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

Vyck

Pigeon
Orthodox
Is #4 that essential of a difference? I don't see it. For Catholics it is also wine with bread (the host is the bread/body). Perhaps you could explain? Thanks.

Also #3, I've gone back and forth on this one. I do believe allowing priests to marry may have prevented some or all of the recent scandals in the Catholic church, which I view as detestable, and even caused me to go protestant for a while. However, I also see that married priests are obviously beholden to their wives and children more than celibate priests. So, if the time ever comes to get really based in the church again, I would imagine that married priests will not make the grade, compared to celibate priests. Also, I think allowing priests to marry can ultimately be a gateway for allowing female clergy in the church, which, in my opinion, is a nightmare scenario for any denom.

In reality the problem is about leavened bread vs unleavened bread, Leavened Bread and Wine physically present.

The Savior instituted the Holy Eucharist with leavened bread. The place where this event took place is the house that belonged to Mary, the mother of the author of the second Gospel.


While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Matt. 26. 26)


Azima was taken over by Catholics from the Jewish tradition. But, considering that the Savior did not institute the Holy Eucharist at the Jewish Passover, it is clear to us that he did not use unleavened bread because it was not the time for unleavened consumption. Unleavened Bread was used by the Jews as a symbol of the bondage, pain, and hardship they endured in Egyptian. Evangelists mention that at the Last Supper, when the Eucharist was instituted, no unleavened bread was eaten. If the Savior had celebrated the Jewish Tabernacle at the Last Supper, the meal would have been called Passover meal, but it is called the Supper, and the bread from it is leavened bread, not unleavened bread.

It should also be mentioned that at the Jewish Passover no one leaves his house until the next day. But that night Christ goes out with His disciples and goes with them to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, where he will be caught, being shown to the soldiers by Judas (Matthew, 26, 48-49). Also, on that day, the washing of the feet it was forbidden, if we take into account that at Easter everyone had to keep their shoes on their feet.

The marriage of priests

It is not “allowing priests to marry” in the original church the priests were married, it was Catholics who instituted this celibate practice . In the Orthodox Church there are priests and monks, monks are generally not allowed to serve unless they are part of the hierarchy. The Orthodox Church does not anoint celibate priests. If you want to become a monastic you have to give up the world and retire to a monastery only after many years spent there can you rise in the hierarchy .


1 Timothy 3


2 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?).

Also, I think allowing priests to marry can ultimately be a gateway for allowing female clergy in the church, which, in my opinion, is a nightmare scenario for any denom
And when did this happen in the Orthodox Church? The priest's wife is called a "priestess" but she has a well-defined administrative role. She is the commander-in-chief of the action, who makes sure everything is in order. However, there is a character much powerful than herself, and than the priest in the orthodox church, and she is a woman.

The old lady is supreme character if you want, the priest will respectfully ask her what the tradition says let's say ... on Palm Sunday, we have to give people the flowers before or after service? The old lady will answer authoritatively, only those who will remain until the end receive flowers. The Priest and all the church will be executed without comment.

You Catholics do not have "old ladies" to tell the priest about traditions?
 
Last edited:

Invocato

Sparrow
In reality the problem is about leavened bread vs unleavened bread, Leavened Bread and Wine physically present.

The Savior instituted the Holy Eucharist with leavened bread. The place where this event took place is the house that belonged to Mary, the mother of the author of the second Gospel.





Azima was taken over by Catholics from the Jewish tradition. But, considering that the Savior did not institute the Holy Eucharist at the Jewish Passover, it is clear to us that he did not use unleavened bread because it was not the time for unleavened consumption. Unleavened Bread was used by the Jews as a symbol of the bondage, pain, and hardship they endured in Egyptian. Evangelists mention that at the Last Supper, when the Eucharist was instituted, no unleavened bread was eaten. If the Savior had celebrated the Jewish Tabernacle at the Last Supper, the meal would have been called Passover meal, but it is called the Supper, and the bread from it is leavened bread, not unleavened bread.

