Eastern Orthodoxy Questions

[Wandile]

Here is another which is from the beginning of the modern era:

Pope Pius XI A. D. 1922-1939:

• “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [The Eastern Orthodox]* and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful?” Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”“ (Mortalium Animos)

 

[Wandile]

Pope Leo IX, informed the Greeks that if they separate that they would be a council of heretics and “schismatics”, at the very time of their schism i.e. 11th century:

*"If you live not in the body which is Christ, you are none of His. Whose, then, are you? You have been cut off and will wither, and like the branch pruned from the vine, you will burn in the fire - an end which may God’s goodness keep far from you.”

“So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world **any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, and a synagogue of Satan.”

---

Add to this that 2 centuries later St Thomas Aquinas wrote the book “Contra errores Graecorum” which is translated as “Against the errors of the Greeks”. This work was taken to the The Ecumenical Council of Lyons II. Further evidence of the view that the Greeks hold errors.

Lets not even go into the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII titled “Unam Sanctam”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cute. Lets start with Ex Quo of Pope St.Pius X which is a document on the reunion with the Eastern Churches and declaring and exposing various grave errors including those held by the “Greek schismatics”

Here is a little part of it from Denzinger 2147a.

Certain Errors of the Orientals *
[From the letter, “Ex quo,” to the Archbishops Apostolic Delegates in Byzantium, in Greece, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia, in Syria, and in the Oriental Indies, December 26, 1910]

**2147a **

*No less rashly than falsely does one approach this opinion, that the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son by no means is taken from the very words of the Gospel, or is sanctioned by the faith of the ancient Fathers; --most imprudently, likewise, is doubt raised as to whether the sacred dogmas on purgatory and on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary were acknowledged by the holy men of earlier years; --. . . regarding the constitution of the Church . . . first of all an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X, is being renewed [cf. n. 1091], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter; --then, with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of one person, that is a monarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid arguments. --But . . . the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis, *although, on the other hand, it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments; and no less inharmonious with this is the view that confirmation conferred by any, priest at all is to be held valid.

These opinions are noted as “grave errors.”*

So he proclaimed confirmation administered by a priest to be invalid? Was that defined ex cathedra? Are millions of Eastern Catholics walking around invalidly confirmed?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pope Leo IX, informed the Greeks that if they separate that they would be a council of heretics and “schismatics”, at the very time of their schism i.e. 11th century:

*"If you live not in the body which is Christ, you are none of His. Whose, then, are you? You have been cut off and will wither, and like the branch pruned from the vine, you will burn in the fire - an end which may God’s goodness keep far from you.”

“So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world **any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, and a synagogue of Satan.”

---

Add to this that 2 centuries later St Thomas Aquinas wrote the book “Contra errores Graecorum” which is translated as “Against the errors of the Greeks”. This work was taken to the The Ecumenical Council of Lyons II. Further evidence of the view that the Greeks hold errors.

Lets not even go into the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII titled “Unam Sanctam”

Well, it should appear that you did not even know that Thomas did not title his book ‘Contra Errores Graecorum’. Go look it up sometime. And both of those documents are probably not even held by most modern Roman Catholic theologians as being ex cathedra. (Do you even think they were proclaimed ex cathedra?) Why then adduce them except to show, as I said earlier, that both approaches freely mixed.

 

[pacloc]

No the Vatican says you’re as schismatics because it is from schism that your errors are held. The church has always taught that the “Greeks” have certain errors (rejection of Primacy, filioque, purgatory etc). The reason you are called schismatics is because it is from your schism that your errors became solidified, rather than it being your errors which lead you into schism (Which would make you be branded heretics)

I find this statement a little strange because I don’t believe that Orthodoxy has changed any of it’s views on what you would consider errors since the split, they believed these “errors” before the split, so why wouldn’t their split be because of heresy? Do you have examples showing a change in their beliefs after the split to show that errors really did come from the schism?

 

[Wandile]

Well, it should appear that you did not even know that Thomas did not title his book ‘Contra Errores Graecorum’. Go look it up sometime.

Oh I am well aware of this. This does not change the significance of the work. It was composed to combat erroneous positions the Greeks held. It was composed at the request of Pope Urban IV. Hence its full title is “against the errors of the Greeks, to Urban IV”

And both of those documents are probably not even held by most modern Roman Catholic theologians as being ex cathedra.

Its irrelevant whether they are infallible or not. The point was the unanimous and consistent affirmation in the Catholic Church that the Greeks held errors. This was what you contested. I’ve proven it and can provide numerous more accounts from saints and doctors (of people with weight) all saying the same.

(Do you even think they were proclaimed ex cathedra?) Why then adduce them except to show, as I said earlier, that both approaches freely mixed.

Because there were bk mixed approaches as you falsely claimed. The church has always held the Greeks as holding errors. Their biggest error being their rejection of Roman primacy (our understandIng of it)

 

[Wandile]

So he proclaimed confirmation administered by a priest to be invalid? Was that defined ex cathedra? Are millions of Eastern Catholics walking around invalidly confirmed?

