[quote="Mark_of_Ephesus, post:9, topic:253380"]
How do you define an "Apostolic Church"?
In the case of some sort of conciliar "union", new schisms would emerge. Significant portions of both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church would break from their appropriate bodies on the grounds that said union is heretical.
You're definitely right with regard to your own Communion, but not with regard to Rome. The very few RCs who might object to such a union on traditionalist grounds are already in schism of one sort or another. In practice, it's the liberals in the RCC who would be a bit discomfited by reunion with the Orthodox, but not because they object to such a union in principle--they certainly wouldn't go into schism over it.
In the end, we have too many differences to be resolved at a council.
That seems extremely fatalistic.
I don't see how you can reject ecumenism. The claim that it is "unpatristic" is nonsense. The Fathers over and over again reached out to seek unity with those who shared basic convictions about who God is and what God has done in Jesus Christ. The Fathers refused to compromise those basic convictions, but they are not at stake here. Furthermore, many Orthodox seem now to believe that the Christological divisions were unnecessary. What I find absolutely bizarre and incomprehensible is the notion that the East/West divisions are somehow more fundamental than the disagreements over the two natures of Christ that divide Chalcedonian and "Oriental" Orthodox. (You may be among those who still think that the Orientals are heretics. If so, then your position is at least consistent.)
I believe that Orthodoxy is doctrinally and liturgically much "purer" than any form of Western Christianity. But I can't believe that it simply is the True Faith. I can't abandon Western Christianity. So I hope and pray for an East/West reunion, although I admit, sadly, that such a reunion would only involve some of the Orthodox.
[QUOTEHow would you know the Holy Spirit is guiding such an action? I trust the men who have actually had actually seen the uncreated energies of God (which is almost entirely monks), none of which would lend support to the kind of union you have in mind.
Well, I haven't seen the uncreated energies of God. But I grew up under the influence of my grandmother, who did claim to have direct experience of God and used that to support some pretty destructive and savage behavior. What I trust is the work of the Holy Spirit I have seen in the lives of Christians of many traditions. To deny that would, for me (I am not judging others), be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Either side would have to admit being wrong, and that certainly isn't happening on the Orthodox side (and I doubt traditionalist Catholics will be fond of it either).
The Orthodox would need to concede no more to Rome than many of you are already willing to concede to the Orientals: that the "other side's" position is infelicitous rather than heretical.
Most RCs I know--and I'm talking about folks who are orthodox by the official RC standards--would be quite willing to concede that their doctrinal positions have often been poorly expressed and poorly implemented--just not that they are actually heretical.