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

DeFide

Robin
Now however would be the absolute worst time for the Orthodox to join Rome. We have to get our own house in order first, and from that looks of it, it's going to take a few generations. My estimation is at the very minimum another 100 years or so. The Orthodox are better off on their own for now, and they serve to humble us Catholics.
You obviously don’t have the Catholic faith or believe that the Holy Roman Catholic Church IS the one true Church and Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, enabled by God to teach, rule, and sanctify, and guaranteed by Divine promises to endure until the end of time; or that the Catholic Church alone is the Ark of Salvation, outside of which none can be saved... Otherwise how could you make such a statement???
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
You obviously don’t have the Catholic faith or believe that the Holy Roman Catholic Church IS the one true Church and Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, enabled by God to teach, rule, and sanctify, and guaranteed by Divine promises to endure until the end of time; or that the Catholic Church alone is the Ark of Salvation, outside of which none can be saved... Otherwise how could you make such a statement???
Doesn’t the Catholic canon claim that the Orthodox have complete sacraments, and are full Christians? What’s the problem?

We Orthodox claim to be the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church anyway.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Furthermore, the schism was healed at the Council of Lyons (1274) and again at the Council of Florence (1431–1449);

Nope. St Mark of Ephesus stopped the latter. I've got his last encyclical here, it was written to Orthodox people, agaisnt those that wanted to join with the Latins, here's an exerpt.

If the Latin dogma is true that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, then ours is false that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father—and this is precisely the reason for which we separated from them. And if ours is true, then without a doubt, theirs is false. What kind of middle ground can there be between two such judgments? There can be none, unless it were some kind of judgment suitable to both the one and the other, like a boot that fits both feet. And will this unite us?

But, someone will say, how shall we regard those moderate Greco-Latins who, maintaining a middle ground, openly favor some of the Latin rites and dogmas—favor, but do not wish to accept others—and entirely disapprove of others? One must flee from them as one flees from a snake, as from the Latins themselves, or, it may be, from those who are even worse than they—as from buyers and sellers of Christ. For they, as the Apostle says, “suppose that gain is godliness” (1 Tim. 6:5), of whom he adds, “flee these” (1 Tim. 6:11), for they go over to them not in order to learn, but for gain. “What communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor. 6: 14–15).

Behold how we, together with Damascene and all the Fathers, do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

And we, together with the divine Dionysios, say that the Father is the sole Source of the supernatural Divinity; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Son also is the Source of the Holy Spirit, and by this clearly excluding the Spirit from the Divinity.

And we, together with Gregory the Theologian, distinguish the Father from the Son in His capacity of being Cause; while they, together with the Latins, unite them into one in the capacity of being Cause.

And we, together with St. Maximos and the Romans of that time, as well as the Western Fathers, “do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit”; while they, in their Conciliar Decree, proclaim the Son “in Greek, ‘Cause,’ and in Latin, ‘Principle'” of the Spirit.

And we, together with the Philosopher and Martyr Justin affirm, “As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father”; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately.

And we, together with Damascene and all the Fathers, confess that it is not known to us in what consists the difference between generation and procession; while they, together with Thomas and the Latins, say that the difference consists in this: that generation is immediate, and procession mediate.

And we affirm, in agreement with the Fathers, that the will and energy of the uncreated and divine nature are uncreated; while they, together with the Latins and Thomas, say that will is identical with nature, but that the divine energy is created, whether it be called divinity, or the divine and immaterial light, or the Holy Spirit, or something else of this nature—and in some fashion, these poor creatures worship the created “divinity” and the created “divine light” and the created “Holy Spirit.”

And we say that neither do the Saints receive the kingdom and the unutterable blessings already prepared for them, nor are sinners already sent to hell, but both await their fate which will be received in the future age after the resurrection and judgement; while they, together with the Latins, desire immediately after death to receive according to their merits. And for those in an intermediate condition, who have died in repentance, they give a purgatorial fire (which is not identical with that of hell) so that, as they say, having purified their souls by it after death, they also together with the righteous will enjoy the kingdom; this is contained in their Conciliar Decree.

And we, obeying the Apostles who have prohibited it, shun Jewish unleavened bread; while they, in the same Act of Union, proclaim that what is used in the services of the Latins is the Body of Christ.

And we say that the addition to the Creed arose un-canonically and anti-canonically and contrary to the Fathers; while they affirm that it is canonical and blessed—to such an extent are they unaware how to conform to the Truth and to themselves!

