EO and RCC.

[Albion]

The Church of Rome is a particular Church of the Roman rite which belongs to the Catholic Church.

It IS the church you are referring to. As you and other Roman Catholics constantly point out, those others are different "rites" within this one church, not separate denominations.

This thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which are the names which the churches give themselves.

So is the use of the word Roman in the name of the church you are speaking of. That is part of its legal name in this country.

Please stop derailing the thread with tangential points, and please stop telling Catholics what the name of their Church is. I do not tell Anglicans what the name of their church is. That would be extremely rude and arrogant.

Very well. In England, the name is the Church of England and it is, in law, the Catholic church in that country. I'll expect you to honor this fact when referring to the Anglican church.

And by the way, the topic of this thread is "EO and Catholicism," not the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

This is an interesting issue, but strictly speaking it was an intra-Orthodox split, as Barlaam was Orthodox. Nevertheless, the debate does raise important questions, particularly if it is believed that Barlaam authentically represented Western theology (a possibility which is highly contested). The West generally repudiates Barlaam rather than claiming him as one of their own. It is a complicated issue on which I remain undecided.
​

​

Morning Zippy,
Even when I was in the Greek Orthodox seminary, I got lost in this particular issue. I did find this in New Advent on the controversy so this is at least some insight from the Roman side of this issue. I have no clue as to what Eastern Rite Catholics think about it.

"The other element of fourteenth-century Hesychasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute — energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system, had also been prepared by Eastern Fathers and theologians. Remotely it may be traced back to neo-Platonism. ..... It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actus purus."


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hesychasm

 

[zippy2006]

I think you are making WAY to much out of almost nothing.


I answered your last post and that's good enough for me. Let's see who takes his own advice from here on.


And when you wrote this:



You must be imagining that it had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with Anglicans.


I have not participated in that one. I only responded to this one which is in the Denomination Specific Theology forum. If you are offended at anyone replying to your posts, OBOB would be the place you can hide and be safe. But not here.

If you are actually under the impression that the title is referring to Anglicanism, then ask the OP. I'm sure he can clarify what his thread is about.

 

[zippy2006]

​

Morning Zippy,
Even when I was in the Greek Orthodox seminary, I got lost in this particular issue. I did find this in New Advent on the controversy so this is at least some insight from the Roman side of this issue. I have no clue as to what Eastern Rite Catholics think about it.

"The other element of fourteenth-century Hesychasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute — energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system, had also been prepared by Eastern Fathers and theologians. Remotely it may be traced back to neo-Platonism. ..... It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actus purus."


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hesychasm

Thanks, that is interesting. Notably, though, it doesn't say that Thomism opposes Hesychasm, but rather that the "weapons of St. Thomas Aquinas" have been borrowed. Further on the article says, "From one point of view, then, the Hesychast controversy may be conceived as an issue between Greek Platonist philosophy and Latin rationalist Aristoteleanism." As is often the case in Western Catholic circles, the identity of Barlaam's rationalist Aristotelianism and Thomas' theology is not granted. This is the same sort of thing that I usually see.

I too am interested in this issue. It's easy to find Palamas' writings, but much harder to find Barlaam's, so investigation becomes difficult. I recently downloaded some academic papers on the issue that I hope to get to soon. To tell the truth I am not altogether convinced by the Thomist rejection of Barlaamite Aristotelianism. From Palamas' writings it would seem, on the surface, that there are certain aspects of what Barlaam argues that Thomists would also agree with, and the divine energies are certainly not accepted into mainstream Western theology.

I think it would be an interesting discussion to have at some point. Maybe I will start a thread when I am caught up.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I think it would be an interesting discussion to have at some point. Maybe I will start a thread when I am caught up.

It's pretty deep theology and philosophy, I think we'd confuse most people on these forums. Heck after a year of studying it, I could repeat the arguments for an exam, but I'd be kidding myself if I said that I really understood the underlying issues.

 

[zippy2006]

It's pretty deep theology and philosophy, I think we'd confuse most people on these forums. Heck after a year of studying it, I could repeat the arguments for an exam, but I'd be kidding myself if I said that I really understood the underlying issues.

Yeah, I agree. My initial idea was to start a private conversation with a small number of people who would be able to contribute. Even if the parties were only familiar with their own theology it might still work. It might not work at all, though.

Either way, I would have to do a fair bit of brushing up before I would be able to contribute to such a conversation. Having read two of Palamas' works in the last year, I would now need to look at the Thomistic writings on the issue.

 

[mark46]

I find much more mystics and mysticism within the Roman tradition than I do within eastern Orthodoxy.

Of course, there are those in both traditions that strongly oppose mystic elements, since (by their nature) they threaten the central power of leadership.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's pretty deep theology and philosophy, I think we'd confuse most people on these forums. Heck after a year of studying it, I could repeat the arguments for an exam, but I'd be kidding myself if I said that I really understood the underlying issues.

