www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Books New Book: His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck

Isn't that basically the same as "It is not a heresy, but a schism"?

I am aware of this fact, and it strikes me as a serious inconsistency. To be in communion with someone says that you share his faith. Does the Catholic Church no longer consider the 3rd and 4th ecumenical councils to be binding? Is it okay in the Catholic Church to uphold Nestorius as a saint and defender of the true faith, to consider St. Cyril to be little more than an ecclesiastic gangster, and to call the Virgin Mary "Christotokos" while refusing to call Her Theotokos? Can you honestly say you share the same faith with such a person?

I am baffled by this entire thread.

It looks like people, both Catholic and Orthodox, are *looking* for reasons to be apart, and searching high and low for reasons to maintain the schism, and why what is shared is really different.

Just as an example, there is a clear explanation available that schism occurred, without a split in faith. This is followed centuries later by a councils (whether local or ecumenical, depending upon party asked) which claim additional authority of Rome, and then acts that claim to revoke elements leading to separation, and then Roman canon law acknowledging the possibility of communion by individuals.

Rome rather clearly understands the Orthodox not to be in heresy. Again, a simple explanation is available that a believer in a Church in schism can hardly be expected to repudiate his Church due to the acts of Churches on the other side of the schism, and that to find the person heretical would be an act of violence against both logic and charity.

This seems to be the Catholic position. It argues that an individual Orthodox is *not* a heretic. But we are seeing an Orthodox argument that, "By your standards, which we, not you, will determine, yes we are!"

Again, I'm baffled. I find difficulty distinguishing between this approach and the Missouri Synod of Lutheranism, whose response to the joint Lutheran-Catholic statement on justification a decade or two ago could be summarized as, "There can be no dialog until Catholics acknowledge that they have always been wrong on all issues, that we were always right, and that they're all Damned beyond redemption regardless of their repentance or acceptance of anything we say."

hawk, dismayed

Christotokos: She who gave Birth to the annointed one
Theotokos: She who gave Birth to God
Madre de Dios, Matya Bože: Mother of God

all are valid but incomplete expressions, and both readily subject to misinterpretation by the ill-informed.

Neither the Oriental Orthodox Communion nor the Catholic Communion deny the either as valid. In fact, some catholics use each.

Miaphysitism is different from monophysitism. Monophysitism says Christ has a unique nature. Miaphysitism says that Christ has two natures, but the person of Christ is the individible union of those two. The teaching condemned in the coucil was Monophysitism; the majority of the writings of the time in the so-called-monophysite churches are miaphysite in actual understanding.

The copts I've talked matters of faith with hold the same beliefs, despite not accepting the councils, as those who accept the councils. It's not that they reject the councils, but that they don't accept the council... and that's a difference of import. The difference of the defined faith is less on a corporate level than the difference of expressed faith within each corporate body...

Even if they held monophysitism at the time of the council, they don't, as corporate bodies, teach nor hold monophysitism NOW.

I have said as much on many occasions.

This is a very good summary, explanation and appraisal; I only question the "both Catholic and Orthodox" statement. Sure it's always possible now to find some such "people both Catholic and Orthodox *looking* for reasons to be apart." But I have not found that to be the Catholic position in this thread and in similar threads in which I have participated.

The actual situation and position of the Catholic Church indicates your logic is flawed. Your logic may be too simple.

If that's the way you want to put it, I'd say you've succeeded in digging a hole for yourself. You should know from the rigorous logic of mathematics that if a general proof is given it must be shown to be true for all cases that apply. To show a proof is wrong, however, it is sufficient to give just one example that doesn't work. I provided one example from a Catholic source to question the sweeping and general claim of Fr. Laurent as quoted:
"...The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in a state of schism and heresy, under Papal anathema." The question is, can this in its entirety be shown to be true? Is it accurate? Note the word teaches which indicates to me that this is not an inference but an explicit statement, present tense. The burden of proof is on you.

Also, the quote from the CE is misleading as taken out of context. As best I can tell, the writer is speaking about the direct founding of churches by Apostles or an unbroken link to such a church. It is a very narrow viewing of the unbroken Apostolic succession of churches, not bishops, as a mark of the True Church. The given CE quote (whether or not the author's view is accepted) must be read in its immediate preceding context beginning at the least at:

[quote=aramis]Christotokos: She who gave Birth to the annointed one
Theotokos: She who gave Birth to God
Madre de Dios, Matya Bože: Mother of God

all are valid but incomplete expressions, and both readily subject to misinterpretation by the ill-informed.

Neither the Oriental Orthodox Communion nor the Catholic Communion deny the either as valid. In fact, some catholics use each.

Miaphysitism is different from monophysitism. Monophysitism says Christ has a unique nature. Miaphysitism says that Christ has two natures, but the person of Christ is the individible union of those two. The teaching condemned in the coucil was Monophysitism; the majority of the writings of the time in the so-called-monophysite churches are miaphysite in actual understanding.

The copts I've talked matters of faith with hold the same beliefs, despite not accepting the councils, as those who accept the councils. It's not that they reject the councils, but that they don't accept the council... and that's a difference of import. The difference of the defined faith is less on a corporate level than the difference of expressed faith within each corporate body...

Even if they held monophysitism at the time of the council, they don't, as corporate bodies, teach nor hold monophysitism NOW.
[/quote]

Aramis- I was referring mainly to the Nestorians, and not the non-Chalcedonians. For my thoughts on those folks, see the "miaphysitism" thread.

[quote=ajk][quote=Embatl'dSeraphim]It's a simple application of logic. If those who reject Papal infallibility and other "divinely revealed" doctrines are anathematized, then the Orthodox are under anathema. [/quote] The actual situation and position of the Catholic Church indicates your logic is flawed. Your logic may be too simple.[/quote]

Or perhaps the position of the Catholic Church is simply illogical. If someone teaches A but also not-A, that doesn't cancel out A, that just indicates incoherence. "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." We have the temerity to reject this definition of yours. So...?

Fr. Deacon,

Can you explain this point in greater detail?

I tend to see people pointing out "reasons to be apart" simply since many seem to dismiss the issues outright. By "pointing out" they are looking to discuss. It is discussion that sheds light on whether or not there are differences.

Yet, it is their propensity to find new bones of contention in areas that never were considered contentious before that causes one to wonder. The goalposts of unity are constantly in motion.

[quote=StuartK]Yet, it is their propensity to find new bones of contention in areas that never were considered contentious before that causes one to wonder.[/quote]

Please do be specific and outline what some of these "new bones of contention are."

Yes.

Let me ask you a question: Must all Catholics properly hold that all Orthodox are under anathema resulting from Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, which among other things, defined Papal infallibility?

It would only logically follow that certain explanations would bring up other issues. That is the hard part, but it is necessary.