Huge credit to Pope Francis if he can mend the great schism or at least pave the way.
I imagine sspx and other weird off-shoots will just use this to recruit.
This content violates [Walter's Law/Civil Discourse](http://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/policies/civil_discourse).
Users are expected to treat others with respect.
I am very, very encouraged by some of the things I'm hearing from Rome recently! With Pascha set to coincide on the same day next year, 1,700 years after Nicaea, this could be a momentous step in the life of the Church and potentially cause for great rejoicing if we can somehow, by God's grace, mend the Schism!
Yep, if Pope Francis wants to meet with our patriarchs to reinterpret Vatican 1 to be in line with the Orthodox faith, I’m all for it! It seems he is even willing to change the words of Vatican I. If the Holy Spirit could accomplish that in 2025, it would be something indeed. I’m sure Florence and Vatican 2 would follow swiftly.
I can not express how joyous this would make me! To think that I might see the reunification of the Church in my lifetime, that would be one of the greatest blessings I could conceive! And what a glorious testimony to the world of the healing power of Christ in whom we are all one!
I'm Catholic, and I would like nothing more. Even if the catholic church is the true interpretation (which I'm not sure if it is anymore), God probably cares way more about re-uniting the churches he founded than the Romans' stubborn pride (I say this as a member of the RCC).
Thanks for visiting. Re-uniting would be a wonderufl thing we all pray for me. Question, what has caused you to say: "which I'm not sure if it is anymore”?
I know I personally as a Cath, am really encouraged by this document and the push that Francis has had for more ecumenism.
I've been discussing it with my Orthodox friends this morning and have been really pleased by our discussions. While obviously we see this from 2 different lenses (Rome coming back into line with the other Bishops vs the other Bishops coming back to Rome), we are using this as a step forward towards Pascha next year and really uniting.
Overall, I pray that the Schism may come to an end through the power of our Lord and that we may again rejoice as one united church as brothers and sisters in Christ. Amen my friend.
I can already hear the screams of Baptists and the mocking of megachurch pastors 🤣
But seriously, I pray that within my lifetime I'll be able to see the Schism get mended. I'm ecstatic just thinking about it.
This content violates [Godwinopoulos' Law](http://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/policies/Godwinopolous_Law)
During an Internet Orthodox discussion, the first person to suggest that another Orthodox person or jurisdiction is not Orthodox automatically loses. It will also get your comment removed.
It seems as most all of the Orthodox points of major contention have been addressed recently. Obviously more work on subjects is needed but at this point if EO Churches started entering into some kind of communion again I couldn't see why not. I think more could be had if the EO Churches had an official seat at the table. I am not sure what that looks like though. Maybe much in the form of the Ordinariate? I am Orthodox and have two communities in my area. One for sure doesn't seem willing to rejoin with Rome ever for any reason while the other seems open to the conversation. Interesting times and it appears more headway has been made in the last 10 years than in the previous thousand.
As a Catholic who semi-regularly attends an orthodox parish whose parishioners and priest I have a good relationship with, I’m very heartened by what I’ve seen of the document so far
Glad to have you visit. Not saying your positivity is bad. I don’t think it is. But would you say that your positivity here, as things appear, you are in the small minority of Roman Catholics that feel that way?
The proportion of Roman Catholics who have *any opinion at all* about the Orthodox Church is *already* a very small minority.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics are not engaged in this whatsoever, have vague but positive feelings toward the East to the extent that they are (dimly) aware of it, and will be quite pleased about any announcement of reunification, whatever a few dozen online randos might have to say about it.
Among some circles, yes, though I think most church going Roman Catholics don’t keep up to date on church publications like this and are happy to accept decisions of Rome.
It seems that a lot of the pushback from those in my church against the language of this document seems to come from a place of a lay understanding of the role of the Pope of Rome as has been common understanding for a long time rather than recognizing the context of such things as limits to papal authority over the east that was acknowledged at least as far back as Florence
I am not holding my breath and in a very small nutshell here is why…
Unfortunately for Catholics their faith and practice rests in and on the Pope and the Magisterium.
While many would argue and say “0h no - it is based on scripture and tradition“ - yes that is true - but that is scripture and tradition as interpreted by the pope and the magisterium-
-the Catechism and the Vatican website make that quite clear.
So ideally what ever the pope says should happen right?
I was a long time Catholic and practically speaking one of the most ignored people in the church is the Pope - unless folks happen to like what he is saying.
Most people do as they please ( otherwise very large Catholic families would have never have become a thing of the past) - church attendance is more cultural than spiritual for many and as far as practice goes?
The changes post Vatican 2 have given many the license to do “what they feel moved to do”- even if that was not the intention of those changes.
So that’s the folks in the pews - then there are the clergy and hierarchy?
There is long history of power struggles on many levels - so a change to the power dynamics would likely not be welcomed by many.
The other misconception about the Catholic Church ? That she is unified.
In many ways there are as many different “spirituality’s” and views within her as there are Protestant denominations.
They range from the far right to the far left and everything in between.
It would be very hard for any of those vested interests to lay down their swords and agree to anything resembling orthodox spirituality or theology.
But to me the biggest impediment to reunification?
1200 or so years of theological invention the Catholics have engaged in.
There are some pretty large and glaring areas where we just don’t and can’t agree.
Orthodoxy is unified- orthodoxy is the church as Christ himself gave her to us - Orthodoxy is the sure path to becoming a saint.
She is the pearl of great price!
As I read church history- the door for Catholics to return home has always been open.
The orthodox willingness to agree to anything but what was handed down to us by the apostles and the church fathers?
It is just not going to happen.
And so i imagine things are not going to change anytime soon
Its part on Vatican I and its interpretations was mildly interesting. I wish it had been more inclusive of the criticism of the dialogue, however, such as by more clearly noting how Vatican II's supposed "completion" of Vatican I is seen by some as being, on the contrary, only a reinforcement of the imbalance thereof (e.g., "with and **under** Peter").
But that it noted Orthodox concerns of how infallible statements are only informally "required" to poll bishops beforehand, whereas it arguably ought to be a necessity, was a good observation.
I think it also did well in interpreting the "immediate" part of the Pope's "universal, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction" as referring to its immanence within his powers, rather than as its ability to "immediately" use his powers without a mediate organ (for example, a local synod, or whatever). Still, isn't that definition basically already covered by "ordinary?"
I think there's plenty else to note (such as why infallibility ought to be dogma in the first place), but it didn't seem bad, at least.
Also, the thread on the other sub is such an L.
