www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX BODIES MAY MERGE, DEFY MOSCOW

ciznec --

It has nothing to do with the liturgical form itself -- it has to do with the dogmatical differences. If we can reach unity on dogmatical issues, the liturgical differences won't in themselves be an obstacle.

Brendan

"So, if I understand Brendan's point, there is no possibility of a reunion of the Orthodox and Catholic churches because any reunion will be regarded by the right-wing as a sell-out to uniatism."

Not what I said. A true corporate reunion which is perceived by Orthodoxy (hierarchs and laity alike) as an embrace by Rome of Orthodoxy would likely not be problematic.

"And the unilateral actions of any individual church will be condemned because it didn't involve the whole of Orthodoxy, which in itself seems like an impossibility because there's no emperor to call a council."

Not exactly. No Orthodox Church can unilaterally make *any* pronouncement about the faith that differs from that of its sister Orthodox Churches without risking a break in communion with them. Union with Rome has clear implications in terms of dogma -- as the Vatican itself has recognized, and so any "unilateral" act of union by a particular Orthodox Church would, itself, be a dogmatical statement, and to the extent that such dogmatical statement were at odds with the dogmatic truth confessed by its sister churches, would render the former subject to excommunication by the latter.

"So, do we just give up?"

No, but the only venue in which a true corporate reunion can be finally addressed in a definitive manner would be an ecumenical council with participation of all of the local Orthodox Churches and Rome. Everything else is a preparation for that possibility.

Brendan

"You just don't understand the Orthodox perspective, Dr. John: "The absence of communion is the greatest obstacle to our being in communion". Or, conversely, "If only we were in communion with you, there would be no problem with our being in communion". There's a sort of logic to it, but on the whole, not very helpful."

The real issue is not what you have written, but the fact that there are serious dogmatic differences. Dogma is not Latin or Byzantine, it is universal. The Latins agree on that. Trying to pretend that dogmatical differences are in fact simply differences in local expression is the exercise that is supremely unhelpful to the overall dialogue, and rightly the one which draws suspicion from both Rome and Orthodoxy.

Brendan

"The real issue is whether the Orthodox actually believe that there can be a Christian orthodoxy that is not exclusively Byzantine."

To the contrary, the real issue is whether dogma is universal or is simply the expression of a local tradition. Rome and Orthodoxy both believe that it is universal, whereas those who seek to swep dogmatical issues under the rug in a race to intercommunion think otherwise.

To take an example, the ecumenical creed is just that -- ecumenical, universal. It's not a "Byzantine formulation", but the universal one.

"Despite signing a joint Christological statement with them, they seem unable to bring themselve to actually extend respect and recognition to the theological expressions of those Churches, let alone go the final mile to opening communion."

In an interview a year or so ago, Catholicos Aram I of the See of Cilicia noted that the Armenian Church was also not in a great hurry to rush to intercommunion -- precisely because its own concerns relating to recognition of saints, anathemas, conciliar formulations and the like needed to be addressed, despite the agreement relating to the theological issue.

"In the minds of far too many Orthodox Christians, Orthodoxy is byzantism, plain and simple."

And in the minds of far too many Christians in communion with Rome, true Christianity is impossible without communion with the Papacy, under any and all circumstances, plain and simple. Papocentrism is alive and well in all of the churches in communion with Rome today.

But to get back to your point regarding the quote from Fr. Schmemann, this is actually quite telling of the differences between our two Churches, Stuart. In my personal experience, the kind of criticism offered by Fr. Schmemann is quite common, actually, in Orthodoxy. As Orthodox, my wife and I have been quite surprised at the level of ecclesiastical self-flagellation that goes on in our churches -- a common topic for preaching by both priests and, particularly, Bishops. True, we have our traditionalists that are hesitstant to criticize anything, but at least in American Orthodoxy there is a definitely a tendency toward much self-criticism. This stands in sharp, well-defined, contrast to our experiences in the Roman Catholic communion over the course of most of our lives, where the same level of self-criticism is extremely rare in mainstream Catholic circles. There are a lot of critiques offered by Catholic intellectuals of all stripes, but apart from the dissident newspapers and groups, and away from the symposia and colloquia, and criticizing particular practices here and there (most often based on their incompatibility with Vatican pronouncements) there is remarkably little criticism of the Catholic Church as a whole, of its whole system. Again, in our experience, the level of self-criticism, on the ecclesial level, within mainstream Orthodoxy is considerably higher than it is within mainstream Catholicism.

