Could Orthodox Churches Recognize The Pope?

[~Anastasia~]

Reconciliation wouldn't be possible without the Catholics deleting the Filioque, and at this point that would be nothing less than Catholics surrendering as completely wrong the whole time and the Orthodox as right all along. The RCC is not going to do that.

Right, that was just one of those heresies I mentioned generally. And I do doubt very seriously that will happen.

I wonder if Catholics have a different view on the possibility of Rome recanting so much, or if they simply see the difference as more minor than we do (that seems a common theme when I speak with Catholics).

I explored Rome before Orthodoxy, and yet it still took a LOT of extra time and study to pin down what they actually teach. If Catholics don't spend an equivalent amount if time studying Orthodoxy (or perhaps even mote) they may simply be unable to really appreciate and understand where we are coming from. It's not just this phrase or that specific doctrine or way of looking at things - it's really a shift in the very foundations that affects everything built on it.

 

[dzheremi]

I wonder if Catholics have a different view on the possibility of Rome recanting so much, or if they simply see the difference as more minor than we do (that seems a common theme when I speak with Catholics).

Not sure that this would count for much to RCs since I didn't stick with it, but when I was RC that is definitely what they taught us: We have almost everything in common with the EO, except they don't recognize the Pope like we do (mostly for political/nationalistic/prideful reasons). This feeds into the other part of your post about RCs not spending time to actually research Eastern Orthodoxy, since after all they are told by their leaders that they are already very close to you guys, so why bother? So it is often assumed -- when they meet EO who don't fit what they've been led to believe -- that these people are the hard-headed, zealous, extremists of the communion. (That's another reason, just by the way, that RCs tend to make so much out of any 'agreed statements' past or present that they can point to in which they got an EO person to agree with them on something, since this feeds into their ecclesiological outlook: "Look, your guy said XYZ, therefore ______!" It's a strange way of doing ecumenism, but given the mindset that is cultivated by their church's modern stance towards you guys, I guess it's to be expected. And of course the flip side are the 'traditionalists' who would say that they never signed off on this new approach in the first place, and hence would rather stick with medieval polemics like Contra Errores Graecorum than recognize that it's not the 13th century anymore. If there's much between those two poles, it's probably the Eastern Catholic uniates, who are obviously not a model for reunion in any case. Heck, I think even Rome has admitted as much relatively recently, and that's obviously without demanding that they be gone/returned to their mother churches, as would befit a reunited church.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not sure that this would count for much to RCs since I didn't stick with it, but when I was RC that is definitely what they taught us: We have almost everything in common with the EO, except they don't recognize the Pope like we do (mostly for political/nationalistic/prideful reasons). This feeds into the other part of your post about RCs not spending time to actually research Eastern Orthodoxy, since after all they are told by their leaders that they are already very close to you guys, so why bother? So it is often assumed -- when they meet EO who don't fit what they've been led to believe -- that these people are the hard-headed, zealous, extremists of the communion. (That's another reason, just by the way, that RCs tend to make so much out of any 'agreed statements' past or present that they can point to in which they got an EO person to agree with them on something, since this feeds into their ecclesiological outlook: "Look, your guy said XYZ, therefore ______!" It's a strange way of doing ecumenism, but given the mindset that is cultivated by their church's modern stance towards you guys, I guess it's to be expected. And of course the flip side are the 'traditionalists' who would say that they never signed off on this new approach in the first place, and hence would rather stick with medieval polemics like Contra Errores Graecorum than recognize that it's not the 13th century anymore. If there's much between those two poles, it's probably the Eastern Catholic uniates, who are obviously not a model for reunion in any case. Heck, I think even Rome has admitted as much relatively recently, and that's obviously without demanding that they be gone/returned to their mother churches, as would befit a reunited church.)

Thanks for the reply and the perspective.

I've never been Catholic, but if that is indeed what they are told, I can see how it might produce the mindset you describe, and would also explain the response I get from most Catholics.

It took immersing myself in the Church, listening to podcasts for hours a day, lots of catechesis, and plenty of discussion and correction here in CF for me to begin to grasp an Eastern mindset. It's not something one can possibly sum up in a few paragraphs, such that someone with more Western thinking could grasp.

I guess they really don't know then?

 

[mark kennedy]

Just briefly I would like to say I thought it encouraging when the excommunication was lifted after a thousand years. The Bishop of Rome is hardly likely to be the leader of the Orthodox churches but such a move would a way of unifying a lot of Christians who have long been alienated. The synods and the councils of Rome being reconciled sounds good in the abstract but there is a lot of tension in the mix. As a Protestant I have long felt that the simplicity of the gospel unites us but ecclesiastical authority, well, that's a very different thing. I wish you all well in your search.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[GregConstantine]

Just briefly I would like to say I thought it encouraging when the excommunication was lifted after a thousand years. The Bishop of Rome is hardly likely to be the leader of the Orthodox churches but such a move would a way of unifying a lot of Christians who have long been alienated. The synods and the councils of Rome being reconciled sounds good in the abstract but there is a lot of tension in the mix. As a Protestant I have long felt that the simplicity of the gospel unites us but ecclesiastical authority, well, that's a very different thing. I wish you all well in your search.

