I see--you were referring to theologians, not the magisterium, defining/refining theological understanding of the mysteries. True. But the development of Scholasticism was directly in response to the budding commercial and political changes in the West. With the growth of commerce, the growth of kingship, with the great project to recover as much of the ancient knowledge lost at the Fall as possible (that's the project of the schools and universities in the 11th-13thc--Richard Souther, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe is the best source on this now) etc. came new questions: how does mystery X apply to this new development in war, government, commerce, intellectual life.
The East did not experience that same pattern. They had always been the more developed commercially and politically but then spent the period after 900 fighting off the Turk, exactly at the time that the West was emerging from the last great obstacle to it's take-off--the Viking invasions in the north and the Saracen raids in the Western Mediterranean.
Take the doctrine of transubstantiation, for instance. Berengar mounted a frontal attack on real presence (though Henry Chadwick thinks he was not really denying it, most scholars think he was; the controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius in the 800s did not involve from either disputant an attack on real presence). In response to Berengar's denial, theologians spent the 1100s trying to think through a credible explanation for how the mystery they already believed in could be better understood. No such attack took place in the East. The same goes for questions about marriage and divorce, crusades, just war, usury etc. John W. Baldwin's book, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Princes (Johns Hopkins, 1972?) shows how the late 1100s early scholastics were responding to these kinds of practical questions and that's what birthed scholasticism.
The East never had the Enlightenment, which challenged belief in miracles, in revelation etc. So the West's theologians refined more and more the explanations for what both East and West had always believed. Anselm's Atonement theology was a direct response to challenges by the Jewish community in France--he owed them an accounting of our faith, as St. Peter tells us always to be ready to render.
So yes, it's true that the West, both magisterially and by theologians' work in the schools, has done more defining and refining. But in both spheres, it's because more questions were raised in more fundamental ways in the West than in the East. And in large part that's because the East was largely under the domination of Islam.
There may also be cultural differences at work: the Greek love of art and philosophy, the Roman love of law and structures. But I would be very, very cautious about giving this much explanatory power. To begin with, it's mostly a caricature of the two cultures, though, like all caricatures, it has a germ of truth to it. Secondly, even to the degree that this cultural difference exists, other, much better explanations (as I tried to give above) are more credible.
Probably. Perhaps, though, it is like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. Western Catholic culture was responsible to a large degree for the above political and commercial changes in the West, correct? I think there is a recent number of scholars who are beginning to see the connection to Catholicism and Western Europe's culture and way of life, esp. in education, law, commerce, and scientific study.
The East did not experience that same pattern. They had always been the more developed commercially and politically but then spent the period after 900 fighting off the Turk, exactly at the time that the West was emerging from the last great obstacle to it's take-off--the Viking invasions in the north and the Saracen raids in the Western Mediterranean.
Agree. Byzantium provided much of that and the fall of Rome in the 400's certainly set both cultures onto different paths of development. To a degree, I would say this had something to do with theological thought, both orthodox and heterodox. I do find that heretical thinking was quite rampant in Constantinople. I believe the bishop was removed for heresy some 18 times before the Schism. I would imagine most would attribute this to Caesaropapism in the East. I am not too familiar with Eastern development of doctrine after 1054, so I can't say if this continued. However, it seems clear that the Pope continued to fight against secular powers trying to usurp power, sometimes successfully, while the East seemed to fall in line with the secular powers of the area. Again, I think this might have more to do with development of theological thought.
The East never had the Enlightenment, which challenged belief in miracles, in revelation etc. So the West's theologians refined more and more the explanations for what both East and West had always believed. Anselm's Atonement theology was a direct response to challenges by the Jewish community in France--he owed them an accounting of our faith, as St. Peter tells us always to be ready to render.
It would be interesting to speculate why there was no Enlightenment in the East. Probably a combination of science, philosophy, and the development of religious thought that began to call into question things taken for granted in the past. Once you start questioning traditional viewpoints, it is only a matter of time before religious origins and traditions are questioned. Remember, "everyone" knew the earth was flat...
So yes, it's true that the West, both magisterially and by theologians' work in the schools, has done more defining and refining. But in both spheres, it's because more questions were raised in more fundamental ways in the West than in the East. And in large part that's because the East was largely under the domination of Islam.
I would also add that the East did not have a FORM of bringing such doctrinal disputes to rest. I believe the East has learned that the Papacy had a legitimate purpose - especially evident when one looks to the number of Ecumenical Councils held in the East...none. Without an Ecumenical Council, such matters cannot be resolved.
There may also be cultural differences at work: the Greek love of art and philosophy, the Roman love of law and structures.
It's easy to fall into such quick and easy answers to complicated historical questions. The truth is that there are many more factors involved behind the scenes. History is a complicated science of interaction.
Regards