Topic: Catholic-Orthodox "journeying toward unity"-Fr. Joseph Wallace. Council in 2025?

[Xavier]

If the Church of St. Peter's in Rome and that dedicated in Constantinople to St. Andrew are to walk together again as brothers in the Lord one day, an Ecumenical Council to reunite the Churches will certainly be necessary? Would 2025 be an opportune time for the Successor of St. Peter and the Ecumenical Patriarch to meet for a joint synod?

http://catholicstarherald.org/catholic-and-orthodox-journeying-toward-unity/

Back in June, Pope Francis met with a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople who came to Rome to celebrate the feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Pope Francis has a close tie with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, who he has met with several times since becoming pope in 2013. In fact, he was the first Patriarch of Constantinople to ever attend an installation of a pope of Rome. Francis often invites the patriarch to join him on historical occasions and has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

While the two leaders share a great rapport, the two great churches of the East and West are still separated after almost a millennium. Pope Francis is building upon the foundation of rapprochement laid by all the popes going back to Pope Saint John XXIII who called for an Ecumenical Council aimed at modernizing the church and healing the divisions of Christianity. While they were together on a joint pilgrimage to the Holy Land, they discussed the possibility of an “ecumenical synod” in 2025 to mark the 1,700th anniversary of the Great Council of Nicaea.

[Volnutt]

If the Church of St. Peter's in Rome and that dedicated in Constantinople to St. Andrew are to walk together again as brothers in the Lord one day, an Ecumenical Council to reunite the Churches will certainly be necessary? Would 2025 be an opportune time for the Successor of St. Peter and the Ecumenical Patriarch to meet for a joint synod?

http://catholicstarherald.org/catholic-and-orthodox-journeying-toward-unity/

Back in June, Pope Francis met with a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople who came to Rome to celebrate the feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Pope Francis has a close tie with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, who he has met with several times since becoming pope in 2013. In fact, he was the first Patriarch of Constantinople to ever attend an installation of a pope of Rome. Francis often invites the patriarch to join him on historical occasions and has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

While the two leaders share a great rapport, the two great churches of the East and West are still separated after almost a millennium. Pope Francis is building upon the foundation of rapprochement laid by all the popes going back to Pope Saint John XXIII who called for an Ecumenical Council aimed at modernizing the church and healing the divisions of Christianity. While they were together on a joint pilgrimage to the Holy Land, they discussed the possibility of an “ecumenical synod” in 2025 to mark the 1,700th anniversary of the Great Council of Nicaea.

My guess would be that if it really did happen it would just result in a bunch of splinter "traditionalist" groups on both sides, so I'm not really sure to what extent the endeavor is even worth it. Though I feel that way about most ecumenism, really.

[The young fogey]

Almost everybody here knows this, but for the newbs, the Patriarch of Constantinople isn't "the Orthodox Pope" as Fr. Wallace seems to imply, a common mistake.

Traditionalist splinters? Probably. Or has just about everybody who wanted to splinter off done so?

Real reunion: one side would give in to the other on divorce and marriage and on contraception, and all of one side's bishops would go over together. I think I agree with most members that this is extremely unlikely.

[Sharbel]

All popes, from PVI to FI, publicly admitted that their very own office is the greatest impediment to union with the Orthodox Churches.

[Asteriktos]

Thing is: after sixty years of preliminaries the Orthodox couldn't even get all the local Orthodox churches to meet together, what are the chances everyone would get together for a reunion council involving Catholics? 

[Alpha60]

Thing is: after sixty years of preliminaries the Orthodox couldn't even get all the local Orthodox churches to meet together, what are the chances everyone would get together for a reunion council involving Catholics?

The EP might restore communion, some other local churches might break communion with them, the EP might retaliate by trying to revoke their autocephaly and filing lawsuits, which they would probably lose, some schisms might occur, and all of the monasteries on Mount Athos would fly black flags.  The bit about “modernizing the church” in particular sends a chill down my spine.

I would love Orthodox-RC reunion, but not like this, not negotiated between the current Pope and the current Ecumenical Patriarch.  Also, it would be a travesty to reunite the EOs with Rome before achieving EO-OO and Orthodox-Assyrian reunification.  Let there be one Orthodox Eastern Communion of Byzantines, Miaphysites and Assyrians, with a stronger Western Rite, and perhaps a few EC churches who seem obsessed with restoring communion with us (the Melkites and Chaldeans, for instance) encouraged to do so and break communion with Rome in the process, let Rome shrink a bit more, and then let an Orthodox Patriarch with a deep knowledge of the West open negotiations for the restoration of the Roman Catholic Orthodox Church as part of the Communion.

[Antonis]

Back in June, Pope Francis met with a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople who came to Rome to celebrate the feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Pope Francis has a close tie with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, who he has met with several times since becoming pope in 2013. In fact, he was the first Patriarch of Constantinople to ever attend an installation of a pope of Rome. Francis often invites the patriarch to join him on historical occasions and has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

Francis often invites the patriarch to join him on historical occasions and has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

Holy Phanar

[Volnutt]

Almost everybody here knows this, but for the newbs, the Patriarch of Constantinople isn't "the Orthodox Pope" as Fr. Wallace seems to imply, a common mistake.

Traditionalist splinters? Probably. Or has just about everybody who wanted to splinter off done so?

Real reunion: one side would give in to the other on divorce and marriage and on contraception, and all of one side's bishops would go over together. I think I agree with most members that this is extremely unlikely.