It should also be mentioned that at the Jewish Passover no one leaves his house until the next day. But that night Christ goes out with His disciples and goes with them to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, where he will be caught, being shown to the soldiers by Judas (Matthew, 26, 48-49). Also, on that day, the washing of the feet it was forbidden, if we take into account that at Easter everyone had to keep their shoes on their feet.

The marriage of priests

It is not “allowing priests to marry” in the original church the priests were married, it was Catholics who instituted this celibate practice . In the Orthodox Church there are priests and monks, monks are generally not allowed to serve unless they are part of the hierarchy. The Orthodox Church does not anoint celibate priests. If you want to become a monastic you have to give up the world and retire to a monastery only after many years spent there can you rise in the hierarchy .





And when did this happen in the Orthodox Church? The priest's wife is called a "priestess" but she has a well-defined administrative role. She is the commander-in-chief of the action, who makes sure everything is in order. However, there is a character much powerful than herself, and than the priest in the orthodox church, and she is a woman.

The old lady is supreme character if you want, the priest will respectfully ask her what the tradition says let's say ... on Palm Sunday, we have to give people the flowers before or after service? The old lady will answer authoritatively, only those who will remain until the end receive flowers. The Priest and all the church will be executed without comment.

You Catholics do not have "old ladies" to tell the priest about traditions?

I can't speak to the traditions of leavened vs un-leavened bread, it still seems to be a relatively minor difference in my opinion, but perhaps I am simply not aware enough of the historical significance.

To your point on female clergy:
I am unaware of any "old ladies" who tell priests about traditions, but I am not an expert on such matters. However, in my experience as a Catholic I have not heard of anything similar.
Also,
1 Timothy 2:12-15, which states that women are not to assume authority over men.
Biblically speaking, female clergy should never be allowed or have significant influence in the church. God incarnate was Jesus, the Son of God. To know the Father, you must know the Son. Also, the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 

Vyck

Pigeon
Orthodox
Biblically speaking, female clergy should never be allowed or have significant influence in the church. God incarnate was Jesus, the Son of God. To know the Father, you must know the Son. Also, the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Orthodox tradition is in full agreement with this fact. In fact, 2000 years of married priests have not generated a single case in which a woman becomes a priest. My story about the "old woman" it refers strictly to traditions, old womens are the keepers of traditions the priest often consults with them regarding the correct keeping of local traditions.

For Catholics, the marriage of priests is not a milestone, Catholics have created the Byzantine Catholic rite that recognizes the Pope and has married priests, also in this rite the two modes of communion are used alternately. The issue of Filiocle and Papal Supremacy remains.
 
Here are my thoughts, as someone who has spent nearly every free moment for the lseveral years trying to figure out this exact question.

The Roman Catholics could:
- Delete the filioque from the creed. It can, of course, be understood in an orthodox manner. But at this point it is an icon of the Schism, and for better or for worse there is no conceivable chance of reunion as long as it's there.
- Acknowledge that Vatican I was a robber council, and return to the definitions of the Council of Constance regarding the papacy, and the system of Church government that solved the Great Western Schism.
- Restore beauty and orthodoxy to Roman Catholic worship, and the fullness of the Church calendar with it's complexities and fasts. If Roman Catholicism looked and felt Orthodox, as it used to, that would go a long way towards healing the schism.

The Orthodox could:
- Acknowledge that old Roman Rite is fully Orthodox and does not need an epiclesis inserted.
- Get over our animosity about the crusades.

Both sides could:
- Acknowledge that what canonized saints in the pre-schism Church taught cannot be regarded as heresy. We do not know better than the Church Fathers.
- Recognize that ideas popular in either Church at the moment are not necessarily THE teaching of the Church. Theologoumena, even if nearly universal, are still just theologoumena.

