Joe, I think you undermine yourself from the outset when you say “The Pope is a theologian.” I did not take Jon’s post
to indicate that the Pontiff was not religiously tolerant, but if he
were to responsibly uphold his role as theologian, he would recognize
that “full unity between the two ancient branches of Christianity”
(granted it’s the reporter’s language, not the Pope’s) is not possible,
unless he (or the Orthodox) is willing to throw out the last several
hundred years of Catholic doctrine.
Theologians study, teach,
and advocate their doctrine, because it is what explains to followers
just who their god is, while illustrating their differences with others
and identifying false teaching that can lead them to a false god. Maybe
the Pope’s goal was for “Christians to agree on what they agree on,”
but it should only be so to the extent where it is not promoting false
teaching, false doctrine, leading the flock ultimately to a false god.
Unfortunately, all the ecumenical efforts I can think of ultimately
lead down this path, or at least lead to each side watering down their
message and tempering their efforts to evangelize. The differences
between Catholicism and Orthodox (and “Protestants”) are numerous and
I’m sure you are well aware of what all or most of them are, and drive
at the heart of who God really is. We don’t all worship the same god.
And while the Bible may be the same in many ways, it is interpreted
very differently.
Contrary to what the Pope says, I believe
(like Jon) that the splits are a good thing — especially when it has
to do with separating the truth from falsehood. God’s infinite
perfection cannot tolerate the promotion of misinformation attributable
to His Name. I consider it more of a cleansing than a division worth
grieving over for the division’s sake. The thing to grieve over is
that at least one side is wrong and may be tragically so.
