Replies

re:Thank goodness he refers to Catholics, which include our Eastern brothers.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED CATHOLIC

The confusion that already exists in the Catholic terminology with the progressivist innovations was not enough. Now we have another source of hermeneutical pollution – the schismatics begin to call themselves “catholics". (and aberrosexuals call themselves "gay").

A Catholic, according to the classic definition of St. Robert Bellarmine, adopted by the Magisterium, is one who professes the Catholic Faith, who submits to legitimate Pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff, and shares in common the seven Catholic Sacraments. The Eastern Orthodox have never fulfill these conditions, and thus are not Catholics, but schismatics.

Additionally, 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.

Ok, so the Filoque. So the only dogmatic difference is the difference between: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets." This: Καί είς τό Πνεύμα τό ¨Αγιον, τό Κύριον, τό ζωοποιόν, τό εκ τού Πατρός εκπορευόμενον, τό σύν Πατρί καί Υιώ συμπροσκυνούμενον καί συνδοξαζόμενον, τό λαλήσαν διά τών Προφητών And this: Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Have I understood you correctly?

“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”

Immaculate conception was proclaimed as infalliable well after the split. So there’s plenty of things that we’ve done in the past millenium that will have to be caught up.

It seems to me that the primary obstacle is Petrine Primacy, and probably infalliability as well, both of which were declared in the 19th century. I hope they can eventually overcome these issues. Petrine primacy is how the Church has always worked, Constantinople isn’t even the oldest eastern patriarch, and none of them save Rome has remained in Christian jurisdiction for quite some time.

This I think is the gravest tragedy. There were 5, and now there are 1. Would be nice to have all 5 together again.