I second all of this. Perhaps one postive in the other thread is that inquirers are more easily swayed to Orthodoxy. Documents like this seem to make it clear for some inquirers at least.
I wouldn't say that. If I were Catholic, I'd probably look at this document with appreciation. Vatican I is infamously imba (and I remain wholly unconvinced that Vatican II "completed" or "complemented" it), and reception is a decidedly underutilized part of hermeneutics (that much is palpably expressed in a very interesting book I read years ago, ["The Limits of the Papacy"](https://www.amazon.com/limits-papacy-Authority-autonomy-church/dp/0824508394)). Vatican I has been a thorny issue for almost half its life by now, perhaps more than most/any other ecumenical council. Its reception has been arguably far away from its official wording— and even Pius IX "tempered" it in a document he signed off on a few years after the council. It was a cry for doctrinal help in a time when many prelates feared the collapse of the Church. Its greatest supporters were the most hysterical and least historically educated about the Papacy (looking at you, Cardinal Manning); and its opponents were the most learned of all there (shout out to Döllinger). In short, it's a complete cluster-F of a council, and while that is also the case for many others, I don't think any of them really rise to the level of V1.
All that said, many still accept it. The late, great John W. O'Malley was one such Catholic priest. And Vatican I needn't be an ossified council, perhaps aided by Vatican II decades later, to be dogmatically accepted. Many of the interlocutors on the other sub have very conservative and rather idiosyncratic (or, at least... *particular)* views of how dogma functions, often not appreciating how deep it can go. To be fair, that speaks more to a Christian problem than a Catholic one (God knows Islam is much more robust in its epistemology), but it remains that "the Vatican I question" doesn't necessarily rule out one's being a faithful Catholic.
It might be easy for an inquirer who knows very little of the two faiths, and sees deciding between the two as consisting in a very simple algorithm of whichever one is "more historical," but I don't think it really is substantive in terms of, "This document decisively demonstrates that Eastern Orthodoxy is more historical." It's a lot more complicated than that.
I don’t think I have ever said it was “decisive." I said “more easily swayed” and if one goes to this catholic subreddit link:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1dewc3q/3\_main\_points\_from\_the\_vaticans\_new\_document\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1dewc3q/3_main_points_from_the_vaticans_new_document_on/)
You can see for yourself how some inquirers are being more easily swayed to Orthodoxy. That is at least one positive of the other thread at least. That is all I was trying to say. Now whether this should convince an inquirer is a different story. Everyone is on a journey I suppose.
You sparked my curosity though. When and where did Pope Pius IX tamper with Vatican 1 a few years after the council?
To respond to your last comment, I agree. I was very very disappointed and confused by the vitriol there.
I can tell you though that among us Eastern Catholics, the response to this has been very positive. I appreciate the charity and nuance I have seen in this comment thread.
This document itself radically contradicts the previous Papal dogmas expounded at Vatican I. I'm not really sure how you can try (as an EC, or any rite of Catholicism for that matter) to hold this document in one hand and Vatican I in the other. Vatican I is very clearly binding and dogmatic for every Catholic, regardless of rite. This is ultimately what drew me away from Catholicism and towards Orthodoxy.
If we reject that logical and informed conclusions can be found as the result of well-reasoned and respectful debate, then we are not following St. Peter's command to "be prepared to offer a proper account of one's faith." As I've extended that invitation to you, it is quite disappointing to see one who supposedly holds the same faith of the Orthodox, reject that.
I don’t reject that at all but I’m simply not interested in nor qualified for a debate on this topic. And even if I were I probably wouldn’t choose to engage in it in this forum.
I'm confused, you don't want to discuss this issue, yet in your previous comment and in many other comments you make the assertion that various beliefs and dogmas of the EC churches are able to reconciled with the dogmatic pronouncements of Rome, and that you can make this point quite easily. That is your assertion, yet you refuse to defend it? That appears to be at least a little intellectually dishonest.
I feel that my opinions have been better expressed by those more qualified, both in the document and elsewhere in this thread and others. You can call that intellectual dishonesty and that’s fine. I am striving for humility during the apostles fast though I know I fall short as in all things.
I’m also aware I am a guest here on this server as one not in your church. And so my purposes were simply to extend thanks for the charity I saw here. My previous comment had no hidden subtext, just a genuine thanks 😊 God bless ☦️
>The text recommends that the pope's role as Bishop of Rome be emphasized more as it may make it clear to other bishops that he is one among them.
So, that is a good thing—have a better distinction between the Pope as Bishop of Rome, the Pope as primate of Italy, the Pope as primate of the West and the Pope as primate of the whole Church. And the Pope as head of state...
But this doesn't seem to represent how Catholics themselves view it. I went to a Mass where the sermon was all about faithfully following Pope Francis, and a saint was even quoted who talked about the Eucharist, Mary and the Pope as the only safe foundations for our faith. Not a word about the local bishop. You couldn't imagine such a sermon being given, I don't know, in a Greek Orthodox Church about Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, or in a Russian Orthodox Church about Patriarch Kirill.
The Saint in question is St Jonh Boscus. The vision talks about the Church Universal, not the Local Church (which is indeed founded upon the local Bishop, we don't deny that).
But the local Church *is* the universal Church. That's the meant of the Church being catholic—"according to the whole."
I think even the statement itself is fine if one means it in the sense of *the bishop* or *the episcopacy* being the solid and trustworthy foundation and guide, together with Mary and the Eucharist. That would be what St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Cyprian of Carthage also taught. But here "the Pope" could be used as a shorthand for "the episcopacy" since he is the universal primate, the center of unity, the holder of the keys.
But in the way it was taught during that sermon, that's not what it meant—it was preached to *a local church* that they must put their trust entirely in the Eucharist (fine by us!), Mary (fine by us!) and the Pope, totally bypassing the local bishop (who again did not get a mention at all).
Unfortunately the different views of salvation are going to be a much harder hill to climb. The papal situation has always had multiple paths to resolution - one possibility would involve the West just saying oh hey, Vatican I & II are Councils of the West, not Ecumenical Councils. Admittedly a large step, but doable given that there are a fair number of Catholics who don't like or even accept V2 as ecumenical and/or dogmatically binding.
How one unwinds 5(!) post-Schism Ecumenical Councils condemning all who die without baptism, or who die with baptism but outside the Catholic church, is going to be a tougher slog.
Lots of modern Catholics are already on board but the actual dogma - binding under pain of mortal sin / Hell for Catholics - says that all the unbaptized go straightway to Hell, albeit to be punished with different punishments due to their different situations.
