I hope some high-level theologians are working on it. It's going to take unity to save Christianity. Belloc said, "Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe." Without a functioning, thriving, Christian Europe, neither Europe nor Christianity will survive.
Can anyone think of a magic key that would solve the Orthodox-Catholic split?
- Thread starter TheMoralLaw
- Start date
In order for this to happen, Catholics would have to:
1. Give up Papal Supremacy.
2. Give up the Filioque.
There are other issues, like our different conceptions of Original Sin, but are tractable.
Of course, I'm not as informed on this as other forum members.
1. Give up Papal Supremacy.
2. Give up the Filioque.
There are other issues, like our different conceptions of Original Sin, but are tractable.
Of course, I'm not as informed on this as other forum members.
I think you mean infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. A lot of Catholics are ready to give up Papal Supremacy in the wake of Pope "Go Out and Make a Mess" Francis.
No, Christianity would survive without Europe. The Lord said Himself, if nobody spoke up, even the rocks would cry out. But He did also say that there would be among His people members of every tongue, every tribe, every nation.
It is not Europe that will save Christ, it is Christ who will save Europe.
Given that today the name of "European" has been given to a totalitarian Soviet-style system, the meaning of "Europe" needs to be clarified.
This is not obvious. A whole book has been written on that subject, The Intellectual History of Europe by Friedrich Heer.
The first chapter starts with the following :
This is not obvious. A whole book has been written on that subject, The Intellectual History of Europe by Friedrich Heer.
The first chapter starts with the following :
The future of Christianity is in the global south. This is pretty established by virtually every religious scholar and demographer. The chances of Europe returning to Christianity are slim to none, barring some future collapse and regeneration of traditional values. Won’t happen in our lifetimes.
The reunification of Catholic and Orthodox would thus probably start with Oriental Orthodoxy rejoining Catholicism. I could see it happening under an African (Ethiopian especially) or Middle Eastern pope.
The reunification of Catholic and Orthodox would thus probably start with Oriental Orthodoxy rejoining Catholicism. I could see it happening under an African (Ethiopian especially) or Middle Eastern pope.
While I agree that Christianity’s future is in the global south, the idea that Oriental Orthodox would come under Rome is mistaken.
Orientals are non-Chalcedonians, and have a higher chance of reunification with the Eastern Orthodox. In fact, more work has been accomplished in this direction:
https://suscopts.org/resources/literature/161/the-agreed-statements-oriental-orthodox-responses/
Historically there were a few Orientals who did come under Rome for political reasons, and are now part of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but they’re not recognized as Orthodox any more.
My impression is that OO view Rome with suspicion.
The answer is Jesus Christ.
Seriously. We can get together and disagree on the details but our understanding is finite and we should recognize that fact more often.
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Seriously. We can get together and disagree on the details but our understanding is finite and we should recognize that fact more often.
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I agree with you, but then the question becomes: which Church did Jesus found?
Even the Arians and Mormons agree that Jesus is Lord. However, look at Matthew 7:21:
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
I'd be happy with any rapprochement between Catholic and Orthodox, in any region of the world. But since the anti-Europeans are out in force, (and it was my fault in quoting Belloc) I had better explain something.
Christianity obviously began in the Holy Land, but with the Apostles it spread rapidly all over the known world: with St Thomas to India, St John and St Phillip in Asia Minor, Nathanael in Armenia, Matthew in Africa, Thaddeus in Persia, and so on. Now in any of these regions the new religion could have caught on as it did in Europe with Peter, Paul, Andrew and James the Greater, but it is to the continent of Europe that God gave special gifts of nature, and graces of conversion, to make of Europeans the missionaries of the world. Thus whereas after 600 years the Middle East largely forsook Christianity to adopt Islam, on the contrary Europe was gifted and famed for its orthodoxy, Rome especially soon (Rom.I, 8), and God had before prepared the whole of Europe to support the Catholic destiny of Rome by the Roman Empire. One might dare to say that in the mind of God Europe and the Faith are closely identified with one another, which suggests that Christ is an essential part of European or white identity in particular.
Christianity obviously began in the Holy Land, but with the Apostles it spread rapidly all over the known world: with St Thomas to India, St John and St Phillip in Asia Minor, Nathanael in Armenia, Matthew in Africa, Thaddeus in Persia, and so on. Now in any of these regions the new religion could have caught on as it did in Europe with Peter, Paul, Andrew and James the Greater, but it is to the continent of Europe that God gave special gifts of nature, and graces of conversion, to make of Europeans the missionaries of the world. Thus whereas after 600 years the Middle East largely forsook Christianity to adopt Islam, on the contrary Europe was gifted and famed for its orthodoxy, Rome especially soon (Rom.I, 8), and God had before prepared the whole of Europe to support the Catholic destiny of Rome by the Roman Empire. One might dare to say that in the mind of God Europe and the Faith are closely identified with one another, which suggests that Christ is an essential part of European or white identity in particular.
