The subject line is self-explanatory.
Are there any teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church that would be considered heresy in the Roman Catholic Church?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
The Latin Church sees nothing heretical in the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I’ve posted this before:
As a certain Austrian college professor who moved onto bigger things put it:
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
–Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
As a certain Austrian college professor who moved onto bigger things put it:
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
–Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Officially, no. No official dogmatic teachings of Orthodoxy contradicts Catholic teachings in heretical way. Their understanding of Papacy puts them in Schism, but not in heresy. They are therefore truly “orthodox” as right-believing.
However, some non-binding polemics against Filioque or Thomism might qualify. It’s just that official teachings of Orthodoxy and Catholicism can be reconciled, but historically, people just did not want to understand each other. Problems are heavily linguistic, rather than theological. Theological contradictions only happen when either side takes things too far with their interpretation of dogma, which is of course, not binding.
Prime example for Filioque would be that double procession of Holy Spirit puts him below Son and Father. This has no dogmatic basis however- it’s all based on theories.
Eastern Catholics also don’t include Filioque in their Creed, and share doctrinal beliefs with Eastern Orthodoxy. However they do not ever interpret them in any way that could be contrary to Latin General Synods or any other legitimate dogmatic statement of Catholic Church (be it stated dogmatically in any Rite, East or West). Theological approaches of East and West vary but they are not a problem, as they are different approaches to one same thing and both are equally true. West almost never interprets anything contrary to East’s definitions either, just sometimes cultural and language barriers need to be crossed.
TLDR: No, just misinterpretations from both sides happen. Our problems are of Schismatic nature and of obedience and ecclesiology, not of theology.
However, some non-binding polemics against Filioque or Thomism might qualify. It’s just that official teachings of Orthodoxy and Catholicism can be reconciled, but historically, people just did not want to understand each other. Problems are heavily linguistic, rather than theological. Theological contradictions only happen when either side takes things too far with their interpretation of dogma, which is of course, not binding.
Prime example for Filioque would be that double procession of Holy Spirit puts him below Son and Father. This has no dogmatic basis however- it’s all based on theories.
Eastern Catholics also don’t include Filioque in their Creed, and share doctrinal beliefs with Eastern Orthodoxy. However they do not ever interpret them in any way that could be contrary to Latin General Synods or any other legitimate dogmatic statement of Catholic Church (be it stated dogmatically in any Rite, East or West). Theological approaches of East and West vary but they are not a problem, as they are different approaches to one same thing and both are equally true. West almost never interprets anything contrary to East’s definitions either, just sometimes cultural and language barriers need to be crossed.
TLDR: No, just misinterpretations from both sides happen. Our problems are of Schismatic nature and of obedience and ecclesiology, not of theology.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Some pragmatic issues could include divorce/remarriage and the use of contraceptives.
S
Salibi
Guest
No. The Eastern Orthodox Church is schismatic but not heretical. Some people might stretch some issues, however, especially on online forums.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Those would be schismatic or disciplinary, not heretical.
W
Wesrock
Guest
If we’re being picky, some Latin hardliners would take issue with the essence and energies distinction, though this can be boiled down to different approaches. Another issue would be that some insist, not just on objecting to the filioque, but dogmatically insisting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son only temporally, rigorously denying any eternal procession.
I don’t mean to throw a wrench in there or to be hostile, but these are some issues I’ve seen come up on the Orthodox side.
A
awesomecatholic
Guest
Nothing heretical but schismatic. Catholics say some of their teachings contradict the Catholic Church. For example, their beliefs about the Papacy.
D
dochawk
Guest
If it did, the Meliktes would be in big trouble, and we’d need a mass excommunication of their entire hierarchy . . .
The next Orthodox I here suggest that will be the first . . .
Given the full millennium of communion in the past while they did the same thing, I doubt tit . . .
Which has been grossly overstated by every person I’ve ever heard raise it. No Orthodox Church has a general permission or approval of contraceptives (or divorce and remarriage, for that matter). The RCC could benefit by a serious look at Ekonomia (or whichever other spelling you want).
Even this much contradicts current Roman teaching, and the repeated request not to make that statement . . .
hawk
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That’s true but that boils down to people and their opinions or speculations, nothing dogmatic nor binding for faithful contradicts other side.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Sorry but that first place is already taken. It emerged numerous times in other threads. AIng used it before. As I said it is not official teaching, but I kindly ask you not to underestimate speculations that come from either side
Terminology, not necessarily teaching. We are in Schism with Eastern Orthodoxy because we are not in full communion.
That doesn’t make it right, in Catholic view also held by Eastern Bishop in my area, mere wording of divorce and remariage contradicts our teachings while annulments affirm it. Granted, it isn’t like some Latins portray that to be- Orthodox don’t go divorcing left and right.
We have that under different names, but Canon Law makes sure it is not misused (or minimises possibilities).
Let’s not downplay those things, please. Yet none of these are about heresy, but about discipline.
