www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog

So am I to understand that since you have replied to the question to Alex; that you incorporate reincarnation into your beliefs?

Only as far as I can re-member

Personally I do not see ANY perspective in ANY dialogue with the Orthodox Church - they have not moved even an IOTA from considering Catholics being heretics and hold all traditional prejudices as hundreds years ago.

Why is Catholic Church so adamant in pursuing something unachievable is difficult to understand. As if there is no problems in Catholic Church without this hurdle.

... church unity?

But I think you are right.

Rome prefers the Moscow Patriarchate over the UGCC, any day.

alex

I do not think that ecumenical dialogue is going to restore communion between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or between the Roman Church and the Protestant communities, but it may allow the various dialogue partners to better understand each other, and that is a good in itself.

Should the Orthodox alter their beliefs in order to restore communion with Rome? Should Rome alter its beliefs?

Why? What is the point of altering what one believes to be revealed by God?

Should the Orthodox abandon their patristic understanding of the nature of the Church? Should Rome abandon the Scholastic approach that it has embraced?

I see no benefit to either side.

Both should alter their beliefs to conform to the truth. The truth is, neither communion has a correct understanding of primacy and conciliarity; neither holds to the ecclesiology of the Fathers, and neither is undamaged by its separation from each other. Over the course of more than 1000 years of growing estrangement each has exaggerated certain elements of their respective Traditions, and both will have to make adjustments. Zealots on both sides will be unhappy.

And, just between us--the example you chose was lousy. The Latin Church is just as patristic as the Orthodox Church; and the Greek Fathers includes some pretty fine scholastics, including John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas.

Father Taft would accuse you of engaging in "theology by cliche". Less caricature, more ecumenical scholarship, please. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set ye free--from the shackles of mindless polemics.

Stuart I know that Fr. Taft has the answer to everything for you, but I do not really find his arguments convincing.

As far as the truth is concerned, I think both sides believe that they have the truth, and if a man believes that he already possesses the truth, and then abandons it by altering it to bring about a false peace, he would convict himself of a grave sin.

Now as for myself, I think the Orthodox have ecclesiology right, which is why I may eventually convert to Orthodoxy.

I am sure that you believe that to be true, and I would never ask you to abandon what you in conscience believe to be so, but I do not agree with you. I do not think that the modern Roman approach to the Church is patristic. That is just me though.

God bless.

It is no accident that back in the eighties, students at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology were encouraged to take their patristic courses at St. John (RC) Seminary in Brighton. They knew where the best scholarship was being done. Stuart's claim is not from thin air, but is substantiated by the level of scholarship done in the west. It is reflected in the documents of Vat. II and subsequent papal decrees. Be not afraid. We're in this together, and it'll be more fun than a solo trip. Believe me.

Stuart is correct. Neither, separated, have it quite right. United , in deep respect of one another, we have a good chance of getting it right. Once all the invective and rancor has been laid to rest, who knows? Can you imagine what a church of 2 billion will do for the new evangelization? Don't leave now. It's just beginning.

The reason why I find Stuart's arguments so convincing is that whenever Stuart comments on something, he leaves everyone feeling like they've really missed the mark . . .

If we believe that we have the truth, period - perhaps then we need to rediscover the need for genuine humility.

And until that happens, our Patristic or Scholastic perspectives will actually keep us away from what their goal is ultimately about - union with Christ.

Alex

Thanks for the comment. I do not agree, but hey we do not have to agree.

I admit that even when I was a Roman Catholic I found Scholastic theology boring. Thomas Aquinas never really interested me no matter how hard I tried to like what he had to say.

Now that being said, is everything that came out of Scholasticism bad? No, because just as a broken clock is right twice a day, so too there are good things in Scholasticism. I am just happy that I found the Eastern Church, and the theology of the Fathers, because that gave me a kind of joy that was missing in my life as a Roman Catholic. Some people like Scholasticism and some people even like the theology of the manuals, and if that gives them peace and joy then more power to them, but those things just are not for me.

I do not agree.

Church unity is unachievable upon nowadays conditions, so one may forget about it.

Rome knows perfectly well the reality in the ROC as well.

These all ecumenical dances remain me the proverb about the suitcase without a handle - it is impossible to carry but also sorry to leave :D

Dear Todd,

Aquinas really isn't my cup of borscht either!

I'm just trying to be nice to the RC's because you used to be one of them!

God bless and keep you sir!

Alex