What would it take for the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox to reunify?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The filioque is NOT saying dual source

All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

Amen

The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. There is a hierarchy in the Trinity

 

[SeraficLeo]

The Church had used creeds before any ecumenical council was called. The Church could hardly have defended the faith if she didn’t have recourse to formulating professions of faith. Though I think local councils would have been convened in ancient times to supply a binding creed or anathematize heresies. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is how the filioque originated in the West.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You make my point about unity and authority issues plague Orthodoxy,

I don’t see how I do. Up until the unilateral action of the Ecumenical Patriarchate late last fall, there were two schismatic churches in Ukraine (UOC-KP & UAOC) that were/are recognized by all the Orthodox Churches as being schismatic through rebellion to legitimate authority. There is one church in Ukraine recognized as canonical by all Orthodox Churches - the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The EP in their unilateral actions to receive the two schismatic churches and create a new “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” without regard to the canonical church is what prompted Russia to break communion with the EP. But this break is not a rebelling against authority so much as being a very serious call that a breach in good order needs to be dealt with.

Really? The Russians don’t buy the EP nor those in union with the EP. THAT is a rebellion to authority even though it’s authority the Orthodox established for itself

Isaac14:

What makes THEIR (Ukrainian) intent on being autocepholous, any different from all the others of whatever stripe in Orthodoxy , who wanted the same independence … and got it? Why are THEY (Ukrainians) the only ones who are schismatics in your mind, but not all the others?

[Isaac14]
I think the Ukrainians very much deserve their own autocephalous church. Frankly, with regard to Moscow and Constantinople, I’m very much in a mindset of “a pox on both houses”. Moscow did nothing to bring back their schismatic brethren, nor did they grant autocephaly to their Ukrainian church. While I think a case can be made that with such an impasse Constantinople as first among equals, should step in to resolve the dispute, I believe they overplayed their position by unilaterally creating a new church from the previously schismatic bodies over the protests of nearly every other Orthodox Church.

You Coming from Lutheran Protestantism, that had similar divisions, I can see why you think that way.

And you make my point again. Every group in Orthodoxy makes up their own rules . NO ONE speaks nor can speak, for ALL. That is what the links I posted draw attention to.

Isaac14:

Not really. The current tension in Orthodoxy is precisely because one church did presume to make up their own rules in unilaterally rehabilitating two previously schismatic groups. It’s true, we don’t have “one” spokesman, but as I’ve repeatedly said, despite the sometimes fractious relationships, we remain remarkably united in Faith.

Actually that is a contradiction of a united faith

Isaac14:

We don’t need one spokesman. How operate is very different than the top-down nature of the Catholic Church,

You just contradicted in writing Jesus plan FOR HIS CHURCH.

 

[dochawk]

If the document is indeed wrong, what does it say about the Catholic and Orthodox bishops and theologians working on the commission?

In essence, that their time in seminary and service of God leaves them significantly less qualified to consider th subject than the swarms of mini-popes on CAF

(It’s not really different than the folks here, unconstrained by seminary training, who “correct” priests with “doctrines” they found on google, of which the “ignorant” priest had been unaware . . .)

A Catholic who states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church is a nut?

A Catholic who means by that membership in the churches in full Communion with Rome (or the RCC alone! ) is directly contradicting papal teaching (among things), to the point that “nut” is a fair (but moderate) description of the position that all Orthodox will be damned. There are far less charitable words that could be accurately used . . .

ut would you be surprised if the Council’s decrees were originally issued in Latin to lend it the authority and character or majesty of Roman law and official imperial documents?

I would be quite surprised to see that in latin that late.

Greek began its ascent over Latin in the empire pretty much the day Greece was annexed, with the empire becoming increasingly grecian in most respects. While Latin had some formal roles, Greek was more prestigious, and Latin waned. Greek, not latin, was the universal church language (although the diocese of Rome replaced that language with the vernacular over the course of the third and fourth centuries).

By the end of the eight century, it would be odd to see something of importance being in greek.

For that matter, I would be surprised if a significant portion of the bishops present from anywhere but Italia, hispania, and gaul spoke latin fluently in the first place.

But I’m not going to re-read a few hundred pages of Gibbon over this . . . once is plenty for one lifetime . . .

So hypothetically if Peter died in a shipwreck heading for Rome or anywhere for that matter, the Church would have to have its seat on a boat in the water since that’s where he died?

To make that make any sense you would also have to add the seagoing church that he administered from the sea . . .

 

[dochawk]

What makes THEIR (Ukrainian) intent on being autocepholous, any different from all the others of whatever stripe in Orthodoxy , who wanted the same independence … and got it?

There were already not one, not two, but THREE Ukranian Orthodox churches at the time: the original church (now known as Ukranian Catholic, having moved wholesale into communion with Rome at Brest), the UOC-MP, started by the soviet secret police with the collaboration of the ROC, and the UOC-EP, started by authority of the EP.

The UAC was an attempt to deal with the separateness of the MP and EP churches, and was about as successful as the various attempts to deal with anti-Popes.

There was never a time that the UAC was in communion with any canonical Orthodox Church, although it had warm and friendly relations with the UOC-EP and the UCC. It no longer exists, having merged with the UOC-EP and now being in communion with the EP.

hawk

 

[SeraficLeo]

I’m pretty sure though that Latin remained the official imperial language and language of jurisprudence/law - and by extension the language of official authority - well into the time of Justinian.

 

[dochawk]

That’s a good two centuries before Nicea II . . .

 

[SeraficLeo]

We were talking about the documents of Nicaea I though.

 

[dochawk]

It’s in the context of,

For example, have you read the unanimous approval by the conciliar Fathers at the Council of Nicea II on October 6, 787 where there are laid out three conditions for any council to be considered ecumenical. Questions are being raised as to whether or not these three conditions have been fulfilled by Vatican I.

I hadn’t even noticed the reference to Nicea I creeping in . . .