Pope expresses hope for reunion with Orthodox Patriarch

[NoWings]

The Patriarch of Moscow does not have absolute say over the whole of the Eastern Orthodox. Neither does the Patriarch of Constantinople. The agreement must be with ALL of the Patriarchs.

We are closer to union with the OO than we are with the RC. The OO are permitted to share communion in cases of economia. The RC are not and neither are we permitted to share communion with the RC.

Ok cool! So not all of the EO or OO would have to unify for you to consider there to be a miracle?

Peace!!!

What agreement? I asked NoWings what his definition of a miracle would be. I think he is quite capable of telling us that.

Peace!!!

It seems that many think it only takes one Patriarch to make decisions for the entire Orthodox Church. This is false. It’s a common misconception.

You guys need to develop your snark-detectors better.

That was me insinuating that as the Patriarch of Moscow goes, so goes the Orthodox church, since Moscow is the “New Rome” and all that. And you’re wrong. Even if all of the Patriarchs agreed, the laity could reject it just like they did at Florence.

My definition of a miracle would be the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics to intercommune from sea to shining sea. As I never, ever, EVER see that happening, I figure only Providence itself can bring polar opposites back into union. The EO and OO churches are so close that I’d think that a matter of natural progression, so I wouldn’t bat an eyelash if they intercommuned.

 

[adf417]

You guys need to develop your snark-detectors better.

That was me insinuating that as the Patriarch of Moscow goes, so goes the Orthodox church, since Moscow is the “New Rome” and all that. And you’re wrong. Even if all of the Patriarchs agreed, the laity could reject it just like they did at Florence.

My snark-detector was working just fine. but I try to contain my responses to the more charitable tones. Sometimes I do fail though.

My definition of a miracle would be the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics to intercommune from sea to shining sea. As I never, ever, EVER see that happening, I figure only Providence itself can bring polar opposites back into union. The EO and OO churches are so close that I’d think that a matter of natural progression, so I wouldn’t bat an eyelash if they intercommuned.

So now all you have to do is clarify what you meant earlier by “once again” here…

The day the Orthodox and Catholics unify once again is the day I’ll convert on the spot because I know only a miracle would ever allow this to happen.

Peace!!!

 

[Cavaradossi]

You guys need to develop your snark-detectors better.

That was me insinuating that as the Patriarch of Moscow goes, so goes the Orthodox church, since Moscow is the “New Rome” and all that. And you’re wrong. Even if all of the Patriarchs agreed, the laity could reject it just like they did at Florence.

That is actually not what happened with Florence (though I often see this myth propagated). The delegation from the Church of Georgia never signed the union of Florence at all. The three other Eastern Patriarchs (of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem), upon learning of what was taught at the council, wrote an encyclical, rejecting the council, and declaring all persons ordained by the unionist patriarch of Constantinople, Metrophanes, to be suspended in their faculties until a further investigation of their orthodoxy could be undertaken. And within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, St. Mark of Ephesus strongly resisted the union, famously having refused to sign at the Council, while some other bishops, like Anthony of Heracleia, later repudiated their signatures, and opposed the union.

 

[Peter_J]

That is actually not what happened with Florence

I was thinking that, but I guess I was too timid to say so.

 

[Nine_Two]

The simplistic explanation always given is that the three powers in the Church - Emperor, Clergy, Laity, all balance each other and have equal say. This is what many who join the Churches are led to believe - not by the Church itself but by well meaning individuals on the internet (if you look at it it appears similar to the American system of powers).

The reality is that while the laity is influential (as was the Emperor, though he was never a pillar of the Church and is technically laity), and certain canons do give them the right to initiate ecclesiastical proceedings against members of the clergy, they do not themselves constitute a power block and the clergy can act regarding Church policy without the least consideration of the laity - the Nikonian reforms are a great example of this. The laity (or lower clergy for that matter) were not consulted and the change was forced on everyone. This is of course also a good lesson in why the laity should be consulted, but that is a far cry from veto power.