I think it is closer than you realize. I was recently watching EWTN in which they spoke of the 1995 Papal encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" ("That All May Be One") in which the Pope John Paul II put on the table the universality of the Papacy. In other words, he he said it is possible to define the Papacy in the role early Church as Patriarch of the West.
This is what Orthodoxy has been waiting 1,000 years for. Why the mute response?
Why the remote respons? I hope I can give a hint why many orthodox gives a mute respons:
1) The pope still concider himself to be the center of the unity of the Church. This was NO the case in the ancient church where christians in ALexandria gathered around their pope, christians in Antioch around their patriarch etc...all the local Churches were self-governing.
2) To be an orthodox pope, you must have the same faith as the Councils had during the first millenium. But when the pope began to see himself as the universal bishop (at the 8 th century) he later dared to change the credo, not by a concilium, but by his own authority, thus excluded all other bishops who opposed this change in the creed who in the eight synod had condemned filioque (this change).
3) Becuase John Paul II and Benedict XVI believes they are infallible when they speak ex-cathedra and in this dogma i included the teaching that the roman pope never can guide his flock the wrong way...but many popes have been condemne as heretics ...for example, pope Zozimos, pope Honorius and many others...
4) Because the roman catholic church today have so many extreme divisions within herself that we actually can talk about different creeds or interpretations of creeds. The pope is more like a center of a differentiated group that disagrees over fundamental dogmas.
5) To be a pope, you must have an orthdox baptism and since no orthodox priest baptised Katol Woytola or Joseph Ratzinger, they cannot be popes.
Exact science must presently fall upon its own keen sword...from Skepsis there is a path to "second religiousness," which is the sequel and not the preface of the Culture.
Oswald Spengler
I think it is closer than you realize. I was recently watching EWTN in which they spoke of the 1995 Papal encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" ("That All May Be One") in which the Pope John Paul II put on the table the universality of the Papacy. In other words, he he said it is possible to define the Papacy in the role early Church as Patriarch of the West.
Exactly what points did they state defined this? I'm just asking, so we can go over the points in more detail.
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)
First of all, to be a Patriarch, the Pope should be Orthodox. Secondly, historically, Rome was a Patriarchate that did not gather all Western Europe. The old patriarchate of Rome never had in its jurisdiction countries like France, or even the North and South of Italy or Spain or Germany. So the Pope was not the Patrairch of the West in the early church. The Orthodox organization of the Church is made up with territorial autocephalous churches choosing their own bishops and self-governing. The bishops cannot be appointed by another bishop...
So the proposal you are referring to is un-orthodox.
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
First of all, to be a Patriarch, the Pope should be Orthodox. Secondly, historically, Rome was a Patriarchate that did not gather all Western Europe. The old patriarchate of Rome never had in its jurisdiction countries like France, or even the North and South of Italy or Spain or Germany. So the Pope was not the Patrairch of the West in the early church.
This is very true. In fact, the Irish were not put under the pope until the Danes (?) invaded in the 1200's. I came across this archeological documentary (on EWTN if you can believe that! and don't ask 
) on an Irish monastery on this small island. It studied them through archeological evidence from the year 600 AD to the 1200's. I was floored how Orthodox they were - their thirst for seclusion, the tough conditions, some carvings on the stone were even in Greek! This was generally the way they were until the documentary mentioned the Danish invasion in teh 1200's and then they were forced under the pope. Then the documentary said that within 10 years they were forced to abandon their monastery and move to a small town to become, what I interpreted as, modern-day social workers. The monastery has been abandoned ever since. I wanted to order the video but I wrote the address down wrong.
Going back to the original subject, the fact that the pope did not have control over the West is an obvious fact. In fact, his calendar was not really a scientific endeavor in the 1500's, it was as much about forcing people to recognize his authority where he could - a consolidation of power in certain parts of Europe. But many people did not accept this calendar for many centuries, I think the British only switched from the Julian in the 1800's.
OOD wrote:
But many people did not accept this calendar for many centuries, I think the British only switched from the Julian in the 1800's.[/quote]
Sweden changed to the Gregorian calendar in the 18 th century, during the reign of Charles XII. Sweden had then beewn protestant from the 16 th century. There is a swedish expression among common people that is like abra-cadabra in magic and the exprtession is: Hocus Pocus Filioqus. I belive that this expressen comes when suddenly , the creed changed...But I am not sure.
Exact science must presently fall upon its own keen sword...from Skepsis there is a path to "second religiousness," which is the sequel and not the preface of the Culture.
Oswald Spengler
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:I think the British only switched from the Julian in the 1800's.
Both Britain and The American colonies adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astrono ... lendar.htm
The Net can be a wonderful source for looking up basic information. 
"Professor Henry Jones: I wrote them down in my Diary so that I wouldn't have to remember. " - "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
Ebor
