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

[AlNg]

And that one isn’t a huge deal: it has long been the western position that the epiclesis isn’t absent from the roman canon, but implicit.

If you attend a western rite Orthodox Mass you will see that the following explicit prayer is inserted after the Consecration:
And we beseech thee, O Lord, to send down thy Holy Spirit upon these offerings, that he would make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, transmuting them by thy Holy Spirit. R . AMEN. AMEN. AMEN
Like so many other things, I don’t doubt that this is not a huge deal for Catholics. However, there are two sides here, not just the Catholic side.

 

[dochawk]

They call it “The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory” and variations on that. AFAIK, that insertion is the only difference.

If that were the price for unity, I can’t imagine Rome hesitating, as the epiclesis is already implicit.

Rome accepts the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, where the institution narrative itself is (per Rome) implicit, as having a valid anaphora.

hawk

 

[Eric_Hyom]

That is the Catholic POV. The Orthodox priest I spoke with said that the inclusion of the epiclesis was absolutely essential.

All the law of God hangs and depends on the greatest commandments, all church law should also hang on the greatest commandments.

Get this right and unity will happen.

 

[Vonsalza]

Most of the EO that make such rigid demands usually speak with thick Russian accents. My EO priest think that surrendering immediate jurisdiction would alone be sufficient…

And on that note, the greatest thing for Orthodoxy and reunification on-the-whole would be the death of Kirill, not that I think anyone should hasten his demise.

 

[Augustinian]

this seems to be ritualistic in difference;

where is the conflict in theology?

Let me ask you this. Suppose this difference, which you don’t see as large or insurmountable was a roadblock in talks. If the Pope were to cave on this, and institute this ritualism in place of the current Catholic ritual, would there be a problem to you?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think this is probably true. Re-union can’t happen by simple absorption of all of the Catholic Church into the Orthodox, or all of the Orthodox Church into the Catholic — without “compromise.” Of course, Eastern Catholics have done this, but it is doubtful an entire communion would follow that example, I guess.

Then again, I’m not sure if Rome is unwilling/lacks the humility to do so. I think it’s more of “what’s on the agenda.” If re-union with the Orthodox were a foreseeable event, I think the Vatican would more readily be trying to re-structure things. But right now, the Church works with what it’s got.

 

[dochawk]

It’s not just an individual or two in the ROC. It may not be all, but the attitude is pervasive, and comes from russian nationalism.

In a similar vein to your observation, Paul Samuelson, a giant in Economics in his day, noted that “Economics progresses one funeral at at time.” ().

The irony was that by the time he explained that (to a PBS series on Economics, iirc), he was one of the ones in the way of progress in the field . . .

hawk

 

[CampionTheChampion]

I think this is probably true. Re-union can’t happen by simple absorption of all of the Catholic Church into the Orthodox, or all of the Orthodox Church into the Catholic — without “compromise.” Of course, Eastern Catholics have done this, but it is doubtful an entire communion would follow that example, I guess.

Then again, I’m not sure if Rome is unwilling/lacks the humility to do so. I think it’s more of “what’s on the agenda.” If re-union with the Orthodox were a foreseeable event, I think the Vatican would more readily be trying to re-structure things. But right now, the Church works with what it’s got.

And “compromise” should be happening even with the laity. All members of each Church should be taught theology held by their separated brethren. Doctrines which aren’t dogmas should not be taught as dogmas if separated brethren dissent.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

And the Filioque must go. All Catholic rites must remove it from their liturgies. It has become a symbol of our division.

 

[bmaz]

Let me ask you this. Suppose this difference, which you don’t see as large or insurmountable was a roadblock in talks. If the Pope were to cave on this, and institute this ritualism in place of the current Catholic ritual, would there be a problem to you?

Why can’t each Church keep there own rituals?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

And the Filioque must go. All Catholic rites must remove it from their liturgies. It has become a symbol of our division.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is all about the oneness and unity of God, it should not be the cause of our disunity.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Starting with the Scandinavians (from Gotland, giving the Goths their name) and domino-ing into the Germanic peoples which domino-ed into the Roman Empires - east and west. Probably driven by a mini-ice age where these folks had to move south or watch their babies starve.

I believe we are not discussing the same historical period, where you speak about a migration due to a “Mini-Ice age”?

Fact; Rome was sacked by the Goths under Alarics command Aug.24, 410 a.d

The Eastern Emperor Constantius supported the Arian heresy and empowered the Arian Church’s and Heirarchy.
Many Goth’s served the Imperial guard in Constantinople
When the Great invasions began, many of the invaders were Christian Arians.
The Arian Goth’s had a Church and a heirarchy who were independent of Rome and Constantinople.
It is to these Eastern Arians who had Eastern Imperial support converted the Goth’s to Arianism, who brought the Eastern Arian heresy to the West.
Albeit, Rome becomes the subject to her Conquer’s.
Later as I mentioned in an early post. The Bishop of Rome crowns a western King who converts to the Nicene Creed, to which the Eastern Arian Heresy begins to crumble after the filioque is professed in the Nicene Creed. It is here where the Western Secular powers begin to support the Bishop’s of Rome and the Arian Goth’s begin to convert to the Nicene Creed.
Not to mention, when it was the Latin Nicene Catholics who civilized many of these pagan and heretical Christian invaders in the west.