You’re deflecting to distract from the issue at hand. Nice tactic. But I see through it.
I have provided evidence that the church always held the Greeks as holding errors. You denied it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Oh I am well aware of this. This does not change the significance of the work. It was composed to combat erroneous positions the Greeks held. It was composed at the request of Pope Urban IV. Hence its full title is “against the errors of the Greeks, to Urban IV”

Its irrelevant whether they are infallible or not. The point was the unanimous and consistent affirmation in the Catholic Church that the Greeks held errors. This was what you contested. I’ve proven it and can provide numerous more accounts from saints and doctors (of people with weight) all saying the same.

Because there were bk mixed approaches as you falsely claimed. The church has always held the Greeks as holding errors. Their biggest error being their rejection of Roman primacy (our understandIng of it)

Also look at the terms of union at Florence which did not accuse the Greeks of positive errors in the faith which they professed, but rather took the stance that it was dispelling errors in understanding how the Latins formulated their faith. Frankly, I disagree with Florence, but I did not realize that you were so free to do so.

Indeed, the entirety of the Latin West’s reunion efforts with the Orthodox (and here I mean only the Chalcedonian ones) since the schism has focused on the supposed compatibility of the faith held by both, even though it is not apparent to one side. Even the various unions like the Union of Brest were formulated with this presupposition. It is most interesting, however, to see you undermine this entire history of attempted reunion. I guess I finally found somebody who loathes the idea of union more than the Orthodox do.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You’re deflecting to distract from the issue at hand. Nice tactic. But I see through it.
I have provided evidence that the church always held the Greeks as holding errors. You denied it.

Or perhaps the pope was in error.

 

[Wandile]

Or perhaps the pope was in error.

Lol I guess you’re admitting you were wrong? Because i see you are slimly ignoring the topic of our dispute (the opinion of EO of the CC) for other trivial matters which are easily explained

 

[Cavaradossi]

Lol I guess you’re admitting you were wrong? Because i see you are slimly ignoring the topic of our dispute (the opinion of EO of the CC) for other trivial matters which are easily explained

Not at all. You are wrong, for the opinion of a few undiplomatic popes cannot outweigh the doctrine of ecumenical councils. If the terms of the union of Florence were made without calling for the Greeks to recant of any heresies but rather by arguing that their faith and the faith held by the Latins is inherently compatible, then it stands to reason that either this is true or Florence was a robber synod.

 

[Wandile]

Also look at the terms of union at Florence which did not accuse the Greeks of positive errors in the faith which they professed, but rather took the stance that it was dispelling errors in understanding how the Latins formulated their faith. Frankly, I disagree with Florence, but I did not realize that you were so free to do so.

Can’t disagree with dogmatic definitions, not with other things relating to the council. Yes but thy also viewed the Greeks having erroneous positions, again the proof is in the testimonies. Especially on matters concerning primacy which undeniably the Greeks from a CC point of view are in grave error.

Indeed, the entirety of the Latin West’s reunion efforts with the Orthodox (and here I mean only the Chalcedonian ones) since the schism has focused on the supposed compatibility of the faith held by both

Not in all matters. Example the primacy. Further it was showing the compatibility of the Latin faith with the pre-schism east. The post schism east did not even have unified positions on most matters but rather had prevailing opinions.

even though it is not apparent to one side. Even the various unions like the Union of Brest were formulated with this presupposition.

Of agreement with the ancient faith of the Greeks, not their novel positions. Some unions had persons who held orthodox belief on the east but there is numerous evidence like those who follow Mark of Ephesus and Photius who teach a heretical understanding of the filioque if not an outright denial of it.

It is most interesting, however, to see you undermine this entire history of attempted reunion. I guess I finally found somebody who loathes the idea of union more than the Orthodox do.

Its most interesting to see you revise history to fit your agenda.

 

[steve_b]

Instead of just popcorn (yum) I guess I’ll intervene a little. I’m not sure why you keep saying we lost authority to define doctrine?

As far as history is concerned we just never had a need to have another ecumenical council.

And who decided that?
K:

If there was, then orthodoxy would currently be infiltrated by theological heresies,

All your theologians are 100% solid?
K:

However the Vatican says we are only in schism, not heresy, so clearly that alone should indicate we have been able to keep the Orthodox faith.

Heresy is the obstinate post baptismal denial or doubt of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

From that I think it could be said, heresy and schism often go together and are NOT necessarily apart from each other
K:

The local councils have been sufficient themselves in dealing with any issues so far**.**

Observation

after ~1000 years, You’re still not one with each other, and you are still in schism from the Catholic Church. How are “local” councils sufficient in themselves, in that case?

