Actually, I simply misunderstood what you were talking about, I thought you were saying that the Catholic Church was hostile to the Orthodox Churches.

The link I provided contains the most recent statement of the Church's relationship to the Orthodox Churches. In the document, John Paul II describes the Orthodox Churches 'the other lung' of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and offers to make some concessions to the Orthodox to try to reunite the Churches.

I offered that link to refute the notion that there is some kind of radical disagreement or disconnect between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. According to that document, the differences are minor and insignificant and the role of the papacy is up for negotiation.

According to one of the decisions of the Council, the Orthodox Church consists of 14 Autocephalous Churches:

The Orthodox Catholic Church comprises fourteen local Autocephalous Churches, recognized at a pan-Orthodox level.

Which Churches? Besides the signatures below the decisions, one of the visible signs of unity is that Heads of Autocephalous Churches name each other during the Liturgy.

On this video of the Liturgy that took place during the Council, at 1:45:37, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew named the Heads of other 13 Autocephalous Churches in the following order:

Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria
Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem
Patriarch Irinej of Serbia
Patriarch Daniel of Romania
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus
Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and all Greece
Metropolitan Sawa of Warsaw and all Poland
Archbishop Anastasios of Albania
Archbishop Rastislav of Czech Lands and Slovakia
Patriarch John of Antioch
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow
Patriarch Neophyte of Bulgaria
Patriarch Ilia of Georgia

This order coincides with that given on the official website of the Council, except for the last four Heads. They are last because they were absent at the Council.

Heads of each of other 13 Autocephalous Churches in the similar way name during Liturgy Heads of Autocephalous Churches.

So you can see visibly that the Church is one.

Again, we can see that there is no primacy of Patriarch Bartholomew, because these Heads are "recognized at a pan-Orthodox level", and not by Patriarch of Constantinople solely.

This is the emblem of the Council:



Who is sitting on the throne? Is it Patriarch of Constantinople? No, it is the Holy Spirit and the Bible, Which, according to the decisions of the Council, guides the Church:

The Church in herself is a Council, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, in accord with the apostolic words: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15.28).

Around we can see fourteen crosses which signify the fourteen Autocephalous Churches (according to my understanding of this emblem).

Ghastly.

Further, the “disconnect” between Catholicism and the Orthodox Churches which Doom tries to deny is real, as the errors which have been allowed by the Orthodox are unorthodox (irregular) -- the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and allowing contraception, and need to be renounced to be faithful to Christ

I would expect the Pope to accentuate the positive.

If the Patriarchs see his last statement as a command, however ( "... there WILL be more of them." ), there won't be another Council meeting for 500 years.

So they had not left. Moreover, before the Council, Church of Serbia was complaining that the Church of Constantinople did not want to discuss during Council the question of the Council of Constantinople of 879-880, which was against Filioque:

the lack of will from our Mother Church of Constantinople to have at least one of the proposals of our Church (such as <…> the synods from the ninth and fourteenth centuries as ecumenical already, in the consciousness and practice of the Orthodox Church, <…> included into the thematic and agenda of the Synod, <…>

And now, after the Council, we can see that this question has been discussed, and the Council of Constantinople of 879-880 has been confirmed as an ecumenical one:

The Conciliar work continues uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority, such as, for example, the Great Council (879-880) convened at the time of St. Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, and also the Great Councils convened at the time of St. Gregory Palamas (1341, 1351, 1368), through which the same truth of faith was confirmed, most especially as concerns the procession of the Holy Spirit and as concerns the participation of human beings in the uncreated divine energies, and furthermore through the Holy and Great Councils convened in Constantinople, in 1484 to refute the unionist Council of Florence (1438-1439), in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691 to refute Protestant beliefs, and in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an ecclesiological heresy.

Looks like there will need to be some renumbering in the history books.

Some confusion and error shown in the “Council” is exposed in this comment:
‘Economics not Great at Orthodox Council
June 29, 2016
by Dylan Pahman
Excerpt:
‘While claiming that the “Church cannot remain indifferent to the economic processes which have a negative impact on all humanity,” the mission document gives little indication that its authors are aware of any actual, basic economic processes like competition, the price system, business cycles, creative destruction, inflation, and so on. Instead, it ambiguously asserts the “need … of structuring the economy on moral principles.”

