Could Orthodox Churches Recognize The Pope?

[~Anastasia~]

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

Pretty much none of us would agree to communion with Rome - unless Rome first recanted all of what we see as innovations.

It would not really be Orthodoxy merging with Rome. It could only be accomplished by what would essentially be Rome returning to Orthodoxy. Which - if they truly wished to do so, it would be unChristian to refuse them.

But I think that is really what it would take. And I doubt many Catholics (at this point at least) would really be on board with that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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

sure they would, IF Rome openly repented of and rejected her many heresies.

 

[JM]

the Greeks are proudly Greek and Orthodox, the Russian, well, they are content just being more Orthodox then any other group. IMO

 

[prodromos]

the Greeks are proudly Greek and Orthodox, the Russian, well, they are content just being more Orthodox then any other group. IMO

They've certainly suffered more than any others for their orthodoxy.

 

[Lukaris]

I think any Orthodox Christian should discern Pope Francis and most Protestant leadership in the World Council of Churches as those to avoid. Why some Orthodox churches take up time & space among such groupings seems a waste of time & resources. Allegedly to "witness" to these outfits on committees etc. surely seems to have fallen short for 70 years or whatever.

Through the centuries individual Christians among the Catholics & Protestants are just as good or bad as any Orthodox. Theological differences always barred communion with non Orthodox Christians but at least almost all the faith stated in the Nicene Creed, salvation by grace, the 10 commandments etc. were held in common but not any more.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why some Orthodox churches take up time & space among such groupings seems a waste of time & resources. Allegedly to "witness" to these outfits on committees etc. surely seems to have fallen short for 70 years or whatever.

while I agree that it is frustrating, ecumenical dialogues do get our name out there and help us know our own Faith. I think if we could gather together and clearly draw the line in the sand concerning certain doctrines we know to be true (ie formally accept the 8th and 9th Councils), it could help our witness.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old fart, I must say this topic has been beaten to death with the same old responses.

Folks, it ain't gonna happen...period. Repeat: ain't gonna happen. I pride myself in my proper English, but this calls for some hillbilly---ain't.....gonna....happen!

Catholicism is too far gone. Popes will not give up their power. Secondly, the Catholics don't understand properly the concept of liturgy. They're too far gone into Baptistville. Vatican II was the ultimate twisting and bending of the liturgy. They're gone. Thirdly, 1000 years of legalistic Celtic honor code mixed with Roman-thinking juridcalism, forget changing it. Fourth, there are politics here nobody wants to admit. The Pope is HATED in Greece and Russia. The guy lands in his Pope Plane and he's booed on the tarmac. The people of Greece and Russia and slavic countries distrust the Catholics and detest the pope. Fifth, this pope is a mega liberal far lefty South American social justice gospel character. He typifies how far Catholicism has drifted. Incompatible with Holy Orthodoxy. Sixth, Catholics THINK they know about Orthodoxy. I know when I was Catholic I thought i did! Newsflash: Orthodoxy isn't just Catholicism sans rosaries with beards added. We're far too different theologically and spiritually. Catholic misperceptions are a huge reason it would never work.

Finally: ecumenism sucks. It'd a dead end. Want to be Orthodox? Great! Convert! But we're not bending for the Pope, and between the geo-political ugliness we have right now, the history, the divide spiritually, and the ethnic groups that would never permit it, it's just not going to ever go down.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Well, I have to concur with Gurney. The Novus Ordo Sect is aborting, contracepting, and apostasising itself unto oblivion. Their Church attendance, conversion, and retention rates are in free fall. Rome's solution: MORE LIBERALISM, more Progressivism, more Modernism, more Latitudinarian-ism, and more Universalism!

 

[ArmyMatt]

ecumenism sucks. It'd a dead end. Want to be Orthodox? Great! Convert!

pretty much (from one grumpy fart to another)

 

[Tallguy88]

They've certainly suffered more than any others for their orthodoxy.

More than the Greeks and Armenians?

