Poll: Do you consider Eastern Orthodox Christians to be heretics (either formal or material)?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
18
0%
0 0%
16
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Eastern Orthodoxy
#11
(10-18-2010, 01:11 AM)moneil Wrote: When spasiisochrani spoke of The Church, I’m presuming he wasn’t referring to Novus Ordo parishes.  In fact, parishes are not where these things are decided, whether Novus Ordo or traditional, whether pre or post VII.  These questions, definitions, and decisions are reserved to the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church embodied in the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops, as successors to the Apostles, for it was to these that Our Lord said: ” whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” (St. Matthew 18:18).

There is an important distinction between the infallible magisterium which the Church exercises in defining dogmas and the all too fallible disciplinary decisions that different ecclesiastical authorities make.  Not requiring converts from Eastern Orthodoxy to make an abjuration of heresy and a general confession would definitely be an instance of the latter.

(10-18-2010, 01:11 AM)moneil Wrote: We have had, shall we say, spirited discussions of the Orthodox here before, but I am not aware of any pre Vatican II popes reefing to them as heretics. 

It doesn't matter whether the Eastern Orthodox have been specifically labeled heretics by a pope; if a person meets the critera for a heretic (that is, he obstinately denies a truth that must be beleved with the divine and Catholic faith), he is a heretic, regardless of whether the pope refers to him by that description or not.

(10-18-2010, 01:11 AM)moneil Wrote: I doubt the Holy Father would be inviting heretics to study at the Vatican.

Why do you doubt that? There have been plenty of heretics invited to study at the Vatican after the Council, so why couldn't such a thing be possible before the Council?

(10-18-2010, 01:11 AM)moneil Wrote: Again, I have not read of the pre VII pontiffs referring to heretics as those brethren and sons of Ours (some decidedly stronger language is often used).  Nor has The Church, to my knowledge, spoken of heretics rendering sincere service to Christ Our Lord, showing great piety and love towards His sinless Mother, or making devout use of the Sacraments.

I am fairly certain that the Nestorians and Monophysites,  whose heresy no-one denies, also did all these things.
Reply
#12
(10-18-2010, 01:46 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: There is an important distinction between the infallible magisterium which the Church exercises in defining dogmas and the all too fallible disciplinary decisions that different ecclesiastical authorities make.  Not requiring converts from Eastern Orthodoxy to make an abjuration of heresy and a general confession would definitely be an instance of the latter.

Hmmm, well, that’s your opinion.  I’ll stick with what the Magisterium, especially the disciplines of the pre VII Magisterium, has determined as appropriate , as fallible as that may turn out to be, over the opinions of random laity.  Also, there is a whole body of Church teaching regarding a faithful Catholic’s allegiance to the rightful authority of The Church, whether the particular circumstance involves “dogma defining infallibility” or mere “disciplinary decisions”.  We are not a “make our own individual interpretations or rules” kind’a Church – if you want that, the First Unitarian is down the street.

(10-18-2010, 01:46 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: It doesn't matter whether the Eastern Orthodox have been specifically labeled heretics by a pope; if a person meets the critera for a heretic (that is, he obstinately denies a truth that must be beleved with the divine and Catholic faith), he is a heretic, regardless of whether the pope refers to him by that description or not.

Ummm, again, your personal opinion and interpretation of how the Church defines the criteria of heresy.  It does matter though, what the Vicar of Christ “labels” ~ that is the role Our Lord has given him (not you, me, or any other mortal).  Interestingly, it would have been this “disciplinary as opposed to dogma defining Magisterium” that established the criteria for heresy in the first place.  I’ll leave it to them to implement it, as Our Lord intended, thank you very much.

(10-18-2010, 01:46 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-18-2010, 01:11 AM)moneil Wrote: I doubt the Holy Father would be inviting heretics to study at the Vatican.

Why do you doubt that? There have been plenty of heretics invited to study at the Vatican after the Council, so why couldn't such a thing be possible before the Council?

