Status Of The Orthodox Church

[qfnol31]

This should easily fall under interreligious dialogue (in a way).

Do you think the Orthodox Church is heretical? If so, why?

How great is the schism between us? I would say it's less than other schisms over the last 100 years...

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1443944' date='Jan 10 2008, 02:37 AM']This should easily fall under interreligious dialogue (in a way).

Do you think the Orthodox Church is heretical? If so, why?

How great is the schism between us? I would say it's less than other schisms over the last 100 years...[/quote]
I think "heretical" is certainly way too strong a word. I'll need some help on this but the Catholic Church regards the Orthodox churches as having a valid episcopacy, i.e. valid lines of succession to the Apostles. The main point of dissension, I believe, is around the papacy, which has more to do with the political fact that Crusaders sacked Constantinople leading ultimately to a split with Rome than anything else. Again, I'm open to "help" and clarification on this.

[PapaHilarious]

Well, they are certainly not slow in calling us heretics. I've come around this site a number of times while researching saints and such. Be warned; it can be highly slanderous: [url="http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx"]OrthodoxInfo[/url]

Here's a selection of some of the wonderful topics you'll find...

[b]Mary apparitions are fake
Purgatory is a Roman misinterpretation
Catholics (or Papists as they insist on calling us) are the original Protestants
Orthodoxy is the true faith
Catholics are heretics
Eastern Catholics (or Uniates as they like to call them) are a particular "tragedy"[/b]

So many of their articles are just full of venom. Makes it hard to even read, but here is a quote from the Orthodox Archbishop of Etna in an article that tries to defend the [url="http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ca4_loukaris.aspx"]"Calvinist" Patriarch of Constantinople[/url]...

[size=3][quote]Let us also say that the [b]Orthodox Church, which in Her mind constitutes the successor of the very Church established by Christ,[/b] has a theology and spiritual life quite foreign to those of the West, whether Latin or Reformed. Soteriology, the sacraments (or, more properly, the Mysteries), and Christian anthropology and cosmology, [b]however misunderstood and misrepresented by the West[/b] (we think, here, of the [b]gross stupidity of Western scholars [/b]who imagine our theological traditions to be neo-Platonic—an accusation which shows an ignorance both of Orthodoxy and of Neo-Platonism), are concepts that we discuss in a context and with nomenclature foreign to the Papists and Protestants. ... [b]When we address Westerners on their own terms, we are reaching out to them in the limited language that they grasp.[/b][/quote][/size]

To be honest, in my [i]limited[/i], feeble mind, I can hardly even comprehend the above words, but can you imagine an archbishop in the Catholic Church writing with such hostility? Just makes me sad

[qfnol31]

You have to remember to separate the zealots from the regular Orthodox.

It's like much of SSPX versus the rest of the Catholic Church mainstream.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444420' date='Jan 10 2008, 09:31 PM']You have to remember to separate the zealots from the regular Orthodox.

It's like much of SSPX versus the rest of the Catholic Church mainstream.[/quote]

true, but that site relies heavily on clerical writings; archbishops, bishops, and such. not exactly average joe sitting in the pew with a chip on his shoulder.

[Resurrexi]

The Greek Orthodox are heretical because, among several other dogmas and doctrines, the Greek Orthodox very explicitly deny two solemnly defined dogmas:

The dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle was defined at the Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons (1274):
[quote name='Denzinger460']460 In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing. The most holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has up to this time professed, preached, and taught this; this she firmly holds, preaches, declares, and teaches; the unchangeable and true opinion of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek, holds this. But because some through ignorance of the irresistible aforesaid truth have slipped into various errors, we in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the sacred Council, condemn and reject (those) who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; as well as (those) who with rash boldness presume to declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two beginnings, and not as from one.[/quote]
The Greek Orthodox deny this dogma and erroneously teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father.

The dogma of Petrine Primacy was defined at the First Oecumenical Council of the Vatican (1869-1870):
[quote name='Denzinger 1823']1823 [Canon]. If anyone then says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not established by the Lord Christ as the chief of all the apostles, and the visible head of the whole militant Church, or, that the same received great honor but did not receive from the same our Lord Jesus Christ directly and immediately the primacy in true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.[/quote]
The Greek Orthodox Church denies this Primacy and falsely claims that St. Peter was merely “first among equals.”