I know they suffered terribly under the commies, but they bounced back big time. While Orthodoxy is virtually extinct in Turkey.

 

[Tallguy88]

Here's my question. Reading the Internet Orthodox forums; reunion is never going to happen, these talks are a waste of time, the document is trash, etc etc.

Why do your churches and bishops seem to disagree? My understanding is all but one national synod was present at this meeting and even the MP says the document is worth looking at as a starting point for further dialogue.

 

[dzheremi]

At a certain point, though, don't you think that this idea of endless "further dialogue" is kinda...well...a waste of time? By now most of the major communions know what one another's churches are about, at least in terms of why there will not be/is extremely unlikely to be 'reunion', so what exactly is the point of continuing to meet with people to reiterate your principles? I think someone else said it best in that it can get your name out there on the world stage, but other than that, what's the tangible benefit?

I know that my Church and communion are not considered Orthodox by the Eastern Orthodox, but examples could even be made there of actual serious talk as opposed to lip-flapping: When the Coptic Orthodox Church met with representatives of the Assyrian Church of the East in the 1990s at the monastery of St. Bishoy in Egypt, it was with the stated goal of having the Assyrians cease their veneration of Nestorius and the other 'Greek doctors' (as the ACOE call them) and the acceptance of their teachings, and when it became clear that this is not going to happen and the Assyrian representative instead started whining (the quote I read went something like "We don't ask them to cease their veneration of Cyril of Alexandria"; well, yeah...good...this isn't about personalities), the meetings were ended. Why bother continuing if you are very clear in your goals and it is obvious that there's no chance of meeting them?

I think that's what EO largely realize about these meetings with the RCC: Nobody's moving, so why bother? Granted, 'ecumenical progress' or whatever looks good in some quarters that have a more pie-in-the-sky attitude toward these things, but those quarters are generally more on the other side of the table than on the EO side.

There's also the potential danger and actual reality that even when dialogue is successful in the sense of actually happening without breaking down and stopping prematurely, the two sides look at the results in a very, very different way that actually ends up hurting one of them. It's interesting that you would note the purpose as being "further dialogue", because if the popular conception among EO is somewhat out of step with what you say their church sees as going on, then it's even more so with the popular perception among Catholics compared to the RCC itself. What is a good step towards initial rapprochement or a basic agreement so that everyone can agree on the boundaries of what's being discussed very quickly becomes "the Orthodox agree with us because look at this agreed statement/we got one of their guys to sign a piece of paper" in the hands of Catholics, even 'professional' apologists who should know better. That's not how anything works, and this shouldn't be a surprise to RCs: Remember the Council of Florence, when Mark of Ephesus stood against efforts to unify his Church with yours? You can bet the EO do, and with good reason.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why do your churches and bishops seem to disagree?

at the very least, a willingness to dialogue would get our name out there for any and all fence sitting Catholics who might convert. reunion can happen on a large scale IF Rome were to repent of her many heresies.

and another problem is Rome does not see how far she is from us. the idea that Rome and the East are the two lungs of Christianity is wrong. we disagree on basically everything that Christianity says (God, salvation, ecclesiology, Mary, the Fall, the sacraments, the Church, eschatology, etc), so the idea that we are close is just wrong.

 

[Light of the East]

The first is the status of the Uniate or Eastern Catholic Churches, which are Orthodox in theology and liturgy but in communion with Rome.

Bullbiscuits!!!! We are distinctly NOT Orthodox in our theology. We have been Latinized and homogenized and are expected to tow the Latin line when it comes to theology.

Example: when we go to Confession, we are given penances. That nonsense doesn't happen in the Melkite Church.

This is something that I have been wrestling with for a while - how does one be truly Orthodox and be "in communion with Rome," communion meaning the sharing of and commonality of doctrine.

IT AIN'T POSSIBLE!!!!!

And the minute I start talking with my Roman Catholic friends about my distinctly Orthodox understandings of salvation, eclessiology, and other issues, I am told that I am a heretic and that I need to repent and change my mind if I am going to be Catholic.

