Saint Seraphim Sarov (who was considered a Saint by St. Pope John Paul II and Venerable Pope Pius XII if I might add) said in his prophecies on the End Times that we would have an 8th Ecumenical Council and that the Churches would reunite in one last stand against the Freemasons, Jacobites, and the Jews. russian-faith.com/famous-russian-saint-predicts-end-world-prophecies-st-seraphim-sarov-n1550
Shall we also not forget that across all 4 Churches, our Saints herald the coming of a Great Catholic Monarch?
If that is not enough for you, let us also consider that other than the ACOE because of their unfortunate Nestorian roots, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches all share a collective form of the Rosary, asking the Mother of God to intercede for us. See the 3 links below to direct references and understanding of them, that being the Dominican Rosary, the Rule of Theotokos, and the Mequteria:
What more do we need? What about in regards to Saints? The Roman Catholic Church canonizing Saint Sergius of Radozveh and Saint Seraphim Sarov, or the Eastern Orthodox Church canonizing Saint Stephen of Hungary? How about both of these Churches canonizing the Ethiopian Saints Tekle Haymanot and Saint Kaleb of Axum? How about the fact that we also venerate ACOE Saints collectively such as Saint Isaac the Syrian and Saint Aba I?
I can keep going forever brothers. We are not as divided as the overarching Oligarchy wants you to believe. We must realize that we have a common ground and as Apostolic Brothers, unite together! Threads like this need to stop, we need far more unity than division.
Let us remember too that even now the excommunications between the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and even the Assyrian Church of the East have all been lifted in the last 100 years. The anathemas by the Eastern Orthodox on Oriental Orthodox Saints have also been lifted. There is even talk of allowing dual communion again between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church through the Eastern Catholic Churches. We must focus on bonding back together, there is already so much ecumenism going on and has been going on the last 1000 years and most people don't even realize it!
You took the prophecies from my analysis, haha. Awesome
Justin Howard
But you also brought attention to the Book of the Bee, Elder Paisos, and many more.
John James
...
William Reyes
OP here, we should not simply stop with the Apostolic Churches but the Protestant Churches as well. How about the fact that one of the few exclusively Anglican Saints, Martyr King Charles I, is also allowed to be venerated in the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Ordinate of the Catholic Church? Video related: youtube.com/watch?v=ane6aKmGNd8
Just read that chapter on the Book of the Bee. Surprised how the bit about the last Roman Emperor laying his crown in Jerusalem also coinciding, and then dying. Might be cross-pollination, though, given it's all based on the Syrian Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Nathan Gomez
all this brotherhood is all well and good, but this could also be a precursor to the antichrist hijacking the church and the apocalypse to begin.
Juan Anderson
If listening to your bishops is being an autist, I'll be the most autistic man in the world then. If obedience to your spiritual father is a sin, call me guilty and unrepentant.
The Vatican has had dialogue with the Nestorians, Monophysites, and Lutherans. The Orthodox have had dialogue with the Monophysites and the Catholics. That's all that has happened so far. You're delusional if you think any issues have been patched up yet - unless you think that anathemas have been lifted, in which case you're misinformed.
As for the 8th ecumenical council, several prophetic saints have said that a so-called 8th council will be put together, to unite the various heresies and force the faithful Orthodox into apostasy, and we must never follow it.
What more do we need? What about in regards to Saints? The Roman Catholic Church canonizing Saint Sergius of Radozveh and Saint Seraphim Sarov, or the Eastern Orthodox Church canonizing Saint Stephen of Hungary? How about both of these Churches canonizing the Ethiopian Saints Tekle Haymanot and Saint Kaleb of Axum? How about the fact that we also venerate ACOE Saints collectively such as Saint Isaac the Syrian and Saint Aba I? I don't know where you get your falsehood from but there is not one canonized Orthodox saint who was not Orthodox at the time of their death.
