Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Agrarian; livius

"The Russian Church continues, in general, to take a dim view of theological game-playing that would lead anyone to think that union with non-Orthodox is possible. We leave those things to Metropolitan John Zizoulas. You will note that this call is not one for *ecclesiatical* unity, which is what the ecumenically minded are so concerned about."

Sort of a cheap shot, A. Met. John, one of the most renowned theologians in Orthodoxy, is the representative of the EP to the renewed Orthodox/Latin dialog in which the Russians are participating. When the Orthodox reps met with the EP before the Belgrade meeting, he specifically cautioned them against glossing over any theological differences in the hopes of creating untiy where there is none. He went on to warn them, however, against those Romans or Orthodox who would throw up false barriers to constructive discussions. It seems to me that both warnings were warranted.


12 posted on 10/01/2006 7:13:12 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Kolokotronis; livius

No cheap shot was intended, but looking back, it certainly was one, and I should have refrained from that comment.

I actually first heard about Zizoulas from a pious and philosophically-minded Russian emigre who was a real fan of his writing. I didn't care for what I saw when I looked up things Zizoulas had written, but neither was my Russian emigre friend a fan of those I read assiduously, such as Metr. Hierotheos (Vlachos). To each his own.

Zizoulas's writings are often (and probably selectively) used by those who wish to portray Orthodoxy and Catholicism as being on the brink of theological unity -- which can make the more high-profile opponents of such union who believe that such a union is very, very far off, look like unthinking knuckle-dragging obstructionists.

As our detailed discussions on many threads regarding original sin, pneumatology and its practical implications, clericalism and centralization, papal claims, the theology of the filioque, etc... have made pretty clear, opposition to such union is hardly unthinking and knuckle-dragging by definition -- rather only by choice and ignorance.

I agree with the statement that there should neither be a glossing over of real barriers nor a throwing up of false barriers.

Zizoulas's cautionary comments about glossing over real differences don't seem to be the ones that get the press, though.


15 posted on 10/01/2006 12:19:35 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson