I am not sure it is worth arguing over this Deus!
Again, I challenge you to find a significant amount of Byzantine individuals who label the Oriental tradition heretical but not the Roman tradition. Otherwise you're just arguing something entirely tangential to my original argument.
Of course they won't. Since we reject the doctrines of Catholicism and the Oriental church(ie. the Orientals' rejection of the 7 councils), then we both consider their doctrines wrong, ie. heretical.
If Catholics' heresies though are mere secondary add-ons, while the Orientals' heresy is basic to the nature of Christ, then perhaps the basics of the Oriental church came at a later date, and hence so did the Oriental church
Let's just figure out whether Orientalism and Chalcedonianism are compatible rather than argue about this stuff, please!!
Yes, that could be said. But who really does? I haven't seen anyone who would go so far as to label Anti-Chalcedonianism a Christological heresy not also label Romanism at least Triadologically heretical if not also Theologically heretical.
And, at that, if both the teachings of the Oriental and Roman traditions commonly labeled heretical truly are, then in that case, the Orientals are still closer to the Byzantine tradition. The Romanists have a deficient Triadology (the filioque) and a deficient Theology (their understanding of the beatific vision found in the Summa Theologica whereby the Godhead becomes perceivable). The Orientals, on the other hand, would have a sufficient Theology and Triadology leaving only a deficient Christology, which is further down the line of our salvation story.
A semi-official commission Catholics wrote a statement saying that the Catholic understanding of filioque was that the Holy Spirit only proceeds THROUGH the Son, from the father, and the canonical Orthodox party concluded that this was acceptable.
In their eyes, the Catholic church's faith, as expressed in the statement is NOT "Triadologically heretical." But the Orthodox party would still say that it's insertion was itself uncanonical and unnecessary.
(A) the Orientals' teaching about the basic nature of Christ is so fundamentally wrong, and is in fact an early heresy, while
(B)the Catholics have a misunderstanding of the original
origin of the Holy Spirit--- which apparently does technically "proceed from" Christ and the apostles as tongues of fire, etc, since the time of Christ's baptism and the Pentecost--- then:(C) it appears that the Catholics and Orthodox share the same understanding of the nature of the Trinity, with confusion by Catholics about the Holy Spirit's source, while Oriental Orthodox created a wrong idea about who Christ IS, and is properly placed among many other heresies that developed in the early years of the church- Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, etc.
The common foundation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is highlighted by obedience to the Seven Councils, which we consider infallible, while Orientals reject three of them.Note:
(A) I believe the filioque is at best misleading, while the Orientals' Miaphysitism is at the best a misunderstanding of a new interpretation by the Orientals. Did you get to read my whole post? :http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28318.0.html
Rather than cut into wounds, why not try to understand what the problem is in the first place?
I hope you will post some basic ideas of Oriental Miaphysitism on the post I made about it: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28318.0.html
and compare it to the Miaphysitism that the Constantinople Council said was acceptable.