“Unless we terminate all infallible doctrines that the Spirit has led the Church to declare over the last 1000 years are made null and void, there cannot be a reunion, according to the EAST.”
The “Spirit” eh? Well, how about this. You treat whatever “dogmas” your local synods and your “infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth” have come up with over the last 1000 years as local, disciplinary canons. We already do that except perhaps for the Palamite “dogmas” but we can do that and of course no Patriarch claims infallibility (which is good because we’d sack him in a heartbeat for being insane and/or a heretic)so we don’t need to deal with that. Then we have a Great Council. Whatever was dogma 1000 years ago stays, everything else is on the table. The council ends and the Laos tou Theou decide. Simple if you simply return to your Latin patristic roots. Our shared dogmas are fine. Your later innovations called dogmas are not. I assume Palamism isn’t for you. It is unlikely in the extreme that Palamism would be a deal breaker for Orthodoxy but it certainly seems that unless Orthodox accepts Romes sua sponte innovations, there’s no deal. You know, I can’t imagine why you would want to pretend to a common communion with people who don’t believe the same things you do. We certainly don;t want to do that. Under the circumstances, I’d say even talking to Rome is a massive waste of the time of all of us.
Indeed, why?
It was already done at least once... The people of the East won't allow it, no matter what the bishops come up with - except for total Western compliance. Remember, every Eastern lay person is a self-proclaimed expert in Western theology, so any Eastern bishop who had the audacity to say that the West and East taught the same thing using different words would be "sacked"...
Sorry, my friend, that is what I am hearing from over there right now...
Your later innovations called dogmas are not. I assume Palamism isn’t for you. It is unlikely in the extreme that Palamism would be a deal breaker for Orthodoxy but it certainly seems that unless Orthodox accepts Romes sua sponte innovations, there’s no deal.
Your innovations are our natural develoments led by the Spirit... We don't believe the Spirit has been silent for 1000 years. Just as you say Palamite doctrines were found in Patristic writings, so were original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and Purgatory. Hundreds of years before the Schism. Why is it the East can "develop doctrine" based on their reading of the Cappadocians, but the West are called heretics for developing their own doctrines from Augustine, Leo, Ambrose, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, etc...?
Now, as to your "acceptance" of our "innovations", I am certain that there is room for discussion on these. The words of the formula are not infallible, just the idea that they express. I'm thinking there is room for agreement, IF the Eastern laity can allow it.
I can’t imagine why you would want to pretend to a common communion with people who don’t believe the same things you do.
Kolo, do family members agree on EVERYTHING the EXACT SAME WAY? Of course not. We should agree on essentials and have a respectful allowance of other issues. What is essential? That would be a good question. However, "uncreated energies" is not one of them. What would you consider are "essential" on what we disagree on? The Filioque formula? I think we believe the same thing there. Maybe the Papacy? I think there is some common ground there. But again, there has to be some work done at the grass-roots level in the East. Any agreement made by the East will AGAIN be ultimately refused by the laity UNLESS they are educated that our differences are not so great. As long as the majority of Eastern theologians continue to put the West down, belittle them, call them heretics, and point out all the shortcomings, from the Filioque to the use of unleavened bread, HOW is union going to happen? Apparently, the people overrule the bishops over there, so it seems to me that the people must be convinced that Rome does not teach a different Gospel and that people of faith can express themselves in slightly different manners.
regards
Absolutely. I think that is the self-evident starting point, and Florence is not.
I think also that the prospects for reunification at this point are poor, albeit best in a thousand years. Two things must happen in addition:
1. The Orthodox people in Orthodox lands, such as Russia and the Balkans have to familiarize themselves with the larger realities of the perils that the Western civilazation is facing. On this score, we have great progress, if that is the right word because progress in terms of mutual understanding is also civilizatonal regress. We see, for example, many bishops, younger bishops especially, of the East understand that in the dual struggle against militant Atheism and militant Islam the Church of the East and West is united. Whether the Orthodox flock should stick to their parochial instincts as regards the West or not is also the function of what the bishops of the West teach them. If they teach the flock in the manner of this letter, they will -- again -- defy the will of Christ, and we'll wait another thousand years. If they honestly explain the content of what is, to them, innovations, without forcing them dogmatically, but also without caricaturing them, they will be doing their job as vicars of Christ. As the previous Pope said, the Church is young, -- we can afford the wait.
2. The Western Church has to mature. She should clear up its liturgy, above everything else. At this point, serious Catholics dread the thought of attending a Catholic service in some clown parish down the street. What reunification? We certainly should stop thinking of Orthodoxy as some kind of merger-acquisition and instead think of the dogmas of the past thousand years as something the rest of the world needs to be evangelized about.
I'd give this process 50-100 years. It certainly should not be rushed. However, is has started, and we know the last chapter, don't we?