Does a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma?

[JohnVIII]

I will defer to Marduk to explain in greater detail, as he is more knowledgeable than I, but to my knowledge the bishops of the Catholic Church, whether Roman, Melkite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Coptic, Assyrian, Maronite, etc. do not acknowledge the Pope as “being above” any of them. He is considered the “first among equals”, the “head of the college of bishops”, the “servant of the servants of God”, and the like. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that there is no higher order in the Catholic Church than that of bishop, episcopal ordination being the “fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders” (cf. CCC #1555 - 1561).

It may or may not be that this is how things are right now, but I think that the successor to St Peter should be recognized as “above” the whole universal Church.

Here’s my :twocents: for what it may or may not be worth.

I would say that the successor to St Peter (The Pope in Rome) has a “supremacy”, not just a “primacy”. In terms of authority he is actually head of all churches.

…However…

The Church of Rome (not the bishop of the church, but the local church itself) has a “primacy”, not a “supremacy”. And quite frankly, I’m not sure the primacy is held only by Old Rome any more, the primacy might also be in the hands of the Church of Moscow (The “Third Rome”). But, even if this is so, it does not change the fact that it is still the Pope of Old Rome that is the sole successor to St Peter (Not the Bishop of Moscow). The two do not have to be hand-in-hand. At the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), I do believe St Peter, who was there, was actually head of the whole universal Church, but it was at that time a fact that the Church in Jerusalem had the primacy, of which James (Jacob) was the bishop and mouthpiece for the Church in Jerusalem, and therefore the “word” or epistle sent out from Jerusalem with respect to the Gentiles in the Church was sent under the authority of James.

97% of the time the regular matters of the Church are settled with the aid of a major Church that many see as having a primacy and this could be Old Rome or Constantinople or Moscow. A “Primacy” as I see it would be this “first among equals” relationship. On the other hand, there are times that some authority over the whole world-wide Church is needed. I believe that our Lord instituted this authority in one single person (not in a certain local church nor in a synergistic synod of bishops). Of course that person is St Peter and continues today to St Peter’s successors.

“Does a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma?” I would hope that I would be correct in saying that the answer is “No”, that is, “for the most part” - “No”. If the successor to St Peter (The Pope) has spoken to the whole world-wide Church, even to every Christian, then the Eastern Orthodox Churches ought to acknowledge and affirm this and God Himself will back the Pope up in the blessing or otherwise of any church’s choice to affirm or otherwise. But if the Pope is not speaking to all Christians everywhere then he is not acting with the authority of St Peter but rather with the authority over Rome only, or the West, and doesn’t even have a claim to being infallible in this case. THE POPE ONLY HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT HE IS SPEAKING AS THE SUCCESSOR TO ST PETER. And the Pope can only act as the successor to St Peter when he exercises it over the whole universal Church, not just one small part of the Church somewhere. Now if the Eastern Catholics really are the same as the Eastern Orthodox save only that they are in communion with Rome (yet I’m not sure that they all are) then Eastern Catholics should not be required to affirm anything some other local church claims is dogma.

It should be important to rightly divide the word of truth. ALL local churches (Rome included) are fallible and only have authority over their own. But the one person who is the true successor to St Peter, when he speaks as such, is infallible and has authority over all Christians.

 

[Ignatius]

Both tie into the Dogma of Purgatory, and the different understandings of the nature of the sacrament of Reconciliation, and the nature of Sin.

OK, now you’ve got my curiosity up. What are the differences in understanding of the nature of the sacrament of Reconciliation?

 

[dvdjs]

My question seems pretty straight forward and I am surprised that even the word “affirm” needs defining. Still, to answer you, affirm means:

1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm

So, to restate my question, I wanted to know if a convert to Eastern Catholicism would need to affirm–to maintain to be true, to support the validity of-- those doctrines and dogmas declared after the Great Schism of 1054.

Based on what I know, an Orthodox Christian would answer “no” to this question (though I recognise they may believe doctrines that are very similar). You say only “*some *Orthodox would deny some developments of doctrine and some post-schism dogmatic definitions.” I cannot imagine any Eastern Orthodox Christian affirming Papal Infallibility, as defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870, but perhaps you have run into some.

