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.
Yet we can’t really p(name removed by moderator)oint the “countless” examples. There are some historical candidates that have been proposed, but no definitive list. It’s moot. If you look at a list of solemnly defined dogmas, almost all were defined by councils, not by the Pope alone.
 
twf said:
Yet we can’t really p(name removed by moderator)oint the “countless” examples. There are some historical candidates that have been proposed, but no definitive list. It’s moot. If you look at a list of solemnly defined dogmas, almost all were defined by councils, not by the Pope alone.
Click to expand...
I’m not disputing that most dogmas are defined in councils.

I’m disputing the claim that Papal Infallibility has only been invoked twice. That’s not true at all. Another example of Papal Infallibility is Benedictus Dues (The decree on the Beatific Vision by Pope Benedict XII in 1336).
 
Last edited:
George720 said:
All the national and ethnic Orthodox churches revere all the national and ethnic Latin Catholic Churches too…
Click to expand...
I am happy to know that. I thought that, in the main, Orthodox thought of us about the same way we think of Anglicans — invalid or doubtfully valid sacraments (even if only because they are not administered within Orthodoxy), in need of unconditional reunification with Orthodoxy, in need of just putting aside such things as purgatory, papal primacy, and so on. I was also of the impression that Rome is particularly disliked because of the sack of Constantinople in 1204. In short, I didn’t think that we were something that the Orthodox would “revere”.
 
remember the Zoghby Initiative was in the 1990s. It was summarized very simply in to two key points: This was taken from Wikipedia to keep brief:

In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:
  1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
  2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
It certainly doesn’t say that even today all Roman Catholics want to unite with the Eastern Orthodox. I would attribute for both sides in a lot of ways as a “turf battle.” They mostly all agree that at some point they would like to unite and we want “unity” but we want “My” concept of what that means. There are obviously differences and both sides that will take time to resolve. They have a hard time making concession for the most part of the reason of losing control or making concessions they feel compromise their traditions of worship.
 
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...
visit http://2lungs.com. This sight does a great job of going over all the issues and explaining why basically all of them are misunderstandings or simply differences in discipline.

Also keep in mind that the Russians see Russia as the 3rd Rome. This is why they called their emperor a Czar (Russian for Caesar).
 
Again, no one disputes what the historical (and very much not recent) norm is, and reunion would not require Orthodox to acknowledge and accept the historical norm; it would require them to acknowledge and embrace not only the extraordinary definitions we’ve actually had but also the general power of the Pope to bind the whole Church to others in the future.

Maybe the EO will go for that, maybe they won’t, but let’s not paper over it and pretend it’s not a dogmatic difference.
 
JW55 said:
There are obviously differences and both sides that will take time to resolve.
Click to expand...
It has been almost one thousand years since the rupture of 1054. How much more time do you say is needed to resolve this? Assuming Catholics want reunion, it seems that it would do no harm for Catholics to accept the Zoghby initiative now, at least as the first step, instead of delaying this for hundreds of years ?
 
Last edited:
My personal opinion mAtters little. Since Patriarch Bartholomew has made a positive step, it is indeed encouraging, but honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if in another 100 years If people aren’t having the same conversation.
 
sunandstars said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, God is everywhere. There is no place He is not - including Hell. But whereas those who love God will experience His presence/love as comforting, those who hate God will experience it as agony.
George720 said:
All the national and ethnic Orthodox churches revere all the national and ethnic Latin Catholic Churches too…
Click to expand...
I don’t believe they do - Patriarch Kyril (for one) has spoken very critical things about the West.
 
Last edited:
Lots of political entities have claimed they were the Third Rome. That does not really answer my question.
The site you mentioned is good, but its not just Catholic/Orthodox but includes evangelicals also. Further more it does not specifically address the issues between the ROC and the Catholic Church,
 
tafan2 said:
Lots of political entities have claimed they were the Third Rome. That does not really answer my question.
The site you mentioned is good, but its not just Catholic/Orthodox but includes evangelicals also. Further more it does not specifically address the issues between the ROC and the Catholic Church,
Click to expand...
The ROC is simple. They have the same tired old issues that many people from the EO have, PLUS they feel that Moscow should be the new Rome. Not just politically, but also spiritually.
 
I agree. Orthodox theologians that work in dialogue between the two Churches are more concerned with immediate jurisdiction.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
I agree. Orthodox theologians that work in dialogue between the two Churches are more concerned with immediate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Its kinda funny because in a sense its all very hypothetical. I think in practice the average Catholic bishop is more autonomous, in some ways, than the average Orthodox bishop… Rome can’t actually effectively manage 2500+ local churches…
 
I don’t blame the Russian Church so much as I blame the Devil. I think there is much resistance among the Greeks, Serbians, etc… also.
 
George720 said:
And the Copts and the EOC struggle to identify the one issue over which they differ…
Click to expand...
Those struggling might refresh their memories of the Third Ecumenical Council, and the decisive action taken at that Council against Christological heresies.

The separation of the EO and Catholic churches has no such basis in the findings of an Ecumenical Council.
 
JW55 said:
The Zoghby Initiative was rejected by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic at that time
Click to expand...
Yes, though problem mainly subsists in the fact that it can easily be interpreted wrongly- and one interpretation favors Catholic Church while other one Orthodoxy… and it’s kinda messy.
JW55 said:
I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Click to expand...
“according to the limits recognized by Holy Fathers of the East during first millennium, before the separation” usually tends to be interpreted in light of Orthodox “primus inter pares”, and tends to be interpreted contrary to Pope St. Gregory’s claims.

Pope St. Gregory rebuked Patriarchs for calling him with too prestigious terms and said something along the lines of “we are brothers- do not honor me above yourself, because you have same Patriarch status I have” and yet later on, he can be quoted saying that he can “render Eastern synods null and void with strike of a pen” as well as advocating for Papal Infallibility. It is very interesting that this Pre-Schism Saint, also venerated in Orthodoxy, did not want any more “honor” than other Patriarchs, yet did realize he has more power than they do- and more responsibilities coming with it. It is for this reason “primacy of honor” makes no real sense in Latin view.

George the Hagiorite- Georgian Orthodox Saint, professed his belief in inerrancy of Roman Church before Emperor and Ecumenical Patriarch. He came to Constantinople to plead for autocephaly of his Church, yet rejected schisming from Rome and opposed Emperor and Patriarch in this regard. I am sure there were more who would advocate for that too…
RenaissanceMensch said:
it would require them to acknowledge and embrace not only the extraordinary definitions we’ve actually had
Click to expand...
Depends- they could hold Eastern theology regarding those dogmas, and interpret them in their own true and correct way. However, contradicting dogmatical or doctrinal beliefs would surely make union last very short.
RenaissanceMensch said:
also the general power of the Pope to bind the whole Church to others in the future.
Click to expand...
That one can not be exempt from above- either even if there is “Eastern” meaning to that, reducing Pope to “first in honor” and that alone is no-go for Latin Church, if not entire Catholic Church (or at least some Eastern Churches too). I would like Catholic Church to revert back to model where Patriarchs have their proper power and place, not reliant on Rome alone yet always open to submit to Petrine Ministry and it’s exercise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top