What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's view on Latin?

The Eastern Orthodox Church has a complex and nuanced view of Latin, rooted in its historical and theological context. Here are some key points:

1. Historical significance: The Eastern Orthodox Church views Latin as a language of the Roman Empire, which it sees as a precursor to the Roman Catholic Church. As such, Latin is often associated with the apostasy of the Western Church and the Schism of 1054.

2. Liturgical differences: The Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally used Liturgical languages such as Greek, Old Church Slavonic, and Georgian, while Latin has been used in the Roman Catholic Church. This has led to a perception of Latin as a foreign language, and some Orthodox theologians have argued that it is not suitable for liturgical use.

3. Scriptural translation: The Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally translated the Bible into its native languages, rather than using Latin as a Lingua Franca. This has led to a sense of detachment from Latin as a language of biblical scholarship.

4. Scholasticism: The Latin language is often associated with the Scholasticism of the Western Church, which the Eastern Orthodox Church sees as a synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christianity. This has led to skepticism towards Latin as a language of theological inquiry.

5. Ecumenical dialogue: In recent years, the Eastern Orthodox Church has engaged in ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, and some Orthodox theologians have begun to explore the use of Latin as a tool for theological dialogue and understanding.

In summary, the Eastern Orthodox Church views Latin as a language with a complex and nuanced significance, rooted in its historical and theological context. While some Orthodox theologians have criticized Latin as a foreign language or associated it with Scholasticism, others have seen its potential as a tool for ecumenical dialogue and understanding.

Was “Filioque“ invented by the Western Church? What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's theological viewpoint on "Filioque"?

Yes, the term "Filioque" was introduced by the Western Church. "Filioque," which means "and the Son" in Latin, was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church (specifically in the Roman Catholic Church) to express the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

This addition was made to the creed at the Council of Toledo in 589 and became a point of contention between the Western and Eastern Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, rejects the Filioque clause. Theologically, the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as originally stated in the Nicene Creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD).

They argue that adding "Filioque" to the creed without a universal ecumenical council's agreement is unauthorized and constitutes a theological alteration with significant implications for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Filioque controversy was among the issues that contributed to the Great Schism of 1054 between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Churches.

Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea (also known as the First Council of Nicaea) was the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church. This council, which was convened in 325 AD, was assembled by the Roman Emperor Constantine. About 300 bishops from across the Roman Empire met in Nicaea to discuss theological issues, particularly the teachings of Arius, Arianism. One of the most important outcomes of the Council of Nicaea was the formulation of the Nicene Creed, which is still used as a profession of faith by many of the Christian denominations.

The Council of Nicaea viewed through the lens of Christian theology

The Council of Nicaea was a historic ecumenical council of Christian bishops convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in the city of Nicaea (present-day Iznik, Turkey) in AD 325. The main objective of the council was to examine the contentious issue of Arianism, a theological disagreement regarding the essence of the connection between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

At the Council of Nicaea, the Nicene Creed was formulated, which affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ and his equality with God the Father. The council also established the date for the celebration of Easter and dealt with other theological and administrative matters.

The Council of Nicaea is considered a significant event in the history of Christianity, as it helped to establish key doctrines and beliefs that have shaped the faith of millions of Christians around the world.

Did Arianism preserve the true teaching of Christ?

Arianism was a theological belief system that emerged in the 4th century AD, which denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. According to Arianism, Jesus was seen as a created being, distinct from God the Father, and not fully divine.

The majority of Christian theologians and historians consider Arianism to be a heresy, as it deviates from the orthodox understanding of Christ's divinity. The early Christian church, through ecumenical councils like the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, affirmed the belief in the full divinity of Jesus as consubstantial (of the same substance) with the Father.

While Arianism had some influential followers and gained popularity in certain regions during the 4th century, it ultimately did not preserve the true teaching of Christ as understood by the majority of Christians. The orthodox belief, as affirmed by the ecumenical councils and the Nicene Creed, holds that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human.

How did Arius prove that Jesus was a created being?

Arius, a Christian presbyter from the 4th century, argued that Jesus was a created being rather than being co eternal and co equal with God the Father. He based his argument on biblical passages and theological reasoning. Arius believed that if Jesus were truly God, then there would be no distinction between the Father and the Son, and therefore no hierarchy within the Trinity.

Arius also drew upon philosophical concepts, such as the idea that God is immutable and cannot change. He argued that if Jesus were truly God, then God would have changed from being without a Son to having a Son, which Arius considered a contradiction.

It's important to note that Arius' views were controversial and were ultimately rejected by the mainstream Christian church. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism and affirmed the orthodox belief in the divinity and co eternity of Jesus with God the Father. Some of his main arguments were:

He appealed to Proverbs 8:22 - 31, where Wisdom says, "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago." He identified Wisdom with the Son of God and claimed that this passage showed that the Son had a beginning and was not eternal.
He cited Colossians 1:15, where Christ is called "the firstborn of all creation." He understood this to mean that Christ was the first creature that God made, and that he was distinct from God in nature and essence.

He used John 14:28, where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." He argued that this implied that the Father and the Son were not equal in power and glory, and that the Son was subordinate to the Father in rank and authority.

He reasoned that since God is by definition indivisible, immutable, and incomprehensible, he cannot have a Son who shares his essence and attributes. He claimed that only the Father is truly God, and that the Son is a lesser being who was created by the Father's will and grace.