‘Which economy? The global economy is a network of various national economies, and national economies are a web of various international, national, and local markets, all with unique competitive and regulatory structures, often expressly based upon moral principles, such as environmental and safety concerns or the right to own, trade, and develop private property.

‘From there the document slips from ambiguous and questionable to wrong and harmful. “Greed,” says the authors, “manifested in the gratification of material needs, leads to the spiritual impoverishment of the human person and the destruction of the environment” (emphasis added). Minus the concern for the environment, Marcion would be proud. The gratification of material needs is not greed but the natural, human impulse for survival. It is what we wish to be met when we decry, in the words of the document, “the hunger of millions of people.”

‘This alarming statement about greed and material need comes after several paragraphs concerned with consumerism. Consumerism is certainly a bad thing, but the statement conflates consumption and consumerism, even denouncing “constant growth in prosperity.” Yet in the last two hundred years or so, this is precisely how hundreds of millions of people have overcome hunger, poverty, and unjust inequality.’
See:http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2016/06/29/economics-not-great-orthodox-council

The Acton Institute's determination to view the world--and worse yet, the Church--through their particular economic views is disturbing.

Heh.

This whole new perspective of denying primacy is going to be great stuff the next time an Easterner tries to deny doctrinal development.

And does this other mean that Palamism is now an official shibboleth for Orthodoxy? That will come as news to some people.

No offense intended on any level. Simply an observation. Many responded similarly to the economics of Laudato Si.

Exactly. And the truism of the many millions rescued from poverty by the free enterprise developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics is a monument that has been endorsed in Centesimus Annus by St John Paul II, among many others.

There are some things that Pope Francis never seems to learn.

What is missed here is that the free enterprise system was painstakingly developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics -- it is absolutely fundamental to human nature, as is the fundamental right to economic initiative that enabled the escape from dire poverty of untold millions. The light of truth cannot be hidden under a bushel. They employed logic and reasoning for the development of mankind.

Catholic free enterprise has achieved enormous success, and it was the dignity and value of human beings that created that development:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress ... apitalism/

How Christianity Created Capitalism, Michael Novak
“The Catholic Church’s role helped jump-start a millennium of impressive economic progress. In AD 1000, there were barely two hundred million people in the world, most of whom were living in desperate poverty, under various tyrannies, and subject to the unchecked ravages of disease and much civic disorder. Economic development has made possible the sustenance now of more than six billion people–at a vastly higher level than one thousand years ago, and with an average lifespan almost three times as long.”

The serious problem economically is the emasculation of free enterprise by government intervention into the economic laws which are the warp and woof of its success, based on false economic theories and a penchant for government to control. Many examples have been given of the devastating effects of such finagling.

The serious cultural and moral problems in society are due to relativism, selfism and a disregard for the prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance which our human nature requires for a humane society which has to start with the individual and the family.

Man does not live by bread alone ... but bread is good.

HalJordan, the road to the truth starts with the denial of sins. If a person supports gays, like Pope Francis does, then obviously he is not ready for discussion about Palamism. The Pope Francis said:

The penultimate question was from a female journalist who recalled that the German Cardinal Marx, speaking at a large conference in Dublin on the Church in the modern world, had said that the Catholic Church must ask forgiveness from the gay community for having marginalised these people. “In the days following the shooting in Orlando, many said that the Christian community had something to do with this hatred toward these people. What do you think?”

“I will repeat what I said on my first trip”, answered Francis. “I repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: <…> One may condemn, not for theological reasons, but for reasons of, let’s say, political behaviour – certain manifestations are a little too offensive to others.

"One may condemn, not for theological reasons" -- So gays are condemned not for theological reasons, but only "for reasons of, let’s say, political behaviour – certain manifestations are a little too offensive to others."

I agree that Pope Francis isn't ready for a discussion about Palamism. I can also say that there are many Orthodox who don't regard Palamism as dogma.

On a side note, if Palamism is to be regarded as dogma now, that cements its place as another fairly enormous doctrinal development in Orthodoxy.

Oh, and at the risk of going all tu quoque here, let me know when the Orthodox get around to defending the indissolubility of marriage or the immorality of contraception.