As I have learnt from this thread, some Eastern Catholics would answer “yes” to my question.

It also seems that a number would understand Latin doctrine in a different, Eastern way. They would affirm post Schism doctrines and dogmas, but not in the same way that Rome did and does, which is why I used the allusion to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. (I meant no offense, but forgive me if that sounded flippant). If, however, Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics really do have different understandings of the same terminology regarding post Schism doctrines and dogma (which I assume are thus “essential” beliefs in the Augustinian sense), then their communion would seem tenuous to this outsider. Sorry, but that is my perception.

Others, such as it seems yourself, do not even like my asking this question. As you note, “Our religion is an experiential religion, not a body of theological postures and debate points”, so perhaps even my question itself seems too scholastic and, indeed, Western. However, the Orthodox on this thread don’t seem to have the same epistemological difficulties in tackling this question.

You are right about the fact that I don’t like your question. There are two reasons.

First, the question was not sufficiently specific. To answer without being potentially very misleading, I would need to understand whether or not you have a proper understanding of Catholic dogmas. I would need to understand what you mean by affirm. You post now a definition, but it has two parts.

The first part is clear enough and the answer is unambiguously yes: we accept the dogmas as understood within the Catholic church as true. However, the correct understanding is crucial. After all, notwithstanding all the usual polemical arguments on purgatory - which abound whether you know them or not - one of the Orthodox posters on another thread accepted the teachings in the CCC as orthodox. A “yes” on this matter not, as you indicated, a “no”.

(The second part of the definition, however, throws me for a loop. The meaning of validity and truth are entirely different matters. So I am not sure why you add this, what you mean, and how to respond.)

Second, and more importantly, I agree with the idea that the question is overly scholastic. It is alien to the concept of authentic religion in my opinion, and certainly to the mystical mentality of the east. It is a barrier not a doorway to spiritual progress. The fact that the EO’s on the thread don’t have a problem with it is very revealing, but I suspect you are drawing the wrong inference from it. You might ask: what is their formation? What assures you that they are not thinking in a modernist, consumerist, and overly legalistic way?

And this question raises the broader concern. If you want a sampling of opinion, biased though it might be by sampling those who are most eager to give their opinion, then the internet is a good place to ask the question. If you want reality, better ask a priest, or perhaps better still, a rooted, pious grandmother of grandfather.

As to your comment on the tenuousness of our communion. Yes and no. There is something to said for the perspective, often exhibited in history, that the schism is bogus, and that our communion, if we are forced to choose, should be based on what advances the well-being and salvation of our people. This perspective has informed, to some extent, the formation of Unions, the reversal of some, and maintenance of Orthodoxy in Bulgaria and Romania.

We are, btw, forced to choose. But not by Catholic Church, which has been steadfast in seeking reconciliation, and in fact presently offers Holy Communion to EO’s.

On the other hand, please be a little more cautious. Respect our martyrs - abundant even in this century - who were forced to choose, and suffered as martyrs - for their allegiance to the Catholic Church. That does not reflect tenuousness.

Unless Eastern Catholics can answer the same way as the Orthodox do (i.e. unambiguously “no”), there is some confusion when an Eastern Catholic claims to be Orthodox.

Please respond to my earlier questions: are you confused by OO’s calling themselves Orthodox; non-canonical EO’s calling themselves Orthodox, vagante groups doing likewise. If you are not, then your point is unfair. If you are, then your point is fair, but is uniformed: the EO’s are not confused by it and do not bemoan it as they do for “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

 

[dvdjs]

Theory doesn’t cut it when discussing a resumption of Communion between the Churches.

Perhaps, but you must admit much history within the EOC indicates that the stated divergence between theory and practice is not a reason to break communion. Well except, breaking off communion with the Roman communion.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

How do you know that the “differences” between the Eastern and Latin Traditions as expressed by the EO are true? How do you know that the EO presentation of the Latin Tradition is correct in the first place? And how do you know that these differences are sufficient causes for division according to the standard of the early Church? For example, modern EO reject the doctrine of substitutionary atonement - they don’t consider it as simply a valid Tradition of a sister Church like the Eastern Catholics, but use it as a point of contention. Both the Eastern and Latin Tradition on the matter can be readily shown to have existed with each other in peace in the early Church. Eastern Catholics demonstrate the actual attitude of the early Church, while most EO today wrongly think that only the Eastern Tradition is the valid one. There are many other examples.

