FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Schism Vs Heresy - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Schism Vs Heresy (/showthread.php?tid=75479)

Pages: 1 2 3


Schism Vs Heresy - DeoDuce - 04-26-2016

What makes the Orthodox Church Schismatic as opposed to the Anglican Church being heretical? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - Trad Catholic27 - 04-26-2016

The orthodox churches reject the authority of the Pope along with some of the early ecumenical councils of the Church.

They do have a valid priesthood but are outside of the authority of the Holy Father that makes them Schismatics.

They also reject the Immaculate Conception and the Filoque as well


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - Dominicus - 04-26-2016

I wouldn't say they reject the immaculate conception, they just have a very different understanding of it.


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - SaintSebastian - 04-26-2016

Heresy breaks the unity of truth, schism merely the unity of government.

The Anglicans reject various revealed truths along Protestant lines, although there are some "Anglo-Catholics" that are schismatic in that they profess all the dogmas, but are just separated by government.

The EO's have historically been considered schismatic because their doctrinal objection to the Filioque  was an accusation of heresy against the Church, not the Church condemning their own formula as heresy (for example, at the reunion Council of Florence, they only had to concede that we both were professing the same orthodox truth, but with a different formula).

Note, while the primacy is certainly a dogma, it is so tied up in the unity of government, rejection of it is usually just considered part of schism, even though technically it could be classified as heresy.  Even then, the EO rejection of the primacy has not always been that cut and dry.  Some of their saints argued that Rome had the primacy as we understand it and would return to it if it rejected the Filioque. 

In very recent times, however (the last two centuries or so), the line in that regard has become more clear and the objections of the Orthodox have also grown to include things like original sin (and following from that, the immaculate conception), indulgences, and other "Latinisms," even though these were never issues before, as evidenced by prior attempts at reunion.  It's harder to justify it as a pure schism nowadays, but the historical nomenclature persists.




Re: Schism Vs Heresy - Credidi Propter - 04-26-2016

(04-26-2016, 03:24 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: What makes the Orthodox Church Schismatic as opposed to the Anglican Church being heretical?

Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments and Anglicans do not.  This is a VERY basic description, but heresy is more of a matter of disagreement with theology, schism is a disagreement with authority.  I would write more, but I have to leave.

Modern Catholic Dictionary definitions of Schism and Heresy, for comparison.

HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)

SCHISM. A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. "Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ," he asks, "and revolt against our own body, and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?" While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. "By false doctrines concerning God," declared St. Augustine, "heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe." Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.)


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - ermy_law - 04-26-2016

(04-26-2016, 03:59 PM)Dominicus Wrote: I wouldn't say they reject the immaculate conception, they just have a very different understanding of it.

They reject the immaculate conception because they reject Original Sin.

As for the original question, the Orthodox are heretics.  The reason why they aren't labeled as such by the Vatican has to do with false ecumenism.


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - aquinas138 - 04-26-2016

(04-26-2016, 04:36 PM)ermy_law Wrote:
(04-26-2016, 03:59 PM)Dominicus Wrote: I wouldn't say they reject the immaculate conception, they just have a very different understanding of it.

They reject the immaculate conception because they reject Original Sin.

As for the original question, the Orthodox are heretics.  The reason why they aren't labeled as such by the Vatican has to do with false ecumenism.

But they have historically not been called heretics, even well before Vatican II. Old prayer books always refer to them as the "schismatic Greeks" and pray for their reunion with Rome, not mentioning the rejection of heresy. I wonder if part of that is that many of the things we've just listed (papal infallibility and supremacy, Immaculate Conception, etc.) were not dogmatically defined until well after the schism.


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - ermy_law - 04-26-2016

(04-26-2016, 04:59 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(04-26-2016, 04:36 PM)ermy_law Wrote:
(04-26-2016, 03:59 PM)Dominicus Wrote: I wouldn't say they reject the immaculate conception, they just have a very different understanding of it.

They reject the immaculate conception because they reject Original Sin.

As for the original question, the Orthodox are heretics.  The reason why they aren't labeled as such by the Vatican has to do with false ecumenism.

But they have historically not been called heretics, even well before Vatican II. Old prayer books always refer to them as the "schismatic Greeks" and pray for their reunion with Rome, not mentioning the rejection of heresy. I wonder if part of that is that many of the things we've just listed (papal infallibility and supremacy, Immaculate Conception, etc.) were not dogmatically defined until well after the schism.

Good point.  I'd say the answer is "probably." 

They are heretics on the purgatory issue since a council they participated in settled the doctrine on that.  They're probably heretics for the filioque issue for similar reasons.


Re: Schism Vs Heresy - formerbuddhist - 04-26-2016

The Filioque was NOT part of the Nicene Constantinipolitan Creed so the East is right ( in my opinion at least) to refuse to use it, although I'm more on board with those within both the Catholic and Orthodox churches that refuse to say that the Filioque  is a heresy. The idea of the filioque is ancient, but it was not part of the Creed at the aforementioned Councils.

As for the Immaculate Conception, it seems rather pointless to have to dogmatize something when the various Divine Services ( including the Divine Liturgy) is abundantly clear in sometimes extremely hyperbolic and flowery ways just who the Mother of God is. No doubt ever since the defined dogma there have been Orthodox who flat out deny the sinlesness of the Theotokos, but perhaps other Orthodox who have been immersed in the liturgical life of the Church just see no need to dogmatize something that seems at least implied in countless prayers, hymns and service texts that go back into the mists of time.

As for Purgatory, as an Easterner I simply don't like to define the afterlife so much. The Latin teaching, like so many other Latin teachings, just comes off as too precise, textbook and mechanical. The same with Indulgences, a concept that I understand but just find quite frankly bizarre and as such do not avail myself of.

That being said I just think many of us who are more Eastern don't like to define things as much, or make things into dogmas that have to be logically consistent that we have to give some sort of intellectual assent to. The whole thing seems foreign to the Eastern mind, especially one that's used to learning theology through prayerbooks, the liturgy and the other divine services.

It seems to me that the East, much more than the West, sees the Liturgy and the other Divine Services as being the fount of doctrine and theology. The West developed very differently.

That being said the biggest issue I think between East and West is the Papacy. Stuff like the filioque, purgatory or feeling the need to papally define that the Mother of God was sinless are all things I think we can come to a mutual understanding of, I mean, Eastern Catholics at least ought to I think, considering they are at there best fully Eastern in everything, yet somehow in communion with the Pope.

I guess on another note we have to define just what being " in communion" means.

Something like Florence always struck me as more political than anything else...but that's for another thread perhaps.








Re: Schism Vs Heresy - Paul - 04-26-2016

(04-26-2016, 07:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The Filioque was NOT part of the Nicene Constantinipolitan Creed so the East is right ( in my opinion at least) to refuse to use it, although I'm more on board with those within both the Catholic and Orthodox churches that refuse to say that the Filioque  is a heresy. The idea of the filioque is ancient, but it was not part of the Creed at the aforementioned Councils.


Wasn't it added by a Pope? Assuming one accepts the authority of the Pope, the Pope can change what a Council does; since the Orthodox view is that all the bishops are equal without any special status for the Bishop of Rome, the refusal to accept the filioque seems more to come from that.