Pope, Orthodox Patriarch look to new council at Nicea [CWN]

[paglione]

Pope Francis and Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople have agreed to plan for an ecumenical meeting to be held in Nicea in 2025, the AsiaNews service reports.Patriarch …

More…

I am an ecumenistic Catholic who would like to see reconciliation and Unity with the Orthodox Churches in a much more TIMELY setting. The year 2025 is much too far in the future for me. (I’m certain I have much support there). Why should the date be set so far in the future? The need is great. The apostolic Churches and the faithful need it much sooner. Let us reconsider!

 

[janeway529]

I think the date will give Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis time to work out an agreement on the same date to celebrate Easter.

But somehow, I think the real solution to unity lies in what happened between the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am an ecumenistic Catholic who would like to see reconciliation and Unity with the Orthodox Churches in a much more TIMELY setting. The year 2025 is much too far in the future for me. (I’m certain I have much support there). Why should the date be set so far in the future? The need is great. The apostolic Churches and the faithful need it much sooner. Let us reconsider!

I am with you!

 

[Tomdstone]

The Catholic Church can never change its teachings on the role of the Papacy, nor should it so its really up to the Orthodox Church, as a measure of good faith, to show some humility to admit that it was wrong to separate from Christ’s Church and seek forgiveness for its pride.

The Orthodox view is that the Roman Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox Catholic Church beginning in 1054. To support that, they point to the fact that before 1000, there were several Patriarchs in the Church, such as the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Antioch, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, etc. When the Roman legates placed the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054, all of the Eastern Patriarchs remained in communion with Constantinople and eventually Rome separated from them also. If these Patriarchs of the ancient Church had recognised the Papal Supremacy, why would they not have remained in communion with Rome, instead of Constantinople?
Also, the Orthodox do not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pope.
You say it is up to the Orthodox to ask for forgiveness and admit that it was wrong to separate from Rome, but it was the Roman legates in 1054 who declared the separation, citing for example the use of leavened bread, the married clergy, and the filioque issue. Why should the Orthodox seek forgiveness for using the Nicene creed as it was originally written without the filioque? Also, why should the Orthodox seek forgiveness and show humility because they have a married clergy? Please explain?

 

[Allegra]

Well, let’s see. Associated with Easter is Ash Wednesday, Lent, Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil, Easter Sunday, Easter Monday, the Sundays following Easter leading up to the Ascension and finally Pentecost. You can’t just pick a date on the calendar and call it Easter. I believe the difference is 2 different calendars being used but since Jesus was in Jerusalem for Passover before he was arrested and Holy Thursday was the Last Supper Jesus celebrated with the apostles, the Jewish holiday of Passover and our Easter usually occur close together. If I am mistaken please feel free to correct me. It would at least be one sign of unity if they could at least come together on the most important religious holidays in Christianity.

It would be a sign of unity, perhaps, but it certainly isn’t the most pressing isssue that seperates us. Christendom could go on celebrating different calanders forever and it wouldn’t matter. That’s not what is keeping us apart.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It would be a sign of unity, perhaps, but it certainly isn’t the most pressing isssue that seperates us. Christendom could go on celebrating different calanders forever and it wouldn’t matter. That’s not what is keeping us apart.

So you wouldn’t think it strange if the jewish holidays of passover, yom kippur or rosh hashanah were celebrated at different dates for example between the reform jews and the orthodox or the sephardic jews and the ashkenazi jews or if the muslims celebrated their major holidays on different dates?
It just seems like all christians should be celebrating christmas, good friday and easter at the same time.

 

[Allegra]

So you wouldn’t think it strange if the jewish holidays of passover, yom kippur or rosh hashanah were celebrated at different dates for example between the reform jews and the orthodox or the sephardic jews and the ashkenazi jews or if the muslims celebrated their major holidays on different dates?
It just seems like all christians should be celebrating christmas, good friday and easter at the same time.

No. And I don’t think it’s strange that Orthodox people celebrate holidays on different days either. However, if that’s really the major bone of contention, let me be the first to offer to celebrate Christmas in January.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Catholic Church can never change its teachings on the role of the Papacy, nor should it so its really up to the Orthodox Church, as a measure of good faith, to show some humility to admit that it was wrong to separate from Christ’s Church and seek forgiveness for its pride.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Btw, the first act of excommunication was made by a Roman prelate (Cardinal Humbert) against the Emperor of Constantinople. And it was Rome that forced the issue in the first place by demanding that all the other Patriarchates (not just Constantinople, but Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) suddenly conform to Rome’s dictates against their traditions which they had held for centuries and which came to them from the Apostles. So much for Orthodox “pride”.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Orthodox Churches don’t appear to be very eager about reunion (IMHO). They seem to be satisfied with staying the way that they are.

