Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[RyanBlack]

All the Churches are unified in the core belief of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and items expressed in the Nicene Creed-(or Apostles Creed or that 3rd one which I can’t spell)all carry outthe work of salvation

**Bureacratic Unity between the Orthodox and RC and for that matter the Anglicans and Lutherans (the latter two are in full communion) will have 0 effect on the world so it really does not matter if it happens or not **- I have never heard this discussed by regular Catholics-

I entirely disagree. As my theology professor, Geoffrey Wainwright, has pointed out, “The alternative to visible unity is visible dis-unity, and that is a witness against the Gospel.” The fact that Christians are divided into Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, and myriads of Protestant denominations is scandalous, and is not in accordance with Christ’s desire that we all be one. It also hinders our efforts at evangelism. This is why Anglicans, Methodists, Congregationalists, and Reformed Christians in southern India united as the Church of South India. They were taken to task by the people they sought to convert who realized the inconsistency between the message of a Gospel of peace and a divided Christianity.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t know how I could have invented the circularity, since it was based on what the Orthodox posters were saying. But it’s symptomatic of a tendency of some Orthodox posters on these forums to be elusive about the basis for their opinions. And circular reasoning is a characteristic of Protestantism even if a Catholic does it.

As I said, Circular reasoning is something that is quite common among all people. Protestants didn’t invent it, and you can be certain that Christians were using it before the Great-Schism. When people are elusive about the basis for their opinions, that’s fine, it simply shows a lack of comfort or a lack of knowledge with what they’ve been taught. Theology can be a very complex field and eventually everyone is forced to say they don’t understand. So no, it isn’t a Protestant trait, it is a human trait which even Catholics give in to.

But I think what in part caused me to make the Protestant remark, is the disconnect I’ve experienced between Orthodox posters here and in another forum, and Orthodox people I have known. The Orthodox Christians I have known, and it hasn’t been a lot, have all been decent and warm people, with their religion being a part, perhaps the major part, of their Greek or Russian heritage. If I asked about their religious practices, they responded with a deep seated confidence and a disarming humility. Once I even asked if I could come along for the Divine Liturgy. And even though I couldn’t understand the Greek that was being spoken, I remember being touched by the deep piety of my friend’s grandmother and took note of what could only be the Divine presence in her soul lighting up her eyes.

Meeting people in different situations will cause different reactions. If I met a Catholic at Church I would wish him or her well, if the Catholic started arguing about aspects of faith I would avoid the individual, quietly hoping they’d go away. Here on the forums it is a different matter, and it is a different subset. People don’t come here for the same reason they go to the Liturgy.

I read Timothy Ware’s book in order to inform myself about Orthodoxy some more. After some consideration of his points, I reached the frank conclusion that I could not understand why he was not a Catholic himself. It was from his book that I learned that the Orthodox accept the historical Petrine nature of the Roman Church, but do not accept what they believe to be the accumulation of more power in the papacy than was originally intended. But I was impressed with the hopeful tone he had in discussing the possibility of the two Churches reuniting. In time, I became very eager that such a reunification would one day take place, for the good of the Church, and for the good of the world to which we are to be a light.

Keep in mind that Ware is above all else a scholar, and while he is certainly a moderate ecumenist, he does not speak for Orthodoxy as a whole. Unity is part of the prayers of the Divine Liturgy, but that does not mean we’re going to rush out and unite tomorrow. You must understand, the Orthodox Church is a slow moving beast, it does not rush into anything, and it will make sure all the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted before anything happens. I think most people however overlook the biggest block to unity, what unity actually means. I can assure you the Orthodox view is quite a bit different than the Catholic view (as demonstrated through the Eastern Catholics).

One day I went to an online Orthodox forum and joined as a member. I restricted myself to the forum on Orthodox-Catholic relations. I naively thought that I would discuss reunification between the two Churches with a sympathetic group. Well, let me tell you, I never ran into such a buzzsaw in all my life. There were a large number who not only didn’t want to reunite with the Catholic Church, but positively detested Catholicism, and weren’t ashamed to let me know the fact of it and why. Meanwhile, I was informed that I was to preface anything I said with words like “in my opinion” so that no one could mistake what I said for a proclamation, while it was permissible for the Orthodox to hurl any abuse they had a mind to. Finding these operating rules oppressive, I eventually stopped posting there.

