1965 Orthodox-Catholic meeting

[buzuxi02]

Just like Meletios Metaxakis, it's really irrelevant what Athenagoras did or attempt to accomplish. Both await condemnation.

Papal Supremacy is not believed in Orthodoxy and the pentarchy is basically defunct. So even the dialogues of how Rome functioned during the Roman Empire of the "undivided church" is a moot point. If anyone thinks the Church of Greece or Serbia or Russia would ever recognize Rome in any capacity other than the local church of Italy is sadly mistaken. Whatever capacity Rome enjoyed under the canons are no longer recognized. Rome is simply the Italian Church with extended jurisdiction over the Latin rite "barbarians" of the diaspora.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Just like Meletios Metaxakis, it's really irrelevant what Athenagoras did or attempt to accomplish. Both await condemnation.

Papal Supremacy is not believed in Orthodoxy and the pentarchy is basically defunct. So even the dialogues of how Rome functioned during the Roman Empire of the "undivided church" is a moot point. If anyone thinks the Church of Greece or Serbia or Russia would ever recognize Rome in any capacity other than the local church of Italy is sadly mistaken. Whatever capacity Rome enjoyed under the canons are no longer recognized. Rome is simply the Italian Church with extended jurisdiction over the Latin rite "barbarians" of the diaspora.

while I totally agree with your last point, and for any communion to be established Rome would have to cease to be who she is (which won't happen), I would not throw any condemnations on the two former Patriarchs. that is not for us to decide. their actions might be, but not them as of yet.

 

[Lukaris]

In the Syrian & Lebanese community we avoid pursuing ecumenism with the Catholic Church & yet we are good friends.

http://antiochian.org/sites/default/files/patriarch_flier.pdf

 

[FireDragon76]

Why? All of the anathemae were lifted on the Catholic side?

No point in seeking Christian unity when you are right by your own merits. If anything, that's dangerous thinking as it opens the door to "heresy".

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because some Orthodox like to pretend that their church never changes. No point in seeking Christian unity when you are right by your own merits. If anything, that's dangerous thinking as it opens the door to "heresy".

again, no. we have absolutely changed. just not dogma. the articulation of that dogma, however, has.

let's not try to arise new problems from old arguments, shall we?

 

[FireDragon76]

The mentality among some is there, that if we rescind one anathema, then maybe we have to rethink other things in our religion. Orthodoxy for these people is less a pillar of truth and more a delicate tapistry or some kind of fragile organism that cannot withstand scrutiny.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The mentality among some is there, that if we rescind one anathema, then maybe we have to rethink other things in our religion. Orthodoxy for these people is less a pillar of truth and more a delicate tapistry or some kind of fragile organism that cannot withstand scrutiny.

well, that's not the issue and never has been. we cannot rescind the anathema until Rome rejects that which is anathema. that's just common sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

well, that's not the issue and never has been. we cannot rescind the anathema until Rome rejects that which is anathema. that's just common sense.

It's the same thing, some in your church admits no wrongdoing in that ancient matter, and see no reason to work for reconciliation. The Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, was willing to rescind the anathemas, but Orthodox can always discount his opinion as "just one bishop". Hence the way Orthodoxy works, it only moves at the pace of the slowest half-educated Greek or Slavic peasant and his prejudices.

It reminds me of the scene in Zorba the Greek "They won't bury her. She is a Frank, she crosses herself the wrong way". It is that petty at times, and its that kind of mean spirited peasant mentality that made me question things in the first place. Because it really has nothing to do with the spirit of Christ, and everything to do with the ancient spirit that has dwelled in man since he first killed his brother.

 

[Lukaris]

Wow, what a pathetic stereotyping. ^^^

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's the same thing, some in your church admits no wrongdoing in that ancient matter, and see no reason to work for reconciliation. The Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, was willing to rescind the anathemas, but Orthodox can always discount his opinion as "just one bishop". Hence the way Orthodoxy works, it only moves at the pace of the slowest half-educated Greek or Slavic peasant and his prejudices.

It reminds me of the scene in Zorba the Greek "They won't bury her. She is a Frank, she crosses herself the wrong way". It is that petty at times, and its that kind of mean spirited peasant mentality that made me question things in the first place. Because it really has nothing to do with the spirit of Christ, and everything to do with the ancient spirit that has dwelled in man since he first killed his brother.

well, no. we are not talking about differing practice, but opposing theology. the EP cannot rescind an anathema since that takes a Council. we have nothing to rescind since we did not go off track theologically. Rome did. it is not unloving to point that out when we dialogue.

the Zorba reference has nothing to do with our division, and adds nothing to the discussion even on here.

 

[FireDragon76]

Wow, what a pathetic stereotyping. ^^^

Is it just a stereotype when monks exchange blows at your holy sites? What spirit dwells in them? Orthodox have a habit of getting quite militantly angry. St. Nicholas is a good example. Sometimes you all cannot see the big picture because you focus on minutiae, you get religion-crazed. That is the way it seems to me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it just a stereotype when monks exchange blows at your holy sites? What spirit dwells in them? Orthodox have a habit of getting quite militantly angry. St. Nicholas is a good example.

and that also has nothing to do with our division. pointing out that fallen man acts in a fallen way also adds nothing. yes, Orthodoxy has her sinners.

 

[FireDragon76]

and that also has nothing to do with our division. pointing out that fallen man acts in a fallen way also adds nothing. yes, Orthodoxy has her sinners.

The divisions are due to cultural differences that got magnified through centuries of misunderstanding and mistrust. That is what most historians have to say on the subject.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank God this is in St. Justin's at least.

Is something going on, Fire? No need to answer. I'm praying for you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The divisions are due to cultural differences that got magnified through centuries of misunderstanding and mistrust. That is what most historians have to say on the subject.

the people of the time say otherwise. the great Schism is only cultural if you ignore what the people of the time actually said. of course, modern historians also think that Constantine invented the Divinity of Christ or the Lord went to India to learn.

 

[FireDragon76]

the people of the time say otherwise. the great Schism is only cultural if you ignore what the people of the time actually said.

Sometimes the differences are cultural, like anathematizing each other because one uses leavened bread and the other does not is an example of idolatry and human foolishness, not the Spirit of Christ.

 

[prodromos]

The divisions are due to cultural differences that got magnified through centuries of misunderstanding and mistrust. That is what most historians have to say on the subject.

{{Citation needed}}

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sometimes the differences are cultural, like anathematizing each other because one uses leavened bread and the other does not is an example of idolatry and human foolishness, not the Spirit of Christ.

actually, it's an example of the Apollinarian heresy. and it has nothing to do with idolatry, since leavened vs unleavened has nothing to do with idols.

be that as it may, that was also not what initially divided us or what continues to do so.

 

[prodromos]

Sometimes the differences are cultural, like anathematizing each other because one uses leavened bread and the other does not is an example of idolatry and human foolishness, not the Spirit of Christ.

There is theology behind the use of leavened bread, and when one arbitrarily changes from using leavened bread (which the West undeniably did for 6 centuries) to using unleavened bread, it indicates an underlying change in theology.

 

[prodromos]

Sometimes the differences are cultural, like anathematizing each other because one uses leavened bread and the other does not is an example of idolatry and human foolishness, not the Spirit of Christ.

Please demonstrate where we anathemise the Oriental Orthodox for using unleavened bread. We don't. Never have.