Issues:
- I don't know how we'd get Orthodox bishops to tolerate annulments or Roman Catholic bishops to tolerate ecclesial divorce. Pre-schism, when people didn't travel much, the rules being different in different places wasn't such a big problem. But a corporate reunion right now in places where Latins and Byzantines coexist would pose some difficulties regarding marriage laws.

As laypeople, we can all fast and pray for reunion. We can all read the fathers, both Eastern and Western. And we can all treat each other as brothers who have been baptized into the same Christ.
 

Joe316

Robin
Also #3, I've gone back and forth on this one. I do believe allowing priests to marry may have prevented some or all of the recent scandals in the Catholic church, which I view as detestable, and even caused me to go protestant for a while. However, I also see that married priests are obviously beholden to their wives and children more than celibate priests. So, if the time ever comes to get really based in the church again, I would imagine that married priests will not make the grade, compared to celibate priests. Also, I think allowing priests to marry can ultimately be a gateway for allowing female clergy in the church, which, in my opinion, is a nightmare scenario for any denom.

Marriage is a union where two humans become one flesh with the man being the head. Protestant female clergy never reflects this, it's usually the feminist types drawn to it.

The modern enforcement of celibacy seems to lead to a selection bias towards homosexuals. Meanwhile perfectly capable godly men are rejected, because they were called into marriage.
 
Marriage is a union where two humans become one flesh with the man being the head. Protestant female clergy never reflects this, it's usually the feminist types drawn to it.

The modern enforcement of celibacy seems to lead to a selection bias towards homosexuals. Meanwhile perfectly capable godly men are rejected, because they were called into marriage.
The call of God - when it is real - is stronger than the call to marriage ... or to any natural office. This is one of the prudential reasons for celibate clergy: a man cannot serve two masters. The call of God is such that a man will naturally spurn his wife and children. Unless he wasnt truly called by God. The Orthodox recognize this by their class of celibate clergy. The question is: have they really benefited by these men of Dual Loyalty? Perhaps they have, in the natural way that a married man with 10 children can also be a good elder in a parish (with whatever extra time he has on his hands). But he can never be an alter christus.

The homosexuality/paraphiliac problem among Roman Catholic clergy is a totally unrelated problem and is of two types:
  1. men who had no call to God and were simply using ordination as a platform to continue pursuing sodomy
  2. men who had such a strong call to God that they were unaware of their weakness in this area. Once the Jewish Revolution in Psychology and Sexuality hit, they fell prey. It is true that God in his infinite wisdom does not call men (or women) who are not strongly driven to the marital act, to marriage. These men can be convinced by (((psychologists))) that they are this new species called "gay".
p.s. if some Orthodox wants to shoot back "well, we all have to serve God and our families, the priest is no different", let me just in-before: "Yes. And that's called Protestantism".
 
I want to go back to what DeFide said about "abjuring of errors". The problem here is called "schism". I would assume that schism is something less-serious than heresy (correct me if I'm wrong). But if they solved the Orthodox-Catholic split not once but twice through the abjuring of errors, perhaps it would be useful for Orthodox and Catholic churchmen at both levels to prepare a list of errors it will be necessary for the other side to accept and a short, concise explanation of the reasoning behind the finding of error.

Then, when the time comes where it will be manifest that God wants us to reunite (e.g. worldwide Christian persecution, end-times scenarios, etc.) the process of reunification will be all teed up.

Many Protestants enter the Roman Catholic church today (EWTN is full of them). It seems that the process is: a genuine (what appears to be) call from God, and a ratifying assent of the intellect to the "concise explanation" of why Catholics believe what they believe, PLUS usually some outward event that propels them (e.g. getting sick of Pastor Friendly at the Mega-Church and his pro-Israel sermons, or "this hot Catholic girl and her family just seem to have it together, I want to be part of that").

