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

[tafan2]

This is true. But even some of these Christological heresies are now appearing less than they seem. And perhaps union with some OO is more likely than with the EO.
Twenty years ago I went to a friend’s funeral at an Armenian Orthodox Church. Afterwords I introduced myself to the priest and we had quite a long and interesting discussion. He felt the difference between their view of the nature of Christ and ours were very minimal and it would be quite easy to find a compatible formula. He even told me what it was, and I can’t remember the details but thought it sounded pretty dang similiar to two nature’s, human and divine to me. He thought, in the case of the Armenians, union with Rome was inevitable and would come in short order. At that time, he felt that the Armenian Orthodox had no choice, they needed Rome because they were isolated geographically.

That hasn’t happened, but I assure you he had no problem with accepting papal primacy and papal infalliblility as worded by Vatcan I.

Now, this was just one priest, but that was his view.

ETA: i remember one other thing he said about union between the RCC and the Aremnian Orthodox:. It was relatively easy because all it would take was two men coming to an agreement. Both churches are structured with a fairly powerful head.

 

[tafan2]

If that is directed towards me and the conversation I had with the Armenian priest, I do no recall discussing those issues. Only infallibility and the nature of Christ. He seemed to understand the Catholic position quite well, so I assume he could envision some solution.

 

[dvdjs]

This is true. But even some of these Christological heresies are now appearing less than they seem. And perhaps union with some OO is more likely than with the EO.

I do not disagree that some of the Christological heresies - in particular the one that split the OO’s from the rest of the church, are largely semantical; and could easily bridged. I feel the same, especially as a Greek Catholic, about the divisions between the EO and the CC.

The problem here isn’t between Rome and the Orthodox churches. Orthodox are offered the Eucharist in Catholic churches. The problem has been within the EO churches. And my point is that that problem is difficult to understand. There is a relatively warm relationship with the OO, reconciliation with whom would involve overturning an Ecumenical Council, and a cold one with Rome, where no such barriers exist. This situation is hard to explain charitably.

 

[dvdjs]

If that is directed towards me and the conversation I had with the Armenian priest, I do no recall discussing those issues.

The Armenian Creed deviates markedly from Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Creed of the Armenian Church
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only-begotten, that is of the substance of the Father.

God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten and not made; of the same nature of the Father, by whom all things came into being in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible;

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, took body, became man, was born perfectly of the holy Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.

By whom he took body, soul and mind and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.

He suffered and was crucified and was buried and rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven with the same body and sat at the right hand of the Father.

He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.

We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated and the perfect; who spoke through the Law and through the Prophets and through the Gospels;

Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles and dwelled in the saints.

We believe also in only one catholic and apostolic holy Church;

In one baptism with repentance for the remission and forgiveness of sins;

In the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgment of souls and bodies, in the kingdom of heaven and in the life eternal.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Armenian Creed deviates markedly from Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Might be reason that Armenians were pretty much fine with Filioque, historically. They also use unleavened bread to my knowledge, and as such their practices are very close to Latin ones in some regard.

If that is directed towards me and the conversation I had with the Armenian priest, I do no recall discussing those issues. Only infallibility and the nature of Christ. He seemed to understand the Catholic position quite well, so I assume he could envision some solution.

Pretty encouraging! Historically, Armenians were very close to union with Rome several times. Would be cool if that happened again, and would last

 

[tafan2]

One priest, a conversation a long time ago. So I have been cautious. I do know that Catholicos Karekin I has had a good relationship with JP2, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

 

[dochawk]

So the ROC wants primacy and they base this claim on being the latest? Latest what?

err, largest.

[/quote]
How long have they taken this stance? Since the rise of Putin by any chance?
[/quote]

I think it certainly intensified there.

I think they have claimed this since sometime after the fall of Constantinople in the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Would that be correct @dochawk?

I don’t think so–they’ve only been autocephalous and autonomous for a couple of hundred years, if that–and they got their Tomo a couple of hundred years ago (from the EP, when the was stranded and needed funds to get home . . .)

I would like to read that. Can you point me to a source?

uhm, mumble mumble . . . for an explicit one that got to the press, a cardinal made the comment publicly a couple of years ago. (@ziapueblo?) . . . I remember it was a quite recognizable name

And there’s also the difference between what will be said quietly, or in discussions, than what will be announced . . . but I do take an unfortunate amusement in noting that there arguments tosed at the other are pretty much the same . . .

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.

Yes . . . but I would generally expect the core of that (outsider of the ROC) to be some of the Mt. Athos monasteries. , , ,

It happened in 1448 that the Russian bishops consecrated their own metropolitan, after deposing the Metropolitan of Kiev who was in agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Isidore II Xanthopoulos.

