Schism Vs Heresy
#11
The Filioque, meaning the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one principle, is a dogma defined by councils. Not just popes -- Several councils. Catholics must believe it under pain of sin.

And note that this is different from the modern equivocation that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which attempts to sidestep the eternal procession from one principle in order to make nice with the East, who concede this formulation.
Reply
#12
(04-26-2016, 07:31 PM)Paul Wrote:
(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.

That could be part of it, but the biggest reason is still (in my opinion)  that the actual Creed of Nicea-Constantinople does not say "and the Son".



Reply
#13
As an Orthodox, I actually think it would be more honest of Catholics to just classify us as heretics.

Orthodox (at least those who are not ecumenists) deny the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments. This is the traditional position of the Orthodox Church, and only recently has anyone questioned it (since the 60's or so). We are willing to accept non-Orthodox sacraments through oikonomia (economy, or house rule), but that doesn't mean that they are valid, it just means that the mode of reception, which in this case is usually chrismation, fills in the deficits in the original non-Orthodox, invalid baptism--it's sort of like it retroactively makes the invalid sacrament valid, with its effects beginning at the time of reception into the Church. The use of economy in this case is usually dictated by whether the original baptism fulfills the requirements of form, and it is done as a concession to man's weakness. There is currently a debate over how oikonomia should be applied, but that isn't a debate over the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments (although that debate is also going on, but it is between ecumenists and traditionalists, not among traditionalists).

It seems like Roman Catholics take this as a kind of Donatism, because we have very different understandings of what Donatism was and what was wrong with it. From our perspective, Donatism was mostly a rigorist schism, similar to the Old Believers (at least originally, before the Old Believers became weird), and, insofar as it was guilty of heresy, its heresy was that of believing that the personal sins (and even past sins of which one has repented!) of a priest or bishop made the sacraments he administers invalid. We of course deny that the personal sins of clergy make sacraments invalid, but we also deny that one can be outside the Church and administer valid sacraments. Schism and heresy are not merely sins in the same sense as adultery or greed, or even doing what the traditors did, but it actually cuts one off from the Church, outside of which there can be no sacramental grace.

From the RC position, as I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), the heresy that Donatism was guilty of was not only what I mentioned above--believing that sinful clergy could not celebrate valid sacraments--but also denying that such sacraments were valid solely on the basis of the proper form and matter. This is how the RCC gets the concept that Eastern Orthodox, Monophysites, and Nestorians all have valid sacraments. Given this, we Orthodox, from a Catholic point of view, fall under the definition of Donatism, because we also insist that one must be a member of the Church in order to validly administer sacraments.

Thus, I don't get why Catholics insist that we are schismatics, and not heretics. It seems quite inconsistent.
Reply
#14
(04-27-2016, 12:05 AM)Beardly Wrote: Thus, I don't get why Catholics insist that we are schismatics, and not heretics. It seems quite inconsistent.

I think the answer was (probably) given above - the Orthodox have valid sacraments, Protestants don't. Perhaps it is also an ecumenical idea - the prospect of reunion with the Orthodox is thought to be much more possible than reunion with Protestants. Whether that's actually true, I'm not so sure.
Reply
#15
(04-27-2016, 07:02 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 12:05 AM)Beardly Wrote: Thus, I don't get why Catholics insist that we are schismatics, and not heretics. It seems quite inconsistent.

I think the answer was (probably) given above - the Orthodox have valid sacraments, Protestants don't. Perhaps it is also an ecumenical idea - the prospect of reunion with the Orthodox is thought to be much more possible than reunion with Protestants. Whether that's actually true, I'm not so sure.

Regardless of if orthodox are schismatics or heretics doesn't matter. Reunification is something I view as important and I think publicly calling them heretics in an official way probably wouldn't help work towards that goal
Reply
#16
(04-27-2016, 07:02 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 12:05 AM)Beardly Wrote: Thus, I don't get why Catholics insist that we are schismatics, and not heretics. It seems quite inconsistent.

I think the answer was (probably) given above - the Orthodox have valid sacraments, Protestants don't. Perhaps it is also an ecumenical idea - the prospect of reunion with the Orthodox is thought to be much more possible than reunion with Protestants. Whether that's actually true, I'm not so sure.

It has been called a schism going back to its beginning as far as I can tell.  As I mentioned at more length above, historically it was the EO who more adamantly accused us of heresy, not the other way around.  That's why at the Council of Florence they only had to concede that our usage of the Filioque was not heretical (ie did not imply a double spiration) and that use of leavened bread was legitimate in the West, and we conceded in response to their objections that belief in a literal purgatorial fire was not a dogmatic issue.  The EOs didn't have to repudiate any of their doctrines. 

The only thing they had to affirmatively accept was the primacy.  As I mentioned earlier, while this is technically a matter of heresy to deny, it is so tied up in the unity of government and hierarchical communion, it is usually just considered schism.

