With respect, this is, in fact, an anti-gospel argument. The gospel is intended for the world, for every people, for every culture. The gospel is not just for Jews but also for Greeks, not just for Greeks but also for Latins, not just for Latins but also for Asians and South Americans and whomever. Hence the need to translate the gospel when it moves from one culture to the next. This work of translation requires both the baptism of the thought forms, concepts, and symbols of the new culture but also the correction of these forms, concepts, and symbols, as well as the creation of new ones. There is death and resurrection. It is arrogance and sin for any single Church to believe that its culturally-contingent expression of the gospel is superior in all respects to all other expressions. Our theological constructions are ultimately always inadequate and thus in need of reform. The gospel is not “Byzantine” or “Latin” or “semitic” – it is catholic.
If one believes that the Church to which one belongs is the true Church, it is, I suppose, natural and inevitable that one will believe that that Church’s theological formulations are superior in all respects. And so we spend our time and energy demonstrating to all others how and why this is so. But this is apologetics, not theology. It has its place but its place is subordinate to theology and the search for truth.
… It is arrogance for either the Latin Christian or the Byzantine Christian to think that the truths of grace, theosis, and sanctification that they seek to express in their respective theological formulations are the only way or even the ultimately best way to express these truths. What is of first importance is to understand why theologians developed, and indeed invented, the language and concepts that they did. What essential truths and insights were they seeking to express? Just as the scholastic notion of “created grace” was the fruit of centuries of Latin reflection, so the Palamite notion of divine energies/being was the fruit of centuries of Eastern reflection. Before the Latin believer can begin to critique the Eastern position, he first needs to comprehend and master his own tradition and then he needs to understand in its own terms – or at least seek to understand – the Eastern position. And ditto for the Eastern believer. Unless this is done, constructive engagement and mutual understanding are impossible. All we have is fruitless and demeaning polemic.
Before throwing out the usual polemical criticisms, I suggest that each person ask his debate partner “Have I stated well your position?” “Do you think I have understood it?”
In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum …
August 28, 2008 by Irenaeus
34 Responses
Prayers for Unity
Contact
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Vatican II and the N… on Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) o… Corazon M Raquedan on Our Lady of Sorrows, ‘So… God’s Hand… on Bishop Hilarion: God’s M… Patriarchate vs Papa… on “The Fathers Gave Rome t… Ryan Close on Rethinking Eucharistic Discipl… Categories
- Anglican (6)
- Articles (33)
- Assyrian Churches (2)
- Audio (2)
- Book Reviews (2)
- Books (6)
- Calendar (2)
- Catholic Ecumenism (69)
- Church History (41)
- Communio in sacris (23)
- dogma (29)
- East/West (66)
- Eastern Catholicism (29)
- Ecclesiology (52)
- Fathers (21)
- Filioque (12)
- History (4)
- Housekeeping (16)
- Iconography (4)
- Joint Documents (13)
- Levity (6)
- Links (52)
- Liturgy (13)
- Mary (12)
- Miscellaneous (2)
- News (47)
- Orthodox Ecumenism (75)
- Palamism (7)
- Polemicism (34)
- Primacy (41)
- Quotes (32)
- Reader question (1)
- Reunion (28)
- Rome (45)
- Sacraments (20)
- Saints (28)
- Schism (40)
- Scripture (7)
- Soteriology (13)
- Theology (45)
- Thomism (5)
- Uncategorized (4)
- Western Rite Orthodoxy (3)
Archives
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
Top Posts
Eirenikon 
“Through all the earth their voice resounds”
I believe that this is the best post on the very long and rather fruitless thread found on the original “blog”.
Fr. Kimel has stated succinctly what needs to be stated over and over again; the Gospel belongs to no one human culture, no one human civilization, no one theological “world-view”.
At present, I’m reading the biography of Dom Henri LeSaux, the Benedictine monk who went to India and attempted, by living, not just cogitation, to integrate the rich spiritual heritage of India with his Christian faith. He may not, on the purely intellectual plane, have succeeded but he was a pioneer in true intereligious dialogue. Reading about his life is both refreshing and challenging.
