Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault. Radio Replies is filled with hundreds of answers and I would suspect that this is not the only mistake. Unless this had been brought to the attention of the hierarchy I doubt that they took the time to read it.
The denial of the validity of Orthodox orders was not the accepted view at any time. This is clear by the fact that the Orthodox bishops and priest who came back into union with Rome have never been required to seek reordination, contrary to what is required of the Anglicans.
I would also give GonzoII some slack. He is posting the entire Radio Replies, which does contain some very good information. I seriously doubt that he is doing this to just to get this one response posted.
Are they wearing the cassocks of Orthodox clergy and speaking as representatives of the Orthodox Church? I doubt that any of them identified himself as a priest or bishop of the Orthodox Church.
I would really like you to tell us in more detail what you are referring to. As far as not sharing the Eucharist, this is not because we deny the Catholic Eucharist is True Body and True Blood, but because communion is an expression of unity of faith (rather than a means of achieving unity of faith) which we have yet to achieve, no matter how close it may be.
I would also give GonzoII some slack. He is posting the entire Radio Replies, which does contain some very good information.
Fair enough, but it should be prefaced with a "box" saying that references to Eastern Churches are wrong and that the authors, although ordained Catholic priests, are not necessarily presenting the official Catholic doctrine.
Besides, how can information that is clearly not official Catholic doctrine be "good" when it is shown to be misleading? How can you characterize the fathers as being wrong on the issue of Eastern Churches but right on other issues?
And on whose authority (since they don't necessarily reflect the Catholic doctrine) are these replies good information?
What is left of their credibility?
“For the fathers to be justly described as heretics rather than just erroneous there must be shown that there was an attempt by Church officials to correct them that they then refused to accept.”
Really? So unless a hierarch catches a heretic there’s no heresy? I find that extremely hard to believe, P. But this case would never have gotten that far.
“Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault.”
Well, P, this tripe and the two further heretical works of these characters received the imprimatur of “Joannes Gregorius Murray, Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli”. Did the imprimatur mean something different in the late 30s and early 40s than now?
LOL.