So when the time comes, and worldly events seem to manifest that a church that was united for 1000 years should be reunited again, the process will be abjuring of errors after a general sense that one side or the other just has it more together and their arguments are at least reasonable. When Arians came back to the fold, it was probably not 100% mental assent to the non-Arian creed but more of a sense of "God has spoken, the Church is clearly going in this direction".
 

Joe316

Robin
The call of God - when it is real - is stronger than the call to marriage

That's not the reason behind the celibacy requirement. It's to prevent offspring, so offices can't be inherited biologically. As a result it selects for LGBTQ+ degenerates.

The homosexuality/paraphiliac problem among Roman Catholic clergy is a totally unrelated problem

Having a functioning marriage as requirement for church service would almost completely weed out this population from the clergy - instead of wishful thinking.

a man cannot serve two masters. The call of God is such that a man will naturally spurn his wife and children. Unless he wasnt truly called by God. The Orthodox recognize this by their class of celibate clergy. The question is: have they really benefited by these men of Dual Loyalty?

There is no "dual loyality", but a clear hierarchy: Husband submits to God, wife submits to God and husband, children submit to God, husband and wife.

Perhaps they have, in the natural way that a married man with 10 children can also be a good elder in a parish.

During the plandemic God taught me through live examples of

1. Female eldership destroying a well funded and well attended church within a year (weak beta single men played a huge role in enabling it).

Before I was on the fence about it.

2. A church planted by a married couple with children (man head, wife helpmeet) saving souls left and right during lockdowns.

Before I was looking at the St. Paul template many Christians like to use, but I can clearly see how God's design of marriage works beautifully into a seriously fruitful ministry. A wife serving a church under the lead of her husband works wonders, while weak beta single men get into a symbiosis with female leadership, which destroys everything.

(Yes, I'm actually working in real life churches experiencing it all in practice instead of online theory crafting.)
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Gold Member
A decade+ ago I was looking for the truth after giving up on the inch-deep and mile-wide Protestantism I grew up with. My impression after reading what each side had to say about the other was the Catholics saw the rift as a tragedy and looked for reconciliation, while the Orthodox, well, basically despise the Catholic Church and base much of their identity on not being in communion with Rome. If the Filioque were given up tomorrow, and Ex Cathedra infallibility were made subject to majority vote of all ordained bishops the next day, my impression is the Orthodox would quickly find another reason to stay apart. If one side or the other does not want to reunite, then a reunification is not likely under any circumstances.

I see this line on the internet all the time, but little evidence of it "on the ground" outside of social media. And most of the animosity toward Rome is coming from Orthodox people who used to be Roman Catholic, like Jay Dyer, so you can't say they have an irrational hate-boner instilled in them from their youth. It's just a meme.

In my experience talking to (and reading, watching) Orthodox people at my parish, online, and elsewhere, the subject of Rome doesn't even come up much outside of specific topics of apologetics. And as I've said a dozen times here before I find Roman Catholics far more relatable than protestants these days, and empathize with them over the rather dire state of of Rome.

Personally, I always found bizarre Latin ideas like stigmata, the sacred heart, and stories surrounding Bernard of Clairvoux, Margaret Mary, and Teresa of Avila far more of an obstacle to Rome than their treatment of the Theotokos, Papal supremacy, or any of the stuff that usually spooks protestants. This just struck me as a more advanced form of the pentecostal nonsense I'd experienced in evangelicalism, while the sober-minded and restrained nature of Orthodox spiritual practices resonated with me.

The real reason why Rome and Moscow won't reunite is because of irreconcilable philosophical differences: the scholasticism of Aquinas vs. the theology of Sts. Maximus, John Damascene, and Gregory Palamas. Unless one or the other completely overhauls their underpinning philosophy then I don't see it happening. It's not even remotely feasible. Only a "hard" reuniting (eg., multitudes leaving Rome and converting to Orthodoxy or vice versa) has any possibility. You'll never get Rome or Moscow to concede that they were wrong for 1000+ years and a millennium of saints were in prelest.