… No, they have not. The only actual steps toward unity in the past century have been 1) the Oriental Churches getting together in the 60's to re-recognize their mutual faith and become the Oriental Orthodox Church, ad 2) the mutual excommunications of 1054 being lifted also in the 60's. In the case of the latter, this does not affect the repeated mutual anathemas that have occured and reoccured for centuries after that, most especially after the council of Florence.
I too wish for the schisms and heresies to be destroyed, OP. But we're much, much, much earlier in the process than you seem to think we are. Nothing concrete has taken place since the 60's except for unofficial dialogues (like the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox dialogues in the late 90's), official dialogues that did not end with concrete actions or even general approval (like the Ravenna and Chieti Catholic-Orthodox international commissions), or power moves that ended up being stopped (like Archbishop Elias Zoghby's stuff in the 90's). Excommunications against important people (such as Pope Dioscorus and Severus) have yet to be lifted. Anathemas against doctrines have yet to be lifted. Reasons to even lift these anathemas to begin with have yet to be found concerning such things as papal supremacy for instance. Realistically, I expect the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Chuches to reunite in 150-200 years, and the Catholic and Assyrian Churches to reunite in 50-100 years, and the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches to reunite in maybe 400-500 years at least. These things work slow even with the information age.
That's just a legend and not a very likely one.
Henry Bell
Also, this is all well and good but let's not act like the fullness of the Church of God doesn't already exist. Until our leaders, inspired by the Holy Spirit, figure out how to solve all these schisms, you can still bring people to the Church individually. As to who can claim to be the Church, that's another issue that I don't think is worth debating here.
Luis Taylor
So like the Jews and Muslims you have false prophesies of a messiah that will lead you to worship the Antichrist. Nice
No thanks. We'll not join you in worshipping the Antichrist. His execution was for treason, and he was executed by fellow Christians.
Firstly in regards to the John Wesley bit, it is not a legend. Check the links. It is in fact my Orthodox priest who told me about John Wesley being ordained by an Orthodox bishop to begin with. He said there was a book on it, this Sunday I will try to ask him about the name of it for you.
As for the anathemas on Copt. Saint Severus, if you look up any list of the anathemas said at Pentecost for any of the Orthodox Churches, you will not find the Coptic Saints being anathema'd anymore. My own church does not announce the anathemas against them. If you could find me something to the contrary I would like to see it though, if they are still in effect I will edit my stance in regards to that.
The Russian Orthodox Church allows Roman Catholics to take communion in their parishes. See related image. Let us also not forget the Melkites were considered in dual communion with the Antiochian Eastern Orthodox over 700 years after the Schism which only came to an end when the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch around the 1700s tried to force the Melkites to all become fully Orthodox and the Melkites went fully Eastern Catholic instead: phoenicia.org/melkites.html Let us also not forget Saint Constantine XI (at least superficially) ending the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops and how during his last days, both the RCC and the EO finally shared a Church together and prayed together up until his demise at the hands of the Ottomans. Meanwhile both the RCC and the EO have dozens of Saints who have prophecied that there will be a Great Catholic Monarch who will rise up again to reunite Christendom and destroy Islam. Many point to that Monarch being the revived Saint Constantine XI, which would be very fitting given he was the one who forced an end to the Schism, if only briefly, to begin with.
I said this is an ecumenism thread for Apostolics and Protestants. You Baptists claim to be neither of these things, so why are you here?
not seething, just realistic. you don't think that Jews would let their greatest enimeies actaully reband and becoming a supreme powerhouse without at the very least subversion?
Nathan Adams
Sources? He seemed a cool bro.
Lucas Morgan
Well then, it MUST be true And ecumenism is an evil heresy from Satan that damns souls to hell. A bit presumptive, don't you think? Tell me, how many quotes from which reformers would you like me to dump that completely shatter this false ecumenist narrative you're trying to construct? Maybe ones calling the pope the Antichrist, or perhaps ones declaring the Romish doctrine of salvation to be a false gospel that no man can be saved in, or perhaps ones that condemn your piety as idolatrous?
