Orthodox believe the same as Roman Catholics?

[w_stewart]

No position is necessary.

If you reject a Catholic doctrine, like the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility (like the Orthodox explicitly do), that makes you a heretic.

There’s no reason for confusion or doubt; The Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

I resorted to sarcasm because I’ve encountered people on these forums who insist that the Eastern Orthodox don’t reject Papal Infallibility. I don’t want to get mired in another ridiculous discussion in which the other poster seems to ignore reality.

The Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox Churches as heretical. They may be schismatics but not heretical.

 

[Dauphin]

The Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox Churches as heretical. They may be schismatics but not heretical.

That’s simply not true. If you have evidence that the Catholic Church has officially denied what is clearly evident, then present it.

 

[w_stewart]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION

V

ECCLESIAL COMMUNION AND ECUMENISM

1. “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter”(72). Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

 

[Dauphin]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION

I’m already aware of this document, and there’s absolutely no mention of the matter of heresy. This has to do with the Church’s understanding of the state of communion with the Eastern Orthodox.

The reality is that the Church has never said that the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics, since this would be contrary to reality.

 

[w_stewart]

I’m already aware of this document, and there’s absolutely no mention of the matter of heresy. This has to do with the Church’s understanding of the state of communion with the Eastern Orthodox.

The Catholic Church, through that document, made it clear that the Orthodox Churches are part of the infallible one true church founded by Christ. They have valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession.

The reality is that the Church has never said that the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics, since this would be contrary to reality.

The Catholic Church condemned Arius for espousing heretical doctrine (Jesus was not God). The Church, likewise, condemned Nestorius for teaching that Mary was not the Mother of God.

What I am trying to drive at is that the Catholic Church has condemned and will certainly condemn heretics.

My question is:

If the Orthodox Churches are indeed heretics as you claim, are they condemned by the Church for espousing heretical doctrines?

 

[Dauphin]

The Catholic Church condemned Arius for espousing heretical doctrine (Jesus was not God). The Church, likewise, condemned Nestorius for teaching that Mary was not the Mother of God.

What I am trying to drive at is that the Catholic Church has condemned and will certainly condemn heretics.

My question is:

If the Orthodox Churches are indeed heretics as you claim, are they condemned by the Church for espousing heretical doctrines?

Yes, the Church has condemned the heresies which the Eastern Orthodox adhere to.

Now answer my question: Does an Eastern Orthodox believer accept or reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which says that the Pope is incapable of any error when speaking ex cathedra?

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Dauphin,

If I may interject her, before I am off to bed… :coffeeread:

Yes, the Church has condemned the heresies which the Eastern Orthodox adhere to.

I know that Cardinal Humberto and Cardinal Frederic condemned the Orthodox for castrating their guests.

But I don’t know of any dogma formally held by the Orthodox which has ever been condemned.

Now answer my question: Does an Eastern Orthodox believer accept or reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which says that the Pope is incapable of any error when speaking ex cathedra?

The Orthodox do not know of any such doctrine to accept or reject it.

It is not part of the received Faith, and has never been taught in the Orthodox church. It is completely unknown.

Michael

 

[w_stewart]

Yes, the Church has condemned the heresies which the Eastern Orthodox adhere to.

What heresies? Could you cite some?

Now answer my question: Does an Eastern Orthodox believer accept or reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which says that the Pope is incapable of any error when speaking ex cathedra?

Yes. Orthodox Churches reject the doctrine of papal infallibility but that rejection cannot be qualified as formal heresy.

 

[Dauphin]

What heresies? Could you cite some?

Already did.

Yes. Orthodox Churches reject the doctrine of papal infallibility but that rejection cannot be qualified as formal heresy.

I’ve honestly reached my wit’s end. Normally, I can go on like this forever, as I’m very stubborn, but I’ve had this conversation far too many times, and it just gets more and more absurd.

Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined at the First Vatican Council. Rejection of it is heresy. It carries the penalty of anathema.

I’ll leave you with the definition.

*"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. *
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv​

 

[w_stewart]

Already did.

