First of all, I would like to begin by giving thanks to God that we have the opportunity, as close relatives in Christ, to speak openly and honestly in the love of Jesus Christ. Although I consider myself the last person competent to address such matters, it has fallen to me, and I ask forgiveness in advance for the inadequacies of this presentation. I also ask for patience with the format of this presentation, which does not follow the more usual scholarly format. Nevertheless, I wish to underline that I perceive that the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics has been undertaken in love, and in a genuine desire to overcome past failures.

As I have studied in the past, and read about the relationship between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church ; and as I have experienced now in ten years of dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops in the USA, it seems to me that our nearness is as problematic as the matters that keep us separated. We have a similar self-perception as the Church, we seem to have a quite similar ecclesiology, Christology, Trinitarian theology and Eucharistic theology. There have been, in recent years, Glory be to God, documents produced of substantial agreement on a number of these subjects, and about some specific points of difference. The similarities are great, especially when one observes the nature of the language of these more recent agreements, and the generally amicable and regular exchanges between the Vatican and the Phanar. We generally admit that we each have good qualities from which the other would benefit, should we be one, but we still do not manage to bridge this gap. Both fear and inertia are involved, to be sure, although they are not alone. We both seem to desire to conform to the words of the Saviour’s prayer in Gethsemane, that we be one in love as in the Unity of the Trinity (John 17, 21), but we do not manage to accomplish it. We seem to be behaving rather like a dysfunctional couple, similar to the sort I have encountered pastorally over the years.

Following is a very simplified summary of this situation. Certainly we were one for many centuries, but as time passed, and as political and communication problems grew, not the least of them being linguistic, distance began to show itself, and differences became greater. This was the case on both sides ; but in the view of the Orthodox, the West became more interested in worldly power, rather than spiritual authority, and in time tried to wield this power on the rest of the Church. The development of scholastic theology in the West, and the eventual placing of theology under obedience to philosophy, seems to have made things more distinct, more distant, and communication much more difficult. It is true that even in the very early days, both east and west had different ways of looking at life, and responded differently ; but because of historical circumstances, the development of scholasticism, and other difficulties, we neglected to pay enough attention to maintaining the priority of the unity of love in Christ, and we began to react to each other’s perceived faults and insufficiencies. We began to squabble openly, and sometimes not to talk to each other for long periods of time. As it might be said, we came to attacking each other with lawyers’ letters. The West even went so far as, willy nilly, to conquer Constantinople and take over almost the whole household by force for a time. Even so, our actual communion was not completely broken. We actually managed somehow to maintain Communion, albeit in a minimal way, until the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, and the disappearance of the Eastern Roman Empire. Those in the East were, thenceforth, interested mostly in simple personal survival. There was encounter from time to time, but it was generally hostile and reactionary. A prime example is the decision in the west to baptise Greek converts, and the Greek reaction to do the same towards Roman Catholics, and all others as well. The former policy was dropped in the west, but among Greeks, and in much of the Church influenced historically by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, this policy remains in effect until this day, although it moderates in some places.

Our situation is not exactly parallel to the following, but it may be perceived also to be not so far from an anecdote I heard in my youth. An old woman appears in divorce court, before the judge. The judge asks her : After fifty years of marriage, madam, why are you now in this court ? She replies : “enough is enough”.

The circumstances of our history are painful and difficult. Thanks be to God, the last century opened doors for us to renew communication, and we have indeed been talking seriously. We cannot ignore the words of the Saviour, nor can we ignore the fact that our persisting in division is a betrayal of the Saviour’s love.

