No, that's uniatism and is not going to happen. The only way to heal the schism and unite the church is for the Western and Oriental to revert back to the Early Church tradition and rebuke all the heretical teachings they hold (like the filioque, papal supremacy and absolute divine simplicity by the RC and nestorianism by the Orientals). This has been acknowledge by Rome which holds that the Orthodox Church has preserved the dogmas and sacraments of the first 1000 years Church.
It is the Catholics who started going wild with their teachings and doctrines after the schism and we see the fruits in the many contradictions made apparent after Vatican II and the last three Popes who prayed in mosques towards Mecca (John Paul II even kissed the Quran). And now Francis surrendered the faith by doubling down that every religion is equally valid and a path to salvation because they all worship some form of a generic God, contradicting Christ Himself (this is not Francis's idea though, it is present in Vatican II's Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium 16).
Seriously, the amount of mental gymnastics it takes to continue being Catholic these days is astounding (and I acknowledge there are problem in Orthodoxy too, but even if we have heretical patriarchs like Bartholomew, it's not destructive to the position because our Church doesn't hinge on one guy).
At this point I consider the Catholic Church and certain heretics in the Orthodox Church to be pushing towards a one world religion of the Antichrist. This is orchestrated by Rockefeller and the World Council of Churches which is the ultimate ecumenist organization.
Filioque, papal supremacy and absolute divine simplicity are all true. Only heretics dissent to that. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are true too.
What's not true is being able to get divorced and married for up to 3 times, even though Jesus Christ said no to divorce.
Go ask your Byzantine Emperor to settle your disputes, since you always assent to him rather than the Roman Pope. Oh yeah... That's right... The Saracens destroyed the Byzantine Empire because it fell away from the One True Church, and now the Eastern "Orthodox" Church is full of constant bickering, and even the Patriarchs, like the Greek and Russian ones especially, fight for power and excommunicate each other. So much for "unity" and "universalism" in your "church"...
Filioque, papal supremacy and absolute divine simplicity are all true. Only heretics dissent to that. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are true too.
Says who? Where was the Immaculate conception or the Sacred heart found in the Church tradition prior to the schism?
What's not true is being able to get divorced and married for up to 3 times, even though Jesus Christ said no to divorce.
Idk where this comes from but I've heard Church fathers saying a third marriage is not blessed, meaning you get one divorce (and that's for good reasons). What happens when a spouse commits adultery? This breaks the holy union of the marriage and a divorce is warranted and this is exactly what Jesus says but you conveniently left that out.
Go ask your Byzantine Emperor to settle your disputes, since you always assent to him rather than the Roman Pope.
There's no Emperor and the Church has always been separate from the worldly affairs of the political realm. I know it's hard for Catholics to understand since for the past thousand years the Papacy had a state, a powerful bank and even a standing army - you don't get more worldly than that. Dostoyevsky nailed it in his The Great Inquisitor chapter of Brother Karamazov. I won't even go to recent times with operation Gladio and the Vatican's involvement in crime, psy ops and terrorism along with Propaganda Due (freemasons), NATO and the CIA - there's a whole book on the topic.
and now the Eastern "Orthodox" Church is full of constant bickering, and even the Patriarchs, like the Greek and Russian ones especially, fight for power and excommunicate each other. So much for "unity" and "universalism" in your "church"...
Sure, the Church may even split and I acknowledged that. The difference is there have always been heretical patriarchs and schismatics in the one true Church. They were even a majority at times like the case with the Arian crisis and Athanasius (Athanasius contra mundum). What this proves is the true faith is not upheld by the ecclesiastical structure or, one specific patriarch or the majority of patriarch - the true faith is passed on in the tradition of the Church where the Holy Spirit resides.
Btw if a split in the Church is somehow a proof that it's false what that means for the Western Church when you had the protestants seceding and in recent times SSPX trad cats who after Vatican II?
The Sacred Heart devotion happened after the Great Schism, but it's not Dogma, so this is irrelevant.
Lol research early Church History. The Easterns were always putting the Emperor before the Pope. Easterns considered the Emperor head of the Church, not the Pope. Easterns put ethnos before Church, which is why all Eastern "Orthodox" Churches are ethno-centric.
