The Patriarch of Constantinople believes that only historical differences rather than dogmas separate Orthodoxy and Catholicism, hence their unity is

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_trust
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ReaderT said:
Bartholomew is wrong. There are solid differences between us that are not just “historical”, including Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, and many others. And these don’t just come down to a matter of phrasing
Click to expand...
I think your concerns on the 2 issues you raise may not be as far apart as you think. Eastern Catholic Churches have been strongly encouraged to re-establish their eastern theology and many EC view the two issues you raised pretty much the same as EO. Most EC churches are autonomous and are pretty much free to appoint their own bishops. The Pope himself has little interference in the EO churches.

If you are referring to EO having to accept Latin understanding of theology, I agree there would be some major hurdles. I don’t think that would happen. I would imagine the EO would be granted the same privileges as other EC churches. I think if the role of the Pope was recognized as the Leader of the Universal Church but was largely hands off on the running of those churches, it could work pretty well, largely following the Zogby Initiative posed in the 1990s. I know that is an over simplification are there would be bumps, but conceivably could be doable.
 
Last edited:
I would believe the “infallibility” issue could be a hurdle more than some other concerns, as this is a very legal issue where the Orthodox would probably not want to define so specifically would be my guess.
 
I believe the real issue is will. Most of the areas disagreements are centered around questions of semantics that could be resolved if there were the will to do so. However there are a significant number of people, bishops, monks, priests, laity who don’t want a reunification and don’t really see a need for there to be one.
 
This is my impression as well. Not long ago one I was discussing one theological point on this forum with an EO. He insisted the difference was critical and implies a completely different understanding of God. As I probed as to why this was the case, he finally answered that he couldn’t answer as he was not a theologian. Fair enough, but why then the initial intransigence?
 
Last edited:
RyanBlack said:
I think that papal infallibility is less an obstacle than the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the pope. I think the Orthodox could accept papal infallibility so long as it is understood as the Pope acting together with the rest of the bishops.
Click to expand...
That understanding predates Vatican I and is not specifically Papal infallibility, anyway, so we’re not really allowed to endorse that qualification. Papal infallibility means, precisely, that he needn’t act together with the rest of the bishops.
 
Unfortunately yes, as well as Antioch. I have heard however that Patriarch John X wants to look into it again and supported the initiative himself.

Speaking with Patriarch Bartholomew in June 2013, John X said:

“The world is also expecting from us that we seek seriously to re-establish the unity of all Christians, with the non-Chalcedonians first and then with the western Churches. After centuries of disputes and mutual anathemas, of rejecting and neglecting each other, it is time for the weakened community of disunited Christians who wish to incarnate the message of Christ to understand the prayer of Jesus that the world will not believe in Jesus if those who believe in Him are not united. Why don’t we follow seriously the decisions of Balamand and Chambesy for example?”

Even in the US, Metropolitan Philip, who does not officially permit intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox in his archdiocese, made a point of saying to Bishop Nicholas Samra in letter the same year, 2013:

“We hope that if you do not have a camp for your young people, you are welcomed to bring your young Melkites to our Antiochian Village which is a piece of heaven and which belongs to all of us. After all, we are all one Church.”

Encouraging!

ZP
 
Last edited:
I recently heard an Orthodox Christian say that they believe hell is “ experiencing Gods love as fire.”.
This was among some other things that weirded me out.
Very strong resemblance to eastern mystery cults.
 
It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light. Seems similar to a quote from St Isaac the Syrian:

“. . . those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God . . . But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (Saint Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises ).”

This teaching can be found in many spiritual writers and saints such as Saint Maximus the Confessor and Fyodor Dostoevsky. The Orthodox believe that at the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the face of Christ. Man’s eternal destiny-heaven or hell, salvation or damnation-depends solely on his response to this love.

ZP
 
My understanding of this, though, is that it wasn’t a widespread belief in Orthodox communities until around the 20th century, so for hundreds of years even after the schism the idea of heaven and hell as separate “places” was still taught by man in the East.
 
I think that the final intransigence is because of the working of the devil and our own sin, in particular our lack of charity.
 
They did technically in the 90s. The Zoghby Initiative was rejected by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic at that time but I would say many Eastern Catholic operate fairly close to its premise today with a few exceptions from what I have seen and read
 
tafan2 said:
Probably has been rehashed before, but could you provide a brief summary of the issues between the Russian Orthodox and the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
I asked a Copt this question, and he said: “The same issues that divide the Coptic Orthodox Church from the Latin Church…”

There are no dogmatic differences between the ROC and the EOC…

And the Copts and the EOC struggle to identify the one issue over which they differ…
HomeschoolDad said:
I revere all of the national and ethnic Orthodox churches.
Click to expand...
All the national and ethnic Orthodox churches revere all the national and ethnic Latin Catholic Churches too…

Jes’ sayin! 🙂

The effort to reduce theology to sociology needs to fail, and will fail…

Reunification of the Schism cannot be reduced to ethnic/geographic particularities…

The issues are theologic, not anthropic…

geo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
poche said:
That he did not want his speech to be recorded is testimony to the fact that there is a considerable resistance to this unity within the Orthodox community.
Click to expand...
I think it is evidence that darkness hates the Light…

Secretizing councils cloaks them in darkness…

The guards enforced his desire to not have his words recorded…

That, by itself, tells the whole truth…

I must confess I was shocked when I read it in the 2nd (?) post here…

That little sentence - reporting that single fact - is the tell that told the Truth…

The Church is under a very dark attack through this conflict…

And the Russian Church is standing very tall in it…

geo
 
Yet, papal infallibility has only been solemnly invoked to define dogmas twice. The norm has been for ecumenical councils to define dogmas. I very much doubt we will see a pope invoke infallibility in this manner in the future.
 
This is actually an acceptable Catholic teaching. Pope Benedict explains it in his encyclical on Christian hope. The idea is that God is infinite and the afterlife is simply experiencing God… for those who are holy, the intensity of his love is bliss (heaven). For those who have some imperfections, it is purifying (purgatory). For those who hate God, it is unbearable (hell).
 
twf said:
Yet, papal infallibility has only been solemnly invoked to define dogmas twice. The norm has been for ecumenical councils to define dogmas. I very much doubt we will see a pope invoke infallibility in this manner in the future.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s been invoked countless times as Vatican I attests. The two most recent occasions were:
  • Decree on the Immaculate conception (before Vatican I)
  • Decree on the Assumption of the Mother of God (after Vatican I)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top