Council of Nicaea 2.0? In 2025: Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox Christians to go back to Nicaea.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Without Benedict and his reformation attempt to bring the church back to its pre novus ordo state, the eastern Orthodox church will never join the Catholic church.

Catholics are a mess today. Vatican 2 is at fault.

a reply to: nwtrucker P.S. Therfore, I find your statement of "reabsorption" by the "Catholic" branch to be ass-backwards. More like the other way around or so I'm told by a Doctorate holder who is Orthodox.?.?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Catholicism is viewed as the "original" Protestant sect by the Orthodox…

I'm not sure that makes any sense. If there was any protesting going on, it was the Orthodox Catholics protesting the addition of the Filioque by the western church.

If anyone can claim to be the "original church" that everything else splintered off of, it would be the Catholic church, not the Orthodox Catholic church, on the basis of Apostolic succession from Peter. But, as I said, I would be comfortable in either… I do not personally view the Pope as anything other than the leader of the church I belong to, and I am a Catholic, as opposed to Orthodox Catholic, primarily out of convenience, not out of theology or politics.

I think they are seeing the writing on the wall that churches in the modern world are weakening and they are probably trying to make a coordinated strategy to revamp their dogmas to keep alive.

a reply to: adjensen Hmm, I was baptized Ukrainian Greek Orthodox. That was effectively the last official act in that sect. No disrespect, just circumstance.

However, I have never heard any member of the Orthodox Church refer to themselves as Catholic Orthodox. Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? But not Catholic Orthodox.

As you said earlier, the idea of a Pope/secular head was the issue and, as the other poster has opined, politics was the life blood of the Italian city states. With this new political/theological post, Rome held sway over the other city states for (what?) centuries? The move by "Rome" to claim a secular head of the church WAS the deciding issue that forced the split and as the was no "Pope" then it is entirely reasonable that this "new concept" was the splinter from the original, hence the "tongue-in-cheek" Original Protestant label for the "Catholics" er, sorry ROMAN Catholics. LOL.

Orthodox, by definition, is the original Christianity. At least, in the opinion of my learned friend. Your thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

The "official" name of the Eastern church, which left in the Great Schism in 1054, is "Orthodox Catholic" (see Eastern Orthodox Church.)

As "Catholic" means universal and "Orthodox"means traditionally accepted, that's the basis for their claims, but the Catholic church still holds Apostolic Succession as its basis, and that takes some degree of priority, in my opinion.

Is there anyone among the Roman or Orthodox church that think this is BAD thing? Nicaea II 1700 years later?! God willing, I'll be around to see if this bears any fruit.

Will this lead to full communion? Perhaps. Our confessions are essentially the same but obviously we remain quite different. As Orthodox I don't think I could ever be persuaded to acknowledge some Roman concepts but if we agree on the essentials why can't there be full communion?

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

But what about the Protestants, Mormons, Evangelicals and all the other offshoots of Christianity what are they gonna do?

They are going to throw a tantrum and look like whiny babies.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Oh, I think I get it -- you are talking about the political power of the church as regards the secular world, not the political power within the churches.

Maybe, though I think it's pretty clear that the political influence of the church is on the wane and has been for a long time. Although the Catholic church has over a billion members, most of them couldn't care less what the church's position on political issues is and, in the United States, at least, even Catholic politicians are free to hold positions that are directly contrary to church teaching. If I was the Pope, I'd have excommunicated Joe Biden, Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi long ago.

I've heard it said -- "Do you really think that if the United States was a Christian nation, we'd have abortion on demand like we have now?" and that extends to the Catholic view, as well. If the church could reliably harness its members in a political movement, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in 1974, so it's pretty strong evidence that they cannot.

Yes, regarding the secular world. Sorry I didn't make the distinction earlier. The mingling of the church in matters of state is historic lore, and I don't think they've stopped, even though their reach is much diminished when contrasted with times gone by.

It's interesting you bring up a contentious political matter which the church does have much interest in. Although they might have been unable to achieve much change in the matter, one has to assume that they definitely spearheaded or guided the argument against that particular court decision.