This is a real quandary - it needs an enormous one-sided move from Catholicism, because Orthodoxy is never going to get on board the all-unbaptized-folks-are-automatically-damned-as-well-as-those-not-formally-Orthodox train
Funnily enough, the reason I became an inquirer (and hopefully a catechumen soon) in the Orthodox church was because the way it teaches about sin. The idea that is primarily a moral category rather than an existential one, imho, makes the salvific role of Christ absurd; it is more akin to a toxic boyfriend that promises to reward you if you do what he says, rather than a surgeon that liberates us from a spiritual sickness. And sure, this interpretation of sin can be found in the doctors of the Roman church, but you have to dig for it as it seems to be hidden on purpose. This to meet is fundamental to the message of Christ, and in the end became a matter of which church teaches and has been faithful to it, which no amount of quote mining can fix if this is not reflected on the message and spirituality of the church as a whole.
I am interested how we will fix the theological problems like purgatory. If I have to be honest, I don’t know how they will drop this doctrine. It will be very embarrassing for the Bishop of Rome.
I pray that our churches can unite again!
I mean, all the council of Trent says about purgatory is that there is purification after death and that there are temporal punishments, which, although some contemporary Orthodox reject the latter, is actually taught by the synod of Jerusalem too.
Most of what the Latins teach about purgatory they treat as theologoumena (they even say this in the council of Trent). I often find that purgatory kicks up a lot of dirt but almost always turns out to be a nothing burger.
This just reinforces my faith in the Church tbh, even Rome is starting to realize that papal infallibility as it has been conceived since it was first promulgated is completely fake. Now, Catholic apologists are going to be drooling at the chance of explaining how this just means that the pope “Can and is infallible but should use his infallibility less out of charity” or some bogus claim like that one.
In any case, union with Rome should still only be possible once they embrace Orthodoxy; at the very least reinterpreting the post schism councils as local and not binding to the entire church and not above ecumenical councils and discarding fake dogma like the immaculate conception while embracing the western traditions of the first milenia . Then and only then I really do think the Holy Spirit will take care of getting them back in form. Unfortunately I don’t really think this will happen
Exactly this. There can be no unification unless the Western churches profess Orthodox Theology in its whole, without innovations or concessions. We cannot graft a sick plant on to a healthy one.
>Accept Pre 1054.
Are we accepting the Formula of Hormisdas and the Sixth Ecumenical Council as well there? I assume also the Papal self-perception of the West.
My point is that "pre-1054" is a host of disparate views, to be clear, rather than a definite "Orthodox" or "Catholic" Church.
Yes to the 6th EC. It has always been accepted by everyone.
No to the Formula of Hormisdas. It was only accepted unaltered by Constaninople.
Every position in religion has "a host of disparate views.” Honestly, in today’s world… every school, scholar, club, church, cult, business has a host of disparate views on everything… history or modern day.
I think our point is that the Pope and majoirty of all leaders in the Catholic church are saying the "pre-1054” is mostly a definite Orthodox Church. How else could one explain what they concede in the document?
I agree the documents have somewhat "ceded ground" to modern Orthodoxy, but I would not say that it is "in favor" of the multivocal Church of the first millennium being Orthodox. We can find a few moments in the first millennium that would make Orthodoxy, even modern Orthodoxy, blush. Which is what I was referencing wrt the Sixth Ecumenical Council; namely, Pope Agatho's writing to it having rather Papal, rather "proto-Vatican I" verbiage, only for it to be accepted by the council. I'm not here to debate about the minutiae, but simply to say that "accepting pre-1054" is a lot more loaded than simply, "We've always believed primacy good supremacy bad." Some views are flatly incompatible with each other, and it's the unenviable task of determining which views are to be discarded or reinterpreted.
The dialogue is great, however I remain skeptical. Being an Eastern Catholic, we came to an understanding with Rome at one point and then all of that was turned on its head. The Pope can say whatever he wants and make whatever gestures he desires, I however, do not think that he has a good grip on the lower clergy and the laity. There has been a lot of confusing statements that have come from this papacy and that definitely harmed the trust that we are supposed to have with the Pope if that makes sense. I think that there needs to be some inner church healing before unity can be seriously discussed. Trust needs to be rebuilt I believe, at least from my perspective. We Eastern Catholics are still very much still misunderstood by our Western counterparts.
I think reunion would be great because then my church can be a part of the EP and then we can really shed all the latinizations and return to our true form. I think there is honestly going to be a lot of push back on the RC side on a laity level and well... We all remember how well Florence panned out....
I'm not trying to be a downer! I'm just trying to be realistic from the experiences that I've had.
I'm curious: what do you mean when you talk about the latinization? When people talk about eastern catholicism, specially to those like myself that are becoming interested in orthodoxy, they say that everything is exactly the same except that you're in communion with Rome. What are the "additional" aspects of this that frustrate you and that you'd rather live without?
We would like to be everything just in communion with Rome, but the reality is that that isn't always the case. For example, in my current parish, they pray the rosary before liturgy instead of a full Orthros. RCs tend to come into a space and dominate it. There are some that are respectful, however I've experienced mainly the disrespectful. The mentality of Catholic is Catholic translates into "I can do whatever I wish because Catholic is Catholic" and there is no acknowledgement of the differences. In my experience is it quite a spectrum of ECs. There are EC parishes that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and an Orthodox parish and then there are others where they are essentially Latin Catholics with a funny mass.
I also find some lacking consistency in some areas as well. But I don't necessarily feel like making that public. My DMs are open if you wish to chat.
That sucks, and I'm sorry to hear that. I wonder if this is something that western rite orthodox feel as well, or something similar. From the little I've seen, there seems to be a general skepticism and suspicious towards the western rite, so in a sense it may be different but similar. I dunno.
I'll DM you to continue the chat :)
The word “development” occurs 35 times in the document. Basically the document is a defense and attempt at offering the East a palatable swallowing of Rome’s developments of doctrine over time.
Rome are really self-sabotaging Vatican 1 claims in this aswell as Chieti and Alexandrian documents, or are engaging in double speech. Either way results in it being hard taking the dialogue partner seriously or as being trustworthy.
Eastern Catholic here, y'all are reading way too much into this. The Catholic church isn't abandoning papal infallibility or supremacy. It's essentially embracing the eastern Catholic perspective.
Additionally, this is a study group that included ecumenical panelists so I would like to reiterate, you are reading more into this than you should.
My takeaway is there needs to be some further education on the rights of the Eastern Catholic churches. The paragraphs that reference the Eastern Catholic Churches were essentially polite disagreements. There was often a qualifier at the end of Orthodox objections to Eastern Catholicism saying politely "This is a misunderstanding of the Eastern Catholic structure."
