One of the telling things that Fr Kenneth points out in his book "Common heritage, divided communion: the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy" is related to implenting joint commission on a lay level and some of the barriers to doing so:
What also needs to be considered is our desire and willingness to offer this opportunity for full communion to God in humility and love. Glory to God for all things.
+ + +
SOURCE: Fr. Kenneth F. Yossa. "Common heritage, divided communion : the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy" (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009) 187-188.
For more on some of the problems on the lay level here's a talk by Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko:
"There are, at the same time, Orthodox faithful and clergy who not only consider the “other side” as heretical and even know much of the history of the “Chalcedonian schism” but (in varying degrees) deny outright the progress made in inter-Orthodox dialogue. As a consequence, they sometimes openly brand faithful from outside their own communion as schismatics or heretics in an archaic, “medieval” fashion."This unfortunately exists in both "families" (I'm a bit cautious of using this term as it again focuses on differences instead of encouraging us to look at what is meant and what is shared, that Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy and that in essence, in our core Ethos Orthodoxy or more accurately Authentic Christianity and encounter with Father, Son and Holy Spirit has and continues to be witnessed and affirmed for the life of the world.)
What also needs to be considered is our desire and willingness to offer this opportunity for full communion to God in humility and love. Glory to God for all things.
+ + +
Barriers to Unity Part 1: Antipaty and Ennui
It must be considered that for the better part of devout Orthodox who belong to one or other communion—particularly those living in a multicultural environment—would in all likelihood not stop to consider their neighbors of the other “heretical” in any real fashion. Indeed, short of the name “Orthodox” in their respective institutional tides, it might be said that most Orthodox faithful outside one communion know little or nothing of the other, except perhaps the fact that a fracture of communion exists (particularly in regard to acceptance of the general councils) and that the manner of worship is different.
There are, at the same time, Orthodox faithful and clergy who not only consider the “other side” as heretical and even know much of the history of the “Chalcedonian schism” but (in varying degrees) deny outright the progress made in inter-Orthodox dialogue. As a consequence, they sometimes openly brand faithful from outside their own communion as schismatics or heretics in an archaic, “medieval” fashion. Perhaps the most vociferous of these are found among those identified earlier as hypertraditionalist Orthodox believers.
Such proponents are found particularly in Eastern Orthodox communities and commonly hold that members of the “other” communion of churches (i.e., Oriental Orthodox) are definitely schismatic and probably, at best, heretical. In other words, they are considered members of churches which do not represent the authentic heritage and institutions of Orthodoxy. Such opinions are frequendy accompanied by a firm and sometimes vehement opposition to Orthodox involvement with ecumenical activity in general.
SOURCE: Fr. Kenneth F. Yossa. "Common heritage, divided communion : the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy" (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009) 187-188.
For more on some of the problems on the lay level here's a talk by Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko:
