What would need to be compromised for a Catholic - Orthodox reconciliation?


Was not an Ecumenical Council.

The Eastern Orthodox only have the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. They have had synods, and local/regional councils, etc. But they have never had an Ecumenical Council since the Second Council of Nicaea.


Good. Let’s start fresh.
Null in void all of the past disastrous council’s the Catholic Church has had to adhere to protestants and we can have a huge one with the combination of east and west and come out with the perfect Church.
Honestly it’s what Christ would want . He wanted us to be one.
Protestants are good people but the founders were heretics .
Orthodox and Catholic are the two apostolic faiths who can trace themselves back to Christ. They should not be separate .


And Antioch was the first place that Peter visited.
With regard to priestly celibacy, Our Lord and Savior chose the first Pope to be St. Peter, who was a married man. If Our Lord chose a married man to be Pope, then why should His example not be followed. Actually, many Popes were married. For example, Pope Hormisdas who was the father of Pope Silverius. Pope Adrian II whose wife and daughter both lived with him, Pope John XVII who had three sons, Pope Clement IV who had two daughters,. Further, many popes were married by common law and had children, regardless of what the official rule of the Church was. For example, Pope Alexander VI had two common law wives

  1. Vanozza dei Catanei and
  2. Giulia Farnese.
    Altogether he had about ten children.


I agree that we should not be separate, but it’s not that simple. Also, the Ecumenical Councils are dogmatic. As I’ve said before, the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, & the Church of the East) do not have the authority to delete anything that has been dogmatically declared.

The Pope can’t do it, even if he wanted to and every single Bishop wanted to. They are not allowed to do it.

The only way reunification happens is if both the East and West agree to each other’s dogma.

Look - this is like reunification with the Protestants… it’s never going to happen. Why? Because most of the liturgical protestants allow female priests & bishops. They will never give that up, so reunification will never happen with them.

So if we or the Orthodox are forced to choose between dogma and unification, dogma wins because we don’t have the authority to change it.

However, unlike the Protestants, the Orthodox do not practice heresy. The only major issue we have with them is their view on remarriages - though it’s something that Pope Francis is intrigued by, and their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility. So dialog is good because it might one day result in trust and reunification - or at least inter-communion.


What is the dogma separating the Catholics from the Orthodox?
Papal authority.
And one has to wonder what that really means…
Could the Pope be the first among equals? The Patriarch of Constantinople who traditionally is now the first among equals has said many times that although in schism the Bishop of Rome holds the keys which Peter was given.
I like Patriarch Bartholomew. He’s a very down to earth and knowledgeable holy man.


Not true. Roman Catholics have never been strong in Serbia.


Only ordaining celibate men to the priesthood is not dogma, it’s discipline. Now, ordaining celebrate Bishops (again discipline) is something that both Catholics and Orthodox agree on.


You are killing me. Serbia was Catholic before the Great Schism. Today, they are mostly Eastern Orthodox.

Yes, they always Byzantine Rite, and never Roman Rite - but they were Catholic until the Schism.

When I say the Catholic Church is Universal, I mean the Church does not get obsessed with nationalities, and the Catholic Church is open to local devotion, customs, and even local liturgies (like the Eastern Divine Liturgies, the Ambrosian Rite, etc.



You’re spot on point.

I was a Russian Orthodox Catechumen for almost a year, reverted to Roman Catholicisim a week before being baptized.

The Orthodox are the ones who call Catholics heretics, not the other way around.

It is the Orthodox who need to humbly submit to the yoke of Peter, and it is the Orthodox who need to openly study our Roman dogmas to see they are not heretical.

Rome is much more charitable towards Orthodox than most Orthodox are towards her.


It’s not just that.

Dogmas that the EO refuse: purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary, original sin, the Assumption of Mary, Indulgences, conceptions of Heaven/Hell, Papal supremacy-Infallibility.

Disciplines that EO refute: the Filioque, priestly celibacy, priest and bishops being clean shaved, the use of unleavened bread (this was a huge issue and the first big issue actually), the way we fast specifically before the Eucharist, using kneelers and kneeling on sunday, beating our breast at Mass, meditating during prayers like the Rosary, the use of our Roman Calendar instead of the Julian Calendar, how we baptize people, issuing the Sacraments of baptism and Chrismation separately, use of scholastic theology, use of medieval devotions, use of statues and medals, use of scapulars, usage or non usage of certain OT Deuterocanon like 3/4 Maccabees.

There’s others I forgot - there is a mountain of issues the EO take issue with. Almost all of it is frivolous and can be easily resolved, but what I found out is that Greco-Slavic people are a hardheaded bunch! And make no mistake - the Eastern Orthodox are not a Universal Church - they are a communion of Greco-Slavic churches: Greece, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Macedonia, and Georgia - those 9 countries are where 90% of all EO in the world live. If you don’t live in one of those countries, EO is probably unknown to you.


I didn’t know that Rodrigo Borgia was celibate before his elevation to the papacy as Pope Alexander VI. I thought he had at least four children by then and that Vannozza dei Cattanei was one of his many common law wives even though she already had three successive husbands.


Patriarch Bartholomew isn’t the problem. Constantinople doesn’t have the power it once had. Moscow is the problem now. More Eastern Orthodox fall under the Patriarch of Moscow than any other Patriarch.

The problem is that Moscow sees itself as the 3rd Rome, so they tend to undermine Constantinople and have contempt for Rome.

Just read this very nonacademic summary of the 2016 Pan Orthodox Council on Wikipedia regarding the craziness regarding power that took place.


