will be nice for good bottle of wine.

I really had no interest in engaging on these matters at this time, but in consultation with the (three paid members, and usually only two show up) ochlophobic fraternity of dis-ecumenists, here it is. I get back to flattery in short order, unless the Pope announces next week, ex cathedra, that he is converting to Orthodoxy and the neo-caths attempt to explain how this is a legitimate development of dogma.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is some talk of the Ravenna Statement in me auld e-debate haunts (John at Ad Orientem has an account of much of this, with commentary, first here, then here, last here), the latest in a plethora of late modern statements in which Catholic and Orthodox paid ecumenists (well, to be fair, most of them have other jobs too, some are even hierarchs) get together and play nice, always admitting that there is a great deal of more work to be done, which means more nice meals at nice hotels and plenty of great wine, along with a little cash and a massive amount of feel-goodism.

The cathedraunitatis blog, which I originally commented concerning here and which has remained given to its infatuations and what I like to call human resources-speak, has the full text of the Ravenna ecclesiocratic maneuvers, along with some comments.

Within those comments, a certain Wei Hsien notes that within the statement the article of "great import" is 39 because it "acknowledges that the Schism 'rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term.'" Wei Hsien, an Eastern Catholic, goes on to say, "This is a cardinal point, because it could reopen several issues that have been 'closed' by councils in the West, the first among these being papal infallibility and the meaning of the Pope’s 'universal and immediate' jurisdiction."

First, let us read Article 39:

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

Thus we have it in this Article that in the strict sense of the term all councils after "the break" were not ecumenical, but that in the RCC some councils were regarded as ecumenical. Folks, this is sophistry 101, one might even say flattery, and say such correctly. Pope Benedict XVI, and any representative of his at this meeting who is faithful to RCC teaching, believes that Trent, Vat I, and Vat II, declare dogmatic truth, and that these Councils teach truth in the fullest catholic sense, that what is taught by these councils is always and everywhere true, that such is not open for debate or formal dissent within the RCC (and those churches in communion with her), and so on and so forth. What "sense" is there which is more "strict" than the sense in which RCs believe Vat I is now dogma? To suggest that there is a sense more strict is flattery, because one could only be referring to something rather cosmetic, and not to content. With regard to content Vat I is held by Catholics to be just as strictly held dogma as Chalcedon.

Many persons, both Orthodox and Catholic, have in recent years thought themselves a bit clever in "figuring out" that it would be great if we could A) get the RCC to admit that Trent, Vat I, and Vat II are theologumenon, and thus just local councils, or (and this largely depends upon what side of the divide one happens to be on) B) if we could get the Orthodox to accept the Western councils as non-heretical theologumenon (which may, indeed, be wrong, but are not heresy and not "union-breaking"), then we could get that reunion ball a rollin'.

I will remind you, dear reader, of your Ochlophobist's first rule of Orthodox/Catholic "dialogue" - that for reunion to take place one of the two communions will have to cease to be who she is now.

First of all, the RCC cannot formally state that the teachings of her later councils are theologumenon, without ceasing to be who she now claims and states to know herself to be. The RCC, as the RCC will never state that Vat I was theologumenon. To do such would mean that there is no longer a RCC. I have almost got it memorized now, but here again, for reminders sake:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:let him be anathema.

--selected from the decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3.

It is obvious, to anyone with a cursory knowledge of Vat I and, indeed, all the more so to those who are experts on the council, that the "fathers" of Vat I believed the above statement to be a universal dogma and not in any sense theologumenon. The RCC currently affirms as much. Should the RCC declare that the above is now considered to be theologumenon, and, as would be especially rich, should they state that their understanding on this matter has in that manner developed, then we should well know at that point we are dealing with folks who are simply not capable of holding to dogma as dogma in any meaningful sense.

Furthermore, how, ever, could Orthodox accept the above as theologumenon acceptable within the Orthodox Church? How could one in any meaningful sense be in communion with someone who regards them as anathema for not accepting what one believes to be theologumenon? Vat I also states (Session 4, chapter 2) that: For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership.

