Skip to comments.A Holy Alliance between Rome and Moscow Is Born
Posted on 05/24/2010 9:12:53 AM PDT by GonzoII
click here to read article
It is entirely proper to refer to Vatican II documents to define the Catholic teaching on ecumenism with the East since the lifting of the anaphemas that reversed the previously schismatic course of Eastern Orthodoxy occurred recently. Thia is what Church councils are for: to steer the Church in light of latter-day developments.
I was baptised Russian Orthodox and switched to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in 1994, where I happily am to this day. I believe that all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, confesses and proclaims is inspired by God.
Now, are you Catholic? It is not every day that I meet one who believes that her church "speaks with a forked tongue" and remains in it.
Indeed. I never said otherwise. Those Orthodox who harden in their desire for separation put their souls in grave danger. So do many nominal Catholics who deny what their Church teaches.
If you throw a from in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. If, however, you put it into a pot of room temperature water, and slowly bring the water to a boil, the frog will lay there and fall asleep, die, and be boiled. That is what has happened to Catholics around the world, they have listened to the progressivist/modernist/liberal/effeminate clergy de-catholicize the faith, till they were cooked, they lost the faith, or learned a false Catholicism, if they even stayed long enough. Most, don't go to mass anymore. In Austria a Catholic country, scarcely 5% go to mass on Sunday. And of the ones that go, few are left that have not been un-catholicized, Protestantized, they don't know much, about the Faith.
It is not every day that I meet one who believes that her church "speaks with a forked tongue" and remains in it.
One does not leave the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, the Catholic Church, because it's hierarchy speaks with a forked tongue on fallible matters. You don't leave the Church because a pope lived an immoral life. The Church and her infalllible doctrines are not affected by the fallible actions of men. Let them leave if they want.
That is not correct. Heresy, doctrinal errors, do not invalidate the sacraments if the heretical church maintains apostolic succession, valid clergy, the proper intention, and matter, ALL of which the Anglicans abandoned. A church can be in schism and heresy, and still have valid sacraments. A Catholic priest can leave the Church,go into heresy, schism, adultery, homosexuality, and he will still be able to confect valid sacraments. Sin, heresy, and schism do not automatically invalidate the sacraments.
On the other hand an Anglican priest can convert and renounce all his heresies and his schism, and have the proper intention, but he will not be able to confect valid sacraments, unless he is ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession.
I hope that helps you to understand.
For a long time prior to the Schism (1054), various precursors of the movement, among them Photius (886), defended the heresy according to which the Third Person of the Holy Trinity would not proceed from the First and the Second. Cerularius and other Schismatic Greeks also adhered to this error. Therefore, in the 11th century when the Catholic Church declared this movement schismatic, she was exercising mercy, because the normal procedure would have been to declare it heretical. Until today, the Greek and Russian schismatics defend the same error. In addition to denying this dogma, there are at least three others that are not accepted by the Greek and Russian schismatics: they are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Papal Primacy, and Papal Infallibility. Therefore, in reality, for quite some time the self-proclaimed Orthodox church has ceased to be orthodox and has been heretical.
It is not correct to say, as you imply, that all of the doctrines of the so-called Orthodox Church is in agreement with Catholic doctrine. There are major divergences, since the Orthodox Church denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which is a dogma Catholics profess in the Creed. It also denies the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, as well as the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Besides these dogmas, there are still many other doctrinal points, such the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church,the role of the Sovereign Pontiff in this monarchy that it rejects, Limbo, purgatory, andthe indissolubility of marriage, to name but a few. These mentioned differences are more than enough to show that the Orthodox are not orthodox at all, but normally should be called heretics, since they deny at least three Catholic dogmas. Until Vatican II the Catholic Church called them schismatics rather than heretics as a kind of courtesy, given that the closest historical motive that led Greek Schismatics to be separated from the Catholic Church was disobedience to the Pope.
To your recent three posts.
I don’t know what difference it should make to you that I converted, — or, more accurately, switched over to the Catholic Church. All my Christian education, save the barest foundation of it, I received as an adult and as Catholic. I have an actual dislike for the Russian Orthodox Church in particular, given its shameful servility under Communism.
But you, if I may comment on thsi personal matter, do have a problem as a professed Catholic. You do not go around second-guessing the councils of the Church no matter how modernizing they seem to you; you certainly do not insult your Mother Church with “forked tongue” regardless of what her teaching is about. I also have a problem with much of how Vatican II was understood and applied; I fully understand that the state of the Church in the West is quite deplorable. That being said, the ecumentical stance of the Church toward the Orthodox happens to be clearly formulated by the Holy Father, the Vatican II council, as as we’ve seen did not even originate with Vatican II. As a Catholic you owe obedience to your Church even if some of her positions do not sit well with you. Infallible or not, it remains a well articulated position of the Church that the theological differences with the East do not constitute a heresy.
It is true that the Orthodox deny the recent Catholic dogmas. But that does not constitute heresy because heresy implies that the knowledge was revealed and then denied. Since the dogmas are new, they were not revealed to the Orthodox Churches. Obviously, no reunification will be possible till an agreement is reached on them in an ecumenical council. Till such time, the Orthodox are in schism also on that score, but not in heresy.
The Filioque is a matter of church governance, because it was adopted without consulting the East. That is the principal grievance that the Orthodox have about it. The Catholic Church allows the Filioque to be omitted in the Creed as it is said in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The underlying theology does not seem to be all that divergent in the East. Naturally, that remains an obstacle for reunification as well, at least int he mind of the Orthodox, but it does not happen to be an obstacle for us.
"Well articulated"? where is your "well articulated". Not classifying them in the category of heretics in the Catholic encyclopedia is not "well articulated". You have not provided any "well articulation".
All the Eastern Orthodox are in heresy, I articulated just some of the doctrines in which they are in heresy, there are many more. Is there a new definition of heresy that you've come up with?
If a Catholic denies the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, he is a heretic. The Orthodox can get divorced twice and married three times. Heresy means heresy.
Enough is enough, stop writing your own musings, you are just winging it. There is no point in discussing anything with you because you live in your own world. Heresy is a defined term that anyone can look up in one second.
from : MY CATHOLIC FAITH
71. Schism and Heresy
What is schism; and what is heresy? --Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope; heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.
What were the most important schisms and heresies that have tried to destroy the Church? ......
The greatest schism suffered by the Christian Church was that of the East, resulting in the establishment of the Orthodox Eastern Church. The Eastern emperors, desiring more power in the Church, tried to make the patriarchs of Constantinople independent of Rome. Finally, Photius, with the support of the emperor, held a council of Eastern bishops in the year 867, and broke from Rome.
The cause of the schism was not doctrinal, but rather political and material,- jealousy between the East and the West. It has resulted in the separation from Rome of 145 million people with valid priesthood and sacraments. In the United States there are a number of schismatical churches, among them the Greek Orthodox, and the Russian Church.
After minor schisms and misunderstandings between East and West in 1054 there was a final break by Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, continuing today.
Today the Orthodox Eastern Church remains in schism, but does not spread. It is a withered branch, having cut itself off from the parent tree.
The Orthodox Eastern Church denies the Catholic dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. It also teaches that the souls of the just will not attain complete happiness till the end of the world, when they will be joined to their bodies; and that the souls of the wicked will not suffer complete torture in hell until that last day. These are heresies against the doctrines of the Church.
Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical; for it holds primary doctrines in a different light. But it has valid orders. (See Chapter 55 on The Catholic Eastern Church; Rites)
I did. Refer to my #35. Cannot be clearer.
you live in your own world
There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.