I think that everybody who wanted to splinter over the extended fallout from VII and the new calendar/Pat. Athenagoras/"Sergianism", respectively, has already done so. Reunion with Orthodoxy would be a whole new can of worms, almost as disruptive as if Pope Francis suddenly okayed gay marriage.

I agree with your assessment of what real reunion would entail and that it's unlikely.

[Volnutt]

Orthodox-Assyrian reunification.

Which is itself a pig's eye. EO-OO is slightly more likely, but still probably won't happen.

Let there be one Orthodox Eastern Communion of Byzantines, Miaphysites and Assyrians, with a stronger Western Rite, and perhaps a few EC churches who seem obsessed with restoring communion with us (the Melkites and Chaldeans, for instance) encouraged to do so and break communion with Rome in the process, let Rome shrink a bit more, and then let an Orthodox Patriarch with a deep knowledge of the West open negotiations for the restoration of the Roman Catholic Orthodox Church as part of the Communion.

Not really "reunion" in the commonly meant sense, more a mass conversion.

[Volnutt]

Back in June, Pope Francis met with a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople who came to Rome to celebrate the feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Pope Francis has a close tie with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, who he has met with several times since becoming pope in 2013. In fact, he was the first Patriarch of Constantinople to ever attend an installation of a pope of Rome. Francis often invites the patriarch to join him on historical occasions and has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

Francis often invites the patriarch to join him on historical occasions and has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

has visited the Holy Phanar in Constantinople for a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bartholomew.

Holy Phanar

Will you just stop?  Your constant, ungrateful belittling of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is destructive to piety.

[Antonis]

I'm just upset I haven't had the chance to visit. I've been to the Holy 79th Street, and even the Holy Syosset, but never the Holy Phanar.

[Mor Ephrem]

I'm just upset I haven't had the chance to visit. I've been to the Holy 79th Street, and even the Holy Syosset, but never the Holy Phanar.

But St Vladimir's Seminary is still just St Vladimir's Seminary...

[Iconodule]

I'm just upset I haven't had the chance to visit. I've been to the Holy 79th Street, and even the Holy Syosset, but never the Holy Phanar.

But St Vladimir's Seminary is still just St Vladimir's Seminary...

The Holy Yonkers.

[Alpha60]

I'm just upset I haven't had the chance to visit. I've been to the Holy 79th Street, and even the Holy Syosset, but never the Holy Phanar.

But St Vladimir's Seminary is still just St Vladimir's Seminary...

The Holy Yonkers.

I saw the Yonkers town marching band in New York City once, performing for no apparent reason at the Sikh Day Parade, which was itself interesting to watch.  Quite a large number of turbans.  Alas, the band wasn’t very good; at one point they messed up a measure in the simple Sousa march they were playing and the conductor blew his whistle and had them start again, which looked very bad; it would have been better to keep playing and hope no one noticed.  To add insult to injury, the conductor had a particularly nerdy appearance.

That said, I was under the impression that SVS was a safe distance from Yonkers possible.  And hopefully there are gatekeepers to keep the dorky incompetent marching band from randomly parading through the campus.  Although, having to endure such a disruption would be an excellent form of ascetic formation for the seminarians; if you could tolerate that, you might well have a promising future as a stylite. 

[Vanhyo]

one side would give in to the other on divorce and marriage and on contraception

RCs are chasing shadows with this type of accusations.

It is far more likely that trad-cats are getting in line for annulments so they can "piously" eat wafers every week.

Thing is: after sixty years of preliminaries the Orthodox couldn't even get all the local Orthodox churches to meet together, what are the chances everyone would get together for a reunion council involving Catholics?

This is not fair... that robber council was forced to us by outside, by the world and its ruler. Most did not come, many who came did not sign, this alone reveals enough.

[Volnutt]

You really want to waste your breath getting worked up over history's least effectual council?


I wish I had your excess energy, man...

[Antonis]

We should start a campaign to get it declared a robber council or something!

[Vanhyo]

We should start a campaign to get it declared a robber council or something!

By who ? There is no emperor to restrain, and the globalist have their puppet bishops promoting the one world religion, preparing the way for the one world ruler.

[Volnutt]

We should start a campaign to get it declared a robber council or something!

By who ? There is no emperor to restrain, and the globalist have their puppet bishops promoting the one world religion, preparing the way for the one world ruler.

Relax, Alex Jones. He was just making fun of me for a stupid post in another thread.

[Antonis]

We should start a campaign to get it declared a robber council or something!

By who ? There is no emperor to restrain, and the globalist have their puppet bishops promoting the one world religion, preparing the way for the one world ruler.

Relax, Alex Jones. He was just making fun of me for a stupid post in another thread.

[LivenotoneviL]

We should start a campaign to get it declared a robber council or something!

By who ? There is no emperor to restrain, and the globalist have their puppet bishops promoting the one world religion, preparing the way for the one world ruler.

Relax, Alex Jones. He was just making fun of me for a stupid post in another thread.

I know that I might kill all kinds of credibility in terms of my legitimacy of opinions by saying this - but is it really so "out-there" to think that we're, unfortunately, heading in that direction?

As a student who has taken courses on International Theory, many Liberals (as in, International Theory Liberals, not Political Liberals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_(international_relations) ) advocate for a greater implementation of Collective Security (United Nations Cooperation) and a forced placement of liberal (American) values - and even a portion of Realists, who believe that the best solution to the problem of International Anarchy is the establishment of a World Government above the governments, I can say that such an idea doesn't only exist within the realms of online conspiracy theorists.

