Replies

You posted sources that affirm the essential correctness of the Orthodox doctrines as they state that the Eastern Orthodox sacraments are valid. Were the Eastern Orthodox in doctrinal error, their sacraments would be invalid as well, -- the tragedy that befell the Anglicans. Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article (1909) that lists various errors of the Eastern Orthodox churches in the sphere of church administration and does not mention any heresy apart from the schism itself. See Eastern Churches; note the part subtitled "1. Orthodox" and note that it is other churches and not the Orthodox that are described as "the old heretical Eastern Churches".

It is entirely proper to refer to Vatican II documents to define the Catholic teaching on ecumenism with the East since the lifting of the anaphemas that reversed the previously schismatic course of Eastern Orthodoxy occurred recently. Thia is what Church councils are for: to steer the Church in light of latter-day developments.

I was baptised Russian Orthodox and switched to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in 1994, where I happily am to this day. I believe that all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, confesses and proclaims is inspired by God.

Now, are you Catholic? It is not every day that I meet one who believes that her church "speaks with a forked tongue" and remains in it.

I'm releaved that you converted. For quite some time the USA Catholic Church has been teaching the bare minimum to it's converts and the cradle Catholic children. It does not surprise me that you confuse the details. I am a man, a cradle Catholic, from a Catholic culture, but raised in the USA. I was not ever educated in anything post Vatican II, modernist, or progressive, or at the very least I was never “slow boiled” in those errors.

If you throw a from in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. If, however, you put it into a pot of room temperature water, and slowly bring the water to a boil, the frog will lay there and fall asleep, die, and be boiled. That is what has happened to Catholics around the world, they have listened to the progressivist/modernist/liberal/effeminate clergy de-catholicize the faith, till they were cooked, they lost the faith, or learned a false Catholicism, if they even stayed long enough. Most, don't go to mass anymore. In Austria a Catholic country, scarcely 5% go to mass on Sunday. And of the ones that go, few are left that have not been un-catholicized, Protestantized, they don't know much, about the Faith.

It is not every day that I meet one who believes that her church "speaks with a forked tongue" and remains in it.

One does not leave the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, the Catholic Church, because it's hierarchy speaks with a forked tongue on fallible matters. You don't leave the Church because a pope lived an immoral life. The Church and her infalllible doctrines are not affected by the fallible actions of men. Let them leave if they want.

Were the Eastern Orthodox in doctrinal error, their sacraments would be invalid as well, -- the tragedy that befell the Anglicans.

That is not correct. Heresy, doctrinal errors, do not invalidate the sacraments if the heretical church maintains apostolic succession, valid clergy, the proper intention, and matter, ALL of which the Anglicans abandoned. A church can be in schism and heresy, and still have valid sacraments. A Catholic priest can leave the Church,go into heresy, schism, adultery, homosexuality, and he will still be able to confect valid sacraments. Sin, heresy, and schism do not automatically invalidate the sacraments.

On the other hand an Anglican priest can convert and renounce all his heresies and his schism, and have the proper intention, but he will not be able to confect valid sacraments, unless he is ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession.

I hope that helps you to understand.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article (1909) that lists various errors of the Eastern Orthodox churches in the sphere of church administration and does not mention any heresy apart from the schism itself.

For a long time prior to the Schism (1054), various precursors of the movement, among them Photius (886), defended the heresy according to which the Third Person of the Holy Trinity would not proceed from the First and the Second. Cerularius and other Schismatic Greeks also adhered to this error. Therefore, in the 11th century when the Catholic Church declared this movement schismatic, she was exercising mercy, because the normal procedure would have been to declare it heretical. Until today, the Greek and Russian schismatics defend the same error. In addition to denying this dogma, there are at least three others that are not accepted by the Greek and Russian schismatics: they are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Papal Primacy, and Papal Infallibility. Therefore, in reality, for quite some time the self-proclaimed “Orthodox church” has ceased to be orthodox and has been heretical.

It is not correct to say, as you imply, that all of the doctrines of the so-called Orthodox Church is in agreement with Catholic doctrine. There are major divergences, since the “Orthodox” Church denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which is a dogma Catholics profess in the Creed. It also denies the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, as well as the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Besides these dogmas, there are still many other doctrinal points, such the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church,the role of the Sovereign Pontiff in this monarchy that it rejects, Limbo, purgatory, andthe indissolubility of marriage, to name but a few. These mentioned differences are more than enough to show that the “Orthodox” are not orthodox at all, but normally should be called heretics, since they deny at least three Catholic dogmas. Until Vatican II the Catholic Church called them schismatics rather than heretics as a kind of courtesy, given that the closest historical motive that led Greek Schismatics to be separated from the Catholic Church was disobedience to the Pope.