We don't disallow the possibility but we acknowledge the reality that the Greeks could not cede on certain issues the Latins would demand and vice-versa.
A concurring statement from yours truly FormerLib. As to our bishops in a pow wow with the RC bishops, "been there-done that"(Florence). No thanks.
So long as dogmatic differences exist, we are not united in faith and discipline.
But do dogmatic differences really exist or are they only apparent because of the different theological languages that we use. I will give an example of such misunderstanding from our side. One of the controversies leading up to the Schism was the assumption of the tile of Ecumenical Patriarch by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Leo took great exception with this but he was viewing the meaning of Ecumenical through the Latin translation of Universalis. I doing so he was incorrectly applying a Latin meaning to the term that it did not carry in the Greek. Is it not possible that the Greeks are making the same mistake when looking at the Latin explanations of Filioque? St. Maximus admitted the universal witness of the Latin Fathers to its proper usage. If we are to look at the Fathers for guidance and give equal weight to the witness of the Latin Fathers as we do to the Greek, should we not accept them as better judges of the theological categories in Latin rather than try to judge the issue in Greek categories in translation?
I will give another example. I am American but I have a good friend, Perry, who is English who was a classmate in college. One day we were having a conversation about the various merits of public vs. private education. At one point the conversation started to get heated out of frustration because neither of us could understand why the other could not accept out reasoning. Then it occurred to Perry to stop and define our terms. It turned out that what I would call a public school would be called a state school in England, and what I would call a private school in America would be called a public school in England. We were actually saying the exact same thing but failed to recognize this because of our different use of language. If this can happen between two speakers both using English, image the difficulties that must arrive between Latin and Greek.
Can you imagine how the tension level would rise in every liturgy as the words "Who proceeds from the Father" are spoken?
Why should there be any tension? We have already agree that the Filioque be dropped from the Creed in joint celebrations, as it is when said in Greek.
We don't disallow the possibility but we acknowledge the reality that the Greeks could not cede on certain issues the Latins would demand and vice-versa.
Not at all. In some areas acknowledge that the differences are more apparent than real because of different theological vocabularies; in other areas admit the differences but hold that they are not great enough to cause the scandal of division; agree to disagree in peace. Even before 1054 there was never complete unanimity within the Church. Why need we insist on it today in order to come together in the worship of the one true God?