To this I’ll just say that I’ve yet to find a good Orthodox forum. My complaints against them are pretty much what you mention above, most of them seem to think the ideal is preaching to the choir how great they are and not having to think. I come here because it does have other Orthodox, but it also allows people to speak their minds within reason. While some members are into silencing those who oppose them, they are a small minority and can be safely ignored.

 

[Nine_Two]

Later I found Catholic Answers Forums, and signed up. At that time there was a specific Catholic-Orthodox forum, so I went there to see if my reunification hope would find a more sympathetic audience there. Well, what did my wondering eyes behold, here were the Orthodox engaged in polemics almost as aggressive as what I witnessed on the Orthodox forum. They were calling my Church heterodox, accusing us of seeking domination rather than unity, accusing Catholics of misrepresenting Catholic teaching in order to obtain that sinister unity, calling the Eastern Catholics dupes, saying the Filioque is a heresy, rendering polemical versions of history, and making loud and clear the position that there would be no reunification with the Catholics except by means of conversion to Orthodoxy. Meanwhile they had people who seemed to be able spend all day at the forum, making numerous posts as long as this one, and nearly impossible to keep up with.

You’ve brought polemics up quite a few times, and I wonder what you mean by that? As far as I can see in this thread since you’ve been active you introduced the polemics with the namecalling, before that all I can see is apologetics. Now I will admit both that the line between polemics and apologetics can be pretty fine and you may place it in a different place than I do, and that I know there are plenty of polemics on this forum and I haven’t made it a mission to follow all your posts. I get the feeling, however, that you’ve come here looking for confirmation that we’re all the same, and seem somewhat surprised that Orthodox respond negatively to the idea that we just submit to Rome without question. I assure you, if we were going to do that, we would have already.

With views so intransigent, I had to wonder why they came to a Catholic forum at all. Was it to make converts? Was it to try and show the world the superiority of their religion? I decided that I would no longer emphasize unity with them, but, rather, do the best I could to defend my Catholic faith in my own small way.

I can only speak for myself, but my reasons for coming here are above (plus I wanted to learn more about Catholicism). I congradulate and encourage your desire to defend the Catholic faith. Part of my own interest in apologetics is that you learn so much about your faith - and other faiths - just by defending it. But it is so easy for apologetics to dissintigrate into Polemics.

Still, I wondered. Why were these Orthodox Christians so different from the ones I knew personally? Then I remembered that certain leaders of Campus Crusade had become Orthodox back in the 1970s forming the Evangelical Orthodox Church. Most of those Churches eventually came under the Antiochian Orthodox Church, with others joining the Orthodox Church of America. It is quite possible, I thought, that these individuals brought their evangelical anti-catholicism with them when they converted and maintained much of the same impetus to witness to the unsaved that was so essential to their evangelical Protestantism. And maybe, I thought, some of that same spirit spread to other Orthodox Christians. Of course, suggestions of reunification would sound ridiculous to those ears. They are proclaiming the truth, the truth that involves the falsity of Catholicism, now with the added confidence that comes from belonging to a Church that goes back to the Apostles. Of course, I have no way of knowing that, but it is sometimes in the back of my mind, and maybe that’s a partial reason I used the “P” word. Let me assure you, I’ve gotten worse from the Orthodox.

My guess is we seem different because you’re talking to us in a Catholic environment. No, there isn’t an evangelical anti-Catholicism among us, while individuals may hold anti-Catholic sentiment, just as many individual Catholics hold anti-Orthodox sentiment (I’m of course not sure where you wish to draw the line between being anti-something, and purely disagreeing with that same thing, some here seem to think refusing to acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is being anti-Catholic, others don’t seem to react until you reach the Jack Chick level. Subjective I guess, but I digress). The reaction to reunification, and I’m guilty of taking the knee-jerk approach, is often because of the Catholic polemics that the only reason Orthodox don’t submit to Rome - reasoning somehow that we are already the exact same, even though posts in this thread and others show why we aren’t - is because we are prideful (begging the question, why does Rome not submit to us? Why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church become an Autonomous branch of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?). You must understand that these attacks don’t endear us to the idea.

Sorry for the long double length post.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think that this might be a misunderstanding because the Roman Catholic Church claims that its teachings are based upon Tradition and Holy Scripture.
Also, some Catholics tend to believe that many of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are due not so much to an essential difference in teaching, but more to what may be expressed briefly as a difference between the Latin mindset and the Eastern Orthodox mindset.
But at the same time, my guess is that the Roman Church is going to have to give a whole lot more study to the issue of papal infallibilty and supremacy and what it would mean in a united Church, East and West.