The best you can really hope for is for both sides to treat each other with respect despite theological differences, while not compromising or trying to rationalize that we "really believe the same thing." This approach seems pretty feasible to me, but as a convert to Orthodoxy without much prior antipathy toward Rome perhaps I'm being too optimistic.
 
I want to go back to what DeFide said about "abjuring of errors". The problem here is called "schism". I would assume that schism is something less-serious than heresy (correct me if I'm wrong).
It was actually a common opinion among the Church Fathers that schism was worse than heresy. A heretic at least has a reason (albeit a bad one) for dividing the Body of Christ, but a schismatic does it without cause. Schism, according to Augustine, can even cause the sacraments to be of no effect since schism is a rejection of love.

Met. Elias Zoghby, a Melkite, wrote an interesting book on the subject called We Are All Schismatics.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Gold Member
What is the weakness guys?? The Church is built on the blood of the martyrs I know but the Orthodox could learn a thing or two from the Catholic warrior tradition. Do not prepare for persecution, prepare to take up your cross and fight. Dying for the faith on the battlefield is martyrdom. Die on your feet not on your knees. This cuckoldry is ruining Christianity. I don't mean to attack my fellow Orthodox brothers but man up. I see abunch of cries and weeps for byzantium and the horror the latins committed against them and poor us we went on to be persecuted by the Ottomans and Bolsheviks etc. Most of you guys are not even the ethnicity of the persecuted ethnic christian groups and are converts. What is this LARP? May god have mercy on the persecuted I am not trying to undermine that at all but still.

Instead of Christians preparing for persecution, Christians need to prepare for war! Stop falling into the HERESY of pacifism and completely turning a blind eye to the Christian Warrior Tradition.

Lift weights, toughen up become strong, attend the latin mass, pray the rosary. Ave maria!

You started a thread about a month ago where dozens of posts gave good responses to your struggle in OCA; responses which, as far as I can tell, you didn't interact with at all or follow the advice contained within (such as the always-pertinent "talk to your priest about your concerns" and "ignore polemical people on the internet.")

So now a matter of weeks later you're bashing on Orthodoxy as being "too weak" and going on about "Catholic warrior tradition." You're giving the impression that you went back to Rome for purely emotional reasons (especially since, as you conceded in your original thread, you believed Orthodox theology was correct) and sound immature, not to mention silly. The tough guy schtick is a bit unconvincing coming from someone so easily upset by polemical orthodox people on the internet.

NickK is exactly right, your posts are indicative of someone preoccupied with worldly, fleshly strength rather than spiritual matters. Of course, you're free to belong to whatever church you want and it's no skin off my back if you ditched Orthodoxy, but you would be well-advised to spend some time reading and pondering the Sermon on the Mount and the lives of pre-Constantinian Saints as your posts are suggestive of someone who's not terribly mature and fixated on the wrong things, regardless of which Christian tradition you choose.

On top of that the idea that "Rome strong Constantinople weak" is just silly and betrays an understanding of Orthodox history that is childish at best. You know that Constantinople and Russia had militaries and didn't just sit around strumming acoustic guitars and singing kumbaya all day, right? They spent centuries just trying to survive their Islamic neighbors (and more recently, Communism) while they served as a buffer for western Europe with its favorable geography and leisure time for making naked statues and Mvh Western Cvltvre.

All above is Orthodox spewing out cuckhold Christianity and effeminate Jewish persecution complex rhetoric.

Nobody said anything remotely to that effect. These complaints are ad-hominem figments of your imagination.

Not like we spread the Cross across the globe, Evangelizing whole continents, while Orthodox were confined to Russia, Greece, Serbia and Romania.