In contrast, I read those who supposedly are engaged in intrareligious dialogue and find very little, outside of irenic remarks from those such as Fr. Kimel, that is encouraging or even fruitful for mutual respect and understanding. Instead
I find polemic apolegetics that do little to further the growth of the Church.
I can’t help but think that the Gospel warning, ” the first shall be last and the last shall be first” is quite applicable here.
Perhaps the resolution to many of the seemingly insoluble theological disputes between the “West” and the “East” shall come from further “East”, from India, China and Japan.
evagrius,
In other word, it doesn’t matter what the “world-view” or the theology of the great christological councils, all it matters is what Rome says [today] or the whims of the current ecumenical agenda.
Photios
Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what evagrius was getting at.
LOL! It only hurts when I laugh. :)
Methinks that even considering the world in terms of “Latin and Byzantine” is short-sighted and antiquated. It is a throwback to a long-vanished Imperium that no longer is terribly useful for looking at the world.
Given how far and wide and to the four corners the Catholic Church has gone, how many from all traditions are in her fold, and how truly catholic (low case “c”) the education and theology of modern clergy and theologians in fact truly is… Well it is, I grant, more useful in the world of polemics to imagine “The West” (which is now everywhere, with Mcdonalds in Mockba and Pizza Hut in Istanbul, and Hollywood movies beamed EVERYWHERE)… Well it is easier to imagine “The West” as Scholastics dragging around their summas and meeting and greeting each other in Latin… But we are well past that.
Photios-
Of course it matters. The ecumenical councils are the common heritage of Christians.
But what’s important about them is not their theological “world-view” or their philosophical/theological language but their fidelity to the Gospel.
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna has pointed out that merely repeating a “traditional” theology is not fidelity to that theology.
You may not want to accept it but there are quite a few billion human beings who simply don’t have a “world-view” that accepts that “traditional” theology at least in the way that it’s been presented.
Individuals such as Henri LeSaux and others have done much to show them, and their fellow Christians, that perhaps, just perhaps, there is another approach.
That approach is neither combative, nor polemical, nor apologetic.
Methinks that even considering the world in terms of “Latin and Byzantine” is short-sighted and antiquated.
Hear, hear! When Christianity’s center of gravity is shifting to the Global South, it seems a tad quaint to hear the argument that the Gospel and the Church are by definition Hellenistic.
Call me simple (and I’m sure Photios will ;-)), but I think the argument for True Catholicity is best expressed in the old Protestant hymn:
In Christ there is no East or West,
In Him no South or North,
But one great fellowship of love
Throughout the whole wide earth.
Sounds good to me. And, moreover, it seems to dovetail pretty closely with the testimony of Scripture — e.g., the Great Commission; the conversion of Cornelius; the special calling of Saint Paul; and Saint John’s remarkable vision of that “great throng which no man could number, from every nation, tribe, or tongue.”
Diane
Oops, that should be “every nation, tribe, and tongue.”
Speaking of which…. I’ve mentioned before, I think, that I have a cyber-acquaintance who is married to a Greek Orthodox. He himself is an Anglican en route back home to Rome. And he also happens to be half Jewish.
When one Orthodox polemicist on a board we both frequent insisted that Christianity is by definition Eastern (i.e., Hellenic) because of its provenance, this half-Jewish guy pointed out that Jesus and the apostles were, well, Jewish, not Greek. They were Jews in a broader Hellenistic context, perhaps, but nonetheless they were Jews, far more influenced by Jewish culture than by Greek culture.
This chap then went on to point out that Jewish easternness is very, very different from Greek easternness. So, if these EO polemicists thought that Christianity’s Eastern origins meant it must perforce be Hellenistic, they were barking up the wrong tree.
Oh my gosh, I just tried wading through that thread at Energetic Polemicism…my first time ever perusing that blog. I feel as if I just had Photios’s root canal. Without Novocaine.