Ummm, because the pre VII Pontiffs were more orthodox and faithful to The Church’s tradition is such matters, I would think.  Unless you can provide some documentation (from papal sources, as I have) that Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or their adherents, or Islamic or Jewish scholars, or any other non-Catholic adherents were welcomed to receive doctorates at Vatican Institutes of higher education, I stand by my observation that the Orthodox were held in a particularly special esteem by The Church, not afforded to any other non-Catholic.
Reply
#13
(10-17-2010, 11:19 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 10:27 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Here is a quote from a 15th century saint (sic) of theirs, St. Symeon of Thessalonica:

Why do you consider Symeon a saint? As far as I am aware the Catholic Church, which alone has authority to determine whether a person is a saint, has never canonized him.

I don't. Sorry for the confusion, I probably used the "sic" wrong. By using it I meant to imply I was using their own parlance rather than my own.
Reply
#14
(10-18-2010, 09:49 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 11:19 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 10:27 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Here is a quote from a 15th century saint (sic) of theirs, St. Symeon of Thessalonica:

Why do you consider Symeon a saint? As far as I am aware the Catholic Church, which alone has authority to determine whether a person is a saint, has never canonized him.

I don't. Sorry for the confusion, I probably used the "sic" wrong. By using it I meant to imply I was using their own parlance rather than my own.

No problem, dude. Thanks for clarifying. :)
Reply
#15
(10-18-2010, 02:27 AM)moneil Wrote: Hmmm, well, that’s your opinion.  I’ll stick with what the Magisterium, especially the disciplines of the pre VII Magisterium, has determined as appropriate , as fallible as that may turn out to be, over the opinions of random laity.  Also, there is a whole body of Church teaching regarding a faithful Catholic’s allegiance to the rightful authority of The Church, whether the particular circumstance involves “dogma defining infallibility” or mere “disciplinary decisions”.  We are not a “make our own individual interpretations or rules” kind’a Church – if you want that, the First Unitarian is down the street.

According to all the evidence I have seen, converts from Eastern Orthodoxy, in addition to making a profession of faith, were required to make a general confession and be absolved from the censures for heresy. At least this is what Fr. Jone's Moral Theology states was the rule for all converts to the Catholic Church who had previously received an undoubtedly valid baptism. If you could provide some evidence showing that converts from Eastern Orthodoxy were not bound by there general rules, I would like to see it.

(10-18-2010, 02:27 AM)moneil Wrote: Ummm, again, your personal opinion and interpretation of how the Church defines the criteria of heresy.  It does matter though, what the Vicar of Christ “labels” ~ that is the role Our Lord has given him (not you, me, or any other mortal).  Interestingly, it would have been this “disciplinary as opposed to dogma defining Magisterium” that established the criteria for heresy in the first place.  I’ll leave it to them to implement it, as Our Lord intended, thank you very much.

The fact that a pope fails to call a person or group of people 'heretics' explicitly does not mean that they are not heretics. It could have been merely that the pope was seeking good relations with them; as far as I am aware, it's not beneficial for good relations to harp on the fact that the other party is made up of heretics.

(10-18-2010, 02:27 AM)moneil Wrote: Ummm, because the pre VII Pontiffs were more orthodox and faithful to The Church’s tradition is such matters, I would think.  Unless you can provide some documentation (from papal sources, as I have) that Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or their adherents, or Islamic or Jewish scholars, or any other non-Catholic adherents were welcomed to receive doctorates at Vatican Institutes of higher education, I stand by my observation that the Orthodox were held in a particularly special esteem by The Church, not afforded to any other non-Catholic.

In my opinion, pre-Vatican II popes often made errors just as serious as pre-Vatican II popes.

For what it is worth, I, too, hold Eastern Orthodox Christians in special esteem since they are the least heretical of all heretical groups. I am actually friends with a number of Eastern Orthodox Christians. This does not change the fact that they are heretics, simply put. (BTW, I would expect them to think I'm a heretic, too.)
Reply
#16
Interesting.  I have a side yet related question;  I've been told a rule in the past was to consider Orthodox saved as long as they werent 'personally' schismatic.  I've never really read consistent opinions on them, even going back a hundred or more years.  Can anyone expand on what this theory was?
Reply
#17
The denomination now known as Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Orthodox Church began as the eastern half of Christendom, the site of the former Byzantine Empire. The fleshly "churches" we have created substitute the real Christ with a Christ totally alien to the One presented by the Fathers of the past two millennia, and totally cut off from the Holy Writ and the liturgical life in Christ, dogmas and ethics.
Reply
#18
The Eastern "Orthodox" are heretics and schismatics.

