I think KOLO may think that way, but I highly doubt OTHER Orthodox feel the same way. I applaud him and wish more were like him. That is why I have chosen to speak with him then discussing these issues with men who have lost control of themselves through their anger.
The latter doctrines (Aquinas, Vatican I, Assumption, Palamas) become local doctrines. The Catholics continue to be instructed by their bishops and the Orthodox continue to be instructed by their bishops. Each side tolerates the other side's doctrines even if it does not itself teach them, and neither we or they retract doctrines.
On paper, that sounds good, but I am not sure how that would work out in reality. Unless we come to the table on several issues, there will continue to be distrust. We must explain ourselves, they theirselves (word?) and come to a commonly accepted agreement, if possible. OR decide that "this is not an 'essential' of the faith, there is room for speculation or opinion". In any case, we can't just leave things "lay" and not do anything - that would be corrosive to our union.
Of course, I agree with you, Jo, that the hearts and minds are not there right at this point, but I also like to point out that the dynamics are in favor of reunification, unlike ever before.
Time and Jesus Christ heals all wounds. But if we continue to see this condescending and proud attitude, I don't see how union can take place now. We have already been told that the work of Florence was undone by the laity. What will prevent a replay IF the East continues to distrust and hate us?
For unification to work, we need to clean up our house and they need to ask Christ to release them from the slavery of hatred. The problem is that religious pride is very difficult to recognize from within.
Regards
No one here is angry unless that would be you. There is not a jot of hatred in my heart concerning Roman Catholics. (There are way too many in my family to feel that way.) Maybe you feel that way, because I am adamant about my beliefs. I believe there can be only one right belief. Either we are wrong, or you are. It is unfortunate that you think that constitutes hatred, because you have never been more wrong.
God Be With You.
I think, what both Kolokotronis and I have in mind is a transitional period when the bishops of both Churches encourage calm and discourage disruptive discourse. During that time there is no reunification yet, but there is a spirit of mutual respect and inquiry, that proceeds from the presumtion of the best. I think at this point, the West has it more than the East. For example, serious Catholics have nothing but admiration for the Eastern Liturgy, and most -- there are exceptions -- would like to find out more about Palamist doctrines, and would listen to the insights regarding the eternal spiration, original sin, etc.This period of calm could last centuries and, of course, there should be theological discussion on the council level that clarifies the doctrines and seeks common elements in the divergent doctrines.
None of that is possible if attitudes are adjusted even more than they have been. In the attitude adjustment department, we in the West can do little to change the East, but we sure could change ourselves. The East rightly suspects that as a whole Catholicism is modernist and slouches toward liturgical Protestantism. Unless significant progress has been made here toward liturgical propriety, the suspicion won't go away. I am firmly convinced that the irritating propensity of our Eastern brethren to magnify every difference -- what I would like to call lust for separation, -- stems from their well-founded fear of getting some kind of Vatican II theological disease from a closer association with us.
Another example: we know "filioque" means "and through the Son". So what prevents ICEL and analogous bodies in other vernaculars from translating it so? It is not always included, -- it is not included in Eastern Catholic Churches, and -- correct me if I am wrong -- the creed was said without the filioque when Patriarch Bartholomew visited the Mass. It would be nice to clarify this, perhaps, with an encyclical, one way or another.
The endless references to Florence, whatever their historical merit, don't help (especially when the Florentine understanding of filioque is not supported in vernacular), because they reinforce the image of the Latin Church as something run by lawyers. It is fine to point out that the issue was bridged once and so it can be bridged again, but we often sound as if the East is already bound by Florence. This attitude does not respect the Eastern conscience, and betrays our own insecurities.