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

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

In 2025, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians could go back to the place where early followers of Jesus tried to create a consensus among all of Christendom.
In 325 [at the first Council of Nicaea], early followers of Jesus came together to figure out what it means to be a Christian; the goal was to create theological consensus across all of Christendom.

Source: www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

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

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Well, that's what makes this kind of thing so interesting... They'll either find a way to consolidate their bases, which was the point of the first Council (and probably the second), through similar synods, or not.
Either way, their beliefs/creeds probably won't make the cut at this meeting, and their beliefs will be viewed as heretical, which was another colorful outcome of the first council: heresy. Until orthodoxy existed at 325 CE, there was no agreement about what was heretical and what wasn't. If a modern, united church establishes new heresy categories, based on the sects you mentioned, it serves to only divide them all even further.

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.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

It doesn't mean anything... The Vatican are non-existent in my world and the Council of Nicaea only established a new form of worship for Pagans.

I always though that group raped us by defining God so myopically so I'm just saying God ,his son and I leaving the dogma to those who must define such unimaginable things.

Hey I ain't dead yet right?

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

There will not be a Catholic Church to hold a second Nicean Council in 2025. Jesus will return on an unknown day/hour in 2023. He has spoken this through His prophetess Iris Nasreen and I have confirmed the prophecy using the real Mayan Calendar measured against Paleo-Hebrew calendar.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

God is breaking His prophetic silence for one last event...The Millenial Council held by Jesus Himself in 2023.

You can be a part of it if you believe He died for your sins.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

She's a phoney...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Hey I ain't dead yet right?

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

The Catholic and Orthodox Catholic churches are already largely in consensus on theological matters (not entirely, but pretty close.) The schism is a result of politics, not theology -- the Eastern church does not recognize a single person as the head of the church, preferring a council of Bishops -- and that is highly unlikely to ever change. I expect that the hope is that the continued ecumenical efforts of the Vatican will result in the two churches coming into communion with each other, which they are currently not.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: MarkusMaximus
I expect that the hope is that the continued ecumenical efforts of the Vatican will result in the two churches coming into communion with each other, which they are currently not.

Is that not political in nature, no matter what strokes of "theology" are painted on it?

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Is that not political in nature, no matter what strokes of "theology" are painted on it?

No.

Being "in full communion" means that the churches agree on the essential theological fundamentals that allow one to participate in the sacraments of the other church. The complaints that the Orthodox Catholic church have with the Catholic church are mostly political and the biggest remaining theological impediment, the Filioque, has seen some reconciliatory moves in the past decade or so. If they can get past that and the remaining essential differences, the two branches will be in full communion, even though they will remain two separate entities, with the Catholic church under the Pope's authority, and the Orthodox Catholics under the Council of Bishops. However, as of today, the two are in "partial communion", so if I go to an Orthodox Catholic Mass, I cannot participate in the Eucharist.

As an example, the Catholic Church is in full communion with the Coptic Catholic Church, though the two are separate entities, and the Pope has no political authority over that church.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: MarkusMaximus

Is that not political in nature, no matter what strokes of "theology" are painted on it?

No.

Being "in full communion" means that the churches agree on the essential theological fundamentals that allow one to participate in the sacraments of the other church. The complaints that the Orthodox Catholic church have with the Catholic church are mostly political and the biggest remaining theological impediment, the Filioque, has seen some reconciliatory moves in the past decade or so. If they can get past that and the remaining essential differences, the two branches will be in full communion, even though they will remain two separate entities, with the Catholic church under the Pope's authority, and the Orthodox Catholics under the Council of Bishops. However, as of today, the two are in "partial communion", so if I go to an Orthodox Catholic Mass, I cannot participate in the Eucharist.

As an example, the Catholic Church is in full communion with the Coptic Catholic Church, though the two are separate entities, and the Pope has no political authority over that church.

That seems like like a lot of theological fluff applied to something that's political in nature. Religion and its influence on the political process is undeniable. If/when I hear of any major authorities of religious doctrine meeting to find common ground, I see a political situation, not a group of people meeting to decide whether or not they all believe a particular dogmatic stance has the same meaning to everyone or not.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

If/when I hear of any major authorities of religious doctrine meeting to find common ground, I see a political situation, not a group of people meeting to decide whether or not they all believe a particular dogmatic stance has the same meaning to everyone or not.