To be clear here. The Imperial Byzantine Catholic Orthodox Church’s were not in power when the Eastern Imperial Arian Heretical Church’s were in power. The Byzantine Orthodox Church’s never became Arian heretics. Please do not confuse these two with each other. An Orthodox should not be offended because history places an Eastern Arian heresy in the West.

If? ever there was a reason to unite the East and West, would be to correct a misunderstood Church history.

As far as the heresy of “adoption” is concerned. It never started in Rome, I would emphatically disagree with you. The different forms of “adoption’s” began in Spain. A result of Islamic influence and Arian influence confused many into supporting “adoptionism”. Adoptionism was a subject that played a role in secular politics, not the Catholic faith per-se.
Peace be with you

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

And the Filioque must go. All Catholic rites must remove it from their liturgies. It has become a symbol of our division.

No, your misunderstanding of the “filioque” must go, so that unity can be restored.

To remove the Latin profession of the filioque from the Nicene Creed as understood by the Latin expression, would be to remove the sacramental economy from all Rites.

For it is through the Sacramental economy, where the apostolic faith has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father (Principle) and the Son to our humanity.

 

[Vonsalza]

OriginalGabrielof12:

I believe we are not discussing the same historical period, where you speak about a migration due to a “Mini-Ice age”?

No. We are.

Historians often wonder why hundreds of thousands of these Germanic peoples (which you curiously keep labeling as eastern) suddenly started pushing so hard into the south and into Roman history.

A mini-ice age is one of the offered explanations among others, like Huns.

The Eastern Emperor Constantius supported the Arian heresy and empowered the Arian Church’s and Heirarchy.

Constantius I lived and died before Nicaea and Constantius II may have been semi-Arian. But he was among the last of the non-Nicene Eastern Emperors. Again, Arianism was pretty well gone in the eastern Roman elite just 50 years after Nicaea. And at the time, they were at war with the Goths in Dacia. So your interpretation of the history is… interesting.

It is to these Eastern Arians who had Eastern Imperial support converted the Goth’s to Arianism, who brought the Eastern Arian heresy to the West.

Honestly the closest Byzantium ever got to “supporting” the Goths was to “reward” them lands captured by the Vandals if they went and subjected them - thereby getting the Goths largely out of their hair. The tribes that stayed in nearby converted to Nicene Christianity at about the same rate as the rest of Byzantium…

Not to mention, when it was the Latin Nicene Catholics who civilized many of these pagan and heretical Christian invaders in the west.

No real objection there other than the fact that I’d probably call them Christians rather than Catholics. The east-west split was still centuries away.

The Imperial Byzantine Catholic Orthodox Church’s were not in power when the Eastern Imperial Arian Heretical Church’s were in power.

???
There was a discreet “Eastern Imperial Arian Church”?

Where can I read about it?

As far as the heresy of “adoption” is concerned. It never started in Rome, I would emphatically disagree with you. The different forms of “adoption’s” began in Spain.

No sir. Spanish adoptionism happened after the Islamic conquest of Spain was underway.

Theodotus preached it in Rome in the 2nd cent.

Cheers!

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Let’s simplify this subject shall we?

Who and when was the Arian Heresy introduced into the West? Maybe this will help with our history lesson.

I never said the Goth’s were eastern born peoples. The Goth’s pagans who converted to Arian, from Eastern Arian priest. The Goth’s brought this same Eastern heresy with them to the West and placed an Eastern Arian heirarchy and built their Arian Church’s in the West.

No sir. Spanish adoptionism happened after the Islamic conquest of Spain was underway.

I already said, adoptionism began in Spain not Rome, after the Islamic and Arian influences.

Theodotus preached it in Rome in the 2nd cent.

That was a different form of the Son adoption not related to the adoption heresy infecting Spain of Elipandus and Felix in the eighth century. Besides many early Church Father’s write about the adoption of the Son in comparing Christians as being adopted Son’s of the Father. Any way, if we are speaking about the same Theodotus, Pope St. Victor excommunicated him, for claiming that Christ was only a mere man.

Remember Constantine (the Father of the Arian Emperors who followed him) was baptized on his death bed by an Arian priest. The Arians remained in the shadows of the Imperial Rule of the Empire for many ages, and when the Emperors were Pagan or Arian, these are considered the Emperor’s Imperial Church’s of the Empire, at the time of their rule.

 

[Vonsalza]

Constantine was baptized before Nicaea condemned it. After him, you have as Arian or semi-Arian emperors Constantius II, maybe Jovian, then Valens, whose reign ended in 378. Nicaea was just in 325.

That’s it. No more Arian eastern emperors after that. Not sure where you’re getting your history.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Who and when was the Arian Heresy introduced into the West? Maybe this will help with our history lesson.

Maybe your historical Church knowledge can answer the question who introduced the Arian heresy in western Spain and when? I await your answer.

 

[Vonsalza]

Goths, of course.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Goths, of course.

All that was said here by me, connecting the Goth’s to the Eastern Arian heresy, rest my case. Unless you have the Goth’s Arian heresy coming from the West?

The Council of Nicea defeated Arius the known Arian in 325 a.d. This council was formally called by the Emperor Constantine.
The Emperor Constantine died May,22, 337 a.d and was baptized by the Arian priest on his death bed.

 

[Vonsalza]

You still haven’t answered the question of why you think Arianism is “eastern”.

Again, Arius was a berber, the people that popularized it were Germanic and it flourished in Spain and Italy.