Replies

"I've found quite a diverse interpretation of doctrine when addressing Greek Orthodox, Anglican and Roman Catholics. Have they recently united in their beliefs?"

I can't speak to Anglicanism, about which there is a diversity of opinion among (and within) the Orthodox and Roman Catholics concerning whether or not Anglican orders are within the Apostolic Succession. I can however speak to the doctrinal issues and differences arising between the Latin Church (and to a lesser extent the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome) and Orthodoxy. True dogmatic differences between Orthodoxy and Rome today are few in number, though there are many discipline differences. The Churches differ fundamentally on the Doctrine of Original Sin and by extension, the Immaculate Conception. This issue alone explains much of the difference in phronema, or worldview, between the Eastern and Western Churches. The question of the procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque) is hardly the divisive issue it once was as Rome agrees that the Creed without the filioque is normative for catechesis. This is not to say that it is no longer an issue. There are those, especially among Orthodox theologians, who declare that it is the filioque and its perceived effect on the inner workings of the Trinity which in part lies at the base of the historical monarchical papacy. And there are Roman Catholic theologians who would argue that without it, there is the danger of Arianism. Finally, there is the issue of a proper understanding of the meaning of that primacy which is an attribute of the throne of +Peter.

All of these issues could be resolved in a Great and Holy Ecumenical Council of The Church...but there can't be one, so far as Orthodoxy is concerned unless and until the Latin Church and its Eastern Churches in communion with it and the Orthodox and probably Oriental Churches can together agree on the appropriate exercise of the Petrine Office. If that issue can be worked out, and now more than ever in my lifetime I think it probably can be because 1) The Churches are all headed by men who are basically patristic in their theology and 2) the present state of Christendom needs it at least as much (and frankly probably for more reasons) as it did the last time we tried a reunion in the 1400s, then and only then can an Ecumenical Council take place. I mean this quite literally since the dogmatic issues which lie at the base of the present schism will absolutely not be resolved without a council of the whole Church, no matter what Rome may have claimed in the past. It will, in this case, take at least two to tango and there will be no dance without the Pope presiding or the Orthodox attending.