I cannot actually find a link to the letter now from Ven. Pope Pius XII, but it was in an address around the time he canonized the Orthodox Saint Sergius of Radonezh in . Try looking into that. I hope knowing the book St. Pope John Paul II refers to him as a Saint in will help however.
The Mahdi and Massiah will be the opposite of our Lord.
Jose Bailey
I actually cited sources, unlike you who are simply foaming at the mouth at the idea that the Churches can actually get along. I would suggest reading them. If you aren't Baptist, you're at the very least acting like a typical IFB.
nay, i would say just the opposite. He will be everything the Christains In Name Only and Hethans think a messiah should be, minus anything that would be "offensive". so close, "…that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Elijah Roberts
What cements anathemas is not the liturgy but the councils of bishops. Anathemas on Pentecost? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Are you talking about the Synodikon in the form it is used today? Severus is definitely on it. Nothing prevents one from not mentioning the Monophysite heretics in the anathemas if the bishop allows it (after all the first step toward lifting the excommunications would be to stop insisting that they're heretics and enemies of God) but it does not mean the anathemas have been lifted at all.
And against the EOC. Because of their idea of apostolic succession, we necessarily have the eucharist, so really nothing prevents a Catholic from receiving communion except obedience. It's only one more point added to their whacky sacramental theology, not really a Church-uniting move in itself.
The EO do allow OO to receive communio if 1) they do not explicitly reject Chalcedon and 2) their bishop lets them. Which, in my experience, is only true if they do not know what a bishop is and do not know about doctrine.
I don't know what book this is but, belonging to a Russian parish, I know that we do NOT allow Catholics to receive communion. In fact several show up every few Sundays and we keep needing to remind them that, no, they cannot commune.
>Let us also not forget the Melkites were considered in dual communion with the Antiochian Eastern Orthodox over 700 years after the Schism which only came to an end when the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch around the 1700s tried to force the Melkites to all become fully Orthodox and the Melkites went fully Eastern Catholic instead: phoenicia.org/melkites.html I've seen this before. It's ahistorical propaganda. After 1204, Antioch broke communion with Rome. A pro-Catholic party was born within the Antiochian Church in the 16th-17th century because of Jesuit evangeliation, and it culminated into this pro-Catholic party becoming the Melkite Catholic Church in the 18th century, but communion with Rome was broken until then. It is true the Ukrainian Church was in dual communion until the Union of Brest though (which itself happened because, even though the Church of Ukraine saw itself as being in communion with both the Pope and the EP, the Pope saw it as being schismatic).
Surely you're not talking about this apostate who made "official" the union of Florence 4 months before the fall of the city. It did not end the schism. The canonical church never accepted the union. Only the emperor and the pro-union bishops following him accepted the union, and it never broke into the canonical church.
Parker Wood
Well if St. John Paul II venerated him who am I to say the opposite? Apparently there are a one or two more Russian saints we venerate.
Luis Hall
Love from an ACOE Christian
Lincoln White
You know we never get CotE people here? You guys are a rare breed online. Don't hesitate to stick around.
Ryder Turner
I can't handle all the acronyms in this thread. Acronym overload.
Benjamin Green
It's almost as bad as Catholic General
Sebastian White
How many did you cite for biblical Christians having fellowship with Romanists and Greeks? Oh, right, none at all Galatians 2:5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? I guess Martin Luther, Phillip Melanchthon, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, John Knox etc etc. were "typical IFB" too
Owen Bennett
why the hell are you arguing with us? we're all predestened to hell anyways, according to you. Anyways, i would LOVE for the churches to be united, don't get me wrong, but if that means the poison of Vatican II will infect the rest of christendom, no thanks.
Dylan Hall
Ah yes, I love you too brother! Nestorius was a wronged man. He was not responsible for the heresy that carries his name. Have you read this book? It is a wonderful apology for Nestorius using his "Bazaar." Do you believe Nestorius is a Saint? I have read as much on Wikipedia but we all know how unreliable that is.