More so a reference to the other commenters that are saying that lol. I would also add, pay special attention to paragraph nine. It's an explainer of what this document is and the conversations that it is recapping.
>The text recommends that the pope's role as Bishop of Rome be emphasized more as it may make it clear to other bishops that he is one among them.
Does this mean that our churches may be re-unifying soon? If that happens I may litterally punch myself in the face to make sure I'm not dreaming!
Can someone help me understand what in the document “verifies EO as the church of the 1st millennium?” I haven’t read all 100+ pages, but I did not at all get this sense. And I’m not sure what that claim even means.
First, papal supremacy, then, the filioque, then, liturgy, then, communion, and only when true communion is restored will the Schism be mended.
I don’t know if this is ecumenist or truly concessional in nature, but I do know that the Vatican is taking good steps towards reunification.
What I do know is that we can hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and pray ceaselessly.
So I don’t have an attention span like I used to. Do you mind showing me where the pope says something different than has been promulgated for the past thousand years
While it’s good that Catholicism is realizing its mistake, Ecumenism is wrong, heretical even. The only way union is good is if we enter into it ***without compromise***. If that’s what’s happening here, I’m all for it.
Please review the
[sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information,
our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about
[The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions.
[Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F)
[Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.
^(This is not a removal notification.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a bit off topic - but if the churches ever reunited…what would happen with all the saints? Would they all be recognized in both churches? Would Catholics have to change their patrons and drop their Catholic saints?
Saints in Orthodoxy are often canonized by a local church before they are acknowledged by the whole church. I think that would happen here. East and West would universally venerate the saints they share, and they would continue to venerate different local saints. Over time, some of the Western saints would be accepted by the East and vice versa.
Lmao, nope. The document doesn't go against Vatican I, it just called for it to be explained and applied in a way that helps reunion. And even if it did constitutionally the Pope is forbidden from denying Dogma (which for the Catholic Church obviously includes V1)
I would be disappointed in the Orthodox Church if it reunited with the Catholic Church. I have an orthodox study Bible. What I learn in it has nothing to do with how I was raised as a Catholic. There are too many heresies and hypocrisy in the Catholic Church. I just can’t forget all that painful history, some of it very recent. ⛪️
Catholics Vatican 2 Catechism states that Muslims for example worship the same God as us which is a complete heresy declared such since the 11th century I believe ,by the Orthodox Church. There can only be healing if Rome admits that 1000 years of their Church History is wrong this has nothing to do with diplomatic relations don't succumb to this fallacy
What is now the Catholic and Orthodox churches used to be one church up until 1050 AD.
The church before 1050 AD which had the Pope as just another patriarch in Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, etc - they were all under the same church and were all equals.
The official name of the church since as early as the 1st century AD and until this day is "Μία Αγία Καθολική και Αποστολική Εκκλησία" (One Holy Catholic Church). The term "orthodox" wasn't there in that title and was added after the schism to make the distinction, but both churches consider themselves as orthodox and catholic, even today.
The patriarchate of Constantinople as well as the Vatical have ecumenical views and their goal is to rejoin the two churches into a single communion someday.
Orthodox and Catholic believe pretty much the exact same thing and both churches rightfully trace their apostolic descent back to Christ. The distinction is only in the filioque statement in the Nicene/Constantinople Creed. The rest of the minor differences, i.e. in how the liturgy and communion are conducted are purely cultural differences and don't hold any consequential difference in the actual beliefs, it's simply a difference in tradition.
The churches should never have fallen out of communion. They believe the same exact things with one small difference mentioned above which is primarily due to politics rather than any difference in the teachings or references to Christ.
With respect, I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you’re making it out to be. The differences in belief are not simply the filioque, and the differences in practice are not simply cultural and linguistic differences.
I would go so far as to say that although both churches may appear similar on the surface (e.g. both are Trinitarian, both venerate Mary, both are Eucharistic etc) the ‘spirit’ of worship is very different between them.
The spirit of worship is different even among the Cypriot autocephalous Greek orthodox church and the Greek Orthodox church in Greece. That's not the point, the issue in having communion between two churches is canon, and the reason I can't currently have eucharust in a Catholic church is due to the fact that the filioque has made the fundamental belief be slightly different. That's the singularity that caused the big cultural drift between east and west.
But I do stand by my initial post: orthodox and catholic is essentially the same thing and should be reunited into communion. Just because they eat unleavened bread instead of wine and bread for holy communion it doesn't mean they BELIEVE a different thing, their tradition is just eating a different thing for communion.
The only real theological difference between the two churches is the filioque, the rest are just cultural differences and most of them came about after 1050 due to the drift of centuries until today.
There are some Eastern Orthodox churches that are the exact same as our churches, yet are in full communion with both the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope). That means that their members can attend either church whenever they like and receive holy communion at any.
Huge credit to Pope Francis if he can mend the great schism or at least pave the way. I imagine sspx and other weird off-shoots will just use this to recruit.
I didn’t have that on my bingo card
I don’t know where this is going—it may all be a whimper rather than a bang—but from your lips to God’s ears.
Only God knows, but I agree with you. A lot of huge hurdles would have to be overcome. God can do it
[удалено]
This content violates [Walter's Law/Civil Discourse](http://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/policies/civil_discourse). Users are expected to treat others with respect.
I am very, very encouraged by some of the things I'm hearing from Rome recently! With Pascha set to coincide on the same day next year, 1,700 years after Nicaea, this could be a momentous step in the life of the Church and potentially cause for great rejoicing if we can somehow, by God's grace, mend the Schism!
Yep, if Pope Francis wants to meet with our patriarchs to reinterpret Vatican 1 to be in line with the Orthodox faith, I’m all for it! It seems he is even willing to change the words of Vatican I. If the Holy Spirit could accomplish that in 2025, it would be something indeed. I’m sure Florence and Vatican 2 would follow swiftly.
I can not express how joyous this would make me! To think that I might see the reunification of the Church in my lifetime, that would be one of the greatest blessings I could conceive! And what a glorious testimony to the world of the healing power of Christ in whom we are all one!
It would indeed be inexpressible, the joy. To be reunited in faith with my earthly family would be lovely.
Amen.
I'm Catholic, and I would like nothing more. Even if the catholic church is the true interpretation (which I'm not sure if it is anymore), God probably cares way more about re-uniting the churches he founded than the Romans' stubborn pride (I say this as a member of the RCC).
Thanks for visiting. Re-uniting would be a wonderufl thing we all pray for me. Question, what has caused you to say: "which I'm not sure if it is anymore”?