Marduk,

Thank you. This is an interesting example. There could be a very healthy cross pollination between Latin and EO tradition on the issue of atonement theology. I know that the Christus Victor theory is the dominant one in EO today (going back to Irenaeus), but I have also read EO defend substitutionary atonement (citing Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo) and agree that Christ’s death has myriad implications.

So here is an area where (i) both the EO and the Latin traditions can be traced back to the Fathers and (ii) affirming both positions is not self contradictory.

I would be interested in your examples. I don’t think one can so easily affirm both the EO position and the Latin position on post Schism dogmas and doctrines, including Papal Infallibility, without doing gymnastics with the definitions. If the Latin position is defined in a Latin way, it would seem to generally contradict the EO position.

I know you have thought about this a few (thousand) times…

Also, have you read His Broken Body, by Orthodox priest Laurent Cleenewerck and if so, would you recommend it?

Blessings,

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Please respond to my earlier questions: are you confused by OO’s calling themselves Orthodox; non-canonical EO’s calling themselves Orthodox, vagante groups doing likewise. If you are not, then your point is unfair. If you are, then your point is fair, but is uniformed: the EO’s are not confused by it and do not bemoan it as they do for “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

I agree that who is “orthodox” and who is not is a subjective judgement.

In my opinion, the EO and OO are nearly identical. I would prefer to call one “Eastern Orthodox” and the other “Oriental Orthodox”, just to separate them.

Non-canonical EO are just that. I would call those with an essentially identical theology to the canonical EO “Non-canonical Orthodox”

Eastern Catholics, however, must affirm Latin theology, according to the posters on this thread. Yet, Latin theology is not “Orthodox” if understood in a Latin way and herein lies the confusion, at least for me. Moreover, as one poster noted, how Eastern Catholics interpret Latin terminology differs amongst Eastern Catholic groups: Melkite, Maronite, etc. Perhaps they should be called “Eastern Catholic Orthodox”?

If the word “affirm” should cause such confusion, I should think we need to be especially careful with the word “orthodox”.

 

[Aramis]

Eastern Catholics, however, must affirm Latin theology, according to the posters on this thread.

No, only the Dogmas, not the theology related to them.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I’m sorry, but don’t all bishops acknowledge the Pope as being above them? Isn’t that the High Petrine view?

Thank you for the question. The answer is a bit more nuanced than the ones already given, though those answers, especially brother Phillip’s contain some foundational principles to consider.

First, it is important for you to understand that Catholic ecclesiology distinguishes between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. Before continuing, let me first affirm that the Catholic doctrine asserts that the power of orders is greater than the power of jurisdiction.

The power of orders is the power of sanctifying by which divine grace is transmitted. This relates primarily to the prerogative to confer the Sacraments. It is the thing that makes a bishop a bishop. The power of orders is conferred directly by God to each bishop, no matter what grade (metropolitan, major archbishop, catholicos, patriarch, pope). In other words, what makes a bishop a bishop does not come from any head bishop, but God Himself.

Ideally, the discussion should end here, for it perfectly refutes the original intent of your question - namely, that there is only one bishop in the Catholic Church. It also directly answers your question, “isn’t the Pope above other bishops?” The answer in this respect is “NO” in theory and practice. But there are admittedly some important related issues involved as concerns the power of jurisdiction, so let’s continue.

The power of jurisdiction is the power to govern and teach the people of God. Theologically speaking, teaching is among the power of orders, directly from God, not from a head bishop; ecclesiastically speaking, however, teaching is included in the power of jurisdiction, for it is through teaching that the authority (i.e., to govern) of the Church is primarily realized.

NOTE: this classification is based on Christ’s offices of prophet (teaching), priest (sanctifying), and king (governing).

