Is there a movement for Catholic and Orthodox to join back together?

[Babaganoush]

Fasting rules are different from church to church, even within the Orthodox Church. Some Orthodox churches will rebaptise Catholics based on the lack of triple immersion in the catholic baptismal rite.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

The Arian heresy has its roots in Arius, a north African Berber. While his locus of support naturally gathered around him in his physical location of Alexandria, he had support across the empire before his position was deemed heretical at Nicaea and later just across the Bosphorus in Constantinople.

Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia.

The Arian heresy as all other heresies are named after the heretic. Arius in particular to Arian.
That said; Arius himself was not a bishop, therefore was not allowed to sit in the council of Nicea. What we have representing the Arian heresy at the Council of Nicea is an Eastern Bishop Eusebius of Nicodemia, who presented the Arian view and was eventually deposed and exiled by the Emperor. We not only have the priest Arius teaching the Arian heresy, but we have Eastern Bishops teaching and supporting the Arian heresy. In the capacity of the council Arius served no purpose. Arius had the support of Eastern Bishops, Eusebius of Nicodemia, Eusebius of Caesarea, later Gregory of Alexander etc…These Arian Eastern Bishops will regain their Patriarchial status under later Pagan and Arian Emperors. These Eastern Arian Bishop’s gain power over the empire, as history recorded; " “The whole world groaned, and marveled at finding itself Arian !”.

Arianism would endure in the fallen west for nearly another half millennium via the migrations that collapsed the western Roman Empire.

The West had no support from the Eastern Emperor’s. The Goth’s who were converted to the Eastern Arian heresy invaded the West and brought with them their Arian heretical Church.
The West was never infected with Arianism during the council’s that addressed the Arian heresy.

The notion that Arianism is, somehow, an “eastern” concept is a bizarre one. If I had to guess, it’s forwarded by people who wish to preserve the historical theological integrity of the west via revisionism.

I believe your personal opinion here contradicts recorded history and all Church historians both East and West. Those Eastern Church’s who did not fall victim to the Arian heresy and suffered persecution, would really be opposed to your opinion here.

For the record; both East and West Church’s defeated the Arian heresy when the Arian heresy arrived at their door steps. Arian was defeated firstly at an Eastern Church council, but the Arian heresy continued before and after the fall of the Western Empire. When the West regained Imperial support by a Western Emperor. The Arian heretics were converted to the Nicene Creed faith.

 

[bmaz]

Fasting rules are different from church to church, even within the Orthodox Church. Some Orthodox churches will rebaptise Catholics based on the lack of triple immersion in the catholic baptismal rite.

Pouring water over the head three times, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit isn’t considered baptism? Some Catholic churches have done total immersion.

 

[Babaganoush]

Some Orthodox churches don’t count it. I’m not Orthodox so I obviously wouldn’t agree.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

You’ve missed my original point. The problem isn’t whether the Filoque is sound, the problem is that it symbolizes the divide between the east and west

I would concur to your statement. Although the ecumenical movement towards unity or should I say understanding, would be to those who oppose the filioque as professed in the Nicene Creed by the Latin rite expression. Learn that the filioque in no way contradict’s or opposes the Apostolic faith, but emphatically declares that Jesus is God.

Christians did just fine without the Filoque in the creed for hundreds of years, so we can give it up liturgically.

Yes, until each time a heresy would try and infect the flock of Jesus Christ. The Shepherd of Jesus Christ fought to fend off these wolves in sheep clothing by binding and loosing with a declared Apostolic faith that does not change, in order to separate the goats from God’s flock.
We cannot give up what divine revelation has revealed to us and what the Church has declared as Apostolic faith.
Our ecumenical movement today is that; We each have our liturgical expressions in the mysteries of our faith. We both must stride to keep with in our Apostolic Traditions handed down to us, without change or for one rite to change another’s rite or expression of faith. This is what Vatican II has declared.
The filioque stays, because it defeats all typical, diverse Arian heresies that still exist. Yet the filioque is the bulwark of Truth that prevents these forms of heresies from entering the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in one Spiration of Love to our humanity.
Peace be with you

 

[AlNg]

They have no relevance whatsoever to anything that I have posted

You brought up WWII and the transfer of some (Eastern) Catholic Churches to the Orthodox and the result of some Catholics being treated as Orthodox. I pointed out that it went both ways.

 

[AlNg]

I am surprised that you think that these “no …” are Orthodox dogma of the first millennium.

You don’t think that John Damascus and Photius preached against the filioque?