How can we reasonably acknowledge such a statement as allowable theologumenon in the Church? For the person we are disagreeing with is bound by this statement to think that we are in grave error. In other words, we Orthodox would be acknowledging as theologumenon texts which do not allow the slightest dissent from that which they clearly state, and anathamatizes those who do dissent from them. Such is absurd. Vat I also states (Session 4, chapter 2):

That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time. [bold emphasis mine]

How can the Orthodox reunite with a communion which believes that the office of the papacy as understood in Vat I is necessary for the continual salvation of the Church when Orthodox, clearly, do not believe such to be true? What would communion mean at that point? [I know that some Catholics state that we have not dogmatically declared that the Church has no need for the papacy, thus there might be some sort of implicit or intuited need for the papacy on our part which we are yet to realize, etc., but such thinking is entirely wrong. We know ourselves to be the Church. The papal office has had no authority in the Church since the schism. We know that everything essential to our salvation is within the Church. Therefore the papal office is not essential to our salvation.]

I would be delighted if the Pope and bishops in communion with him were to declare Vat I, and any number of other later RCC councils, as theologumenon. But as I have stated, the instant they formally do so, they cease to be the institution we now know as the RCC. I sincerely doubt that such is going to happen. Furthermore, the idea of Orthodox accepting terms of reunion on the basis that they will no longer consider Vat I (Trent, Florence, Vat II, etc.) as heresy, or even just as gravely false, all of it to be seen as theologumenon that we happen to disagree with is sheer nonsense. For crying out loud, were not Anglicans.

Another of the Articles in the posh dinner and wine statement that strikes me is this one:

45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinônia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

In the text prior to this one finds some fairly decent theological material. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon was clearly behind a good bit of it. There is some of that vague ecumenispeak in there as well. None of it struck me as saying anything that got us anywhere substantial, given our prior commitments. It was all just vague enough to satisfy too broad a road. I thought several times throughout that many Anglicans and a few Lutherans could accept most of what I was reading. Then we get to the above.

Why is it that these meetings always end with the "it remains for..."? Well, I have suggested that they end such so that the usual suspects can continue to get together and drink great wine in trendy locations while doing something that gets a great deal of pats on the back. Perhaps that is a tad cynical. Given the above, we can see that nothing was accomplished. Now, I will say that the tone of the text seems to pull the RCC more toward the EOC than the other way 'round. This is no doubt Metropolitan John's influence. But at the end of the day, I think that the RCC will sit with anyone and sign just about anything that does not involve a retraction of her dogmas. Fair enough, will we will not retract our dogma or praxis either and who doesn't enjoy good vino now and then? But what I find so distasteful is this cheap language of our "journeying together" and making "positive and significant progress in our dialogue." Rubbish.

Mike L. offers his take on the affair. I have long appreciated Mike's forthrightness with regard to what the RCC will demand in a reunion (Vat I is dogma, and Orthodoxy must not deny this, etc.). Many Catholics, and a few Orthodox, want to ignore questions of Vat I and such and just get on with the singing of Kum Ba Yah and holding hands. That said, Mike wants to get past the "800-pound gorilla in the room" by moving "forward right in the gorilla's face" by "getting clarity from the Orthodox themselves about Orthodox ecclesiology." And thus back to the supposed lack of definition in Orthodox ecclesiology. Mike believes that if Orthodoxy were to further reflect and develop her ecclesiology there could be potential for reunion. As it stands now, Mike, like many Catholics, sees any ecclesiological reasons given for rejecting reunion with Rome as not rising much above "Athonite rejectionism," thus the familiar RC theme that anything unique in Orthodox ecclesiology amounts to nothing more than a rejection of Rome - thus a negative ecclesiology, and not a positive one.

There is something to be said for "negative" ecclesiologies. One thinks of Fr. Stephen's teaching on cruciform ecclesiology and his reminder that we have no business going about trying to "change the world" in the modern pop-liberal activist sense (bureaucratic ecumenism is "change the world" activism of the first order, as ochlophobists see it, anyway). I am also reminded of a recent sermon of Fr. Jonathan Proctor, on the widow of Nain, sent to me by friend Benjamin, in which Fr. Jonathan profoundly compares the Church to a widow in this world. We are a poor little Church, influence has come and gone. It may come again, it may go again. The world thinks little of us, though they seek to flatter us, of course. A more disgruntled blogger, freshly returned to the Catholic Church from the Continuum (which adds a certain richness to his current neo-cath flavor), commented that we Orthodox are an irritating, little barking poodle in comparison to the RCC. Well, we are little, and our existence does seem to irritate many, including some RCs (every Christian communion has their fundamentalists and quirky folk, but both within and especially without Orthodoxy, there is this great hatred of ours - why??).

