Great and Holy Council, 2013?

[Cavaradossi]

If someone thinks their Church has the fullness of truth and is the Church founded by Christ, why would one want to comprise or water down? Do ecumenists on both Catholic and Orthodox side don’t think they have the fullness of truth? I never get that one.

Sometimes, yes. Watch their language, and you will see that mentality come out when they say things like, “Church X has this aspect to their theology which we are missing,” or, “The body of Christ is broken,” or even worse, “X needs Y,” as if X were somehow incomplete without Y. These statements are of course ridiculous when we take into account the traditional self-understanding that the One Church has an exclusive claim to the truth.

 

[Contarini]

As a member and Priest of the Orthodox Church, I believe that the Church in which I was baptized and brought up in is in very truth the Church, that is, the true Church and only Church. I believe this for many reasons: by my personal conviction and by the inner testimony of the Spirit which breathes in the sacraments of the Church and by all that I could learn from Scripture and from the universal tradition of the Church. I am therefore compelled to regard all other Christian churches as deficient, and in many cases I can identify these deficiencies accurately enough. Therefore, for me, Christian reunion is simply universal conversion to Orthodoxy. I have no confessional loyalty; my loyalty belongs to Una Sancta.
Father Georges Florovsky

Again, a nice quotation but no example showing what truth is watered down by ecumenism.

And to be clear, what I’m looking for is a statement like this:
As Orthodox, we believe in X
Ecumenists (cite a specific example where this is has been done by mainstream Orthodox ecumenists; don’t just allege it out of thin air) compromise X in this specific way.

Are you really unable or unwilling to do this? If you are unwilling, why? If unable, can’t you see why this would raise questions about the validity of your position?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sometimes, yes. Watch their language, and you will see that mentality come out when they say things like, “Church X has this aspect to their theology which we are missing,” or, “The body of Christ is broken,” or even worse, “X needs Y,” as if X were somehow incomplete without Y. These statements are of course ridiculous when we take into account the traditional self-understanding that the One Church has an exclusive claim to the truth.

Did the Church need the homoousion? If it did, does that mean (by your reasoning) that the Church of the first three centuries was defective? Was the Church compromising with the heresy of Paul of Samosata when it used a term that derived from his theology (albeit in a radically altered sense)?

Never mind that your position is question-begging. It’s historically beyond question that divisions have occurred within Orthodox ranks. One of the questions of ecumenism (with regard to the “Orientals,” to take the relatively least controversial example) is whether in some cases what appeared to be a division away from Orthodoxy was more analogous to the split between ROCOR and the canonical jurisdictions, or the various splits that have occurred between Moscow and Constantinople, etc., at various points in Orthodox history. Now it may well be true that in fact the answer in every single case is “no.” But you can’t condemn people a priori just for asking the question.

I repeat to you what I have repeated to Mickey: what specific truth is compromised by this kind of language? You can’t say “the truth that the Orthodox Church is the only true Church,” because you define the Orthodox Church by its possession of the true Faith (unless I am badly mistaken).

Why is it so hard for you anti-ecumenical folk to come up with a single example? Sacramental theology, soteriology, eschatology, the field is wide. Yet every single time, so far, you just come back to “ecumenism compromises the truth that only we have the truth.” But surely that only makes sense if the truth that you have is itself being compromised. If, theoretically, it turned out that some other Christian group actually believed in substance what you believe (I’m not claiming that this is true, only that it’s a priori possible), wouldn’t they have been Orthodox all along?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If someone thinks their Church has the fullness of truth and is the Church founded by Christ, why would one want to comprise or water down? Do ecumenists on both Catholic and Orthodox side don’t think they have the fullness of truth? I never get that one.

Doctrinal development consists of continual clarification and enrichment. Whatever the “fullness of the faith” means, it doesn’t mean something static that never changes (in the normal meaning we give to the word “change”–Catholics and Orthodox don’t like that word, and many Orthodox don’t even seem to like the word "development).