 

[Wandile]

Not at all. You are wrong, for the opinion of a few undiplomatic popes cannot outweigh the doctrine of ecumenical councils. If the terms of the union of Florence were made without calling for the Greeks to recant of any heresies but rather by arguing that their faith and the faith held by the Latins is inherently compatible, then it stands to reason that either this is true or Florence was a robber synod.

Lol nope you are wrong as these testimonies are among the saints too. But I guess those saints aren’t diplomatic too:shrug: Provide quotes of the opposite more “diplomatic position”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not in all matters. Example the primacy. Further it was showing the compatibility of the Latin faith with the pre-schism east. The post schism east did not even have unified positions on most matters but rather had prevailing opinions.

The post schism West did not even have unified positions on things, but also only had prevailing opinions. See for example the rivalry of Thomism vs. Scotism. Indeed, Scotism had such a natural affinity for the East that Gennadius Scholarius utilized Scotism in his defense of Orthodoxy.

Of agreement with the ancient faith of the Greeks, not their novel positions. Some unions had persons who held orthodox belief on the east but there is numerous evidence like those who follow Mark of Ephesus and Photius who teach a heretical understanding of the filioque if not an outright denial of it.

You would not know a passage from either of those two saints if one hit you in the face. Have you read anything by either?

Its most interesting to see you revise history to fit your agenda.

I revise nothing but simply report what is there to be read. And I have no agenda. I simply think that your perspective fails to capture the breadth of history and bases itself upon gross simplification.

 

[twf]

So you are saying that the West was so rife with heresies and divisions that during the second millennium they required almost double the number of Ecumenical Councils which were required to maintain a unified Christian Ecumene in the first millennium?

Unfortunately the first seven councils DID not maintain a unified Christian “Ecumene”. We lost the better part of Alexandria and Antioch after Chalcedon… and we lost the vast Christian Church of the Persian Empire even before that. In the 6th / 7th century, the Assyrian Church was geographically larger than the so called unified Christian Ecumene of the Byzantines and Latins.

Not all of the post-schism Ecumenical Councils dealt with major heresies. I don’t think Catholics would deny that some of the Councils, especially those labelled Ecumenical after the fact, were quite different from the seven councils of the first millennium. That being said, some of the original seven councils had very little to no Western participation and yet were still accepted as being ecumenical.

 

[twf]

The idea that the Orthodox do not claim the authority to define ‘universal doctrine’ is false. You conflate the teaching of doctrine with the holding of ecumenical councils. The only reason why the Ecumenical Councils were ever called in the first place was because some issue which could not be resolved at the local level was threatening the unity of the Christian Ecumene (also I must remark that since the post-schism Latin councils happened outside of the structure of the Christian Ecumene, it is very hard to take the claim that they were ‘ecumenical’ seriously). The primary source of doctrine is the bishop and the local synod, and only in extraordinary circumstances is an ecumenical council involved. Indeed many heresies have sprung up since the schism happened, but they were all solved on a local level, meaning that calling an ecumenical council has so far been unnecessary.

“…happened outside the structure of the Christian Ecumene”.
Do you really consider this an important point from the point of Christian dogma? Was the Church unable to hold ecumenical councils prior to the marriage of Christianity and the Roman Empire (yes I know that She didn’t but that’s besides the point)? In the centuries following the Schism, Latin Christendom took on a life of its own and became something far larger, geographically and numerically, than the original Roman Christian Ecumene had ever been…if the Church once embraced the Roman Ecumene, why can’t She also embrace later social structures?
If you are thinking more along the lines of representation from all bishops, West and East, you will not find any councils that meet that criteria. Chalcedon was rejected by very important bishops.

 

[twf]

Also look at the terms of union at Florence which did not accuse the Greeks of positive errors in the faith which they professed, but rather took the stance that it was dispelling errors in understanding how the Latins formulated their faith. Frankly, I disagree with Florence, but I did not realize that you were so free to do so.

Indeed, the entirety of the Latin West’s reunion efforts with the Orthodox (and here I mean only the Chalcedonian ones) since the schism has focused on the supposed compatibility of the faith held by both, even though it is not apparent to one side. Even the various unions like the Union of Brest were formulated with this presupposition. It is most interesting, however, to see you undermine this entire history of attempted reunion. I guess I finally found somebody who loathes the idea of union more than the Orthodox do.

I for one, as a Latin Catholic, agree with you. We do see Latin and Eastern theologies as fundamentally compatible. How else could the Melkites, for example, who were Orthodox just a couple centuries ago, be in full communion with us? Many Orthodox may not agree…but from our perspective there is compatibility of faith.

 

[wynd]

Of agreement with the ancient faith of the Greeks, not their novel positions. Some unions had persons who held orthodox belief on the east but there is numerous evidence like those who follow Mark of Ephesus and Photius who teach a heretical understanding of the filioque if not an outright denial of it.

What would you consider a heretical understanding of the Filioque?

 

[twf]

What would you consider a heretical understanding of the Filioque?

Any interpretation which rejects the monarchy of the Father, which is Catholic dogma