The Pope of the Roman Patriarchate

How possible do you think is for the Orthodox-Catholic churches to unite and the Roman church to become one of the Pentarchy again, with all the honours and privileges it had before the schism?
I was looking at some videos and i realise that the Popes are already acting as one of the Patriarchs, maybe first among equals but still. The hegemonic attitude of the past is long gone. No more submit to Rome claims (irl not Zig Forums LARP). A lot of theological dialogues and joint statements on dogmatical issues and misunderstandings have already been made.
How do you Cathos and Orthos feel about that?

Vid related: Pope Francis kisses the hand of the Orthodox Patriarch. Something that i believe was unthinkable only one century ago.

Other urls found in this thread:

journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2018/03/01/orthodox-and-catholics-in-the-seventeenth-century-schism-or-intercommunion/
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html
youtube.com/watch?v=5GgyZGUr2NU
romfea.news/part-of-the-holy-relics-of-apostle-peter-offered-by-the-pope-to-the-ecumenical-patriarch/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Pope Paul says the Nicene Creed in Greek without the Filioque. During his visit he asked for forgiveness about the 4th crusade. It was the first time a Pope did that.

It's just pretending. They haven't given up on their papal supremacy claims and won't ever do so, because for greedy men it's simply better to rule than be one of many. The schism won't ever heal, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon (=Rome) from Revelation.
Pope Francis also kissed the feet of many tiggers. Something which is unthinkable even today.

Yes, but has he rescinded it? Pope John Paul II has also kissed the Quran.
It's all just satanic ecumenism and nothing else.

Attached: 2f456807f48b7a5c520b356865d77ffd7bf259e276cfae438c858e2269679a7a.jpg (780x520 274.53 KB, 40.93K)

I was hoping the first answer wasn't a shitpost

The issue is that we don't agree what the honors and privileges of the Pope were before the schism. Of course we both want that, but when one side says it means universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility and the other side says having the seat of honor among otherwise equal bishops, it's difficult to reconcile both ends.
It's probably made worse by the fact that Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II basically dogmatized the Catholic view on the Papacy. So the only way to end the schism without either side dropping already established dogma is for the Orthodox to become Catholics, basically.

And they have no doctrinal authority at all, they only work as recommendations. If authorities on both sides decided that the Ravenna and Chieti statements were doctrinal, for instance, then the autistic shriek that would follow would shake the entire Earth. In fact the Church of Moscow already explicitly rejected the Ravenna document.

I am sorry you don't like the truth.

I read somewhere that before the ecumenical movement started, the Orthodox and Catholics haven't talked to each other for like 900 years. So just in hardly one century there was a LOT of progress in mutual understanting if anything. Don't forget about the lifting of the anathemas, the two don't consider each other heretic anymore. I don't think that the schism is going to be solved in the close future but there is progress nonetheless.

grow up

Was there, really? Nicholas Afanasiev did influence Vatican II, and the concerns of the Melkites did not go unheard either, but on the Orthodox side, the views on the Papacy have hardly moved on since the 19th century - the Pope is a heretic, barely qualifies as Christian, he is the precursor of the Antichrist, etc. and the Orthodox Church is a confederation of independant churches that do not have and never had a visible head or a need for primacy, except for purely external and administrative purposes.

What lifting of the anathemas? Constantinople and Rome mutually lifted the anathemas of 1054, because those were purely between two local churches, history now shows that this was a non-event and a dispute between two hard-headed clericals, and it is also symbolic, as putting glue where the estrangement began shows the will to put glue for the rest too.
But for now, the mutual excommunications of 1204 remain, as well as the -mutual, dogmatic anathemas- of the Council of Florence of 1445 (of the Catholics against the Orthodox doctrines) and the Council of Constantinople of 1484 (of the Orthodox against the Catholic doctrines, although Catholics claim Florence 1445 is ecumenical and Orthodox do not claim Constantinople 1484 is ecumenical).
Both sides still consider each other heretical. The Catholic Church anathematizes the Orthodox views on the procession of the Holy Spirit, on the primacy of the Pope, on Purgatory, on the use of azymes, on the Pope's doctrinal, pastoral, and jurisdictional authority, with the councils of Florence and Vatican I. The Orthodox Church interprets the first council of Constantinople to dogmatically define that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, therefore anathematizing the Catholic views on the procession of the Holy Spirit, and therefore by extension on the Pope's doctrinal authority.
We're still far from reaching a common interpretation of what the Church believed and taught for its first millenium.

No we've grown apart for 1,000 years. Our theological principles are pretty much unreconcilable.

Before Vatican 2, the guys in the Nouvelle Theologie movement met with russian exiles, and got influenced by them.
They ended up shaping a lot of modern catholic theology.

Personally, i think the catholics and orthodox prelates are cooking up *something*.
They seem to know a lot more than they let on, and they might have a scheme to make this work.

Also, cool article:
journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2018/03/01/orthodox-and-catholics-in-the-seventeenth-century-schism-or-intercommunion/

And yes, i know the claims are stretching it at times.

The Catholic view on the papacy has changed a lot since 10th, 15 and even the 18th century. The way Popes are acting now alone proves that.
I don't think anyone in Orthodoxy says that anymore except thrashy blogspots. Pretty much all the Patriarchs are meeting with him.
The Orthodox church has a strict hierarchy and the councils. They're not independed churches at all. Self governing is more appropriate term.
The schism was between them to begin with. That was literally the whole point of the schism, Rome and Constantinople fighting each other. Are we holding a grudge for 1204 or something, even after the official apology of the Pope?

Btw i posted a video of the literal Pope saying the Creed in Greek without any additions. How can you say that they consider it heretical? Eastern Catholics don't use azymes of the Eucharist those are secondary issues.

Not possible as long as the East is corrupted with the heresy of Palamism tbh.

Outward behavior does not cancel what has been proclaimed as divinely revealed teaching necessary to believe for salvation (that is, dogma).

Plenty of people, both laymen and clerics, say that. The only Orthodox patriarch to really have a "positive" stance toward the Pope is the Ecumenical Patriarch - others range from neutrality to outright hostility. And let's not even bring up Mount Athos or ROCOR.

Yes, yes, but the practically Protestant theory that evey autocephalous Church stands entirely on its own and primacy (especially universal primacy) is purely practical and artificial is very popular and has been since Vatican I pretty much.

The Eastern churches excommunicated Rome with the sack of Constantinople.
The schism became truly over dogmatic issues with the Council of Florence.
It is when Florence is either accepted by the Orthodox or rejected by the Catholics that we can say the two sides don't consider each other as heretical but merely schismatic.

The filioque was never required by anyone to be in the creed in Greek.
Also, Eastern Orthodox do not consider the type of bread being used at the Liturgy to be a secondary issue. Orthodox see Catholics permitting unleavened bread for communion the same way Catholics see Protestants permitting crackers for communion.

Well, considering the fact the both churches have nearly nothing in common anymore I highly doubt it.

This article reminded me and of something else. The greatest ever research trying to restore the name and legacy of St Photius in the west, the Photian schism book, was written not by an Orthodox but by a Catholic bishop. This alone shows a lot.

Then it's good that we won't ask the opinions of the 12 year olds

I get that you want ecumenism dude, but there can be no reconciliationbetween West and East as long as the two Churches hold radically different belief on the substance of God Himself. The Easterns essentially propose that half of God (His "energies") is imperfect, and there can be no compromise with such a doctrine. Reunification would be nice, but if we fall into heresy in the process then we've missed the point.

Dvornik was a priest.
Also, you still have people on the Catholic side who disagree with his analysis, and prefer the work of Fr Adrian Fortescue, his contemporary.

Sedevacantists are considered heretics even by Catholics so the issue doesn't concern you anyway.

Many Orthodox are using his book though and his opinions are accepted by some in the Catholic church, even if others disagree. We are talking about St Photius here, the most slandered Orthodox Patriarch of all times by Catholics. A book writen about him by the Catholic side is something that couldn't have happened 200 years ago without causing a shitstorm.

No. The Orthodox are still formally heretics and schismatics. The pope reciting the Creed without the Filioque is scandalous.
When pope Victor wanted to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter on a certain date, did anyone tell him 'you have no right to do it'? No, no one did, everybody told him he's wrong, but no one denied him the right. 'Roma locuta, causa finita' is about as old as the Church, that's why the East often presented their disputes to Rome, do you have any historical evidence that the bishop of Rome sent a letter to Alexandria asking the bishop there to settle a dispute in northern Italy?

Besides, the Orthodox themselves are in schism anyway. Orthodoxy has become an association of national churches, each with its own political goals, which unavoidably influence the cooperation between the churches.

And just as fake.
St. Augustine didn't say those words.

