Zobel said:
I think there is a difference between saying - submit to our leader in these four things or you're anathema - and saying no we don't think those things are true.
The issue of mutual declaration of heresy is over the filioque. But… at the end of the day that one is pretty much an issue because of the papal issue. Shrug.
I honestly didn't want to get into it in this thread anyway. It's been hashed out before, the patristic quotes have been discussed, zero minds changed. Because… at this point (unfortunately) the issue of the papacy has been elevated to divinely revealed dogma and ex cathedra has been piled on top of that. You'd have to undo Vatican I and effectively admit that an RCC-proclaimed ecumenical council can be in error. I see zero chance of that happening.
Protestants can change their minds and adopt Orthodoxy. I don't see how the RCC itself could change this. So…..
I'll do more research, but my understanding is that anathema is these documents saying that you have a false teaching. That is either factually true or it isn't. At least the articles I was able to read quickly suggested the same. Protestants and EO today don't have the same level of culpability as those that did the splitting.
It doesn't not give blanket damnation to all who hold to them. Especially those who have never been Catholic. How else could both the Catholic Church and EO lift excommunications on each other? And I don't see how if I do hold and profess these views I am any less anathema from your perspective. You may not have a document saying that, but in practice?
You're right in saying the Catholic Church can't change its teaching written out, but it doesn't mean this carries canonical penalties or levies out judgement on the soul of all that hold contrary positions.
If you don't mind me asking, were you born EO or did you convert?