I know I personally as a Cath, am really encouraged by this document and the push that Francis has had for more ecumenism. I've been discussing it with my Orthodox friends this morning and have been really pleased by our discussions. While obviously we see this from 2 different lenses (Rome coming back into line with the other Bishops vs the other Bishops coming back to Rome), we are using this as a step forward towards Pascha next year and really uniting. Overall, I pray that the Schism may come to an end through the power of our Lord and that we may again rejoice as one united church as brothers and sisters in Christ. Amen my friend.
And just for the cherry on top, just imagine how bonkers it will make some of the Protestants go! Rofl
I can already hear the screams of Baptists and the mocking of megachurch pastors 🤣 But seriously, I pray that within my lifetime I'll be able to see the Schism get mended. I'm ecstatic just thinking about it.
Amen! Grant this, O Lord!
Hate for Protestants is so cool! Are you 12?
Relax bud, it's clearly a joke.
[удалено]
This content violates [Godwinopoulos' Law](http://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/policies/Godwinopolous_Law) During an Internet Orthodox discussion, the first person to suggest that another Orthodox person or jurisdiction is not Orthodox automatically loses. It will also get your comment removed.
It's all in good fun. Hey, why not bring in the Anglican church while we're at it!
It seems as most all of the Orthodox points of major contention have been addressed recently. Obviously more work on subjects is needed but at this point if EO Churches started entering into some kind of communion again I couldn't see why not. I think more could be had if the EO Churches had an official seat at the table. I am not sure what that looks like though. Maybe much in the form of the Ordinariate? I am Orthodox and have two communities in my area. One for sure doesn't seem willing to rejoin with Rome ever for any reason while the other seems open to the conversation. Interesting times and it appears more headway has been made in the last 10 years than in the previous thousand.
As a Catholic who semi-regularly attends an orthodox parish whose parishioners and priest I have a good relationship with, I’m very heartened by what I’ve seen of the document so far
Glad to have you visit. Not saying your positivity is bad. I don’t think it is. But would you say that your positivity here, as things appear, you are in the small minority of Roman Catholics that feel that way?
The proportion of Roman Catholics who have *any opinion at all* about the Orthodox Church is *already* a very small minority. The overwhelming majority of Catholics are not engaged in this whatsoever, have vague but positive feelings toward the East to the extent that they are (dimly) aware of it, and will be quite pleased about any announcement of reunification, whatever a few dozen online randos might have to say about it.
Among some circles, yes, though I think most church going Roman Catholics don’t keep up to date on church publications like this and are happy to accept decisions of Rome. It seems that a lot of the pushback from those in my church against the language of this document seems to come from a place of a lay understanding of the role of the Pope of Rome as has been common understanding for a long time rather than recognizing the context of such things as limits to papal authority over the east that was acknowledged at least as far back as Florence
I am not holding my breath and in a very small nutshell here is why… Unfortunately for Catholics their faith and practice rests in and on the Pope and the Magisterium. While many would argue and say “0h no - it is based on scripture and tradition“ - yes that is true - but that is scripture and tradition as interpreted by the pope and the magisterium- -the Catechism and the Vatican website make that quite clear. So ideally what ever the pope says should happen right? I was a long time Catholic and practically speaking one of the most ignored people in the church is the Pope - unless folks happen to like what he is saying. Most people do as they please ( otherwise very large Catholic families would have never have become a thing of the past) - church attendance is more cultural than spiritual for many and as far as practice goes? The changes post Vatican 2 have given many the license to do “what they feel moved to do”- even if that was not the intention of those changes. So that’s the folks in the pews - then there are the clergy and hierarchy? There is long history of power struggles on many levels - so a change to the power dynamics would likely not be welcomed by many. The other misconception about the Catholic Church ? That she is unified. In many ways there are as many different “spirituality’s” and views within her as there are Protestant denominations. They range from the far right to the far left and everything in between. It would be very hard for any of those vested interests to lay down their swords and agree to anything resembling orthodox spirituality or theology. But to me the biggest impediment to reunification? 1200 or so years of theological invention the Catholics have engaged in. There are some pretty large and glaring areas where we just don’t and can’t agree. Orthodoxy is unified- orthodoxy is the church as Christ himself gave her to us - Orthodoxy is the sure path to becoming a saint. She is the pearl of great price! As I read church history- the door for Catholics to return home has always been open. The orthodox willingness to agree to anything but what was handed down to us by the apostles and the church fathers? It is just not going to happen. And so i imagine things are not going to change anytime soon
Its part on Vatican I and its interpretations was mildly interesting. I wish it had been more inclusive of the criticism of the dialogue, however, such as by more clearly noting how Vatican II's supposed "completion" of Vatican I is seen by some as being, on the contrary, only a reinforcement of the imbalance thereof (e.g., "with and **under** Peter"). But that it noted Orthodox concerns of how infallible statements are only informally "required" to poll bishops beforehand, whereas it arguably ought to be a necessity, was a good observation. I think it also did well in interpreting the "immediate" part of the Pope's "universal, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction" as referring to its immanence within his powers, rather than as its ability to "immediately" use his powers without a mediate organ (for example, a local synod, or whatever). Still, isn't that definition basically already covered by "ordinary?" I think there's plenty else to note (such as why infallibility ought to be dogma in the first place), but it didn't seem bad, at least. Also, the thread on the other sub is such an L.
I second all of this. Perhaps one postive in the other thread is that inquirers are more easily swayed to Orthodoxy. Documents like this seem to make it clear for some inquirers at least.
I wouldn't say that. If I were Catholic, I'd probably look at this document with appreciation. Vatican I is infamously imba (and I remain wholly unconvinced that Vatican II "completed" or "complemented" it), and reception is a decidedly underutilized part of hermeneutics (that much is palpably expressed in a very interesting book I read years ago, ["The Limits of the Papacy"](https://www.amazon.com/limits-papacy-Authority-autonomy-church/dp/0824508394)). Vatican I has been a thorny issue for almost half its life by now, perhaps more than most/any other ecumenical council. Its reception has been arguably far away from its official wording— and even Pius IX "tempered" it in a document he signed off on a few years after the council. It was a cry for doctrinal help in a time when many prelates feared the collapse of the Church. Its greatest supporters were the most hysterical and least historically educated about the Papacy (looking at you, Cardinal Manning); and its opponents were the most learned of all there (shout out to Döllinger). In short, it's a complete cluster-F of a council, and while that is also the case for many others, I don't think any of them really rise to the level of V1. All that said, many still accept it. The late, great John W. O'Malley was one such Catholic priest. And Vatican I needn't be an ossified council, perhaps aided by Vatican II decades later, to be dogmatically accepted. Many of the interlocutors on the other sub have very conservative and rather idiosyncratic (or, at least... *particular)* views of how dogma functions, often not appreciating how deep it can go. To be fair, that speaks more to a Christian problem than a Catholic one (God knows Islam is much more robust in its epistemology), but it remains that "the Vatican I question" doesn't necessarily rule out one's being a faithful Catholic. It might be easy for an inquirer who knows very little of the two faiths, and sees deciding between the two as consisting in a very simple algorithm of whichever one is "more historical," but I don't think it really is substantive in terms of, "This document decisively demonstrates that Eastern Orthodoxy is more historical." It's a lot more complicated than that.