Keep in mind that considerations on the power of jurisdiction have nothing to do with your original question. The equality of every bishop by nature no matter what grade has already been established - in other words, the issue of the *necessary *existence of every bishop has already been answered in the positive. At this point, our concern is not whether the Pope is the only bishop, but rather what relationship bishops have to the Pope in the exercise of the power of jurisdiction.

In the power of jurisdiction, there is an hierarchy among the bishops (recall that there is no such episcopal hierarchy in the power of orders). Orientals (both Catholic and Orthodox) will readily admit this, while the question is still out from what I’ve read among the EO (I have met many EO - e.g., our very own brother Josephdaniel - who believe there is only one level of jurisdiction - the bishop).

According to the canons of the early Church, a metropolitan has true jurisdiction as protos over his entire Metropolitan See and over all the bishops in that See. He functions according to apostolic canon 34/35. He has the chief responsibility for the good order of the entire Metropolitan Church, and is involved in any matter that affects the entire Church, but not necessarily matters in other local sees within his Metropolitan jurisdiction, except through appeal. He has the prerogative of convening the Metropolitan Synod. He has the authority to confirm the election of those bishops under him, and to discipline them if necessary in synodal fashion. He is also a court of appeal for bishops under him.

Likewise, a Patriarch has true jurisdiction as protos over his entire Patriarchal See, and over all bishops of whatever grade in that See. He likewise functions according to apostolic canon 34/35. Everything stated in the previous paragraph also applies here.

The same consideration applies to the Pope. He has true jurisdiction as the protos of the entire Church. He functions according to apostolic canon 34/35, with the same considerations contained in the previous paragraphs.

In Catholic ecclesiological parlance, any particular diocese can have up to four ordinaries - the bishop, the Metropolitan, the Patriarch and the Pope. But there is only one ordinary who can exercise what is called proper jurisdiction - the one who can administer the affairs of the local Church on a regular basis - and that is the local bishop, not the Metropolitan, not the Patriarch, not the Pope. Though these latter three are considered to have ordinary jurisdiction in the diocese along with the local bishop, none of them have proper jurisdiction in the local diocese except the local bishop. This highlights the fact that Metropolitan, Patriarch or Pope are not canonically authorized to intervene in the affairs of a local Church on a regular basis, but only in extraordinary cases. This also highlights just how infrequently the Pope is actually able to intervene in the affairs of local Churches, since the Metropolitan and Patriarch are the normal courts of appeal for any local Church (granted, any bishop can appeal directly to the Pope).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

There is one final point that needs to be defined regarding the power of jurisdiction - the term immediate. The term “ordinary” refers to whether the power of jurisdiction is inherent or delegated. The term “immediate” refers to the source of the power - is it directly from God or given by some other agency? In Catholic ecclesiology, “immediate” applies only to the offices that were established by Christ through the Apostles - hence, it refers to the office of bishop and the office of the papacy (the bishops being the successors of the Apostles, and the Pope being the successor of Peter in particular)… The office of other head bishops in the Church (patriarchs, major archbishops, catholicoi, and metropolitans) were not established by Christ, but by the Church. Hence, though their power of jurisdiction is “ordinary” (i.e., inherent), it is not considered “immediate” (directly from God)

To recap:
The power of jurisdiction of a bishop in his diocese is regarded as ordinary, immediate and proper.

The power of jurisdiction of a patriarch, major archbishop, catholicos, or metropolitan is regarded as ordinary.

The power of jurisdiction of the pope is regarded as ordinary and immediate.

NOTE: A majority of non-Catholics are ignorant of the eccleisiastical meaning of the words “ordinary” and “immediate.” Using these words in their secular sense, they think the words mean that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of local Churches at his whim, at whatever time, in whatever place, for whatever reason. The fact is, the words “ordinary” and “immediate” have nothing to do with the exercise of the power of jurisdiction – these words only refer to the nature of the power of jurisdiction. The word connected with the exercise of the power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is the ecclesiastical term “proper”; and as already explained earlier, that word applies to the local bishop of a diocese, not to his head bishop (whether metropolitan, catholicos, major archbishop, patriarch or pope).