We do believe that we have the fullness of the Faith, and there are some things we cannot compromise on. However, there are many Orthodox, myself included, who fervently hope for eventual reunion, and are willing to try to separate false obstacles (and there are some) from genuine ones.

 

[7_Sorrows]

No. And I don’t think it’s strange that Orthodox people celebrate holidays on different days either. However, if that’s really the major bone of contention, let me be the first to offer to celebrate Christmas in January.

I know the true date of christ’s birth is questioned by many.
If we move the date from December 25th wouldn’t they also have to move the date of the visitation and the annunciation? Then if the orthodox and catholics agreed on a date other than December 25th would the protestants follow? If they agree on a date in january that makes no difference to me.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is there any chance that Iran getting the atom bomb may effecting moves at reconciliation?

Is Islam the common enemy of all three?

 

[KEP1983]

The Orthodox view is that the Roman Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox Catholic Church beginning in 1054. To support that, they point to the fact that before 1000, there were several Patriarchs in the Church, such as the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Antioch, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, etc. When the Roman legates placed the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054, all of the Eastern Patriarchs remained in communion with Constantinople and eventually Rome separated from them also. If these Patriarchs of the ancient Church had recognised the Papal Supremacy, why would they not have remained in communion with Rome, instead of Constantinople?
Also, the Orthodox do not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pope.
You say it is up to the Orthodox to ask for forgiveness and admit that it was wrong to separate from Rome, but it was the Roman legates in 1054 who declared the separation, citing for example the use of leavened bread, the married clergy, and the filioque issue. Why should the Orthodox seek forgiveness for using the Nicene creed as it was originally written without the filioque? Also, why should the Orthodox seek forgiveness and show humility because they have a married clergy? Please explain?

It seems to me that Protestants could use that same logic and say they hold the original Churches teachings and the Pope excommunicated himself from true unity at the Council of Trent.

From what I understand, all of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs admit that their past patriarchs had fallen into teaching heresy---- only one has not. If we admit that the Church is the Body of Christ, that He is with us always until the End of the Age, the gates of Hades will never overcome the Church, and He will guide the Church into all truth; then it seems that the Church must also never officially teach heresy.

As St Irenaeus wrote in 189 AD:

“the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, **all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, **and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

 

[Tomdstone]

From what I understand, all of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs admit that their past patriarchs had fallen into teaching heresy---- only one has not. If we admit that the Church is the Body of Christ, that He is with us always until the End of the Age, the gates of Hades will never overcome the Church, and He will guide the Church into all truth; then it seems that the Church must also never officially teach heresy.

Wasn’t Pope Honorius chastised for teaching the heresy of Monothelitism? If the Pope had taught heresy, then why would it be surprising if an Eastern Patriarch had done the same?

 

[josie_L]

Why do you keep putting all responsibility on the Catholic Church? Wouldn’t just as much be about the Orthodox Churches budging a bit towards the Catholic Church?

This was his line of argument on another thread as well, i.e., it seems we are to make ALL the concessions (I’d like to see him argue that with respect to marriage).

 

[josie_L]

Wasn’t Pope Honorius chastised for teaching the heresy of Monothelitism? If the Pope had taught heresy, then why would it be surprising if an Eastern Patriarch had done the same?

No, he didn’t teach heresy, he was accused of allowing it to spread.

 

[josie_L]

Yeah, good luck with that.

Btw, the first act of excommunication was made by a Roman prelate (Cardinal Humbert) against the Emperor of Constantinople. And it was Rome that forced the issue in the first place by demanding that all the other Patriarchates (not just Constantinople, but Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) suddenly conform to Rome’s dictates against their traditions which they had held for centuries and which came to them from the Apostles. So much for Orthodox "pride".

Prior to that Michael Cerulius along with a couple members of the Eastern Church wrote a similar letter to Rome stating we should give up our traditions, i.e., both sides made mistakes.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, he didn’t teach heresy, he was accused of allowing it to spread.

According to the Catholic encyclopedia online:
“Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).** It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic**, not in intention, but in fact…”
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[josie_L]

According to the Catholic encyclopedia online:
"Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact…”
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

He never taught heresy (nor was it attributed to him), i.e., there was no point in time during his term as pope where he out rightly taught and promulgated Monothelism. He however did not prevent the heresy from spreading (which was a dereliction of duty), and that is what he was anathematized for.

In What Manner Was Honorius condemned:

They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor’s official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius “the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself”, again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

 

[Cider]

Just the two of them does not an ecumenical council make. So bad title. And 11 years from now? Why the long wait? Because it’s basically just an anniversary celebration and not a council. Who knows if either or both will still be around by then.

 

[Cider]

Yes the filoque and petrine primacy are 2 big issues definitely that may never be agreed on. It must be really confusing to the rest of the world that the 2 biggest religious celebrations in christianity are celebrated on different dates. It would be great if we could unite on christmas and easter dates.

Why should it be confusing, it’s not confusing at all when one learns the history behind it.