But what are we going to do, and how will we overcome ? The plain facts are that we Orthodox are not quick to move about anything at all, nor are we necessarily logical. A clear and sad illustration is our dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox. Indeed, we have always been closer to them in many ways than we have with the Roman Catholics. There have been in the last century many years of fruitful dialogue, which resulted in a very comprehensive theological, ecclesiological and spiritual agreement. In short, it was agreed by all specialists that there is no obstacle remaining which need inhibit the return to communion after 1500 years. And now, years later, we are still not openly reconciled. On either side we have stubborn persons who threaten schism. We have persons who do not believe the results of the conversations, and nor do they trust those who negotiated. We have persons who are not ready to forgive and reconcile. And so, exasperated, we remain out of communion with each other. Efforts to educate and convince the skeptics continue, on both sides, but it will be some time before we can hope to see any resolution.

Dialogue, we both, Orthodox and Roman Catholic, perceive to be a requirement in these days. Unity, we both perceive to be necessary to achieve. But we don’t go far. Perhaps one can say that we both have the same self-perception, and that this is an obstacle. That is to say, we both perceive that we are The Church, the Body of Christ, which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. We believe that the Church is the Body of Christ. We believe that the Church is the Ark of Salvation. We believe that we inherit the apostolic tradition for 2,000 years, and we are in our make-up hierarchical from the beginning. We are very near, yet still quite far from one another.

The first, and perhaps most difficult, obstacle to our dialogue’s fulfilment might be said to be the historically different dispositions between the Latin-speaking, and the Syriac-, Arabic- and Greek-speaking peoples. These differences may be described, for instance, as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, and Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical approaches. The Orthodox would generally perceive themselves as being inductive reasoners in a Platonic framework, and the Roman Catholics and Protestants as deductive reasoners in an Aristotelian framework. As an illustration of this difference, we would likely note that the Roman Catholics seem to be completely dependent upon documents and formal statements ; and that the Orthodox, although such things have their place, would emphasise the importance of personal contacts and relationships in living with such documents. Generally, the Orthodox would insist that the Orthodox Way is that of balance, and generally perceive that the Roman Catholics, over the centuries, have lost this balance, particularly in having lost the vertical aspect of the vertical and horizontal whole of the relationship between God and creation. This obstacle’s difficulty lies in its subjective nature. But, as in other relationships, something as subjective as this often makes for the greatest difficulty in mutual understanding. As a result, we can hear a person say nowadays that the Orthodox are from Venus and the Roman Catholics are from Mars, comparing this to supposed differences between men and women.

Father Alexander Schmemann, in his Journal, may be found to lament that he perceives Western Christianity to have become bourgeois, and to have lost its eschatological character (p. 122). He says : “Maybe poverty is the central symbol, not the economic factor of poverty, but the approach to it. The West has decided that Christianity is calling us to fight against poverty, or to replace it with relative riches, or at least economic equality, etc. The Christian appeal is quite, quite different : poverty as freedom, poverty as a sign that the heart has accepted the impossible (hence tragic) call to the Kingdom of God. I don’t know. It’s so difficult to express it, but I clearly feel that here is a different perception of life, and the bourgeois state (religious, theological, spiritual, pious, cultured, etc), is blind to something essential in Christianity.” On the one hand, with Schmemann, the Orthodox would generally say that through the Eucharist in the Church, the Kingdom of God is revealed. On the other, the West would be considered to be trying to establish this Kingdom on earth. The use of the word “culture” can further illustrate the difference. In most cases in Western thinking, culture now seems to refer mostly to secondary characteristics, such as opera, symphony, folk-dance, food, and the like. In the East this word would likely find itself used, similar to biology, for the elements of the foundation of a way of life. For instance, the way Greeks, Romanians, Serbs, Arabs, Russians, Ukrainians and others live their lives, both similarly and dissimilarly, is perceived to be rooted in the Gospel, and how the Gospel nurtured each people’s manner of living, in their particular places, and in the context of their particular histories, and brought to each a unique character of life in the context of the Gospel, and in the context of the Church’s feasts and fasts.