I said it was taking Vat I to its final conclusion, unfortunetly people taking things beyond their intended bounds to the final conclusion was the story of Pio nono’s life.

I think the Roman Catholic Church has some major reflection to do before it is ready for Union with the Orthodox Churches, but at the same time I think that goes both ways, thankfully I think both are well under way, but only God can know how far they need to go. I am not very optimistic that it will happen during my life, but I am open to the possibility.

 

[Nine_Two]

Take it to her bishop! She’s preaching heresy! Not too many video games? Sleeping properly? Fruits AND vegetables? You poor man.

 

[JackQ]

Of course, there are plenty of Catholics, some of whom post here, who are as contemptuous of the Orthodox as these Orthodox you describe here are of Catholics. Why, don’t you know that the Orthodox are evil, heretical, schismatic proto-Protestants who are all doomed to an eternity in hell?

Actually, no, I don’t see that very often. I was once told by an Orthodox poster that I would be damned for believing the Filioque, but I’ve never seen the reverse take place. I’ll keep an eye out, and if I ever see a Catholic tell an Orthodox Christian that he’s going to hell, I’ll make sure that I make it abundantly clear that the remark is over the top.

 

[JackQ]

All the Churches are unified in the core belief of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and items expressed in the Nicene Creed-(or Apostles Creed or that 3rd one which I can’t spell)all carry outthe work of salvation

Bureacratic Unity between the Orthodox and RC and for that matter the Anglicans and Lutherans (the latter two are in full communion) will have 0 effect on the world so it really does not matter if it happens or not - I have never heard this discussed by regular Catholics-

But real unity would be a light to the world.

 

[JackQ]

As I said, Circular reasoning is something that is quite common among all people. Protestants didn’t invent it, and you can be certain that Christians were using it before the Great-Schism. When people are elusive about the basis for their opinions, that’s fine, it simply shows a lack of comfort or a lack of knowledge with what they’ve been taught. Theology can be a very complex field and eventually everyone is forced to say they don’t understand. So no, it isn’t a Protestant trait, it is a human trait which even Catholics give in to.

Meeting people in different situations will cause different reactions. If I met a Catholic at Church I would wish him or her well, if the Catholic started arguing about aspects of faith I would avoid the individual, quietly hoping they’d go away. Here on the forums it is a different matter, and it is a different subset. People don’t come here for the same reason they go to the Liturgy.

Keep in mind that Ware is above all else a scholar, and while he is certainly a moderate ecumenist, he does not speak for Orthodoxy as a whole. Unity is part of the prayers of the Divine Liturgy, but that does not mean we’re going to rush out and unite tomorrow. You must understand, the Orthodox Church is a slow moving beast, it does not rush into anything, and it will make sure all the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted before anything happens. I think most people however overlook the biggest block to unity, what unity actually means. I can assure you the Orthodox view is quite a bit different than the Catholic view (as demonstrated through the Eastern Catholics).

To this I’ll just say that I’ve yet to find a good Orthodox forum. My complaints against them are pretty much what you mention above, most of them seem to think the ideal is preaching to the choir how great they are and not having to think. I come here because it does have other Orthodox, but it also allows people to speak their minds within reason. While some members are into silencing those who oppose them, they are a small minority and can be safely ignored.

But…look, I’m afraid you’re going to get offended again, but I’m going to have to talk about my opinions and observations regarding Orthodoxy. I don’t mean any of this personally. The circularity of the Protestants is that they base their beliefs on their interpretation of the Bible, but they have no authoritative basis for saying one interpretation is correct and the other is incorrect. Based on your explanations, the circularity I see in the Orthodox (here goes, take a deep breath and count to 10) is that they base their faith on tradition and tradition on faith. The reason why Catholicism doesn’t have that same issue is because we have Tradition, the Scriptures, and a Magisterium that authoritatively interprets both. That’s what I was referring to. I wasn’t simply talking about the fallibility of human reasoning.

Now I like the fact that you say that theology is complex and no one understands it completely. Maybe with that recognition the Orthodox could spend a little time with us to see if maybe, by golly, we Catholics are actually in agreement with them on a great deal, maybe even in our understanding of the Trinity, although we express things differently. These forums are a perfectly safe place to do that. Nobody here has the ability, even if they have the desire, to hide a large wooden mallet of papal domination behind their backs during the discussion. Of course, everyone would have to agree that unity is the goal in order to make that work. If unity is not a desirable goal, then, I guess we have to talk about something else. But I would think that telling us that we’re heterodox and reliving the sack of Constantinople would get boring after awhile.