Edited January 11, 2008 by StThomasMore

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1444735' date='Jan 11 2008, 05:33 PM']The Greek Orthodox are heretical because, among several other dogmas and doctrines, the Greek Orthodox very explicitly deny two solemnly defined dogmas:

The dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle was defined at the Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons (1274):

The Greek Orthodox deny this dogma and erroneously teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father.

The dogma of Petrine Primacy was defined at the First Oecumenical Council of the Vatican (1869-1870):

The Greek Orthodox Church denies this Primacy and falsely claims that St. Peter was merely “first among equals.”[/quote]

true true dat

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1444735' date='Jan 11 2008, 06:33 PM']The Greek Orthodox are heretical because, among several other dogmas and doctrines, the Greek Orthodox very explicitly deny two solemnly defined dogmas:

The dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle was defined at the Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons (1274):

The Greek Orthodox deny this dogma and erroneously teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father.

The dogma of Petrine Primacy was defined at the First Oecumenical Council of the Vatican (1869-1870):

The Greek Orthodox Church denies this Primacy and falsely claims that St. Peter was merely “first among equals.”[/quote]
Well, actually, it isn't wrong that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. There was a discussion on this a while back with Revprodeji. The thing is, there Greek doesn't allow for the add on "and the Son" because the word for proceeds in the Greek creed is singular and refering to the Father, and it wouldn't make sense to have it. Basically, though, they believe in the same Trinity, for the Primacy of the Father is why there is a Holy Ghost. The Son took part by being there (or something along those lines)... sort of like a game of "catch". I'll find the thread later...

[Laudate_Dominum]

There have been many threads on that subject over the years.

[qfnol31]

[font="Verdana"][size=2] [quote name='StThomasMore' post='1444735' date='Jan 11 2008, 06:33 PM']The Greek Orthodox are heretical because, among several other dogmas and doctrines, the Greek Orthodox very explicitly deny two solemnly defined dogmas:

The dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle was defined at the Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons (1274):

The Greek Orthodox deny this dogma and erroneously teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father.

The dogma of Petrine Primacy was defined at the First Oecumenical Council of the Vatican (1869-1870):

The Greek Orthodox Church denies this Primacy and falsely claims that St. Peter was merely “first among equals.”[/quote]
Problem 1: The Orthodox Church includes the Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, .... Churches. There are way too many to call them Greek. It's like me calling Apotheoun of blessed memory (I mean Todd on the phorum) a Latin Catholic, and he most certainly is not.

So why does the Catholic Encyclopedia say they aren't heretical for denying the Filioque? They've been denying that for many years.

The Orthodox do not deny the procession as you see it, but don't think the Filioque is necessary and that it leads to heresy. They think it was wrong to change the Nicene Creed more than that the Holy Spirit processes through the Son. They think that the current use of Filioque will lead to heresy rather than being heresy itself. If you think it's necessary, read this:

[quote][/size][/font][left][font="Verdana"][size=2]1. [i]Dominus Iesus[/i], antequam in coelum ascenderet, suis discipulis mandatum contulit nuntiandi Evangelium cunctis hominibus omnesque populos baptizandi: “Euntes in mundum universum praedicate evangelium omni creaturae. Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur” ([i]Mc[/i] 16,15-16) ; “Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, docentes eos servare omnia, quaecumque mandavi vobis. Et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi” ([i]Mt[/i] 28,18-20; cf. etiam [i]Lc[/i] 24,46-48; [i]Io[/i] 17,18; 20,21; [i]Act[/i] 1,8).[/size][/font][/left]
[font="Verdana"][size=2]Universalis Ecclesiae missio oritur ex Iesu Christi mandato et per saeculorum decursum impletur in proclamatione mysterii Dei, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, atque mysterii incarnationis Filii, quod universis hominibus salutis eventus exstat. Haec sunt capita fundamentalia quae in professione fidei christianae continentur: “Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, omnium visibilium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri : per quem omnia facta sunt; qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virgine, et homo factus est, crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos : cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, [b]qui ex Patre procedit[/b], qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi"[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_lt.html#_ftn1"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...s_lt.html#_ftn1[/url].[/quote]

The text is from Ratzinger in Dominus Iesus. Is it missing something?