And considering that globalism is an idea that is on the constant increase over time, is the form of a "World Government" - at least in the form of a more robust United Nations that actually accomplishes things - a thing that is way beyond the realms of possibility?

Now, like anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of politics, I recognize the fact that there is a direct relationship between the amount of power necessary / authoritarianism and the size of the country in question (this can easily be seen historically; compare the authoritarianism of the Roman Empire to the Roman Republic; compare the authoritarianism of Imperial Russia to other Western European countries at the time; compare the United States's federal authoritarianism in 1800 to now) so in order for such a "World Government" to be effective, it needs to be rather despotic in its power - and considering the moral values which decay over time as well, I can see this as easily being problematic particularly for Traditional Christians or those who seek a sense of individuality, in an international community which has rejected such vital values and beliefs in Christ and / or God.

Whether or not such an idea attempting to be propagated by the Freemasons, or some complex network of Satanists - or maybe just some billionaires who will be gluttonous for power until it collapses on them - or just the devil trying to get people to believe the most important thing in life is an earthly utopia - that is a separate subject. To say that such a theory is completely out of the possibility for the future I think is incorrect.

I don't see it happening too soon - as someone who is more of a Realist myself, good-luck trying to get the United States to give up their power monopoly on the world - unless they are in full compliance and will be the kings of such a new order.

When it comes to a "one-world religion," I think that - if not propagated by Satanic or Masonic societies, it is most likely a result of the devil forcing men to realize that worldly cares are of most importance and not Christ.

How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know, but I know for certain that I don't want to witness this terrible tribulation.

[Volnutt]

I don't deny the existence of globalism. But given the impotence of the UN and the way that the EU is falling apart, I don't think it's quite as unidirectional as Vanhyo likely does. I also don't think that glad-handing clergy/public intellectuals are devious and intelligent enough to seriously organize a move to world government like you describe. It's mostly pie in the sky dreams on their part.

The only New World Order worth worrying about, if that, is the one led by McDonalds and Wal-Mart. It's also one that doesn't much care one way or the other whether governments, societies, or religions claim to be united.

The rest of this will likely get too political.

[Xavier]

There is no real reason not to have a Council. In the 13th and 15th century, travel was hard, communication difficult, danger of Islamist Turkish invasion ever-present etc. Today, most of those threats are remote and travel is much easier. Let the Greek Orthodox representatives come to Council with us, and we will prove our Faith again, from Scripture and Tradition, as we did at Lyons II and Florence. Orthodox cannot really give a consistent basis for determining truth in a Council. Is Papal presidency a necessary arbiter? Is at least episcopal consensus sufficient? Both were certainly present at those two Councils and would be present today. Is it a free-for-all where laity can pick and choose what canons and dogmas to accept or not? Surely not, for the indefectibility of the Church resides in the episcopate, after the Pope. Let the Orthodox come and let it be a serious dogmatic Council focused on doctrine, we can prove each of the dogmas we believe, Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Petrine Supremacy, Purgatorial Fire etc from several patristic authorities.

[Volnutt]

Hasn't ecumenical dialog been going on for decades now? Why would calling it a council make anything any more conclusive?

Orthodox cannot really give a consistent basis for determining truth in a Council.

Why would they want to show up to a council if people like you are just going to insult their intelligence when they get there? "Welcome, brothers! Now, stop being stupid and believe everything we tell you!" Would you expect Catholic bishops to respond well to that kind of treatment from the Orthodox?

[Xavier]

Nope, nobody said or would say "believe everything we tell you." We will prove it from Scripture and Tradition. But there must be a norm for a Council to take place. Either (1) Papal presidency serves as an arbiter, with Roman legates presiding as they historically did or (2) Episcopal consensus is necessary, when documents are put up to vote, they are determined by majority consensus or (3) both, or something like that. Otherwise, discussions will be interminable, as often they currently are.

[Volnutt]

Nope, nobody said or would say "believe everything we tell you." We will prove it from Scripture and Tradition.

Six of one half dozen of the other, especially if you insist that only Magisterium-approved interpretations are valid. It's called stacking the deck and is the same basic reason that discussions between Rome and Protestants almost never get anywhere.

But there must be a norm for a Council to take place. Either (1) Papal presidency serves as an arbiter, with Roman legates presiding as they historically did or (2) Episcopal consensus is necessary, when documents are put up to vote, they are determined by majority consensus or (3) both, or something like that. Otherwise, discussions will be interminable, as often they currently are.

Well, there's never going to be any agreement on that, so why even call for a council in the first place?

[LivenotoneviL]

Papal presidency serves as an arbiter, with Roman legates presiding as they historically did...

Oh, like the 5th Ecumenical Council, where not one Papal legate was present and was held against the express wishes of the Pope (which you know because of my constant reference to it on that other site).

Or, if Papal presence equivocates to indefectability, then surely Ephesus II must be infallible! And so must the 8th General Council of 879, in which the Papal legates signed and approved everything! As did probably the Pope himself (although of course this is a debate... the good ole forgery accusation)

It's interesting how post-schism there hasn't been any Robber Councils in the Roman Catholic Church...

[123abc]

There is no real reason not to have a Council.

Sure there is: the Vatican will not recant of its heresy because it would mean admitting that they went astray long ago. Rome never repents, they just try to obscure.