I don’t know what you mean by what unity means. I know that the papacy is a big stumbling block, but that even the Pope has said that the manner that the Pope exercises his jurisdiction is up for discussion. Perhaps you could lay out for us what unity means to the Orthodox.

 

[Nine_Two]

But…look, I’m afraid you’re going to get offended again, but I’m going to have to talk about my opinions and observations regarding Orthodoxy. I don’t mean any of this personally. The circularity of the Protestants is that they base their beliefs on their interpretation of the Bible, but they have no authoritative basis for saying one interpretation is correct and the other is incorrect. Based on your explanations, the circularity I see in the Orthodox (here goes, take a deep breath and count to 10) is that they base their faith on tradition and tradition on faith. The reason why Catholicism doesn’t have that same issue is because we have Tradition, the Scriptures, and a Magisterium that authoritatively interprets both. That’s what I was referring to. I wasn’t simply talking about the fallibility of human reasoning.

You’re more likely to offend pretending to step on eggshells than say what you mean

Since you are talking about my explanations, as you admit here, I’ll give it to you one more time, I never said faith is based on tradition is based on faith is based on tradition. Tradition and faith are the same thing, and tradition must be consistant with itself, if something is said which is not consistant with previous tradition, it is not tradition. Additionally Scripture is simply another part of tradition. An important part, but not something distinct. That is certainly not circular reasoning.

Trying one more time to give an example, we’ll go with Tertulian. Much of his writings are kept with the anti-Nicene fathers as part of the tradition of the church, however later in his life he fell into heresy and nothing he wrote after that point is part of tradition. Why? Because it isn’t consistant with the body of tradition which we have, although what he had written earlier was. There is no circular reasoning here since we are judging it based on what preceeded it, and not simply on what we want to agree with.

Now I like the fact that you say that theology is complex and no one understands it completely. Maybe with that recognition the Orthodox could spend a little time with us to see if maybe, by golly, we Catholics are actually in agreement with them on a great deal, maybe even in our understanding of the Trinity, although we express things differently. These forums are a perfectly safe place to do that. Nobody here has the ability, even if they have the desire, to hide a large wooden mallet of papal domination behind their backs during the discussion. Of course, everyone would have to agree that unity is the goal in order to make that work. If unity is not a desirable goal, then, I guess we have to talk about something else. But I would think that telling us that we’re heterodox and reliving the sack of Constantinople would get boring after awhile.

The goal of these discussions should be understanding, not unity. Unity will come through understanding, but it won’t come first. Those who make unity the goal of discussions often have to create a false sense of understanding. Of course we are in agreement on a great deal, so what? Catholics are also in agreement with Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. on a great deal (Protestants, incidently).

I don’t know what you mean by what unity means. I know that the papacy is a big stumbling block, but that even the Pope has said that the manner that the Pope exercises his jurisdiction is up for discussion. Perhaps you could lay out for us what unity means to the Orthodox.

The Catholic view of unity is of the Orthodox as Sui Juris (autonomous in Greek) churches under Rome. The Orthodox view of unity is Autocephalous Churches in shared communion. The distinction being that any given comment or instruction by the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople has absolutely no bearing on, say, the Church of Jerusalem. But an Autonomous Church does ultimately answer to the Mother Church, even if indirectly.

 

[JackQ]

You’ve brought polemics up quite a few times, and I wonder what you mean by that? As far as I can see in this thread since you’ve been active you introduced the polemics with the namecalling, before that all I can see is apologetics. Now I will admit both that the line between polemics and apologetics can be pretty fine and you may place it in a different place than I do, and that I know there are plenty of polemics on this forum and I haven’t made it a mission to follow all your posts. I get the feeling, however, that you’ve come here looking for confirmation that we’re all the same, and seem somewhat surprised that Orthodox respond negatively to the idea that we just submit to Rome without question. I assure you, if we were going to do that, we would have already.

I can only speak for myself, but my reasons for coming here are above (plus I wanted to learn more about Catholicism). I congradulate and encourage your desire to defend the Catholic faith. Part of my own interest in apologetics is that you learn so much about your faith - and other faiths - just by defending it. But it is so easy for apologetics to dissintigrate into Polemics.