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

I have already pointed out the ecumenist branch theorists calling themselves NCC and WCC. Then there is the Ravenna document which excluded the Russian Orthodox Church:

‘Without doubt the Ravenna agreement…in one of its main areas, primacy in the Eastern Church, is closer to the Roman Catholic doctrine. There is a fear that some Orthodox are starting to share this view and would like to reproduce within the Orthodox Church the Roman Catholic system of administrative authority of a supreme world bishop, a system which has never been part of Orthodoxy…For the Russian Church this document does not have any due authority’.
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

My last example (and there are many more) for this thread is the Balamand Agreement. There is no such thing as “sister churches” or the “two lungs theory”. Absent from this “agreement” were: The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Churches of Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Czechoslovakia.

You see Ed, it is compromise that we don’t want! The true faith has already been in place for 2000 years. If interfaith dialogue presents some kind of compromise for reunion….God will send us another St Mark of Ephesus to preserve the true faith.

It saddens me deeply that, in your arrogance, you have leveled challenges, and labeled people as prejudiced.

Thus far you have spouted many condescending remarks such as:

you “real Orthodox”

Why is it so hard for you anti-ecumenical folk

you don’t think the Protestants have much truth to compromise in the first place!

the rather easy (if annoying) task of pointing out the utter emptiness of your assertions.

And then you have the nerve to say:
**

I have reached the conclusion that anti-ecumenical rhetoric is empty and based on prejudice.

**
It seems that the only one here exhibiting the characteristic of prejudice…………is you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mark of Ephesus;9009045]I would have to disagree in comparing this forum (or any forum) to ecumenism. Were ecumenism simply a discussion (and somewhat of a debate) session, I would endorse it in full.

That is not the extent of its activities though. No, ecumenism attempts to distort the Faith through simplification (via “joint statements”). It gathers Christians together for a common prayer (prayer, as the Fathers teach, is only appropriate amongst those you commune with).

Ecumenism is a reaching out by peaceful means of communication revealing our differences and understandings of God and each other’s faith, whether they take part in debates and discussions revealing each ones view of a certain topic. So that each party knows and understands the others position regarding the subject in quesiotion.

So that Truth can be revealed from these efforts.

I don’t believe “ecumenism attempts to distort the Faith, via joint statements”. These joint statements are not dealing with “the doctrines of the Faith which can never change”, but “morality and dignity of life” in each ones community.

Another aspect of Ecumenism as well as dialogue, ecumenism brings about the religious community around the world to express concerns from peoples living in their communities. Especially when it involves government dictators and new laws that threaten morals and the dignity of life, the poor, the sick, the improsoned etc…

Ecumenical prayer involves these world wide human concerns of morals and the dignity of life, serving the poor and the sick. Prayer does not involve a Muslim, taking part in Holy Communion. This is what the Church Fathers are addressing not taking part in prayer with non-christians, non-catholic communions of another faith.

And yet, the ecumenical model has no precedent in the Fathers. There were no “joint statements” with Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, etc. No Father of the Church participated in common prayer with those who had fallen away.

This ecumenical model today is not the same as the Fathers counciled to defend and protect the apostolic faith against these heretics that were of the same fold teaching heresy.

This model is not the same today. The councils of the Fathers addressed the teachings of the faith. The model today of ecumenical efforts deals with secular laws addressing the morality of peoples, dignity of life, the poor, the sick and the elderly. From an ecumenical effort that reveals morals and protection of life.

I do not fear the destruction of my faith, but the possibility of the schism. Were many of the bishops of my church to enter into communion with another entity or deny Orthodox belief (as some are on the borderline of doing), myself and many other faithful Orthodox would have no other choice than to break communion with the transgressing bishops. I fear this as a possible reality (and it has happened several times throughout the history of the Church).

I sympathize with you here; But we cannot judge ones disposition as determining or undermining the whole of the Church?

In addition to this, ecumenism confuses the faithful. What sort of example do priests and bishops provide for the laity when they pray with those who would deny the sacraments? The Trinity? Proper ecclesiology? They provide only scandal and instead communicate the idea that no significant differences exist.

This becomes scandal when viewed incorrectly. Many communities have diversed religions consisting of Catholics, Jews, non-catholic Christians, Muslims etc… In order for these to live together, some communication is needed. Ecumenism.

The priests and bishops who have open communications to these diverse religious leaders in the same community address the same concerns of secular laws that deal with their morality, dignity of life, the poor, the sick, the elderly etc. on the “Local” level. If they pray together, they pray from their own faith for these community issues in which they live apart of. They do not all pray the Mass together and partake of the mysteries, this would be an incorrect view of ecumenism and scandal.

