The reason why I ask about whether the first seven Councils are considered infallible (which they are) by the Orthodox is because then it would be a contradiction for YOU to call the Latin Church "heretical". You did it again in question #2. Your attitude completely ignores that you contradict yourself, over and over. It IS relevant!
HOW CAN AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH BECOME HERETICAL?
IF a Church can become heretical, how can you claim that the first seven Councils were infallible, then???
Can you answer that question? Can you now understand the relevance of my question? IF the Orthodox consider that the First Seven Councils are infallible, HOW ON EARTH could the eighth one NOT be INFALLIBLE? And the NINTH? And so forth. Thus, Vatican ONE IS Infallible. Whether you like it or not, simply denying it won't work. As I have stated before, the Church ALSO has always believed that Rome is the utlimate visible protector of the faith - even back to St. Ireneaus and the men of that era.
Now, the formula, the words of infallible statements can be written to better reflect the Church of 2005 - but the fact remains that the Church has ALWAYS believed itself as infallible - especially in its counciliar statements. Our beliefs are infallible, not the statement or words themselves. Thus, it IS relevant to our discussions.
2. We don't believe anything contrary to Nicea. This has been explained numerous times. The WORDS are not infallible. It is our belief itself that is infallible. One can only explain your intransigence by the fact that you hate the Catholic Church, despite your denials.
3. Those that claim the Catholic Church are heretical don't know what they are talking about either. This is simply explained by question #1, which you can't understand the relevance for...
4. Is it necessary to post the sins of the Orthodox members? You can keep your hypocriticism to yourself, please.
5. THREE POPES failed to act? Please. And are we to deny that there has never been a scandalous act by an Orthodox priest who was never removed from office? Hardly. Yes, the Pope can fail. ALL MEN can fail. But no one ever denied that. AGAIN, you continue to misunderstand Catholic teachings. Try to read this slowly... The Pope is not perfect. Got it? The Pope is infallible only in his official statements on faith and morals when speaking from his apostolic chair. These statements are quite rare, only made twice in 150 years. So please try to understand that. By the way, this IS canonical and infallibly stated by an infallible Church.
One final reflection for you. Why, when communities separate from the Catholic Church, such as the Coptics, were declared as heretical - but when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church became heretical? Quite ridiculous and arrogant, I might add. Where in Church history is the Eastern Church the determiner for what is orthodox throughout the entire Church?
Regards
If this is the meaning that you intended, I apologize in advance.
1. Do you deny that the official Catholic view of the Orthodox church is that it is heretical?
2. From Orthodoxwiki on the 8th Council(You're Catholic I'll let you find and quote the official Catholic View:
Eighth Ecumenical Council
The Eighth Ecumenical Council was a reunion council held at Constantinople in 879-880. This council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome (whose legates were present at the behest of Pope John VIII), but later repudiated by Rome in the 11th century, retroactively regarding the robber council of 869-870 to be ecumenical. The council of 879-880 affirmed the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus condemning the Filioque.
[edit]
Ecumenical?
This council is not regarded as ecumenical by all Orthodox Christians, but some major voices in the Orthodox world do so, including 20th century theologians Fr. John S. Romanides and Fr. George Metallinos (both of whom refer repeatedly to the "Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils"), Fr. George Dragas, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos.
Further, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs refers explicitly to the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" regarding the synod of 879-880 and was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three.
Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia, part of the so-called "Western Captivity of Orthodoxy."
An interesting external attestation to the consideration of this synod to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council is the Roman Catholic Church's Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), which describes the council of 879-880 as the "Pseudosynodus Photiana," noting that the "Orthodox count [it] as the Eighth General Council."[1][2]
The Catholics seemed to think the 8th was failable.
With regard to your last sentiment you fail to acknowledge the Catholic church also considers any schismatic church to be heretical. Certainly the Copts similarly consider the Orthodox and the Catholics to be heretical. There is nothing at all odd about that. The Bishop of Rome left in heresy [heresy being beleifs against the doctrine of the church].