Response to a Roman Catholic viewpoint

I tried to post feedback to a Roman Catholic oriented website, but their feedback mechanism was broken, so I thought I'd post it here. Not some of my better writing, but be that as it may...


In regards to: "Mount Athos objects
to ecumenical openness"

Although certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective, this article fails to understand the true issues within the Orthodox Church regarding the Roman Catholic church. I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. To say that there is a prerequisite acknowledgement that if you are Orthodox you specifically are not in communion with the Roman Pope, is quite correct, and not at all strange. If the Orthodox were in communion with Rome, we would be Roman Catholic. Conversely to intimate that Roman Catholics are in some way in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (let alone other Patriarchs and Metropolitans), is quite strange indeed. The issue of communion is that communion means two or more parties share a common understanding and agreement to a set of ideas. This simply isn't the case between the RC and the Orthodox.

The person that espouses ecumenical dialogue always assumes the "other" side will see the error of their ways and join them. This is the unspoken understanding of both sides. A Roman Catholic would most likely expect the Orthodox to join in the Roman understanding of hierarchy (i.e. monarchy in the Pope). The Orthodox also think of the result of ecumenism as the Catholics joining the Orthodox both in hierarchy and in theology (Catholics abandoning that which the Orthodox find foreign, strange, and/or evil). You can say your are an ecumenist and want communion only if you are willing to abandon what you know now and accept what others teach (i.e. the Orthodox). Otherwise you are an imperialist. It is for this reason the Orthodox do not hold out much hope in ecumenical dialogue and bilateral relations. We do not think that Rome will ever change. Unfortunately Rome thinks (and has always thought and acted that) the Orthodox will change. There is a distinct possibility that the only reason for the Patriarch of Constantinople to act in the manner he acted is to try to garner favor for something else. Mt. Athos might fear a situation not unlike the Byzantine emperor asking for the West's help against invading Muslim armies, only to have Constantinople sacked, and Orthodox churches looted.

In addition, because of the writers lack understanding of the tenents of Orthodoxy, he thinks the monks at Mt. Athos are part of some kooky ultra-religious sect of Orthodoxy. There is no Islamic-style Wahabi school of thought to which they adhere. They are simplying seeing bad intentions followed through with bad practice (on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople) and which to correct his understanding. To welcome a schismatic or heretic (and such schisms and heresies all Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy must renounce) as a canonical bishop is indeed shocking to most Orthodox.

In most of Orthodoxy, including the monks at Mt. Athos, communion with Rome can only mean that Roman Catholics renounce erroneous teachings and be rejoined to the traditional Orthodox faith, Christology, eccesiology, etc.

This shouldn't be shocking to a Roman Catholic, as they should think the Orthodox should become RC.