I suppose someday I may write at length about Orthodox ecclesiology, but come to think of it I probably will not. Orthodoxy does not really have an ecclesiology in a formal, academic sense. Certain of our theologians, especially now Zizioulas, have written such, but in the end I think the Church takes such as suggested ways of conceiving things, not as theology proper (by theology proper I mean Orthodox theology proper - the manner in which we formally speak of Christ and what He has taught us, which takes place in the liturgy and its cosmic ripple effects). Zizioulas may help us grasp things ecclesial, but that grasp will remain provisional. I suppose that I see it as a grace that those things which could be seen as "social construct" support apparatuses of the Church have all come and gone. At this point if a new such apparatus were to appear on the scene we would know that such is not integral to the Church herself. But I do tend to side with St. Nil, perhaps too much so. How do we define the Church? What are the categories? Blessed is the Kingdom.... my friend. That is all there is. Mike wants "enough clarity about the meaning of the term ["the Church"] to give a clear, consensual, and consistent account of how the Roman and [Oriental Orthodox] communions relate to "the" Church, understood as the Eastern Orthodox communion."

I know a fair number of individual persons who have a relationship with the Orthodox Church but are not yet in her. I cannot give you a "clear, consensual, and consistent account of how" they relate to the Church, even though with many of them I know exactly what they have stated with regard to the Church, and some of them have stated things in a very consistent manner. Now, certain statements made by some persons give me every reason to believe that a given person is simply not Orthodox and is a far way off from Orthodoxy. Other persons speak in a way that implies misunderstanding but allows for all sorts of room - perhaps they say something completely at odds with Orthodoxy, but it is clear that this is not what they truly want, etc. - such a person will likely repent of such a position. Some persons say things that are completely unOrthodox and have no idea that such is the case. What account will I give of them? The Church, in a since, has no real need to know how those outside her relate to her - not because she is arrogantly triumphant, but because she is so dependent upon God's presence and grace herself that she has not the time or resources to devote to her relations with others. Her need is wholly for God. The widow of Nain has no defined relationships outside of her when her son is dead, she is nothing in this world. When her son is risen, her identity is connected to that of her risen son, or so her culture had it. When God hung dead on a tree, the icon of all reality, the triumph of the Church, what does it mean to be outside of Him who has died in obedience to the Father? God has died on a tree. What else means? Can anything else mean after that? There is only one meaningful relationship at that point, and it is Triune.

He is risen from the dead, and He proceeds to teach the pattern of the Cross in all things, on the road to Emmaus, telling of Jacob crossing his arms in the sign of the Cross as he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, and on and on and on, the cruciform nature of the God who empties Himself in His saving of man. Christ taught the apostles, the apostles taught the fathers, the fathers teach the Church, the Church knows this hermeneutic of reality in her liturgy. Many Eastern Orthodox look at the Oriental Orthodox liturgy and think that the similarities suggest that we share the same hermeneutic, but this remains to be seen, and for it to be seen, literally seen (and heard, and touched, and felt, and smelled), the Oriental Orthodox would have to sing and pray and accept our prayers with regard to all 7 ecumenical councils as well as the prayers of the Church concerning Sts. Photius, and Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. Most Orthodox do not look at the Roman Catholic liturgy and think that we share anything close to the same christocentric hermeneutic of reality. And, as with the Oriental Orthodox, if Rome were to unite with the Orthodox Church they would have to sing and pray our prayers. That singing and praying may take some distinctly Western forms, as in our Orthodox Western Rites, but there would have to be the same essential, graced content of faith and practice.