I understand your concerns that deal with an abuse of ecumenical efforts and the fear of becoming laxed in faith by these efforts. The gospel message of Jesus Christ begins with loving God, Loving your neighbor, and when we have too, we use words through ecumenical communications. Truth is never lacking in Love through true ecumenical efforts that addresses the respect for the dignity of life, death, infants in the womb, the poor, the sick, the elderly, morality, and secular that may threaten these in a negative way, such as marriage between a man and a woman, contraception etc…

But what I speak of and what you relate to ecumenical efforts regarding a Holy Council become very different in nature, because from Orthodoxy exists many different views of opposition when dealing with the same faith. The purpose of the Holy Council would have to deal with everyones concerns relating to life, not necessarily each ones position of “Faith”. That is another council or different type of ecumenical effort to solve with the same house.

 

[Contarini]

I have already pointed out the ecumenist branch theorists calling themselves NCC and WCC.

Question-begging, as I said above. You surely can’t be saying that ecumenical Protestants are heretical for thinking that they are part of the Church? Isn’t the reason why we (in your view) are not part of the Church that we are heretical? Therefore, our mere belief that we are part of the Church can’t be the reason for our heresy.

Surely this conversation is primarily about Orthodox ecumenists and whether they are compromising Orthodoxy by their ecumenism. So clearly in your view mere participation in the WCC and NCC is “compromise.” OK–so show me just what the Orthodox participants think they are doing in participating, and how their specific statements violate Orthodox doctrine.

Then there is the Ravenna document which excluded the Russian Orthodox Church:

‘Without doubt the Ravenna agreement…in one of its main areas, primacy in the Eastern Church, is closer to the Roman Catholic doctrine. There is a fear that some Orthodox are starting to share this view and would like to reproduce within the Orthodox Church the Roman Catholic system of administrative authority of a supreme world bishop, a system which has never been part of Orthodoxy…For the Russian Church this document does not have any due authority’.

---

Again, this is vague. Just what did the statement say? Just how is it unorthodox? Note the language in your source: “closer to,” “starting to share”. . . . this isn’t clear language. It doesn’t say just what is wrong. Furthermore, it’s a question here of polity rather than doctrine, surely.

A further difficulty with your position is that even if you could show that ecumenists are wrong, you wouldn’t have proven that they are compromising.

My last example (and there are many more) for this thread is the Balamand Agreement. There is no such thing as “sister churches” or the “two lungs theory”.

No such thing as sister churches? Aren’t, say, Constantinople and Moscow sister churches? Aren’t they sister churches even when they are temporarily estranged? Wasn’t Rome a sister church when it was Orthodox (in your view)?

As for the two lungs theory: are you suggesting that Western Christianity is valueless and was valueless even before the schism? If you aren’t suggesting this, then you are not in fact rejecting the two lungs theory.

You quote Florovsky earlier, but Florovsky never held to your comprehensive anti-ecumenism any more than he held to my position. He was in between. Perhaps he’s a good starting point, since I respect him deeply and it seems you do too. I think his criticisms of the ecumenical movement are sound, and carry great weight since he was one of its founders!

This article by Florovsky shows that he is unwilling to say simply that any “non-Orthodox” church has ceased to be in any sense part of the Church. And that’s the key difference between an ecumenical and anti-ecumenical position. I’d call him a conservative ecumenist, very much along the lines of Pope Benedict. I think he has constructive criticisms of both our positions.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

Question-begging

Not at all.

Isn’t the reason why we (in your view) are not part of the Church that we are heretical?

Are you asking my opinion of protestants?..way off topic.

Surely this conversation is primarily about Orthodox ecumenists

It’s supposed to be about a possible Great Council of the Holy Orthodox Church.

So clearly in your view mere participation in the WCC and NCC is “compromise.”

Many, incluing the Antiochian Orthodox, have removed themselves from the NCC…I am praying for the day when they all remove themselves from both entities.

No such thing as sister churches?

No.

Aren’t, say, Constantinople and Moscow sister churches?

They are the same Holy Orthodox Church.

