Oriental and Eastern Orthodox: questions

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for a most interesting post.

I suspect that you may be on to something in terms of the need of the EO for some 'infallible' source. There is always a problem of 'authority' in the Church, and much of the history of division comes from that source.

We all agree that it is His Church and that it is guided by the Holy Spirit; unfortunately the Spirit speaks through fallible men, who are often sure that they are the channel for its Truths - even as other men are very doubtful of that claim.

If we take the Ecumenical Councils, the Church managed to have precisely three of them before splitting - and even the third was badly split and required a formula of reconciliation before it could be in any way effective. The Latin West came to find one answer to the problem - but it was at a high price, and first the East, and then parts of the West itself, fractured under the strain.

The Anglicans, of course, cannot find any real locus of authority, but seek refuge in Synods and the language of the fudge. The RC's at least have an answer to the question of who interprets the will of the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith. The EO seem to say that they interpret their canons 'ascetically', but fail to say who makes the decision and how self-contradiction is to be avoided. Perhaps the Coptic way of thinking about these things makes more sense?

But it is quite clear that the EO have themselves in a bind of their own making. If the 7 (or 8 ) Ecumenical Councils are the standard of the Faith, then we either all accept them, or there is no union. That is not dialogue, it is pretending to talk about union because you fear the consequences of telling the other Churches what you really think of them.

It seems to me inconceivable that Mother Theresa and Pope John-Paul II were not great Christians who offer inspiring examples of how to live the Christian life; if the EO Churches fail to recognise them as such, then so much the worse for the EO; on the world stage they are a tiny and fissiparous minority, We, of course, are an even tinier minority, but not, I think, inclined to say that everyone must agree with us before we can talk about unity. The difference is significant.

In Christ,

John