This sort of language drives many Roman Catholics crazy, as it is so undefined. Well, Orthodox do not understand themselves via their relationship to other Christian communions. Rome has clearly articulated who she is in relationship to other communions, as is the modern fashion. Especially with regard to Orthodoxy, Rome has now officially tied herself to Orthodoxy vis-à-vis Rome's particular teaching on Orthodoxy's status as "true, particular, churches" and Rome's now formal teaching on ecumenical concerns regarding Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, intuits the Cross and widowhood with regard to her relationships with other communions.

The conclusion that we are not dogmatically opposed to Rome because we have not had a council anathematizing Rome is lacking. Councils are called to anathematize those who are in the Church or who are influencing those within the Church. A Council is used in order that the Church might rid herself of teachings and practices which are contrary to salvation. As virtually no Orthodox hierarchs embrace or teach or even suggest a theology akin to Vat I, there is no need for the Church to anathematize it. Orthodox believe that salvation is in the Church. Outside the Church is chaos. God may well save some out of that chaos as is His good pleasure, but it is the Orthodox presumption that those outside of the Church have, to some degree, engaged chaos. We Orthodox might disagree with regard to the degree that Rome has engaged in ecclesial chaos, but Orthodox agree that the RCC is not within the Orthodox Church, and that this not being within has to do with more than just canons. We are not talking about the now ended separation of ROCOR and the MP. Rome is simply not Orthodox. And as such, there is no need to offer a point by point anathematization of every Roman error, unless there were to be a considerable number of persons within Orthodoxy embracing or flirting with said errors. Right now we only have a few cathedraunitatises, and thankfully they exert virtually no influence within the Church.

We have not, however, been completely silent with regard to the errors of the RCC. With regard to the Roman Catholic faith I suggest one reflect upon the Church's liturgical texts regarding Sts. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus, texts which all Orthodox Holy Synods sing and pray. The Kontakia and Troparia, of course, but also the sticheras and apostichas and akathists and other liturgical texts. These texts do not parse institutional relationships in the modern fashion, but they do convey clearly where Orthodox stand with regard to certain of the Roman errors. I hope in a further post to offer a brief (well, when is your Ochlophobist ever brief) anthology of some of these liturgical texts. If one accepts these Orthodox liturgical texts as formally teaching Orthodox belief, as well one should if one is Orthodox, then one accepts that the Orthodox Church is formally opposed to certain Roman Catholic beliefs, and, indeed, it is a pious and holy thing to follow the teachings of Sts. Photius, Gregory, and Mark.

There is also a sort of language which drives ochlophobists to shake their heads (with a smile, grant it). Mike offers such language in one of his comments on the above mentioned thread:

...reunion will entail a radical spiritual ascesis undertaken by both sides, and there's no telling when that will occur. I only wish to point out, on the strictly theological level, that the challenge John issued to Catholics such as myself really needs to be thrown back to Orthodox such as himself—not in a spirit of hostility, but of genuine, mutual development of doctrine.

This mutual "radical spiritual ascesis" sounds like quite a Christian thing to have happen? But what is the end game? The spiritual ascesis Mike wants from the Orthodox is one in which we refrain from our "rejectionism" of various sorts, and develop our ecclesiology to the point where we can accept the above statements of Vat I (and the other RCC dogmas we have problems with) and state that there is nothing false found in them. In other words, Mike, as a good and devout RC, thinks that spiritual ascesis for the Orthodox will lead Orthodox to accept Roman Catholic dogma. The "radical spiritual ascesis" that Rome must undertake is what? They already think that they formally embrace all that is authentically Orthodox. Thus what can be meant here other than posturing. Rome will promise not to exercise certain powers she believes she has. Rome will make formal statements against abuses in her own liturgy (which as we know, will accomplish little). Rome may even remove the filioque from her recitation of the Creed, but I assure, you, dear reader, that she will not relent from her dogmatic commitment to the filioque (thus while the filioque remains formally true, in their dogma, it is not practiced for reasons of Christian charity - absurd!). Rome's work, her "radical spiritual ascesis" is to posture herself in any way which will foster reunion without relenting a single Roman dogma. This is what Benedict XVI, Mike, and conservative Catholics on the whole intend. But couching this intent in language which suggests that we will go on a great spiritual journey together, finding our hope in a mutual development is flattery of the first order. What they want of us is that we state that Vat I and other Roman innovations are not false. Thus our "development" is to develop into those with Roman Catholic dogma while still retaining Byzantine Rites and nomenclature. This is indeed their own formal teaching. They state that we lack nothing save our affirmation of certain Roman dogmas. Thus this "progress" so often spoken of is the progress of Rome and Orthodoxy coming to see Orthodoxy accept Roman dogma.

