Replies

As I said before, we should be careful with the word "heresy". You seem to throw it around quite freely.

Augustine's teaching on the Trinity is in line with the teachings of the Church. Namely, that the Father and the Son's relationship bring about the Third Person, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. There is ONE divine principle within the Godhead. That was initially the issue with the Orthodox disagreement with the Filioque. The Orthodox felt that the West believed that there were two divine principles moving within the Godhead. There isn't. BUT, realize that "the Father and the Son" is more accurate then just "the Father" because the Spirit doesn't proceed ONLY from the Father. The Son MUST be involved in this procession. While "And" is not the best word, it is NOT heretical, but it explains that BOTH persons are involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit, both within and without the Divine Godhead. Christ AND the Father send the Spirit to the Church as well. Whatever one does, the other is doing as well.

What the West says in the Nicean Creed is NOT heresy. It is a misunderstanding of terminology between us and the East. But if you can get past the name-calling and huffing and puffing that we left the Church and are heretics, you will see that we don't believe in TWO divine principles within the Godhead, just as the Coptics have now said they were misunderstood in the useage of words.

On the subject of heresy. Be aware that heresy is finally official when the Bishop of Rome says it is heresy. Don't believe me? Consult the history and writings on such matters. Rather than making assertions, I will let the Church Fathers speak for themselves. If two opposing factions call each other heretics, who decides whom is correct and who is heretical? The decision for such matters was refered to Rome, not Constantinople, not Alexandria, not Antioch, not Jerusalem. Over and over, bishops write to ROME. Even Bishops in Alexandria. Interesting. WHY? History doesn't beat around the bush. All one must do is read the Development of Doctrine and how something becomes called a heresy. It was always ASSUMED that Rome was the ultimate guardian of the faith. Ultimately, bishops would complain about heretics directly to Rome. Consider reading the Great Ecumenical Father, Saint John Chrysostom, or perhaps, St. Athanasius. Maximus the Confessor. When faced with a great heresy, these men turned to Rome. This cannot be denied. The issue for you is "WHY"? If he was merely an equal, why would heretics even CARE about Rome's decision? Think about it. Even the heretics KNEW that Rome's decision was final. There are numerous letters available written to the Pope from heretics trying to get their viewpoint declared as orthodox. When declared heretics, it was the POPE who forgave the heretic WHEN the man recanted.

On this subject, one must ALSO be aware that just because there is a disagreement in theology doesn't make something "heretical". You will have to show that something was "believed by everyone, for all time, in all places" and then refuted. This is not the case on original sin. The East and West didn't discuss the nuances of disagreements - thus, one would be hard pressed to say that there WAS an "official" DOCTRINE of what original sin was. Just because the East comes to believe that original sin is one thing doesn't make it true for the entire Church. The universal Church's determinations on the matter are first made at the 2nd Council of Orange, and then at Trent - in reference to Pelagius and the Protestants. WE hadn't discussed our disagreements - so how could either one be called "heretics" on the matter? This is how theology is fleshed out - bishops come together to determine what exactly the people believe. Was this done regarding Original Sin BEFORE the Schism? Not to the degree we are discussing. Thus, it isn't correct to call Catholics heretics over this matter.

While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire."

This is an example of the self-important, pompous, and arrogant attitude of claiming one's opinion over and above another's opinion without exploring the other's point of view. Yes, that's fine that it was "virtually unknown" in the East. And the West? Frankly, I didn't realize that the Greeks were the center of docrinal determination. What goes on in Constantinople is how it will be done throughout the universal church? Ridiculous.

