Western fathers

[Benjamin Ekman]

Dear Forum,

I have been wondering abou the dsitinction that is often made between Greek/Eastern Fathers and Latin/Western Fathers. My question is if someone could help me in my thinking about this issue. It seems to me that this West/East distinction goes back to many centuries before the Great Schism. What do you think the reasons for this is? Did the Spirit not lead the Church in the West and their theology? One area were there seems to be differences is the theology of salvation were the East avoids the Augustian-Pelagianism dichotomy. Was there ever a more dynamic view of salvation in the West? I have heard alot about how Augustine skewed Westerm theology. I am more interested in knowing about Orthodox Western Fathers. Because it would seem odd to me if apostolic doctrine was lost so early in the West. I would apreciate any help in finding good studies on the subject and any thoughts that the community might have.

(There seems to be a parallel question about liturgy. The different liturgical emphases between East and West go way back as well.) I found Seraphim Roses intro to the Vita Patrum very instructive about the spirituality of the Orthodox West, but I guess I am looking for an Orthodox view of the theology of the Fathers of the West.

Thank you for any help,
In Christ,
Benjamin Ekman

[Alex Haig]

I think the main difference is in the way that the Fathers are interpreted in the West and East. It seems that the West approaches them in a "well a Father said it, so it must be true," while the East is more along the lines "a Father has said it and it has been accepted by the whole Church as truth."

Is this a fair representation or have I erred in saying this?

Wishing everyone a joyous Holy Week
With love in Christ

Alex

[Owen Jones]

By "Church" we mean an organism that is infused with the HOly Spirit that results in a phronema or mind set. The Fathers are true, not in every thing they say literally, but in the mindset that they express, first and foremost through the lives they lived. There is no truth apart from that. One cannot recognize that truth, unless it is something that one is living and has internalized, at least to some degree. Otherwise, what we have is akin to statistical analysis.

[Benjamin Ekman]

Owen,

Was that a reply to my question or to Alex? So was the phronema of the Western Fathers the same as that of the Greek Fathers? Can you point me towards a way of thinking about this issue?

Benjamin

[Owen Jones]

This is a vast question and there is probably no formulaic answer. You just have to search for yourself.

[Benjamin Ekman]

I am searching. You see my problem is e.g.: Some say that the Latin Fathers (e.g. Tertullian or Cyprian) were influenced in their theology by the more "legal" thinking of the West, which lead to concepts like merit and Anselms satisfaction theory. Well, I am wondering if the Spirit led these Fathers, since they were part of the Church. and did they express the tradition they had recveived? Does this relativize how we read the Fathers? Do we need to be discerning about erroneous influence in them? Sometimes Latin writers dismiss aspects of Greek theology (e.g. theosis) as being influenced by culture, just as the above mentioned objection against the "legal" mindset of the West.
Peace,

Benjamin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I find no more evidence of 'legalism' in the western Fathers than in the eastern. But what do we mean by 'legalism' in any case? That Christ paid the ransom and died for us? This essential aspect of Orthodox theology is as deeply part of the East as it is the West and for example is still found in the prayers we say every day: "O Ransom of mine offences, I ask Thee to receive me..." (prayer of St Symeon the New Theologian in preparation for Holy Communion). The atonement theory of Anselm however is quite another matter and precisely due to its parting from the theological inheritance of both East and West that came before it. One has only to read a few brief pages of this work to see immediately that here one has entered 'new territory'.

The Holy Spirit led the Holy Fathers both East & West and this is manifested in their expression of the Tradition of the Church. Beyond the fact of language and geographical differences so that Fathers would tend to read those closer to them in place & language I am not sure that their really is a defining difference between eastern & western Fathers. For example St Ambrose of Milan's exegeses of Scripture is as allegorical as the most alexandrian of Alexandrians. St Hilary of Poitiers's theological expression is similar to that in the East.

Of course however there is the fact that each Holy Father expressed himself in a characteristic way since the Holy Spirit does not do violence to the human person but rather speaks through it- and this while speaking in concert with the rest of the Church. How could such a miracle be achieved except through the Holy Spirit? But to return to the question- I do not think there is one over-all defining characteristic of the pre-Schism western Fathers, and especially one that would contrast them negatively compared to the Holy Fathers of the East.

In any case here is a quote from St. Hilary of Poitier's work The Trinity


But I would rather sense these things about the Father than speak of them; for it does not escape me that all language is powerless to give expression to the attributes which are His. We must sense that He is invisibile, incomprehensible, and eternal. Moreover, that He exists in Himself and of Himself, and that it is His very nature to be; that He is invisible, incomprehensible, and immortal:- in these words certainly there is an acknowledgement of His praiseworthiness, and an intimation of our thoughts, and some kind of a round-about expression of what we mean.

