Catholic Heresy?

[ALoveDivine]

Let me start by saying that I am in love with Orthodox theology and spirituality. I've been learning a lot about eastern Christianity for a while now and it really does resonate with me a lot. Beyond that I'm actually very put off by certain theological formulations of the Latin Rite of Catholicism (mortal/venial sins, "temporal punishment", indulgences, etc).

When I left protestantism I was caught between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and honestly still am. I think I chose Catholicism mainly because that's what I was born into and raised in, so it was just a more comfortable and "easier" move. Often times I worried about feeling "out of place" in an Orthodox church, being a westerner.

From what I can tell both church's have valid Apostolic succession and compelling historical claims to being the "true" church. Rome seems to be all cozy with the Orthodox, pushing really hard for reunion of some kind, but I find most Orthodox don't share this attitude. I've read in many threads here about Rome being in heresy. If that really is true, I obviously don't want to be a part of a heretical body. I am honestly seeking the truth, and I want to be a son of the true Church of Christ, whatever that may be.

So in light of this, would you all mind explaining to me what exactly about the Catholic Church is heretical? I mean actual teachings of the church, not passing fads of the private views of some clergy, actual theological doctrines and dogmas. Also, what are your views on the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church in relation to orthodoxy/heterodoxy? Reference to ecumenical councils and/or church fathers would also be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm going to let others who are better at this answer - subscribing though.

I think you are right that most Orthodox are not interested in being in communion with Rome, unless she essentially "becomes Orthodox" in terms of theology at least. Western Rite doesn't seem to cause the same level of problems as simply the differences in doctrine/dogma, and the underlying assumptions (such as the more scholastic approach and the understanding Rome has of sin and punishment).

I do hope you find the answers you seek.

 

[gzt]

Some are of the opinion that the Filioque is a heresy. Additional Roman dogmas added after the schism may possibly be listed by some as heretical though no formal anathemas have been made by the Orthodox Church (specifically, the Vatican I dogmas).

Heresy is a very precise term, so it shouldn't be thrown around lightly.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Some are of the opinion that the Filioque is a heresy. Additional Roman dogmas added after the schism may possibly be listed by some as heretical though no formal anathemas have been made by the Orthodox Church (specifically, the Vatican I dogmas).

Heresy is a very precise term, so it shouldn't be thrown around lightly.

Now see, I'm glad I didn't answer. And I knew this. Not thinking too clearly. (I should have asked for prayer - this weekend was important to me and I'm back on the edge of flu and not thinking straight.)

Maybe the OP is asking just what doctrines/dogmas of the Catholic Church are unacceptable from an Orthodox point of view?

 

[gzt]

I think the best resource is probably Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr Andrew Stephen Damick. He talks about what's heterodox about the heterodox, including the Catholics.

 

[Lukaris]

I am not a theologian and while there are points of theology that our hierarchs protect us from heresy, it is wrong to recklessly judge other Christians as heretics. We need to understand why we cannot share the Eucharist when salient matters of faith differ ( 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). We need to realize that the Holy Spirit is with all He knows who confess the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.

A most common example of theological dispute is the filioque controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Filioque_controversy of which the overwhelming multitude of Catholics never intended to foist upon the Orthodox but a reckless cardinal did in 1054. Still, the damage was done and we must be as Christian as we can to one another but not undermine our faith.

Regrettably other traditions have crept into the Catholic Church like the immaculate conception which we cannot acknowledge but not call Catholics "heretics" for obeying the tradition of their church.

 

[buzuxi02]

Rome has questionable practises. Baptism by sprinkling and not triple immersion. Chrismation (confirmation) put off till later in life and in many instances altogether abandoned. The Eucharist also being seperated from the rite of baptism and chrismation as was handed down.
The sacrament of Matrimony which the latin priest plays no part in the service, and teach that a divorced couple simply means there was no marriage to begin with. As one cardinal recently said, annullments basically mean 50% of all roman catholic weddings never took place.

The roman belief that prayers for the dead are only meant for those in purgatory and dont serve any purpose for us who are alive nor for those holy and pious laity that have passed away.

Then there is praxis, for example the latin west has abolished all fasting. How strange would that be during lent if a portion holds to a stringest fast and the other half say they are too modernized to fast.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So in light of this, would you all mind explaining to me what exactly about the Catholic Church is heretical?

well, we can talk about the two main issues that split East and West: the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed and the role of the Pope.

the filioque is easy because it is not supported by Scripture (at least, as it was dogmatized in the West). the Ecumenical Councils say that all manner and teaching concerning the Holy Spirit is full and complete (starting at Chalcedon or Ephesus, I believe) and every subsequent Council affirmed the the Creed without the filioque. that idea started with St Augustine's speculation in his work On the Trinity. he applied Scholasticism where it should not have been.

the role of the Pope is also easy when you consider that the 6th Ecumenical Council was called and the canons enacted before Rome even showed up. there is also zero use of Papal infallibility until the 19th century, or use of direct jurisdiction over the whole Church before the Schism. St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome said that elevating any bishop above his brother bishops is the prelude to the Antichrist.

there have been many other innovations (like merits, Purgatory, created grace, etc), but they came about after the break.