So is the Pope “above” other bishops? As it relates to the power of orders, which is greater than the power of jurisdiction, NO. As it relates to the power of jurisdiction, YES, but he is “above” in the exact same sense as any other head bishop is “above” those over whom they are charged to serve.. The only thing that distinguishes the Pope from other bishops is the same thing that distinguishes any head bishop from other bishops - greater honor, greater responsibility (with corresponding prerogatives), and greater range of jurisdiction.

I hope that has helped. I would appreciate your comments, and welcome any more questions that can lead to understanding between our Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear all,

I would just like to add that even though I used the term “jurisdiction” freely in my prior posts, I am not a fan of it at all. I much prefer the term “solicitude.” The latter term not only defines the scriptural intent of “jurisdiction,” but its connotations are much less likely to inspire the “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas” mentality that I perceive invades the Orthodox-Catholic dialogues on the matter of the primacy.

And yes, I consider the Orthodox as equally blameworthy of making “jurisdiction’” a problem for unity. I don’t think the papacy is the problem at all. Rather, it is the idea of “jurisdiction,” common to both Catholics and Orthodox, since, as noted, it inspires the deplorable “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas” mentality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Marduk,

Thank you for your wonderful posts and clarifications. You are truly a prophet among us. :clapping::bowdown2:

 

[dvdjs]

If the word “affirm” should cause such confusion, I should think we need to be especially careful with the word “orthodox”.

Perhaps we should. But the reality that we aren’t so careful. To assert that OO and EO are nearly identical overlooks the fact that the division between them is rooted in the determination of an ecumenical council of a fundamental Christological heresy. Theological differences between EOs and Catholics are objectively minor in comparison.

Latin theology is not “Orthodox” if understood in a Latin way

Says who, and by what authority: what council, received as ecumenical asserts this?

You accept OO and EO but dispute OiCwR. If this makes sense, then the criterion is not objective theology. What is it?

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm,

Thank you so much for such a helpful explanation! I was ignorant of the Catholic ecclesiological distinctions such as immediate, proper, ordinary, etc., and I think that was a major source of misunderstanding for me. This should be stickied as a forum reference

In my understanding as an Eastern Orthodox there is no distinction made between orders and jurisdiction. Because of this, there can be no real distinction between a bishop and a metropolitan or patriarch except for honor. This leaves the question of what authority the latter two actually possess, and I’m honestly unclear on this issue. I know that my patriarch for example, the Patriach of Antioch, can ordain or confirm ordinations, call synods, and determine of independence of jurisdictions, which would suggest the kind of authority that you talked about. This is something I’ll have to ask my priest about, and I’ll let you know how he responds.

The idea that there is a divinely instituted office of the Papacy would seem to be the source of our disagreement on the issue. For the EO, there is one office of bishop, and the differences between them are based on the honor of their see, which is determined by a number of factors such as its apostolic foundation and the secular importance of the city in which it is located. I could possibly accept the idea of the Pope as the protos, first among equals, but am uncomfortable with separating him from the college of bishops as possessing an office that is distinct from that of other bishops. Am I misunderstanding you on this? It’s great to see you back btw, I missed your posts!

 

[ciero]

Perhaps we should. But the reality that we aren’t so careful. To assert that OO and EO are nearly identical overlooks the fact that the division between them is rooted in the determination of an ecumenical council of a fundamental Christological heresy. Theological differences between EOs and Catholics are objectively minor in comparison.

Says who, and by what authority: what council, received as ecumenical asserts this?

You accept OO and EO but dispute OiCwR. If this makes sense, then the criterion is not objective theology. What is it?

Very well said!

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Theological differences between EOs and Catholics are objectively minor in comparison.

Says who, and by what authority: what council, received as ecumenical asserts this?

You accept OO and EO but dispute OiCwR. If this makes sense, then the criterion is not objective theology. What is it?

I am not sure what you mean. I think the OO and EO are separated by very little compared with the EO and Rome. I base that judgment not on a council, but rather:

1. The sheer number of theological issues at dispute between the EO and Rome is much greater.
2. Many EO believe they are closer to the OO than to Rome, such as this Orthodox site. orthodoxanswers.org/answer.aspx?ID=53
3. The EO occasionally allow inter communion with the OO. The same is for the most part not the case with the EO and Rome.

