Noted. Thanks.

I think Greg that

“”How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium?””

Is a bridge too far. The Orthodox will never accept the “teaching” of universal primacy because it simply is not of the Church. The RC will never accept the Orthodox ecclesiology because that would mean a full repentance of said “teaching”. Any attempt at a compromise, a re-re-interpretation of both positions will be seen as the transparent attempt at false unity it would be. You simply can not twist either ecclesiology enough to get there – at least not honestly.

So one has to ask then what is the point of said “dialogue”? It starts to look like a political game, an excuse for bishops to get together and talk about more substantial issues under the table. Given the “One Big Misunderstanding” theory of the history of the schism, you can understand why some of these academics want to dialogue (because they sincerely believe the differences are not real – they are an accident of human limitations in communication). Why would sincere bishops on either side who truly believe in their own Churches ecclesiology (or filioque, Augustinian anthropology, purgatory, Theotokos, etc.)? It must be a default position, something to keep their academic “theologians” happy…

The RCC and the various popes have never once agreed to any open discussion on the primary issue that still separates us–the institution of the Papacy itself as the RCC conceives it.

Perhaps that time is coming…

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

ECCLESIAL COMMUNION, CONCILIARITY AND AUTHORITY. Ravenna, 13 October 2007.

Greg, there are vast differences between the ecclesiology, soteriology and spiritual anthropology of the RCC and the Orthodox. They cannot be simply papered over with an “everybody loves Jesus” approach without doing great violence to the sincere faith and belief of both. No meeting of bishops will accomplish it ever.

The RCC and the various popes have never once agreed to any open discussion on the primary issue that still separates us–the institution of the Papacy itself as the RCC conceives it.

As central to any real unity talks as the Papacy is,the very process is likely to weaken any common Christian witness in the face of nihilism, Islam and virulent secularism. Chimerical ‘unity’ is not necessary for an effective common witness.

Only her mother rivals her! 🙂

Darn! I thought you giving a cryptic ‘thumbs-up’ to my comment.

(smile)

Thanks for the reply.

Greg,

The ‘situation of the diaspora’ and ecumenical dialog can not be fairly compared. The uniqueness of 19th and 20/21st century travel and immigration coupled with the Bolshevik revolution led to the present situation. While a problem, it is not a doctrinal or core issue with the Faith, and the Church can function with it even if it is a certain canonical disorder.

Ecumenical dialog on the other hand is directly relevant to the very core of the Church and her Faith. It goes far beyond the rather mundane question of canonical order. You mentioned a “first move” as if this process has not been going on for centuries now. Check out who St. Mark of Ephesus is:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mark_of_Ephesus

As far as the “outside looking in”, well of course. Any Christianity – I suppose I should qualify that as “Traditional Christianity” since all sorts of modernist pagans claim to be Christian now – is going to look reactionary, inward looking, unprogressive, backwards, unattractive, etc. Christianity is now counter cultural again. For a while the west became “Christendom” and Christianity was fashionable. No longer, as we are now back to the situation that is similar to the one the early Christians were in. We have not been persecuted in the same way (still could happen), but then the Communists killed more Christians in raw numbers than the Romans ever did.

It is warming to the heart to hear you describe Orthodoxy in the way you did. It’s a sign that we have not caved in to the vanity of the culture (yet – it could still happen). We are not as my priest likes to say “the community of the upraised moistened finger” by which he means those who try to figure out which way the cultural winds are blowing and then go that way.

Christopher,

I have not read Ware’s book. Thanks for the recommendation. You are correct, I am not Orthodox (but I’m interested in the discussion.)

I do agree that the leadership should address the concerns of the laity. Certainly Orthodox Bishops put themselves in an untenable position if a large segment of their flock doesn’t support meetings with Catholics.

I sense a sort of “bunker mentality” among the Orthodox. Whether the topic is all U.S. jurisdictions coming together under one territorial bishop, Orthodox outreach to non-Orthodox*, the EP participating in environmental issues**, or discussion with Catholics – either no one wants to make the first move, or every move meets with a significant backlash. It is not my place to speculate as to why this is, I just note that – as an outsider looking in – that is what I see and it isn’t very attractive.

Greg

* On a personal note, there is a GOA Church four miles from my house. I know people who go there. In 20+ years I was never given any reason to think that a non-Greek should attend it.

** It is unfortunate that the EP is considered incompetent. I know that one person does not negate the ultimate truth of a religion, but when it’s the leader it does make it harder to make the case.

Greg, Have you read Kallistas Ware’s “The Orthodox Church”? Even though he is a supporter of modern ecumenism, he recognizes some of the problems (not all) and does an OK job of explaining that a significant portion of Orthodox (I would hazard that it is the majority) do not approve. I assume from your last post you are not Orthodox (RC maybe?). My feel of the land is that if anything, the support for modern ecumenism is at least as strong among the laity as it is among the bishops (which I still believe is the minority). I would say the Deaconate and Priesthood has the greatest thoughtful opposition. I do not believe the way forward is for the supporters of modern ecumenical dialog to scold those who have thoughtful concerns as “unwilling to talk” as you put it, or as being “incomprehensible” as John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon would say. It is unreflective and dismissive of the real concerns we have. I think you hit it on the head when you say that those who reject modern ecumenical movement are living in a “caricature”. As long as the supporters believe that, they will continue to dismiss the laity/priests/monks/Bishops who are trying to tell them something…

The general feeling I get from reading this board is that the Orthodox upper echelons are interested in dialogue with the Catholics, but the rank and file will have none of it. That seems a major problem. Unwilling to talk, and unwilling to support those who do. A sad state of affairs.

“Leaving things to God” is OK if we have done everything we can do. However, leaving things to God because we want to nurse old wounds, or because we refuse to entertain the idea that the situation may have changed – well… that just doesn’t seem right.

How is one to move beyond caricature if there is no discussion? (This is a rhetorical question only.)

Good question. None that I am aware of. Unfortunately all we have is negative examples.

As far as “proper…dialogue format” as a theoretical question the only one I am aware of is a proper ecumenical council. Of course, the RC would never agree to this because the Pope/western bishops would be one voice in a room full of equals and their papal claims/ecclesiology, Filoque, Augustinian trinitarian ism and anthropology, Immaculate Conception, etc. would be rejected outright and they would either accept the result (and thus essentially repent of a about 1300 years of self understanding) or not – then we are back to where we are today…