5th of July

alex73

July 5, 1439: Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics sign the Decree of Union at the Council of Florence, creating an official union between the two churches. Popular sentiment in Constantinople opposed the decree, and when the Turks captured the city, the union ceased. However, the council's definition of doctrine and its principles of church union (unity of faith, diversity of rite) have proved useful in subsequent church talks.

572 years on and the 2 churchs stand apart. Fall of Constantinople in 1453 did not help as the west did not go to the aid of the east.

Catholics call the east Schismatics and the east calls Catholics heretics.

Christ never wanted this division. Should be do all in our power to unite?

After all we share over 90% of the same faith.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

July 5, 1439: Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics sign the Decree of Union at the Council of Florence, creating an official union between the two churches. Popular sentiment in Constantinople opposed the decree, and when the Turks captured the city, the union ceased. However, the council's definition of doctrine and its principles of church union (unity of faith, diversity of rite) have proved useful in subsequent church talks.

572 years on and the 2 churchs stand apart. Fall of Constantinople in 1453 did not help as the west did not go to the aid of the east.

Catholics call the east Schismatics and the east calls Catholics heretics.

Christ never wanted this division. Should be do all in our power to unite?

After all we share over 90% of the same faith.

It's not often I acknowledge the truth claims of Rome or Orthodoxy, but I've got to admit in this case. They are both right.

**************************************************************************
Luke 22:66 As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying, 67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.”
But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe.

PDN

alex73 wrote: »

July 5, 1439: Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics sign the Decree of Union at the Council of Florence, creating an official union between the two churches. Popular sentiment in Constantinople opposed the decree, and when the Turks captured the city, the union ceased. However, the council's definition of doctrine and its principles of church union (unity of faith, diversity of rite) have proved useful in subsequent church talks.

572 years on and the 2 churchs stand apart. Fall of Constantinople in 1453 did not help as the west did not go to the aid of the east.

Catholics call the east Schismatics and the east calls Catholics heretics.

Christ never wanted this division. Should be do all in our power to unite?

After all we share over 90% of the same faith.

I seem to remember that the background to this was the threat posed by Islam, and that Constantinople needed military support. The price of that support was the Decree, but most in the Eastern Empire thought it too high a price to pay.

Alex, I'd be genuinely interested to know something. Given that significant differences exist between RCC and Orthodox, would you be a happy with a unity that took a bit of give and take on either side (ie where both the RCC and Orthodox admitted they were wrong about some stuff and acknowledged the others were right)?

alex73

PDN wrote: »

I seem to remember that the background to this was the threat posed by Islam, and that Constantinople needed military support. The price of that support was the Decree, but most in the Eastern Empire thought it too high a price to pay.

Alex, I'd be genuinely interested to know something. Given that significant differences exist between RCC and Orthodox, would you be a happy with a unity that took a bit of give and take on either side (ie where both the RCC and Orthodox admitted they were wrong about some stuff and acknowledged the others were right)?

That is what will have to Happen. The orthodox church will never fall under Rome with the Papal authority as it stands today. But Catholic/Orthodox believe the Pope would have Primacy. JP II even said they the role of the Pope needs to be looked at (I am paraphrasing from what I remember)

I hold the Orthodox church in high regard, But having met present and past Popes there is much to be said of having a unity behind a pastor.

at the end of the day the Pope is but custodian of the Faith. Both churchs need to reaffirm the faith.

Slav

alex73 wrote: »

July 5, 1439: Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics sign the Decree of Union at the Council of Florence, creating an official union between the two churches. Popular sentiment in Constantinople opposed the decree, and when the Turks captured the city, the union ceased. However, the council's definition of doctrine and its principles of church union (unity of faith, diversity of rite) have proved useful in subsequent church talks.

If there is anything we can learn from Florence then it must be how not to approach an ecumenical dialogue. It was purely politically driven, poorly researched and presented, with the lack of charity and mutual respect towards the end...

Catholics call the east Schismatics and the east calls Catholics heretics.

