www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News These are the problems with churches!!!

God Bless the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (for Alex), the United Methodist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Church of Canada and all other communities to which the Orthodox Church shares ecumencial partnership with.

Axios

The body of Christ has been wounded enough. We have had too much factionalism, schism and human pride.

I am dismayed at all the instances of individuals and groups willfully undermining the authority of their hierarchs in East and West. The church will ultimately be fine, I know because the Holy Spirit will guide her through all these things. But I am tired of these individuals who misguidedly want to tear down the work of God.

They will not succeed.

<<I have a catechism before vatican ll and it states this on error..>>

I now see what is going on here. Another person that rejects Vatican II.

The first thing you need to do is to throw away that book, second go and buy yourself a new one, and third go to confession and get yourself right with the church you say you love.

I feel that if you reject the Pope and anything after Vatican II, you have placed yourself outside the church.

Peter

Dear Brethren,

I see the need to remind the forum that not all who break communion (schismatics) are heretics.

To be an heretic one must:

(a) teach a false DOCTRINE.

(b) be informed of the falsity of the doctrine by competent Church authorities.

(c) lead a schism based upon that doctrine.

Many have taught incorrectly but have stopped at their correction or perhaps not stopped, but still did not lead a schism based upon false teachings. Origen was never declared a heretic. Followers of his took some of his erroneous teachings into schism. They are heretics.

Many have gone into schism but not based on false doctrines. Look to the Church of Macedonia, technically in schism, but not for any doctrinal reason. They simply claim autocephaly from Belgrade/Beograd (Patriarchate of Serbia). It is not a doctrinal issue. ROCOR (Russian Church Abroad) is considered by some to be in schism for failing to recognize the authority of the Patriarchate of Moscow, but is not considered heretical.

Let us not make a problem of Church discipline and schism into one of doctrinal heresy. I'm not sure if that is where the debate here is going, but I thought it wise to define the difference.

In Christ,
Andrew.

Andrew,
Great post, this is something we should all remember, but I have a question for you about Sedevacantists.

It is true that Sedevacantist have broken communion with Rome, that they are schismatics, no one really argues this point.

Now are they heretics? I would say that the group that traditionalrc promotes, thought the link he provided in another thread, are heretics.

Why? Lets look to your list.

(a) teach a false DOCTRINE.

They teach that the Holy Father is an antipope, that he is a heretic, that he is teaching heresy.

(b) be informed of the falsity of the doctrine by competent Church authorities.

I do not think you could argue the that Church hasn't informed them that they are wrong on this.

(c) lead a schism based upon that doctrine.

The whole Sedevacantist is based on the teaching that the Pope is not the Pope.

What do you think?

David

Dear David,

Based on what you write, THOSE WHO LED THEM INTO SCHISM qualify as heretics. After that, their descendants are just one more (protestant?) sect out there.

I apologize for not having read all of the previous posts. If you care to further diminish my ignorance:

I'm curious, are they saying that there should be no Pope at all, or just that the ones who have occupied the seat have been false and therefore the seat is vacant? If the latter is true, then surely they have their own, legitimate Pope.

In Christ,
Andrew

I have some reservations about this remark. If Vatican II did not change the Roman Catholic faith, then why would it be necessary for this person to "throw away that book" and buy a new one? Why not simply put it aside for a moment, or "read more"?

Dear Reader Andrew,

You are correct, however . . .

The sedevacantists do in fact accept error in saying the current Popes are not acceptable and therefore the Chair of Peter remains empty . . .

They reject, as Catholics, Vatican II, pronouncing it "heretical."

And they have not been around long enough to generate offspring that would be innocent of the sin of heresy and schism of the founders.

The sedevacantists are all former RC's who decided on their own to leave the Catholic Church and found their own brand of "true believerism."

And if you want to start a movement go canonize Origen, I'll do up an akathist for you . . .

No wonder you didn't promise to "be good" this Lent - why should you, since you believe in "apocatastatis?"

Alex

Dear Catholicos Mor Ephrem,

Well, for one thing, the old RC books would say that you, Friend, are both "heretical" AND "schismatic."

I second Brother Preble's note to get the other books where you are "our separated Brother in Christ, imperfectly, but really incorporated into His Mystical Body."

Take your pick!

Alex

Ah! That whiff of old condescension!

Dear Brian,

Is there ANY Church in Christendom that does NOT teach it is the 'true faith?'

I was wondering just in case you may have come across one along your journey Eastwards!

Alex

Alex,

I guess nowadays quite a few Churches teach that they themselves are the true Church and that others are as well!

In Christ,
Andrew.

Really? I think this definition is overly restrictive. There is no absolutely no way that Pope Honorius could be called a heretic by this definition.

Ah, but is this change in emphasis a change in the Roman Catholic faith, or just a change in "foreign policy" due to better information?

Dear Reader Andrew,

If this is the case, why then would one bother moving from one Church to another?

If I, as an Orthodox Christian, say, believed Roman Catholicism were as true as the Orthodox Church, if someone like Brian came to me and asked to be received into Orthodoxy, wouldn't I just tell him to stay where he was since our Churches were the same?

You are sounding more and more like a Catholic - and I'm not condemning you for it . . .

Alex