They have one thing in common with IFB people though. There are/will be in hell. if IFB people don't repent before death
Lincoln Wilson
You're a very angry person, but I still think it's necessary to disprove the idea that the so-called churches you are referring to have not had any connections with the East. There have actually been plenty of overlap between the Eastern Orthodox and the Calvinists as well. Take for example Saint Martyr Cyril Lucaris who led the charge to try and bring Calvinists and Eastern Orthodox together: scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2015000100021
I've read his Bazaar. Yes, he is a saint in the ACOE.
Matthew Hill
Very interesting. He is a Saint in the Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Rites of the Catholic Church as well. I am glad that history is finally recognizing Nestorius was at least mostly innocent of the crimes he was accused of. Thank you for sharing brother in Christ.
John White
There is no such ground. There are Christological, Theological, and Traditional differences irreconcialible with each other. You are just disregarding it to push an Agenda. Which is, you are already coming from the assumption that the Chruch is nothing but temporal power. This is absolutely disgusting and abominable. You are no different from any atheist who sees it merely as an institution, all your arguments are political. That such and such institution recongnized such and such other instituiton and person. Or some perennialist prelest that is reductionism, just because both claim to be Apostolic they are not the same. Similar to how Islam is not the same just because they are Monotheists. The Unity within the Orthodox Church was never to "stand on shared ground". There is not a single Ecumenical Council where ground was shared to the Heresies. Arianism was rejected in its fullest, not for a middle ground.
You're pure will to power, and don't realize it. Which is even worse. Even worse than it is when people like you claim my position somehow wants division, it doesn't. You only think it does because you recognize nothing but institutional power, our Unity is from the repentance of Heterodoxy unto Orthodoxy. Never on political "shared ground".
Hudson Torres
You do realize that attempts to reform the EOC into a Reformed church does not constitute ecumenism? The goal was not to fraternize with incompatible beliefs, but to evangelize. If this is ecumenism, then any interaction between different religions whatsoever is ecumenism.
Again, this is evangelism, not ecumenism. Show me where a reformer had fellowship with a heretic. You can't do it, the closest you can get is attempts to convert heretics and pretending that mere contact is holding hands and singing kumbaya.
Thomas Scott
Also, since I'm certain you'll maintain this facade, to clarify, Cyril Lucaris is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're right, he did try to bring Calvinists and the EOC together, however, it wasn't by pretending there are no differences or that they don't matter (ecumenism), but by trying to turn the EOC into a Calvinist church.
Matthew Young
St Ignatius tells us to use one Eucharist, and likewise St Paul emphasizes unity. You seem angry, why?
Xavier Bennett
Also I disagree that the differences are irreconcilable and I wonder where you get that from.
Noah Thompson
Your definition of ecumenism is laughable. Ecumenism is trying to find the differences and create common ground, not pretend they don't exist. That is what I have tried to show here.
Lucas Kelly
Because you can't fathom people disagreeing with you outside from anger. I explained what Unity actually means, repentance unto Orthodoxy. Not reductionist shared ground, there is no Unity in reductionism.
Gabriel Cooper
What you've tried to do is pretend there is basis for fellowship, and that is exactly what ecumenism is. Maybe you should ask yourself why Galatians is so divisive and non-ecumenical. Almost as if ecumenism is an anti-Christian modern heresy
Brandon Campbell
Where do you get the idea that the differences between the apostolic churches are irreconcilable? Otherwise your post is incomprehensible and you will have to explain what you mean instead of just using cheap slogans.
Levi Anderson
I'm not "pretending" anything, I have provided plenty of examples over a thousand years of the Church to show ecumenism is not some modern thing. And I can cite plenty more. Eastern Catholics took communion with their sister Orthodox churches long after the Great Schism, and I already provided a book link to that above, as one such example of this so-called "modern" ecumenism.