As for the two lungs theory: are you suggesting that Western Christianity is valueless and was valueless even before the schism?

East and West were one Church…the two lung theory is modern innovative language.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the OP please

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mickey;9056565]East and West were one Church…the two lung theory is modern innovative language

.

Only when you take the Popes words out of their context, which appears you have done. The two lungs references biblical principles as the body of Christ always being One, possessing many members with different functions. It takes two lungs for a body to breathe and have life. St.Paul taught the same as does the Pope when St.Paul references different body parts performing different functions as one body in Christ.

And yet you “Mickey” pretend to call this biblical reference the Pope teaches from St.Pauls example as a “theory”?

Besides this one body of Christ that breathes life in both the East and West with two independent Lungs in one Body of Christ, does not reference a holy Council of 2013. But a Holy Council trying to breathe with only one lung, which is not impossible, but very difficult and is handicapped.

A Great Holy Council is never an Ecumenical effort as described by joining of different “Faith’s” sharing common concerns of our humanity.

A Great Holy Council are members of the same faith, with divisions among themselves which takes on a whole different picture and process of Ecumenical efforts, differing from Ecumenical efforts involving “un-believers” being described by Catholics in a way to evangelize by exposing others to the Love of God through Jesus Christ, to which the Catholic Church has been called to do and is doing it.

 

[Mickey]

.And yet you “Mickey” pretend to call this biblical reference the Pope teaches from St.Pauls example as a “theory”?

Sorry Gabe. I am not pretending. The East/West repiratory analogy is indeed a relatively new linguistic description.

If there is another Great Council…the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Orthodox Church will breathe with both lungs freely.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sorry Gabe. I am not pretending. The East/West repiratory analogy is indeed a relatively new linguistic description.

If there is another Great Council…the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Orthodox Church will breathe with both lungs freely.

Thank you, you rest my case; Pretending to breathe with one lung remains a handicap for a Holy Council to convene united as one, when such divisions remain among the Orthodox independent, operating autocephalous church’s.

A Holy Council Would require the whole body parts to function as one in order to be One. Remaining in divisions does not reveal a body of believers breathing with two lungs freely?

Grant it the two lung example describes a “new linguistic” or different type of function in the body of Christ, never the less, it is never a “theory” as you suggested, but a reality from a biblical teaching made in present day language in understanding, Yet the context revealing the content of the biblical revelation never changes, that the body of Christ consist of different members, with different functions in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church in the body of Christ.

 

[Mickey]

Pretending to breathe with one lung remains a handicap

There is no respirator …or handicap. We believe we are breathing free and clear.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

In the end, we have too many differences to be resolved at a council.

Do you really think so?

It would be extraordinarily difficult to get the bishops of both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church together in a council, and I have no idea how that would happen. But if it did, that, I think, would be the hard part.

A council would be the *ideal *place to work out these differences, and I definitely think the inner workings of an ecumenical council would be quite efficacious in resolving them. We’re closer than you imagine.

How would you know the Holy Spirit is guiding such an action? I trust the men who have actually had actually seen the uncreated energies of God (which is almost entirely monks), none of which would lend support to the kind of union you have in mind.

Their great holiness, while absolutely necessary for this kind of endeavor, is not alone sufficient to constitute the necessary expertise. I dare say that the monks of Mount Athos know very, very little about the Roman Catholic faith. And why would they? I’m not belittling them or insulting them at all; far from it! It’s just that they have absolutely no experience of it whatsoever, so despite the inestimably great levels of holiness of those who have seen the uncreated energy of God, that doesn’t somehow grant them a mystic awareness of the actual experience of the world’s Catholics.

Either side would have to admit being wrong, and that certainly isn’t happening on the Orthodox side (and I doubt traditionalist Catholics will be fond of it either).

The Catholics are closer to it than you think. We already are prepared to concede quite a lot.

And the Orthodox would not have to admit that there’s anything wrong with their beliefs; what they would have to admit is, rather, that they are incorrect about what the Catholic Church teaches and requires. That’s not admitting to “being wrong.” There’s nothing wrong with Holy Orthodoxy (well, nothing so wrong as to be, from our perspective, a barrier to unity, that is).

