Can anyone think of a magic key that would solve the Orthodox-Catholic split?

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
"Why I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to the Catholic Church"


An extremely interesting and edifying article. I would encourage my Catholic brothers to read it, and for Eastern Orthodox who are curious, I am genuinely interested in your responses to this article and I would read your argument with charity if you were to provide it.

Article is written from a former Rabbinical Jew who converted to Christianity (God bless him!) and then later he settled on Catholicism.

His primary arguments are about: the Fatima revelations, the reactions of Orthodox writers against Medieval Catholic saints, the hierarchy of the Orthodox churches (of which there are many, not one), and the promise that there must be "one" church.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
"Why I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to the Catholic Church"


An extremely interesting and edifying article. I would encourage my Catholic brothers to read it, and for Eastern Orthodox who are curious, I am genuinely interested in your responses to this article and I would read your argument with charity if you were to provide it.

Article is written from a former Rabbinical Jew who converted to Christianity (God bless him!) and then later he settled on Catholicism.

His primary arguments are about: the Fatima revelations, the reactions of Orthodox writers against Medieval Catholic saints, the hierarchy of the Orthodox churches (of which there are many, not one), and the promise that there must be "one" church.
Really great summary of the main points. Thank you for linking this
 

Marmion

Pigeon
Bingo. Ah, but you see?
That’s the point. This has been their plan all along.

Why do you think that the enemies of the Church, within and without, have sought always to diminish Papal authority? They the institution of the Papacy, which claims a spiritual authority that supersedes temporal power, is at the root of the Catholic Church's spiritual influence over human society... Bergoglio himself sees this. All of the post-Vatican II antipopes that the Papacy has been at the source of the conflict between Church and world, and that by dismantling it, they are furthering the aims of Freemasonry and (((Organized Naturalism))). Under the guise of appearing to hold Papal authority, the ultimate goal to sacrifice the Papacy and forever put an end to the Church's unique ability to assert it's truths as above and beyond the temporal powers, clearing the way for the Antichrist.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...cwugtetq_C_NkxsqIQMANNufLX5X_aBMuoD3IUb2OGd9s
NEWS

Cardinal Tobin: ‘Synodality’ is Pope Francis’ ‘long-game’ plan to change Catholic Church​

A synodal Church 'can't show up with an imperialist attitude where you claim to have all the answers.'
Tue May 18, 2021 - 12:12 pm EST
Featured Image
Cardinal Joseph Tobin on the Today Show, April 17, 2019. www.today.com / Video screen grab
Pete Baklinski
By Pete Baklinski
FOLLOW PETE


May 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNew) — U.S. Cardinal Joseph Tobin said that Pope Francis’ “long-game” plan to effect change in the Church — to the point of bringing about “the Church’s own conversion” — will be accomplished through the vehicle of “synodality.”
“Synodality is, in fact, the long-game of Pope Francis,” said Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, during a May 4 Zoom lecture for Loyola University Chicago which was hosting its annual lecture in honor of Cardinal Bernardin in connection with the Hank Center for the Catholic Intellectual Heritage.

Tobin said that synodality is one of the “most misunderstood” phrases in the Francis pontificate.


“At this point, synodality is a long-established buzzword of this papacy. Francis keeps calling for a more decentralized church, one marked by collaborative and consultative decision-making, a functionality we generally associate more with the horizontal structures of churches of the East as opposed to the top-down Roman hierarchy in the West,” he said.

The cardinal noted that Pope Francis has called the next synod of bishops to focus on synodality. The October 2022 meeting will focus on the theme “For a synodal Church: communion, participation, and mission.”

“The coming gathering is essential for our shared growth as the body of Christ to be more aware and more intentional in our adoption of what Pope Francis sees clearly, and advocates openly, as a model of the Church that the Lord expects from us in this millennium,” commented Tobin about the upcoming meeting. “A millennium,” he continued, “… even in Church terms that is what we call a long-game. And that is why I would like to spend some time reflecting with you today on how synodality is, in fact, the long-game of Pope Francis, how it challenges us, what it calls us to be, where it is leading us, and how that process will require changes in how we ‘do’ and ‘are’ church.”


The 68-year-old archbishop of Newark was made a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2016. He claimed in 2018 that the “Church is moving on the question of same-sex couples.” He drew criticism that same year for tweeting “Nighty-night, baby. I love you,” and then deleting the tweet, saying that it was a private message meant for his sister.

Tobin sees that the Church has been set on a course since Vatican II to become a synodal Church.

“John XXIII read the signs of turmoil and destruction that had followed humankind out of the first half of the 20th century, saw that the Church had to be as intentional and missionary as it possibly could with its witness. And, the way to achieve it, the way to achieve all this, was through a council. In effect, he called on the council to create a blueprint for the engine that would power the barque of Peter in the third millennium. John cast the vision: This is what we need to build. Vatican II produced a blueprint. Paul VI set to work constructing it. John Paul II made sure it kept to the exact specifications required. Benedict XVI put on the finishing touches on its propulsion engine. And now Francis has flipped the switch to ‘on.’”


