I don’t think that the filioque is a very good example. For one thing, there are more issues surrounding it than just whatever the doctrine is supposed to be expressing,
I specified
theologically. That was the focus of
all past debates between East and West. It is MODERN EO’xy that has made the
text an issue of separation.
e.g., the way it was unilaterally inserted by the Latin Pope. Even if it is understood in an Orthodox fashion it still causes problems because according to the understanding of many EO.
He did not unilaterally insert it in the
unversal Creed. That’s a myth invented by MODERN EO polemicists. In fact, he did not even insert it unilaterally in the
local Latin Creed. To repeat, that he inserted it unilaterally in the Creed of the WHOLE Church is just a myth invented and perpretrated by modern EO polemicists. As far as the OO, the OO are perfectly fine being in communion with a Church who has a different Creed TEXTUALLY than other Churches (namely, the Armenians). The OO, on the principles we have discussed in another thread, live by a unity in FAITH, instead of theological expression or mere text. To repeat, that the mere text of the Creed has become an issue is an invention of modern EO controversialists. That was not the focus of the Fathers East and West, and if EO profess faithfulness to Tradition, they should keep the focus on the theology, instead of the pretense that the text can somehow divide the Faith.
Since Andrew’s (and my) criterion is not uniformity in externalities, but orthodoxy, it is important to have agreement across churches that seek to unite on what orthodox Christianity consists of. What your idea of looking beyond differences in theology misses is that there is no agreement on the orthodoxy of Rome outside of Rome itself.
The official theological Agreements between the OO and CC affirm that we all share the same Faith in Christology, Sacraments, basic ecclesiology (High Petrine), the Creed, the Trinity, veneration of Mary, veneration of the Saints, the Mass, etc,. etc., etc. Might I suggest doing a study on the past formal common OOC-CC statements? CNEWA has a good compendium of them. Note: marriage and pastoral agreements on the sharing of Sacraments exists between the Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic Churches.
For all the high-level talks you can produce to claim that there really is no difference between Rome and Alexandria
Please show us exactly where I said that. If you can’t produce it, please retract your claim.
obviously Alexandria feels otherwise. It is not enough for only one side to believe or think that they are demonstrating a common faith. I’m sure Rome would be in union with darn near everyone if these common agreements it has made with the OOC, the Nestorians, etc. were sufficient to actually establish Rome’s legitimacy in the eyes of another church or communion. As it is, I don’t think they’re nearly as profound or wide-reaching as you’d like them to be.
And its not as profound or wide-reaching between the OO and EO either. What’s your point? We are all still working towards unity. I don’t know why you would put down the work being done, or try to diminish the hope people have for reunion. I’m very real about the prospects, and I’m grounded in the fact that issues still separate ALL the Churches. The problem is that many pretend there is separation where there is none, and like to pretend that the Latin CC is soooo different from the other OC’s.
The fact remains that Rome is not orthodox not because of any kind of misunderstanding
That’s not a fact, at least not between the OOC & CC. Again, read the common OOC-CC statements that have already come about. We are hoping for unity through understanding, not uniatism.
after all, if such-and-such church has already come together with Rome, and jointly issued a document about each other’s faith, then it safe to say that whatever misunderstanding existed before the dialogue has been resolved as relates to the topic of the document
I’m not aware of such agreements, nor that anyone has ever claimed that such agreements exist already. There have been Christological agreements, which also included statements of common belief on a lot of other matters (a partial list of which I gave above). It seems you are trying to contemn an idea that no one has ever claimed. That’s a straw man, right?
but because of competing and not accepted understandings.
If what you say is “fact,” then there would not be any dialogues, right? All we’d have are Churches hurling anathemas at each other, hoping for individual conversions. If what you say is “fact,” please explain why all the OOC’s have signed common agreements with the CC condemning proselytization between Churches?
And I maintain that not all dogmas can or should be kept, if Rome is serious about reunion. I have always felt that Rome is in an unenviable position with regard to these talks, as Rome has much to give up that the Orthodox do not, since they never adopted these strange understandings and doctrines to begin with. I think that this is why reunion with Rome is a pipe dream, unfortunately.
One could say others have more Faith in the Spirit. If the nearly 1500-year debate between the OOC & CC on Christology has been resolved, how could you possibly claim this? And we did it without either side having to give up anything. For 1500 years, BOTH sides thought they could never come together in understanding on the matter. With these other issues, we’ve got a head start because ONE side already believes we can come together in understanding. Never say never, especially where the Holy Spriit is concerned.
Blessings,
Marduk