You have no Emperor now. You have no unity. You have no universalism. You have constant schism. The only debatable 2 of the 4 marks of the Church you have are Holy and Apostolic. There is no "One" or "Catholic/universal" marks in your church.
There's nothing here supporting the Immaculate conception dogma. Of course we believe Mary was a virgin and was a saint and that's what the Church fathers reiterate. Immaculate conception refers to her being conceived outside of sin but only Christ is free from the sin of Adam by virtue of His miracle conception. The sin of Adam is part of human nature and Mary was human. Christ cannot be subject to the effects of the original sin because He shares both human and divine nature and His divine nature precludes the possibility of any sin.
The older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conception of St. Anne), which originated in the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object.
Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength.
It became the feast of the Immaculate conception but was not the same feast initially. Can you read, fren?
Lol research early Church History. The Easterns were always putting the Emperor before the Pope. Easterns considered the Emperor head of the Church, not the Pope.
Research what symphonia is. The head of the Church was always Christ and both Orthodox and Catholics agree.
Easterns put ethnos before Church, which is why all Eastern "Orthodox" Churches are ethno-centric.
Why, because the liturgy is held in different languages? The Orthodox Church acknowledges the differences of different people and affirms that what matters is the profession of the true faith in accordance to Church tradition, dogma and sacraments. It's not a centralized structure but is synodal and every patriarch has equal authority over their diocese. This is how the Early Church was structured and not after the supreme authority of Rome which is a later development in the west.
You have no Emperor now. You have no unity. You have no universalism. You have constant schism. The only debatable 2 of the 4 marks of the Church you have are Holy and Apostolic. There is no "One" or "Catholic/universal" marks in your church.
Enjoy your universalist ecumenism - sharing the same God as muslims and hindus. This is what Vatican II says. This is what your pope says. Isn't it bizarre you have popes who embrace Islam straight up contradicting the Catholic Church tradition which used to call crusades against those guys? Even a century back you have a pope who condemned Islam as a satanic heresy and now you have popes praying in mosques, kissing the Quran and teaching Islam is as valid as Christianity.
Again, the problems you have with heretical popes collapse the whole system because according to your dogma the Roman pontiff cannot be a heretic and apostatize. This is not the case in Orthodoxy as I pointed out with Athanasius so even if both Kirill and Bartholomew are heretics that doesn't render Orthodoxy false. You can't reconcile that and if you think you can I'd love to see you go on Jay Dyer's debate streams on jewtube and try.
No, that's uniatism and is not going to happen. The only way to heal the schism and unite the church is for the Western and Oriental to revert back to the Early Church tradition and rebuke all the heretical teachings they hold (like the filioque, papal supremacy and absolute divine simplicity by the RC and nestorianism by the Orientals). This has been acknowledge by Rome which holds that the Orthodox Church has preserved the dogmas and sacraments of the first 1000 years Church.
It is the Catholics who started going wild with their teachings and doctrines after the schism and we see the fruits in the many contradictions made apparent after Vatican II and the last three Popes who prayed in mosques towards Mecca (John Paul II even kissed the Quran). And now Francis surrendered the faith by doubling down that every religion is equally valid and a path to salvation because they all worship some form of a generic God, contradicting Christ Himself (this is not Francis's idea though, it is present in Vatican II's Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium 16).
Seriously, the amount of mental gymnastics it takes to continue being Catholic these days is astounding (and I acknowledge there are problem in Orthodoxy too, but even if we have heretical patriarchs like Bartholomew, it's not destructive to the position because our Church doesn't hinge on one guy).
At this point I consider the Catholic Church and certain heretics in the Orthodox Church to be pushing towards a one world religion of the Antichrist. This is orchestrated by Rockefeller and the World Council of Churches which is the ultimate ecumenist organization.
Filioque, papal supremacy and absolute divine simplicity are all true. Only heretics dissent to that. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are true too.
What's not true is being able to get divorced and married for up to 3 times, even though Jesus Christ said no to divorce.
