the cuppboard

Hi anon. I hope you don’t mind I edited your question a bit. 

This gives me an opportunity to say something I’ve been thinking a lot about. I have immense respect for the Orthodox. 

There are a few reasons I believe some Orthodox seem a bit more “stubborn” when it comes to matters of ecumenism.  To add anything, even something that seems so minor as the fillioque (which, lets be honest, has the potential to be a big deal, because it concerns the very God we worship), is to change the faith. As I said in a conversation with a friend “is there any major or minor difference when it comes to Truth? A “minor” falsehood is just as false as a “major” one. “

Some may argue that these differences come down to semantics, but what seems to be semantics to some appears as compromise to many. Orthodox is mystical, but it’s not fuzzy or vague by any means. And when defining their own faith, I trust the Orthodox to know whether “and the Son” is a betrayal to their own faith which they have practiced from childhood or whether it is a mere misunderstanding. 

You see, it is so important to realize that, in many ways, the laity in Orthodoxy has more power than the patriarchs in matters of ecumenism. In Orthodoxy, each individual Orthodox is charged with the mission of preserving the faith: 

The Orthodox Christian of today sees himself as heir and guardian to a great inheritance received from the past, and he believes that it is his duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future (Met. Kallistos Ware, in “The Orthodox Church”)

 ‘Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could ever introduce new teaching, for the guardian of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people (laos) itself.’ (Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX)

‘The Pope is greatly mistaken in supposing that we consider the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be the guardian of dogma. The case is quite different. The unvarying constancy and the unerring truth of Christian dogma does not depend upon any hierarchical order; it is guarded by the totality, by the whole people of the Church, which is the Body of Christ’ (Khomiakov, in WJ Birkbeck’s “Russia and the English Church”)

This is the same reason a council cannot be considered “Ecumenical” unless it is accepted & adopted by the entirety of the Church. 

The bishops, so Khomiakov argued, because they are the teachers of the faith, define and proclaim the truth in council; but these definitions must then be acclaimed by the whole people of God, including the laity, because it is the whole people of God that constitutes the guardian of Tradition. ” (Met. Kallistos Ware, “The Orthodox Church” 

I don’t know what I’m blathering on about here, but hopefully you’re picking up what I’m putting down. In ecumenism, I believe the Catholic Church would be better served by communicating and setting foundations with the laity. The words of theologians and bishops in isolation have only a small fraction of impact next to the monolith of uncompromising Orthodox laity. And right now, in my admittedly little experience, it seems most Orthodox laity would consider communion with Rome as a betrayal to the heritage they have been entrusted with.

 

TL;DR : No, I don’t. I think the laity of Orthodox largely disagree with (what they see as) the theological compromise that would be necessary to be in communion with Rome.

 

Like always, I’m speaking out of a small fraction of knowledge, and I ask that you be patient with my ignorance. If anyone has any comments on this, please send them my way!

(Also, all quotes were found from Met. Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Church)