Since I mentioned balance, however, it must be said that although this inclusive and formative perception of culture is indeed the case, there are compensating difficulties. I mean that the Gospel and Church embrace the culture, form and transform the culture to such a degree that a confusion can arise. In the mentality of more modern and ignorant persons, it can often be understood that the Church and Christianity are simply a part of, an element of the culture. Then Christianity becomes merely tribal. In the meeting with the current, Western, perception of culture, this can produce the mentality, indeed a pagan sense, that all missionary activity is inappropriate because “religion” is connected with the soil. So Christianity becomes a mere option, an alternative, instead of being the Ark of Salvation. The Orthodox Church, over a hundred years ago, condemned this sort of tribal mentality as a heresy. Nevertheless, one sees evidence of it from time to time. This tendency seems to affect us both, but the Orthodox more. It is in part the result of the typical human weakness of taking attention and trust away from the Lord.

Every time we take our focus, trust and sense of dependency away from the Lord, we begin to make idols, as Father Schememann reflects in his Journal. Nothing has changed in human behaviour since the time of the biblical patriarchs, and before that also. And so, especially when aided by imperial or governmental support and association, the Church can become a worldly institution, very like the civil government itself. How many times have I heard to my pain the faithful describing the Church as a thing, as if it were man-made, and quite distinct from Christ. This is a weakness for us both. The Orthodox add the tendency to substitute also a dream-world, in which some imperial era, the Roman, the Russian, or some other, was the golden age, the holy time. In many parts, the 19^th Century is very popular these days.

It seems to me that, in this whole process of conversation and attempted reunion, this mutual renewal of trust in Christ, of asking His direction and obeying it, must be our primary focus.

With this in mind, it is necessary still to discuss the realities of what keeps us apart, and that as honestly as possible. In speaking of an exchange of gifts in the post-modern context, we must face the fact that, although we do indeed seem to have love and respect in Christ for each other, our work towards reconciliation involves a lot of documents, and a lot of words. These span several languages and cultures as well, and at the same time providing generous opportunity for misunderstanding.

For a real and meaningful and fruitful exchange of such gifts, there needs to be sufficient common ground, and in the case of words, sufficient common perception of words, in order to accomplish this. Indeed, I remember well in elementary philosophy courses being taught that finding a mutually agreed definition of terms is of primary importance. To my mind, we have here one of the sources of our mutual difficulty in communication and understanding as described by Fr Schmemann in his writings. The development of these differences in use of words and ideas over many centuries puts us in a condition similar to that of France and Québec. Both peoples speak the same language. However, Québec retained much of Old French, and mingled it with Aboriginal words and English words ; and at the same time, France’s use of its own language developed steadily. Now, 500 years since the colonisation, Québecois films shown in France require subtitles or dubbing in order to be understood.