Note that in general, the synod in Orthodoxy can depose it’s leader, whether metropolitan or Patriarch . . .

There is no way to interpret them that fits into Orthodox ecclesiology.

Immediate universal jurisdiction is an issue. Interpreting infallibility in a way that fits Orthodox ecclesiology isn’t even difficult if you use the actual collegial definition of V-I rather than the odd versions you find on this website.

 

[Vico]

…
uhm, mumble mumble . . . for an explicit one that got to the press, a cardinal made the comment publicly a couple of years ago. (@ziapueblo?) . . . I remember it was a quite recognizable name

And there’s also the difference between what will be said quietly, or in discussions, than what will be announced . . . but I do take an unfortunate amusement in noting that there arguments tosed at the other are pretty much the same . . .
…
Note that in general, the synod in Orthodoxy can depose it’s leader, whether metropolitan or Patriarch . . .
…

We saw what the International Theological Commission came up and it was rejected by the Russian Orthodox Church.

In this case Eastern Orthodoxy, yet Muscovy did not have a Patriarch until 1589, but at the time I posted about, it had only a Metropolitan. Some Eastern Orthodox churches are not granted autocephaly.

 

[dvdjs]

In this case Eastern Orthodoxy, yet Muscovy did not have a Patriarch until 1589, but at the time I posted about, it had only a Metropolitan. Some Eastern Orthodox churches are not granted autocephaly.

Moscow unilaterally installed a Metropolitan of Moscow and claimed autocephaly shortly (within a decade) after Florence.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

In this case Eastern Orthodoxy, yet Muscovy did not have a Patriarch until 1589, but at the time I posted about, it had only a Metropolitan. Some Eastern Orthodox churches are not granted autocephaly.

Moscow claimed unilaterally installed a Metropolitan of Moscow and claimed shortly (within a decade) after Florence.

Are there some words missing in that sentence?

 

[dvdjs]

Are there some words missing in that sentence?

Thanks. fixed.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Are there some words missing in that sentence?

Thanks. fixed.

OK, so clearly contrary to “autocephaly is a right belonging to the Church as a whole” (Patriarch Athenagoras).

 

[AlNg]

Historically, Armenians were very close to union with Rome several times.

If so, why doesn’t Rome unite with the Armenian Orthodox Church? They have had over a thousand years to do so? A thousand years is a long time.

 

[dvdjs]

OK, so clearly contrary to “autocephaly is a right belonging to the Church as a whole” (Patriarch Athenagoras).

Whatever the merits, in light of history, of Patriarch Athenagoras’s statement, autocephaly in Moscow did not follow that pattern. It was a unilateral declaration, which, over time, became recognized by others Churches.

It should also be noted that the Metropolitan of Kiev, who had resided in Moscow for over a century was displaced at that time: the See moved to Vilnius. Moscow uncanonically seized ecclesiastical authority over all Orthodox, until then under the Metropolitan of Kiev, in land controlled by Moscow.

Overall, the situation is closer to that of the re-emergence of the Church of Kiev in the 21st century.

 

[poche]

I heard that in 1968 there was a meeting between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox and that there was and understanding and that the Christological differences were resolved.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Rome did so multiple times, but Muslim overlord influence almost always shattered the union. Now I am not sire whether it was Georgia or Armenia, but King of one of those countries was called “supporter of the Pope” by Muslims. I do hope that unity with Armenians is near.

 

[AlNg]

Rome did so multiple times,

When was the last time Rome united with the Armenian Orthodox church?

 

[Vico]

…
Whatever the merits, in light of history, of Patriarch Athenagoras’s statement, autocephaly in Moscow did not follow that pattern. It was a unilateral declaration, which, over time, became recognized by others Churches.

It should also be noted that the Metropolitan of Kiev, who had resided in Moscow for over a century was displaced at that time: the See moved to Vilnius. Moscow uncanonically seized ecclesiastical authority over all Orthodox, until then under the Metropolitan of Kiev, in land controlled by Moscow.

Overall, the situation is closer to that of the re-emergence of the Church of Kiev in the 21st century.

Yes, uncanonical. However, in 1458 the Orthodox Metropolitanate in Kiev continued under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[dvdjs]

the Orthodox Metropolitanate in Kiev continued under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Yes. This is not a “however”, but a fact that underscores the problematic founding of the Moscoe Church.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

the Orthodox Metropolitanate in Kiev continued under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Yes. This is not a “however”, but a fact that underscores the problematic founding of the Moscoe Church.

That is, because there was a period where the Patriarch of Constantinople was in communion with Rome, from the July 6, 1439 union. In May 1440 the Bishop of Cyzicus was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by Emperor John VIII.