Replies

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"

Full communion means we believe the same things completely. From various ongoing discussions on other threads, I am convinced that at least some Latin Catholics here on FR sincerely believe we believe the same things and that others here insist we believe the same things by asserting that we Orthodox don't understand the Eastern Fathers and our own hierarchs of the past and if we did, we'd rush into Rome's embrace, while still others are convinced that we're just the first Protestants and aren't even part of The Church. I fully reject the latter two.

For myself, I don't think we do believe the same things on some very fundamental matters, or at least at the level of educated and catechised lay people we don't. What the theologians may say could be different. Even with those differences, though, I do believe that we are far closer on matters which at least I thought separated us since these discussions. I have noticed that when Latin theology is presented in a more patristic fashion (and by that I do not at all mean selective quoting of the Fathers; in fact in all honesty that's simply wasting time. We can do that too, and better than the Latins when it comes to the Eastern Fathers. We also don't ascribe any dogmatic absolutism to the writings of any individual Father anyway, though many give us good examples of the consensus patrum). When Latins speak to us in "our language", instead of from the "Magisterium" of Rome, or the non-ecumenical councils or from a scholastic stand point, Latin theology becomes much clearer and understandable to us.

Even there, though, it seems as if when the Latins speak our language, there's still a strong Latin accent. It gets in the way even if it isn't surprising.

Here's the hope I, as an Orthodox Christian, have; that this marvelous new pope, this patristics scholar who sits on the seat of +Peter, knows exactly how to speak with us and that he will teach you how to do the same. Because he is your central authority and within the tradition of the Latin Church, he can do that. We don't have such a person, nor do we have a resource in Orthodoxy like the Latin Church has in its Eastern Rite Churches which are in communion with it. The burden falls on Rome, but that has happened in our shared past, often with happy results.

We also don't ascribe any dogmatic absolutism to the writings of any individual Father anyway, though many give us good examples of the consensus patrum).

We only differ on this in so far as the teachings of western synodal Councils (such as those of Carthage or Orange or Rome) were directly affirmed by the Pope for the whole Church, or where the Pope himself wrote to clarify or lay down the line on a matter, such as St. Damasus, Leo and Agatho's Tomes to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th ecumenical councils, or where a specific Father was essentially endorsed by Rome in a conflict, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria.

We don't have such a person

From my own reading of history, I would tend to listen to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems most often to be on the side of Orthodoxy, and who, the most recent incumbent aside, seems to have enormous moral prestige throughout your communion. The list is certainly illustrious enough with men such as Sophronius and Dositheos. I can't see him reconciling with Rome if the rest of Orthodoxy was not, nor the rest of Orthodoxy doing so without him.

nor do we have a resource in Orthodoxy like the Latin Church has in its Eastern Rite Churches which are in communion with it.

What about the Antiochean Orthodox groups of former Protestants?

""I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"

Full communion means we believe the same things completely."

Good grief, it can get quite embarrassing when a Catholic priest makes such woefully deficient statements. It really does misrepresent the reality because there are serious and substantial theological differences, and I almost feel like I need to apologize for him!

Kolo, you are quite right when you say that full communion is dependent upon agreement in faith. I suppose to someone like Fr. Neuhaus who has been primarily involved in discussions with evangelicals where the differences are so much more obvious (to us), then by comparison Catholicism and Orthodoxy are much closer.

To the casual observer, we are very close, but that is only on a superficial level. As far as we can speak the same theological language, Latins are always going to speak with a Latin accent and Greeks are always going to speak with a Greek accent. It would be unrealistic, and probably unworthy, for either of us to expect that to change.

I think the best we can hope for at the human level is for both sides to start getting beyond the post-schism baggage that has been acquired in phronema as well as theology so that the important issues may be discussed in a spirit of friendship and without rancour.

I suspect that some of these issues may simply be different ways of looking at the same thing - a case of complementary approaches rather than opposing approaches. But, I also agree with you that some issues may well not be resolvable in this life. I suppose the task of theologians on both sides is to come to a decision about what is complementary and what is insurmountable, but its probably beyond our scope on this forum to advance that cause.

Agrarian makes this point:

"Depending on whom we are talking to on FR, we seem to encounter people whose articulation of Catholic belief is very close to ours, or as far away as ever. This extreme variability in a church with a supposedly monolithic Magisterium, authoritative Catechisms, etc... frankly make some Orthodox nervous.."

..which made me smile somewhat! From the outside, Rome can often appear like a monolith, but again this is a rather superficial impression. We have huge problems with poor catechesis of the faithful (clergy included!) regarding the content of the faith and this is one cause of the "extreme variability".

Another cause is that many issues have never been settled, defined, finally wrapped up or whatever you want to call it! There are legitimate areas of debate in Catholic theology and you will come across heavily contrasted views which are seemingly incompatible. Partly this is due to the Latin phronema of "If it moves, codify it - and if you can't codify it, systematise it!".

A case in point is the recent discussion about purgatorial fire and whether it is material or spiritual/ temporary or eternal. While people may have their strong views, and different schools of theology will take different positions, you will probably find that there has never been anything definitive said about it!

However, I do think that Benedict XVI has a much more patristic view of his role than some of his predecessors, and this can only help in making communication easier between east and west. I just hope he gets long enough to make a difference - Please, God!