I will outline my perception of some of our significant differences in terms, for the sake of convenience, not trivial pursuit. An interesting variance is the word “Byzantium” or “Byzantine”, so widely used to describe Constantinople, its empire and culture. This recently-introduced western term is not native to the east. Constantinopolitans generally refer to themselves, and are referred to by peoples throughout the east, including the Muslim, as Romans. The empire was Eastern Roman. The patriarchal title is “New Rome”. The word “canon” in the west tends to mean “law”, and is generally used together with it ; whereas in the east, it refers to the temporal application of eternal truth, and spiritual medicine. “Canonise” seems in the west to be used mostly in declaring the sanctity of a person ; in the east, it has to do with imposing a spiritual discipline as prescribed by the Holy Canons, and is used in the sense of a measure, or a guide. As we see it, the west uses “sacrament” which derives from an oath of loyalty, usually to the emperor, and hence refers to our acting upon the consequences of this loyalty to Christ. In the sacrament of marriage, for instance, it is the couple who marry each other, and the Church blesses. In the west, there seem to be about seven sacraments. In the east, we speak of “mysteries” in which God acts through grace, and in which we participate. In a marriage, the couple, in history already having registered with the state, arrive in the Temple of the Lord for the blessing of Christ on this union. And blessed they are. In the east, we say that there are at least seven mysteries, but the number is far greater, and probably not knowable. There is not a distinction made between “sacrament” and “sacramental”. In the west, it seems that “Apostolic Succession” is something which requires, in order validly to ordain a bishop, valid matter (a living, baptised male), valid form, valid intention, and a bishop or bishops ordained by other validly ordained bishops. In the east, all of this is required, but in addition, that all concerned be in the fulness of the Apostolic Faith, and be in the communion of the visible Church (Therefore, for instance, for the Orthodox, “Old Catholics”, who seem to have a dubious position with Rome, would simply be not Catholics, and their bishops not bishops, because they are not in Communion with the visible Church, and they cannot be said to be in the fulness of Apostolic Faith). Indeed, for Orthodox, “validity” is not a term we are accustomed to use. We do not historically tend to consider the status of those outside the visible boundaries of the Church, until the time of reconciliation actually comes. Then it is determined what we can perceive “of the Church”, even on a case-by-case basis. With regard to baptism, it seems that for the west, anyone at all, even if lacking Christian faith, may perform a recognisable baptism, if there be the correct intention ; whereas, in the east, a Christian layperson may in emergency baptise, but those outside the Church may not, on the principle nemo dat quod non habet. The west uses the term “penance” for an act which expiates the temporal punishment due to sin ; whereas the east uses “epitimion” as a medicine for a sick soul and weakened will. “Sin”, in the west, seems to mean a violation of divine law, whereas in the east, it tends to follow the Greek meaning of “missing the mark” and to imply a sickness of the soul or heart. Here we seem to have mixed different concepts of God — either as lawgiver and judge, or as lover and healer. It is no surprise, in the view of history and inheritance, that the west in English translates Δικαιοσυνη as “justice”, which refers to legal standing, and correctness according to the law. The east, however translates Δικαιοσυνη as “righteousness”, which refers to a quality of the heart and soul, and the positive relationship to God’s love and holiness. “Authority” in the Church, in the west, is generally treated in a juridical manner, and generally used in terms of power. Older texts refer to the power to confer a sacrament. The greatest authority is with the greatest power. In the east, authority is derived from a Spirit-informed consensus. The greatest must be the least. Every bishop and every Patriarch is immediately answerable to his own Holy Synod of Bishops, and to all the other Churches. All should be done in the context of the principle of Conciliarity. All of this is not to say that we Orthodox are perfectly consistent in our use of these and other terms. Especially for those who live in the west, and as well those who depend for translation upon lexica produced by the west, there is a historic tendency to use words especially in English according to the customary western usage, which introduces a contradiction. There is a strong tendency in the West to use the word “religion” to describe Christianity. But “religion” refers to a system and systematising that the East does not comprehend. The Orthodox tend still to keep to the New Testamental mentality of Christianity’s being the Way, as Christ called Himself. Fr Schmemann in his Journal underlines this as he writes, “What is the fatal mistake of Christian history ? Is it not that logically, methodologically, one derives Christianity from religion, as the ‘particular’ from the ‘general’, which means that Christianity is reduced to religion, even when it is affirmed as fulfilment, as the accomplishment of religion. Whereas Christianity, in its essence, is not so much the fulfilment as the denial and destruction of religion, the revelation about it as the fall, as the result and the main expression of original sin.... Christ did not eliminate death and suffering, but trampled them, i.e., radically changed them from within, made victory out of defeat, ‘converted’ them.” (p. 202)

All of this may seem to some redundant to the topic, but it is my opinion that if we are not able to manage to speak the same language, and to understand each other to a greater degree than we seem to do at present, this exchange of gifts may be unsuccessful, or unfruitful. It has seemed to me that, time and again, in addition to the problem of definitions, the Orthodox attempt to speak to the West in scholastic terms, an environment which is foreign to their native mentality ; and the result can be confusion on both sides, because we do not, in the end, really comprehend each other.