There are a number of things that the West did and the East had "not heard of it" and vice versus. SO WHAT??? That's the point of getting together to flesh out what the UNIVERSAL CHURCH believes, not the Church of Constantinople. What arrogance. When was the Church of Constantinople ever determined to be the center of the Catholic Church - the ultimate authority for determining proper doctrine? Not the first millenium, I will assure you of that. Look at the major heresies of the Church - they come from the Emperor and his court. St. John Crysostom, Athanasius, Maximus, Flavian, and so forth. All orthodox bishops who were either banned, exiled or killed by the Emperor and his flunky bishops. We are to listen to them for doctrinal purity??? They tried to slip that in at Chalcedon - the Pope saw it and promptly removed it. The Greeks didn't like that. But it was never questioned, "Leo, how dare you do that. Who are you?". No. Rome had spoken, the case was closed. Rather than calling people heretical based on YOUR opinion, have you considered exploring the ENTIRE CHURCH'S opinion on the matter? Have you considered that in the West (yes, we were part of the Church then...) we DID believe just that about original sin? One can only pray that the Orthodox who are seeking to come to a reunion with Rome will have a more open idea of what the Church "believes", rather than thinking that their opinions ONLY represent the will and faith of the Church. I leave you with that thought.

Regards

"Augustine's teaching on the Trinity is in line with the teachings of the Church. Namely, that the Father and the Son's relationship bring about the Third Person, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son."

I'm afraid I have to differ. I assume you are referring to +Augustine's On the Trinity. Interesting, if a bit odd, reading. +Augustine's Neo-Platonic explanation of the inner workings of the Trinity are not "From the Father through the Son", but rather a quite different explanation which could lead to "Trinities" with more than three hypostasia.

The fact of the matter is that the Latin Church and the popes resisted the innovation of the filioque for a very long time before succumbing not to theological reason, but rather to political realities. It is, in fact, a heresy which has infected much of the theology and even ecclesiology of the Latin Church. Now we all understand that we are to refrain from labeling this notion as heretical since that is a loaded term and frankly isn't helpful in any dialog between Latins and the the rest of The Church (Greek, Armenian and Arabic speaking Churches in communion with Rome , save the most Latinized of them, do not now nor have they ever to my knowledge, used the filioque). Add to that the fact that the Latins agree that the Creed without the filioque is normative and it is that which should be used for translations and more importantly catechesis, and using the term heresy becomes destructive. On the other hand, continuing attempts by Latins to justify the use of the filioque, rather than simply to let it die off as an ill conceived theologumenon, might well make it necessary to call a spade a spade.

" On the subject of heresy. Be aware that heresy is finally official when the Bishop of Rome says it is heresy."

This is complete and utter hogwash. The popes had no more, or less, power to, sua sponte, declare something heresy than any other bishop. Councils declared heresies and condemned heretics, including at least one pope (6th Ecumenical Council). After the failed Council of Florence and the still born reunion, the bishops and Patriarchs of the East declared the Pope and those in communion with him to be heretics:

"We have excised and cut them [the Latins] off from the common body of the Church, we have, therefore, rejected them as heretics, and for this reason we are separated from them; they are, therefore, heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics."

The Fathers regularly condemned those who they had determined were teachers of heresy from the very beginning. Indeed the first writings on the subject are from +Ignatius of Antioch who professed to recognize heresy when he saw it and "presumed" to condemn it, all apparently without reference to some Vicar of Christ on Earth over in Rome!

"The East and West didn't discuss the nuances of disagreements - thus, one would be hard pressed to say that there WAS an "official" DOCTRINE of what original sin was. Just because the East comes to believe that original sin is one thing doesn't make it true for the entire Church. The universal Church's determinations on the matter are first made at the 2nd Council of Orange, and then at Trent - in reference to Pelagius and the Protestants"

Excuse me!!!!???? "Official doctrine"???? You mean something proclaimed ex cathedra by a man acting as the Vicar of Christ on Earth????? +Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is not at all in accord with the consensus patrum. But Rome doesn't care about that, do they? After all, on this subject +Augustine the infallible Father was explicated by +Aquinas, the infallible Father who instructed that his works be burned because they were so much worthless straw...but Rome knew better didn't it. And so you bequeathed to the West the seeds of Calvinism.

The Council of orange was a council of the universal Church? Even Rome doesn't claim that Council was ecumenical. And Trent? What presumption!

I must say that if an educated Roman Catholic layperson like you, JK, can have such a view of the theology of The Church and maintain such an absolutist concept of the Petrine Office, there is very, very little hope that there will be any reunion of the Latin Church with Holy Orthodoxy which will last any longer than that of Florence.