And for us, the Pope is as one of the Patriarchs, and that alone—if he be Orthodox; while they, with great gravity, proclaim him “Vicar of Christ, Father and Teacher of all Christians.” May they be more fortunate than their Father, who are also like him. For he does not greatly prosper, having an anti-pope who is the cause of sufficient unpleasantness; and they are not happy to imitate him.

The full text of the encyclical is here
 

DeFide

Robin
Doesn’t the Catholic canon claim that the Orthodox have complete sacraments, and are full Christians? What’s the problem?

We Orthodox claim to be the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church anyway.
You have valid sacraments, but your sacraments do not effect grace because you are outside the Church.The means of sanctification and salvation exist exclusively within the Church. So your sacraments are valid but you not only a)cannot receive grace from them, but b)actually commit sin by partaking them outside the Catholic Church. Instead of being means of sanctification and salvation, they become means of damnation.
 

DanielH

Pelican
You have valid sacraments, but your sacraments do not effect grace because you are outside the Church.The means of sanctification and salvation exist exclusively within the Church. So your sacraments are valid but you not only a)cannot receive grace from them, but b)actually commit sin by partaking them outside the Catholic Church. Instead of being means of sanctification and salvation, they become means of damnation.
What does the word “valid” mean then? Sounds like a redefinition of the word. It stems from the Latin “validus” meaning “in good health, robust, potent, having legal authority,” I don't know how our sacraments could be “valid” by that definition and then also be sinful and help damn us.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
Most of the world's leaders, including among various (even christian of course) religions, will apostasize in our lifetime. Acting like the Franco-Roman Church (yes remember when there were two papal locations) didn't innovate theologically and in practice is just disregarding the facts of history (essence/energies, filioque, holy communion, among others). It's been a juridical SJW cesspool in the modern age and for obvious reasons and guilts its members which it doesn't teach very well (not many churches do, orthodox the same way - but there haven't been as many excuses or changes to accommodate cafeteria style cherry picking). Of course, it has some holy members, but let's cut the crap. I'm sad enough about how many of the administrative or worldly connections the Orthodox institutions have vis a vis the state, but a Roman Catholic talking about others being outside the church, given its current state, is a complete embarrassment. Have a little humility, this is preposterous.
 
a Roman Catholic talking about others being outside the church, given its current state, is a complete embarrassment. Have a little humility, this is preposterous.
Im mostly on your side I think but I must disagree that it's a matter of "not being humble". It's a matter of not violating the principle of non-contradiction. Do Orthodox believe in the principle of non-contradiction, by the way?
 

OrthoLeaf

Pigeon
Can you direct me to the biblical verses for why you believe this?
Matthew 16:18 (Christ to found a Church - Option A: Church not yet established / Option B: Church was built and still is)
John 20:21-23 (Christ grants apostolic authority to forgive and retain sins)
1Tm 3:1-16 (Literal ecclesiastical structure of Church, not invisible body of believers)
1Tm 3:15 (The Church, not Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth)
Matthew 28:19-20 (Baptize, not translate Scripture)
Acts 2:37-41, 47 (Option B confirmed. Church was established and therefore still is)
Eph 2:19-22 (Household of God built upon an apostolic foundation. No Scripture based foundation found. Also note Theosis not exegesis)
2Tm 1:13, 2:2 (Oral tradition, not purely Scripture)
Col 1:18 (Christ is the body and head of Church. Orthodox understand the Church to be a theanthropic institution)
Eph 4 (One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body. Also note the mystical understanding of baptism and its relation to theosis.)
Eph 5:22-33 (Again note the theanthropic nature of the Church)
Heb 12:22-25, 8:1-3, 6, 10:11
Gen 14:18 (Refer back to Heb 6:20)
Ex 25:40 (Earthly tabernacle is a type of the eternal heavenly tabernacle. Also see Rev 8 and note the alter of God and what the saints in heaven are doing in relation to that alter.)
Mal 1:10-11 (Incense offered to the Lord? Is this prophecy fulfilled in your church?)