Another of the great gaps and challenges that we face is our mutual inability properly to cope with the presence of each other on the traditional territories of each other. In the more distant past, the historic territories of the patriarchates and national Churches were relatively stable, and especially before disunity, travel and migration was not a major difficulty. Now, in the reality of disunity, and especially in the past several centuries, peoples are moving very quickly. For economic and political reasons, Orthodox believers have migrated to traditional Roman Catholic territory, and Roman Catholics to traditional Orthodox territories. In the West, Roman Catholics have had to cope with the establishment of many dioceses of the Orthodox of various heritages. In the East, besides the development of the Unia, there is the continuing establishment of Roman Catholic dioceses in new areas. So although we both believe that the Church is visible, we are establishing structures which proclaim our disunity. Regardless, in the West, there is a tendency to find a modus vivendi of sorts. Often now, we find that local clergy associations, and dialogues between bishops and theologians can be both amicable and fruitful. This does not appear to be happening in the East, and most particularly in Ukraine. In this land, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are treating each other inimically, often ridiculously and shamefully. In Ternopil, the canonical Orthodox Bishop finally found himself land on which to build a Cathedral, since he had been expelled from other state-owned premises. Immediately the Ukrainian Catholics built a very prominent Church nearby, and the Roman Catholics built another Church across the street. In L’viv, the Roman Catholic civic government denies the canonical Orthodox bishop any place for building a suitable cathedral, and limits him for political purposes to a building historically known as “the Russian Church.” And strangely, a former Roman Catholic Church in L’viv was recently seized by the Ukrainian Catholics.

In Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, he says “Love for the truth is the deepest dimension of any authentic quest for full communion between Christians.” He also quotes a passage from the Second Vatican Council: “Truth is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication, and dialogue. In the course of these, people explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth. Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that individuals are to adhere to it”. This word “truth” is a problem, too, and a further example of the Aristotelian-Platonic tension that exists between us. According to this perception, truth is something which is something we may discover. For the Orthodox, truth begins with the words of Christ : “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life....”(John 14,6) He who is the Truth reveals Himself to us, and He reveals that He is the Truth. For the Orthodox, all truth should be related to Him who is the Truth itself. In these days, this word has become so relativised that there is in general society no sense of absolute truth. This is unacceptable to the Orthodox heart and mind.

In an eventual reunion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, a substantial concern, regardless of all other agreements, will remain for the Orthodox. This has to do in part with fundamental self-consciousness. We have seen the results in many countries of such a union, in the so-called Eastern Catholic Churches. As much as these bodies may appear as the Orthodox, and worship as the Orthodox, we generally find that the mentality of the clergy and monastics in particular is western, and that the approach to life and world-view has changed from that of the general Orthodox experience. In some cases, the Orthodox have experienced Eastern Catholics who are considerably latinised not only in their thinking, but in their practice. Should there be a reconciliation, we would be concerned to be able to continue to recognise ourselves as we are. Despite this experience, it is therefore reassuring to read in this same encyclical “The change of heart which is the essential condition for every authentic search for unity flows from prayer and its realization is guided by prayer” ; and, “Love for the truth is the deepest dimension of any authentic quest for full communion between Christians”. But when we read “Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples”, we see again the possibility of this different perception of the meaning of truth, as if in this case there be an implied innovation. The Orthodox in general would hope not to be inventing something new, but recovering what was lost. The words, “The structures of unity which existed before the separation are a heritage of experience that guides our common path towards the re-establishment of full communion” are important, but they do not seem to say all that we would hope to hear.

