Patriarch Kirill's visit to Latin America includes meeting with Pope Francis

ArmyMatt said:

these meetings will not bear fruit until we have an honest dialogue in love, but be totally clear with how we stand.

personally, I would much rather Popes openly explain how they view our errors and heresies as such from the Roman POV, then just sweep them under the rug.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're already presuming that these meetings are not a prelude to such an honest dialogue.

Also the commissions that do theological dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic are quite clear about what the Catholic viewpoint on Orthodoxy is. It's no mystery. As Fr Robert Taft says about this very issue, "If you want to know what the Catholic Church thinks about something, google it!"

aChildOfMary said:

I dont think its beneficial to look at internet reactions as in these forums to get a sense of the rational reactions and expectations regarding the "Cuba get together" meeting between his holliness Kirill and pope Francis.

Click to expand...

"Rational" reactions, no. Reactions...eh...truthfully, I think these people are following the same kind of propaganda Rome puts out about all other churches that aren't itself anyway, so I'm not sure why it's any different just because it's on the internet. I was Roman Catholic before converting to Coptic Orthodoxy. I still remember the approach that the RCC has towards the EO, and it's the same kind of thing you'll read over on OBOB: We're so close; we have nearly everything in common; why won't they just come back? It must be pride; etc.

So I think the irrational reactions to things like this meeting have their roots in Rome giving its partisans false hope about a thing that will never happen.

Of course, that's not the only approach you find in the RCC (they're much different towards some types of Protestants, for instance), but with the Eastern and Oriental churches, that's the game they've been playing since at least VII, after failing to make us all submit at Florence, carving out sections of preexisting EO communities via the Union of Brest, trying to impose their religion on the Syriac Indians in Kerala, going to Egypt c. 17th century and starting trouble there for the Copts, ditto a little while later for the Ethiopians, etc.

If anything I guess we can all agree that its nothing wrong about having a burning desire to be reconciled even though its not going to happen while we walk this earth.

Click to expand...

I think there is if that's not what the meeting is supposed to focus on.

I think its about time (actually I think it should`ve happened years ago as in JPII or Benedict XVI papacy) the two biggest and oldest churches in the world came together to talk in a civilized manner.

Click to expand...

I mean come on we are`nt even enemies, but yet loving each other seems impossible.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you consider 'loving'. From my perspective as a non-EO and non-RC person, it seems like you two love each other plenty.

All I can say is Lord have mercy!

Click to expand...

Amen.

This meeting for the common good of all persecuted Christians in the middle east is about time!
Out of persecution love may arise between us?

Click to expand...

Other than Syria (obviously), I'm not sure if any of the current problem areas in the Middle East/North Africa even have an organized EO presence. As far as I know, most Christians in Iraq are Chaldean Catholics, Nestorians, or Syriac Orthodox. I guess there was that Russian Church in Tunisia that was vandalized a while ago, which was unfortunate, though I would assume that this meeting would focus more on the dire future of Christianity in Iraq and Syria than a place with barely any Christians in it like Tunisia, though maybe with a pit stop in Egypt given the numerical weight of the Coptic Orthodox Church as the largest single Middle Eastern Church (there are not very many EO in Egypt anymore, either; the Alexandrian EO Patriarchate has had much more success spreading Chalcedonianism outside of Egypt in the modern day), and the persecution that it routinely faces in its homeland.

So I'm not sure how the "us" fits in there when we're largely talking about places where one of you is not present or only very minimally present, but okay. Perhaps (/hopefully) Palestine will be included. That is a place where it makes much more sense for RC and EO to talk about shared experiences.

God is truely turning sin and suffering into love and grace.

Click to expand...

I don't know what this means.

gzt said:

It sounds like you're already presuming that these meetings are not a prelude to such an honest dialogue.

Also the commissions that do theological dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic are quite clear about what the Catholic viewpoint on Orthodoxy is. It's no mystery. As Fr Robert Taft says about this very issue, "If you want to know what the Catholic Church thinks about something, google it!"

Click to expand...

Well, I can do a google search, and find Roman councils that condemn us for not using the Filioque, and then read stuff that says the Filioque is not a theological issue...well which is it? If we are being honest there should be one clear position on something like that.

ArmyMatt said:

I don't think this is the issue, the issue has been what happens afterwards. both sides condemn each other, and at least from our POV, one bishop (Patriarch Athenagoras) saying the anathema has been lifted does not actually lift the anathema. but after these meetings EWTN and the net will resound with how close we are and yet we are further apart. these meetings will not bear fruit until we have an honest dialogue in love, but be totally clear with how we stand.

personally, I would much rather Popes openly explain how they view our errors and heresies as such from the Roman POV, then just sweep them under the rug.

Click to expand...

It's not just EWTN pushing that idea "we are close to union", you would be surpised by how many in the laity, in the Orthodox Church I attend really believe, and say "this meeting brings us closer to union, after all Catholicism and Orthodoxy are similar", and that despite the priest making it clear "no it's not, it's about persecuted Christians". Although your point is clear, hench why I don't miss EWTN, to them we are always once step closer to union togther, except I did like that G.K. Chesterton stuff they had on EWTN.

ArmyMatt said:

Well, I can do a google search, and find Roman councils that condemn us for not using the Filioque, and then read stuff that says the Filioque is not a theological issue...well which is it? If we are being honest there should be one clear position on something like that.

Click to expand...

A slightly trolling response: one could accuse us of almost the same on the issue of the Oriental Orthodox.

A serious response: I suggest looking at their official documents, such as this one. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

gzt said:

A slightly trolling response: one could accuse us of almost the same on the issue of the Oriental Orthodox.

A serious response: I suggest looking at their official documents, such as this one. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Click to expand...

I've not heard any EO priest tell people who are interested in your church's relationship to the OO to Google it, though. I suppose Fr. Taft was speaking in an off the cuff manner...or at least I hope he was, because I can't imagine an answer more likely to confuse people than that.

Taft's fuller comment:

That’s also a good thing, if I may say so, about the Catholic Church. You don’t have to guess what the Catholic Church thinks, because the Catholic Church believes in paper. If you want to know, what the Catholic Church thinks about ecumenism — some people in the ROCOR think that ecumenism is a heresy — but they don’t know what ecumenism means to Catholics. They think that ecumenism means looking for a least common denominator that everybody can agree on. That’s not what the Catholic Church says ecumenism is. If you want to know what the Catholic Church thinks about ecumenism, don’t guess. Google! You’ll find a document that tells you. See? So you don’t need to guess what the Catholic Church thinks. You can find a text that will tell you exactly. That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with it. But you don’t have to guess.

Click to expand...

http://preachersinstitute.com/2013/...he-solution-an-interview-with-fr-robert-taft/

gzt said:

A slightly trolling response: one could accuse us of almost the same on the issue of the Oriental Orthodox.

Click to expand...

I know, I don't like the idea that we are the same as the OO, we are not the same faith and we should stop pretending we are.

gzt said:

A serious response: I suggest looking at their official documents, such as this one. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Click to expand...

the problem is that there are Roman councils that are much harsher than that link. 2nd Lyon openly condemns us.

They have a very open process with commissions and, importantly, tons of papers, documenting how they deal with their entire past. Like he says, you don't have to guess about what they think. Though you can probably take that document as a summary.

gzt said:

They have a very open process with commissions and, importantly, tons of papers, documenting how they deal with their entire past. Like he says, you don't have to guess about what they think. Though you can probably take that document as a summary.

Click to expand...

I don't know, in my experience talking to them, you do. I think they have so many papers stuff gets lost and not dealt with. and that summary, while long and took me a bit to read, left some important stuff out. like what semisabellianism is and maybe a defense of why the filioque is not semisabellian (unless I missed it, it was long).

I thought not even all Orthodox call the filioque "Semi-Sabellian".

gzt said:

I thought not even all Orthodox call the filioque "Semi-Sabellian".

Click to expand...

most of the professors I have do, as did Frs Hopko and Romanides, as did St Photius the Great and Constantinople IV which called it sabellian as a heresy. and while that council is not one of the official ecumenical councils, it is ecumenical status (whatever that means) which is why it is often called the 8th.

there is actually more history calling it Sabellian or Semisabellian than not.

This meeting will just make an agreement to meet again in the future. There is absolutely nothing the pope can do to protect or rescue middle east christianity. And very little Patriarch Kirill can do. Although a tad bit more than any other religious leader on the face of the earth. if he has Putin's ear.
if the powers that be (the west) continue with their proliferation of weapons to everyone who asks for them the violence will continue. Religious leaders have no power in influencing whats going on and politicians hate most religious leaders and the people that follow them..

Today, History was made.

it's great that folks are talking, especially the bishops, but I doubt this will actually do anything aside from reinforce that we can talk.

Godwilling this will bear good fruit!

Well After almost 1000 Years that no Head of the Russian Church ever met the BISHOP OF ROME, it is something QUITE TO CELEBRATE.

There are many languages, one of them is the will to meet which talks by itself.

I remember of the Byzantine Fórum some orthodox claiming that The Patriarchate of Constantinople Ment nothing to them since its continuous comprimises of Orthodoxy by meeting with catholics, and that Russian Patriarchate had a higher standard for their Doctrine, by excluding to meet with the Bishop of Rome.

¿What then are they going to say now?

Alonso_Castillo said:

Well After almost 1000 Years that no Russian Patriarch ever met the BISHOP OF ROME, it is something QUITE TO CELEBRATE.

Click to expand...

I hope this will bear good fruit, but the will to meet as far as spreading the Gospel won't actually do anything. Nancy Pelosi met the Pope once, but that did nothing to stop her pro abortion and pro gay marriage agenda. it's great to meet don't get me wrong, but Orthodox have met with Romans for a while since the Schism, so where do we go from here? Patriarch Athenagoras met with the Pope, and we are just as apart as we have every been.

I will gladly celebrate once I can see that something will be done. until then, I will offer prayers, unworthy though I be.

Talking and meeting is better than not talking and meeting. It's progress.

The Patriarchs or Constantinople perhaps by their difficult situation in a country which basically wants to erase them, are mor alike to try to form alliances, but they can't move ahead to Full Reconciliation and to comunión without the largest body of the orthodox comunión, the Russian Church, the patriarchate can't shoot its foot. That is why any further advance in the dialogue required an encounter between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarchate of Moscow, to increase the mutual confidence, and to advance further in the way towards Full Communion.

With this meeting the Pan-Orthodox Council may be facilitated, since one of their core issues has to be the Relation with Roman Catholicism.

...

Nope, none of that follows.

Again: This was either a meeting about Christianity in the Middle East (which I agree with the other poster, neither of these bishops are going to be able to do anything about), or it wasn't. From what I've read, that was the focus. All this stuff about reunion between RC and EO and what it will and will not take is something else. Please, please stop derailing what little attempts are being made to forge a united front in defense of our religion in its homelands with this talk of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox reuniting. Save that for some other time...like a meeting that is actually meant to be about that.

Geez...Christians in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. can't even die in peace without some damn Europeans making it about their European church and what they want.