My Orthodox friends, we are the backwards toothless cousin to believing Roman Catholics (at least until we develop our ecclesiology a bit). They need us because our claim to their bloodline is as strong as their own and we have better kept, upon any reasonable observation, the auld ways which icon who it is we both say that we are. And they think, sincerely, in the case of men like Mike, that we need their developed theology in order to be coherently who we are (that is, who we are in their eyes).

But there are other "types" in this game. I have noticed many conservative Catholic thinkers who have been influenced by the recent resourcement in Catholic thought (which "returns" to patristic and medieval texts) and who seem, frankly, embarrassed by Vat I, among other aspects of modern Catholicism, and many aspects of late modern post Vat II Catholicism. Two in particular (both known publicly as conservative Catholics) have suggested in private conversation (one to me, one to a close friend, no, I will not name them) that they wished Vat I had never happened. I do not think that these same would posit an argument against Vat I, stating that it is not dogma, but I think many would follow what Ratzinger said years ago and suggest that the language of Vat I is unfortunate and some theologically conservative patristic minded Catholics, I think, would be happy if Rome were to state that Vat I is a local teaching or even theologumenon - if somehow, in any significant way, the tragedy of Vat I could be undone. It is these sorts of conservative Catholics that I believe Metropolitan John and other Orthodox who are seriously involved in such talks as Ravenna are really after. One gets just a hint of this sense with the Ravenna statement, that there is a subtle appeal to those conservative Catholics who are embarrassed by the tone and even perhaps the terms of Vat I. But the fact that such Catholics exist does not make the situation any less problematic. It makes for polite conversation, but it does not solve anything. Catholics, even conservative patristic minded Catholics who are embarrassed of Vat I cannot just axe it or mitigate it away, because if they do that to Vat I, then they are free to do it to any Roman dogma. Again, this would mean that there is no longer a RCC. I would love to see the RCC end and the Pope of Rome and any who might follow him convert to Orthodoxy, but I do not anticipate this anytime soon.

[Many are horrified to read an Orthodox write that he would love to see the RCC end and the Pope convert to Orthodoxy - a frequent refrain is that we Orthodox grant so much less to Rome than Rome grants to us - with the implication that there is a lack of charity here which is but another proof of the falsehood of Orthodox arguments against reunion. This is sheer nonsense. A devout Catholic does not believe that Rome can unite with the Mormons simply and only by Mormons assenting to certain Papal claims while still holding to Mormon beliefs (such an idea would rightly be seen as absurd). A liberal Catholic might think that if the Mormon Church accepts the Papal office and desires communion but still wants to hold its old dogmas, this is just fine. Who is the more charitable here, the devout or the liberal Catholic -- no doubt the devout Catholic is more charitable. And that Orthodox offer less to Rome than Rome offers to Orthodoxy is a charity of the same kind. Generally speaking, I want RCs to convert to Orthodoxy because I want what I believe is best for them.]

Of course, there are many others who voice their opinions regarding these matters who haven't the slightest care what needs to be signed for reunion to occur. One finds both Catholics and Orthodox of this sort, sadly infected with that near-ubiquitous sentimentality of our age. Even more sadly, these same follow incorrect readings of St. John chapter 17. Those who believe on Christ through the word of the Holy Apostles are one in the Orthodox Church. If we are to say that Christ was praying that all those who confess Christ would be members of the Church then it is clear that this prayer has never been answered since the time of St. Paul to today. But this is not what Christ prays, He prays that those who believe on Him through the Apostolic teaching (which the Orthodox Church teaches is fully preserved solely in herself) would be one. Thus, for Orthodox, the reunification of ROCOR and the MP is an answer to Christ's prayer to the Father in John 17, because both ROCOR and the MP believe on Christ through the Apostolic word. Some might view this as hopelessly parochial, but I suggest that those who think such re-read the Vat I texts quoted above, for there is überparochialism, when the apostolic word is, well, finally divinized, as it were, through only one bishopric.