In the course of the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II, as he discussed his perception of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome (¶ 88, ff), he did so in a manner to which we are accustomed, and described it in a manner about which we have continuing differences of opinion. Much of the language that is used in this section is very familiar and acceptable to the Orthodox ; however, the emphasis on the centrality of Peter and the Bishop of Rome, all find excessive in some way. Collegiality is referred to, but as dependent upon the Bishop of Rome, nevertheless. For us, the Orthodox, this collegiality is properly much more general. Patriarchs and other Heads of Churches are presidents of synods of bishops. It is averred that we try to do all things together. It is generally considered that primacy, and historically the primacy of Rome, has not so much to do with its being a watch-dog or sentinel, but with being a court of last appeal, as is indeed mentioned in ¶95. This is effectively how New Rome serves us at the present. Through most of the time before the fracturing of Communion became final, this kind of primacy was effective ; but when its exercise began to appear more regal than pastoral, mutual problems increased. The service of unity to which His Holiness refers is most desirable, but acceptable to us only if this is clearly a pastoral service. I must say, also, that it is gratifying to read further that he prays that “we may seek — together, of course — the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognised by all concerned”. As Father John Meyendorff and others have said repeatedly, I believe that in terms of exchanging gifts, the greatest gift to all would be the answer to this prayer. Many would aver, with Fr Meyendorff, that a return of the Papacy to its earlier form of general service, as being simply First among Equals, and particularly with a view to the terms of the Council that healed the “Photian schism”, would accomplish a great deal. However, the words of ¶39 of the most recent papal encyclical of April 2003, “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, it appears that Communion with the Pope of Rome is still considered to be universally the condition for unity. This being in Communion with the Pope of Rome as the “source” of unity in a dependent manner, or being perceived as such, remains an obstacle. Were it to be on the level of, again, first among equals, and primacy of honour, much would be improved.

We still have far to go. In this same encyclical, there is a great deal written, about which we all agree, and particularly with the use of the word “mysterium”. However, there is a certain emphasis on the making present specifically of the saving acts of Christ, almost only with reference to the Cross and Resurrection (¶ 14, 15). Orthodox anaphoras do not neglect this aspect, but include all saving acts from Creation until the Second Advent. Whereas the words of this encyclical seem to perceive the eschatological element as referring only to the future, the words of eastern services perceive this future as made present in this celebration. Truly, in ¶ 19, this aspect of a “glimpse of heaven appearing on earth” is referred to. However, as Fr Schmemann would remark, the East would go much farther. In his Journal, and in his other comments, he insists that the Eucharistic Liturgy reveals the Kingdom in the here and now, He perceives that the West, in all its parts suffers from concentrating on history, or in rejecting history. He sees compartmentalisation and polarisation as the fruit of scholasticism. He writes, “This is the tragedy of contemporary Christianity — tragedy because ultimately the whole novelty of Christianity consisted (consists) in destroying this choice, this polarisation. This is the essence of Christianity as Eschatology. The Kingdom of God is already now among us. Christianity is a unique historical event, and Christianity is the presence of that event as the completion of all events and of history itself. And only in order that it be so, only for that, only in that, is the Church, its essence, its meaning.... Here is, for me, the whole meaning of liturgical theology. The Liturgy : the joining, revelation, actualisation of the historicity of Christianity (remembrance) and of its transcendence over that historicity (Today, the Son of God...”) The joining of the end with the beginning, but the joining today, here.... Hence, the link of the Church with the world, the Church for the world, but as its beginning and its end, as the affirmation that the world is for the Church, since the Church is the presence of the Kingdom of God. Here is the eternal antinomy of Christianity and the essence of all contemporary discussions about Christianity. The task of theology is to be faithful to the antinomy, which disappears in the experience of the Church as Pascha : a continuous (not only historical) passage of the world to the Kingdom. All the time one must leave the world and all the time one must remain in it. The temptation of piety is to reduce Christianity to piety ; the temptation of theology — to reduce it totally to historicity” (p. 233-234). In Fr Schmemann’s perception, and, I believe, that of the Orthodox Church in general, there is not to be reduction, but inclusion. The Eucharist includes and refers to all, always and everywhere ; and the words of this Sacrifice of Praise to the Lord indicate to ourselves as to others exactly what we believe ; and in the context of these words and our belief, so we live our daily lives.