I'm not sure why you aren't getting it, I suppose my explanation is lacking.

If this was a political issue, the talk would be about the Catholic Church re-absorbing the Orthodox Catholic Church, as well as the dozens of other splintered off Catholic churches, like the Coptic or Syrian Catholic churches. While I'm sure that the Catholic Church would desire that, there is absolutely no chance of that ever happening, so no one is talking about it. There will never again be a single Christian church (apart from the general "body of Christ" concept.)

Instead, they want to come to agreement on the theological issues that result in partial communion. If you are not a Catholic or Orthodox Catholic (which seems to be the case,) matters like the Filioque probably seems frivolous, but those of us who understand the theology and are passionate about the faith recognize that they are significant divisions that need to be sorted out in the name of Christian unity. Here in central Minnesota, an Orthodox Catholic would need to drive about an hour to go to an Orthodox church, while if there was full communion, they could celebrate a valid Mass at any Catholic church, of which there is pretty much one in every town, and the opposite situation is true in other parts of the world, where a Catholic like me would have to go a long distance to find a valid Mass.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
But what about the Protestants, Mormons, Evangelicals and all the other offshoots of Christianity what are they gonna do?

Whine. They don't like it when the Catholic Church does anything.
Oh .. and BELIEVERpriest ... dude, it isn't going to happen. Break free.

originally posted by: adjensen
If you are not a Catholic or Orthodox Catholic (which seems to be the case,)

Guilty as charged!!

originally posted by: adjensen
Here in central Minnesota, an Orthodox Catholic would need to drive about an hour to go to an Orthodox church, while if there was full communion, they could celebrate a valid Mass at any Catholic church, of which there is pretty much one in every town, and the opposite situation is true in other parts of the world, where a Catholic like me would have to go a long distance to find a valid Mass.

This makes sense. Still...I have this feeling (call it whatever you want) that it's a great way to consolidate political power. The Catholic church, which I have no problem with and have enjoyed Mass as an observer, has definite political power, and is a part of a political state. Its well-documented abilities to gain political capital throughout European history shouldn't be discounted, and we shouldn't necessarily assume that they no longer participate in such activities.

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.

Also, thought it might be helpful if I add a bit more definition to my claim of "consolidation of political power."

Not implying that the Church is seeking prefect-style puppets in high-ranking political positions who enact their will.

But, because the Church does have an interest in the political outcomes of many social issues, and often even the Pope will take time out of his day to comment on court decisions and the actions of elected officials of other nations, I don't find it outside the realm of possibility that if the church is meeting in the symbolic location of Nicaea, a place where the official definition of what it means to be a Christian, they're doing so again to realign or refine that definition. And given the diverse multitude of modern social issues of which they have an interest, political or theological (often combined) in nature...I think you're looking at a situation where they're trying to define their role in the political process in a modern world.

It is entirely possible that it's only about unifying the Church and redefining communion. But it just seems like the symbolic location of the meeting, the decade-long preparation time, and the executive level of participation, we're not talking about a simple realignment of dogma here.

a reply to: MarkusMaximus

I wouldn't overrate the Nicaea angle… it's more of a novelty than anything else -- Nicaea was the first worldwide ecumenical council, but that's pretty much because the religion was illegal in the empire prior to Constantine's edicts and consolidations. Though Nicaea was in 325, the Catholic church was fairly contiguous from the death of Christ (around 33AD) until the Great Schism in 1054, but the majority of major theological issues had been settled prior to Nicaea, which was called to deal with the heresy of Arianism, and to determine the date that Easter should be celebrated on.

While it would be great to bring the Orthodox Catholics into full communion with the Catholic church (disclosure: I'm a Catholic, but would have gone Orthodox Catholic when I converted, had there been a church nearer than an hour's drive from me,) I don't see anything coming from this planned meeting eleven years from now. Either they deal with the remaining issues (and like I said, they're close,) or they don't, but it's not going to take that long to figure it out.

a reply to: adjensenWhen you say "re-absorbing the Catholic Orthodox Church", are you referring to the Orthodox Church as in say Russian Orthodox or Ukrainian Orthodox Churches? Or is it some other entity?

My understanding is the Split was due to a secular leader that the Romans envisioned to gain that political power of the Christianity and have that power in Rome. The boys back east said stick it and, as a result, Catholicism was born.

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