Brendan

>>>To the contrary, the real issue is whether dogma is universal or is simply the expression of a local tradition. Rome and
Orthodoxy both believe that it is universal, whereas those who seek to swep dogmatical issues under the rug in a race
to intercommunion think otherwise.<<<

I disagree, Brendan, on the basis that too often the Orthodox seem to believe that dogma refers to one specific mode of expersion of truth, rather than to concurrence on truth itself. Will, e.g., the Non-Chalcedonians be required to accept the Christological expressions of Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III? Will the Church of the East be required to express its Christology according to the terms laid out at Ephesus? If one reaches concurrence on the underlying Christology, then why is it necessary to impose upon them a uniquely Byzantine synthesis of doctrinal expression?

Conversely, the Orthodox who ostensibly claim a disdain for legalism seem suddenly to become canon nitpickers when it comes to the second millennium Latin use of the word "dogma", dogmatically refusing to subject the use of the word in various Latin documents to the kind of historical-critical analysis it needs. "When is a dogma really a dogma", or, rather, "Are all Latin dogmas really dogmas" are questions that should be asked. Instead, the Orthodox take these expressions at face value, even though they KNOW that the Latins have a somewhat different understanding about how the word dogma was used, particularly in the Tridentine era. This amounts to a kind of ecclsiological fundamentalism.

>>>To take an example, the ecumenical creed is just that -- ecumenical, universal. It's not a "Byzantine formulation", but
the universal one. <<<

And so the Latin Church has admitted, making the Greek Symbol of Faith the only ecumenically binding one. At this point, the Orthodox are arguing about gestures and face, not substance and faith. They want Rome to formally suppress the Filioque in the Latin rite as a sign of contrition, not to mention an opportunity for some triumphalism.

>>>n an interview a year or so ago, Catholicos Aram I of the See of Cilicia noted that the Armenian Church was also not in
a great hurry to rush to intercommunion -- precisely because its own concerns relating to recognition of saints,
anathemas, conciliar formulations and the like needed to be addressed, despite the agreement relating to the
theological issue. <<<

One needs to inquire whether, if the Orthodox attitude were somewhat different, the reservations of the Armenians would be more muted or even set aside. The process is dynamic, and requires a degree of kenosis by all parties--none of which I sense as being forthcoming, but least of all among the Orthodox, who, as Alexander Schmemman pointed out some 27 years ago, seem congenitally incapable of admitting any sort of error, at any time, and in any place.

>>>And in the minds of far too many Christians in communion with Rome, true Christianity is impossible without communion
with the Papacy, under any and all circumstances, plain and simple. Papocentrism is alive and well in all of the
churches in communion with Rome today.<<<

True enough. But the kind of papocentrism you rightfully excoriate is now held by only a handful of people on the fringe, not by the consensus fidei. On the other hand, more than one Orthodox bishop has recently stated that a universal primacy, a primacy of love, not of jurisdiction, is an essential element of Christian ecclesiology, and that the only rational place for this primacy is the Church of Rome. They also noted that Orthodox has suffered greatly over the last 900 years precisely because it lacked such primacy, just as much as the Latin Church has suffered through the same period due to its lack of conciliarity.

>>>In my personal experience, the kind of criticism offered by Fr. Schmemann is quite
common, actually, in Orthodoxy. <<<

It tends to be common mainly in the United States, and mainly in the OCA. Look at those who were students of Fr. Alexander, and the reason becomes clear. Yet outside of the OCA, even in the US, Fr. Alexander and many of his students are criticized by "defenders of true Orthodoxy", and their attitude is far more prevalent outside of the United States--and particularly in the Moscow Patriarchate, whose approach to Orthodoxy was described by Fr. Alexander to a T.

>>>As Orthodox, my wife and I have been quite surprised at the level of ecclesiastical
self-flagellation that goes on in our churches -- a common topic for preaching by both priests and, particularly, Bishops.<<<

As I know more Orthodox than Catholic bishops, I agree with you. However, because I know so many Orthodox bishops, I also know the extent to which those who do engage in samokritika are themselves subjected to real persecution as "modernists", "ecumenists" and enemies of "Holy Orthodoxy". Roasting bishops seems to be an Orthodox pastime. Outside the US, Metropolitan Tikhon's integralism is far more the rule than the exception.

It is very important for you to recognize the extent of "American Exceptionalism", even in Orthodoxy. Where else but in the US could we find not only the degree of openness among the Orthodox faithful, but also the degree of cooperation which exists between the Orthodox and the Catholic communities? The pluralism of American society and the Western concept of self-criticism have affected Orthodoxy for the better here--just as it has also posed serious challenges. Schmemman in his diaries was very quick to note the difference in attitude between Orthodox in America and Orthodox elsewhere, and even between the Emigre community and native-born American Orthodox.

>>>This stands in sharp, well-defined, contrast to our experiences in the
Roman Catholic communion over the course of most of our lives, where the same level of self-criticism is extremely rare
in mainstream Catholic circles. <<<

This is due mainly to (a) the lack of a real Latin custom of "lay theologians", or of the laity as guardians of the faith; and (b) the dislocation and resulting seige mentality that resulted from the imperfect implementation of Vatican II.

>>>There are a lot of critiques offered by Catholic intellectuals of all stripes, but apart from
the dissident newspapers and groups, and away from the symposia and colloquia, and criticizing particular practices
here and there (most often based on their incompatibility with Vatican pronouncements) there is remarkably little
criticism of the Catholic Church as a whole, of its whole system. <<<

Mainly because, within that communion, this debate takes place among the leadership itself, and thus tends to be muted except when one of the more extreme advocates of some position goes public. Yet within the bowels of the Catholic Church, there is much more self-criticism than the laity know.

"one reaches concurrence on the underlying Christology, then why is it necessary to impose upon them a uniquely Byzantine synthesis of doctrinal expression?"

The problem with this is that it reduces the Ecumenical Councils to Byzantine Councils, espousing Byzantine theology, according to Byzantine principles, with a fundamentally Byzantine synthesis. When did that reduction happen?

In any case, it's a serious problem, because Orthodoxy *does* consider the E.C.'s to be ecumenical, not Byzantine only.

"Conversely, the Orthodox who ostensibly claim a disdain for legalism seem suddenly to become canon nitpickers when it comes to the second millennium Latin use of the word "dogma", dogmatically refusing to subject the use of the word in various Latin documents to the kind of historical-critical analysis it needs"

But, seriously, if we can't take the Latin Church on its word when it says it is proclaiming a dogma, how can we take it at its word when it says *anything*? Who's on first, here? More fundamentally, if the Latin Church intends a hierarchy of dogma, such that some dogmas are "really, really dogma", whereas others are "sort of dogma", the inherent confusion for the average believer becomes immediately evident, hence indicating a fatal flaw in that taxonomic system. And if this is really the case, why not admit it? I haven't seen from the Vatican the kind of hierarchy of dogmas idea that is sometimes (and understandably) espoused by the more ecumenically minded folks.

"They want Rome to formally suppress the Filioque in the Latin rite as a sign of contrition, not to mention an opportunity for some triumphalism."

We all seem to think the worst of each other's motives, don't we? To me, the reason for this is that the Creed is a basic cornerstone of unity. Again, the creed of Nicea-Constantinople is not a "Byzantine formulation", but the *ecumenical* creed. Orthodoxy cannot countenance different versions of the Creed being condoned for public liturgical recitation -- if unity means anything, we should at the very least have a commonly recited creed. The Filioque, if it means what the Vatican seems to be leaning towards, is, in virtually every vernacular translation, inherently confusing and subject to the precise interpretation that the Vatican's recent statements purport is not intended. One wonders what purpose it continues to serve, given the negligible use of Latin in the Latin Church today, if not merely the need to save face on the Latin side. But, in any case, even if the filioque is the most appropriate term for the *Latin* translation of the Creed (which seems doubtful), it seems like having two English (for example) translations of the same Creed is not any way to show forth the fundamental unity which some allege exists today.

