Skip to comments.Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church
Posted on 11/21/2005 11:58:28 AM PST by NYer
click here to read article
You completely missed the point, brother...
The point is that subsequent Ecumenical Councils in which the Orthodox refused to participate in were still considered infallible Councils by the Catholic Church, which continued to convene councils. Thus, the Council of Florence, Vatican, Trent, etc., were infallible Councils. If a Council was declard null and void by the Catholic Church, such as the Robber-Council of Ephesus, it was so declared by ROME, not by the Eastern Church.
As to the "official" Catholic view of Orthodoxy, I understand that the Orthodox are in schism and not heretics. Heretics teach false dogma, which I am not aware that you teach (although you deny infallible DEFINTIONS made at Trent or Vatican, I believe that we share the same BELIEFS - when we explore the Church's teachings the first 1000 years). I believe that the majority of Orthodox are invincibly ignorant of Rome's position. Thus, I don't believe that the Orthodox are heretics.
We share the same doctrine up until 1054.
There are no post 1054 changes in Orthodox doctrine that I'm aware of (though you can enlghten me if you find some). Thus post 1054 additions to doctrine and interpretations of doctrine that seem to conflict with Pre-1054 doctrine separate the church.
The Orthodox teach that the pope does not have juristiction of the whole church, that purgatory doesn't exist, and a handful more minor differences. All of that qualifies as heretical anti-Catholic-doctrine in the eyes of Rome the same as the Roman interpretation post-schism that conflicts with the Orthodox doctrine is heretical.
As Kolo pointed out heresey isn't used in polite eccumenical minded conversation but that is the official stance of both churches. (Thankfully both have evolved beyond cheering for the enemies of the other).
Where that leaves us is that the Primacy of the pope must be resolved (and frankly must be resolved in a way that leaves the remaining Patriarch more or less independant); and escalation of the situation in East Europe must cease. Loose canons like Filaret and Lyubomyr must be reigned in.
Further it seems to me the best thing to do would be to do this as an eccumenical council with all the canonical orthodox involved, so that any defintions or interpretations there in are agreed on by all at once preventing further schisms.