But ah yes, I'm treating the churches as an institution am I? No, I am simply regarding the fact that we are a Universal Church divided not by theological differences at this point but entirely political oligarchical differences. I respect all the Apostolic Churches and I am willing to see there are common grounds between us and Protestants as well, we only need to look for them. To pretend that we are completely divided and that only one side completely collapsing will yield a return to the "True Church" is completely ludicrous. Saint Irenaeus attempted to get the Montanists and the Church to reconcile with one another in their beliefs instead of trying to demolish the Montanists, if you would like one clear cut example. Saint Augustine helped the Tertullianists a couple hundred years later do the same and ended Montanism by finding common ground.
No. Nowhere in the Ecumenical Councils there is a search for common ground, because there clearly is another meaning to Ecumenical than what you said. There is a search for repentance of the people who are wrong to come unto Orthodoxy. No one wanted middle ground with Arians just because both claimed to be right about Christ. Neither did the Arians want middle ground. You came with your own assumptions about what Ecumenism is and you're trying to project it unto the Church.
You're just as wrong as Jordan Peterson projecting that the Genesis is pure Jungian symbolism.
Michael Carter
Ok, it's clear now what you're doing here. You're equivocating ecumenism and contact so you can point back to any time in history somebody said 'hi' and say "look they believe the same things" to push your modernist agenda. Oh, I'm sure there are countless more examples of people from different faiths having contact with each other. The problem for you is that you can't find any pre-modern examples of ecumenism, which is when modernists try to merge two incompatible religions and pretend the irreconcilable differences don't matter to build a one world religion. Why do you want us all worshipping the beast, user? This is where you throw off the mask and admit your true goal is to pretend the differences don't exist. Sure, you start by pretending it's just about whatever common ground might exist, but that is just to get you through the door so you can spring the trap.
Lucas Bailey
It's because you're ignorant of it. The focus on communion is nowhere in the Roman Catholic Church. All the differences between the two Docvtrine boil down to it. Essence-energies distinction vs Actus Purus, Panentheism vs Dualism, Theosis vs Beautific Vision, the Roman Catholic Doctrine goes out of their way to stop communion with God. Orthodoxy goes towards communion. All the debates about key elements like Hesychasm and the essence-energies distinction all have the presupposition that communion is necessary, the goal, and purpose in life. What "defeated" the Arians is that their position does not allow communion of the nature of Man with God. Same for Iconoclasty. and will be the same with Roman Catholicism.
John Carter
Orthodoxes before they schismed with us had a theology compatible with ours. What makes you think that cannot happen again. One thing the council of Florence showed is that those differences are reconciliable. Shame the Orthos back at home rejected it.
Noah Bell
Imagine actually comparing Eastern Orthodox and Catholics to Arians. The Arians actually were more tolerant of Jews and the like than the Catholics were, so in a sense they did accept middle ground easier.
Jung and Peterson are actual Gnostics, it is absolutely idiotic to attack other apostolic churches as being Gnostic when all of them are the only institutions to have fought against Gnosticism and suppress it.
He has given plenty evidence that ecumenism between the Apostolic branches is not modern and never has been, and to equate reunification with the Churches as supported by many others, when the Churches are actually remarkably similar minus differences in perspective (even muh filioque is a semantics debate, you can find Eastern Fathers such as St. Epiphanius of Salamis supporting the Spirit passing through the Son) to atheistic, blasphemous and occult modernist propagators is very wrong and disgusting of you to do. Desire is not modernist, reconciliation is not modernist and differences are not by default heresy or blasphemous.
"Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not all one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that we are members one of another?" 1 Clement 46:5-7
I will also point out that most of the saints and Church Fathers, even before the schism had different views and perspectives on many issues, and by suggesting that said differences are by default heresy, this means that the Fathers or saints were all heretics in one way or another.
Regardless of the differences, there are still common views of all the apostolic Churches, such as apostolic succession, the two unified natures of Christ, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the sacraments, a standard canon give or take a few books, sacred images, veneration of saints and many other tenets.
Easton Fisher
Talking about Oriental Orthodox Churches, what was the reasoning behind rejecting dyophysitism? I never really got miaphysitism. If this is considered too off-topic I repost this in the QTDDTOT.
Language differences between that of the Orient and that of the Latin, similar to the Filioque. Had not either side rushed to conclusions, the Schism may not have happened. Both the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox have come to the agreement with the Oriental Orthodox that the Christological differences are not heretical and are in fact essentially the same thing.
I think another main issue is that the Copts were accused of being Monophysitism when they are not Monophysites. In fact as late as my 1924 Dictionary of Saints, the Copts and Ethiopan Tewahedo Saints therein are referred to as Monophysites. Here's a good Coptic source talking about it: coptic.net/articles/monophysitismreconsidered.txt
My dude, you do not even begin to get it. I hope you don't, because the other alternative is that you're intentionally misleading people. Do you know the main reason the west blames the Schism? They say it's the Orthodox not wanting to submit to Rome. The Orthodox view is that there was a gradual turn away from Theosis, that is communion, to Academicism starting in the 8th century. This alone should tell you who's right and the priorities of both congregations.
You are coming from the first case, you are with the assumption that it is a political matter. And therefore, it will be solved politically and diplomatically. Just by making Roman Catholicism more palatable with the """eastern""" Liturgy (which is what originated the uniates and has absolutely no basis on the Theology of the Latin Mass), a few shared saints there, etc. This will never work. It won't because this wasn't the root of the Schism. It logically follows that the opposite of what causes the Schism will mend it. So only a gradual turn to Orthodoxy will, not bureacracies agreeeing with each other or not like is the Roman Catholic justification.
All Heterodoxy focus less on communion than Orthodoxy. Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, Miaphysites, and so does Roman Catholicism. That is what they all share in their Heterodoxy and that is the crux of the difference of Orthodoxy against all heretics and all heathen. The personal God which we partake in Him through Theosis. There is no Schism in the Church, there is only Schism away from the Church (otherwise the Body of Christ is disunited which is literally heresy). The political Schism is not a cause, it's a consequence.
Hudson Brown
This post is spot on, and this entire thread is filled with subversive people who would rather gather under a meaningless banner of ecumenism rather then to posses the truth.
I'm not interested in some "abstract Christian collective of half truths" which is precisely what OP is calling for.
Lets simply conquer all five pentarch seats as Orthodox and mend the great schism. Acquiring 8000 piety to make it possible is a bit tricky, but you can spam "donate to charity" decision and choose theology focus to amass it quite fast.
Ian Wilson
I would like that to happen, but I'm Catholic aand I doubt it will ever come to fruition. I have little faith in men on both sides… and I see how damaged my own soul is, how close to crumbling tthe RCC is.
Tyler Reed
necro bump from the edge of the abyss for interesting thread
Liam Clark
I too play CrusaderKings 2, fellow crusader.
Necromacy is a sin user, don't make me get the pyre
But in all seriousness, I'm betting the RCC will bend the knee before the EOC does.
It's sad that they couldn't do it in a more straightforward fashion though. They'll eventually see the truth of staying true to orthodoxy, only after increasingly seeing their numbers fall into apostasy and atheism (which it already is in great numbers, in the academic and leadership spheres. Not necessarily the common folk.. at least not willingly). They'll see how many of these came from their own philosophical presuppositions long ago, and only now it's sprouting as a giant, rotten looking tree that bears bad fruit. It took centuries, but it's here.
Q predicted this.
No j/k. St. Gregory Palamas did.
Dominic Sullivan
How can one man be so based?
Connor Sanchez
winnie the pooh off cathoCUCK
Joseph Sanders
I can't wait until God burns all you ecumenist shills in hell for your lies.
Does anyone has the text of the mutual lifting of the 1054 anathemas? I know that the Catholics read it at the Vatican in french and the Orthodox in Constantinople, it was more of a symbolic action. That would be a good, shared ground, post.