My guess is we seem different because you’re talking to us in a Catholic environment. No, there isn’t an evangelical anti-Catholicism among us, while individuals may hold anti-Catholic sentiment, just as many individual Catholics hold anti-Orthodox sentiment (I’m of course not sure where you wish to draw the line between being anti-something, and purely disagreeing with that same thing, some here seem to think refusing to acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is being anti-Catholic, others don’t seem to react until you reach the Jack Chick level. Subjective I guess, but I digress). The reaction to reunification, and I’m guilty of taking the knee-jerk approach, is often because of the Catholic polemics that the only reason Orthodox don’t submit to Rome - reasoning somehow that we are already the exact same, even though posts in this thread and others show why we aren’t - is because we are prideful (begging the question, why does Rome not submit to us? Why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church become an Autonomous branch of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?). You must understand that these attacks don’t endear us to the idea.

Sorry for the long double length post.

It’s only name calling if you’re insulted by the name. But as I’ve said, I didn’t intend it as name calling. I didn’t swear at you, or question your character. I simply made an honest assessment of how I could categorize your point of view. Your proper response was to show me how I was wrong. But I should have known better, because as I was struggling over what you were telling me, and asked another question, you said this in Post #671:

We’ve been over how orthodoxy is determined, if you wish to bring up the topic again so broadly I must assume that any conversation on that topic is useless. If you have specific questions about how it is determined, as you have already been asking, feel free to ask, but don’t repeat questions that have already been answered for you.

This was just before my infamous Protestant remark. Now, see, some people might take that as a little snarky. It implies one of two things, either (1) I was being disingenuous in my inquiry, or (2) I was too stupid to follow the conversation. Either way, it is indicative of an attitude that I do not enjoy a status (because of religion, education level, or otherwise) that requires you to speak to me in a respectful tone. Now, my Protestant remark was a statement about your ideas. Your comment was a statement about me. I chose to blow your comment off and move on (until now). You keep coming back to my remark. And I’m sorry that you were offended. I didn’t mean the remark personally.

I don’t know how you get the impression that I’ve come here looking for confirmation that we’re all the same. I learned long ago that the Orthodox will have none of that. But since many Orthodox come here with the idea that we are heretics, and that the only solution for us to become unified consists in Catholics converting to Orthodoxy, I remain puzzled as to why they come here at all. What could they possibly hope to learn from people so deficient in their beliefs? Maybe they’re here to teach us. If so, it would be useful for their own purposes if they were a little nicer when we ask questions.

 

[Nine_Two]

This was just before my infamous Protestant remark. Now, see, some people might take that as a little snarky. It implies one of two things, either (1) I was being disingenuous in my inquiry, or (2) I was too stupid to follow the conversation. Either way, it is indicative of an attitude that I do not enjoy a status (because of religion, education level, or otherwise) that requires you to speak to me in a respectful tone. Now, my Protestant remark was a statement about your ideas. Your comment was a statement about me. I chose to blow your comment off and move on (until now). You keep coming back to my remark. And I’m sorry that you were offended. I didn’t mean the remark personally.

Some people might see it in snarky, you clearly did as you did mention it in your next post. Perhaps it was, since the distinction between “who” and “what” when speaking of inanimate objects can be an issue of semantics (I clarify can be because in your next post you made clear the distinction you meant).
I went back to your own comment because you brought up the issue of polemics and that was where I first saw any indication of it. You are correct that the comment of mine can be taken as offensive (it was not meant that way, I actually thought you were re-stating an answered question. I apologize for that interpretation), but it wasn’t by any definition of the word a polemic.
It is not an issue of offence so much as the intent behind it. You are not the first to use the term in that way, and generally on this forum it is used to belittle the beliefs and position of whoever is being called “Protestant”. I suppose that says more about the culture of this forum than you.

At any rate, perhaps at this time it would be best to drop the subject.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Jack,

… Based on your explanations, the circularity I see in the Orthodox (here goes, take a deep breath and count to 10) is that they base their faith on tradition and tradition on faith. The reason why Catholicism doesn’t have that same issue is because we have Tradition, the Scriptures, and a Magisterium that authoritatively interprets both. That’s what I was referring to.

I find this an odd statement.

There is no ‘issue’.

Holy Orthodoxy has the Magisterium, I don’t know how you could miss it. Every bishop has teaching authority or they wouldn’t be bishops.

