www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Heresy as defined by Rome

I have read many of the posts on this board (I was especially moved by the posts of SinnerJohn) and came to the frightful realization that there is an enormous gulf which separates Byzanatine Catholics and Latin Catholics. I have repeatedly read that Byzantine Catholics do not believe in papal infallibility, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary (as a required dogma), communion under one species, merits, indulgences, or even post schism councils!

So, for those of you who don't believe in these Latin nessesities, I would like to hear your reaction to the following...


"Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines." (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

"By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed." (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)

"Any baptized person who � obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)

Petros,

What an excellent post. I left the Catholic Church because I realized my loyalties certainly were divided and I could no longer live with the hypocrisy. Better a good heretic than a bad Catholic.

Vasili,

Thank you, I'm glad someone else has read the story of "The Emperors New Clothes". lol. I have some more comments but would like to wait for any other views.

Dear PetrosPete,

If you've been reading the posts on this board, you should have seen that the denial is not of the truths of the Church, but of the necessity to describe those truths only through Western definitions.

The Church and the Holy Father seem more than willing to accept the validity of our theological approach. We in turn, are more than willing to allow you yours, even though we would not describe certain truths the way you do. Trouble only starts when one of us decides that OURS is the ONLY way to describe the Undescribable.

Heresy is a stubborn denial of the truth. We agree on that. Approaching the truth from a different perspecive is not heresy. If you'd like to learn more about the Eastern approach, there are many people here who can recommend books or answer questions, but it's not really polite to come to someone else's house, wave a manual and yell, "Hey, you don't live by MY rules, so you must be a heretic!" We're rather used to it, but it gets a bit tiresome. For now, can you accept the Church and the Holy Father's judgement that we are fully in communion with one another? (maybe a cracked sidewalk, but certainly no yawning gulf between us) Then we can talk as Christians about how that is so.

Peace,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Sharon,

The above canons are very clear. Those things defined by the Latins must be believed, according to their definition. To simply say you beleive them, but in a different way, is very ambiguous and has the aroma of purposeful deceit. At the very least, your interpretation of these canons reduce them to mean almost nothing.

Example: The dogma of papal infallibility is quite clear, defined, and perscribed to by the Latins. Would you say then you have another definition of this "truth" that means the same thing? If so, please explain the definition as held by the Byzantines.

And could it be that a Protestant is also Catholic when they define the priesthood?

Dear PetrosPete:

I read your question and it evoked some reminiscent memories of when I too was in your position. I understand totally where you are coming from.

However, I must say that as of now I cannot agree with you. First, let's clear up some points.

1) Who here denied that the Assumption is denied? Our liturgy, which is part of Holy Tradition, solemnly affirms that after Mary died, her body and soul were taken to heaven. Perhaps you were reffering to the point of that dogmatization. Well everyone here believes this, so why get all worried whether it is doctrine or dogma?

2) Purgatory. Please read the Union of Brest, I'm sure you can find it online. It explicitly says (this is the Ruthenians and Romans coming into Union): We will not discuss Purgatory. To me, this means, "you keep your beliefs, we'll keep ours." Now whichever Lateran council that defined Purgatory said that the only dogmatized points were 1) you are cleansed after death and 2) it involves some suffering. One Eastern approach to this is the doctrine of the Tollhouses, which if you really want to get into I would be glad to discuss in more detail in a second topic area, but which basically says that as the sould ascends to heaven it is particularly judged by demons attacking it, but if the soul is firm in Christ it will be saved (do you see purification, and some pain in this process... sound like purgatory in a sense?)

3) Post schism councils. You really need to read _We are all schismatics_ by Melkite CATHOLIC Archbishop Zoghby (available from www.melkite.org's [melkite.org's] bookshop) before we can really discuss this. I cannot do an adequate job. But I'll try. OK We do not know when the schism actually happened--1054 is out, 1204 seems likely but communion still continued afterward, etc. Also, Rome says that the Orthodox are mystically part of the Catholic Church with valid sacraments, so in short: how on earth can you have 14 extra ecumenical councils when half the church is missing?! Also, why did the Fathers of the Council of Florence call Florence the 8TH ECUEMENICAL COUNCIL when now it is referred to as something like the 16th? One article which I will actually photocopy and mail to you if you are serious about this all (email me privately with address) is "Which councils are ecumenical?" by Father Francis Dvornik (Roman Catholic worldclass scholar.)