As I understand from some of your recent posts you've been to Mt Athos not long ago, have you? Did the monks call you heretic?

Christ never wanted this division. Should be do all in our power to unite?

Unfortunately the union is impossible at least in the foreseeable future. And I don't think it's in our power to overcome the schism but God could find a way.

After all we share over 90% of the same faith.

It's hard to measure. Some might say it's 99.9%, some 90%, some 10%, some 0% and all would have a point.

alex73 wrote: »

That is what will have to Happen. The orthodox church will never fall under Rome with the Papal authority as it stands today. But Catholic/Orthodox believe the Pope would have Primacy. JP II even said they the role of the Pope needs to be looked at (I am paraphrasing from what I remember)

Papacy is by far not the only issue that divides us but even if taken alone the common denominator is already lost by the twentieth century. Rome won't revert the Papal Infallibility as it's a Catholic dogma now, Orthodox won't subscribe to it as at least they would see it as a threat for catholicity and conciliarity.

I hold the Orthodox church in high regard, But having met present and past Popes there is much to be said of having a unity behind a pastor.

The Church has God as its pastor, why would She need a mere human for that role? In fact, for the sake of safety against heterodoxy and heresies it is vital for the Church to be decentralised. When independent Churches with no earthy institution above them confess the same faith it's the sign of the Holy Spirit working in the Church and assurance of orthodoxy. When a mortal and sinful man (or a group) guards the faith and the Churches in his jurisdiction confess the same faith it's only a sign of his authority but nothing more. For Orthodox, that urge to put an earthy institution at the top of the Church is only seen as a lack of faith in God and His promise if not blasphemy against the Spirit.

alex73

Slav wrote: »

If there is anything we can learn from Florence then it must be how not to approach an ecumenical dialogue. It was purely politically driven, poorly researched and presented, with the lack of charity and mutual respect towards the end...

As I understand from some of your recent posts you've been to Mt Athos not long ago, have you? Did the monks call you heretic? Yes :-)

Unfortunately the union is impossible at least in the foreseeable future. And I don't think it's in our power to overcome the schism but God could find a way.

It's hard to measure. Some might say it's 99.9%, some 90%, some 10%, some 0% and all would have a point.

Papacy is by far not the only issue that divides us but even if taken alone the common denominator is already lost by the twentieth century. Rome won't revert the Papal Infallibility as it's a Catholic dogma now, Orthodox won't subscribe to it as at least they would see it as a threat for catholicity and conciliarity.

The Church has God as its pastor, why would She need a mere human for that role? In fact, for the sake of safety against heterodoxy and heresies it is vital for the Church to be decentralised. When independent Churches with no earthy institution above them confess the same faith it's the sign of the Holy Spirit working in the Church and assurance of orthodoxy. When a mortal and sinful man (or a group) guards the faith and the Churches in his jurisdiction confess the same faith it's only a sign of his authority but nothing more. For Orthodox, that urge to put an earthy institution at the top of the Church is only seen as a lack of faith in God and His promise if not blasphemy against the Spirit.

I know each of the orthodox churches is separate, but they are united in the same faith, and each church had a head. The russian church could not change say the sacraments, so in reality the churchs are united in the same faith and constantinple has a honory place as first patriarch. Orthodoxy does not like the infallibility of the Pope, but this is only in matter of faith, and the pope will only speak after consulting with the church.. In the orthodox church the synod is infallible. The question then is to be said... Is the Pope a neagative force for bad? Or a force for good and unity? As far as i can see as a catholic it provides a focal point of unity for the church,

Slav

alex73 wrote: »

Yes :-)

Did they? That's a shame!
Did you live in a monastery? Which one?
Was it a good or a bad experience overall?

I know each of the orthodox churches is separate, but they are united in the same faith, and each church had a head.

It's interesting that even at a local level those heads are not "little Popes". Within each Church they are only "first among equals". For example Patriarch of Moscow cannot appoint or dismiss a bishop on his own within the Russian Church.