Grace and peace,
Mark

In our search for what?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Just briefly I would like to say I thought it encouraging when the excommunication was lifted after a thousand years.

it wasn't lifted, Rome is still anathema. one bishop cannot do that on behalf of the whole Church for us.

 

[ripple the car]

Far as this Protestant can tell, the Eastern Orthodox Church already recognizes the Pope, at least for what he is. The head of Western, Latin Christianity. But not the head over every Christian soul by default. If Rome truly wants the EOC or OOC or ACE to accept anything more than this, they likely will never get what they want.

 

[mark kennedy]

it wasn't lifted, Rome is still anathema. one bishop cannot do that on behalf of the whole Church for us.

Ok now I'm curious, is that the only problem, the bishop or Rome was thinks he is the presiding bishop over all the churches. Because the eastern and western churches got along famously for a thousand years. I did some looking around, apparently attempts at reconciliation have failed to fix the schism. All I am sure about here is that the Pope being the ecclesiastical head of the entire church is unacceptable, of course being a Calvinist I couldn't agree more. I read some things about unleaven bread and some other things but I didn't see anything else that couldn't he worked out with some effort. I guess I'm asking, what makes Rome anathema?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess I'm asking, what makes Rome anathema?

well, what divided them from us in the first place: the Pope as universal head over the Church (which only Christ is and He needs no vicar) and the filioque. since the Schism, they have added other things that we would deem heretical such as the concept of created grace.

and there are much more that they would have to recant before their anathema would be considered being lifted.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Why would it take more than one Patriarch to un-anathematise the Roman Pontiff? I mean only the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome excommunicated one another: why would it be null if the rest of the Patriarchs didn't lift it as well? Wasn't it only one-for-one?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Precisely because we don't have a case where any one man is able to make a decision for the entire Church, I would hazard a guess. And that is a protection, imo, not a weakness. Otherwise a rogue (or just misguided) leader could take the entire Church into heresy or error.

It has had the historic effect of making the Church very slow to change. And if the Apostles were right about what they taught (let's hope they were!), then that is a good thing, and a strength.

"Progressive" is not a word I want associated with matters of dogma and worship. Been there, done that, left it on purpose.

But more importantly, we yet have things that divide us, and I would not want to see Orthodoxy adopting (or even allowing) Rome's stance on certain things. Some are just not compatible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gurney can recognize the pope...he's the guy with the pointy miter or the little Jewish-looking skull cap thing. He wears white and criticizes capitalism a lot and loves LGBTism. Yep, I recognize that cat.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Gurney can recognize the pope...he's the guy with the pointy miter or the little Jewish-looking skull cap thing. He wears white and criticizes capitalism a lot and loves LGBTism. Yep, I recognize that cat.

You nailed it, and he also calls Christians bigots, and hypocrites if they aren't gung ho about Islamic Immigration/Invasion, he also a radical Jesuit, yup that the Pope.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why would it take more than one Patriarch to un-anathematise the Roman Pontiff? I mean only the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome excommunicated one another: why would it be null if the rest of the Patriarchs didn't lift it as well? Wasn't it only one-for-one?

because our Church is synodal. this means two things: Rome would have to repent openly of all heresy (note, not unique Western practice, but heresy) and the Church as a whole would accept her. while it began in Constantinople, every Orthodox bishop knows Rome to be heretical. it therefore would take the whole Church to approve her return after she repents.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Kate and I were Catholics under JP2 and B16. We left and then Francis took over. We felt like we were looking over our shoulder like Lot's wife (without the whole pillar of salt phenomenon thank Goodness! LOL)

You nailed it, and he also calls Christians bigots, and hypocrites if they aren't gung ho about Islamic Immigration/Invasion, he also a radical Jesuit, yup that the Pope.

 

[buzuxi02]

Rome went off the deep end when they replaced the byzantine popes with the Franks. Pope Nicholas I was really out there. By the 10th century the spiritual rot took hold. They eventually embraced fillioque, merits of saints, annulments, unleavened wafers, baptism by sprinkling, purgatory, beatific visions and much more during the 10 centuries of the Holy roman empire.

 

[Basil the Great]

If the EO and the OO were to merge and then the EO/OO Church merge with the RCC, such a move would be a very forceful call to many Protestants to join a united Church. Having said this, it seems very unlikely that an RCC-Orthodox merger will take place in our lifetime.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Basil: I see an EO-OO merger as likely within the next century or two. I never see the Roman Church being able to merge ever with the EO: it just isn't going to happen. Not without a sizeable schism on both ends. And for Prots: they think Rome is an idolatrous harlot now: if the EO were to unite with Rome they would just manipulate it to justify their specious fallacies concerning calling the Roman Church, 'The harlot of Babylon'.

 

[Basil the Great]

Virgil the Roman - You might well be right that an EOC-RCC merger would result in a schism on both sides. I would not say that such a merger is impossible, but I would say that the only way that I can conceive of it happening is if Christianity becomes such a minority religion in 100 or 200 years, that maybe the powers that be might think that a reunion is needed to save the faith.

 

[JM]

The Russians would never agree to a merger with old Rome. They are the Third Rome after all.