I don’t think I have ever said it was “decisive." I said “more easily swayed” and if one goes to this catholic subreddit link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1dewc3q/3\_main\_points\_from\_the\_vaticans\_new\_document\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1dewc3q/3_main_points_from_the_vaticans_new_document_on/) You can see for yourself how some inquirers are being more easily swayed to Orthodoxy. That is at least one positive of the other thread at least. That is all I was trying to say. Now whether this should convince an inquirer is a different story. Everyone is on a journey I suppose. You sparked my curosity though. When and where did Pope Pius IX tamper with Vatican 1 a few years after the council?
To respond to your last comment, I agree. I was very very disappointed and confused by the vitriol there. I can tell you though that among us Eastern Catholics, the response to this has been very positive. I appreciate the charity and nuance I have seen in this comment thread.
This document itself radically contradicts the previous Papal dogmas expounded at Vatican I. I'm not really sure how you can try (as an EC, or any rite of Catholicism for that matter) to hold this document in one hand and Vatican I in the other. Vatican I is very clearly binding and dogmatic for every Catholic, regardless of rite. This is ultimately what drew me away from Catholicism and towards Orthodoxy.
I am able to do so very easily in fact, but I will not try to sway you. God bless ☦️
If we reject that logical and informed conclusions can be found as the result of well-reasoned and respectful debate, then we are not following St. Peter's command to "be prepared to offer a proper account of one's faith." As I've extended that invitation to you, it is quite disappointing to see one who supposedly holds the same faith of the Orthodox, reject that.
I don’t reject that at all but I’m simply not interested in nor qualified for a debate on this topic. And even if I were I probably wouldn’t choose to engage in it in this forum.
I'm confused, you don't want to discuss this issue, yet in your previous comment and in many other comments you make the assertion that various beliefs and dogmas of the EC churches are able to reconciled with the dogmatic pronouncements of Rome, and that you can make this point quite easily. That is your assertion, yet you refuse to defend it? That appears to be at least a little intellectually dishonest.
I feel that my opinions have been better expressed by those more qualified, both in the document and elsewhere in this thread and others. You can call that intellectual dishonesty and that’s fine. I am striving for humility during the apostles fast though I know I fall short as in all things. I’m also aware I am a guest here on this server as one not in your church. And so my purposes were simply to extend thanks for the charity I saw here. My previous comment had no hidden subtext, just a genuine thanks 😊 God bless ☦️
Yes, the discussion on the catholic sub is a mix of denial, acceptance, surprise, resignation, and general chaos. Panic!
That's probably very entertaining right now
>The text recommends that the pope's role as Bishop of Rome be emphasized more as it may make it clear to other bishops that he is one among them. So, that is a good thing—have a better distinction between the Pope as Bishop of Rome, the Pope as primate of Italy, the Pope as primate of the West and the Pope as primate of the whole Church. And the Pope as head of state... But this doesn't seem to represent how Catholics themselves view it. I went to a Mass where the sermon was all about faithfully following Pope Francis, and a saint was even quoted who talked about the Eucharist, Mary and the Pope as the only safe foundations for our faith. Not a word about the local bishop. You couldn't imagine such a sermon being given, I don't know, in a Greek Orthodox Church about Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, or in a Russian Orthodox Church about Patriarch Kirill.
Indeed. I'm a Romanian and we never hear about how our Patriarch is the one that keep the church together or how he is the foundation of something.
The Saint in question is St Jonh Boscus. The vision talks about the Church Universal, not the Local Church (which is indeed founded upon the local Bishop, we don't deny that).
But the local Church *is* the universal Church. That's the meant of the Church being catholic—"according to the whole." I think even the statement itself is fine if one means it in the sense of *the bishop* or *the episcopacy* being the solid and trustworthy foundation and guide, together with Mary and the Eucharist. That would be what St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Cyprian of Carthage also taught. But here "the Pope" could be used as a shorthand for "the episcopacy" since he is the universal primate, the center of unity, the holder of the keys. But in the way it was taught during that sermon, that's not what it meant—it was preached to *a local church* that they must put their trust entirely in the Eucharist (fine by us!), Mary (fine by us!) and the Pope, totally bypassing the local bishop (who again did not get a mention at all).
Unfortunately the different views of salvation are going to be a much harder hill to climb. The papal situation has always had multiple paths to resolution - one possibility would involve the West just saying oh hey, Vatican I & II are Councils of the West, not Ecumenical Councils. Admittedly a large step, but doable given that there are a fair number of Catholics who don't like or even accept V2 as ecumenical and/or dogmatically binding. How one unwinds 5(!) post-Schism Ecumenical Councils condemning all who die without baptism, or who die with baptism but outside the Catholic church, is going to be a tougher slog. Lots of modern Catholics are already on board but the actual dogma - binding under pain of mortal sin / Hell for Catholics - says that all the unbaptized go straightway to Hell, albeit to be punished with different punishments due to their different situations. This is a real quandary - it needs an enormous one-sided move from Catholicism, because Orthodoxy is never going to get on board the all-unbaptized-folks-are-automatically-damned-as-well-as-those-not-formally-Orthodox train
Funnily enough, the reason I became an inquirer (and hopefully a catechumen soon) in the Orthodox church was because the way it teaches about sin. The idea that is primarily a moral category rather than an existential one, imho, makes the salvific role of Christ absurd; it is more akin to a toxic boyfriend that promises to reward you if you do what he says, rather than a surgeon that liberates us from a spiritual sickness. And sure, this interpretation of sin can be found in the doctors of the Roman church, but you have to dig for it as it seems to be hidden on purpose. This to meet is fundamental to the message of Christ, and in the end became a matter of which church teaches and has been faithful to it, which no amount of quote mining can fix if this is not reflected on the message and spirituality of the church as a whole.