… I don’t know what you mean by what unity means. I know that the papacy is a big stumbling block, but that even the Pope has said that the manner that the Pope exercises his jurisdiction is up for discussion. Perhaps you could lay out for us what unity means to the Orthodox.

There is no need to discuss how he exercises his jurisdiction, It is only necessary for him to understand what his jurisdiction really is, and he will know how to exercise it.

Now he shouldn’t have to ask us about that, one would think he can figure it out for himself.

To Orthodox unity is through a common received faith, which enables the many Apostolic churches to share communion, and the many hierarchs of these self-governed churches to concelelbrate. We already have that, and the Papacy can have that with us.

Unity can be a very easy fix, the formula for unity is very simple.

 

[sidbrown]

You are not the first to use the term in that way, and generally on this forum it is used to belittle the beliefs and position of whoever is being called “Protestant”.

My guess is that a Protestant is someone who accepts the 95 theses of Luther, who believes that salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ and not by good works or sacraments, and who generally believes in sola scriptura or something close to it. Also, Protestants generally reject the idea of apostolic succession. Protestantism began in the early 16th century. So it is something entirely different and unrelated to the schism which occurred at about 1054 or so between E. Orthodox and R. Catholics.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Unity can be a very easy fix, the formula for unity is very simple.

And always has been. The problem is Roman Church has it completely backwards and has for many centuries now.

 

[JackQ]

Hello Jack,
I find this an odd statement.

There is no ‘issue’.

Holy Orthodoxy has the Magisterium, I don’t know how you could miss it. Every bishop has teaching authority or they wouldn’t be bishops.
There is no need to discuss how he exercises his jurisdiction, It is only necessary for him to understand what his jurisdiction really is, and he will know how to exercise it.

Now he shouldn’t have to ask us about that, one would think he can figure it out for himself.

To Orthodox unity is through a common received faith, which enables the many Apostolic churches to share communion, and the many hierarchs of these self-governed churches to concelelbrate. We already have that, and the Papacy can have that with us.

Unity can be a very easy fix, the formula for unity is very simple.

Well, okay, then. The person that I was talking to didn’t let on that such was the case. If I were looking for Magisterial statements in Orthodoxy, where would I look?

Also, what would be that simple formula for unity?

 

[JackQ]

My guess is that a Protestant is someone who accepts the 95 theses of Luther, who believes that salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ and not by good works or sacraments, and who generally believes in sola scriptura or something close to it. Also, Protestants generally reject the idea of apostolic succession. Protestantism began in the early 16th century. So it is something entirely different and unrelated to the schism which occurred at about 1054 or so between E. Orthodox and R. Catholics.

Not all Protestants reject apostolic succession. But, per suggestion, I’m going to let the subject drop now.

 

[JackQ]

And always has been. The problem is Roman Church has it completely backwards and has for many centuries now.

Perhaps you could help to clarify this as well.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Perhaps you could help to clarify this as well.

Michael already said it. Our unity is maintained through and in the shared Apostolic Faith. The Roman Church has it backwards because it attempts to establish unity based on submission to the pope because of the Apostolic origins of the see.

For not from his [the pope’s] Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. - 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

We are united because the bishops of the world hold each other accountable to maintain fidelity to the Faith that has been handed to them. The formula for unity with the Roman Catholic Church is for the pope and bishops in union with him to confess the same faith we confess, the same faith that we once held in common.

 

[ciero]

Michael already said it. Our unity is maintained through and in the shared Apostolic Faith. The Roman Church has it backwards because it attempts to establish unity based on submission to the pope because of the Apostolic origins of the see.

For not from his [the pope’s] Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. - 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

We are united because the bishops of the world hold each other accountable to maintain fidelity to the Faith that has been handed to them. The formula for unity with the Roman Catholic Church is for the pope and bishops in union with him to confess the same faith we confess, the same faith that we once held in common.

AMEN AMEN AMEN!! Maybe someday the pope will “get it”…I’m still holding out hope!

 

[Hesychios]

Well, okay, then. The person that I was talking to didn’t let on that such was the case. If I were looking for Magisterial statements in Orthodoxy, where would I look?

Come to the cathedral, sing the hymns and prayers … listen to the sermon … meet the bishop.

Also, what would be that simple formula for unity?

I just told you.

Believe rightly, teach rightly, and share communion with other bishops who do likewise. That has worked for 2000 years.