Sorry, y’all, but here is how the Orthodox side of the discussion (largely) came across to me (especially as represented by Mr. Valentine, Fr. Maximos & co.):
Overweening triumphalism, blah blah blah…y’all don’t understand us, but we understand you, because, well, just because…blah blah blah…East Good, West Bad, yahda yahda yahda….the historical facts be damned; y’all just don’t get it because you’re Western, whereas we are thoroughly Western people who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, and therefore we do get it, because now we’re Eastern Eastern Eastern, even though the closest we’ve ever been to the Mysterious East is when we got Chinese takeout, blah blah blah; the Church must be Eastern because the Apostles were Eastern (never mind that they were Jewish, not Greek), blah blah blah; Western Scholasticism — Bad, Evil; Eastern Scholasticism — Good, Holy, and not realy scholasticism, what do you mean by calling a spade a spade, there’s no such thing as Eastern Scholsticism, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, blah blah blah…..
Oy! My head hurts. My question: Why do my fellow Catholics even bother hanging out at such a venue? Whom are you going to convince? It’s not as if there’s exactly a Meeting of the Nations over there. How many people post ad/or lurk there? Ten, maybe, on a good day?
Ack! I need to go rinse my brain.
Diane
While agreeing that one can make too much of treating Catholic theology as a monolith which we designate under the term “Latin”, I feel that we should not be too quick either in asserting that there is a wonderful, global, seamless garment of multi-cultural theological reflection which now constitutes the world-wide patrimony of Catholics. The fact is that Catholic theology in general remains the heir to a conceptual framework which we can describe as “western” or “Latin”, and which has survived, as a vehicle of discourse and reflection , the almost total (and lamentable) eclipse of the Latin language, and the (un-lamentable) demise of the neo-scholastic method and vocabulary in theology. Even when simply reacting against it, Catholic theologians in general remain tributaries of the tradition which supplies both the questions they ask and the conceptual framework used to address them; the modern and “post-modern” categories which purport to provide a fundamental critique of that tradition remain thoroughly western and in fact are incomprehensible without (and sometimes also with) an understanding of the history of “western” philosophical thought (western in the wider sense, i.e. rooted in the Hellenistic heritage common to both Latin and Byzantine strains).
As for the attempts to “acculturate” Catholic theology in terms of African, Asian or other, they are very much in their infancy and I remain to be convinced that they have made any significant progress in recasting the fundamental tenets of Christianity in a way which dispenses with the culturally and historically conditioned language of Eurocentric thought modes while remaining faithful to their fundamental truth content. This is not simply a result, in my view, of the tenacity of cultural imperialism within the Christian missionary effort; it also bears witness to the fact that those traditional linguistic and conceptual vehicles for the elaboration of Christian doctrine were fairly successful in what they were trying to do. In any case, many of the models of acculturation seem themselves to be in thrall to ideologies which are themselves transparently of first-world origin.
None of this takes away from the very important point which Evagrius makes: namely (if I understand him correctly) that the effort to express the truths of orthodox Christianity within alternative conceptual frameworks – however slow the progress and great the dangers – is incumbent upon us, not merely because of its importance for missionary effort, but because it will have the added benefit of shedding light upon the extent to which the differences between our theological traditions are real, and how far they are merely apparent, will be facilitated by an understanding of the influence of contingent historical and cultural factors on the expression of dogmatic truth. Making allowance for the limitations of any such schematization, and with apologies to the theological traditions of the non-Chalcedonian Churches (which must surely have their own contribution to make) we can identify two major trends in the historical course of theology: one western or “Latin” (within which we can broadly subsume the theology of those communities born of the Reformation) and the other “Greek” or “Byzantine”.
Fr Kimel makes admirably and succinctly the point that it is essential, for reasons of intellectual clarity and honesty as well as ecumenical dialogue, to be clear that there must be a distinction between what belongs to the domain of the contingent theological expression and what is non-negotiable dogmatic teaching. It is not easy, most often, to tease out the contours of each of these domains, but we must be clear that the former is “absolutely relative”, whereas the latter must be something which all sincere Christians are willing to die for.
