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

[Vonsalza]

I think arianism is a heresy that defies regionalization. It is a “Christian” heresy that spanned Christendom. First encountered in Alexandria, flourished and endured in Italy and Spain.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

That was relevant ot the the matter of sacramental economy. The overwhelming majority of Catholics who were brought into the Orthodoxy, were received by not rite at all, in a manner similar to what was described for my home village. Thus, while some groups, at some times, get particularly strict about the manner of reception, it flies in the face of Orthodox typical practice.

I pointed out that it went both ways.

Missing the point entirely. Catholics do not require much of anything from Orthodox individuals who wish to be part of the Catholic Church.
.

 

[dvdjs]

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

There have been all kinds of preaching. But there has been no council of the undivided church that reached a consensus on the full theological meaning of the filioque and anathematized it. Even post schism there are Orthodox theologians who affirm certain understandings of the filioque are acceptable theologoumenon.

 

[dvdjs]

I think arianism is a heresy that defies regionalization. It is a “Christian” heresy that spanned Christendom. First encountered in Alexandria, flourished and endured in Italy and Spain.

The mechanism is clear. It flourished in Constantinople. A Constantinopolitan bishop evangelized the Goths under Arian Christianity. The Goths, held to Arianism in their migrations West, until converted there to the Catholic faith.

 

[AlNg]

The overwhelming majority of Catholics who were brought into the Orthodoxy, we received by not rite at all, in a manner similar to what was described for my home village.

Here is an example of how, after the war, a Roman Catholic priest was brought into Orthodoxy.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is an example of how, after the war, a Roman Catholic priest was brought into Orthodoxy.

I am not sure why you refer to the war; isn’t this a recent video?. Or what you point is.

The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics who were brought into the Orthodoxy were brought in with no rite at all. While these is variation in practice extreme economy is typical, and strictness of the type shown in your you-tube is very anomalous.

 

[AlNg]

There have been all kinds of preaching. But there has been no council of the undivided church that reached a consensus on the full theological meaning of the filioque and anathematized it.

There was the 1054 papal bull of excommunication that gave the omission of the filioque by the Orthodox as a reason for the anathemas. The filioque was not accepted in the Orthodox creed.

 

[dvdjs]

There was the 1054 papal bull of excommunication that gave the omission of the filioque by the Orthodox as a reason for the anathemas

You should read the bull much more carefully.

 

[AlNg]

You should read the bull much more carefully.

THE PAPAL BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION TO PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE MICHAEL CERULARIUS IN 1054​

Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, archbishop of Amalfi; and Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all the children of the catholic Church.

The holy, primary, and apostolic see of Rome, to which the care of all the churches most especially pertains as if to a head, deigned to make us its ambassadors to this royal city for the sake of the peace and utility of the Church so that, in accordance with what has been written, we might descend and see whether the complaint which rises to its ears without ceasing from this great city, is realized in fact or to know if it is not like this.

……

But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst.

….

Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;

….

For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. ….

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

 

[dvdjs]

THE PAPAL BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION TO PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE MICHAEL CERULARIUS IN 1054

Nice cutting and pasting. Have you been able to discern where your post missed the mark?

 

[Vonsalza]

dvdjs:

The mechanism is clear. It flourished in Constantinople.

Yeah? Arius probably started advocating it somewhere between 280 and 300. Nicaea occurred at 325 and it was gone from the Imperial court by 380. So 100 years tops.

It would continue in Italy and Spain for centuries more.

A Constantinopolitan bishop evangelized the Goths under Arian Christianity.

No, a Greek born in Gothic captivity would evangelize the Goths. He was never bishop of Constantinople.

The Goths, held to Arianism in their migrations West, until converted there to the Catholic faith.

Right. Hundreds of years after the east did.

If you encountered a trinitarian Christian in the 5th and 6th centuries, he probably spoke Greek quite a bit better than he spoke Latin.

 

[AlNg]

Have you been able to discern where your post missed the mark?

No, but I was able to see where you were wrong:
“Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;”
Unless the followers of Michael repent of this error (and others):
" Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN."

 

[ziapueblo]

Would the Catholic Church be willing to adopt EO style fasting

I may be mistaken but I believe that the Latin rite had pretty strict fasting regulations until about 100 years ago.