I’ve honestly reached my wit’s end. Normally, I can go on like this forever, as I’m very stubborn, but I’ve had this conversation far too many times, and it just gets more and more absurd.

Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined at the First Vatican Council. Rejection of it is heresy. It carries the penalty of anathema.

I’ll leave you with the definition.

*"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. *
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv​

I will not answer these arguments using my own. Here is what EWTN says:

Heresy, Schism and Apostasy

---

Definitions
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.

Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

Link

 

[Dauphin]

That’s fair enough, but simply because we don’t assume moral culpability for schism and heresy doesn’t mean that they’re not actually culpable.

I imagine that most, in fact, are.

 

[w_stewart]

That’s fair enough, but simply because we don’t assume moral culpability for schism and heresy doesn’t mean that they’re not actually culpable.

I imagine that most, in fact, are.

That is not even the point. The bone of contention is whether the Catholic Chruch considers the Orthodox Churches to be heretical. And the EWTN source clearly says the Church does not consider them heretics, a negation to your “stubborn” position.

 

[Dauphin]

That is not even the point. The bone of contention is whether the Catholic Chruch considers the Orthodox Churches to be heretical. And the EWTN source clearly says the Church does not consider them heretics, a negation to your “stubborn” position.

This is splitting hairs. It does not assume individual Orthodox culpable for the sins of heresy and schism, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t.

Anyone who obstinately adheres to the EO position is most certainly a heretic, because he will have rejected Catholic doctrine.

 

[w_stewart]

This is splitting hairs. It does not assume individual Orthodox culpable for the sins of heresy and schism, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t.

EWTN statement is so vivid. The Catholic Church no longer call anybody who rejects the papal infallibility as schismatic.

Anyone who obstinately adheres to the EO position is most certainly a heretic, because he will have rejected Catholic doctrine.

Most certainly? You are not sure and yet you insist on your judgment that they are heretics. That is too uncharitable.

 

[Dauphin]

EWTN statement is so vivid. The Catholic Church no longer call anybody who rejects the papal infallibility as schismatic.

No, no, no! It no longer gives the title of “heretic” to material heretics, but only to formal heretics. This entails no doctrinal change. Clearly, anyone who obstinately rejects Catholic doctrine is a heretic.

Most certainly? You are not sure and yet you insist on your judgment that they are heretics. That is too uncharitable.

The key word is obstinate. Obstinate rejection of Catholic doctrine is the definition of heresy. No judgement was made in that statement.

 

[w_stewart]

No, no, no! It no longer gives the title of “heretic” to material heretics, but only to formal heretics. This entails no doctrinal change. Clearly, anyone who obstinately rejects Catholic doctrine is a heretic.

I did not even imply that this is a doctrinal change.

The key word is obstinate. Obstinate rejection of Catholic doctrine is the definition of heresy. No judgement was made in that statement.

When you assert that Orthodox Churches are heretical, that already is a judgment. And that judgment is not the official position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Dauphin]

When you assert that Orthodox Churches are heretical, that already is a judgment. And that judgment is not the official position of the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox faith, insofar as it entails the rejection of Catholic doctrine, is indeed heretical.

 

[w_stewart]

The Eastern Orthodox faith, insofar as it entails the rejection of Catholic doctrine, is indeed heretical.

That is your position which the Catholic Church disagrees.

 

[Aramis]

With all due respect to Memaw, I just don’t agree with either of those two sentences.

The Dogma and doctrines of the Orthodox are generally extant in Catholicism.
The majority of Catholic Dogma exists within Orthodox Dogma and Doctrine.

There are, however, subtle differences, and they don’t exactly line up, and often do not share the same terminology, adding to the confusion.

 

[prodromos]

Does an Eastern Orthodox believer accept or reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which says that the Pope is incapable of any error when speaking ex cathedra?

If Papal infallibility (as you define it) was ever part of the Orthodox faith then you would find references to it in our Liturgy and our hymns and prayers. It is conspicuously absent however, thus we do not believe nor have we ever believed it. What some breakaway patriarchate from almost a century ago has recently defined as dogma is no concern of ours. We hold fast to the faith we received, the faith that you once held to also.

John