Perhaps their inability to gain the outcome they wished in that, and in many, cases forces Church leadership to meet, as they're going to in this instance, in order to consolidate their beliefs in a unified stance, not the least of which will be regarding matters of great political importance in this modern world.

Quick note to express many thanks to those here sharing finer points about their faith(s).

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Any thoughts on this? Whatever their intentions, the possible social/political ramifications could be huge.

Probably an attempt to put Vladimir Putin under the control of the "western" Pope, if you could get the Pope in charge of all the churches, including the Russian Church.

I think this really gets at the heart of what I'm asking in this thread. Are we seeing, much in the same way that English and French citizens hundreds of years ago might have witnessed, the Church posturing to affect some geopolitical situation? If there's one enigmatic force that supersedes nationalism, it's religious fervor and/or belief.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Although they might have been unable to achieve much change in the matter, one has to assume that they definitely spearheaded or guided the argument against that particular court decision.

An interesting statistic that I was unaware of until recently is that the current religious make up of the Supreme Court is an unprecedented one. Six Catholics and three Jews. (Source) Given the continued existence of abortion on demand in America, I don't think that there is any clearer evidence of the political impotence of the Catholic Church.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Although they might have been unable to achieve much change in the matter, one has to assume that they definitely spearheaded or guided the argument against that particular court decision.

An interesting statistic that I was unaware of until recently is that the current religious make up of the Supreme Court is an unprecedented one. Six Catholics and three Jews. (Source) Given the continued existence of abortion on demand in America, I don't think that there is any clearer evidence of the political impotence of the Catholic Church.

Well, correlation isn't causation...That's equally indicative of the notion that the Supreme Court itself is impotent to undo its own decisions, which is exceedingly rare.
And if the Court has proved itself to be anything but impotent of late, it's only when it is defending the rights of corporate entities, but that is a subject for another thread. ;-)

originally posted by: monkcaw
Is there anyone among the Roman or Orthodox church that think this is BAD thing? Nicaea II 1700 years later?! God willing, I'll be around to see if this bears any fruit.

Any specifics about why you feel that it might be a bad thing?

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Are we seeing, much in the same way that English and French citizens hundreds of years ago might have witnessed, the Church posturing to affect some geopolitical situation?

No matter how nice and friendly a face they put on it, what they have in common is an overwhelming desire for power with nothing left out as the means to that end.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

I don't feel it's bad. No, I think it's very good and long overdue.
Apologies for the confusion.

a reply to: jmdewey60 Gee, what else is new? Isn't that true of the psychs, the corporations, gov't and every other "group" you can think of?

Perhaps the loss of influence is, in fact, part of the reason we're in the mess that we are. Not to say going back to Middle age levels of power. However, it seems to me you might consider the possibility that it's gone a bit too far in the "other direction"....

a reply to: nwtrucker

However, it seems to me you might consider the possibility that it's gone a bit too far in the "other direction"....

Not at all.
People themselves should take advantage of the power that they have, to get involved in politics, to run their countries that way that they should be, rather than how the corporations think they should be, for maximum profit.
Giving that power over to just another self interested entity is laziness and the sign of a degenerate and false religion.

originally posted by: monkcaw
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

I don't feel it's bad. No, I think it's very good and long overdue.
Apologies for the confusion.

No worries! I agree that it's overdue.

a reply to: jmdewey60 Hmmm, yet the results we see in the current environment is, to say the least, less than ideal. Every group is self interested, even a collection of citizens increasing, rightfully, their own "power".

Your last sentence suggests to me that your anti-religious, which is fine with me, however, the removal of all influence of religion has resulted in a nothing more than a power change. One that looks to be nebulous and very oppressive.

The moral codes of this world came from religion for the most part. Those codes allowed civilization to develop from what I can see. This one is devolving in a hurry.

Once again, I don't support middle age power levels, but some influence to say "wait a minute" to the other "power groups", and that includes the unthinking "people", might give some balance.

Your "degenerate and false religion" has been replaced with degenerate and false alternates...even less workable than the religious ones.