Let the Greek Orthodox representatives come to Council with us, and we will prove our Faith again, from Scripture and Tradition

Scripture and Tradition cannot help you since those doctrines which divide us have been shown to be novelties not supported by Scripture or Tradition. All of your quoting of Matthew 16:18, absurdly claiming that Acts 15 somehow supports papal infallibility or Patristic quote mining will not support your assertions.

Orthodox cannot really give a consistent basis for determining truth in a Council. Is Papal presidency a necessary arbiter? Is at least episcopal consensus sufficient?

When all else fails, pull out the epistemological argument. Strangely the Orthodox have managed to maintain the Faith and practice of the Church all while separated from Her 'head'. In the meantime Rome continues to add to, change and completely overhaul its beliefs and practices depending on what century we find ourselves in. As I heard one priest put it: Papalism is not 'backward compatible.' A Catholic from 1950 would in no way recognize the Catholic faith or mass if they were dropped into your typical parish today. An Irish Catholic in 1850 would not understand or probably agree with papal infallibility.(I say Irish Catholic because a popular catechism used in Ireland just before Vatican I called papal infallibility a 'Protestant slur'): https://forums.catholic.com/t/stephen-keenans-catechism-and-infallibility-prior-to-1870/164140

Is it a free-for-all where laity can pick and choose what canons and dogmas to accept or not? Surely not, for the indefectibility of the Church resides in the episcopate, after the Pope.

Refresh my memory: Do you attend masses of the SSPX?

Let the Orthodox come and let it be a serious dogmatic Council focused on doctrine, we can prove each of the dogmas we believe, Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Petrine Supremacy, Purgatorial Fire etc from several patristic authorities.

No, Rome can't.

[Lepanto]

Speculating about a Council is useless. The Orthodox are simply not ready for that considering all their internal infighting.
As pointed out above, Crete has shown at least one thing: They are currently not in a shape or unwilling to meet even without any Catholic interference.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church is equally totally not ready for it. We both need to sort out a few important things first,
before such a Council could even be thought of. There are so many things happening right now which could derail any
attempt in that direction. So much would depend on the next bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Moscow.
Even if all those problems disappeared somehow "magically",
I am highly skeptical about the chances for success and more than a bit concerned about the possible dangers.

[Sharbel]

Is Papal presidency a necessary arbiter? Is at least episcopal consensus sufficient? Both were certainly present at those two Councils and would be present today.

Yet neither were present in all the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium, which the Roman Church accepts too.

[Sharbel]

There is no real reason not to have a Council.

There is no reason to have a Council.  There hasn't been a good reason in the West to have a Council since Trent, but it seems to have become an intra mural sport in the Vatican.

A Catholic from 1950 would in no way recognize the Catholic faith or mass if they were dropped into your typical parish today.

A Catholic from one diocese might not recognize the Catholic faith or mass if he attended liturgy at another diocese.  Heck, it's not even certain if he attended liturgy across the same town or even in his own parish at another time!

Surely not, for the indefectibility of the Church resides in the episcopate, after the Pope.

No, Catholic bishops are de facto chorbishops, with the Pope of Rome remaining as the sole bishop, if St. Ignatius of Antioch was right (cf. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, VIII).  For the Catholic Church is not where a bishop is, but whether he's a chorbishop of the bishop of Rome.

[LivenotoneviL]

Is Papal presidency a necessary arbiter? Is at least episcopal consensus sufficient? Both were certainly present at those two Councils and would be present today.

Yet neither were present in all the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium, which the Roman Church accepts too.

They do argue that the Papal Legate served as the authority of the Roman Pontiff... although not all the Ecumenical Councils had a Papal Legate, and some Councils which had a Papal Legate that accepted the decisions nonetheless were rejected by Rome (879 council).

[LivenotoneviL]

No, Catholic bishops are de facto chorbishops, with the Pope of Rome remaining as the sole bishop, if St. Ignatius of Antioch was right (cf. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, VIII).  For the Catholic Church is not where a bishop is, but whether he's a chorbishop of the bishop of Rome.

"I exhort and entreat that not one of you ever accept this name (universal bishop), that not one consent to it, that not one write it, that not one admit it wherever it may have been written, or add his subscription to it; but, as becomes ministers of Almighty God, that each keep himself from this kind of poisoned infection, and give no place to the cunning lier-in-wait, since this thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the condemning of all of you. For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

-Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Book 9 Epistle 68

[Sharbel]

...

-Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Book 9 Epistle 68

As it was stated by a pope, it's infallible Catholic doctrine, right?  Wait...

[Porter ODoran]

There is no real reason not to have a Council. In the 13th and 15th century, travel was hard, communication difficult, danger of Islamist Turkish invasion ever-present etc. Today, most of those threats are remote and travel is much easier. Let the Greek Orthodox representatives come to Council with us, and we will prove our Faith again, from Scripture and Tradition, as we did at Lyons II and Florence. Orthodox cannot really give a consistent basis for determining truth in a Council. Is Papal presidency a necessary arbiter? Is at least episcopal consensus sufficient? Both were certainly present at those two Councils and would be present today. Is it a free-for-all where laity can pick and choose what canons and dogmas to accept or not? Surely not, for the indefectibility of the Church resides in the episcopate, after the Pope. Let the Orthodox come and let it be a serious dogmatic Council focused on doctrine, we can prove each of the dogmas we believe, Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Petrine Supremacy, Purgatorial Fire etc from several patristic authorities.

