Pope Francis, Ecumenical Patriarch sign joint declaration, lament persecution of Christians [CWN]

On the evening of November 29, Pope Francis joined Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople at a prayer service in the Church of St. George in Istanbul.The patriarch, who …


Why did they not restore communion between EO and RC?

Because, although the gesture of the Pope asking for a blessing was nice, we do not currently share the same faith.

Communion requires further dialogue which becomes contingent of a few factors such as the Orthodox Synod, the dialogue with Russia and Ukraine etc. Nevertheless they did make did a couple points.

With regard to the dialogue with Islam, the Pope and the Patriarch noted:

The grave challenges facing the world in the present situation require the solidarity of all people of good will, and so we also recognize the importance of promoting a constructive dialogue with Islam based on mutual respect and friendship. Inspired by common values and strengthened by genuine fraternal sentiments, Muslims and Christians are called to work together for the sake of justice, peace and respect for the dignity and rights of every person, especially in those regions where they once lived for centuries in peaceful coexistence and now tragically suffer together the horrors of war.

Finally, the two leaders expressed their concern about the ongoing crisis in Ukraine:

We also remember all the people who experience the sufferings of war. In particular, we pray for peace in Ukraine, a country of ancient Christian tradition, while we call upon all parties involved to pursue the path of dialogue and of respect for international law in order to bring an end to the conflict and allow all Ukrainians to live in harmony.

Seem to be having a small issue with the “ancient Christian tradition” of which the interaction of these Chalcedonian Dogmas is interesting, odd how we would think someone has a different faith when there is but one and always was in these Dogmas and reality. If there’s an issue with these Dogmas we should be willing to learn from those who propose that there’s a difference. I am willing to listen with an ecumenical mind.

We share what we share. That’s not the problem. The additions are the sticking point. :wink:

“Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another” - Patriarch Bartholomew

Yet the issues are not articulated for anyone to address. Which btw they are in relation to the Synod. It would be wonderful also to read the entire context, course I am assuming its not as vague as the quotation. Perhaps these are some of the same issues discussed this past week? We seemed to have reached the same point on those, the missing part is your articulated response. :blush:

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are referring to or what you are asking. Could you clarify for me? Here is the context for the statement.


Needless to say the article adds depth, yet on the specific point in quotation, there’s no elaboration of these differences. Which to some degree has been touched on in various threads Randy posted the past week, unless there is a point missed, which is possible. The difference doesn’t appear to be clarified, only the supposed theory that something is different in relation to the truth. Which of course simply cannot be true as there is but one of which Rome always held be it elaboration has since been required. And as we see it has. :slight_smile:

Well the Patriarch was not trying to make a full dissertation of the differences. If you would like to read a fairly concise paper on the differences and the expectations the Orthodox would have in regards to reunion I recommend this presentation by Fr Tom Hopko.

Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time

I do not believe this. I think it’s disingenuous.

We share the same Deposit of Faith. The major difference is the role of the Bishop of Rome. (please do not bring up the other issues the Orthodox have - I simply didn’t want to list them all, as it was not the point of my reply)

Orthodox Christians may receive communion in a Catholic Church when there isn’t an Orthodox Church around and Catholics may receive communion in some Eastern Orthodox Churches when there isn’t a Catholic Church around (assuming their Bishop allows it).

The Faith is the same, but it’s expressed differently (plus belief in the role or Rome). The Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies are almost identical to Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies.

Saying our Faith is different is like saying Catholics don’t believe in the Trinity or don’t have the Sacraments. As much as some hate to admit it, the Catholics and Orthodox have far more in common than we have differences. Catholics and Orthodox (both Oriental and Eastern) have more in common with each other than we do with the Anglicans, Lutherans, or any other High Protestants.

Comments like your only fuel separation and do not serve to help in reunification.

Now, if you wanted to say because we “still do not share full communion” or “we still have issues keeping us apart from full communion” then that would have been fair. But to say “we do not currently share the same faith” is totally disingenuous.