Fr Kimel also adumbrates an intuition to which I personally am coming to attribute a huge importance as I try to study and understand both the above-named traditions, each in its own terms. We need to pay more attention to the FUNCTIONAL nature of the language of our theological definitions (conciliar et al.) There are fundamental Christian convictions which we attempt to set out and protect when we do theology: that God has truly and efficaciously intervened in human history in the person of Jesus His Son, that we are truly united to the Father through the Son in the Spirit, that this union has the Church as its essential locus, etc. All our dogmatic statements come down to defending these convictions against attack and misunderstanding: they are not the truth, nor do they contain the truth – for the truth in question is beyond human expression. Rather do they seek to set up protective fences around the truth – usually by saying what is not permitted for us to say (si quis dixerit…anathema sit). I think that Cardinal Dulles has opened up an interesting avenue by exploiting the notion of “models” (of the Church, of revelation, etc.) and I am interested in reflecting on the use we can make of this concept in understanding the notions which Fr Kimel evokes by way of example from each tradition: those of Grace/Theosis/Divine Energies. If we ask what each theological language is trying to DO, what fundamental convictions it is trying to safeguard, we will go farther than if we treat them like fundamentalist Protestants treat biblical texts, believing that they came down ready-made from heaven and that they contain in themselves all truth.
Of course we need to exercise great care and reverence towards faith statements for which our respective forefathers were willing to suffer and to die. In the end it will harm the course of ecumenism if we too quickly and facilely chant a mantra about “complementary theological expressions”, just as it will to conclude too easily that there exist irreconcilable oppositions. I believe that theologians like Romanides (and his emulators on blogs like this one) have neglected to separate the Faith of the orthodox from the political ideology of Byzantium; but there are still too many of my co-religionists who identify it just as mistakenly with counter-Reformation papalist triumphalism. We need to remember that the Word of truth became incarnate only in Jesus Christ, and that the historical forms which our Churches have taken, while they have infallibly given us access to Him if they are true Churches at all, are not adequate and exhaustive reproductions of His mystery.
Evagrius,
I’m interested in converting people to Christ. The councils are the touchstone of our theology and fidelity to the gospel means conformity to them. You have shown yourself to believe things anti-thetical to what they say, not only in terminology, but in the content of your faith.
As a “traditional” Orthodox, I care little for finding a compromise with the world. Christ called people to him, not a synthetic meeting. I’m much more on the side of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus (two of those are Westerners). Orthodoxy does not seek such committees and compromises with the world, nor did Christ. And anybody that has read me, knows that I hardly am just parroting theologians without my own incites. But I follow their methods of theology in the order that I answer questions, because as they say themselves, if you follow them correctly you will not be led astray. That is part of having integrity of the Fathers or our faith. Your Fathers are not my Fathers. And people like you and I are in “communion” in name only. We don’t bare the same faith or the same fidelity to Apostolic and Patristic faith.
Photios
Photios-
I’m amazed at your chutzpah. You, ( and Perry Robinson), won’t let me comment on your blog supposedly because I’ve made “personal insults”, yet you take advantage, on this blog to insult me as regards my faith.
I won’t say anything more on this. You’ve described yourself succinctly all by yourself.
Fr. Paul,
I think you’ve stated quite admirably many points which I’ve been stumbling towards.
In reading about Dom Henri Le Saux’s biography, I came upon an interesting notion, that of “double religious belonging”. It’s not a new phenomenon but it is becoming more and more of a social and cultural reality.
There’s an interesting essay by Fr. Michael Amaladoss S.J. on the topic;
http://www.sedos.org/english/amaladoss_8.htm
I think that there are more and more people belonging on the “edges” of religious traditions that don’t necessarilly seek a syncretism or union of traditions but mutual recognition and respect even amidst tensions and sometimes contradictions. In doing so, they encourage the best aspects of these traditions to flourish. What will happen in the future is up to the Spirit.
Evagrius,
Well as I wasn’t the one who banned you, it takes A LOT for me to ban someone, I do not know all the intricacies of how and why you were banned, but I would not go against Perry’s judgment even though I technically could since I’m “legally” the owner of the blog though I fully recognize him as my equal since we started the blog together conceptually. I would suggest if you want to have the privilege of posting on my blog that you reconcile with Perry. I welcome a wide variety of opinions on my blog and I also welcome the opposition to post even if they wish to be pointed against our view which I take to be representing Orthodoxy from a very traditional stand-point. If that bothers you per se, then EP will never be a blog for you.
