Granted, but I haven’t read of anything from them that causes me to believe they are actually rejecting the dogmas for what the dogmas themselves state. My journey into the Catholic Church consisted primarily (90%) of shedding MISconceptions about the Catholic Church/her teachings. I find these same misconceptions echoed by my Orthodox brethren who have come here to debate. I have yet to meet one who has actually rejected the dogmas, rather than their own misconception of the dogmas.
Blessings,
Marduk
I don’t fully understand everything in the Catholic dogmata, but from what I have seen, there isn’t anything that jumps out as abhorrent. I think a lot of them could be
prove or
disproved from Scripture and Tradition. Many teachings have been unclear and needed an ecumenical council to decide whether they are true or not. I acknowledge that when the Orthodox and Catholic went into schism, there was no real reason to not consider each other a part of the same church. The split was due to a lot of factors, dogma not playing that large a role. Technically, we all were one Church with warring halves. I will not deny that. However, I think that they should have worked on healing this schism before holding “ecumenical” councils. After all, they are meant to be just that: “ecumenical”. Having an “ecumenical” council with one half cannot be viewed as ecumenical, unless you view the other half as not truly a part of the Church. It’s like two brothers having a fight about how to run their company. During the rift, one takes the opportunity to have several board meeting that enact new major policies. Obviously, this sort of unilateralism would not help the brothers reconcile. They should have waited until reconciliation to make new major policies. Not doing so would probably be viewed as arrogant and invalid, as only a portion of the those supposed to decide actually decided. Same thing with the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Since the Great Schism, the entirety of the Orthodox has never reconciled with the Catholics. There have been attempts yes, but those attempts have never been accepted my the Orthodox Church as a whole. Therefore, the Catholics had no right to conduct a council with half the Church, and call it “ecumenical”. To do so is to act contrary to the universal nature of the Church. It is this acting contrary to the Church’s nature that causes me to view the Catholic church as heretical,
not the actual content of the dogmas. If those dogmas passed after the Great Schism were no longer considered dogma by the Catholics, but opinions held by that portion of the church that are not binding on the Church as a whole, I’d have no problem accepting the Catholics as orthodox. Once that is done, we could then conduct **true **ecumenical councils to decide on these issues, like we should have done in the first place. As in any ecumenical council of old, I know the Holy Spirit would move the participates to declare the true teachings of the Church. If such a council were held, I would gladly submit to any dogmata it proclaimed. Until then, I can only submit to what the church openly professes, and will not accept as dogma any controversial teachings whose validity is at best ambiguous, unless the Church makes it clear where it stands on those issues. Frankly, I don’t see why the Catholic church would be against admitting that their councils are not ecumenical, and having new councils that address new dogmata, starting at the point of the Great Schism. If the Catholic church’s teaching are correct, then the Holy Spirit would inevitable move these new councils to validate that fact. Of course…if they aren’t sure that the Holy Spirit would lead the councils to declare their opinion to be true dogma, that’s a whole different story. I frankly only see that, or some other form of sheer arrogance, as the only plausible reasons to not have taken the appropriate steps for reconciliation that I mentioned. I hardly think my opinion is an unreasonable to hold.
