what you wrote here can occur:
Why could not Pan Orthodox Council write up a statement of the doctrine affirmed by the 7 Ecumenical Councils in way that the truth of Orthodoxy is not sacrificed, but that the doctrine of the Church is expressed in such way that Oriental Orthodox can accept? St. Cyril set the example for this through his letter to John of Antioch.St. Cyril set a good example about reconciling two views on a topic,
or two sides of the same coin. He did this by affirming both his own view (Miaphysitism) and accepting the views of others (Duophysitism), and in his writings you can see him accepting both sides. I think that is a good idea, and that both of them are correct.
I think joint statements are helpful, but they only express a viewpoint as far as the other side will accept it, and thus unlike St. Cyril's method it may not really affirm both views. Deacon Kuraev, a leading Russian theologian, felt that the joint statement ended up repeating Monoelithism, which was an attempt to create a theology that was halfway between two views.
Not only was St. Cyril affirming both perspectives as OK, but he also did not have the task of defending the acceptability of Ecumenical Councils. At that point no one was rejecting such a Council.I think you can propose a solution
where accepting Ecumenical Councils is considered unnecessary, but this comes up against the issues I mentioned in messages 84 and 89:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55215.msg1045091.html#msg1045091http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55215.msg1045197.html#msg1045197
Namely, it would require rejecting the Councils' Ecumenicity (being Pan-Orthodox as you put it), as well as either rejecting forever some theologians' idea of the Councils' infallibility or accepting for certain the idea of the Invisible Church / Branch Theory.
Further, I do
think that the outcome you are proposing is possible, because the Church can define things as it wishes, and I can entertain different views on Ecumenicity, acceptance of Councils, infallibility, and the Branch Theory.
Personally I do not prefer this outcome or making such revisions because I think that the Councils' main creedal statements made were logical and valid. I would prefer that Christians be of one mind and resolve whether those statements were OK.
It would be helpful if it was true as you suggested that:
I think that the OOs have no real objections to the doctrinal conclusions of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils.
Their chief objection to the 4th Council is its acceptance of the Tome of Leo. It lacks the important defining words of the final declaration of Chalcedon, "without division," and "without separation" which prevent a Nestorian interpretation
The Tome notes that Christ said:
"See My hands and feet, that it is I. Handle Me and see that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me have ;" in order that the properties of His Divine and human nature [singular] might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable: and that we might know the Word not to be different from the flesh...
I find this passage as remarkably accepting Miaphysitism for two reasons, and explain this in the private section:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,52873.msg1045510.html#msg1045510