"But the kind of papocentrism you rightfully excoriate is now held by only a handful of people on the fringe, not by the consensus fidei"

Not at all. If I open up the Arlington Catholic Herald, almost *always* the front page has a reference to the Pope, and there is a prominent Papal story in the front of the newspaper. The same holds true for other "Catholic" media. It's papocentric. I didn't say it was necessarily ultramontane, but it is without doubt incredibly papocentric, particularly when viewed from the outside.

"On the other hand, more than one Orthodox bishop has recently stated that a universal primacy, a primacy of love, not of jurisdiction, is an essential element of Christian ecclesiology, and that the only rational place for this primacy is the Church of Rome"

I would not disagree with that statement, as it is true that today Rome makes sense and that the basis cannot be jurisdictional. No real argument there.

"They also noted that Orthodox has suffered greatly over the last 900 years precisely because it lacked such primacy, just as much as the Latin Church has suffered through the same period due to its lack of conciliarity."

Of course, this is also true. Fr. Meyendorff wrote as much. At the same time, in light of the way that the Papacy was headed in the early middle ages, the separation, as harmful as it was in many ways, was the only way to preserve Orthodoxy. On a very superficial level, a capitulation to Papal power (because that's what was being asserted) at that time would undoubtedly have meant a gradual elimination of the Byzantine approach, lock, stock and barrel. Had the Orthodox submitted to the Pope at that time, there would probably be no more Byzantine rite (at least not after Trent), let alone Orthodoxy. The painful separation is the price we have paid to preserve our Orthodoxy from being destroyed by subjugation to the "primate" who, being primate, regrettably usurped power and jurisdiction that was and is not his. To the degree that a primacy can be rediscovered that is based on love and not jurisdiction, on authority and not power -- that would be a great thing for everyone involved. Anything else would only subjugate Orthodoxy, have a negligible impact on conciliarity for the Latins and solve nothing. Unfortunately, we're not very close to this, because jurisdiction is a critical issue for the Roman Catholics, thanks in no small measure to Vatican I and Vatican II. Over the course of generations, however, it is possible that the jurisdictional concept will develop itself away in Roman Catholic ecclesiology, thereby allowing the restoration of a true ecumenical primacy worthy of the name.

Brendan

Stuart wrote:


Maybe that won't happen precisely because too many world Orthodox believe a former KGB man as MP is preferable to a false union with the "pastor of the world."

As for union of the Kiev Patriarchate with the Autonomous Church, is Rome and the EP going to recognize the lawfully deposed Filaret Denisenko? Anything for unity maybe?

loukas

[This message has been edited by Loukas (edited 07-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Loukas (edited 07-02-2001).]

Brendan, you said something to the effect that only an ecumenical council could resolve our differences. Sounds great to me!

Your information about the "papocentrism" seems out of place, though. We see the Patriarch of Moscow on his papers, the Patriarch of Antioch on his, etc. Why would you not expect to see the Patriarch of Rome's picture on a paper from within his jurisdiction? As far as the Greek Catholic papers, I think I've seen the Pope's picture less than the Metropolitans. But then again, I don't get the paper anymore.

Loukas, I don't think I understand your point. You say you would trust an unrepentant tormenter of the Russian Orthodox Church before you would trust any pope, regardless of any other circumstances. I suppose it could be because the patriarch is an ethnic Russian or you hate the Pope. Either way, I think you are missing the point of Christianity by a country mile.

I would rather see a Russian Orthodox Patriarch who hated the pope but at least had not persecuted the organization he is to lead.

Above all, I would like to see the patriarchs and bishops treat each other with love and respect, regardless of jurisdiction and affiliation, and call a nice long council that would take decades, if not centuries, to complete. If we didn't agree and come into communion with each other, at least we would walk away with a better understanding and knowing we tried our best.

But hey, that's just me.

cizinek,

No on both counts. It merely occured to me that the Orthodox have, in the past ages, chosen Muslim domination over Roman "domination." That's what I was referring to. I'm not saying either way is good. But there must be some reason there is broad support for the Russian Church.