Also, the Orthodox do not deny the primacy of Peter. That is a misunderstanding. They accept the council which expresses states the primacy of Rome. Do you know which one that is by any chance? They just deny his infallibility, which makes sense since they weren't around for Vatican I.[/size][/font]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1444791' date='Jan 11 2008, 08:33 PM']Well, actually, it isn't wrong that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. There was a discussion on this a while back with Revprodeji. The thing is, there Greek doesn't allow for the add on "and the Son" because the word for proceeds in the Greek creed is singular and refering to the Father, and it wouldn't make sense to have it. Basically, though, they believe in the same Trinity, for the Primacy of the Father is why there is a Holy Ghost. The Son took part by being there (or something along those lines)... sort of like a game of "catch". I'll find the thread later...[/quote]

But no matter what way you spin it, if you completely deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father as the Greek Orthodox do today, you're in error.

[qfnol31]

How does His procession go?

Can you find a place where they deny the procession as it is defined by the Catholic Church?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444810' date='Jan 11 2008, 09:29 PM'][font="Verdana"][size=2]
So why does the Catholic Encyclopedia say they aren't heretical for denying the Filioque? They've been denying that for many years.[/quote]

You're misinterpreting what the CE says.

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444810' date='Jan 11 2008, 09:29 PM']The Orthodox do not deny the procession as you see it, but don't think the Filioque is necessary and that it leads to heresy. They think it was wrong to change the Nicene Creed more than that the Holy Spirit processes through the Son. They think that the current use of Filioque will lead to heresy rather than being heresy itself. If you think it's necessary, read this:
The text is from Ratzinger in Dominus Iesus. Is it missing something?[/quote]
I would have to say denying that the the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son in any way, shape or form which many, though not all, Greek Orthodox theologians do (which shouldn't surprise anyone since having no Supreme Pontiff means no unity in doctrine). As for when the Creed is recited in the eastern Divine Liturgy, the Filioque isn't added and it isn't necessary for them to add it as long as they don't deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. And just as it isn't necessary to add the Filioque into the Creed into the Divine Liturgy, it is also fine to exclude it when the Creed is written (as it was in DI) as long as its exclusion does not constitute denial of the dogma it represents. But as to the argument that the Creed is something that can never be changed, the Creed from Nicaea I was extended at Constantinople I to combat errors of the day, which demonstrates that the Creed is not something set in stone but something that can be extended so as to combat any errors which may come into being.

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444810' date='Jan 11 2008, 09:29 PM']Also, the Orthodox do not deny the primacy of Peter. That is a misunderstanding. They accept the council which expresses states the primacy of Rome. Do you know which one that is by any chance? They just deny his infallibility, which makes sense since they weren't around for Vatican I.[/size][/font][/quote]

It's not a misunderstanding. Regardless of their acceptance of Ephesus, they misinterpret what was stated there:

[quote name='Denzinger 112']112 No one doubts, but rather it has been known to all generations, that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation stone of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to him, who up to this moment and always lives in his successors, and judges [see n. 1824].[/quote]

Edited January 12, 2008 by StThomasMore

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444814' date='Jan 11 2008, 09:32 PM']How does His procession go?

Can you find a place where they deny the procession as it is defined by the Catholic Church?[/quote]

Maybe when Photius said that the Filioque was heretical.

[qfnol31]

[font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]To begin...In the end your point of view misunderstands one thing. The Orthodox did not split because of heresy and have not actually espoused any heresy. Rather, they have not accepted the development of doctrine within the Catholic Church, which is quite different. SSPX has done the same thing, would you claim they are heretical? (I would, but that's a different story all together.)[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1444827' date='Jan 11 2008, 10:57 PM']You're misinterpreting what the CE says.[/quote]