Perhaps you never noticed, but Russia is rather large. It took centuries for the Church to spread all across Russian territory and evangelize the many indigenous peoples in Russian territory, and they also sent missionaries to Alaska and successfully planted churches there amongst the native Alaskan people - and today there is active mission work in South America, Africa, and Asia. Besides that, with already-Christian Europe to the west, the Turks and Islamic powers to the south, and no huge overseas colonial empire with akin to Portugal, Spain, France, and Britain, where in the world were they supposed to go? The North Pole? This objection is lazy and stupid.

If missionary zeal is the criterion for the True Church, then we should all just go ahead and become Mormons since they show more evangelistic vigor than anyone else.
 

TomDooley

Chicken
I want to go back to what DeFide said about "abjuring of errors". The problem here is called "schism". I would assume that schism is something less-serious than heresy (correct me if I'm wrong). But if they solved the Orthodox-Catholic split not once but twice through the abjuring of errors, perhaps it would be useful for Orthodox and Catholic churchmen at both levels to prepare a list of errors it will be necessary for the other side to accept and a short, concise explanation of the reasoning behind the finding of error.
The sin of schism is the refusal to submit to the lawful authority of the Church. Heresy is to doubt or deny a particular truth of the faith, or perhaps some truths of the faith. Usually, however, every schism includes at least some heretical ideas, and this is certainly true of the Schismatic Eastern sects, who are both schismatic and heretical. Among their heresies, they reject the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. They reject papal authority and papal infallibility. Since they reject papal infallibility, they also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, because this truth was solemnly defined by Pope Pius IX. They deny the permanence and indissolubility of marriage, and they sanction divorce and “re-marriage” (not referring here to to marriages that were clearly null and void due to an impediment, but rather of marriages that are acknowledged to have been valid...in this particular heresy of theirs they can perhaps find some common ground with Francis after his infamous Amoris Laetitia. These are some of the most obvious heresies taught by the Eastern Schismatics, but there are many others (Palamite polytheism, divine duplicity, etc.We must pray that the blindness that afflicts them be removed, and that they humbly submit to the one Church founded by Christ.
Then, when the time comes where it will be manifest that God wants us to reunite (e.g. worldwide Christian persecution, end-times scenarios, etc.) the process of reunification will be all teed up. So when the time comes, and worldly events seem to manifest that a church that was united for 1000 years should be reunited again,
Sounds like “the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions [...] under the pretext of freedom and human dignity...” —Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910)

The comment that “a church that was united for 1000 years should be united again” expresses a heresy —namely, the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ is not unified but divided. This is standard teaching in the Vatican II Counter-Sect, based on the false idea that all who are validly baptized, even if they are separated from Catholic Faith and communion, are members of the Church, the Body of Christ). The true and teaching of the real Catholic Church is as follows:

“..The Church of Christ never lost her unity. She will never lose it, not even for the shortest space of time. In fact, she will continue everlastingly according to divine revelation. How, indeed, can one believe the Church will continue everlastingly, if generation after generation, exactly as it occurs in the changeableness of earthly things, she were to take on to her essential state a new appearance and shape, and, what is more, if the Church herself at some time or other could withdraw from the unity of faith and communion on which she was founded by Jesus Christ and by which she was spread by the Apostles? For this reason St. Ambrose says the kingdom of the Church will remain forever because the faith is indivisible, the body is one [cf. Eph 4:14].” —(Pope Pius IX, Holy Office Letter Quod Vos to certain Puseyite Anglicans, Nov. 8, 1865)

The Church’s unity is a dogma of the Faith, one professed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan as well as countless other Catholic creeds: “We believe in … one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.

In his 1896 encyclical letter on the unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII laid out the true teaching as follows:

“But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body – “one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling [Eph. 4:4]. Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: “Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me…that they also may be one in Us…that they may be made perfect in one” [Jn 17:20-21,23]. Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: “I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee” [Jn 17:21].

