Joey-
Right, but its not a far fetched idea that Eastern Catholics perhaps will provide a Pope.
Yes. There is no reason for non Roman clergy to be electing the Bishop of Rome. Would you have Latin cardinals electing the Patriarch of Moscow? Would bishops from Romania be electing the Ecumenical Patriarch?
Well, perhaps what is important is that Eastern members of the united Church have been Pope. The dreaded wiki-pedia but for this point it will suffice.
We are not very close at all. As the Ecumenical Patriarch said, “the manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.” And also as he said Catholics continue to move farther and farther away, “Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another.” I think even a cursory reading of the threads on this forum show that he is 100% correct.
Catholics claim that anything they believed was “always believed” and is now just confirmed. What’s the latest ‘Revelation’ Catholics have had that has pushed them further from Orthodoxy? Genuinely curious.
The immaculate conception for one. From the Orthodox point of view, this makes her “the great exception” to the human race. It is as if she does not share the same humanity with everybody else because she was free from the stain of original sin.
I think your quoting a 2011 point as infallible, nor did he say we are not close at all. Thats an empirical statement you added which is probably more indicative of your own understanding perhaps confused as his.
The most drastic recent departure has been the iconoclasm that has become rampant in the Catholic Church in the past 50 years or so. But there are many new doctrines that have been declared since the Schism. From the filioque to purgatory to the Immaculate Conception to Papal Infallibility. All of these have driven us farther and farther apart.
No that expresses his opinion well. He has made similar statements before.
Latin Cardinals would not be necessary for the election of the Patriarch of Moscow, but the role of Cardinals is to advise the pope.
Can you explain the iconoclasm? I suppose as a Protestant the Catholics seem to love their icons too. What’s the difference in icons between the two faiths and how does it separate them?
It might strike you as at least mildly amusing that many Orthodox consider Protestantism just an “odd subdivision of Roman Catholicism”. Never thought you were Catholic, did you? I don’t think of it that way, but again, a lot of Orthodox do.
No I don’t think so. In fact any reunion I imagine would require the elimination of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches and any other Curial offices dedicated to governing on a world wide level. Perhaps Rome could return the metochions to their respective Churches. That would place St Peter’s Basilica under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Then again it could be that today as then you were simply incorrect in your understanding and positive you were correct and deemed no proof or reason was required since triumphant truth became the ace played card. . Seems to be what we see on these threads.
It’s interesting reading from the outside of both Church’s and for one side to claim the other is acting ‘cute’. I don’t even know what that means, but as far as I’m concerned as neither Catholic nor Orthodox, I do learn a lot on perspective. I don’t think anyone is being cute.
It means calling people heretics isn’t the preferred path to reach any type of unity, but I do find it the last recourse and amusing.
All this does is prove exactly what I’m saying. It’s about far, far more than “pretty buildings.”Then again it could be that today as then you were simply incorrect in your understanding and positive you were correct and deemed no proof or reason was required since triumphant truth became the ace played card. . Seems to be what we see on these threads.
Anyway lets get back to the Russian Patriarch since there are numerous threads to prove these proposed points suggested. And so you know, your not doing very well imho. But I won’t fault the EO for perhaps your inability to express their ontological concerns.
And iconoclasm is the issue with all your presentations and the cherry on the top so to speak. You assume a point without proof. You may not need any proof in the far east, but over here you need to prove your case. And of course we always want hear it case we slighted a point somewhere.
Ah but cute as usual. Your very clever, but only the truth will suffice here. Not claims of it.
We concede the point you have pretty buildings so far, but that is “all”.
They’re different, and some of the difference can be discerned from the nature of the images themselves. Latin statues, mosaics and such range anywhere from the fairly realistic to the totally realistic. They are intended to remind Catholics of those persons, virtues, etc. In the case of Jesus, the point is to provide a point of concentration to enhance the sense of, in praying, talking to the real Jesus.