Replies

A, as a rather sweeping generalization, I agree with Kosta. One small advantage Kosta, Alex and to a far lesser extent, I may have over you is that we all have a rather keen awareness of and sensitivity to just how very, very, fundamentally and profoundly different East is from West. People in the East just don't see the world the same way people in the West, especially Americans, do. This was doubtless even more true 1100 years ago than it is today. But its the same world both East and West are looking at. Kosta's term "linguistic apartheid" struck me as soon as I read it. The language difference between East and West had a deep and lasting effect on how we "talk about" the Faith that East and West see from different angles. I don't believe we will any time soon come to a point where talking the same talk will indeed express believing the same beliefs. For any reunion to have meaning and permanentcy the East and the West really do have to talk the same talk, but far more importantly believe the same beliefs. At base I think Kosta is right that, other than issues surrounding the papacy, the "point" of our Faith is the same, the purposes of our sacraments the same, etc. But I know Kosta will agree that leaping from that to communion is a leap we simply cannot and will not make. The Latin Church may sing a Syrenesque song of unity with invitations to intercommunion while at the same time telling us to obey our bishops, but frankly that very invitation itself is an example of how differently Orthodoxy and the Latin Church view The Church.

Kolo, my point was that, despite the linguistic apartheid that resulted in a very different way we "talk about God" and worship Him, the Undivided Church was theologically diverse, probably more than our two communities are today. For one, the Latin side believed as early as the 4th century, in the "original sin," and filioque was added in the Creed by the 6th century. At some point, the Eucharistic bread was substituted for an unleavened wafer, and also at some point the practice of "spectator" laity was introduced, with only the clergy receiving the Eucharist and the laity "watching the show." Pope St Leo I refused to sign Article XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon, issued threats and protests to the emperor and the empress, only to have one of his successors sign the famous Article XXVIII. There was even one period in the "Undivided Church" of about 30 to 40 years when the Greek and Latin communities were not in communion!

As far as I know, we still recognize the same Seven Councils and their decisions, our Christology is the same, and even our Trinitarian theology is the same albeit somewhat differently prioritized. We both venerate Theotokos as the saint among saints, etc.

Our mutual excommunications have been withdrawn, even if the papal one was invalid to begin with, and even though both were directed at specific individuals and not the entire Church of the East or the West. I submit that Latin belief in the Purgatory or Immaculate Conception does not take away from the Mystery of the Eucharist, nor does their belief in the infalibility of the Pope ex-cathedra, make the Mystery of the Eucharist "invalid." Arianism, monophysitism, Nestorianism does.

The Eucharist is not a means towards a union but an expression if it. It it the Mystical reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. If the apostolic succession guarantees priestly authority, I don't see the reason Latin Eucharist would be of lesser "value" than the Orthodox one.