People misunderstood the point of the thread. I'm not trying to end the schism here. But it's a fact that the Popes are not acting as the almighty Popes of the feudal Europe anymore but more like ordinary Patriarchs. I see that most of the initiatives for the Orthodox-Catholic understanding comes from the Catholic side. Those are all signs.
If you try to consider how things were in the 18th century and how they're today you'll see that relations changed without us even noticing. I was thinking that maybe the schism will be healed that way gradually, without us noticing, rather than with a big synod (which will cause a chimpout on both sides).

Btw if you consider the Creed in Greek scandalous you must also consider the first 900 years of the church scandalous because that how it was back then for everyone.

And it was also agreed both at Lyons II and at Florence that it cannot be properly said in Greek that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Son, and therefore it shouldn't be said in the creed in Greek (but it may be required for the Greek-speaking churches to say the creed in Latin, with the filioque, if doubt arises as to whether they really believe it or not).

An equal has no power over equal, a ship must have one captain, not 25 co captains.
It is a fact that Rome settled disputes in the entire Church. Btw, st. Augustine also supported the Filioque but you don't care about that do you.

The popes formally included it, it should be used, period.

It's not the point of omnipotence or not. The East denies that the pope has the final say and here's where all discussion ends. I'm all for the East participating in discussions, I'm not for Rome forcing things on the East without discussing it first. But when it's time to decide over a dispute or a theological problem, Rome has the final say.
Now, imagining the patriarch of the Serbian Church or the Russian Church accepting anything from Rome seems like science fiction. Yes, the last few popes have been courteous to our Eastern brethren, I'm all for that, but there will be no 'equal patriarch of Rome'.

Yes, we know Rome is a court of appeals for the other Sees.
Both sides agreed on that in 2016.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

I don't particularly care about debating the nuances of the filioque on Zig Forums, with regurgitated patristic quotes which-or-may-not-be-out-of-context.

t. Non-Christian

youtube.com/watch?v=5GgyZGUr2NU

What is the Catholic stance on the nature of sin? Watching this video made me curious. I believe that Jesse is an absolute fool and a liar when he says that he has never sinned after being born again and that the Bible teaches such thing. Pastor Andersons responses seems more coherent.

I personally believe that there are different types of sins. Example: Planned and accidental. I believe that no human on earth has ever been sinless except for Jesus (Catholic believe that Mary was sinless, why?) and that we still sin after being saved but we need to constantly repent.

It is sin. I suppose the better question is, do "you believe in free will or determinism?"

We believe in free-will, so we define sin as "the actions of humans with free will who act in a manner that is opposite of the Will of God".


It only appears more coherent, because they re-define what works is. To them, any works of the faith is just some self-evident thing, and that if you were to fall or sin it simply means you were never saved in the place. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the Bible to support the "you were never saved in the first place" and plenty to support the "you were forgiven of all your sins and then chose to sin again".

The scriptures tell us that the pursuit of Heaven is like a foot-race, and to pursue our Salvation with fear and trembling, which is far, far from whatever it is Anderson teaches.


We differentiate between Mortal and Venial. Venial are sins that may fall under accidental, but may also fall under planned, it depends on the severity of the sin. Mortal Sin must always involve full knowledge of the sin committed, so it would -always- fall under "planned" in your understanding, and would involve a conscious rejection of what the Church understands to be a mortal sin.


Because Jesus is the first-born of creatures, before all creatures. The supposition, is that if Jesus chose to make His Mother immaculate, He could have, seeing as He was before Her. We also have it from Tradition that Mary was completely sinless in Her Life (St. Augustine, in particular).


Same thing, but minus the saved part. You are not to know if you are saved until Christ renders judgement, or absolves you of judgement when you die; we call this the "Particular Judgement".

For the Baptists, they read St. Paul's explanation of the justification of the elect; and we must conclude they are misreading him, by assuming St. Paul is claiming we can know if we are saved before Christ personally tells us.

In the same way, they are mislead in the reprobate doctrine, claiming that Christ can save all and forgive all sinners, except any sexual deviants by virtue (as it were) of their sexual deviancy. We say that even the worst sinners can turn to Christ if they completely repent, for Anderson, they are already damned.

Even if the Pope wanted to extend things this far, the Vatican as a whole probably would not. It's like a system even beyond the Pope's sway. See Benedict.

...

Thank you for clarifying this to me. I agree with everything.

