Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is even less likely. The contrast is much deeper, and the particular differences we have with the Eastern Orthodox are all shared by the Oriental Orthodox.
That’s true, I don’t get why people on this post kept saying OO is much closer to communion with Rome than EO, but I would be happy to trust them 😃 Perhaps negative sentiments dont exist between Rome and OO? Then again, why are EO and OO not close to reunion considering only thing blocking them (Christology issues) is resolved?
 
Last edited:
The most they can say is that there is nothing compared to the fourth crusade in relation to the Oriental Orthodox. But the fact remains that the Orientals reject every council from Chalcedon on. They won’t accept them as ecumenical.
 
OK. Tell that to the non-Catholics and see what they say. I suspect that they might point out cases where the Catholic Church was wrong, or at least they think so. For example, the burning of heretics or capital punishment in general. Most people would agree that it was wrong to burn Joan of Arc alive at the stake.
The Church didn’t burn anyone at the stake.
 
There is none of the same good will or openness that the Catholics are willing to show.
*sputter* *choke*

“You admit that you are wrong. Don’t suggest that we are wrong. We have good will and openness!”
If so, why was it mentioned in the papal letter of 1054 as a reason to excommunicate Michael Cerularius?
If we can’t get past the recto-cranial inversion suffered by 13th century hierarchs on both sides, there is indeed no pint in having any discussion . . .
Yep, pretty much. Eastern Orthodox generally have no desire for reunification with Rome.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Lenten_ashes:
:roll_eyes:🤯:roll_eyes:
 
If that is something to be condemned why does the Roman Catholic Church allow it now? The natural moral law does not change, does it?
No, it does not, but then again on what grounds do you assume natural moral law includes continence of Priests? In the Early Church, Priests were always continent- actually even now, in the East, many Priests practice continence before celebrating Eucharist, and don’t have carnal relations with their wives fixed amount of time before doing so. This is because fasting for Priests in this regard has gotten weaker in the East, and also because East does celebrate Liturgy usually only on Sundays and celebrate other services on Saturday, etc… (not an expert on those though).However, Latin Church now celebrates Liturgy every day and hence having no carnal relations day before celebrating Liturgy for normal Latin Priest would be practically complete continence.

Not sure if Deacons are/aren’t included in Eastern practice of fasting from sexual intercourse before Liturgy, or if anyone at the altar is… I’ve heard that people with open wounds can not serve at the altar, but I am unsure if that is true or not.
 
There are Orthodox zealots online just like some Latins in this forum. Most are not like this. I go to Orthodox Churches, fellowship with them and are friends with their priests and deacons. They are not like this.
Yes! This is something that many people don’t understand on this forum and others.
 
As far as I understand, the objection to the filioque is no longer a doctrinal one.
Some wise bishops saw this 400 years ago when drafting the Union of Brest.
Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another -
 
Wow.

And a very interesting choice of where to make that statement . . .
 
And a very interesting choice of where to make that statement . . .
Noticed that too. I would really like to see other Patriarchs and their reaction to this, especially Serbian or Bulgarian one.
 
While Athos generally has, err, a hard-core reactionary reputation, they did invite the Jesuits, long ago, to open a theology school there.

Unfortunately, they declined :cry:
 
Have you read The Monks of Mount Athos:A western monks extraordinary spiritual journey on eastern holy ground by M. Basil Pennington? Great read!

ZP
 
While Athos generally has, err, a hard-core reactionary reputation, they did invite the Jesuits, long ago, to open a theology school there.

Unfortunately, they declined :cry:
Oh, I was not aware of that. Pretty sad that they declined…
 
Have you read The Monks of Mount Athos:A western monks extraordinary spiritual journey on eastern holy ground by M. Basil Pennington? Great read!
No, but you’ve just made my list even longer . . . 😡

🤣
Oh, I was not aware of that. Pretty sad that they declined…
Indeed. Jut the change of direction and the interactions could have had changed history . . . possibly to the point of avoiding the grounds for this discussion . . .
 
(eg Authoritarian Papal Primacy)
And yet it was claimed (and re-affirmed in Vatican 2). Not every belief of the church needs to be seen explicitly in the writings of Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp. Plenty of the church’s self-understanding develops and unfolds later. Even the concept of the “development of doctrine” itself was a late concept (JH Newman).
This is a fundamental difference in the phronemas of the two Churches… The Western Church, seeing the Chair of Peter as the ultimate earthly Ecclesiastical Authority, sees its role as that of developing and defining doctrine so that it can administer its corrections on the Churches “under” its God-given responsibility to rule the earthly Church…

The Eastern Church, otoh, sees its responsibility as preserving without alteration the Faith given once for all to the Saints/Apostles… We see ourselves as guardians of the Treasury of the Faith, rather than as deciders, dispensers, and dispensers of our “authority” over other Churches… eg Constantinople cannot “decide for” Moscow or Bulgaria what they must believe simply because of Her primacy… eg Primacy is for the “Good Order” of the Church, and not for the imposition of the Rule over the Church BY the Primary Ecclesiastical Rank…

