Chris, you make some good points, especially about your being able to be convinced.
However, it does seem like a silly game to say that if indeed, neither side was in error, but rather they were rejecting errors they thought the other side held that, then, the one who got to proclaim their belief through a Council gets the title of Church and the other guys simply don't. I have to wonder where is the supreme logic in that? Yes, I get the mundane logic and aristotelian syllogisms would probably defend your case well. But there comes a point at which we become so humanly logical that we forget even what the heck this is all about.
The Church is first and foremost about Truth in theology. Yes, that certainl permeates everything, including how councils work (or should work), but I think we need to realize that intentions DO matter. IF the intention of the OO was not to reject what many of your brethern whom you publically denounce but rather to denounce something they thought smelled a lot like Nestorianism, then I don't see how we (the EO) can be that offended by their move in retrospect. And IF it is true that we rejected something that we THOUGHT (but no longer see) as a kind monophysitism that swallowed up Christ's humanity, then I don't see how OOs today, in Christian love, can be offended. Rather, good for all of us for standing against percieved heresies (even if they were just windmills in the end).
Now, all of this is for the sake of argument. You are certainly convinced that we are heretics (unless I misunderstood you, please correct me) and I am not saying, and have never said, that I am 100% convinced that the OOs are right. I do hold some private concerns, but they are anecdotal and everything I have read on an official level SEEMS Orthodox to me. I should make it clear that I do not believe I am in any place to push for a decision one way or the other. I am not a Bishop, nor am I fantastically adept in theology. But, I read about things, I form opinions and I naturally have strong leanings because of what I have learned. I'm human. I also have an opinion and leaning on hwo we should deal with the deficit... but I don't want to be on the committee to solve that fiasco because I care about America too much lol.
But I digress (as usual). So, for the sake of argument, If that were all true, I see little reason to sit around debating who was in schism. Yes, you would be one to say, "well IF all that were true (and you would add, "but it's not") then we (the OOs) would be the ones in schism." That's very noble of you. But there's not much meaning to that since you are fully convinced that the council was Nestorian, so your pov doesn't represent what the real obstacles to reunification would be anyway. I say this because I get the distinct feeling that if in a year the OO and the EO (did agree to reconciliation on the basis that neither side was wrong but rather misunderstanding eachother) you would be among the first to join a dissident group of OOs who reject the reconciliation. Save a miraculous epiphany, am I right to assume this?
So, here's the reality, Chris (which is what I am more concerned about even though you may be dead on in you reasoning on who is schismatic). The only people who would ever admit that we weren't nestorian and that you weren't monophysites (in the modern way we now apply that term to imply something we would both agree is heresy) are also people who would stand firm on the fact that they weren't in schism. IF we came to such a monumental agreement, then I disagree that we have any pressing need to find out who was in schism. Either side can think whatever it wants about that, but once we open communion up, the schism is ended and I disagree that one cannot be repentant without intellectually realizing they were schism. In the end, if we were to realize such an amazing thing, that all of this time we were actually holding to the same true faith... then it does not matter who was in schism.
There is no other Church we can say this about. We can't say this about the RC for they have official dogmas (namely regarding the Pope) that necessarily implicate one side or the other being in schism. So now that is an issue. But it's interesting to note that in the local councils that took place after 1054 the big question in public was not "is the east coming back home" or "is the west coming back home" but "how can we work this out so we are one again?" Irreparable damage has undoubtedly been done on an official level since then.
And that may be true for our situation. It is possible the Chalcedon was the irreparable damage that can only be undone by one side admitting they were wrong. But, IF that weren't true... IF it was a misunderstanding, then I think we are in a position to say to eachother, "wow, you were Orthodox all along... it's good to act like a family once more."
Again, I don't know that this is the reality of the situation. Perhaps the OO was heretical. Perhaps there is still deep-seated heresy (intentional or not) in your christology. This is why I use the word IF a lot. I'm not insisting that we are definitely one Church divided by human obstacles. I'm insisting that such is possible. I know, that doesn't fit good ecclesiology. I agree. It doesn't. But, it happens. We're imperfect and yes, IF that were the case, it is a disgrace and I assume both sides will be held accountable in some way or another (I don't know how).
Josh
), and 9% of others who were not present go along with it, and a lone 1% condemn them as heretical, then I would side with the 1%.
