Dear brother Dzheremi,
I find the Catholic Church to be the perfect sign and evidence of – well – Catholicity.
Yes, I understand from this and your last reply that this is how you view Catholicism. That’s fine and all, but it still doesn’t really help answer what I asked in reply to Ghosty: What is a person supposed to
do if the scholastic method does not produce the results it is presumed to produce? I think this is a negative side to your sort of “big tent” approach: Not all things actually fit together, and repeating how great they are doesn’t help. Some things, as they are described by Latins or pro-Latin camps, don’t actually work even with other Latins (keep in mind, I was canonically Latin through my 4-5 years in the CC; I did not develop a distaste for their way of doing things before/without actually doing things that way)
I’m referring to the idea that theology as such is man’s attempt to understand God. Theology will always be limited because of that. Theology is not the Faith itself, but is the expression of Faith. We need to look beyond those expressions, and search for our common Faith. True unity lies in that, not in any sort of uniatism.
Yes, theology is nothing more than “the expression of Faith”. So I am curious how it is that you think we can somehow “look beyond” it to search for a common faith not dependent on it. Is there some sense by which I can agree with you without taking a certain theological stance as a result?
This seems like a strange sort of dualism that reduces rather than strengthens our commitment to whatever truth we
do find in common (and I recognize that there is some, but I don’t think it implies that we can be unified now; see below.)
As HH Pope Shenoute (Coptic) and HH Pope Paul VI (of blessed memory) affirmed together:
With sincerity and urgency we recall that true charity, rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each one’s Traditions, is an essential element of this search for perfect communion.
And yet
there is no communion between the two. Perhaps because respect for each others traditions is something far less than sharing them/endorsing them as correct.
HH’s Mar Ignatius Jacob (Syriac Orthodox) and Paul VI:
Progress has already been made…in agreement that there is no difference in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man, even if over the centuries difficulties have arisen out of the different theological expressions by which this faith was expressed.
Yes, progress has been made. And again, there is no communion. I would not be surprised if the statement is meant as a general comment on the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian divide, as I have read similar things coming out of dialogues and pan-Orthodox unity, from which there has also resulted no communion. In any case, I certainly wouldn’t take this as the slightest bit of a sign that Rome is in any way considered Orthodox by actual Orthodox churches. That’s plainly false.
HH’s Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas (Syriac Orthodox) and JP2 (of thrice-blessed memory):
The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter.
This (and several more of these quotes that I had to delete to stay within the word limit for one post) is something that I would expect an OO leader to say in the interests of trying to heal the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian divide.
Can you please specify a bit more?
Things have changed over the years (I have even read some modern Greek Orthodox sources that are quite encouraged by certain Vatican documents on this topic), but I was taught in RCIA that the classical position of the CC on original sin was that man inherited the consequence and guilt of Adam’s sin (as a sort of “stain”) and that this came out of a certain understanding from Augustine (see section 5 of
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Augustine) that says that we are, in a sense, “copies” of Adam’s soul, rather than having been affected with death and passions that were brought into the world by his act of original sin, as I understand the Orthodox view to be (this has wide consequences for how both churches view the crucifixion, the necessity/non-necessity of the IC, etc).
Anyway, “reason purified by Grace” means the human intellect/Reason moved by Grace. As St. Athanasius teaches us, man’s use of reason was diminished because of the Fall. So Reason alone, as taught by the Catholic Magisterium (see my quotes above) is never sufficient on its own to come to a knowledge of God, even natural knowledge.
Okay. Can reason be purified in this manner? (Sorry, I haven’t come across any documents on the Orthodox side that deal with this question, so I am curious as to where it comes from.)
It seems to me that this focus on reason is itself a hallmark of the rationalized, compartmentalized, and dare I say it “scholastic” nature of Western theology. Again, I don’t really get it, but that’s okay. I guess I don’t have to, if you’re willing to concede that it
can be fruitless, and hence should be avoided to the extent that it spawns neuroses in some people. (I really do think that this approach to the faith is responsible for the scrupulousity that is common to RCs, and apparently seems odd to OO.)
ROCOR received about 20 or so clergy (if I remember correctly) and their parishes alone from various groups last winter and there have been several so far this year --and we’re only half way through the year. 
Orthodoxy itself is fairly small in the US, but that is changing, too, by God’s grace and bountiful mercy, of course.