I could continue, as this is quite literally only scratching the surface, but I feel I have presented sufficient evidence to make you question your protestant traditions - using only Scripture. This argument is only strengthened when one begins to read the early Church fathers, specifically in regards to their understanding of the Eucharist and the Holy Sacraments. My intent here is not to get into a polemic with you, and I am fully aware your own protestant tradition will dictate the lens in which you perceive these verses. I merely hope to plant a seed which will in time, bring you to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I will leave you with one final argument, straight from the lips of our Lord Himself:

John 5:39-40 - This rebuke can be leveled at the protestants as well. The Church, which as shown above, is Christ, gave birth to Scripture. Not the other way around. Scripture points us to the living God, in whom we cultivate a living relationship with, in His Church. Scripture cannot be understood outside the context of this life and outside the context of a man or woman living that life in pursuit of Theosis. Scripture points us to a living faith with God, in His Church, which is Christ. Just as He is the Holy Sacraments - we put on Christ in baptism and receive Christ in Holy Communion. Satan could burn every last Scripture on the planet, and His Church would survive. In fact, we could re-create it. Not like the Book of Eli "psych I memorized it all word for word" Denzel Washington movie, but in that we have continued the tradition and right worship that cultivates the Holy Spirit in our own lives, and as such, creates saints and prophets who can then speak with the authority of Christ, whether by word or text. It is this authority that Scripture was birthed from and it is this authority that Scripture calls us to strive towards. We are not the Church of the book. Scripture is the book of the Church.

God bless, brother.
 
"Belloc said, "Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe." Without a functioning, thriving, Christian Europe, neither Europe nor Christianity will survive." Europe will be mostly Islamic by the end of this Century if not sooner.
 
My intent here is not to get into a polemic with you, and I am fully aware your own protestant tradition will dictate the lens in which you perceive these verses.

Thank you, @OrthoLeaf. I'll begin on these tomorrow and get back to you. Yes, no polemics needed. I've been thinking of creating a new thread since this seems a bit further afield than the topic of this one.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
Im mostly on your side I think but I must disagree that it's a matter of "not being humble". It's a matter of not violating the principle of non-contradiction. Do Orthodox believe in the principle of non-contradiction, by the way?

The Catholic Church endorses a bunch of concepts that violate the principle of non-contradiction. Why, for example, are Eastern Catholics permitted to refrain from the Filioque, while Western Catholics are not?
 
The Catholic Church endorses a bunch of concepts that violate the principle of non-contradiction. Why, for example, are Eastern Catholics permitted to refrain from the Filioque, while Western Catholics are not?
That doesnt even come close to violating the principle of non-contradiction. It's a liturgical practice, and not an assertion of truth. So you're not even in the right category, sorry.

So do Orthodox believe in PNC?
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
That doesnt even come close to violating the principle of non-contradiction. It's a liturgical practice, and not an assertion of truth. So you're not even in the right category, sorry.

So do Orthodox believe in PNC?
The Orthodox believe in Jesus Christ.

What I mentioned is not merely a liturgical practice. The Eastern Catholics do not accept the Filioque, while the Roman Catholics do.

There are plethora of other contradictions within Roman Catholicism.
 
No lol, there can be no mending of the schism at this point because of critical points to the faith and Christology. It isn't just a political schism its a schism in worldviews about the nature of the universe.
So why were these critical points not critical for somewhere between 10 to 14 centuries (depending upon how you count). Why did no one notice that there were "different worldviews" for 1000 to 1400 years?
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
So why were these critical points not critical for somewhere between 10 to 14 centuries (depending upon how you count). Why did no one notice that there were "different worldviews" for 1000 to 1400 years?
You do realize that answering these questions would require more than just a forum post?

Look, attempts have been made to mend the schism, but I doubt reunion will happen any time soon.
 
One possible key might be for the Orthodox to do a self-examination of the neo-Platonic influence in its theology?? Another possible key is for the Orthodox to take seriously, and undertake an official study of, the very modern and timely message of Our Lady of Fatima (the Miracle of the Sun)? I dont know... I'm just spitballing.
 
Last edited:

Eusebius Erasmus

Woodpecker
One possible key might be for the Orthodox to undergo a purge of neo-Platonic elements?? Another possible key is for the Orthodox to take seriously, and undertake an official study of, the very modern and timely message of Our Lady of Fatima (the Miracle of the Sun)? I dont know... I'm just spitballing.
Lol no. These are inconsequential elements.

The prime way this is soluble is for the Catholics to drop Papal Supremacy, and agree that the Pope merely has autocephaly over a limited geographic territory (Western Europe), and has no power over any Orthodox bishop.

That’s not gonna happen however.
 
Top