Heresies:
- Denial of the double procession of the Holy Ghost.
- Denial of the previous 13 Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople IV - Vatican I [I did not omit a Roman numeral])
- Denial that Holy Orders creates an indelible mark ("Orthodox" priests who have left this sect and returned are sometimes unconditionally re-ordained).
- Denial of Original Sin (they term it 'ancestral' sin and do not consider it hereditary, but assumed by humanity per se after the fall).
- Denial of Purgatory.
- Affirmal of Pelagianism.

They are obviously schismatic as they do not submit to the office of the Papacy.

Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.


Reply
#19
(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: The Eastern "Orthodox" are heretics and schismatics.

Heresies:
- Denial of the double procession of the Holy Ghost.

Depends what you mean by double procession. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That's why the Orthodox make such a deal about language, it confuses people.
Quote:...
The Latin word procedere, on the other hand, with its related noun processio, suggests simply “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including proienai, and is explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in Latin, by the same word, procedere, while Greek theology normally uses two dif­­fer­ent terms. Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin tradi­tions of under­standing the eternal origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the ori­gi­nal concern in the Greek Church over the insertion of the word Filioque into the Latin trans­lation of the Creed of 381 may well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136) - to a misunder­standing on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and Latin terms for “procession”.

...

Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, even when – as in the explanations of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas – the relationship of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is spoken of as constituting “a single principle” of the Spirit’s origin: even in breathing forth the Spirit together, according to these later Latin theologians, the Father retains priority, giving the Son all that he has and making possible all that he does. ...
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial of the previous 13 Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople IV - Vatican I [I did not omit a Roman numeral])

Ex post facto heretics? Nice...

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial that Holy Orders creates an indelible mark ("Orthodox" priests who have left this sect and returned are sometimes unconditionally re-ordained).

This, again, is theologoumena. Some Orthodox do. There is not as much dogma, so it depends on the receiving bishop. It is true the common Orthodox refection is the source of authority is from the Church alone, not from the individual. Therefore, if the individual is separated from the Church, he is separated from his Holy Authority.

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial of Original Sin (they term it 'ancestral' sin and do not consider it hereditary, but assumed by humanity per se after the fall).

Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are almost identical. The difference is the Orthodox do not regard any assumption of guilt from the fall. An encyclical from the Vatican in 2007 proclaimed the same thing.

Quote:"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ts_en.html

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Denial of Purgatory.

The Orthodox are purgatorial, but have no doctrine of the state of "Purgatory", for the same reason they don't accept council convened after their split. The main difference is the concept of final judgment, not the purgation after death.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: - Affirmal of Pelagianism.

The orthodox do not accept the doctrine attributed to Pelagius, i.e. one can find God through one's own efforts without God. Instead, they acknowledge basically the same thing Roman Catholic's believe, which is a synergistic effort between God's loving gift and the individual's free will to accept or reject that gift.

Quote:1742 Freedom and grace. the grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5O.HTM
http://books.google.com/books?id=cymM4xEM76wC&pg=PA766&lpg=PA766&dq=%22catechism+of+the+catholic%22++synergy&source=bl&ots=NEkipeNxVf&sig=JeeX-2Ds63UgBErDcfDSZjvIcuc&hl=en&ei=eSvkTMS2NsSBlAfZtYnMDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: They are obviously schismatic as they do not submit to the office of the Papacy.

They deny Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. They do not find it supported by tradition or Patristics in any form. Many Orthodox acknowledge a Primacy of the Pope, as a first among equals, however.

(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.

They say the same about Roman Catholics. "a man-made creation revolving around the attempted power grab of the Roman Patriarch, and the vote was four to one".
Reply
#20
(11-17-2010, 03:39 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 12:54 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Contrary to modernist heresy they do not form a Church. Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church. The Eastern "Orthodox" Church is a man-made creation of 1054 by schismatic Catholic bishops.

They say the same about Roman Catholics. "a man-made creation revolving around the attempted power grab of the Roman Patriarch, and the vote was four to one".

Not it can't. History, Patristics, Holy Scripture and the constant belief and teaching of the Church back up the Catholic claims.

The Eastern Orthodox, unfortunately, are schismatics. They followed the lead of Constantinople, not even a apostolic see but the see of the Eastern Roman Emperor, who they were already used to take orders from.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)