As Edwin put it:

The Orthodox would need to concede no more to Rome than many of you are already willing to concede to the Orientals: that the “other side’s” position is infelicitous rather than heretical.

Most RCs I know–and I’m talking about folks who are orthodox by the official RC standards–would be quite willing to concede that their doctrinal positions have often been poorly expressed and poorly implemented–just not that they are actually heretical.

Ecumenism is just another attack on hesychasm. Many of our own clergy have neglected and suppressed the teaching of such a thing. Ecumenism, in its acceptance of various spiritual traditions, leaves no room for such a thing.

Can you elaborate? I’m genuinely unaware of how this is the case. Even if ecumenism were everything you suspect it is - something that compromises the truth for the sake of unity - and even if the Orthodox capitulated to ecumenism with Roman Catholics, hesychasm still would be unthreatened, in my estimation, because the Catholic Church has no problem with it. I attended an eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy very recently, and the homily during the second Sunday of the Great Fast was about hesychasm; the priest taught us about it because St. Gregory Palamas was being commemorated. And this was an eastern church in communion with Rome…

No, even the seer of uncreated light cannot speak infallibly. Our language is incapable of proclaiming the fullness of truth … The glorified one may write or speak, and in doing so, we get a glimpse of God’s mysteries. This, however, does not mean such things are infallible. Human words cannot fully explain the mysteries of God.

Just to clarify, we Roman Catholics agree wholeheartedly that human words cannot fully explain the mysteries of God, and that our language is incapable of proclaming the fullness of truth. Catholic ideas of the Church’s infallibility do not deny these truths, because “infallibility” doesn’t mean “explaining fully the mysteries of God.” To speak infallibly never under any circumstances means to exhaust the fullness of the divine mysteries. It simply means to teach without error.

Devoid of error and complete in its expression of truth. From an Orthodox perspective, mankind is not capable of producing such a thing.

That’s true from a Catholic perspective, too. As I mentioned, when we speak of infallibility we mean “devoid of error” only. There is no implication that a teaching exhausts or explains fully the mysteries of God.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Each side comes into a theological dispute with certain theological principles they want to maintain. The Christological disputes are a particularly good example of this.One side rightly wanted to maintain the integrity of Jesus’ humanity lest it be swallowed up in divinity–the other rightly wanted to maintain the paradox of the Incarnation in which the Word truly takes on flesh and does not simply unite itself morally with a human being.

The process by which Christological orthodoxy was formed was one of compromise–not in the sense of either side giving up truth, but in the sense of each side recognizing the validity of the other’s concerns and seeking language that reflected those concerns.

Modern ecumenism is no different. The idea that ecumenism is about compromising truth is inaccurate, slanderous nonsense and people of integrity and good will ought to stop repeating it.

Ecumenism is about compromise only in the sense that the orthodox Councils involved compromise–finding language that reflects the valid concerns of the “other side” while not compromising the truth that has been revealed to one’s own “side”; or, with regard to practice, tolerating differences in custom when those differences can be discerned to embody the same truth.

Edwin

This is a great explanation, Edwin! Very clear and precise.

Eventually, a way was found to explain the homoousios while still preserving the distinction of persons. I don’t care whether you want to call this “compromise” or not. But whatever you call it, it’s what modern ecumenists are trying to do. It makes no sense to defend one and condemn the other. If one is compromise, the other is too. If one isn’t, the other isn’t.

Exactly.

 

[Mickey]

We’re closer than you imagine.

I think that Orthodox and Roman Catholics are much further apart than you imagine.

But the Roman Catholics have become much closer to some protestant factions…such as the Pentecostals…because of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

and even if the Orthodox capitulated to ecumenism with Roman Catholics, hesychasm still would be unthreatened, in my estimation, because the Catholic Church has no problem with it. I attended an eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy very recently, and the homily during the second Sunday of the Great Fast was about hesychasm; the priest taught us about it because St. Gregory Palamas was being commemorated. And this was an eastern church in communion with Rome.

Hesychasm (Palamism) is completely incompatible with Latin Scholasticism. One cannot have both Aquinas and Palamas because they’re mutually exclusive. Some have said that Aquinas and Palamas may be reconciled, but I don’t see how we can reconcile Thomas’ conviction that we see the divine essence with Palamas’ conviction that we don’t see the divine essence, only the energies.

