Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 22, 2018 at 22:16 comment added jong ricafort I think the better way to look at it as all the Vatican II Popes has reach out the hand of reconcilliation and offered Ecumenism, even St.JP2 said the Church has to breathe with two lungs. Eastern Orthodox has not yet received the graces or are somehow resisting the graces of Full Divine Revelation. It's not technically schism but only resistant to graces but still possess the Catholic Faith but not in Fullness, the word is "subsist".
Oct 22, 2018 at 18:37 comment added Sola Gratia Right? Omission of the "Filioque" may be allowed for the same reason it was allowed when the first Council to issue the Creed (Nicaea I) didn't include it. Just like the Apostles' Creed didn't include details found in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan or Athanasian. But whenever you demand to omit it because you do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church to teach concerning its valid and licit use in the Creed you by definition are committing heresy at the least in some sense. Some folks have it otherwise.
Oct 22, 2018 at 17:53 comment added Geremia Denial of the filioque is a Trinitarian heresy; to deny the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son is false understanding of the Trinity. Eastern Rite Catholic Churches do not and cannot deny it even if they don't explicitly mention it in their liturgies' creed.
Oct 22, 2018 at 17:52 comment added Geremia @SolaGratia Yes, they deny the papacy, which is heresy.
Oct 22, 2018 at 17:52 comment added Geremia Where in any Catholic document does it say "the Roman Catholic Church holds that the doctrinal issues that exist are minor if not meaningless"? I could quote myriads of counterexamples.
Oct 22, 2018 at 11:33 comment added Sola Gratia Of course denial of the pope's supremacy is in its essence to deny there is a pope. So that would also be a heresy however informal you want to view it as. However, it's interesting to view these denials not as a denial of the fundamental underlying doctrine, but of what is the superficial result of an entirely different strain of development of Christianity itself (East vs. West, especially post-Schism). I'll have to do more research I suppose.
Oct 22, 2018 at 10:39 vote accept Anixx
Oct 22, 2018 at 0:02 history edited Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0
Added one link.
Oct 21, 2018 at 23:10 comment added Kurt Weber You might disagree with the Catholic Church's position, you may think that these are pretty substantial differences--on many of these points I happen to think so as well. And, of course, the Orthodox tend to think they're pretty significant differences too. But the answer to the question hinges on what the Roman Catholic Church thinks, not on whether that thinking is right or wrong.
Oct 21, 2018 at 23:09 comment added Kurt Weber In the Catholic view, with the exception of papal supremacy (the rejection of which is explicitly defined in canon law as schism and not heresy, so no issue there) the Orthodox don't actually reject them. Again, the Eastern Catholic example is instructive: Greek-rite Catholics are able to maintain basically Orthodox formulations of positions on these very questions you bring up precisely because the Catholic position is that they aren't fundamentally different, but rather superficial products of divergent theological approaches (Patristic vs. Scholastic) to accessing the same truth.
Oct 21, 2018 at 22:26 comment added Sola Gratia Don't they deny the dogma of the faith of pope's supremacy among bishops, or infallibility? Original sin? The immaculate conception? Among other dogmas? That's the definition of heretic. The first heresy mentioned also makes them schismatics.
Oct 21, 2018 at 21:31 history answered Kurt Weber CC BY-SA 4.0