I would like to point out that the Church as NEVER accepted any new doctrines. Doctrines have been there from the beginning. Now, we have further dogmatically defined EXISTING doctrines as dogma, but never created new ones out of thin air.

And as he stated

I can hardly speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox churches about the exercise of the Roman papacy in our time.

And for sure if he can’t do that, then we could never expect him to do this for Rome. Thats a consistent error in addressing the problem, I think the Pope was addressing theologians a bit this past week. :blush:

He’s absolutely right. And again while suggesting the truth changed he failed to specifically articulate how and where. Further there are numerous threads on doctrine and the primacy and all which start on the same incorrect premise thus naturally fail to prove the point.

Its sort of like this essence and energies of the Eastern Saint which btw is facinating reading though some theologians seem to claim devoloped doctrine and further don’t agree with it. Myself, I have a different theory, I believe it is the truth and always was be it that it developed. Course someone might came along and articulate a point, which may prove to be correct, and of course then I would say, its safe to say that would make it “untrue”.

We are also waiting for “that” articulated response. :thumbsup:

I don’t appreciate you calling me disingenuous. It is most assuredly a different faith. Reunification is not served by pretending otherwise.

What do you want, a doctrinal thesis on every point? And his points are not new. They’ve been laid out over and over again over the years.

No continued charitable conversation, there have been numerous points addressed the past week, right here on the threads existeing. We have answered all questions, and left you with what we believe to be the issue, for example with the filiioque or the Assumption and IC. So what I’m saying is I don’t see where different faith has been established. But I do think we make a good case for the same faith expressed differently despite polemical blogs and claims which of course are rampant and we all read, and both Catholic and Orthodox.

I don’t think much of a case for anything has been made except the ability to copy and paste proof texts over and over. :wink:

I suppose since there is really no difference in faith you would have no problem entering into communion with us even if we deny the pope has any jurisdictional authority of any kind in our Churches? How about denying Papal Infallibility? Would you have any problem if we don’t accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

I did mean to call you disingenuous. I was referring to the statement “we do not currently share the same faith,” not you as a person.

We are not in full communion with each other. There is a schism between us. But we both share the same Deposit of Faith left to us by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

It is the same Faith with different traditions (lower case t) and some theological disagreements. But we are both based on the same deposit of Faith.

Our differences are not like the differences we have with the Protestants, who deny books from the Old Testament and deny the sacraments / mysteries of the Church. We both believe in the Sacrifice which takes place during the Divine Liturgy (something most Protestants do not).

Again, we have FAR MORE in common than differences.

We are different expressions of the same Faith, who are currently in disagreement and schism. If we follow the lead of the Holy Spirit, we will eventually reunite.

If I thought of papal infallibility like you guys, I would ask many questions about it also. The IC except that its a Dogma, which is what most have difficulties with, doesn’t change the original dogmas of the Church as there never was a Dogma in relation to what point Mary was preserved. In other words you just seem to understand Mary was preserved at another point, thats a 400 year conversation in the Church. The Pope as I mentioned was willing to discuss his responsibility. The point in question Pope Benedict spoke on in Light of the World which is here.


Thank you for saying that. There are many different expressions of the faith but some of the differences between us are at a fundamental level.

I have a few HONEST questions for you:

Let’s assume for one minute that the Eastern Orthodox were to come into full communion with the Catholic Church based on what you might call “Catholic terms” without changing Catholic Dogma (which we cannot do).

  1. what jurisdiction do you think the Pope would have over your Churches, which is objectionable to you?

  2. What is your understanding of Papal Infallibility? Do you understand where it comes from and why the dogma needed to be defined?

  3. There have always been 5 doctrines regarding the Blessed Mother (4 of which the Catholic Church has dogmatically defined – 2 of them while we were both still in communion). What is your understanding of the 5 doctrines and what is your understanding of the Catholic believe in the Immaculate Conception vs. your understanding of the 4th Marian doctrine?

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