One case of this sentiment expressed by an Orthodox which I happen to have read was recorded by the folks at the Intentional Disciples blog (RC) in a post on Catholic-Orthodox dialogue:

The more I see the folly in both our Churches, the more convinced I become that we need each other and might do well simply to declare victory. . . But a reconciliation, maybe on the order of say a "mixed" marriage. Might that work? I don't know.

What I do know is that--whatever our differences--we simply need each other. Yes there are scary things happening on the world stage, but I think, especially here in the USA, neither side is what we could be existentially. I will leave the dogmatics particulars of this existential reality to the theologians--me I'm just tired of the division.

The above is typical of the prevailing popular sentiment of the day when applied, as it occasionally is, by a small minority of Orthodox. The cult of the vague prevails here. Of course no one or no group is all that they could be existentially. One could say that the whole point of existentialist philosophy is that one has to, finally, make a particular choice which excludes other choices. Of course there is folly in both communions, but why would we assume that this folly would decrease in a marriage. If we want to use the marriage analogy, we might well observe that in human marriages the folly of the spouse is more likely to lead the other into folly than the virtue of the spouse is to lead the other into virtue, in most cases anyway. Thus the importance of choosing a virtuous spouse. Two spouses with different sorts of follies may just amount to more folly in the other rather than more virtue in the other. Of course, one often hears that the charisms of the East and West are different and mutually complementary, but this is a cheap romance novel folks. We Orthodox have problems of sexual scandals, financial scandals, nominalism, and canonical/jurisdictional problems. Any observer of Rome will see that having a Pope does not prevent, or even really discourage having sexual, financial, and nominalist problems. And I have written at length elsewhere why it is that a Pope would be able to do nothing to solve canonical/jurisdictional problems within Orthodoxy, for to do so he would have to exercise Vat I style unilateral powers, which would never be agreed to by Orthodox in the first place, and, as we have seen in the ROCOR/MP reunion, Orthodox are able to deal with these matters on their own, it simply takes time and fasting. What it really does boil down to is that this writer is just really tired of the division.

But again, with regard to the Orthodox faith, the division with Rome is not a division within the Church. Why not then be really tired of our division with Lutherans, or with Mormons? The reason, I suspect, that a few Orthodox so tire with the "division" with Rome is that Rome is so big, so strong, and so mighty (to quote an old Sunday School song. They have a box church on every other corner, they can access huge amounts of money (especially conservative Catholics), they have cool things like EWTN, they are present in movies and popular culture (as of yet, no one has made a Russian mob version of The Godfather), conservative Catholics have a huge and influential intellectual apparatus (there is no Orthodox First Things, no Orthodox sitting on an endowed chair of jurisprudence at Princeton, no Orthodox Ave Maria pizza financed university, no Orthodox press which yet has the size and influence of Ignatius Press, and so on...), one can count on one's fingers the number of Orthodox institutions of higher learning in North America, you get the picture. All of us, I imagine, know Catholics who are great neighbors and great friends. But there is more...

I think that there is a sense in this dark age that we should circle the wagons, and gather as big a circle as possible to prepare for the secularist onslaught. But this, friends, is not how the Church operates. When the going gets bad, we produce martyrs. Christ also laid out as an option running to the hills. But getting the biggest, strongest possible group together to defend ourselves against the god haters is not a Christian option. There are no chariots in which to trust in this game, there is instead a Cross.

Within the seemingly little Orthodox Church there is the restoration of the cosmos, the beginning and end of all things, the presence of the GodMan, completely given and completely received. Some Catholics speak of the "scandal of particularity" with regard to the Papacy. There is a true scandal of particularity, sure enough, but it has nothing to do with the Papacy. Let Ravenna drink her wine, and, perhaps, influence a few of those whose hearts are given to being influenced towards te True Faith. They will seek to win some of us, we will seek to win some of them. We will posture, they will posture. That is but the game.

Shortly we will celebrate the Ark of the New Covenant entering into the old Temple, another icon of the greater entering and residing in the lesser. There is the order of things. There is where unity is found. Some think me naïve. I have come to conclude that either one agrees with St. Maximos or one does not with regard to what the Liturgy does and is in the cosmos.