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith.”​

Since the true Catholic position is that there is only one true Church of Jesus Christ and that this Church is the Roman Catholic Church only kind of religious unity she can approve of is that which sees all non-Catholics converted to Catholicism and joining her ranks in the one fold and [under the] one shepherd. (Jn 10:16).
the process will be abjuring of errors after a general sense that one side or the other just has it more together and their arguments are at least reasonable. When Arians came back to the fold, it was probably not 100% mental assent to the non-Arian creed but more of a sense of "God has spoken, the Church is clearly going in this direction".
“…the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it”—(Pope Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, n. 10).


Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.”—(Pope Pius XII, Holy Office Instruction Ecclesia Catholica)

“The unity of Christ’s Church — Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic — has never been in question and admits of neither denial nor doubt. For this reason, we may not properly speak of the “re-union of the Church”; for this reason, too, appeals for prayers for “Church unity,” as these were made prior to the more exact emphasis on the “Chair of Unity” Octave, never rang quite true, either theologically or historically. The Church of Christ could never be other than one; however diminished by heresy geographically or wounded by schism historically, the Church always remained one.” —(Bp. John Wright, “Reflections on the Current Ecumenicism”, American Ecclesiastical Review CLXV, n. 4 [Oct. 1961], p. 220.)​
 
The sin of schism is the refusal to submit to the lawful authority of the Church. Heresy is to doubt or deny a particular truth of the faith, or perhaps some truths of the faith. Usually, however, every schism includes at least some heretical ideas, and this is certainly true of the Schismatic Eastern sects, who are both schismatic and heretical. Among their heresies, they reject the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. They reject papal authority and papal infallibility. Since they reject papal infallibility, they also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, because this truth was solemnly defined by Pope Pius IX. They deny the permanence and indissolubility of marriage, and they sanction divorce and “re-marriage” (not referring here to to marriages that were clearly null and void due to an impediment, but rather of marriages that are acknowledged to have been valid...in this particular heresy of theirs they can perhaps find some common ground with Francis after his infamous Amoris Laetitia. These are some of the most obvious heresies taught by the Eastern Schismatics, but there are many others (Palamite polytheism, divine duplicity, etc.We must pray that the blindness that afflicts them be removed, and that they humbly submit to the one Church founded by Christ.

Sounds like “the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions [...] under the pretext of freedom and human dignity...” —Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910)

The comment that “a church that was united for 1000 years should be united again” expresses a heresy —namely, the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ is not unified but divided. This is standard teaching in the Vatican II Counter-Sect, based on the false idea that all who are validly baptized, even if they are separated from Catholic Faith and communion, are members of the Church, the Body of Christ). The true and teaching of the real Catholic Church is as follows:

“..The Church of Christ never lost her unity. She will never lose it, not even for the shortest space of time. In fact, she will continue everlastingly according to divine revelation. How, indeed, can one believe the Church will continue everlastingly, if generation after generation, exactly as it occurs in the changeableness of earthly things, she were to take on to her essential state a new appearance and shape, and, what is more, if the Church herself at some time or other could withdraw from the unity of faith and communion on which she was founded by Jesus Christ and by which she was spread by the Apostles? For this reason St. Ambrose says the kingdom of the Church will remain forever because the faith is indivisible, the body is one [cf. Eph 4:14].” —(Pope Pius IX, Holy Office Letter Quod Vos to certain Puseyite Anglicans, Nov. 8, 1865)

The Church’s unity is a dogma of the Faith, one professed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan as well as countless other Catholic creeds: “We believe in … one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.

In his 1896 encyclical letter on the unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII laid out the true teaching as follows:

“But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body – “one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling [Eph. 4:4]. Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: “Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me…that they also may be one in Us…that they may be made perfect in one” [Jn 17:20-21,23]. Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: “I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee” [Jn 17:21].

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith.”​

Since the true Catholic position is that there is only one true Church of Jesus Christ and that this Church is the Roman Catholic Church only kind of religious unity she can approve of is that which sees all non-Catholics converted to Catholicism and joining her ranks in the one fold and [under the] one shepherd. (Jn 10:16).

