Fr. Athanasios, thank you for posting that. Do you have any other sources in mind (particularly sources which refer to a Patristic and traditional basis for such a position)?
I must say, the comments of Fr. Thomas make me a little uncomfortable. The phrase \"sister Churches\" should not be used in reference to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Constantinople and Moscow are sister Churches. Antioch and Greece. And so forth... To call Rome a \"sister Church\" is to adhere to a notion, common in the 19th century, that there is a broad \"Christian Church\" of which Orthodoxy is a part, or even the \"Mother,\" but not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I understand that the Orthodox who say “sister Church” about Rome are being polite, but I think it sends the wrong message (to both them and to the Orthodox people as a whole).
\"We cannot seek the victory of one tradition over another.\" This seems to suggest that both “traditions” are equally valid. This is a common argument. Differences are minimized as being merely different “expressions” or “interpretations.” Unity is seen as we silly humans overcoming our parochialism and particularity in favor of diversity and inclusiveness. Opposition to such a position is exacerbated by the fact that many of the Orthodox who disagree with this sort of unity come across as triumphalistic radicals who proudly proclaim that we are right and others wrong. But it is not wrong to say that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth and that Roman Catholicism, while not entirely wrong, is not the fullness of the truth.
“We recognize that this is a gradual process. Just as our alienation took place over the course of time, so also our reconciliation, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is taking place gradually.” I think this speaks to the great difficulty of any sort of “reunion” talks. Is there any precedent in Orthodoxy for the “re-establishment” of unity with a group which separated itself long before? The situation with the non-Chalcedonians is simpler, since the issue hinges around a specific Ecumenical Council. Those Churches are largely unchanged since the split, so attention can be focused on the specific issue which divides us. But with Rome, there is a host of issues. At the heart of it is the fact that Rome has a very different underlying philosophy than we do. As a rule, large people groups do not change their long-held underlying philosophies, but for any REAL union to take place (as opposed to a union like that of Ferrara-Florence), such a change is necessary.
I have more thoughts, but I will stop here for now and allow others to comment.
Be the first person to like this.