[Kolokotronis]

“For the fathers to be justly described as heretics rather than just erroneous there must be shown that there was an attempt by Church officials to correct them that they then refused to accept.”

Really? So unless a hierarch catches a heretic there’s no heresy? I find that extremely hard to believe, P. But this case would never have gotten that far.

“Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault.”

Well, P, this tripe and the two further heretical works of these characters received the imprimatur of “Joannes Gregorius Murray, Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli”. Did the imprimatur mean something different in the late 30s and early 40s than now?

[Petrosius]

You seem to mix up the important difference between heresy and simple error. Both you and I have made many posts concerning theology and both of us have tried, as best we can, to present these according to the mind of the Church. This does not however guarantee that from time to time we have not made mistakes. As long as we are willing to correct our views and conform to church teaching there is no heresy, just error. Is it not possible that Frs. Rumble and Carty just made a mistake and no one corrected them?

Unless you can show a pattern of official statements that support the view presented in Radio Replies please refrain from attempting to portray this as the then generally accepted view; the actions of the Catholic Church show that it was otherwise. (The system for approving and imprimatur has never been perfect.) Or should I scourer every book ever written by Orthodox writers and portray the most extreme and bigoted opinions as the norm among the Orthodox?