Orthodoxy does not like the infallibility of the Pope, but this is only in matter of faith, and the pope will only speak after consulting with the church.

I guess Orthodox would have zero problem with papal infallibility if Pope were only a mere voice of the Church, i.e. Church comes up with some understanding of a certain theological matter and then the Pope of Rome only articulates it. In practice however it is not feasible or even possible to keep it this way.

First, the Church does not need a spokesman - she is perfectly capable of speaking for herself.

Second, it's practically impossible that there would be 100% consensus within the Church on a proposed dogma; therefore Pope unavoidably becomes a judge as he himself needs to decide which opinion is orthodox, which one is an acceptable theologoumena and which one is heresy - too difficult task for a sinful man.

And finally, there is no need to dogmatise without a good reason. Dogma is only the Church's answer to a new heresy but in Church it's councils who deal with heresies, not individual bishops. Councils don't need Pope to air their decisions. Outside of councils no dogma should really be proclaimed. For that reason both cases of exercising Papal infallibility after Vatican I are seen as illegitimate by Orthodox as they were not addressing new heresies - development of doctrine is another area where we seriously differ.

In the orthodox church the synod is infallible.

No, that's not true. It is not infallible.

The question then is to be said... Is the Pope a neagative force for bad? Or a force for good and unity?

You see, Orthodox are already united, they don't think their unity is in any danger and they don't need Pope or anybody else for unity as they are quite happy with the Holy Spirit in that role. If you delegate that job form the almighty God to a weak and sinful man (or a synod) then it certainly would be seen as a negative development and degradation.

As far as i can see as a catholic it provides a focal point of unity for the church

That's right. And from Orthodox perspective it's the Holy Spirit who's the focal point of unity. And that's where the ecumenical dialogue on this subject is stuck with no sign of resolution.

alex73

Slav wrote: »

Did they? That's a shame!
Did you live in a monastery? Which one?
Was it a good or a bad experience overall?

None of the monks said it directly, just one old visitor that said Catholics were Heretics.

Yes I lived in 4 of the monasteries. Magistri Lavra, Stavonikita, Simon Petra and Agia Anna.

The experience was amazing.. (so much so I am going back)

Slav wrote: »

No, that's not true. It is not infallible.

The decisions of the synods are infallible, according to Greek Orthodox Church. Not sure about the other Church's.

Slav

alex73 wrote: »

None of the monks said it directly, just one old visitor that said Catholics were Heretics.

Yes I lived in 4 of the monasteries. Magistri Lavra, Stavonikita, Simon Petra and Agia Anna.

The experience was amazing.. (so much so I am going back)

Good stuff. It's a good bit of the Mount!

The decisions of the synods are infallible, according to Greek Orthodox Church.

Do you have a reference to the source of that?

Not sure about the other Church's.

Ecclesiology is the same in all Churches and declaring a synod infallibly is some kind of ecclesiological heresy. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding because technically a decision of a synod can be seen as infallible if it gets catholic acceptance. So in fact it's the catholic opinion of the Church which is infallible rather than the decision itself. But even if it happens (which is not easy in practice as it has to be clearly supported by all Churches as well as meet some other criteria) it does not make the synod itself infallible.

alex73

Slav wrote: »

Do you have a reference to the source of that?

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm

Slav

alex73 wrote: »

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm

Lol, looks like the guys know absolutely nothing about Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Almost every sentence has errors; infallibility of Orthodox synods looks actually like a minor one compared to the others!.. I'm not sure if a human mind can naturally reach such level of ignorance, I hope the guys were just bored and did it for lulz.

lmaopml

Maybe Slav, this relates to an earlier post where you mention that some Orthodox view themselves as 99.9 percent the same as Catholicism, and are united, and others view themselves as only 50%, and yet others 0% etc. and all are 'right' in their personal takes? It's our undoing really.

I guess it must be a personal matter at times...but it is 'difficult' and very human too. God knows. We see it here too on this forum every day, the path that people follow as best they can, some more honestly than others and most to the best of their ability, which I'm sure God knows too.