 

[hazcompat]

Hesychasm (Palamism) is completely incompatible with Latin Scholasticism. One cannot have both Aquinas and Palamas because they’re mutually exclusive. Some have said that Aquinas and Palamas may be reconciled, but I don’t see how we can reconcile Thomas’ conviction that we see the divine essence with Palamas’ conviction that we don’t see the divine essence, only the energies.

While I comprehend your position, I can see a perspective where they are not essentially exclusive. We can experience the Light whether or not we can understand wither it comes or is going.

peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hesychasm (Palamism) is completely incompatible with Latin Scholasticism. One cannot have both Aquinas and Palamas because they’re mutually exclusive. Some have said that Aquinas and Palamas may be reconciled, but I don’t see how we can reconcile Thomas’ conviction that we see the divine essence with Palamas’ conviction that we don’t see the divine essence, only the energies.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. The underlying problem is that to Eastern Christians, the idea of seeing an essence is nonsense, because an essence is simply an abstraction without an hypostasis to make it existent. One cannot see the essence of anything in the same way as one can never see Plato’s aspatial and atemporal Forms. The Eastern understanding is not that God is made real by some abstract essence but that God is made real in the person of the Father (who is God without source and the fountain of divinity), who eternally begets the person of the Son (who is true God from true God), and from Whom the person of the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I think that Orthodox and Roman Catholics are much further apart than you imagine.

I know you do. I fully acknowledge that this is a point of disagreement between us.

But the Roman Catholics have become much closer to some protestant factions…such as the Pentecostals…because of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Actually, in several demonstrable ways my experience indicates that the way Christianity is taught and practiced in the Latin Church is coming to resemble the Orthodox Christian life more and more.

I remember a few months ago when, in a thread on the difference between us on original sin, for instance, Hesychios said that he was at a Roman Catholic Mass with his relatives, and he heard a homily from the Latin priest about original sin and baptism that he completely agreed with.

Hesychasm (Palamism) is completely incompatible with Latin Scholasticism. One cannot have both Aquinas and Palamas because they’re mutually exclusive. Some have said that Aquinas and Palamas may be reconciled, but I don’t see how we can reconcile Thomas’ conviction that we see the divine essence with Palamas’ conviction that we don’t see the divine essence, only the energies.

What you say may be possible. Despite the high regard the Catholic Church has for Saint Thomas Aquinas, it’s not as though everything he says is true and perfect. That’s obviously not the Catholic position, or else the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary would never have been accepted.

But actually, I don’t believe the assertion that they’re necessarily at odds. That to me smacks of the kind of propaganda that regards scholasticism as inherently rationalistic and anti-mystical. I’ll not deny that sometimes scholasticism has taken that route, but its sub-par thinkers - and overzealous traditionalist Latin Catholics today - almost never do justice to the wisdom of scholasticism’s great paragons, who have a far greater capacity for nuance and mysticism than the unfortunate eastern stereotype indicates.

In any case, regardless of whether they’re at odds, here’s the picture you have in the Catholic Church: the Latin Church highly revering Saint Thomas Aquinas as the pre-eminent theologian, while our eastern Catholic brothers and sisters who are in full communion with us believe fully in hesychasm and commemorate and revere Saint Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of the Great Fast just as eastern Orthodox do.

This picture makes sense to me, because I think that both the eastern churches and the Latin Church are fully orthodox. The reason eastern Orthodox have never been able to convince me otherwise is this: when they explain and defend what they believe, I find myself convinced 100%, and I also find myself puzzled at why they think what they have just described so beautifully and accurately contradicts what I have been taught in the Latin Church… because it almost never does.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. The underlying problem is that to Eastern Christians, the idea of seeing an essence is nonsense, because an essence is simply an abstraction without an hypostasis to make it existent. One cannot see the essence of anything in the same way as one can never see Plato’s aspatial and atemporal Forms. The Eastern understanding is not that God is made real by some abstract essence but that God is made real in the person of the Father (who is God without source and the fountain of divinity), who is eternally begetting the person of the Son (who is true God from true God), and from Whom the person of the Holy Spirit eternally is proceeding.

Case in point: I agree with everything you just said.