You have a robust imagination.

[Vanhyo]

-

[Mor Ephrem]

-

Post of the year.

[Vanhyo]

-

Post of the year.

It was inappropriate to joke about things which are rather tragic, so i deleted the content of my post.

[Mor Ephrem]

-

Post of the year.

It was inappropriate to joke about things which are rather tragic, so i deleted the content of my post.

I didn't get to read your post before you replaced it with that hyphen. 

I was nominating the hyphen for "post of the year". 

[WPM]

I don't like the OP or thread title

[Mor Ephrem]

I don't like the OP or thread title

I don't like your post.

[Rohzek]

The article and the OP are just doing nothing more than mere hand waving. A waste of time. The era of great councils is over. It won't happen again.

[Vanhyo]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

[ZackShenouda439]

Thing is: after sixty years of preliminaries the Orthodox couldn't even get all the local Orthodox churches to meet together, what are the chances everyone would get together for a reunion council involving Catholics?

The EP might restore communion, some other local churches might break communion with them, the EP might retaliate by trying to revoke their autocephaly and filing lawsuits, which they would probably lose, some schisms might occur, and all of the monasteries on Mount Athos would fly black flags.  The bit about “modernizing the church” in particular sends a chill down my spine.

I would love Orthodox-RC reunion, but not like this, not negotiated between the current Pope and the current Ecumenical Patriarch.  Also, it would be a travesty to reunite the EOs with Rome before achieving EO-OO and Orthodox-Assyrian reunification.  Let there be one Orthodox Eastern Communion of Byzantines, Miaphysites and Assyrians, with a stronger Western Rite, and perhaps a few EC churches who seem obsessed with restoring communion with us (the Melkites and Chaldeans, for instance) encouraged to do so and break communion with Rome in the process, let Rome shrink a bit more, and then let an Orthodox Patriarch with a deep knowledge of the West open negotiations for the restoration of the Roman Catholic Orthodox Church as part of the Communion.

In my opinion I wouldn't call EO achieving reunion with RCC before the OO to be a travesty, but it would be entertaining to observe how such a union would operate. of course, this likely won't happen in our life-time, mostly because I don't see the EO accepting the RCC doctrine of papal infallibility anytime soon & I don't see the RCC giving that up anytime soon. what's funny is the OO-EO schism predates the EO-RCC schism yet there is significantly more difference between RCC & EO, than between OO & EO. I always found that interesting. 

[Mor Ephrem]

what's funny is the OO-EO schism predates the EO-RCC schism yet there is significantly more difference between RCC & EO, than between OO & EO. I always found that interesting.

Depends on whom you ask.  There are a number of EO who believe acceptance or rejection of Chalcedon makes such a difference that they see EO and OO as more wildly different than EO and RC, and think that those who think like you and me are just being taken in by vestments and incense and long services and beards.

[123abc]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

[Mor Ephrem]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

You just lack charity.

[Asteriktos]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

You just lack charity.

Who are you?

[WPM]

I don't like the OP or thread title

I don't like your post.

Reminds me of the false Christ.

[Vanhyo]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

Well, he can't calls us such in this forum because by doing so he risks to have his posting rights revoked, but if he takes his faith seriously its logical for him think this way.

[123abc]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

Well, he can't calls us such in this forum because by doing so he risks to have his posting rights revoked, but if he takes his faith seriously its logical for him think this way.

One does not have to engage in dishonest flattery and patronizing comments in order to prevent oneself from being banned, however. I mind myself when I'm posting on Catholic sites but I don't try to butter them up, either.

[LivenotoneviL]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

Well, he can't calls us such in this forum because by doing so he risks to have his posting rights revoked, but if he takes his faith seriously its logical for him think this way.

One does not have to engage in dishonest flattery and patronizing comments in order to prevent oneself from being banned, however. I mind myself when I'm posting on Catholic sites but I don't try to butter them up, either.

Yeah.... I need to mind myself more and listen to you on that one site. However, my very antagonizing responses of recently - to be fair - were to his post claiming that the Orthodox lack Apostolic Succession because they aren't in communion with Peter, and calling those who leave the Roman Catholic Church into "Greek heresy" as "apostates." Which only spiraled downward with me giving some rather harsh comments, eventually leading into the debate of "which bread Christ used."

Although my posts tend to be rather snobbish and prideful - I will agree with Mor that I need to work on my spiritual life first.

[LivenotoneviL]

I don't like the OP or thread title

Xavier seem like a nice person with good intentions, he just doesn't realize some things..

Unfortunately I find his posting style somewhat duplicitous. On here he is usually offering compliments and referring to us as "brethren in Christ." However, on a certain traditional Catholic board which we are both members of, he refers to us as schismatics, heretics, obstinate etc. I'd have more respect for him as a poster if he didn't drip honey here while engaging in invective elsewhere.

You just lack charity.

Who are you?

Spoiler alert, Mor was a Coptic Catholic the whole time!

[byhisgrace]

Hasn't ecumenical dialog been going on for decades now? Why would calling it a council make anything any more conclusive?

Orthodox cannot really give a consistent basis for determining truth in a Council.

Why would they want to show up to a council if people like you are just going to insult their intelligence when they get there? "Welcome, brothers! Now, stop being stupid and believe everything we tell you!" Would you expect Catholic bishops to respond well to that kind of treatment from the Orthodox?