[quote]These Churches are [/color][/size][/font][list]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]The Great [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url], that is, the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm"]patriarchate[/url] of Constantinople that takes precedence of the others. It covers Turkey in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05607b.htm"]Europe[/url] (except where its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm"]jurisdiction[/url] is disputed by the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03046a.htm"]Bulgarian[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05676b.htm"]Exarch[/url]) and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01782a.htm"]Asia Minor[/url]. Under the Ecumenical Patriarch are seventy-four [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10244c.htm"]metropolitans[/url] and twenty other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishops[/url]. Outside this territory the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm"]Patriarch[/url] of Constantinople has no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm"]jurisdiction[/url]. He still has the position of civil head of the Roman Nation throughout the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15097a.htm"]Turkish[/url] Empire, and he still intermittently tries to interpret this as including some sort of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm"]ecclesiastical jurisdiction[/url] -- he is doing so at this moment in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04589a.htm"]Cyprus[/url] -- but in modern times especially each attempt is at once met by the most pronounced opposition on the part of the other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm"]patriarchs[/url] and national Churches, who answer that they acknowledge no head by Christ, no external authority but the seven Ecumenical [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm"]Synods[/url]. The Ecumenical Patriarch, however, keeps the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm"]right[/url] of alone consecrating the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03696b.htm"]chrism[/url] ([i]myron[/i]) and sending it to the other Orthodox Churches, except in the cases of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13231c.htm"]Russia[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13224b.htm"]Rumania[/url], which prepare it themselves. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03046a.htm"]Bulgaria[/url] gets hers from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13231c.htm"]Russia[/url], [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06735a.htm"]Greece[/url] has already mooted the question of consecrating her own [i]myron[/i], and there seems to be no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm"]doubt[/url] that Antioch will do so too when the present stock is exhausted. So even this shadow of authority is in a precarious state. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Alexandria (covering all [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm"]Egypt[/url] as far as it is Orthodox) with only four [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10244c.htm"]metropolitans[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Antioch, extending over [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14399a.htm"]Syria[/url] from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates as far as any Orthodox live so far East, touching the Great [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] along the frontier of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01782a.htm"]Asia Minor[/url] to the north and Palestine to the south, with twelve [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10244c.htm"]metropolitans[/url] and two or three [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08025a.htm"]titular[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishops[/url]form the patriarchal curia. [/color][/size][/font][size=2][color="#000000"] who [/color][/size]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Jerusalem, consisting of Palestine, from Haifa to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm"]Egyptian[/url] frontier, with thirteen [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10244c.htm"]metropolitans[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Cyprus, the old autocephalous [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url], with an [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm"]archbishop[/url] [whose succession (1908), after eight years, rends the whole Orthodox world] and three suffragans. Then come the new national Churches, arranged here according to thedate of theirfoundation, since they have no precedence. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Russia (independent since 1589). This is enormously the preponderating partner, about eight times as great as all the others put together. The Holy Synod consists of three [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10244c.htm"]metropolitans[/url] (Kiev, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10591b.htm"]Moscow[/url], and Petersburg), the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05676b.htm"]Exarch[/url] of Georgia, and five or six other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishops[/url] or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01695c.htm"]archimandrites[/url] appointed at the czar's pleasure. There are eighty-six Russian [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]dioceses[/url], to which must be added missionary [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishops[/url] in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13767b.htm"]Siberia[/url], [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08297a.htm"]Japan[/url], North America, etc. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Carlovitz (1765), formed of Orthodox Serbs in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm"]Hungary[/url], with six suffragan [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]sees[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Czernagora (1765), with one independent [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]diocese[/url] of the Black Mountain. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14011a.htm"]Sinai[/url], consisting of one [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04340c.htm"]monastery[/url] recognized as independent of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm"]Jerusalem[/url] in 1782. The [i]hegumenos[/i] is an [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm"]archbishop[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm"]Greek Church[/url] (1850): thirty-two sees under a Holy Synod on the Russian model. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Hermannstadt (Nagy-Szeben, 1864), the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] of the Vlachs in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm"]Hungary[/url], with three [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]sees[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03046a.htm"]Bulgarian[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] under the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05676b.htm"]exarch[/url], who lives at Constantinople. In [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03046a.htm"]Bulgaria[/url] are eleven sees with a Holy Synod. The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05676b.htm"]exarch[/url], however, claims [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm"]jurisdiction[/url] over all Bulgars everywhere (especially in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm"]Macedonia[/url]) and has set up rival exarchist [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10244c.htm"]metropolitans[/url] against the patriarchist ones. The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03046a.htm"]Bulgarian[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] is recognized by the Porte and by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13231c.htm"]Russia[/url], but is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm"]excommunicate[/url], since 1872, by the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm"]Greek Church[/url] and is considered [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm"]schismatical[/url] by all Greeks. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Czernovitz (1873), for the Orthodox in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm"]Austria[/url], with four [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]sees[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Serbia (1879), the national [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] of that country, with five [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishops[/url] and a Holy Synod. The Serbs in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm"]Macedonia[/url] are now agitating to add two more sees (Uskub and Monastir) to this [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url], at the further cost of Constantinople. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Rumania (1885), again a national [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] with a Holy Synod and eight [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]sees[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[*][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]Herzegovina and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02694a.htm"]Bosnia[/url], organized since the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm"]Austrian[/url] occupation (1880) as a practically independent [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] with a vague recognition of Constantinople as a sort of titular [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12423a.htm"]primacy[/url]. It has four [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm"]sees[/url]. [/color][/size][/font]
[/list] [font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]This ends the list of allied bodies that make up the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm"]Orthodox Church[/url]. Next come, in order of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04636c.htm"]date[/url], the old [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm"]heretical[/url] Eastern Churches. [/color][/size][/font]