I am a huge fan of Gregory Palamas. I have also heard he is much loved in some of the Eastern Catholic churches. There was also a book recently which if I recall was an Orthodox reading of Thomas Aquinas, which did find some surprising instances of close correlation between Palamist and Thomistic perspectives.

However, beyond that, I think hesychasm and related monastic practices such as the Coptic use of the Psalter are extremely important to the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox communions. Hesychasm is a prominent theme in, among many other works, the Philokalia of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@zippy2006 is correct. It would have been better for me to have said in the title, "EO and RCC". Alas as far as I can see, I cannot change this or I would.

 

[zippy2006]

@zippy2006 is correct. It would have been better for me to have said in the title, "EO and RCC". Alas as far as I can see, I cannot change this or I would.

I think what is at play is manufactured confusion. That is, no one actually believes that the title of the thread refers to Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans.

That said, if you wish to change the title, go to the first page and select "Thread Tools" in the upper right. There should be an option to change the title.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I think what is at play is manufactured confusion. That is, no one actually believes that the title of the thread refers to Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans.

That said, if you wish to change the title, go to the first page and select "Thread Tools" in the upper right. There should be an option to change the title.

Thanks, I have changed the title and this will come in handy in the future as well most likely.

 

[concretecamper]

Catholic church in that country. I'll expect you to honor this fact when referring to the Anglican church.

there is of course a Catholic Church in England. But it ain't the Anglican Community

 

[prodromos]

Further, the Catholic Church is not limited to Rome. There are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches which are part of the Catholic Church, do not use the Roman Rite, and accept things like Papal Primacy.

When these 23 Eastern Catholic Churches are brought up, don't you think it should be mentioned that that together they make up less than half of one percent of the Catholic Church, the other 99.5% being the Roman rite.

 

[zippy2006]

When these 23 Eastern Catholic Churches are brought up, don't you think it should be mentioned that that together they make up less than half of one percent of the Catholic Church, the other 99.5% being the Roman rite.

Yes, I think you are probably right. I will try to remember this in the future.

 

[concretecamper]

You've misaddressed your post, friend. That sometimes happens when the poster hadn't been following the thread before starting to type

evidently others agree with me

 

[concretecamper]

When these 23 Eastern Catholic Churches are brought up, don't you think it should be mentioned that that together they make up less than half of one percent of the Catholic Church, the other 99.5% being the Roman rite.

interesting, I didnt realize this. I'm gonna look into this further...thx

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

You've misaddressed your post, friend. That sometimes happens when the poster hadn't been following the thread before starting to type.

This might be a good thread for you friend: Let's TALK about debate!

 

[zippy2006]

Wondering what the differences are in doctrine between these two branches of Christianity. Thanks for any answers.

There is a priest and blogger I have taken some interest in following over the years. He began as an Episcopal priest, converted to Catholicism, was ordained a Catholic priest, and then converted to Orthodoxy and became an Orthodox priest. His name is Al Kimel. His Catholic-period blog was called Pontifications, and his Eastern Orthodox blog is called Eclectic Orthodoxy.

I don't pretend to agree with him on everything. For example, I agree with the Orthodox that Universalism is a heresy, and yet Kimel follows David Bentley Hart in holding to that position. For these and other reasons I certainly don't take him to be an authoritative voice within Orthodoxy. On the other hand, Kimel is very good at doing short surveys of theological positions and thinkers with extended quotes from primary texts. He also has a unique perspective insofar as he is able to compare various doctrines and tidbits from Orthodoxy and Catholicism (not to mention Anglicanism and Protestantism, though that generally takes place on his older blog). I think you would also appreciate his irenicism. He surely won't be everyone's cup 'o tea, but he is probably worth checking out.

 

[zippy2006]

On a lighter note, here is Kimel quoting Stuart Koehl's tongue-in-cheek summation of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy:

Latin Approach: "We may not always be right, but we are never wrong."

Orthodox Approach: "Never explain, never apologize."

..

 

[GreekOrthodox]

On a lighter note, here is Kimel quoting Stuart Koehl's tongue-in-cheek summation of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy:


..

Being Orthodox is like being from NJ. It's a Jersey thing, you wouldn't understand

IMHO, the approach to theology is that the Latin West (and I'm putting Protestants in here as well) is that everything needs to be explained in detailed format, aka a catechism. Heck, we don't even really have a unified translation of the liturgy, let alone a catechism. That's why when people ask what we believe, most of the time we tell them, "Come and see". We're truly not all that loosey goosey on everything. We don't mind saying "we don't know" and leaving it at that. Then we go back to arguing if one bows or does a full prostration during Lenten Vespers.