[quote="Hesychios, post:12, topic:266249"]
Well, here is the problem, I will try to make the explanation clear from an Orthodox point of view but I hope no one is hurt by it, that is not ever my intention ...
For an Orthodox bishop to accept communion from or offer communion to a Papal bishop, would be virtually telling the world that whatever deviations in belief the Papacy endorses are not a big deal anymore. That would be misleading, the differences in theology are a huge deal and we owe it to ourselves and to our children to see that they are resolved first.
Even today, a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy has to make a set of renunciations. These are specific repudiations of some very basic (and as some Roman Catholics would say of paramount importance) RC dogmas.
Any Orthodox bishop who will admit a Roman Catholic bishop to the table is at risk of relativising the faith.
If anyone wonders why Eastern Catholic bishops are not in communion right now with Orthodox bishops, that is the reason. They 'broke faith' by admitting Roman Catholic bishops to their Holy Eucharist long ago. They thus at the time cut themselves off from the rest of Orthodoxy. Their excommunication was a matter of necessity. [Of course the rest is history, we know that in the intervening years the Eastern Catholic body of bishops was gradually formed along Latin lines, and taught Latin theology, and now they have had the CCEO imposed upon them. Today they are not considered Orthodox bishops in any fashion whatever.]
It should be noted also that even when an informal or 'under the table' exception is made to commune lay RC in an Orthodox temple, it is almost always believed to be a practicing Eastern Catholic, not a practicising Latin Catholic, who is allowed this privilige. This is probably because they are perceived to beleve the same as Orthodox, and the seperation is more of an issue of church politics for Eastern Catholics, than of belief.
Now we see that some Eastern Catholics would like to style themselves as Orthodox "in communion with" Rome. It is all very nice that they claim to believe only what Orthodox believe, and nothing more, but if they still choose to commune with the Papacy and other Roman Catholics when there is a perfectly good Orthodox temple available to them they have essentially relativised the faith. "I'm OK, You're OK" does not work well here, it could be perceived as just another example of Cafeteria Catholicism.
I understand your concerns about relativising Christianity. However, is it at all possible Catholics and Orthodox are merely expressing the same truths but in different words?
We call the fall of Adam his reception of "original sin". You call it his fall from grace, or lack thereof. Mary was "full of grace" and free from "original sin", meaning she did not take the fall Adam had, so to speak. You say "Dormition"; we say Assumption. Even the Filioque, a common argument, appears to be a misconception on the Orthodox side. As I understand it, Christ is not, erm, the co-creator or co-progenitor of the HS. But As the HS comes from God the Father, He also passes through God the Son.
Now I am not accusing you necessarily, but is it possible perhaps the Patriarchs and bishops just "can't read Latin", so to speak? Perhaps they cannot understand the Latin position? Because I honestly see no conflict; your theology and my own seem to be the same - just in different terms - Greek vs. Latin.:confused:
It is possible, but then they would have to be aware that they might lose communion with their sister churches. Actually, Orthodox are always aware of the importance of maintaining communion with one another, of maintaining this unity. They might be fighting like cats and dogs off and on over other issues, but they are very unlikely to act even as entire synods without one another's expressed approval in matters like this.
Like true families. :)