Any chance for Nicaea III?

While not quite politically said, I believe there is not much wrong with that statement, I mean we do believe one of those Churches is Church of Christ? Or are both untrue and wrong? uhhhhhhhhhh

Or perhaps Branch Theory where both of these Churches are actually true and good. What pity though, both Churches have already condemned that as heresy :confused: (Catholics dogmatically too)

Guess we’ll have to stick to first part, at least according to and “Domine Iesus”.

1 Like

Yes. Much better off without the monstrosity of absolute monarchies and dictatorships.

1 Like

If we did recognize what is actually different and what do we believe about each other that is untrue, I think we could actually reunite. Because of lack/minimal number of dogmatic pronouncements in Orthodoxy, if we just take steps back and disregard Catholic post-schism tradition, we can reunite as Orthodox. If we interpret Catholic doctrine in a way acceptable to Orthodox and they accept our dogmas, we can reunite as Catholics. It’s not black and white, but real union ends like that. If we disregard any tradition or go with indifferentism and “we don’t care what either side believes in, let’s unite” then it would be union where one side is required to profess and believe something contrary to other side, something that is divided inside and can’t survive.

One side clearly is true, otherwise there would be no need to reunite. We simply need to check which one and acknowledge it, while respecting just demands of other side (for example respecting each other’s Theology, Rite, Dignity and validity as well as ability to develop). I simply don’t think there will be reunion where both sides kinda drop their things, that would infuriate everyone who knows a bit about historical theology of either side and would practically create 3 or more Churches, instead of reuniting 2.

1 Like

I highly doubt it. Nicea is now under water.


An Undersea Council!

That sounds great!


I take it that you’re going to provide the Pope and bishops with scuba gear? :wink: (Smile…I’m pulling your leg [virtually]).

1 Like

This could be the greatest incentive to get their job done since the people of Rome invented the conclave!


“You may come back to the surface once you’ve figured out restored communion. For that matter, prove it by a concelebrated liturgy!”


1 Like

You crack me up. :grinning:

Will this first concelebrated Liturgy also need to be celebrated underwater? I kind of think so just to convince us they’re serious! :grin:

I have a really hard time with this statement - it returns to a black/white “I’m right and you’re wrong” mindset - I can tell you I don’t want to “reunite” with someone who thinks my side is not “true.”

I’m reminded of the parable of prodigal son… the father laid no preconditions on his wayward son other than to hug him and prepare a feast. All this talk of true or not, correct or not just turns my stomach. And no, I’m not being indifferent. The two brothers couldn’t be more different yet both are equally loved by their father.


Of course. When they’re ready, we’ll send down a big enough chamber. Until then, it’s only the bread, water, and wine of the classic conclave!


Yet Son returned to Father and His house, he repented and wanted to work for his Father while acknowledging his failure. Father put no requirements because Son already passed them all. If he did not repent or return, this would not be the case. Son did not ask Father to meet him in the middle of way and redistribute what belongs to them. He was received back as Son, not as another Father or so.

My position is that Catholicism is right, but that does not mean Orthodoxy is wrong. Orthodoxy never formally pronounced anything authoritative enough against Catholicism, so basically we can reunite if each side acknowledges other side’s positions as true and acts like that- therefore Papal Primacy is considered true and Pope holds such power, Eastern Patriarchs need no reaffirmation by Rome, Eastern Theology is reaffirmed by Rome etc- post what you’d like to see. Simply speaking, instead of kinda tolerating each other and dividing silently while in formal union, let’s actually unite.

Only after the Second Coming imho. If Jesus steps and calls all bishops in and the seven Archangels assist and everyone sees their wings and hallos and the Apostles serve cookies and Virgin Mary brings in lemonade, then and only then will bishops stand still and discuss theological matters instead of worrying about administrative matters and who obeys who and all that. Oh and probably Holy Church Fathers would have to preside together with Jesus Christ because a lotta people speak in their name nowadays quoting the Holy Fathers in matters in which, during their time here on earth, they never fully addressed afaik.
That Synod will be the sour cherry on top of the great cookie that Jesus is back methinks. Just after we all sigh in joy there will be “wait! But how about filioque and Purgatory and Baptism and the rest of points…” And there it goes all over again. Maybe God will let it happen until giving all the right answers so that a lesson be learned.


Lol I love your interpretation of the New Jerusalem :rofl:

The basilica where the First Council was held is, but I read they are building an underwater museum. :slight_smile: The site of Nicaea II is still on dry land. It might not be feasible to have an actual council there anymore, to say the least. The (titular) see has been vacant for a while now. I don’t know if there are any Christians left there.

Touche. Thank you.

According to the Orthodox wiki,

The metropolis experienced a revival in late Ottoman times, as a result of the general demographic upswing of the Orthodox (not just Greek) population in this period. By the early 20th century, it encompassed 26 parishes, including Greek-speaking, Armenian-speaking and Turkish-speaking Christians. According to the (not always reliable) pre-World War I census of the Patriarchate, the metropolis encompassed 33,470 people.

I guess they were forced out or killed?

Yet by saying Catholicism is right implies that Orthodox is not, even if we’re not flat out “wrong.”
EDIT TO ADD: there’s plenty about Catholicism I don’t understand (and dare I say, based on my limited understanding, a few things I disagree with), but I definitely do not believe Catholicism is wrong, or even less than right.

Primacy or supremacy? These are two very different things. In a scenario of restored communion, Orthodox churches will continue to choose our own bishops and not need the approval of Rome.

Saying Catholicism is right implies some Orthodox polemics that are not authoritative nor in any way position of Orthodox Church are wrong. Orthodoxy is not wrong in any dogma- it is simply separated from fullness of Church while maintaining imperfect communion with Bride of Christ. However, individual Orthodox Christians can have full communion with Catholic Church even if they do not cease being Orthodox.

Truth is not relative, while not entirely black and white, one side is White and other side is not purely White.

According to Church Fathers and also Pope Saint Gregory the Great, or even Saint Georgian Monk (can’t find name right now) who fought for autocephaly of Georgia all present Primacy of Jurisdiction and not just honor. Pope Gregory even proclaims Papal Infallibility.

Of course Eastern Churches would and should choose their own Bishops and Patriarchs.

I think you’re trying to be charitable with what you say, but I keep reading it as you saying Orthodox just aren’t quite good enough. Why, why, why do you keep saying one side is pure white and the other isn’t? Your own Popes, cardinals and bishops don’t speak like that as is abundantly evident in the statements of the joint commissions I’ve linked to in other topics. I believe further conversation is pointless as we continue to talk past each other.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit