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

[I_trust]

This is what the Church teaches about the nature of original sin.(below)
Not sure what you understanding is and if it matches what the Church teaches.
The teaching on the Immaculate Conception is more than what you posted.

Are you argueing that there is no need to erace the stain of original sin if we commit no further sin after that? I know this doesn’t match the Church’s teaching.

---

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught t0hat the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state .294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle

 

[tafan2]

Probably has been rehashed before, but could you provide a brief summary of the issues between the Russian Orthodox and the Catholic Church?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The Papacy, the Filioque, Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are the four biggest issues imo. Doc probably knows more though.

 

[Vico]

The Papacy, the Filioque, Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are the four biggest issues imo. Doc probably knows more though.

Also, remarriage after divorce in a sacramental marriage, while both spouses are still alive, is contrary to faith. I read one essay by Eastern Orthodox where filioque is not really an issue provided the monarchy of the Father is affirmed clearly.

 

[dochawk]

Probably has been rehashed before, but could you provide a brief summary of the issues between the Russian Orthodox and the Catholic Church?

That the Russians aren’t in charge. (how’s that for brief? )

That’s at least 90%, and is the same as their real issues with the EP.

Then get into not backing them in asserting the Ukraine as their territory.

It’s more Russian politics than theology . . .

The ROC wants the primacy, ahead of the EP. Bringing Rome back would interfere with that–and utterly undercut their “argument” that they should be so because they’re the latest . . .

The Papacy, the Filioque, Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are the four biggest issues imo. Doc probably knows more though.

Those are minor next to the political side of it . . . it’s really not hard to phrase these in ways that satisfy everybody . . .

Also, remarriage after divorce in a sacramental marriage, while both spouses are still alive, is contrary to faith.

Both sides say that the way the other handles this is wrong . . . and more honest clergy on both sides have recognized a kind of equivalence . . .

 

[ziapueblo]

Those are minor next to the political side of it . . . it’s really not hard to phrase these in ways that satisfy everybody . . .

Agreed!

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote years ago, all that really needs to be done is for both East and West recognize each other’s theological tradition to be valid and apostolic (now, it’s supposed to be this way in the Catholic Church but unfortunately there are still arguments among Eastern and Latin Catholics over these issues).

I’m on a few Orthodox Facebook groups and the com boxes are full of anti Bartholomew rhetoric. Of course, this is Facebook we’re talking about were everyone, Catholic and Orthodox alike, are armchair theologians and apologists :crazy_face:

I know so many people are excited about what His Holiness Bartholomew said, but in my opinion, there are a few more things to be hashed out (role of the Pope of Rome). Communion will come, and as much as Francis Pope of Rome irks some people, he has been great for relations with the Orthodox as well as Patriarch Bartholomew.

ZP

 

[tafan2]

Thanks for the response. So the ROC wants primacy and they base this claim on being the latest? Latest what? How long have they taken this stance? Since the rise of Putin by any chance?

 

[ziapueblo]

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

ZP

 

[Vico]

…
Both sides say that the way the other handles this is wrong . . . and more honest clergy on both sides have recognized a kind of equivalence . . .

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

 

[poche]

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.

 

[TomH1]

Therein lies the crux of the very problem: We Latins are correct and you Orthodox are wrong. That is not how disagreements are resolved. The Orthodox and not going to throw their hands up and say we were wrong we will accept your view.

 

[JW55]

As an interesting “glitch” to his succession, I had remembered reading this at one time and did find a reference to this on Wikipedia. This could create a difficult problem, possibly having to move the location of the Patriarch to a different location in the future. Maybe someone else has more knowledge of what hurdles this would create,

From Wikipedia:

“To be electable, Turkish law requires the candidates to be Turkish citizens by birth. Since the establishment of modern Turkey, the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch has been filled by Turkish-born citizens of Greek ethnicity. As nearly all Greek Orthodox have left Turkey (see Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and Istanbul Pogrom), this considerably narrows the field of candidates for succession.”

 

[Mary888]

This is what many expect from him to do, yes. But you never know.
Nobody in the East stood up for the Russian Church’s cause in Ukraine, nobody joined Kirill in breaking communion with Phanar over it, even if everyone but Bartholomew criticized the new formed church.

 

[Vico]

I_trust:

How would the Russian Orthodox react?

My guess is that Patriarch Kirill will name himself the Ecumenical Patriarch and declare the Greeks to be in schism.

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.

 

[RenaissanceMensch]

I seem to recall Pope Benedict saying similar things in the past. I can’t say I understand it. Is Papal infallibility + supremacy not a dogma? Is the Patriarch of Constantinople prepared to concede that?

 

[RyanBlack]

I seem to recall Pope Benedict saying similar things in the past. I can’t say I understand it. Is Papal infallibility + supremacy not a dogma? Is the Patriarch of Constantinople prepared to concede that?

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.

 

[ReaderT]

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.

Is it too much of a stretch to say that, ever since the bad blood between Moscow and Constantinople over the Ukrainian situation, there are now two Orthodox communions — Russian Orthodox on the one hand, and the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy on the other hand? Or is that an over-simplification?

More like: Patriarch Bartholomew on one side, and the rest of Eastern Orthodox on the other. Even the Greek Orthodox Church is holding councils now without his participation.

 

[Babaganoush]

The problem is that the Russian Orthodox Church is by far the largest of the Orthodox churches. It is the majority of orthodox Christians.

 

[Babaganoush]

Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome are dogmas that are far more serious than any historical facts at this point in time. There is no way to interpret them that fits into Orthodox ecclesiology. Everything else is a side issue.

 

[Babaganoush]

I don’t know whether infallibility can be interpreted in a way that is acceptable to the Orthodox. Even bishops who are considered more open to the west view ‘infallibility’ or the preservation of the faith more organically and include the faithful in a way that isn’t acceptable in western ecclesiology. If the people reject it then it can’t stand. They will refer to the early church and say that the average Christian was involved in theological debate. Or they will refer to Florence and say the people rejected it when the patriarch arrived at home. Bishop Ware is one that comes to mind if I recall correctly.