That's enough for now, I'll respond more later if the topic continues.

anastasios

PetrosPete,


You are correct those canons are very clear. But those are latin canons, it is my understanding that there is a Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churchs.

Granted I do not know much of the Byzantine Catholic Church even though by canon law I am a member of it I do know this.

Byzantine Catholics do believe in papal infallibility, the problem comes down to how one defines this infallibility. There are many latins that disagree on that definition.

Also Byzantine Catholics believe in the Assumption of Mary.

Most of what you say that you saw here I haven't seen so I don't know where you got these ideas.


Your little brother in Christ,
David

I know from past experience that many Roman-rite Catholics and like-minded Byzantines (and other Eastern Catholics) would insist there is only one way to be a Catholic Christian. But what would a high church dignitary, like Cardinal Ratzinger, have to say about these issues? Can anyone venture an educated guess? ( And not to get off topic, but just think of the universal and positive consequences of a reconciliation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the impact that clarification in both word and practice would have on High Church Lutherans and Anglicans. Unity in diversity! What a concept.)

>>>Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the
Church as divinely revealed doctrines." (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).<<<

You may not have noticed, but the 1917 Code is dead as a smelt. If we were following the 1917 Code, we wouldn't be having any ecumenical discussions at all.

StuartK,

I don't, and have not had, the time for an adequate response but have some more comments based on your remark.

You stated the 1917 canon code is dead. Does that mean everything it taught was not true? Or would you say the canon needs to be updated to be in step with the world? I think the latter is what you are leaning toward which means Catholicism is always relative to the world, and what is true today regarding "heretics", might not be true tomoorrow. Or would you say all those deemed "heretics" in 1917 by this canon were or were not "heretics"? Which is correct, then or now?

This by itself would be considered heresy, from an Orthodox perspective.


[This message has been edited by PetrosPete (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by PetrosPete (edited 10-27-2000).]

Pete,

The Codex iuris is not a "teaching" document -- it is a list of "rules and regulation" that govern how the Church operates. The 1917 codex iuris was replaced in 1983. There were canons that no longer applied due to changing circumstances, changes in discipline, etc. This happens over the course of time.

One should never confuse the condex iuris with teaching documents. Although, in truth, many doctrines and dogmas are the basis for the canons, those canons are not designed to teach but to regulate.

Edward, deacon and sinner

>>>You stated the 1917 canon code is dead. Does that mean everything it taught was not true? Or
would you say the canon needs to be updated to be in step with the world? I think the latter is
what you are leaning toward which means Catholicism is always relative to the world, and what is
true today regarding "heretics", might not be true tomoorrow. Or would you say all those deemed
"heretics" in 1917 by this canon were or were not "heretics"? Which is correct, then or now?<<<

Perhaps you need to take a good look at the canons of the various Great Councils, and then look in the Pedalion, and then see if you can tell me with a straight face that Orthodoxy has not changed its canonical legislation to adjust to its changing circumstances. Or, to be more precise, Orthodoxy through the exercise of episcopal oikonomia, decides what canons are still valid, and which are not (I do hope you never find yourself in the terrible position of having to use a Jewish physician).

The Church lives in the world, even if it is not of the world, and therefore, it must have rules and regulations to provide good order and governance. But canons are not an immutable part of Holy Tradition. Just as the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, so canons were made to serve the Church, and the Church was not meant to be a slave to the canons.

StuartK,

Certainly there are canons the Orthodox no longer honor but Orthodox treatment of the canons id fundamentally different in several ways. First, if the circumstances that created those canons came into existance again they would again apply. Second, the ones which tend to be overlooked are not very significant in matters of faith such as the ones I cited above. Third, Orthodoxy treats the canons as a manifestation of Tradition and tradition never changes. Fourth, and most imporantly, you will not find any canons being updated, changed, modified, replaced, or offically written off.