I don't hate the pope. The pope is a good Christian. But I hate what the papacy has meant for the Body of Christ from early on. If faced with the prospect of a strong Orthodox Church lead by the MP, or a union where a universal papacy was embraced, I'd have to choose the lesser of two evils. But that's only natural, I'm Orthodox

>I suppose it could be because the patriarch >is an ethnic Russian or you hate the Pope.>

The MP is not an ethnic Russian. He is Estonian by birth and of German lineage.

Bob

Loukas,

Just for the record I don't HATE the Orthodox. I just don't like what they stand for. I don't dis-unity. I am often reflect on the passage: Eph 4:4-5 “One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” For me that verse will always ring Catholic!

God Bless!
St. Philomena Please Pray For Us! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025b.htm

Ray S.

"Your information about the "papocentrism" seems out of place, though. We see the Patriarch of Moscow on his papers, the Patriarch of Antioch on his, etc. Why would you not expect to see the Patriarch of Rome's picture on a paper from within his jurisdiction? As far as the Greek Catholic papers, I think I've seen the Pope's picture less than the Metropolitans. But then again, I don't get the paper anymore."

Really, that isn't my experience. The front page of the Orthodox papers rarely is focused on the Metropolitan or Chief hierarch, whereas more often than not the Roman Catholic paper is. That's because RCs are more interested in the Pope than they are interested in their Bishop.

Brendan

Brendan, the problem I have with all of the above is this, and maybe you can answer my doubt.

Who decides what councils are ecumenical?

See, Rome (or Latin Catholics, take your pick) for a long time held that there were something like 21 ecumenical councils, ending thus far with Vatican II, which is still called in Latin the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. But they don't require the Orthodox, in the event of reunion, to accept any more than the first seven, leading one to place subsequent E.C.'s as general councils of the West. So it seems there are only seven ecumenical councils.

But the Oriental Orthodox Churches only recognise Three Councils. And the Assyrian Church of the East recognises only two.

Now if Rome was wrong in having 21, but right in having seven, then Orthodoxy is right. But we recognise only Three. If we are wrong, then Orthodoxy is right. So who decides which are ecumenical? The Patriarch of Constantinople? The Pope of Rome? The Byzantines? Who?

It seems that by demanding a set number for the enumeration of the councils, and having that number be seven, one is completely disregarding the Oriental Orthodox Churches (a chunk of Christianity largely ignored, in my opinion, by the rest of Christendom), as well as the Latin Church, albeit they're willing to kick 8-21 out of ecumenical contention.

I think the proper thing to do would be for all of us to accept as ecumenical the councils we've always accepted as ecumenical, while assenting to the teachings of the others, insofar as they don't contradict the faith (and from my limited experience, they don't).

But if everyone demands a number, then I'd hope the number would be two, since the Assyrians don't recognise Ephesus as an ecumenical council.

But now it looks like the Assyrians were right all along?

I don't know. I don't think we should mix theology with mathematics.

I need a Motrin...

The Pope is much better looking than the bishop, why not run his photo.

On the other hand, I see my pastor's face much more often than the pope's. Are we presbyterocentric?

Olga

>>>The problem with this is that it reduces the Ecumenical Councils to Byzantine Councils, espousing Byzantine theology,
according to Byzantine principles, with a fundamentally Byzantine synthesis. When did that reduction happen?<<<