No one should compromise on dogma, there is only ‘One Jesus Christ’. The same God hears all our prayers, despite our differences.


Thats another thing: the Catholic Church is the only Apostolic Church that uses all 6 Apostolic Rites.

The Roman/Latin Rite(s) (Western)
The Byzantine Rite(s) (Greco-Slavic)
Alexandrian Rites (Copt-Ethiopic-Eritrean)
Armenian Rite
West Syrian (Antiochian-Syriac-Indian)
East Syrian (Chaldean-Assyrian)

The Catholic Church has Churches using all six Rites: Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Assyrian Catholic

The Eastern Orthodox use only the Byzantine Rite, they have Alexandrian and Antiochian usages of the Byzantine Rite, and a half hearted Byzantinized usage of the Roman Rite, but no usage at all of Chaldean or Armenian Rite.

The Oriental Orthodox have Armenian, Alexandrian, Chaldean and Antiochian, but no Byzantine or Roman Rites.

The Assyrians have only Chaldean Rite and nothing else.

The Catholic Church is the only truly Universal Church with different churches in her bosom having usages of all 6 families of Liturgical Apostolic Rites.


This is a straw man argument.

Do you understand what the term discipline means in the Catholic setting? Discipline can be dispensed, it’s don’t dogma.

There is at least one Catholic bishop that I’m aware of in Brazil who is married. He was a married priest, who was ordained a Bishop in a schismatic Catholic Church. When he came into full communion into the Catholic Church his bishopric was recognized because it was valid (even though it was not licit). Though he serves as an Auxiliary Bishop and not as an ordinary.

There is nothing dogmatic or doctrinal that prevents a bishop from being married. That is DISCIPLINARY. Church discipline can be changed when prudence calls for it. However, due to the job requirements of Catholic & Orthodox bishops, it’s viewed that for the sake of the Bishop, a wife, and children - it’s best for a Bishop to be single because it would be very hard for him to strike a proper balance between family a his ministry. This is the view in BOTH the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.


“In 1990, an article from The Orthodox Observer, a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America publication, states, At the 1992 meeting of the clergy-laity conference of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (Archbishop Iacovos), held in New Orleans, a formal resolution was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople ‘to consider returning to the practice of ordaining married priests as bishops as was done in the early church.’ … Earlier in December 1991, the Greek Archdiocese stated that it was the original practice of the Church for a married Episcopate.”


Thank you - this article supports my position :slight_smile:


I don’t think the scripture is a big deal. I own a NRSV w deuterocanonical books which includes of course Catholic books, but also Orthodox. In this Bible the books not present in Catholic Bibles today are 1 and 2 Esdras( 3 and 4 Esdras in an appendix of the Latin Vulgate) and the Prayer of Mannesseh( which also is in an appendix of the Latin Vulgate. These three writings were traditionally in the Latin Vulgate however were not reaffirmed as scripture at the Council of Trent. However they were put in an appendix to the Vulgate “Lest they perish”. There’s nothing in these books heretical. Interestingly though, Uriel appears in 2 Esdras. Who is not an official archangel in the church, though is normally named in lists of the seven archangels. Actually many paintings in the Vatican depict Uriel ironically. The Gutenberg Bible and early editions of the KJV also include these 3 writings in the apocrypha section alongside the Catholic books. So in my opinion these books aren’t viewed as heretical by the Church in any sense. Just were not given the “inspired writing” status. These books also have status in Eastern Orthodoxy. 1 Esdras is in Orthodox Bibles. The Prayer of Mannesseh appears in the Book of Odes in Orthodox Bibles. 2 Esdras appears in the Slavonic Bible, or Russian Orthodox Bibles.

So the really only true unique books to Orthodoxy that never were received in any sense to the Catholic Church are, as you said, 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151. The reason they appear is because they were present in the Septuagint, and Orthodox, especially Greek really base their Old Testament off the Septuagint. I have often wondered why 3 and 4 Maccabees didn’t make the Catholic Canon when most of our extra books were books in the Septuagint. None of these texts are heretical to the Catholic Churches teachings in any sense. 3 Maccabees is an interesting read about Jews under Ptolemy Philopater in Egypt, who tried entering the Temple, wasn’t aloud too and then he persecuted the Jews, actually wanting to have drugged elephants stampede them.( may sound ridiculous but this did historically happen at times in antiquity.) In the end the Jewish people through prayer are saved. 4 Maccabees, although very Stoic, really just expands on the story of Eleazor and the 7 sons from 2 Maccabees and is a book about reason over the emotions. Absolutely nothing heretical about it. 3 Maccabees is canon in Orthodoxy. I believe 4 Maccabees appears in an appendix to the Greek Bible.

In the end I don’t think these texts would make or break anything. I think they Church if it meant reunification would even consider adding them to the Canon. That’s just my opinion though.


Our division is a great sin.


I think that papacy issue can be somehow solved, Orthodox would accept greater need for Rome’s primacy, Rome would accept greater need for the independence of local Churches, that is solvable.
The greater problem for the Orthodox, and many Catholics don’t know it, is Roman Liturgy. Orthodox would never accept a Liturgy that was started from nothing in the 1960s. Small changes to the Liturgy are tolerable, but to write a new Liturgy (Mass) 20 centuries later, and to secularize it with awful modern music is unacceptable to the Orthodox. For example, It would be scandalous for the local Orthodox Christians in Russia to watch Patriarch of Moscow concelebrate Mass with Pope of Rome somewhere in Italy, while some band is playing guitars and drums. And that charismatic movement would have to be completely removed and condemned by that Reunifying Ecumenical Council.

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.