[font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]2. Nestorians...[/quote]The heretical Churches are recognized by the Orthodox as heretical too.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm[/url] Read the whole article...the Orthodox are not lumped together as part of the heretical Churches.

[quote]There is not really any question of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm"]doctrine[/url] involved. It is not a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm"]heresy[/url], but a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm"]schism[/url].[/quote]

[/color][/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"]How am I misreading that quote? (It falls under the heading "Reasons of the Present Schism.") I would actually contend that you don't want to answer to what the article is saying, thoughit represents the theology of the Church around the turn of the century.

By the way, during that period, theology was defined by manuals and not theological works, so that is the best way to go to discover pre-Vatican II theology.

[/color][/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size=2][color="#000000"][quote]I would have to say denying that the the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son in any way, shape or form which many, though not all, Greek Orthodox theologians do (which shouldn't surprise anyone since having no Supreme Pontiff means no unity in doctrine). As for when the Creed is recited in the eastern Divine Liturgy, the Filioque isn't added and it isn't necessary for them to add it as long as they don't deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. And just as it isn't necessary to add the Filioque into the Creed into the Divine Liturgy, it is also fine to exclude it when the Creed is written (as it was in DI) as long as its exclusion does not constitute denial of the dogma it represents. But as to the argument that the Creed is something that can never be changed, the Creed from Nicaea I was extended at Constantinople I to combat errors of the day, which demonstrates that the Creed is not something set in stone but something that can be extended so as to combat any errors which may come into being.[/quote]

Greek and Russian and Coptic, and ...The Orthodox Church is much more than the Greek Church.

In fact, the Russians are the ones against it most, not the Greeks. Look up the current Patriarch of Constantinople (the Ecumenical Patriarch actually) and you'll see what he says.

What is the dogma of the Filioque? How do you understand it? How does the Latin Church understand it? How do the Orthodox Churches read it? How did Photius read it? Many disagreements between East and West are not doctrinal disagreements, but wording disagreements. It's because of arrogance, pride, miscommunications, hatred, envy, zealotry, and ignorance that most disagreements between East and West have occured.

[quote]It's not a misunderstanding. Regardless of their acceptance of Ephesus, they misinterpret what was stated there:[/quote]Actually, I accused you of the misunderstanding. It isn't that they deny Peter's primacy (except maybe the ignorant ones). The just don't take it all the way to infallibility.

And quite honestly, they have the more accurate view of how the Ancient Church understood the Holy Father's position. We let ourselves be blinded to history by the last few councils and can't see beyond 40, 130, or even 500 years. Read, for instance, the life of one of the four great Fathers of the Eastern Church (actually only considered such by the West, not by the East, but that's a different story), St. Athanasius.


As for Photius, what did he say about the Filioque?
[/color][/size][/font]