www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Do you view the Orthodox Churches as Heretical?

Thanos,

I'm sorry the Latin priest was rude to you. I'm apologizing for him because I love the Latin Mass - it's almost as beautiful as our own! - and my views on the Roman Rite are very "traditionalist". What the Father said was not what the Church teaches - not surprisingly, if he was from a schismatic sect (SSPX, I assume?) - but I want to argue (addressing more the other Catholics here than you) for patience for him, because there are legitimate reasons behind what he said that we really shouldn't overlook.

The Catholic Church does teach that willful schism or separation from the Church - whose centre of unity is the See of Peter) is a mortal sin. Eastern Orthodoxy also teaches this (cf. the current scandal in the Serbian Orthodox Church over Bishop Artemije, for example - his schism from and disobedience to his synod is a mortal sin however you look at it). The events of 1054 were simply the work of the Devil. However, the Catholic Church does NOT regard the average Orthodox faithful as being guilty of schism. Historical accidents led to an interruption of communion, and any Orthodox who approaches the Communion rail is presumed to be acting in good faith and, while Communion is a sign of unity with the whole Church and therefore "inter-communion" between churches in schism from each other is not possible, as a matter of the spiritual benefit and salvation of the individual any Orthodox who requests the sacraments cannot be denied them by canon law. Some churches will specifically state that only Catholics can receive Communion, and in this respect they are correct; any Orthodox who does not reject communion with the Catholic Church is thereby a "Catholic" by our definition, and nobody who willfully commits schism would approach for Communion.

The safeguarding of Holy Communion does become a problem when Protestants come to Mass; they cannot receive the Sacrament because they do not have the sacrament of confession to prepare themselves properly, they do not believe it is the Body of Our Lord, and they reject the Orthodox Faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. The priest you talked to probably assumed that since you weren't Catholic that you were a heretic.

I'm not going to get into the Christological issue here because I don't understand it myself. From what I've read from statements between the Vatican and the Armenian Church, and between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox committees, there is no divergence of doctrine, but only of terminology. So long as the Copts reject Eutychianism (which they always have) and embrace the orthodox formula of St. Cyril ("one incarnate nature of God the Word" - which, again, they always have), they are perfectly Orthodox in doctrine. The same goes with all the other supposed doctrinal differences between East and West, regarding purification of sins after death and the sinlessness of the Theotokos for example. So long as you do not claim that my Orthodox Faith is a heresy, I see no reason to impute heresy to you.

As you said, the Pope is trying his hardest to bring about unity, and I trust that your bishops are doing the same. May that day come soon - keep praying for it!

Slava Isusu Christu! (Glory to Jesus Christ!)

I don't mind saying that I'm "under" the Pope of Rome; I've never understood the idea that being "under" means being "subjugated to". Being "under" the Pope of Rome means being under his fatherly care.

Hi, while I agree with everything else in your post, there is one thing which struck a chord your preception of the SSPX. They are not schismatic or a sect. The excommunications were declared null and void. In regards to being a "sect", they are a lay society of traditional priests. The Pope, sent a cardinal to investigate them and it was determined that the SSPX were neithere schismatic or heretical. The group described in the OP said they practiced re baptism even to other Catholics, this would be heresy. It would seem that the group in the OP was merely sedevacantists or others like them who pretend to be true traditionalist Catholics and certainly not the SSPX. Also, the SSPX and their supporters while favoring the Latin Mass have the greatist respect for the Orthodox and Divine Liturgy!

I think calling the SSPX a lay society of priests is quite a stretch. In the "LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE," Pope Benedict writes:

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Are they not the ones who ordained Bishops for the Society of St. Josephat whom favor Latinizations in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and fight restoration of authentic Orthodox traditions in the UGCC?

From their website they also call the Orthodox Schismatic and Heretical. Here is the place where I got it from. Some one was asking about the Filioque

from http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__liturgical.htm#removaloffilioque

This clearly, at least in my mind, shows the societies view of the Eastern Churches (both Catholic-whom the world Uniate is used- and Orthodox)

But if there is evidence to the contrary I would like very much to see it.

I thought that it is pretty standard theology to say that Jesus is one person but with two natures.

I do not see the problem with saying that they both existed and are both present.

from wikipedia: Thus, the Council (Chalcedon) declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person

The Chalcedonian formula of two hypostases in one person and the Cyrilian formula of one incarnate nature of the Word of God Jesus Christ are substantively equivalent. It's nothing more than quibbling over terminology, an argument between two modes of philosophical, not theological, expression.

Also, for the West (i.e., for the Byzantine and Latin Churches), Christology did not end with Chalcedon, but continued to evolve with Constantinople II and III, and even Nicaea II. Latin Christians in particular seem to to think Chalcedon was the end of the line, and do not understand the extended nature of the synthesis.

I will take you at your word for it...still I thought the post I was replying to was outright saying that it is is wrong to declare that there is one person and two natures. While his understanding may be the same as mine after the end of the day depending on how we use or define the words (according to what you say), I simply did not like it being declared that one can not speak of two natures at all, in accord with the orthodox tradition/teaching that they have theologically been taught.

