I’m just pointing out how to avoid a split inside the hypothetical XOC. But would it cause a schism? Recognizing the OC and having them recognize the RCC would not necessarily be a highly formal matter. You could theoretically forget about new councils and just have both sides recognize each other fully.

@vonleonrod Sure, but it would work.

The idea is that the Catholic Church would effectively be another church in the Orthodox Communion. The Pope would be the autocephalous head of the Roman Catholic (Orthodox) Church and have whatever powers the Curia and Pope agree the Pope has within that church, but he would have no authority over any other autocephalous church within the Orthodox Communion. That's an Orthodox-leaning reunification.

Or how about Matthew 25? 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

@TheGreatB00ks One of the best books written

@bariweiss By “supporting grassroots freedom movements” you meant to say “pick preferred US puppets and subvert governments to put them in power regardless of how popular they are”.

@noemonas I can't understand you because you can't compose coherent sentences that make any sense. I understand Allen and every other scholar and frankly, I value their opinions over that of you, an erratic nobody.

The Vatican is very much walled. Yes, you can walk into St. Peter's Square, turn around, and walk back out. The rest of it? No. Want to see the Vatican Gardens? Only if you go through the LITERAL WALL and through the metal detectors after buying a pass during visiting hours to the Vatican Museums. Want to see the Sistine Chapel? Again, you have to buy admission, go through metal detectors, etc. I pray that the Pope sees the error of his ways and realizes that he has been agitating for every trendy Leftist cause célèbre since he came in, while criticizing anyone who is on the Right and destroying Church traditions in the process.

@noemonas The order of listing letters is totally irrelevant. This entire "theory" is just a convoluted mishmash of nonsense. You haven't made a coherent point to date.

@noemonas You've contorted about five languages into pretzels to try to make that work.

Oh my God. This is absurd. Let me try, ONE FINAL TIME, to show you. The Egyptian word for the god Anubis was written hieroglyphically jnpw. With a p. The Coptic version was Ανουπ. Yet the Greeks decided to write it as Ανουβις, with a β. They had a π, they had a φ (which yes, was just p+h, not /f/ - otherwise the Romans wouldn't say philosophus, but filosofus, and the Egyptians wouldn't invent their letter ч, which means /f/, if they thought there was an existing Greek letter for /f/). They heard a very unvoiced /p/ sound and transcribed it as β. THEY WOULD NOT DO THIS IF IT WERE PRONOUNCED /v/!!! This evidence is ubiquitous, and no serious scholar has taken the position that beta was pronounced as "vita" at all stages of the language.

@noemonas You keep living in your own little fantasy world then. Have a nice day.

There aren't any coherent arguments in the article. The author starts from his irrational conclusion and then spends the rest of the article smashing a square peg into a round hole. I put up plenty of evidence and your counter "arguments" are just a lot of chest-thumping self-serving statements. I'm not sure why you're so invested in the fantasy that Greek pronunciation was identical (in your mind) 2000 years ago to the pronunciation of today when no other language on earth operates that way. And why am I still arguing this? Perhaps because I actually love Greek culture; I hope you get Constantinople back. But let's not fool ourselves about language. Every. Single. Language. Evolves. In. Pronunciation.

No, I just told you I actually do trust Greek people to speak for the language, if they know more than a cab driver. Christidis edited a wonderful, over 1000-page work on the development of the Greek language and no one makes the moronic arguments that you are marking regarding Greek historical phonetics. I provided you copious examples of ancient Latin translations and you threw back some idiotic point about modern pronunciation that has nothing to do with anything. Try logic; your ancestors invented it but you seem deficient in employing it.

@noemonas No, that would be stupid and unsupported by the written evidence. That's how you're reasoning, not I.

And if you're concerned that Allen is somehow an enemy of the Greeks, I would point your attention to A History of Ancient Greek - From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, edited by Anastassios-Fivis Christidis (the original modern Greek edition is apparently titled Ιστορια της Ελληνικης γλωσσας - Απο τις αρχες εως την υστερη αρχαιοτητα, though I would think the τις αρχες part is a typo for της αρχης, not knowing modern Greek but knowing ancient Greek). It was published by that Greek-hating organization, the Centre for the Greek Language in Athens. The book has multiple articles by Greek authors that all state the beta was pronounced as a /b/ in antiquity, not a /v/.

It’s a poorly thought out polemic article that imputes bad faith on Allen; he didn’t say only a fool would say vi-vi. Thousands of place names and proper names used by ancient authors make it clear both how and when the sounds changed. Cato the Elder always called Pyrrhus “Burrus” because he couldn’t distinguish between a non-plosive π and Latin b, or the Greek υ from the Latin u. The ει became a Latin ī by the Hellenistic period but the β changed much later, when Allen says. That’s why Valentinus is transcribed Ουαλεντινος in earlier writings but Βαλεντινος in later ones, but Tiberius is written Τιβεριος in the New Testament.

@HarryFatberg It was on the same day this year