Middle ages

What happens? I thought the understanding of the "real" church could never change, that dogmas were immutable?

Attached: Pope_Francis_meets_with_Metropolitan_Ratislav_Archbishop_of_Preov_at_the_Vatican_May_11_2018_Credit_Vatican_Media_CNA.jpg (900x600, 40.06K)

Other urls found in this thread:

academia.edu/4912818/_A_Latin_Defense_of_Mark_of_Ephesus_at_the_Council_of_Ferrara-Florence_1438-1439_Greek_Orthodox_Theological_Review_59_2014_
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The looks on their faces says it all.

What do dogmas being immutable have to do with having amicable and even fraternal dialogue?
Was it dogmatically defined that we must not be friendly to blasphemers, and I missed it?

Lifting the excommunications so dialogue can take place doesn't mean that dogma was changed. Lifting the mutual excommunications is a good thing and now there is a chance of East and West uniting once more to Make Christianity Great Again.

Attached: popespats.jpg (479x479, 290.62K)

If you have the truth you convert the other to your truth, there's nothing to talk about really. Also I though the excommunications happened for a reason, but apparently that's irrelevant now. Excommunication? No big deal.

Attached: tenor (1).gif (220x226, 745.5K)

How do you convert someone if they do not speak your language and you do not speak theirs?
East and West have grown to have very different epistemologies. Remember that we share 1000 years of history, yet even with all this we end up coming to very different conclusions as to who today holds the same faith as this Church of the 1st millenium, and how much is right or wrong in the other side as well.
The very least we can do before seriously thinking of converting the other side is to study the early Church together, understand what each other actually believes, and perhaps most importantly figure out what is the mind of the Church Fathers and the 7 first ecumenical councils and using this as a basis (rather than trying to "reverse-engineer" patristics through doctrinal developments that happened after the schism, with an epistemology that is completely foreign to what the orthodox Christians of the first millenium actually thought).

The Church of Carthage had dialogue with the Donatists before eventually convincing them to repent of their heresy. Dialogue is necessary before reaching a common understanding of the truth, and there is a reason that the Catholic Church has decided to shun uniatism as not being the right way to convert the rest of the Eastern Orthodox.

Also, what was lifted was the excommunication between Ecumenical Patriarch Michael and Cardinal Humbert, which was a purely local issue. It was lifted because we know better now that this wasn't some kind of grand mutual schism between Rome and Constantinople but a local skirmish between two hard-headed clergymen, and also because lifting the beginning of the rift that would becom the Great Schism symbolically means beginning to mend this schism, one little step after the other.

It is at the Council of Florence that the schism was finalized, so we're still a long way off. So far we have only solved the issue of 1054. But there are many steps between 1054 and 1484 (when the Eastern patriarchs had a pan-Orthodox council to condemn Florence).

They did, but all the people who were excommunicated died nearly a thousand years ago.

Excommunication does not mean you will no longer 'communicate' or speak with the other party, it means you will no longer Commune them; in other words you will not give them the Eucharist, otherwise known as Holy Communion.

Religious organizations no longer act as feudal lords-of-lands. Call it a blessing, call it a curse; one consequence of this is that there's an awful lot less to bicker about between different groups. Some things are made more bitter for the present day while others are made more sweet - which ones a person notices most speaks volumes about their own heart and mind.

I suggest you read a book on logic

Definitely a net positive IMO. As a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, reading the history surrounding the Schism gave me the sense that the whole situation was hugely exacerbated, if not primarily driven by, political motivations. As if the doctrinal differences were propped up as a facade for political players making power moves. Not implying that they don't matter. But all the political vitriol and mud-flinging in the following centuries distracted from the real issues of differences in beliefs. Hopefully the more the political divisions fade into history the more people can focus on working out the real issues.

Attached: 6f09c89d8ab428890f32dd354fed1200b637be8eb8c21ab014093a4742cec365.jpg (885x996, 132.14K)

And a book on Christianity while you're at it wouldn't hurt OP

This thread is obvious D&C bait. Please no one be stupid enough to fall for it.

And even then, Laetentur Caeli considered it a schism WITHIN the Church.


Yeah.
It's funny/sad seeing people arguing so much over kingdoms and empires that haven't even existed anymore for at least half a millennium.

That's what I mean - even in the 15th century, both sides considered it a very grave schism within the Church, and Mark of Ephesus does not address the Pope as a false bishop from a heretical sect but as a long-estranged brother. It is when the Orthodox rejected Florence after attending the council that the anathemas carried by the council took force, and likewise the council and its dogmas were anathematized by the Orthodox in 1484 (although without proper dogmatic definitions in response to those of Florence).

Christianity will only be great once the Reformation that Christ himself ordered is embraced by all romanists, east or west.

Attached: q4ss5raMLq.png (300x250, 24.25K)

Actually, he calls the Greeks the "weaker brethren", for whom the "Holy Father" should drop the Filioque out of charity.
There was also a hilarious bit where the Latins tried to present the original acts of one of the Councils to prove they were right, but the text was not even in greek, but in latin.

And where the dominicans logically "proved" trinitarian subordonalism to win a debate with the palamites.

Council of Florence was…really weird.
academia.edu/4912818/_A_Latin_Defense_of_Mark_of_Ephesus_at_the_Council_of_Ferrara-Florence_1438-1439_Greek_Orthodox_Theological_Review_59_2014_

Literally what?

no

No. If anything the hatred is greater than ever.

What? How? Could you please explain?

Tl;dr:
The dominicans kept trying to "own" the palamites philosophically, despite St. Mark repeatedly telling them to please stop pestering them about the energy-essence thing just to score debate points(spoiler alert: They didn't).

One of them accidentally ended up proclaiming trinitarian heresy, and then doubled down on it, or else it would mean to admit defeat, and we can't have that, can we?

Attached: Screenshot_1.png (535x1659, 581.47K)

Pan-Orthodox councils aren't ecumenical in the eyes of the Orthodox, and they never do what they agree on anyway.

Yeah, florence was weird on both sides, it was like bickering siblings pestering each other when they were supposed to be doing homework and then shrugged when they never bothered to actually finish it.

This is what I call shitposting