There are extremists on all sides, but the dispute is largely terminological and cultural, not substantive. All sides believe that Jesus Christ is truly God; all sides believe that Jesus Christ is truly man; all sides believe Jesus Christ is One. And, as a wise Melkite bishop pointed out, "Everything else is philosophy".

"Philosophy", by the way, usually has a negative connotation in Eastern Christian thought.

IAN:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I just deleted your last post. First of all, you seem not to have read the material you agreed to abide by when You joined this forum. This is not a Catholic forum, but an Eastern Christian forum.

There are no "Uniate" Churches. Vatican II has given the Eastern Churches in the Catholic Communion their proper role as "sui juris" Churches--having their own Liturgies, spiritualities, laws, etc.

Vatican II has directed the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome to return to their patrimony, and that includes returning to the original recitation of the Nicene Creed. Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, recited the Creed in its original form. The filioque was a much later addition to the Creed and it seems to me you need to do your reading about this development in other venues than the SSPX.

As for the SSPX, their leaders are no longer under excommunication, but any Catholic who joins them puts himself in schism. This group is not in communion with the Catholic Church and its members, of which I am one, are not permitted to receive any sacraments from their clergy.

Please don't come here with material from these people. We don't need to be educated about the Faith delivered to the Apostles and the Fathers from that perspective.

Bob
Moderator

Hi, as you said, this is an Eastern Catholic forum so let us just agree to disagree over the SSPX. In regards to Eastern Catholics and Orthodox coming into communion with rome not being required to use the Filioque, which dogmatic statements/Papal Encyclals allow this? I may be a student but my current subect is mainly (the living hell of...) AP/IB cources not theology or Canon Law so I may be mistaken. When it comes to the material I was referencing (the Fatima Crusader) it has been endorsed by His Beatude Gregory III Laham, the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church; here is an article with photos of the Patriarch publically supporting them in St. Peters Square http://www.fatima.org/exclusives/RomeUpdatesatoct25.asp?zoom_highlight=gregory+iii+laham. Finally I assure you that no Traditionalist Catholic regards the Eastern Churches (including the Orthodox) as heretics and have a great love for the Divine Liturgy.

IAN:

Christ is in our midst!!

No, I did not say that. I said that this is an Eastern CHRISTIAN forum. Please take a minute to go to Town Hall and read the sticky thread that is entitled "Who we are." We are home to many Eastern Christians--both in and not in communion with the Bishop of Rome; both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian. We are here learning from each other. We find the SSPX position to be offensive and many of our brethren here have been offended by people in this organization in their personal lives.

Thd Catholic position vis-a-vis our brethren not in communion is totally contained in Vatican II and the documents and magisterial statements and documents coming after that. We face a new world that finds all of us irrelevant and finds our past polemics comical if not truly uncharitable--a repudiation of what we stand for as Christains of any stripe.

So, please take a look at the post and then decide if this is a place you will feel at home.

Bob
Moderator

That was a typo on my part apologies. I had a reply written where I said Eastern Christian, but when I whent to hit minimize on the corner of the screen to get the link I posted I accidentally hit "X". Then I just rushed to re write what I originally had before I forgot it . sorry. And to answer the OP, I don't regard the Orthodox as heretics. I know a Russian Orthodox guy at school and he is the only student I actually agree with an religious matters.

Ian,

The Fatima Crusader's statement on the encounter with His Beatitude, my Patriarch, hardly constitutes an endorsement of it by His Beatitude. Additionally, that he embraced Father Grunier is not surprising. I doubt very much that His Beatitude knows or is aware of Father Grunier's status vis-a-vis the Vatican - he would certainly have no particular raeson to be and I doubt that he knows who Father Grunier is. Encountering a procession honoring the Theotokos under any title, I have no doubt that His Beatitude would take the occasion to honor her.

However, I've learned - through many decades as an Eastern Christian and Catholic - how easily any number of renegade clerics have wormed their way into photo opportunities with hierarchs of the Eastern and Oriental Churches - both Catholic and Orthodox, as well as those of the Latin Church. Persons even further beyond the pale than Father Grunier. Over the years, I have seen photos psoted on websites of many non-canonical and even vagante 'Churches' which show their hierarchs and clergy being greeted - at the Vatican by the Pope or Vatican officials, at the Phanar by the Ecumenical Patriarch, and in myriad other settings by equally high-ranking individuals. Approached by 'clerics' garbed appropriately, they react accordingly, trusting in what they see, believing what their eyes show, and rarely attended by persons who will take a second look and say - 'whoops, that's Mar Markus Miller, the Patriarch/Primate/Whatever of the Byzantine Catholic Church, Inc - Not in Communion with Rome' - because these folk are effectively invisible as regards what they really are. I can assure you that the name of Father Grunier, for all of the notoriety that he has gained, is a non-entity to most any Eastern Patriarch and the vast majority of Eastern hierarchs. To almost any of them, he'd be another priest in clericals or cassock, leading a procession in honor of the Virgin in a city and country where processions are an everyday encounter.

If you want to know about Father Grunier's status with the Vatican, I suggest you do an on-line search.

Many years,

Neil

We're Melkites. We hug everybody.