the Filioque does not consult the Eastern Church and this devalued the Christian family. The Church through ecumenism helped to restore the damage that was done in the past. As already demonstrated, the Old Catholics and the Anglicans both decided to suppress the Filioque in the creed. The Catholic hierarchy decided that to suppress the Filioque would be a gesture of humility and brotherhood on the part of the Catholic Church. This would only occur under two conditions: 1. The statements: "From the Father as the absolute source and from the son" and "From the Father through the son" are both to be recognized and properly understood in order to meet the first condition. 2. The Christians on both sides should be prepared to be patient and respect the legitimacy of both sides. Did the Filioque have an Ecclesiastical Impact? Vladimir Lossky believed that the Filioque was what caused the conflict between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism which led to the doctrinal errors in the West. The filioque was believed to be especially linked to consequences in the sphere of ecclesiology. Andre de Halleux has provided extensive research on this issue. The author basically states that there is no value in the Filioque. Eight important Theses in Conclusion 1. Trinitarian faith is the same in the East and in the West. Baptism is the also the same. Dispite all of these arguments and controversial debates held by the religious leaders of the East and West, the conclusion is that they have exactly the same beliefs. 2. The tri-unity of God is a mystery and will remain as such. 3. The East follows Jn 15:26 and 16:14 and its structure remains consistent in most areas but its limitations must also be considered. 4. The Greeks beliefs have remained quite strong and it could not be defined any less. 5. If the Palamite theology of "energies" is accepted, that function would be situated out of the procession, but in the energetic manifestation of the Spirit. In the first place, the Father forms the Holy Spirit and the son is only consubstantially involved. In the second, God is not created but exists. 6. The Filioque is necessary in the Latin Church's approach to the mystery. Firstly then, the hypostatic distinction is in regards to the son and secondly, the Son's consubstantiality with the Father is safeguarded. 7. The Filioque was arranged so that Arianism is prevented. 8. The Filioque did not cause any difficulties and must remain that way The Roman Catholic Church under the outlined conditions decide to suppress the Filioque in the creed. If the Orthodox Church also adopted this philosophy, then a new favourable re-establishment of full communion would be achieved. The only source I have used throughout this summary is "I Believe in the Holy Spirit" by Yves Congar. Bibliography Yves Congar, I believe in the Holy Spirit. (New York: Seabury Press, 1997), 174-214. Read More