www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope Benedict XVI receives Archbishop Hilarion of Volokalamsk

This is not always true--St. John's in Bridgeport is a prime example. The vast majority of people followed Bishop Orestes and intially held the church building. The parishioners loyal to Rome met in the basement of the local Slovak RC parish--by reports there were only about 30 at the first Divine Liturgy after the split. In the protracted court battle that followed, the weight of the Archbishop of Hartford as holder of the property, was able to win the church for the Greek Catholics, while the Orthodox got the cemetery, and eventually built their beautiful church on Mill Hill Avenue.

The dialogue with the Russian orthodox Church is fundamental for a real dialogue with orthodoxy because it is the biggest orthodox Church.

It also is the one that has been most consistently questioning the canonicity of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Catholic Church (as a communion of churches). The Russian Orthodox actually coming to the table is a major step forward.

The Russian Church has participated fully.

There have been 10 Plenary Sessions of the "Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church."

Patmos Rhodes (1980)
Munich, Germany (1982)
Crete (1984)
Bari (1987)
Valamo (1988)
Freising (1990)
Balamand, Lebanon (1993)
Emmitsburg, USA (2000)
Belgrade, Serbia (2006)
Ravenna, Italy (2007)

The Church of Russia has participated in all of them, escept for the last one at Ravenna and Russia's absence was because of the presence of one of the Estonian Churches over which it has a dispute with Constantinople.

We hope that on Cyprus the Russian Church will make a major contribution on the question of universal primacy and offer cogent reasons why it is antithetical to the ecclesiological Tradition.

True. I should have said, "continuing to come to the table"...

It means the dialog hasn't convinced them the Romans are flat out heretics.

The Orthodox are, it seems, in material heresy but not formal heresy.

"Material heresy, on the other hand, means that the individual is unaware that his heretical opinion denies, in the words of Canon 751, "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."

"The opinion of a material heretic is still heresy, and it produces the same objective results as formal heresy, but because of his ignorance he commits no sin by holding it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy#Etymology_and_definition

Wiki is not reliable here: actually the the Canon 751 [vatican.va] of the Code of Canon Law (or better Canon CCEO 1437 because Canon 751 applies only to Latins) does not refer to any difference between formal and material heresy for the simply reason that material heresy is not considered heresy at all!
Only the formal heresy (i.e. deliberately known and freely willed) is an heresy (i.e. a canonical delict)
Thus Catholics cannot speak of any kind of heresy in regards of the Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Orthodox (of course the issue is different for the converted from any Catholic Churches to any other Church or denomination or sect as the SSPX)

If you read Canon 751 it says that it applies to those who have received baptism.

Are you saying the Orthodox have not received baptism?

No, the Orthodox baptism is fully valid. This is not the point.

To understand a Canon of the Canon Law is necessary to know something of canon law.
Canon 751 is a canon that describes a "canonical delict", and so all the general provisions about the canonical delicts shall apply: including the need of full knowledge and of deliberate consent.
Without full knowledge and deliberate consent (i.e. the case of cradle Orthodox), Canon 751 is not applicable.

By the way this Canon Law applies only to the Latin Church: Canon 1: The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church

Thank you for pointing that out. It is good to know that the Orthodox are not considered as either material or formal heretics for their denial of certain key Catholic dogmas.

It is very important that the Russian orthodox Church participates at the works of the International Theological Commision of dialogue with the Catholic Church.

The actual teaching of the Church re the Orthodox is that they are in material schism, not even heresy...
as evidenced by CIC canon 844 ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM ) and CCEO canon 671 ( http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PIN.HTM ).

after all, heretics are barred from communion, whether material or formal...

CIC is the canon law for the Roman Church Sui Iuris
CCEO is the canon law for the other 22 Sui Iuris churches in union with Rome.

You do realize that if the Orthodox are not heretics (whether material or formal), that means they believe all that is essential in the Catholic faith. Which, conversely, means those things which they do not believe are not essential. And that which is not essential cannot be considered a dogma of the faith.

Ergo. . . well, you do the math on that one.

I have... the math is, the doctrinal declarations post schism are not, generally, violations of mainstream Orthodox theology, but are often worded in ways that are misunderstood.

The separation is mostly over a tendency by many EO on the ground to see a difference of praxis as heteropraxis, and to judge Catholic teachings on the basis of the oft-misleading titles.

Only the issue of the papacy. And material schismatics do not constitute heretics for not believing in declarations post schism, until they come to union. (V II post conciliar documents on ecumenism, IIRC.)

Nicely played but inconsistent. If Pastor Aeternus is dogma, if belief in papal infallibility is necessary for salvation, then it cannot be waived or dispensed, and those who deny it are material heretics, not merely schismatics. If that is the case, then allowing the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist from Catholic priests is a sacrilege, as is allowing Catholics to receive from Orthodox priests. Since the Catholic Church allows both, the only logical conclusion is belief in papal infallibility is not essential for salvation, is not a core belief of the Church, but is an area of doctrine peculiar to one particular Church.

In any case, matters of Church governance are not a proper area for dogmatization, and although there were many instances in the first millennium of disagreements and schism related to the prerogatives of this Church and that Church, including the Church of Rome, neither side considered the other to be heretics because of it.