John Erickson had a rather different perspective on this. He said that Ecumenical Councils actually define nothing, but bear witness to truth through their decrees and proclamations. It is a recognition of this truth by the Body of Christ which signals the Church's reception, and only with that reception do the Councils actually become "ecumenical" and an infallible element of Holy Tradition. Bulgakov dealt with this in greater depth in his essay, "Is Orthodoxy Infallible?" (short answer--not in the way most Orthodox believe). The last three councils were not received by the non-Chalcedonians; the last four by the Church of the East. For the most part, they were not involved in these, and thus the decision made at them, the doctrinal expressions emerging from them, cannot be imposed a priori as a precondition for reopening communion. The Orthodox attitude here is diametrically opposed to the attitude expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger in his famous 1976 Graz lecture, "The Catholic Church cannot demand more of the Orthodox Church, in the matter of the primacy, than was believed and lived by the Church in the first millennium". See also the various Joint Christological Statements, Catholic and Orthodox, in regard to the Pre-Chacedonian Churches and the Church of the East. In these, both sides admit the legitimacy of the other's Christological formulations. Herein lies the key to a solution: each side recognizes that it holds the same faith as the other, and allows each to express that faith according to its own unique tradition. To do otherwise is to impose one Tradition on another--something the Orthodox Church adamantly opposes in regard to the Roman Church. This is especially important for relations between the Eastern Orthodox and the other Oriental Churches, since an historical-critical analysis of the doctrinal disputes among them indicates (a) that there was a great gap in comprehension between the two sides, who largely talked past each other for several centuries; and (b) that much of the dispute among them was not in fact theological but political/cultural, and that the separation of the so-called Monophysites in particular was the result of an attempt to impose Byzantinization upon the Coptic and Syrian communities as part of an imperial, not an ecclesiastical program. It should also be noted that after the loss of Egypt and Syria to the Moslems, Constantinople had no incentive to conciliate the pre-Chalcedonians, and thus the last two Great Councils WERE mainly of interest to the Church of Constantinople and nobody else.

Also, you might note that after Chalcedon, the other Great Councils are primarily Byzantine councils, with minimal participation even from the Church of Rome, and that what resulted was a uniquely Byzantine Christological synthesis (neo-Chalcedonianism), according to John Meyendorff (Christ in Eastern Christian Though). This fully-developed Byzantine Christology was never fully received in the Christian West, which gives a certain impression of cluelessness as to the significance of their acts, and which held a very different understanding even through the patristic period. Therefore, one can indeed say that, viewed from an ecumenical perspective, the last three councils, at least, ARE Byzantine Councils, just as much concerned with Byzantine issues as many of the second millennium Latin councils are concerned with Latin affairs.

>>>In any case, it's a serious problem, because Orthodoxy *does* consider the E.C.'s to be ecumenical, not Byzantine
only. <<<

All well and good. So which is more important: a shared understanding of the truth revealed through these councils, or a juridical acceptance of them? What is more important, canonical form, or communion in the Holy Spirit? And how does the Orthodox attitude differ in substance from that of some Roman Catholics in regard to the Second Millennium general councils of the Latin Church? Your well-trained legal mind is slowly pushing you to the edge of a precipice from which there is not way down. If we follow your train of thought to its ultimate conclusion, and apply its principles equally to all partners, we may adjourn all ecumenical discussions sine die, because there is no point in continuing.

>>>But, seriously, if we can't take the Latin Church on its word when it says it is proclaiming a dogma, how can we take it
at its word when it says *anything*? <<<

Well, in the first place, you would have to ask what the Latin Church meant at various times when it used the word "dogma", and whether their definition was congruent to the Orthodox definition. An historical-critical answer would be, "No, they did not mean the same thing, nor could they given the underlying ecclesiological assumption of the Latin Church at the time these pronouncements were made". In other words, whether something is really a dogma or not depends not on any extrinsic formulation (i.e., labeling something a dogma does not make it a dogma), but on the reception of the Body of Christ of certain propositions as revealed truth no longer subject to dispute. Dogma, in other words, according to the ancient philosophical definition, "something which is a given". By those standards, and by the interpretation of the Latin Church itself, most of the disputed dogmas are not dogmas at all, despite the continuing use of the term in regard to those propositions. Thus, as is the case with the Non-Chalcedonians, we have a dispute over terminology, not substance.

>>>I haven't seen from the Vatican the kind of hierarchy of dogmas
idea that is sometimes (and understandably) espoused by the more ecumenically minded folks. <<<

The concept of a "hierarchy of truths" is found in the documents of Vatican II, and is widely accepted throughout the theological circles of the Latin Church, and by none other than John Paul II himself. That you don't see it discussed at the parish or diocesan levels, is, I think, more a matter of the pastoral disengagement of the laity from theological debate within the Latin Church itself.