Regarding “development of doctrine”, we do seek to clarify doctrines, but not develop them into something they are not… We do not seek to change so much as even one word, but have been known to rather extravagantly explain that one word within the phronema of the Church according to Her Saints, and these according to Church acceptance of their explanations across time…

Authority is vested geographically in the Patriarch, not Ekklesiastically according to the Ecclesiastical Ranking of the Churches Whose Communion establishes the boundaries of the Church… eg Athens has no authority over Romania, and vice versa…

geo
 
Regarding “development of doctrine”, we do seek to clarify doctrines, but not develop them into something they are not… We do not seek to change so much as even one word, but have been known to rather extravagantly explain that one word within the phronema of the Church according to Her Saints, and these according to Church acceptance of their explanations across time…
Hi Geo. Thanks for the reply. I would like to get your response to the specific language used in Vatican 2’s document Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (dei verbum). Precisely, I want to know whether this wording would be acceptable within your own theological understanding of “development.” I’ll quote it here and italicize the portions I’d most like to get your take on. If you have any thoughts to share, please do.
  1. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
    This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
 
Last edited:
From the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:
For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
You see, my Brother, we hold that the complete fulfillment of the fullness of Divine Truth was fulfilled in Christ and in our Holy Mother, and was discipled to the Apostles, and passed on through the Ekklesia to us all… And that because of the weakness of our fallen human nature, we are, if anything, across the centuries, losing what had been initially bestowed…

You see, much like with the Filioque, to imagine that one is adding to this fulfillment of Divine Truth masks the fact that it is in fact taking away from what had been given and confirmed…

One cannot hold fast to what one imagines one is improving upon by fulfilling… I mean, were I ever to imagine that my efforts through the Holy Spirit are going to bring to fulfillment in some measure the Divine Truth of Christ which He gave to Peter and the Apostles, I would immediately become insane, I should hope…

Holy Tradition is the Deposit of the Faith given once, for all, to the Saints… It is not slowly simmered and improved across time by the Church…

geo
 
But did you scroll down and read the comments? About how Catholics tortured their monks? Quoting:
Забыли афониты нашествия католиков…

На пути в Константинополь в 1276 году они устремились на Афонскую гору и стали склонять монахов к принятию унии. Учение о «филиокве» афонская братия решительно отвергла, вооружившись словами апостолов о Символе веры: «…если кто отнимет или приложит к нему, да будет проклят» (Откр 22, 18). Согласно «Повести о нашествии папистов на Святую Гору Афонскую», для «беззаконных католиков эти слова блаженных мужей были так же неприятны, как для волков камни из пращи» (4, т.2, 241).

Встретив жесткий отпор, латиняне рассеялись по всей Святой Горе, и «не скрылись от них ни обитель, ни башня, ни келлия и никакое другое монашеское жилище, но все было разрушено или предано огню, а имущество разграблено… взяли и Протат, при чем было ужасное кровопролитие… враги… все разрушили и сожгли, не оставив никого в живых… Прота же, после разных истязаний, повесили перед Протатом» (4, т. 2, 243). От рук папистов особенно пострадали Великая Лавра Св. Афанасия, Иверская и Ватопедская обители, а также монастырь Зограф, где были зверски замучены 27 монахов, 21 инок и 4 мирянина.

Братия погибала со словами: «Лучше угодить Христу, чем антихристу!» Множество монахов тогда были зарезаны, умучены, истерзаны, сожжены и повешены. С тех пор и поныне одно из мест на Афоне так и называется — фурковуни, что значит «виселичная гора». Те, кто возвращались на руины и пожарища, «находя свои жилища сожженными и разрушенными, а братьев убитыми, горько плакали».
Тогда Афонская Гора, подобно Рахили, рыдала о своих детях «Да и кто бы, смотря на все это, не заплакал? — отметил летописец. — Вопль и рыдание доходили тогда до небес. В глубокой скорби погребали по всей Святой Горе святых, кого где находили» (4, т. 2, 246). Впрочем, утешались тем, что всякая жертва нечестивых неприятна Богу; православные же, если и страдают в нынешнем веке, надеются восприять от Христа небесные блага.
Что действительно будет!
 
Last edited:
But did you scroll down and read the comments? About how Catholics tortured their monks? Quoting:
I don’t even attempt to read greek, let alone Russian.

Latin, I can vaguely follow.

Reading Gibbon, I try to pronounce the greek footnotes and see if it tells me anything–but only a few

Russian, if there is no other source available another language, I assume to be state propaganda :crazy_face:

But the reason for my comment is that, aside from the more crazed factions of the ROC, I would be hard-pressed to find a more consistently anti-Rome group than many of the monks of Athos. That is why I find them as an audience to be downright amazing (and gutsy) on the part of the EP . . .

There is plenty of fault to go around on both (err, all three) sides of the schism. But I seem to recall some obscure guy quite some time ago who stressed forgiveness . . .

My “wow” is in awe, respect, and admiration of the EP . . . someone has to take steps to end a millennium old hierarchical [urination] contest, and he’s stepped up . . .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top