We still have far to go. But this is primarily because we are so self-sufficient and full of pride. It is not that the obstacles are insurmountable. They are significant, and important in their own ways. Indeed, the Orthodox, who strongly affirm the need for unity and reconciliation, do not and can not seek this unity at any cost. We now, and have always stood for fidelity to the truth, to Him who is the Truth. Orthodoxy is not just a vague description. Nevertheless, although we Orthodox may believe, teach and preach the Truth, we do not always follow through in action, and confuse not only others, but ourselves. Nevertheless, all this is still definitely resolvable in Christ.

I have referred to many of the elements, and probably soporifically, about which it is commonly known that work is required if we are ever to fulfil Christ’s prayer that we be one as are He and the Father — one in unbroken, self-emptying, selfless love. It is easy enough for us to agree that we must indeed work harder on overcoming these obstacles, mindful of the subtleties of many of the details. But words are one thing, actions another. If we are to be faithful to Christ, we must find the way on both sides for our words to be matched by actions, especially since in our days words are so cheapened. The Orthodox need to find the way to come to more consistency in how we treat Roman Catholics, and especially in their reception. The Orthodox need to develop a better way of living in the reality of the present. The Orthodox need to find a better way of comprehending the scholastic inheritance and vocabulary of the West, and of addressing it in a manner not foreign to ourselves. And most importantly for the Orthodox, we must find our way to do this not through engineering and programming, but through obedience to the Gospel and faithfulness to the fulness of Tradition. And if we hope to address the Roman Catholic Church in a way that promotes reconciliation, we must be ready to be an example of Christ-like love which is the core of this Tradition.

As Fr Schmemann writes in “Church, World, Mission”: “Revealing the Church, her nature and her vocation, eschatology of necessity reveals the world or, better to say, the vision and understanding of it in the Christian faith. If the essential experience of the Church is that of the new creation, of a new life in a renewed world, that experience implies and posits a certain fundamental experience of the world. First of all, it implies the experience of the world as God’s creation and therefore positive in its origin as well as in its essence, reflecting in its structure and being the wisdom, the glory and the beauty of the One who created it : ‘Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory!’ There is no ontological dualism of any kind, no cosmic pessimism whatsoever in the Christian faith, which fulfils the essential biblical glorification of God in His creation. The world is good. In the second place, the eschatological experience of the Church reveals the world as the fallen world, dominated by sin, corruption and death, enslaved to the ‘prince of this world.’ This fall, although it cannot destroy and annihilate the essential goodness of God’s creation, has nevertheless alienated it from God, made it not ‘this world’ which, because it is ‘flesh and blood’, pride and selfishness, is not only distinct from the Kingdom of God but actively opposed to it. Hence the essentially tragic Christian view of history, the rejection by the Christian faith of any historical optimism that would equate the world with ‘progress’. And finally, the ultimate experience : that of redemption, which God accomplished in the midst of His creation, within time and history, and which by redeeming man, by making him capax Dei, capable of the new life, is the salvation of the world. For as the world rejects, in and through man, its self-sufficiency, as it ceases to be an end in itself and thus truly dies as ‘this world’, it becomes that which it was created to be and has truly become in Christ : the object and means of sanctification, of man’s communion with and passage to God’s eternal Kingdom”. (p. 76-77)

Words and talking and documents are certainly necessary. But the world is full of documents gathering dust on shelves. I am concerned that, forgetting such words as these, we will continue just to talk, and continue to betray Christ’s love. We both, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, could profit from both praying and heeding the prompting of the Holy Sprit who will guide us to unity through mutual repentance and forgiveness. We need to look at ourselves seriously and repent of our own weaknesses, shortcomings and betrayals. We need to pray seriously for each other. And, being faithful to Christ, and not to our own devices and inventions, we need to be prepared to embrace His love, and through this love, each other. We need to forgive each other. Then, perhaps, in the experience of this liberating love, we might at last, listening to the Holy Spirit, be able to find the words adequate to our condition, and to find complete reconciliation. Then, perhaps, we will be able to offer that greatest exchange of gifts possible — our selves without reserve, as does Christ to the Father, the Father to the Son, the Father to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and to the Son. May God grant us all the necessary love and desire to persevere until the end, to His glory.