But speech will surrender to the reality of His nature, and words do not express the thing as it is... Therefore our confession of God fails because of the limitations of language; and whatever aptness there is in our words, we cannot give expression to God as He is, nor to how great He is. Perfect knowledge is this: to know God in such a way that you know you must not be ignorant of Him, while yet you cannot describe Him. We must believe in Him, we must apprehend Him, we must worship Him; and it is these acts which must stand in place of our describing Him.

Note that it is said sometimes that St Hilary's writings contain an assertion of the filioque. I think this interpretation is incorrect but there is at times as with many of the Holy Fathers some confusion caused by the way in which he expresses himself. But the main thing is this- St Hilary so obviously speaks from within the concert of Orthodox theological voices of the One Church that there is really no fundamental criticism of him no matter the weaknesses in expression there may have been.

And that is the point about 'east' & 'west': the divide occurs when the west begins speaking from a different theological mind and not just from certain formal errors. The Church has covered the mistakes even of Holy Fathers; but when the inner vision of what God's dispensation means radically alters- then the Church condemns this even if identical words of the Holy Fathers are used. For it is not the outward manner of expression that is so crucial as its intent. So the greatest effort should be in discovering what this change of mind (or phronema) between post-Schism East & West involves.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Edward Henderson]

I would recommend the writings of Father John Romanides (www.romanity.org (http://www.romanity.org)), particulary "Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine". He contends that the roots of the schism lie in the barbarian invasions of Italy. They were nominally Orthodox, and only had the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo. The Orthodox Church views Saint Augustine as a saint and pastoral hierarch, however with flaws in his theology. Thus, their understanding of Christianity was flawed and they replaced the existing bishops with their own candidates. Fr. John gives a much better explanation.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Benjamin Ekman,

In regard to your recent post on Saturday, 23 April, 2005 - 8:30 pm:

"Dear Forum,
I have been wondering about the dsitinction that is often made between Greek/Eastern Fathers and Latin/Western Fathers...."

This distinction was not evident in the Early writings of the fathers. All Apostolic Cathedras (Chairs) were of equal status. The writings of most Western Fathers is the same as that of the East because they were in most cases guided by the Spirit of God. Our Brethren, of the Catholic Church share this tradition with us but I think that it is not the Fathers of east or west that have caused a difference in the Phronema of east and west. The Fathers of both east and west have made slight errors such as the doctrine of the inheritance of Original Sin, which we believe is a misunderstanding. The Orthodox believe that there are consequences which we have inhereited from the Original sin but not the Sin of Adam and Eve itself. Augutine is a Saint of our Orthodox Church too, but we accept that no-one is perfect and infallible.

The reason we have East and West distinction today is initially, I believe, due to the rising authority of Cathedra of Rome starting from as early as the late second century culminating in the Popes introducing their own canons, such as:

Pope Damasus I 366-384 secured the Papal throne by force (he hired a personal army killing the opposing clergy. He asserted the Papal Primacy raising the status of the Cathedra of Rome well above the other Apostolic Cathedras, not as first amongst equals but as the undisputed ruler of the Church.

Pope Siricius 384-399 introduced Celebacy rules and forbade sexual relations of clergy with their own wives. The status of virginity was raised far above the status of married clergy in the Church of Rome leading to crlerical celibacy in consequent years.

Whereas we believe that in God's eyes we are all equals, we understand that each person has their own cross from God and their own path to salvation.

It is from this time forward that the Cathedra of Rome alienated itself from the other Apostolic Cathedras. In order to preserve the unity however, the other Cathedras with the influence of the Emperors gave "due respect" to the Chair of Rome. The term Cathedra incidently was replaced with "the Apostolic See" by Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384)which implied authority to RULE in preference to the older expression "the Episcopal Cathedra" and "Cathedra of Peter" which was indicative of equality. Further alienating themselves from the other Cathedras.

From these few examples you may be able to understand the diference of the mind-set of the so-called West and that of the East.

The Fathers of the West were influenced by this mentality and a Cultis Papalis emerging from the Roman Cathedra. The Eastern Fathers, if you notice are not as interested or rather pre-occupied with talking about honours and authority discipline and power, but more with self-discipline and self-awareness, awakening the human conscience, and humility the Fathers talk of the Church Elders (Geronda /Starets)as spiritual guides. The Orthodox Church concerns itself with repentance, fasting, self-denial, charity.
It would be a misleading to think that we were not at all influenced by this Megalomania and Power struggle in our Church tradition. But we also believe in the Consensus Patrum in the Church wich respects everyone as equals and the opinions of all are also respected. St Antony was outdone by a mere shoemaker. In the Gerontikon we see that the novice monk may be even more pure in spirit than the highest Church official.

This is the lived/practiced mindset of the Orthodox Church wich is just as much a part of the West (if they would accept it) as it is in the East.

MINSETS

But the mindset of the Fathers of the West and the East is that of Christ, as far as I can see from their writings. It is the mindset of men we should watch out for. The midset of men in authority and power. Of those who despise equality and seek self satisfaction. Who preach Peace and Unity yet secretly inside them they seek to devour their neighbour.

With Love
In Iesus Christus ICXC
Kosmas