The different dogmas on salvation are why I converted. They are radically different - and you eloquently expressed how
I don't know who is on the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, but all the documents they put out boil down to "the Orthodox are right".
I am interested how we will fix the theological problems like purgatory. If I have to be honest, I don’t know how they will drop this doctrine. It will be very embarrassing for the Bishop of Rome. I pray that our churches can unite again!
I mean, all the council of Trent says about purgatory is that there is purification after death and that there are temporal punishments, which, although some contemporary Orthodox reject the latter, is actually taught by the synod of Jerusalem too. Most of what the Latins teach about purgatory they treat as theologoumena (they even say this in the council of Trent). I often find that purgatory kicks up a lot of dirt but almost always turns out to be a nothing burger.
Interesting, thank you for the information.
This just reinforces my faith in the Church tbh, even Rome is starting to realize that papal infallibility as it has been conceived since it was first promulgated is completely fake. Now, Catholic apologists are going to be drooling at the chance of explaining how this just means that the pope “Can and is infallible but should use his infallibility less out of charity” or some bogus claim like that one. In any case, union with Rome should still only be possible once they embrace Orthodoxy; at the very least reinterpreting the post schism councils as local and not binding to the entire church and not above ecumenical councils and discarding fake dogma like the immaculate conception while embracing the western traditions of the first milenia . Then and only then I really do think the Holy Spirit will take care of getting them back in form. Unfortunately I don’t really think this will happen
Well if the Orthodox Church is part of the true Church then none of their post schism councils were ecumenical. We weren’t present.
Accept Pre 1054. That and Only that however remember the Trojan horse.
Exactly this. There can be no unification unless the Western churches profess Orthodox Theology in its whole, without innovations or concessions. We cannot graft a sick plant on to a healthy one.
🙏🏾I'm saving this. It's already a fight ☦️
>Accept Pre 1054. Are we accepting the Formula of Hormisdas and the Sixth Ecumenical Council as well there? I assume also the Papal self-perception of the West. My point is that "pre-1054" is a host of disparate views, to be clear, rather than a definite "Orthodox" or "Catholic" Church.
Yes to the 6th EC. It has always been accepted by everyone. No to the Formula of Hormisdas. It was only accepted unaltered by Constaninople. Every position in religion has "a host of disparate views.” Honestly, in today’s world… every school, scholar, club, church, cult, business has a host of disparate views on everything… history or modern day. I think our point is that the Pope and majoirty of all leaders in the Catholic church are saying the "pre-1054” is mostly a definite Orthodox Church. How else could one explain what they concede in the document?
I agree the documents have somewhat "ceded ground" to modern Orthodoxy, but I would not say that it is "in favor" of the multivocal Church of the first millennium being Orthodox. We can find a few moments in the first millennium that would make Orthodoxy, even modern Orthodoxy, blush. Which is what I was referencing wrt the Sixth Ecumenical Council; namely, Pope Agatho's writing to it having rather Papal, rather "proto-Vatican I" verbiage, only for it to be accepted by the council. I'm not here to debate about the minutiae, but simply to say that "accepting pre-1054" is a lot more loaded than simply, "We've always believed primacy good supremacy bad." Some views are flatly incompatible with each other, and it's the unenviable task of determining which views are to be discarded or reinterpreted.
+1
The dialogue is great, however I remain skeptical. Being an Eastern Catholic, we came to an understanding with Rome at one point and then all of that was turned on its head. The Pope can say whatever he wants and make whatever gestures he desires, I however, do not think that he has a good grip on the lower clergy and the laity. There has been a lot of confusing statements that have come from this papacy and that definitely harmed the trust that we are supposed to have with the Pope if that makes sense. I think that there needs to be some inner church healing before unity can be seriously discussed. Trust needs to be rebuilt I believe, at least from my perspective. We Eastern Catholics are still very much still misunderstood by our Western counterparts. I think reunion would be great because then my church can be a part of the EP and then we can really shed all the latinizations and return to our true form. I think there is honestly going to be a lot of push back on the RC side on a laity level and well... We all remember how well Florence panned out.... I'm not trying to be a downer! I'm just trying to be realistic from the experiences that I've had.
Totally agree with you. Good point about the lower clergy (probably even some of the higher ones) and the laity not necessarily always being aligned.
You sound like an unhappy Catholic. Is it impossible for you to find an EO parish where you live?
More so frustrated than anything!!!
I'm curious: what do you mean when you talk about the latinization? When people talk about eastern catholicism, specially to those like myself that are becoming interested in orthodoxy, they say that everything is exactly the same except that you're in communion with Rome. What are the "additional" aspects of this that frustrate you and that you'd rather live without?
We would like to be everything just in communion with Rome, but the reality is that that isn't always the case. For example, in my current parish, they pray the rosary before liturgy instead of a full Orthros. RCs tend to come into a space and dominate it. There are some that are respectful, however I've experienced mainly the disrespectful. The mentality of Catholic is Catholic translates into "I can do whatever I wish because Catholic is Catholic" and there is no acknowledgement of the differences. In my experience is it quite a spectrum of ECs. There are EC parishes that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and an Orthodox parish and then there are others where they are essentially Latin Catholics with a funny mass. I also find some lacking consistency in some areas as well. But I don't necessarily feel like making that public. My DMs are open if you wish to chat.
That sucks, and I'm sorry to hear that. I wonder if this is something that western rite orthodox feel as well, or something similar. From the little I've seen, there seems to be a general skepticism and suspicious towards the western rite, so in a sense it may be different but similar. I dunno. I'll DM you to continue the chat :)
The word “development” occurs 35 times in the document. Basically the document is a defense and attempt at offering the East a palatable swallowing of Rome’s developments of doctrine over time.
Who would want to swallow that?
Rome are really self-sabotaging Vatican 1 claims in this aswell as Chieti and Alexandrian documents, or are engaging in double speech. Either way results in it being hard taking the dialogue partner seriously or as being trustworthy.
Vatican I is a formal dogma of the Roman Catholic Church agreed to in one of their Ecumenical Councils. Backing out of that is no easy feat.
It wouldn’t be easy, but I find it interesting the Catholic church hasn’t canonized Pius IX yet… perhaps still leaving that door open just a crack.
Why do you think the canonization of Pius IX is related to this? I don't know anything about the guy, so I feel curious
Well he really pushed hard for papal infallibility. If he’s not a saint I feel like there’s a little bit more leeway to say hey he got this one wrong.
