www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is the Pope a heretic to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Originally posted by StuartK:


Too simple, Alex, as you know.

Originally posted by OrthodoxyOrDeath:

>>>The pope was removed from the Constantinopolian Dyptichs in 1009 and you of all people know exactly what that means.<<<

That the two Churches weren't on formal speaking terms. It implies nothing of heresy, mainly because both Rome and Constantinople had used removal from the diptyches for political purposes so often as to dilute the importance of the act. It is significant that dynastic marriages between Constantinople and the West continued even after 1009, without any hint of discord. And on a popular level, the action was meanngless, since Byzantine pilgrims to places like Rome continued to receive the sacraments there, and vice versa. And finally, we should note that not all the other Byzantine Churches followed suit in removing the Pope of Rome from the diptyches--notably the Church of Antioch (which, significantly, was the only one not in point of fact a suffragan of Constantinople at that time). The implication of your line of reasoning would be that Antioch was equally "heretical", while of course, it maintained fraternal relations with Constantinople and Rome simultaneously--and continued to do so after 1054.

>>>Of course 1054 was insignificant, because, as you should know, the East and West were already estranged culturally, politically, and most importantly theologically.<<<

But not irrevocably, and few people noticed any change in the condition of relations between the two Churches for many decades afterwards. The Crusades, and especially the 4th Crusade, were far more critical to creating a real schism. Yet even after that, where Latins and Greeks had to live side by side, intercommunion remained a common phenomenon, witnessed by repeated injunctions by both Churches against it. Pelikan notes that only after the 18th century Melkite schism does the wall become (in theory) absolute--and even then, I would point out the continuing close relations between Orthodox and Greek Catholics in Ukraine, the Carpathians and the Middle East. The last continues to this day, while intercommunion in Eastern Europe, much to the disgust of Muscovite partisans, is returning to its pre-Stalinist normality.

>>>The most correct answer to the original question would be to say that the West bounced in and out of heresy for many centuries but all the while moving steadily away from Orthodoxy.<<<

Precisely WHEN did the Orthodox East formally condemn the Western Church, and where is this condemnation to be found?

>>>You are a legalist Stuart. You think that if x, y, and z are corrected everything is ok. And this type of legalism is pharisitical. You completley miss the substance and spirit of Orthodoxy.<<<

Not at all. Orthodox theology is based on the concept of reception: a teaching or idea is true only when the ENTIRE Body of Christ accepts it as true, recognizing truth in its self-authenticating nature. Formal synodal or even conciliar declarations are not true a priori--that is, because of their source. They are only true when they are recognized as bearing witness to the truth. Thus, there is not only a legalist or formalist objection to the statement that the Latin Church is heretical, there is also a purely Eastern ecclesiological/spiritual objection: that there has never been a true consensus on this point, which leaves it up in the air, nothing more than personal theological opinions.

>>>Example: It is ok for you if the pope utters the filioque, as long as he doesn't do it in front of the Orthodox. It would be safe to say in a senario such as this that the pope has never repented of the heresy and still thinks nothing of it. He is therefore unchanged.<<<

That depends, of course, on whether you think the Filioque is heretical in the way the Pope means it. A reading of the Clarification on the Procession of the Holy Spirit demonstrates that the meaning behind the words as used by the Latin Church is congruent with the Orthodox meaning. The question of whether, in that case, it should be retained becomes pastoral. And of course, you will not find a consensus among Orthodox theologians as to whether the MEANING of the Filioque is itself heretical.

To put the shoe on the other foot, I take it that you reject out of hand the Joint Agreed Christological Statements between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches in which both agree to accept the Christological terminology of each other because both are essentially congruent--both are professing the same thing in different terminology. These statements do not require the Oriental Orthodox to accept the Chalcedonian formula, but rather to continue to express their Christology in the perfectly Orthodox formula used by Cyril of Alexandria. Considering the gallons of bile spilled on both sides over that, the Filioque controversy fades into relative insignificance, doesn't it?

>>>And might I mention that there are many more heresies which have not been mentioned but no matter, these are just the tangible exhibits of a completly different essense. The spirirtuality of the West does not make them "strangers to the world" and does not transform them.<<<

Better enunciate them, and the formal condemnations of these errors. Are they part of the Synodicon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy? If not, how can you say they are really heresies, and not just your understanding of what is heretical?

>>>In addition, with regard to your comment that until a Orthodox council is called to declare a Latin heresy a true heresy that all opinions are just opinions....I have to say, aside from another legalism, it appears you once again do not understand Orthodoxy on bit. I guess this is speculative knowledge over empirical knowledge in action.<<<

If it ain't in the liturgy, it ain't real. You want to formally condemn the West, you ought to put it in the anathemas. If it isn't in the anathemas, it isn't incumbent on any Orthodox Christian to accept it.

>>>I have pointed out before that all Orthodox Councils have merely declared what was always believed.<<<

Very simplistic notion. They very often synthesized a more clear understanding using terminology or concepts not found in the Fathers or in Scripture, for all that patristic florilegia were used to justify them.<<<

>>>These councils did not create or invent or define anything, they merely affirmed to establish order.<<<

No, what they did was bear witness to the truth, and they were accepted because all the faithful recognized that fact. There is no juridical preconditions that automatically make a council ecumenical, so it is only with the reception of conciliar teachings (a process that can take years, even decades) that ecumenicity is recognized.

>>>With this in mind, is it to hard for you to comprehend that yes, I in fact do know what Orthodoxy is and do know what is heretical and what is not without waiting for a council.<<<

But you would be dancing alone, or at least in small groups, since you would have a hard time finding a moral consensus within Orthodoxy to support your position. You may be correct in your assertion, but as an Orthodox Christian, you have to be willing to take the consequences of dancing alone.

>>>I know for instance, that I cannot purchase the "good works" of a saint as the Latins espouse.<<<

That's good, because Latin's don't espouse that, you know.

>>>For one who claims another as having a Western mentality, I guess it takes one to know one.<<<

As I said, the worst form of latinization lies between the ears, and those most vociferous in defense of the Orthodox Tradition often have the most confused notion of what that Tradition is.

>>>Unfortunate I do not have more time...<<<

Neither do I. But I can see you making the same arguments against Meyendorff, Florovsky, Schmemman, Lossky, and even Zizoulis. So I am in good company.

[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ][/QB]