“…the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it”—(Pope Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, n. 10).


Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.”—(Pope Pius XII, Holy Office Instruction Ecclesia Catholica)

“The unity of Christ’s Church — Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic — has never been in question and admits of neither denial nor doubt. For this reason, we may not properly speak of the “re-union of the Church”; for this reason, too, appeals for prayers for “Church unity,” as these were made prior to the more exact emphasis on the “Chair of Unity” Octave, never rang quite true, either theologically or historically. The Church of Christ could never be other than one; however diminished by heresy geographically or wounded by schism historically, the Church always remained one.” —(Bp. John Wright, “Reflections on the Current Ecumenicism”, American Ecclesiastical Review CLXV, n. 4 [Oct. 1961], p. 220.)​
Delete
 

Invocato

Sparrow
Here are my thoughts, as someone who has spent nearly every free moment for the lseveral years trying to figure out this exact question.

The Roman Catholics could:
- Delete the filioque from the creed. It can, of course, be understood in an orthodox manner. But at this point it is an icon of the Schism, and for better or for worse there is no conceivable chance of reunion as long as it's there.
- Acknowledge that Vatican I was a robber council, and return to the definitions of the Council of Constance regarding the papacy, and the system of Church government that solved the Great Western Schism.
- Restore beauty and orthodoxy to Roman Catholic worship, and the fullness of the Church calendar with it's complexities and fasts. If Roman Catholicism looked and felt Orthodox, as it used to, that would go a long way towards healing the schism.

The Orthodox could:
- Acknowledge that old Roman Rite is fully Orthodox and does not need an epiclesis inserted.
- Get over our animosity about the crusades.

Both sides could:
- Acknowledge that what canonized saints in the pre-schism Church taught cannot be regarded as heresy. We do not know better than the Church Fathers.
- Recognize that ideas popular in either Church at the moment are not necessarily THE teaching of the Church. Theologoumena, even if nearly universal, are still just theologoumena.

Issues:
- I don't know how we'd get Orthodox bishops to tolerate annulments or Roman Catholic bishops to tolerate ecclesial divorce. Pre-schism, when people didn't travel much, the rules being different in different places wasn't such a big problem. But a corporate reunion right now in places where Latins and Byzantines coexist would pose some difficulties regarding marriage laws.

As laypeople, we can all fast and pray for reunion. We can all read the fathers, both Eastern and Western. And we can all treat each other as brothers who have been baptized into the same Christ.
Referencing one of my earlier posts, if the two groups are to unite, it will more likely be the result of severe geo-political strain/persecution, of either group, than anything else. Such an event would make all differences appear minor. Especially if one group comes to the aid of the other.
 
Last edited:

Louis IX

Pelican
Well,

Clearly I was vindicated in what I said. All above is Orthodox spewing out cuckhold Christianity and effeminate Jewish persecution complex rhetoric. And resorting to bashing Rome.

Read up on Christendom and see how many people would laugh in your face for being this weak back then. Oh wait no Christendom was Catholic and has the spirit of the antichrist, I forgot sorry. Not like we spread the Cross across the globe, Evangelizing whole continents, while Orthodox were confined to Russia, Greece, Serbia and Romania.

Well then on your knees gentlemen.
Orthodox have actually never apologized for the organised massacres of catholics. West Ukraine for example and Bandera with the poles.
But you will hear non-stop that catholics are bad from babushkas in soviet union because of the crusades ...
Reminds me of a religion starting with I .
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
  1. men who had no call to God and were simply using ordination as a platform to continue pursuing sodomy

Ironically I think the greater acceptance of open homosexuality, same-sex "marriages", etc in secular culture could help cleanse the priesthood of this. In the past men were expected to marry, and so many men who were burdened with same-sex attraction saw the priesthood as a natural refuge from societal expectation to marry.
 
Top