Go ask your Byzantine Emperor to settle your disputes, since you always assent to him rather than the Roman Pope. Oh yeah... That's right... The Saracens destroyed the Byzantine Empire because it fell away from the One True Church, and now the Eastern "Orthodox" Church is full of constant bickering, and even the Patriarchs, like the Greek and Russian ones especially, fight for power and excommunicate each other. So much for "unity" and "universalism" in your "church"...
Says who? Where was the Immaculate conception or the Sacred heart found in the Church tradition prior to the schism?
Idk where this comes from but I've heard Church fathers saying a third marriage is not blessed, meaning you get one divorce (and that's for good reasons). What happens when a spouse commits adultery? This breaks the holy union of the marriage and a divorce is warranted and this is exactly what Jesus says but you conveniently left that out.
There's no Emperor and the Church has always been separate from the worldly affairs of the political realm. I know it's hard for Catholics to understand since for the past thousand years the Papacy had a state, a powerful bank and even a standing army - you don't get more worldly than that. Dostoyevsky nailed it in his The Great Inquisitor chapter of Brother Karamazov. I won't even go to recent times with operation Gladio and the Vatican's involvement in crime, psy ops and terrorism along with Propaganda Due (freemasons), NATO and the CIA - there's a whole book on the topic.
Sure, the Church may even split and I acknowledged that. The difference is there have always been heretical patriarchs and schismatics in the one true Church. They were even a majority at times like the case with the Arian crisis and Athanasius (Athanasius contra mundum). What this proves is the true faith is not upheld by the ecclesiastical structure or, one specific patriarch or the majority of patriarch - the true faith is passed on in the tradition of the Church where the Holy Spirit resides.
Btw if a split in the Church is somehow a proof that it's false what that means for the Western Church when you had the protestants seceding and in recent times SSPX trad cats who after Vatican II?
Immaculate Conception in Early Church:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-full-of-grace
The Immaculate Conception Feast Day was celebrated in Monasteries in Palestine of the eastern Church as early as the 7th Century:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
The Sacred Heart devotion happened after the Great Schism, but it's not Dogma, so this is irrelevant.
Lol research early Church History. The Easterns were always putting the Emperor before the Pope. Easterns considered the Emperor head of the Church, not the Pope. Easterns put ethnos before Church, which is why all Eastern "Orthodox" Churches are ethno-centric.
You have no Emperor now. You have no unity. You have no universalism. You have constant schism. The only debatable 2 of the 4 marks of the Church you have are Holy and Apostolic. There is no "One" or "Catholic/universal" marks in your church.
There's nothing here supporting the Immaculate conception dogma. Of course we believe Mary was a virgin and was a saint and that's what the Church fathers reiterate. Immaculate conception refers to her being conceived outside of sin but only Christ is free from the sin of Adam by virtue of His miracle conception. The sin of Adam is part of human nature and Mary was human. Christ cannot be subject to the effects of the original sin because He shares both human and divine nature and His divine nature precludes the possibility of any sin.
Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength.
It became the feast of the Immaculate conception but was not the same feast initially. Can you read, fren?
Research what symphonia is. The head of the Church was always Christ and both Orthodox and Catholics agree.
Why, because the liturgy is held in different languages? The Orthodox Church acknowledges the differences of different people and affirms that what matters is the profession of the true faith in accordance to Church tradition, dogma and sacraments. It's not a centralized structure but is synodal and every patriarch has equal authority over their diocese. This is how the Early Church was structured and not after the supreme authority of Rome which is a later development in the west.
Enjoy your universalist ecumenism - sharing the same God as muslims and hindus. This is what Vatican II says. This is what your pope says. Isn't it bizarre you have popes who embrace Islam straight up contradicting the Catholic Church tradition which used to call crusades against those guys? Even a century back you have a pope who condemned Islam as a satanic heresy and now you have popes praying in mosques, kissing the Quran and teaching Islam is as valid as Christianity.
Again, the problems you have with heretical popes collapse the whole system because according to your dogma the Roman pontiff cannot be a heretic and apostatize. This is not the case in Orthodoxy as I pointed out with Athanasius so even if both Kirill and Bartholomew are heretics that doesn't render Orthodoxy false. You can't reconcile that and if you think you can I'd love to see you go on Jay Dyer's debate streams on jewtube and try.