Nope, nobody said or would say "believe everything we tell you." We will prove it from Scripture and Tradition.

Six of one half dozen of the other, especially if you insist that only Magisterium-approved interpretations are valid. It's called stacking the deck and is the same basic reason that discussions between Rome and Protestants almost never get anywhere.

But there must be a norm for a Council to take place. Either (1) Papal presidency serves as an arbiter, with Roman legates presiding as they historically did or (2) Episcopal consensus is necessary, when documents are put up to vote, they are determined by majority consensus or (3) both, or something like that. Otherwise, discussions will be interminable, as often they currently are.

Well, there's never going to be any agreement on that, so why even call for a council in the first place?

Orthodox cannot really give a consistent basis for determining truth in a Council. Is Papal presidency a necessary arbiter? Is at least episcopal consensus sufficient?

When all else fails, pull out the epistemological argument. Strangely the Orthodox have managed to maintain the Faith and practice of the Church all while separated from Her 'head'.

Speculating about a Council is useless. The Orthodox are simply not ready for that considering all their internal infighting.
As pointed out above, Crete has shown at least one thing: They are currently not in a shape or unwilling to meet even without any Catholic interference.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church is equally totally not ready for it. We both need to sort out a few important things first,
before such a Council could even be thought of. There are so many things happening right now which could derail any
attempt in that direction. So much would depend on the next bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Moscow.
Even if all those problems disappeared somehow "magically",
I am highly skeptical about the chances for success and more than a bit concerned about the possible dangers.

+1 to all these posts.

One of the problems of having an Orthodox-Catholic council at this point is that most (if not all) attendants of both sides will have already made up their mind of what such "reunion" would look like. Roman Catholics want all Orthodox to accept everything they teach, while the Orthodox want all Roman Catholics to recant of their exclusive doctrines. Sure, maybe some good discussions can sway some people for a compromise if not a conversion, but I think the facts of history and theology are subtle enough that most people aren't going to come to an agreed upon interpretation. Maybe for some apologists, the evidence is "clear" for their side, but they are delusional if they think that any honest, intelligent, and studious inquirer will come to the same conclusions that they have. 

[ErmyCath]

The problem with reunion is that, from a natural perspective, it is impossible.

If Roman Catholics were to change their doctrines now, it would disprove the veracity of their claims since they would necessarily be repudiating doctrines defined as part of their infallible magisterium. That means that those among them who entered into a union would be denounced by the remainder as having defected so that the Roman Catholic Church would simply continue along without those who entered into the union.

There is a similar problem in Orthodoxy. Whatever local churches entered into such a union would be denounced by other local churches and, presumably, new bishops appointed to the sees of those who had defected.

Put more simply, neither side can now change positions on certain defined doctrines without undermining their teaching authority. So the only seemingly possible path toward "reunion" is return -- that is, one side or the other renouncing its doctrines in favor of the other side's definitions. But still, that will not result in a holistic reunion because individuals who make up the renouncing side will simply not go along.

[Sharbel]

The problem with reunion is that, from a natural perspective, it is impossible...

+1

I quite agree.  Perhaps, like with so many other separated churches throughout history, the faithful eventually came to the orthodox side, regardless of numbers and times.  It is, after all, God's Church and He is the one in control.

[kabane52]

A restoration of communion is not going to happen bureaucratically. I long for the resumption of communion between East and West (once the theological issues are resolved), but nobody should pretend that a council held between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch would mean anything. The Church of Constantinople itself has less than a thousand faithful. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the primate of the patriarchal synod, but he has no authority to place the pope’s name in the diptychs of those bishops on the patriarchal synod, much less the diptychs of the Orthodox churches spread throughout the world.

The only way a restoration of unity will ever occur is if Catholics and Orthodox are thrown together into the furnace of persecution. Only then will a genuine integration of the Christian life of East and West occur. And it’s only when it has occurred organically that a formal union can be established. Attempts to impose union by one or two ecclesiastical officials were tried and failed throughout the Middle Ages. If you want unity, then pray daily for unity. I am not against careful ecumenical dialogue committed to truth, but as St. Paul says, whomever it is that waters, “God gives the growth.” To put it simply, the end of the great schism will require a miracle. I think that God intends to work one. I don’t know when.

[Lepanto]

A restoration of communion is not going to happen bureaucratically. I long for the resumption of communion between East and West (once the theological issues are resolved), but nobody should pretend that a council held between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch would mean anything. The Church of Constantinople itself has less than a thousand faithful. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the primate of the patriarchal synod, but he has no authority to place the pope’s name in the diptychs of those bishops on the patriarchal synod, much less the diptychs of the Orthodox churches spread throughout the world.

The only way a restoration of unity will ever occur is if Catholics and Orthodox are thrown together into the furnace of persecution. Only then will a genuine integration of the Christian life of East and West occur. And it’s only when it has occurred organically that a formal union can be established. Attempts to impose union by one or two ecclesiastical officials were tried and failed throughout the Middle Ages. If you want unity, then pray daily for unity. I am not against careful ecumenical dialogue committed to truth, but as St. Paul says, whomever it is that waters, “God gives the growth.” To put it simply, the end of the great schism will require a miracle. I think that God intends to work one. I don’t know when.

+1. Indeed, I think extreme circumstances would be required. And I do not think those circumstances are exactly something we should wish for. Apart from that, I think that nothing short of a miracle can help.

[Sharbel]

The only way a restoration of unity will ever occur is if Catholics and Orthodox are thrown together into the furnace of persecution.