 

[ciero]

Says who, and by what authority: what council, received as ecumenical asserts this?

I am not sure what you mean. I think the OO and EO are separated by very little compared with the EO and Rome. I base that judgment not on a council, but rather:

1. The sheer number of theological issues at dispute between the EO and Rome is much greater.
2. Many EO believe they are closer to the OO than to Rome, such as this Orthodox site. orthodoxanswers.org/answer.aspx?ID=53
3. The EO occasionally allow inter communion with the OO. The same is for the most part not the case with the EO and Rome.

Where do you dream this stuff up from? I can give you plenty of examples where RCs are communed within Eastern Orthodoxy. Both here in the US and in the mother countries. It is much more common then many people are willing to admit!

 

[Aramis]

Where do you dream this stuff up from? I can give you plenty of examples where RCs are communed within Eastern Orthodoxy. Both here in the US and in the mother countries. It is much more common then many people are willing to admit!

Indeed it is. And yet, it is something that is seldom mentioned, and derided by many as wishful thinking.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Where do you dream this stuff up from? I can give you plenty of examples where RCs are communed within Eastern Orthodoxy. Both here in the US and in the mother countries. It is much more common then many people are willing to admit!

Relax. I stressed “for the most part” and am thus fully awake. I am intimately aware of some such exeptions.

 

[dvdjs]

Says who, and by what authority: what council, received as ecumenical asserts this?

DId you not read my post? There is a finding of fundamental Christological heresy by an ecumenical council that separates OO from EO. There is no such authoritative finding at the root of the separation of the CC and EO. The say-so and authority are from an ecumenical council.

I think the OO and EO are separated by very little compared with the EO and Rome. I base that judgment not on a council, but rather:

1. The sheer number of theological issues at dispute between the EO and Rome is much greater.
2. Many EO believe they are closer to the OO than to Rome, such as this Orthodox site. orthodoxanswers.org/answer.aspx?ID=53
3. The EO occasionally allow inter communion with the OO. The same is for the most part not the case with the EO and Rome.

Better to stick with a solid criterion of judgment - like an ecumenical council - than a personal one.

1. What are the disputed “theological” issues? Are they theological or cultural? have they been subjected to dogmatic definitions by ecumenical councils or are we talking about legitimate theological opinions?
2. I agree. But what does this tell you? To me it says that among the EO culture and rite and praxis outweigh issues of faith judged in council. Or maybe there is just so much Romophobia. But it does not mean that there is an objective theological closeness.
3. Already discussed above.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

DId you not read my post? There is a finding of fundamental Christological heresy by an ecumenical council that separates OO from EO. There is no such authoritative finding at the root of the separation of the CC and EO. The say-so and authority are from an ecumenical council.

Better to stick with a solid criterion of judgment - like an ecumenical council - than a personal one.

1. What are the disputed “theological” issues? Are they theological or cultural? have they been subjected to dogmatic definitions by ecumenical councils or are we talking about legitimate theological opinions?
2. I agree. But what does this tell you? To me it says that among the EO culture and rite and praxis outweigh issues of faith judged in council. Or maybe there is just so much Romophobia. But it does not mean that there is an objective theological closeness.
3. Already discussed above.

Since the last Ecumenical Council happened in 787, there is little surprise that they didn’t opine on the Roman doctrines and dogma that developed after the Great Schism of 1054. No council since then is universally accepted as “Ecumenical”, including the Councils of 989 and of 1351.

There seems to be a certain insecurity on the part of some Eastern Catholics about their status as being “Orthodox” which is puzzling. Isn’t being “Eastern Catholic” enough. If Eastern Orthodox are characterised by “Romophobia” why are Eastern Catholics so keen to be called “Orthodox”?

This is also not my dispute, since I am neither EC nor EO and have no stake in how you call yourselves. However, it is surprising to me how tense the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox dialogue tends to be–it makes the Roman Catholic/Mormon dialogue seem congenial!