And here's the second part.
Ochlophobist asked:
One thing I would like to ask the both of you is what form or forms this radical ascesis that we must go through in order for reunion to occur is to take? It could be that I am completely misunderstanding what it is you refer to. Other than the traditional forms of ascesis in Orthodoxy, what forms should be added? Are you proposing that Orthodox bishops insert specific prayers for reunion into the Liturgy, or have special reunion Molebans composed, or that bishops exhort their faithful to fast, pray, and give alms for reunion? Do dialogue-events of the ecumenical industry count as a serious form of ascesis, is this an aspect of the ascetical path to reunion of which you speak? Is it more along the lines of personal ascetical acts? Please explain.
Father Gregory answered that:
[W]hat is needed is a willingness to empathize each with the other.
In all humility and charity, Can an OC allow him or herself to understand not simply what RC believe, but why their beliefs matter? Can an OC, in other words, see the world through RC eyes? Is the willingness to see as the other sees even present? Likewise for RC--can they see the world through the eyes of an OC?
Yes, I agree that the intellectual, emotional and even physical work of developing a sense of the Other is itself a form of askesis. If love is not an ascetical labor then I don't know what is!
(And if the effort it took to compose my last post was not ascetic, I am assured by a number of people, including my dear Abbot, that reading it most definitely is!)Â
So yes, even the "dialogue-events of the ecumenical industry" are at least potentially ascetic. To the extent they require only the effort of ego-gratification, of course, they are nothing of the sort. But then fasting and almsgiving done vaingloriously are not ascetic either. (A subject close to my scrupulous heart around Thanksgiving in the Nativity Fast!)
But I don't actually think that trying to understand and appreciate the Other is the only askesis that matters. Important, but not the whole banana.
The Ochlophobist phrases his questions by first separating out acts of personal asceticism: "Other than the traditional forms of ascesis in Orthodoxy, what forms should be added?" Here's my main point: those "traditional forms" are of their essence ecumenical in character. Ecumenism is conversion of self. As we each of us become more conformed to Christ we become more conformed to His Body the Church. This should make us not less but rather far, far more appalled by the divisions within that Body and of our own contributions to that division. But above all, conversion of self is the primary way by which ecumenism is furthered and the Kingdom of Heaven built up upon the earth brick by ascetic brick. Authentic ecumenism is always, ALWAYS about authentic repentance. And not just an abstract ecclesial apology, but real and personal conversion of body, soul and spirit.
It will no doubt be objected that many great Saints seem to be among the most horrified of the ecumenical movement. But I would argue that that to which, say St. John Maximovitch or St. Nicolai Velimorovich or any other modern Orthodox opponent of the "panheresy,"Â really objects is not true but only false ecumenism.
Well, so do I.
But that very rejection amounts to an affirmation of the vital importance of true ecumenism. If the fathers of the Holy Mountain mean what they say, then the fact that they pray daily for, "the peace of the whole world, the welfare of the holy Churches of God and for the union of all" makes them, in the truest sense of the word, ecumenical. This means that all their acts of personal and corporate asceticism have an ecumenical dimension. They pray and fast not only for themselves but also that this prayer may be fulfilled.
I'm not just playing with words. Yes, I am trying to re-define "ecumenism" away from the idea that it's about professional theologians, conferences and junkets. I'm even trying to re-define it away from those of us who actually believe the Churches are already in a fundamental sense united. I want the word to mean what it ought to mean: faith in the salvation of the peopled world, the oikumene, through Christ Jesus and the need to witness to this salvation throughout that world.
So yes, by acting as our kathartic conscience, the ecumenists of Athos are as essential to the work of re-union as the optimists of Bari and Geneva; perhaps more so.
Now the Ochlophobist may wish to remind me at this point that the grace of repentance can be discerned only within the boundaries of the visible Orthodox Church. I may or may not be an object of grace, so my "ecumenism of repentance" may be no more than straw. Well, I could submit to this if I believed it, but I don't so I won't. But that decision itself costs effort, just as the decision to make it in humility and far from anger. And it costs me to continue to knock on the closed door of that ecclesiology in the sheer hope that my persistence will admit me.
Do I deserve admittance? Do I have any real claims over the Other? If so, then all this persistence could easily curdle into resentment. False ecumenism, like fake love, is always really about Me. How important it is, then, that that door should remain closed a little longer. How important that when it finally opens I do not find just another version of myself or a political partner. How important that the One who opens to me is truly the Beloved.