My posts states the obvious between you and me. Face the facts of the matter. That is by no means an insult to you. Notice how I do not put your name in quotes as you do me, even though I take someone as using a pseudo-name to be lacking somewhat in character. It’s all about integrity for me, as this is how I was raised. Be personally accountable for your actions and do not hide yourself under the cover of an anonymous name. I go by Photios Jones because that is the name I took as an Orthodox Christian, so do not show contempt for it by putting it in quotes. My legal name is also displayed on my blog for the world to see under the “about” tab. I have nothing to “hide.” Think about it.
Photios
Folks,
You all know (or you should know) that I don’t want personal “stuff” (there’s a less polite term for it) being played out in the comboxes here. It really irks me.
If you feel like your being insulted or baited, just don’t take the bait. I don’t want to start deleting comments, or worse, banning people because they can’t focus their comments on the subject of the post.
I would strongly encourage Evagrius and Photios to settle their misunderstandings via private e-mail. Am I correct in assuming, Photios, that your e-mail address can be found somethere on your blog?
Eirenikon editor- I apologize for my response. It’s just that I felt it rather cheeky for someone to impugn another’s faith.
Evagrius,
No problem. I’m just reminding people to think before they send comments.
For the record (she said with fear and trembling), it semed a tad cheeky to me, too.
evagrius, if you’re so inclined, e-mail me at diane_kamer@yahoo.com. I like the way you think! :D
I was more interested in what Fr. Paul wrote, to be honest.
I think we are at a crucial time in human history. I know that this has often been said, often hyperbolically.
However, I think that it is quite true.
My faith was formed first in the Catholic Church through my family. I will always, always, be grateful to my parents who, despite what the Church then pronounced, ( divorce was a sin- remarriage an even more grievious sin), made me go to catechism and be able to receive Eucharist. That formed my “Catholic” faith which was rather inchoate until university, when I encountered the only true Teacher I ever had, the late Donald Nicholl, ( may his memory be eternal).
His example, that of being a person who could be “on the edge”, who could really truly grasp the essence of other traditions and faiths, ( he was a lifelong Catholic- I recommend his little book “Holiness”) and yet remain a Catholic, has inspired me on my search, on my way.
Both Fr. Kimel and Fr. Paul have been encouraging to me.
I think we are at a point when reducing religion, or rather faith, to creeds or theological formulaes just won’t do.
If what Abhishiktananda said of the dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity is true;
” Only in the cave of the heart can true dialogue between Christianity and Hinduism take place”
then the same hold true for all the traditions of Christianity.
I’m just waiting, perhaps too longingly, for that encounter in the cave of the heart between Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants.
Perhaps it’s already occuring. I pray that it is.
Hi, I’m back from whale watching!
Just one thought on acculturation re. Evagrius and Fr. Paul’s posts:
I think it fair to note that both East and West were radically transformed by the Great Tradition to the extent that 400 years after Christ both were almost unrecognizably different from their preceding Classical cultures.
Similarly, the issue for Asian and Subsaharan African cultures is not so much how they will affect the Tradition, but how the Tradition will recast them. Anyone who doubts this should take a close look at Korea which has gone to being a predominantly Christian country in less than a generation, leading to profound changes in politics, society and cultural self image.
Yes, but Korea, that is South Korea, has been under U.S. influence for over fifty years.
There may really be a transition going on in south Korea but I’m not sure of its real value.
It’s in transition, just like everywhere else and that means it’s still not quite formed.
But good point- we should include all of the Asian/ African/ Latin American cultures when discussing acculturation or inculturation.
Umm the teaching on divine energies isn’t the fruit of centuries of eastern thinking – it is present in the patristic teaching of the 1st and 2nd centuries. They would have considered the teaching of created grace to be heretical and that such a teaching betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel.
I agree with the general point of Fr. Kimel’s post. I do not believe the apostolic faith is fully expressed only in this or that cultural context. *But* I believe strongly that there *were* influences on the Church that occured in this or that culture which were deleterious to the faith for a time, and which still have their influence today, and I oppose any attempt to silence the naming and criticism of these influences in the name of niceness.
Yes, I do believe there was a cultural influence in the west immediately after the schism which influenced western theology in a negative and limiting direction. I believe the apostolic faith was seriously, although not totally or irrevocably, compromised in the west for centuries. There was also overeaction in the east.