Ultimatley, I don't feel my original post has truly been addressed. There have been attempts at dismantling certain aspects of it, but it still stands. The meaning behind these Latin canons is fundamental and such that there is little room for maneuver. Please someone show me how Byzantine beliefs are the same, yet different - the same definition, but with a different understanding??? How about if we talk about merits?

Or, perhaps someone can show me why ALL of these canons no longer apply, and which council(s) formally replaced or abolished them. Like Vasili said, what would Ratzinger say?

Dear Brother, Stuart
Glory To the Lord Jesus Christ!

The Pedalion or the Rudder is a compendium of rulings and cononical decisions that should only be interpreted by a priest who has been theologically educated. Depending on where you are reading the ruling for the sin has differing penalties depnedent upon the mitigating circumstances---for example was the person a child , teenager, single, married,lower clergy, upper clergy, monastic or secular---the situation may vary---was another crime or sin involved against the sinner---what level of spiritual education did the sinner have, etc. Locality and time period also played a part in the differing presentations in the book.

My parish priest when I asked as a new convert many years ago about The Pedalion or Rudder told me that only those called to have to make such judgements by the church (i.e. Priests and Bishops)should use it as the very action of those judgements need the special charisma that God has called them to.
The Priest advised me that he only would address the issues at hand after reading all the pertinent citations from the book, praying and allowing the Holy spirit to direct him in making the appropriate decisions---knowing when and when not to apply the economia on a case by case basis .

Too often, he advised me, do the laity use the Pedalion or Rudder to unrighteously judge one another or their clergy---he noted that this was the start of problems that led to the schism of many of the Old Calendar non canonical Orthodox churches from mainline orthodoxy.

One of the major changes in approach came after the lifting of the mutual anethemas, no longer did either church look at the other as heretical but as sister churches thus eliminating the phrases of "schimatics" or "heretics" from the official language of the two sister churches. In the approach to other Christian Churches the term "heterodox" began to be utilized instead of "heretic" bringing about a change in terminology and approach not noted in the Pedalion or the Rudder.

Forgive me If I offend,
Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

>>>Certainly there are canons the Orthodox no longer honor but Orthodox treatment of the canons id
fundamentally different in several ways.<<<

Yes, and the most fundamental is that the Orthodox Church interprets canons within the context of oikonomia, whereas the Latin Church tends to view it as an objective code of law, from which one may only be dispensed by a formal process. In your approach to the canons, you are far more Latin in outlook than I think you realize.

>>>First, if the circumstances that created those canons came into existance again they would
again apply.<<<

And what do you think the odds of that might be? About the same as the odds of the Byzantine Empire being restored? The Orthodox approach is not that different in principle than English common law, in which new accretions of precedent are piled on top of old, often superseding them, but never actually replacing them, so that the obsolete law and the applicable law exist side by side, in comfortable inconsistency, since everybody knows which laws apply and which do not.

>>>Second, the ones which tend to be overlooked are not very significant in matters of faith such as the
ones I cited above.<<<

And yet, different bishops may have, based on their oikonomia, entirely different opinions regarding the relevence of particular canons.

>>>Third, Orthodoxy treats the canons as a manifestation of Tradition and tradition never changes.<<<

Spoken like a true traditionalist, but entirely incorrect. Truth never changes, and the purpose of Holy Tradition is to express the truth in ways that are meaningful to the Church. Thus, Tradition is constantly changing in response to pastoral realities; it is constantly apocalyptic, revealing previously hidden mysteries, and it is eschatological, pointing us towards the second and glorious coming. If Tradition were to cease changing, it would indicate that the Holy Spirit has ceased to work within the Body of Christ, and the Church would be dead, practicing a dead faith.

>>>Fourth, and most imporantly, you will not find any canons being updated, changed, modified, replaced, or offically
written off.<<<

Merely reinterpreted in a manner that makes them relevant to the living Church.