Its only when people start saying that error has entered into the mind of the Church, that the fathers were wrong and we know better then they that group x is and has been a part or branch of the Church all along , that it starts to bother me. Or when we throw out our traditional eccelsiology to make dialogue more simple or ignore the cannons.
Well, this goes back to what I said earlier. I sure did hope that I would not know better than my own fathers, but guess what, your fathers weren't Nestorian, or so you say. And you had no problem saying my fathers were wrong.
At the same time, I read my own fathers' writings. I know what they believed. When you sit there and tell me that your fathers believed my fathers were Monophysites, I can easily say your fathers were 100% wrong, not because I know better than them, but because it is clear from my own fathers' writings that your fathers were wrong. And I never wanted to presume to be better than my own fathers, cause chances are, if they're Orthodox in faith (believing both in the full humanity and divinity of Christ without confusion or separation, preserving all properties of the natures, including will and energy), then they might be right about the Nestorianism of Chalcedon, right?
You still however never answered my question, "How can I trust you a Nestorian that you're telling me the truth?" I know I'm not a Monophysite, neither was Dioscorus. All I could know is that, without reading Leo's writings, you're trying to trick me into thinking you're Orthodox, while I'm trusting my fathers who had "true gnosis." What if you're the one that has to repent? For condemning my fathers who believed in the humanity and divinity without separation, division, confusion, or alteration might mean that you're also condemning their Orthodoxy, right?
While that is after all what you thought they did not believe, I KNOW VERY WELL they believed it, and I have my proof and counterproof against what you present. I did not know your fathers believed in the same thing, but you presume to know very well they believed thus, and you have proof and counterproof against what I present. How can we solve this predicament?
That's where the dialogue took that interesting turn to listen to one another's fathers rather than blindly accepting what was popular thought among themselves because frankly, that would just lead to two monologues. This is where one tests the grounds of ecclesiology, and studies them, and studies both histories to try to get a better understanding of these churches.
Now I agree that dialogues with RC's and Protestants that end up in compromising positions presents problems, and Subdeacon Peter Farrington here wrote a lengthy paper concerning the wrong ecumenisms of many of the churches around looking for minimal agreements to find unity, totally different from the EO/OO approach. That is why sometimes I find many of the EO defences against OO dialogues as a result of "ecumenist heretical attempts" as an empty cop-out, and a poor excuse to run away and hide from the truth of these dialogues. Islam does this in a more physical way, threatening people to death if one questions the Koran or the prophet Mohammed. It shuts the door to everything that was accomplished, and regresses us back to an unfortunate ignorance and hardened heart.
If one trusts in his/her Orthodoxy, there's nothing to hide from when reading the about the other perspective and the other preserved (and neglected) ancient writings.
After this, you can then understand why some hold to an ecclesiology that did not necessarily change, but only included those who professed that same Orthodox faith that was neglected ages ago.
I also question why this should be separated from the original post. It may be distinct, but it surely overlaps and has a lot to do with the OP. People are questioning "ecumenism" and adding the OO dialogues into this. I think this is an insult to the seriousness of the EO/OO dialogues, and it shows how much no one here knows anything about them, which is why EO/OO issues are involved. Perhaps, if they haven't mentioned this, there wouldn't be this lengthy discussion on OO issues in the "wrong" thread. They could mention the RC dialogues in question, or the WCC, but when it comes to the EO/OO dialogues, I am making the case that these have NOTHING to do with how WCC ran things or decided on things. In fact, there is a ROCOR member in OC.net who mentioned how much he admires the Copts for standing firm not influenced by the ecumenist liberalities that other Orthodox churches may be suffering from. I still have not grasped the full meaning of his words, but for a ROCOR to say such, that speaks volumes about the reality of the EO/OO dialogues, and the present Coptic views of the EO as opposed to 50 or 60 years ago, and it surely SHOULD give consideration to separate EO/OO dialogues from all other ecumenist activities that many here seem to confuse.
And if anything, I am also here to make a suggestion that the EO/OO dialogues are the IDEAL and ORTHODOX approach to ecumenism.