As it already happens in Lebanon and Syria, where the Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox faithful are allowed to receive Holy Communion from any of these Churches.

[JoeS2]

Personally, too much water has passed under the bridge.  There are too many theological and dogmatic obstacles that would have to be over come.   Me thinks the second coming of Christ wil come before any unity is realized.

[LivenotoneviL]

I think there is hope for the Oriental Orthodox communion - obviously, there are elements of modernism in there, but nevertheless, there should be some honest, heartfelt debates about our understandings of Christologies, and if their understanding is the same as ours, if the other 4 Ecumenical Councils could be seen as Ecumenical.

I think the Roman Catholic Church needs either to fall or to have a new generation of young, enthusiastic, and traditionalist Catholics to run into their church, honoring liturgical tradition if there is any - and I mean ANY - hope of reunion. If not, their church will crumble into the ground with their papal doctrine, with only some Sedevacantist or SSPX factions hanging around. "Pride cometh before the fall."

[Sharbel]

I think the Roman Catholic Church needs either to fall or to have a new generation of young, enthusiastic, and traditionalist Catholics to run into their church, honoring liturgical tradition if there is any - and I mean ANY - hope of reunion. If not, their church will crumble into the ground with their papal doctrine, with only some Sedevacantist or SSPX factions hanging around. "Pride cometh before the fall."

Rome has cornered itself repeatedly since the 11th century.  Its habit of dogmatizing its theological speculations led to innovations being concocted and then dogmatized themselves (e.g., original sin and immaculate conception), and so on.  The contradictions have kept piling up, reaching the pinnacle of weakness with dogmatizing papal supremacy and infallibility.  And, since Sedevacantists and traditionalists subscribe to the same doctrinal castle of cards, they will succumb together with Rome.  How, if not by the faithful discovering the Ancient Faith?  The Orthodox Church has everything that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

[Volnutt]

Yeah, they can trade their drama and confusion for the drama and confusion of arguments over calendars and nationalist politics and which bishop is skimming off the till.

Theology is one thing. But overselling the earthly realities doesn't help anybody.

[Lepanto]

  The Orthodox Church has everything that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

Hah! Free of drama and confusion, is it? Come on, you know better than that. Fully delivering the Church from drama and confusion will require HIS return. The ecclesia militans never is free of it. The same old theme: Come, you poor trad Catholics, find peace in the one true church. When the conversion zeal wears off, what remains? Just more division and arguments.
@Volnutt: Good post.

[Alpha60]

I think the Roman Catholic Church needs either to fall or to have a new generation of young, enthusiastic, and traditionalist Catholics to run into their church, honoring liturgical tradition if there is any - and I mean ANY - hope of reunion. If not, their church will crumble into the ground with their papal doctrine, with only some Sedevacantist or SSPX factions hanging around. "Pride cometh before the fall."

Rome has cornered itself repeatedly since the 11th century.  Its habit of dogmatizing its theological speculations led to innovations being concocted and then dogmatized themselves (e.g., original sin and immaculate conception), and so on.  The contradictions have kept piling up, reaching the pinnacle of weakness with dogmatizing papal supremacy and infallibility.  And, since Sedevacantists and traditionalists subscribe to the same doctrinal castle of cards, they will succumb together with Rome.  How, if not by the faithful discovering the Ancient Faith?  The Orthodox Church has everything that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

The Orthodox Church to be fair also believes in original sin; we simply prefer the approach taken by St. John Cassian as opposed to the Augustinian idea that original sin is transmitted via coitus (a concept which required Rome to develop a complex array of problematic theological support struts, like the Immaculate Conception, which in turn fuels a dangerous tendency towards Mariolatry among some of the less theologically grounded Catholics, which in turn gives rise to the prolonged tolerance of farces such as the Ida Peerdeman “Marian Apparition” and Medjugorje.

[Volnutt]

I think the Roman Catholic Church needs either to fall or to have a new generation of young, enthusiastic, and traditionalist Catholics to run into their church, honoring liturgical tradition if there is any - and I mean ANY - hope of reunion. If not, their church will crumble into the ground with their papal doctrine, with only some Sedevacantist or SSPX factions hanging around. "Pride cometh before the fall."

Rome has cornered itself repeatedly since the 11th century.  Its habit of dogmatizing its theological speculations led to innovations being concocted and then dogmatized themselves (e.g., original sin and immaculate conception), and so on.  The contradictions have kept piling up, reaching the pinnacle of weakness with dogmatizing papal supremacy and infallibility.  And, since Sedevacantists and traditionalists subscribe to the same doctrinal castle of cards, they will succumb together with Rome.  How, if not by the faithful discovering the Ancient Faith?  The Orthodox Church has everything that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

The Orthodox Church to be fair also believes in original sin; we simply prefer the approach taken by St. John Cassian as opposed to the Augustinian idea that original sin is transmitted via coitus (a concept which required Rome to develop a complex array of problematic theological support struts, like the Immaculate Conception, which in turn fuels a dangerous tendency towards Mariolatry among some of the less theologically grounded Catholics, which in turn gives rise to the prolonged tolerance of farces such as the Ida Peerdeman “Marian Apparition” and Medjugorje.

Kind of off-topic, but I'm not at all sure that all of that can be pinned on the IC- at least not in a way that can't equally be applied to Orthodox views of Mary's sinlessness.


EDIT: Corrected an unfortunate error in wording.