>>>We all seem to think the worst of each other's motives, don't we? <<<

Not really. I recognize the spectrum of Orthodox opinion. On one end, we have people like Vsevolod, Kallistos, Erickson, Peter d'Huillier et al., who believe the Filioque is a linguistic matter. On the other end, we have people like Stylianos, Romanides and Tikhon who think it is a heresy, plain and simple. In the middle are people like John of Pergamon who no longer think that the Latin understanding of the Filioque is heretical, but still have some lingering reservations. A man like Vsevolod, therefore can make the suggestion that Rome suppress the Filioque as a gesture of good faith, and have high credibility, while others such as Romanides or Stylianos demand that the Filioque be suppressed, not as a gesture of good will, but as an admission of error.

>>>To me, the reason for this is that the Creed is a basic
cornerstone of unity. <<<

Most certainly. Now let us consider what Rome has said so far: that the uninterpolated Greek text is the ONLY normative, ecumenically binding symbol of faith, and that the interpolation of the Filioque clause as meant by the Church of Rome means the same thing--no double procession, no two sources as from a single principle. Declare victory and go home, for crying out loud. Sun Tzu believed one should always allow one's enemy a "golden bridge"--a way out, so that he would not be inclined to fight to the death. Orthodoxy seems to specialize in blowing up golden bridges, and thus inclines those with whom it disagrees to dig in their heels.


>>>Again, the creed of Nicea-Constantinople is not a "Byzantine formulation", but the *ecumenical*
creed. <<<

One which had to be implemented and inculturated in many different languages. So, given linguistic differences, none of the non-Greek versions will match exactly the original. Have everyone recite the Creed in Greek, perhaps? Or would it not be more Christian to accept the explanation of the Latin Church, recognize their unity of faith in regard to the Creed, and move on, working to resolve the matter of the interpolation at a later date?

>>>Not at all. If I open up the Arlington Catholic Herald, almost *always* the front page has a reference to the Pope, and
there is a prominent Papal story in the front of the newspaper. The same holds true for other "Catholic" media. It's
papocentric. I didn't say it was necessarily ultramontane, but it is without doubt incredibly papocentric, particularly
when viewed from the outside.<<<

How to put this, Brendan? You are conflating the different roles of the Bishop of Rome. To Roman Catholics, he is not merely the Pope, he's their patriarch, and as such, the Latin Church has a right to its own canonical understanding of the role of the Patriarch within the Patriarchical Church of the West. Compare that sort of papocentrism to the papocentrism of the Church of Alexandria, which long before Rome had given to the Patriarch Archbishop of Alexandria the right and power to appoint all bishops within his patriarchical territory. Nobody thought the worse of Alexandria for that--how the Patriarch exercises his authority within his Patriarchical Church is a matter internal to that patriarchate, and not an ecumenical matter at all. If you look at the Coptic Church today, you will find Shenouda III has a prominence fully equal to that of John Paul II within the Latin Church. Just go visit St. Mark's out on Braddock Road and see for yourself (especially the full-color, life-size cutout of him in the entrance to the parish center). On the other hand, pick up a copy of Eastern Catholic Life or some other Eastern Catholic paper, and unless the Pope happens to be doing something of particular interest to Eastern Catholics our front pages are mainly concerned with our own people. Papocentrism is thus very much a Latin phenomenon, and really, none of the business of the Orthodox Church--something that the Orthodox speakers and delegates at Orientale Lumen V said in response to the presentation by Archbishop John Quinn.

>>>At the same time, in light of the way that the Papacy was
headed in the early middle ages, the separation, as harmful as it was in many ways, was the only way to preserve
Orthodoxy. <<<

I completely agree. Rome's ecclesiology from the 13th century onward admitted of no form of union short of assimilation into the Roman Church, and rightly was resisted. Mark Eugenicus was right at Florence. That does not mean that the approach of Mark Eugenicus is right today. The Balamand Statement calls for all sides to exercise a will to pardon--not to forget, but to pardon. Any objective observer would say that the Church of Rome has, in recent decades, gone out of its way to beg pardon from the Orthodox Church. One looks in vain for real reciprocity in this regard, reciprocity both in terms of granting the pardon for which Rome begs, and asking for pardon in return. I still do not see the real kenosis, the setting aside of earthly cares, which is the only proper posture for both sides in this dialogue.