Oh, I know that full well. In the matter of Christology, I don’t exactly think Rome is being “omni” but rather finally accepting that Rome’s rigidity in centuries past was in error. No offense intended, but the COC can be rather rigid as well (thanks, at least in part, to a certain influential bishop who has clear ties to MP where artificial or contrived rigidity is the byword) but relations between the COC and ACoE are not really the point I was looking at.
No offense taken; I know we can be rather rigid about certain things, and I certainly wouldn’t lay this one at the feet of His Grace Who Cannot Be Named, if we’re talking about why it is that we still have problems with the ACoE. And I know that’s not really the point you were looking at, but my point is that here is a document (presented at the link from the LA Dioscese) that
does make the link between the RCC’s (relatively) chummy relations with the ACoE and the complication of the RCC’s relations with the COC. Because by giving sanction to the ACoE
Christology that our church very much opposes (rightly or wrongly, according to whomever; I don’t really want this discussion to turn into a discussion about that) in the name of being less rigid or having a big tent theology or whatever the heck is going on here, it alienates the COC on
Christological grounds. We thought we understood the people we were talking with and what goals we were working toward together (e.g., with the Nestorians at the monastery, or meeting with Catholics elsewhere to produce “agreed statements” or whatever), only to have things “inverted” (as per Fr. Moses’ wording) later on in the name of…whatever that was (presenting the ACoE opinion, I guess; sure, fine). It’s kinda hard to have as good relations as possible when your interlocutor decides that everything is okay for everybody, so long as they submit to Rome
ecclesiologically, which really is how it seems according to people in both the Coptic Orthodox and Indian Orthodox churches, as well as a few individuals in the Armenian Church (which by and large seems more liberal about these matters, but even then not so much that Nestorius is not opposed greatly; see below). So again I’m afraid I disagree with you and what I have termed the “omni-” approach must be rejected, whether it’s arrived at via a
laissez faire attitude or what. Think about it this way: If dyophysitism is what you reject about Chalcedon (and I don’t expect nor even really want to get into that publicly), then the same idea should be no less wrong when coming from the ACoE instead of the Byzantines, no? As you may already know, the Armenians rejected Chalcedon a bit late due to the insistence of the Assyrians in their midst in Persia that Chalcedon confirmed that the Greeks now sided with them and against the Armenians in the Christological disagreement that had led to the condemnation of Nestorius only a short while earlier at Ephesus (you can see this if you read the two letters of the Armenian Catholicos Babken from around the time of the Council of Dvin, I believe just titled “To the Orthodox [read: Armenians] in Persia”; in the first letter, apparently written before the Armenians had gained much knowledge about what Chalcedon taught, HH writes that the Greeks agree with the Armenians, while in the second HH reflects that they have now called a Council to deal with this matter…this was the Council of Dvin in 506, when Chalcedon was rejected)
.
So I don’t know…maybe I’m the one who is “rigid”, but I don’t think it’s to anything other than the defense of the faith from admitting things we believe are wrong as somehow now being acceptable when they are not. I actually just had the present conversation in miniature last night with an ACoE friend (see…I’m still nice to them!
), and after we had each said our peace, we decided that it would be best to pray instead of arguing, as we at least share in common Mar Isaac of Nineveh. I should think that would also be the best conclusion to any discussion regarding the Roman Communion’s Christology/Christologies (or for that matter its ecclesiology, too). As was originally my point in the post you first replied, we’re simply not going to be convinced, by and large (funny, given the thread title, though I suppose individuals still might be; Mar Bawai Soro, who actually represented the ACoE in the meetings with the COC at the monastery of St. Bishoy, later became a Chaldean Catholic…as far as I know, that was an ecclesiological change, rather than a Christological one, but y’know…that’s on him).
.
