Roman Catholic Orthodox Dialogue even possible?

[George Australia]

I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the title of this thread and the poll it conducts.
And the implication seems to be that an Oecumenical Council cannot be held without Rome. The Non-Chalcedonian Churches have not been a part of 4 of the 7 Oecumenical Synods, but the Synods still went ahead, were still Oecumenical, and dialogue is still possible. Dialogue is always possible. No agreement has ever been reached without dialogue. But as far as an Oecumenical Synod is concerned, only those within the Church are obliged to dialogue. If later, Rome wishes to reunite, they would have to accept the teachings of the 8th Oecumenical Synod- which would be acheived through dialogue.

[AndyHolland]

Dear George,

An argument (I am not offering an opinion, I really don't know) is that a truly Ecumenical counsel must be accepted by all Christians - universally. If you hold a counsel without all other Christians, then they are not Christians. An anathema leaves judgment to Christ Himself; 'Those who are not against us are with us.'

The essence of the difference between East and West is Papal claims. St. Irenaeus showed the middle way, between respecting the authority of Bishops yet preserving the Apostolic faith against those who were too heavy handed in their application of the cannon:

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Irenaeus.htm

If our Holy Synods become Ecumenical counsels, then the question arises as to whether we are become a legalistic version of eastern roman catholicism.

Andy Holland

[Jean-Serge]

The essence of the difference between East and West is Papal claims.
Andy Holland

This is entirely wrong : what about

-Filioque
-Immaculate onception
-Purgatory
-the priest celebrating in persona christi in the catholic church
-the lack of epiclesis etc

You are trying to minimize a theological question and turn in into a question of power...

[AndyHolland]

The essence of the difference between East and West is Papal claims.
Andy Holland

This is entirely wrong : what about

-Filioque
-Immaculate conception
-Purgatory
-the priest celebrating in persona christi in the catholic church
-the lack of epiclesis etc

You are trying to minimize a theological question and turn in into a question of power...
-

Your are correct - it was poorly phrased.

It would have been far better to use the word root rather than essence. All of the true examples you provide are from the same root - Papal claims.

Consider the Filoque. Holy Scripture pointedly teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Canon also clearly teaches the Creed and a Pope Saint clearly emblazoned the correct creed on a silver plate.

The Roman Catholics in Spain encountered a heresy that used the limitations of Latin to insinuate that the Holy Spirit was not manifest in the Son. They then, without Ecumenical counsel unilaterally added the Filoque to the Creed.

When this was explained to Orthodox, the miscommunication was understood - however the solution was anathema. They arrogated to themselves Church governance, just as Luther later arrogated to himself the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Should we lay the axe to the root of the tree, or should we start from the limbs down? Or should we leave the tree to Christ's merciful judgment? That is the point of the poll - forgive my curiousity.

Andy Holland
Somerset PA

[Kollyvas]

What is Catholic and Ecumenical is that which is adherent to the Truth and Orthodox, no matter if those outside the Church accept it or not...
R

[AndyHolland]

The Gospel according to St. Luke:

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

We should seriously reflect on the spirit with which we exclude others.

Maybe Jesus wanted us to bind men and loose sins. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." For where this passage occurs the Pharisees were indignant that people's lives were being saved by His healing.

yours in Christ for prayful consideration,

Andy Holland
Somerset PA

[Kollyvas]

There is no other Church, save the ONE founded by Christ, the Orthdox Church....
R