D
dochawk
Guest
Given the frequency around here with which things are incorrectly pronounce infallible around here by our mini-popes, I don’t see why the Orthodox shouldn’t have wild cannons, too (just as long as they don’t have wild canons :crazy_face
.He stated that the Spirit is lesser? In all seriousness, I haven’t seen that from him or anyone else.
“Teaching” as in Rome repeatedly saying, “Don’t call them that.”
That part is true.
How so, and why the Melkites? Is there something different about them versus other Eastern Catholic rites?If it did, the Meliktes would be in big trouble, and we’d need a mass excommunication of their entire hierarchy . . .
D
dochawk
Guest
I’m not aware of any other Catholic Church which has had a prelate state, “I believe in everything that Orthodoxy teaches” . . .
Last edited:
Is that what Melkites say? And what is a “palate” (in this context)?
T
twf
Guest
In regards to divorce and remarriage I would say a “serious look” at Economy is exactly what has happened under Pope Francis, leading to a lot of controversy- bishop vs bishop stuff.
The bigger issue would be a liturgical marriage ceremony for the second union. That was a late novelty during the first millennium of communion - not an apostolic tradition (not that the Latin Church doesn’t have its share of late novelties).
The bigger issue would be a liturgical marriage ceremony for the second union. That was a late novelty during the first millennium of communion - not an apostolic tradition (not that the Latin Church doesn’t have its share of late novelties).
D
dochawk
Guest
A near-direct quote of Archbishop Zogby, leading to the Zogby Initiative.
It’s kind of on-again, off-again, rejected by Rome and now discussed again, but the only feasible path I see.
It’s kind of on-again, off-again, rejected by Rome and now discussed again, but the only feasible path I see.
I’m not sure I entirely follow you here. What is it that is “kind of on-again, off-again”?
If I’m understanding the Orthodox position on divorce and remarriage correctly (and please correct me if I’m not seeing something here), when all else has failed, the Orthodox recognize the civil divorce, and then the parties are free to marry again. Do they declare that the sacramental marriage has dissolved, and if so, how? Or do they understand validity and permanence of sacraments differently than Catholics do?
And do they understand “economy” as dispensation from the canons of the church only, or does it extend to divine law? Do they use “economy” as a way to allow a couple in dire circumstances to practice contraception (e.g., tried to make NFP work and it just doesn’t, grave threat to the health of the wife if she gets pregnant again, etc.)?
If so, I would have a very hard time wrapping my head around that one. I have always understood that difficulties following the moral law of God (as opposed to mere Church law) are invitations to greater sacrifice and holiness, not something to “be dispensed from because it’s too hard”.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
He stated Filioque has that as consequence. He does not believe in it, of course.
Right. While annulments are abused too, logic behind them is completely different than logic behind classic divorce. With annulments people do believe they can enter new marriage before eyes of God because they were not married, with divorce->remarriage, they kinda ignore His words in favor of themselves. Catholic Church has this harsher in favor of God’s word.
I do not mean to sow dissent, but from what I’ve heard and noticed from completely useless sources, Melkites are sometimes prone to downplaying Schism- now I do not mean intercommunion, what I mean is basically being Orthodox while paying lip service to Rome. Archbishop Zoghby invented initiative where one becomes Melkite (or Eastern) Catholic based on two facts;
- He believes everything Orthodox teaches is true
- He believes Rome is first among equals currently
But that’s ecclesiology, not dogmatic pronouncements about which you have asked. It’s very confusing and if people stop misinterpreting theological stuff, ecclesiology is all that actually feeds Schism for now.
Last edited:
I
Isaac14
Guest
The Orthodox church doesn’t really recognize civil divorce, but rather the consequences of it (i.e. a broken marriage - not unlike how an annulment proceeding can’t be initiated without a civil divorce). The parties aren’t free to marry until given permission by the Bishop to do so. In my case, my Bishop, together with my Priest, investigated the circumstances, not unlike what a Tribunal does, before permission to remarry is given. Since I married a Catholic woman, I also had to get an annulment, which in essence came to the same conclusion, but took significantly longer and killed a lot of trees for paper in the process.
Further, confession and repentance is required after divorcing as you broke apart what God had joined together. One of the primary criteria the Bishop considers in granting permission to remarry is that doing so is the best way for the person in question to attain salvation. It’s been said permission for a first marriage is granted joyfully, the second with hesitation, and the third with tremendous concern and hesitation. Permission beyond that is never granted; if one hasn’t figured out marriage at that point, they aren’t going to.
No, “economy” is not a dispensation from a canon or law. The principle of economy is the Priest (sometimes in consultation with his bishop) deciding how strict or lax to apply a particular canon or law to an individual, again with the goal of discerning an approach that will best help the individual attain salvation. I agree that the challenges set before us in following the laws of God do serve to inspire us to greater sacrifice and holiness, but I do not see them as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, either. Frankly, its none of my business in how those around me do this, only that I try to pray for and encourage them however strictly or lax they are able to do so.
- Status