The cardinal said that synodality in the Church in previous centuries was misused and that the time has come to use it rightly.

“We cannot deny that for centuries [in] our existence as a Church, synodality was, in fact, used to kick people out … With the early councils, we would come together to repudiate this heresy, to define that dogma, and the body of Christ could lumber through history,” he said.

“But, I would posit that we’ve entered a new stage of the journey, one in which the acts of synodality do not look so much like sweeping dogmatic definitions as they do fine-tuning how the Gospel is applied to the signs of the times,” he continued.


“With that comes the next important point of Francis’ long-game: conversion. When I say conversion, I’m talking about the Church’s own conversion, a new way in understanding and approaching how we carry out our mission. Francis has rightly decried the mindset of ‘but we’ve always done it this way.’ When you’re towing two millennia of baggage after you on the journey, it behooves you to be intentional about which tools you have at the ready and which tools you’ve stocked away in some forgotten luggage compartment,” he added.

Tobin said that a synodal Church is one of “listening” and “dialogue.” It “can’t show up with an imperialist attitude where you claim to have all the answers,” he said.

He criticized those within the Church as “rotten” who attempt to apply the Church’s laws to concrete situations.

“Folks who seem most threatened [by Francis’ plans for the Church] from the beginning have been the ones with the most engineered grasp of all the norms and canons. If A equals ‘irregular union,’ and B equals ‘not living as brother and sister,’ then A plus B equals ‘never can be admitted to the Eucharist.’ To this I would posit that you can be the most knowledgeable mechanic on earth and still be a rotten driver.”

Tobin quoted from the Pope’s 2016 encyclical Amoris Laetitia to shed light on the meaning of synodality. Francis wrote, “Not all discussions of doctrinal, moral, or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.” Tobin commented that “what Francis was saying was that the Vatican is not the only part of the body of Christ,” implying that bishops’ groups have a role in settling such matters.

Many high-profile Church leaders, however, have criticized a concept of synodality that is being used in some countries, such as in Germany, where the bishops’ “Synodal Path” is being used to undermine perennial Church teaching on the male priesthood, marriage, and sexuality.


Cardinal Raymond Burke criticized the concept of “synodality” in a 2018 interview. “It’s become like a slogan, meant to suggest some kind of new church which is democratic and in which the authority of the Roman Pontiff is relativized and diminished — if not destroyed,” he said. Burke said the traditional meaning of the term synod used to be “to find ways to teach the Catholic faith more effectively and to promote the proper discipline in the Church. That’s basically what a synod of bishops is — that’s its definition.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah, while he was prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, was also critical of how synodality was being interpreted. “People are trying to detach the local churches from Rome. People want to be autonomous with regard to Rome and the vicar of Jesus Christ, that is, Peter, he who gives direction to the church of Rome,” he said in a 2019 interview. Sarah said that “without Peter, everything in the Catholic Church would be destroyed, reduced to fragments and become nothing. Jesus never created bishops’ conferences or local churches. It is on Peter that He built His Church. Destroying the unity of His church amounts to rejecting Jesus. People want to tear up and destroy the unity of the Church.”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has also raised concerns about the concept of synodality, saying in a 2018 interview that the term is being used by some to “promote their own agenda” within the Church with the intention to “transform the life of the Church into a worldly and Protestant parliament style with continuous discussions and voting processes on matters that cannot be put to a vote.”
See what I mean?
The Vatican II Sect antipopes and their hirelings (false hierarchy) usurped the Papacy/Catholicism in order to undermine and diminish Papal authority. One of the major heresies of Vatican II is the idea of Collegiality.
 
Last edited:

Pantheon

Sparrow
Orthodox
One can think of these things in a horizontal, material perspective, or vertical, metaphysical perspective. The material world is conditioned by opposites, thus works by a dualistic mechanism of sorting. Logically speaking, it's either this or that, but you can't have it both ways. Theological differences and mutually exclusive viewpoints will always exist. Thus, in a sense, conflict is built into world process, not necessarily something bad as pacifists would assure you. Religions are not supposed to erode into a watered down melting pot of "unity", but should preserve their integrity. It is thus a mistake to seek unity on the level of materiality. A man and a woman may be legally married but spiritually miles wide a part. Polar opposites can become one if they overcome the electric impulse of repulsion and tension. In a metaphysical union, two polar beings become one essence, but remain distinct persons. Ask yourself, from this vertical POV of metaphysical immutability, is not the Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church only One?
 