Also, as I mentioned in my prior post, since the rise of the more anti-Latin neo-palamite movement more recently other divergences have arisen (most EO seem to now reject original sin due to it having been strongly articulated in the West by St. Augustine against the Pelagians, even though the doctrine was never condemned or opposed at the time and was never a point of polemics or a topic for reunion at any point during the schism until recently).
Reply
#17
(04-27-2016, 10:33 AM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 07:02 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 12:05 AM)Beardly Wrote: Thus, I don't get why Catholics insist that we are schismatics, and not heretics. It seems quite inconsistent.

I think the answer was (probably) given above - the Orthodox have valid sacraments, Protestants don't. Perhaps it is also an ecumenical idea - the prospect of reunion with the Orthodox is thought to be much more possible than reunion with Protestants. Whether that's actually true, I'm not so sure.

Regardless of if orthodox are schismatics or heretics doesn't matter. Reunification is something I view as important and I think publicly calling them heretics in an official way probably wouldn't help work towards that goal

I disagree with you since, as another poster mentioned above, the Orthodox are not shy about calling us heretics.  Orthodox, as you can surmise from their chosen name, enjoy clarity of doctrine.  One stumbling block to unification right now is our side's lack of concern about doctrinal precision or our own traditions, liturgical and otherwise.
Reply
#18
(04-27-2016, 10:51 AM)ermy_law Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 10:33 AM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 07:02 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(04-27-2016, 12:05 AM)Beardly Wrote: Thus, I don't get why Catholics insist that we are schismatics, and not heretics. It seems quite inconsistent.

I think the answer was (probably) given above - the Orthodox have valid sacraments, Protestants don't. Perhaps it is also an ecumenical idea - the prospect of reunion with the Orthodox is thought to be much more possible than reunion with Protestants. Whether that's actually true, I'm not so sure.

Regardless of if orthodox are schismatics or heretics doesn't matter. Reunification is something I view as important and I think publicly calling them heretics in an official way probably wouldn't help work towards that goal

I disagree with you since, as another poster mentioned above, the Orthodox are not shy about calling us heretics.  Orthodox, as you can surmise from their chosen name, enjoy clarity of doctrine.  One stumbling block to unification right now is our side's lack of concern about doctrinal precision or our own traditions, liturgical and otherwise.

Makes sense. I guess I'm just not as off put by High Church as I am on low-churchers.
Reply
#19
I think it must be because when Orthodoxy and Catholicism first split, there must not have been many theological disputes just mainly ones of authority. Later as Catholicism defined and redefined various points of belief, Orthodoxy just veered off in a different direction not seeing the need to define many doctrines as rigidly as in the west and thus eventually some of the Orthodox beliefs just naturally morphed into heresy without the stabilizer of papal authority and such. Thus the Orthodox were first schismatics and later heretics.

It should also be noted that lines between the truth and the heresies of the Orthodox are much thinner than with many other heretical sects as their are today Eastern Catholics whose beliefs are nearly identical with the Orthodox and yet not heretical at all.
Reply
#20
(04-29-2016, 12:45 AM)Dominicus Wrote: I think it must be because when Orthodoxy and Catholicism first split, there must not have been many theological disputes just mainly ones of authority. Later as Catholicism defined and redefined various points of belief, Orthodoxy just veered off in a different direction not seeing the need to define many doctrines as rigidly as in the west and thus eventually some of the Orthodox beliefs just naturally morphed into heresy without the stabilizer of papal authority and such. Thus the Orthodox were first schismatics and later heretics.

It should also be noted that lines between the truth and the heresies of the Orthodox are much thinner than with many other heretical sects as their are today Eastern Catholics whose beliefs are nearly identical with the Orthodox and yet not heretical at all.

The problem is that the split ( to me at least) isn't so cut and dry as to when it happened. And what of the small churches and villages on the far flung hinterlands of the Empire, to whom events like the dramatic excommunication in 1054 or Florence in the 15th century had no real meaning. The Eastern and Western churches for various reasons grew to have different emphases in almost everything.

And what of the Eastern churches that entered Rome at the Union of Brest? Probably the only thing that made them different than their Orthodox neighbors was the fact that at least on paper they claimed allegiance to the Pope. Aside from that they probably didn't think about purgatory, indulgences, the filioque, the scholastic view of grace or things that were not even  explicit Catholic dogma at the time like the Latin view of the Assumption, Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception.

The difference I think between Orthodoxy and Catholicism has always been that for Orthodoxy, inspired as it was by monasticism , the  liturgy and the divine services are the fount of true theology, Catholicism is different.  Sure there have been pockets of it in the Western Church, such as the old Cistercians, Benedictines and such, but it's not the norm.

  In the Eastern vision it is not popes and committees that create liturgical texts to fit papal dogmas but monks and saints and Mystics.  This is readily apparent--- glaringly so--- when you look at the whole of the 20th century of reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, from Pius X to today. 

As far as I can see I respectfully disagree that the papacy is a stabilizer of anything. I think the 20th century reforms paint a different picture altogether about just how destabilizing the papacy can be.  I'm not saying that this somehow refutes the papal claims, but it certainly makes some of us with a more Eastern tempermant a bit leery.



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)