Also, what are your views on the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church in relation to orthodoxy/heterodoxy?

they are outside of the Church. if Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ, it does not matter how close you look, you are still not communing with her life, which is true life.

God bless you on your journey, please do stick around!

 

[gzt]

The only thing I am definitely certain of being wrong about Rome is that they don't commune infants. This is certainly an indication that something is rotten in Denmark (and I guess several other countries).

 

[ArmyMatt]

The only thing I am definitely certain of being wrong about Rome is that they don't commune infants. This is certainly an indication that something is rotten in Denmark (and I guess several other countries).

indeed, that says a lot about who and what they say the church is/should be.

 

[buzuxi02]

If im not mistaken they also do not commune elderly who maybe losing their faculties. I remember a case where the roman priest did not commune an elderly parishioner because he would not be able to discern the Body and Blood, the bishop agreed with him.

The latin dogma of the immaculate conception is contradicted in our liturgical service of the Anunciation.

Their theory of the beatific vision contradicts our belief that we only recieve a foretaste not the fullness of paradise, that salvation and the fullness will only be aquired at the second coming and ressurection after the final judgement.

 

[gzt]

We only get a foretaste?

 

[ALoveDivine]

The only thing I am definitely certain of being wrong about Rome is that they don't commune infants.

To be fair that is not entirely true, but a common misconception. The Latin Rite does not, but the Eastern Rites do in fact commune infants. I am actually in agreement with the later practice, infants should receive. I see no reason why the reception of the Holy Eucharist should be intrinsically tied to ones reasoning capabilities.

 

[Nikti]

indeed, that says a lot about who and what they say the church is/should be.

Hey Matt excuse my ignorance but May I ask how? Being a former catholic I'm obviously unclear of how not communing infants reflects on what the catholic church is?

 

[Antony in Tx]

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Catholic-Should-Orthodox-Catechism/dp/0964914182

this is a great book to answer the kinds of questions you are asking

 

[buzuxi02]

So in light of this, would you all mind explaining to me what exactly about the Catholic Church is heretical? I mean actual teachings of the church, not passing fads of the private views of some clergy, actual theological doctrines and dogmas. Also, what are your views on the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church in relation to orthodoxy/heterodoxy? Reference to ecumenical councils and/or church fathers would also be appreciated. Thanks!

I mentioned in my previous post the latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The eastern rite does not agree with the Latin rite according to their very own liturgical texts. Here are some excerpts from the Liturgical Service of the Feast of the Annunciation:

The angel: Hail O Lady, hail O most pure Virgin, hail thou vessel where God is contained within, hail, thy candlestick of thy light, the restoration of Adam and the deliverance of Eve, holy mountain, shining sanctuary and bridal chamber of Imortality.
The Theotokos: The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul and sanctified my body, it has made me a temple that contains God, a tabernacle divinely adorned, a living sanctuary an the pure Mother of God...
ALSO:
The Theotokos: 'Thou doest appear to me to speak the truth, answered the Virgin. For though hast come as an angel messenger, bringing joy to all. Since, then, I am purified in soul and body by the Spirit, be it unto me according to thy word: may God dwell in me. Unto Him I cry aloud with thee: O all ye works of the Lord, Bless ye the Lord."


The above liturgical texts which the Church worships leaves out any possibility for any Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox believe she was sanctified to receive the Logos when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and this required her consent, 'Let it be according to thy word', to show her free will.
The Coptic Church also has the identical understanding. The Late Coptic Pope Shenouda in his booklet on the Theotokos wrote:

2. The Church believes that the Holy Spirit has sanctified the
depository of The Virgin during the pregnancy with Christ.
That was according to what the angel said to her "The Holy Spirit
will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you;
therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of
God" (Luke 1:35).
The sanctifying by the Holy Spirit of her depository, makes the
One born of her, be conceived without the impurity of the original sin. As
for The Virgin herself, her mother conceived, like all people, and so The
Virgin said in her hymn: "my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior" (pt. 10.2)
(Luke 1:47). Holy Virgin Mary Book by Pope Shenouda III | St-Takla.org

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hey Matt excuse my ignorance but May I ask how? Being a former catholic I'm obviously unclear of how not communing infants reflects on what the catholic church is?

a communing member of the Church is a full member. to reject infant communion, you are saying there is something in them that is lacking that bars them from full membership, which usually plays out in something with their mind not being developed. the soul of a person can be very much illumined, even if their brain is not. for us, a just baptized baby is just as much a member of the Church as some bishop that has been active for 50 years. for Rome to reject infant communion, they reject that a baby can be a full member of Christ's Body.

make sense?

 

[Nikti]

a communing member of the Church is a full member. to reject infant communion, you are saying there is something in them that is lacking that bars them from full membership, which usually plays out in something with their mind not being developed. the soul of a person can be very much illumined, even if their brain is not. for us, a just baptized baby is just as much a member of the Church as some bishop that has been active for 50 years. for Rome to reject infant communion, they reject that a baby can be a full member of Christ's Body.

make sense?

Ahh I see that makes perfect sense, I'd thought of the implications before, Thankyou.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ahh I see that makes perfect sense, I'd thought of the implications before, Thankyou.

no probs. as a former Anglican, I followed the same model growing up.

 

[MrJim]

http://store.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxy-and-catholicism

Written by my local priest~~very helpful in the discernment process