ACLumsden,

You said "...From conversations with Eastern Orthodox people, one in communion with Rome, the other not in communion with Rome, my impression is that of rigorous resistance to theological development as society progresses and so to, man's experiences of God. Hence the Orthodox Church's growing irrelevance to modern people."

The way I understand it, it is not a resistance to the idea of theological development, but rather the idea that theology can be altered or moved unilaterally. I don’t personally see a problem with the Pope using his authority to nip new ideas that cause heresy and disunity in the bud, what I think is valid to be resistant to is the idea that the Pope can unilaterally cause a change in dogma and accepted belief which then could not be countermanded. Development is healthy if it is done organically through the life of the whole Church, guided by patristic authority but not in such a top down bureaucratic way. In the system where once the bishop of Rome is convinced a change can happen to the whole Church than all pressure to make changes are pushed in this direction and sometimes the Pope caves. This is the type of universal jurisdiction orthodox find troubling. If however, more than one key needs to be turned, so to speak, as in the age of the Councils, than it is more difficult for heresy to envelop the entire Church. To be clear, this is what I meant by quoting Pope St. Gregory’s Epistle XXXIII.

As for “the Church of Rome trying to leap forward before the development of men in order to secure Her relevance.” I’m not sure how it is in Europe but here when I visit the Catholic Church I feel out of place, it seems to have lost something when the English translation was not a real translation but a new Mass. I am interested in seeing the revised work that will be used this Advent. I am very glad that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI took up this issue. As for making it relevent, it is not wise to change liturgical practices top down except in issues of error. The very fact that the Mass had to be changed and that the communion rail came down and that alter moved from the sanctuary caused problems for many over the last several decades. Admittedly, these changes all happened before I was born but having experienced the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the English language, a faithful translation from the original, the Post Vatican II Mass just seemed so short and it was missing so much of the rich tradition that the Church has. It saddens me that people still complain that it is too long; they do this in the Orthodox Church as well and is not a denominational criticism. If people who complained about how much time they spend in Church understood what it really was they would never want it to end. I think that it is in the Liturgy that the real Catechism happens; it is the Heavenly Liturgy breaking into the earthly kingdom. A better understanding of this, a greater sense of reverence for the sacred, and a commitment to becoming real examples of Christ to those in the world are far better remedies than modern innovations that cater to illnesses of a lukewarm society.

“Therefore, I think one needs to look at a more complete picture of the problem, rather than who's right and who's wrong.”

Quite right. Given the image of the Church as Christ’s body I see it like this: Christ as the head of the church with the bishops making up each vertebra of the spine, and the Holy Spirit flowing to the body through the spinal cord and nerves. The Pope is at the top of the spine and when the bishops stand for the faith together and work together to support the function of the body then it functions. Now the back is broken, or at least some discs are displaced, and that has hindered the ability of the Church to function as it should. The article I mentioned in my last post by Fr. Thomas Hopko has something good on this as well:

And here, I would say, on the planet Earth right now, I think –in fact, I am sure – the Orthodox churches around the world are not motivated for unity. In some of the churches, they even think that ecumenism is a heresy. In some churches, there is a feeling that what we just did upstairs – pray together – is not Orthodox. These Orthodox feel we should not pray together with Catholics because they are heretics. Some Orthodox believe that…

So if there is a desire for unity, that will be proved not only by difficult, painful efforts to distinguish between what is essentially of the faith and what is not, but it will also require believers to do absolutely everything they can with others if only who by themselves are convinced would be contrary to the gospel if they did not – in other words – and this became a popular teaching of Pope John XXIII – who said “let us pledge to do together everything that we can, and do separately only the things that are still for us a matter of content and faith.” That’s exactly what John Paul II said in [his 1995 apostolic letter] “Orientale Lumen”… He called on Roman Catholics to affirm whatever is good, true, beautiful, holy, of God, wherever it is…” It’s absolute obligation for an Orthodox – and more than an obligation, a joy – to affirm any agreement anywhere among human beings that we can claim as really true, right and of God. Now, how much more would that be the case if we were talking about the Christian Faith? The gospel? Christ? His divinity? His humanity? If we share all those things in common, then we should affirm them, and stand before the world affirming them in common.

I honestly do not believe most Orthodox leaders are even conscious of that. There is another agenda going on, an agenda that belongs to this world…. That is why we Orthodox ourselves are so weak, miserable and divided, even though we claim a unity of faith (which we have) and a unity of worship (which we have), a unity in saints and tradition (which we have). But to actually do activities that would show this, witness to it, bring it to the world… I don’t think that is there.”