Leading Orthodox Theologian Hopes for 'Quick Progress' Toward Full Christian Unity

Catholic Culture ^ | 12/9/14

[marshmallow]

One of the leading theologians of the Orthodox world has said that he sees prosecpts for “quick progress” toward full Christian unity under Pope Francis.

Metropolitan Ioannis of Pergamon, the co-chairman of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, told the Vatican Insider that Pope Francis has brought new excitement to ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox world. “The way in which he is carrying out his ministry removes the many apprehensions and fears of the past.”

Metropolitan Ioannis pointed particularly to the Pope’s statement, during his recent visit to Constantinople, that the Catholic Church “does not intend to impose any conditions except that of shared profession of faith.” He said that in the past, “the Orthodox believed that the Pope wanted to subjugate them. And now we see this is not in any way true.”

[Fester Chugabrew]

The filioque has been a longstanding bone of contention between East and West. I still struggle to understand what its implications are for Christian faith and piety, but being raised in Western practice and acquainting myself with the pertinent biblical texts it seems not at all inappropriate to include it. Obviously the are more substantive issues that divide the Church. Christ be praised for all that redounds to true unity in the Faith.

[Raycpa]

Terrible theologian. Even the disciples could not fully agree on everything.

[oblomov]

Why does there need to be full Christian unity? What is inherently good about it?

[Seruzawa]

It’s more likely that the Catholics will undergo an Anglican-like schism.

[Fantasywriter]

Jesus prayed for unity among believers.

John 17:20-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may [a]believe that You sent Me.

[lostboy61]

Can’t wait to join the First Church Of The NWO!

[Kolokotronis]

The filioque denies the monarchy of the Father as the origin of everything, including existence itself. It changes the Church’s understanding, such as it is, of the very nature of God. To that extent it is heretical unless the 2 local Latin Councils which proclaimed it are in fact ecumenical councils, which Orthodoxy and so far as I know at least one Eastern Church in communion with Rome. hold. Many people understandably argue that it is too fine a theological point to stand in the way of a reunion, that the Laity simply doesn’t care or understand. Personally, I think that in the East that is demonstrably untrue and in the end it will be up to the Orthodox laity as to whether or not any reunion succeeds. You know, some Nestorians argued that the term Christotokos was as appropriate for Panagia as Theotokos, claiming the distinction between “Christ bearer” and “God bearer” was a distinction without a difference. We know what happened to the Nestorians.

I don’t believe that Rome is overly wedded to the filioque. In fact, the normative form for the Creed when being used for catechesis or when prayed in Greek is without the filioque. That said, I simply don’t see this being overcome short of a new Ecumenical Council.

[GreensKeeperWillie]

"http://www.churchpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tiber-creek-community-church-2-700x437.jpg"

[GreensKeeperWillie]

[oblomov]

Thanks

[Fester Chugabrew]

The first verse of Holy Scripture attributes creation of all that has come into existence to the Holy Trinity, does it not? The self-existence of the Holy Trinity is indeed, however, attributed to the Person of the Father. The filioque was not a matter of issue until the 7th Century.

Semantically it is difficult for a believer to ascertain what is meant by “proceeding from.” Technical terms have arisen throughout Church history that, to this day, beg for clarification so that we believe and teach in accord with what we receive from Above. That Ambrose of Milan had no problem with the filioque lends itself to some latitude in considering the nature and extent of any division along this line.

As to the filioque somehow effecting what the Church confesses in regard to the nature of God, this is true. What I am unable to ascertain, however, is how this pays out down the line in exercising faith and piety. Does it somehow detract from the merits and righteousness of Christ and His bodily participation in this creation to raise us up at the Last Day?

Thank you for your response to this. I gather from your screen name you are well-acquainted with the Eastern confession, for which I hold great admonition and respect. The subject we are discussing is one with which I am only mildly acquainted, having just begun to read some of the earliest fathers of the Church in an effort to understand the controversies encountered by the Church through the ages and how they are recycled in our age.

[defconw]

Oh for crying out loud. Based on what? This is not a new issue by any means.

[DesertRhino]

And in other news, I intend to remain exactly the same as ever, and still hold that I was always right about everything. If any of my hot ex girlfriends come and tell me they now see I was right about everything,,,,, I will happily reunify!
I am filled with a magnanimous, loving, accepting heart.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The first verse of Holy Scripture attributes creation of all that has come into existence to the Holy Trinity, does it not?

There's no "trinity" anywhere in the first verse of Genesis. Chrstians read back the "trinity" into it.

[huldah1776]

Most prophecies of judgment start out with condemnation of false teachers. Aren’t there 7 churches and the Holy Spirit sevenfold?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The Faith is of one piece, so assigning the Holy Trinity to this verse is in perfect accord with its original meaning and intent. True, the verse itself does not explicate. It does not have to.

[Kolokotronis]

"What I am unable to ascertain, however, is how this pays out down the line in exercising faith and piety." For the average lay person, I doubt it has much effect at all in the exercise of The Faith. But then again, the Nestorian controversy, it was argued by some, was much ado about nothing, Christotokos, Theotokos; who cares? And yet the distinction touches on the very nature of the Son. Similarly, the distinction between the Greek "ἐκπορευόμενον" and the Latin "procédit" touches upon the "nature" (what can we say about "Ο ΩΝ"?) of The Father in our monotheistic system. Orthodox lay people are and always have been very prickly about these questions even if in fact saying in English "Proceeds from the Father" as opposed to "proceeds from the Father and the Son" likely won't determine our Theosis. We believe that we live out the dogmas of The Church in our day to day lives and so any change is almost immediately rejected unless it appears to be "of God" and that will only happen as a result of an Ecumenical Council.

[sasportas]

The basis (John 17:20-22) for your pushing of a one world religion, is baseless. (makes me wonder, do you also push a one world government?)

The unity that Jesus is praying for, John 17:20-22, has to do with the individual. He is not praying for the corporate unity of the Roman Catholic Church, a church-state tyranny that ruled the western world for over a thousand years. Pushed here on FR with great fervor in thread after thread.

Nor is he praying for the unity of a syncretist one world religion, now also beginning to be pushed here on FR.

The book of Revelation predicts both political and religious unity, not the true individual forms of it. The political one world government is called the “beast” in Revelation; the one world religion is called the great whore. Both, the Bible says we should “come out” of, and have nothing to do with either.

[marshmallow]

The unity that Jesus is praying for, John 17:20-22, has to do with the individual.

Has what to do with the individual?