Quick question: My local church delivers Latin mass on Saturdays. I'm not a Christian yet, but am just curious to know if it matters which day the mass is delivered. I always had the impression that mass was on Sunday exclusively.

Sunday is obligatory, but Mass is held every day. TLM may be a Sunday-only thing at your parish, so you may need to investigate.

Not nearly as significant as you're making it out to be. The Greek version of the Nicene Creed doesn't have the Filioque. The Latin version does. This is because "filioque" is a Latin word, and the translators felt that it was necessary for the Latin translation. The Church interprets the Filioque in the context of the word "processio", which doesn't necessarily imply origination. Thus, the Creed is perfectly accurate whether you specify that the Spirit proceeds from the Son or not, because, to get super technical, He proceeds from the Father and through the Son.
Again, this doesn't really represent a change of heart. The Pope at the time of the fourth crusade ordered the Venetians not to sack Constantinople, but they disregarded his commands and did it anyway. Rome has never approved of the actions of the fourth crusaders.

Council of Florence is pretty clear that it is to be understood in the sense of "origination".

It is true that the crusaders who sacked the city were excommunicated, but the Pope later reconciled himself to it and praised it as divine punishment against the schismatics, and an occasion to end the schism by exercising Latin influence on the now weakened Byzantine empire. In fact this led to a long era of Latin power over the Eastern churches.

Orthodoxy hasnt had a ecumenical council for over a millenium. Catholicism can readily accomodate palamism as a theologumen among many such as thomism, scotism, etc.

It is significant if you compare it to 100, 200, 300 years ago.
And if this
is true, then it's even more significant

Really? And how did he justify the Catholic cities that was sacked on the way, divine's punishment collateral damage?
It was like 20 years

Palamas is a Saint for the Eastern Catholics with Pope's approval since 1970. There really is a change of heart in the Catholic church towards the east over the last decades. Many Orthodox will say something like "it's a trap for the pan-religion" but i like to have a more positive thinking.

How am I going to know that? I don't live in his head.
As for a source, thee is one in A. Edward Siecienski's "The Papacy and the Orthodox" but I don't have the book with me right now, sadly. I won't be home for a few days either.

Also, here's the dogmatic definition about the filioque, just to clarify what I said:

From Lyon II:

From Florence:


I was told by Roman and Eastern Catholics alike that Palamas is only a saint in the sense that local veneration is permitted… But he's not a saint in the sense of being universally and infallibly recognized as a saint. That would only be true of the saints that are canonized by the Latin Church.

Except Palamas fundamentally contradicts Aquinas, the preeminent theologian of the Catholic Church. I just really don't see it without major concessions being made. Orthodox theology is fundamentally different from Catholic theology and it would be a major pill to swallow to admit the primacy of the Pope after 1000 years of schism, because Catholics will under no circumstances concede to the "first among equals" position.

Canonizations are approvals of reports of posthumous miracles, not of theological positions.

There's certainly a way in which the Pope is "first" (no one will disagree with that) and a way in which the Pope and the other bishops are "equals" (or else, the Pope would be ordained in a different way than other bishops, but he's not - sacamentally speaking, he is a bishop, like other bishops).
It doesn't tell the whole story, of course, but it's not as if the formula "first among equals" is intrinsically unacceptable to Catholics. The issue is with what this "firstness" is and what the "equality" between bishops is.

Sorry now I read your post correctly. Yes, I think it's already somewhat accepted as a theologoumenon. Eastern Catholics (and I suppose many western ones too) read the philokalia. I know that a lot of Catholics visit Athos and other Orthodox monasteries. Regardless what people say in this board, the Greek monastic tradition is not considered heretical by the Catholic church.

Meant for>>805044

Resurrecting this thread with some related news
romfea.news/part-of-the-holy-relics-of-apostle-peter-offered-by-the-pope-to-the-ecumenical-patriarch/

When the Lord decides the proper reparations for the Schism have been paid. Remember the Lord could end the schism in a second if he so chose to do so but he refuses to for it is a part of his divine plan.

Now I am going to start mention Fatima so bear with me but I think either the first or last to come back into communion is the Russian Orthodox. Just by the fact Our Lady mentions specifically consicrating Russia to her Immaculate Heart and mentioned Russia in apparitions from 500 years ago. So the Lord still has a plan for Russia.

In my true opinion the laity are the ones who need to pray for reparations and fast for a miracle that will end the entire schism. Yes inroads have been made but as long as the issues are not addressed which probably won’t happen without divine revelations the schism will remain.