I am sorry that some find this view offensive, but, to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, “Error has no rights”, and, as corollary, the Truth has no limitations. Joe
Joe
I for one certainly do not find what you write offensive. When you write that “there was a cultural influence in the west immediately after the schism which influenced western theology in a negative and limiting direction” I concur completely in fact. Even your assertion that “the apostolic faith was seriously, although not totally or irrevocably, compromised in the west for centuries” is not totally irreceivable for me, although I think we would have different assessments of the extent of the compromising! THe question is this: are there Orthodox willing to concede that, mutatis mutandis, there were similarly negative post-schism developments within Orthodoxy? Of course there are such thinkers, but it seems to me that their voice receives less of a hearing within their Church than does that of their equivalents in the Latin Church. It is my policy not to intervene in intra-Orthodox disputes and I consider that it is Orthodox who are best placed to identify the weaknesses within their own tradition. However, from what I wrote above (n° 9) it should be clear that I think that the symbiosis between Orthodoxy and Byzantine political ideology – while it certainly had its positive aspects – bears the principal responsability in the matter.
“Yes, I do believe there was a cultural influence in the west immediately after the schism which influenced western theology in a negative and limiting direction…”
This is very true if one defines “west” as Greek and Latin cultures, “east” as Syriac and Coptic cultures, and “schism”
as the rather tragic and messy separation between these cultures resulting in the loss of the Middle East to Islam.
shhhhhh, evagrius. Surely you realize that Joe is referring to the Bad Bad Influence of the Evil Franks! Frederica, call your office. :)
Fr. Paul- Thank you for your irenic *and* honest post.
>THe question is this: are there Orthodox willing to concede that, mutatis mutandis, there were similarly negative post-schism developments within Orthodoxy?
Even though I am not yet officially Orthodox at this point, I can vouch that there are knowledgeable Orthodox willing to concede this. I certainly am. As I said in my post, I believe the East, as humans do, overreacted against the west after the schism. An example would be the reaction against the western teaching on purgatory. While rightly (in my view) eschewing the later amalgamations to the basic teaching, such as indulgences, I would say, to use the trite expression, the East threw the baby out with the bathwater and eschewed the basic doctrine itself, which, in my limited knowledge, has some patristic support, i.e. in the writings of St. Gregory the Great.
Some RC writers, such as our own Diane, believe that the Palamite teaching of hesychasm and the dogmatizing of the essence-energies distinction is a grave departure from the apostolic faith. I have been concerned with that, and have been reading various sources on that issue. I’m not done, but what I have read so far does not convince me that it is such a departure.
The other basic *potential* shortcoming of Eastern theology, which actually predates the schism but undoubtably contributed to it, is the ignorance of and lack of influence of St. Augustine in the East. Tied up in this is the different outlook on original sin. Of course, even the western church later recognized that, in his reaction against Pelagianism, Augustine went too far in his pessimism as to the corruption of the free will. I guess the question is whether Augustine was out of the mainsteam even in the patristic west in his pessimism. I am tending to believe, taking into account such other western patristic figures such as John Cassian, that Augsutine was on the margin, even, originally, in the west, on original sin, and that the East did not lose much *on that issue* by its ignorance of Augustine. I’m still open to being shown otherwise. Of course, mainstream Orthodoxy now recognizes much of value in Augustine, most Orthodox I know of consider him a saint. I, and most Orthodox I know of, have little patience for the contingent that still vilifies Augustine.
I agree, at least in my limited exposure, to your criticism of the Romanides school in modern Orthodoxy. I, for one, would like to be rid of endless debates who the true “Romans” are. Again, I think is reactionism against the west. However, I don’t see that this attachment to Byzantine political notions has affected the core of *substantive* Orthodox theology. Joe
Evagrius- That’s a creative interpretation of my post. As I think you were aware, it doesn’t reflect my intended meaning. Joe
Joe- I know that was not your intended meaning. I just wanted to show that the terms ‘east’ and ‘west’ are rather fluid. I also wanted to show that the earlier schism, caused by very much the same elements, ( namely politics and cultural chauvinism), had consequences as tragic, if not more tragic, as the later one.
With regards to Palamas- I don’t think that hesychasm and the essence-energy distinction is regarded by Catholics as a “grave departure” from apostolic teaching. I don’t think, however, that hesychasm etc; is regarded as the “only” theological interpretation of theosis or sanctification.