 

[Vonsalza]

Arius, a Libyan by descent…

Libyan in that day would have meant nothing more than “WEST of the Nile”. Which is true because he wasn’t Egyptian. He was a Berber. Libya wouldn’t exist as a specific entity for another 1500-1600 years.

Arianism was gone from the Byzantine Imperial Court 50 years after Nicaea made it officially heterodox. It thrived in the west for another 4-500 years.

Your desire to paint it as an “eastern” phenomenon is odd and ahistorical. If this is based in a emotional and religious desire to artificially inflate the theological legacy of the west in general, know that plenty of heresies and schisms have been born specifically in the west as have been pointed out by myself and other posters.

You’re just in denial about that because this isn’t really a rational issue for you. It’s an emotional one. As such, we’re wasting our time.

The doting zealot simply cannot see the blemishes that are so apparent to the rest of us.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Vonsalza; Arius was schooled in Antioch, hello. It does not matter where his birth place was.

Prove to me which Western Bishop taught the Arian heresy in Spain? Or anywhere in the Latin Rite. There was no Arian heresy in the West nor was it taught by any Latin bishop’s.

I am not proposing my personal view here. I have only given you historical data. If? we continue this road of the Eastern Arian heresy. The history get’s worse for you, as history will show, that the Eastern Emperor’s were very instrumental in keeping the Eastern heresy alive, after the Orthodox Church’s defeated Arianism in the East.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am not proposing my personal view here. I have only given you historical data.

Spare us.

Your insistence that Arianism “ruled in the shadows of Byzantium” or some other nonsense you posted above is pretty indicative of your understanding of history.

“Limited but enthusiastic with very clear pro-Western tilt”

 

[Babaganoush]

Why does it matter where arius was from? Athanasius was from Alexandria. So the heretic was from the alexandrian patriarchate, and so was the one who answered him. What is the point?

The West wasn’t pure. After all, it is an argument of the West in favor of the filioque that they were arguing against a western form of Arianism. That is why they needed the filioque.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s kinda his shtick. “The West was never in error, all error is from the ‘East’ and how I define ‘East’ will vary on a case by case”.

When you point out that adoptionism was born in Rome, he goes “no way! Spain!”

And if you reply “so still in the west…”

You’d get “Rome is impeccable!!1!”

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

We were discussing where did the Arian heresy develope or begin. The Gothic Arians brought it to the West. There were Eastern Arian priest present who used the Chuch councils Nicene Creed to support that Jesus was not God, because the Nicene Creed proved that the Holy Spirit only proceeded from the Father.
I would agree that the West defeated the Arian heresy that was brought to the West via the Goth’s, who had converted to the Eastern Arian Imperial supported Church.

 

[Vonsalza]

We were discussing where did the Arian heresy develope or begin.

No we weren’t. We were discussing why it’s silly to describe it as vaguely “eastern” as he wants to.

The west “defeated” Arianism about 500 years after the Byzantines did…

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

That’s unfortunate, one of the rules for judging a debate relate’s to the opponent who divert’s the subject to character attacks loses the debate.

I pray, we are not concluded here, are we?

In hindsight, I must admit, Rome was never without battles from within and without. In fact, Rome has more damage to it’s heirarchy than the East ever had while under the Imperial throne.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

No we weren’t. We were discussing why it’s silly to describe it as vaguely “eastern” as he wants to.

ok, I will submit to my misunderstanding your question about, why the West Consider’s the Arian heresy to be from the East. I am sorry, that my commentary to historical data is not approved by you.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yeah.
Largely gone in the east 50 years after Nicaea.
Largely gone in the west 500 years after Nicaea.

Very clearly an “eastern” heresy.

 

[Vonsalza]

But, of course, Arius was a Berber - one of the natives of central and western North Africa and the people that largely came to advocate Arianism were Germanic in origin.

But he went to school in Antioch and held post in Alexandria. So that means the entire concept should be described as “eastern”, right?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Ok, I will bite;

When you say the Arian heresy was gone 50 years after the Council of Nicea. How does the Arian heresy continue to show up in the Eastern Arab territories and show up in the West, long after it took two Church councils to ultimately defeat the Arian heresy? It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote , "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian ".

I am curious to learn why you think the Arian heresy is not an Eastern heresy?

 

[Vonsalza]

Jerome wrote that about the council at Ariminum. Which took place 20 years after Nicaea. As I said “Largely 50 years after Nicaea”, you’ve just cut my time short.

And in Arab back-waters which would probably pick whatever view that best defied imperial authority, you find Nestorianism much more than you find Arianism.