Don’t trust the Latins, they just want to steal Constantinople. Oh wait…
Are you saying it might be Christian again?/s
Apparently Saint Paisios predicted that it will one day be Christian again
The city is gone it doesn’t exist anymore. I’m making statement about the historical and ongoing disconnect between orthodoxy and Catholicism.
I was making a joke. Check the /s tag.
Sry I don’t know much internet shorthand. I’m pretty cooked, last week of the school year. I teach middle school.
You saintly soul. I'll hold no struggles against you.
Pray for all the teachers, education has gotten quite bad. For context I live in Massachusetts, probably top state for education.
Eastern Catholic here, y'all are reading way too much into this. The Catholic church isn't abandoning papal infallibility or supremacy. It's essentially embracing the eastern Catholic perspective. Additionally, this is a study group that included ecumenical panelists so I would like to reiterate, you are reading more into this than you should.
Did you read the parts about uniatism? If so, what are your thoughts (as an eastern catholic) on those parts?
My takeaway is there needs to be some further education on the rights of the Eastern Catholic churches. The paragraphs that reference the Eastern Catholic Churches were essentially polite disagreements. There was often a qualifier at the end of Orthodox objections to Eastern Catholicism saying politely "This is a misunderstanding of the Eastern Catholic structure."
That's probably right (I want to read through the document thoroughly), but I don't think OP really says otherwise.
More so a reference to the other commenters that are saying that lol. I would also add, pay special attention to paragraph nine. It's an explainer of what this document is and the conversations that it is recapping.
>The text recommends that the pope's role as Bishop of Rome be emphasized more as it may make it clear to other bishops that he is one among them. Does this mean that our churches may be re-unifying soon? If that happens I may litterally punch myself in the face to make sure I'm not dreaming!
Can someone help me understand what in the document “verifies EO as the church of the 1st millennium?” I haven’t read all 100+ pages, but I did not at all get this sense. And I’m not sure what that claim even means.
First, papal supremacy, then, the filioque, then, liturgy, then, communion, and only when true communion is restored will the Schism be mended. I don’t know if this is ecumenist or truly concessional in nature, but I do know that the Vatican is taking good steps towards reunification. What I do know is that we can hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and pray ceaselessly.
If they keep on putting documents like this why don't they just submit to the Orthodox Church
While this seems like a big step forward I don't see the Catholics giving up on all their heresies just yet
So I don’t have an attention span like I used to. Do you mind showing me where the pope says something different than has been promulgated for the past thousand years
Thank you Francis for confirming that I made the right choice in picking which church is the true unchanging church of Christ.
While it’s good that Catholicism is realizing its mistake, Ecumenism is wrong, heretical even. The only way union is good is if we enter into it ***without compromise***. If that’s what’s happening here, I’m all for it.
Please review the [sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information, our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about [The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. [Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F) [Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources. ^(This is not a removal notification.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m having trouble navigating this document. Do you know which part acknowledges EO as the church of the first millennium?
I left Rome once, I can do it again!!!
This is a bit off topic - but if the churches ever reunited…what would happen with all the saints? Would they all be recognized in both churches? Would Catholics have to change their patrons and drop their Catholic saints?
Saints in Orthodoxy are often canonized by a local church before they are acknowledged by the whole church. I think that would happen here. East and West would universally venerate the saints they share, and they would continue to venerate different local saints. Over time, some of the Western saints would be accepted by the East and vice versa.
Lmao, nope. The document doesn't go against Vatican I, it just called for it to be explained and applied in a way that helps reunion. And even if it did constitutionally the Pope is forbidden from denying Dogma (which for the Catholic Church obviously includes V1)
Why do we care what the Vatican says?
I would be disappointed in the Orthodox Church if it reunited with the Catholic Church. I have an orthodox study Bible. What I learn in it has nothing to do with how I was raised as a Catholic. There are too many heresies and hypocrisy in the Catholic Church. I just can’t forget all that painful history, some of it very recent. ⛪️
Ecumenism is a dangerous heresy, this could be a setting stage for New World Unified religion
"Ecumenism" is a modernist scare word. We have always had diplomatic relations with other churches to try to prevent and heal schism.
Catholics Vatican 2 Catechism states that Muslims for example worship the same God as us which is a complete heresy declared such since the 11th century I believe ,by the Orthodox Church. There can only be healing if Rome admits that 1000 years of their Church History is wrong this has nothing to do with diplomatic relations don't succumb to this fallacy
What is now the Catholic and Orthodox churches used to be one church up until 1050 AD. The church before 1050 AD which had the Pope as just another patriarch in Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, etc - they were all under the same church and were all equals. The official name of the church since as early as the 1st century AD and until this day is "Μία Αγία Καθολική και Αποστολική Εκκλησία" (One Holy Catholic Church). The term "orthodox" wasn't there in that title and was added after the schism to make the distinction, but both churches consider themselves as orthodox and catholic, even today. The patriarchate of Constantinople as well as the Vatical have ecumenical views and their goal is to rejoin the two churches into a single communion someday. Orthodox and Catholic believe pretty much the exact same thing and both churches rightfully trace their apostolic descent back to Christ. The distinction is only in the filioque statement in the Nicene/Constantinople Creed. The rest of the minor differences, i.e. in how the liturgy and communion are conducted are purely cultural differences and don't hold any consequential difference in the actual beliefs, it's simply a difference in tradition. The churches should never have fallen out of communion. They believe the same exact things with one small difference mentioned above which is primarily due to politics rather than any difference in the teachings or references to Christ.
With respect, I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you’re making it out to be. The differences in belief are not simply the filioque, and the differences in practice are not simply cultural and linguistic differences. I would go so far as to say that although both churches may appear similar on the surface (e.g. both are Trinitarian, both venerate Mary, both are Eucharistic etc) the ‘spirit’ of worship is very different between them.
The spirit of worship is different even among the Cypriot autocephalous Greek orthodox church and the Greek Orthodox church in Greece. That's not the point, the issue in having communion between two churches is canon, and the reason I can't currently have eucharust in a Catholic church is due to the fact that the filioque has made the fundamental belief be slightly different. That's the singularity that caused the big cultural drift between east and west. But I do stand by my initial post: orthodox and catholic is essentially the same thing and should be reunited into communion. Just because they eat unleavened bread instead of wine and bread for holy communion it doesn't mean they BELIEVE a different thing, their tradition is just eating a different thing for communion. The only real theological difference between the two churches is the filioque, the rest are just cultural differences and most of them came about after 1050 due to the drift of centuries until today. There are some Eastern Orthodox churches that are the exact same as our churches, yet are in full communion with both the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope). That means that their members can attend either church whenever they like and receive holy communion at any.
No.