Marmion

Pigeon
One can think of these things in a horizontal, material perspective, or vertical, metaphysical perspective. The material world is conditioned by opposites, thus works by a dualistic mechanism of sorting. Logically speaking, it's either this or that, but you can't have it both ways. Theological differences and mutually exclusive viewpoints will always exist. Thus, in a sense, conflict is built into world process, not necessarily something bad as pacifists would assure you. Religions are not supposed to erode into a watered down melting pot of "unity", but should preserve their integrity. It is thus a mistake to seek unity on the level of materiality. A man and a woman may be legally married but spiritually miles wide a part. Polar opposites can become one if they overcome the electric impulse of repulsion and tension. In a metaphysical union, two polar beings become one essence, but remain distinct persons. Ask yourself, from this vertical POV of metaphysical immutability, is not the Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church only One?
That's a lot of Perennialist/Gnostic/Kabbalistic/Luciferian/Manichean/Occult/syncretistic gobbledygook.

Just say NO to exoteric ecumenism!

Neo-gnostics like "Pantheon" are just like their predecessors, who are described by Rev. Herman Bernard Kramer in his Book of Destiny (Imprimatur 1956) in relation to Apocalypse 2:24, as follows:

"And to the rest who are at Thyatira: Whosoever have not this doctrine, and who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will not put upon you any other burthen." (Apoc 2:24)-- Those who have known the "depths of Satan" were the Gnostic sects, who boasted of their depths of knowledge. Those sectaries pretended to have knowledge of divine depths which the faithful did not have. The "depths" of which knowledge, our Lord tells them, are not the "deep things of God" (I Cor. II. 10) but are the "depths of Satan". They are merely the devices by which Satan deceives them into imagining that they have a deeper knowledge of divine mysteries than the faithful. Their claims were what St. Irenaeus calls "frauds". They "give forth profound and unspeakable mysteries to itching ears" (Adv. Haer. II. 21, 2) "affirming that they have found out mysteries of God." (II. 23, 3). Tertullian says that they concealed what they preached, and if in good faith you ask them what they mean, they say "it is too deep" and feign to commiserate those who are in ignorance of their secrets. They know the "depths of Satan" because they oppose the true theology and mysteries and mislead their dupes into illusory knowledge and mysticism.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." VADE RETRO, SATANA!
 
Last edited:

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
@Pantheon @Marmion

I think you are both in agreement in being against exoteric ecumenism.

Also, Pantheon, I don't think it's an issue of vertical similarity, because certain disagreements between Orthodox and Catholic do not just "disappear" or "wash away" even at the highest levels of abstraction. If one side is truly guilty of heresy as claimed by the other side, it means one is worshipping fragile self-exclusion / luciferian separation / delusion rather than divine principles. To put it another way, a sincere mistake probably still isn't equivalent to true worship.
 

Pantheon

Sparrow
Orthodox
@Pantheon @Marmion

I think you are both in agreement in being against exoteric ecumenism.

It seems he didn't actually read the post, but was more eager to react to it and put me in a category. I am indeed not ecumenical, and openly choose a conflict oriented approach towards many religious viewpoints, whereas I believe unity can only happen on the spiritual plane. I generally think it's a good thing to believe in the exclusivity of one's own religion, blood and soil rather than lofty notions of "peace on earth".

Also, Pantheon, I don't think it's an issue of vertical similarity, because certain disagreements between Orthodox and Catholic do not just "disappear" or "wash away" even at the highest levels of abstraction. If one side is truly guilty of heresy as claimed by the other side, it means one is worshipping fragile self-exclusion / luciferian separation / delusion rather than divine principles. To put it another way, a sincere mistake probably still isn't equivalent to true worship.

I wouldn't necessarily contest these points.
 

Marmion

Pigeon
It seems he didn't actually read the post, but was more eager to react to it and put me in a category. I am indeed not ecumenical, and openly choose a conflict oriented approach towards many religious viewpoints, whereas I believe unity can only happen on the spiritual plane. I generally think it's a good thing to believe in the exclusivity of one's own religion, blood and soil rather than lofty notions of "peace on earth".
Then I apologize if I jumped the gun. When I see like “metaphysical unions”, “electrical impulses”, “dualistic mechanisms of sorting”, “the material world”, etc. sets my “Gnostic/Occultist” spidey senses a-tingling.
 
How come many people think that Aquinas and Palamas contradict one another? Aquinas was a mystic too. As far as I can tell, after the 19th century Palamas's philosophy has been regarded as fully Catholic now as well.
@nagareboshi Because they do.

Please study the following:

-And Never The Twain Should Meet: The Radical Divide Between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Theology

Here’s a brief quote:

“Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies.”
 

