Yes, and I do likewise. While my remarks can be, I am afraid, cutting, they are never intended to demean the opponent; my sarcasm, as best I can make it, is aimed at ideas or historical persons who got their names associated with their ideas, rather than people I converse with.
If I may digress, I was lately reading "The Ecumenism Challenge" by a contemporary Russian Orthodox thinker Deacon Kuraev (unless you read in Russian, this is not useful to you, but here it is: Вызов экуменизма). Well, if you are looking for a church that "loves the preeminence" this is she; most of the book is up-and-down thourough critique of the Roman Catholic ecumenical intentions vis-a-vis Orthodoxy, politics, theology and spirituality from the dispute over the Uniate churches in the Ukraine to St. Theresa of Avila's naughty mysticism and to the Filioque. (The Protestant theology, as far more distant from Orthodoxy, he does not dwell on barely at all). He makes one point I can wholly subscribe to. Wait, he .actually makes many points about ecumenism, even ecuumenism between our two Sister Churches I wholly subscribe to! This is that excellent point I want to let you read (translation mine, from page 4 according to the online pagination):
The way of human thought, the way of science and philosophy -- is the way of the search for the maximally clear, sharp formulations, way of proof and substantiation of one's position. Reason demands maximally full cognizance by man of his sensations, convictions, and his faith. The way of the theological thought is not an exception to that.When at the First Ecumenical Council the Fathers turned to the search for the most "God-appropriate words" to elucidate the Mystery of the Trinity, they did not look for words that might hide the distinctions between the Orthodox and the Arians, but rather words behind which the Arians could not hide. The entire labor of the Council was the search for the words with which all the participants in the Council would NOT agree; the search of the words that would separate the Orthodox from the Arians.
First, they suggested to insert into the Creed the formula "Son from God", but it turned out that the Arians consider that formula acceptable as a specific application of the more general formula "all things are of God" (2 Cor. 5:18). The formula "Son is God" was also accepted by the Arians who then would explain that the Son became God. Next, the formula offered by the Orthodox "The Son exists in the Father" was interpreted as applicable to the creatures, since "in him we live, and move, and are" (Acts 17:28). It was offered the formula "The Word is the true power of God" but it turned out that even the locust is called "my great host" (Joel 2:25 [, "η δυναμις μου η μεγαλη", "my Great Power" according to LXX which is the Orthodox Old Testament reference]), -- and so therefore even an Arian can easily speak of the son as "power of God" and at the same time see in Him not God but a creature. Yet another biblical formula was remembered, "Son is the light of the glory and image of His hypostasis". Well, it turned out that the Arians applied these images to man, referring to 1 Cor 11:7. So they had to find a word that would make clear the extraordinary degree of proximity of the Son to the Father, one that could not also apply to the relationship that exists between the creature and the Creator. When the word "one in being" was proposed -- then, finally, the Arians voted against it. At that time th econciliar thought reached its success, the word was found that clearly defended the Apostolic deposit of faith from the false reinterpretations. Theology is the science of most precise, rather than most acceptable words and formulae.
Yet in the ecumenical movement "In the contradiction of the Fathers and the Councils, expressions are sought, not most clearly fencing off the truth, but rather the fuzziest, the most acceptable" (46). The ecumenical impreative says: -- there is no need for clearer, and most elaborated formulae and arguments. If to have one's own position altogether becomes a crime against the humanity ("How dare you think different that the Catholics or the Buddhists?!") , -- then understandably there is not reason to substantiate or prove anything.
----
[46] Uspenski L.A. Theology, the icons of the Orthodox Church, Paris, 1989, pg 468.
I think, since I pinged our two Eastern Orthodox to this, after this ecumenical broadside, I will take a break and resume later on the rest of your post.
“Yet in the ecumenical movement “In the contradiction of the Fathers and the Councils, expressions are sought, not most clearly fencing off the truth, but rather the fuzziest, the most acceptable”’
Describes the JDOTDJ fairly well,m but typically not FR. But how many years did they work on it?
And no, i do not speak Russian (maybe something like “spazeba?), But breaks are something we both used.