I have been listening to Fr. Stephen and his podcast ORTHODOXY AND HETERODOXY on AFR. If you really want to understand just how deep and problematic the differences are, you need to listen to him. He is not polemic, but he does give considerable historical and doctrinal information regarding the difference between our two communities.

 

[JM]

Bullbiscuits!!!! We are distinctly NOT Orthodox in our theology. We have been Latinized and homogenized and are expected to tow the Latin line when it comes to theology.

Example: when we go to Confession, we are given penances. That nonsense doesn't happen in the Melkite Church.

This is something that I have been wrestling with for a while - how does one be truly Orthodox and be "in communion with Rome," communion meaning the sharing of and commonality of doctrine.

IT AIN'T POSSIBLE!!!!!

And the minute I start talking with my Roman Catholic friends about my distinctly Orthodox understandings of salvation, eclessiology, and other issues, I am told that I am a heretic and that I need to repent and change my mind if I am going to be Catholic.

I have been listening to Fr. Stephen and his podcast ORTHODOXY AND HETERODOXY on AFR. If you really want to understand just how deep and problematic the differences are, you need to listen to him. He is not polemic, but he does give considerable historical and doctrinal information regarding the difference between our two communities.

I didn't actually write that, it's a misquote, I was quoting an article. lol

 

[~Anastasia~]

You don't find Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick polemic at times? If nothing else, he certainly lays it all out sometimes.

Be that as it may, I agree very much with Matt. Catholics just don't seem to realize how far apart we are.

And it's true that essentially the Orthodox are demanding that Rome become Orthodox if she wants reunification. We are unwilling to compromise here and let you compromise there, so we can reach an agreement. Because agreement isn't the goal - maintaining the faith is. Honestly, I'm thankful for that. If compromise was a principle in the Church, now 2000 years after Christ, she likely would have changed considerably to suit first this one, then that one.

I know it sounds stubborn and unyielding, but it's not something to be seen as a personal issue, but rather how Orthodoxy views the maintaining of the faith altogether. And I'm deeply thankful for her.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

More than the Greeks and Armenians?

I know they suffered terribly under the commies, but they bounced back big time. While Orthodoxy is virtually extinct in Turkey.

That's because Orthodox belonged to the minority ethnicity of Turkey, and they fled during the genocide. It would be rather difficult for all the Orthodox ethnicities to flee en masse from Russia--although quite a few Russians did flee.

While we're on the subject, there is something good that came from the persecutions of the Orthodox (and my priest pointed this out): it spread Orthodox a lot more to the West, via the diaspora.

 

[Light of the East]

You don't find Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick polemic at times? If nothing else, he certainly lays it all out sometimes.

Be that as it may, I agree very much with Matt. Catholics just don't seem to realize how far apart we are.

And it's true that essentially the Orthodox are demanding that Rome become Orthodox if she wants reunification. We are unwilling to compromise here and let you compromise there, so we can reach an agreement. Because agreement isn't the goal - maintaining the faith is. Honestly, I'm thankful for that. If compromise was a principle in the Church, now 2000 years after Christ, she likely would have changed considerably to suit first this one, then that one.

I know it sounds stubborn and unyielding, but it's not something to be seen as a personal issue, but rather how Orthodoxy views the maintaining of the faith altogether. And I'm deeply thankful for her.

Actually, I listened to all four of Fr. Damick's podcasts and I have not found him polemic at all. No name calling, no personal attacks. I think he is fair and even-handed, especially when he talks about who is saved and salvation belonging to the Church. He admits, with Bishop Ware, that while we do know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not - that is, salvation may very well be open to those who are not formal members of the Church. This is considerably different from both Orthodox and Catholic Traditionalists who insist that either you are in the Church or in hell, period.

 

[Anhelyna]

Bishop Ware ??

Do you mean Metropolitan Kallistos Ware ?

 

[Goatee]

The Orthodox could 'Easily' recognize the pope!

Why? How?

Because his picture is everywhere! lol