Godward

Robin
I have never been convinced that the Schism was a theological matter at heart. And given the incessant creativity of theologians, for example the Filioque thing is something that could be overcome, at least if there is truly a will to reunification. It can be reinterpreted in an Ecumenical council, for example, or it can be declared a "Mystery", like the late medieval Church did with regard to Predestination, etcetera. There are many solutions imaginable without anyone losing face. However, if I am correct in asserting that it is a political matter, then a magic key is much harder to find, because it would mean that the Modernists in the Vatican should give up their political power base, which they will never ever do willingly. The doctrine of Papal Supremacy proved very useful during the Reformation and Modernism, when heresy was spreading via the lower ranks. But now heresy is spreading via the higher ranks including the Papacy itself, the doctrine is extremely dangerous to Tradition, as we are now seeing again with the persecution of the Tridentine Mass. So, not only to potentially overcome the Schism, but also for the sake of Tradition is it imperative that this doctrine is revisited and reinstituted to something of a medieval Papal Primacy.
 

bucky

Ostrich
I have never been convinced that the Schism was a theological matter at heart.
I'm a huge history nerd and have actually read through the Wikipedia article on each Roman Emperor up to 1453 and each pope up until the 20th century. This was certainly the impression I got of the conflict between eastern and western Christianity and the eventual formal split. Far more about temporal power than theology.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinope I in 381), accepted by the East and West.
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
So yes perhaps the largest issue isn't even theological, it is ecclesiological, and from what I understand, the largest theological issue, the Filioque, was more of a translation issue and a good faith overreaction to heretics in Spain who denied or downplayed the divinity of Christ. Beyond that there were massive political issues such as Charlemagne & the HRE and the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade.
 

Godward

Robin
I'm a huge history nerd and have actually read through the Wikipedia article on each Roman Emperor up to 1453 and each pope up until the 20th century. This was certainly the impression I got of the conflict between eastern and western Christianity and the eventual formal split. Far more about temporal power than theology.
Yes. And it is not that temporal power is a bad thing in itself. There are very legitimate reasons to advancing one's temporal power. There is an urban legend that the Byzantines were discussing the nature/sexes of angels while the Ottomans were at the Gates of Constantinople. Although that story is factually untrue (as far as I can tell), the moral of the story is true: there are moments when temporal issues should temporally take precedence over religious matters. Just as there are moments when we refrain from praying and fasting so we can work and eat. Of course, it is important to santify these temporal or secular activitites, but they have their legitimate function in our temporal existence.
 

bucky

Ostrich
Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinope I in 381), accepted by the East and West.

So yes perhaps the largest issue isn't even theological, it is ecclesiological, and from what I understand, the largest theological issue, the Filioque, was more of a translation issue and a good faith overreaction to heretics in Spain who denied or downplayed the divinity of Christ. Beyond that there were massive political issues such as Charlemagne & the HRE and the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade.
I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so I don't comment on theology here, which is probably no great loss for anyone. However, I am very interested in this topic from a purely historical point of view. The quote from the Second Ecumenical Council you shared was very interesting, although I imagine a Catholic would point out that the Bishop of Rome is conspicuously not mentioned.

The historical events you mention in your last sentence are all important, but one very important one is missing: the massacre of the Latins. Most people with any awareness of what led up to the formal schism are very aware of the Fourth Crusade, but for whatever reason few know about the Orthodox massacre of the Catholic population of Constantinople in 1182, something that the Catholics who sacked Constantinople in 1204 still very much remembered.

 

Cartographer

Pelican
Gold Member
I have never been convinced that the Schism was a theological matter at heart. And given the incessant creativity of theologians, for example the Filioque thing is something that could be overcome, at least if there is truly a will to reunification. It can be reinterpreted in an Ecumenical council, for example, or it can be declared a "Mystery", like the late medieval Church did with regard to Predestination, etcetera. There are many solutions imaginable without anyone losing face. However, if I am correct in asserting that it is a political matter, then a magic key is much harder to find, because it would mean that the Modernists in the Vatican should give up their political power base, which they will never ever do willingly. The doctrine of Papal Supremacy proved very useful during the Reformation and Modernism, when heresy was spreading via the lower ranks. But now heresy is spreading via the higher ranks including the Papacy itself, the doctrine is extremely dangerous to Tradition, as we are now seeing again with the persecution of the Tridentine Mass. So, not only to potentially overcome the Schism, but also for the sake of Tradition is it imperative that this doctrine is revisited and reinstituted to something of a medieval Papal Primacy.
The Church may not experience a dialectic process but men certainly do. The idea that schisms are misunderstandings rooted in temporal politics seems interesting but I don't know much about it.

Saving face or just finding a compromise for the sake of unity doesn't sound all that holy, though. I don't think God needs us to do something for his plan to work, although that doesn't give us a pass on choices we make while doing our own work that is subject to our free will.

I suppose we're not forbidden to look for a "magic key", but unity of the Church doesn't seem to be a task we're specifically given to maintain since it will remain intact whether we want it to or not.

Definitely an interesting topic.
 
Top