A.N. Williams, in her The Ground of Union, has shown that Palamas and Aquinas are not that far apart, if at all, once one understands the origin and intention of their theological languages .
evagrius- “Ground of Union” is on my reading list.
I have one big question for the East-Good/West-Bad crowd.
(Quite apart from the obvious question raised by Father Kimel, to wit, how can such malarkey be squared in ANY way, shape, or form with the Gospel, which clearly encompasses and transcends ALL “nations, tribes, and tongues”–as in, why are we even having this discussion?; extreme polemical Eastern chauvinism is a complete non-starter, except among polemical kooks…but I digress! Pardon my bluntness, but I’m sorry, this Frederica stuff is simply too silly for words, and I cannot believe anyone even takes it seriously enough to sweat out combox comments on it…As my DH is wont to say when I tell him about discussions like this, “Why do you even bother arguing with such silly people?” No offense, and not calling present company silly, but Eastern chauvinism is silly to the nth degree, and I suspect people know it; otherwise, why would they live on the Internet deperately trying to prove otherwise? But, again, I digress….sorry for venting my frustration.)
OK, back to the res: Here’s my other question for the East-All Good/West-All Bad crowd:
Why not take Eastern chauvinism to its logical conclusion? If the Western ethos is so horrible, then flee from it! Flee from all its ramifications, its historical developments, etc.
If you desperately need, say, an MRI or laparoscopic surgery or an advanced experimental cancer treatment…Just Say No! Say “no” to that horrible ratiocinative Western ethos which gave us modern medical science! Say “no” to the medical and scientific advances that now save countless lives all over the globe. Say “no”–after all, these advances are indisputably Western in provenance, and they arise from that dread Western Ethos you so deplore. Who knows? Maybe the Evil Franks are behind a few of those medical and scientific advances. Soooo…be consistent, already! Refuse modern medical treatment, the product of the Big Bad Evil WEST…refuse it even if your life depends on it. Put your money where your mouth is; be a martyr to your convictions. Heck, the Amish and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists do it…why shouldn’t y’all? ;)
If you do NOT refuse modern medical treatment when you need it, then how does that square with your anti-Westernism? How can you justify acting against your anti-Western convictions that way? If the West is so evil, then “come out of her”–eschew every aspect of Westernism, not just her Christology but everything else engendered by those Evil Franks and that Evil Aquinas and yahdayahdayahda.
And oh yes…about that computer you type your posts on. About that Internet you promulgate your anti-Western polemics on. Are they products of the Holy Mystical East? I think not! So, be consistent. Abandon hypocrisy. Turn, fly, put your money where your mouth is: Live in a cave or atop a pillar; repudiate electricity, automobiles, modern medicine, computers, the Internet, cell phones, running water, zippers, radios, light bulbs, central heating and air conditioning, sewing machines, washing machines, and everything else you depend on every single day of your extremely Western life.
Then come tell me how irredeemably awful the West is and how holy and perfect the East is. And your words, then, might have a grain of credibility.
Again, sorry for bluntness.
This is all too silly for words. So, I shouldn’t have wasted any words on it. :-)
Diane
Diane, Speaking of silly, that was an incredibly silly and self-indulgent rant.
A. Your assumption that only the West is capable of technological development is itself chauvinistic, and
B. There is no logical step from “Reject the theological innovations of the West” (and, btw, I’m don’t use that language) to “Reject the technological advances of the West”. Do you refuse to use Arabic numerals? Silly beyond words.
Besides the fact that no one here has taken the extreme anti-West theological position you’re reacting to. I guess you just wanted to vent. Joe
One more thing: perhaps, Diane, you were subtly making the argument that the admittedly impressive technological advances made by the Christian West indicates a theological superiority. I’ve seen that connection made.
Whether you were making that argument or not, I reject it out of hand. Joe
Editor,
Please would you take the initiative and correct folks when they get personal and petty. It is really weakening the purpose of your blog. there are certain parties who seem to wonder into this pettiness and are fairly predictable. Forgive me for my bluntness
Admittedly, dear Father, the blog is really beginning to wear on me. That may explain my slowness in acting. I’m shutting this thread down.