ZP

 

[dvdjs]

Yeah?

Yeah.

No, a Greek born in Gothic captivity would evangelize the Goths. He was never bishop of Constantinople.

He was a bishop of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate

 

[dvdjs]

No, but I was able to see where you were wrong:

It is difficult for me to understand your point, since you don’t say.
But if you are trying to prove that there a definitive ruling against the filioque in the united church you are wrong. First, the Bull is made not against the Orthodox Church, but against Cerularius and his followers. Cerularius adopted harsh positions against the Latins for differences of practice that he presumed to raise to a level of consequence that was unfounded in Orthodox theology. The bull called out this intransigence, but it did not anathematize the Orthodox church for its particular practices.

Presumably you know that Cerularius met his end deposed from his position, and in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy. He was not champion of, let alone a Saint of Orthodoxy.

 

[brian_custer]

that is strict; but it seems to me to be ritualistic;

if you want to go through those spiritual gyrations; God bless you;

maybe we can learn from each other

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I think arianism is a heresy that defies regionalization. It is a “Christian” heresy that spanned Christendom. First encountered in Alexandria, flourished and endured in Italy and Spain.

Your “regionalization” opinion defies true history, when you are asking why is Arianism considered an Eastern heresy.

Eastern Bishop’s supported and taught the Arian heresy in the East from which Eastern Bishop’s denied the divinity of Christ.

There is never any Latin or Western Bishop to have adopted, supported, taught, or was excommunicated for teaching the Arian heresy. That is why the Arian heresy began in the East and is considered an Eastern heresy.

The only way your “regionalization” opinion could hold up here, if? you can prove a Latin Bishop taught or adopted the Arian heresy in the West? Thus the Arian heresy is an Eastern heresy.

Protestants or non-catholic Christians later in the eighteenth century adopted different forms of the Arian heresy to date. But these are never Catholic or Latin Catholic’s.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Divine revelation as revealed by Jesus Christ Himself and His Apostles should be the standard by which “a movement for Catholic and Orthodox to join back together”.

We should leave theology for the theologians, Church Historians and biblical scholars to hammer out.

We have no differences of faith when it comes to the divine revelations revealed at Jesus Christ’s birth, life, passion, death and resurrection.

Maybe it’s time, we call a time out for our Church leaders. Take on an ecumenical spirit and have the theologians clear up the smoke that blinds each side into misunderstandings, so that clarification’s can be made on what is divine revelation, that all believe in, from declared theological teachings and faith expression’s that creates faith tension’s and schism’s.

The Church finally found peace by allowing freedom for the different science’s and scientific proof’s that don’t conflict or deny divine revelation from the mysteries of God.

Maybe it’s time, the Church not use theological arguments against heresies or theological diverse faith expression’s to be used as a standard for denying divine revelation, or be used to cause tension and division among the Orthodox Church’s and between the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox Bishop’s.

A second movement that can free all the Catholic Church’s and strip them from secular powers and Imperial influences. So that She can stand naked before all her brethren, holding to only divine revelation, so that the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be proclaimed from One Body, in One Lord, One faith, One Church again.

 

[2towers]

I have said often enough, and I will start with it again, I think the Orthodox have much to offer. Behind the Roman Catholic Church, they would be my second choice, but I don’t think the prospect of reunification has much to offer past feel good platitudes.

Also you have to address the elephant in the room and point out that the Roman Church is in crisis right now, not exactly a selling point for the Orthodox. Never mind that Satan has gone after the big guns, the greatest threat to him, [in my opinion] it needs to be addressed. Right now, reunification would be a distraction. The Roman Church needs to rebuild.

If God desires reunification, it will happen, if he doesn’t want it, it will never happen. I think, and this is just my opinion again, the Roman Church needs to concentrate on healing the damage of modernism, and the damage from the effects of the last century. $0.02

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think arianism is a heresy that defies regionalization. It is a “Christian” heresy that spanned Christendom. First encountered in Alexandria, flourished and endured in Italy and Spain.

Your “regionalization” opinion defies true history,

Behold your “eastern” heresy:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If you encountered a catholic Christian in that day, they were more likely Greek than Latin. If you don’t like that fact, I don’t care. Your western fanboy-ism is obvious.

As such, I’m done with this.