Jesus founded THE church. If an unbelieving man were wandering alone in the desert and by chance came across a Bible, would he not be saved and part of the church if he confessed Jesus is Lord and believed in his heart, as Romans 10:9 says?
Calling Jesus "Lord" and doing works in his name, as Matthew 7 suggests, is not the same as believing he rose from the dead to pay your debt nor that you have accepted his generosity for doing so.
Either way whether you consider Arians and Mormons as Christians or not doesn't affect Romans 10:9. It is the most fundamental part of the bond that unites us as brothers in Christ and as the church.
Arians and Mormons are not Christians. Your response makes it seem as though this doesn't matter.
Just because someone 'believes' in Jesus Christ, this does not make them a Christian. Jesus himself said this in Matthew 7:21.
Being Christian requires active participation in the Church, which is the apostolic Church that Jesus founded, and which the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, works through.
That Church is not Protestant, however. Remember that Jesus did not establish the Protestant church.
Last edited:
Give up Papal Supremacy & the Filioque, as said earlier.
As for the former, Orthodoxy sees the church as run by multiple Patriarchs, but the Catholics have always maintained that the Bishop of Rome was supposed to be the single autocrat of the faith. So the story is told differently depending on what church you ask - Orthodoxy claims the Roman patriarchate broke away from other four, and Catholicism claims the Orthodox took half of the faith with them when all of their patriarchates turned their backs on Rome.
Divorce likely would be a problem. Orthodoxy allows it, if I remember correctly - but your second marriage doesn't get treated the same by your priest (it's a far more solemn ceremony), and the bride isn't allowed to wear white to her second wedding.
The leavening of communion bread would probably not be much of an issue anymore, because plenty of Eastern Catholic denominations do that, and are in full communion with Rome. Same with priests being able to marry - they can do that in plenty of Eastern Catholic denominations, I forget which ones in particular other than Melkite.
As for the former, Orthodoxy sees the church as run by multiple Patriarchs, but the Catholics have always maintained that the Bishop of Rome was supposed to be the single autocrat of the faith. So the story is told differently depending on what church you ask - Orthodoxy claims the Roman patriarchate broke away from other four, and Catholicism claims the Orthodox took half of the faith with them when all of their patriarchates turned their backs on Rome.
Divorce likely would be a problem. Orthodoxy allows it, if I remember correctly - but your second marriage doesn't get treated the same by your priest (it's a far more solemn ceremony), and the bride isn't allowed to wear white to her second wedding.
The leavening of communion bread would probably not be much of an issue anymore, because plenty of Eastern Catholic denominations do that, and are in full communion with Rome. Same with priests being able to marry - they can do that in plenty of Eastern Catholic denominations, I forget which ones in particular other than Melkite.
Another brief addition - I don't know how Orthodoxy's "ethnic clubs" tendencies would fit into Catholicism, as Catholics haven't organized themselves like that in the United States for a very long time. (Back in the day, there'd be the Italian part of town, the Croatian part of town, and the Polish part of town, and none would go to each other's Catholic churches - so they were de facto ethnic churches.) This might be easier outside of the US.
Can you direct me to the biblical verses for why you believe this?
How do you define Protestant/what type of Protestant are you? I would answer this a lot differently based on whether you're high or low church.
In addition to the filioque and papal supremacy there's also the matter of the immaculate conception which stems from differences in original sin theology. For us Orthodox the immaculate conception is an error built upon an error.
This is the wrong question. The Bible as we know it didn't exist when the Church was founded at Pentecost.
Yeah this is a good answer. Day 1 at Pentecost there were bishops and they went on to perform sacraments and ordain new bishops. Low Church Protestants have to explain how that Church disappeared or how they are somehow the valid continuation of it.
I was hoping this wouldn't lead to squabbles but rather some creative thinking. How did two rites live together as one church for a thousand years and then suddenly wake up and decide they were two churches? What's the key to getting "back there"?
One question for the Orthodox here. Do 100% of Orthodox theologians believe that what a Christian believes was sealed off after the last ecumenical council or are there some orthodox theologians who say, "Well thats an over-simplification of orthodox theology. Of course new concepts can develop and can become part of the deposit of faith"?