I agree entirely with Andrew. I think that the Vatican is too savvy to fall for Metropolitan Hilarion’s blandishments. After all, the Russian Orthodox Church won’t allow the Vatican to have its own mission in Russia – a country where the Orthodox Church attracts less than a million committed adherents out of a population of around 140,000,000. Hilarion is hardly arguing from a position of strength.

PO’F, what would be wrong with that? I would rather fellowship with other Christians who are at least serious about their faith.

“Met. Hilarion seems to follow the same track outlined in recent appearances to Protestant groups by Met. Timothy Ware”

I’m not sure about that. Metropolitan Hillarion is less prone to “doctrinal compromises” than Met. Kallistos seems to be. You’ll notice that the thrust of this piece is about a cooperation regarding moral witness vis a vis European secularism (and vis a vis Islam). Met. Kallistos’ comments were about doctrinal appreciation to a large extent. Probably as a result of his involvement in the ecumenical movement and his involvement with Western academia, he has in recent years made some surprising statements. Met. Hillarion is more prone to say things like – – and I paraphrase from memory – – “there is some considerable overlap or common ground between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic faiths, but very much less between the Orthodox and Protestantism.” Of course, that’s only broadly true. Some Protestants are closer to Orthodoxy than others. Nonetheless, the urge to reconcile by bluring distinctions seems much more active within the Greek church than in the Russian one. Met. Hillarion himself implies this:

“Within the framework of the Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, my position is often the toughest. Meanwhile, the documents that are drafted there, are the most often contested by the ROC delegations. There have been instances when we were forced to walk out of sessions as a sign of disagreement with what was happening. We always very firmly oppose attempts to erode the differences that exist between us. ”

If that is true vis a vis Roman Catholicism, which he considers to overlap to some considerable extent with Orthodoxy, it would be much more so with Protestantism. The spirit of the two hierarchs remarks are quite different.

They’re not cooperating to unite their churches. They’re cooperating to battle European secularism. The Russians have consistently said that a meeting between the Pope and Pat. Kirill is premature until matters of Orthodox-Catholic relations in Eastern Europe are resolved. Met. Hilarion in particular has publicly mused that it may take hundreds of years for reunification. This is more of a partnership against a common enemy.

Yes, but only superficially. Liberal outfits like the NCC and the WCC (although much less liberal in recent years) are essentially powerless to speak to the cultural decline given their ideas and thus tend to serve the tyrants (that’s what makes them liberal). The NCC in particular has seen their role as providing moral cover for tyrants.

The difference then, is the orientation toward the moral tradition. Liberal outfits tend to subvert the tradition so that it loses authority in the culture, conservatives see the tradition as the well-spring to cultural renewal. I’m overstating this to draw the distinction of course, but not by much.

Further, “U.S. Fundamentalist Protestants” is only a superficial reading as well. Presbyterians are not fundamentalist, unless you expand the definition to include everyone except Rome and the Orthodoxy, in which case it becomes meaningless.

Met. Hilarion seems to follow the same track outlined in recent appearances to Protestant groups by Met. Timothy Ware:

What Can Evangelicals and Orthodox Learn from One Another? [AUDIO]