[kabane52]

I don’t know that the Immaculate Conception is the irreconcilable obstacle to unity that it is presented as. Medieval Orthodox theologians were aware of the intra-Western debate and commented on it. St. Gennadius Scholarius, who was an anti-unionist, commented on it in defense of the Immaculate Conception, and St. Dimitri of Rostov, if memory serves, named a monastery after the Immaculate Conception. The problem with Rome’s definition is that it leaves open the question of whether the Blessed Virgin dies. I accept the IC when it is understood that it refers to concupiscence, and that her death was still necessary, not contingent.

As for original sin, the Orthodox Church teaches original sin, as is evident by the Council of Trullo’s incorporation of the canons of the Council of Carthage which taught original sin. See this piece, which compiles the teaching of original sin from historic Orthodox confessions and catechisms:

http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html

The notion that original sin is not an Orthodox teaching seems to make its first appearance in the writings of Fr. John Romanides, who was really an innovator.

Concerning Augustine’s idea that it was transmitted through the conjugal act, St. Maximus taught something similar, though more precise: that the transmission of original sin occurred because of the pleasure-pain dialectic present for fallen humans in the conjugal act. St. Paisios actually pointed the way towards an understanding of the status of the Theotokos in describing a revelation he was given about her conception. According to St. Paisios, Ss. Joachim and Anna engaged in the conjugal act in a way which was passionless. What this means is not that they hated sex, but that in the act which conceived Our Lady, each person gave him/herself to their spouse perfectly. There was no pleasure-pain dialectic, thereby preserving Our Lady from concupiscence.

[Volnutt]

How could she be preserved from concupiscence but not from death?

[Rohzek]

I don’t know that the Immaculate Conception is the irreconcilable obstacle to unity that it is presented as. Medieval Orthodox theologians were aware of the intra-Western debate and commented on it. St. Gennadius Scholarius, who was an anti-unionist, commented on it in defense of the Immaculate Conception, and St. Dimitri of Rostov, if memory serves, named a monastery after the Immaculate Conception. The problem with Rome’s definition is that it leaves open the question of whether the Blessed Virgin dies. I accept the IC when it is understood that it refers to concupiscence, and that her death was still necessary, not contingent.

As for original sin, the Orthodox Church teaches original sin, as is evident by the Council of Trullo’s incorporation of the canons of the Council of Carthage which taught original sin. See this piece, which compiles the teaching of original sin from historic Orthodox confessions and catechisms:

http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html

The notion that original sin is not an Orthodox teaching seems to make its first appearance in the writings of Fr. John Romanides, who was really an innovator.

Concerning Augustine’s idea that it was transmitted through the conjugal act, St. Maximus taught something similar, though more precise: that the transmission of original sin occurred because of the pleasure-pain dialectic present for fallen humans in the conjugal act. St. Paisios actually pointed the way towards an understanding of the status of the Theotokos in describing a revelation he was given about her conception. According to St. Paisios, Ss. Joachim and Anna engaged in the conjugal act in a way which was passionless. What this means is not that they hated sex, but that in the act which conceived Our Lady, each person gave him/herself to their spouse perfectly. There was no pleasure-pain dialectic, thereby preserving Our Lady from concupiscence.

If I recall correctly, the canons from Carthage do not embrace St. Augustine's radical teachings on an inherited personal guilt. So linking the Carthaginian canons to the universal level of Orthodoxy via Trullo does not really translate into the particular version of Original Sin that is being attacked by Orthodox when they consider the Immaculate Conception. This is not to say that the IC can only originate out of this particular rendition of Original Sin that Orthodox object to, but within the historical context of the Catholic Church, this conception was a major factor in its dogmatization.

[Sharbel]

... that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

Methinks that the words I highlighted above were read disregarding the words preceding them.  The Orthodox Church is generally free of the drama in liturgy that devout Catholics dread and the doctrinal confusion by a cohort of babbling hierarchs that makes traditional Catholics cringe.

[LivenotoneviL]

... that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

Methinks that the words I highlighted above were read disregarding the words preceding them.  The Orthodox Church is generally free of the drama in liturgy that devout Catholics dread and the doctrinal confusion by a cohort of babbling hierarchs that makes traditional Catholics cringe.

Yeah....

but I think Lepanto brings up a good about babbling hierarchs; we still have flawed sinners running the Church, and we probably have heterodox hierarchs in the Orthodox Church who would love a dismantling of Liturgical worship, false ecumenism, and social liberalism.

[Volnutt]

... that devout, traditional Catholics love and yearn to be free of drama and confusion.

Methinks that the words I highlighted above were read disregarding the words preceding them.  The Orthodox Church is generally free of the drama in liturgy that devout Catholics dread and the doctrinal confusion by a cohort of babbling hierarchs that makes traditional Catholics cringe.

Define "doctrinal?" Yes, there's nothing like the NO or Amoris Laetitia or clown masses, but when you have Orthodox priests and bishops acting like pews and organs and the Gregorian Calendar are the Whore of Babylon, doesn't that impinge on doctrine even a little? When you have the MP acting like Ukraine continuing to be under Putin's heel is some kind of eschatological mandate, doesn't that impinge on doctrine? When GOARCH is being torn apart by battles over who, clerical or lay, gets to own and manage parish property, doesn't that impinge on doctrine?

The lines are more blurred than we'd all like to admit and can be just as soul destroying, I'll wager. That's my only point.